User talk:Stho002

Archives
Archive 1 (November 19, 2008 - June 30, 2009)
Archive 2 (July 1, 2009 - December 31, 2009)
Archive 3 (January 1, 2010 - June 30, 2010)

Wells again

I am quite surprised at the direction this has taken. This doesn't have to turn into an argument about valid publication and priority. It is much simpler than that. Wikispecies reflects scientific consensus on taxonomy and nomenclature. That was my understanding, anyhow. If Wikispecies isn't trying to capture and reflect scientific consensus, then what is it trying to capture?

On the one hand, we have a name, published (validly or not) by Wells, in a journal started by Wells, published by Wells, edited by Wells, and which publishes only articles written by Wells. Regardless of your opinion of the journal or Wells' scholarship, surely it is beyond dispute that what Wells issues in a non-peer-reviewed journal edited and published solely by himself, represents his opinion and his opinion alone. And surely we all agree that, rightly or wrongly, Wells' opinion is derided within the broader scientific community.

On the other hand, we have a name, published in a highly-reputable and rigorously peer-reviewed international journal, by someone who is not the subject of derision amongst his peers.

All we need to concern ourselves with here is which of the two names is nearest to enjoying the consensus support of scientists in the field. It's a no-brainer, isn't it?

Hesperian 11:42, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

"EVERYTHING depends on whether Wells' name was validly published according to the ICZN, and I see no proof that it was not." What "proof" do you require? Would an explicit statement to that effect, published in a reliable source, suffice? If not, then what? Hesperian 23:19, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

If I understand you correctly, you have just told me that you will not accept anything as proof that Wells' names are not validly published. Faendalimas may say they are not; I may say they are not; reliable sources may say they are not; it may be the consensus of the entire scientific community that they are not; but Stho002 says they are, and that is that. Hesperian 00:11, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

"I say that nothing anybody ("reliable source", or otherwise) has told me (or published) amounts to anything like a convincing argument." How about Fritz, U. & Havas, P. (2007), "Checklist of Chelonians of the World", Vertebrate Zoology 57(2): 162:

"The worst case represent online-publications in a journal fake named Australian Biodiversity Record (Wells 2002a, b, 2007a, b, c). These online-publications do not constitute published works according to Articles 8.6 and 9.7 of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (ICZN 1999), which is why none of the names or nomenclatural acts published therein exists under the rules of the code."[1]

That is an unambiguous statement, by authors who appear to be unaffiliated with Thomson and Georges. Does this also fail to "amount to anything like a convincing argument?"

I think you're playing verbal games when you say "I do not say that they are validly published, I say that I don't know (and will therefore give Wells the benefit of the doubt)". You could replace "Wells" with "Thomson" in that sentence and your position would be no less rational. You're only giving Wells "the benefit of the doubt" on the premise that he has priority, which is begging the question since priority is what is at issue here. Hesperian 00:42, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm still not understanding why the benefit of the doubt goes to Wells. Wells publishes names in his own personal journal, which he edit himself, and which is not subject to any peer review, and which no library bothers to archive. Other herpetologists go on the record in reputable, independent, rigorously peer-reviewed international journals, stating that Wells' names are not validly published. Given two contrary assertions, "This journal is validly published" versus "Wells' journal is not validly published", you give the benefit of the doubt to the former, accepting it, uncritically, at its face value; whilst writing the latter off as a "dogmatic statement of wishful thinking", and demanding proof that it is correct. This despite the latter having more supporters and much better provenance. What is going on here? Hesperian 01:32, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm well aware of the difference between nomenclature and taxonomy. I haven't brought taxonomy into this, and don't intend to. This has nothing to do with taxonomy, and it also has nothing to do with guilt. You are introducing the notion of guilt as a rhetorical device by which you get to claim innocent until proven guilty. This is not a court of law, and no-one is here accusing Wells of anything unethical or illegal. The question before us is simply whether Wells' names are validly published. Wells says they are. Many herpetologists disagree. Why does Wells get the benefit of the doubt? Hesperian 01:48, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

"This is what I have done. I got there and did it first, before Thomson (User:Faendalimas), so to stop the wheel warring I have protected the page with my version" It wasn't "wheel warring" because only one of you is an admin. It was "edit warring". And you used your administrative powers to win an edit war. I do hope someone takes that facet of the problem up with you, because it is a serious matter. But let's us two stick to the underlying dispute. The other way to resolve these disputes, without recourse to administrative actions, is to call for a third opinion. You now have mine: Thomson's name has better provenance and support, and should be used here. Want to ask for a fourth? We could work ogether to formulate a request for comments if you want.... Hesperian 02:15, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

"Actually, the wheel warring (or edit warring, or whatever) is between Thomson and Wells." That's not what I see in the history. I see you creating a page, Thomson editing it, you reverting and protecting.

"Now, please move on ..." No, I don't think so. Clearly we two aren't going to get any further on our own, so I'll stop patronising your talk page. But I think there has been a gross error made here, and I am pretty sure that it would be overturned if we had more eyes on it. I will have a think about how to proceed from here. Hesperian 02:39, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Leviathan melvillei

I did not. I was under the firm impression that the normal procedure was to use Interwiki links, of which I added a dozen. Circeus (talk) 05:31, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for that. It was a stupid oversight (I copy-pasted the links from en: and forgot to add a link to there). Circeus (talk) 05:41, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I shall do it to morrow because it is now 24.00 hours in Holland.

done

Regards,

PeterR (talk) 21:53, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Fauna of New Zealand Online

Are you familiar with this? --> [2]

Mariusm (talk) 05:32, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Template Familiae

Is this only for familiae for New Zealand?

There are a lot more family templates that need fixing and other templates.

PeterR (talk) 09:13, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

File rename

I don't have the right to rename files either, but you can request (just like what I'm doing right now) for such permission on Commons:Requests for rights. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 21:22, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

True, but if you request it you don't have to ask someone else to do it for you anymore. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 03:44, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Page length

Your page is getting really long, mind if I help you archive it? OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 02:12, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

No problem. The page should load faster now. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 03:54, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Off to PeterR's. His page is also in dire need of an archive, but not as bad as yours! OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 03:55, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

New Combination

Stephen

Sometimes i have new combinations of lepidoptera only in the text of original bulletins without an explanation. Can I add those species or are they not official.

Thanks for your answer. I shall add the combinations.

Regards,

PeterR (talk) 07:50, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

MediaWiki Side bar

Please creat MediaWiki:Templates/vi with content "Bản mẫu", thanks --minhhuy*= (talk) 10:05, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Please ~~ --minhhuy*= (talk) 08:16, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Journal title format

Hi - thanks for the clean-up edits on my pages; I hope they're getting fewer.
I have looked for guidance on Wikispecies about formatting journal titles. Other than seeing that they should be italicized, I haven't found advice. I notice that when I cite Ichthyological Exploration of Freshwaters you change the inital caps on "Exploration" and "Freshwaters" to lower case. But, you don't do this to my other journal titles, such as American Museum Novitates. You also delete my issue numbers, which I realize are not absolutely necessary but which I and other workers find helpful, especially when searching unbound journal runs in library stacks. Is there a documented Wiki standard for journal citation format that I can refer to? Thanks - MKOliver (talk) 02:07, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

If I might comment on this: I find that change rather unusual. I know offhand of no citation style that demands sentence case (as opposed to title case) for journal titles, but then I'm used to botanical nomenclatural literature where abbreviations (also in title case) are widespread, so my vision might be somewhat biased. Circeus (talk) 18:49, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Zootaxa tweets

My bad, will do. Circeus (talk) 21:49, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

True, I think that'd work. Any ideas for tweet material besides my and your own updates? Circeus (talk) 22:03, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Deletion

I'd appreciate if you could delete the following redirects I created via inadvertent typos/misreadings:

• Quadrella lundlellii
• Dorobeae pimpinellifolia
• Dicercloclados

Thanks in advance. Circeus (talk) 18:46, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Please rescue Malawispongia

The old Malawispongiidae page has funky taxonav. I got into trouble and then worsened it when I created a misspelled template, Spopngillina (should have been Spongillina). Could you please take a look and help me get genus Malawispongia and Malawispongiidae working properly? Thanks much. MKOliver (talk) 23:48, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

• Thank you - MKOliver (talk) 23:53, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Gender

Stephen

Have the species and the genera the same Gender?

