User talk:エリック・キィ

From Wikispecies
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Welcome to Wikispecies!

Hello, and a belated welcome to Wikispecies! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you are enjoying being here. Here are some pages you might not yet have found:

If you have named a taxon, then it is likely that there is (or will be) a Wikispecies page about you, and other pages about your published papers. Please see our [[<tvar name="1">Special:MyLanguage/Wikispecies:Autobiography</tvar>|advice and guidance for taxon authors]].

If you have useful images to contribute to Wikispecies, please upload them at the Wikimedia Commons. This is also true for video or audio files containing bird songs, whale vocalization, etc.

Please sign your comments on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username (if you're logged in) and the date. If you need help, ask me on my talk page, or in the Village Pump. Again, welcome!

Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 05:58, 9 November 2017 (UTC).

Reference templates[edit]

Hello, and thank you for your very welcome contributions! However, please note that Wikipedia type reference templates such as {{Cite book}} and {{Cite journal}} are not recommended here on Wikispecies. Instead we use reference templates as described in the Help:Reference section guideline (specifically the Help:Reference section#Reference Templates subsection on that same page).

The reason why we have chosen this method is that some publications are referred to on many, many of our pages. For example, some scientific works may describe a new genus together with perhaps 30 or more new species within that genus. Now consider that after a few years the nomenclature is revised: perhaps the genus is split into several subgenera, or some of the species are moved to entirely different genera. In that case we may have to update all of the 30 pages where that particular {{Cite book}} or {{Cite journal}} reference is used. That takes a lot of time – and more importantly it's easy to miss a few of them, which would then make those particular Wikispecies pages inaccurate, showing old data. Instead we have opted for a system where we make one specific page for each particular reference. We do this in the form of templates. For an example of such a template, please see the newly created Template:Lewis, 1966. That way, if we need to change a reference we only have to change that one page instead of 30, and the changes will automatically be shown on every page where that one reference template is used. (In this particular case it's only used on three pages, but you get the point, right? :-)

Thanks again for your contributions, and as always please do not hesitate to ask if you have any questions! I will be happy to assist you if I can. Best regards, and happy editing, Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 01:53, 13 June 2019 (UTC).

@Tommy Kronkvist: Thank you very much for the instruction. I had no idea that two Wikipedia type templates are already deprecated.--Eryk Kij (talk) 03:55, 13 June 2019 (UTC)


Hello. You need to adjust most commonly used Links when adding them to pages such as Mansonia (Malvaceae). I have made the necessary adjustments, as you can se it is simple, just needed for the link to work. Regards Andyboorman (talk) 07:13, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

@Andyboorman: I did not add them, but you did before (please see Special:Diff/6485820/next), then you have adjusted your own mistake. I know, however, that any untidy or deprecated elements should be improved by anyone who notices them. I usually check every whole page, but this time I failed to do so, concentrating only on the italicization of the title. At any rates, I think we could somewhat upgrade templates like Template:Mansonia (Malvaceae) and link templates like those you mentioned, but I have no idea so far. Do you have any good one? --Eryk Kij (talk) 07:52, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Too true my original mistake, but thanks if you spot such an error and correct it. I am not a coder so cannot help correct the link template to add the necessary fix, if required. Perhaps somebody at the pump would be able to help. My contributions are still mostly turning red link plant genera blue rather than the the important format work. This is getting more complicated as the easy genera get dealt with, as I find more and more shifting taxonomic opinions in the secondary and primary sources, negating the one taxon one name principle! Regards Andyboorman (talk) 08:19, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Images on genera, families and so on.[edit]

Unlabelled images on genera are not to be used please see Ramosmania for how it should be done. Many thanks. Andyboorman (talk) 08:13, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Japanese localization[edit]

Hello, If you have a moment, might you be able to check the Japanese-language wikispecies "localizations", whether in their entirety as here - Wikispecies:Localization - or as implemented in practice on a taxon page or in particular eg at Isao Ijima, especially "Taxon names authored" and "[n] taxon names authored by" (would 命名 be better?) How would the "n] eponyms of [Isao Ijima" best be rendered? "[n]エポニムに影響を与えた[Isao Ijima"? (the order has to stay as in English: [number - eponyms of - name]). You can change your settings to Japanese via the drop-down menu next to your user name at the top of the page, if they are not set to Japanese already. The more technical terms come from the documents at the top of Wikispecies talk:Localization so should be fine; (there was brief discussion of "Name" on 23 June at the bottom of the Japanese-related section of Wikispecies talk:Localization), thank you very much, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 18:06, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

