User talk:Kevmin/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:25, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 28

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 1931 in paleontology, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Nyssa.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:09, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

"mythicomycetaceous"

Find me one single published text that uses this word please. Just one. Equinox ◑ 11:59, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

ToL

WT:WikiProject Tree of Life is about biological classification (scientific names, phylogenetics). I moved your off-topic post about sea lion "biographies" to WT:WikiProject Marine life.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:27, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the move, but I would have appreciated it being left at TOL, where as many animal oriented editors would see it. Also SMcCandlish I'm not very impressed with the mild sarcasm in this comment, just so you are aware, it was rather uncalled for.--Kevmin § 16:55, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

There is no sarcasm in it. I'm not going to editwar with you about it, but ToL has absolutely nothing to do with articles about notable individual animals. It is entirely and only about phylogeny and nomenclature.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:50, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

DYK nomination

Sorry that I upset you in the DYK nomination. I have promoted almost 1000 hooks to the main page. My goal is to bullet-proof the hooks and they rarely end up at errors. I am not infallible and that is why I asked another DYK regular RoySmith to check my work. My only goal is to get the best accurate hook promoted. Bruxton (talk) 18:15, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm going to be honest, while accuracy is an admirable goal, what happened at the nom was not that, that was active assertion that a source was false, with no backing other then "but I dont know". you may need to take a step back and assess your methodology, given this isnt the first hook in recent times where you have misused the concept of "anecdotal" in a biology topic, and has the same result, or changed the wording on a bio hook to one that is much less precise.--Kevmin § 23:13, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

I am not sure you understand what my role is: I am a volunteer and I am trying to help get the work featured. You have misquoted me on Template:Did you know nominations/Orange-billed lorikeet: I said before I read the source in its entirety I thought that the hook fact was anecdotal. the source was about the observation of one bird, but it went on to talk about the misidentification of the birds in the wild. I type out my thoughts so that the (promoting to queue) admin knows what I was thinking-it saves everyone time. For your part you have typed in all caps on the DYK nomination and you have insulted me. I also have never said a source was false - I said in the Ameerega munduruku nomination that we cannot say male frogs are known to carry tadpoles when only one was ever observed carrying tadpoles. The accuracy of the statement is most important. Because of your pushback I pinged a DYK admin who seems to have the same concern. Keep in mind that all of us at DYK are trying to get the nomination to the next step. Bruxton (talk) 00:10, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

DYK for Dennstaedtia christophelii

--Aoidh (talk) 00:01, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

List of elm cultivars, hybrids and hybrid cultivars

Hi. You added an ADDITIONAL CITATIONS NEEDED to this list in November 2023, but citations for the names, origins and history of each hybrid and cultivar in the list are contained in the items themselves, in the linked articles. 'References' gives an indication of some of the main sources consulted, but there would be little point in adding all the minor ones. What in-line citations, please, do you think should go in the list? The contributor whose edit you recently deleted is an expert in the field of new cultivars. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.39.159.73 (talk) 12:47, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

I would recommend you read over the wp:cite page. Referencing is not to be done as "see citations at xxx other page". List of elm cultivars, hybrids and hybrid cultivars as it stands now is very under-cited, and as cultivars, hybrids and hybrid cultivars are not considered inherently notable in the way a species/genus/family is, it needs third party citations and not just catalog entries or herbarium accessions to impart that notability.--Kevmin § 18:18, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Happened to see this, and would just like to say that I totally agree with Kevmin. Peter coxhead (talk) 18:28, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your help with this article. Have begun turning herbarium specimens into inline citations (see e.g. edit to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ulmus_americana_%27Littleford%27). Some were already inline, so here will simply delete any duplicates in External Links. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.39.159.73 (talk) 14:22, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

DYK for Acherontemys

-—Kusma (talk) 00:03, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

DYK for Harpegnathos alperti

--theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 03:18, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 9

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:04, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Renaming "Prehistoric" categories

