User talk:Stemonitis

n.b. I will reply to messages wherever they are posted. If you write something here, my reply will also be here. If I have written something on someone else's talk page, I will be watching it for a while.

Archived talk

25/01/05–06/10/05 07/10/05–17/02/06 18/02/06–22/05/06 23/05/06–02/07/06 01/07/06–30/09/06 02/10/06–01/11/06 02/11/06–01/12/06 01/12/06–24/01/07 26/01/07–26/02/07 04/03/07–26/03/07 27/03/07–11/04/07 11/04/07–23/04/07 24/04/07–04/05/07 05/05/07–15/05/07 17/05/07–16/06/07 15/06/07–03/07/07 04/07/07–01/08/07 05/08/07–15/08/07 16/08/07–22/08/07 24/08/07–31/08/07 01/09/07–21/06/08 23/01/09–15/02/09 17/02/09–17/12/09 26/12/09–16/02/10 21/02/10–29/04/10 01/05/10–13/06/10 16/06/10–31/07/10 01/08/10–19/09/10 22/09/10–14/11/10 15/11/10–26/01/11 28/01/11–27/04/11 29/04/11–25/06/11 27/06/11–04/08/11 08/08/11–17/09/11 27/09/11–06/11/11 08/11/11–12/12/11 12/12/11–03/02/12 05/02/12–14/04/12 16/04/12–10/06/12 14/06/12–21/09/12 27/09/12–06/12/12 12/12/12–24/06/13 07/06/13–06/11/13 11/11/13–08/04/15

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Helianthus eggertii, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Peduncle. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:21, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. --Stemonitis (talk) 09:24, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Stemonitis, glad to see you came back after your break. Would you mind paying a visit to our friend Planonasus (and his IP alter-ego) again [1], who is back to removing the parentheses on scientific authorities again? [2]. It's really getting old. Neil916 (Talk) 01:19, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your kind words. I've left a (final) warning on the IP's talk page. The IP has been blocked before (by me), has never engaged with the community, and seems to be deaf to our entreaties, so I'll happily enforce a considerably longer block if the behaviour continues. User:Planonasus is slightly more complex. I haven't seen anything in their most recent edits that could be considered disruptive. Certainly, the overall intention – of both accounts, actually – is constructive, but I understand your anxiety about the potential for disruptive edits. If you become aware of anything untoward, do let me know, and I'll take action. I'm sure a lot of the damage from previous edits has yet to be made good, so it would be best if we can avoid accruing any more. --Stemonitis (talk) 10:17, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The diff I provided for Planonasus was of his removing parentheses, which was what triggered my original message. I agree that it's complex, and I would have thought that the last set of blocks would have effectively sent the message that it wasn't acceptable to continue to deliberately introduce errors into the encyclopedia, but all they've done is wait until the block expired and then continued. I'm thinking that perhaps a more effective resolution would be an indefinite block with a provision that all they need to do to be unblocked is to acknowledge the undesirable behavior and agree to stop or at least engage in some discussion it if they think they're right. That's what lacking here. I'm losing enthusiasm for wholesale reverting of their edits, especially when it's reverting good edits at the same time as the bad edits, like my edit here. And that's only on pages that pop up on my watchlist... I'm not terribly active editing fish articles any more. Thanks for your attention. Neil916 (Talk) 15:55, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes. It's hard to spot the changes when additional species are inserted. I don't know why the 'diff' engine performs quite so poorly in those circumstances. I have warned Planonasus, although he/she hasn't done anything in a few days. Let's hope the warning and advice is taken seriously. Otherwise, it will indeed require a lengthy block. --Stemonitis (talk) 16:33, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, our message has fallen on deaf ears again... [3]. Neil916 (Talk) 18:15, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And, perhaps inevitably, 109.29.22.222 has been blocked. --Stemonitis (talk) 18:32, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Without being aware that the Tristan rock lobster article existed, I created the article Jasus paulensis. I found that WoRMS gave Jasus tristani as a synonym of Jasus paulensis and proceeded to write my article on that basis. Shall I merge the two articles and make the Jasus tristani one a redirect to Jasus paulensis? Alternatively, I could proceed on the basis that they are separate species and just mention in my article that some authorities consider them identical. What would you suggest? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:08, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at it now, I can't see any reason to keep the two articles separate. If you can see anything useful in Tristan rock lobster, then by all means take it in to Jasus paulensis. Perhaps mention that some sources (e.g. IUCN) retain them as separate species. The experimental justification for synonymising the two is given at doi:10.1080/17451000.2012.676185 ([4]), in case you haven't seen it. --Stemonitis (talk) 09:54, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I will do what you suggest. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:10, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Stemonitis,

I'd like to extend a cordial invitation to you to join the Ten Year Society, an informal group for editors who've been participating in the Wikipedia project for ten years or more.

Best regards,  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   09:19, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Extreme poverty page, your edit caused a cite error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:17, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. --Stemonitis (talk) 05:14, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I see you made an edit to my link to Simply Supplements on this page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glucosamine The reason for my edit was a dead link was present. I made a legitimate change to the page that did not violate any rules due to the fact that the site I sourced included the information needed. See "Ingredients > Cautions" On the following page: http://www.simplysupplements.net/product/349/glucosamine-sulphate-2kcl-1000mg/ Please advise why a genuine live page is not better than an archive of a dead page, when the information that is needed, is present?

Thanks, Matthew Cocking — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.233.134.58 (talk) 10:01, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a big thing, but WP:RS advises that "e-commerce links should be replaced with non-commercial reliable sources if available". The archived link is not so old as to be out of date, so there is no harm in including it. Links to commercial sites are, however, always a little suspect. There are occasions when they can be included, but in general it's best to avoid them. --Stemonitis (talk) 10:15, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your quick reply. I understand. Such as shame, its always a big thing for us to have that opportunity however it makes perfect sense to me now. Thanks for clearing things up and I will bear that in mind next time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.233.134.58 (talk) 10:19, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Großer Kranichsee, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page European viper. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:51, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Done --Stemonitis (talk) 09:56, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I received Notification that reverted inserting image in Daphnia pulex... Why revert my contribution? I'm not understand this, so I want to explan this. (My mother tongue is not English, Please understand I am not good at English.)--커뷰 (talk) 08:13, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The picture is of extremely low quality. I'm not at all sure what it shows, but it doesn't seem to be any kind of Daphnia, let alone D. pulex. The filename suggests it to be Cyclops, but it doesn't closely resemble that, either. Overall, then, there is so little detail that the image is almost worthless for illustrating any article in the encyclopaedia, and is completely irrelevant to Daphnia pulex. See WP:IUP. --Stemonitis (talk) 09:15, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Stemonitis: please don't use rollback for this kind of revert in future. An edit summary was needed. Cheers — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:39, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for fixing "ibid" references. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:41, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for noticing. It's funny – it was never meant to be a great quest, but I have kept plugging away at the backlog, and by now, to mym surprise, I've got through most of them. (I didn't write down how many there were when I started, but I think it was around 1960–1970.) I've certainly slowed down, but I'm still making progress, and I will continue to do so. --Stemonitis (talk) 06:20, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've made a draft of a page to try to explain the various uses of that species name, based on what we discussed. Could you take a look to see if it is viable as a wikipedia entry? Sminthopsis84 (talk) 17:34, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The only thing I might add – and this is one of the few things that is fairly certain in the whole story – is that Rubus fruticosus is the type of the genus Rubus; that entails its being in Rubus subg. Rubus and in Rubus sect. Rubus, which may not be apparent to the lay reader, although I can't think how to express that well. Apart from that one addition, I think it's a pretty fair description of the situation. --Stemonitis (talk) 17:46, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I should add: thanks for doing this. I hadn't necessarily expected anything to change as a result of my enquiry; I just wanted to understand the decisions that had been made. I think that having a page that explains the name Rubus fruticosus is a very good thing; it's just a shame that the concept of Rubus fruticosus is itself so nebulous. --Stemonitis (talk) 17:48, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I've tried to add that. May posterity in the form of wikipedia readers (if any) not choke on it. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 18:51, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

