User talk:Loopy30/Archive 2018

Threatened Species - Echo Active links removed

Hi Loopy, Just noticed that you removed a number of links, including to pages about the Leadbeater's Possum, Helmeted Honeyeater and other critically endangered species on a website called Echo Active. These links are to pages that contain video, audio and photos and a brief introduction to the species. These pages are not spam, and have been created to raise the profile of these threatened species. Please indicate why you have marked these links as spam. Best, Leadbeateri

Hello Leadbeateri, and welcome to Wikipedia editing. Including links to an external website "that are designed for sharing on social media and raising the profile of these threatened species" (as you wrote initially here) is considered unwanted promotion. Please read the policy on adding external links at WP:EL and WP:LINKSPAM for further details. Rather than promoting the Echo Active website, consider instead if you can add any additional information to the Wikipedia article pages using a reliable source, and not a user generated website such as Echo Active. Also, you can sign your posts by including four tildas (~~~~) to the end of your comment. Loopy30 (talk) 04:33, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Loopy. Yes, I did write that but quickly realised it was en error and corrected it. The pages are created primarily to raise awareness about threatened species, and in fact, that's the primary purpose of the website itself. They're also designed to give a quick overview, not describe the species in detail; video and audio related to each species are primarily used to inform site visitors. The site is also designed to raise the profile of NGOs and groups that are helping to protect these species. As such, it's a different kettle of fish to Wikipedia, and not unworthy of being linked to as far as I can tell. Please can you examine specific pages such as the Leadbeater's page, and let me know what makes them spammy and unworthy of being linked to. Best, Leadbeateri (talk) 05:08, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

@Leadbeateri, the Echo Active webpages are not suitable for use as external links from Wikipedia because they do not add any additional detail for the Wikipedia reader and the info that does exist is user generated content that lack any supporting references. As such, the Echo Active website is not considered a reliable source to be linked to from Wikipedia. 'Cheers, Loopy30 (talk) 12:48, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Peafowl

Lol. I'm still laughing. I'm certainly not going to revert you again, because the whole point of my initial edit was to stop people fiddling with it, adding "their" country to the little list that was previously there. That didn't work... I deliberately chose South Asia for 2 reasons: firstly for consistency with Indian peafowl and secondly because it has no "nationality" inherent in the term. I'll concede that's defeated by "Indian" in the bird name, though. I honestly don't care what it says as long as folks stop fiddling with it, but perhaps, since you are convinced "Indian subcontinent" is more appropriate, you'd like to change Indian peafowl for consistency? Still smiling... -- Begoon 03:09, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello Begoon, as a frequent editor to bird pages, I appreciate your efforts to replace country lists with a more appropriate range descriptor. Bio-geographic regions are indeed the preferred choice over political (country) boundaries where possible. As far as "fiddling" goes, I suppose that is the nature of the project - it is never complete. The name Indian Peafowl (over other alternative names) is however, set by the IOC and should not be changed. All the best, 'cheers Loopy30 (talk) 03:19, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes - I didn't mean you might alter the name of the bird - I meant the description at Indian peafowl, "...a large and brightly coloured bird, is a species of peafowl native to South Asia..." on which I mostly based my original edit. Cheers. -- Begoon 03:24, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Ah okay, got it now. It's just that there are some hard-core "pride-of-country" vandals out there that change as much as they can to either unnecessarily highlight their country or denigrate a neighbouring country that needs constant reverting. Just another reason to replace country lists wherever feasible. And yes, these jingoistic vandals do change the species names in the articles. They'd probably try moving the page name as well, but are usually IP's or unconfirmed users and lack the permissions. Loopy30 (talk) 03:33, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Indeed, and precisely the behaviour my initial edit was intended to discourage, by removing the "magnet" of a list of countries from an article that does see very frequent unconstructive editing, and replacing it with a "stateless" term. See - we agreed all along... -- Begoon 03:39, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Undiscussed WP:ENGVAR moves

Loopy30, see discussion on my talk page now regarding English vs Americanized spellings......Pvmoutside (talk) 21:13, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you!

