User talk:Ninjatacoshell

Additional species
I hesitate to plug my own site, but most of your additional species are mentioned in my alphabetical index pages. Just go to the proper letter, find the genus you're looking for, and the vast majority of species that have been assigned to it should be there (I don't keep a record of typos, though). J. Spencer 23:38, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Italics
Nice work on the List of dinosaurs! Please remember to italicise all generic names (e.g. Diplodocus not Diplodocus). Happy editing, Mgiganteus1 15:17, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I've removed all subjective determinations of nomina dubia, though. The page stated "As this can be an extremely subjective and controversial designation (see Hadrosaurus), this term is not used on this list." If it were to be included, there should ideally have to be a source given for each determination, preferably one authoritative source used throughout. Firsfron of Ronchester  20:04, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I missed reading in the article that the designation nomen dubium wouldn't be used in the list, so I'm sorry for the inconvenience. However, the designations were based solely upon what the articles said. If an article reported the genus as nomen dubium, then I indicated it on the list. So my sources were the articles themselves, and so there would be no point sourcing them. However, I agree that the articles should have a source when such a claim is made. Ninjatacoshell 21:35, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * No worries; it wasn't difficult to remove a few words, so no need to apologize. Just glad to have you aboard. I agree that each article should cite a source when it claims the genus in question is a nomen dubium. However, List of dinosaurs is a Featured List, representing one of the best articles on Wikipedia. Everything in a Featured List needs to be cited with an external source (Wikipedia itself cannot be used as the source). Since nomina dubia are often subjective based on the opinion of the authors, it's likely two different sources will differ on which genera are considered dubious, which, I believe, is the reason someone or other decided not to use the term in this list. If you really did want to try to add the words nomen dubium to each dubious genus in the list, you could (and I'm not trying to discourage you), but this would take quite a bit of work, since external sources would have to be found, and cited, in order to maintain this article's status as a Featured List. Best wishes and happy editing, Firsfron of Ronchester  22:17, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Query
''I learned in a class that this genus is tetraploid. Should this be noted in the article?'' Ninjatacoshell 17:20, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Interesting, perhaps we should. You certainly know more than me, so: If so, go ahead I would guess. And welcome. Fred 17:39, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Do you know how unusual or notable it is?
 * 2) Do you happen to have a reference?

Type strains
Good catch and useful discussion on the type strains for bacteria. KP Botany 03:26, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Phytopathogenic bacteria
Great to see all the contributions that you're making! Somanypeople 22:47, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Bacteroidetes
Hello, you had created an article about Sphingobacteria which is given as one of three classes of Bacteroidetes phylum, whereas in Brock biology of Microorganisms 11ed. by Madigan/Martinko, only two classes Bacteroidetes and Flavobacteria are given. I want to create some stubs for this phylum in other language Wikipedia and am wondering which classification is right and up to date? Thank you. --Katoa 17:30, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Queen of Demons.png
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Queen of Demons.png. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 15:43, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Queen of Demons.png)
Thanks for uploading Image:Queen of Demons.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot (talk) 04:03, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your edits of 2007 April 16
Sorry it took me so long to get around to thanking you for them. --arkuat (talk) 06:04, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Category:Mendicago → Category:Medicago on WP:RM
This doesn't require admin assistance because there's no real content to move or existing things blocking the changes. Just change the spelling in the about empty cat or obvious-mis-spelling). DMacks (talk) 17:24, 18 November 2008 (UTC)


 * To add to this, you can instead list it at WP:CFD where the category can be renamed (categories can't be moved like normal pages can). Parsecboy (talk) 19:13, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of The Act of Marriage
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article The Act of Marriage, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process
 * This is merely a book summary; see WP:NOT. No secondary sources given.

