Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
when you create new stubs about biota in Australia, in Australia is particularly problematic in relation to the size of the continent.It would be really appreciated if you could make the effort to identify where in Australia. Some geckos, lizards and other slithering things simply do not have the metabolisms to populate the continent, let alone even move much out of fairly limited range habitats. It helps the taggers who have to follow you who wonder where exactly in oz, the delightful little creatures actually inhabit. Thanks. JarrahTree 09:13, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
September 2019 Tree of Life Newsletter
Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
.My bad.....I see the European list references the IOC as its source which includes the Humes and Desert Whitethroat (the Clements list does not)…..go ahead and add them....Pvmoutside (talk) 16:50, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
.Thanks for the reply. I'll make the adjstments. Not entirely sure on the status of desert Whitethroat. I couldn't easily find an accepted record the last time I checked, but that's also because of the poor understanding of that species complex.
It was my understanding that all bird lists on WP use IOC as their standard. Is this not correct? Calonectris (talk) 16:02, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
good you are adjusting... No, the bird lists predominately use Clements as the standard. Some lists use the IOC, others use country or regional organizations....all species taxonomy pages and English names for species pages are standardized on the IOC. Europe can use the IOC if you wish since it already states that.....I don't think there ever has been a discussion on standardization for bird lists at the wikiproject...There has been one for taxonomy and English names for the species pages.....Pvmoutside (talk) 16:16, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice to inform you that a tag has been placed on Diaptomididae requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, images, a rephrasing of the title, a question that should have been asked at the help or reference desks, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Jalen Folf(talk) 02:23, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
@JalenFolf: the page was clearly a mistaken copy of Template:Taxonomy/Diaptomididae – the content is not an infobox but a taxonomy template. I've quickly created a stub for the family itself. It may be a misspelling of "Diaptomidae", in which case both the article and the taxonomy template need to be redirected. However, there are scientific articles with this spelling. Peter coxhead (talk) 19:27, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
It sure looks like a spelling error that originated on Wikipedia. All the taxonbar databases at Leptodiaptomus ashlandi put it in family Diaptomidae, as do the other language Wikipedias. Diaptomididae has been in en.wiki articles on Leptodiaptomus species since June 2014, and the only scientific article with that spelling was published in 2017. Plantdrew (talk) 21:31, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
I'm OK with Diaptomididae speedy deletes. I assumed the family to be correct when I when I copy and pasted yesterday......Pvmoutside (talk) 00:50, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
Also, there is a Category:Taxa named by Ernesto Marcus which should be deleted as it is empty....Pvmoutside (talk) 02:29, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
Nacamier Nunoi
Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
MelanieN (copying MelanieN) In two days, 10/29 & today, this new editor made 109 primary sourced additions of American Conservative Union voting scores to the ledes of recent and incumbent Republican congresspersons. I've reverted 70 and will continue until they're all rolled back but you had made the last edit to a number of those articles before "Nunoi" vandalized them. That's the only thing this editor has done under that USER name. Other editors have probably done rolled back more than a dozen more. Any suggestions on how to deal with it as he or she will probably continue to vandalize articles? Activist (talk) 20:40, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
user:goldringchip may have some ideas. It does look like a few editors are keeping up with nacamier nunoi deleting the edits.....thanks for letting me know....Pvmoutside (talk) 01:19, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
October 2019 Tree of Life Newsletter
Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello! Someone wrote in to OTRS to point out that we have the same picture on Himalayan shortwing and on White-browed shortwing. I wouldn't know a robin from a sparrow, but I figure you might be able to sort it out.
