Hello. I have noticed that you often edit without using an edit summary. Please do your best to always fill in the summary field. This helps your fellow editors use their time more productively, rather than spending it unnecessarily scrutinizing and verifying your work. Even a short summary is better than no summary, and summaries are particularly important for large, complex, or potentially controversial edits. Thanks! Elizium23 (talk) 02:33, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you're editing succession boxes, please take care not to remove the {{S-end}} at the end. I've fixed a couple of them that show up here (e.g. Ted Yoho) in recent days. Thanks. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 05:00, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi just wanted to point out you have edited the Oenpelli Python into the wrong genus. Narwaran is a junior synonym to the available name Nyctophilopython as discussed in the recent Bionomina by Kaiser et al, 2020. So your changes need to be reverted.

• Hinrich Kaiser, Scott Thomson, Glenn Shea. 2020. Nawaran Esquerré, Donnellan, Brennan, Lemmon, Lemmon, Zaher, Grazziotin & Keogh, 2020 is an invalid junior synonym of Nyctophilopython Wells & Wellington, 1985 (Squamata, Pythonidae): simple priority without Zoobank pre-registration. Bionomina, 20: 47–54.
  

Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 03:54, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Hey Scott...so I read your post and have a question....some times authorities don't accept every study or published paper. The reptile database just accepted the Narwaran change a month ago. I use the reptile database as my basis because they update every quarter where other sources are not as regular. This seems to have been accepted. Do you mind if I leave it as is for now and see if reptile database makes another change next quarter or in the future?....pvmoutside....
  • Fair enough, but I will be leaving it as the most updated name on Wikispecies. Reptile Database I discussed this issue with the owner of the site, the Kaiser et al paper came in too late for the latest update, only reason he did not consider it. From the discussion he said he will probably follow Kaiser et al in the next update, however, fair enough to wait. The Kaiser paper will in the end be accepted as its using the ICZN Code correctly, it would not have got into Bionomina if it was not as the editor of that is a ruthlessly strict Code follower. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 16:49, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

for your info here is Kaiser et al 2020 Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 17:04, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, friendly reminder to please try and categorize your new articles on endemic species to their respective categories (for example, Trachylepis boehmei should be categorized under Category:Endemic fauna of Ethiopia). Thanks in advance. Pladica (talk) 18:17, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've seen you have done a comprehensive update on List of Birds of Turkey last year. I am not sure what your source was (perhaps Avibase?) but it was rather erroneous. For country lists it is best to use official checklist determined by the respective country's bird records/rarities committees. Thanks. 78.175.63.213 (talk) 01:28, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Howdy, just checking - what happened there? Did everyone else get kicked round the corner to Leiopython? --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 17:47, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ya. Reptile database merged the remaining species into both Leiopyhon species.....pvmoutside

A tag has been placed on Category:Akletos requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:01, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Category:Hafferia requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:06, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Category:Pipraeidea requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:37, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You made a couple edits on the redirect Epibator in 2018. Since you've had extended mover privileges for awhile now, you should be able to fix it. Epibator (skink) should be moved to Epibator. The skink already has a sufficient hatnote for the plant synonym. Plantdrew (talk) 03:48, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Saw this via another issue; now done. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:17, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you recently created Category:Crinifer. It seems that we already have Category:Plantain-eaters, which links to the same commons category, could they be merged or are they separate? We also seem to have Crinifer and Plantain-eater where the same question would apply... Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 07:57, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Editing Template:USCongRep/IN/48. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 March 5#Editing Template:USCongRep/IN/48 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 21:27, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Category:Xantusiidae requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

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. UnitedStatesian (talk) 03:02, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I understand you trusting reptile database more, but isn't the status quo to go with the most recent taxonomy? And shouldn't you put the IUCN ref back anyways, even if it uses a synonym? Ddum5347 (talk) 03:07, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I've restored the IUCN reference. Reptile database is usually more accurate on taxonomy even if it is older. since the IUCN reference is from 2021, I'm guessing the Dataabasr will folloe with a genus change in their next update within a month or two. I'd be more comfortable doing that....Pvmoutside (talk) 11:24, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I understand. Thanks for letting me know. Ddum5347 (talk) 14:50, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

127 Your help please

when you create new stubs about biota in Australia, in Australia is particularly problematic in relation to the size of the continent. It would be really appreciated if you could make the effort to identify where in Australia. Some geckos, lizards and other slithering things simply do not have the metabolisms to populate the continent, let alone even move much out of fairly limited range habitats. It helps the taggers who have to follow you who wonder where exactly in oz, the delightful little creatures actually inhabit. Thanks. JarrahTree 5:13 pm, 26 September 2019, Thursday (1 year, 6 months, 28 days ago) (UTC+8)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diporiphora_margaretae

Please try, it does not take much effort to actually locate an item you are adding, and even if you are geographically challenged, the references give you clues...