Regards,

PeterR (talk) 16:14, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Story?

Look at this. Ark (talk page) 16:03, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

More deletion

Could you please delete Megalastrum inaequale? Accidental creation for Megalastrum inaequalifolium... Circeus (talk) 01:56, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

It's still a bad page and I don't intend to work on it in the immediate future (if I weren't for you saying no, I wouldn't be planning to edit it at all, in fact). Circeus (talk) 02:27, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I didn't expect you to do the updating yourself. My bad. Circeus (talk) 02:32, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Should template:Ruellia be nuked? The corresponding taxon page is a disambig (I removed links already). Circeus (talk) 21:54, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I thought it ensued logically that template ought to be disambiguated the same as their corresponding taxon. Circeus (talk) 22:50, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Acanthocephala‎

1. May I ask why have you removed a name section from Acanthocephala‎ page? If there is a rule that phyla pages should not include a name section, could you give me a link to that rule? Because I know only of guidelines stating otherwise (although indirectly), e.g.: "Every content page on Wikispecies should contain a Taxonavigation section. (...) Besides the taxonavigation a page should contain a Name section." This is from Help:General_Wikispecies. Here Help:Name section also you'll not find a single word that not every rank should have a name section. Marac (talk) 12:12, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

2. Your change to Apororhynchidae is clearly against the rules, which state "One other thing to note is using singular taxon naming convention when there's one child". Help:Taxonavigation_section#Multiples_of_a_taxon Would you revert it or should I do it? Marac (talk) 12:24, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Neorhynchus

I hate to break promises... Anyhow... You removed the synonym Neorhynchus. Do you mean that Marvel mentions only Neorhynchus hemignathi, therefore he is not the author of Neorhynchus? I thought at first you don't believe he gave the name Neorhynchus hemignathi, but now I see you didn't remove it from Apororhynchus hemignathi. I hope you'll answer without accusing me again of wasting your time... Thanks. Marac (talk) 06:27, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! I appreciate your answer. Marac (talk) 07:40, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism

Forgetting? No; I can't forget what I haven't learned yet. Thanks for explaining how to do it. MKOliver (talk) 02:49, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

PhytoKeys

Hi Stephen, just to let you know that ZooKeys has a newly released journal from the same pubhsliher, called PhytoKeys. You might want to check it out. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 16:41, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

yes, thanks, I know! I will leave it to others better than I am at botany ... --Stho002 (talk) 22:45, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Don't worry, someone's on it now.[3] OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 00:21, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Xantho

Can you check, is Xantho Dutrochet, 1819 (in Naidinae) valid taxon? If "yes", we need disambig, I think. Ark (talk page) 16:48, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Reference Format

Howdy Stephen, I have been away from wikispecies for a couple years. It seems that you have formatted a lot of the references around here. Has a consensus been reached on reference formatting? Should I just follow your format? If no consensus has been reached, then do you think we can make that happen (update Help:Reference_section)? --Totipotent (talk) 05:57, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick reply. I updated Culicidae, have a look. I noticed that Reinert (PDF) and Harbach (website) recognize over 110 genera now! Once those subgenera have been elevated to generic status on here, can we get rid of the "UNVERIFIED PAGE!" banner? --Totipotent (talk) 11:15, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Category

Do you agree? Ark (talk page) 10:40, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Bdellonemertea

Hi! You have written Bdellonemertea as synonym in Monostilifera and in Hoplonemertea. Which is correct? (IMO none). Ark (talk page) 09:41, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Genera of Pallisentinae

Hi! May I waste some more of your time? As you know I try to complete taxa on acanthocephalans. And I encountered a problem in Pallisentinae that I don't know how to solve. The genera listed there are quoted by me after Crompton, D.W.T.; Nickol, B.B. 1985: Biology of the Acanthocephala (with the taxonomy chapter written by O. Amin) - the "bible" in the field, although slightly outdated now [4].

All the online databases like ITIS, ION etc. follow the classification from this book. Except one: Quadrigyridae Species Listing in Joel Hallan's Biology Catalog. This listing is based on the revised classification by the very same O. Amin, done in 2000 [5]. And the changes are quite fundamental, as you may see comparing both listings.

I have no idea which should be adopted on WS. The new one is up-to-date, prepared by one of the biggest experts in the field. On the other hand, it completely reworks the taxonomy of this subfamily and I have no idea if any consensus has been reached in this regard following the original publication of 2000 (as these changes are not included in any database like ITIS). Moreover, as we know, Quadrigyridae Species Listing in Joel Hallan's Biology Catalog is not free of errors and I don't have access to the paper by Amin, so I can't check if Quadrigyridae Species Listing is correct.

Do you have any ideas what should I do in such a situation? Marac (talk) 00:52, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Plantae fr

Should this page exist? --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:54, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Denisova Hominin

Hi Stho002,
I just remembered that I had an exchange with you about the denisova bones in April 2010 as I had added them to WikiSpecies as a species. Now I see there's a latin name for the bones called Homo sp. Altai (Homo sp. Altai (Denisova hominin)). As I don't know enough about the taxonomy etc., I will not try to re-list these bones, now under the latin name, unless I'd get some scientific backing.
Would you list Homo sp. Altai or help me to do so? Joerg, the BajanZindy (talk) 23:54, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but this still isn't a proper scientific name, just a tag name Stho002 (talk) 00:14, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

No need to be sorry. Not at all. I'm working on way too many projects anyway. I will wait until I hear a proper scientific name. If you hear about a proper name, you can drop me a line at my english talkpage. Joerg, the BajanZindy (talk) 00:47, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

User Lena

She's still doing it... Shouldn't she be blocked for good? Marac (talk) 15:01, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Categories

OK. Should be created only genus>Familia>Ordo>Classis...? Fabiano Tatsch (talk) 23:22, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

This I undestand, for example, if I was searching gastropods, is most easy to find gastropods in category gastropoda than in page gastropoda, in pt.wiki I use the sistem above to categorize pages, whit the categories, can be made an list and is easy to find the wanted pages and create this. Fabiano Tatsch (talk) 23:44, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

So, sorry, I would working in this wiki and creat some articles manually and via bot, I make it in pt (~47000 species) and have a great lot of ideas to make it, but witout a base like a category is most difficult. Fabiano Tatsch (talk) 00:03, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Take a look on the page Acácia, category is present and taxon tree too, if I would obtain a complete list of pages under family Fabaceae I must only go on the category, make a list and compare with an database, so I now that family contains XXX wanted articles, and can start to working, is only a idea, categories have utility, but every wiki is independent and have a distinct form to work, so I would respect it. Speaking in creating articles, can you show me an stub like an article should be, introduction, taxon tree, references... then I would creat one and another and you can revise them and tell me if they were OK. Can be? Fabiano Tatsch (talk) 00:28, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Diphasiastrum oellgaardii

