This is an archive of past discussions with User:Awkwafaba. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
File source problem with File:Jan Matulka - Hopi Snake Dance 2.jpg
File Copyright problem
Thanks for uploading File:Jan Matulka - Hopi Snake Dance 2.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.
The See also section is about related links, there may be n number of goddesses related to health and << n related to smallpox in Africa, China and India[1][2]. All need not be linked. I am creating a category Smallpox deities to unify them. --RedtigerxyzTalk03:40, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
Edible carnivorous organism categories listed for deletion discussion
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. Danger^Mouse (talk) 16:24, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
File permission problem with File:Jan Matulka - Arrangement-New York (1925).jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Jan Matulka - Arrangement-New York (1925).jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.
If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.
If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Kellyhi!12:52, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Sulfurboy was:
This submission provides insufficient context for those unfamiliar with the subject matter. Please see the guide to writing better articles for information on how to better format your submission.
The comment the reviewer left was:
Can you better give context to this species? Particularly, you need to distinguish clearly that this is in fact a real animal that happens to be named after a fictional character. For a solid three or four minutes, I read this thinking it was some super comprehensive fan post of a fictional species.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Bathyphysa conifera and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
Hello! NessieVL,
I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Sulfurboy (talk) 03:27, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello. Rather than create soft-redirects to botanical terms unlikely to ever have an article (e.g. Floccose, Vernicose), it would probably be more useful to readers to simply link to the relevant list item at Glossary of botanical terms, as you did at Midvein. This will save the readers from having to navigate multiple pages to find the same information. If you must link from one of these terms to an article, you might consider a direct link to Wiktionary, e.g. Floccose is a direct link to Wiktionary, while Floccose requires one extra step to reach the same info. Convenience and utility to the reader should be maximized. Thank you, --Animalparty! (talk) 21:17, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
OK, @Animalparty: I admit I just discovered that Wiktionary redirect template and was excited to use it, but I did do a quick search and the glossary article didn't pop up. Feel free to change the redirects: I agree that it'd be nice to keep readers on site. I'm writing User:NessieVL/Durio graveolens now and that's what prompted the new pages, as sometimes it's hard to translate for lay folk what all the jargon means. I'll try to remember the glossaries first next time. Nessie (talk) 16:22, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
It's somewhat up to editorial discretion, but I think many biological articles can enhance clarity by by a combination of simplification, providing a convenience link to a Glossary before a technical section (e.g. For more details, see Glossary of botanical terms and Glossary of plant morphology), linking when appropriate, and reducing the level of detail (readers are not necessarily going to be professional botanists). WP:MTAU has some tips. There's a tricky balance sometimes between making articles comprehensible and well-written without bending over backwards to spoon-feed readers. With regards to User:NessieVL/Durio graveolens, beware of WP:OVERLINKing: nations, colors, and other commonly understood terms do not need links: too many blue links actually hinder readability. Cheers, --Animalparty! (talk) 17:20, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
Sangkaya custard page
I already reads page coconut jam. Sangkaya custard is not like coconut jam. In page coconut jam discuss about perspective(overview) of sangkhaya in Thailand, but I am only focused on Sangkaya custard (on page coconut jam called coconut custard). It is the one of coconut jam product. However, I can add link of Sangkaya custard on page coconut jam Nudthayaok (talk) 15:24, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalenciaᐐT₳LKᐬ18:07, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
I thank you for your edits. However, I have resisted the temptation to revert the links you added to the article entitled Marketplace until further investigation can be carried out. I would ask you to reconsider the additions you made.
I have several concerns about the edits you made yesterday:
Firstly, three of the links are to non-existent articles and have generated red links. In general red links should only be used when there is a reasonable expectation that an article for that subject will be created in the near future. It seems unlikely that articles will be created for these obscure plant species at any time in the forseeable future. The presence of large numbers of red links can cause all sorts of problems for users.
Secondly, I have some doubts about the veracity of the link associated with tongkat langit which you gave as Helminthostachys sp. On the surface this does not appear to be accurate. According to Wikipedia, Helminthostachys is a type of fern and a member of the Ophioglossaceae family. On the other hand, tongkat langit or to use its full name Pisang Tongkat Langit is a type of banana according to the book, Edible Medicinal And Non Medicinal Plants: Volume 3, Fruits by T. K. Lim (p. 564). I am no botanist, however, I am an enthusiastic and knowledgeable gardener and know enough to understand that ferns are not flowering plants and bananas are herbaceous, flowering/fruiting plants and members of the genus Musa. On the available evidence, tongat langit does not appear to be related to Helminthostachys at all- neither in terms of its botanical family/genus nor in terms of its botanical appearance and growth habit.
Would you kindly take another look at each of your edits and make changes as required to ensure that each link is accurate, adds real value to the article and makes the article more useful to users. BronHiggs (talk) 22:52, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
@BronHiggs:, considering your first point, for notable articles red links are not only allowed, but encouraged. And taxa of living organisms are always notable.
Regarding your second, I'm afraid you will have to correct the information as you see fit. I only linked what was there, I did not create the text you cite. I have no idea if it is correct, I only added brackets to what was there (i.e. i changed Helminthostachys to Helminthostachys). Nessie (talk) 23:28, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
If you're writing up a species and have got stuck in identifying an authority, add a {{disambiguation needed}} tag to the name and/or post on my Talk Page. I think I've failed to solve only one such problem. I'm currently working on at least my fourth biography of a C19 naturalist who I found because someone had put one of those tags on. Two of the articles were about people who have had genera and species named in their honour, so they weren't exactly insignificant. Yrs, Narky Blert (talk) 16:46, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for your help, @Narky Blert:. I will do as you ask. For plants and some fungi or bacteria, I can use IPNI, but I have yet to find a good database for animal taxonomers. I feel like few editors bother to link taxonomers in articles so i always want to help fix that. Nessie (talk) 17:46, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
Botanists got it right very early on (despite the unavoidably fuzzy taxonomy in their field) with the idea of standard author abbreviations. Zoologists should have taken up the same idea, but never have, and it's far too late now to get them to change their ways.
Bad links to DAB pages get noticed, sooner or later (there's a bot which looks for them); and {{dn}} tags populate a category which is watched (Category:Articles with links needing disambiguation). However – in my experience, bad/ambiguous links to name-type pages get noticed only by accident. A link from the surname of a binomial authority which lands on a list-of-surnames page could remain as a bad link forever. With a {{dn}} tag, it might get sorted.
Well hey, @Narky Blert: you look for the papers, which is already way more than most do, plus if you are tracking splitters and lumpers… it's impressive. Keep it up. Nessie (talk) 04:00, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
I know someone who once wrote to Stephen Jay Gould, remarking tongue-in-cheek on the increase in the number of species within Passer during his lifetime. He got a characteristic Gould reply – "A typical example of twitcher-induced speciation" (i.e. you can sell new field guides that way). Yrs, Narky Blert (talk) 23:53, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
Makes sense, i guess, but why not subspecies then? I guess this is going to be a thing until we have a real definition for 'species,' but there will be many Plutos when that happens. Nessie (talk) 03:27, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
A page you started (Damak (disambiguation)) has been reviewed!
