User talk:Stemonitis/Archive28

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

This archive page covers approximately the dates between August 1, 2010 and September 19, 2010.

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

List of Tachinidae genera and species. Deletion proposal

Hi Stemonitis. I answered to this matter here: Talk:List of Tachinidae genera and species#Deletion proposal. Flakinho (talk) 00:46, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Prodryas

Thanks from me and the wiki Victuallers (talk) 18:02, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the help

Thanks for your formatting on the Northern Rocky Mountains Wolf article. I'm not very good with formatting references correctly and other things related to that (hence why i'm a Wikidragon and not a Wikifey.) But, thanks. Sometime tonight or tomorrow, i'm going to finish integrating the rest of the EL's into the article as references, or most of them at least. Would you be able to format those as well after i've done so? Silverseren^C 03:37, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Of course. Let me know when you're done, and I'll give it the once over. --Stemonitis (talk) 03:37, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I think i'm done, for now. I've sourced it rather well. I'll probably go in and extend the Physiology section at some point, but I think the article is good in its History section, so I won't need to mess with that any more. Silverseren^C 21:16, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I've formatted the remaining references. It was quite interesting; I've never used {{cite court}} before. --Stemonitis (talk) 06:05, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Heh, well i'm glad there was something new for you to try out. :) And thanks! I would have never been able to do that myself. Silverseren^C 06:08, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

		The Original Barnstar
		For your help in making the references on the Northern Rocky Mountains Wolf nice and spiffy. Now it's all prettied up for DYK review! SilverserenC 06:18, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Blimey! You're very welcome. I only started on the article because it showed up in Category:Taxoboxes needing a status system parameter. It should sail through DYK without a hitch: it's well referenced (and I don't mean the formatting), recently created and plenty long enough. I should think there would be more than enough interesting stuff to make a good hook out of, too, but I'll leave that up to you. --Stemonitis (talk) 06:36, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I hope we cross paths again at some point in the future. I'm going to continue working on creating articles for subspecies of large mammals. For now, my plan is to finish up the wolf subspecies and then probably move onto large cats of some variety. Silverseren^C 06:42, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

List of Tachinidae genera

You do realize that the result of all your redirects is that the links on this list now point back to the list? So the page now consists mainly of links to itself. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:51, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but it's still more informative than having 1000 pages which collectively carry less information. I didn't think deletion was justified in such cases. If anyone wants to go through and make proper articles in their places (I'm working on one at the moment, but there are many many more), they are very very welcome. It also makes it easier to scan the category listings to find the ones which are simply false (although that's not a reason for doing it in the first place). --Stemonitis (talk) 19:47, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Weevil and lobster, together at last.

Why delete the binominal redirect to maize weevil?

Thanks for removing Panulirus interruptus — California spiny lobster. I guess the clue was California and Atlantic on the same page.

Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:22, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I removed the redirect from "Sitophilus zeamais ." (with the space and the full stop); there is still a redirect at Sitophilus zeamais, as there should be. --Stemonitis (talk) 06:23, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Ahhhh. Right. Sorry about that. It was a bad cut and paste on my end. I was searching for occurrences of Sitophilus zeamais by searching "Sitophilus zeamais ." in the search box as an experiment. I must have used that cut and paste and didn't notice.

Usually, I look for occurrences by entering "Sitophilus zeamais a". Is there another way to find all occurrences so that I can turn black into blue links? Thanks. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:37, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't think I understand the question. You search for "Sitophilus zemais a", with an "a"? And with quotes or without?

