User talk:Stemonitis/Archive38

That said, I'm still looking for

refs that will confirm that Parribacus antarcticus is commercially fished.--Shirt58 (talk) 12:20, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

It only caught my eye because Holthuis states explicitly that P. antarcticus is *not* commercially fished, although he did write that back in 1991, and things could easily have changed since. The FAO don't list the species separately, and their online system records no catch of "slipper lobsters nei" ["nei" = not elsewhere included] in Antarctic waters. I suspect that the catch that supplies the aquarium trade is incidental, probably as bycatch from fisheries targetting another species, but I've got no direct evidence for that belief. --Stemonitis (talk) 12:29, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As Kit Marlowe wrote in Faustus Scene I line 44 , "che sarà, sarà".--Shirt58 (talk) 12:29, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Stemonitis! I saw your recent edit to the

I don't doubt that the method can be used to catch crustaceans, and is so used, but I don't see that it justifies the category. Crustaceans were hardly mentioned in the text, for instance. (I'm also not sure that Category:Gastropods is justified, for similar reasons, but that's somewhat outside my area of expertise.) --Stemonitis (talk) 22:10, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I took

It doesn't seem to have the very dimorphic chelae of a fiddler crab, so I think we can exclude that. There are a lot of species of ghost crab, but the extensions of the eyestalks beyond the eye are apparently indicative of Ocypode ceratophthalmus (at least in East Africa), and that species does occur in your area. You could probably add your picture to Commons category:Ocypode ceratophthalmus. --Stemonitis (talk) 08:32, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 08:38, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have placed a third warning on User talk:Randy102. I think that this user's editing history shows a subtle form of disruptive editing, which because of its repetitive nature, in my view now constitutes vandalism. I don't remember how to nominate someone for an editing block, but I think this user now qualifies. Since the page Portunus pelagicus has been a repetitive target in which the disruptive edits appear to be the most subtle, I am leaving this message for you, as the one who has reverted the edits, to bring it to your notice. --Robert.Allen (talk) 05:09, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's an odd situation. Some of his edits, including his most recent, are not obviously vandalism. One could perhaps justify such an edit, although Randy102 has made no attempt to do so. I generally examine all changes to crustacean articles, so I should spot any further activity in a similar vein. --Stemonitis (talk) 08:13, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I made a bit of a mess when first expanding

Ah, I hadn't realised it was monotypic, and you are right that the article should be at the genus title. The link should still be to the species, however (further species may be described in the same genus in the future), but there should be a redirect at

Triactis producta (which I have just created). --Stemonitis (talk) 08:10, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks. I realise now that I should make a redirect for the species any time I create a monotypic genus article. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:19, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

	The Teamwork Barnstar
	Thank you! DrRickZTTwo (talk) 17:21, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very bad at responding to awards in a timely way, but thank you! --Stemonitis (talk) 13:44, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have been doing some work on the Yucca article. Yucca recurvifolia is now Yucca gloriosa var. tristis according to the World Checklist of Selected Plant Families (Y. g. var. recurvifolia according to GRIN). So I moved "Yucca recurvifolia" to "Yucca gloriosa var. tristis" and did some re-writing. What I can't get right is the taxobox ("varietas" doesn't seem to work). As you seem something of an expert on botanical taxoboxes, can you sort it out for me? Thanks. Peter coxhead (talk) 23:16, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

After looking at the "taxobox bible" (

WP:TX), it turns out, bizarrely, that it uses the parameter variety=, not varietas=. Don't ask me why. I think the taxobox should be fixed now, and I have made a few other changes that should be uncontroversial. --Stemonitis (talk) 07:16, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks – not just for the taxobox but for all the other issues you've sorted out! (I was working on this rather late at night; I should have noticed the parameter name. I usually make the reverse mistake, using the English name rather than the Latin.) Peter coxhead (talk) 09:12, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Could you change Template:Taxobox please? The relevant four lines need to be changed to the following to allow both "variety" and "varietas" as parameters:

| unranked_variety = {{{unranked_varietas|{{{unranked_variety|}}}}}}
| unranked_variety_authority = {{{unranked_varietas_authority|{{{unranked_variety_authority|}}}}}}
| variety = {{{varietas|{{{variety|}}}}}}
| variety_authority = {{{varietas_authority|{{{variety_authority|}}}}}}

(It's 'obviously' correct, but I've tested it at User:Peter coxhead/Test.) Actually I can't see that the "authority" parameters should ever be needed: the authority will always be attached to the "trinomial". I'm not keen on this term ("trinomial") appearing in the taxobox; it's very zoological, but maybe it's a price to be paid for a common taxobox. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:34, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm willing to make the change, but it's not obvious to me that this change is necessary. The database dump used by TemplateTiger is a year out of date, but back then, nothing was using "varietas" (or indeed "variety"). --Stemonitis (talk) 09:21, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there are two issues. (1) Should there be articles on botanical varieties? Normally I doubt it, and I only ended up with Yucca gloriosa var. tristis as a quick fix for the incorrect name Yucca recurvifolia; ultimately I think it should be merged into Yucca gloriosa. (2) Should Template:Taxobox be consistent in using the Latin forms for ranks? I think the answer is clearly "yes"; at present it has Latin forms for all ranks except "varietas", which is what confused me. However if no other article is using the template for a variety article, then it might be more sensible to change the taxobox template to just use "varietas" and then fix this one article. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:33, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Stemonitis. You have new messages at Wilhelmina Will's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hello, Stemonitis. You have new messages at Wilhelmina Will's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hi. In your recent article edits, 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.

Lybia edmondsoni (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Mutualism

Oncosperma tigillarium (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Palm

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:48, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. --Stemonitis (talk) 12:30, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please check my message over at User talk:Nonenmac so the three of us can get on the same page about the formatting of the Christenhusz reference. Choess (talk) 15:45, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure a new editor's talk page is the best place for us to argue about ref. formatting, but I've responded there to keep everything together. --Stemonitis (talk) 17:00, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On reflection, replace "new" with "inexperienced". The point remains, though. --Stemonitis (talk) 17:01, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've rewritten the lead on the article about four days ago, you probably missed it (I imagine your watchlist is gigantic, heh). Anyway, let me know what you think of it and what else is missing. No hurry though.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 17:58, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, I saw it. I've been quite busy, but I do now have the literature I need. I have made a few comments on a local file already, and I will try and complete it before too long. I realise I'm keeping you waiting. --Stemonitis (talk) 18:01, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Aight. And really, no need to hurry on it or anything. I was just worried you'd overlooked it and wanted to check.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 20:32, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DYK review note: Thank you for your review of Template:Did you know nominations/Cardiff town walls. There are still some issues concerning this nomination that may need to be clarified; please respond on that page as soon as possible. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:44, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see, but I'm not sure what I can do about it. I did check a random selection of sources for copyright violations, and was unlucky to have missed this. It is interesting, though, that the author of the passages concerned appears to be a contributor to the article, so I don't imagine he is too bothered about the close paraphrasing. It's a shame this couldn't have been picked up in the previous five weeks rather than in the last few hours before going live. --Stemonitis (talk) 17:19, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see you graded the Misszhouia article in 2007. I've added quite some contents. Perhaps you would like to regrade it. Regards, Dwergenpaartje (talk) 13:01, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. --Stemonitis (talk) 13:45, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Stemonites,

You judged the Morocconites page before. Now that I have updated that page, you might want to reevaluate. Thinks, Dwergenpaartje (talk) 19:37, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. Incidentally, you don't always have to ask me. (I don't mind, but you might find it easier or quicker without coming through me.) Anything long enough to have lost its stub tag can be rated as start-class, and I use C-class for anything that would pass the

DYK criterion of at least 1500 characters of well-cited prose; the step up to B-class is harder to define. --Stemonitis (talk) 08:07, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Thank you for doing the grading. I think it would be highly inappropriate to grade articles I created or substantially improved myself. And I think it is valuable to have a measure of the work done. So if you do not mind, I'd like to ask you to do some more grading. Some pages you may wish to look at are Ductina, Buenellus, Naraoia, and Phacopina. I'm also the creator of an article on the Bromide Formation, but I am unsure you would feel qualified to grade such a different type of page as well. If you would be able to suggest how specific articles could qualify to be promoted, that would be very educational aswell. Kind Regards, Dwergenpaartje (talk) 10:54, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. In your recent article edits, 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.

