User talk:Sesamehoneytart/Archive 2

Disambiguation link notification for January 20
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Telemidae, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Spinneret. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 10:20, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Use of common plant names in infobox
Hello Sesamehoneytart, I've reverted a couple of your changes of replacing the scientific name with the common name of the plant in the infobox. But it looks like you're doing a wholesale change of these things, which is probably against consensus. You see, a plant has many "common" names. What might be the most common name in your part of the world is completely unknown in another part of the world. Where I live, "Scarlet sage" is the only vernacular name that is used — but in fact Salvia coccinea is also always used on the seed package because there are so many different common names. This is why the scientific name tends to end up being the most widely used name.

That's why nearly all plant articles use the scientific names for their titles, because they are actually the most commonly and widely used names for plants, as opposed to mostly regional nicknames, or vernacular names. First Light (talk) 06:53, 26 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi Sesamehoneytart, just echoing what First Light says, it is common practice to give the scientific names. As you have made a large number of changes, I'm tempted to use "rollback", which is typically used for vandalism, not because I think your contrtibutions are in any way "vandalism", but because it is a lot quicker than using the "undo" function. First Light, I see you are also a rollbacker, would you consider this a misuse of the tool? --Hillbillyholiday talk 07:06, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Reading the guidelines, it appears to be a justifiable use of the tools. I'm going to go ahead and rollback your edits. Apologies in advance for all the notifications you are about to receive. --Hillbillyholiday talk 07:30, 26 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I suppose I owe you an explanation. I was going through plant stubs and noticed that a lot of the taxoboxes were missing titles. I checked with more popular plants (which may have been a mistake, but I figured the popular articles would be doing it the proper way), and most of these use the common name in the title. After I did the first few, I started homogenizing all the plant articles I stumbled across that didn't follow the guideline or didn't have a title. Naming conventions (flora) only explains conventions for the article title, and not the name in the taxobox, though considering I may have messed this up, perhaps it should be added there.  Sesame honey  tart  07:37, 26 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Actually, when the taxobox is "missing" the title in the editing code, the taxobox automatically shows the binomial name when you see the page. I think that there does need to be an explanation of this somewhere, though not in the naming conventions page, since that's just for article titles. Probably at WP:Plants in the style guidelines. And thanks for the great flower photos you've been adding! First Light (talk) 07:44, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
 * No worries Sesame. Sorry to undo all your hard work.  I'm not sure if there will a consensus to use common names in taxoboxes as there are many incidences of folk names being used for more than one species, however if I'm wrong let me know and I'll revert my changes. Thanks. --Hillbillyholiday talk 07:48, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
 * You point out the other problem with vernacular or local names, with the same name sometimes used for different plants. Blue sage is one, used for at least four different plants. Purple sage is used to name at least seven different plants. First Light (talk)

Parentheses in zoological authorities
Hi, the presence or absence of parentheses in zoological authorities is meaningful. It's explained a bit at Author citation (zoology). At List of Udubidae species, for example: So it's important to cite authors exactly as per the source (in this case the World Spider Catalog here). Peter coxhead (talk) 17:27, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Raecius aculeatus was first described under precisely this name by F. Dahl in 1901, so the author is cited as "Dahl, 1901" with no parentheses.
 * Raecius asper was described by T. Thorell in 1899 as Mnesitheus asper; P.T. Lehtinen transferred it to the genus Raecius in 1967. So the author of Raecius asper is cited as "(Thorell, 1899)" with the parentheses showing that "Thorell, 1899" is the author of the asper part of the name but not originally in the genus Raecius. [If this were the name of a plant, the authority citation would be "(Thorell) Lehtinen" showing that Lehtinen did the transfer; zoological citations don't show the transferer.)

Citing the World Spider Catalog
Hi, the publisher of the World Spider Catalog, which is a website, is the Natural History Museum Bern. So the citation should include. Keep up your good work on spiders! Peter coxhead (talk) 08:22, 29 June 2016 (UTC)


