User talk:Stemonitis/Archive25

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

This archive page covers approximately the dates between February 21 2010 and April 29 2010.

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

Sorry
I thought that if it wasn't on thered list, then it could be listed as least concern. Thanks for fixing my error. Huzzahuzza (talk) 18:41, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Crustacean GA Sweeps: On Hold
I have reviewed Crustacean for GA Sweeps to determine if it still qualifies as a Good Article. In reviewing the article I have found several issues, which I have detailed here. Since you are a main contributor of the article (determined based on this tool), I figured you would be interested in contributing to further improve the article. Please comment there to help the article maintain its GA status. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 02:12, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Sokotra
[originally posted at User talk:Dyanega]

Hi Doug,

A year ago, you created the article Sokotra for a genus in the Calliphoridae. I have just noticed that someone has expressed a doubt on its talk page that the genus exists, and I too can find no evidence. If anyone else but you had made it, I'd have prodded it already, but on this occasion, I thought I'd best check first, particularly since searching for details is hampered by an inconveniently named Yemeni island! Do you have a reference you could add? --Stemonitis (talk) 14:58, 9 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi. Actually, I didn't create the article, so much as liberate it; someone else (probably Andy Lehrer) had placed Sokotra in the genus list of Calliphoridae, but the link there sent one to the island article. The genus was described by Andy Lehrer (the only scientist I know who has ever been banned from Wikipedia) in 1970 in Annot. Zool. Bot. Bratislava 61: 32. It is entirely possible that it is now a junior synonym, since Lehrer's genera are rarely taxonomically valid, but without access to the BDWD website at the Smithsonian (which has been broken for nearly a year now), I can't tell. Dyanega (talk) 18:21, 23 February 2010 (UTC)


 * OK. In that case, I think I'll put it up for deletion. No reliable source includes it, so it's probably safest if we don't either. If, when BDWD reappears, we find it's valid, we can always undelete or recreate the article. Thanks for getting back to me. --Stemonitis (talk) 18:28, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Requesting a once-over of Lepidoptera morphology
Hi Stemonitis,

I helped develop an article "Lepidoptera morphology" for Wikipedia. Its much better now. Whatever I could get from my online sources I have tried to add. I can't put my finger on it but I think, not being a biologist, I have probably omitted something important in the sections. May I request a quick overview from you and some specific pointers to help bring up the article to be at least complete in coverage. Other issues could be taken up later at GA time, but any comments are welcome. AshLin (talk) 16:17, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It would mean a lot even if you went through it cursorily. AshLin (talk) 09:47, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for reminding me. I had completely forgotten. --Stemonitis (talk) 09:49, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I've had a quick look (and made a few small, nitpicking changes along the way). It seems to me that the article is fairly comprehensive in its scope, but that the title doesn't entirely reflect that scope. At the moment, it's more like "External anatomy of Lepidoptera". Internal anatomy is only mentioned where it is relevant to the external stuff (muscles for moving the wings, etc.). Maybe the internal anatomy of leps is not appreciably different from other insects — I wouldn't know — if so, that should be stated. There is also little discussion of overall form, which might be expected of a general "morphology" article. Even under a narrower title, I would expect a statement along the lines that "Butterflies and moths vary in size from Microlepidoptera only a few millimetres long, to conspicuous animals with a wingspan of many inches, such as the Monarch butterfly and Atlas moth" (off the top of my head). Similarly for larvae, ranging from tiny leaf miners (are there any parasites or other smaller larvae?) to larvae big enough to eat (Witchetty grubs, etc.). I would recommend either changing the title to better reflect the contents, or expanding the scope of the article to cover everything implied by the current title. I can make suggestions about formatting and so on, too (consistent capitalisation, checking for ambiguous or redirected links, etc.), but it's more important to get the content right first, I think. --Stemonitis (talk) 12:22, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot! That really was what I was looking for. With your and Shyamal's suggestions, I have a direction to make this what would arguably be the best introduction online to Lepidoptera mophology. AshLin (talk) 13:04, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Aratus
Do you know anything about a crab genus called Aratus? It is mentioned as a possible part of the diet of a rodent I'm writing on, Oryzomys gorgasi, and apparently lives on a mangrove islet in northwestern Venezuela, but our article at Aratus is about a Greek poet and does not mention the crab. Ucucha 04:28, 28 February 2010 (UTC)