Thank you for your effort to respond to this... JarrahTree 10:40, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, will do ....Pvmoutside (talk) 11:26, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

nah dont apologise - if you find a new slithery item, and are challenged in any way - just ask - its not a big deal... thanks for adding things, it makes life interesting trying to work out wht part of the continent they inhabit- so thanks where you remember... JarrahTree 12:23, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I find it weird how Reptile Database has the name "Antilles racer" for A. antillensis but IUCN has that name for A. sibonious [1]. Very confusing. Ddum5347 (talk) 14:59, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing that out. There are a few species that have the same common name. I do use both the IUCN and Reptile Database for English names. Antilles racer is now a disambig page....Pvmoutside (talk) 15:50, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I hate it when stuff is inconsistent like this. Ddum5347 (talk) 03:30, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Precious

Four years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:05, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Category:Taxa named by K. O. Chan indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

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. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:03, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

	The Writer's Barnstar
	For many species of reptiles. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:53, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Thanks for all the herp pages you've created on WP. I especially appreciate your apparently having decided to undertake the Herculean task of starting WP articles for every species on the "List of Anolis lizards". Keep up the good work! Lyttle-Wight (talk) 17:08, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

not only that, but it looks like the list of anole species hasn't been updated in a while, so I've been adding and subtracting to that as I create the species articles... Thanks for the encouragement...Pvmoutside (talk) 18:17, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Category:Taxa named by Jie-Qiong Jin indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

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. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:22, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Category:Taxa named by Jing Che indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

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. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:23, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Category:Taxa named by Min-Sheng Peng indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

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. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:23, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

re Army Black Knights football --> Army West Point Black Knights football and related changes.

Perhaps these changes are related either a new branding campaign by Army or a migration to the "formal" name? However, the new name appear doesn't seem to align with WP:COMMONNAME so far. Thoughts? Can you add some citations around the name change and year re this?

To my eye, Army still resembles University of Nebraska–Lincoln / Nebraska Cornhuskers football or Indiana University Bloomington / Indiana Hoosiers men's basketball where the academic COMMONNAME differs with the team's COMMONAME. UW Dawgs (talk) 17:28, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

so to me, in 2015 Army officially added West Point to their name in sports. If you go to various opponents schedules, they also list them as Army West Point....i realize it's a lot of work for a little change, but we may as well be accurate...it'll also take me a while to make all the changes.......Pvmoutside (talk) 17:40, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pvmoutside, I've reverted these changes. The COMMONNAME is still clearly "Army Black Knights" per https://www.espn.com/college-football/team/_/id/349/army-black-knights and other structural listings in definitive third-party sources. A move like this should be done only after a discussion that results in a new consensus. Note that there was a proposal to make this move in 2017 and it was opposed; see Talk:Army Black Knights football#Requested move 28 September 2017. You may want to open a new discussion up and alert the relevant WikiProjects. We also need to consider Army's other sports teams aside from football here. Jweiss11 (talk) 03:08, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I thought someone missed the change, thanks for pointing out the previous discussion. It looks like some schools have made the change, and some have not. I'm willing to leave it alone, but if in the future it gets more accepted, it will just be harder to change given Army has made the change "official". FYI, I didn't forget the other teams, it's just such a change affecting a lot of pages, I thought I would start on football first...Pvmoutside (talk) 13:24, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Category:Blanfordimys indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

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. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 14:55, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Category:Arctocephalus indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

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. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:38, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Category:Peliperdix indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

