User talk:Ucucha/Archive 1

I answer my talk here.

---

Welcome to Wikispecies, Ucucha/Archive 1! We like having new people contributing to Wikispecies. Here are a few things that may be interesting: Have a look at Done and to do. See also Wikispecies PR Please ask further questions in the Village Pump. Please don't upload files to Wikispecies unless there's a special reason to do so; use the Wikimedia Commons instead. We hope you'll enjoy the time you spend on Wikispecies! You can sign your messages with ~~~~.

Ucucha 18:13, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Nice job with the welcome template, I say also welcome! Dan Koehl 11:28, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Marsupalia

Go look at talk:Mammalia. Your one small edit was far from complete. Or put it back as it was until we do a complete overhaul a la MSW3. - UtherSRG 22:17, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Images for deletion

Hoe verander ik de status van mijn foto's (heb zelf het copyright en ben bereid ze in het publiek domein te plaatsen)?

het gaat hier meer bepaald om Image:Abludomelita obtusata.png

bedankt Lycaon 12:56, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Hee, je bent Nederlandstalig :-). Dat wist ik niet.

Je kan ze het beste op commons uploaden. Daar zie je een aantal licenties waaronder je ze vrij kan geven. Als je ze op commons uploadt kunnen ze ook op andere wikiprojecten gebruikt worden, dus vandaar.

Ucucha 13:00, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Alessandro70

Dag Ucucha

Blijkt dat minstens één van de Alessandro-afbeelding onder copyright zou kunnen vallen. Het betreft hier:

Zie hiervoor Aquari made in Italy, waar de zin E' assolutamente vietata la riproduzione, anche parziale, del testo e delle foto presenti in questo articolo, senza il consenso dell'autore. voorkomt.

Lycaon 14:01, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

M'n Italiaans is niet zo goed, maar het klinkt inderdaad alsof er copyright op zit. Sommige andere foto's heeft hij echter misschien zelf gemaakt. Voorlopig plak ik op al z'n afbeeldingen {{UbA70}}; als hij terugkomt kan hij wat meer duidelijkheid geven. Anders kunnen ze over een tijdje wel verwijderd worden. Ik heb op User:Ucucha/Images/UbA70 overigens een lijst met afbeeldingen van hem neergezet. Ucucha (talk) 14:10, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Ik heb er ook eentje gevonden: Image:Echymipera kalubu.jpg komt van http://www.terrambiente.org/fauna/Mammiferi/metatheria/peramelemorphia/images/echymipera_kalubu.jpg . Ik kan op die site voorlopig niets over copyright vinden. Ucucha (talk) 14:15, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Bovenstaande opmerking geldt blijkbaar ook voor Amblonyx cinereus waar dit staat: Photographs: All photographs throughout the site are Copyright © 2001 and must not be used without the express permission of the owner - email : ottersite@btinternet.com op Otters of the World.

Ik wil geen 'heksenjacht' beginnen, maar ik heb slechts twee foto's gecheckt, en beiden bleken copyrighted... De uitleg zal wel volgen, en hopelijk niet in 't Italiaans :-)

't Is natuurlijk jammer van al de tijd en moeite dat hij er heeft ingestoken :-(

Lycaon 14:19, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Tja, als er copyright op zit zullen ze helaas allemaal verwijderd moeten worden. Ik heb eerlijk gezegd niet echt veel zin om ze allemaal na te gaan kijken. Ik zal hem een mailtje sturen om te vragen hoe het met de andere afbeeldingen zit. Ucucha (talk) 14:30, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

nowcommons

Vraagje.

Kan ik zelf mijn eigen images voorzien van de nowcommons template? Kwestie van je eventueel wat werk te besparen. Al mijn foto's staan nu ook in de Commons (met dezelfde naam) en alle nieuwe worden daar uiteraard ook geüploaded. Lycaon 13:56, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Graag, dank je wel. Er is blijkbaar een anonieme gebruiker langsgekomen die op vrijwel alle afbeeldingen {{noinfo}} heeft geplakt; ik heb nu de letter A, B, V, X, Y en Z af (User:Ucucha/Images). Als je wil meehelpen, graag. Ucucha (talk) 13:58, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

taxoboxen

Wat moet er met de gisteren rond halfzeven geïntroduceerde taxoboxen van user:Andreas Plank, zoals gebruikt in:Chironomidae? Lycaon 14:31, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Wat mij betreft kan die er af en vervangen door de gewone taxonavigatie. Misschien is het wel handig om een tekst als de volgende:

Regnum:	Animalia
Phylum:	Chordata
Classis:	Mammalia
Ordo:	Soricomorphia
Familia:	Soricidae
Genus:	Sorex

Dat zou dan met een tekst als {{Taxonavigation start}} {{Regnum|Animalia}} {{Phylum|Chordata}} {{Classis|Mammalia}} {{Ordo|Soricomorphia}} {{Familia|Soricidae}} {{Genus|Sorex}} {{Taxonavigation end}}

moeten worden opgeroepen, en dat gaat dan weer via een Sjabloon:Soricidae dat als inhoud het lijstje met hogere taxa daarboven heeft. Daarmee kan voorkomen worden dat je voor elk taxon dat je ergens tussen wilt schuiven overal een : meer neer moet zetten. Dat lijkt me zeer onhandig. Een gewone taxobox moeten we in ieder geval niet toelaten denk ik. Ucucha (talk) 14:40, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Help!

