User talk:Stemonitis/Archive26

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

This archive page covers approximately the dates between May 1 2010 and June 13 2010.

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

Blue pearl shrimp article taxobox

Hi, you recently removed the taxbox template I had place on an article I recently composed on the blue pearl shrimp. I wanted to ask you: if this creature has no taxon, then what Linnean system should I have used to describe it's position with relation to other shrimps? Also: I had made notes on the article's discussion page with regard to the notability of this color morph. Could you give those notes a look-over and comment on them? I would very much appreciate it. Thank you. KDS4444^Talk 10:47, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I think that, for an artificial variety of a wild species, the only way to connect it to the Linnean hierarchy is to say what wild species it is derived from. Ideally, we'd have an article on that wild species, as a species, and that would also link to any notable varieties that had been produced from it. The trouble with all these Caridina and Neocaridina species is that it's very difficult to find out anything about the wild species, not least because any information there might be about the wild species is swamped by sites written by or for aquarists. There is also the problem that the wild, progenitor species is only given as Neocaridina cf. zhingjiajiensis, where the "cf." indicates a species closely related to N. zhingjiajiensis, but not necessarily that species. Thus, it seems we don't know what the progenitor species was, and I haven't even been able to find out much about N. zhingjiajiensis itself (which may not be the right species, anyway). Your suggestion of a genus-wide article is a very good one, and I've tried in the past to cobble something together, but I couldn't find any reliable biological information. According to De Grave et al., there are 23 species in the genus Neocaridina and 280 in Caridina, but that's all I've got so far. --Stemonitis (talk) 10:24, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

animalia

I'm so sorry; I normally check and think about these things. Clearly not on this occasion. Checking to see that you reverted. Tony (talk) 14:31, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks!

Hey, thanks for your cleanup efforts, and sorry for leaving a mess! Your work does not go unappreciated. (-:

Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 03:02, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Changes

Hi Stemonitis,
I have seen that have reverted some changes made for me.
For example, in the article Hylocomiaceae you changed my edition of "Multicolumn format" from 300px wide for the columns, to 10 em (about 130px).
Of course, if you see that I am repetitively doing some kind of changes that you don't agree, talk with me about that.
In this particular case, I think that 10 em is too little. Maybe 300 px is too much.
With 10 em, I see 8 columns in my monitor, every column with 2 items. I think that the multicolumn format in this way gives the article a strange aspect. Better than that would be an only one paragraph instead 8 columns/2 items each. Don't you think so?
Maybe an intermediate width is ok for both, e.g.: 150-170 px.
In this way the article should have a respetable displaying for me.

Tell me about this. Flakinho (talk) 18:44, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

The critical issue here is ensuring that the articles display acceptably in all window sizes. Bear in mind that some people view Wikipedia on portable devices with quite narrow screens; others will want to use large type; and so on. By specifying the widths in terms of pixels, you are overruling those people, and forcing them to have very wide windows with lots of blank space, such that they have to scroll sideways to see all the content. By tuning the column widths to the size of the text they are to contain, as I did, you ensure that the display is reasonable on all screen resolutions, on all kinds of browsing device. You consider that eight columns of two is too many. It looks fine to me. The 16 items are displayed in an easily recognisable format in a minimum of space. If the only difference is one of aesthetics, and therefore of opinion, I suggest we let functionality guide us, and make the site usable and intuitive for as many people as possible. --Stemonitis (talk) 20:05, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi Stemonitis. So, if I understood, the inconvenience is to use "px" instead "em" as width units, right? Maybe, this would cause superposition of letters to the people with large size of fonts, right? Let me know to spend some of your time to explain that, if I don't understand well, I could do the similar things later in other kind of editions. The template {div col} adjust the number of columns depends on the size of the browser, so for portable devices, it should appear just as one column, like the previous state before my edition (see that here). So, the results of using a narrow screen is the same with regard to the {div col} template, because the display is exactly the same (1 column) with this template or not in a small portable device. With regards the functionality, if you think that is better to display as many text as possible for screen, the same functionality could be achieved using 15em, i.e., don't you think? Flakinho (talk) 21:20, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, sorry, I was getting a bit confused. {{Div col}} will not force columns to run off the screen (as fixing the number of columns can), but can lead to a lot of white space if the column width is too high. This could require horizontal scrolling only if the width of a single column is greater than the screen width (and therefore probably isn't an issue here). Defining widths in terms of pixels instead of text width (ens or ems) does not allow for different font sizes, and that is an issue here. It would indeed be possible to use 15 em instead of 10 em, or whatever I used; I generally use the smallest width that doesn't force individual list items to wrap onto multiple lines, at least if the list items are reasonably short. Thus, where the list includes not only the genus name, but also the authority (including the year for animals, but not plants), I use greater widths; for single-word entries, as in Hylocomiaceae, I use narrower widths. --Stemonitis (talk) 11:19, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Illustration