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. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:07, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:University of Illinois System presidents has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thrakkx (talk) 20:19, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, can you move the page Rusty-throated wren-babbler to Mishmi wren-babbler. This is a change to the English name made in IOC 11.2 "to emphasize the restricted range of this species". Currently Wikipedia has redirects to "Rusty-throated wren-babbler" from "Mishmi wren-babbler" and from "Mishmi Wren-Babbler". Normally the system allows me to move over a redirect - but for some reason not in this case. Many thanks - Aa77zz (talk) 14:19, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The IOC still has it as rusty-throated wren-babbler....Pvmoutside (talk) 14:43, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is a change made in the 11.2 update - see the IOC 11.2 Spreadsheets which were posted on July 10 here: https://www.worldbirdnames.org/new/ioc-lists/master-list-2/

The IOC home page still has "7/14/2021 IOC 11.2 Web pages, including BOW pages, remain under construction; Thank you for your patience."

It seems that David Donsker et al find it very laborious to update the BOW web pages - and have proposed discontinuing them altogether. See this recent post by Donsker on Birdforum: https://www.birdforum.net/threads/latest-ioc-diary-updates.390208/page-44#post-4213493 - Aa77zz (talk) 15:40, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Found it...all set. Just an FYI, I'm working through all the IOC changes. I'm still on species changes, then I'll move to English names, and then taxonomic ones....Pvmoutside (talk) 17:38, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also unable to move Short-tailed finch to Boulder finch per IOC 11.2 (and SACC 900 here: http://www.museum.lsu.edu/~Remsen/SACCprop900.htm) Thanks -Aa77zz (talk) 20:09, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the moves. 11.2 introduced many changes. A simple split of a species in a monotypic genus involves creation of an article for the new species, another for the no longer monotypic genus and the associative redirects. And sometimes the English name of the original species changes. Fun. - Aa77zz (talk) 09:20, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please chill. They need to go through speedy renaming in order to keep edit history, not creating new categories and moving categories. You and 'User:Bearcats fan' are not following process. I am nominating all applicable categories under an umbrella nomination shortly. Thanks. SportsGuy789 (talk) 23:48, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm John B123. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, 2021 New Mexico Lobos football team, and have marked it as unreviewed. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you.

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

John B123 (talk) 21:40, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I saw you removed the bare-faced ibis and the hooded crane, they are listed as accidental or vagrants according to the 2019 Clement Birdchecklist. You couldn't just simply remove them from there just because i looked at this [2] and eventually i included at them at the list. So if you won't mind i am going to bring them back and please i ask you, do not remove them again. Thank you. -- 185.94.134.116 (talk) 05:48, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

you didn't cite a reference, and the list uses the American Ornithological Society's list as its main reference, which they don't list the two species. Now I know where you got them from, I'll leave them... Pvmoutside (talk)⁓

Hi, I see you moved one of the split-off articles to Philippine dwarf kingfisher, which is correct I believe. However, in doing so the history of that page is lost, and now Chetatata is given as the creator instead of the actual (much older) creation of the original (Chetatata did a copy-paste to create their two new articles). Can this be corrected please? Fram (talk) 07:05, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Category:Alinea (skink) indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

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. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:09, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Content you included in the above article appears to have been copied from https://hillcountryhistory.org/2016/07/10/lost-history-mississippi-heights-academy-1904/, which is not released under a compatible license. Copying text directly from a source is a violation of Wikipedia's copyright policy. Unfortunately, for copyright reasons, most of the content had to be removed from the article. Please let me know if you have any questions. — Diannaa (talk) 12:52, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pvmoutside, I see you renamed a whole bunch of the Louisiana Tech articles. Even though the school was officially known as "Louisiana Polytechnic Institute" from 1921 to 1970, the football team was commonly known as "Louisiana Tech" during that period. These article name changes need to be reverted. Before making a big chuck of changes like this, you want to consult the contemporary sources to determine the most appropriate common name for the subject. Jweiss11 (talk) 01:28, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I also see a problem with the renaming of 1937 West Tennessee State Teachers football team. The sources show that the Tiger nickname was already in use. Jweiss11 (talk) 01:31, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'll revert the Louisiana Tech articles sometime today. I changed them because I changed the early Tennessee Tech articles to Tennessee Polytechnic Institute and I thought since they seemed to be Ok since when I changed them no changes were made Louisiana was ok as well. We also have a school up this way called Worcester Polytechnic Institute and the are called WPI.....regarding 1937 and 1938 West Tennesee Teachers, Memphis's web site said "tigers" mascot was officially adopted in 1939....Pvmoutside (talk) 14:31, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I appreciate you tackling the cleanup on the Louisiana Tech articles. I see you made some changes to Template:Tennessee Tech Golden Eagles football navbox. I created 1955 Tennessee Tech Golden Eagles football team yesterday, and a cursory newspapers search shows that "Tennessee Tech" was the team's common name going back to at least 1940. I changed those years in the template back accordingly. The early years need some more research. Louisiana Tech is a bit of different animal because we already have a full-complement articles for every year, most of which are well-sourced. Patriarca12 and I did a bunch of work on them earlier this year and the sources cited do a good job of establishing the common names. Each team has to be assessed on a case-by-case basis. As for the "Polytechnic" schools, Virginia Tech and it's football team were commonly referred to as "VPI" for much of the 20th-century. Auburn University was officially "Alabama Polytechnic Institute" from 1899 to 1960, but it seems the football team was commonly referred to as "Auburn" going back to its inception in the 1890s. Jweiss11 (talk) 14:55, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Category:Taxa named by Susan Bell (biologist) indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

