User talk:Edibobb/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Comments on your stubs

Hi and welcome! I notice that many or all of your stub articles are in the format: x is a species of scientific name ("common name"), in the larger group scientific name ("common name"). To me this seems a bit redundant and clunky to read. It's more common on Wikipedia for articles to simply read "Notoxus montanus is a species of ant-like flower beetles native to North America", or "Notoxus montanus is a species of beetle in the family Anthicidae." In most cases, an article on a species needn't mention the suborder, nor superfamily, etc. in introductory text (see Good Articles like Emerald ash borer or Polistes exclamans for exemplars). It's somewhat a matter of style and preference, but the quotes and common names (especially cumbersome ones like "water, rove, scarab, long-horned, leaf and snout beetles") can seem a bit tacked on and pandering. Also, please note that BugGuide is a user-generated source, and should generally not be used as a reference as it is edited by the community and can change in an instant, rendering it unreliable. A better alternative could be to add {{taxonbar}} to taxon articles, which contains external links to several common taxonomic resources (including EOL, ITIS, GBIF, Bug Guide and others), and draw more heavily form the journals and book references. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a database or directory, and so the print/journal references you include (and any prose) are far more valuable than largely redundant links to EOL and ITIS (which in turn often draw from or link to each other, and Wikipedia, creating a potential vortex of circular unreliability!).

Lastly, a couple of suggestions for finishing touches on each stub or article you create: 1) create the corresponding Talk page, adding, for instance, {{WikiProject Insects|class=stub|importance=low}}, and 2) syncing the article with interlanguage links if they exist: Cebuanao and Swedish Wikipedia have a large amount of taxon articles bot-scraped from online databases. Interlanguage linking also allows the taxonbar to be autofilled. These two steps help facilitate user and machine access to articles, and reduce the work load for other editors. Cheers! --Animalparty! (talk) 09:35, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments! I've made most of these changes, and am working on reorganizing the references. I plan to upload some additional pages tonight or tomorrow, and would welcome any comments, suggestions, or criticism you might have.Bob Webster (talk) 01:10, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

In my opinion, the Bugguide references should remain references. Bugguide does have some user-generated content, but the content on the species information pages cannot be touched by general users, only editors. A very small percentage of contributors are also editors, and most of those do not edit the information pages.

As a Bugguide contributor, I can submit images and post messages on forums, but nothing else. I cannot edit or create information pages. I cannot alter the taxonomy. I cannot even correct a dead link. This is all done by editors.

The data from the images can be questionable, since they are submitted by common users. In fact, on the range maps Bugguide has the caveat, "The information below is based on images submitted and identified by contributors. Range and date information may be incomplete, overinclusive, or just plain wrong."

I would consider the image and associated data to be unreliable user-generated content, but I think it should be safe to link directly to species information pages. Sometimes there's not much information, especially for uncommon species, but they often contain good information and decent references.

It has been my experience that Bugguide has both highly accurate and up-to-date information. I ran across a good example last weekend. I was trying to figure out why ITIS didn't have the dragonfly genus "Gomphurus", even as an invalid name or synonym. Bugguide listed it with some species. NCBI didn't have it. EOL didn't have it. Wikipedia did have three redirects for species in Gomphurus to Gomphus, but only that.

It turns out that about a year ago, some people wrote a paper that changed four genera in this family, creating, among other things, the genus Gomphurus. It seems to have been accepted by the Odonata scientific community, but has not propogated yet. (Incidentally, I am only posting articles on Wikipedia for species that appear in both ITIS and Bugguide.)

One other note on Bugguide and Wikipedia: A Google search turns up a few thousand instances of "bugguide" in Wikipedia articles. I checked 40 of these, and of them there were 30 with Bugguide as a reference, 8 as an external link, and 2 where Bugguide appeared only in the taxonbar.

I've use bugguide, along with confirmation (or conflict) from other sites, for information on taxonomy, common names, and references.

I think it should be reliable to use Bugguide as a reference with a link directly to a species information page. If there's consensus otherwise, though, I'll definitely go along with it. Bob Webster (talk) 05:55, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

@Edibobb: BugGuide is more reliable than some other citizen science projects, as most editors have training and experience in the pages they edit and observations they curate and unlike Wikipedia, editors are subject to scrutiny/verification before confirmation. However, since taxon information pages can be edited or altered, it's not as stable as printed/dated sources. It's basically a tertiary source which may or may not include references. I agree that using individual observations is unreliable (as well as potentially improper usage of primary sources). It's certainly not the worst tertiary source, especially for the basic stubs you're creating, and I'm not going to go through and remove bug-guide references, just pointing out that if more stable, reliable sources can be provided, they should be, but I'll leave that choice up to you (and again, citizen science sites like BugGuide, eBird, and iNaturalist also appear in Template:Taxon-bar). Lastly, if you haven't already, be sure to check out WikiProject Insects and WikiProject Arthropods for resources. Cheers! --Animalparty! (talk) 02:21, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

@Animalparty: That makes sense. I'll work on getting some more journal references. Thanks once again! Bob Webster (talk) 21:17, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Thank you for all the work you have put into creating beetle-related article. FITINDIA 23:18, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you! Bob Webster (talk) 21:17, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

A page you started (Dicerca hesperoborealis) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Dicerca hesperoborealis, Edibobb!

Wikipedia editor Animalparty just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Just FYI, taxoboxes should generally only include major ranks or those discussed in the article, per Template:Taxobox#Classification. Excessive extraneous info should be minimized. You might also check out the Template:Automatic taxobox, which automatically updates every time, say, a taxon is reassigned to a new subterclass, parvorder, or infrafamily.

To reply, leave a comment on Animalparty's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

--Animalparty! (talk) 04:32, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

A page you started (Leptoypha) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Leptoypha, Edibobb!

Wikipedia editor Enwebb just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Thanks for fleshing out insect taxonomy!

To reply, leave a comment on Enwebb's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Enwebb (talk) 03:56, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

A page you started (List of Neohydatothrips species) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating List of Neohydatothrips species, Edibobb!

Wikipedia editor Animalparty just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

To be honest, we probably don't need separate lists of species for genera unless they exceed like a hundred. Centralized info is better than a billion scattered stubs.

To reply, leave a comment on Animalparty's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

--Animalparty! (talk) 04:13, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

A page you started (Mipseltyrus nicolayi) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Mipseltyrus nicolayi, Edibobb!

Wikipedia editor Usernamekiran just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

If possible, could you please add one line in main body, in a new section? That would automatically create a "lead" section, and a body. Thanks :)

To reply, leave a comment on Usernamekiran's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

—usernamekiran(talk) 19:58, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Authority

Hello! Thanks for you pages on various insect taxa. It would be great if you could add the authority of the taxon in the taxobox. You can do this by making a parameter with the rank of the taxon, and then "_authority" after it. For example, I would add "|species_authority=Linnaeus, 1758" to the end of the taxobox if a taxon was described by Linnaeus in 1758. Hope that helps! RileyBugz^{私に叫ぼう}_私の編集 20:23, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the information! I've been putting the authority with the binomial name, but I have been leaving it completely out of all the pages for ranks above species. I'll make sure it's included in the future. Bob Webster (talk) 23:40, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

a friendly tip

Honestly speaking, I am not much good with that "authority control" myself lol. Please feel free to ask RileyBugz about it if you want to.
Your creations are very good. Even though it is not a problem, you should be mindful about WP:ORPH, and specially about WP:GARDEN. The field in which you are creating articles, is very prone to "garden" issue, and it is also difficult to detect, so the best thing is to avoid it while creation, or remember to avoid it later. If there are any questions/doubts (about anything) please feel free to ask. :) —usernamekiran(talk) 20:35, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip! I very well could be creating some isolated "gardens", and like you say I can detect it during the page creation. I'll start doing that. I'll also correct any "gardens" I've already walled off. Bob Webster (talk) 23:40, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Autopatrolled granted

Hi Edibobb, I just wanted to let you know that I have added the "autopatrolled" permission to your account, as you have created numerous, valid articles. This feature will have no effect on your editing, and is simply intended to reduce the workload on new page patrollers. For more information on the autopatrolled right, see Wikipedia:Autopatrolled. Feel free to leave me a message if you have any questions. Happy editing! TonyBallioni (talk) 16:07, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Speciesbox

@Peter coxhead, Plantdrew, and William Avery: This is in relation to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of Life#Adding Species Stub Articles and discussion above.

I thought of something else. There's an effort to gradually replace {{Taxobox}} with {{Speciesbox}} and some related templates. I don't know much about it, but I've seen work by many others to make the transition. It might be better to start your new articles with Speciesbox, etc. I'm pinging a couple of people who I've seen working on this to see if they have any suggestions.  SchreiberBike | ⌨  06:33, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

@SchreiberBike: I always do start new article with an automated taxobox – but then I spent a long time converting the system to Lua (programming language) so I'm biassed. At one time there was opposition to automated taxoboxes from some wikiprojects, but this seems to have died down now. I convert them for plant and spider articles I work one, and have not had any objections for several years now. Peter coxhead (talk) 07:55, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

@SchreiberBike: I generally only create new automated taxonomy entries for fish and moths, and sometimes genera of plants. There are already industrial quantities of moth stubs, which need industrial methods to handle them. I try to fit in with the taxonomy that's already on the article pages, which I think most editors are tolerant of. At one time there was talk about importing taxonomic schemes from outside the English Wikipedia into the automated taxonomy system, and imposing them on existing articles, which I think caused a deal of pushback. Fitting in with existing taxonomic schemes is of course highly desirable, whether you are using the automated system or not. William Avery (talk) 09:29, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

@Peter coxhead and William Avery: Thanks for your input. It sounds like you're saying that Edibobb could go either way on his project and it would be ok with you. You're hoping that the WP:Automated taxobox system is the way of the future, but it doesn't have momentum yet. Also in the future there may be some automated way of converting, but it's not here yet. Am I understanding right?  SchreiberBike | ⌨  20:28, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Automated conversion is a tricky issue. The automated taxobox system supports variant taxonomies – for example birds and dinosaurs use incompatible systems. This works by careful choice of taxonomy template to link to, including "skip" templates. A carefully programmed bot could, I'm sure, avoid the difficult areas, but I haven't seen any enthusiasm for automation so far. Peter coxhead (talk) 21:49, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the information. I like the idea of dynamic taxa, but in this case I think I'll stick with the plain taxobox because it's already working and it may be simpler to handle unknown taxons. I'll look into it some more to make sure.Bob Webster (talk) 02:38, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Yesterday I changed over from Taxobox to Speciesbox (and Automatic taxobox for higher ranks). It involves adding to the Taxonomy templates, which should help reduce "unrecognized" messages editors might encounter using the Speciesbox. Bob Webster (talk) 15:41, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Welcome!

