User talk:Chermundy

Thanks...
...for your help with the articles Myosoricinae and Talpidae. Chrisrus (talk) 15:14, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Article titles
Thanks for your work on mammal articles. I noticed you have been renaming some articles from scientific to vernacular names, such as Mammelomys lanosus. However, these vernacular names are usually quite poorly known—having only been used a couple of times in lists in most cases—and therefore the WP:RODENT project has agreed to the guideline that such articles should usually be at the scientific name. The same principle (stemming from the statement in our WP:Article titles policy that page names should follow usage in reliable sources) applies to other mammalian groups, but hasn't yet been implemented there. Ucucha 05:49, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

It's so... I only dislike "semi-scientific" species names, derived from elements of binomial names, as in case of Mammelomyses (renamed). Chermundy (talk) 05:32, 15 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, those are bad. The whole point I see in common names is that they're more easily comprehensible for the layperson; if the commn name is something like "mammelomys", that doesn't really work. (A worse example, by the way, is Neacomys paracou, one common name of which is "Paracou Neacomys"!) Ucucha 06:32, 15 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Oh yes, one of many other similar Musser and Carleton's names. Paracou Bristly Mouse, of course! Chermundy (talk) 07:00, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Renaming articles to title case
Hi Chermundy, can you explain to me why you are renaming shrew articles to title case? Thanks, WolfmanSF (talk) 17:56, 19 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I add soricomorpha navbox to articles, and I aim to link become bold, so that user could promptly see species position in navbox (a link become bold, when it coincides with article name). It is easier to me to rename article than to edit navbox. Moreover, majority of animal species articles already title case. I don't know why, but I like it. Chermundy (talk) 05:47, 20 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually, it is much easier to edit the navbox than to move and edit the articles. I have done the former, and reverted the moves and article edits. While it may be true that a majority of the more obscure mammal articles are title case, I'm not aware that any high-level policy decision has been made or general consensus has been reached that this should be done. Formally, species names are common nouns and thus should be sentence case. Various arguments have been put forward that there are practical advantages to using title case, none of which I find convincing. Many of the more prominent, heavily edited mammal articles use sentence case (for example, see Raccoon, soon to be a FA). This suggests to me that a lot of the more knowledgeable editors favor sentence case. WolfmanSF (talk) 22:39, 20 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Some theory. Proper names (often capitalized) represent elements of class, and common names represent classes. In general use animal vernacular names refer to individuals, not species, so, they represent a class - sort of animal, and are common names. I believe, editors of Raccoon article use sentence case, because they say about animal itself, not species: "The raccoon... is a medium-sized mammal". But if they tell about species, I think, they used title case: "The Raccoon... is a species of mammal". A species name represents element of class - a separate species of species diversity, so, it is a proper name and should be title case. Indeed, scientific Latin animal names refer to taxa, and never specimens, and always title case. In article title and taxobox name "Raccoon", where it represents species, I sure, is title case, but it is not clearly seen since the name consists of single word. See articles with complex names, Gray Wolf, for example. I tried to rename House mouse to House Mouse, but the attempt failed.
 * About naming of individual animals I'm not so sure, but using title case also may make sence in this case, e. g., for distinguishing from name's literally meaning (not all Gray wolves actually have gray fur, such wolves are not "gray", but "Gray"). Maybe, only adjectives, not all words, similarly to human nations names ("Chineese people"), though this become fully opposite to binomial names...Chermundy (talk) 22:03, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks...
...for your help with many Talpidae and other articles! Chrisrus (talk) 23:04, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Renaming bats
I see you have started to rename a lot of bat articles including the Featured Article Pipistrellus raceyi which I reviewed during FAC. There is no mention of renaming on the article's talk page. Please show me where you have established consensus for this change in particular and the others in general. — Mirokado (talk) 19:03, 11 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but I didn't discuss this particular issue with anyone. In general, you can find some information about renaming on my talk page... By the way, today I'm going to rename 16 more bat articles. If you'll have any objections, you may ask me, I'll try to consider them. Anyway, it is not hard to me to revert my renamings. Chermundy (talk) 19:52, 11 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the reply.
 * You cannot in my opinion undertake wholesale renaming of articles without discussing it first with the main authors and project(s) involved. Apart from anything else it is a discourtesy to the authors not to seek their opinion first. Please do not rename any more articles until you have achieved consensus. To be perfectly clear, I oppose this renaming, so at present you do not have consensus to do anything further. Reasons:
 * The articles have been created as part of a coherent plan which such renaming disrupts
 * There are quite a few Featured Articles with this naming schema thus the community has already reached consensus about how to name these articles
 * The scientific name is unique and has a consistent format. It is easy to create redirects from commonly-used alternatives and that in my opinion would be better than renaming
 * In the case of Pipistrellus raceyi, the original lead in the article said: "Pipistrellus raceyi, also known as Racey's pipistrelle bat, ..." so by omitting "bat" you have chosen a title which is not what was stated as the common name anyway. Do you have a source for the use of the name without "bat"?
 * You certainly cannot rename a Featured Article without establishing consensus first. Please undo the renaming of all the Featured Articles you have renamed, straight away. I have no idea how to do that since there is now a redirect with the old name, but you clearly do know how. As far as I am concerned any other articles can wait until others have made their opinion known, but I will be proposing that all these changes be undone, for the above reasons. — Mirokado (talk) 20:38, 11 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I have now checked the first two changes you made: Hairy-winged Bat to Lesser Hairy-winged Bat, both names appear in the reference and the new name is mentioned first, so we need to discover why the original article title was chosen. In the case of Eptesicus taddeii to Tadde's Serotine, the only reference in this article does not mention "Tadde's Serotine". The bat is named in honour of Valdir Antônio Taddei and the latin genitive is taddeii, so "Tadde" appears to be an error, the reference does not mention "serotine" at all and you did not explain why you made the change. I have now found out how to revert renames, so I will revert this straight away. If we include the FA that I have already mentioned, that makes two necessary reversions out of three articles I have checked so far. — Mirokado (talk) 22:19, 11 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Well this is interesting! I find three or four references to "Tadde's Serotine" one of which has text virtually identical to the WP article and none for "Taddei's Serotine". They could easily all be blind copies of a single spelling mistake omitting the "i" from "Taddei's Serotine" (Taddei seems to be correct for his name), so I think we need a really good reference to justify including that common name at all: the current reference does not mention it. I won't rename the redirect "Tadde's Serotine" or request its deletion until the correct name is clearer, but the article name itself should I think remain as it was originally and is now. I will tidy up the FA too, but (perhaps fortunately, who knows?) I have no time for any more checking tonight. Mirokado (talk) 23:04, 11 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Far Eastern Myotis: I find no justifcation for the move to "Amur Bat". You have reversed the order of the names in the original article without explanation. You have added a name which provides only a few matches for a Google search, most of which are unrelated hits. "Far Eastern Myotis" on the other hand provides seven pages of mostly-relevant hits even when I filter out obvious rip-offs of the WP article. Since the Russian page is titled Амурская ночница and one of the few hits was on a page entitled "Russian Bats", it may be that the name is more common in the Russian-speaking world. (Incidentally there are even fewer hits for "Bombinus bat".) If you add content to an article which is not trivially verifiable you need to add a good inline reference so that it can be verified. If you can find a good inline reference you could add "Amur bat" as the second or third alternative common name, but the article title should not be changed unless a really good reason can be provided. I will revert this rename. — Mirokado (talk) 20:06, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Arizona Myotis: from the reference in the article: "Myotis occultus ... common names Arizona Myotis, Occult Little Brown Bat, Hollister's Bat". There seems no justification at all for calling the article "Occult bat". It is quite damaging to rename an article to a name which is not supported by references, since lots of other websites mine Wikipedia for their content. Wikipedia must not invent new names for things. I will revert this rename. — Mirokado (talk) 20:47, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Whiskered myotis: this is an example where the common name(s) are confusing. Although "Wall-roosting Mouse-eared Bat" does indeed refer to Myotis muricola and appears in online references, there are more references for "Whiskered myotis" (the "Nepalese whiskered myotis"). However there is also the "Burmese whiskered myotis" (Myotis montivagus). Thus the original article name seems to have been wrong and yours is certainly an improvement, although in this case I think the latin name would be even better for the article name itself, with various redirects and probably "Whiskered myotis" leading to a dab page. The first section in your talk page has already told you that the latin name is better in this situation.
 * Conclusion: Of the six changes I have checked, I have had to revert four for the stated reasons and the last mentioned certainly needs further attention that would have been obvious with even cursory checks. You have not updated any of the references to correspond to your changes and with one exception sources do not support the change in article name. This leads me to the conclusion that although you may have thought this was a good idea, you have not in fact checked the references for each article you have changed. It is clearly your job as the author of the change to do this and Wikipedia policy clearly states WP:BURDEN: "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source ... Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed, but how quickly this should happen depends on the material and the overall state of the article." In this case, you have now had several days to make any corrections that were necessary and I have already indicated that creating articles with unsourced names is a source of immediate damage to Wikipedia. I have been happy to check some of the changes, but I am not prepared to waste the rest of the month doing the work you should have done in the first place and rip-of sites should not be given the opportunity to spread incorrect names.

