User talk:Edibobb: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 10:48, 18 May 2018

Archives

Archive 1

Archive 2

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by when more than 4 sections are present.

This is the beginning.

categorys and templates

hi please add described categorys for your articles by years and add templates for articles thanks

question

hi do another creating articles with bot in future — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amirh123 (talk • contribs) 07:22, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 22

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Lepidopsocidae, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Soa (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:51, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

question

why bot articles not described categorys example boreus nix must have Insects described 1935 category — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amirh123 (talk • contribs) 06:29, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I probably will not add that feature at the moment. The bot is authorized to run as it is currently configured. You might be able to add the articles to those categories, though. Just edit the article and add the category at the bottom. Bob Webster (talk) 00:41, 24 April 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Timema names

The genus is neuter, so under the ICZN the name is spelled "ritense" regardless of how it was originally spelled. Please see here: [1]. Dyanega (talk) 18:07, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks -- I've corrected the species page. Bob Webster (talk) 18:34, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the automatic taxobox is broken and uses ritensis; if you know how to fix that, it would be appreciated. Dyanega (talk) 20:39, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I missed that -- it's fixed now. Thanks.

On a separate issue, do you happen to know whether Meropachydinae or Meropachyinae is correct? I picked the latter, but I was not sure enough to edit the family page Coreidae.

Meropachyinae is correct, the other is a synonym. See [2] - a definitive resource for Coreoidea. Dyanega (talk) 21:29, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 29

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Nemapalpus (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to N. orientalis

Philosciidae (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Perinetia

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:20, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate Purana articles

I see you have created an article Purana (cicada), but we already have Purana (genus), which is linked at Dundubiini and Cicadinae. William Avery (talk) 21:01, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing that out. I'll clean it up. Bob Webster (talk) 21:09, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Incidentally, I only glanced at the tribal scheme for Cicadinae, but the existing articles seemed to be the usual inconsistent mess. William Avery (talk) 08:11, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Eurypepla

Hi. First, I think your recent editing efforts are pretty dang impressive, and very helpful (though I admit to having personal qualms about using automated taxoboxes for groups whose higher classification is in constant flux - that's not a reflection on you, I just don't trust automated taxoboxes as a matter of principle). Second, I noticed that the cassidine genus Eurypepla on one of the pages you recently edited needs to overwrite the existing Eurypepla page, which is a redirect to a moth genus. No one still uses that name for those moths, from what I can see, so having a redirect or even a dablink seems unnecessary. Dyanega (talk) 17:27, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I replaced the redirect with a page on the tortoise beetles. I left a link to the moth genus, even though I agree it's unnecessary. Bob Webster (talk) 18:50, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding list articles

Just FYI, with regards to lists like List of Pselaphinae genera and List of Xystodesmidae genera, style guidelines at MOS:REDUNDANCY state "if the page is a list, do not introduce the list as "This is a list of X" or "This list of Xs..." (similarly, the article Pselaphinae would not begin "This is an article about Pselaphinae..."). A more natural, less redundant way to begin such a list article might simply read: "Pselaphinae, a subfamily of rove beetles, contains around 100 genera and 700 species." See for example List of Paradoxosomatidae genera. --Animalparty! (talk) 06:04, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the information. I agree, that will be an improvement -- I just changed the wording to be less redundant. Bob Webster (talk) 17:01, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bob, can I just follow up Animalparty's point about Lists with a general question, please? I'm interested to see how you've used letter codes and grey text to indicate the data sources of the taxon names in your lists, such as at List of Hapithus species and List of Xystodesmidae genera. Whilst this approach does work (in fact, I quite like it) could you point me towards a style guideline that confirms this is the right approach to take, please? At the Teahouse I've just had to ask an editor who had taken it upon themselves to embolden author names and dates from a couple of your lists to revert their changes, and that was when I noticed the grey text and letter codes (which I thought they had also added themselves). I guess I'm curious on two points: firstly, wouldn't grey text be hard for users with visual problems to perceive, and so is this an approved colour to use? And secondly, I'm interested to understand why you didn't simply repeat the references using [1], [2], [3], etc., and what referencing guideline led you to this approach. I'm not challenging your approach so much as trying to understand how you arrived at this style, and how it fits in with other List of... pages. (PS: Great to see Qbugbot is now autopatrolled and has racked up 15K articles). Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 00:30, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I added these footnotes because I got tired of looking up the source of the genera in these lists, and more importantly, I wanted differentiate the taxa that do not occur in the major databases. For example, Joel Hallan's biology catalog is the main reference for quite a few older pages that have lots of taxa that occur nowhere else on the internet. I hesitate to delete them, because I don't know whether they're legitimate. By showing that they don't appear in GBIF, for example, gives the reader (and me) a hint that they're new, uncommon, or questionable.