P.S. Go Minutemen! or something. —Emufarmers(T/C) 04:09, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I have PRODed this page; thought you'd like to know as you've edited it. ShreiberBike also knows. Craigthebirder (talk) 01:59, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
Page move request 3
Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hi Pvmoutside, as a result of the page move discussion held on the project talk page here, could you move Southern crested toad to its scientific binomial (Peltophryne guentheri)? The binomial is currently a redirect with minimal page history. Following the move, I will then merge the content of Eastern crested toad into that page as well. Thanks, Loopy30 (talk) 12:07, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
all set...Pvmoutside (talk) 12:17, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
ArbCom 2019 election voter message
Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:08, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
Round robin moves and redirect templates
Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Might be you're already aware of this--your talkpage is a bit too long for me to go read through everything to check--but if doing round-robin moves of taxa, any chance that, when updating the redirect targets, you could also double-check if the redirect templates on the redirect(s) still make sense after the move? I've found a number of moves you made where you had left redirect templates such as "R from monotypic taxon" and "R to scientific name" on redirects that were, post-move, to a monotypic taxon or from a scientific name instead. AddWittyNameHere 23:48, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hi Pvmoutside, on 30 Oct, I moved the page name for Cochranella ramirezi to a title with quotes around the genus name, including a reason provided in the edit summary that it is presently incertae sedis. Today you have reversed this move, but without any edit summary explaining why. As the original page move (and others like it) was done to bring the naming of frog species in line with ASW 6.0 (ref), could you either provide a reason for your change or return it back to the previous state? Loopy30 (talk) 22:43, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
done...sorry, it looked weird...…Pvmoutside (talk) 01:56, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for December 26
Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Editing Category:Taxa named by Willis Blatchley. Since you had some involvement with the Editing Category:Taxa named by Willis Blatchley redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Pkbwcgs (talk) 20:41, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Editing Category:Taxa named by Si-min Lin. Since you had some involvement with the Editing Category:Taxa named by Si-min Lin redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Pkbwcgs (talk) 20:44, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. UnitedStatesian (talk) 03:37, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
Latest comment: 4 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
I'm fine if you want the names to remain as above. But you removedDinopium benghalense psarodes from the description with the edit summary "Clean up". Was that intentional? Rehman 16:37, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
yes, we follow the IOC with all taxonomic and English name conventions. The IOC lists Dinopium psarodes as a species...Pvmoutside (talk) 17:26, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
With regards to the latter, yes they may list as such, but Dinopium benghalense psarodes is a synonym. Rehman 02:10, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
I added the synonym to the appropriate place....thanks....Pvmoutside (talk) 18:50, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for January 25
Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 4 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
Hello, Pvmoutside. When you moved Whimbrel to a new title and then changed the old title into a disambiguation page, you may not have been aware of WP:FIXDABLINKS, which says:
When creating disambiguation pages, fix all resulting mis-directed links.
Before moving an article to a qualified name (in order to create a disambiguation page at the base name, to move an existing disambiguation page to that name, or to redirect that name to a disambiguation page), click on What links here to find all of the incoming links. Repair all of those incoming links to use the new article name.
It would be a great help if you would check the other Wikipedia articles that contain links to "Whimbrel" and fix them to take readers to the correct article. Thanks. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 00:08, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
Whimbrel has 270 incoming links (eight times more than any other disambiguation page on Wikipedia) and the gnomes are finding it hard to fix them because the birds are so similar. Any help would still be appreciated. Certes (talk) 19:49, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
I'm working on it.....I've done all the bird lists except North and South America, I've told the person who takes care of those pages, and he should be back in a week or so.....I still have other disambig pages for the Eurasian whimbrel I am still working on and should be done with them in a few days.....Pvmoutside (talk) 19:53, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
Plants, fungi, and other organisms (510 designated out of projected 1,200)
Many articles have yet to be designated for Tree of Life taxonomic groups, with 1,942 outstanding articles to be added. Anyone can add vital articles to the list! Restructuring may be necessary, as the only viruses included as of yet are under the category "Health". The majority of vital articles needing improvement are level 5, but here are some outstanding articles from the other levels:
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. UnitedStatesian (talk) 02:55, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
From October 2019 – December 2019, the top ten most popular bat articles fluctuated among 16 different articles, with the December viewership of those 10 articles at 209,280. For January 2020, three articles broke into the top-10 that were not among the 16 articles of the prior three months: Bat as food, Horseshoe bat, and Bat-borne virus. Viewership of the top-10 bat articles spiked nearly 300% to 617,067 in January.
While bats have been implicated as a possible natural reservoir of SARS-CoV-2, an intermediate host may be the bridge between bats and humans. Pangolins have been hypothesized as the intermediate host for the virus, causing a large spike in typical page views of 2-3k each day up to more than 60k in a day. Masked palm civets, the intermediate host of SARS, saw a modest yet noticeable spike in page views as well, from 100 to 300 views per day to as many as 5k views per day.
