User talk:Mariusm/Archive5

Species of the week

Hi Mariusm - one thing I was thinking I could do with my new Admin status, is to do this from time to time, to increase it from its present status of "Species of less-than-once-a-month". You've been the main contributor to it recently; would you like me to do some, starting now? - MPF (talk) 09:37, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Nicely done

Hello Mariusm. I think you've done a great job with adding species of Heterospilus and Trigonopterus etc. over the last few weeks. Keep it up!
Best regards, Tommy Kronkvist (talk | contribs), 09:55, 6 January 2015 (UTC).

Hey man, this is very weird to receive all of a sudden a praise instead of accusations and complaints. Mariusm (talk) 15:06, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, I'm not usually one who complains and brings forth accusations – others do that a lot better... :-P  Apart from that, I became aware that you have created no less than 575 new Wikispecies pages in the main namespace the past month; from Aneomochtherus (December 2, 2014) to Heterospilus chorti earlier today. Add to that a bunch of reference templates (which are not in main namespace and therefore not included in the statistics) and one can easily see that you've done a huge job. I feel that should be recognized, so – thanks!
–Tommy Kronkvist (talk | contribs), 17:07, 6 January 2015 (UTC).

@Tommy Kronkvist: well, I'm not sure how I'm going to cope with all this after getting already used to being insulted and threshed about. Mariusm (talk) 05:43, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Since you don't bother to check who said what...

I will hand this to you on a silver platter. Have a look at who called Dan for "acting as judge and jury". OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 06:39, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Contributions

Mariusm,

Sthoner did not learn anything of his block. He have delete all the species group names that I had add by the subgenera of Zygaena. Allso he delete the authors Axel Hofmann, Gerhard Tarmann, Walter Gerald Tremewan in the author template Efetov et al., 2014. If I add those authors again in the author template Efetov et all, I'm afraid that he block me. I had made Zygaena the same as Anthene. PeterR (talk) 12:07, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

@PeterR:, User:Stho002 can not block you, he is not an admin. Dan Koehl (talk) 13:41, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

@PeterR:, I restored back your authors from the template Efetov et al., 2014. As to Zygaena, I can't see a problem with the "Species overview". What do you think exactly is the problem there? Mariusm (talk) 14:48, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. I don't have the species group names anymore like Anthene by Agrumenia

@PeterR:, OK I restored Agrumenia too, but in the future it is advisable to name all the species pages <<Genus species>> instead of <<Genus (Subgenus) species>> because it is more simpler and helps in searches and lists. The relevant species will remain on the subgenus page, but the names will be more convenient. Mariusm (talk) 15:07, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

ZMNS

I happened to spot this as ZMNS on your species page. I followed it, figuring I might meet up with it in my marine work. Holotype page does not list that acronym, and this is one of my issues with that page. If you could give me full name of that museum, I can create repository page and category for it. Neferkheperre (talk) 20:17, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

@Neferkheperre: you're right, it's my error, it should be SMNS [Staatliches Museum für Naturkunde, Stuttgart, Germany]. Mariusm (talk) 06:27, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Finally got it done SMNS. There are four collections, with separate acronyms. SMNS refers to Zoological Collection. I could not find acronym for their Paleontology Collection, as that page kept crashing my system. Neferkheperre (talk) 01:43, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Zt templates

Marius,

I see you make Zt templates, while you advice me to make author template like the others. What is the problem? PeterR (talk) 15:44, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

@PeterR: no I didn't make this template, it was already done by Stho and I did a minor edit. It is advisable to leave those templates already done by Stho, and not rename them, because this will involve a lot of work (he made thousands of them). If I make new Zootaxa templates, I'll do it with the author names. Mariusm (talk) 15:48, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the explain. So I can further with the new templates. PeterR (talk) 17:46, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, is not advisable to change Zt templates existing. We would have to change every place they were transcluded. Stho had subscription, or access to such. To carry on like that, we need someone with one. Certainly not me, 2014 cost $5200.00. Neferkheperre (talk) 18:36, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

@Neferkheperre: to do what Stho did you don't have to be subscribed to Zootaxa. If you enter here you can access all new Zootaxa new articles as they are being published - only the abstracts of course, but they have all the info you need for templates.