Some cookies to welcome you!

Welcome to Wikipedia, Edibobb! Thank you for your contributions. I am SchreiberBike and I have been editing Wikipedia for some time, so if you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. You can also check out Wikipedia:Questions or type {{help me}} at the bottom of this page. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• Introduction
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• How to write a great article
• Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that will automatically produce your username and the date. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian!  SchreiberBike | ⌨  04:18, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Specifically I'm going through the series of articles you created about Lepidoptera. They showed up here. If you have any questions about what I'm doing or why, please feel free to ask. Mostly I'm making them more like other Wikipedia articles about Lepidoptera. I'm not sure if there's any value in the "Phylogenetic Sequence Number", which seems to be used only by the Moth Photographers Group and Annotated Taxonomic Checklist of the Lepidoptera of North America, North of Mexico. Let me know why you think it's worth including. Keep up the good work and again, welcome to Wikipedia!  SchreiberBike | ⌨  04:22, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! I really appreciate your kind remarks, the cookies, and your edits! I am embarking on a project to create a lot of Arthropod stubs, similar to the ones you've seen. I'm currently at the point of manually posting some auto-generated pages. Edits and comments like yours are exactly what I was hoping to get so I can bring the pages up to a decent standard. I plan to post a few new pages tomorrow that reflect most of the edits you've made. Eventually, if I can get approval for bot use, I'd like to generate a few thousand arthropod stubs. The idea is that with the framework and the online references, it will make it easier for people (myself included) to expand the articles, as well as for users to follow the links and learn.

I was really happy to see that we don't need the "Phylogenetic Sequence Number". I don't like that number. I included it because I saw it on a Wikipedia article somewhere. I was also happy to see the ITIS search link. That's a big improvement.

Thanks again for the assistance!

If you have any comments, suggestions, or criticism, I'd welcome them. Bob Webster (talk) 07:13, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply Bob. Here are some thoughts I had that you might find helpful.

The way I've edited the articles you created is pretty standard, but other people may do things other ways which are also fine, so don't take what I've done as gospel.

There are mixed feelings on English Wikipedia about creating articles with any kind of automation. I don't think it has been done for quite a while. You may want to look at past discussions about that. (See Wikipedia:Bots and follow links from there.) Also if you're going to create many it would be good to get feedback on them so you can be sure they are really well done. I'd suggest starting a discussion with links to examples at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of Life. Many of the really expert editors of species articles watch that space.

It looks like you know this, but it's good to keep in mind that not all online databases are equally good and some are pretty bad. The best ones either have a link to the original description or at least give the citation to find it. A lot of sources don't explain where their data came from and since they can't be checked, I trust them less.

There's also a case to be made for the idea that creating stub articles about species which are only covered by specialist sources (academic journals mostly) really add very little to the "sum of all human knowledge". Because there are so many mirrors of Wikipedia, once a species has been added to this encyclopedia, the information will be copied many times, often without attribution, and that makes it harder to find what may be more reliable sources.

I'm just throwing up some thoughts that you might want to be aware of. Honestly I'm kind of surprised that no one but me has responded to the many articles you have created. Most Wikipedians are pretty kind, but not all are. Be prepared for some push back.  SchreiberBike | ⌨  01:46, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks again for the information! I'll put a message on the Tree of Life page. I wasn't even familiar with it. I did put a message on the Arthropod project page and there was favorable response, but only from a couple of people.

I did wonder about whether putting up a bunch of stubs will help. I think in the long run it should. It will resolve a bunch of dead internal links, and more importantly, with references it should make it easier for people to expand the articles as opposed to creating a new article.

Once again, thanks for your assistance!

Bob Webster (talk) 01:49, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Your post to TOL was good and was well received. That's great. I do have some feedback though as I've edited more. Most things are good, though I'd do some of them differently, but still ok. One thing that's important is the format of the authority. The comma should always be there. The presence or absence of brackets or parenthesis around part or all of the name and date are important taxonomically. It indicates if the name has been changed since the original author named it. Actually, I'm not sure what the square brackets around a date mean, but I'm pretty sure they're important too.

Also see MOS:ALT about alt text. Generally I think it's better to leave it blank than to duplicate what's already there.

Keep on going and let me know if there's anything I can do to help.  SchreiberBike | ⌨  09:13, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the input! I have cleaned up the authorities, and most of the problems with common names (I hope!). I'll leave out the alt text for images. I've always thought it's something very few people use. I've also made a few other changes, hopefully improvements. I plan to upload some more pages tonight or tomorrow.

Bob Webster (talk) 01:05, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Good to see more articles appearing. I've been editing the Lepidoptera ones as they appear and wanted to check with you on a few things.

Where it has Iowa State University as the "publisher" of BugGuide.net, I'm uncomfortable with that because while the BugGuide.net site does say that it is hosted by Iowa State University and it says that ISU holds copyright on some of the content, it doesn't look to me like ISU is taking any responsibility for what's on the pages. Does that make sense to you, or do you see more involvement there?

Where you have "North American Moth Photographer's Group", I don't see the apostrophe used at that website, so I've been changing it to "North American Moth Photographers Group". I've also been putting the common names in bold text, which is standard for Lepidoptera articles and rather than saying "known generally as" or "commonly known as", just offsetting the common name with commas. It's usually "the" like here or if it's a possessive with "or" like here. Let me know if those make sense to you or if you've got other thoughts and keep up the good work.  SchreiberBike | ⌨  02:54, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

I saw your edits and had just finished fixing bugguide/Iowa State and Moth Photographers group. (I thought I had done that before, but they apparently crept back in when I was reorganizing references.) I removed "known generally" for single common names. I didn't realize that about "the" and "or" -- that's good to know. I'll fix that. I also changed "species of moths" or skippers to singular. I'll make the common name bold if there is only one, and use quotes for a list of two or more. (If you think another way is better, I'm happy to do it differently.) I'll upload another batch of articles later this evening. As always, thanks for your help!

I notice from your user name that you may be a cyclist. I bike quite a bit myself. Bob Webster (talk) 03:41, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

You're cruising! There are only a few things I'm having to correct when I go through them now. Some of the references like ''ZooKeys, vol. 40'' and ''Journal of Research on the Lepidoptera, vol. 40'' should be ''ZooKeys'', vol. 40 and ''Journal of Research on the Lepidoptera'', vol. 40 so that only the book or journal name is in italics and not the volume etc. There's sort of a consensus, but not universal, that species and smaller are referred to in the singular and anything larger is pluralized, so you'd say that "Xxxx is a family of moths" but "Xxxxx xxxxx is a species of moth".

If you want to add one more thing to your process, there should be a redirect from each common name to the article name. For example, I created Dingy purplewing so that anyone searching for the common name will be redirected to the correct article. That can get complicated though if there's more than one species sharing a name. I create a hatnote at the first species, usually like {{Redirect|Spotted angle|the other moth with this common name|Caprona alida{{!}}''Caprona alida''}} in that case.

I've used SchreiberBike as my nom de web since I started on Usenet back before the web was much of a thing. Bicycling is something I miss. I mostly did stuff oriented around randonneuring and even a bit of ultra-distance, commuted year round and rode with my local club. For no real reason, my left knee doesn't work well anymore. I rode for a while with one leg, but then started having problems with my good leg, so I quit and sold everything. It's a great sport: fitness, transportation, exploration, technology, planning, companionship, and the list goes on. It was 2005 when I quit and I still get misty eyed when I think of it. What kind of riding do you do?  SchreiberBike | ⌨  03:58, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks again for your help. I changed the references so the volume is not italicized. I also made the change you suggested about using singular common names with species. I'm looking into the possibility of making redirect pages for common names. Like you mentioned, there are a few complications with that.

I do mainly road biking, ride with a local group, and do a little mountain biking. I run triathlons and go on two or three organized bike rides most years, but no ultra-distance rides or long triathlons so far.

Looking good! The things I'm fixing now are mostly just my personal preferences and little nits. Based on the Lepidoptera stuff I watch, I'd say you're ready to make a bot request. Keep up the good work.  SchreiberBike | ⌨  00:52, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you! I appreciate all the help you've given. I would still like to standardize the references, but I'm not sure if it would be worth spending all the time it would take. At a minimum I'll make some corrections to them. I feel pretty good about it all -- the fixes keep getting less critical as time goes on. Bob Webster (talk) 00:59, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

I applied for bot approval, and they sent me to the Village Pump for more discussion. Feedback seems favorable. Bob Webster (talk) 15:56, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

I have unreviewed a page you curated

Thanks for reviewing Carteris oculatalis, Edibobb.

Unfortunately Jimfbleak has just gone over this page again and unreviewed it. Their note is:

unused refs

To reply, leave a comment on Jimfbleak's talk page.

Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:41, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 11

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Euphranta, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Fruit fly (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:44, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Rank for Atysites

Hi, at Template:Taxonomy/Atysites, setting the rank to "zoosectio" (the correct value for a zoological section) causes an anomaly in the rank order. A zoological section is supposed to be a rank above the family level. I note that BugGuide has "No Taxon (Section Atysites)", i.e. it's not actually treating "Section Atysites" as a rank. I think the best we can do is to declare Atysites to be "unranked". ITIS and the other taxonomy websites given as sources don't contain Atysites, so the other option is to omit it altogether from the taxonomic hierarchy. Peter coxhead (talk) 22:47, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

I see that now, and I agree it should be omitted. I should have paid attention to the "no taxon" ranks -- I'll make sure and exclude those in the future. I've been adding articles for some species not found in ITIS over the past view days so I can test more missing templates. I plan to restrict the new articles to valid ITIS taxons when it's automated, so I'll go back to that restriction now. Thanks for the information, and I'm sorry for the mistake! Bob Webster (talk) 23:14, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Ranks must be Latin in taxonomy templates (as e.g. Template:Taxonomy/Entomobryomorpha); there's a list at WP:Autotaxobox/ranks. The system may seem to work with English rank names but some features don't. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:07, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out, and for fixing my mistakes. I edited a few manually yesterday and forgot about that. Bob Webster (talk) 15:41, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Taxonbar QIDs

I see on Acanthepeira cherokee you used {{Taxonbar|from=Q2190081}}, which populated Category:Taxonbar templates desynced from Wikidata, but I think you meant {{Taxonbar|from1=Q48975997|from2=Q2190081}}? The |from=/|from1= parameter is meant to be the main Wikidata QID pointing to the Wikipedia page, and |from2=, |from3=, etc., are used for synonymous/alternate Wikidata items that are related to the page.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  13:27, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

It looks like the page wikidata:Q2190081 was made a few years ago, and the page wikidata:Q48975997 was made this morning by "GZWDer (flood)" after I had made the Wikipedia page Acanthepeira cherokee (and referred to Q2190081) last night. I'm not sure how to prevent or fix this, but I'll see if I can figure it out. Bob Webster (talk) 15:42, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Ah, I didn't bother to check times since I figured it was very unlikely that such a coincidence would happen. Fortunately, this is exactly what Category:Taxonbar templates desynced from Wikidata was meant to do! I thought this was a false positive, but it's a true positive.

