User talk:Stemonitis/Archive42

DO NOT EDIT OR POST REPLIES TO THIS PAGE. THIS PAGE IS AN ARCHIVE.

This archive page covers approximately the dates between December 12, 2012 and June 24, 2013.

Post replies to the main talk page, copying or summarising the section you are replying to if necessary.

DYK for Brachynotus sexdentatus

The DYK project (nominate) 00:02, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Allioideae and Prototulbaghia

I've now added Prototulbaghia to the list of genera at Allioideae#Genera. I guess it's a slight piece of SYNTH because Vosa uses the old family Alliaceae rather than the APG's Asparagaceae: Allioideae, but it seems ok to me. Given this addition, I don't think that the entry is needed in the See also section, but I leave it to you. Peter coxhead (talk) 12:14, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

That's fine. I only didn't add it to the main list because that's cited to the Missouri Botanical Garden site, which doesn't include Prototulbaghia. It certainly doesn't need to be listed twice. --Stemonitis (talk) 12:53, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I understand. I'm never quite sure how to reference a list in which most of the entries have one source, so that it's odd to repeat the same reference after each such entry, but a few entries are sourced elsewhere. My reference to APweb should perhaps be replaced by a note + a reference. Peter coxhead (talk) 13:59, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

What you've done looks fine to me! --Stemonitis (talk) 17:06, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

I'd really like to have had a note which then contained a reference, rather than putting the citation actually in the note. But <ref> tags can't be nested, and you can only use a Harvard-style link in a note (as I've done at Roscoea for example) if the citation already appears in the list of references. If there is a way of doing what I wanted, I can't find it! But I'm glad you think it looks fine as it is. Peter coxhead (talk) 17:28, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

What you want to do is certainly possible. There may be other solutions, but the one I resort to is to use {{#tag:ref|Example footnote.<ref>Author, 2012</ref>|group=Note}} in the running prose, with separate {{reflist|group=Note}} and {{reflist}} mark-ups at the end of the document. If that explanation isn't clear (which wouldn't surprise me), have a look at Centuria Insectorum to see how it works in practice. It took me a long time to find out how to get that effect, and I'm not sure it's properly documented anywhere. --Stemonitis (talk) 17:34, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Clever! If this technique is documented anywhere, I didn't find it (and I have looked), but I'll definitely be using it again. Thanks! Peter coxhead (talk) 10:10, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

As is often the case, once you know the solution you can find where you should have looked! {{refn}} is a slightly more user-friendly way of achieving this effect. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:24, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Article

Hi Stemonitis, would you happen to have access to the Proceedings of the Royal Society B? I would love to get a copy of The pygmy right whale Caperea marginata: the last of the cetotheres for integration into the Cetotheriidae article [1].--Kevmin § 14:00, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Not immediately. I might have access by IP recognition tomorrow, if you can wait that long. --Stemonitis (talk) 14:20, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

No problem! Thanks in advance.--Kevmin § 14:50, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I now have the paper. E-mail me (I don't think I have your address), and I'll reply with the PDF. --Stemonitis (talk) 13:57, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Guinusia chabrus

Shall I leave it to you to expand this rather pathetic article, or are you only good at reverting for no good reason? Paul venter (talk) 19:11, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

I am reverting for a very good reason. The article as you left it was dominated by two vast images of no obvious encyclopaedic merit. They're not even of the crab in question, just discarded exuviae with no explanation of any kind. That cannot count as expansion. I included a link to the images, so that interested readers could see them, but plastering them over the article is not helpful. Please re-read WP:IUP and WP:IG, so that you can understand why this is not acceptable. --Stemonitis (talk) 19:14, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

I was busy adding to the article when you chose to interfere - perhaps I should have placed an (in use) tag to avoid that. The images are informative and if you spend a minute or so verifying it, you'll find that they ARE images of Guinusia chabrus = Plagusia chabrus. They obviously ARE an expansion even if they do not meet with your expectations, and have not been 'plastered' as you so snidely observe. That you personally find them unacceptable grieves me greatly. I would remind you of the ownership caveat that exists on WP. Paul venter (talk) 20:18, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

