User talk:Monster Iestyn

Proposed deletion of ISO_12620


The article ISO_12620 has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "Content merged with Linguistic categories as recommended after requested move 8 May 2020"

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

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

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

A page you started (Ogcodes) has been reviewed!
Thanks for creating Ogcodes, Monster Iestyn!

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

"Reviewed!"

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

Learn more about page curation.

SamHolt6 (talk) 03:05, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

A page you started (Pseudocolaspis) has been reviewed!
Thanks for creating Pseudocolaspis, Monster Iestyn!

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

"If you can add any information to indicate whether this is a New World, Old World or globally distributed genus, that would be great."

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

Learn more about page curation.

Nick Moyes (talk) 19:21, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

A page you started (Amblypneustes) has been reviewed!
Thanks for creating Amblypneustes, Monster Iestyn!

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

"Please check the details/synonymy of the type species. E. griseus is not listed under A. griseus, so this doesn't make sense to me at first sight."

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

Learn more about page curation.

Nick Moyes (talk) 09:09, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Short descriptions
Hi Monster Iestyn, Thanks for creating beetle stubs. Could you make them a bit more useful by including Short descriptions? This helps people using a search to identify what the article is about. Ping me if you need more information. Cheers, &middot; &middot; &middot; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 05:21, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 19
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Papallacta, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Papallacta frog ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Papallacta check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Papallacta?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) 09:38, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

A page you started (Paracoeloglutus) has been reviewed!
Thanks for creating Paracoeloglutus, Monster Iestyn!

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

"Please resolve Greek DAB link"

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

Learn more about page curation.

Nick Moyes (talk) 05:33, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Fish categorisation
I note that you have fixed some of the weird categorisation changes made by the now blocked User:Couiros22. There are a great number of similar categorisation changes this editor has made regarding fish species and, I understand, in many other areas of biota articles. The discussions at AN/I and the blocking admin's talk page are relevant. If you have any expertise in the categorisation of fish and would like to help out with the resolving the mess, I'll let you know once we get the process sorted out and underway. I'll keep your talk page on my watchlist for the time being for your reply. - Nick Thorne talk 10:46, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

I haven't any expertise on fish (or anything for that matter, I just look up the info via the databases and Google etc where I can), I just happened to spot some of the weirdly sorted articles viewing particular categories while working on some beetle articles, thought I'd quickly fix them while I was at it. I'm probably going to continue working on what I was already doing for now, but perhaps I'll keep an eye out for more of that in future, if that helps? -- Monster Iestyn (talk) 12:45, 27 June 2018 (UTC)


 * No sweat. You can never tell what people know without asking.  Carry on, all good! - Nick Thorne talk  13:48, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Stub category mystery
Hello. I noticed that you categorized the page Syntormon pallipes into a more specific stub category than I had placed it in. That's great, but what puzzles me is that I didn't know that category existed. When I look at the page Category:Asilomorpha stubs, it doesn't show any subcategories, even though Category:Empidoidea stubs should be showing up as one. Do you have any idea why this might not be working properly? -GTBacchus(talk) 02:02, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

...well, it definitely *is* there, at least from my view. In fact it's the only subcategory listed in the Asilomorpha stubs category apparently. Is this a cache issue perhaps? - Monster Iestyn (talk) 02:49, 12 July 2018 (UTC)


 * It's odd. It's suddenly showing up for me as well, which sounds like a cache issue. At the same time, if I go out to Category:Diptera stubs, and play with the subcategory tree, then Asilomorpha shows up as having no subcategories. Maybe it will appear there if I check back later? In the in-between category, Brachycera stubs, it does appear. Huh. -GTBacchus(talk) 02:52, 12 July 2018 (UTC)


 * I recall categories being weird for me too some time back. Too bad I can't remember where or when I encountered it, but I distinctly recall some subcategory of a category somewhere being displayed as having no pages at all on the main cat's page, even though the subcat definitely contained a number of pages when I actually went to the subcat's page. Maybe category caching must be off somehow, but I can't claim to know much about caching in general on Wikipedia tbh.


