User talk:Animalparty

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

Contents

Your GA nomination of Unicorn (spider)[edit]

The article Unicorn (spider) you nominated as a good article has passed Symbol support vote.svg; see Talk:Unicorn (spider) 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. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of FunkMonk -- FunkMonk (talk) 10:21, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Robert C. Stebbins[edit]

The article Robert C. Stebbins you nominated as a good article has passed Symbol support vote.svg; see Talk:Robert C. Stebbins 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. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Stigmatella aurantiaca -- Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 00:22, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Holacanthus africanus[edit]

Thank you for reviewing my newly created article (above). I deleted the section flagged as unreferenced, as it does fall under the terms of original research. All my best, Pufferfyshe (talk) 16:53, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
Follow-up: your tip (most recent change to my personal talk page) is much appreciated. If I may, I would draw your kind attention to another creation of mine: Chaetodon larvatus. Best wishes, Pufferfyshe (talk) 23:46, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Monotypic taxa[edit]

I am not at all sure that what you have done is sensible. The taxonomy in this phylum is nightmarishly complex with different multiple differing opinions on the taxonomy. A recent proposal has been made to revise the gregarine taxonomy entirely has been made - see Gregarinasina. This is not the only proposal fr this taxon's revision. Whether or not a taxon remains monotypic or even continues in existence is an open question givn the amount of work being done on classification with the genomes. Given this state of flux it is IMHO a lot easier to leave the page alone in case the taxon has multiple other subtaxa added to it. What might be sensible for other more stable taxa may prove very messy for this one. There are not to many other editors working on this phylum. Virion123 (talk) 11:52, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

@Virion123: Thanks for weighing in. I admit I am not familiar with modern advances in apicomplexans. However, we as editors are tasked with summarizing and distilling sometimes complex and contradictory classifications to be accessible for the lay reader, and neutral with respect to the existing body of relevant literature. In the case of Porosporicae and Porosporidae the content as written was nearly identical, thus causing the user to navigate two articles to get the same redundant information. Ditto for Fusionicae and Fusionidae. However I am not familiar with the history of these taxa: if they have long been widely considered monotypic, it would be better to treat them as such and discuss new ideas within a single article. If they were only recently reclassified as monotypic, then perhaps further discussion and restructuring of other articles should occur. When there are differing taxonomic opinions, especially in primary literature (e.g. a recent classification, revision or phylogeny that has yet to gain standing), it is often preferable to choose the classification that currently has the widest consensus among secondary and tertiary sources, as required for policies of neutrality (especially due weight), and discuss dissenting or alternative views within one article. If two opposing views are roughly equal in prominence, we as Wikipedians may have to arbitrarily choose one and explain. Classification schemes of encyclopedic articles should be somewhat resistant to changes based on bleeding edge research: otherwise we risk unduly representing (or even promoting) ideas before they've been widely accepted, or giving the impression of a false balance (I know from experience it's easy to fall into the trap of recentism). In both of these monotypic taxa articles I only see primary sources older than 1970 listed, thus it is hard to gauge consensus of, or even verify, current classification schemes. From your edit history I am sure you have some familiarity with these organisms, and I'm happy to leave the job of assessing due weight to you and others more specialized than myself. The ideal result is a series of articles that are mutually consistent, give well-balanced information with context, have minimal redundancy or duplication, and are easy to navigate and read. All the best! --Animalparty! (talk) 21:52, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
Thank for the above. The primary references were chosen as it is conventional to give the original describers of a taxon the credit. The last major revision of this phylum was by Levine in 1970. Since then every revision has been of smaller taxa. Cavilier-Smith has been working on the major divisions of the protozoa for several decades and he is probably the world authority on these. He is not always right and has corrected himself on several occasions.
Concerning recentism - this is problematic in this area. DNA sequencing and analysis has transformed taxonomy. This phylum aside from some favoured taxa has been seriously neglected and only now undergoing revision. The problem is that several genera that were regarded as monotypic turn out not to be and species that were in different taxa have been moved to other taxa. For example for decades Cryptosporium was regarded as a coccidian. DNA says that it is not. This has since been confirmed on additional multiple studies. It appears to be a basal gregarine. The genus Haemosporia is placed in the coccida but DNA suggests that it belongs with Plasmodium. There is a genus in the family Plasmodium that infects leeches. It has been isolated only on one occasion and probably does not belong to that family at all. In fact it may be a parasite from another animal that the leech ingested. This is a problem that has been shown to occur with Xenoturblia when DNA studies suggested that this organism belong to one phylum while others suggested it belongs to another. The recognition that the PCR was amplifing ingested prey DNA clarified that story. I could continue but I hope you get the picture. These taxa are a mess and subject to wrenching revisions.
Concerning your advice. These suggestions are rather anodyne and fail to address the compexity of the problem. My own thinking on the matter is because these taxa are subject to sporadic and unexpected revision - see that suggested one in the Gregarines - I prefer to future proof the taxonomy as far as I can. If you think restructuring of the pages should occur, please feel free to contribute because it is a fairly lonely place working on the taxonomy here.Virion123 (talk) 12:51, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Boulenger & Boulenger.[edit]

