User talk:Circeus/Archive 1

Your talk page

Please undelete your talk page, which is a record that should be available to all Wikispecies users. If you wish to archive it, you should do so using page names like User talk:Circeus/Archive 1, et seq. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:05, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Your edits to {{IPNI}}

Can you explain these? You seem to have broken pages like Cattleya_×_hardyana which I've had a head scratch trying to figure out how to repair.

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:31, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

MY apologies for a cryptic message. And yes this has now been 'temporarily' repaired. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 09:30, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Invitation to join the Ten Year Society

Dear Circeus/Archive 1,

I'd like to extend a cordial invitation to you to join the Ten Year Society, an informal group for editors who've been participating in the Wikispecies project for ten years or more.

Best regards,

Dan Koehl (talk) 00:39, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Share your experience and feedback as a Wikimedian in this global survey

Hello! The Wikimedia Foundation is asking for your feedback in a survey. We want to know how well we are supporting your work on and off wiki, and how we can change or improve things in the future. The opinions you share will directly affect the current and future work of the Wikimedia Foundation. You have been randomly selected to take this survey as we would like to hear from your Wikimedia community. The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes.

Take the survey now!

You can find more information about this survey on the project page and see how your feedback helps the Wikimedia Foundation support editors like you. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this privacy statement (in English). Please visit our frequently asked questions page to find more information about this survey. If you need additional help, or if you wish to opt-out of future communications about this survey, send an email through the EmailUser feature to WMF Surveys to remove you from the list.

Thank you!

WMF Surveys, 18:35, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Reminder: Share your feedback in this Wikimedia survey

Every response for this survey can help the Wikimedia Foundation improve your experience on the Wikimedia projects. So far, we have heard from just 29% of Wikimedia contributors. The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes to be completed. Take the survey now.

If you have already taken the survey, we are sorry you've received this reminder. We have design the survey to make it impossible to identify which users have taken the survey, so we have to send reminders to everyone. If you wish to opt-out of the next reminder or any other survey, send an email through EmailUser feature to WMF Surveys. You can also send any questions you have to this user email. Learn more about this survey on the project page. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this Wikimedia Foundation privacy statement. Thanks!

WMF Surveys, 01:34, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Your feedback matters: Final reminder to take the global Wikimedia survey

Hello! This is a final reminder that the Wikimedia Foundation survey will close on 23 April, 2018 (07:00 UTC). The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes. Take the survey now.

If you already took the survey - thank you! We will not bother you again. We have designed the survey to make it impossible to identify which users have taken the survey, so we have to send reminders to everyone. To opt-out of future surveys, send an email through EmailUser feature to WMF Surveys. You can also send any questions you have to this user email. Learn more about this survey on the project page. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this Wikimedia Foundation privacy statement.

WMF Surveys, 00:43, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Solanum and Särkinen

I noticed that you've made some work involving the author name Särkinen when dealing with the Solanum genus, so I went ahead and created Tiina E. Särkinen to help out, and also added the author link to the templates I could find that cites her work. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 04:35, 18 September 2018 (UTC).

Repository category P

Did you already notice, that Category:P does not refer to herbarium P? See Solanum sambiranense. Regards --Franz Xaver (talk) 10:19, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Na & Ya

You recently deleted {{Na}} and {{Ya}}, though each has a number of inbound links. What should be done with them? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:34, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

unless I'm mistaken, every single one of those inbound links are from transclusions of {{Check mark templates}}, and I'm pretty sure not a single template listed there is used anywhere else. I suspect 99% of what's to be found on {{Done/See also}} sees no use whatsoever, and personally I'd happily delete the whole lot. I don't think we really need ca. 15 ways to template "done/yes". Circeus (talk) 17:29, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

You shouldn't be deleting content created by other editors in good faith (i.e. other than spam, etc) without discussing it with them, or on a noticeboard. In this case, I won't dispute the deletion, but please clean up after yourself. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:39, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Well, covnersely, templates that aren't meant to be brought in use immediately shouldn't be mass created either. Circeus (talk) 18:09, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Turkish

I use this template for botanists. see, Hayri Duman --Fagus (talk) 14:48, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

159.146.45.117

Will you please block the above ip without talk page access? It's an xwiki vandal. Praxidicae (talk) 20:19, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Community Insights Survey

Share your experience in this survey

Hi Circeus/Archive 1,

The Wikimedia Foundation is asking for your feedback in a survey about your experience with Wikispecies and Wikimedia. The purpose of this survey is to learn how well the Foundation is supporting your work on wiki and how we can change or improve things in the future. The opinions you share will directly affect the current and future work of the Wikimedia Foundation.

