User talk:Pvmoutside/Archive 2

Archives

no archives yet (create)

Stonechats

I had the following message via email:

Hi Jim - someone has redirected the Stejneger's Stonechat page on en-wiki to Siberian Stonechat in contradiction to its acceptance as a separate species by IOC; could you revert this edit, please?

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stejneger%27s_stonechat&type=revision&diff=738537870&oldid=729222782

Might also be worth dropping a note to the editor concerned that en-wiki policy is to follow IOC taxonomy ;-)

Any comment? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:12, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

IOC comment: Split (IOC 2.4) based on Zink et al. 2009 mtDNA analysis, but may be premature; further resolution of this stonechat complex is needed......also Clements or IUCN has not accepted. We do not follow IOC taxonomy, we do follow for English names only. Because of doubt in IOC, and non acceptance at Clements and IUCN, I decided to redirect......I'd be happy to discuss further, but Stejneger's stonechat should still be a redirect in my opinion.........Pvmoutside (talk) 22:14, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

IUCN updates

I noticed you've been updating the assessment status taxobox parameter in a large number of species. However, could you please also update the citation when you do that? For example, in Squalius anatolicus, the citation still states "Crivelli, A.J. 2005" with an IUCN assessment date of 2006, while the current LC assessment actually is "Freyhof, J. 2014", assessed 2014. I think that may become rather confusing, particularly if it happens over a wide range of articles. Cheers! -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 07:38, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

sorry......will do....Pvmoutside (talk) 18:55, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Similarly for your status update of Dacrydium pectinatum, I updated the IUCN reference. I try to use the Taxobox:status_ref parameter for placing this reference. Thanks Declangi (talk) 04:33, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, it's great that you update IUCN assessments, but could you please also add the citation? There should be correspondence between the citation and the factoid it is supporting, not a mismatch like there is for Kasner's dwarf burrowing skink and there was for Lomi's blind legless skink. Cheers, Micromesistius (talk) 12:57, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. You recently edited some IUCN status and citations for Odonata using the IUCN template. It appears that the IUCN template is no longer recommended:

NOTE: This and other ID-based IUCN templates are now obsolete, at least in so far as they require the now discontinued IUCN Red List version number. The IUCN now recommends citing assessments as electronic journal articles using the new DOIs, and the cite journal template can handle all the information provided for a citation.

I realise now that I have actually read this note that I am responsible for quite a few IUCN citations that incorrectly used a web cite format; these will need to be fixed. However, if you fix the IUCN status on more pages, then I suggest use the recommended method using DOIs. John Tann (talk) 08:18, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

is that a Wikipedia change or an IUCN change, and can you add a link to the info you mention? I am unfamiliar with it....Pvmoutside (talk) 10:52, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's a change to both. IUCN stopped using version numbers (which take the form 2013.3, 2014.2, etc). Version numbers are required by Wikipedia's {{IUCN}} template. So we can't use {{IUCN}} to cite the current version of the IUCN database. {{Cite journal}} has the necessary parameters to cite the current IUCN database. See the top part of the documentation of {{IUCN}} for more information about citing the IUCN database. Plantdrew (talk) 19:38, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've updated American robin with the new citation. Do you find that is acceptable or do you have a Wikipedia species example under the new format that works?....Pvmoutside (talk) 23:52, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The IUCN citation at American robin seems quite fine to me, although perhaps not absolute best practice (see Syzygium oreophilum for an example of using cite journal for IUCN). But updating IUCN references is not part of my usual work-flow, so kudos to you for taking that on, however you format it. Plantdrew (talk) 21:59, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Do you see the IUCN pages differently from me? I am updating the Cypriniformes to add automatic taxoboxes to any articles that do not have them. So far many of the citations for IUCN statuses that you added in April do not conform with the ones I see here (in the UK). Yours almost all have NatureServe as the assessor and I can see that is correct for most North American taxa but it is not for Old World taxa as far as I can see. An example is the European bitterling. The above discussion has been useful and I will use the cite journal template for these going forward.Quetzal1964 (talk) 14:38, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A while ago I was making sure the IUCN links were working, so I updated the link without paying attention to the reference until someone pointed that out. For Cypriniformes, there shouldn't be too many that way....Pvmoutside (talk) 16:22, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I've left off at the genus Opsarius in the Danios, working alphabetically, if that helps you....Pvmoutside (talk) 17:32, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.Quetzal1964 (talk) 18:08, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest not updating IUCN citations without use of {{Cite iucn}}. Removing the links is a significant hindrance to readers who don't know to look down at the "Taxon identifiers" bar at the page bottom. It's not hard to fill out the template, as in {{cite iucn |author= Cooke, J.G.|title= ''Eubalaena glacialis'' |year= 2020|page= e.T41712A162001243|accessdate= 9 July 2020}} for the northern right whale, but if you're too busy for that, please just update the status and leave the citation alone. Thanks, WolfmanSF (talk) 21:03, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Congress photos

(from your message on Commons) - it seems that the Commons deletion process for copyright violations is more straightforward in that if someone labels an image as such, there's a good chance it'll be deleted even though that judgement might be incorrect. For those Congressional photos you uploaded, some were and some weren't copyvios. It's harder to distinguish on Facebook profiles, but the general rule of thumb is that if they are campaign photos or any other preexisting professional headshot or photos without any explicit release, those aren't considered US Government work and thus are not public domain (off the top of my head, the Arrington, Johnson, Tenney, Demings ones can fall under this description). The ones with the blue backgrounds and flag backgrounds, however, appear to be official US House photos, which seems to have been overlooked by whoever deleted all of the images. Usually "official" photos will have some consistent type of style, as I described. I tried to prevent some of the others from deletion but it seems that was overlooked. Also, generally if the source is from the official website of the congressperson (with a .gov URL) those are in the clear as well but it's quite early in the terms of the new Congress so not many of the websites contain official photos yet. I'm sure someone else might reupload them anyways in the near future, though. If you have any more questions don't hesitate to contact me. Connormah (talk) 13:57, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of birds of New Zealand

Can you explain what you are doing? You have taken off some species, e.g. Auckland Islands Merganser, which according to the list criteria should be included as it was extirpated after human settlement of the island.(talk)Quetzal1964 16:49, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

sure......the New Zealand list I think should incorporate only those species seen on "mainland" New Zealand.....species on any of the offshore islands (i.e. Auckland, Chatham, Kermadec, etc. should have their own lists and are redlinked on the regional birds page...)....Pvmoutside (talk) 16:56, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Erm? There is no mainland New Zealand, it's an archipelago, the two largest islands are North Island and South Island. It's also a nation state to which the other islands belong. I don't agree with what you are doing because you are using your own definition of New Zealand, what about Stewart Island is that part of the "mainland". If we applied that logic then a list of birds of Great Britain would not include birds which have occurred on the Scilly Islands, Shetland or the Outer Hebrides but not on the island of Great Britain. I see you have chosen to insert your own definition of what the list covers, I think that at least you should have put something on the Talk page first as a point of discussion.(talk)Quetzal1964 19:42, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

that is why I put "mainland" in quotations.......the offshore islands I am deleting out are more than 200 miles off the coast. Those islands will eventually have their own pages. Do we add all the Birds of the British Virgin Islands or Bermuda to the Britsh page? Do we add the birds of Christmas Island, Norfolk, or Lord Howe Islands to Australia?.....Pvmoutside (talk) 21:05, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point but these islands are all linked biogeographically whereas the British Virgin Islands and Bermuda are in the Neotropics and not the Palearctic and, yes, I could see some value in adding Christmas Island, Norfolk, or Lord Howe Islands to an Australian list. I have added a comment to the talk page so hopefully we can see what other editors think. Anyway, I'm in a good mood as Scotland squeezed a win past the Irish at Rugby today and tomorrow I go birding. (talk) Quetzal1964 21:16, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

go get 'em!....Pvmoutside (talk) 21:28, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Common Kingfisher always well worth seeing, Fieldfares too. (talk) Quetzal1964 20:11, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's an article I started working on in my sandbox - take a look and see if you think it helps. User:Sabine's Sunbird/newzealandbird. I'd use the OSNZ list as a guide of what to include in the article. Sabine's Sunbird talk 22:21, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also, as I said in the talk page, serious disagree with removing offshore islands. They are politically and biogeographically New Zealand proper. Removing them would not be like not including the British Virgin Islands from the British list, it would be like taking Shetland and Orkney out. Sabine's Sunbird talk 22:57, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sabine's Sunbird...I agree with your argument to keep the offshore island birds on the main New Zealand list (you make a great point about Alaska, and the Australia list is inclusive of their offshore islands), so I'll return the birds to the current list as time allows. Sorry about my unfamiliarity with the islands. As another thought I had, for example, Puerto Rico is not included on the US list, and I thought them territories rather than a true part of New Zealand....Feel free to return them (or anyone else for that matter) since I've updated the index and format somewhat on the current list. I also really like your sandbox New Zealand list, but it looks like it's been inactive for a bit until you picked it up again a few days ago. Can I help or are you OK and would rather finish on your own?....Pvmoutside (talk) 19:07, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

the books I need to finish my plan are packed away for a few months, but it would be good to finish. Sabine's Sunbird talk 20:21, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

on your own or with help?.....Pvmoutside (talk) 20:23, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, help would definitely be better. As you can see from the edit history I haven't touched it in a long time. Sabine's Sunbird talk 20:38, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

so i'd like to start by moving over bird families that are essentially done. One question I have before getting started is a listing for Stewart Island which I see you've left off. Isn't Stewart a major enough island to have it's own listing box on the NZ page? My guess is Codfish and other minor islands can be included there?.....Pvmoutside (talk) 21:25, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is large, but it isn't sufficiently distinct biogeographically. I can only really think of one species found there that you wouldn't find on South Island (introduced Subantarctic Snipe). Sabine's Sunbird talk 22:15, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm more concerned what species aren't there, than what species are.....also, don't some of the procellarids nest there that don't on South Island? Seems like a hole if it's not listed........Pvmoutside (talk) 15:58, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also worth noting that some species, such as Auckland Islands Merganser (better referred to as Southern Merganser, never called Auckland Merganser despite what IOC says) were formerly abundant on the mainland – yes, New Zealand has a mainland – but were wiped off the main islands by humans. So they should absolutely be included in a list of NZ birds. Knowing what to include in that list requires either checking the appropriate articles for historical info, or being familiar with NZ bird biogeography such as Worthy and Holdaway (2002) The Lost World of the Moa. Unfortunately many articles don't have this information included, and need work. Giantflightlessbirds (talk) 19:10, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Grey duck