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. B. Wolterding (talk) 10:27, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Great work
Great work on the articles you have been creating. I've already requested that you should have autopatrolled rights here. I recommend you get reviewer rights here; it's almost automatically given to users over 100 rights. — MC10 ( T • C • GB •L)  19:48, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Taxoboxen work
Hi there! I noticed your many edits on taxoboxes (alternative plural: taxoboxen) and reverted a few. In plant articles, we follow the APG III system for higher taxonomy, and such names as Rosidae and Angiospermae are not included among those clades. We also don't list minor taxa ranks or the taxobox gets too large (minor ranks are accepted in articles where the minor rank is directly above the article ranks, e.g. a genus article can have a subfamily rank listed in the taxobox, but a species article shouldn't); see WP:TX for more guidelines. Cheers, Rkitko (talk) 22:12, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for updating your edits :-) We've been slow to adopt the APG III system since it's a lot of work to get to our near 40,000 plant taxa articles and to get everything right in the process. I appreciate you working on the Fabaceae. Is there a particular infrafamily taxonomy reference that you use when updating the taxoboxes? Cheers, Rkitko (talk) 15:46, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem. I just wanted all the Faboideae articles to be consistent in their taxoboxen, so your input was most appreciated. I've been using the USDA GRIN, the Systema Naturae 2000, and UniProt. Most of the articles are based on the International Legume Database (ILDIS), but as you can see, it has been down for a while, so I can't refer to it. The sources I'm using don't always agree, so I'm doing my best to generate a consensus between the three. Ninjatacoshell (talk) 15:56, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * USDA GRIN isn't the best source... It's often fairly outdated. I'm not familiar with the other two (rosids aren't among my strengths). If you're ever looking for input, advice, or run into something really strange that you can't resolve, you can always ask at WT:PLANTS; there are some fabulous experts and taxonomists there that can help. Best, Rkitko (talk) 18:08, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * How good is Catalogue of Life? Do you know? Ninjatacoshell (talk) 21:07, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I see it's run by ITIS, which is also usually outdated. Databases tend to lag behind the most current and accepted names from the literature, so we usually find the most recent authoritative article from the literature, like a phylogenetic study or monograph on the genus/family/taxon. A cursory search turns up a decent article from 2003 on the Fabaceae, but I have no idea how well that's received or if it's considered too old. Another rosid editor is User:Lavateraguy, who might have a better idea of the best source for your work. Rkitko (talk) 01:44, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Sri Lanka map
Just writing to say thanks and to let you know I wrote a reply to the map you created at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Graphic_Lab/Map_workshop#Sri_Lanka_Navy_area_of_operations Evan.oltmanns (talk) 19:46, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I replied again. Evan.oltmanns (talk) 23:39, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the work you did on the Sri Lanka Naval Areas map, it turned out great. Evan.oltmanns (talk) 04:47, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Vachellia
That is a pretty controversial one, as the type species is Acacia nilotica. JMK (talk) 05:56, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah. That whole thing was a mess. I personally was in favor of transferring the Australian acacias to Racosperma. But the taxonomic treatments have moved forward with the scheme ratified in Vienna and Melbourne. That gives us verifiable sources for the name change. So I've decided to put aside my personal feelings on the matter and accept the transfer of the African acacias to Vachellia. Ninjatacoshell (talk) 15:48, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

I disagree. As per the Acacia web page, this change has not been accepted by most scientists, despite the decision by the Congress. Even some taxonomists are urging that we wait before making these changes (again, see the Acacia page). I realize that this situation is unique, where the very authority of the Botanical Congress is in question, but that is the reality. Web of Science reveals that virtually no one is using Vachellia for this clade. In other words, your 'personal feelings' are in fact still the scientific norm. Please put these pages back in Acacia. Mukogodo (talk) 02:52, 13 January 2014 (UTC)


 * By "the Acacia web page" I assume you mean the Wikipedia page for Acacia or List of Acacia species, not some other web page on the internet. 'Personal feelings' and Web of Science search results (which qualifies as original research) notwithstanding, there are verifiable, published sources placing these species in Vachellia. There are not verifiable, published sources transferring them back to Acacia (and consequently transferring the Australian species to Racosperma). It's possible that this scenario will play out at the XIX IBC in China in 2017, but until then these species are Vachellia. If you feel strongly about this, then we should avoid an edit war by opening a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Plants and let the whole Wikipedia (plant article) community decide how these pages will be named. Ninjatacoshell (talk) 15:53, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

However, there is a verifiable source (by a professional taxonomist in the leading taxonomic journal) asserting that is it premature to accept these new names in actual use at this time: Gideon F. Smith & Estrela Figueiredo (2011). "Conserving Acacia Mill. with a conserved type: What happened in Melbourne?". Taxon 60 (5): 1504–1506 (cited on the current Acacia page). And even if we accept your premise that the Congress decision takes precedence over dozens of practicing scientists who do not yet acknowledge the change (for legitimate reasons and backed up other leading taxonomists), I suggest we need to use in Wikipedia titles such as "Vachellia (Acacia) drepanolobium". Why confuse Wikipedia's audience unnecessarily, especially in this case?

