Thank you for uploadingImage:Manual sprayer.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takescopyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine thelicense and thesource of the image. If you know this information, then you can add acopyright tag to theimage description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at themedia copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page.STBotI (talk)15:57, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. A page you recently created,Ultra low volume, may not conform to some of Wikipedia'sguidelines for new pages, so it will shortly beremoved (if it hasn't been already). Please use thesandbox for any tests. For more information about creating articles, you may want to readYour first article. You may also want to read ourintroduction page to learn more about contributing. Thank you.Cunard (talk)00:15, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed onUltra-Low Volume, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done undersection G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article seems to be blatant advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read ourthe guidelines on spam as well as theWikipedia:Business' FAQ for more information.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding{{hangon}} tothe top ofthe page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note onthe talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged forspeedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contactone of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you.Kkmurray (talk)01:11, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. One of the core policies of Wikipedia is that articles should always be written from aneutral point of view. A contribution you made toOrganic farming appears to carry a non-neutral point of view, and your edit may have been changed or reverted to correct the problem. Please remember to observe ourcore policies. Thank you.NeilN^{talk ♦contribs}06:05, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I replied to you about theecological pesticides merge thing somewhere, but I can't find it. Basically I want to move all the ecological pesticides into one page. From there we can separate them if necessary, but I'm not sure it will be necessary for at least a little while. Right now there's like 3 or 4 "bio" pesticide articles out there. Too messy.ImperfectlyInformed |talk -contribs03:11, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed onPesticide formulation, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under thecriteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing no content to the reader. Please note that external links, "See also" section, book reference, category tag, template tag, interwiki link, rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article don't count as content. Please seeWikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be onnotable subjects and should provide references toreliable sources thatverify their content.

Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. If you plan to expand the article, you can request thatadministrators wait a while for you to add contextual material. To do this, affix the template{{hangon}} to the page and state your intention on the article'stalk page. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this.PamD (talk)15:15, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't fast enough before - this was indeed a bit of a stub, but surely a subject like this didn't warrant deletion!

Many thanks for recent edits (23 May) - cleaned up enough yet?

rgdsRoy Bateman (talk)15:41, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like you got caught up in a bit of beurocracy there Roy. Don't take it personally, administrators have to deal with a lot of dubious material everyday, and a legitimate but short article can sometimes be deleted in the crossfire. Since the article has been fleshed out, it's unlikely to be deleted again. Best regards,Jefffire (talk)15:46, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's a lack of common sense in Wikipedia.ImpIn | {talk -contribs}16:52, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Given that there have been experiments showing symptoms similar to CCD from some neonics, there is at least a reason tonot rule out pesticide effects in the CCD phenomenon. Not that pesticidescause CCD, but that pesticide effects might beconfused with CCD. Of all the "alternative theories" that people have come up with, the pesticide one is about the only one that can't truly be ruled out entirely, but only for this reason - it certainly can't explain all the CCD cases from the 1970's and such, since that whole class of pesticides didn't even exist back then. But that doesn't mean they can't be playing a role now in creating problems for bees. It would be nice if someone would put this in print (that neonic poisoning could be mistaken for CCD), in which case we could remove the pesticide section from the CCD article and redirect readers elsewhere. In the meanwhile, good going with the edits.Dyanega (talk)20:29, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for uploadingFile:LPA Serratia.JPG. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takescopyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine thelicense and thesource of the file. If you know this information, then you can add acopyright tag to theimage description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by followingthis link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at themedia copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation.Polly (Parrot)14:28, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've reverted your spelling changes of mould->mold in theFungus article. The article is written using American English, and according to theWP:MOS, "When an article has evolved sufficiently for it to be clear which variety it employs, the whole article should continue to conform to that variety, unless there are reasons for changing it based on strong national ties to the topic." Further, it is not acceptable to change the spelling of titles of the sources (even if not consistent with the style of English spelling used in the Wiki article). Your other changes look fine (to me), but there are other editors who watch the article that might disagree later :) Cheers,Sasata (talk)19:11, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK Sasata - I confess that, though I have American mycologist friends I had never come across "mold" before and thought it was a mis-spelling!! I added aspelling differences phrase at the beginning for the benefit of others like me on this side of the pond. FYI I am about to do some edits tobiological pesticides and set up aLecanicillium lecanii page - can't believe it hasn't been done already - pointed out to me by confused students. Any peer review much appreciated. BrgdsRoy Bateman (talk)16:28, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I was wanting to change the first sentence in the article from:

• Lecanicillium lecanii is now an approved name of anentomopathogenic fungus species, that was previously widely known asVerticillium lecanii (Zimmerman) Viegas), but is now understood to be ananamorphic form in theCordyceps group of genera in theClavicipitaceae <ref>Zare R, Gams W. (2001) A revision of ''Verticillium'' sect. ''Prostrata''. III. Generic classification. Nova Hedwigia. '''72''': 329-337</ref>. ---->
• Lecanicillium lecanii is anentomopathogenic fungus species, that was known previous to XXXX asVerticillium lecanii (Zimmerman) Viegas), but is now understood to be ananamorphic form in theCordyceps group of genera in theClavicipitaceae. <ref>Zare R, Gams W. (2001) A revision of ''Verticillium'' sect. ''Prostrata''. III. Generic classification. Nova Hedwigia. '''72''': 329-337</ref>

I was wondering if you could please fill in the XXXX with the year that it got the official name change. The edit, of course, is for the purpose of reducing the recentism feel. Thanks01:39, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I just saw your edit summary, is 2001 the XXXX?01:40, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you recently editedPhytophthora, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation pageInvasive (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles.Read theFAQ • Join us at theDPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow theseopt-out instructions. Thanks,DPL bot (talk)10:46, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good point - have corrected it.Roy Bateman (talk)12:38, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you recently editedIntegrated pest management, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation pagePest (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles.Read theFAQ • Join us at theDPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow theseopt-out instructions. Thanks,DPL bot (talk)12:05, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK - fixed - so had to sort out definition of 'pest' as well ...Roy Bateman (talk)08:42, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you editedPest (organism), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation pagePlague (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles.Read theFAQ • Join us at theDPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow theseopt-out instructions. Thanks,DPL bot (talk)11:25, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing todisambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles.Read theFAQ • Join us at theDPL WikiProject.

Helopeltis (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing toPests

Tea (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing toPests

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow theseopt-out instructions. Thanks,DPL bot (talk)00:53, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you editedBeauveria bassiana, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation pageIsolate (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles.Read theFAQ • Join us at theDPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow theseopt-out instructions. Thanks,DPL bot (talk)12:41, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cite error: The named reference<ref name=""Roberts1999"" > were invoked but never defined >>> seehttps://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rhizoctonia_solani&diff=572298893&oldid=543102361 Please fix - thanks --Frze^{> talk}23:10, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is now fixed - a good reference is:http://www.lsuagcenter.com/NR/rdonlyres/C93A494B-8105-4804-9DFA-81190EC3F68B/58166/pub3123ShealthBlightofRiceHIGHRES.pdf. ThanksRoy Bateman (talk)10:57, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you editedRice, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation pageChilo (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles.Read theFAQ • Join us at theDPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow theseopt-out instructions. Thanks,DPL bot (talk)11:36, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you editedAcanthosaura coronata, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation pageDong Nai (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles.Read theFAQ • Join us at theDPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow theseopt-out instructions. Thanks,DPL bot (talk)09:33, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you editedAcanthosaura capra, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation pageDorsal (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles.Read theFAQ • Join us at theDPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow theseopt-out instructions. Thanks,DPL bot (talk)13:35, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Roy Bateman. You have new messages atSminthopsis84's talk page.
You canremove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you editedMetarhizium brunneum, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pagesChinch bug,Isolate andPetch. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles.Read theFAQ • Join us at theDPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow theseopt-out instructions. Thanks,DPL bot (talk)09:06, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Howdy. Question about a rather old edit of yours please. Inthis edit, you removedLagerstroemia anisoptera fromLagerstroemia#Selected species as part of a larger change with the edit summary " Added accepted spp. fromThe Plant List".The given source listsLagerstroemia anisoptera when checked now, albeit with "Unresolved" status. I wanted to check your rational for removal; given that we have an article forLagerstroemia anisoptera should it be on the list onLagerstroemia? Cheers. -TB (talk) 18:06, 18 July 2015 (UTC)Hello TB. I can only think that must have been a mistake on my part (now restored) - for which I apologise. As I understand, the list is incomplete and I was keen to include all the species in [Cat Tien National Park] at the time ... it would be good to complete the list:http://zipcodezoo.com/Key/Plantae/Lagerstroemia_Genus.asp was a reference I found previously. BestRoy Bateman (talk)04:51, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission toArticles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Onel5969 was:

The proposed article does not have sufficient content to require an article of its own, but it could be merged into the existing article atTropical and subtropical moist broadleaf forests. Since anyone can edit Wikipedia, you are welcome to add that information yourself. Thank you.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmitwhen they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go toUser:Roy Bateman/sandbox and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at theArticles for creation help desk or on thereviewer's talk page.
• You can also getWikipedia's Live Help real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Onel5969^{TT me}14:02, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello!Roy Bateman,I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be disappointing. If you are wondering or curious about why your article submission was declined please post a question at theArticles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at theTeahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there!Onel5969TT me14:02, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission toArticles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Dodger67 was:

I agree with the previous reviewer that this should be merged into the already existing articleTropical and subtropical moist broadleaf forests.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmitwhen they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go toUser:Roy Bateman/sandbox and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at theArticles for creation help desk or on thereviewer's talk page.
• You can also getWikipedia's Live Help real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Roger (Dodger67) (talk)19:56, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the currentArbitration Committee election. TheArbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipediaarbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to imposesite bans,topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. Thearbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome toreview the candidates' statements and submit your choices onthe voting page. For the Election committee,MediaWiki message delivery (talk)13:46, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you editedCát Tiên National Park, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation pageVulnerable. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles.Read theFAQ • Join us at theDPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow theseopt-out instructions. Thanks,DPL bot (talk)15:21, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you editedTropical climate, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation pageDavao. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles.Read theFAQ • Join us at theDPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow theseopt-out instructions. Thanks,DPL bot (talk)11:34, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I appreciate your edits toTetrameles, but there's a standard order of sections agreed for plant articles – seeWikipedia:WikiProject Plants/Template (which is a bit over-the-top in its detail, in my view). It's important to source all vernacular names, just as other information in the article. If I can help or advise with editing Wikipedia articles in any way, please leave me a note on my talk page.Peter coxhead (talk)14:24, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Roy Bateman. Voting in the2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

TheArbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting theWikipedia 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 imposesite bans,topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. Thearbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please reviewthe candidates' statements and submit your choices onthe voting page.MediaWiki message delivery (talk)22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I've turned 'anna' into a redirect to 'ana'. If you got it wrong, someone else looking for it might well do the same. Don't forget that if you do make a mess of a title, it's easiest to 'move' it to the proper title. This leaves a redirect automatically. If the mess is so bad no-one is likely to type it into search (baring in mind that a lotof peeple cant spel...), tag it with {{db-r3}} (recent implausible redirect) or {{db-g7}} (one author request for deletion). Moving keeps the creation history complete, which is most important when someone else has edited before you realise the mistake). For me, I'd have thought that annamensis would have been the right one (as the country used to be Annam), but both spellings seem to occur in various genera (as well as for the same species...) on Google.Peridon (talk)14:41, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to take a liberty and de-ref the floating references at the bottom of this page. The refs will still be there in the post, but they won't float. If you like them floating at the bottom, just undo my top edit in your history.Peridon (talk)14:45, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'mZackmann08. Thank you for your recent contributions toCycas inermis. I noticed that when you added the image to theinfobox, you added it as athumbnail. In the future, please do not use thumbnails when adding images to an infobox (seeWP:INFOBOXIMAGE). What does this mean? Well in the infobox, when you specify the image you wish to use, instead of doing it like this:

|image=[[File:SomeImage.jpg|thumb|Some image caption]]

Instead just supply the name of the image. So in this case you can simply do:

|image=SomeImage.jpg.

There will then be a separate parameter for the image caption such as|caption=Some image caption. Please note that this is a generic form message I am leaving on your page because you recently added a thumbnail to an infobox. The specific parameters for the image and caption may be different for the infobox you are using! Please consult the Template page for the infobox being used to see better documentation. Thanks!Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing})17:40, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Roy Bateman. You have new messages atPeridon's talk page.
Message added18:27, 5 January 2017 (UTC). You canremove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Peridon (talk)18:27, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing todisambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles.Read theFAQ • Join us at theDPL WikiProject.

Spondias pinnata

added links pointing toVietnamese,Khmer,Petiole andCalyx

Colona evecta

added links pointing toVietnamese andKhmer

Artocarpus rigidus

added a link pointing toWilliam Griffiths

Entada phaseoloides

added a link pointing toPods

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow theseopt-out instructions. Thanks,DPL bot (talk)10:46, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you editedColona auriculata, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation pageColona. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles.Read theFAQ • Join us at theDPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow theseopt-out instructions. Thanks,DPL bot (talk)10:16, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Roy Bateman, I just want to pass along some thoughts on these categories. For example with your edithere you added the categoryCategory:Flora of Vietnam. However I think this is already covered withCategory:Trees of Indo-China, of whichCategory:Trees of Vietnam is a subcategory. When a species is widely distributed in a region, asXylia xylocarpa is in Indo-China, it's better to use the regional category. This saves adding a potentially long list of country categories where one regional category could suffice. If there are just a few countries, then it would be okay to list them individually. For example if the species were native only to Vietnam and Laos, then those country categories would be fine. I hope this helps a bit. ThanksDeclangi (talk)05:17, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Declangi. Indeed - I was wondering about the 'form' for categories: I have been working on the flora and fauna ofCat Tien National Park, and have set-up quite a number of new pages (and adding info. to existing ones like this). As well as categorising the taxonomy, I have tended to list these underCategory:Flora of Vietnam - and should probably also includedCategory:Trees of Indo-China: these two sets will have mutually inclusive, but also excluded species of course. I suspect that people may look-up under "trees" or "flora", in which case, might it not be better to have both? Brgds RoyRoy Bateman (talk)08:22, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As far having both categories (a regional category and a category for a country within a region), this is not the recommended approach for plant articles. And in general, the Wikipedia guidelines for categories are to not place an article in both a parent and child category.WP:PLANTS/WGSRPD discusses the guidelines more specifically, saying for example (paraphrasing) "...a more limited distribution best described by regional boundaries (e.g. "Flora of Northern Europe" or "Flora of the Southeastern United States"), then place it only in those regional geography categories and exclude it from child categories of those". So in this caseCategory:Trees of Indo-China is such a regional category,X. xylocarpa being a tree of Indo-China (and India).Declangi (talk)19:34, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if I seem pedantic, but isn't "flora" the parent of "trees"? I would be OK withCategory:Flora of Indo-China I suppose ...Roy Bateman (talk)15:49, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

These categories are a mix of what the plant is and where it is native to. For what it is, it's best to be specific as possible, so Tree is more specific than Flora. For distribution, the categories should indicate the native range, but using regional or continental categories for plants with a wide distribution. This article says "This tree is found in South and Southeast Asia", thereforeCategory:Trees of India andCategory:Trees of Indo-China works best. If a plant is native to most countries in Africa, we would use an Africa category rather than dozens of country categories. It's really a case of what fits best for the article and avoidingWP:OVERCAT. The above category scheme,WP:PLANTS/WGSRPD, has been worked on extensively by editors atWP:PLANTS and represents current best practice. The parallel plant hierarchies like "Trees of", "Orchids of", "Grasses of", "Endemic flora of" etc. should also follow the same geographic scheme. These more specific hierarchies have the effect of mitigating very large individual categories. SeeCategory:Flora of China for an example of what is still a very large category, but one that would be even larger without its hierarchy.Declangi (talk)21:30, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"WP:PLANTS/WGSRPD, has been worked on extensively by editors ..." - which appears to exclusively use the term "Flora ...". Incidentally, I set up the pageList of trees of Cambodia as a page rather than a category (since there appeared to be very little PD info. on this) - what do you think? One of the problems we have here in the jungle is deciding "what constitutes a tree?": with phenomena such as mature stranglers and partially self-supporting lianas.Roy Bateman (talk)04:44, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

YourList of trees of Cambodia is a great idea and thanks for your considerable effort that went into creating it. Such list articles serve a very useful purpose of collecting information that is hard to get at by other means. A particular advantage is being able to list species (red-linked) that do not yet have an article and that hopefully would encourage interested editors to create something or translate from an other-language Wikipedia. By the way, I took the liberty of adding a couple of list categories to your article, another way for those interested to find your article. Speaking of "tree-ness", when categorising I tend to go with the description from the reference I'm using. So if the reference says "grows as a shrub or small tree" then that would go in a "Flora of" category. But "grows as a tree 15–30m tall" would go in a "Trees of" category. If in doubt, "Flora of" is just fine, lianas seem like such a case.Declangi (talk)08:41, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you editedCrateva, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation pageKurz. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles.Read theFAQ • Join us at theDPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow theseopt-out instructions. Thanks,DPL bot (talk)11:11, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you maycontest the nomination byvisiting 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 removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line withWikipedia's policies and guidelines.Adem20^talk10:56, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for creatingTân Phú (thị trấn in Đồng Nai), Roy Bateman!

Wikipedia editorBoleyn just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Can you please add your sources?

To reply, leave a comment on Boleyn'stalk page.

Learn more aboutpage curation.

Boleyn (talk)13:26, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for creatingIsaria fumosorosea, Roy Bateman!

Wikipedia editorNicnote just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Thank you for this wonderful page!

To reply, leave a comment on Nicnote'stalk page.

Learn more aboutpage curation.