Thank you for providing extra evidence on the sockpuppet investigation! Itsquietuptown (Talk • Contributions) 13:21, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Tricoloured munia

BarrelProof seems to have left all the New World "grey" titled pages alone, but wants to discuss the tricoloured munia further. The IOC lists it as the tricolored munia, but keeps on reverting it to tricoloured pending a requested move discussion.Pvmoutside (talk) 22:48, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

your revert on kinder surprise

Frankly: No. More than 50% of the entire product is made of plastic. If you are not suffering from a figure-ground distinction weakness, tell me how the plastic insides are not worthy of a mention. -- Kku (talk) 13:46, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi Kku, the issue in the Kinder Surprise article is not that having plastic insides is "not worthy of a mention". In fact it is worthy of a mention and as such, this information is presently included in the article. Instead, the issue here is the desire to link the words "plastic container" to an article that contains no further amplifying information about Kinder Surprise. To quote my previous response in August:

"While linking pages is one of Wikipedia's great strengths, over-linking is distracting to the reader, even sub-consciously when the link is not selected. Common words should not be linked to unless there is information at that page that is specifically relevant to the topic. The plastic container page contains no additional depth of information related to candy packaging in general or this candy in particular. Even your comments above have more info than the plastic container page which states little more than that plastic containers are, well, "containers" (of different shapes) made of ... umm, "plastic". Perhaps your comments on packaging weight ratios can be added to the Kinder Surprise page? Or in a more general section about candy packaging on the plastic containers page, with a sentence highlighting the low content weight rate of Kinder Surprise as an example?"

Please read MOS:OVERLINK for further information if needed. Loopy30 (talk) 19:14, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Finishing Octocorallia automatic taxoboxes

Hi Loopy30. I gather you were probably working through Octocorallia automatic taxobox conversion with a top down approach (starting with a higher taxon and working through subordinate taxa). That's the approach I'm taking with plant automatic taxoboxes. However, you missed a few articles. Going top down, articles can get missed if a parent taxon doesn't exist, or is treated as a synonym, or if a species isn't listed on a genus page (which could be due to simple oversight, a newly described species, or a synonymy issue). If you're approaching completion of converting to automatic taxoboxes for a particular group, it's a good idea to double-check with PetScan for anything you may have missed. Here is the PetScan search for Octocorallia still using manual taxoboxes (note the category under the Category tab and the template under the Templates&links tab). Plantdrew (talk) 20:17, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi Plantdrew, I have indeed been going though the articles trying to update the taxoboxes using a top down method. It is only very recently that I have noticed that I have been missing some pages using this approach. Many times, I then created a stub genus article to "link the taxa" pages. I haven't put this into practice for higher levels of taxa though. I started to search for the genus name too, to see if any article pages showed up and have caught a few more that way. Harder still, are articles at older taxonomic names (synonyms) that I wouldn't have automatically searched for, but should be mapped to newer names. I will look at the PetScan link that you have suggested as I have not seen or used it before and perhaps can then retroactively finish the Medusozoa and Octocorallia pages. THere certainly seems to be lots to do everywhere! Thanks for your help, 'Cheers, Loopy30 (talk) 20:39, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Oooh, that is a useful link. Does it draw from the addition of "Categories" to the article pages? It is easy to use and it says that there are only 15 pages left. I might actually finish something! Loopy30 (talk) 20:47, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes, the search I linked depends on categories; it will still miss articles that are lacking a taxonomic category. In the search I linked, it looks for articles in categories up to levels deep under Category:Octocorallia (six levels is deeper than needed to get to the lowest subcategory level, but it's better to go deeper than needed, than not deep enough). There are other ways PetScan can be used to search aside from categories; I've done PetScan searches using thee WikiProject Algae talk page template to find algae articles to convert to automatic taxoboxes (but Marine life/Animals WikiProject banners are probably too general to provide much help in finding cnidarians to convert). I think PetScan could also be used to find articles where Wikidata has Octocorallia as a parent taxon, but I haven't yet figured out how to make that kind of search work. Plantdrew (talk) 21:23, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Since you are working on algae articles, perhaps you could look at Margaretia dorus. Although originally thought to be a coral, it now appears to have been re-classified as a green alga. Loopy30 (talk) 22:52, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

I've merged Margaretia dorus into Margaretia. The latest interpretation is that it is a hemichordate. Ugh. I don't enjoy working on enigmatic fossil taxa. Plantdrew (talk) 01:41, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for that, I would like to do more on on paleo-ornithology articles as well, but need access to a lot more references before I can wade into that subject. I think there are now only nine Octocorallia articles left with manual taxoboxes still to convert. Loopy30 (talk) 02:22, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Csawant

