User talk:Tommy Kronkvist/Archive 2019

This is an archive of closed discussions. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this archive.

---

Pravopis?/Spelling?

Ahoj, všiml jsem si uzavření žádosti o komentář. Pokud to dobře chápu, tak i když je správný pravopis požadován, závěr přikazuje psaní velkého písmene na začátku názvu? Rád bych se mýlil a pokračoval ve vkládání pravopisně správných tvarů. --Rosičák (talk) 16:31, 11 January 2019 (UTC) / Hello, I noticed closing my comment request. If I understand it well, even if the correct spelling is required, the conclusion commands writing a big letter at the beginning of the title? I would like to be mistaken and proceed with the insertion of orthographically correct shapes.--Rosičák (talk) 16:31, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes, the first letter in the list of vernacular names should be in an upper case ("big") letter. The reason is that the list of vernacular names is just that: a list. It is not body text ("tělo textu"), and all items in a list should start with a capital ("big") letter. This is also standard for the names/titles of all wiki pages. Or, as stated in Help:Vernacular names section: "Titles of the articles in interwiki always begin with a capital letter (Sentence case). The Vernacular names list should follow suit, even when the within-sentence convention for vernacular names is in lower case in some languages."

So, using Parus major as an example, the VN template could look like this:

{{VN

|cs=Sýkora koňadra

|de=Kohlmeise

|en=Great Tit

|fr=Mésange charbonnière

}}

That will be shown like this:

čeština: Sýkora koňadra
Deutsch: Kohlmeise
English: Great Tit
français: Mésange charbonnière

"sýkora koňadra" or "mésange charbonnière" etc. would be incorrect, since sentences and list items should normally alway start with a capital letter. In English, all of the words in a VN list should start with a big letter (i.e. "Big Tit") since that is the standard for that particular language. This is also stated in the RfC discussion: "The rule of sentence case should be extended to "Title Case" for languages with such a praxis." However in most other languages (Czech, French, Swedish etc) the normal rule is not to use caps for the second word in a name: hence, "Sýkora Koňadra" would also be incorrect.

–Best regards, Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 17:15, 11 January 2019 (UTC).

Promiň, ale to je nesmysl. Buď to má být pravopisně správně, a potom budu do té sekce svobodně doplňovat. Nebo to má být pravopisně správně s velkými písmeny na začátku a můžu doplňovat názvy jen do některých jazyků, kde je to pravopisně je například do němčiny./

Sorry, but that's nonsense. Either it should be spelled correctly, and then I will be free to add to that section. Or, it should be spelled correctly with capital letters at the beginning, and I can only add names to some languages where it is spelling for example in German.--Rosičák (talk) 18:01, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

My opinion on spelling

So, using Parus major as an example, the VN template could look like this:

{{VN

|cs=sýkora koňadra

|de=Kohlmeise

|en=great tit

|fr=mésange charbonnière

}}

That will be shown like this:

čeština: sýkora koňadra
Deutsch: Kohlmeise
English: great tit
français: mésange charbonnière

--Rosičák (talk) 18:01, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Why "Kohlmeise" (German standard) but not "Great Tit" (English standard)?

–Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 18:16, 11 January 2019 (UTC).

Please also note that for example Haliaeetus pelagicus, both of the following are incorrect:

{{VN

|cs=Orel východní, Orel kamčatský, Bělokřídlý, Stellerův

}}

and

{{VN

|cs=orel východní, orel kamčatský, bělokřídlý, stellerův

}}

These and all other similar combinations are incorrect (or at least unrecommended), since there should always only be one (1) vernacular name per language.

–Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 18:35, 11 January 2019 (UTC).

The great tit (Parus major) is a passerine bird in the tit family Paridae. It is a widespread and common species throughout Europe, the Middle East, Central and Northern Asia, and parts of North Africa where it is generally resident in any sort of woodland; most great tits do not migrate except in extremely harsh winters. Until 2005 this species was lumped with numerous other subspecies. DNA studies have shown these other subspecies to be distinctive from the great tit and these have now been separated as two distinct species, the cinereous tit of southern Asia, and the Japanese tit of East Asia. The great tit remains the most widespread species in the genus Parus.

Die Kohlmeise (Parus major) ist eine Vogelart aus der Familie der Meisen (Paridae). Sie ist die größte und am weitesten verbreitete Meisenart in Europa. Ihr Verbreitungsgebiet erstreckt sich jedoch noch weiter bis in den Nahen Osten und durch die gemäßigte Zone Asiens bis nach Fernost.

--Rosičák (talk) 18:43, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a good encyclopedia, but contrary to Wikispecies it is not very scientific. Almost all formal lists (e.g. IOC, BSBI, MSW, etc.) use "Title Case" (e.g. Great Tit, Blue Whale) when listing English vernacular names. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 18:50, 11 January 2019 (UTC).

If Wikispecies does not promote the correct spelling, it will drop to a completely wall level.--Rosičák (talk) 18:56, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Exactly, and I agree. The correct capitalization of English vernacular names within scientific journals is title case. In other words: Great Tit, Blue Whale, and Brown Bear = correct. To instead write great tit, blue whale and brown bear is not correct! The English Wikipedia does it wrong. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 19:03, 11 January 2019 (UTC).

Pokud jsem pochopil tvoje vyjádření správně, je to tak, že v aglickojazyčných vědeckých publikacích jinou formou zápisu taxonů v anglickém jazyce nenajdu./If I understand your point correctly, it's like I will not find in English-language scientific publications another form of taxonomy in English.--Rosičák (talk) 03:25, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand... Vernacular names has nothing to do with taxonomy.

