Welcome to Wikispecies! edit

Hello, and welcome to Wikispecies! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might like to see:

If you have named a taxon, then it is likely that there is (or will be) a Wikispecies page about you, and other pages about your published papers. Please see our advice and guidance for taxon authors.

If you have useful images to contribute to Wikispecies, please upload them at Wikimedia Commons. This is also true for video or audio files containing bird songs, whale vocalization, etc.

Please sign your comments on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username (if you're logged in) and the date. Please also read the Wikispecies policy What Wikispecies is not. If you need help, ask me on my talk page, or in the Village Pump. Again, welcome! -- Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:07, 15 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

Referene template edit

Hello Christian. I've created the {{Sokolov, 1952}} reference template. Feel free to add more data to it if you can. Best regards, Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 01:59, 13 July 2019 (UTC).Reply

Thank you Tommy. Christian Ferrer (talk) 06:35, 13 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

Images edit

Hi Christian: I see you uploading images of barnacle taxa. Thank you. If you could, please orient pedunculate taxa with peduncle down (e.g. Stephanolepas rotated 90° clockwise), as that is preferred orientation for study and illustration. Escallent pictures. Neferkheperre (talk) 20:38, 27 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

That should be Trianguloscalpellum, not Stephanolepas. Latter is perfect. Neferkheperre (talk) 20:40, 27 July 2019 (UTC)Reply
  • @Neferkheperre: ok, done. I made a rotation request [1]. I am currenlty uploading almost all the images of the Invertebrate Zoology Division, Yale Peabody Museum dataset available at https://doi.org/10.15468/0lkr3w. I am sorry to have removed the page numbers that you have placed near the species name and the citation of the author in a few page, I was thinking to do well, as the use of such references in this way is not quoted in Help:Name section neither in the ICZN. But in another hand it is not forbidden, I have reinstalled it here. I will check the other pages that I have recently edited to reinstall your infos. Regards, Christian Ferrer (talk) 21:05, 27 July 2019 (UTC)Reply
Rotation came out very well. Going on to Trianguloscalpellum, image looks a bit warped on the page, but clicking on it to full size restores proportions. Perhaps resizing thumbnail on taxon page would do it. One thing I have been working on is illustrations of primary types, installed as links on taxon pages. See Chthamalus grazianii and Euscalpellum triflagellum. Unfortunately, very few museums do as completely as MNHN. USNM gives detailed data page, and BMNH is very variable, and frequently provides only a photo of the acquisition ledger page. I find original citations very important in taxonomy, and try to get as detailed as possible. It is amazing how many taxon pages have no indication of original citations. I work on living and fossil barnacles, and am building the cirriped pages as a comprehensive reference base I and others can use anywhere armed with their mobile units, and not have to be concerned with local library facilities. This should extend to all taxa. I actually have been using data and illustrations from Wikispecies when I go to LSU and work on the paleo collections. Neferkheperre (talk) 15:29, 28 July 2019 (UTC)Reply
If the image is warped on the page it is because of a cache issue, as the image is not here directly but called via a module. You have just to wait. You will likely be happy to hear that, when I will have finished to upload the invertebrate images from the YPM, it's firmly my intention to upload into Wikimedia Commons the freely licensed images of the impressive datasets owned by MNHN (included echinoderms, molluscs, crustaceans and fossils). I will follow your example and will provides the infos about types when I have, I usually already do it for publications. Christian Ferrer (talk) 16:10, 28 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