When an article is in a language with the latein name, does I written in the vernaculars names in latein or not (because it is not the vernacular names) ?, for exemple I have written a link to fr in the Allocebus article with the latein name. Does I continue or not ? Enschuldigung für das schlechte Englisch :) [Seb35 ^_^] 14:55, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Such interwikis should be included, yes. I have proposed to change the heading into "interwikis", a much more descriptive name. Ucucha (talk) 15:05, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

That site (fr:Allocebus), also mentions french names. I changed the vernacular name to the french, but linking to the Allocebus page like: [[fr:Allocebus|fr:chirogale à oreilles velues]].
What about that?
Lycaon 15:18, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Seems good. Ucucha (talk) 15:20, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. [Seb35 ^_^] 10:34, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Welcome on board!

Hi Ucucha - you should be sysop now, if there are any problems (ie. you lack sysop rights), please don't hesitate to contact me! Good luck and thanks for the effort! --Benedikt 17:36, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Image

An image of yours is considered for deletion because the copyright information is insufficient. Please react at wikispecies:Images for deletion. Ucucha (talk) 13:45, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

• I have just updated its copyright info. (I assume it was the one at Bufo calamita) --Tycho 23:42, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

restored redirect

You restored Araignée. Why? - UtherSRG (talk) 13:51, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

See your own talk ;-). Ucucha (talk) 14:09, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Decline adminship

Thanks for asking, but I don't want that level of responsibility yet. Maybe later Open2universe 01:04, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

That's a pity, but thanks for your answer, in any case. Ucucha (talk) 13:09, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Pusa & Pagophilus

I beg to differ. I found this: concerning McKenna & Bell, on the Internet this morning, indicating subgeneric level for aforementioned taxa.
I guess I should get their publication (ISBN 0231110138) and study it thoroughly ;-).
BTW, your point on redirection is taken, I've just been spending some time on orphaned pages, so I've been cleaning maybe a tad to rash...
Lycaon 08:26, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Ah yes, you're right. Duff & Lawson's Mammals of the World: a Checklist uses Pusa as a genus, and they follow McKenna & Bell for higher classification, but I just read that they follow Reeves et al. (2002) instead for marine mammals. In any case, that's also a good source. Maybe we should put {{Validity disputed}} on it until MSW 3 is out (in November) and follow the classification used there? Ucucha (talk) 08:32, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Fine by me. — Lycaon 08:34, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

thanks

for the upgrade :-)

I hope to finish Rotifera to species level this weekend. So little time, so much to do... — Lycaon 13:26, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

If you want, I can make some pages with my bot (when it works again ;-)). It's easier, I think.

Do you want to delete some images? It's also a nice job ;-). Ucucha (talk) 13:39, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Latinizing

Is there a way (using your bot, e.g.) to change all instances of the word family to familia, etc.? This to get a consistent naming system covering the whole of Wikispecies. I saw a lot of Family and Subfamily being used in Proteaceae, to name one.

At a further stage, it would be more complicated to change singular into plural where appropriate, I guess?

Lycaon 07:57, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

1 is possible; I'll do it.

2 is probably impossible, I fear, unless someone writes a more sophisticated bot (I use the pywikipedia bot framework). Ucucha (talk) 09:55, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Replace.py doesn't work either :-(. Ucucha (talk) 11:58, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Now it does :-). I've just started replacing "Family"; I'll do the others when family is ready. Ucucha (talk) 06:26, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Great, thanx. - Lycaon 11:22, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Ik heb een foutje gemaakt op Ploima met de template (dit is ondertussen rechtgezet). Echter, alle onderliggende taxa (familia, genus en species) hebben nu twee dubbele punten (::) te kort. Kan dat met een bot worden geremediëerd?. M.a.w. :

• ::::::Familia -> ::::::::Familia         (kan Familia of Familiae zijn)
• :::::::Gen -> :::::::::Gen         (kan Genus of Genera zijn)
• ::::::::Species -> ::::::::::Species

Indien ja, dan zijn de Rotifera ingevoerd tot op soortniveau (zonder soortbeschrijvingen weliswaar). - Lycaon 20:24, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Ik ben bezig; ik denk dat alles zal lukken. Gefeliciteerd weer eens :-). Ucucha (talk) 15:43, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanx

Thanx for the welcome, Ucucha! :) -Piolinfax 10:26, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your contributions :-). Ucucha (talk) 16:00, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Copyright information

Hi there! How can I add the copyright to the old logo? In case this is still necessary at all... Thanks for the notification! Best, Benedikt

Copyright information

Hi there! How can I add the copyright to the old logo? In case this is still necessary at all... Thanks for the notification! Best, --Benedikt 08:07, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Put the {{CopyrightByWikimedia}} tag on it (that's standard practice for logos). Ucucha (talk) 16:52, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Create a bot to changes taxon authority articles

Hi there, happy new year. I saw the change you made to William Swainson and agree with it. Do you think you could write a bot to change all the taxon authority articles? You can find them listed in catalog:Taxon Authorities. Thanks, Open2universe 20:30, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Theriiformes

Hi. Was there a reason you deleted Theriiformes from the subclasses of Mammalia? I was wondering, just seems odd that an entire subclass would be deleted with no explanation. If so, please do tell. 128.255.194.41

Ok, thanks for your quick reply however, due to the deletion of Theriiformes link from the mammalia page the link Multituberculata is now orphaned. This needs to be remedied. 128.255.194.41

WS in DEUTSCH?!!!!!

Hallo! Sag, mal ist es dir auch schon aufgefallen, dass heir alles in englisch ist. Nebnbei, mich stört das gewaltig, denn ich will nicht mit meinem Wörterbuch hier arbeiten. Warum ist ein WIKI-Projekt nicht mehrsprachig? Das ist doch kaum vorstellbar. Kannst du mir helfen/sagen, wie man die Links und Artikel nun verdeutschen kann. Dies gilt auch für andere Sprachen.