@Maculosae tegmine lyncis: Thank you very much for letting me know about this issue. I have wondered where these kinds of settings are controlled. The following Japanese sound more fluent:
  • List may be incomplete: "リストは不完全である可能性がある。"
  • Taxon names authored: "命名" (lit. 'naming')
  • Taxon names authored by: "分類群の命名者"
  • Authored taxa: "命名された分類群"
  • [n] taxon names authored by [taxonomist]: "[taxonomist]が命名した[n]個の分類名"
  • Eponyms (and also Eponymy): "献名"
  • [n] eponyms of [taxonomist]: "[n]個の[taxonomist]への献名" (lit. '[n] eponyms for [taxonomist]')
Please note that Japanese classifier (counter) system is quite complicated. To be honest, I am not sure whether the counter 個 for 'taxa' is proper, but it is a compromise. More natural way would be avoidance of using counters, which, however, will result in superfluous cumbersomeness (e.g. "[taxonomist]が命名した分類名1つ", "[taxonomist]が命名した2つの分類名", (...) "[taxonomist]が命名した9つの分類名", "[taxonomist]が命名した10の分類名", "[taxonomist]が命名した11の分類名", (...)). --Eryk Kij (talk) 01:17, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
Thank you. I have added the more straightforward improvements to a request for changes, and at the same asked about the possibility of slightly "deeper" localization, involving changing the order of "[n] <localization> [taxonomist]", etc, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 10:02, 24 June 2021 (UTC)


This tribe is accepted according to a bunch of papers published 2019-2921, so I do not know where you got your information from when making the note on Tieghemella. However, a new tribe Glueminae will be described soon and I will make the adjustments, as soon as there is effective publication later in 2021. I can add the references if required, but do not think it is urgent. Best regards Andyboorman (talk) 09:54, 25 June 2021 (UTC):

The link is not helpful. I would be grateful if you made no edits to templates that remove this tribe. In addition, when making edits of this nature we require the reference to be placed on the taxon page and not as a comment on the edit history as they are major taxonomic changes. Hope this helps. Andyboorman (talk) 10:02, 25 June 2021 (UTC)


Hello. We do not place facts about etymology on taxon pages for WS, as it is not relevant to taxonomy and classification. If you wish to propose changes to this practice then please feel free to start a discussion on the Village Pump. In the meantime expect your edits to be reverted in good faith. Best regards Andyboorman (talk) 08:49, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Just a hint[edit]

Plants of the World draws its data from World Checklist of Selected Plant Families where they exist, so you really only need one source. I always use WCSP in preference, as the data has gone through as complete a check as possible. PWO tends to be more of a work in progress, but still robust. In addition, if you feel there is an error or a query then please contact the databases - they are very helpful and will quickly change the entry if required. Hope this helps. Andyboorman (talk) 07:38, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

@Andyboorman: > (...) so you really only need one source.
I once thought like you do, but I came to be aware of specimens displayed only in PWO entries. They sometimes contain possible type specimens and I think they deserve being known by readers.
> they are very helpful and will quickly change the entry if required.
I have concern on taxon authorities of Marquisia billardierei, Photinia glabra and Tieghemella heckelii, so I will contact them. Thank you for your helpful advice. --Eryk Kij (talk) 12:36, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
I see where you are coming from with the three taxa. All the best Andyboorman (talk) 16:03, 1 October 2021 (UTC)


An autonym can not be a synonym of its base combination, as they are only automatically generated once a variety or subspecies, for example are accepted, as is found in Coprosma wollastonii. Hope this helps. Andyboorman (talk) 10:05, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

@Andyboorman: OK, I had to do this beforehand, which is what I mean. I think it is better to show information of heterotypic synonyms (if they exist) in both base page and its infraspecific page, with one detailed and the other soft-redirecting. Please note that I have applied a similar structure to Psychotria eminiana and Psychotria eminiana var. eminiana. --Eryk Kij (talk) 11:06, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
OK good work just remember that an autonym is not a synonym of its parent taxon. Cheers. Andyboorman (talk) 12:14, 12 November 2021 (UTC)