Template:H. Adams & A. Adams, 1853-1858 edit

I just came across this and something this complicated should probably be a source page (with all the publication info details) with the volumes having separate templates, as with e.g. Prodromus systematis naturalis regni vegetabilis. Circeus (talk) 05:04, 10 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the input. I hesited a bit before to create the template, so I followed the same way as WoRMS and created one reference page. If one want to create a template for each years (H. Adams & A. Adams, 1853, H. Adams & A. Adams, 1854, ect...) then each of those templates will countains several part of several volumes, the details is provided in the template that I have created, then the problem will be the same though, it's true, divided in 6. If one want to create a template for each volumes then each templates will correspond to a period of several years (vol 1: 1853-1854; vol 2: 1854-58; vol 3: 1853-58), once again the issue stay the same, but here divided in 3. Furthermore this last solution seems worst as the parts of the volume 3 correspond to the plates of the other volumes, the result will be the need to have two reference templates foe each new taxa described. But I will think at about your suggestion... Christian Ferrer (talk) 05:30, 10 October 2019 (UTC)Reply
I wrote and meant separate templates for the volumes. I'm aware it's hardly a perfect solution, but any attempt at dealing with this work clearly is going to be awkward and less than ideal. In particular, I believe the page ranges (and the sources of these dates should itself be cited, btw!) would probably be better provided only in a source page. Mostly because a) links to source pages are a lot more prominent and clear than links to templates (which are a somewhat technical aspect of wikispecies) and b) you currently have the same dating information given both within the template itself and on the template page, which is highly redundant. Circeus (talk) 07:07, 10 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

Italics edit

I've noticed you italicize publisher+location in reference templates for books. What is normally italicized is a book or periodical's title. Article/chapter titles, publishers and place of publication are not italicized. In the case of books, you can generally get away with not italicizing anything. Wikispecies users are not very consistent about that. Circeus (talk) 22:37, 10 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

Other publications images edit

i have been creating citations for ZooKeys for some time. Earlier this year, i extended this to other pensoft journals with taxonomic articles. Are those images also uploadable to commons? If so, i can begin linking those articles as well. All of Pensoft's journals are open access, like ZooKeys. Neferkheperre (talk) 14:14, 1 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

  • Yes, I think, though as I'm alone to uploads the images, and before that you created the categories,I was alone too to link the categories to Wikidata and to Wikispecies, I have a little fear that the categories will never be used, as manually it takes me more times to generate the uploads than the articles to be published.... therefore I wonder if it is very necessary to create the categories before the uploads... but to answer your question:
  • To be uploadable into Commons each files must fall within the c:Commons:Project scope.
All the images of taxa specimens are obviously fully in the scope of Commons as from an educational point of view, that is much less obvious (IMO) for text/graphes medias such as this one. Personally until now I do not upload them.
All the images are published in freely licensed articles (usually CC BY 4.0), so the license is ok, that's very fine. However there are potential issues with maps such as this one, because even if the maps are published in articles with free licenses, I doubt that there are no other copyright(s) on those maps other than those of the authors cited.
So yes, in my opinion when the articles contains images of taxa specimens, then you can link the articles, but if you see that some articles contains only graphes and maps maybe you can ignore them.
  • This discussion makes me think to something, until now, to create the categories on Commons we used the code {{hiddencat}} {{Wikidata Infobox}} [[category:Media from ZooKeys]], but I think that we should only use {{Wikidata Infobox}} [[category:Media from ZooKeys]], because I don't see a clear rationale to put those categories as "hidden", (I did it, because it was done before me), let me know if you are aware of a good rationale to put {{hiddencat}}, otherwise we should stop using it. Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:25, 1 December 2019 (UTC)Reply
I do not see a rational for {{hiddencat}} either. Likewise I shall check articles for the nature of the media. We have always had trouble with maps on Wikispecies. Then when I go back to the other Pensoft journals, I will have to remember which one I am doing.
Possibly creating or re-engineering a bot to webcrawl for images would speed up life somewhat. Might want to check with Wikidata. Their operation depends heavily on webcrawling bots to fill out and update their pages. I mainly do little but create and label author and taxon pages on there. Neferkheperre (talk) 21:14, 1 December 2019 (UTC)Reply
  • @Neferkheperre: Do not use anymore {{hiddencat}}, I will remove it from the categories already created. For the images, I'm still searching potential solutions, such as there c:User talk:Daniel Mietchen#Pensoft Publishers media. I think you should stop creating categories, this is time consuming for you. And I do it any way each time I upload medias. So the principle is good, and I respect a lot your efforts but this is like to begin by the end. Furthermore it's a bit misleading because when a link to a Commons category become available here or in Wikidata this falsely suggests that media is available in Wikimedia Commons, although it is not yet uploaded... I think you should don't lose your time by doing that. Furthermore if ever we manage to automate the process for to upload the images, or to create/link the categories, those empties categories may also be misleading. Christian Ferrer (talk) 23:07, 1 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

