Chinese names


E.g. Ming-Qiang Wang Their family name comes first, so sorting as "Wang, Ming-Qiang" is incorrect. Also, please use Category:Taxon authorities rather than Category:Taxon Authorities. Thanks. —Justin (koavf)TCM 06:36, 5 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hi @Koavf:. As Zootaxa and Zookeys are not 100% consistent in presenting Chinese names, I do some backchecking when something looks odd. I have found that Chinese family names are usually one syllable. In Zookeys, Ming-Qiang Wang was stated as Wang Minqiang in article citation. Clicking on author names gives profiles. Profile name was Mingqiang Wang. So, sorting as "Wang, Ming-Qiang" would in that case be correct.
For taxon authorities, I am using quick-click on Wikispecies Tools. We need to get Wikigeeks to correct that. While they are at it, they should add {{Authority control}} and {{inc}} to speed up things. Neferkheperre (talk) 19:13, 5 January 2017 (UTC)Reply
Sorry Please excuse me then. Thanks for your kind note. —Justin (koavf)TCM 19:14, 5 January 2017 (UTC)Reply
Quick-click Can you direct me to this tool? I'm not familiar with it. —Justin (koavf)TCM 19:19, 5 January 2017 (UTC)Reply
MediaWiki:Edittools I figured it out and amended it. Thanks a lot. —Justin (koavf)TCM 19:22, 5 January 2017 (UTC)Reply
Great! I see it, and access.Neferkheperre (talk) 19:37, 5 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

Invalid names


Hello @Neferkheperre: Do we really need invalid name taxon pages such as Tocris latirostris? I was very tempted to blank and delete the page in Nov. 2016, which you have recently edited. Many of the global links result in "Not Found", "no results" and other unhelpful information. The rest of the data is mainly duplicated in Anagotus latirostris the valid combination. What do you think, particularly as Thorpe and some others have made a number of these types of taxon pages? I think they are out of scope and unhelpful, but I am not an expert in insects and they may have a use that I am not aware of. Regards Andyboorman (talk) 22:05, 7 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hi @Andyboorman:. My original project yesterday was going through Wanted Categories special page and doing simple cleanups. I do this every couple of months. I found [[Category:Invalid combinations]] with one entry. I felt such was unnecessary, so eliminated it. I didn't follow through with taxon page, as I don't know insects much, either. Really, invalid combinations should be made into redirects, and noted with explanation on valid taxon pages.
Hi @Neferkheperre: I totally agree with you perhaps I will redirect the taxon page, keeping the data and see if there is any flack! Andyboorman (talk) 15:58, 8 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

High-order categorization


Hey there. I have started to write a post for the Village Pump about the stuff in category:categories, and since quite a few of the more complicated cases turn out to be old creations (ca. or pre-2014) of yours, I figured I should talk about it with you if only so I don't end up making an asshole of myself. I'm especially concerned about whether the category set under fossil taxa, or more accurately the somewhat... clunky classification system of the subcategories is useful.

More specifically, if you don't believe this system to be useful/functional anymore (unlike when you started creating it), I would go ahead and state so in my review instead of calling for discussion that will probably end up with no clear course of action (which is probably what will happen about the parasite/symbiont categories) Circeus (talk) 12:51, 8 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hi @Circeus:. I had about forgotten about some of those heirarchies. I had originally envisioned top-level categories for each geological period, such as Eocene, etc. These would subdivide into marine, fresh-water and terrestrial, then into major taxon groups. These were partially based on @Kempf EK:'s Ostracod category system, and my idea was to inclusive of that. Of all of this, only Cirripedia and Ostracoda have been active, rest just became clunky. During this time, we were all fighting with Thorpe, so nothing else was noticed. Extended system may prove impractical at this time, although I would like to see it kept in mind..
For some of these others, we need to keep in mind what researchers are trending towards. Much research money and effort is spent on coral reefs, invasive species, and parasite/symbionts. Those categories are well worth maintaining, to make searching easier for researchers. Really, invasive species needs no subdividing, but is helpful for other two. Neferkheperre (talk) 17:54, 8 January 2017 (UTC)Reply
How I see the invasive species category(ies) is basically that taxonomy is relevant to it, but the reverse is not true. As such that type of information is strictly a Wikipedia thing to me, not a Wikispecies one.
As I see it ATM, the simplest solution might well be to have a simple Extinct species with a single subcategory of fossil species and leave creation of a more elaborate system for a later time. Managing things through list pages is probably a better option in the meantime.
I have no set opinion as to whether to conserve the parasite/symbiont category (though some probably need at least renaming), which are often tangentially relevant to taxonomy in much the same way that locality/stratigraphic information is. Circeus (talk) 06:45, 9 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

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

  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.

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)Reply

Application for Checkuser


Referring to earlier discussions regarding a local Checkuser policy, I herebye apply to get Checkuser user rights, although we havnt reached a consensus reg Checkuser policy, but I want to give it a try if I can get the required votes. For a request to succeed a minimum of 25 support votes and an 80% positive vote are required (subject to the normal bureaucrat discretion). Requests for checkuser run for two weeks, and I ask kindly that somone starts the poll, like we do for adminship applications.

Please also note that CheckUser actions are logged, but for privacy reasons the logs are only visible to other Checkusers. Because of this, Wikispecies must always have no fewer than two checkusers, for mutual accountability. I dont want to suggest anyone, but hope that someone feel inspired and will step forward and also apply for checkuser.

My request to the Wikispecies community is here

Dan Koehl (talk) 01:40, 28 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

Another application for Check User


As pointed out above by User:Dan Koehl, we need at least two Check Users for this wiki. I am nominating myself and would be happy to receive any feedback that you have to give (positive, negative, or neutral). Wikispecies:Checkusers/Requests/Koavf. Thanks. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:08, 28 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

Third application for checkuser


Further to recent messages, I am also offering to serve, so that we have three checkuser operators, to ensure adequate coverage in case one of the others is unavailable. Please comment at Wikispecies:Checkusers/Requests/Pigsonthewing. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:47, 28 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

Additional Checkuser Application


I also have added my name to those willing to be a checkuser. Please see my application here Wikispecies:Checkusers/Requests/Faendalimas. I listed this yeasterday but have been encouraged to do a mass mail. I would also take the opportunity to make sure everyone knows that any editor can vote but that it is imperative that as many do as possible, for all 4 of the current applicants, please have your say. Checkuser voting has strict policy rules regarding number of votes. You will have other messages from the other Users concerned you can also read about it in the discussion on the Village Pump - Wikispecies:Village_Pump#Application_for_Checkuser. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:53, 29 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

Heads up re:Category:Littoral Marine Species


I'm going to assume you're aware that I'll start the first round of high-order category deletion soon and have no objections to it?

As I stated there, I intend to create list pages for you (unless you have done so since I posted that announcement?), and I wanted to ask if you had any specific request regarding Category:Littoral Marine Species. Will just creating it in your userspace and leaving a note on your userpage or pinging you be enough? Circeus (talk) 07:27, 31 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for reminding me. I had quite overlooked that section since these geographical categories came up. Sheer number of them astounded me. I am tending to think we should all concentrate on removing those categories first, instead of getting ourselves spread out with too many projects. There has been very little activity on those fossil etc. taxa category discussions. They are really very small in comparison to Thorpe's geographic categories.
Category:Littoral Marine Species really belongs more in section C, as it is ecological in nature. When it is transferred thus, other section B categories can be pretty much irrelevant. This applies to first, second and fourth entries there. Category:Invasive species could be open to discussion, as it is quite relevant to research, and easy access to taxonomic information of known invasive species can be highly helpful to researchers. Neferkheperre (talk) 23:29, 31 January 2017 (UTC)Reply
I've explained my criterion here here. To me both these categories fail to be facially applicable by looking at the page and to have a nomenclatural taxonomic relevant. I.e. Taxonomy is relevant to the study of invasive species/of ecology, but the reverse is simply not true. Anyway, if you want to formally oppose me clearing these two categories out, I'll wait until further discussion/attempt to relaunch discussion later, because I want a reasonably formal community conclusion, which, as I explicitly said when I started the convo, tends to be especially hard to get on Species:. The project is practically a monument to the en:Law of triviality XD Circeus (talk) 01:23, 1 February 2017 (UTC)Reply
I understand and share your exasperation on community conclusions. Let us table this until geographic categories are gone, as nobody is going to pay much attention otherwise. Really, this group needs to make decisions as to what we want to provide for needs and requirements of our stated target, namely researchers and taxonomists. Once that is done, it will be easier to organize categories and hierarchies, and to eliminate unnecessary ones, smoothly. Neferkheperre (talk) 02:08, 1 February 2017 (UTC)Reply
That's fair. The ability of the discussion to deviate never ceases to amaze me (e.g. the separate discussion that popped up about years, and which will probably lead nowhere either in the end). Circeus (talk) 04:28, 1 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

