User talk:Stemonitis/Archive33

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

This archive page covers approximately the dates between June 27, 2011 and August 4, 2011.

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

Pinnixa chaetopterana

Thank you for dealing so promptly with the European edible sea urchin renaming. And talking of promptness, while I was looking for the appropriate Wikiproject Arthropod template for my newly created article on Pinnixa chaetopterana, you had already tagged the article!

Please could you comment on two matters. The formatting of references - whether what I customarily do is wrong or why the way you format them is better. And the wikilink that I had made to zoeal and which you changed to zoeal. I have been endeavouring (while involved in a wikification drive) to always formulate wikilinks so that they did not involve a redirect, or did you not like the fact that this particular link went to part way through the article? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:22, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Linking to redirects is a slightly counterintuitive field. You need to look at each redirect in turn. Ideally, every redirect would be categorised to say why it redirects to another article. In the case of zoea, it is a "redirect from a subtopic", i.e., a topic that has been merged into an article of broader scope, but which could be a separate article one day. It therefore makes sense to link through the redirect in case a separate article is developed, rather than leave links going to a general article in the future when there is a more specific article available. In the case of redirects from synonyms, I would generally pipe the link to the article's current title, since the two titles will always refer to the same article, no matter which title that ends up at. It's only a very minor point, but I hope that's cleared it up.

For the references, I think the way I had them formatted is somewhat better. I wouldn't complain about the way you do it – it's excellent that you provide the references; a lot of people still don't – but the more information the better, really. Remember that Wikipedia articles also appear in paper form from time to time, so there needs to be enough information visible to find the source without relying on the hyperlink. --Stemonitis (talk) 05:35, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. With regard to references, I will probably continue to use my method because I don't know how to do yours. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:18, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

It's very straightforward, but no matter. It's much more important that they be present than they be formatted one particular way. --Stemonitis (talk) 12:19, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Pagurus samuelis

Calmer Waters 06:04, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Dinocampus coccinellae

The DYK project (nominate) 12:04, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

• Did you see we got 14.1k hits for that article, even though it had no photo on it? Thanks again for your help and for coming up with the (obviously super) hook! Sharktopus ^talk 04:27, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Acanthocarpus preissii

I'm not sure what you thought was broken at [1]; it seems ok to me. I don't think that your change to the taxonomy template for the genus should require the Speciesbox to be changed. If it does, then there's something wrong with {{Speciesbox}}. Peter coxhead (talk) 20:57, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

As far as I can see, using the speciesbox there without the extra parameters calls Template:Taxonomy/Acanthocarpus, which does currently exist as a redirect to Template:Taxonomy/Acanthocarpus (plant), but which needn't (shouldn't?) do so. I only left that redirect in to prevent the taxoboxes appearing broken while I worked out how to point them to the moved template directly. The point, of course, is that there's a second, equally valid, genus called Acanthocarpus, and just as the article naming system doesn't favour one over the other, nor should the automatic taxobox template naming system. I'll delete the redirect now; that should make it clearer. --Stemonitis (talk) 06:43, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Deleted. --Stemonitis (talk) 06:48, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Ah, right; I hadn't noticed that you'd left a redirect. When this is deleted, then the old version fails. The documentation of {{Speciesbox}} needs updating to explain how to handle such cases; I'll have a look at it. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:26, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Looking into the subject a bit more, it's likely that conversions to the automated taxobox system to date, whether via {{Automatic taxobox}} or {{Speciesbox}}, have not properly handled genus names duplicated in different kingdoms. These two templates contain code to strip off bits like "(plant)" from the article title, and thus intrinsically assume that the genus taxonomy template will just use the bare genus name. However, as you've demonstrated in the "Acanthocarpus (plant)" example, this is not correct, since it won't work if the genus in the other kingdom is converted to the automated taxobox system. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:46, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

I've now updated the documentation at Template:Speciesbox; you might check it if you have time. As usual, the documentation grows ever more complex, thereby ensuring that people are ever less likely to read it... I think the documentation at Template:Automatic taxobox probably also needs changing in a similar way, but I haven't time to check this at present. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:32, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Your documentation looks OK to me. --Stemonitis (talk) 09:50, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Invertebrate

I was wondering if you have any comments on what it'd take to get Invertebrate to C-class. Brambleclawx 21:57, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

• That is one heckuva needy article. How about if we steal information from Animal and structure from Vertebrate? Sharktopus ^talk 22:19, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea... Brambleclawx 22:35, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