Thanks for reaching out Loopy30 (talk). I have a few questions, but first I wanted to get used to this format hands on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Csawant (talk • contribs) 05:25, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Hello

Hi loopy the person who was sock already leaved the house, it was my cousin on January 21 he transferred and lives on our house due to the school time his original IP internet was 175. and since he transferred here I can't create Wikipedia account because we've been sharing the same IP over 2 months and now he's gone, he can't anymore abuse any websites, and yeah been making 3 draft article for my project video game thanks for understanding loop. Personale Personale (talk) 03:06, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

My article on Deanna Kamiel

Hi, Loopy30. I submitted a draft article on Deanna Kamiel believing that, as she won the Guggenheim Fellowship in 1984, she was sufficiently notable. However, my draft was rejected on the grounds that she was not notable. Your opinion, please? Katsheron (talk) 20:41, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

It gets worse. I think Mr. McClenon's response is very rude and unnecessarily condescending. I tried to follow his instructions to put my comment at "the bottom" but it appeared at the top. So what! Editors are not here to be abused. Also, why would he say my topic was not notable BEFORE checking to see if the Guggenheim Fellowship was sufficient notability? Here is a copy and paste of this conversation:

Robert McClenon (talk) 19:27, 28 June 2018 (UTC) Draft:Deanna Kamiel First, please do not top-post to my talk page. You not only posted your inquiry at the top of my talk page, but you posted it in between a collapsetop and collapsebottom where I had hidden previous top-posts. Your post is therefore invisible. If you do not know how to post to an editor's talk page, please ask for advice or assistance at the Teahouse or the Help Desk. Please do not just guess, and guess wrong, how posting is done. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:43, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Second, I will look to see if there is a notability guideline that covers her. In any case, your draft did not clearly demonstrate her notability. Again, I suggest that you ask for advice at the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:43, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

If the person is notable based on receiving the Guggenheim Fellowship award, then notability should not need to be further demonstrated. I did a page on Marvin Tile based on his receiving the Order of Canada that has a lot fewer references than my article on Deanna Kamiel, and it was accepted simply because no one can deny his notability, having received the Order of Canada. Katsheron (talk) 21:53, 28 June 2018 (UTC) Katsheron (talk) 22:04, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

I checked the Wikipedia notability criterion for a biography of a person and here it is: "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several times." Also, if you go to Categories for Wikipedia, and type in Guggenheim Fellowship award recipients, go to 1984 and find the name Deanna Kamiel, click on her name, it takes you to a page which invites you to create a draft for her. Katsheron (talk) 22:22, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi Katsheron, I am glad to see that you are still contributing to Wikipedia. Don't worry too much about the placement of your talk post thread or Robert McClenon's response, it was just a simple mistake and made in good faith. Yes, the convention on Wikipedia user talk pages is to post new threads at the bottom and to indent replies to others by using a colon at the start of the first line. Your post here to my talk page was similarly placed in the middle, perhaps because you had not scrolled down both the page scroll bar sufficiently and the Wikipedia edit box scroll bar to the bottom of the page before starting to type your comments. As far as contributions go, creating a new article from scratch can be difficult, and creating a new biography article can be considered the hardest of these. This is because of the scrutiny that is rightly given to biography pages by reviewers and other Wikipedia editors. Both you and the reviewers are correct in that notability is key for a biography article. User:DESiegel has provided some helpful points on the talk page of the draft Deanna Kamiel article. Keep trying and don't lose heart, if you are stuck, help is always available at various places. 'Cheers, Loopy30 (talk) 20:46, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi, again. My Deanna Kamiel article has sat around now for 7 weeks following my making the changes requested. Then another reviewer said it needed ref's to critics, so I added a Review section citing critics. Is there anything you can do to get it accepted? Katsheron (talk) 02:19, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Hello Katsheron, as an extended confirmed user with 860 edits to articles on Wikipedia, you can move the draft to main-space yourself. If you feel that the draft article properly demonstrates Deanna Kamiel's notability then be bold and put it out there for everyone to see. Once you do this, a few things will happen. First, the article will no longer be your draft article (see WP:OWN). This means that over time others will edit it at as they see fit. Secondly, if any editor feels strongly that the article still lacks demonstrated notability of the subject, they may nominate the article for deletion. If this happens, you - and everyone else - will be permitted to present arguments for and against deleting the article. After a week, or two if the discussion (or lack thereof) is extended, an un-involved editor (either an admin or experienced editor) will close the discussion recommending keep, merge, or delete. Only then would an admin delete as necessary. At this point, you have put enough work into the article that there is not much more you can do to demonstrate notability. Put it on main-space and let it sink or swim (keep or delete) on its own merits. 'Cheers, Loopy30 (talk) 02:47, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you! Katsheron (talk) 10:35, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

