User talk:Stemonitis/Archive37

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

This archive page covers approximately the dates between December 12, 2011 and February 3, 2012.

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

Common Eland

Hi there, Stemonitis! I have made many changes in the Common Eland article, that failed to meet the good article criteria. I am renominating it. But I want your help with the sourcing. See if you can add more sources or repeat them at places. I hope you review it again if possible and see if it still has to develop.--Sainsf <^> (talk) 07:44, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I doubt I'll have time. I've got a GA review of my own to deal with, and I'm busy in real life. I had to turn down the review of Common Vampire Bat for the same reasons. A quick scan of the changes made to the article shows that some of the issues I raised have been dealt with; the referencing does not appear to be significantly improved, however. If you choose to nominate the article, there is currently a GA backlog drive on, so you may not have to wait too long to find a willing reviewer. --Stemonitis (talk) 08:01, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for disturbing you. I will fix all the problems. Thanks for your advice.--Sainsf <^> (talk) 08:52, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Alexander Henry Haliday

Greetings I added a few inline refs to this page principally the just published (16 December 2011) and peer reviewed Nash, R. and O'Connor, J.P. , 2011 Notes on the Irish entomologist Alexander Henry Haliday (1806-1870) Bulletin of the Irish Biogeographical Society 35:64-112 7 plates ISSN 0032-1185.The primary sources are very numerous but some are now on commons. Will this suffice? Best regards from Ireland Notafly (talk) 20:25, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

That's probably enough to allow the {{refimprove}} tag to be removed. There is still room for improvement – I notice some paragraphs are still unreferenced – but the bullk of the problem seems to have been solved. --Stemonitis (talk) 09:24, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

royal mess

For my information, what does royal mess refer to? --NotWith (talk) 16:36, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Your move was not only a bad idea, it was badly executed. You carried out two moves after typing the first one wrongly; neither was needed. You then proceeded to call things crabs that are not crabs. Everything about it was wrong, and I have just had to go through all those changes and all your other recent changes, undoing your harmful edits. I think it would be best if you never again moved a page without explicitly asking for consent first, because this is not the first time I have been inconvenienced in this way. Both you and User:Nono64 (the similarities in editing style between those two accounts are startling, such that I don't need to state the obvious conclusion) have been editing disruptively and with little regard for other people's opinions. It has to stop. --Stemonitis (talk) 16:42, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

You probably know where I can find the full explanation on wikipedia help why it is not possible to move the title of an article disambiguated with the "genus" word into another title with a more explicit term in parenthesis? It seems to me that a lot of of those disambiguated articles have that latter form preferred. Are you calling these forms harmful? --NotWith (talk) 17:24, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

I didn't say "impossible". I only said it was undesirable. I, for one, prefer the form "(genus)", and there are good reasons behind that choice. Any such move is therefore controversial, and must be discussed in advance. Making changes against consensus is indeed harmful. Establishing and recognising consensus is a key aspect of contributing to Wikipedia, and failure to do so was the reason Nono64 was blocked, as I'm sure you're aware. --Stemonitis (talk) 17:28, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't think there is any consensus for the disambiguated title with the word "genus"! Or can you prove me I am wrong? --NotWith (talk) 17:38, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

You are missing the point. The moves you are trying to make are controversial, and must be discussed beforehand. You have not been doing so, and show no intention of doing so now. --Stemonitis (talk) 17:40, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't think I am missing the point. Can you please answer the question? --NotWith (talk) 17:46, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

I guarantee that you are missing the point. The form of the disambiguation is secondary to your improper conduct. You move pages despite knowing that the moves are controversial. That is far and away the biggest issue here, and it is vital that you recognise that. Unless you can do so, there is nothing worthwhile that can be said here. The burden is on you to show that your moves have consensus, not on me; I reject your demands that I answer your unhelpful question as further evidence of your difficulty in working constructively with other people. --Stemonitis (talk) 17:52, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Jasus caveorum

Gatoclass (talk) 00:37, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Image of barnacles on gray whale

Hi. The image you added to the Whale barnacle article is not of Coronula sp., but Cryptolepas rhachianecti. I've removed it from the article in question, and I'd suggest you remove it from the other two Spanish articles as well. Thank you. SaberToothedWhale (talk) 21:42, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Actually, the article is about the whole family, including Cryptolepas, so I have restored the image, but removed the genus ID from the caption, since there appears to be doubt. --Stemonitis (talk) 22:04, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

