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:

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!

Sorry if the welcome template misled you, but please don't sign your name on taxon pages! Only sign talk pages. The taxon page history already records who edited it ... Stho002 (talk) 03:04, 7 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Templates edit

When you make a new genus page, you can make the template for that genus. See Template:Picicola that I've made for Picicola as an example. Thanks very much for your work. Koumz (talk) 21:30, 10 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Commons links edit

Please DON'T use {{commonscat}} if there are no images at Commons! Stho002 (talk) 00:00, 11 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dennyus edit

Sorry to jump in, but don't you think it is much nicer now? We still need to refine the 'Selected references' so that it lists only the really important ones. Stho002 (talk) 22:32, 28 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I suggest that you think about prioritising information according to importance. I suggest that it is unrealistic, and not useful, to attempt to list all references for a taxon. Other projects are doing that. For example, BHL bibliography attempts to (automatically) list every page of every publication that a name is mentioned on, but users will not find this useful! Your skill and knowledge of lice would be best utilised here by you selecting important references for each taxon. Cheers, Stho002 (talk) 23:16, 28 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't understand! You can spread knowledge about lice very effectively here. I was just trying to show you how to spend your time most efficiently Stho002 (talk) 00:44, 29 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is an example of adding important references: Ischnocera ... Stho002 (talk) 01:15, 29 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It is important to use the template for Carriker, 1936, like I have done here: Discocorpus ... Stho002 (talk) 01:36, 29 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If you want to list in in references, use {{Carriker, 1936}} ... Stho002 (talk) 01:37, 29 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Reference templates: a handy hint edit

When making a ref. template, just add {{subst:reftemp}} after the reference citation, and it will automatically create the links. Stho002 (talk) 22:50, 1 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Try it with Template:Uchida, 1948
You did it wrong with Template:Eichler, 1952. I have fixed it now. You just need to put the text {{subst:reftemp}}, immediately after the reference citation. Don't use <includeonly></includeonly>
Still doing it wrong! Your last template, just before you clicked save, should have looked like this:

* {{aut|Guimarães, L.R.}} 1942: Novos generos de Malofagos parasitas de Falconiformes. [[ISSN 0031-1049|''Papéis Avulsos de Zoologia'']], '''2'''(17): 235-247.{{subst:reftemp}}

The {{subst:reftemp}} should be added just after the ref. citation, as above. No space, by the way.
subst: actually hard writes the result of applying the template into the page. So if you use it, and then save, when you go back, subst: won't be there anymore.

Yes man, slowly but I am getting there. I appreciate any assistance. Thanks. Michel P. Valim (talk) 23:42, 1 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You are learning fast and doing well Stho002 (talk) 23:45, 1 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Taxon talk pages edit

There is a "talk page" associated with every taxon page. You just click on "Discussion" tab at top of taxon page. I prefer to move all nonessential links to these talk pages eventually, though I might occasionally put them on a taxon page if I am in a hurry. Stho002 (talk) 00:05, 2 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Zootaxa templates edit

  • I'm not quite sure what you are asking me, but I have created the page Austrophilopterus‎, and Template:Zt918. Note that Zootaxa templates are a special case, because there are so many of them. There is a template for the citation, {{zootaxa|year|issue number|start page|end page|PDF (for open access articles)}} ... Stho002 (talk) 04:07, 2 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Sorry, I'm still not sure what you are asking! You have to create new pages manually. There is no way to automatically create them Stho002 (talk) 04:14, 2 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • But, what I do when there are a lot of species to add, is to try to copy a list of the species into an MS word file, and then use the replace function to format it for our pages here. With any luck it takes the same amount of time regardless of the number of species in the list ... Stho002 (talk) 04:18, 2 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Primary References edit

I was using the heading 'Primary References' before I got the better idea of hyperlinking to the template page, so we don't need that heading any more. If the original ref. is informative, then list it under 'Selected references', otherwise the hyperlink is sufficient Stho002 (talk) 06:29, 2 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Informal groups edit

Cummingsiella edit

Sorry to jump in on that, but I was mainly correcting some problems. If we look at how you had the page https://species.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cummingsiella&oldid=1865071, there were 3 problems:

  1. "Fixation: original designation (p. 125)" There is no designation of type species on that page, just the creation of a replacement name
  2. Listing Denny, 1842 as a reference is a problem because the genus didn't exist in 1842!
  3. Ewing 1930 ref. is a classic case of a ref. that only needs to be hyperlinked, not also listed as a selected reference (it tells you nothing about the genus, it only proposes a new replacement name)

Other than this example, you are doing excellent work. Please keep it up. We are making excellent progress ... Stho002 (talk) 23:36, 4 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just to reiterate:

  1. Please don't remove nomenclatural information that I have added.
Ok, I won't. Then, please do not remove any referencial information that I have added too. Let's leave information, not only "names". Cheers Michel P. Valim (talk) 23:55, 4 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If you are primarily interested in information, then I suggest you move to Wikipedia (though you may find that there are more people there to have disagreements with!) The primary aim of Wikispecies, as I see it, is to be a classified library of useful references. This is more important than even the names. But to be useful, you have to select the references very carefully. Citing a ref. as a "selected reference", when it only replaces a name, and is already hyperlinked, is simply not a good idea. Stho002 (talk) 00:02, 5 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The only, and great, thing that heavy against your way to think is: who is you to decide what is relevant or not for such group of "lice" (for example)? I got that WS is not for "write texts", but it still cite reference, at least while you permit it. Cheers... Michel P. Valim (talk) 00:20, 5 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  1. You cannot possibly add Denny, 1842 to the selected references of the genus, when the genus isn't mentioned in the ref. (because it didn't exist yet!). This ref. goes on the species page for the type species.
Ok, now one rational reason. I'll save these references for their species. Cheers Michel P. Valim (talk) 23:55, 4 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks, Stho002 (talk) 23:43, 4 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template:Hellenthal et al., 2002 edit

I know your linked PDF shows the date as 2002, but that date is not on the original, and all other sources suggest July 2001. I think we should go with 2001? Stho002 (talk) 22:50, 12 July 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Nice question Thorpe... the official year is 2001, but it was released in 2002. For the taxonomic purposed I know that the 2002 is which matters. All the three taxa described on it are considered in posterior literature as published in 2002. Could you fix it for something like "2001[2002]" ?

Thanks Michel P. Valim (talk) 23:33, 12 July 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm not convinced! Why would the July 2001 issue get delayed until 2002? We need evidence for this, or else the Code says we must follow the date on the work itself:

21.2. Date specified. The date of publication specified in a work is to be adopted as correct in the absence of evidence to the contrary.

We also should follow the same date for all other new taxa published in the same issue. Stho002 (talk) 23:44, 12 July 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • I am not the eldery guy to say about N examples of such kind of delays in taxonomic publications to convince you my friend. But ok, consider that the heading of the paper clearly says:

26 February 2002


In case of any synonym for these taxa, I have no doubt that 2002 is considered the year for each taxon. I only request you care into not bring problem where it doesn't exist. In the last word checklist all three species are listed as for 2002 and Cicchino et al. (2014) has follow this without any complain for the lice community. Michel P. Valim (talk) 23:54, 12 July 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That's my point! The 2002 date appears only on the (unofficial) PDF that you link to. If you look at the same page on JSTOR, that date is not there! I think it may be the date that it was received by whoever owns the unofficial PDF. Stho002 (talk) 23:57, 12 July 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
All other sources give July 2001 as the date, eg. ION Stho002 (talk) 00:00, 13 July 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Ok Thorpe, but honestely saying I don't care for some source which in 2014 treats this group as "Mallophaga". It shows to me how they are interested in "save the information". This name was dropped for more than 30 years in louse literature. Is easy to you show me a system which obviously will get the date for such DOI, or journals metadata. There is no a brain behind that to think that between 2001 and 2002 could happens a priority issue, then the year to be considered is the latter. Our "non-official" copy was provided by the authors at time of its publication. Michel P. Valim (talk) 00:11, 13 July 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For consistency here with other taxa in that journal, I'm going to change it to 2001, with a note that it could possibly be 2002 Stho002 (talk) 00:20, 13 July 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hosts edit

Only type host goes in the nomenclature box on the taxon page. Other hosts go on the talk page. This isn't Wikipedia! Thanks, Stho002 (talk) 00:34, 13 July 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • What the diference about type host and true host mister expert? This is not wikipedia, but is an indeed fucking boring place moderated by a person that barely knows about what stupid decisions that he is taking in groups without personal knowledge. Man, I WON'T contibute with BULLSHIT knowledge, hope you have a good luck filling the chewing lice (or Mallophaga for those non-updated) alone. Or only puting the weak and skinny information from the new published papers on eletronic journals, and thinking that are changing the world. Now I am done with this, I am wasting my time on the Stupidspecies! Go a head and put only the data that you "think" that is suitable. Lucky buddy!
May I suggest you seek "anger management"? Stho002 (talk) 00:44, 13 July 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Yes, you may! May I suggest you fuck yourself? And put all the species of YOUR Wiki there too... Ban me, came on!
I can persue the option of blocking you with my colleague admins, if you insist! Anyway, I have gone to the trouble of creating a page for Eudromia elegans elegans, so there is no need for you to repeat the details (i.e., Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire, 1832 (Aves, Tinamiformes, Tinamidae)) on the louse page. Hosts other than type hosts have nothing to do with nomenclature, and we don't list these details on taxon pages (as any other admin will tell you). So, please put that information on the taxon talk page only, thanks Stho002 (talk) 01:25, 13 July 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Share your experience and feedback as a Wikimedian in this global survey edit

Your feedback matters: Final reminder to take the global Wikimedia survey edit

(Sorry to write in Engilsh)

  1. This survey is primarily meant to get feedback on the Wikimedia Foundation's current work, not long-term strategy.
  2. Legal stuff: No purchase necessary. Must be the age of majority to participate. Sponsored by the Wikimedia Foundation located at 149 New Montgomery, San Francisco, CA, USA, 94105. Ends January 31, 2017. Void where prohibited. Click here for contest rules.