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. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:40, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of birds of the Chatham Islands, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Royal albatross and Yellow-nosed albatross.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:03, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pvmoutside, I see you renamed a whole bunch of Western Michigan Broncos football season articles, including 1941 Michigan College of Education Broncos football team. Looking at the contemporary newspaper sources cited in that article by Cbl62, it's clear that the team's common name was "Western Michigan Broncos", not "Michigan College of Education Broncos ". These changes for the 1941 thru 1954 should definitely be reverted. Not quite sure about the run from 1927 to 1940 as "Western State Teachers". Cbl, you think "Teachers" is needed for those years? Jweiss11 (talk) 19:31, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Jweiss11. A search of Newspapers.com confirms "Western Michigan" as the WP:COMMONNAME. Here are the searches I ran, each covering the years 1941-1954:

• "'western michigan' broncos football" - 8,376 hits
• "'michigan college of education' broncos football" - 51 hits and most of those referenced the "Western Michigan College of Education". None refer to the program as "Michigan College of Education" without the "Western" prefix. Cbl62 (talk) 19:45, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As for the earlier years, the school was "Western State Teachers College" from 1927 to 1940, and newspaper accounts dealing with the football team commonly referred to it as "Western Michigan Teachers". The "Teachers" part was not dropped from the school's name until 1941. Cbl62 (talk) 19:50, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for pointing out newspapers.com reflecting using western Michigan for Michigan college of education. I did a quick check early and mid time period and they reflected news stories all with western Michigan. I'll change them back later this morning....Pvmoutside (talk) 12:17, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:17, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I saw your work on List of birds of Easter Island and had a question about bird lists in general. I've nominated List of birds of Nauru for FL, and wanted to ask if Wikipedia's standards now require bird lists to be in table form. AryKun (talk) 16:31, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

not that I know of.....Pvmoutside (talk) 16:43, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The pages Psephotus and Psephotellus are baffling me, can you clarify why you did what according to which authority. ~ cygnis insignis 15:16, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

sure....they are listed as such by the IOC, our reference source....Pvmoutside (talk)⁓

The IOC is one source, their primary purpose is devising a list of English names. ~ cygnis insignis 15:36, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, they say "Our primary goal is to facilitate worldwide communication in ornithology and conservation based on an up-to-date evolutionary classification of world birds and a set of English names that follow explicit guidelines for spelling and construction". Acceptance of the former is only recognised as one taxonomic authority of the org it broke away from (Acronym eludes me atm) ~ cygnis insignis 15:40, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And it occurs to me that some form of the latter [former] is required for the former[latter], thanks for the chat. ~ cygnis insignis 15:42, 1 December 2021 (UTC) [pardon, edit 15:55, 1 December 2021 (UTC)][reply]

so the project has also adopted the IOC's taxonomy as well as English names a few years back. There have been occasions where the project has deviated from the taxonomy, but those occasions have been rare....Pvmoutside (talk) 15:49, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I won't pretend I don't know that, and get the IOC link into wd ~ cygnis insignis 15:55, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A page was moved to Japalura austeniana, but without an indication of the source of that name change. No new reference was added to the article during the move, or noted in the edit summary, it is not the first time I have noted their absence here. ~ cygnis insignis 22:59, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

thanks, I fixed it....Pvmoutside (talk) 01:11, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The other page moves lacking a reference to support the name change also need to be fixed. ~ cygnis insignis 01:43, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Rutgers Biomedical has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:58, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

