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 useful images to contribute to Wikispecies, please upload them at the Wikimedia Commons.

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 22:36, 19 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Request for vote reg use of BASEPAGENAME edit

The previous discussions regarding if we should subst:ing BASEPAGENAME and change all [[BASEPAGENAME]] into [[susbt:BASEPAGENAME]] did not really reach a consensus.

Please vote here on the Village pump!

If you are not sure on your opinion, you can read and join the discussion about the claimed advantages and disadvantages of using BASEPAGENAME

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:29, 11 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikispecies Oversighter edit

Wikispecies has no local Oversighter. Since I had the communitys confidence regarding the previous application for Checkusers rights, as per local Oversight policy on META, I hereby apply to get Oversighters user rights, as a request to the Wikispecies community.

Application is located at Requests for Comment.

Please also note that Oversighter actions are logged, but for privacy reasons the logs are only visible to other Oversighters. Because of this, Wikispecies must always have no fewer than two oversighters, for mutual accountability. I don't want to suggest anyone, but hope that someone feel inspired and will step forward and also apply for oversighters rights.

Dan Koehl through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:01, 3 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oversight nomination edit

Please refer to Wikispecies:Oversighters/Requests/Koavf for a second Oversight nomination. Note that we must have at least two Oversigthers in order for anyone to have these user rights. All feedback is welcome. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:50, 3 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

martini/i edit

original comment

Thanks for your comment, and well spotted. However, the original spelling of martinii is actually used by Allard on both the text and the accompanying plate. I have included links to both of these original pages. Also, Bridges suggests that there was an "incorrect original spelling", but without any justification. So there is need for a discussion regarding the validity/precedence of the original spelling as against current usage.My feeling is that original spellings are correct unless there are clear ambiguities in the original text, and that is not the case here. There is also a similar issue, oddly enough, with Kretania allardii which has had either spelling in the past, but seems settled on the -ii ending. We can discuss this further, but for the moment I feel it better to stay with Allard's original spelling of martinii until there is clearer resolution. Can you explain why the original spelling with double-i might be "incorrect"? We can no longer ask Mr. Allard!! Accassidy (talk) 09:21, 22 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi @Accassidy: actually, Mr. Allard used the martini spelling at page 323, as the title of the description itself. That's why I wrote that both spellings are used in this original description: this is actually an ambiguity. According to Article 32.2.1 of the ICZN, in such a case, the correct original spelling is the one chosen by the first reviser. But I don't know who the first reviser is. I suspect that martini makes more sense since it is derived fron the name of "Mr. Emmanuel Martin", but this is probably not for us to decide. Unless we find more information, I think it is best that we follow the principle of least surprise, i.e. using martini. --LamBoet (talk) 09:43, 22 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
About Kretania allardii: yes, I was aware of this; funny how such ambiguities reproduce. But this case seems a bit simpler, because only the allardii spelling is used in the original description (as far as I can see). --LamBoet (talk) 09:48, 22 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Accassidy: Are you OK with this, and can you make the change, or shall I? Cheers --LamBoet (talk) 10:22, 29 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
My referral to the first mention of the name is on page 314, but on further reading this is not actually a description. It just points to the description on page 319 which has the single "i" spelling. I'll change it around tomorrow. I don't feel that strongly either way. Accassidy (talk) 20:43, 30 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Changes and explanation done. Further comments on my talk page if you wish. Would be good to have some info on your User page... Accassidy (talk) 09:49, 31 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

minuscula edit

Correct. I have made some changes and enlarged the page a bit more. Still work in progress... Thanks. Accassidy (talk) 10:05, 25 September 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Move of the Andrew Van Zandt Brower page edit

Hello LamBoet. Is the author name "Andrew Van Zandt Brower" incorrect, or did you have another reason for moving that page to "Andrew V.Z. Brower"? Please note that since many years back it's consensus and praxis on Wikispecies to always use the author's full name as page name, when known. Regards, Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 17:56, 13 June 2019 (UTC).Reply[reply]

Hi @Tommy Kronkvist:, I didn't move any page, I just redirected a duplicate page ("Andrew Van Zandt Brower") to the older, more complete page ("Andrew V.Z. Brower"). But by all means invert the redirect if the naming is not OK :-) Kind regards --LamBoet (talk) 18:09, 13 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh... sorry. It may be that I'm getting waaaay to tired for editing. It's 20:22 in the evening here in Sweden and I've been coding and editing Wikimedia stuff since... well, yesterday. :-) The author's "main" page should be the one with the full name though, as per Wikispecies praxis – however I'll fix all that after I've brewed myself a bucket of coffee. ;-) Thank you for your contributions! Kindly, Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 18:22, 13 June 2019 (UTC).Reply[reply]

Taxonavigation templates. edit

Hi. I saw that you recently made an edit to the {{Hypermnestra}} template, adding italics to the genus name. That's of course very welcome, but I wish to offer a handy little hint. For genus (and subgenus) level taxa you can instead use the {{Gbr|gbr}} template. It will automatically add italics to the taxon name, and then also the "<br/>" line break. So instead of writing for example:

Genus: ''[[Hypermnestra]]'' <br/>

you can instead enter:

Genus: {{gbr|Hypermnestra}}

Both versions will render the same result on screen. You can do the same for familia (and sub- + superfamilia), but then please use the {{Fbr|fbr}} template instead. It works in exactly the same way, except it doesn't add italics.