How could I have known that you intended to expand the article? You certainly haven't done so since. In fact, all you have done is begun to engage in an edit war, rather than reading and understanding the image use policy. You must have seen that other articles don't comprise massive galleries of 900-pixel-wide images with no textual explanation, nor even a caption. You must have guessed that this is not considered the best way to write an encyclopaedia. What do you think these images bring to the article? They are supposed to illustrate the prose content, but as you pointed out, that is very short at the moment. To employ reductio ad absurdum, I might suggest that a reader encountering those images could assume that G. chabrus is a highly concave crab that lives on the ends of human thumbs and has mouthparts but no other appendages! --Stemonitis (talk) 20:29, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Was it Mark Twain who said "Never argue with fools - they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience" Paul venter (talk) 12:52, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

What's your point? --Stemonitis (talk) 12:52, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Goose barnacles

I am currently writing an article that I intended to call Capitulum (or "Capitulum (zoology)" or somesuch name). Capitulum is according to WoRMS a monoypic genus in the family Pollicipidae which has the species Capitulum mitella (Linnaeus, 1758). Wikipedia does not currently have that family. We have a family Pollicipedidae and that contains a genus Pollicipes and the species Pollicipes mitella (Linnaeus, 1758). WoRMS also has this species and there is no mention of it being synonymous with Capitulum mitella. I think it is a mess and am unsure how to proceed. (My main source, the NHM, uses Capitulum mitella.) Cwmhiraeth (talk) 07:36, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Tricky. This looks like an instance where WoRMS is in need of updating. "Pollicipidae" is evidently the same as Pollicipedidae (one of those awkward irregular genitives, like -caris going to -carididae, not -caridae, or -pus going to -podidae, not -pidae). It does appear to be a good species, however, based on various other reliable sources, so it must just be WoRMS lagging behind a little. (Since capitulum exists as a disambiguation page, your article should eventually be at Capitulum mitella, albeit with a redirect from Capitulum (genus); it's always better to use a title without a disambiguator.) I think I once considered writing an article on the same subject, but got confused by the nomenclature and gave up, so well done for pressing ahead with it! If you find a good source synonymising Pollicipes mitella with Capitulum mitella, it may be worthwhile removing it from the list at Pollicipes, or noting there that it's sometimes treated as the genus Capitulum, or something. (I note that that article is already missing one newly-described species; cf. Wikispecies.)

Actually, it may be even more complicated than that. This page synonymises Pollicipes mitella Sowerby, 1833 with Capitulum mitella (Linnaeus, 1758), so maybe different authors have used the name Pollicipes mitella for different taxa, which also opens up the possibility that people may have ascribed the wrong authorities to the taxa at various times. In any case, I think it's fairly well understood what Capitulum mitella is, even if it isn't clear what Pollicipes mitella is. --Stemonitis (talk) 07:56, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

I have made the page now. I have not mentioned on it that this barnacle is/may be synonymous with Pollicipes mitella although it is mentioned in the synonyms part of the taxobox. I have however made a redirect on the Pollicipes page. The name of the order Scalpelliformes was apparently coined by Buckeridge & Newman in 2006 and is at variance with our order Pedunculata. A separate point, I came across the term "mantle cavity" used about goose barnacles. Is that the space enclosed by the plates of the capitulum or somewhere else more internal? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:06, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid my knowledge of barnacle anatomy is very poor indeed – it seems to have so little to do with that of any other crustaceans! Does this help?

