Hi YorkshireExpat! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date.

Happy editing! Loopy30 (talk) 21:47, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello YorkshireExpat,

Thanks for your interest in Gastrodia. The newly described (November 2020) is not (yet?) in the World Checklist of Selected Plant Families,^[1] unlike the other species in the list on that page. (The question "What are the criteria for inclusion in the list above" would be better asked on the article's Talk Page.) Gderrin (talk) 06:37, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, it's better not to move taxonomy templates if they are synonyms; instead use |same_as= – see Wikipedia:Automated taxobox system/taxonomy templates#same as. Secondly, Diplogasterida and Diplogasteromorpha can't be synonyms, because Diplogasterida is an order (see here, p. 73), and Diplogasteromorpha is an infraorder. So when you redirected Template:Taxonomy/Diplogasterida to Template:Taxonomy/Diplogasteromorpha, you created inconsistent ranks in the taxonomy templates, which causes them to be put into an error-tracking category. It seems that WoRMS and the 2011 article linked above have different taxonomies. I have restored Template:Taxonomy/Diplogasterida, but it and Template:Taxonomy/Diplogasterina which uses it should probably be deleted, since they aren't used by any articles' taxoboxes. Peter coxhead (talk) 20:59, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Peter coxhead:Thanks Peter, I think this started when I was editing Sachsia (nematode) and then got into a loop trying to sort out the required templates, and noticing that the WoRMS citations were much newer than the mapress ones used previously. Either way WoRMS did not like Diplogasterida, but I must have glossed over the fact that they had different ranks, so thanks for correcting me. Maybe I was thinking with the general rule that synonyms don't get their own articles (although I can't find that codified anywhere) and this brings up a question of what's to be done with Diplogasterida. Clearly I can't delete the templates as I'm not an admin. Could Template:Taxonomy/Diplogasterida and Template:Taxonomy/Diplogasterina be marked with [[Category:Unnecessary taxonomy templates]]? YorkshireExpat (talk) 21:28, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You can request deletion of any templates you have created via ((Db-g7)). For templates created by others, putting them in the unnecessary category is the way to go.

Be aware that Wikipedia's nematode classification in manual taxoboxes isn't consistent. There are species articles that show a different class/order than what the genus article has. There may be some classification messes elsewhere on Wikipedia that are almost as bad, but I'm not aware of any that are worse than the situation with nematodes. I view implementing automatic taxoboxes as a good opportunity to review/update/make consistent the classification given in Wikipedia. WoRMS follows World Database of Nematodes, which says it follows the higher classification in De Ley & Baxter's (2004) A new system for Nematoda: combining morphological characters with molecular trees, and translating clades into ranks and taxa (I haven't found a full text of that, but I only did a cursory search). WoRMS may show individual genus/species records that have been updated fairly recently, but apparently the higher classification there predates the 2011 article. I haven't studied it enough to offer advice on which classification would be better to follow. Plantdrew (talk) 02:27, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Plantdrew: Thanks for the info, I will tread carefully around Nematodes in the future. ((Db-g7)) is a good tip, however I didn't actually create the Templates that Peter suggests may be deleted; I think they have both been around for a while. YorkshireExpat (talk) 07:03, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Like Plantdrew, I had a quick look at when the different classifications were published. If you look under the "Notes" tab at the bottom of Diplogasteromorpha in WoRMS, it references Kanzaki & Giblin-Davis (2015), but my reading is that this means circumscription downwards, because if you go up one to Rhabditina, it only references De Ley & Blaxter (2004) – which seems to have first appeared in 2002. The 2011 paper by Mike Hodda is part of a volume that only summarized animal diversity but had no supporting evidence. I would not be surprised if it wasn't more or less the same system as in Hodda's 2007 paper at doi:10.11646/zootaxa.1668.1.14, but I can't access it. So it's unclear as to which is the most recent and better supported system, although I suspect it's Hodda's.

