Archive 1Archive 2

August 2019 Tree of Life Newsletter

 
August 2019—Issue 005


Tree of Life


Welcome to the Tree of Life newsletter!
Newly recognized content

  Letter-winged kite by Casliber
  Megabat by Enwebb
  Rock parrot by Casliber
  Adelophthalmidae by Super Dromaeosaurus
  Giant golden-crowned flying fox by Enwebb, reviewed by Starsandwhales
  Myxomatosis by Rabbit Vet, reviewed by Chiswick Chap
  Tylopterella by Super Dromaeosaurus, reviewed by Starsandwhales and Enwebb
  Kosmoceratops by FunkMonk, reviewed by Jens Lallensack
  Slender glass lizard by SL93, reviewed by Casliber
  Guano by Enwebb, reviewed by Chiswick Chap
  Dvulikiaspis by Super Dromaeosaurus, reviewed by Casliber
  Rock parrot by Casliber, reviewed by The Rambling Man
  Leptospirosis by Cerevisae, reviewed by Ajpolino
  Hepatitis E by Ozzie10aaaa, reviewed by Casliber
  Cardabiodon by Macrophyseter, reviewed by FunkMonk
  Clostridium tetani by Ajpolino, reviewed by Chiswick Chap

Newly nominated content

  Kosmoceratops by FunkMonk
  Western yellow robin by Casliber
  Pekarangan by Dhio270599
  Hibbertopterus by Ichthyovenator












  Discuss this issue

You are receiving this because you added your name to the subscribers list of the WikiProject Tree of Life. If you no longer wish to receive the newsletter, please remove your name.

Sent by ZLEA via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) at 15:43, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

September 2019 Tree of Life Newsletter

 
September 2019—Issue 006


Tree of Life


Welcome to the Tree of Life newsletter!
Newly recognized content

  Kosmoceratops by FunkMonk
  Onychopterella by Super Dromaeosaurus
  Western yellow robin by Casliber
  Western yellow robin by Casliber, reviewed by Josh Milburn
  Apororhynchus by Mattximus, reviewed by Chiswick Chap
  Pekarangan by Dhio-270599, reviewed by Cerebellum
  Fritillaria by Michael Goodyear, reviewed by Chiswick Chap
  Embioptera by Chiswick Chap and Cwmhiraeth, reviewed by Vanamonde93
  Durio graveolens by NessieVL, reviewed by Dunkleosteus77
  Big brown bat by Enwebb and Gen. Quon, reviewed by Dunkleosteus77
  King brown snake by Casliber, reviewed by Dunkleosteus77
  Staffordshire Bull Terrier by Atsme, reviewed by FunkMonk
  Ambush predator by Chiswick Chap, reviewed by Enwebb
  Belemnitida by Dunkleosteus77, reviewed by Chiswick Chap

Newly nominated content

  Apororhynchus by Mattximus
  Meinhard Michael Moser by J Milburn
  St. Croix macaw by FunkMonk
  Paleocene by Dunkleosteus77
  Orcinus meyeri by Dunkleosteus77
  Snakefly by Chiswick Chap and Cwmhiraeth
  Tricolored bat by Enwebb
  Halloween darter by Enwebb






  Discuss this issue

You are receiving this because you added your name to the subscribers list of the WikiProject Tree of Life. If you no longer wish to receive the newsletter, please remove your name.

Sent by ZLEA via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) at 22:26, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Qbugbot

I am impressed by the stubs such as Eucrada humeralis produced by your Qbugbot and am expanding a few of the articles. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:24, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you! Bob Webster (talk) 13:02, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

October 2019 Tree of Life Newsletter

 
October 2019—Issue 007


Tree of Life


Welcome to the Tree of Life newsletter!
Newly recognized content

  Meinhard Michael Moser‎ by J Milburn
  Paleocene by Dunkleosteus77, reviewed by Casliber
  Clussexx Three D Grinchy Glee by Hunter Kahn, reviewed by Valereee
  Halloween darter by Enwebb and Cwmhiraeth, reviewed by J Milburn
  Deathwatch beetle by Cwmhiraeth, reviewed by Enwebb



Newly nominated content

  King brown snake by Casliber
  Paleocene by Dunkleosteus77
  Megarachne by Ichthyovenator
  List of canids by PresN
  Devils Hole pupfish by Enwebb
  Dryomyza anilis by AnuBalasubramanian
  Plasmodium knowlesi by Ajpolino
  Black coral by Aven13

  Discuss this issue

You are receiving this because you added your name to the subscribers list of the WikiProject Tree of Life. If you no longer wish to receive the newsletter, please remove your name.

Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) at 03:34, 3 November 2019 (UTC) on behalf of DannyS712 (talk)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

 Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:04, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Further reading for jumping spiders

Hi Bob! This is a very minor point, so I'm moving it here instead of the Qbugbot discussion. You mentioned that Qbugbot left the source "A genome-wide phylogeny of jumping spiders (Araneae, Salticidae), using anchored hybrid enrichment" (2017) in Further reading because "I think it's worth including for the species of this genus." It's a bit strange that you chose this paper rather than Maddison's earlier "A phylogenetic classification of jumping spiders (Araneae: Salticidae)" (2015). Maddison 2017 is basically just a minor footnote to the seminal Maddison 2015. Maddison 2015 lays out the entire modern taxonomy of the jumping spider family. It would probably be worth including Maddison 2015 as Further reading for all jumping spider articles (family Salticidae), but I don't really see the value of Maddison 2017 (which is basically just tying up some loose ends from Maddison 2015). I also realize this may be a moot point, so feel free to just ignore me in that case :) Kaldari (talk) 19:48, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

That's a good point. I had not included Maddison's 2015 paper anywhere, and looking over it, I agree it's a much better source. I've limited the 2017 paper to ranks genus and above (which won't be used much since most of those pages already exist), and added the 2015 paper for future Salticidae pages in Further Reading. Thanks for the help! Bob Webster (talk) 20:32, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Taxonomic synonym redirects

Hello! Thanks for noticing that Chapra (skipper) is not a valid taxon and ought to be redirected to Pelopidas (skipper). I saw however that you left a line stating "Chapra is a taxonomic synonym of Pelopidas." below the redirect in plain text. This is usually handled through templates, in this case {{R from alternative scientific name}}. Those templates have the additional benefit of immediately adding the redirect to the relevant redirect category. (The template does not state the exact taxon it is synonymous to, but it also doesn't quite need to, as that can fairly easily be inferred from the redirect target. In highly complex cases, it's sometimes useful to leave a hidden note explaining the choice of target, but for a fairly straightforward "redirect is synonym of exact target article", that's rarely needed) Again, thanks for your efforts. :) Cheers, AddWittyNameHere 18:54, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the information. I'll try to do that properly in the future. I ran across that when I was looking at some Arthropod articles on invalid taxa. There are about 1000 articles on synonyms that probably need to be moved or redirected. Bob Webster (talk) 19:20, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
You're welcome! Yeah, that's how most of those get fixed: someone happens to run across them. Honestly not surprised to hear so. If anything, I'm fairly sure that just on Lepidoptera alone, we probably have that number of invalid taxa lingering about, especially if including the stuff that needs movement rather than redirection. With 100k+ articles, some folks in the earlier days of the wiki working from outdated or otherwise not quite reliable sources, the wave of large-scale taxonomic revisions we've had so far this century, the lack of reliable central up-to-date database on Lepidoptera, and usually less than a dozen active editors in the subject area, it's no surprise, I guess. AddWittyNameHere 19:37, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Scathophagidae List of Genera

The list you added in your April 12, 2018 edit contained 4 bogus members: Anthomyia, Anthomyza, Musca and Scatophaga. I removed the two that hadn't been already removed by others, and checked everything against the 4 linked web pages just to be safe. I'm guessing there was cross-contamination in your list from something else- no one would include Musca in the Scathophagidae on purpose. I noticed that the GBIF site has some extra genera, but I also noticed that they have a few homonyms in the list. I don't have time to sort any of that out, so I'm letting you know and going back to my usual haunts at Wiktionary. Thanks! Chuck Chuck Entz (talk) 02:10, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know! I'll correct the database and make sure there are no related problems. Bob Webster (talk) 07:39, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Calling your attention to something