I agree that this is something that needs to be discussed, and in fact it is being discussed within the professional community (e.g., the reference above, and the striking lack of penetration into the [peer-reviewed!] scientific literature of these new genera, even after seven years). I find it fascinating that for the first time that I can recall, there has been a wholesale rejection of a decision by the Botanical Congress, whose authority essentially rests on the willingness of the scientific community to acknowledge it. You can assert all you want that the 'name has changed' but it only actually changes when people choose to use the new name, not when the Congress asserts it. We are living through a test case that has yet to be resolved. I argue for conservatism. Mukogodo (talk) 05:08, 14 January 2014 (UTC)


 * If you've read the paper you cite above, then you know that the style you propose—"Vachellia (Acacia) drepanolobium"—was soundly rejected by the congress (as was the adoption of Austroacacia for former subgenus Phyllodineae and Protoacacia or Acanthacacia for former subgenus Acacia). I think it would be better to list the synonym separately in parentheses, e.g. "Vachellia drepanolobium (syn. Acacia drepanolobium)". And note that there is also a verifiable source (by professional taxonomists in the same leading taxonomic journal) asserting that the community needs accept the IBC decisions and move on: Thiele et al. (2011). "The controversy over the retypification of Acacia Mill. with an Australian type: A pragmatic view." Taxon 60 (1): 194–198. But these are attempts to influence behavior, not statements of fact.


 * And we should also be clear that this is not a taxonomic debate (virtually everyone agrees with the evidence that Acacia sensu lato needed to be split into multiple genera), this is a nomenclatural debate (over which segregate genus should have had priority to retain the name Acacia). When I search for Vachellia using Google Scholar it returns hundreds of papers that have updated to that term, the majority in the last two years (i.e. since the second IBC decision), which would suggest that the change is being implemented, though perhaps slowly (there are only about a dozen uses of Racosperma and searching for Acacia and Africa together returns nearly 3000 hits). As I stated before, such search results count as original research and using them—even as a guide for how to structure Wikipedia (or an article herein)—should be out of the question. I am unaware of any verifiable source that denotes when scientists "choose to use [or reject] the new name"; but there are verifiable sources that the name has been changed (regardless of how well it is accepted by the broader community). That said, I think it's more confusing to the casual Wikipedia reader to tell them that Acacia has been split up and then proceed to talk about it as though it hadn't been and to conflate the properties of what we now know to be very different genera. Conversely, it's not at all confusing to say, "Vachellia nilotica used to be called Acacia nilotica…" or "Vachellia horrida (formerly known as Acacia horrida)…".

List of U.S. state tartans
Hi there, please note that the list is for official state tartans. Please look at the talk page for a discussion about what that means. The images are nice but the ones for states without tartans should be removed. Cheers, Valfontis (talk) 02:36, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Ah, yes. My source for creating the images was the Scottish Register of Tartans and it appears that its accuracy has been called into question. To be honest, I don't feel up to verifying all the tartans I just put up. If you don't, either, I suggest you revert to a previous version of the article. Since it appears that this is a perennial problem for the article (e.g. the failed tartan for Oregon), you might save yourself some trouble by indicating in the article which states don't have official tartans (with references, of course). You can also use to leave notes to future editors so they don't make the same mistake I did. Ninjatacoshell (talk) 05:27, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reply. I just got bold and started gutting the article and adding an explanatory note at the top. I had planned to do this 8 years ago, but last night I discovered that digging through 25 states' legislation is kind of tiresome. I removed all the states that didn't have a tartan listed, as I think the empty slots were too tempting for everyone! I'll keep working on the refs for the rest, then go back and look at the other states to see if they have added tartans. Sorry to remove your hard work. Tartans are pretty and it's nice to have illustrations of them. Valfontis (talk) 16:50, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Why not leave all the states in the table? For those that don't have an official tartan, merge that row into a single cell and write "[State name] has not officially adopted a tartan." As it stands, well-meaning editors can still come in and add incorrect information because the correct information is lacking. I already did this for Oregon.

Microlophus in the Galapagos
Hi there! I recently enlarged the stub at Microlophus albemarlensis, which seems to be a diverse and complex group of lizards. I noticed you've created a couple of subpopulation articles (Microlophus jacobi, and Microlophus indefatigabilis) and range maps, citing a single, primary study (Benavides et al. 2009). It does not appear that these proposed or resurrected species are widely adopted, however, even by some of the same authors (see Jiménez-Uzcátegu et al. 2012, which notes M. jacobi and M. indefatigabilis are nomina nuda). Reptile Database similarly does not recgonize M. jacobi or M. indefatigabilis as separate species, and Benavides and colleagues themselves stressed their genetic study represented "candidate species". I think unless there is more recent evidence to the contrary, the Santa Cruz Island and Santiago Island populations should be subsumed within Microlophus albemarlensis for now, especially since there there seems to be little definitive morphological or ecological differences. This would also involve combining the range maps of each into an M. albemarlensis sensu lato range. What do you say? --Animalparty-- (talk) 01:47, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the late response. I agree that combining the articles for these three makes sense. And the map you've replaced the old one with looks fine. Ninjatacoshell (talk) 02:18, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

About exact name of Bidi leaf tree
Hi, I noticed that the name Piliostigma racemosum is not now the accepted scientific name. In every major botany site it is justified that the name of the plant should be Bauhinia racemosa. So if you can, please change the name back. Thank you.
 * Looks like it's already been moved back. It's been so long, now, that I don't remember why I originally moved it to Piliostigma.