 * Oh well, hopefully the issue will just go away eventually. Can't offer much help otherwise though. - Monster Iestyn (talk) 03:05, 12 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Oh nevermind I found it again anyway: Category:Dolichopodidae displays Category:Microphorinae as having only one page, even though it actually has like 5 pages in it. Monster Iestyn (talk) 03:10, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I see that, too. Beats me... Now I'm confused by insect taxoboxes not displaying orders, but instead skipping straight from class to family. I took a long wiki-break, and a lot has changed. -GTBacchus(talk) 01:10, 13 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Huh, haven't seen order-skipping taxoboxes myself. Maybe that's because of the limited range of insect articles I've been working on, then again. Any examples of this? Monster Iestyn (talk) 21:15, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
 * None that I haven't fixed, now that someone at WikiProject Insects has shown me how. Here is where the question was asked and answered. -GTBacchus(talk) 13:56, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Auto-patrolled
I have nominated you for the "autopatrolled" right at Requests for permissions/Autopatrolled. This doesn't particularly impact your editing. I see there have been a few minor comments in the past, but your most recent ~10 or so creations seem excellent to me. power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 21:01, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Autopatrolled granted
Hi Monster Iestyn, I just wanted to let you know that I have [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=rights&page=User%3AMonster_Iestyn added] the "autopatrolled" permission to your account, as you have created numerous, valid articles. This feature will have no effect on your editing, and is simply intended to reduce the workload on new page patrollers. For more information on the autopatrolled right, see Autopatrolled. Feel free to leave me a message if you have any questions. Happy editing! TonyBallioni (talk) 21:03, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 16
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Metachroma pellucidum, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page New York ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Metachroma_pellucidum check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Metachroma_pellucidum?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:15, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 23
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Pachnephorus torridus, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Sierra and Leone ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Pachnephorus_torridus check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Pachnephorus_torridus?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:49, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 28
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Amblynetes, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Syagrus ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Amblynetes check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Amblynetes?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:57, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 5
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Stormer, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Fredrik Størmer ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Stormer check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Stormer?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:16, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 5
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Anepsiomyia flaviventris, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Northwestern ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Anepsiomyia_flaviventris check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Anepsiomyia_flaviventris?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) 09:18, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Community Insights Survey
Share your experience in this survey

Hi ,

The Wikimedia Foundation is asking for your feedback in a survey about your experience with and Wikimedia. The purpose of this survey is to learn how well the Foundation is supporting your work on wiki and how we can change or improve things in the future. The opinions you share will directly affect the current and future work of the Wikimedia Foundation.

Please take 15 to 25 minutes to give your feedback through this survey. It is available in various languages.

This survey is hosted by a third-party and governed by this privacy statement (in English).

Find more information about this project. [mailto:surveys@wikimedia.org Email us] if you have any questions, or if you don't want to receive future messages about taking this survey.

Sincerely, RMaung (WMF) 16:36, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Reminder: Community Insights Survey
Share your experience in this survey

Hi ,

A couple of weeks ago, we invited you to take the Community Insights Survey. It is the Wikimedia Foundation’s annual survey of our global communities. We want to learn how well we support your work on wiki. We are 10% towards our goal for participation. If you have not already taken the survey, you can help us reach our goal! Your voice matters to us.

Please take 15 to 25 minutes to give your feedback through this survey. It is available in various languages.

This survey is hosted by a third-party and governed by this privacy statement (in English).

Find more information about this project. [mailto:surveys@wikimedia.org Email us] if you have any questions, or if you don't want to receive future messages about taking this survey.

Sincerely, RMaung (WMF) 15:38, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Reminder: Community Insights Survey
Share your experience in this survey

Hi ,

There are only a few weeks left to take the Community Insights Survey! We are 30% towards our goal for participation. If you have not already taken the survey, you can help us reach our goal! With this poll, the Wikimedia Foundation gathers feedback on how well we support your work on wiki. It only takes 15-25 minutes to complete, and it has a direct impact on the support we provide.

Please take 15 to 25 minutes to give your feedback through this survey. It is available in various languages.

This survey is hosted by a third-party and governed by this privacy statement (in English).

Find more information about this project. [mailto:surveys@wikimedia.org Email us] if you have any questions, or if you don't want to receive future messages about taking this survey.

