User talk:Randi Moth

Disambiguation pages should be restricted to titles that are easily confused with the disambiguation title, not a list of articles whose titles contain the term (WP:PARTIAL, if you want to know more). The entries on Reniform were all unambiguous (except the leaf morphology), so I have changed it back to a redirect to Glossary of leaf morphology. I'm happy to discuss this decision, or you could start a discussion on Talk:Reniform. Leschnei (talk) 12:36, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

I see your point, and some of the entries are indeed unnecessary. However, Reniform stigma is certainly referred to as the single word "reniform"^[1], so I believe a DAB page is still warranted. "Reniform texture" is also a synonym for "Botryoidal texture", so a link there may be plausible as well.

Would omitting the species with 'reniform' in their common names from the DAB page and keeping the Reniform stigma and Botryoidal links be appropriate? Randi Moth (talk) 12:46, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable, but I would suggest keeping the redirect Reniform as the primary topic, and putting the disambiguation page at Reniform (disambiguation). This has the added advantage that incoming links to Reniform won't have to be redirected. Leschnei (talk) 12:55, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

That makes sense. Though usage of reniform stigma/reniform spot and the leaf shape seem to be comparable at their appearances searching with Google Scholar, one searching for the former will likely search for the full noun while the latter doesn't seem to have a more specific variation. It also seems that I've misread the source I've linked – just "reniform" is used as an adjective in the lepideptorology context rather than a noun.

Most links to the reniform page seem appropriate to the leaf shape from Special:WhatLinksHere/Reniform, so I'd agree with keeping Reniform and having Reniform (disambiguation) separate. However, that does mean creating a link to Reniform (disambiguation) within the Glossary of leaf morphology page, and I'm not sure how to implement this from a technical standpoint; hatnotes are typically used, but the linked section is deep within a table and far from any possible hatnote. Should it just be done as a note in the description part of the table? Randi Moth (talk) 13:24, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

That's a very good question, and I have no idea how to handle that. The easiest solution would be to put the disambiguation page at Reniform and redirect the incoming links. You could also ask the question at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Disambiguation pages. The editors who are active there are very helpful (and know more than I!). Leschnei (talk) 13:31, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

I'll make Reniform into a DAB page as a temporary solution and ask the question in that MoS talk page, thank you. Randi Moth (talk) 16:07, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Doing something wrong and then asking for advice is hardly sensible. Hatnotes can be added to sections. Or just about anywhere from a technical standpoint, but stick to sections. Lithopsian (talk) 16:44, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

The problem is that the redirect is to the middle of the table, far from the beginning of the section, and adding a hatnote inside of a table is clearly wrong. Does the hatnote still go to the top of the section that contains the table in this case, even though it won't be visible immediately after being redirected? Randi Moth (talk) 16:55, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

As someone who regularly does dab pages, I have to sometimes remind myself that when a page disambiguates an adjective, it may look as though all the entries are WP:PTMs, but that doesn't often turn out to actually be the case. But that point appears to already have been settled above.

Now the other issue: whether there is a primary topic or not. Looking at dictionary entries or at web search results, I don't at all get the impression that the leaf shape usage is particularly common, and I don't see anything to suggest greater long-term significance. This meaning may possibly be more common in incoming links, but that's likely down to the great number of species articles and the tendency for many of them to use unnecessarily technical vocabulary. Given that the redirect Reniform is so obscure (it gets on average one view a day) and that there has been some disagreement about it in the past (as seen in its history), I don't think there's any sort of implicit consensus for the status quo. So, creating the dab page at the base title was absolutely the right decision. I'm going to restore it (with some tweaks), and if anyone would like to see the page moved, then WP:RM#CM is the best place to go. But note that even if the leaf shape turns out to be the primary topic, redirecting to an entry in the middle of a long table is hardly the best thing to do, as Randi Moth correctly points out; even then, keeping the dab at the base title may still be optimal (see precedent).

This has the added advantage that incoming links to Reniform won't have to be redirected: I understand where this is coming from, but operational considerations (saving editors the bother of fixing links) should never be allowed to influence choices that affect the reader experience. And in this particular case, quite a few of the incoming links clearly intend other meanings, so they will all need to be examined anyway (a link to the wrong article is an infinitely worse problem than a link to a dab page). The botanical uses could just be replaced with "kidney-shaped" without any loss of function and with a gain in readability. – Uanfala (talk)

MediaWiki message delivery has given you a fresh pie! Pies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a fresh pie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Bon appétit!

Hello, Randi Moth. I wanted to thank you for contributing helpful edits to Lady apple, an article I created. I admired how you created a much neater resolution for the bullet point name list I created. Listing them in the comment/notes section of the article was a great fix. Your additional writing and typo fixing was also appreciated. Thanks again for joining and contributing to the English Wikipedia, and I hope you enjoy the pie. Best, The Fonz (talk) 19:27, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Was glad to see a new editor being proactive and proposing stuff on village pump. I hope you stick around on wiki and enjoy contributing to free, quality information. If you ever have any question or are curious about anything on wiki, feel free to {{ping}} me or reach out in my talk page ^u^ — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Non nobis solum. 20:38, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Randi Moth. Thank you for your work on Epiplemidae. User:AngusWOOF, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

may want to explain how the Epiplemidae are historically related to Uraniidae and what they are currently considered.

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|AngusWOOF}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 15:44, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

@AngusWOOF: When creating the redirect, I've added a citation to the target page that links to the GBIF entry of Epiplemidae that classifies it as a synonym of Uraniidae. Taking a second look at it now, it appears that most of what I am able to find, as early as 2002,^[1] cite it as equivalent to Epipleminae.

GBIF in its classification of Epiplemidae as a synonym of Uraniidae cites IRMNG, which cites LepIndex 2018. WikiProject Lepidoptera does say to use LepIndex as the final authority, but I'm uncertain on how exactly to use it in this case. The entry on the type genus of Epiplema doesn't mention the Epiplemidae family at all, but there are a pair of entries on other genera that aren't even in Epipleminae (e.g. Amana) that also call Epiplemidae equivalent to Epipleminae. Considering that Epiplemidae has the same rank as Uraniidae, calling it a synonym of Uraniidae should be correct. I have no expertise on the topic, is it perhaps better to ask on the WikiProject's talk page if they would be able to find a source directly on the reclassification? Randi Moth ^Talk_Contribs 18:17, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Randi Moth, thanks, the searches I was seeing didn't really make it clear. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 18:40, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Randi Moth. Thank you for your work on Black witch (disambiguation). User:Timothytyy, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Should the current RfD on black witch be closed as dabbify, this should be moved to that redirect (page swap).

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Timothytyy}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Timothytyy (talk) 10:11, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

The redirect Корчной 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/2025 January 15 § Корчной until a consensus is reached. MimirIsSmart (talk) 17:11, 15 January 2025 (UTC)