Rdmpage

Thanks Rod! :) Stho002 (talk) 05:41, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Inserting comments within other entries

Hi. Thank you for interesting and insightful additions to the Village Pump – I for one welcome them. However, please do not "split" other users' edits, as you did here. The result is that it is no longer obvious which user you are replying to, since your comment separates part of the other user's entry from its trailing signature and timestamp. This is especially important in discussions involving many users – soon enough it becomes tricky to know when who said what... :-) It is of course possible to see anyway, but that requires checking the page history which seems like an unnecessary step when following a chronological conversation where normally every edit is signed and timestamped.

Having said that, I admit there may sometimes be situations where it is okay and perhaps even good and/or necessary to insert comments the way you did. In those cases please add a copy of the other users' signature and timestamp before inserting your text. That way the continuity of the talk is kept intact. In the situation at hand Frank Xaver has retroactively added a copy of his signature and timestamp, so everything is fine and dandy again. :-) Happy editing! –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 18:14, 7 August 2017 (UTC).

Tommy Kronkvist Thanks for the feedback, I'll try and avoid this in future. Mediawiki drives me nuts sometimes, I find the commenting/discussion system to be archaic :( — The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rdmpage (talk • contribs) 19:31, 7 August 2017‎ (UTC).

Archaic indeed! There are forces within the community trying to remedy this, but I'm not sure it's getting any better soon. Perhaps you have heard of Flow at MediaWiki? It is a project aiming "to build a modern discussion and collaboration system for Wikimedia projects". At the moment it is available as a beta version (i.e. not yet finished), but you can activate it using the "Beta feature" tab in your personal Preference settings, also here at Wikispecies. Personally I think it's even worse than the present system and I tend to stay as far away of it as I can. Then again it's still only a beta version in trial, and perhaps it will be great when it finally ships as a fully tested feature. Try it out if you like to. I'm sure the Flow team would appreciate your input about its pros and cons, and turning it off is only a few clicks away, should you not like it (no data will be lost in the process). –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 20:44, 7 August 2017 (UTC).

NCU

The Wikispecies page at NCU is about "NCU Insect Museum, National Chung-Hsin University, Taichung, Taiwan ", and is linked to the Wikidata item Q22110907, to which you recently added details relating to the "University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:36, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Whoops, thanks for spotting this. I've deleted the species link from the Wikidata page Q22110907. I can't link NCU to Wikidata for the Taiwan museum Q707573 as it already has a Wikispecies link NCHU. This often happens, Wikidata only allows one link to Wikispecies, but Wikispecies has more than one acronym for the collection. Plus there's the ambiguity of acronyms, the two taxa listed has having material in "NCU" actually refer to NCU in Taiwan and NCU in Chapel Hill.