Pacific Black Ducks or Grey Ducks - apart from the Chathams, I suspect your source is out of date. The species is almost effectively extinct here. Sabine's Sunbird talk 18:32, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up.....I used the Te Papa reference, and didn't realize the extent of the Mallard gene swamping. Same thing to a slightly lesser extent going on with American Black Duck.....I changed most of the subantarctic island to extirpated....let me know what you think now.....Pvmoutside (talk) 16:02, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed the Campbell and Auckland teals which were showing in Auckland and Snares respectively - you may want to check the other ducks. Sabine's Sunbird talk 18:22, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

IOC names

I notice you're changing some of the link names to NZ bird articles to conform to the IOC list. Wikipedia has different naming conventions, based on what's used in the main reliable sources. So for example the name Bushwren is wrong, and should be moved to New Zealand bush wren, as you can see I did with New Zealand rock wren. There are quite a few birds in that category – Auckland merganser, Chatham snipe – and it might be best to move articles based on the current NZ checklist, the standard current field guide (Heather and Robertson) and NZbirdsonline. Otherwise those links you're fixing will have to be changed back. Cheers, Giantflightlessbirds (talk) 19:10, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

so I'm a little confused by your statements. New Zealand rock wren is a proper IOC English name, but Bush wren is also proper IOC and that is how I'll leave it. I did change Stephens Island wren to Lyall's wren because the IOC made a case that the bird historically was not confined to Stephens Island, (was found on North Island as well). Stephens Island was it's last stronghold. Same with Auckland merganser, which the IOC states was also historically found on South and Stewart Islands, and should be called New Zealand merganser, which I'm also thinking of changing. There have been cases where the project has left a local name in place (Australian wood duck instead of the IOC name of maned duck for example), but a discussion should take place regarding a specific species before the non IOC name is used......Pvmoutside (talk) 20:40, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

On the IOC list for Acanthisittidae the official IOC names are "New Zealand rockwren" and "Bushwren", neither of which are commonly used by New Zealanders, the NZ checklist, field guides, or the scientific literature. Wikipedia does not necessarily use the IOC list when deciding what to title articles: "Wikipedia article titles may diverge from the IOC list when the most common name in reliable sources is different from the IOC name." (from WP:BIRDS). New Zealand birds have for some reason been badly served by the IOC! Personally I wouldn't even put the alternative IOC name in bold unless there's evidence it's in wide use, which most are not (yet). Good on you for moving Lyall's wren and the NZ merganser (the latter it's also commonly known as the southern merganser BTW). A suggestion: before moving an article I'd probably post a request for comment on the Talk page for a while to see if anyone has objections. Giantflightlessbirds (talk) 20:15, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rock wren is also used as the primary species name for Salpinctes obsoletus from North America. Unfortunately in Wikipedia there is no way to use the same name on a species page title (see American/Pacific black duck, American/Australian white ibis, American/African yellow warbler). A case can be made to change the American bird's name to American rock wren based on the naming standards of the other species, but would need to be discussed. I see your point about Bushwren/Bush wren. My guess is it was changed by the IOC to separate from the New World wrens. Since there are no bush wrens except for the New Zealand birds, a discussion can be put forward for Wikipedia to call them that.......There are ways to reflect names on regional pages (see List of birds of New Zealand....Let me know what you think and if you have other conflicts......Would love to have you get more involved in Wikiproject Birds....Pvmoutside (talk) 21:29, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You're invited...

Note: You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football#Navigation boxes in coaching articles (again) regarding the issue of whether or not the navboxes in coaching articles should be collapsed or stay as is. Please comment there and not here. Thanks, Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 22:42, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Adminship

See Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Optional RfA candidate poll and answer away. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:42, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your RfA

I suggest you replace the "YOUR DESCRIPTION OF THE USER" bit with an actual self-nomination statement fairly urgently, or people are going to start opposing simply because it went live while still incomplete. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:01, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like this is the statement you need, but in the proper place. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:04, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. And also an answer to Q3 that is "I've not had any conflicts" is going to run into trouble at RfA. Have a think about any disagreement you had (eg: the dispute with Quetzal1964 further up this talk page is a good start), and elaborate on that. Conflict doesn't necessarily mean going to AN / ANI; and indeed, if you've never been dragged to those noticeboards, that might be worth mentioning too. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:06, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I see Casliber transcluded it before it was ready, so I have untranscluded it again so you can wait until it is ready. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:09, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
When you are happy for it to go live again, just revert my edit here - but do first think about Ritchie333's wise suggestion, above. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:13, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I see it's been done. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:26, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/pvmoutside

Still a bit of red there. I don't know how to fix. Dloh cierekim 15:17, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

RfA and the page mover user right

Hi Pvmoutside, I was reading over your RfA, and it looks like the main reason you want the user right is so that you can move pages over redirects that can't be deleted. Is that correct? If so, there may be a way to do that without having to go through the grueling and often disheartening RfA process. There is a special WP:Page mover user right that you can get quite easily, in fact I could give you now as soon as you indicate that you have read through the page I linked above and understand the responsibilities of a page mover. ~Awilley (talk) 15:59, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Awilley....Page mover looks to be a 5 step process to move a page to a page that is blocked by a redirect. An admin can simply delete the page and move the page over in a two step process. If I don't make it as an admin, I'd rather just keep on bugging the admins I currently do that to.......Pvmoutside (talk) 00:08, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's actually only a one-step process - admins can move and replace the original in one go. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 00:10, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bug me for that any time. Dloh cierekim 00:16, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not being able to actually try page mover, I saw this on the page mover page which highlights 5 steps:

Move Gromit the Hobbit to Draft:Move/Gromit the Hobbit without leaving a redirect; this essentially deletes the page with the new title for the move
Move The Adventures of Gromit the Hobbit and its talk page (if created) to Gromit the Hobbit without leaving a redirect
Move Draft:Move/Gromit the Hobbit to The Adventures of Gromit the Hobbit without leaving a redirect
Retarget the redirect (at The Adventures of Gromit the Hobbit) to Gromit the Hobbit
Create a talk page redirect Talk:The Adventures of Gromit the Hobbit and target to Talk:Gromit the Hobbit to preserve incoming links to the original talk title. (necessary, since the redirect in this example did not have a talk page, and links would be broken)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Pvmoutside (talk • contribs)

You're right the Round Robin procedure does look to be somewhat of a hassle. ~Awilley (talk) 00:36, 3 May 2017 (UTC) Would you be interested in getting the page mover user right so you can at least try it out and see if it might solve some of the issues you're running into? ~Awilley (talk) 03:37, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There's a great script made by Andy M. Wang that makes the round-robin process a total of ~3 clicks, and is much less of a hassle. Check it out here. Anarchyte (work | talk) 07:14, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've given you Page Mover right - it's there if you want to use it (and I hope it's sufficient for that script to work). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:43, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I just tried it and it did nothing. I copied and pasted the pageswapper script, hit the swap button, went to the page I was swapping (Pohnpei fruit-dove), added the name of the page I wanted to swap to (Purple-capped fruit dove), and nothing ...Pvmoutside (talk) 11:58, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ah, no idea, sorry - I suspect you'd need to check with the script author. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:10, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Worked fine for me. I used it just a moment ago to swap Berberia and Berberia (genus). Page movers can't move pages that are move protected, so make sure it's not got that. Anarchyte (work | talk) 10:45, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I checked the two pages that Pvmoutside tried to swap, and there's no protection on them. Comparing both users' user rights I see no obvious problem (though I did see that Pvmoutside didn't have rollbacker, so I've added it, but I wouldn't think it relevant here). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:55, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Boing! said Zebedee, don't know if this thread is still ongoing, but the script needs/detects for suppressredirect and move-subpages (rollback is not required). But it looks like Pvmoutside can suppressredirect and move-subpages just fine. The swap needs quite a few API calls, which can take a several seconds depending on server load I suppose. Pvmoutside, you should be able to test swaps of your own subpages (like User:Pvmoutside/sandbox and User:Pvmoutside/sandbox2) without issues. e.g. at User:Pvmoutside/sandbox, click "Swap", type in "User:Pvmoutside/sandbox2", and it should go. — Andy W. (talk) 04:10, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A kitten for you!

Hi Pvmoutside! I see that you're currently running for adminship. I know RFA's a tough process, so here's a kitten to cheer you up! Awww... what are you gonna name her?