I would tend to search for "Sitophilus zeamais", without quotes, unless that produced too many inappropriate hits, in which case I would add the quote marks in. I take it your "black links" are red links in other skins. --Stemonitis (talk) 06:43, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I just read the search help and figured it out. I was trying to search something without getting brought to the article, but instead just to see the list of occurrences. I have been searching the string with the letter a on the end to avoid going straight to the article. Thanks and sorry to bother you. Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:54, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Pardon me for cutting in, but...why don't you...oh. You're on the new skin, aren't you? The one that doesn't separate the "Go" and the "Search" buttons, right? Silverseren^C 07:02, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

No, I didn't like the look of that, and didn't fancy moving all my old CSS over to the new skin. I didn't need any of the new functionalities, so I kept it the way I was used to. If it also doesn't separate "Go" and "Search" (which I guess is the answer Anna Frodesiak found), then that's another reason to stick to MonoBook. --Stemonitis (talk) 07:07, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Liocarcinus_pusillus#Description

Hi again. Sorry to bother you. Could you please help me turn this into English? (If you have time.) Thanks so much. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:10, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

In principle, yes. There is a glossary here, which should answer most of your questions, but feel free to ask me about parts you can't work out. --Stemonitis (talk) 05:17, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Nice link, thanks. Okay. I'll try. But, I know nothing of crabs, except:

• hard to get the meat out
• good with butter

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:41, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Endangered Status

Hmm...I would assume that the ruling isn't final yet. Or that they are extremely resistant to re-list the species. Of course, we already knew that. Oh well, i'll just wait until they get around to changing their website before I change the status. Silverseren^C 17:08, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the system is a strange one. I can't really understand a situation in which a judge decides on matters of biology, or in which a "population segment" can be unlisted while the whole species is considered endangered. Nonetheless, we can only report the current status as reported by an external agency, so that means no conservation status in the taxobox (for now). --Stemonitis (talk) 17:13, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Tachinidae.

Hi, Please see the article --Muhammad(talk) 18:47, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

What's your point? --Stemonitis (talk) 18:49, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

FYI, Wikipedia talk:Featured picture candidates#Taking .22Encyclopedic value.22 seriously. Kaldari (talk) 22:34, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

lobster

hi, you reverted the image I added [1] Could you please tell me what family it belongs to. Do we have an article about those? Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 21:33, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I couldn't guarantee myself that the picture is of Pseudastacus, but I imagine the identification comes from the museum that holds the specimen, and is therefore pretty reliable. It is perhaps a little unfortunate that the file is called "fossil shrimp", but that's no big issue. From the sources I looked at yesterday (no longer to hand), it looked like Pseudastacus (which, presumably, is what is meant by "Pseudostacus") was generally placed among the Protastacidae. We haven't got an article about them, yet. Checking the most up to date conspectus (De Grave et al., 2009), however, the genus is now placed in the Chilenophoberidae. We haven't got an article about them, either. That family is pretty new, which might explain why the sources I skimmed yesterday differed. There are three fossil families in the superfamily Nephropoidea, and the one extant family Nephropidae, which is what "lobster" currently covers, and which also contains a number of other fossils. It would be possible, but not, I think, desirable, to expand the scope of lobster to cover the whole superfamily, although there is a separate article for that. A number of animals are called "lobster" informally, and it would not make sense to include them all in the article lobster. I'm a little busy for the next week or two, but after that I might be able to find time to write an article about Chilenophoberidae if I can find the sources. --Stemonitis (talk) 04:47, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. The rock is not from museum. It is my own rock,and the ID was written on it. Besides it was identified by another editor and his ID was the same I have. I thought it would have been nice to have the image in lobster because in particular it shows antennas in such great details that no other image in the article does, and besides I thought having image of a fossil will increase encyclopedic value of the article. Regards.--Mbz1 (talk) 04:59, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I am not really questioning the identification, merely stressing that I wouldn't know if it was misidentified. I have no reason to doubt it. It is a very good picture, and I do think it should be included, but the article for it to go in has not yet been written. As soon as it has, your picture will go in. (That will happen as a matter of course, I think, as long as it's categorised as "Chilenophoberidae" on the Commons). I might be very tempted to write one; we have so little featured content on crustaceans that a FP cannot be lightly passed over. --Stemonitis (talk) 05:10, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Orconectes immunis

— Rlevse • Talk • 06:03, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the information

I wasn't aware of the variations of all the capitalizations for the different classes. Should this one then be: "bay ghost shrimp" (all miniscule) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bay_ghost_shrimp