List of Sites of Community Importance in Spain (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Sierra Nevada, Granadilla, Laguna Honda, La Serena and Sierra Blanca

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:15, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, I just fixed some template issues. The links were there before. --Stemonitis (talk) 11:25, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! The description of Amphion reynaudii was evidently given by Milne-Edwards in 1832. There must have been a typo in trustful WoRMS. If you do not trust date on the cover of Annales de la Societe Entomologique de France still thinking that Milne-Edwards made the description after the work was published, see Heegaard (1969) or Williamson (1973). Synonymy is also mentioned in these sources. And the synonym you've deleted was explicitly referenced. I'm getting anger. Mithril (talk) 11:25, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Will you answer or have I to contact some other administrator? Mithril (talk) 12:48, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about the synonym – that was a mistake on my part. The date is curious, however. All the more recent and trustworthy sources I looked at gave the 1833 date, although I now see that 1832 is indeed more commonly given. Where two dates are both quoted, the less obvious one often turns out to be correct. If, for instance, that volume of the Annales ... had been published in 1833, but dated 1832, then authors would frequently and understandably quote 1832 instead of 1833, and only those who had looked into the dates of publication (and those who copied them) would give the correct date. It could, instead, be a typo, as you suggest, but I'd really like to see some discussion of where the alternative date comes from before changing it here. I note that other papers in the same volume are dated 1833, making it likely that it wasn't published until then, even if Milne-Edwards' findings were presented to the society (but not published) in 1832. --Stemonitis (talk) 12:50, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What "more recent and trustworthy sources" you're talking about all the time? These three? The papers I quote are about to be the most comprehensive sources on the species. However you've reverted my edit with solid references and haven't mentioned anything except the WoRMS to the present moment. If you get to know something special about the structure of publishing process in early Annales de la Societe Entomologique de France volumes, let me know. Mithril (talk) 13:33, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And in response to your second part (which I only saw after I wrote my response), you have to allow people more time than an hour or two to respond to your queries. Sometimes people are busy. I don't know what you expect an administrator to do, either. This is a discussion about content, not conduct. It all seems rather hasty, and you never get nowhere if you're too hasty. --Stemonitis (talk) 12:54, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In the other hand if you're hasty in reversion that's normal thing. And stupid users are to insist on their negligible opinion. I've written this reply (1) because you'd answered in the neighboring and younger reply and (2) because of the inattentiveness and snobbery comment of reversion. I wondered if you think what you need not to read what I had written in the article, possibly I'd better get someone's help. And I haven't mentioned here, but to my mind reference to the full-text original Milne-Edwards' paper has some value for encyclopedia. You've removed it anyway. Mithril (talk) 13:33, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I guess from your anger that nothing is likely to come from this discussion, and I can't work out what your last paragraph is supposed to mean at all. I have explained how the obvious answer isn't always the right answer, and shown that the same issue of the journal that contained the paper you cite contains others dated 1833, and so cannot have been published until then. The date must therefore be 1833 (or later) and cannot be 1832. Reliable sources also confirm this. The fact that other sources fall into the entirely understandable trap of following the date of the society meeting, rather than the date of publication, isn't really relevant. If you look at the most recent mentions on Google Scholar (since 2008, say – perhaps when the misunderstanding about the dates was first picked up on), you will find matters are not so clear cut as you seem to think. --Stemonitis (talk) 14:32, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• OK, the date doesn't matter much really. I was possibly simply hurt by the fact of reversion. I've recovered that synonym and reference and put the incorrect date into square brackets (the way recommended by ICZN). I hope that won't be a problem. Mithril (talk) 15:03, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That practice is recommended where the stated date of publication is untrue. In this case, 1832 was not cited as a date of publication, merely the date when the paper was read before the society, so the square bracket formulation is not appropriate (and is also not followed by any of the sources we cite). I have also formatted the Milne-Edwards ref. as Further reading, as I suggested, and standardised it for en.wiki. --Stemonitis (talk) 15:23, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

if wishing to cite both the actual and the imprint dates, should first cite the actual date (cited as above), followed by the imprint date for information and enclosed in parentheses or other brackets and quotation marks.. ICZN, Chapter 5. 22A.2.3.. Do you mean that 1832 is not imprint date? Mithril (talk) 15:50, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I do. It doesn't look like it was printed then. That was the date of the séance (session), not of publication, as far as I can see. --Stemonitis (talk) 15:58, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm.. if the actual date of publication is different from the date specified in the work (imprint date), should cite the actual date of publication (Chapter 5. 22A.2.3.). Seems to me that means the date specified on the cover more likely than anything else. Mithril (talk) 16:10, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Even assuming that that date means the issue published in 1832, not the one published for 1832, the usage you propose is unknown from reliable sources, and that has to be what we follow. No-one else has written the authority "(H. Milne-Edwards 1832 [1832])", so nor should we. --Stemonitis (talk) 16:14, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Let it be. Mithril (talk) 23:42, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I've found a suspicious fact in the text. As far as I understood Donald Williamson writes that only larvae inhabit upper 100 m of the water column and adults females are nearly always found between at a greater depth (e.g. from 700 to 1700 m). I also wonder if the term shallow is well suited for the upper part of the water column in mid ocean. The meaning of shoaliness makes the word ambiguous, doesn't it? If you're bored with me, let me know. Mithril (talk) 23:42, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A fair point. I must have overlooked the adult distribution, which Williamson throws in right at the end of the paper; I was probably distracted by his map! I have now added the differing larval and adult depth ranges. --Stemonitis (talk) 07:14, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was looking through the WikiProject Paleontology Page, encountering a list of stub-articles. To my surprise, it did not contain a subcategory Trilobite stubs, nor listed any trilobite article. If we want more editors to be active on trilobites, it may be helpfull to mend this omission. It is probably simple if you know what to do. What do you think? Dwergenpaartje (talk) 12:21, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused. There is a

WP:PALAEO (under "Prehistoric arthropod stubs"). What are you suggesting? --Stemonitis (talk) 12:37, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

I'm sorry. It seems I have been looking with my nose (translation of a Netherlands' expression). You are absolutely right. Thanks! Dwergenpaartje (talk) 18:03, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sir - please stop your disruptive editing, your threatening and your bullying manor. Please desist from leaving derisory comments about my edits.

My edits are in line WP:TX; - there is considerable president! it seems that it is only you that seems to have an issue with this. whereas most editors make good use of taxobox features. you alone do not constitute consensus--Simuliid (talk) 22:58, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, you clearly haven't read

WP:TX

. It states: "Taxoboxes should include all major ranks above the taxon described in the article, plus minor ranks that are important to understanding the classification of the taxon described in the article, or which are discussed in the article. Other minor ranks should be omitted." The ranks you insist on adding (e.g. infraordinal ranks on articles about species) are emphatically not important to understanding the classification, by very wide consensus (I did not write WP:TX!). When writing about species, infrafamilial ranks may be important, but infraordinal ones are not, except in very few exceptions (which do not include dipteran suborders, infraorders and the like).

You seem also to be arguing that there is some sort of "precedent" for your edits. Certainly, the type of errors you are introducing are very widespread among the fly articles, but mostly because you have put them there. They are all contrary to guidelines, and should all be removed. Also note that for matters such as this, Wikipedia

does not recognise precedent. Your edits are disruptive, and your inability to recognise that may well result in a block. I am trying to warn you politely. You are a known master of sock-puppets known for his "rude and arrogant" behaviour; you are not doing yourself any favours by trying to intimidate me. If you carry on like this, a block will not be long coming. --Stemonitis (talk) 08:08, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Hello, Stemonitis. You have new messages at SarahStierch's talk page.
Message added 16:24, 7 March 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Hallo! I'm greatly pleased with you kindly reverting my edits again and again. I had no expirience of fighting for every word for several years! I just wonder if you don't know that Geoffrey Watkins Smith was "a scientist who studies crustaceans or was otherwise involved in carcinology (the science of crustaceans)". Mithril (talk) 13:51, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just upholding standards. Unsourced additions are frequently made to lists like that, and many of them are vanity additions, or other non-notable entities. I am not aware of the carcinologist Geoffrey Smith, and I haven't seen anything yet that suggests there is a notable carcinologist by that name. --Stemonitis (talk) 13:54, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's no word notable in the preambula, is it? Mithril (talk) 14:00, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, but it is a basic precept of the whole encyclopaedia, which means it applies whether or not the word "notable" has been mentioned. See

WP:LSC. --Stemonitis (talk) 14:04, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

