User talk:Dwergenpaartje/Archive 2

Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

November 2013

Resolved

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Triarthrus may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • they define are yoked. The cephalon in ''Triarthrus'' is semicircular. The central raised area (or [[Trilobite#Cephalon|glabella]] is approximately quadrate, and considerably wider than the

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 15:20, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Yukoniidae may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • size (or [[Pygidium#Trilobites|isopygous]]) and outline. The central raised area of the cephalon (or [[Cephalon (arthropod head)#Trilobite cephalon|glabella]] is narrow, usually parallel sided and

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 16:04, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

December 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Parapagetia may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • over half as long as the cephalon. The rear of the glabella does not carry a spine or it is short). The distance between the front of the glabella and the poorly difined anterior border is long.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 17:06, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Arthropleura

Your requested article is ready. OhanaUnitedTalk page 04:02, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Alula

I added more on alula to Morphology of Diptera, removed the term as it applies to Diptera from alula main (bird) and fixed the disambiguation.I am about to start a major revision of Morphology of Diptera since discovering that text of Manual of Nearctic Diptera is available gratis as a "legal" pdf. (Canada Government source) obviating the need for figures in part and needless text duplication. I will first write a page on the manual itself. Happy New Year Talk to you soon. Notafly (talk) 17:59, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

That is great. Thank you for the work and a very happy New Year to you too! -Dwergenpaartje (talk) 18:22, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
My pleasure. I should really thank you for the timely hint.I added subcosta and cell cup to the glossary since these terms and few more I will add later are very important in Diptera taxonomy.I will expand on such later under Morphology of Diptera.Any comments let me know on my talk page.Notafly (talk) 21:41, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Resolved

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Living fossil, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Extant (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:58, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Conocoryphe, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hypostome (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:27, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Crinoid

Resolved

Re this - I did not find a copy of The ordovician crinoid genus Caleidocrinus Waagen and Jahn, 1899, but A revised macroevolutionary history for Ordovician-Early Silurian crinoids lists it as a reference. -- Jreferee (talk) 23:29, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, it is amendable you tried to help me by being creative. The article you provided does not include the description of Caleidocrinus I was looking for however. But perhaps I'll find another use for the paper. Kind regards, -Dwergenpaartje (talk) 13:35, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
Resolved

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Pentacrinites, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lifestyle (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:56, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ptychoparia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dorsal (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:58, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Ptychopariida

Neelix, I note you added a "genera belonging to the Ptychopariida" infobox to Yunnanocephalus, and probably to other Ptychopariid genera as well. You have every right to do so, but I do have doubts about its usefulness, as the number of Ptychopariid genera is so staggeringly big, that anybody will lose its way. It also becomes extreme bulky and may easily utterly dominate articles. I realise you included only a few genera so far, but I suppose you intend to expand as you add it to articles. In general, I would say infoboxes for genera per family are of more use, but not in the case of monotypical families like the Yunnanocephalidae, in which case the genus and family articles are merged and a "families belonging to the Ptychopariida" infobox could be useful. -Dwergenpaartje 16:59, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi Dwergenpaartje,
Thank you for your advice regarding the Ptychopariida navbox I created. I agree that the navbox would become unwieldy if it was expanded to include all applicable genera, but I could not think of any other way of deorphaning the Brassicicephalus article; it has not been assigned to a superspecies or subgenus, and I haven't managed to find anything else remarkable about it that would justify including a mention of it in another article. If you can think of an alternative, I would be grateful if you would let me know.
Neelix (talk) 17:53, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Ah. I see. I guess preventing an orphan is not the best argumentation to have an infobox at all. I had a look at Brassicicephalus, and I think it is lacking much information and it is flawed as well (the monotypicallity). Dunno if you feel any need to improve it. If you would tell me you mailaddress, I will send you the information that is in the Treatise (already made the excerpt). My mailaddress is "jachthuis22 at kpnmail dot nl". If you think it is difficult to make it into layman's language, you can have a look at Yunnanocephalus, Angelina, Conocoryphe, Eoredlichia or many other pages, how I do it. Dwergenpaartje 10:07, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