My personal opinion is that invertebrate could never be approached in the same way as vertebrate. The significance of "invertebrates" as a group is entirely cultural. It is the classic example of a paraphyletic group, united only by their lack of a backbone. From a biological point of view, it would make as much sense to talk about animals-that-aren't-flatworms or all-mammals-except-bats. The reason why "invertebrate" deserves an article is because that (ill-advised) category is still used a lot for convenience. To expand the article significantly, you would have to spend a lot of time talking about anthropocentrism, and the reasons why they might be studied separately. You could repeat almost the whole of animal, removing any references to vertebrates, but I'm not sure I'd see the point. --Stemonitis (talk) 06:36, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Stemonitis' "a paraphyletic group, united only by their lack of a backbone". In fact the taxonomic mess is worse, as craniata (animals with craniums) includes vertebrates, hagfish ("invertebrates", as no segmented vertebral column) and lampreys, which have cartilage vertebrae but which some molecular phylogeny studies place with hagfish - my brain hurts! Stemonitis' "(invertebrate) is still used a lot for convenience" is right, although I would not call this "anthropocentrism". Textbooks about zoology and paleontology are divided ones about invertebrates and ones about vertebrates. I'm sure I remember a source somewhere complaining that the majority of zoologists study vertebrates - vertebrates are more visible, their importance is easier to see, and even kids can see the main structures of vertebrates by stroking cats and dogs. I agree with Stemonitis' "I'm not sure I'd see the point" in spending major effort in invertebrate. --Philcha (talk) 09:19, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Would it make sense, then, to put an automatic taxobox on the article then? (similar to the one on Vertebrate) Brambleclawx 20:48, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

No. Absolutely not. The term "invertebrate" is a colloquial term for a grade, not a clade. It isn't recognised as a taxon (and hasn't been for centuries, if at all) and it doesn't make any sense to treat it at one. --Stemonitis (talk) 20:52, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Again, I agree with Stemonitis. "Invertebrate" includes all protosomes and most deuterosomes, but excludes vertebrates and basal bilaterians, so it would be a paraphyletic and polyphyletic mess and has no prospect of improvement. --Philcha (talk) 21:51, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that the article should just be left as it is, and that I shouldn't bother to improve it? I was hoping that, being such a broad topic, it would be easily expandable. Brambleclawx 22:07, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Not at all. I think there's plenty of scope for improvement. Currently, it little more than a list, and I doubt whether that should be included. The trouble is that you can't approach it like a taxon article – it has to be more about the historical and cultural significance of the term. There is still a popular division into vertebrates and invertebrates, and I'm sure various authors must have speculated about the reasons for and implications of that division (the Introduction chapters to the books in "Further reading" may well have something). The article can be improved, and should be improved, it's just that it's a tricky job to get it right, which is probably why the article is in its current state. --Stemonitis (talk) 04:35, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

As someone who studied only invertebrate zoology as an undergraduate (a very long time ago), I was interested to see what the position is now. A quick Google search shows that (a) there are many courses/modules with this title, and a few whole degree programmes (b) there are a substantial number of university departments/schools with the title "Invertebrate Zoology" (c) most natural history museums still have divisions/departments/curators with this title. So although "invertebrates" are an illogical group in purely biological terms, they are clearly still an important group in terms of education and culture, not just history. (Incidentally, the historical division goes back at least to Aristotle whose distinction was animals with and without blood, the latter being more-or-less what we know consider invertebrates.

So I agree with Stemonitis that there's plenty of room for improvement, and for a substantial discussion of the historical and cultural significance, but I think that there should be and can be some biology there too. I note that the Invertebrate Zoology textbook I used as an undergraduate, then "Barnes", now by Ruppert, Fox & Barnes and in its 7th edition, does find some general things to say about invertebrates, e.g. the effects of small size (not all invertebrates are small, but there are many which are compared to vertebrates), the nature of hydrostatic skeletons and exoskeletons compared to internal skeletons, etc. Note that like many books on invertebrate zoology, Ruppert, Fox & Barnes in effect excludes insects. Peter coxhead (talk) 16:50, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Any further feedback? I've tried to expand the article using material from animal, and from a few sources on Google Books. Brambleclawx 18:43, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

It still seems to be missing the part which Peter Coxhead and I thought the most important, namely why this particular paraphyletic group is so significant. I don't know how easy it will be to find sources, but the fact that courses on "invertebrate biology" are/were taught (etc.) sets it apart from other nonmonophyletic groups. There is a popular division into vertebrates and invertebrates, and all the discussion of that belongs in the invertebrate article (and, potentially, in vertebrate, but that's a reasonable taxon in its own right, so can be treated differently). --Stemonitis (talk) 18:51, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not exactly sure what to look for... What sort of significance do you mean? And perhaps you could give me an example of this type of significance, since I'm not very experienced in this type of stuff. Brambleclawx 21:52, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

It will be difficult; I have no doubt about that. There is some historical and cultural background in the introduction to The Invertebrates: a Synthesis by R. S. K. Barnes (ISBN 0632047615), for instance, although I only have access through Google Books to page 3; other text books on invertebrates may have similar introductory material (I suspect books on vertebrates will not feel they need to justify the distinction). --Stemonitis (talk) 05:58, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I have the digital edition of this book, so I may be able to help. I've sent User:Brambleclawx an e-mail through his Commons user page which has an e-mail address set. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:23, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Excellent; thank you. Are page 4–7 as useful as page 3? --Stemonitis (talk) 09:37, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Pages 4 and 7 are; 5-6 discuss general issues, including evolution, so are not.