 * There is indeed a crab genus Aratus. Fortunately, it's monotypic, which avoid the need for brackets in article titles. I've knocked up a stub, which you can find at Aratus pisonii. There was even a picture already on the commons! --Stemonitis (talk) 07:39, 28 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks! That is quick I adjusted the text in the gorgasi article slightly, because my source mentions only "Aratus sp.", perhaps because the pieces they found would not have been determinable to species. And there are apparently some sources which list another species, A. elegans, from West Africa. Ucucha 12:40, 28 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Armases elegans is tentatively placed in the genus Aratus by Green, 1986 in his MSc thesis. There is some controversy about this (see ) as it would combine two species from two continents (Armases = Africa and Aratus = America). Current views stick with the mono-specificity of Aratus. So I guess A. pisonii can safely be used. Lycaon (talk) 12:55, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

removed conservation status
Hi there, I noticed you removed the "Least Concern" conservation status from Western galaxias, stating in the edit summary that it is "innapropriate" and not IUCN listed. Think abnout it, if the fish is of least concern, then why would it be on the IUCN red list? Also, please explain how you think this staus is innapropriate? Surely our readers are entitled to know when a taxa is not under threat as much as those that are critically endangered. - Nick Thorne  talk  21:03, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Certainly they are, but that information goes in the text. There's some guidance about this at Taxobox usage and Conservation status. The point is that most taxa are not under any direct threat of extinction, so the conservation status is not appropriate material to include in a quick visual summary of the taxon (which is what the taxobox is meant to be). "Least Concern" is perhaps a slight misnomer, or at least slightly misleading, because there must be some concern to warrant the listing in the first place, but that's what IUCN calls it, so we can't legitimately rename it. It might be reasonable to argue that Least Concern species should not have their conservation dislayed in the taxobox (or at least not so prominently) for the same reasons; I'd be interested to hear what other people thought about that (Template talk:Taxobox would probably be the appropriate venue). --Stemonitis (talk) 21:48, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Hello Nick, the LC status was removed correctly from the Western galaxias wikipedia article. The correct status for Western galaxias is "Not evaluated" now. The LC status belong only to those species, that have been evaluated according to the IUCN criteria. Such criteria are very strict and evaluating is really very time consuming work for experts. So even if we propose, that for example Housefly should be "least concern" species, we can only add status "not evaluated" until somebody will evaluate this species according detailed IUCN criteria in species's full range. When you will find scientific article stating that Western galaxias status was evaluated in the future, feel free to update its status with reference. --Snek01 (talk) 23:48, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Leon Sinks
Thanks for your clean-up on Leon Sinks. However, as part of that edit, you removed the reference http://www.dep.state.fl.us/gwt/guide/regions/panhandleeast/trails/leon_sinks.htm and re-used the reference http://www.fs.fed.us/r8/florida/local-resources/images/maps/apa/leon%20sinks.pdf. The latter redirects me to a "Page not found". Do you get the same result? If so, would you please review your edit and correct that problem, please? --RexxS (talk) 12:43, 28 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry about that – completely my fault. I assumed that the two links were the same, as indeed they probably should have been. The PDF has moved, apparently, to here (or I assume it's the same; as you pointed out, the link is dead), but that doesn't matter, because all the information's on the HTML version, too. Thanks for pointing it out. --Stemonitis (talk) 12:52, 28 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for sorting that, I looked for the pdf, but couldn't find it. So I wondered if it was only available within the US (I'm in the UK), and thought it best to ask if it was just me having the problem! --RexxS (talk) 13:57, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Zopherus jourdani
I have made one final comment on Talk:Zopherus jourdani, which you may or may not like to read. I am leaving it now, as it is not that interesting a topic, really. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:59, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * An interesting comment, but it hardly seems worth my while taking part in a discussion which everyone else has already left. --Stemonitis (talk) 09:10, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Barnstar
Aw shucks! Thought I'd outgrown them but still felt pleased to receive one. Thanks. AshLin (talk) 14:27, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Cleanup issue
I cleaned up the how to part of Argentine ant. The article has an expert tag since May 2008 but no message on the talk page. Except for the fact that its an average article with few good points about it, I dont see anything requiring expert verification. Is it okay to delist this article? AshLin (talk) 13:38, 2 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I would think so. It was added with the edit summary "I added the tag that an expert should review this article because it contains advice, unverified claims, and potentially outdated information." You have already dealt with the how-to material, and it doesn't look any worse than quite a lot of similar articles now. --Stemonitis (talk) 14:57, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the advice. I see you are making tremendous progress on the cleanup. Good job! My editing has reduced a bit and I'm involved in a large cleanup-cum-article improvement as regards Scorpion. AshLin (talk) 08:37, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * No, I'm just doing the easy little things. Big articles like scorpion are where the effort is really needed, in my opinion. I intend to re-write Amphipoda soon, but until I get round to that I'm just doing what I can in the 5-minute gaps I find. I also think bedbug has got so many issues (one new one added today!) that it will need to be completely rewritten, and the same may go for some of the others on that list. --Stemonitis (talk) 08:55, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Jerusalem Cricket name
This is one of the places Wikipedia gets stupid. It should be quite obvious that cara de nino is a common spanish name for a Jerusalem Cricket.