Sincerely, RMaung (WMF) 20:39, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 21
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Ogcodes, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cosmopolitan ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Ogcodes check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Ogcodes?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:33, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Move requests (re: Synetini, etc.)
If you find that Wikipedia is using some outdated taxonomy that requires a page move to bring up-to-date, and you are certain it would be uncontroversial and are unable to make the move yourself, you should make a technical move request (WP:RM/TR) If you think it might be controversial, and you bring it somewhere such as WikiProject Beetles, and don't receive any objecting comments you should also just make a technical move request. It is very unlikely that any editors with any taxonomic competency will see/comment on a standard requested move that didn't already comment on it if it was previously discussed in an appropriate taxonomy related WikiProject. Plantdrew (talk) 02:41, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Oh, okay then, thanks for telling me. I was a little frustrated waiting for a suitable number of comments regarding Synetini/Synetinae at the WikiProject to be honest. But at the same time, I can't say I'm really fully competent in taxonomy myself, so I also decided to be cautious just in case I was wrong for some reason. Monster Iestyn (talk) 03:01, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
 * WikiProject Beetles is very low traffic and not watched by many people. For future reference, you might get more comments at WikiProject Insects, or even WikiProject Tree of Life (although there might be some insect/beetle specialized editors not watching Tree of Life). I have a pretty low standard for "taxonomic competency" in mind; understand the basic application of the principle of priority, know that circumscriptions are subjective at some level, and that monophyly is preferred in modern classifications. If one understands those concepts, they can make a useful contribution to a discussion of what taxon name to use. Plantdrew (talk) 07:18, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Oh okay, I'll keep that in mind for future then. Monster Iestyn (talk) 15:02, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
 * What happens now about Synetini btw? It's been over a week since I made the move request. Monster Iestyn (talk) 08:52, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
 * It has now been moved. A week is the minimum period for a move request to run; it may take an additional day or two for the request to be closed and the move executed (or it could be relisted for another week). Plantdrew (talk) 16:53, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
 * With that done, what should I do to get Template:Taxonomy/Synetini deleted now that it is orphaned and not likely to be used? It doesn't seem to neatly fit into the speedy deletion criteria, though I could be overlooking something. Monster Iestyn (talk) 18:48, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Replace the template's contents with Category:Unnecessary taxonomy templates. When there are a bunch of taxonomy templates in that category, they will be brought to Templates for Discussion as a batch. The last batch of deletions was fairly recent; it will likely be several months before the next round. Plantdrew (talk) 21:38, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Since you created the Synetini template and are the only person to edit it, you should be able to get it speedily deleted via WP:G7. Plantdrew (talk) 21:54, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Oh okay, both of those options will be helpful. I actually forgot I created the template even, haha. Thanks again in any case. Monster Iestyn (talk) 00:41, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 11
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Llanomolpus, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Columbia ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Llanomolpus check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Llanomolpus?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:40, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

barnstar
Thanks! Zakhx150 (talk) 15:30, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Francois Louis Laporte, Comte de Castelnau
I see your note on the biography page and wonder if you have seen my article about this gentleman in my book "Royal Mistresses and Bastards, Fact and Fiction, 1714-1936" (2007), the result of a considerable amount of research at that time. You are welcome to take what you can from it.AnthonyCamp (talk) 09:45, 3 January 2021 (UTC).
 * No, I have not seen it yet, in fact to be honest I hadn't heard about your book until now. Thank you for informing me about it though, if I do decide to improve Laporte's biography on Wikipedia I'll see if I can get access to your book. Monster Iestyn (talk) 15:59, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks. There is a list of the libraries worldwide in which the book may be seen in the section on "Royal Mistresses and Bastards" on my website at https://anthonyjcamp.com/pages/anthony-j-camp-comp-royal-mistresses-and-bastards. AnthonyCamp (talk) 20:04, 3 January 2021 (UTC).

