User talk:GrahamBould/Archive 1

Notoclinops
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as Notoclinops, but we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites or printed material. Perhaps you would like to rewrite the article in your own words. For more information, take a look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Happy editing! --Esprit15d 14:59, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Military history
Hi Graham, just looking at your contributions here I thought you might be interested in WikiProject Military history. It's a loose collaboration to improve the general standard of articles relating to the subject. Leith p 10:14, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Merging usernames
I don't know how to merge usernames, and I don't think that is possible anymore anyway. The request page is no longer active, unfortunately. Adam Bishop 02:12, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Your contributions
Hi, I have not had a look to see how much you have contributed, but everything is linked to the articles and will not go away. On your own talk page you can create a section refering to your old user name. You can carry on as though you have two accounts but just use one of them. You can also summarise all your edits in a list on your talk page. I will think more about your question in the meantime.. Regards Gregorydavid 06:46, 8 March 2006 (UTC) Hi,

How to read FishBase
FishBase prints the authority for a taxon at the top, next to the taxon. So for the Common Triplefin, the authority is Hardy, 1989 (a paper by G. S. Hardy in the Journal of Natural History which first described and named the species). The Fricke reference is where FishBase get their information about the fish, but it's not the authority for the name. I've corrected Common Triplefin and some other of your contributions.

You can see the current edition of FishBase by looking at the FishBase home page. The edition is under the logo at the top left and in the citation information near the bottom. FishBase switched today from the 11/2005 edition to the 01/2006. So I've put month = November | year = 2005 in your articles, but from now (until they release a new edition) it should be month = January | year = 2006. Gdr 12:47, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I moved Notoclinus fenestratus to New Zealand Topknot.

I like your triplefin articles, and look forward to seeing more from you. (After all, there are 40,000 species of fish and I doubt if we have 1,000 of them in Wikipedia...) Don't worry too much about all the pedantic details; these can always be fixed. Gdr 14:31, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Redfish
You have two choices when you encounter a fish whose common name is shared with other fishes (a very common occurrence): Gdr 21:41, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Place the article the scientific name, in this case Centroberyx affinis.
 * 2) Look in FishBase for an alternative common name that's unique (click on "Common Names" in the table of links below the species summary). In this case that's here. So you could try Eastern Nannygai. (But do check that your name really is unique: for example it wouldn't do to choose "Golden Snapper" because there are several fishes with that name: see .)

Parentheses
The parentheses — or lack of them — around a zoological authority are important. Parentheses around an authority mean that the authority originally placed the species in a different genus. The lack of parentheses means that the original genus is unchanged.

For example, we write Cepola haastii (Hector, 1881) with parentheses because James Hector originally named the species Hypolycodes haastii; the species was moved to Cepola by M. E. Anderson in 1994.

However, we write Aplodactylus arctidens Richardson, 1839 without parentheses because it remains in the original genus to which John Richardson assigned it. Gdr 22:29, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Snubnosed/Parasitic eel
This is a difference in classification systems. In FishBase, the Snubnosed Eel is treated as a member of the subfamily Simenchelyinae, within the family of cutthroat eels, Synaphobranchidae. But in ITIS, this distinction is raised to the level of family and the Snubnosed Eel is treated as a member of the family Simenchelyidae.

This kind of difference in classification is common. We generally follow FishBase for the classification we put in taxoboxes (see WikiProject Fishes) but when there's a difference we should explain it.

I've edited Snubnosed Eel to explain the two systems. Gdr 11:53, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Samoa Sawtooth Eel
FishBase didn't have any alternative common names for Serrivomer samaoensis, but on the web I found the name "Samoa Sawtooth Eel". So I moved the page there, with a page at sawtooth eel on the family. Gdr 13:23, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Smelt
There are many fishes known as smelts: see. I think this is a case like eel: there is a main meaning (i.e. Osmeridae) and a bunch of secondary meanings. So we would be best served with primary topic disambiguation: that is, at the top of the smelt page.

In any case there is no need to list a species like Retropinna retropinna when you've already listed its family, Retropinnidae. See eel (disambiguation) for an example: it would be inappropriate for the disambiguation page to list all eels. Gdr 16:03, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Knifefish
You got a bit confused with your various knifefish pages, so I sorted it out. When common names get confusing, it's often best to use scientific names. So in this case we should use the names Gymnotiformes, Notopteridae,Sternopygidae etc. for the various groups commonly called knifefishes. It's best to have a single page to disambiguate all the meanings of "knifefish", rather than splitting it into marine and freshwater pages, which doesn't make much sense taxonomically.

If in doubt, you can always leave a message at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Fishes and someone will help. Gdr 18:52, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Commons
Commons is intended for all Wikipedias to use as a resource, so its best if the category names use the scientific name instead of the English/German/Japanese/etc name. Gdr 18:54, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Black lizardfish
It's a typo. The black lizardfish is Bathysauropsis gracilis. See. Gdr 14:18, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Genera in italics
Hi. I saw you change my newly created article Odacidae. But you made a small mistake. According to convent the genus and species name should be in italics, see Binomial nomenclature. Isfisk 20:54, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Listing species
There is no standard format. I prefer
 * Common name, Scientific name Authority, date.

The reasons I prefer it like this are (a) it goes from the familiar (common name), to the esoteric (authority) so people can stop reading at an appropriate point for their level of interest; (b) it avoids having double parentheses in the case where the authority requires parentheses. However, other orders are also fine. Gdr 12:55, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Blind Electric Rays and Blind legged torpedoes
hi -= I think you might have re-directed my Blind Electric Ray article at the Blind Legged torpedo one. I know it's kind of a weird request, but could the main article be called Blind Electric Ray, not Blind legged torpedo, and with the redirect going the other way? They're both legitimate names for the fish, as far as I can see, but I think Blind Electric Ray is the better name (more common in NZ where I come from) - indeed, you'll see I've even named my Wiki-self after it. I don't know anyone else in the world who's especially interested in blind electric rays (or ~ legged torpedoes), so I can't see it'd do any harm could it? ElectricRay 22:29, 30 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks Graham - these days I'm in Muswell Hill. I figured you must be a kiwi from the sorts of fish you know about! One of the seminal moments of my life (strange as it may seem) was wandering round the old Museum of New Zealand on Chaytor St in Wellington, and seeing an exhibit of stuffed fish perched on sticks "swimming" in a pretend aquarium (ie a pit painted blue). The one at the front was the Blind Electric Ray, which I thought sounded a lot like a blues musician, and from that point on (for some reason I remember it being St Patrick's day, 1995) I began writing the biography of Blind Electric Ray, the blind blues vacuum player from Mississippi. And one day, I'll finish it. ElectricRay 11:35, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Blue Morwong
Graham, why d'ya blank this fella? Did you make a mistake of some kind and want it deleted? Do you want me to restore the redirect or nominate it for deletion? Let me know on my talkpage. Thanks. - the.crazy.russian   τ   ç   ë  17:42, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
 * You did nothing wrong. See . On 3/21 you created a redirect, and on 4/3 you blanked the page. Now, what I am trying to understand is, did you blank it by accident (which I assumed and restored it) or did you blank it because the redirect was a mistake, in which case you should apply db-author instead of blanking. So which is it? - the.crazy.russian   τ   ç   ë  18:23, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Re:Manukau tides
You wrote: ''In the second paragraph, does the size or shape of the harbour cause a large difference between high & low tide? I think not. It would be the same no matter what the size or shape of the harbour was.'' GrahamBould 12:32, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree (although the shape of a harbour can affect tides if the current is in a certain direction - the Bay of Fundy is a classic example). I'm not sure why you asked me about this, though - I live at the other end of the country, and the only edit I've done to that article in the last year was adding a map. Grutness...wha?  13:12, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Heh. It was a bit after 1 a.m. - I work as a freelance writer and as an artist - I find it easier to work in the evenings and night, so I get up late and stay up late. Grutness...wha?  01:50, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Morwongs
Please use the Morwong talk page for this discussion so that others could see your opinion on this. :-)

I'm sorry I made it feel like I was out to get Morwongs. As I mentioned there, I didn't realize their importance in Australia. It's just that I've seen many other articles that group all species into the genus page. Thanks, Brazucs ( TALK | CONTRIBS ) 16:55, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Telling other editors to "please leave" without going to the talk page doesn't strike me as terribly polite regardless of the usage of the word "please".

