User talk:Geekgecko

Hello! Recent research has shown that the genus Arctocephalus is monophyletic. The ASM Mammal Diversity Database has already recognized the genus Arctophoca as synonymous with Arctocephalus. Could you please bring all the Arctophoca species back to the genus Arctocephalus?

In addition, I found some more changes from ASM MDD that you might be interested in working on:

• Xerus erythropus → Euxerus erythropus
• Xerus inauris → Geosciurus inauris
• Xerus princeps → Geosciurus princeps
• Spermophilus ralli (now a synonym of S. relictus) → Spermophilus nilkaensis
• Nyctereutes procyonoides viverrinus → Nyctereutes viverrinus
• Canis lupus rufus → Canis rufus
• Canis lupus lycaon → Canis lycaon
• Ailurus fulgens → Ailurus fulgens + Ailurus styani
• Equus ferus caballus → Equus caballus
• Equus africanus asinus → Equus asinus
• Sus scrofa domesticus → Sus domesticus
• Capra aegagrus hircus → Capra hircus
• Bos taurus indicus → Bos indicus
• Pecari tajacu → Dicotyles tajacu
• Platanista gangetica → Platanista gangetica + Platanista minor
• Eschrichtius robustus included in Balaenopteridae
• Hutias included in Echimyidae

— HFoxii (talk) 08:12, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

• Will do, thanks! Geekgecko (talk) 15:33, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Here are a few more changes. I am currently working on mammal taxonomy on Russian Wikipedia, and if you don’t mind, I’ll just add taxonomic changes to this list from time to time. Also, could you format the references like this^[1]? HFoxii (talk) 15:27, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

• Perodicticus potto → Perodicticus potto + Perodicticus edwardsi + Perodicticus ibeanus
• Hylobates muelleri → Hylobates muelleri + Hylobates abbotti + Hylobates funereus
• Aotus nancymaae → Aotus nancymai
• Coendou rothschildi → Coendou quichua (synonymization)
• Mico manicorensis → Mico marcai (synonymization)
• Leontocebus → Saguinus (synonymization of genera and renaming species)
• Sapajus macrocephalus → Sapajus apella macrocephalus
• Mysateles garridoi → Capromys garridoi
• Mesocapromys nanus → Mesocapromys nana
• Mysateles melanurus → Mesocapromys melanurus
• Hylopetes phayrei → Hylopetes phayrei + Hylopetes electilis
• Hylopetes lepidus → Hylopetes sagitta (synonymization)
• Zapodinae → Zapodidae
• Sicistinae → Sminthidae
• Zenkerellinae → Zenkerellidae (monotypic family for Zenkerella)
• Octodon bridgesii → Octodon bridgesii + Octodon ricardojeda
• Scaptonyx fusicaudus → Scaptonyx fusicauda
• Euroscaptor micrura → Euroscaptor micrurus
• Alpiscaptulus medogensis (new species and genus)
• Talpa caucasica → Talpa caucasica + Talpa ognevi
• Talpa levantis → Talpa levantis + Talpa talyschensis
• Mogera insularis → Mogera insularis + Mogera latouchei
• Scapanus latimanus → Scapanus latimanus + Scapanus occultus

Besides, you could update the rodent taxonomy with the latest revisions. HFoxii (talk) 15:27, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

• • Thanks! I'll definitely work on these in the future. Keep up the good work on Russian Wikipedia!Geekgecko (talk) 15:40, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Category:Sciurini 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, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Geekgecko,

You changed this redirect so that it pointed to a blank page. Please do not do this. I've reverted your edit. Do not change the target of a redirect until a different article has been created. Pages with broken redirects are frequently just deleted so do not create red link redirects. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:19, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

