User talk:Cwmhiraeth

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

/Archive 15


April 2015 Wikification drive.[edit]

Greetings! Just spreading a message to the members of WikiProject Wikify that the April drive has been started. Come on, sign up! :) One hand on the mouse, one hand on the keyboard... and the feet can do the rest! Hee-hee! (talk) 03:17, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Entomophaga grylli[edit]

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:03, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 01 April 2015[edit]

DYK for Parapercis hexophtalma[edit]

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:02, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Happy Easter![edit]

All the best! "Carry me down, carry me down; carry me down into the wiki!" (talk) 21:28, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Blue-fronted dancer[edit]

Thanks for your help with this project Victuallers (talk) 00:02, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

April 25 TFA[edit]

Is there a way to make "Amphibians are a class of ectothermic, tetrapod vertebrates" more accessible to the casual (i.e. Main Page) reader? How about this? "Amphibians are a class of mostly four-footed vertebrates that rely on the sun and other heat sources to stay warm". - Dank (push to talk) 12:03, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Okay, it's looking good; are you okay with my tweaks? We're currently at 1083 characters, which is fine; the max is 1250. I removed "dramatic" (decreases in populations) because it raised a question it didn't have room to answer ... but since we've pruned it a bit now, there's a little room ... if you want to talk about specific dramatic declines, that's fine. - Dank (push to talk) 21:09, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
I think its fine now. The declines are dramatic but the causes are multiple and unclear; a population present at one time is missing a few years later with habitat loss, pollution and the disease chytridiomycosis being part of the problem. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:18, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Today, precious again, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:07, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps soon Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/Common starling? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:33, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I saw you had nominated Common starling for TFA. Thank you. Today Amphibian is TFA and I spend my day checking up on the alterations being made that may or may not improve the article! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:44, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
You saw, of course, but the fine print requests a notification ;) - I know the feeling on TFA day, but a Bach cantata is less of a problem. I have a FAC open, don't need more support, but dealing with very strict requests regarding an image, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:57, 25 April 2015 (UTC)


Glad to see you and Chiswick Chap are taking on this article. If anything in this category helps, feel free to use it (this one appeared to be defecating; I also have an image of a grasshopper infested with mites drinking its hemolymph that I plan to upload). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:11, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

What a splendid selection of insects! Ideally we need someone to identify the unidentified ones. I look forward to seeing the one of the grasshopper infested with mites, - we could do with that for the article. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:09, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Unidentified Phlaeoba (perhaps Phlaeoba fumida); it is infested by mites which are drinking its hemolymph.
Nice photos. One with parasites would indeed be useful. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:49, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Agree, the lack of identification hurts a lot. Sadly, these lovely creatures aren't as easily IDed as bird species, and as a lit major I'm in a singularly poor position to do my own ID-ing (though I love to take their pictures). Mealybugs are even worse. Apparently one can't even be sure of the genus without cutting 'em open. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:41, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. I have added it to the Grasshopper article. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:23, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 08 April 2015[edit]

DYK for Ophiocoma echinata[edit]

Harrias talk 00:03, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Nomadacris succincta[edit]

Harrias talk 08:04, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Tritoniopsis elegans[edit]

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:16, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Carijoa riisei[edit]

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:16, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Clavularia crassa[edit]

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 17:02, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Reading the cards[edit]

I've removed the speedy for now since it has been contested by a third-party editor (you). I think there are still problems. It's quite spammy in that it only tells us about the values and aims of the organisation, without bothering about any facts, such as how many members it has. If there are too few members, it won't be notable anyway. The text is a bit weasely, I'll have a run through. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:14, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Some of the text of the version I edited appears to be verbatim from the organisation's website, although I've changed the first sentence anyway. I'm not sure of the value of the code of ethics, but I'll leave that to you.
As it stands, it could well go to an AFD discussion. It needs some hard facts relating to membership and funding, which would also make it less like a publicity release. Good luck Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:23, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
It's not clear-cut with this organisation, but we get many good faith but obviously non-notable articles about YouTube "stars", would-be pop groups, software apps and the. Either we let anyone post anything, or you initiate a speedy. It may be offputting, but so are the other mechanisms like prods and afds. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:29, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Valanga nigricornis[edit]