Nicnote •ask me a question •contributions15:48, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop revertingLittleJerry's removal of your comments from their Talk page. Editors are permitted to remove your comments and any other content from their own Talk pages, and if and when they do, you are not to restore them. SeeWP:OWNTALK.22:38, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My objective was to post explanation of a {uw-3rr} there - do I need to formally complain?Roy Bateman (talk)22:41, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my answer on my Talk page, where you also posted this question.23:57, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Roy Bateman, I just wanted to let you know that I haveadded the "autopatrolled" permission to your account, as you have created numerous, valid articles. This feature will have no effect on your editing, and is simply intended to reduce the workload onnew page patrollers. For more information on the patroller right, seeWikipedia:Autopatrolled. Feel free to leave me a message if you have any questions. Happy editing! --There'sNoTime^{(to explain)}10:09, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Roy; I've no strong opinion on the spelling issue, but please do not performcut-and-paste moves. If the article is in the wrong place, use themove function. This isn't a particularly egregious case, but, in other instances, it might be. Nonetheless, I'll perform ahistory merge.Josh Milburn (talk)12:40, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Josh - Apologies for using the wrong procedure - 'move' function now noted.Q. asymmetrica is the correct spelling - checked on 2 data-bases.Quercus asymetrica was actually a bit of an orphan - I came across it by chance, linked it correctly with theCyclobalanopsis sub-genus and tried to preserve all the original information on the new page: together with additional information.Roy Bateman (talk)13:35, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mea culpa - I did the same withQ. camusiae (which was a synonym) - thanksUser:Plantdrew for sorting out that one.Roy Bateman (talk)13:58, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That looks more like amerge than a copy-paste move, but we could merge histories to be on the safe side, perhaps. I saw that I'd created the page atQuercus asymetrica; judging from "what links here", I will have done that to fill a redlink inPhellinus ellipsoideus (I'm generally more interested in fungi than trees). I don't know whether that was my mistake or whether I was following a source with a misspelling; either way, I'm glad it's sorted now!Josh Milburn (talk)15:14, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that youve been systematically going through Wikipedai articles, changing every instance of the usage of rainforest or tropical rainforest to either tropical forest or true rainforest. Could you please stop. You have done this in many instances, eg Jungle and Daintree National Park, where it directly contradicts the references given for the statement. You simply can not change well referenced statments on Wikipedia. If it is supported by a reliable source, the stament has to remain. Even in cases where it doesn't directly contradict the references, in all cases doing do is corrupting the meaning of other editors. The term rainforest is well understood and commonly used by both laypeople and us ecologists. It has a specific meaning. Tropical forest has a different and less well defined meeaning. The terms are not interchangeable, yet you insist on using the interchanagably. If you think that rainforest may be the wrong term to use, and it isn't supported by the references, then by all means discuss with other editors your reasons for wanting to change. But you can not simply exchange rainforest for tropical rainforest. That likely will totally change the meaning of the text. A tropical rainforest is a specific type of non-sclerophyll, broadleaf, wet forest. In contrast tropical forest, by most definitions, encompasses dry sclerophyll forests, such as the brigalow, cypress and ecalypt forests of Australia, in addition to monsoon forests and often even savannas. As a result when you change an article so that rainforest becomes tropical forest, you are reducing clarity and accuracy. And yes, I notice that tropical forest redirects to tropical moist forest. This is something that needs to be corrected, but does not make what you are doing any more valid. The same applies to your usage of "true rainforest". Ther is no such thing as true rainforest. There are literally hundreds of vegetation classification schemes used thoughout the world, most with there own definition of rainforest. The "dry rainforest" vegetation type favoured by Australian ecologists or the "Pacific Northwest rainforest" favoured by American foresters or the "equatorial rainforest" favoured Indian vegetation scientists are every bit as much "true" rainforests as anything else. I get the impression that you think that this Global 200 scheme is the only valid scheme for classifying vegetation. It is in fact just a list of high conservation priority regions. Its not a comprehensive list of biomes, nor did the authors intend it to be. You will find there are a great many vegetation types that don't fit anywhere in that scheme. Even if it were comprehensive, that would not make it more valid then the systems used by other institutions around the world. So would you please refrain from changing every instance of the use of rainforest to some other term. Thank youMark Marathon (talk)07:54, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No changes have been (or ever will be) made to articles that refer to sites in the truetropical rainforest climate zone, but it seems to me that many of the "rainforests" are actually "seasonal tropical forests" (for example here in Vietnam where I work): the latter are very similar to the original "jungles" of India (look-up the etymology of that word). There is a substantial body of scientific literature that contrasts the ecology of seasonal and true rainforests: which usually do not occur more than 10 deg. N and S of the equator. This is also important because it is also perhaps the zone of greatest biological diversity, with many species yet to be discovered. I am well aware that Daintree NP is referred-to as a "rainforest", but (dare I say) it seems to me that this is a misnomer. I would have thought it was a classicmonsoon forest on the coast (with a strong dry season), gradually turning into moresavanah-type climates inland. "Dry rainforest" almost seems like an oxymoron surely! I would dearly like to visit Daintree rainforest (for that is its name!) someday - and I did check on the climate patterns before making the change you refer-to. The fact that there are several eco-zone classifications makes it all rather confusing but I don't think we should get too hung-up on names: the important thing is to appreciate the diversity. I liked "tropical forest" because it actually forwards toTropical and subtropical moist broadleaf forests - which is rather a mouthful, but I think the page nicely explains, distinguishes and forwards to the various ecosystems (BTW I am NOT a great fan of and theGlobal 200 scheme, but understand it is widely-used). Does this make sense to you?Roy Bateman (talk)12:30, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Where to start:

1) We are not discussing any “true tropical rainforest climate zone”, nor are the articles. The articles are discussing rainforests, regardless of which climatic zone they are in.

2) There is no “true tropical rainforest climate zone”. You have linked to one scheme, it isn’t the “true”, it’s simply one example.

3) A forest doesn’t cease to be a rainforest just because it falls outside of some climate scheme, any more than a forest becomes a rainforest simply because it falls within a rainforest climate zone. There are savannas and alpine steppe in rainforest climatic zones, just as there are rainforests in savanna or alpine climatic zones. Climatic zones, especially coarse ones such as Koppen, are blunt instruments at best.

4) You seem to think that a community must be either "rainforest" or "seasonal tropical forests". That’s simply untrue. There are literally hundreds of classification schemes and any community will inevitably fall into several of them. So your communities "are" rainforests and they "are" seasonal tropical forests, both at the same time under different scheme. It’s not a dichotomy. Kew Gardens, Nature and the Cambodian Journal of Natural History and every other major Journal in the world are quite content that the wet forests of Vietnam are rainforests. Whether they are seasonal tropical forests under some other scheme doesn’t change the fact that they are rainforests under schemes that the editors of Nature and botanists at Kew are quite comfortable with.

5) There is no such thing as a “true” rainforest. If the botanists at Kew and the editors at Nature think it’s a rainforest, it’s a rainforest as far as the world of science is concerned. Some authors may well prefer other schemes that make some other distinction. That doesn’t make the botanists at the world’s premier herbaria or the editors of the world’s most prestigious journals "wrong". What they say is “true”. That doesn’t mean that your preferred scheme is not also “true”. Once again, it’s not a dichotomy. But it does make any claims that these rainforests are not “true” somewhat unsustainable when the folks at Kew and Nature say otherwise

6) If rainforests do not occur more than 10 deg. N and S of the equator then you had better tell the people at the Royal Society of new Zealand, Journal of Zoology, Journal of Biogeography, Institute of British Geographers and Nature Conservation. Because they are all quite happy that they exist in New Zealand. Ditto for the Pacific Northwest of North Am, where, once again, the good folks at both Kew and Nature think there are rainforests.

7) You think that the Daintree Rainforest is a misnomer. Firstly Wikipedia policies don’t much care what editors think on issues of fact. If the reliable references label it a rainforest then that’s what goes in the article. Changing the article to contradict those references is vandalism, and will be reported as such if it keeps happening. The references provided said it is the oldest rainforest in the world. That’s what the article must say. You can not change it to “tropical forest” because the references do not say it’s the oldest tropical forest. And secondly, when the editors at Biological Conservation, Nature, Forest Ecology and Management, Austral Ecology and the scientists at Kew, CSIRO and the ANBG all say that the Daintree is tropical rainforest, you are on pretty shaky ground gainsaying them. When every scientific organisation in the world disagrees with you, that might be the time to reconsider your position.

8) You would have thought it was a classic monsoon forest on the coast (with a strong dry season), gradually turning into more savanah-type climates inland. You would have been simply wrong. Failure to do the research is not grounds for changing articles to misrepresent the sources on Wikipedia. I might also add that it’s not acceptable in real life science either. Reviewers and editors don’t; like people who misrepresent their sources any more than they like people who don’t do basic research, like looking at the Queensland Herbariums veg maps.

9) "Dry rainforest" may seems like an oxymoron to you, but the folks at Australian Herbaria, CSIRO, Austral Ecology and every Department of Environment and Forestry in Australia disagree with you.

10) You checked on the climate patterns before making the changes, yet you didn’t notice that the rainfall for Daintree is considerably higher in every month than, say, Manaus, in the heart of the Amazon? Do you perhaps think that the Amazon is also not a “True Rainforest”? Or are there some other figures that you are talking about? I can't think what, since soil moisture, canopy density, tree height and diversity figures all show the sme thing. You don't get 40 metre tall trees in classic monsoon forest.

Anyway, the important thing is that you please stop doing this. If a reliable source supports a statement in an article, you can’t just change the wording of the article so it says something else. That’s vandalism..Mark Marathon (talk)04:02, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh please - not the V word! (kindly look-up what vandalism in WP means, before making accusations) - I note that you have a history of discourtesy in WP, several complaints about edit warring and a temporary ban in 2014; therefore I do not wish to spend much longer on this. Just to clarify my views:

• If I havesubstantially changed any statement so that it becomes inconsistent with the references, then it is an oversight on my part, for which I apologise.
• However, it seems to me that much of this is a matter of semantics, over which there are clearly different opinions (just as there are various systems classifying the Worldbiomes). Debate over these matters will go on interminably I suspect, and I for one don't wished to get bogged-down with this.
• There areof course alsotemperate rainforests (as in New Zealand), but many of the world's forests are subject to seasonality, which has a very significant influence on the flora and fauna present; this is the literature to which I refer. Therefore IMHO not to consider climate would be a big mistake and theKoppen classification seems to me to be a useful descriptive tool: it is indeed a "blunt instrument", but I never suggested it should be used on its own. Do you have a problem with this?
• Your point 6 seems obtuse - that is "tropical rainforest". The notion I wished to make (possibly not very well) is that as you move to other latitudes and climate zones there are of courseecotones, which can make characterisation of a given area somewhat problematic. You effectively say this in #4 – I don't understand why you imagine I would think otherwise.
  • The point of usingtropical forest is indeed that it is generic, thus mitigating some of these issues. I see that you have taken the trouble of changing this from a redirect to an explanatory page … I would be very pleased to support you with this (and will oppose speedy deletion), but only on the basis ofcourteous debate on how to navigate this 'lexicological minefield' (apparently).
  • You quote various institutions, but I see considerable inconsistency in the scientific literature. For example "seasonal tropical forest" is regularly used by Smithsonian Institution people to describe the forest inBarro Colorado Island. Personally, I like this term – it most usefully encompasses "monsoon forest", "mixed tropical forest" and sometimes even "rainforest" which are widely, but sometimes carelessly, used in Thailand and here in Vietnam.
• I therefore have every intention of continuing to use the term "tropical forest" myself. I find it especially useful for describing the habitat of species such asTetrameles nudiflora that range from southern China (subtropical) via southern Vietnam (seasonal TF) through to Malesia (true rainforest) and down to Queensland (whatever terms you wish to use!). I respectfully suggest it might also be useful in Queensland, which is not strictly in the Af zone …

