User talk:AxonsArachnida

Hi AxonsArachnida. Thank you for your work on Stanwellia houhora. Another editor, Hughesdarren, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

Thanks for all the great NZ spider articles, keep up the good work!

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

Hughesdarren (talk) 09:37, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Hughesdarren: Thanks for the kind comment, it's much appreciated. AxonsArachnida (talk) 09:48, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

		The Auckland Museum Wiki-Award
		Congratulations Shaun! You've received the The Auckland Museum Wiki-Award as a thank you for creating the article on Subantarctia turbotti. Great job! --Prosperosity (talk) 09:27, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks. I'm glad I could help :) AxonsArachnida (talk) 21:30, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
Just though you should know there is already an article over by Drapetisca australis. The article that you created should have been redirected to Drapetisca australis as Drapetisca australis and Diploplecta australis are synonyms. — YoungForever^(talk) 02:06, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @YoungForever. Thanks for informing me. Nice spotting as well. I'm a bit unclear how to proceed here. How can the genus name for the preexisting article be changed? It should be Diploplecta australis (as you noticed). AxonsArachnida (talk) 02:18, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You should have move the page instead of creating a new article. I moved the page for you. — YoungForever^(talk) 02:32, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent. Thanks for that. AxonsArachnida (talk) 02:33, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

	The Writer's Barnstar
	Thank you for creating clean articles about spiders. Cheers! Dcotos (talk) 07:17, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks, much appreciated. AxonsArachnida (talk) 07:21, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On behalf of Wikimedia Aotearoa New Zealand (WANZ), kia ora, hello, kia orana, nǐ hǎo, talofa lava, bula vinaka, guten Tag, hola, malo e leilei, fakalofa atu, namaste, salâm, see tahay. Welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might find helpful.

General

• Introduction
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Simplified Manual of Style
• Your first article
• Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community
• Feel free to make test edits in the sandbox
• and check out the Task Center, for ideas about what to work on.

Specific to Aotearoa New Zealand

• Wikimedia Aotearoa New Zealand runs local in person meetups in some cities and has a regular series of events where you can find people to help you on your editing journey or just hang out with like-minded people. Check out local Meet Ups and online editathons. We organise an annual conference and the next one will be in Christchurch in March 2025.
• Join our Facebook group and follow us on Twitter
• Think about becoming a member of Wikimedia Aotearoa New Zealand

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, please see our help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to ask me on my talk page or place {{Help me}} on this page and someone will drop by to help. Again, welcome! Einebillion (talk) 00:55, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Afternoon! I've just added in image from iNaturalist of Clubiona contrita, ID'ed by Steve Kerr with a justification for the ID. I noticed that you uploaded iNaturalist images for a few other spiders but not for C. contrita, so I thought I should double-check. --Prosperosity (talk) 23:55, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Prosperosity. Thanks for that. I'm personally a bit hesitant to trust that image. C. contrita is supposed to be functionally identical to C. cambridgei, which overlaps in distribution. They can only reliably separated by genitalia, so the observation may not actually be C. contrita. I suppose it doesn't make too much difference though since they're identical. AxonsArachnida (talk) 00:04, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's fair - would you prefer it left up or taken down?

Alternatively, I think this observation has a close-up of genitalia (or possibly a mandible, my arachnid anatomy isn't that great) - I could ask the uploader if she'd be interested in changing the license, if you like? Prosperosity (talk) 00:15, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's good you pointed out that other observation, I didn't see the extra photos in there confirming the ID. You're correct in saying it's the genitalia in the photo (it's the male palp). I actually know the observer, so I'll ask if she's willing to change the license. AxonsArachnida (talk) 00:27, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, when I look at the permissions for the observation it says it's CC BY 4.0. Shouldn't that mean it can already be used? Or is there something I'm missing? AxonsArachnida (talk) 00:32, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That would be amazing, thank you.