I find it interesting to see different views in different sources. The "Barnes" I used as an undergraduate (newly published then!), Barnes, Robert D. (1968), Invertebrate Zoology (2nd ed.), Philadelphia, etc.: W.B. Saunders, OCLC 173898, says on page 1 (hope this isn't too big a quote for WP policies, but it may be useful):

Division of the Animal Kingdom into vertebrates and invertebrates is artificial and reflects human bias in favor of man's own relatives. One characteristic of a single subphylum of animals is used as the basis for separation of the entire Animal Kingdom into two groups. One could just as logically divide animals into mollusks and nonmollusks or arthropods and nonarthropods. The latter classification could be supported at least from the standpoint of numbers, since approximately 75 per cent of all animals are arthropods.

The artificiality of the invertebrate concept is especially apparent when one considers the vast and heterogeneous assemblage of groups that are lumped together in this category. There is not a single positive characteristic that invertebrates hold in common. The range in size, in structural diversity, and in adaptations to different modes of existence is enormous. Some invertebrates have common phylogenetic origins; others are only remotely related. Some are much more closely related to the vertebrates than to other invertebrate groups.

Quite obviously invertebrate zoology cannot be considered a special field of zoology, certainly not in the same sense as protozoology or entomology. A field that embraces all biological aspects-morphology, physiology, embryology, and ecology-of 95 per cent of the Animal Kingdom represents no distinct area of zoology; it is virtually the subject of zoology itself.

The latest edition, Ruppert, Edward E.; Fox, Richard S,; Barnes, Robert D. (2004), Invertebrate zoology : a functional evolutionary approach (7th ed.), Belmont, CA: Thomson-Brooks/Cole, ISBN 978-0-03-025982-1 {{citation}}: Unknown parameter |lastauthoramp= ignored (|name-list-style= suggested) (help)CS1 maint: extra punctuation (link) CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link), on page 2, reduces all that to "The study of invertebrates is the gateway to the vast diversity of animal life. The astronomical numbers and myriad forms of invertebrates delight the eye, challenge the mind, and provide limitless opportunities for scientific discovery." I guess that publishers don't now like books to start by running down their topic, and Barnes' successors (he's now dead) have learnt to be more publicity conscious. Peter coxhead (talk) 11:11, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Poor Barnes; I prefer the '68 vintage by a long chalk. The quote from the 2004 edition is semantically empty, and embodies everything I dislike about modern popular science. It might just as well say "Ooooh – look at all the creepy-crawlies: there's loads!" Thanks again for taking the effort – I imagine the older quote will be invaluable to Brambleclawx, or anyone else wanting to work on invertebrate. --Stemonitis (talk) 11:22, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the pages: what format is your digital book in? Brambleclawx 15:32, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I may not need the digital book: it seems I am able to access more pages through Google Books than Stemonitis can. Brambleclawx 15:41, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Ok; if you're still interested, please contact me by e-mail ("E-mail this user" at my user page). Peter coxhead (talk) 18:33, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Since you know the textbook rather well, are there any other specific pages/chapters you feel would be useful? Brambleclawx 18:51, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I realize now that the discussion is a bit confusing re the author "Barnes". I know quite well several editions of Invertebrate Zoology by Robert D. Barnes (and his later co-authors). I've only recently acquired the eBook The Invertebrates: a Synthesis by R.S.K. Barnes et al. I don't know if the two are related – I suspect not. Robert D. Barnes is dead; Richard S.K. Barnes is not. I've only recently acquired the eBook so I don't know it well. I'll see if I can find time to have a look. When I retired from full-time work I decided to learn some more serious botany and found that editing Wikipedia is a great stimulus. I've generally steered clear of zoology unless I stumbled on a page which had errors which were easy to correct. Peter coxhead (talk) 19:17, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm quite sure it's nowhere near b-class, where it ideally ought to be, but does it appear to be C-class by now? Brambleclawx 14:23, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

By the criteria I apply at WP:ARTH (essentially the DYK criteria), it would be. I don't know the standards and traditions at WP:ANIMAL. These ratings are vaguely defined in most cases, so I would be tempted to simply increase the rating yourself; I doubt anyone will complain. --Stemonitis (talk) 15:07, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Why merging species pages with genus page?