I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Hemibiotroph for deletion, because it doesn't appear to contain any encyclopedic content. Take a look at our suggestions for essential content in short articles to learn what should be included.
If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.
You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions.
My bad. I knew A3 doesn't apply to soft redirect. Thanks for linking to the discussion. I had missen that. There's a lot to consider. My apologies. Mduvekot (talk) 11:59, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
Orconectes maletae, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.
If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
Sorry about that! Ignore it. I think I started a sentence relating to your other redirects like N.sp. to say I'd never encountered that form myself; but then I did some research and confirmed it was indeed a recognised abbreviation. I can only assume I thought I'd deleted the entire comment (they give us a tiny little letterbox slot to write in), but failed to spot I'd left a line in. Nick Moyes (talk) 18:32, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
No problem. I just wanted to make sure everything is ok. I hadn't seen those abbreviations until whatever i recently read them in. for me they're odd enough that someone will want to know what they are, even if they are familiar with the common form and are just verifying it is a variation. Nessie (talk) 18:39, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
One thing you might like to consider for another time is to add the url of the reliable source in the edit summary when you make a redirect. I had to search around for a while before I found it. In fact, I very nearly did a dummy edit and added it myself, but 'fraid I was busy doing other stuff. Nick Moyes (talk)
Looks legit to me. Feel free to chime in at Talk:Brassicogethes aeneus. That wikilink was very strange has it showed one name and then piped the link to the other. Maybe when it was written there was only one article. Nessie (talk) 14:10, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
I've voted. It looks like one of those taxonomy problems where someone noticed the identity, posted in only one of a pair of articles, and did not follow through to the logical conclusion. Gud catch! Yrs, Narky Blert (talk) 23:17, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice that Interveinal, a page that you created, has been tagged for deletion. This has been done under two or more of the criteria for speedy deletion, by which pages can be deleted at any time, without discussion. If the page meets any of these strictly-defined criteria, then it may soon be deleted by an administrator. The reasons it has been tagged are:
It is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, a rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. (See section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) Wikipedia has standards for the minimum necessary information to be included in short articles; you can see these at Wikipedia:Stub. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:34, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
Obsolete/historically recognized taxa (Category:Obsolete taxa) such as Eriocaulales and Protozoa usually don't have taxoboxes. Mapping them to currently recognized taxa can get a little hairy as they may have been split into multiple taxa at the same rank with different parents. Using {{Paraphyletic group}} for some of these might be appropriate, but lack of a taxobox should not be regarded as an problem in need of an immediate fix.
For articles with taxonbars, but lacking taxoboxes, I'm now using this search. I've now taken care of straightforward cases alphabetically through N (straightforward meaning either add a taxobox or remove the taxonbar to resolve). There's some messy stuff I've skipped over earlier in the alphabet; e.g. goose links to d:Q82562 which is supposed to be for tribe Anserini, not goose as a common name, but most of the interwiki links use a common name title, and comfrey has the taxonbar for d:Q162412 (Symphytum × uplandicum) which could use it's own article. Plantdrew (talk) 04:13, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
Another problem that would arise if we did use taxoboxes for historically recognized taxa is that large parts of the taxonomic hierarchy in which they used to be placed will also not be accepted now, resulting in a whole set of problematic names. Putting historically recognized taxa into currently accepted higher taxa is unlikely to be supported by reliable sources, and can amount to WP:SYNTH. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:23, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
The problems on Protozoa are particularly "hairy", since, in addition to the obsolete Kingdom, there is a widely-used current Kingdom...whose composition happens to contradict the vernacular use of the term "protozoa". The article is in the awkward position of needing to cover three overlapping and sometimes contradictory subjects: 1) the lower-case "protozoa," as an informal term for single-celled heterotrophs; 2) Protozoa as a historic Kingdom, Subkingdom, Phylum and Class (a polyphyletic grouping that has no place in current taxonomy); and 3) Kingdom Protozoa as it is currently used in Cavalier-Smith's classifications, e.g. Ruggiero et al., 2015 (a paraphyletic group which excludes forams, apicomplexans, ciliates, etc.)
The "phyla" that were recently added the taxobox are a real mixed bag, and guaranteed to confuse readers as they try to figure out how each of these groups relate to one another within the purported Kingdom Protozoa! The list includes both xenophyophores and forams, though the former nest within the latter, and both groups were once part of the long-disused taxon Rhizopoda, which is also included in the list (alongside several other groups traditionally included within it, such as Amoebozoa, Cercozoa and Granuloreticulosa...the last of which is another foram). There are similar problems with Myzozoa, Dinozoa and Apicomplexa.
We could avoid this hairball by using Cavalier-Smith's Kingdom Protozoa, instead. After all, his group forms a phylogenetically distinct (though paraphyletic) lineage, and is in current use on sites like Catalogue of Life. However, his Protozoa excludes important and well-known organisms commonly and traditionally referred to as "protozoa." Since ciliates, apicomplexans, dinoflagellates etc. are discussed in the article, this is also certain to be confusing to readers. The primary subject of the article, in its current form, is the informal/vernacular term "protozoa," so the use of Cavalier-Smith's taxon would contradict material in the body of the article.
So, unless anyone strongly disagrees, I'd like to revert the edit. It might be possible to include an informal list of "traditional protozoan groups" in the taxobox, similar to the list of "included groups" in Algae. However, these should not be identified as "phyla". And I can't think of any way to include Kingdom Protozoa in the taxobox without making things more confusing than they already are. Deuterostome (Talk)15:17, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
I agree it's a can of worms I opened, I just kicked the can to get the ball rolling (mixed metaphor alert). I was thinking that if we truly want historical taxa as separate articles (which the existence of specific categories implied to me we did) then it should show the historical taxonomy and stitch these articles together. I think either, for example, Eriocaulales should be merged with Poales and the taxonbar gets a |from2=, or we make a 'historical taxobox' template that makes it clear that the taxonomy displayed is not accepted. I lean towards the former as I think these articles have limitted utility on their own. Protozoa obviously is a special case with its use as a common name and so forth and needs someone more knowledgeable than I to iron it all out. Nessie (talk) 15:32, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
Our strategy to date has been not to have articles on historically recognized taxa when it's possible to redirect to an article in which the historically recognized taxon can be discussed. This doesn't work when the historically recognized taxon is (1) important enough to deserve recognition but (2) doesn't sufficiently correspond to a currently recognized one to make a redirect possible. In these cases, we have a brief article without a taxobox. This seems the right approach to me. If it's appropriate to show the historically recognized classification hierarchy, then this can be included in the body of the article. Peter coxhead (talk) 15:42, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
In your recent merger proposals, there is a phrase which makes no sense in English, because it lacks a crucial preposition:
"...that the Eriocaulales could easily be included."