Bruinfan12 (talk) 08:15, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Proper nouns always take a capital letter, even in sentence case, so no. If the ghost shrimp were from bays, generally, then it would be "bay ghost shrimp", but since it is named after "the Bay" (=San Francisco Bay), it is the "Bay ghost shrimp". It can sometimes be difficult to work out whether a species is named after a proper noun (person or place), but usually it's fairly clear. I am unsure about instances like "Northern" / "northern". The North is normally capitalised, but "northern" usually isn't. --Stemonitis (talk) 08:19, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

List of beetles of Great Britain

I have just come across your list of beetles of Great Britain (and its daughters) again today, and I see that they're all unsourced. I don't suppose you can remember where you got the information, can you? If you let me know what the source was, I'm happy to add it to all the pages. --Stemonitis (talk) 11:27, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi. I believe the source was the www.Coleopterist.co.uk website. SP-KP (talk) 11:29, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Ah, OK. So:

• A. G. Duff (2008). "Checklist of Beetles of the British Isles" (PDF). The Coleopterist. Retrieved August 13, 2010.

Naturally, this isn't the version you used back in 2006, so I'll go through the PDF later (I'm busy this coming week, but I'll try to do it soon after) and re-produce the lists, in case anything has changed. I do like the file size warning for a 1.9 MB file – very nostalgic! --Stemonitis (talk) 11:37, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Template:TaxonIds

Hi Stemonitis, has the decision been made on whether to use the template on all articles? The template will be really useful for my bot for extracting WoRMS ID numbers from Gastropod articles. I run checks against the WoRMS database to produce pages like this. — Ganeshk (talk) 11:58, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Eventually, there were about half a dozen discussions going on in different places, for reasons we needn't go into here. The consensus of them all appeared (to me) to be that there was no reason not to use the template. There may be room for discussion about exactly how it's implemented (appearance and so on), but there's no policy that would prevent its use. Because of all the sound and fury in those discussions, I don't think anyone has explicitly proposed adding the template, presumably automatically, to large numbers of articles. I can foresee problems with that, and I would need lots of assurances before I would be happy to let a bot decide whether a taxon in an external database was the same as the one in the article. The criterion of them having the same name is neither necessary nor sufficient. I assume that WoRMS is fairly authoritative for gastropods; I know it is variable in crustaceans. There is, for instance, a World Amphipoda database there, but the coverage of isopods is less complete. It is handy to link to resources like WoRMS, and I do it wherever possible, but I suppose that all taxonomic decisions that we report should really cite printed sources. --Stemonitis (talk) 13:37, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I had generated a list of articles with their ID numbers by looking for the {{WRMS species}} template. I think the list is accurate. I need to file a bot request to mass update the articles with the template. Would you approve that? — Ganeshk (talk) 01:51, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Category:Entomology

Hello. I see you've reverted several of my categorizations, including my removal of Category:Insects as the parent of Category:Entomology. Please note that Category:Entomology is the parent category of Category:Insects, and it makes sense that they shouldn't both be each other's parents. It seems that categories of species tend to be the child category of the branch of science describing them: for example, Category:Plants is the child of Category:Botany. I'd be glad to discuss this further with you. Nanodance (talk) 19:50, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Entomology is the study of insects, and is therefore a subfield of insects. I think the other categories must have this the wrong way round. Botany without plants is nothing, but plants carry on just fine without botany. Please also note that articles which are the main article for a subcategory should be categorised in the parent category, too, as an exception to the general rule of articles not being in both parent and child categories. (Even though I knew it existed, it took me a while to find this guideline: it's in the "Category" section of WP:CSL.) --Stemonitis (talk) 19:54, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Stemonitis that it seems to make more sense for Category:Entomology to be a subcategory of Category:Insects rather than the other way around. Otherwise, it seems we are elevating our study of insects above the insects themselves. I don't know many entomologists that would be comfortable with such an arrangement! Kaldari (talk) 20:21, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that arrangement makes sense for the reasons given, but other child categories of biology should also use the same order of hierarchy, for consistency. As another example, Category:Herpetology contains the categories Category:Amphibians and Category:Reptiles. Should both of those two categories then be parents of Category:Herpetology? That's a request for your opinions, and not criticism or counter-example for your argument. My only concern is that zoological and botanical categories should be arranged consistently, to avoid making articles and sub-categories difficult to find. Thanks, Nanodance (talk) 11:10, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I think herpetology is probably a special case, since it covers a non-monophyletic group. We do not have (and do not want) a "Category:Herpets" for it to be a subcategory of, so in this case, it has to be associated with each of the two groups individually. I do indeed think it should be a subcategory of both, rather than the other way around, for the reasons we've already discussed. --Stemonitis (talk) 11:15, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for covering my Phloesini tribe article with the genera list. I was only aware of those two "Phloesinus" species (if they are congeneric after all and my school's books aren't outdated) and I was thinking to start an article about them since they are considered to be among the most important sylvicutural pests in my country. I'll need your help to translate certain context accurately, in the way it is used by english speaking scientists, and not by literal translation that might not correspond with the terminology used. Visit my talk page if you are okey with it. Thank you.--Draco ignoramus sophomoricus (talk) 09:51, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Another one for you

