User talk:Caftaric

From Wikispecies
Latest comment: 3 years ago by EncycloPetey in topic Formatting of Links templates
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Welcome to Wikispecies!

Hello, and welcome to Wikispecies! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might like to see:

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 advice and guidance for taxon authors.

If you have useful images to contribute to Wikispecies, please upload them at 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. Please also read the Wikispecies policy What Wikispecies is not. If you need help, ask me on my talk page, or in the Village Pump. Again, welcome!


Hello Caftaric! Do you happen to have a citation/reference for the synonym "Pristomachaerus H.W. Bates, 1873" on the Callistomimus page you created? It would be most welcome. Best regards, Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 01:11, 4 March 2019 (UTC).Reply

No I don't. The synonym comes from the BioLib page, which desn't give any further reference. Cheers. Caftaric (talk) 06:25, 4 March 2019 (UTC)Reply
Ok, thanks anyway. I checked BioLib and probably 20 other web references prior to asking you here, but without luck. The information seems to be very hard to find... :-) Regards, Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 18:57, 6 March 2019 (UTC).Reply

Redirects for vernacular names[edit]

Hello Caftaric, I have noticed that you create a lot of redirects for vernacular names, e.g. Eugléniens, Euglénien, Euglenacées, Euglenacée (all for Euglenaceae) and many more. At the French Wikipedia, those redirects might be useful, but here at Wikispeces, vernacular names are somewhat out of our project scope. As Wikispecies is a database for taxonomy and nomenclature, we create redirects for synonymic scientific names only. Kind regards, --Thiotrix (talk) 11:36, 31 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

Anyway, those French vernacular names are not prone to generate any needed disambiguation. So I imagine, they are rather harmless. They redirect to pages, where a section of vernacular names exists, where they can be found facing the "français" entry. They all come from the "Eukaryota" page, in the "Chatton" section, where they were written like these, in plain French, in the text, as if they were scientific names. I also saw that, in the following sections, English vernacular names were also used. Cheers --Caftaric (talk) 17:34, 31 October 2019 (UTC)Reply
Ah, I see. But it is not necessary to create redirects for this purpose. If you want to link to a page with different name, just use the format [[page name|link name]], e.g. [[Euglenaceae|Eugléniens]]. Cheers, --Thiotrix (talk) 09:28, 1 November 2019 (UTC)Reply
Hi, I know that, but thank anyway! --Caftaric (talk) 15:46, 1 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

Template:Janvier, 1985a[edit]

Salut. Juste quelques remarques concernant l'usage des lettres pour différencier les modèles de références:

  • Si on déplace un modèle pour cette raison, ne pas laisser une redirection (une des cases à cocher de Special:MovePage le permet), surtout dans le cas présent, puisque cela contredit l'utilité même d'avoir une différentiation!
  • En pratique, nous ne suffixons généralement pas de lettres à l'année dans le texte du modèle lui-même (même s'il y en a dans le nom du modèle), à moins que les deux articles publiés la même années doivent être explicitement cités dans le même article.
  • Il découle de ces deux points que s'il y a deux modèles à différencier, la pratique sur Wikispecies est plutôt de commencer la séquence avec "Dupont, 19XX", puis "Dupont, 19XXa" etc. plutôt que "19XXa" et "19XXb".

Bonnes contributions! Circeus (talk) 02:11, 26 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

Oh, et parce que c'est pratique à savoir: un peut générer le lien et catégory sur ces modèle avec {{subst:reftemp}}. Circeus (talk) 02:20, 26 November 2019 (UTC)Reply
Merci pour ces explications. Je pensais bien faire! --Caftaric (talk) 05:35, 26 November 2019 (UTC)Reply
Pas de problème. Dieu sait que ce n'est pas facile de commencer sur un nouveau wiki. Circeus (talk) 06:47, 26 November 2019 (UTC)Reply


Hello! I noticed you are creating some references in the format of simple text, which is anyway welcome. Meanwhile, with a litte more elaboration, the preferred way is to create a template that would be useful for several applications on an easier way and all linked. Just for you to understand what I mean (english is not my primary language) see this example that I created starting from your edition. Template:Sclater & Salvin, 1859. The section regarding the new species described is a lot more difficult and it is optional to go that deep. Cheers. --Hector Bottai (talk) 16:51, 29 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