This entry is for a hybrid, usually written "Diphasiastrum xoellgaardii", except I don't know how that's handled here for page names. Can you move the page to the correct name? From that I'll be able to cut-and-paste the appropriate hybrid "x" character for future situations. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:21, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

ZooKeys on the Main Page

The link to the journal is outdated. It should be http://www.pensoft.net/journal_home_page.php?journal_id=1&page=home. You think you can change it? Circeus (talk) 03:26, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

ISSN

I've noticed these pages, and will probably be creating them as I get to work on revising my Senecioneae material. I've been wondering if something similar could be applied to the literature preceding ISSNs, which often (particularly in botany) have standardized abbreviations. Circeus (talk) 01:52, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I was mostly thinking of the older literature, which includes both journals (e.g. London J. Bot., the London journal of Botany) and books (e.g. Fl. Bras., Martius' Flora Brasiliensis). In botany (as in medicine, but not in many other areas of science), abbreviation of titles has been strongly standardized, hence why I'm making redirects for those. If we can have redirect (and even disambiguation pages!) for synonyms and nomina rejicienda, surely we can accommodate a few redirects for standard title abbreviations the way we do for authors. Circeus (talk) 02:07, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

You didn't actually answer my question as to whether the system could be reasonably extended to older journals or to books. Circeus (talk) 02:28, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

_fr pages

Hi, Stephen,

have you seen all those "French" clones, made by Yzato? Is it sanctioned? Kuzia (talk) 13:03, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Welcome?

Why would you be watching me closely? SimplyIrresistible (talk) 05:48, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Homo troglodytes

Hi! Shouldn't it be a page with a fork to Homo sapiens and Pongo pygmaeus? Kuzia (talk) 09:42, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Malformatted beetle pages

A new user has been adding pages for beetles with the epithet lanai, but the formatting does not follow our standards. As a botanist, I am also unsure about the status of some of the taxa. Could you have a look at Special:Contributions/Enrlana? --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:24, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

basepagename

Hi, i have seen that you are creating many pages using a template. I think it would be better if you could replace {{BASEPAGENAME}} in your page creating template by {{subst:BASEPAGENAME}}, so that the real pagename is added instead of the mediawiki variable when saving the page. This would make the source code much more readable. Merlissimo (talk) 22:40, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Zoological holotypes

Hey, just a quick question: is the use of a dagger for destroyed holotypes also found in zoology? Circeus (talk) 00:40, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

not as far as I know ... Stho002 (talk) 00:52, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I've never seen this either MKOliver (talk) 01:11, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

So it's a botany thing. Thanks! Circeus (talk) 01:33, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Taxonav loops & zfg

Hi, Stephen,

you have created a loop of taxonavs here: Template:Eugerdellatinae. Could you also explain the use of Template:Zfg: it has no documentation and I couldn't find any discussion on it. What's the purpose? Are you going to introduce this formatting for all family-level taxa? Is that a product of some consensus? Kuzia (talk) 16:42, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

>It is a very common convention in taxonomic literature to capitalize family-group names in zoology (just like italicizing species and genus-group names)

I've never seen small caps to be used for families in the modern taxonomic literature. Even in Zookeys articles I have. Regular caps were used for some time in some journals in the past but it's neither recommendation nor a tradition. See Appendix B Art. 6 for ICZN.

>then only family-group names, genus-group names, and species-group names are quoted with author/date, not higher level names

I see here no connection with the question about caps. Though taxa above families are not regulated by ICZN, every name has its own author and date. Kuzia (talk) 05:14, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Stephen, aren't you an Admin? If you don't want to discuss, I have to remove all zfg transclusions as nonstandard page formatting. You still haven't responded on my question about Homo troglodytes. Kuzia (talk) 08:48, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Page formatting

Stephen,

please, explain your perseverance in applying your formatting style. Do we really have consensus on:

• reference design
• ===links=== instead of ==Links==
• creating links for synonyms and combinations on the page of current name (they have no sense that case)
• use of caps for authors throughout a page
• use of unordered lists in the "Name" section

Kuzia (talk) 06:10, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

OK. If you consider that as a minor issue, please don't change it as your actions produce unnecessary variability, which is annoying in case of "physical" users and critical for robots either from here or external projects. Concerning links: I just have the articles in my library where they have no links; another point is that many of them were not free or didn't exist on the web. But yes, I know that I have to pay more attention to links (and I do pay: see the templates for external sources I made).

You haven't answered on my question about Homo troglodytes and zfg. Kuzia (talk) 08:14, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Each section heading should always start with capitalized letter. This is the convention. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 01:34, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

New classification for NZ lizards

Hi Stho002!

I'm used to contribute to fr.wikipedia and work more specifically on New Zealand geckos (like Tukutuku rakiurae) and I was wondering about what to say about the new classification. I saw that you seem to use S. V. NIELSEN et al. article, but the references we usually use on French Wikipedia ([6] or [7]) don't consider it as valid for now.

So, my question is: are you sure that this article is well accepted in the scientific community? Has it been quoted anywhere? I hope this a the case because I'd like to use it for every NZ species article ;-).

Thank you in advance for your answer, sorry for my English and good continuation! Goodshort (talk) 21:52, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

PS: could ou please answer me on my fr.WP user page that I check every day?

Thank you for your answer that makes perfectly sense. Unfortunately, the problem is not as simple as I want... Thanks! Goodshort (talk) 07:20, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Trichocanace (an example)

Dear Stho,

• Sources are listed in the "References" section and not somewhere else (there are lots of wiki mechanisms for citations).
• Articles in WS couldn't be valid sources for other WS pages.
• Your "NOTE" notes are for discussion pages (judging from its content and style).
• "Fixation: original designation [p. 252] [and monotypy]". There need to be cited only one valid mode of type fixation.
• Please make a look at Diptera db "How to cite" page concerning citation forms and status of records under work for the database.
• "Links" should be a separate section. If something from there was used as a source it should be cited in the appropriate section.

Kuzia (talk) 10:44, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

So? Kuzia (talk) 10:46, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Exactly, so? Is there a question in what you have written? Seems that you just offered your opinions, which I didn't ask for and don't have the time to engage in conversation about ... Stho002 (talk) 22:29, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

One thing I will say is that Trichocanace is a highly atypical example. With Diptera, I want to follow Systema Dipterorum as a source, wherever possible, for consistency. The problem with Trichocanace is that Systema Dipterorum has completely messed up ... Stho002 (talk) 22:44, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I just expected some reaction from you. Please, excuse me if that wasn't clear from my message. If you agree with my comments, please, make relevant changes to articles. Concerning the SD: the pages are marked as being 'Warning Work Record'. Such pages should be considered as sections under construction and are to be cited in a special way. Kuzia (talk) 20:42, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

"...don't have the time to engage in conversation about" - that case you spend time to create systematic inaccuracies (like formatting issues) and errors. Do you think your admin status or advanced activity delivers you from being criticized? Kuzia (talk) 20:42, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I have no intention of taking your bait about criticism or admin status. There is no problem here, except perhaps in your mind. Concerning SD, it is the source database on Diptera for CoL, EoL, etc., and I am the only one flagging the errors in SD and correcting them on WS, so, again, there is no problem here ... Stho002 (talk) 01:02, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Question: On the Trichocanace page, under "Name", what is the "Gender" line intended for? Is it for the grammatical gender of the genus name or for the biological gender of the type specimen? I've seen this item from time to time on insect pages, but the context has never been clear to me. It might be better to use a less ambiguous designation. If it's for grammatical gender, then I can help with that from my knowledge of Latin. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:35, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

It is the grammatical gender of the genus name. But it is not determined entirely by the rules of Latin grammar, but by a combination of these plus the (ICZN) rules of zoological nomenclature. It is often very complicated and unclear. I always put a field for gender on a genus-group page, to highlight that it is important (it determines the correct suffixes of the species-group names, eg. -us, -um, -a), but I don't always specify the gender if it is unclear or I need to investigate the matter further ... Stho002 (talk) 01:41, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, if it helps, "Canace" is a female character in Greek mythology, so the name ought to be feminine (and all the species-name elements agree with feminine). So, unless the author specified "masculine" and no one listened, the name ought to be feminine. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:20, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Euphorinae

Stephen,

So far I know have the subfamilia Euphorinae several tribus. Can I add those tribus?