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:43, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Muggiaea kochi - typo?[edit]

Hi, I think Muggiaea kochi should be Muggiaea kochii according to World Register of Marine Species. --Hanberke (talk) 13:35, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

You are right. I got it correct when I created Muggiaea but managed to get it wrong for M. kochii. However, many of the sources spell the specific name with a single "i", so its not just me that is confused. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:40, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
I have now moved the article to the correct name, but I am leaving the citations as they are. WoRMS is currently in the minority! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:49, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Damsel behaviour[edit]

Hi, Cwmhiraeth, I'm having a go at the worklist. I think you might be the better person for "The first paragraph in the behaviour section is in the wrong tense/mood plus it seems to be based on a single species instead of providing an abstraction behavioural patterns across the group. Territoriality for instance is not mentioned elsewhere." if that's all right with you? Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:33, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 15 April 2015[edit]

DYK for Panulirus echinatus[edit]

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:02, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Jasus paulensis[edit]

Sunday on the wiki looks better with your contribution - Thanks Victuallers (talk) 15:07, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Locusta migratoria manilensis[edit]

PanydThe muffin is not subtle 12:17, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Parasagitta setosa[edit]

PanydThe muffin is not subtle 20:32, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

War at Sea[edit]

Saw your comment. I wonder if this particular section, however, has sufficient refs? Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:55, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Actually I had removed Sea from my watchlist at some time, probably to avoid controversial discussions, so I am not very up to date on its content. Feel free to contradict me if you wish! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:00, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
I've done the same, it's not worth getting stressed about; and all we need to do is add a few refs. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:04, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you[edit]

I have closed the FAR for Australian green tree frog as a 'keep', since everyone seems satisfied that the article is now up to current standards. Thank you so much for stepping in and saving the day! Maralia (talk) 02:32, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

My pleasure. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 04:51, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Muggiaea atlantica[edit]

PanydThe muffin is not subtle 06:16, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 22 April 2015[edit]

DYK for Thaumatoneura inopinata[edit]

PanydThe muffin is not subtle 23:33, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Tireless Contributor Barnstar Hires.gif The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
Thank you for reviewing all of those DYK submissions. It's a lifesaver today. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 12:19, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Thank you. Each time I nominate an article for DYK, I try to do an extra review, over and above my QPQ review. It helps reduce the backlog! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:28, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Firoloida[edit]

Thanks Victuallers (talk) 00:02, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Damselfly[edit]

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:01, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Trithemis annulata[edit]

Hi, as I can see there are some links on Trithemis annulata infraspecies such as EOL link and this one. --Hanberke (talk) 09:35, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

I want to add "Violet-marked darter" and "Plum-coloured dropwing" as a synonym, but I'm not sure where to place that in (The violet dropwing, Trithemis annulata, is a species ). Could you please help with that? --Hanberke (talk) 09:44, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
The GBIF source you give states that Trithemis annulata subspecies haematina is a synonym, and as I cannot find further reference to the three previously mentioned subspecies, I removed the Subspecies subsection. The "violet-marked darter" seems to be an alternative English name and is mentioned by the IUCN site, so I have added it to the article. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:51, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
This link lists the three following subspecies.
  • Trithemis annulata annulata (Palisot de Beauvois, 1807)
  • Trithemis annulata haematina (Rambur, 1842)
  • Trithemis annulata scorteccii Nielsen, 1936

There are other references as well:

Reference in French ( ( is blacklisted in Wikipedia).

Trithemis annulata haematina (Rambur, 1842) est usuellement présenté de nos jours comme une sous-espèce de Trithemis annulata.