Just to be totally clear, and I hope allay your fears: "Daintree rainforest" is the name of the place and neither I nor anyone else would or should wish to change this. That need not hinder accurate description and debate about what influences and actually occurs in this and adjacent places – isn't that what scientists do? I suggest that it would be better to continue this discussion on thetropical forest talk page, which (with the caveat above) I will support.Roy Bateman (talk)08:17, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that you are once again engaging in this behaviour, altering the wording and misrepresenting the sources on numerous articles, including jungle. i will revert your edits yet aga8in. Please do not engage in this behaviour again without discussing on the talk page and gaining consensus. Thank you.Mark Marathon (talk)06:22, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The consensus was that grasshopper and Caelifera should be the considered the same. Either let this go or contact more people from WikiProject Insects for more opinions for a new consensus before you make these changes. If you revert my redirect before then, I will report you.LittleJerry (talk) 03:31, 25 July 2017 (UTC)"Grasshopper" and Caelifera are not the same: if you pretend otherwise, I would question a lot of your editing here. I have and will continue reverting until you can prove to me that a pygmy mole cricket is a grasshopper. Suggest you continue this discussion on the Caelifera or grasshopper talk page.Roy Bateman (talk)04:34, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I reported you toWikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.LittleJerry (talk)21:11, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You have beenblocked from editing for a period of48 hours foredit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome tomake useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you mayrequest an unblock by first reading theguide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page:{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

During a dispute, you should first try todiscuss controversial changes and seekconsensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seekdispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to requestpage protection.

The full report is atthe edit warring noticeboard. Thank you,EdJohnston (talk)03:53, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Roy Bateman. Voting in the2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

TheArbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting theWikipedia 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 imposesite bans,topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. Thearbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please reviewthe candidates and submit your choices on thevoting page.MediaWiki message delivery (talk)18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently editedOnomarchus, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation pageBush cricket (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links areusually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles.(Read theFAQ • Join us at theDPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow theseopt-out instructions. Thanks,DPL bot (talk)10:35, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently editedDracontomelon, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation pageProtium (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk)09:30, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, only in exceptional circumstances are taxonomy templates (i.e. those of the form "Template:Taxonomy/TAXON") needed for species. You use{{Speciesbox}} in the article and it picks up the taxonomy from the taxonomy template for the genus.

The system is described in full atWP:Autotaxobox system. I'm always willing to help with automated taxoboxes.Peter coxhead (talk)11:11, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently editedCholinergic crisis, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation pageVX (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk)09:29, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently editedConocephalinae, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation pageLesina (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

Done: actually need to change title ofLesina (grasshopper) toLesina (insect).Roy Bateman (talk)02:49, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thisdeleted user talk thread may interest you. Plus it has been noted recently atWikipedia_talk:Automated_taxobox_system#2_July_2018_usage_statistics_update that there are some resistant parties in WP Fungi against the auto taxobox system. seems like the pro-auto folks might need to be more organized to get this through.

Why deleted I wonder? I will add my 2 pennyworth ...Roy Bateman (talk)04:11, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm Flixtey. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed,Capparis micrantha, and have un-reviewed it again. If you have any questions, please ask them onmy talk page. Thank you.

Flixtey (talk)17:14, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

HelloFlixtey I have actually been writingCapparis: there was a small problem here because the international databases appear to completely disagree on distribution!! BrgdsRoy Bateman (talk)17:19, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Cicadomorpha (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing toJohn William Evans

Planthopper (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing toJohn William Evans

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk)09:27, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently editedCicadomorpha, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation pageJohn William Evans (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk)09:11, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently editedTropiduchinae, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation pageEmiliana (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk)13:37, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Roy Bateman. Voting in the2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

TheArbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting theWikipedia 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 imposesite bans,topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. Thearbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please reviewthe candidates and submit your choices on thevoting page.MediaWiki message delivery (talk)18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Grasshopper#Taxonomy, halfway through reading this section I am prompted to thank you for raising some points that seem forever unheard, a virtual run across the room to shake your hand. The thing I keep thinking in my own attempts to convey my concerns is the pov I am addressing is based fallacious conclusions drawn from licensed premises, although logic is not strong subject with me. Regards,cygnis insignis11:35, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello@Cygnis insignis: - I have just re-visited that page - yes indeed, some opinionated people spoiling what would otherwise be a good page (and wasting a lot of time). I will make one more attempt to fix it.Roy Bateman (talk)08:11, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A perplexing situation, although I may be able unpuzzle part of this. You might have noticedTemplate:Insects in culture at the bottom of the page, note also the edit history of that page. Cobbling together content to fit a "traditional" model is the aim, not building content from verifiable and reliable sources; there is no consensus for that approach and this is operating "in parallel" to proper content. This is not restricted to entomology, the same hacking andforking formula is applied to a range of organisms; the facts have to be mangled or invented to suit the title of another article in the seriesCritters in Culture.cygnis insignis22:16, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again@Cygnis insignis: - I wonder if you have any views onTalk:Cricket (insect)#Requested move 29 July 2019. BrgdsRoy Bateman (talk)03:48, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I regret responding, these matters are decided but not resolved by the otherwise disinterested. Forking might be the only way to make things work, but moving the content that defines the article with verifiable concepts leaves a disambiguation page (not a "good article"). The is the situation with 'elephant' articles, a lot of duplication and confusion to suit thefamiliar title. The position in similar discussions has been theremust be an article named [word i hav heard b4].cygnis insignis06:17, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OK - thankscygnis - will add a note on forking - now propose only minor changes to 'cricket' itself.Roy Bateman (talk)12:42, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The user@Plantdrew: has very clear rationales that demonstrate policy demolishes a "cargo cult" approach to article titles on animals.cygnis insignis14:00, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Roy, can you please reconsider the continuous removal of stub templates on stub articles?[1][2][3][4][5] The articles need to be expanded to meet the guidelines for a "start" class encyclopedia article per thesite-wide andproject-specific assessment guidelines before the stub template is removed. Thanks, —Hyperik⌜talk⌟01:40, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry@Hyperik: (whoever you are), but you and I will have to 'agree to disagree' on precisely where this boundary lies – and the more I work on pages, the more I think injudiciously applied stub labels are not fit for purpose. Wikipedia is littered with (other) pages that are clearly 'C' class or higher, but still supposedly "stubs". The next time I find one, I will try to remember to draw your attention to it rather than editing myself. I won't repeat what I have written before, but if they are to have any role, I think stub labels should be 'probationary' in nature and removed once a page has been 'curated'. Stubs "Provide very little meaningful content; may be little more than a dictionary definition": I merely suggest that genus pages containing (i) a complete (checked) list of species and higher taxonomic links (ii) a simple definition with common names and/or geographical information, and (iii) useful links to other sources of information are (sometimes much) more than this. I have suggested 'list' class for genera, but you don't seem to like that either. "Stubs" are typically written by people in a hurry or by robots. Occasionally, they are plainly erroneous: a recent example wasDolichopodainae – which we edited (again, thank you for your help) - so move-on and label as 'job done'. Incidentally, wouldn't it be useful to investigate how a 'systemic' error like this happened in the first place – perhapshere?
If you really must stick your stub logos on articles, why notMorabinae (today's discovery - a subfamily!!) and all the pages that have yet to be converted to the automatic taxobox system … I bet there are thousands out there … Much better still, curate the pages (as much as you can in a reasonable time), and upgrade them to 'start', to indicate the job has been done. I respectfully suggest there are more useful things to be doing: for example, I would greatly value your views on how to handle the taxa betweenPlecoptera and allied orders toPolyneoptera, which you have taken an interest-in. BrgdsRoy Bateman (talk)05:47, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The inclusion ofEuhadenoceus andHadenoceus in Dolichopodaeinae was not erroneous. The bot/bot operatorprovided several sources for the taxonomic placement, e.g.[6], see also[7] (syn. Dolichopodinae).

You don't need to "draw my attention" to a C class article marked as a stub. De-stubbing, both through expansion or just reassessment, is a common task of mine.