I just put a comment on the talk page for the Wikipedia:WikiProject Beetles. It might be of interest to you; it has to do with an article, Habroscelimorpha dorsalis, that I think you--or a bot you run--created. It looks like there's not a lot of attention paid to that project page, so I thought I'd bring it to your attention. Uporządnicki (talk) 01:18, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm sure you're aware that your request for Speedy Deletion was rather speedily declined (you requested it on the criterion that you are the author; apparently the fact that you wrote the article doesn't apply--or something). So I'm wondering if a Merge of the two would be the next thing to try.Uporządnicki (talk) 13:24, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

 Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:17, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Predatory source

Many articles, like Rhombodera handschini, have a reference to doi:10.20431/2454-941X.0204003, which is from a predatory journal. Could you update the bot/references to remove that source/not use it? It's used about 130 times. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:42, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. Earlier this year I removed all the references in my database that contained "10.20431" or "International Journal of Research...". Please let me know if you run across any others. Bob Webster (talk) 21:43, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
Will do. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:48, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
The articles still need to be update though. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:43, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Lagriinae, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Adeliini. 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) 06:03, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Ascothoracida, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Subclass.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:55, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Arctia villica

I saw your deletion tags on Arctia villica and some other Arctia species. I'm not an admin, so I can't delete them, but I had a suggestion. Could you please add to the article that you want to move to Arctia villica a reference for the renaming? On 11:28, March 27, 2012‎ Hectonichus (talk · contribs · count) (previously Ettore Balocchi) moved page Arctia villica to Epicallia villica with the comment "Correct new name". Perhaps Hectonichus was incorrect when they moved the article in 2012. Eastmain (talkcontribs) 20:01, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. The articles to be moved are shown in requests for deletion, in this case Epicallia villica There is also a link to this reference], which covers the genus Epicallia being a new synonym of Arctia.
You're exactly right, Epicallia villica was the correct name in 2012. Four years later in 2016, 33 genera, comprised of a whole bunch of species, were moved to 5 genera. This classification has been accepted by Moth Photographer's Group, Bugguide, iNaturalist, and most others. The taxonomy in these moths has been really mixed up in the past. Hopefully it will be more stable now that they're working with DNA. Bob Webster (talk) 21:16, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

bot

hi do you have plan to creat species with bot Amirh123 (talk) 14:12, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

I have no plans at the moment. Bob Webster (talk) 14:17, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Classification of Psocodea

Hi, because the taxonomy templates are set up so that Order Phthiraptera has Psocodea as the parent taxon, you can't just change the rank of Psocodea to order, because there are then two orders in succession. Presumably either Phthiraptera has to be lowered in rank, or bypassed by changing all the taxonomy templates that currently have it as parent. Either way, this needs discussion somewhere – not my field of interest/expertise. Peter coxhead (talk) 13:12, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, I intended to handle that and completely forgot about it. Phthiraptera has been moved down in rank by most:
Psocodea => Troctomorpha => Nanopsocetae => Phthiraptera => (Amblycera, Anoplura, Ischnocera, Rhynchophthirina)
It probably is a good idea to bring it up for discussion, since it's a big change for a popular area (parasitic lice). I'll post something on TOL. Bob Webster (talk) 13:56, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Luperina

Hi, I noticed you've been creating some pages for leaf beetle genera lately. Just to warn you though, Category:Luperina isn't for the subtribe Luperina (of subfamily Galerucinae, tribe Luperini), but for an unrelated genus of moths that happens to have the same name (and no doubt causes some confusion). You probably need to put pages intended for Luperini: Luperina directly in Category:Galerucinae instead for the time being. Monster Iestyn (talk) 09:27, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. I didn't even think about the category when I allowed for moth genus in the taxonomy templates. I'll correct it. Bob Webster (talk) 10:51, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Plains leopard frog, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tympanum.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:04, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Ichneumoninae, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ichneumon.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:59, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

