User talk:Kweetal nl

Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, Kweetal nl! I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may still benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:

If you don't already know, you should sign your posts on talk pages by using four tildes (~~~~) to insert your username and the date.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Again, welcome! JarrahTree 08:38, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm working through the list of differences in your sandbox2. I'm flagging those articles that I have corrected. In some cases I can check whether brackets are needed - eg when the genus was introduced after the species was described then the OD must have been in a different genus. I also sometimes check the OD. - Aa77zz (talk) 16:41, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm impressed with your script - it is very useful. I've been correcting articles which give the wrong Gray as the authority. How does the script work? - Aa77zz (talk) 17:07, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The idea is simple: I have the IOC data in a postgres database table; with the binomial I construct a url that retrieves the species page as text so I have the page as a string in hand. The real work is the comparison. Kweetal nl (talk) 17:21, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot to warn you for an effect that is annoying (but that I got used to myself); when my program gets a species page via a binomial-url, it sometimes gets redirected and another species' page is returned, and *its* authorname gets compared to the IOC authority, causing my program to bark. Doesn't happen so often but when you're not used to it can be confusing.

For example Prinia melanops redirects in ENWIKI to Prinia bairdii (in NLWIKI it goes to a separate Prinia melanops page).

So just keep an eye on the page that you're ending up editing to see if there was a unexpected redirect (it doesn't happen very often). Kweetal nl (talk) 20:12, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There's now also sandbox3 and sandbox4 -- I'll work on sandbox4 when I have time later this week

sandbox2 - 'errors' from 1-1250

sandbox3 - 'errors' from 1250-9900

sandbox4 - 'errors' from 9900-11161

I haven't counted exactly but still above 10% of the "Authorities" to be changed, I think (minus some false positives)

Thanks - Kweetal nl (talk) 22:07, 23 October 2023 (UTC) /AFK[reply]

I think sandbox2 is now completed - you can check by running your script again. Thank you for picking up some of my errors. IOC is alone in omitting Lafresnaye in a couple of cases with d'Orbigny & Lafresnaye as the authority. I suspect that the IOC has misjudged this - but I've followed the IOC. There are is a series of 7 articles by Dickinson et al published 2017-2019 that study the publication of "Voyage dans l'Amérique Méridionale". - Aa77zz (talk) 10:44, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've just finished sandbox4 (leaving a few doubtful items for later). I'll now continue at the end of sandbox3 (the big one). I.e., I'll do Thraupidae first, then working in the direction of Ostrich. If you still have time/ambition, just start at the beginning of sb3.

I'll let you know how the sb2-re-check went (my experience with NL-birds has been: you always forget one or a few...).

- Kweetal nl (talk) 10:53, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm going to do it differently from what I said because we need each our own sandbox to save 'Done' flags to. I'll copy the latter half from sandbox3 (number 500 to the end) and call it sandbox 5. That sandbox5 will be mine. Sandbox3 (1-499) will be yours. Once you reach 500, have a look to see where I am in sb5. Make sense? Kweetal nl (talk) 11:20, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I went through sandbox5 once (there are some 'difficult' items that I left for later).

Now I've copied 400-499 from 'your' sandbox3 and copied them into a sandbox7 for me to work on.

(In the meantime I started a new run through everything - will let you know when that's finished; it runs slow as I don't want to burden the servers) - Kweetal nl (talk) 08:44, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the output of the latest run (all species) from this morning:

sandbox8

Slightly different format; I tried to show the redirects, I hope that works.

(I won't be editing today any more) Kweetal nl (talk) 11:33, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please see updated User:Kweetal nl/sandbox for the latest (run today 20231026)

(btw, I found an error in my program. When fixed it will throw up some more dubious cases)Kweetal nl (talk) 06:47, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just in case you're already using sandbox1: I will override sandbox1 with the new list when the corrected program finishes in 10 minutes or so. The new list-entries will include differences in the binomen (as opposed to the authorname) - so even more important than fixing the authorname, I would think. They are wrong endings and spellings, and also changed genus names (which means wrong redirect, I think). But you'll see the pattern quickly enough. I'll let you know when the new list is in place (as sandbox1, to be clear). Kweetal nl (talk) 08:29, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done. the latest list is User:Kweetal nl/sandbox1. It now has 80 entries. Kweetal nl (talk) 08:45, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nice: the sandbox2 re-run finished without errors. Kweetal nl (talk) 12:56, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've spotted an error in the IOC 13.2 list: the authority for the mealy amazon is given as (Sclater, PL, 1860) when it should be (Boddaert, 1783). This just an editing error - the authority is given correctly in the list of subspecies. I've sent them an email. - Aa77zz (talk) 15:30, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not reformatting the initials of the authorities, ie I don't change "J.F. Gmelin" to "Gmelin, JF" but if I need to add initials then I format them as per the IOC. - Aa77zz (talk) 19:58, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thta's great. Can you let me know when the IOC decides what they think it should be? I like to keep my database up to date. Kweetal nl (talk) Kweetal nl (talk) 08:48, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The IOC (David Donsker) replied to my email - it is an editing error that will be fixed in IOC 14.1. - Aa77zz (talk) 12:13, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I added change that to my pipeline, thanks. - Kweetal nl (talk) 12:23, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Another nominate subspecies with difference in authority: there are *2* cases (out of 4375 nominate ssp):