For the above reasons I will take action as follows. I regard your mass renaming of bat articles as a single bold action (see WP:BOLD) since the changes were not checked individually. I will revert them following the "bold, revert, discuss cycle" (which is a widely-followed practice not a Wikipedia policy) and invite you to discuss any changes you think in fact are justified. You should in my opinion involve other authors for each article, and the relevant WikiProject in any general discussion. You have already had plenty of chance to make the further changes which would clearly be necessary, or to choose to self-revert.

I have begun to form my own opinion about how these articles should be dealt with, which is that we should add redirects where appropriate unless the current name is clearly incorrect. Some of the necessary redirects will of course now exist anyway. However, the above reversions will not as far as I am concerned prejudice any decision about a well-sourced justification for a name change if you wish to suggest it. I hope we can enjoy improving these articles together (and of course with others) in the future. — Mirokado (talk) 21:50, 13 October 2010 (UTC)


 * We certainly shouldn't be introducing names that are not in any sources. However, most of those bats should be at the scientific names, because the "common" names only appear in one source or a few, while all sources that deal with the species mention the scientific name. Ucucha 22:43, 13 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the comment. I've just finished the first set of reversions. I have made notes at User:Mirokado/Bats, including some that I have not reverted (yet) for stated reasons and a couple more where there seem to be specific reasons for choosing the scientific name. I will be happy to wait until we can settle on a final best name for the article. I can make the changes to scientific name if you wish, but would like the "OK" from an expert before doing that off my own bat (hahaha!) Once the article name has settled down, there may be some redirects to delete and possibly a few dab pages needed. — Mirokado (talk) 01:45, 14 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I think that Ucacha's comment is sufficient encouragement to look further at these articles... Any other changes will qualify as "normal article improvement" so I won't comment further here. Mirokado (talk) 07:56, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Fake star names in star list templates
This change in Template:Stars of Hercules was bad, since I've been trying to hunt down fake star names by User:Richontaban for a while. Please don't revert star list templates so. Instead consult my list when (re)introducing star names. Rursus dixit. ( m bork3 !) 10:51, 8 December 2010 (UTC)


 * This edit was very inappropriate: you added a "star name" to a red link to the star μ CMa in Template:Stars of Canis Major. There is no such star name, and adding invented star names is bordering to vandalism. Rursus dixit. ( m bork3 !) 13:02, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

December 2010
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Before saving your changes to an article, please provide an edit summary&#32;for your edits. Doing so helps everyone to understand the intention of your edit (and prevents legitimate edits from being mistaken for vandalism). It is also helpful to users reading the edit history of the page. Thank you. I appreciate the work you are doing adding range maps but please start using the edit summary because editors will keep reverting your actions as they believe them to be vandalism Zoo  Pro  03:42, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
 * ok. Chermundy (talk) 10:10, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks mate. Zoo  Pro  11:14, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

