User talk:Burklemore1/Archive 2

Proposal

I am posting this on my talk page since I have no other place to place, and I would like editors to read this so they can get involved.

I have the intention of promoting as many ant genus articles to GA or FA as possible, based on how well studied they are. I am currently working on Iridomyrmex and Ochetellus in my sandbox and I will also promote some species articles. My main goal is to boost up the knowledge and coverage of ant articles currently. Right now, the quality lacks behind many topics (i.e. spiders and birds). Do add any comments. :-) Burklemore1 (talk) 16:09, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

May 2015

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Living fossil may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 13:00, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Fixed. Burklemore1 (talk) 05:28, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Landkreuzer P. 1000 Ratte

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Landkreuzer P. 1000 Ratte you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Tomandjerry211 -- Tomandjerry211 (talk) 23:00, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Landkreuzer P. 1000 Ratte

The article Landkreuzer P. 1000 Ratte you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Landkreuzer P. 1000 Ratte for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Tomandjerry211 -- Tomandjerry211 (talk) 20:41, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Ochetellus

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Ochetellus you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Cwmhiraeth -- Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:41, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Ochetellus

The article Ochetellus you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Ochetellus for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Cwmhiraeth -- Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:41, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Banded sugar ant

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Banded sugar ant you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of FunkMonk -- FunkMonk (talk) 15:41, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Banded sugar ant

The article Banded sugar ant you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Banded sugar ant for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of FunkMonk -- FunkMonk (talk) 13:21, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 13

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

Myrmecia (ant)

added links pointing to Mallee, Solenopsis and Blowfly

List of Myrmecia species

added a link pointing to Myrmecia

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:56, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

All fixed. Burklemore1 (talk) 09:29, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Macabeemyrma

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Macabeemyrma you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Animalparty -- Animalparty (talk) 18:41, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Canberra College Logo.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Canberra College Logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:15, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Macabeemyrma

The article Macabeemyrma you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Macabeemyrma for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Animalparty -- Animalparty (talk) 05:01, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 4

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:40, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Fixed. Burklemore1 (talk) 09:42, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Prionomyrmex

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Prionomyrmex you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Gug01 -- Gug01 (talk) 14:00, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Prionomyrmex

The article Prionomyrmex you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Prionomyrmex for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Gug01 -- Gug01 (talk) 17:21, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

The Good Article Barnstar

		The Good Article Barnstar
		To Burklemore, Ant Hero of Wikipedia, and writer of Good Articles, for writing Good Articles and for being pretty cool in general. As always, it's a pleasure to read you articles. Keep it up! jonkerz ♠talk 16:29, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you jonkerz, I appreciate it! Expect to see more ant related GA's in the future. Burklemore1 (talk) 16:49, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, Burklemore1. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 16:33, 13 August 2015 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

jonkerz ♠talk 16:33, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Anomalomyrma

Re [1]: I emailed Stan Blum of AntCat regarding a very similar issue last year. Copy-paste from the email: "The author citation for Protanilla is listed as 'Bolton, 1990' but it should be 'Taylor, 1990' or possibly 'Taylor, in Bolton, 1990' (see the link below)."

Bolton, B. (1990). "The higher classification of the ant subfamily Leptanillinae (Hymenoptera: Formicidae)" (PDF). Systematic Entomology. 15: 267–282. doi:10.1111/j.1365-3113.1990.tb00063.x.

They changed the author citation of Protanilla the same day, but Protanilla rafflesi was left incorrectly listing "Bolton, 1990" as the author. I've emailed Blum once again regarding this issue. jonkerz ♠talk 00:27, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Ah, I see. I was pretty confused as to why there was such a mix-up. Thanks for the clarification on this though. I believe there was another ant genus that may have the same issue, but I forgot what the name was. I'll have to look around unless you may know in regards to your comment. Burklemore1 (talk) 00:31, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

These are the ones I know of:

• Anomalomyrmini - Taylor, 1990 (in Bolton, 1990)
• Anomalomyrma - Taylor, 1990 (in Bolton, 1990)
• Protanilla - Taylor, 1990 (in Bolton, 1990)
• Protanilla rafflesi - Taylor, 1990 (in Bolton, 1990)

Any one of these? They are all from the same publication (Bolton 2003), which contains some taxa described by Bolton and some by Taylor, hence the confusion. jonkerz ♠talk 00:36, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Oh, I think it was Protanilla. Hmm, so it most likely wasn't another genus. I was thinking about it since I am working on the list of ant genera in my sandbox which I am almost finished with, and I may have got the author citations mixed up (my changes were most likely associated with my edits on that sandbox). Burklemore1 (talk) 00:44, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Wow! That truly is some impressive work! Looking forward to see the article go live. jonkerz ♠talk 01:00, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, I'll get around to it once I have finished with the FA nomination of Banded sugar ant and among other things. It's a colossal project, but it will be worth it in the long run. It could even be a FL one day, who knows. ;) Burklemore1 (talk) 01:21, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

GA comment

The page nom has been archived now but yes, I went through all those websites and have added every single thing. SwisterTwister talk 23:02, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

I noticed that it has been; don't let the closed nomination deter you from nominating again. Perhaps a peer review and copyedit + additional research (as well as addressing all issues in the nomination) will benefit the article a lot. I'm not expert on reviewing, but I have been getting familiar with it a lot. I'd advise nominating it for GA first. Burklemore1 (talk) 00:09, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Specimen numbers

I see you have removed the specimen numbers from some of fossil ant article, noting that they "prove no significance to an encylopedia". I am of a different opinion. I will note that many if not most of the paleontology articles, such as the FA Dinosaur articles, do include the specimen numbers of type and notable specimens. May I ask why you feel that the numbers of the only identified specimens are not worth inclusion?--Kevmin § 22:13, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Can you provide some examples of which articles incorporate specimen numbers? If I recall we are writing for general readers, not paleontologists (as pointed out by one of my GA reviewers). I do not see how specimen numbers are significant for an article. I won't engage in an edit war with you over the numbers btw, so I will guess we'll see what comes out of this discussion first. Burklemore1 (talk) 05:27, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Just a quick search, all three of theses (Stegosaurus, Diplodocus, Ankylosaurus) are FA level articles which specifically talk about and use specimen numbers in both figures and prose. I go with that precedent and the concept that with very few exceptions, the information will quite possibly be of interest to the general public. Especially if the reader has an interest in either fossils or ants and would like to look up the specimen themselves. --Kevmin § 19:28, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Hm, seems I was wrong then. Apologies for my ignorance; I guess we'll just have to see what the reviewers want then. As you may have noticed, I am attempting to bring the Myrmeciinae articles to GA level or higher, with a lot of success so far. Burklemore1 (talk) 03:55, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

