Reference templates with doi



When have you finish the reference templates with doi?PeterR (talk) 08:58, 25 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

@PeterR: what, like adding the {{Access}} template? Circeus (talk) 14:45, 25 February 2020 (UTC)Reply
What do you mean? PeterR (talk) 11:47, 1 March 2020 (UTC) You started with the updates, so you have to finish it.PeterR (talk) 11:48, 1 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
This answer literally tells me absolutely nothing about what it is you want me to do. Circeus (talk) 18:10, 2 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

Update re: Hylotelephieae paper


I had almost given up on the article but it (as far as I can tell) silently moved onto the first round of peer review on February 6. It only took 4 month... Circeus (talk) 05:44, 29 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

Not bad. My last paper with Zootaxa went into limbo for 10 months after passing peer review. — The preceding unsigned comment was added by Neferkheperre (talkcontribs) 09:15, February 29, 2020.
Heh, so much for "fast" publication... Circeus (talk) 15:22, 29 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Michael Goodyear and Andyboorman: SO. A new open-access paper just came out today which focuses somewhat EXACTLY on our area of interest. This may well explain the delays that have plagued the process for our paper. So, the question is: do you think this paper can be considered to resolve Umbiliceae as a clade that includes Hylothelephieae or not? If yes, I can see about pulling our paper out since the problem would be considered solved. Circeus (talk) 21:13, 4 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. I'm digesting it, and incorporating it into the relevant WP pages. It is a timely, if not overdue addition. If ours comes back for revision, we can incorporate this. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 00:40, 16 September 2020 (UTC)Reply
Well, the way I'm reading it, it's essentially stating outright that Umbiliceae and "hylotelephieae" form a monophyletic clade, so there's no need anymore for our paper. Circeus (talk) 00:43, 16 September 2020 (UTC)Reply
If accepted by other Crassulaceae taxonomists, but I still think we provide a historical context. Let us see what comes out of reviews. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 16:58, 16 September 2020 (UTC)Reply
Erm... This is a little embarrassing. You hadn't been active in a long while, and after a week without responses from you or Andy, I had already made the request, which was accepted by the time you actually answered... Circeus (talk) 18:18, 16 September 2020 (UTC)Reply
Not so much inactive, as that this topic has been languishing for an extraordinary long time, not that it is anyone's fault here. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 18:08, 30 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

We sent you an e-mail


Hello Circeus,

Really sorry for the inconvenience. This is a gentle note to request that you check your email. We sent you a message titled "The Community Insights survey is coming!". If you have questions, email

You can see my explanation here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:45, 25 September 2020 (UTC)Reply


{{FNZ}} is another one you could add to Category:Literature link templates. I would do it myself, but I don't seem to have permission to edit the page. Monster Iestyn (talk) 16:31, 17 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Monster Iestyn: It's not even functional right now, and I'm not sure the series is still online. Circeus (talk) 18:54, 17 October 2020 (UTC)Reply
That's strange wasn't all that long ago the links worked for me. Wayback Machine even has archives of the site from a few months ago earlier this year. Must be a very recent update to the website. Monster Iestyn (talk) 19:05, 17 October 2020 (UTC)Reply
The Biotaxa archive is still up at least, we can access the series from there. Besides that though, there are only 50 templates using the FNZ template, so hopefully it should be easy to get rid of the FNZ template itself. Monster Iestyn (talk) 19:39, 17 October 2020 (UTC)Reply
Update: Just found the series website has moved to this address: [1]. There are still PDF downloads to all of the volumes, but the volumes no longer have their own pages, and all the DOIs lead to the old pages (which now give HTTP 404 errors). Monster Iestyn (talk) 20:36, 17 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

ISSN 0169-345X


I have changed ISSN 0169-345X from Agricultural University Wageningen Papers to Flore Analytique du Bénin, as they both have the same ISSN but only appear in the IPNI reference of the latest journal. Can they be the same with a different name? regards.--MILEPRI (talk) 08:46, 10 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

@MILEPRI: They are not "the same with a different name": The Flora is a single book, not a series. However (and this is where IPNI messed up by being very much unclear about that), it also constitutes an issue (either 106 or 106-2, I'm not clear what the -2 is for in this case) of Agricultural University Wageningen Papers! Circeus (talk) 15:12, 10 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

Publications lists in ISSN pages


Since I noticed you were removing lists of publications from these pages, I just noticed ISSN 0951-2446 and ISSN 0269-3542 have an extensive list of them (and use they use the {{Publications}} template). Should the publications be removed from these pages too? Monster Iestyn (talk) 16:55, 17 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Monster Iestyn: Those two journals are unusual cases. I remove publication lists of individual articles, but these are templates for issues owing to the fact these journals were mostly written by a single contributor, so exceptionally I'm leaving them alone. Circeus (talk) 16:58, 17 March 2021 (UTC)Reply
Oh, I see, that makes sense. Monster Iestyn (talk) 16:59, 17 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

Re:Lasia caerulea/Lasia coerulea


Hi, just so you know, I decided to move Lasia caerulea to Apsona caerulea in the end, given the lack of evidence that anyone places it in Lasia outside of Schlinger's PhD thesis. This probably solves the homonymy for now, in a way. Monster Iestyn (talk) 17:45, 20 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Monster Iestyn: Agree entirely with that solution. If I'd noticed that Schlinger's combination (I don,t remember if I had actually tracked it as the source) wasn't even available, I would have sorted it myself. Makes me wonder why Stephen had it in Lasia in the first place... Circeus (talk) 18:38, 20 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

