User talk:Loopy30/Archive 2023

Celaenorrhini
About 56 articles, plus two categories and five taxonomy templates, refer to "Celaenorrhini" (list). I'm unable to fix these as I'm not sure whether they use a valid alternative spelling for tribe Celaenorrhinini, the plural of genus Celaenorrhinus or are errors. Please can you help? Thanks, Certes (talk) 15:40, 26 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Hi Certes, I am currently working my way through the skippers based on taxonomic revisions in three recent papers (2019, 2019, and 2022). For the category "Celaenorrhini", I have requested that the tribe name be changed to the (correct) spelling of "Celaenorrhinini" at CfD (here) so that a bot can do those changes en masse. I will continue to change the taxonomy templates and other articles as necessary to reflect these spelling changes. 'Cheers, Loopy30 (talk) 16:38, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Request for page protection
Please don't make RFPP requests unless there is disruption from multiple IPs or users. Disruption from single users should be addressed via WP:AIV or other notice boards (edit-warring, etc). OhNo itsJamie Talk 17:48, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

About planarian species lists
Hi, Loopy30!

Thank you for your interest in improving articles about planarians. I noticed that, just like with the article on Bdellouridae, you updated several articles on planarian genera and changed the species lists based on online databases such as WoRMS. However, these databases are often severely outdated. Please, pay attention that the species lists in the articles often use recent peer-reviewed papers as references for the valid species. Thus, I ask you not to change planarian species lists based on generic online platforms such as WoRMS, GBIF or even the Turbellarian Taxonomic Database, especially if the current version of the article cites recent taxonomic papers. Piter Keo ( talk  •  contribs ) 17:23, 21 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Hi Piter, those edits were made back in 2021, using the Turbellarian Taxonomic Database (TTD) as a framework to systematically arrange several planarian family articles within Wikipedia. Although the references I provided used WoRMS (where the TTD information is supposed to be reflected), that is only because it was easier to to make a citation from WoRMS than it is from the TTD.
 * The use of the TTD is not some generic online database or internet scraper, it is the best available source of Turbellarian taxonomic classification. Presently however, the information on the TTD is not always complete or even consistent - perhaps even less than 95% accurate. Unfortunately, without adequate sourcing that shows a more recent paper than the latest TTD update on that taxa, we are left with several errors in the accepted classification in the Wikipedia articles. Furthermore, it became apparent during my edits that there were also discrepancies between some family listings on the TTD and their corresponding entries on WoRMS.
 * To this end, I notified the chief editor of the TTD of these discrepancies and identified many missing taxa based on the available journal articles. He was appreciative of those additions and made many changes to the TTD to reflect them. However, I have not heard back from him following the last list of suggested changes provided in Dec 2021. It was several pages in length and may have been more than his available time could process. Any further updates to Wikipedia planarian articles have since been on hold until a more coherent and complete TTD can be produced, and accurately reflected on WoRMS. Loopy30 (talk) 13:13, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Talk:Dicharax biexcisus
Hello, Loopy30,

Why did you turn this Talk page into a redirect when the article is not a redirect? It seems confusing to me. Liz Read! Talk! 03:03, 11 July 2023 (UTC)


 * It was a botched move as the article had multiple names. I am editing to rectify now, Loopy30 (talk) 03:05, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Turritella (Haustator) concava


Hey Loopy30, I liked your essay, but a tag has been placed on Turritella (Haustator) concava, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, group, product, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and FAQ/Organizations for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the. ❤History Theorist❤ 04:09, 17 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Never mind, I think you fixed the problem and it wasn't your fault, it was somebody else's because they vandalized the page. ❤History Theorist❤  04:14, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Invitation
Hello ! Thank you for your consideration. We hope to see you around!
 * The New Pages Patrol is currently struggling to keep up with the influx of new articles needing review. We could use a few extra hands to help.
 * We think that someone with your activity and experience is very likely to meet the guidelines for granting.
 * Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time, but it requires a strong understanding of Wikipedia’s CSD policy and notability guidelines.
 * Kindly read the tutorial before making your decision, and feel free to post on the project talk page with questions.
 * If patrolling new pages is something you'd be willing to help out with, please consider applying here.

