User talk:Sjl197

• When replying to a comment, begin it with {{Re|Sjl197}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Disambiguation link notification for March 27

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages.

World Spider Catalog

See my response to you at User talk:Peter coxhead#World spider catalog.

Don't forget to 'sign' your comments on talk pages by adding four ~'s at the end. Peter coxhead (talk) 21:24, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 1

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Mary Ellen Best, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Coban (check to confirm | 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) 15:38, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 17

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Benque, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Corozal.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:05, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Cyperus setiger[us]

Hi, as the great majority of taxonomic databases use Cyperus setigerus, I see the logic of having the article at this title. However, what you wrote under "Taxonomy", isn't quite correct: importantly the original spelling is Cyperus setigerus, and therefore is taken as valid by guidelines on plant nomenclature. There are many cases in which the original spelling is to be corrected. Article 60 of the Code sets out when this is the case. Art. 60.8 and Art. 6.10 quite often support changes to the original spelling.

Tropicos notes here, based on Stearn's Botanical Latin, that the correct Latin form of the epithet is setiger, although the reference to Art. 60.9 Ex. 24 in the 2012 Melbourne Code seems to be wrong. However, it seems that although setiger is correct in classical Latin, later botanical and neo-Latin may have adopted setigerus, which a search of IPNI shows is found in about as many names as setiger. In such cases, the current Art. 60 does not support changing the original spelling. So a correct short statement would be something like "Although the classical spelling of the epithet in the masculine is setiger, Article 60 of the International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants does not allow this to be changed."

Plantdrew may like to comment as he was involved in the original direction of the redirect. Peter coxhead (talk) 07:00, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Ok, seems we have agreement that 'setigerus' is the way to go, but for reassurance my decision to edit (back to setigerus from setiger) came after an personal email reply from Rafaël Govaerts (Senior Content Editor, Plant & Fungal Names, Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew). I'd ask him about it being inconsistent over several sources, and whether it needs checking/altering on POWO, which links into IPNI etc.

-

These next quoted lines as direct communication from him

"The original “setigerus” must be maintained:"

[further context of direct communication since deleted]

-

Before that i had also noticed what was said on Tropicos which is perhaps the best for detailing the issues but also were presenting a different conclusion, and from also what i saw justified by something that does not support that conclusion. Glad you also looked into it. I'd sent them a message asking to re-investigate the case. (For the record, I'm not deeply familiar with nuances and technicalities there, i'm an animal person and the pain of ICZN code exceptions is quite enough!)

Anyway, sounds like you're agreed on the fundamentals, now its just about phrasing something on the taxonomy section. I'd requested that POWO puts an authoritative note for others to reference, but my interpretation of the reply was the usage of setigerus is following the code so any explanation is not needed. Hence, because indeed "setigerus/setiger" is still inconsistent across sources, to help clarify then felt would be good if the wiki page had such a statement. If you want to simply change it to your preferred way, that's fine with me - naming the article and code name is helpful, you seem to understand the crux of the issue. However, I don't yet see why any of my wording was not "quite correct" - setigerus is valid per guidelines. What neither of us are saying is that none of the later "exceptions" of Article 60 seem to apply in this case, i.e. 60.4 etc, so how about switch it to your way then just append a few extra words such as "as the proposed orthographic variant does not meet any of the stated exceptions" Sjl197 (talk) 13:01, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Ah, right; I hadn't realized that you understood these issues so well (few editors seem to). If you look at Talk:Cyperus setiger you'll see that I had already had a personal exchange with an IPNI editor along the same lines. PoWO did at one time have setiger, like Tropicos, but changed to setigerus after this exchange. I think that there's much more reluctance now to 'correct' what might be poor classical Latin but doesn't meet the exact requirements of Art. 60.

