User talk:SlvrHwk

DYK for Asiatyrannus

On 3 September 2024, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Asiatyrannus, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Asiatyrannus. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Asiatyrannus), 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.

BorgQueen (talk) 03:44, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hi SlvrHwk. Thank you for your work on SBEDO. Another editor, MPGuy2824, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

what is this an acronym of? It would be great if the acronym would appear on the target page.

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|MPGuy2824}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

-MPGuy2824 (talk) 07:23, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:47, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Why did you update the “list of dinosaurs by continent” early?

Just curious, since you said in an edit summary last October that the lists are usually updated “at the end of the year”. Why did you go ahead and edit them now instead of waiting for Miracusaurs in January? Atlantis536 (talk) 01:04, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Is there a problem with that? An IP editor was sporadically adding taxa so I added the rest. The best action for Wikipedia coverage would really be to update the lists as new taxa are described, rather than waiting until the end of the year. It is not one editor's sole responsibility to update the list. Why do you care so much about pages 'you' largely haven't edited since 2019? Let's not waste time making issues out of non-problems. -SlvrHwk (talk) 20:47, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks --2806:10A6:C:CB7:79E7:30A5:49F5:823F (talk) 05:54, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

WP:MONOTYPIC

Please read the linked policy. I reverted a number of your edits as they are not in keeping with this. - UtherSRG (talk) 00:54, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

This isn't relevant to the edit in question; the guidelines you linked to explicitly discuss page titles and redirects (not prose) , neither of which my edits related to. This MOS section might be more applicable, but still doesn't address your reversions. A page about a genus should begin with just that, not the full species name (although it would be appropriate to include that later in the lead).-SlvrHwk (talk) 02:14, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

@UtherSRG:, the monotypy guidelines address covering taxa at multiple ranks in a single article when one (or more) of the ranks is monotypic, and which rank/title to use for the article. The guideline doesn't address how to phrase the article (i.e., which taxon at which rank is mentioned first). On several of the articles where you reverted SlvrHwk, their edit was a clear improvement. Before SlvrHwk's edit, and after your reversion, Walossekia reads "Walossekia quinquespinosa is a Cambrian genus of arthropod". That is just wrong. W. quinquespinosa is a genus, not a species. The article does use a genus title. What would be better is "Walossekia is a genus of arthropod...the only species is 'Walossekia quinquespinosa..." (stick some other stuff in the ... if you feel like it). In my opinion, articles for monotypic taxa ought to mention all the relevant taxa in bold in the lead, and the first taxon mentioned should be whichever is used as the article title (and Walossekia wasn't mentioning all of the relevant taxa after either your or Slvrhwk's edits). But that isn't addressed in the monotypy guidelines. Plantdrew (talk) 02:10, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Understood. I hadn't looked at all of the edits. I just saw a few that mostly just removed the species epithet with an edit summary of "this article is about the genus not the species", a statement that isn't true. Monotypic taxa articles of this type are about both the genus and species. - UtherSRG (talk) 02:17, 10 December 2024 (UTC)