Speedy deletion nomination of Amblytropis (disambiguation)


A tag has been placed on Amblytropis (disambiguation) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G6 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an orphaned disambiguation page which either
 * disambiguates two or fewer extant Wikipedia pages and whose title ends in "(disambiguation)" (i.e., there is a primary topic); or
 * disambiguates no (zero) extant Wikipedia pages, regardless of its title.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time. Please see the disambiguation page guidelines 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 removed 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. — Gorthian (talk) 02:46, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation pages
Hi! It's good to see someone knowledgeable adding to the biology content here. I have a couple of pieces of advice about dab pages, since that's where my experience lies.

First of all, please don't create a dab page until there is more than one article already written that needs disambiguation. Dab pages should not be all red-linked entries. In other words, write the article first, then see if it needs to be disambiguated.

Second, keep in mind that dab pages are meant to be navigation aids, not articles. So a minimum of description is used. Authorities aren't necessary, unless it's crucial to distinguishing between the articles. Please read WP:DDD and, even better, MOS:DAB.

Thanks! — Gorthian (talk) 00:15, 15 February 2017 (UTC)


 * I haven't made a habit of creating disambiguation pages when there isn't more than one article already written. I felt like this was a special case, but obviously I was in error. Anyway, I've added Amblytropis Kitag. as a synonym on the Gueldenstaedtia Fisch. page and pointed a hatnote on the Amblytropis (Mitt.) Broth. page directly to Gueldenstaedtia. So now I think it would be best to speedily delete Amblytropis (disambiguation), since it only disambiguates [sic] one page. Do you agree? Ninjatacoshell (talk) 04:24, 15 February 2017 (UTC)


 * I do agree. As the creator, you could tag it as a combination of WP:G7 (author requests deletion) and WP:G6 (deleting a disambiguation page that links to zero articles or to only one extant article and whose title includes " (disambiguation)"). Thank you. — Gorthian (talk) 04:32, 15 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Done! Ninjatacoshell (talk) 17:09, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm baaaack... ;-) Please don't pipe links in dab-page entries. Also, the authorities for the synonyms aren't usually necessary on dab pages. I've edited Caulinia accordingly, so you can see what it looks like. (If you can't stand the entries without the authorities, though, go ahead and add them—it's just more typing!)

However, when there are only two ambiguous titles, the issue should be handled with hatnotes instead of making a dab page. If you leave Caulinia as a redirect, for instance, you could add a redirect hatnote at Najas, something like, which would render as "Caulinia redirects here. For the legume genus, see Kennedia." And a hatnote at Kennedia would also be useful. — Gorthian (talk) 04:49, 28 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Got it. Ninjatacoshell (talk) 04:52, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Authorities are the usual way that ambiguous genus names are disambiguated in the specialist sources devoted to this niche subject. The date of the authority description indicates which name has taxonomic priority.

I think authority should be included, and dates added when absent. Piped links for ambiguous genera should be avoided. If the ambiguity is severe enough, the unpiped links should be formed as Caulinia (plant genus described by Moench) (or something along those lines), but really a hatnote should be more than enough to handle most cases of ambiguity in this area. Dab pages aren't the best solution; Caulinia has priority as a synonym of Najas. Redirect Caulinia to Najas and add a hatnote if absolutely necessary. Plantdrew (talk) 05:20, 28 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Done.