There are quite a few similar cases affecting article titles. Astragalus aboriginorum is another one. It's accepted by PoWO, so should be converted to an article rather than a redirect. It was called this by the original author, Richardson, but Sprengel 'corrected' it to aboriginum, which is the correct genitive of the Latin 3rd declension plural aborigines. Some sources have one version, some the other. I asked IPNI for a view; they replied that Sprengel's correction is not acceptable under the current version of the ICNafp for the same reason: the Code doesn't support forms apparently accepted in botanical Latin but not in classical Latin being changed. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:06, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing the link to that other Talk:Cyperus setiger from about a year ago. Wish i'd seen that a few days ago when i was asked to dive into the issue! I had noticed that POWO had been using 'setiger' and sounds like you played a strong role in getting that investigated again, but their past usage I suspect still currently leads to GBIF citing them indirectly for 'setiger' when they no longer do! Well, hopefully that gets straightened out, also on Tropicos. [I've left a note on files for both those pages, i've not got energy to try more!]

Anyway, for the Wiki page, then i've now added in a couple of references to that page, and meanwhile tried a compromise reformulation of that wording. Feel free to edit it further, for example i've got a wrong capital letter on "Although" and i'm not sure if Article 23 should be mentioned or not.

Thanks for your other context. Your "Astragalus" is another fun case isn't it, i'm used to nouns being much more straightforward - usually. I'd have see that as something to treat like a plural honorific. Back to the setiger[us] adjective, I'll admit, I'm also not entirely sure "why" POWO (etc, and the mythical consensus at the Botanical conference) now judge setigerus as allowably 'correct'. I see the essence can be it doesn't fit defined exceptions, but then i feel it's rather interpretive that it still reflects correct gender agreement (for the masculine in this case). Does that latter part fall inline with your above "botanical latin" versus "classical latin"?. It's also where my latin hits reality, the termination -er is also an allowable second declension masculine nominative [and classically correct in this context], while is the -us suffix is also a frequent second declension masculine nominative - is that why for those botanists it's permissibly right?! Anyway, maybe i understand the issues, but it's the interpretation of the nuance of both latin and the various codes that's painful. I love with ICZN that they also can allow for "prevailing usage" and some other fun exceptions. I've frequently thrown my hands in air and decided as per Captain Barbossa of the Pirates (of the Caribbean) franchise that at least with ICZN “The code is more what you'd call 'guidelines' than actual rules! ..." Sjl197 (talk) 18:02, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

When creating taxon articles

Hi, just to let you know, there are a few more things that are generally advised to be included when creating articles about taxa. Categories are generally included, to provide hierarchical links to related topics. Taxonbars, which are a little more complicated, import a set of external links from Wikidata. The taxonbar provides links to the taxon's page on various relevent databases, e.g. GBIF, EOL, or WoRMS. A taxonbar can be included at the bottom of the article, using the {{Taxonbar}} template. It takes one parameter (|from=, if you're using source mode), which is Wikidata's QID. This can be found by navigating to wikidata:, searching for the relevent taxon, and finding the QID to the right of the Wikidata item's label (e.g. Douglas Adams (Q42)). Thank-you for your contributions, and sorry if this was confusing. Regards, Edward-Woodrow :) _[talk] 12:11, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Many thanks. I'd just been at the stage or working out the taxonboxes/templates setup, the taxonbar ideas were beyond me when you wrote, so your input on how those could be added was welcome. I've done a handful of them now, i think i've understood, i.e. you could check this new one: Abrus (leafhopper). I've also understood basics now how to add additional sources into Wikidata's QID, thankyou - i'm curating on iNaturalist so its good to know how to link these altogether! Feel free to add/alter on that Abrus (leafhopper) and so highlight anything critical that i missed. I chose this random taxa as it's one that complicates setup on iNaturalist seetings because the genus name is both a plant and animal, so as i understand it needed "disambiguation" (if that's right term). I have seen "disambiuation pages" for such, i think that may need creating on the main wiki site, if you could do that please then great. Also here i created on wiki using "Abrus_(leafhopper)" [which seemed format used on other leafhoppers], rather than "Abrus (Cicadellidae)" [which seemed format used on wikispecies]. I don't think the difference matters does it, and if there any preference for what's specified in the brackets (i mean within wiki or within wikispecies - i understand each sites can differ in usage as long as their own pointers go to right places) Sjl197 (talk) 10:46, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Ranks in taxonomy templates