• Amazona farinosa (Sclater, PL, 1860)   <=>   Amazona farinosa farinosa (Boddaert, 1783)
• Mustelirallus colombianus Bangs, 1898   <=>   Mustelirallus colombianus colombianus (Bangs, 1898)

What do you think - that Authority diff in Mustelirallus is also suspect, no? - Kweetal nl (talk) 15:36, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(sent to IOC - let's see what they think...) Kweetal nl (talk) 19:02, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Looking now - I've been busy in RL.
Mustelirallus colombianus was originally described by Bangs as Neocrex colombaianus (see the OD here) and thus in the IOC list the nominate should have brackets (as the ssp already has). Note that Bangs got the gender wrong for the genus (as mentioned in the species box of the wiki article (Neocrex colombianus Bangs, 1898 [orth. error])). I've now added brackets. - Aa77zz (talk) 07:03, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Right, thanks. That's error number 7 in v13.2, that I know of. Again, it's proving useful to have the IOC data in a database table and to be able to run SQL queries against it (I found this Mustelirallus error as a spin-off of your Amazona ("find all cases where sp and nominate ssp authrority differ")). If you happen have any ideas for such queries to find errors, I'd be happy to try.

btw, just now I downloaded the clements v2022 list - maybe the comparison can be similarly useful. Kweetal nl (talk) 07:18, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note that Clements is in the process of releasing their 2023 list. - Aa77zz (talk) 07:21, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Clements v 2023 has now been released. Spreadsheets here. - Aa77zz (talk) 08:23, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I created a second clements table, "ebirdclem2023" (can't have enough checklists). - Kweetal nl (talk) 08:38, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Seven errors? I only know of 4 errors: these two errors with brackets and two others,

• The authority for the genus Sigelus is given as "Cabinis, 1850". This should be "Cabanis, 1850"
• The date for the genus Bradornis is given as "Smith, A, 1874". This should be "Smith, A 1847". (I mentioned this on the WikiProject Birds talk page)

There are many cases where I consider the authority and date given by the IOC as doubtful - but these are usually a matter of opinion rather than errors. - Aa77zz (talk) 07:35, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

These I have :

• -- 13.2: Sigelus Cabinis, 1850 => should be Cabanis
• -- 13.2: Macropsalis forcipata Nitsch => should be Nitzsch
• -- 13.2: Passer rufocinctus Finsch & Reichenow' => should be Fischer, GA & Reichenow
• -- 13.2: Bradornis Smith, A, 1874 => should be Bradornis Smith, A, 1847
• -- 13.2: Cossyphicula isabellae Gray, GR, 1862 should be Cossyphicula isabellae (Gray, GR, 1862)
• -- 13.2 Amazona farinosa (Sclater, PL, 1860) should be (Boddaert, 1783)
• -- 13.2 Mustelirallus colombianus Bangs, 1898 should be (Bangs, 1898)
• (all reported)

Kweetal nl (talk) 07:43, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a more complicated query for your database to check brackets:

If the date of the genus is later than the date of the species then there should always be brackets around the authority for the species.