@Mariusm:@Neferkheperre:. I have done a little bit research for template Zootaxa. In 2012 Sthoner started with Zt. templates. So I started with author name templates from 2005 till 2012. PeterR (talk) 10:39, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks, @PeterR:. I set it up as tab attached to one of my reference building sections.
• One or two things about Zootaxa citations:

1. It is HUGE - 25% of all new species are now published there.

2. Zootaxa, along with maybe 5 other journals, now automatically registers citations with ZooBank as they are published. Access as author, year format. No nomenclatural acts are registered, just citations.

3. There is one very useful step saving template Zootaxa. This link provides use instructions. Put it in just after article title. What it does is install Zootaxa name, linked, issue/page data, and provides abstract and pdf external links. then follow with {{subst:reftemp}}. This makes Zootaxa entries much less formidable. Neferkheperre (talk) 16:22, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Email

Marius, I tried to send you a private email via the WS facility but it seems to have been sent back to me undelivered. Can you please email me at accassidy@aol.com and then I will know how to respond. Alan Accassidy (talk) 16:54, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, the style of User:Zoobank looks very familiar, and the time-stamp is commensurate with the appropriate longitude. This would be sockpuppetry during a block, so if it continues without any data on the User page we will have to look further. Accassidy (talk) 18:42, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Kempf

Mario,

Please can you advice Kempf about making author templates? See Sukonthip Savatenalinton. PeterR (talk) 17:49, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

@PeterR:, @Kempf EK: lets establish a rule for Zootaxa templates: up to 25/Jan/2015 the Zootaxa template-names will begin with Zt. Any template-names for newer Zootaxa articles will be based on author's name(s). Mariusm (talk) 08:47, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

@Kempf EK:. Kempf did not make templates. PeterR (talk) 09:07, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

I discovered this weekend that Sthoner did not make Zootaxa templates for 23 January 2015, so I handled that in standard fashion. Just now I saw this. I really could not wrap my mind around Zt anyway. It does not operate in that mode. Savatenalinton, 2015 was included. Neferkheperre (talk) 11:10, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Contribution Sthoner

Marius,

I agree with you that Sthoner deliver a lot of contribution. But quantity is not quality. He don't make templates for genera or species (for subspecies). He makes references without mention the species etc. I do now a lot of repair work. PeterR (talk) 12:04, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you @PeterR:, yes, we have a hard clean-up job to do after Stho.

What to do?

Marius,

What to do with this? Check: R. brunipes – R. problematica
See

• Zettel, H. 2006: Eine neue Artengruppe der Gattung Rhagovelia Mayr 1865 aus Borneo (Heteroptera: Veliidae). Entomofauna 27(8): 105-116. Full article. Reference page. 

It is an official paper so I think I can add them. PeterR (talk) 12:08, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, @PeterR:, I think you can add those species. Mariusm (talk) 15:13, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Museums

Marius,

Please don't you forget to add the category:Museum name to your new species? like I have done by Lathrobium muguicum PeterR (talk) 14:54, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

OK, @PeterR:, I'll do that. Mariusm (talk) 14:58, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Holotype

Marius,

We have always add Holotype: SDEI etc.. Why have you change that: I can now not seen if I have to make a new museum. When I make a new museum I surch SDEI. PeterR (talk) 15:16, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

SDEI is futur music. Now we have to make a very lot of Mesuems. So I prefer use SDEI. You can do SDEI for museums that exist, but than that you forget some new museums is great. Every day I have new museums. Or we can do SDEI and when the category:SDEI is red we can always change the holotype in SDEI. PeterR (talk) 15:35, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

I wish you a great weekend PeterR (talk) 15:35, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

List of Viruses

Hello Mariusm! It appears you are definitely someone who knows their way around wikispecies. I'm looking for some help; I have created a collapsible and linked "complete and up-to-date" taxonomy of viruses. This is currently sitting on my sandbox (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Bervin61/sandbox), and I would like some review and direction on how to update the current List of Viruses page. I've posted this on the Villiage Pump, but as I am a brand new user, I'm not sure where exactly to seek help. Thanks so much for any advice you can send my way! — The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bervin61 (talk • contribs) 15:20, 9 February 2015.

@Bervin61: see my answer at the Pump. Mariusm (talk) 15:52, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Sthoner back?