I understand. I'll see what I can do for now. Thanks. --Caftaric (talk) 05:52, 30 November 2019 (UTC)Reply



was probably a little quick I did not realise you were editing, Cuvierichelys is identified as a Mauremys group which would place it under the Geoemydinae in the absence of anything to the contrary. You should use the template {{Geoemydinae}} instead of {{Geoemydidae}} in the genus page under taxonav. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 07:47, 1 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

Wow! Nice notice about that subfamily assignment. Will do what you recommend. Cheer! --Caftaric (talk) 07:49, 1 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

ébauche de références[edit]

Ça serait probablement mieux d'attendre d'avoir la référence complète avant de créer un modèle. Si les petites corrections ne me dérangent pas, avoir à reconstituer une référence aussi incomplète que template:Aymard, 1846 ou Aymard, 1850 n'est pas une activité que j'apprécie particulièrement.

Je crois que "Aymard, 1846" est une communication publiée en fait en 1848 (Erinaceus nanus est mentionné en page 243), mais je ne suis pas sûr que ce soit là une publication valide, même si le code zoologique est passablement relax sur la question. Circeus (talk) 21:14, 17 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

OK. En attendant merci pour la correction de Aymard, 1850. Je vois ce que je peux faire pour Aymard, 1846. Cordialement, --Caftaric (talk) 06:41, 18 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

Localization and translation[edit]

Hello Caftaric. Please note that translations in Wikispecies should not be made within the actual taxon pages, author pages, or reference pages. Adding all translations to all pages is not a good thing, since it makes the code of every single page bulky and/or hard to read. Instead translations are better served by the MediaWiki {{int:}} transclusion magic word in combination with the Wikispecies Localization database. That way we don't need to add any inline translations to every single taxon/author/reference/template- or category page. An example of our present standard system is how we use =={{int:Publications}}== or =={{int:Primary references}}== when we add the "Publications" or "Primary references" headlines to author- and taxon pages. That is all that is needed, since together with the {{int:}} magic word, the Wikispecies Localization database then takes care of the rest and automatically translates all instances of the phrases "Publications" and "Primary references" to which ever language we need. (Provided of course that the translations have been added to the database...)

This means that some of the templates you have recently created may very soon be altered or deleted, since the translations to for example French "Espèce type" and "Localité type" as well as German "Typusgattung" etc. are already in the Wikispecies Localization database, which should be used instead.

Please head over to the Translation Administrators' noticeboard if you have any further questions. Also, as you can see on the Localization database page, quite a lot of words in various languages still have red links (i.e. are not yet added to the database.) The database is locked and can't be edited by most users, but feel free to add suggestions for such translations on the Localization project's talk page. They will then soon be added by a Translation administrator or a regular admin.

Lastly, please again note that{{int:}} is an interface magic word, used for transclusion. It is not a template, and will not work as a template. I'm not saying that your are one of them, but many users are a bit confused by that. :-) Best regards, Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 18:48, 27 December 2019 (UTC).Reply

Actually, I've been confused by the use of that magic word, thinking at first it was part of a template. Thank you for getting me updated. I think that, at least some of the templates I recently created, were dealing with, as far as I could foresee, translations not taken charge of by the Localization project. But I'll be happy to comply to the rules of the project, and I'll help with the transfer of data to that depository, in due time, as needed. Cheers, --Caftaric (talk) 19:02, 27 December 2019 (UTC)Reply
I see. Well, all of the translations in for example the {{Int Similar groups}}, {{Int Type}} and {{Int Synonyms or similar groups}} templates are supposed to be handled by the Localization database. The problem is that even though the whole WS localization project launched in 2016, it didn't really get up to speed until early 2019. As a result we still have much, much work to do, but we'll get there! Any help and constructive ideas is of course welcome! However, entirely new systems such as your new templates must be discussed on Translation Administrators' noticeboard before they get implemented. The same is of course also true for other big changes, which depending on the subject should be discussed at the Village Pump or on the Administrators' Noticeboard. Some specific issues may also be handled by our (very few...) Tech ambassadors but most things should be discussed by our regular admins and/or the whole community at the Pump. Regards, Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 19:43, 27 December 2019 (UTC).Reply
There are also the templates {{Int Gender}}, and {{Overview of}} to talk about. Does it happen that you know how I contact Wikispecies Administrators' Noticeboard? Thank for your precious help. --Caftaric (talk) 19:48, 27 December 2019 (UTC)Reply
Use the link I gave you above, i.e. Wikispecies:Administrators' Noticeboard. Also, there is an ongoing discussion about parts of this at the Village Pump: Wikispecies:Village Pump#Translations of templates. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 20:21, 27 December 2019 (UTC).Reply
Thank you for my introduction in the Village Pump discussion. I left a message there stating that what user:Christian Ferrer has done on the "commons" template is better than my experimentations with independant translation templates. If his change is authorized I would do the maintenancce to link the pages with my template to the normal commons template, then ask for the deletion of my own templete. Cheers, --Caftaric (talk) 05:29, 28 December 2019 (UTC)Reply
(for your information) I informed the Administrators' noticeboard this morning. Cheers. --Caftaric (talk) 05:38, 29 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