P.S.: Do you have Stace 3rd edition to hand? I won't have access to it again for a couple of weeks, and I took the microspecies number from the 2nd edition. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 11:59, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Here are the numbers from the 3rd edition:

• R. sect. Rubus; 20 miscrospp.
• R. sect. Glandulosus; 289 miscrospp.
• R. sect. Corylifolii; 24 miscrospp.

--Stemonitis (talk) 12:32, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Sminthopsis84 (talk) 13:46, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've known that you have created and successfully maintained Cite WoRMS template. Could you please help to create a similar template for Species File Software (for Orthoptera in this link)? However, main page is: this one and it has too many branches, all of which you can seen in this Google search for "speciesfile.org". It is quite large and reliable source for insects. I'd much appreciate any kind of help in creating similar template. thank you in advance. Hanberke (talk) 06:43, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the detailed list and statistics. Hanberke (talk) 06:49, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have had to block User talk:Planonasus for disruptive editing, primarily persistent use of cut and paste moves. Since you had previously blocked him for one month I blocked him for three this time. But if you feel a different block period is warranted (including indef), I will defer to your judgement. Rlendog (talk) 18:11, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

My name is Kim Renfro, and I'm a digital culture reporter for Tech Insider. I wasn't sure the best way to reach out, so here I am. Would you be interested in speaking to me about how you uncovered/removed the Sean Mann hoax? (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sean_Mann page) I'm really interested to learn more about your work as a Wikipedia user. My email address is [email protected]. Thank you! Kimrrenfro (talk) 18:14, 20 October 2015 (UTC) Kim[reply]

Hi, out of my area of expertise, but Pholadomyoida was actually about Anomalodesmata when I came across it. I've tidied the text so that it deals correctly with this taxon, but it needs an admin to move the article. (I don't know that the previous edits that changed the text from Pholadomyoida to Anomalodesmata were correct; I just tidied it as I found it.) Peter coxhead (talk) 10:09, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delay; I was away, so I have only just seen your message. --Stemonitis (talk) 10:58, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No problems; not a much-viewed page! Thanks. Peter coxhead (talk) 11:38, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Stemonitis. You moved Actaea (crab) to Actaea (genus) some time ago. There is also a plant genus, Actaea (plant). I'm not sure what the best disambiguation term is for arthropod genera when "(genus)" is ambiguous. Various articles use "(crab)", "(decapod)", "(crustacean)" and "(arthropod)" (as well as other terms not applicable to crabs). Would you mind revisiting the Actaea move? Plantdrew (talk) 20:17, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This seems straightforward enough. I have moved the crab article back, and quickly cobbled together a dab. page to fill the gap (I'm not sure what templates and format are currently preferred for that kind of dab. page, so it may well need revisiting). I see the incoming links had already been dealt with. --Stemonitis (talk) 22:00, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. It looks like dab pages with a parenthetical term are automatically put in a maintenance category for potentially incomplete disambiguation. I retargetted "Actaea (genus)" to the dab page at the base title Actaea and added {{R from incomplete disambiguation}}; the base title already had both genera listed. I've been creating various "Foo (genus)" redirects to dab pages when I come across genus names falling under different codes. I haven't done so systematically so far, but at some point I'd like to go through Category:Genus disambiguation pages to make sure all the "(genus)" redirects exist. Plantdrew (talk) 22:24, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know of any consensus for formatting genus disambiguations, but for templates they should either have {{Genus disambiguation}} (if the only uses of the term are genera) or {{Disambiguation|genus}} (if there are non-genus uses). Plantdrew (talk) 22:24, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. That's good to know. --Stemonitis (talk) 07:00, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Happened to see this thread. I didn't know about the specific 'genus' use of disambiguation templates, so I too think it's good to know. It doesn't seem to be documented at WP:TOL or any of the member wikiprojects – I think this would be useful. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:19, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm never sure what to do about Wikispecies links for spiders. Wikispecies is way, way out of date for spider taxonomy (as has been pointed out on a number of its talk pages, but there doesn't seem to be anyone there wanting to sort it out). As just one example, Araneoidea hasn't had the list of extant families revised since this version, when the latest reference used was dated 1998. Although later references have been added, the list has not been changed.

A big problem for me with Wikispecies, which depends on there being a single working classification, is that there is no settled phylogeny and hence classification for spiders. I've been reading the literature intensively for the last month or so, and a summary from a 2013 article says it all: "Coddington's (2005) summary phylogeny based entirely on morphological data ... serves well as a consensus view of phylogenetic knowledge of spiders at the beginning of this millennium. ... numerous morphological and molecular phylogenies have been published since Coddington (2005), and what we have learnt from these can be summarized in a few words: most deep clades in spider phylogenetics are disputed, mainly by molecular results. Not only are new molecular studies incongruent with much of 'traditional' knowledge but they are often incongruent with one another."^[1] (The Wikispecies system is not even consistent with Coddington (2005).) Nothing published in 2014 or 2015 seems to refute this summary; a larger portion of the spider genome is now being used and results continue to reject many older morphological classifications, while not being fully consistent with one another.

So I never add Wikispecies links to any spider articles lacking them, whether or not I created them. If one is already in an article, I don't like to remove it, so I just leave it alone, whether set up correctly or not. Perhaps this is just evading the issue. I'd be interested in your views on this. Peter coxhead (talk) 11:40, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's interesting. I don't pretend to know much at all about spider taxonomy, but from what I've seen I'm not surprised it's contentious. Much like higher plants, the families may be fairly clear-cut, but their inter-relationships are not. Hopefully, genomic data will allow the arachnologists to produce something akin to the APG and settle things. What we do until then, I couldn't say.

With regards to this edit (which is I guess what prompted this discussion), I couldn't see that there was any point in having an ill-formatted link, so I formatted it the usual way. It may well be that the link isn't worth including – I didn't investigate that point at all – but it might as well look right. Having now had a look at the Wikispecies page, there doesn't seem to be much there that either isn't already included, or couldn't be included, on the en.wiki page. WP:EL advises against linking to "any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article". Wikispecies links often seem to fall quite close to that threshold, even in better curated cases. I think many editors assume that, wherever a Wikispecies page exists, it should be linked to here. I don't think that's necessarily the case. WP:SIS suggests links should be put in place (only) "when such links are likely to be useful to our readers", which seems like the right principle to me.