Trithemis annulata a trois sous-espèces différentes :

  • Trithemis annulata annulata.
  • Trithemis annulata haematina.
  • Trithemis annulata scorteccii.

--Hanberke (talk) 10:20, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Right, I have put the subspecies back. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:30, 28 April 2015 (UTC)


Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/Rodent --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:16, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Gerda. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:19, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 April 2015[edit]

Font size of clippings[edit]

Thanks for your DYK review at Template:Did you know nominations/Bash Brothers. Regarding your comment that the clipping was too small to read, if you hover over the article on the site, a magnifying glass symbol shows with text "View Full Resolution Paper". If you click on the article, the full page comes up, and you should see a box with "+" and "-" on the upper right corner, which allows you to zoom in and out on the page. Cheers.—Bagumba (talk) 07:50, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the information. I did view the page at full resolution but it had no bigger text size than the original and I didn't notice the "+" and "-" signs. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:22, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

DYK for The Blob (Pacific Ocean)[edit]

Harrias talk 19:06, 3 May 2015 (UTC)


I've started the GA review of Grasshopper and have a few questions for you. Why did you nominate this article? (my questions are all friendly, I happen to love all things 'insect' and have no reason not to see this article not reach GA status) If you could answer on the review talk page Talk:Grasshopper/GA1, that may help keep the discussion centralized. The Very Best of Regards,

  Bfpage |leave a message  13:20, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Grasshopper[edit]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Grasshopper you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. Time2wait.svg This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Bfpage -- Bfpage (talk) 13:20, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

deOrphaning script[edit]

Hello everyone! I was just working on responding to a couple bug reports for a script that I worked up as part of a request from this project, and I noticed that only a couple people (who weren't even on this mailing list) are actually using the script. A little history on the script: In March of 2014, Jim Cartar came to my user talk page and said he needed some help in acquiring a script for a backlog drive that he was working on that could keep track of and score deOrphanings for a scored backlog drive. I took that request to the project's talk page (BackLog Drive "DO" (De-Orphaning) script proposal) and there was near unanimous support for this. I thought about the proposal and decided the best way to do it was to build a new script (which is still no where near as comprehensive as Manishearth's OrphanTabs) and build into it a mechanism that will make BLD scoring easy.

What I'm wondering at this point is, since there appears to be only two people using the script, should I continue to develop this script with a goal of using it for scoring BLDs or just debug the existing script and leave it at that. Thanks for any replies or comments.

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list or alternatively to opt-out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Opted-out of message delivery to your user talk page.

WikiCup 2015 May newsletter[edit]

C/2014 Q2 (Lovejoy) is a long-period comet discovered on 17 August 2014 by Terry Lovejoy; and is one of several Featured Pictures worked up by India The Herald (submissions) during the second round.

The second round one has all wrapped up, and round three has now begun! Congratulations to the 34 contestants who have made it through, but well done and thank you to all contestants who took part in our second round. Leading the way overall was Belarus Cas Liber (submissions) in Group B with a total of 777 points for a variety of contributions including Good Articles on Corona Borealis and Microscopium - both of which received the maximum bonus.

Special credit must be given to a number of high importance articles improved during the second round.

The points varied across groups, with the lowest score required to gain automatic qualification was 68 in Group A - meanwhile the second place score in Group H was 404, which would have been high enough to win all but one of the other Groups! As well as the top two of each group automatically going through to the third round, a minimum score of 55 was required for a wildcard competitor to go through. We had a three-way tie at 55 points and all three have qualified for the next round, in the spirit of fairness. The third round ends on June 28, with the top two in each group progressing automatically while the remaining 16 highest scorers across all four groups go through as wildcards. Good luck to all competitors for the third round! Figureskatingfan (talk · contribs · email), Miyagawa (talk · contribs · email) and Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · email) 16:28, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Manipulator modificaputis[edit]