Please take 15 to 25 minutes to give your feedback through this survey. It is available in various languages.

This survey is hosted by a third-party and governed by this privacy statement (in English).

Find more information about this project. Email us if you have any questions, or if you don't want to receive future messages about taking this survey.

Sincerely,

RMaung (WMF) 14:34, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Reminder: Community Insights Survey

Share your experience in this survey

Hi Circeus/Archive 1,

A couple of weeks ago, we invited you to take the Community Insights Survey. It is the Wikimedia Foundation’s annual survey of our global communities. We want to learn how well we support your work on wiki. We are 10% towards our goal for participation. If you have not already taken the survey, you can help us reach our goal! Your voice matters to us.

Please take 15 to 25 minutes to give your feedback through this survey. It is available in various languages.

This survey is hosted by a third-party and governed by this privacy statement (in English).

Find more information about this project. Email us if you have any questions, or if you don't want to receive future messages about taking this survey.

Sincerely,

RMaung (WMF) 19:14, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Reminder: Community Insights Survey

Share your experience in this survey

Hi Circeus/Archive 1,

There are only a few weeks left to take the Community Insights Survey! We are 30% towards our goal for participation. If you have not already taken the survey, you can help us reach our goal! With this poll, the Wikimedia Foundation gathers feedback on how well we support your work on wiki. It only takes 15-25 minutes to complete, and it has a direct impact on the support we provide.

Please take 15 to 25 minutes to give your feedback through this survey. It is available in various languages.

This survey is hosted by a third-party and governed by this privacy statement (in English).

Find more information about this project. Email us if you have any questions, or if you don't want to receive future messages about taking this survey.

Sincerely,

RMaung (WMF) 17:04, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

ISSN for New York State Museum and Science Service Bulletin

Since you edited Template:Wilcox, 1957 to link to ISSN 0278-3355 just earlier, I thought it might be worth making a note here of my own findings, just in case you were going to make that ISSN page.

According to pages such as this I found via Google, there actually seems to be two ISSNs for the journal: ISSN 0097-028X and ISSN 0278-3355. As far as I can tell so far "New York State Museum and Science Service Bulletin" uses ISSN 0097-028X, while its later title, "New York State Museum Bulletin" uses ISSN 0278-3355 instead? I don't know for sure if this is correct or not though. Hope this helps though! Monster Iestyn (talk) 05:19, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

@Monster Iestyn: It's really a shame that the xISSN service of worldcat was terminated. It was incredibly convenient to clear up exactly these issues. As it happens I was using BPH, a resource specialised in periodicals with botanical content, which in this instance was not detailed enough. I decided I wanted to piece it up fully and so I went searching in the Library of Congress catalog, and here's the full, complicated picture:

• Bulletin of the New York State Museum of Natural History (vol 1-2(7), 1887-1889): ISSN 1066-8020
• Bulletin of the New York State Museum (vol.2(8)-118, 1889-1908): ISSN 1066-8039
• Museum Bulletin (New York State Museum) (vol. 119-180, 1908-1916): ISSN 1066-8012
• New York State Museum Bulletin (Vol. 181-337, 1916-1944): ISSN 0097-0271
• Bulletin (New York State Museum, 1945) (vol. 338-351, 1945-1956): no formal, separate issn
• Bulletin (New York State Museum and Science Service) (vol. 352-424, 1956-1974): ISSN 0097-028X
• Bulletin (New York State Museum : 1976) (vol. 425-, 1976-): ISSN 0278-3355 (often referred to as "New York State Museum bulletin")

So you are right that the correct ISSN is 0097-028X, the big confusion (irrelevant to us, but worth noting) is that while one can just treat the 1945-1956 run as continuing the previous run, we still have three runs basically titled "Bulletin of the New York State Museum"! Hopefully we won't have many references from this mess XD. Circeus (talk) 07:25, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Oh wow, six different ISSNs for one periodical? That's even more confusing than I thought, but very interesting none-the-less. Monster Iestyn (talk) 13:23, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

That's par for the course actually, since technically a periodical is supposed to get a new ISSN every time its title change (this is not always respected, though). For an actual weird one, I'd look at IPNI's treatment of Adansonia. Circeus (talk) 14:44, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

template Chapman, 1929

Dear, your persistent identifier links to the publication catalog, while the url links directly to the paper. I don't like this.--Hector Bottai (talk) 22:24, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