It does indeed look like we'll have to update some other articles, too. Goose barnacle will lose its taxobox, and we'll need new articles for each of the new orders (former sub-orders, for the most part). I haven't seen the body of the paper by Buckeridge and Newman, so I can't see why they couldn't maintain Pedunculata as a super-order – presumably it's not thought to be monophyletic. I think it's OK for our taxonomy to lag a little behind the primary literature, although this was published nearly 7 years ago, so we probably ought to update it. Remind me in the new year if neither of us has done anything about it by then. I'm still not sure if Pollicipes mitella Sowerby, 1833 ≡ Pollicipes mitella Linnaeus, 1758, but I guess that's a fairly minor worry. --Stemonitis (talk) 08:22, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Taxonomy is not my favourite sport and I tend to note anomalies rather than resolve them, leaving that to others with greater expertise. The mantle cavity of goose barnacles seems to be where I thought it was. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:28, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Musings

I have been thinking about the article Acropora secale that I wrote recently. At first I thought the distribution of this coral was in the western part of the Indian Ocean as mentioned in WoRMS but I later discovered from my other two sources that it was much more widespread than that. If I had stuck with WoRMS, the article would have been misleading/incomplete.

Then there is the word Coenenchyme. I have made a stub article for that because it was a term I kept coming across but which didn't seem to be defined in Wikipedia. The source for the stub was a site about octocorals and I was uncertain whether the term was only used about them or was used about Anthozoa in general. I now have a copy of "Invertebrate Zoology" by Barnes but that did not use the term at all. My "Zoology" by Dorit, Walker, Barnes used it specifically about octocorals but that was not conclusive. A book source for the Acropora secale article used it several times and that species is a stony coral. So I am still confused and the Coenchyme stub may be misleading/incomplete.

And then there is my recent article on Biorhiza pallida. This was disrupted when on the main page as a DYK by an editor that I think is a sockpuppet who keeps targeting me. His comments on the talk page of the article are a bit incoherent but part of the point he is trying to make is that the article is erroneous/incomplete because I have not used readily available sources about this "well-studied gall wasp". Anoher point is that all members of the tribe create oak apples but my book source states that the term "oak apple" is specific to this species and that it is incorrect to use it about other galls.

I'm not sure why I am writing this, but these things have been on my mind and you always provide sage commentary. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:18, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Oxford Meetup 3

Thank you for attending the second Oxford Meetup, and it was a pleasure meeting with you again. We hope to keep this as a regular event, every two months, on the first Sunday of the month (in order not to clash with London [second Sunday] and Reading [third Sunday]). I have created a page about the third Oxford Meetup; please sign up if you think that you are able to attend - if the date or venue are unsuitable, please comment at its discussion page.

Please spread the word to anybody else who you think might be interested. The next UK meetup is Reading, 20 January 2013. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:45, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

• Hi, just to let you know, the third Reading Meetup has been cancelled because of the weather. To make up for this, the fourth Reading Meetup will be one month early, 17 February 2013. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:40, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

About Atlas of Living Australia

Hi Stemonitis.

Your thoughts?

--Shirt58 (talk) 13:46, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Apologies, Stemonitis. While I'll never be accused of WP:TL;DR, I plead guilty as charged and admit to being a repeat offender of "[[WP:Too concise;No information]]"

The Atlas of Living Australia ("ALA") appears to be a kind of Wiki. The ALA, while moderated by professional life scientists also appears to solicit user-generated content from "Citizen scientists"

(I note that a ref from the ALA is already included in Pyromaia cuspidata.)

I should have written my question better. Here it goes:

Should the Atlas of Living Australia be considered a reliable reference for Australian biota?

If no, should the Atlas of Living Australia be considered a good external link for Australian biota?

Your thoughts? --Shirt58 (talk) 12:15, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 25

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Parasanaa donovani, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bush-cricket (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) 00:57, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

 Done --Stemonitis (talk) 06:30, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Alexanders

I have been approached by User:Osborne with a request to move this page to Smyrnium olusatrum L.. See User talk:Brendanconway for my discussion with him. I looked back at the page history and noted that you had moved the article in the opposite direction on 10 October 2005. I would be grateful if you and Osborne could discuss this further on the talk page for Alexanders.--File Éireann 21:36, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

I made that change years ago. WP:PLANTS has adopted a different policy since then, under which almost all plants would be placed under their scientific names. Note, however, that the titles should not include the authority, so the title should be Smyrnium olusatrum, not "Smyrnium olusatrum L.". Astoundingly, that title isn't even a redirect, so anyone can make the move. --Stemonitis (talk) 05:22, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 5