I guess the ideal solution, if people had enough time and inclination, would be to fix up Wikispecies' coverage of spiders. It sounds like there would be a good case for using Coddington's system as the latest available consensus view. A simpler solution would be to be bold and just remove any Wikispecies links you think aren't improving the articles that include them. I see you've brought the subject up at WT:SPID, which I was going to suggest, although it doesn't seem to get a lot of visitors. --Stemonitis (talk) 13:25, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your response. Since you're quite right that an ill-formatted link isn't of any point, I will in future be bolder, and remove Wikispecies links that I don't think add anything or are otherwise not useful (and correctly format any that I think are useful).

Re WT:SPIDERS, it's a shame that there doesn't seem to be anyone around at present – one reason I thought it would be more useful to ask you. Peter coxhead (talk) 13:37, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On a somewhat related note, Stho002 has been doing a little bit of editing on en.wikipedia under several new usernames in recent weeks. I can PM you the accounts if you're interested in keeping track of his socks. Plantdrew (talk) 17:31, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the offer. I did have a mental note of a few such accounts a while back, but after a break from editing, I can no longer remember them, and I don't particularly want to. From my point of view, his block was (initially at least) for incivility, so as long as he's playing nicely, I'm not too bothered. The later block was for sockpuppetry, so there would be a case for further blocks if someone wanted to pursue it. I don't. --Stemonitis (talk) 18:27, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Timeline of Aboriginal history of Western Australia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Daisy Bates. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:22, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Done --Stemonitis (talk) 11:40, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:55, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Cathal Gannon

added links pointing to William Stuart and Peter Pearson

Postdramatic theatre

added a link pointing to Avant-garde theatre

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:19, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Done --Stemonitis (talk) 10:33, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I thought persondata had been deprecated. Am I missing something? Schwede66 19:07, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So it has. That must have happened while I was off-wiki. Apologies for the inconvenience; I have reverted myself. --Stemonitis (talk) 20:12, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

May I impose on you to review the following image for proper spelling and categorization? [5] The auto-correct feature on my laptop makes changes I'm unaware of, not to mention how my brain function has been less than optimal today. Also, I was in the process of expanding Thysanozoon nigropapillosum and would be honored if you would give it a look, if you are so inclined. I was just reading the following [6] and was going to use it as one of the sources to expand the article. One last imposition (well, maybe not the last) - would you also look at the following image [7] and advise if it is properly identified? Thanking you in advance....Atsme^📞📧 16:40, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My knowledge of marine life, such as it is, is pretty much restricted to crustaceans, so I don't think I can be any help on the ID front. I am happy to give advice on other aspects of editing (although the article on Thysanozoon nigropapillosum looks pretty decent to me), particularly if you have specific questions. --Stemonitis (talk) 17:14, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, and I just wanted to add that if I was shopping online for a very special lobster dinner, and if I had to pick one based on images....well, you can probably guess which one I'd pick, although I have harvested crayfish from ditches in Houston, Tx. Atsme^📞📧 23:02, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Hieroglyphics: The Writings of Ancient Egypt, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Synopsis. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:17, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Done --Stemonitis (talk) 16:55, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect List of Genera of India (Excluding Lakshadweep). Since you had some involvement with the List of Genera of India (Excluding Lakshadweep) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. BDD (talk) 17:04, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Click Beetles (Coleoptera: Elateridae) of Maharashtra. Since you had some involvement with the Click Beetles (Coleoptera: Elateridae) of Maharashtra redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. BDD (talk) 17:08, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

	Time To Spread Some Happy Holiday Cheer!!
	I decorated a special kind of Christmas tree in the spirit of the season. What's especially nice about the digitized version is that it doesn't need water, and it won't catch fire.
	Wishing you a joyous holiday season... ...and a prosperous New Year!! 🍸🎁 🎉
	Atsme📞📧 16:05, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]	Pure pun-ishment. [8]

I would be grateful for your help. In the book by Burrows, E.M. 1991. The Alga British Isles Volume 2 Chlorophyta. Natural History Museum Publications ISBN 0-565-00981-8 the genus Enteromorpha is included and 8 different species are listed. It lists Ulva as a different genus, of which there three species in the British Isles, one of which is Ulva lactuca. I cannot enter Enteromorpha in a new file as Wikipedia refers me back to Ulva - always! I would be grateful for your help.Osborne 20:17, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Sorry for the slow response. I'm not sure what the problem is here. Are you saying that Enteromorpha is a redirect to sea lettuce (Ulva)? If so, it should be possible for you to edit that page. However, it seems that the consensus view is that Enteromorpha is best sunk into Ulva (as followed by AlgaeBase and others), based on a 2003 paper by Hayden et al., post-dating than your 1991 source. The older source does match what I was taught and the names I am familiar with, but it seems that the taxonomy has moved on since. --Stemonitis (talk) 08:11, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to have been resolved at User talk:Plantdrew#Ulva and Enteromorpha. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:51, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Do you whether the images on blue crayfish actually depict Procambarus alleni? Apparently somebody on the French Wikipedia suggested that Cherax quadricarinatus is depicted (see here). Plantdrew (talk) 20:23, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't know. Proper crayfish identification is notoriously tricky, requiring detailed views of the male gonopods. Misidentifications are particularly likely with aquarium specimens, and I suspect that many aquarists with a blue crayfish assume or believe that their animal is the "blue crayfish", i.e. Procambarus alleni. I would suspect that File:Procambarus alleni.jpg is more likely to be P. alleni than C. quadricarinatus – it lacks the conspicuous red claw of the male C. quadricarinatus and the pattern of ridges on the carapace is more like that of P. alleni – but I wouldn't rule out other Cherax species, or other Procambarus species, for that matter. The best solution in this case is probably to use one of the other images purporting to be of P. alleni, many of which are technically far better, and where the identification has not been disputed. --Stemonitis (talk) 05:35, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Fast battleship, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Anthony Preston. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:50, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Done --Stemonitis (talk) 10:00, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thacla is a section of the genus Caltha, and at some time C. natans was made type of a genus Thacla. So I made a redirect. However, List of Marilyns on Scottish islands, contains Thacla, which is a hill in Scotland (I never knew). It turns out Thacla is ambiguous. As I know nothing of Scottish hills, perhaps it is better if someone that worked on the List of Marilyns would solve this little problem. Regards, Dwergenpaartje (talk) 16:15, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I had a look around, and I reckoned the primary meaning of "Thacla" was probably the Scottish hill (better known as "Hecla"). Accordingly, I have knocked up a quick stub at Hecla (South Uist), and redirected Thacla to there, with a {{redirect}} notice back to Caltha. I hope that all sounds reasonable. --Stemonitis (talk) 17:22, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thanks! Are you aware that Hecla sounds the same as Hekla? Perhaps a distinguish-template would be useful?Dwergenpaartje (talk) 07:41, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Hekla is linked (twice!) at the disambiguation page Hecla, so I don't know if it needs to be linked directly from the Uist hill. A link from the Uist hill to the disambiguation page might be in order, though. --Stemonitis (talk) 07:47, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Sorry to be a bother, but I was hoping if you could explain italics and higher taxa in bacteria a bit further so I don't make any mistakes in the future. I know how long it takes to italicize and remove italics en masse, so I apologize for making you do that. (Brief explanation: I'm used to seeing et al. without italics per the APA and OED style guides, and I've seen it removed per MOS:FOREIGN, so removing italics from it is sort of an automatic reaction for me.) (Also, in the proposed policy Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Organisms#Scientific names, it states that higher taxa should not be italicized for any organism (including bacteria). Is that incorrect?) Thanks, Me, Myself & I (talk) 08:00, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm no expert on bacterial taxonomy, but my understanding is that all bacterial taxon names are supposed to be italicised under the relevant Code, and I think that also applies independently to viruses. As it happens, the code for plants, fungi, etc. also recommends italicising all taxa, but in practice almost nobody does that, so the standard approach is the one you're familiar with, italicising from the genus-group downwards.