I would be inclined to leave the two templates for now; they have an apparently sound reference, and could be a resource for the future. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:09, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Peter coxhead: While automatic taxoboxes are undoubtably good when it comes fixing inherited issues, they do force you to make a choice which can be somewhat subjective, as it appears to be in this case. I got into something like this editing around Accipitridae and seem to remeber I decided to bascially leave it alone. YorkshireExpat (talk) 11:41, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Actually you have make a choice with a manual taxobox too, and at least with an automated one, the choice will be consistent across a set of articles, and can be changed more easily. Peter coxhead (talk) 16:13, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Peter coxhead: Sort of. For example, it isn't possible to display Diplogasterida as it is using an Automatic Taxobox (without redoing the templates obviously), and I don't think there's an argument for building the taxobox any other way, so manual taxoboxes offer more flexibility for dealing with situations like that one. Getting Automatic Taxobox to behave like that sounds like it would require programming! YorkshireExpat (talk) 19:23, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The system allows variant taxonomy templates so you can choose which parent you want. Compare Template:Taxonomy/Polysporangiophytes with Template:Taxonomy/Polysporangiophytes/Plantae. The taxobox in the article Polysporangiophyte uses |taxon=Polysporangiophytes/Plantae to make "Kingdom: Plantae" appear in the taxobox. So you can set up more than one taxonomy template for any taxon by using its name followed by / and a qualifier. There's a brief explanation at Wikipedia:Automated taxobox system/advanced taxonomy#Taxon variants. Peter coxhead (talk) 20:04, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Peter coxhead: Ah right, I've seen that with Incertae sedis, but not seen it used otherwise. Thanks! YorkshireExpat (talk) 20:59, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. This is just a note to let you know that I've moved the draft that you were working on to Draft:Hymedesmia Parpal Dumplin, from its old location at User:YorkshireExpat/sandbox. This has been done because the Draft namespace is the preferred location for Articles for Creation submissions. Please feel free to continue to work on it there. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to ask me on my talk page. Thank you. Iflaq ^(talk) 12:48, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Iflaq: Many thanks for the review. YorkshireExpat (talk) 15:20, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@YorkshireExpat, You're welcome, I hope you will be adding more content to the page in the future. Happy editing. Iflaq ^(talk) 15:26, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hymedesmia Parpal Dumplin, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. It is commonplace for new articles to start out as stubs and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Iflaq ^(talk) 12:52, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GBIF's synonym Cumingia is based on The Interim Register of Marine and Nonmarine Genera if you look here. I don't rate IRMNG as a very reliable source for plants. Australian journal papers, like this one, all seem to agree with PoWO. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:47, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Peter coxhead:No worries, happy to take your lead. I got half way through editing it and then got distracted, and when I came back you'd sorted if out. That was the only bit of the diff I'd prepared that you hadn't covered so I thought I'd throw it in.YorkshireExpat (talk) 18:09, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Before adding a category to an article, as you did to Platypoda, please make sure that the subject of the article really belongs in the category that you specified according to Wikipedia's categorization guidelines. The category being added must already exist, and must be supported by the article's verifiable content. Categories may be removed if they are deemed incorrect for the subject matter. Des Vallee (talk) 06:44, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Des Vallee. Thanks for this. Please could you point out the error causing this issue. Thanks. YorkshireExpat (talk) 06:57, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's all good, sorted it out, everything is fine now and the merge request is correct. Des Vallee (talk) 07:36, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Des Vallee. Thanks for looking in this. YorkshireExpat (talk) 14:08, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a reason to be deleting such as at Template:Taxonomy/Incertae sedis/Parapoxvirus? If so, please give the reason in the edit summary. If performing several similar edits, it would be better to post a link to a discussion providing the background. It can be hard to find errors in articles in advance, but using "what links here" and checking a couple of articles after the change would avoid problems. Johnuniq (talk) 00:54, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnuniq: There are a lot of taxonomy templates that aren't used and are therefore unnecessary. Don't see the need to to too tautological in the comments. Turns out this particular example is not unnecessary and you have reverted the change. No problems. Thanks for doing so. YorkshireExpat (talk) 07:20, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for fixing them. All the errors have gone. Johnuniq (talk) 07:40, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnuniq: No problem. Can I ask where you were looking for the errors you saw? I tend to check here when I make changes to taxonomy stuff but I don't think these errors showed up. Thanks. YorkshireExpat (talk) 07:51, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Extreme errors put the page in the hidden Category:Pages with script errors. A list of only the articles in that category can be seen here. Johnuniq (talk) 09:24, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo, When you posted at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Disambiguation#Taxonomic_species_terms you started off with @YorkshireExpat, which is likely to confuse readers as it's the way to alert yourself to the fact that you've posted there. You might like to edit that out?

For info, in case you don'tknow, the "ping" (or "@" or various other ways) only works if you include it in a posting and sign the post in the same edit - you can't retrospectively add it to a post unless you sign it again. That's a pitfall many of us come across before we learn. There's always something new to learn about editing Wikipedia. PamD 22:08, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@PamD: Thankyou, but I don't think there is anything new about a copy and paste error. It has happened before, and will happen again. I shall, of course, correct it. YorkshireExpat (talk) 06:32, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for editing the articles I created on the pygmy snapper and the bluestripe snapper. I prefer to use taxon in Speciesboxes, other people prefer genus + species, as far as I can see, both have the same effect so it is not necessary to change them when editing articles. In fish articles I think taxon is preferred.Quetzal1964 (talk) 18:12, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Quetzal1964:. Just fixing the errors that appear here. I think I read somewhere that genus+species requires less post processing but WP:DWAP so maybe I should just leave them alone. Either works fine. YorkshireExpat (talk) 18:21, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the response, by the way you also don’t need to use the name field in Speciesbox or Automatic taxobox.21:23, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