Full names edit


If you add authors you have to publish the full names (if possible). You have make a redirect for example Alfred Kaltenbach to Alfred Peter Kaltenbach. This is an agreement we made in the past. The answer from Circeus is not correct. This moment I'm busy with Russian authors. In the beginning they published with one first name and one abbrevation name. After that they published with full names and now they published with abbrevation names with their backnames. I have make a correct redirect from Alfred Kaltenbach to Alfred Peter Kaltenbach. PeterR (talk) 13:33, 4 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

Thanks @PeterR. I've corrected all old links to Alfred Kaltenbach so that they now points directly to Alfred Peter Kaltenbach. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 15:52, 4 December 2019 (UTC).Reply

redirects to nonexistent pages edit

I noticed a couple of these on template:Koehler, 1914. I assume you intend to create said pages soon? Creating redirects that go nowhere is unhelpful otherwise as it creates the illusion of complteness. Circeus (talk) 16:41, 15 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

It depends on what we mean by "soon", yes I intend to create those pages but I don't exactly when know when... I thought I would do well as they will have to be created when the targuet pages will exist. But ok, the next time I will create redirects only when targuet pages are created. Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:04, 15 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

{{Commons}} edit

Bonjour, si j'ai causé une erreur, je suis content que vous ayez annulé l'édition. Quelle est l'erreur, s'il vous plaît?--Rosičák (talk) 17:06, 27 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

Oui, le but de ces modifications est de traduire dans la langue que vous avez définie comme interface par défaut. Si votre langue manquait dans le modèle, il se peut qu'elle ait été traduite dans une autre langue que vous avez comme alternative. Essayez d'écrire une traduction dans votre langue dans votre modèle. Viz: {{Commons category}}--Rosičák (talk) 18:28, 27 December 2019 (UTC)Reply
J'espère que je n'ai pas fait de bêtises, j'ai mis un message dans le bistrot... Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:42, 27 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

Raoul Michel May edit

Bonjour Christian, j'ai vu la question que tu avais posée dans le Village Pump il y a un mois au sujet de Raoul Michel May, auteur de cette publication, et de l'auteur R. M. May. Je pense qu'il s'agit de la même personne.

Dans la publication de 1948 mentionnée dans la page de R. M. May, l'auteur est Raoul Michel May : [2][3]. Dans la publication que tu as citée, il est écrit dans les notes au bas de la page 262 : "(...) allowing me full access to the rich collection of ophiurans in the Museum of Comparative Zoölogy at Cambridge, Massachusetts." Dans la page sur Worldcat et sur IdRef, il est fait mention de l'ouvrage Degeneration and Regeneration of the Nervous System de Santiago Ramón y Cajal, qu'il a traduit. Dans l'introduction d'une édition de 1991 de ce livre, on peut y lire une petite biographie de Raoul Michel May p. 12 et 13 [4] : "(...) being awarded the Ph.D. from Harvard University in 1924. While working in the Zoological Laboratory at Harvard (...)." Dans deux publications citées p. 145 du livre, on peut d'ailleurs voir qu'il était affilié au "Zoölogical Laboratory, Harvard University" : [5], [6]. Korg (talk) 15:16, 29 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Avec plaisir ! J'aime bien mener ce genre d'enquête. Pour sa spécialité j'ai mis "zoologist", mais ce serait peut-être à préciser ou compléter. Korg (talk) 21:20, 29 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
"zoologist" semble approprié car apparemment ses études sur le système nerveux et sur les greffes semblent concernert uniquement des animaux. Etymologiquement le terme "Veterinarian" (working on animals") pourrait convenir, mais dans l’usage courant le terme est plutôt réservé à ceux qui soignent les animaux, et le fait est qu'il semble être un chercheur plutôt qu'un soignant. Christian Ferrer (talk) 07:16, 30 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Vote on Taxonbar edit

Hi, Following the discussion about the use of template Taxonbar in Wikispecies articles, I now propose a vote. Please feel free to leave your opinion. Cheers, --Caftaric (talk) 13:59, 3 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

