User talk:Elmidae

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Phoeniconaias genus article...[edit]

... is now a thing. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:22, 15 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@UtherSRG: serendipity! :} --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 18:05, 15 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I saw your edit comment when you added the little bit about the extinct species, so but this on my mental to do list. - UtherSRG (talk) 18:09, 15 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

NPP Award for 2022[edit]

The New Page Reviewer's Iron Award

For over 360 article reviews during 2022. Thank you for patrolling new pages and helping us out with the backlog! -MPGuy2824 (talk) 03:20, 2 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

New Pages Patrol newsletter January 2023[edit]

Hello Elmidae,

New Page Review queue December 2022

The October drive reduced the backlog from 9,700 to an amazing 0! Congratulations to WaddlesJP13 who led with 2084 points. See this page for further details. The queue is steadily rising again and is approaching 2,000. It would be great if <2,000 were the “new normal”. Please continue to help out even if it's only for a few or even one patrol a day.

2022 Awards

Onel5969 won the 2022 cup for 28,302 article reviews last year - that's an average of nearly 80/day. There was one Gold Award (5000+ reviews), 11 Silver (2000+), 28 Iron (360+) and 39 more for the 100+ barnstar. Rosguill led again for the 4th year by clearing 49,294 redirects. For the full details see the Awards page and the Hall of Fame. Congratulations everyone!

Minimum deletion time: The previous WP:NPP guideline was to wait 15 minutes before tagging for deletion (including draftification and WP:BLAR). Due to complaints, a consensus decided to raise the time to 1 hour. To illustrate this, very new pages in the feed are now highlighted in red. (As always, this is not applicable to attack pages, copyvios, vandalism, etc.)

New draftify script: In response to feedback from AFC, the The Move to Draft script now provides a choice of set messages that also link the creator to a new, friendly explanation page. The script also warns reviewers if the creator is probably still developing the article. The former script is no longer maintained. Please edit your edit your common.js or vector.js file from User:Evad37/MoveToDraft.js to User:MPGuy2824/MoveToDraft.js

Redirects: Some of our redirect reviewers have reduced their activity and the backlog is up to 9,000+ (two months deep). If you are interested in this distinctly different task and need any help, see this guide, this checklist, and spend some time at WP:RFD.

Discussions with the WMF The PageTriage open letter signed by 444 users is bearing fruit. The Growth Team has assigned some software engineers to work on PageTriage, the software that powers the NewPagesFeed and the Page Curation toolbar. WMF has submitted dozens of patches in the last few weeks to modernize PageTriage's code, which will make it easier to write patches in the future. This work is helpful but is not very visible to the end user. For patches visible to the end user, volunteers such as Novem Linguae and MPGuy2824 have been writing patches for bug reports and feature requests. The Growth Team also had a video conference with the NPP coordinators to discuss revamping the landing pages that new users see.

  • Newsletter feedback - please take this short poll about the newsletter.
  • There is live chat with patrollers on the New Page Patrol Discord.
  • Please add the project discussion page to your watchlist.
  • If you no longer wish to be a reviewer, please ask any admin to remove you from the group. If you want the tools back again, just ask at PERM.
  • To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

How to do ellipses[edit]

Please read MOS:ELLIPSIS.-- Toddy1 (talk) 21:46, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Toddy1: noted (but see the the sub-heading two down - on using square brackets. Not quite as cut and dried as you may think). I agree the box is superfluous if we have the quote in the text as well. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 13:58, 5 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On the Trumpeter swan article...[edit]

Is it not hard for you to write which scientists said this in the article you linked? Or at least attach a more primary source rather than a newspaper article? I am following the conventions given under "Unsupported attributions," which gives examples of weasel words such as, "scientists claim," "research has shown," etc. The wording which you defend in Trumpeter swan is almost verbatim one of the listed examples of weasel words (i.e., "scientists attribute..."), and so it might not match Wikipedia's manual of style.