Did you intend to say, "...into which the Eriocaulales could easily be included."?
Such a clarification might increase interest in you merger proposals.--Quisqualis (talk) 17:43, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice to inform you that a tag has been placed on Subquadrate requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Siddiqsazzad001(TALK)17:27, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
Hi there; I noticed you left a comment about out-of-date categories in the NZ Threat Classification System. See p 11 of the current manual: the Wikipedia template has been obsolete since 2007 (!) and I would like to fix it, but I also don't know anything about coding. However I may be organising an edit-a-thon event with the Department of Conservation in a few months, and if you'd like to participate in a mass updating of NZTCS-referring pages it would be great to have your help, even virtually (I'm guessing you don't live in NZ). —Giantflightlessbirds (talk) 00:01, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
Nope, i'm not down in Middle Earth, unfortunately. Nor am I a coder. As far as I got though, is that (according to Template talk:Taxobox#Template-protected edit request on 10 March 2018) apparently all that needs to be done is to update the images at Category:NZTSC Category diagrams. I'm hoping that just means that if we create a file for a new classification like 'Naturally Uncommon' and name it 'Status NZTCS NU.svg' then any speciesbox we add |status=NU |status_system=NZTCS to (like Pseudowintera traversii) would have the appropriate picture. Atleast that's my understanding. I had been dillydallying about it after all the trouble I had updating the picture on the NZTCS article. But hey, if you want to do it, let's go for it. Nessie (talk) 03:04, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
It seems like it would be more complicated than just changing the pictures... The categories don't map onto each other, for a start. There may have to be two systems running in parallel, because surely we won't be able to update every single usage in one session (or maybe we will; only about 30 pages using the NC category for example). Exactly how does the taxobox/speciesbox template pick an image to display: is it really just looking in "Conservation Status Diagrams" for NZTSC and picking the status and language out of the filename? Perhaps it is. I guess one could upload a new category and experiment, no coding required. But I still think an edit-a-thon to update all the listings and add NZTCS to more would be a good idea. I was NOT impressed with the suggestion that we should just go with IUCN because hardly anyone's using the NZ categories. Ideally, we'd use both. NZTCS was set up specifically because there was important information not captured in IUCN, and it's still an important classification system for endemic NZ wildlife. —Giantflightlessbirds (talk) 03:57, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
I'm hoping it is that easy, and if it is, we don't have to update every article that uses the old system if we just leave the current images there. I agree that we shouldn't just bow to IUCN. They are fine and all, but neglect fungi and algae, which is one reason i got interested in NZTCS. that and the obvious endemic species. I was going to get around to testing the theory eventually, but an editathon sounds like a good reason to get going on it. Nessie (talk) 04:24, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
Flagging Gigartina binghamiae redirect for deletion
Hi Nessie, I've started a discussion about the redirect from Gigartina binghamiae to Chondracanthus exasperatus, which it looks like you set up. These two are different algae, as noted on the article page of Chondracanthus, so I'm proposing that the redirect be deleted. Feel free to contribute to this discussion here. Daemyth (talk) 18:33, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
Parent category for "Plants described in YEAR" categories
I wasn't trying to stir the pot, i just noticed plants were the only eukaryotes not in that category. sorry. --Nessie (talk) 14:38, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of Stichidium
Hello NessieVL,
I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Stichidium for deletion, because it doesn't appear to contain any encyclopedic content. Take a look at our suggestions for essential content in short articles to learn what should be included.
If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.
You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions.
I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Frondose for deletion, because it doesn't appear to contain any encyclopedic content. Take a look at our suggestions for essential content in short articles to learn what should be included.
If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.
You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions.
Thanks. I saw that on the talk page after I tagged it, so I untagged, but I'm still confused by the utility of this. Natureium (talk) 15:48, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
No problem. As you can see in the RfC, there were many opinions on it. Personally I think it can help a lot with jargon. --Nessie (talk) 15:53, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
It came up on my watchlist, and I have a question that I didn't see answered at the linked RfC. Wouldn't it be more useful to format it as frondose (that is, [[wikt:frondose|frondose]])? --Tryptofish (talk) 17:38, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
That certainly is one option. I'm not going to linkshame. Inexperienced editors might not know that trick, so i figure more ways to do the same thing would help. --Nessie (talk) 17:47, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. I think that's quite reasonable, about offering inexperienced users a variety of friendly options. But would you have any objection to my revising it at Coralline algae? --Tryptofish (talk) 17:58, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
Go ahead and switch it, if you like. the findLink tool doesn't let one do direct wiktionary links, else I might have edited it that way myself. Nessie (talk) 18:09, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
I had thought that would be the preferred method of linking to wiktionary rather than creating a redirect for every work. Natureium (talk) 18:03, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
I think this leaves it open to in the future redirecting to say, a glossary of related terms on Wikipedia, if one were so determined. Nessie (talk) 18:09, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
I think it's fine to start out either way, but anyone should feel free to just go ahead and change the link to a wikt: link. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:17, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
Charles Stokes
Charles Stokes FGS FRS FSA LS &c. is a very shadowy figure for someone so remarkable. As well as describing Ormoceras, and corresponding with just about everyone, he was stockbroker to, among others, Charles Darwin and J. M. W. Turner (whose paintings he collected). I think I've identified two species and a mountain range named in his honour. I think I'll try to write him up. Narky Blert (talk) 16:26, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
Wow, that does sound like they were pretty remarkable. Definitely worth an article! I'm looking forward to reading it. --Nessie (talk) 16:34, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
Fascinating. Good job. I know what you mean about taxonomy from that long ago, especially in some of the forgotten branches of the tree of life. I figure, even if one can't puzzle it all out, atleast compiling it and having the sources there, perhaps a specialist will know more. Someday, maybe --Nessie (talk) 01:49, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
A page you started (Paragynous) has been reviewed!
Nice work, thanks. I read your edit comment as "redeyes" rather than "redyes", and it must have been a bit of a redeye job putting in all those links at dead of night. It'd be nice to have all the Flora Antarctica articles filled out descriptively, too... All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:07, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
It's one of the few times autocomplete saves me. I feel bad i didn't link the taxonomers too, but after wrestling those abbreviations i was too tired for IPNI. In any event, i'm glad you appreciate it, i sometimes get changes like that reverted by red haters. Cheers --Nessie (talk) 11:41, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for your offer of help. I may need you! There have been changes made which I have not yet studied. PS. How is it best to note ISBN ? Some give 978-0-9955673-3-7 while others give 97870995567337! If you permit I may come back to you for help??Osborne 14:20, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for your recent advice. Will look again and see what I can do.Osborne 12:58, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
Ranks in Platyhelminthes
You altered some taxonomy templates in the Platyhelminthes recently. Unfortunately, right now, the classification in WoRMS is a mess. Look at the taxonomic hierarchy for Lepocreadioidea, for example. Trematoda cannot be a class, nor Digenea a subclass because these ranks already occur much higher up. The article Rhabditophora treats Trematoda as an order, but the article Trematoda says it's a class. Sigh...