ICZN Article 31.2.2

Hi. Given how prolific and careful you are as an editor, I think there is a part of the ICZN Code you need to be aware of, specifically, Art. 31.2.2. It states "31.2.2. Where the author of a species-group name did not indicate whether he or she regarded it as a noun or as an adjective, and where it may be regarded as either and the evidence of usage is not decisive, it is to be treated as a noun in apposition to the name of its genus (the original spelling is to be retained, with gender ending unchanged (emphasis mine); see Article 34.2.1). Example. Species-group names ending in -fer and -ger may be either nouns in apposition, or adjectives in the masculine gender. Cephenemyia phobifer (Clark) has often been used as C. phobifera, but the original binomen was Oestrus phobifer; since Oestrus is masculine, phobifer in that binomen may be either a masculine adjective or a noun in apposition; hence it is to be treated as a noun in apposition and not changed when combined with the feminine generic name Cephenemyia." You changed the spelling of Novius pumila to "pumilus", but because "pumila" can be a noun for a female dwarf ([1]), Article 31.2.2 applies, and this name is treated as a noun by default, since the original author did not indicate that it was an adjective. There are a fair number of names that can be either adjectives or nouns - they make up about 5% across all of zoology - so it's important to know about this rule in the Code. It requires, unfortunately, a fair bit more homework when trying to assess gender agreement than most people are aware is necessary. Peace, Dyanega (talk) 16:51, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Just as an aside worth noting: in Greek, Latin, and English, the various words for "dwarf" can all be either nouns or adjectives (e.g., "dwarf rabbit" uses it as an adjective). The terms "nanus", "pumilus", and "pygmaeus" and their spelling variants all fall under Article 31.2.2. The inherent ambiguity in these terms has a long and deep history. Dyanega (talk) 16:59, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for the information! Bob Webster (talk) 16:59, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
I'm an ICZN Commissioner, public education is part of my mandate. Be that as it may, I am always ready and willing to consult if you have questions. The Code used to have an extensive appendix that dealt with a lot of these grammatical issues, but that's gone now, and it makes it harder for people to see good examples that demonstrate some of the more nuanced stuff. For example, this Article specifically mentions "-fer and -ger" but it could give a MUCH bigger list. Some very common suffixes such as "-arius", "-philus", "-phorus", and "-vorus" all fall into this category, and most people are unaware of this. Sometimes there is a parallel in English that people could use to be suspicious (e.g., "carnivore" or "bibliophile" do sometimes get used as adjectives in English, though "carnivorous" or "bibliophilic" might be more common). That Article can be tricky to navigate. Dyanega (talk) 17:09, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
I do have a couple questions about Ocnodes. The genus Phanerotomea was synonymized with Ocnodes. Now, I assume as a result of this, several of the species in GBIF and Wikipedia have different genders. Are the ones in Wikipedia correct? Also, should Ocnodes scabricolle be Ocnodes scabricollis?
For example, Wikipedia:
Ocnodes argenteofasciatum
Ocnodes benguelense
GBIF:
Ocnodes argenteofasciatus
Ocnodes benguelensis
Thanks again! Bob Webster (talk) 17:58, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:25, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

commons category is misplaced

your Philoscia, there is no need to create el section. there is 1 exception, if el section contains atleast one link and we can include commons inline. no need for refbegin and refend also. thank u. <_> jindam, vani (talk) 12:46, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Question about Qbugbot

Hi there - I think I may have bungled a ping to you in a recent discussion. Do you think you could weigh in at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of Life#Carabidae.org has left the building regarding whether Qbugbot could be employed to fix those 7k dead links? Any other comments about how to attack the switch to GBIF or CoL would also be welcome. Cheers --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 18:16, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Latridae and Cheilodactylidae

Hi, I have reverted your edits to Gonistius, WP:Fishes follows the taxonomy in the 5th Edition of Fishes of the World for taxonomic levels above that of genus, this is to maintain stability. This is to discourage each editor choosing the taxonomy they like. This means that the situation of the Morwongs is a mess. The wording you changed reflected that the taxonomy of these families was not settled. All such articles should describe alternative taxonomies. Quetzal1964 (talk) 08:23, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

No problem, I didn't realize there was a standard in place. I was going by Fishbase and Eschmeyer's Catalog of Fishes. I'll leave the fish taxonomy alone, since it seems pretty well handled. Bob Webster (talk) 15:21, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
No worries, have a great weekend! Quetzal1964 (talk) 16:43, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Anisochirus (beetle), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Reunion.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:03, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

They are found in Australia

In this edit you placed the sentence "They are found in Australia" after the introduction to a list thereby breaking the flow, and you placed it immediately before the ref that was previously there thereby misattributing the reference. Unfortunately you seem to be editing other articles in the same way and very rapidly - I fear without sufficient regard for the existing texts. Dorsetonian (talk) 18:40, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