http://images.google.com/images?client=firefox-a&hl=en&source=hp&q=cara+de+nino&gbv=2&aq=f&aqi=g10&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=

So while I can easily prove people use cara de nino as the spanish common name for jerusalem cricket, I'm not allowed to say that on the Wikipedia? I'll bet 80% of the articles on this site have far far far far more questionable information. Since you seem to be an expert on what's a reliable source, which Spanish sites should I use if not an online translator? --Calibas (talk) 21:02, 5 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Something like this would be appropriate. It is produced by a reputable organisation (in this case, the University of Nevada, Reno and the Nevada Department of Agriculture), is presumably intended to appear in print as well as online, and gives explicit translations into local languages. Sadly, neither it nor others I've seen includes the phrase "cara de niño", listing only "niña de la tierra" as a Spanish-language name. I am quite sure that the insect in question is called "cara de niño"; the problem is only in finding a suitable source for that statement. You are right that there are a lot of articles with worse problems (and we're working on them, too, at WikiProject Arthropods/Cleanup listing‎), but that doesn't affect this specific case. The assertion that the Jerusalem cricket is known as "cara de niño" in Spanish was flagged as needing citation, and none was provided. Once someone finds a good source (WP:RS and WP:V contain some advice on what sources are reliable), then it can and should be restored. --Stemonitis (talk) 06:45, 6 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I really wish people like you weren't in charge of Wikipedia's policies, you're turning it into a bureaucratic nightmare. Accuracy is important, I agree, but blindly following the rules to exclude obviously true information violates the very reason the rules were created in the first place. The system has become more important than what the system was created for and now policies rule over common sense... There are no rules. We're both sure it's called a "cara de niño", yet we can't put that in cause we've gotta follow the rules? And I even had a source, not the most reliable, but absolutely no reason to doubt its accuracy. --Calibas (talk) 19:19, 9 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Ah yes, there's a very specific rule that comes into play here: IAR. I'm glad somebody understood that blind obedience to rules often violates the very reason they were created. --Calibas (talk) 19:25, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Zopherus
I am very disappointed you collapsed Zopherus into a single page. There is now less information and knowledge on Wikipedia for the sake of simplicity. I find this incredibly disheartening. I spent a good deal of time photographing, processing, and creating each page. I have also done the same for give or take about 300 other species that I now feel I will need to monitor. I will be forced to defend the legitimacy of collecting facets of information from the corners of our academic institutions still untouched and disseminated through the internet. I would have appreciated being contacted about the matter; I know I haven't been active in a while. I try to stay out of political debates over policy on wikipedia; they tend to ignore the larger picture and are inclined to be dismissive of scientific classification (see Stag beetle). Still, I would prefer to reopen discussion on the matter, or have the decision reversed. -- --Kugamazog (talk) 02:08, 9 April 2010 (UTC)


 * On the contrary, there is considerably more information. Here, for example, is all the text formerly at Zopherus championi:
 * Zopherus championi is a beetle of the Family Zopheridae.
 * All of that information, together with the taxonomic details, including authorship, are still present, but now there is information on appearance, distribution, ecology, and other points of interest, at Zopherus. There are fewer images presented directly, but they're all still available on the Commons. I had to fight quite hard to get some people to accept that there was even a place for an article on the whole genus; they wouldn't accept that it was notable, because the articles didn't contain enough information to demonstrate notability. So, I struggled to prevent your creations from being deleted outright, and I think I did a pretty good job of it (3,600 people viewed Zopherus when it was mentioned on the main page).
 * If you have written more articles in a similar vein, this might be a good time to go about expanding them beyond a single line of text, and finding good references for them; it was part of a cleanup drive that the article Zopherus was created / improved (see WikiProject Arthropods/Cleanup listing‎ for a list of more articles specifically marked as needing cleanup; thousands more are not specifically marked). It is my opinion that a single, comprehensive article on a genus (for instance) is more valuable than a series of articles containing the same information, but I understand if you have a different opinion. On the other hand, I don't think you can reasonably claim that what I did at Zopherus was not a vast improvement. --Stemonitis (talk) 06:01, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Some problems and how to proceed
Some problems that occurred:
 * A bug that won't let me add the template if it doesn't exist.
 * The template's code is a bit weird. Importance is not add through the importance parameter as expected but as the second parameter without explanation.
 * A long standing bug won't let me assess the stub pages for stubs class.