Plant synonym redirects
Thanks for your work creating redirects for plant synonyms. Would you mind adding to any new redirects you create? Plantdrew (talk) 17:30, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the suggestion! I went back and I think I've added that to most of the recent redirects I've created. Ninjatacoshell (talk) 18:20, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for adding the template. Plantdrew (talk) 20:54, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Please don't move plant pages without giving recent consensus taxonomic citations.
I can't guess what reference you may have used to decide to move Hedysarum coronarium to Sulla coronaria. Certainly, The Plant List doesn't support that change. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 06:18, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I've added the requested references for the transfer of Hedysarum coronarium to Sulla coronaria. Incidentally, I've found quite a few errors in The Plant List, so be careful to check other sources to back it up. Thanks for asking me to be more thorough. Ninjatacoshell (talk) 15:06, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you. It is good to have the citations there. (Yes, The Plant List has problems, but without it there would be little consensus and perhaps much thrashing due to conflicting taxonomies). Sminthopsis84 (talk) 06:32, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Fagaceae
I can't find the taxonomic tree you added for Fagaceae in the given references. Do you have any other references? The tree supports Cyclobalanopsis as an independent genus. This really needs a reference. --Trurl (talk) 09:08, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
 * You're right. Those papers (Fig. 1 of Manos et al. 2008 and Fig. S2 of Xiang et al. 2014) don't support Cyclobalanopsis as an independent genus. I've replaced the subgenera with pro parte. If you still feel that's inaccurate, feel free to update the tree yourself. Ninjatacoshell (talk) 12:30, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Senegalia
You took the retrograde step of replacing an Automotic taxobox with a Taxobox, now I know almost nothing about the taxonomy of Plants so I have put an Automatic taxobox back in and then tried to change the linking templates so that they follow the taxonomy you are using. Can you check it? This means that any Speciesbox and Automatic taxobox linked to those templates will also show the taxonomy you have suggested, see Senegalia laeta. I may have been incorrect in doing this as I don't know if the taxonomy you are putting forward is the one accepted for use in Wikipedia. The Automatic taxoboxes are worth finding out about as they are a useful tool compared to the older system, although I am still learning how to use them. is always patient and helpful in assisting editors on the use of these. Quetzal1964 (talk)  20:01, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
 * No, the automatic taxobox on Senegalia laeta is not quite right. The subfamily is correct (Caesalpinioideae), but the tribe is incorrect (it's not currently assigned to a tribe). Also, the subfamily Mimosoideae is deprecated, but I hesitate to move that page until a formal clade name is published. So, in the meantime I've been piping the Clade link to say Mimosoid clade. Finally, since this is a very recent and sweeping taxonomic change, I've been including a link to the paper detailing the reclassification so that we don't have well-meaning editors making edits with out-of-date information. Do you (or ) know if there is a way to include references in the automatic taxobox templates? I tried playing around with it a few weeks ago and didn't make any headway, so any advice would be much appreciated. Ninjatacoshell (talk) 20:56, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Okay, how about now? Yes you can include references in the Template:Taxonomy see Template:Taxonomy/Chrysidoidea and then look at Template:Taxonomy/Embolemidae to see how the parent's reference carries to the direct child. Quetzal1964 (talk)  05:58, 26 July 2017 (UTC)


 * well, the taxobox at Senegalia laeta was a mess, because Template:Taxonomy/Senegalia was a mess. The subfamily Mimosoideae can't be placed below the tribe Caesalpinieae, whether or not you call Mimosoideae a clade rather than a subfamily. Just to straighten out the hierarchy, I've removed Mimosoideae and Caesalpinieae. We need to discuss the classification of Fabaceae more widely at WT:PLANTS, I think. I've started a discussion at WT:PLANTS.
 * Re references in taxoboxes, firstly the reference in support of the parent taxon should be placed in the taxonomy template, as Quetzal1964 says above. Sadly, this is all too rare. Secondly, it's difficult to include references in support of classifications in taxoboxes, for a variety of reasons, both technical and cosmetic. A reference for the placement of a taxon in a parent taxon should always appear in the text of the article on that taxon. Peter coxhead (talk) 06:08, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Hultholia
Thanks --Vinayaraj (talk) 13:46, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Inga edulis: expansion of article
Hi Ninjatacoshell,

we are students looking to expand the article on Inga edulis as part of a project on alternative crops at our university. As you are a significant contributor, we just wanted to inform you of the upcoming sections we want to add (to), namely those of Biology, Cultivation, Ecology, Nutritional Value, and Uses. We will publish the changes in a few days and would very much appreciate your feedback and corrections if anything needs editing. Many thanks, AlchemistCure (talk), 16:16, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Dipterygium for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Dipterygium is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Dipterygium until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 18:36, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Nomination of Fagelia for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Fagelia is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Fagelia until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 19:02, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:P. aeruginosa.jpg


The file File:P. aeruginosa.jpg has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "unused, low-res, no obvious use"

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 file's talk page.