Marius,

The author templates are now a chaos. see Template:Yoshitomi & Satô, 2005. without deliberation? they have add now Category:Publications for authors. But we have already an author site, where we add all their templates. PeterR (talk) 17:12, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

@PeterR: Sthoner is playing a hide and seek game with us: he came under the false name of "BioLibrarian", and as soon as this was discovered, this name was blocked too. New he's blocked indefinitely, so I hope you won't have to deal with him anytime soon. Mariusm (talk) 05:09, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Described taxa

Marius,

Please can you tell me what is wrong in the described taxa from Sergei Nikolaevich Alphéraky? PeterR (talk) 09:21, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

@PeterR: You forgot to add the word "taxa" after the name. It should be like this:

== Described taxa ==
* [[:category:Sergei Nikolaevich Alphéraky taxa|{{PAGESINCATEGORY:Sergei Nikolaevich Alphéraky taxa}} taxa described by Sergei Nikolaevich Alphéraky]]

Mariusm (talk) 09:40, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Marius,

Something is not good. I have add a lot of species by Andrey Vasil'evich Gorochov. Category: total of 85 and Described taxa 67. The same problem by other authors. PeterR (talk) 11:08, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

@PeterR: I don't understand. What is exactly your problem? The page Andrey Vasil'evich Gorochov seems to me OK. Mariusm (talk) 14:59, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

If I add new species Andrey Vasil'evich Gorochov taxa the total os species is not the same as by Described taxa. 85 to 67. I expect the same numbers 85 and 85.

@PeterR: I still don't understand: there are 167 entries (species + genera + subspecies) in Category:Andrey Vasil'evich Gorochov taxa, not 85 and not 67. Mariusm (talk) 15:38, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Taxonavigation

Marius,

If we start with add new information we start with == Taxonavigation ==. Don't we need to start with it any more? PeterR (talk) 16:07, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

@PeterR: I don't understand what you mean. Please give me an example. Mariusm (talk) 05:06, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Here is an example Plesiobasis multiguttata and here is an example without taxonavigation Anthene benadirensis PeterR (talk) 08:17, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Oh, I see what you mean. Yes. Every page should start with "== Taxonavigation ==" !!! Mariusm (talk) 08:55, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Please can you ask Alan to start with ==Taxonavigation == and explain him why? PeterR (talk) 09:14, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

@Accassidy: I suppose you forgot to add the "== Taxonavigation ==" title at the Anthene benadirensis top and that this wasn't on purpose. Mariusm (talk) 09:49, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

@PeterR: Marius, I must say I am ambivalent about the ==Taxonavigation== heading when we start a taxon page with a Template which itself includes the word "Taxonavigation" in the expanding header box, thus: "Taxonavigation: Papilioniformes [Expand]". It seems somewhat redundant to have "Taxonavigation" twice. Can you tell me why having it twice would be important. Alan Accassidy (talk) 09:58, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

@Accassidy: It is important because: (1) it is important to be consistent across all pages and to keep some sort of constant format (2) the == == can be edited separately as a subsection (3) we don't want to have "loose" components hanging in the air without belonging to any section (4) a lot of pages don't have the collapsible box. I strongly recommend that we don't discard the heading. Maybe we should give the box another title such as "Higher Classification" or "Higher Ranks". Mariusm (talk) 11:04, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Do use "==Taxonavigation==" format, on taxon page, and not in template. Last year, I thought I would save keystrokes by installing Taxonavigation header onto my genus templates. Result was clicking on Taxonavigation put me into template itself and not higher levels. I had to change all that out. See Template:Chthamalidae. On edit page, see "Taxonav", which sets up expanding box for all higher levels. Use "Taxonav" only for making highest level taxon template. For all lower level taxa, begin taxon template with next higher template, and it is automatically continued. Neferkheperre (talk) 10:30, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Synonymy

Marius,

If we have synonymy in the species other then the original species, I can't add by the synonymy the Museum and author taxa. Therefore I have made a solution for this problem. I have add Current status. See Spilosoma trikenzana and Spilarctia mindanao. please tell me what you are thinking of this solution. PeterR (talk) 10:08, 5 March 2015 (UTC).