These are not my subjective standards; these are Wikipedia's own standards. While I am not necessarily disagreeing with what has been written there, it helps to write which scientists have put forth which results, since they can look further into that scientists' work and also compare these in cases where scientists might disagree. Also, it would help if the source you put there were at least an actual scientific journal article (e.g., the ones that the New York Times article might be sourcing) rather than the New York Times itself, as more mainstream, non-technical newspapers are definitely not immune from featuring views which may not represent the consensus within a certain academic field. Lastly, you say that, "Readers can check the source," but somebody who is not a New York Times subscriber is going to get paywalled.Lisztrachmaninovfan (talk) 06:40, 8 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Very curious why the line referring back to iNaturalist was removed as being 'unreliable '? Is it because anything on iNaturalist is unreliable or that Associate Professor Tanya Latty who is running the project that I linked to is not credible? perhaps should I have referenced T.Latty in more detail about the statement ? I am very new here and am genuinely seeking guidance.. cheersEdisstrange (talk) 02:53, 12 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Edisstrange: yes, iNaturalist is crowd-sourced, which makes it an unreliable source for factual claims (just as Wikipedia itself is ineligible as a cited source, for the same reason!) That said, plenty of species articles have iNat refs in them to provide images or to show a map of reported sightings - while not strictly by the book, these are generally accepted because the chance of false content is low (i.e., it's likely that the aggregate of these sightings does give a reasonable distribution map, even accounting for errors). But single statements like "this was the first recorded sighting since XXXX", as was used here, would need a more reliable source. - If that re-sighting has been taken onto a university website or similar and a reliable 3rd party has thus taken ownership of the claim, maybe you can use that as a reference? Cheers --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 08:12, 12 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for replying and clearing that up ! Cheers Edisstrange (talk) 08:49, 12 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Barnstar for you[edit]

The Civility Barnstar
Awarded for contributions to discussion starting here and then here, for remaining civil despite us not necessarily seeing eye to eye on the underlying issue, and suggesting an appropriate forum for discussing it. EvilxFish (talk) 02:37, 15 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have read Vanamonde93's reply that he/she mentioned. I have linked artivcles where Eunuchs killed two newborn babies, and also killed a man for not paying money. I don't understand why he says that is not extortion but harassment, begging. Most likey they don't check all sources properly. I have also mentioned about arrests, public protests.

I didn't mention vernacular media as I found English media.

These are the articles I didn't mentioned, but linking here.

Why eunuchs are allowed to extort money? asks Lokayukta- Lokayukta is government.

As I have linked many articles, where the name of the topic is extortion, here the word extortyion is used within the article not heading.--India's estimated 50,000 eunuchs are at a crossroads of survival in their shadowy half-world of superstition and extortion. -- Rambo XTerminator (talk) 11:07, 25 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Copying this to the project talkpage, since that is where the discussion is happening. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 12:58, 25 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


TY for the edits on Bombus crotchii; I tend not to think of "overcitation" as being template-worthy but made a bunch of smart changes. I stand corrected. jengod (talk) 21:59, 12 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

All good :) Cheers --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 06:52, 13 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikimedia Foundation project to improve PageTriage[edit]

Hi, as an active New Page Patroller, I wanted to make sure you were aware of an upcoming Wikimedia Foundation project to improve the PageTriage extension. We recently published results of user interviews, and have some findings that we would value patrollers' opinions on. If you haven't yet, please consider adding the project page to your watchlist to stay up to date with our progress! Samwalton9 (WMF) (talk) 13:17, 2 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

At article Human[edit]