Hello, Animal Party! Thanks for writing the article on Edward George Boulenger. Also, I do believe you are correct that "E.G." is the correct taxon author (binomial authority) for Chalcides armitagei and not his father George Albert Boulenger. Even though I've been using Boulenger's Catalogues of the ... in the British Museum (Natural History) for over 50 years, I never knew "G.A." had a son! Keep up the good work. Regards, Lyttle-Wight (talk) 02:47, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Eucteniza[edit]

The article Eucteniza you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold Symbol wait.svg. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Eucteniza for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Delldot -- Delldot (talk) 16:21, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 23[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Sinocorophium, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Posterior and Basal (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) 09:46, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Angus M. Woodbury[edit]

Hello, AnimalParty, Thank you for your feedback on the picture I uploaded of Angus M. Woodbury. I am the grandson of Angus and have the original picture in my possession. What is the correct way to release copyright? DJW56 (talk) 05:05, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

@DJW56: Hi! I'm actually not sure about that case. The copyright status depends on several things such as who created the image (if known), if and where and when the image was first published, and possibly the date of death of the creator. Ownership or possession of an image does not necessarily grant right to copy or re-license. The best way to find definitive answers would be to post a question at Commons:Village pump/Copyright. Also, FYI there are some differences between Wikipedia and Commons: Wikipedia can host limited copyrighted material under fair use doctrine (e.g. album covers or images of deceased people for which no free equivalent exists), but such images cannot be uploaded to Commons. All the best, --Animalparty! (talk) 05:35, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

On jaguars[edit]

Thank you for the advice, I put in the reference on the tests that failed to establish that the jaguar is divided into different subspecies, but, having a look at other sources, this could be reviewed. Thanks. (Leo1pard (talk) 13:20, 26 October 2015 (UTC))

Your GA nomination of Richard M. Eakin[edit]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Richard M. Eakin 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 Cwmhiraeth -- Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:21, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

If you would like to respond to the small number of suggestions I made on the review page, I could complete this review before I go on holiday tomorrow. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:02, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

You're invited! Women in Red World Virtual Edit-a-thon on Women in Science[edit]

You are invited! Join us remotely!

World Virtual Edit-a-thon on Women in Science

Love Heart KammaRahbek.SVG
Women Science.png
  • Dates: 8 to 29 November 2015
  • Location: Worldwide/virtual/online event
  • Host/Facilitator: Women in Red (WiR) in collaboration with Women scientists: Did you know that only 15% of the biographies on Wikipedia are about women? WiR focuses on "content gender gap". If you'd like to help contribute articles on women and women's works, we warmly welcome you!
  • Sponsor: New York Academy of Sciences
  • Event details: This is a virtual edit-a-thon hosted by WiR in parallel with a "physical" event during the afternoon of Sunday, November 22 in New York City. It will allow all those keen to improve Wikipedia's coverage of women in science to participate. As the virtual edit-a-thon stretches over three weeks, new participants will be able to draw on the assistance of more experienced editors while creating, translating or improving articles on women who are (or have been) prominent in the field. All levels of Wikipedia editing experience are welcome.
  • RSVP and learn more: →here←--Ipigott (talk) 11:24, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Marvalee Wake[edit]

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:02, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

JSTOR cleanup drive[edit]

Wikipedia Library owl.svg

Hello TWL users! We hope JSTOR has been a useful resource for your work. We're organizing a cleanup drive to correct dead links to JSTOR articles – these require JSTOR access and cannot easily be corrected by bot. We'd love for you to jump in and help out!