I just started working on a new wolf article the other day, the Yukon Wolf. If you have the time and the inclination to help out on the references, I would really appreciate it. Silverseren^C 21:27, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

^_^ *hugs* Thanks! You're a big help! Silverseren^C 19:14, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome. I had meant to put a note here saying that I'd done it, and now I realise I didn't. Never mind. --Stemonitis (talk) 20:10, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Sting stang stung

Hi. I saw your assessment edit, and was just wondering if you might have any insights or suggestions for the thread at Talk:Starr sting pain scale#Merge with Schmidt Sting Pain Index (concerning overlap/merge/history-of/etc the two articles Schmidt Sting Pain Index and Starr sting pain scale). I left a comment at WikiProject Insects, but received no reply. Thoughts welcome, but no obligation. :) -- Quiddity (talk) 05:04, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I think both could be happily merged into arthropod bites and stings. I'm not sure how notable either of them is on their own, but if they're to be merged, that doesn't matter so much. --Stemonitis (talk) 05:59, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Parasites

Hello again. Should I add category parasites to melon fly and other such articles I have started? Also, if I add that category to Human, would I get in big trouble? Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:45, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I can't see any indication that either of those species counts as a parasite. Neither is an autotroph, and so both rely on other living things, but they're not parasites (although that article doesn't give a firm definition). I think the relationship has to be rather closer than merely feeding on another organism to count as parasitism. --Stemonitis (talk) 11:58, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Okay thanks. I started a couple of mite articles. I will check on those just to be sure. Thanks for the advice. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:06, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Three reverts

As a heads up you have made three reverts at Crab louse Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:45, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I reverted one edit twice (rearrangement of infoboxes), and one quite different one (a, to my mind, inappropriate move) once. All the time, I have attempted to engage the other involved parties in discussion. Can we not adopt a less combative approach? I think we all want the same outcome. --Stemonitis (talk) 19:57, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes agree. Many other changes which were made in good faith were also reverted. I think your idea to split into two pages is a good, which is what has been done on most topics in which a single organism cause a single disease. Thus I have pursued this line of thought. All the best.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:11, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Dosima

A lucky find.I was on a beach walk with my daughter and finding the very strong wind from the sea a problem.She found the odd looking "old ladies plastic hats" of dried Velella and then we found many stranded individuals. A first for me although the strands on this coast are well known for Janthina. I took the photo of Dosima having seen others attached to the Blue Sailors without realising the association or knowing what it was. A pity since the bunches of Dosima under the Velella would have made a nice photo. We can try again but not before the weekend.I should thank you for so many edits to my stubs.All the best from Ireland Robert aka Notafly (talk) 13:10, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Soldierfly

Thanks --Muhammad(talk) 15:38, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Flies

The categories were recently created by Dawynn (talk · contribs) and my purpose was to a) categorize the categories and b) populate them if minimally. You are wrong about small categories: it may or may not make sense to create a subcategory tree but there is nothing wrong per se with small categories. I am particularly familiar with WP:CAT since I'm one of the very active contributors of the categorization task force. This is how I stumbled into these categories in the first place. If you want to delete these categories, you should file a CfD discussion rather than emptying the categories manually but I suggest that you first consult with Dawynn. If he agrees with the deletion, the categories can probably be deleted as creator requested speedy deletion. Or perhaps you can get input from Wikipedia:WikiProject Insects. Best, Pichpich (talk) 20:20, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