I'm not quite sure how to tackle a monotypic family/genus/species in lead and taxobox in this case. Manipulator modificaputis. Can you please advise/help/ AshLin (talk) 04:11, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

I have made some alterations to the taxobox which I think reflect what is usually done in these cases. The new family, genus and species names should be bolded and given authorities, but not the other taxa. Redirects should be made for the family and genus names. Have a look at this category to see how such cases are usually handled. I have reclassified the article as start class because you have included much of the information available about the new species and supplied references. If you want to nominate it for DYK it needs not to be a stub! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:26, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Corallite[edit]

PanydThe muffin is not subtle 07:50, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Grasshopper[edit]

The article Grasshopper you nominated as a good article has passed Symbol support vote.svg; see Talk:Grasshopper for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know.   Bfpage |leave a message  18:37, 5 May 2015 (UTC)


I've had a look at the phylogeny of Cricket (insect); it's fairly simple, but raises the interesting question of what insects 'cricket' actually covers. The Gryllidae are rather a compact clade with the archetypal house and field crickets among them, but the Ensifera contain thousands of insects which are called crickets - scaly crickets, bush crickets, and plenty of others. On the whole I support the cricket=Gryllidae equation, but the broader sense definitely deserves a mention.

Outside that, I've reorganized the 'human' section: it definitely needs work and references. The general biology is pretty skimpy, and the few bits of the article that are at all detailed are somewhat coatrackish (genetics etc.) and not really about the family at all. So, there's plenty of scope for improvement.

Do you intend to work on it soon, or are you waiting for a starting gun? Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:21, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Actually, I was waiting for a reply from Bfpage to my suggestion, but we can go ahead anyway. I am tidying up Scleractinia at the moment but will move on to Cricket (insect) tomorrow. The article Ensifera could do with some expansion! In my opinion it would be better to change the name of "Cricket (insect)" to Gryllidae and then there wouldn't be a problem. By the way, I nominated Grasshopper for DYK, and thanks, as ever, for your cooperation in it and other articles. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:37, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
OK, I'll help with Gryllidae and take a look at Ensifera also. Glad to have been of service on Grasshopper, it has come out well. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:11, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
I am starting working on a Description section for Gryllidae in my sandbox. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:06, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
The Lulu (=self-published) ref you just added looks to me as if it was copied directly from the Wikipedia article... Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:57, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
I will look for something better, but the previous source was dead. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:04, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
And it can't have been much good when it was alive, either! The article is already vastly improved. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:14, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
I have replaced it, May Berenbaum is an academic. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:25, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
When I create/expand an article and it qualifies, I usually submit it to DYK. Both Ensifera and Grylloidea would qualify but would be unlikely to produce an interesting hook. Any views? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:33, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
That's better... mmm, yes, they do look rather low on hooky material. Perhaps the easiest thing for one or other of them would be to add a bit on their use as food, which would provide an, er, spicy headline and photo. Unless you want to use that for Cricket! Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:09, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm wondering about that baboon spider image. It must be in captivity? That spiders can catch crickets is not in doubt, but I suspect this is a tropical spider eating a temperate-zone insect. Maybe we need a more 'natural' image. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:36, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