@PeterR: it is a very good solution. Mariusm (talk) 12:29, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Can I use this? PeterR (talk) 08:12, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

@PeterR: yes, you can. Mariusm (talk) 08:19, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Sf

Marius, can you check out Sf? It looks like some sort of code, then redirects to legit sounding page which has not yet been created. I hate to dump it out of hand, in case it is someone's project to help out. Second opinion here is helpful. Neferkheperre (talk) 10:36, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

@Neferkheperre: no, it looks like garbage, I'm going to delete it, but you're right: we must watch ourselves not to be too much trigger-happy. Mariusm (talk) 11:16, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

French

Marius,

Are we making animal templates in French? See Template:Espèce de la semaine PeterR (talk) 14:19, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

@PeterR: yes, we have a single page which is written in many languages: the main page, where species of the week is displayed. Mariusm (talk) 14:22, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Patrolling

Thanks a lof for doing some patrolling! Dan Koehl (talk) 13:04, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

@Dan Koehl: is it possible to change "Useful pages: xx Unpatrolled pages" at the top of "recent changes" form https://species.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&days=30&from=&hidepatrolled=1&limit=500 to https://species.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&hidepatrolled=1 to make it more useful? Mariusm (talk) 14:11, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, but then you will not see all 34 unpatrolled pages, only the last 3 pages or so, so I get confused here, why would you find this more useful? Isnt it better to see the entire list? Dan Koehl (talk) 14:18, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

@Dan Koehl: The first list shows me 500 pages, most of them by trusted editors such as PeterR and Neferkheperre. (I have the setting of showing 500 entries per page). Mariusm (talk) 14:30, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

True, but it would be good to get all those files patrolled, so we have a clean list, dont you agree? I have patrolled hundreds of pages so far... Dan Koehl (talk) 14:35, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

@Dan Koehl: oh, I understand... I'll see what I can do to help clean this up. Mariusm (talk) 14:38, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Removing NZ categories

Im removing different "NZ categories, efter discussions at Village pump. Please point me to such categories that you know about, which should be removed. Dan Koehl (talk) 06:14, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Please reply to my answer on my talk page, Im waiting for to clear out the stub issue. I agree with you partly, but the question is what is best, I explain in details on my talk page. Please report all other issues you reacted over, when checking the articles I changed during the work. Maybe theres a wish you have which may easy be done. Dan Koehl (talk) 13:26, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

@Dan Koehl: please do not make more bulk stub markings until a proper discussion is held on the pump. Mariusm (talk) 13:30, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

No real definition and decision were made reg stubs on the village pump. Anyhow, Im going through the stub marked files manually, and remove when I see no proper reason. But Id be happy if we could define a stub on WS, which we may have as basis for a standrard definition for a stub on WS, so AWB automatically follow that definition, when run on this wiki.

I also see a point of defining subcategories; if possible it makes a point to have one definition for staub in taxon articles, and another on taxonomist articles, or what do you say? Maybe it would be good with even more diffent subcategories, to make it easier to fast get an overview, when looking on the lists in categories? Dan Koehl (talk) 12:51, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

@Dan Koehl: 1stly any page with less than 110 bytes is definitely a stub (there are thousands of those).

2ndly, a taxon without reference(s), even if it has links to external sites & author name & date is a stub. (You must take into account that reference-templates can be very short, so pages with references can be short - but not shorter than 110 bytes.)

3rdly, your idea of an author-stab is excellent and I endorse it. An author stab would be one one without publications and/or without described taxa. Mariusm (talk) 14:03, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Good ideas there. I will start a news discussion on Village pump, Isee a need to start make subpages, or project pages for all similair issues, where such good ideas doesn't just get hidden and forgotten in the Village pump history, or user talk pages history.Dan Koehl (talk) 14:22, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

No reference

I believe you reminded me about a template that should used when references are missing on a page, after you saw me using "{{Empty section}}", now I can't find that, please repeat, so I can continue the page cleanup. Dan Koehl (talk) 16:05, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

@Dan Koehl: I made the Template:Noref to be used for taxa with no references. Mariusm (talk) 04:08, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Wikispecies:Project Cleanup

The first project has been creted, please join Wikispecies:Project Cleanup, and help us come to >> discussion >> consensus >> decision >> establishing policy >> etc Dan Koehl (talk) 00:48, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Image sizes

Dear Mariusm, Your are editing several images increasing size to 350px which is against the recommended at guidelines, please see Help:Image Guidelines at Use: 220px for portrait and 250px for landscape. I kindly ask you to return all the editions done against the rule. Sincerely.--Hector Bottai (talk) 18:07, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

@Hector Bottai: you're right, I messed up with the photo dimensions. I've completely forgotten the numbers recommended by the guidelines. I'll see to this soon. Mariusm (talk) 05:26, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Authored taxa