There may be nothing wrong per se with small categories, but what do these ones achieve? --Stemonitis (talk) 20:22, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Beats me, I'm not familiar with the field. But somebody did create them and you should ask Dawynn. On the surface at least, I see that Category:Flies already has similar subcategories. Do you also want to get rid of Category:Anthomyiidae (9 pages) or Category:Bombyliidae (17)? If not, I don't quite see the argument against smaller subcategories. Pichpich (talk) 20:37, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

(Forgot my main point: such a debate should go to CfD.) Pichpich (talk) 20:38, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Me again. I don't mind that you want to delete this or that category but can you please avoid blanking the category? This makes it appear in Wikipedia:Database reports/Uncategorized categories which I'm trying to keep at a minimum. As I said earlier, you could submit these to CfD or, if you don't mind a slight abuse of the process, have them deleted as empty categories. Cheers, Pichpich (talk) 15:28, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I was always going to delete them as empty categories, once the four days grace period was up. (Cat:Endemic insects of the British Isles will be due tomorrow: it's obviously a bad category because we haven't got any articles on British endemic insects, let alone enough to make a useful category.) Blanking the category is a handy way of dissuading people from adding pages to the category. I watch every category I blank, and I always come back and delete them. It has never been a problem. I would suggest that it's best just to allow cleanup listings to include them briefly, on the understanding that they will be dealt with as soon as possible. An alternative would be for someone (me, I guess) to simply be bold and delete them as bad ideas for categories without strictly matching any of the CSD criteria. The more formal approach of going through the whole CfD palaver would just be a waste of everyone's time. A previous correspondent suggested a template which would clarify that a category that has been blanked is pending deletion; if that were implemented, it would be possible to create a (single) category for such things, which would then prevent their being listed in your report. (I can imagine that there would be some opposition to that, as it might be seen as an attempt to sidestep due process; I see it more like a WP:PROD for categories.) Insisting on keeping empty categories (categories that we don't even want to be filled at that) in the category hierarchy really does seem counter-productive. --Stemonitis (talk) 15:40, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

It would be best for you to just delete them on the spot, CSD process be damned. It's pretty clear that they won't be repopulated after you've emptied them. Just my 0.02$. Pichpich (talk) 15:51, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

It's certainly tempting, but it does seem unfair to the people who, for whatever reason, created the categories and populated them. I think there should be an opportunity for them, or anyone else, to oppose the deletion before finding the category deleted one day without any discussion or warning. Blanking seems like a good approach, whose only downside is a line or two in a cleanup listing. I think that's a better alternative than having clutter in the actual category hierarchy, where the primary audience may happen upon it. The database report in question is meant to be a useful tool that helps us to find categories that may need to be categorised. It is not meant to limit or control the way we edit. --Stemonitis (talk) 15:59, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

If fairness to the creator is the objective, you should submit these categories to CfD before you empty them. By emptying the category, you only give the creator 4 days to notice that his work has been reverted. If you kept the categories visible in the category, you would at least give a chance to other editors who might want to populate the category (which is what I did). Pichpich (talk) 16:06, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I think there's a middle way, which I have been pursuing, and to date there has only been one objector. It allows some scope for objection without requiring lots of bureaucracy; it is quick enough to be effective but not so quick as to be disruptive. There is only one very minor disadvantage, and I consider it a price well worth paying: the fact that it causes a line to appear for a few days in a database report really isn't a good enough reason to prevent people from working to improve the encyclopaedia, or to make them jump through hoops. --Stemonitis (talk) 16:17, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Androniscus dentiger

I spotted my categorization error at exactly the same time as you did, but you reverted it first. :-) Thanks, Nanodance (talk) 11:12, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Bio-star
		For work on Arthropods, some conspicuous and some modest --Philcha (talk) 08:02, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh dear, it's been nearly a week, and I still haven't thanked you for this. So, thank you. I wonder what actions in particular prompted this gift... --Stemonitis (talk) 08:31, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