GZWDer (flood) (I'm assuming the ping will work cross-wiki), why was this seemingly-duplicate QID created?   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  15:51, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

I can only assume it was an error – the only information at the new Wikidata item was the link to our article. I merged the two Wikidata items. (You use wikidata:Special:MergeItems.) Peter coxhead (talk) 10:36, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Template:Taxonomy/Antonina

Hello, I see that {{Taxonomy/Antonina}} links to the dab page Antonina. I tried to fix it but that page only lists a plant (no mealybugs). I also don't want to make edits that might mess up, or be undone by, some automated process. {{Taxonomy/Pulvinaria}} has a similar problem, though there Pulvinaria (insect) is the obvious choice. Please can you help? Thanks, Certes (talk) 15:58, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the information! I'll fix both of those. Bob Webster (talk) 16:02, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. I've fixed the dab page to list the mealybug. Certes (talk) 16:35, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Parent taxon in taxonomy templates

Hi. I've noticed some incomplete taxonomy templates in some of your recent articles. E.g. the families Template:Taxonomy/Cleidogonidae and Template:Taxonomy/Tingupidae have the subpyhylum Myriapoda as parent, omitting the lower rank of Order Chordeumatida. Please double check your taxonomy so that appropriate major ranks are included. Thanks. --Animalparty! (talk) 06:28, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

OK, I'll take care of it. Thanks for letting me know. Bob Webster (talk) 06:31, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Bot approval request

Your recent bot approval request has been approved for a trial. Please see the BRFA for more details. Thanks! ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 06:58, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you! Bob Webster (talk) 07:23, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

New article Eremochrysa

Hi. Is that article about or Eremochrysa or Hister? Not clear to me :-)

It's about Eremochrysa now. :)

I posted that page (manually) because Hister civilis, created automatically in the Qbugbot test, was an orphan. I got mixed up and pasted the Hister content into the (new) Eremochrysa page. Instead, I should have added the species (along with the taxonbar, automatic taxabox, etc.) to the existing page Hister (genus). In fact, I'll do that now. Bob Webster (talk) 01:28, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 28

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Rivellia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Signal fly (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:23, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Re: Proctotrupidae.

Please, where in the world did you get this information: "Proctotrupidae is a family of ants, bees, wasps and sawflies in the order Hymenoptera. There are about 11 genera and 12 described species in Proctotrupidae."? Is this vandalism or an accident? --Polinizador (talk) 02:31, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

The 11 genera and 12 species are the sum of those listed in any of Catalogue of Life, ITIS, and Bugguide.net. The WikiProject Tree of Life recommends Catalogue of Life as "most comprehensive and authoritative global index of species currently available," but I can only find three genera and five species in the family Proctotrupidae in Catalogue of Life. Looking at GBIF, you can find more, but still less than 20 genera and 100 species of accepted taxa, some of those from relatively obscure sources, and nowhere near the 400 you referred to in the article. (Do you have a source for that I could check?) Encyclopedia of Life has quite a few, but most of these are supported only by one library, BioLib.cz. Is there somewhere else I should go for the data? Did I make some kind of stupid mistake here? (That's my big worry!) Bob Webster (talk) 04:20, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

I guess that "Proctotrupidae is a family of ants, bees, wasps and sawflies" was a typo. The number of genera and species (>400 spp. in 30 genera) are the ones given in Bugguide.net based on The Proctotrupidae (Hymenoptera) of the World. The Encyclopedia of Life lists 30 genera. There is no summary of all the species. You can check the numbers if you go genus by genus. --Polinizador (talk) 23:11, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Further reading tweaks

FYI I was running my ref cleanup script over pages you made recently (oldest was ~early Feb) and found the most common fixes to be 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. Just thought you'd like/want to know ffr, in case they haven't already been taken care of. Nice work!   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  00:49, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you! Those are all fixed now on new pages except number 2 (editions). I should be able to take care of that by tomorrow. Looking over the references, I see I do have some more clean-up to do in the volumes, but it shouldn't take very long. Thanks again for the help. Bob Webster (talk) 01:46, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Category:Articles begun/created by Qbugbot

Congrats on the extended trial!

Would you mind if Category:Articles begun by Qbugbot was renamed to Category:Articles created by Qbugbot? 'Articles created' is the standard naming convention rather than 'Articles begun'. I didn't want to do this myself, since it requires a corresponding Qbugbot code change. Thanks!   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  18:09, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, and thanks for all your help! I'm fine with "created by" instead of "begun by". I'll change the code for all future stubs and the ones currently in the category. Bob Webster (talk) 18:40, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

I submitted a request for speedy rename, and see that the pages will be recategorized automatically. Bob Webster (talk) 19:01, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

I have processed the speedy renaming of Category:Articles begun by Qbugbot to Category:Articles created by Qbugbot. Since it is a tracking category rather than a content category, I have also tagged it as a {{hidden category}} and removed it from Category:Arthropods. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:25, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you! Bob Webster (talk) 01:20, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

BrownHairedGirl, out of curiosity, how does one make a category hidden - is there a filter somewhere for cats beginning with or containing "Article"?   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  23:32, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Nvm, I thought {{Hidden category}} was a passive template, but it's the thing doing to hiding...   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  23:35, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Sorry @Tom.Reding, my wording was unclear. I should have said that I "made it a {{hidden category}}". As you found, the tag does the hiding. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:15, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

• Edibobb, @BrownHairedGirl and Tom.Reding: Currently none of the articles from this category were created by the bot. They were created by bot-op, manually. Do you think they should be removed from the category? —usernamekiran(talk) 00:05, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

I think some of these were created as part of the pre-trial, and for testing purposes. If these are (eventually) in the minority, I don't think it's a problem lumping together those created via bot-op, as long as they used the same code/procedure as Qbugbot would have used.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  00:14, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Tom.Reding. It's the process that matters. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:16, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

yeah, I had forgotten trial was done through Bob's account. My bad. Kindly disregard my above comment. —usernamekiran(talk) 00:29, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

I've posted some bot-created articles manually over the past 2-3 days and added them to the "Articles created by Qbugbot" category. My thinking was that the bot-created content is more important than how it got to Wikipedia. During the current trial I'm keeping a list of the pages automatically posted by the bot on User:Qbugbot/info. Bob Webster (talk) 01:20, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Qbugbot - offer of help

I was very pleased to see you've received approval for your arthropod bot. Having expressed my support at WP:VPR, it now seems appropriate to follow up by offering you any assistance I can in quality checking as you roll this out. I'm more of a botanist, and not an entomologist (and know nothing of North American biodiversity), but please ping me if you have any monitoring tasks you'd like help with.

And as an aside, may I observe that I don't think the intros to List of Tingini genera, List of Leiodes species etc quite sufficiently explain to a non expert to what the lists relate? Maybe something like: This is a list of 121 species in the genus Leiodes,[1][2][3] - a group of beetles within the class Insecta (or phylum Arthropoda). would give greater clarity? Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 00:29, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

I know extremely little about entomology, but count me in. —usernamekiran(talk) 02:34, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you both! I would be happy to have any assistance you can offer in looking over the new pages. I think you're right, at a minimum there should be a common name in the list pages whenever possible.

I'm keeping a list of the new stubs in chronological order on the user:qbugbot/info page.

I had some feedback on being short on the number of species and genera in lists, particularly for bugs outside the Americas. Yesterday and today I added the GBIF database to help with this. The species pages will still be limited to organisms that appear in both ITIS and Bugguide. I also added some small codes for the databases next to the items in the lists, like this: Holcocephala. As a result, I made some changes to the way references are handled and introduced a few bugs (the software type, not found in GBIF) that have been fixed for tomorrow's batch.

At this point, I'm going to work on error fixing and try to avoid any non-trivial enhancements. It should be possible to add new features after the stubs have been created (as a new bot project). Bob Webster (talk) 05:44, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Ways to improve Tingini

Hi, I'm Enwebb. Edibobb, thanks for creating Tingini!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. Please do not copy and paste directly from a source, as that is plagiarism!

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse.

Enwebb (talk) 01:25, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi, the taxonomic notes you removed are public domain and cited, intended for distribution with ITIS taxonomic data. Does that still violate Wikipedia rules? I'm happy to leave it out if it does, but it can be beneficial to some people if it's left in the article.

Thank you for clarifying, I was unaware that ITIS was considered public domain. In general, you can directly copy-paste from public domain, but ITIS cautions [1]

ITIS produced data and information are in the public domain. While the content of many ITIS web pages is in the public domain, some ITIS pages contain material that is copyrighted by others and used by ITIS with permission. You may need to obtain permission from the copyright owner for other uses. Furthermore, some ITIS data, products, and information linked, or referred to, from this site may be protected under U.S. and foreign copyright laws. You may need to obtain permission from the copyright owner to acquire, use, reproduce, or distribute these materials. It is the sole responsibility of you, the user of this site, to carefully examine the content of ITIS and all linked pages for copyright restrictions and to secure all necessary permissions.