In the absence of reactions on your part here or at the Village Pump thread, I have created User:Neferkheperre/Littoral Marine Species for your personal use. It lists every page that was in Category:Littoral Marine Species as of today. Circeus (talk) 18:52, 22 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

OK, thank you. I can put that data on distribution entry on taxon species mainpages. I had originally planned to create hierarchy of marine ecological zones, but there are now plethoras of such. Also I can go into better detail, such as upper, middle and lower littoral. Neferkheperre (talk) 19:02, 22 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

Standing for role of checkUser


Like some of our colleagues (who I support), I am offering to serve as a checkuser, not least to ensure adequate coverage in case one of the others is unavailable.

Please comment at Wikispecies:Checkusers/Requests/Pigsonthewing.

[Apologies if you receive a duplicate notification; I wasn't aware of Wikispecies:Mail list/active users, and sent my original notification to the list of administrators instead.] MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:59, 1 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

RFC on Checkusers


With one week to go I wanted to remind everyone of the importance of voting on the current CheckUser applications. They can all be found together on a single RFC: Wikispecies:Requests_for_Comment#Checkusers.

It is extremely important with votes such as this for everyone to be involved. There are strict rules in the Wikimedia Foundation Policy guidelines on these votes. I would urge people to have a good understanding of what a CheckUser does. This can be read up on here on the page discussing CheckUser's Wikispecies:Checkusers. Links on this page will take you to other policy information on Meta, HowTo for our site etc.

I would also urge people to look at our own policy development and some past discussion on this can be found here: Wikispecies_talk:Local_policies#Local_CU_Policy.

Wikispecies has in the past had issues that has required the intervention that is supported by the ability to do a CheckUser. Many of us are aware of this. The capacity to do this ourselves greatly speeds up this process. Although SockPuppetry can sometimes be identified without using a CheckUser in order to do the necessary steps to stop it or even prevent it requires evidence. We all know that sockpupets can do significant damage.

This is an important step for Wikispecies. It is a clear demonstration we can run ourselves as a Wiki Project part of Wiki Media Foundation. When I and several others first discussed this we knew it would be difficult at the time to meet all the criteria. We have only now decided to try and get this feature included in Wikispecies. By doing this it can lead to other areas where Wikispecies can further develop its own policies. In some areas we have unique needs, different to the other Wiki's. It is timely we were able to develop all these policies.

Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:15, 4 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

Pérez Santa-Rita or Santa-Rita



You have made a reference template Santa-Rita & Baxeiras, 2017, with author names Jose V.P. Santa-Rita and Joaquin Baxeiras. In Zootaxa 4227(1), 135-143 the name is Jose V. Pérez Santa-Rita. So the question is, is the back name Pérez Santa-Rita. or Santa-Rita. I have search for more publications but couldn't find any one. PeterR (talk) 14:43, 8 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hi, @PeterR:; for some reason, I failed to notice this. I fixed this. This must be Santa-Rita's first publication. Neferkheperre (talk) 23:37, 8 February 2017 (UTC).Reply
Nefer, you didn't failed, but i know a lot of spanish back names beginning with Pérez. So I have sent Baixeras an e-mail and ask him the correct back name PeterR (talk) 13:04, 9 February 2017 (UTC)Reply
I have now answer from Baixeras: the real name is J.V. Pérez Santa-Rita.. The second name Santa is fathers name and the third name Rita is mothers name.
Thanks, @PeterR: Neferkheperre (talk) 19:05, 9 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

Request for vote reg use of BASEPAGENAME


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

re: The Challenger categories


@Koavf: This should be an obvious cautionary tale: don't create categories if you're not ready to populate them (duh).

FWIW, although I don't oppose the general idea at all, I don't believe there was any need for these categories to be half as fine-grained as you made them. The single Category:Challenger voyage taxa would probably have been sufficient. Generally, though, I believe a list page would have been more appropriate anyway, if only because a category deals poorly with taxa that may have been synonymized later on. Circeus (talk) 19:12, 15 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

@Circeus: What do you think about making one unified taxa category? Neferkheperre, how about you? It's not a problem to restore the one and put them all into it. —Justin (koavf)TCM 20:27, 15 February 2017 (UTC)Reply
I have no objection to that at all, assuming the category doesn't lay empty for weeks. Automated, but empty categories have reduced Special:UnusedCategories to utter irrelevance. Circeus (talk) 20:57, 15 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

Does anybody have any concept of sheer size of this project? There are 83 zoology volumes, most over 100 pages, and up to 700+ pages so far (I am currently working on V. 34). Vol. 34 has 534 pages, I am on p. 239, and have registered 124 taxon names. This is going to total thousands of taxa. Dumping all into one category will implode everyone's eyes who tries to use it. Challenger is probably THE most important oceanographic expedition of history, and it has set major baselines for climate change and biodiversity. It is still very actively published upon and studied. To complicate things some more, most taxon authorities published preliminary papers describing discovered taxa ahead of their comprehensive reports. As nineteenth century citation practices were not up to our standards, full bibliographies were not considered important. It is necessary to look in species synonomies to find any preliminary references. My Challenger voyage page contains all of these.
Cross-referencing systems I had envisioned and devised for this project are as follows: Each reference template as is generally customary, contains all new nomenclatural acts in their original form. These will link to their taxon pages expressed as presently accepted names, or redirects thereto. Category:Challenger (taxon) presents these names in their presently accepted form. These taxon categories are named using names accepted at that time based on appropriate named volumes, and include all preliminary references. This way, all is covered, and interlinked.
See this discussion: Challenger category discussion Village Pump. There is one other when I originated Challenger project, near about that time, soon after 15 January 2015. It was replied to, but everyone was at war with Thorpe, and it went almost unnoticed.Neferkheperre (talk) 23:17, 15 February 2017 (UTC)Reply
Again, I have no objection whatsoever to linking taxon to expeditions. As far as I know, there is not so much as an informal policy on category size, but 4,7K (which is the approximate number quote on Wikipedia, and may well not take synonyms into account) doesn't seem that unreasonably large. In fat, in so far as we make no attempt whatsoever at splitting "oversized" categories (category:taxon authorities has over six times as many pages as might end up in Category:Challenger voyage taxa), it would be on the smaller size of these categories of ours. Circeus (talk) 00:01, 16 February 2017 (UTC)Reply
What we must do in cases such as (category:taxon authorities) and (category:reference templates) is simply admit we can do nothing to subdivide them. Fortunately they are rare. That should not dictate our attitude in general. We must always consider others who wish to use this site for resource for synonymies, reference citations and historical information. If we cannot or will not provide needs for scientific community, why are we here? Neferkheperre (talk) 14:41, 16 February 2017 (UTC)Reply
Well, we could diffuse these categories (e.g. taxon authorities by specilization or reference templates by year). —Justin (koavf)TCM 18:49, 16 February 2017 (UTC)Reply
We will have to address this problem eventually, sooner is better. If our goal is to record all taxon names with supporting reference data etc., these two categories are very small now by comparison. Neferkheperre (talk) 00:10, 17 February 2017 (UTC)Reply
I think we're also not clear what, as far as wikispecies goes, is an overly large category. I'm not even sure what's considered a reasonable cutoff on Wikipedia! Circeus (talk) 19:20, 16 February 2017 (UTC)Reply
No really we are not much clear on anything with this project. We need to start from basics, discussing and defining what we want to do. Now we are discussing things which were discussed two years ago. In this particular instance, this discussion actually went like I had proposed, and now suddenly, all is different. There needs to be consistency. Neferkheperre (talk) 00:10, 17 February 2017 (UTC)Reply
  • @Koavf:, @Circeus:: I just totaled all nomenclatural acts in all volumes thus far treated. Total is 2083, and I am working on 34th out of 83 volumes. Now I for target of opportunity reasons templated 3 which I have not yet recorded new names. With this percentage, a good estimate will be 5000-6000 new names of all types. Dumped into one category this is formidable. For people attempting to research from this source, this would be seriously off-putting, at default size of 50/page. Neferkheperre (talk) 22:36, 17 February 2017 (UTC)Reply
    • For what it's worth, default category size is 200 a page. Do you have a list of the taxa/species somewhere? —Justin (koavf)TCM 02:25, 18 February 2017 (UTC)Reply
      • Lately I have been working on Special Pages, which does default to 50, but allows preference up to 200. There is no total comprehensive list of Challenger biota, except what has been done here so far. Only other complete treatment is compilation of Reports themselves, which do not list anything. I am compiling these lists by examining each page. There are no bibliographies, and most major taxon groups have one to several preliminary publications which provide original descriptions. They can only be found by looking at synonymies, and tracking down citations. This Wikispecies section will be first to treat all original taxon descriptions, taxon authority bios, and type specimen publications all in one place. I would like to see taxa organized in easily cross-referenced fashion. Neferkheperre (talk) 09:19, 18 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for closing the RfC, but the proposal under discussion was "I propose that we adopt the same policy as Wikimedia Commons...". You have read it as the reverse. Please review your close. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:11, 22 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