That's a little quirk of iNaturalist - for this observation, the data itself is CC-BY, but the images are under a CC-BY-NC license (which you can't use on Commons) - you need to go through the photos and change the license that way. Prosperosity (talk) 00:39, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All sorted! AxonsArachnida (talk) 03:40, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Similar question for Clubiona peculiaris - are there any potential identification problems with the iNaturalist photos? Prosperosity (talk) 01:02, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's a bit easier to ID. This one looks like a great example: https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/33928896 AxonsArachnida (talk) 01:56, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like someone had already added that image to Commons in 2021! I've added it to the article. Prosperosity (talk) 03:47, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've just come across Acroaspis decorosa, which the NZOR describes as indigenous, not endemic, but there's no evidence of the species being anywhere but NZ. Any ideas why they might have put indigenous? --Prosperosity (talk) 20:48, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll get back to you on this. Ill need to do a little digging. AxonsArachnida (talk) 23:21, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delay. So my understanding is that the NZOR status was based on the New Zealand Threat Classification assessment of this species which listed it as "Secure Overseas". The reason for this is that the people who made this assessment saw that in Court and Forster (1988) that is was mentioned to probably be an Australian species. Subsequent publications haven't been able to prove this, so I think endemic as you've suggested would be the correct status to give it at the moment. AxonsArachnida (talk) 08:43, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting! Great, I've made sure that Wiki/Commons/Wikidata all list the species as endemic. Prosperosity (talk) 22:05, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi AxonsArachnida, 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! ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 19:33, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, much appreciated. AxonsArachnida (talk) 19:48, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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) 00:42, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just a reminder that the next in person Wellington Wiki meet up will be held at 10am on Saturday the 23rd of November at the National Library. See this link for more information. Hope to see you there. Ambrosia10 (talk) 00:10, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, [[Kaikōura|Kaikoura]] isn't needed in articles. With that said, thanks for editing NZ articles. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 11:01, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, the {{Species list}} template can't be used in the way you did at Oparara, for example, because it makes the authorities doubly small. You could use {{Linked species list}} like this:

{{Linked species list
| Oparara karamea{{!}}O. karamea|Forster & Wilton, 1973 – New Zealand
| Oparara vallus{{!}}O. vallus|(Marples, 1959) – New Zealand
}}

which produces:

• O. karamea Forster & Wilton, 1973 – New Zealand
• O. vallus (Marples, 1959) – New Zealand

But this also makes the distribution information smaller. These templates are only meant for taxon name + authority lists; use a normal bullet list when there's any other information. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:00, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of Spiders of New Zealand, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as List-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Sophisticatedevening ^(talk) 19:06, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers. AxonsArachnida (talk) 19:21, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. There is a question at Talk:List of spiders of New Zealand re the number of species. You may be able to address it. Thanks. Nurg (talk) 04:22, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I've been thinking that since you are interested in spiders and Ambrosia10 is interested in moths, then I might want to give something a go. I'm rather fond of snails so I decided to try creating articles for the red links at List of non-marine molluscs of New Zealand. This is a topic that I have absolutely no familiarity with, so I decided that it'd be best if I only created stubs that are as small as possible to avoid making mistakes. So today I created Catapyrgus jami to see if I enjoy it or not and I did a bit. I was wondering, is it possible that you could review that small article to provide feedback? No worries if you aren't interested (I do know that molluscs are very different to spiders). Thanks anyway. ―Panamitsu (talk) 02:02, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I've gone over your article. You've done good work. I didn't have too much to add/change, but I've listed what I've done below. I think you got a bit unlucky here as there's almost no information about this species and therefore not much to write about.

Here's what I've added/changed on the page:

• In the species/taxon box I added "Verhaegen & Haase, 2021" as the describing authority. These are the people who originally described the species and in what year. One place where you can check this is on the NZ Mollusca website: https://www.mollusca.co.nz/speciesdetail.php?taxa=2299#prettyPhoto (but it's also good to check other websites/databases to make sure you've got it right). One thing to note is that the describing authority sometimes needs to be in parentheses. This just indicates that the species used to be in a different genus (but this is not the case here).
• I've added a sentence stating that the holotype specimen is stored in Te Papa Museum. If you don't know: The holotype is the original specimen that a species description is based on. Because of this, it's highly desirable to report where this is stored. This information is usually included in the paper that describes the species (although some older sources might not bother to state it).
• I've added a quick line about how it is most similar to Catapyrgs matapango and how it is different. I find it quite difficult to actually describe what gastropods look like, especially with obscure species like this where the differences between species are so inconspicuous.

Things that might be useful for future articles:

There were no images of this species available anywhere unfortunately. When it comes to Molluscs, Te Papa usually has images of them available in their online collection (some of which are already in wikicommons), so that would be a great resource for future pages. All the Te Papa images have been identified by mollusc experts, so they are quite trustworthy (although I'm a bit biased!).