When linking articles, it is customary to link only the first instance, and not any subsequent instances. Therefore, linking both common and scientific names of the same species is redundant and unnecessary. Also: I quote Manual of Style (links) directly --


 * An article may be considered overlinked if any of the following is true:


 * a link is repeated in the same article (although there may be case for duplicating an important link that is distant from the previous occurrence)

Now, I won't get into an edit war over this, because this is honestly worth neither your time nor me, but I think there are a few things you should review about Wikipedia:

Civility Ownership of articles Assume good faith

Finally, I think Gdr said it best:
 * Don't worry too much about all the pedantic details; these can always be fixed.

I hope you'll consider giving your justification for the reverts on the Morwong talk page -- if you can provide some WP policy or WikiProject style point, I'd be more than happy to see it. Cheers! -- Miwa 15:28, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Texan
''Interested in why you moved my picture to the right. If you look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Pictures it states that where there are multiple images they can be staggered. Personally, I don't like to see all pictures lined up as on a parade ground (had enough of that :-) GrahamBould 08:29, 5 May 2006 (UTC)''


 * The formatting looked weird. Left-aligned photos in the middle of the text make the whole page zigzag. But I suppose this is very dependent on monitor resolution and font size. - Emt147 Burninate!  16:58, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

No problem
Lol, no problem. Happens to the best of us. :) --liquidGhoul 08:56, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

RE:Missing Images
Well, first of all, I would like to thank you for approaching me for help. As you can see, I do not have enough experience on Wikipedia Commons, thus I am incompetent in this area of Wikipedia. However, I would like you to visit this page. If you are still unable to find a solution, I strongly encourage you to talk to one of the administrators about this. Moreover, I have never done any editing on Wikipedia Commons as well. Thank You for your kind understanding and please do not hesitate to approach me for help again as I would do my best to help you within my capacity. -- S iva1979 Talk to me  05:43, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Vever Steamer???
Hi! I see you reverted my edit which renamed the Vevey/Vever Steamer without comment and marked your edit as a minor edit. I therefore understand you are absolutely sure that the steamer is indeed called the "Vever", and not the "Vevey". Are you really sure this is correct?! Regards, --Powo 06:22, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Dissimilar?
The intro to the Maori Cod article says "The Maori Cod, Black Cod, Blue notothenia, Magellanic rockcod, Maori Chief, or Orange throat notothen (Paranotothenia magellanica) is a cod icefish". The Maori chief article says "The Maori chief is ......not too dissimilar to the Maori cod". Does not compute for this non fisho, but I guess there is a reason, if you'd like to pass it on. Also, why are names capped in some fisho intros but not in the article headings -- Maori Chief here but Maori chief, and Red Snapper here but Red snapper? Cheers Moriori 20:36, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Wood and trees
Hello. Can you tell me why you have placed a number of trees in Category:Wood? See also Category talk:Wood. Alan Liefting 17:30, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
 * See Category talk:Wood and Category:Wood for what I concider the articles that should be included. I have made a start at sorting out the category. See Special:Contributions/Alan Liefting.Alan Liefting 22:21, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Jafas
Cheers for the support! Tho maybe you should say it on the NZE talk page? I call it silly listitis. Once someone starts a silly list... well you get the picture. Don't let that sort of thing influence your decision about returning. We all create the world we live in - if you're positive, that's the world you get. Kahuroa 10:58, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Hochstetters frog
I noticed you put a "references" section is this new article, but forgot to actually list the references. Circeus 13:49, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

RE:Text beside boxes
Hello! I hope you are feeling fine. Firstly, I wish to state that the welcome message on your user page is a template. Thus, when you create a userbox, it would be below the template. However, when you add in more information on your user page, the words would automatically shift to the right of your userbox. See these pages here and here. I hope this helps. In the meantime, I made some edits on your userpage to align the userboxes correctly. If you disagree with the edits, simply revert them back to their original format. -- S iva1979 Talk to me  02:58, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Hello again! If you want the text to start after the box, simply press enter until there is a considerable space between the first line of the article to the starting of the text. Or you could create a very long text and the remainder of the text would automatically cover the bottom of the table. -- S iva1979 Talk to me  14:46, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Fin rays
Hello, you're probably wondering why I'm here - well I had a minor point to make on User:Gdr 's talk page and I saw your comment - so this should be good news for you - Pterygoplichthys - I'm adding to Loricariidae as time allows and this will include number of rays in fins info. as it's used to classify them. It's definately not too esoteric. Hope that's good news for you.HappyVR 20:42, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Hello again - so far I've only done genus Pterygoplichthys which has the number of fin rays as a distinguishing feature. The article is readable though not finished - I intend to add notable species to it later as well as 'fishbase' link. As for the taxobox - I'm interested in the idea of having a format for species/genera specific data - however other people have suggested that adding info. as a readable sentence is preferable - personally I prefer a list or table - I intend to bring this subject up at WikiProject Fishes at a later date. ThanksHappyVR 18:48, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Help Starting an Article
Help:Starting a new page

Moving pages
Hi, please don't move pages by cutting and pasting the contents. This loses the page history, which then has to be fixed by an admin. See WP:CUTPASTE for more explanation. I'm not sure that moving New Zealand greater short-tailed bat is a good idea anyway, but the article's talk page is a better place for that discussion. Avenue 13:58, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

RE:Move problem
Hello! I hope you are feeling great! As regards to your problem, I am unable to sort it out as I lack the necessary tools for doing this. Only admins are able to move your page (if it already exist). I suggest you contact an admin about this. For example, you can letJossi know about this. -- S iva1979 Talk to me  10:30, 2 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I fixed the problem. As I understand the situation, non-admins can move an article if there is no article at the new name, or if the new name is a redirect to the old name and has no history. In this case there was some history, so only an administrator could make a move.


 * Would you like me to nominate you for an administrator? Gdr 11:28, 2 June 2006 (UTC) (It's useful to be able to move pages and delete mistakes. But you might not succeed in becoming an administrator; some people like editors to have six months experience before they will support them. An alternative for moves you can't make yourself is to request the move at Requested moves.)

Flathead galaxias
Graham, I have moved the new page you created (after you moved the original page for G.rostratus to "Flathead galaxias (Australia)") to "Flathead galaxias (New Zealand)". I am not impressed that I had to fix a large number of links within Wikipedia that pointed to the original page and which after your edit pointed to the incorrect fish. I consider the way you made the change to be very impolite. In future if you create a new page for something that has the same name as an existing Wiki article, please do not do this. Create your new page with an different name, in this case I would have suggested using the name "Flathead galaxias (New Zealand)". That way existing links still work and any new links made to your new page will be OK too. Nick Thorne 23:13, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

New Zealand freshwater fish ...
... are now in Category:New Zealand freshwater fish. Gdr 18:52, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

G brevipinnis
Hi Graham, have you had a look at the discussion page on the article for this fish? I have made the suggestion that this article be reverted back to the original name. I know that fishbase uses the NZ common name, but that is only one source (and I have made representation to Fishbase that they should use a more inclusive common name). The Maori name is simply not recognised in the majority of the places, geographically speaking, that the species occurs. I would recommend before changing the name of articles it is a good idea to float the proposed change in the article's discussion page first. I have had issues before with NZ names for galaxias, it is not helped that some NZ names refer to several species and it took me a little while to sort it out when the original article for G macculatus was named Inanga a term which I am sure you are aware refers to several species. I don't want to make this a NZ vs Aus thing, apart form anything else that is not helpful and I think we are really trying to do the same thing here, but I think we should try to use neutral terminology for species we share - we can detail the differing common names within the article itself.Nick Thorne 23:00, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Perciformes
Hi Graham,

You are doing a great job ib creating fish pages but can you be a little more careful which category you put them into. It appears that you have added all your fish pages to the Perciformes category. Aside from the fact that some of them are not actually in the order perciformes, because perciformes is so huge (40% of all ray finned fish) any attempt to put fish species into the perciformes category would swamp it. As a result there is a category for each of the 128 or so fish families within the Perciformes Order and the fish are placed in the appropriate family category