See the list


Sent of behalf of Nikkimaria for The Wikipedia Library's JSTOR using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:18, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Ida Shepard Oldroyd[edit]

Symbol question.svg Hello! Your submission of Ida Shepard Oldroyd at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Mobile Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 18:00, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

All it needs is the QPQ. Mobile Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 18:00, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

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) 14:06, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Ralph Vary Chamberlin[edit]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Ralph Vary Chamberlin 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 Sasata -- Sasata (talk) 19:40, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Mary Cynthia Dickerson[edit]

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:01, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Ida Shepard Oldroyd[edit]

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Margaret Reed Lewis has been nominated for Did You Know[edit]

A barnstar for you![edit]

Writers Barnstar Hires.png The Writer's Barnstar
Thanks for the writing such a wonderful and concise article on Ida Shepard Oldroyd! Absolutely fantastic!

--♥Golf (talk) 07:32, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for participating[edit]

Spirochaeta thermophila[edit]

Thanks for your feedback; I will make the edits to Volumes and page numbers of the sources listed since I have all of them handy! Achau11 (talk) 23:13, 3 December 2015 (UTC)achau11

Pediobius foveolatus[edit]

Thanks for letting me know! I have amended the section on how to use the wasp, to read more as factual statements about how the wasp is generally used in agriculture. I will remove or change the citations with my work in them (I'm looking over the rules now). Let me know if my changes are adequate, or how I can make them so. Thanks again! — Preceding unsigned comment added by LouNottingham (talkcontribs) 21:03, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

A beer for you![edit]

Export hell seidel steiner.png hi SushiGod (talk) 05:14, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Odin Biron[edit]

Animalparty, there has been a reply to your review that asks whether the issues you raised have been satisfactorily addressed. Can you please stop by to continue the review? Many thanks. If you'd instead like me to find another reviewer, just let me know here and I will add the request to the nomination template. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:09, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Beverly Thomas Galloway[edit]

Symbol question.svg Hello! Your submission of Beverly Thomas Galloway at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! SusunW (talk) 01:42, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

A kitten for you![edit]

Kitten-stare.jpg

HELLO

SushiGod (talk) 04:25, 9 December 2015 (UTC)


Levantino Spanish talk[edit]

Please we need with a possibly unbiased appreciation that you could help, to have a consensus or better yet, the better name seeing the two tesis or three of the name, or create a new one, we need you in the Talk:Levantino Spanish. thanks.--Vvven (talk) 02:11, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

@Vvven: I'm afraid this subject is far from my area of familiarity, and so I won't be participating in the discussion. You might get more informed contributions from editors at Wikipedia:WikiProject Languages, Wikipedia:WikiProject Catalan-speaking countries, and/or Wikipedia:WikiProject Spain. In my opinion, the best way to resolve this issue is less personal views on the talk page and more references to authoritative sources. It matters less what we (Wikipedians) think than what reliable sources state. Cheers, --Animalparty! (talk) 07:29, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 13[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited James Alan Montgomery, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Episcopalian (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) 09:07, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Demographics of San Francisco city[edit]

Good idea re the page move. I tried to do that, but could not. I think because of the existing redirect. I'm not sure how to proceed at this point. Is this something I can learn how to do myself? -- If so, can you point me to the tutorial. Or do I need an admin or someone else to take care of it? Thanks in advance. CUA 27 (talk) 15:41, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

@CUA 27: I put in a technical request for the move: see Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests. It should be uncontroversial, but there might be a little dirt as an administrator moves things around and re-establishes edit history, etc. In the future, you can probably make many moves yourself (unless there are articles or redirects with substantial history in the way), since you should be autoconfirmed with the number of page edits and duration of your account. More info is at Help:How to move a page. All the best, --Animalparty! (talk) 21:57, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for showing me how to do that, and for the helpful tutorial. In future, if I want to do something similar — i.e., I want to turn a section into a new article, but a redirect to that section already exits, what is the best way to proceed? Should I create the new article with a different name, and then put in a technical request for a move? Or is there a better way? I don't know how to delete a redirect that leads back to a section heading. CUA 27 (talk) 02:20, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you[edit]

