User talk:jonkerz

This user may have left Wikipedia. Jonkerz has not edited Wikipedia since December 2016. As a result, any requests made here may not receive a response. If you are seeking assistance, you may need to approach someone else.

Welcome to my talk page. I will generally respond here to comments that are posted here, rather than replying via your talk page (or the article's talk page, if you are writing to me here about an article), so you may want to watch this page until you are responded to, or let me know where specifically you'd prefer the reply. Archives Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 This page has archives. Sections older than 120 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 25 sections are present.

Our masterpiece is almost ready to be published live, all we have to do is to see if anymore refs have been duplicated, expand the lede, give a small summary of the Myrmicines (pretty much use the info from the subfamilies list) and do some minor fixes. For the lede specifically I'm not sure what we can add. Any ideas?. I have also added all available images so we most likely won't find anymore until new ones are released. Burklemore1 (talk) 09:20, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Burklemore1: Great work on finding more images. The lead should read something like the intro to the subfamily list. I'm currently manually cleaning up the refs, which sucks because I just realized that I didn't group any refs -- it's easy to check when generating the list if the ref has already been used, matching already existing refs with new ones is trickier. jonkerz ♠talk 02:45, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. Wheeler 1915 and Carpenter 1930 may have more images available, so I could do some more checks with the older fossils. I'm thinking about stating how many genera and species, both living and fossil, have been described and stuff, I'm sure that would be useful. Before/after we finally publish this live, we gotta do a few more things: Rename the List of ant genera (alphabetical) to simply "List of ant genera", merge the incertae sedis since it will be discussed there and update the template Template:Formicidae_subfamilies. I can rename the article now if you want. Burklemore1 (talk) 03:32, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Burklemore1: Go ahead with the renaming and all other things you can come up with. Adding species counts is something I can do pretty easily (example). All data is from 11 November 2015, but I've asked for new database dump. jonkerz ♠talk 03:45, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, was suppose to do what I said above but I got distracted. I'll make further progress once I return, a colossal project such as this is worth the time and effort anyway. Do you intend on updating the template yourself? You'd definitely be more familiar with it. Burklemore1 (talk) 08:18, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Burklemore1: I can update the template; I had something like this in mind. Improvements/suggestions welcomed. jonkerz ♠talk 09:54, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty happy with the templates (I'm happy with either one). If we were to change to Formicidae taxonomy, I'd see no ways to improve the template when it's fine enough. If we decide to use the current template, of course we'd have to update the genera section. Burklemore1 (talk) 05:07, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

By the way I have now renamed the list! Burklemore1 (talk) 05:25, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Incertae sedis list has now been redirected to the main one, and it seems I reached 10,000 edits not long ago. I finally don't feel new anymore! ;) Burklemore1 (talk) 06:56, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Burklemore1: Great, I'll update the template! And congratulations on becoming a member of the Wikipedia Cabal! :)

Re referencing species counts and the current validity of the genera: this is what I meant with "timestamped citation templates". I have not received the latest database dump yet, but I can generate more subfamily lists containing all valid names and species counts as of 5 November 2015, which we would have to manually compare with the main list (alt #1). Or we can postpone it, aka procrastinate it, until I've got around to write a script that parses the list and compares it with the latest dump (alt #2). jonkerz ♠talk 07:13, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent. In regards to what you have just said, we should just do whatever will be easier and less time-consuming. Which alternative would you think will be more time-consuming and difficult? I reckon the script could work in our favour if you cannot be bothered to manually compare it. Burklemore1 (talk) 07:25, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Burklemore1: "Stupid and slow" methods tend to get things done faster than something "smart and fast", but I'm in the mood of trying to make this the "smart" way so it may take a little bit longer, but probably not that much longer than manually comparing the list. In the future we absolutely need to be able to update all lists (including species lists and taxoboxes in other articles) at least semi-automatically. I'll start experimenting with some code today. jonkerz ♠talk 07:36, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