—k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 21:38, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I offered to be of assistance to the greater Wikipedia by applying to be one. My main interest is to stop bothering other admins for blocked page moves......I may retract my nomination to be an admin given the issues some current admins have with my nomination. I'm happy doing what I'm doing with the add of the pagemover function. It's not that important to me to have full admin status, I thought I'd help everyone else by having the admin status so I offered........Pvmoutside (talk) 00:01, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It was a kind offer, and one that I reckon we should have snapped up and dragged you in ;-) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 00:02, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I second the kitten. RfA is a rough place, and people can make cutting remarks there that are easy to take personally. Minor mistakes are blown out of proportion, and people seem to pile on using whatever rationale is readily available without even looking at your qualifications. I think what went wrong in the RfA is best summed up in the oppose rational of User:Juliancolton. I just don't want you to take this as a rejection of you by the community. ~Awilley (talk) 00:53, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, none taken, but I can answer Juliancolton if he'd like to propose questions....Pvmoutside (talk) 00:56, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Pvmoutside. I came from your RfA to suggest this script: User:Andy M. Wang/pageswap, but it's already been done above. I really hope you'll apply for pagemover (here), and the script makes the process one click. Don't feel discouraged by the RfA, people like to see strong track records in every area possible and for someone focused on creating content, that's not possible. Cheers, Laurdecl ^talk 09:11, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I already have pagemover, because I can already do the 2 step page changes. I am not interested in a five step process to move blocked redirects, so I guess I'll continue to bother the admins I have been bothering......Pvmoutside (talk) 11:27, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I'm afraid I've had to switch from "support" to "oppose" as your response really has me worried you might delete things by accident and scare away newcomers, so unfortunately it's too much of a high risk at this time. Sorry about that. I think it's probably best to quietly close the RfA at this stage, as realistically it's far beyond what you're actually looking to do. Some of our most outstanding writers on the project, including several regulars at WP:FAC, have never asked for the admin tools and have no need for them. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:30, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would have only used the other tools if I could be of service on the admin side, but I guess you have plenty, and I'd rather do content anyway. I do have an issue with question 4 though. I am usually a very inclusive sort of person, and I usually try to incorporate newcomers edits into articles I watch. The content in that statement looks more like an personal statement about a friend, is not referenced, and doesn't follow Wikipedia style. What should have been the answer there?....11:23, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

I've used this sort of question a lot, and I like it as there is no "right answer" but a whole variety of different ones. The basic idea is to find out what you would do in a "grey area" situation where an article isn't obviously deletable or retainable. The prose as I gave it does look like a WP:CSD#G11, and specifically mentioning that is not inherently wrong. However, it's pretty short and easy to rewrite. Going beyond that, if you search for Bazz Ward on Wikipedia, you'll find he's mentioned in Hanx and The Nice, and a Google search shows an AllMusic page. That's probably enough in my view to avoid WP:CSD#A7; a BLPPROD would be reasonable at this stage (assuming you didn't want to add the AllMusic link), so would starting an AfD. Mz7's suggestion to redirect to The Nice's main article is a fair comment too; in fact everything he said is a good answer. Basically, I can see legitimate arguments for deleting, redirecting and keeping an article on this person, and wanted to see which one you picked. Having no references and not following Wikipedia style are not speedy deletion criteria and may even get you short shrift at AfD depending on how salvageable the article is. Even then, I'm more interested in how you answer, and a vague "looks like a speedy" just isn't enough. Would you say that in response to a new user complaining on your talk page that you'd deleted their article?

Although this was a bit of a contrived scenario, to give you a real example, see Sarah Shepherd Andrews (and compare the version tagged as A7 with the current version). Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:44, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your efforts and second the kitten. You don't have much experience with RfA, but the only way an RfA stops at this stage is if you withdraw on the nomination page. See, for example, Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Dane. It's possible that the tally will swing, but it is very unlikely. You've received plenty of feedback by now so there's little benefit to continuing, but it's your choice. Glrx (talk) 15:36, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like the process to continue. As I read it, the process ends on the 9th.....If things don't change, I'll withdraw a couple of days before. I'm learning a lot so far....Pvmoutside (talk) 15:59, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In my experience things don't change for the better after the pile-on reaches this point. Learning to spot a growing consensus is another important part of being an admin. (It's hard when the consensus is against you.) If you plan to run at a later date, take a year or two and watch/participate in RfAs, and you'll get a good feel for the process. ~Awilley (talk) 16:07, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hang in there, my friend! RfA can be a rough process. I had more fun defending my dissertation than I did at RfA. Even though I made it, I still accidentally deleted a speedy deletion template within my first month of being an admin (rather than deleting the article it was applied to). People are knocking you for messing up your RfA transclusion but I think even the most experienced and careful editors can mis-read instructions and mess things up. I hope you don't let it get you down. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 16:10, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I hate to say it but I believe you should withdraw your RFA. The community clearly feels you are not ready for it. My first RFA was closed early for the same reason, it happens. Right now you are "underwater" with more opposes than supports. Best to close it and come back when you have more knowledge regarding admin work. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:00, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Since I was one of the first opposers and some folks have followed my lead, I thought it would be good to stop by and offer my goodwill. I don't believe I've had the pleasure of working with you in the past, but hopefully that changes very soon. Everyone is in agreement that you're a fantastic contributor to the project, and your conduct has been exemplary in the face of some pretty harsh criticism. As Awilley says, the result that's unfolding isn't a reflection on you as a person or an editor – adminship is simply a very specialized role, and the things that make great editors aren't always the things that make great admins. If you decide that you'd still like to be an admin someday, I think you could position yourself nicely for the role within 6-8 months, and I'd be happy to help guide you in that pursuit. As others have others have noted, most of the objections have been of a minor and correctable nature.
As an aside, I think it's very interesting that you've thru-hiked the AT. What was your favorite part of the trail? Completing the AT has always been an idle dream of mine... I'm getting close to clinching the NY and CT sections via gobs of day hikes, and have seen some pretty amazing things just in that small stretch. I can only imagine the wonders to be found on the rest of the trail. Sincerely, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:55, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the kind words Juliancolton. No worries about the harsh words. Having good admin skills doesn't necessarily mean good people skills are synonymous. Applying to be an admin means familiarity with Wikipedia, so I also understand it may not be as a welcoming place as being a first time editor for example. Still, it would be nice if admins were nicer with the process. Looking at other applications, I see I wasn't specific enough with my answers (e.g. citing Wikipedia rules), so I'll take that as a learning experience....As I said prior, I do enjoy content, so I'm happy where I am right now. That's political enough as it is. I can't imagine what you all go thru on the admin side. I have the patience for that, but not the time. I do still want to pursue a limited admin role at some point to stop bothering admins for the locked pagemoves. The pagemover ability does not seem to be working for me for locked pages. I tried copy and pasting the template for round robin moves but it does nothing. I would still have to go through a 5 step process to move a locked page, so it's easier and I'd rather contact an admin (Casliber, JimFBleak). It hasn't been a big deal in the recent past since the bird pages are so far along. Lately I've been spending time in fishes, and I get blocked a lot more, hence the request. But so far they've been obliging......Regarding the AT, it was one of the best experiences in my life. I still have some wonderful friends I stay in touch with that I met on the Trail. There are wonderful places and people all along it as well......Pvmoutside (talk) 13:26, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Pvmoutside, none of the pages you are asking Casliber to move were or are locked. You do not seem to understand what "locked" means; see WP:GREENLOCK. You also do not seem to understand how to make the pagemover operate in three steps or less; Anarchyte alerted you above that it is easy to do and demonstrated that it definitely works [1] -- please check with them to learn and implement that. I'm sure they will be happy to coach you. If you run your next round of requests through Anarchyte rather than Casliber, they can get you up to speed on using the pagemover right very efficiently. Softlavender (talk) 16:24, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So when I tried to move some pages, a big red message appears saying I can't move the page. Admins Cas and Jimfbleak have had to delete the redirects, because as an editor it would not allow me to do so. I followed the pagemover directions copying the swap template which shows up underneath the move link. However for me, nothing happens when I use it. Thanks for suggesting I contact Anarchyte when I am ready to do the next set of "locked" pages. I should be ready to do so in the next week or so........Pvmoutside (talk) 16:47, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Would you be able to take a screenshot of the error, or at least copy and paste it here? I can't help you fix it if I don't know what you're having problems with. Cheers, Anarchyte (work | talk) 00:36, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here you go......

File:Locked page.pdf....Pvmoutside (talk) 01:33, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, that occurs when you try to move a page onto an already-existing page with more than one entry of history. You're using the manual move system, which is more tedious to complete round-robins with. Are you trying to swap that page with the other one? If so, here's what you do:

This should swap the two pages around, keeping both page's history intact. Anarchyte (work | talk) 01:43, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

nope....I toggled to the move function. I then toggle to the swap (below move). A script prompt box populates. It says swap "Enteromius anoplus" with. I enter Chubbyhead barb and it still under Enteromius anolpus..........nothing changes.....Pvmoutside (talk) 01:55, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Anarchyte, go ahead and see if you can succeed with the intended move, and Pvm check your email, please.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 02:01, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Berean Hunter....there is nothing in my email....Pvmoutside (talk) 02:18, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If it is gmail, click on the more tab in the left and check the "Social" folder. I just found that is where they have been dropping mine recently. Thought I wasn't getting emails...but found several there. For yahoo, it is a different box. Maybe in your spam folder. I have received a copy of the one that I sent you.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 02:26, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Pvmoutside and Berean Hunter: Worked fine for me. Anarchyte (work | talk) 02:40, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

When I had started to do this as a direct move using the lowercase "barb", it flagged me about the existing page but with "Barb" and as an admin, it then asked me if I wanted to delete. I didn't but held the history in an open tab. That history is still here. If I would have proceeded, it would have been as if a history merge. I don't know if that is related to Pvm's issue and not sure why it wasn't case sensitive. Good to know that it worked for you...so it should work for Pvm, too.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 03:02, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I just tried swapping Cape pygmy owl to Baja pygmy owl and it's still not working. Same problem. I'll work with Andy Wang to see why it's not working for me.....Pvmoutside (talk) 13:37, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, the emails must not have connected for some reason and I have to head to bed. I have taken the liberty of deleting your pdf file because your real name was in the metadata. I presume that this was accidental and that you do not want your identity left out there so I have done a G7 deletion on your behalf and contacted the oversight team. If this was done in error and you don't mind people knowing then I apologize.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 03:41, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I installed the Firefox web browser. Everything working fine. Evidently MSN browser does not work with pagemoves.....thanks Anarchyte, Andy Wang, and everyone who tried to help....back in business!.....Pvmoutside (talk) 14:58, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Atlantic 10 Conference logo, 2014.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Atlantic 10 Conference logo, 2014.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 section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 23:20, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Species in Cercomela and Oenanthe

A year ago I reorganised the species in the genera Cercomela and Oenanthe following the IOC list. At the time you felt my edits were premature and reverted my changes. At one point you commented that "clements and iucn still recognize genus". Since last year HBW alive have adopted the same arrangement as the IOC. The IUCN list has also changed as it follows HBW alive. However Clements still differs from the other three world lists. In view of our new policy of following the IOC classification, do you see any reason why I should not now reinstate my changes. I've actually made a start with the blackstart before I thought it would be better to get you on board first. Aa77zz (talk) 11:56, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

now that the Wikiproject has standardized on the IOC for tax, feel free to make any changes to synch up any species, genus, and family pages to the IOC......... We do have an editor or two that work on country lists, since most, if not all of those pages standardize with Clements. Clements changes are released once a year. I suspect more synchronicity after this summer.......Pvmoutside (talk) 19:10, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for May 4

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.