Coming from a scientific background, seeing "et al." in roman (non-italic) type just looks wrong to me, and the standard approach in the field is to put it in italics. Increasingly, journals are setting it in roman type, but I think that's just based on some flawed idea of "clutter", rather than through any consistent justification. It is clearly used as a foreign phrase, as can be seen from the fact that when it appears in sentences, most good writers will rephrase it as "Jones and colleagues", rather than writing "Jones et alii", so I don't think MOS:FOREIGN is a good enough reason on its own. I don't think there is a Wikipedia guideline either way, but my impression is that it is more generally italicised within science. --Stemonitis (talk) 08:18, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the information. Before I discovered Citation Style 1, I italicized et al., but since CS1 displays et al. without italics, the articles looked a bit inconsistent. I suppose I should try to avoid the construction entirely for now. Thanks again, Me, Myself & I (talk) 00:46, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I tend not to use display_authors=etal, just because there's no need for it. Wikipedia is not short of space, so we are free to give authors the courtesy of listing them all. I think that's the only instance where the formatting of "et al." is not manual. --Stemonitis (talk) 04:18, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm beginning to sound like a broken record, but thank you so much for doing that. The "explicit use of et al." error is one of the many banes of my existence. (I must confess to being rather lazy most of the time and using displayauthors=etal instead of listing all the authors in the correct style.) To reiterate, I'll probably avoid touching et al. in the future. I hope you have a good day, and goodbye. Me, Myself & I (talk) 05:41, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Hecla (South Uist), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Norse. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:20, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Done --Stemonitis (talk) 13:37, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'd value your view on the issue raised at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Plants#Higher taxa articles at English names: singular or plural? – you've much longer experience here than most of us. Peter coxhead (talk) 17:47, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have a think about it, and get back to you. I can see arguments either way at the moment. --Stemonitis (talk) 09:06, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As can I! Although both plant and animal articles are overwhelmingly at the singular, I guess because of WP:SINGULAR, yet the majority I've looked at are like Crab – they begin with the plural. Has this ever been discussed before, I wonder? Peter coxhead (talk) 16:42, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

I am writing to you as your name appears last in the edit list for the page for this plant. I have recently returned from Kirstenbosch and have a picture, with label, of this plant. Unfortunately, it looks completely different from the laurel-like plant pictured on the page. I have made my photo (to which I claim copyright for now) accessible here. https://Rowley06.de.quickconnect.to/direct/photo/share/xkHxhwQJ Any thoughts? Blueflightmedic (talk) 09:07, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know anything much about South African botany, but I'd be fairly sure the plant you have photographed is not Clutia. As you say, it doesn't resemble other pictures of Clutia at all. Your plant appears to have broad, opposite, toothed leaves, all of which would be consistent with a family like the Lamiaceae. The leaf shape is close to those of some species of Plectranthus – quite a large genus in South Africa. Without flowers, it may not be identifiable. Sorry I can't be of more help. --Stemonitis (talk) 14:25, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The main author of Clutia pulchella, JMK, may be able to help further. --Stemonitis (talk) 14:29, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the quick reply. I agree, although I am learning about the SA flora too. I'll follow up your suggestion. Blueflightmedic (talk) 17:08, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I left a message on my talk page. In short: The main plant on your Kirstenbosch photo is indeed not Clutia, but probably Plectranthus as Stemonitis suggested. JMK (talk) 21:40, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm no great fan of long lists of minor taxa in taxoboxes (and I removed a lot from spider taxoboxes^†), but I think there is a case for displaying one of the three large subgroups of spiders (Mesothelae, Mygalomorphae and Araneomorphae) between "Order: Aranae" and the family. Spiders are a large enough group to bear some subdividing, and mygalomorphs are recognizably different from "true spiders" (araneomorphs).

It's not necessary to display Opisothelae, I think: it's more of a clade label than a real grouping. So I would restore |always_display= to Template:Taxonomy/Araneomorphae.

As an analogy, all the crab species articles I've looked at have "Infraorder: Brachyura" in their manual taxoboxes; crabs are distinctly different from other groups of decapods, such as lobsters/crayfish. Peter coxhead (talk) 16:28, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

^† I haven't done much with mygalomorphs yet, so Australian funnel-web spider is an example of the kind of taxobox that was usual in most spider articles; I've fixed many of the araneomorph ones. Peter coxhead (talk) 16:34, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Every clade is distinctly different in some way from its sister clade, so that is not in itself a source of significance. The way I see it, the inclusion of minor taxa in taxoboxes is mostly about how familiar that group is, there being no other objective measure of significance that I can think of. In the case of crabs, I would expect any lay reader to expect one of the taxa in the taxobox to be "crabs", and one of the taxa in the taxobox of a spider to be "spiders". Crabs are unusual in that two of the significant (i.e. familiar) groups that they belong to are represented by taxa at minor ranks – they are crustaceans (a subphylum), and they are crabs (an infraorder). I am not convinced of the same being true for spiders. Their families will inevitably be clustered into various clades within the order, but I can't see that any of them is so significant that a lay reader couldn't go through the intermediate step of the family article. (There are 5000 jumping spiders alone; must every species-level article link to the infraorder?) That said, I'm no expert on spiders, so if you think an additional taxon is justified, then I will defer to you. But two is probably overkill. --Stemonitis (talk) 16:53, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree re two levels; I guess it was just my now old-fashioned attachment to ranks that made it seem odd to treat a suborder and two infraorders as the three main divisions of the order, but on a clade-based view, the rank doesn't matter.

I think that those interested in spiders (a slightly more select group than the "lay reader") do know the difference between tarantulas, bird-eating spiders, and the like (mygalomorphs), some of which are kept as pets, and "true spiders" (araneomorphs). So let's agree on one extra level between family and order.