Hi Stemonitis!
My ask about File:Pachygrapsus_marmoratus_2009_G4.jpg.
What do you think concerning such illustration for Pachygrapsus marmoratus article? If this photo is used, i can nominate it as Featured picture candidate.
Yours faithfully --George Chernilevsky ^talk 12:43, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, why not? It gives a clearer idea of the whole animal than the existing picture. (Was it around when the article was created, or did it just get overlooked, I wonder?) --Stemonitis (talk) 12:57, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Ok, updated now. Article was created 11 January 2010, photo was uploaded 13 November 2009. Just overlooked.

I have written article about Pachygrapsus marmoratus in Russian Wiki. --George Chernilevsky ^talk 15:24, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Promoted as Featured picture now :) --George Chernilevsky ^talk 11:45, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations! I've added it to the selected pictures at Portal:Crustaceans, too. --Stemonitis (talk) 12:23, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Pillipedes

I'm not sure a citation/reference is necessary to explain the vernacular way this organism is referred to. For example, later in that paragraph, a list of commonly-used names for isopods are given, and given without reference. Why is it okay to give the common-names for an organism that is *not* the focus of the Wiki page, but for the organism the page is for, this is not okay? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimmithy (talk • contribs) 16:17, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Even if you are not sure, I am utterly convinced of the need for a citation. (I may try to find references for those others, or remove them if I can't find any.) It is, for some reason that isn't entirely clear to me, a particular problem for woodlice, that people insist that their local, parochial term be included in an encyclopaedia of global scope, so it has become necessary to adopt strict standards for the inclusion of common names there. The same phenomenon may extend to the pill millipedes. Either way, all information which is open to question must be supported by a reliable source. --Stemonitis (talk) 16:28, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Italic title & taxobox name

Hi, I notice that you are adding the italic title template and a taxobox name parameter to certain articles. Did you realize that the taxobox template already italicizes the page and taxobox title where appropriate? Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 18:11, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, we're aware of that. However, a decision was made at Wikipedia talk:ARTH#Italic titles (continued) that it was clearer for everyone, especially new editors, if it was made explicit how the title was being italicised. I know that the first time I saw it, it took me a long time to work out where the italics were coming from, even though I was an old hand. I'm only changing it when I'm already making other edits to an article, but User:Heds is going through systematically to ensure that all arthropod pages are intuitive to edit (cf. User:Heds/Italic title project). --Stemonitis (talk) 18:17, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Pictured rove beetle

The DYK project (nominate) 18:03, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Boas Johansson assessment

Change your mind about it? Kaldari (talk) 00:06, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't see why. The whole article (excluding references) is 128 words (928 characters) long. That's not even enough for a DYK entry (the standard I've been using for C-class). B-class is the last step before GA status, and Boas Johansson is a long way off that standard. It may be that there simply isn't that much to say about Johanssen, in which case start-class may be the best it can reach. --Stemonitis (talk) 06:07, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

