User talk:Stemonitis/Archive24

'''DO NOT EDIT OR POST REPLIES TO THIS PAGE. THIS PAGE IS AN ARCHIVE.'''

This archive page covers approximately the dates between December 26 2009 and February 16 2010.

Post replies to the main talk page, copying or summarising the section you are replying to if necessary.

Thanks!

 * Btw are you sure Thioplica isn't in the Thiotrichaceae rather than the Beggiatoaceae. I noticed that Beggiatoa is in the Thiotrichaceae so it seems unlikely that the Beggiatoaceae is correct. Or maybe the Thiotrichaceae article is wrong! Smartse (talk) 21:11, 26 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks a lot! And no, I'm not sure. I struggled with that one. You quite often find conflicting opinions in taxonomy, or classifications of different ages used in different sources. If other articles are consistently employing a taxon concept where Beggiatoa is in Thiotrichaceae, then it would make sense to have Thioploca in there, too. I am by no means an expert on bacterial relationships, so I'm just relying on the sources I stumbled across first. --Stemonitis (talk) 22:35, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

RfD nomination of "it's a small world"
I have nominated for discussion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. ZS 10:24, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Animals described in 1822
I like the idea for this category, which you recently added to an article on an extinct crustacean. However, I have two comments. One, it may be a better idea to create separate categories for species and genera, eg "Animal genera described in 1822" and "Animal species described in 1822". Two, even though I like the idea, it sounds like something other editors might have some reservations about. We should probably build some sort of consensus with other editors before implementing this type of category widely. Abyssal (talk) 22:56, 28 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I have to admit, I didn't start this system of categorisation, although I have been implementing it fairly strongly. I can even see the potential, once enough articles have been categorised in this way, for subcategories within years for important works in which many taxa were named (e.g. "Category:Taxa named in Supplementum Entomologiae Systematicae"). I have been fairly careful to apply the categories only to articles about species so far (and from what I've seen, others have been doing the same), which would make it easier to establish parallel categories for genera and so on, if that were desired. From a taxonomic point of view, the rank is actually of little relevance, but I could imagine a number of people would find the distinction intuitive. I'm also not sure how necessary it is to go canvassing opinion about the categories; they're nothing terribly new ( dates back to July 2006), and there's little reason to remove categories if they could be useful in some way to someone. I dare say that most readers will never care what species were described in the same period, but provided that at least a few do, the category is justified. --Stemonitis (talk) 23:28, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Your move of Cancer antennarius
Judging from looking in GScholar, it doesn't appear to me that the move of C. antennarius into genus Romaleon is that widely accepted. Even searches that encompass only the past couple of years have many more hits for Cancer than for Romaleon. But in any case, the one hit on "R. antennarium" seems to be spurious, and that the proper name is "R. antennariu's", if one accepts that taxonomy/synonym. Mangoe (talk) 12:13, 29 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Part of your query is easy to answer: the genus name Romaleon is neuter, so the epithet has to be antennarium, not antennarius when used in that genus. As to whether to use Cancer or Romaleon, we should use the most reliable and widely-used sources, which in this case, is Ng et al. (2008), as referenced in the article, even if that isn't clear via Google Scholar. Nomenclatural changes often take a long time to gain universal acceptance (which is how we end up with "common names" like amphioxus, because people can't let go of the old name Amphioxus in favour of Branchiostoma). All the most recent synopses include genera like Metacarcinus, Glebocarcinus and Romaleon in the Cancridae, and it would be inconsistent not to treat this species under Romaleon. --Stemonitis (talk) 12:37, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Hydrobiologia_cover.jpg)
Thanks for uploading File:Hydrobiologia_cover.jpg. 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 'file' 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 "File" 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. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:02, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * How about now? --Stemonitis (talk) 17:04, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:30, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs
Hello Stemonitis! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 2 of the articles that you created  are  Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons. Please note that all biographies of living persons must be sourced. If you were to add reliable, secondary sources to these articles, it would greatly help us with the current  article backlog. Once the articles are adequately referenced, please remove the unreferencedBLP tag. Here is the list:

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 15:44, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Frederick Schram -
 * 2) Neil MacRae -