Therefore, I can only move articles from one project to the other and add articles to the new project without parameters. Is it ok? -- Magioladitis (talk) 00:02, 14 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I should probably have warned you about the second of those. ArthropodTalk has always been a little weird in interpreting as quality and  as importance (as well as using "importance=" and "class="). That should be easy enough to code for, shouldn't it? The first of your bugs is not a problem at all; we didn't ask for the template to be added to any article not already marked with ArthropodTalk, so that's no great loss. The second bug is more of a problem, but it can always be solved by a bot request later. I'd say go ahead with what you can do, replacing one template with the other, and copying over the assessments that already exist. --Stemonitis (talk) 06:27, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I think at some point we have to add the word "class" and "importance" back to the template to follow the banner's standards. This is easy an easy modification to the code. -- Magioladitis (talk) 06:37, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Another quick point: some articles are double-tagged, with both ArthropodTalk and WikiProject Insects, in which case all that is needed is to delete ArthropodTalk. Here's an example. --Stemonitis (talk) 06:41, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Fixed that. Good point. Bot is running at the moment. Make some random checks please to see if everything goes at it should. -- Magioladitis (talk) 06:46, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I think I replaced it everywhere. Still needs work with stubs and importance but I didn't think they are too many pages that lack these parameters and I don't know if it's worth to do it. PS I would like to run my bot and make genfixes in pages transcluding AntrhopodTalk. Most of them seem to lack section headers in comments. Where could I apply for that? . -- Magioladitis (talk) 11:37, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid I wouldn't know; this was my first dealing with bots. Most of the species articles get very few views, and their talk pages will get even fewer, so I'm not sure that it's really worth the effort of making the changes for such a minor improvement. --Stemonitis (talk) 19:28, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Praying mantis history merge?
Shouldn't you also do a history merge of the Praying mantis (2007) article history, including the talk page? Really what a mess (not blaming you, just commenting on the article's history)! Bidgee (talk) 16:04, 16 April 2010 (UTC)


 * That page was manually merged with another existing article, rather than cut and pasted (as far as I can see). It's unfortunate, but there's no solution to that. If I merged the histories, the edits from the two previous articles would be intermingled in one history. Look at "A troublesome case" at WP:HISTMERGE for a better explanation. It's actually at Talk:Praying mantis that I first spotted a problem, but I dug a little deeper and found a bigger one. --Stemonitis (talk) 16:10, 16 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Arrr yes, totally forgot about merging of two articles into one. Pity the software couldn't just allow the merging of two articles but selecting one as default (so it doesn't muck up the current format) but even then it would be difficult to code. Don't know how that big stuff-up happened but it isn't going to be easy to solve. Bidgee (talk) 16:16, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Deletion nomination of Talk:Iais aquilei
Hi Stemonitis, this is a message from an automated bot, regarding Talk:Iais aquilei. You blanked the page and, since you are its sole author, FrescoBot has interpreted it as a request for deletion of the page and asked administrators to satisfy the requests per speedy deletion criterion G7. Next time you want a page that you've created deleted, you can explicitly request the deletion by inserting the text. If you didn't want the page deleted, please remove the tag from the page and undo your blanking or put some content in the page. Admins are able to recover deleted pages. Please do not contact the bot operator for issues not related with bot's behaviour. To opt out of these bot messages, add somewhere on your talk page. -- FrescoBot  (msg) 23:14, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Deletion nomination of Talk:Iais californica
Hi Stemonitis, this is a message from an automated bot, regarding Talk:Iais californica. You blanked the page and, since you are its sole author, FrescoBot has interpreted it as a request for deletion of the page and asked administrators to satisfy the requests per speedy deletion criterion G7. Next time you want a page that you've created deleted, you can explicitly request the deletion by inserting the text. If you didn't want the page deleted, please remove the tag from the page and undo your blanking or put some content in the page. Admins are able to recover deleted pages. Please do not contact the bot operator for issues not related with bot's behaviour. To opt out of these bot messages, add somewhere on your talk page. -- FrescoBot  (msg) 23:14, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Deletion nomination of Talk:Iais chilensis
Hi Stemonitis, this is a message from an automated bot, regarding Talk:Iais chilensis. You blanked the page and, since you are its sole author, FrescoBot has interpreted it as a request for deletion of the page and asked administrators to satisfy the requests per speedy deletion criterion G7. Next time you want a page that you've created deleted, you can explicitly request the deletion by inserting the text. If you didn't want the page deleted, please remove the tag from the page and undo your blanking or put some content in the page. Admins are able to recover deleted pages. Please do not contact the bot operator for issues not related with bot's behaviour. To opt out of these bot messages, add somewhere on your talk page. -- FrescoBot  (msg) 23:14, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