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Eupithecia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Black-eyed susan (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) 16:51, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

 Done. --Stemonitis (talk) 17:41, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Crayfish

Hi there :) A question regarding your removal of my edit in the lead of the crayfish page and replacing it with a hatnote. If you feel that what I wrote shouldn't be in the lead, I was wondering why then the second paragraph deserve to be there? It is completely analogous to what I wrote. Both are about the term crayfish referring to another species (and family even). ~ Xiphosurus (talk) 20:04, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

That paragraph goes on to talk about actual crayfish (koura, yabbies and the Murray crayfish). Without that, it would be analogous, and would be relegated to a hatnote. --Stemonitis (talk) 10:35, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

List of Carex species

Hello, Stemonitis, and thank you for your contributions!

An article you worked on List of Carex species, appears to be directly copied from http://www.theplantlist.org/browse/A/Cyperaceae/Carex/. Please take a minute to make sure that the text is freely licensed and properly attributed as a reference, otherwise the article may be deleted.

It's entirely possible that this bot made a mistake, so please feel free to remove this notice and the tag it placed on List of Carex species if necessary. MadmanBot (talk) 09:07, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Allogalathea

Hello Stemonitis, I am Bastaco and I would like to know why you restore this way the article I modified concerning Allogalathea elegans? If I can make some observations, the introduction is too short and your comment about aquarium has no need to be in the introduction because it's a species description, so I would not write it in the intro but in a special part inside the article. And doing two descriptions parts with twice the same info is not very nice also.

So the way you did it, it's not very constructive and it's not really following the spirit of wikipedia. I accept the modification in my articles but only if it's done correctly, so could you please, give do something about it. Thanks and best regards. Bastaco — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bastaco (talk • contribs) 08:23, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean. As far as I remember, I included almost all of your edits, but restored a part that was equivalent to some of your added text, but in better English, so I'm not sure what your complaint is. There is certainly plenty of room for improvement in the article, but it's probably best to expand on the existing text, rather than starting afresh. --Stemonitis (talk) 08:27, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Page Numbers

Hello. I noticed that you took out the page numbers on your edit to Eriogonum alatum. Was that intentional? Asarelah (talk) 04:15, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Ghost shrimp

You have a point. But I had actually linked it because ghost shrimp encompasses a number of species - whereas the latin name that follows applies strictly only to the Cameroon ghost shrimp. I did not see the point of broring down to that level, as I suspect that Linnaeus was not on board on that specific cruise, so there is no telling which of the various ghost shrimps the chef aborad the scurvy-plagued ship adopted into the cuisine. Perhaps in fact all refrences to the biological creature should be downplayed as we are after all taking about a river that needed to get a nme to be entered into the logs - it could have ended up as "Pristine River", "Grass River" or "Blue River", had the quartermaster not run out of provisions and been forced to improvise by supplementing with local produce. But I see you list crustaceans among your interests (to me they constitute a item a in the protein food group) ;-) What do you think? Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 10:28, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

In this case, the story behind the name is quite well elucidated, and we know exactly what species was being referred to. I think that, if the reader wants to know more about the group, then they're best off going through the article Lepidophthalmus turneranus. This is partly because that's quite a good article, but more because even the best link on the disambiguation page, Thalassinidea, is an obsolete but convenient term in carcinology. I don't think the river was named as incidentally as you suggest; the swarms of L. turneranus in the Wouri River are quite spectacular, and are not encountered in many other places. --Stemonitis (talk) 10:59, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. As to my incidental naming of the river, I roast and grind my own coffee - and I think I made it a wee tad too strong today - so I was/ am having fun with words. But seriously now, I must admit that after decades of David Attenborough, David Bellamy, Gerald Durrel and others, I have only once seen a documentary that focused solely on crustaceans - it was a crayfish migration somewhere off the coast of Florida, I think. I guess filming sharks brings in more revenue for Fox News (National Geographic). Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 12:10, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Sounds like Panulirus argus – I keep meaning to improve that article, but I haven't got around to it yet. --Stemonitis (talk) 12:14, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Names of Birds