I used the superscript letters for data sources because I've frequently seen it done that way in charts (in general, not on Wikipedia).

I tried using black for these, but it looks bad and makes it harder to scan the list. It's no problem to read these in a high-contrast browser theme. Wikipedia uses a similar gray for the text "Search Wikipedia" and "Edit Links" on pages. Just to be safe, I've just darkened the color from "gray" to "dimgray" and now it passes most accessibility tests.

I tried using normal references for these, but (1) they're ugly, (2) they make it harder to scan the list, (3) it's hard to keep track of which which number goes with which data source, and (4) it makes the reference section of the article hard to read when there are 50 or 200 uses of a reference.

Essentially, I added these as a way to efficiently access additional information without sacrificing the usability of the list. I did it this way because that's how I prefer to read it. It's very subjective, but works well and I like it this way. Bob Webster (talk) 04:55, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bit late on the draw to complain possibly, but I've found a few times already that some of the species list articles you have created have introduced mistakes into the lists themselves (even when they were correct before), a lot of them possibly from the online databases themselves I suspect: sometimes authority years go missing or are incorrect, sometimes mispellings appear alongside the actual spelling (sort of like duplicates), and sometimes bizarre apparently nonexistent species names pop up. I've also found a few hiccups with the author wikilinks too; sometimes they end up showing the author's full name instead of being piped, or they just turn into regular text and thus losing the link to the articles on the authors altogether. (Oh, and sometimes I find references to be broken too)

Case in point, List of Dolichopus species. I personally had worked on the species list for the Dolichopus article beforehand, and it kind of annoyed me to see what had happened after the move to the species list article. While I was heavily fixing the page to not list synonyms as valid species, even listing what I found to be synonyms or typos into their own sections, I found that "Dolichopus van der Hoeven, 1856" was introduced among them, apparently listed on GBIF's page for the genus. (I don't even know why GBIF lists that, that's just bizarre.)

Is there anything you could do to mitigate these kind of problems? I don't know if you're doing these pages by script or something, I don't know if it's asking too much of you to avoid these problems, but at the least I thought you should be aware of these things for future list pages anyway.

(I'm also kind of skeptical about relying on the online databases so much anyway, but that's possibly best for another discussion altogether elsewhere?) Monster Iestyn (talk) 21:39, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for messing up your lists. I edited those manually to add taxa for newly-created orphans. I obviously did not proof the results adequately. In the future, with good lists like those you've mentioned here and in the summaries, I'll either leave them alone or just add the taxa from the orphaned page. If you see any more problems like that, let me know and I can straighten it out. Feel free to revert any of my edits. I really hate to waste someone else's time on my mistakes. Bob Webster (talk) 02:05, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Sorry I didn't get to you earlier in that case; I'm not really used to interacting with others on Wikipedia yet, haha. Monster Iestyn (talk) 08:23, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Millipedes of North America: Further reading considerations, categories, and formatting

I've noticed that many millipede of North America articles created by Qbugbot, e.g. Underwoodia iuloides, include the essentially useless "Further reading" of Atlas of the millipedes (Diplopoda) of Britain and Ireland. As bots are automatic but not smart, a much more realistically useful reference for North American millipedes is "Hoffman, R. (1999). Checklist of the millipeds of North and Middle America. Virginia Museum of Natural History Special Publications 8, 1–553." And, for all millipedes, please drop the general references "Capinera, John L., ed. (2008). Encyclopedia of Entomology" and "Brusca, Richard C.; Moore, Wendy; Shuster, Stephen M. (2016). Invertebrates (3rd ed.)" as MOS:FURTHER states "that would help interested readers learn more about the article subject", and the only species specifically mentioned in the over 4,000 pages of Capinera 2008 is Oxidus gracilis, and the general info on the class Diplopoda in both aforementioned tertiary sources is comparable to our Wikipedia article. A more relevant, focused source on general millipede biology and diversity that should replace the two texts above is Minelli, Alessandro, ed. (2015). Treatise on Zoology - Anatomy, Taxonomy, Biology. The Myriapoda, Volume 2. Brill. ISBN 978-9004156128.