• Thanks! I was doing it in preparation for creating the new page later on, but in hindsight I should have made the page first.Geekgecko (talk) 13:51, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Hey, I was thinking we could coordinate our efforts to make a page for the Axis genus, seeing as the ASM currently considers 4 species in it and not just the chital. Let me know if you're interested. 74.68.117.176 (talk) 17:43, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Sure! Will try to get to it later. Geekgecko (talk) 21:30, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Did it! Revived the old Axis page from 2011 and slightly revised it for the modern day.Geekgecko (talk) 04:09, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Great job! The page looks good. J0ngM0ng (talk) 02:54, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Hi there @Geekgecko:. I would like to ask you this, can you in any time or when you have the time make a page called Cyclopes (genus) by removing that redirect. That king of genus unfortunately here applies to silky anteaters. Though when I was at the ASM MammalDiversity website and searched "Cyclopes", I eventually discovered that there are actually other species that belong to the Cyclopes genus, meaning it is not just the Silky anteater but also other species as well. It would very be nice to have numerous pages about other species that belong to this genus. So once again, can you do it at any of time? Best regards. —- 185.94.134.116 (talk) 21:58, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

That's actually something I was planning for in the future! I'll get to it some time.Geekgecko (talk) 01:18, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Hey! At the moment, I'm primarily focusing on mammal taxa that have an IUCN entry to their name and are accepted by the ASM, but do not yet have Wikipedia pages, as those ones seem to be the most generally-accepted pages I make. I'll get to the anteaters sometime after I work on these.Geekgecko (talk) 18:38, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Hello. I have noticed the page Pedalion - which redirects to the article of a 19th-century monk - is used in articles about dinosaurs, e.g. List of the prehistoric life of California. I think one way to fix this problem whould be to create a page for the Pedalion dinosaur and turn Pedalion into a DAB. What do you think? Veverve (talk) 02:15, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

It seems like Pedalion is the name for a species of fossil oyster, but sources online seem to be divided about its validity. I'll see what I can do later.Geekgecko (talk) 03:35, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

So, do you have any idea on how we could sort this out? Veverve (talk) 05:34, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

According to the World Register of Marine Species, Pedalion is a synonym of Isognomon, which seems to be the most clear-cut explanation I can find online, so I would suggest replacing the former with the latter. I'll try to get to it in the future. Geekgecko (talk) 06:34, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

I think "Pedalion" should be a DAB for both the canon law collection and the Isognomon. What do you say? Also, please ping me when you answer me. Veverve (talk) 14:13, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Veverve That would definitely work! Geekgecko (talk) 18:44, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Hi. You might want to read (and possibly respond) to my comment on Talk:Bali cattle; there is a serious problem that is quite separate from the dispute over whether it is a species or subspecies. Dyanega (talk) 18:36, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Dyanega Thanks, see response on talk page.Geekgecko (talk) 19:24, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Is found S of 60 degrees S. Please don't use the Aussie defintion of it. Thanks. BulbousCow (talk) 15:45, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Per the consensus at WP:PRIMATE in this discussion, the the ASM MammalDiversity Database is not the primary source for primate taxonomy. Rlendog (talk) 01:58, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

@Rlendog: Thanks. However, that consensus seems to have been made back when the database was being updated; it is now in a significantly more complete state as far as I'm aware, so it would be worth revisiting that decision. In addition, my reverting of Leontocebus members to Saguinus was based on [this 2018 study], that downgraded Leontocebus to being a subgenus of Saguinus; the results were recognized by MDD but not by ITIS. So I wasn't just simply going to an outdated taxonomy. Still, I will keep this in mind. Geekgecko (talk) 02:22, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. I read the study and it looks like the authors proposed moving Leontocebus back to a subgenus based on morphology (while acknowledging the genetic evidence for a distant split between Leontocebus and Saguinus). But I am not seeing that this proposal has much acceptance. I am not sure if the MammalDiversity Database was updated based on this study or whether it was still using the older taxonomy. But I checked ITIS and IUCN and both seem to be retaining Leontocebus as a genus (admittedly, Rylands is the primary expert for ITIS on this and he was among those who split out Leontocebus as a genus, so he may be biased, but he is also a highly respected primatologist). Even if Leontocebus is a subgenus, the Leontocebus page and category are still valid articles since a subgenus is a valid taxon for an article. Rlendog (talk) 17:25, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