I do not pretend creating separate article about him, but simply mentioning in the list of carcinologists. He is the author of several papers on Crustacea, e.g., monographs about rhizocephalans and anaspidaceans. There's possibly some direct assessment of his contibution to carcinology here, but I've no access to the full text. Mithril (talk) 21:01, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But that list is effectively an index to articles on carcinologists. By adding an entry with a link, you are asserting his notability. If he cannot meet that criterion, he shouldn't be included. I'll see if I can get hold of the full text of that Parasitology article. --Stemonitis (talk) 05:46, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you recently edited Strychnos nux-vomica, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Critical Care (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 11:30, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. --Stemonitis (talk) 11:33, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Would be so kind and have a look at this page: Dialectica scalariella. User Lotje proposed to link red links to wikispecies and asked me what I think of this. Although it seems a reasonable idea, I am not completely sure about it. If someone makes an article on a red linked plant, this would not automatically link to the insect it is mentioned in anymore. What do you think? Ruigeroeland (talk) 14:24, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what the MoS says about this, but I would avoid such external links in the text. Red links are useful, and should not be seen as a problem to be solved. For instance, the

External links section, and not merely linked inline. I can see why Lotje may think it would be useful, but I feel strongly that it's the wrong solution. --Stemonitis (talk) 14:30, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks for your input, I totally agree. I proposed she should rather make a stub about the plant and link this to wikispecies. I will post you reply on my talk page so she can see it Ruigeroeland (talk) 14:36, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First there was a new article. Then there was only the dab page again? Then the dab page disappeared? Now both have come back again? Any idea what's going on? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:29, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@ Stemonitis: I've reverted your changes, because they end up with the wrong solution. The article should be titled

Crossways, Monmouthshire, not Ty Gwyn. There has been some confusion - now resolved between editors - as to the name of the hamlet. See article talk page. I know you'll want to revert to a pre- cut & pasted version, but when you do so please make sure that the article and talk page are located at - and refer to - Crossways not Ty Gwyn. Regards, Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:03, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

PS: Hi Martin - we are on the same script now, I think. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:04, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of what you think the title should be, pages must not be moved by copying and pasting. That destroys the link between the page's history and its contents, which is vital for licensing purposes. By all means carry out a

move request

, or ask an admin (myself included) to move a page, but never ever move pages by copying and pasting. I have no opinion on the correct name for the article, but I will have to undo the repeated copyings and pastings. --20:18, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

I didn't do any cut and pastes. The problem is that you are reverting to versions that everyone agrees are wrong. There is no hamlet called Ty Gwyn. There is a hamlet called Crossways. As you know how to put things right, please do so, rather than putting in place articles that are quite simply wrong. If you need me to "ask you to move the page", I will. Please move the page. Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:24, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You need to be clearer than that. What page needs moving where? Where is the discussion? I have only seen copying and pasting (which you did, in effect, do, here, here and here). I am sure you understand the need for correct licensing of our content, so it makes sense to take the time to get these things right. --Stemonitis (talk) 20:29, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please read what I've written above. There is a hamlet called Crossways, with an article about it - here. The talk page should be associated with that article. There is no hamlet called Ty Gwyn -

Crossways, Monmouthshire, not to Ty Gwyn. Ty Gwyn should be a dab page. There is no disagreement between article editors over this - the page was initially started, in error, at Ty Gwyn, before editors realised it should be at Crossways - see this discussion. As I had no involvement in the initial copying and pasting at all (done by User:Dr. Blofeld), I'm not happy about being blamed for the resulting mess. Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:43, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

I'm still slightly confused. The talk page is still with the article, so that's not the problem. As I understand it, you would like the article in question (including talk page) to be moved to "Crossways, Monmouthshire". What then would be the purpose of the "Ty Gwyn" disambiguation page, since there would be no pages to disambiguate? I think you probably mean (but feel free to correct me) that you would like:

a) the page currently at

Crossways, Monmouthshire (necessitating an addition to the disambiguation page at Crossways

)

b)

Crossways, Monmouthshire

(Has this name ever been used for Crossways? If not, why was the page at that title?)

c) deletion of Ty Gwyn (disambiguation).

Is this right? --Stemonitis (talk) 20:49, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also not sure that there's a meaningful distinction to be made between performing a copy-and-paste move, and re-instating a copy-and-paste move, but that's more of a philosophical discussion that we needn't get into here. --Stemonitis (talk) 20:52, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes - (a) yes, (b} yes (it was originally put at Ty Gwyn because of an error by the article creator), (c) yes. Apologies for the confusion. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:02, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stemonitis, thanks for your efforts to work out what's going on and what is needed. But I wonder could you please explain how "licensing purposes" some into this? I think you migbt have asked some or all of the editors involved here before you simply reverted. (By the way, the tone of your advice above to "never ever move pages by copying and pasting" makes it sound as if you are addressing a naughty schoolboy. Was that your intention)? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:06, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's content is available under free licences (see

WP:C), but they require that the authors be acknowledged, and that in turn requires the history to be intact (it also requires that where sections from other articles are incorporated, for instance, that they be mentioned in edit summaries). A cut-and-paste move has to be reverted, so I don't think prior discourse would be particularly fruitful – the outcome would be the same (and my reasons were brought up in my edit summaries). As to the tone, you may be right that I was unduly curt, but it's an important point that every editor should come to understand. I hope that I have demonstrated that I am happy to help, and I certainly don't judge anyone, but in matters such as this, there is a right way and a wrong way. I was perhaps irked by the undoing of my edits, particularly since I considered them to be policy-compliant, and I may have worded things hastily. I do, however, think the outcome is the right one, and was reached in the right way. I hope this is clear. --Stemonitis (talk) 21:15, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks for your explanation. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:28, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All done, I think. Please let me know if I've done anything wrong (I'm in a bit of a hurry this evening), and I'll do my best to rectify it. --Stemonitis (talk) 21:06, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looks OK - thanks. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:10, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That article is part of the

WP:IG is a long-standing policy and applies to all articles, Monmouthpedia or not. Images must illustrate the article, in which case it should be straightforward to use them inline. An image gallery is, in my experience, almost always a result of either a poorly-written article or the overzealous inclusion of unnecessary images. I stand by my edit, and I recommend all editors, including those associated with the laudable Monmouthpedia project, to read the policy carefully. --Stemonitis (talk) 20:57, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

My personal view is that the policy can be a little short-sighted and misguided. A picture really can be worth a thousand words, well certainly a hundred. And I have seen prefectly well-written articles have attractive and informative galleries ripped from them simply to satisfy this policy. And there is almost never any consultation with interested parties beforehand. In my experience, this can engender bad feelings, even if one is "in a hurry" - in fact, usually more so. I do hope that your striving for clarity won't lead you to be seen, by those editors who may have expended considerable effort selecting suitable images, as "the policy-police" or as an "image Nazi". Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:30, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't pretend to be an experienced enough editor to know the ins and outs of all Wikipedia policies, to me the images in the gallery provide extra information, they give the building context within it's surroundings that is difficult capture and can remain ambiguous in text. Thanks for your kind words about Monmouthpedia

talk) 21:49, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

I agree that an image can be incredibly good at conveying both context and content, but it does not follow from that that every image must be retained. The current state of the article is better than when I saw it, and I can see the advantage of the aerial shot; I have no idea what was supposed to be conveyed by File:The View from Wyastone Leys - geograph.org.uk - 1447024.jpg and File:Oak trees in meadowland and Wyastone Leys - geograph.org.uk - 734053.jpg (that it's a rural area, perhaps, but little beyond that). This isn't a specific criticism of this article, or of the editors who have worked on it, but I have noticed a tendency among some editors to add images (typically their own) in a variety of articles where they are not very imformative, and I have yet to come across an article where I thought a gallery was the right solution. I think the existing policy is sound, and I think that the article at Wyastone Leys is improved by complying with it (and I am pleased to see that the improvements have continued in many other ways as well). --Stemonitis (talk) 23:11, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fair comment. "What was supposed to be conveyed by" those images? Only one, very unencylcopaedic, word springs to mind - beauty. Oh well. I am still trying to work out how a link to that article got onto the front page. But then, I am often left thinking that. Newest material is newest, after all. Thanks for your reasoned responses. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:18, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think I can clear up how it got on the front page; it was nominated for DYK here. --Stemonitis (talk) 09:13, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Stemonitis, I have reverted your edit here. The super family is not getting displayed on the genus pages without the parameter (example Turbonilla). — Ganeshk (talk) 04:07, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Then I shall undo it again. The superfamily is not required on all descendant taxa, and should not be set to always display. If you feel you need the superfamily to display (and I can't think why that would be), use the display_parents setting, not always_display. If, as your edit summary suggests, the gastropods project somehow favours this, and I see no immediate evidence of that, then it should change its recommendations, as its

local consensus does not override the wider guidelines. This is a straightforward abuse of the always_display parameter. --Stemonitis (talk) 07:05, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Why do you call it an abuse of the parameter? Isn't the result the same? The display_parent has to be entered in each and every article for the genus and the species. I am trying to understand the reason why you would like to avoid the override. Is it performance? — Ganeshk (talk) 12:43, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not about performance; it's about the correct use of taxoboxes. They are meant to display only the taxa that are most crucial to understanding a taxon's place in the tree of life. That means (as elucidated at