Hi, thx for your restore. My edit removed a period ("."), somehow my edit was on an older version of the article (it was weird, I saw that text flash as the edit processed, I ignored it but shouldn't have, should have checked this edit history after; still don't know how I got entered into an older version). Apologies. Again thanks. --IHTS (talk) 12:42, 10 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ha, okay, that explains it :p --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 12:45, 10 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh now I know. (I entered the article via a link from WP:CLASSES where the article was listed as example of a class B article. (That link no doubt took me to status of the article when was class B. Noticed the class was "Good" not "B" after my edit, surmised the info at CLASSES was out of date, my wrong surmise.) Now am wiser. Thx again. --IHTS (talk) 12:49, 10 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Why did you revert my edits on the Wikipedia article giraffe? In your edit summary you said it was about the genus not the species, if it's about the genus why does it have a binomial name which is Giraffa camelopardalis? If it is really about the genus then what is Giraffa camelopardalis, is this not about the species? I'm confused, please explain. Dancing Dollar (let's talk) 10:31, 12 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Dancing Dollar: check out the Taxonomy section for the attendant complications (for that matter, the lede explains this as well). Giraffe classification vaccilates between one and nine species or subspecies, plus there's a bunch of fossil species. All of these are known as "giraffe". We've also had numerous discussions on the talk page about how these variations in classification are to presented across articles. The current phrasing has been chosen to prevent the reader from assuming that this article is about one species only, or that it is even clear that there is only one species. This cannot be really be communicated in a taxobox, which is why that sticks to the basic binomial setup, but it can be done in text, which is why the article does not start off like a typical species article. I would suggest that if you feel strongly about this, you take it to the talk page? Cheers --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 11:05, 12 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK, thanks for explaining, I understand now, and I won't bother with the Taxonomy of the giraffe. Dancing Dollar (let's talk) 11:27, 12 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Why are you going to all my contributions and reverting them? Feels a bit like stalking. You said things like "low quality" which is a personal opinion maybe but the videos are in high resolution 4k and clearly show the behavior of the subject of the articles. Not every Wiki user has seen these birds in real life, and a video helps to illustrate motion/behavior etc. Please justify yourself before further stalking my contributions. Thanks. Nesnad (talk) 11:59, 12 March 2023 (UTC) Hmm. I noticed now that you also reverted my goldfish contribution etc too. This clearly feels targeted. Have I offended you? Lets discuss it. Cheers, Nesnad (talk) 12:39, 12 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Nesnad: I noticed you adding material of doubtful quality and therefore checked your other contributions, and found more of the same (most of these articles are on my watchlist anyway). That is not WP:STALKING and you would be well advised not to bandy this accusation around without cause. - As for the quality of these videos, I disagree that shots of birds walking or flitting around in a cage are high-quality or even substantially informative additions to these articles. The video added to golden pheasant for example consists mostly of cage bars blurring past while a pheasant takes a few steps behind them. That's an indifferent and uninformative home video that should not be taking up screen real estate in an encyclopedia, especially in articles already well supplied with image material. The goldfish is gasping in place in a bare aquarium - how is that useful information for the reader? Creators of images, videos or artwork are frequently least well placed to assess the suitability for use on WP because they obviously have a creator's attachment to this stuff. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:59, 12 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Why are you the god of deciding quality though? A fence makes something have no quality? You might be very familiar with these animals and so it might not have "value" to you, but to someone who hasn't seen them it shows movement, shape and qualities that a photograph can't convey. I really don't understand the Java sparrow deletion. If your problem is a fence, there was no fence? It shows how the birds behave and interact. If you think they are not high enough quality, go take your own videos and add those. But unless you can explain how they are not valuable I think they should be added back. Not everyone is an expert on bird motions or whatever you are claiming to be. So don't go around harassing me because you want to belittle my contributions (which I have no "attachment" to, I took them for Wikipedia--- to add to it's value not my value... as the main page says Wikipedia is "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit." It's not about some weird "must have television quality visuals only" or something? The whole point is the democratization of knowledge. I will add the videos back if you don't disagree with me helping to share knowledge with the world, Nesnad (talk) 17:27, 12 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Nesnad: Building a well-constructed encyclopedia is not congruent with the "everyone dumping all possible content on a page" approach you seem to favour. We all make value judgement about suitable material, all the time, and the way to resolve these issues is input from multiple editors. That is why we should be having this discussion on the affected articles' talk pages. However, no one is going to start a pro forma discussion for every revert they make, only if it is necessary. Hence: if you are so resolved to reinstate your material, I will revert it again, then kick of a discussion at the relevant talk page. At which time the matter will remain in abeyance until resolved by consensus (see WP:BRD).--Elmidae (talk · contribs) 18:12, 12 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I see you two editors are arguing about content on Wikipedia, so how did this all begin? On one hand we have Elmidae the reverter and on the other we have Nesnad the provider of videos. Elmidae seems to be pissed off by the addition of videos on articles while Nesnad seems to think otherwise. I used to have these kinds of fights with my wife but it stopped thanks to a third opinion, so maybe that's what is needed here. So first of all, Nesnad why are you adding videos? That's what your contributions are all about and Elmidae seems to be reverting a fair amount of these edits. Just be on good terms with each other, I think it might be helpful if you guys just stop this until you come to an agreement. This situation is like when there's an art project and one of the artists wants to add glitter to the project but one artist keeps on removing it so they eventually come into conflict. But ask yourself this question, Have you ever felt like you know you’re right, but the other person doesn’t understand? In this case just compromise, for example Elmidae can say "Maybe you're right, not everybody may be an expert or know how these creatures move" or Nesnad can say "Maybe Elmidae is right, maybe my videos are low quality". If not these, you can simply utter the words "I understand", these powerful words can have an effect but it doesn't you agree. I said what I had to say, if you can't agree then disengage. Dancing Dollar (let's talk) 19:40, 12 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks Dancing Dollar, good thoughts. For my side, I don't want to provide low quality video so if Elmidae can point out if they are too low resolution or whatever I'm ok with not adding them. But complaining that the video isn't good because the fish is in a small tank (which many goldfish are, this isn't an encyclopedia of feel-good videos, it is about describing the creature) or that the animal is pacing in a cage (many do, once again) seems just to be emotional attacks on the content, nothing to do with them not helping to illustrate the articles. So I don't understand the gate keeping. To the point, I am open to a discussion on the matter but don't like unilateral "I am god of these articles!" kind of attitudes, that's all. Elmidae, no hard feelings to you as a person of course. I'm sure you are a great person. I just was rubbed the wrong way about your dismissal of the value I was trying to add. Cheers, Nesnad (talk) 05:23, 13 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm not interested in turning this into some grand contest of wills, and explaining a valuation of an image/video as unsuitable for an article is, from experience, a fruitless exercise if the other party does not want to look further than a higher resolution value. That's why we get other people's estimation at the relevant article talk page. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 09:47, 13 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You are still being combative. You went through all of them and deleted them, why is it too much work to tell me why you they they have no value? I am willing to listen. Why is it your choice to delete it but we have to debate it on the talk page to add them back? That still paints you as Wiki-God. Don't understand your power trip. I'm trying to be fair and discuss it with you, and you are just trying to act like judge jury. I'm confused. Nesnad (talk) 11:41, 13 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello Elmidae,