I have not seen any consensus at any of the WikiProject discussions, or in the assessments made by numerous other active users, that a single sentence and a list of species is a "start". These are encyclopedia articles, not simply taxonomic database entries. Many of the articles you have been marking as start still need significant curation (old species lists from COL, incorrect author names, outdated and incomplete taxonomy, few references, formatted poorly per MOS, links to content unrelated to the subject, no basic description, no English common name when available, no photos, etc.). Stub templates indicate to others, who are in the mood to expand articles, that there is work to be done to expand an encyclopedia article (seeWP:WIP, no "job done" here). It helps distinguish between articles that happen to have a lot of text, such as a long list of species, and those that have a lot of prose. It makes itmore difficult to help expand the encyclopedia when you remove stub templates and make incorrect project assessments. —Hyperik⌜talk⌟15:46, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Hyperik: - I think you still miss my point and you are actually being inconsistent: you made some useful edits toDolichopoda to "bring it up to start class" (thank you again), but did something similar toSanaa (insect) and downgraded it to a stub –Why? You rightly point out that the length of genus articles is related to the number of species (hence my suggestion of list class), but I just don't understand your eagerness to downgrade the work and assessments of others, when there are so many 'obvious' stubs out there. Before I move-on from the Meconematinae (for the time being),Amyttacta is a good example of a stub, even though I have sorted-out the species lists. These categorisations are just opinions, and I think that the stub-start boundary is more aboutrigour (or rigor if you prefer): quality, notability and integration into the 'WP taxonomic system'. Quantity comes more at the start-C boundary (and please re-read the comments of others on this before using the 'consensus' word). Where isyour consensus? Presence of photos (always good) is surely more critical to start-C and I am not sure where we are likely to find English names for Vietnamese tropical forest bush crickets!! – I can and do add VN names for plants though (checked from 2 sources where possible). We can both be selective in our interpretation of guidelines: is there any reason why the phrase about stub articles risk of "being dropped from being an article altogether" shouldn't mean exactly what it says?

'Consensus' can also be a weasel term of course - but I suspect (hope) we have a similar approach to databases. I quite agree about the limitations of CoL: which in the case of Orthoptera is often taking its information from OSF (as of 2011/12). I think we should ask ourselves how truly independent databases are to one another, but one of the strengths of WP is its ability to provide easy linkage to the relevant ones: then the reader can judge perhaps. It is a pity that you have been removing CoL references: surely they might be updated at some point – or do you know something about this? A number of entomology pages seem to rely heavily on theBug Guide: an excellent site for what it is, but predominantly about N. American insects. I also suspect it is the main source of theEuhadenoceus & Hadenoceus discrepancy – itis erroneous, because OSF says so ;) I suppose I could stick 'stub' over the pages thus generated, but have better things to do.

We actually now rely heavily on OSF – effectively a single source and thus a matter of concern – nevertheless, by far the best global, scientific consensus available for this order (also the opinion of a senior BMNH scientist). One of my points here is that bot-generated pages must always be stubs – to be cross-checked by a human being – so how to distinguish them if they become increasingly created? I think they are a good thing and the pages generated by Sv & NL:WP, in the former case taking data from CoL, have done us an enormous service, but as always, how best to improve on them?Roy Bateman (talk)04:57, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dolichopoda andSanaa: one has multiple sentences from several references discussing morphology, diversity, taxonomy,and distribution among members, while the other briefly mentions only distribution.

"I am not sure where we are likely to find English names for Vietnamese tropical forest bush crickets" I said "when available".

"Where is your consensus?" The listed assessment guidelines in numerous WikiProjects (many of which have gone 10+ years without major changes), along with the listed examples alongside the assessment descriptions, and the thousands of ratings I have seen made by long-experienced Wikipedia editors/tree of life project members like Plantdrew or Nessie on your articles and other users' similar articles (all stubs). That is paired with "crickets", as far as agreement goes, on your suggestions for assessment changes on the WikiProjects. If you can point me to some discussion elsewhere I'm happy to read up on it and weigh in. I see no difference between poorly-curated human-made articles and poorly-curated bot-made articles. Helpfully, the latter are usually easily findable with categories and searching bot contributions. If you want to create anew type of assessment, i.e. something runningalongside the stub-start-c+ system, related to your issues of bot vs. human, you could propose that I suppose.

You seem stuck on the idea that taxon articles are going to suddenly be deleted if they are tagged as stubs. I can assure you, again, that they won't be. All accepted taxa are notable articles and will not be deleted/"dropped". Again, that text comes from thegeneric assessment guidelines, which is copied on several WikiProjects. It's relevant toportions of WikiProjects, like marginal scientists/researchers who may not meet guidelines for notability, but it's not relevant to accepted taxa. "Notability" is never a reason to remove a stub template from a taxon article. The articlecontents need to be expanded before it is removed.

But anyway, rather than copy/paste taxonomically outdated articles from a different language and slightly different code from a different Wikipedia, why not just recreate them in with the latest information? It's pretty quick... and just throw in a sentence or two about its morphology or ecology. —Hyperik⌜talk⌟15:54, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Hyperik: – Let us end the year by trying to identify some points of agreement - and since you mentioned them, I would prefer to read the views of@Plantdrew: and@NessieVL: directly, if they have time. It seems to me that:

• The 'rise of the bots' is a major reason why I think this issue matters (sorry if I didn't make this clear before). Another reason is the number of pages, possibly of poor quality or containing outdated taxonomy, that have yet to be entered into the automatic taxobox system,etc: so it is not just bot vs. human. Personally, I just don't see why we can't just make relatively minor tweaks/clarifications to stub-start-C+, rather than having to develop yet another system (and here I must confess to not understanding all the existing intricacies of WP!). If the guidelines have been there for 10+ years – and a lot has changed in that time – isn't a review in order?
• We have agreed, perhaps with some exasperation :), that there is 'always something else to add' … I take your points about including brief descriptions,etc., but I hope you appreciate that this is usually much easier to do for European, N. American (and possibly Australian) genera and spp. than those from elsewhere. If I have understood@Peter coxhead:'s view correctly, you may have actually upgradedDolichopoda to a C-class.
• We absolutely can agree that simply translating "taxonomically outdated articles from a different language" is less than wonderful. I do not to do this and try to 'add value', however small: most importantly by checking existing sources (e.g. CoL from Sv:WP) and adding more if possible - most quickly and simply by using the very wonderful 'taxonbar'.
• I am sure we all agree that adding (good, correctly identified!) images to pages is very useful. This is one of the objectives I am trying to work towards in writing pages about Vietnamese genera and spp. Today I am upgradingAncistrocladus tectorius (from stub to start, after nearly 8 years), having managed to take a picture of a plant flowering here in 2018 – this is quite a rare event, I gather.

May I take this opportunity to wish you all a very happy New Year and thank you for all your edits and suggestions.Roy Bateman (talk)10:43, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Roy—If you're interested in finding orthopteran articles that have taxoboxes that need conversion, you canuse a Petscan query like this one. At the time of this writing, looks like there are 559 pages categorized underCategory:Orthoptera that have a manual taxobox and 1279 that have an automatic taxobox or speciesbox. —Hyperik⌜talk⌟16:37, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, mainly because I've done similar Petscan queries, the taxobox templates are:{{Taxobox}},{{Speciesbox}},{{Infraspeciesbox}},{{Automatic taxobox}},{{Subspeciesbox}},{{Ichnobox}},{{Oobox}},{{Virusbox}},{{Hybridbox}}, and{{Paraphyletic group}}. The first and last are 'manual' and the rest are automatic, but there is no auto version for paraphyletic groups, so that doesn't need conversion. There's also{{Missing-taxobox}} but that's not placed on talk pages, but the article. --Nessie (talk)20:40, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Several points:

• However carefully you try to define the assessment classes, there will always be subjective judgement involved.
• For me, typically a C class plant or spider article (which is where I mostly work) will have a taxobox (of course) and at least Description, Taxonomy, and Distribution and habitat sections, with the Taxonomy section including a list of subtaxa where appropriate. References, categories and now the taxonbar will be present and correct. For many more obscure taxa, this is all that can be expected, so if these sections are 'well done', a higher class than C may be appropriate. For a well known organism, with human uses, more would be expected.
• A start article should have at least one of the 'descriptive' sections, not just a short lead and/or a list of subtaxa, which is all that a stub has.

I would rateDolichopoda as less than C class, because there's neither a Description nor Distribution and habitat section. There is also some taxonomy missing – a verbal statement of who erected the genus and when, and why it was separated fromGryllus. I wouldn't necessarily expect all of these for C, but some should be there in my view.Peter coxhead (talk)12:33, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't have much to add. I will say that a complete list of subtaxa does not really change the quality level: Many of what I consider stubs have them and little else. They are important for the article, but I think prose is what should be considered for quality, kind of like with DYKs. Likewise, taxoboxes should not be a bar for quality, as all articles on taxa should have them, and usuallyCategory:Missing taxobox is empty or nearly so.

My line between stub and start is pretty much about the prose. Stubs are just a sentence or two like 'x is a species of y that is a plant pathogen of z.' Starts, to me, atleast have an interesting hook that a reader would be curious about: 'It is the onky plant pollinated by a cricket' or 'It is used as a spice in South America.' You know, something that differentiates that species of x from all the other species of x. For C I look to see that it has actual sections. --Nessie (talk)14:30, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again, drive by comment, forgot to take you off my watchlist and I'm always interested in what these editors have to say. I occasionally remove stub templates, but don't give ratings much more thought; I feel it is more appropriate letting others evaluate my content. The general advice is a good reminder of content to add, which is of course the priority, but the last comment about prose contains a key point: the article shouldstart to integrate itself into the encyclopaedia.cygnis insignis17:41, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently editedGeometrinae, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation pageDysphania (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk)09:33, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed onTemplate:Taxonomy/Dracontomelon schmidii requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done undersection T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion because it is an unused duplicate of another template, or a hard-coded instance of another template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is not actually the same as the other template noted, please consider putting a note on the template's page explaining how this one is different so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{substituted}}</noinclude>).

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you maycontest the nomination byvisiting 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 withWikipedia'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 thedeleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a requesthere.