— Moops ^⋠T⋡ 20:44, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Moops! Happy New Year to you too!Pvmoutside (talk) 01:39, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Category:Adelophis indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

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. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:20, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Category:Taxa named by Gilda Vascocelos Andrade indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

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. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:24, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from one or more pages into Papuan eclectus. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. DanCherek (talk) 16:41, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect Turdus simensis, has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 February 12 § Turdus simensis, until a consensus is reached. Plantdrew (talk) 19:58, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have created many articles but your last hundred or so have only been micro stubs or similar. I suggest you create your your next 10 articles in draft and submit them to AfC and see if they get a pass.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 03:00, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Creation of stubs on species is accepted (in fact, creating any stub is fine as long as it meets policy). All are notable. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:38, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@BeanieFan11 Could you add a link to the relevant discussion? I doubt that policy allows to grant autopatrolled rights to article creators of majorly stubs. Autopatrolled mentions "clean" articles. Good faith allows it, but no answer and keep creating articles doesn't really raise trust.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 19:20, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Can you show me something saying that creating stubs is not acceptable? Or something saying that species are not notable? BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:25, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is allowed to create stubs, but I would try to avoid it with autopatrolled rights. Also I doubt many of those stubs would make it through AfC in their current state.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 19:40, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the most recent AFC submissions, I see articles that look just like Pvmoutside's getting accepted – see for example Euphrasia nemorosa. BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:25, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Euprasia nemorosa has an image, many of Pv...not. And the new editor has no autopatrolled rights for which the discussion was opened. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 20:35, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You asked if articles in that shape get accepted at AFC. Having autopatrolled would make no difference there. And what difference does the image make? BeanieFan11 (talk) 21:49, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Some of Pv...s "articles" I have seen are one or maybe two liners and then at times even without an image. This is not interesting to read and I imagine disappointing for most who landed on that page in search of information. So I prefer we can review notable stubs and move it to draft for expansion if needed. A database is not really an acceptable source for all.22:03, 25 February 2023 (UTC) Paradise Chronicle (talk) 22:03, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

All of Pvmoutside's stubs appear to be correctly referenced species stubs for validly described taxa (thus notable), with suitable taxoboxes, categories, and stub templates. These are perfectly fine and need no further checking at the level of NPP. In short, this is what autopatrolled is meant for: production-ready material that doesn't need patrolling. I would contest and presumably unilaterally sidestep the veto of any AfC reviewer who would not pass them on sight. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 20:29, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A top Slovenian lawyer and leading presidential candidate of Slovenia at the time wasn't approved by AfC and was also redraftified by a reviewer. Thats my experience at AfC...Paradise Chronicle (talk) 20:40, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, these are species stubs. They are one of the few broad categories that we currently dignify with automatic notability, and Pvmoutside clearly knows what nuts and bolts have to be attached (they've been editing in the area for long enough), so I don't think there's any cause for concern here. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 20:53, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Could @you link to a discussion in which consensus was agreed on that those are dignified with automatic notability? Thank you. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 21:19, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Paradise Chronicle: the clearest statement on that is WP:SPECIESOUTCOMES. Because that remains something of a fuzzy proclamation, we do get recurring discussions/challenges on the issue, the latest of which probably was this. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 21:31, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your talk page is rather difficult to edit, I suggest you install an automatic archive. Help in this regard might be found over this link. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 21:15, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done! Thanx for the suggestion!....Pvmoutside (talk) 03:19, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An article you recently created, Jean McDonough Arts Center, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 00:03, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. The discussion is here. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 22:06, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't know that least concern means that the species are not in danger as I figured if they are on the red list they are in danger anyway. I correct me on that and would like to also let you know personally. I sort of can't edit the ANI anymore, it's probably too long and my computer has issues accepting that I have answered already, and always shows me an open answer I can't edit. I still believe your articles can be improved though, tagging them for too technical is the least one could do with those micro stubs full of latin names and acronyms. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 07:40, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's my opinion, but I believe consensus will be the other and of course I will accept consensus as this is what the community wants.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 07:41, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Now I was able to edit the ANI. Sorry again for the confusion. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 08:05, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's OK. Yeah the IUCN probably should have found a better name for the Red List, but it is what it is. There are literally thousands of what you call microstubs and higher rates articles (start,C,B, A, good, and even featured), written by not only me. ; that would require changes if you're suggestion would take effect....Pvmoutside (talk) 13:18, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects Grandala (genus) and Phainopepla (genus) have existed since 2021. I'm not convinced that we also need the redirects with (bird genus) that you recently created. I realize that (genus) often isn't precise enough to disambiguate (due to the same genus name existing under different codes of nomenclature), and that (bird) rarely isn't precise enough to disambiguate (usually due to a the existence of a common name that applies to a taxon at a rank other than genus, as is this case with Grandala and Phainopepla). Extremely rarely, neither (bird) (or another relevant term for a group of organisms) nor (genus) is precise enough to disambiguate; while (bird genus) would work (I think) in all of the rare cases where either (genus) or (bird), so far Wikipedia has mostly retained (genus) when (bird) doesn't work and hasn't really gone with (bird genus). A recent RM at Talk:Silphium (genus), went with (genus) not (plant genus), while an RM at Talk:Nasturtium (plant genus) went the other way. Given the different results for the plant-related RM, I'm not sure there's consensus to move away from (genus) when (bird) (or (plant)) doesn't work.