A lot of New Zealand species have threat classifications in the New Zealand Threat Classification System (https://nztcs.org.nz/home). This species isn't in there unfortunately, but many other molluscs are, so that would be useful to include in future mollusc pages. You can add the NZTCS classification to the species box in source mode (As an example, have a look around in the source text here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anoteropsis_forsteri). The NZTCS website also has a PDF explaining what all the qualifiers/ratings mean.

I'd suggest having a go at making a page for Cytora brooki next. There's a little bit more to write about, but won't be an overwhelming amount of information. Here's a link to its description: https://www.tepapa.govt.nz/assets/76067/1692673947-tuhinga-18-2007-pt3-p49-113-marshall.pdf AxonsArachnida (talk) 05:54, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks heaps! Easy and digestable advice. I'll keep this in mind and I'll try making Cytora brooki tomorrow. Thanks again ! ―Panamitsu (talk) 06:08, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

One more thing I completely forgot: I've just added a Wikidata link to the bottom of the page like this:

This lists the taxons identifiers across various repositories, which is extremely useful. All you need is the Wikidata identifier to make it. AxonsArachnida (talk) 06:15, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome thanks. ―Panamitsu (talk) 06:20, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I've just created the article that you've suggested (Cytora brooki). What do you think? The source had some technical information that I didn't understand so I just left it out. Thanks for your suggestions by the way, it helped a lot. ―Panamitsu (talk) 06:24, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Great work! I think considering the nature of minute land snails like this you've done a great job. The technical descriptive details would be very difficult to understand and will probably need a specialist to write up some day. It seems like you've got the general blueprint for writing snail articles like this. I'm sure as you create more you'll think of other ways to improve it. Happy edting! AxonsArachnida (talk) 06:45, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome, thanks for the advice! ―Panamitsu (talk) 07:13, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Your last two edits to List of spiders of New Zealand each removed one species but the count at the top of the page has not changed from 1,109 species. We need to keep the count correct, or remove the count altogether. Thanks. Nurg (talk) 22:04, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Updated. AxonsArachnida (talk) 22:41, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Nurg (talk) 03:21, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good work on the page, though i have some advice on its structure.

1. I believe the gigantism section should be integrated with the description, and perhaps the genetics could come before or after the description (as it contains relevant information towards its taxonomy)

2. The additional images should be more illustrative; maybe one of the held specimens could be in a {(multiple image)} with another species of amphipod in a similar position (handheld), which would make a makeshift size comparison. Additionally, perhaps some of the images which might be considered extraneous could be located in a gallery section on the bottom of the page to improve the layout.

Again, good luck on the GA! Anthropophoca (talk) 04:16, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Great ideas. I'll make those changes when I've got a chance.

Many thanks AxonsArachnida (talk) 04:58, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding multiple image for size comparison: Are you aware of any similar images of amphipod that I could potentially use? The issue I'm having is finding a hand held image that is big enough to be seen when compared alongside Alicella. I've not been able to find any suitable image on commons or on iNaturalist (Or at least none with the right copyright). The largest amphipod I'm easily able to acquire is only around 30-35mm long, which I don't think would be big enough for a good photo. AxonsArachnida (talk) 23:18, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I found two images on Commons; this one is a mass of beachhoppers, while this one is a single whale louse.

I've noticed that the images you uploaded to Commons are categorized under amphipoda; it's better to upload them under the most specific category if possible, and there indeed exists a category for A. gigantea specifically. When logged into Commons, you can quickly edit the categories of a photo while looking at the bottom bar. Anthropophoca (talk) 13:30, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Alicella you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Jens Lallensack -- Jens Lallensack (talk) 01:04, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I have a non-Wiki related question about Paradictyna. I recently found one, and I'm surprised at how few species-level identifications have been made on iNaturalist (especially since there's only two species in the genus). Any idea why this might be? E.g. if the species ranges are inaccurate, or if there are undescribed members of the genus, or another issue entirely. --Prosperosity (talk) 22:41, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's because the two described species of Paradictyna are quite difficult to identify. Both males and females require some level of genitalia dissection and then need to be viewed under a really good microscope/camera. The male of P. ilamia is also unknown, which complicates things further. Even with the females, the differences are quite minute. I also wouldn't be surprised if there were undescribed species in there as well. AxonsArachnida (talk) 22:06, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I see, so there's too little research done on the species to really know. Thanks for letting me know! Prosperosity (talk) 01:42, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article Alicella you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Alicella for comments about the article, and Talk:Alicella/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Jens Lallensack -- Jens Lallensack (talk) 05:43, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Zecicindela feredayi you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Reconrabbit -- Reconrabbit (talk) 21:05, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