And if there is any alteration in the structure of the AMNH website, the link will immediately break, and i don't like that. Circeus (talk) 22:53, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Template "access"

I seem to have gotten a slight misunderstanding of some of the access codes. I do understand that most Zootaxa articles are not open access. But Zootaxa sells these articles individually without having to buy an entire volume. That was my reasoning for "hybrid" template. There does not appear to be a "Paywall" template without lengthy typing. What is best? Neferkheperre (talk) 18:47, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

The rule of thumb I'm using is "if you have to pay, it's automatically closed access". So far, I've used hybrid (all four options are lowercase, btw) only for jstor free-to-read articles (e.g. [1], [2]...) where reading requires you to register a free account (with some restrictions, like no more than 4 articles at a time, and you have to wait like, a week or something to swap one out...).

The other potential instance I can think of that may call for it is ResearchGate links of the "request full-text" variety (e.g.), but I haven't put any so far in templates because there IMO is no guarantee of actually obtaining the article. It's possible more cases could crop up (google books links where access is dependent on country, maybe?). Circeus (talk) 21:54, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Kardakoff

I've made some link additions to the Template. Thanks. Accassidy (talk) 21:03, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Magasin de zoologie

Thanks for indicating the ISSN, created the page: ISSN 1259-6515. Cheers.--Hector Bottai (talk) 20:14, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Circeus

• Circeus is changing every day my additions in a way we didn't agree. The same way Stohner did. If he is changing my additings one time more, I stop with wikimedia. I have done this more then 10 years with pleasure.

I Hope that Circues take over my additions (over the 250.000).PeterR (talk) 18:37, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Peter, how could I know about any disagreement there might be when this is the first time I hear that you are objecting to anything I've been doing? User talk pages are there for a reason, you know.

(for everyone else wondering, this is probably—as this is the first time I hear about this, I can't be entirely sure—about how I've been recently monitoring and standardizing the new reference templates as they are created). Circeus (talk) 18:59, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

I moved this to the talk page of Circeus, @PeterR: please explain what the issue is. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 19:06, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Psammophilocyclops

Thanks for your reminder. I have checked current usage and updated the relevant Discussion page (please see under first topic here: https://species.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Psammophilocyclops?veaction=editsource). MKOliver (talk) 02:00, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

@MKOliver: I should point out that in general, I don't think we should hide stuff on the talk page unless it's really not relevant to the reader. If sources disagree about the status/spelling etc. of a name, then as far as I'm concerned the wikispecies page should just up and say so. Circeus (talk) 02:03, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Reference template

• I see you still try to change my reference templates. The only change you may do is to add the bulletins. Other changes are not good. If you still changing my Reference templates I stop with wikimedia. Their are a lot (1000+) reference templates that don't content after the agreements. PeterR (talk) 09:09, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

@Peter: what exactly are you referring to I am not aware of any agreement that would preclude Circeus from doing what he has been doing, Adding BHL and ISSN's and Categories to the reference templates is a good idea and not one I would disagree with. All ref templates should have the category added, which is in noinclude space, people should be able to find these refs. The pages on Wikispecies, no matter what they are, are public domain, they do not belong to any one of us. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 16:49, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Appreciate your edit on templates. Meanwhile nothing is wrong in adding the publisher institution like here, I bet some user would be interested in knowing that the American Museum Novitates belong to the American Museum of Natural History of New York, why supressing that?. Please don´t do it again.--Hector Bottai (talk) 01:31, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

@Hector Bottai: In order to keep them short, we generally don't add publisher and place of publication to reference templates for cited journals. Instead, that information can be found on the specific journal's own page (via the ISSN link). We do however add publisher and place of publication to reference templates for cited books – the reason for this is of course that contrary to scientific journals, the books haven't got any dedicated Wikispecies pages (nor ISSN's). This is hinted in the Help:Reference section#Reference Templates guideline.

Also, at the moment the {{Zimmer, 1941}} lists the publisher as "The American Museum of Natural History New York City" instead of "The American Museum of Natural History, New York City". –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 02:11, 4 November 2019 (UTC).