My mistake. For some reason I thought the article was only about the genus in question. There isn't any doubt about it being Cryptolepas rhachinecti though, as the species is strongly associated with gray whales. With that said, I've changed the captain to the correct species. SaberToothedWhale (talk) 17:23, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Gastronomy of Giant Isopods

rules are rules, i guess, but it seems, at least in this case, to defeat the purpose. correct me if i am wrong?

when i lived in japan, i visited frined in taiwan a couple times. while visiting, i had the opportunity to eat the most delicious crab i'd ever had (twice, two different restaurants. the second was just as delicious as the first and i considered the delicacy replicable)... but it took me a long time to figure out just what i'd eaten.

i added these lines to the giant isopods entry:

+++++++++++++++++++++ However, in Northern Taiwan and other areas, they are not uncommon at seaside restaurants, served boiled and bisected with a clean lateral slice. The white meat, not dissimilar to crab or lobster in texture, is then easily removed. +++++++++++++++++++++

i point out:

1) i don't speak mandarin (or any chinese) and cannot search for "reliable sources" in that language, which is the language in which one would logically expect to find information on the preparation/consumption of giant isopods for/by humans. 2) the search that led me to *find out what i had eaten* was exhausting enough (the translation i got at the restaurants always had the word "crab" in it, which was an enormous red herring), i searched pretty exhaustively after that for info (in english, japanese, and spanish) on these creatures as [human] food and found nothing. interestingly, they're called [the equivalent of] "water cockroach" in brazil. 3) ESPECIALLY because i could not find any relevant literature, i just wanted to share the knowledge. it's a fact that giant isopods are cooked and served as food in taiwan. how can i share this knowledge? is this not what wikipedia is for? i know the burden of proof is on me and there is no onus on the community at large to *disprove* my statements, but i feel like some sort of peer review or process or... i dunno, all that seems very time-consuming, but i feel slighted and (all personal feelings aside) it seems backwards to me that in practice, relevant, correct information is prevented from publishing.

• • • I will admit that "and other areas" is conjecture.

to sum it up, this may be the way it is, and i have no [reliable] defense... but it sucks, because when you delete this comment, the literature relevant to cooking and eating giant isopods *in english* goes back down to zero (AFAIK). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Exit jones (talk • contribs) 15:06, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate the trouble you have gone to, but rules are indeed rules, and they are there for a reason. If there is "zero" information about gastronomic uses of giant isopods, then we cannot include your original research. --Stemonitis (talk) 15:25, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Pill millipede

Hi there, thank you for enlightening me on the not-a-pill-woodlouse. <blushes> I should have known but I certainly have more books on insects than on thirteen-segmented beasties. Talk of convergent evolution! Good on you for knowing and for (so quickly) noticing. Chiswick Chap (talk) 22:48, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Smooth trunkfish

I am currently writing an article on the smooth trunkfish. In the Encyclopedia of Life it is listed as Lactophrys triqueter but the World Register of Marine Species and FishBase both list it as Rhinesomus triqueter. In Wikipedia, it is included on the family Ostraciidae page as Lactophrys triqueter (although the entry currently redirects back to the family page).

The easiest thing to do is to go with the current Wikipedia position and list the article as Lactophrys triqueter with a redirect page called Rhinesomus triqueter. Wikispecies would support this. Alternatively, I could revise the family page to agree with WoRMS, and name the article Rhinesomus triqueter. In either event, I would provide information on the taxonomic difficulties in the article.

For most of my articles I accept the WoRMS position as being the most authoritative although I sometimes find anomalies in WoRMS. Do you have any views on this matter? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:25, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

I think I would follow WoRMS / FishBase (which counts as a single source) rather than EoL, in which I have rather less confidence. Certainly, both names should be mentioned, as both appear to be in current use. According to WoRMS, Rhinesomus is monotypic, since "R. bicaudalis" is included in Lactophrys there, so it may be that the article should be at Rhinesomus, with redirects from Rhinesomus triqueter and Lactophrys triqueter. The only discussion I can find of the synonymy is in doi:10.3354/dao02287, but I don't have access to the full text, and all it says is "(see Nigrelli 1947)". The family article should also be updated; its list is unsourced, but it lists FishBase in the references, and FishBase recognises the genus Rhinesomus. It might be nice to update Wikispecies at the same time; it, too, is currently unsourced. --Stemonitis (talk) 11:43, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your prompt response. I will do what you suggest. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:52, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Sea-Monkeys, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Soda (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 11:37, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

