User talk:Loopy30/Archive 2020

You won the first annual Tree of Life Decemberween contest!

 * Thanks Nessie, I got interested in reading about Christmas Island (my parents almost moved us there when I was young) and also learned a lot while reading about different taxa than those I normally edit. 'Cheers Loopy30 (talk)

Vernacular name redirect capitalization permutations
I don't think there's any reason to make redirects for every permutation of capital/lowercase letters in a vernacular name. Wikipedia's search tool is fairly case-insensitive these days, and other seach engines are totally case-insensitive. Links within Wikipedia are case sensitive, so there is some reason to create redirects for different capitalizations if there is a possibility of them being linked. I'm not aware of any recommendation for capitalizing a word following a hyphen (e.g. "Smallflower Desert-Chicory"), so it seems unlikely that anybody would search for or link to that pattern of capitalization. Capitalizing every word (except those following a hyphen) in the vernacular name of a plant never really caught on the United States. I don't think redirects that capitalize anything other than proper names are necessary for US native plants. Capitalizing every word did catch on in the UK and Australia. I haven't done much work with redirects for vernacular names of Australian plants, but they don't seem to be linked very often by at any capitalization. UK plants do get some links to the fully capitalized names (people writing articles about SSSIs like to link the rare plants found in them).

My rule of thumb is to follow the formatting (capitalization/hyphenation) found in sources when creating redirects, and not to create redirects with formatting not found in sources. I've made an extensive effort to create redirects for vernacular names given in USDA PLANTS. I've made a small effort to create redirects for US plants from some other sources; Flora of North America, Jepson eFlora. FNA names often follow USDA PLANTS names with some modification; PLANTS prefers "smallflower", while FNA often prefers "small-flowered". Sources for UK and Australian plant vernacular names have them fully capitalized, but Wikipedia doesn't format vernacular names that way, so there should be a lowercase redirect as well as a fully capitalized one.

Since you've been working on frog articles, you may have run across large numbers of vernacular name redirects to some species with different permutations of capitalization and hyphenation. Those are the work of one user who was eventually run off of Wikipedia for creating inappropriate redirects (the frog vernacular name redirects weren't what led to an uproar, but they aren't a model to follow either). Plantdrew (talk) 21:41, 6 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi Plantdrew, although this may seem like the gnomish version of carving perfect figure-eights on the ice, there are a few reasons why I believe it is helpful to the project.


 * The origin of these re-directs was not inspired by any previous herpetophile editor, but rather the guidance and examples given at the WP:BIRDS project page under the heading "Guidelines for layout of bird articles", where the creation of redirects for each permutation of capitalization is encouraged and includes the specific example of capitalizing the first letter of the word following a hyphen. I will note, that of the six types of examples provided in the table, I still omit to create redirects such as Black-faced Cuckoo-Shrike that employ a mix of capitalization methods within the same term. Up to now, I have edited largely animal taxa articles of various phyla, but have now recently created a few plant stubs in response to a request posted on iNaturalist.


 * Although the search engine has improved, only the first letter of the first word is not case-sensitive. This will occasionally result in the correct target of an alternate capitalization of the term being so far down the search results that is then missed by a reader who has cut-and-pasted a less-commonly used capitalization form into the search box.


 * In my mind, perhaps the greatest value in creating redirects from alternate names and synonyms is actually to alert a future editor that an article already exists at a different name or capitalization form and prevents them from then creating a duplicate page. This exercise has also helped me identify existing duplicate articles that can then be merged or otherwise consolidated/disambiguated.


 * The redirects that I really disagree with are those that replace a redlink on a taxon page back with a redirect to that same page. This leads to the illusion for both the reader and potential editors alike that all the articles for subordinate taxa have been already been created and exist to be read. I cannot delete such redirects (there are many thousands due to one editor alone), but I will sometimes remove the wikilink so as not to further tease or confuse a reader.