ASM did classify them based on the study: all entries for former Leontocebus members have the note "moved from Saguinus to Leontocebus recently, but later was moved back to Saguinus; recent publications have suggested retaining Leontocebus as a subgenus rather than separate from Saguinus, which is followed here"; the Leontocebus pages even cite a past version of ASM as proof of classification into Leontocebus. When assuming that Leontocebus was a subgenus of Saguinus, I didn't see enough specific info for it to warrant its own article so I merged it back. But you're right in that the IUCN and ITIS have not made this change (despite it being proposed 3 years ago) while still largely following other primate taxonomy changes over that time, implying they disagree with it, although I'm not sure how much of this can just be chalked up to Rylands's influence.Geekgecko (talk) 18:36, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm in agreement with Rlendog, you should get consensus before large changes to taxonomy. Especially considering lots of your edits made the changes but didn't reference any sources. When you did reference the Mammal Diversity Database in tamarin, the link isn't for an entry for tamarins, but what seems like a database, do I have to download the whole thing to verify the reference? Cheers, Jack (talk) 14:27, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

@Jackhynes: Yeah, there isn't a specific entry on the database for the genus itself, only the species, so to cite the changes I just cited the database as a whole (the official site recommends citing the Zenodo page for these changes. But it looks like in contrast to most of my changes, I didn't cite any sources for each tamarin species whose taxonomy I changed since I assumed the citation on the main genus page would be sufficient; my mistake!Geekgecko (talk) 16:19, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Is it possible to determine which species the pottos belong to in the photographs available at Wikimedia Commons? On Commons they are all labeled as Perodicticus potto, but since this species has been split into three, something needs to be done about this confusion. Why did you add this photo to the article about Perodicticus edwardsi, and this one to the article about the Perodictitus potto? Were you guided by any diagnostic traits? I also moved this low-quality photo from iNaturalist to Commons. According to iNaturalist, on the photo depicted Perodicticus potto potto. HFoxii (talk) 15:32, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure about the physical differences between populations; I'll have to look further into that. I was debating over whether or not to keep the image on Perodicticus potto since I wasn't sure where the populations came from, but I decided to keep it. As for Perodicticus edwardsi, the pictured specimen likely originated somewhere in the Belgian Congo due to the museum it was displayed in, so I used that image for edwardsi, although it seems that ibeanus also inhabits the Congo.Geekgecko (talk) 16:23, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Since you have an interest in mammal taxonomy, you may be interested in a discussion on my talk page on the appropriate genus name for Pacific white-sided dolphins. The discussion is here if you want to provide input. Rlendog (talk) 21:04, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

I have opened a discussion on this topic on talk:Lagenorhynchus. The ASM Mammal Diversity Database should not be used as the authority when it comes to marine mammals. Here the Society for Marine Mammalogy Taxonomic Committee is considered the de facto authority. SMM does not yet recognize the split of Lagenorhynchus. There are unresolved issues regarding both phylogeny and nomenclature. This means that Sagmatias and Leucopleurus are not recognised names. JakobT (talk) 18:48, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Also please note that there is not general consensus to override MSW3 taxonomy with Mammal Diversity Database taxonomy on Wikipedia. For mammals in general, MSW3 is still the accepted basis for the taxonomic framework used on Wikipedia, although this can be overridden by local consensus after discussion. Please see the guidelines at Wikipedia:WikiProject Mammals#Guidelines for more information. Thanks! Kaldari (talk) 08:23, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Hm, the page says that MSW3 taxonomy can be overridden for taxa accepted by both the IUCN and MDD. But by taxonomy, do you mean species-level or higher order (genus-level and above)? I don't think higher-order taxonomy is too much of a priority for the IUCN, and the ITIS has many taxa that haven't been updated for over a decade, so the MDD is really only the only major source that's being regularly updated for higher-order taxa (but for certain taxa, such as most bats, the ITIS is quite up-to-date). I've still been holding off on making further major changes for this reason. As for species-level, presently I'm only creating articles for species that are accepted by both the MDD and IUCN. However, there are many post-MSW3 species that have been accepted by the ITIS (at least for those groups that are regularly reviewed on there) and MDD, but have not yet been given a status by the IUCN (more likely due to time constraints than anything else). What would be the proper practice for these? Geekgecko (talk) 15:15, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Category:Sagmatias 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. Qwerfjkltalk 17:18, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Get Stickbugged LOL and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 January 29#Get Stickbugged LOL until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Drmies (talk) 17:50, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

for returning the sussy pig image to its rightful place

Zach Varmitech (talk) 20:43, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

No problem ;). Don't know why that image was ever removed; given how much domestication has changed their appearance, domestic pigs are not accurate representatives of the genus Sus in general. Geekgecko (talk) 21:20, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Geekgecko

Thank you for creating Siderolamprus.