 * That makes sense. I was wondering what the "NMBE" stood for- I always figured it was an acronym for something in another language. I'm surprised that anyone noticed a few spider genera here and there, but I'll go back as far as I can and revert the references I've already used just in case. Thanks!  Sesame honey  tart  16:31, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Invite to the African Destubathon
Hi. You may be interested in participating in the African Destubathon which starts on October 15. Africa currently has over 37,000 stubs and badly needs a quality improvement editathon/contest to flesh out basic stubs. There are proposed substantial prizes to give to editors who do the most geography, wildlife and women articles, and planned smaller prizes for doing to most destubs for each of the 55 African countries, so should be enjoyable! Even if contests aren't your thing we would be grateful if you could consider destubbing a few African wildlife articles during the drive to help the cause and help reduce the massive 37,000 + stub count, of which many are rated high importance. If you're interested in competing or just loosely contributing any article related to a topic you often work on, please add your name to the Contestants/participants section. Might be a good way to work on fleshing out articles you've long been meaning to target and get rewarded for it! Diversity of work from a lot of people will make this that bit more special. Thanks. -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao Che dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 04:57, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia Asian Month!
Hi there! Thanks for joining Wikipedia Asian Month. Here is some information about participating in the event: Best Wishes,--AddisWang (talk) 18:42, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) Please submit your articles via this tool. Click 'log in' at the top-right and OAuth will take care the rest. You can also change the interface language at the top-right.
 * 2) Once you submit an article, the tool will add a template to the article and mark it as needing review by an organizer. You can check your progress using the tool, which includes how many accepted articles you have.
 * 3) Participants who achieve 4 accepted articles will receive a Wikipedia Asian Month postcard. You will receive another special postcard if you achieve 15 accepted articles. The Wikipedian with the highest number of accepted articles on the English Wikipedia will be honored as a "Wikipedia Asian Ambassador", and will receive a signed certificate and additional postcard.
 * 4) If you have any problems accessing or using the tool, you can submit your articles at this page next to your username.
 * 5) Wikipedia Asian Month is also held in other language Wikipedia and count independently. Check for language editions
 * 6) If you have any question, you can take a look at our Q&A or post on the WAM talk page.

Questions
First, are you using a script to enter all the genera of arachnids? Second, do you have the New Page privilege so that all of your pages are marked as reviewed? Robert McClenon (talk) 20:54, 26 December 2016 (UTC)


 * This is my Festivus present to the Spider wikiproject. I've been scraping the NMBE with a regex script, then manually copying and pasting after a quick spot check. I was hoping to get through all of them by the end of the year. As far as I'm aware, I have autopatrolled userright, so they should all be jumping the new page review process.  Sesame honey  tart  21:17, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Ha! That's actually semi-hilarious. Thanks, though! It's not often I meet other Madoka Magica fans, so that's a fun bonus!  Sesame honey  tart  04:39, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

And Yet More Genera of Spiders
And yet more genera of spiders. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:55, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

More spiders please
Definitely need more, please stop being lazy and create some.



86.20.193.222 (talk) 02:47, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Uapou maculata
Please ask for deletion. Xx236 (talk) 08:35, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Will do, but for future reference, you can do it too. :-)  Sesame honey  tart  00:57, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Spider edits
I don't understand the logic of your edits like those to Tennesseellum. Peter coxhead (talk) 20:49, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
 * You should not be changing the style of references, as per WP:CITEVAR. List-defined references are perfectly acceptable.
 * There's no point in having a list of species in both the taxobox and the text. It just invites the two becoming different in future when more species are added to the genus.
 * You unlinked the taxon author.
 * I'm looking at it now. I think I remember this one; I'm pretty sure I saw a normal taxobox and only rewrote it so it would include an automatic taxobox (though looking at it now, it clearly was already an automatic taxobox). In rewriting it, I completely overlooked that link to the authority as well. The ref change was because I added a reference and was trying to keep all the references in the same style, also per WP:REF, though I wasn't aware of the WP policy you pointed out until just now. I think you were right to revert this one. Sorry- I've done about 5,000 of these over the last few months and I'm a human, not a robot ;-) I've been going back through to double check everything, but I can't promise perfection. If you see anything else that looks kind of questionable, feel free to change it, but I'd appreciate it if you let me know too so I can avoid making the same mistakes in the future. Thanks!  Sesame honey  tart  01:08, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, I've seen your changes from manual to automated taxoboxes, which personally I applaud (but not all editors like automated taxoboxes), so I was surprised by this edit (and another recent one). I do understand that when you get into the habit of making a certain kind of edit you can easily apply it wrongly – I've done it myself. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:11, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Re Fijocrypta – the article is about both the genus and species as is normal for a monospecific genus. Speciesbox is the standard template used in these cases as clearly makes both taxa the 'targets'. If more species get put in the genus, then the article will be split, when the genus will use Automatic taxobox and the species articles will use Speciesbox. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:16, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Monospecific genera
Hi, note that articles on monospecific genera, like Montanidion which you just created, are about both the genus and the sole species. So in the opening, both the genus name and the species name should be in bold, and the species never wikilinked, since this just creates a circular link. We use Speciesbox as if it were a species article, but let the title (name) of the taxobox be the genus. This is in line with WP:NCFAUNA and Template:Speciesbox/doc.

