Jump to content

User talk:Kevmin/Archive 10

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

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

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

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

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

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

"mythicomycetaceous"

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

ToL

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

Thank you for the move, but I would have appreciated it being left at TOL, where as many animal oriented editors would see it. Also SMcCandlish I'm not very impressed with the mild sarcasm in this comment, just so you are aware, it was rather uncalled for.--Kevmin § 16:55, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
There is no sarcasm in it. I'm not going to editwar with you about it, but ToL has absolutely nothing to do with articles about notable individual animals. It is entirely and only about phylogeny and nomenclature.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:50, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

DYK nomination

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

I'm going to be honest, while accuracy is an admirable goal, what happened at the nom was not that, that was active assertion that a source was false, with no backing other then "but I dont know". you may need to take a step back and assess your methodology, given this isnt the first hook in recent times where you have misused the concept of "anecdotal" in a biology topic, and has the same result, or changed the wording on a bio hook to one that is much less precise.--Kevmin § 23:13, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
I am not sure you understand what my role is: I am a volunteer and I am trying to help get the work featured. You have misquoted me on Template:Did you know nominations/Orange-billed lorikeet: I said before I read the source in its entirety I thought that the hook fact was anecdotal. the source was about the observation of one bird, but it went on to talk about the misidentification of the birds in the wild. I type out my thoughts so that the (promoting to queue) admin knows what I was thinking-it saves everyone time. For your part you have typed in all caps on the DYK nomination and you have insulted me. I also have never said a source was false - I said in the Ameerega munduruku nomination that we cannot say male frogs are known to carry tadpoles when only one was ever observed carrying tadpoles. The accuracy of the statement is most important. Because of your pushback I pinged a DYK admin who seems to have the same concern. Keep in mind that all of us at DYK are trying to get the nomination to the next step. Bruxton (talk) 00:10, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

DYK for Dennstaedtia christophelii

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

List of elm cultivars, hybrids and hybrid cultivars

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

I would recommend you read over the wp:cite page. Referencing is not to be done as "see citations at xxx other page". List of elm cultivars, hybrids and hybrid cultivars as it stands now is very under-cited, and as cultivars, hybrids and hybrid cultivars are not considered inherently notable in the way a species/genus/family is, it needs third party citations and not just catalog entries or herbarium accessions to impart that notability.--Kevmin § 18:18, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
Happened to see this, and would just like to say that I totally agree with Kevmin. Peter coxhead (talk) 18:28, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for your help with this article. Have begun turning herbarium specimens into inline citations (see e.g. edit to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ulmus_americana_%27Littleford%27). Some were already inline, so here will simply delete any duplicates in External Links. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.39.159.73 (talk) 14:22, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

DYK for Acherontemys

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

DYK for Harpegnathos alperti

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

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

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

Renaming "Prehistoric" categories

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

Anas chathamica or Chatham duck

Hi Kevmin,

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

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

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

I would suggest reading the first line of the conventions a little closer, The article title should usually consist of the name that is most common in English, following WP:Article titles § Common names. For well known animals, this will normally be the vernacular name. The wording does not say to exclude the taxonomic name (which is read as part of the English language), and specifically caveats that a vernacular name may not be the most commonly used term. as soon as you move away from the large well recognized animal and plant species, and especially when you move into fossil taxa you will encounter "vernacular" names that someone made up at some point, but which actually get used orders of magnitude less then the taxonomic names, for which they are always referred to.--Kevmin § 17:36, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
Though i understand the point you've made, how is one then supposed to know a name isn't just made up since some sources may still use the made-up name? And besides, how do you exactly measure what name is used more? Fuppimuppi (talk) 17:46, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
All "vernacular" names are made up, some make it into regular usage, taxonomic names are regulated by global scientific bodies and not all are valid. Google/Bing results from searching will give a genera idea, as will google scholar and scholar.archive.org. One has to research and there when there are multiple contenders, the naming conventions state go with the taxonomic name.--Kevmin § 17:57, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
Alright if that's what it's gonna be then. Thank you for taking time out your day to respond. Fuppimuppi (talk) 18:01, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