I found another source from 1988 that is useful, and it seems to concur that Brassicicephalus is not monotypic, and also says it needs to be suppressed because it is the jr. synonym of Exigua, quite the other way around as in Sepkoski (which I could not check as the link did not work). Perhaps Exigua is unavailabe. Global Names Index on this and and the next page provides multiple generic authors, but according to the notation, the first two would be plants, and it is not clear if the third is a plant or an animal, and it also lacks a publication year. So this is in itself inconclusive. Jell and Adrian (2002) list Brassicicephalus LOCHMAN, 1940 [pulchellus] Bonneterre Dol, Missouri, USA; PLETHOPELTIDAE; UCAM [j.s.s. of Exigua, fide ROBISON, 1988]. Another assignment is Brassicicephalus wolfensis Lochman, 1944. Dwergenpaartje 11:02, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi Dwergenpaartje,
I really appreciate your thorough engagement with this article. Are you suggesting that Brassicicephalus should be moved to Exigua? I removed the unsourced statement about the genus being monotypic.
Neelix (talk) 16:25, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I think the conclusion based on the current sources would be that Brassicicephalus Lochman, 1940 indeed needs to be moved to Exigua. This is consistent with the older authority of Exigua, being Howell, 1937. The Treatise list Exigua as "unrecognizable". If the opinion that Exigua and Brassicicephalus are synonymous holds (as in the literature from after the Treatise), the former name always takes priority, even if (but I have not found any sign this would be the case) Exigua would be a jr. homonym or synonym to some other generic name.

The Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology, Part O., (1959), pages O298-O301, does not provide a description on Exigua, but it does on the subfamily Raymondinae and on Brassicicephalus. I always combine those by taking entire genus description and adding on the elements from the overarching taxa that miss (in this case also including the superfamily, see further down). Here are the descriptions Subfamily Raymondinae Clark, 1924 [=Pilgrimiidae HUPE, 1953) Glabella narrowly tapering to subquadrate, with 2 or 3 pairs of short lateral furrows; preglabellar field present or absent; eyes below medium size to small, anterior to center of glabella; fixigenae horizontal, with palpebral areas 0.3 to 0.75 of glabellar width, posterior areas widening or narrowing (sag.) outward; librigenae with genal spines or blunt genal angles. Thorax unknown. U.Cam., and Brassicicephalus Lochman, 1940, type= B. pulchellus. Subquadrate glabella with rounded front; preglabellar field very narrow or absent, anterior border furrow faint or obsolete; eye ridges narrow; fixigenae with palpebral areas 0.5 to 0.75 of glabellar width; librigenae, thorax and pygidium unknown (132). U.Cam.(Dresbach.) , N. Am. B. pulchellus, Missouri.

The best approach to deorphaning in my opinion would be to start one new article combining teh monotypical Superfamily Raymondinacea Clark, 1924, and Family Raymondinidae Clark, 1924, listing the subfamilies and genera: (Raymondininae Raymondina, Amquia, Llanoaspidella, Paracedaria; Cedariniinae Cedaria, Cederina; Llanoaspidinae Llanoaspis, Arcuolimbus, Genevievella, Metisaspis); and giving the (super)familial discription (to be edited, this is the description from the Treatise): Exoskeleton typically opisthoparian, elliptical, heteropygous. Facial sutures with posterior sections running beyond lateral border furrow before turning backward to cut posterior margins, extending straight outward or curving forward, with tendency to approach anterior sections with which fusion may occur; anterior sections converging, straight, or diverging widely forward; glabella tapering to quadrate, front rounded or straight, lateral furrows present or absent, preglabellar field present or absent; eye ridges and occipital spine may be present, eyes medium in size to small, position variable; fixigenae with palpebral areas variable in width, posterior areas long (tr.), commonly subrectangular to quadrate in shape; librigenae with medium to short genal spines or blunt genal angles. Thorax with 7 or fewer segments; axis narrower than blunt-ended pleurae. Pygidium transverse, ovate or semicircular, axis tapering nearly full length, narrower than pleural fields, with all furrows commonly well defined. Surface smooth or granulose. Polyphyletic derivation. U.Cam. Dwergenpaartje (talk) 17:20, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