As a suggestion, if you copy-paste directly from a public-domain source in the future, it might be nice to include hidden text near the selection like this <!-- This section is copy-pasted from public domain --> so that editors/new-page patrollers don't think it's plagiarism. I apologize for my error! Enwebb (talk) 04:51, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

I'll claim responsibility for any error! Thanks for the assistance. I'll double check to make sure the comments are public domain before I put them back in, and I'll flag them so other reviewers and editors will see what's going on.Bob Webster (talk) 05:07, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Bob, and Enwebb; I think the easiest way to add PD attribution is to add {{PD-notice}} right before closing ref tag. Like in the following example:
<ref name="nga.mil">{{cite web|url=https://www.nga.mil/About/History/NGAinHistory/Pages/MajGenWilliamKJames.aspx|title=Maj. Gen. William K. James|website=www.nga.mil}}{{PD-notice}}</ref>

Also, it is difficult to fill in the bare refs manually. I usually add bare refs first, then fill it up with refill, and then add the pd notice. You can see a live example at William K. James.

Also also, you should set-up miszabot for archiving your talkpage :) —usernamekiran(talk) 02:49, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks -- I added the PD template and the archive bot for this page. Bob Webster (talk) 17:47, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

miszabot

Hi.
I saw the settings for bot. The archive parameter seems incorrect. Also, I think you bumped the 1 key while inputting the archive size. 1150K will be a lot. Like, a LOT. 150K should suffice. If you keep 1150K, every archive page will be enormous, and difficult to navigate; and slow to load. Here is an updated code based on your preferences.

{{talk header}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
| algo                = old(30d)
| archive             = User talk:Edibobb/Archive %(counter)d
| counter             = 1
| maxarchivesize      = 150K
| archiveheader       = {{Automatic archive navigator}}
| minthreadstoarchive = 2
| minthreadsleft      = 4
}}
{{archives}}

Best, —usernamekiran(talk) 19:20, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! I just copied it onto the page. Bob Webster (talk) 19:25, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Tweaks for Bugbot

See [2], [3], [4], [5]. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:58, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

I'll note that [6] has several interesting PDFs that could be linked to, as I've done in the 3rd link above. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:10, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you! Those are all very helpful. The changes should show up on future articles. Bob Webster (talk) 03:38, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

question

Has the robot been accepted — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amirh123 (talk • contribs) 17:41, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

No, it's going through a trial now. Bob Webster (talk) 17:43, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

question

hi how many articles creating with bot — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amirh123 (talk • contribs) 18:07, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

200 in this trial, 15,000 total. Bob Webster (talk) 19:41, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

catalogueoflife.org/

hi catalogueoflife.org have very articles please make bot to adding this articles — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amirh123 (talk • contribs) 15:04, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Edibobb, a discussion about the request has taken place regarding this, please see Wikipedia:Bot_requests#Requests_from_Amirh123. CC Redrose64 and Headbomb --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 23:37, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, that's good to know. Bob Webster (talk) 00:24, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Qbugbot

Great work with the Qbugbot! The articles are of consistently high quality.--MainlyTwelve (talk) 22:07, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you! Bob Webster (talk) 00:29, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Has the discussion moved away from here? Just looking to follow along to see if it gets approved.--MainlyTwelve (talk) 16:55, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

No, I'm still waiting for approval. I've never done this before, but it seems like it's taking a long time. Bob Webster (talk) 19:25, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	Thanks for your tireless contribution. Regards. -- Titodutta (talk) 21:40, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you! Bob Webster (talk) 03:16, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Diversity links for Taxoboxes

Hi Bob! I noticed you've recently made lists like List of Prepops species and List of Neolygus species. These lists can be embedded in taxoboxes by using diversity_link = List of Prepops species and diversity = c. 200 species (see Template:Taxobox#Diversity for details). It's probably better to be somewhat vague (e.g. "about" or "at least" 200 species) rather than precise with a large number, to provide buffering for future taxonomic changes, and/or differences between classification schemes (not all researchers of a given taxon may recognize the same taxa as valid, and/or various checklists/databases may have differing 'official' numbers). And lastly, you can correctly format the italic font in the lists by using the template {{DISPLAYTITLE}}, e.g. {{DISPLAYTITLE:List of ''Prepops'' species}}. Cheers, --Animalparty! (talk) 19:00, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the information! I'll start using those this week. Bob Webster (talk) 22:04, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Qbugbot

Hello! How is Qbugbot generating its "Further reading" references sections? Didn't see it described in its discussion sections, but perhaps I missed it. czar 21:35, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi! There is a big list of citations (2,617 citations at the moment) that came from a number of sources such as ITIS, Google Scholar, Zookeys, and Crossref.org. A few of these are applied to each article based on the scientific name of the bug. For example, Cerotainiops abdominalis is a robber fly, so the article "Robber flies of the world" is used for that (and other robber flies).

Each citation in the list has a taxon that it applies to, and the lowest rank it covers for that taxon's descendants. For example, the article "Phylogenetic relationships among superfamilies of Hymenoptera" applies to the order Hymenoptera and its descendants down to the family level. (It won't be used much since probably most, if not all, of the Lepidoptera families already have articles.)

In addition, there is an exclusion list, so for example, papilionoidea (butterflies) can be excluded from lepidoptera to address the 30+ superfamilies of moths.

Bob Webster (talk) 21:56, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! I was interested in whether those sources are manually selected or to what degree the source finding/tagging is completely automated czar 01:04, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Unwatching this page now, but if you have a moment to explain how sources are added (manually? automated?), send a {{ping}} as I'd be curious czar 19:20, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

@Czar: Sorry, I misunderstood your post. A lot of sources were added automatically from ITIS, but many were also added manually by searching for topics, and by adding some interesting sources I happened to run across. I still add references occasionally, but they are getting more and more specific to the lower taxonomic ranks. Bob Webster (talk) 04:37, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

I have a similar question regarding the Further reading: often the lists seems awfully long, with potentially little direct utility to the focal species. Using Cerotainiops abdominalis (while not the longest Further reading list), is there reason to suspect Encyclopedia of Entomology or Phylogeny of Asilidae has specific info on C. abdominalis? --Animalparty! (talk) 19:09, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks again for the input. I've been reducing the scope of a lot of "further reading" references, but I can see there is more to do. Encyclopedia of Entomology had already been excluded from insects and spiders sometime between now and when Cerotainiops abdominalis was created. I just now cut Phylogeny of Asilidae from everything below the subfamily level, and have reduced the scope of several others earlier today. I'll watch for overly general and off-topic references as I look over the articles, and it should keep improving. Bob Webster (talk) 22:38, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

bot

hi you say bot not creat articles there are in Wikipedia and creat articles not in Wikipedia but many articles in Wikipedia that not good example Rafflesia borneensis in Wikipedia and not creat whit your bot but this article not good — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amirh123 (talk • contribs) 13:20, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

You can expand those articles by adding information and references. You could start here: http://portal.cybertaxonomy.org/flora-malesiana/node/10161

Qbugbot is only for arthropods and the database has no information on plants. Bob Webster (talk) 14:57, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

thanks but I don't know how to creat article in Wikipedia hard for me to creat article — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amirh123 (talk • contribs) 04:11, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Here's a good place to learn how: Your First Article. It's really not too difficult. You might need a little help with English grammar and spelling, but you can probably find that online. Bob Webster (talk) 04:46, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Let me know if you have any questions about it. Bob Webster (talk) 04:51, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

question

do can make bot to adding planet articles to this address http://portal.cybertaxonomy.org/flora-malesiana/node/10161 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amirh123 (talk • contribs) 07:44, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

question

hi do another creating articles with bot in future — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amirh123 (talk • contribs) 07:22, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 22

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Lepidopsocidae, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Soa (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:51, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Timema names

The genus is neuter, so under the ICZN the name is spelled "ritense" regardless of how it was originally spelled. Please see here: [7]. Dyanega (talk) 18:07, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks -- I've corrected the species page. Bob Webster (talk) 18:34, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Actually, the automatic taxobox is broken and uses ritensis; if you know how to fix that, it would be appreciated. Dyanega (talk) 20:39, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

I missed that -- it's fixed now. Thanks.

On a separate issue, do you happen to know whether Meropachydinae or Meropachyinae is correct? I picked the latter, but I was not sure enough to edit the family page Coreidae.

Meropachyinae is correct, the other is a synonym. See [8] - a definitive resource for Coreoidea. Dyanega (talk) 21:29, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

question

why bot articles not described categorys example boreus nix must have Insects described 1935 category — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amirh123 (talk • contribs) 06:29, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

I probably will not add that feature at the moment. The bot is authorized to run as it is currently configured. You might be able to add the articles to those categories, though. Just edit the article and add the category at the bottom. Bob Webster (talk) 00:41, 24 April 2018 (UTC).

Disambiguation link notification for April 29

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Nemapalpus (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to N. orientalis

Philosciidae (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Perinetia

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:20, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Duplicate Purana articles

I see you have created an article Purana (cicada), but we already have Purana (genus), which is linked at Dundubiini and Cicadinae. William Avery (talk) 21:01, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. I'll clean it up. Bob Webster (talk) 21:09, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. Incidentally, I only glanced at the tribal scheme for Cicadinae, but the existing articles seemed to be the usual inconsistent mess. William Avery (talk) 08:11, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Eurypepla

Hi. First, I think your recent editing efforts are pretty dang impressive, and very helpful (though I admit to having personal qualms about using automated taxoboxes for groups whose higher classification is in constant flux - that's not a reflection on you, I just don't trust automated taxoboxes as a matter of principle). Second, I noticed that the cassidine genus Eurypepla on one of the pages you recently edited needs to overwrite the existing Eurypepla page, which is a redirect to a moth genus. No one still uses that name for those moths, from what I can see, so having a redirect or even a dablink seems unnecessary. Dyanega (talk) 17:27, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you! I replaced the redirect with a page on the tortoise beetles. I left a link to the moth genus, even though I agree it's unnecessary. Bob Webster (talk) 18:50, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Further reading

hi bot not creat articles there are in Wikipedia and creat articles not in Wikipedia very articles not Further reading because not creat with your bot please add Further reading to this articles thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amirh123 (talk • contribs) 07:20, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

The bot is only authorized to make new pages, so it's not allowed to add "Further reading" sources edit existing pages. Bob Webster (talk)

do make this function for bot in future — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amirh123 (talk • contribs) 06:46, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Another RfC on Net Neutrality

A month ago you participated in an RfC at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 147#Net neutrality. The same proposal has been posted again at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Proposal: A US-only CentralNotice in support of Net Neutrality. (This notice has been sent to all who participated in the prior RfC, regardless of which side they supported). --Guy Macon (talk) 20:50, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Millipedes of North America: Further reading considerations, categories, and formatting

I've noticed that many millipede of North America articles created by Qbugbot, e.g. Underwoodia iuloides, include the essentially useless "Further reading" of Atlas of the millipedes (Diplopoda) of Britain and Ireland. As bots are automatic but not smart, a much more realistically useful reference for North American millipedes is "Hoffman, R. (1999). Checklist of the millipeds of North and Middle America. Virginia Museum of Natural History Special Publications 8, 1–553." And, for all millipedes, please drop the general references "Capinera, John L., ed. (2008). Encyclopedia of Entomology" and "Brusca, Richard C.; Moore, Wendy; Shuster, Stephen M. (2016). Invertebrates (3rd ed.)" as MOS:FURTHER states "that would help interested readers learn more about the article subject", and the only species specifically mentioned in the over 4,000 pages of Capinera 2008 is Oxidus gracilis, and the general info on the class Diplopoda in both aforementioned tertiary sources is comparable to our Wikipedia article. A more relevant, focused source on general millipede biology and diversity that should replace the two texts above is Minelli, Alessandro, ed. (2015). Treatise on Zoology - Anatomy, Taxonomy, Biology. The Myriapoda, Volume 2. Brill. ISBN 978-9004156128.