DYK for Allenbya collinsonae

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

DYK for Paleoallium

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

DYK nomination of Okanagrion

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

DYK for Dickwhitea

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

DYK for Anomalites

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

DYK for Okanagrion

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

# vs. *

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

DYK for Allenbya holmesae

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

DYK for Herschel the sea lion

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

CS1 error on Republic, Washington

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

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

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

DYK for Erismatopterus

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

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Sanpoil River, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page David Douglas.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:07, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Etymology of Sequoia reversions

Thanks, Kevmin - I guess I am making repeated mistakes. I would like to merely introduce the fact that the name Sequoyah was available in German in Endlicher's time in a major published reference source, spelled in a way (Sequojah) that sounds to a German exactly like "Sequoia". This removes one of the key objections raised to Muleady-Meacham's hypothesis ("However there are debilitating limitations to the arguments presented in the 2017 article. The alleged positive link is based on a similarity in pronunciation of the words "Sequoyah" and "Sequoia": valid to persons that think in English, but not those that think in German or Latin"). Perhaps you can instruct me on how to frame a single sentence or two that is acceptable. There is no original research as far as I can make out,, but merely a cite to the document that shows this spelling. Johninberkeley (talk) 01:41, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

The issue we are running into is that what you are presenting is Original Research Synthesis and NOT permissible per WP rules. Wikipedia can never be the place that new data, ideas, or combinations them is presented, Wikipedia only ever repeats what other sources explicitly say. your current sources are not linked and wp is being asked to make the wink-nudge connection that has not been made before. If you had an already published Reliable Source source that specifically made the evidence presentation of a name at the right time in the right place with a connection to Endlicher, THAT would be acceptable to add.--Kevmin § 02:20, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
Thanks, will work on that, appreciate your comments. Johninberkeley (talk) 18:12, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

DYK for Republica weatbrooki

--Z1720 (talk) 00:02, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

DYK for Republica (plant)

--Z1720 (talk) 00:02, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Dollar Mountain Fire

Hello! Your submission of Dollar Mountain Fire at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at your nomination's entry and respond there at your earliest convenience. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 03:05, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

DYK for Mount Leona Fire

--RoySmith (talk) 00:03, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

non-consensus reorganization

I see you restored Principle of Homonymy - thanks. I hope you are planning to do the same for the now-destroyed Principle of Priority article? Dyanega (talk) 23:30, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

DYK for Anderson's Grocery

--Z1720 (talk) 00:03, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

DYK for Libotonius

--RoySmith (talk) 00:03, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

DYK for Dollar Mountain Fire

On 21 August 2024, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Dollar Mountain Fire, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that during the 1929 Dollar Mountain Fire (aftermath pictured), 65 firefighters survived overnight being surrounded by fire by sheltering under a ledge? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Dollar Mountain Fire. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Dollar Mountain Fire), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

BorgQueen (talk) 00:03, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Dollar Mountain Fire

Hi. I apologize for adding a bunch of tags to this article, but I ran into many issues when trying to verify the article's information against the sources provided. Could you have a look at the |reason= parameters when you have a moment? Thank you. Ed [talk] [OMT] 02:59, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

DYK for Republic Drug Store

I completed a review for you at Template:Did you know nominations/Republic Drug Store. Best wishes! Flibirigit (talk) 21:25, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

DYK for 1988 White Mountain Fire

--Z1720 (talk) 00:03, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

DYK for Dollar Mountain Fire

--BorgQueen (talk) 00:39, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Periods and systems

Geological periods are intervals of time - they can be divided into early, middle and late parts. The rock record laid down during a period is described as a 'system' - they can be divided into lower, middle and upper parts. See System (stratigraphy) and Chronostratigraphy#Differences from geochronology for example. thanks Geopersona (talk) 07:41, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