Just to note that when you create a taxonomy template so that the automated taxobox system handles the classification, the rank given in the taxonomy template should be lower case Latin, e.g. "subfamilia" rather than "subfamily" or "Subfamilia". The system displays whatever you put there, but full checks are only carried out if you use a rank that is recognized. Unrecognized ranks show up in taxonomy templates by being highlighted in red, as in this version I corrected, so it's worth looking for this perhaps somewhat subtle hint. Peter coxhead (talk) 06:49, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Ok understand better now. They functioned so i was not mindful for that 'subtle hint'. Looks like you've fixed-up all those i put under Cosmetidae. Thanks! Sjl197 (talk) 13:58, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Cut and paste move

Copying content from one title and pasting it into a new title while redirecting the old title is referred to as a cut and paste move and is a bad practice (see Wikipedia:History merging). It breaks the article history across two pages. As both Tanaorhinus viridiluteata and Tanaorhinus viridiluteatus had multiple edits, you wouldn't have been able to move the article to it's current title. If the spelling of a scientific name needs to be corrected, or a species page needs to be moved to reflect it's being placed in a different genus, and you are unable to execute the move yourself, ask to have the page moved at Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests. Spelling issues and genus transfers are the sort of situations the technical move request process is intended to deal with. Plantdrew (talk) 23:58, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Ok, thankyou for your advice. You say "and you are unable to execute the move yourself", then maybe so - i perhaps do not have the level of permission and authority likely due to inexperience on system, but if so, could you give pointers on how please? In other sites there's some merge function for such things, but it wasn't obvious here, hence my apparent mis-step. I'll apologise for an apparent mis-step but also point out the essence that except for bots, many such files haven't been updated for many years, so is that way so problematic? Else for context, i'd edited that one species in 7 different websites on same day to try to get some consensus for the naming, which is basically the exact same scientific name but with a different gender of a latin adjective. Yet, some sites require duplicates that are linked by notation, others mergers, others redirects, it's exasperating! Sjl197 (talk) 00:43, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

No need to apologise to me; the first message I got on my talk page when I started editing was a warning about a cut and paste move I had made. Users with 10 edits and accounts that are more than 4 days old have a basic permission to move articles. I don't have any higher level of move permission myself, and you should have that same permission by now. If your Wikipedia interface looks like mine, somewhere to the right of the "Read Edit View History" tabs will be a "More" tab that expands to show "Move". While you will be able to view the interface to move articles with the basic permission, you will not be able to execute it if you are trying to move to a redirect to the current page name that has more than one edit (neither you nor I would've been able to move Tanaorhinus viridiluteatus to Tanaorhinus viridiluteata with our permissions as there were multiple edits). I make a lot of taxonomy related moves and it is infrequent that I am unable to execute the move myself.

That move did need to happen. See Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia#Attribution is required for copyright for explanation (basically, the a history of all the edits (even if just bots) that lead to the current state of the article needs to be in one place in ordinary to fulfill the BY part of Wikipedia CC BY-SA license).

You're not going to find much consensus in the gender of Latin adjectives in Lepidoptera names. Lepidopterists routinely ignore ICZN Article 31.2, and maintain the gendered ending of the species epithet in its original combination regardless of the gender of the genus in which the species is now placed. I'm not a Latin expert by any means, but I would expect Tanaorhinus to be masculine and Geometra (the original genus) to be feminine. I would attribute the differences in spelling of viridiluteata/us to be due to whether different websites give more or less weight to ICZN compliance vs. common practice in Lepidoptera taxonomy. Wikipedia titles mostly follow common practice rather than ICZN. Plantdrew (talk) 02:03, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

A problem is that "common practice" is relatively easy to discern for well known lepidopteran species, but not for less common species. Faendalimas has commented on this issue in the past (his user page says he's involved with a project to "develop protocols for and aim towards a single global list of species" – good luck with that, but it would be valuable for us). I only maintain checklists for a single site, but lepidopteran names are a constant issue. The reason lepidopterists won't change gender seems to be that they regularly use a uninomial system, mentioning just the species name without the genus, so want this to remain exactly the same.