Ein Beispiel: VIRUS. Wenn ich auf der deutschen Hauptseite auf den Link oben Links gehe, dann kommte der englische Artikel von WS über Virus. I diesem Artikel weiter unten kommt dann der Link zum deutschen Artikel, der aber, wider meines Verständnisses, auf den deutschen WIKIPEDIA-Artikel führt. (Beispielende)

Die Abstimmung im Village Pump - Link auf deutscher Haupseite - ist auch eingeschlafen.

Weiterhin stellen hier manche Artikel rein, wo nur der Stamm der Art steht rein. Da fehlt doch noch die Hälfte!!

Das habe ich mir eigentlich anders vorgestellt. BITTE um schnelle Antwort (in deutsch).

Post Scriptum: Wenn hier alles in englisch ist geht diesem Projekt ein großer Teil der Beiteiligung flöten! -- Joschy 10:50, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Mein Deutsch ist nicht sehr gut (ich bin niederländisch), aber ich werde versuchen Dir zu antworten. Schneller habe ich nicht antworten können, weil ich im Schwarzwald war.

Die Idee war, dass wass in Wikispecies gehört für alle Sprachen das selbe ist. Die Taxonomische Hierarchie ist immer Regnum Animalia, Phylum Chordata etc. In allen Sprachen heisst der Australische Biberrat Hydromys chrysogaster É. Geoffroy.

Das ist die Idee, aber das kann ja nicht immer so sein. Diskussionen sind immer in Englisch (aber wenn man das will kann's auch in anderen Sprachen, glaube ich). Vielleicht sollen wir doch noch andere Versionen für andere Sprachen machen. Ucucha (talk) 20:03, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry wegen meiner späten Reaktion! Bin jetzt Admin auf Wikisource.^^ Also ich finde, amn sollt alles in alle Sprachen schreibn. Eben wie die anderen Wikis.... Aber ich weiß nicht, wiee ich so eine Seite übersetztn soll, wenn ich andauernd auf die englische komme! Weißt du wie.? Oder soll ich bei jedem Link noch :de schreiben um dann endlich das deutsche zu starten? --Joschy 14:12, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Es soll überhaupt kein Englisch mehr geben auf die Artikel-Seiten in Wikispecies. Ich glaube wir brauchen darum kein Sprachen-Versionen. Es würde nicht richtig etwas anderes sein. Ucucha (talk) 18:00, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

sysop-beslommeringen

Dag Ucucha, kan jij nu en dan 'ns een kijkje nemen op Wikispecies? Ik ben er niet tot 16 maart. Ik zit op zee voor een monitoring campagne. Misschien is het tijd om open2universe nog 'ns te polsen naar sysop-schap. Ook Keith Edkins, die ondertussen al meer dan 17.000 (!!) posts heeft op Wikispecies, lijkt mij een goede kandidaat.

P.S. Walker's gaat morgen op de post, Marsupialia heb ik blijkbaar niet gedownloaded + hier en daar nog iets, maar de CD is toch goed voor meer dan 12.000 files. — Lycaon 17:41, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Ik zal eens kijken wat ik kan doen. Ik denk wel dat het belangrijk is dat Wikispecies een paar goede admins heeft, zodat er altijd iemand is.

Alvast bedankt voor Walker's; die zal wel in een paar dagen komen (ik weet niet hoe lang dat duurt vanuit België). Ucucha (talk) 20:23, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Admin

Yes, I will nominate myself. With Lycaon being out we could use another admin. Thanks for asking Open2universe 01:15, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you! I've voted in favour. You'll probably be an admin at the 8th of March. Ucucha (talk) 13:35, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Murinae

I was mostly working from the MSV web site at [1] except where I spotted some relevant reclassification papers. I did realise after I did the last change to Murinae that I was undoing some of your changes and that MSW3 might undo some of the synonymies. If this is so perhaps the best course would be to revert my last change and then create the missing genera. Sorry about that.--Keith Edkins (Talk) 18:55, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

All of them, actually ;-). I'll soon create the additional genera. If you also want to create pages for other muroids groups (sigmodontines or so), I can send you the chapter on muroids from MSW 3. There are however quite a lot of new species there. Ucucha (talk) 19:00, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Don't know where I thought I saw Pithecheirops = Pithecheir. I can't find it again now.--Keith Edkins (Talk) 20:03, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

All newly recognized genera are done now (and also two fossil genera, Hooijeromys and Malpaisomys). Ucucha (talk) 20:06, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you!

Thanks a lot Ucucha, I won't let you guys down :-) --Lightdarkness 14:28, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Seems like an appropriate place to add another "thank you"... BD2412 T 08:04, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

:-). Ucucha (talk) 16:30, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Watch Out!