DYK - Pilumnus hirtellus
Hello! Your submission of Pilumnus hirtellus at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that 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! Sasata (talk) 16:25, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Refs
Hi Stemonitis, sorry I didn't know about that rule. The refs as they stood looked really ugly. Regards, Ericoides (talk) 20:34, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Edward J. Miers
Hello! Your submission of Edward J. Miers at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that 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! Bradjamesbrown (talk) 21:01, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Polycheles
Sorry for messing up the punctuation at Polycheles typhlops; I was under the mistaken impression that the MOS required placing refs after punctuation. In most DYK articles I copyedit there is no consistency in this, so I just use the refs-after-punctuation style, but I should have noticed that it was a conscious choice in your article. As for |synonyms_ref=, no wonder you didn't know it, since I actually added it to the taxobox about a minute before making that edit. :) Ucucha 18:48, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * By the way, while trying to confirm the DYK hook (T:TDYK), I noticed the DOI for ref. 6 is broken. Also, I wonder whether the hook (that it is one of two polychelids in the Mediterranean is appropriate), since there are six species of larvae according to the title; shouldn't that imply that there are in fact six or more species, but the adults have just not been found? Ucucha 18:51, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I have been wondering about Polycheles typhlops. I would have nominated it myself for DYK, if only I had been able to find a good hook. It really is a fascinating animal, but there's nothing (cited) in the text that jumped out as instantly notable. I agree that the "two species" claim is false, and that the reference proves it (planktonic larvae can be easier to find than animals living on the sea floor at depths of >2000 m, so it's not that surprising that species have been missed). I wasn't sure if someone else would find a good way of re-wording it and save the DYK entry; I certainly couldn't think of one, but I didn't vote it down just in case. That DOI is an odd thing indeed. Springer Link definitely gives the same DOI I put in the article, but dx.doi.org doesn't recognise it. It's not even as if it's a very new article that hasn't made it into the DOI database yet. I have added a link directly to the journal article; I am wary of removing the DOI, because it *ought* to be right, although I doubt that it will come back to life. At least this way, people will find the article if they need to. Oh, and thanks for rescuing the conservation status of the Steppe Field Mouse. I checked to see if Apodemus witherbyi was listed, and found nothing. --Stemonitis (talk) 19:13, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the explanation. For the hook, what about something like:


 * ... that the blind crustacean Polycheles typhlops preys on fish and on other crustaceans throughout the world's oceans?
 * For a DYK hook, it may be better if instead of the technical term "crustacean" we could use some more vernacular description for P. typhlops. Polychelidae says they are "lobster-like", but I suppose flat-out describing P. typhlops would be inaccurate.
 * Thanks for the additional link. Too bad about the DOI. I submitted an error report, so I hope dx.doi.org will fix it.
 * You're welcome about the field mouse. You may have misspelled something; I searched for Apodemus and found it. Ucucha 19:24, 18 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Vernacular names for crustaceans are always tricky. Where they exist, they are often misleading. Any decapod big enough (Reptantia) that lives in the sea will almost inevitably have "lobster" or "crab" (depending on its shape) in its common name, if it ever gets one (slipper lobster, spiny lobster, hermit crab, porcelain crab). If used for a specific taxon, rather than a general form of animal, "lobster" refers only to Nephropidae, and not to Polychelidae. Polycheles wasn't known about at all until the Challenger expedition, because everyone assumed the deep oceans were devoid of life, so there is no common name for the species, and nor is there one for the group. By my reckoning, "crustacean" is the least technical term that could reasonably be used there. That said, the hook looks fine: that extra "on" solves the ambiguity of "fish and other crustaceans" that I lazily left in. --Stemonitis (talk) 19:48, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, I'll propose the hook on the DYK page as given.
 * Much the same thing happened to rodents: as the native rodents of the rest of the world got known, mostly from the 19th century onwards, they got "mouse" or "rat" (dependent on size) in their common names, even though they often aren't especially closely related to real mice and rats of the genera Mus and Rattus. Ucucha 19:56, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Pachygrapsus marmoratus
Hi Stemonitis!

The gallery showed external difference of the male from female. I think, it was correct in this article.