Its ok. The genera where not connect to the tribe like Meteorus.

Thanks.

Regards,

Peter

I know...

That's what I thought was weird! I didn't see that it was already there! I'm kind of new to this wiki, so be patient with me. Ha ha ha! Lighthead ^þ 02:42, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

I didn't know that it was already in the placed template. That's how it works right? Lighthead ^þ 02:43, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Listen, who ever you are. There's no call to be rude. I made a simple mistake. We all have to start somewhere. If you don't apologize, well then I guess we can take it up with an administrator. Lighthead ^þ 02:47, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

We don't all hit the ground running! I mean I'm sure you did, but we're not all that fortunate. How else do I have to explain it to you. I've never been on this site. Lighthead ^þ 02:53, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

You can see what I responded here. Lighthead ^þ 03:19, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm an autoconfirmed user there, and I have IP block exemption. They wouldn't just give that to someone who's trying to cause problems. I'm not anything like an administrator, but that's a personal choice. Lighthead ^þ 03:33, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

re:Subgenus

I had noticed that you were removing the pages with the subgenus in the page name, and I have conformed to that fairly well ever since I learned it, but I think I may have had a memory lapse or two along the way on that. Actually, while I'm at it, I can use AWB to quickly convert all the remaining uses of Template:sgsp to Template:sgsps and then we can delete the templates to prevent any future confusion (once we've converted all the necessary species pages first, of course, which is a much larger job). It will be easy to do the template replacement because the two templates use the same 5 arguments. Koumz (talk) 22:15, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Species groups

On the subject of species groups, I have seen how Alan is doing Arhopala (i.e. without separate pages for the groups, as you say) and taken that as my example of how to treat those situations. Thanks for the heads-up, Koumz (talk) 00:18, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

There are Genus Group pages ALL OVER in Formicoxenini if you want to wipe out the rest of them. I did not create them, I was just knocking out a dead interwiki on that one. Koumz (talk) 00:23, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Onthophagus

It's now to the point where there are no groups of more than three species left. So it's pretty much handwork (or the equivalent) anyway. Koumz (talk) 02:35, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I plan to celebrate the arrival of my bot flag (once Ohana gives it to me) with a burst of the largest groups from Agrilus that will run at least 300 pages and possibly more in an hour or two. Koumz (talk) 02:42, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I have my flag now. Do you want some time to add more details to Onthophagus before I start on Agrilus, or should I go ahead with it? Koumz (talk)

Author/date in parentheses

That was a silly thing for the original creator of that page to put it on that way, and almost as silly of me not to catch it, as I've never had trouble with this on my fishes pages. When I am working on non-fish pages, though, I am mostly focused on just fixing the formatting issues (old taxonav structure, missing templates, etc.) and I often don't get too deep into the content itself. Koumz (talk) 06:56, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Agrilus

There are five combinations with 100 or more species: Obenberger, 1935 (240 species); Obenberger, 1933 (147 species); Waterhouse, 1889 (108 species); Deyrolle, 1864 (104 species) and Kerremans, 1897 (100 species). Koumz (talk) 22:12, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I sort of figured the 240 weren't all going to be in one paper (imagine what a paper that would be!) Koumz (talk) 22:20, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

It looks to me like the Kerremans, Deyrolle and Waterhouse groups ARE single publications, though (there is no reference to a "b" publication on the Agrilus list for any of those combinations). Koumz (talk) 22:29, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

The vast majority (but not all) of Obenberger 1933 appear to come from 1933b, while most of the 1935 ones come from c, d, and pp. I deleted the letters in my copy of the list (although I now realize I didn't need to and I won't do that again), so I'll have to reprocess it a bit, but that won't take all that long. Koumz (talk) 22:36, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

That was already assumed. I don't actually import the dates themselves into AWB from the list file , just a list of the names that match a particular year (I put the year into the edit setup manually), so the process will work just the same as it has so far even if I leave the letters with the years in the master list file. Koumz (talk) 22:56, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Lycodon

Could you check this? I've found in Index Animalium:

• Lycodon, Boie in Férussac, Bull. Sci. IX. 1826, 238 [n. 11.].
• Lycodon, L. J. Fitzinger, Neue Classif. Rept. 1826, 57 [no n.].

but can't check which is correct, Boie in Férussac, Boie in Fitzinger, or Fitzinger. BTW, there is another one: Lycodon Kner, 1860, following Eschmeyer: "preoccupied by Lycodon Fitzinger 1826 in Reptilia", synonym of Roestes Günther, 1864 (Cynodontidae). Ark (talk) 10:45, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Author names

What was your plan for dealing with cases where two (or more) authors share the same initial/surname combination (i.e. there are two O. Schmidts and two H.J. Carters)? Koumz (talk) 01:52, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

just disambiguate the usual way ... Stho002 (talk) 02:35, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Should I leave the reference templates linking to the disambiguation page, or disambiguate the templates as well? (Sorry, I'm paranoid about the mistake I made last time I changed a reference template and I don't want to do it wrong again.) Koumz (talk) 13:54, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't know, just do something sensible, so the right name links to the right pages ... Stho002 (talk) 21:21, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I know a better way. Ask the authors to change their names =D OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 14:27, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Individual pages for musea

I came across a few of these and it looks to me like we're not using these anymore, so should they be redirected to Holotype (or even deleted) and the links converted? This can be done quickly. Koumz (talk) 00:30, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, as far as I am concerned, you can delete them, though we might at some stage think about putting Wikipedia links on the musea page ... Stho002 (talk) 00:35, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

There is a point there: it may be hard to get all those interwikis on one page in a well organized way. I think I'll just redirect leaving the interwiki code intact and convert the links for now. Koumz (talk) 00:42, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

We don't have to use interwikis, we could use external links to Wikipedia ... Stho002 (talk) 00:44, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

True, although it may take a bit of thought to figure out how to arrange them into the table without having it look really clumsy. Koumz (talk) 00:56, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

surely, we can just put the links on each name like this: Ceratobaeus

Gaza

Hello Stho002 please explain why I can not validate the synonymy of the genus. --Veronidae (talk) 04:45, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Ok. Thank you understand --Veronidae (talk) 05:01, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Note for Spermophilus

Such a note for Spemophilus is needed because, MSW, ITIS gives old taxonomy. For two years we have new taxonomy of that genus, so we should show where that changes are from. Jacek555 (talk) 06:55, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Sciuridae

Ofter your re-formatting Sciuridae, all the next Taxonavigation opens as 'hidden'. Will you change that all? Jacek555 (talk) 07:05, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Reference format / tertiary headings

Are the erstwhile "Cited sources" now "primary references"? And are third-degree headings (enclosed by === ===) now not capitalized? I want to follow the standards, and there are a lot of entries with capitalized 3rd headings. (Trichiusa) MKOliver (talk) 01:20, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Re: Name section convention

• Would consistent formatting make WS more useful?
  • YES!
• Would consistent formatting make WS more attractive?
  • YES!
• Would consistent formatting make WS more respected?
  • YES!
• Would consistent formatting make WS more popular?
  • YES!
• Would consistent formatting make WS more trusted?
  • YES!
• Would consistent formatting make WS more easy to use?
  • YES!
• Would consistent formatting make WS more scientific-looking?
  • YES!