Marius

Authored taxa don't work any more. Please can you see what is wrong? I get no the just total any more. See Bengt Å. Bengtsson. PeterR (talk) 08:22, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Agree, I had perceived that the counting on author's page is not updating automatically. You need to edit, do anything on it and then update.--Hector Bottai (talk) 11:13, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

@PeterR:, @Hector Bottai: I don't get what the problem is. Does the last taxon added not showing in the taxa count? Maybe the count isn't updated immediately, but needs some period of time to take its course. Mariusm (talk) 12:28, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

It looks to me that never updates the counting, I will make an experience and see how many days (or never) it takes to update.--Hector Bottai (talk) 19:17, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Experience: now, June 25th, Category:Jean Cabanis taxa: counting 33; Jean Cabanis page, counting 32.--Hector Bottai (talk) 19:21, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

@Hector Bottai: I opened right now the Jean Cabanis page; the count shows 33! Mariusm (talk) 07:32, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

If you look at Bengt Å. Bengtsson you see the teller is 15, but if you click at it you see the teller is 71. PeterR (talk) 09:42, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

@PeterR: very strange! On my computer I see it as 71 and not 15! @Hector Bottai: what is the count you see on Bengt Å. Bengtsson? Mariusm (talk) 13:44, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

@PeterR: Really bizarre, I also see 15...--Hector Bottai (talk) 16:20, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Dervishiya

Marius,

Please can you look to Dervishiya. I saved it and now it is candidate for speedy deletion with a page I didn't make. PeterR (talk) 07:12, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

@PeterR: You've made a mistake: instead of <<sp|species>> template you typed <<spt|species>>. I fixed it. Now it's OK. Mariusm (talk) 07:47, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Marius. PeterR (talk) 08:55, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Authored taxa

Marius,

We agree all to use Authored taxa and not Described taxa. Now I see that Pigsonthewing use Described taxa again. See Carolus Linnaeus. PeterR (talk) 16:54, 28 October 2015 (UTC) I'm a little bit tired of all those persons. For example Haps do the same as Stohner. PeterR (talk) 16:57, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

@PeterR: I've changed the headline in the {{Biography}} template to read "Authored taxa" instead of "Described taxa", in compliance with other, similar templates as well as community consensus. The result of this change is immediate and can be seen in Carolus Linnaeus, as well as on any other page that uses the template. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 15:57, 5 November 2015 (UTC).

Yes, I remember we've decided on "Authored taxa" to replace "Described taxa". Again, we just have to consistent. Mariusm (talk) 16:25, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

ICZN

Marius,

Such you know I add species with the Museum. In the Museum the species are with the original names. Such as Illiberis (Hedina) louisi. In the museum you can find it as Illiberis (Hedina) louisi and not as Illiberis louisi. Now people want that I make a subgenus Hedina with the species Illiberis louisi. My problem is that the author from Illiberis louisi is not Efetov, but Efetov is the author from Illiberis (Hedina) louisi. Have you a solution for this problem? PeterR (talk) 18:37, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

@PeterR: please DO NOT create pages in the format Genus (Subgenus) species. Illiberis louisi is equal to Illiberis (Hedina) louisi so I don't see a problem here. However you can retain Illiberis (Hedina) louisi under the Name section, so this will inform the user of the full name. Mariusm (talk) 05:16, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Perigrapha rorida

Marius,

I had done the subgenera as we agree. Now Termininja set all back. See Perigrapha rorida. He make again Periographa (Rororthosia) rorida via redirect. PeterR (talk) 11:49, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

@PeterR: I'm sorry to see this confusion again and again. I'll send a message to Termininja. Mariusm (talk) 13:02, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Guys, can you explain me why you keep two pages which are the same? (example: Perigrapha (Perigrapha) annaus and Perigrapha annaus), because I'm also very confused from this. --Termininja (talk) 14:30, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Its not alone the subgenera but also the format. PeterR (talk) 15:11, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I see the different format, but two pages for the same content with the same information, this is useless duplication. If you want some more special and informative format just make it in one page, why you have to create two? Ok, I'll revert my redirects because I'm also agree that form Genus species is right. --Termininja (talk) 16:10, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

@Termininja: @PeterR: Thanks. Just convert every Genus (Subgenus) species to redirects or delete them. You can put all the info you want in the Genus species page. We just have to be consistent. That's the main thing. Mariusm (talk) 16:20, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Bot needed for bulk category renames

Dear Marius, I know you have good eyes for errors, would you be kind and able to doublecheck some trials of recategorization, to see that changes are erformed correctly, and look according to the wishes? Please see Bot needed for bulk category renames.