No apologies needed, Animalparty almost entirely contributes/writes about extant taxa if I recall correctly, and may not pay attention to Paleo articles that much. :D --Kevmin § 00:33, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

I'd probably have to second that, so I should consider the views of those who are specalised in paleo-related articles since I am pretty unfamiliar with paleontology. 04:06, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Myrmeciites

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Myrmeciites you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of FunkMonk -- FunkMonk (talk) 18:20, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Myrmeciites

The article Myrmeciites you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Myrmeciites for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of FunkMonk -- FunkMonk (talk) 19:21, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Ah, the GA status of this article can be my birthday present. ;) Burklemore1 (talk) 09:45, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Happy birthday and happy GA day five days ago! jonkerz ♠talk 08:37, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Hahaha I can see the small text that likes to hide itself well, but thank you for the message. ;) Burklemore1 (talk) 08:55, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 4

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:52, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Done. Burklemore1 (talk) 10:54, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Ypresiomyrma

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Ypresiomyrma you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of FunkMonk -- FunkMonk (talk) 21:00, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Ypresiomyrma

The article Ypresiomyrma you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Ypresiomyrma for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of FunkMonk -- FunkMonk (talk) 01:41, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Casaleia

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:52, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Iridomyrmex GAN

Burke! I wrote a comment for the Iridomyrmex GAN; I am however afraid that creating the nomination page would effectively hide it from the list of open nominations. I'll just post it here as is:

• A quick comment - Nice work as always Burklemore! Some of the sections from when this article was created back in 2007 may need to be rewritten to avoid WP:COPYVIO (just to make it clear, the content that I believe are copyright violations were not added by Burklemore). Compare:
  • "Unlike other genera in Dolichoderinae, Iridomyrmex ants have the front margin of the clypeus above the mandibles highly modified with convex areas towards the sides, and a central projection that varies from strongly to weakly developed. The compound eyes are relatively high on the head and away from the mandibles." from Iridomyrmex#Description
  • "Members of this genus can be identified by having the front margin of the clypeus above the mandibles highly modified with convex areas towards the sides and a central projection (this central projection varies from strongly to weakly developed) (Figs 1a, 2). In addition, the compound eyes are placed relatively high on the head and away from the mandibles" from [2]

jonkerz ♠talk 17:27, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

@Jonkerz: Crap, thanks for pointing this out and thanks for the compliment! I guess we'll need to be cautious with text that was incorporated a very long time ago then in all ant articles. I'll rewrite the sentence now. Burklemore1 (talk) 17:34, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Rewritten the sentence, although it's pretty hard rewriting sentences without making no sense or still lean on a copyvio, so can you check if the new sentences are satisfactory? Cheers, Burklemore1 (talk) 17:46, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Looks good! I quickly checked the other sections from the 2007 revision without finding any issues. jonkerz ♠talk 18:01, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

@Jonkerz: Excellent, thank you. :) Never realised that articles can be left in such a poor state (the 2007 revision shows it). Burklemore1 (talk) 18:13, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Termite

I've come here in response to your last comment on the talk page of the termite article.

Oh, I'm so sorry. I had forgotten that I had written that in my comments on the other editor's talk page. When I wrote that, I never thought the writer of the article would see that. Now that I've gotten at least half-way through this long article, I can't remember whether the writing was about the same all the way through or was better in some places than other places. If you really want me to go back and figure that out, I will. I thought I had seen (when I first read your comments on the termite talk page) a link, something like "here", to the way the article was before you started working on it, but now I can't find it. Then I could see what the writing was like before you started working on it, and I would be able to see your edits. If I could do that, I might see that your writing was good, which might make you feel better. I guess I could look at the edit history for that, and look at the diffs. I see that we also worked on Iridomyrmex, and I don't recall seeing any problems with your writing then. Can you give me a link to the way the article was before you started working on it? Maybe the parts that you worked on are fine. I'd be glad to take a look. I realize now that I ought to think before I write something like that. Please accept my apologies. Corinne (talk) 02:32, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps I am at fault with a few of the sections and the writing wasn't in my favour; here is the revision before I even started to work on it, and this is what the revision was before my major edits. The revision I provided was the one before I even started to work on it, so that should clear up some questions. As long as we can work together to fix the prose up, I think it should be top notch and ready for GA (especially to any areas you find confusing and I'll try and see what I can fix). Apologies are accepted, I wasn't really offended at all, I was just surprised my edits may have caused a lot more problems. I'll say the prose is a lot better than what is presented in Wendisch-Rambow though. Burklemore1 (talk) 04:01, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

I looked at the links in the revision history you provided, but it's hard to compare the quality of writing unless I spend a lot of time scrutinizing it. I think our time is better spent looking forward rather than backward. I see what you mean in that W-R article. How did you stumble upon that one? Will you be working on that article? Let me know if you want any help with it. Re Termite, I do a few sections at a time, then take a break before going back to it. Corinne (talk) 12:30, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

I retained a lot of the text from the old revisions because well.. I found the sources for them anyway (I just didn't really look into the prose all that much). You're correct as well, we should spend our time looking forward, and be glad the termite article is no longer neglected. I have noticed a huge increase of important insect articles getting promoted to GA recently, so I thought I could contribute in a way. As for Wendisch-Rambow, I was previously working on the Till Lindemann article for a bit and it was mentioned in the article. I did propose on fixing up the article, but I never got around to it so I could try and make some time and we can fix it up. Burklemore1 (talk) 12:42, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

O.K. Corinne (talk) 15:51, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

I just made a few edits to Termite#Defence. I had a particularly difficult time with the fourth paragraph. I wasn't sure whether biosynthesis had anything to do with the glue-like substance. Also, in the course of re-arranging things, I may have separated some of the references from the material it's supposed to go with. Can you check this section, and particularly the fourth paragraph? Thanks. Corinne (talk) 02:11, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

I think the biosynthesize and nitrogen should be added into the caste system section, because the source says they biosynthesize diterpenes, not the secretion they squirt out. I figured this would be irrelevant since it plays no part in defence, and it is probably just a general explanation of the unique soldiers. Since they are already briefly mentioned in the caste system section, I think it's best to further explain what nasutes are and what they can do (i.e. what we just discussed above).

