User talk:IFPNI Staff/Archive 1

Welcome to Wikispecies!

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:

• Help:Contents provides a good introduction to editing Wikispecies.
• Templates are there to help you following syntax and formatting rules.
• Have a look at Done and to do.

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 20:15, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Link

You use of DJVU in reference templates does not appear to function at all. Can you fix it? Andyboorman (talk) 18:13, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Please explain why you changed the template

Hello IFPNI Staff, and many thanks for your contributions regarding Alexander B. Doweld and his numerous publications! However, I wonder why you suddenly made this change to the {{Doweld, 2013d}} template you had created just six hours earlier? Is Doweld's Proposal 2187–2188 (from the original version of the template) not a valid reference? Or was there any other reason to replace it with Proposal 2190? Why not simply keep the old template with P2187–2188, and create a new one with P2190?

Best regards, and happy editing,
–Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 18:58, 31 May 2021 (UTC).

Copaifera copaibo

Thank you for providing the reference. The combination is not on IPNI, but I know they are behind the curve due to Covid. Regards Andyboorman (talk) 08:06, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Good job, IFPNI Staff. I've created the Wikidata equivalent to match it, including a link to Wikispecies: Q107058500. Regards, Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 08:42, 1 June 2021 (UTC).

@Tommy Kronkvist: & @Andyboorman: Thank you for your patience and critical comments, you are very welcome since I am very new in WikiSpecies Team. Kind regards, Anna Pavlova, IFPNI ME IFPNI Staff (talk). —The preceding undated comment was added 13:50, 18 July 2021

IFPNI author IDs

Hello IFPNI Staff. I've added a proposal at Wikidata to add a Wikidata property for IFPNI author IDs, in the same way as the already present IPNI ID property. It can be found here: Wikidata:Property proposal/Authority control#IFPNI authorID. If it's accepted we will then be able to fetch IFPNI author IDs from Wikidata in the same way as we do with the {{IPNI standard form}} template today. It's a fairly slow process though, as creating Wikidata properties is not taken easily upon. It'll be at least a week, if at all accepted. Best regards, Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 06:57, 7 July 2021 (UTC).

@Tommy Kronkvist: Good idea! Is it possible also to create an authority control for the authors in botany: Harvard Index of Botanists. We are online with Harvard Editors of this Index. Kind regards, Anna Pavlova, ME IFPNI Ifpni Staff (talk). —The preceding undated comment was added 13:48, 18 July 2021

I don't know, but I will check! I can edit Wikidata and create so called "Wikidata items" (for example Q107549527 for Anatolij Nikolaevich Ivanov) but I haven't got the user rights to create so called "Wikidata properties" which are needed for the "items" to work. However, I can make a proposal at Wikidata and ask that someone of their administrators create such a "property". It will take a couple of days though, because I have to read up on the Harvard Index system first, so I'll know what to ask for. :-)

As a side note, I see that you haven't added a timestamp to some of your edits here at your talk page. I've added them for you since then, so no worries. The easiest way to add both the signature and the date/time-stamp to your edits is to add four "tilde" symbols (~) to the end of your message, like this: ~~~~ That will automatically add your user name as a signature and add the correct timestamp. Kind regards, Tommy Kronkvist (talk) 16:30, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Dear Tommy! Where is possible to obtain a template or so to use IFPNI Author in the pages dedicated to the authors? With thanks for advise, Anna Pavlova IFPNI Staff (talk) 23:55, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Placement of category calls

Hi. Please note that categories should always be placed as the very last items in a Wikispecies page, i.e. "at the very bottom". This is praxis for all of Wikimedia, and the reason (among others) is to avoid adding duplicate categories (which may otherwise occur since most users only look for categories at the bottom of the page, not in the middle of an article). Instead, you've frequently added the categories to the "Name" section, i.e. in the middle of the page. An example can be seen here.

I'm in the process of fixing all of the incorrectly placed categories you've added so far – so no worries! – however in future edits please add all categories to the bottom. Apart from this: thank you for your very welcome contributions!

Best regards, Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 09:41, 11 July 2021 (UTC).

Chytridiomycetes daughter taxa ranks

Hello again. Please have a look at these three pages you created yesterday: Zygochytriaceae, Zygochytriales and above all Zygochytridiales. For example, what taxon rank does Zygochytridiales have? Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 03:09, 18 July 2021 (UTC).

@Tommy Kronkvist: Thank you! Please help to remove the incorrect spelling entry Zygochytridiales. I could not find an idea to correct this lapsus. Kind regards, Anna Pavlova, IFPNI Managing Editor IFPNI Staff. —The preceding undated comment was added 13:42, 18 July 2021

I've now deleted the Zygochytridiales page. Requesting deletions can be done by adding the {{delete}} template to the top of page you wish to remove. It's also possible (but not necessary) to add a reason for your request, for example {{delete|Incorrect spelling}}, {{delete|Duplicate of "taxon name"}} or {{delete|Vandalism}} and so forth.

The {{delete}} template will automatically add the page to Category:Candidates for speedy deletion. That category is frequently monitored by administrators, and after reviewing your request an administrator will soon delete the page.

Thank you very much for your very welcome contributions to Wikispecies! Kinds regards, Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 14:24, 18 July 2021 (UTC).

Consistency of names

Hi, You changed the spelling of "L'rovich" to "L'vovich" at Ivan L'rovich Serbinow, but the page name remains unchanged, as do labels in various languages on Wikidata (at d:Q21608682). Please try to maintain consistency, or, if you cannot, please ask at the Village Pump for someone to assist you. Cheers, Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:05, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing: Dear Andy! I corrected the lapsus mistype mistake in the name, and wrote to the IPNI to ask to correct their files, which were widely in error disseminated from their database through the web. I thought that control editors of WikiSpecies could correct the page name automatically after my initial edits, since I am still new to WikiSpecies. Could you please help or I should write every time for such lapsus cases to Pump? Anna Pavlova, IFPNI ME IFPNI Staff (talk) 23:10, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

It is unsafe to assume that such edits will be noticed by others; if you cannot rename (move) a page yourself, then I would always ask explicitly for someone to do so for you. It will help if you can cite a source, or at least give a reason, both in your request and in your edits or edit summaries. Where a misspelled or wrongly-transliterated name is widely in circulation, a note to that effect will also help, as will leaving a redirect from the incorrect name. I've now moved the page, added a note, and fixed all the inbound links. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:01, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing: Dear Andy! Thank you! Frankly speaking, I thought that orthographic errors would be eliminated in a different manner from WikiSpecies. I could made 'redirect', but erroneously thought that editing should be different. Anna Pavlova, IFPNI ME IFPNI Staff (talk) 14:12, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Which author?

Hello. Do you know which Léveillé is mentioned on the Erysiphaceae page? –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 20:54, 20 July 2021 (UTC).

@Tommy Kronkvist: Yes, of course! I corrected the entry J.H.Léveillé, I just forgot that you might have in addition zoologist people, not governed by the abbreviation standard of the IPNI. Kind regards, Anna Pavlova, IFPNI Managing Editor IFPNI Staff (talk) 23:24, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Wrong link in reference template

The link to the abstract given in the {{L.Chu Li, 1989}} template created by you isn't correct. It links to an abstract of a paper called "In vitro clonal propagation of ginger sprouts" by Wang Huaizhi instead of "Studies on the cytotaxonomy and systematic position of Taxodiaceae Warming" by Lin Chu Li. Do you know the correct link? –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 22:08, 20 July 2021 (UTC).