On a broader scale, one thing is important to remember: in (proper) English they often use uppercase letters for a lot of things. Not only for vernacular names of taxa, but also for many mundane words such as weekdays and months (for example "Thursday", "September"). This is not very common in other languages, where we almost always use lowercase letters (for example Czech "čtvrtek", "září", or Swedish "torsdag", "september"). –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 03:50, 12 January 2019 (UTC).

@Rosičák: As I am a native English speaker, I can say that Tommy is absolutely correct. To suggest that WS will drop to wall level by adopting native conventions found on the sources is incorrect. In addition, indulging in edit wars over this relatively unimportant feature of a taxonomic site is disrespectful, potentially hurtful and contrary to policy. Andyboorman (talk) 20:09, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

@Andyboorman: Možná máš pravdu, když mluvíš o angličtině. Smutné ovšem je, pokud ministerstva v USA tyto chybné názvy používají ve svých publikacích a my na wikidatech to používáme jako zdroj. V angličtině zdá se panuje nekonzistence (ani v dokumentech EU nepanuje konzistence ohledně těchto názvů), ale nemusejí to snad odnést jiné jazyky, kde je 100% konzistence. Nezlob se na mě, ale pochybné údaje vkládat nehodlám. To je radši vkládat nebudu vůbec. To stejné platí, pokud pochybnosti nemám, ale měl bych vložit názvy pravopisně chybně.--Rosičák (talk) 03:00, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

@Rosičák: Thank you for your kind reply and I am sorry if I caused upset. You are right about the lack of consistency across the English language that is why Tommy and others are trying to introduce it here based upon the agreed praxis we discussed, so that at least WS shows a degree of commonality. We have not got separate templates for EN UK, EN US, EN Aus and so on, so for now it would be best to stick with EN UK I feel. Thanks for your valued contributions. Andyboorman (talk) 09:16, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

@Andyboorman: A bit off topic, but I take the opportunity to inform you that VN support for most of those regional variations is in the making. This includes Australian English, Brazilian Portuguese, Austrian German, and a bunch of others. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 09:44, 12 January 2019 (UTC).

CS

v češtině jsou názvy taxonů s malým písmenem s touto vyjimkou.: pokud je název species odvozena od vlastního jména osoby, v tomto případě orel Sellerův nebo kůň Przevalského/ in Czech there are lower taxon names with this exception: if the species name is derived from the person's own name, in this case the vendor eagle or the Przevalski horse.--Rosičák (talk) 19:06, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I think this is the true for almost all languages. It is the same in Swedish too (my mother tongue). This includes vernacular names derived from any proper noun, e.g. VN names with names of persons (Stellerův → Georg Wilhelm Steller), countries, cities, etc. However, those are special cases. Most vernacular names do not include such names. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 19:20, 11 January 2019 (UTC).

V češtině je pravopis psaní velkých písmen u taxonů podřízen obecnému pravopisu. Na názvy taxonů není nahlíženo jako na vlastní jména a píší se tedy s malými písmeny, pokud tedy neobsahují jiná vlastní jména osob. Většinou to jsou votivní pojmenování po různých biologech, které znáte i z vědeckých jmen, kde se ovšem píší s malým písmenem ve species. Z obecného pravopisu vyplývá i to, že druhové jméno taxonu v češtině tvoří téměř výhradně adjektiva a z toho důvodu se píší s malým i taková pojmenování, která jsou odvozena od vlastních jmen jako je Praha, Rakousko, Malajsie, Evropa tedy smrž pražský, pramenka rakouská, medvěd malajský, ochmet evropský.--Rosičák (talk) 02:55, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

I understand that, but again: we are not talking about vernacular names in a body text ("tělo textu"). I fully understand that you would use lowercase letters for vernacular names in, for example, a newspaper, an article, the main text in a book, or on a Wikispecies talk page. We do that in Swedish too (and in French, Italian, Hungarian, Russian, etc., etc...) In that case it is of course correct to use lowercase (for example "vrabec domácí, vrabec polní, karas obecný, a jelen lesní" in an article about European wildlife.) Everything else would be wrong. But the vernacular names list in Wikispecies is NOT text in an article or book – it is a list, like this:

• Vrabec domácí
• Vrabec polní
• Karas obecný
• Jelen lesní

Surely that is different, is it not? –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 03:18, 12 January 2019 (UTC).

V češtině je pravopis taxonů naprosto konzistentní. V žádném českojazyčném odborném časopise nenajdete uprosřed věty výraz Vrabec polní. VN nejsou seznamem. Je to spíše formulář. Z tohoto důvodu je velmi podivné, když vyplivně čeština:Vrabec polní. Je to zavádějící. Řekněme do očí bijící a znedůvěryhodňuje to přesnost projektu. Pokud se tuto chybu někdo znalý pokusí opravit a následně to někdo opraví zpět, nejspíš si zaťuká na čelo a bude informacím zde trochu méně věřit.--Rosičák (talk) 03:45, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Sooner or later, it is very possible that the vernacular names will be automatically linked to the different language versions of Wikipedia, via Wikidata. That is why the Vernacular names section Help page say "Titles of the articles in interwiki always begin with a capital letter (Sentence case). The Vernacular names list should follow suit, even when the within-sentence convention for vernacular names is in lower case in some languages." The purpose is that we should follow the same standard for linking, as all the other Wikimedia sister projects do. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 04:19, 12 January 2019 (UTC).