The section I'm talking about should be swapped like this: Different sorts of soldiers include minor and major soldiers, and nasutes which have a horn-like nozzle frontal projection (a nasus) used for defence. The ref given should stay in its place, then we can expand with the biosynthesis and stuff. The loss of the mandibles statement can stay in the defence, as they do not need them and rely on their nozzle instead. Btw, the sentence "instead they can to biosynthesize." wasn't my edit, oops. Burklemore1 (talk) 05:19, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanations, but I don't know enough of the science to know what belongs where, so you'll have to do that. I'll just let you know if it's not clear or if the sentences don't flow well, after you've corrected the material. I'll now work on the rest of the article. Corinne (talk) 15:07, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

No worries, I'll perform some edits now. Apologies if I disrupt any of your edits by the way. Burklemore1 (talk) 15:15, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Okay, I have done additional edits to the article, and I have also incorporated in some new info. The text may be complicated due to the terms given, but it exactly follows what the source states. Other than that, please check for any potential errors or confusion. Cheers, Burklemore1 (talk) 15:50, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

I've been going through the article a second time, but I have to take a break from it. I'll get back to it later today. Corinne (talk) 16:48, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Alright no problem, take as much time as you need. Burklemore1 (talk) 16:53, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Termite

I have a few questions. Here's the first one.

1) The first sentence in the section Termite#Taxonomy and phylogeny is the following:

• Recent DNA analyses from 16S rRNA sequences has supported the hypothesis, originally based on morphology, that termites are most closely related to the wood-eating cockroaches (genus Cryptocercus), to which the singular and very primitive Mastotermes darwiniensis shows some telltale similarities.

I have two questions about this sentence:

(a) I wonder, in the phrase "originally based on morphology", whether it would be good to add an adverb before "based" such as:

• only
• solely
• mainly (only use if the hypothesis was also based on something else besides morphology)

(b) In the final clause of the sentence, I wonder whether the word "singular" isn't slightly ambiguous. It could mean "strange, quite unusual", or it could mean "sole, single, one". I believe the first meaning was probably meant, but I wonder whether that is too sophisticated (or old-fashioned) a word to use. If you agree, perhaps one of these would work: "slightly strange", "unusual", "somewhat unusual", "distinctive". If you think "singular" is all right as it is, then leave it. Corinne (talk) 22:28, 25 September 2015 (UTC) Rothorpe, what do you think? Corinne (talk) 22:28, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

I think it should be "mainly", based on one study in 1964 suggesting a close relationship due to the similar morphology and an earlier report published in 1934, stating that Cryptocercus shares the same symbiotic gut flagellate with early termites. In fact, this close relationship was first suggested in that 1934 report. I have also changed it from singular to distinctive. As you said, it could mean "sole, single one", but this may refer to it being the only extant member of its family. However, its primitive nature and morphology may be similar to other termites, but in a way it is still unique.

2) The third sentence in the first paragraph in Termite#Caste system is the following:

• Digestion is achieved in one of two ways.

Right after this sentence, I see one way digestion is achieved, but I can't figure out what the second way is. I think it should be clear to the reader what the second way is. Corinne (talk) 00:10, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

I just realized something. Do we really need to include details about the digestive system here (in Termite#Caste system) at all? Digestion is treated in the Termite#Diet section. Corinne (talk) 00:54, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

I have moved relevant information to the diet section while I have removed some redundancies. Burklemore1 (talk) 05:49, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

I just saw a sentence I had seen before and wanted to ask you about it. It's the first sentence in the section Termite#Parasites, pathogens and viruses:

• As termites are usually well protected in their mounds and rarely consume invertebrates, termites are not ideal hosts for parasites and the opportunity to pass onto another host is low, but, if there is an imminent threat of an attack by parasites, a colony may migrate to a new location.

I understand this sentence up to "are not ideal hosts for parasites". However, the part that follows that is not clear: "the opportunity to pass onto another host is low". I assume this means "the opportunity for parasites to pass onto termites is low". If so, I think it should say that, but, worded this way, it sounds awfully similar to the first part of the sentence so perhaps is not needed. Just now I realized the third part of the sentence should be its own sentence: "Facing imminent threat of an attack by parasites, a colony may migrate to a new location", or "In the face of imminent threat", or "Under imminent threat..." Corinne (talk) 01:01, 26 September 2015 (UTC) I went ahead and got rid of that phrase ("the opportunity to pass onto another host is low") because it was redundant, and I made a few other changes.

Toward the end of that paragraph Termite#Parasites, pathogens and viruses is the following sentence:

• Specific nematodes are an intermediate host; their final hosts are chickens.

It's not clear to mean what is meant by "specific nematodes". Should it be "Certain nematodes" (ie., some, but not all, nematodes)? Corinne (talk) 01:12, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Burklemore1, I've done as much as I want to on this article. I'm getting a bit tired and I want to go onto other articles tomorrow. I will help with the issues I mentioned above after read your replies, but I don't want to read through any more of it (my second reading). Would you read it through, and if you have any questions or concerns, let me know? Corinne (talk) 01:30, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

I'll take a look when I have addressed the issues you have raised here. I have changed it from "specific nematodes" to "certain nematodes". Burklemore1 (talk) 04:42, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Burklemore, I made a few changes to the "originally based on" sentence. At first I was only going to move "mainly" so that you don't have two "-ly" adverbs right next to each other. Then I substituted "primarily" for "mainly" ("primarily" is a bit more elegant). Then I corrected the verb form, from "has" to "have" (the subject, "analyses", is plural), and I slightly re-worded the second half of the sentence. Then, I thought that something might still be wrong with it. Here is the sentence as it is now:

• Recent DNA analyses from 16S rRNA sequences have supported the hypothesis, originally based primarily on morphology and the presence of similar symbiotic gut flagellates in certain cockroaches and early termites, that these insects are most closely related to the wood-eating cockroaches (genus Cryptocercus), to which the distinctive and very primitive Mastotermes darwiniensis shows some telltale similarities.

(a) Are you sure you want "analyses" (plural), and not "analysis" (singular and/or uncountable/general)? I would only use the plural if it is beyond a doubt that there were separate studies with separate results. Otherwise, I would use the singular, and then you would have to change "have" back to "has".

