User talk:Somatochlora

Aster

Hi Somatochlora, I modified your edit to Aster to meet the MOS guidelines for DAB pages - specifically, one blue link per entry and short descriptions. Feel free to modify further if needed. Leschnei (talk) 13:38, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

cool, thanks Somatochlora (talk) 15:52, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ways to improve Somatochlora meridionalis

Hello, Somatochlora,

Thank you for creating Somatochlora meridionalis.

I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

Expansion of content and addition of sources needed.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|WikiAviator}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~. For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

WikiAviator (talk) 01:50, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@WikiAviator: Not quite sure how these tags apply to this page? All the information is cited, and it makes no sense to say that "this article's lead section does not adequately summarize key points of its contents." when there are only a few sentences. Yeah it's short, but that's a different concern, and this article probably has more information and better sources than the median insect article (most of which look more like Somatochlora calverti. I am planning to expand a little bit at some point, but it isn't helpful to add a big ugly box for "issues" that don't actually apply. Somatochlora (talk) 02:29, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Somatochlora: First, are you sure that this little bit of facts can adequately present the facts of this insect? Is this piece of info all of this insect? Its lifespan? Its habitat (climate? Lives on trees or swamps?)? I am no expert in insects but I'm sure there are more facts about it. For the sources, I think that you could find some more that are credible. Also, there are some grammar problems. You don't say that an insect "occurs" somewhere, you say something like "it could be seen", "inhabits in" somewhere. Moreover, we are not wanting our articles to be "median". We need them to be constantly improving, that's why there's page curation. Furthermore, let's not think of things that negatively. Yes, editing Wikipedia can be very stressful and I understand. But sometimes pointing out methods of improvement are needed. Therefore please don't be upset upon seeing this box, it's not your fault and we're not trying to scare editors away with this box, we're just editors that are always learning and you could always ask for help if you need. Just drop a message on my talk page if you need some help :) Happy editing! WikiAviator (talk) 03:21, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@WikiAviator: It doesn't seem like you really read my response above:

Why would you tag an article where all the facts are referenced to reliable sources with "This article needs additional citations for verification"?
Why would you tag an article that has no separate lead section with "This article's lead section does not adequately summarize key points of its contents."???

I'm not sure why you are bringing up separate issues now instead of justifying the ones you raised initially? But if you think the current grammar is wrong, change it. I would revert that change, because "occurs in" is a totally normal way to express the range of a species, whereas "it could be seen" is bizarrely worded and "inhabits in" is grammatically incorrect. And I'm not sure on what basis you are suggesting that the IUCN(!!) and this journal article are not credible?

Obviously there is more information that could be included about this species. The unobtrusive "stub" tag at the bottom of the page seems to do a perfectly job of indicating so. A big box at the top of the page listing some unrelated and non-applicable issues does not indicate so.Somatochlora (talk) 03:43, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WikiAviator, I agree with Somatochlora that these tags were not appropriate. {{More citations needed}} should only be used if there are statements which require further verification; it is not equivalent to "please expand the article", which is what the stub tag is for. In a similar vein, don't tag stubs as needing a lead. Somatochlora is also correct that it's perfectly appropriate to say that an insect "occurs" somewhere (and if you don't believe us, check Google Scholar for examples of that phrase).

As a final note, responding to a well-reasoned and non-inflammatory comment like the one Somatochlora made in response to your automated message by launching into several sentences about assuming good faith and not getting stressed comes off as condescending; save that speech for when someone is YELLING or is otherwise clearly upset. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 21:12, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Identifying the dragonfly

Thank you for helping me with the dragonfly. Unfortunately, there is no longer room in the Door County, Wisconsin article because someone reverted the page to the January 5, 2019 version. So I will add the dragonfly picture to The Ridges Sanctuary instead and your efforts will not be put to waste.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 17:02, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Symphyotrichum lateriflorum hybrids section

@Somatochlora: Thanks for cleaning that up. It does look much better. :) Eewilson (talk) 18:49, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Acer saccharum

For the common names you have to click the circular icon next to the common name on: https://www.missouribotanicalgarden.org/PlantFinder/PlantFinderDetails.aspx?kempercode=h240 Hardyplants (talk)

Undo my edit

Why did you undo my edit? The cited source says only about the diversity of non-avian dinosaurs, and not all representatives of the Dinosauria clade: "The results show that several hundreds (between 628 and 1078) non-avian dinosaur species were alive in the Late Maastrichtian". HFoxii (talk) 15:12, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, dumb brain-fart... somehow I thought you had removed that text. Somatochlora (talk) 15:19, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bird

Hi Somatochlora: I'd suggest you undo your removal of the split notice on bird. Though all of us who've commented are clearly in agreement, I'm not sure we're the ones who should remove the request for comment — and certainly not after a single day. We might get accused of "stifling conversation" or something similar. :/ MeegsC (talk) 17:11, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough... I thought the immediate strong rejection combined with a borderline incoherent split proposal was enough, but I'll let the discussion work itself out properly. Somatochlora (talk) 17:51, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect categories

