User talk:MKOliver

Hi, if you put in synonyms, you need to cite a published reference for the synonymy, thanks Stho002 (talk) 00:40, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Is the Oliver (1989) ref in the book by Eccles & Trewavas? Does the book have an ISBN number? Stho002 (talk) 01:13, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you know that you need to create genus template pages also? I have created a couple of them for you. Stho002 (talk) 02:04, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

That's it - good. The only problem is that Hemitaeniochromis‎ doesn't seem to be listed in the genera on the Haplochromini page, so you need to add it... Stho002 (talk) 02:47, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

It is a good idea to add doi, like I have done for you here: Haplochromini, then you can just click on the doi (number part) to get the abstract page (and PDF if you have subscription) Stho002 (talk) 02:32, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

• Connected with this, it is best not to directly link to a PDF if there is an abstract page with a doi or handle. Stho002 (talk) 03:08, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Reply

There is no "official guideline" here, but I would prefer if you didn't use capitals in journal titles if they can be avoided, so American Museum novitates would be best, for example. I don't cite issue numbers unless the pagination starts again from page 1. However, both these things are pretty trivial, and not worth fussing over, so I don't really mind ... Stho002 (talk) 02:13, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Admin nomination

Please accept nomination for admin here Wikispecies:Administrators, so we can proceed ... Stho002 (talk) 03:54, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations

The admins' T-shirt

You're now an admin. Please ask if you're unfamiliar with some of the additional tools you have been granted with. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 02:28, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

New tools for new admin

Block is to stop someone from damaging further by preventing their username/IP from editing for a set amount of time (or indefinitely). For accounts which are outright vandalizing, you can click on the block button and choose the expiry time as indefinite. If it's an IP account, we generally start with 24 hours and escalate the duration if that IP comes back after the block expires.

For rollback, you can consider it as "undo button on steroids". Rollback allows you to undo ALL changes made by a SINGLE, most recent user. Before, if a user made 10 damaging edits, you have to click undo 10 times. Now, all it takes is 1 click of rollback and those 10 edits are gone. Downside is that if those part of the 10 edits are useful, or is not the most recent user who edited that article, you still need to use undo.

You will also have delete and protect buttons on the top of each page. Delete is to delete the page (duh!) and protect is to prevent certain categories of editors from editing or moving the page. If you click on the protect button (don't worry, no harm is done until you confirm your actions), you can choose to let the page be edited and moved by anyone (this is default). Alternatively, if large volume of vandalism occurs on certain page, you can choose to make the page to block unregistered (IP accounts) or new users (those whose accounts are less than 4 days and/or made less than 10 edits). If people disrupt by moving (i.e. renaming) the page to something else, you can use the second box to stop them from doing so on that page. Both options allow the restriction for a set period of time or indefinitely.

There are other trivial tools but you won't need it (e.g. allowing you to create more than 6 accounts per day for your colleagues). OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 19:28, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

No problem, just don't abuse it. The tools are used to prevent disruption, not to win an argument. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 02:42, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism

Aren't you forgetting something??? YOU can delete the page Care bears, and warn the vandal by putting {{test}} on their talk page ... Stho002 (talk) 02:45, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Well done ... Stho002 (talk) 02:56, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Next time, don't forget to sign after warning somone with a {{test}} OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 19:08, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Re: Use of Creative Commons-licensed Flickr images?

Those images are in fact licensed under Creative Commons. However, the reason why Wikimedia Commons does not host such files is because the license itself prohibits commercial use (hence the "no dollar" sign part for the license).

Attribution are usually done by including a link to the source in the image page.

We can definitely open up a discussion in Village Pump to see if we can host non-commercial use of Creative Commons images locally (as opposed to the current settings, where all files must be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons and follow their rules). That's up to us to decide. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 05:57, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Sandbox?

Dear MKOliver. Please take a look at my reaction here. Thanks. Kind regards, Trijnstel (talk) 22:01, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Ídem. Aleposta (talk) 00:09, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Metapocyrtus

When you say 'deletion of junior homonyms', I just want to check that you are not deleting unreplaced junior homonyms? Stho002 (talk) 02:02, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