Is it possible to ask to add the links to taxa from the databases of the International Fossil Plant Names Index (IFPNI) [7] and Nomenclator Zoologicus [8] to the taxonbar?. Very useful databases, but not included (overlooked) in current version of taxonbar. Anna Pavlova IFPNI Staff (talk) 22:36, 19 February 2023 (UTC)Reply
@IFPNI Staff: OK, I added IFPNI but not Nomenclator Zoologicus as there is not a corresponding property in Wikidata. Christian Ferrer (talk) 05:44, 20 February 2023 (UTC)Reply
Dear Christian, thank you. Although Nomenclator is still valuable source of basic information. Anna Pavlova IFPNI Staff (talk) 07:30, 20 February 2023 (UTC)Reply
Dear Christian, making use to approach you, could you please to look how was another Wikidata IFPNI author ID (P9738) included in the for authors or not? I often see that my newly contributed authors of plant names (incl. fossils) does not have any. Thank you in advance. Anna Pavlova IFPNI Staff (talk) 21:24, 20 February 2023 (UTC)Reply
@IFPNI Staff: OK I added it to the relevant module, that seems to works well, e.g. Édouard de Verneuil. Christian Ferrer (talk) 05:46, 21 February 2023 (UTC)Reply
Dear Christian, yes, I see - it works now well. Thank you!!! Anna Pavlova IFPNI Staff (talk) 22:22, 21 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

Admin edit


Dear, Christian Ferrer! Would you accept to be an Administrator on Wikispecies? Wikispecies need more Administrators and presently there is only 22 out of 231 active users.
Please see Administrators for information about Admins rights. If you are positive, I can nominate you on the requests for adminship on your behalf.

Dan Koehl (talk) 20:11, 5 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

  • Hi, no thanks. It would be a great honor, but I am already administrator on Commons, and Commons is a project with a lot of users, and a lot of administrative issues and that's an understatement. As exemple if i had been administrator from the start i'm here I would have not used the adm. tools more than 4 or 5 times, thus I don't think there is a huge need of me being administrator. Furthermore, as I said before, Commons where I'm already administrator, badly needs active administrators, and being fully aware of this, if I should increase my maintenance work then it will be to help more my colleagues on Commons. Currently I'm very happy to add content in Wikispecies, and it's a community which on the whole is very friendly, if I feel that one day I can really help being administrator, I will reconsider my position. Thanks you again. Christian Ferrer (talk) 04:48, 6 June 2020 (UTC)Reply
Thank you Christian, maybe another time. :) Dan Koehl (talk) 16:21, 9 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

Redirecting for disambiguation edit

Hello Christian Ferrer, you have redirected Veleroa to Veleroa (disambiguation) and deleted the content for disambiguation. You copied the former content into a new Veleroa (Rhodomelaceae). This is not the correct way to do this, because the page history with its authorships of the edits is lost. If an existing page needs a disambiguation, please move it directly to the new name (here Veleroa (Rhodomelaceae)). And in a second step, you can alter the former page to a disambiguation page. Kind regards, --Thiotrix (talk) 07:45, 14 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

Linnaeus, 1758 edit

Hi Christian, in every template I always follow the order of the page number in the article or book, from lower to higher. This is the order I already found established in other tempates. Cheers.--Hector Bottai (talk) 18:16, 1 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

  • Oh ok thanks you, I did not think to that, I didn't understand the logic... I always thought that we had to write the names in alphabetical order. But well I can adapt myself when I come in a template that already use a specific established order. Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:27, 1 October 2020 (UTC)Reply
The sortable tablet is fantastic. I am personally afraid not having time for such a detail. Imagine this: Template:Bonaparte, 1850a. My other doubt is regarding links to synonyms redirects that end taking you to the same page. Great work!--Hector Bottai (talk) 17:12, 3 October 2020 (UTC)Reply
Thanks you. There are indeed several publications with a lot of new names!! I put a notification in the village pump, let's wit what the others thinks, we can delete the links to the redirects if necessary. Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:17, 3 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