The article fits the class-B criteria perfectly in my view: "The article is mostly complete and without major issues, but requires some further work to reach good article standards." The Start-class criteria does not fit the article: "An article that is developing, but which is quite incomplete and, most notably, lacks adequate reliable sources." The article is basically complete (as much as it can be), it is not developing, it is not incomplete, and every part is cited to reliable sources. The length of the article has absolutely nothing to do with the assessment criteria. As has been discussed at Good Article Candidates and Featured Article Candidates, the length of the article is not a defining criteria of the article quality. Different subjects will have different length articles, as is true in all encyclopedias. Kaldari (talk) 17:05, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Having looked into the matter in some detail, I think a different solution is warranted. Since Johansson is only known for one work, and isn't even widely credited with that (most taxa being ascribed to Linnaeus, 1763, rather than Johansson), the solution is probably to change the article to one about Centuria Insectorum Rariorum. Johansson may even fail WP:N (I guess he counts as an academic), whereas the book is demonstrably important. It describes 102 species, most of which appear to be still valid, with at least 19 that have articles here already. Such an article could have a section on Authorship, which discusses the likely contributions of Linnaeus and Johansson, and the evidence for accepting each as author of the taxa (the current article really doesn't discuss this at all). A second section would describe the more noteworthy taxa described in the book (we currently have articles on Sitophilus oryzae, Stagmomantis carolina, Arilus cristatus, Amathusia phidippus, Ypthima philomela, Kaniska canace, Elymnias hypermnestra, Ariadne ariadne, Junonia atlites, Anartia jatrophae, Philaethria dido, Argyreus hyperbius, Telicota augias, Manduca sexta, Eudocima phalonia, Rhyothemis variegata, Tremex columba, Efferia aestuans and Ucides cordatus, all of which appear to derive from descriptions in Centuria Insectorum Rariorum). A third section could deal with the famous Papilio ecclipsis hoax, in which a Common Brimstone butterfly had spots painted on it, and was then described as a new species (there's a lot of popular coverage on the Internet, and at least a mention in doi:10.1111/j.1096-3642.2005.00184.x). All of that should make a decent sized article, rendering the above debate entirely irrelevant. --Stemonitis (talk) 06:43, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

That sounds like a good idea. Regarding the authorship debate, I wasn't able to find any sources discussing the actual evidence for either author. What I did find was one article, Marshall 1983 (that cost $30!), that offered some speculation and mentioned that it was a subject of disagreement (between who, it didn't say). Unfortunately, I just started a new job (at the Wikimedia Foundation), and I probably won't be doing much Wikipedia editing for a while (ironically). If you feel like taking on Centuria Insectorum Rariorum, I would totally support merging Boas Johansson into it once there's some content there. Kaldari (talk) 20:46, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Wow, nice job! Kaldari (talk) 18:18, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Empty category

If you read the text in {{db-catempty}} you'll note that the category will be eligible for deletion if it remains empty for four days after being tagged. So, the fact that a category has not yet been empty for four days does not justify removal of the template. However, if you're going to go back and check that category four days from now, no harm done. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 20:04, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

GA review for loggerhead sea turtle

This article was being worked on by a high school AP biology class. You were gracious enough to give us a GA review and I appreciate this. I was wondering if you could check what we have done because I am under the impression that we have met your suggestions and are ready to be nominated for GA. The class project has been officially over since Friday, May 21, but I would like to see this thing through to the finish. Thank you for your time and contributions.--TimHAllstr (talk) 22:11, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I'll certainly check it over again. I was only holding back because you all seemed to be still working hard on it. I'm very impressed with the whole article, and with the amount of effort you've put in. --Stemonitis (talk) 05:23, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much! I greatly appreciate your help. My next goal is to bring the article to FA.--TimHAllstr (talk) 02:04, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Crab.

Hi. If I'm not mistaken, images on ancient Greek shields signified the tribe that the hoplite belonged to. Would that be a good info to add in that section, if and when I come up with reliable sources, that is? The Cat and the Owl (talk) 21:48, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Can't find something reliable, therefore I'm removing the image. The Cat and the Owl (talk) 22:13, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I added another one, take a look. The Cat and the Owl (talk) 22:33, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

replied elsewhere. --Stemonitis (talk) 05:40, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Antarctic krill

Would you consider it's demotion as a setback for the WikiProject? AshLin (talk) 05:40, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