		The Original Barnstar
		Great additions of taxobox and taxonomy templates. Sun Creator(talk) 14:02, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the edits. The lead is sopposedly a summary of the article and I was advised that you may, or may not, put citations into the lead as long as you are consistent. I prefer not to have citations in the lead, what is being stated there should be cited elsewhere in the article. Although I stated in the lead that this was the only species in its genus, I think I left it implied in the taxonomy paragraph. I will delete the ref you put in the lead and amend Taxonomy. Quetzal1964 (talk) 20:13, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Quetzal1964: No problems, as I said before I'm only usually fixing errors and doing fairly simple things. I feel GBIF and such are slightly lazy references anyway, but they can give a nice overview. Also you often get them for free with a taxonbar.YorkshireExpat (talk) 21:37, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again, as you can probably tell I like doing content. Editors, like you, who correct the errors that editors like me leave behind, are invaluable.Quetzal1964 (talk) 22:10, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for adding references to the Automatic Taxobox templates. I will try to use INaturalist from now on. I was not aware of how helpful it was. Sorry if I am creating work for you. Scorpions13256 (talk) 23:57, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Scorpions13256: No worries, yes it is a good site and goes a bit more in depth into the taxonomy than others do. Have to be a bit careful though as it pulls info from Wikipedia, so can become self referential. YorkshireExpat (talk) 15:53, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I also went through all of the templates I created and corrected the parent taxa. Sometimes I left out a tribe or subfamily. I am also now aware that they need to be written in Latin. Feel free to go through my edits and correct my mistakes as you usually do. From now on, I will attempt to use NCBI if possible. Thanks again. Scorpions13256 (talk) 19:43, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Scorpions13256: The errors I correct come from here. This page will tell you the latin to use in taxonomy templates. Yes, NCBI is a good source, but other references can normally be picked up from the Taxonbar of a given taxon. Hope this helps. YorkshireExpat (talk) 06:59, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Scorpions13256: if you create a taxonomy template with an unrecognized value for the rank parameter, the text that will be displayed will be highlighted in red. If you look at Template:Taxonomy/Scorpiopinae now, the left hand table contains "subfamilia (displays as Subfamily)". If you look at the previous version, it has "subfamily (displays as Subfamily)". The red background is supposed to be a hint that something is wrong, but is, I think, a bit too subtle! Peter coxhead (talk) 07:53, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you all. I will try to do my best to get it right from now on. Also, thank you for informing me of the existence of that category. I'll use it when I create more templates. Scorpions13256 (talk) 17:49, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A pleasure to collaborate with you! Rubbish computer Ping me or leave a message on my talk page 17:42, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comment on the talk page, to make your view clear it is normal practice to preface your comment with Support or Oppose. As I proposed the change I think my support is taken as understood. Quetzal1964 (talk) 16:03, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Quetzal1964: Hi, not sure I understand. I proposed the change. That means you need to Support or Oppose. Cheers. YorkshireExpat (talk) 17:40, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I initiated the change, I requested a move. However, happy to support. Quetzal1964 (talk) 18:27, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Quetzal1964: Please could you show me what you did to request a move? As far as I know, what I did is the formal method, making the article appear here. Thanks. YorkshireExpat (talk) 07:05, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Quetzal1964: I see, you put it here, which I didn't see. These sort of moves don't leave a mark on the page or talk page of the article so I didn't know it had been done. What I did is a bit of a longer winded process. There's no reason I can see for anyone to oppose but sometimes people do, but will just have to see where it goes. Cheers. YorkshireExpat (talk) 07:19, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There are quite a few other "preload" taxonomy templates in addition to the one you edited (Template:Taxonomy/preload/?). They date to the creation and early development of the automatic taxobox system around 2010–2012. All break up occurrences of "subst" using includeonly tags. So either all need changing or none do. As I don't fully understand why Smith609 wrote them this way, I've not changed this aspect. It's difficult to test your edit without creating unnecessary taxonomy templates. So it should probably be reverted. Peter coxhead (talk) 21:24, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Peter coxhead: I understand, I'm in over my head! No problem, reverted! YorkshireExpat (talk) 21:30, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as noted above, I don't understand it, and probably should! Peter coxhead (talk) 21:36, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I reverted your edit on the Taxonomy Template for Paranotothenia. For taxa above the genus level the WikiProject:Fishes follows the 5th Edition of Fishes of the World, FotW does not recognise subfamilies in the family Nototheniidae. I have added a note to the article Nototheniidae and each genus article has or will have a similar note. I hope you understand my reasoning. Quetzal1964 (talk) 09:03, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Quetzal1964: It seems odd to reference subfamilies in the text and not represent them in the taxobox. I might also point out that in this case WoRMS is more recent than FotW, though of course it depends which you find most authoritative. Nototheniinae seems to be well referred to throughout the literature. As long as whatever you've done is referenced that's fine. YorkshireExpat (talk) 17:38, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I understand what you are saying but the project agreed to use FotW as the authority for taxonomy above genus level. That said, FishBase, Catalog of Fishes, Fishes of the Southern Ocean and other authorities do recognise the subfamilies. Where there is a disagreement between taxonomic sources it should be noted in an article, for example Notothenia trigramma is variously placed in Notothenia, Paranotothenia and Patagonotothen and so these opinions are mentioned and referenced in the article.Quetzal1964 (talk) 18:26, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I also changed the taxobox to a species box, but you'll see that what you instead get is that the plant is from a genus of crabs, which can't be right... Dracophyllum 07:02, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Dracophyllum: that's because it needed a new taxonomy template at Template:Taxonomy/Hewittia (plant). Fixed. Peter coxhead (talk) 07:11, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Dracophyllum and Peter coxhead: Yes, as Peter says. Must have been editing at the same time, you beat me to it :) YorkshireExpat (talk) 07:15, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes! If Hewittia is a monotypic genus, there won't be an article at Hewittia (plant), and the link in the taxonomy template must go to the actual page, not the redirect. This ensures that "Hewittia" is in bold at Hewittia malabarica; the Wikimedia software doesn't automatically bold self-redirects. Peter coxhead (talk) 07:17, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Taxonomy confuses me sometimes... Dracophyllum 07:37, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Dracophyllum and Peter coxhead: I guess the clue was the hatnote about the crab genus at the top of the article. My basic knowledge tells me that it's possible for animal and plant taxons (not sure about other kingdoms) to have the same name. From what I've seen when names have been overloaded for animals, for example, when it's realised that this has happened the original designation takes protority and the later one gets renamed, with the duplicated name becoming a synonym. Happy to be corrected. YorkshireExpat (talk) 08:24, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Practice varies. Because WP:AT prioritizes "commonness", the tendency is for the taxon for which the name is most commonly used to be at the 'bare' name, and the other to be disambiguated, with the taxonomy templates matching. However, this is far from universally applied. It's also complicated by the possibility of a genus name being used for a quite different purpose, like a place name or historical person, when the genus article may be disambiguated but the taxonomy template not. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:53, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Peter coxhead: Sorry, I was talking about general taxonomy practice, not necessarily Wikipedia policy. YorkshireExpat (talk) 10:55, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake. Yes, my understanding too is that each nomenclature code only requires uniqueness within that code, so, for example, there are ICZN names and ICNafp names that are duplicates. Peter coxhead (talk) 14:51, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Names should be unique, but the reality is that there are junior homonyms that have (unknowingly) been accepted for decades, and Wikipedia does sometimes have articles for multiple taxa that share a name governed by a single nomenclature code. Before computers, it wasn't easy for people working in one taxonomic subfield to be aware of what names were in use in a different subfield. Every case I'm aware of where there are articles for two taxa sharing a single ICNacp name, they are plant/fungus, plant/algae, or algae/fungus pairs (mycologists and phycologists weren't aware of names used by botanists and vice versa). The junior homonym should get renamed eventually, but that hasn't alway occurred yet. Plantdrew (talk) 00:55, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There are also junior homonyms within a code. See e.g. Sagana rutilans – Sagana for the spider is a junior homonym of the moth genus, although we don't have an article as it's only a synonym now. I've alerted some spider taxonomists, but no-one seems yet to have published a replacement name. (A chance to get yourself as the author of a taxon name – Neosagana perhaps. :-) ). See also Mispila (Dryusa) coomani and Mispila (Mispila) coomani, and Dyanega's comment at User talk:Dyanega#Incorrect pair of articles. (He's an ICZN commissioner, so a good source for expert comment on the ICZN.) Peter coxhead (talk) 08:28, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Peter coxhead and Plantdrew: Thanks both for the insight! YorkshireExpat (talk) 21:49, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Under the ICZN, species names that are Latin/Greek declinable adjectives must be spelled in a way that corresponds to the gender of the genus into which they are placed; Euscelis is a feminine genus, so the correct spelling is "incisa" rather than "incisus". The only names in the genus that end in "-us" are those which are not Latin or Greek adjectives. Dyanega (talk) 15:55, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As a related aside - you contribute enough high-quality edits that deal with taxonomy that I think you really need to be made aware that GBIF has more problems with quality control than essentially any other large data aggregator, and is not actually a good primary source for taxonomic data; in other words, if there are discrepancies between what GBIF says and what another source says, it is almost inevitably GBIF that has it wrong. Bear in mind that in my professional capacity as a taxonomist, and my role as an ICZN Commissioner, I deal with taxonomy on a daily basis, and I'm quite serious about the pitfalls of using GBIF as a source, as I've encountered literally hundreds of erroneous entries there. Yes, it can definitely be helpful to consult the data there, but extreme care should be taken when citing it, because it is not trustworthy as a source. Dyanega (talk) 16:38, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GBIF and EOL have picked up misspellings that originated in Wikipedia. @Dyanega:, I barely do any work with Lepidoptera, but my understanding is that there are many lepidopterists that refuse to follow the code in changing species endings to correspond to the gender of the genus. Do you have any awareness of which databases do/do not follow the code for Lepidoptera? Plantdrew (talk) 17:02, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The only group of taxonomists that refuse to comply with the ICZN rules on gender agreement is the lepidopterist subset of the community. It creates more than a little confusion for anyone who is NOT a lepidopterist, because of exactly the problem that you folks are encountering: it leads to lots of discrepancies in both literature and online sources, when some sources follow the rules (because they are not lepidopterists) and other sources do not. However, since it's come up, for your reference, I strongly recommend that you do NOT ever attempt to enforce gender agreement rules with any lepidopteran names, but instead adhere to their idiosyncratic practice, using the original spelling and never changing it. The corollary is that if you are working with lep names, you should only use databases that are written and maintained by lepidopterists; data aggregators (GBIF, EOL, etc.) will only confuse things. Dyanega (talk) 22:11, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Dyanega: it's good to have my practice (as per comment below) endorsed by you! But it does look so wrong to me.