Format edit

Hello Christian! I'm noted the you edit on pages previously edited by me and changed their formatting. I would like to explain some points that I do not agree with in your amendments. (1) Following this discussion, the community accepted distribution as subsection, but unfortunately it was not discussed about the aspect of formatting the content, so at least make distribution as a subsection, not in list format together holotype/type locality (2) the inclusion and the location of ZooBank is not consensual following this discussion, I don't have a strong opposition on the subject; (3) I'm always include holotype first, as in every paper of description holotype is the first nomenclatural act (ICZN: name-bearing types), so there is no reason to wikispecies be different in format of the order of the type data; (4) the include of pages in reference section is not consensual (i dont remember any discussion on this), the relevant page belong to name section (page of description), and is already cited in reference template, so there is no need a third repetition of that information. Regards, Burmeister (talk) 21:46, 24 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

  • Ok, no problem for all is written above:
    • "distribution as subsection": ok, I was not aware.
    • "holotype/type locality": ok, I putted the type locality above because I saw one administrator said it should be above, but I don't remember who, I guess it was likely in the Village Pump, but ok the holotype placed above is very fine for me. I was guessing to do well.
    • "ZooBank", indeed there is no consensus, however a name can have 10 synonyms, and each synonyms can have a Zoobank record. As far I know a zoobank record is for one and only one name, so If 10 Zoobank records are put in the reference section that would be ununderstandable and it will be really boring. In all cases a Zoobank record is for one specific name.
    • "the include of pages in reference section", I saw many pages with that and a lot of experimented editors such as Neferkheperre or Thriorix to do such things, e.g. , therefore I guessed to do well. But ok I will try to be carefull not to be repetitive, if any. And I saw tha you removed that stuff, ok again, though it is a pity as my info was quite complete with the right pagination and the reference to the figures. Please if you find such stuff in other pages and that the infos are not already available, e.g. for additional reference, then please don't remove it. Christian Ferrer (talk) 22:32, 24 November 2020 (UTC)Reply
About the last one, some users use others don't, if at least we have a consensus about that (inclusion: yes or no? what to include? and how to include that kind of information) will help a lot. I restaure the information in your diff, despite my disagreement. Best Regards Burmeister (talk) 23:15, 24 November 2020 (UTC)Reply
Ok, I thank you for all these remarks and I shall bear your comments in mind. And yes I agree we need consensus not only about that but also about a lot of other stuff like the format (bold/not bold; bulleted list or not, ect...). I have no strong opinions about each of those points but we currently see a lot of different things in Wikispecies, and often those things were done by experimented user, so it is hard to understand what excatly is to follow. IMO we need a complete and concrete example in the help section. Sorry again if I disturbed you, my goal is to add interesting and useful content, and no to have the last word on the format used. Thank you again. Christian Ferrer (talk) 08:20, 25 November 2020 (UTC)Reply
No problem! The lack of a consensual format makes each one establish their own formats, which will cause conflict someday. Perhaps we should start discussing some points of formatting to build a model to standardize the pages. Burmeister (talk) 14:14, 25 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

Mireille Théobald (talk) 08:42, 18 January 2021 (UTC)==Références== Bonsoir, Je vous remercie pour cette main secourable! Je suis justement en cours de lecture du document anglais sur les références et je cherchais la signification de "ISSN" ou ISBN ou DOI.( On nous recommande de lier le nom de la revue à sa page ISSN). J'essaie de préparer la transformation des références et je suis perplexe, car la notice anglaise recommande de mettre le nom de l'auteur encadré par des accolades {{|Nicolas THEOBALD| THEOBALD,N.}}. Or,dans des pages en français sur la syntaxe, on préconisait l'emploi d'agrafes [[ ]]; comment choisir? Le 3 Janvier, j'avais essayé de placer la liste des cartes géologiques faites par mon père; elle avait été immédiatement supprimée et en effet cette tentative n'a pas été enregistrée dans l'historique. Que signifie le "a" placé devant les noms d'auteurs? Je suivrai votre conseil de supprimer le numérotage des références. Merci d'avance.Reply