On 15 July 2025, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Alicella, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Alicella gigantea (example pictured) grows up to 34 cm (13 in) in length, making it the world's largest amphipod? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Alicella. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Alicella), 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.

~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:02, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your good article nomination of the article Zecicindela feredayi has passed; congratulations! See the review page for more information. If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Reconrabbit -- Reconrabbit (talk) 20:27, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your good article nomination of the article Neocicindela tuberculata is under review. See the review page for more information. This may take up to 7 days; feel free to contact the reviewer with any questions you might have. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Cremastra -- Cremastra (talk) 18:44, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your good article nomination of the article Neocicindela tuberculata has passed; congratulations! See the review page for more information. If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Cremastra -- Cremastra (talk) 05:48, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome! A very big WELCOME to WikiProject Gastropods for you, a new member! We are delighted that you decided to join the Project, especially someone from Te Papa ! Thank you JoJan (talk) 13:39, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your good article nomination of the article Opifex fuscus is under review. See the review page for more information. This may take up to 7 days; feel free to contact the reviewer with any questions you might have. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Esculenta -- Esculenta (talk) 18:03, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your good article nomination of the article Opifex fuscus has passed; congratulations! See the review page for more information. If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Esculenta -- Esculenta (talk) 19:45, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your good article nomination of the article Trite auricoma is under review. See the review page for more information. This may take up to 7 days; feel free to contact the reviewer with any questions you might have. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Simongraham -- Simongraham (talk) 07:05, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your good article nomination of the article Trite auricoma has been placed on hold, as the article needs some changes. See the review page for more information. If these are addressed within 7 days, the nomination will pass; otherwise, it may fail. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Simongraham -- Simongraham (talk) 03:45, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your good article nomination of the article Mecodema howittii is under review. See the review page for more information. This may take up to 7 days; feel free to contact the reviewer with any questions you might have. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Jens Lallensack -- Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:42, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your good article nomination of the article Mecodema howittii has passed; congratulations! See the review page for more information. If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Jens Lallensack -- Jens Lallensack (talk) 07:46, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your good article nomination of the article Trite auricoma has passed; congratulations! See the review page for more information. If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Simongraham -- Simongraham (talk) 20:46, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your good article nomination of the article Robsonella huttoni is under review. See the review page for more information. This may take up to 7 days; feel free to contact the reviewer with any questions you might have. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Jonathanischoice -- Jonathanischoice (talk) 23:03, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations, AxonsArachnida! The article you nominated, Alicella, has been promoted to featured status, recognizing it as one of the best articles on Wikipedia. The nomination discussion has been archived.

This is a rare accomplishment and you should be proud. If you would like, you may nominate it to appear on the Main page as Today's featured article. Keep up the great work! Cheers, FrB.TG (talk) via FACBot (talk) 12:05, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well done! I'm inspired... meanwhile, I've put the Robsonella huttoni review into hold for a few days for you to look at. Just a few minor tweaks, otherwise looks good! — Jon (talk) 20:35, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your good article nomination of the article Robsonella huttoni has been placed on hold, as the article needs some changes. See the review page for more information. If these are addressed within 7 days, the nomination will pass; otherwise, it may fail. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Jonathanischoice -- Jonathanischoice (talk) 20:42, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your good article nomination of the article Robsonella huttoni has passed; congratulations! See the review page for more information. If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Jonathanischoice -- Jonathanischoice (talk) 20:43, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your good article nomination of the article Megadromus guerinii is under review. See the review page for more information. This may take up to 7 days; feel free to contact the reviewer with any questions you might have. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Jonathanischoice -- Jonathanischoice (talk) 20:47, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your good article nomination of the article Megadromus guerinii has passed; congratulations! See the review page for more information. If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Jonathanischoice -- Jonathanischoice (talk) 11:21, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, @AxonsArachnida! You reported a possible copyright violation at this page and I'd like to thank you for that. I checked it out and, if you note, it was published in 1913. FYI: that means its LOOOOOOOOONG out of copyright. Next time you see something like that, you can rest easy. You can even use it for whatever you want! The more recent things get, the more careful you have to be. But thanks again and stay fabulous! Oona Wikiwalker (talk) 23:33, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Oona Wikiwalker I was more concerned with it being plagarism. Is there a different template to use for that? AxonsArachnida (talk) 00:12, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I didn't pick up on that, @Axons. I've had my head stuck so far into a copyright violation honeypot I didn't do the needful: credit the obit and place a free-content attribution tag in the references. I'll do that now.