(b) The way the sentence is worded now, the hypothesis was originally based on two things: (1) morphology, and (2) the presence of similar symbiotic gut flagellates in certain cockroaches and early termites. Are you sure the hypothesis was originally based on both of these and not just morphology? Similarities and differences in morphology could have been noted decades, or centuries, ago, but determining the presence of gut microbes would require modern equipment. Also, if you're making the point that the hypothesis was originally based on something, then you've got to make clear what it is now based on. Otherwise, there's no reason to suggest a contrast (with "originally"). So, if, by chance, I am right, and the hypothesis is now based on the presence of gut microbes, or that and morphology, then we've got to modify the sentence to make that clear. Let me know if you need help wording the sentence. Corinne (talk) 15:57, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the edits! I have decided to change it to analysis/has based on your suggestions/statements. I'll try and see what I can; basically the hypothesis was based on the gut microbes, but then additional evidence emerged that the morphological characters of some termites and cockroaches were strikingly similar. So with that said, the hypothesis is now based on the gut microbes and morphology. Burklemore1 (talk) 04:13, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

@Corinne: I have done additional edits, so can you please check if the sentence is fine and reword any errors? Thank you, Burklemore1 (talk) 04:25, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

I've made two small edits. I changed "character" to "characteristic". (I had never heard "character" used in this type of context.) The sentence is now grammatically and stylistically correct, but I am still puzzled by something (and wonder whether the sentence is not too long and/or complicated). When you say the hypothesis was "originally based on the presence of similar symbiotic gut flagellates in certain cockroaches and early termites", you:

(a) don't say when "originally" was, and

(b) don't explain what "early termites" were. When I read "early", I think earlier in the geological record of insects, ie., fossils. How in the world could a scientist discover gut microbes in a fossilized termite? So, you can see that if I, as an educated reader who is not an expert in entomology, am confused by this, other average readers will be, too.

Perhaps you need first to explain what the hypothesis was, making clear what "early termites" were, and who suggested the hypothesis and when, and then go into the next statement about the later discovery of similar morphological characteristics. Corinne (talk) 18:27, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Oops, should have kept "characteristic", my bad. I'll get around to these today, though I'll explain what I mean with termites. I would presume "early termites" means ancient living termites. This is indeed possible (I have worked with ants such as Nothomyrmecia and Myrmecia, who are around 74-100 million years old based on genetic and DNA evidence). I'll have to dive deep into the sources to see what they're exactly implying though. Burklemore1 (talk) 05:47, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

O.K. If you decide to use that phrase, "ancient living termites", I think you should explain it. Corinne (talk) 15:02, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

@Corinne: No problem. Apologies for the inactivity on Termite, I have been busy writing other articles but I should get around to this one shortly. Burklemore1 (talk) 08:13, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Also, what would need to be explained about the "ancient living termites" part? Do you want me to leave a note saying this refers to extremely old termites that emerged millions of years ago? Burklemore1 (talk) 13:41, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Burklemore. I was about to leave an additional comment and realized you had replied here to earlier comments and I hadn't seen your replies. I'll look at them in a minute. First let me leave my additional comment. I see you changed the sentences regarding the orientation of the mounds to keep them cool in the summer and warm in the winter. I hope you don't mind that I re-worded it a little. I see you've got "during summer" in the first of those sentences and "during the winter" in the second sentence. I think these should be consistent, either both with "the" or both without "the". American English generally uses "the". I don't know what British English usage is; it might be "during summer" and "during winter". I'll let you decide which style to use. Corinne (talk) 16:14, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Regarding the phrase "ancient living termites", unless you've explained it elsewhere (and earlier) in the article, I think it needs some explanation. Usually, when something is "ancient", it is no longer living, so putting "ancient" together with "living" to describe termites may confuse some readers. I don't know what they are, either. Corinne (talk) 16:17, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

That's okay, the review seems to be going very well so far by the way. I have decided to remove "the" since American English uses it, and we are trying to avoid American English altogether in the article. As for your other concern, could we replace "ancient" with "primitive"? Usually extremely old organisms that are regarded as living fossils are more associated with this word. Burklemore1 (talk) 16:24, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry; I didn't see this comment until today. I don't know what the best word is. When you say, "extremely old organisms", I assume you mean organisms that have existed on the earth for tens of thousands of years, if not more, undergoing little change through that time. That's what I understand when I see "living fossils". Did you explain this somewhere in the article, that termites are "living fossils" (or in similar words)? If so, why not use "living fossils"? Otherwise, why not just use "termites"?

I just saw your additional edits to the article. Instead of making more changes to what you just wrote, I wanted to ask you about them here:

(a) In Termite#Mound, the first sentence reads:

• Nests are only considered mounds if they protrude from the earth's surface.

I wonder why you need "only". If you remove "only", it is a simple statement about mounds: "Nests are considered mounds if they protrude from the earth's surface."

(b) In Termite#As food, you have this sentence:

• Queens are harder to acquire, but they are regarded as a delicacy.

I wonder why you need the pronoun "they". Adding "they" potentially adds a slight bit of ambiguity since you have several plural nouns in this and the preceding sentence. The sentence would be perfectly clear without it: "Queens are harder to acquire but are regarded as a delicacy", or:

Though harder to acquire, queens are regarded as a delicacy. Corinne (talk) 16:23, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

That's ok, I have read your comments and used your suggestions. I'm not sure why I wrote the sentences like that, but I have changed them now. As for the living fossil part, "living fossils" depends on what termite we are discussing about, not the entire infraorder itself. You are correct in your current understanding of the term "living fossil". Whether it's thousands of years or millions of years, "living fossils" are usually aimed at specific organisms that have existed for a very long time, as you have pointed out, and little change has occurred. Mastotermes darwiniensis is a good example of a living fossil termite, it's among the most primitive on earth. Fossil evidence suggest its relatives are over 250 million years old. Burklemore1 (talk) 16:45, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Myrmecia (ant)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Myrmecia (ant) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Dunkleosteus77 -- Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 19:20, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Myrmecia nigriceps

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Myrmecia nigriceps you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Dunkleosteus77 -- Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 18:40, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Well done!! on getting the GA up ! keep up the good work JarrahTree 03:50, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you JarrahTree! It was a pleasure working on this article, although the material was hard to find. We now have 10 ant GA's, but expect more Myrmecia related articles to be nominated in the future. ;) Burklemore1 (talk) 03:56, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Termite

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Termite you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Stigmatella aurantiaca -- Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 23:20, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Termite

The article Termite you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Termite for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Stigmatella aurantiaca -- Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 23:40, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Avitomyrmex

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Avitomyrmex you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Cwmhiraeth -- Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:00, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Jack jumper ant

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Jack jumper ant you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Dunkleosteus77 -- Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 23:00, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Lead image for Bee

Hi, there's a discussion on Talk:Bee about the lead image. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:48, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for letting me know, I have left a comment. Cheers, Burklemore1 (talk) 14:18, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Let's see if anyone else responds before doing anything. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:32, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Agreed, it's best to see what the wider community thinks about this. Burklemore1 (talk) 14:44, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Myrmecia (ant)

The article Myrmecia (ant) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Myrmecia (ant) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Dunkleosteus77 -- Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 03:41, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Jack jumper ant

The article Jack jumper ant you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Jack jumper ant for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Dunkleosteus77 -- Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 03:42, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Yantaromyrmex

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Yantaromyrmex you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of FunkMonk -- FunkMonk (talk) 22:21, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Brownimecia

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Brownimecia you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of J Milburn -- J Milburn (talk) 12:01, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Archimyrmex

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Archimyrmex you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Cwmhiraeth -- Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:41, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

A cup of tea for you!