Do we have anything about this issue in an article or in any WikiProject guidance, I wonder. @Plantdrew: do you know? I don't work on Lepidoptera here. If not, we should. Peter coxhead (talk) 13:19, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Peter coxhead:, I'm not aware of any WikiProject guidance. I skimmed the archives of WikiProject Lepidoptera and the only mention of the issue I found was at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Lepidoptera/Archive7#Abisara_echerius. I'm not sure which articles would discuss gender agreement (and thus potentially the lepidopterist's exception). Binomial nomenclature mentions gender agreement, but there may be others. Plantdrew (talk) 15:27, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is a bête noir of mine. I maintain checklists of plants and animals found in Sutton Park, West Midlands. To maintain compatibility with national UK databases, I am more-or-less forced to use the names in the NBN Atlas. Look at its entry for Nematopogon, for example. The Greek -pogon, from πώγων, 'beard', is masculine. (See, e.g. the Wikidictionary entry.) Look up, e.g., Andropogon in POWO and all the specific epithets have the expected endings. So the five Nematopogon species listed in the NBN Atlas should all have -us endings. Why don't they? It seems to be because traditionally lepidopterists have referred to species solely by their specific names. So when the genus changes, they have refused to change endings. Standard lepidoptera checklists – of UK species at least – almost all consistently follow this incorrect convention. This approach is supported in multiple papers; see, as just one example, this 2019 paper: doi:10.3897/nl.42.34187. Sigh... Peter coxhead (talk) 18:16, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Dyanega: No problem, thanks for letting me know, I've tidied up after myself. I'm glad my edits are generally useful. I am not trained in taxonomy in any way, but have an interest and started editing here in an effort to learn more. I think what swung me on moving Euscelis incisa was the lack of taxonbaresque references to E. incisa, with plenty for E. incisus. I was not aware of the language gender requirements. As a question, I know just enough Latin to know that -a is feminine, -us is masculine and -um neuter, but Euscelis is clearly none of these so I'm guessing it's Greek. Is it common that language roots are mixed up in the binomial?

There are no rules regarding genus names and epithets needing to both be in the same language, in large part because so many names (both for genera and species) do not belong to either language. It isn't even required for a compound name to have its components from the same language (e.g., "nigricephala" is half Latin, half Greek). What matters is the ending of the name, and that only matters if the name is a declinable adjective (e.g., "brevilinea" is a noun phrase, "brevilineata" is a declinable adjective). Dyanega (talk) 22:11, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