Some other points:
 * It doesn't matter so much now that the core of the automated taxobox system is implemented in Lua, but it's good practice not to put templates inside templates when it can be avoided, since this increases the expansion depth, and there's a limit on the maximum allowed (see Template limits). So put the actual citation template outside the taxobox template (e.g. in the body of the article or in refs in reflist), and only put inside the taxobox template.
 * For monospecific genera, use Category:Monotypic spider genera, not Category:Spider genera nor one of the spider family genera categories.
 * Use the most specific stub template – Spider-stub or for a few families the relevant family stubs (see Category:Spider stubs) – not Arachnid-stub.
 * Please add "|image-requested=yes" to the WikiProject Spiders template on the talk page if there isn't an image in the article (something I often forget).

Do keep on creating spider articles! Peter coxhead (talk) 14:28, 20 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi, I've just been fixing some articles you created on monospecific spider genera that would need disambiguating. In case you don't know by now, Naming conventions (fauna) says to put such articles at the species name, e.g. Aotearoa magna, not Aotearoa (spider). Peter coxhead (talk) 10:04, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Younger family listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Younger family. Since you had some involvement with the Younger family redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Steel1943 (talk) 21:55, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Principaut de Monaco listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Principaut de Monaco. Since you had some involvement with the Principaut de Monaco redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Thryduulf (talk) 14:01, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Allocyclosa at DYK
Hello! Your submission of Allocyclosa at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Josh Milburn (talk) 01:22, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
 * There was a response to your reply to the review later that same day. Please return to the nomination page as soon as possible. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:59, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Title in WSC citations
Hi, I notice that you usually give the family name as the title in a citation for a genus in the World Spider Catalog. An example is in this old page. It's not a good idea, in my view, because (a) it makes the citations look the same if there are citations to different genera in the same family (b) when genera are moved between families, which has been happening quite frequently recently, the citation is wrong. See the current version of Megadictyna. I think it's better for citations to genera to use the genus as the title – this is what is emphasized on the page by the use of shading, although it's also so emphasized in a family page with a full list of genera. Peter coxhead (talk) 11:45, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia Asian Month 2017: Invitation to Participate


Hello! Last year, you signed up to participate in Wikipedia Asian Month (WAM) 2016 on the English Wikipedia. The event was an international success, with hundreds of editors creating thousands of articles on Asian topics across dozens of different language versions of Wikipedia.

I'd like to invite you to join us for Wikipedia Asian Month 2017, which once again lasts through the month of November. The goal is for users to create new articles on Asian-related content, each at least 3,000 bytes and 300 words in length. Editors who create at least four articles will receive a Wikipedia Asian Month postcard!

Also be sure to check out the Wikipedia Asian Art Month affiliate event - creating articles on Asian art topics can get you a Metropolitan Museum of Art postcard!

If you're interested, please sign up here for the English Wikipedia. If you are interested in also working on other language editions of Wikipedia, please visit the meta page to see other participating projects. If you have any questions, please visit our talk page.

Thank you!

- User:SuperHamster and User:Titodutta on behalf of The English Wikipedia WAM Team

This will be the last message you receive from the English Wikipedia WAM team for being a 2016 participant. If you sign up for WAM 2017, you will continue receiving periodic updates on the 2017 event.

Women in Red World Contest
Hi. We're into the last five days of the Women in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale!

References to the World Spider Catalog
Hi, I don't know whether you work on spider articles these days, but when you did, you added reference to the World Spider Catalog like the one here, using the family name as the title of the page. The problem is that when the genus moves from one family to another, which seems all too common today, the title is wrong. If you click on the WSC link in the reference, the family is now Desidae. When referencing a genus, it's much better to use the genus name as the title of the web page. Peter coxhead (talk) 11:19, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Your signature
Please be aware that your signature uses deprecated  tags, which are causing Obsolete HTML tags lint errors.

Additionally, your signature appears to go against WP:SIGAPP, which says to avoid markup that enlarges text.

Please change
 * :  Sesame honey  tart

to
 * : Sesame  honey  tart

—Anomalocaris (talk) 23:26, 30 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Done Sesame  honey  tart  23:33, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Midnight Rescue Screenshot.png
Thank you for uploading File:Midnight Rescue Screenshot.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator seven days after the file was tagged in accordance with section F7 of the criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.