You could change the caption to something like "Crickets are reared to feed captive animals like this tarantula." Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:20, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
Done. I've also made a cropped version of the fossil to show more cricket and less matrix.
What do you think the article now needs? I've pretty much finished the images and human aspects. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:43, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
I want to do some more on behaviour other than chirping. You may have seen that I took out the unreferenced statement about some females chirping. Then I reinstated it when I found a source that mentioned it in connection with the Pseudophyllinae, and finally removed it again with the realisation that that subfamily is in Tettigoniidae and therefore outside the scope of our article. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:37, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, it shows why OR is dangerous, as if we didn't know. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:42, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
I have done what I think needs doing on behaviour. You are welcome to tidy it up or rename/rearrange subsections as you think fit. There is one (inappropriate) mention of the mole cricket in your folklore section which you may want to move elsewhere. Other than this, I think the lead needs some work, and then the article could go to GAN, after renaming it Gryllidae. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:24, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
OK: there are also mentions of mole crickets in "Predators, parasites and pathogens".
There are also unresolved short references eg Carrera, Araujo, Forde. These were present before we began editing. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:41, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
I have removed the mole cricket parasites and replaced the Carrera reference. Some of the others are difficult, and maybe could be ditched. I had not seen the amazing article Crickets as pets before. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:32, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
Since, the article will be reasonably renamed as Gryllidae, will it be OK if the second section of Taxonomy (after and including "In addition to the above subfamilies in the family Gryllidae, orthopterans in the Ensifera may be called crickets sensu lato:") is removed and first section expanded? --Hanberke (talk) 15:32, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
Careful - we need to acknowledge that the broader sense also exists, but we can be brief about it. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:48, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
I've found decent refs for the remainder of the old folklore claims, except the one 'unpublished data'. Will make one last attempt to substantiate it, otherwise we'd best remove it really. Have also drafted a complete lead, feel free to polish. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:40, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
Ok, I think we're about ready? Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:47, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
Yes, indeed. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:52, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
I guess the article is move protected as the "move" option does not seem to be available to me. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:54, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
Yes, it's a Requested Move or nothing. Chiswick Chap (talk) 05:57, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 06 May 2015[edit]

Quarter million award for "Grasshopper"[edit]

Million award logo.svg The Million Award
For your contributions to bring Grasshopper (estimated annual readership: 267,416) to Good Article status, I hereby present you the Quarter Million Award. Congratulations on this rare accomplishment, and thanks for all you do for Wikipedia's readers! Bobnorwal (talk) 19:44, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Great job, friend! Is there anyone else I should give this award to for helping with this article? Bobnorwal (talk) 19:44, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes indeed, Chiswick Chap was equally involved. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:50, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
How nice. I hadn't realized it was a rare thing to manage, but certainly there is a pressing need to bring many 'bigger' articles up to a good standard. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:51, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Ensifera taxonomy Extinct[edit]

Could you please consider this ru wiki article's taxonomy. I'm not sure because it has no references, will it be OK if extinct (super)families added into Ensifera taxonomy section? Cheers! --Hanberke (talk) 13:22, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

It would be OK to include extinct families and superfamilies, but ideally you would find a reliable source for the information. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:31, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
I've found a reliable link. --Hanberke (talk) 13:43, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
I've updated the list from this link. How can I add the this link to the article, you help will be much appreciated. Also, according to that site there are infrafamilies. Will it be redundant (or too long) if restructure the list to add them as well? --Hanberke (talk) 14:02, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
I have added a reference for the taxonomy section. I think the problem is that there is some confusion among different authorities as to the relationships of the different infraorders, superfamilies, families etc., which makes it hard for Wikipedia to accurately reflect them all. Even if we did, they are still liable to change. For example, superfamily Stenopelmatoidea appears on our list, but does not on the database source page. Similarly we include family Cooloolidae but the database does not. If we started mucking about with the the taxonomy section list we would render the taxonomy of the two pages concerned inconsistent with it. So you see it is all very complex. We have an English saying, "Fools rush in, where angels fear to tread!". Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:10, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
Superfamily Stenopelmatoidea (Burmeister, 1838) is listed in database source page, too. Family Cooloolidae is also present at this link of Stenopelmatoidea at the database source. Database's Ensifera taxonomy has 31 citations. Shortly, both of them are present in I don't mean to be a "fool" to create a long list (by writing all tribes, genera, families, species at one place). Also there is no confusion here. You can see that there are 3 infraorders, 4 superfamilies and 2 families directly under Ensifera (all of them are at the same-level rank). I think, all 9 of them should be added as from a reliable resource. I'm not trying to add all those inferior ranks at one place, but to restructure the taxonomy as 3 infraorders, 4 superfamilies and 2 families directly under Ensifera. --Hanberke (talk) 18:35, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
I see what you mean, it is me that was confused because I had not looked at the list in enough detail. Carry on, then! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:43, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
Great! I'm glad that I could explain myself. Also thank you for your kindly adding the reference. Cheers! --Hanberke (talk) 18:50, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for mentioning me in Did you know nominations! Not in mind such a good thing for a tiny contribution! --Hanberke (talk) 10:34, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
You are too modest! I mainly nominated the article for DYK to recognise your positive contribution. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:46, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Zooxanthellae[edit]