By the time we finished adding all the genera to the list, some of them needed updating! It was only a few months too, so you're definitely correct. Good luck with the coding, I'm not a very tech savvy person so I'm pretty useless in that field. ;) On another note, I see you have down some updates to the Formicidae subfamilies template, are we able to strike that off our to-do list or are you still experimenting with it? Burklemore1 (talk) 07:43, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Burklemore1: Mark completed todo items as finished Y Done! jonkerz ♠talk 07:50, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome, I'll go ahead and check on the type species names while you're doing your magical code stuff. I'm sure one of the tasks is to incorporate all the original type species names rather than those (if applied to) currently used, correct? I'll recheck again if there are anymore duplicated refs too, just to be safe. Burklemore1 (talk) 08:18, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Burklemore1: Excellent, and yes, checking type species is on the menu. I've struck a todo item that was not in the list, and added four new -- it's good that we're keeping completed items in the list, otherwise it would feel like we didn't get anywhere :) jonkerz ♠talk 12:55, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Looks great, though I'll try and see what we can do with the collective group names. We could create a new section solely for CGN's and alter the wikitable (i.e. say which subfamily they belong to, or do they have any names available? If so, are they CGN's or valid sepcies). Or we could just keep them in their respective subfamilies, all separated while we leave a lot of notes saying these species are considered collective group names themselves or "material was absorbed into Eofromica, but it is still valid?" I'm not too sure if I was right there, but it seems to be a CGN according to AntWeb still. Burklemore1 (talk) 03:43, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, what is the situation with Armaniella? It's listed as a valid genus but its only known species is in another one? I'm not sure what to do with this one. Burklemore1 (talk) 04:23, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Burklemore1: I think we have to wait for AntCat to resolve the situation with Armaniella and CGNs. I ran a query for finding all valid genera without valid species, and there are two other taxa with the same problem: Forelophilus and Condylodon (and Armaniella). I'll make the team aware of these issues, but it may take a while for them to update the catalog because two of the most active AC editors (which are the ones I have contact with) are in Mozambique doing ant science stuff. jonkerz ♠talk 09:46, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Burklemore1: Looking at antweb the most recent treatments of Armaniella (Dlussky 1999, Bolton, 2003) have considered it a jr synonym of Amania, I'm not sure why Antcat and ant web both have Armaniella still listed as valid. (Im still not comfortable with the listing of Amaniidae as a formicid subfamily either to be honest.--Kevmin § 10:30, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Kevmin: Re Armaniella: they probably just forgot to update the genus after changing the status of Armaniella curiosa to a synonym. It's not included in List of ant genera. Re the status of Amaniidae: agree; I thought this would have changed by now. I've focused mostly on extant taxa, but whenever I've ventured into the land of fossil ants I've noticed that AC's catalog is not as good as it could be. Possibly because the team has no editor specialized in fossil taxa (at least I think that is the case). jonkerz ♠talk 11:00, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thats probably what happened, I tend to go more from the actual papers then either Antcat or antweb, simply because those are both volunteer based endeavors and there are very few paleomyrmecologists that actively participate in either. The treatment of Armaniidae is very uncertain, with Dlussky (the only author to have directly worked with the fossils consistently maintaining that they are most likely separate. The most recent two papers mentioning the family notably Ants and the Fossil Record keep the group as a family.--Kevmin § 12:35, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(arbitrary break)

The inclusion of the subfamily/family was only consistent with its listing at AntCat, but I myself was confused and hesitantly added it to the list only because AntCat left it as a subfamily. Somewhat I am a little opposed to excluding them now because of its uncertainty on AntCat now that this issue has been brought up; a update is needed to actually know what is going on (email perhaps?) The arguments on the annual review source are convincing but did they actually exclude it, even if they used its family name? As far as I can tell they only say it should not be in the family. That has got be a little confused. Burklemore1 (talk) 02:26, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Btw Kevmin, are there any other sources that follow the annual reviews discussion and exclude Armaniidae? Since you know a lot more about them than I do (opposing your comments would be unnecessary, mine is just out of curiousity and confusion), I was wondering if anyone has looked at this and widely accept the proposal. Burklemore1 (talk) 02:31, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

With the synonyms, thanks for the clarifications. I guess we better email the antcat/antweb team about this situation. Burklemore1 (talk) 02:35, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Burklemore1 and Kevmin: In case my last message confused anyone, and I've said this in other places in the past, but as long as AC treats Armaniinae as a formicid subfamily, I think we should do the same in lists based on AC. How to fix: emailing the AntCat team is probably the way to go, so that this issue can be fixed at its source, or at least we would know if their placement is intentional and not just a result of not having time to update it. jonkerz ♠talk 18:54, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's pretty much what I'm saying too, but there could be uncertainty which leads us to email them. It's odd how the annual reviews reference has "discussion" in parenthesis but in other places says "as subfamily of Formicidae". That makes me lead to believe no active exclusion took place. Burklemore1 (talk) 01:15, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To be blunt though, AC and AW are both arbitrary proposed classifications, that generally follow Bolton plus papers, but are predicated entirely on if the updating author feels the moves in a paper are justified. This is compounded by the fact that the vast majority of AW/AC contributors are not fossil inclined, and so there is very little in the way of work that happens with the more controversial taxa, such as Armaniidae. My personal preference is to go with the published papers, and not the websites. Since 2010 only four papers (in a google scholar search) used Armaniinae, while 6 used Armaniidae.--Kevmin § 02:11, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