Hello Roy, this notice is one of several species templates that you had created last year. The template is not currently in use because it duplicates the function of the existing taxonomy template at the genus level. This series of deletion requests was prompted by this discussion on theWT:Automated_taxobox_system page. If you have any questions on this, ask away. Alternatively, if you check (on PetScan) that the templates are not in use, you could blank them yourself and replace the content with a CSD:G7 template. 'CheersLoopy30 (talk)23:15, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Roy, as you have objected to the speedy deletion ofTemplate:Taxonomy/Dracontomelon schmidii, could you explain your rationale on the template talk page for wishing to keep it? I have also commented there and I am not certain that you are perhaps just confusing this proposal to delete an unused and redundant template with a non-existant AfD for the species article page. Please confirm or explain as your objection for speedy deletion of the template will hold up the process and force a listing atWP:TFD. 'Cheers,Loopy30 (talk)03:03, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted it today. If that's a problem,User talk:Athaenara#Taxonomy Template CSDs will remain undisturbed for at least a few months and I can be notified there. –Athaenara ✉19:56, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That is all right! Because this time it has not mangled the infobox. Seemed to be a problem previously, atleast on my display.Toffee Colour Cooperative (talk)08:15, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks & sorry for the confusion - never sure which bit to edit first!Roy Bateman (talk)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently editedDiparopsis castanea, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation pageBoll (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links areusually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles.(Read theFAQ • Join us at theDPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow theseopt-out instructions. Thanks,DPL bot (talk)14:19, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently editedItara, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation pageCerci (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk)07:56, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently editedCatantopinae, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation pageSpur-throated grasshopper (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk)08:34, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. Alleligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. TheArbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting theWikipedia 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 imposesite bans,topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. Thearbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please reviewthe candidates and submit your choices on thevoting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add{{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page.MediaWiki message delivery (talk)00:10, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently editedDryophthorinae, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation pageRhina (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk)12:39, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Roy Bateman

Thank you for creatingTrigonopteryx.

User:Insertcleverphrasehere, while examining this page as a part of ourpage curation process, had the following comments:

There seems to be an issue with Ref #1

To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with{{Re|Insertcleverphrasehere}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with~~~~ .

(Message delivered via thePage Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

—Insertcleverphrasehere^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 04:22, 30 January 2020 (UTC)DoneRoy Bateman (talk)04:43, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Roy Bateman

Thank you for creatingSystella.

User:Insertcleverphrasehere, while examining this page as a part of ourpage curation process, had the following comments:

There are also ref issues here.

To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with{{Re|Insertcleverphrasehere}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with~~~~ .

(Message delivered via thePage Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

—Insertcleverphrasehere^{(or here)}_{(click me!)}04:23, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

{{Re|Insertcleverphrasehere}} Done - more edits soonRoy Bateman (talk)04:52, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently editedRhaphidophora decursiva, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation pagePothos (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk)14:55, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently editedLeafhopper, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation pagePolana (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk)11:36, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, if you update the scientific name in an article which has it as the title, as atPhaeanthus malabaricus, then (1) you should add a reliable secondary reference for the new name (2) the article needs to be moved to the new name.Peter coxhead (talk)08:37, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oops - thank-youPeter - now done. I appear to have 'opened a can of worms' with my interest in species, found here in Vietnam, that have been moved from (and to) the genusPolyalthia. I will shortly start a discussion atTalk:Polyalthia and would appreciate your comments. BrgdsRoy Bateman (talk)07:21, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Wishing you a HappyEarth day on the behalfofWikiProject Environment andWikiProject Ecology.

What is this? Earth Day is an annual event celebrated around the world on April 22 to demonstrate support for environmental protection. First celebrated in 1970, it now includes events coordinated globally by the Earth Day Network in more than 193 countries. What you can do!! Actively participate in our Wikiprojects. Promote an awareness of the natural environment and world. Tag and assess articles under the scope of these projects. Patrol articles related to environmental protection. Maintain articles listed atWikipedia:List of controversial issues#Environment,Wikipedia:WikiProject Environment/Popular pages,Wikipedia:WikiProject Ecology#Pages needing attention, etc. Participate in thedelsort. and so on... Newly nominated content Energy in Turkey Energy policy of Turkey Electricity sector in Turkey Similar events Earth Hour International Day of Forests International Mother Earth Day World Environment Day World Soil Day World Water Day

---

When man tries to fight nature, he invariably loses. Nature invariably wins. It is only when man is wise enough to live with nature that he really gets anywhere. --Elmer T. Peterson

---

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Unsubscribe (Ecology)
• Unsubscribe (Environment)

---

Sent byPath slopu (talk) on behalf of WikiProject Environment and its related projects.© Copyleft 2020

• Wikiproject Holidays
• WikiProject Ecology

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk)05:51, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently editedRice, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation pageRice bug (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk)10:53, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Link deliberate ==> more than one spp.Roy Bateman (talk)14:13, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Leptocorisa (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing toRice bug

Leptocorisa oratoria (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing toRice bug

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk)13:21, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As aboveRoy Bateman (talk)13:43, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently editedLeptocorisa, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation pageRice bug (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk)12:01, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently editedHarpactorini, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pagesMoto,Alcmena andSosius (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk)12:49, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If a taxon article likeAgraeciini contains no other information than its descendant taxa, it's classified as a stub. The other many thousands of taxon articles that just include a list of descendants are classified as stubs, not lists. If classifying an article as "stub" is distasteful, an easy way to fix it would be to expand the article. Then it'd be a "start". —Hyperik⌜talk⌟18:32, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fauna of Indo-China has been nominated for renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with thecategorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments atthe category's entry on thecategories for discussion page. Thank you.DexDor^(talk)16:11, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently editedMantis, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation pageExtant (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk)06:42, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently editedZoolea, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation pageApical (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk)06:27, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently editedFlatidae, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation pageOrmenis.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk)06:23, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For future reference please seeWP:CUTANDPASTE. It's important that pages are moved properly using the "Move" link near the top of the page. When a page is moved using the cut and paste method, the page's editing history does not follow the title. When the Move link is used, then the page historydoes follow the title, and that must be done to preserve attributions. The page move fromPolyalthia longifolia →Monoon longifolium has been fixed, so no problemo. And thank you for your edits and your improvement ofWikipedia!P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 10:45, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently editedTanaoceridae, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation pageArtemisia.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk)10:15, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for proposing the sensible set of merge proposals regarding synonyms includingDalbergia bariensis. Just a few tips about constucting the proposals (for more, seeWP:MERGEPROP):

• You only need the merge proposal on the article page, not the talk page
• You can use the merge template to indicate a direction; for example, usingtemplate:merge to ortemplate:merge from
• Remember to tag the page you want to merge too, as well as the one you want to merge from
• Merge discussions are usually, and best, started on the intended destination page.
• If you have multiple related proposals, like those toDalbergia oliveri, its probably most efficient to start one merge proposal, and indicate this in the templates. For example, you can use {{merge|Dalbergia bariensis|Dalbergia dongnaiensis|Dalbergia mammosa|target=Dalbergia oliveri|date=October 2020}}

I've amended the Dalbergia templates you've recently placed, but thought that it might be helpful to list the general principles here.Klbrain (talk)08:28, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanksKlbrain - I need help from people who understand "WP plumbing" better than me! I have set up discussion on destination talk page and will wait 1-2 weeks before making any redirects.Roy Bateman (talk)04:47, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for being tolerant of my sometimes gnomish extremes!Klbrain (talk)08:14, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. Alleligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. TheArbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting theWikipedia 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 imposesite bans,topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. Thearbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please reviewthe candidates and submit your choices on thevoting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add{{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page.MediaWiki message delivery (talk)01:40, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently editedPoecilimon, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation pageCerci.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk)06:10, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently editedMantis, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation pageExtant.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk)06:25, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Albertisiella acanthodiformis

added a link pointing toMaluku

Tettigoniinae

added a link pointing toExtant

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk)06:16, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently editedPylaemenes (insect), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation pageYunan.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk)06:22, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently editedKorthalsia laciniosa, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation pageCalamus.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk)06:09, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Roy,

I am currently working on theEurycnema goliath page for a university course at the University of Sydney. I saw you were an active and established member of Wikiproject insects, and I was wondering if you could have a look at the article to give me some feedback?

Thanks, --Lrak21 (talk)00:08, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[[8]][reply]

HelloLrak21 ... splendid stuff - many thanks for your edits - you seem to have turned the page from a 'stub' to at least C-grade (probably deserves more soon). I will make some suggestions with edits shortly: the main one will be to automate the taxobox and place synonyms there. I have started the genus pageEurycnema and note that there are 3 other spp. some Australasian. In this way, the page benefits from WPs very useful taxonomy 'backbone', and it is easy to start pages for your other, similar local species. Keep up the good work!Roy Bateman (talk)01:52, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much Roy, I really appreciate your feedback and input. I need to add about another 700 words to the article for my course, so I will let you know when I'm finished. Thanks again. --Lrak21 (talk)08:30, 22 May 2021 (UTC)Lrak21[reply]

Hi Roy, I have just about finished adding my information to the article, I was wondering if you could have another look? Thanks --Lrak21 (talk)03:04, 26 May 2021 (UTC)Lrak21[reply]