No more so than that of coconut crab. In reality, articles need to be maintained, and that usually means being maintained by the people that wrote them in the first place. Coconut crab was mostly the work of User:Chris 73 when it was promoted back in October 2004, and Antarctic krill was mostly down to User:Kils when it got promoted in June 2005. Neither article has deteriorated substantially; it's just that standards have improved in the intervening 5 years (half the lifetime of Wikipedia!), and neither author was still taking an interest in their work at the time of the review. The amount of content covered by WP:ARTH and its daughters is constantly increasing, and standards are steadily improving. There's more and more information, and more and more of it is well referenced, well formatted and linked together. The number of good articles keeps increasing (California spiny lobster promoted in the last week). I'm embarassed now when I see things I wrote in 2005 (no references; no structure), so it's not surprising that a 2005 featured article no longer cuts the mustard. In short, no, I don't think it's a serious setback. --Stemonitis (talk) 05:58, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Hyas

Editing

Yes thank you. How did you know so soon? And will this page that I researched be useful? I still couln't determine the subfamily.

cheers,Bruinfan12 (talk) 13:58, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

responded elsewhere --Stemonitis (talk) 14:05, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the encouragement. Should I add the subfamily in the taxbox?

DYK for Eledone moschata

Victuallers (talk) 00:07, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Me klutz

I was sure I'd removed "animal" from the script. Again, I'm sorry. Will do this now. Tony (talk) 11:22, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Psorophora howardii

Thanks for rating the article. I just made sure to get rid of all of my errors. Joe Chill (talk) 21:30, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

FAR for article Krill

I have nominated Krill for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here.-- Cirt (talk) 03:11, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Neotrypaea californiensis

— Rlevse • Talk • 06:03, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I will not give up!

Thanks for your encouragement on Wikipedia. I'll leave the award here for you to put where you want.

Bruinfan12 (talk) 11:14, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Asellota

Dear user,

The difference is not only in Microcerberidae. It is not very difficult to make comparisons - please, make them. (If you want to discuss Isopoda-related parts of M&D - I am ready.) If you call "original research" any information, based on papers - that is clearly bad definition. You also deleted all the new references, provided by me. That is more than strange.

Yours, Kuzia (talk) 06:33, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

You stated in your additions to Asellota that the work by Martin & Davis (2001) had "inaccuracies", without any reference to back that assertion up, and the references you used instead are older than Martin & Davis (who discuss the issue of a separate Microcerberidea in their introduction), and therefore cannot have said any such thing about the system employed in that work. It is therefore original research to make the claim that Martin & Davis is inaccurate. I am not defending Martin & Davis as the only source of reliable information, but in instances like this, where Wikipedia needs to have a coherent system across many articles, large-scale works like theirs provide the best starting point, and should only be departed from where scientific consensus has demonstrably moved. --Stemonitis (talk) 06:58, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

You might also like to think twice before employing terms like "vandalism". Experienced editors are rarely charmed by such words. --Stemonitis (talk) 07:09, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

That was a hypothesis as you undid all the changes without clear argumentation. I agree with you that the term "inaccuracies" could be considered as subjective and should be followed by some notes, but that discussion is too redundant in such a small stub-article. The system and nomenclatural statements outlined here (the first reference, I mentioned) are clearly different from M&D and clearly "newer" than it (though you'll find there the Microcerberidea). M&D did not show scientific consensus at least in relation to Isopoda and most of nomenclatural and systematic changes in Asellota, they made, are not based on such a consensus. That work, claimed to be compilatory, does have some elements of original research but with little, weak or no argumentation. Kuzia (talk) 07:23, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

It needs not just a few explanatory notes; it would need a direct statement in a reliable source that "the work of Martin & Davis (2001) contains inaccuracies in its treatment of Asellota and Microcerberidea" (or words very similar to that). Your one later source is actually based on Martin & Davis and a possibly older source (at least for Asellota and Microcerberidea), and gives no reasoning or discussion, so I don't see that that alters things either way. M&D, on the other hand, give some detail about why they made the decisions they did, which I reproduce here:

SUBORDER MICROCERBERIDEA: Wägele (1983) placed the family Microcerberidae within the Aselloidea; Brusca and Wilson (1991) considered the Microcerberoidea the sister group to the Asellota and consequently suggested they not be included among the Asellota. Our treatment of the family as belonging to its own suborder and superfamily follows Bowman and Abele (1982) but is also in keeping with the suggestion of Brusca and Wilson (1991). Additionally, we now treat the monotypic family Atlantasellidae in this suborder on the recommendation of G. D. F. Wilson (pers. comm.).