your range maps
Dear Chermundy, I noticed some range maps that you have updated. Nice work ! The one in the Golden Oriole article is not concordant with the range described by IUCN for the species. Do you have time to update this as well ? -- BhagyaMani (talk) 15:40, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Eastern Barred Bandicoot
As the above notice, you forgot the native population around Hamilton, which never became extinct. You put the woodlands reintroduction but are missing four other sites. Please see this page for more. http://bird.net.au/bird/index.php?title=Eastern_Barred_Bandicoot Enlil Ninlil (talk) 21:57, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I suppose the best decision of the problem is that you draw and upload a map yourself, or modify an existing map. I sure you can make this work better than me, as you know more. About distribution data on map I made: there presents only one reintroduced site, because I used IUCN data, for example, as on this map: http://www.iucnredlist.org/apps/redlist/details/16572/0/rangemap As you can see, it shows only one area on mainland Australia. I have no idea, why remaining sites was omitted (maybe, they show only areas with quite stable populations...) In any case, I suppose, a range map should contain all sites, where a species presents in wild (not in captivity). Chermundy (talk) 04:01, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Etruscan shrew range map
Etruscan shrews are known on Socotra. They have been introduced to many areas. Abductive (reasoning) 09:21, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
 * On Sokotra native, or introduced? Chermundy (talk) 09:39, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Would have to be an old introduction. They're in Madagascar too. Abductive  (reasoning) 09:57, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Sokotra added. What about Madagascar? I need exact locations... Chermundy (talk) 10:15, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure. The sources are vague. At least your new map is concordant with the previous map now. Maybe after some research I will get back to you. Abductive  (reasoning) 10:38, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Suncus etruscus does not occur on either Socotra or Madagascar according to current taxonomy; the species there is Suncus madagascariensis. Ucucha 10:57, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
 * What's on Socotra? Abductive  (reasoning) 11:18, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Also madagascariensis. See MSW 3. Ucucha 11:27, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
 * So, should I paint а new Suncus madagascariensis range map, including Sokotra? Chermundy (talk) 12:54, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Based on unpublished data, the Socotran pop is vaguely said to be "closer" to S. madagascariensis. Abductive  (reasoning) 09:39, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Slow loris range maps
I noticed the addition of range maps to several prosimian articles. Thanks! Since WP:MAMMALS is collaboratively working on the Slow Loris article, I was wondering if you could make a map that contains all three species' ranges (ignoring subspecies details) for inclusion in the genus article? –  VisionHolder « talk » 13:22, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem... But not today. Wait, please :) Chermundy (talk) 15:39, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * At your convenience. :-) Thanks! –  VisionHolder  « talk » 17:04, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Done. File:Slow_loris_area.png. Chermundy (talk) 22:09, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! By the way... how are you making these? I know you're using the data from the IUCN, but is there some automated system you're using for translating the data into maps? The reason I ask is that I would eventually like to create maps from the data, but saving it in SVG format instead. –  VisionHolder « talk » 22:40, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I use a program I wrote myself. There are over 5000 mammal species, and it would be difficult to paint all theirs distribution maps by hand. Although I never before worked with vector graphics, I suspect converting shapefile into SVG images may be even easier and faster than into PNG ones... Chermundy (talk) 23:58, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * That's exactly what I was thinking. If you ever want to give it a try, let me know.  I have a standard SVG map for Madagascar that we could work with.  If I could at least standardize all the lemur maps with some automated process, I'd be very happy.  But for now, I'm content with both of our maps.  But if you're ever up for the challenge, let me know and I'll gladly try to work with you on it. –  VisionHolder  « talk » 00:12, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Do you mean this — File:Madagascar range map template.svg — map? I tried to use it as base map for creating range maps of 187 mammal species, endemic to Madagascar (some of them I already uploaded). Also I corrected locations of islands, added Juan de Nova Island, Glorioso Islands, part of Mozambique coast, changed styles of rivers and borders. Have you similar map (if it is the one you mean) for other regions? Chermundy (talk) 11:22, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, this is exactly what I mean. Wow!  This is beautiful!  Would you mind doing this for all the lemur species, including the ones that already have maps made by me?  (I don't mind you correcting them.)  If so, and before you start, I was wondering if there were a source for you to draw upon to fix the rivers?  Whoever added the rivers clearly did it free-hand and quickly.  Several are clearly off.  If you could fix those up and hit every lemur species you have data for, I would be eternally indebted to you.  You're already getting a barnstar from me once I get home tonight have and a moment to pick one out.  Excellent work!!!  –  VisionHolder  « talk » 13:21, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * What do you think about this — File:Madagascar_Locator.svg — as rivers map? Chermundy (talk) 17:53, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It doesn't have all the rivers I would like to see covered, but it's definitely better. I just wish we had data to fix up this one: Madagascar_rivers.svg. –  VisionHolder  « talk » 18:03, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Mandrare is not seen on this map, but actually present... What other rivers would you like? Chermundy (talk) 19:22, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Mandrare is the big one, but I won't really know until I start writing about geographic barriers what divide species. There is also another river not shown on either map called the Manombo River, between the Mangoky River and the Fiherenana River on the southwest coast.  It's illustrated on page 288 of the Seddon 2000 paper referenced at Mikea Forest.  (If you don't have access to it, email me and I'll send you a copy.)  Sorry for the trouble.... –  VisionHolder  « talk » 23:11, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Bad news on the slow loris front: As I start to pull more and more sources together, it looks like the taxonomy is a mess, and we may be acknowledging at least 1 (if not 2 to 4) new species on Wiki. Would it be possible to sometime (at your convenience) re-do all the slow loris range maps as SVG files? If you put each species range on its own layer, then for the genus article I could merge those layers and more easily customize how things appear. Again, there's no huge rush. Take as much time as you need. Sorry, but these SVG files are so much easier to manipulate. –  VisionHolder « talk » 02:17, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * How strange... I have noticed your message dated 9 January just today... Nevertheless, which projection do you prefer? Robinson, as on previous slow loris range map, or, maybe, simple cylindrical, as on Madagascar base map? Also, which basemap to use - gray-white Robinson, as usually, or you would try another one? Sorry for delay, if I had noticed, I could do it more earlier. Chermundy (talk) 10:23, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Species range maps
Hi Chermundy, great work with all the species range maps you've been churning out! It would be even better if you could be consistent with the colours. For example if all ranges of primates should really be one colour. Personally I would recommend all mammal range maps use consistent colours, unless separate species are shown on one map then obviously other colours would need to be used. Cheers, Jack (talk) 13:40, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Barnstar

 * I support and double this barnstar, Top effort mate. Zoo  Pro  02:22, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Great work on maps! Keep up the work!!! prashanthns (talk) 19:36, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, I was going to leave you a note saying thanks for the range maps...but I see I'm just chiming in with the choir. Still, thanks! Drmies (talk) 16:22, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Grevy's zebra range map
Hello, thank you for the Grevy's zebra map but you put a red dot on the southern tip of Kenya. Can you please remove it? Thanks. LittleJerry (talk) 03:32, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It is introduced area. It's my fault: I forgot to describe it. (To be sure, see range map from www.iucnredlist.org). Chermundy (talk) 09:32, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