Yours faithfully, -- George Chernilevsky talk 13:09, 20 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I see your point, but the difference wasn't mentioned anywhere in Pachygrapsus marmoratus, and isn't restricted to that species, so there may not be a need to mention it there at all. I was planning to use those two images (perhaps in a modified, combined form) to illustrate the article crab, where the sex difference is very relevant and (should be) included. I don't know of any comparable pair of images of the undersides of males and females of the same species of crab on the Commons, and so those two images are a valuable addition to the encyclopaedia; I just don't think that adding an unmentioned gallery on the species article is the way to use them. At the moment, crab only mentions the placement of the gonopores, which is technically a good character, but is not the most useful distinction in practice. I will try to write something about the different abdominal forms at some point this week, and I will certainly use your images when I do. --Stemonitis (talk) 13:41, 20 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, i have understood. Concerning female of crab interesting photo is this: File:Xantho_poressa_2009_G1.jpg
 * I wish you creative successes!
 * Yours faithfully, -- George Chernilevsky talk 14:00, 20 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I hadn't seen that Xantho picture before. It looks like I'm going to have to expand crab quite a lot to fit in all these pictures! --Stemonitis (talk) 14:03, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Japanese giant hornet
Hello, and thanks for fixing the taxobox in Pseudomyrmex ferruginea. My knowledge about ants is very limited, so I'm not sure to what extent the information in the article is correct -- I'd love to hear your comments on it.

Same goes for Japanese giant hornet, a previous redirect that I transformed into an article. As far as I know (that is, according to my reference), this Japanese hornet is a subspecies of the Asian giant hornet, but the content in this latter article made me doubt. Thanks --Fama Clamosa (talk) 13:31, 21 January 2010 (UTC)


 * It seems clear that the Japanese giant hornet is Vespa mandarinia japonica, that is, a subspecies of Vespa mandarinia (see trinomen). The only source of confusion, as far as I can see, is that Asian giant hornet states that Vespa mandarinia is "often confused with" V. m. japonica. The citation given for that fact is a popular science book, which, gratifyingly, is visible through Google Books' preview function. The book makes no such claim; it makes it clear that the Japanese giant hornet is a subspecies of the Asian giant hornet. I haven't seen it stated explicitly, but I get the impression that the Japanese subspecies only occurs in Japan. I have no feeling for whether any other subspecies (including the nominate subspecies of Vespa mandarinia) also occurs there. If anything is still confusing, ask away, but it seems clear cut to me; the article Asian giant hornet needs to be changed: a taxon cannot be confused with itself, and a Japanese giant hornet is also an Asian giant hornet. --Stemonitis (talk) 18:11, 21 January 2010 (UTC)


 * You're right of course. I reworded Asian giant hornet to "including the subspecies...".  I started to doubt because the article read "The Asian giant hornet, Vespa mandarinia, also known as the Japanese hornet..." before I edited it and transformed the redirect to the new article Japanese giant hornet.  I think the article on the Asian hornet could still be a bit more clear about differences between subspecies (see confusion on the talk page.) --Fama Clamosa (talk) 06:57, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * According to my reference the Japanese giant hornet is endemic to Japan (as mentioned in Japanese giant hornet), but there seem to be other hornets there as well. --Fama Clamosa (talk) 07:11, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Red links
There are many red links which are unlikely to be created or are not notable anyway. Sauron's left boot isn't something you could find in a reputable encyclopedia, eh? Chris Markides (talk) 00:26, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Edward J. Miers
Hello! Your submission of Edward J. Miers at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that 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! Materialscientist (talk) 11:04, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

DYK nomination for Scyllarides latus
Hello! Your submission of Scyllarides latus at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that 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! Simon Burchell (talk) 12:04, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Arthropod
I can't know which side of a dispute often is protected, but protected a large-range disputed change to a recent and well-maintained GA is incorrect - the article had a referenced method that works well and, unlike r, is the method advertised in the relevant guideline, Citing_sources. In such a case the proposes of the change should burden of proof, should be testing on a test-bed provided by the proposer and not on a long piece of content improved by someone's work and unilaterally, and the default result should be no change. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Philcha (talk • contribs) 15:31, 30 January 2010


 * I protected arthropod to curtail or prevent an edit war, without worrying about which state it was in; protection does not imply endorsement of the version in place at the time of protection. By all means, make your case at Talk:Arthropod, but there is little point in doing so here. Once consensus has been achieved there, the article can be unprotected, and the consensus put into practice. --Stemonitis (talk) 15:49, 30 January 2010 (UTC)