At this point, I don't yet know if the junior homonyms were ever replaced or not. (I'm just trying, as a nonspecialist in weevils, to get one of the big, speciose tropical genera preliminarily represented and eventually fleshed out, as also with Lebia.) The homonymous names would only exist as isolated specific epithets in the Overview of Species listing at this time, so would appear to be an error (duplication) to readers since there are no authorities mentioned in species lists. E.g., M. quadricinctus – M. quadricinctus – (moreover, both entries would incorrectly link to the same page). In other words, I can't realistically research all the homonymies, at least not yet. Feel free to help ;-) MKOliver (talk) 02:27, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

also, in relation to sandbox section above, be careful to distinguish vandals from vandalism reverters ... I've made that mistake a few times initially! Stho002 (talk) 02:05, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

if memory serves (from 4 months ago), I tried carefully to verify that the guys above had only vandalized, before deleting the pages which did obviously consist only of vanadalism when I deleted them. But, I may have goofed somehow. If so, sorry to all. MKOliver (talk) 02:27, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

CoF ID numbers

Some info on more complex situations with these at my talk page , if you're interested. Koumz (talk) 00:09, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Characiformes

I have read (with great interest, as you might guess) many sections of the paper by Oliveira et al. (incl. Vari & Correa e Castro). That order has needed this work for a long time, as far as I understand, so I am very glad to see it. I am doing the best I can to help out with all the work of reorganizing pages that has to be done to match the paper's conclusions. Please excuse any missteps, and thanks of course for getting such a great paper on here so quickly. Koumz (talk) 06:32, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

This paper was probably #2 on my list of papers I hoped to see (with #1a and b being someone fixing either of the 2 large wastebins in the order, Hemigrammus and Hyphessobrycon). Question: do we want to list out the genera of each of the two unnamed clades in Characidae (similar to what others have done for species groups and the like on insect pages) on either Characidae or on the Incertae sedis page, without making individual pages for the clades until (eventually) they are named? I think this would be a useful way of treating them. Koumz (talk) 13:07, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

One of those clades (Clade A, or Clade 55) they have treated as an expanded Stevardiinae in the body of the paper, and I have adjusted that page accordingly. Koumz (talk) 03:04, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Clark Hubbs

CoF references have this middle initial. I think I saw it somewhere else, too, but I'll have to dig that up again. Koumz (talk) 01:14, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

In this particular case CoF does actually use the full first name (Search "Clark Hubbs" on the CoF species search or look up one of Clark's references, for example CoF reference 12145). That said, I find no support for this in the primary literature after a search of some depth and will remove it. Koumz (talk) 01:36, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

The article you cite is one of several I found like that, thus the conclusion to self-revert. Thanks for catching that. I actually delved into the question in some depth when I disambiguated the links to the Hubbs page, but missed that detail. Koumz (talk) 01:56, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Standards

The problem with "standards" is that they don't allow for experimentation to see what works better. I don't really mind what you choose to do (mostly I was trying to sort out the Athetina homonymy, but it looks now to be more complicated, as Athetiina may not have been validly published as a replacement name), but since I first started the "Cited sources" thing, I now abandon it in favour of "primary references", which then allows us to add a new verification template {{nv}} to a page (nomenclature verified against primary sources). I am not going to worry too much about capitalisation. Cheers, Stho002 (talk) 01:28, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Name section convention

Hello,

Thanks for your work at WS. We have some problems here with standardization. I'm refering to the name section.

The name section according to the help section [1] should look like this:

Neolamprologus helianthus Büscher, 1997: 701

Holotype: MRAC 97-27-P-1

Paratypes: MRAC 97-27-P-2-3 (2), 97-27-P-4 (1), 97-27-P-5 (1), 97-27-P-6 (1), 97-27-P-7-10 (4)

Type locality: Democratic Republic of Congo: Lake Tanganyika, near "Siedlung Kamakonde", 7°52'S, 30°18'E, about 110 km south of Moba

and not like this:

• Neolamprologus helianthus Büscher, 1997: 701
  • Holotype: MRAC 97-27-P-1
    • Paratypes: MRAC 97-27-P-2-3 (2), 97-27-P-4 (1), 97-27-P-5 (1), 97-27-P-6 (1), 97-27-P-7-10 (4)
  • Type locality: Democratic Republic of Congo: Lake Tanganyika, near "Siedlung Kamakonde", 7°52'S, 30°18'E, about 110 km south of Moba

Should we change the help section, and the scores of pages that comply with it?

Should we make your version a standard?

Please tell me what are your thoughts on this issue. Mariusm (talk) 08:52, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

---

---

Thanks for your thoughtful and elaborate answer, but let me add a few points for thought here:

(1) As a scientific site, users are distracted when facing with too much variation, and as a result may consider us too much amateurish and non-serious.