 Done. --Stemonitis (talk) 11:55, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Zoologischer Anzeiger

Hi Stemonitis - recently I edited the page of Zoologischer Anzeiger and was wondering why you undo all the changes in the page? Thnanks and best wishes... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.229.65.217 (talk) 03:52, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I assume from your comment that you are User:Tetragnatha. I gave the reason for reverting the edits in my edit summary; the text which had been added was taken verbatim from the journal's website. Since there is no indication that the publisher has released this text under a free licence, this is almost certainly a copyright violation, and cannot be accepted at Wikipedia. There are also some subsidiary issues of appropriate tone for an encyclopaedia, and the use of third-party sources. The article Zoologischer Anzeiger is not in great shape, and could certainly do with expansion, but not the way it was done in December. --Stemonitis (talk) 07:23, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Neoglyphea

Casliber (talk · contribs) 16:01, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Arbitrary deletions

Will you kindly stop deleting pictures based on nothing obviously more relevant than your personal sense of aesthetics? The point of WP is to convey information. If it can be conveyed pleasingly to you as well as everyone else, so much the better, but if not, information content trumps your personal judgment of intrusiveness any day of the week. If there is substance to your perception, then consider moving it rather to where it is less intrusive and more valuable. This negative approach is counter to everything an encyclopaedia should stand for. If you fail to find any merit in the picture, read the legend. It is a perfectly valid, accurate, high-quality drawing of the ventral anatomy of the organism in question, including its proper identification, and is of historical interest to boot. That is already of perfectly adequately encyclopaedic value. And if that conveys nothing to you, read the discussion page. Someone just asked about the malleoli (referred to as racket organs in the illustration). Where do you get off claiming that an item that conveys relevant information about an organism under discussion is not encyclopaedic, when it deals with material that readers are interested in? Conversely, if you are sensitive to the encyclopaedic merit of pictures, then how do you reckon that the picture of the scorpion fighting the solifugid is encyclopaedic? In spite of its dramatic tension, it suggested nothing of value tome, being someone's fairly fanciful representation of a solifugid and a scorpion, but you will note that I did not take it upon myself to remove it just because it did not suit my taste. Arbitrary picking on material based on subjective judgement cannot absolutely be excluded in an enterprise of this nature, but it should be applied with restraint. You need not revert your own reversion in this case; I shall be making some changes to the text to refer to the picture in question. After that I shall replace it in its proper and justified position. But you appear to make a habit of impoverishing published articles based on nothing better than what you regard as clutter. Please in future establish whether your opinions on information content and aesthetics can validly justify removal of matter that might reasonably be of value to users. Oh and BTW, as soon as I get the time, I shall be doing a major rewrite of most of exdysis. Just thought you might be interested. JonRichfield (talk) 06:48, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

• "I shall be doing a major rewrite of most of [ecdysis]."

That's good news. That article has needed work doing for a long time, and few editors are willing to work on it. It is woefully under-referenced, and I look forward to seeing your improvements.

Stripping away the emotive language from the rest of your comment, you argue that the picture you (re-)inserted is of encyclopaedic value because it illustrates things which could be written about, but aren't yet. I'm afraid that not how illustration works. It has to complement the existing prose content to be useful. I can see that once the equivalence of "racket organs" with "malleoli" is made clear, that there might be some value to it. The biggest problem, however, is its placement. The Manual of Style advises against sandwiching text, and placing an illustration half-way through the lead – left-aligned – will always be a problem. You are right that the other images in the article aren't perfect; perhaps a good solution would be to replace the Uniondale photo (which shows nothing that other photos don't, as far as I can see) with your illustration, so that it is close to the discussion of malleoli. It will also be necessary to change your caption. "SOLIFUGAE Rhagodes species Ventral aspect" may be acceptable as a filename, but it cannot be used as a figure caption. I'm sure you'll think of something. The scorpion fighting a solifugid is indeed fanciful, but I have seen no other image that illustrates the cultural aspects; maybe something will turn up. --Stemonitis (talk) 07:54, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Stem, sorry I bit you, but we do have some issues that I regard as too important to let go by default. Some of them leave me gobsmacked.