 * Finally, I realize that this in turn creates additional work for other WikiGnomes that like to add "rcat's" to every recently created redirect. This too, is a gnomish choice that I applaud you for in your dedication to the project. All the best, Loopy30 (talk) 01:25, 7 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. I accept your reasoning in creating the redirects. Plantdrew (talk) 03:22, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Frogs
Are you working further on speciesboxes for frogs? There are 195 still using manual taxoboxes. I'll take a stab at them if you've moved on. Plantdrew (talk) 03:22, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'm still working through the frogs by going through the families alphabetically, currently at genus Nothophryne, family Pyxicephalidae. Although that only leaves eight families to go, that still includes over 900 species. I've slowed down a bit as I also align the genus classification changes with ASW at the same time. 195 is great though and by all means, stab away at them if you feel like it. It was just under 600 when I checked a few days ago, but that includes all the fossil taxa of both amphibians and reptiles. 'Cheers, Loopy30 (talk) 12:21, 7 January 2020 (UTC)


 * I'll work on the ones that come before Pyxicephalidae. It's pretty easy to see how some of them got missed; Bufo dodsoni is an orphan. It's not linked from Bufo because it should be at Sclerophrys dodsoni. Plantdrew (talk) 17:56, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
 * OK, I must have missed going back and checking the article links for all the Bufo species that were removed from the genus list. I think I have done that for all the other genera that I updated and this is why the speciesbox conversion has taken so much time. I am back to school again today, so I may have less time for the project going forward to the rest of the term. Loopy30 (talk) 21:14, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi Plantdrew, I think we may have finished the amphibians. I completed a pass through the classification hierarchy as per ASW 6.0 and then checked for stragglers/orphans using this search. Today, I completed the last six on the search list. Could you confirm that this is indeed completed? 'Cheers, Loopy30 (talk) 23:58, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
 * And I also converted the taxoboxes for the last five (fossil) reptiles here. Loopy30 (talk) 01:23, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but Petscan searches are having some issues. Searches for WikiProject templates (and I suspect more broadly, searches for templates on talk pages) haven't been working in the latest version of Petscan for a few months. Last time I tried any searches with a WikiProject was on January 1, and I was able to get around the problem by searching with the previous version of Petscan. The option to search with the previous version is gone now. I have been able to get some WikiProject searches to work just now, but depending on when I run the search, I'm also getting time out errors, or zero results for searches that should have results. At any rate, there are some (nonfossil) amphibians with manual taxoboxes.


 * The good news is that I'm on vacation this week, and not able to access paywalled articles on plant classification through work. Since I won't be working on plants, I'll work on amphibians for now. Plantdrew (talk) 05:25, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Are you using another search method and/or search engine? Or just conducting the same search on PetScan at different times and getting different results each time? Has the technical issue with PetScan searches already been reported? Maybe in the mean time, the WMF can restore the availability of the previous version of PetScan for us to use while they trouble-shoot it. Do you have a list of the remaining articles? Loopy30 (talk) 12:09, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Increasing the search depth to 2 gets some fossil reptiles with manual taxoboxes.  Jts1882 &#124; talk 14:18, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I increased the search depth to 2 and found another 33 extant amphibians with manual taxoboxes; these are all converted now. The remaining 173 are all extinct taxa. I tried to increase the depth to 3, but now PetScan has stopped co-operating and does not return any results at all. If anyone can provide a list of any remaining extant amphibians with manual taxoboxes, I will re-attack from there. Conversely, confirmation of task completion would also be useful. Loopy30 (talk) 01:40, 28 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Whatever is going on with Petscan is rather bizarre. I was conducting the same search on PetScan at different times and getting different results (well, more like different errors) each time. Anyway, something like 41 frogs left, some of which are fossils. I used this Petscan search.
 * Converted a few more treefrogs and then came to the Cyclorana frogs (e.g. Short-footed frog, Small frog). This is where there is a major difference between Amphibiaweb (recognising Cyclorana) and ASW6 (recognising Ranoidea, which adds other complications). Are we continuing to follow ASW6 on this?  Jts1882 &#124; talk 08:19, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I was going with Ranoidea/ASW since we seem to be following ASW in general and the species I edited had links from the Ranoidea article. Plantdrew (talk) 17:44, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think we have to use Ranoidea as most articles are that way and its the currently favoured source. We really need a third party source to decide the issue as the author of ASW6 is a party to the dispute on the name.
 * Would a conversion template that can be substituted be of use for creating automated taxoboxes from manual taxoboxes. Some of you may have seen the conversions of the IUCN citations to use the cite iucn templates and as part of the process a conversion template (make cite iucn was created that when substituted with the raw IUCN citation text and leave formated cite iucn template in the article. Following that example I've drafted a partially working template and tested it with some tree frog taxoboxes and it successfully converts to speciesbox. It passes the allowed automated taxobox parameters, excludes the manual taxobox parameters, and strips the genus and species parameters of formating. It can also be used to set a defined order of parameters and a favoured formating (e.g. spaces around "="). If this is something considered useful I could make a more functional version.  Jts1882 &#124; talk 18:08, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