Hay thanks for the "WARM WELCOME." Calling me "Pointless" ans "Vandalistic" really brightned my day! FatAss 17:35, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I realize my edit to the species chart was not correct. It was my first thing, sorry. However, I was changing words to proper form (you're to you are) on the other pages? FatAss 17:40, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

That isn't really "proper form". "you're" is just more informal English. Ucucha (talk) 17:41, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Exactally, I wanted to make it more formal because isent this supposed to be a formal work? 216.164.203.90 17:44, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

The articles are, talk isn't. Talk shouldn't be formalized. The articles should in fact not even contain English (the headings are probably the only part of the articles which isn't language-independent). Ucucha (talk) 17:47, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh, ok I get it, there are the articals. and pages like this, for inside communication. 216.164.203.90 17:50, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

sorry, relized I wasent logged on. FatAss 17:51, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and also Wikispecies:Village Pump, which you seem to have already discovered. By the way, you have apparently logged out accidentally. You discovered that already ;-) Ucucha (talk) 17:58, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Logo discussion

Hi! I just wanted to draw your attention to a change to the logo I proposed at the village pump, since you seem to be one of the active administrators on this project. Looking forward to hearing your opinion on this! —Nightstallion (?) 13:30, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

images

Hi Ucucha,

could you maybe explain a little more to me what the imagepolicy is on this wiki? What kind of images is allowed? Thanks a lot. Effeietsanders 19:56, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi Effeietsanders,

In fact, we have the same policy as Commons: we allow PD, GFDL and CC (but not ND and NC). Therefore, there's in fact no reason to upload anything here: you can also upload your pics to Commons. Some time ago I went through all the images we then had (most of which were "noinfo") and deleted most of them. We don't have many images left now. Ucucha (talk) 05:55, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, i'm meaning the other way around. When can you use a picture on an article? Is a nice photo suitable? Should I use a draw with parts of the body named? etc. Effeietsanders 22:15, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Just a nice photo - we should use what we have. There are also templates for linking to Commons. Ucucha (talk) 08:47, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Cursiefje - lijst

Dag. Beter laat dan nooit. Alle genera (en onderliggende soorten) van de Apseudinae, behalve Androgynella en Apseudes, zijn in het zelfde bedje ziek: de familienaam (Apseudidae) staat in cursief. de twee andere subfamilies heb/had ik al aangepast. Dank bij voorbaat. Lycaon 21:02, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Ik ga er zo mee bezig. Heb je trouwens misschien de auteur voor het geslacht Muramura? Dat is namelijk ook een fossiel buideldierengeslacht (Muramura Pledge in Archer, 1987, Mammalia: Diprotodontia: Wynyardiidae). Ucucha (talk) 17:38, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, hij doet het niet. Ucucha (talk) 17:51, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Dat kwam doordat ik de bot naar species.wikipedia.org in plaats van species.wikimedia.org stuurde. Nu zegt hij echter Skipping locked page Hainanius (enz.). Wat daar nou weer de reden voor is.... Ucucha (talk) 18:00, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Muramura, Gutu 2006 in Gutu, M. (2006). New Apseudomorph Taxa of the World Ocean: Crustacea, Tanaidacea. Curtea Veche, Bucharest, Romania. Lycaon 18:11, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Dan vrees ik dat de heer Gutu een nieuwe naam zal moeten verzinnen. ;-) Bedankt.

Ik heb net de nieuwste botsoftware gedownload en mijn bestandje voor Wikispecies geüpdatet, maar hij blijft zeggen dat alle pagina's "locked" zijn (anders dan op Wikipedia). Ik zou niet weten wat er aan de hand zou kunnen zijn. Ucucha (talk) 18:15, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry om in de discussie in te breken, maar Ucucha...bestaat er de mogelijkheid dat ik ergens de broncode van je 'bot' te pakken krijg? Ik ben erg benieuwd wat 'ie allemaal kan, en vooral, op wat voor manier hij de workload kan verlichten. Kempm 18:45, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Zie nl:Help:Gebruik van bots. Je hebt dan ook een extra bestandje (wikispecies_family.py) nodig om Wikispecies erbij te krijgen. En we moeten erachter zien te komen waarom alles "locked" is... Ucucha (talk) 18:46, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh leuk, dank U. Ik zal me eventjes moeten inlezen in het een en ander. Kempm 18:50, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Is any bot exist?

I made an Excel table with Araneoidea genera & species. Is any bot for translation this records to Wikispecies pages? --Arachn0 11:24, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Not currently, since the existing bot framework for some reason does not work on Wikispecies now. I am sorry I cannot help you. Ucucha (talk) 16:17, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Username change request

Hi Ucucha,
Would you mind changing my user name to Hesperian, as I have just made that change on the English Wikipedia. Thanks in advance. Snottygobble 00:53, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Done. Ucucha (talk) 15:45, 16 Octobr 2006 (UTC)

Didn't work. I remember reading somewhere that there is an upper limit of edits (1500 or 2000 or so), above which you cannot rename anymore ... Lycaon 21:09, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

WFM. Thanks, Drew (Snottygobble 23:27, 16 October 2006 (UTC))

Lycaon: actually, it did ;-) ("15:44, 16 October 2006 Ucucha (Talk | contribs | block) (Renamed the user "Snottygobble" (which had 3,413 edits) to "Hesperian")" from Special:Log/renameuser). There has been an upper limit for this, but that's not so any more.

Hesperian: You're welcome :-) Ucucha (talk) 15:47, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi

Tijd niet gezien hier. Heb je de discussies gevolgd over de nieuwe layout? Of vind je het helemaal niets? --Kempm 19:38, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Was ik het, heel, heel lang geleden, zelf niet die het probleem aangaf? ;-) Ik vind het een verbetering. Het ziet er misschien minder mooi uit, maar het is veel praktischer (je hoeft je ook niet meer bezig te houden met het aantal :'s dat je op een pagina moet zetten).