With this ever dramatic world including WikiDrama, here's a cup of tea to alleviate your day! This e-tea's remains have been e-composted SwisterTwister talk 07:07, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

I may not drink tea all that often, but I'll definitely have this one! Thank you very much SwisterTwister! :) Burklemore1 (talk) 07:11, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Termite now a Good Article

Congratulations on achieving another Good Article! Corinne (talk) 17:00, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, Corinne! I have done my calculations and the article receives more than 300,000 viewers a year, so I'm guessing I'm eligible for the quarter million award, right? Burklemore1 (talk) 17:23, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Archimyrmex

I have passed Archimyrmex as a good article. I do not believe it is eligible for DYK as a newly promoted GA because it has already been on DYK when first created by Kevmin. Termite probably does qualify however, well done with that.

Would you consider reviewing one of my three outstanding nominations at GAN, being Parsnip, Greylag goose and Ruddy shelduck? I wouldn't ask, but the final round of the WikiCup is finishing at the end of the month and the position is finely balanced. The present leader has got all his points from Featured Pictures, and he also has a total of 1380 FP bonus points that are not readily apparent on the scoreboard. When FPs are nominated, people support or oppose them, and with sufficient support the image is promoted ten days later. With GAs, it is a much more chancy business as you know, and the nominations may hang around for months before they are reviewed. Anyway, keep up the good work on the ant articles. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:18, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

That's fine, I kind of suspected articles cannot be nominated twice anyway. As for Termite, thank you, it is actually a dyk nominee being reviewed. The huge surge of vital insect articles to GA and FA status thanks to you and Chiswick Chap made me motivated to contribute by working on termite.

I'll come check them out when I get home, as I am on my phone at the moment. I'm not very experienced with reviewing, so I may ask another editor for their input if you are okay with that. As always thank you for the kind words, I have many more ant articles lined up for GA. Burklemore1 (talk) 07:49, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Termite

The article Termite you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Termite for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Stigmatella aurantiaca -- Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 00:42, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

You've got mail! and THANK YOU

Hello, Burklemore1. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 15:54, 29 October 2015 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

jonkerz ♠talk 15:54, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Added some information in. A lot of the material was found in the ant article, but I have reworded it and added in additional sentences. With that said, it can still be used to explain the evolution of ants. :-) Burklemore1 (talk) 07:25, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Finally promoted! Thanks again :) jonkerz ♠talk 14:19, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

No worries, I am glad it was promoted this time! Well done, that makes it the first ant related FL. :) Burklemore1 (talk) 16:37, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Quarter Million Award for Termite

		The Quarter Million Award
		For your contributions to bring Termite (estimated annual readership: 304,750) to Good Article status, I hereby present you the Quarter Million Award. Congratulations on this rare accomplishment, and thanks for all you do for Wikipedia's readers! Khazar2 (talk) 13:27, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

This editor won the Quarter Million Award for bringing Termite to Good Article status.

Few things we do in this world will help hundreds of thousands of people, but you've just accomplished that. Nice work! -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:27, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Khazar2, I sincerely thank you for giving out this award to me. It's good to know that my contributions have helped countless of people. Have a good one, Burklemore1 (talk) 16:07, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Termite

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:01, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Cockroach

I have made a start on Cockroach, mostly "Description", and a bit on "Behavior". Shall I leave you to deal with the "Taxonomy and evolution" section, and shall I ask Chiswick Chap if he is interested in working on the "Relationship with humans" section? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:38, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Sure, Chiswick Chap would know what to do with the material if he is interested. I'll work on the taxonomy and evolution (I'll focus on its relationship with the termites first). Also, what should we do with the "see also" article featured in the "hardiness" section? I don't get how the two relate and I reckon it's better suited in the "Relationship with humans" section. What do you think? Burklemore1 (talk) 14:34, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Do you think we should split the material in the "culture section" into other sections such as "in literature", "in music" and "in film"? There seems to be enough information to warrant these sections, but I was curious if you had this planned or if Chiswick Chap may consider this if he decides to work on the article. Burklemore1 (talk) 14:56, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

I usually leave how the culture section is organised to CC, not being particularly interested in that aspect. As for the "see also" link, we can either just leave it or can add a few sentences about the topic, if sufficiently relevant. I haven't looked at it yet. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:46, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

I think it could be useful by adding a sentence or two. It is possible to even add a conservation section if necessary if we can't find a place. I looked up "cockroach" on the IUCN and two results showed up. Delosia ornata is critically endangered and Nocticola gerlachi is endangered. Habitat loss due to human activities/habitat loss, rising sea levels and other factors are responsible, so I could work on that section if you would think a new section is necessary. I think it's slightly unbalanced if the article only discusses cockroaches as pests and not acknowledge that some cockroaches are almost extinct and need help. Burklemore1 (talk) 03:54, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

I have started up a distribution section, but there seems to be some info in the behavior section already. Did you want the info in the new section merged or move the paragraph in the behavior section to distribution? Burklemore1 (talk) 04:47, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Move it, expand it, replace it, - do as you think best. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:51, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

OK. This book contains some useful information you may want to read (only goes up to page 23 though). Seems to be a load of info about its locomotion too. Burklemore1 (talk) 15:33, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Jack jumper ant

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:02, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

List of ant genera

So I made the sandbox list sortable, that's how the colors of the headers disappeared. It's actually quite easy to restore the old style while still keeping the table sortable by replacing bgcolor=#d3d3a4 with style="background-color: #d3d3a4; font-weight: normal", but I want see what you think about merging all tables in a single list first. Something like this.

A big table is clunkier (and the subfamilies won't show up in the ToC and multiple tables also look better), but not being able to sort the whole list by name/year/no. species is probably worse. The scope="row" is strictly not needed, but it makes it obvious which cell the other cells are referring to.