I'm curious as to the reasoning behind merging species pages with the page for the genus. For example, the species of Oziotelphusa had their own individual pages, which you made redirect to the page for the genus (for example, [2]. The reason I'm asking is that this complicates linking to Wikipedia pages from other sites. For example, I'm linking from GenBank to Wikipedia, and the one species - one page model works well. It is straightforward to create a link from a page in GenBank to the corresponding page in Wikipedia. Having multiple species map to the same page (e.g., the genus page) is less satisfactory, because it is inconsistent with the experience for most pages (one page per taxon), and the user has to find the species of interest within the genus page. I'm assuming the merging was done to avoid too many "stub" pages, but if they already exist then there seems little harm in retaining them. It is also possible that visitors from resources like GenBank may be inspired to flesh them out. I'd welcome your thoughts on this. --Roderic D. M. Page (talk) 22:08, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

If this were a taxonomic database, you would be entirely right. Every species would have its own page, and linking between taxonomic databases would be simple. For an encyclopaedia, though, especially an encyclopaedia in progress (which Wikipedia will always be), it doesn't always make sense to keep them separate. There is a real dearth of information about higher taxa, even though that's where most of the information is (a species has all the characters of the order, family and genus, and then just a few more). If you can inform people well about the genus, then they will understand the species that much better. When pages are merged well, no (reliable) information is lost, but a great deal of extra context is provided. Automatically created articles are always horribly written; "Oziotelphusa mineriyaensis is a species of crustacean in family Parathelphusidae" really isn't very informative to the lay reader, compared to "Oziotelphusa is a genus of freshwater crabs". A clearer example may be Zopherus or Placostylus ambagiosus, where a series of repetitive articles containing very little information between them was replaced with a single article that tells the reader far more than the individuals articles were ever likely to. The general information could be repeated on each of the multitude of lower-level articles, but that doesn't give readers any additional information, although it does give them the extra task of clicking through to umpteen separate articles, and having to cross-reference them in their heads to see how the species differ. It's much more useful to the reader to provide all the information they need in one place. I am not saying that species articles cannot be created, just that in many cases, the material presented falls far short of what would be needed to do that. Our key purpose here is not to facilitate linking to other websites ("Wikipedia is not a web directory"), but to inform readers, and that has the consequence that one good genus article is worth more than a series of crap species articles. (Also, the NCBI taxonomic hierarchy does include higher taxa, so I don't see that merged articles are any harder to link to than articles about species; I may be wrong about this.) --Stemonitis (talk) 05:08, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation, I take your point about the limited utility of stubs. The practical issue about linking is that when I link from, say, GenBank, to Wikipedia, I'm assuming that link exists elsewhere as well. For example, the Dbpedia project converts Wikipedia content into a database, and I make use of that database to insert text and an image into other projects. An an example, if I want to provide some basic information about the Parathelphusidae I can use information from the corresponding page in Dbpedia http://dbpedia.org/resource/Parathelphusidae. If the Wikipedia page is a redirect to a genus page then things get a bit messier. I realise that facilitating these kinds of links isn't the primary goal of Wikipedia, but it's a reflection of Wikipedia's success that these other projects exist. I guess my real concern is this: if I were to restore some species pages (and add additional information to them so that they weren't merely stubs), what is the likelihood those those edits be reverted? --Roderic D. M. Page (talk) 08:19, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Wherever there is sufficient information, an article would not be redirected. That is of course a very vague answer, and the notion of "sufficient" is entirely subjective, but if one were to take a redirect and replace it with an article that contains significantly more than the article it currently redirects to, I can't see it being undone. In practice, anything more informative than "Aus bus Authority, 2011 is a species of [[taxon]]" will tend to be maintained. I have in the past passed over potential mergees simply because they contained an extra statement about distribution (typically "Pacific" or something equally vague). A single solid paragraph would put it beyond doubt, I think, although my goal tends to be the 1500 character threshold for the Did you know ... ? section of the main page. If your text would overload the genus article, then it needs to be put in a separate article. For most taxa, that should be straightforward; for some of the Oziotelphusa species, where only one or two specimens are known, that may be harder and a more general article may always be the best solution. For the vast majority of taxa, however, there's more than enough potential material, and any serious effort would be retained. --Stemonitis (talk) 08:36, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Croton gratissimus

Wish you wouldn't mess with an article when you can see that it is being actively edited! cheers Androstachys (talk) 08:59, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

The banner reads "You are welcome to assist in its construction by editing it as well", and I took that at face value. It was in need of cleanup, which I was able to provide. I figured anyone wanting to work unimpeded would do so in their userspace and only move their article into the main namespace when it was ready for wider input. --Stemonitis (talk) 10:02, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

It's not the editing so much as the disruptive timing - I'll put up the "in use" banner next time. Androstachys (talk) 20:32, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Removing "aut" template

{{aut|something}} must not be removed, but replaced by {{smallcaps|something}} (Smallcaps template is new name for aut template). See Template:Smallcaps#Reasons_to_use_small_caps for why it was originally called "aut[hor]". Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 14:49, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

(It is also better not to remove "excess taxonomy" if this creates a lot of whitespace. E.g. in articles where we have too few images. It is particularly useful for insects, because the standard taxobox contents are pointless to anyone with more than highschool biology education... we want/need to know what lineage of beetles or whatnot some taxon belongs to. It is indeed bad to have excessively long taxoboxes when the article is shot, but when the article is long, removing it borders on deletionism.) Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 14:52, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Whitespace is a problem of layout which can be solved by a number of means. It in no way justifies including a vast excess of taxonomy. The better solution is to expand the article. On the former point, as your link makes clear, {{Smallcaps}} is not mandated for all reference lists (and I doubt it is really required for Harvard referencing). It therefore makes sense to remove it in most (all?) of the cases where I have done so. --Stemonitis (talk) 15:04, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