Zelf draag ik al een tijd niets meer bij aan de inhoud van Wikispecies (al bekijk ik nog wel elke dag mijn volglijst). Ik schrijf liever Wikipedia-artikelen. Ucucha (talk) 08:56, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Ik begrijp het. Maar je bent admin, en een goeie. En ik heb feedback nodig. Dus meng je vooral in de discussie, en laat je ervaring gelden. Je hebt gemerkt dat we een bot hebben gevonden die nu werkt op species. Omdat je ervaring hebt met bots, zou je eens kunnen nadenken hoe wij zo'n ding met deze huidige veranderingen het beste kunnen gebruiken? Ik heb opdracht gegeven om alle : weg te halen, maar krijg wat kritiek, omdat sommige pagina's nu wel erg slecht eruit zien. (In ieder geval optisch). Misschien is er echter een betere manier om gebruik te maken van een bot? --Kempm 09:51, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Tja, je moet een methode vinden om te voorkomen dat de regels achter elkaar komen. Ik zie dat de voorbeelden daarvoor <br /> gebruiken, maar dat is waarschijnlijk moeilijk te botten. Het makkelijkste is denk ik om gewoon voor elke regel een * te zetten (zoals ook op het voorbeeld op User:Kempm/Request_For_Change_II#Straight_list. Dat maakt het misschien ook makkelijker voor een script om straks de taxonavigatie te herkennen bij de omzetting naar Wikidata. Ucucha (talk) 12:52, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Vandals

And thank you for reverting the vandals on my talk page. Open2universe 14:05, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

That what i am!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!128.235.249.80 23:14, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Chordata

Inderdaad nog niet de ideale taxonomie. De beperkingen van onze lineaire navigatie speelt ons parten. We vinden wel een oplossing ;-). Lycaon 07:06, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

'Species' microformat: bot needed

Please see: Wikispecies:Microformat. If people agree to apply this microformat, a bot will be needed. Thank you. Andy Mabbett 10:32, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Language customization

Hi there, I should probably know how to do this but I don't understand how MediaWiki works for special messages.

User:Tomahiv made a request at User talk:Open2universe#MediaWiki:Loginprompt and I don't know how to add uk to the list of possible languages on the login page.

Can you help? Thanks.--Open2universe 12:27, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I responded on your user page. Ucucha (talk) 09:16, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Proposed changes

Would you please give some feedback at wikispecies:Village Pump#Proposed changes from Henk_K? Thanks --Open2universe 23:54, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Classification is never provided

Hi,
It is a desperate call that I make here. Wikispecies is doing wrong, many french admin think so, and I can't let it happen without reacting. I already posted something here, without success.
Wikispecies has for purpose to provide the classification of taxons, right?
But each taxon has a different content and parents depending on the classification. And there are a lot of classifications for each taxons.:

• Here is a small list of those classifications.
• Here is an perfect sample that shows that a taxon name doesn't mean much if you don't provide the classification name.
• commons:Category:Liliopsida Here is a sample that commons now provides the classification. And of course, there are classical classification and phylogenetic classifications.

1. From what I understand in reading your articles, wikispecies provides only one classification for each taxon (in wikifrance, we provide 1 classical and 1 phylogenetical classif per taxon)
2. But you never provide the classification followed.

I think it is urgent that you provide the classification followed by each article in the article. You will discover that all your articles follow different classification.
Look at Liliopsida. It is a total shame. The classification is not provided. The reason is that nobody ever described it that way. Cheers Liné1 06:55, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

It seems that you are saying that we should state if we use a "classical" or a "phylogenetic" classification. However, that's a quite dubious dichotomy, since there are in most, if not all, cases, more than two classifications, and choosing either of those is not always easily translated into choosing a classical or a phylogenetic classification. We use one classification (which in my opinion is one of the weakest points of Wikispecies), with the choice depending above all on the authors of the pages. Ucucha (talk) 16:19, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Greetings

Hello, can you add also Greek here?--Consta 10:05, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Could you please add some more details to your request? What text should be added in which MediaWiki message? Ucucha (talk) 16:24, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Question

I think you forgot to login when you add this [2]. If that IP indeed is yours, please remove the warning tag and undo my changes. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 19:05, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

It should be noted, however, that the user is blocked. EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:39, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, the IP isn't actually mine. I just blocked the vandal, cleaned up his remains and deleted his userpage. Perhaps I should have noted the block on his talk, but I forgot to. Ucucha (talk) 15:06, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Re. to my user talk page

Meh, go ahead. I forgot I even registered this account. Besides, I (finally) managed to cut the habit (of trolling). I really don't care. Connell66 20:57, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Good luck then. I don't see any reasons to block your account. Ucucha (talk) 14:15, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

There is very little for me to contribute here. I have little knowledge of biological beings. Do you know of anything I could do? Connell66 04:48, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you can look for vernacular names in Wikipedia or other sources and add them to the articles in the {{VN}} template. Ucucha (talk) 13:35, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Request for usurpation

Hi, I haven't found any dedicated page, so I ask directly to the first crat's in the list... In order to complete SUL, I would like to rename my account by "Malta" as it is my main account on wikipedia:fr and other projects. Could you please explain me how to do that ? Thanks Malta fr 05:51, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I have renamed the existing account (with 1 edit) to User:Malta old. I cannot rename your account here, because it is reserved for a global account (yours, I presume). Ucucha (talk) 14:42, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Great, thank you. Malta 15:13, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Ucucha, next time please forward all rename requests to Wikispecies:Changing username so that we can keep track of the renames due to SUL. There's also a policy that says renames can be done right away for any accounts with 0 edits. If the account has any edits, we have to give them 7 days of notice so that they can accept or reject the rename. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 15:47, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I saw the message you let on WP:fr, do you want me to move my request to the right page ? 82.228.190.187 15:59, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

OhanaUnited: I'm sorry, I hadn't noticed that page yet (which isn't surprising, considering that you created it yesterday).