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/World War II and the history of Jews in Poland. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/World War II and the history of Jews in Poland/Evidence. Please add your evidence by April 04, 2023, which is when the first evidence phase closes. Submitted evidence will be summarized by Arbitrators and Clerks at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/World War II and the history of Jews in Poland/Evidence/Summary. Owing to the summary style, editors are encouraged to submit evidence in small chunks sooner rather than more complete evidence later.

Details about the summary page, the two phases of evidence, a timeline and other answers to frequently asked questions can be found at the case's FAQ page.

For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration.

For the Arbitration Committee,
~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:13, 14 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Bacteria not validly published[edit]

Wikipedia has hundreds of articles on bacteria that are "not validly published" according to LPSN (I'm not sure what the SN in LPSN is actually supposed to mean: I would say that names that aren't validly published don't have any "Standing in Nomenclature"). I'm not supportive of creating stubs for species that that aren't validly published, but I'm not sure that all such articles should be deleted, or that "not validly published" status in LPSN is sufficient grounds for deletion (on the other hand, SPECIESOUTCOMES can't be applied as a reason to keep). To pick a couple species that aren't validly published: Mycobacterium orygis is a human and veterinary pathogen; Achromobacter obae has had the complete genome sequenced (although that also true for many other species these days). I think these are likely notable species. And it's not just species; there are a number of higher level taxa that haven't been validly published, most notably, Bacteria itself, but another is Class Tissierellia. I am having more trouble finding invalidly published higher taxa than last time I browsed LPSN, but there are still some out there (until fairly recently, phyla weren't covered by the nomenclatural code, so there were no phyla that were validly published until October 2021, also see a news story] about phyla names), but Wikipedia had articles on bacterial phyla before that (albeit under different names).

Not being published in IJSEM is a major reason why many names listed in LPSN aren't validly published, but IJSEM does regularly publish lists validating names published in other journals. The purported publication for Saccharopolyspora salina has numerous problems and I think that it is OK to delete, but using "not validly published" as a criterion for deleting bacteria article could end up leaving Wikipedia with holes in the higher taxonomy of bacteria. Plantdrew (talk) 19:25, 15 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hmm. Here I thought we had specifically been using "not validly published" as a deletion criterion in the past, but maybe I have conflated that with related reasons. There's a bit of a hybrid zone between "validly published" and "widely accepted/used/recognized", I guess, where corner cases may arise. Well, that's why we have these discussions - so the corner cases can be argued :) --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 20:22, 15 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Jungle Book and the Second Jungle Book[edit]

How are they NOT adventure novels? Just curious. ( (talk) 19:00, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

They are short story collections; and some of the stories are adventures, some are fables, some are allegorical, and some are satires. Definitely not "adventure novels". --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 20:27, 20 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

New Page Patrol – May 2023 Backlog Drive[edit]

New Page Patrol | May 2023 Backlog Drive
  • On 1 May, a one-month backlog drive for New Page Patrol will begin.
  • Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of redirects patrolled and for maintaining a streak throughout the drive.
  • Article patrolling is not part of the drive.
  • Sign up here!
  • There is a possibility that the drive may not run if there are <20 registered participants. Participants will be notified if this is the case.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:11, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Precious anniversary[edit]

Seven years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:54, 26 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks Gerda! :) --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 09:27, 26 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Kiyo (disambiguation) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G14 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a disambiguation page which either

  • disambiguates only one extant Wikipedia page and whose title ends in "(disambiguation)" (i.e., there is a primary topic);
  • disambiguates zero extant Wikipedia pages, regardless of its title; or
  • is an orphaned redirect with a title ending in "(disambiguation)" that does not target a disambiguation page or page that has a disambiguation-like function.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time. Please see the disambiguation page guidelines for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 14:36, 4 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Australian white ibis edits[edit]

Hi I am new to wiki and tried to add a citation to support my edits but didn’t succeed. The citation would be a PhD thesis from the University of Melbourne by KW Lowe “The feeding and breeding biology of the Sacred Ibis (sic Australian White Ibis) in southern Victoria”. 1984. Hoping you can re-instate my edits and advise how to add the citation. Cheers. Dribis (talk) 02:15, 9 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Dribis - that works. I've inserted the reference. It's a pity it is not freely available online, though. Did Lowe not publish these findings in a paper at some point? He seems to have made quite a career out of this species :) --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 14:30, 9 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Kākāpō Featured article review[edit]

I have nominated Kākāpō for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:42, 10 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

New Pages Patrol newsletter June 2023[edit]

Hello Elmidae,

New Page Review queue April to June 2023


Redirect drive: In response to an unusually high redirect backlog, we held a redirect backlog drive in May. The drive completed with 23851 reviews done in total, bringing the redirect backlog to 0 (momentarily). Congratulations to Hey man im josh who led with a staggering 4316 points, followed by Meena and Greyzxq with 2868 and 2546 points respectively. See this page for more details. The redirect queue is steadily rising again and is steadily approaching 4,000. Please continue to help out, even if it's only for a few or even one review a day.