Than, for heaven sake, why not strive for consistency, especially as it doesn't require so much pains, just to sacrifice a bit of one's ego.

If the rules are outdated, lets draft new ones, and lets stick to them. Mariusm (talk) 06:33, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Campsicnemus

The following two homonym situations I will leave to you to tidy up since that all has to be done manually anyway. I've created one of the two pages out of each set.

• Campsicnemus hardyi Evenhuis, 1997
• Campsicnemus hardyi Tenorio, 1969
• Campsicnemus mirabilis Frey, 1945
• Campsicnemus mirabilis Grimshaw, 1902

Koumz (talk) 05:54, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Chorthippus

Stephen,

What is the status of Chorthippus. I have found six subgenera: Chorthippus (Altichorthippus), Chorthippus (Chorthippus), Chorthippus (Dasyhippus), Chorthippus (Glyptobothrus), Chorthippus (Gomphocerippus) and Chorthippus (Megaulacobothrus). I have add a new bulletin 2011 Chorthippus (Altichorthippus).

If I have bulletins or books with Subgenera I add the species with subgenera after original bulletins. I work allready 4 years with subgenera.

Regards,

PeterR (talk) 14:44, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Araneae

I notice that you removed the "Name" section, with the edit comment "not zfg". What does this mean, and why would we not have this information for animals? --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:29, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I guess this is one aspect where the ICZN differs significantly from the ICN (formerly the ICBN). --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:39, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

ISSN 0893-1348

I noticed the "ISSN 0067-6160?" bit and decided to investigate. I think what goes on is that before ca. 1984 (according to ipni), the publicationwas titled "Occasional papers of the [variations of the museum's name]" with ISSN 0067-6160, but after that it became "Bishop Museum Occasional Papers" with ISSN 0893-1348 (a change which seems not to be reflected in most library databases). Circeus (talk) 22:21, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

ICZN help

Hey there. I'm looking at the new ZooKeys and something seems fishy. doi: 10.3897/zookeys.149.1805 has the entry correction "930957 Gondysia similis – Generic combination from Sullivan and LeGrain 2011." "Sullivan and Legrain" is doi: 10.3897/zookeys.149.1747, from the same issue. I'm not familiar with the ICZN, but I do think that latter article in fact does not correctly effect any new combination? Circeus (talk) 03:43, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Really? The ICZN allows "Neadysgonia consobrina (Guenée, 1852), syn. n." to be constructed as creating the combination "Gondysia consobrina"? Wow, and I thought Zoological nomenclature couldn't get messier. Circeus (talk) 04:26, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Synonyms

So, what would a page look like that is an ICZN synonym, but a homonym of an ICBN taxon? How would this work for something like Colchicum or Gloriosa superba that has numerous synonyms? How will distributing the information across multiple pages assist anyone?

I also have no idea what you mean by a "true synonym" versus (other kinds??).

One of the advantages of having synonyms as redirects is that they won't get linked mistakenly in lists of taxa, and this is easily checked. I have corrected many problems this way that I otherwise would not have found or noticed.

I can't see how separate synonym pages would make sense, and this will be at cross purposes with what the rest of the community is doing. --EncycloPetey (talk) 07:21, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

There is a taxon in my area which is clearly a homonym in need of replacement, but nobody has yet got round to doing so in a reputed journal. See details at Amblypodia anita andamanica. I have simply added a section ===Homonyms=== after the ===Synonyms== to make a note of the situation. This may or may not help others. The main criterion should be that it makes things clearer to the reader. Accassidy (talk) 10:31, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Very good, Stephen. Thanks for pointing this out. Didn't think of looking for such a thing. Alan. Accassidy (talk) 16:48, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Fruhstorferia Kolbe

Hey, is the page supposed to be called Fruhstorferia? OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 05:03, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Zabidius

Why did you move from FishBase references to the links? As far as I'm focused, it is treated as FishBase References. Do not let us do so because they do not achieve. We must establish firm rules and not change them. If you do not mind that I move back to FishBase References. I say hallo. TMzander (talk) 20:54, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

sorry, i did't know you guys wanted it deleted, i hope i can do something to help Wikispecies - Dets65 (talk) 15:45, 14 December 2011 (UTC) on the undeleting of animalia talk page

i am sorry on the undeleting of the animalia talk page Dets65 (talk) 15:52, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

i hope i can do something to help Wikispecies, i did't know you wanted it deleted! - Dets65 (talk) 15:51, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

and what is your excuse for this edit? http://species.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zhongjiania&action=historysubmit&diff=1344990&oldid=1265322 Stho002 (talk) 20:31, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

User:Fadams

Clearly doesn't know what he's doing. Bad page formatting, synonymized taxa, an obsession with Bulgarian "endemics", and now a whole series of "Protected biota of Bulgaria" categories. What do you think? --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:57, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, not vandalism, but many of his "Bulgarian endemics" are either no longer valid species (and not endemic to Bulgaria) or are completely fictitious inventions, as far as I can determine. And that's for the areas where I have expertise. I can't say for the animals.

And what is "Protected biota of Bulgaria" supposed to include? Those organisms that are protected by some agency but that happen to exist in Bulgaria, or just the "endemics"? --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:24, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't speak Bulgarian, which is the only language in which he posts. --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:26, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Hello

Hi i think that you probably the most active user in wikispecies. I checked out your total edits and surprised by your gigantic amount of edits you have here. I think you should deserve to be a bureaucrat. I just think that we need an active bureaucrat and a great contributor like you. You will have my vote if you run for bureaucrat. Regard!Trongphu (talk) 03:48, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

ISSN pages

So out of boredom I started to make a list of periodicals cited in the latest issue of Novon (90% of which were not on species:, we have HUGE holes in non-zoological, and even non-entomological periodicals). This brought up the question: are potential ISSN pages without links to them an issue? I figure I could always just find a random page referencing the periodical (even the obscure Bocconea is used on two pages), but I must say I'm not too comfortable with that option. Circeus (talk) 20:04, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Re: Vandalism

Hello, and thanks for providing critique on my activities. However, considering that the edit that I made which you pointed out on my talkpage was over a year ago, and I thus have little memory of why or what I did since, why bring up old issues that are best left alone? Anyways, the edit seems more like harmless adjusting of the layout of the page, and certainly did not look like vandalism to me. I always thought that headings like "links" should begin with capital letters. Regards, TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 23:54, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Agnosthaetus

No problem Stephen. Coleopterists Soc. journals are one of my few personal 'taxonomic' subscriptions (just 3), in a fam. of particular interest to me, and this revision looked nice and meaty so I could hammer out a bunch of species pages tonight. I'll try to leave the NZ taxa to you in future. Have fun. MKOliver (talk) 03:08, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