Ono to propojování už dávno probíhá. Problém bude, když do toho budeme vnášet pravopisné chyby zde na projektu. No nic. Tady asi nic nevyřeším. Vzhledem k tomu, že názvy chybně vkládat nechci a vzhledem k tomu, že Ústav pro jazyk český výhledově měnit pravopis taxonů nehodlá, s vkládáním chybných dat končím.--Rosičák (talk) 06:49, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Já plnně souhlasím s argumentací Rosičáka. Já si myslím, že nějaký Tommy Kronkvist nebo nějaký [Projekt Wikidruhy] nemají právo prznit češtinu (a jak předpokládám, tak i velké množství dalších jazyků). Aby to lépe pochopili neústupní zastánci kapitálek, doporučuji jim velmi důkladně si prostudovat politiku wikislovníků (např. wikt:cs:Wikislovník:Název článku, wikt:en:Wiktionary:Entry titles, wikt:es:Wikcionario:Convenciones para nombrar entradas, wikt:pl:Wikisłownik:Nazewnictwo a mnoho dalších). Pokud ten názor, že i [Projekt Wikidruhy] musí respektovat pravidla pravopisu každého použitého jazyka v jím použitém názvu nebude respektován, i já odmítnu dále přispívat do tohoto projektu. I fully agree with Rosičák's argues. In my opinion, some Tommy Kronkvist or some [Project Wikispecies] has no right to rape Czech language (and, as I suppose, also a large amount of other languages). For better understanding to obdurate/uncompromising supporters of Capitals in VN, I recommend them very thoroughly read up the policy of Wictionaries (e. g. - see above - and many others). If thus opinion, that either [Project Wikispecies] must follow grammar rules of every respective language in every respective used Vernacular Name will not be respected, I'll quit of editations on [Project Wikispecies] too. And I'm afraid, that so will do other editors too. --Kusurija (talk) 10:23, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

But in Vernacular names the list does not sound:

• Vrabec polní
  

but

• čeština: vrabec polní
  

so entry

• čeština: Vrabec polní
  

is totally wrong. If You would calculate with argue, that it is the list, so it would follow as

• Čeština: vrabec polní
  --Kusurija (talk) 18:36, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

So what?? --Kusurija (talk) 06:16, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

@Kusurija: One problem is that as a database, Wikispecies should handle all data of a certain type in the same way. When possible, all author pages should be formatted in the same way, all categories should be constructed in the same way, all templates should follow the same standard, and so forth. This is also true for the list of vernacular names. Wikispecies can currently be presented in any of 32 different languages, and for the vast majority of them "Title case" (as desribed in Help:Vernacular names section) is correct. Sadly this may become a problem in some of the languages, but I guess the majority rules... Another example of this is how we have agreed to format author names. As explained in Help:Author Names all middle name initials should be written without spacing, i.e. written as "Gerald A.H. Bedford" and not "Gerald A. H. Bedford". This strikes many users as odd and some – including many of those with English as their mother tongue – even find it outright wrong. Nevertheless we have had this up for vote too, and the outcome of the poll clearly states that the majority prefers the format without spaces. This may be wrong in some languages, but since there is only one version of Wikispecies and that one version must simultaneously serve all the people on Earth regardless of their language, we will sometimes have to make compromises. It's of course easier on Wikipedia where there is one WP version for each language, and every single Wikipedia is supposed to be monolingual. Unfortunately, here at Wikispecies we don't have that luxury. Best regards, Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 08:42, 1 March 2019 (UTC).

Vernacular names

Moved to User talk:PixelVulpix#Vernacular names were the discussion started.)

Odd reason

@Tommy Kronkvist: [tech] At your User page you write: "By some odd reason you only get the full captions, links and all, if you hover from the bottom of the images and up, rather from the top or sides." – i.e.: only if you hover the caption. When hovering from the bottom of the image and up, you are hovering the caption, hence expanding it to full caption. When hovering from either other side, you may not be hovering the caption, hence not expanding it to full caption. This explaniation may help you. Sincerely, -- Bartvs (talk) 23:10, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

@Bartvs: Thanks. I've also noticed that the behavior differs depending on which web browser and/or operating system is used. Best regards, Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 23:15, 3 March 2019 (UTC).

I am afraid that the number of possible combinations of web browsers en OSs is rather flabbergasting. I feel obliged to confess that I didn't test all of those. Kind regards, -- Bartvs (talk) 23:39, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

@Bartvs: Well... most of us don't, even though I cover the vast majority of the most common combinations. I use macOS in my everyday work (software development, mostly) and edit Wikispecies pages using Safari, the macOS native browser. Microsoft Edge and Internet Explorer aren't available for the Mac OS, however I also run Windows 10 on my Macs (natively, using dual-boot) hence can use those browsers as well. Furthermore, for compatibility checks I occasionally also use Google Chrome, Mozilla Firefox and Opera in both macOS and Windows. I also sometimes boot into Debian 9 using a whole array of more or less obscure browsers, but I can't really say I'm a big fan of Linux so it doesn't happen very often anymore.

Anyway, these days I'm no longer really bothered about the "caption hover oddity" on my Wikispecies user page, but I let the note about it still remain there – mostly simply to give other users a hint about how to be able to read the full captions in the best way. Quite frankly I should redesign my user page altogether, since I've noticed that with some screen resolutions the pictures are way too big or disarranged. Then again, there's a lot more important stuff to take care of here than my user page.. :-)

As always, feel free to ask any questions you may have, and all suggestions about how to improve Wikispecies are of course also welcome. Regards, Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 00:16, 4 March 2019 (UTC).