Wikispecies Oversighter


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

Oversight nomination


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

Templates Zootaxa



Don't you make anymore the templates for Zootaxa: I'm missing a lot. PeterR (talk) 17:49, 10 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

I am, but slower, as recent life events including getting dragged into my nephew's Hollywood-style nasty divorce and getting my newest research paper ready for publication, have taken up much time. I just started sleeping earlier at night to be awake after midnight to get quiet time for work. I expect this weekend will allow me to catch up partially. If you need an article fast, just make it, and I can format it when I get there. sorry. Neferkheperre (talk) 18:12, 10 March 2017 (UTC)Reply
You don't have to say sorry, because you can't help it. PeterR (talk) 18:43, 10 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

Restaure template


Hi Neferkheperre. Can you restore this template Template:Ochrotomyini? The taxon is in use again. Thanks Burmeister (talk) 00:43, 12 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hi @Burmeister:. Did it. Neferkheperre (talk) 00:48, 12 April 2017 (UTC)Reply



Hi, can you block user Hoggardhigh, he is vandalizing several articles in last hour. Thanks Burmeister (talk) 02:06, 6 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

He is blocked for one month at present, and I am watching that page. Neferkheperre (talk) 02:48, 6 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

Russian author names



Can you tell me the full names of Russian authors?. L.V. Kaabak, A.V. Sotshivko and V.V. Titov. Those people are entomologists and works in Moscow Society of Nature Investigation Hertsen st. 6 Moscow 103009 Russia. PeterR (talk) 14:58, 15 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hello @PeterR: I have created the pages Leonid Vladimirovich Kaabak and Andrei Vladimirovich Sotshivko. Unfortunately I have no verified information about V.V. Titov, but perhaps he is identical to Vadim V. Titov on ResearchGate. But again: please note that I am not 100% certain about that. May be @Lasius: knows more? Best regards, Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 00:36, 10 July 2017 (UTC).Reply
@PeterR, Tommy Kronkvist, and Lasius:I'm sorry for writing here without calling me, but I had some time and also searched for V. V. Titov. I've found this site [1], where Viktor Titov (as "Виктор Титов") and Andrei Sotshivko (as "Андрей Сочивко") is mentioned by the author Kaabak (as "Каабак Л.В."). I've also found an article in pdf [2], where "V.V. Titov (Zheleznodorozhny, Russia)" is mentioned by the author Stanislav K. Korb. It seems to me, that Vadim Titov [3] paleontologist is another V. V. Titov. I haven't found any information of V. V. Titov entomologist, but I hope, I could help you a little. Regards and have a nice day, --Sphenodon (talk) 10:56, 10 July 2017 (UTC)Reply
@Sphenodon: Thank you for your input! I haven't got time to check this up thoroughly at the moment, but I know that a problem with the author name "Titov" in relation to Kaabak's work is that the latter frequently co-operated with both one "V.V. Titov" and one "S.V. Titov". This makes it tricky to know for sure which one of these Titov's are the "Viktor Titov" you mention. Cheers, and I hope you have a nice day too! Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 17:21, 10 July 2017 (UTC).Reply



Hi friend. I see you have added newly described C. calcirupicola to the sp list. Let me remind that the recommendation for bird taxonomy is following IOC, and this sp is not listed yet there, neither at SACC or Clements. May (or may not) be recognized as a valid taxon sometime in the future, as I had seen in many cases. My best. --Hector Bottai (talk) 16:42, 30 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

A handy hint


Hi Ray! We have a special template for welcoming IP users that aren't yet logged in with a user name. In those cases the template {{Welcome-IP}} can be favourable over {{Welcome}}, since it includes links to information about creating a user account, and logging in. By the way, thanks for you great work with creating new author pages – we need many, many more, and your efforts are most appreciated. Regards, Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 19:28, 1 August 2017 (UTC).Reply

Thanks, Tommy. I had forgotten about that. Neferkheperre (talk) 19:39, 1 August 2017 (UTC)Reply
To complete the list there is also a {{Welcome-belated}} template. It's the opposite of the {{Welcome-IP}} template, sort of... –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 19:15, 2 August 2017 (UTC).Reply

Deborah L. Matthews



Why have you delete Category:Deborah L. Matthews taxa? PeterR (talk) 07:11, 19 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

I merged her author page with Deborah Lott Matthews, as they are one and same person. I then redirected Deborah L. Matthews and that left that taxon category page orphaned. Before deleting, I went on all taxon pages and corrected category entries. So nothing is left dangling. Neferkheperre (talk) 11:06, 19 September 2017 (UTC)Reply
Hello, Neferkheperre and PeterR. After some search, it seems that this author is not really known as Deborah Lott Matthews, but rather as Deborah L. Matthews or Deborah Matthews Lott: [4]; Google searches: [5], [6]. I changed the redirection, things should be in order now. Regards, Korg (talk) 14:04, 19 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

Request for the 'Autopatroller' flag


Sir, With respect, I would like to inform you that I am a regular and experienced user of 'Wikispecies'. I work here almost everyday to enrich it. I have made many edits alrady. I also take data from wikidata and use it to enrich wikispecies and I have the 'Rollback' permission on wikidata. Now I am requesting you to give me the 'Autopatroller' flag. I hope you would be kind enough to give the flag. Tahmid02016 (talk) 09:41, 1 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

@Tahmid02016:   Done.(verify)Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 10:02, 1 October 2017 (UTC).Reply

Template:Unassigned Calliptaminae


In June, you deleted Template:Unassigned Calliptaminae. However, there are eight pages calling that template, via {{Acorypha}}. Please can you review them, and take appropriate action? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:27, 23 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hi, @Pigsonthewing:; Took care of it. I edited {{template:Acorypha}} to remove the unneeded item. Neferkheperre (talk) 15:51, 23 November 2017 (UTC)Reply
Thank you. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:39, 23 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