Harold Donohue

added a link pointing to Attorney

Rhodeus meridionalis

added a link pointing to Macedonia

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:06, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A sad suggestion

Hi Pvmoutside. I am really sorry that your RfA appears to have crashed. As someone whose RfA was contentious I understand the stress and hurt that can be caused by the sometimes blunt criticism that some people seem to enjoy. Nonetheless we are where we are and you are not going to pass this time around. I think you would have a very good shot if you spent the next 6+ months working on some of the behind the scenes stuff so as to pad your resume a bit. But in the meantime I am going to suggest, with much regret, that you withdraw your RfA for now. Keeping it open past the point where the outcome is not in reasonable doubt could be seen by the community as wasting its time or a form of stubbornness. That might come back to bite you if/when you decide to give this another shot. Of course the final decision is yours. Best regards... -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:04, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Ad Orientem for the suggestion. Yes I know the RfA is negative. The plan is to withdraw sometime tomorrow. I'm keeping it open thru the weekend to read comments and learn from them. I know not many new ones over the last day or so. Hopefully one more day won't hurt much given I have a couple days after tomorrow before the RfA closes....Pvmoutside (talk) 16:51, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Don't get discouraged...and give it another go as we need good admins. - Ret.Prof (talk) 12:49, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Pvmoutside. I wanted to drop by and say I read your withdrawal statement. I apologize for hurting your feelings. I wanted to clarify that it was your intentions to keep the RFA running that I was calling into question, and not your motivations for wanting the best for Wikipedia or why you may have initially ran. Amid so many recommendations for you to withdraw, several in fact, and in the context of a strong community consensus not to hand you the tools, it was something I was concerned about. Often keeping it running works against the candidate in the future. Some times it's about optics more than it is about the intention. And it has secondary side effects by keeping it running. It's educational for you but it also, as Ad Orientem states, engages the community in a lengthy process when the point of an RFA is for consensus on your candidacy. Regards, Mkdw ^talk 01:59, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I completely understand,and it was helpful to me to understand and hear from all of those who wished to comment. I certainly don't want to waste time, but as someone said, any admin wishing to no longer be involved in the process once they have commented, needn't be further involved if they so wished. There were enough admins looking on.....I know everyone's busy, but I don't think I overextended my stay.....Pvmoutside (talk) 13:31, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm really impressed by your withdrawal statement. A good withdrawal like that has already earned you my support if you decide to run again after you get some experience working on the "dark side". Having a good nominator or two next time can also be to your advantage. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:27, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Dodger67 for your support and advice.......

A tool you might not be aware of.

At your recent RfA, a number of people suggested the Page Mover right as being adequate for the purpose you were requesting the tools for. In your answer to a question regarding this, you cited the difficulty of performing a Round Robin move in multiple steps being over-complicated. I would recommend checking out this tool: User:Andy_M._Wang/pageswap. It turns the complicated process of round robin moves into a couple of prompts that you basically click 'yes' and enter in a summary for why the move is to be made. This tool only works if you have the page mover right, but I don't see you having any trouble getting that. — Insert CleverPhrase Here 21:36, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am aware of the tool (admins have told me about it soon after the RfA), and tried to use it without success so far. I am contacting Andy to see why.....thanks for letting me know though....Pvmoutside (talk) 13:40, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A cup of tea for you!

Hi again, Pvmoutside. I noticed that your RFA did not succeed, and that can be disappointing. Do note, however, that a failed RFA doesn't mean you're not a valued editor anymore. Adminship is not the "end goal" or "the thing that makes an editor complete", nor is it necessary to do great things on Wikipedia. Nevertheless, while you shouldn't let the RFA get to your head, I understand the disappointment; that's totally normal. To help you feel better, here's a nice, warm cup of tea. Have a sip, clear your mind, and continue on the road. Remember: there's still lots for you to do! —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 02:00, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't drink tea..I prefer coffee! Kidding aside though, thanks for the encouragement, and I'm pressing on in content.....Pvmoutside (talk) 13:42, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Precious

birding

Thank you for quality articles on birds such as Yellow-chevroned parakeet, for service in more than ten years, for project work such as countless page moves and talk page updates, for "I really do want to see Wikipedia continue to be an outstanding resource", - hiker of the Appalachian Trail, you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:51, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Gerda!....Pvmoutside (talk) 13:43, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Three years ago, you were recipient no. 1650 of Precious, a prize of QAI! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:38, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Commiserations

Hi, I just wanted to drop by and say I'm sorry that your RfA didn't go that well. Unfortunately it seems like it was one of those times when everyone has an opinion about everything. Props to you, though, for putting your work out there for the community to judge, and I hope you will continue to contribute to Wikipedia like you have been doing since 2006. All the best! Linguist ^talk|contribs 12:14, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciate the kind words Linguist111!....Pvmoutside (talk) 13:43, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Laridae

On 19 May 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Laridae, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the family Laridae (European herring gull pictured) are the only shorebirds known to have developed ultraviolet vision? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Laridae. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Laridae), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. 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.

Gatoclass (talk) 00:02, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:University of Alabama in Huntsville presidents

Template:University of Alabama in Huntsville presidents has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 01:50, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:University of Arkansas System presidents

Template:University of Arkansas System presidents has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 01:53, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Colorado School of Mines presidents

Template:Colorado School of Mines presidents has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 02:02, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Wilmington University presidents

Template:Wilmington University presidents has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 02:08, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Louisiana State University System presidents

Template:Louisiana State University System presidents has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 02:53, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ranks in taxonomy templates

Hi, just a note re the taxonomy template Template:Taxonomy/Zenkerellinae that you recently created. Ranks in taxonomy templates must be the Latin name. There's a list of acceptable ranks at Wikipedia:Automated taxobox system/taxonomy templates#rank which may be helpful. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:32, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A few requests regarding automatic taxoboxes and taxonbars

Hi Pvmoutside. Thank you for working on conversion to automatic taxoboxes. I have a few items I hope you'll consider in future edits.

You've left ranked parameters (e.g. |familia= in this edit) rather than changing to |taxon=. The taxobox still works, but |familia= isn't actually doing anything. The automatic taxobox code looks for a taxonomy template matching |taxon=, and if |taxon= isn't specified it looks for a taxonomy template matching the article title (I understand it takes more processing power when |taxon= is unspecified).
|image_width= is deprecated in taxoboxes. If it is desirable to scale the image larger or smaller than the 220 pixel default width, |image_upright= is preferred. In my experience, at least 90% of the usage of |image_width= in taxoboxes is small and pointless adjustments from the default. Readers are viewing articles on a variety of screen sizes, so there is no single optimal value for the image size. Consider removing |image_width= when you're editing taxoboxes; especially for values between 200px to 250px, where it makes a fairly minor change. In cases of exceptionally tall/narrow or short/wide images scaling the image with |image_upright= may be helpful, but |image_width= can usually be removed without needing to switch to |image_upright=.
Stub templates should appear at the very bottom of article code. I noticed you'd placed some {{taxonbar}}s below stub templates. Taxonbars belong near the bottom of article code, but should be placed earlier than stub templates. My understanding is that the appropriate position for taxonbars is before DEFAULTSORT/categories/stub templates (and after External Links/navigation templates). Plantdrew (talk) 03:06, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Common name for genus article

Hi, I noticed you just moved the Thrichomys article to Punaré. I don't remember seeing many genus articles not listed under their Latin names - is this common? If so, I think it's inadvisable. One possible objection is, what if new common names for species within the genus (either presently recognized or newly identified) emerge that are not "punaré"? Common names are neither official nor permanent. WolfmanSF (talk) 18:25, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm following the instructions for the wikiproject. The higher classes of taxa usually use English names wherever possible,I think its something to do with google searches. I also like to see things written for the people Wikipedia serves, rather than making it easier for experienced editors. For example, I'll give you an extreme case. If someone did a google search on Mallard for example. The English name that appears is easier to understand by the general public, rather than Anas platyrhynchos. That's the largest reason I like English names. I know scientists prefer scientific names, but I don't think that is our audience.

Also, if new species are discovered or mammal authorities (or other authorities) decide to change English names (more prevalent in a more active group like birds, for example), then moves or swaps can be made at a later date. I know plants and insects for example are all by scientific name. That was decided by the project. I'm not averse to using scientific names, but I guess that should be discussed by the group (or by the tree of life in a larger general discussion) and changed in the wikiproject information accordingly...I know what you mean though regarding names being somewhat temporary. Not only do the species names change, but often genera and higher taxon are expanded or changes, so even scientific names are not permanent in many cases, but better in stability. For example, when Atlantic spiny-rat was first created on Wikipedia, it appeared to have only one species, now there are 11. I had to redirect the disambig pages......In birds, Chen geese were just absorbed into Anser, and the duck genus Anas was just split into 3 other genera. From my perspective, I usually work with the rules given, and hope I, or someone else comes along at a later date to update. You do the best you can at the given time..... Pvmoutside (talk) 18:31, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your move of page Arctocephalus forsteri to New Zealand fur seal

Hi Pvmoutside, this is a controversial move, as this species is also indigenous to southern Australia, and the name "New Zealand fur seal" suggests that it is invasive, particularly as the population has been recovering in recent years following near-extinction by commercial seal hunting in the 19th century (see Seal culling in South Australia). I suggest that the article should be moved back to Arctocephalus forsteri. Cheers, Bahudhara (talk) 01:52, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here is Western Australia's reference of the seal as New Zealand fur seal: [2], here is Australian Museum's reference as New Zealand fur seal: [3]....Pvmoutside (talk) 10:46, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also, there is a separate animal, the Australian fur seal, which is a subspecies of the brown fur seal, which helps to distinguish from each other....Pvmoutside (talk) 11:15, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the name "New Zealand fur seal" has been widely used in the past but it is a misnomer as the name wrongly suggests that it is endemic to New Zealand, and invasive elsewhere. It is actually also indigenous to southern Australia, and the recent controversy over culling has resulted in the introduction of the new common name, "long-nosed fur seal", which is now in official use, e.g. see South Australian Department of Environment, Water and Natural Resources > ... > Living with wildlife > Seals. (This species is not to be confused with either the Australian fur seal or Australian sea lion.) Cheers, Bahudhara (talk) 22:33, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I see you have had a small discussion regarding the name back in January. I'd like to have a larger discussion about the English name if you'd like to keep your request to change it to something else. In addition to the references I list above, the Encyclopedia of Life references it as New Zealand fur seal and Arkive lists it as the same. I did a google search on the name, and over 90% of them came back as New Zealand fur seal. Also as an aside, many species take the name of countries/areas apart from where they are found. It does not suggest the species is invasive.....Pvmoutside (talk) 10:22, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It may not be very obvious to you as you're from the U.S.A., but the relationship between Australia and New Zealand is very complex - in some ways the ties between the two countries are quite close, but there are also very intense sporting rivalries (cricket, netball, rugby, to name a few), and at this very moment there's a political crisis unfolding where the governing party's wafer-thin margin at Federal level is threatened by the revelation that the Deputy Prime Minister's father was born in New Zealand, thus making him constitutionally ineligible to have stood for Parliament.