(Did you take a look at all at my areas of editing?) Please see the vast volume of paleontological and paleobotanical which use the term "Upper Carboniferous" and the like.--Kevmin § 15:13, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
@Geopersona: I've discussed this before when I tried to be precise about the terminology for periods of time versus rock systems, but the reality is that reliable sources do use terminology more loosely. See e.g. Britannica here, which has "the Upper Carboniferous Period began ...". Google Scholar gave me over 400 scientific sources using the exact phrase "Upper Carboniferous Period" versus over 700 for the more correct "Late Carboniferous Period". So given that Wikipedia is supposed to follow reliable sources, it seems acceptable to use lower, middle and upper for time periods, however much some of us may regret it, although nothing prevents the use of the more correct early, middle and late. Peter coxhead (talk) 16:42, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
Fair enough - its disappointing though. Geopersona (talk) 06:52, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

DYK for Republic Drug Store

-—Kusma (talk) 00:25, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Paleoart Review

Hello! What is the procedure for paleoart review? AraucariaHeterophylla (talk) 23:16, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

You can post any art you create at the Wikipedia:WikiProject Palaeontology/Paleoart review where you will get feed back from the group on accuracy uncertainties and other aspects.--Kevmin § 23:25, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Paleobiota of the Green River Formation, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Julus.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 20:02, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Bitterfeld amber

I vaguely rememeber us having a discussion about Bitterfeld amber and its relationship to Baltic amber several years ago. Given that most recent sources have considered it distinct from Baltic amber, I've decided to convert the redirect to a stub. Just thought I'd let you know. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:00, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

@Hemiauchenia: Sounds like a good plan. Its being treated as a distinct group at the moment for sure, and its history and suggested sources warrant a deeper treatment anyways, similar to Danish Amber and its placement as a unique grouping.--Kevmin § 17:05, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Paleobiota of the Green River Formation, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Salix fragilis.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:55, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Why I'm pretty sure traditional Pelecaniformes is polyphyletic

Not only does the inclusion of tropicbirds in traditional Pelecaniformes mean that all members of Phaethoquornithes must have evolved from traditional Pelecaniformes in order for it to be paraphyletic, but even (Pelecanidae + Suliformes) are quite clearly a polyphyletic group. If IOC is right about the internal phylogeny of current Pelecaniformes, it strongly suggests that it was traditional Ciconiiformes (without flamingos) that was paraphyletic, meaning that Pelecanidae + Suliformes must be polyphyletic, which means traditional Pelecaniformes must be polyphyletic. Grey Clownfish (talk) 10:14, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Unless you have papers that make that assertion, all you have is WP:OR, and no OR is allowed in any part of an Article. Provide a citation that asserts polyphyly or do not make the assertion on Wiki.--Kevmin § 15:25, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
I have provided a citation.
As for me removing Ardei from the taxobox on Pelecaniformes, I simply don't understand in what world that is original research. The cladogram in the article, which has two citations, is my source for Ardei being possibly non-monophyletic. And remember, it's the inclusion of Ardei that requires citation if anything, not its exclusion.
Do you want be to explain in words how the cladogram contradicts Ardei? Fine, it clearly shows that herons are sister to Pelecani. Since Ardei consists of Threskiornithidae and herons, it is clearly not compatible with the cladogram. Grey Clownfish (talk) 07:26, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
The cladogram isn't from IOC; I probably thought that because it is right after a paragraph about IOC's classification of Pelecaniformes. Grey Clownfish (talk) 08:44, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Anticlea elegans

Hello! Your submission of Anticlea elegans at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at your nomination's entry and respond there at your earliest convenience. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Soman (talk) 13:34, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

DYK for Hymenophyllum axsmithii

--Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:24, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Invitation to participate in a research

Hello,

The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Wikipedia, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this anonymous survey.

You do not have to be an Administrator to participate.

The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement .

Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 19:28, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

DYK for Ansorge Hotel

-- RoySmith (talk) 00:03, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

DYK for Anticlea elegans

--Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:02, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

DYK for Progradungula barringtonensis

--Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:04, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Trick or treat!

Halloween Barnstar

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Paleobiota of the Green River Formation, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Scottia.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:59, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

CS1 error on Paleobiota of the Green River Formation

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

  • A missing title error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 21:38, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Gamergate (ant)

Hi, thank you for your contributions. I note your recent revert at this article.