I happened to notice this thread earlier (while you were on your break). As I maintain a widely used web page on Harvard style referencing and don't mention small caps, I spent some time checking on the issue. I can't find any general requirement for it; there are some specific publications which use small caps for authors, but it's not part of the Harvard style per se, and I would strongly discourage it in normal use. So carry on removing, say I! Peter coxhead (talk) 15:27, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Peter. I had a feeling that that was the case, but it's not a field I have any great knowledge about, so it's nice to have it confirmed. --Stemonitis (talk) 16:16, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Chlaenius

Your name has come up in a discussion on User talk:Bugboy52.40#just checking...., if you would like to comment. Lampman (talk) 14:47, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Beetles

I would just like to get your opinion if you think this article is ready to submitted for GA review. Bugboy52.4 ¦ =-= 01:14, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Having quickly skimmed the article, I can see a couple of potential problems. The whole thing needs to be proof-read; there are several examples in the sections I have examined of inappropriate capital letters, missing italics and the like. More importantly, however, there are a fair number of entirely unreferenced paragraphs, and plenty more long paragraphs with only a single citation, not always at the the end (so cannot be interpreted as backing up the whole paragraph). This is likely to derail any GA review, I would think. You probably have the necessary sources in your reference list, particularly the "general references", but they will need to be cited inline by one means or another. Without that, much of the text is unverifiable, and therefore fails criterion 2 of WP:WIAGA. --Stemonitis (talk) 07:54, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I'll run through it and make sure it all is referenced. I forgot about the general references, as I took thte liberty of making them into inline citations, and now that section is obsolete. Thank you for the help, do you think the coverage and the prose are good? Bugboy52.4 ¦ =-= 17:35, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

The coverage seems fine to me (apart from the empty sections #Excretory system and #Embryogenesis). The prose could do with further work; maybe someone from the Guild of Copy Editors could help you with that. --Stemonitis (talk) 08:00, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

North Atlantic convoys of World War II

I see that you've just deleted this under WP:CSD#R2, as a cross-namespace redirect. However, as I recall, this was a relevant redirect to an associated category. Such redirects are acceptable (and indeed useful) on Wikipedia and R2 is specific in that it doesn't apply to redirects from mainspace to category space. Andy Dingley (talk) 08:12, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Acceptable they may be, but their utility seems rather limited. I would propose that even a stub would be far more informative than an index of such convoys, which is what the category is. I did indeed misinterpret the criteria here (sorry for that), but apart from one passing mention at HMS Oribi (G66), the only place it appeared was in the category, and clicking on it (as I did) brings you to ... the same category. This is not helpful. Can I persuade you to write something substantive instead? --Stemonitis (talk) 08:18, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Your attention to detail is appreciated

	Linnaeus would be proud
	Spiffy! You spotted a typo [3] that was apparently introduced almost three years ago [4] yet which I've probably overlooked a hundred times without catching. Limulus (talk) 20:45, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

You're very welcome. I probably shouldn't say this, but that must mean that I've missed it a hundred times, too! I do regular sweeps of two common misspellings (I won't repeat them here, otherwise my own pages will appear when I search in future), and I had never noticed that one before yesterday. Ah well. Even tiny steps make the project progress. --Stemonitis (talk) 06:43, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

{{deprecated taxon}}

Ha, what irony! Sure, I'll get right on that! Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:22, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Good Article promotion

	Congratulations!
	Thanks for all the work you did in making Hemilepistus reaumuri a certified Good Article! Your work is much appreciated. (Pictured: An angry cousin.) Thanks also for your reviews. Featured article candidates and Good Article nominees always need more reviewers! All the best, – Quadell (talk)

Some guidance

Please see Template_talk:Did_you_know/Trigonopterus_oblongus. Should I move the material to the biological screw joint and resubmit the nomination? AshLin (talk) 05:10, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

That's tricky. The ideal solution, of course, would be to expand the information about the species. There doesn't seem to be much information available, but doi:10.1111/j.1463-6409.2009.00404.x mentions it. I think the best solution from the point of view of the encyclopaedia is to merge the screw joint mechanism material into the genus Trigonopterus. By my calculations, that would then be ineligible for a DYK as it would be a less than a 5× expansion. Perhaps you could find an extra 800 bytes of information about the genus to tip it over the limit. I would be very surprised if the screw joint were restricted to this one species, too, so it probably makes sense to deal with the screw mechanism at the genus level. --Stemonitis (talk) 05:57, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Article move request

Could you move Rosa damascena to Rosa × damascena please? I can't do it as the target exists. After the move, it will need {{DISPLAYTITLE:''Rosa'' × ''damascena''}}. Thanks. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:46, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

 Done. --Stemonitis (talk) 08:55, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks – you are always reliably prompt! Peter coxhead (talk) 12:33, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Synaptula lamperti

Thank you for your support over the Synaptula lamperti DYK nomination. Given my way, I would not have nominated the article in the first place.