I made an initial trial with some 10 files, which can be found through my contributions. lease double echeck that the files were modified according to the plans. As far as I can see, they were changed correctly, with no problem. Dan Koehl (talk) 02:27, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

@Dan Koehl: as far as I can see your conversion works fine except one thing: To avoid ambiguities we're using the author's full name for taxa categories, so it would be much preferable if you can make "Alan C. Eyles taxa" instead of "A.C. Eyles taxa". Mariusm (talk) 05:29, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Very good, Ill change the category name to the author's full name. Dan Koehl (talk) 11:15, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

It seems its working well, I now made the first edits with KoehlBot, please take a look. Dan Koehl (talk) 12:23, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

@Dan Koehl: yes, the bot seems to do its job well. Mariusm (talk) 12:48, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Great, Ill start running the bot now, the results can be seen and double-checked at edits with KoehlBot. Anyone, please keep on an eye on the results. Dan Koehl (talk) 12:59, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

To clarify slightly, I have been using author's full name as presented in author page title. Removes another possibility of confusion. Neferkheperre (talk) 13:27, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

This file, Category:Taxa_of_C._Johnson is pointing to a file with a link back to the old category, but the link is not visible, maybe theres a link to the old category from any of the templates? Dan Koehl (talk) 13:42, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

There's a "Category:Colin Johnson taxa" so "Category:Taxa of C. Johnson" can be safely deleted. Mariusm (talk) 15:02, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Same problem here, I think those links has to be located and removed. Dan Koehl (talk) 15:36, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you all for notifying. If Mariusm (or others – including users not mention here, but still doing a great job!) won't sort it out in the near future, I'll try to fix it in a day or two. However I'm willing to bet there's quite a bunch more than the two categories posted by Dan that needs a "manual" hands on. Nothing wrong with that, but that's what he bot was originally created for other. Still a good bot as far as I go, but admins, to do it properly: Please vote. Check the logs, and do your bidding. Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 17:16, 9 November 2015 (UTC).

Aesthetydeus setsukoae

Marius,

Is this the new format Aesthetydeus setsukoae? This format likes a lot of the formats from Sthoner and Haps. PeterR (talk) 12:00, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

@PeterR:, @Hmandre: I think User:Hmandre, who made this page is a new editor here and he is copying the format of Stho002 which he saw in some other pages. You can write to him and explain what our preferred format is. Mariusm (talk) 13:12, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

I myself wrote him a message on this. Mariusm (talk) 13:29, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Marius. You know my english is not so good, therefore you can better explain him. PeterR (talk) 15:21, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

It is still a mist see Apotriophtydeus penola. Seems to be he want listen to you or others PeterR (talk) 17:55, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation pages

Hi, I don't know where to ask, so I'll try here. Should pages like this be marked with {{disambig}}? --Termininja (talk) 10:34, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

@Termininja: These page(s) should be marked by {{disambig}} only if there are 2 or more persons with the same respective surname. In the case of Vladimirov there's only 1 such such person (for now) so no need for disambig in this case. In this case though, it should be moved to the full name i.e. to "Vladimir Vladimirov" with a redirect left behind. Mariusm (talk) 12:43, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

I've made the move. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 13:42, 12 November 2015 (UTC).

Yes, this family name in the title was very strange for only one person in the page content. Now is clear, thanks. --Termininja (talk) 13:51, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

References

Marius,

User:Hmandre don't add the references like your proposals see Tydeus goetzi. Have User:Haps and User:Accassidy say they agree with your proposal? PeterR (talk) 11

40, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

@PeterR: No, there's no agreement for now, so I suggest we don't implement this proposal yet. Mariusm (talk) 12:59, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Hmandre

Marius,

Please look at Category:Alexander Fain. It is not after author and author taxa. He's doing what he want. Seems to be Sthoner is back. PeterR (talk) 10:52, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

@PeterR: yes, I know. He doesn't respond to notes on his talk page. But I know he's a specialist on Acari and his work is good and accurate. So we must leave him alone for now. Mariusm (talk) 13:05, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't agree with you. Sthoner is a specialist too. He didn't listen to others and is gone now. If you don't let him make corrections now, the chaos become greater. You have to do this in the same way you did it by me. You can send him a warning. PeterR (talk) 09:42, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

@PeterR: it's not the same. Stho002 harassed others and interfered with other's work. Let's stay more calm and not start waving warnings. Mariusm (talk) 13:08, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Many thanks for your help ! I am new in the business and had problems to communicate and to create templates. The database is simple but, sometime difficult, when you do not know how that works. Hope I followed the "good" procedure this time ! Hmandre (talk) 11:17, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi Marius,

Many thanks for your help, especially for the template.