I am happy to stop. Bob Webster (talk) 18:51, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
Not a request to stop, just an (unfortunately blunt now I read it back - sorry about that) observation that the repeated updates were not working for all the articles. Dorsetonian (talk) 10:24, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Leiolesticus bennigseni, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Papua.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 10:01, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

FYI

You could have just moved Dorcadion fuliginator to Iberodorcadion fuliginator yourself without needing an admin to get involved, since the page had only one revision and pointed to the target you were trying to move it over. You can't now, since the CSD tag made it have 2 revisions.   * Pppery * it has begun... 02:49, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks! I didn't know that, and I have several more of those to move. Bob Webster (talk) 02:51, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Chlamisus

Hi! I should have brought this up a long time ago when I first learned of this (sorry), but it turns out a few years ago Qbugbot edited the Chlamisus article to replace its species list with a link to List of Chlamisus species. The only trouble is, for some reason this list article was never created. As a result the Chlamisus article has been missing a list of species for nearly four years as of writing. Do you happen to know why your bot wasn't able to create the list article? Can you run the bot again to fix this? Monster Iestyn (talk) 19:31, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. I added the species list to the article rather than making a separate list article. Bob Webster (talk) 01:16, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Limoniinae/Limoniidae

I don't know if you noticed yet, but the old "Limoniidae" redirect was deleted a few days ago, and I've since renamed the "Limoniinae" article back to "Limoniidae". So Limoniinae (which is now a redirect) can now be turned into a page for the subfamily of Limoniidae, if you were planning on doing that? Monster Iestyn (talk) 00:10, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks! I had forgotten about. I'll add a page for the subfamily. Bob Webster (talk) 03:30, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

  Hello Edibobb! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as Euceros, but we regretfully cannot accept copyrighted material from other websites or printed works. This article appears to contain work copied from Goulet & Huber, eds. (1993) Hymenoptera of the world: An identification guide to families. p. 435, and therefore to constitute a violation of Wikipedia's copyright policies. The copyrighted text has been or will soon be deleted. While we appreciate your contributions, copying content from other websites is unlawful and against Wikipedia's copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators are likely to lose their editing privileges.

If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under license allowed by Wikipedia, then you should do one of the following:

It may also be necessary for the text to be modified to have an encyclopedic tone and to follow Wikipedia article layout. For more information on Wikipedia's policies, see Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

See Wikipedia:Declaration of consent for all enquiries for a template of the permissions letter the copyright holder is expected to send.

Otherwise, you may rewrite this article from scratch. If you would like to begin working on a new version of the article you may do so at this temporary page. Leave a note at Talk:Euceros saying you have done so and an administrator will move the new article into place once the issue is resolved.

Thank you, and please feel welcome to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Happy editing! Lhikan634 (talk) 11:42, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Flower chafer, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Pogonopus.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:05, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Chondrorrhina/Plaesiorrhina

Hi. Is there a source for this synonymy? It it evidently impossible, on the face of it, since Chondrorrhina was published in 1880, and Plaesiorrhina in 1842. That means that if the genera are synonymous, Plaesiorrhina is the valid name, and Chondrorrhina is a junior synonym. Are you certain that the synonymy is not with the name Plaesiorrhinella instead? Dyanega (talk) 19:50, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

You're right, that was my mistake. According to Catalogue of Life, Plaesiorrhina is a synonym of Chondrorrhina (Plaesiorrhinella). Thanks for pointing that out! Bob Webster (talk) 03:11, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

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

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

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:21, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Agonum elongatulum

 

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Agonum elongatulum, requesting that it be deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under two or more of the criteria for speedy deletion, by which pages can be deleted at any time, without discussion. If the page meets any of these strictly defined criteria, then it may soon be deleted by an administrator. The reasons it has been tagged are:

  • It is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, a rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. (See section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) Wikipedia has standards for the minimum necessary information to be included in short articles; you can see these at Wikipedia:Stub. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. 2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:BDC2:D617:CAB6:BBF1 (talk) 21:37, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

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

Melanoplus bowditchi
added a link pointing to Spur-throated grasshopper
Melanoplus confusus
added a link pointing to Spur-throated grasshopper
Melanoplus glaucipes
added a link pointing to Spur-throated grasshopper

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 18:13, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Deliathis