Hi, I saw that you recently created Category:Fossil beetle genera, transferred all pages in Category:Prehistoric beetle genera to the new category name, and turned the old one into a redirect. If I'm being honest though, you could have used WP:CFD to rename the older category (and a bot would have done the rest for you). You could do this for other "Prehistoric" categories, since there's probably quite a lot of them yet to be renamed, if "prehistoric" is indeed being misused as you say (it did always seem off to me so honestly I agree with you on that point). Monster Iestyn (talk) 21:03, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Anas chathamica or Chatham duck

Hi Kevmin,

I noticed you undid my page move, WP:NCFAUNA refers to the common name as the common name, ergo the non-scientific name for the species, and not the name that is most often used within an article for said species. I.e. just cause you use Anas platyrhynchos over and over in an article it wouldn't mean that mallard isn't it's common name anymore.

Or maybe i'm wrong, i just wanted to reach out and ask if you had another way of seeing it, if there's anything i didn't take into account or if there's something i missed?

Thank you. Fuppimuppi (talk) 17:25, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

I would suggest reading the first line of the conventions a little closer, The article title should usually consist of the name that is most common in English, following WP:Article titles § Common names. For well known animals, this will normally be the vernacular name. The wording does not say to exclude the taxonomic name (which is read as part of the English language), and specifically caveats that a vernacular name may not be the most commonly used term. as soon as you move away from the large well recognized animal and plant species, and especially when you move into fossil taxa you will encounter "vernacular" names that someone made up at some point, but which actually get used orders of magnitude less then the taxonomic names, for which they are always referred to.--Kevmin § 17:36, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Though i understand the point you've made, how is one then supposed to know a name isn't just made up since some sources may still use the made-up name? And besides, how do you exactly measure what name is used more? Fuppimuppi (talk) 17:46, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

All "vernacular" names are made up, some make it into regular usage, taxonomic names are regulated by global scientific bodies and not all are valid. Google/Bing results from searching will give a genera idea, as will google scholar and scholar.archive.org. One has to research and there when there are multiple contenders, the naming conventions state go with the taxonomic name.--Kevmin § 17:57, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Alright if that's what it's gonna be then. Thank you for taking time out your day to respond. Fuppimuppi (talk) 18:01, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

DYK for Allenbya collinsonae

--♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:03, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

DYK for Paleoallium

--♠PMC♠ (talk) 12:02, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Okanagrion

Hello! Your submission of Okanagrion at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at your nomination's entry and respond there at your earliest convenience. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! gobonobo ^{+ c} 22:54, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

DYK for Dickwhitea

--Z1720 (talk) 00:03, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

DYK for Anomalites

--Schwede66 01:06, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

DYK for Okanagrion

--RoySmith (talk) 00:03, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

# vs. *

Hello Kevmin. You correctly point out that "The majority practice on taxonomic lists. bullet pointed lists dominate over numbered", but I respectfully suggest that the majority practice is not always appropriate and there better uses of your time than converting to bullet points. Unfortunately, WP is littered with pages stating "there are X genera in family Y" or "Z species in genus X": with numbers that are (sometimes badly) wrong. There are various reasons for this, but often changes are due to taxonomic revisions: especially for insects and fungi. Keeping track of changes is difficult and the WP count (# facility) is very useful for checking numbers against the international databases. I therefore ask that you don't make these edits and suggest that you might find '#' useful fossil taxa (as new ones turn up): as I understand one of your own interests. Brgds. Roy Bateman (talk) 05:43, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

DYK for Allenbya holmesae

--WaggersTALK 00:02, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

DYK for Herschel the sea lion

--Amakuru (talk) 00:02, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

CS1 error on Republic, Washington

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Republic, Washington, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A bare URL error. References show this error when one of the URL-containing parameters cannot be paired with an associated title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 19:12, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

DYK for Erismatopterus

--Amakuru (talk) 00:03, 25 June 2024 (UTC)