As it says in the Barnstar, you just do what is needed, some things conspicuous and some modest. --Philcha (talk) 08:48, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Palaeovespa

I just wanted to let you know I have moved my expanded Palaeovespa article to the Palaeovespa. If you would like to proof it and make changes as needed that would be great. I will try to submit it to DYK... today at some point. --Kevmin § 20:18, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Pisidia longicornis

-- Cirt (talk) 06:03, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Svenska Spindlar DYK

Hi, could you take a look at your nomination for DYK? Thanks Smartse (talk) 16:34, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I suspect that the changes needed are beyond my capacities, but I have alerted the article's creator, and I'll keep an eye on proceedings. --Stemonitis (talk) 19:46, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

The articles better now and the new hook is more interesting as well. The Araneus angulatus article is only 1434 characters though so needs a little more expansion. Smartse (talk) 23:09, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

We're not making this easy for you, are we? Sorry about this. I must have been including the picture caption in my character count, which was stupid of me. I believe it is now long enough. I find it amazing how difficult it is to find stuff out about this spider. --Stemonitis (talk) 05:29, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Haha, no problem. I've ticked off ALT3 now. You might want to add DYK check to your monobook as this makes checking character lengths very quick and easy (although it failed to recognise that Ibacus peronii had been 5x expanded due to the earlier copyvio). Also, yesterday I moved Labia minor to the April fools section of DYK, I hope you don't mind. Thanks for the copy edit on Dikerogammarus villosus as well. Smartse (talk) 10:02, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Auctorum

Could you have a look at Auctorum? I made this because I didn't know exactly what the meaning of it was and thought it might be helpful to add it to wikipedia, but I dont know if my explanation is 100% accurate. I thought you might know? Thanks Ruigeroeland (talk) 08:10, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

As far as I understand the code, what you've written looks entirely accurate. I'm pretty sure the term is used for botanical names, too, but it doesn't appear to be mentioned in the code, presumably because any names which would require "auct." are not implementing the code correctly. I wonder whether several of our articles on individual terms (e.g., auctorum, nomen dubium, etc.) could be combined into a single "Glossary of biological nomenclature" at some point. That might also help to reduce the redundancy between zoological and botanical terms that already exists (cf. Principle of Priority, which is zoological, and Priority (nomenclature), which appears to cover both codes). --Stemonitis (talk) 08:30, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for having a look. I added some info on the terms nec and non. It would indeed be great to have a single list containing all these terms. Maybe I will have a go at it at some point, although it might be better for a specialist in the field to make an article like that. Ruigeroeland (talk) 08:37, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Don't mind Andy Z. Lehrer...

He thinks he can use Wikipedia to promote his crackpot ideas of fly taxonomy. If nothing else, he can be blocked for IP sockpuppetry. He was, once, and you can trace the long ugly history leading to that ban (e.g., [2]) - which, naturally, had no effect on him once it was lifted. He never learns. Dyanega (talk) 00:39, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I got half way through an explanation of just how wrong he is at Talk:Oestroidea, but got bored and didn't post it. Your comprehensive destruction of his nonsense far surpasses what I would have written: ouch! I expect once he realises that there are enough of us watching, he'll skulk away for a while. But thanks for the explanation, here and elsewhere; a little background reading has revealed a good deal. --Stemonitis (talk) 08:56, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

As soon as your unblock lifted, he came on and insulted me in French on the Oestroidea talk page. No temporary blocks ever work - he's been at this for over 5 years now, and it's like trying to ask the Terminator to back off. He will not stop, ever. Dyanega (talk) 05:43, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Woops - he didn't wait for the block to lift, he posted from yet another IP number (sinebot appended the old IP number to it, interestingly), which you will now need to block. It's worse than whack-a-mole. It's just about time to compile a new sockpuppetry case, including the 30 or so IP numbers and aliases he's used since the last sockpuppetry-related ban was lifted. Dyanega (talk) 05:48, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm probably too nice. I've given the new IP a stern warning. Let me know the moment he reappears (assuming it's not with a heartfelt apology), and I'll take further action. I'll be away from the computer some of this weekend, but if I'm around, I'll help. --Stemonitis (talk) 06:38, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Lepidophthalmus turneranus