I do think it is difficult, when writing articles on individual species, to provide information gleaned from limited sources using appropriate terminology without close paraphrasing. In particular, it is nice to include a description of the organism in the article, and that information is often very difficult to find. I have filled in a gap by providing some limited information about the sponge so as not to have a red wikilink. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:02, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I understand your situation entirely. I have struggled with the same problems myself. I think you have done well, and do not need to justify yourself to me or to anyone else. I don't know the people involved here, but I know in general that people outside the sciences don't always realise how fixed the terminology can be, and that sometimes any attempt to phrase things differently will lead to ambiguity or falsehood. Synaptula lamperti must be one of the hardest-fought DYK nominations I've ever been involved with, and you can be proud of what you have achieved, particularly having gone the extra mile to make the article on the sponge, too. --Stemonitis (talk) 13:15, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Calcinus tubularis

Hello! Your submission of Calcinus tubularis 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! ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 15:50, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

(Just a minor thing. The hook says it's one of two species with sexual dimorphism in shell choice when it should probably be two known species.)

yo dude

don't want to step on your toes but you may or may not be interested i reckon morten bay bugs (Thenus orientalis) beat even NZ crays for taste i hate to admit it — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ottomachin (talk • contribs) 22:26, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Myrmica ruginodis

Stemonitis, you are engaged in a slow edit war with User:HighKing[5]. Please stop. You may not be aware but editwarring over the term 'British Isles' is under probation. User:HighKing has also been warned.
There are multiple guidelines (see WP:IMOS), ArbCom rulings (see Wikipedia:RfAr/The Troubles, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Great Irish Famine) and community sanctions (see WP:GS/BI) in this topic area, please familiarize yourself with them when editing articles covered by them. Since this seems to be your first intervention in this area I'm merely informing you of the sanctions and rulings in place. Please note that violations of these probations etc may result in sanctions being placed on accounts--Cailil ^talk 21:56, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

With regard to the source and the the article Myrmica ruginodis - contrary to both your and HighKing's edits the source does not state that "[the ants are] the only species of ant to have been recorded from all 152 of the Watsonian vice-counties", however it clearly states that "[they are] found well dispersed throughout the British Isles". Please do not interpret sources just paraphrase them. Also I'm not sure that anthill.co.uk is a reliable source (as it is a self-published website) please see if you can find a better one (as it maybe challenged)--Cailil ^talk 21:56, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

To support Stemonitis (not that he needs it, I'm sure), the source states in the third paragraph that " it is the only ant found in all 152 vice-counties in Britain". There are actually 112 vice-counties in Great Britain and 40 in Ireland (both defined geographically, not politically), so the source has incorrectly used the word "Britain" where it should have used "British Isles", and this has been corrected in the article not "interpreted". Peter coxhead (talk) 22:45, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Just to explain Peter, I'm not arguing about the use of British Isles - Stemonitis is absolutely right about that. However edit-warring in relation to that term is under probation. Everyone involved in such edits needs to know that or might find themselves violating community editing restrictions, which carries sanctions (see WP:GS/BI)--Cailil ^talk 22:48, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I am only concerned with the last paragraph of your original comment, which is simply wrong. Peter coxhead (talk) 23:00, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not averse to striking something that I can be shown is wrong Peter. And thank you for finding a better source that should help end any edit warring--Cailil ^talk 23:16, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Stemonitis: a better reference for the distribution in all 152 vice-counties is page 88 of Baroni Urbani, C., Collingwood, C.A. (1976). A numerical analysis of the distribution of British Formicidae (Hymenoptera, Aculeata). Verhandl. Naturf. Ges. Basel 85:51-91, available at [6]. Peter coxhead (talk) 23:00, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Moreover, Stace (2011) (an unimpeachable authority) provides on the inside back cover a map of vice-counties, numbered, where the Isle of Man is clearly labelled as VC73. The Channel Islands are included as an inset, but not numbered. (The Channel Islands, as I'm sure you're well aware, may or may not be included within the term "British Isles".) There is similar discussion in the introductory text. There are many BSBI publications which carry the same information. There is really no dispute about this, and anyone knowledgable in the field would confirm that (indeed, Peter Coxhead already has).

HighKing may have been warned, but not strongly enough. This is not his/her first offence, and he/she shows no sign of mending his/her ways. As this farrago shows, he/she is a highly disruptive editor with no idea of on-wiki etiquette, who is here almost exclusively to push a single point of view. Almost all his/her edits are attempts to reduce the incidence of the term "British Isles" on en.wiki, whether or not that is appropriate. In this case, its use is entirely appropriate. My last encounter with him/her was at Carex hirta, a topic on which HighKing has no expertise, and where he/she was eventually forced to back down. HighKing was wrong then and he or she is wrong again now. Since HighKing has no justification for his/her edits, I will continue to treat them as vandalism, which they are.