Authored taxa on John Patton O'Neill


Hi, do you have any clue why the link to Category is working properly but is showing 0 taxa authored?--Hector Bottai (talk) 16:22, 24 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hi, @Hector Bottai:. I have no idea. I notice 12 taxa are listed when link is clicked. Counter is not working. This has happened before, and no has determined why. Within 1-2 days, it catches up. Neferkheperre (talk) 17:48, 24 December 2017 (UTC)Reply
I am afraid it won't. That is the reason I had left the very old template for authored taxa. Let's wait.--Hector Bottai (talk) 17:59, 24 December 2017 (UTC)Reply
Copied to Village Pump for discussion. Seems to be programming glitch. Neferkheperre (talk) 19:32, 24 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

Muscari subg. Botryanthus


Hi Neferkheperre, sorry for expressing myself misunderstandingly, but it was not my intention to delete this page including its content and version history, but to move it to Muscari subg. Muscari, which was blocked by a redirect I could not delete. Can you please restore Muscari subg. Botryanthus (not Muscari subg. Muscari nor Template:Muscari subg. Muscari) if possible? Thank you! --RLJ (talk) 19:51, 28 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hi @RLJ:; I restored Muscari subg. Botryanthus. I think merge might be better than redirect. I see Andy Boorman has been helping. My knowledge of botany is limited. Neferkheperre (talk) 00:33, 29 December 2017 (UTC)Reply
Hi Neferkheperre, thank you very much, it saved a lot of time for me! From my point of view I got the result which I wanted to have. Taxonomy of Muscari and other Hyacinthaceae is complex and controversial. Best wishes, --RLJ (talk) 01:15, 29 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

IP vandalism


You can nuke the IP's edits so you dont have to remove them all one by one. --Wiki13 (talk) 02:31, 31 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

Incertae Sedis (Cerambycinae)



You recently deleted Template:Incertae Sedis (Cerambycinae), but I see that it is used on three pages, and in two other templates.

Please can you check them? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:39, 2 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

Likewise Template:Neanurinae incertae sedis (one page, one template). Please check for uses, before deleting templates in future. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:58, 2 January 2018 (UTC)Reply
I thought I had eradicated them entirely. sorry. Neferkheperre (talk) 12:44, 2 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

Lesquerella (Plantae)


I have restored Lesquerella (Plantae); I had already declined the speedy deletion request, which was improperly reinstated before you deleted it. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:19, 31 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

I went to Speedy Deletion before proceeding to my Watchlist, and it looked in order. Otherwise I would have left it without action. Neferkheperre (talk) 15:05, 31 January 2018 (UTC)Reply



Por favor al cambiar el nombre ponga Wollastonia (Asteraceae) que es como figura wn wikispecie o commons y sea más facil redirigirlo.--MILEPRI (talk) 16:10, 3 February 2018 (UTC)Reply



The disambig should be Wollastonia (Asteraceae) not Plantae according to consensus here. Cheers. Andyboorman (talk) 17:57, 3 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

Gunther Koehler‎


Hi Neferkheperre, "Gunther Koehler" is probably a typo for "Gunther Köhler". Regards, Burmeister (talk) 00:40, 1 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hi @Burmeister:. Indeed they are same person. There is no typo, writing out German umlauts results in double vowel with "e" as second letter. Many people don't typically do this, so it can be easy to overlook. I will fix it. Thanks. Neferkheperre (talk) 02:04, 1 March 2018 (UTC)Reply
Perhaps not in this particular case, but it could be a typo – albeit the other way around, since some names are actually spelled with "oe" rather than "ö" even in proper German (i.e. not transcribed). However Neferkheperre's explanation would be right for the most part – we need only ask our bureaucrat Dan Koehl and I'm sure he would confirm it. :) Regards, Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 13:51, 1 March 2018 (UTC).Reply
For this particular case, I did confirm identity through same affiliation and occupation specialty. Umlauts originally came about to save paper in Medieval times by contracting "e"s. But of course, everything is complex. Neferkheperre (talk) 14:01, 1 March 2018 (UTC)Reply



As you will know, Coleoptera are not plants. And since nomenclature of both is regulated by different codes, the same genus names may be used for both. So, Prathapan & Shameem (2017) will require to create new taxon pages in Chrysomelidae. --Franz Xaver (talk) 04:40, 14 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

I have moved the plant genus to Wallacea (Ochnaceae) and Wallacea now is a disambiguation page. Regards --Franz Xaver (talk) 05:12, 14 May 2018 (UTC)Reply
Thank you. I usually notice this myself, sometimes not immediately. Yesterday was very busy for me. Neferkheperre (talk) 12:46, 14 May 2018 (UTC)Reply



Many editors in botany find the unassigned category very useful. We appreciate it is not a formal taxon name. In addition, cladi are not formal taxa, but are also found on WS. I not not think your deletes on Salicaceae are particularly helpful, particularly as you did not inform or engage the author. In fact they could be considered hostile in this context. We had this argument with Thorpe and it lead to a lot of bad feeling. Will you revert, if not why not? Andyboorman (talk) 16:56, 30 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

In zoology, we have been deleting Incertae sedis and unassigned taxa pages and templates thereof, and putting the contents directly onto appropriate pages. I thought that applied across the project. It is what I did with Salicaceae. I do know that botanical nomenclature is much different from zoology, and have been trying to avoid much alteration for that reason. I was only working on this as part of my work on [Wikidata co-ordination], where I do 10-15 entries per day. If I see necessary updating to current format, I perform it. I shall revert those Salicaceae edits.
Could you go on the Wikidata to do page, and check out some of the first 14 entries? They are all botany, and I don't know what to call them. Particularly 1-3, 9, 13, 14. Neferkheperre (talk) 17:27, 30 October 2018 (UTC)Reply
I have a look at some of the data you are concerned with. Items 13 and 14 are private out of scope projects by @Fagus: not sure what this editor is up to. They relate to this reference - Bräutigam, S. & Greuter, W. 2007. A new treatment of Pilosella for the Euro-Mediterranean flora. Willdenowia 37(1): 123–137. DOI: 10.3372/wi.37.37106. Fora of Greece is not a "Flora" in the botanical sense. Hieracium and Pilosella are still emerging and controversial taxonomies made worse by extensive apomixis and there is yet no genuine consensus in the botanical world. The sectional treatment (1-3) in Cousinia is a project by Fagus. Unfortunately there is little referencing and the project is incomplete, so that it is difficult to check the veracity of the treatment. Arctium-Cousinia are another difficult taxonomy, but the traditional sectional classification of the genus Cousinia is maintained and a new one proposed here Arctium - see page refs esp López-Vinyallonga et al. (2011). Generally contemporary botany does not like pedantic sectional treatments without clear and justified causes. Hope this helps, but I would advise checking with Fagus. Kind regards Andyboorman (talk) 21:04, 30 October 2018 (UTC)Reply



It was just pointed out to me that this category is currently labelled for the Ichthyological collection at MONZ. Aside form the fact it's not exactly the most useful abbreviation, the category is (unsurpridingly) already overrun by plant names as it is also the Index Herbariorum standardized abbreviation for MNHNP.

Seeing as there are indubitably a great many more types in Paris than in Wellington, do you think it's sensible to move the New Zealand collections to something like category:MONZ-P? Circeus (talk) 18:00, 22 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

Apparently there is an inadvertant confusion, which you discovered today. That is very good solution, I shall fix tomorrow. Today is Thanksgiving, US holiday, celebrated by considerable overeating. This year at my house. Neferkheperre (talk) 23:22, 22 November 2018 (UTC)Reply
After a closer look, it turns out there not even any fish species in the category yet (!!), so all that's needed was the creation of category:MONZ-P and adjusting the category tree and labelling. Circeus (talk) 03:00, 23 November 2018 (UTC)Reply
OK, what I had thought to be Elminius turned out to be Eminium, so that eliminated any interest of mine. Last week I located updated MNHN collections website: [7]. This one links to pages for each type number, with pictures of types, and frequently pinpointing type localities on maps. It does work for plants as well. I am starting to make great use of it. BMNH is useful to lesser extents. I wonder if we might be able to eliminate 1-2 more single letter categories similarly. Neferkheperre (talk) 15:32, 23 November 2018 (UTC)Reply
As far as I know, most single letters (and possibly quite a few 2-letters, e.g. BM, RB, WU, LE...) are Index Herbariorum herbariums with abbreviations based on cities. Zoological material tend to 3+ letter abbreviations (though it's incredible how often the abbreviation is ambiguous, abandoning the project to try and clear out reporitories with multiple abbreviations was the bets decision I ever made). Abbreviations added later than the initial IH are usually longer. It's a shame there isn't isn't something actually approaching IH for zoology (heck, there isn't even something like BPH for title abbreviations, though I'm given to understand the use of abbreviated references is not usual in zoology). GrBio wanted ot be that, but never came anywhere close and never actually tried to standardize a set of abbreviations. Circeus (talk) 16:45, 23 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