ATTENTION : This is an automated, bot-generated message. 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) 01:05, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Non-existent categories
Before adding a category to an article, as you did to Psilodercidae, please make sure that the category page actually exists. In some cases, it may be appropriate to create a new category in accordance with Wikipedia's categorization guidelines, but it is usually better to use the most specific available existing category. It is never appropriate to leave a page categorised in a non-existent category, i.e. one whose link displays in red. You may find it helpful to use the gadget HotCat, which tests whether a category exists before a change saved.Thank you. .

I have created Category:Psilodercidae, but it's not my field, so please check it and fix if needed. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:58, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Italic title template
Just to note that when you're otherwise editing a spider article (or indeed any other taxon article), you can almost always remove Italic title – it's not needed now (and is currently causing a blank line to appear at the start of the article). Peter coxhead (talk) 12:54, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Why is it no longer needed? Do the taxobox templates include am italic title template? It doesn’t look like it is obsolete- do those articles not require italic titles? It’s easy enough not to add them- less work for me- but I’m not clear on why that is. 66.87.125.138 (talk) 20:26, 4 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Yes, taxobox templates automatically handle italicization in most cases. The major exception is that Taxobox (but not Speciesbox or Automatic taxobox) won't display italics when there is a value given for name. But name is mostly obsolete and should generally be omitted anyway. Plantdrew (talk) 20:38, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

WJ Rainbow: spider drawings
Hi, in case you're interested: Here are several plates of WJ Rainbow's spider drawings. He died in 1919, so copyright craziness should not apply here. I added one to Dorymetaecus. --Sarefo (talk) 06:05, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Update: I uploaded the whole plates:

--Sarefo (talk) 07:23, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Monotypic genera
See WP:MONOTYPICFAUNA. The genus name should be used as the title for articles covering a monotypic genus and it's sole species (except when the genus name is ambiguous with another topic on Wikipedia). Iberattus semiglabratus should be at Iberattus (several other articles you just created are also using the binomial title). Plantdrew (talk) 19:53, 2 April 2019 (UTC)


 * - I read through it again just to make sure, and it looks like you're correct. I'll have to write a note to as well; he told me that we redirect higher taxa to lower ones a while ago (the very last paragraph in the Monospecific genera section above). However, according to the naming conventions, it looks like genus to species is the exception to the rule. I think maybe he was only referring to genera that needed disambiguation pages. Good catch, thanks!  Sesame  honey  tart  20:15, 2 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Peter knows what the convention is (and is responsible for lots of moves from binomial to genus), he just must not have communicated it clearly. Sorry it's such a confusing hodge-podge of exceptions (lowest rank except no lower than genus, except when genus is ambiguous). My understanding of why it ended up the way it did is that paleontology folks weren't writing articles below genus rank anyway (and there are lots of monotypic genera in paleontology), and the genus title is more CONCISE (one of 5 article title criteria) than the binomial. I think it would've been better if it was "use the lowest rank for title except for paleontology", but here we are. Using the genus title is pretty consistently followed on Wikipedia except for fish, which are a huge mess (they have monotypic genus categories on articles with vernacular name titles). Plantdrew (talk) 20:36, 2 April 2019 (UTC)


 * That makes sense- I've been trying not to step on too many toes, but I'm also worried that I'm going to do a million things the wrong way then have to go back and fix them all (for instance I have a lot of "Italic title" templates to remove). I don't mind doing it one way or the other as long as we're all on the same page about it. Definitely let me know if I'm repeatedly doing something the wrong way, especially if it pertains to the confusing hodge-podge of exceptions. Sesame  honey  tart  20:55, 2 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Browsing your recent contributions, things look generally excellent. You might consider adding {tl|Taxonbar}} and linking Wikidata to any new articles you create (but I do understand that can be an interruption of your work flow, and it's the kind of tedious thing that can and will be accomplished by a bot). Wikipedia really should be giving the original combination for any type species, but most Wikipedia articles that list a type species give the current combination (compare type species information at species:Phrurolinillus and Phrurolinillus). Never mind the previous sentence; I see that World Spider Catalog is showing the current combination as the type, and after checking the ICZN I see that citing is original combination is only a recommendation, not a requirement.