When you come back...
Hopefully you're just on a short break. I really loved your range map work and would hate to lose you! When and if you come back, please let me know. I would like to utilize your skills to revamp the slow loris range maps a bit. At the very least, I would love to know what program you use to create these maps, particularly if it can be done with SVG files. Best, –  VisionHolder « talk » 05:32, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

WISE 0040+0900
This is an automated message from MadmanBot. I have performed a search with the contents of WISE 0040+0900, and it appears to be very similar to another Wikipedia page: WISE 1721+1117. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page&mdash; you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case. If you are intentionally trying to rename an article, please see Help:Moving a page for instructions on how to do this without copying and pasting. If you are trying to move or copy content from one article to a different one, please see Copying within Wikipedia and be sure you have acknowledged the duplication of material in an edit summary to preserve attribution history.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. MadmanBot (talk) 02:24, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

WISE 2357+1227
This is an automated message from MadmanBot. I have performed a search with the contents of WISE 2357+1227, and it appears to be very similar to another Wikipedia page: WISE 1721+1117. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page&mdash; you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case. If you are intentionally trying to rename an article, please see Help:Moving a page for instructions on how to do this without copying and pasting. If you are trying to move or copy content from one article to a different one, please see Copying within Wikipedia and be sure you have acknowledged the duplication of material in an edit summary to preserve attribution history.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. MadmanBot (talk) 02:25, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

WISE 1124-0421
This is an automated message from MadmanBot. I have performed a search with the contents of WISE 1124-0421, and it appears to be very similar to another Wikipedia page: WISE 1721+1117. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page&mdash; you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case. If you are intentionally trying to rename an article, please see Help:Moving a page for instructions on how to do this without copying and pasting. If you are trying to move or copy content from one article to a different one, please see Copying within Wikipedia and be sure you have acknowledged the duplication of material in an edit summary to preserve attribution history.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. MadmanBot (talk) 02:25, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

WISE 1039-1600
This is an automated message from MadmanBot. I have performed a search with the contents of WISE 1039-1600, and it appears to be very similar to another Wikipedia page: WISE 1721+1117. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page&mdash; you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case. If you are intentionally trying to rename an article, please see Help:Moving a page for instructions on how to do this without copying and pasting. If you are trying to move or copy content from one article to a different one, please see Copying within Wikipedia and be sure you have acknowledged the duplication of material in an edit summary to preserve attribution history.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. MadmanBot (talk) 02:25, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

WISE 1523+3125
This is an automated message from MadmanBot. I have performed a search with the contents of WISE 1523+3125, and it appears to be very similar to another Wikipedia page: WISE 1721+1117. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page&mdash; you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case. If you are intentionally trying to rename an article, please see Help:Moving a page for instructions on how to do this without copying and pasting. If you are trying to move or copy content from one article to a different one, please see Copying within Wikipedia and be sure you have acknowledged the duplication of material in an edit summary to preserve attribution history.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. MadmanBot (talk) 02:28, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

WISE 0049+2151
This is an automated message from MadmanBot. I have performed a search with the contents of WISE 0049+2151, and it appears to be very similar to another Wikipedia page: WISE 1721+1117. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page&mdash; you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case. If you are intentionally trying to rename an article, please see Help:Moving a page for instructions on how to do this without copying and pasting. If you are trying to move or copy content from one article to a different one, please see Copying within Wikipedia and be sure you have acknowledged the duplication of material in an edit summary to preserve attribution history.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. MadmanBot (talk) 02:33, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

WISE 1809+3838
This is an automated message from MadmanBot. I have performed a search with the contents of WISE 1809+3838, and it appears to be very similar to another Wikipedia page: WISE 1746-0338. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page&mdash; you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case. If you are intentionally trying to rename an article, please see Help:Moving a page for instructions on how to do this without copying and pasting. If you are trying to move or copy content from one article to a different one, please see Copying within Wikipedia and be sure you have acknowledged the duplication of material in an edit summary to preserve attribution history.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. MadmanBot (talk) 02:41, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

WISE 0335+4310
This is an automated message from MadmanBot. I have performed a search with the contents of WISE 0335+4310, and it appears to be very similar to another Wikipedia page: WISE 2301+0216. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page&mdash; you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case. If you are intentionally trying to rename an article, please see Help:Moving a page for instructions on how to do this without copying and pasting. If you are trying to move or copy content from one article to a different one, please see Copying within Wikipedia and be sure you have acknowledged the duplication of material in an edit summary to preserve attribution history.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. MadmanBot (talk) 02:42, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

WISE 0038+2758
This is an automated message from MadmanBot. I have performed a search with the contents of WISE 0038+2758, and it appears to be very similar to another Wikipedia page: WISE 1746-0338. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page&mdash; you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case. If you are intentionally trying to rename an article, please see Help:Moving a page for instructions on how to do this without copying and pasting. If you are trying to move or copy content from one article to a different one, please see Copying within Wikipedia and be sure you have acknowledged the duplication of material in an edit summary to preserve attribution history.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. MadmanBot (talk) 02:43, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

WISE 0005+3737
This is an automated message from MadmanBot. I have performed a search with the contents of WISE 0005+3737, and it appears to be very similar to another Wikipedia page: WISE 1746-0338. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page&mdash; you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case. If you are intentionally trying to rename an article, please see Help:Moving a page for instructions on how to do this without copying and pasting. If you are trying to move or copy content from one article to a different one, please see Copying within Wikipedia and be sure you have acknowledged the duplication of material in an edit summary to preserve attribution history.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. MadmanBot (talk) 02:43, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

WISE 2019-1148
This is an automated message from MadmanBot. I have performed a search with the contents of WISE 2019-1148, and it appears to be very similar to another Wikipedia page: WISE 1746-0338. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page&mdash; you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case. If you are intentionally trying to rename an article, please see Help:Moving a page for instructions on how to do this without copying and pasting. If you are trying to move or copy content from one article to a different one, please see Copying within Wikipedia and be sure you have acknowledged the duplication of material in an edit summary to preserve attribution history.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. MadmanBot (talk) 02:44, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