ResearchGate

Hi Tommy. ResearchGate never points directly to a PDF, but sometimes a PDF is available on a click. I tend to indicate that fact or not if an abstract is all you get. Cheers. Andyboorman (talk) 08:23, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi @Andyboorman: Yes, I try to do the same. However I never add link text in a way that people may be lead to believe that the link points directly to a PDF file – unless of course if it actually is a direct link to a PDF file. The reason is that some PDFs can be rather big (I've seen examples of PDF files around 100 megabytes or more), which can make some users hesitant to click the link if they're surfing via a mobile network, a pay-per-minute, or pay-per-megabyte connection. Cheers, Tommy Kronkvist, 11:52, 15 March 2019 (UTC).

Deleting valid author data

Hello Tommy Kronkvist, I see you have been recently deleting partial author category taxa. I would like to know why. User Burmeister has converted well over one hundred of these entries to full entries by supplying full first and/or middles names for these authors. Why are you interfering with this process? What purpose do you have in mind? Pease consider reverting all your recent deletions unless you can come up with some compelling reason for these deletions, since we are both wasting valuable time by putting them in and taking them out. Thank you for a prompt reply to my question. kind regards, Nytexcome (talk) 00:03, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello @Nytexcome: Are you referring to edits like for instance this one? If so, the reason is that wrongly named categories often leads to a lot of duplicates. After some time (weeks, months, years...) they can be hard to spot, and we risk ending up with a bunch of duplicate categories like for example Category:Peter Ax taxa, Category:P. Ax taxa, Category:Ax taxa and so forth, all regarding one single authorship. There are a lot of examples of this happening throughout Wikispecies' history. This is also true not only for "Taxa by author" categories, but also for the author pages themselves.

I've added the data for Peter Ax to all the pages from which I removed "his" category. However, the following authors remain. If you or @Burmeister: could please help me specify the following full author names, I will be happy to create properly named "Taxa by author" categories for each of them, and add the category links to the correct taxon pages. It's only eight pages so if you can supply the author names I will have all of the categories set up in a few minutes: properly named, and without risk of mixing them up or creating duplicates.

• Andrei G. Lukhnev (for Boreusyrtis)  Done.
• Charles Émile Blanchard (for Temnocephalida)  Done.
• Georges Du Plessis (for Otoplana)  Done.
• Nils Gustaf Erland von Hofsten (for Otomesostomatidae)  Done.
• Jerzy Kolasa (for Ventrociliella)  Done.
• Albert Mervyn Olsen (for Acholadidae)  Done.
• Otto Steinböck (for Lithophora)  Done.
• Werner Armonies (for Nesite)  Done.

Best regards, Tommy Kronkvist, 00:49, 19 March 2019 (UTC).

Note: I've checked about half of the author names + categories, and marked them as "Done" in the above list. Tommy Kronkvist, 03:40, 19 March 2019 (UTC).

Honestly, I do not think it's a good idea to remove these partial categories because they help in identifying and correcting pages. Partial author categories (red links) are grouped into "wanted categories", making it easier to identify pages that need maintenance and specifically this helps me in search for the full names of the authors, since some are very difficult to find, requiring a more complex search. Burmeister (talk) 12:34, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Anopla systematics

Hej!

We could to this in Swedish, but for the sake of other users, I write in English. Please take a look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Anopla and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Nemertea#Anopla/Enopla_and_changes_in_higher_rank_taxonomy where we would like a re-structuring of the taxonomy, but we have not got a comment from the community. Can you help out? Olle Terenius (UU) (talk) 11:38, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Hej @Olle Terenius (UU) – 48 år och Uppsala här också faktiskt. :-) Thank you for the heads up. For starters I've updated the Anopla and Enopla pages here at Wikispecies, sort of to get my bearings on the matter while checking out the new(ish) publications. There is still some work that needs to be done on those two WS pages – feel free to add to or mend my edits in any way you find appropriate since I'm neither much of an helminthologist nor annelidologist. By the way, do you or @Malin Strand (SLU) have a citation and/or link for the "Andrade et al., 2012" reference mentioned on the WoRMS' Anopla page? I guess I could try to find it myself but considering proboscis worms aren't even close to being within my field of expertise I run the risk of citing the wrong Andrade et al. work instead of the correct one. All in good faith of course, but still...

In a day or two I plan to bring up the whole Nemertea issue at the Wikispecies' Village Pump. That will most likely attract the attention of Wikispecies editors better suited for the task than me, and then we'll take it from there. After all most of us active Wikispecies' users are fairly used to edit the English Wikipedia as well – it's merely a question of having access to the correct data.

–Med vänlig hälsning, Tommy Kronkvist, 22:40, 4 April 2019 (UTC).

Patroller rights for Dimon2711

Hi! Can you give me patroller or autopatrolled rights? You can see my user page to see my rights in other wikis. Thanks! Regards, Dimon2711 (talk) 19:46, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

 Done. Tommy Kronkvist, 14:04, 12 June 2019 (UTC).

Proper treatment for synonyms

Hello Tommy Kronkvist, I am wondering now what is the proper way to show synonym status for a correctly set up Wikispecies page. I have always seen so far that a redirect is used on a page which has been determined to be a synonym for another already existing taxon. I myself have used a redirect in just such a way. However, I've just noticed on page Taccocua that the entry

• Status:   invalid   Synonym for Phaenicophaeus is shown instead of the usual redirect.

Is this usage a valid method? Would changing this to redirect be in order? Thanks in advance for speedy response.Nytexcome (talk) 09:05, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

@Nytexcome: Odd as it may seem I don't think we have an official guideline for this. I guess it's pretty much up to the user, really. That being said, the praxis is to create redirects just in the way you have done so far, keeping the synonym's page free of any information about taxonomy or nomenclature. However in some cases we occasionally still keep the synonym page as a "full" taxon page rather than change it into a redirect page. This most often occurs when the taxon at hand is currently being under scrutiny and the outcome of the revision is still unclear. One could say that we keep them as full pages while waiting for the taxonomists involved to come to a closure, instead of deleting the pages and then maybe need to recreate them again, later on. Although if kept as a full page the synonym's page must of course include the correct template to notify the status, for example the {{Invalid genus}} template as you mention above. Please see Category:Name status templates for other templates that may be used, depending on taxonomical status and/or other issues regarding the taxon/taxon name. Tommy Kronkvist, 09:49, 18 June 2019 (UTC).