And while I have your attention, why do the the names of birds get written in caps whereas that is not the case for other creatures? Why the Yellow-tailed rat, but the yellow-tailed Cockatoo? Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 10:35, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, this is a frustrating bit of inconsistency. Some people at WP:BIRDS insist that the vernacular names (not "common names" in the best sense) published by the IOC are proper nouns and require a capital letter. This isn't a universal view even within ornithology (the RSPB uses sentence case, for instance), but is firmly entrenched here. Until quite recently, mammals also used initial capitals on Wikipedia, but they have since adopted the approach used here for almost all other organisms. I think only birds and some insects (Lepidoptera and possibly Odonata) still use initial capitals. It would be nice to be consistent across the tree of life, but the current compromise works well enough and avoids the otherwise endless and often fractious argument that has been rumbling on for years. --Stemonitis (talk) 11:03, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 12:11, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

May 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Campylobacter mucosalis may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 14:10, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

 Done --Stemonitis (talk) 14:12, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 20

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Campylobacter mucosalis, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Anaerobic (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) 00:28, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

 Done --Stemonitis (talk) 04:33, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Mole Crabs

Commonly called "Sand Fleas" in my part of NW Florida, caught, played with, and fished with for the last 50 years. Learn something new every day, never knew what I thought was their butt was their head! Question: We find much fewer square species, always thought they were the males, obviously wrong about that too! Are they another species?98.174.41.183 (talk) 18:58, 21 May 2013 (UTC) --98.174.41.183 (talk) 18:58, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Helmet Jellyfish

The page Helmet Jellyfish has some good information, but it just seems to be written, wrong. You'll understand once you read it. I'm not that good at re-wording information and thought that you might be able to do it. LieutenantLatvia (talk) 19:19, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Albunione yoda

Thank you for cleaning up the article on Albunione yoda. One of your edits was the removal of the Íllustrations section. I always think illustrations in species articles are very useful. There is no illustration available on wiki commons (or elsewhere), and the publication does not provide photographs that I can myself use to make a drawing from. I cannot copy it because that would be copyright infringement. But the document is available on the web, so what is wrong with having a link. Regards, Dwergenpaartje (talk) 15:09, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

We do not normally repeat in an External links (or "Further reading") section any links that are included among the References. See WP:ELRC. --Stemonitis (talk) 15:18, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I can see why that would usually be the right thing to do. In this case, however the consequence is that someone that would be interested in the illustration, but not in tracing the information back to its source, will not enccounter the very useful illustrations. I think that is a pity, and I am not sure the guidance on external links was ment for a situation like this, but rather to avoid linkspam. Kind Regards, Dwergenpaartje (talk) 20:54, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 5

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Rineloricaria lanceolata, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bloodworm (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) 11:39, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Oxford Meetup 6

I'm sorry that you were unable to attend the fifth Oxford Meetup. I intended to send this message on Monday, but I've been a bit busy, sorry.

Several of us would like to continue with the monthly plan, since trying to make a two-monthly cycle fit into the University terms doesn't work very well. A page has been created about the sixth Oxford Meetup; please sign up if you think that you are able to attend - if the date or venue are unsuitable, please comment at its discussion page.

Please spread the word to anybody else who you think might be interested. The next UK meetups are at: London, 16 June; Manchester, 22 June; and Coventry, 7 July. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:25, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi, it was pointed out to me that 7 July 2013 collides with Coventry 8, who have a prior claim to the date. Since nobody has (yet) claimed 14 July for any UK meetups, I have decided that Oxford 6 should be held on 14 July 2013, and not 7 July as previously advertised. In this way, those who wish to attend both may do so. I hope the revised Oxford date is convenient for you; and if it isn't, why not give Coventry a try? --Redrose64 (talk) 15:47, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Sadly, that means I'll have to miss this one, too. Ah well, hopefully the next one. --Stemonitis (talk) 09:00, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Resident Evil (disambiguation) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Resident Evil (disambiguation) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Resident Evil (disambiguation) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

DYK for Carex aboriginum

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:04, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Japanese spider crab