Regards

Kerripaul 20:16, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Common Names
Hi. According to Naming conventions (fauna) you should use the common name as the article title. Isfisk 19:34, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Leiopelmatidae
Yep I'll make a Leiopelma distribution on a New Zealand map, however I need a map to work off, it doesn't look all that great if I just crop the world map. Me, user:liquidGhoul and user:froggydarb have been doing maps for the List of Anuran families, and we're working on the world map. I left a similar note on liquidGhoul's talk page about a more cropped version for Leiopelma for the reason that it is very difficult to see the distribution. As soon as I can find a decent sized NZ map i'll make the distribution maps (1 for each species).--Tnarg 12345 09:46, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I found this map on the New Zealand page, if you don't have any objections for it having the towns all over it I'll use it.--Tnarg 12345 10:00, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I left a note of Furius's talk page asking if he has a map that would best suit for distribution maps of Leiopelma, if he doesn't have one I will proably just use the map on Taranaki after a bit of editing, but I'll give him a couple days to reply.--Tnarg 12345 10:57, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I've uploaded all the distribution maps for the 4 species, I'll upload a family one soon.--Tnarg 12345 09:30, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * If a detailed map of the northern south island becomes is available (with Maud & Hamilton Islands on it) I'd make the species maps for L. hamiltoni & L. pakeka on it. I realise that it is hard to see, (the dot is only 1 pixel for the distribution) but there isn't much I can do until a map is made available to me. For all the maps I made I just got the distribution from IUCN and used microsoft paint (I'd use photoshop or paint shop pro but I don't have it on this computer) and drew the distribution on. The series of maps is a good idea, but once again I couldn't do it unless a detailed map is available. Cheers.--Tnarg 12345 10:21, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Sweet, that is a really good map. I'll make the distribution maps tonight. I think the series of maps would work best in the case as unless you are from New Zealand would would most likely not know where the map is of. Good work.--Tnarg 12345 21:28, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I've just uploaded a new map Image:Leiopelmatidae range zoomed.PNG, it make it much easier to see the whole distribution of the family. You may have noticed that there are some problems with the range maps at the moment, so when I learn how to overcome the problem (and hopefully learn how to make smaller file size maps) I will upload the maps for Hamiltons Frog and Maud Island Frog similar to the format of the Leiopelmatidae map.--Tnarg 12345 08:05, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I just had a look through the species in this family, and some of them still have stubs on them. Do you still consider them stubs? --liquidGhoul 08:33, 15 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I put a fair bit of effort into those maps and I'm glad they turned out how they did.--Tnarg 12345 21:25, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Alan Deere
Thanks for your work on this. :-) Winstonwolfe 02:10, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Marine life
I see you've resurrected Category:Marine life; I thought we'd seen the last of it. I'm still unsure about how useful such a vast category would be, given that all but one phyla have marine members, and many (most?) are exclusively marine. I also have problems with all crustaceans and molluscs being classed as marine life, since they each include many freshwater and terrestrial species. I think a better approach would be to make a really good article about marine life indicating the sorts of creatures that are important in different parts of the oceans, rather than trying to do it with categories. --Stemonitis 14:43, 19 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Anyone wanting to create and start filling a category called "Marine life" could try the fisheries management Wikia, http://fisherymanagement.wikia.com/ - contributors are welcomed if their work is only half-encyclopaedic! Robin Patterson 06:47, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Galaxias pusila
I notice you have changed the common name for G. pusila in the Galaxid page to "eastern little galaxias". This fish is in reality almost universally known as the "dwarf galaxias" - the term "eastern little galaxias" is not widely known at all. In Wikipedia I would have thought it more appropriate to use the generally accepted name.Nick Thorne 22:32, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Amphipods
Please do not add species on the Family level. Use Genus species for that purpose (There are also far too many species in the Talitridae). Thanks. Lycaon 13:37, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Barbel
Hello. I'm currently disambiguating Barbel, I'd just thought I'd let you know that for fish anatomy the term I've used is Barbel (anatomy). That's all.HappyVR 20:17, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Page Blanking
On 07-July, you blanked Atherinidae. Blanking pages is generally considered a bad idea. I've reverted it to the previous version. If this was the result of a broken edit, you may wish to make the correct edits. If you believe the redirect should be deleted, please follow the redirect portion of the deletion procedures. If you believe an article should be written instead of the redirect, please write a stub. If you have questions, please let me know. Thanks! -- JLaTondre 13:09, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Blanking is not the same as deleting. As I said in my note, "If you believe the redirect should be deleted, please follow the redirect portion of the deletion procedures" If you believe an article should be written instead of the redirect, please write a stub. There are appropriate ways of dealing with issues like this. Blanking is not one. Also, in future, please be sure to place discussion a person's talk page and not their user page. -- JLaTondre 13:37, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

You did a nice job converting it to an article. Unfortuently, I wish I had looked around sooner as I found a previous article titled Silverside (fish). It looks like it used to be at Silverside, but someone moved it & replaced it with the beef article which is what caused the redirect to point to the wrong article. I've tagged them for merging. Perhaps you'd care to do that? The best of both should be combined into one and a redirect created from the other to that one. Meanwhile, I'm going to move the beef article to Silverside (beef) and change Silverside to a disambig. Thanks. -- JLaTondre 01:17, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Echiodon rendhali
It's there. Try looking at the archive at Template talk:Did you know. It's a sort of holding pen before it goes to Mgm|(talk) 08:42, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

ADRIAN CARTON DE WIART
Thanks for your thoughtful and helpful stylistic corrections and additions to this article. User:Polycarp

Tetraodon mbu
Hi there, please pop over to Talk:Tetraodon mbu so we can discuss your recent changes. I have reverted the move and incorporated your recent edits into my previous edit. Please let me know if I've missed something. Thanks, BFD1  18:41, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Fish anatomy
done. Lukas3 00:39, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Mado (fish)
You have added fish-stub to this article. I think it is far from being a stub, & far from Wikipedia's definition of a stub. All it lacks is a picture, but that doesn't mean it is a stub. Could you please explain your reasoning. Thanks GrahamBould 07:54, 5 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The fact that is lacks a picture is the least of the articles issues. The key thing is that there is not real importance information in the article. I couldn't tell you from that article whehter or not the Mado (fish) is importance to its ecosystem or a taxanomic curiousity. --chemica 14:27, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Um?
What you just did to spiny dogfish - was that a mistake? DS 16:47, 5 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Okay, wait wait. I'm not entirely sure what is the nature of the mistake-from-which-recovery-is-needed.


 * First, you altered the text of the article on SD. Then, you moved it to FhC. Which one of those is the mistake? Is the SD the same species as the FhC? DS 16:56, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay, got it. To preserve the edit history, you should be the one who does this. Start flathead catshark again, and use the material from here. DS 17:14, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Mustelus
Is there a reason for Mustelus to be at the genus name and not at smooth-hound? Naming conventions (fauna) says to use common names when it makes sense to do so. Gdr 22:17, 6 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The general advice is to use a common name for the highest-ranked group to which it applies. It's very often the case that some species within the group bears the same common name as the group (usually the first-named, or most common, species in the group, the meaning of the common name having been extended as more species have been identified). Thus "smooth-hound" originally referred only to Mustelus mustelus (the only member of the genus known to Linnaeus), with the scope of the common name being extended as more species were discovered.


 * Sometimes the original species acquires a new common name, e.g. Atlantic cod (once just "cod"), northern bluefin tuna (once just "bluefin tuna"), but when it doesn't we're left in the awkward case of the most well-known species in a group having to be placed at the scientific name.