Vernacular names

Ciao Tommy. I saw that you canceled some of my contributions (diff etc.). In fact I had forgotten how much is indicated in the help page that you linked to me. Therefore I thank you for report and I assure that I will correct my other changes of the same type as soon as possible. Greetings. --Discanto (talk) 12:59, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

@Discanto: You're welcome. Please do not hesitate to ask if you need more information – I will be happy to help. Best regards, Tommy Kronkvist, 13:05, 2 July 2019 (UTC).

Hi. For example in such cases it is not easy to understand which name to leave. Because, especially for languages ​​other than one's own, the first name from the list may not be the one most used in publications. Do you think it's the case to take the risk? --Discanto (talk) 22:01, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

@Discanto: Yes I know: this can be difficult, especially for the "big" languages such as for example Spanish, English, Italian, Portuguese etc. that are spoken in many different parts of the world. Often, a vernacular name used in Madrid is not the name they use in for example Buenos Aires or Mexico City – even though they all speak Spanish, and each of the three different vernacular names are considered "semi-official" in the respective country. My way of dealing with this problem is usually to check for the vernacular name in Wikidata and Wikipedia. If I can't find correct information in printed publications, the vernacular names listed in Wikidata and Wikipedia are often good – or at least good enough... :-)

Using you're above example for Calluna vulgaris, the Wikidata page for that taxon can be found by here: Q26615. Scroll down to the section named "taxon common name" on that page. If there is no relevant vernacular name listed there, then you can check Wikipedia. You will find links to all Calluna vulgaris-pages in the many different language versions of Wikipedia on the top right side of the Wikidata page. Often, the first vernacular name listed on each Wikipedia page is the correct one. Not always, but I guess it's the best we've got... –Tommy Kronkvist, 22:53, 3 July 2019 (UTC).

As I guess you know, all taxon- and author pages here at Wikispecies should have a corresponding Wikidata page. The link is called "Wikidata item" and can be found in the "Tools" menu on the left side of all Wikispecies' taxon- and author pages. Tommy Kronkvist, 23:07, 3 July 2019 (UTC).

Yes Tommy, I know a little Wikidata ... :D (--1--)

Thanks for the reply. I hadn't thought of verifying on Wikipedia and even on Wikidata that, with all its limitations, is in any case an additional element available. I will certainly treasure your advice. --Discanto (talk) 19:54, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Template IUCN

Dear Tommy, There is something wrong with the IUCN template. I think it has to do with changes the IUCN herself made on her website. Because I do not know houw to improve this template I hope you know who will adapt this template to the new URL. Thanks for your help. --Hwdenie (talk) 06:45, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Hello @Hwdenie: I have contacted one of the major contributors to the {{IUCN}} template, asking for assistance. Best regards, Tommy Kronkvist, 23:44, 12 July 2019 (UTC).

BDijkstra fixed the problem! See here. This was his first action on wikispecies. Kind regards, --Hwdenie (talk) 15:35, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

@Hwdenie: Great! I have sent him my thanks, and the other contributor I mentioned above has been notified. Thank you for bringing up this problem in the first place, so that it could be fixed rather quickly. That's of course extra important for templates that are used very often – and the IUCN template is used on 12,911 pages! –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 08:46, 16 July 2019 (UTC).

Great, job, @BDijkstra:! Dan Koehl (talk) 10:49, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

@Hwdenie, BDijkstra, and Dan Koehl: Hello, I did the new IUCN template. See. IUCN2 - Pinus jaliscana --Fagus (talk) 21:37, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Rampant vandalism ! ! !

What is going on here with user 147.30.131.240 ? He has vandalized my user talk page and I now see that he has done the same thing to yours. Thankfully, user Praxidicae has caught these and has restored our user talk pages. Has he fipped out or just holing a grudge against Wkispecies users? Nytexcome (talk) 18:07, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

@Nytexcome: I haven't got a clue, actually. These things happen from time to time, most often for no apparent reason. The IP even did a bit more harm than you've probably been able to see, since some of their edits were not reverted – instead the pages involved were altogether deleted by my fellow admins (hence won't show up in most of the public logs). Anyway it's all sorted now: yesterday I blocked the IP for a couple of weeks, during which time they can't edit Wikispecies at all. The IP turned out to be guilty of some cross-wiki abuse on other Wikimedia sister projects as well, so additionally to our block it's also been globally blocked by a Wikimedia Steward, thus can't edit any of the other Wikimedia projects either. On top of that I've semi-protected my talk page so that it can only be edited by (unblocked) and fairly seasoned registered users: it can't be edited by newly registered or unregistered users.

Please note that we very seldom block IP users for any extended period of time, since not all IP addresses are static. Many of them are frequently shifted by Internet service providers (ISP). Our IP blocks are therefore fairly short-term since we wouldn't like to inadvertently block any user who was recently assigned a new IP address by their ISP. The same is true for my talk page, in a way. It's important that more or less all users are able to contact me at all time – whether they're registered or not – since I'm one of only six bureaucrats on Wikispecies. Therefore write-protecting my talk page for an extended period of time isn't really an option. Luckily we 'crats and the 27 administrators are fairly good at taking care of the defense of one another's user- and talk pages when someone of us is currently offline, so most often it's not a big deal. Regards, Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 19:03, 13 August 2019 (UTC).