Personally I would prefer us to follow the ICZN, but accept that this is probably not in line with WP:AT re "commonly used". Peter coxhead (talk) 07:00, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

thank you for the ping Peter coxhead. Yes I am involved with the Global Species List Working Group which endevours to stabilise much of this through a metrics system being applied to checklists that will all be incorporated into a single global one. Possibly CoL. Anyway on the issue of latin names. Yes as mentioned some groups do not apply the ICZN code the same as others and those working with Lepidopterans are split in their works, some follow the Principal of Coordination some do not. Remember that adherance to the codes in its specifics is voluntary and done by consensus among the scientists working on that group. It is not law. In Herpetology they permit the use of aspidonyms by using consensus to justify it, a move extending to mammal workers now. The only way to get to a consistent list of taxa will be through governed checklists, which is the aim of the GSLWG. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 17:30, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

wasp names

Hi, Stuart. I communicate with Jim Carpenter, and have a copy of his catalog of world vespid names, so it's very easy for me to know whether names in Vespidae are valid or not. In the case of gracilior the synonymy was published by Nugroho et al., 2013, Zootaxa 3608. A source from 2010 will not have picked that up. Peace, Dyanega (talk) 22:31, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 1

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Nemastomatidae, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Georgia.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:09, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Ischyropsalidoidea moved to draftspace

Thanks for your contributions to Ischyropsalidoidea. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it has no sources. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. microbiologyMarcus ^{(petri dish·growths)} 19:40, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Please restore it and wait - give a person a chance after just creating something. I'm sorry it's brief but i created that as part of a hierachy of a taxon family that i was building together and that superfamily was just given a brief page at this stage to give the higher framework each also with a page. I'm sorry if i'm terse but in last hour is was editing the downstream taxonomic family of my core focus after this and splitting the genus and species. As i was transferring in a large amount of edits from sandbox, another random user reset the links to the automatic taxonbox etc which i'd also just made, and caused clash. So, i've got to now spend the next hours getting these things back to where i was two hours ago, BEFORE i can then improve the articles to how we all might like them. None of these have been edited in 10 years, but the moment i touch them there's a bunch of other wiki users and bots! Sjl197 (talk) 19:58, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Ischyropsalidoidea has been accepted

Ischyropsalidoidea, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thanks again, and happy editing!

~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 06:42, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Dentobunus edit, etc.

Hi. I've noticed a fair number of your edits deal with fixing misspellings and misgenderings of names, and that's great and very much appreciated - not many editors understand how important that sort of thing is. As an ICZN Commissioner, I spend a lot of my editing effort making sure names in Wikipedia are Code-compliant. In that vein, I noticed a comment you made on the Dentobunus page, where you wrote: "Note: The above names "albiannulatus", "pulcer" "renschi" and "waigeuensis" are correct spellings of the original authors, differing from misspellings in Hallan. Else excluding "Dentobunus albimaculatus" as an original misspelling copied by Hallan." You may or may not be aware that under the ICZN, a forgotten original spelling is not automatically to be restored. The name that stood out to me is "pulcer", which was clearly changed to "pulcher" by subsequent authors who knew that "pulcer" was not a word. ICZN Articles 33.2.3.1 and 33.3.1, added to the Code in the 4th edition (going into effect 1 January 2000), specify that changes in spelling are to be maintained - even if erroneous - if they are used by a majority of recent authors. To wit: "33.3.1. when an incorrect subsequent spelling is in prevailing usage and is attributed to the publication of the original spelling, the subsequent spelling and attribution are to be preserved and the spelling is deemed to be a correct original spelling. Example. The specific name in Trypanosoma brucii Plummer & Bradford, 1899 is in prevailing usage but is spelled brucei; brucei is deemed to be correct and its use is to be maintained." In this case, if "pulcher" was used by a majority of authors prior to 1 January 2000, you are not permitted to revert to "pulcer"; doing so would violate this explicit provision of the Code.