Also, it would be very helpful if North American millipedes were automatically placed into Category:Millipedes of North America (and others in appropriate Category:Millipedes by continent). Lastly, please fix the typo "Brewer, M.S.; Sierwald, P.; Bond, J.E>" in "Millipede Taxonomy after 250 Years" which currently appears in over 90 articles, and omit "Kolokotronis, Sergios-Orestis, ed" in the same reference, which is a fluke of auto-generating citations from PLOS journal DOIs (editors of journal articles are conventionally not including in standard references). Thanks, --Animalparty! (talk) 20:13, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. I'll make these changes on new pages created starting today. (The exception is adding the category for millipedes on continents other than North America. All the millipedes in this run are in North America, but it will take a some work to add the other continents because the geographic data is currently so messy.) I'll add this to a list of things to fix after the page creation is complete -- after these are done, I plan to request bot authorization to scan pages made by qbugbot and make fixes. Bob Webster (talk) 21:09, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for looking into it. At least the good thing with millipedes and centipedes is that, aside from a handful of widespread introduced species, most are restricted to a single continent, if not single country. --Animalparty! (talk) 21:29, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

One more issue has pooped up: The Minelli, 2015, source is giving an error due to a misplaced period in the ISBN field (see e.g. Conotyla blakei, Abacion tesselatum, and Trichopetalum uncum). Lastly, it would be helpful if future iterations of bot creations could link to other-language articles, Wikispecies, and Commons via Wikidata (WP:ILL). Polyxenus pugetensis contains a link to its corresponding Wikidata item in the taxonbar, but the article itself is not linked to Wikidata nor the three other foreign language articles. It's possible that another bot will link them eventually, but it's also possible that two parallel Wikidata entries get created for the same taxon. --Animalparty! (talk) 05:27, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

I can take full credit for that "poop up" -- I just typed it in today. Thanks! I'll look into the foreign language links for next time. Bob Webster (talk) 05:33, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

oh wow, what a typo! I think I'm pooped as well! - Cheers. --Animalparty! (talk) 06:00, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

question

work bot is finish Amirh123 (talk) 07:44, 9 May 2018 (UTC)finish

Yes, it finished May 7.

but many articles have very red links example List of Stenotabanus species

The bot was authorized to make articles for tax listed in both ITIS and Bugguide. Maybe more articles can be created in the future, removing some of the red links. It is probably not worth it to have an article for every name, because some are not likely to be expanded beyond the taxonomic information in the pages of the parent.

Regarding list articles

Just FYI, with regards to lists like List of Pselaphinae genera and List of Xystodesmidae genera, style guidelines at MOS:REDUNDANCY state "if the page is a list, do not introduce the list as "This is a list of X" or "This list of Xs..." (similarly, the article Pselaphinae would not begin "This is an article about Pselaphinae..."). A more natural, less redundant way to begin such a list article might simply read: "Pselaphinae, a subfamily of rove beetles, contains around 100 genera and 700 species." See for example List of Paradoxosomatidae genera. --Animalparty! (talk) 06:04, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the information. I agree, that will be an improvement -- I just changed the wording to be less redundant. Bob Webster (talk) 17:01, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi Bob, can I just follow up Animalparty's point about Lists with a general question, please? I'm interested to see how you've used letter codes and grey text to indicate the data sources of the taxon names in your lists, such as at List of Hapithus species and List of Xystodesmidae genera. Whilst this approach does work (in fact, I quite like it) could you point me towards a style guideline that confirms this is the right approach to take, please? At the Teahouse I've just had to ask an editor who had taken it upon themselves to embolden author names and dates from a couple of your lists to revert their changes, and that was when I noticed the grey text and letter codes (which I thought they had also added themselves). I guess I'm curious on two points: firstly, wouldn't grey text be hard for users with visual problems to perceive, and so is this an approved colour to use? And secondly, I'm interested to understand why you didn't simply repeat the references using [1], [2], [3], etc., and what referencing guideline led you to this approach. I'm not challenging your approach so much as trying to understand how you arrived at this style, and how it fits in with other List of... pages. (PS: Great to see Qbugbot is now autopatrolled and has racked up 15K articles). Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 00:30, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

I added these footnotes because I got tired of looking up the source of the genera in these lists, and more importantly, I wanted differentiate the taxa that do not occur in the major databases. For example, Joel Hallan's biology catalog is the main reference for quite a few older pages that have lots of taxa that occur nowhere else on the internet. I hesitate to delete them, because I don't know whether they're legitimate. By showing that they don't appear in GBIF, for example, gives the reader (and me) a hint that they're new, uncommon, or questionable.

I used the superscript letters for data sources because I've frequently seen it done that way in charts (in general, not on Wikipedia).

I tried using black for these, but it looks bad and makes it harder to scan the list. It's no problem to read these in a high-contrast browser theme. Wikipedia uses a similar gray for the text "Search Wikipedia" and "Edit Links" on pages. Just to be safe, I've just darkened the color from "gray" to "dimgray" and now it passes most accessibility tests.

I tried using normal references for these, but (1) they're ugly, (2) they make it harder to scan the list, (3) it's hard to keep track of which which number goes with which data source, and (4) it makes the reference section of the article hard to read when there are 50 or 200 uses of a reference.

Essentially, I added these as a way to efficiently access additional information without sacrificing the usability of the list. I did it this way because that's how I prefer to read it. It's very subjective, but works well and I like it this way. Bob Webster (talk) 04:55, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Bit late on the draw to complain possibly, but I've found a few times already that some of the species list articles you have created have introduced mistakes into the lists themselves (even when they were correct before), a lot of them possibly from the online databases themselves I suspect: sometimes authority years go missing or are incorrect, sometimes mispellings appear alongside the actual spelling (sort of like duplicates), and sometimes bizarre apparently nonexistent species names pop up. I've also found a few hiccups with the author wikilinks too; sometimes they end up showing the author's full name instead of being piped, or they just turn into regular text and thus losing the link to the articles on the authors altogether. (Oh, and sometimes I find references to be broken too)

Case in point, List of Dolichopus species. I personally had worked on the species list for the Dolichopus article beforehand, and it kind of annoyed me to see what had happened after the move to the species list article. While I was heavily fixing the page to not list synonyms as valid species, even listing what I found to be synonyms or typos into their own sections, I found that "Dolichopus van der Hoeven, 1856" was introduced among them, apparently listed on GBIF's page for the genus. (I don't even know why GBIF lists that, that's just bizarre.)

Is there anything you could do to mitigate these kind of problems? I don't know if you're doing these pages by script or something, I don't know if it's asking too much of you to avoid these problems, but at the least I thought you should be aware of these things for future list pages anyway.

(I'm also kind of skeptical about relying on the online databases so much anyway, but that's possibly best for another discussion altogether elsewhere?) Monster Iestyn (talk) 21:39, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

I apologize for messing up your lists. I edited those manually to add taxa for newly-created orphans. I obviously did not proof the results adequately. In the future, with good lists like those you've mentioned here and in the summaries, I'll either leave them alone or just add the taxa from the orphaned page. If you see any more problems like that, let me know and I can straighten it out. Feel free to revert any of my edits. I really hate to waste someone else's time on my mistakes. Bob Webster (talk) 02:05, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

No problem. Sorry I didn't get to you earlier in that case; I'm not really used to interacting with others on Wikipedia yet, haha. Monster Iestyn (talk) 08:23, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Triarius genus and spp. in Category:Luperina

I notice you put the article Triarius (genus) and associated species in Category:Luperina, which is under Category:Hadeninae. I'm afraid I don't know enough about beetles to quickly determine whether that's a simple mistake, or the result of a clash of synonyms. William Avery (talk) 21:37, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Synetocephalus autumnalis has also been created with Category:Luperina. William Avery (talk) 21:44, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Also Scelida and Scelolyperus William Avery (talk) 22:05, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Luperina is a moth genus and a beetle subtribe. I'll put the moth genus on the current template "Luperina", pointing at Apameini, and put the beetle genera on a new "Luperina (beetle)", since a subtribe is not an important rank. Bob Webster (talk) 22:37, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 10

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Endomychidae, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Saula and Chondria (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 23:01, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Xylophilus

You mention in the subgenus Melasinae the wrong Xylophilus. This have to be Xylophilus Mannerheim, 1823. PeterR (talk) 10:48, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing that out -- it's fixed now. Bob Webster (talk) 14:42, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Acmaeops discoideus vs. Acmaeops discoidea

Acmaeops discoideus (Q18143574) says it's a duplicate of Acmaeops discoideus (Q4674372), but WP doesn't seem to agree. Just going to leave this here and hope someone resolves the discrepancy (only b/c you're the bug guy!) (+stalkers).   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  02:53, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

There are Wikipedia articles under Acmaeops discoidea and Acmaeops discoideus, different gender names for the same bug. I merged some information and redirected Acmaeops discoidea to Acmaeops discoideus. I'm not sure whether that's the reason for the duplicate claim in Wikidata. Bob Webster (talk) 15:13, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. Taken care of on the WD side via merge to the younger item.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  16:18, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Missing parents

When trying to create missing WD items for some Qbugbot genus insect WP articles, I noticed a few with missing parents, but existing grandparents. Would you be able to create these WP pages?