I thought something was hinky, even after i compared the ranks with what was in the individual articles, but I didn't figure it all out before I was called away. Thanks --Nessie (talk) 11:44, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
Quality/importance assessment when WikiProject tagging
I noticed you've been working to add WikiProject tags to organism articles that lack appropriate ones, a very useful effort. Would you consider filling in the quality and importance parameters when doing so? At least for the ones that are obviously low importance stubs (the majority)? There really isn't anybody else (other than me, maybe) who is going to come along and add assessments anywhere in the near future; there is a reason (obscurity) many of these articles have languished without WikiProject tags for years.
I'm not sure how you're proceeding with the tagging, but I think you may need to increase the category depth with PetScan. There's quite a bit of untagged stuff that you seem to have missed. You tagged about 200 prehistoric cephalopods for WikiProjects Cephalopods/Palaeontology, but there are 700 more under Category:Prehistoric cephalopods that don't have the WikiProject Cephalopods banner yet. Plantdrew (talk) 02:58, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
I was using a Petscan of pages with taxoboxes but lacking biota-type WikiProjects. There atill are about 1258 pages left there. My goal was to get all the protists and such back into the fold by atleast including them in something like WikiProject Microbiology, Marine life, Palaeontology. Then they will show up in stuff like your fantastic updates of the auto taxobox system and stuff like that. I don't feel qualified to assess importance, as I am not a member of most of these projects so I can't really say what they think is important. Maybe that's just me being namby-pamby. I can start adding quality parameters for the obvious stubs and stuff, the higher 'grades' mystify me a bit and I'm still not sure if the quality rankings are the same from project to project. But again, some of these articles could have the sum of all human knowledge on the species and be considered stubs, which I think is a bit out of whack as well. In any event, my politics aside, the main reason is that this job is pretty slow going, so I thought I could shave some time off by kicking the can down the road. Didn't mean to dump it all on your plate. I appreciate the advice and will try to make things smoother for you as I unclog this drain. --Nessie (talk) 16:09, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
Wow, I'm surprised there are only 1200 taxon pages without a WikiProject banner. I went through a couple years ago and tagged a bunch of taxa that were without WikiProjects. But I didn't dig too deep into paleontological taxa, and didn't do any work with bacteria or protists; and there always new pages that slip through cracks and don't get a banner on creation. I was using taxonomic categories as the basis for my search, rather than taxobox templates. It'll be nice to have all taxa bannered, and it will help with my automatic taxobox statistics.
If you're not comfortable with assessing importance, that's fine, but I really think anything that has escaped bannering for a long time is unlikely to be anything other than low importance. Quality is essentially the same from project to project. Many projects don't have any guidelines for quality, and those that do usually have the same copy-pasted boiler plate descriptions of quality criteria. Any article that includes the sum of all human knowledge on a species should not be classified as a stub. If a species is only known from a small number of specimens, I'm much more lenient when assessing quality (I once bumped Parhoplophryne down from C to start class, because I'd overlooked the fact that it is known from a single specimen; when that was brought to my attention, I was happy to raise it back up). But in spite of whatever quality assessment guidelines any WikiProject has, the higher 'grades' do tend be rather inconsistently applied, and articles are often graded lower than guidelines might suggest. Plantdrew (talk) 21:37, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
Hello NessieVL, I see you've been helping out with a lot of templates lately, but have hit some protection challenges. If you think you meet the granting guidelines I suggest you apply for template editor access here: WP:PERM/TE. Best regards, — xaosfluxTalk01:39, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads up, @Smith609:. I did notice some Hdl tags being added, if that's what you mean. I have been paying closer attention since you wrote, and haven't seen anything too abnormal. I'll let you know if that changes. --Nessie (talk) 02:12, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
A page you started (C. W. Harris) has been reviewed!
Thank you for your advice. I do not have a personal copy of Harvey's Phycologica Briotannica. I do however have a personal copy of his "A Manual of the British Algae:..." in which he wrote of Hypoglossum hypoglossoides (Delesseria hypoglossum):-"...frond...linear-lanceolate...tapering at each end,...". As This is an encyclopedia and not personal research or opinion I think it best to leave things as they are. I may add further however.Osborne 19:00, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
You can use this user right to perform maintenance, answer edit requests, and make any other simple and generally uncontroversial edits to templates, modules, and edinotices. You can also use it to enact more complex or controversial edits, after those edits are first made to a test sandbox, and their technical reliability as well as their consensus among other informed editors has been established. If you are willing to process edit requests on templates and modules, keep in mind that you are taking responsibility to ensure the edits have consensus and are technically sound.
This user right gives you access to some of Wikipedia's most important templates and modules; it is critical that you edit them wisely and that you only make edits that are backed up by consensus. It is also very important that no one else be allowed to access your account, so you should consider taking a few moments to secure your password.
If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.
If you were granted the permission on a temporary basis you will need to re-apply for the permission a few days before it expires including in your request a permalink to the discussion where it was granted and a {{ping}} for the administrator who granted the permission. You can find the permalink in your rights log.
I don't follow talk pages there, but I have responded now. Enwiki's notification page was't showing me the messages either, for some reason. --Nessie (talk) 05:04, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
ArbCom 2018 election voter message
Hello, NessieVL. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Hi NessieVL, I just wanted to let you know that I have added the "autopatrolled" permission to your account, as you have created numerous, valid articles. This feature will have no effect on your editing, and is simply intended to reduce the workload on new page patrollers. For more information on the autopatrolled right, see Wikipedia:Autopatrolled. Feel free to leave me a message if you have any questions. Happy editing! Ϫ10:08, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
On 6 December 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Karuka, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that during the karuka harvest, entire households move upland and start speaking a pandanus language? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Karuka. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Karuka), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
It is the only "Taxonomic list of…" but neither of your ideas seem quite right for me. Not that I have a better idea. More importantly, I have no problem with a name change, so go ahead and pick whatever is best.--Nessie (talk) 03:26, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
Yes, I agree that neither seems absolutely right. On the other hand, this is a very important list, given the magnitude of the changes in ICTV 2018, and I missed it when preparing the lists I've been working from (at User:Peter coxhead/Work/Viruses), because I was looking at titles beginning "List of viruses ..." Looking at other lists of organisms, often a taxonomic list is just at "List of ..." (e.g. List of animal classes, List of brown algal genera). So my latest suggestion is to redirect List of viruses to Taxonomic list of viruses rather than List of virus species, because the former is the more comprehensive list of viruses. What do you think?
i like the table, and when i was formatting the new list i wondered if that would be better, but the list is the more common wikipedia format, and the chart is available on the ICTV site. Not sure where else the sortable chart coul go, unless we want both on the List of viruses, taxonomically page? I missed the viroids, sorry. I on mobile for a few days so i can get to it after. I admit the page update was a bit of a rush, i figured it was much better than the collapsable lists. --Nessie (talk) 01:59, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
Anything is much better than collapsible lists, in my view! (And they cause accessibility problems, too.) The page update may have been "a bit of a rush", but it was very worthwhile. Anywhile, I'll let virus issues settle for a bit; it's not really an interest of mine – I just got drawn in because of {{Virusbox}}. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:20, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
Yes, an improvement, I think, although I don't really like "viral" here – its meaning now tends to be the non-biology one. I think that "List of virus taxa" and "List of higher virus taxa" is better. Peter coxhead (talk) 22:02, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
First to say what a wonderful resource you all are creating. I've come on it by chance as I'm interested in using Wikipedia pages and Wikidata entries as search tools. IN the WikiFactMine project we created dictionaries automatically from Wikidata - there are some hundreds, including "all" angiosperms. See [[3]]. But Wikidata is sparse in places and with few links to other WP or WD pages.