Page mover permission
I have gone ahead and granted you page mover privileges. Hope you find it useful. Keep up the good work, stay well. Shyamal (talk) 09:17, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Ochralea
Hi. Somewhere, someone has something seriously incorrect regarding this name. According to The Nomenclator Zoologicus, this name was not made available by Dejean (ostensibly attributing it to Chevrolat), but was validated by Clark. Only if Chevrolat's name was not made available by Dejean could Clark's name be available. Scherz & Wagner do not even cite Chevrolat's name, and that would be consistent with the NZ entry. Yet, you appear to have inserted the following into Wikispecies: "Ochralea Chevrolat in Dejean, 1836: 375 Type species: Adorium flavum Olivier, 1807, by monotypy." - and this does not appear to be correct. One obvious problem is that in Dejean's listing, there were two originally included species of Ochralea, so it cannot have flavum as type by monotypy; ICZN Article 68.3 specifies "When an author establishes a new nominal genus-group taxon for a single species". It seems to be playing a bit loosely with the Code to claim that subsequent recognition that "Ochralea melanophthalma Dejean" is not an available name means the type has to be flavum; Article 69.4 says that eliminating all originally included species except one does not fix the remaining species as the type. The second obvious problem is that the entry in Wikispecies for Ochralea Clark says it's a junior homonym, and also gives an entirely different type species, which means that Clark's name and Chevrolat's name refer to different taxa - i.e., that Clark's name was not a validation of Chevrolat's name. Wikipedia treats Clark's name as available, and Wikispecies says it is not. You can't have it both ways. If Chevrolat's name is available, then it cannot have a type by monotypy (from my reading of the Code), Clark's name is permanently unavailable (so Scherz & Wagner screwed up completely), and the entries in the Nomenclator Zoologicus and Wikipedia are both incorrect. If Chevrolat's name is unavailable, then Clark's name is not a homonym, and the entries in Wikispecies are incorrect. One way or another, this needs to be rectified so all sources are in agreement. For now, I am assuming that Dejean did not make Chevrolat's name available, but suppose it could easily be the other way around; it would not be the first time someone tried to resurrect a name that was unavailable. Regardless, this is a mess. Dyanega (talk) 22:20, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
 * : Sorry about that, how things are on both Wikispecies and Wikipedia about Ochralea is all my fault (or not, in a sense). In the first place, I should have made it clear on Wikispecies that I based the information for Ochralea Chevrolat on Bousquet & Bouchard's 2013 articles on genera in Dejean's catalogues (specifically the one for the second catalogue: ). In particular this was what they wrote for that genus:
 * Ochralea Chevrolat, 1836: 375
 * Originally included available species: Adorium flavum Olivier, 1807.
 * Type species: Adorium flavum Olivier, 1807 by monotypy.
 * Current status: junior subjective synonym of Oides Weber, 1801 in Chrysomelidae (fide Beenen 2010: 491).
 * As I have been finding out for myself working through B&B's articles to help Tony 1212 and Circeus update IRMNG (starting about a year ago, see here, though I made a confusing mess of it to begin with), Nomenclator Zoologicus is actually probably out of date when it comes to genera from Dejean's catalogue; historically as far as I've read up they used to be all considered nomina nuda because they lacked any descriptions, but nowadays they are considered available if they include a available species name? In this case at least, Ochralea Chevrolat is considered to be available by B&B.
 * As far as I understand then, meanwhile, Clark's use of Ochralea, having a different type species, is a junior homonym of Ochralea Chevrolat? This apparently hasn't been noticed by anyone working on leaf beetles yet, if I'm correct here. This was why I flagged Wikispecies' page for Clark's name as a homonym, since there is no alternative name for Clark's name to use at all.
 * Meanwhile, what happened with Wikipedia was that Estopedist1 originally made "Ochralea" a disambiguation page linking to Monolepta and Oides, totally unaware of Scherz & Wagner's 2010 article resurrecting Ochralea Clark (probably because Estopedist1 based his information on GBIF or another database site), and that I had earlier made the List of Galerucinae genera page based on Nie, Bezděk and Yang, 2017's list (specifically its supplement doc file containing a list of all genera in Galerucinae s. str.) ...which also treated Ochralea Clark, 1865 as a valid genus, and yet also listed Ochralea Chevrolat 1836 as a synonym of Oides. Making the Wikipedia article about Clark's use of the name instead seemed to make most sense to me given it is currently accepted as "valid", but because of the Chevrolat name I am not entirely happy about it myself.
 * Do correct me if I'm wrong in my explanation or thinking here, I have worried for a while whether I'm out of my depth here. (That and you did just attack me with a massive block of text.) Monster Iestyn (talk) 23:54, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm also not entirely happy with my own explanation above actually... to put it in short then, based on the available recent articles on Dejean's names as well as leaf beetles I have been referring to, I have come to the conclusion that Ochralea Chevrolat, 1836 is considered an available name, and that Ochralea Clark, 1865 is therefore a junior homonym that needs a replacement name. It is certainly a mess as far as I can make out, and it is not even the only mess by far within leaf beetles in particular. (I have been editing pages on them long enough to maybe provide a list of the messes I have stumbled on, if requested.) Monster Iestyn (talk) 00:35, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Nothing wrong with being out of one's depth, so long as you don't mind constructive attempts to help. Knowing that B&B is the source of the status does lend credence to that interpretation; Patrice and I are both active Commissioners, though not always in agreement. Looking over their work, I see nothing