Sabine Von Mering


Please recreate the redirect at Sabine Von Mering, which you recently deleted; the name is used with that spelling at for example. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:41, 22 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

It is unnecessary to create this name with incorrect orthography, which is used by BioOne, but not in the publication itself, see PDF. --RLJ (talk) 22:57, 22 November 2018 (UTC)Reply
Done, @Pigsonthewing:. I regularly check Candidates for Speedy Deletion, and delete those which raise no questions in my mind. Many people's names do get used in several variations, which sometimes, not always, need redirects. I have encountered many instances of two different people with very similar and even in one case, identical names. Sometimes this takes some sleuthing to figure out.
Off topic, but I found out that Pink Floyd apparently provided some instrumental scores for the Russian musical Stilyagi. Is that true? Neferkheperre (talk) 23:22, 22 November 2018 (UTC)Reply
No. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:56, 30 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

Unassigned Ruellieae


You recently deleted {{Unassigned Ruellieae}}, thought it has 13 inbound links. What should be done with them? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:31, 29 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

I have restored the template and taxon page pending your discussion and to deal with the inbound links. Just to point out, I realise that this sort of page and template is a little out of scope for WS, but they are useful working pages where the botanical taxonomy is still fluid. Cheers. Andyboorman (talk) 17:30, 29 November 2018 (UTC)Reply
I had done this over a month ago, and didn't remember it immediately. I was also at LSU, and my Android is not set up for editing. What I do when removing incertae sedis pages is to take all inbound links and return them under Heading xx Incertae sedis. That way no information is lost, and is actually more visible. I have been leaving botanical entries alone, as botany is radically different from zoology, more than I previously thought. Neferkheperre (talk) 23:52, 29 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

Zhang et al., 2011


You deleted Template:Zhang et al., 2011, but three pages use it; please check. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:57, 30 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

Fixed. Neferkheperre (talk) 14:05, 30 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

Deleted user page not editable?


Hello Neferkheperre, you deleted the vandalized user page of User:Nytexcome. Now he wants to edit this page himself, but it seems to be not possible for him, as he tells on User talk:Rwblanton. What is the reason, and could you please help him? Kind regards, --Thiotrix (talk) 07:30, 28 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

undo of recent change to familia Echinostomatidae


Hello Neferkheperre, I have taken the liberty of using an undo for your recent edit of taxon page Echinostomatidae. The genus Rhopalias has been set up under familia Rhopaliidae based on information found in GBIF, ITIS, IRMNG, BioLib & EOL. But it is also true that Rhopalias and its familia Rhopaliidae cannot be found in either WoRMS or Catalog of Life. If you or any other editor have valid sources to show that genus Rhopalias should be included in familia Echinostomatidae, I will do a redirect for familia Rhopaliidae to Echinostomatidae and will move Rhopalias to that familia. If I don't hear from you concerning this matter, I will assume that you are satisfied with my undo. Thank you and kind regards.Nytexcome (talk) 04:15, 6 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hi, @Nytexcome:; please see:
This is the reference I used when I made my edit. For some reason, they are who definitely put Rhopalias into Echinostomatidae. They did not discuss reasons, but I note their References section lists both Looss, 1899, and Stiles & Hassall, 1898. Not like they simply overlooked anything.
Also this reference discusses other known Rhopalias species, with author/year. It should be very helpful in filling out taxon pages. I'm not much on helminths, and prefer crustaceans, especially barnacles. When I installed this reference, it did not seem anything but straightforward. Neferkheperre (talk) 16:29, 6 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

Community Insights Survey


RMaung (WMF) 14:34, 9 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

Caribena versicolor vs. Avicularia versicolor


Hello Ray. I noticed that you recently created the Wikidata item Q67885143 for Caribena versicolor (Walckenaer, 1837). There's already a Wikidata item Q134779 for Avicularia versicolor (Walckenaer, 1837). Are they synonymic? Kind regards, Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 18:28, 18 September 2019 (UTC).Reply

Hi Tommy. I work on the to-do list wikidata todo, linking Wikispecies pages to new Wikidata items for further processing at Wikidata. Occasionally I do seem to overlook something. I just did Caribena versicolor a few minutes ago, and must have done Avicularia versicolor a day or so ago, as it is not on today's list. Checking on those two pages, Caribena versicolor lists Avicularia versicolor as a junior synonym, in synonyms section. I haven't done any further research, but sounds like a merge and redirect is more in order. Caribena versicolor appears to be the accepted form, but the page is rather minimal. Neferkheperre (talk) 19:58, 18 September 2019 (UTC)Reply
Thanks, I'll look in to it in a day or two, and will then merge the Wikispecies pages as well as the Wikidata items. Keep up the good work! –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 20:21, 18 September 2019 (UTC).Reply

Reminder: Community Insights Survey


RMaung (WMF) 19:14, 20 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

Reminder: Community Insights Survey


RMaung (WMF) 17:04, 4 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

Categories for Zookeys


Hello, you started to create categories in Wikimedia Commons, that is likely a good thing but before you continue I have a few thing to say to you. I have not really the time right now but I will right a message to you as soon as possible, likely this afternoon. Regards, Christian Ferrer (talk) 07:41, 27 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

  • First thing there was typo errors, the category name "Media from ZooKeys" has a capital K, and the category system is case sensitive
  • Secondly our local deletion policy suggest that "unuseful empty categories" may be speedy deleted, so if you create categories that stays empty a too long time, then they will likely be deleted. This is why I added an excplicative template, in order that nobody delete them. I hope this will be sufficiant until the images are uploaded. I suggest you to do the same if you create another categories.
  • When creating the categories, you have to link them to the wikidata items for the articles, this allow the interconection between all the projects. You did it with the Wikispecies templates. It's very well but it would be perfect if you could add, in the exact same way, the link to the corresponding category in Commons. Thanks to that the infos about the article can be retrieved from Wikidata to the local infobox, and links to Wikispecies are also added (one link on the left of your screen (section "in other project") (note that a link to the category in Wikispecies become also available on the left of your screen), the other at top of the infobox.
  • You also created in Wikidata an item for an article that had already an entry there, it was Q70106177 (I merged them), so I suggest that before you create a new entry, that you try at least one time to do a simple search with the name of the article. Indeed it seems that User:SuccuBot, operated by @Succu:, create regularly entries for the ZooKeys. I am curious to know if the fact to create manually items such as Q72408004 will have an impact on the operation of the BOT.

On a personal opinion I think it's a very good idea to integrate the the Commons template to the articles templates here, and therefore to create the relevant categories too. This will make it easier to upload images and this will help to make the images accessible more easily. I wonder if that would be a good idea that a BOT in Commons creates a category for each articles, and connect those categories to the corresponding items, and then that a BOT here add {{Commons}} to each article template, and connect the articles to the already (older) existing entries.

I started experimenting with the methodical upload images from ZooKeys, but I had first started to upload images from the Invertebrate Zoology Dataset of the Yale Museum, and I would like to finish that. What I started with the images from ZooKeys is that I create XML files from Excel tables created manually, so it's a bit tedious but less than uploaded them one by one. I started with the year 2018 and I go back to the oldest but I realize that the work is colossal and it would be cruelly necessary that it be automated.

