User talk:EditorCrabTwinsLibrary

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Creating a new page. Keep up the good work! PawPatroler (talk) 15:30, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! EditorCrabTwinsLibrary (talk) 10:17, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Parapleisticantha has been accepted

Parapleisticantha, 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 Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. 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!

Fade258 (talk) 16:42, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Writing about genera

Hi, EditorCrab. I wanted to talk to you about writing about genera versus writing about species. I'd suggest trying to write about species first until you have more experience. This is because writing about genera is much, much harder – it's even very difficult for me. Descriptions of species in scientific journals will give you every detail you could want regarding their physical appearance etc. The problem with genera is that it's usually way harder to find a proper physical description, since most papers are just focused on describing one species. It's also difficult to talk about a distribution, behavior, etc.

There's a concept on Wikipedia called WP:SYNTH that means we can't take several papers about different species in a genus and draw conclusions about the genus itself, so what you really need is one of those rare genus-level descriptions in a scientific paper. Even then, you have to take care not to let your knowledge of species bleed into the article about the genus and only stick to what reliable sources say about the genus as a whole. That's why there are plenty of fleshed-out species articles, but many genus articles are just a bare-bones description at best followed by a list of species. While that does mean work needs to be done on genus articles, it also shows that it can be worthwhile to master easier problems before tackling much harder ones. Have a good one! Edit: I forgot to mention that creating articles about the species in the genus first lets you build up a library of resources that you can use for the much harder genus article. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 02:12, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No problem @TheTechnician27, do not worry i will do my best to be an genera creator; call me for many marine species i can do for you to create! (etc... Macroregonia). EditorCrabTwinsLibrary (talk) 04:01, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the words that it is very hard for you to create genus, but i can help, this makes me happy and help you reach thousands of marine genus. :) EditorCrabTwinsLibrary (talk) 10:23, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Macroregonia has been accepted

Macroregonia, 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 Stub-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. It is commonplace for new articles to start out as stubs and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. 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!

KylieTastic (talk) 08:29, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Pleisticanthoides has been accepted

Pleisticanthoides, 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 Stub-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. It is commonplace for new articles to start out as stubs and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. 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!

KylieTastic (talk) 08:47, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

June 2025

Hello, I'm UtherSRG, and welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions, but in one of your recent edits to Pleistacantha, it appears that you have added original research, which is against Wikipedia's policies. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. Please do not synthesize data as you did here. It is a form of original research. Our job as editors is to report what is written about the subject. If no description has been written about the genus, then we do not write a description of the genus, even if each of the species has a description. UtherSRG (talk) 11:43, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

TheTechnician27 warned you about this yesterday informally, and then you went ahead and did the exact same thing today. Don't make me regret allowing you to continue editing here. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:45, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@EditorCrabTwinsLibrary: To clarify what I said yesterday about WP:SYNTH: there are a lot of unpredictable differences between species, and by citing species-level descriptions for a whole genus, we're not just bound to get a few things wrong eventually; we will get almost every single thing wrong immediately. When I said that it can be hard to create articles about genera, I didn't just mean that it's difficult – I meant that sometimes the information does not exist in a way we can use. Adding information to existing species-level articles so you can learn these nuances is what would be the most helpful thing you can do right now. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 15:28, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

An assignment

Hi, EditorCrab. I was hoping I could give you an assignment. The article for Lithodes chaddertoni has no physical description, but we already cite an open-access source with that information. I'm hoping you can create a 'Description' section and talk about its physical characteristics based on what's said in pages 37–41 of Ahyong 2010 (linked in the citation). As long as you try your best, I'll happily check your work when you feel like you're done.

This isn't something you have to do, but it'd be a lot of help to expand out these types of species articles! TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 15:40, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

PS: A feature you're able to use now that you have an account is your Sandbox. If you go to the top of the page and click on it, you can use it to experiment with editing. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 16:19, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Pleistacantha moseleyi has been accepted

Pleistacantha moseleyi, 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 Stub-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. It is commonplace for new articles to start out as stubs and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. 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!

KylieTastic (talk) 18:14, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]