Sent by using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) at 07:50, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Precious anniversary
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:05, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Contest coord
Hello, would you consider being a coord for the new Tree of Life contest? It doesn't involve a particularly large amount of work, as the contest mostly relies on contestants self-scoring, and is mostly just checking to make sure no-one's lying about their entries. Thanks! AryKun (talk) 11:47, 27 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Hi AryKun, thanks for the invite but I'll stick to editing articles for now rather than committing to any additional project work. 'Cheers, Loopy30 (talk) 12:17, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Stop intentionally hiding the history of Queezy's Ketchup Alternative
French fed colonizer trying to disrupt beautiful Algerian heritage Imfuego (talk) 03:37, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks...
...for fixing all those taxonomy templates with upper case ranks. I came back from a Wikibreak to find a ridiculous number of entries in the subcategories of Category:Taxobox cleanup that I usually monitor most days. I left some of the taxonomy templates for today, only to find they had been fixed! Peter coxhead (talk) 06:24, 13 September 2023 (UTC)


 * 'Tis but the endless toil of a taxonomy gnome. I like to think that every little bit helps and it's easier work when when multiple editors all pitch in. Loopy30 (talk) 10:56, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Taxonbar location
Thank you for placing Taxonbar on many taxon pages. FYI, it is meant to be placed below all other navigation templates like so (and above Authority control, if it exists). ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 19:31, 14 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Thanks Tom.
 * 'Cheers Loopy30 (talk) 20:23, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Undiscussed move
I've reverted your Colocolo/Pampas cat swap. Please see Talk:Pampas_cat. If you wish to do what you did, you will need to open a formal WP:RM discussion. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:43, 8 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Thanks for alerting me to this. I had missed the existing RM discussion as I misread the date of it as being 2017 (vice only four months ago). As there had been no scientific disagreement since the 2020 (and 2021) genetic studies splitting the pampas cat, I thought it was time to bring the Wikipedia article up to date. I am glad that you caught this before I started re-working the other subspecies pages! While I believe that this should still be done, I will hold off on any changes until an IUCN CSG re-assessment occurs. In the meantime, I will support the development of subspecies articles that can be easily changed to full species articles once recognised, and the Pampas cat article can then be retained as a species complex article. 'Cheers, Loopy30 (talk) 13:17, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Sounds like a good plan. I'm sure you know this, but I'll say it anyway to be sure. We generally rely on the combination of the IUCN And ASM's MDD for determining what taxonomy we should use for mammals. (Which reminds me I need to fix Two-toed_sloth to align with them...) When the IUCN and the MDD disagree, we then look for other third-party sources that may have a more up-to-date listing, while we try to avoid first-party sources. We can use the first party sources as support and for various pieces of information, but for taxonomic changes we wait until that information has made it out to the third party sources. Likewise, second-arty sources tend to just plainly report on what the first-party sources have said, without necessarily comparing those results to other sources. Anyway, keep up the good work! - UtherSRG (talk) 15:47, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm inclined to recognise the species split, as it's impossible to know how long the IUCN will take to make a reassessment. Yet even then I think this would be a good case for deviating from NSPECIES and keeping a single article, on the species complex at Pampas cat, rather than making five species articles, most of which will be stubs. The article can be revamped to cover both approaches with similar weight and the "species" table can give both species names and subspecies names.  —  Jts1882 &#124; talk 16:10, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia has no deadline. That said, we don't have to ignore the probable future path (though we should be wary of peering into the future) by updating the current article to show the varying thoughts on the taxonomy, without taking the step in making the taxonomic change itself. But I Think we're past the point in this discussion where we should move to the article's talk page to hash out the changes. - UtherSRG (talk) 16:34, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Regarding the "Not evaluated" conservation status
First of all thank you so much for helping me to furnish details of my recent articles of graylings and charr species of fish. I have also noticed that you have deleted "NE" conservation status from several times as you commented that it is not a conservation status. But just fyi that "Not evaluated" (NE) is a legitimate conservation status which you could find its information in the article. Hence, I undid all ur changes which involves the deletion of "NE" status. Have a good day HolyCrocsEmperor (talk) 14:14, 13 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Hi, the NE rating actually indicates the absence of an IUCN status, and not a level of conservation threat. Standard Wikipedia editing practice is to leave this field blank if the IUCN has not evaluated the taxon (see project page here). 'Cheers, Loopy30 (talk) 14:33, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I see the case now... Sorry my bad, I will make the changes, sorry again... HolyCrocsEmperor (talk) 20:30, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Thank you!
I’d like to thank you for moving the article I created to perothops. It will increase the chance of it passing the DYK and GA reviews, and I appreciate it. User Memer ( chat )  Tribs  15:15, 25 December 2023 (UTC)