This long-standing ambiguity underscores the difficulty of continuing to use the name "New Zealand fur seal" in Australia - see this article from 2014 discussing the need for a new vernacular (common) name: Scientific Correspondence: Long-nosed fur seal: A new vernacular name for the fur seal, Arctocephalus forsteri, in Australia, from which the following quotes are taken:

In South Australia there have been calls for culls based partly on the uninformed belief that the local fur seal is feral and has been introduced from New Zealand. The logic for that belief is that if the Australian fur seal is a local species in southern Australia, then the New Zealand fur seal must have been introduced ...

We believe that using the vernacular name New Zealand fur seal for A. forsteri in Australia is both misleading and inaccurate with respect to the species’ Australian distribution, and leads to it having an undeservedly poor image in Australia.

The paper's authors consider various other possibilities; but for Wikipedia, I think the safest option would be to revert to using the scientific name for the title of the article. Cheers, Bahudhara (talk) 22:27, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the relationship between New Zealand and Australia, having traveled to the former a number of years ago. You keep on referencing one paper and a website using it as evidence to support your argument to revert to the scientific name, while I've used a number of references supporting the name New Zealand fur seal. I'd like to create a wider discussion if you'd like to revert to the scientific name......will that work for you?....Pvmoutside (talk) 01:57, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

BRD applies here: Pvmoutside boldly moved, the move is challenged so it should be reverted, then discussed – not discussed before reverting. Peter coxhead (talk) 11:00, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Peter, I believe BRD does not apply yet. I know its probably a technicality, but the page, in my opinion, using the English name of New Zealand fur seal is correct. So far it is one editors opinion opposing anothers, with no group of editors yet forming an opinion, and with no editor taking a stand to revert the change. None of the use cases yet applies. In fact, the challenging editor even acknowledges the name of New Zealand fur seal as proper until very recently. If another author reverts the page back to A. forsteri, then I believe it is proper to set up a requested move for further discussion......Just one man's humble opinion reading the rules of BRD. If you or Bahudhara would like to do the honors of the revert, I'd be glad to set up the RM. It just seems awkward to me for me to do the revert, then file a RM back to my original request......Pvmoutside (talk) 12:24, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Peter coxhead will need to move it. Your round robin move left history at Arctocephalus forsteri, so an admin or another extended mover is needed to move it back. The move resulted in some redirects with left with incorrect categories. Australasian fur seal was tagged with {{R to scientific name}} and Arctocephalus forsteri is tagged with {{R from alternative capitalization}}. The standard for vernacular names of mammals on Wikipedia is Mammal Species of the World. The MSW name is Australasian Fur Seal (capitalized thus). The article was previously moved from the MSW name to the scientific name in 2010 as an uncontroversial technical move (see here).

If it is moved back to the scientific name, any future move requests to a vernacular name will need some solid evidence to establish which is the most appropriate title. "New Zealand fur seal" appears to be the most common vernacular name, but is misleading. "Australasian fur seal" follows the standard source for mammals (while applying Wikipedia's capitalization convention), but is less commonly used than New Zealand fur seal. "Long-nosed fur seal" was coined recently and isn't very commonly used at present. Plantdrew (talk) 16:16, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done My view remains that this is a BRD case. I've reverted (and I think cleaned up correctly afterwards). I have no expertise or special interest in this group but I agree with Plantdrew: solid evidence is needed to establish whether a vernacular name is justified under WP:AT, remembering that there has to be a balance between frequency of use and precision. Peter coxhead (talk) 20:30, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Peter.....I'll write up the RM over the next day or 2 and we can continue the discussion there....Pvmoutside (talk) 01:16, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Page moves to "common" names

Hello, I do strongly object to your recent moves of amphibian articles from their scientific names to their "common" or vernacular names. Especially when these are species that are not native to English speaking countries, such as Alsodes barrioi from Chile. The case for moving is only very marginally stronger for countries like Nigeria and Cameroon. Basically all amphibians recognized at around 1995 have common names because of the work by Frank and Ramus (sometimes criticized, as not all names are carefully considered, which inevitably happens when thousands of names are created from the scratch). The mere existence of a vernacular name does not mean that it is the most common name in the sense of Wikipedia:Article titles. Similar cases were already discussed not long time ago, with some weighty arguments by @Plantdrew: and @Peter coxhead:, see [4]. That IUCN and Amphibian Species of the World acknowledge existence of a vernacular name does not make it "commonly used" in reliable sources, given that these sources are organized by scientific names. The AmphibiaWeb is not systematically listing vernacular names. Redirects would be a much better way of making vernacular names more visible in WP searches, if desirable. Micromesistius (talk) 14:58, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm only changing to vernacular names where there is only one vernacular name listed at IUCN and referenced.....the project suggests using English names whenever possible......I've also removed some vernacular names where the IUCN doesn't reference any......Pvmoutside (talk) 15:06, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is pointing to the source of the problem. Many amphibians have exactly one vernacular name because Frank and Ramus found a name for all amphibians they knew at around 1995, inventing new ones where none existed. This applies to lots of species in countries without English language naturalist traditions. If a species did not have a vernacular name by 1995, the scientific name, by definition, was the common name at that time. For such species, it is unlikely that the situation has changed. ASW lists the sources of vernacular names, so it is easy to see which ones were made up by Frank and Ramus. Micromesistius (talk) 15:25, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't use Frank and Ramus as a source, I use the IUCN, who may use Frank and Ramus in some cases, and not in others......I believe the IUCN can be trusted.....Pvmoutside (talk) 17:41, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is whether these are common in the sense of WP:COMMONNAME which is not "vernacular name" (a common mistake). I get 130 Google hits for "Cabreria spiny-chest frog" and 1260 for "Alsodes barrioi" which shows clearly that the common name is not the vernacular name but the scientific name, so the article should not have been moved. Peter coxhead (talk) 16:12, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Peter, counting hits can be problematic because many of the parent pages still link the latin name and no link is provided for the vernacular one.......it sort of is self-fulfilling in that regard.....Pvmoutside (talk) 17:41, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, counting hits isn't the whole answer, but the almost 10:1 ratio in this case is pretty clear. There's also a self-fulfilling effect by moving a page to an English name, since Wikipedia is copied everywhere. I'm quite clear that for this particular species at least the WP:COMMONNAME is the scientific name. Peter coxhead (talk) 21:35, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We need to find some solution here because I find your new page moves, after the discussion above, objectionable (with the possible exception of Bilbo's rain frog). All others seem to be Frank and Ramus names, with questionable veracity. Because these moves are not uncontroversial, they should be discussed at the respective talk pages. However, a better solution would to reach a more general understanding of what the most "common name" is. Here I sign the view by talk, but you seem to disagree? Micromesistius (talk) 19:02, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I do disagree. The project page says to use common names when one is available. I also know that WP:COMMONNAME says to use the most common name, whether that be the vernacular name or the common name, however the only way to measure that is page hits which is also flawed because parent pages of the species often list links to the scientific names rather than the vernacular ones. That is also copied at other websites so the use of scientific names can be self-fulfilling. I agree that Frank and Ramus may be not the best source to reference when choosing to use a vernacular name, but I haven't been doing that. The only time I change the scientific name to the English vernacular name is when the IUCN lists only one vernacular name. The IUCN is a trusted source which many editors reference. Frank and Ramus may be incorrect sometimes, but they may not be incorrect all the time. In addition, believe I or not, I would prefer to use scientific names, and the plant project has changed their rules to use strictly scientific names. That is one solution, but should be discussed first. Until a stronger definition can be designed, I prefer to align with the IUCN. As an aside, the example Peter lists of a 10:1 ratio of 1260 vs 160 hits for Alsodes barroi is a small sample size, particularly when more popular Wikipedia pages get hundreds of thousands monthly hits. If the sample size is so small, it shouldn't really make a difference what name is used in my opinion....Pvmoutside (talk) 19:47, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your responses imply to me that you think that Google hits were only on Wikipedia pages. They were for all webpages indexed by Google. The "sample size" is the whole population, so how large or small it is doesn't matter. Whether you agree or not, you must stop making disputed moves and first reach consensus on the talk pages. WP:BRD applies to moves; you were rightly bold, the moves are disputed, so they must be reverted and discussed. Peter coxhead (talk) 21:02, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem with another editor reverting the name changes and have no interest in getting into an edit war over this. If another editor feels strongly in changing or reverting the name, then have at it....Pvmoutside (talk) 14:51, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that the conclusion from above is that further moves of this type would require discussion. But your new moves of such species as Kassina decorata fall into exactly the same pattern: relatively obscure species that happen to have a vernacular name (invented by Frank and Ramus) listed by IUCN, but little other indication that the name is in common use in reliable sources. In this particular case, the AmphibiaWeb does not mention the vernacular name at all, while the African Amphibians lifedesk does mention it. Apart from these and ASW that duly lists all vernacular names, I see little indication that reliable sources use the vernacular name. Micromesistius (talk) 17:47, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Of your amphibians moves that I've looked into, IUCN shows them all with ASW as the taxonomic source, updated in 2016. If you look at the archive of IUCN's page for Kassina decorata from May 2016, there's no ASW as a taxonomic source, and no common name listed. It seems pretty clear to me that IUCN has been harvesting Frank & Ramus common names from ASW. That doesn't mean they should be regarded as having the IUCN stamp of approval as the official common name.