Biographystar.png The Biography Barnstar
For all your biographies of biologists, in general, but especially for your recent efforts on past BSA presidents. I silently curse when I see new articles on botanists, as there are usually several other Wikignomish edits that still need to be done.
  1. Author abbreviation given in article?YesY
  2. Author abbreviation represented on Wikipedia via redirect and/or link on surname page?YesY
  3. Article linked on List of botanists by author abbreviation?YesY}
  4. WikiProject Biography, WikiProject Plants and, when applicable, WikiProject Women scientists banners added to talk page?YesY

You get all of these things done. Thank you for your article creations. Plantdrew (talk) 02:47, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Raffi[edit]

Hi. I'm trying to move Raffi (musician) to Raffi, not delete a redirect as your edit summary suggested. I'll start a discussion on Talk:Raffi (musician), though it seems like overkill. --MZMcBride (talk) 23:17, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Re: On images and attribution in captions.[edit]

Thanks for your comment on my talk page. I appreciate the advice and the help. However having previously had difficulties with copyright and licenses on the Wikipedia I'm now so risk adverse that I'm ensuring I comply completely with any copyright licenses and follow the advice given to ensure compliance unless advised legally otherwise. I've researched the ideal attribution and am following exactly the advice given by the Creative Commons website, the organisation that created the original licenses. As I understand it, this is the ideal attribution and is correct. I recognise that it may not be elegant but I'm confident I'm legally complying with both copyright and the CC BY 4.0 license by attributing the images this way. I'm following this advice in the caption and have improved my citation techniques in line with advice from other Wikipedia editors. Obviously I'd be prepared to adapt my attribution techniques if given legal advice of the same by either Wikipedia or Creative Commons lawyers but until then will be following the exact advice given by the Creative Commons website as regards ideal attribution. As explained, I've been bitten by copyright infringement previously on Wikipedia and refuse to put myself into that situation again. I'd also like to point out the other reason why I attribute images as I do. Please read my message on Talk:Hyphalus wisei. Thank you again for your help and advice. I do appreciate it. Ambrosia10 (talk) 08:02, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Re:Thanks for creating Aspidopleres[edit]

Hi,thanks for your note:

"Note that monotypic taxa should generally be discussed along with their parent, per WP:MONOTYPICFAUNA, i.e. in a genus such as this, the sole species should be a redirect".

I accordingly have created such a redirect at Aspidopleres intercalatus. Please let me know if anything more is due before a new species gets described. :D Cheers, JonRichfield (talk) 19:37, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Margaret Reed Lewis[edit]

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:01, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Moving My Userbox/Einstein page[edit]

Thank you for moving that page so quickly! (I think it was less than 30 seconds.) I realized right after I clicked on the create page that I put it in the main space instead of making it one of my subpages. A big oops. Since there are no links to the redirect page, if you know how to delete it, please feel free to do so (I even encourage it, as it will reduce clutter). Ira Leviton (talk) 00:17, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Barnstar of Diligence.png The Barnstar of Diligence
message Ira Leviton (talk) 00:19, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

RE: A page you started (Paspaleae) has been reviewed![edit]

Thanks four your comments RE Paspaleae. I've now added the year when the tribe was recognised as distinct. I've also detailed and linked the "chromosome number"; "x", the monoploid number, actually has a special meaning. Tylototriton (talk) 09:36, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Beverly Thomas Galloway[edit]

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:02, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Francoise Dussart editing[edit]

How to I delete one of the references as I now putting in external link? Adubois88 (talk) 19:27, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Ralph Vary Chamberlin[edit]

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:01, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

A quick heads up[edit]

A quick heads up that I've nominated Incest in entertainment for deletion at WP:AFD, this being an article which you tagged for Notability. best, —Tim /// Carrite (talk) 18:37, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Confusion over Hetrick's status[edit]

Hello Animalparty, first of all happy new year! I was a little unsure about Hetrick's current status if he's alive or not, because as of 1953 he was retired, so that would make him really old right now, so as for now I think the living people tag is not certain. Thanks!