@Tommy Kronkvist: Dear Tommy, a really strange situation. I used the abbreviated form of the link from this site (at the bottom), but their link is going to another paper. I corrected the entry. Thank you for your scrupulous attention and patience to my still primary edits! Kind regards, Anna Pavlova, IFPNI Managing Editor IFPNI Staff (talk) 23:29, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Which Taxonavigation template?

Hi. Which Taxonavigation template would be the correct one for the Polyphagaceae page? Currently it uses {{Monoblepharomycetes}}, which has never been created. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 11:15, 31 July 2021 (UTC).

@Tommy Kronkvist: Dear Tommy, the correct name for this class of fungi should be {{Monoblepharomycetes}}, the incorrect one is used in Wiki as {{Monoblepharidomycetes}}. I tried to correct it, but perhaps was not successful. Anna Pavlova, IFPNI ME IFPNI Staff (talk) 19:13, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Dear Anna. You hade redirected the template Template:Monoblepharomycetes to the taxon page Monoblepharidomycetes instead of to another template. I'm sure it was a so called "honest mistake" on your behalf, but it still caused some confusion. I have now changed the redirect to the template Template:Monoblepharidomycetes instead – but it is still a bit confusing… However, of course we can fix it!

Should it be Monoblepharomycota followed by

• Subdivisio: Monoblepharomycotina
  • Classis: Monoblepharomycetes
    • Ordo: Polyphagales
      • Familiae: Polyphagaceae …

or something else? Please state the correct "nomenclature" here, and we can then start to sort out all errors (if any). Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 19:51, 3 August 2021 (UTC).

@Tommy Kronkvist: Dear Tommy, your sequence and names are absolutely correct. Thank you for your patience and willing to help with some complex cases to me. Anna Pavlova, IFPNI ME IFPNI Staff (talk) 19:54, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

You're welcome! I've had a busy day though, and "yesterday" I only slept between 05:30 and 10 AM this morning (and it's now 22:11 PM here). Hence I need some more sleep before challenging the nomenclature of the Monoblephapolypharidomyceae complex... I'll be back tomorrow though. Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 20:11, 3 August 2021 (UTC).

Coenomyces

The genus Coenomyces is currently incertae sedis here. If you look at its page, it is placed in the divisio, but not into any lower ranked taxa. It should therefore not be removed as you have done here [1], because that is the lowest rank where the genus is listed. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:22, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

@EncycloPetey: Dear colleague, Coenomyces is currently placed from 2014 to a distinct family, order, and class, Coenomycetaceae, Coenomycetales, and Coenomycetes. Anna Pavlova, IFPNI ME IFPNI Staff (talk) 18:49, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Talking about Chytridiomycota, is it possible to specifiy which one of the many possible "Fischer" who is the author of "Archimycetes Fischer, 1892, pro parte" and "Chytridinae Fischer, 1892, pro parte" listed on the Chytridiomycota page? At the moment they only link to the Fischer disambiguation page, which lists 19 different authors. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 17:38, 3 August 2021 (UTC).

@Tommy Kronkvist: Dear Tommy, no problem to specify Fischer. Done. Anna Pavlova, IFPNI ME IFPNI Staff (talk) 18:49, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

No, unfortunately it doesn't. Yes it does now... Ten minutes ago it didn't. ;-) Thank you! Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 19:11, 3 August 2021 (UTC).

Autopatrolled rights

Dear IFPNI Staff, You have been granted autopatrolled user rights, which may be granted to experienced Wikispecies users who have demonstrated an understanding of Wikispecies policies and guidelines. In addition to what registered users can do, autopatrollers can have one's own edits automatically marked as patrolled (autopatrol). The autopatrol user right is intended to reduce the workload of new page patrollers and causes pages created by autopatrolled users to be automatically marked as patrolled. For more information, read Wikispecies:Autopatrollers.

This user has autopatrolled rights on Wikispecies. (verify)

You may as autopatrolled use the autopatrolled user box on your user page. Copy and paste the following code on your user page: {{User Autopatrolled}}

If you have a Meta-Wiki user page, you can put the user box for Meta on your Meta-Wiki user page.

There's always a need of patrolling files edited by unregistered users, and if you think you have a good understanding of Wikispecies policies and guidelines and want to help out with patrolling, you can request patrol rights at Patroller.

–Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 16:27, 5 August 2021 (UTC).

@Tommy Kronkvist: Dear Tommy and colleagues, thank you very much for granting the autopatrolled status. It is a honour to us, and I promise to be useful for WikiSpecies community. Anna Pavlova, IFPNI ME IFPNI Staff (talk) 16:11, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Taxonavigation templates

Hello IFPNI Staff, please do not remove the taxonavigation templates of existing taxon pages, e.g. this edit. If a taxon needs to be placed into another parent taxon, it is not necessary to edit the taxon page. Just alter its template, here Template:Obelidium. For more info about the taxonavigation section in Wikispecies and the use of templates, see Help:Taxonavigation section, or do not hesitate to ask, if you have questions about it. Kind regards, --Thiotrix (talk) 07:47, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

I agree. This is important, since removing the taxonavigation template (for example {{Obelidium}}) also removes all the information about higher taxa; in this case all taxon names from Obelidium up to Eukaryota. In essence, the page no longer even say whether Obelidium is a plant or an animal… This is wrong, and it is important that we retain the full "taxon-tree" of all taxa. Keeping the Taxonavigation section intact also helps when a user is searching Wikispecies for related taxa (for example Rhizidiaceae, which you unfortunaley removed from the page when you removed the taxonavigation template), or when our server software is taking care of maintenance (indexing categories etc). Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 13:25, 9 August 2021 (UTC).

new taxon pages, e.g. Spiromycetales and subtaxa

Hello IFPNI Staff, your newly created taxon pages are rather incomplete yet. 1. Please search first in the literature or online, which is the parent taxon. 2. Make a new taxonavigation template for this taxon, e.g. Template:Spiromycetales, see Help:Project_Templates for explanations. 3. In the new taxon page, call this template just below the taxonavigation heading, between pairs of curved brackets: {{Spiromycetales}}, and the complete taxonavigation will be shown. The templates seem to be a bit complicated for new editors, but they are very useful: if a taxon is moved to another parent taxon, we just need to alter the template, and the classification of all subtaxa will be updated automatically. See my edit on Template:Podochytrium for an example. Kind regards, --Thiotrix (talk) 07:59, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Taxonomic opinions

WS does not take side over taxonomic opinions, which can be a problem and lead to two taxon pages. That is our praxis unless changed via a Pump Discussion and vote. See Tunilla, which I rolled back and the added note. To make a unilateral decision over the references amounts to original research, which is firmly against Wiki policy. Hope this helps and best regards Andyboorman (talk) 17:26, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