I may want to ask for your support if other editors object to my removing tribes, subfamilies, superfamilies, etc. Peter coxhead (talk) 19:41, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Prideaux Place, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Country Life. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:43, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Done --Stemonitis (talk) 11:51, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is a "nasty hack" at Dactylorhiza majalis subsp. traunsteinerioides. Is the problem you were trying to solve that "D. m. subsp. traunsteinerioides" doesn't wrap and so is too wide? If so, I wonder if we can solve it more generally in the underlying taxobox code. My view is that "no wrap" should be applied to the string "genus specific-epithet" and to "subsp. subspecific-epithet" but that a line break before "subsp." is always ok. Peter coxhead (talk) 12:13, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that was the problem. I'm not sure I agree that the genus + specific epithet combination always needs to be on one line – I can't see that working for Leucospermum hypophyllocarpodendron, for instance. But even if a simple binomen were to be prevented from wrapping, a trinomial should almost certainly be allowed to break; they will quite often be wider than the taxobox would otherwise be. Looking through a few entries in Category:Plant subspecies, I would say that most of the taxoboxes are being distorted by the insistence on <nowrap></nowrap>. I suspect the automatic taxobox code could be adjusted to use non-breaking spaces instead of a <nowrap></nowrap> wrapper; alternatively, it may be possible to insert a zero-width space with <span style="white-space:normal;"></span> around it to override the no-wrap wrapper, as I had to do for L. hypoblahblahblah. Even better might be to remove the <nowrap></nowrap>: what's the disadvantage of allowing all the entries in the taxobox to wrap when required, as would occur for running text elsewhere? --Stemonitis (talk) 12:59, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All the taxobox templates, manual and automatic, seem ultimately to use Template:Taxonomy to display one 'normal' row of the taxobox (i.e. a row containing "Rank: Name"). The text below the section heading "Binomial name" or "Trinomial name" is displayed differently, and does wrap. So it would be easy to turn off no-wrap altogether for the normal rows by changing the style in Template:Taxonomy. However, in running text, I would use D. majalis and D. m. (as you originally taught me, I seem to recall). This is a bit more tricky to arrange, but now that string-handling functions have been implemented in Lua, it can be done – I'll try developing a test version of the template. Peter coxhead (talk) 17:24, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I have a fix that could be implemented, and which appears to work – there's a test within a simulated taxobox at User:Peter coxhead/Test. I can only test it outside the actual taxobox system, so I can't be absolutely sure how it will behave when called from inside it – both the manual and automated taxoboxes are complex networks of templates. The idea is to remove style="white-space:nowrap;" at Template:Taxonomy and add a call to a new template that replaces the first occurrence of ". " by ".&nbsp;". As a precaution it checks first that the first occurrence is within the first 5 characters, which allows for a genus abbreviation like ''Ph. – the italic-forcing quotes are passed in some cases, and in a manual taxobox you could use the old-fashioned two letter abbreviations for single Greek letters ("Ch.", "Ph.", "Ps.", "Th.").

Should I go ahead and try this live? Where would it be best to request comments if this should happen first? Peter coxhead (talk) 10:57, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think you might as well be bold and make the change, but be prepared to self-revert if problems arise. The best forum is probably Template talk:Taxobox, and it might be best to leave a note there explaining what's going on. Fingers crossed! --Stemonitis (talk) 11:02, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, done. I haven't implicated you! See Template talk:Taxobox#Text wrapping for taxon names. It turned out a little differently than I expected, because the taxon name passed to the output template turns out to be able to contain other wikimedia coding. The change fixes Dactylorhiza majalis subsp. traunsteinerioides without a hack, but "Species: | L. hypophyllocarpodendron" will always be too wide without a soft hyphen hack. Peter coxhead (talk) 15:15, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent stuff. That seems to be working generally, at least following a null edit to each article. Leucospermum hypophyllocarpodendron will always be unusually long – that's why I picked it to write – so I don't think we need to worry about that; why Linnaeus invented the two-word name and then tried to shove five or six into that one, I'll never know. --Stemonitis (talk) 15:21, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Null edits" / "purges" – I've never quite understood the way that changes to templates otherwise percolate through Wikipedia, but they do eventually. Peter coxhead (talk) 15:41, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Shouldn't the table from South African English#Vowels also be removed? It also wrongly says "see a chart of this same information", when actually the text below the hidden table contains more information (the table is also unsourced, and the Cape Flats and Indian South African cells at least partially disagree with, respectively, Finn (2004) and Mesthrie (2004) (both cited at the bottom of the article)). IMO it should be removed. Peter238 (talk) 10:34, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really know enough on the subject to say whether or not the table should be removed outright. I can say that if it is to be retained, it should not be collapsed. If you have doubts about its reliability, the best thing to do is probably to start a discussion on the talk page, and maybe also ask at the relevant WikiProject, in this case Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Languages. --Stemonitis (talk) 10:37, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks. Peter238 (talk) 10:55, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Stemonitis,

I note that you have changed the categorization on some of the plant pages I am interested in, such as Stenanthera and Conostephium pendulum. As I understand it, you have added the subfamily category and removed the family category. (For example, C. pendulum is in the Family Ericaceae, Subfamily Styphelioideae, Tribe Styphelieae: You removed "Ericaceae" and added "Styphelioideae".) I wonder why? Earlier you removed the family category from other pages (eg. Myoporum crassifolium). Perhaps there is some rule about categorization of order/family/subfamily that I am ignorant about. I seems that you sometimes allow Order.... in categories, other times Subfamily....... It's not a big deal for me, but it does seem a bit strange when there's a category (eg. Styphelioideae) that's not mentioned anywhere else on the page, including in the taxobox.

So my question is - "Which category/categories out of Order, Family, Subfamily, Tribe, Genus (etc.) should be included, and why?" Perhaps you could refer me to some part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Plants/Categorization. The way I read it, the category for Stenanthera and Conostephium should be Ericales? (Answer here or Gderrin (talk) 10:06, 17 February 2016 (UTC) is fine.)[reply]