COI and suspected IP sockpuppetry at Sairu[edit]

Hello, @Animalparty:. I am asking for your help, because you originally identified the conflict of interest here, where Wikisaichan was editing Sairu. If you choose not to get involved with that issue any more, please just let me know and I will find other ways to pursue it.

Since your note, Wikisaichan has stopped editing but suddenly an IP editor (118.1.138.55) has taken over; I suspect it is the same person. He/she is making worse and worse edits, and refusing to engage on the talk page. Proper grammar and spelling are removed in favour of strange sentence fragments, maintenance tags are removed, dozens of references to FaceBook, blogs and unverifiable YouTube videos are added - one single statement has 25 references (all useless).

I am not used to dealing with such a recalcitrant editor, and I was hoping you could provide some suggestions. I can't warn the IP using the usual tools. I am not convinced that the article is beyond saving, so I am reluctant to go to AfD. I have almost no hair left to pull out. Are you able to offer any suggestions?--Gronk Oz (talk) 13:30, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

@Gronk Oz: Ugh, the article is certainly atrocious cosplay-cruft, but I don't have the mental stamina to investigate the sources beyond the clearly inappropriate Facebook links. It appears likely that Wikisaichan is or is affiliated with the subject (Saichan, Sairuchan, see -chan), or at the most gracious an overly avid fan unfamiliar with Wikipedia policy. IP 118.1.138.55 is apparently based in Tokyo [1], and both are SPAs but perhaps not yet sufficient to establish sock-puppetry. WP:COIBOARD or WP:ANI may be a last resort, but less drastic measures include notifying users at WikiProject Belgium, WikiProject Anime and manga, and WikiProject Japan, seeing if they can provide evaluate claims of notability and/or provide better, more reliable sources. --Animalparty! (talk) 18:10, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
Thank you very much! That sounds like the perfect way to bring some fresh eyes to the topic. Smile.gif --Gronk Oz (talk) 02:16, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Tireless Contributor Barnstar Hires.gif The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
thank you very much for letting me know and i will keep trying to work harder on making a new article it just seems everyone i know about has already been written United kingdoms my home (talk) 21:15, 3 January 2016 (UTC)


Help![edit]

Enteromorpha is a genus of algae. However on entering that word I am let to "Sea lettuce" Ulva lactuca! I suspect this is because the two genera "Ulva" and "Enteromorpha" have at times become a little confused! E. intestinalis was once referred to as Ulva intestinalis. However The genus Enteromorpha does exist! Please help me enter it.Osborne 21:41, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

@Osborne: Apparently the two genera were synonymized with this 2003 paper. I don't know if this represents the current predominant view among phycologists: I know little about plant taxonomy, even less about algal taxonomy, but under the scheme used in Wikipedia Enteromorpha intestinalis = Ulva intestinalis. Undoubtedly there are sources that use different classifications; if you can find more recent, reliable, and authoritative sources (preferably books or review articles or other secondary sources that evaluate evidence or indicate a consensus view), by all means cite them. You might try posing a question at Wikipedia:WikiProject Algae, although that project currently doesn't seem to be very active. Cheers, --Animalparty! (talk) 03:49, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Plantdrew has contacted me on this matter with a reference of 2003: Hayden, Blomster, Maggs et al. 2003. (Is this the ref you noted above?) I must submit! Damn. I don't like it! Thank you for your advice. Osborne 20:30, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

remove a page[edit]

Hi. You recently commented the Revista mexicana de astronomia y astrofisica asking to do some links to it. I was doing it and found that it is more convenient to create a new page with slightly different name: Revista Mexicana de Astronomia y Astrofisica. How can the first one be removed, or point to the second one? Thanks for your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by StarObs (talkcontribs) 16:43, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Séralini affair[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Séralini affair. Legobot (talk) 00:05, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Ralph Vary Chamberlin[edit]

I haven't commented at the link you put at WP:SPIDERS because I notice that it goes to an archive, and I'm not sure it should be discussed there. Ralph Vary Chamberlin is clearly a very good article, and I'm not sure what you could do to improve it, although I noticed that the alt tags don't really follow WP:ALT and for featured articles they should. It would be nice to know exactly why he was banned from the Museum of Comparative Zoology, although Mayr is known for his combativeness – his attacks on cladistics and its followers are not especially temperate. Knowing that zoologists have been known to choose names to settle scores, I couldn't help noticing that Chamberlineptus contains "ineptus". :-) Peter coxhead (talk) 20:49, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