@Andyboorman: Dear colleague, I edited this generic name in accord with the International Code of the Nomenclature Algae, Fungi and Plants, since in one tribe it is impossible to have two separate genera for a single group of cacti. As it was outlined in very Tunilla page, the priority is for Czech name Airampoa. The opinions may vary, of course, but the Code explicitly treated the synonymy and superfluous status of Tunilla 2000 against Airampoa 1929. Or I missed something in botanical nomenclature? Now Airampoa was well edited and fulfilled with nomenclature information, so there is no necessity to retain nearly blank page for synonymous Tunilla. Anna Pavlova, IFPNI ME IFPNI Staff (talk) 17:39, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

No you did not miss anything at all and I agree with the analyses and reasoning, as you can see from my edits and note. It may also be reasonable to force the issue of one taxon one name in this case. However, WS does not have to confirm to one taxon one name and in fact when there is doubt the site has to present both side of the opinion. One solution is to contact one or more of the database curators and ask for their opinions, in this case it would be Michael Hassler as the dissenting voice. Most often this results in changes. I have been remiss and have not done this as yet. To repeat, there are a few cases where WS has to allow two pages for the same taxon, due to Wiki policy of not allowing original research (OR). If you have a look at Isotoma rivalis cf. Lobelia ionantha where this has happened and in this case, as there are two genera involved, the disputed tag is appropriate. Does this help? Andyboorman (talk) 18:08, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Robert Fogel

Dear Anna. I see that your work with Wikispecies is coming along fine: thank you for your contributions! I also saw that you've added the initial "D" to the Robert Fogel author page. I've managed to add his place of birth plus his BHL- and ResearchGate ID's to the Robert Fogel Wikidata item. He is still professor emeritus and curator emeritus of the Herbarium at University of Michigan, but other than that I have a hard time finding any more information about him. For example, do you happen to know what name the "D." initial stands for?

I know that it isn't hugely important to find out more about "our" Dr. Fogel, but he has co-published more than 60 scientific works about fungi that are interesting from a taonomical point of view, so it would for example be nice to know whether he is listed at ORCID, Scopus, VIAF, WorldCat, etc. Please help out if you can and if you want to. If not – that's okay too.

Nota bene: There are two other Americans named Robert Fogel that are not identical to "our" Robert D. Fogel, but they can sometimes be confused together when doing internet searches (also, in most cases all three of them are referred to without the middle initial). Here are the Wikidata links to them, for disambiguation:

• Robert B. Fogel, doctor of medicine. Currently working as a researcher at Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation, East Hanover, NJ, USA.
• Robert W. Fogel (1926–2013; "W" for William), economic historian. Prior to his retirement he worked as the professor at six American universities, and at the University of Cambridge.

Kind regards, Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 22:41, 12 September 2021 (UTC).

@Tommy Kronkvist: Dear Tommy, in the dictionary American Men & Women of Science for 1998, I found that he is Robert Dale Fogel, born 16 January 1947. Anna Pavlova, IFPNI ME IFPNI Staff (talk) 23:37, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

The "Robert Fogel" page has now been moved to Robert Dale Fogel, and all links to the old page name has been changed accordingly. Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 02:45, 16 September 2021 (UTC).

Moving ("renaming") author pages

Screenshot of a message informing a Wikispecies user that the depicted page was accessed via a redirect page.

An additional question: is it necessary to correct the authors in WS when we know their full names, i.e. Nikolay V. Stepanov (see the full name inside)? Thank you! Anna Pavlova, IFPNI ME IFPNI Staff (talk) 23:37, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for finding information about and editing the Robert Dale Fogel page! To answer your question: yes. This has been WS policy for a long time, and the reason is that it helps us disambiguate between many authors with similar names, e.g. "Li" and "Smith" etc. However moving a page from for example "Nikolay V. Stepanov" to "Nikolay Vitalievich Stepanov" is often best done by a bot. The reason is that it's not enough to only move the author page: we also need to change the author link on all pages that uses it. For example, the Nikolay V. Stepanov page is linked to by circa 30 other pages, namely these: Special:WhatLinksHere/Nikolay V. Stepanov. (It's actually a few more than 30, but some of them are maintenance- or database pages, or other pages where the link shouldn't be changed – like for example your talk page. :-)

In all honesty, this is not strictly necessary to change all of the links. Most often when we move an author page we leave the old one as a redirect page. Hence if someone use the "old" name they will be automatically redirected to the new name. Unfortunately this function has 3 shortcomings, ranging from pure aesthetics to severe technical problems:

1. The Wikimedia servers has to handle the double amount of instructions for every click: first the server has to load the old page with the wrong ink, and then load, redirect and show the new, correct page to the user. So instead of serving the user one file, it has to handle two files. The servers are blistering fast and this extra "job" only takes a fraction of a second, so the user will not notice it. Nonetheless it is an unnecessary extra step – especially considering that Wikimedia have millions upon millions of users all over the globe, and our servers handles several 100,000's of files every minute.
2. On the target page (with the "new" author name) there is a note added saying that the user was redirected from another page (see screenshot). This takes up screen-space, especially on mobile phones and tablets. Also, it looks ugly. :-)
3. It may lead to broken links and so called link rot, and if that happens it can sometimes be hard to repair. Consider this: We have a page for the author (or taxon) named "AA". After some time we find out that the correct name is instead "BB", so we move the page to the new name. We still keep the "AA" page if people use it by mistake; however we change it so that it automatically redirects the user to the new "BB" page. Time passes, and the name changes yet again, this time to "CC". As before, we keep the "BB" page, but changes it so that it automatically redirect to "CC". Now we have created a situation with so called "double redirects". We have a chain of 3 pages where "AA" redirects to "BB", and the "BB" page then redirects to "CC". This can lead to all sorts of problems. For example, if we delete or significantly change the "BB" page, clicking on "AA" will no longer lead us to the correct "CC" page. The chain of links is broken. Sometimes bots automatically takes care of these problems, but that differs between page type and on which Wikimedia wiki the problem occurs. Sometimes it takes moths, and sometime they never gets repaired.

So, back to the Nikolay Stepanov issue. In some cases there may be hundreds of pages that needs to be changed after a page move. For example, there are currently 8,512 pages that links to "Carolus Linnaeus" :-) It's a lot easier to create a bot task to make these kind of changes instead of doing it manually. A bot can handle several hundreds of pages every hour (technically much more than that, but it's not allowed by the Wikimedia policy) and with a bot the risk of forgetting to change a page is minimized. Also, a bot can handle all types of pages in the same "job", regardless whether it's taxon pages, templates, category pages, author pages, etc.

To conclude: Thanks for adding the full names of Nikolay Vitalievich Stepanov and Robert Dale Fogel. Tomorrow I will rename their pages and start a bot to make all the necessary changes. :-) Kind regards, Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 12:51, 14 September 2021 (UTC).

Nikolay Stepanov

The "Nikolay V. Stepanov" page has now been moved to Nikolay Vitalievich Stepanov, and all links to the old page name have been changed accordingly. Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 13:40, 16 September 2021 (UTC).