  1. Use {{gbr}} for genera and subgenera, and {{fbr}} for familia, subfamilia, and superfamilia.
  2. Using any of these template isn't mandatory in any way, so you don't have to use them if you don't want to. However whether you use them or not, please always remember to add the two necessary categories to all Taxonavigation templates, e.g:
Genus: ''[[Hypermnestra]]'' <br/>

<noinclude>[[Category:Taxonavigation templates]]</noinclude>
<includeonly>[[Category:Pages with taxonavigation templates]]</includeonly>
Genus: {{gbr|Hypermnestra}}

<noinclude>[[Category:Taxonavigation templates]]</noinclude>
<includeonly>[[Category:Pages with taxonavigation templates]]</includeonly>

–Best regards, –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 23:23, 9 July 2019 (UTC).Reply[reply]

Hi @Tommy Kronkvist: OK, thank you for the advice! --LamBoet (talk) 23:50, 9 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Heliconius doris edit

The Heliconius doris page is now deleted, making room for Laparus doris. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 09:20, 10 September 2019 (UTC).Reply[reply]

I've specified all the eleven author names in the synonymy section of the Heliconius doris page. Since I'm not 100% sure that all of my sources are up to date, could you please check to see that the authors are all correct? Thanks beforehand! –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 21:31, 11 September 2019 (UTC).Reply[reply]
Hi @Tommy Kronkvist:, it looks like this list of synonyms was copied from Funet; I just checked the sources linked on that site, and I think you are correct. Kind regards --LamBoet (talk) 06:33, 12 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks! I'll add full references for all of the synonyms sometime during the weekend. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 21:16, 12 September 2019 (UTC).Reply[reply]

Liphyrini/ae edit

Hi, well spotted, however...

I refer to Eliot's higher classification which carries a lot of respect. I note that in this new circular chart the Aphnaeinae and Lycaeninae originate exactly as the Liphyrini, so they are not internally consistent even with all their data. I don't think its really important from a Wiki point of view, but the more modern work is inconsistent and I have a lot of respect for the common sense of John Eliot. Accassidy (talk) 18:05, 1 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Have added something on my talk page to explain Aphnaeinae. Accassidy (talk) 15:37, 4 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

ResearchGate links edit

It's useless to try to link to PDF files on ResearchGate, as it never resolves to the file (not to mention the links are impractically long). We have a dedicated template {{ResearchGate}} (short form {{ResGate}}) to link to these uploads that takes the publication number as its argument. Circeus (talk) 19:33, 12 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi @Circeus, thank you for the info. I am not the one making these links (I just copied existing references into templates), but I will replace them with the template next time I see one. --LamBoet (talk) 20:47, 12 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ah. I only track the new ref templates, so I wouldn't have noticed. Circeus (talk) 21:46, 12 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

References edit

I have seen your comments. I will stop putting volume numbers in bold. Feel free to change as many older template pages as you wish. Someone may be able to create a suitable bot... Accassidy (talk) 14:10, 6 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you @Accassidy, and happy new year :-) --LamBoet (talk) 18:53, 6 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It seems to me that actually making links of generic or species names in the title of a reference is very useful, especially where several genus names are shown. This provides a quick link to a different genus, from the Refs section, without having to go through all the taxonav process or doing a specific additional search. Can you not see this as useful? If it actually might be of use, then perhaps it might help to change your policy. Accassidy (talk) 17:53, 7 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi @Accassidy, I thought about it, but the problem I see with this is that it clutters the taxon's "What links here" page with a bunch of links from all the pages that contain the same reference template, and as a result, you cannot see anymore which pages link to the taxon for the "good reasons" (i.e. through taxonavigation or type taxon's links). And it would only take 1 or 2 more clicks to access these other taxa quoted in the paper title, by just going to the "What links here" of the reference template. So, this policy of no links in paper titles makes sense to me. But let me also ping @Circeus in case I am missing something. Best --LamBoet (talk) 02:49, 8 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We don't have an explicit policy on this specific issue, but the list of issues not covered by Help:Reference section would fill another page of the same length. I'm confident the sentiment is against it since no one has really argued in favor of it before. What we link in references (namely authors, historical publications and periodical titles) we do primarily for disambiguation purposes and to collate information about their dating and access. Species don't fit that. Linking would be a significant change to the default Wikispecies style, and certainly would require a heavy discussion on Village Pump if you didn't want such edits reverted. Circeus (talk) 03:04, 8 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I see your point @Alan, however for the sake of practicality I lean towards @LamBoet's and @Circeus's viewpoints in this matter. I think the information derived from "What links here" would become pretty useless if it would also include all taxon names in article titles. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 09:51, 8 January 2020 (UTC).Reply[reply]
For what it's worth, getting that sort of information is what the "nomenclatural acts" part of a template page is for, so that is probably a not unreasonable option (though you can find all mentions of a taxon in article titles by just doing a search for it restricted to templates). Circeus (talk) 16:08, 8 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Amysoria edit

