User talk:Loopy30
Archives (index) |
|---|
| Threads older than 70 days may be archived by MiszaBot III. |
Contents
Reference names[edit]
Thanks for your comment at User_talk:HNdlROdU#Reference_names_again_2. They seem determined, even though they then end up doing complicated edits like this to preserve their system. Do you think it is time for a series of formal escalating "disruptive editing" templates, potentially leading to ANI and then an official warning to comply or be blocked? PamD 14:02, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
- Hello PamD, I consider that the five warnings given already do constitute a series of formal escalating warnings for "disruptive editing", and that he is now at Level 3. I do note that while he has posted to a few others' user talk pages, he has never responded to messages posted on his own talk page and has simply ignored all warnings and advice given. I also consider his practice of reverting automatic taxoboxes (here), tagging 2.3kb edits as minor (here), and mis-spelling existing templates (here) as petty but still disruptive editing. For the most part, his contributions are helpful but occasionally some appear of uncertain validity as he has not included the sources used or relied on primary sources only. Loopy30 (talk) 17:29, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
- I see he's still at it. But have you spotted that Visual Editor seems to give reference "names" as numbers (though not Roman numbers!) automatically, or perhaps by default? I don't use it myself but I see articles created with it. Sad if we have an editing tool which is going against policy. PamD 10:00, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
- Hi PamD, while I normally edit in source mode, I will almost always use the Visual Editor when adding new citations to an article. I did a test in my sandbox and can see the numbering issue in the reference citations as you described. Following the criteria above then, this use of the Visual Editor could also be described as "disruptive editing" (!). Possibly HNdlROdU is using some type of script or add-in that is automatically producing these Roman numeral cite names, but of course we don't know this because s/he has not responded to any of our notifications to date. Is there a specific technical/coding reason that numbered citation names are not recommended or permitted, or is it just an MOS style thing? Unlike the other editing issues identified in August, if these are just MOS infractions that are generated automatically, then perhaps we should not be too hard on them. After all, s/he is providing accurately sourced new material to the project. "Cheers Loopy30 (talk) 20:04, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
- I've mentioned VE's disruptive behaviour at WP Talk:Citing sources and reported it at Phabricator. Will be interesting to see the response. PamD 20:33, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
Extinctions[edit]
Hello! I think I found the source that the IP editor was using for the multiple bird species extinctions (Cryptic treehunter, Spix's macaw, Po'ouli, and Pernambuco Pygmy Owl). This article was pointed to in a Guardian article (here) on 4 Sep. The Red List hasn't been updated yet, so probably the articles should reflect the existing classification, but it may be useful to add as a reference to their (possible) extinction. Thanks, and happy editing! PohranicniStraze (talk) 15:28, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
- Hi PohranicniStraze, the Guardian article was also added as a reference for extinction by another editor (Thomas Ludwig) in the Pernambuco pygmy owl article. I reviewed it before reverting and found that on closer reading, despite the recommendation in the quoted paper by Butchart et al, the Guardian still did not state that BirdLife had changed or was going to change the IUCN rating to extinct. As for the newly proposed method of recommending an extinct classification, it is algorithmic but still based on an arbitrary threshold that has not yet been adopted by anyone else. As such, I have reverted the unsourced changes where found. 'Cheers, Loopy30 (talk) 17:05, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
- I've reverted your miraculous resurrection of the Spix as "unsourced". I have no wish to get into a twitcher's pissing contest over this, but really? Just from the WP editing practice standpoint, in no way should that have been reverted as "unsourced". Nor do I want to see another WP claim that all UK tabloids are banned as sources.