Please consider addressing 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 files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:02, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Nomination of Medica for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Medica is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Medica until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Spicypumpkin (talk) 17:18, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Category:Mineral butters has been nominated for deletion
Category:Mineral butters has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. –LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄ ) 22:43, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguated links
Just to let you know, editor Ninjatacoshell, Trema is now a disambiguation page. So when you link to the genus, the way you did at Rhizobium, please use:
 * Trema andersonii

Thank you for your edits and for your support in this!  P.I. Ellsworth   ed.  put'r there 23:39, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
 * One should always link accepted taxa, though, as per WP:REDYES. So while one should not link directly to a disambiguation page like Trema, your example should read as Trema andersonii, unless you would like to update all these piped links every time a new article is written for these species. --awkwafaba (📥) 03:25, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
 * No, please forgive me, that is not how I understand the guideline. The second paragraph of the section you linked (WP:REDYES) leads us to create a blue link to the information that is already in Wikipedia, so that if and when an editor creates an article on a subject, in this case Trema andersonii, they will expand on the information that already exists in some part of an already existing article. And then yes, the creating editor will also be responsible for updating any backlinks. Updating piped links and backlinks is an important part of article creation. It might just be my interpretation; I could be wrong.  P.I. Ellsworth   ed.  put'r there 03:44, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
 * you are creating extra work. All species are notable, so redlinks are justified as the guidelines state.  If you want to direct people to existing content at the genus level then one should create a redirect and add R taxa with possibilities.  However, it is exceedingly rare that someone has put specific information about individual species on a genus page as opposed to creating a stub for the species with that information.  Rarer still if the species is not a fossil taxon where the infrageneric differences are so minor as to not warrant a separate page. --awkwafaba (📥) 16:20, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not creating anything. I disagree, and unless you can show a specific guideline on sci. notation that supports your interpretation, then the existing guideline must prevail. Red links are for editors and potential editors, but they do not help readers. Readers should not have to guess what something is just because it is redlinked. If there is info that will help the reader with what something is or what something means, then that info should be linked, in this case the link to the genus article is justified. The species is redlinked in the genus article, so if at that point a reader wants to turn into an editor and create the species article, so much the better. But in an article like Rhizobium, readers are better off with a link like had in mind, only disambiguated as I have shown above.  P.I. Ellsworth    ed.  put'r there 23:33, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
 * P.S. Redirects should not be created at the species level because then there would be no red links in the genus articles, just a lot of self links that would have to be delinked. So there is no need for the redirect category template you suggested (along with having to also create a new ). If a redirect has already been created, then R with possibilities, R from more specific name and R printworthy are sufficient.  P.I. Ellsworth   ed.  put'r there 23:47, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Talk pages
Howdy there. Noticed you making waves out there in the Tree of Life, and I appreciate the effort. The stubs you are making seem to have some decent sourcing, and I appreciate someone putting some more bones in the skeleton, as it were. But of course i have one minor thing i’d like you to add: a talk page template. You don’t need to be a card-carrying member of the particular Wikiproject to add a page to it, and it helps all us WikiGnomes out there do our favorite little tasks to get everything sorted and find images and so on. Even if you just add WikiProject Microbiology without parameters to the top of the talk page of a microbe taxa, that would help it find its family (though those parameters do help!).

So glad to see you working so hard out there, keep it up, and keep making misteaks. --awkwafaba (📥) 03:25, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

List of nodulated plants and their symbionts
Just a heads-up: your page User:Ninjatacoshell/List_of_nodulated_plants_and_their_symbionts is too large. It is several factors bigger than the size limit. You probably need to break it up into many smaller articles. --awkwafaba (📥) 16:23, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I've actually tried a couple of times to break it up, but it's too big to even open! Ninjatacoshell (talk) 19:15, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
 * do you want to delete it? You could request that.  I tried asking about it on the IRC channels, so they know about it. --awkwafaba (📥) 02:27, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Sure. I have it backed up as a text file. Ninjatacoshell (talk) 03:10, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Any word on this? Ninjatacoshell (talk) 18:50, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * you can delete it under the G7 criteria, but as you can’t put the deletion template on the page, i think you’ll need to request on the talk page. --awkwafaba (📥) 21:38, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I'll give that a try. Ninjatacoshell (talk) 21:45, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

please amend your process
I'm growing weary of following you around cleaning up articles that you have put into. Presumably you have a set of citation templates that you copy into articles that you are working; for example, see.

To that article, I:
 * 1) changed author to vauthors and editor to veditors because that is the name format that you used
 * 2) changed authors to vauthors because use of authors is discouraged (doesn't contribute author names to the citation's metadata) and because that is the name format that you used
 * 3) removed extraneous quote marks from Euzéby & Parte
 * 4) changed publisher in to website because that parameter gets the name of the website
 * 5) changed  to   because, as a common loan word from Latin, it is not italicized per MOS:FOREIGN