WISE 1051-2138
This is an automated message from MadmanBot. I have performed a search with the contents of WISE 1051-2138, and it appears to be very similar to another Wikipedia page: WISE 1721+1117. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page&mdash; you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case. If you are intentionally trying to rename an article, please see Help:Moving a page for instructions on how to do this without copying and pasting. If you are trying to move or copy content from one article to a different one, please see Copying within Wikipedia and be sure you have acknowledged the duplication of material in an edit summary to preserve attribution history.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. MadmanBot (talk) 02:47, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

WISE 0811-8051
This is an automated message from MadmanBot. I have performed a search with the contents of WISE 0811-8051, and it appears to be very similar to another Wikipedia page: WISE 1746-0338. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page&mdash; you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case. If you are intentionally trying to rename an article, please see Help:Moving a page for instructions on how to do this without copying and pasting. If you are trying to move or copy content from one article to a different one, please see Copying within Wikipedia and be sure you have acknowledged the duplication of material in an edit summary to preserve attribution history.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. MadmanBot (talk) 02:48, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

WISE 0723+3403
This is an automated message from MadmanBot. I have performed a search with the contents of WISE 0723+3403, and it appears to be very similar to another Wikipedia page: WISE 1721+1117. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page&mdash; you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case. If you are intentionally trying to rename an article, please see Help:Moving a page for instructions on how to do this without copying and pasting. If you are trying to move or copy content from one article to a different one, please see Copying within Wikipedia and be sure you have acknowledged the duplication of material in an edit summary to preserve attribution history.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. MadmanBot (talk) 02:48, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

WISE 0146+4234
This is an automated message from MadmanBot. I have performed a search with the contents of WISE 0146+4234, and it appears to be very similar to another Wikipedia page: WISE 1928+2356. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page&mdash; you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case. If you are intentionally trying to rename an article, please see Help:Moving a page for instructions on how to do this without copying and pasting. If you are trying to move or copy content from one article to a different one, please see Copying within Wikipedia and be sure you have acknowledged the duplication of material in an edit summary to preserve attribution history.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. MadmanBot (talk) 02:50, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

WISE 1542+2230
This is an automated message from MadmanBot. I have performed a search with the contents of WISE 1542+2230, and it appears to be very similar to another Wikipedia page: WISE 1721+1117. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page&mdash; you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case. If you are intentionally trying to rename an article, please see Help:Moving a page for instructions on how to do this without copying and pasting. If you are trying to move or copy content from one article to a different one, please see Copying within Wikipedia and be sure you have acknowledged the duplication of material in an edit summary to preserve attribution history.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. MadmanBot (talk) 02:50, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

WISE 1318-1758
This is an automated message from MadmanBot. I have performed a search with the contents of WISE 1318-1758, and it appears to be very similar to another Wikipedia page: WISE 1721+1117. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page&mdash; you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case. If you are intentionally trying to rename an article, please see Help:Moving a page for instructions on how to do this without copying and pasting. If you are trying to move or copy content from one article to a different one, please see Copying within Wikipedia and be sure you have acknowledged the duplication of material in an edit summary to preserve attribution history.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. MadmanBot (talk) 02:51, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

WISE 0713-2917
This is an automated message from MadmanBot. I have performed a search with the contents of WISE 0713-2917, and it appears to be very similar to another Wikipedia page: WISE 1928+2356. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page&mdash; you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case. If you are intentionally trying to rename an article, please see Help:Moving a page for instructions on how to do this without copying and pasting. If you are trying to move or copy content from one article to a different one, please see Copying within Wikipedia and be sure you have acknowledged the duplication of material in an edit summary to preserve attribution history.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. MadmanBot (talk) 02:55, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Recent stub creations
I'm not convinced many of your recent stub creations meet the notability criteria here. These objects are not visible by the naked eye, were only recently discovered, and do not show up in major astronomical catalogs. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but otherwise please stop creating stubs enmasse, possibly with semi-automated methods, if the articles aren't themselves notable. Instead try classifying them together in a single article, perhaps List of objects discovered by the Wide-field Infrared Survey Explorer. But everything every probe discovers is not sufficiently notable for an article. Shadowjams (talk) 04:39, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Template:Stars by constellation (A – I)


A tag has been placed on Template:Stars by constellation (A – I) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it must be substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by visiting the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Br&#39;er Rabbit (talk) 22:51, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Template:Stars by constellation (L – V)


A tag has been placed on Template:Stars by constellation (L – V) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it must be substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by visiting the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Br&#39;er Rabbit (talk) 22:51, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Range maps
I was wondering if you could share the details of how you generated the range maps a while back. Some of the lemur ranges may be getting updated soon due to their recent re-evaluation by the IUCN. Since I plan to keep the lemur pages relatively up-to-date (once I get them all written), I would like to know how to replicate your work. (P.S. - I was formerly known as Visionholder.) – Maky  « talk » 04:39, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of WISE J154459.27+584204.5 for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article WISE J154459.27+584204.5 is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/WISE J154459.27+584204.5 until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:53, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 30
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited WISEPC J045853.90+643451.9, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Photometry (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) 10:57, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Article moves
Hi, I saw you moved a lot of articles about dwarf stars to extremely long titles. I started a move request at Talk:WISE 1541-2250. Perhaps you could wait with more moves until we have had a discussion? Please. Thank you Hekerui (talk) 13:06, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I initiated another discussion at Talk:WISE 1506+7027. Regards Hekerui (talk) 22:10, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Notability
Hello Chermundy. You should have a look at the discussion going on at "Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomical objects" (Articles_for_deletion/WISEPC_J222623.05%2B044003.9) as it may affect many of the articles that you have worked on. -- Kheider (talk) 23:26, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I, too, am wondering about the notability of things like GJ 1057 and the host of similarly named articles. If it's so obscure that it doesn't even have a name, does it need a whole encyclopedia article?  --Wtshymanski (talk) 20:24, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I wish the author would create a list of Red dwarfs near the Sun similar to List of brown dwarfs. I would love to see a list article showing red dwarfs visible in backyard telescopes. -- Kheider (talk) 21:15, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Be Bold! Make the list and redirect all these 1-liners to it! --Wtshymanski (talk) 14:42, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I already hugely authored List of brown dwarfs. The irony is that Chermundy would be the perfect editor to create and maintain a list of Red dwarfs near the Sun. He could list the name, distance, spectral type, constellation, RA/Dec, and visual apparent magnitude. I suppose RECONS with ~K9-M8 main sequence would be a good starting point. The best for backyard telescopes (or binoculars) is AX Microscopii. But at the same time, most of the objects listed at List of nearest stars and brown dwarfs (which truncates at 16.3 light-years) are red dwarfs because red dwarfs are the most common stellar type. I am not sure a largely redundant list of Red dwarfs near the Sun that lists stars up to ~25 light-years is worth the trouble. Perhaps it would be better to add a section called "Additional Red dwarfs within 25 light-years" to List of nearest stars and brown dwarfs. -- Kheider (talk) 15:24, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 21
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited WISEPA J201824.96-742325.9, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Gyr (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) 11:35, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 28
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited WISEP J180026.60+013453.1, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Gyr (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) 12:28, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Good call!
Good call at the Human Evolution navbar! – P AINE E LLSWORTH  C LIMAX !  19:13, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WISEPC J234841.10-102844.4
Hi, I nominated a few brown dwarf articles for deletion. Regards Hekerui (talk) 14:00, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi Chermundy, I nominated some more articles for deletion at Articles for deletion/WISEPC J222623.05+044003.9. Regards Hekerui (talk) 23:41, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Gliese 518 for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Gliese 518 is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Gliese 518 until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. StringTheory11 (t • c) 01:40, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Gliese 661 for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Gliese 661 is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Gliese 661 until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. StringTheory11 (t • c) 19:24, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 19
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Kelu-1, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Magnitude (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) 11:59, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 11
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited UGPS J072227.51-054031.2, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Arcsec (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) 11:03, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of WISE J000517.48+373720.5