- If you want to argue for the continuing wild survival of the Spix, then you're going to need a phenomenal source. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:05, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
- Hello Andy Dingley, while the retention of the Spix's macaw's status as "potentially extinct" cries more of a black knight refusing to admit his fate than of any miraculous resurrection, it is the recent change to the Spix's macaw status in the article that would need proper sourcing. The WP editing practice demands that changes to an article such as a change in conservation status should be sourced. Both the IOC and the IUCN, Wikipedia's most trusted source on extinction status for birds, still classify the bird as "critically endangered" and "possibly extinct in the wild", and not "extinct". Despite the attention-getting article title in The Guardian (a reputable newspaper that I am no way disparaging as a tabloid), it does not actually state in the text of their report that the bird is extinct either. Instead, it reports that a new statistical model which is only 80% accurate compared to existing IUCN assessments, has led to a recommendation for the IUCN to change the status in a future assessment. If, or more likely when, the IUCN does change its conservation status for the Spix's macaw, Wikipedia will follow suit. Edits to reflect these changes should not be made prematurely, simply because it is an editors opinion that the recently reported recommendation is correct. 'Cheers, Loopy30 (talk) 02:54, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
- You are pushing this closer and closer to ANI, especially by removing it a second time as "unsourced".
- This content is not unsourced. To describe it repeatedly as such is an attack on other editors: sourcing is important on WP, it is a serious insult to another editor to describe them (falsely) as adding unsourced content.
- It would be reasonable to qualify this change as, "BirdLife International declared that the Spix was extinct [grauniad]". One might even go so far as to say that BirdLife were wrong here, that the IUCN disagree, and that BirdLife are not competent or WP:RS to declare such a thing, but you're going to have to source that opinion too (as it's simply your opinion until you do so). You might even expand this into a whole section - maybe a section on the BirdLife article, that BirdLife and IUCN are using different (but both credible) metrics and algorithms for declaring extinction. It is not acceptable to, solely from your own opinion, to edit out this verifiable, reliably sourced, and secondary comment on a respected body in the conservation field, just because you don't like it. Especially not over the specific edits of multiple editors. That's edit-warring, no more, and it's not acceptable. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:31, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
- Bystander note - the species has been declared extinct in the wild from the 1990s example but reports from the wild did keep popping up now and then. It is generally quite hard to establish absence (like Proving a negative in general). But BirdLife has indeed apparently declared Spix's as extinct in the wild - https://www.birdlife.org/worldwide/news/spixs-macaw-heads-list-first-bird-extinctions-set-be-confirmed-decade - hope you can both agree on an edit - you are both valuable and I hope this can be settled amicably. Shyamal (talk) 09:44, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
- @Andy Dingley, I think that Shyamal has now added to the article an accurate summary of any new information known from the sources provided. While BirdLife has not yet changed their assessment of the Spix's macaw, it is now clear from their news release that they fully intend to do so at sometime in the near future (weeks? months?). As BirdLife is the IUCN's main (or sole?) assessor for bird species, this would certainly produce the change in conservation rating expected. Note that the language in the sources, both primary and secondary, all refer to the future (eg. "look set to have their extinctions confirmed", "primed to have their extinctions either confirmed or deemed highly likely", "we recommend that nine species are reclassified on the IUCN Red List") and the newly added text in the article did not reflect this. Perhaps a softer edit summary would have been "rmv text unsupported by source" instead of one that could be construed as a "serious insult" to other editors. As an aside, my "personal opinion" agrees with yours, that the bird is indeed extinct in the wild, but we should instead strive to ensure that the Wikipedia article accurately reflects only the information from the sources provided. 'Cheers, Loopy30 (talk) 11:42, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
- Hello Andy Dingley, while the retention of the Spix's macaw's status as "potentially extinct" cries more of a black knight refusing to admit his fate than of any miraculous resurrection, it is the recent change to the Spix's macaw status in the article that would need proper sourcing. The WP editing practice demands that changes to an article such as a change in conservation status should be sourced. Both the IOC and the IUCN, Wikipedia's most trusted source on extinction status for birds, still classify the bird as "critically endangered" and "possibly extinct in the wild", and not "extinct". Despite the attention-getting article title in The Guardian (a reputable newspaper that I am no way disparaging as a tabloid), it does not actually state in the text of their report that the bird is extinct either. Instead, it reports that a new statistical model which is only 80% accurate compared to existing IUCN assessments, has led to a recommendation for the IUCN to change the status in a future assessment. If, or more likely when, the IUCN does change its conservation status for the Spix's macaw, Wikipedia will follow suit. Edits to reflect these changes should not be made prematurely, simply because it is an editors opinion that the recently reported recommendation is correct. 'Cheers, Loopy30 (talk) 02:54, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
Template:Taxonomy/Alveolitina[edit]
When you created Template:Taxonomy/Alveolitina, you gave its rank as "subordo". However, it cannot be a suborder, because its parent, Favositida, is given as a suborder in both the article and the taxonomy template. I've changed "subordo" to "cladus" (clade) to prevent errors in the automated taxobox system. Maybe some other rank is appropriate. Peter coxhead (talk) 21:44, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
- Hello Peter coxhead, thanks for fixing that. I was led astray by the Fossilworks entry that lists Alveolitina as a suborder, and Favositida as a separate order with Tabulata as a subclass. This conflicts with the IRMNG entry for Tabulata which classifies it as an order. I do not know which of these sources has precedence so I will leave it as is for now. 'Cheers, Loopy30 (talk) 14:52, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
- Ok, fine by me. Peter coxhead (talk) 17:01, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
Category chains[edit]
Hello. I noticed your recent message on Plantdrew's talk page. I can't track down the route to the fox but there are several chains such as
Petscan interprets category membership as "is a" even when that's not what the editor intended when adding the article or subcategory to the category. It reasons that since all Galapagos sharks are islands, Clipperton Island is a coral reef, and all coral reefs are anthozoa, therefore the sharks are anthozoa.