@Peter coxhead: Thanks for your comments. I'm a bit unsure on how much detail to include in alt, so have added "see caption" if the caption contains largely the same information (I don't think facial appearance, pose, or clothing is relevant detail to include). Regarding the "ineptus", from my observations, millipede nomenclature tends to heavily follow tradition or historical precedent in suffixes: thus many polydesmidan genera end in -desmus and many spirostreptid genera end in -eptus or -streptus, and this is likely a similar suffix. But there very well may be some hidden pun or less than honorary intent! Also, I believe Peer review discussions automatically go into "archive" by default, but as long as they are not closed, discussion and comments can be made there (see for example Wikipedia:Peer review/Stone Town/archive1). --Animalparty! (talk) 21:40, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Salt Mud Slide[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Salt Mud Slide. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:ExxonMobil[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:ExxonMobil. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Staten Island boat graveyard[edit]

Thanks for adding the image to the article. I was about to go add it to the DYK nomination, but I see you have already reviewed it. Do you think it would be appropriate to include the image in the DYK nomination, or is it too dark and too detailed to show up well in the very small version which would be used on the mainpage? --MelanieN (talk) 16:14, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

@MelanieN: I don't think that image would make a good DYK image- it's dark and detailed, and doesn't have much contrast. I set the thumbnail larger than default for these reason. --Animalparty! (talk) 20:22, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
I kinda thought so. But it works really well in the article, thank you! --MelanieN (talk) 21:04, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Climate change denial[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Climate change denial. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

DYK for David Wasawo[edit]

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Categorization of redirects from scientific names of animals[edit]

Hi, I noticed you removed a category at Aphonopelma hentzi. Until recently, I mostly edited plant articles, and the norm at WP:PLANTS is to categorize scientific names into the appropriate taxonomic categories (as just one example, see [2]). This makes it easier for anyone who uses the category system to traverse the taxonomic hierarchy. There's also the issue of where to put [[Category:Animals described in 1852]] for this species. "Texas brown tarantula" was not published in 1852; the specific name "hentzii" [with this spelling] was what was published (at that time in the genus Mygale) and what is attributed to Girard, 1852.

Is there any Wikipedia guidance on categorizing such redirects for animals? Peter coxhead (talk) 17:33, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

@Peter coxhead: The general guidelines are at Wikipedia:Categorizing redirects, which states "Most redirects should not be placed in article categories." From that, my own rule of thumb is that if both redirect and target end up in the same category, it's largely redundant and can result in cluttered categories. I don't think any animal group has a categorization scheme as complex as plants (e.g. Category:Banksia taxa by common name and Category:Banksia taxa by scientific name. While names and taxa are semantically different, I think in most cases treating names and organisms as equivalent entities (for the sake of Wikipedia articles) facilitates browsing and categorization. --Animalparty! (talk) 20:33, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
But the guideline does permit categorizing alternative names here: Wikipedia:Categorizing redirects#Alternative names for articles. For plants, where 99% of the articles are at scientific names, it makes it more difficult to reconcile category membership with a list of species when the handful of scientific name redirects aren't listed in the category. When just 1 of 34 articles in Category:Aphonopelma is at the vernacular name it seems useful to me to add the single scientific name redirect to get a comprehensive list of Aphonopelma species with articles. If it's a 50/50 mix of vernacular and scientific names in a category, yeah, just stick to categorizing article and not redirects. Snakes go a lot further than plants in terms of complex parallel categorization schemes (see Category:Snakes by common name and Category:Snakes by taxonomic synonyms). Plantdrew (talk) 22:11, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
@Plantdrew: Those are valid points, and there may not be anything wrong in fact with having common names and scientific names in the same category, similar to listing both in an index. I don't have strong opinions either way. --Animalparty! (talk) 23:09, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
Treating each case on its merits, I do find compelling the argument that when just 1 of 34 articles in Category:Aphonopelma is at the vernacular name it seems useful to me to add the single scientific name redirect to get a comprehensive list of Aphonopelma species with articles. So I think the redirect should be categorized. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:37, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Motorcycling/Conventions[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Motorcycling/Conventions. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 11 February 2016 (UTC)