WP:TX) that minor ranks far from the taxon in question should not be included. There is no reason why an article on a subspecies should have the superfamily presented (in almost all cases). There are a few important taxa that are at minor ranks, but they are not numerous, and I can see no evidence that these gastropod superfamilies can be counted among their number. These are minor-rank taxa of minor importance. They should be displayed in the taxoboxes of the families they contain, and possibly (but probably not) in the taxoboxes of genera, but certainly not on those of species or lower ranks. By setting always_display to true, you are forcing taxoboxes of taxa at lower ranks to violate WP:TX by including inappropriate minor-rank taxa. Whether or not there are any such lower-rank taxa at the moment is irrelevant. Using always_display is the wrong tool. --Stemonitis (talk) 12:48, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Okay, understood. I will use the display_children in the genus pages going forward. — Ganeshk (talk) 13:04, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do the articles on genera need the superfamily displayed? If so, why? --Stemonitis (talk) 13:32, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I have heard is that the taxobox allows full traversal of the taxonomy up to the class. The local convention is that it display all levels. — Ganeshk (talk) 13:36, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I don't understand that. The local consensus can obviously be ignored, but I'm struggling to grasp the first bit. The taxobox is meant to allow full traversal of the taxonomy, yes, but using major ranks and minor ranks close to the taxon in question. I don't think anyone has ever argued for the inclusion of all minor ranks below the class, have they? Unless superfamilies are uniquely important in gastropod taxonomy (unlikely a priori), there's no reason for them to be treated differently from superfamilies in other groups (include on family articles, but not on those of lower taxa). --Stemonitis (talk) 13:39, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have asked the project members to comment on this. — Ganeshk (talk) 14:00, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A related issue is the advice here about how to include clades. This method completely messes up attempts to build taxonomy navigation tools. Peter coxhead (talk) 12:33, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Peter, the clades have now made it to the automatic taxobox. See Turbonilla juani. I have also started a page for the Wikipedia:WikiProject Gastropods/Automatic taxobox to get the project using the automatic taxoboxes. — Ganeshk (talk) 12:43, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If this means that in future the "multiline" method should not be used, then please take in out of Wikipedia:WikiProject Gastropods/Taxonomy#How to include clades in gastropod taxoboxes. It's a really, really bad idea! Peter coxhead (talk) 22:27, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That will have to wait until the project agrees to start using the automatic taxoboxes. I just started using the automatic taxobox on the bot-created articles. The project should have requested few addtional fields on the manual taxobox system (unranked_familia_2, unranked_familia_3, etc.) instead of going the HTML break route. It is too late now. — Ganeshk (talk) 09:50, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Peter, you're right. This practice of including numerous unranked clades (and particularly that method of producing it) has long concerned me, but as it's not my field of editing, I hav etended let it be. I cannot see that three taxa are needed between class and family on species-level taxoboxes. In any other group, there would be only one – the order. If it were up to me, the gastropod taxoboxes would be stripped down to contain the one most important of those three clades, whichever it might be (Heterobranchia manages to list all constituent superfamilies, so might be a good choice). I have little energy for such a fight, however, which would almost certainly cause ill-feeling. There are similar issues about some of the APG ranks in our plant taxoboxes (typically three clades between kingdom and order, one of which could just as easily be called a division). --Stemonitis (talk) 12:54, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I had to use the always_display override for the clades. Example: Template:Taxonomy/Panpulmonata. Are you okay with that? — Ganeshk (talk) 13:09, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That seems like a better place to use it, yes. I still have reservations about the number of clades being included (although there's nothing new about that), but not about the method of their inclusion. --Stemonitis (talk) 13:15, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is a strange discussion. The rank of superfamily is where in our taxoboxes of the gastropods the Linnean taxonomy makes contact with the unranked clades above it (replacing the ranks of subclass, superorder, order, and suborder). The databases we use (especially

ICZN mentions explicitly the rank of superfamily. Nowhere it is mentioned that a superfamily is a minor rank. Then I can't see why the rank of superfamily would suddenly become a minor rank. Also how else could we make a distinction in the taxobox for families that are not assigned to a superfamily, but directly to a clade, such as Dotidae and families under a superfamily, but with this superfamily not expressed in the taxobox (most other families)? Try to explain all this to the professional malacologists who are the editors of WoRMS [3] and I don't think you would get very far. JoJan (talk) 18:50, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

That reply contains some interesting material, but also a lot that can be safely ignored. WoRMS may always mention the superfamily, but then it mentions every higher rank in the hierarchy that it recognises. For instance, its page on Carcinus maenas, here, includes the order, suborder, infraorder, section, subsection, superfamily and family; that doesn't mean that we should do likewise. All that shows is that WoRMS recognises the superfamily as a valid taxon, which was never in doubt. You ask how to display the relationships of a family which is not placed in a superfamily; either show the order (families are not required to be in superfamilies, after all), or give the parent as incertae sedis (which is effectively what WoRMS does in this case. The only relevant part of your reply is the suggestion that superfamilies are the interface between the clade-based taxonomy and the Linnaean ranks. While this is true, I don't see that it follows that the superfamilies are suddenly any more important than anywhere else. Superfamilies are typically the interface between families and orders in fully-ranked classifications, but they are still minor ranks that are not normally included in taxoboxes. --Stemonitis (talk) 21:23, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid we're not talking about the same things. You give an example of a crab Carcinus maenas whose taxobox only consists of Linnean taxonomy. Indeed the clade of

WP:GAST we continue the use of the taxon superfamily in our taxoboxes. JoJan (talk) 22:13, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

None of that really makes a case for superfamilies being any more important in gastropods than in any other group. You appear to be confusing "higher taxon" with "minor rank". A taxon can be at a high rank (infra-kingdom, perhaps), but still be of minor rank, and thus inappropriate for use in a taxobox. Yes, the higher taxon (typically an order, but in this case a clade) may contain many families. That doesn't mean that the superfamily should be present in taxoboxes about species. It does mean that the superfamily should be present in taxoboxes about families, but that, again, was never in question. No-one is suggesting that the superfamilies be purged from Wikipedia, merely that they be left out of the taxobox when dealing with taxa at much lower ranks. I am now more sure than ever that the general rule should also apply to gastropods. It was possible that there was some reason why they would be different, but now I see that isn't the case. --Stemonitis (talk) 06:45, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree entirely. I've said more at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Gastropods/Archive_5#Is_Super_family_a_major_rank? which is where I think this discussion should be continued, if indeed it needs continuing. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:19, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I totally agree with JoJan on this. I think it is essential that even species gastropod articles include the superfamily in the taxobox. You can't understand where a species belongs at all if you don't know the superfamily. This is certainly true in gastropods, even though it may not be at all true in other groups of animals. Invertzoo (talk) 17:52, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What's your evidence? I could say that about all sorts of groups. Why isn't the family enough? Knowing the family tells you the superfamily; that's the way it works for all other taxa. What makes gastropods different? --Stemonitis (talk) 19:51, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What makes Gastropoda different is firstly that it is a massive class with possibly as many as 100,000 species (second only to the Insecta), and is is a class that has diversified enormously on land, in freshwater and in the oceans. However, the gastropods don't fall neatly into orders such as Diptera (flies), Coleoptera (beetles), Hymenoptera (wasps and bees), etc. They are all just "snails and slugs" to ordinary people. The phylogeny is however extremely complex, and this is reflected in the current taxonomy, which is very novel and shows a range from just one clade to a nesting set of as many as 6 clades between class and superfamily. We have said goodbye to the neat Linnaean hierarchy of taxa. Therefore the modern taxonomy is very hard to understand, and the superfamilies are the one thing that lets you orient yourself. I am not sure I am making myself clear with this, so feel free to question me some more. Invertzoo (talk) 14:18, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not trying to edit war at all, but I did add back the image of the tick, and just added a caption that is appropriate. The image is very good quality, and the detail isn't duplicated in any of the other images on the page, making it worthwhile to include in the article in that "legs" section. If you disagree, we can always go to the talk page and get a larger consensus. Dennis Brown (talk) 13:04, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have to say, I disagree. The article is already very image-heavy (thankfully, I have a large display, but it may be problematic at other resolutions), and the additional image adds very little. The number of legs is a fairly trivial fact, and is already clearly visible on the main taxobox image (a Featured Picture to boot). Actually, I think all the images need an overhaul. I'm sure there are better alternatives than a number of those pictures. --Stemonitis (talk) 13:31, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I respect that. It sounds like something for the talk page if you feel that strongly. My main attraction to that one image is the clarity and detail, being unique on the page in that respect. If I was a young person doing a report on ticks, that photo would be helpful and informational, regardless of caption. It is the only closeup of a non-engorged tick there. Personally, I would rather an article have too many (good) images than too few, and I never complain about galleries as long as they add information and formatted properly using high quality and relevant images. Considering there are many varieties of ticks, having more quality images adds information, as a picture IS worth a thousand words. But I have no issue with seeking a larger consensus. Dennis Brown (talk) 17:14, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You say "I respect that", but you seem to ignore the bulk of my point. The image as currently placed and captioned illustrates no substantive point beyond the obvious fact that ticks have eight legs. The quality of the photograph doesn't overrule its poor illustrative quality. It is currently used to draw attention to a single, trivial fact. If the reader is looking for quality images, then the Commons is the place to look; they will find higher-resolution images than that one, and better focussed, too. This is not a high-quality image, and it is not especially pertinent. I can see no justification for its inclusion. --Stemonitis (talk) 21:28, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Respecting someone's opinion doesn't require agreeing with it. This is why I suggested getting more opinions, not in the interest of creating confrontation, but rather to avoid it. If there was an image from commons that was similar but superior, that shows a close up in relatively higher resolution, I would have no problem if you replacing the current one with a similar but better quality one. Having a close up in the article is a benefit, whether it is that image or similar. I just didn't want to see the article lose a close up image of the subject matter, regardless of which image it is. Keep in mind that I never removed the image you added or suggested doing so, I just added back the other one because it offers something that none of the current photos offer, which may have been why it was put there in the first place. If you feel that strongly that the article should not have a close up image (that one or similar), bring it to the talk page for a larger discussion, which is the proper thing to do via