An unrelated question: I note that Phil Mudd, who we see on CNN all the time, doesn't have a Wikipedia page. Would there be a reason for that? Do some people ask to not have a page? Katsheron (talk) 02:22, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Individuals can ask that incorrect facts be redacted from articles about them, but as long as they are considered notable, Wikipedia may have an article about them, whether the notable individual wishes so or not. For Phil Mudd, an article on him would have to pass notability as either a senior civil servant (deputy-director of the CIA's NCTC and FBI's NSB) or as a television personality (CNN talking head). Neither is a sure thing, as you would have to provide third-party sources of the notability of their tenure, not just the boiler-plate facts of their employment. Loopy30 (talk) 03:20, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Italic titles

Automatic taxoboxes are quite good at making titles italicized, even when there is a parenthetical disambiguator. However, automatic italicization will be overriden if there is a value in the |name= parameter. In most cases when a genus with an automatic taxobox doesn't have an italicized title, it can be fixed by removing the name, rather than needing to add {{DISPLAYTITLE}}. Plantdrew (talk) 17:32, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

OK, thanks Plantdrew. I found afterwards that just using {{Italic title}} also worked instead of the more complicated {{DISPLAYTITLE:''Turbinaria'' (coral)}}. Loopy30 (talk) 17:39, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

My spelling...

... contains habitual errors, which I seem incapable of recognising; so thanks for fixing that fine example at Roman republic. I also have no clue when to use "which", rather than "that", though it's been explained to me umpteen times. It annoys the hell out of me, but it's deeply ingrained. Haploidavey (talk) 20:57, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Haploidavey, no problem ... that's why the project is a collaborative effort! Loopy30 (talk) 21:30, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Indeed it is! Thank you. Haploidavey (talk) 22:10, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Homophyllia bowerbanki

I see that you have moved the page Acanthastrea bowerbanki to Homophyllia bowerbanki because WoRMS has decided to reclassify it. I think you should propose the move on the talk page before doing such a move as we do not have a consensus to follow WoRMS as far as I know (although I normally do). The point I am really making, however, is that you should complete the move process by changing the text in the taxobox and main text so that they match the new title. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:35, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi Cwmhiraeth, sometimes I lose my internet connection right when I am in the middle of doing something. I am back now and have completed the edit. As far as following WoRMS as a taxonomic standard, no-one objected when I asked at the project page in February and you supported it there too. As I have moved several other cnidarian pages and not heard any objections yet, I shall continue to go boldly (or blindly) forth... 'Cheers, Loopy30 (talk) 20:24, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

OK, it's better now. However if you are going to show/hide the synonyms, it might be a good idea to mention the change of name in the lead. In this instance you have changed the name in the IUCN citation, which is incorrect, while leaving it in the WoRMS citation. If you were to change the WoRMS citation to the new name, which would be advisable to back up the new name, you should also change the access date. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:21, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes, what you suggest was indeed what I intented to do, but only changed the date for the WoRMS ref and then swapped the wrong genus name (in the IUCN ref) instead. It is corrected now. Loopy30 (talk) 10:25, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

I am the original producer of the film (with Martin Sheen, my friend and business partner). I added some context on the unusual nature of the birth of this film.