that merits a challenge except - as noted - that the wording of the Code is such that it is actually not clear what to do when a genus that originally contained multiple species BUT people later recognized that all but one of those names was unavailable. Because it was originally a genus containing multiple species, and only LATER recognized as monotypic, it does not seem to strictly qualify as typification by monotypy, but it also is not one of the other methods of typification. It's probably common to categorize names as they have done, though maybe not strictly literally allowed. As for the resolution here, it's part of a larger "can of worms" that B&B's work has opened. I see that they list a lot of very well-known genera that would need to be replaced by names published in Dejean, and am unaware of anyone having done so for any of them. I suspect that people did honestly think "Ochralea Chevrolat" was a nomen nudum prior to B&B's treating it as available. It does therefore appear that Clark's name cannot be used at all, so Scherz & Wagner got it wrong, and the genus desperately needs a new name, as you note. The question then is how to treat an unreplaced homonym in Wikipedia? The WP:NOR policy prohibits original research, and that means caution is required, but if WP continues to treat the name as valid, others may cite it or use it without realizing the problem. I'm tempted to suggest deleting the Ochralea page, removing links pointing to it, and not restoring them until and unless the situation is formally resolved. The entries in Wikispecies could be left as is. Thoughts? Dyanega (talk) 00:49, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
 * While admittedly I wouldn't even have bothered writing the genus page in the first place (if it weren't for circumstances of its creation), I am hestitant to delete it as it would just mean someone else can recreate it later. I've noticed how a number of editors across the Wikimedia sites (particularly Wikipedia and Wikidata) seemingly aren't even really aware homonymy is even a problem in zoological nomenclature (e.g. the edit of the hatnote I added to link to Oides), so I'm not confident whoever makes it next will get it right to be honest. So I feel like leaving the existing up is maybe a necessary evil for now, if only to allow writing up information on the genus itself regardless of the mess surrounding its name? All I can suggest otherwise is adding a note to explain that it is a different name to Ochralea Chevrolat, 1836, which is what I sort of tried to do with the hatnote but not very well clearly. Monster Iestyn (talk) 01:50, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
 * In that case, removing at least some of the links pointing to it will minimize exposure to the "bad" taxon name, and pushing the boundary on the NOR policy is going to be unavoidable. I'll note that I just came across yet another nearly identical issue with the recently-coined cerambycid genus Morrisia, a homonym of an 1852 name. Too many people just don't know how to do nomenclatural research. Thanks for your understanding. Dyanega (talk) 22:30, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Glad to have had this discussion, so thank you too. Monster Iestyn (talk) 23:27, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Asphaera
Hi. I looked at the citation you provided, and it says it was published in 1849, not 1842. The text also says Asphaera was established by Chevrolat, and adopted by Dejean. This 1849 dictionary is certainly not the original publication of the genus name, doesn't give a year for Chevrolat's original publication, and I don't know why the little "(D & C)" at the end would be taken as authoritative regarding authorship, let alone year, unless I'm missing something. What's needed is the original publication. Dyanega (talk) 00:07, 8 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Hi, this was one of the names Circeus and I looked into at Wikispecies working through the Dejean names. See Evenhuis (2019) for publication dates of the Dictionnaire Universel d'Histoire Naturelle; apparently that dictionary was published in livraisons between 1839 and 1849, rather than all at once in one year. (Actually now you bring it up, looking the cited volume and page up in Evenhuis's table reveals it was actually published in 8 November 1841 supposedly, even earlier than 1842) As far as I'm aware the dictionary is the point the name first became available, since according to Bousquet & Bouchard (2013) Asphaera had no available species in Dejean's catalogue (as well as no description), whereas in the dictionary it contains at least a description for the genus. The "(D & C)" is supposed to be abbreviations of "Duponchel" and "Chevrolat" respectively ...I can't seem to find explanations of this in Vol. 2, but I've found this in volume 13. "Duponchel & Chevrolat, 1842" is also the authority that ITIS is using, which in turn comes from the "Catalog of leaf beetles of America north of Mexico" publication as far as I can tell? Meanwhile, I suspect Nadein's "Chevrolat, 1843" authority on his Alticini website is actually referring to the citation in the dictionary, which is supported by his website giving "Chevrolat, 1843: 227" as the reference and 227 just happening to be the correct page of Asphaera's entry in the dictionary's volume 2. I could be wrong, but Nadein doesn't appear to have given any full citations for any references cited on his website, annoyingly, leaving it to guesswork which publications were actually meant. Monster Iestyn (talk) 00:36, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
 * It's not much of a "description" in that dictionary though, it just seems to be a comparison with Oedionychis as far as I can tell (my French knowledge is not good enough to understand *exactly* what is meant in detail, except that I think at least it says the tarsal claws of the posterior legs are simple?). Monster Iestyn (talk) 00:48, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Oh wow, I must have completely forgotten about this, but Bousquet & Bouchard (2013) actually do mention "Asphaera Duponchel and Chevrolat, 1842" too, but only because their article happens to list Litosonycha Chevrolat, 1836 (an even earlier authority for Litosonycha Clark, 1865). Monster Iestyn (talk) 01:04, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