I generally work within a fairly limited set of articles, and I don't go seeking trouble outside them. To equate my pattern of editing with that of HighKing is an insult. HighKing is disruptive, agressive and has repeatedly shown himself/herself to be unable to work within the basic rules agreed by the Wikipedia community. I suggest that HighKing be blocked, topic banned, or required to work within the 1RR – anything to stop his/her current pattern of editing, which is quite damaging to the encyclopaedia. I appreciate your taking an interest in myrmicine biogeography, but I am also unsure if you, Cailil, are the best admin to be dealing with this issue; it would be too easy to assume that an admin who self-identifies as Irish is biased in another lame "British Isles" dispute where one of the participants also self-identifies as Irish. I don't believe that you are biased, but I think for the sake of global transparency, another admin might be preferable. --Stemonitis (talk) 06:02, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Stemonitis hold on now, you've simply been notified that there are sanctions in place with regard to edit warring over the term British Isles (and be clear slowly reverting each other over days IS edit-warring). It's been made very clear that your content position, edits and choice of wording were correct, but that there is community restriction on revert warring over the use of the term British Isles. It is appropriate to warn both parties in an editwar regardless of whose content position is right. It is also appropriate to notify users of such community restrictions, lest they breach them unknowingly.
Please don't conflate an editor's nationality with a POV, that is highly inappropriate. I have been one of a few sysops willing to patrol this area and am equally hated by "both sides" because I don't give a toss about the use of the term British Isles. The dispute over it is indeed lame - hence the community's restriction of it, and the fact is this HighKing will be topic banned if he doesn't heed that warning - he knows this all to well and it is spelled out in the probation--Cailil ^talk 12:21, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

About the Carex hirta article - I see what you mean [7]. I had only checked HK's recent edits back to June 5th 2011 - but I find this one troubling. I have given HK a series of explicit cautions about changing references to suit a POV and wrt original research (ie using Ireland, England and Scotland when the source actually says British Isles) since then - if HK makes another like this he will have violated his warning and will be sanctioned.
Please be clear Stemonitis I'm not disagreeing with you but there are duties that a sysop has to be equitable in regard to warnings for edit-warring (it takes two to tango). In future where an editor behaves like this a) talk to them on their talk page and ask why they made the edit, (and if there are no manual of style, policy or source based reasons) b) get a third opinion on the issue, or c) open an RFC and make your source based case. This protects one from edit-warring and helps build consensus--Cailil ^talk 12:47, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I did not impugn your credentials, Cailil. I merely stated that for the sake of transparency – so that there would be not only no bias, but no possibility of any claim of bias – another admin might be better. I hope that was clear. I am aware, as I assume you are, that both HighKing's actions and your own are the subject of external scrutiny (email me if this doesn't ring any bells). From that, I conclude that it is likely that some people (not myself) will see this exchange as biased. I have no complaint against you, but neither of us wishes to give ammunition to POV-pushers of either side.

"HighKing will be topic banned" – good. The sooner the better. He has had ample opportunity to learn his lesson and act more constructively, and has consistently failed to do so. His actions are already more than enough to earn him a block, and had I seen such actions as an uninvolved party, I would have blocked him myself. The process of undoing POV edits and keeping them out is uniquely tiring, and is one of the main reasons experienced editors leave Wikipedia, and this at a time when user numbers are dropping. It would in my opinion be best for the project as a whole if HighKing (and any sock puppets that may spring up – that seems unfortunately to be common practice in this field) could be stopped from editing.

If I thought for a moment that HighKing would respond usefully to dialogue, then I would have opened up a conversation immediately, but he has shown himself to be recalcitrant, and no reasonable person can doubt that I would have been wasting time that could have been much better spent elsewhere. I think you are probably experienced enough to recognise the differing intentions of HighKing and myself, and that should be your guide in how to deal with this situation; IAR is a powerful tool in the hands of a wise admin. In this instance there was a wrong (HighKing, by your own admission) and a right (myself); sometimes it really is that simple. --Stemonitis (talk) 13:13, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

WRT offsite stuff, I am aware of it Stemonitis. As regards dialogue with users one considers disruptive it is incumbent upon us to try openning a channel - if they don't respond, get a WP:3O/open an RFC, and if they then revert against consensus it's their problem, not ours. Yes it's a head-ache but it's how we have to work in a collaborative environment--Cailil ^talk 13:53, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

To call what Stemonitis is doing an 'edit war' is outrageous. Both the very limited list of exemptions at WP:3RR and the way 'edit warring' is handled by some admins are highly disrepectful to editors who have a clear record of maintaining the quality of Wikipedia (a very substantial one indeed in the case of Stemonitis), but are treated as equals of those who have no such record or even intentions.