I am sorry for such a long message, especially since English is not my language, and to read me must be a little tedious. Regards, Christian Ferrer (talk) 14:40, 27 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hi @Christian Ferrer:. Your English is really quite good, especially as compared to South Louisiana, where I live. I started installing these Commons links to take advantage of ZooKeys partnership with Wikimedia. I have been installing links to repository catalogs in Cirripedia so there can be illustrations of primary types. Right now, only MNHN is reliable. I have been for 3 years, installing links for authors and taxa on Wikidata, and they are filled in by their bots and editors. When I push Publish, Wikidata immediately kicks back any duplicate, so I do not know what happened in that case.
I very much like linking images to taxon articles, and I actually use them. i go to LSU two days a week, and sometimes go to other museums, and Wikispecies provides me a wonderful world class library on my tablet. That is what I am working towards.
Thank you for the tips, I shall incorporate them. Maybe it would be possible to create bots to help finish links to Wikispecies and Wikidata, like Wikidata does. Neferkheperre (talk) 16:25, 27 October 2019 (UTC)Reply
  • OK. I think that, to begin, I'm going to check, create and link all that is already existing, e.g. [8], there is already more than 6800 images from ZooKeys in to Commons, only a few are actually linked to Wikidata items for the articles, and even less to Wikispecies. That is likely the best way to begin. I will try to see if someone can help me with a BOT, at least to begin from the Commons side. Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:52, 27 October 2019 (UTC)Reply
@Christian Ferrer: As long as a doi is provided I do not expect problems. I create items for some journals on an irregular basis. Perhaps two or three times a year. Maybe this query helps you to identify existing wikidata items. Regards --Succu (talk) 19:11, 28 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

C. Schmidt


I believe this author (Template:Salini & Schmidt, 2018) is Christian Schmidt, but I cannot tell whether he is the same author as the "preexisting" Christian Schmidt who wrote on isopoda (e.g.). We'd need a full on disambiguation page, especially since there is a third Christian Schmidt, a Canadian Noctuidae specialist. Circeus (talk) 12:16, 7 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

I couldn't tell. The Zootaxa article on their website had no affiliation at all, just C. Schmidt. I could make no decision at all from anything on wikispecies, so we shall have to wait for another article which could help. Neferkheperre (talk) 14:20, 7 November 2019 (UTC)Reply
I would actually email Mr. Schmidt, but I am kinda nervous as I really have no idea how to word this question... Circeus (talk) 14:48, 7 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

Albert von Kölliker


I think you are more familiar here, so my question here for you as one of the creators of the mentioned pages: Could you please check if Albert von Kölliker and Rudolf Albert von Kölliker are the same persons? Same for Wikidata Q22105538 and Q123528. Looks for me, that the items can be merged. Florentyna (talk) 17:43, 1 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

I don't know whether these two authors are indeed the same person, but I add links to the Wikidata items for convenience: Q22105538 and Q123528. Regards, Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 18:04, 1 December 2019 (UTC).Reply
I did a good bit of research, and they are indeed the same. Seems he dropped Rudolf at some point and went by Albert. The Challenger article gave no affiliation. I merged into Rudolf Albert von Kölliker, and left Albert von Kölliker as a redirect. thus, both periods of his life are covered. Neferkheperre (talk) 20:20, 1 December 2019 (UTC)Reply
Thanks. I went ahead and merged the Wikidata items into Q123528 in the same way you did for the WS pages. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 11:43, 2 December 2019 (UTC).Reply

Subterranean Biology


Hi, by the end of the year I will uploads the taxa images from all articles from Subterranean Biology that contains them; As I saw that you are used to create templates, would you be interested to help me to create templates and that I give you the list of DOIs for the concerned articles(?) some of which contain descriptions of new species. Christian Ferrer (talk) 12:28, 9 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

Sounds good to me. I just put Subterranean Biology on my tabs bar so I can start creating article templates as soon as I catch up a bit on ZooKeys. I also do some of the other Pensoft journals, except Journal of Lepidoptera. @PeterR: has that one well handled. `Neferkheperre (talk)

Ok, I generated a list of the articles that contain images of specimens that I will upload:

It's not over, take the time you want, anyway it is unlikely that I'm ready to upload them for a few weeks, and even if I upload them before the templates are created, it's not a problem. Do not take care about Commons categories, I'll do it. Christian Ferrer (talk) 19:48, 9 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

Barnacle Editor Workshop


Hi, see [9]. Regards, Christian Ferrer (talk) 20:39, 22 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. I won't be able to make it, but I shall keep up and contribute as possible. `Neferkheperre (talk)



Hello, I just wanted to notify to you that by chance I came on Verum Zevina, 1978, that it seems to be no longer accepted, I think that the relevant publication is {{Gale, 2015a}}. Regards, Christian Ferrer (talk) 14:07, 2 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

I had seen that in Gale's paper. I am not sure if that has been generally accepted yet. Right now, WORMS has completely redone the Cirripedia in a fashion the rest of us do not accept. this results from the recent Brussels conference, and an unpublished paper. The reclassification is almost entirely DNA based, and very little on morphology. This was all done without general consensus or even knowledge of the general cirriped community. Some of us are putting together a paper on an alternate classification, which I have made a working framework of. Hopeful end result will be a fusion. Neferkheperre (talk) 00:35, 5 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
Oh ok. Thanks you for your answer. I hope that this alternate classification will produce good progress. Christian Ferrer (talk) 05:24, 5 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Duplicated template


Hi friend. I deleted the template {{Gmelin, 1789}} because it was a duplicate of pre-existing {{Gmelin, 1791-T1P6}}. Almost no pages related, but I fixed all. Regards. --Hector Bottai (talk) 22:38, 5 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Neferkheperre: Honestly, I don't understand. I leave you a courtesy note explaining the deletion and correct replacement of this template and even though you have undone my correction on Pollicipes pollicipes without a single note to me. Disappointing. --Hector Bottai (talk) 15:31, 6 May 2020 (UTC)Reply
{{ping|Hector Bottai]} I must apologize. I did check out your edit and backcheck it in BHL, then updated the BHL link. I then updated the reference link, and went to bed still in edit mode. This morning, I checked out Recent Changes, and saw your category edit. I went to the taxon page to save it with those edits, and it instantly saved itselft back to before either of our changes. I restored the category, and have not noticed the other edit reverted. Pollicipes pollicipes is quite a mess, as Gmelin has priority. Darwin, 1852 used the junior synonym Pollicipes cornucopia Leach, 1824, then Pilsbry, 1907 cited it as Mitella pollicipes (Gmelin, 1798), using the truly prior genus name. Somebody later went back to Pollicipes, and Mitella is suppressed. I wanted to study the Gmelin references before writing to you.
Now for Gmelin. Darwin 289 and Pilsbry 5 use Gmelin, 1798 as their source. That is why I created that citation, for priority. I was under the impression that the 1791 represented an updated revision. This morning, I did some extensive cross-checking on BHL, which carries both versions. Yes they are identical in text, content and pagination, but were published in two places, by two publishers, just a couple of years apart. So what to do? Do you know anything about this situation with the publication? Neferkheperre (talk) 17:52, 6 May 2020 (UTC)Reply
@Neferkheperre: Understand, no problem at all. One thing is certain, the volume I, part IV and page are absolutely correct. The issue is when than was published? I have no idea. BHL says the whole set of 8 volumes was published between 1788 and 1793, my deduction is there is a sequence and Pars 6 could not be published in 1789. Just to add some more mess look at GBIF, they state Gmelin, 1790 but Lepas pollicipes Gmelin, 1989 (obviously error = 1789). I would follow GBIF and put 1790 on the author and leave the reference {{Gmelin, 1791-T1P6}} as it is. But this is just my personal feeling. Thanks for your extensive explanation. Cheers.--Hector Bottai (talk) 19:52, 6 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

Christian A. Meyer


Hi, I wanted to create an entry here for DOI: 10.1007/s13358-012-0048-5, and I found the above entry for the author, however there is something wrong. Where did you got the infos "Zoology and Developmental Biology, Department of Biology and Chemistry, University of Osnabrück, Barbarastr. 11, 49069 Osna-brück, Germany."? Christian A. Meyer is a well known palaeontolog from Switzerland not a German annelidologist, see [10], [11], [12], unless this is an homonym... Christian Ferrer (talk) 15:15, 31 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