Also, the captions I added makes the list look cluttered with all the repetitions but I think it's a necessary evil required by WP:ASTONISH (e.g. the image next to the cell saying "Casaleia inversa" is actually that of Casaleia eocenica -- not really what you'd expect). jonkerz ♠talk 00:08, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Today's featured article/November 28, 2015

Burklemore, a summary of a Featured Article you nominated at WP:FAC will appear on the Main Page soon. You can use the page history to get a diff comparing it to the lead section of the article; how does it look? I went with "The eggs of this species were consumed" rather than "The brood" because that's what I found in the given source; did another source have different information? - Dank (push to talk) 05:23, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Oh, didn't notice this one. I haven't found any other source that says "brood", so I'm happy with what you have provided. Cheers, Burklemore1 (talk) 16:16, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

New disambig Jack jumper ant (disambiguation)

According to [3] there are three other "jack jumper ant"s:

Jack jumper ant, Myrmecia pilosula, an Australian ant

Jack jumper ant can also refer to several other species in the same genus:

• Myrmecia banksi
• Myrmecia croslandi
• Myrmecia fulvipes
• Any Myrmecia ant?? Do people use the name in this way?

{{disambig|biology}}

Do you know of any other jack jumper ant? jonkerz ♠talk 16:42, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Members of M. pilosula and M. nigrocincta group are known as jack jumper ants, but this name is more associated with Myrmecia pilosula. Hm, do you think we should go ahead create the suggested disambiguation page and rename the article to Myrmecia pilosula? I think a proposal could be done beforehand if the specific species is the primary topic and the possibility of opposition. Burklemore1 (talk) 16:45, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

I generally favor scientific article titles over common names (this one may however be an exception), but right now I'm more interested in compiling a list with all taxa referred to as "jack jumper". Since references are not used in dabs, we should try to mention the name + a ref in the listed articles. jonkerz ♠talk 16:53, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

The four new described species are called jack jumpers by Robert Taylor I believe, so there's that. I think we should mention that they are also known as "jumping jacks". The following sentence could be useful, along with the list of species:

Jack jumpers (also known as jumping jacks), a name given to any member of the Myrmecia pilosula species group. Burklemore1 (talk) 16:59, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Reading Taylor (2015) I just realized that species group and species complex are not synonyms (oops). The list so far:

Jack jumper ants

• M. pilosula species group:
  • All six species in the Myrmecia pilosula species complex: Myrmecia pilosula, M. croslandi, M. banksi, M. haskinsorum, M. imaii and M. impaternata (Taylor, 2015)
  • All species in all species complexes of this group? [citation needed]
• At least one species in the M. mandibularis species group: Myrmecia fulvipes[4]

From the Myrmecia article: 'These ants are commonly known as "bulldog ants" or "jack jumper" ants.' Idea #2: List of ants by common name. jonkerz ♠talk 21:57, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

I think all members of M. pilosula species group are known by it, though we will need multiple sources to fully claim them. Thought I'd point that out first. Do we also know about the other Myrmecia species of this complex mentioned in the Jack jumper ant article? Burklemore1 (talk) 05:44, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

I went ahead and created the dab with the ones we have refs for (with the refs added to the talk page). It's better than no dab, and a start we can expand on later. jonkerz ♠talk 18:27, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

I have added M. nigrocincta in, but I'll look for a reference soon. May look for additional sources to cover more Myrmecia species in M. pilosula species group too. Burklemore1 (talk) 06:56, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

This kitten will protect your talk page until you return. It's like a guard dog, just not very good at guarding.

jonkerz ♠talk 05:13, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Hahaha cheers jonkerz, the kitten is good enough! ;) Burklemore1 (talk) 05:18, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

By the way, I'm starting to feel better so I think your kitten healed me. My editing schedule will return to normal now or shortly! Burklemore1 (talk) 03:58, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Myrmecia inquilina

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Myrmecia inquilina you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Casliber -- Casliber (talk) 10:00, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Welcome!

Hello, Burklemore1, and welcome back to Wikipedia after a very short break! Thank you for your contributions, especially your edits to Myrmecia inquilina. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

• Introduction and Getting started
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article
• Simplified Manual of Style

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or , and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! jonkerz ♠talk 07:38, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the warm welcome! Let's get things started (again) shall we? Burklemore1 (talk) 03:15, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration 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 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:05, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Iridomyrmex

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Iridomyrmex you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Dunkleosteus77 -- Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 21:20, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Precious

ant diversity

Thank you for quality articles such as the Banded sugar ant, Brownimecia and Termite, based on scientific research of animal diversity and ecology, for personal touch such as "starting to feel better so I think your kitten healed me", - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:54, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Gerda Arendt, thank you for this lovely award! It's good to see that my efforts have not gone unnoticed. :) Burklemore1 (talk) 15:16, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Lucky you, appearing on the Main page, - special congrats for your first TFA. (Mine was last year.) If you look at the list, there are also many gnomes which are harder to find ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:30, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, I wasn't aware it was going to be featured on the main page until an editor notified me. ;) One day you may see another ant article featured on the mainpage again, I'm in the middle of getting one to GA and then FA at the moment. Luckily many of these gnomes are getting discovered! Burklemore1 (talk) 15:49, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Same for me, trying to get one to GA, then FA, in collaboration, to appear for Easter. For other plans see here. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:36, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

I wish you luck on getting it promoted, it certainly looks like an ambitious project! Upon looking at the WikiProject, it seems Nothomyrmecia is definitely a suitable project to engage with there. It's importance to entomology and honouring John S. Clark, who described the ant are the two reasons why I want to promote it (it will be 60 years since his death next year). Burklemore1 (talk) 04:14, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Myrmecia

Expect the page views on Myrmecia (ant) to skyrocket, the artice is currently on reddit's main page[5] jonkerz ♠talk 14:53, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

I always laugh when people who don't live here get terrified at them, they ask how I survive at times! Jack jumper is expected to get views, people are wondering why Australia is so screwed up because we have venomous jumping ants. ;) I noticed they are focused on cutting a bull ant in half, but they should realise that the article is quoting the source and not stating it as a undeniable fact. Burklemore1 (talk) 15:13, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Woah, it reached over 50,000 views in a single day! With no vandalism. :o Burklemore1 (talk) 02:42, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Something similar happened to Argentine ant. It's pretty amazing that the Myrmecia article wasn't vandalized even once. Argentine ant was less lucky (if we are to trust the person who repeatedly edited the page, the species is "a dank ant" -- but no source was given). In case you did not see this new feature, Wikipedia:WikiProject Insects/ant task force/Hot articles is pretty neat :) jonkerz ♠talk 11:53, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