And several other crustaceans talk pages. -- Basilicofresco  (msg) 23:18, 16 April 2010 (UTC)


 * These are all the results of mergers of tiny articles, almost all of them created by a robot. Generally, I've been redirecting the talk pages of the individual articles to the talk page of the merged article, but in a few cases, I blanked them. I can't remember which I blanked, and I have no objection to their being deleted. --Stemonitis (talk) 06:07, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Assessment of Boas Johansson
Hello Stemonitis, just wondering why you changed the quality assessment for the article Boas Johansson from B to Stub? The article covers everything that is known about Johansson (which isn't much). I honestly believe that the article is basically complete despite its small size. If you can find any other sources mentioning Johansson, I'll be happy to integrate them into the article, although I've already culled JSTOR, Google Books, Science Direct, etc. I believe he would have been completely forgotten to history if not for the accident of several species being attributed to him rather than Linnaeus due to his involvement with Centuria Insectorum Rariorum. Nothing else is known of him. Kaldari (talk) 21:49, 18 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi there. I was in the process of making sure all arthropod articles were tagged, and reassessing things when the current assessment looked wrong (I know a lot of my early assessments were rather optimistic). This means that I didn't spend a lot of time on each one. You clearly know that article and its subject a lot better than me, so your considered assessment trumps my haste. Sorry for the trouble. --Stemonitis (talk) 06:11, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem, just wanted to check with you before changing it. Cheers. Kaldari (talk) 19:46, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

A. carettae
Hello Stemonitis,

I am new to Wikipedia and am having trouble editing the references section for A. carettae. The first article I referenced doesn't appear in the edit box and so I'm unsure how I should place my second reference. Thanks for your help. CarettaCarettaLVR (talk) 19:41, 19 April 2010 (UTC)


 * The references go in the text, marked with &lt;ref> and &lt;/ref>, and then they will automatically appear in the &#123;{reflist}} section. See WP:CITE for more details. --Stemonitis (talk) 19:47, 19 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Stemonitis,


 * I saw that shortly after my first post you fixed the reference. I meant to say this in a more timely manner but.. Thank You!! CarettaCarettaLVR (talk) 20:39, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Atlas moth
I think that your complete removal of the image gallery at Atlas moth is an misplaced. As per the cited WP:IG "use of galleries may be appropriate in Wikipedia articles where a collection of images can illustrate aspects of a subject that cannot be easily or adequately described by text or individual images. The images in the gallery collectively must have encyclopedic value and add to the reader's understanding of the subject". Both of these aspects are relevant to the article, for which the various stages of the moth's life cycle are better displayed by photos, and all of which are relevant to the article. The article's unfortunate short length prevents currently leaving the images distributed evenly through the text, but that doesn't mean the photos are not relevant, it just means that the quality of the text has to catch up with the quality of the article's images.

I applaud your sense that the gallery had become excessive and repetitive (as per the guidelines) but I think that deleting the entire gallery, keeping none of the high-quality images linked to, is inappropriate. I hope you understand why I think it better to reinstate a reduced gallery for the time being. -Kez (talk) 04:54, 26 April 2010 (UTC)


 * You are right that a limited gallery can be useful. The problem comes with articles on the larger, prettier organisms, because everyone who takes a picture wants it to be on the page (in good faith, I should point out), and lots of people take pictures. A gallery depicting the life cycle is fine, although in this instance, I'm not sure the last two pictures add much, and one might manage without the imago altogether, given the picture in the taxobox. I guess there's no way of expanding the last one or two paragraphs into a larger "Life cycle" section of such a size that the images might fit inline, but it would be possible to make such a section with the gallery in it. That would help to dispel the idea that it's just a gratuitous collection of pictures and reinforce their encyclopaedic value. --Stemonitis (talk) 05:48, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Heloecius
Materialscientist (talk) 16:03, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Arthropods B-class articles
You're right that the bot just uses category listings. In this case, I think the problem had to with the templates that are called within your assessment template. Someone reported a similar bug on the village pump last night, and my guess is that it's the same problem. Now that the categories are correct, the log for today will show the articles "changing back" to B class. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 11:06, 29 April 2010 (UTC)