WP:NAMB asks us not to use a hatnote when the topic is unambiguous. While "Gamergate" is ambiguous, "Gamergate (ant)" is not. There's no realistic way somebody seeking, say, Gamergate (harassment campaign) would unexpectedly end up at this article instead.

Why do you believe the guideline should not be followed? 162 etc. (talk) 21:49, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

The gamergate articles have a complex history on wiki, and having cross linking to the disambiguation page is of value. NAMB is not the end all and be all of how to go about disambig use on pages.--Kevmin § 22:37, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
How is it of value? 162 etc. (talk) 22:46, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
Oh, and it seems that two other editors recently have removed the hatnote as well [1] [2], which you've reverted. Clearly, others are also in favour of following the guideline. 162 etc. (talk) 22:53, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
The page has been on my watchlist for close to 10 years and most of that time it was in the primary topic placement with hatnote to Gamergate (harassment campaign). After the move to disambiguated pages, BOTH have had corresponding hatnotes to the disambiguation page, which also lists two other instances of the term in current usage that people may be looking for. WP:IAR is validly being used in this instance, and as WP:NAMB is a guideline its valid to deviate from its outline in instances where benefit is gained.--Kevmin § 23:35, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
The question remains: How is this hatnote useful? Why do the readers of Gamergate (ant) need a link to the disambiguation page, when it is essentially certain that they are exactly where they wanted to be? 162 etc. (talk) 00:42, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Reminder to participate in Wikipedia research

Hello,

I recently invited you to take a survey about administration on Wikipedia. If you haven’t yet had a chance, there is still time to participate– we’d truly appreciate your feedback. The survey is anonymous and should take about 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement.

Take the survey here.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 00:41, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Question about clades used in year in paleoentomology pages

Hi, I'm not sure if you're the right person to ask, but since your interests do at least lie in this area, do you know why Perlidea and Paoliidea in particular are used and referred to as clades in the "year in paleoentomology" series of pages? (e.g. 2024, 2015, 2014 in paleoentomology, etc.) As far as I know, these are supraordinal names used only by Russian palaeoentomologists, but I could be wrong. In particular Perlidea (= Dermapterans, Embiopterans, Phasmatodeans and Plecopterans (?)) doesn't seem to be a valid clade based on current phylogenies of Polyneoptera, and order Paoliida is considered by some to be stem-Dictyoptera rather than its own group Paoliidea.

(I'm also not sure if Reculida counts as a clade either, but unfortunately this seems to be part of the Grylloblattodea/Grylloblattida can of worms from what I've read up.) Monster Iestyn (talk) 01:26, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