• ... you argue that the picture you (re-)inserted is of encyclopaedic value because it illustrates things which could be written about, but aren't yet. I'm afraid that not how illustration works. It has to complement the existing prose content to be useful. I can see that once the equivalence of "racket organs" with "malleoli" is made clear, that there might be some value to it.

Joke, right??? In purple ink with sequins the article states i.a.: "On the last pair of legs, Solifugae have fan-shaped sensory organs called racquet organs or malleoli. The function of the malleoli is not yet clearly... bla bla..." I would have included photos of real, live malleoli, but we hardly see Solifugae where I live. The last one I saw here was before I even had a camera. The drawing illustrates the pedipalps a lot better than any other picture in the article, because it show them ventrally. If you had complained because there was no reference to say, the genital operculum, I could understand; I am preparing some improvements to the anatomical text, but that is already more than enough to juastify the picture.

You seem to think that a captioned, but legendless picture is "unencyclopaedic", but I take strong issue. Certainly the more info the better, short of the deadly "information overload" that I think we both would be inclined to neglect in context, but with no more than contextual information a good picture is valuable and highly instructive. My first book on entomology was the brilliant booklet: "British Museum Instructions to collectors" back in the 50s before my teens, and it contained excellent line drawings of representative families of insects. Damn near damn-all text about them, but even without the other books I read before I went to university, it gave me a head start over the rest of the class by giving me an eye for taxonomically characteristic morphology. Do you suppose I am unusual in this respect? I hope not!!! I tell you, pictures in context count! That Lydekker picture is good and deserves a place, but it is less informative than the ventral aspect, and there is precious little text referring explicitly to it.

• You say: The biggest problem, however, is its placement. The Manual of Style advises against sandwiching text, and placing an illustration half-way through the lead – left-aligned – will always be a problem.

That is not a point on which I would go to war. However, it is a generalisation, and IMO unjustified in this case. The dorsal/ventral juxtaposition seems to me to have merit, and the corridor nicely fitted the lede/TOC etc. But if that is big deal, then as I see it a bit of shuffling could take care of it better than an arbitrary deletion.

• You are right that the other images in the article aren't perfect; perhaps a good solution would be to replace the Uniondale photo (which shows nothing that other photos don't, as far as I can see) with your illustration, so that it is close to the discussion of malleoli.

Once again I cannot take you seriously. You have seen the picture, right? It shows the flagella in fine resolution, it shows the floating pedipalpi and the tiptoeing ground contact of the tactile 1st tarsi; that is a (fortuitously) excellently informative photo. What more must it show to earn its place? The Malpighian tubule system? Have a heart!

• It will also be necessary to change your caption. "SOLIFUGAE Rhagodes species Ventral aspect" may be acceptable as a filename, but it cannot be used as a figure caption.

There for a change, I have no problem. I'll think of something. I really don't mind criticism (really!) and often I really need it to get me concentrating on things that matter.

• The scorpion fighting a solifugid is indeed fanciful, but I have seen no other image that illustrates the cultural aspects; maybe something will turn up.

Yes, I agree. I'll see what I can do, but it is a challenge. Solifugid folk lore is not common. About the best I can think of is that doctored Iraqi desert shot of the giant camel spider, but I am unsure that it is in public domain. Anyway, I dislike it.

OK, as I said, I'm sorry I lost it. No hurry in fixing what needs fixing. I'll adjust the text a bit and make the references to the images more explicit. Please drop a hint if you can think of any special requirements in advance. Cheers, JonRichfield (talk) 15:59, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

If the intention is to contrast the ventral and dorsal aspects, then probably a closer side-by-side image pair would be better (did Lydekker publish a companion like that?), and then use {{multiple image}} or something similar. I might also be tempted to modify the image to make the text legible even at thumbnail size, if that's possible; that would also give you the opportunity to update any names that are no longer used, such as replacing "racket organ" with "malleolus", or whatever else you consider appropriate. (Incidentally, I missed the discussion of "racquet organs" after searching for "racket organ", which explains how I overlooked that.) In any case, that would belong in an Anatomy or Description section, not at the head of the article. The features you note in the Uniondale picture also seem to be apparent in the nearby Arizona photo; perhaps we don't need both. That could be useful if you need to make space for the illustration. --Stemonitis (talk) 16:33, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

OK, Let's see...