1. Child—Missing parent—Wikidata
2. Ammoplanops—Ammoplanina—Ammoplanina (Q21349205)
3. Anacrabro—Anacrabronina—Anacrabronina (Q21351258)
4. Aphilanthops—Aphilanthopini—Aphilanthopini (Q21219915)
5. Lionepha—Bembidiina—Bembidiina (Q19777401)
6. Eucerceris—Cercerini—Cercerini (Q2946408)
7. Saygorytes—Gorytina—Gorytina (Q3111398)
8. Plocetes—Lignyodina—Lignyodina (Q30243661)
9. Prometopia—Prometopinae—Prometopinae (Q33141399)
10. Gilbertiola—Raymondionyminae—Raymondionyminae (Q30243514)
11. Philodes—Stenolophina—Stenolophina (Q6134035)
12. Paratrachelizus—Trachelizini—Trachelizini (Q21226148)

Thanks!   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  13:02, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

No problem -- I've just added them.

Bob Webster (talk) 17:33, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

 WD linkages updated.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  22:33, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Possible mergers

Looks like these might need merging fyi ~

1. Nemapalpus nearcticus ~ Nemopalpus nearcticus
2. Nacerdes melanura ~ Wharf borer
3. Cephidae ~ Stem sawflies

  ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  13:46, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks -- those are now merged/redirected. Bob Webster (talk) 19:44, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Followed up at Wikidata.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  06:06, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Found another pair!

1. Satyrium caryaevorum ~ Satyrium caryaevorus

  ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  12:02, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

They're now combined and redirected -- thanks!

Bob Webster (talk) 17:32, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

 WD updated.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  22:32, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

These look a little weird

1. Araucania (centipede) ~ Araucania (wasp) (qualifiers are off but parent taxons are identical).   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  01:22, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
2. Amediella (fly) ~ Amediella   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  01:42, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

I think those are fixed now. I had mistakenly used the wrong taxonomy template for the centipede, so I added an appropriate one. Amediella is actually both a genus and a subgenus in different families of flies. I moved the monotypic subgenus page Amediella to a species page and used Amediella for disambiguation. Bob Webster (talk) 04:19, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

 WD partly done I've tried sorting out the issues up to Minilimosina (Q14665331). Some of the 12 IDs in Minilimosina (Q14665331) need diffusing: some are instead only about Minilimosina (subgenus) (Q21441559), while others are correctly describing the genus (e.g. showing the multiple subgenuses).   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  12:41, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

An Appreciation

		The Special Barnstar
		We lost my grandfather (Dr. Barry Valentine) last night; getting to see many of the Anthribidae genera he first described present here in Wikipedia as a result of your efforts with Qbugbot has been something of a comfort. Thank you! Viqsi (talk) 18:52, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

'lo

As I've somehow managed to mangle pinging you twice in a row (too little sleep, I guess), I'm not going to tempt fate further and figured I'd instead let you know this way that I've responded at your Tree of Life post. AddWittyNameHere 19:35, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Hello

I was doing some random page patrolling and noticed that Lithocharis cinereofusca is listed in Lithocharis (beetle), your most recent beetle article. But when I went to the article, it said that this was a moth instead of a beetle. Am I reading this correctly. Barbara ✐  ✉ 04:33, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know! It's fixed now, and I checked the others. (Lithocharis is a synonym of a moth genus.) Bob Webster (talk) 04:54, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

DYK for Sphenophorus parvulus

On 20 September 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Sphenophorus parvulus, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the bluegrass billbug feeds on maize and other grain crops as well as on Kentucky bluegrass? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Sphenophorus parvulus. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Sphenophorus parvulus), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Alex Shih (talk) 00:02, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Haeterius blanchardi

I made a minor edit to Haeterius blanchardi in September, without noticing that the content seems to relate to Amphicerus simplex .

As you created it, I thought perhaps you might have some content that was intended for that page. :-) William Avery (talk) 13:34, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out! I replaced the content. Bob Webster (talk) 18:11, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Discovering & adding beetle taxon IDs to Wikidata

Looking through Category:Taxonbar pages without Wikidata taxon IDs's 16k pages, I see that many of them are of beetle species. I'd like to populate their Wikidata items with the most relevant (and easy to get find) database identifiers, and I figure you'd have the most experience with accessing this info online. I could go through the databases' APIs or bulk search utilities to search for each species ID; however, learning how to use each website & API is not something I want to do. But, if you already know how to do this for however-many databases, and can show me an example for each, I could put that in a loop to find all the IDs and put them on Wikidata. Alternatively, if you have such lists already, I could add them to Wikidata straight away. Whadayasay?   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  17:43, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

No problem. Here are the ones I found IDs for, a little under 4,000 in GBIF, ITIS, Catalog of Life, Bugguide.net, and World Spider Catalog. GBIF had most of them, and it's the only database I had that covers all of animalia. Let me know if you'd like them in a different format -- this is a csv in my sandbox page. I spot-checked a few that I didn't find IDs for, and those were pretty obscure and/or new. I manually checked several of these, but not nearly all. If it turns out I have some repeated mistake, let me know and I can fix it.

User:Edibobb/sandbox

Also, I only checked about 10,000 pages. I got these paging through Category:Taxonbar pages without Wikidata taxon IDs (programmatically). Is there a way to access one big list of page titles?

Bob Webster (talk) 00:56, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

That's excellent! Format is perfect.

I think I'll check for duds via 404 errors and require the presence of the taxon name on the retrieved page. That should be a good enough?

You can use AWB to retrieve the first 25,000 items in a category (bot accounts have no limit) - in the bottom left quadrant of the main window, select Source: "Category" from the dropdown, then paste "Taxonbar pages without Wikidata taxon IDs" in the edit box immediately below it, then Make list immediately below that. I can put all of them in my sandbox too if that's more convenient.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  02:03, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

AWB is a lot easier! There are now 10,000 on the list with IDs. (Maybe I missed some when I was scanning the Wikipedia category page?) I noticed some of them already have taxonbar information, some with no data in Wikidata, and some with different IDs. For example, the taxonbar for Brignolia trichinalis has the gbif ID for its synonym Lisna trichinalis.

I think checking for 404 errors and the presence of a taxon name on the page should be fine. Bob Webster (talk) 04:34, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

OK, there are now 6,500 taxa with new IDs, which is what I would have expected. I accidentally appended the new list to the old, but have corrected it. Bob Webster (talk) 04:39, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

One more thing... I added 600+ taxa to bottom of the sandbox list that GBIF considers synonyms, along with accepted name's GBIF ID. Bob Webster (talk) 05:17, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Unfortunately, there are some similarly named ranks - i.e. Collaria (bug) & Collaria (Collaria (Q10456928) & Collaria (Q29908771), respectively). To avoid ambiguity in the sandbox list, can you add either the Wikipedia page or the Wikidata QID? For example, I would have mistakenly added BugGuide: 13912 to Collaria.

Also, there doesn't seem to be a Wikidata property available yet for Catalogue of Life (Q38840), and it isn't being used by {{Taxonbar}} either. If/when it does, I'll add it to Wikidata.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  18:00, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

There's a problem with the World Spider Catalogue IDs as well - "Brignolia trichinalis" isn't found on 004928 (should be 23096), "Caribena laeta" isn't found on 001814 (should be 37209), etc. With only 10 WSC IDs on your list, it's not worth fixing (unless you can add more!), otherwise will do them manually.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  21:54, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Progress! I added the Q Number and Phylum, Class, Order to most in the list. The WSC IDs in the list are LSID, which are unique. The other IDs are rank-specific and non-unique. For example, an ID of 320 exists for a genus (LSID 01482) and a species (LSID 042618). Like you said, there aren't enough to worry about at the moment. Bob Webster (talk) 07:07, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Tridentaforma

Your recent edit left Tridentaforma pretty badly botched with regards to family placement. Were you using semi-automated edit tools there? If so, what source were you following? BugGuide? I'm a big fan of your work with Qbugbot, I hope we can figure out what went wrong in this case. Plantdrew (talk) 04:51, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm afraid that was my own mistake without the aid of automation. First, I changed the family in the taxonomy template without changing it in the article text. That happened in the previous run of Qbugbot, but I have since scanned for and corrected the mismatched families. Now I'm making the same mistake manually! The latest version of qbugbot verifies the taxonomy template with the family (if any) in the text.

Second, I changed the family to Tridentaformidae in the taxonomy template. I think this is correct, but I can see going with Incurvariidae, Prodoxidae, or Tridentaformidae. I went with Tridentaformidae because it's listed in Pohl, et al. (and also Pohl's Canadian 2019 catalog), which gives it some legitimacy, and seems to be the lastest placement.

I changed the text in the article to Tridentaformidae, and added a couple of references. Let me know if you think it should be Incurvariidae and I'll change everything back.

Afterthought: I should mention the three families in the article. I'll do that now.

It looks good now, thanks. Plantdrew (talk) 17:06, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

User:Edibobb/sandbox/ref1

Does it matter if I change the order of the references? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:38, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

No, the order doesn't matter. Bob Webster (talk) 00:57, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Great! Then I'll rearrange things in a way that makes review more friendly. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:03, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Alright, I think I'm done with User:Edibobb/sandbox/ref1... I ran the bot on all the other pages, but there's not very friendly to edit/review. How much work would it be to...

1. Sync the bot with the current pages
2. Re-upload everything in this (inline) format {{cite foobar |last1= |first1= |last2= |first2= ... |author1= |author2= ... |editor-last1= |editor-first1= |editor-last2= |editor-first2= ... |date/year= |origyear= |chapter= |chapter-url= |title= |url= |journal= |series= |volume= |issue= |page/pages= |publisher= |arxiv= |bibcode= |bibcode-access= |isbn= |issn= |doi= |doi-access= |hdl= |hdl-access= |ol= |pmc= |pmid= |ANYTHING-ELSE= }}, omitting everything that is missing
3. Sorted by cite foobar (so books are together, journals are together, etc...)
4. Then sorted by |editor-last= > |last= > |author= > |date/year= > |chapter= > |title= > |journal= > |series= > |volume= > |issue= > |page/pages=
5. With 100 results per page

? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:12, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

No problem. I'll let you know when it's done. Bob Webster (talk) 03:08, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Cool, it'll just make things a million times easier to review. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 03:21, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

The sorted references have been uploaded now. I think they're OK, but I haven't checked them thoroughly. Let me know if there are any problems. There are slightly fewer now because I removed a few duplicates (same reference for multiple bugs). Bob Webster (talk) 06:35, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

I was about to ask if there was a way to flag duplicates. For example, in /ref1 many of the Nishida are duplicated. They're not exact matches, but after cleanup, they would be. Is there a way to indicate this? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 07:03, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

The duplicates won't be a problem. I'll key on title, last1, and year/date when I put them back in the database. If there are duplicates, it won't hurt anything. In the case of Nishida, it may be best to keep the four editions. These are used with 12 genera and species, and it's possible that they may not all occur in the latest edition. The Nishida references came from ITIS and I haven't looked them up. It looks like three of these are duplicates, but it won't matter whether they're left in the sandbox. Bob Webster (talk) 14:53, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Well, it matters in terms of the cleanup effort. If we can flag them as duplicates (or just delete them), we don't need to bother bringing them in line. And if we can't, then they'll need to be brought in line if you match on authors, titles, etc... given some of those will be updated. The different editions need to stay, sure, but many of those are actually the same reference, just presented in slightly different ways.