I don't know of a template for plagiarism, but I think we could do with a well-thought out one. But I'm so glad you have your eyes out for this! Oona Wikiwalker (talk) 01:31, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, looking at the article closely, there's no problem. It's easy to miss but there's an attribution statement in the References section saying that content was copied from a source out of copyright. It's not okay to plagiarize in academic papers or school work, but you can do it into Wikipedia from sources out of copyright, as long as you always give credit. The attribution statement is a bit unclear and I'll see if I can fix that.

I'm still glad you brought this up! Oona Wikiwalker (talk) 01:47, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your good article nomination of the article Prolasius advenus is under review. See the review page for more information. This may take up to 7 days; feel free to contact the reviewer with any questions you might have. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Giantflightlessbirds -- Giantflightlessbirds (talk) 01:09, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your good article nomination of the article Desis marina is under review. See the review page for more information. This may take up to 7 days; feel free to contact the reviewer with any questions you might have. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Simongraham -- Simongraham (talk) 21:05, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Shaun. I think your project is tremendously impressive. I'm curious about how you are selecting the 10 species in each category (not that it matters at all). Are you selecting them to some criteria, or just on personal preference or whim? And, are you open to suggestions for species? If you are, here's a suggestion from me. I did a little work years ago on Austrosimulium ungulatum, which as a biter of humans has some significance for us. I'd be happy to see that improved on. Or, if you preferred to start an article from scratch, perhaps Austrosimulium tillyardianum. Cheers. Nurg (talk) 08:58, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @Nurg. It's completely arbitrary how I'm selecting the species to work on and I'm happy to take any suggestions. I'll take on Austrosimulium ungulatum when I get a chance. AxonsArachnida (talk) 22:34, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. All power to ya. Nurg (talk) 23:05, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your good article nomination of the article Desis marina has been placed on hold, as the article needs some changes. See the review page for more information. If these are addressed within 7 days, the nomination will pass; otherwise, it may fail. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Simongraham -- Simongraham (talk) 22:27, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your good article nomination of the article Desis marina has passed; congratulations! See the review page for more information. If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Simongraham -- Simongraham (talk) 11:24, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your good article nomination of the article Cormocephalus rubriceps is under review. See the review page for more information. This may take up to 7 days; feel free to contact the reviewer with any questions you might have. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Cremastra -- Cremastra (talk) 03:49, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A bot will probably be along to tell you shortly, but I'm pleased to say I've passed the article. Cremastra (talk · contribs) 15:35, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

On 18 September 2025, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Neocicindela tuberculata, 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/Neocicindela tuberculata. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Neocicindela tuberculata), 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 nominate it.

Gatoclass (talk) 03:00, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your good article nomination of the article Cormocephalus rubriceps has passed; congratulations! See the review page for more information. If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Cremastra -- Cremastra (talk) 15:42, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

On 29 September 2025, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Opifex fuscus, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that larvae of the mosquito Opifex fuscus live in high-salinity rock pools? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Opifex fuscus. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Opifex fuscus), 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 nominate it.

Gatoclass (talk) 00:03, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is to let you know that the above article has been scheduled as today's featured article for 17 November 2025. Please check that the article needs no amendments. Feel free to amend the draft blurb, which can be found at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/November 2025, or to make comments on other matters concerning the scheduling of this article at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/November 2025. Please keep an eye on that page, as notifications of copy edits to or queries about the draft blurb may be left there by those who assist the coordinators by reviewing the blurbs. I also suggest that you watchlist Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors from two days before it appears on the Main Page. Thanks, and congratulations on your work! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 14:54, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome, thanks. AxonsArachnida (talk) 20:19, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]