 * I'll move the page and fix up the redirects. Gdr 10:18, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Good work
Just wanted to say nice work on filling the redlinks in the shark species. Only another 250 or so to go, but at your work rate they should be done by next week. Cheers, Yomangani talk 16:39, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Isurus oxyrinchus.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Isurus oxyrinchus.jpg. The image description page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. 07:06, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Eagle ray and Manta
Hi, I noticed on the page Eagle ray, that you made a link to Manta. This is currently an article about a city in Ecuador, and somehow I think this is not what you meant. And it does not seem you wanted it to be Manta ray either. As my knowledge of biology is very limited, I don't know how to correct this and hope you do. Errabee 06:57, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Box?
If you are talking about the staus template then unfortuently (sp?) we are having a technical problem with it. Background colour has strangely dissapeared. The text you need to know is visible The status of this article is Status as well as the status logo. Lenny 07:52, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Sharks
No chance of that - you are a shark-article-creating whirlwind! I'm trying to outguess you on the "Things you can do" section on Portal:Sharks (although I probably shouldn't have told you that - spinner shark lasted a good few weeks before you knocked it off). Cheers,  Yomangani talk 13:05, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Short-tail stingray
Fascinating that nobody cared enough to edit the article you started until today ) LindaWarheads 21:15, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Bigeye thresher
Hi Graham. I have put talk templates for WikiProject Sharks on all of the sharks pages in Category:Sharks. One is for WikiProject Sharks, the other one was the one that has been put on there by User:Unisouth for 'his' project WikiProject:Shark. I will let you decide which project has more merit and which one you want to bother with. The template can also be used to inform people of doings at the project like at Tiger shark. --chris_huh 10:37, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Map
I tracked down the crocodile shark map in wikimedia commons, but there was no explanation as to what the light and dark areas meant. I've asked the creator, so as soon as they let me know I'll update it. Cheers, Yomangani talk 15:03, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Shark maps
I checked that pigeye shark map and it was a little different so i adjusted to be more like FishBase. I got the information for the map from a book, which happens to have almost all species of shark in it, so i was thinking of making a load of maps from that, but i will have to check if they are wildy different from fishbase. chris_huh 01:34, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Elasmobranchii and Chondrichthyes]
Isn't Chondrichthyes the class and Elasmobranchii the sub-class chris_huh 17:25, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
 * We were looking into the categories. Under the Sharks Project i think that they would be listed under Sharks, the Order, and the Family. So that Greenland shark would be under Category:Sharks, Category:Squaliformes and Category:Dalatiidae. I am not sure yet if this is what we have decided on, you may want to check the Project discussion page. chris_huh 17:57, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Species
I agree. I think the top level List of sharks is handy, but keeping it and the other order and family pages in sync doesn't make for easy maintainance. I have proposed that we handle this by transcluding the genus lists into the family lists, the family lists into the order lists and so on. It makes it slightly harder to edit the pages but it means that the lists only need to be updated once. Cheers, Yomangani talk 19:08, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'd continue what you are doing. My idea is some way off being reality. I basically meant that each higher level would be made up by the including of subsections of the lower levels. You could have a template for each genus which listed the species and the a list for the family could be created by including (transcluding as it is known here) the species list from each genus page. Since they would only be held in one place (in a subpage of the genus page) they would only need maintaining in one place. Anyway, for the moment I think what you are doing is right. Yomangani talk 19:25, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Wobbegong
On what authorities are you basing the changes you made in the wobbegong species? Is it just the Fishbase list? I looked at it a couple of weeks ago, and left O.halei and O.hutchinsi as they seem to have valid authorities from 2006. I couldn't find a reference for the accepted name for O.dasypogon/Eucrossorhinus dasypogon and since they were duplicated, I left the monotypic version. Yomangani talk 22:38, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Merely mortal
Unfortunately I'm only a mere mortal too. I'll list it at Requested Moves though. Yomangani talk 13:07, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Listed now. There is a quite a backlog there but it will get moved eventually. Yomangani talk 13:38, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Somebody objected to the move, so you might want to give your opinion on the talk page. Yomangani talk 10:07, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Sign!
I think you should sign this vote for it to be valid, thanks! Stefan 13:35, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Categories
I think it is a bit of a mess - I hadn't really noticed. I think the initial plan was for order for the cats but I don't think having family will hurt (although we'll end up with some single item categories). Yomangani talk 19:46, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I have tried to stay out of this topic since I do not like what will happen if we follow the rules. But nevermind here we go, this is what I THINK is correct, but not 100% sure.


 * 1) as for sharks and its subcategories, if you have a shark category and a sub category i.e. Carcharhinidae, a page should only have one category of the two, the subcategory, i.e. Carcharhinidae. See WikiProject_Fishes/Categories. This I do not want since I think it is nice to be able to look at all pages in category sharks, wikimedia does not make it as easy to find all pages in sharks and its subcategories, and since the sharks category will have so many non taxonomic subcategories it will be to complicated (now we have fictional sharks), if we look at fishes it is very bad to use to find all fish species pages since you get sub-sub-sub-sub categories that is americal ships and everything. (One good use for this is bots and AWB and watchlists, now I can do one run for category shark and get almost all, if we follow the rules it will be much more work).


 * 2) How many subcategories should we have, I do not think there are any definitions of this, I say do what makes sense, since we have subcategories (and I think we need to follow the rules on that, a category with one member is still a sub category and therefore have its place, but then again I do not really agree with the sub category idea here ...) (should look at pages about how to define categories maybe there is some wikipedia rules for this, I can not remeber seeing any but I do nto have time to look now)


 * One more idea, maybe we should have a new category, shark_taxa or something, then it would be clean and then a more generic shark category without the sub categories .... not sure. What do you think? Stefan 00:46, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Very good work, thanks! and do not run away to the rays now, I'm sure you can find some other things to do on the sharks :-) are you using AWB or something??? Think that would save you a lot of time! and when you are done with the rays do all the fishes ... and then off to all animals (I guess we will never see you again :-) ), please take a well deserved rest!!! And no I can not think of any good way to find pages without the shark category, you could check for pages linking to shark and hoping pages without the shark cat would do that, you could also check linkage to the orders in the taxobox (if they have taxoboxes, but if they do they most likely have cat also), except for that I can not see any good ways to check. Stefan 14:54, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Your comments on List of sharks
I'm going to be working on that list shortly to have it built up from the individual species lists, so when we update one the main list is updated automatically. Chris huh has already started something similar for the cetecean species. I agree about the list of shark articles - it used to be useful, but now we've got hundreds it isn't workable, so I've redirected it. Yomangani talk 13:44, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, agree, used to be good but now GrahamBould have been working to much so to many pages :-) Stefan 13:49, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Blanking of Longtail stingray
Hi, you recently blanked Longtail stingray and it was tagged for speedy deletion per CSD G7.

I just wanted to know why you blanked the page? It was a valid re-direct link, and the longtail stingray is also known as the thorntail stingray. I did my research and found from this (and a few other websites) that they are indeed identical. -- Nish kid 64 20:26, 27 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeah, it's all good now. I restored the page, and it's back to being a valid re-direct link. Remember to Be Bold!. Don't be afraid of making edits on Wikipedia. Thanks, and happy editing! -- Nish kid 64 20:39, 27 September 2006 (UTC)


 * That does bring up a problem. I think that since at the moment we don't have an article on Longtail, we should just keep the redirect for people who may be looking for Thorntail stingray. For now, the article should remain as a redirect, and when you do actually make the article, you can remove the redirect and add in your content. Thanks for addressing the issue. -- Nish kid 64 21:15, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Great job with the article so far. I think it's in perfectly good shape for now. Thanks for all! -- Nish kid 64 14:18, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Rays
There's a category Category:Rays which might be what you are looking for (it covers Batoidea and Rajiformes so encompasses both types of "ray"). Cheers Yomangani talk 18:36, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Re:Rajiformes
Yes, I noticed Category:Myliobatidae was a redlink, so I created it and moved some of the articles into it. Having both the parent category and a subcat in an article is a little redundant, but I realise some people disagree with that. &mdash;Xezbeth 18:37, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Category removal
I think they are removing them because the category doesn't exist - I solved this on some of the family categories by editing the category page and adding it to the order category, but I obviously didn't get them all. Yomangani talk 08:53, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I re-added all those that the bots removed over the past day and created the appropriate category pages for them, but there may still be the odd family category that is a redlink. I'll pick them off as I see them, or fix them if the bots remove them again. Yomangani talk 13:27, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Pristiformes
Are you confusing them with Pristiophoriformes (sawsharks v sawfish)? Otherwise which Compagno book are you refering to? They certainly aren't in the FAO shark catalogue. Cheers, Yomangani talk 13:24, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Maps
No worries. I had planned to make a lot more as i ahve a book with tonnes in. But i turned out to be busier than i thought i would be. I will get round to making more at some point though. You, on the other hand, are some sort of crazy shark article producing machine, you may need to slow down to prevent a hernia. Have you joined the Sharks wikiProject yet? chris_huh 14:32, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I actually just realised that i have the same book as you, the collins field guide. Thats where i am getting most of the maps from. I think that the data in this book is good, but with some things it might need to be referenced with somewhere else, like the fao or fishbase, or something. But its a damn handy book though. chris_huh 14:35, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
 * My mistake, thats the small one isnt it, i almost bought that then i saw this with lovely maps. chris_huh

Project sharks
Welcome! Finally!! I think you have done more shark related updates than all of us other members together so far! Thanks and keep up the good work! Stefan 14:58, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Nice work sharky!!!!!! How many more exist? Ernst Stavro Blofeld 12:00, 4 October 2006 (UTC) Please correct yourErnst Stavro Blofeld 12:02, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Taxonomy
It can either be removed or updated automatically once the auto-updating system is in place - I haven't done any work on it yet, as I'm investigating whether this is going to cause server problems. Cheers, Yomangani talk 10:35, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Berry
I glanced at your article on the purple rock crab, and saw that "the females are in berry from November to February". It took me a moment to figure out what this meant; I had to try a few different wordings before Google would tell me anything useful. Can you verify my addition to berry (disambiguation)? Thanks. DS 15:03, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Excuse me for butting in, but your disambig entry is entirely correct. Cheers, Nick Thorne 21:26, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Ghost crabs
I have renamed the article on Ghost crabs back to singular as per Naming conventions and Naming conventions (plurals). You moved the article a few days ago.--Golden Wattle talk 21:31, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Unio crassus in the Netherlands
I saw that you removed Unio crassus from the List of extinct animals of the Netherlands. Why? You say because it is not extinct. You're right that it is not globally extinct, but it is in the Netherlands as far as I know, thus regionally extinct. It has not been seen in the Netherlands after 1968. The Dutch Ministry of Agriculture, Nature and Food Quality also lists it as Extinct in the Netherlands. Therefor I moved it back on the list. Please if you have sources it survives in the Netherlands, post them. Peter Maas 10:02, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Amazing work and dedication
All of your work on sharks is amazing. Thanks for contributing so much.Mike 12:26, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