Hi Loopy30- I'm hoping this is the way to communicate with you. I must confess the menu system here is a bit overwhelming and I'm confused. So, presuming this will reach you, I want to ask your help in correcting and enhancing the entry regarding "Nightbreaker", the movie. I am, in fact, the producer of the film. And therefore, I would not expect to be able to add editorial content that describes the film subjectively. However, I am concerned that the credits listed are wrong and include a producer who was NOT involved in the film, Tony Garnett (I've never even heard of him) and excludes the actual producers, Martin Sheen, William R. Greenblatt (me) and Jeffrey Auerbach. These credits can be confirmed in any number of ways including the listing of the film on the IMDB, and the film itself (I could provide screenshots). The editorial content I added are simply facts (awards and nominations received, etc.) or descriptions of the historical actions of the producers, cast and crew. I could get verification from Martin Sheen and/or the director (Peter Markle) or anyone else involved. One of the things I'm confused about is if no-one involved in the project can contribute to this page, as per Wiki's rules, doesn't that eliminate the most knowledgeable people involved in the project? I appreciate your gracious response to my edits and the time you are volunteering to help us all make Wikipedia accurate and useful. Please let me know how we can make these changes. Best, Bill Greenblatt Billg414 (talk) 17:14, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Hello Billg414, thanks for your message and also your becoming a contributing editor to Wikipedia. It can indeed be overwhelming experience at first when trying to navigate how to edit Wikipedia articles. As there is so much information out there, it can be a bit like sipping on a fire hose when you start to look for answers. My advice would be to start with easy edits and then only learn new things incrementally as you go. For editing basics the Wikipedia Adventure will get you started and for new editor help, the Teahouse is a friendly place to ask questions (both links in your welcome message on your talk page). You can also ask me here as well.

One of the core principles of Wikipedia is that all edits must be verifiable and from reliable sources. No editor, even one with first-hand knowledge of the topic, may add subjective or un-verifiable material to an article. This also why those with a conflict of interest are discouraged from editing on topics they have a personal stake in. For the edits on the film Nightbreaker, I think I can help you as although IMDB is not considered a reliable source, I have found a reference on a British Film Institute that supports your claim. I am assuming here that the BFI didn't just copy the info from IMDB originally, as much of IMDB's information is user-generated content and not acceptable. While the information on TNT origin and awards is very likely supportable, the claim that the film was directly responsible for the US decision to end underground nuclear testing would definitely have to be sourced.

I hope you will continue to contribute to Wikipedia in the future, 'Cheers, Loopy30 (talk) 19:16, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Speciesboxes

As a speciesbox expert perhaps you can help solve a mystery for me. I used the speciesbox from Conchoderma auritum as a guide when creating Conchoderma virgatum. The former article has an italic title, as it should have, and the latter does not. I do not understand why this is. Can you help? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:17, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Hello Cwmhiraeth, I think you did everything correctly and it does look like it should work. I think that sometimes templates are stored somewhere where they can be called easily but are not refreshed more often than once a day. Although I have added the italic title template, this should be redundant and it will likely fix itself within 24hrs. By the way, I am by no means an expert, merely a frequent user. 'Cheers, Loopy30 (talk) 20:42, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Cwmhiraeth, it is because the spelling of the article title and the species name in the binomial in the taxobox do not match! Is the article at the correct title? or is the taxobox and text correct? Loopy30 (talk) 20:45, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Well spotted, it's obvious when it's pointed out. A surprising number of synonyms are actually mis-spellings of the correct name. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:13, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Reference names

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

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)

Template:Taxonomy/Alveolitina

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

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

Category:Anthozoa → Category:Coral reefs → Category:Clipperton Island → Galapagos shark

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)

Brazilian goose

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)

Overlinking

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)

Nice work! Keep going. Do you have Ohconfucius's scripts installed? I have the "composite" buttons that fix typography, harmonise date formats, and unlink silly links. Takes a little human oversite, but makes a big footprint on the site. Thank you. Tony (talk) 03:19, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your understanding

My teacher want to creat a wiki page about anyting that is not existing before, and the editing record. I will put more detail about nced3 gene on the nced gene page. Thank you so much!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by JieLin627812 (talk • contribs) 13:30, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Automatic taxoboxes

I have made a mess in attempting to make the taxoboxes of Sipunculids match the taxonomy used in WoRMS. I was trying to get rid of "Aspidosiphoniformes" and "Phascolosomatiformes" and replace them with "Aspidosiphonida " and "Phascolosomatida" as in WoRMS, which treats Sipuncula as a phylum. Can you help? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:35, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Hello Cwmhiraeth, I will have a look. 'Cheers, Loopy30 (talk) 20:04, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