  • @Mireille Théobald: il faut aussi que vous appreniez quelque rudiments sur le fonctionnement général. Pour commencer lorsque vous entamez une nouvelle discussion dans une page de discussion, il faut faire une nouvelle section, pour cela 2 solutions: soit vous cliquez sur l'onglet "Ajouter un sujet", soit vous modifier toute la page mais il faut alors commencer par ajouter un titre, comme je viens de le faire, ici en rajoutant ==Références==. Sur cette page vous trouverez quelques clés pour vous aidez. Une autre chose très importante dans tous les projets Wikimedia, c'est de signer les messages que l'on écrits dans les pages de discussions ou dans les forums, cela se fait avec ceci: ~~~~. Une manière très simple de signer c'est lorsque vous ouvrez une page en mode "édition", vous avez en bas de la page un cadre avec toute une série de lien, en cliquant sur l'une des choses de ce cadre cela la fait apparaitre dans la page que vous éditez. En l’occurrence pour signer vous cliquez sur Sign your username: ~~~~, et c'est tout.
En ce qui concerne l'ISSN, ce n'est pas le plus important pour vous qui débutez, ni le principal, mais je vais vous expliquez. Ici sur Wikispecies nous avons des pages pour certains ISSN, il y en a beaucoup mais la liste n'est pas du tout exhaustive, la liste se trouve catégorisée ici Category:ISSN. Mais ne vous embêtez pas à chercher dans cette liste, pour trouver un ISSN vous tapez le nom du journal dans la barre de recherche en haut de la page, par exemple essayer avec Botanical Gazette, normalement il y a un résultat et ce résultat vous mène à l'ISSN correspondant. Dans les références l'utilisation de l'ISSN est simple, avec ceci: [[ISSN 0006-8071|''Botanical Gazette'']] vous obtenez cela: Botanical Gazette. Mais si vous n'utilisez pas cela, en tout cas pas au début cela, ce n'est pas grave, le principal est de mettre le nom du journal en italique.
En ce qui concerne DOI, lorsque vous les connaissez n'hésitez pas à les utiliser, cela fournit un lien vers l'article en ligne. Par exemple voici le DOI d'un des articles de votre père, l'utilisation: {{doi|10.2113/gssgfbull.S7-V.4.532}} donne DOI: 10.2113/gssgfbull.S7-V.4.532. On place ceci à la fin de la référence.
Pour le nom de l'auteur if faut utiliser le modèle {{A}}. 3 utilisations possibles: après le nom d'un taxon {{a|Nicolas Théobald|Théobald}}Théobald, dans une référence {{a|Nicolas Théobald|Théobald, N.}} Théobald, N., ou dans du texte {{a|Nicolas Théobald}}Nicolas Théobald. Pour vous c'est la deuxième qui vous intéresse: {{a|Nicolas Théobald|Théobald, N.}} Théobald, N.
Pour le 3 janvier, il y a en effet un problème, vous avez été stoppé par notre logiciel filtre anti "obcénité"[9]? mais qu'avez vous essayé d'écrire?? je vais me renseigner. Christian Ferrer (talk) 21:10, 16 January 2021 (UTC)Reply
Non, non ce n'est pas un problème d’obscénité, le logiciel vous a bloqué car il semble que vous ayez essayé d'écrire tout en majuscule. Désolé je présume que cela vient du fait que lorsque les gens sont en trop en colère ils écrivent en majuscules car ils ne peuvent pas crier, du coup je pense que l'on utilise ce moyen pour garder les débats le plus calme possible. Christian Ferrer (talk) 21:55, 16 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

Bonjour, Christian Ferrer, je vous remercie d'avoir répondu avec beaucoup de patience et de détails.