Malta: I don't think there's anything we can do here: we are unable to rename your account here. Sicne you made only two edits with it, perhaps it is easiest to simply re-register using "Malta". Ucucha (talk) 19:25, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi don't care about the 2 edits, what I wanted was to prevent any other Malta to usurp my username on this wiki. So I am very happy with the solution you have provided. Thanks again, and have a nice day, Malta 06:16, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Please rename me

Hi, I have changed my username at my homewiki and want to do it here to. Please rename me to Calandrella. Here is confirmation. Thanks, Leo Johannes 08:36, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

URGENT PROBLEM

My continued ability to contribute to Wikispecies depends crucially on being able to protect just one page, called 'New Zealand', which is a faunistic page with links to (unprotected) pages on New Zealand taxa. My "friend" Lycaon keeps unprotecting it! I believe that such faunistic pages are well within the spirit and ideology of Wikispecies, and perhaps a new category ought to be created to accommodate them. However, I need to protect my New Zealand page for the following reasons: (1) in line with the Wikispecies philosophy, I am contributing this information for free, and there are potential conflicts of interest with other people/institutions here in N.Z. who are trying to extract as much funding as possible for similar projects; (2) if the page is open edit, it could very easily deteriorate into chaos, as what is needed is a single consistent view on the fauna. The classification isn't totally "objective", so other people may try to impose their own conflicting opinions and the result could be chaotic. Can the beauracrats please have a vote on this? Regrettably, if I cannot protect this one single page, I will have to leave Wikispecies...
Sincerely,
Stephen Thorpe
Stho002 21:19, 27 November 2008 (UTC) PS: Other editors can still create their own versions of my 'New Zealand' page, expressing their own opinions, and they can give the pages disambiguated names, e.g. New Zealand, and link them to the appropriate taxa pages independently of me. Hence I am not trying to prevent alternative opinions, I am just trying to prevent alternative opinions from making my page into an unusable mess of conflicting opinions.
Stho002 22:41, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

experiment

What are you up to there, Ucucha? Experiment looks good, but what are you thinking??? Stho002 07:18, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I was thinking what a complete Wikispeciees checklist of the fauna of a particular country would look like (as opposed to a more limited list such as the one you wrote for New Zealand). That's because I actually do like your idea of providing lists of the flora and fauna of one particular region (though I, too, am strongly opposed to protecting such a page), and I just wanted to see how I could make such a list. The biggest problems will be with keeping the lists up-to-date and reliable though, I think. Ucucha (talk) 18:07, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your (minor) contribution to my New Zealand page, though I have deleted it for the following (good) reasons:

(1) I didn't write it, and the top of the page cites me as the list compiler. The main reason for this is not "ego", or anything like that, but CONSISTENCY. This is also the main reason why the page needs to be protected. It is not the possibility of vandalism that worries me so much as other editors with different taxonomic opinions doing it their way. The result of that would be CHAOS. If others have different opinions, then they can create their own version of the New Zealand page as an alternative to mine, but please leave mine alone...
(2) You have listed species in your section. I am deliberately NOT listing species on the N.Z. page because the result would be far too complicated for people to easily comprehend and use. This isn't obvious from the 3 species of bats, but, for example, in 1 beetle genus alone (Sagola) there are 131 species! Hence if all species are added, the length of the checklist becomes enormous and it becomes very hard to read
You say 'The biggest problems will be with keeping the lists up-to-date and reliable'. Up-to-date: not really a problem as long as the current version is dated. The rate of change (in N.Z. anyway) is rather slow, so it won't change that quickly. If it becomes out-of-date, the main thing is that it be reliable up to the date of the version. Which brings us to reliability: ultimately, my checklist is grounded in the references I cite on the linked taxon pages. The user (in principle) can verify the information provided against the references. In practice, however, this will be too difficult in a lot of cases. AT LEAST IF THE PAGE WAS PROTECTED THE USER COULD BE SURE THAT THE PAGE WAS AS RELIABLE AS THE COMPILER ON THE DATE OF LAST REVISION. Without this, reliability is a real problem from the perspective of potential users of the checklist. Stho002 20:10, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Dear Stho002,

I have waited for some time before responding to your comment, because I needed some time to accurately formulate my opinion about them. I think you are fundamentally misunderstanding how a wiki works. The wiki idea is that, in principle, everyone can edit any page, so that a community process leads to a perfect page. To resolve disputes, there is a talk page. When there are two conflicting taxonomic opinions (for example, when someone comes along and says that Sagola is much too large and should be split up into five new genera), the primary literature (i.e., scientific papers) should be consulted and the interpretation that is most consistent with this literature should be used in the article (in this case, for example, there will likely be many papers using Sagola as a single genus, and perhaps one isolated proposal to split it, so that we should continue to use the single-genus classification). (By the way, please note that the Sagola situation is purely hypothetical, so don't read too much into that particular example.)

It is the power of a wiki that it allows for pages not to be created by one single person, but by the consensus of several editors. If you want to make a list of New Zealand animals without allowing anyone else to edit it, you can do that--but not, I think, on Wikispecies, or on any other Wikimedia Foundation project.

That said, I do see the reasons for your concerns, though I would not consider them as convincing as you think them to be. You can always revert edits that you do not approve, after all (as you just did with my addition of bats). The Wikispecies community may even consider adding the flagged revisions extension, which, I think, would address at least some of your reliability concerns. Ucucha (talk) 18:45, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Admin etc

Dag Jelle.