 * AFAIK the protected expires later today, while I'm away. There's a RFC in which the currently consensus is that impose of r without prior agree is unacceptable and further installation of r should suspendped.
 * In addition, Cheinlit's last revert has made a mess of the references so that the article no longer meets the GA criteria. I point this out, and Wotnow has conceded that the change to the references is incorrect.
 * The only efficient and reliable way to restore the refs to a usable state is to revert Cheinlit's last revert. However, there is a small risk that, before the correction, another editor may changes the article in a way that makes it impossible to revert Cheinlit's error. If that were happens, the only reliable way to correct Cheinlit's error would be revert any later changes that make it impossible to revert Cheinlit's error and then revert Cheinlit's error.
 * To avoid this risk, it would be helpful if you would revert Cheinlit last revert before the protection expires. --Philcha (talk) 07:24, 6 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you. --Philcha (talk) 15:09, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Oops!
Thanks for spotting that! Seems we have two toads with the same name (I didn't spot the species (N.sudelli) name until you did that undo!) Pelobates fuscus and Neobatrachus sudelli. Bidgee (talk) 12:05, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Hairy Crab
I note your comments on my talk page. The only reliable source that I have accessed Here does not support your assertion. CyrilThePig4 (talk) 19:12, 5 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I cannot find the word never at Wikipedia:Disambiguation. CyrilThePig4 (talk) 19:15, 5 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Responded at User talk:CyrilThePig4. --Stemonitis (talk) 19:23, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry but you haven't - You state that WP:DISAMBIG indicates that disambiguation pages should never have only two items. Where has this interpretion come from? CyrilThePig4 (talk) 19:28, 5 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I have removed your last comment, only because I do not think I deserved an apology from you. I will endeavour to match your gesture of goodwill. CyrilThePig4 (talk) 23:12, 9 February 2010 (UTC)


 * That's very good of you. I appreciate it. --Stemonitis (talk) 07:42, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Citing references
Hello, I think that adding non-breaking space &amp;nbsp; in front of ref is not correct. (Because there should be no space.) All of these changes are bad. It is is pity, because all of your edits contains this error. You should probably ask a bot Bot requests to correct your errors. Thanks. --Snek01 (talk) 15:43, 6 February 2010 (UTC)


 * On the contrary. This is a stylistic issue, not a matter of correctness. It is wrong to say that references should be formatted one way or the other. Wikipedia allows references to appear either before the punctuation or after. The way I see it, as they appear in an article, references are no different to any other kind of parenthesis; you wouldn't have them abutting the text beforehand. You could argue for a normal space rather than a non-breaking space, but that would merely allow the reference to appear on the following line, away from the text it references, which can only increase confusion in the readership. I understand that other people prefer other styles, and they're welcome to that opinion, but a consistent and logical system cannot be called "bad" or an "error", and WP:REFPUN elaborates that changing a consistent system is not in itself a constructive edit. --Stemonitis (talk) 18:08, 6 February 2010 (UTC)


 * To clarify, &amp;nbsp; is also useful in a template, because "Data Deficient (IUCN 2.3) [1]" looks, bad, with the ")" and "[" right next to each other, while "Data Deficient (IUCN 2.3) [1]" looks better. A normal space is ignored when the template markup is parsed, so a non-breaking space allows that line to be correctly spaced. Again, a stylistic issue. --Stemonitis (talk) 18:15, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, this is stylistic issue, but there is one preferred way on wikipedia as it is written in guidelines. Feel free to look for example how featured articles are formated. You are experienced user so you should know this and you are simply ignoring this, so I announced it at Content noticeboard. Have a nice day. --Snek01 (talk) 09:18, 7 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Guidelines are exactly that. They are not hard and fast rules written in stone. Your attempt to steamroller me into using a different system is a waste of both my time and effort and your own. We both have more important things to do with our time. Let's concentrate on improving the content rather than quibbling about matters of taste. --Stemonitis (talk) 09:43, 7 February 2010 (UTC)