Pour ajouter un sujet, j'ai bien noté comment procéder. En ce qui concerne la signature, normalement, j'y pense; mais hier, pendant que je terminais mon message, un pompier a sonné chez moi pour me proposer son calendrier et recevoir ses étrennes!!! et j'ai fermé l'ordinateur trop vite. Je vous prie de m'excuser.
J'ai recopié tous vos conseils sur ISSN et DOI; je vois que ces détails peuvent être ajoutés dans une deuxième phase.
Pour le moment, les codes pour les références sont précieux. Un contributeur de Wikipédia a d'ailleurs fait une expérience sur les 3 premiers articles et je vais pouvoir continuer en mettant en gras les noms d'auteurs et les titres les plus importants.
Pour la sous-section des cartes géologiques, en effet, j'avais mis en majuscules tous les titres de cartes, pour que l'ensemble se voie mieux. Cette disposition a visiblement beaucoup choqué, mais je sais ce que je dois éviter. Maintenant, je vais réviser la liste des titres, par petits paquets; car l'ordinateur est souvent coupé. Nous n'avons pas encore "la fibre" et le débit de la ligne est faible. Encore un grand Merci et Bonne Journée.Mireille Théobald (talk) 08:42, 18 January 2021 (UTC)Reply
Pas de problème, à votre disposition. Christian Ferrer (talk) 10:05, 18 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

/* NOTES ET MÉMOIRES DE GÉOLOGIE */ Mise en conformité des références (en cours)Mireille Théobald (talk) 11:01, 23 January 2021 (UTC) edit

Bonjour, La semaine dernière, vous m'avez donné de précieux conseils sur la mise en conformité de la liste complète des publications de Nicolas THEOBALD: 236 références pour cette sous-section. Je suis arrivée à revoir 90 titres et je continue... Si vous en avez le temps un de ces jours, pourrez-vous examiner le résultat et me dire si la présentation sera acceptée. Je vous en remercie à l'avance.--Mireille Théobald (talk) 11:01, 23 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Mireille Théobald: Bonjour, à priori c'est plutôt en bonne voie, beau travail. Je ne pense pas qu'il soit d'usage de mettre les titres les plus important en caractère gras, je poserai la question au forum. Par contre ce que l'on pourra faire dans un second temps si vous le souhautez, c'est si vous connaissez la liste des taxons décrits par votre père ainsi que dans quelles publications ils ont été publiés, c'est de faire des modèles ("template" en anglais) pour ces publications que l'on pourra potentiellement transclure dans des pages dédiées au taxons. Example {{Say, 1823}} qui est transclus à la fois dans la page auteur mais aussi en tant que référence dans les pages taxons. Mais finissez d'abord tranquillement ce que vous avez commencé. Christian Ferrer (talk) 15:48, 23 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

Bonjour, Je vous remercie pour vos encouragements, que je viens seulement de découvrir. J'ai beaucoup de progrès à faire pour déjà remarquer les boutons à cliquer! Je continue doucement la remise en forme de la liste: 20 par jour, car ces petites lettres sont fatigantes pour les yeux. J'ai vu en effet qu'il y a une section prévue pour les "taxons", à zéro pour le moment, et j'ambitionne de faire une liste de taxons, que j'augmenterai progressivement. En effet, mon père a identifié au moins 300 espèces, surtout des insectes oligocènes , mais aussi des poissons ou des batraciens permiens, dans les mines de la Sarre. Quand j'aurai fini ma liste de l'ensemble des publications, je ferai un essai sous votre direction; j'ai tous les livres et les articles avec des dessins et des photos. Je peux donc pour chaque espèce préciser la page où elle est décrite. Merci--Mireille Théobald (talk) 10:14, 27 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

Super, et merci de partager toutes ces informations, elles enrichissent Wikispecies et rendent hommage à votre père par la même occasion! Christian Ferrer (talk) 16:18, 27 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

Bonjour, Ce matin, j'ai terminé la mise en conformité des 236 références de "Notes et Mémoires de Géologie" et j'ai commencé la liste des cartes géologiques. J'ai à nouveau recours à vos conseils pour la présentation. Je sais que l'on n'aime pas les majuscules, mais il me semble que si je mettais en majuscules ou en caractères gras les noms de villes des cartes (exemple FERRETTE, SARREBOURG, etc, la liste serait plus claire??? Je vous remercie à l'avance pour votre avis.Mireille Théobald (talk) 10:19, 31 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