Saw your comment about not listing ne conservation status. How was the rest of my edit? I tried to add sources and more info as well as reorganizing and adding some info so it would read more clearly and concisely. Wgfcrafty (talk) 17:59, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

R to scientific name

I usually do that, but suddenly stopped because it sounds like it should be "R from scientific name" because the destination is a common name. Is my brain backward? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:03, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

You had me confused for a moment, there, but in this case it is correct. The redirect is leading from the vernacular name "flaming reef lobster" to the scientific name "Enoplometopus antillensis". If it were the other way round, I would still add a template, but I would choose {{R from scientific name}} rather than {{R to scientific name}}. --Stemonitis (talk) 08:05, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Oh dear, you're right, of course. My brain is totally backward today. If it's any consolation, while I wrote the post to you, someone here was freaking out about their hair while I was looking at several other species articles at the same time. Thanks, :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:38, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject Good Articles Recruitment Centre

Hello! Now, some of you might have already received a similar message a little while ago regarding the Recruitment Centre, so if you have, there is no need to read the rest of this. This message is directed to users who have reviewed between 12-14 Good article nominations and are not part of WikiProject Good articles (the initial messages I sent out went to only WikiProject members and users that had over 15 reviews). So for those who haven't heard about the Recruitment Centre yet, you may be wondering why there is a Good article icon with a bunch of stars around it (to the right). The answer? WikiProject Good articles will be launching a Recruitment Centre very soon! The centre will allow all users to be taught how to review Good article nominations by experts just like you! However, in order for the Recruitment Centre to open in the first place, we need some volunteers: Recruiters: The main task of a recruiter is to teach users that have never reviewed a Good article nomination how to review one. To become a recruiter, all you have to do is meet this criteria. Now, one of the most important criteria is that you have at least 15 independent reviews. If you are reading this, you are likely 3 (or less) reviews short, so if you review another couple nominations, you can become a recruiter! If interested, make sure you meet the criteria, read the process and add your name to the list of recruiters. (One of the great things about being a recruiter is that there is no set requirement of what must be taught and when. Instead, all the content found in the process section is a guideline of the main points that should be addressed during a recruitment session...you can also take an entire different approach if you wish!) If you think you will not have the time to recruit any users at this time but are still interested in becoming a recruiter, you can still add your name to the list of recruiters but just fill in the "Status" parameter with "Not Available". NOTE: If you are interested in becoming a recruiter but do not meet the 15 review requirement, you can still add your name to the list of recruiters and put your status as "Not Available" until you have reviewed enough nominations. Nominators, please read this: If you are not interested in becoming a recruiter, you can still help. In some cases a nominator may have an issue with an "inexperienced" editor (the recruitee) reviewing one of their nominations. To minimize the chances of this happening, if you are fine with a recruitee reviewing one of your nominations under the supervision of the recruiter, please add your name to the list at the bottom of this page. By adding your name to this list, chances are that your nomination will be reviewed more quickly as the recruitee will be asked to choose a nomination from the list of nominators that are OK with them reviewing the article. If you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me. I look forward to seeing this program bring new reviewers to the Good article community and all the positive things it will bring along. A message will be sent out to all recruiters regarding the date when the Recruitment Centre will open when it is determined. The message will also contain some further details to clarify things that may be a bit confusing.--Dom497 (talk) This message was sent out by --EdwardsBot (talk) 21:04, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 12

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Maui's dolphin, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Taranaki (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) 12:15, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

 Done --Stemonitis (talk) 12:32, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Trilobite ratings: Low and start/stub, always