───────────────────────── Again, "translations in Wikispecies should not be made within the actual taxon pages" as noted above. Also, if you find captions on images that are anything other than the taxon name, they should be removed. We generally prefer a simple image (or two) and at most the name of the depicted taxon. Wikispecies avoids adding captions in any language. --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:03, 2 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

I tend to include author name and year of photography when adding pictures of author's to author pages, but other than that I agree with EncycloPetey. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 00:41, 3 January 2020 (UTC).Reply
read. --Caftaric (talk) 12:55, 3 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

Parlez-vous, mon frère[edit]

Please include categories when you make templates. The "WhatLinksHere" part is also helpful for these reference templates but not strictly required. Merci. —Justin (koavf)TCM 14:09, 10 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hi! Thanks for the advice. I'll see what I can do for now. Cheers, --Caftaric (talk) 17:54, 10 February 2020 (UTC)Reply
Done for 100 (exactly, isn't that strange) templates. Cheers, --Caftaric (talk) 19:24, 10 February 2020 (UTC)Reply
Great work. If you need something deleted, please don't just blank it but add {{Delete}}. I very much appreciate your help here at Wikispecies but take a look at my contributions and logged actions and you will see several thousand of them just cleaning up errors from the past few days: it's a lot of work and every bit helps. —Justin (koavf)TCM 16:17, 11 February 2020 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for the {{Delete}} advice. I saw that blanked pages were not deleted. Cheers, --Caftaric (talk) 06:28, 12 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

TDWG terms encaspulated by Template nadi[edit]

Please note that the geographical terms defined by TDWG are names for phytogeographical units with state names which often deviate from the political circumscription. For instance "France" includes the French mainland, Monaco and the Channel islands, but excludes Corsica and the overseas territories, "Spain" includes the Spanish mainland, Andorra and Gibraltar, but excludes the Baleares, the Canary islands and the North African enclaves. In my opinion the TDWG terms should be regarded as fixed technical terms which should not be altered und not be translated. -RLJ (talk) 13:31, 16 March 2020 (UTC)Reply


Please get approval before adding infoboxes to pages. We already use a "Links" section, and it should be part of the references. An infobox would not be appropriate in such a section. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:31, 25 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Thanks for adding this comment. Must I ask for opinions in a section posted on the Village pump for example? Cheers, --Caftaric (talk) 05:30, 25 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
Yes. What you want to do would change the way we present links. Wight now, the Links is part of the References, and each Database link receives a full citation. Your template would collapse all that information to a jumble of bare links in a box without a full citation. --EncycloPetey (talk) 12:50, 25 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

Section order[edit]

Please DO NOT move the Vernacular Names ahead of the References section. The References section should come before vernacular names. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:34, 25 March 2020 (UTC) Hi, again. Thanks for this comment. I MUST NOT move the Vernaculat names section. understood. Cheers, --Caftaric (talk) 05:47, 25 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

{{Verrill, 1883}}[edit]

Hi, it seems that it already exist at {{Verrill, 1883a}} Christian Ferrer (talk) 05:21, 31 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hi, Thanks for the information. I made a redirection to {{Verrill, 1883a}}. Cheers, --Caftaric (talk) 05:28, 31 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

Reversion on Gray[edit]

Sorry friend I reverted your edit with no intention, immediately corrected.--Hector Bottai (talk) 10:35, 31 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

Formatting of section hedings (eg. Taxonavigation, Name, etc.)[edit]