If you can spare the time.......sincere thanks, and all the best to you. Gderrin (talk) 10:06, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The principle is that each page on a taxon should appear in only the finest of the purely taxonomic categories that are applicable. (By "purely taxonomic", I exclude intersection categories like Category:Ericales stubs, Category:Ericaceae genera or Category:Ericales of Australia.) If an article is in Category:Myoporum, then it should not appear in a family category, an order category, and so on, because Category:Myoporum is itself a child of Category:Scrophulariaceae, which is in Category:Lamiales, and so on up the tree. There is no strict rule about what ranks should be chosen for categories – it will depend on factors including the numbers of articles in each group – so sometimes it will be subfamilies within a family, sometimes tribes, and sometimes straight to genera. For a small family, there may not be any need to divide the category further. Category:Paulowniaceae only covers a couple of dozen species, so will probably never need to be divided up. Category:Ericaceae, on the other hand, covers quite a number of taxa, and is probably best divided somehow in order to make the resulting category pages manageable. Before my recent efforts, it contained a mish-mash of genus-level, tribe-level and subfamily-level categories, some of which contained very few articles or daughter categories. I therefore chose to standardise to a subfamily-based categorisation, since the subfamilies seem to be stable, well established and suitably small in number. (It is not a problem that a few taxa from small subfamilies, such as Cassiope, are not placed indaughter categories, incidentally.) In general, there has been a tendency to categorise taxa too finely, and there are lots of very small genus-level categories that would be better deleted and their contents returned to the parent category, in my opinion. The most important thing is that readers should be able to navigate the taxonomic category tree and find articles on related taxa easily. It is indeed preferable that the subfamily and/or tribe should be included in the taxobox of each genus (probably not each species), and I have added a few recently. That is certainly an area in which further improvements could be made. Feel free to ask if anything needs clarifying. --Stemonitis (talk) 10:25, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmmm - thank you. I think I understand. (I'll work on it!) I guess that means I should add subfamilies to those taxoboxes. Perhaps you might do me one more favour. I am working on the large genera Melaleuca and Eremophila. If you would tell me what order/family/subfamily category should be on those pages, I would be happy to make sure they all (500-odd) comply. Thank you for your prompt and comprehensive reply above. Gderrin (talk) 10:58, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, that's easy. Large genera tend to have their own categories. Any species in Melaleuca should be in Category:Melaleuca and sorted under the epithet (e.g. "[[Category:Melaleuca|officinalis]]"), and similarly for Eremophila, "[[Category:Eremophila (plant)|officinalis]]". --Stemonitis (talk) 11:12, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Whew! Nothing to change there. Cheers for now. Gderrin (talk) 11:18, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of List of Hypericum species, and it appears to include material copied directly from http://www.biolib.cz/en/taxonsubtaxa/id3633/.

It is possible that the bot was mistaken and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 07:18, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's fine. --Stemonitis (talk) 07:19, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your alterations to my articles. As you see I am only a novice article writer. So grateful for the assistance !DavidAnstiss (talk) 14:18, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've been trying to tidy up the monotypic spider genera, so that they fit the usual policy, i.e.

• the default is that the article is at the genus, with the species a redirect
• unless the genus needs disambiguation, when the article is at the species, with a redirect at "Genus (spider)"

To achieve this the following moves are needed:

Straight species to genus

• Austracantha minax to Austracantha
• Hadites tegenarioides to Hadites
• Hickmania troglodytes to Hickmania

Disambiguated genus to species

• Diblemma (spider) to Diblemma donisthorpei
• Munduruku (spider) to Munduruku bicoloratum
• Xiombarg (spider) to Xiombarg plaumanni

I'll happily tidy up afterwards if you are willing to make the moves. Peter coxhead (talk) 14:34, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gladly – all done! --Stemonitis (talk) 14:43, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! All now cleaned up. Peter coxhead (talk) 17:07, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You left a {{efn}} tag open in the article. I don't know where to close it. Search for "{{efn" in the article to spot it. Bgwhite (talk) 07:11, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing it out – now fixed. That article was quite difficult to work on, mostly because of the complexity of the nested footnotes and editorial commentary. --Stemonitis (talk) 07:19, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		For your ongoing efforts in tidying up old fashioned "ibid.", "op. cit." and any other such references, and per your own words from 10 months ago already: "I've certainly slowed down, but I'm still making progress, and I will continue to do so" you are clearly a Tireless Contributor. -- Kendrick7talk 09:08, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. It's funny – I've had a few thanks in the last few days, but sometimes it seems to go unnoticed for weeks. --Stemonitis (talk) 08:32, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please move Magam Ornamental tiger spider to the species name Poecilotheria vittata?

If you search for "Magam ornamental", there are 5 results in Google, 4 of which are to this Wikipedia and the other to a mirror, so it's not a "common name" and we are creating false hits. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:16, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is that the same species as Poecilotheria striata (in which case a simple redirect would do the trick)? --Stemonitis (talk) 10:18, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

According to the World Spider Catalog here they are distinct species. The genus has been worked on by an enthusiastic new editor (who I don't want to discourage too much) largely based on "popular" sources and primary Sri Lankan journal and conference sources, so has needed quite a bit of sorting. The "synonyms" in the articles are still a bit of a mess (see e.g. the taxobox at Poecilotheria formosa) but I think the redirects are right now, or will be if this article is moved. Peter coxhead (talk) 11:24, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Done. --Stemonitis (talk) 11:30, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. (I've now been through all the Poecilotheria species articles and sorted out the worst of the taxonomic errors.) Peter coxhead (talk) 17:04, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And one more please: Chummidae should be at Chumma according to the usual fauna policy for monogeneric families. Peter coxhead (talk) 17:08, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Let me know if you need a hand with any more moves. It's good to feel useful. --Stemonitis (talk) 17:11, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you asked!

One advantage of subcategorizing as per Category:Redirects from monotypic taxa of plants is that it shows up articles at the wrong rank, based on our usual policy: all the members of the category should either be taxa above the rank of family or genera needing disambiguation. All of the plant genera in the list below are categorized as monotypic taxa and are monospecific according to The Plant List. There seems no reason why the articles shouldn't all be at the genus as normal:

• Ceratiola ericoides to Ceratiola
• Ecballium elaterium to Ecballium
• Ellisia nyctelea to Ellisia
• Ochroma pyramidale to Ochroma
• Planera aquatica to Planera
• Scyphiphora hydrophyllacea to Scyphiphora
• Streptosolen jamesonii to Streptosolen

There are a few more that need more investigation, since they may not be monotypic. Peter coxhead (talk) 19:40, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All done. Let me know if you find any more. --Stemonitis (talk) 21:47, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I'll need time to tidy these up first... Peter coxhead (talk) 22:04, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Coverture, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Enlightenment. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:46, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Done --Stemonitis (talk) 11:48, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A new editor 'moved' Caldcluvia paniculosa to Ackama paniculosa by cut-and-paste. Plantdrew had the page history fixed, but the move wasn't justified. Both The Plant List, and more importantly, the Australian Plant Census, which is usually treated as pretty definitive for Australian plants, have the species at Caldcluvia paniculosa (see here). (Ackama paniculosa is treated as a nom. inval. and nom. nud., so anyway if the name is to be used it needs re-publishing – see IPNI.)

Could you please move Ackama paniculosa back to Caldcluvia paniculosa? Peter coxhead (talk) 12:30, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gladly. --Stemonitis (talk) 12:40, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just commenting since I was pinged. Ackama paniculosa was re-published by Heslewood in 2013. The paper is cited in the article and is available here. The Plant List doesn't update often, so there's no surprise they don't list the re-publication. I don't know what the update cycle is like for the Australian Plant Census. It is concerning that IPNI doesn't have Heslewood's combination listed. IPNI is supposed to be on top of this stuff.