I have moved Brassicicephalus to Exigua. Are you recommending that I create the article Raymondinacea and list Exigua as a genus in the subfamily Raymondinae? Are Raymondinae and Raymondininae both subfamilies of Raymondinidae? Neelix (talk) 18:28, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Great! Yes I'm recommending you create an article but titled Raymondinidae, and include in the box Raymondinacea, that is make it bold and add authority to it as well, and create a redirect from Raymondinacea to Raymondinidae. And no I must have mistyped, Raymondininae is the only correct name (because it is derived from Raymondina). I own both a specimen of Cedaria and of Genevievella, but I'll have to make photo's when the sun shines. I mean, we be able to illustrate the Raymondinidae later on. Dwergenpaartje (talk) 23:39, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for going ahead and creating Raymondinidae and expanding Exigua. Both are looking great. I hope we cross paths again in the future. Neelix (talk) 01:26, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
Resolved

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Argyrotheca (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Cillium
Lingula reevii (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Ambon

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:02, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

February 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Yunnanocephalus may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • the widely rounded back edges of the cephalon. The articulate middle part of the [[exoskeleton]] (or [[Trilobite#Thorax|thorax]] has 14 [[Segmentation (biology)|segments]], with short triangular

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 09:08, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Alokistocaridae may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • fixed from the free cheeks (fixigenae and librigenae) cut the posterior margin of the headshield (or [[Trilobite#Cephalon|cephalon]] inside the genal angle or the inner bend of the genal spine (or [

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 17:17, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Omma may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • * ''Omma delicata'' <small>Tan, Wang, Ren & yang, 2012</small> Middle Jurassic ([[Bathonian]]-[[Callovian]] boundary, Jiulongshan Formation, Daohugou Village, Shantou Township,

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 16:18, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Kendallina

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:03, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

March 2014

Resolved

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Archostemata may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • ago. [[Antenna (biology)|Antennae]] may be thread-shaped (filiform) or like a string of beads (or [[Antenna (biology)|moniliform]]. This suborder also contains the only [[Neoteny|paedogenic]]

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 20:41, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Electron Microscope images

Hi

Thanks very much, yes the images will be taken over next few months as time allows, I'll put your requests on the list.

Cheers

--Mrjohncummings (talk) 14:13, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Resolved

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ommatidae, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Extant (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:01, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Argyrotheca, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Apical (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:57, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Dikelocephalus, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hypostome (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:52, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Resolved

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Archaeocyatha, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Matrix (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:54, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Frenulina, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Extant (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:52, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Resolved

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited True's shrew mole, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Molar. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:55, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Japanese shrew mole, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Awashima Island. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:56, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Crania (brachiopod), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Discina. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:56, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Valdiviathyris, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dorsal. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:00, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Spelling of diminutive

I note that in several articles created by yourself that the word "diminutive" has been misspelled as "diminuative". Just letting you know. Jodosma (talk) 08:41, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

I take it you have corrected the mistakes. Thank you! Dwergenpaartje (talk) 13:56, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Valdiviathyris_quenstedti

Done: Valdiviathyris_quenstedti

- Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 07:34, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! Dwergenpaartje (talk) 13:57, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Resolved

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Primoriella, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Marine. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:03, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Resolved

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Schoriina, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Marine. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:59, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Resolved

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Pleuromeia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Extant. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:57, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Resolved

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Lycopodiophyta, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Pennsylvanian. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:57, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

BIBR/A#Asaphide Trilobiten

I could provide the second paper (Ivantsov 2004). If you’re still interested, please send me a wikimail. Rgds ✦ hugarheimur 07:39, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Resolved

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Mibora, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Annual. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:02, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Resolved

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Trinucleidae, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cosmopolitan. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:21, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 19 August

Resolved

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:14, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Ellison pdf for Trifolium

Hi, I can send you a full text pdf of:

  • Nick W. Ellison, Aaron Liston, Jeffrey J. Steiner, Warren M. Williams & Norman L. Taylor (2006). Molecular phylogenetics of the clover genus (Trifolium—Leguminosae). Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 39(3):688–705. DOI:10.1016/j.ympev.2006.01.004

to fulfill your request at Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request/Archive16#Trifolium. Please use Special:EmailUser to email me so that I can reply with the pdf as an attachment. Regards, Worldbruce (talk) 02:08, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:52, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Resolved

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Flora Antarctica, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Mount Terror and Veronica. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:17, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Resolved

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Flora Antarctica, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hypolepis. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:34, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Resolved

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ranunculus, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Petiole and Cyme. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:02, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Resolved