(2) The bullets can be taken to an extreme as in the following case:

• Zeanecrophilus thayerae Newton, 1997: 134
  • Authority for current placement: original
    • undisputed by all subsequent authorities
  • Original genus: Zeanecrophilus Newton, 1997
  • Original status: valid species
  • Primary type: holotype
    • Fixation: designated
    • Description: [adult] male
    • Repository: NZAC
  • Type locality: 'New Zealand, North Island, TO, Moerangi (0.6km w), 650m'

(3) To my taste the "plain-vanilla" is the easiest for writers, most comprehensible for users, and more elegant.

(4) Newcomers are confused to see the help-section breached, and may turn away in dismay.

(5) I understand the desire to put in a personal touch, but we must sacrifice this for the cause of a better site.

(6) Everyone's desires can't be satisfied, so it is better to stick to the rules, and not let anarchy dominate. Mariusm (talk) 12:58, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Scarabaeidae genera

Rather a lot of them! Stho002 (talk) 03:11, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, 2339 is quite a few ... but Staphylinidae has them beaten handily, with 3847 genera as of 2001. (OK, so they're not all listed here yet...) MKOliver (talk) 03:18, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Photos

I don't know if you have add the photos by Antheraea polyphemus. I had allready make a head with Photos. If their are more photos people can add them better under photos then add images, because the page with information about the butterfly will be too full.

Regards,

PeterR (talk) 13:18, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Rhaphipodini

Do not you think that Rhaphipodini is a junior synonym of Remphanini (Lacordaire, 1868)? Merci de votre avis, bon souvenir de France... --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 08:53, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Agnosthaetus

Mike ... thanks but would you mind leaving this one to me, as I want to register the new taxa on ZooBank etc., so if you go ahead, we will end up doing more work than we need to on this ... Stho002 (talk) 03:00, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Cheers ... you could try to find out the exact publication date of hard copy, and any ISBN number. I only have access to the online version at present ... Stho002 (talk) 03:10, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks ... that is useful info. ... Stho002 (talk) 03:27, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Stunning bug!

Check this out: Anisoscelis flavolineata ... Stho002 (talk) 01:37, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

FishBase links

FYI (and perhaps you've noticed already), I am in the process of converting all the remaining FishBase links over to Template:FishBase from the four separate templates. I have done all the genera and am working on the species. I am leaving the italicized species name as the second parameter (even though it's not necessary for it to be there unless it's different from the page name) in the conversion only because it's much easier to automate that way. Koumz (talk) 05:02, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your work on converting the Haplochromis pages to the new template. You are quite right that both Template:CoF and Template:FishBase do not need to be given the genus and species name, and, indeed, I use the templates without genus or species names when I create new pages. My comment above (which seems to have been clumsy speech on my part, and muddied the water) was more a reference to the AWB work I am doing in converting the pre-existing links that use the old Template:FishBase species. Since those links already have the names in them (because it was required by the old Template:FishBase species), and removing the name is hard to automate, in those cases I am just leaving the names in during the conversion, since the result is equivalent, even though my first preference would have been to remove them if it were simpler to do, since the template does not need them except in cases where the taxon name differs from the pagename. Hopefully I've now spoken more clearly than before. Koumz (talk) 22:05, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Look what I found!

http://species.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Sparassidae_sp._1_%28adult_female%29.jpg Ironically, the taxonomy of that group of species is a little unclear, but N.Z. ones are being called Isopeda villosa ... Stho002 (talk) 02:16, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Emergence trap sounds like a good idea. On the subject of the sparassid, I'm not actually that comfortable with big spiders, so it was "interesting" to be alone at night in a city park, with just a small torch and an alarmingly small container, trying to capture that beast! ... Stho002 (talk) 02:33, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation

Mike, when you find a name which is used for both plant and animal genera, it is best to disambiguate with Genus (Plantae) and genus (Animalia). If you use a narrower category, like Genus (Curculionidae), this may be unstable due to instability of classification (there is no consensus on family limits within Curculionidae sensu lato) ... Stho002 (talk) 01:53, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

FishBase and subfamiliae

Since FishBase doesn't have subfamily pages, we can't use the template for those as it now stands, but there is something close I think we can use, but it will require a modification to the template. I'll start on the modification. Koumz (talk) 03:40, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

User account creation

Thanks Mike. I don't know enough about it myself, but I have emailed OhanaU. Maybe it is just WP accounts automatically transferring over to WS? I don't know, but I'm sure OhanaU. will sort it out ... Stho002 (talk) 02:31, 23 January 2013 (UTC) OhanaU. has replied on my talk page ... Stho002 (talk) 02:39, 23 January 2013 (UTC)