Heeft dat grapje nu al niet lang genoeg geduurd hier? Maxim en Evula (per mail) spraken van een week (of zelfs enkele dagen), maar blijkbaar kan ik nog altijd mijn gewone admin werk niet verder zetten. Ik ken geen enkele 'pedia waar een admin gedesysopt wordt voor drie, notabene vriendelijke, reverts, terwijl de onbesuisde nieuweling, alle waarschuwingen ten spijt zijn gangetje blijkt te kunnen gaan. Nu als dat nog veel langer aansleept dan hoeft het hier niet meer voor mij. Na 27000+ posts en jaren de meest actieve admin van wikispecies te zijn geweest zijn trouwens van sommige mensen ook wel verontschuldigingen op hun plaats, in de eerste plaats van de rookie maar evenzeer van OhanaUnited. Met zover zeer ontgoochelde groet. Hans 23:37, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I didn't post a translation, so please refrain from interfering. Ucucha is very capable of understanding. Lycaon 01:04, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Translation from Babelfish:
Day Jelle. Hasn't that joke lasted enough now already long here? Maxim and Evula (by mail) spoke of a week (or even some days), but apparently are possible I still my ordinary admin work further not to put. I know none ' pedia where admin gedesysopt become three, notabene pleasant, reverts, whereas the rash entrant, all warnings at spite its gangetje proves to be is able go. Now if that still much drags on longer than it here no longer needs for me. After 27000+ mail and years the most active admin of wikispecies have been are as a matter of fact of some people also apologies at their place, in the first place of the rookie but likewise of OhanaUnited. Up to that point groet very with disillusioned

Ucucha may well understand, but since this is an open forum, I think everybody has a right to understand, including OhanaUnited, and me ("the rookie"). If you want it to be private, then I suggest you use email. Stho002 01:10, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Not trying to prevent both of you from communicating in your native language, but it sounds fishy enough to see the translation showing up words like names (my name, Maxim, Evula), "desysop", "rookie", "warnings", etc. Referring to posting translation as "interfering" is not AGF. Do you know that it's common courtesy to post English translation if it's written in some other language? If you don't believe me, go check Steward election page and convince yourself. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 03:44, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Lycaon moved the above message, but I have restored it, as people shouldn't post messages here that they are not willing to have out in the open. Stho002 23:01, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Beste Hans,

Ik antwoord je weer in het Nederlands, want dit gaat voorlopig om een communicatie tussen ons tweeën, waarbij het niet noodzakelijk is dat anderen ook alles kunnen lezen. Ik zal dan ook niet ingaan op wat Stho002 en OhanaUnited hierboven schrijven.

Ook ik was nogal verontrust door Stho002's voortdurende insinuerende berichten en zijn mijns inziens verkeerde kijk op wiki (het eerste blijkt hierboven weer eens uit zijn suggestie dat je je bericht niet in de openbaarheid wil hebben); ik heb hem daar ook een keer voor geblokkeerd. Hij is echter nogal overtuigd van zijn eigen gelijk, heb ik gemerkt. Ik hoop dat hij zijn leven zal beteren.

Ik ben het met je eens dat het niet passend is dat je nu nog steeds geen admin meer bent. Ik heb daarom mijn nek maar eens uitgestoken en je je adminrechten teruggegeven. Als een andere bureaucraat vindt dat hetzelfde moet worden gedaan voor Stho002, moet die dat zelf maar doen.

Wel zou ik je willen adviseren om je niet te veel met die 'onbesuisde nieuweling' te bemoeien; ik ben bang dat je daar weinig aan hebt en weinig verder mee komt.

Hopend dat je nog veel plezier mag beleven op Wikispecies,

Ucucha (talk) 20:02, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Apparently, an English translation is still considered necessary. I find that unneeded, because this is, or should be, a private communication between Lycaon and me, but for those who want to know what I actually said (which was not Bablefish gibberish), I'll provide an English translation:

Dear Hans,

I respond to you in Dutch again, because this is for the time being a communication between the two of us, for which it is not necessary that others are able to read everything. I will therefore not speak about the things Stho002 and OhanaUnited write above either.

I was also rather worried by Stho002's continuous insinuating messages and his, in my opinion, wrong look at how wiki works (the former is corroborated above here by his suggestion that you do not want to have your message out in the open); I have also blocked him once for that. I noticed he is rather convinced of his being right, though. I hope he will improve in that respect.

I agree with you that it is not fitting that you are still not an admin anymore. I have therefore been bold and restored your admin rights. When another bureaucrat thinks that the same should be done for Stho002, he should go ahead himself.

I would however like to advise you not to busy yourself too much with that 'rash entrant' [quoth Bablefish]; I am afraid that it won't help you much and won't bring you much further.

Hoping that you may experience a lot of pleasure on Wikispecies, Ucucha (talk) 20:35, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment Requested

Wider opinions and comments are requested on the village pump here regarding a proposed change in formatting of the taxonavigation section. Please read the and comment.--Kevmin 00:12, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Discussion closes 26 April 2009 Stho002 00:15, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Animalia page

Hi Ucucha, I have reverted your edit on the Animalia page for two good reasons:

1. As I have already pointed out to people, authors and dates are meaningless and pointless for names above family-group. They just don't mean anything, and there are no objective criteria for determining if they are correct or not, so you can simply just put anything you like for authors/dates of such names
2. Editing effort is wasted on adding authors/dates for such names and would be better spent on something more constructive. Furthermore, User:Lycaon is simply using this issue to continue his conflict with me, and this is not a constructive use of anybody's time.