1  Avitabatrachus uliana 2	 Cagua tree frog 3	Calamita melanorabdotus 4	Calamita quadrilineatus 5	 Charuplaya tree frog 6	Cratia 7	 Emerald-eyed tree frog 8	Epipedobates machalilla 9	Eurycephalella 10	Gobiatoides 11	Hidden-ear frog 12	Hungarobatrachus 13	 Hypsiboas andinus 14	 Hypsiboas beckeri 15	 Hypsiboas cipoensis 16	 Hypsiboas cordobae 17	 Hypsiboas hypselops 18	Indorana 19	 Knife-footed frog 20	 Long-footed frog 21	 Main's frog 22	Nevobatrachus 23	Notobatrachus 24	 Palaeobatrachidae 25	 Palaeobatrachus 26	Phyllobates sp. aff. aurotaenia 27	Phyllomedusa megacephala 28	 Pipimorpha 29	Red-backed poison frog 30	Rhacophorus depressus 31	 Rhadinosteus 32	Rhinella pombali 33	 Rusty tree frog 34	Shomronella 35	Short-footed frog 36	Small frog 37	 Tepuihyla talbergae 38	 Thoraciliacus 39	 White-black tree frog 40	 White-edged tree frog 41	 White-spotted tree frog Plantdrew (talk) 06:13, 28 January 2020 (UTC) PetScan is not working for me anymore either. Here is the list of the remaining species (all fossil) from the search I did yesterday:

1	Phlegethontia 2	Pantylus 3	Vieraella 4	 Palaeobatrachus 5	Balanerpeton 6	Platyoposaurus 7	Pelodosotis 8	Kotlassia 9	Capetus (amphibian) 10	Acheloma 11	Trematolestes 12	Notobatrachus 13	Brachydectes 14	Laidleria 15	Trematosaurus 16	Clamorosaurus 17	Melosaurus 18	Collidosuchus 19	Enosuchus 20	Eobrachyopidae 21	Eupelor 22	Utegenia 23	Micromelerpeton 24	Rhytidosteoidea 25	Lysorophus 26	Cricotus 27	Avitabatrachus uliana 28	Austropelor 29	Asaphestera 30	Archaeotriton 31	Almasaurus 32	Acroplous 33	Abiadisaurus 34	Bukobaja 35	Bulgosuchus 36	Branchierpeton 37	Bothriceps 38	Benthosphenus 39	Batrachosuchoides 40	Batrachosaurus 41	Bashkirosaurus 42	Baranophrys 43	Ctenerpeton 44	Czatkobatrachus 45	Crossotelos 46	Crinodon 47	Cretasalia 48	Nevobatrachus 49	Comonecturoides 50	Coloraderpeton 51	Cocytinus 52	Cochlyosaurus 53	Carrolla 54	Galverpeton 55	Euryodus 56	Estesina 57	Eyrosuchus 58	Erpetosaurus 59	Eoscapherpeton 60	Elfridia 61	Ecolsonia 62	Dunuitosaurus 63	Derwentia (amphibian) 64	Diadetognathus 65	Diceratosaurus 66	Itemirella 67	Inflectosaurus 68	Horezmia 69	Hemprichisaurus 70	Hapsidopareion 71	Gobiatoides 72	Gobiates 73	Llistrofus 74	Lithobatrachus 75	Lisserpeton 76	Limnogyrinus 77	Limnerpeton 78	Lepterpeton 79	Leiocephalikon 80	Laccotriton 81	Kizylkuma 82	Koalliella 83	Komatosuchus 84	Kuttycephalus 85	Osteophorus 86	Orthophyia 87	Opisthotriton 88	Odontosaurus 89	Odonterpeton 90	Odenwaldia 91	Montcellia 92	Monsechobatrachus 93	Molgophis 94	Miopelodytes 95	Miopelobates 96	Melanopelta 97	Melanerpeton 98	Mactrerpeton 99	Megalotriton 100	Ricnodon 101	 Rhadinosteus 102	Quasicaecilia 103	Vulcanobatrachus 104	Valdotriton 105	Wealdenbatrachus 106	Yarengia 107	Yuanansuchus 108	Zaphrissa 109	Mentosaurus 110	Mahavisaurus 111	Ptychosphenodon 112	Prothoosuchus 113	Prosiren 114	Propelodytes 115	Prodesmodon 116	Procerobatrachus 117	Proamphiuma 118	Piceoerpeton 119	Peratosauroides 120	Pachybatrachus 121	Pachygonia 122	Palaeoproteus 123	Paleoamphiuma 124	Paradiscoglossus 125	Paralatonia 126	Pariotichus 127	Parioxes 128	Parrisia 129	Shomronella 130	Tuditanus 131	Trematotegmen 132	Trematosuchus 133	Trachystegos 134	Theatonius 135	Tertrema 136	Tatrasaurus 137	Pleuroptyx 138	Prodiscoglossus 139	Singidella 140	Sinobrachyops 141	Sinerpeton 142	Sillerpeton 143	Schoenfelderpeton 144	Scapherpeton 145	Saxonerpeton 146	Saevesoederberghia 147	Tertremoides 148	Stanocephalosaurus 149	Spondylophryne 150	Sparodus 151	Syphonidon 152	Syndyodosuchus 153	Stoschiosaurus 154	Micropholis (amphibian) 155	Ossinodus 156	 Pipimorpha 157	Hyloplesion 158	Brachystelechidae 159	Oestocephalidae 160	Tupilakosauridae 161	Pasawioops 162	Tuditanidae 163	Spinarerpeton 164	Cratia 165	Eurycephalella 166	Makowskia 167	Vladlenosaurus 168	Uruyiella 169	Hungarobatrachus 170	Pneumatostega 171	Sangaia 172	Urupia 173	Indorana Loopy30 (talk) 01:24, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
 * The PetScan search is now (partially) working for me. It returns zero results for depth=1 and depth=2, 169 results for depth=3 (a subset of the 173 listed above), and fails to give any results at depth=4 (times out). I have converted the manual taxoboxes for any extant frog taxa listed by Plantdrew and Jts1882 above. Loopy30 (talk) 12:41, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

peafowl
Hello,

In article "Peafowl", you changed the text of the first image's caption. Specifically you changed the possessive article for the cock from male ("his") to neuter ("its"). What is your reasoning for objecting to the use of the male gender for a male bird? --Black Walnut (talk) 06:26, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi Black Walnut, I changed it back because animals (even those where the sex is known) are most commonly referred to as "it". Exceptions exist for pets or other named animals such as animal characters in a story. While the grammatical rule may be outdated, overall it just sounds better. Loopy30 (talk) 12:06, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

So, in the following sentence you would choose to write "its", not "his"?
 * "That rooster wakes me every morning. I can set my clock by its crow".