The article WISE J000517.48+373720.5 has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Doesn't seem to meet WP:NASTRO.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. StringTheory11 (t • c) 00:36, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of WISE J004945.61+215120.0


The article WISE J004945.61+215120.0 has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Doesn't seem to meet WP:NASTRO.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. StringTheory11 (t • c) 00:40, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of WISEPA J075003.84+272544.8


The article WISEPA J075003.84+272544.8 has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Doesn't seem to meet WP:NASTRO.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. StringTheory11 (t • c) 03:28, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of WISE 1405+5534 for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article WISE 1405+5534 is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/WISE 1405+5534 until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. StringTheory11 (t • c) 01:39, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Brush-furred mouse
Hi Chermundy,

In this article, Brush-furred mouse you put 12 new species:


 * Lophuromys chercherensis
 * Lophuromys kilonzoi
 * Lophuromys laticeps
 * Lophuromys machangui
 * Lophuromys makundii
 * Lophuromys margarettae
 * Lophuromys menageshae
 * Lophuromys pseudosikapusi
 * Lophuromys rita
 * Lophuromys sabunii
 * Lophuromys simensis
 * Lophuromys stanleyi

This species aren't in the Mammals of the World and neither in the wikispecies. From where do you get them? Regards. DenesFeri (talk) 12:15, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Please answer. DenesFeri (talk) 08:29, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

CM Draconis
Hello, could you please complete the reference "van Altena1995" which you have added here? Thanks. --bender235 (talk) 13:08, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Help with an arthropod template?
Hi Chermundy, I noticed you made substantial improvements to Template:Arthropods a while back, and I was wondering if you're interested in helping me put together a similar template for living and extinct orders of millipedes, based primarily on the classification shown in the article. I've got a mockup of a template here, and while I'm a bit savvy with html templates, I'm not so good at starting from scratch. Let me know what you think. Cheers! --Animalparty-- (talk) 07:26, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Nevermind, already done.

Proposed deletion of UGPS J0652+0324


The article UGPS J0652+0324 has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Doesn't seem to meet WP:NASTRO. No significant coverage in studies found.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. StringTheory11 (t • c) 19:22, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

RR Ursae Minoris
Hey Chermundy, do you have a source for this? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:51, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of GJ 3182


The article GJ 3182 has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Fails WP:NASTCRIT.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 21:35, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of GJ 3306


The article GJ 3306 has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Fails WP:NASTCRIT.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 21:35, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of GJ 3112


The article GJ 3112 has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Fails WP:NASTCRIT.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 21:36, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Gliese 339.1


The article Gliese 339.1 has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Fails WP:NASTCRIT.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 21:39, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of WD 0821-669


The article WD 0821-669 has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Fails WP:NASTCRIT.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 21:39, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of 2MASS J11592743-5247188


The article 2MASS J11592743-5247188 has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Fails WP:NASTCRIT.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 21:40, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of 2MASS J08251968+2115521


The article 2MASS J08251968+2115521 has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Fails WP:NASTCRIT.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 21:42, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Maps
Once upon a time you created range maps for many animals, including lemurs, using the data from the IUCN Red List. I'm looking to reinvent the base template for the Madagascar range map and learn how to make these maps myself so that I don't have to annoy you any time I need one of these fixed/updated. I was wondering if you used QGIS to import the IUCN Red List data, I was also wondering if you could help me learn how to convert maps made in QGIS to SVG format more efficiently.

Also, how did you get such broad access to the IUCN Red List data files for their maps? I've made general requests for all lemur map data, but I never get replies. Did you submit hundreds of requests individually and wait for them to reply one at a time? – Maky  « talk » 22:33, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of GJ 4053


The article GJ 4053 has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Doesn't appear to pass WP:NASTCRIT and there isn't enough here to make this an article.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Eeekster (talk) 01:59, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

maybe slow down or make a list?
Hi Chermundy. You seem to be cranking out un-sourced astronomical object stubs at a rapid pace, and many of them are already being considered for deletion. Perhaps it is worth slowing down a bit, re-reading Notability (astronomical objects), and working on any given article first, rather than making more nearly identicals stub that basically says nothing other than something exists. We should strive for articles, not transcribing points of data from a database. Be a writer, not a robot! Your time and effort might be better put towards expanding List of brown dwarfs rather than creating headaches, more work, and time-consuming deletion discussions for other editors. Cheers, --Animalparty-- (talk) 03:19, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

