John Tann

Welcome!

Hello, John Tann, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• Introduction
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• How to write a great article
• Simplified Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ~~~~, which will automatically produce your name and the date.

If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or . Again, welcome!

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:35, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Austroaeschna obscura has been accepted

Austroaeschna obscura, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post 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.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

KGirlTrucker81 ^{huh? what I've been doing} 20:51, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

A page you started (Austroaeschna eungella) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Austroaeschna eungella, John Tann!

Wikipedia editor Animalparty just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Please use the most specific (narrow) stubs possible, e.g. {{dragonfly-stub}}, for better categorization.

To reply, leave a comment on Animalparty's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

--Animalparty! (talk) 04:45, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Autopatrol

Hi John Tann, I just wanted to let you know that I have added the "autopatrolled" permission to your account, as you have created numerous, valid articles. This feature will have no effect on your editing, and is simply intended to reduce the workload on new page patrollers. For more information on the patroller right, see Wikipedia:Autopatrolled. Feel free to leave me a message if you have any questions. Happy editing! Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:21, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Discussion at User talk:Babymissfortune#Question about your edit on a page I created

You are invited to join the discussion at User talk:Babymissfortune#Question about your edit on a page I created. ^{Babymissfortune} 10:15, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

In appreciation

		The Original Barnstar
		Awarded for your dedication and hard work in expanding the number of Australian Odonata articles on the English Wikipedia, thus filling in numerous gaps in the knowledge base. (Hardly a novice now John!) Summerdrought (talk) 07:52, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Ummm thanks Summerdrought. I wasn't expecting that. John Tann (talk) 11:52, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Family genera categories

Regarding categories for genera in a family I'll leave it to your discretion, as your more active working on Odonata then me. The category structure for many groups of insects is not well developed, but where it is well developed it is normal to have a "Fooidae genera" category for families that have articles for a large number of genera, and various genus level categories for genera with large numbers of species articles.

It's good to keep categories at a reasonable size when there's an obvious logical system for subcategories. Taxonomy categories have a logical system for subcategorization. "Reasonable size" isn't precisely defined, but a category with more than 200 entries can't display all the members on a single page, so would be clearly advisable to split into subcategories; Epiprocta/Anisoptera genera isn't quite to 200 entries, but it's getting pretty close. On the other hand, categories shouldn't be very small. If there aren't going to be more than 5-10 entries it may not be worth creating a subcategory. Plantdrew (talk) 20:20, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the background, Plantdrew. I'll give one a go. John Tann (talk) 20:32, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Zygoptera / Damselfly

Hi Chiswick. You just re-introduced Category:Taxa named by Edmond de Sélys Longchamps into the article on Damselflies. When in fact Selys named not damselfly but Zygoptera. I think you just made the same mistake as me. I added that category to the Damselfly page, and then realised that it already existed on the redirect page from Zygoptera, and so I removed it. I don't think this category belongs on the damselfly page.

Does this make sense? John Tann (talk) 14:27, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

No. The article is THE one and only article on the Zygoptera, which is why Z. redirects there (we prefer to use English names for taxa, where they exist and are unproblematic, and the article requires the categories for Zygoptera. By the way, Chiswick isn't my forename. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:58, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

The problem with putting a Category link at the bottom of a page with a heading Damselfly, is that Damselfly will appear in that category. Now Selys named Zygoptera. So the Category link at the bottom of the Zygoptera page (even though it is a redirect) appears in the Category:Taxa named by Edmond de Sélys Longchamps, and shows as the word Zygoptera in italics (meaning it is a redirect). Also in that same category is the word Damselfly - because of the Category link from the Damselfy page - which is out of place because Categeries of Taxa named by XXX usually don't have common names.

Sorry about the name. John Tann (talk) 21:39, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

@Chiswick Chap: The logic John Tann is going with is described at WP:INCOMPATIBLE; if the title of the category is incompatible with the target of a redirect, but is compatible with the redirecting term, the category goes on the redirect. Wikipedia isn't consistent in whether categories with a title implying a scientific name are always on a scientific name redirect or a common name target. Take a look at Category:Bird genera and especially its daughter Category:Monotypic bird genera (note that redirects are italicized when viewing category contents). With very few exceptions, for bird genera, the categories are on scientific names whether they are redirects or articles (with monotypic bird genera, the category members are almost all redirects). Category:Insect orders is another that consistently holds scientific names. There's also the "taxon described in year categories" (e.g. Category:Animals described in 1758). "Taxa named by authority" categories are relatively new, and as far as I've seen, there's been no discussion whether these should hold only article titles (whether common or scientific names) or only scientific names (whether redirects or article title). Plantdrew (talk) 02:32, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

OK, another small eccentricity in the category system. Ours not to reason why. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:26, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 8