I have no objection to the move back to Caldcluvia. I know not to use primary sources myself. But I don't make a practice of reverting editors who try to update taxonomy based on primary sources. I do try to get cut-and-paste moves repaired when I come across them. Plantdrew (talk) 16:40, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the important thing is to keep the edit history together; moving articles between titles is pretty easy. I also have no opinion on which is the correct title. Note, however, that Wikipedia does not have to be up-to-the-minute. It is expected to follow the majority of reputable sources, even if that means lagging a little behind the primary research. --Stemonitis (talk) 16:47, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've now asked IPNI about updating their entry; if they accept the combination Ackama paniculosa it may be sensible to move the article, properly of course. In the meantime I'll make sure that the disputed taxonomy is fully described. Peter coxhead (talk) 17:52, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just to note that IPNI updated their entry within an hour of my e-mailing them, which is impressive! The taxonomy of this group is problematic the more I look at it; a conservative view seems wisest for the present, and this is what we now have. Peter coxhead (talk) 16:18, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The genus Schwalbea is monotypic according to reliable sources (notwithstanding The Plant List's erroneous extraction of information from Tropicos), so please move:

• Schwalbea americana to Schwalbea

Thanks. Peter coxhead (talk) 16:20, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done – a bit differently this time, because I thought it best to preserve the non-negligible edit history at the target (now at "Schwalbea (genus)"), so you may find less cleanup to do this time. --Stemonitis (talk) 16:29, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Would you please move Suarezia to Suarezia ecuadorana and then move Suarezia (disambiguation) to Suarezia? The plant genus at the base title is monotypic. While looking into whether it the plant was primary topic over Suarezia (beetle), I came across a mess of unresolved homonyms. LepIndex] sees nothing wrong with a moth Suarezia. And WoRMS lists an isopod that apparently has priority over the moth and the beetle.

And according to Suarezia (beetle), it is also monotypic, so that article should perhaps be moved to Suarezia albicollis (the source link is dead, so I can't confirm monotypy).

Thanks in advance. Plantdrew (talk) 04:48, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Suarezia Théry, 1912 (Coleoptera: Buprestidae) is now Suarezina Théry, 1936 (per ColeopSoc), and Suarezia Hering, 1926 (Lepidoptera: Lymantriidae) is now Salvatgea Griveaud, 1977 (perNHM), but Suarezia Budde-Lund, 1904 is indeed valid. So the crustacean wins – good! I'll get things moving. --Stemonitis (talk) 05:55, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've sorted things out on this side, but Wikidata is a mess. This item lists a "genus of crustaceans" in the Oncidiinae, with around half the various-language Wikipedia links being for the crustacean, and half for the orchid. It looks as though various Wikidata bots have scraped together various bits of data that refer to genera under different codes and jammed them together into some weird chimaera – a photosynthetic detritivore with a jointed legs and zygomorphic flowers! I could probably fix this one instance, but it suggests that every time a name appears under two or more codes of nomenclature, Wikidata may be very, very wrong. I'm not sure where to go with that. --Stemonitis (talk) 06:19, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not surprised Wikidata is having trouble with these. I'm not very aware of good taxonomic sources for insects, so once I turned up the moth genus I went to Catalogue of Life to see what they were citing (yeah, CoL, I know, but I didn't know where else to start for insects). From what CoL had it seemed likely that Wikidata would've sucked up some problems. Thanks for checking better sources and digging up the nomina nova for the insect genera. Plantdrew (talk) 06:42, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the current content of Category:Redirects from monotypic taxa of plants, this is the last set of moves needed to ensure compliance with policy on monospecific genera. (The Plant List is again in error for some of these, having picked up wrong information from Tropicos, but all have at least one reliable source attesting that they are monospecific.)

• Cynomorium coccineum to Cynomorium
• Faidherbia albida to Faidherbia
• Harrimanella hypnoides to Harrimanella
• Lecomtella madagascariensis to Lecomtella
• Matteuccia struthiopteris to Matteuccia
• Peridictyon sanctum to Peridictyon
• Pseudorontium cyathiferum to Pseudorontium
• Tetrameles nudiflora to Tetrameles

Thanks! Peter coxhead (talk) 10:09, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'll piggyback on Peter's request with a few more that should use the binomial for natural disambiguation:

• Cavea (genus) to Cavea tanguensis
• Benzonia (plant) to Benzonia corymbosa
• Cruciger (fungus) to Cruciger lignatilis (maybe skip this one? I don't know if fungi are on-board with binomials for disambiguation of monotypic genera))

On a different note, would you delete Solfia paradoxa? This name doesn't exist. It results from a cut-and-paste error in the taxobox when the Solfia page was created. See the first version of 'Solfia' and compare to Myrialepis (note the genus authority and associated reference on both pages). Thank you. Plantdrew (talk) 16:34, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All done, with varying levels of subsequent cleanup (mostly zero). I included the fungus, because our naming conventions are global; any WP:LOCALCONSENSUS by Wikipedian mycologists can be overruled. --Stemonitis (talk) 08:00, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I've done a first-pass clean up, but it would be useful if Plantdrew had time to check as well. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:01, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've checked through them all now. Peter got most of the edits needed after the moves. The problem with the fungi isn't a local consensus, so much as evolving practice not being well documented. Using the binomial to disambiguate monotypic genera is a fairly recent addition to the flora/fauna title guidelines, but there's no reason for fungi people to check those. I've added something about it to the Tree of Life title guidelines. I'll leave a message at WikiProject Fungi to bring them into the loop. There will be some pages that I'll need your help to move. Fishes seem to have an actual local consensus against how we usually handle monotypic taxa, see Category:Monotypic fish genera. Plantdrew (talk) 21:35, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the fish articles in that category seem to be the work of one or two editors, who perhaps were not aware of the wider consensus. Certainly the fauna rules entail having such articles at the genus title, and they apply to fishes as much as any other animal.

Feel free to let me know about any page moves you need assistance with. Provided I'm around, I'll be happy to help. --Stemonitis (talk) 07:37, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

FYI Haemanthineae is the correct spelling, not Haemanthinae --Michael Goodyear (talk) 00:58, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Under the ICN: "A tribe is designated in a similar manner, with the termination -eae, and a subtribe similarly with the termination -inae (but not -virinae)." --Stemonitis (talk) 07:34, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Then Alan Meerow and the ICN need to have a talk about transferring the taxon, since he named it! --Michael Goodyear (talk) 18:58, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Michael Goodyear: it's a typo in Meerow & Clayton (2004). If you look at the article, the correct "Haemanthinae" occurs twice (p. 141, p. 142) and the incorrect "Haemanthineae" once (p. 152). Meerow and Clayton didn't name the subtribe; they attribute it to Pax. However, Reveal at Indices Nominum Supragenericorum Plantarum Vascularium attributes "Haemanthinae" to Baker (1878), i.e. prior to Pax (1887). Whatever the correct authority, the article should be moved.