I begin to communicate and learned that it was possible to do so by clicking (talk) near the name (and not the name itself).

I was invited to participate in the discussion at Village_pump but do not know how to answer the poll on subgenus (clicking the icons at the left leads me to a magnification of the icon and not to a reply to the poll…). As you say, I am facing a daunting task to understand how your system works, but that’s life.

Hello @Hmandre:, now there is an [[edit]]-button near "Support", "Oppose" or "Neutral" in the Village Pump-article. Hope it helps --Murma174 (talk) 11:12, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Personally, I do not escape the subgenera created by others. I did twice, with the genus Astrida and with the genus Psittaboydaia. I am using the sign “+” to separate subgenera. Any species has two entries, one with the binomen and another with the binomen + the subgenera (in agreement with ICZN), the latter with a hard redirect to the former (thus Astrida caprimulgi and Astrida (Astrida) caprimulgi). This way, I respect the code (ICZN) and the user of the database who finds the species whatever his choice.

@Hmandre: Yes, that is exactly what is intended: The title (lemma) without subgenus, the article text may use the subgenus.--Murma174 (talk) 11:20, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

P.S. The redirect is necessary for not having two separate articles for one species. --Murma174 (talk) 11:22, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

We agree not use the subgenera in the species name. But now Murma174 change all the species in species with subgenus see Euphaedra latifasciata. What are we doing now? PeterR (talk) 10:43, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

@PeterR: The main thing is that the page-name stays Genus species, Inside the page there's no objection to write Genus (Subgenus) species as long as the page-name is according to agreement. Murma174 is also redirecting from Genus (Subgenus) species to Genus species which is also OK, so I see no problem here. Mariusm (talk) 10:59, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Marius that is not Ok. After ICZN it is Genus (subgenus). like a lot of us have done. If I have a genus with subgenus species after ICZN this is the original author combination. If I ask the species in the museum it is species with genus and subgenus. I see that you add a lot of species in the category:Author and museum that are not the real species. The original species is not Euphaedra latifasciata but Euphaedrana latifaciata. This species is later transfered to Euphaedra (Euphaedrana) fasciata. 86.92.183.214 11:44, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

I did not change the content of the page, only the title (lemma). And in case there is a typo like Euphaedra latifasciata / Euphaedrana latifaciata, it was not introduced by me. See the history Thank you --Murma174 (talk) 11:58, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

P.S. If the original name has been Euphaedrana latifasciata before it was transferred to Euphaedra (Euphaedrana) latifasciata, then it means, that Euphaedrana does not have the status of a Genus anymore. The history of the name could be described in the == Name ==-section. --Murma174 (talk) 12:07, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

@Murma174: I didn't say thats your fault. After ICZN you have to stabilize the original name (via lectotype etc.). See as example Crambus anapiellus. PeterR (talk) 13:04, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

In my opinion the article Crambus anapiellus is not necessary and should be changed to a redirect -> Euchromius anapiellus. Why? Because we have two articles describing the same one species. All the information in Crambus anapiellus can easily be integrated in the article Euchromius anapiellus. PLEASE let us agree to the rule: One species -> one article! Otherwise we are not a wikiSPECIES anymore. I think, this question is so fundamental, that I put it onto the Village Pump. --Murma174 (talk) 15:26, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

@Murma174: this time I must agree with PeterR: sometimes there's a lot of info on a synonym, so it's better to make a separate page, and of course indicate clearly it's an invalid name. Mariusm (talk) 15:41, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Then please tell me, how we can get rid of duplicate articles? There are species with not only one, but several synonyms. --Murma174 (talk) 15:46, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

@Murma174: why duplicate? Every synonym has its own unique name! The name isn't valid of course, but it's unique. And every synonym has a unique information of it's own e.g. type, reference, author, residency, mentions etc. But of course I don't suggest this practice to be mandatory. Mariusm (talk) 15:51, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Duplicate in the meaning: duplicate article describing the same one species. Wikispecies is about species. Species with several names of course. --Murma174 (talk) 16:01, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Is there make a cost/profit analyse: I think this update is more then a half year work for one person.PeterR (talk) 13:12, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