On an unrelated point @Dyanega, Plantdrew, and Peter coxhead:, also last night I was editing Eunica monima, and the taxonbar references were split over the authority. I also got three different answers on the tribe to which Eunica belongs. At least however the genders match :). Would appreciate any pointers on that one. YorkshireExpat (talk) 19:58, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The correct author attribution is Stoll, 1782. The description was written by Stoll and published in a book authored by Cramer, but that doesn't make Cramer the author of the name. Unlike botany, zoologists don't need to make special citations (e.g., "Stoll in Cramer, 1782"), but you will actually see that orthography used by some people (e.g. [1]). Dyanega (talk) 22:16, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For tribal classification, you may need to dive into the literature. I avoid implementing automatic taxoboxes when manual taxoboxes include tribes, unless I'm willing to spend some time researching recent classifications (and then I'll work through the entire family to make sure Wikipedia is consistent in following a single classification). For Nymphalidae, you might start by looking at Nymphalidae.net, but that is classification is stitched together from 3 major sources. Nymphalidae.net itself, and the two major sources that are available online each put Eunica in a different tribe. I'm not going to research this further myself. Assuming further research doesn't turn up a better source (e.g., a recent phylogenetic study that sampled every genus in the family and assigned tribes to all genera), and I wanted to implement automatic taxoboxes for all Nymphalidae right now, I'd probably go with either Nymphalidae.net or Marrku Savela's site selecting whichever is closest to Wikipedia's existing classification, and bringing Wikipedia in alignment with the selected source. But I'm not anxious to implement automatic taxoboxes for Nymphalidae right now; there are other pockets of manual taxoboxes where classification is less uncertain, and maybe a better Nymphalidae source will come along in the future. You might just also choose to omit minor ranks if the classification is a mess (I think Nymphalidae subfamilies might be less of a mess than tribes, so you could just link genus taxonomy templates to subfamily). Plantdrew (talk) 01:50, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If I'm not in the mood to verify a higher classification, but am in the mood to convert some manual taxoboxes, I feel OK about it if I'm working on species where a (possibly not up-to-date) genus taxonomy template already exists. Here is a search for Nymphalidae with manual taxoboxes; binomials that show up here, without a corresponding genus, usually indicate that the genus already has an automatic taxobox (Boloria is the first big batch of manual taxobox species within an automatic taxobox genus). Plantdrew (talk) 02:20, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect "Latromirus". The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 November 2#"Latromirus" until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. TJRC (talk) 04:12, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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 2021 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) 00:59, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Tetralonia malvae, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Pfaffenhofen. 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) 06:07, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there - can I ask why you prodded this article? --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:15, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Elmidae: Absolutely. It's an unrecognised taxon according to http://globiz.pyraloidea.org/Pages/Reports/TaxonReport.aspx. Unfortunately reports can't be linked directly so you have to visit the site and search for it manually. Also, it may be preoccupied by a butterfly synonym, but I think pyraloidea.org is the better source. YorkshireExpat (talk) 16:25, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. What about this LepIndex entry? [2] Also notes "Original genus unconfirmed", but I'm not sure that equates to invalidity? This is what CoL uses, and I think it propagates to various other databases from there. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 17:26, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Elmidae: There's an interesting discussion on the oddities of Lepidopterology I was just rereading, if you want to scroll up on my page. Basically, I think the gist is that lepidoptery is a bit strange as to where you get your references from. One good page that is pointed out is Marrku Savela's site, and for Pyraloidea that site uses globiz.pyraloidea.org as its source. Also, for Ismene it lists the synonym that GBIF has. I guess it's a question of which source we trust more. YorkshireExpat (talk) 20:08, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough - I see you guys rather got into the weeds there. Happy to abide by your judgement. Don't think you can prod it again though after the tag has been removed, so may have to go through AfD now. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 21:29, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you have such an insignificant article watchlisted– or at least following it so closely. I don't mind, just interested. Dracophyllum 19:39, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Dracophyllum: I think I found it after I was correcting some script based changes I didn't care for. Then I keep half an eye on my recent changes to see if anyone else makes an edit (if I have messed something up), that is if my edit is (current) or not. It's not actually in my watchlist, and also it's a much more significant article than most that I edit :D. By your username, I see that you are a fan of the genus! I also made a bit of a hash of my edits on it, sorry. YorkshireExpat (talk) 20:33, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	Great work tidying up recently created articles thank you. Theroadislong (talk) 16:05, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Thanks for your help on the Palyeidodon article. I submitted an article about Pisanodon to Wikipedia and would like your help with cleaning it up after it gets accepted. I also don't know how to properly edit a Speciesbox so if you could give me any help with that as well that would be great. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HmmmSimon (talk • contribs) 20:14, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@HmmmSimon:, yeah, no worries, will keep an eye out. Documentation for ((Speciesbox)) is there, and here is related ((Automatic taxobox)), and there are others but they are the main two. The other one to be aware of is ((Taxonomy)) (click on the little red pencil on Palyeidodon). And another tip on how to do your signature here ;). Any questions, let me know. Cheers. YorkshireExpat (talk) 20:26, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article got denied for using sources without significant coverage of the species even though they were some of the same websites that I cited on the Palyeidodon article. I removed the only reference that was different (even though it was about the species) and will try to resubmit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HmmmSimon (talk • contribs) 20:29, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pisanodon, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

CNMall41 (talk) 00:24, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I saw that my recent edits of the "Coelophysis" kayentakatae page were reverted, can you please explain my mistakes in the edit. I cited my sources and "Coelophysis" kayentakatae's article doesn't fit the recent changes in Coelophysid classification. Note that "C." kayentakatae hasn't been placed in Coelophysis since 2004. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Augustios Paleo (talk • contribs) 16:00, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Augustios Paleo: Some of your changes looked fine. My main issue was with the changing of the use of "Syntarsus" as this is not in the article title, i.e. the first part of your edit. If you take a look at the talk page you'll see a long discussion about what the page's title should be. The idea of the question mark in the title is to show that the species defintely doesn't belong to Coelophysis, and the genus assignment is, in general, contraversial. If you wish to change the title of the article you should probably start a move discussion, but just be aware of the history. YorkshireExpat (talk) 16:52, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That makes more sense, thank you for the info. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Augustios Paleo (talk • contribs) 17:11, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Phlogis kibalensis, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. It is commonplace for new articles to start out as stubs and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Theroadislong (talk) 17:12, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, why exactly does marking incertae sedis as not extinct cause a problem? Super Ψ Dro 21:10, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Super Dromaeosaurus: it means it appears here and the space time continuum is disturbed because the parent is marked extinct. But I see where you're coming from so I've started a conversation here. YorkshireExpat (talk) 21:16, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Thanks for the clarification. Let's see how does the discussion there turn out. Super Ψ Dro 21:18, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Taxonomy/Pelomedusoidea has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:31, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks... most embarassing. I guess the syllable "cypho" didn't roll off the mind's tongue :p --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:43, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Elmidae: no worries, just keeping an eye out. YorkshireExpat (talk) 17:51, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, if you haven't, please see my comments at Talk:Teclea carpopunctifera re the moves back and forth. Peter coxhead (talk) 16:36, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Happy to move that for you, but you should have been able to move it yourself – the redirect that was in the way had only one revision. For the future, if you'd like also to be able to move pages over a redirect that has more than one revision and so can't be overwritten, I'd be happy to add page mover to your user rights – just say the word! Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 08:56, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Justlettersandnumbers:. Ah right, I wondered why sometimes I could move and other times not. Maybe I will put in for page mover! Thanks. YorkshireExpat (talk) 09:08, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, YorkshireExpat. Your account has been granted the "extendedmover" user right, either following a request for it or demonstrating familiarity with working with article names and moving pages. You are now able to rename pages without leaving behind a redirect, move subpages when moving the parent page(s), and move category pages.