The hard copy gives no publication date that I can see, but inside the front cover it states "Mailing date for this issue: December 20, 2011". It carries no ISBN, only an ISSN. In fact, the ISSN it carries is that of Coleopterists Bulletin rather than of Colepterists Society Monographs, which is a bit weird. I had to run down the ISSN of the Monograph series online. This issue's front cover is headed: "The Coleopterists Society / Patricia Vaurie Series • Monograph 10 / Supplement to the Colepterists Bulletin Volume 65 Issue 4". But, the running head on all inside pages is "The Coleopterists Society Monograph Number 10, 2011". One other bit of funkiness: the author, on both the cover and the title page, is given as "Dave J. Clarke" -- in fact, I had started to create a new author page for him but then found him as David J. Clarke. MKOliver (talk) 03:23, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Hosts of parasite taxa

I am a beginner here and I would like to know the official rule about hosts of parasite taxa in Wikispecies. I have indicated the hosts for families of nematodes and they have been deleted. As a parasitologist, I believe that hosts should be indicated for all parasite taxa; hosts are an extremely important character for parasitic taxa. All formal descriptions of parasites indicate a type-host (the species in which the holotype of the parasite species was found), and possibly other host species. I suggest to indicate, when it is possible: - for parasite species, the type-host, and possibly the other host species, at least those which are mentioned in the original description. - for supraspecific parasitic taxa, a general indication of hosts (such as "parasitic in such family of mammal", or "parasitic in Teleostei"). This is also the rule in the literature about parasites. This rule should be applied for parasitic animals, and also for plants and fungi. What do you think?Jeanloujustine (talk) 11:13, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Taxonav

Trying to fix a linking problem with it. Will stop for now and run on a test template until I have it sorted. Koumz (talk) 01:10, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

The issue I am trying to fix is that if you use it to call the name (and template) of an order or superfamily to be displayed, and that taxon has a homonym at another level, then Taxonav links to the dab page instead of the correct taxon page. The case I ran into is with Lestoidea. Koumz (talk) 01:19, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Got it. We can pipe link in taxonav now for those problem cases like Lestoidea. Koumz (talk)

re: Stunning bug!

Yes, I saw that earlier today. Stunning indeed! I've now added it onto the MP pictures/proposals. --MKOliver (talk) 01:58, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Category:2 letter genera

Can you enlighten me what this category is used for? OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 03:38, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

It's cool, nothing against the category or anything. Just a bit curious. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 04:07, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Synonym

Hi Steven, yes of course I know about the problems with synonymies. Some species have more than 20 synonyms, which makes it eventually difficult to read the species pages. In general I am trying to follow your page style as long as I am not such an experienced user, so I will think about it. 84.141.63.211 22:56, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Screen color

It certainly is eye-jarring, isn't it? Koumz (talk) 01:46, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

That school has numerous combinations of greens and oranges (almost all of which I can do without) in the colors it uses, though, so I guess it's not that much of a surprise. Koumz (talk) 01:50, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh my god, even my 24-year-old eyes are hurting. But don't blame this fellow, that page hasn't been modified since 2004 so things were still slow back then. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 17:29, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Lycoriella agraria

Hi Stephen,

I noticed, that you changed the subgenus page Lycoriella (Lycoriella) from sgsp to sgsps style, but I do not completly understand the reason, why. In that context you added Lycoriella agraria although there was already my previous entry Lycoriella (Lycoriella) agraria with type information and original references, which now remains unlinked. I would like to restitute that information and have the name with subgenus as the main species page back again. Your entry of Lycoriella agraria contains a lot of references from NZ, which are not verified and should therefore perhaps not be listed there. I would prefer to have additional faunistic information like that on a separate page like this one on Species-ID. If you don´t have a better idea, I will merge the two species pages of Lycoriella agraria. Anyway, quite soon we will publish a revision of that species with further synonyms.

Best wishes Kheller (talk) 21:00, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Leaving out subgenus names in the title sounds very reasonable to me now. It should then be part of the general rules. As a "newbie" I was simply following the common usage. Kheller (talk) 23:27, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

ZooBank reference templates

I mainly adopted your style of ZooBank references, but slightly modified it in that respect, because the "see all references" part disrupts the references. If there are references with and without ZooBank templates, it looks a bit strange in my eyes. In principle I could also live without the "all references" link at all, because these could be retrieved directly from the template, if needed. So my format was meant as a kind of compromise. But the advantage of a reference style is, that it can be changed easily, when a common agreement is found. We should proceed with ZooBank and reference templates, but it is a lot of work. I will eliminate the IA reference for the Winnertz paper. Thanks for the hint. Kheller (talk) 21:30, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Reversion

Why? - dcljr (talk) 06:52, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Wow. OK, I'm going to try not to consider this a simple potential abuse of your administrative powers. I think you have reacted too quickly, without actually examining all of the changes you've reverted. Please go through each individual diff to see what was changed and the accompanying explanations. As you can see (and check for yourself by, for example, following links) many of the changes were actual fixes to problems (e.g., bad language codes, nonexistent WP articles), and most of the rest (by amount of text actually changed) were legitimate additions of more "In Wikipedia" links. As for the images, I think we can stand to have an actual photograph of a human being on the Homo sapiens page, as we have photographs of gorillas, frogs, and so forth. You might not agree with the specific choice of images, but that can be discussed on the (or my) talk page. And please don't threaten users with blocks unless you have a very good reason to do so... - dcljr (talk) 07:16, 28 March 2012 (UTC) edit: change wording, since you haven't actually done more than any regular user could do...

OK, you've given your opinion. I've reverted back to the last change I made before I changed the images, which should be acceptable to everyone (as I said, these were fixes of real problems and additional links to WP, which is explicitly encouraged by the policies here). Please remember that although the community is smaller here than, say, the larger Wikipedias, there is still a community, and work still needs to be based on collaboration and not intimidation. Also, "I don't have time to do a proper job of things" is not an acceptable justification for ham-handed reverts. Proper care should always be taken to make sure we're improving the site and not retarding its development. As for the nature of my edits, each editor is free to contribute in the manner they wish and to the extent that they can, consistent with policy, so I'll make the kinds of edits I want to, thank you. - dcljr (talk) 20:52, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Legitimate edits don't "waste" anyone's time. Stop being so disagreeable. And don't try to assign ulterior motives to my editing activities. - dcljr (talk) 21:14, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Family group names in zoology

Re: Please only give authors/dates and primary references for zfg (family group names in zoology), genus and species group names! Not for higher names like class, order, etc. Thanks ... Stho002 (talk) 04:52, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi there, those names, for higher taxa are in fact very valuable info, which is hard to find and should be preserved here, You are not a taxonomist, and you do not know how valuable this info is. Please restore all deleted info. Best --Leszek Bledzki (talk) 05:13, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but I disagree. Those names are not regulated by the ICZN, so they have no meaningful authorship or priority. The information is ill-defined and useless for any practical purposes. Time spent adding them is wasted time ... there are PLENTY of other things to be done which are far more important. Otherwise, keep up the good work .. thanks Stho002 (talk) 05:58, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Archiacanthocephala

Hello. Possibly I'm ignorant but I can't imagine what “not zfg” can mean in that context. Could you please use some normal words? Mithril (talk) 03:59, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Family-group name in zoology. Names of higher rank than these are not regulated by the ICZN, and so have no well-defined or meaningful author/date. Thanks ... Stho002 (talk) 04:01, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

It is so in your imagination only. Zoologists do use taxa authority with taxa of higher level. Mithril (talk) 04:04, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

I didn't say that zoologists didn't do it, I said that it was neither well-defined nor meaningful. It is a waste of time and effort, when there are plenty of other more important things to do. Think of it this way, for a name that is regulated by the ICZN, the author/date is not necessarily the first time that the name appeared in the literature, as it may have been a nomen nudum, etc. ... Stho002 (talk) 04:08, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