I modified the subdivisions in the taxobox to match the taxonomy in WoRMS, and have adjusted the automatic template to recognize Sipuncula as a separate phylum from Annelida. There are now some red links as a result that you may wish to have a page move (from "Aspidosiphoniformes" to "Aspidosiphonida" and "Phascolosomatiformes" to "Phascolosomatida") to correct. Loopy30 (talk) 21:11, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Cwmhiraeth, please check that the subordinate pages are correct. Several pages have been changed to accommodate this accepted taxonomy (Phascolosomatidea, Aspidosiphonidae, Golfingiidae, Phascolionidae, Themiste (worm), Sipunculidae, Golfingiida), and several automatic taxobox templates (Sipuncula, Aspidosiphonidae, Aspidosiphonida, Golfingiidae, Phascolionidae, Themistidae, Sipunculidae). Two new automatic taxobox templates were created (Aspidosiphonida, Golfingiida). One page move (Golfingiiformes --> Golfingiida) and one merge (Sipunculidea --> Golfingiida). 'Cheers, Loopy30 (talk) 23:21, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, you have been most thorough (I am thinking of trying to get Sipuncula to GA) and I will check around. I think it is difficult for Wikipedia to keep up with changes in taxonomy, and I like it best when the IUCN and WoRMS agree, for example. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:48, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

December 2018

Hello, I'm Zackmann08. Thank you for your recent contributions to Akainacephalus. When you were adding content to the page, you added duplicate arguments to a template which can cause issues with how the template is rendered. In the future, please use the preview button before you save your edit; this helps you find these errors as they will display in red at the top of the page. Thanks! Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 20:20, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Commas

Short introductory phrases (less than about 5 words is the common measure) are not followed by a comma. The MOS:COMMA guidance on following dates with a comma applies to full dates, where the year is surrounded by commas:

• On May 3, 1997, he went to Spain.
• In 1997 he went to Spain.

This is one way in which comma use has been reduced in recent decades (I could swear I learned it the other way in school). There's (unfortunately long) discussion here: WT:Manual of Style/Archive 208 § Comma after date. I don't want to revert Tina Turner again, so I'll leave it to you. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 01:35, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi AlanM1, I don't really see anything conclusive about this specific type of example in the discussion thread provided, but it certainly is clear that many people have some strong feelings with respect to "correct" MOS. In this case, perhaps the comma is correct ('cause Mrs. Snodgrass told me so) but the sentence as a whole is just too short. In your examples above, perhaps they would be better written as:

• He went to Spain in 1997 (... and expand in order to say something really important for the article).

This seems to be more of a fragment than a full sentence and I think that expanding, or combining the sentence with the next would be even better.

For the Tina Turner article, an alternative could be to just re-write the sentence as:

• People magazine ranked her 1985 performance of "What's Love Got to Do With It" as one of the Grammy Awards' top moments,[8] as did Time in 2009.

I will note that the comma is also used after the year date several times elsewhere in the article, and for consistency should be continued throughout. ' Cheers, Loopy30 (talk) 21:37, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

@Loopy30: That re-cast looks good, except we lose the "2004", which seems an unnecessary loss (though not critical). As far as WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, I don't deny that Mrs. Snodgrass has had a profound influence on Wikipedia writers and content. In this particular instance, I was one of them until convinced otherwise some years ago.

I attempted to get clarification at WT:MOS and got a flippant response and "re-cast", which doesn't tell me what the right thing to do is when I don't want to re-write a paragraph (or whole article) full of "In yyyy[,] somethings" just to add or fix a fact or cite. It also doesn't address the perfectly reasonable occasional use of such phrases. The result is that I'm now afraid to write anything starting with a short introductory phrase, which seems unfortunate.

A Google search shows that the comma "after a short introductory phrase" is mentioned as "optional" by many style guides.

In CMoS 17:

I believe the last example would be the same, requiring no comma, if "On Thanksgiving Day" were replaced with "In", making it analogous to the present discussion.

The MLA says "Is a comma needed after a short introductory phrase? No. For more on when to include and omit commas, see our post." The examples in the referenced article shown no comma after an introductory "This evening" (which I believe is analogous to the present discussion).

(more to follow) (discussion ongoing at WT:MOS). (edited) —[AlanM1(talk)]— 22:51, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Reading the above, and after being trouted at the WT:MOS discussion, I apologize if I was brusque in my comments above. I have good days, and bad. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 00:56, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Oh well, there must be endless other articles out there needing attention from keen editors. Good luck, Loopy30 (talk) 01:36, 22 December 2018 (UTC)