• (did Lydekker publish a companion like that?) ... I don't know. I have started a search; He seems to have concentrated on mammals mainly, but I shall inspect some of his natural histories etc. Of course, even if we can turn up something, it would have to illustrate something we want to see. If the illustrations are good enough, but lack legends, I can supply those easily enough, but frnakly, I am not holding my breath. Wish me luck anyway. As for where hand how they are arranged, I have no strong feelings, and less skill in using the WP formating tools. As a rule when I need a particular effect I look for something similar and crib what I find. As it seems I am not the only one so handicapped, the effect is the blind leading the lame, but usually one can manage something.
• ...tempted to modify the image to make the text legible even at thumbnail size, if that's possible. Could be. There is no reason the legend could not go into the caption, and I could perhaps put in the labels in colour. I reckon GIMP should do that easily enough. Replacing racquet organ in the picture is OK, but not in the text, where it would have to be mentioned as a synonym, if only to support people who read the older books. It doesn't seem to be all that obsolete, in the sense that it is widely mentioned even in newer publications. Frankly, though I prefer malleoli a bit myself, even that one seems to be somewhat obscure; its most frequent usage seems to be in mammalian anatomy. The worst problem with racquet organ is as you instance, the obsolete spelling; you will be neither the first nor last to fall foul of it.
• ...The features you note in the Uniondale picture also seem to be apparent in the nearby Arizona photo; perhaps we don't need both... There I take issue. For instance I cannot see the flagella in the American picture; if you are sure that you can, please point them out; frankly, although I am not familiar with American spp. that one looks pretty feminine to me  ;-S. Also, the picture does not show the other items that I mention, and hardly could, given the aspect. Those two pictures are almost exact complements. The sexes, eyes, front tarsi, appearance of the pedipalpi, there is room for both. I have never worked with Solfugae, but I must ask around at the local Zoology depts and see whether anyone can direct me to really rich hunting grounds (a sure-fire way of not finding a damned thing, but...)

Incidentally, the reason I have nothing the last day or two is partly because I have been photographing (with only modest success) some of our local limpet gardens. You seem to be mainly into Arthropoda, and my oceanological exposure is very slight, but I just cannot resist this phenomenon. I'll be preparing an article on them... sometime... We have some local experts. Cheers, for now JonRichfield (talk) 17:50, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I have just been looking up such Lydekker material as I could and I located that picture in his Royal Natural History. It is not hard to capture rather better than in the specimen in the current article, for example the (unlabelled) flagella are to be seen (as far as I can tell). However, it is the only Solfugid picture offered, so I still am at a los for an existing usable specimen. My picture came from the Cambridge Natural history, that in turn seems only to give the ventral image plus a range of flagellar patterns. Oh well... Making bricks without straw! I have better photographs in various guides etc, but they are not out of copyright. G'night for now. JonRichfield (talk) 19:21, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Lobsters and stuff

While it is far more uncommon, it seems to still be used frequently enough that it's the preferred common name used by the NOAA and it can be sourced ([1], [2], and [3]). The problem is that it refers to only one of the three families - Chirostylidae, while the entire article deals with three. Anyway, I've already made a dab for it, if you think that's enough, I won't contest it.

And thanks for the fixes on the rest of the articles.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 07:58, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Curious. That one agency seems to be applying a system where Galatheidae = "squat lobster" and Chirostylidae = "pinch bug". That is very much non-standard, in my experience, with most scientists across the world using "squat lobster" for the superfamily (even including Kiwaidae). It certainly doesn't look like the name "pinch bug" applies to any squat lobsters outside the Chirostylidae. Perhaps when we have a separate article for that family, we can include the name, but it evidently isn't a straight synonym for "squat lobster". --Stemonitis (talk) 08:05, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

True, I'll leave it to the dab page then. FWIW, pinch bug is also used for crayfish apparently. And the pinch bug usage is predominantly US, specifically Alaska. Probably undue to mention it.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 08:08, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Coenobita, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Greek (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 11:17, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Leptodora

Hi Stemonitis! Can you reverse your deleting of "Leptodora" all other pages I've updated? I am the expert in this group (curating it also in the Encyclopedia of Life) and indeed there is a conflict with the WoRMS taxonomy which is out-dated (!) and that is why I've entered more up-to-date data here, I am going to get them to update the WoRMS (and many others) too, but it is a waste of my time if someone is reversing the cutting-edge info into the out-dated one. Best,--Leszek Bledzki (talk) 14:49, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