Please amend your process so that I, or others, don't have to cleanup after you.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 14:08, 26 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Next time please be more civil. To respond to your points,
 * It won't be that hard to start using vauthors and veditors since it's only one extra letter.
 * Ditto.
 * Most of the time I don't add quotation marks to title. "Bacteroidetes" is a special case because it is a name that is effectively, but not validly published according to the International Code of Nomenclature of Prokaryotes (ICNP).(source) Thus, according to the ICNP, the name must be written between quotation marks to indicate that it is invalid. (See "Bacteroidetes".) I simply overlooked the fact that title automatically adds quotation marks. This also won't be hard for me to change.
 * I do not use the field publisher in . In the example you gave, that citation was already present in the article and all I did was move the citation from another location.
 * First, MOS:FOREIGN does not explicitly require that "et al." not be italicized. Second, the relevant rule states, "A rule of thumb is to not italicize words that appear unitalicized in major general-purpose English-language dictionaries." It is italicized in Merriam-Webster, which is a major general-purpose English-language dictionary. Finally, and more importantly, the ICNP requires authorship with more than two authors to be abbreviated with an italicized et al.(source) So even if the Wikipedia Manual of Style requires general usage of et al. not be italicized, in bacterial nomenclature it must be italicized. Ninjatacoshell (talk) 06:30, 27 June 2021 (UTC)


 * In your example at Merriam-Webster, et al is italicized in a WP:WORDSASWORDS-like fashion. See, for example, Merriam-Webster's definitions of Baker (English is a mongrel language so even baker, a notionally English word, comes from some other language; see the etymology at Wiktionary).
 * Wikipedia is not not bound by the rules that International Code of Nomenclature of Prokaryotes adopts for itself. Wikipedia is only bound by its own self-adopted rules. Were there an exception to MOS:FOREIGN, one would think that MOS:ITALIC or MOS:ITAL would define that exception. There is no exception stated for et al so MOS:FOREIGN applies and et al, being a loanword, should not be italicized. I have italicized et al here because WP:WORDSASWORDS.
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 13:59, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 13:59, 27 June 2021 (UTC)


 * You are correct about Merriam-Webster's use of et al. being WP:WORDSASWORDS. Ninjatacoshell (talk) 18:04, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Companilactobacillus kimchii
Hi! You have not given any source for the "taxonomic change". Can you please source this claim? Otherwise I am going to name the article back. You cannot just claim there was a name change, while the only source in article is titled Lactobacillus kimchii... Thank you. Xia talk to me  17:55, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Done. For future reference, though, it is easier to look up references yourself and add them to the article than it is to revert a page move. Ninjatacoshell (talk) 03:51, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Redirecting the family Thermoanaerobacterales Family IV into a order
Hi, a bacterial Family is different from a bacterial Order, for this reason I disagree in redirecting the family Thermoanaerobacterales Family IV into the Order Thermoanaerobacterales. By doing so, it's misleading to the reader. Moreover, none of the information in the original page has been included in the destination page, nor an explanation of which are the characteristics of this family. Eepavan (talk) 08:03, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
 * 1. I'm aware that family and order are different taxonomic ranks. However, a redirect does not necessarily imply synonymy. If I had intended as much, I would have added the template, which I did not. That said, "Thermoanaerobacterales Family IV" isn't even an accepted scientific name; it is merely a placeholder name in the NCBI taxonomy. Since there isn't a valid name (as defined by the Bacteriological Code) for "Thermoanaerobacterales Family IV", if it's going to be replaced with a redirect, it either needs to redirect to Thermoanaerobacterales or to its sole member, Mahella. Redirecting to a higher or lower rank is quite common. In fact, there are templates for such actions:  and  . I chose to redirect to the higher rank rather than the lower rank. But if you feel strongly about it, we can redirect to the lower rank.
 * 2. I can only find one source for "Thermoanaerobacterales Family IV": the NCBI taxonomy. All other mentions that I can find either refer to or are directly derived from the NCBI taxonomy. Notably, the NCBI taxonomy contains the following disclaimer: "The NCBI taxonomy database is not an authoritative source for nomenclature or classification - please consult the relevant scientific literature for the most reliable information." Given that "Thermoanaerobacterales Family IV" isn't a notable or reliable term, I decided to redirect it to a more notable article.
 * 3. Since there is only one genus (Mahella) in "Thermoanaerobacterales Family IV", its characteristics are identical with those of the genus. Furthermore, none of the characteristics in the "Thermoanaerobacterales Family IV" article were provided with a reference. For these two reasons, I did not see a need to migrate any of the information from the article to the redirect target.
 * Ninjatacoshell (talk) 03:17, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Bacterial taxa renames
Greetings,

I wanted to ask a question about this edit and similar ones you have been doing recently. Is it really a good idea to replace the existing term with the new one? I am a little concerned that source checkers might wonder why a source saying "proteobacteria" is being used to source a string of text "pseudomonadota". Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:19, 20 April 2022 (UTC)