At this point of time I think it's best to email them about this situation, this would clarify a lot of things and see what action can be taken. Burklemore1 (talk)

@Burklemore1 and Kevmin: Agreed; anyone (looking at Kevmin) have time to do this? I don't know the situation well enough to argue for either side of the case. I could ask Phil Ward about it, but that would only be a single editor. jonkerz ♠talk 10:44, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Im curious why the wait on possible changes? As i can tell I think the only palaeomyrmecologist that occasionally contributes to AW is Vincent Perrichot, so with the exception of new taxa, taxonomy changes seem to lag a little, and I have gotten no response from my last email regarding the errors with fossil image display and in the linking between the Sphecomyrmodes/Gerontoformica pages. --Kevmin § 14:39, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Kevmin and Burklemore1: My initial concern had to do with cherry-picking/OR (see the subfamily list FLC). Keeping the main article where it currently is (Armaniidae) is probably the most correct option (but I'm not sure I'm convinced by the 4-6 Google Scholar comparison), but I also think you can see why I'm reluctant to exclude it altogether from lists otherwise based on AC. Both List of ant subfamilies and List of ant genera explicitly mention the uncertainty of this placement. That said, I'm also ok with treating the taxon more consistently (ie moving the list of Armanii*ae genera from List of ant genera to Armaniidae and explaining the situation in the lead or a footnote in the lists).

I emailed Phil Ward, asking whether AC's placement of Armanii*ae is "correct" or due to not having time to update it, and if the placement on AC is likely to change in the close future.

"I have gotten no response from my last email" that sucks; did you send it to AntCat? Lately I have become very involved as a volunteer developer for AntCat, and improving how user feedback is handled is one of the things I'm currently working on (see [1]). jonkerz ♠talk 22:21, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Kevmin and Burklemore1: Reply from Ward: "whether one treats Armaniinae as a subfamily or family is somewhat arbitrary. This taxon appears to be a stem lineage of ants, and so it is a matter of personal taste. It is not a member of crown Formicidae, but then neither is Sphecomyrminae. I prefer to keep stem lineages in the total clade to which they belong." Which means, I suppose, that the classification is not likely to change on AC in the near future. jonkerz ♠talk 13:47, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, and no its not likely to change in the near future from the look of it.--Kevmin § 23:14, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please take a look at the article about Julia Kronlid, any help is appreciated. Regards,--BabbaQ (talk) 23:34, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@BabbaQ: Looks good! jonkerz ♠talk 07:50, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to, take a look at Lisa Aschan.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:43, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

On 27 January 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Julia Kronlid, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Swedish politician Julia Kronlid has worked as a volunteer at a hospital clinic in Papua New Guinea? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Julia Kronlid. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, daily totals), 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.

— Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:03, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Jon. I'm just posting to let you know that List of ant subfamilies – a list that you have been heavily involved with – has been chosen to appear on the Main Page as Today's featured list for February 26. The TFL blurb can be seen here. If you have any thoughts on the selection, please post them on my talk page or at TFL talk. Regards, Giants2008 (Talk) 19:24, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Giants2008: Really cool, thanks! Due to your friendly greeting I felt compelled to reply so that I don't come off as rude, hehe. Not that it matters or I take offence, but my name is not Jon; "jonkerz" is just a silly nickname, but I suppose Jon is a good nickname for my nickname, so you're not wrong ;) jonkerz ♠talk 13:14, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies! I just assumed that it was a real name. This is what happens when you assume, I guess. :-( Giants2008 (Talk) 23:08, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In the Dinoponera article, here in the venom section, you added In gamergates the venom sac is empty. An anon recently changed "gamergates" to "drones" here with the ES: Changed the word 'gamergates' in the section venom for the word drone, as it's the only word that could have made sense given the context. Was it vandalism?. What is the correct word here? Would you please check into this? Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 08:04, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that the edit was rolled back w/o comment. Seemed rather impolite... Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 17:50, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Jim1138: Thanks for letting me know! Just a guess, perhaps the IP thought it was valdalism due to the Gamergate controversy (there are a bunch of crazies on both sides of this controversy, maybe even that's why it became a controversy, heh). The content is straight from the source and User:Kevmin's revert was correct, but I agree that an edit summary wouldn't have hurt. jonkerz ♠talk 19:17, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure you are well aware of my ambitious project to get meat ant to GA (or possibly FA), but I can now announce the article is done and ready for you to read... well... after it goes through a copyedit. ;) At nearly 9,000 words long with more than 140 references, I hope this articles proves to be a fine source for those who want to know more, because they definitely will know more after my work! I honestly cannot find anymore material to add to the article, so I'm confident it meets the comprehensibility criteria! Burklemore1 (talk) 12:31, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Burklemore1: nice work on meat ant, Sphecomyrma and green-head ant! I found the last one on the Burklemore tracker (aka "Hot articles"), but it only goes back 7 days so I assume that you've improved other articles during my wikibreak. Will read the GANs after replying to all messages on my talk page. jonkerz ♠talk 19:32, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I had a wikibreak during February, so I was relatively absent from Wikipedia. My last GA articles were from January, but Sphecomyrma is currently nominated. Green-head ant and meat ant will follow too! Furthermore you should check out my little update on my user page, I have made the "big 5" ants. I have made it my yearly project to work on them after I have finished with other ones. Burklemore1 (talk) 03:31, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Burklemore1: Excellent choice of articles to improve, and I must admit that I also have a thing for these "mean ants" :) jonkerz ♠talk 09:54, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes, such articles would draw it a lot of readers so the quality must be high; comprehensiveness, readability and reliability are important. I have decided I will work on the red imported fire ant first, only to fix up the most researched ant in the world! This will be the most second tiresome article I will have worked on when it comes to ants (the list is first), but it's time to work. Its current status is not as bad as I imagine, but far from being an article of good quality. :) Burklemore1 (talk) 02:44, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, are you able to assess the meat ant and green-head ant articles? I'm not asking for much, but I want to see if they actually fulfill B-class before nomination. Not that it matters, I just don't want conflict of interest playing in. Burklemore1 (talk) 04:30, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Burklemore1: Assessed as B. I'm fairly generous with quality tagging of ant articles, but B is probably how most editors would rate them.

GA warm-up

Green-head_ant

• "In 1897, Italian entomologist Carlo Emery named the ant Rhytidoponera metallica and designated it as the type species of Chalcoponera, a subgenus of Rhytidoponera in 1911;" until I got to the end of the sentence I thought it was both reclassified and designated as the type species in 1897; move the second year closer to what it refers to

Done.

• "The subspecies R. varians was" -- this is not a subspecies name

Whoops, I forgot to remove "subspecies". Done.

• Link sclerophyll

Done.

• "In areas where the meat ant (Iridomyrmex purpureus) is dominant, the green-head ant is not affected by the presence of meat ants and are still successful in finding food sources." seems like a non-sequitur -- we haven't been told why there's reason to believe otherwise

I'll look into it.

• "They heavily rely on any food source and the impossibility of successfully defending it" probably add a comma after "source"

Done.

• "They are known to collect non-arillate seeds", hard word; same as aril?

Done (yes it is).

• Change how GACs are reviewed so that editors who may not have time to do a full review can still add comments (similar to FACs). This item is not related to the article...

Meat ant

• "nest building behaviour" shouldn't it be "nest-building behaviour"?

Done.

• "The meat ant was first identified in 1858" I've seen this construct in many articles, but I've always thought that "described" is better wording -- I'm sure that someone had identified this ant as in "whops there's an ant" before 1858

I think I just followed this from someone copyediting the jack jumper ant awhile back. Done.

• "In Mayr's 1862 journal article, the ant was now known as Iridomyrmex purpurea, but renamed it Iridomyrmex purpureus in an 1863 journal article."
  • missing words close to "but renamed it"
  • seems like the first part (before "but renamed it") is unnecessary

Did a rewrite to the sentence, look any better?

Looks good.

• "Iridomyrmex purpureus sanguineus, Iridomyrmex purpureus viridiaeneus and Iridomyrmex detectus castrae were classified", probably shorten "Iridomyrmex" in the last two names

Done.

• "synonymized" is Am. English (hah! gotcha!)

[Freedom intensifies] - Done. ;)

jonkerz ♠talk 19:40, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Project Sphecomyrma freyi?

