User talk:Caftaric

Welcome!

Hello, Caftaric, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, especially your edits to Vanillic. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

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

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! — Masum Ibn Musa  ^Conversation 14:19, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Caftaric, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Caftaric! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Technical 13 (I'm a Teahouse host) Visit the Teahouse This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 17:32, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Your first barnstar

		The Writer's Barnstar
		You're a good article creator for such a new editor! I dream of horses If you reply here, please ping me by adding {{U|I dream of horses}} to your message. (talk to me) (contributions) @ 09:15, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

A page you started (Canalisporium) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Canalisporium, Caftaric!

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

I don't think it's standard, nor necessary to list the publication after each scientific name (at least not in zoological and botanical nomenclature). Perhaps they could better be converted to citations to help expand the article?

To reply, leave a comment on Animalparty's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

A page you started (Cladodus) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Cladodus, Caftaric!

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

Add your projects to wikiproject fish. Also, do you have a photo?

To reply, leave a comment on Megalibrarygirl's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

A page you started (Plagiorchis elegans) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Plagiorchis elegans, Caftaric!

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

Note that {{flatworm-stub}} is a more relevant category for plagiorchiids than {{animal-stub}}.

To reply, leave a comment on Animalparty's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

A page you started (Ctenacanthus elegans) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Ctenacanthus elegans, Caftaric!

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

Note that it's common practice (although not required) for fossil species to redirect to the genus, rather than to have a plethora of nearly identical species stubs. Even Featured Articles can discuss multiple species: see e.g. Paraceratherium.

To reply, leave a comment on Animalparty's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

A page you started (Meliolales) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Meliolales, Caftaric!

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

great job

To reply, leave a comment on LavaBaron's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

A page you started (Spatafora) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Spatafora, Caftaric!

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

Please cite "Joseph W. Spatafora" or, better yet, create a page for him (with citations there)!

To reply, leave a comment on BeowulfBrower's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Please

... stop replacing Fungus with [[fungus|Fungi]] when you change categories (see WP:NOTBROKEN); I have to go after you switch them back and it's wasting a lot of time I could be using to do other things! Thanks! Sasata (talk) 17:49, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

And why are you doing that? --Caftaric (talk) 17:51, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

See WP:NOTBROKEN. Sasata (talk) 18:05, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Very interesting article! I have nevertheless a good reason to edit these links, as there are quite often other links or redirects links (such as "fungus" or "fungal") used in the same article. Putting all the links to "fungus" avoids to have the page listed several times in the "what links here" tool of the "fungus" article. Hope it can convince you. --Caftaric (talk) 18:21, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Categorization of plant orders

Please see Wikipedia:WikiProject Plants/Categorization#Taxonomic rank categories. Categorizing plant orders is independent of the main taxonomic classification. Peter coxhead (talk) 15:33, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Minor changes

Hi, you appear to be annoying several experienced editors here. Could I make one small request, and a minor suggestion:

a) please stop deleting the blank line after the infobox, image, or other media and before the first line of the text: the spacing does no harm to anyone, and it makes editing easier as the format makes the text easier to perceive, so removing it is in fact injurious.

b) if you are making minor changes to categories or formats, please tick the "This is a minor edit" box so the rest of us don't keep getting alarm bells rung.

Many thanks. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:45, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Marine edible fish

Nearly all marine fish species are edible... well over 20,000 species. So you have a long way to go before you fill this all but useless category. --Epipelagic (talk) 18:15, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:11, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 28

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:16, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 5

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:34, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Vietbocap

Hey, no need to type in references manually. Why not use the cite form on the edit window and then click on templates -> cite journal? That means all you have to do is paste in a PMID link and the reference is assembled automatically. That also means the references are in the text so you can put them next to the statements that you want to reference. Blythwood (talk) 08:39, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

on categorization

Hello! I can see you've been doing a good deal of categorizing lately. With regards to redirects, they should normally not be categorized, especially if they end up in the same category as their target article they redirect to: see Wikipedia:Categorizing redirects. Case in point, in the Category:Geophilomorpha you've placed both Aspidopleres and its sole species redirect Aspidopleres intercalatus (and several other redirect/target pairs), which misrepresents the number of articles, introduces redundancy, and hinders navigation for readers (whose convenience and browsing experience should be prioritized above the editorial choices and hierarchical designs of Wikipedians). I personally think that not every rank-taxon needs its own category (Category:X-genera, X-suborders, etc.) and think that some of the categories you've created might be better off only categorizing other categories rather than articles, but I tend to be a lumper more than a splitter. In case you haven't already, see also Wikipedia:Overcategorization. Someone has already mentioned your Category:Marine edible fish above, and I agree that may be a relatively trivial and non-defining category, possibly a future CfD candidate (ditto for all in Category:Edible fish by habitat.) Beware the impulse for runaway sub-categorization (Edible marine fish by Ocean, by year of discovery, etc...) By and large your contributions have been positive, but I just want to make sure you proceed cautiously and with knowledge of guidelines and consensus to prevent future conflict; a stitch in time and all that. All the best, --Animalparty! (talk) 07:47, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

A page you started (S. argentina) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating S. argentina, Caftaric!