Redirect autopatrol: All administrators without autopatrol have now been added to the redirect autopatrol list. If you see any users who consistently create significant amounts of good quality redirects, consider requesting redirect autopatrol for them here.

WMF work on PageTriage: The WMF Moderator Tools team, consisting of Sam, Jason and Susana, and also some patches from Jon, has been hard at work updating PageTriage. They are focusing their efforts on modernising the extension's code rather than on bug fixes or new features, though some user-facing work will be prioritised. This will help make sure that this extension is not deprecated, and is easier to work on in the future. In the next month or so, we will have an opt-in beta test where new page patrollers can help test the rewrite of Special:NewPagesFeed, to help find bugs. We will post more details at WT:NPPR when we are ready for beta testers.

Articles for Creation (AFC): All new page reviewers are now automatically approved for Articles for Creation draft reviewing (you do not need to apply at WT:AFCP like was required previously). To install the AFC helper script, visit Special:Preferences, visit the Gadgets tab, tick "Yet Another AFC Helper Script", then click "Save". To find drafts to review, visit Special:NewPagesFeed, and at the top left, tick "Articles for Creation". To review a draft, visit a submitted draft, click on the "More" menu, then click "Review (AFCH)". You can also comment on and submit drafts that are unsubmitted using the script.

You can review the AFC workflow at WP:AFCR. It is up to you if you also want to mark your AFC accepts as NPP reviewed (this is allowed but optional, depends if you would like a second set of eyes on your accept). Don't forget that draftspace is optional, so moves of drafts to mainspace (even if they are not ready) should not be reverted, except possibly if there is conflict of interest.

Pro tip: Did you know that visual artists such as painters have their own SNG? The most common part of this "creative professionals" criteria that applies to artists is WP:ARTIST 4b (solo exhibition, not group exhibition, at a major museum) or 4d (being represented within the permanent collections of two museums).


Crotalus Oreganus[edit]

Hello Elmidae,

I saw that you reverted my edit on the page Crotalus oreganus. Given that there are numerous other articles on species where the common name comes before the scientific name, I would like to have your opinion on why this page deserves to be written differently. I'm open to listening to anyone of your reasoning.

Sincerely, BLITZKRIEGCAT (talk) 16:35, 24 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@BlitzkriegCat: The convention is that the first sentence of the lede attributes the text to the name of the article, then other names. That means that if the article name is "Common name", the first sentence usually goes "Common name (scientific name) is a ..."; if the article name is "Scientific name", then it usually goes "Scientific name, known as common Name, is ...". You might agree that this is a sensible arrangement to spare the reader needless puzzlement. If you think that for this article it should be the other way around than currently in use, that would be an argument about moving (i.e., renaming) the article itself to the common name. However, that is not entirely straightforward, as Crotalus_oreganus#Common_names will show, and I would argue against any such proposal. Cheers --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 17:38, 24 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Elmidae Alright then, I can buy into this convention. BLITZKRIEGCAT (talk) 17:53, 24 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

New pages patrol needs your help![edit]

New pages awaiting review as of June 30th, 2023.

Hello Elmidae,

The New Page Patrol team is sending you this impromptu message to inform you of a steeply rising backlog of articles needing review. If you have any extra time to spare, please consider reviewing one or two articles each day to help lower the backlog. You can start reviewing by visiting Special:NewPagesFeed. Thank you very much for your help.


Sent by Zippybonzo using MediaWiki message delivery at 06:58, 1 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Could you check, please?[edit]

