User talk:Harrytudor

Welcome!
Welcome to Wikipedia, Harrytudor! Thank you for your contributions. I am Nick Moyes and I have been editing Wikipedia for some time, so if you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. You can also check out Questions or type at the bottom of this page. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes ( ~ ); that will automatically produce your username and the date. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Nick Moyes (talk) 09:34, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Introduction
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * How to write a great article
 * Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community

A page you started (Bryx analicarens) has been reviewed!
Thanks for creating Bryx analicarens, Harrytudor!

Wikipedia editor Nick Moyes just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

"It would be nice if you were to add the synonym, Syngnathus analicarens, to the Infobox."

To reply, leave a comment on Nick Moyes's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Nick Moyes (talk) 09:24, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

A page you started (Bryx dunckeri) has been reviewed!
Thanks for creating Bryx dunckeri, Harrytudor!

Wikipedia editor Nick Moyes just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

"Please add synonym to infobox, and I'd suggest replacing the IUCN Category you've used with the next tier down, namely 'List of least concern fishes'"

To reply, leave a comment on Nick Moyes's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Nick Moyes (talk) 09:32, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Taxobar
Hi, thanks for the question! It's a bit cumbersome.

Wikipedia doesn't hold species information-it's held by Wikipedia's sister project Wikidata, which holds structured data. A bot system should automatically add links, but it tends to wait a while (I think sometimes a few months). You can speed things up if you want. Wikidata isn't the easiest thing to edit, but fortunately a lot of coverage has already been added by bot. Just go to Wikidata and type in the species/genus/whatever name in the search bar to find its page. If it's there, add your article by going to the "Wikipedia" part of the page, selecting edit, adding en in the blank field, put the species name in and save. Here's an example of that. (Some other language Wikipedias are ahead of us on species coverage because they've encouraged automated article creation from lists. You'll often see Cebuano, Winaray and Vietnamese articles already.) This won't work in complicated cases like where there is a species name dispute - in that case I would leave well alone.

Now with this method the English-language Wikipedia page doesn't automatically update with taxon information immediately - you can force it, I've done this for your pages so you can see what this looks like. What you do is go to your page, click edit, and then change the URL so that it says not "action=edit" at the end but "action=purge". Hit enter and yes. Everything should be filled out. Otherwise a bot tends to purge in a few days.

Again, this isn't automatically necessary for species - Wikidata has a bot system that normally adds species pages. But it often leaves pages for a month or two rather than doing it immediately. It's worth doing manually for families and genuses often, though. I also sometimes manually examine and link pages (I do a lot of new page review) if I'm suspicious that a species is not widely accepted or synonymous with something else (a big problem).

As personal comment (and I've reviewed over 4500 pages on Wikipedia since joining in 2013), I think that we've had huge problems managing articles on little-known species, and so if a species has been reclassified (new genus, subspecies split into species, subspecies now not accepted etc.) it's essential to very, very clearly explain what the history of classification of an organism is - if a species was once thought of as being in a different genus or whatever it's really important to put that in the text and cite articles that explain the name change. A lot of species article writers in the past have created confusion and duplicate articles by being unwilling to even admit anyone could ever have thought differently to them! Blythwood (talk) 17:05, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Cosmocampus albirostris has been accepted
 Cosmocampus albirostris, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. . Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia! Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 22:00, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
 * If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the  [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:AfC_talk/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Cosmocampus_albirostris help desk] .
 * If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider.

A page you started (Campichthys tryoni) has been reviewed!
Thanks for creating Campichthys tryoni, Harrytudor!

Wikipedia editor SamHolt6 just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

"Reviewed, well done!"

To reply, leave a comment on SamHolt6's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

SamHolt6 (talk) 17:30, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

A page you started (Choeroichthys brachysoma) has been reviewed!
Thanks for creating Choeroichthys brachysoma, Harrytudor!

Wikipedia editor Animalparty just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

"Just a few points on style: inline citations should go after punctuation marks, not before, and beware of WP:OVERLINKing commonly understood or very broad terms like countries."

To reply, leave a comment on Animalparty's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

--Animalparty! (talk) 19:43, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

A page you started (Notopogon xenosoma) has been reviewed!
Thanks for creating Notopogon xenosoma, Harrytudor!

Wikipedia editor Animalparty just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

"Avoid using bare URLs for references, as they can easily break, and do not indicate full source. Citation templates like cite web or cite book are helpful, see also FishBase."

To reply, leave a comment on Animalparty's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

--Animalparty! (talk) 00:52, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

A page you started (Corythoichthys paxtoni) has been reviewed!
Thanks for creating Corythoichthys paxtoni, Harrytudor!

Wikipedia editor RileyBugz just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

"Thanks for creating this! If you could look at the changes I made to the article so you can better make articles in the future, that would be great."

To reply, leave a comment on RileyBugz's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

RileyBugz 会話投稿記録 17:46, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

A page you started (Halicampus boothae) has been reviewed!
Thanks for creating Halicampus boothae, Harrytudor!

Wikipedia editor SamHolt6 just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

"Reviewed, well done."

To reply, leave a comment on SamHolt6's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

SamHolt6 (talk) 17:33, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

February 2018
Hello, I'm Shellwood. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions —specifically this edit to Réunion seahorse— because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Shellwood (talk) 20:57, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 17
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Hippocampus planifrons, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Broome ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Hippocampus_planifrons check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Hippocampus_planifrons?client=notify fix with Dab solver]). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 09:22, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 17
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Hedgehog seahorse, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Temporal and Spatial ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Hedgehog_seahorse check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Hedgehog_seahorse?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:44, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 24
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Barbour's seahorse, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Dorsal and Juvenile ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Barbour%27s_seahorse check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Barbour%27s_seahorse?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:24, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Hippocampus dahli
Hi, thanks for all your recent seahorse articles! I was just adding links and trying to link this one up with other articles but I think some sources may treat this species as synonymous with Hippocampus trimaculatus–other languages' Wikipedia pages on the topic just redirect to that. Do you have sources on whether they're separate species or not? Blythwood (talk) 22:03, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi there! What I understand is that the specimens of H. dahli identified off of Australia are genetically different enough from H. trimaculatus to justify a different species name. However, specimens from other areas that have previously been called H. dahli don't show the same genetic difference, so they are treated as H. trimaculatus (which is where I think the confusion comes in). It's all a bit up in the air and warrants further investigation, however I thought it was reasonable for this species to have its own page because the most recent IUCN red list assessment (2017) saw the Australian population as a unique species, and assessed it as such. For further information on this I would look at my first reference on the H. dahli page, which is the 2017 IUCN assessment. Thanks a lot! Harrytudor (talk) 01:46, 28 March 2018 (UTC)