Please take a moment to review Wikipedia:Page mover for more information on this user right, especially the criteria for moving pages without leaving a redirect. Please remember to follow post-move cleanup procedures and make link corrections where necessary, including broken double-redirects when suppressredirect is used. This can be done using Special:WhatLinksHere. It is also very important that no one else be allowed to access your account, so you should consider taking a few moments to secure your password. As with all user rights, be aware that if abused, or used in controversial ways without consensus, your page mover status can be revoked.

Useful links:

• Wikipedia:Requested moves
• Category:Requested moves, for article renaming requests awaiting action.

If you do not want the page mover right anymore, just let me know, and I'll remove it. Thank you, and happy editing! Primefac (talk) 18:29, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome. Thanks! YorkshireExpat (talk) 19:25, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Apologies but you have misunderstood WP:MONOTYPICFAUNA

“the article (if there is no common name) should go under the scientific name of lowest rank, but no lower than the monotypic genus. Redirects should be created from the other ranks to the actual article.”

It’s not something I personally agree with but it is the accepted policy, apparently it would cause confusion in fossil Taxa if you had the article at species level (!). Please revert your edits to this article to comply with WP:MONOTYPICFAUNA.

Thanks Quetzal1964 (talk) 09:59, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Quetzal1964. Keep reading.

The exception is when a monotypic genus name needs to be disambiguated. The article should then be at the species, since this is a more natural form of disambiguation.

Cheers. YorkshireExpat (talk) 10:01, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Missed that.Quetzal1964 (talk) 10:05, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Quetzal1964. No worries. I've asked about the fossil taxa before, apparently that rule is buried in a discussion somewhere and not part of any policy. YorkshireExpat (talk) 10:08, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for moving ambiguous monotypic genera to binomial titles. Please check the categories after moving. "Genus" categories such as Category:Crambidae genera and Category:Monotypic moth genera belong with the genus title, not the binomial. "Taxa named by" and "Species described in year" categories may also need to changed following a move. ((R from monotypic taxon))/((R to monotypic taxon)) usually will need to be changed. I've checked and updated the categories for all your moves over the last week.

Regarding Rabbit's purse, "Use common name to avoid dab as monotypic" isn't a position that has consensus among plant editors. I know Quetzal1964 uses the rationale with fish, but fish make more use of common names as titles than plants do, and monotypic fish genera have never been titled very consistently. "Rabbit's purse" is less commonly used than "Harfordia macroptera"; this plant doesn't occur in any English speaking country, and doesn't have a commonly used vernacular name. WP:COMMONNAME does not say to use vernacular name titles instead of scientific name titles if a vernacular name simply EXISTS. The title should be "the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources)". For many organisms, scientific names are more commonly used than vernacular names. Plantdrew (talk) 19:26, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Plantdrew, thanks, will try not to let the power of Page Mover go to my head :D. There's quite a lot to remember when moving these, such as taxonbars at species and genus, dabbing the taxonomy template, rcat and now categories! Category placement is not something I'm massively familiar with but I see a lot of people are using HotCat and other tools, so will investigate these.

Also will, remove Rabbit's purse. Thanks. YorkshireExpat (talk) 19:31, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why does Tropheryma need to be "Tropheryma"? Neither https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC119894/ or https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6113628/ use the " in the name. If there is some reason it needs the " then it should explained and sourced in the article. I looked but couldn't find any other articles in Category:Micrococcales that used the ". Cheers. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 06:35, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@CambridgeBayWeather I must admit I'm not an expert in this area. I'm going off the form here. LPSN is a good general reference for bacteria, and it says the the name not validly published, which is why I suspect it has the quotes. That said, I've had discussions before about the correct form for disputed names so it's all up for reasonable debate, and following the main body of the literature is something that comes up often as an argument. YorkshireExpat (talk) 07:58, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. I see what you mean. Any that are listed as "not validly published" are using the ". I should have left it alone and I moved it back. Sorry. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 08:10, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@CambridgeBayWeather no worries. Thanks for asking. YorkshireExpat (talk) 08:36, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:16, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello.

Can you revert the article United Kingdom weather records and check it? The article has been messed up with so many and unsourced edits.

Yours sincerely, 31.200.12.242 (talk) 16:42, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Getting bored. Will do it later :) YorkshireExpat (talk) 16:58, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. 31.200.12.242 (talk) 17:10, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I see that you prefer linked species or genus lists to the traditional bulleted lists. I understand these were intended for use within taxoboxes. In the main body these lists often include common names. How do you deal with common names?

For example

• Stichaeus punctatus (Fabricius, 1780) (Arctic shanny)

as opposed to

• Stichaeus punctatus (Fabricius, 1780) (Arctic shanny)

As you can see the common name is in small text.

I prefer the Species lists as they are easier to type up but, as far as I can see, their utility seems limited in the main body of articles. Quetzal1964 (talk) 15:20, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Quetzal1964 I don't, I'm afraid. I do like them too though, much neater! YorkshireExpat (talk) 15:27, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The extinct symbol works. See Stichaeopsis. Quetzal1964 (talk) 15:47, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Quetzal1964 Full list of functionality at ((Species list)). YorkshireExpat (talk) 16:55, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Special:Diff/1111006851 - FlightTime (open channel) 21:33, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@FlightTime please see this. YorkshireExpat (talk) 05:49, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring to changing this ((short description|Largest living species of dolphin)) to ((Short description|Largest living species of dolphin)) These templates are not case sensitive. - FlightTime (open channel) 18:38, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@FlightTime I know, but I hate to see things not starting with a capital letter. YorkshireExpat (talk) 19:22, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I know how you feel, we hate seeing wasted edits. - FlightTime (open channel) 19:26, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how I managed to undo the genus list, all I was changing was some wording in distribution as Southern Ocean species had been described since Anderson and Fedorov 2004. Quetzal1964 (talk) 17:42, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Quetzal1964 I'm not sure you have? YorkshireExpat (talk) 17:45, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you look back you will see a couple of edits back to 1114247857 where I used a Linked Genus list which is then reversed, I didn't mean to do that! Quetzal1964 (talk) 17:56, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Quetzal1964 never mind, I forgive you :) YorkshireExpat (talk) 18:05, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi YorkshireExpat: I see you moved the Stromatella (lichen) article to Stromatella bermudana yesterday and made the former article a redirect. However, according to the consensus reached at WP:TOL "for a monotypic genus (one that contains a single species), the genus name should be used, as it is included in the binomial nomenclature, and the genus title is more concise than the binomial." So I think it should have stayed at the former name, with the species name as a redirect. Do you not agree? MeegsC (talk) 10:46, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@MeegsC please see WP:MONOTYPICFAUNA. The exception is when a monotypic genus name needs to be disambiguated. The article should then be at the species, since this is a more natural form of disambiguation. YorkshireExpat (talk) 10:49, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ah! Okay. Makes sense, I guess! MeegsC (talk) 11:01, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@MeegsC no worries, more of a general taxonomy thing, I may have got the lichen stuff wrong. @Esculenta tidied up after me pretty quickly. YorkshireExpat (talk) 11:07, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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) 01:49, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