I do think when there are multiple redirects with different disambiguators, categories generally used for article (e.g. for monotypy, taxa described by...) should only be one of the redirects. But redirects for both disambiguators for Grandala and Phainopepla as genera have the monotypy category. Plantdrew (talk) 20:30, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Did you get this move right? We now have an article about the genus with the species title and an article about the species with the genus title. Somehow I don't think this was the intention. Was the draft just supposed to replace a redirect? Lithopsian (talk) 20:19, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See also section here[3], probably best to keep the discussion where most people can see it. FunkMonk (talk) 20:21, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Here? Lithopsian (talk) 20:28, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

At the dinosaur's talk page, as that's what most relevant people will have watchlisted. FunkMonk (talk) 20:31, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

😀....Pvmoutside (talk) 20:33, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, now the discussion is here after the move back:[4] Again, I can't say what's the best outcome, but down the line, it'll be useful if Parrosaurus is revived for the assigned species so we can cover it there. FunkMonk (talk) 20:37, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Majash2020 was:

This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are:

• in-depth (not just passing mentions about the subject)
• reliable
• secondary
• independent of the subject
  

Make sure you add references that meet these criteria before resubmitting. Learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

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

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Jean McDonough Arts Center and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Majash2020 (talk) 07:32, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The two references listed qualify under the four qualifications listed ab on cc e. What else do Ineed?....Pvmoutside (talk) 18:27, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Pvmoutside! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Majash2020 (talk) 07:32, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Category:Chrysopelea indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

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. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:28, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

|authors= is a discouraged parameter in {{cite journal}} which underlies {{cite iucn}}; see the {{cite journal}} template documentation. Recently, I find myself chasing you around and replacing |authors= in {{cite iucn}} with enumerated |authorn= as I did, for example, at this edit to Dendrelaphis subocularis (and about 20 others today). I'd really rather not have to do that.

There is a template that makes correctly formed {{cite iucn}} templates: {{make cite iucn}}. Just give it the raw citation from the IUCN species page and you're done. AnomieBOT will come around and subst {{make cite iucn}} to {{cite iucn}} (usually within an hour or so of publishing your edit):

{{make cite iucn|Wogan, G. & Chan-Ard, T. 2012. Dendrelaphis subocularis. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2012: e.T191970A2022632. https://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2012-1.RLTS.T191970A2022632.en. Accessed on 30 April 2023.}}

Wogan, G.; Chan-Ard, T. (2012). "Dendrelaphis subocularis". IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. 2012: e.T191970A2022632. doi:10.2305/IUCN.UK.2012-1.RLTS.T191970A2022632.en. Retrieved 30 April 2023.

You get an up-to-date citation, and I don't have to follow you around doing cleanup so that I can spend more of my time cleaning up Category:CS1 maint: uses authors parameter (0).

Your cooperation appreciated.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 19:01, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]