Is that right? --Black Walnut (talk) 15:15, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, you could say it either way but a spoken sentence like that is not going to be written in a encyclopedia article. We're not writing poetry here or writing in the vernacular. Loopy30 (talk) 23:46, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying your perspective on use of animal genders in prose. Consider our page on Rooster. Whenever a sentence calls for a singular pronoun referring to a rooster, the page consistently uses "he", never "it". --Black Walnut (talk) 02:09, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Sorry for bothering you, but...

 * New Page Patrol needs experienced volunteers
 * New Page Patrol is currently struggling to keep up with the influx of new articles. We could use a few extra hands on deck if you think you can help.
 * Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines ; Wikipedia needs experienced users to perform this task and there are precious few with the appropriate skills. Even a couple reviews a day can make a huge difference.
 * If you would like to join the project and help out, please see the granting conditions and review our instructions page. You can apply for the user-right HERE. —  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) (click me!)    20:26, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Answer
Hello Loopy30, thanks by your messages and tips. I'm interested in the WikiProject Insects, but i can't participate with regularity; anyway, i'll continue writing articles in this Wikipedia (my "native" Wikipedia is en español), and i want become in a good user here. 'Cheers Valdemar2018 (talk) 08:08, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Ok, no problem. I see now that you are already an experienced user on Spanish Wikipedia. Let me know if you need any additional help here. Cheers, Loopy30 (talk) 11:36, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

"Theloderma" taxonomy template
Template:Taxonomy/"Theloderma" had a speedy deletion notice put on it. Any addition to a taxonomy template other than one of its fields screws up the automated taxobox system, so I commented out the body of the taxonomy template, and changed "Theloderma" andersoni to use Theloderma in the taxobox until this is sorted out one way or another. The species appears to have been transferred to Raorchestes in 2020 according to Amphibian Species of the World version 6.0, so the article should probably now be moved to Raorchestes andersoni. Peter coxhead (talk) 07:36, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks Peter, I have now moved and updated the article to the new genus. As you pointed out on the template talk page, the species was incertae sedis in January when the template was created, but based on a new paper by Chen et al. published only last month, ASW 6.0 has now accepted the new classification to Raorchestes. Loopy30 (talk) 12:01, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

"Sit.." spider genera
Hi, I had noticed that the World Spider Catalog had changed its view on the "Sit.." spider genera, including those relatively recently created by Prószyński, for which I had set up articles. Let's hope it doesn't go round again!

Just a note about categorizing the redirects. Add  when creating a redirect from one spider scientific name to another, and if you are changing an article to a redirect (rather than just changing the redirect target), also , which shows that there is substantial editing history prior to the creation of the redirect. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:32, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi Peter, now that the "Sit.." spider genera have been synonymized, I hope I have now found (and changed) all the affected articles. I have also added the redirect categories as you have suggested. 'Cheers, Loopy30 (talk) 14:01, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Precious anniversary
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:08, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Halichondria question
It appears that in September 2019, you created a redirect from Halichondria papillaris to Halichondria panicea. They appear to be two different species in the same genus. Do you remember why you created the redirect? A draft has been submitted of a one-sentence stub for Halichondria papillaris. I think that it should be accepted if the references check out, but I would like to know why you created the redirect. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:06, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I can infer that it is because of the recent paper arguing that up to 56 specific names have been assigned to this species, that is, that species may have been defined that should not be separate species. Since the species have, in this case, been documented since 1766, separate stub articles should be accepted, but any controversy should be properly described. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:19, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Hello Robert, there is no evidence that these names are still considered to be two different species, and instead they are classified as synonyms by the references provided in the article. It is standard practice to then create a redirect from any alternative name to the main article. I have commented further on the draft review page. 'Cheers, Loopy30 (talk) 14:25, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Alternative subgenus placements
Changing the subgenus placement doesn't create a new species, any more than changing the genus placement does, so there's some confusion in the sources over the names in Tarachodes. For now I've reduced the two articles differentiated only by subgenus to one article per binomial. Since the text said that they were homotypic, I've assumed they are the same species – but see below.