I know that "dank" is to do with marijuana, urban dictionary perfectly explains it. It's a word you'd hear everyday in Australia as a matter of fact. I like the new feature, our task force grows! I'll nickname it the "Burklemore tracking device", because you'll know which article I am editing if one is a hot article. I hope the new article for Novomessor ensifer has given you a warm welcome as one of our potential future GA articles. :-) Burklemore1 (talk) 12:44, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm familiar with the "dank" meme from reddit, but my joke did not travel the series of tubes very well. Kinda far-fetched, but I was kinda implying that perhaps the opinion that some people hold that Wikipedia editors are a bunch of a-holes that reverts all edits really is true -- how would I know? No source was given and I didn't bother to look it up myself to find out if the Argentine ant really is the dankest of all dank ants :)

Sorry for not finishing the list of ant genera. I've added a bunch of stuff to your sandbox + a mirror with convenience links to Commons/AntCat/AntWeb here. I will most likely not have a single minute to spend on WP tomorrow, but I'll do what I can in the next few hours today (actually it's night...). More updates to follow. Are you online? jonkerz ♠talk 03:30, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Does this enforce any conclusions? Deadly ants are danker than the dank itself. ;) For the list I have been much busier than usual and been focusing on other projects, but soon enough I'll get around to it. Myrmecia regularis is our next nominee once I scoop up any info from a journal I was given and deal with the issues going on with Myrmecia maxima (input would be nice since we're unclear if the article is discussing the name itself or an unidentified species). Burklemore1 (talk) 03:45, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

I have not had time to read Talk:Myrmecia maxima (or the article) but it looks like at least one editor wants to turn it into a redirect? It would be foolhardy for me to make a comment on it without knowing anything about it, and I won't have time to take a look at it until next year (heh), but in general I believe that more quality articles improves the 'pedia (duh), and that includes articles on all species, even if some regard them as borderline-species species.

So it looks like I'll not manage to complete my part of the list before the deadline (still working on it); if you have time we can split the list and work on different halves without getting into edit conflicts? jonkerz ♠talk 04:22, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

We'll just see where Myrmecia maxima goes at this point, I'm not very concerned whether or not it fails the criteria (a wiki veteran did say the article almost meets the criteria anyway). For the list, your excellent contributions means we are almost ready and I don't think edit conflicts should be a problem. If we have so little to do on it I can easily do a few more edits to incorporate all ant genera and ultimately post it live. :) Burklemore1 (talk) 03:18, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Replicative editing of bee articles

see here: User_talk:Thine_Antique_Pen#Leaf-cutter_bees Gidip (talk) 15:42, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Prionomyrmecini

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Prionomyrmecini you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Gug01 -- Gug01 (talk) 21:40, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 8

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:14, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Myrmecia inquilina

Allen3 ^talk 12:22, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Novomessor ensifer

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Novomessor ensifer you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Gug01 -- Gug01 (talk) 18:01, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Yarralumla answer

I wrote to the Yarralumla, Australian Capital Territory article discussion page, please look it up. Thank you.--Porbóllett (talk) 12:51, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for responding, I'll leave a quick comment. Burklemore1 (talk) 14:03, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Myrmecia maxima

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Myrmecia maxima you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Gug01 -- Gug01 (talk) 14:41, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

List = Done

1.) Done! I haven't checked for duplicated refs or if I messed up anything, but the list is ready to go live! At least it has my seal of approval, and we can continue with minor tweaks in mainspace. It looks like we made it despite me procrastinating the last subfamily forever. 2.) Happy new year (soon)!! jonkerz ♠talk 07:01, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Happy new year, I was enjoying being in 2016 while you were in 2015. ;) The list looks great! We have very few more things to do (add in the incertae sedis and the remaining Formicinae), but I will make this my top priority. Burklemore1 (talk) 02:57, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

You must have been very effective in cleaning up duplicates, because after I resolved the last name collision there were no more dupes! I manually searched for the 121 refs from this list without finding refs in need of grouping, but there will without doubt be loads of minor things to fix even after we "release the article to the public". I've collected a bunch of todo items on the talk page. jonkerz ♠talk 07:58, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Excellent, because I'm not at home right now it may be a few hours until I start working on the remaining pieces. I may go through the refs again to fix the dashes that my keyboard does not like to feature and cut down on author names (using the first letter in their name only , just for consistency). I think this list will now take the cake for most references in a single insect related topic. For a list that is top importance for the ant task force, I am glad that that it will no longer be in a horrid state. Perhaps FL is in mind but a list like this will need constant maintenance and updating. Burklemore1 (talk) 08:14, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

For the dupes, it was pretty difficult when you had to do a lot more than just merging them. ;) Burklemore1 (talk) 08:16, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

FL would be awesome! All the citation templates were updated some time ago to automatically convert hyphens to em dashes before rendering the HTML. But I (think I) get where you're coming from -- it feels "dirty" to leave hyphens in articles even if bots/AWB users will fix them once the article is in mainspace :) 323 unique refs so far! :) jonkerz ♠talk 09:59, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

No doubt it's an impressive list that may receive.... quite a few compliments. ;) I always forget to use the dashes when I cannot just autofill it in, it's probably one of the annoying aspects of editing Wikipedia! Burklemore1 (talk) 05:11, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Nothomyrmecia

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Nothomyrmecia you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Delldot -- Delldot (talk) 05:00, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Nothomyrmecia

The article Nothomyrmecia you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Nothomyrmecia for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Delldot -- Delldot (talk) 07:00, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Cockroach

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:01, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Iridomyrmex

The article Iridomyrmex you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Iridomyrmex for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Dunkleosteus77 -- Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 22:42, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Myrmecia regularis

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Myrmecia regularis you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of J Milburn -- J Milburn (talk) 16:41, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Prionomyrmecini

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:01, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

sorry

honestly i am hopeless with image manipulation over there, sorry I am unable to help. The history is I try something and someone else has to fix it up for me  :( JarrahTree 00:42, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Ah, no need to apologize then. :-) I should have remembered in the first place to crop everything and double check it all. Burklemore1 (talk) 03:54, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Good work on the ants !! JarrahTree 04:35, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the kind words, two ant articles have been promoted this year, one of which is an old mate. I'm sure you've seen them around. ;) Meat ant is one of my main projects, I'm sure you see them everywhere too. Burklemore1 (talk) 06:24, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Heeey :)

I logged in mainly to post an update to Talk:Myrmecia_maxima/GA1. Re our masterpiece list: I did a stupid thing and ran a command that corrupted parts (luckily not all) of the code used to cross-check the list. What about the backup?? that was the backup!! hahah. jonkerz ♠talk 07:19, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