HelloLrak21 looks very good to me - and now conformsat least to 'B class' having met all the criteria (NB it was important to convert the taxobox to a speciesbox for optimising "supporting materials where appropriate"). So we (mostly you) have taken it from a 'stub' to 'B': I think another editor should assess higher - probably deserved already. You may have had enough of this for the time being, but if you were interested in doing more, I would place a higher priority on making a start on the many genera and species - for example in the tribePhasmatini (orEurycnema osiris - referred-to on your page - do you know where we can obtain a photo?). I think the latter is more useful than perfecting individual pages (but that's just my opinion). Anyway well done and thanks again.Roy Bateman (talk)04:17, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently editedPer- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation pageResidue.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk)05:56, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently editedCatantopinae, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation pageBurttia.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk)06:00, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently editedMonsteroideae, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation pageHeteropsis.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk)06:01, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. Alleligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. TheArbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting theWikipedia 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 imposesite bans,topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. Thearbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please reviewthe candidates and submit your choices on thevoting 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, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently editedLeptocorisa oratoria, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation pageRice bug.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk)06:00, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently editedXystrocerini, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation pageXela.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk)05:59, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Roy. You and I frequent the same basic pagespace so we overlap a lot on our edited articles, but I don't recall ever having a significant disagreement with you. I do, however, have to disagree with characterizing the name "katydid" as an "Americanism". Of the top 5 native English-speaking countries (as Wikipedia defines them), Australia, Canada, South Africa, and the United States all use katydid; only the UK uses bush cricket. Yes, I'm an American entomologist, but I can also look objectively at this and feel justified in pointing out that "bush cricket" is more uniquely British than "katydid" is uniquely American. I despise edit wars, but given that Wikipedia almost always treats majority opinions as having the upper hand, I maintain that the bestgeneral disambiguation for any tettigoniid page is "katydid" rather than "insect" or "genus". In this particular case (where you revertedSanaa), this is a pseudophylline genus, which is one of the "true katydids" by common name, and at the very least all members of this subfamily (and a few others) share that common name. I feel that it's important to have consistency in article titles, and would prefer to achieve this by consensus, rather than dispute. Peace,Dyanega (talk)22:36, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

HelloDyanega: yes indeed, I am sure neither you nor I would would want to make a big issue out of this and am also sure we agree on most things ... which is partly why I was quite surprised that you had gone to the trouble of making the page move! What is done is done and thank you for reverting: here are some of my thoughts on the issues raised:
* You are better placed than me to comment on the name "katydid", but I always thought it was onomatopoeic, based on the N. American genusPterophylla - I also understand the problem Americans have with using "bush cricket".
* FYI the Aus/NZ entomologists that I know be aware-of and may use either - perhaps depends on the text book or university they were brought-up on! S. Africans often use quite specific local names for some of their wonderful creatures. I also note that you are obliged to put "true katydids" for members of the Pseudophyllinae - is that all Americans or just the entomologists I wonder :)?
* Scientific names are there for a reason and WP rightly retainsTettigoniidae (itself probably onomatopoeic): my personal heresy is that we try to substitute English names far too much (e.g. why are theDiptera dumbed-down to "flies"?)
* We absolutely agree on our dislike of "genus" for dab. and I have supported your standardisation to "planthopper"; however I have been influenced by other editors who have widely used higher taxa such as "annelid", "mollusc" and have tended to use "insect" by default.
best regardsRoy Bateman (talk)14:16, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently editedStenodemini, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation pageCollaria.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk)06:10, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently editedAnacaona (disambiguation), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation pageConehead.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk)06:10, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently editedNaskreckia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation pageTransvaal.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk)09:23, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. Alleligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

TheArbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting theWikipedia 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 imposesite bans,topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. Thearbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please reviewthe candidates and submit your choices on thevoting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add{{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page.MediaWiki message delivery (talk)00:43, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently editedAchilidae, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation pageNecho.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk)06:06, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Roy. There are, every now and then, some issues with outdated higher-level taxonomy in FLOW, and if you work through it and systematically change everything in Wikipedia to correspond to FLOW, then some of those changes might cause problems. If you want to get some details, feel free to contact me via my institutional e-mail, I'll be happy to help. Peace.Dyanega (talk)Dyanega (talk)18:55, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ThanksDyanega - I quite agree with your reservations about using just one data-base - and recently quoted both FLOW and BioLib for a page onDelphacini (fairly good agreement). The problem is that I feel that En:WP has "neglected" a large number of significant (even European) genera, and it can be difficult to obtain information: especially for African and Asian organisms. Others may use GBIF and the Catalogue of Life, but these are often second-hand, from FLOW or theSpecies Files, so I tend to treat them (and POWO for plants) as relatively authoratative. Corrections and additional material can always be added later surely? I also continue to be surprised how many "orphan" species pages turn up! Brgds.Roy Bateman (talk)13:36, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, rethis edit, we're not supposed to use "currently", as perMOS:CURRENT. I usually put "{{As of|YEAR|MONTH}}" – seeWP:ASOF. After this the past tense is used because it will be read in the future as well.Peter coxhead (talk)10:41, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Peter noted - esp. important to date certain insect lists I think!Roy Bateman (talk)11:21, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently editedPentatominae, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation pageIndrapura.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk)08:50, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by anadministrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see theblocking policy).

Roy Bateman(block log •active blocks •global blocks •contribs •deleted contribs •filter log •creation log •change block settings •unblock •checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I have recently moved to Vietnam and find IP addresses here blocked for editing on En:WP (not Nl:WP) - is there a reason for this please?Roy Bateman (talk)08:19, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

It's difficult to look into this without knowing the IP address involved. If you don't wish to post it publicly, you may useWP:UTRS to provide it privately.331dot (talk)08:47, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, pleaseread theguide to appealing blocks first, then use the{{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired.Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

An automated process has detected that when you recently editedPterolabis, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation pageCongo.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk)06:03, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently editedBlaberidae, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation pageAustralian wood cockroach.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk)06:04, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is a requested move discussion atTalk:Trema micrantha#Requested move 1 November 2023 that may be of interest to you.Abductive (reasoning)08:17, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done - I agree that naming should be kept up-to-date: and POWO/IPNI and GBIF are consistent on this.Roy Bateman (talk)15:33, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. Alleligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

TheArbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting theWikipedia 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 imposesite bans,topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. Thearbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please reviewthe candidates and submit your choices on thevoting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add{{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page.MediaWiki message delivery (talk)00:32, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently editedSwintonia pierrei, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation pagePetiole.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk)06:03, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the references for the habitat of this species. They all refer to rainforest, nothing else. If you have a source for other habitats please provide it as a reference in the article. Cheers Junglenut |Talk 12:51, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, rainforest and wetsclerophyll forest. Junglenut |Talk 12:52, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you - in which case, please say so: IMO the word "rainforest" is often greatly overused (which devalues its meaning).Roy Bateman (talk)02:52, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently editedPhaneropterinae, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pagesCapanema andMonteiroa.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk)17:49, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently editedCraspedosomatidae, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation pagePrionosoma.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk)18:06, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For the record - that was deliberate: synonyms.Roy Bateman (talk)02:13, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently editedRice, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation pageRice bug.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:08, 13 April 2024 (UTC)"Rice bug" use was deliberate - can be used for several spp.Roy Bateman (talk)06:21, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently editedMealybug, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation pageGiraudia.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk)17:55, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I noticed recently you used BioLib as a source for a list of tribes inCassidinae. Unfortunately, in the first place, BioLib doesn't appear to be that reliable as a source from my experience: it is outdated in places, I believe it isuser-generated, and in places it even cites English Wikipedia as a source (riskingcitogenesis).

In the case of Cassidinae, BioLib considersCassidinae andHispinae to be separate subfamilies, which they were in the past.Borowiec & Świętojańska's website likewise only covers tribes of the traditional sense of Cassidinae according to itsintroduction page. So essentially, BioLib's list of tribes is outdated.Monster Iestyn (talk)20:26, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello@Monster Iestyn: - thank you and you are probably right - I'm more of an Orthopteroid fellow myself and for those orders, we have the very useful and authoritativeSpecies files (but have also noticed the problems withPolyneopteran taxonomy!). What I was trying to achive here was a way of navigating the (inevitably complex) Coleopteran taxonomy by making tribe links "point" to something: if only a list of genera rather than a separate page. A problem can be placing the tribes: BioLib may be helpful, unfortunately sites such as GBIF and Plants of the World only place genera in families. I take your point about BioLib and know that other editors have concerns ... I would describe it as "patchy": and if (as I am) you are keen to take a global perspective, I wouldn't describe it as any less reliable than (say) NCBI or ITIS - which seem to have a strong Nearctic bias. I think that genera from Africa and Asia (and sometimes even Europe) have been neglected on en:WP and have been trying to create more balance. Brgds.Roy Bateman (talk)05:04, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes, I haveabsolutely noticed that there is a Nearctic bias on en:WP, though that may in part be down to BugGuide being available for documenting those taxa. (Fauna Europaea meanwhile went down last year and hasn't come back online since, but was also rather outdated in parts anyway, while no similar databases exist for Africa and Asia overall, though some exist for places like Taiwan). With Cassidinae at least though, a full list of tribes, and the genera within them, is available from several sources.Borowiec & Świętojańska's website (as already mentioned) is largely uptodate for traditional Cassidinae, while aCatalog of hispines of the world (= former Hispinae) exists but is only uptodate to 2015. After that you will probably have to hunt for all the more recent isolated scientific publications for any new taxa or taxonomic changes.