  • @Mireille Théobald: Bonjour, beau travail, non honnêtement, majuscules ou en caractères gras ce n'est pas vraiment notre façon de faire, c'est plutôt découragé , et la quinzaine que vous avez fais sont très claire. Cela aurait peut-être même l'effet inverse "trop chargé". Je vois qu'il y a 5 publications en haut de la page et ensuite une section "NOTES ET MÉMOIRES DE GÉOLOGIE", cela veut dire qu'elles ne font pas parties de cette section?, et cela veut-il dire que toutes les publications jusqu'à la section "CARTES GÉOLOGIQUES" font partis de la section "NOTES ET MÉMOIRES DE GÉOLOGIE"? Christian Ferrer (talk) 14:41, 31 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

Bonjour et un grand Merci pour votre réponse. Je vais continuer à faire la liste des cartes géologiques chronologiquement et sans majuscules ni caractères gras. En ce qui concerne les 5 titres en haut de la page, dont deux sont d'ailleurs identiques, ils étaient là avant que je commence mon travail personnel. Au début, je les avais supprimés, car ils étaient cités dans la liste que j'avais essayé d'établir; mais cette liste n'étant pas du tout conforme avait été immédiatement supprimée et les 5 publications sont réapparues. Depuis, je n'ose pas y toucher. La section publications, dans mon idée, doit comprendre 3 sous-sections: 1: Notes et Mémoires de Géologie est la liste complète chronologique des articles et livres de N. Théobald, où toutes les communications aux Académies sont également répertoriées, car les différents sites des Bibliothèques ne donnent rien de complet. Evidemment, avec 236 références, c'est très long. 2: Liste des cartes géologiques. Et il y aura encore une sous-section 3: seulement 6 titres pour les "Autres publications" non géologiques. Ensuite, en tête de l'article, je remettrai une section pour les taxons, qui était prévue au départ, mais aucun taxon n'était cité. J'ai dû faire une fausse manoeuvre au moment où j'ai écrit que Nicolas Théobald en avait identifié 300. Je vais essayer de rétablir ce titre. Je ne me décourage pas!Mireille Théobald (talk) 08:41, 1 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

Ok je jetterai un coup d’œil sur ces 5 publications. Christian Ferrer (talk) 08:53, 1 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

Illustration edit

On the page Lepadomorpha, the barnacle illustrated is Pollicipes pollicipes, which is not a lepadomorph under present definition. It would go wonderfully on its mainpage. A much better image for Lepadomorpha would be Lepas anatifera, which is the most prominent species on present definition. Neferkheperre (talk) 20:59, 10 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

Fromia elegans edit

I noticed that you redirected this page for Fromia elegans Clark to Fromia indica, because Fromia elegans Engle is a synonym of that species. This happened on Wikipedia, before, also, but I researched and found that Clark differentiated them as two separate species, so perhaps instead of redirecting, disambiguation is more appropriate, unless there have been more recent developments. I haven't edited this wiki in a while, so I wanted to ask before I did something. Cheers. PC-XT (talk) 02:41, 18 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

  • Hello, I don't think a disambiguation page is adequate here, I never seen that for such cases in Wikispecies, it is usually for homonymy. IMO either the Fromia elegans need to exist or it need to be redirected. I see that a french user who is marine biologist created a page for it explaining that the species is controversed. Christopher Mah, the Asteroidea specialist, in WoRMS putted it as a synonym, this is likely why I redirected it here. It seems that after A.M. Clark another author putted it in synonymy, I think it's Marsh, L. M. (1977) Coral reef asteroids of Palau, Caroline Islands. Micronesica, 13 (2), 251 - 281; but I am quite busy with some family problems and I don't have the time to check, sorry. I don't have a strong opinion if either we create a page or if we keep the redirect. Feel free to make other comments here if you wish. Regards, Christian Ferrer (talk) 07:31, 18 August 2021 (UTC)Reply
  • Oh, in Mah, Christopher L., 2018, New genera, species and occurrence records of Goniasteridae (Asteroidea; Echinodermata) from the Indian Ocean, Zootaxa 4539 (1), pp. 1-116: 35-38, Christopher Mah list it as a synonym too. See [10] so I think we should keep it as a redirect. Christian Ferrer (talk) 07:35, 18 August 2021 (UTC)Reply