With an increase in viewers came an increase in editors. In an interview, longtime virus editor Awkwafaba identified the influx of editors as the biggest challenge in editing content related to the coronavirus. They noted that these newcomers include "novices who make honest mistakes and get tossed about a bit in the mad activity" as well as "experienced editors who know nothing about viruses and are good researchers, yet aren't familiar with the policies of WP:ToL or WP:Viruses." Disruption also increased, with extended confirmed protection (also known as the 30/500 rule, which prevents editors with fewer than 30 days tenure and 500 edits from making edits and is typically used on a very small subset of Wikipedia articles) temporarily applied to Coronavirus and still active on Template:2019–20 coronavirus outbreak data. New editors apparently seeking to correct misinformation continuously edited the article Bat as food to remove content related to China: Videos of Chinese people eating bat soup were misrepresented to be current or filmed in China, when at least one such video was several years old and filmed in Palau. However, reliable sources confirm that bats are eaten in China, especially Southern China, so these well-meaning edits were mostly removed.
Another level of complexity was added by the fluctuating terminology of the virus. Over a dozen moves and merges were requested within WikiProject Viruses. To give you an idea of the musical chairs happening with article titles, here are the move histories of two articles:
Awkwafaba noted that "the main authorities, WHO and ICTV, don't really have a process for speedily naming a virus or disease." Additionally, they have different criteria for naming. They said, "I remember in a move discussion from the article then called Wuhan coronavirus that a virus name cannot have a geographical location in it, but this is a WHO disease naming guideline, and not an ICTV virus naming rule. ICTV may have renamed Four Corners virus to Sin Nombre orthohantavirus but there are still plenty of official virus species names that don't abide by WHO guidelines."
Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Thanks for identifying the source of the material in your edit.
This type of edit does get picked up by Copy Patrol and a good edit summary helps to make sure we don't accidentally revert it. However, for future use, would you note the best practices wording as outlined at Wikipedia:Copying_within_Wikipedia? In particular, adding the phrase "see that page's history for attribution" helps ensure that proper attribution is preserved.S Philbrick(Talk) 12:46, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
thanks for going to the trouble (sigh)
Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Glen Storr was an important person in his field in western australia, butler less so JarrahTree 15:13, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
Please describe how you went about creating WikiProject COVID-19. What made you think a project was needed?
I've been following the outbreak and editing related Wikipedia articles since January. I'm not particularly interested in infectious diseases or viruses, but I've been to China a few times and wanted to monitor the outbreak's impact on society as well as the government's response. For a while, I was casually tracking updates to the first couple pages about the outbreak. Then a pattern began to emerge as February saw the creation of separate articles about outbreaks in Iran, Italy, and South Korea. New Wikipedia articles continued being created in early March, and the outbreak was recognized as a pandemic by the World Health Organization on March 11. Knowing there would many more articles, lists, templates, illustrations, and other pages on Wikipedia, I created WikiProject COVID-19 on March 15. My goal was simply to create a temporary or permanent space for editors to collaborate, communicate, and focus specifically on content related to this ongoing pandemic. I'm a member of many WikiProjects and have created several before, but this one definitely felt more necessary and urgent. Most WikiProjects unite editors with similar interests, which is fine and serves a purpose, but I felt this project could have a much bigger real life impact. I don't think I was alone in my thinking; the project had 80 members by March 20 and 100 members by March 26.
Who or what was invaluable to getting off the ground?
If I'm being honest, getting this project off the ground required little work on my part. All I did was create the space and post invitations to existing talk pages related to the outbreak. Editors joined the project very quickly; 30 members joined on the same day I started the project, and there were more than 50 participants one day later. I've been a daily Wikipedia editor for more than 12 years, and I've never seen so much interest in a project or content added to Wikipedia about a specific topic in such a short period of time. WikiProject members worked expeditiously to build a framework and hang a barnstar, tagging related pages, assessing content, and starting talk page discussions about the project's goals and scope. I'm thankful to the many editors who pitched in to get the project established, and I look forward to seeing how editors collaborate in this space as we move forward.