I have not gone and done a literature search to assess the situation with these Dentobunus names, nor am I accusing you of violating the Code; I am, at this stage, simply pointing out to you about the provisions in Articles 33.2.3.1 and 33.3.1, in case you were not aware of them. You appear to be an editor who cares about getting the details right, and knowing how the ICZN treats subsequent spellings versus original spellings is a very important detail. Peace, Dyanega (talk) 19:25, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Many thanks for your guidance. I respect your experience in these matters, so I take your viewpoint onboard here, and i'll aim to be mindful of such things. The short comment that i'd edited on that Dentobunus page was (in my revised view) admittedly far too brief and overgeneralised. That comment was just an "end of the day" add on, after an age trying to get those few names to be more consistent across multiple online resources. I should really add some updated references and such onto there, but on the naming issues in particular i feel that wikipedia can be a good place to put an 'etymology section' (etc) where can clarify on such issues. If so on this genus, then I would like integrate some aspects from your above clarification, with your permission. It looks useful to highlight that 'original spelling' isn't necessarily the best way to go on some names. Here at least, i was already mindful of some such nuance with this topic - although i appreciate your far greater awareness than by myself or many others. Specifically for these - although i take your wider point as 'to be mindful of such nuance - here (in these cases) perhaps i can reassure you that the paucity of published studies means there's only a tiny smattering of 'later usage' to be aware of. For harvestmen, I'm already seeing a strong review of the published literature from Dr Adriano Kury, which is increasingly being fed (from behind the scenes) into his online World Catalog of Opiliones. With "pulcer" versus "pulcher" in particular, we can thankfully look back at several versions of what was said in the online list by Hallan, i.e. his "Dentobunus pulcher Suzuki, 1970:72 [pulcer in ZR 1970]" at such a link Hallan-Sclerosomatidae in 2005(?)

You said above "which was clearly changed to "pulcher"..." and it does look like this case could be one of later deliberate alteration, although i'm extremely doubtful that any checks about what the author Suzuki said were made by Hallan. I got your point though, here if the spelling "pulcher" had been subsequently widely adopted, then those other ICZN articles become relevant. I think thankfully not in this case - at core there's two taxonomy papers by Suzuki where he stays consistently using 'pulcer', and a couple of published checklists, again using that original spelling 'pulcer'. One point of debate on your text above though is you said "by subsequent authors who knew that 'pulcer' was not a word". I'm not quite seeing 'pulcer' as being technically 'incorrect, i.e. from wiktionary-pulcer#Latin versus wiktionary-pulcher. Here, i don't think whether "pulcer" is somehow deemed 'correct' or not matters to our context, but just highlight as it adds some nuance around where i'm increasingly seeing need for some caution about how 'corrections' or rather 'hypercorrections' have been applied by various people over time. That aside, one wider point (I feel more troublesome) is the statement of "if they are used by a majority of recent authors". To my eye that opens a can of worms about what constitutes relevant "publication", "authorship" etc! E.g. at worst, when a host of automatically generated lists on different websites have all seemingly uncritically copied from each other and often can be traced back one poorly made source with typos and such - should any of those have value for usage? P.s. This and other things above are just points of general reply, not necessarily any direct question! Greetings and again, thanks for your feedback. Sjl197 (talk) 22:56, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Above, i said - "i'm extremely doubtful of any checks about what the author Suzuki said". There i was predominantly meaning detailed checks by Hallan during construction of his giant lists - or indeed in certain cases a lack of such checks by his sources. (You put "I have not gone and done a literature search to assess"), I just wished here to clarify i meant by those others. Sjl197 (talk) 23:03, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

All good to hear. The one thing I do need to respond to is your observation about the subjectivity of prevailing usage, and this is certainly a point of contention. First and foremost, you can't take anything that us not published in the sense of the Coed into account, ever. All the various digital online resources, authority files, checklists, etc. do not count because they do not comply with the Code's definition of publication. This is why trying to use a Google Search as a metric is nearly impossible; Google counts everything it can find online, much of which is chains of re-citations of a few online sources, and not publications. The second point is the one that's really problematic, with two nuances: (1) the Code defines prevailing usage as "that usage of the name which is adopted by at least a substantial majority of the most recent authors concerned with the relevant taxon, irrespective of how long ago their work was published." This does not provide an objective criterion for "substantial majority". (2) The wording of the Code articles implies that prevailing usage is set as of the day the 4th Edition went into effect; 1 January 2000. It does not explicitly state this, and many taxonomists therefore argue that they can push the date as far forward or back as they like. For example, some taxonomists will take a name published prior to 2000 by 12 authors (and always spelled a certain way), change the spelling in 2006 and keep publishing it with the revised spelling, and then argue that the majority of most recent authors use the revised spelling. In essence, if people want to argue loudly enough, they can effectively overrule the Code and change spellings at will unless someone calls their bluff. In this case, a single opilionid taxonomist could repeatedly publish the name "pulcher" until those uses had numerical superiority, and then claim that this spelling is in prevailing use. The more visible a taxon name, the more likely that saner heads will prevail, but in the proverbial boondocks, it can be more contentious. Dyanega (talk) 19:05, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

