User talk:Alephreish/Archive 2

From Wikispecies
Jump to navigation Jump to search

The Plant List[edit]

The site should not be used. A group of us on Wikipedia (English) examined it and found it loaded with errors and ommissions. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:19, 17 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OK. Could you provide me a relevant link to the discussion? I know about some misprints and only a few taxonomic errors. I am a zoologist though. Kuzia (talk) 16:41, 17 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Do you mean it's completely unsuitable? The system of angiosperms seems to follow APG III (that's good), but taxonomies for other taxa are not demonstrating the respective current states. That's true. Nevertheless, I supposed it's largely correct in synonymies, authorships and assignment to genera. Isn't it? Could we just restrict its use to the sphere of species-level taxa? Kuzia (talk) 20:45, 17 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No. It's a very new site and very incomplete. I don't trust it at all. You can see a variety of problems pointed out in this discssion. It's not an exhaustive criticism, but the point criticized speak volumes. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:21, 18 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hm... But at least it's large. (After all, nothing is worse than ITIS). What could you recommend as a plant database for taxonomy and synonymy check (at least for Eurasian angiosperms)? (I'm not going to work on plants here, but I have to use some plant sources for my job.) Kuzia (talk) 22:44, 18 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Uh, I'm not sure that that is better than ITIS. The Plant List is essentially a data dump from several major checklists, and has not been critically revised by any person at all. Unfortunately, there is no general database for angiosperms that I would trust. For some North American and Chinese species, the on-line versions of the FNA and Flora of China at efloras are the best I've seen. They have a few other countries published as well, but not anything for Europe that I recall. However, these databases are still complete even for those regions. You can only look up taxa in those families that have been published. --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:02, 18 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Clear, thank you for the tip! efloras is very nice and I used several times (there are still lots of common species between adjecent regions like Siberia and Far East on the first side and China and NA on the other one), but you are right: even as a whole it's far from desirable universality. Kuzia (talk) 08:19, 19 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Re:_fr pages[edit]

thanks for bringing this to my attention - I have passed the issue on to OhanaUnited, who handles these matters ... Stho002 (talk) 21:03, 19 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Re: Captcha[edit]

Hi :) You mean Wikispecies:Bots/Requests for approval? Ark (talk page) 07:12, 24 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It seems, You have not, as not-bot account. From my account I can't (or don't know how to do this) change your bot rights (skipcaptcha param). Sorry. Try to talk with Ohana. Ark (talk page) 08:19, 24 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For whatever reason, they didn't enable the option of granting confirmed user status on UserRights page. So far, the pages the bot created are redirect pages so I don't see how it trips captcha. We prefer to have all bots filed for approval (but it's much easier for bots to be given approval here than on other wikis). I like your idea of automatic page creation. OhanaUnitedTalk page 21:13, 24 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think our autoconfirm status is the same as English Wikipedia (account is 4 days old AND more than 10 edits). Besides waiting for a few more days, there's nothing I could do other than giving you a bot flag in advance. For the auto page creation, we have to be more careful with it because one mistake can cascade into a big problem so it requires much more rigorous testing than other bot tasks. OhanaUnitedTalk page 03:39, 25 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

To verify[edit]

Look at this, please. Ark (talk page) 20:41, 1 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

He is a vandal, isn't he? Or what do you mean? Kuzia (talk) 22:26, 1 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, he is! I didn't analyze it, that's why I wanted you to check :) Thanks. Ark (talk page) 09:29, 2 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK. Gotowe! Kuzia (talk) 09:35, 2 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]


As I have no opportunity to edit the page Wikispecies:Bots/Requests for approval (or any other page). I answer here:

  • "direct personal approval was sought after the edits were made". I added my request on 25 April 2011, by that moment (the next Bot edit was on 27 April) the bot had made ca. 70 redirect pages (under manual commandment) and 7 test edits with templates in debug mode.
  • the formulations used on Wikispecies:Bots don't say a bot has no right to edit before it recieves an approval.
  • once more: the edits were of the simplest type.
  • is it really necessary to block me? Kuzia (talk) 11:59, 2 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

P.S. Two habitual criminals caught :) Kuzia (talk) 15:40, 2 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Still being blocked for whatever reason, answering to EncycloPetey:

  • My question to the user was not about the template change, but about the deletion of Template:ALGAE, which became redundant after I had added that same functionality to Template:AlgaeBase.
  • "A request I made to correct a problem introduced by the bot...". It was about a parameter name. I had modified the template, so it accepted the "right" parameter name (date->accessdate), so the "problem" disappeared, see Template:AlgaeBase.
  • The user derives too many information about my thoughts and moods from my replies: please read, what is written.
  • That's the best practice to leave an opponent little chance to answer. The situation is highly inconstructive and contradicts scientific democracy (which I hoped should exist here as the main part of active users should consist of professional biologists (eg, as I am)). Kuzia (talk) 06:31, 3 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Can you edit other pages now? Ark (talk page) 07:05, 3 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fine, thank you. Kuzia (talk) 15:30, 3 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