You've no right to delete my contribution because of your fantasy that I can have spent my time some better way. See Help:Name section: “Mammalia Linnaeus”. Mithril (talk) 04:10, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Do you think I'm an idiot? You've changed Help:Name section after I refered to it. Mithril (talk) 04:30, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

No, I don't think you are an idiot ... I expected you to see that I had changed it. The point is that those help pages are subject to change, and ultimately the admins and bureaucrats decide how to change them, so unless I get outvoted by the other admins, those are the new rules Stho002 (talk) 04:34, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Isn't the Wikispecies a project of the Wikimedia? Opinion of administator is equal to any other users opinion. The only difference is in technical abilies. P.S.: Please do not spread the discussion all over the WS, answer where the discussion has been. Mithril (talk) 04:42, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

No, or vandals opinions would also be equal ... Stho002 (talk) 04:44, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Template

This is one way to do it, although there might possibly be a simpler that I don't know yet. {{#switch:{{{1|{{{rank|}}}}}}|X=do this|do the other}}. The word rank in this case is just an arbitrary name for whatever category X and all of the other similar options belong to, like a taxonomic rank in the case of many templates here. Koumz (talk) 04:53, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Done on Template:AFD. I learned much of what I know about this by copying other people's syntax. Koumz (talk) 05:40, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Conduct unbecoming

I do wish you would stop threatening users when they simply make edits you don't agree with. There is a difference between vandalism and what you might call "unhelpful" edits. It should be clear when someone is adding information to the wiki in good faith, and such users don't deserve to have the Riot Act read to them as if they're criminals. Moreover, as pointed out by User:Mithril, admins are not the unquestioned "lawgivers" on this wiki; they must work through consensus-building, just like everyone else. - dcljr (talk) 04:18, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

template:HOM

Can you explain why you altered my template? It makes no sense any longer. It was originally intented to simplify, just so I didnät have to write the full formula everytime I used the the title "homonym"... in BOTANY. Junior homonym is a zoological term. Please change it back. Uleli (talk) 19:02, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Subgenera - formatting

Stephen, It seems that the formatting of subgenera has changed a bit recently; q.v. your changes to Templates for Deudorix (Virachola). Some while ago when creating pages for the Lycaenopsis group of genera, I followed Eliot and created quite a lot of sub-genera and dealt with these as you can see, for example, in Udara. It would seem that for consistency, similar changes should also be made there. Regards, Alan. Accassidy (talk) 15:22, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

• I'm perfectly happy with this new system, and I am sure the advantages you list are sensible. I will go back to the Lycaenopsis group myself when I get the chance, but it may be some before I get round to it. I'd like to finish with my current work on Deudorigini first, and that will take a few weeks yet. Regards, Accassidy (talk) 22:27, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

The wikipedia mess

I have glossed very quickly over the overly long debate. I can't do a huge blow-by-blow thing but I see the two issues here.

1. I'm sorry if it sounds insensitive but you have let yourself get overconfident by your work on Wikispecies. Because Species editors tend to be specialist and relatively low in numbers, we do accord each otehrs a lot more leeway and a bit of an innate argument from authority, you do not have anything more than any newcomer editor on WP: (although you are not a newcomer, you came off very much as one).
2. You have run into what is an issue on WP:, but not of expression (raising that red herring only made you look needlessly defensive): that of source selection, which does represent a problem when the sources used is patently incorrect in a way only specialists can notice.

Working as a "rogue editor" has been your undoing here, and if I had been aware of the issue or noticed it earlier, I would have pointed you toward forums better suited to raising the issue (at least the WoRMS one, others as I can see are more of formatting, something you will have to accept you cannot have your way on WP:) without attracting unnecessary attention. Circeus (talk) 05:20, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Circeus, but I don't think that you have fully grasped all the issues, though there are certainly elements of truth in what you say. I will respond more fully by email ... Stho002 (talk) 05:33, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

No, I believe a discussion in an open forum is warranted, and here is a fine one to do it. If you want to do that behind closed doors, I'm sorry to say you won't find cooperation in me. Wikipedia works because it can be criticized openly, if you can't voice your issues in the open, I fail to see how Wikipedia could eventually adapt to correct itself for them. Circeus (talk) 05:35, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Well I tried that "open forum" approach on WP, and got blocked as a result. It's not that I don't trust you, but how do I KNOW that you aren't just encouraging me to rant here in similar vein, resulting in a block here??? ...Stho002 (talk) 05:46, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

I might review the whole thing later (it is past 1:30am here, after all). I'm willing to try and help resolve the issues on both sides, but I just wanted to make it clear to you from the start that no, it wasn't just an admin being hardheaded and that you did worsen your case. Circeus (talk) 05:44, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Let me try to make some cautious comments: I am not trying to change WP format or content policies regarding biology or any other articles. The main issue, as I see it, is certainly not source selection, for Stemonitis and I are both fully aware of the errors in the WoRMS page for Munididae ... we are not arguing whether it is a good source or a bad source for the article, we agree that it is a bad source for the article, and it is unnecessary, for it brings nothing over and above what is sourced from elsewhere except the misinformation. I can (though barely) accept that to tag the errors as errors would be OR "tainted", so why the heck doesn't he just drop it as a source???? Just don't mention it. As editors of Wiki sites, we have a duty to select sources wisely, but it is not the problem of source selection that you allude to, it seems to be something more specific to Stemonitis. This article isn't the only one where he has dug out a bad source, and insists on sticking with it come what may. The main issue, as I see it, is that nobody can go near "his articles" without first getting "consensus" [=his consent], and admins are backing him, by blocking anyone who tries to raise these issues! Stemonitis got a token block for "poking the bear", which was lifted again almost immediately! This isn't justice! These comments represent my own personal opinions, which may be factually totally incorrect, and no offence to any person is intended, sincerely ...Stho002 (talk) 06:02, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

PS: To see Stemonitis "in action", please look here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Munididae ... Stho002 (talk) 06:12, 14 May 2012 (UTC) It is well worth another read of the previous link, as there have been some developments ... a useful appeal to Stemonitis by Doug Yanega, followed by what must be the most audacious statement in history by Stemonitis, i.e., [quote]We can choose as editors to disregard WoRMS, which would involve removing the whole last paragraph. No-one has argued for that yet, but I could see it working. I'll give it a go[unquote] Hold on Stem., this is what I have been trying to tell you for the last 2 days!! It is even written, by me, further up on that very page, i.e. [quote]There is no compulsion for you to use WoRMS as a source for this article. You have a responsibility to the readers to make a good choice of source, but you have made a bad choice and you are sticking with it[unquote] ... Stho002 (talk) 07:44, 14 May 2012 (UTC) He has now "noticed" this little oversight of his, and "self-corrected" ... Stho002 (talk) 08:17, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Stemonitis' antics are gaining some scrutiny now from professional biologists around the world on the listserver Taxacom and on Twitter ... Stho002 (talk) 08:08, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

<sarcasm>I can see why he'd want the discussion to "move on" at this stage...</sarcasm> I'll have a deeper look into the huge mess on your talk page sometime today.Circeus (talk) 14:17, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

More blunt thoughts

I'm not going to sugarcoat this. I'm not good at sugarcoating, and frankly, although Stemonitis let himself get pumped into some inappropriate reverts, most of the blame rests with you.