Well spotted. Problem arose, I think, from copying the document from on-screen and the letters being misinterpreted by the character recognition software. I've made the appropriate changes. Cheers.Accassidy (talk) 15:41, 11 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Accassidy: OK! Thanks for restoring the page. I just tagged the misspelled redirect for deletion. Best --LamBoet (talk) 19:12, 11 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Moving Author categories to protonym redirection edit

Hello friend. As far as I know, the recommendation, or the practice, is keeping Author taxa categories in the main page. Should you have moved other pages, I suggest to revert, and take the discussion to Village Pump for consensus before changing an established criteria. Cheers.--Hector Bottai (talk) 11:48, 16 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi @Hector Bottai: thank you for telling me. I am actually not the only one putting author categories on protonym redirections, I think I have been following what User:PeterR does, which made sense to me, since it makes things more accurate (authors primarily create names, not taxa). I'll keep these categories on the main page if you prefer. --LamBoet (talk) 08:43, 23 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I definitely support user:Hector Bottai's view. Would be a chaos if every taxon name (including all redirects) will get author taxa categories--Estopedist1 (talk) 11:02, 9 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi @Estopedist1: yes, AFAIK no one suggested to put categories on every redirect. Synonyms should have categories, but alternative genus-species combinations should not. The debate here was about the diverging practice of either putting the category on the protonym (redirection) or on the currently valid combination (main page). Following Hector's message, I now do the latter. --LamBoet (talk) 17:56, 9 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You said: "Synonyms should have categories". Are you sure? There are taxons with over 30 synonyms. I guess that the synonym should be categorized only then, when it is the in-scope eponym for Wikispecies, and if corresponding valid taxon's name is not eponymous --Estopedist1 (talk) 15:43, 10 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Estopedist1: I don't understand your last sentence, can you perhaps give me an example? --LamBoet (talk) 16:11, 10 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not easy to explain :) I dont have concrete example. But hypothetical: we have Rhipidomys couesi (eponymous and in-scope for Wikispecies (ie we have category:Eponyms of Elliott Coues) and at the moment a valid taxon), but in future, the accepted name will be eg "Rhipidomys latimanus" and "Rhipidomys couesi" will be a synonym--Estopedist1 (talk) 16:30, 10 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ah, now I get what you mean, but are you really advocating that synonyms should only have "Eponyms of ..." categories? That surprises me, my understanding was that they are supposed to have the author category too. I am curious to hear @Hector Bottai's opinion about this, I think he does put the author category in that case. --LamBoet (talk) 16:47, 10 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is the first I've heard anyone on Wikispecies advocating for synonym redirects not to have any author taxa categories at all. I don't agree myself, since it helps keep track of which names an author actually authored, and it may turn out for some authors that most taxa they named are now synonyms. Monster Iestyn (talk) 17:24, 10 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Seems there is a little confusion here. This talk started "moving author page to protonym redirection", my position is no, main page have to have author taxa category. My practice and opinion: 1. Synonyms redirections (of different author) have to have author taxa category, see for example Elaenia aenigma. 2. Combinations of the main page (which is current combination), including protonym, should not have author taxa category. Why? Pay attention that [[Category:Author taxa]] counts for the {{Taxa authored}} template in the author page, which is an indicator of how many taxa that author described; if we include combinations, that count will be artificially high, twice, triple or more. I think that count would be non sense.--Hector Bottai (talk) 22:12, 10 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Hector Bottai: The discussion had indeed shifted from combinations to synonyms, but as far as I'm concerned we are on the same page in both cases. Thank you for confirming. --LamBoet (talk) 00:42, 11 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
More, if a synonym (not a combination) is an eponym, yes, the eponym category should be added. Example Remsenornis.--Hector Bottai (talk) 22:12, 10 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

unfortunately our Wikispecies:Glossary doesn't define what is "combination" vs "synonym". In WS articles, we usually put combinations under the section "Synonyms", so I guess "synonym" is a wider concept than "combination"?--Estopedist1 (talk) 10:45, 11 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Duplicates edit

Hi, You may also notice that I have created a number of redirect pages for exactly this situation, that is when a species is given a new generic assignment. If I have missed the odd one, I will try to be more accomplished... — The preceding unsigned comment was added by Accassidy (talkcontribs) 8 September 2020.

Hi @Accassidy: yes, and I know that Cong et al. 2019 often only quote the protonym and the new combination, but they don't explicitly quote the combination that was valid until now, so it takes a bit of research to find it. Thank you for your vigilance. --LamBoet (talk) 18:05, 9 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]