User:SunDawn, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Thanks for the article!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|SunDawn}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

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

✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 00:03, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Category:Polyplectronini 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. HFoxii (talk) 08:50, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

I note that you have created the article Leuciscidae and cited a 2018 paper on Cyprinid taxonomy, this is fine but the WP:Fishes has a consensus that for taxa above the level genus Wikipedia follows the taxonomy set out in 5th edition of Fishes of the World. There is already an article for the Leuciscinae which does follow this and places that family within the Cyprinidae. Cyprinidae does seem to be a "waste-basket" taxon (not that I know enough about these things to say that!). I will redirect the family level article to the subfamily article and that the wording on the 2018 study should be added to it. Quetzal1964 (talk) 11:22, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Hi Quetzal, yes you're correct. That was a couple of years ago, but I did many taxonomic edits to reflect the study's findings (which have been recognized by Eschmeyer's Catalogue of Fishes), until I learned that the taxonomy must only follow Fishes of the World. I stopped making the changes but I didn't go back to reverse my previous ones as I had made too many already. Personally, given how slow Fishes of the World is to update, even compared to the other taxonomic authorities Wikipedia uses, we should shift to mostly using Eschmeyer, but that's something for another day. Geekgecko (talk) 16:48, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Hello! I think it will be interesting for you to update the articles in accordance with the recently released ASM MDD v. 1.10. You can find the full changelog here. In particular, since you have already updated the mustelid taxonomy per ASM, I think you will be interested that Aonyx and Lutrogale have been synonymized with Lutra (per this paper). HFoxii (talk) 10:39, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know! I'm already aware of the change; there are some very exciting ones. I think that before I make any major changes, I'll discuss with other users, as some of my previous changes have been reverted if only ASM recognizes them, and other changes have been reversed or flagged by the ASM themselves. Thanks for notifying me though! Geekgecko (talk) 04:52, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Moluccan scops owl, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ambon.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:59, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

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

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

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 05:54, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Chestnut-belted gnateater, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Amazonas.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 13:09, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

	The Original Barnstar
	Golden-haired tube-nosed bat and other bat articles are excellent. Really well done! BoyTheKingCanDance (talk) 02:38, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Aw, thank you! Geekgecko (talk) 02:39, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Hi Geekgecko, I just wanted to let you know that I have added the autopatrolled user right to your account. This means that pages you create will automatically be marked as 'reviewed', and no longer appear in the new pages feed. Autopatrolled is assigned to prolific creators of articles, where those articles do not require further review, and may have been requested on your behalf by someone else. It doesn't affect how you edit; it is used only to manage the workload of new page patrollers.

Since the articles you create will no longer be systematically reviewed by other editors, it is important that you maintain the high standard you have achieved so far in all your future creations. Please also try to remember to add relevant WikiProject templates, stub tags, categories, and incoming links to them, if you aren't already in the habit; user scripts such as Rater and StubSorter can help with this. As you have already shown that you have a strong grasp of Wikipedia's core content policies, you might also consider volunteering to become a new page patroller yourself, helping to uphold the project's standards and encourage other good faith article writers.

Feel free to leave me a message if you have any questions. Happy editing! Schwede66 22:03, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Thank you! Geekgecko (talk) 05:29, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Category:Buccanodon 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 removing the speedy deletion tag. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:38, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

I've been updating this and several other species lists as each IOC version comes out. You beat me to it, thanks. But you also need to update the citation. Craigthebirder (talk) 12:13, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, it was tough work! I've been citing the official species lists on the website for each change I make, but for some reason the site hasn't updated yet, so I've had to base my edits on just the excel file but still citing the now-outdated species list on the site. Geekgecko (talk) 18:07, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited American flamingo, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Isabela Island.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:00, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Hello Geekgecko, I noticed you are active editor in the paleontology field and edited Neochoristodera recently. I took some photos from Honghe Prefectural Museum in July, there are 3 fossils with the tag name "Liaoxi Dinosaur Fossil", and the Chinese name is same as Liaoxisaurus, a genus of Neochoristodera. However, I have zero knowledge of dinosaur or paleontology, I don't think these fossils look like Neochoristodera. Would you mind help me identify the images? Thank you very much!