 * You may know about PetScan, but if not, it's a good tool to find articles that have some of the issues you've set as tasks for yourself. Here's a PetScan search for spider articles with automatic taxoboxes and italic title templates (note that the search parameters in this case are under the "Templates&links" tab). PetScan isn't very reliable; it tends to go down frequently, but is usually back up quickly, so if that link doesn't work, give it a couple minutes and try again. Plantdrew (talk) 21:24, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Sorry if I wasn't clear at some point; as says, I have made many moves of species to monotypic genera. If the article is at the scientific name, it can be argued that the genus name is likely to be better known than the full binomial, and you have to type the genus to search for the species anyway, so having the article at the genus makes sense. The irritation is switching to the species when the genus needs disambiguating.

Great work you've been doing on spiders! Peter coxhead (talk) 21:32, 2 April 2019 (UTC)


 * By the way, I wouldn't use the World Spider Catalog as a model for the finer points of taxonomy. They don't, for example, list synonyms as such, only mentions of a species in the literature, so you have to do some work to determine the origin of a species name. Peter coxhead (talk) 21:38, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Clarification
Just to clarify after the recent confusion. When a genus X is monotypic, i.e. it has only one species X y, then: (I actually don't agree with the policy at WP:MONOTYPICFAUNA, but the preference for 'natural disambiguation' over parenthesized disambiguation seems to take precedence, and WP:MONOTYPICFAUNA is a well established guideline.) Peter coxhead (talk) 08:07, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * If the page title "X" is available, then the article should be at the genus name "X", with a redirect from "X y".
 * If the page title "X" is not available, because it's already in use for something else, then the article should be at the species name "X y", with a redirect at "X (spider)".

Recent edits to spider articles
Hi, while I admire all the work you do updating these articles, there are some points I'd like to make: Peter coxhead (talk) 06:38, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
 * MOS:HYPHEN is clear that we must use either spaced en-dashes or unspaced em-dashes. Spaced en-dashes seem the "tradition" in spider articles.
 * I see no reason to put the lists of genera or species in small font; they are not a "side issue" but an integral part of a family or genus article, and in any case MOS:SMALLTEXT is clear that you mustn't then have smaller text inside, which means you can't use it for authorities.
 * I question whether it's right to call a list article the "main" article; I personally think "see also" is better here, but it's not something I feel strongly about.
 * "As of" should be followed by the past tense, e.g. "As of April 2019, the World Spider Catalog accepted ..." See, e.g., the examples in the documentation of As of or at As of. This is because for readers the date is mostly going to be in the past.
 * You seem to remove references in the taxobox, e.g. for the authority of the target taxon. Information not explicitly given a secondary source in the article, which this usually isn't, should be sourced in the taxobox.
 * Hi Peter, thanks for the observations.
 * The most relevant section of MOS:HYPHEN I could find is near the bottom:


 * I agree that spaced en dashes should be the standard. My goal in updating the genus/species lists was to make sure the links were correct and locations updated; I didn't put much thought into which hyphen I used. After a quick survey of some pages I worked on yesterday, it looks like I've been using spaced em dashes. I wonder how long I've been using the wrong hyphen and how many genus pages use spaced em dashes for the species list? I think this is something we can request a bot to go in and fix for us.
 * MOS:SMALLTEXT is clear, and I'm not sure why the "small text within a small wrapper" situation never occurred to me. According to the Manual of Style for biology (here),