Hello Caftaric, I need to ask you a significant question in regard to your rcent edits. Please see as an example recent changes to section headings on page "Siphonostomatoida". You have added a space between the = and the { at rhe beginning of the heading and a space between the } and the = at the end, for the following headings:
==Vernacular names==
Have you been authorized to make this type of change or have you done this on your own initiative? Virtually all corrected taxon pages use no spaces in these headings and changing all these pages just to insert these unneeded spaces would be a laborious task when such time could be spent in more construcutive edits. In fact, authorized user Rosibot has edited literally thousands of taxon pages adding int: to these headers with no spaces in the heading. Thank you for consideration of this matter and a prompt reply. Kind regards, Nytexcome (talk) 02:16, 11 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hi, Thank you for your message. I always used this formatting for years. My habit comes probably from the fact that those spaces are what you get when using the "heading" tool of the editing toolbox. But I'll leave everything alone in the future since it's a sensitive matter. Have a good day. --Caftaric (talk) 03:55, 11 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
Hello Caftaric, Thank you for your prompt reply and your willingness to stop inserting spaces in these headers.
I would now like to request some additional help from you. I like your use of the taxon boxes, but can't figure out how to connect a Wikispecies taxon page to the appropriate Wikidata item. Can you provide a simple explanation as to how to do this. Your assistance would be greatly appreciated. Thanks and kind regards.Nytexcome (talk) 08:05, 11 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
Hi again. If you refer to the "taxonbar" template, I must confess I'm not the designer of the module it works with. I merely adapted it to make it work on the Wikispecies namespace. As far as I could figure it out, this module connects to Wikidata through the number of the desired propriety of the item. You will have to test the relevant portion(s) of code and adapt it to your need. Cheers. --Caftaric (talk) 10:37, 11 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Deletion of links[edit]

Hello Caftaric, I appreciate and thank you for adding the use of the taxonbar tool for use on Wikispecies. However, I do not feel it should be used as a substitrte for the links heading. When I add the link under that heading it is for a validation of data I have entered such as authour, date, parent, children, synonyms etc. The taxonbar tool shows all databases which reference the taxon page and quite frequently they do disagree with data on the Wikispecies taxon page. Such disagreement is common in taxonomy and the value of the taxonbar tool is that it shows how other databases treat a specific taxon. I would therefore request that you please refrain from deleting the links I have entered under the links heading since I have taken great pains to ensure that the data on a given taxon page accurately reflects a certain taxonmic consensus as reflected under that links heading. If you choose a different treatment, please put it in a note as to how the database you choose differs from the data shown on the Wikispecies page. Quite frequently there are marked differences between WoRMS, IRMNG, GBIF, EOL and Biolib which are the most frequent I use. Therefore I will revert the recent changes you made in deleting links and kindly ask that you refrain from doing such deletions in the f uture, Kind regards,Nytexcome (talk) 07:22, 22 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

  • Foot note question: why have switched coding from {Taxonbar|Q9999999} to {Taxonbar|from=Q99999999} ? Is there a significance in adding the

"from=" Nytexcome (talk) 07:34, 22 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I was just answering you about that point when you posted that second message. Yes, that was what I primarily intended to correct. It is part of the correct syntax of the "taxonbar" template. Cheers. --Caftaric (talk) 07:40, 22 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Reference templates[edit]

Hello Caftaric, for creating new reference templates, there is a simple method using {{subst:Reftemp}}: When you add this string behind your text of the reference (just click on it in the wikispecies editing tools at the bottom of the page), the substitution code will add automatically all that is needed. See Help:Reference section#Reference Templates for more explanations, or just ask me, if you need more infos. Kind regards, --Thiotrix (talk) 16:26, 1 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Thank you for that trick. Should be very helpful indeed. Cheers, --Caftaric (talk) 16:38, 1 May 2020 (UTC)Reply


Not sure we agreed to use TaxonBar in WS, after the discussion. Ask around, as I do not use it myself. Andyboorman (talk) 13:06, 3 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Thank you for your post. If you want to join in the discussion on the subject, please follow that link to the Village pump relevant section. But I'm sorry that there is no votes going on for the moment. You should maybe make it happen. Cheers, --Caftaric (talk) 13:16, 3 May 2020 (UTC)Reply
Hello. Yes I participated in the discussion. It is OK but not for the reference section, IMHO. I am more of a redlink taxon filler rather than taxon page improver, as well as finding scientific papers of relevance. In the end it does not bother me too much if fellow editors wish to add TaxonBar. Best regards. Andyboorman (talk) 13:50, 3 May 2020 (UTC)Reply


What means other namesPeterR (talk) 08:56, 8 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