It certainly looks like homonym. If you go my Christian A. Meyer page, the one and only reference is from Zootaxa. It list as Christian Meyer there, but ZooBank says Christian A. Meyer. ZooBank appears to have combined the two. That was my confusion. Nothing unusual enough for further research then. They evidently need to be separated, with the annelidologist being Christian Meyer with no initial. If you want, I shall play with this project. Neferkheperre (talk) 16:35, 31 May 2020 (UTC)Reply
Ok, thanks you for the answer, I will fix Wikispecies and Wikidata. Christian Ferrer (talk) 19:08, 31 May 2020 (UTC)Reply
I created two entries here and in Wikidata, the Zoobank record need to be separated too, can you edit in Zoobank or should I send a mail to Richard Pyle? Christian Ferrer (talk) 19:35, 31 May 2020 (UTC)Reply
I shall take care of ZooBank. I have a list of corrections for them from Zootaxa and some of my own older typos. Neferkheperre (talk) 20:03, 31 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

Style of disambiguation pages


Sorry for disturbing, I am confused with disambiguation pages. Eg we have Bonatea with

*Bonatea (Geometridae)
*Bonatea (Orchidaceae).

Are these disambiguation words (ie Geometridae and Orchidaceae) acceptable? Sometimes these disambiguation words are taxon's describer names, eg in Bohadschia, we have:

*Bohadschia Jaeger
*Bohadschia Hrabe.

Sometimes we have regnum names, eg in Leptaspis (I noticed that this one is done by you)

*Leptaspis (Plantae)
*Leptaspis (Animalia).

It seems that quite a mess is in here in Wikispecies??--Estopedist1 (talk) 20:19, 28 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

I agree with @Estopedist1:. We don´t have a standard for disambiguation pages. Nor for the taxon itself (Taxon (author); Taxon (family), Taxon (regnum)???) neither for the disambig page style. We need a discussion at Village Pump. I have had some discussions with other editors without a consensus. Cheers.--Hector Bottai (talk) 20:51, 28 June 2020 (UTC)Reply
Hi @Estopedist1:. Instances 1 and 3 are hemihomonyms. These are where the same name is used each in Plantae and Animalia. There is no nomenclatural issue here, but they must be disambiguated to avoid confusion. I personally use kingdom names as being sufficient.
For homonyms in the same kingdom, nomenclatural codes apply. Generally, the earliest published instance is the accepted senior homonym. All others are junior homonyms and can/should carry replacement names. For those, I usually use author names for disambiguation, as higher level taxon assignments can change. If I already know the replacement name, I use it. See Rosella. Neferkheperre (talk) 21:35, 28 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Hector Bottai: Sorry for interrupting in summer. At the moment I am working with disambiguation pages and collecting ideas. But, I just wanted to ask could we move toward massive disambiguation (eg only two homonyms in total and one of them is (1) doubtful, (2) just synonym or (3) long time ago already extincted)? Eg Thyrsocera, Trichopselaphus, Hungerfordia--Estopedist1 (talk) 14:58, 1 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

Sorry to butt in but this needs to go to the Pump before it goes any further, I feel. — The preceding unsigned comment was added by Andyboorman (talkcontribs) 1 July 2020.

Linking in the section "Synonyms"


@Andyboorman and Hector Bottai: are this edit rational: Special:Diff/7593334--Estopedist1 (talk) 09:39, 5 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Estopedist1: Yes, as far as I am concerned, unless for some reason Acanthodon has its own page, for example there is a dispute about the synonymy, or in this case it links to a disambiguation page. I do not like linking back to the accepted taxon it is illogical. Andyboorman (talk) 10:12, 5 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
@Estopedist1: Fully agree with Andy.--Hector Bottai (talk) 11:46, 5 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

Urbański & Baraniak, 2015


Did you read the talk page? Andyboorman (talk) 19:10, 16 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

Maybe my mistake. Corresponding link here: Template talk:Urbański & Baraniak, 2015--Estopedist1 (talk) 19:14, 16 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

Template:W. Thomson, 1878


[moved to Talk:Charles Wyville Thomson ] #reason: part of enwiki discussion --Estopedist1 (talk) 06:43, 14 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

Suspicious format


It seems that you are the only one, who uses suspicious style, where link to the authority is missing/hidden, eg:

  • Virgiscalpellinae [[template:Gale, 2020|{{aut|Gale}}, 2020]] instead of {{a|FULL-/SURNAME}}, YEAR

Just an old habit or with objective rational?--Estopedist1 (talk) 08:45, 18 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

Some of both. I have been doing it since 2013. I find while working making Zootaxa citations, that there is a serious lack of original citations on taxon pages. Linking just authority does give the original author page, which may or may not list the original citation. Then, the user has to dig through the reference list to find it. When in read mode, click the blue link there, and the original citation comes up. Neferkheperre (talk) 13:23, 18 August 2020 (UTC)Reply
Hi, I also do this in certain circumstances, in fact at almost reference citations other than the author citations of the taxa, e.g. see Epimeria (Pseudepimeria). Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:43, 18 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

ISSN 0040-4012


Hi Neferkheperre, there is an issue with that ISSN page, not created by you but you added the infos. In fact the ISSN is the one of a french journal, see Q98558062. Note that the french journal is also relevant for Wikispecies, e.g. {{Bellan-Santini, 1972}} and {{Tixier-Durivault, 1972}}, therefore I'm going to change the infos written in ISSN 0040-4012, you may want to create another page, if relevant, for What do you think? Christian Ferrer (talk) 15:45, 30 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

Wow. I made that one a while ago, when I was still quite new. The information and website I posted are evidently for a meteorological journal with no taxonomic content. The French journal seems to be defunct, which may explain how the other information came to be. I had enhanced it for {{Newman, 1980}}, which transcludes to over 10 pages, and is from the French journal. Go ahead and change it. Neferkheperre (talk) 16:52, 30 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

The two "Luca Bartolozzi"s


Hello , I just came across Template:Monte et al., 2016 and Luca Bartolozzi (Milano), both of which you made back in 2016. The reference template suggests two of its authors were both named "Luca Bartolozzi", one of which was from Milano. So, I looked into the article itself... it turns out there isn't a second Luca Bartolozzi at all (there are actually only three authors, not four), and the Milano address is actually for Michele Zilioli. Any idea how this mixup happened? Monster Iestyn (talk) 03:27, 4 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

I must have gotten distracted by something and did not resume in the proper place. This is quite unusual for me, as I double check a lot. So I shall fix it. Neferkheperre (talk) 14:05, 4 October 2020 (UTC)Reply
Thanks, glad that's resolved then. By the way, I've made a request for the corresponding wikidata item to be deleted too. Monster Iestyn (talk) 16:34, 4 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

I blanked your userpage


I'm just letting you know that I created my account today, and I chose to blank your userpage as my first edit. I'm sorry. I might revert it if I can find time before work. -- bordedperson12 —The preceding undated comment was added 18:40, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

I fixed it, sorry, i didnt know you were an admin!!! — The preceding unsigned comment was added by Boredperson12 (talkcontribs) 18:43, 12 May 2021 (UTC).Reply


Hello. Kindly block Special:Contribs/ Thanks. --Minorax (talk) 15:44, 7 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

Blocked by Neferkheperre @ 16:16, 7 June 2021. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 00:30, 8 June 2021 (UTC).Reply

How we will see unregistered users



You get this message because you are an admin on a Wikimedia wiki.

When someone edits a Wikimedia wiki without being logged in today, we show their IP address. As you may already know, we will not be able to do this in the future. This is a decision by the Wikimedia Foundation Legal department, because norms and regulations for privacy online have changed.

Instead of the IP we will show a masked identity. You as an admin will still be able to access the IP. There will also be a new user right for those who need to see the full IPs of unregistered users to fight vandalism, harassment and spam without being admins. Patrollers will also see part of the IP even without this user right. We are also working on better tools to help.