 * I've been going through families alphabetically, and I believe I started using small for the lists when I saw how overwhelming the list of 175 genera for "Araneidae" was in normal font size. This also addresses the question you had about linking the list of species as a "main" article. I didn't mean to infer that was the main list for the page, just the main page for that specific section. If it's misleading, I can remove it, but I though it was a more appropriate place to bring up the page's existence than at the very bottom of the page. Regardless, MOS:SMALLTEXT is clear about small text within small text, so there should be another solution for lists with >150 members.
 * I understand how the current use of "as of" is an issue and it's the reason I added the month instead of just using the year. In the long run, I don't think it's worth the effort to go back through and change all of them to "March" instead of "April", but I will start using the prior month rather than the current month.
 * Regarding the removal of citations from taxoboxes, I recall reading that cite tags shouldn't be in taxoboxes, but I'll need to look this up for clarification and get back to you.
 * Again, thanks for the constructive criticism. Sometimes I fear that I look like a vandal when I make the same mistake 500 times in a row, but at the end of the day, I think our goals are the same. Sesame  honey  tart  16:54, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Content is what really matters, not formatting, and you've done great work on content, so don't reproach yourself!
 * Re citations in taxoboxes, at one time there was a bot that went round doing the following: if there was a full named reference in the taxobox and the short form of the reference occurred in the text, it swapped them, so there was a preference for not having a long reference in a taxobox – I'm not sure why. I haven't seen the bot for several years. Given that there are the parameters synonyms_ref and diversity_ref, there can't be a general ban on refs in taxoboxes. Peter coxhead (talk) 20:07, 26 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Sorry to lurk into your conversation – I ended up here seeing if the origin of the username "Sesamehoneytart" happened to be mentioned, as it made me chuckle when I saw it in the history of Deinopidae. However, as to the above, I don't think decrementing the month by 1 from the actual value in as ofs because of the verb tense issue is something that makes sense.  Saying stuff like "As of May, blah blah blah was the case" is common even in newspaper articles, which have a much higher expectation than Wikipedia articles of being read in the same month they're written.  I don't think the month and/or year specified in such a construction would be read by normal readers to imply that the condition being described was necessarily true throughout the time period specified, just that it was true at some point during that period.  Ergo, past tense always makes sense, and there's no need to artificially decrement the month.
 * P.S. The "spaced en-dashes or unspaced em-dashes" standard on Wikipedia just came to my attention recently for the first time as well, and I was a little flustered to realize I'd been incorrectly using (albeit acceptable in some other typographical contexts) spaced em-dashes here for over a decade.  😅  --Dan Harkless (talk) 13:42, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

just a thought from oz
there is a sort of unwritten (but not inconsistently applied) thing in the oz project - biota items - that when there are 4 or more states that are identified - or when all states are - that the biota-yes and biota-importance-low can be sufficient to take the overload of state divisions on the project tag - it is not hard and fast and no doubt the whole thing will get blasted from others - but we are currently trying to reduce the biota-importance unknown to 0 sometime soon (less than 5 k now) - perhaps irrelevant for your effort but just a heads up about it JarrahTree 01:17, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
 * also as we wander through the vast array of one liner items about every species of everything found in oz the archetypally unhelpful item is:

x is a y which is found in oz - I doubt that there is any species of anything other than rabbit that is found everywhere - a state/region - IBRA region ever better would be very much appreciated JarrahTree 01:23, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
 * That makes sense. As a fellow wanderer of one-liner articles, I understand the ocean of copy-paste laziness. My current strategy has been to mark all the states they've been found in, but I can keep the states out of it if there are 4+. I'm not familiar with the IBRA, but I'll take a look at it if it's more helpful. That's the point of these tags, isn't it? I'm fairly sure I've marked the importance in the tags I've put on talk pages, but I might have missed a few. Thanks for the heads up. Sesame  honey  tart  01:30, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
 * no problems - thanks for acknowledging the message - the rabbits rule of course (camels, donkeys, goats and wikipedia editors follow down the trail) - one small problem is the one liners that have links that do not work, or dont have adequate habitat range info... part of the whole game I suppose - thanks anyways for your contributions. IBRA is not worth worrying about too much if it doesnt make sense - as many remain red links JarrahTree 04:24, 14 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Due to a potential collaboration between biota and other things my assertion about the 4 or more being left off will have to be reversed for the sake of genuine misunderstanding on my part.

A very big thank you for your particular effort in identifying states and regions !!! very much appreciated, and a big thank you !!! JarrahTree 00:25, 1 June 2019 (UTC)


 * and thank you for your continued addition to australian biota material JarrahTree 22:03, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Syntactics listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Syntactics. Since you had some involvement with the Syntactics redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Hildeoc (talk) 20:01, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 14
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Spiny orb-weaver, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Greek ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Spiny_orb-weaver check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Spiny_orb-weaver?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) 09:26, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Spider family change
Hi, I remain amazed and deeply impressed by the amount of work you do on spider articles!

The World Spider Catalog no longer recognizes the family Prodidomidae, accepting its reduction to the subfamily Prodidominae of the Gnaphosidae. I've fixed the article, the table of spider families and the Araneae template, but the Gnaphosidae lists of genera and species need to be fixed and the Prodidomidae list redirected. Can you take care of that, please? Peter coxhead (talk) 08:49, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 7
An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.
 * Dasycyptus ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Dasycyptus check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Dasycyptus?client=notify fix with Dab solver])
 * added a link pointing to Congo
 * Depreissia ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Depreissia check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Depreissia?client=notify fix with Dab solver])
 * added a link pointing to Congo
 * Enoplomischus ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Enoplomischus check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Enoplomischus?client=notify fix with Dab solver])
 * added a link pointing to Congo
 * Festucula ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Festucula check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Festucula?client=notify fix with Dab solver])
 * added a link pointing to Congo