Community Insights Survey

Share your experience in this survey

Hi Tommy Kronkvist/Archive 2019,

The Wikimedia Foundation is asking for your feedback in a survey about your experience with Wikispecies and Wikimedia. The purpose of this survey is to learn how well the Foundation is supporting your work on wiki and how we can change or improve things in the future. The opinions you share will directly affect the current and future work of the Wikimedia Foundation.

Please take 15 to 25 minutes to give your feedback through this survey. It is available in various languages.

This survey is hosted by a third-party and governed by this privacy statement (in English).

Find more information about this project. Email us if you have any questions, or if you don't want to receive future messages about taking this survey.

Sincerely,

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

 Done. Good survey, by the way. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 08:30, 10 September 2019 (UTC).

Vernacular names

Moved to User talk:Abraham#Vernacular names, where the discussion started.

One Question

As you can see I´m quite inexperienced within here. I did write Eduard Assmuss. As far as I know he did research mainly in the field of bees and also was a chemist. However, I cannot say whether an animal or plant genus was ever named after him. Therefore I wonder whether it is usual to see every researcher here automatically, in addition to his main field of work, also as a namesake. With Assmuss I do not know anything about taxonomic activities. --Bodhi-Baum (talk) 07:06, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

@Bodhi-Baum: Hello again, and thank you for your contributions. Please note Wikispecies is only a database for taxa, taxonomy, biological systematics, type repositories, and information about the authors and references needed to verify that data. Nothing else. Information about any author's other scientific disciplines or fields of work (chemistry, taxidermy, mathematics, etc.) is out of scope and shouldn't be listed at all. I have therefore removed all publications not related to taxonomy from the list of Eduard Assmuss's scientific work. That information is better suited for Wikipedia, but not Wikispecies. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 18:19, 16 September 2019 (UTC).

(By the way the same is true about the Sonja Wedmann page. Her year of birth may be more important in a Wikipedia article than here, if such a WP page is ever created.) –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 18:24, 16 September 2019 (UTC).

Thanks, I will keep that in mind. --Bodhi-Baum (talk) 16:22, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Request

Mind looking at Thiopedia rosea as well, to see if I messed up anything? Thanks in advance. Jarnsax (talk) 23:21, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

@Jarnsax: Most of it already looked great, but I made some small changes per the Help:Reference section guideline plus added a few templates. Thank you for your contributions! –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 03:50, 11 October 2019 (UTC).

Thanks. I'm actually working on transcribing the 1957 Bergey's manual over at Wikisource, and figured it would be worthwhile to pull the reference information over here while I'm at it, instead of hoping that someday someone else would do it. I'm not specifically a biology person, but I am good at being pedantic, which seems like a significant part of what this project wants. :) Jarnsax (talk) 04:03, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Very much so, yes. :-) Wow, transcribing the Bergey's is a huge job! Also, I saw that the differents parts and editions of the manual are represented on Wikidata in a fairly diverse and not-too-logical way, so it will need some attention there as well. Then again that's a very small task in comparison to transcribing and proofreading the actual book... It's a very important publication so I may help out with some of the proofreading if I can find the time.

By the way, when you're done with the 1,130 pages of Bergey's Manual of Determinative Bacteriology I trust you'll have a go at Bergey's Manual of Systematic Bacteriology as well as Bergey's Manual of Systematics of Archaea and Bacteria too, right? ;-) Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 04:56, 11 October 2019 (UTC).

(lol) Perhaps. Luckily, there is no deadline, right? The Bergey's actually is rather fast to proofread... the OCR is quite good, and the text is repetitive enough that it was easy to get the missing terms into the spellchecker dictionary. Mostly it's just formatting and giving it a quick skim, other than making sure the actual references aren't mangled. Jarnsax (talk) 15:50, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Cloud Forest

Heya, as I also do some work on Wikiversity, I am on the Editorial Board of Wikijournal of Science, I wanted to warn them about Cloud Forest and mentioned you there too here on Admin page. Just a heads up. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 01:16, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

@Scott: Good initiative, thanks! Just a note though: the user name is "Cloud forest", with a lower case "f". I've therefore changed the heading of your Wikiversity post in order to avoid future mix-ups. For example the link Special:Contributions/Cloud forest will work fine showing the user's contributions here on Wikispecies, however Special:Contributions/Cloud Forest with a capital "F" will not. The same is true on Wikiversity. All the best! Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 01:46, 11 October 2019 (UTC).

Thanks for that, yes the cross wiki issue is starting to look problematic. If this continues he may find himself globally blocked. Lets hope he does not become a sock problem if that happens. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 01:54, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Wikiversity blocked him, cannot say I blame them he moved the stuff from here to there. EN WP has denied an unblock request twice. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 01:59, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I saw. German WP even went ahead and write protected his user page, so now it's only editable by admins. Anyway I don't think this will transmute into a sock problem, regardless of how it all turns out. I mean, a new user that suddenly adds 15 thousand characters each to a bunch of pages wouldn't be particularly transparent... Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 02:28, 11 October 2019 (UTC).

Mirafra africana sharpii

Dear Tommy, Maybe I made a mistake by making a subspecies-article Mirafra africana sharpii (according IOC list), not realizing others already made a species article Mirafra sharpii (IUCN). I hope the solution I found was correct. 15:18, 20 October 2019 (UTC)~--Hwdenie

Hello @Hwdenie, and thank you for your contributions. Unfortunately I haven't got access to all the proper literature needed regarding Mirafra nomenlature and taxonomy, but most sites like IOC/BirdLife International and ITIS etc. seems to list it as Mirafra africana sharpii. If this is correct, I can make the appropriate page moves and other necessary changes to our Wikispecies pages, however I may need some more references in order to do so in the correct way. The two Wikidata items Q27623835 and Q15728561 also needs some attention in that case.