What are the short-term goals of the project?
No specific goals have been posted to the project page yet, but I'd like to think members share a collective desire to ensure Wikipedia has accurate and reliable information about the disease and pandemic. Disinformation and misinformation seem rampant these days, so we're working to give readers around the globe access to accurate, objective, and possibly even life-saving information. Unlike some WikiProjects which may take a more historical approach to documenting certain topics, WikiProject COVID-19 members have the ability to mitigate the disease's spread in real time by arming communities with facts about outbreaks in their region as well as information about prevention, testing, vaccine research, societal impact, etc.Viewership of WikiProject Medicine, WikiProject Viruses, and WikiProject COVID-19 in the month of March 2020
What are the long-term goals? English Wikipedia has many of 'lumpers' who think there are too many projects already. The project has also inspired the creation of two portals, which I imagine caused some raised eyebrows in this trend of portal deletionism. What will come of the WP after the current outbreak subsides?
After creating WikiProject COVID-19, a couple editors said I should have created a task force instead of a standalone WikiProject. I wasn't bothered. The number of 'thank you' notifications I received for creating the page vastly outweighed these critical comments. I knew the page I created was much needed, and I would be fine if editors decide to call the page by another name. I understand some editors think there are too many WikiProjects. No one's required to join WikiProject COVID-19, but the 100+ of us who have already joined invite you to help with our efforts, if you're interested. As for the project's future, I would be fine if editors decided to convert the WikiProject into a task force, or even put the project into retirement if the time comes. Given the level of interest and impact the pandemic has already had on a global scale, I have a feeling the WikiProject will be active for a long time.
Another criticism of the project is its narrow focus. It is focused on only one strain of virus, and the disease it causes. Even WikiProject AIDS is about two species of virus. Is the scope of the project too small? What would an expanded scope look like? Why would including another virus strain in the same species, Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus which causes SARS, not be wanted? or is it wanted?
Narrow focus? I disagree. The project may focus on a single virus and disease, but the pandemic has resulted in the creation of hundreds of Wikipedia articles documenting outbreaks in most countries and territories. There are pages covering the pandemic's impact on aviation, cinema, education, politics, religion, sports, and television, not to mention others related to the resulting economic turmoil. Additionally, there are hundreds of templates, charts, and other graphics. Who knows how many thousands of images and other media will be uploaded at Wikimedia Commons by the time this pandemic subsides? There's also COVID-19 WikiProject COVID-19 at Wikidata, and I wouldn't be surprised if similar spaces are created for other Wikimedia projects soon. Even if the focus is narrow, there's plenty of content for Wikimedians to improve and protect.
In your opinion, what should be the guidelines for creating a new project, as opposed to creating a task force or working under an existing WikiProject?
I don't feel strongly about new project creation guidelines, or the differences between WikiProjects and task forces. Project members should decide what structure works for them and call themselves whatever name they prefer. I understand project construction requires maintenance and can come at an administrative cost, but we should be careful about discouraging editors from proposing new projects.
Ideally, editors would only create a new WikiProject if at least a few others were committed to joining. I created WikiProject COVID-19 without conferring with others because I assumed the interest would be there. I encourage people to be bold and create project pages, but maybe ask a few other editors for feedback first. I'll let other editors worry about the guidelines.
What tools (templates, bots, etc.) are essential, or even just really helpful, for organizing and maintaining a successful project? What is something every WP should do, that maybe isn't doing now?
I don't have any sort of medical background, and I'm more interested in the pandemic's impact than details about the disease or virus. Most surprising to me has been the lack of preparedness for combating outbreaks by governments around the world, including here in the United States. I don't know how COVID-19's spread compares to other infectious diseases, but as I've watched the outbreak develop I've continually wondered why governments did not start preparing earlier. What was happening in China, Iran, Italy, and South Korea should have prompted action sooner.
What important things about 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic do you think folks should know and maybe have missed in the deluge of information coming at people?
1. Know the most common symptoms: cough, fever, and difficulty breathing.
2. Learn what behavioral adjustments you should make to protect yourself and reduce transmission, and remember to wash your hands.
3. Get your information from reputable sources. I'd like to think Wikipedia editors are pretty good at this last bit of advice.
Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Since you created this article, I'm giving you a heads up. Based on this[1] I altered[2] the list of Auditors. As the source I mention is a Wyoming government website, I feel it is a WP:RS and justifies the changes I made....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:51, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
Thomasia
Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I believe your change of genus from Haramiya to Thomasia is incorrect. You have stated the change was on the basis of your discovery of an older name found in GBIS, however Thomasia was already being used as a plant genus, and still is, so Thomasia cannot as a mammal genus cannot be valid. Further, I do not believe there to be any uses of the genus name in any recent literature, so even if you were correct it is a change that cannot be made in Wikipedia as this would be personal research. Could you please undo the changes that you have madeJameel the Saluki (talk) 05:38, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
I believe the Thomasia change is correct because it is the only one I see as referenced. The previous genus was not and shows inactive at many taxonomic sites. There are a couple of occasions where plant and animal genera use the same taxa name.....Pvmoutside (talk) 13:04, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
Megazostrodontidae
Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello, I'm Smjg. I noticed that you recently removed all content from Megazostrodontidae. Please do not do this. Blank pages are harmful to Wikipedia because they have a tendency to confuse readers. As a rule, if you discover a duplicate article, please redirect it to an appropriate existing page. If a page has been vandalised, please revert it to the last legitimate version. If you feel that the content of a page is inappropriate, please edit the page and replace it with appropriate content. If you believe there is no hope for the page, please see the deletion policy for how to proceed. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you wish to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. — Smjg (talk) 11:17, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
April 2020 Tree of Life Newsletter
Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Note A: Total is off by one; not worth looking for the error.
Note B Three food biographies moved [3] per discussion at WT:FAC
Note: The very odd dates used in earlier years result from pulling old data from the talk page at WP:FAS.
Good Article Category as of
Feb 23, 2008
Sep 16, 2008
Sep 16, 2010
Dec 1, 2011
Jan 1, 2015
Jan 1, 2020
Pct chg Feb 2008 to 2011
Pct chg Feb 2008 to 2020
Agriculture, food and drink
27
34
37
55
113
226
104%
737%
Art and architecture
134
188
321
450
683
1022
236%
663%
Engineering and technology
256
396
882
1198
1828
2407
368%
840%
Geography and places
191
248
424
523
716
1052
174%
451%
History
261
312
651
825
1219
1894
216%
626%
Language and literature
173
215
377
462
686
982
167%
468%
Mathematics
19
22
27
30
36
67
58%
253%
Media and drama
403
658
1352
1300
3070
3961
223%
883%
Music
357
527
997
1437
2532
3892
303%
990%
Natural sciences
544
686
1275
1717
2404
3426
216%
530%
Philosophy and religion
134
174
244
294
365
557
119%
316%
Social sciences and society
468
549
790
998
1430
1854
113%
296%
Sports and recreation
384
546
1074
1402
2350
3802
265%
890%
Video games
168
220
373
443
684
1349
164%
703%
Warfare
155
241
989
1654
2544
3996
967%
2478%
Total
3674
5016
9813
12788
20660
30487
248%
730%
Organisms*
119
130
402
528
685
1017
344%
755%
*subset of natural sciences
Unsurprisingly, the number of GAs has increased more rapidly than the number of FAs. Organisms, which is a subcategory of Natural sciences, has seen a GA growth of 755% since 2008, besting the Natural sciences overall growth of 530%. While Warfare had far and away the most significant growth of GAs, it's a clear outlier relative to other categories.
Please explain your reverts that link to a dab page
Latest comment: 3 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
Such as this (or, of course, self-revert your edits). DexDor(talk) 16:41, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
So the species has been split by the IOC, but not Clements, which the lists follow. Both occur in those areas.....Pvmoutside (talk) 16:50, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
That would explain a change to the text (e.g. from "RA, DE" to "RA, DS and DE"). It doesn't explain the change you made (linking to dab instead of article). DexDor(talk) 17:46, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
Since taxonomy follows the IOC and the lists follow clements, Clements still has it listed as one species, but the tax link gives it to the two...…Pvmoutside (talk) 19:12, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for May 15
Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Category:Grackles has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. DexDor(talk) 13:21, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
May 2020 Tree of Life Newsletter
Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Do you have any personal projects or goals you're working towards on Wikipedia?