I have therefore developed an (open source) tool which takes Wikipedia pages and generates a list of all links from it (excluding boiler plate). Apparently such a thing doesn't easily exist (I checked with [Manske] last weekend). I am particularly interested in Viruses as I think the current scientific literature may contain clues to future epidemics (The Zika outbreak in Liberia was predicted in 1982 but is (still) behind a paywall).
Therefore I am creating search dictionaries from Wikipedis articles. Those with sortable tables are ideal (I agree that nested lists are much less tractable) - by picking the appropriate column headings (mapped onto term, common names, WP page, wikidata entry, etc) a dictionary can be assembled in a second or two.
We then search the Open literature for terms in the dictionary. It's surprisingly rapid (a few minutes to do "Keystone virus" and we get a sortable table of hits. The table can be annotated with any number of other dictionaries - countries, other viruses, mosquitoes, funders, host species, etc. These dictionaries are also easy to compile if in sortable table form.
I downloaded 500 scientific articles from EuropePMC and am annotating them with dictionaries derived from WP articles, of any topic but particularly viruses, diseases, vectors, locations. Petermr (talk) 11:33, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
@NessieVL: Thanks for the rapid useful response. However I want to take Wikimedia (WP and WD) as the definitive starting points. Firstly the sources are (relatively) uniform, unlike non-WM sites. A generic scraper works for all. In contrast every government or society site is different. Then I don't have to worry about permissions. But most importantly the landing points are other WM pages. For example [| Insect_vectors_of_human_pathogens] points to about 54 other pages, many of which will have WD entries and so a rich environment of information on countries, hosts, etc. In effect it's asking "which other WP pages give information about this species (or other object of interest). I can ask a simple question like "which countries are most commonly mentioned in "Insect_vectors_of_human_pathogens" and more widely I can ask this of the whole literature.Petermr (talk) 15:37, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
Quokkapox virus
The rank "virus" is currently not an accepted one in the automated taxobox system, so [your version] of the Quokkapox virus taxonomy template throws an error (shown by the word "Virus" being in red in the left-hand table). For now, I've replaced it by "unranked", and fixed the system so this causes the name not to be italicized, which I understand is incorrect for a species not approved by the ICTV.
The problem is that based on the ICTV documentation (see also here) unapproved names, of whatever rank, are supposed not to be written in italics, so it's not just unapproved species that need to be handled.
Now we could set the rank as "unranked" for all such names, but it looks a bit odd when they are clearly meant to be species, genera, families, etc. I'm wondering if for viruses we need a whole set of ranks with names preceded by "unapproved", which is then displayed somehow in the taxobox and causes names not to be italic. I'll ask this again at WT:WikiProject Viruses, but first I wondered what you think. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:09, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
Virus is a rank in the ICTV system below species. I thought the red was just on the template page, and now it makes me wonder if virus is in the system as the highest rank and not down at the bottom and that's why it was red? In any event, I think we need this fixed, as there is a bit of a backlog of viruses and strains in Category:Missing taxobox that are now waiting on this. "Unranked" is okay for now, but it's just a bandage. Are there many articles about unapproved names that are not virus-level? --Nessie (talk) 13:13, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
Well, I can add "virus" as a rank to the system; also "strain".
Done "virus" is at the same rank as "varietas" for plants; "strain" at the same rank as "forma". This makes species – virus – strain ok.Peter coxhead (talk) 16:56, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
Maybe we can just table the unapproved names bit for now. I bet mostly those would have notability issues. Good to keep an eye out though. Thanks for the fix though! --Nessie (talk) 17:10, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
I added "serotype" to {{Anglicise rank}} so that it becomes a recognized rank. I had given "virus" and "strain" a rank order, but now I'm unsure about how "serotype" would fit in, so currently the system doesn't check the consistent ordering of these three. What would be the rank order of "virus", "strain" and "serotype"? All three below species, sure, but relative to each other? I'm not clear. Peter coxhead (talk) 22:54, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
I'm not sure either. I just go with what the text or citation calls it. I could see how strain would be the lowest rank, as there are many strains of viruses one would culture in the lab and label each plate numerically, even though they are the same virus. Serotype appears higher than strain, as Goose Guandong virus is a strain of Influenza A virus subtype H5N1. So maybe species then serotype/subtype then virus then strain? I feel like we need some real citation in this though, but that's probably close.
Yes, I agree we need a citation. I'll leave them with the order unchecked for the present (really the system needs to be able to say "this rank is between X and Y" or "this rank is below X" without giving a tight ordering, but at present it can't do this). Peter coxhead (talk) 23:14, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
@Peter coxhead: I found an article on an unapproved name, and it is not an infraspecific rank: Jingmenvirus. It's not listed at ICTV at all, nor at the CDC, but it definitely seems notable. The italics seem correct in the virusbox, but let me know if it's broken something. --Nessie (talk) 17:08, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
Hi NessieVL. I notice you added a bunch of new families and orders to the taxobox in the Hypotrichia article. There are problems with the scheme you've introduced. I'm not sure what source you are following, but most ciliatologists now follow schemes similar to that in Gao et al., 2016 (https://www.nature.com/articles/srep24874), which excludes Euplotida and Kiitrichida from the subclass Hypotrichia. Quite a bit of confusion has crept into hypotrich taxonomy, because of Denis Lynn's decision to reserve the group for euplotids and kiitrichids. His nomenclature never really caught on, though, because his subclass excludes familiar traditional hypotrichs such as the oxytrichids and urostylids. Regardless of nomenclature, in both Lynn's system and the newer one, Euplotida and Kiitrichida are excluded from the subclass containing Oxytrichidae, Amphisiellidae, Urostylidae, etc.