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 18:32, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 15
An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.
 * Depreissia ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Depreissia check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Depreissia?client=notify fix with Dab solver])
 * added a link pointing to Congo
 * Enoplomischus ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Enoplomischus check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Enoplomischus?client=notify fix with Dab solver])
 * added a link pointing to Congo

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 13:42, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 27
An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.
 * Clubiona ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Clubiona check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Clubiona?client=notify fix with Dab solver])
 * added a link pointing to Yarkand
 * Ocrisiona ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Ocrisiona check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Ocrisiona?client=notify fix with Dab solver])
 * added a link pointing to Victoria

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:22, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Nephila species
Hi, there are some species, such as Nephila clavipes, that have been moved to Trichonephila (see e.g. here). An IP editor has been changing articles without moving it to a new title, and generally messing things up. You might have time to sort these properly; I don't right now. Peter coxhead (talk) 01:51, 3 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Oh wow, it looks like someone just did a quick copy-paste. I can look through the species of Nephila & Trichonephila, but that IP address only has one edit; the one that you patched up earlier. Sesame  honey  tart  14:41, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Species lists updated for Nephila and Trichonephila Sesame  honey  tart  15:25, 6 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi. It just came to my attention that most of the supporting documentation in the Nephila article refers to species presently in Trichonephila but was not migrated to the new article. Accordingly, the Nephila article contains a large amount of text and citations that don't actually refer to that genus. I left a comment on the talk page there, but this is not going to be a simple fix. Hopefully you might find some time to address it. Dyanega (talk) 17:47, 29 April 2020 (UTC)


 * I see what you're talking about. Looks like it didn't come apart very cleanly. That's not going to be an easy fix, but I'll put it on the to-do list. Thanks for bringing it up Sesame  honey  tart  21:55, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 3
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Clubiona, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Yarkand ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Clubiona check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Clubiona?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:59, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 13
An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.
 * Gippsicola ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Gippsicola check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Gippsicola?client=notify fix with Dab solver])
 * added a link pointing to Segestria
 * Tibellomma ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Tibellomma check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Tibellomma?client=notify fix with Dab solver])
 * added a link pointing to Prusias

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:20, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

thank you very much
for your continued provision of complete Australian biota tags to items, it is appreciated. JarrahTree 00:20, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Pandercetes gracilis
Pandercetes gracilis looks to need some of your attention, if you have time. Keep up the tireless good work!! Peter coxhead (talk) 11:24, 28 October 2019 (UTC)


 * There's really not too much I can do here besides cleanup. I'm not sure where the unsourced material came from and the WSC references are all in German or French. Sesame  honey  tart  19:42, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Articles for Creation: List of reviewers by subject notice
Hi, you are receiving this notice because you are listed as an active Articles for Creation reviewer.

Recently a list of reviewers by area of expertise was created. This notice is being sent out to alert you to the existence of that list, and to encourage you to add your name to it. If you or other reviewers come across articles in the queue where an acceptance/decline hinges on specialist knowledge, this list should serve to facilitate contact with a fellow reviewer.

To end on a positive note, the backlog has dropped below 1,500, so thanks for all of the hard work some of you have been putting into the AfC process!

Sent to all Articles for Creation reviewers as a one-time notice. To opt-out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Wikipedians who opt out of message delivery to your user talk page. Regards, (talk) MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:35, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Spider taxonomic categories
Hi, I wondered what your criteria were for creating new spider taxonomic categories. Consider Category:Viridasiidae for example. This currently has only three members, and could have at most 11, which to me, is too few to justify a category. WP:SMALLCAT is unhelpful in not providing any example of what "a few members" means, but actually about 10 and potentially at least 20 is my rough rule of thumb. Peter coxhead (talk) 07:21, 22 June 2020 (UTC)


 * I've been sorting by family, regardless of size. To me, families fall under the exception to WP:SMALLCAT, which are categories that are currently small but have realistic potential for growth. Sesame  honey  tart  19:11, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Um, but not all families do have "realistic potential for growth". There does seem to be a wide divergence of view on category size. I tend to be a "lumper", but acknowledge that there's no definitive guidance. Peter coxhead (talk) 20:53, 23 June 2020 (UTC)