The government is safe
See WikiProject_Fishes and sleep well!!! :-) Stefan 14:58, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Hyphens etc
Hi Barbatus, You are quite right in your use of en-dashes. My only point was that en-dashes are not much different from hyphens, & I still maintain that a space each side of the en-dash (or hyphen) looks better, is clearer, & easier to read. If you look at numerous other biographies etc the space/en-dash or hyphen/space is frequently used in separating the birth & death dates, for example. But lets call it a draw. :-) GrahamBould 17:50, 25 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry, Graham, I've been out of touch for a couple of days ... There's no standard (as it used to be in the former USSR, for example), and every publisher can (and does) have its "house style." The Wiki's own Manual of Style, in the dashes section, merely states: "An en dash placed between numbers or in compounds does not have spaces around it: for example Paris–Brussels timetable, Ages 7–77. Some writers, however, prefer to place a space on either side in complex ranges: January 1, 2003 – December 31, 2004." After over 15 years in publishing (last 11 of those years—in the U.S.), I can tell that I've seen all kinds of variations in the usage of dashes, but it would probably be safe to say that the majority of Anglo-American publishers prefer both em- and en-dashes closed (or tight, as they are called in the Wiki MoS). Thank you, Barbatus 19:23, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Naming guidelines - Birds
Hello, please see WikiProject Birds before you move or renaming another bird pages ! --Stavenn 06:00, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Mainland islands
Yeah i know, i noticed- thats why i deleted all that discussion stuff on the karori wildlife sanctuary page half way through. I added a link to it on the karori sanctuary page. It looks pretty good- mind you I've rarely / never heard of the term "ecological island" being used. I think there may be a case for renaming the article "mainland island" .Theres a shit load to do in this area.. so gracias for showing some initiative and creating the article.

Kotare 01:05, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

>>>Re: Hi Graham. yep that sounds like a good idea I think. I'm free to collaborate towards renaming this article and exapnding it and creating pages for other mainland islands/ecological islands in existence in late January if you're happy to leave it untill then. cheers, Kotare 00:47, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Units
I had used to think exactly that - first time its used it should be written in full (metres) and after that just abbreviated (m). And metres should be before then have ft in brackets (unless like in some parts of GWS where it is a quote). I had thought that but then doing some work on Fin Whale and i checked MOSNUM and it said that it should be written in full all the time, but not the units used in brackets. Hope this helps. chris_huh 10:15, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your help.
Thank you for your help in the DYK on the Charles S. Lawrence article. I apologize for this being late, but thank you anyway. Chris 14:59, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Panzer Lehr Division
Just thought I'd explain why I reverted your long edit. You seemed to mostly be only changing from american-english to Oxford-english, which is not necessary. You also put the term Lehr in parenthisis, regularly separating it from the rest of the unit name. This division was the Panzerlehr-division, that is, Panzer and Lehr are a single word (not even a name as it's a descriptive, this is essentially a nameless unit). If parenthisis are used they should be around the two words... The only part of your edit I found useful were the added wikilinks, considering how almost your entire edit seemed irrelevant or incorrect I was left with no choice but to revert in bulk.--Caranorn 13:09, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Pinnotheres
A quick explanation in case you were wondering about my changes: the article pea crab was originally about P. pisum (as stated in the taxobox), but an incorrect statement about New Zealand got added. So, the article wasn't really about the New Zealand pea crab, as you assumed, although that's an understandable mistake. Not being an admin., I couldn't undo your move to preserve the history of the article "pea crab", but I have recreated it instead. I'll admit there's a fair degree of European bias here, with creatures from elsewhere being disambiguated to names like "New Zealand pea crab", and the European ones being simply "pea crab", but that's a general historical phenomenon that Wikipedia has to follow, I'm afraid. --Stemonitis 08:27, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Pouched lamprey
I wish you hadn't done that. Geotria australis was a correct title. Whether the common name is a better title is dubious. I don't think you should have performed such a move without first establishing a consensus to do so. I for one would have opposed the move. Hesperian 11:28, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I had a look around, and I see that your move was squarely in line with Naming conventions (fauna). Of course the article should stay where it is, and I withdraw my suggestion that you should have established consensus first.
 * I must say I think this particular convention is mindbogglingly stupid. But that's not your problem, and it has nothing to do with this article.
 * Hesperian 12:16, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Why were scientific names even invented? Because common names are rife with ambiguity and duplication. I can understand why dog is considered a better title than Canis lupus familiaris, but I would have thought such cases would be the exception rather than the rule. I reckon the scientific name makes a better title 99% of the time. Hesperian 12:29, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Redirects. Hesperian 22:12, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Redirects
Hi, Regarding your question on adding category to redirect pages, I don't know that there is a specific policy on this. In my opinion, it completes the category list by giving both the common and the scientific name. Anyone doing a search by category can then find the species both to the common name as well as the scientific name. Although the redirect pages contain no material, if you click on these links from the category page, you will automatically be redirected to the actual article. In effect it completes the index. In particular, this could be helpful for wikipedians of other languages in that even if they can communicate in English, they may not know what the translation of a common name may be. For example, Sattel-Spitzkopfkugelfisch is german for Valentinni's sharpnose puffer, even the most advanced German english speaker (or vice versa), would be hard pressed to know the german-english translation for this, but the scientific name connects the two and so the scientific name should be included in the category list. I would suggest that this be done for all species and if it needs a policy, please let me know where I can go to propose it. To be honest, I think I separate scientific name index would be valuable as common names are not always the same. The above mentioned Valentinni's sharpnose puffer for example, is the official common name given on fishbase but it is far more commonly known as a black saddled toby. Which one is right? Regards Jnpet 02:44, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * May I butt in? Your talk page is still on my watchlist.
 * This was used to (in my opinion) good effect at Category:Banksia taxa. All species articles are at the scientific name and categorised into Category:Banksia species by scientific name. Redirects (and the odd disambiguation page) from common names are categorised into Category:Banksia species by common name.
 * This is a great idea, policy or no.
 * Hesperian 05:45, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Cyprinidae, Danios etc.
Graham,

What on earth are you doing to the danio pages. There is a sub-category of cyprinidae called Danios so the 40 odd Danio species pages go in that category instead of clogging up the cyprinidae. Thats the whole point of subcategories.

Also with regards to the change you made to Danionin common name disambiguation to put Danio in lower case. In this case the names are common names not scientific names so capitalisation is acceptable. Im not that bothered about this issue in itself but all those names were hyperlinks to other wikipedia pages and when you decapitalised them you severed the links. Please be more careful