Sooo...the taxonomy in the earlier version of the taxobox was correct. The orders under Hypotrichia are: Sporadotrichida, Urostylida and Stichotrichida. Deuterostome (Talk)01:54, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
Sorry I didn't copy the citation over, but my source is in {{Taxonomy/Hypotrichia (protozoa)}}. I know Wikipedia:WikiProject Marine life requests using WoRMS for all marine taxa, and since there isn't a WikiProject for protists I thought that was good enough, but I hold no string allegiances, if you have better sources, update the taxonomy templates with them. But keep the Auto taxobox, as that is the preferred consensus over manual taxoboxes. If there is a good source like NCBI or whatever that's generally good lmk and I'll use that for a go-to. --Nessie (talk) 02:58, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
WoRMS is a terrific resource, but their ciliophoran taxonomy adds to a nomenclatural muddle that can be really confusing to non-specialists. It is essentially a confusion between hypotrichs sensu l., which includes euplotids, and the formal subclass Hypotrichia (hypotrichs sensu str. = Stichotrichia sensu Lynn & Small) which currently excludes them. Note that the recent update of ISOP's consensus phylogeny of eukaryotes (Adl et al., 2018) separates Euplotia and Hypotrichia. Deuterostome (Talk)14:20, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
P.S. it isn't yet fixed for ranks below species, as at Canine coronavirus. I like to proceed in small steps, because experience shows that apparently obvious changes to the automated taxonomy system can have unexpected effects that take time to show up. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:14, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
That's ok. I'll try to update the ones I've done. Btw, I created Category:Infraspecific virus taxa for keeping track of subspecies, serotypes, strains, and member viruses. It's mainly article i've already upgraded to virusboxes. There also is a surprising amount of those pages with redlinked species. --Nessie (talk) 14:19, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice that the page you created, Macrogamete, was tagged as a test page under section G2 of the criteria for speedy deletion and has been or soon may be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. It's Boothsift05:05, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
Australian plant article talk pages
Hi @NessieVL:. Thanks for reviewing various plant articles. I am hoping you might be a bit more complete, by adding the wikiproject Australia template when the plant/genus is an Australian endemic, and even go so far as to put in the state portal if that is appropriate. (You can see the Talk:Macrozamia riedlei page for an example.)
open double curly brackets WP Australia |class=Stub |importance=low|biota=y|biota-importance=low|WA=y|WA-importance=low close double curly brackets. (And thanks for creating the odd category previously corresponding to a red category link.) Cheers, MargaretRDonald (talk) 18:54, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
I try to, but usually I forget, it's true. I used to have a text file with all the relaevant wikiproject talk templates but deleted it accidentally. I'll try to do a better job remembering. I do the same thing with {{WikiProject Biota of Great Britain and Ireland}} is that makes you feel any better. --Nessie (talk) 02:58, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
Listing genera and species of the family Argasidae (soft tick family) page
Hey I'm trying to start the Puffin Island virus page from the Hughes serogroup in the Orthonairovirus genus, and I noticed that the hosts of the virus are ticks of the Argasidae family and their genera do not have pages for them, nor are they listed on the Argasidae page. I found the entire taxonomy in the WikiSpecies page of the Argasidae, so I have all of the organized genera and such that I need to list them. I need your advice; should I go through with it and list all of the genera/species, or would it be unnecessary since they're already listed in the WikiSpecies page of it? If I do go through with it, I'd love to help create the pages for the species of ticks listed.
@Coolpug05:, the Argasidae already lists the genera, Antricola, Argas, Nothoaspis, Ornithodoros, and Otobius, and provides a journal citation to support this. I wouldn't include the species on the family page unless there were only a few, which is not the case here.
We cannot cite WikiSpecies unfortunately, and WikiProject Arthropods does not use a specific database for taxonomy, so I'd use something like NCBI and/or the others listed in the Taxonbar.
It is unfortunate that so many species are without articles. If you want to write them, that is good. If you don't you can keep the links red so that when someone does write the article, the link will be ready. But if, for example, you state in the Puffin Island virus article that it's vector is a species of tick, then on the tick page you can say it is a vector of Puffin Island virus, with the same reference.
How should the virusbox at Grapevine yellow speckle viroid be set up? Do we need an 'infraspecific' rank |viroid= similar to |virus=? Then the rank above Grapevine yellow speckle viroid (a strain?) would have a taxonomy template, and the virusbox template could have |parent=STRAIN+|viroid=Grapevine yellow speckle viroid. Or maybe this is best left as one of those cases for which a manual taxobox is better? (But then it may need to handle |viroid=, which it doesn't.) Virus/viroid taxonomy is exceedingly complicated! Peter coxhead (talk) 21:11, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
So basically the taxonomy in the article is wrong? I'll leave it to you to sort out. I was only interested in the technical issue of what the taxobox needs to support. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:07, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
Yea, that article was confused. I fixed it. Theoretically, I imagine there could be an intraspecific rank like member virus for viroids, but I haven't run across any yet. |strain= would probably do ok for most of these potential cases. --Nessie (talk) 13:35, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
Primates and rodents (and sharks, turtles, dinosaurs) that still had manual taxoboxes
The articles that still had manual taxoboxes in groups/WikiProjects where 90%+ of the articles were using automatic taxoboxes had various issues. I had gone through all of the manual taxoboxes in these groups previously, and had converted the ones that were straightforward to automatic taxoboxes, while intentionally leaving the non-straightforward ones with manual taxoboxes. I guess I should have mentioned somewhere that I was doing that, but I didn't really expect anybody else to work on the remainder.
Some of these issues were pretty minor. I'd left manual taxoboxes in place where their is a note/reference in the taxonomic hierarchy, as with Lorisoidea; that was a clever fix on your part. I haven't been doing any {{paraphyletic group}}, even though it's pretty straightforward for vole. I'd skipped some pathogens that were taggged for their hosts because I didn't want to bother with a different part of the taxonomic hierarchy. I'm not sure whether it's better to explicitly note incertae sedis (via a new taxonomy template that may only be used once) or just skip ranks where placement is uncertain.
However, there were other issues that should have been corrected. There may have been some issues with outdated synonyms in the taxobox. In some cases, taxa weren't linked from their parents; Desmarest's hutia is in Capromys, which is treated as monotypic on Wikipedia; Hystrix paukensis is a fossil and isn't linked from Hystrix, which only shows extant species. There were a lot of fossil taxa (especially primates) which weren't linked from parents, or where their may have been multiple potential parents. I'd left Lagidium ahuacaense manual, because I didn't want the one-off status value there to pollute the Template Parameter report for Speciesboxes. There are 41 "good" values for status in Speciesboxes, but if more than 50 are used, the Template Parameter report won't show them individually anymore, which will make checking for future "bad" values more difficult (although I suppose a tracking category could be set up to highlight non-standard status values).
I'm slowly working through plants systematically, but have left various manual taxoboxes in place (mostly where there are synonymy issues). Earlier this month, I went through the Popular Pages reports for mammals, birds, spiders and amphibians/reptiles and converted straightforward cases to automatic taxoboxes, but have left some manual taxoboxes in place. User:Od Mishehu/taxobox exclude lists some manual taxobox articles with issues that may need to be addressed. And this Petscan search highlights some articles that should probably have {{paraphyletic group}} rather than a taxobox.