Also, it would be very helpful if North American millipedes were automatically placed into Category:Millipedes of North America (and others in appropriate Category:Millipedes by continent). Lastly, please fix the typo "Brewer, M.S.; Sierwald, P.; Bond, J.E>" in "Millipede Taxonomy after 250 Years" which currently appears in over 90 articles, and omit "Kolokotronis, Sergios-Orestis, ed" in the same reference, which is a fluke of auto-generating citations from PLOS journal DOIs (editors of journal articles are conventionally not including in standard references). Thanks, --Animalparty! (talk) 20:13, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the input. I'll make these changes on new pages created starting today. (The exception is adding the category for millipedes on continents other than North America. All the millipedes in this run are in North America, but it will take a some work to add the other continents because the geographic data is currently so messy.) I'll add this to a list of things to fix after the page creation is complete -- after these are done, I plan to request bot authorization to scan pages made by qbugbot and make fixes. Bob Webster (talk) 21:09, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for looking into it. At least the good thing with millipedes and centipedes is that, aside from a handful of widespread introduced species, most are restricted to a single continent, if not single country. --Animalparty! (talk) 21:29, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

One more issue has pooped up: The Minelli, 2015, source is giving an error due to a misplaced period in the ISBN field (see e.g. Conotyla blakei, Abacion tesselatum, and Trichopetalum uncum). Lastly, it would be helpful if future iterations of bot creations could link to other-language articles, Wikispecies, and Commons via Wikidata (WP:ILL). Polyxenus pugetensis contains a link to its corresponding Wikidata item in the taxonbar, but the article itself is not linked to Wikidata nor the three other foreign language articles. It's possible that another bot will link them eventually, but it's also possible that two parallel Wikidata entries get created for the same taxon. --Animalparty! (talk) 05:27, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I can take full credit for that "poop up" -- I just typed it in today. Thanks! I'll look into the foreign language links for next time. Bob Webster (talk) 05:33, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

oh wow, what a typo! I think I'm pooped as well! - Cheers. --Animalparty! (talk) 06:00, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Another RfC on Net Neutrality

A month ago you participated in an RfC at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 147#Net neutrality. The same proposal has been posted again at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Proposal: A US-only CentralNotice in support of Net Neutrality. (This notice has been sent to all who participated in the prior RfC, regardless of which side they supported). --Guy Macon (talk) 20:50, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

question

work bot is finish Amirh123 (talk) 07:44, 9 May 2018 (UTC)finish[reply]

Yes, it finished May 7.

but many articles have very red links example List of Stenotabanus species

The bot was authorized to make articles for tax listed in both ITIS and Bugguide. Maybe more articles can be created in the future, removing some of the red links. It is probably not worth it to have an article for every name, because some are not likely to be expanded beyond the taxonomic information in the pages of the parent.

Triarius genus and spp. in Category:Luperina

I notice you put the article Triarius (genus) and associated species in Category:Luperina, which is under Category:Hadeninae. I'm afraid I don't know enough about beetles to quickly determine whether that's a simple mistake, or the result of a clash of synonyms. William Avery (talk) 21:37, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Synetocephalus autumnalis has also been created with Category:Luperina. William Avery (talk) 21:44, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also Scelida and Scelolyperus William Avery (talk) 22:05, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Luperina is a moth genus and a beetle subtribe. I'll put the moth genus on the current template "Luperina", pointing at Apameini, and put the beetle genera on a new "Luperina (beetle)", since a subtribe is not an important rank. Bob Webster (talk) 22:37, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for May 10

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Endomychidae, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Saula and Chondria (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 23:01, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Xylophilus

You mention in the subgenus Melasinae the wrong Xylophilus. This have to be Xylophilus Mannerheim, 1823. PeterR (talk) 10:48, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 130: / Line 130: @@
 ([[User:DPL bot|Opt-out instructions]].) --[[User:DPL bot|DPL bot]] ([[User talk:DPL bot|talk]]) 23:01, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
+===Xylophilus===
+You mention in the subgenus Melasinae the wrong Xylophilus. This have to be Xylophilus Mannerheim, 1823. [[User:PeterR|PeterR]] ([[User talk:PeterR|talk]]) 10:48, 18 May 2018 (UTC)