Hello :-) Worked hard to add another article about a super rare disease: NTBI-Glycolysis-Cytopathy (NG-Cytopathy). But where if not here? People need to know. Would you be so kind to check it? As far as I understand this is necessary. Thanks a lot! BenjaminFeldman (talk) 23:18, 11 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@BenjaminFeldman: I'm currently seeing two issues with the article: one, the sourcing needs to be improved. More than half of the sections do not have a single source. This is especially crucial for medical articles because they are subject to stricter guidelines (WP:MEDRS). Second, it is not entirely clear to me that this is a recognized condition on its own, rather than just a coincident combination of separate conditions. The only source that seems to treat it as an entity is Jakovleva et al., as far as I can see (this source is in there twice, BTW). If the name is not in common usage, then that would be a case of synthesis on your part, which is not something we can do here. Can you show some sources that specifially discuss "NG-Cytopathy" as a discrete condition?
Because of the sourcing issues, I have moved the article to draft for the time being (Draft:NTBI-Glycolysis-Cytopathy (NG-Cytopathy)) where it can be worked on without pressure. Cheers --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 06:18, 12 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks. This is a very recent finding. Therefore, let’s delete the draft, please. I will wait a year or two until more studies are on the table, and then write a new article. It’s an extremely rare condition, therefore we have time. Most likely there will be way more works on it in the near future. By then the terminology should also be more reliable. Therefore, could you pls. delete the draft? I was a but too early I guess. I am professionally so much into these topics that in this case I was not strict enough towards myself. Thanks again! BenjaminFeldman (talk) 10:40, 12 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
WP:There is no deadline :) --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 10:56, 12 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks! As you can see I am not experienced at all in this space here. I will definitely wait for more paper/studies etc. to be published. Whenever one is professionally involved in such topics one might forget that what is crystal clear for oneself might be too early for an encyclopedia. At least as long as there is not a coherent terminology and some papers are stuck in the peer review process. One tends to forget that the general public who is the audience here needs that clarity. I have the topic on my agenda and will see how the situation looks like in a year or two. There are other topics that have also to be added to Wikipedia, more established ones. To bring them in is better invested energy I guess. I thank you for your guidance. Have a pleasant day. BenjaminFeldman (talk) 17:27, 12 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Baltic sea[edit]

Hello, Elmidae,

I do not understand your revert on this page.

no part of Ukraine is part of the drainage divide of any river flowing into the Baltic Sea (See : Drainage divide). You revered my correction without explanation, so I guess you have a different definition of what constitutes a basin country ?

thank you in advance.

SarmentFurtif (talk) 11:39, 10 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@SarmentFurtif: in such cases, check the referenced source, which for this statement is this. You can see that parts of western Ukraine are within the drainage basin - not much, but it does go a hundred or so km deep along one sub-system. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 11:59, 10 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Pileated woodpecker[edit]

Hi Elmidae! A colleague at the place where I work pointed me toward a citation on the "Pileated woodpecker" page which seems to be bogus ("Woodpecker excavations promote tree decay and carbon storage in an old forest"); this citation was added by Filippetr2 back in March. After doing a quick search for it and realizing that the DOI was misassigned and the title did not yield any hits, I removed it. We suspect this was an AI-generated citation. Either way, I removed it and made a note on the WP:LLM talk page. I was wondering if you had any thoughts about this?--Gen. Quon[Talk] 14:09, 28 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Gen. Quon: beats me, frankly. I just went looking after this as well when I saw you remove it. Not only does the DOI point somewhere else, but no issue in this year of the paper's run has page numbers > 600, whereas this is stated to be in the 700s. It's nowhere in the adjacent volumes either. So, yeah - a hoax. I have no idea what the point of that was, seeing that the attributed statement seems credible and quite uncontroversial. Thanks for verifying! --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 14:18, 28 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Deletion discussion invitation[edit]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gyurkovicsarna. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:32, 31 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

WikiProject Tree of Life Newsletter Issue 21[edit]