As I said I like organisation and systems. So I find efforts like the automated taxobox system and {{taxonbar}} appealing. I would like to see more reuse of the major phylogenetic trees on Wikipedia with more use of consensus trees on the higher taxa. Too often they get edited based on one recent report and/or without proper citation. Animals and bilateria are examples where this is a problem.
Towards this I have been working on a system of phylogeny templates that can be reused flexibly. The {{Clade transclude}} template allows selective transclusion, so the phylogenetic trees on one page can be reused with modifications, i.e. can be pruned and grafted, used with or without images, with or without collapsible elements, etc. I have an example for the Angiosperm Phylogeny Group classification (see {{Phylogeny/APG IV}}) and one for squamates that also includes collapsible elements (see {{Phylogeny/Squamata}}).
A second project is to have a modular reference system for taxonomic resources. I have made some progress along this lines with the {{BioRef}} template. This started off simply as a way of hardlinking to Catalog of Fishes pages and I’ve gradually expanded it to cover other groups (e..g. FishBase, AmphibiaWeb and Amphibian Species of the World, Reptile Database, the Mammalian Diversity Database). The modular nature is still rudimentary and needs a rewrite before it is ready for wider use.
What would surprise your fellow editors to learn about your life off-Wikipedia?
I don’t think there is anything particularly surprising or interesting about my life. I’ve had an academic career as a research scientist but I don't think anyone could guess the area from my Wikipedia edits. I prefer to work on areas where I am learning at the same time. This why I spend more time with neglected topics (e.g. mosses at the moment). I start reading and then find that I’m not getting the information I want.
Anything else you'd like us to know?
My interest in the classification of things goes beyond biology. I am fascinated by mediaeval attempts to classify knowledge, such as Bacon in his The Advancement of Learning and Diderot and d’Alembert in their Encyclopédie. They were trying to come up with a universal scheme of knowledge just as the printing press was allowing greater dissemination of knowledge.
With the internet we are seeing a new revolution in knowledge dissemination. Just look at how we could read research papers on the COVID virus within weeks of its discovery. With an open internet, everyone has access, not just those with the luxury of books at home or good libraries. Sites like the Biodiversity Heritage Library allow you to read old scientific works without having to visit dusty university library stack rooms, while the taxonomic and checklist databases provide instant information on millions of living species. In principle, the whole world can now find out about anything, even if Douglas Adams warned we might be disinclined to do so.
This is why I like Wikipedia, with all its warts, it’s a means of organising the knowledge on the internet. In just two decades it’s become a first stop for knowledge and hopefully a gateway to more specialised sources. Perhaps developing this latter aspect, beyond providing good sources for what we say, is the next challenge for Wikipedia.
Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
See IOC version 10.2 (draft), Gallirallus was found to be paraphyletic (many species moved to Hypotaenidia (with Nesoclopeus sunk into Hypotaenidia), with the Chatham rail moved to Cabalus, and also the Slaty-Breasted Rail moved to Lewinia), and so it also seems that we have to update the taxonomy of prehistoric species… — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.237.203.92 (talk) 08:12, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
I usually wait until the drafts become official.....Pvmoutside (talk) 12:50, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
congrats on clearing 187k
Latest comment: 3 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
small problem we dont have fauna as a sub project in the oz project - it defaults to biota anyways - it is appreciated when you go to the trouble of locating states on the lead/sole sentence of the stubs... JarrahTree 15:24, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
it probably means absolutely nothing to you but I knew some of the describers of the skinks - its good to see they have species named after them... JarrahTree 15:29, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
very cool!....Pvmoutside (talk) 15:52, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
Category:Brownbuls has been nominated for merging
Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Category:Brownbuls has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. DexDor(talk) 11:37, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
Category:Cuniculus has been nominated for renaming
Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Category:Cuniculus has been nominated for renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 22:04, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
Category:Glyphis has been nominated for renaming
Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Category:Glyphis has been nominated for renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 01:09, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
Lerista alia
Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi, could you explain me how you can have accessed the Reptile Database on 22 March 2015 to find information on Lerista alia, a species that was described only in 2019? More in general, it baffles me why you insist using some archaic access date when creating new stubs. I imagine this is some copy-paste thing that would take few seconds to fix. Cheers, Micromesistius (talk) 08:51, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. LizRead!Talk! 16:17, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