If you have not seen it before, you can read more on Meta. If you want to make sure you don’t miss technical changes on the Wikimedia wikis, you can subscribe to the weekly technical newsletter.

We have two suggested ways this identity could work. We would appreciate your feedback on which way you think would work best for you and your wiki, now and in the future. You can let us know on the talk page. You can write in your language. The suggestions were posted in October and we will decide after 17 January.

Thank you. /Johan (WMF)

18:19, 4 January 2022 (UTC)



Hello Neferkheperre. Please have a look at this edit of the Gryllacridinae page, regarding the Aancistroger ("Aancistrogera") genus. Regards, Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 13:48, 17 July 2022 (UTC).Reply

Both spellings represent valid accepted names, according to GBIF. ICZN only requires one letter difference to be valid. I restored Aancistroger to reflect this. That editor may have gotten confused. Easily done in such situations. Neferkheperre (talk) 14:20, 17 July 2022 (UTC)Reply
I see, thanks. So I guess Aancistroger should be added to the Gryllacridini page as well? Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 07:20, 18 July 2022 (UTC).Reply
I did not add Aancistroger to the Gryllacridini page because I was uncertain about tribal affiliation. Neferkheperre (talk) 13:23, 18 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

Volcan & Severo-Neto template


Hello again. Thanks for creating the Volcan & Severo-Neto, 2019 template: I went ahead and created the Austrolebias ephemerus taxon page because of it. I haven't got access to the actual paper, but the template lists 541–556 as page numbers while Zootaxa Vol. 4560 No. 3: 26 Feb. 2019 says 541–553. Can you please verify this? –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 16:32, 16 November 2022 (UTC).Reply

My typo. 541-553 is right. I have fixed template. Neferkheperre (talk) 17:01, 16 November 2022 (UTC)Reply
Thanks. I've updated Q64024124 accordingly. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 17:27, 16 November 2022 (UTC).Reply



Hello friend. I see you added Anabates (red link) as a valid genus in Furnariidae. As far as I know, Anabates is an obsolete genus without a clear synonymy (some treat as a synonym of Anabacerthia), used for the protonym of a great number of furnarids. Unless you have some new taxonomic information that I don't. Greetings. Hector Bottai (talk) 11:01, 17 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

ː See

It deals with the synonymy and nomenclature of the name, apparently restoring it. Neferkheperre (talk) 13:59, 17 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

No, it is not dealing with the genus or resurrecting, is giving priority to the new combination Synallaxis gujanensis pulvericolor, whose protonym is Anabates pulvericolor Sclater, 1858, against Synallaxis gujanensis huallagae Cory, 1919. Regards. Hector Bottai (talk) 16:27, 17 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

Zhi-Min Chang


Hello, may I ask why you reverted? Christian Ferrer (talk) 19:57, 24 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

This was not done consciously by me. I had just minutes earlier returned from my cardiologist, and that revert seems to be the first act to happen. I had started another template unrelated to Chang. Probably some accidental signal. I shall more carefully watch my watchlist page, just in case. Neferkheperre (talk) 21:31, 24 April 2023 (UTC)Reply
OK, no problem, since there was no comment, I thought an error. I hope you are fine. Regards, Christian Ferrer (talk) 04:39, 25 April 2023 (UTC)Reply



Hi, I saw this what first looked like a lapsus but then became confusing so I thought best to just alert you about it: the reference template 'Lacordaire, 1947' which you added as primary reference under Onthophagini is impossible since Lacordaire died in 1870, so maybe 1847 was intended? If so, there is no such publication listed on Lacordaire's page. In any case, on the Onthophagini page the authorship of Onthophagini, and by implication the primary reference, is given as Lacordaire, 1856. Thanks, have a good day. Ongava (talk) 07:48, 27 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

Indeed that was a confusion. Now that I am using the split page where I preview my work in real time, frequently the name section is not visible when editing the references. My memory was poor when I entered that reference. Thank you for seeing that. Neferkheperre (talk) 11:59, 27 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

Connor M. French


Hi Ray! Do you happen to know whether the herpetologist Connor M. French you recently added to the French disambiguation page is identical to this Connor M. French in Wikidata? –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 22:04, 13 September 2023 (UTC).Reply

Category talk:Douglas Mervyn Kroon taxa


Hi, thanks for deleting the taxa by author category page I believe I made in error. Though, I noticed you also deleted the talk page Category talk:Douglas Mervyn Kroon taxa which I wasn't aware of last night. What was on this talk page, if you can tell me? Was someone providing any information I missed, or do I not need to worry about it? Monster Iestyn (talk) 15:02, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for catching my oops. I had not had enough coffee this morning before deleting it. Indeed Abdyboorman left the message that Kroon had eponyms, and avoid deleting at this time. I restored everything for further examination. When deleting, I had not noticed the talk page, and the program popped up a prompt. I just automatically clicked yes. Neferkheperre (talk) 15:26, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
No worries, thanks for restoring it for now in that case. Monster Iestyn (talk) 16:23, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply



Hi, these authors are the same person: 1 and 2. Please, merge the entries. Saludos. Madamebiblio (talk) 19:13, 28 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Done. For some reason, my search did not turn up results originally. Neferkheperre (talk) 19:46, 28 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
Thank you! Madamebiblio (talk) 23:07, 1 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Norma Chirichigno Fonseca


Hi, I discovered the full name of "F.N. Chirichigno" so I completed it (I renamed the page). But, now, no species appears in the list. Maybe you will be better than me to correct my error. Thank you so much in advance. And sorry for the inconvenience... Best regards. Givet (talk) 16:12, 27 May 2024 (UTC) (French contributor)Reply

@Givet: Hi! I just fixed this for you, you just needed to rename the "author taxa" category for the taxon author (Category:F.N. Chirichigno taxa to Category:Norma Chirichigno Fonseca taxa) and update the species' page to use the new category. The species now should be counted on the renamed taxon author page. Monster Iestyn (talk) 16:26, 27 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Monster Iestyn: Hi and... Thank you so much! :-) I can't understand why I didn't think about this solution. For sure I am a little bit stupide... maybe because I am not confident working in English ;-) Have a great day. Best regards Givet (talk) 16:36, 27 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
I went and deleted the no longer usable F.N. Chirichigno taxa page and checked everything else out. I can find no sign of a reference for Chirichigno & McEachran, 1979. That one is quite important, and I really don't know where to look for it. Neferkheperre (talk) 17:14, 27 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
This is the original publication for Urobatis tumbesensis: [13] It turned out someone had already cited it on, which made this very easy! Monster Iestyn (talk) 18:09, 27 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Ramakrishnaiah Sahanashree, Punnath Aswaj & Dharma Rajan Priyadharsanan


Hi Neferkheperre, I see that you worked (creation and correction) on the Punnath Aswaj article but my question will concern all of these 3 people. In fact, because they are Indian ones, I have some problem to know what are their first names and family names. According to this page, it seems that their family names are Sahanashree, Punnath and Rajan Priyadharsanan but looking on their wikispecies articles it seems not so evident. Have you an idea? Thank you for your help :-) Givet (talk) 15:02, 11 June 2024 (UTC)Reply



Hi Neferkheperre, you created Patricia E.S. Rodrigues, but she is the same as Patrícia E. S. Rodrigues. See her works at Lattes platform. Quasi-grip (talk) 17:34, 29 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Somehow that missed my searching. I always check out red-linked authors before making a page. She did not turn up on the disambig page, so I made a new one. Thank you for spotting it. Neferkheperre (talk) 17:56, 29 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Thank you, I merged the wikidata items. Quasi-grip (talk) 18:18, 29 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

template: Beier, 1947b =



I have made a mistake with template Beier, 1947b but I don't know what. Please can you help me?PeterR (talk) 08:07, 3 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

I found it. There is a bit of format code which seems to have evaporated which normally hides the taxonomic acts when cited in normal taxon reference lists. This little piece   goes in on the very end of the line just before the double bulleted Special:What links here line. These code bits can be maddening at times. Neferkheperre (talk) 13:19, 3 July 2024 (UTC)Reply