		Happy Holidays
		Hello, I wish you the very best during the holidays. And I hope you have a very happy 2023! Bruxton (talk) 01:54, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Bruxton thank you, and to you! YorkshireExpat (talk) 17:43, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. I noticed you moved the page for the subfamily Pireninae to the family page Pirenidae (presumably following the recent updates to Pteromalidae). However, Pireninae is now also the name of a subfamily within Pirenidae. Should the Pireninae page be restored (and updated to reflect that it's now within Pirenidae instead of Pteromalidae) and a new page created for Pirenidae? Note that I updated the subfamilies and genera on the moved page before I noticed this issue. I'm not sure of the best way to hanlde this. Cheers. Friesen5000 (talk) 16:15, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Friesen5000, Pireninae exists as a redirect to Pirenidae. I'd just go ahead and make that page into a full article. I think technically the Pireninae that used to exist became Pirenidae, so the Pireninae that exists now is technically a new subfamily. @Dyanega, am I correct? YorkshireExpat (talk) 16:35, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You're technically correct in that the original article contained many genera that are not in the newly-defined subfamily Pireninae. "Pireninae" used to be a clade containing 25 genera; now it contains only 9. Whether it's better to edit an existing Pireninae page so it contains only those 9 genera versus moving it and creating a redirect depends, I suppose, on how likely people are to be searching just for Pireninae in its new sense, or worried about content forking. I'd be inclined to go the route of a redirect and simply having ONLY a Pirenidae article and linked articles for genera, with no articles for the subfamilies. I'm a little gun-shy after the content forking debate. Dyanega (talk) 01:19, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Dyanega and @YorkshireExpat! Much appreciated. I'll focus on family and genus articles. Friesen5000 (talk) 20:29, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I want to reiterate here what I said on the move request: it was really bad form to preemptively add a warning template to my request, since it connotes to other editors that some sort of vote-stacking has occurred there, when it clearly has not. You made your points passionately...and repeatedly. Other editors don't seem to be persuaded so far; maybe others will come along who are convinced. But slapping a warning label into a move request that didn't need one feels like you're trying to work the refs a bit.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume it wasn't malicious (we all make mistakes). But it was bad form nonetheless. Woko Sapien (talk) 20:40, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Woko Sapien thanks for this. I placed the label to remind the closer that closures should not be based on a simple tally of votes, as I don't intend to take any further part in the discussion. If there was a better way to do that, I apologise. YorkshireExpat (talk) 22:09, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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) 01:00, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dear YorkshireExpat. I've made a further change to the Template:Taxonomy/Sabaconidae which i wonder if can be a compromise solution. As you seem to have disliked my intent to actually link to the taxonomic article - which i feel is critical as that IS the taxonomic reference, but unwieldy if formulated the way i had altered it, then how about this other way now there instead, with direction to Catalogue of Life? The outline is here Template:Catalogue of Life. For me, iNaturalist is frequently out of date or even worse errors and confusions with the taxonomy of many groups, contains errors that go unmanaged for an age. In last months, i've been rebuilding much of the iNaturalist taxonomy for this wider taxon group Opiliones, which includes Sabaconidae/Sabacon that now since then i'm aiming to reflect on various Wiki pages. But my point however, if even though for certain Opiliones the iNaturalist taxonomy is now updated, i really do no think it's a good idea to be treating iNaturalist as the "goto reference" for taxonomy. It's not a taxonomic site and as such it does not cross reference to the taxonomic literature and actual taxonomic focused databases. Instead, Catalogue of Life does explicitly do exactly such things - citing the key literature and linking to the key taxonomic database where can find further taxonomic resources. Hence, I'd greatly prefer the various taxa templates to link to Catalogue of Life instead. For example the one for Sabacon linked with 643LM could instead link to this https://www.catalogueoflife.org/data/browse?taxonKey=643LM Sjl197 (talk) 20:43, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Sjl197. I don't necessarily mind what reference you put in the taxonomy template, and I agree that iNaturalist may not be the best source. All the aggregators can have issues, but in conversations I've had before it has generally been held that an iNaturlist ref is better than none (the field is very often left blank), and I often use it as it goes a bit finer than some other e.g. tribes and subtribes.

The point of the reference field in the taxonomy template is to hold a ref to the parent of the taxon, not the authority. Sorry for coming across as a bit officious in my reversions.

YorkshireExpat (talk) 21:32, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reply. I've therefore additionally switched Sabacon as it sounds like we can agree on the fundamentals. I can agree on something better than none. Sadly, I've not yet seen clarity on any template guides on what to input or how best to format this "ref", any pointers would be welcome. It's an interesting viewpoint from you that iNat can go further than other aggregators, i'll be mindful of that. Indeed, i saw other taxonomy sites do indeed often omit certain ranks, but please be aware that such excluded 'intermediate ranks' can often be the most controversial ones, either in definition of what they include, or more simply what rank to call them. The issue then is that each needs to have a published source in the literature, which can often be discussed "behind the scenes" on iNaturalist, but is almost never clear from the front-end interface - and really that's my biggest concern about using that as source, as what's behind the given taxonomy is usually very unclear.