The images are in commons:Category:Liaoxisaurus. Xiliuheshui · chat 14:28, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

• • Hello! Those appear to be Psittacosaurus, of which many fossils have been found in Liaoning. Might want to move them out of that category and into Psittacosaurus. Thank you for asking! If you have more pictures from the museum, it would b really cool for you to post them! Geekgecko (talk) 14:36, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

    Many thanks for your help! I have move them to commons:Category:Psittacosaurus fossils. Xiliuheshui · chat 20:30, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Life on Our Planet, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Citronella.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:08, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Your slapdash editng is really starting to get on my nerves. It's obvious that you do not conduct proper literature reviews when you make taxonomic changes. The paper naming the order "Palaeocarchariiformes" came out in 2018, a year before the histology study came out finding Palaeocarcharias to be a lamniform. No other study other than the 2018 one has used the order "Palaeocarchariiformes" for this taxon, so why use it? Rather than Lamniformes/?, which I have just changed it to. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:06, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

First of all, this is a ridiculous issue to be so rude and gatekeepy about. There are better ways you can phrase this if you disagree. I'm among the few people on this part of the wiki trying to keep taxonomy up to date, and it's incredibly damaging for this part of the wiki to act like this to someone just trying to make a difference. As for my edits, I'm basing them on the Shark-References database (which I literally cited in my edits); almost every other taxonomic group on Wikipedia uses a pre-existing database as a reference and fossil shark taxonomy is extremely difficult to write about without a standardized system, so the only other options are contradictory or extremely vague taxonomy. Without a standardized source, I actually do literature reviews before taxonomic edits, contrary to what you insinuate But I understand if it's not best to hew so closely to it. What I don't understand is why you want to treat me like some kind of vandal for it. Geekgecko (talk) 22:43, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

It's making unnecessary work for othr editors. Why do you keep doing it? Tony (talk) 23:08, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

I won't do it again but what are you referring to? The country names I list for species distributions? No one ever told me that not linking them was the accepted practice. Geekgecko (talk) 06:45, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi there, as I continue on my project, I would really like some advice as to what exactly you're referring to so I can avoid it. Geekgecko (talk) 06:45, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

He's referring to the country names in the species distributions. Not linking countries is an example given at MOS:OVERLINK. Plantdrew (talk) 22:30, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, makes sense. But what about for smaller countries? For example, a lot of the fossil fish taxa that I need to revamp are from Lebanon; do I not link the country name in those? It does say only to avoid major examples but I'm not sure where the line is. Geekgecko (talk) 23:44, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Hello. Taxonomy templates ask for rank names in latin e.g. familia, not family (errors show here). Also it would be helpful if you could add a reference for the parent in the 'ref' field. Thanks. YorkshireExpat (talk) 09:56, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, I've been trying to do it more often (at least for higher-order taxa, just way too many genera to add a reference for each) but still some slip through the cracks. Geekgecko (talk) 21:05, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Yup... seems there are two genera with this name. Oy. Thanks for correcting my correction. :) - UtherSRG (talk) 20:06, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

No problem! Though what was the other one? Although usually two animal genera (fossil or extinct) with the same name isn't allowed, so it looks like one of these names must change, unless the nematode was described after the fossil eel and has a newer name proposed. Strangely I cannot find any references to these nematodes in the scientific literature, at least based on a Google Scholar search. Geekgecko (talk) 20:12, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Hello Geekgecko!

• The New Pages Patrol is currently struggling to keep up with the influx of new articles needing review. We could use a few extra hands to help.
• We think that someone with your activity and experience is very likely to meet the guidelines for granting.
• Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time, but it requires a strong understanding of Wikipedia’s CSD policy and notability guidelines.
• Kindly read the tutorial before making your decision, and feel free to post on the project talk page with questions.
• If patrolling new pages is something you'd be willing to help out with, please consider applying here.