GJ 4053
I think I've managed to save GJ 4053 from deletion. Or at least stall things a little. However you have around seven more star articles up for deletion for the same reason as GJ 4053 and I cant get to all of them. If you value the stubs you created, please help to keep them around. You can use the work I've done on the above article as a template. Thanks, Ryan shell (talk) 15:31, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 29 January
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. as follows: Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/RBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/RBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=ReferenceBot%20–%20&section=new report it to my operator]. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:25, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * On the LP 944-20 page, [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=644633226 your edit] caused a cite error (help) . ([ Fix] | [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&preload=User:ReferenceBot/helpform&preloadtitle=Referencing%20errors%20on%20%5B%5BSpecial%3ADiff%2F644633226%7CLP 944-20%5D%5D Ask for help])

G 141-36 ‎
Hi there. As you'll see I have redirected your article G 141-36 ‎to Red dwarf. You can edit it into an article at any time but it may be a better idea to work on these articles as a draft then move them into mainspace. Best wishes  Flat Out  let's discuss it  04:23, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Gliese 257


The article Gliese 257 has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Doesn't meet WP:NASTRO. Not visible to the naked eye, no significant coverage in studies, not discovered before 1850, and not in a catalogue of note.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. StringTheory11 (t • c) 22:42, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Nearly all of your recent creations seem to fail WP:NASTRO. As you've been clearly told of the guideline before, I will ask you more firmly this time: heed the guideline when creating astronomical object stubs, or you will find them getting deleted. StringTheory11 (t • c) 23:58, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Star systems within 20–25 light-years
Template:Star systems within 20–25 light-years has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. StringTheory11 (t • c) 15:28, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of TYC 3980-1081-1


The article TYC 3980-1081-1 has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Doesn't seem to meet WP:NASTRO. No significant coverage in studies, not visible to the naked eye, not in a catalogue of note, and not discovered before 1850.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on |the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. StringTheory11 (t • c) 17:56, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 27
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Luhman 16, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Eccentricity. 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) 09:16, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Gliese 393


The article Gliese 393 has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Doesn't seem to meet WP:NASTRO. Not visible to the naked eye, not in a catalogue of note, no significant coverage in studies, and not discovered before 1850.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on |the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. StringTheory11 (t • c) 16:47, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of WISE J2000+3629


The article WISE J2000+3629 has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Doesn't seem to meet WP:NASTRO. Not visible to the naked eye, not in a catalogue of note, no significant coverage in studies, and not discovered before 1850. Way too much error on the distance estimate to reliably say that it's near enough to be notable.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on |the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. StringTheory11 (t • c) 16:47, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Coding practices
You appear to be creating a lot of templates with nearly unreadable code and absolutely no documentation, such as Template:Conp and Template:Cepro. Please document them. Also, for very complicated templates, consider writing them using Scribunto instead of as wikitext templates. Jackmcbarn (talk) 19:41, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Πt
Template:Πt has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Primefac (talk) 01:31, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Μt
Template:Μt has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Primefac (talk) 01:55, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:COBD template system
Template:COBD template system has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. 70.51.202.113 (talk) 07:36, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Plxref
Template:Plxref has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Primefac (talk) 21:52, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Class Constel Order
Template:Class Constel Order has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. BethNaught (talk) 21:34, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Geological history
Template:Geological history has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. RockMagnetist(talk) 07:06, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:16, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Edits to Template:Eukaryota
Placement of Hemimastigida in Rhizaria is very tentative. No member of the group has ever been sequenced (scuttlebut suggests that will change soon, though). Until the results of sequencing are announced, Hemimastigophora should be regarded as incertae sedis.

As for Eozoa, even Cavalier-Smith no longer thinks his group is basal to the Eukaryotes (as long ago as 2010, he called that an "old idea"). He now thinks the root lies within his Eozoa, between Euglenozoa and the rest of the tree, with Jakobids and Percolozoa on the far side of the divide: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S105579031630015X

However, there is no current consensus on the root of the Eukaryote tree. Burki et al. root the tree between Obazoa, Amoebozoa, Collodictyon, Malawimonas and the rest of the euks. Derelle et al. put the root between their Opimoda and Diphoda.

You should document your edits on Template talk:Eukaryota, as a courtesy to users like Virion123 and Zorahia, who have put a lot of work into the template.

Deuterostome (talk)  12:42, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of GJ 1068 for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article GJ 1068 is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/GJ 1068 until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.  Davidbuddy9   Talk  20:54, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Deletion discussion about 2MASS 1507-1627 and 2MASS 0036+1821
Hello, Chermundy

Space Infinite wanted to let you know that there's a discussion about whether 2MASS 1507-1627 and 2MASS 0036+1821 should be deleted. Your comments are welcome at Articles for deletion/2MASS 1507-1627 and Articles for deletion/2MASS 0036+1821.

If you're new to the process, articles for deletion is a group discussion (not a vote!) that usually lasts seven days. If you need it, there is a guide on how to contribute. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the articles; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.

Thanks,  Red Planet X  (talk) 19:24, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Category:SIPS objects has been nominated for discussion
Category:SIPS objects, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides 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. Loooke (talk) 23:07, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of LP 993-115


The article LP 993-115 has been proposed for deletion. The proposed deletion notice added to the article should explain why.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Loooke (talk) 01:36, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of GJ 3522 for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article GJ 3522 is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/GJ 3522 until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:24, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of GJ 3192 for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article GJ 3192 is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/GJ 3192 until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:24, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Gliese 514 for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Gliese 514 is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Gliese 514 until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:24, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of GJ 4274 for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article GJ 4274 is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/GJ 4274 until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:25, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of GJ 4053 for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article GJ 4053 is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/GJ 4053 until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:25, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of GJ 1286 for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article GJ 1286 is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/GJ 1286 until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:25, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of GJ 4063 for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article GJ 4063 is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/GJ 4063 until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:25, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of GJ 4248 for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article GJ 4248 is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/GJ 4248 until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:25, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of SCR J0740−4257 for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article SCR J0740−4257 is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/SCR J0740−4257 until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:27, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Gliese 701 for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Gliese 701 is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Gliese 701 until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:27, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Gliese 382 for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Gliese 382 is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Gliese 382 until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:27, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Gliese 831 for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Gliese 831 is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Gliese 831 until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:27, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Gliese 793 for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Gliese 793 is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Gliese 793 until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:27, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Gliese 686 for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Gliese 686 is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Gliese 686 until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:27, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Gliese 48 for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Gliese 48 is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Gliese 48 until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:28, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Gliese 450 for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Gliese 450 is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Gliese 450 until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:28, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Gliese 424 for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Gliese 424 is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Gliese 424 until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:28, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Gliese 480.1 for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Gliese 480.1 is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Gliese 480.1 until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:28, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Gliese 300 for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Gliese 300 is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Gliese 300 until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:28, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Gliese 257 for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Gliese 257 is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Gliese 257 until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:28, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Gliese 493.1 for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Gliese 493.1 is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Gliese 493.1 until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:28, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Gliese 618 for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Gliese 618 is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Gliese 618 until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:29, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Gliese 486 for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Gliese 486 is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Gliese 486 until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:29, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Gliese 232 for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Gliese 232 is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Gliese 232 until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:29, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Gliese 867 for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Gliese 867 is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Gliese 867 until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:29, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of L 745-46 for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article L 745-46 is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/L 745-46 until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:29, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of LP 993-115 for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article LP 993-115 is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/LP 993-115 until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:30, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:G 141-36