@Tommy Kronkvist: Dear Tommy, it is great! Thank you! Just a little question: when we could expect your correcting bot for author names because I have a few authors to be corrected: Nelli G. Sergeeva to be Nelli Grigorievna Sergeeva, Elena S. Ivanova viz. Elena Sergeevna Ivanova, H. Sandon vz. Harold Sandon, Leo J. Hickey vz. Leo Joseph Hickey, Estella A. Nazarova vz. Estella Ashotovna Nazarova. I made also previously one correction in: Alexander Ivanov, but perhaps it is not good, and you could correct it. Anna Pavlova, IFPNI ME IFPNI Staff (talk) 22:55, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

A bot specifically for correcting author links is currently not in the pipeline: there is simply too much else to do, and creating a bot that works fast and is 100% error-free takes time and testing. At the moment I also have issues with my user account on Phabricator which I need to address first, lest I lose the possibility to log in there. (Phabricator is a software suite we use to create much of the Wikimedia software, including templates, software modules, and tools for bug reporting and project management.)

Having said that, during the weekend I will take care of the author name changes you mention above. Feel free to add any more requests here or on my talk page if you like to. –Tommy Kronkvist, 11:21, 18 September 2021 (UTC).

I've moved ("renamed") the above author pages to Leo Joseph Hickey, Elena Sergeevna Ivanova, Estella Ashotovna Nazarova, Harold Sandon, Nelli Grigorievna Sergeeva and corrected all links leading to the old names. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 00:51, 19 September 2021 (UTC).

As a final note about the authors you mention above, I've moved the "Alexander Ivanov" page to Alexander Olegovich Ivanov and corrected all links leading to the old name. Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 07:25, 22 September 2021 (UTC).

@Tommy Kronkvist: Dear Tommy, thank you! I just have a few remained persons, for which edits are needed: Boris V. Gromov vz Boris Vasilievich Gromov, Alexander V. Gromov vz Alexander Viktorovich Gromov, A.I. Baranov vz. Alexander Ippolitovich Baranov, Y.L. Mamaev vz. Yurij Leonidovich Mamaev, N.Y.Stepanova vz. Nina Yurievna Stepanova, Vladislav I. Golubev vz. Vladislav Ivanovich Golubev, Valeriy K. Golubev vz. Valeriy Konstantinovich Golubev, Michael L. Golubev vz. Mikhail Leonidovich Golubev, J.V. Baranova vz. Julia Vasilievna Baranova, Michael G. Sergeev vz. Mikhail Georgievich Sergeev, E.L. Lebedev vz. Evgenij Leonidovich Lebedev, O. A. Lebedev vz. Oleg Anatolievich Lebedev, Vladimir S. Lebedev vz. Vladimir Svyatoslavovich Lebedev, Ganna O. Naumovich vz. Ganna Oleksiyovna Naumovich, Donald J.S. Barr vz. Donald John Stoddart Barr, N.P. Golovina vz. Natalia Petrovna Golovina, V. F. Dorofeev vz Vladimir Filimonovich Dorofeev, Konstantin Flaksberger vz Konstantin Andreevich Flaksberger, S. Stuchlík vz Stanislav Stuchlík. No rush with them, but your assistance is badly needed. Anna Pavlova IFPNI Staff (talk) 11:06, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Dear Anna: rush or not – they will all be done later today. I will add a message here when it is done. By the way, do you have a reference for the year of birth (1959) which you added to Alexander Olegovich Ivanov? It is requested on "his" Wikidata page, here: Q21518120. I've added Ivanov's ORCID-, Scopus- and Publons author IDs as well as his ResearcherID to the Wikidata item, but as far as I can tell none of those sources mention his year of birth. Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 11:33, 22 September 2021 (UTC).

@Tommy Kronkvist: Dear Tommy, Alexander Olegovich Ivanov will have in our project the following date of birth: 24 December 1959. The source of reference is the dictionary book of post-Soviet biodiversity researchers: Vorontsov's Who is who in biodiversity sciences in Azerbaijan, Armenia, Belarus, Estonia, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Latvia, Lithuania, Moldova, Russia, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Ukraine, Uzbekistan / Koltzov inst. of developmental biology. Russ. acad. of sciences, CAB intern.; Ed. board T. V. Andrianova [et al.]; Supported by George Soros found. - 2. ed., rev. a. updated Engl. version / Ed. by Irina Yu. Bakloushinskaya, David W. Minter. - Moscow: KMK, 2001. - VIII, 754, [2] с. : портр.; 29 см.; ISBN 5-87317-033-9 [I also used preceding Russian version: Кто есть кто: биоразнообразие : Азербайджан, Армения, Белоруссия, Грузия, Казахстан, Киргизия, Латвия, Литва, Молдавия, Россия, Таджикистан, Туркмения, Узбекистан, Украина, Эстония : [Справочник] / Ин-т "Открытое о-во" и др.; Под ред. [и с предисл.] Н. Н. Воронцова. - М. : Товарищество науч. изд. "КМК", 1997. - XX, 674 с.; 29 см.; ISBN 5-87317-033-9]. None digitized. Anna IFPNI Staff (talk) 11:41, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────┘ Is that Nikolai Nikolaevich Vorontsov? Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 12:12, 22 September 2021 (UTC).

@Tommy Kronkvist: Dear Tommy, yes, he is. Anna IFPNI Staff (talk) 12:14, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Dear Anna. The O. A. Lebedev page says that his full name is "Oleg Anatolyevich Lebedev" (stated by user Haps when he created the page back in 2015) however you claim that it should be spelled "Oleg Anatolievich Lebedev". I'm not sure which one is the preferred transcription. Which should I use? –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 21:38, 25 September 2021 (UTC).

@Tommy Kronkvist: Dear Tommy, the better is mine since Anatolyevich never used for transcriptions from Cyrillic (Russian), the alternative might be with apostrophe (Anatol'evich), but the recent trend is to avoid apostrophes. Anna IFPNI Staff (talk) 22:09, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Dear Anna, I've now moved all of the above author pages to their new "full author name" equivalents, except of course for N.Y.Stepanova → Nina Yurievna Stepanova since there is not yet any page to move... Feel free to request more author page moves if you want to, but then please do so in a new thread here at your talk page, since this thread is getting rather long and also (by now somewhat inaccurately) named "Nikolay Stepanov". Kind regards, Tommy (talk), 16:41, 26 September 2021 (UTC).

@Tommy Kronkvist: Dear Tommy, thank you! I will add missing data for these authors, and soon start a new link. Anna Pavlova IFPNI Staff (talk) 18:04, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Anna Y. Stepanova

Hi! Please move the page to the full name, to preserve historic of the contributions by others users. In the specific case, is better move Anna Y. Stepanova to Anna Yurievna Stepanova, and not create a new entry. Regards, Burmeister (talk) 22:38, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Hello, I see you have requested some page moves—if you so wish, it may be possible for you to move them yourself (I don't exactly know what options each user has): for me, if I go to the "Page" tab near the top of the page, to the right of the edit and history tabs, I see a "Move" option; after moving the page to the right/full(er) name, you then just have to go through (ideally all..) the list of linked pages, to update them so they point to the newly moved page; one can find the list of linked pages in the left hand margin of the screen, under "Tools", by clicking on "What links here"—which can be useful for other purposes too: for instance, sometimes there are already reference templates pointing/attempting to link to a new authority one creates, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 09:35, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Ivan Antonovich Kostin publication

Hello Anna! I've created the {{Kostin, 1973}} template which is used on the Agrilus ustjurti you recently edited. Unfortunately I could only find the Latinized version of the articles' title: "Zhuki-dendrofagi Kazakhstana (Koroyedy, drovoseki, zlatki)". Feel free to change the Latin script version in the template into proper Russian, using the Russian Cyrillic script alphabet. I wish I knew how to speak and write Russian, but unfortunately I don't. :-) Kind regards, Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 23:13, 21 September 2021 (UTC).