IMO, it will be better to wait for bureaucrat's decision (I can't give a flag to your bot). Active is only Ohana and Open2universe. Ark (talk page) 18:07, 3 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I'm not going to get into a "discussion" on minor formatting issues ... the main thing that is annoying me is that you aren't putting in links to references (PDFs, BHL, etc.), and this is a more serious issue as it makes the pages a lot less useful ... Stho002 (talk) 07:12, 13 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry, never heard of {{zfg}} until now. OhanaUnitedTalk page 00:32, 16 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm not as active as before so Stephen knows more about the usage of new templates than I do. And I couldn't retrace the entire discussion since it's spread into multiple talk pages. Can you point to the precise section? OhanaUnitedTalk page 20:51, 19 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
To be quite frank with you, I know less about specific taxon rules than Stephen and you. OhanaUnitedTalk page 18:00, 20 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Catalog of Fishes template[edit]

I want to create a single template for Catalog of Fishes links like the one you made for FishBase. The two separate templates I made are Template:CoF genus and Template:CoF species. I am not really a skilled programmer in wiki yet, but I am good at adapting from examples made by others. I was trying to adapt the Catalog of Fishes template based on the FishBase template you made, but it has to be a bit different because it has separate sets of id numbers for genus and species. I think this means I have to have a rank argument in the template, but I'm not sure how to set it up. I'd appreciate any suggestions you have for me. Thanks, Koumz (talk) 06:31, 15 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, Koumz. You would use something like this:
[{{#switch:{{{rank|{{{1|}}}}}}|fam|family=genus&family{{=}}{{{name|{{{4|{{PAGENAME}}}}}}}} Genera of the {{{name|{{{4|{{PAGENAME}}}}}}}}|{{#switch:{{{rank|{{{1|}}}}}}|gen|genus=gen|sp|species=sp}}id={{{id|{{{2|}}}}}} ''{{{name|{{{4|{{PAGENAME}}}}}}}}''|}}]{{#switch:{{{rank|{{{1|}}}}}}|gen|genus= and [{{=}}species&genus{{=}}{{{name|{{{4|{{PAGENAME}}}}}}}} its species]|}} + citation + accessdate
It uses the 1st param as rank with three allowed states: sp (or species), gen (or genus) and fam (or family). There is no id for family (and no special page for a family at all: here we create a link to a list of genera), so id is mandatory only for genera and species. Genus name is used once in URL (for a list of species link), hence the name (the 4th one in my example) parameter is obligatory for cases like Liparis_(Liparidae): {{Cof|gen|375|Liparis}}. Kuzia (talk) 09:15, 15 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The template is finished and working perfectly. Thanks very much for your help. Koumz (talk) 12:54, 17 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No problem, glad to help! Kuzia (talk) 11:09, 18 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Reference templates[edit]

*Please*, if you must create a reference template, and the reference has a ZooBank LSID, then please use that as the name of the template, not this: Template:ISSN 1313-2989.57.9‎

Oh, is that not a "minor formatting issue"? Seriously, I suppose ISSNs are much more widespread, just because they are assigned to any journal (after 1960s), while lsid's appeared rather recently and are for web items only (see ICZN criteria of published works). Kuzia (talk) 22:43, 24 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I can assign a Zoobank LSID to ANY work (but it takes time) ... Stho002 (talk) 22:45, 24 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sounds nice. That could be a very good solution to reference naming. Kuzia (talk) 22:51, 24 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Vanhoeffenura redirects[edit]

I've changed the redirects you made (Eurycope pulchra pulchra and Vanhoeffenella pulchra pulchra) so that they now redirect to Vanhoeffenura pulchra instead of to Vanhoeffenura pulchra pulchra. Koumz (talk) 14:29, 26 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you! I didn't notice that. I've redirected Vanhoeffenura pulchra pulchra as well. Kuzia (talk) 15:27, 26 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Please add content to the project and don't just obsess over tiny formatting details, thanks! Stho002 (talk) 23:30, 26 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There is no consensus about the question. Your actions are illegal. Kuzia (talk) 23:41, 26 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

zfg template[edit]

Hi, was your Bot specifically approved to remove zfg template? I don't see it in the specs, but maybe I'm missing it? Thanks, Stho002 (talk) 06:46, 27 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]