The surest way I can come up with is if you assign those some internal 'id numbers', such as |current-id=#####. We could then add {{cite book | ... |current-id=01232 |main-id=00313}} if ref #01232 is a duplicate of ref #00313. And then that'd tell the bot to simply purge/ignore ref #01232 and replace it with ref #00313 instead. (There may be other ways to do this.) Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:37, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

I think it might be easier just to delete duplicates, and I'll sort out any problems that result on this end. Bob Webster (talk) 16:02, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Mostly finished cleaning up /ref1. Some things are incomplete (I've marked them with ???) and additional efforts could be done to find missing ISBNs / book publishers though. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:20, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for doing this! I'll download these when you're finished, go over them, and make what corrections I can. I noticed several things to fix, but I think it will be easier for me to go over them locally. Bob Webster (talk) 03:52, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

@Edibobb: well, right now you could pretty much re-import/re-export everything with the improved sort order I gave above. I've reviewed ref1 to ref8 mostly, but there's a lot more that could be done (and much more easily done with the new sort order too). Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 04:12, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

@Headbomb:It's all re-sorted and uploaded. Let me know if there are any problems or changes you'd like. Bob Webster (talk) 05:56, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Some changes I made don't seem to have carried over, but I don't think that matters too much. They'll be easy enough to redo from what I can tell. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 05:59, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

That said, you should check that things import correctly. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 06:46, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Probably mistakes I made using keyboard macros to copy the files to Wikipedia. Is it legal to use an unauthorized bot to upload to a sandbox? That would be a lot faster and more reliable. Bob Webster (talk) 07:11, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Bots don't need approval for stuff in their own user space, and the like, see WP:BOTUSERSPACE. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 07:36, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

My apologies. I checked, and those changes that were lost were due to a stupid error on my part. I'll make sure it doesn't happen again. I've verified that all the fields in all the references are being imported properly. Bob Webster (talk) 16:39, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

If so, feel free to try a re-import, re-sort, re-upload again! Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:21, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

It's done. Bob Webster (talk) 18:32, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Continuing cleanup. Feel free to look up the Federal Register references and improve them. They can be found in User:Edibobb/sandbox/ref5, and you should be able to match them with things like [9] or [10]. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:15, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

I also added a lot of ??? in places that should likely have something. Feel free to help there as well. Or get people from WP Entomology to help (or whatever the insect project is called). Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:33, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

I'll take a look at the question marks. I added URLs (to all but 3) and issue numbers for the Federal Register references. There's no more relevant information I could find, and the URLs make them easy to look up. I edited them directly in the database, so I'll delete them from the sandbox.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Edibobb (talk • contribs)

A lot of the |journal=??? could likely be resolved by looking at what the title of the corresponding ISSN is. It'll need some cleanup, but it'll beat nothing. I'll try to get this implemented in citation bot too. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:12, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Also not sure what's to be gained by removing the Federal Register from the sandbox, it's good to know what's in the bot's database! You can just update with the latest changes. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:17, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Further also, was there no year for this? Every other entries has years. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:19, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

I'll copy the Federal Register reference back to the sandbox. I left out the year of the scorpion chapter because it wasn't listed at the university site in the URL, along with a couple of other chapters. But the date is in the chapter heading of the book itself, so I added it just now. Bob Webster (talk) 20:37, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

I'll also take care of all the missing publications, sometime tomorrow. Another mistake on my part. Bob Webster (talk) 04:05, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Concerning [11], are you sure this is correct? Every other citations to that includes the family number. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:30, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

That's not correct, but I could not find the family number anywhere. Bob Webster (talk) 03:59, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Also I did a huge stretch of cleanup. It's not fully done, but I'm guessing it's like 60% done. A re-sorting would do a lot of good. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:40, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Great! Thanks! I've added most journals, re-sorted, and uploaded. Bob Webster (talk) 03:59, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Any reason why User:Edibobb/sandbox/ref33 is up? Also, are User:Edibobb/sandbox/ref26+ any useful now? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 03:51, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

ref33 is trash -- I'll delete the content. I used it to test something and it was an existing, out-of-the-way page I could reuse. I believe 26+ are no longer needed. I'll verify that and empty the pages. Bob Webster (talk) 03:59, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

There's something weird going on with (on /ref5)

• Lafontaine, J. Donald (1998). Dominick, R. B. (ed.). Noctuoidea Noctuidae (part) Noctuinae (part - Noctuini). The Moths of America North of Mexico. Vol. fasc. 27.3. The Wedge Entomological Research Foundation. ISBN 978-0-933003-09-5.
• Lafontaine, J. Donald (2004). Dominick, R. B. (ed.). Noctuoidea, Noctuidae (Noctuinae part: Agrotini). The Moths of America North of Mexico. Vol. fasc. 27.1. The Wedge Entomological Research Foundation. ISBN 978-0933003125.

The fascicle numbers don't seem to match the year published. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 04:12, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

On the same page, there seems to have been some lost information about the 4 citations to "Hawaiian Terrestrial Arthropod Checklist". Either a chapter or an edition or something else is missing. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 04:15, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

I fixed those. The years and fascicle numbers in LaFontaine are apparently correct -- that's what's on the publisher's web site. Bob Webster (talk) 04:52, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Melsheimer on /ref16 seems weird. Same title, same volume, different pages, different years. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 05:21, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

There are multiple dates in that paper (1844 and 1845 for these entries), but the volume 2 itself was published in 1846. I guess 1846 should be used. (I changed it.) Bob Webster (talk) 14:57, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Gonna hit the bed for a while, did a lot of cleaning below /ref20. Hoping to get to the rest tomorrow morning, but I may be travelling then. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 06:47, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Something weird going on with on /20

• Say, T. (1825). "Descriptions of new species of coleopterous insects inhabiting the United States". Journal of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia. 50: 160–204.
• Say, T. (1826). "Descriptions of new species of coleopterous insects, inhabiting the United States (part ???)". Journal of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia. 5: 237–284.

Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:58, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

That's fixed now. Bob Webster (talk) 15:50, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Actually turns out this is one single article. It's just split in two for some reason.

• Say, T. (1825). "Descriptions of new species of coleopterous insects inhabiting the United States". Journal of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia. 50: 160–204, 237–284.

Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:19, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

I've split them back again, they're in two different parts of the volume. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:41, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Alright, hitting the road. I likely won't have time to do much work on this until later tonight, so feel free to look up all the ??? stuff and do a re-sort. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:17, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Sorting here seems weird. Mixing cite books and cite journals. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:09, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

I just re-sorted the references. I manually added those federal register references this afternoon. They're the ones I deleted earlier after I fixed them. I'll look up the rest of the ??? -- I'm up to /ref14. Bob Webster (talk) 01:43, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Ah I see. Is /Ref25 useless now? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:49, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Yes. I just now cleared it. Bob Webster (talk) 01:55, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

There's 3 Federal Register without URLs in /ref10. Not saying these are bad references, but if the URLs exist, it would be nice to have them. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:52, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

I was certain those federal registers were not on the internet, because I have looked for them twice before. So naturally I just found them, in the Library of Congress. I re-enabled the references. Bob Webster (talk) 20:23, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Break 2

In /ref2, many edits like this could be made: [12] based on https://mds.marshall.edu/bio_sciences_faculty/88/. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:13, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

I've also converted things to reflect that Fet et al. were the editors, so the chapter authors can be given. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:18, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

I edited the rest of these. Bob Webster (talk) 02:41, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Could you also confirm the details of

• Smith, D. R. (1971). "Nearctic sawflies. III. Heterarthrinae: Adults and larvae (Hymenoptera: Tenthredinidae)". USDA Technical Bulletin (1420). Agricultural Research Service,.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: extra punctuation (link)
• Smith, D. R. (1979). "Nearctic sawflies. IV. Allantinae: Adults and larvae (Hymenoptera: Tenthredinidae)". USDA Technical Bulletin (1595). Agricultural Research Service.

in /ref21? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:10, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

These were correct except issue => volume. Bob Webster (talk) 02:41, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

This should be reviewed. I can't tell if it was a duplicate because of the title, or if it had the wrong title, but correct doi/jstor identifiers. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:24, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

This is correct as it is now, with the flat bark beetle article. The Aphodius article is not in my list of references. Bob Webster (talk) 02:41, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

• I've just re-sorted the files. Bob Webster (talk) 04:54, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Well, feel free to delete the Aphodius article then. Is /ref23+ obsolete now? Also I think I got all the duplicates (I'll do an AWB run to confirm). Which means we should use a different sort for journals.

|journal= > |series= > |date/year= > |volume= > |issue= > |page/pages= > |last= > |author= > |editor-last= > |chapter= > |title=

Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:08, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Also I've added this: [13]. Not sure if it's usefull, but if you're citing the full series, it's there. If not, feel free to remove those you don't make use of. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:36, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Also added a lot of ??? for publishers of books. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:55, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

I managed to mangle the last couple of pages when I uploaded last night, not handling an error properly. I uploaded it twice this morning, first in the previous order (in case you need to see the additional 100 or references that were missing last night) and then in the new sort order. There are a few references left on /ref24. None of this morning's edits were lost. I'll use those additional 1846 issues -- thanks! I'll start looking up book publishers later today. Bob Webster (talk) 16:08, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

See also [14] and the comment about the new version of these checklists. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:30, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

I'll be off wiki for the next few hours. I added a few more placeholder ???. Feel free to do a resort in my absence. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:39, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Any reason the ordering in the edit window has changed? Seems very odd to have dates and chapters after titles. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:04, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