Kerripaul 20:22, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Shark subcats
Hi! Yes, I can remove categories, semiautomatically, using AWB, I'm pretty sure I can do it totally automatically using my bot. Have to test a bit though. So we agree to remove all "...formes" cats from all pages that have shark cat? Stefan 00:37, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
 * GrahamBould, sorry! Life is busy right now, I intended to try to get my bot to fix the categories this weekend, but now I will not have the time, I will do it, but I can not commit to any time, I'm also trying to assess all shark artikles and that takes a lot of time. Actually a other way of removing them is to delete them, since there is a bot that removes the usage of non existsing categories already, anyway I will do it, but it will not be before next weekend and maybe even later. Stefan 00:06, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi! Yes, hum, sorry for forgetting, or pushing it further and further down on my todo list, I will not have time to do this, for the next week, and then I will be on a 2 weeks wikibreak,soyou should better do it on your own, I suggest to ask to have them removed, then whatere the bot is called will remove all usage from all pages, so that should be the simplest way. Stefan 13:30, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Hey
Thanks for your edits to all the Scorpaenidae genera I made. You're one step ahead of me. Dark j e  di requiem  02:15, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Nice work in the underwater world!! Do you intend establishing the genus first and then starting the species of them later. I fee; inclined to start Chilomycterus spinosus mauretanicus found off the coast of Angola and MauritaniaErnst Stavro Blofeld 20:19, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I know brilliant stuff. I bet there are millions of articles on species missing from wikipedia, Ernst Stavro Blofeld 16:58, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Striated frogfish
Hi! I noticed you were the original author of the Striated frogfish article. I have some decent photos of this species from my dive trip to Indonesia and want to upload and use those images on this article, replacing the drawn picture in the taxobox. I thought I'd run it by you first since you are the original author. I'd think a photo would be better. What do you think?Jnpet 05:11, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Sounds good! I'll upload the photos this weekend and send you the link. And you are absolutely right about the variation. The pictures I have are of the hairy variety. In fact, I had a tough time identifying the species on the picture because where I was diving they were known as hairy frogfish. By the way, will move this discussion over to the Striated frogfish talk page. We can contnue from there.Jnpet 01:56, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * As discussed. Have uploaded images. Check out Talk:Striated frogfish. Jnpet 14:52, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I think gallery worked fine there. If anyone wants a close up, they need only click on the images. I do have many more pics which I intend to upload eventually. Takes time identifying them. I did post one picture of a frogfish on fish project talk page asking for help in identifying it. Perhaps you could take a look? At any rate, I have the same user name on commons. You can take a look there and check my gallery for what's been uploaded so far. More to come! Cheers! Jnpet 17:05, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Thylacine
Thanks for those pointers - I think the wombats must have crept into the second half of that sentence in some cut and paste marathon, I've swapped it with potaroos. I wondered about the use of joey, but our page (though unreferenced unfortunately) on joey (marsupial) says any marsupial - do you have a source to say otherwise? By the way, I've put the dashes back in to the imperial weight ranges - I think it breaks the flow too much otherwise; using the dashes removes it from the syntax of the sentence somewhat. Cheers, Yomangani talk 23:41, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * ...and I apologise for spelling your name wrong in the edit summary (bring on standardi(zs)ed spelling).

Re:sac - I don't think the etymology of the word needs to cover the animal meaning. What I meant to say is the descrption for the etymology specifically mentions it comes from the Greek for "sack". There probably isn't a separate Greek word for "sac", but I don't think we should change the wording of the referenced text just because it fits better with what we understand a sac to be. Yomangani talk 13:04, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm confused now - that says they are called joeys. Or have I completely missed the point. I thought you were saying that the Thylacine wouldn't have joeys as it wasn't a hopping marsupial. Yomangani talk 14:19, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Ah, got it. I never even thought about it. I was using young, pup and joey interchangeably. Maybe I should swap joey to the first mention of their young and leave the rest as is? Yomangani talk 14:47, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

That was just to emphasise that it was on the mainland at that time. I've reworded it slightly to get the same effect without excluding Tasmania. Yomangani talk 19:42, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Renaming
Since there is more than two common names for the Heniochus acuminatus I'm probably going to return it to the scientific name. Common names for it are divided, and there are plenty, but more importantly, Pennant coralfish is also the common name for Heniochus diphreutes. Dark j e  di requiem  04:09, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I said the wrong species name, see here: . Also lists two completely different names, while  lists one another different than all four.  lists it as the longfin butterfly fish while  says long and fin should be seperated, while  lists it hyphenated.  even calls it something different from the rest. Beside fish base, the only site to call it Pennant is  which calls it the Longfin pennantfish. These are all in the the first page on Google for Heniochus acuminatus.  Dark j  e  di requiem  17:09, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Fish redirect blankings
Hi there. I noticed that you deleted the redirects that were on French angelfish and Queen angelfish that both pointed to Marine angelfish. Until specific articles are written for these fish, don't you think these redirects better than nothing? Or do you think that the redirects are misleading? johnpseudo 02:46, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Kubik revisions
Quibbling comment though the rest is appreciated!- I think according to the relevant section of the MoS, mostly non-generic titles and orchestral works are given italics, despite the strangely non-uniform effect achieved by having Piano Trio between Symphony No. 2 and Vitebsk, say. I think that there's a specific MoStyle on worklists that I really need to consult though *g* - Kubik's rube, Schissel | Sound the Note! 06:13, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh... right. Yes. I do quibble... Schissel | Sound the Note! 18:25, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * May I move that to my Talk: page? And I apologize if my comment was over-involved (actually... I should see what it is I actually said first... did I let it go to my head? I do that, though : Schissel | Sound the Note! 18:25, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Pseudopodia on Radiolaria
Why did you rewrite the linkage? It looks exactly the same on the page, it works exactly the same, and my version would not have to be upgraded by a bot scanning the page. Maybe I'm missing something. Please explain. Thanks. KP Botany 15:09, 15 December 2006 (UTC)


 * "Please explain" is offensive? Now I've heard everything.  The reason I ask, is that maybe you have some reason for it that I don't know of as you reverted my change without discussion.  Please explain is a polite way of saying, please explain what you did so I understand it.  What do you suggest instead?  Explain!  Or I just revert it without explanation as you did?   Is that politer?   No, it's not.  If you're going to revert someone's edits, then please explain it on the discussion page, instead of just reverting, then accusing the other editor of having a "tone" for asking for an explanation.   KP Botany 23:32, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject Aquarium Fishes
hi there. I already replied you in Portal talk:Fish. I saw your edits of a couple marine anglefishes. Great jobs!! I'm curious if you are interested in aquarium aspects of fishes. If you are, you might wanna have a look at WikiProject Aquarium Fishes. You are more than welcome to participate with the project. --Melanochromis 15:02, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

An article which you started, or significantly expanded, Powelliphanta Sp.Augustus, was selected for DYK!
Thanks for your contributions!  Nish kid 64  21:57, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Redirects
Hello. You blanked some redirects - Ostrea and Crassostrea were the ones I noticed. If you think these are unnecessary, you can nominate them for deletion at WP:RFD, but blanking isn't such a good idea. Best regards, Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:50, 10 January 2007 (UTC)


 * You've mistaken me for someone who has a clue about the subject! No, all I really meant is it is better to reuse or delete the redirects, if they aren't good, than it is to blank them. All the best! Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:17, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Capitalisation of common names
I would kindly ask that you stop changing the case of Cephalopod common names without first discussing it with members of WikiProject Cephalopods. I'm personally undecided on the issue, but I'd like to keep things consistent throughout the project. If a policy change has already been discussed and decided upon elswehere then please accept my apology. Mgiganteus1 13:25, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

