Meneguzzo

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 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. If you need help, ask me on my talk page, or in the Village Pump. Again, welcome! Dan Koehl (talk) 14:13, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Orchidaceae

Dear Meneguzzo,
I am very pleased to see you and your work on orchids here and I hope to have a good cooperation with you. Today two little questions:
A. You set the Subtribus Vargasiellinae in Zygopetalinae. My last information is in „Genera Orchidacearum 5: page: 452 from 2009. There is Vargasiellinae an accepted Subtribus. Do you have more recent informations?
B. Do you have pictures e.g. of Encyclia fimbriata for Wikispecies and Commons perhaps?
Best Reguards. Orchi (talk) 13:49, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Dear Orchi,

Thank you very much indeed for contacting me and giving this friendly reception. I plan feeding Wikispecies with results of my own research only after they are appropriately published in scientific journals.

Now, I answer your questions.

A. I see you made some updates concerning to last compendium on Orchidaceae systematics Chase et al., 2015, but somewhat I wasn't made to Vargasiella, so I did. On that, Vargasiella was confirmed to be related to Zygopetalinae, and so on merged into it. See also this article for detailed phylogenetic information, even though their systematics ranking are not acceptable at all by taxonomists.

B. Sorry, but I don't have any picture of Encyclia fimbriata. I and my colleagues described it based on a unique herbarium specimen. I had already faced on the web pictures of living specimens. I suggest you eventually asking these people authorization to upload it, as it seems you are good on gathering pictures from many different users.

I wonder if you could help me in a doubt about creating new template reference pages. How should I name a page if an author (or more than one) published more than an article a year. In a regular scientific citation letters after year would be added, e.g. Chase et al., 2009a, 2009b, 2009n etc. I face this problem on 2012, as I published two papers with different collaborators.

All the best --Meneguzzo (talk) 20:13, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Dear Meneguzzo,

thanks for your detailed answer. I start with the last point:

To create templates for several publications in the same year, there are new rules here in Wikispecies after some discussions. I'm going to User: Andyboorman and ask, to give you advice. He is expert in this matter (I'm not). By the way, I think your new templates e.g. "Template:Batista et al., 2011" are correct or perfect.

Andy Boormann and I were oriented in the creation the Familia Orchidaceae in Wikispecies and Commons by KEW and „Genera Orchidacearum 1-6“ .

You're right with your assessment, that these systematic rankings are not acceptable by all taxonomists. (KEW : MBG; KEW: Australian authors; KEW : European authors; etc.) But in the moment, I think, it is the most accepted system. KEW should be seen as a globally accepted guideline here. New opinions and new publications in taxonomy should also be published here, with references to new insights. (as you did it here).

For today, all the best. Orchi (talk) 20:07, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Dear Orchi. Thank you for your points. Before receiving your message I changed the taxonomic placement of Nothostelis, and also created new articles for its both species. It used to be placed in Cranichidinae, but I and my colleagues (Batista et al., 2011) placed it to Spiranthinae based on a phylogenetic approach (morphological + molecular). Our proposal was recently endorsed by Chase et al. (2015). As you asked me, before proceeding on to new systematic changes, I'll ask you for as discussion. Have a good weekend! --Meneguzzo (talk) 23:01, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Autopatrolled rights

Dear Meneguzzo, 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 autopatroller use the autopatroller user box on your user page. Copy and paste the following code on your user page:

{{User Autopatroller}}

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

Theres 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.Dan Koehl (talk) 14:15, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Hello

Hi Meneguzzo, Hopefully I have answered your question OK on my talk page. Also have a look through the discussions on the pump regarding format of papers and citations. Basically there is no agreed house style for date I tend to prefer brackets (2015) but others go for 2015. or even (2015). but we do now avoid 2015: The rest is more or less as found in the majority of papers.
I look forward to reading your edits, good luck and regards Andyboorman (talk) 17:51, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

A couple of other points. Some contributors do not like the additional information you have provided e.g the Distribution and Ecology in Encyclia fimbriata. We are still debating the best way of presenting holotype, distribution and such like. Perhaps have a word word with @Franz Xaver: on this. Your templates are great thanks for the edits on Chase et al., 2015, I wonder why Cameron has no entry in the author category - time for a fix! Regards Andyboorman (talk) 20:20, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Meneguzzo! Welcome to Wikispecies! There were some lengthy discussion, what kind of information should be presented in Wikispecies, e.g. Wikispecies:Village pump/Archive 26#What We Want to Convey. Concerning distribution data, some users are pro, some others did not express a decided opinion, and some gave a statement, this kind of information should not be presented at main taxon pages, but only at the talk pages or by use of categories. If you are interested in this topic, you may also have a look at Wikispecies:Village Pump#The Distribution Issue Revisited. For me personally, the use of Template:Nadi is OK, as you have done. For the time being, it seems to be an accepted way to present distribution data, but a final decision is still missing. However, the information in the additional paragraphs in Encyclia fimbriata on Distribution and ecology and Taxonomic affinities, maybe should better be moved to the talk page. Especially the paragraph "Taxonomic affinities" is problematic, as it expresses a statement, which seems to be not in accordance with the NPOV rules. If I read "similar to ...", the question comes into my mind "similar at what instance?" There is a personal POV, a personal scale of values, in the issue of similarity. What is similar for some persons, even among experts, might be rated as dissimilar by others.

The way, how you presented type information is perfectly OK for me, except one point: In my opinion, it is better to omit the exclamation mark after "CEPEC". In a publication this mark is meaning, that the authors of the paper have seen that specimen. However, also authors in Wikispecies are supposed not to perform original research. I am aware, you are one of the authors of this species (and the paper), at least you bear the same name. Anyway, when you personally have seen the specimen, you did this as being an author of the paper and not in your role as a contributor to wikispecies. It is better to separate both roles. Best wishes --Franz Xaver (talk) 23:36, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

ORCID

Hi,

You can display your ORCID iD on your user page; just use:

{{Authority control|ORCID=XXXX-XXXX-XXXX-XXXX}}

substituting your own iD. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 01:21, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Join discussions

At the water pump is presently discussed two topics;

1.) is to follow a previous consensus and change all [[BASEPAGENAME]] into [[susbt:BASEPAGENAME]], something which already has started.

2.) is what to do with the Category: <<taxon name>> (<<any country>>) files created by Stephen Thorpe. Some 5 000 have so far been moved together at Candidates for speedy deletion, but concearn has been objected, that some of those files may be useful, in all, or that parts should be transfered somewhere, before a major mass delete. Please join the discussion at pump and take part in shaping a consensus.

Best regards, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:48, 27 January 2017 (UTC)