First, like it or not, you did earn your block fair and square. Me I would have blocked out right off at 'misinformation terrorist of Bin Laden proportions, feeding the world misinformation due to some misguided ideal about "verifiability over truth"'. That was indefensible. [I DIDN'T call him that! I said that IF he removed the unreliable source tags, then he would be that... Stho002 (talk) 05:25, 15 May 2012 (UTC)] There is such a thing as basic decorum and your constant incapacity to remain basically civil in the conversation alone probably served to poison the whole debate. You know what your comments on the debacle at the edit warring noticeboard come across at for me? Shrill, frothy-mouthed, almost conspiracist screaming. I am amazed and frankly disappointed that this could come from you. Sometimes you need to put distance between yourself and a dispute to consider what is going on, and your lack of perspective (see my point 2), not any boneheaded reliance on "bad" sources (for that see my third point), is what did you in.

Second, you do not realise it, but you have a lot of status and clout on Species (few editors+few admins amounts to those admins having little accountability). Sometimes from the sidelines where I stand, I find you to treat the project much like you complain Stemonitis of doing. As a result to be honest this whole thing came off more as a pointless clash of egos than a genuine attempt at data improvement. As others have noted on the Munididae talk page, you two could really have used some time off to calm and try to fix the external issues: you as a scientist all the more! If I (a bachelor of translation) can send corrections to the World Compositae checklist, surely you can send some to WoRMS! (which incidentally has been fixed since) As a further aside, I'm going to on the record and say I found your removal of primary references over WoRMS puzzling, if only because databases are only so good as their sources, and hiding away said sources that can and probably will be used later to add good content (e.g. descriptions and taxonomic statements) is not going to make Wikipedia better either. [I have no idea what you are referring to by that last statement ... I expect a confusion lies somewhere behind it? Stho002 (talk) 04:55, 15 May 2012 (UTC)]

Third, it's generally accepted across _all_ Wikimedia projects that they are not reliable sources for each others [There is confusion here ... I never suggested that WS act as a source for WP, but that if the sources are already set out on a WS page, then why not just refer a WP reader to the WS page, instead of wasting effort by copying it all over (and WP's awful referencing formats makes that very complex in some cases)? Stho002 (talk) 04:57, 15 May 2012 (UTC)]. Along the same lines, you have to accept that just as editors coming to Wikispecies have to play by its rules (which often amounts to saying your rules), when editing Wikipedia, you have to accept that project's rules. That is why the whole reverting of stuff that said "see wikispecies" in the article body was entirely appropriate. Making the improving edits was not so complex that you needed to wave big red flags by deleting sourced content without proper reasoning. It was not _that_ out of date, and taxonomy as a whole (not just our articles) is littered with areas where everyone knows that the taxonomy is wrong but nobody bothered to publish the needed new names or classification, so an article being a bit out of date on taxonomy is not that huge a problem that required your quick and dirty fixes (removal sourced content is detected by most vandalism-fighting tools, hence why I talk of "big red flags"). If you don't want to bother making the proper updating, fine. Someone will eventually come along and do it. That's how Wikipedia frickin' work. [This was an element at the start of the dispute, but it soon gave way to more serious issues, like Stemonitis having to give his approval for any changes by anybody to certain articles ... Stho002 (talk) 05:00, 15 May 2012 (UTC)]

In summary, I understand the concerns you had, but the way you went about trying to fix the content was entirely improper, and your escalating reactions to the reverts only worsened the entire situation. If you can't accept that (especially that your edits where inappropriate in the first place), you will not find much commiseration coming from me.

I went back and helped fix some of your appropriate edits that got caught in the crossfire. If after hearing all this you are still willing to try and work with Wikipedia, I'm perfectly willing to be a mentor for you (and am going to say so on your wp: talk page). Wikignoming and taxonomic list are one of my wiki-areas of specialty (and as it happens, I'm an admin there myself). Circeus (talk) 16:14, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

As always in life, there are no "absolutes" in terms of "right" or "wrong", but we do what we can to make things better. There are elements of truth in your comments above, but other important gaps (issues that are highly relevant to the difference between myself and the other party, that you have not mentioned), though this *really* isn't the best place to discuss those. Let's just say that I, as a volunteer editor on Wikimedia sites, have never, nor will I ever donate even $1 (or 1 cent) to Wikimedia, because I am donating my time and expertise, and that is sufficient, and I expect no favours in return, just fair treatment based on the content of my edits... Stho002 (talk) 22:42, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

It would seem that you are conflating two separate ideas here. You are entitled to have your edits given fair treatment based on their content. Your treatment, on the other hand, instead has been (and should be) based on your own behaviour. Until and unless you understand this point you are very unlikely to ever be unblocked over at WP. In the end, the matter is entirely in your hands. - Nick Thorne (talk) 15:01, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for you input, Nick, but such a massively sociologically skewed subset of humanity as wikipedians are completely unqualified to dictate behavioural ethics, as is highlighted by their failure to uphold even the most basic principle of rationality, i.e., consistency, for my behaviour was no worse than that of Stemonitis .... Stho002 (talk) 22:05, 17 May 2012 (UTC) PS: I do not want the block lifted so very badly that I am willing to resort to ego stroking ... Stho002 (talk) 22:07, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Actually, the more I read your answer, the more I grow concerned that you clearly do not understand why you ended up blocked (more accurately, you seem to reject right off the possibility that you did any wrongdoings). That's not an attitude that benefits ANYONE on ANY wikimedia project. Circeus (talk) 13:09, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

I am starting to wonder what game you are really playing, User:Circeus??? Actually, I don't much care whether I remain blocked at WP or not, it is always going to be the bottom of the pile in terms of article quality for taxonomy related stuff (though may be quite good for other stuff that I have no interest in). In my answer above, which makes you "concerned", I was merely trying to get the facts right, that's all. Unlike some, it would seem, I still believe that truth and accuracy are things to be aspired to. The main thing that invalidates the rantings against me by the others is that Stemonitis is guilty of all the same "crimes", plus creating bad articles, and yet he only copped a slap on the wrist! You are accusing me of all sorts of things, some of them are true, but others are false. Until we can agree on which are which, then there is no way forwards that I can see. You can't just go around accusing people of any old thing in response to them having made a much smaller subset of mistakes. The things you accuse me of HAVE TO BE TRUE in order for me to accept them ... some are, but many ARE NOT... Stho002 (talk) 21:14, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

CommonsDelinker

Yes, literally rollback edits one by one. While I was at it, I updated links, added names, etc. You should thank its screwup for getting me back into active mode. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 06:17, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Oh I do thank it for that! Meanwhile, I have unprotected Wollumbinia and Myuchelys, simply because protection as such isn't necessary, and Thomson (as User:Faendalimas) is busy trying to round up a gang to bash me over the head. See here though for some recent discussion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Faendalimas#Myuchelys_versus_Wollumbinia Thomson *must not* be allowed to make Myuchelys out to be the valid name here on WS, or else we should all probably give up and go home ... Stho002 (talk) 06:24, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Simply wow. It just shows you how drama-prone the WP project has become. Someone can be a really good spin doctor and turn everything from being right to being wrong while getting away with it without any sanctions. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 06:35, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Wow, for a moment there I thought that was me talking! Stho002 (talk) 06:37, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

D'Entrèves

Stephen,

You have make by Scythris Zootaxa 3323, 50-56 (2012) as author D'Entrèves. This have to be Passerin d'Entrèves as last name. I don't know how to change it.

Regards,

PeterR (talk) 09:37, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Strange category

Explanation provided here. But in short, I don't know how to deal with it. However, I do notice that it appears on page where {{global}} is used. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 02:59, 26 May 2012 (UTC)