WP:BRD. Dennis Brown (talk) 22:11, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

The taxobox image is already a close-up, and of far superior quality. --Stemonitis (talk) 06:30, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. On the disambiguation page for caudal you removed the claim that the term is applied exclusively to vertebrates. I am not an expert on the subject and took this claim from the anterior and posterior section of the anatomical terms article, where it says that Another term for posterior is caudal [...] — a term that strictly applies only to vertebrates [...]. (emphasis added). Maybe you could look into this. --Shinryuu (talk) 23:05, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think the anatomical terms article must be wrong. At least in the combinations "caudal furcae" (crustaceans), "

caudal rami" (crustaceans), "caudal filaments" (insects) and "caudal appendage" (insects), it is very widely used for invertebrates (well, for those that have those structures). It may perhaps be true that "caudal" on its own is only used of vertebrates, but that information is unnecessary on a disambiguation page, and is likely to be misunderstood without further explanation. --Stemonitis (talk) 06:36, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Hello Stemonitis, I noticed the latest Zookeys issue deals with Isopoda, a group I though you were mainly active in? Zookeys articles (including images) are all cc-3.0, but you probably know that. Anyway, just thought to point it out to you. Cheers! Ruigeroeland (talk) 12:10, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Forgot the link, see: Issue 176 Ruigeroeland (talk) 12:10, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Lepidoptera for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. -Mabeenot (talk) 05:10, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, could you to work on this article, please? Biodiversity of New Caledonia. It is a very important archaic species group in Paleobotany and evolution.85.251.99.49 (talk) 08:07, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's not really my field, I'm afraid, and I doubt I'll be able to devote anything like the time that article would need. You're right that it's an important topic, but I don't think I can help on this occasion. --Stemonitis (talk) 08:16, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have strong feelings about it, but I guess that strictly speaking the current placement of images in Hyacinthoides non-scripta isn't in accord with Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Images#Location in that text is sandwiched between the pair of images that compare the two species and the taxobox. I often end up putting horizontal sets of images between text blocks, which I don't really like, to avoid sandwiching. I'm not really sure what the best solution is. Peter coxhead (talk) 19:01, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm half hoping to be able to expand the article further, which may solve the problem of the image placements. The old Ecology section remains unreferenced, as does Protection. Much of the rest could do with sprucing up, too; some of the references are far from ideal. I think it would be great to improve it in the next week or two (perhaps even a GA attempt), in time for its emergence – still a couple of weeks away in my neck of the woods, I think. I don't really like un-floated (centre-aligned) images, either, and I don't think sandwiching with an infobox is as serious as sandwiching between two images, but as I say, I'm hoping the issue will go away of its own accord. If you could find the time, referencing up a section of protection (not just in the UK, ideally) or the one on ecology (one of my weak points) would be a boon. It could be a very productive and timely collaboration. Equally, if you know of anyone else who might like to lend a hand, please point them to the article. --Stemonitis (talk) 20:33, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The trouble with viewing images is that it depends on what you normally use as a screen. I almost always use a wide screen monitor or a wide screen MacBook Pro, so I don't mind sandwiched text. But when I do happen to see Wikipedia pages on narrower screens, e.g. mobile phones or 7" notepads, I'm struck by how this really doesn't work.

I'm trying to finish off Cactus – the last bits, e.g. on cultivation, are both more difficult to get right and less interesting to me – but I would like to help if I can. Definitely the time of year to do it; hints of blue in warm locations (e.g. the south-facing side of the railway embankments in south Birmingham – not a typical habitat for bluebells!). Peter coxhead (talk) 08:36, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm interested in this move, because as part of working on Cactus I get spun off into linked articles about cactus species and genera; quite a bit of sorting, categorizing, etc. is needed. There are several monospecific genera which are handled in different ways, often incorrectly at the species name – incorrectly that is according to the WP:PLANTS naming policy. One example seems to fall into the Danae racemosa category, namely Mila caespitosa which has a redirect at Mila (genus). I would have been inclined to reverse these, making Mila caespitosa a redirect to the content at Mila (genus), as I have for other monospecific genera where the genus name doesn't need disambiguating. Your view appears to be that we shouldn't do this when the genus name needs disambiguating. I see that you then put categories on the articles in this way: the species article has "Category:FAMILY" (or whatever is appropriate) and the genus redirect has "Category:FAMILY genera". What do you see as the advantages of doing it this way round? Peter coxhead (talk) 14:50, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the redirects fall into place depending on their titles. The question is what title the article should have.

WP:NCDAB (point 1) advises that where there is a reasonable form that does not require a parenthetical disambiguator, we should use that one. The advice to use the genus rather than the species title for monotypic genera is really only a "tie-breaker", since both titles are equally valid. If both titles are available, therefore, then we use the genus title as standard. If on the other hand, the genus title is occupied, either by the primary meaning of the name, or by a disambiguation page, then we can resort to the species name, providing that is unambiguous. If both genus and binomen are ambiguous, then I guess the advice to prefer the genus probably holds true. I'm not aware of that having come up for monotypic genera, although it does come up for species such as Gaussia princeps, and it would be possible for them to both be in monotypic genera. My view is that Mila caespitosa is situated correctly. I think the advice at WP:PLANTS is probably just incomplete, rather than deliberately contradictory. --Stemonitis (talk) 15:16, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

It makes sense; it should be added to the WP:PLANTS advice, I think. Peter coxhead (talk) 19:24, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers for the move. benzband (talk) 15:50, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome! --Stemonitis (talk) 14:29, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You might like to follow up moving "Bumblebee orchid" by moving

Gladly! Consider it done. I have left "Bee Orchid" (& "bee orchid") redirecting to the species for now, because the incoming links should be fixed before making a disambiguation page there. Thanks for looking over H. non-scripta, by the way. I think I'm getting to the point where I can't see the wood for the trees, so any suggestions about content, especially anything that may be missing, would be gratefully received. Actually, any content would be gratefully received, too. It's certainly better than it was a week ago. --Stemonitis (talk) 14:29, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On the subject of Bee orchid, I've made this a disambiguation page and fixed all the links – I began wish I hadn't mentioned this page as it was a good 1.5 hours work! Most of the links were intended to be the species O. apifera, but there were a significant minority which should have been to the genus. I'm constantly irritated by the number of pages that contain either "scientific name (common name)" or the reverse and then wikilink both of them; this was certainly true of "Bee orchid".

