Peaceray

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 to follow our syntax and formatting standards.
• Have a look at Done and to do.

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!

Just as suggestion

Hi I have added the original description of Alteromonas genovensis an example journal template in the WS style. Well more or less in the house style, as we are still discussing format on the Village Pump - have a look. If you feel up to it we would appreciate you adding the original descriptions to taxon, as that is definitely WS policy. Andyboorman (talk) 09:09, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Andyboorman, thanks! I have a couple of questions.

1. I added a fully-fleshed out version of a reference when I created Vintana, & Stho002 changed it to a "Lead author + et al version" (diff). I was wondering if there is a consensus on to represent authors in citations, or whether either of you, or anyone else can offer an opinion.
2. Is there a template that I can use for sub-species, like {{G}} is used for strains?

Thanks, Peaceray (talk) 16:11, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

1. Is this template of use [1]] for subspecies?
2. We are advising, in general, that if there are more than 4/5 authors then et al. is appropriate. However, many of use suggest a full author list is OK if you feel that the paper is very important and the authors represent the "cream of the crop" when it comes to expertise! I do not like burying multiple authors and I am not a lone voice here. Use et al. for template names.
3. When it comes to nomenclature, I am not sure what the convention is for Gondwanatheria and similar paleotaxa, but in Plantae it is now usual that 2/3 of the authors from the multiple authored full paper will describe the novel taxon and publish this separately in a specialist journal, which makes it simpler. If this is not the case then my advice would be that et al. has to be used in the name section with a citation to all the authors in the reference section. We also have our own central registration for extant plants, which helps.

Stho002 has been blocked for multiple offences - see Village Pump and admins talk pages, so ignore him for now and when in doubt use the conventions from your particular discipline.

Hope this helps Andyboorman (talk) 17:06, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Autopatrolled rights

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

{{User Autopatroller}}

Dan Koehl (talk) 21:30, 26 February 2015 (UTC)