@Tommy Kronkvist: Dear Tommy, no problem, just done! Anna IFPNI Staff (talk) 11:09, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Phoebe/Cinnamomum

Hello. We do not usually add taxa to lists that are synonyms of other taxa, as you undertook with Cinnamomum tomentosum. We reserve the species list on genus pages for those accepted by the references provided. Said that some editors do provide a separate list for "Names in Synonymy". Hope this helps Andyboorman (talk) 15:04, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

@Andyboorman: Yes, I understood. But in this particular case, I thought it necessary since the species Cinnamomum tomentosum was never previously recombined in Phoebe, but namely it is technically serving type species of the genus. Anna IFPNI Staff (talk) 23:00, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Cactaceae

With respect to your edits on Airampoa I draw your attention to Korotkova et al. (2021) on the Cactaceae taxon page. I am still digesting this paper and I am not an expert on cacti, so my edit was very early days. In addition, you may wish to look through this online resources, at first view it looks impressive and means that there may have to be edits on our cacti taxon pages, if this resource is accepted. Unusually for online taxonomy this site has a very good list of papers supporting their classifications. I will place a topic on the Village Pump to alerting fellow editors as well. Andyboorman (talk) 07:28, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

@Andyboorman: Yes, I saw the Korotkova et al. (2021) paper on the Cactaceae; unfortunately, it has some nomenclatural errors since the family is very large, and its nomenclature is complex. In this particular case, they also overlooked that re-instated and revised Airampoa ayrampo (1809) by Doweld in 2002 with a neotype of Opuntia soehrensii (1919) finally debunked any possibilities to survive the latter species epithet without conservation, since the older species epithet has a priority (1809 vs. 1919). I followed strictly the nomenclature rules. Anna Pavlova IFPNI ME IFPNI Staff (talk) 11:12, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

So where does Cactus ayrampo Haenke, Voy. Amer. Mer. Depuis 2: 526. (1809) fit in? Copied from IPNI with no mention of Azara. Andyboorman (talk) 12:39, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

taxon page format

Hello. Would it be possible to adjust your taxon page layout a little to conform to WS praxis? See my edit on Airampoa tilcarensis. Thanks Andyboorman (talk) 18:59, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Hello. Examining Cactaceae at Caryophyllales.org (CACO) I have come across their usage of an epithet that is not commonly used elsewhere. CACO use the epithet fidana [2], whereas fidaiana as in Weingartia fidaiana (Backeb.) Werderm., Kakteenkunde 1937: 21. (1937) is found in IPNI [3]. Other databases follow IPNI. Can you, with your extensive knowledge of taxonomic conventions, be able to explain the differences and give an opinion who uses the correct nomenclature? I assume there is an autocorrect by CACO going on, based upon the earlier synonymous combination Echinocactus fidanus Backeb., Kakteen-Freunde 2: 104, 117, fig (1933), as opposed to Spegazzinia fidaiana Backeb., Blätt. Kakteenf. 1934(4): [4] genus 75, sp. 2 (fig.) (1934). Many thanks. Andyboorman (talk) 10:40, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Pump discussion

Hello. I refer you to this pump discussion Cactoideae , as the WS community would be grateful for your knowledgeable taxonomic contributions. Also have you had any thoughts about the above species epithet? All the best Andyboorman (talk) 19:39, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Doweld et al.

Hello Anna. I just wish to thank you for your massive contributions to Wikispecies regarding authors, references and of course taxa. It is very much appreciated. Kind regards, Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 23:00, 8 April 2022 (UTC).

Dear Tommy, glad to hear your warm words. I am glad to contribute some useful data to Wiki Project, I saw your corrections, please excuse for some overlooked errors, Anna IFPNI Staff (talk) 09:45, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Lauraceae

Why are you imposing your circumscription of this family editing out the previous version that is supported by most of the references? Andyboorman (talk) 19:15, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

I added only the correct nomenclature and names which should be used in botanical classification only; no my own circumscription was used. IFPNI Staff (talk) 19:27, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Debatable but I can not be bothered to argue its pointless!! Andyboorman (talk) 19:33, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

What exactly? IFPNI Staff (talk) 19:36, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Cinnamomeae Nees, Syst Laur.: 19, 28bis, 29. 30. (1836) has precedence, surely?Andyboorman (talk) 19:44, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Not. This is an error. The priority for Laureae Nees (1833). In addition, the Code requires the following:

ICN, Art. 19.4

19.4. The name of any subdivision of a family that includes the type of the adopted, legitimate name of the family to which it is assigned is to be formed from the generic name equivalent to that type (Art. 10.9; but see Art. 19.8).

Ex. 2. The type of the family name Rosaceae Juss. is Rosa L. and hence the subfamily and tribe assigned to Rosaceae that include Rosa are to be called Rosoideae Endl. and Roseae DC., respectively.

So, there is no room for doubts. IFPNI Staff (talk) 19:52, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Your name is Laureae Nees, Hufeland. Illustr.: 9 (1933) is that an error? Andyboorman (talk) 19:57, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Why? Laureae is correct and earlier validly published tribal name. It is sanctioned by ICN Art. 19.4 in this case. All other listed numerous names are synonyms, including Cinnamomeae. IFPNI Staff (talk) 20:00, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

I am not totally ignorant with ICN. To be honest I do not mind my best efforts being corrected anyway as that is WS. How about you having a go at Rubus and allies it is junk at the moment and it is doing my head in! All the best I need a rest from WS anyway. Andyboorman (talk) 20:48, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

We respected very much your numerous contributions! You are magic! When I saw Rubus case, I understood that Lauraceans are just a easy trip :) Anna IFPNI Staff (talk) 21:00, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Flattery will get you everywhere! Are you sure it is not Laureae Nees, Hufeland. Illustr.: 9 (1833) - note year! Andyboorman (talk) 09:42, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I added reference template

• Nees von Esenback, C.G.D. 1833. Viro perillustri, doctissimo, celeberrimo, Christophoro Guilelmo Hufeland ... Collegae gratissimo, semisaecularem lauream die xxiv Julii a. mdcccxxxiii solemniter celebrandam congratulatur Academia caesarea leopoldino-carolina naturae curiosorum. Annexa est Plantarum laurinum secundum affinitates naturales expositio, ab Academiae praeside proposita, qua comprehenditur Hufelandiae Laurini generis novi laureato seni consecrati illustratio. Cum tabula aeri insculpta. 25 pp., 2 pl. (uncol. liths. Carl Weitz). Vratislaviae [Breslau], BHL Reference page. , corrected 1933/1833 (mistype, sorry - overlooked before) and added original date: 24 July 1833. For all correct suprageneric names of flowering plants the authoritative web data base, initially compiled by James Lauritz Reveal, is useful: The Index Nominum Supragenericorum Plantarum Vascularium. They listed correct suprageneric names, including Laureae. Anna IFPNI Staff (talk) 13:03, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks I thought the heat had got to me! Also for the link and reference template. Andyboorman (talk) 13:14, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