Upon reading about important and well known ants, the promotion of Nothomyrmecia reflects its significant evolutionary importance, therefore it naturally needs a high quality article. Same goes with the unique Brownimecia, Jack jumper ant and Banded sugar ant; now the Meat ant will soon join these articles and be a good example of what a Wikipedia article should be: a definitive source of information. I still aim for FA with Nothomyrmecia, but ants such as Formica rufa, Lasius niger, Solenopsis invicta and the argentine ant should be looked into. For now this is not about them, but rather about the ant that confirmed a Cretaceous origin of ants: Sphecomyrma freyi. Disappointingly no article for it exists so far so I will take this opportunity to work on it with every known source. It is perhaps the best studied fossil insect as we speak and I believe it deserves a high quality article to reflect its importance among the entomological and myrmecological community. What do you reckon? Burklemore1 (talk) 13:25, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps with the discussion going on, it is best to centralised it under the genus so it's easier to discuss all three at once. Will retain precious time! Burklemore1 (talk) 05:18, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Burklemore1: I'm late to the party and the talk page has disappeared, but for the record: *if* any fossil ant species deserves its own article, it would be Sphecomyrma freyi, but I believe that moving the content to the genus article was the right thing to do even for this well known ant. There is a guideline for this hidden somewhere on a project page, but I never remember where to find it. jonkerz ♠talk 19:34, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I got straight into action after this so I hope this didn't confuse you. I did move the content after discussing it with Kevmin, he helped out a lot with the concern. Safe to say that this important article is done though! Burklemore1 (talk) 03:23, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I just noticed there's an ant species called Pseudolasius dodo, and if this is named after the dodo bird, it could be interesting to add that fact under culture significance in that article... So since I know nothing about the naming of this ant, and saw you had edited the genus page, I was thinking you might know what text could be added? Or perhaps Burklemore1? FunkMonk (talk) 18:36, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hey FunkMonk, the ant was moved to Nylanderia in 2010 and upon looking it up, the ant was described from Mauritius in 1946. Because of that the ant is most definitely named after the dodo. It was described in this article:

• Donisthorpe, H.S.J.K. (1946). "New species of ants (Hym., Formicidae) from the island of Mauritius". Annals and Magazine of Natural History. 12 (11): 776–782. doi:10.5281/zenodo.26502.

A good sentence for it is the ant was named after the dodo because the two taxa come from Mauritius? That could be a reasonable suggestion. I would read the full PDF but antbase isn't loading anything for me. Cheers, Burklemore1 (talk) 02:02, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Seems our articles about those ant genera are therefore outdated? I can read the PDF from that doi you linked. Strange that the article doesn't give the etymology specifically... FunkMonk (talk) 02:06, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ah nice, I managed to find a PDF from antwiki and the type specimens were collected from Le Pouce mountain, and from what the dodo article says, the only complete specimen of the bird was found there? Burklemore1 (talk) 02:12, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, so since the description isn't clear, I'll just say something like "A species of ant collected from Le Pouce mountian in Mauritius was named Pseudolasius dodo in 1946", and then I guess the link can go to the Nylanderia article? FunkMonk (talk) 02:23, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That works to avoid any original research (even if it is obvious). Do keep its original name and link to Nylanderia, this is a common practice with many ant names. I should also note that the ant is presumably endangered and there is a reference called "The endangered ants of Mauritius: doomed like the dodo?". There is a PDF for it but again it does not work for me, but if you can go through that it may dig up some stuff. Burklemore1 (talk) 02:29, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@FunkMonk and Burklemore1: Agreed; I've had the same problem with other taxa described in the olden days. I didn't find anything either, likely because it's not written down anywhere because it obviously refers to the bird (as opposed to other "dodos" such as Dodo von Knyphausen [1641–1698], the nobleman in the service of Brandenburg-Prussia).

If you really want a source, submit a question http://www.antweb.org/antblog/ (which I think satisfies WP:RS in this case), but I guess all that they could say is that the species is "most probably" named after the bird, but at least *we* didn't draw that conclusion.

