User talk:Circeus

From Wikispecies
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Reference templates with doi[edit]


When have you finish the reference templates with doi?PeterR (talk) 08:58, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

@PeterR: what, like adding the {{access}} template? Circeus (talk) 14:45, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
What do you mean? PeterR (talk) 11:47, 1 March 2020 (UTC) You started with the updates, so you have to finish it.PeterR (talk) 11:48, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
This answer literally tells me absolutely nothing about what it is you want me to do. Circeus (talk) 18:10, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Update re: Hylotelephieae paper[edit]

I had almost given up on the article but it (as far as I can tell) silently moved onto the first round of peer review on February 6. It only took 4 month... Circeus (talk) 05:44, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Not bad. My last paper with Zootaxa went into limbo for 10 months after passing peer review. — The preceding unsigned comment was added by Neferkheperre (talkcontribs) 09:15, February 29, 2020.
Heh, so much for "fast" publication... Circeus (talk) 15:22, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

@Michael Goodyear and Andyboorman: SO. A new open-access paper just came out today which focuses somewhat EXACTLY on our area of interest. This may well explain the delays that have plagued the process for our paper. So, the question is: do you think this paper can be considered to resolve Umbiliceae as a clade that includes Hylothelephieae or not? If yes, I can see about pulling our paper out since the problem would be considered solved. Circeus (talk) 21:13, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm digesting it, and incorporating it into the relevant WP pages. It is a timely, if not overdue addition. If ours comes back for revision, we can incorporate this. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 00:40, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
Well, the way I'm reading it, it's essentially stating outright that Umbiliceae and "hylotelephieae" form a monophyletic clade, so there's no need anymore for our paper. Circeus (talk) 00:43, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
If accepted by other Crassulaceae taxonomists, but I still think we provide a historical context. Let us see what comes out of reviews. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 16:58, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
Erm... This is a little embarrassing. You hadn't been active in a long while, and after a week without responses from you or Andy, I had already made the request, which was accepted by the time you actually answered... Circeus (talk) 18:18, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
Not so much inactive, as that this topic has been languishing for an extraordinary long time, not that it is anyone's fault here. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 18:08, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

We sent you an e-mail[edit]

Hello Circeus,

Really sorry for the inconvenience. This is a gentle note to request that you check your email. We sent you a message titled "The Community Insights survey is coming!". If you have questions, email

You can see my explanation here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:45, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Literature link templates[edit]

{{FNZ}} is another one you could add to Category:Literature link templates. I would do it myself, but I don't seem to have permission to edit the page. Monster Iestyn (talk) 16:31, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

@Monster Iestyn: It's not even functional right now, and I'm not sure the series is still online. Circeus (talk) 18:54, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
That's strange wasn't all that long ago the links worked for me. Wayback Machine even has archives of the site from a few months ago earlier this year. Must be a very recent update to the website. Monster Iestyn (talk) 19:05, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
The Biotaxa archive is still up at least, we can access the series from there. Besides that though, there are only 50 templates using the FNZ template, so hopefully it should be easy to get rid of the FNZ template itself. Monster Iestyn (talk) 19:39, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
Update: Just found the series website has moved to this address: [1]. There are still PDF downloads to all of the volumes, but the volumes no longer have their own pages, and all the DOIs lead to the old pages (which now give HTTP 404 errors). Monster Iestyn (talk) 20:36, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

ISSN 0169-345X[edit]

I have changed ISSN 0169-345X from Agricultural University Wageningen Papers to Flore Analytique du Bénin, as they both have the same ISSN but only appear in the IPNI reference of the latest journal. Can they be the same with a different name? regards.--MILEPRI (talk) 08:46, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

@MILEPRI: They are not "the same with a different name": The Flora is a single book, not a series. However (and this is where IPNI messed up by being very much unclear about that), it also constitutes an issue (either 106 or 106-2, I'm not clear what the -2 is for in this case) of Agricultural University Wageningen Papers! Circeus (talk) 15:12, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Publications lists in ISSN pages[edit]

Since I noticed you were removing lists of publications from these pages, I just noticed ISSN 0951-2446 and ISSN 0269-3542 have an extensive list of them (and use they use the {{Publications}} template). Should the publications be removed from these pages too? Monster Iestyn (talk) 16:55, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

@Monster Iestyn: Those two journals are unusual cases. I remove publication lists of individual articles, but these are templates for issues owing to the fact these journals were mostly written by a single contributor, so exceptionally I'm leaving them alone. Circeus (talk) 16:58, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
Oh, I see, that makes sense. Monster Iestyn (talk) 16:59, 17 March 2021 (UTC)