Hi, I am wondering, All trilobite articles have Low importance and Stub or Start class quality. Even the Olenellus article is rated that way. Is it that uninteresting a topic and is the quality that poor? I mean some articles in those classes are much better and much more elaborate than others, and even well known trilobites or orders do not rise above low importance... The Trilobite article itself is not rated, perhaps this is curious. I would like to know what you think on this topic. I've made a proposal for the importance rating here. Regards, Dwergenpaartje (talk) 17:00, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Trilobite is rated; it is B-class and High importance for both WP:Arthropods and WP:Palaeontology. Olenellus could certainly be at least Start-class; ratings are often ignored when articles are improved, and are quite often out of date. Bear in mind, though, that the ratings need to be consistent across the entire WikiProject Arthropods – this is not "WikiProject Trilobites" – so we shouldn't overemphasise this one group. If you were to reduce all your proposed ratings by one step for WP:ARTH (and perhaps also for WP:Palaeontology, although I'm not familiar with that project's scale), that would probably be about right. Remember that the importance is context-specific. Charles Darwin, for instance, is a hugely important biologist, but only a moderately important carcinologist, so his importance rating for WP:ARTH is lower than one might naïvely expect. In general, all taxa at low ranks are considered Low-importance, unless there is some particular reason to increase it, typically economic importance. Fossil taxa are unlikely to be of economic importance, but I suppose the taxa that define certain stratigraphic horizons might have a fair claim to greater importance, although that claim of importance will need to be clear from the article itself. --Stemonitis (talk) 17:10, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Thanks for the explanation. The rating was hiding, that figures. I still think that higher importance ranking for taxa above family would make sense and would be motivating for editors. Also start-class quality ranking is not very gratifying if one puts a lot of effort in the articles. It makes you feel that whatever you do, you will stay a wiki-looser. Pity. Regards, Dwergenpaartje (talk) 21:42, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 21

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Alucita, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Superfamily (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) 11:18, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

 Done --Stemonitis (talk) 11:37, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Gravid crab image

A gravid crab.

Placed this image in Crab. Is this a "berried" crab or are those "zoea"? AshLin (talk) 17:47, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't think any additional images are necessarily welcome at crab, but to answer your direct question, I expect they're unhatched eggs. It's difficult to tell because of the lighting and angle (it's much clearer in images such as File:Xantho poressa 2009 G1.jpg). There is often a short period where the first larval stage (which itself varies between taxa) is somewhat attached to the female, but it's short-lived and would normally occur in the water. If you could find out where the picture was taken, there might be a possibility of identifying the species, but an image of an unknown crab carrying some eggs doesn't seem worthy of inclusion to me, especially when there are superior, well-identified alternatives if one particularly wanted to show egg-carrying. --Stemonitis (talk) 06:52, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, will ask. AshLin (talk) 08:09, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Why move Holmia (dab) to Holmia?

I notice you assisted User:Incnis Mrsi move Holmia (disambiguation) to Holmia. This has also forced the renaming of the original Holmia article to the new name Holmia (genus). I have three issues with this:

• Holmia (genus) is not very helpful for the average surfer. Also, there may be a plant called Holmia as well. Holmia (trilobite) would be a much more descriptive and stable title.
• I fail to see why a disambiguation page should be stripped of the addition (disambiguation). I do not think the reasoning given (G6: Housekeeping and routine (non-controversial) cleanup) is applicable at all.
• Why was the disambiguation at the top of the Holmia (genus) article not adjusted?

Dwergenpaartje (talk) 21:59, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

If there is a genus under anther code with the same name, then we do indeed use different disambiguators, but where there is only one, " (genus)" is by far the best disambiguator. The reader should not have to know beforehand what type of organism it is, and should not have to guess what level of the taxonomic hierarchy has been used; it could have been "Holmia (animal)", "Holmia (arthropod)", "Holmia (trilobite)", "Holmia (olenellid)", "Holmia (Holmiidae)" or any number of others. "Holmia (genus)" is the most predictable, most straightforward and broadest disambiguator; I have thought about it a lot, and I am firmly convinced that this is the best way to disambiguate articles on biological taxa.

Some of your other questions should be answered at WP:DAB (especially WP:DABNAME). Where there is no clear primary topic, the disambiguation page is placed at the unqualified title, although there should always be a redirect from "<TITLE> (disambiguation)"; there should never be a redirect from "<TITLE>" to "<TITLE> (disambiguation)".

The hatnote at Holmia (genus) is faulty, and should be removed. This omission was an oversight. --Stemonitis (talk) 04:14, 24 June 2013 (UTC)