The only thing I can see which is obviously missing at

ISBN 978-0-7134-1246-8

, p. 72 – unchecked OCR):

H. non-scripta English Bluebell (Scilla non-scripta, Endymion nutans) Almost too well-known to need a description and some people will object to its being included here, for it can be an awful weed in some gardens. It grows to 35cm in height with a rather one-sided lax raceme of blue, pink or white long bell-shaped flowers. The raceme bends over at the apex. a point of difference between it and H. hispanica, and in addition the anthers are creamy-white. The segments do not spread quite as much as those of H. hispanica, giving a more tubular-shaped flower. Occurs wild in western Europe, mainly in woodlands, where it flowers in April. In gardens it will hybridize with H. hispanica producing a confusing range of intermediates. It is best grown in semi-wild situations where it can be left to naturalize, since it is far too vigorous for inclusion in a rock garden or in peat beds, where it can take over.

I used to think that white forms were always hybrids, but apparently f. alba is recorded, although I can't find a source just now. Peter coxhead (talk) 19:50, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Trade?

Would you be interested in acquiring some papers on the fossil fish Gebraylichthys and various fossil gastropods in exchange for acquiring some papers on placoderms for me?--Mr Fink (talk) 15:00, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Half and half. I'm not really interested in Gebraylichthys or gastropods, but I can probably get hold of some papers for you. What are you after in particular? --Stemonitis (talk) 15:02, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, could you get ahold of these [5] [] [6] [7] [8] [9]and [10]? I'm gathering more references for my reconstructions.--Mr Fink (talk) 01:21, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It might take me a day or two, but I'll see what I can do. --Stemonitis (talk) 01:22, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much!--Mr Fink (talk) 01:23, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Those six should be winging their way to you now. --Stemonitis (talk) 16:09, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Columns

Can you please stop removing the columns? It is almost vandalism, creates too much whitespace, makes the article is harder to read and looks ugly. Use whatever code you like, but be aware much columns code (I think there are 4 versions by now or more) is still somewhat experimental. This is why I use the old one; it does not mess up the layout. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 04:55, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, forget that. But you should use Template:Multicol. I know it's not the newest columns template, but a lot of readers do not have the newest browser either, and the "div col" does not work for some 30% of users (all who have an old Internet Explorer, which is most of the people with an outdated Windows, which is likely the bulk of our Third World userbase.) Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 05:04, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, fixing the number of columns is a recipe for bad layout, especially on narrow screens (a burgeoning market given the prevalence of smartphones and similar devices). It is much better to specify the minimum width of each column, which is exactly what {{div col}} does. --Stemonitis (talk) 07:00, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've just looked at what you've done to Catocala since I fixed it, and it's appalling. Why have you limited everything to 80% of the screen width? Have you tried looking at it on a narrow screen? It's a terrible idea, and I strongly recommend that you migrate to something more user-friendly. --Stemonitis (talk) 07:31, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Citation style

If I wished to be awkward (as per

Roman pottery) I could point out that 4 of the 5 citations at Scilloideae were in my preferred {{Citation}} style, and you could have converted the odd one to this. :-) Peter coxhead (talk) 22:16, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

That's very similar to the SFN style I'm using at Botany, which has the added benefit of clickability between the notes and references section. I'm really coming to like this SFN style, which seems especially suited to academic type references. 512bits (talk) 23:03, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a strong preference on my part. The use of {{citation}} always suggests to me that the editor didn't know what kind of thing they were citing (the way journals are sometimes cited using {{cite web}}, for instance). I know that's not true, but it's the impression I get. As far as I can see, the only difference is the italicisation of the title of ref. 3, which is probably incomplete anyway (no publisher, no accessdate). I wouldn't mind if you wanted to change it back, but I don't think any of us thinks it a big thing. 512bits, both styles of citation allow clickability between Notes and References; I do that quite a lot. As a side note, the first one I tried at botany, "Butz 2004" (should be "Butz (2004)" in normal scientific writing; Harvard is more of a humanities style) doesn't work. --Stemonitis (talk) 05:24, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, what's worse is that I added a reference with the authors' names formatted quite differently from the established style. Oh dear. It's a strange sort of blindness on my part, because it's the sort of inconsistency that annoys me when it happens to articles predominantly written by me. So, yes, sorry about that. --Stemonitis (talk) 10:09, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually Butz 2004 is a typo, it's supposed to be 2007, so I just fixed it. I've spent more time doing refs than anything and I think than no one style fits every need. I decided to stick with one style in botany so it's all consistent. I don't like it when there are multiple styles in an article, though I can see a case sometimes for two styles depending on how it's done. In botany I just want to stick with one style. I learned SFN after asking at the helpdesk.512bits (talk) 12:22, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I quite agree about the desirability of consistency (and I thought that one of the dates for Butz was probably a typo, but there was a small chance that they were different editions, which would have affected the page numbers). {{

cite}} templates, and then link to them manually, as I did at Palinurus charlestoni, for instance. I'm not criticising what you've done at all – I should make that clear – just explaining that there are other options. --Stemonitis (talk) 12:43, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Oh yes, totally understand SFN isn't the only way. I like the way you did the lobster article refs too. and BTW, nice article! Very interesting to read. I think the big thing on refs is consistency and attention to detail. 512bits (talk) 14:14, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GA

Just a note to say that I'm reviewing Hyacinthoides non-scripta, and that since I'm still a bit {{busy}} in real life, you should feel no constraint whatsoever in pinging my talk page if I'm failing to get back to you promptly about any question you have.

I have every expectation of this article passing easily. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:43, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem in the slightest. I'm likely to be quite busy over the next week or so as well. Thanks for the encouragement. --Stemonitis (talk) 05:49, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Present for you

There is a present for you on my user page. 512bits (talk) 14:51, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! Thank you. I'm in good company! --Stemonitis (talk) 15:45, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Paella

Just to let you know I have unprotected paella, which you protected in September. The original parties to the edit war appear to have gone away, rather than resolving their difference of opinion, but it seemed to be a fairly isolated incident for the article so probably best to let others edit it. Regards, The Land (talk) 20:58, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd forgotten all about the paella controversy. Let's hope the warring parties have, too. --Stemonitis (talk) 22:38, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thrips confusion

Me again! I'm a tad confused about the name of

doi:10.1080/09670877509411482 [11]) . Can you work out what's happened? Was the 'r' removed at some point when the genus was renamed, or did someone make a typo which has then been copied by others? Cheers! SmartSE (talk) 22:08, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

An interesting case. I started searching for "Hoplandothrips" and came across a number of reliable-looking sources. Then I looked for "Hoplandrothrips", and found even more. It looks to me as if the latter is the correct name, with the former being a common mis-spelling. The authority, incidentally, is "Hood, 1912", not "Priesner". The Biodiversity Heritage Library comes up trumps, providing lots of early citations for "Hoplandrothrips" (and almost none for "Hoplandothrips"), including the original description. It definitely appears to be spelt with an r, but I would certainly mention the frequent misspelling. Oh, and it's "thrips", not "thrip" – another frequent mis-spelling! --Stemonitis (talk) 22:37, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help as ever. I'll fix everything up sometime this week. SmartSE (talk)

Disambiguation link notification for April 4

Hi. When you recently edited

Viper (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 15:14, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. --Stemonitis (talk) 15:45, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Automated taxobox system in Asparagales