- Aa77zz (talk) 07:42, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Zero hits (which is good, I suppose...) Kweetal nl (talk) 08:04, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(I have already fixed the seven errors in 'my' IOC data; otherwise Cossyphicula isabellae and Bradornis would've shown up) Kweetal nl (talk) 08:09, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sandbox12 has the current list of diffs, ; I've provided each species with the "Comment" from the IOC file, sometimes useful. - Kweetal nl (talk) 09:10, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look. On Wednesday I corrected a couple of redirects - in both cases the species had been split and the redirect hadn't been updated. - Aa77zz (talk) 10:30, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Where Wikipedia has a split/lump which is the same as Clements but differs from IOC, I'm reluctant to go to the effort of changing the Wiki pages. I got caught out with a previous IOC split where I went to the effort of creating a revised range map - only to find that the IOC relumped the species as a result of a Working Group Avian Checklists (WGAC) decision. Where the IOC and Clements agree there is less likely to be a problem. - Aa77zz (talk) 16:32, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How many wikipedia bird articles have an English name that differs from that adopted by the IOC? - Aa77zz (talk) 16:34, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It will take a while, half an hour or so. The first 1500 from IOC yield 23 different wikinames. But I see that when the main name is different, often the IOC-name is mentioned as an alternative name. - Kweetal nl (talk) 17:08, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You've done a lot of work in the last few days. Thank you. Between us we've improved around 10% of bird pages, I think. - Kweetal nl (talk) 17:10, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Without your script I wouldn't be able to find the errors to correct. - Aa77zz (talk) 17:53, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's true, let's say good teamwork, then. I have the English names comparison; sorry, it took longer than I thought, writin took just 10 minutes but I had to download some data again after deleting it more or less inadvertently last week. The list is: sandbox14. A lot of diffs are case- and accent differences, so I made a second comparison (column 'same'), with names lowercased and unaccented. - Kweetal nl (talk) 19:48, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the list. When I have the energy I'll look to see which names should be changed. I can ignore gray/grey, St./Saint etc and accents. I'll compare the names with the other lists (Clements and Birdlife/IUCN). I won't be able to change a name (ie move the page) when there is a redirect from the new name that has been edited. In these cases I have to submit a move request. - Aa77zz (talk) 20:16, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've made sandbox15 to further reduce the list of diffs.

• Gray/Grey diff ignored
• Saint/St. diff ignored
• coloured/colored diff ignored
• removed the ' in crazy hawaii names which makes them often the same as the English/IOC name.
• sorted by the boolean same2 column: 'real' diffs above

Kweetal nl (talk) 21:12, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

btw, I did not change Paradoxornis 'aemodius to aemodium', I just amended the "Authority". I left the binomen alone, I am generally hesitant to touch the binomen (and your nomenclature reading/writing is clearly better than mine). But I did see that others (bow, avibase) have 'aemodium'. Kweetal nl (talk) 08:52, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I encounter Genus Authors inside brackets. That's *always* wrong, do you agree? (i.e., they must be removed) Kweetal nl (talk) 12:27, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, my understanding is that genus authors should not have brackets. - Aa77zz (talk) 15:37, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Could you take a look at my move proposal here. Thanks. - Aa77zz (talk) 20:25, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I've looked at all 80 items in your sandbox12 list. For cases where the IOC has split a species and both Clements and Wikipedia have not, then I've not created new articles to follow IOC. I'll wait to see which way WGAC jumps. Version 14.1 of the IOC list will be released in January. I do need to create a new article for the palm crow split - which AOU, IOC and Clements all agree upon. I'm doubtful - the differences between the two taxa appear to be small. - Aa77zz (talk) 16:48, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Nice. That was a productive week. Making the NLwiki changes took me a bit longer. Thanks again. Kweetal nl (talk) 17:49, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've run the comparison again, and of course all the 'Not done' entries appeared. But I wonder about these two:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sicalis_uropigyalis - I changed the taxobox here as I assumed that was the intention (right?)

Yes that was my intention. Thank you for catching that. - Aa77zz (talk) 10:16, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tauraco_violaceus - I did not change this one yet; but should it not be changed from -cea to -ceus?

Another mistake on my part. Now changed. Thanks for catching. It is easy to understand how David Donsker (IOC) makes the occasional error - with 20,000 taxa (including ssp). - Aa77zz (talk) 10:31, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As I have the db handy:

select count(*) from master_ioc_list

where "Genus" is not null

or "Species (Scientific)" is not null

or "Subspecies" is not null;

count

-------

33355

(1 row)

Kweetal nl (talk) 10:36, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• (and less interesting: I also put back the constraint that a comma must be present between author and date, and fixed a handful of those.)

  Kweetal nl (talk) 09:18, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

IOC 14.1 should be released in January 2024. There will be many changes to align the checklists per WGAC. Also, it seems that the IOC is continuing to change the taxonomy to incorporate results of recent phylogenetic studies and is not waiting for WGAC. It would be useful if after the wiki articles have been edited to incorporate the 14.1 changes, you ran your script(s) again. - Aa77zz (talk) 10:49, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll do that, I'm glad it's useful. It should also contain the item from Clements, H&M, maybe others.<>

I'm also thinking to make a main-lists comparison, a bit like IOC's own Comparison of IOC 13.2 with other world lists, just to keep them honest. - Kweetal nl (talk) 11:03, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Here is an EN:Wiki versus IOC-14.1 diff as of 2023.12.31: User:Kweetal nl/sandbox-diff-14.1- perhaps a little early but it's shorter than I had expected. Happy New Year! - Kweetal nl (talk) 05:03, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Kweetal nl,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Paradoxornis aemodius for deletion in response to your request.

If you didn't intend to make such a request and don't want the article to be deleted, you can edit the page and remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Thanks!