There's also a slightly more subtle problem in citing Meerow's works in support of sub-familial classifications, because he does not accept the APG's broader Amaryllidaceae, so the taxobox at Haemanthinae is not entirely self-consistent. Peter coxhead (talk) 19:42, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, but is it? That was my impression at first - was it an error, a typo, or deliberate. To change it would be OR without appropriate authority. So I checked subsequent authors who cite this paper and saw they also used Haemanthineae. As far as the two other mentions in the paper, they clearly relate to earlier uses than Meerow. So I don't think it should be changed without citation. As far as what Meerow accepts, he can hardly be faulted for his usage in 2004, since that use of Amaryllidaceae s.l. only became accepted in 2009, and a search of his work shows he was not only fully aware of it but involved in the discussions of what to call the enlarged family, the first choice of which was not Amaryllidaceae. When I said he "named" it, I meant he defined it phylogenetically. Wether it is moved or not it will require the "synonym".--Michael Goodyear (talk) 21:58, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm sure it's a typo – whether others copied it doesn't alter that. (The biological literature is full of people copying errors.) In addition, Article 19.7 is crystal clear: "When a name of a subdivision of a family has been published with an improper Latin termination, such as -eae for a subfamily or -oideae for a tribe, the termination must be changed to accord with Art. 19.1 and 19.3". So even if Meerow & Clayton intended the "-ineae" ending, it must be changed to the correct "-inae", just as other mandated corrections are always made to published names. There's nothing OR about this; it's simply following the Code which governs botanical names.

Re the other issue, of course Meerow et al. are entirely free to use Amaryllidaceae with a narrower circumscription: I wasn't in any way criticizing this usage, which was wholly legitimate then and still is. The point I didn't make clear is that when different circumscriptions are mixed in an article or taxobox, there needs to be some explanation to the reader, if only in a footnote. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:27, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The point Im trying to make is the perennial WP one about sources - I can't just write - this is wrong, wthout a citation that says it is, regardless of what I think or you think. I'm still trying to find a solution to that. I spotted the fact we had a problem right away. And of course the alternative spelling appears many times on WP. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 13:00, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The source is clear: articles 19.3 and 19.7 of the ICN.

As for the spelling on Wikipedia, that's exactly the problem: we are propagating an error and should not. Peter coxhead (talk) 14:26, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Michael, what is your basis for thinking that the spelling that contravenes the ICN is the one intended by Meerow and Clayton? --Stemonitis (talk) 13:08, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is simply that we don't know till somebody including the authors either corrects it or contradicts it. We cannot substitute personal opinion for citation, that's a WP thing whether we like it or not. I was working on an explanatory note, but it looks as if Peter Coxhead has jumped in while I was doing it. btw Peter efn does allow references (I use efn with sfn all the time), and I was just about to add it when you changed it! Saying it contravenes ICN is fine, but it does not prove the authors intent.

On the other issue of sensu, I am not in favour of widespreae use of this. Part of the rationale of APG was that everybody's Liliaceae or Amaryllidaceae or anything else was different, so every taxonomic name would be sensu, in a reductionist sense. However when specifically discussing the differences, it is essential to use sensu, although paradoxically I got criticised for using it in Taxonomy of Liliaceae, where the purpose was to set out those differences. Anyway I will take another look at it. Interesting discussion, that has implications for dealing with other orth. var.. Incidentally there are errors in that paper, such as when they cite Traub incorrectly.--Michael Goodyear (talk) 15:44, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"The problem is simply that we don't know" – so why not assume good faith on their part, and assume that the correct spelling ("correct" in terms of the Code) is the one they intended? That seems the more charitable alternative. --Stemonitis (talk) 16:47, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well that is the approach we have used on that page, short of asking Alan himself - which I might do, yet. But I doubt WP would accept that as a verifiable citation! --Michael Goodyear (talk) 16:51, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It wouldn't make any difference if they had intended that spelling. Article 19.7 requires any misspelling to be corrected. A string of characters that doesn't conform to the code simply isn't a botanical name, by definition.

@Michael Goodyear: I always find refs in notes tricky, so did it the way I knew it worked. Do fix it to be consistent with the rest of the article. Peter coxhead (talk) 23:05, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For what seem to me to be good reasons (see User talk:Peter coxhead#Authority of subfamilies), Roussea simplex was moved to Roussea, and the latter made a redirect to the former. However, this was done by another editor by "cut-and-paste" and so needs fixing. Could you do this, please, unless another admin does it first? Peter coxhead (talk) 10:09, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --Stemonitis (talk) 07:33, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Peter coxhead (talk) 17:22, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

	The Original Barnstar
	Thanks. Further help will always be welcome Osborne 20:50, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on List of Hypericum species requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article or image appears to be a clear copyright infringement. This article or image appears to be a direct copy from http://www.theplantlist.org/1.1/browse/A/Hypericaceae/Hypericum/. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website or image but have permission from that owner, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. David Biddulph (talk) 15:30, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bacillochilus xenostridulans is the only species in Bacillochilus (as per the article and the World Spider Catalog), so the article should be moved to the genus as usual. Thanks! Peter coxhead (talk) 18:56, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Done --Stemonitis (talk) 08:22, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks; now cleaned up. Peter coxhead (talk) 18:07, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

At Dolichognatha, all the blue links to species that I have checked are redirects back to the genus. These are unhelpful and generally to be avoided. Do I need to list them all as RfD's to get them deleted? How is it best to proceed? Peter coxhead (talk) 08:26, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If it were up to me, they would be fair game for speedy deletion. Experience suggests, however, that other people see this differently. The safest solution probably is to go through a big old RfD, I'm afraid. (I have redirects coloured green when I'm logged in – I forget how – and all the species on that list except D. comorensis and D. lonarensis are indeed redirects.) --Stemonitis (talk) 12:22, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh... I thought this was probably the case. Somewhere there's some guidance about not redirecting species to the genus, I'm sure, although I can't find it right now. I'll have to search again so I can use it if I set up the RfD process. When there's just the odd such redirect I usually construct a stub, but there are too many here to be bothered with at present.

Plantdrew helpfully explained at User talk:Peter coxhead#Green redirects how to change the colour of redirects; very useful. Thanks for pointing me towards this. Peter coxhead (talk) 16:40, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my proposal to speedily rename Category:Denmark music awards to Category:Danish music awards Hugo999 (talk) 04:06, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I happened upon Bouchetispira vitrea, which I think should be at the genus, but you know more about molluscs than I do, I believe. Peter coxhead (talk) 18:47, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I know very little about molluscs, but enough to manage a page move now and then! --Stemonitis (talk) 13:51, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, no, confusing my "shellfish" subcategories! Peter coxhead (talk) 14:12, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. You may be interested in participating in the African Destubathon which starts on October 15. Africa currently has over 37,000 stubs and badly needs a quality improvement editathon/contest to flesh out basic stubs. There are proposed substantial prizes to give to editors who do the most geography, wildlife and women articles, and planned smaller prizes for doing to most destubs for each of the 55 African countries, so should be enjoyable! Even if contests aren't your thing we would be grateful if you could consider destubbing a few African wildlife articles during the drive to help the cause and help reduce the massive 37,000 + stub count, of which many are rated high importance. If you're interested in competing or just loosely contributing any article related to a topic you often work on, please add your name to the Contestants/participants section. Might be a good way to work on fleshing out articles you've long been meaning to target and get rewarded for it! Diversity of work from a lot of people will make this that bit more special. Thanks. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 04:58, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]