"Seems our articles about those ant genera are therefore outdated?", I've manually updated the Pseudolasius article, but there are without doubt more articles with similar problems. There are probably thousands of AntWeb photos on Commons that are out of date; I've emailed the AntWeb team regarding this issue in the past, but there are some technical issues on AntWeb's side that [ideally] have to be fixed before making a bot run to cleanup all outdated data. jonkerz ♠talk 19:42, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like I ran into the same problem less than an hour after reading this. I'm pretty sure that Froggattella is named after Walter Wilson Froggatt, at least the genus is named after someone, or something. It was first described in Forel, A. 1902j. "Fourmis nouvelles d'Australie". Revue Suisse de Zoologie 10: 405-548. (pg. 459), and despite that my French is.. I do not speak French.. I'm pretty sure that no name is mentioned in the original description. Froggatt is listed as the namesake in this newsletter, but I'm not sure how WP:RS that source is. jonkerz ♠talk 20:40, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the detailed responses. Seems like ant-researchers like to be as succinct as possible... FunkMonk (talk) 07:24, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Since I have been working on this article, I have realised that the physiology of the ant has been well research and a number of articles discuss it, but I noticed a section you removed was to do with this topic. I only presume the content itself was off-topic or such information is unnecessary? I think the huge load of information discussing how the ant itself functions could make a nice section, but do any guidelines go against this if it's only consistent with other insects, or it not needed? Burklemore1 (talk) 04:23, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Burklemore1: Looks like I pulled the trigger too quickly on that one (diff); my concern was that parts of that content were either too general or too specific. Either way, feel free to restore what you think would improve the article, even if that means restoring the whole section. jonkerz ♠talk 13:43, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The content was a pretty nice addition, I believe I did find some papers discussing the reproductive system and respiratory system? I removed a subsection that was also irrelevant; it was only discussing the social factors of "necrophoric behaviour" of other ants and it didn't seem to have any relation or connection with the red imported fire ant. Anyway, your edits did improve the article anyway so I wouldn't blame you for removing it, I mean why on earth does the article need to discuss the concept of the green-beard gene? Why???? I certainly will not restore that. The article is already looking top notch though, so much detail. Burklemore1 (talk) 13:56, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Burklemore1: The article is so much better now. I removed a bunch of similar sections about the green-beard effect from other articles before removing it from the RIFA article. I get that the "Why????" was rhetorical, but yeah this is what happens when students who are not very familiar with our guidelines -- and who probably care more about their grades than the 'Pedia -- write articles. It's hopefully worth the effort in the long run, despite all the additional cleanup we have to do. jonkerz ♠talk 14:54, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty happy with how the article is turning out, we can definitely agree that it wasn't in great shape, and for an article like this, I find that unacceptable! No doubt this will take a very long time to work on and finish when you look at how much is known about its behaviour, invasive nature, toxicology, relationship with humans etc etc. It's a long road, but we will get there. It's always possible to get an article from a sorry state to a high quality FA-class article e.g. this. Burklemore1 (talk) 15:22, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Burklemore1: Unacceptable indeed! Here's another great example, and this is just too funny. Btw, I hope you don't mind that I'm offering Wikipedia's "Burklemore GA writing service" to the community like I did here. jonkerz ♠talk 15:46, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The horror! ;) I will start my own GA business where I write articles for half a barnstar... Jokes, but I don't mind at all. I should note that ETF's last edit was in November last year, but hopefully he will come on soon enough. Burklemore1 (talk) 15:59, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

....Or not. That was fast. Burklemore1 (talk) 06:50, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The internet is blazing fast nowadays, you gotta keep up with the new technology, grampa (also joke) :) jonkerz ♠talk 14:44, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The wrinkles have emerged now that he responded so quick. ;) Burklemore1 (talk) 12:07, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The reference that you are seeking may be found here, circulationsys♠talk https://www.researchgate.net/publication/301215826_Prijegled_osnovnih_taksonomskih_podataka_o_evoluciji_covjeka_Homo_sapiens_Linnaeus_1758_Chordata_Mammalia_Primates_Hominidae — Preceding unsigned comment added by Circulationsys (talk • contribs) 16:20, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Replied at User_talk:Circulationsys#Homo_tsaichangensis_Reference. jonkerz ♠talk 12:23, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In 2013 I added a lot of open access content from various journals, and naively believed that attributing it via inline references in combination with the article history or talk page would suffice. That was (obviously) not the case, so I had to add all those really long attribution templates saying "This article incorporates text from a scholarly publication published under ..." Since then I've reverted many of these edits in articles where there was too little content to warrant a long attribution template, just to get rid of the template, and only added new OA content from journal articles with a reasonable amount of content that's reusable on WP (and to articles already "tainted" with this template). There are still a bunch of these out there, and if you ever see {{OA-attribution}} in the wild and believe the article would be better without the OA content, feel free to boldly remove it (linking this talk page thread should suffice for an edit summary) or let me know so I can do it.