I appreciate your efforts converting to automatic taxoboxes, but I'd ask that you at least check that any remaining articles with manual taxoboxes in groups that are mostly done have a link from their parent taxon (and aren't linked from multiple parents without explanation) before converting to autoamtic taxoboxes.Plantdrew (talk) 18:20, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
I have been trying to remain sort of agnostic when upgrading the taxoboxes: not taking sides, just keeping the information listed intact, and possibly prompting other editors more familiar with the particulars to change the information. I was going for these +90% projects at first to just cap them off, but then when I saw many were protists and viruses that definitely got my sympathy. Once past that I saw all the paraphylteic groups (everything in Category:Paraphyletic group infoboxes with manual taxonomy ( 2 ) is not going to change to auto), intergeneric hybrids (only 6 using manual), and so on, which now can use automated templates. I just didn't want to kick the can down the road. I'll look for parental neglect for these taxa in the future, though I think this is not an issue specific to articles with manual taxoboxes.
Congrats on completing cats/dogs/equine/poultry. Yeah, I'm sure there a bunch of automatic taxobox articles not linked from parents (obviously, some parents are redlinks). My usual approach when converting to auto taxoboxes is to work top-down; going through whatever higher rank articles (usually family) down to genus articles and then work through all the species listed in the genus article. After I've gone through the taxa linked in articles, I use Petscan to go through the higher rank category for any remaining articles using manual taxoboxes. That ensures that I'll only do articles that are linked from their parents on my first pass, and Petscan will then reveal (categorized) articles that don't have a parent linking to them. But I know other people working on automatic taxoboxes may start off going through categories rather than articles and not notice that a link from the parent is lacking (and for the 90%+ projects, Petscan with the project banner is the logical way to find remaining manual taxoboxes, but it won't highlight missing parent links). Plantdrew (talk) 20:00, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
Yea, I tried to explain that in the TfD, but it didn't seem like many people knew anything about taxonomy, let alone in pterosaurs. Not that that's my forté either. But I couldn't find anything saying Lonchognatha was deprecated, and what I saw for Harpactognathus showed the parent is Lonchognatha. WikiProject Pterosaurs is kinda sleepy, but I supposed asking there is a start. I don't have attachments to particular taxonomic authorities, just as long as it's supported. --Nessie (talk) 15:11, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
Well, I know certainly nothing about it either. I just want the taxonomy templates and articles to be consistent one way or the other. Peter coxhead (talk) 19:53, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
Hello Nessie, when you made this edit to Piroplasmida, you introduced an incertae sedis section to the taxobox, but added the same genus (Anthemosoma) as already existed under the family Anthemosomatidae. Did you intend to move this genus from Anthemosomatidae, and delete the Anthemosomatidae family from the taxobox? Or was there a different genus that you meant to include under the incertae sedis section? The given refs are scant so I cannot easily tell from those. 'Cheers, Loopy30 (talk) 13:19, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
I think what happened was I looked at NCBI and saw that it had Anthemosoma without a family, and added it to the taxobox, then saw that it was already in there under a redlinked family, Anthemosomatidae. Then I threw up my hands and figured someone else knows more than I do about it. Sorry about that. The subtaxa on the article is pretty different from that on NCBI. Is there a better source we should use, or do we just trim out most of what's listed? --Nessie (talk) 15:04, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
Sources were the indeed the problem here. Levine proposed the family Anthemosomatidae in The Journal of Parasitology Vol. 67, No. 3 (Jun., 1981), pp. 440-441, but it does not seem to have been adopted by anyone else. As NCBI omits a family name for the genus Anthemosoma and none of the other sources in the article provide a family name, I think you were on the right track. The only other reference I could find to the family Anthemosomatidae seems to invalidate it, while confirming that Anthemosoma does belong in Piroplasmida (see Chavatte, JM., Karadjian, G. & Landau, I. Parasitol Res (2018) 117: 3917.). Given this newer ref, I will delete the duplicate mention of Anthemosoma and also Anthemosomatidae from the taxobox. 'Cheers, Loopy30 (talk) 15:39, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
Type locality
Hi Nessie, You recently rated Felicia annectens, and added a template to the talkpage that states that the article doesn't provide the type locality. However, the text under the Taxonomy section reads: "William Henry Harvey was the first to describe this species in 1865, based on a specimen he had collected himself near Paarl in 1838". So I think the statement is factually incorrect. This prompts the question whether you read the article before rating it. Wikipedia:WikiProject Plants/Template has no mention of íncluding the type locality in plant articles. I'm unaware of how to include type locality in the species box, if that is what you or the talk page template are after. The talk page template further suggest that more research by editors is needed. Putting this in the template suggests the article is incomplete (and since I am the only one have worked on it, that I have done a bad job). I have read every last sentence that is available on this species accessible through the internet, and reflected that in the wiki page. Since this is an extremely rare, and rather inconspicuous species, I doubt much more literature will be available or become available any time soon. The template also asks for images. There is just one set of photos on the internet, but its licence is SA-NC. I've sent the photographer a mail and asked him to reconsider the licence, but he has not responded yet. Although perhaps some photos are made in response to the talk page templates, I have never seen it happening. I'm not a fan of the many different templates that discredit articles. If I encounter them, I always try to resolve the issue and remove the template. Kind regards, Dwergenpaartje (talk) 16:59, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
@Dwergenpaartje: no need to get steamed here. There are no templates to "discredit" articles. I'm sure you put much effort into finding an image, but Wikipedia is not a solo effort. These templates alert more helpers who may have different areas of expertise. Personally I go through the requested image categories regularly and add images. Regarding the type locality, I read the lead, and It only mentioned a province. Then I did a search for "type" in the article, and found no mention of it. I'm sorry I missed it further down in the article. If there is a mistake like that, you can remove the template. Likewise, you can also add them when you want assistance. You can even assess articles yourself, as it helps connect the article to the proper projects. In any event, your articles are appreciated. Keep it up. --Nessie (talk) 17:19, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
Hi Nessie, Thank you for your answer. I am used to talk page templates that say this is a stub of low importance for this and this project. Sometimes there is a request for a photo. This is fine with me, and sort of useful to keep track of the development of articles in a specific domain. The template you have used here I have never seen before. There is no need for a template to express that a certain article could be further improved. That is a truth that applies to any and all articles. So there must be a reason why it is added to this article, and not to numerous others. As such it flags that there is something wrong with the article.
Another point is the type locality. If the active community that deals with plant articles regards it desirable to mention the type location, this should be part of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Plants/Template, which is intended to be the guidance. I'm not aware of any discussion on the inclusion of type localities in plant articles. I am not convinced that it ought to be part of an encyclopedia. There still is a difference with a monograph. The photo request does not do any harm, but is not going to deliver, particularly not with such a rare and inconspicuous species. If we will get an image it will be because the iNat user changes the licence or I will run into the plant when visiting the Cape next October.
Regarding assessing plant articles, I think the current criteria are theoretical concepts that leave too much room for interpretation and I could never defend a specific classification. This already starts with the question do you rate against the scientific information that is available or against the information that in principle could be researched. I do add missing project banners to the articles I started if they have been rated for another project and copy the quality and importance.