At least we can have an answer (I do not consider M. maxima a GA fail). Backups are supposed to be our last ditch fix. :( But I am glad not all was corrupted, so hopefully this can be fixed soon! I should note that we may see more images for some genera soon (Macabeemyrma finally has one). Well... illustrations because a fellow user has been doing some. I hope we can see some Armaniinae, that'll be great. Burklemore1 (talk) 11:06, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Oh! I can proudly announce that all Myrmeciinae genera are now at GA status. We only need to get the list to FL and the subfamily itself to GA, so after that the ant task force and wikiproject Insects will have its first good topic. Burklemore1 (talk) 11:08, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm convinced the article would pass GA if the species was valid -- I mean, it's probably the most complete article on this name not just on WP but in all publications ever. This is just so very cool! :) The list is not a requirement for Good Topic, it can be added later. I also like the new illustrations, and hope that M. A. Broussard will become "our guy/girl", as in "yeah we got a guy for that", hehe. jonkerz ♠talk 11:33, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

It's unfortunate that someone's efforts can go down the drain like that when you realise that the authoritative sources weren't clear or misled you to believe it was valid, but life is life. If the list isn't required I will go ahead and work on the main article, probably after I have finished expanding/initiated major fixes on meat ant. I enjoy the illustrations, 1,000% better than what I can pull off! Usomyrma now has its own illustration and could potentially be GA from the immense amount of detail describing the ant. If only Hong (2002) randomly became public domain on behalf of the author... all those images...... Burklemore1 (talk) 08:34, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

If it's any consolation, I really think that the content you wrote for M. maxima will be revived in the future. Once WP becomes more complete I think editors will become more inclusionist (inclusionistic?) and willing to include this type of articles in the 'Pedia. If not here on WP, then on Wikibooks. Personally I would not mind keeping the article as is (and see it listed as a GA), but I doubt the wider community agrees now that the name is listed as unavailable. If you're feeling adventurous, find Hong's email and email them -- most academics don't really care about copyright themselves (but their institutions/publishers may disagree..) and would take it as a compliment and hopefully try to make is possible to upload at least some of the images to Commons. jonkerz ♠talk 15:26, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

M. maxima wasn't even my smallest article to even write, Macabeemyrma is. I hope the future of Wikipedia does manage to include articles such as this though, I think the article is the most complete (as you said) subject of this name and is of high quality. The only thing that annoys me is when it seems compulsory to add an ecological section (well I guess this excludes extant species), but this "add content" is overall a contradiction to the criteria. Not to target or discredit any user about it, but in general it is rather annoying and I think there needs to be some further clarifications so reviewers do not do this. Archimyrmex has no ecology section and passed, Brownimecia and Yantaromyrmex only have one sentence that suggests any behaviours and such (the reviewer did ask if there was any info available for Yantaromyrmex, but they didn't mind whether or not there was any).

Hm, this is quite a long response, so have fun reading it all. ;) It seems like I'm ranting. Anyway, I should try and track down Hong's email and see if we can get any luck. I can't be certain if there are any images, but I'd presume there are. And one last thing, I may be very inactive Wikipedia because I'm very busy at the moment, but I should be back in action by mid February. The meat ant article is currently my main focus, a very well known fella here in Australia. Thanks for fixing some of it up, I know it may be messy but I'll be polishing it up soon. Burklemore1 (talk) 06:51, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

I read your reply and agree with what you say. I'm re-using this thread to avoid creating another "Heeey" section, but pretend that it's a new section because I've already written the message and it starts with a greeting.

Top o' the mornin' to ya! Nowadays I log in that infrequent that I have to start all messages with "hey long time no see", but that gets tiresome so I decided to do that "top o' the mornin' to ya" thing this time instead... :)

Back to business: what's the current status of our list? How I see it: we should move it to live, because even if there are potential issues that we need to sort out, the sandbox list is 100 times (not percent!) better than the current incomplete and out-of-date list. You deserve the honor of moving it to mainspace for the world to see, considering that you have worked most on it (which is why I haven't pulled the trigger myself). jonkerz ♠talk 19:31, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

jonkerz, well top o' the mornin' to ya too, even though it's noon here and god knows for you. ;) If you believe the list should be moved, I will do it now. I just did some minor updating as Sphecomyrmodes was synonymised and added in a newly described genus. Should we also move the to-do list into the talk page? I think it'd be easier to navigate between the two pages without having to go to my sandbox. It's time to give the list a make over! Burklemore1 (talk) 03:28, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

I'll update the to-do and move relevant items to the talk page. As for the list: Sooo pretty!! :) The tables disappear when using the "Download as PDF" feature, but printed as a PDF the list is 65 pages :) Regarding "Update subfamily genus/species counts in the header + add AntCat reference - Mostly done, just need to clarify one more issue" from the todo; if you are referring to Armaniella, see User_talk:Jonkerz#List_of_ant_genera_2. jonkerz ♠talk 09:49, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Excellent, this is a job well done! Got our first Armaniinae/Armaniidae image too! Just noticed that. Will read the discussion. :-) Burklemore1 (talk) 02:18, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Canberra meetup invitation

Hi, you're invited to the Canberra meetup which will take place at King O'Malley's Irish Pub in Civic on 17 February 2016. Bidgee (talk) 01:16, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks very much, I've checked it out. :) Burklemore1 (talk) 09:09, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Greenslade pdfs for meat ant

Hi, I can send you full text pdfs of:

1. Greenslade, P.J.M. (1975). "Dispersion and history of a population of the meat ant Iridomyrmex purpureus (Hymenoptera: Formicidae)". Australian Journal of Zoology. 23 (4): 495–510. doi:10.1071/ZO9750495.
2. Greenslade, P.J.M. (1975). "Short-term change in a population of the meat ant Iridomyrmex purpureus (Hymenoptera: Formicidae)". Australian Journal of Zoology. 23 (4): 511–522. doi:10.1071/ZO9750511.

if you still need them to fulfill your request at Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request#Meat ant (again). Please use Special:EmailUser to email me so that I can reply with the pdfs as attachments. Regards, Worldbruce (talk) 05:01, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

@Worldbruce:, a fellow user sent me the PDF's not too long ago, so all of my requests have been fulfilled. I should have marked them off as solved, but I thank you for the consideration of sending me them. Burklemore1 (talk) 05:19, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Re: Green-head ant

I am not familiar with your work, but I stumbled upon this article and just want to thank you for your work on this article and so many others. Keep up the great work and thanks for contributing to Wikipedia! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 01:53, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Another Believer, thanks so much for the lovely comments, I appreciate it! My userpage itself is where you can find all the articles I have worked towards GA and FA if you haven't done that already. Cheers, Burklemore1 (talk) 04:24, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 30

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of ant genera, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Atta, Solenopsis and Manica. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:44, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Y Done. Burklemore1 (talk) 02:10, 2 April 2016 (UTC)