 * At least try to follow guidelines. You are not doing this so announced at Administrators' noticeboard. --Snek01 (talk) 09:59, 7 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: Commenting here per request at WP:CNB. IMHO, any reasonable person would see adding extra formatting as this is not held as a community endorsed or approved. In fact there are some community-wide citation discussions currently in process to alleviate issues with perceived unneeded information and formatting. If you still think this is a good idea and acceptable please ask at Village Pump boards, I'm not sure which board would be best, to ask if this use is acceptable and if not is there any workaround that may be needed to achieve the same results. -- Banj e  b oi   17:08, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Just FYI, he also started a thread on WP:ANI. Tan   &#124;   39  16:21, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I noticed that. He seems to have been shouting all over town. I thought it best if I kept out of that debate; I trusted that enough other people would tell him his responses were over the top, that my edits were not disruptive, etc. If only someone could clarify to him that there is no community consensus for the edits he's been making before and since (and that the guidelines he values so highly even forbid it), then the chapter could perhaps close. I'd hate to see him discouraged from contributing, but I can't see his behaviour making him any friends. --Stemonitis (talk) 16:34, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Peracarida
Peracarida may soon turn out to be polyphyletic (site may load slowly). Cheers. Lycaon (talk) 21:33, 7 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not particularly surprised that a taxon like Peracarida may be paraphyletic. Fortunately, one of the advantages of Wikipedia is that we don't have to keep up to the minute with the latest research. Once new taxa are proposed and become generally accepted, we will adopt them for the encyclopaedia. Until then, all we need to do is add a sentence to the relevant articles that there is some evidence that the group may not be monophyletic. All the latest research I've seen places insects within the Crustacea (or requires a much narrower definition of Crustacea), but since that view hasn't gained wide currency, our existing taxoboxes are fine. Also, as interesting as that paper is, it's based on a single gene; I think we can wait a while before rushing to change a lot of articles. --Stemonitis (talk) 22:21, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure. I don't suggest to change it so soon. I only wanted to share this publicly available Pdf. They are too rare :-(. I have access to most marine publications at work, but at home it's a pain to do a bit of proper research. I stumbled upon this publication while making an article for the Stygiomysida on the Dutch wiki. Cheers. Lycaon (talk) 08:48, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I know what you mean. Having chosen a topic, I generally download relevant papers more or less indiscriminately while at work (where I can get most things), and then digest them at home at my leisure. I always feel a bit bad about using references that general readers won't have access to, so decapoda.nhm.org is proving invaluable. --Stemonitis (talk) 08:52, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

GA Reassessment of Carcinus maenas
I am undertaking a reassessment of Carcinus maenas status as a GA article, as part of the WP:SWEEPS. As it stands, the article fails certain aspects of the WP:WIAGA and WP:GA criteria, but just needs a bit of attention. As part of the reassessment I will make what improvements I can, but I note that you are one of the editors most involved in developing this article and so would appreciate your assistance and input in this matter. Here is the dedicated reassessment subpage Talk:Carcinus_maenas/GA1. Please feel free to contact me if you have any queries. ✽ Juniper§ Liege   (TALK)  21:12, 11 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, I had seen that that was going on, but thanks for letting me know. I'll try to find time to work on it; I've got a few other things on the go at the moment. --Stemonitis (talk) 21:19, 11 February 2010 (UTC)


 * That's ok.... actually, I can probably do most of what needs to be done myself - the only thing I was concerned about was the lead. It is a bit short and probably just needs a further sentence or two to flesh it out a bit; but I don't have a good enough appreciation of the subject matter to do it well. Perhaps if you could just attend to that? I will fix everything else... it just requires a bit of copy-editing and connecting a few sentences to make larger paragraphs - no major changes. ✽ Juniper§ Liege   (TALK)  21:25, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Incorrect formatting of inline citations
You have gone out of your way to incorrectly format the inline citations on a number of articles. This goes directly against WP:MOS which clearly states


 * Place inline citations after any punctuation such as a comma or period, with no intervening space

In particular, you should revert your citation formatting on Norway lobster, which has caused your fellow editor, Snek, so much grief. And you should revert also, your citation formatting on sea louse, which you undertook just after I specifically cleaned the formats up.

If you believe you have a better way of formatting inline citations, you should raise the matter on the MOS talk page, and not just impose your preference on other editors. --Epipelagic (talk) 00:44, 12 February 2010 (UTC)


 * See below --Stemonitis (talk) 07:53, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

AN/I thread
Hello. The #Snek01 thread at WP:AN/I would appear to involve you ... — Kralizec! (talk) 01:39, 12 February 2010 (UTC)


 * So it does. I have responded there, although I'm not at all sure if that's the right place. --Stemonitis (talk) 07:53, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

MOS
I have brought up the discrepancy between WP:MOS and WP:FN you noted at ANI at WT:MOS; you may be interested in the discussion. Ucucha 14:04, 12 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I'm a little busy this weekend, but if the thread's still running early next week, I'll join in. --Stemonitis (talk) 07:41, 13 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually, I don't think I can be bothered to argue about it any more. The emerging consensus seems to be for uniformly citing after punctuation, and so, as wrong as that seems to me, that's what I'll be doing from now on. --Stemonitis (talk) 15:03, 16 February 2010 (UTC)