SUBORDER ASELLOTA: According to G. Wilson and G. Poore (pers. comm.), the currently recognized superfamilies of the Asellota are either poly- or paraphyletic (see also Wilson, 1987) and will not stand the test of time. Roman and Dalens (1999) treat the Asellota as being comprised of four superfamilies (down one from Bowman and Abele, 1982; the Protallocoxoidea and its single family, Protallocoxidae, have been removed). We have followed this arrangement here, recognizing the superfamilies Aselloidea, Stenetrioidea, Janiroidea, and Gnathostenetroidea. The superfamily Pseudojaniroidea, proposed by Wilson (1986), has been removed at his suggestion (G. Wilson, pers. comm.; see also Serov and Wilson, 1999). Its former family, the Pseudojaniridae, has been transferred to the Stenetrioidea following the revision of the Pseudojaniridae by Serov and Wilson (1999). In the superfamily Aselloidea, the family Atlantasellidae has been removed. Brusca and Wilson (1991) suggested its removal to the Microcerberoidea, where we have placed it. Although Roman and Dalens (1999) treat the family Microcerberidae as a member of the Aselloidea, we are keeping it in its own suborder (Microcerberidea) and superfamily (Microcerberoidea) as per Bowman and Abele (1982) (as noted earlier). Thus, the Aselloidea presently contains only the Asellidae and Stenasellidae.

--Stemonitis (talk) 07:35, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

They did not mention the following works with alternative opinions on Microcerberidae:

• Jaume, D. (2001). A new atlantasellid isopod (Asellota: Aselloidea) from the flooded coastal karst of the Dominican Republic (Hispaniola): evidence for an exopod on a thoracic limb and biogeographical implications. Journal of Zoology, London 255: 221-233
• Wägele, J.-W., N.J. Voelz & J. Vaun McArthur (1995). Older than the Atlantic Ocean: discovery of a fresh-water Microcerberus (Isopoda) in North America and erection of Coxicerberus, new genus. Journal of Crustacean Biology 15 (4): 733—745

Microcerberidae is not that great problem. Another points are that D&M changed dates and even some authors of taxa and Vermectiadidae was (surprisingly) placed in Gnathostenetroididae. Do you mean that we also have to ignore new families, described after M&D (Xenosellidae Just, 2005) as you did? Your note that "World list of Isopoda" is based on "older sources" is true (and I see no evil in that) and they do not follow M&D in most of their incorrect points. Kuzia (talk) 07:59, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

This is all interesting, but does not influence the original point of our discussion, which is that your edits were reverted because they constituted original research. Martin & Davis (2001) remains the primary source for higher crustacean taxa; it can be overruled, but only where there is good evidence to do so. New taxa should of course be included (I see no evidence that Xenosellidae has been sunk into another family, so this would probably be an appropriate reference to add). Note that what is "correct" and what is "incorrect" is not only very hard to determine in systematics (although not necessarily so in nomenclature), it is also irrelevant to Wikipedia, where verifiability is all. --Stemonitis (talk) 08:26, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I see no good reason not to use "older" sources and not to screen the existing practice of name usage in works on asellotan systematics. Do as you wish. Please, sort out "positive" and "negative" points in my changes and leave something there. That was not a complete mess, I guess. Later, I'll find some time to update the en-version to the level of ru-version I made (leaving notes on Classification without changes (after your corrections)). Kuzia (talk) 08:50, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Robert Gurney

Hello! Your submission of Robert Gurney at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! —S Marshall T/C 13:00, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Barnstar

Hi, Stemonitis, I think this is well deserved:

		The Bio-star
		For all arthropods, including some that you rescued in spring. Philcha (talk) 18:15, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Periclimenes imperator

I'm intrigued by your reversion- the larger image shows the creature in much higher quality (as in, at full size, the creature is far more visible) and is much more pleasing to the eye. The encyclopedic value of the image is also heightened by the fact the larger image shows the way the shrimp lives on other animals. J Milburn (talk) 22:11, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