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Austrocnemis obscura

added a link pointing to Kimberley

Pseudagrion lucifer

added a link pointing to Kimberley

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:58, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Please don't blank categories

Hello. Please don't blank categories as you did with Category:Isotictidae. If there's an "obvious" mistake in a category name, follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Speedy to get it renamed. The advantage of doing things the "official" way is that a bot will do all the boring work of fixing up all the articles that use the category.Le Deluge (talk) 19:19, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice Le Deluge. I apologise for doing things the wrong way. I thought, however, that I was following advice from that page:

 Categories that qualify for speedy deletion (per Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion, e.g. "patent nonsense", "recreation", categories that have been empty for seven days) can be tagged with the regular speedy tags, such as db|reason, and no delay is required to process these.

ie I thought by leaving it empty for seven days would qualify it for speedy deletion.

Do you recommend that we use the tag cfr-speedy|New name, instead? If so, won't that leave the badly spelt latin name in circulation (as a redirect)? John Tann (talk) 12:38, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

It could be explained more clearly, but you need to put the appropriate tag - {{db-empty}} - on the empty category before the clock starts ticking for the 7 days, there's no other (easy) way to know how long a category has been empty for otherwise. Yep, you want cfr-speedy - or {{subst:cfr-speedy|newname}} to be precise. Everything is different in category space - aside from needing to formally request even minor rename moves, category redirects are discouraged so category moves don't create them. So you don't have to worry about leaving the misspelling in circulation - although it's not the end of the world if it was, if one person can't spell it then others probably can't either (a redirect doesn't legitimise a spelling, Wikipedia is WP:NOTPAPER).Le Deluge (talk) 13:26, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

@Le Deluge: Thanks again for taking the time to explain. Do I need to do anything more with Category:Isotictidae now, or is what you have done enough to finish it off? John Tann (talk) 21:56, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

No, it's good for now, it will die in a week. I've also tweaked the language in the instructions you referred to, hopefully they're a bit clearer now. For really obvious mistakes in English you can use {{db-g6}} but for Latin it's probably better to use db-empty.<g> Le Deluge (talk) 22:22, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

A Barnstar for you

		The Special Barnstar
		Awarded for your exceptional work with Odonata species range maps of Australia and nearby countries. Summerdrought (talk) 01:07, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, John Tann. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, John Tann. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. 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 2019 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) 00:16, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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 2020 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) 02:33, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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 2021 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) 00:38, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Category:Taxa named by Yngve Sjöstedt has been nominated for merging

Category:Taxa named by Yngve Sjöstedt has been nominated for merging. 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 the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Vahurzpu (talk) 16:53, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Northern glider (disambiguation)

The article Northern glider (disambiguation) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

This disambiguation page contains the primary topic and one other topic for the ambiguous title and no other topics can be found within a reasonable time.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any of your contributions for deletion; please refer to the history of each individual page for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 10:02, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 1

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Aeshnoidea, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Extant. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, --DPL bot (talk) 19:54, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Obsolete dragonfly families

Hi, I notice you've been making updates to pages for obsolete dragonfly families recently. I just wanted to say, watch out with their genera lists, since they were probably incomplete. For instance Brachytronidae now states Dendroaeschna to have been its only genus, whereas the family's name itself suggests it included at least Brachytron as well (I have no citation for this, mind). Gomphomacromiidae also probably included Gomphomacromia, not just Archaeophya (again, I have no citation). Monster Iestyn (talk) 17:07, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Good suggestion. I have been working through the higher groupings of dragonflies - families and superfamilies and bringing them up-to-date. In the case of obsolete taxa I was changing the grammar - eg. present tense to past tense, sometimes restructuring the page, and giving a brief reason.

But of course, that skips the whole history of that family. And so things like Brachytronidae now states Dendroaeschna to have been its only genus probably should have read something like up until recently Dendroaeschna had been its only genus (For me, there is not much value in researching the entire history of this now-defunct family, when I am just wanting to leave a record of recent updates).

Thank you so much for bringing this to my attention. There have been a lot of dragonfly pages updated over the past few weeks and I appreciate your comments in getting it right.

John Tann (talk) 06:13, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

No problem, glad to help.

On that note, since I have been digging into fossil Odonata systematics recently on the Wikispecies side, I've been realising that - rather annoyingly - they follow a different classification from extant (living) Odonata. Even worse, I think that some of those obsolete families are even still used by palaeontologists working on fossil Odonata. But I see that en.wiki's Odonata articles are primarily about the extant Odonata at the moment, so maybe it doesn't matter? Monster Iestyn (talk) 12:16, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Good on you. I love the idea of dragonflies having been around for many millions of years, and they are still going strong. The more we know about them, the better.

I wish you good fortune with your researches

John Tann (talk) 08:23, 7 October 2024 (UTC)