And this does not apply to you, but I see many templates that have been placed without any effort to resolve the issues the templates point out. This irritates me. And really, a template that says this page has several issues such as citation, really says do not read this article because it is a load of rubbish. Dwergenpaartje (talk) 10:53, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
When I'm rating articles I try to take into account "the scientific information that is available". I'm inclined to rate articles a little higher for something that is recently described (and thus only has a single scientific source discussing it) or for something that is known from only a single specimen. However, I do notice that people working on dinosaurs (and other paleontological vertebrates) regularly produce quite detailed articles for taxa that may be known from a single paper/specimen, and then go on to self-rate their articles as stubs. The essay User:Grutness/Croughton-London rule of stubs play a role in my thoughts on this matter. Plantdrew (talk) 18:08, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
I hereby make you the first recipient of the WikiProject Viruses Barnstar for your continuous work, striving to keep Wikipedia's coverage of virus taxonomy up to date. Thank you! Ypna (talk) 02:12, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
I meant no harm changing the headings on List of virus genera. I was simply making the article compliant with MOS:HEADINGS and WP:ACCESSIBILITY. Since you reverted my edit, would you mind fixing the single = headings how you would like it to look for accessibility reasons? My apologies if I appeared malicious, just trying to help out. AmioDarone (talk) 23:42, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
@Amiodarone: No offense taken. The change just moved the highest heading to match the subheadings, which was confusing. If the highest heading gets =s added, then the subheadings also need to be bumped up too. I'll fix it when i get to a real keyboard where it will be easier. --Nessie (talk) 01:27, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
Hi Nessie, I protest against the careless use of the "Type location needed" template. Again, in this case in the Felicia cana talkpage, you used it, while the article does provide the type location (collector and year). I also think that the "Friendly search suggestions" template is in fact also careless towards the editors that have worked on the article. It suggests that the listed potential sources have not been searched and the information in them has not been considered. Kind regards, Dwergenpaartje (talk) 13:10, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
@Dwergenpaartje: Sorry for the mix up. I go through dozens of articles that lack projects and mistakes get made. If you add the appropriate talk page project templates yourself, your pages will not even show up on my lists. --Nessie (talk) 14:21, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
I should have got back to you before. Certes and I completed that project the Sunday before last; for links to 'name'-type pages anyway, possible bad links to WP:PTOPICs need imagination to think up. Our success rate was remarkably high: out of around 1,500, there were only four or five cases where we failed to get at least an initial (and where there's an initial, there's a qualifier), and we felt confident in unlinking all but one of those (whom I may yet unlink). Narky Blert (talk) 06:54, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
TheWikiWizard - April 2019
Hello, NessieVL! Here is the April 2019 issue of TheWikiWizard.
can and should be linked with Indigenous =y please, otherwise languages with no other indicators can be probematic, other than that thanks for working on items that have australiam biota tagging - so few actually do that adequately. JarrahTree00:04, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
@Doc James: I was unware that there is a limit to the number of articles that in each importance category. I would think 2% would not be too much to be considered top importance, which is what a thousand would be. Or must it be only ninety out of 45,102? The present state seems a little imbalanced. --Nessie (talk) 02:53, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
A vaccine which is no longer given for a disease that has not occurred in more than 40 years is not top importance when it comes to WPMED.[4]
Recommendation is less than 1%. You would want to subtract all the NA importance article types so 35,000.
Thanks for going through the most popular bat articles and updating their assessments/importance, among other things! It was appreciated :) Enwebb (talk) 17:19, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
Tree of Life editors are making a respectable showing in this year's WikiCup, with three regular editors advancing to the third round. Overall winner from 2016, Casliber, topped the scoreboard in points for round 2, getting a nice bonus for bringing Black mamba to FA. Enwebb continues to favor things remotely related to bats, bringing Stellaluna to GA. Plants editor Guettarda also advanced to round 3 with several plant-related DYKs.
Wikipedia page views track animal migrations, flowers blooming
A March 2019 paper in PLOS Biology found that Wikipedia page views vary seasonally for species. With a dataset of 31,751 articles about species, the authors found that roughly a quarter of all articles had significant seasonal variations in page views on at least one language version of Wikipedia. They examined 245 language versions. Page views also peaked with cultural events, such as views of the Great white shark article during Shark Week or Turkey during Thanksgiving.
Seasonal variation in page views among nine bird species
Did you know ... that Tree of Life editors bring content to the front page nearly every day?
April DYKs
* ... that Dippy is the most famous dinosaur skeleton in the world? (1 April)
... that Hubbard's angel insects groom themselves and each other, perhaps in order to avoid the fungal diseases that kill many zorapterans? (6 April)
... that the polychaete worm Poecilochaetus serpens digs a burrow with its head and lines it with particles of clay or mud cemented with mucus? (8 April)
... that Promachocrinus is unusual among crinoids in having ten pairs of arms? (9 April)
... that the weevil species Sicoderus bautistai, described as resembling "black, shiny ants", is named after professional baseball player José Bautista? (18 April)
... that the dire whelk sometimes shares the prey of the ochre sea star while it is eating? (19 April)
... that in the 1970s, spoon worms helped promote biodiversity around the effluent outlets from the Los Angeles sewage system? (21 April)
Hi NessieVL: am really glad that you assessed some of the small wild cat pages!!! While you are at it, would you pleeeease have a look at the sand cat page. This one is currently rated C-class, but this was done yeears ago, loong before I worked on this page last autumn and brought into a much better shape. I hope It's worth an A-class now? -- BhagyaMani (talk) 19:13, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
Ugh, I'm sorry about that. I have a well-intentioned userX stalker who probably thought he was helping by adding categories to a userspace draft, and I didn't notice it happen. What's the best move, remove the categories or just leave it be? --valereee (talk) 17:42, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
Hm, I'm not sure she's ever going to be notable. :) I suppose moving it to draft would make that more the community's decision than mine lol --valereee (talk) 17:52, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
You have a few sources there. I just did a quick news search and found a bunch of sources that you could use to demonstrate notability. The article shouldn't be deleted from draft space for lacking notability: If someone sees an issue usually they will let you know and give you a chance to fix things. --Nessie (talk) 18:09, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
OAbot fixed
I see you already noticed that OAbot is running again. I broke it for a while, sorry! But now it should be a bit faster (though we need a more radical change to make it as fast as it should be). Nemo05:21, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for subscribing to TheWikiWizard. This is a special message letting you know that the June/July/August issues of TheWikiWizard may be delayed, due to the absence of User:Thegooduser. Thegooduser and the other editors of TWW will try their best to deliver these issues to you. Thank you for reading TWW, and we hope to see you again in September 2019. Thank you for your patience and understanding, and enjoy your summer! :-) We apologize for any inconvenience this may have caused. Happy Editing!
_by_Ron.jpg)
.svg){kind=icon}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}