User talk:コロネン

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

• A dates error. References show this error when one of the date-containing parameters is incorrectly formatted. Please edit the article to correct the date and ensure it is formatted to follow the Wikipedia Manual of Style's guidance on dates. (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) 13:21, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

@Qwerfjkl (bot) I apologize for the delay in my reply. I will strive to be more careful with my editing in the future. コロネン (talk) 21:05, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

Hi, you are making taxonomic edits to these articles, either wholly uncited or with citations in odd places. The procedure is 1) to update the main text of the article, and cite it; 2) to update cladograms, diagrams, and images, based on the same citations (and repeating the refs as needed); and 3) to update the lead and infobox ... in that order. It's no good doing "lead engineering" or "taxobox engineering" when this doesn't reflect the cited text, that just creates inconsistency and more problems down the line.

The other thing is, these changes are clearly somewhat controversial: there has been doubt about the gnetophytes' taxonomic rank for over a century. Rather than just eliding all the history and claiming that authority Z said T so T must be "true", it'd be far better to state clearly that there has been doubt, that X said t1, Y said T2, and Z said T3. That gives a much fairer picture, not pretending that things are clearer than they are. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:48, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

@Chiswick Chap I apologize, to be honest, my poor English skills made it difficult to properly edit the long text, so I updated it starting with the easiest parts. I often refer to the English version when it comes to classifying organisms, so I want to avoid any inconsistencies that could cause confusion. コロネン (talk) 08:13, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

Please be sure to create categories when you add pages and other categories to them. Category:Phabini doesn't exist - OpalYosutebito 『talk』 『articles I want to eat』 12:46, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

@OpalYosutebito I hadn't created this category yet. My apologies. コロネン (talk) 12:49, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

It's okay! Just please be more careful next time, thanks. :D - OpalYosutebito 『talk』 『articles I want to eat』 12:53, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

Hi コロネン. Thank you for your work on Trypoxylus. Another editor, Mariamnei, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

Thank you for your work on this article. Please add more sources. Thanks and have a wonderful day!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Mariamnei}}.

Mariamnei ✦ ^{reach out 🕊️} 09:25, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

Hi コロネン. Thank you for your work on Trachinotidae. Another editor, Mariamnei, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

Nice start! Please try to expand this. Thanks and have a good day!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Mariamnei}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Mariamnei ✦ ^{reach out 🕊️} 11:56, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

Please stop making taxonomy changes without consensus. As you yourself admit you have "poor English skills", why are you making mass edits to a Wikipedia version in a language that you are not fluent in? Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:00, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

@Hemiauchenia I am terribly sorry. I apologize for failing to recognize that, revising a classification requires consensus. I will explain the reasoning behind the edits I made.

First, analyses using nuclear genes have consistently yielded the result "Gnepine." However, analyses using chloroplast genes sometimes yield the result of Gentidae-Cupressidae. In any case, I consider the Pinopsida-Gnetopsida classification to have been largely rejected from a phylogenetic standpoint. The classification of Pinidae-Gnetidae-Cupressidae does not collapse regardless of which of the aforementioned hypotheses proves correct.

The classification system I adopted is used not only in a single paper but also, for example, in the WFO Plant List. At the very least, I proceeded with what I considered to be a certain degree of justification.

Please tell me your perspective. コロネン (talk) 22:27, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Having looked at the literature again, I see that World Flora Online uses the 2022 paper as a source for its own taxonomy, which supports the use of Gnetidae, so many of my issues with this are resolved, and I have largely restored your edits. In general, for the taxonomy of living things, Wikipedia looks to what authoritative databases have to say about classification, to avoid having to deal with contradictory classification schemes in scientific papers. For plants, this is the World Flora Online database among others (as discussed in Wikipedia:WikiProject_Plants#Appropriate_citations), for mammals, it is the American Society of Mammalologists mammal diversity database and the IUCN (as discussed at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Mammals#Guidelines), for birds it is the IOC World Bird List and AviList, etc. Citing the authoritative database entry is always preferable to citing a scientific paper proposing a classification scheme, which may or may not be widely accepted. If you had cited World Flora Online to begin with I wouldn't have had any objections to the classification. I reverted your changes to the Gnetales redirect, because despite what World Flora Online says, "Gnetales" is still widely used in the scientific literature (as well as in Wikipedia internal links) to refer to the whole Gnetophyte grouping, rather than just Gnetum, and therefore it's just less confusing for people clicking on it to have it redirect to the main article. I am sorry if I have come across as mean, I think your English is perfectly understandable. Kind regards. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:47, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

I should probably add that if you want to make major taxonomic changes, it's probably better to discuss them at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of Life first. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:54, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

The lede looks like this at the moment. You need assistance in arranging the citations?

Gnetidae, commonly known as gnetophytes, is a subclass of gymnosperms within Pinopsida. [1] [2] It comprises three morphologically distinct extant genera, each the sole living genus of its family: Ephedra (Ephedraceae), Gnetum (Gnetaceae), and Welwitschia (Welwitschiaceae). The group has also been treated as a broadly circumscribed order, Gnetales. [3] though many taxonomic authorities currently treat Gnetales as only containing Gnetum. [4] [5] [6] The classification of Yang et al. (2022) divides Gnetidae into three orders—Ephedrales, Gnetales sensu stricto, and Welwitschiales—each containing a single extant family and genus.[7] Within the subclass, Ephedra is sister to a clade formed by Gnetum and Welwitschia.

The earliest unambiguous fossils attributable to gnetophytes date to the Late Jurassic, and the group reached its greatest known diversity during the Early Cretaceous.[8] Gnetophytes are distinguished from other living gymnosperms by the presence of vessel elements in the secondary xylem. This and other angiosperm-like features once supported hypotheses of a close relationship with flowering plants, but recent phylogenomic analyses indicate that these similarities evolved independently.[6]

[9]

[10]

⠀⠀⠀⠀ .n 04:51, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

@.nhals8 Thank you for your concern. I made a few more edits after that, and with the help of others, I believe the issue has been largely resolved. コロネン (talk) 21:07, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Jako96. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Crocodylia, but you didn't provide a reliable source. On Wikipedia, it's important that article content be verifiable. If you'd like to resubmit your change with a citation, your edit is archived in the page history. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Jako96 (talk) 10:23, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

@Jako96 I thought I had cited Savage (2017) as the source? コロネン (talk) 10:25, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

It wasn't cited near the synonym, and it wasn't cited in the article. Please cite it near the synonym next time. Jako96 (talk) 10:27, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Hi, コロネン, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• Introduction 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
• Need some ideas of what kind of things need doing? Visit the Task Center.

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 ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question.

However, there is a small issue with your username. As it is not in Latin script, it may be illegible to most other contributors to the English Wikipedia. Although usernames like yours are not prohibited, Wikipedia's signature guideline and username policy encourage you, as a courtesy to other users, to alter your signature so that it also includes a transliteration of your username using Latin characters, so others can see it correctly. For the how-to of tailoring your username, please see WP:CUSTOMSIG.

Thanks, and feel free to message me about anything. - In solidarity, UtherSRG (talk) 14:39, 15 August 2026 (UTC)