That's very confusing, and - as you note - not much of an actual description, and gives no included species. The table does seem pretty definitive regarding the date, at least, even if the authorship is slightly questionable. I can imagine that this dictionary must then contain the first Code-compliant descriptions for a LOT of taxa, if this entry is an example. Without that breakdown on the dates of publication, it would be pretty hopeless to work out the details, and as it is, I suspect that a lot of surprise reversals of priority are going to show up. Dyanega (talk) 15:58, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, it is additionally confusing that for included species they cite Dejean's unavailable names but also cite a name by Klug as a synonym of one of them. That's slightly questionable in itself, but maybe that can be construed as complying with Art. 12.2.5 (providing an available species name), assuming that "Zonata Klug" really is an available name. Dyanega (talk) 16:11, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I just noticed what you said about Litosonycha - if it was published in 1836, then it is senior to Asphaera, correct? How can Litosonycha be a junior synonym, then? That would mean changing the Wikipedia entry entirely. It does seem to be what Bousquet & Bouchard advocate. However, resurrecting Litosonycha might violate the Code, if it has not been used as valid after 1899. That's the crucial thing to determine, at this point. Dyanega (talk) 16:21, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, we've been finding a lot of names become available through the dictionary, some of these have been noticed before by experts but others seemingly not. As for "Zonata Klug", Dejean's catalogue also lists the name; so if it is an available species name at all it possibly would also be available in the catalogue, which would make Asphaera itself available from the catalogue. (Unless it became available inbetween the catalogue and dictionary) It's quite possible "Zonata Klug" is a nomen nudum though; I actually double checked some species names for some other genera in Dejean's catalogues and came to the conclusion they have not been published elsewhere. As far as I know for Asphaera it is only available from the dictionary because of the description, reading Art 12.1 I take it it doesn't need to have an indication if there is a description/definition of the taxon (by reference to the actual taxonomic characters such as the tarsal claws). Litosonycha does seem to be senior to Asphaera, yes, though nobody has done as Bousquet & Bouchard suggested yet to conserve Asphaera (this is also true for a number of other generic names in Dejean's catalogue that turn out to be available from there...) Monster Iestyn (talk) 18:40, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Fabricius and Entomologists categories
Your change of JC Fabricius from category Entomologists to Danish Entomologists. "Danish Entomologistis is obviously fair, but I can't see why this removes him from "Entomologists". Danish Entomologists is clearly a subclass of Entomologists. Surely he should be included in BOTH categories. Foiled circuitous wanderer (talk) 10:09, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
 * @Foiled circuitous wanderer Isn't it unnecessary to include him in the Entomologists category if he is already in the Danish entomologists category? Since the latter is itself a subcategory of the former. Monster Iestyn (talk) 13:41, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
 * You must notice that most Wikipedia pages for entomologists are not included directly in the Entomologists category, but in subcategories of said category, typically based on nationality (e.g. British entomologists, German entomologists, Russian entomologists, Danish entomologists, etc.) and/or specialisation (Dipterists, Coleopterists). This was the case before I recently went and put a few more entomologists in sub-categories of that category. The ones that are left directly in the Entomologists category are ones that do not have a suitable entomologists category for them to go in (at least, as of writing). Monster Iestyn (talk) 13:45, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Ocnaea - Arrhynchus
Agree, this family is a mess. The late F.C. Thomsom was working on a world catalogue, to be published in Myia. Word has is he favoured Ocnaea? Hopefully someone will pick it up where he left off? I was using Manual of Central American Diptera, Volume 1 Simuliid   talk  18:42, 23 August 2022 (UTC)