There can be problems with IUCN common names. IUCN doesn't ensure that their common names are unique. IUCN uses Michoacan deer mouse for two species [5], [6]. Large-footed myotis is also used for two species [7], [8]. Mexican dace is used for three species. IUCN lists İznik shemaya, İskenderun shah kuli, Manyas shemaya, and Dislisazancik baligi as English common names for some Turkish endemic species. Those names are pretty clearly Turkish, and I don't see it helps readers or editors to use the Turkish name as article titles. Aphanius chantrei is probably easier for most people to pronounce than "Dislisazancik baligi". Aphanius chantrei also better fulfills the article title criteria of recognizability; many people would recognize it as being a scientific name for organism, even if they have no idea what kind of organism it is. Dislisazancik baligi is totally unrecognizable; if I had to guess what it was, I'd assume it's probably some kind of cultural term (e.g., a food, article of clothing, or musical instrument), as cultural terms often don't have direct translations to English. IUCN also used to have a bunch of Mexican endemic fishes with clearly Spanish comon names listed as being English (as far as I'm aware these have all been corrected subsequently) Take IUCN common names with a grain of salt. Plantdrew (talk) 21:12, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all the info regarding the IUCN. I also saw the IUCN English name for Hyloxalus fascianigrus is Rana Saltarina de Brazalete. Needless to say I left it with the scientific name. Since I'm only updating the IUCN status for amphibians, I'll leave the scientific names for those that only reference Frank and Ramus.......Pvmoutside (talk) 12:19, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from moving amphibian pages to vernacular names without discussion when the "commonness" of those names can clearly be contested. I guess we need a broader discussion about how to determine what is the most common name for obscure animals (I'll start that tomorrow if nobody else does). Before that discussion comes to some sort of conclusion, please stop these controversial moves. Micromesistius (talk) 17:53, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So none of todays moves referred back in any way to Frank and Ramus......Pvmoutside (talk) 19:59, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not against Frank and Ramus names in particular. However, that a species only has a Frank and Ramus name is an indication that there has not been "need" for a vernacular name before. What I am against is promoting English names for species that are unknown to local people with English names, in places that lack English language naturalist traditions, and which are in practice so obscure that the most common name is the scientific name, even when a vernacular name has been coined. The mere existence of a (single) vernacular names does not make it the most common name in reliable sources. Thus, the scientific name should be used, unless it can be demonstrated that a vernacular name is more common and is unique enough. This is the spirit of WP:COMMONNAME, even though the wording of WP:NCFAUNA is more ambiguous. Micromesistius (talk) 19:36, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But there is no way to measure that unless you are an expert in the taxon or want to analyze each species you are unfamiliar with when you come upon a vernacular name. There are many non-English speaking counties that have accepted vernacular names.......Harpy Eagle, Orangutan, Giant Panda, Japanese giant salamander all come to mind. The problem comes where to draw the line, and to make editors want to edit rather than not because they may be choosing an obscure vernacular name, and fear they are doing something wrong. In my opinion, as long as there is a link to the scientific name, and an editor chooses a referenced (from an accepted source) vernacular name (i.e. not calling an American alligator a southern gator for example), then it should be OK. Having one vernacular name is then relatively straightforward.....the problem then is if the species has more than one vernacular name.......Wikiproject plants has it right with only using scientific names for all species, and then referencing vernacular ones in the article text or through redirects. If that is used as standard for all species, how well that be accepted, and if done manually, is the work now overbearing given how many species are listed, or if done through a bot, will the transfer be done correctly for most of the species.....then you have the problem of updating........I guess you only can do the best you can do, and not get wrapped up in being paralyzed moving forward by wondering if you are choosing the wrong accepted referenced name......Pvmoutside (talk) 20:29, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point and but I think there are a number of problems. First, it runs counter to WP:COMMONNAME. When in doubt which name is the most common, using the scientific one would be the safest choice. Second, you underestimate the power of Wikipedia to strengthen apparent recognition of particular names. Messy situations with competing names exist, for example South Africa seems to have parallel attempts to create vernacular names. We should not be taking sides. Sticking to scientific names is neutral ground. Third, your argument about redirects acts in both directions, so it is not an argument for or against. Cheers, Micromesistius (talk) 19:00, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Saluda darter

I was trying to replace the 'personal contribution' in Saluda darter with a reference, and found that the entire second paragraph comes from this article. The main South Carolina DNR page says 'all rights reserved', and I think that this would apply to the article as well. Did you have another source for this material that is not under copyright? Leschnei (talk) 01:06, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yea...I got lazy and probably copied and pasted something I shouldn't have....unfortunately I have no other sources.....feel free to edit as you see fit......Pvmoutside (talk) 19:39, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm never sure when government sources are free to use and when they're not, but I think I'll remove the part that is identical to the .gov page. I know nothing about darters (or any other fish, for that matter) to replace it with but maybe I can find something online. Thanks for the quick reply. Leschnei (talk) 21:40, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you

		The Bio-star
		Thank you for your work switching living sharks to the automatic taxobox system. This is actually a little premature, as you missed Deania and its species. I wanted to suggest that you use PetScan to check for any manual taxoboxes you may have missed when finishing up work in a particular group. PetScan is also good for groups where other editors may have converted a large number of articles to automatic taxoboxes (e.g. birds, Cyprinidae) Plantdrew (talk) 21:37, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Plantdrew.....I'll have a look at petscan.....Pvmoutside (talk) 15:05, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Eyeless golden-line fish

Hi, I'm not sure what you meant by this edit - IUCN ID 20250 for Sinocyclocheilus anophthalmus confirms my edit, with version 2.3 from a 1996 assessment (3.1 can only apply to assessments made since 2001). ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 14:08, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tom......I appreciate you making the article accurate. I realize 2.3 was used prior to 2001, but nothing has changed since 1996 on the species other than the IUCN version. If you look at the link, the IUCN ref states 3.1, and uses the same reference. I suppose when updating, the version date could be updated as well, but in my eyes its such trivial work, that the extra time it takes is not worth it to me.....feel free to keep it at 2.3 if you so wish.....Pvmoutside (talk) 16:20, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can you show me the link that shows 3.1 - perhaps I missed something? ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 17:13, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I stand corrected.....I assumed all current IUCN pages were updated to 3.1.....I see the assessment is still 2.3......sorry about that.....Pvmoutside (talk) 17:19, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. And, just to make things more complicated, Wicker ancylid uses a 2011 assessment using ver2.3. I've only found 1 such example so far. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 17:46, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Siphateles

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice that the page you created, Siphateles, was tagged as a test page under section G2 of the criteria for speedy deletion and has been or soon may be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk • contribs) 15:15, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Writer's Barnstar
	For many lizards Robert McClenon (talk) 17:18, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Reviewing

Hello, Pvmoutside.

I've seen you editing recently and you seem knowledgeable about Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.
Would you please consider becoming a New Page Reviewer? Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines; currently Wikipedia needs experienced users at this task. (After gaining the flag, patrolling is not mandatory. One can do it at their convenience). But kindly read the tutorial before making your decision. Thanks. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 09:31, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fish of Sri Lanka

Hi. yes, your point is correct. The two words are not coincide each other. So it is up to you to make new article you mentioned. But be careful, and note that some brackishwater fish are exotic as well. So careful about that and go head. Good Luck... Cheers. Gihan Jayaweera (talk) 12:03, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

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

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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Franks

Thanks. Events moved quickly. Sorry I wasn't up to date. JTRH (talk) 06:17, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Harpiinae

What do you mean?Xx236 (talk) 14:12, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Acropogon DOIs

I've come across these 5 Acropogons (Acropogon aoupiniensis, Acropogon bullatus, Acropogon fatsioides, Acropogon megaphyllus, & Acropogon veillonii) and saw that you recently added DOIs for them while updating their status. Unfortunately, the API nor the website give DOIs for any of these. How did you find them? ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 17:44, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The iucn will semiregularly update status for species already evaluated. At the header, click about, and summary statistics. There you can find Red List Category changes.......click on that, and there you go.....What I can't find are species previously not evaluated that then are evaluated.....Pvmoutside (talk) 18:06, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid that doesn't help (or that I've misunderstood). I'm not concerned with their statuses being updated. I am concerned about how/where you got the DOIs for the citations, since they're not readily available at places I'm used to looking, and since I'm using DOIs as part of my citation-matching. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 19:10, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you mean....isn't the DOI embedded in the update as the ref references the doi in the link?.....Pvmoutside (talk) 04:11, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

These were the URLs given in the citations for these species in their original entries prior to the errata versions being produced. The URLs now point to the corrected entries rather than the original ones. All the citations need to be changed as per these corrected entries, because there were errors in authors.

It seems to be a "feature" (i.e. bug) of the errata versions that the URL including the DOI isn't given immediately after the name at the top, as it is at doi:10.2305/IUCN.UK.2017-3.RLTS.T45353580A119177586.en, for example. Peter coxhead (talk) 07:29, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Errata; got it. I've been skipping {{IUCN}} templates (and bare refs/sources) that have a DOI on the WP side but are missing one on the IUCN side (DOIs existing on both sides and not being equal are more rare, since we haven't been using DOIs in citations for very long, or at least been doing so very sparsely). I've only found ~70 pages like this (from all PolBot-created pages) and will update them with any substantive changes. I'll keep the DOI, if that's the only change, since they still work.

