User talk:Loopy30

Purple-crowned fairywren

Hi we appreciated if you can fix and improve this article Purple-crowned fairywren thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.148.156.70 (talk) 00:55, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Tricoloured munia

BarrelProof seems to have left all the New World "grey" titled pages alone, but wants to discuss the tricoloured munia further. The IOC lists it as the tricolored munia, but keeps on reverting it to tricoloured pending a requested move discussion.Pvmoutside (talk) 22:48, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

your revert on kinder surprise

Frankly: No. More than 50% of the entire product is made of plastic. If you are not suffering from a figure-ground distinction weakness, tell me how the plastic insides are not worthy of a mention. -- Kku (talk) 13:46, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi Kku, the issue in the Kinder Surprise article is not that having plastic insides is "not worthy of a mention". In fact it is worthy of a mention and as such, this information is presently included in the article. Instead, the issue here is the desire to link the words "plastic container" to an article that contains no further amplifying information about Kinder Surprise. To quote my previous response in August:

"While linking pages is one of Wikipedia's great strengths, over-linking is distracting to the reader, even sub-consciously when the link is not selected. Common words should not be linked to unless there is information at that page that is specifically relevant to the topic. The plastic container page contains no additional depth of information related to candy packaging in general or this candy in particular. Even your comments above have more info than the plastic container page which states little more than that plastic containers are, well, "containers" (of different shapes) made of ... umm, "plastic". Perhaps your comments on packaging weight ratios can be added to the Kinder Surprise page? Or in a more general section about candy packaging on the plastic containers page, with a sentence highlighting the low content weight rate of Kinder Surprise as an example?"

Please read MOS:OVERLINK for further information if needed. Loopy30 (talk) 19:14, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Finishing Octocorallia automatic taxoboxes

Hi Loopy30. I gather you were probably working through Octocorallia automatic taxobox conversion with a top down approach (starting with a higher taxon and working through subordinate taxa). That's the approach I'm taking with plant automatic taxoboxes. However, you missed a few articles. Going top down, articles can get missed if a parent taxon doesn't exist, or is treated as a synonym, or if a species isn't listed on a genus page (which could be due to simple oversight, a newly described species, or a synonymy issue). If you're approaching completion of converting to automatic taxoboxes for a particular group, it's a good idea to double-check with PetScan for anything you may have missed. Here is the PetScan search for Octocorallia still using manual taxoboxes (note the category under the Category tab and the template under the Templates&links tab). Plantdrew (talk) 20:17, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi Plantdrew, I have indeed been going though the articles trying to update the taxoboxes using a top down method. It is only very recently that I have noticed that I have been missing some pages using this approach. Many times, I then created a stub genus article to "link the taxa" pages. I haven't put this into practice for higher levels of taxa though. I started to search for the genus name too, to see if any article pages showed up and have caught a few more that way. Harder still, are articles at older taxonomic names (synonyms) that I wouldn't have automatically searched for, but should be mapped to newer names. I will look at the PetScan link that you have suggested as I have not seen or used it before and perhaps can then retroactively finish the Medusozoa and Octocorallia pages. THere certainly seems to be lots to do everywhere! Thanks for your help, 'Cheers, Loopy30 (talk) 20:39, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Oooh, that is a useful link. Does it draw from the addition of "Categories" to the article pages? It is easy to use and it says that there are only 15 pages left. I might actually finish something! Loopy30 (talk) 20:47, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes, the search I linked depends on categories; it will still miss articles that are lacking a taxonomic category. In the search I linked, it looks for articles in categories up to levels deep under Category:Octocorallia (six levels is deeper than needed to get to the lowest subcategory level, but it's better to go deeper than needed, than not deep enough). There are other ways PetScan can be used to search aside from categories; I've done PetScan searches using thee WikiProject Algae talk page template to find algae articles to convert to automatic taxoboxes (but Marine life/Animals WikiProject banners are probably too general to provide much help in finding cnidarians to convert). I think PetScan could also be used to find articles where Wikidata has Octocorallia as a parent taxon, but I haven't yet figured out how to make that kind of search work. Plantdrew (talk) 21:23, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Since you are working on algae articles, perhaps you could look at Margaretia dorus. Although originally thought to be a coral, it now appears to have been re-classified as a green alga. Loopy30 (talk) 22:52, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

I've merged Margaretia dorus into Margaretia. The latest interpretation is that it is a hemichordate. Ugh. I don't enjoy working on enigmatic fossil taxa. Plantdrew (talk) 01:41, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for that, I would like to do more on on paleo-ornithology articles as well, but need access to a lot more references before I can wade into that subject. I think there are now only nine Octocorallia articles left with manual taxoboxes still to convert. Loopy30 (talk) 02:22, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Csawant

Thanks for reaching out Loopy30 (talk).