 * @Simuliid Ah thanks, had wondered what you were using as reference for that synonymy. And yes it is a mess... Interestingly on that topic, Gillung's 2019 phylogenetic study suggests Ocnaea is paraphyletic with respect to Exetasis (apparently it was once a synonym of Ocnaea too I think?), but it does say its paraphyly with Exetasis, Arrhynchus and Archipialea needs to be explored. Monster Iestyn (talk) 18:53, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
 * By the way, if you were wondering, Arrhynchus is listed as valid in both the 2018 Chile Acroceridae catalog (which is available online at ResearchGate) and Gillung's 2019 article, which was why I thought it best to re-list as a valid genus on Wikipedia, at least for now. On the other hand, checking your source, oddly enough I cannot find any mention of Arrhynchus at all in it, from what little I can read from Google Books at least (maybe bad OCR is not doing me favours here). Monster Iestyn (talk) 19:14, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Many thanks for the update. I don't know how you are set, but I have a very good personal Diptera Library, and access to other larger ento Libraries. So I am not wholly dependent on online publications. Simuliid   talk  09:50, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

"Shizocera"
As you surmised, that one paper both misidentified and misspelled the wasp name. There is no way to know what genus or species it refers to, so all citations and links have been removed. Shizocera now redirects to Sterictiphora, but this should not be taken to imply that the Vietnamese wasp is in Sterictiphora. Dyanega (talk) 16:54, 22 September 2022 (UTC)


 * @Dyanega Thanks, and yes I too realised last point you make. I was hesitant to turn Shizocera into a redirect because the information in the page would have been lost as a result, but I take it that couldn't be helped in this case unfortunately. Maybe a future publication can clarify the true identity of this "Mo sawfly", hopefully. Monster Iestyn (talk) 17:26, 22 September 2022 (UTC)


 * It's evidently impossible to get an online copy of the original research article, and the only actual reports I can find of any sawflies at all feeding on that host plant genus are not even in the same family, so there's no way to be certain what they were talking about. That they were using a genus name that hasn't been valid in over 100 years (aside from the misspelling) is not a good sign regarding their level of taxonomic expertise, so I guess they COULD have gotten the family misidentified, as well. Dyanega (talk) 18:17, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Lepeletier & Serville, volume 10 - date?
On an unrelated topic which you may certainly have come across: while acquiring a PDF of this work today, I just noticed that about half of the genus names in it that I have databased say the date is 1825 (as BHL does), and about half say 1828. Unless this volume itself was issued in parts, I don't see how this could be the case. If it WAS issued in parts, then where is the cutoff between the 1825 part and the 1828 part? Maybe you have this information handy? If not, I'll try a few other contacts and post if I can get a clear answer. Thanks. Dyanega (talk) 22:28, 22 September 2022 (UTC)


 * @Dyanega: Quickly checking Bousquet (2016) (which is very handy for dating old works like this), it says it was published in two livraisons, one in 1825 and one in 1828:
 * "This volume was published in two livraisons: 1: (pp. 1–344 [livraison 96 of the entire Encyclopédie]) 1 October 1825 (Bibl Fr), 30 October 1825 (Rev Bibl-Brus); 2: (pp. 345–832 + [1 (Errata)] [livraison 100]) 13 December 1828 (Bibl Fr). Remarks about the Encyclopédie Méthodique are included under Olivier, 1790–1811 [q.v.]".
 * So if this is correct, the page you're linking was part of the first livraison published in 1825. Monster Iestyn (talk) 22:54, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I was able to find that information about the cutoff dates of the livraisons, as well, but the problem then becomes whether there is a published index of which taxa were published on which pages. If not, then doublechecking to see if a citation is erroneous is vastly more difficult. FYI, if you have not seen it: Evenhuis, N.L. (2003) Dating and publication of the Encyclopédie Méthodique (1782–1832), with special reference to the parts of the Histoire Naturelle and details on the Histoire Naturelle des Insectes. Zootaxa 166: 1-48. Dyanega (talk) 16:34, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
 * @Dyanega Thanks, I was aware of that one, but unfortunately it is not freely available online. Monster Iestyn (talk) 16:44, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Permocupedidae
I'm pretty sure most recent authors treat Taldycupedidae as a distinct family, so it may be worth splitting the page and creating a separate Taldycupedidae article. Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:17, 22 November 2022 (UTC)