Care needed
Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi Pvmoutside: Thanks for all your hard work updating genera, etc. for various birds. Please be sure to check through the taxonomy sections of the articles you're modifying though. I found an error in the Ruff (bird) article, introduced (accidentally, I know) with [this series of edits way back in 2017. The genus was changed from Philomachus to Calidris, but the verbiage that said "It was moved into its current genus by German naturalist Blasius Merrem in 1804." was not modified — and Merrem put the bird in Philomachus, not Calidris. I've fixed it. MeegsC (talk) 10:10, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
Thanks MeegsC for catching that...every now and then one slips by.....Pvmoutside
English varieties
Latest comment: 3 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
Hey there Pvmoutside! We seem to be working on the same articles these days. I'm cleaning up old parameters, you're updating bulbul names. I happened to notice that you're changing the spelling of bird names from British English to American English on a number of the lists you're updating — including those of former British colonies which definitely use British spellings locally. Per the project's Manual of Style, we're really not supposed to change English varieties. Do you think you could go back and change those "grays" back to "greys"? ;) MeegsC (talk) 23:43, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
so most of the lists state in their intro they follow Clements which uses American English (i.e gray). I've been sticking to that except for places like Australia and Great Britain... I know Craigthebirder has been doing that as well....l'm guessing it won't be an issue when everyone goes IOC but I could be wrong......Pvmoutside (talk) 23:44, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
Well, for example, YOU added the verbiage about the nomenclature being in line with Clements on the List of birds of Madagascar page. It was aligned only with the Clements taxonomy prior to that. So I might change those back, if that's okay with you. MeegsC (talk) 17:24, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
I don't mind at all if you wanted to change them back....Pvmoutside (talk) 17:27, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for November 1
Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Tokiharu Abe, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Japanese.
Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Your recent editing history at Nikema Williams shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Toddst1 (talk) 21:33, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Taxa named by Abida Abdullah
Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. LizRead!Talk! 18:00, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
Current congress
Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
Since you're being so diligent about updating the district lists, I suggest you update {{USCongressOrdinal/current}} to 117 and that should simplify your work. —GoldRingChip 13:06, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the tip....I think I'll wait until all the races are called, or I finish all the new reps for each of the districts, whichever comes last. That way any of the existing reps won't get in the 117th if they've lost or retired.....Pvmoutside
Good plan. —GoldRingChip 20:39, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
"Elected United States Senator"
Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
I think that when a member retires to run for another job, they didn't leave office because they were elected, see this link, but because they ran. Right? —GoldRingChip 14:24, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:29, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
Infobox stuff
Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Howdy. There's a RFC occurring WP:Village Pump (proposals), concerning whether or not to show 'successors-to-be' in political bio infoboxes. I'm mentioning this because you made an erroneous edit T.J. Cox article. GoodDay (talk) 21:39, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
Northern harrier
Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi Pvmoutside: Way back in 2017, you added a lot of information to the northern harrier article, including a sentence that reads "Some Native American tribes believe that seeing a hawk on your wedding day is a sign of a long, happy marriage." Do you have a reference that indicates which tribes, and that says this is true specifically about northern harriers? A reader has questioned the information and it's not sourced. MeegsC (talk) 21:21, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
Hi MeegsC....I think that was when northern and Eurasian harrier were split, and I copied and pasted all the North American stuff to northern...Go ahead and delete it if you'd like....pvmoutside...
Disambiguation link notification for December 18
Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Pvmoutside, Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. SchreiberBike | ⌨ 02:05, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Sen. Kelly Loeffler will not be leaving office on January 3, 2021. Please research the information more carefully before adding that to 117th United States Congress. Sdrqaz (talk) 21:23, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
Indeed. Loeffler's serving a Senate term that doesn't expire until January 3, 2023. The special election will decide whether she or her opponent will serve out the rest of that 2017-23 term. If she loses? her tenure will end 'only' when her opponent is sworn in. GoodDay (talk) 21:40, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