 * If you want to lump them together, go ahead. I don't really mind how it's done as long as we're on the same page about it. I think we had a similar discussion about stub templates. Honestly, the categories don't matter as much to me- they're just a way to make page navigation easier. Sesame  honey  tart  19:08, 24 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Actually, except for monogeneric families, I personally would prefer to standardize on families as the category always used when the genus has too few species. There were long discussions at WP:PLANTS in the past, with "lumpers" and "splitters" taking different views on categories. The "lumpers" were then in the majority, so I've tended to follow this approach in spiders. But we don't need to. I'll make a proposal at WT:SPIDERS. Peter coxhead (talk) 06:12, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

New/revised mygalomorph families
Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spiders if you haven't already. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:46, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Cracks knuckles Challenge accepted Sesame  honey  tart  22:52, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Amazing number of spider articles
Hi, I was aware that you had created a large number of spider articles, but I hadn't quite realized how many! The Tools edit counter currently gives you 9,311 creations (excluding redirects), including a lot of taxonomy templates. Many thanks for all your efforts.

I would just draw your attention to the guidance at WikiProject Spiders/Style guide, in particular that "Category:Spiders described in YEAR" is a subcategory of "Category:Species described in YEAR", so it should not be used for genera, including monotypic genera. I have now fixed these categories, as far as I can tell, so that they don't contain any genera. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:50, 13 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks! I've been trying to keep track of your recent updates as well- my watchlist is somewhat flooded because I'm watching just about every spider genus and species article, but I suppose that's how everyone else feels when I'm in a writing mood myself. I stopped adding those categories at the genus level a while ago, but there was definitely a huge chunk of time when I did add them. I don't have any record of when I changed certain habits, but I know that I never went back to fix it. I still add it to monotypic species articles, but I don't add them to genus articles anymore. Sesame  honey  tart  22:31, 13 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Yes, sorry for the flooding; I'm watching a large number of spider articles, but not as many as you!
 * For monotypic genera, the "Spiders described in YEAR" category is best at the species name redirect, both because this keeps only binomials in the category, which makes it easier to check and maintain, but also because sometimes the species and genus names were published at different dates.
 * I wish there was a category for "spider genera first published in ....", given the obscurity of most spider species. The decision to make "TAXON-GROUP described in YEAR" mean "species described in YEAR" still seems to me to be a mistake, but it operates across the tree of life, so we're stuck with it.
 * I have since realized that I may have got a few wrong. If you go up to the parent Category:Animals by year of formal description, the instruction means that a species with a nomen novum should be categorized by the date of first description under the replaced name, not the date of publication of the replacement name. But when moving the category to the species redirect for a monotypic genus at the genus name, I just checked the date in the binomial box in the taxobox. Whether any such cases can be found by searches, I'm not sure. Peter coxhead (talk) 14:43, 14 September 2020 (UTC)


 * The flooding is great, I don't mind. Yes the date mismatch! I remember catching myself adding the wrong category a few months ago. I did a double take, fixed that mistake, then wondered just how many articles were mis-sorted. Probably a lot.
 * The tree of life is definitely mammal-oriented, but at least we aren't dealing with plants. Polyploidy is a nightmare for taxonomy. Imagine that every species could interbreed and their DNA doesn't mix, but adds together. ABC x WXYZ => ABCWXYZ. And that's for only two species. In my region, the oaks have crossbred so much that identification beyond genus is almost pointless because there isn't much of a boundary between species anymore. Sesame  honey  tart  15:23, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 * The oaks here in the English Midlands are slowly becoming hybridized in parks through planting of exotic species; Quercus rubra is favoured for its autumn colour, for example. But they are mostly distinguishable. Salix on the other hand is a nightmare of hybrids.
 * Back to spiders: I've only been able to find two spider species articles where the specific name (rather than the genus name) had to be replaced, so giving the first species description an earlier date than the valid name: Thiodina nicoleti and Attulus distinguendus. But I'm sure there must be more. Peter coxhead (talk) 16:32, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

possibly mislabeled image
You uploaded file: Dublin Coffman High School.JPGs several years ago. An IP claims it is actually of the nearby Dublin Jerome school. I'm not familiar with either school but from Google Earth views it does indeed look more like Jerome than Coffman. Meters (talk) 02:20, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

I took this photo as a series for articles missing pictures when I moved from DC to Seattle. Those Ohio schools definitely look similar. I’m not familiar with the area and I used google maps to find it, so it is entirely possible I took a picture of the wrong school 172.58.107.80 (talk) 15:38, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Meters (talk) 19:29, 27 October 2020 (UTC)