Thanks, Stho002 22:55, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I would like to point out that there have been a number of different editors who have readded the information besides Lycaon including myself and Rocket000. The lack of regulation does not change the fact that Linnaeus coined the word Animalia. Yes the usage is different form what it was BUT so is the use of just about any name created in that age. I would have to say that you Stho0202 are the one bucking consensus. Bring up the proposal on the Village pump and see what the community thinks.--Kevmin 00:21, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your opinion Kevmin! There are hundereds of thousands of new articles which need creating for taxa - perhaps editors should spend more time creating these rather than having overly anal disputes about who coined what name and when? Who cares. The only point of authors/dates for any names is to determine priority among synonyms. Names like Animalia are not subject to priority. Thanks again, Stho002 00:33, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

And I am creating articles with the majority of my time spent on W.S., your argument that this conversation is taking up all of the editing time is VERY weak, and to be honest not relevant.--Kevmin 02:49, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Stho002, you are right that authorities for higher taxa are not as important as they are for family-, genus-, and species-group taxa, since the ICZN (I don't know much about the other Codes) does not apply the Principle of Priority to higher taxa. Nevertheless, that does not necessarily mean that we should not include these authorities. For one, many respected taxonomic works, such as McKenna and Bell's Classification of Mammals, do give authorities for higher taxa; in addition, priority is in fact regularly used in determining which name to use, even though this is not required by the Code. For this reason, authorities for higher taxa are relevant information that should be included in Wikispecies. Ucucha (talk) 16:58, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for offering your opinion Ucucha - perhaps when all other relevant parties get around to likewise offering their opinions, we might one day reach a consensus! I am not convinced by your argument, however. You need to read:
Dubois, A. 2009: Incorporation of nomina of higher-ranked taxa into the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature: the nomenclatural status of class-series zoological nomina published in a non-latinized form. Zootaxa, 2106: 1-12.
what this means is that regulation of such names may be introduced at some stage, which could render many of the currently quoted authorities and dates incorrect. Furthermore, just because many respected works do include such information is irrelevant to whether we ought to include it. Can you cite sources for your vague and sweeping statement that priority is "regularly" applied to these names? Once again, I must state my pretty irrefutable view that editing time is best spent on the great many articles still in need of creation, rather than on adding pointless information ... Stho002 00:33, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for providing this reference; it was an interesting read. I know that there are some proposals out to incorporate higher-level taxa into the Code, including Dubois's, but such proposals have not been accepted into the Code yet (and in my opinion, they shouldn't, although that is not relevant to this discussion) and for that reason we do not yet have to act according to them.

I do think that the usage of authors for higher-level taxa in respected works is relevant to us at Wikispecies; if the consensus of other compilators of taxonomic information is that such authors should be given--and I think it is--we should be doing so too, just as we follow the consensus of other taxonomists in taxonomic questions.

Whether "regularly" was the correct word, I am not sure, but I can give you some examples: "Criteria such as familiarity, historical usage, and nomenclatural priority, however, persuaded us to retain Brandt's terms [for suborders of rodents] ... we conventionally applied nomenclatural priority in adopting Castorimorpha Wood, 1955, over Geomorpha Thaler, 1966." (Carleton and Musser, 2005, Mammal Species of the World (Wilson and Reeder, eds.), p. 751); "(...) ctenodactylids as belonging to the same group as hystricognaths, for which the new name Entodacrya was coined (Landry, 1999). Huchon et al. (2000) (...) also found sufficiently strong support for a new clade comprising the Ctenodactylidae and Hystricognathi, however the name Ctenohystricha proposed by these authors was predated by Entodacrya Landry, 1999." (Jenkins et al., 2005, Syst. Biodiv. 2:441; they use the name Entodacrya or its vernacular form "entodacryans" in subsequent discussion). The following quote is also interesting in providing an application of the Principle of Homonymy to higher ranks: "Throughout the text, we have introduced 'Folivora' for the clade containing the sloths, because the usual terms of 'Phyllophaga' (e.g. Engelmann 1985) or 'Tardigrada' (e.g. Patterson et al. 1992) [for sloths] have both referred to different groups of protostomians [which were named earlier]. Etymologically, Folivora means leaf eater and is the Latin correspondence for 'Phyllophaga'." (Delsuc et al., 2001, Proc. R. Soc. Lond. 268:1606).

These are but a few examples, and I know that priority is not strictly applied to higher taxa--nomina oblita are usually discarded--but they do show that priority is taken into account when discussing higher taxa by at least some authors; for that reason, the authorship of such taxa is relevant information.

Pointless information should indeed not be added, but as I hope to have shown, the authorities of higher-level taxa are not pointless information. Just like adding new articles, adding such authorities furthers the goal of Wikispecies, which is the dissemination of taxonomic information. Ucucha (talk) 16:13, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, I still say that with so many new articles still to be created, we need to prioritize, and certainly anyone who comes back ONLY to add author/date to Animalia is wasting all of our time ...

Stho002 03:31, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

People should decide for themselves where and what they want to edit. If people who would otherwise not contribute to Wikispecies add these authorities, it is still a good thing. And I do not see why adding something constructive to a Wikispecies page is wasting anyone's time. Ucucha (talk) 15:35, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Theraphosidae error

Hi, this locked page has an item "Spelopeminae (?)". I think this should be edited to Spelopelminae but am unable to do it. Maybe you can. Cheers Bjenks 02:25, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Unprotected because vandal has moved on. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 02:40, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I suppose this has been solved by now. I am sorry for not responding earlier. Ucucha (talk) 07:55, 20 July 2009 (UTC)