 * @Hemiauchenia I had noticed that for myself, but I wasn't really prepared to make big changes to the existing article to be honest. But yeah, Kirejtshuk (2020)'s the one who proposed treating Taldycupedidae as a subfamily of Permocupedidae in the first place, though it is also still very recent and nobody has really properly questioned it yet (?). That is, unless we count Boudinot et al. (2022), which indirectly shows that Kirejtshuk (2020)'s Permocupedidae is not monophyletic I think? Monster Iestyn (talk) 03:29, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
 * @Hemiauchenia On a related subject, do you think Protocoleoptera should be renamed to Alphacoleoptera after Cai et al. (2022)? It seems some authors besides them at least have accepted that Protocoleoptera is a synonym of Protelytroptera (e.g. Kirejtshuk et al. (2014) and Boudinot et al. (2022) again). Or is it not worth it because Alphacoleoptera is not yet widely accepted? I've been meaning to consult someone on this for a while now but didn't know who to ask. (Also thank you for doing the Taldycupedidae split, I was starting to worry I was going to have to do it) Monster Iestyn (talk) 19:26, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Given that this is clearly not a monophyletic group, but a paraphyletic grade of non-crown group beetles, I don't really have a strong opinion on the matter, as the grouping is effectively informal anyway. The taxonomy of the most primitive beetles is in flux anyway, as Boudinot et al. 2022 totally rejected the monophyly of Alphacoleoptera. Given that "Protocoleoptera" has a wide usage in the literature, I think it should be kept for now. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:34, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
 * It may also be worth coding up and adding the cladogram from Boudinot et al. 2022 to the Protocoleoptera article or potentially using the images of them as they are CC-BY (though I think their calibration dates for the divergence of Archostemata are way off). Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:39, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
 * @Hemiauchenia That makes sense then. I had wondered whether that name for the group might be a problem because of Protelytroptera in particular, but that can't be helped I take it. Right now I'm attempting to fix up the Permocupedidae and Taldycupedidae articles a bit since your split. Monster Iestyn (talk) 19:54, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

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

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

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:35, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Medetera species names
Hi. Just an FYI: a quick glance at the many species names included in this genus suggests that there might actually be quite a few that are mis-gendered, mostly names that are nouns that have been erroneously treated as adjectives. In other words, "annulitarsa" might have been the proverbial tip of the iceberg. I also see a "tritarsa" and "brevitarsa" listed, and those would also need checking to make sure the OD didn't spell them as "-tarsus". If you ever need assistance with gender agreement issues, I'd be happy to help out. Thanks. Dyanega (talk) 17:57, 14 March 2023 (UTC)


 * @Dyanega Thanks, I did actually wonder about those other "-tarsa" species names myself, but I haven't checked their original publications at all yet. The reason I made the change for annulitarsus was actually because an article published in Zootaxa a few days ago pointed out it was an noun in apposition: (Link to treatment of that species on Plazi). Monster Iestyn (talk) 19:05, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Admittedly, I originally wrote a lot of the Dolichopodidae species lists years ago directly based on Grichanov's 2017 list of genera and species article (and the web version which is still kept up-to-date), which I only realised much later doesn't always have the correct spellings for some names ("annulitarsa" being one as it happened), among other issues. So this may also be an issue in other Dolichopodidae genera pages on Wikipedia/Wikispecies as well, but to what extent I don't know. Monster Iestyn (talk) 19:15, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
 * @Dyanega: Okay, it turns out both Medetera tritarsa and brevitarsa at least were the original spellings, according to what I can see of their ODs via Google Books ( and, respectively). So they at least don't need to be corrected. Monster Iestyn (talk) 19:44, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:48, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Briefly, on Tetrops
I responded to your note in Wikispecies, but have one follow-up: you say that Anaetia Dejean is NOT a nomen nudum. If that's the case, does it have a type species? I assume it would be praeusta? While Dejean's name might never be treated as valid (others seem to be thinking about a petition to suppress Kirby's name in favor of Stephens', which would have priority), it would be good to be certain about it. Thanks, Dyanega (talk) 19:10, 13 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Yes, according to Bousquet & Bouchard (2013) the type species for Anaetia is "Leptura praeusta Linnaeus, 1758 by monotypy", so it sounds like it was the only available species listed under that genus in Dejean's catalogue. Monster Iestyn (talk) 19:14, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
 * @Dyanega (pinging because I forgot to do so on my last reply) Monster Iestyn (talk) 19:18, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Unfinished business at CfD
In Categories for discussion/Log/2024 January 12, you never opened a new CfD, and the closure was unnecessary in the first place because it is acceptable for the outcome of an XfD to be different than proposed. –LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄ ) 12:22, 22 January 2024 (UTC)


 * @LaundryPizza03: I did actually open a new CfD! See Categories for discussion/Log/2024 January 13. It was just closed yesterday by a non-admin user, though that user has not actually acted out the required merging...
 * (Should I have pinged you for that new discussion? If I should have, then sorry about that, I obviously didn't do that.) Monster Iestyn (talk) 15:13, 22 January 2024 (UTC)