Hi. You may wonder why I reverted your edits to Deliathis - it's because all of the online resources are incorrect; you will note that there are very significant discrepancies between them. Between BioLib and Bezark, at least one of them has the correct spelling in each pair of spellings. The true list of species names is therefore a composite of these two online sources. This genus has been a mess for decades, and people simply can't get their ducks in a row. Dyanega (talk) 16:10, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

For example, the names "quadritaeniator" and "imperator" are both nouns. As I'm sure you know, nouns don't get changed as part of gender agreement. The people who erroneously changed these names to "quadritaeniata" and "imperatrix" aren't allowed to do that under the ICZN, those are errors, not allowable spellings. Bezark has them correct, other sources do not. Why the Bezark list has the genders of some of the other names as masculine, I can't say, but at least those are correctly given as feminine in BioLib. I've just sent a message to Larry Bezark, hopefully he can correct them. Dyanega (talk) 16:16, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
The only one that might be controversial is "buquetii" versus "buqueti" - the former is the original spelling, but under the ICZN the original spelling of patronyms with "-i" versus "-ii" is not automatically protected; if the alternative spellinng is used by more authors, then the original spelling is rejected. The history of usage of this name, as shown here indicates that "buqueti" is historically the most common spelling, and therefore to be preserved under ICZN Article 33.4. Dyanega (talk) 16:25, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the corrections and your help! Bob Webster (talk) 19:03, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Moth taxonomy

So, I went and very much revised Nudariina but it occurs to me now that I should have ping'd you first to know which taxonomy you are following. I aligned with iNat, but now I realize that not all of what you are doing aligns.... UtherSRG (talk) 00:46, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

What to use for Nudariina is a hard question!
I've been using Catalogue of Life (mostly) for Miltochrista and related genera. I checked some recent changes and they match up pretty closely (I put a bunch of original references on the Miltochrista page).
For Lepidoptera, Catalogue of life gets their data from Global Lepidoptera Index, and GBIF gets their Lepidoptera data primarily from Catalogue of Life. Unfortunately, Global Lepidoptera Index doesn't have subtribes.
In the case of Nudariina, BioLib.cz might be the best source. They're usually pretty good with taxonomy in the Old World. It looks like they're reasonably up to date on Nudariina. I try to double check their stuff because once in a while it's a little weird. It seems like they have been improving, though.
iNaturalist is not a great source for taxonomy, because it's intentionally incomplete. They discourage people from adding species or genera that don't have observations, so they don't have to maintain the empty "nodes" for name changes, etc. Also, like Wikipedia, there's a certain amount of iNaturalist data that is out of date. I think iNaturalist is not considered a good reference for Wikipedia because of user contributions.
I think if you pick the taxonomy you think best and make sure it's in the references, it should be good. For a species or genus list, I try to show the reference(s) at the top of the list but anywhere will work.
If you have any questions, let me know. I don't know as much as a lot of people, but I'll be glad to offer an opinion.
Bob Webster (talk) 03:45, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Graciella circulum, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Fernando Po.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:51, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Compsocerini, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Eurybatus.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:54, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

FYI: there is no "Spondylinae"

Thought you might want to know, this is a historic and common misspelling based on poor Greek grammar. Most people correctly use "Spondylidinae" but the misspelling appears in a fair bit of older literature. The recent revision of family-group names in Coleoptera has the following entry: "Spondylis Fabricius, 1775: 159. Current status: valid genus in CERAMBYCIDAE: SPONDYLIDINAE: SPONDYLIDINI. Type species: Attelabus buprestoides Linnaeus, 1758, by subsequent designation (Latreille 1810: 431). Family-group name: SPONDYLII Audinet-Serville, 1832. Stem: Spondylid-." It's the stem that created the confusion, some people thought the stem was "Spondyl-". Dyanega (talk) 18:21, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for cleaning that up! I had trouble with that (obviously). I also appreciate you clearing up Nothorhinini and Tetropiini. Bob Webster (talk) 21:10, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

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

Caelostomus
added links pointing to Congo and Fernando Poo
Caelostomus agilis
added a link pointing to The Congo
Caelostomus explanatus
added a link pointing to Fernando Poo
Theodosia (beetle)
added a link pointing to Theodosia

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:53, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Erectocolliuris, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Congo.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:52, 26 September 2024 (UTC)