December 2023

Your edit to Cryptolasma has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. — Diannaa (talk) 13:33, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Diannaa:. I'm finding it exasperating determining how to 'appropriately' load any approximation of such precise text into wiki then - and would greatly appreciate your view on HOW best to go about it. Presumably, it was a chunk of text under the 'description' section which you found objectionable - but from the view history i now cannot view what was removed - without being able to see that now makes it challenging to determine (or reflect on) how i could, or should have done it differently. I wish in such cases that the notification (and ideally dialog) could happen before such admin action is taken - but i'm increasingly finding that doesn't seem to be how things happen on Wiki from admin side. For your attention, i'd made that particular page (and section) after some dialog with another user User talk:A412#Asiolasma billsheari about others where i'd adapted some text from another scientfic article which was in contrast open access (and released under CC BY 4.0). Yet that also similarly got wiped without question - before in dialog we'd reached agreeable resolution. Within that 'talk' there were points of discussion about fair usage and their direction towards the "guiding policy on non-free content". For this other case here, again with some similar apparently objectionable text, i'd expect the source material is copyrighted (in contrast to that other), but hence (i think that) i'd attempted to rephrase and adapt the original text so keep the 'spirit of' it, but as requested for wiki - to be "in our own words." Please notice that a text description of a taxon/species is given by authors in description papers as precise wording - i.e. the terminology being vital for precision, and i'd say that detailed core is something desirable to retain and reflect in reproduction - i'd also likely kept the same logical order of information flow. However, of course, such text *could* be adapted even more than I likely did, or perhaps a couple of lines could be reproduced instead as direct quotes. Finally, I expect i'd linked the source article into the removed section which should have suited any need for attribution, the text seems to be of no commercial value or interest, and only used a small amount of text from the article (<1%) which (as far as i remember) had been highly paraphrased. So please, HOW could it be more appropriate to adopt elements of that same source text into format suitable for Wiki? Sjl197 (talk) 17:29, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hello, Sjl197. Thank you for your work on Spaeleoleptes. Dcotos, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Hi, Sjl197 Nice work! please add additional or more specific categories. Thank you

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Dcotos}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Dcotos (talk) 17:22, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

@Dcotos: Hi. Ok, sure - i will try to build in categories better. I just switched the category 'families' to genus, and added another two. Sjl197 (talk) 18:03, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

List of Travunioidea moved to draftspace

Thanks for your contributions to List of Travunioidea. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it has no sources. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 00:27, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:List of Travunioidea

Hello, Sjl197. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:List of Travunioidea, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

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

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 01:06, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Please use edit summaries

Hello, I saw your edit at List of moths of Australia (Tortricidae), which put a bunch of genus names in quote marks without explanation. Based on the other content changes and your user page, there must have been a good reason, but I've no idea what it is. Please share your thinking. It's how Wikipedians do most of our communication. Thank you for your work, SchreiberBike | ⌨  00:27, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes, you're right this was something where some explanation would have been informative. I don't however see a way to now append a comment into that edit history after the event (but i understand when submitting originally - and failed to do that here). The reasoning is that I don't see any evidence that any of those "generic names" now in quotes were ever properly published (there's a set of regulations [under Zoological nomenclature] which must be followed). The solution i think will be a slight edit further in each to give redirect or pipe from some published combination to those now with adapted names. See for example this one https://moths.csiro.au/species_taxonomy/cacoecia-desmotana/ There they use 'Cacoecia' which seems to highlight they don't agree with it being in genus Cacoecia (fine to speculate such on their own website), but Cacoecia desmotana Meyrick, 1881 is a published combination which adheres to rules of Zoological nomenclature. They just seem to indicate that is not the 'correct genus' if the species were to be re-studied in modern context. That website also says "Technitis group" where 'Technitis' seems to be a functional but totally informal grouping. Fine speculate on their own website, but then several other websites on these are presenting it as Technitis desmotana with (i think false) appearance finalised combination which adheres to some naming formalities - but i see nothing to verify that, quite the opposite! Sjl197 (talk) 01:21, 1 November 2024 (UTC)