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:40, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Agriculture in the Republic of the Congo has been nominated for Did You Know[edit]

DYK for Seriatopora hystrix[edit]

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:25, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Coelastrea aspera[edit]

PanydThe muffin is not subtle 15:11, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Carinaria cristata[edit]

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:55, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Ptilosarcus gurneyi[edit]

Harrias talk 06:26, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Three species of Scapteriscus[edit]

I'm not sure if you have noticed, but Pheropsophus aequinoctialis Ecology section has an information concerning the three Scapteriscus articles you've recently created. That might be used in Scapteriscus, as well. --Hanberke (talk) 07:11, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. I plan to continue with my three new articles this evening and can see that the ground beetle article you mention above has some useful sources. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 07:43, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
Could you please help with proper PDF reference citing in Rhopalosomatidae? It is 8th citation. I'll much appreciate if you explain how to copy proper PDF url for reference. In google search it is truncated. --Hanberke (talk) 18:16, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
I try to avoid linking to pdf files when I can because it is so difficult in many cases finding a good url. In this case I found a non-pdf source which had the full article so I have cited that for you. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:28, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
Thank you so much for your help. --Hanberke (talk) 04:15, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Trithemis annulata[edit]

PanydThe muffin is not subtle 07:54, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Family or Genus[edit]

In "Members of this family are parasitic of crickets" in Rhopalosoma, is family correctly used (or should it be genus), that is you meant family Rhopalosomatidae. If yes, than I'll add this sentence with its refrence to other 3 genera of Rhopalosomatidae. --Hanberke (talk) 10:50, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Well, the source states "Rhopalosomatidae is an odd family of Hymenoptera whose species parasitize crickets", which I take to mean that all the species in the family parasitize crickets. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:11, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 13 May 2015[edit]

Shang Yue[edit]

Hi Cwmhiraeth, thanks a lot for making the prep sets, but Template:Did you know nominations/Shang Yue has not been properly reviewed yet. The big tick was misleading, and I've removed it. -Zanhe (talk) 06:45, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Panulirus longipes[edit]

Harrias talk 10:06, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

On GA reviews[edit]

Hail Cwmhiraeth! We have a hairy doubt regarding the GA review process on the Gastropods project talk page. Would you be so kind as to drop by and leave a few words of wisdom =)? Best wishes! --Daniel Cavallari (talk) 14:29, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Turbinaria[edit]

Harrias talk 12:02, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Turbinaria reniformis[edit]

Harrias talk 12:02, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Turbinaria peltata[edit]

Harrias talk 12:02, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Turbinaria mesenterina[edit]

Harrias talk 12:03, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Turbinaria stellulata[edit]

Harrias talk 12:03, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Steinernema scapterisci[edit]

Harrias talk 14:02, 20 May 2015 (UTC)


I think some diagrams would be helpful. There are some such as this and this and this on commons. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 20:05, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Scotch bonnet (sea snail) article improvement[edit]

Hello Cwmhiraeth, The GA review of this article is already underway, and there are some changes that need making. I have rapidly tried to carry out a number of them today, although not quite perfectly (!), and there are others items that I have not touched and may not be able to get to over the next few days as I am packing and will be traveling all day on Saturday from before dawn to late in the pm. I would be very grateful if you want to pitch in and help. If you read my comments in response to the reviewer's comments, you will see what needs fixing. Many thanks, Invertzoo (talk) 20:26, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