But in the taxobox, where the majority of readers will see it, the shrimp in question is smaller in the larger image, and the eye is distracted by the [admittedly attractive] colours of the sea cucumber in the background. The purpose of the image is to illustrate the article, which in this case, is about a shrimp, so the image should show the shrimp; potential higher resolution really isn't the issue. A link is provided to the Commons should anyone be in search of a higher-res photo. Your favoured image is a better illustration is a better photo, but a worse illustration. Even the commensalism isn't really illustrated, because so little of the host is seen that it's basically just a colourful background. I looked at all the avilable alternatives when I wrote the article, and I concluded that the best image for the article was Steve Childs' second image. --Stemonitis (talk) 22:21, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I'd be inclined to disagree. Higher resolution certainly is a positive, as the vast majority of users hoping for a better look at the subject will look to the images in the article, not search Commons. We should always strive to have higher quality images in our articles. I appreciate the need for a photograph that serves its purpose as opposed to a photograph that looks pretty, but this photo is clearly of the shrimp, displays it better (the whole creature is visible on both, but is visible in much more detail on the strong photo) and has the added advantage of both beauty and the "wow" factor; both of which point the reader towards the article, and towards viewing the image at full-res. As for it only providing a background- yes, but it provides a more typical background, or at least a more illustrative one- any sea creature can be photographed on sand, but much fewer could be photographed like this. It's the equivilent of photographing a spider on grass rather than in its web, for instance- it would be far more illustrative to have a shot of it in its more typical and/or signature surroundings. (I'll be honest, another reason I support the use of this image in the article is that I think it could well pass FPC, but I appreciate that that's not an argument, as such.) J Milburn (talk) 22:30, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and nominated it- the nomination is at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Periclimenes imperator, if you're interested. J Milburn (talk) 23:41, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

In which case, I won't jeopardise its nomination by removing it, but I still think the other picture is better for the article. --Stemonitis (talk) 05:16, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Mail...

... in your mailbox. Lycaon (talk) 05:45, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Did you receive the copy? Lycaon (talk) 18:54, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I did, but I'm not sure what I'm supposed to get from it. I can see that they've used the term Corophiidea throughout, but they don't seem to explain that choice at all. Maybe I misunderstood the point, but I was hoping for at least a brief comparison of the two possibilities, rather than a simple counterexample. --Stemonitis (talk) 04:43, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Panulirus homarus

— Rlevse • Talk • 00:02, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Robert Gurney

— Rlevse • Talk • 12:02, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Mictyris longicarpus

Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 00:01, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Parribacus japonicus

The Japanese name is cited as "Zori ebi" at [1], and the etymology at [2] is laconically given as "見た目から", or "after the appearance". Jpatokal (talk) 07:56, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Excellent. Thanks a lot! --Stemonitis (talk) 07:58, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Crustacean larvae

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

Carterinida; Carterina

I respectfully disagree with your redirect of Carterinida to Carterina. As a rule of thumb I'd say precedence should be given to higher taxa since they are listed as such in taxoboxes and give first broad explanations. Lower taxa can be described within articles on related higher taxa, especially if there are but a few with short descriptions. Cheers J.H.McDonnell (talk) 16:19, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Erroneous taxonomy

Information shown in taxoboxes in foraminiferal pages, e.g. Carterina is commonly misleading. The kingdom is Protoctista, or if you prefer Protista, not Rhizaria. That is unless Rhizaria is defined as containing the same biota as contained in Protoctista (or Protista(?)) in which case Protoctista (or Protista(?))take preceedence. I believe that Rhizaria replaces Sarcodina (if it does) and should be ranked probably is a phylum. It seems to me, as a student of foraminifera and invertebrate fossils in general, that a misunderstanding of some published ideas on protoctistan phylogeny has become unfortunately entrenched. Cheers again J.H.McDonnell (talk) 16:37, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm really not bothered what system is used, but the regnum parameter needs to be one that {{Taxobox}} recognises, otherwise the article gets dumped into Category:Taxoboxes with an invalid color. --Stemonitis (talk) 17:02, 13 June 2010 (UTC)