An opinion please

Whilst working on Rubus, I seem to have come across a problem with the type species, which I assumed is Rubus fruticosus L., Sp. Pl. 1: 493 (-494). (1753) typ. cons. However, I have found the page Rubus plicatus Weihe & Nees, , Deut. Brombeerstr. 15 (t. 1) (1822), which seems to offer an alternative according to sources on its page. I think I understand why some botanists may not want to use Rubus fruticosus, possibly due to its ambiguity as Rubus fruticosus agg., auct. and as a way of lumping Rubus sect. Rubus s.l.. enWp has this unhelpful page as well as telling us the R. plicatus is ambiguously considered the type. I have not found any paper that proposes the removal of the typ. cons. and it remains on ICN. Therefore I think that these arguments are not taxonomically sound, being contrary to ICN. What do you think, thanks Andyboorman (talk) 10:25, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

You are quite correct that Rubus fruticosus is now conserved, along with its type specimen (Herb. Linnaeus No. 653.9) Rubus. The designation was made by Beek (1974) in his Dissertation [unpublished?; Beek, A. van de, 1974. Die Brombeeren des Geldrischen Distriktes innerhalb der Flora der Niederlande Ph.D. Thesis, University of Utrecht] and redesigned in 1986 by Weber [Weber, H. E. 1986. Zur Nomenklatur und Verbreitung der von K. E. A. Weihe aufgestellten Taxa der Gattung Rubus L. (Rosaceae). Bot. Jahrb. Syst. 106: 289-335]. The official proposal to conserve the name was published by Jarvis and accepted in the ICN [Jarvis, C.E. (1992). "Seventy-Two Proposals for the Conservation of Types of Selected Linnaean Generic Names, the Report of Subcommittee 3C on the Lectotypification of Linnaean Generic Names". Taxon 41 (3): 552–583. doi:10.2307/1222833. JSTOR 1222833]. But the conservation of this type specimen made Rubus plicatus a junior synonym of earliest Rubus fruticosus; the previous status nomen ambiguum for Rubus fruticosus was settled. IFPNI Staff (talk) 11:44, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Marking pages and categories for speedy deletion

Hello IFPNI staff, to mark pages and categories for speedy deletion, please use {{delete|unnecessary page}}. The code {{tlc|delete|unnecessary page}} will not add the page to the category of speedy deletions. Thanks, and kind regards, --Thiotrix (talk) 10:17, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Dear colleague! Thank you! I used obsolescent forms, Anna Pavlova IFPNI Staff (talk) 10:34, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

For reference: We have quite a lot of this type of templates, namely {{Tl}}, {{Tlc}}, {{Tld}}, {{Tlf}}, {{Tlp}}, {{Tlu}} and {{Tlx}}. They are all only used to format a link to the actual template's own pages – for example {{tlx|Delete}} to the "Delete" template page, which will then look like this: {{Delete}}. They will never actually call or "activate" the template, and as Thiotrix says they will therefore not "work" as normal templates. They are mainly used to format links on help pages and on talk pages etc. See for example Шаблон:Tcl on Russian Wikipedia for more information. Kind regards, Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 22:07, 7 November 2022 (UTC).

Klavdia Ivanovna Belyaeva

Dear Anna! I took the liberty to create the Wikidata item Q115407398 to accompany the Klavdia Ivanovna Belyaeva author page you recently created here at Wikispecies. Could you please check if the Russian text in Wikidata item is correct? Thank you! –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 14:05, 24 November 2022 (UTC).

Dear Tommy, all is OK! Thank you for the Wikidata page for Klavdia! I just clarified the Russian translation that she was not 'from Russia' (at the time of her scientific career the USSR was a country, not Russia), but Russian zoologist and ichthyologist. Anna Pavlova IFPNI Staff (talk) 20:56, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm very interested in linguistics and like all languages (and writing systems) – but of course I can't speak them all. However from what I know of Russian grammar I had a feeling that my wording was wrong in exactly the way you explained – that's why I asked you. Thanks for the correction! –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 13:44, 25 November 2022 (UTC).

Edit warring and speedy deletion

If you put a speedy deletion tag on a page, and another editor challenges it by removing it, you must not restore it. You may start a deletion discussion at Wikispecies:Village Pump. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:23, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

I wrote to discussion part the following since I did not understand what the matter is to discuss, since I treat it as an error:

The spelling A. Ivanovich Malzev is incorrect and erroneous, and never used in the official Russian spellings of the names. It is impossible to use the second name Ivanovich with the surname Malzev like it might be done in western tradition with some names. This combination of names is in error, and should be deleted from Wiki at all.

Anna Pavlova IFPNI Staff (talk) 17:46, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

@Andy Mabbett: I'm just adding the link here as a formality, but the note Anna Pavlova a.k.a. IFPNI Staff mentions above can be found here: Talk:A. Ivanovich Malzev. It was added 17:02, 30 December 2022 (UTC). Best regards, Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 06:53, 31 December 2022 (UTC).

Authors of Gonospora synonyms

Hello dear Anna. Do you happen to know which Woodcock and Mingazzini that are the authors of the synonyms listed for Gonospora?

Also: at the moment "Mingazzini" is redirected to Lankesteria (Chromista). This is of course incorrect, and I will change it when we find out Mingazzini's full name. The only information I've found so far is "P. Mingazzini" at Q109743743 in Wikidata. There are no references or citations on that page, but there are 21 other Wikidata pages that links to it that may be helpful.

–Kind regards, Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 15:24, 18 February 2023 (UTC).

Dear Tommy, in this case the matter is about Pio Mingazzini (1864-1905) and Harold Mellor Woodcock (1879–1951, H.M.Woodcock), recorded in the IPNI. Both authors are still missing in Wikispecies. Anna Pavlova IFPNI Staff (talk) 15:45, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. I will create the author pages tomorrow. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk)‚ 15:48, 18 February 2023 (UTC).

