User talk:Gug01/Archive 2

Good articles

Wikipedia:Good articles must pass Wikipedia:Good article nominations. I see no sign at Talk:Perfect number that the article has been nominated, let alone passed. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:06, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you PrimeHunter for explaining this to me. I am still new to the notion of good articles. Gug01 (talk) 23:08, 24 November 2014 (UTC) Gug 01[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for November 25

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Romania, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Swans and Wild duck. 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) 10:15, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I realized I had put a link to a disambiguation page, and I fixed it the moment I realized that. But thanks anyway. Gug01 (talk) 20:41, 25 November 2014 (UTC) Gug 01[reply]

Usernames ending with "bot" are Wikipedia:Bots. They don't read replies. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:24, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you PrimeHunter for explaining that to me! Gug01 (talk) 18:26, 29 November 2014 (UTC) Gug 01[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for December 14

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Battle of Alton, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Farnam. 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) 09:31, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Answers to questions

You can often find information about a topic entering wp:topic in the search box, for example wp:category, wp:template, wp:color, wp:deletion, wp:redirect, and so on. Abbreviations also work often, for example wp:r for redirects. Some of the below links are alredy listed here as redirects.

See Wikipedia:Categorization for general guidelines. There is no specific minimum number of articles. It depends on circumstances and is often a judgement call. If it's part of a system like people with profession X from country Y then categories are often created when there is a single article like Category:Jamaican screenwriters.

See Wikipedia:Templates.

See Help:Using colours. A red link signals a link to a non-existing page like this so other red text can cause confusion in many contexts. Yellow text on white background is too hard to read for many people, depending on their screen, software, settings and eyesight.

Pages can only be deleted by administrators like me. Others can suggest deletion with one of the processes at Wikipedia:Deletion policy.

See Wikipedia:Redirect. If you want to rename an article then you must move it (or suggest a move) and not edit it to replace the text by a redirect. The point of List of Asilidae species: B is that List of Asilidae species would too long as one list so it's split by letter. Wikipedia has lots of such lists which are split by letter. Changing 'B' to '2' and so on sounds like a bad idea. It certainly shouldn't be done without a discussion per Wikipedia:Requested moves.

I don't edit insects but a list of Carabidae sounds like a lot of work. It would certainly have to be split in some way even if it only has species with articles. Category:Carabidae currently has 1,598 pages. The number X of pages in subcategories are shown as "X P", for example 932 in Pterostichinae‎ (3 C, 932 P)". Articles on subfamilies and genera like Pterostichinae and Stomis already have lists so I guess your idea is an alphabetical list of all Carabidae. I'm not interested in beetles and don't know how many readers would be interested in an alphabetical list. You could ask at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Insects whether other editors think it's a good idea and might be willing to help. The more specific Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Beetles would normally have been a better place but it's inactive. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:36, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! This answers every single one of my questions and in fact even more than what I wanted answered. Gug01 (talk) 15:58, 14 December 2014 (UTC) Gug 01[reply]

List of Broscinae creation

I don't edit taxa but duplication of lists can be problematic. Are there other cases where species lists are duplicated in a subfamily article and various genera articles for that subfamily? If there are precedents for this then you can consider using WP:ONLYINCLUDE on the genera articles and transclude the species lists on the subfamily article. Then the lists only have to be maintained and updated in the genera articles. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:42, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou very much. What do you mean by duplicating subfamily species lists? All I am thinking of is writing a list of Broscinae by hand, based on Carabidae.pro. Gug01 (talk) 23:30, 15 December 2014 (UTC) Gug 01[reply]

The list of genera at Broscinae are linked to articles with a list of species of that genus (at least when the genus page exists and has more than one species). I thought your idea was to combine all these lists into one long list of Broscinae. Are you saying you want to make the list independently of the existing lists without checking whether they match? PrimeHunter (talk) 04:20, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. What I am saying is to create a list independently of existing lists of genera but checking whether they match. Gug01 (talk) 20:17, 16 December 2014 (UTC) Gug 01[reply]

OK, I consider that duplication and don't think it sounds like a good idea unless it follows an existing Wikipedia practice. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:43, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot PrimeHunter! Gug01 (talk) 23:59, 16 December 2014 (UTC) Gug 01[reply]

A page you started (Adotela concolor) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Adotela concolor, Gug01!

Wikipedia editor Animalparty just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Don't forget a Taxobox on all taxon articles. An easy shortcut is to copy & paste the taxobox of related species and change the details. You might also expand Adotela before creating stubs, to save readers from lots of clicking.

To reply, leave a comment on Animalparty's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

A page you started (Cylindera germanica michaelensis) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Cylindera germanica michaelensis, Gug01!

Wikipedia editor Animalparty just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

I redirected your subspecies stubs to the binomial article, to encourage the development of quality stand-alone articles. Please feel free to expand Cylindera germanica with any general or subspecific information. Cheers.

To reply, leave a comment on Animalparty's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Speedy deletion nomination of Cylindera (disambiguation)

A tag has been placed on Cylindera (disambiguation) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G6 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an orphaned disambiguation page which either

disambiguates two or fewer extant Wikipedia pages and whose title ends in "(disambiguation)" (i.e., there is a primary topic); or
disambiguates no (zero) extant Wikipedia pages, regardless of its title.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time. Please see the disambiguation page guidelines for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. --Animalparty-- (talk) 21:31, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for alerting this to me. I have nothing against deleting the article because I had thought there would be more than just one entry. Please go ahead and delete it. Gug01 (talk) 22:47, 24 December 2014 (UTC) Gug 01[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Zorotypus absonus has been accepted

Zorotypus absonus, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

JT_dale^Talk~ 07:05, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I know I can create an article by myself, but I find that longer articles can be developed before submitting. Gug01 (talk) 14:10, 27 December 2014 (UTC) Gug 01[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Dysoneuridae has been accepted

Dysoneuridae, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.