Ideally there would be an initiative to classify the millions of category memberships as "is a" or "is vaguely related to a", but I don't think we have the resources to achieve that. Hope that helps, Certes (talk) 19:38, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
- Ah, I just made the same point on Plantdrew's talk page. Peter coxhead (talk) 20:18, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
- If you can figure out what category is bringing in the anomalous results, just add it to the Negative Categories section in Petscan. It's not always easy to figure that out, but it is worth looking at the anomalous articles and seeing what categories they have. Sometimes it's really obvious what category is producing the anomalies. Plantdrew (talk) 04:44, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
- My quick test suggests it's mainly Category:Coral reefs, which shouldn't be a subcategory of Category:Anthozoa anyway. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:00, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
- And here I was thinking that subcategories were all neatly nested inside a parent category! Thanks to each of you for the responses and explanations. Loopy30 (talk) 13:36, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
- Subcategories are all neatly nested inside a parent category. The problem is that a lot of less welcome junk is nested in there too. Wikidata (for all its faults) is more rigid about only linking that which should be linked. This SPARQL query may be more useful. (Click the triangle bottom left to run it.) To adapt it for other taxa, just change the parent taxon from "Anthozoa" in the dropdown top left (or overtype "Q28524" with its Wikidata item number top right). Certes (talk) 16:45, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
- And here I was thinking that subcategories were all neatly nested inside a parent category! Thanks to each of you for the responses and explanations. Loopy30 (talk) 13:36, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
Brazilian goose[edit]
Thank you for your anti-vandalism efforts. I see that you watch an IP editor who confuses the Brazilian goose with a toucan. In case you've not already seen it, you may be interested in the original version of Victoria (goose). It's probably a hasty copy-paste from Grecia (toucan), quickly corrected. Both articles are from respected editors and seem properly sourced, but it may have inspired the hoax which started a couple of months later. Certes (talk) 18:40, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
- Hello Certes, the "Brazilian goose" edits are perhaps more likely to be a case of copycat vandalism modeled after this moderately successful hoax of the false name Brazilian aardvark that went undetected for over five years. 'Cheers, Loopy30 (talk) 22:07, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
This Month in GLAM: September 2018[edit]
| ||||||
Overlinking[edit]
Hi, thanks for your work on scientific taxonomical articles. Please ensure that years and well-known country-names are not linked, per our guidelines. Tony (talk) 13:26, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
- Hello Tony, as I have actively sought to remove the country (and continent and ocean name) wiki-links from several thousands of articles over the last couple of years and would not knowingly link a year entry, I am curious to know which articles you are referring to. Are they older edits from 2016 or before? Or links added by others that I did not remove when editing the article later? Loopy30 (talk) 18:39, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
- Found this page creation of Ellisellidae that copied a taxobox from another page and imported the offending wiki-links with it. I have now disambiguated the author (Gray) to J. E. Gray. Loopy30 (talk) 20:34, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
This Month in GLAM: October 2018[edit]
| ||||||