Please do not remove references

Hello Anna, you may add taxonbar if you like, but please do not remove my reference links, which I used to create a taxon page. (e.g. https://species.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stephanoon&curid=1446812&diff=9126795&oldid=7451432). That was the consensus for the use of template taxonbar. Thank you, and kind regards, Thiotrix (talk) 13:12, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Dear colleague, I was unaware of any consensus about the use of the template 'taxonbar'. I found it very useful and comfortable for edits. Where is it possible to read about any additional regulations as for 'taxonbar', especially that it still does not cover fossil indices? I am sorry if anything valuable was deleted, although I was careful to check the preview of my edited pages with no losses of valuable information. Anna Pavlova IFPNI Staff (talk) 13:59, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────┘

There is no point in keeping markup like:

* {{aut|Guiry, M.D. & Guiry, G.M.}} 2020. [http://www.algaebase.org/search/genus/detail/?genus_id=47494 ''Stephanoon'']. AlgaeBase. World-wide electronic publication, National University of Ireland, Galway. Accessed 2020-03-14.
* {{WoRMS|id=602951|db=|name=i|accessdate=2020-03-14}}

when the pertinent information is conveyed in the Taxonbar. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:37, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Dear Andy, I agree with you, since 'taxonbar' included links to AlgaeBase and Worms. Perhaps, I didn't significantly destruct anything valuable in WikiSpecies. Anna Pavlova IFPNI Staff (talk) 18:33, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

The voting about the use of Taxonbar was here, in May 2022. Previously, the template was banned. I like the template too. But as it adds sometimes quite a long list of databases, it may not be clear, which source was used to create the Wikispecies page. Therefore those links used as references should not be deleted when taxonbar is added. For further databases to be displayed by the template, you may ask User:Christian Ferrer for help. --Thiotrix (talk) 21:21, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Taxonbar is an added bonus, but a list of References is sacrosanct. Andyboorman (talk) 15:09, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Taxon Bar

Please note that the use of the taxon bar tool is not an excuse for deleting references or links. It is an added bonus not a substitute, therefore I have had to revert your edit on Lipschitzia. Sorry Andyboorman (talk) 19:59, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Please do not get into an edit war - see above, particularly when the use and non-use of taxon bar has been decided on and consensus reached. It is against Wiki policy. Feel free to raise the issue on the Pump if you feel strongly about the issue. Andyboorman (talk) 20:08, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Dear colleague, I am not in war for links! Taxonbar is a good tool to let users to see more useful links in spite of those old copy pasted from the past; so I added taxonbar. Please revert my valuable links to the authorship and eponyms of the taxa that you deleted. These links are originated from the study de visu of the original literature and protologues, not usual copy pasting from secondary indices. Anna Pavlova IFPNI Staff (talk) 21:48, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Paulinellideae

Dear Anna! Do you know whether Paulinellideae is a synonym of Paulinellidae, or is it simply incorrect (i.e. not even a synonym)? Best regards, Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 08:24, 18 April 2023 (UTC).

Dear Tommy, this is just a mistypo for Paulinellidae. Incorrect spelling, Anna Pavlova IFPNI Staff (talk) 09:14, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Александр Алексеевич Оглоблин

Dear Anna, I was looking at the Ogloblin disambiguation page and saw a red link for Оглоблин, Александр Алексеевич (link from Russian Wikipedia). I'm thinking of creating an author page for him. Would the spelling "Alejandro Aleksandrovich Ogloblin" be correct? Note that he is often considered a Russian-born Argentine entomologist. He was born in Samarkand in 1891 (i.e. Russian Empire) but moved to Turkey and Czechoslovakia during the civil war. He then emigrated to Argentina in 1928. I don't think he ever returned to Russia, however he received a scholarship at the Iowa State College in 1943–1944, and also studied entomological collections at the National Museum in Washington. He passed away in Buenos Aires, Argentina, in 1967.

In Wikidata he is listed with the Spanish name "Alejandro Ogloblin" (Q5665331) rather than "Alexander Ogloblin" or "Aleksandr Ogloblin" – probably because he lived most of his life in Spanish-speaking Argentina. What is you opinion on which name we should use? What name is he most often published under?

Also, do you happen to know if the two authors listed on the disambiguation page (Alejandro Aleksandrovich Ogloblin, 1891–1967 and Dmitriy Alekseevich Ogloblin, 1893–1942) are related? Perhaps brothers? Kindly, Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 14:17, 12 May 2023 (UTC).

Dear Tommy, I just corrected Wikipedia page (incorrect second name of AA Ogloblin was used previously). Alejandro Ogloblin was really Alexander Alexeevich Ogloblin (before exile), not Aleksandrovich. Dmitriy and Alexander are really brothers. Since AA Ogloblin was living in Argentina, with no connections with the former USSR, it seems to me logical to have his name in science as Alejandro Ogloblin (adopted in science; no second name was used in Spanish tradition), with just a notice of the original Russian name Alexander Alexeevich Ogloblin. I had a similar situation with Tolmachev father and son, Alexander Innokentievich Tolmachev and Innokentij Pavlovich Tolmachoff. Although both scientists have a similar name in Russian (Толмачев), but Tolmachoff (not Tolmachev, known in botany) was adopted for father, who emigrated to USA and lived there under a different adopted spelling in palaeontology. It was an echo of the Civil War in Soviet Russia, when relatives in exile were the problem for the living relatives in the USSR - most of them changed names or spellings to mask their exact relationships. Anna Pavlova IFPNI Staff (talk) 10:38, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

ORCID

Further to our discussion on the Village Pump page, I shall be glad to help. First, how much Do you already know about Wikidata? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:35, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Dear Andy, perhaps, I am just Editor or user contributing scientific data; not IT profi :)) Anna Pavlova IFPNI Staff (talk) 19:42, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Archiving

I've added automatic archiving to this page (you can see the effect on my talk page). A bot will now periodically archive stale discussions for you. It's set to archive discussions which have not had a new comment for 28 days. Let me know if you have any concerns. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:40, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Dear Andy, thank you! Very helpful. Anna IFPNI Staff (talk) 19:42, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

T.M. Kozlova (19..–, Kozlova), Russian (Soviet) botanist

Dear Anna, I could not find this person. There are no links on the Internet to botanical articles by T. M. Kozlova. There was a virologist T. M. Kozlova, but I doubt that she is the one who is meant. It seems strange to me, if you are sure of the existence of this botanist, why not decipher her initials and indicate the year of birth. Hunu (talk) 20:16, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

You could also check here [4] p. 54 Hunu (talk) 20:22, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Dear colleague, T.M.Kozlova is a real author of botanical names, since she was recorded in the International Plant Names Index (IPNI). Index Fungorum has the fungal name: Nadsoniella nigra var. psychrophilica Kozlova & Lyakh, Mikrobiologiya 50(2): 279 (1981). Unfortunately, the internet does not have comprehensive record of the authors of plant names, so there is a need to check paper sources for forgotten authors. Up to the decoding of her full names, I left this entry temporary and empty - maybe anyone of Wiki editors could happily or incidentally decode her names and make a full separate page. Anna Pavlova IFPNI Staff (talk) 21:10, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Nikolsky

Hi! You want talk about your changes? "Language of the title is usually given after pagination, not before the serial title", sorry i don't ever see a discussion about that kind of standardization on wikispecies. "Alexander Mikhailovich Nikolsky|Nikolsky, A.M. (Никольскiй, А.М., Nikolski, A.M.)" is unnecessary complication for references, if you want follow that you will need a consensus. Regards, Burmeister (talk) 14:36, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Dear Burmeister!

I never saw a language mark after the article title before the serial title; it is senseless and never used in scientific bibliographies in current use. Russian, Japanese, Chinese are always marked in the end of the scientific citations. You could easily find numerous examples in the Web of Science, Wiley or ScienceDirect references worldwide.