Materialscientist (talk) 00:04, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Svenska Spindlar

TheDYKUpdateBot 12:02, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Araneus angulatus

TheDYKUpdateBot 12:03, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

References

Hi,

Thanks for your efforts in cleaning up references. Just to let you know, I've come across a couple of instances (e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Gpb_abundance&action=history; )where your edits in fact caused problems. For future reference, links to authors should be provided using the |authorlink= parameter and each author should be listed separately, using |author2=, etc (this keeps the metadata available to e.g. browser plugins); "cite doi" templates can be edited by clicking the "edit" link after the citation (this centralizes template maintenance and means that your corrections take immediate effect in all pages using that citation; please don't replace this template with "cite journal" without good cause); the journal "PALAIOS" should always be capitalized; and it is necessary for Template:Cite doi to use a consistent format (e.g. initials only, not full names). I hope that this helps your edits to be more efficient and not to require subsequent cleanup.

Keep up the good work! Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 17:25, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

"Palaios" should very much not be capitalised. That is their preferred style, but it is only a stylistic issue. Our article is at Palaios with good reason. (Thus, the diff you cite is not an instance of "problems".) Reducing information just so that it can fit in a template is an indication that the template is flawed. I see no reason to limit people to their initials, particularly when that is done automatically by systems that cannot reliably determine which part of a name is the surname (some surnames are in two words – Conway Morris is a good example – and some cultures put surnames at the end, for instance). Yes, Pubmed abbreviates in that way, but that needn't affect us. Most reference lists in Wikipedia are not sorted alphabetically, so putting the surname first is not helpful. It is better to preserve names the way they are written in full as far as possible to prevent misinformation from creeping in. Make the templates fit the task, not the other way around. --Stemonitis (talk) 17:36, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

"Broken DOIs are useful" – again, no. The DOI didn't even show up in a Google Search, and certainly didn't link to the article in question. Certainly, "if it ain't broke, don't fix it", but if it is, then please do. When I left the article, it was not in need of cleanup, as determined by the hidden categories. Now, it is again in need of cleanup. I know which situation I prefer. --Stemonitis (talk) 17:43, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

These appear to represent your personal opinions, rather than the consensus of the community. If you feel strongly about these issues, I suggest that you propose a modification to the consensus decisions that have been reached at Template:Cite journal and elsewhere, or better still a consensus on a single reference format to be universally implemented. Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 18:17, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I think the consensus is fairly clear that needing cleanup is worse than not needing cleanup, and that broken is worse than not broken. If your article had not been in a cleanup category, I wouldn't have edited it. It is still in Pages with DOIs broken since 2010. I suggest you fix that before trying to convince me that your method is better than mine. --Stemonitis (talk) 18:21, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Inactive DOIs do not, in fact, require cleanup; in this case, the DOI was not broken (see the URL you supplied). Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 20:05, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't know where you're getting this from. The DOI is broken, because the link does not resolve to the journal article: 10.1007/BF03006952 != Skovsted (2003). It needs to be fixed, like any other dead link needs to be fixed. --Stemonitis (talk) 20:15, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I see you've been changing all the "broken DOI" mentions to say "inactive", and removing the categories from the cleanup hierarchy, but that doesn't affect the point that the link doesn't work. You are moving the goalposts, and I can no longer see any constructive output coming from this discussion. --Stemonitis (talk) 20:18, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Orius insidiosus

Hi. Thanks for fixing Orius insidiosus. I thought something looked different. You came and went like a Ninja. How do you know whenever I am working on an article?

I can't believe I typed "pray" and didn't notice. I must be going blind.

Also, why remove the fossil thingy with all the jazzy colours? Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:50, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I sometimes get a little impatient when I've nominated something for DYK. (Despite its claim to show "Wikipedia's newest articles", it can take quite a while to get from one end of the process to the other.) As such, I was checking up on my recent nominations again when I saw a picture of an insect that I hadn't seen before. That's how I found it. I knew the stub tag would cause it to fail, so I stopped by to fix that, and a few other things occurred to me while I was there.