I will see what I can do. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 04:52, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Anything you can do to help would be useful, from the most major to the most minor things. Invertzoo (talk) 11:54, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 May 2015[edit]

DYK for Favites pentagona[edit]

PanydThe muffin is not subtle 01:48, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Gryllus firmus[edit]

PanydThe muffin is not subtle 13:32, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

DYK:The Next Step Beyond[edit]

I have expanded the article some. I have the John Muir book for reference on both series. I think I might add a section about the series best episode, The Haunted Inn, good for a few paragraphs. Thanks for looking. Inkwell765 (talk) 02:54, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

It is long enough now and I have approved it for DYK. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 07:46, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Ensifera[edit]

Harrias talk 07:32, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

2015 Tour of California[edit]

Hi! I saw your comment on DYK (Template:Did you know nominations/2015 Tour of California). This is my first nomination and my most extensive work so far, so I'm a bit nervous. Would the term "bike lunge" be more comprehensible? In the end, a one-week bike race was won because Peter Sagan lunged his bike forward on the finish line and garnered 4 bonus seconds by an inch or so on the last day. Mattsnow81 (Talk) 09:19, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

A thoroughly comprehensive article, well done! I think the term "bike throw" is perfectly acceptable as it is used in the source as well as in the article. The fact that non-cyclists do not know the term is unimportant, and it will likely garner some extra clicks when on the front page. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:26, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
Awesome, thanks! It's a pity there are no really relevant pictures to showcase. Is it guaranteed it will be on the front page so I can put a fancy little template on my userpage next to the article? :) Mattsnow81 (Talk) 09:30, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
Where was my head? Looking at your page it's quite clear I'll receive a template if it happens to go on the front page lol. Nice work, my friend Mattsnow81 (Talk) 09:35, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
Now that it is approved, it should appear in the DYK section on the front page shortly, when its turn comes round. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:41, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Locusta migratoria migratorioides[edit]

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:16, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Cricket (insect)[edit]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Cricket (insect) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. Time2wait.svg This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of FunkMonk -- FunkMonk (talk) 16:01, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Siganus doliatus[edit]

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:01, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Agriculture in the Republic of the Congo[edit]

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:02, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Niari Valley[edit]

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:02, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Chilean trees[edit]

Hi, Round 33 of Wp:Intertranswiki is trees of Chile. I stubbed a few quickly earlier. Is there any chance you could expand/start a few of them? If they can be started in a week we could do a 7 in one DYK I guess? Spanish wiki has some half decent articles on some of them which could be used as a start.

  1. Bosque Andino Patagónico
  2. Aextoxicaceae punctatum (es) XXX
  3. Lomatia dentata
  4. Myrceugenia colchaguensis (es)
  5. Myrceugenia leptospermoides (es)
  6. Myrceugenia rufa
  7. Myrcianthes coquimbensis
  8. Prosopis chilensis
  9. Prosopis flexuosa
  10. Sophora macrocarpa

Dr. Blofeld 22:00, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

OK, I'll have a go over the next few days. Please note that I have started the first one but capitalised its name. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 04:46, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
I've created Patagonian Andean forest and Andean Patagonian forest redirect pages for Bosque Andino Patagónico. Not sure if it is a specific forest than a forest type (Valdivian temperate rain forest Forests ecosystems). --Hanberke (talk) 05:50, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Hanberke. I am responding to Dr Blofeld at the moment but will find out more about the forest in due course. You are right, it looks like it is a forest type rather than an actual forest. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:04, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
The first tree listed above is actually Aextoxicon punctatum and currently exists in the English Wikipedia as Aextoxicon, which is a 597B stub. I will leave this for the moment. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:17, 26 May 2015 (UTC)