To tell the truth though, I also had intended on tackling some of the mess at Cassidinae a bit myself at some point, since I have been diving into leaf beetle literature for a few years now for en:WP and Wikispecies purposes, but I keep being distracted by new quests. XD (Such as attempting to fix the mess atPolyneoptera as it happens)Monster Iestyn (talk)09:57, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My interest in these beetles was mostly related to Asian crop pest (and photographed) species ... I suspect that you are much more knowledgeable and better placed to review theCassidinae. If it helps, I will take another look at Polyneoptera - I see you have done a lot there already. I suggest a merge with theOrthopteroid insects page (which gives some historical context) and agree that it would be useful to point out that there is some controversy - would you support this merge?Roy Bateman (talk)04:04, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes, that would be good, thanks! I would support a merge, yes, though it does occur to me thatOrthopteroid as it is has almost no sourcing... it seems to be mostly original analysis of some sort, which isWP:OR. But that may be because it was an article created in 2008.Monster Iestyn (talk)11:26, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In the same manner that BioLib is unreliable for Cassidinae, it's also highly unreliable for Neuroptera. You have reintroduced taxa that haven't been scientifically valid for over 50 years (e.g. Brachynemurinae) and changed information on several pages in such a way as to contradict the existing citations. Please do not do this. Scientific literature has been provided on several pages. I would recommend reviewing some of the papers provided over edit summaries.Lhikan634 (talk)04:51, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I know there are criticisms ofBiolib - and you appear to be a fan of ITIS and BugGuide - but the latter are very N.America biassed, so I often revert toBiolib to get a global perspective. It is great that you are providing updates including recent scientific literature, but please always ensure that your updates cater for genera that occur in Africa and Asia. For example, if you think thatBrachynemurinae is obsolete, please make sure that you place a modern treatment for tribesGnopholeontiniStange, 1994 andLemoleminiStange, 1994.Roy Bateman (talk)05:13, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ITIS and BugGuide have issues as well. I've already noted on my talk page that following further discussions, I'm in agreement with staff that sites like BugGuide (and iNaturalist) fall under user-generated content so aren't reliable sources as defined by site policies. They might be a starting point but should never be an ending point. (Example: BugGuide was used early on for some Scoliidae pages while awaiting receipt of what were then the most recent revisions. There are even some corrections that BugGuide has made within that family since. Those references have largely been replaced with both that revision and a review that was published during the pandemic.) Probably the biggest issue is that these taxonomic websites can rarely keep up with taxonomic changes in the scientific literature. So you really should verify any taxon you find there with (at least) a recent paper before making changes. If you don't use it already, Wikimedia Library is a great way to find taxonomic papers. Insofar as Gnopholeontini and Lemolemini, those are no longer valid tribes in the literature (and haven't been for a while). They have been sunk under Brachynemurini in several revisions focusing on global taxa due to creating paraphyly. Their genera are correctly included under the Brachynemurini page.Lhikan634 (talk)11:37, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently editedChrysalidocarpus, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pagesPalm andPemba.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk)20:11, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the articleDiura chronus is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according toWikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should bedeleted.

The article will be discussed atWikipedia:Articles for deletion/Diura chronus until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

CFA💬21:39, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello@CFA: I have drafted edits to the page, which I think we should keep as brief 'disambiguation': at least until the database conflict is cleared-up. It is almost certainly a junior synonym for the stick insect species: if confirmed, I also think it is important to have some explanation atCtenomorpha marginipennis; I have added clarification atDiura. BrgdsRoy Bateman (talk)15:14, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I have reverted your upgrade from stub-class to start-class for articleStrophanthus caudatus. The article needs additional pieces. A good guide if you would like to improve the article is the instruction page for the new and ongoingWikipedia:WikiProject Plants/Stub to Start drive. –Elizabeth (Eewilson)(tag or ping me) (talk)00:10, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Elizabeth@Eewilson: It seems to me that the articleStrophanthus caudatus complies with all criteria except step #6, which if completed in full and there is a good illustration, might easily take the article to 'C' class. The "Stub to Start drive" is indeed very important: IMHO Stub class is so over-used, it has become disfunctional: we have created a situation where they exceed all other classifications. As I recall, the original main purpose of "Stubs" was to identify articles for possible deletion or re-naming: often those hastily written or created by bots. Once living people have established that articles such asS. caudatus are valid (especially at genus or higher levels) they should be upgraded to Start class: provided of course that the other 9 criteria have been met. The description, ecology, etc. in step 6 is good to do, but often considerably more difficult to achieve with African, Asian and S. American species, than those from Europe or N. America. Brgds.Roy Bateman (talk)02:51, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Roy. I see you are doing this again, this time in the articleEpicharis parasitica. As before, the sources cited in the article all state the the habitat of the species is rainforest, and you have not provided any source that says the species occurs outside of rainforest. I understand that you may have a personal view on the overuse of the term, but that does not justify its removal—in fact that kind of editing is expressly forbidden here, as I'm sure you know. If you have a source which states that the species occurs in other types of forests then please add it to the article as a reference, but at the same time do not remove 'rainforest', i.e. just add the additional forest type. I will now revert your edit, again. Please keep in mind the principles ofWP:NOR andWP:NPOV in your work. Cheers, Steve Junglenut |Talk 05:44, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Steve. I respectfully suggest thatWP:NPOV applies to you as well (and whyWP:NOR?). I think there is too much careless use of "rainforest" (which has specific meanings in tropical and temperate zones), so generally prefertropical forest. In the case ofEpicharis parasitica, I have edited to "mostlytropical rainforest" (Plants of the World Online states that it “grows primarily in the wet tropical biome”) - I hope you agree. Brgds.Roy Bateman (talk)04:21, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

When you uploadedthis image in 2009, you described it as "Hopper bands of brown locusts in the Karoo".

To be clear, this image is suppose to depict large amounts of insects?DS (talk)14:59, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello@DragonflySixtyseven: - yes indeed - the brown patches on the bushes areLocustana hopper bands (we were trying-outMetarhizium acridum to control them at the time). These are more difficult than desert locusts (usu. bare soil background) to depict on a photo - would a closer shot be more useful?Roy Bateman (talk)00:38, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. Alleligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

TheArbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting theWikipedia 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 imposesite bans,topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. Thearbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please reviewthe candidates and submit your choices on thevoting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add{{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page.MediaWiki message delivery (talk)00:20, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently editedEucnemidae, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation pageEudorus.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk)07:54, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lists don't count when determining if an article is a stub or not. This one is 100% a stub. -UtherSRG(talk)13:28, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Describe it as a list then (done). One of the original purposes of stubs was to identify articles for "possible deletion or re-naming": often those hastily written or created by bots. There are now so many stub class articles, it has ceased to have any value. For pages about genera or higher taxa, reasonable complete and up-to-date lists of species (in this case) are valuable: provided of course there are refs, good taxobox, etc. Assign stubs to very short species articles if you must, but valid articles on higher taxa need to be 'moved on'.Roy Bateman (talk)21:04, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It has been a long time since that was the purpose of tagging as a stub. We tag all articles, regardless of species or higher taxa, or not a taxon, with stub tags when their prose is significantly short. This is standard across the board. -UtherSRG(talk)21:23, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's just your opinion. What does "100% a stub" and "significantly short" actually mean? Why not start class, when there is C for adequate length? None of these categories are 'good' of course.Roy Bateman (talk)21:47, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Stub class articles get the stub tags. This provides their categorization. These categories are used to encourage editors to expand them to start class. At that point, the stub tag is removed. Start class is bigger than stub, but has not yet been assessed with a letter grade. -UtherSRG(talk)21:50, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

... except that in most cases, stub tags evidently don't "encourage editors to expand them": they just linger-on, sometimes in articles in articles that you and I would agree are C-class or better. The criteria set-out by the botanists inWikipedia:WikiProject Plants/Stub to Start drive are helpful - I am simply saying that we shouldn't make the 'Step 6: main body' too onerous at genus level and above. The main objective here is to ensure that the list of subsidiary taxa are complete and geographically inclusive. There may be perverse consequences to pressurising editors to provide "main body" text: I have encountered many family and genus pages where the main body content applies to individual species and is probably not universal within that taxon.Roy Bateman (talk)02:53, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What is your issue with it being classed as a stub? If your concern is that it will be seen needingpossible deletion or re-naming, then rest assured this is not so. -UtherSRG(talk)21:53, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest it is a major issue for Wikipedia: stub class has been rendered disfunctional by gross over-use. Who takes any notice of those footling stub tags? Much more useful if used sparingly: being able to identify articles needingpossible deletion or re-naming and bot-generated articles needing review by a human being, would be very useful. Another example:Psylla pyri - should be a stub, but upgraded to C perhaps, when assigned to the correct genus. I 'discoverd' this one when reviewing the genus articles, but I see thatuser:Maccheek identified the problem in 2011 !!Roy Bateman (talk)03:14, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The redirectChtonobdella has been listed atredirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets theredirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect atWikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 March 2 § Chtonobdella until a consensus is reached.Cremastra (talk)15:48, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure why this was moved from my original redirect from (what appeared at the time to be a monotypic species) to the family page: needs genus page creation.Roy Bateman (talk)04:24, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently editedCicadellini, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pagesHadria,Madaura andPachitea.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk)07:55, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking about cleaning up the Cassidinae article once I am through the world catalogue of Hispines. Since we now have articles about most tribes, I thought to clean up the list and just link to the tribes (and thus removing the links to the genera). I will keep the genera on the Cassidinae page for tribes that do not have an article yet off course (i.e. tribes that belong to the 'old' classification of Cassidinae [excluding the Hispines]). What do you think?B33tleMania12 (talk)12:23, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think you have done sterling work here - many thanks: I have been somewhat 'converted' to the use of tribes in my time working on WP, but still not sure if they warrant their own pages if there are only 2-3 genera (but that's just a POV). Cassidinae just needs a page onDelocrania and it will start to look fairly complete :)Roy Bateman (talk)15:52, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the2025 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 1 December 2025. Alleligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

TheArbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting theWikipedia 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 imposesite bans,topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. Thearbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2025 election, please reviewthe candidates and submit your choices on thevoting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add{{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page.MediaWiki message delivery (talk)00:26, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently editedTaphropeltus, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation pageSeed bug.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk)19:55, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedians who have received a Teahouse invitation through AfC