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

Note: It is usually unhelpful to target an abbreviation like this to a single species: there are likely dozens of potential names (Squatina argentina for one). A disambiguation page would be most useful: see Category:Species Latin name abbreviation disambiguation pages for more info. I've converted a number of your redirects into disambiguation pages already (see P. cookei and S. aethiopica) . A simple web search can identify other likely targets. As for your redirects like cookei and pearsei, it is extremely unlikely that even if someone were searching "Cookei" would intend the species Pseudocellus cookei, as a search indicates numerous species with that name (including those at P. cookei). While conceivably these could be made into disambiguation pages including every taxon ending with cookei or pearsei, it is probably best to simply not create such redirects or pages unless they can clearly and easily help people find articles.

To reply, leave a comment on Animalparty's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Category:Poisonous amphibians

Category:Poisonous amphibians, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. --Animalparty! (talk) 00:04, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Invitation

	Hello, Caftaric. You are invited to join WikiProject Food and drink, a WikiProject and resource dedicated to improving Wikipedia's coverage of food, drink and cuisine topics. Please check out the project, and if interested feel free to join by adding your name to the member list. North America1000 12:43, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Plant categorization

I can only repeat what I said above: please see Wikipedia:WikiProject Plants/Categorization#Taxonomic rank categories. Categorizing plants by taxon rank is independent of the main taxonomic classification. So if you want to put the "by rank" categories into Category:Angiosperm taxa by rank, you should not remove the main taxonomic category. Angiosperm orders are angiosperms. Peter coxhead (talk) 23:08, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

A page you started (Louis Etienne Ravaz) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Louis Etienne Ravaz, Caftaric!

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

Thanks for writing this article. It seems, as everything of importance has been covered, and somtimes in very posh Greek/Latin words like ampelography and viticulture.

To reply, leave a comment on NearEMPTiness's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Species name abbreviation redirects

Hello, Caftaric. I posted a comment previously about my concerns with the unhelpfulness of creating redirects from an abbreviated name to a cherry-picked species, but you are still continuing to do so, which creates more work for others. For instance, you created "C. solida" (and many others) as a redirect to Coelolepis, which is completely arbitrary, and ignores the other possibilities "C. solida" may refer to, including Corydalis solida, and Cellana solida. While it may be conventional and appropriate to redirect the unambiguous Coelolepis solida to Coelolepis, it makes no sense to redirect an ambiguous abbreviation. Please stop doing this. I strongly urge you to consider making a Species name abbreviation disambiguation page instead, similar to P. elegans. If you have any questions, please ask. Thank you. --Animalparty! (talk) 19:35, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

I entirely endorse this comment. The likeliest meaning to me of C. solida is Corydalis solida. A disambiguation page is a better approach, although I question the value of any such pages, given the ability of searches to find all the species with that species name/epithet. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:15, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

A page you started (Maurice Mehl) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Maurice Mehl, Caftaric!

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

Thanks for writing and uploading this article about M G Mehl. I propose to move the photograph to the right hand side, unless you want to install a box there.

To reply, leave a comment on NearEMPTiness's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Stub templates and double blank lines

Hi! Thanks for cleaning up all those hominid fossil-related articles. Minor detail per WP:Stub: "It is usually desirable to leave two blank lines between the first stub template and whatever precedes it." I guess the reason is that it looks better if there's some spacing before the stub template, and that it becomes clearer that it isn't part of the article (compare double blank lines vs. single blank line). Cheers, jonkerz ♠talk 12:19, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Forcipomyia squamipennis has been nominated for Did You Know

Hello, Caftaric. Forcipomyia squamipennis, an article you either created or to which you significantly contributed,has been nominated to appear on Wikipedia's Main Page as part of WikiProject Did you know. You can see the hook and the discussion here. You are welcome to participate! Thank you. APersonBot (talk!) 12:01, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 31

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:51, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Forcipomyia squamipennis

On 31 May 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Forcipomyia squamipennis, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the midge Forcipomyia squamipennis is an important pollinator of the cacao tree in Ghana? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Forcipomyia squamipennis. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Forcipomyia squamipennis), 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.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:02, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

2016 Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Community Survey

The Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation has appointed a committee to lead the search for the foundation’s next Executive Director. One of our first tasks is to write the job description of the executive director position, and we are asking for input from the Wikimedia community. Please take a few minutes and complete this survey to help us better understand community and staff expectations for the Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director.

• Survey, (hosted by Qualtrics)

Thank you, The Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Steering Committee via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:49, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 27

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:13, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation pages

Please read Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Disambiguation pages to see how such pages must be structured. Peter coxhead (talk) 11:37, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

xxxx in paleontology conodonts

Thanks for the addition of the Conodonts to the Year in paleontology pages (eg. 1931 in paleontology. When adding to those pages it would be of great help if you followed the table formatting that is already in place, and templated your citations. Thanks a bunch. --Kevmin § 12:21, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

As an additional note, Conodonts are vertebrates, they should be placed as subsections of the Vertebrate sections on the pages.--Kevmin § 16:15, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Again as a reminder, the conodonts need to be placed under the vertebrate sections of the xxxx in paleontology articles--Kevmin § 12:32, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Thanks for your cheerful advices. The thing is (and I don't to enter any kind of ideologic war stating that) I haven't seen any clear statement that conodont are definitevely vertebrates. Did you? Can you add the references to the right articles, if so? Again thank you for all of your concern! Caftaric.

Look at the page Conodont. They are placed as a class of vertebrates for the purpose of the wiki classification. Also current research papers are placing them as vertebrates, see here, here, and here.--Kevmin § 18:34, 11 July 2016 (UTC)