High. Thank you to share your concerns about the article "Capsa". I am working around the names. As yet, I am not sur that these names are legitimate, or synonyms, or anything else. Tey are not from either Fossilworks, nor MNHN. I'm still trying to localize the sources. Cheers, --Caftaric (talk) 09:01, 8 May 2020 (UTC)Reply
Species can't never be other names or synonymy from a genus (Capsa). If it are synonymy they are from Capsa minima.PeterR (talk) 11:58, 8 May 2020 (UTC)Reply
Hi again. All right. I'll correct that ASAP. I 'm just working on "d'Orbigny, 1845" (wich is not the publication displayed, as now) to find out. Cheers, --Caftaric (talk) 12:02, 8 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

Images and disambig pages[edit]

I do not think it is a good idea to add images to disambig pages where they can not be attributed to an accepted combination displayed on the page. Therefore I have removed a couple of images from your recent edits. Andyboorman (talk) 08:27, 22 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hi thank you for all your efforts. Cheers. --Caftaric (talk) 11:45, 22 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

Internationalization of disambiguation pages[edit]

Please tell me where is established that internationalization means:

  • Eliminating links to authors
  • Eliminating which one is valid or obsolete or a synonym

By the way, not a good idea adding images to disambiguation pages.--Hector Bottai (talk) 11:36, 22 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hi thank you for your message. I must apologize for the fact you feel upset by the eliminating of links to authors or validy or obsolescence or synonymy. In the meantime, most disambiguation pages keeps things simple, possibly in the idea that the corresponding articles would have all the relevant pieces of information. For the adding of images, I don't know what you mean. Cheers. --Caftaric (talk) 11:44, 22 May 2020 (UTC)Reply
Please stop removing internal links on disambiguation pages. Is there any consensus on that? --Hector Bottai (talk) 11:56, 7 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

Please fix links[edit]

Great work on disambiguation. However, you are leaving loads of broken links behind. We would be grateful if you could go back and fix these as soon as possible. It is a bit unhelpful creating work for others. See the Edit History on Stenotis as an example. Best regards. Andyboorman (talk) 08:48, 2 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Thank you for your message. As a matter of fact, I didn't know that there were external links templates that don't connect to corresponding database entries through IDs. Now I know. I 'll have a look to the "Links" section next time I move an article title. Cheers, --Caftaric (talk) 11:15, 2 July 2020 (UTC)Reply


The database will automatically pull up the correct target from just the ID of the taxon. Adding a "switch" merely adds unnecessary template burden which will break pages when there are multiple nested taxonomic levels. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:55, 8 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

You will also need to go through all of the algae entries you edited and correct the IDs. The template was set to work with the taxonomy browser, which uses a different set of IDs that are incompatible with the one you adjusted the template to. --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:07, 8 July 2020 (UTC)Reply


In this edit you added the wrong ID for the genus at AlgaeBase. I have corrected the target. Please check that you have the correct target when adding links. --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:00, 8 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

Formatting of Links templates[edit]

Hello, Caftaric, I see you have been making numerous format changes which are not standard, especially in regards to links templates, especially for WoRMS and GBIF. The correctf formats should be {GBIF2|99999} and {WoRMS||104928} or {WoRMS||104928|i} for genus and lower taxa to show italics. The same principle also applies to ITIS and IRMNG where the addition of "ID" in the template is not necessary and not used. Also the asterisk (*) preceding the template does not need to be deleted. I'm fairly certain you will find that links added from 2018 to 2020 are correctly formatted except for GBIF which needs to have the "2" inserted in the template. Kind regards and thank you for your cooperation in this matter.Nytexcome (talk) 07:12, 11 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

Your use of the template {{Tela Botanica|101079}} is not standard - see IPNI for how it should be done. Please desist and correct the template or your edits are likely to be be deleted. In addition, Links must be included in the Reference section not hanging out at the end of the taxon page. Andyboorman (talk) 15:51, 12 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
I have initiated a discussion on the Pump about the use of templates linking to outside databases. Please feel free to join the discussion, but stop adding nonstandard links until the discussion has run its course. Thank you for your work and patience. Andyboorman (talk) 19:47, 12 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

Please also refer to Help:Reference section. The "Links" section should be a level-3 subsection under References. It should not be added as a separate section at the end of the page. --EncycloPetey (talk) 05:01, 13 July 2020 (UTC)Reply