If the article had a parallel title in different language (sometimes with an extended summary), it is rationale also to include namely it in the scientific citation (not your newly made translation in English - which were not existed in the real publication). So, there is no reason to delete the original Russian title of these citations of Nikolski. See my edited Wikispecies template: [5].

As for the author's original spellings in citations I already wrote a memorandum several months ago [6]. Since no objections were issued, I accepted the situation as a reached silent consensus. I would like to repeat the main idea of the necessity to include (in brackets or else) the original names of authors used in their real publications (which sometimes varying or significantly different from the spelling adopted in the WikiSpecies): nobody could start historical investigations whether Nikolski in the real publication 1896 & 1899 is your Nikolskij or Nikolsky; the same situation is about Solowzoff, which is really Solovtsova now in WS; Lermantoff is really Lermontova now in WS. These examples clearly emphasize the necessity to provide a full bibliographic description of some publications. Anna Pavlova IFPNI Staff (talk) 15:17, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

1) If is a kind of standardization in current use outside wikispecies and it's better to follow, i will revert my edition. 2) I not delete russian title in Nikolsky 1900, because title is in russian, i delete from 1896, where title is in latin, not in russian. 3) There is not such thing of silent consensus. Burmeister (talk) 15:34, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

2) As for the Russian article title deleted in 1896 citation, you should go to the contents/index page of this Russian journal, if you are fluent with Russian: BHL.

3) My memorandum is already in archive - I do not see anything more should be added; you could raise any further discussions. All necessary argumentation and points were published previously. Sorry to see that you also disregarded my memorandum, published publicly for WS participants. In sum, I don't see any objections to revert my rest edits in these templates as important and scientifically reasonable. Anna Pavlova IFPNI Staff (talk) 16:30, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

You can repost in VillagePump and try to discuss again! And include more examples, because that alterations not affect only russian, but chinese, japanese, korean and other languages too. The discussion must be wider! Regards! Burmeister (talk) 16:43, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Addenda: "Nikolski, A.M. 1896. Diagnoses Reptilium et Amphibiorum novorum in Persia orientali a N. Zarudny collectorum. Annuaire du Musée zoologique de l'Académie impériale des sciences de St. Pétersbourg 1(4): 369–372." is cited like that in scientific literature and not as "Nikolsky, A.M. (Никольскiй, А.М., Nikolski, A.M.) 1896. Diagnoses Reptilium et Amphibiorum novorum in Persia orientali a N. Zarudny collectorum (Дiагнозы новыхъ видовъ пресмыкающихся и земноводныхъ, найденныхъ въ восточной Персiи Н.А. Заруднымъ). Annuaire du Musée zoologique de l'Académie impériale des sciences de St. Pétersbourg 1(4): 369–372. (with title in russian)", so i don't agree with the inclusion of the title in russian, despite contents/index page have. The possibility to resolve that is included title in russian in template in Nomenclatural acts , above date of publication. "if you are fluent with Russian", of course not, i'm Brazilian. Regards, Burmeister (talk) 17:06, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Fruitless and senseless idea. If no discussion was after publication of my memorandum, I will take it as a silent consensus, since no objections were raised. If you were lazy also to read it previously and discuss it, I can't see the reasons why this topic should be discussed twice with the same arguments. If you have any objections, please raise this discussion again yourself. I will continue my edits in line with previously published arguments. Anna Pavlova IFPNI Staff (talk) 17:43, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Frankly speaking, I don't see no scientific arguments from you to include the Russian title or not. It seems that it is more likely that some capricious lady with no knowledge of the original language/text of Russian publication would like to simply speak on it, with no arguments, but just feelings. I clearly explained the reasons of my edits, arguments were once published in the Village Pump too. Therefore, this discussion should be closed up. Please, when you have no knowledge with some languages, be careful to the edits of native speaking editors, and do not delete their valuable data. I shall be obliged to you for the revert to my edits in the templates Nikolsky 1896 and 1899, since your partial emotional edits disrupt essentially both templates. Anna Pavlova IFPNI Staff (talk) 18:00, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Differences of opinion are normal in environments like this, but respect must always be maintained. Regards, Burmeister (talk) 18:02, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I did not meet any respect, seeing simple and ungrounded deletions of my valuable edits of incomplete or even erroneous texts in these templates. Differences of opinion could be based on scientific arguments only, not emotions or even ignorance. IFPNI Staff (talk) 10:55, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Deletion of deprecated author names

Hello IFPNI Staff, please do not mark deprecated author names for deletion, before all links to that names have been corrected! E.G. Franz Josef Ivanovich Ruprecht has been deleted, although more than 150 pages still link to that page and were left with dead links. Please keep this page as a redirect, until all necessary changes have been made. Kind regards, Thiotrix (talk) 21:26, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Hello! Let do these minor changes and links - and do not forget to eliminate barbarous and stupid names in WS. Anna Pavlova IFPNI Staff (talk) 04:42, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Also Elenora Tzolakovna Gabrieljan, it was deleted, although several pages still link to it. If you move a page to a new name, you are responsible to fix all links before asking for speedy deletion. Otherwise please leave the name as a redirect, even if wrongly spelled. --Thiotrix (talk) 08:09, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

As for Gabrieljan, I saw that colleague Monster Iestyn quickly edited and added info and links. So, I left the matter at all. Sorry that you found some remained unedited links. I can see no tragedy if any erroneous links were overlooked while editing, other contributors or editors could edit and modify remained links. Since you contributed a lot on algal taxa of Ruprecht with no understanding of the barbarism of his used name, it would be very useful if you could edit Ruprecht's erroneous links. Frankly speaking, I can't see rationale to reinstate erroneous links in contrast to their editing; WS has still a lot of garbage - no sense to continue its keeping while editing is in process. Anna Pavlova IFPNI Staff (talk) 08:42, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Hello, and if I may, I think the issue with Franz Josef Ivanovich Ruprecht is that, if you look at "What links here" in the left margin, there are many pages that link to Franz Josef Ivanovich Ruprecht. What would you say is more useful, a link that takes you to a non-barbarous spelling of his name via a (hidden to the end user) barbarous spelling of his name that redirects to this non-barbarous spelling of his name, or the replacement of the link that takes you to the non-barbarous spelling of his name with a dead link? For example, with "What links here", you can see that Rupr. takes you to Franz Josef Ivanovich Ruprecht. If you replaced that with Franz Josef Ruprecht, then Rupr. would stay functional even after the eventual deletion of Franz Josef Ivanovich Ruprecht, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 08:58, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Thank you! But Ivanovich is very commonly associated with Ruprecht, and we need a lot of time for edits by hands. If anyone know any automatic tools to correct? It is a pity to spend a lot of time for errors of previous editors, rather than to contribute new data. Anna Pavlova IFPNI Staff (talk) 09:23, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

I agree! I have put in place a temporary fix, but there are too many to change manually... (Similarly Oldfield Thomas stays at his non-full name, I guess because no-one can face going through by hand all 859 taxon names and changing the links!), Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 09:27, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

RLJ is magic in WS, who edited all Ruprecht's Ivanovich erroneous links. This is a miracle, really. Anna Pavlova IFPNI Staff (talk) 20:24, 22 August 2023 (UTC)