I already took the liberty to create+add a template for the primary reference to the Mirafra sharpii page, using the same citation you had already added. Kind regards, Tommy Kronkvist, 20:04, 23 October 2019 (UTC).

Again something went wrong and I do not know how to handle it. There are two articles Zosterops kikuyensis in Wikispecies. Hope you can repair it. Henirk--Hwdenie (talk) 18:46, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

@Hwdenie: I guess you refer to the pages Zosterops kikuyensis (only listed on Wikispecies) and the very similarly named Zosterops kikuyuensis (also listed on Wikimedia Commons and the Basque, Dutch, English, Spanish and Swedish Wikipedias). Is Zosterops kikuyuensis the currently correct taxon name for the taxon? –Tommy Kronkvist, 19:12, 29 October 2019 (UTC).

Yes, according to ITIS and IOC this is no longer a subspecies of Zosterops poliogaster. I did not understand the differences, the spelling is the same. Or I must immediately consult my opticien? Anyhow, the first you named has to be deleted. --Hwdenie (talk) 19:58, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────┘ @Hwdenie: Nope, they are not spelled the same. See here:

Zosterops kikuyensis
Zosterops kikuyuensis

I will delete the shorter one. :-) Tommy Kronkvist, 20:16, 29 October 2019 (UTC).

Indeed, I need new spectacles! Thanks for your help. --Hwdenie (talk) 06:56, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

User Special:Contributions/Badlydrawnboy22

Hey Tommy, although a recent edition he seems to be doing well and communicates with Orchi when he needs to, though I do not read German. With his considerable number of edits do you think it too early to give him autopatroller? Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 15:16, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi @Scott! Handing him autopatroller rights is a very good idea, so please go ahead and do that. His talks with Orchi (and Thiotrix) mainly relates to how we handle data regarding repositories, synonymy, Taxonavigation templates and other fairly technical matters, and he seems to have a good basic understanding about how most of that works. He doesn't add {{BHL}} templates and other such "fine print" accessories to his edits yet, but I'm sure they will be applied to his every-day toolbox as his work progresses.

When checking his global account information one gets the impression that the user account was registered in 2015. That is incorrect, probably due to changes in the Single User Login "SUL" system that were made around that time. However his German WP track record shows he made his first edit as a registered user as early as March 2008. Kind regards, Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 19:30, 28 October 2019 (UTC).

 Done Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 21:43, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

MediaWiki:Sp-contributions-footer

Hi Tommy. I saw you're an active sysop. Can you restore this version of MediaWiki:Sp-contributions-footer? AlvaroMolina mistakenly removed an interpunct. Thank you! Kind regards, —Hasley (talk) 18:38, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

@Hasley:  Done. As you've already seen I didn't revert AlvaroMolina's edits, but rather I mended them. Thank you for your note about this, and happy editing! –Tommy Kronkvist, 18:53, 29 October 2019 (UTC).

Discussion about standard reference template format

Tommy,

I have no a reaction about : The discussion is not what I'm doing wrong, but have Circeus the right to change reference templates in templates that don't commit the standard reference template. Such as Full article (PDF) change in [PDF]. in the text use .PeterR (talk) 10:01, 3 November 2019 (UTC). Circeus still chang templates with in the text PeterR (talk) 17:46, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

I've answered on your talk page. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 18:54, 4 November 2019 (UTC).

Please Tommy, can you tell me what you find wrong in this template?

• Machado, M., Teixeira, R.A. & Milledge, G.A. 2019. On the Australian Bark Crab Spider Genus Stephanopis: Taxonomic Review and Description of Seven New Species (Araneae: Thomisidae: Stephanopinae). Records of the Australian Museum 71(6): 217-276. DOI: 10.3853/j.2201-4349.71.2019.1698 . Full article (PDF).Reference page. PeterR (talk) 10:56, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

@PeterR: I think it looks good, for the most part. There are only two very small errors:

1. The pagination uses hyphen ("-" koppelteken) instead of the longer en dash ("–" gedachtestreepje). It now says "71(6): 217-276" but it should be "71(6): 217–276". As I wrote on your talk page I know that hyphen is the standard in Dutch (and often in English), but consensus of the Wikispecies Community is to use the longer "en dash" instead. This is international ISO standard and was discussed and voted for in the poll we had on the reference template format in December 2015. It is also explained in the first part of the Help:Reference section guideline.
2. There is no space (spatie) between "Full article (PDF)." and the following <includeonly> code. This means that there is no space between the PDF link and the "Reference page" link when the template is used on taxon pages. Shown without links (for clarity) it now looks like this:

"Full article (PDF).Reference page."

However it should look like this:

"Full article (PDF). Reference page."

with a space between "(PDF)." and "Reference page".

Both of these errors are of course easy to fix – simply change the hyphen to en dash, and add a space. When you create new reference templates in the future, please always add the code-string {{Reftemp|subst:reftemp}} directly after all of your other text, for example like this:

… [http:// etc. Full article (PDF)].{{subst:reftemp}}

The {{subst:reftemp}} code will then automatically add that space, together with all necessary Wikispecies links to/from your reference template. The use of {{subst:reftemp}} is also described in the Reference section guideline, at the bottom of the paragraph called Reference Templates.

Best regards, Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 15:38, 5 November 2019 (UTC).