After I'm done, I'm deciding on whether or not to expand my {{IUCN}}-conversion to include {{Cite journal}}s & {{Cite web}}s, effectively standardizing all citations to the IUCN (as long as they are current). It seems there might be some merit to this. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 11:08, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Tom.Reding: a problem I have with your conversions is that you have added CS1 citations to some articles where the style is CS2. All templates that generate citations need to have a parameter to choose between CS1 and CS2, and all citations directly added using cite/citation templates must make the correct choice to maintain the citation style. Peter coxhead (talk) 11:30, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look & correct. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 11:36, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can you link an example? ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 11:36, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I just looked through all my conversions and found no meaningful instances of \|\s*(mode|ref)\s*=|\bharv, except for 1 ref on Palolo worm using {{Harvcoltxt}}, which wasn't touched. None of my conversions from {{IUCN}} contained this regex prior to my edits either. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 14:05, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Peter coxhead, I use the author list as provided by the IUCN, and only slightly modify it (in a separate run due to the large size of that code), enough to enumerate each of the authors so as to avoid placement into CS1 maintenance categories. The IUCN doesn't standardize author names, however (for example). If that's what you're referring to, I think I can hard-code fixes for them, after I've run through and enumerated the authors. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 15:13, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Tom.Reding: sorry, I haven't been very clear, and perhaps not quite correct.

My first concern is whether references using the CS1 reference style, which has periods/stops between items, like Doe, Jane (2017). "A web page". A web site. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |url= (help), have been added to articles that use CS2 reference style, which has commas between items, like Doe, Jane (2017), "A web page", A web site. This isn't to do with the use of the "harv" templates. I have corrected some citations to the IUCN Red List that used CS1 style in articles that otherwise used CS2 style. I thought that some of these were ones you changed, but I can't find any now, so I may have been wrong. If so, apologies.
The authors that need correcting are those at articles like Acropogon aoupiniensis, Acropogon bullatus, Acropogon fatsioides, Acropogon megaphyllus and Acropogon veillonii. The authors given in the citation are those in the original uncorrected entry, but the errata entry changed them. Thus if you look at the Acropogon bullatus entry, the authors in the citation have been corrected to "Tanguy, V., Amice, R., Birnbaum, P., Bruy, D., Dubreuil, M., Dumontet, V., Fleurot, D., Lannuzel, G., Papineau, C., Razafindrakoto, L. & Vedi, L.", but at Acropogon bullatus, the citation has the authors as "Birnbaum, P., Dumontet, V., Fleurot, D., Vedi, L., Papineau, C., Bruy, D., Razafindrakoto, L., Amice, R., Tanguy, V., Dubreuil, M. & Lannuzel, G.". It's nothing to do with your changes; it's a fix needed where the reference was put into the article before an erratum fix changed the authors. Maybe Pvmoutside can sort out these ones?

Peter coxhead (talk) 18:06, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Peter coxhead, thanks for clearing that up. Can you post a few of the diffs you made standardizing the CS1/2 style? Perhaps I can add this to one or more of my scripts.

Pvmoutside, I updated the 5 Acropogon pages to their most recent IUCN reference info, linking back to this discussion in the edit summary. I decided not to use the old DOI since it would link back to the wrong, old page. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 18:35, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

great!....Pvmoutside (talk) 19:23, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gray-breasted mountain toucan

Hello Pvmoutside, could you explain why you moved this species page from its IOC spelling, which WP:BIRD has agreed to use, to an American spelling? It is not even a bird that is found in the U.S. Loopy30 (talk) 04:04, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

New world species take Americanized spelling, Old world species take European spelling per Wikiproject consensus......Pvmoutside (talk) 12:01, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, the project page states that "Wikipedia's taxonomy for bird species follows that of the IOC, unless consensus determines there's a reason not to. The IOC is also the de facto standard for English bird names. Only country, state or other regional lists that use a different, named, taxonomy, or other articles that discuss bird biodiversity or birds in general are excepted." Could you point me to any relevant discussion of consensus on WT:BIRD for a split between New World/Old World species to use American spelling rather than the IOC standard? 'Cheers,Loopy30 (talk) 13:00, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Loopy30, I stand corrected......sorry about the changes.......There was a discussion about color/colour and gray/grey a while back where I thought both would be changed to Americanized spellings for New World birds. Rather the discussion was about using IOC names with spellings following the IOC and not regions........I'll go back and change the article names........BTW, black-throated gray warbler, American gray flycatcher (probably others) should also be changed to reflect the IOC spellings as well.....I'll change those also at my next free moment......Thanks for the catch....Pvmoutside (talk) 15:42, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Pvm, at least these are less visited pages than popular ones like Grey Jay or Great Grey Owl. For what it's worth, on any species that I am working on I always include a redirect from all ENGVAR spellings regardless of where the species is found. Always more work out there for the Wikignomes, 'Cheers, Loopy30 (talk) 22:11, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at your move log ([9]), I'm seeing 9 species that were Americanized (with CTRL+F for "Americanize"). Plantdrew (talk) 16:13, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Plantdrew....Pvmoutside (talk) 17:05, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Talk:United States Senate elections, 2016 and 2017#Requested move 31 January 2018

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:United States Senate elections, 2016 and 2017#Requested move 31 January 2018. —GoldRingChip 12:43, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Undiscussed WP:ENGVAR moves

I see that you made what appears to be undiscussed WP:ENGVAR moves for Tricoloured munia, Gray thrasher, Gray catbird, and Gray-bellied hawk. Moreover, these appear to violate WP:TIES. There may also be other such moves, because I see that you have been making similar moves of other articles as well. I'm not aware of any consensus to use the spelling established by the IOC for species names, which would presumably be a convention that conflicts with the Wikipedia policy about spelling. Can you please explain? —BarrelProof (talk) 17:06, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) BarrelProof, what's the tie? The munia occurs only in the BE countries of South Asia, the hawk and the thrasher don't occur in any English-speaking and the catbird's range includes the BE countries in the Caribbean, such as Jamaica. Three of these species don't occur in the US, and, despite what many Americans think, it's not compulsory for all New World countries to pseak AE yet. Please revert your incorrect edits Jimfbleak - talk to me? 17:41, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pvmoutside moved Tricoloured munia to Tricolored munia and changed the spelling inside the article from BE to AE. As you note, that's improper because the munia occurs only in BE countries (and because the English spelling convention is supposed to be kept stable in an article unless there is some proper justification to change it). You agree with me about that, right? I'll review and respond further on the others later. —BarrelProof (talk) 17:46, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Now let's consider Gray catbird, which Pvmoutside moved to Grey catbird. The map showing the range of that bird is heavily dominated by the United States. Moreover, since the article was previously using AE, it should not be changed to BE without any discussion or justification. Basically, IOC spelling should not trump WP:ENGVAR. —BarrelProof (talk) 17:53, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gray thrasher is similar to Gray catbird. The thrasher is found in the Baja California area of Mexico, where the dominant form of English is American English. Moreover, the article was previously using American English. Once an article is written using a particular national variety of spelling convention, that should not be changed without a good justification. Pvmoutside changed it to use the British spelling, which does not appear to be proper. —BarrelProof (talk) 18:17, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

After a little studying, the situation for Gray-bellied hawk is similar but a bit more complicated. Pvmoutside moved the article and changed the spelling a few days ago, using IOC spelling as the justification in the edit summary. My contention is that IOC spelling does not override Wikipedia's WP:ENGVAR guideline, so the justification for that move was not proper. As for WP:TIES, there was an assertion by Pvmoutside in November that TIES justified using American English for the article. Whether that is the case or not, the IOC spelling is not a proper reason to change it. I suspect that the dominant spelling variation in the habitat of that bird is American (and thus that the assertion in November was correct), but I am not especially confident about that. In any case, matching IOC is not a proper reason for changing the national spelling convention in a Wikipedia article. —BarrelProof (talk) 18:38, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Similarly, your recent edits of Catbird seem to violate WP:ENGVAR. There are probably others too, since you seem to have been very busy making such changes recently. —BarrelProof (talk) 17:41, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have no opinion on the matter, except that {{Use American English}} or {{Use British English}} should be placed, as appropriate, on these pages to be extra clear to future editors. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 18:01, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And Gray vireo, Vireo, Vireo (genus), Blue-gray tanager, Taquara Municipal Nature Park, and Blue-gray gnatcatcher. There are probably more. The list may be long, since the number of recent edits based on this IOC idea is very large. —BarrelProof (talk) 18:58, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I also see some related discussion above that includes mention of black-throated gray warbler, American gray flycatcher (both recently moved to "grey" by Pvmoutside) and others. There is a reference to some discussion "about using IOC names with spellings following the IOC and not regions". I would appreciate help to find the discussion this is talking about, to determine the relationship with WP:ENGVAR and WP:TIES. —BarrelProof (talk) 19:39, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Are these bot-assisted edits? I'm seeing edit rates as high as four edits per minute. It doesn't seem like a human could be doing that. —BarrelProof (talk) 19:02, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The map showing the range of that bird is heavily dominated by the United States (catbird) Seems to suggest that Engvar depends on land area alone, despite more countries in its range using BE. I'd be interested to see the policy that says the US trumps all because it's bigger than than the multiple BE countries in this bird's range Jimfbleak - talk to me? 20:11, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I absolutely did not say that ENGVAR depends on land area alone or that the US trumps other places because it is bigger. Please don't twist what I say into something different, which I think you have done twice here, in addition to saying I made "incorrect edits", which I see no evidence for. ENGVAR is also about stability and consensus. The article in question, Gray catbird, was previously written in AmE, and I said that. This is an article written with AmE spelling about a bird found mostly in the United States that has been suddenly moved and changed to BrE. In fact, it is not just one article, but many of them, and the pace of the related changes has been extremely high – higher than what appears possible with human editing. In response, I opened a discussion on the relevant user's Talk page. Isn't that the proper thing to do? —BarrelProof (talk) 20:38, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The reason all were changed to the IOC spelling was to provide consistency and some rule to prevent arbitrary names or spellings based on preference. Many species are spelled grey or gray without rhyme or reason (see grey-breasted mountain toucan discussion above). The IOC gives at least a standard to follow since they have compromised to find common names using Enlish spelling on grey vs. gray, US spelling oncolor vs. colour, etc. Otherwise how do you determine what spelling to use........many Central American and South American species have already been changed to reflect IOC spellings by other than me........grey catbird is found in places other than the US. As Jim says, why is the US spelling preferred for gray catbird,English spelling preferred for grey jay or grey-breasted mountain toucan. Why is English spelling preferred for tricolored munia, but American spelling preferred for bicolored hawk? Also birds migrate........why are the summer ranges in US species more important than winter ranges where they may be totally out of the US during that season?.....I did it because it gives the project a rule, rather than being arbitrary.....Pvmoutside (talk) 20:53, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also, just because something was written originally in American English, or vice versa, doesn't mean that it is proper(not to say my way is the proper way BTW), and that's how it should be left. Articles get moved all the time......Pvmoutside (talk) 20:58, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the idea that it is OK for article spellings to be changed "all the time", I suggest to consider MOS:RETAIN. I think it should be apparent that certain types of changes (grey/gray, color/colour) are likely to be sensitive with regard to ENGVAR and should be exercised only with caution and restraint. I acknowledge that there may be some issues and prior discussions that I don't know about, which is why I have been discussing this instead of proceeding to try to revert your edits. Are these bot-assisted edits? Some of them seem more rapid and consistent than what is likely to be performed by a human. Are you aware of the WP:Bot policy? —BarrelProof (talk) 21:11, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@BarrelProof, from another (talk page stalker) previously involved in standardized naming discussions on grey-breasted mountain toucan above. Pvm's rationale given at 20:53 is a strong one and has the consensus support (here and reconfirmed here and again here) of editors involved in the WikiProject Birds. It is also the one most likely to avoid un-necessary future edit-wars over birds species naming disputes. It is not a matter of ENGVAR, but the use of the standard accepted English common name used on Wikipedia for bird species articles, regardless of national variations in spelling. 'Cheers, Loopy30 (talk) 21:26, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia guidelines WP:ENGVAR and MOS:RETAIN say to try to achieve consistency and stability of the spelling style within each article, but AFAIK not to try to impose a spelling variation consistency across different articles (e.g., citing some external authority like IOC) in the absence of WP:TIES. I think there is good reason for that. —BarrelProof (talk) 21:35, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The comment by Loopy30 was modified after my reply above. The modification added some information that wasn't there when I replied to it. —BarrelProof (talk) 22:07, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