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Ranunculus pinguis
added links pointing to Pedicel and Receptacle
List of brachiopod genera
added a link pointing to Lingula
Ranunculus acaulis
added a link pointing to Receptacle

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:59, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Resolved

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Caltha appendiculata, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Peduncle and Hermit Island. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:26, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Categorizing plant articles

Hi, because too many small categories make navigation tedious for readers, and so undo the advantages of having categories, in WP:PLANTS we tend to look for a category size of 10 or more (see Wikipedia:WikiProject Plants/Categorization). So I would have left the Caltha articles at the upper level, but it's a marginal case. You should be aware, though, that there are some long-time Wikipedia editors who will delete small categories. Peter coxhead (talk) 18:02, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the warning. I'll keep to the 10 as a minimal number of elements for a category. Dwergenpaartje (talk) 22:42, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
Resolved

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Caltha, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Follicle. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:07, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Resolved

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Caltha introloba, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Follicle and Filament. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:48, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Resolved

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Tropaeolum incisum, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Petiole, Calyx and Pedicel. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:49, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Including a key in an article, as at Caltha, has been queried in the past on copyright grounds (I can't find where just now, but will try to do so). The issues are these:

  1. If you use as the basis a key in a source that is not copyright free (which Blumea is not – the homepage says "Article copyright remains with the publisher, society or author(s) as specified within the article"), then you must not produce a "close paraphrase" (see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing). However, it's impossible to do otherwise, since the ordering of the material will be the same – the author's selection and arrangement is being copied, which is forbidden as per Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing#Selection and arrangement.
  2. If you construct your own key based on information about the organisms, then it will be WP:OR, which is also forbidden.

So I don't think you can normally have a key in an article. However, I'm not a copyright expert! Peter coxhead (talk) 12:16, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Ah. No need to find the query regarding copyright infringement. That will not be applicable here. The Caltha-key does not make use of the two keys in the Blumea article nor from a key somewhere else, but it makes use of the characters in the descriptions of the ten species in Blumea and a bit in other cited sources. If this is a problem, other parts of articles may also be not allowable. Most closely related to a key are paragraphs titled "Differences with related/other species", which are in content keys but without the typical structure. It does entail combining information from different parts of the same source and/or from different sources, and involves selection, assessment and synthesis of information. These processes are in fact crucial in creating text containing encyclopedic knowledge. If keys that are based on published characters of taxa are construed as original reseach, this would in analogy make any wikipedia article impossible. The fact that researchers also make assessments and create synthesis and publish these in scientific journals does not make this original research. The exclusion of original reseach is not a principle, it is intended to be able to verify the information. I dare say every bit of information presented in the key is verifiable. Dwergenpaartje (talk) 14:38, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
The information presented in the key may indeed be verifiable, but that isn't all that makes the key work. The information used in the key must be sufficient to differentiate the species, and this needs sourcing. "Selection, assessment and synthesis of information" is fine, provided that the synthesis does not reach any conclusions not explicitly given in the source – as per WP:SYNTH: 'if a single source says "A" in one context, and "B" in another, without connecting them, and does not provide an argument of "therefore C", then "therefore C" cannot be used in any article.' You can say that species 1 has feature A and that species 2 has feature B, but you can't construct a key to identify species 1 and 2 based on features A and B unless you have a source that says that features A and B are sufficient to distinguish them, which is C in this case. Peter coxhead (talk) 17:40, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
One of the nice things of editing on Wikipedia is that there are sometimes very interesting discussions. This may be one of them. You are saying that character states mentioned in the literature may sometimes not be suited to distinguish species. This may well be the case for character states mentioned in stand-alone monographies of individual species or the original description. The author of the first species description that is assigned to a particular genus could impossibly determine which character states are diagnostic and which ones are shared between two or more or indeed all species in that genus. Another issue that may make it difficult to determine whether character states from the literature are diagnostic could be that the respective authors use another definition of the same character state. So one article may describe the color of the flower of species A as yolk-yellow, while a second article may say species B has orange-yellow flowers, but in fact these colors may be the same and when using these different colors in a key, incorrect information may be given, and in fact the key is without worth. The judgment whether or not in this case yolk-yellow and orange-yellow are different colors or the same cannot be made by a wiki-editor. I think it is fair to say that a key, or any element in it, that is only based on descriptions or monographies of the individual species, cannot be created without expert judgment by the wiki-editor, and this would amount to original research.
But does this mean that any key made (and not copied or closely paraphrased) always results for original research? In my opinion not. Scientific literature often explicitly distinguishes between diagnostic characters and characters that my be less suited for diagnoses (such as common characters, and characters that have no digital states but have overlapping ranges between different species). The most useful diagnostic characters are listed in a section called Diagnoses, while the rest is put under a generally much longer section Description.
Another situation in which no doubt should exist about whether or not character states are diagnostic is in a review. In such an article the author has systematically identified the character states of all the species subjected in the study. If in such a review species A is said to have yolk-yellow flowers and species B orange-yellow flowers it is reasonable to assume these are different colors and as such can be used to distinguish between species A and B, without expert judgement and it would be unfair to classify that assumption as original research. In that light, a key is no more and no less than another way of presenting (part) of the same information as is in the description section of the Wikipedia article.
In the case of the Caltha article, I made use of a review that covers all the species currently generally recognized and the character states in that review do not leave any doubt about there usefulness to distinguish between the species. So I think it would be fair to established neither copyright infringement nor original research are applicable here. I'd also would suggest as a Wikipedia policy that keys which are based on character state descriptions in at least one review article that covers all of the taxa in the key are in principle admissible. Dwergenpaartje (talk) 19:05, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
Since keys are extremely useful, I think it would be helpful to the project if we can come up with some line of argument that can be put to those who deal with copyright issues. If, and it's an important if, it's clear from the source that the state of a character is diagnostic between species, then to include that character in a key to distinguish the species does seem o.k. to me. (But you have to be careful, because descriptions sometimes only apply to "typical" specimens, which can make a character problematic in a key: what makes a good key character isn't necessarily a feature of great botanical importance.)
So here's an example. I was working on Cistus some time ago and it would be useful to distinguish some new species/subspecies found in the Canary Islands, since the information isn't in general guides/floras. There's a table on p. 127 of this paper. So do we agree that if I made up a key based solely on this table it wouldn't be OR? Peter coxhead (talk) 09:29, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
We agree that keys are extremely useful. And yes, we also agree that information in a table in the scientific literature that lists character states for different taxa, is intended to differentiate and hence the author considered these characters diagnostic. If the characters in such a table are used to create a key, this is putting the same information in a different (and for the reader more useful) format and this does not involve OR. I see this as one illustrative example of a situation in which making a key for a Wikipedia article is neither copyright infringement nor original reseach. Dwergenpaartje (talk) 13:38, 12 February 2016 (UTC)