I did get agreement at WT:PLANTS before updating the taxonomy of the Asparagales to APG III, including agreement to use the automated taxobox system, at least for those families where APG III has sunk earlier well-established families, such as the now broadly defined Asparagaceae and Amaryllidaceae. It's known that some specialists in these families remain unhappy and have been working to re-establish what are now subfamilies as families. Hyacinthaceae/Scillaceae, for example, continue to be used by some "bulb people"; Alan Meerow, who is an Amaryllidaceae specialist, is unhappy about the new family. I know you're not a fan of the automated taxobox system, but there was a reason why Allium triquetrum used {{Speciesbox}}: it will be easier to convert some of the subfamilies back to families if this happens. Peter coxhead (talk) 17:58, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but it would have been a pain to introduce the section to the taxobox, and in a genus the size of Allium, the infrageneric classification is very useful. Thus, the manual taxobox was a simple and straightfoward solution to my immediate problem, and the automatic taxobox would have been a convoluted and complex solution. I think that is more important than any possible future reassignments. As far as I'm aware, I didn't change the classification at all, so the APG III agreement should be unsullied. --Stemonitis (talk) 18:13, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that sections are useful in a genus like Allium; I also agree that sections don't automate well (which is why I didn't convert the taxobox back to the automated system). But I'd be grateful if you wouldn't convert any others in these families unless there are very good reasons. It took me a very long time last year to work through the whole of the Asparagales fixing everything to APG III, and I'd like to ensure it would be easier if some narrower definitions returned to favour. Peter coxhead (talk) 18:29, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly have no plans to change any other articles. I didn't have any plans to change this one, actually, but I saw the plant in the wild, and wanted to find out about it. On finding an unsourced article, I reckoned I could improve it and ended up re-writing it. As I have stated, a manual taxobox allowed me to present the important information in the simplest way. The choice of manual or automatic taxobox is a means to an end, not an end in itself; the end product is what matters. Let's not worry about potential changes until they are needed. Even if the outcome you fear comes about, there are numerous ways of making the necessary changes. --Stemonitis (talk) 22:19, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We agree then. This was a useful prod, because I realized that although I knew that ranks between species and genus need to be handled differently in the automated taxobox system, the documentation didn't explain this. I've fixed it now. Peter coxhead (talk) 11:24, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Listera → Neottia

Could you please delete Neottia for me? Sinking Listera into Neottia seems to be well accepted now (Stace and the BSBI in the UK, the World Checklist of Selected Plant Families, etc.), annoying though it is for those of us used to the old names. I've changed all the species articles but can't finish the move of the genus article. Thanks. Peter coxhead (talk) 18:29, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. --Stemonitis (talk) 22:19, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Next time I won't bother with the "speedy delete" template, I'll just ask you! Peter coxhead (talk) 11:31, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your name

Quite interesting that you picked slime mold as your user name.512bits (talk) 14:35, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose it is; I'm so used to it by now that it doesn't register as unusual any more. The poor state of our article on Stemonitis is a nagging concern of mine... --Stemonitis (talk) 07:38, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hyacinthoides × massartiana

It's a subtle difference but it seems to me that neither the original wording nor your change re the occurrence of Hyacinthoides × massartiana are quite correct. There are several possibilities, including: (1) the hybrid may naturally occur where both parents naturally grow; (2) it may occur where one parent naturally grows and the other is introduced (the British Isles generally); or (3) it may grow where neither parent grows and the hybrid has been introduced (some parts of the British Isles where only garden forms are found). I think the original wording may have been trying to distinguish (2) from (1): the hybrid is "introduced" in the sense that one of its parents is "introduced". Peter coxhead (talk) 07:29, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm not entirely happy with the text, but I'm sure the unqualified statement that the hybrids are "introduced" is likely to be misunderstood. I entirely take the point that the hybrid would not be in the UK if the parent had not been introduced. If you can convey the situation better than I have done, please do so. I think both 1 & 2 are true, but in different places (Flora Iberica includes the hybrid as a native occurrence); I'm not aware of any cases of 3, but I can see it may well occur.

The article on the hybrid could also do with expanding. I was just about to write the description section, when I realised how much it would repeat existing information, and lost heart. I have good sources for its distribution in the British Isles, but not on the continent (except Iberia), and that should be included, too. --Stemonitis (talk) 07:36, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On the first point, I agree that your wording is better. I'll think about how to re-word it. For case (3), Stace (2010: 921) says that H. × massartiana is "often natd [sic] in absence of both [parents]" but doesn't give any locations.

On the second point, maybe my concern about repeating information isn't quite what you had in mind, but I find the need to have articles which almost entirely stand alone is often an issue. I started working on Roscoea and its species, but got bored because great chunks of the species articles were basically the same with only measurements, colours, etc. changed. In a traditional encyclopedia or similar source, you would start by describing features of the genus and one or two key species and then for the other species and hybrids simply say how they differed. Thus what I really want to know about H. × massartiana is how it differs from its parents. But this kind of reliance on cross-referencing seems to be disliked in Wikipedia. I don't really see why because the ease of navigating hyperlinks should make cross-referencing more acceptable. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:56, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pachygrapsus marmoratus

Can you provide guidelines to validate your persistent removal of this picture from the article Pachygrapsus marmoratus? I have read through all Image use guidelines, and I have been unable to locate anything that will back up your reasons for removal. Can you provide a valid guideline? Dusty777 16:52, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's not how it works. I have provided reasons in edit summaries and elsewhere. More important is that you should provide a reason for its inclusion, and that has so far been lacking. --Stemonitis (talk) 17:00, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Any reasons that can be given as to why the picture should be in the article can be summed up in two words: Encyclopedic Value. It adds value to the article, as it provides a picture of the Male, as well as the addition of another picture of the species. Anyway, back to my original question, what guideline or essay backs up your reason for removing the picture from the article? You refer here to the picture being added to the article as a violation of site wide image policies (correct me if I interpreted your comment wrong), yet you do not link to any essays to back up your reason for removing the picture from the article. Can you provide a link to these policies you are referring to? Dusty777 20:13, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

image use policies before coming here, but you seem to have missed some important aspects. You claim "encyclopaedic value", but provide no details. Why is it valuable to picture the male, when all the interesting sexual dimorphism is exclusively ventral? It adds almost exactly nothing, and certainly not enough to warrant inclusion in the article. The Commons category contains many images, a number of which would be more informative. I don't think the article is big enough to take any of those, either, but if one were to be added, it would not be the same dorsal aspect of an adult individual that we already see in the taxobox. --Stemonitis (talk) 20:17, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

What part of

WP:IRELEV are you referring to? If you can provide that, and the reasons why you interpret it that way, so that we might be able to reach an understanding of each others position (and clear this up.) Dusty777 16:52, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

All of these parts are pertinent:

"Images are primarily meant to inform readers by providing visual information." – the second taxobox image conveys almost no further information.

"Articles that use more than one image should present a variety of material near relevant text." – the two taxobox images did not constitute a variety of material.

"Adding multiple images with very similar content is less useful." – ... and so should be avoided.

The spirit of the guide is fairly clear here, I think. Anyway, the problem has already been cleared up, as far as I can see. I have edited the article to show how it would look with a well-chosen second image. I still think the article would be better without it (the current layout violates various aspects of

MOS:IMAGES), but if there's going to be a second image, that's how it should be, not with a second near-identical taxobox image. --Stemonitis (talk) 17:14, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Unfereferenced template added to geographic article

Hi Stemonitis, you recently added an Unreferenced Stub template to San Matías Gulf‎. I'm not entirely sure that this was necessary due to the use of the Coord template in the article. I've started a discussion about this here. Perhaps you'd like to comment. Regards, Bazonka (talk) 17:42, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know. I've added a comment. --Stemonitis (talk) 17:58, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

April 2012

Your recent editing history at

reverts

on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's

WP:DTTR][reply

]

[ec] You can't act the impartial arbiter if you're going to get involved too. Your edit summary states "I believe this image DOES make an important contribution to the article, there IS sexual dimorphism present in this species, THUS separate images ARE useful.", but you are wrong. If the sexual dimorphism were particularly relevant for this species (it is found in all crabs and is not remarkable in this species), then the ventral images (see right) would be the ones to include. How is your chosen picture better than that? Don't answer that; it's a rhetorical question. The second taxobox image is plainly unhelpful, and is only being included to satisfy the FP criteria, as at least one editor has had to courage to state. That is

editing to make a point, not to improve the article, and you should be ashamed. I hope you will revert your actions forthwith. I have been trying to reach a compromise (my personal preference is for no second image, but I included one anyway), but that becomes very difficult in the face of heavy-handed and misguided interventions such as yours. --Stemonitis (talk) 10:44, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

WP:DTTR doesn't mean your immune from violating rules, and DEFINITELY can be templated and warned if your actions are pretty clearly in violation of said rules. If you even read the delist at FPC you'd see that my stance was to discuss the addition/removal of this image from the article on it's talk page and give it at least a month before we make any decisions on the FP status of it. Since there was 4 other editors who believed the image relevant for the article against 1, I added the image back and requested temporary page protection while we discuss the addition with hopefully more editors than ourselves to arrive at a consensus. As it is now it's pretty much a bunch of people against you, and I think your arguments are on pretty shaky grounds and possibly are leaning towards

WP:OWN. — raekyt 10:56, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

My arguments are solid. Not one person has yet argued for inclusion of the image on the right, when that is clearly the most pertinent image to illustrate the sexual dimorphism. That suggests very strongly that this is not an argument about the best image to illustrate some topic, but something else entirely – in this case FP status for an image. My edits were all to keep the article in compliance with our image use policy, and my being in a minority locally doesn't alter that (especially when the majority are from a potentially biased clique, such as the regulars at WP:FPC). Your actions are escalating the disagreement into a fight, and that was completely unnecessary. Your browbeating is entirely contrary to Wikipedia's exepcted standards. You do not seem to have assumed my good faith at any point; you did not ask my opinion. Instead you clumsily chose a very blunt instrument and wielded it unwisely. Let's hope you can learn from these mistakes in your future interactions. --Stemonitis (talk) 11:13, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view

Which of these pictures is more useful?