This source is the issue.

It's possible that T. griseus Giglio-Tos, 1911 and T. griseus Giglio-Tos, 1927 are different (heterotypic species), although it seems unlikely that Giglio-Tos made the mistake of giving the same name to two species. If he did, the latter is a distinct species, but will need a different specific name.

It's more likely that T. maurus Stal, 1856 and T. maurus Saussure, 1871 are different species, with T. maurus Saussure, 1871 first described in the genus Chiropacha – but then it should be T. maurus (Saussure, 1871), and will need a different (replacement) specific name in Tarachodes.

Basically, it's a mess, but what is certain is that there cannot be two species with the same binomial in different subgenera, and we shouldn't have articles at titles that imply this is possible. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:02, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Exactly Peter, and this is why I also reached out to the editor of the source to try and resolve the issue. I agree with both your assessments of both species names but in the mean time we need to distinguish on Wikipedia between these four (misnamed) "accepted" species names that were found in a reliable secondary source. 'Cheers, Loopy30 (talk) 15:30, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Ok, if you want articles under the later (junior) synonyms, then distinguish them with the authority, and point out the problem in the article. But not with the subgenus, because this simply does not distinguish between the binomials – the ICZN is very clear on this.
 * What I've written needs to be changed, because it's not a case of the same species being assigned to more than one subgenus, which is what the article titles and the statement that they were homotypic implied, but of different species now in the same genus under the same specific name. Peter coxhead (talk) 18:46, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
 * They can stay as is until I get a more definitive response from the MSF editor at NHM. Loopy30 (talk) 18:50, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Ok. By the way, I should have said that initially I did not realize you had just moved/created the articles at the subgenus. I came to them because the taxoboxes were in error and were showing up in the taxobox error-tracking categories. It was only after I "sorted them out", as I thought, that I saw your involvement. Peter coxhead (talk) 19:21, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
 * What was the "error" that caused the articles to show up in the taxobox error-tracking categories? I understood this as to be following the correct method of writing taxoboxes that included a subgenus. Loopy30 (talk) 20:35, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
 * If you look at [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tarachodes_griseus&oldid=990705168 this version], it is in the hidden category Category:Speciesboxes with incorrect parameters specifying the taxon, which is how I came to it. It is missing genus, which is being picked up from the page title. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:16, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Good to see that the source has cleared up the confusion! Peter coxhead (talk) 07:24, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, I will stay in touch with them as I have found another discrepancy with a newly erected genus (Metacanthops) that is listed as empty since its type species (Metilia amazonica) has not yet been transferred to it as well. Loopy30 (talk) 12:55, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Indus Dolphin Rape Cases
It was such an important and alarming issue that the local Sindhi people were committing that horrible crime and were sexually assaulting the Indus dolphin and I believe the rest of the world should know this fact, so that the media and government authorities of local Sindh may take some action against such criminals... but you have removed those details. Are you also in favour of those Sindhi criminals? Dr Paul Harrison (talk) 14:46, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
 * @User:Dr Paul Harrison, Wikipedia does not allow self-published sources such as blogs (WP:SPS) to be used as reliable sources of information (WP:RS) added to an article. The source you provided (Daily Pakistan) confirms that these outlandish claims originated in a blog posting and were reported as "lack(ing) concrete evidence" when researched for their article. Please first read your sources carefully and critically and you will help to stop spreading such unfounded rumours. Loopy30 (talk) 15:33, 10 December 2020 (UTC)