The fossil range wasn't mentioned in the article, and I suspected that it was copied and pasted from Hemiptera (which does indeed have a record going back to the Permian); any species with that kind of range would be famous as an astounding example of a living fossil (Triops cancriformis is a mere Triassic survivor, for instance). If I'm wrong, and O. insidiosus has such a long history, then please put the fossil range back in. --Stemonitis (talk) 06:28, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I see. I guess you have an eye for insects. Well, if you want, you can stalk me anytime. I appreciate the help.

Yes, I did swipe the fossil thingy from Hemiptera. Next time I will dig for that info and not guess. Thanks. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:59, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Happy Stemonitis's Day!

User:Stemonitis has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, and therefore, I've officially declared today as Stemonitis's day! For being such a beautiful person and great Wikipedian, enjoy being the Star of the day, dear Stemonitis! Peace, Rlevse 00:16, 16 September 2010 (UTC) A record of your Day will always be kept here.

For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, see User:Rlevse/Today/Happy Me Day! and my own userpage for a sample of how to use it. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:16, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Blimey. I don't know what to say. Thank you. --Stemonitis (talk) 08:52, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Happy Stemonitis's Day

Why wait until next year. Here is your present today:

		The Nudibranch of Niceness
		On your first Stemonitis's Day, for your excellent advice, for cleaning up my mess every time I make an article, and for generally being an awesome Wikipedian, I present to you, this much-coveted award. Thank you for everything. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:54, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Fantastic – it must be years since I was last given a nudibranch! Thank you. --Stemonitis (talk) 08:52, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Ibacus peronii

— Rlevse • Talk • 12:02, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Hemilepistus reaumuri

— Rlevse • Talk • 18:05, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Tanymastix stagnalis

— Rlevse • Talk • 00:03, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Chrysomya rufifacies

Good day to you from a wet Ireland. I have replaced the blanked text under Taxonomy for this species. Not sure who removed the text but the explanation given was "Excessive taxonomy" which is surely insufficient- this is a very important fly. All I can tell you is that in Turkey both siblings (ie with asnd without the contested bristle) emerged from the same cadaver and that in the Balkans the prothoracic bristle used as a diagnostic character by Bei_Bienko -Diptera USSR (which most people working in the Palaearctic deploy) is there if very poorly developed in some individuals of supposed albipes. The situation is complicated by biological and other data being provided by people who don't use keys or other taxonomic literature at all. All I wish to do here is to draw attention to the problem. I don't have a view except to say that there is uncertainty. The descriptor Macquart by the way worked pretty well in isolation. A wonderful man and a pioneer of Dipterology but .... All the best Robert akaNotafly (talk) 14:41, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Not to but in but I would like to point out that Stemonitis was not the one who removed the prose section titled taxonomy that you are referring to. That section blanking was done by an IP editor two edits prior to Stemonitis. Stemonitis pruned down the excesses levels in the taxobox only, leaving edit summary of "Remove excessive taxonomy" and did not edit the prose. --Kevmin § 15:27, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry. I did not mean to imply that he did. The IP editor is anonymous and I was really looking for an opinion and wishing to explain what may have seemed trivial addition. Stemonitis seemed the best person to address and may have a better way of putting my point.Thanks for the nudge though (not a but) Robert aka Notafly (talk) 19:32, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, there are two issues going on here. My edit was to remove minor ranks from the taxobox in accordance with WP:TX. An earlier edit by User:70.144.156.56, which I was unaware of, had removed the section on taxonomy, without providing a reason for it. That section certainly shouldn't have been deleted, and I am glad to see that it has now been restored. --Stemonitis (talk) 17:15, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks.RobertNotafly (talk) 09:50, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:DeBeer45-backcover.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:DeBeer45-backcover.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:34, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Thomas Roscoe Rede Stebbing

Hello! Your submission of Thomas Roscoe Rede Stebbing at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 20:13, 19 September 2010 (UTC)