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Justiyaya 08:37, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Edward-Woodrow was:

This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are:

• in-depth (not just passing mentions about the subject)
• reliable
• secondary
• independent of the subject
  

Make sure you add references that meet these criteria before resubmitting. Learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

This is an interesting project; thank-you for all your work, but at the moment it doesn't meet WP:NLIST – generally, a topic needs to be discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources. If you can show that, then you're good to go. (and FYI, standard practice on Wikipedia for authorities is like this: Brandt, 1842. Brackets as necessary.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:List of Bird species in monospecific taxa and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Edward-Woodrow • talk 00:40, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Kweetal nl! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Edward-Woodrow • talk 00:40, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have a copy of the H&M v4.0 Excel spreadsheet which I appear to have downloaded in March 2019. The metadata indicates that it was last saved in 2014. I've actually never used it. I have the actual books and the CDs which come with them. If you send me an email I can send the spreadsheet to you. - Aa77zz (talk) 11:50, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that'd be nice. I've sent you mail (via wikipedia-mail, seems to have worked).

Re Howard & Moore, I actually have a 'revised' first edition (1984) which I bought around that time. No CD's back then. - Kweetal nl (talk) 12:18, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that your lists of IOC genera (e.g. User:Kweetal nl/IOC132/Muscicapidae) include a number of genera linked to disambiguation pages. There is a option to display these in orange so they can be easily seen. It's in Preferences, under the Gadget tab, as "Display links to disambiguation pages in orange".

You can also display redirects in different colour by modifying your commons.css file. See mine at User:Jts1882/common.css. I find these useful when compiling lists of species or genera. —  Jts1882 | talk  07:28, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thank you very much. I was hunting down the remaining 'unknowns' from my mappings tables (for genus and author). This looks much easier than mouse-overing all items. - Kweetal nl (talk) 08:08, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed, in the generating program, and only for genera for now. (Species will need similar treatment , cf 'Silverbird') - Kweetal nl (talk) 10:29, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kweetal, I don't disagree that the number of bird species has grown, but you made this edit without providing a new source. The source linked at the end of the sentence supports the previous number, not your updated one. Please provide a new source for your number. Thanks. MeegsC (talk) 13:12, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes: IOC 14.1 (2024) has 11031 extant species

Clements v2023 has 10857

HBW/BirdLife v8 has 11083

voila - Kweetal nl (talk) 13:52, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Kweetal nl. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:List of Bird species in monospecific taxa, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 01:06, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Kweetal nl. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, "List of Bird species in monospecific taxa".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:32, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've had an email exchange with the IOC (David Donsker). The genus Accipiter has been split into 5 genera. This has meant changing some of the brackets for the authorities. Although David made the necessary changes, for some reason the edits have not made it into the distributed Excel files. This will be corrected in IOC 15.1, to be released at the end of this year. When editing the wiki articles I've used brackets based on the "original combination" rather than those in the Excel files. Tachyspiza is easy - as far as I can tell it has never been used so all authorities need brackets. Astur is more tricky - I've had to check the ODs. - Aa77zz (talk) 10:48, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, good to know. That seems like a largish mistake; I'd say it would be better for IOC not to wait half a year - why not release a version as 14.2b ? (their own Multiling file is often so versioned). Maybe they (IOC) need some testing after all (cf. de bf discussion). Anyway, thanks for the heads-up - Kweetal nl (talk) 11:34, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

At a quick count the authorities for 42 taxa in Tachyspiza are wrong and for 16 in Astur. Very frustrating for David after all his hard work but with so much shuffling it is easy to slip up. -Aa77zz (talk) 17:15, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I'm not sure - do you agree that on the Astur gundlachi page, the two subspecies also should have brackets on the Authority?

They would become (also repeating full first genusname to avoid confusion with Accipiter):

Astur g. gundlachi (Lawrence, 1860)

A. g. wileyi (Wotzkow, 1991)

(I think that's how it will end up in IOC 15.1 too.) Kweetal nl (talk) 10:46, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - now fixed. - Aa77zz (talk) 19:34, 27 August 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) 00:29, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kweetal nl. Thank you for your work on Driophlox atrimaxillaris. Another editor, Hey man im josh, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

Not mentioned at the target.

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

Hey man im josh (talk) 13:38, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Hey man im josh:

Not understood. Kweetal nl (talk) 13:42, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry @Kweetal nl, I sent this message about the incorrect redirect. The redirect you created was indeed mentioned at the target, and has been marked as reviewed. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:43, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

kk Kweetal nl (talk) 13:44, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

		The Carcinology Barnstar
		For scrutinizing Ovalipes catharus and finding issues I'd missed with it. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 17:08, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]