I haven't deleted anything, merely replaced one system with another. The one you favoured is from a two-author paper in 2002, whereas the one we tend to use here is the one presented by WoRMS (2010 onwards). This means that the taxonomies in all the various articles are at least consistent, even if they lag a little behind cutting-edge science (as might be expected of any other encyclopaedia). There may be scope for discussion of the differing approaches to classification, but I don't think we can simply switch over to a different system, particularly not on the basis of an older reference. If you want to change the taxonomy here, then you would be better off concentrating your efforts on publishing elsewhere. --Stemonitis (talk) 14:59, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Can you be more specific on the "sources" from WoRMS (2010 onwards), it is to general and there is not a single expert for this group (Cladocera) in the WoRMS (I am in the process of joining them), and please remember that Leptodora and Cladocera are freshwater groups, not marine, and there are plenty peer-reviewed papers published between the last 2002 monograph I was citing, and they are consistent with it, so this is not a problem with publication of another paper, but with reading these already published mostly in 2008-2011. In general WoRMS is updated up to 2010, but if you will go to specific group or species you will see much older (some of them out-dated) entry and lack or the true experts for many groups. That is why I am still convinced that my entry should be replaced back, I do not want to do this by myself, as it would be a "game between us" and waste of our time, since you have the other idea. I am assuming that both of us would like to have a cutting-edge info posted, so lets do it.--Leszek Bledzki (talk) 16:01, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

You assume we both want cutting-edge science here. That's not necessarily true. It is more important for a generalist encyclopaedia that we have a consistent and meaningful classification than that it be the most up-to-date. Wikipedia presents the scientific consensus, even if this is a few years behind the leading edge of research. Indeed, it can be beneficial to be a few years behind, because it allows the wrinkles to be ironed out of the science, and allows us to concentrate on updating the real content, rather than scurrying to update every article after each new hypothesis is published. Ideally, Wikipedia relies on secondary sources, which means we should not follow the latest research. In this instance, I think it's much better to follow the WoRMS taxonomy, even as it evolves, rather than bowing to the opinion of any single expert. Our content on Cladocera is patchy at best, and there are plenty of significant gaps that could do with being plugged; that would be the best direction for you to contribute. There are all too few editors willing to write detailed articles about crustaceans (especially the higher taxa), so that would be vastly more useful than arguing about ranking, which is inevitably subjective. --Stemonitis (talk) 19:11, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

I understand your points much better now, but do not agree with it (however pluralism is good), and do not agree with your misleading reason for replacing the article given there "Conflicts with more up-to-date and consensus-driven WoRMS taxonomy", which is not consistent with your discussion here. Subjective opinion is yours, consensus-driven taxonomy - is also subjective (as years ago there was consensus opinion about geocentrism), mine are hard arguments of the larger group of scientist/experts working with Cladocera and Branchiopoda (definitely not a single opinion) that is based on peer-review papers and monographs. Ranking was, but not is, subjective now, please see "Lecointre, G.& H. Le Guyader, 2006. The tree of life. A phylogenetic classification. The The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts." I agree with you that writing detailed articles would be vastly more useful than arguing about ranking, so I am done with this discussion, to some degree interesting...as I see the other opinion. Cheers --Leszek Bledzki (talk) 20:45, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Cardiff town walls

Hi Stemonitis,

I have now reviewed Phoenix Sports F.C....and by the way, thanks for reviewing the above article for DYK. SethWhales ^talk 19:24, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Pisa armata, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Philip's (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 12:07, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

 Done. --Stemonitis (talk) 12:16, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Bermuda Skink

Hallo. I just moved the text from the Bermuda Rock Skink article back to the Bermuda Skink article, but I see you've immediately moved it back again. Bermuda Rock Skink is a misnomer. The animal is known as the Bermuda Skink or Rock Lizard, as can be demonstrated in numerous sources. The Bermuda Government oversees conservation efforts via its Bermuda Aquarium, Museum & Zoo. I contributed to a genetic study of the animals by capturing them, and I can certainly direct you to authorities on the species if you require. Can you please explain why you think it should be listed here as the Bermuda Rock Skink?. I will give you some time to respond before I revert the article to the correct title. Aodhdubh (talk) 18:38, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