The major differences between the sexes are visible here, including the primary sexual characteristics and many of the sexual secondary characteristics.

An elbow. This would look a bit different in the other sex.

• is there a significant sexual dimorphism between the male and the female, other than what is usual?--Shirt58 (talk) 10:40, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• See above. In short, no. --Stemonitis (talk) 10:44, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• For a biologist there is enough sexual dimorphism that separate illustrations would be useful. The above image, is of course great at showing ventral view but the other two images show dorsal view. Just because this type of sexual dimorphism is present in all related crab species doesn't mean that we ignore that we have excellent dorsal and ventral views of THIS species showing it's sexual dimorphism. — raekyt 10:52, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"For a biologist, there is enough..." That's complete rubbish. How is showing one minor aspect of the sexual dimorphism better than showing the major part of it? The rear edge of the carapace is only different between sexes because the pleon is so different, and that's all on the ventral side. There's a minor difference in the chelipeds, but that's also probably visible from below. And in any case, none of this is illustrating the article. The images are meant to illustrate the article. If they don't illustrate the article, then they're not helpful. When I wrote the article, I chose the best selection of one or more images I could find to illustrate it. After careful consideration, I decided that one image was all that was required to illustrate the text, and there wasn't any room for a second image. I truly wish that some of the FP-pushing brigade would do the same. The whole text of the description is this:

"P. marmoratus has a square carapace 22–36 millimetres (0.87–1.4 in) long, which is dark violet brown with marbling in yellow.[2] It can be distinguished from related species of Pachygrapsus in the Mediterranean Sea (Pachygrapsus maurus and Pachygrapsus transversus)[3] by the presence of three teeth on each side of the carapace.[2] It is capable of very rapid movements, and it uses this ability to dart into crevices, making it difficult to catch.[2]"

The (first) taxobox image illustrates that nicely. The second image adds nothing more. The (unremarkable) sexual dimorphism is not mentioned, so we don't need any images of it, and if we did, we would choose a different image. Anyone who cannot see that is not qualified to comment on image choice in articles. If I wanted to illustrate sexual dimorphism in humans, I wouldn't show a picture of the elbow, even though that varies between sexes. We don't illustrate a minor aspect when we could illustrate the major aspect, for obvious reasons. --Stemonitis (talk) 11:00, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Illustrations are not JUST for the beinifit of illustrating the existing language of the article, they can be used to stimulate someone to write more in the article. The article's current state or size shouldn't have any bearing on what images are best to illustrate the subject. Being able to identify the sex of a crab from viewing it down at the ventral side is relevant, showing the dorsal view is also relevant, I'd also like to see the inclusion of the above images as well. Because you didn't include it in the article text when you wrote it, doesn't mean it can't be included at some later date by someone else, or would you oppose the addition of that textual information as well on the same grounds? — raekyt 11:06, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Illustrations are primarily for illustrating the text, and that must always be the overriding determinant. The article's text has an enormous bearing on what images are included.

WP:IG: "Articles may get ugly and difficult to read if there are too many images crammed onto a page with relatively little text. [...] For this reason, it is often a good idea to temporarily remove the least-important image from an article and queue it up on the article's talk page. Once there is enough text to support the image, any contributor is free to shift the image back into the article." --Stemonitis (talk) 11:21, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

You're arguing if 1 or 2 photos should be on a C class article guys? Does it really matter right now considering it's probably lacking in a lot of other content. I can see how this extra pic might not be useful for a bioligist who already knows what they're looking at, but could be for someone who wants to find out what kind of crab they've found. Rudolph89 (talk) 11:36, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can you? The dorsal aspect of the female would provide that. The distinguishing features (as the article explains) are the numbers of teeth on the anterolateral edge of the carapace. The extra taxobox picture doesn't add anything to that. The image on the left might, because that shows the species from a very different angle – is that the one you meant? --Stemonitis (talk) 11:39, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I meant it could be useful for some people to have the additional image that shows the colouration/markings differences between the sexes. Most people who spot a crab aren't going to turn it over to find out what sex it is, more likely to check wikipedia from a quick dorsal observation. It seems to come down to if you prefer more or less images in an article, so I don't know if there is right or wrong answer to this one.. Rudolph89 (talk) 11:58, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know for certain, but I suspect the differences in markings are just part of the variation within the species, rather than being sexual characters at all. Most mottled–marbled markings (not just in crustaceans) are quite variable between individuals, and I would hope that even an untrained amateur carcinologist would not try to identify a species based on such unreliable characters! --Stemonitis (talk) 12:06, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits

Following a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Lepidoptera/Archive5#Protoploea_apatela, on 20 June 2011, without any notification and without my knowledge, you changed a redirect of The Magpie to Magpie (disambiguation) without adding the target, even though the use of the term is unique to the painting.[12] I'm curious why you would make such an edit when two editors ([13], [14]) have made the point that "The Magpie" is not the name of the butterfly. Your edit essentially removed a useful redirect to The Magpie (Monet), which is the only topic on Wikipedia that goes by that name, and failed to add either the butterfly or the painting to the dab page. Did you forget? Viriditas (talk) 02:12, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-up: since the butterfly isn't known as "The Magpie" and since the painting title is unique, I've restored the redirect and added a dab heading to the primary target. Viriditas (talk) 02:19, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Contrary to your assertions, the moth Abraxas grossularia is known by the name "The Magpie", even if other names are used more commonly (and UKMoths doesn't include the definite article in most cases; cf. here). The term "The Magpie" is very ambiguous, especially given the likelihood of readers using definite articles where they shouldn't. I think most people searching for "The Magpie" are actually after Pica pica, not the painting, and so redirecting The Magpie to a disambiguation page is by far the best approach. --Stemonitis (talk) 05:40, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid you are mistaken. "Is known by" refers to

Pica pica is absurd. The magpie is not known as "The Magpie", nor would anyone be looking for that string in a search for Pica pica. In fact, Magpie has the appropriate bird article in place, so your assertion is evidently false. The Magpie refers predominantly to one of the most famous paintings in the world, not to an obscure month that isn't known as "The Magpie" nor the Eurasian Magpie. Viriditas (talk) 09:15, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Actually, I see now that I was the only other participant in the discussion you refer to, and that I warned you then that there are moths called "The Magpie". How can you take disagreement from the only other participant as a licence to do something? The only reason I didn't respond to your last comment was because you made it nearly a week later, after I would have stopped watching the page. I'm undoing your edits pending discussion. --Stemonitis (talk) 05:43, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are being extremely silly. The obscure species you refer to, Abraxas grossulariata is not primarily known as "The Magpie", and your sole source for this assertion is an obscure, self-published website. Viriditas (talk) 09:21, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and a third reason that I had forgotten. We can't have "The Magpie" redirecting to "The Magpie (Monet)". If the painting is the primary meaning, it should be at "The Magpie", not redirected from there. That may be a possible outcome, but it would need to go through

WP:RM first. --Stemonitis (talk) 05:46, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Are you acting purposefully disruptive? You know perfectly well that the sole reason the article is disambiguated as The Magpie (Monet) is because when it was named, The Magpie redirected to Magpie (butterfly).[15] As I explained above, I changed the redirect, you reverted without telling me or anyone else, and here I am. Your response here appears irrational and disruptive, and I am seriously questioning your judgment. I apologize if my tone is disrespectful, but I have little patience for editors who seek to cause problems rather than solve them. Viriditas (talk) 09:24, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think you should start assuming good faith. I have said that moving the painting to "The Magpie" is a possibility, albeit one that would need to go through RM. What we cannot justify is having "The Magpie" redirecting to "The Magpie (Monet)" (see

WP:DISAMBIGUATION). If the sole reason is what you claim it is, then start the RM, and it can all be sorted out pretty quickly. That is the best course of action for you to take, rather than making (unfounded) accusations of irrationality and disruption. --Stemonitis (talk) 11:35, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Stemonitis/Archive38&oldid=1151046898"