An article which you started, or significantly expanded, Arthur William Baden Powell, was selected for DYK!
Thanks for your contributions!  Nish kid 64  15:42, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Looks like you missed it on the Main Page. I did another update at ~23:00 UTC, and I had selected new items.  Nish kid 64  15:38, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Images
If they are fair use images or the status is unclear they have to be uploaded here, otherwise they can go on commons (and it is better that they do, as then they can be used by all the Wikipedias, not just the en version). They do slow get moved to commons if they can be, there's a tag to flag an image for the move, but I can't remember what it is off hand. Cheers, Yomangani talk 15:18, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Snakeheads
Hello, I would like to know which source you have used for the common names of the genus Parachanna. I would suspect you have not used an authoritive source, have you? Regards, Canelli 16:09, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Context
I see you removed my additions to the context section of the article Bombings of Heilbronn in WWII. I agree that perhapes that was a little too much on my part, but I believe it needs more to the section, to compare the bombings of Heilbronn, primarily December 4, 1944 bombing, to other bombings of WWII. i realise I may have done this the wrong way, but I beilieve it should be done and need be done. So if you have any ideas or anything to say about this idea, please send me a message on my Talk, or on the article's talk, because I do not really want to go to all that effort again only to have you or someone else revert it. If you do not say anything for a while, I will continue on with it, but please, if you have any idea, protests to this idea, or the like, please speak up before I make the contribution. Cheers, ♣   ÅñôñÿMôús   Dîššíd3nt  08:35, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Fishes
There is a new proposal on naming conventions for fish being discussed at WikiProject Fishes. As a member of a project whose naming conventions would be affected (WikiProject Sharks), your feedback would be appreciated at the WikiProject Fishes talk page here. Neil916 (Talk) 00:57, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Guns
So which guns were bigger than the ones on battleships then? The Land 13:46, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Viscount Slim article
I'm not going to edit war with people over this, but I felt that my addition was an accurate summary of the material which is in the mainstream media at this time. Can you tell me what about the addition was objectionable, given that this is actually being reported? MojoTas 06:58, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * It looks like the IP addresses are already adding the information. Perhaps its inclusion is now a moot point? MojoTas 23:06, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Reversion
Your recent edit to Stylommatophora (diff) was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to recognize and repair vandalism to Wikipedia articles. If the bot reverted a legitimate edit, please accept my humble creator's apologies – if you bring it to the attention of the bot's owner, we may be able to improve its behavior. Click here for frequently asked questions about the bot and this warning. // MartinBot 19:11, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Scots pine photograph
Hello GrahamBould This is about your addition of a photo to the Scots pine page. I'm just checking that you are sure it is a Scots pine. I can't be sure since I can't see close-up detail in that pic, but I would have thought that it was a sequoia. I've never seen a pine with a crown or trunk like that; however both the crown shape and trunk shape are characteristic of the sequoia. Imc 18:48, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Re: Edit summary
Hi there, GrahamBould. I was just reviewing the recent edit history for Bombing of Guernica. Firstly, a big "thumbs up" on your copyedits -- that article was riddled with typos & other minor errors, far fewer now that you've put in a good effort on cleanup. I'm sure you weren't meaning to mislead anybody, but I was a bit surprised to see how many changes you had made (including a brand new section!) when you had marked it as a "minor" edit. Not that big a deal, to be sure, but all the same I hope you'll be a bit more careful about using that description on future edits. Regards, Cgingold 02:16, 8 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Have rechecked my edits & still think they were minor, except adding some aircraft images in a gallery. None of this changed any facts, or the substance of the text. GrahamBould 07:30, 8 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Hello, again. Just so you know, I'm not in the habit of leaving picky little notes for people. (I really do have better things to do with my time... ) Although I was a bit surprised by the sheer number of minor corrections, I would have just shrugged and moved on if it wasn't for the addition of a brand new section. Not trying to make a "Federal case" out of this (as we say here in the States), but it really is helpful for other editors when we make proper note of what we've done in our edits. So I hope you will take this in the spirit in which it's offered -- no offense intended! Regards, Cgingold 08:00, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Fish cat/cat fish
Thanks for that - I just got so annoyed at the poor quality of the oz fish arts - I just started on a few things there - please feel free trawl my contribs - if you can find further errors please correct - I am just an amateur at understanding their contexts - but it seems some art writers are not even doing any more than putting the main cat and not bothering to put contextual cats in at all. so cheers and thanks SatuSuro 13:38, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

My apologies - late last night my time (8 hours +) I was trying to wreak some sense of order on very disparate and poor quality articles on australian fish (with nz as well) and you had re-done the cats of when i had put fish of NZ. I feel the whole fish thing to be quite lacking in sense of order,quality, priority etc (most of fish in australia category are sharks for a start) cheers SatuSuro 07:22, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Big problem is the oz project spread - there are some real holes in suprising places. I have merely an outsiders view on the fish issue - but the austrlian fish articles are in such poor quality and disarray - hope to cleanup some parts - please feel free to correct me if i ever omit or offend kiwi sensibilities if I ever get around to it SatuSuro 07:31, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank You!

 * Off the top of my head I can sugest User:Moondigger and User:Fir0002, both are good at sharpening and improving images. You may also want to ask over at Featured Pictured Candidates, several reviews thier specialize in photo improvements. TomStar81 (Talk) 18:02, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Re: Fixing a photo
Hi -- I suspect my reputation for photo editing is overrated, but if you'd like me to try working on one, I'm willing to give it a shot. I really can't promise anything, though. Depending on the photo and the skills required to get the results you want, I may end up having to tell you I couldn't do anything with it. Let me know. -- Moondigger 01:49, 16 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Graham, I'm sorry to say the photo was beyond my ability to fix. Unfortunately it looks like a very low quality scan.  Images like this one are notoriously difficult to work with.  A more experienced Photoshop expert might be able to do something with it, but I wouldn't hold out high hopes. Sorry -- Moondigger 15:51, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Military operations
Hi. I'm not crazy about italicizing all military operation names (Operation Foo). Especially when the name is in all caps, which is a common typewriter make-do for italics; seems to me it shouldn't be both. Also, not all abbreviations need to be spelled out in full. Once you've got one "Admiral", "Adm." is okay. —wwoods 15:50, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Redirect of Golden weedfish
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Golden weedfish, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Golden weedfish is a redirect to a non-existent page (CSD R1). To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Golden weedfish, please affix the template to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Please note, this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion, it did not nominate Golden weedfish itself. Feel free to leave a message on the bot operator's talk page if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot. --Android Mouse Bot 2 05:23, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Unclear phrase at Abbott's moray eel
What does "anti-tropical in distribution" mean? It is what you intended to write? Annandale 20:47, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Tugali suteri suteri
Nice start on Tugali suteri suteri. A photo would really help this. :) Tiggerjay 20:49, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Planorbis
Hello! Thank you for your cooperation. You have removed accidentaly few species Planorbis article. Please note my edits in Planorbis article. I have reverted your edits in Planorbarius corneus article. I think that now it is all right. If you have any questions we can discuss it prior to serious taxonomy changes in articles about molluscs. Thank you. --Snek01 10:15, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Hello! We should verify taxonomy status Ancylidae (versus Planorbidae). Any new references? --Snek01 18:56, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Italics in milhist articles
Hi there,

I notice you've been italicising a lot of military operation names: Fall Blau, Operation Mars, Operation Crusader, and so on. Please note that WP:MOS, WP:ITALICS and WP:MOS-T don't actually specify this. They do, however, specify that italics should be used to set off words in foreign languages, which would give Fall Blau (Case Blue), Operation Mars (Mars exists as an English name), and Operation Crusader. Some particularly large-scale operations like Barbarossa are iffy due to notoriety; I would be inclined to treat them as borrowed into English because of this (everyone who's passingly familiar with WWII knows about Operation Barbarossa). I could see this one going either way, though.

I'm happy to discuss this further if you like. -- Hongooi 09:51, 24 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The practice of using italics isn't anywhere near as universal as with ship names, though. I just randomly scanned through some of the books I've got lying around here: Newton, Hitler's Commander; Zaloga, Bagration 1944; Zetterling & Frankson, Kursk 1943; Mitcham, Panzers in Winter; Glantz & House, When Titans Clashed; Barnett (ed), Hitler's Generals. (I'm writing up Walter Model as a FAC, so my desk is a bit messy.) Of these, only the last one uses italics for operation names. The rest either use quotes, or don't mark them in any special way beyond title case.
 * As for the list of operations, I guess that whoever started it was also a fan of using italics, and it's been adhered to by others since then. But in any case, that doesn't have any bearing on the recommended style. It just indicates that the article is formatted in a way that's at odds with the MOS. Again, I would argue that the MOS is the definitive guide on these matters. -- Hongooi 11:12, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Slim / British Army ranking
I saw the amendments you made to the Slim page recently and have to agree with most of them. However, you have de-capitalised the titles across the whole of the piece. I always thought that as it was an official rank it should have been capitalised... Have I been mistaken on presuming this?--hydeblake 08:27, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Many thanks!--hydeblake 08:49, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

photos of gastrppod shells
Hello, maybe it would be better to rotate some of your photos of empty gastropod shells to main position (apex up and aperture to watcher)? (I am not sure about correct term of the main position.) Do you agree? Thank you for your cooperation. --Snek01 14:54, 19 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I thought that, for example, it would be better to rotate image Image:Penion cuvieranus cuvieranus.JPG 90° anticlockwise. --Snek01 19:31, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Category merge proposed
You were the creator of (and seem to be the only editor who did anything other than add interwiki links) a category that I've proposed be merged. See Categories for discussion/Log/2007 September 5 for the CFD discussion. GRBerry 18:52, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Gastropod notes
Hi Graham B, I only started here in July, so I wanted to ask, what can I do about the fact that the title of the stub article on Bucyconinae is wrongly spelled. It should be Busyconinae....

Thanks, Invertzoo 14:49, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi again Graham, Thanks for checking on that Busyconinae (I suppose Snek fixed it) and thanks for the encouragement, we can all use some encouragement. Yes, I am currently trying to go through all the gastropod listings alphabetically and clean them up a bit. Then I might try to tackle updating any of the taxoboxes which need it, according to the "Southern Synthesis". And then to work on the categories I guess....

By the way, to me, "Distribution" means places where the taxon lives, like say "France, Spain, other European countries" whereas "Range of distribution" means information on the entire range and limits of the taxon's distribution, like "the coast of Western Europe from Norway to the Mediterranean Sea, including France, Spain etc".

I am not exactly sure what you mean by paragraphs, but if I you meant that I had accidentally put more than the first word in a title of a section capitalized, yes that may have happened, but they were just typos, it was not intentional. I am going through all this stuff pretty fast, so I am sure I am leaving typos behind me....