I imported the files into the database and re-exported. It was easier to check it in that order. I've just uploaded them in the previous order. There are a hundred or two references in the database that didn't match when I imported, and those are in the uploaded files now. I'm going through them today. Most are a result of moving title text to chapter, etc. Bob Webster (talk) 15:23, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Cool. I'll be returning home in the next 2-3 days, so I'll be able to resume power-editing things soon enough. Look up the remaining DOIs, find missing volume/issues, etc... A small 15" 6-year old laptop just isn't the same as a massive dual 27" setup, with a beast of a computer behind it. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:43, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Break 3

What are all the |id=? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:04, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

And what happened to all the cite books / cite webs? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:08, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

The id=43364 fields are my database id's to make it easier to transfer. They won't be in the articles. I was changing the way the bot handles reference types and had a typo, which changed most of the "Cite"s to journal. They're fixed now. Bob Webster (talk) 18:54, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

I've added links and/or doi to most references 1990 or newer. Bob Webster (talk) 18:57, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Great, I'll keep digging for stuff myself. We're making good progress. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:16, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Not sure how you handle dupes anymore, but there was one [15]. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:26, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

I think on this end I should handle those manually. If you can post a link here (like you just did) or append an X to the id field of the remaining referece (id=43364X), whichever's easier, I'll catch those. Bob Webster (talk) 02:10, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

In my gyrations over the past couple of days, I managed to hide most of the series tags. That's fixed now. Bob Webster (talk) 03:28, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

I could always add a |dupe-id= or something. But the X thing works too. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:14, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

See also [16]. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:29, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

I added a reference for the hymenoptera book, so now there are separate references for volumes 1 and 2. I think there's not an ISBN number for them. An X appended to the ID that has a duplicate will be easy for me to find (impossible to miss, actually, because it will cause an error). Bob Webster (talk) 18:25, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

I think the 78-... inside the books are ISBNs. Not sure. I'll check later to be sure. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:28, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Ready

@Headbomb: I believe the references are in good order and am ready to go ahead with the bot run.

Alright, I'll do a quick inspection and give it a final citation bot run. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:13, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

A few things

1. In /ref2 all the "Catalog of the Scorpions of the World (1758-1998)" could have a |chapter-url= that points to the specific subfile in https://mds.marshall.edu/bio_sciences_faculty/88/.
2. Every American Museum Novitates with volumes is likely wrong. There's some weird issue that Citation bot truncates issues (e.g. 3319) into volumes (3319). Could be dealt with by replacing the volume with |volume=<!--Citation bot -->
3. In /ref9, the Coleopterorum Catalogus entries could be double checked for completeness.

I will add more as I find stuff. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:22, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

I've fixed these and added the other fixes you made to the database. I'll check it for my own introduced errors tomorrow. Bob Webster (talk) 07:11, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

I made a few corrections and the references look good now. Bob Webster (talk) 16:09, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Could you do a journal sort with journal > volume > issue > pages > year/date ? This should help for a final review for inconsistencies. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:14, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

No problem -- They're uploaded now. Bob Webster (talk) 19:05, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

1. In /ref 7, there's (1970) "Catalogue of the Thysanoptera of the world". Annals of the Cape Provincial Museums (Natural History) without volume/pages/etc... It's probably 'Pt. 1' too.
2. "Catalog of the Coreidae, or Leaf-Footed Bugs, of the New World" could be the book, or the book review. If it's the book, it should be converted to a cite book with ISBN 978-0-615-23109-9.
3. Similar for "A revision of the Strepsiptera with special reference to the species of North America" in /ref7

Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:35, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

I made these corrections and a few others, and I believe the references should be usable now. Bob Webster (talk) 22:30, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Sadly Citation bot is currently crapping the bed, so it's taking me a bit of time to do that final review. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:58, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

1. I notice a lot of American Beetles, Volume I/II are missing authors.
2. There is a variety of issues with Biologia Centrali-Americana citation. Mostly related to authors/editors/publishers.
3. Page range missing in some Coleopterorum Catalogus
4. Two Federal Register are missing urls

Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 03:00, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

1. I added the authors I could find to American Beetles, and disabled citations for the 7 chapters without authors. They'll show up on the sandbox list, but won't be used in Wikipedia articles. A couple of the citations are for the entire Volume 1 or 2 and won't have authors.
2. I disabled the Biologia Centrali-Americana citations.
3. I disabled the Coleopterorum Catalogus citations that don't have page ranges.
4. I disabled the Federal Register articles without URLs. (I have already spent some time looking for those URLs.)

Bob Webster (talk)

@Headbomb: I would like to go ahead with the bot run, if possible. Bob Webster (talk) 17:50, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

I am traveling at the moment, so I don't have a whole lot of time to review things, but I will be home by the end of the week and should be able to give a final review then. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:27, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Doing a final review. In /ref23+, a lot of the Zootaxa citation are missing their 'real' DOIs, instead pointing to Zenodo DOIs. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:36, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

The articles with Zenodo DOIs apparently don't have "real" DOIs, but the link to Researchgate works. I removed the Zenodo DOIs.

Correction: After looking into it more, I did find some, but not all, of the Zootaxa DOIs and added them.

Cool, will continue to review. I believe I was around /ref8 or /ref9. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:00, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Now reviewed everything up to and including /ref12. Making progress slowly but surely. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:07, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! Bob Webster (talk) 20:23, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

More

In /ref12, is "Evolutionary biology of Siphonostomatoida (Copepoda) parasitic on vertebrates" the thesis of some journal article? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:01, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

• Many of the /ref13 Memoirs of the Entomological Society of Canada seems to be references to The Canadian Entomologist instead. Please confirm details / remove bad researchgate links. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:31, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
• "Phylogenetic analysis of anostracans (Branchiopoda: Anostraca) inferred from nuclear 18S ribosomal DNS (18S rDNA) sequences" in /ref 13 has a strange doi, or the wrong journal information Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:39, 18 June 2019 (UTC)`
• "The Ground-Beetles (Carabidae, excl. Cicindelinae) of Canada and Alaska, part 2" in /ref14 has no volume. Part 1 isn't there, although that might not be an issue. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:51, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

• "Evolutionary biology of Siphonostomatoida..." is a PhD thesis. I corrected that.
• The "Memoirs of the Entomological Society of Canada" URLs go to the correct article, but ResearchGate labels it wrong sometimes. Or maybe the articles were republished? There are two that don't have free access under ResearchGate, so I linked them to Cambridge.org. It also doesn't have free access, but it labels the "Memoirs..." correctly.
• "Phylogenetic analysis of anostracans (Branchiopoda: Anostraca)" was using the DOI for ITIS. I couldn't find the proper DOI, so I added a URL and PMID.
• I added the volume (20) to "The Ground-Beetles (Carabidae, excl. Cicindelinae) of Canada and Alaska, part 2".

Bob Webster (talk) 06:52, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Actually Parts 1-2-3-4-5-6 of "The Ground-Beetles (Carabidae, excl. Cicindelinae) of Canada and Alaska" all got published in different years. I'm having a hard time tracking those down. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 07:10, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

• Pan-Pacific Entomologist could all (or many of them at least) have links to Biodiversity library (and include the issue numbers), e.g. [17]. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 07:14, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
• "New species of the genus Tetraopes Schoenherr (Coleoptera: Cerambycidae)". Pan-Pacific Entomologist. 79 (3–4): 237–244 has a wrong link or some wrong information in some way. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 07:21, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
• Many of Proceedings of the Entomological Society of Washington could have their issues added. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 07:48, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
• A bunch of "Smithsonian Contributions to..." are missing volume/issue/pages. They can usually be found from their links. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 08:15, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
• Verify information/link of "A Revision of the genus Xenodusa (Staphylinidae, Aleocharinae) for North America" in /ref17. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 08:19, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
• "The harvestman family Phalangodidae. 5. New records and species of Texella Goodnight and Goodnight (Opiliones: Laniatores)" is missing a volume. Probably 6. Maybe 5 Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 08:22, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
• "Studie a Zprávy Oblastního Muzea Praha-vychod" / "Studies and Reports of District Museum Prague-East" have weird links and information. I think those are the same journals, possibly with an updated title. But some things don't fully check out. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 08:26, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
• "Stuttgarter Beiträge zur Naturkunde A (Biologie)" some are missing volumes. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 08:27, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

These are taken care of now. I have just sorted and uploaded the references. It goes up to /ref26 now, from normal additions to the database. Bob Webster (talk) 06:06, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Proceedings of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia could have JSTOR ids added. They can be found here. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:34, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Check this. The IDs may need updating. this too Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:56, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

You may have overlooked the title difference in [18]. Please re-verify to make sure this is actually what you intended to cite. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 05:41, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

That was an ongoing article that covered a few volumes. I found the one I needed and deleted everything else.

Many Zootaxa have DOIs missing. I've marked them with errors to facilitate finding those. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 04:49, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

I've nearly reviewed everything. Only the cite webs left to do. I would also recommend that you ommit ISSNs from citations that have DOIs/JSTORs and other identifiers. I could easily remove them if you agree to this. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 05:37, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Great! I'll get rid of those ISSNs after I retrieve everything from the sandbox. I can do it with a single database query. I'll also take care of the other items (if possible). I think a lot of the Zootaxa articles don't have DOIs, but I'll check through them to make sure. Bob Webster (talk) 05:48, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Most Zootaxas I've checked had DOIs. They aren't on PDFs normally, but they are on the website. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 05:50, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

A couple of the Zootaxa DOIs are down, but I've reported them to DOI.org. So they'll likely be fixed eventually and don't need removal. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:28, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

BTW, in [19] (and elsewhere), you removed a few |volume=<!-- -->. Those should have been kept. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:53, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

I'll replace those volume comments I removed. You're right about the Zootaxa DOIs -- I found most of them. I had apparently quit looking earlier if they weren't on the Researchgate site or the pdf. Bob Webster (talk) 15:45, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

I believe all the cite journals are reviewed. Give a final review to the cite webs, and we can resume the BRFA. I'll be doing the same soon myself. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:51, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll get started on those tonight or tomorrow. Bob Webster (talk) 00:10, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

@Headbomb: Just to let you know, I haven't forgotten about this project -- I'll be pretty busy for a few more weeks and then I should be able to get started. Bob Webster (talk) 04:40, 3 August 2019 (UTC)