@Monster Iestyn: I started using them as they are still used in much of the literature, and while Paoliida and Perlidea are Russian in origin the major questions on them really seem to be composition and less on validity. In part I originally found the grouping of orders that are being placed in Perlidea here with plecoptera and Embioptera frequently grouped together.--Kevmin § 17:43, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
Ah right, I saw a while back that you had used that source for Perlidea on the Polyneoptera page, I assumed it was because Polyneoptera Species Files was using it to house Cnemidolestida. Unfortunately that site appears to be internally inconsistent (and now abandoned too I think): as the home page I think implies but doesn't properly clarify, it does not use any supraordinal ranks for most of the extant orders, yet for some reason it still uses them for some fossil groups?? (see Dermapterida for Protelytroptera, which should also include Dermaptera, also one of the orders of Perlidea according to Russian paleoentomologists) In addition, Cnemidolestida or Cnemidolestodea itself is placed as Archaeorthoptera/stem-group Orthoptera when using sources other than Aristov (and I think Rasnitsyn?). Monster Iestyn (talk) 19:05, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
The Species files pages migrated last year to a new structure whose homepage is here, keep in mind that the species files are all independent projects from each other maintained by different specialists, which is why they are occasionally inconsistent with each other. They also don't actually curate the highest order/clade/grouping levels so that was constantly out of date. The Cnemidolestida placement is recent and many ancillary article which mention but don't focus on the group likely need updating.--Kevmin § 19:56, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
Ah whoops, I didn't make myself clear, I meant that specifically Polyneoptera Species File was internally inconsistent only with respect to itself, in particular the use of supraordinal taxa. And yes, I'd heard that Species Files migrated recently, but the Polyneoptera one is one of those that was not migrated. Monster Iestyn (talk) 20:17, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
indeed, which is why I did not use it.--Kevmin § 20:30, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
Double checking literature since 2000 (at least via Google Scholar), while I already know Paoliida in particular has become generally accepted, I am not seeing the same for "Perlidea" or "Paoliidea". "Perlidea" appears to be mostly only used by Storozhenko, Rasnitsyn and Aristov from what I see. Some publications by Olivier Béthoux and others sometimes talk about Perlidea (e.g. [3], [4]) but I take it they do not use it themselves as a name for a clade or superorder. Meanwhile, "Paoliidea" I think is used only by Rasnitsyn & Aristov (2016), who reject the placement of Paoliida as stem-group Dictyoptera (which I think is otherwise generally accepted now?), and instead prefer to put it in its own superorder.
Also, I dont think anyone in the literature actually includes Phasmatodea/Phasmatida in Perlidea, since we're here? In History of Insects from 2002, it is included instead in a superorder Gryllidea alongside Orthoptera. Since Aristov (2015) does not list a Phasmatida under Gryllones (= Polyneoptera) Perlidea, it is possible he too considered Phasmatida to be placed in Gryllidea.
The basic issue in the end is that there seems to be multiple very different classifications for Polyneoptera and their extinct relatives, and Perlidea and Paoliidea I believe is only used by one of them? Apologies if I've been very confusing here, I dug into Polyneoptera classification some months back and found myself confused by it, and unable to figure how best to handle fossil Polyneoptera on Wikipedia or Wikispecies as a result. I'm not even sure if I was right to set up Paoliida as I did. Perhaps I'm overthinking this and it doesn't really matter for the purposes of the year of paleoentomology lists. Monster Iestyn (talk) 22:26, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
I would say its important to consider that there is very little in the way of western hemisphere work happening on Pre-Cretaceous insects and hasn't been since the early 1950's with Mazon Creek being explored initially. There are few W.H. outcrops that are older and fewer workers to work on them. The vast majority of the work is happening by Russian workers and a few European workers, so we do have a bit of a split. BUT thats a split of maybe 5 workers to 3 workers. It feels very diproportionate to say that over half the Paleozoic insect taxonomists are "not accepted" when there are less western Paleozoic worked with Nel and Béthoux being the two that do the vast majority. Very Very few workers do anything with the higher "names" due to the spotty record. While we don't have a large group of literature to go on we should follow the current placements of lower groups, so the Phasmatodea and Cnemidolestida groups should be adjusted on the "XXXX in paleoentomology lists"--Kevmin § 22:49, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

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

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

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:09, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Orthoptera

Hi, I've been looking at the revisions you've made, and I agree with all but I was trying to do was to create a relationship and harmony between all the articles on the wiki, so that it would be easier to navigate the taxonomy of the species, and since Grylloidea currently excludes Gryllotalpidae and Myrmecophilidae, moving them to a separate superfamily (Gryllotalpoidea), with this two superfamilies included in the infraorder Gryllidea, I thought it would be more effective to put this infraorder in the cladogram and the taxonomic information because in this way it does not exclude mole crickets and maintains coherence between the articles on the English wiki. But I do apologize for mixing up the infraorder with the superfamilies, and what I have done is include the Gryllotalpoidea along with Grylloidea, and the others superfamilies, in the taxonomy list. I don't know if you could help me include it in the cladogram as well, so that it would be more complete. Jorinosa (talk) 14:50, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Paleobiota of the Green River Formation, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Emiliana.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:55, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

WikiProject Canada 10,000 Challenge eighth anniversary

Moved--Kevmin § 17:37, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Kevmin/Archive_10&oldid=1266644843"