Ping: @Burklemore1 and Kevmin:

TL;TR: OA is great, but long attribution templates are not; feel free to remove any OA content I've added (in particular very short snippets) if you believe it improves the 'Pedia. jonkerz ♠talk 09:29, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Got it, I usually just rewrite information from articles in my own prose anyway.--Kevmin § 15:34, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'll snoop around whenever I can, I haven't really seen it much tbh. Burklemore1 (talk) 09:55, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OoO I complety forgot about this. I stumbled upon an image of the sculpture found in Poochera and I added it in, but completely forgot I wanted to nominate it (mainly because it will be 60 years since Clark died). Do you have any initial comments on the article, and think it could be ready? Burklemore1 (talk) 09:52, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Burklemore1: Cool sculpture, it looks very dangerous :) The article is ready for FAC, in fact I could only find a few minor issues related to WP:REPEATLINK. However, I'd probably reverse this sentence from the lead: "A member of the subfamily Myrmeciinae, two workers were presumably collected in 1931 near the Russell Range from Israelite Bay in Western Australia, first described by Australian entomologist John S. Clark in 1934." to read "A member of the subfamily Myrmeciinae, the ants were first described by Australian entomologist John S. Clark in 1934 from two workers presumably collected in 1931 near the Russell Range from Israelite Bay in Western Australia.", or replace the comma after "Western Australia" with an "and". jonkerz ♠talk 12:27, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the suggestion, I have incorporated it in. :) Sorry for the late response, been super busy with other articles and such. I will do a few more fixes and tweaks on the article and nominate it afterwards. If there are a few instances of repeated links, feel free to leave them in the FAC. Burklemore1 (talk) 05:09, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's happening! I have done additional improvements to the article and now it is an FA candidate. Feel free to post any comments there. Burklemore1 (talk) 10:53, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Burklemore1: Tentative support - no real issues, will spot-check more references later. I'll be back, got to run! jonkerz ♠talk 15:55, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the support! Take all the time you need with this one. Burklemore1 (talk) 16:06, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and by the way... I don't mean to briefly change subjects, but are antbase.org pdf links working for you? I always get connection time outs. Burklemore1 (talk) 16:08, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Burklemore1: Not working, neither is the antbase.org root page. I've never really used AB, and their servers being down all the time doesn't make that easier. jonkerz ♠talk 23:54, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well I hope they can fix the problems, a large number of sources I have cited have antbase links. Burklemore1 (talk) 04:53, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion: ant colony

Been thinking of improving this article, but may need some input. My only concern is what I should or should not add; I reckon different varieties of nests should be discussed here if the article is mainly discussing them, as well as its evolutionary history and colonial life. Colonial life would include colony founding, early stages, general behaviour and structure, discussion of myrmecophiles and demise. Perhaps "ant nests and humans" should be another section maybe? Discussing its importance in culture, science, "ant hill art", possibly literature and potential annoyance because of colonies nesting in buildings or in inappropriate spots. Any suggestions? Burklemore1 (talk) 10:57, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Burklemore1: That would be a great addition because after the next update of WP:ANTS/PP Ant colony will be listed as the fourth most popular ant page, and almost all B+ ant articles are on taxa. From the top of my mind: varieties and variation (eg size variation as in colony population and physical size of the nest, supercolonies, army ants). Castes and task allocation (but I assume you already include this in general behavior and structure). Describing the difference between colonies and nests early on seems sensible, not in a specific section for this only or something obvious like "The difference between...", but just somewhere appropriate and then repeat that in the lead, because the two are very related and we're likely going to have a single page (Ant colony) for both of them for many years to come. I'd focus less on human aspects, mostly because I wouldn't know what to put there, but economic impact (from nest building) would be interesting.