Hello, Chermundy. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "G 141-36".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the, , or  code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Dolotta (talk) 07:31, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:LSPM J2146+3813


Hello, Chermundy. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "LSPM J2146+3813".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the, , or  code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Dolotta (talk) 07:32, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Chiroptera
Template:Chiroptera has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. cygnis insignis 08:25, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

taxonomy navbar
Hey, I notice the insertion of Template:Mammaliaformes and am inclined to oppose that as 'not harmless' for [reasons]. There has been a little discussion here and there if you would like me to link that. ~ cygnis insignis 17:53, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of 2MASS J20360829−3607115


The article 2MASS J20360829−3607115 has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "Non notable astronomical object"

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

Note: Delayed procedural notice. –LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄ ) 08:25, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

More discussion before big navbox changes would be appreciated
Hello Chermundy, I would like you to know that your efforts to combine and reformat navboxes are a bit difficult to moderate. I disagree with many of your formatting choices, such as combining the Archosauriformes and Archosauromorpha navboxes, or creating a separate grouping for Crocopoda. I believe these kinds of edits create unnecessary clutter and are difficult for readers to navigate. However, you edit so quickly and affect so many pages in a short time span that it can be difficult to keep track of your work if one wishes to revert it. This conduct can be considered suspicious, but I believe you are acting in good faith even if I don't understand your motivations. I simply request that you give WP:PALEO some warning before you completely rewrite a navbox in use on hundreds of Wikipedia pages. It would be really helpful for me and a few other users who occasionally take issue with these types of edits. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 18:37, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Seriously, what is your goal in condensing separate reptile navboxes together. Is it really helpful for general readers? I don't want to be rude, but once again I would like some warning before you do this kind of edit wave. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 17:06, 3 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Further, we only ever use ONE image in a navbox. The use of 6 images in the Insect Orders box could mislead some people into supposing the images represented the full range of Orders, or were intended to (so they'd add even more...). The rule and custom is one image per box, and it's a good one. I second Fanboyphilosopher's comments above; navboxes are widely used and must be changed cautiously and per policy. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:29, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
 * While I'm fine with multiple images being used in navboxes in general, I agree that it would be confusing in a navbox based around orders, rather than genera. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 15:25, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Musca/doc
Template:Musca/doc has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:01, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:42, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Nomination for merger of Template:Star systems within 5 light-years
Template:Star systems within 5 light-years has been nominated for merging with Template:Star systems within 5–10 light-years. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. SevenSpheres (talk) 18:40, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Request for you to reverse some recent changes to tetrapod navboxes
Hello Chermundy, I noticed that you have made a lot of recent edits to several navbox templates regarding prehistoric tetrapods and reptiles. I am kindly asking you to reconsider and undo all of the changes you have made over the past few days. These recent edits I take issue with include: To elaborate on the first two bullets, as I understand it, these changes were inspired by a desire to conform to the phylogenetic hypothesis of a fairly recent paper, "Successive climate crises in the deep past drove the early evolution and radiation of reptiles" by Simões et al., 2022. I do not inherently disagree with the paper's hypothesis that some groups frequently regarded as parareptiles or sauropsids may be better positioned elsewhere in the tetrapod family tree. However, this is a novel hypothesis which will require more evaluation by future studies.
 * Moving mesosaurs, millerettids, and acleistorhinids from the parareptile navbox to the sauropsid navbox.
 * Moving araeoscelidians, captorhinids, and protorothyrids from the sauropsid navbox to the early tetrapod navbox.
 * Dividing the early tetrapod navbox through the addition of a second "total-Amniota" group.

In my opinion, Simões et al., 2022 is a paper which is simply too "young" to be authoritative or for us to alter our navboxes to follow its conclusions. There's little evidence that it has established a new consensus on amniote and stem-amniote phylogeny, even if a few of its conclusions (like parareptile paraphyly) are independently supported by some other research teams. Another concern of mine is that the new phylogeny depicted in Simões et al., 2022 is secondary to the main topic of the paper (the response of amniote diversity through Carboniferous-Triassic climate change), so a lot of aspects of the new family tree are not described or justified in detail. For example, their phylogeny labels "Amniota" and "Crown-Amniota" as distinct nested clades, despite other studies consistently using Amniota as a crown group.

That brings me to my third bullet: "Reptiliomorpha" is the most commonly used name for the total group of Amniota, so I see no justification for the erection of "total-Amniota" as a distinct subset within Reptiliomorpha. I should also note that "total-Amniota" is a term which is not present in the scientific literature (0 hits on google scholar). Phylonyms (2020) does prefer a similar clade name ("pan-Amniota") as an alternative to Reptiliomorpha. However, the guidelines described in Phylonyms are not authoritative nor beholden to consensus, and even Phylonyms admits that Reptiliomorpha is a far more common name for the total group of Amniota.

For all of these reasons, I request that you pause and backtrack on your recent overhaul of those three navboxes and the various articles which rely on them. I believe it would save all of us a lot of time and effort. You have done great work on creating and maintaining Wikipedia navboxes in the past, and I would greatly appreciate the chance for us to maintain better lines of communication to resolve or prevent these disagreements ahead of time. NGPezz (talk) 02:29, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Deomyinae
Template:Deomyinae has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Nosferattus (talk) 04:07, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Nomination of List of star systems within 20–25 light-years for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of star systems within 20–25 light-years is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/List of star systems within 20–25 light-years (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished. Hekerui (talk) 12:24, 13 July 2024 (UTC)