Are you working on anything right now? Don't want to duplicate efforts or tread on toes...

Invertzoo 14:20, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

As you have probably noticed, I switched back to using "Distribution". (Actually I am still not convinced that this means exactly the same thing as Range or as Range of distribution. To me, when you use the word range you must indicate the extreme limits of the occurence of a species... ) But whatever, if this pleases people, that's fine.

And can I ask whose scheme of taxonomy are you using? I've been trying to use Beesley et al, the Southern Synthesis, but all the gastropod taxonomy is so all over the place right now.... Grrrrrrrr. Invertzoo 23:50, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Nice to hear from you again Graham,

I agree with you that it's better to get the articles written and then let some brave soul try to fix up the taxomony, when and if it ever stabilizes a bit. (This gastropod taxonomy chaos has been going on for at least 50 years, even before DNA became a tool, but nowadays the disagreements are more intense and broadscale than ever before.)

I am also a serious amateur, but I have been in the profession too, in a minor way, on and off, and am currently a Field Associate at the NYC museum.

Yes you are correct that it's a WP guideline that very short articles don't need section headings, but I am making an attempt to standardize the gastropod articles, hoping as you say that that: 1. people will fill in what's missing, and also 2. that people writing new articles will be inspired to include all the categories of information, and organized it in a clear and logical way.

The reason I started adding those extra words on the species list heading is to make what is there more intelligible for someone who is not a biologist or even an amateur naturalist. It's also an attempt to make things clearer for the people who are reading WP on their cell phones and blackberries, as is increasingly the case these days. When you can only view a little bit of text at once it might be nice to have a reminder which taxon you are looking at....

As for thousands of entries, the gastropods alone on WP are already some thousands, but I am at the "g" listings already and plan to go through the whole lot. I don't expect other people in other zoological areas to adopt the same conventions necessarily.

best to you Invertzoo 20:32, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi again Graham, I did take a look. I also wrote in some text explaining the situation on both of the articles, otherwise pretty much leaving them the way they are. I am sure they both have multiple links to them so deleting one is not a very straightforward thing. And I certainly am not qualified to decide which of the two taxonomies is more "correct". And I don't know whether the WP gastropod project has really agreed by consensus whose version of the taxonomy to use. In any case rationalizing the taxonomy according to one version is a big project that I am going to leave for later or let someone else do. (It means a gerat deal of looking things up in order to be able to change many of the taxoboxes as well as the text on so many of the articles.) And of course the gastropod taxonomy will continue to change for the next goodness how many years... Invertzoo 17:16, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi Graham, Yes the Siphonariodea are a fascinating group: even though they are marine and are underwater almost all of the time, they do actually wait until low tide to take a breath. Crazy huh? They take in a bubble of air into their mantle when they get the chance, and make it last half a day until the next low tide. During the time they are underwater they are inactive. I don't know anything about the breathing arrangements in Latia per se, but that is what the marine pulmonates Siphonaria Trimusculus and Williamia do, so I am assuming that is the same. As far as I know, none of these marine pulmonate limpets live subtidally, otherwise they would drown. I guess I need to explain that in all of the relevant articles, that is if I can find a good source that says that. By the way, it would be helpful to me when you are mentioning an article on these talk pages if you make it a live link, put in the  around it so it turns blue. Sorry I myself don't know how to archive a user page -but- I searched and there is a page Help:Archiving a talk page that maybe tells you how to do it, asuming it is the same type of procedure. Invertzoo 12:51, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi once again Graham, When you say the Latia live in rivers do you mean estuaries? Or do you mean they are freshwater limpets? Invertzoo 13:45, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Being a pulmonate or air-breathing snail means that you breathe not with a gill or gills, but with your mantle cavity, which is modified to become a sort of lung that opens through a pneumostome and which almost always is intended to admit air not water. There are a huge number of pulmonate limpets and pulmonate snails which live in freshwater. Virtually all of them come to the surface to breathe every once in a great while. However, there is at least one species of extremely tiny freshwater limpet that take water into its mantle cavity and absorbs oxygen that way. Latia is a pulmonate, aka Pulmonata, which I take to mean that it breathes air, unless otherwise specified. The family it is in, all the rest of them are saltwater air-breathing limpets. Of course Latia could be different in various ways. I can try to look it up some more. Invertzoo 13:55, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Ah yes, you are right, I was confused; I work on dozens of different articles each day. Yes they are freshwater limpets and they are not closely related to Siphonaria etc. They are indeed technically pulmonates. Whether they still use air to breathe, or whether they flood their mantle cavity with water and absorb oxygen that way is probably not actually known. I can't find a reference to it online. I know someone I can maybe ask, but he may not know either. I will let you know if I get any better info. Invertzoo 14:17, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Amphibola crenata
Sorry about the links to disambig pages that I created. I was trying to figure out where to pipe them, but you beat me to it. LeSnail 20:45, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Category:Molluscs of New Zealand
Hi, I saw you removed Category:Molluscs of New Zealand from Category:Molluscs, saying that it was inappropriate categorization. I disagree with this assessment. At the moment, we only have one "Molluscs by country" category, but if we had more, it would make sense to create a Category:Molluscs by country, which would be a subcategory of Category:Molluscs, just as Category:Amphibians by country is in Category:Amphibians. Even though we don't have the intervening category Category:Molluscs by country, I think we should still keep Category:Molluscs of New Zealand in the mollusc category structure, and I am going to put it back there. LeSnail 22:13, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Powelliphanta Sp.Anatoki Range and other similar articles
Hi again Graham,

In my progression through the gastropod articles I reached your Powelliphanta pieces. I am not clear at all what is meant by "Powelliphanta Sp.Anatoki Range" and the other 11 similarly titled ones. Does this mean -- a Powelliphanta species as yet unnamed which occurs on the Anatoki range -- (mountains presumably?).

I do understand you are taking all this from Powell's book, and so you may not be clear exactly what he meant when he wrote this. However, if it means what I just said above, then it should read: -- Powelliphanta sp. from the Anatoki Mountains -- or something similar. The abbreviation "sp." to mean species must always be with a small s. And "Anatoki range" is not actually part of the official name, just a way of clarifying which species he meant.

If these 12 species were given official names subsequent to the publishing of his book (which may well have been the case) then they need to have their actual Latin names, if we can find out what those are.

The last one Powelliphanta Sp.vittatus, the "vittatus" sound like an actual Latin specific name, but if so, why does it read "Sp.vittatus" rather than Powelliphanta vittatus plain and simple?

Thanks for any help you can give me with this. Invertzoo 15:11, 15 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi again Graham, I think that  -- Powelliphanta sp. from the Anatoki Range --  would be a good way to refer to this species and so you could go ahead and Move it and the other unnamed ones in a similar fashion.


 * As for the so-called vittatus I don't know either, but you could call it -- Powelliphanta sp. "vittatus" --  I guess... you have to put the name vittatus in quotes because it has not yet been actually named that I guess as far as we know.  How recent are the government publications?  Invertzoo 22:09, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Pterotracheidae
Yes you are quite right. I had put the family instead of the superfamily. I fixed it. Thanks for spotting that. And a reminder please: when you mention an article on these talk pages would you making it into a live link by putting in the   so I can go straight to it? thanks. Invertzoo 14:47, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I guess you know you need a new talk page? This one is full up I guess. Invertzoo 14:49, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Paleobox
There are a couple of reasons that I removed the paleobox template. It was never used in more then maybe a couple dozen articles at best. Most of the ones that were put into place were not accurrate an a scietific manner. All of the articles which it was added to that went on to become FA's had the paleobox removed. The information that is in the box is better in the main article anyways. It was never accepted by the major palaeontology related wikiproject, WP:Dinosaurs. For further reading on the discussion see the discussion on the creators talk-page. Kevmin (talk) 04:10, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Nudibranch
Yes you are absolutely right Graham. Thanks for any and all checking that you do (and thanks for the live link too). I do this stuff really fast so I certainly do skip over things things and create my own errors and so on. That article does need tweaking in the intro section; I got involved in other stuff on that page and forgot to do that. It is certain true that not all sea slugs are nudibranchs, (by the way, the plural is spelled nudibranchs in all the sources I checked) but I have noticed that one person who wrote or edited a lot of articles on sea slugs seemed to believe, mistakenly, that all sea slugs were nudibranchs. So anyway thanks again. In case you need more info on talk pages, this article explains how to archive a talk page by creating a subpage: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Archiving_a_talk_page Invertzoo (talk) 14:21, 18 November 2007 (UTC)