Very cool video: link; I'm sure you've already seen it, but there's no harm in watching it again ;) jonkerz ♠talk 23:41, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It'd be difficult owing to how much is available, and how much you need to add in to fulfill comprehensibility. Varieties have been an important factor in my mind, where we describe what you thought of, and nests such as mounds, arboreal, nomadic and temporary nests made out of workers (army ants of course) and semi-aquatic (Polyrhachis sokolova colonies are found in mangrove swamps, even when rivers fill up, David Attenborough covered this) could be described. Re supercolonies: I found an excellent article discussing the evolution of supercolonies, would make a nice addition. For humans, this assumption is based on what I learned from termite mounds. They are, in some regions, a cultural significance. It would be nice if such facts can be attributed to ant colonies. I think I've seen the video before, it just shows you should never underestimate small organisms. ;) Burklemore1 (talk) 06:19, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 05:52, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot Sainsf! I appreciate your kind words and the pretty sapphire (it looks expensive). jonkerz ♠talk 15:56, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That sapphire is nothing before your priceless contributions. Keep going! Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 03:14, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Four years ago, you were recipient no. 1366 of Precious, a prize of QAI! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:01, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read WP:FNNR and WP:CITEVAR ? Wayne Jayes (talk) 05:36, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the late reply (haven't edited in weeks) and thanks for your message, Waynejayes. I'm familiar with both guidelines but believe there's a difference between renaming "Notes and references" to "References" when the section contains no 'note-notes' at all, and between renaming "Notes" to "References" or vice vice for no good reason. I've a draft of a much longer message that I intend to post somewhere more central once I return to editing. Either way I'm not doing this type of edits at the moment. jonkerz ♠talk 05:40, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

Did you know about Wikiversity Journal of Medicine? It is an open access, peer reviewed medical journal, with no publication charges. We welcome you to have a look. Feel free to participate.

You can participate in any one or more of the following ways:

• Publish an article to the journal.
• Sign up as a peer reviewer of potential upcoming articles. If you do not have expertise in these subjects, you can help in finding peer reviewers for current submissions.
• Sign up as an editor, and help out in open tasks.
• Outreach to potential contributors, with can include (but is not limited to) scholars and health professionals. In any mention of Wikiversity Journal of Medicine, there may be a reference to this Contribute-page. Example presentation about the journal.
• Add a post-publication review of an existing publication. If errors are found, there are guidelines for editing published works.
• Apply to become the treasurer of the journal
• Join the editorial board.
• Share your ideas of what the journal would be like in the future as separate Wikimedia project.
• Donate to Wikimedia Foundation.
• Translate journal pages into other languages. Wikiversity currently exists in the following other languages
  • Ceština, Deutsch, Español, Français, Italiano, 한국어, Português, Slovenšcina, Suomi, Svenska, Ελληνικά, Русский, العربية, 日本語
• Sign up to get emails related to the journal, which are sent to updateswijoumed.org. If you want to receive these emails too, state your interest at the talk page, or contact the Editor-in-chief at haggstrom.mikaelwikiversityjournal.org.
• Spread the word to anyone who could be interested or could benefit from it.

The future of this journal as a separate Wikimedia project is under discussion and the name can be changed suitably. Currently a voting for the same is underway. Please cast your vote in the name you find most suitable. We would be glad to receive further suggestions from you. It is also acceptable to mention your votes in the wide-reachwikiversityjournal.org email list. Please note that the voting closes on 16th August, 2016, unless protracted by consensus, due to any reason.

-from Diptanshu.D (talk · contribs · count) and others of the Editorial Board, Wikiversity Journal of Medicine.

Diptanshu^Talk 10:16, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I hope everything is great with you :) Could you please take a look at the articles about Elin Rombo and Lena Sundström. Much appreciated.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:02, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I have a way to kick-start 2017 for the ants. I plan to nominate the "list of ant genera" list for featured list status because why not? If I do, what should we do to improve it beforehand? I intend on expanding the lede, but I'm not sure if anything needs updating. I think you carried those tasks last month. ;) (FYI, you are more than welcome to place yourself as co-nominator). Burklemore1 (talk) 07:22, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

White racist police who beat up blacks. But so many white kids in yonkers think they are hip hoppers. A jim crow like segregation still occurs. The poor communities are full of drug addicts, and their is little housing in Yonkers. Yonkers is not a place people should be proud of. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.20.9.43 (talk) 14:49, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Just for Fun cover.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:15, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Jonkerz! This message is to inform you that due to editing inactivity, your access to AutoWikiBrowser may be temporarily removed. If you do not resume editing within the next week, your username will be removed from the CheckPage. This is purely for routine maintenance and is not indicative of wrongdoing on your part. You may regain access at any time by simply requesting it at WP:PERM/AWB. Thank you! — MusikBot II ^talk 20:22, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox coffee producer has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:48, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Notre jour viendra poster.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:53, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Category:Castles in Blekinge County 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!} 14:28, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A category or categories you have created have been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 October 1 § Category:WikiProject X members on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Qwerfjkltalk 09:32, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]