Thank you for your consideration. We hope to see you around!

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:20, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Category:Early Cretaceous fish of Africa 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 removing the speedy deletion tag. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:35, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:17, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:57, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Life in Colour (miniseries), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Polymorphism.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 18:00, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:27, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Category:Fossils of Equatorial Guinea 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 removing the speedy deletion tag. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:05, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

I have got around to doing the Tetraodontiformes and note that you have been referencing Near & Thacker 2024 in the Taxonomy Templates. The agreed taxonomic source for fish taxa above the level of genera is still the 5th edition of Fishes of the World, but I am trying to have a discussion on changing this. I am using this as an opportunity to draw your attention to my proposal, your thoughts would be welcome. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Fishes

Quetzal1964 (talk) 07:59, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi there! I'm being a bit conservative with my usage of Near & Thacker as a source for now, using it for things like the placement of fossil taxa but avoiding making any major changes based on it (i.e. the new definition of Acanthuriformes) until more authorities shift to using it. As for moving on from FOTW as an authority, I'm certainly open to that, although it's worth noting that FOTW is the only major taxonomic authority for fossil groups, and I assume the next issue should be released within two years' time and we've made it this far using it already, so perhaps might not be worth shifting so soon only for a new version to come out. But I am open to being less rigid about it. Will explain more on the WikiProject later. Geekgecko (talk) 18:32, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. Quetzal1964 (talk) 19:18, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Belgrade Formation, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Aquitanian.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:52, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:53, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Monte Bolca, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Jackfish.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:53, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Monte Bolca, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Barracudas.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:56, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

On 5 March 2025, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Eosalmo, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the salmon Eosalmo (fossil example pictured) likely never migrated to the ocean? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Eosalmo. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Eosalmo), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

 — Amakuru (talk) 00:02, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

		The Original Barnstar
		The parrotfish article in particular seriously needed updating, so great job! Bloopityboop (talk) 05:58, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

Thank you!! Geekgecko (talk) 06:44, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Salmonidae, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mud minnow.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:56, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for working to improve Wikipedia. Please note two things: 1) it's helpful to leave the infobox spacing (formatting) in place for maintainability (as at Teleost), and 2) please provide edit comments, per policy, to let other editors know what your edits are intended to achieve. This is more helpful than effectively camouflaging them (if that's the word) as vandalism and forcing anyone watching the page to check your edits one by one. Many thanks. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:38, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

Hi there, I didn't manually add those spaces to the infobox, the only change I intended to make was adding the new order for the damselfish. It might be some external factor that's causing the spaces to automatically show up there whenever someone edits it (as it seems like it's reoccurring issue). I do try to make comments whenever I think people need a reason (though usually I add sources to show my basis of edits, so I assumed those stand on their own), but it's still easy to forget to do it when there's so many changes to make, given how outdated a lot of the fish taxonomy on here still is. Geekgecko (talk) 16:30, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

@Chiswick Chap:, edits to templates made with Visual Editor format spaces in a way that is specified for each template. The major option are inline or block, both of which have a single space before and after every = sign (block puts each parameter on a new line, inline keeps all the parameters in a single line). It is possible to do a custom format that has a specified number of multiple spaces before an =. However, it is not possible to dynamically vary the number of spaces before the = for each parameter so that the = are justified on the screen to appear in the same column. Trying to maintain justified spacing in templates is a losing battle as long as Visual Editor is around. Plantdrew (talk) 17:54, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

What a shocking bit of bungled design! We really should have tools that don't go about reducing everything to formatless mush. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:18, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:55, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Knocklofty Formation, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Conglomerate.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:56, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

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

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

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 07:17, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Pungo River Formation, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Aquitanian.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:58, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Pungo River Formation, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Gavia and Sarda.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:54, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Yorktown Formation, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sheepshead (fish).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:59, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Category:Sugomel indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, 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 removing the speedy deletion tag. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:04, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Calvert Formation, a link pointing to the disambiguation page Aquitanian was added.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 20:04, 14 February 2026 (UTC)