Patroller

Hi. Can you please take a look at Wikispecies:Patrollers#Requests for patroller rights? Its been open for a while. Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 00:33, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

@DannyS712: I got this one no probs, sorry I did not see it before. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 02:04, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Resolved. As you may already be aware, you've now been enlisted as a patroller. A big thanks to @Scott for taking care of that! I don't know how I did manage to miss the request for more than a week despite the fact that I've got all of Wikispecies user access level pages in my watchlist... Sorry about that.
–Regards, Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 04:03, 30 November 2019 (UTC).

Yeah I am same boat I have no idea how I missed it either, I fortunately also have all crat talk pages on my watch list in case something comes up I can help with. Thanks for finalising it all I was going to do that later tonight but done now. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 05:17, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Template:Medvedev, 2007a

Any reason you made a template out of the article in here before the other ones by Lev Medvedev in 2007 (of which I've currently managed to find six)? The other ones for that year don't have templates yet (nor do most of the publications by him, at least for now), but I was refraining from doing so for them until I'd sorted them by date and made sure I'd found all his publications for that year first. The one you made a template of was just the most recent one I added to the same list. Monster Iestyn (talk) 22:10, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi @Monster Iestyn. Our naming scheme (and praxis) currently don't have a set convention for how to sort reference templates published in the same year. It would be very difficult to implement a rigid naming system for this. Imagine we first create "template1", "template2", "template3" and so forth, ordered by date of publication. If afterwards someone finds a publication published before "template2", should we then rename all of the already present "template2" and 3, 4, 5 etc by upping their ordinal by one? I like that idea as such, but fear it would soon get messy since we would always have to remember to also rename all of the instances where the templates are used or transcluded.

Also, it gets complicated since many authors share the same surname. For example, the only reason I chose to add a trailing "a" to the name of Medvedev, 2007a by entomologist Lev Nikandrovich Medvedev, is that there already is a template without "a" named Medvedev, 2007 by the entomologist Gleb Sergeevich Medvedev.

In a day or two I intend to create templates for the remaning Medvedev references as well, unless you beat me to it which of course is welcome. :-) If you do then the order of them isn't important; only the author name and year of publication is. In the best of worlds we should have a better system than the present one for all of this, but since we haven't, we haven't... Regards, Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 00:41, 2 December 2019 (UTC).

Fair enough on ordering not matter, it just bothered me particularly since there wasn't a particular set rule for this situation at all. (I expressed much these same thoughts over at Village Pump recently, speaking of). I'll let you take charge of making the templates, that said, I really spend too much time on author pages given how bad a state some of them are in. I want to get back to making taxon pages. =) Also yeah, I spotted that Medvedev, 2007 without "a" already existed. Monster Iestyn (talk) 01:18, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

BASEPAGENAME

Moved to User talk:Wlodzimierz#BASEPAGENAME, where the discussion started.

Template:Karsten, 1858

What's the source for this date? TL-2 say that Fascicle 3 (pp. 83-122) was published in December 1860... Circeus (talk) 22:11, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Hello @Circeus. I was mislead by GRIN and TROPICOS who both states "Florae Columbiae 1:91, t. 45. 1858" as the place of publication for Caryodendron orinocense H.Karst. Searching further I now see that The Plant List has got it right, saying "Florae Columbiae 1: 91 1860", and that while the complete work was published 1858–69 the part mentioned in this particular reference template was indeed published in 1860. I've changed the template accordingly so that it can now be found under the name Template:Karsten, 1860. Thanks for bringing this up. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 23:21, 3 December 2019 (UTC).

Would you object to me redoing the template to be the format as the other two fascicles on the work page? (I didn't ask immediately in case you had a source that demonstrated earlier dates than TL-2 gives.) Circeus (talk) 00:08, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

@Circeus: Nope, fire away. Having all the templates using the same format is a good thing. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 00:11, 4 December 2019 (UTC).

Re: Interface adminship

Done. I have closed the discussion and added interface admin to your account for one year. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 00:54, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Congrats! --DannyS712 (talk) 01:05, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank you both. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 10:22, 26 December 2019 (UTC).

Translantion 2tips

Hi, https://species.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template%3AAbo-Shnaf_%26_de_Moraes%2C_2016&type=revision&diff=7096659&oldid=5708616

--Rosičák (talk) 15:23, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

@Rosičák: Thank you very much! I have now added the {{int:}} tag to the {{Reftemp}} and {{ReftempZt}} templates, so from now on the two phrases should be automatically translated in new reference templates. However, this will only work if the phrases are also translated in our Wikispecies:Localization database. Can you please provide me with the Czech translations for the phrases in the table below, so that I can enter them into the database? Again, thank you. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 15:55, 27 December 2019 (UTC).

English	Čeština
Reference page	Referenční list
Find all Wikispecies pages which cite this reference	Zobrazit všechny články, které citují tuto referenci.

Thanks!--Rosičák (talk) 16:42, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

 Done. The Czech translations are now added to the Localization database. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk),16:51, 27 December 2019 (UTC).

Help with translation ???

Hey. Im finnish and i "synonyms" is in finnish "synonyymit". Please create this page with this? And is nice that in this page nimi→Nimi or UPPERCASE in first letter. Kinds regards --Jnovikov (talk) 18:52, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

@Jnovikov:  Done! Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 18:55, 27 December 2019 (UTC).

Thanks If you have time to do these more; so i can make long list words that should translate to finnish in mediawiki pages. Jnovikov (talk) 18:56, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

@Jnovikov: Sure, I will be happy to help. It's best to add a list to the Wikispecies talk:Localization page, so that it is easily viewable for all the other translation administrators as well. Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 19:02, 27 December 2019 (UTC).

That i do. Jnovikov (talk) 19:06, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this archive.