@PeterR: Please see Astrida caprimulgi as an excellent example to satisfy ICZN protocol & also to implement our page-name-standards. Mariusm (talk) 14:50, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Marius. Thats not like my example. PeterR (talk) 15:32, 2 December 2015 (UTC). See also Aloconota africana have to be like Crambus anapiellus after ICZN. PeterR (talk) 15:38, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

@PeterR: (1) can you please give me your perfect example of a good species page with a subgenus? (2) I agree with you that a synonym can have a separate page and not necessarily must be a redirect Mariusm (talk) 15:41, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Marius I shall give you an example but it will be taken a while. PeterR (talk) 18:10, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Now I give you an example Callophrys clarolinea. See the real name under ==References ==. I stay by my meaning that the first additing from subgenera (Callophrys (Ahlbergia) clarolinea) is the best solution. We had never problems. Every time when people are new we have troubles. The species name is Ahlbergia clarolinea. PeterR (talk) 11:48, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

@PeterR: I don't think Callophrys clarolinea is the best way to do things: (1) Why the subgenus page is called Ahlbergia and not Callophrys (Ahlbergia)? Please see page Atheta and Atheta (Acrotona) for a good example. (2) Why not specify "Callophrys (Ahlbergia) clarolinea" in the name section to make things absolutely clear? Mariusm (talk) 12:53, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Problem

Marius,

I have a problem with Tortrix (Cnephasia) alhamana. In 1960 Razowski have designated a lectotype. This species is now transferred to Paramesia alhamana. There is a genus Cnephasia but how can I integrated Tortrix (Cnephasia) alhamana?. In the museum HNHM you can find this species under Tortrix (Cnephasia) alhamana. PeterR (talk) 18:10, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

@PeterR: I prefer you put all synonyms under the synonymized genus. See please where I put Tortrix alhamana in the page Tortrix. Now you can redirect Tortrix (Cnephasia) alhamana to Tortrix alhamana and make a page Tortrix alhamana for the invalid name. Mariusm (talk) 05:12, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Andropogon

Hi Marius. You have added lots of "unresolved" names to the above genus. These are in fact mainly synonyms, not unresolved. I appreciate that you have probably picked them up from orphan pages and wanted to reduce this problem. However, I think you have really confused the taxon page for Andropogon. As all of these pages were developed in the past using a spurious and unscientific source, I feel that the pages themselves need to checked through and blanked then deleted, if indeed they are synonyms. The synonmity will be picked up on the relevant species page once it is fully developed. I have adopted this strategy somewhat in the past, but have put this on the back-burner whilst I developed all the red link genera for the monocots - a project that I have nearly completed! What is your opinion? Regards Andyboorman (talk) 09:52, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Given the amount of synonymy this is a rather large undertaking! See just Agenium villosum as an example - OK the page is badly formatted, but the information is there. Regards Andyboorman (talk) 10:14, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

@Andyboorman: I don't know which is worse: to have orphaned Andropogon species that can be taken as valid by a casual user or to have the genus page somewhat "confused". I think the responsibility of the editor who cleans up the genus and weeds out the superfluous species is to handle those "garbage" species and either redirect them or delete them. You can go ahead and revert my edit, but please see to it to take care of these species one way or another. It will take just 10 minutes of your time to delete them if you think this to be the appropriate action. Mariusm (talk) 10:50, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

@Mariusm: If you wish to deal with orphans by adding them to their main page as Invalid Names then if they are ones that I created then I can deal with them in due course. I will get alerted to your changes through my Watchlist. Regards Andyboorman (talk) 16:41, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Andy. I Appreciate it. Mariusm (talk) 06:12, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Addition of language

I have made the main page of Nepali language. can you please add this language in {{Languages}}. Please see if you can and add नेपाली (en:nepali) in the list. --BRPever (talk) 09:13, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

What about this page: https://species.wikimedia.org/wiki/मुखपृष्ठ/hi, isn't it Nepali? What about the मुखपृष्ठ language? Mariusm (talk) 09:23, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

It is Hindi language not Nepali. You can see main page of Nepali and main page of Hindi Wikipedia here and en:Nepali and en:Hindi as two different language. --BRPever (talk) 09:36, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

 Done. The language is now added. Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 10:27, 19 December 2015 (UTC).