Wikispecies in Publications


Heya I have a book review for Phyllomedusa (Journal) I wrote coming out in a couple of weeks, review is of the TTWG Turtles of the World Checklist 2021. I am not a fan of adding my own papers to these. I will send you a link as soon as it is published for you to add it mentions both Wikispecies and Wikipedia. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 14:50, 20 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

Heya, book review came out I mentioned. It mentions both Wikispecies and Wikipedia. for download. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 22:12, 21 December 2021 (UTC)Reply
It's a little awkward. I mean, I don't mind putting the article in as such. It's just that the page was intended more for material that originates from or specifically discusses Wikispecies content. But then admittedly I'm the only one who bothers with it anyway so maybe I shouldn't get too hung up... Circeus (talk) 22:31, 22 December 2021 (UTC)Reply
I was not sure how you wanted this hence the other reason I just let you know rather than add it myself. Perfectly fine with me, just wanted to keep you up to date. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 21:25, 23 December 2021 (UTC)Reply



Dear friend: It was discussed somewhere, sometime, that when a taxon becomes a synonym and already has its own page, to keep it, not to lose all the info. My best.--Hector Bottai (talk) 13:25, 21 December 2021 (UTC)Reply


Hello Circeus. Thanks for the recent fixes of journal/ISSN links in my latest reference template edits. Rather odd that I missed them, but it was late at night/very early morning, so perhaps that's why. I'm happy you mended them. Kind regards, Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 13:03, 23 December 2021 (UTC).Reply


Hi Circeus. Reason I have been using two links is because they are slightly different. DOI link brings you to the reference entry on the Zootaxa page. Extra clicking is necessary to get pdf. PDF link I am providing directly calls up pdf, bypassing reference entry. Neferkheperre (talk) 23:20, 30 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

How we will see unregistered users



You get this message because you are an admin on a Wikimedia wiki.

When someone edits a Wikimedia wiki without being logged in today, we show their IP address. As you may already know, we will not be able to do this in the future. This is a decision by the Wikimedia Foundation Legal department, because norms and regulations for privacy online have changed.

Instead of the IP we will show a masked identity. You as an admin will still be able to access the IP. There will also be a new user right for those who need to see the full IPs of unregistered users to fight vandalism, harassment and spam without being admins. Patrollers will also see part of the IP even without this user right. We are also working on better tools to help.

If you have not seen it before, you can read more on Meta. If you want to make sure you don’t miss technical changes on the Wikimedia wikis, you can subscribe to the weekly technical newsletter.

We have two suggested ways this identity could work. We would appreciate your feedback on which way you think would work best for you and your wiki, now and in the future. You can let us know on the talk page. You can write in your language. The suggestions were posted in October and we will decide after 17 January.

Thank you. /Johan (WMF)

18:19, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

IP edits


Hello Circeus. I'm curious: what's up with the edits made to User:Circeus/Homonyms by several different unregistered IP users? Are the edits okay and legitimate, or anything we should react to? Kind regards, Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 17:07, 8 March 2022 (UTC).Reply

thanks for your concern, Tommy. Someone seems to have taken an interest in that old pet project. The edits are accurate, thought I have no idea where they come from or why they bother with them instead of updating the actual pages. Circeus (talk) 00:33, 9 March 2022 (UTC)Reply
(Please excuse my late reply.) First I thought it was you who made the changes to the Homonyms page without bothering to log in – which of course would be okay – but then I noticed that all of the different IPs are assigned to an Internet service provider in France rather than Quebec. That raised a (small) red flag so even though the edits looked okay I thought I should ask, especially since you're an admin. Anyway, as long as the IP edits aren't malicious I guess everything is fine, so I'll lower that red flag of mine. :-) Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 23:52, 23 March 2022 (UTC).Reply

A few corrections to some Chrysomelidae genera records on IRMNG


Hi! If you're free to make some other corrections to IRMNG unrelated to the Dejean catalogue genera:

Both the Müller, 1764 names were published in the same publication that other names such as Cryptocephalus Müller, 1764 and Luperus Müller, 1764 come from, that being Fauna insectorum fridrichsdalina ({{Müller, 1764}}), or more specifically its roman numeral pages (in particular xiii and xiv in these cases). It's possible there are other Müller, 1764 vs Geoffroy, 1762 records on IRMNG that need to be corrected in other beetle families, but I have not really bothered to check to be honest, these are just the ones that are bugging me right now. Monster Iestyn (talk) 16:21, 13 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

Done, thank you, Iestyn. I'm still intending on a B&B follow up eventually, BTW. The folks at VLIZ sent me a file that should uncover any Dejean name I forgot to cite B&B on as well as other synonym in Dejean that came from a species (at least if that name was in Neave), but I'm sure I'll have a grand ol' time skimming them myself. Circeus (talk) 00:27, 14 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

Another template to possibly deprecate


Since you've been clearing away some old templates by Stho002 earlier, another one to get rid eventually of is Template:FNZ, which has about 50 templates linking to it left last I checked. Monster Iestyn (talk) 17:26, 1 October 2022 (UTC)Reply

Removal of Admin Tools


Hi Circeus, as per the discussion on the Admin Review your admin rights have been removed. Under admin review this is not a penalty just a safety protocol with respect to advanced tools. If you wish to and believe you can dedicate time to this role again in the future you are welcome to do an RfA to re-acquire these rights. Thank you for your time, effort and service to wikispecies. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 17:55, 28 March 2024 (UTC)Reply