Else, sorry - would you please clarify your statement above of "to hold a ref to the parent of the taxon". In wiki-speak about taxonomy, i think the "parent" would be the higher taxon rank, for example "Sabaconidae" for "Sabacon". But, this doesn't seem like your meaning. Perhaps by parent you might mean "external source", if so then i can agree - the place where the taxon name is obtained from, as justification why should be included. My core point being, that then external sites like Catalog of Life then do give the 'authority' with an author and year of publication to define that name as valid by the various codes of nomenclature to the taxonomic community - while usually iNat does not. Sjl197 (talk) 03:28, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Sjl197, guidance on taxonomy templates can be found here. Yes, some on here don't like going into the tribes, but I think that as long as the source is clear it can be changed, and not to be too precious about it. On the authority, this information usually goes on the main page for the taxon, so can be referenced there. There isn't a field for an authority reference in the automated taxoboxes, but I always think that the addition of a ((taxonbar)) covers a multitude of sins. YorkshireExpat (talk) 10:07, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Sjl197: to support the reply that YorkshireExpat gave above, the point of the reference in a taxonomy template is to justify the choice of value for |parent=.

An authority for a taxon name does not "define that name as valid by the various codes of nomenclature to the taxonomic community". The original publication may or may not have met the criteria required by the relevant code. The purpose of the authority to pin down the taxon name more precisely, which is of primary importance when there are homonyms. A secondary reference is required to show that the full name + authority is acceptable under the relevant code and is accepted by the taxonomic community. As an example, Ananas ananas (L.) H.Karst. ex Voss, Vilm. Blumengärtn., ed. 3. 1: 964 (1895) is not a valid name regardless of the presence of an authority because the botanical code does not allow tautonyms. Peter coxhead (talk) 12:17, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, see Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Taxonomy/Xiphioidei. You need to change all the links before putting a taxonomy template in the unnecessary taxonomy templates category. I've made a temporary fix using a same_as taxonomy template, because your edit caused many consequential errors. Peter coxhead (talk) 11:50, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. That's a lot of dependencies for something that was only created a few hours ago. Thanks @Peter coxhead. There's probably some more digging to do here. The Fish project is one I tend to tiptoe around a little. YorkshireExpat (talk) 12:05, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is more digging because I had to fix Template:Taxonomy/Istiophoridae as well to avoid a rank order error. It needs raising at the Fish project. Peter coxhead (talk) 12:10, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I just wonder what was broken about this template. It seemed to work perfectly fine on my end, at least before Jlwoodwa started fiddling around with it. But thanks for fixing it, anyways. —Trilletrollet [ Talk | Contribs ] 13:37, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Trilletrollet. There were 354(!) errors showing here. I couldn't see anything obvious and the pages all seemed to display fine, but there was an error (a missing _) in this template which all the pages showing errors were using. Sometimes changes take a while to wash through so errors can display when nothing's wrong. Sometimes a null edit will flush everything out. Seems fine now and I think everything is back as you intended. Cheers! YorkshireExpat (talk) 13:43, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've granted WP:IPBE for 3 months based on your UTRS request. If you continue to run into these issues after it expires, see the linked page for instructions on how to request it again. Spicy (talk) 16:45, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Spicy thanks for that! What happens after 3 months? YorkshireExpat (talk) 16:52, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You can follow the same process to request it again - however I've contacted the administrator responsible for the block and hopefully this will not be an issue in the future. Spicy (talk) 16:55, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

I dont know if you are aware but there is a FishBase citation template.

<nowiki>((FishBase|genus|species|month|year))</nowiki>

For the month and year you use the current version of Fishbase from the citation field within FishBase, currently it is February 2024. It changes every 3-4 months.

So for Atlantic salmon the citation would be (as of today’s date):

<nowiki>((FishBase|Salmo|salar|February|2024))</nowiki> Quetzal1964 (talk) 11:04, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Quetzal1964. Not sure which edit you're referring to, but when use this I follow the docs here. Which says, the month in which the article was accessed, which gives the version of FishBase. YorkshireExpat (talk) 13:42, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring to https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Abantennarius_bermudensis&diff=prev&oldid=1215143259

Fine. It doesn't give the version though.

The current version is February 2024.

Froese, Rainer; Pauly, Daniel (eds.) (2024). "Salmo salar" in FishBase. March 2024 version.

Quetzal1964 (talk) 14:13, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In that case I'd suggest that the documentation needs updating. It currently says to use the month and year when the article was accessed, which is different to what you're saying here. YorkshireExpat (talk) 16:46, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your interest in the Pandosentis article, I did a good faith revert, as the links were self-redirecting, which would cause an infinite loop. As per Wikipedia:SELFRED. The MOS I believe is to make these self-redirecting links boldface. Mattximus (talk) 00:18, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mattximus the point is that they shouldn't have been set up as redirects. Per WP:SPECIES (extant) species are automatically notable, so shouldn't be redirects to the genus. Species like this are usually redlinked unless the article exists. This isn't uncontroversial, but it's the policy we have. YorkshireExpat (talk) 17:56, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While I agree this is the case for many species, I would prefer following the MOS for those that have almost no information available (say only 1 paper), surely it's better to link to the genus page which contains all the information of the species/genus rather than a broken link or a stub? Consider the redirect for Apororhynchus aculeatus or Pachysentis angolensis. Any user looking those up would benefit far more from a redirect to the featured article or good article than to a blank page or a stub. Creating a thousand stubs or leaving redlinks is worse for the reader than redirects to higher quality genus pages *which contain all the information they may be looking for*. These species in particular are often defined in contrast to others in the genus, so it makes sense to group them. If there is more than a paper or two on a species and the genus page grows, there is no harm then removing the redirect at that point, but it would be worse for the reader to remove the redirect prematurely. Also I've brought a few of these up to featured article status/good article status and I've been told that a wall of red links would not allow it to pass anyway. Mattximus (talk) 21:44, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you're right. I don't think my talk page is the right place for these arguments though. YorkshireExpat (talk) 10:12, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]