August 2023—Issue 021

Tree of Life

Welcome to the Tree of Life newsletter!
Newly recognized content

Australiformis by Mattximus
Rodrigues night heron by FunkMonk
Titanis by Augustios Paleo
List of lorisoids by PresN
List of storks by AryKun
Brontosaurus by Augustios Paleo, reviewed by The Morrison Man
Eukaryote by Chiswick Chap, reviewed by Fritzmann2002
Stramenopile by Chiswick Chap, reviewed by Fritzmann2002
Titanoboa by Augustios Paleo, reviewed by SilverTiger12
Antarctopelta by Augustios Paleo, reviewed by Jens Lallensack
Anna Blackburne by Kusma, reviewed by Etriusus
Anomochilus leonardi by AryKun, reviewed by Amitchell125
Nyctibatrachus manalari by AryKun, reviewed by Sammi Brie
Mimodactylus by FunkMonk, reviewed by Jens Lallensack
Nyctibatrachus major by AryKun, reviewed by Etriusus
Anomochilus weberi by AryKun, reviewed by Etriusus
Plant by Chiswick Chap, reviewed by Cessaune

Newly nominated content

Ohmdenosaurus by Jens Lallensack
Polar bear by LittleJerry
Mimodactylus by FunkMonk
List of cercopithecoids by PresN
List of tapaculos by AryKun
Klallamornis by Larrayal
Hypericum perforatum by Fritzmann2002
Holozoa by Snoteleks
Teloschistaceae by Esculenta
Carcharodontosaurus by Augustios Paleo
Nyctibatrachus radcliffei by AryKun
Anomochilus by AryKun

Discuss this issue

You are receiving this because you added your name to the subscribers list of the WikiProject Tree of Life. If you no longer wish to receive the newsletter, please remove your name.

Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:14, 31 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Could you check, please?[edit]

Hello :-) Would you be so kind to check the new article Oshtoran Syndrome. I worked hard on it and it would be a pity if it ends in the unchecked desert. And please, no internal link to PANS. Therefore the link to Standford. This topic has, for reasons only the Lord knows, been a battleground in the English Wikipedia of which the new article should not become a part of. Thanks so much in advance -BenjaminFeldman (talk) 11:56, 8 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

about philippine eagle diplomacy[edit]

those are sourced from the website of the philippine eagle foundation. specifically for the pair which goes into more detail into them. what makes you think its unsourced?? Kurt247 (talk) 00:30, 9 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

cmon answer something Kurt247 (talk) 02:39, 9 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Article talk page. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 07:18, 9 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

New page patrol October 2023 Backlog drive[edit]

New Page Patrol | October 2023 Backlog Drive
  • On 1 October, a one-month backlog drive for New Page Patrol will begin.
  • Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles and redirects patrolled.
  • Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive.
  • Articles will earn 3x as many points compared to redirects.
  • Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:13, 9 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

New pages patrol newsletter[edit]

Hello Elmidae,

New Page Review article queue, March to September 2023

Backlog update: At the time of this message, there are 11,300 articles and 15,600 redirects awaiting review. This is the highest backlog in a long time. Please help out by doing additional reviews!

October backlog elimination drive: A one-month backlog drive for October will start in one week! Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles and redirects patrolled. Articles will earn 4x as many points compared to redirects. You can sign up here.

PageTriage code upgrades: Upgrades to the PageTriage code, initiated by the NPP open letter in 2022 and actioned by the WMF Moderator Tools Team in 2023, are ongoing. More information can be found here. As part of this work, the Special:NewPagesFeed now has a new version in beta! The update leaves the NewPagesFeed appearance and function mostly identical to the old one, but updates the underlying code, making it easier to maintain and helping make sure the extension is not decommissioned due to maintenance issues in the future. You can try out the new Special:NewPagesFeed here - it will replace the current version soon.

Notability tip: Professors can meet WP:PROF #1 by having their academic papers be widely cited by their peers. When reviewing professor articles, it is a good idea to find their Google Scholar or Scopus profile and take a look at their h-index and number of citations. As a very rough rule of thumb, for most fields, articles on people with a h-index of twenty or more, a first-authored paper with more than a thousand citations, or multiple papers each with more than a hundred citations are likely to be kept at AfD.

Reviewing tip: If you would like like a second opinion on your reviews or simply want another new page reviewer by your side when patrolling, we recommend pair reviewing! This is where two reviewers use Discord voice chat and screen sharing to communicate with each other while reviewing the same article simultaneously. This is a great way to learn and transfer knowledge.


MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:45, 22 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]