A third perspective

Apologies for "eavesdropping", but some relevant prior (albeit brief) discussion on the inclusion of keys is here. Additionally, I'm of the opinion that keys should largely not be included in this encyclopedia per WP:NOTGUIDE: While keys are often found in field guides, technical manuals, and primary literature, Wikipedia is none of the above, and the construction of keys engender the risks of OR or SYN. I believe the novel arrangement of verifiable data that leads the reader to a conclusion not explicit in any published source, is original synthesis, and keys of any sort may arguably be more instructional rather merely informational. (from NOTGUIDE: The purpose of Wikipedia is to present facts, not to teach subject matter) Identification keys may be more suitable for Wikibooks, where textbooks, instructional material, and original research is explicitly allowed. --Animalparty! (talk) 03:12, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

@Animalparty: thanks for the link to the previous discussion; I knew there had been at least one, but couldn't remember where. I'd forgotten the WP:NOTGUIDE issue, which is a sound argument.
Yes, a key is definitely a "novel arrangement of verifiable data" but the question is whether it leads to "a conclusion not explicit in any published source". If it does, then it's definitely OR or SYNTH and not allowed.
Here's a made-up concrete example. Suppose genus Alpha has only two species, A. beta and A. gamma. A reliable source says that A. beta has yellow flowers and a (possibly different) reliable source says that A. gamma has white flowers. Now I can clearly write
A. beta has yellow flowers.[1] A. gamma has white flowers.[2]
So the question is, why would it then be OR or SYNTH to write:
1. Flowers yellow → A. beta[1]
1a. Flowers white → A. gamma[2]
whether or not these two lines are part of a larger key? Peter coxhead (talk) 15:30, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
Resolved

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Calyceraceae, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Calyx, Involucre and Corolla. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:36, 28 February 2016 (UTC)