When I look at those prior discussions that you pointed to, I see very little discussion of local spelling variation. The focus seems to be on the taxonomy rather than the ENGVAR aspect. There are certainly those who draw a distinction between the name of something and the styling of the name in terms of capitalization and localized spelling variations of words. Those discussions don't seem to be concerned with the ENGVAR styling of the names – at least not much. I suggest that they should not be interpreted as over-riding the WP:ENGVAR / MOS:RETAIN concepts. —BarrelProof (talk) 00:38, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The consistency imposed in this case derives from the article title itself, not the ENGVAR style chosen for the article text. Loopy30 (talk) 21:57, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, the title is part of the article, and it would generally be undesirable to use a spelling within an article that differs from what is used in its title. —BarrelProof (talk) 22:07, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This was not a bot, all done by hand......some article changes take more time than others (for example, grey catbird took a couple hours to do, grey thrasher took 15 minutes-easy to update by copy and pasting from the what links here on the left side menu). Regarding the sensitivity, I totally understand, but I thought I was being more sensitive, rather than less, as these moves don't make anyone happy on either side.......

Thank you for responding on that point. You are quite the speedy editor. —BarrelProof (talk) 21:35, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

no problem.....glad I could clarify.....for what it's worth, after the initial instability, I think there will always be someone trying to "correct the spelling" no matter what is used.....Pvmoutside (talk) 21:40, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for the tone of some of my comments. While I agree with everything that bird project members have said above about the need for consistency in names and spelling, that wasn't necessary. Before we agreed on IOC, we had interesting discussions on, eg common loon/great northern diver for Gavia immer. And having been told once that it should be the former because "more people speak AE than BE, which is only used in England and Ireland", I can sometimes get a little prickly... Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:21, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't offended at all Jim....I remember those fights back then.....Pvmoutside (talk) 14:16, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that – it is much appreciated. —BarrelProof (talk) 22:20, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have just reverted Tricoloured munia to BrE. If some of you disagree, I suggest submitting an RM discussion request. —BarrelProof (talk) 22:37, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We just had a discussion of gray vs. grey. Color and colour falls under the same compromise at the IOC. By leaving all the North and South American birds at grey, but leaving tricoloured munia with the English spelling, aren't you being a bit selfish?.....Pvmoutside (talk) 22:42, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cautious, not selfish. My plan was to perform that one revert of Tricoloured munia first, since it seems so clear cut and was suggested to be more appropriate as BrE by Jimfbleak, and then see what happened to that before proceeding with some grey/gray issues. (I also already reverted the spelling change in Catbird several days ago.)

Now that I think about it, my next move might be a revert for Grey hawk. Please see the prior discussion at Talk:Grey hawk#Requested move 21 March 2015. You probably did not notice that prior discussion (and I had temporarily forgotten it).

—BarrelProof (talk) 23:15, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you reverted my revert of your move of Tricoloured munia. Generally, if someone reverts one of your recent moves that was performed without an RM, you should open an RM discussion rather than just reverting again. Also, Tricoloured munia is now a circular redirect; that is clearly an error. Now I need to decide whether to perform another revert or to open an RM. I think you are the person who should open an RM, since you are the one who wants to change the long-stable title. —BarrelProof (talk) 23:30, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

<ec>@BarrelProof and AlexTheWhovian, the tricolored munia page was created in March 2007 as the tricolored munia (albeit with BrE spelling in the article text), and then moved in Oct 2007 to tricoloured munia where it remained as such until Pvmoutside's recent change to conform with the agreed international (IOC) naming standard. The IOC uses a mix of both BrE and AE spellings, and has been agreed upon within the WP:BIRDS project as the naming standard (and more recently, the taxonomic standard as well) to follow when editing bird species pages. Following its adoption in 2013, it since has resulted in successfully avoiding many, many potential editing disputes over the multiple variations in article title spellings. However, with 11,000+ species and only a few dozen active editors, it can sometimes take a while for the wikignomes to catch up with these alignment changes as pvm did here. As I also agree that WP:RETAIN and WP:TIES are important WP:MOS concepts, if this title re-alignment now needs an RM to justify the move in a site-wide forum, then I support that proposal. 'Cheers, Loopy30 (talk) 01:09, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To avoid starting a "revert war", I submitted an RM at Talk:Grey hawk, covering both articles. —BarrelProof (talk) 00:40, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I guess you need to prove a point.....Pvmoutside (talk) 01:07, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:APOSTROPHE

I suggest to review MOS:APOSTROPHE, as your change of Catharus maculatus appears to be contrary to that guideline. Wikipedia prefers "straight apostrophes". —BarrelProof (talk) 17:13, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTBROKEN

Some of your edits also make me suspect you are not aware of the WP:NOTBROKEN guideline. There is no need to change article links merely in order to avoid redirects. There are sometimes other valid reasons for that type of edit, and perhaps that is your motive, but I haven't seen an explanation in your edit summaries. —BarrelProof (talk) 17:35, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tireless worker barnstar

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	Thank you for working so assiduously to convert taxoboxes to speciesboxes. I regularly see your name appearing on my watchlist doing this. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:11, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hi, I don't know what you were trying to do, but you left Nabis inscriptus and Alope spinifrons in a broken state. — Smjg (talk) 16:53, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reptile stubs

Hello, it looks like you are planning to create lots of gecko stubs. To ensure that they meet some minimum standards (e.g., no bare links to the Reptile database), you could use this template:

<ref>{{NRDB species |genus=Cyrtodactylus |species= |accessdate=22 March 2018}}</ref>

Cheers, Micromesistius (talk) 07:31, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

thanks Micromesistus! I'll incorporate moving forward.....Pvmoutside (talk) 18:41, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Spiders described in categories

Hi, I've set up the categories for 2000 onwards with navigation templates: see e.g. Category:Spiders described in 2000. So if you create new categories of this kind, you might like to add the relevant template. There should be a "Spiders described in DECADE" parent category for every "Spiders described in YEAR" category. Peter coxhead (talk) 16:35, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Peter....Pvmoutside (talk) 19:21, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, if you add a "Spiders described in YEAR" category, you should remove any "Spiders described in CENTURY" category already present, otherwise the article is categorized in both a parent (CENTURY) and a grandchild (YEAR) category, which is contrary to Wikipedia:Categorization#Subcategorization. Peter coxhead (talk) 15:19, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Peter.....

Short descriptions

Hi Pvmoutside, Please consider adding a Wikipedia:Short description to your new articles, to make it easier to recognise what they are about in search results. It would also be of value to Wikipedia if you add a short description to any article that lacks one. Cheers · · · Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 05:40, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Request page move assistance

Hello Pvm, could you move the article Gregoria fenestrata to its monotypic genus page, Gregoria (genus)? The genus page is currently a redirect to the species page. As the genus page has a small history, I do not know if we would have to merge the pages (requiring a discussion and consensus) or whether a standard over-write is possible. Thank you, Loopy30 (talk) 02:23, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I could move the article.....I don't think a discussion is warranted since it follows Wikipedia naming standards.....I'll take care of it sometime today....Pvmoutside (talk) 11:04, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

All set Loopy30...…Pvmoutside (talk) 15:53, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It should not have been moved. See the last paragraph of WP:MONOTYPICFAUNA. Peter coxhead (talk) 18:09, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mea culpa, Peter is correct. Sorry for the inconvenience caused. Loopy30 (talk) 19:16, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No problem; I've moved it back. It's a mistake I've made myself (it's not a policy that I agree with – I would prefer a rule that works in all cases – but it's the policy we have). Just to note that for articles on monospecific genera, it's desirable to add links to both the genus and species in Wikidata, using the from parameters.

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Congress#Capitals

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Congress#Capitals. —GoldRingChip 12:54, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Garra smartae

As the person this species is named after is Emma Smart then surely smartae is correct, and smarti is a misspelling? See http://www.etyfish.org/cypriniformes3/ Catalog of Fishes states "Named after Ms. Emma Smart, therefore mandatory correction to smartae." Quetzal1964 (talk) 16:43, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fishbase and IUCN have it as smarti…..I went with both of those refs over the other one...…..I could be convinced the other way as well. Etyfish ref seems to indicate a gender pref for smartae…….Pvmoutside (talk) 23:28, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]