All your arguments are beside the point. You tried to move the page by cutting and pasting; this is unacceptable because it breaks the connection between the article's history (which is required for licensing purposes) and its content. If you are unable to use the "Move" tab above the article, then WP:RM is the proper route to request a page move. You will find full instructions there. Any copy-and-paste move has to be undone, regardless of the "correct" title. --Stemonitis (talk) 18:45, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Palinurus charlestoni

Mifter (talk) 16:03, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Caprellidae

At least you kept the separate columns now. *rolls eyes* -- Obsidi♠n Soul 19:11, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the fourth-level headings were not a good solution. I think there would even be an argument for deleting the subfamily redirects, too, following WP:R#DELETE ("could plausibly be expanded into an article, and the target article contains virtually no information on the subject"). --Stemonitis (talk) 19:17, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Any stubs for the subfamily articles will contain repetitions of the list of genera already in Caprellidae. Feel free to flesh them out that way anyway if you wish. It's just senseless to have redlinks for them when information for them actually exists. -- Obsidi♠n Soul 19:43, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, yes and no. If it's worth having subfamily articles, then it would make sense to list only the subfamilies in the family article, and list the genera at the subfamilies. I don't think anything much does actually link to the subfamilies in this case, so it's not really worth arguing about. (I did only say that there was an argument for it, not that it should be done.) --Stemonitis (talk) 19:46, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Don't really care either way. In fact, I think moving the lists to the subfamily names would make the pages far more coherent, given the large number of genera in the family. Only thing I really object about is deleting the redirs without replacing them with anything.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 19:55, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Template cite doi

Hello, I've been using {{cite doi}} for three reasons

1. the formatting is consistent, everybody formatting by hand their own way is inconsistent
2. the template can then be re-used in other articles {{cite journal}}
3. it makes editing the article easier because the flow of text isn't interupted by blocks of unwieldy references

IMHO, the only information it could remove is if the various ID's (jstor, pmid etc) aren't included which can easily be corrected. However, that's just me, I know everyone won't necessarily share this point of view Duncan.Hull (talk) 19:21, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Replied elsewhere. --Stemonitis (talk) 19:26, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Caprellida = Skeleton shrimp?

Just noticed this. Is the placement of the common name "skeleton shrimp" in Caprellida correct? Whale lice (e.g. Cyamidae) are included in it after all.

I suspect there is a misunderstanding going on, with "caprellid" being mistakenly believed to mean Caprellida by the original author instead of Caprellidae. Can you confirm it? Sources seem to conflict and some might simply be mirrors or errors resulting from Wikipedia's mistake itself. And if it's the case, can you fix it? Moving the titles around would require an admin.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 04:35, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

You may be right. I find the whole group somewhat confusing, not least because of the varying classifications. I remember coming up against opposition in the past for using one system for Corophiidea / Caprellidea rather than another. I suspect the whole classification is still a bit shaky. Browsing through Google Books, it seems that "skeleton shrimp" is used for a) Caprella, and b) "caprellids" (presumably Caprellidae). I suspect it really means the family, as you suggested. Certainly, the images I've seen of Isaeidae don't make them look very skeletal, for instance. I am always happy for titles to be at Latin names rather than common names, for precisely this reason, so I am more than happy to make any necessary page moves. The trouble is that much of the content at skeleton shrimp may in fact be about Caprellidae, not Caprellida, so it's not just a case of moving pages. You seem to be much more on top of all things caprellid than me, so it's probably better if you move across the material you think refers to the family. Then I can move the article to "Caprellida" and either redirect "skeleton shrimp" to Caprellidae, or create a disambiguation page there, if it's needed. Does that sound reasonable? --Stemonitis (talk) 07:19, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Yep, even the content I just added are specifically for skeleton shrimps which led me to discovering that whale lice are in fact quite different from them.

Anyway, gotcha, will move what content I can then I'll post back here again once the articles are ready to be shuffled around. And yeah, if this had been at their scientific names instead, we wouldn't have this problem, heh.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 21:15, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Alright, I think I'm done. I successfully moved Skeleton shrimp to Caprellida though. So it didn't require an admin after all, heh. Thanks anyway. :) A quick look-over for errors I missed would be appreciated though. -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 23:29, 3 February 2012 (UTC)