Hello, thanks for creating redirects from vernacular names and synonyms – I've started doing that a couple days ago as well. It would be appreciated if you could tag your redirects with redirect categories; specifically, {{R from alternative scientific name}} and {{R to scientific name}}. Most importantly, this would determine the redirects' Wikipedia:Printworthiness. While you are not required to do so, it would certainly save others from doing additional work. You can also make this process easier by using tools like Wikipedia:Twinkle or Wikipedia:Capricorn. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 17:20, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I will do so. I am not convinced this is at all valuable (I certainly don't think the the prospect of articles being printed or saved offline should be the remotest consideration in my editing work!), but whatever, it's no extra effort.Somatochlora (talk) 17:47, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Removal from Alaska

I noticed you removed the entire claim about Alaska being the most populous territory in the continent north of the 60th parallel. In your edit summary you mentioned that a ”substantial portion” of Alaska isn't north of the 60th. However, it seems to me that the claims you removed are factually correct, as a large majority of Alaska is north of the 60th. Could you elaborate on why you felt the section had to be removed? I personally think it added to the article highlighting the population difference between Northern Canada, Alaska and Greenland. --ZeiP (talk) 21:27, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is factually wrong to say that Alaska is a territory north of the 60th parallel, and the previous version also gave a population figure for the entire state and implied that it was talking about people north of the 60th parallel. I agree that some comparison with other northern areas could be helpful, but it needs to be both factually true, and comparing like-to-like. I'm also not really sure how informative this stat is at the state level - is Alaska really more populous than other areas except right around Anchorage? I can see both sides there. Somatochlora (talk) 00:06, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The wording in the article was correct regarding the position – it said ”mostly north of the 60th parallel”, which is correct. Anchorage is north of the 60th parallel, so the population of it alone (~291k) is greater than Northern Canada and Greenland together (~169k). Therefore it seems to me that the claim is true. I'm not sure about the comparing like-to-like – all of these areas contain larger cities and rural/wilderness area, so to me they do seem comparable. I suggest we roll back to the previous wording and make that better if necessary. Is that ok for you? --ZeiP (talk) 07:33, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well that's embarrassing, I somehow read that section over repeatedly and completely missed that the word "mostly" was in there... I've undone my change. I don't like the current wording because it feels like a statement written to sound significant but actually be pretty meaningless (as an example, the statement would still be true if there was a city of 10 million people in the far north of Quebec, but in that case would be really misleading). But I don't have strong feelings about it and can't immediately think of a better phrasing so whatever. Somatochlora (talk) 17:39, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Symphyotrichum award

	*The Symphyotrichum* Award**
	A belated thank you for your overhaul of the List of Symphyotrichum species article, including great sourcing and tracking down so many images. Much thanks! Eewilson (talk) 10:11, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks, and you should receive this award x100 for all your great work on this group! Somatochlora (talk) 19:12, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's nice! Actually, I've thought about giving it to myself. :) I created this for my userpage instead. —Eewilson (talk) 02:12, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This user passionately and lovingly edits Symphyotrichum articles.

Disambiguation link notification for October 8

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Williamsonia fletcheri, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page New York.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:01, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Williamsonia lintneri

Hello, the reversion on Williamsonia lintneri causes a cite date error as you need to give a full accessdate not a partial one. My guess is that December 2020 is the publication date not the accessdate as you looked at the source today. Keith D (talk) 16:50, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I downloaded a copy of the database in December 2020 which is what I am using, so that date is correct. It seems like a bug that just saying the month causes an error... but to resolve it I just checked a new copy of the database. Regardless I don't think it is good practice for you to change access dates without actually checking the source yourself... it is perfectly possible that the newer version could be missing information available on an older version. It seems like it would make far more sense just to remove the access date in case of an error rather than introducing false information.Somatochlora (talk) 17:01, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Then it is the publication date and the December 2020 should go in the |date= field. As you consulted it today then today's date should go in the |accessdate= field. Keith D (talk) 22:24, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn’t make sense, the point of an access date field is to pin down what version of a page was looked at, if there are discrepancies between different versions. The date that an editor *read* a piece of information is irrelevant, the important part is the date on which the information was retrieved/accessed. In most cases that will be the same date, but in this case it isn’t, because I downloaded a copy of the resource in December and have not updated it since. December is not the publication date, the publication date is whenever that resource had last been updated prior to my access.Somatochlora (talk) 22:58, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Seaside Sparrow

I see you reverted my change on Seaside sparrow. I replaced the image with one that was larger, sharper, and that I felt still showed essential field marks. I don't like stepping on people's toes, and if you are particularly attached to your image, then I will defer to you. If you are open to replacement of the image, I believe I can find something that may be a higher resolution and sharper image. However, that image was shot at nearly eye level and the background is a blurred bokeh with a few leaves from reeds off to the side and not behind the bird. So I don't fully understand your objection. Needsmoreritalin (talk) 20:35, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I realise this is a subjective decision, but in my opinion, the lead photo in an article like this should clearly illustrate what the bird looks like, which your replacement photo doesn't do super well given that the entire upperside and tail are basically invisible. All else being equal I agree a sharper and larger image is better, but I really don't think that's super important relative to an image that shows the whole bird. (Also, I think these photos would ideally be quite closely cropped, your image has some wasted space, but that would be easily resolved).Somatochlora (talk) 00:01, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year, Somatochlora!

Happy New Year!

Somatochlora,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
– Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 21:53, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

– Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 21:53, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:57, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]