A consequence is that some of us just give up. I have on my watchlist many articles which concern species within the Asparagales order (because of changes I made to taxoboxes). A few of these articles concern plants which are traditionally believed to have some medical use. These are regularly edited by determined people who add unsourced medical claims. I used to remove them. I don't now, because I saw other editors doing the same accused under WP:3RR. I haven't time to check whether I've reverted the same person and I don't see why I should have to. So I don't bother. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:52, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Praunus flexuosus

Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 08:48, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Barnacles

I noticed that you did not like the extra information I provided in the lead sentence for the 4 Balanus species articles I had written. (I do realise that they are not my private property!) I added the information after discussion with Peter Coxhead here. Your comments would be welcome, perhaps at his user talk page. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:24, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I understand what you were trying to achieve, and adding context is entirely laudable. My problem was with the text in question: no-one has classified barnacles as molluscs for a long time, so drawing special attention to that one historical anomaly on a number of species pages seems unwarranted. There also shouldn't really be any new information in the lead that isn't presented (and referenced) later in the article. The best method I have found is to write the rest of the article, and only then attempt to write the lead; it is very tempting to do it the other way round, but it is rarely so successful (at least when I attempt it). I know it seems repetitive (it took me a long time to get the hang of writing the lead at all well), but I would suggest something along the following lines:

"Balanus crenatus is a species of acorn barnacle in the Balanidae family. It is found in the North Pacific and the North Atlantic Ocean at depths of up to 200 m (660 ft). It begins life as a planktonic larva, but after settling on a substrate, grows rapidly to a size of 25 mm (1 in)."

That provides some basic information from each of the article's sections, and gives a much more rounded view of the animal for impatient readers. --Stemonitis (talk) 19:39, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't be surprised if 99.9% of the population think barnacles are molluscs but I guess you are right. I'll try what you suggest. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:03, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Calcinus tubularis

Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 08:05, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Lobster

Nice catch (pun intended). I was so focused on the "sea insect" phrase that I somehow missed the copyvio. And Cracked, no less! Rivertorch (talk) 05:53, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Coconut crab

Hi Stemonitis, I saw you took the robber crab to peer review. Would you like to collaborate to push this to FA? I've had this on my lengthy to-do list for some time, and it would be great to tick it off. I think our respective experiences with crustacean biology and FAC would be a good combination to polish this well-trafficked article. I'm more or less away for the next week or so, but when I get back perhaps I'll add a detailed commentary to the peer review that we can then work on together? Sasata (talk) 17:40, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I'd be happy to do what I can. Coconut crab has always been a nagging problem at the back of WikiProject Arthropods, having fallen from grace, and with no-one to prop it up again. I have been doing what I can to it, but without really getting to the bottom of its problems. Perhaps as a collaboration, it could be brought to excellence. I have no experience of FAs at all, but as I say, I will do what I can. If you're away for a bit, then that will give time for the peer review to run before we start getting down to serious editing. I might even moot it as a Collaboration of the Month (or something similar) at the project and see if anyone else wants to lend a hand, too (if that's agreeable to you, of course). It does seem that, since 2004, a number of good reviews and other articles have been published, which should be very helpful. --Stemonitis (talk) 17:45, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Problem with a sponge

I have just completed an article on Myxilla incrustans. I would be glad if you would look at the last section and then you will see what the problem is! Have I dealt with it correctly? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:30, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Tricky. It looks to me like there are two species here, but I can't be sure. Certainly there are two authorities, with the Pacific M. incrustans generally being attributed to Eugenius Johann Christoph Esper (1805 or thereabouts), while the Atlantic M. incrustans is typically attributed to George Johnston in 1842. The pictures I've seen of M. incrustans on scallops don't look like the pictures of M. incrustans on rocks to my eye, but I'm no expert on sponges. I have found one seemingly reliable source that includes both names, and it explicitly treats them as synonyms. It's all very confusing, and it doesn't help that various subspecies of Myxilla incrustans have been elevated to species rank over time. Here's another source, this one European, which explicitly synonymises the two, and provides a distribution which includes the word "Cosmopolitan". Perhaps it's one species after all.

The question, of course, is how to deal with it. I have reservations about statements like "Several authorities locate this sponge ...", "They make no mention of ..." and so on: it looks like original research. It seems to me that you would need a published source which had mentioned that different authors cite different distributions for the species to be able to say that. You have written a section titled "Confusion", but without presenting any published evidence that states there is any confusion. I think you might just have to alter the other sections to say things like "M. incrustans lives on various substrates, including rocks^[1] and scallops of the genus Chlamys,^[2]" without explicitly stating that there's any contradiction. --Stemonitis (talk) 05:45, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. I will remove the last section - it's me that's confused! I will proceed along the lines you suggest. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:37, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Cardisoma_guanhumi

Hi Stemonitis, could you please give your thoughts on my remarks here: Talk:Cardisoma_guanhumi ? Thanks, --DeVerm (talk) 23:49, 3 August 2011 (UTC).

DYK for Emerita analoga

Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 16:02, 4 August 2011 (UTC)