 * That is a valid concern. I started a discussion at WikiProject Microbiology so that we can get more input. Please state your case there so that your voice is heard. Ninjatacoshell (talk) 02:37, 21 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Hi @Ninjatacoshell, I want to ask a question related to the same topic, on the basis of evidences: to be clearer, let us consider a the phylum "Firmicutes", a word that you are replacing with the new synonym "Bacillota". Searching for the term "Firmicutes" in Google we get about 1,950,000 results; in the National Library of Medicine the publications in which this word has been used are 373,317; the sequenced genomes that include the term Firmicutes are 211,227 and so on. So a question arises: why do we have to change most of these names in thousands of articles... if they are considered synonymous!!!
 * Despite the impressive numbers that justify maintaining the correct use of "Firmicutes", you are removing this word from Wikipedia -a term used for more than forty years, by all scientists in the world!-, and replacing it with a new one, which appears in a single publication that proposes and self-validates these taxonomic changes -this is an unusual case-). Eepavan (talk) 12:37, 20 April 2022 (UTC)


 * You seem to be a little confused about what valid publication of a bacterial name entails. According to the Bacteriological Code, for any name above the level of species to be validly published, it must be published in the International Journal of Systematic and Evolutionary Microbiology (IJSEM). For names published outside of the IJSEM, they can be made valid by publication in a validation list in the IJSEM. So the authors of the new phylum names did not self-validate. Those names were valid by virtue of being published in IJSEM, in accordance with the code. Before June 2021, the names of phyla were not covered by the Bacteriological Code, which is why informal names like "Firmicutes" and "Proteobacteria" were used. In June 2021, the International Committee on Systematics of Prokaryotes (ICSP) voted to include phylum names under the Bacteriological Code. Thus "Firmicutes" and "Proteobacteria" have never been validly published under the Bacteriological Code; Bacillota and Pseudomonadota have. So even though they are newer and less common (largely by virtue of being newer), Bacillota and Pseudomonadota are the correct names. I've been changing uses of the old, informal names to the new, formal names with the goal of correctness and accuracy in mind. That should certainly be the ruling prerogative with respect to the names of the articles. However, Jo-Jo Eumerus makes a good point that updating every usage in every article could create confusion. I've requested a discussion about this concern at Wikiproject Microbiology. You should go share your opinion there, too.
 * That said, some things are going to have to change, even though they cause confusion over the short term. For example, it has long been known that "Proteobacteria" is polyphyletic. With the new phylum names, it has been split into Pseudomonadota, Myxococcota, Campylobacterota, Bdellovibrionota, and Thermodesulfobacteria. Instances of "Proteobacteria" will eventually need to be updated, based on which of those five (or combination of those five) is actually meant. Ninjatacoshell (talk) 02:37, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

A major award

 * Thanks! Ninjatacoshell (talk) 22:12, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
 * You’re welcome. Least I could do was create a whole new barnstar for you.  :)  --awkwafaba (📥) 01:05, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 25
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Epidermidibacterium keratini, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Aerobic.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:06, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Guanabacteria
Hello, Ninjatacoshell. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Guanabacteria, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again&#32;or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 06:15, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Guanabacteria


Hello, Ninjatacoshell. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Guanabacteria".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz Read! Talk! 06:36, 19 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) 00:31, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

External academic review and publication of Wikipedia pages
Hi NTS. In case you'd not come across it before, I thought I'd message to ask whether there are any Wikipedia articles that you'd be interested in creating/updating/overhauling and submitting for external, academic peer review.

The WikiJournal of Science (www.wikijsci.org) couples the rigour of academic peer review with the extreme reach of the encyclopedia. For existing Wikipedia articles, it's a great way to get additional feedback from external experts. Peer-reviewed articles are dual-published both as standard academic PDFs, as well as having changes integrated back into Wikipedia. This improves the scientific accuracy of the encyclopedia, and rewards authors with citable, indexed publications. It also provides much greater reach than is normally achieved through traditional scholarly publishing.

One of our formats is also peer-reviewed images and image galleries, which might be relevant to your commons work (image example; gallery example)

Note that we do have to publish under real names, so if you don't want your real name associated to your username, you may have to choose atopic that your username has not previously edited.

Anyway, let me know whether you'd be interested in putting an article through academic peer review (either solo, or with a team of coauthors).

All the best - T.Shafee(Evo &#38; Evo)talk 03:18, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Nomination of Saccharopolyspora salina for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Saccharopolyspora salina is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Saccharopolyspora salina until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 04:26, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

"Psuedomonas insueta" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Psuedomonas_insueta&redirect=no Psuedomonas insueta] has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached. BluePenguin18 🐧 ( 💬 ) 22:10, 16 July 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) 00:26, 28 November 2023 (UTC)