@Tommy Kronkvist: More zoology work ought to have dedicated pages the way complex botanical works already do, though, e.g. for stuff like template:H. Adams & A. Adams, 1853-1858, Template:Koch, 1877 or Template:Walker, 1858b (the last of these I'm about 99% sure was actually issued in 1857). These pages are very useful as central places to compile publication information, especially publication dates, and to list the templates for individual parts. Circeus (talk) 14:51, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

I agree. Some of them would become huge, but that can be managed by use of {{Collapse top}} or other layout templates, or perhaps even subpages. A lot of work though… By the way, keeping an eye out for particularly small or big pages could be useful. When using the search function the results are listed together with data about the size of the found pages, e.g. "502 bytes (29 words)" for {{Koch, 1877}}. Do you know if there's a way to add a "size request" parameter to the search strings, sort of in the same way as we can use for example intitle: and insource: to our searches? –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 15:54, 4 November 2019 (UTC).

Can't say i know of a way, I'm afraid. Maybe AWB can somehow extract that sort of information? Circeus (talk) 15:57, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Reference templates

Circeus,

What are you doing with the reference templates? I see by template:Flores & Carrara, 2006 that you didn't change anything only add or . This is against the standard reference page.PeterR (talk) 18:01, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

I have been cleaning templates that said their DOIs are broken. I actually made a mistake with this one and put it as closed instead of broken. Why do you even care? I have been careful about touching "your" templates. Are you going to be stalking every single of my edits now? Circeus (talk) 18:06, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

No I'm not stalking you. I was interested how you update the templates. — The preceding unsigned comment was added by PeterR (talk • contribs).

@PeterR: Sorry. Given how the previous discussion on the topic went, I jumped unnecessarily. Aside from keeping an eye on new templates and the stuff listed on my userpage, I've been doing various lesser maintenance thing when I come across them, such as the leftover external link in templates (far as I can tell, pretty much all of these that could be fixed have now been), the broken DOIs, and (just created it today) References published ahead of print, which I will need to check in details later on. Circeus (talk) 19:55, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

ResearchGate

I have been rather wary of using Research Gate links on Wikispecies for copyright reasons. Many of us on Research Gate send pdfs by private e-mail when requested for that reason. Neferkheperre (talk) 18:32, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Maria Helena M. Galileo taxa

Please can you move the Maria Helena M. Galileo taxa to Maria Helena Mainieri Galileo taxa. PeterR (talk) 12:06, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

I've used the alternate name option of the {{Taxa authored}} templates instead. Does the job just as well. Circeus (talk) 19:59, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

I see still Maria Helena M. Galileo taxa. The agreement is to use the full namesPeterR (talk) 09:36, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Are you doing the move to Maria Helena Mainieri Galileo taxa or have I do it by hand?PeterR (talk) 13:14, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

@PeterR: right now I'm fine with how the pages are connected (why make it possible to link a category that has a different name in the base if we intend to forbid it completely anyway?). You're welcome to move them if you aren't. Circeus (talk) 13:17, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

• • I believe you don't understand how we have to work. If you know the complete author names, you move the old one with or without abbrevation to the complete author name. This is an agreement from many years ago. When I Get a new species from Maria Helena Mainieri Galileo I add this species with Maria Helena Mainieri Galileo taxa. Such you want you get two different author taxa for the same person. But I do the transfer by my self.PeterR (talk) 18:29, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Trigonopterus acuminatus

On the page from Trigonopterus acuminatus is een photo. How can I get the fotos from Trigonopterus in ZooKeys 888: 75-93. on the same way?PeterR (talk) 11:59, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

@PeterR: If you (or anyone else) takes the time to upload them to commons, sure, though the versions in Narakusumo et al. might require some cropping and removal of the figure number to achieve a look mimicking that of the other paper. Circeus (talk) 12:04, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Acer

Hi Circeus - the 'traditional' infrageneric classification of Acer isn't supported by genetic data. Until clarified by new information (which it isn't yet), best to leave the genus without any subdivisions. Thanks! - MPF (talk) 23:01, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

@MPF: Look, I'm working with Special:UnusedTemplates right now, and if all those series page exist (and I should point out most all the other series page do), then they should use the series template, if a series is invalid, its proper synonym is not the species, it is the next-higher correct/valid name. Circeus (talk) 23:05, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

OK! Not sure they might not be, if the series is monotypic, though? But probably better to just delete them? - MPF (talk) 23:14, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

There seems to be a whole bunch of sections and Series in need of either deletion or redirection. At the moment i'm tied up with unusedtemplates. Circeus (talk) 23:18, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Template:A/testcases

You recently deleted Template:A/testcases, which I created, with the rationale of "housekeeping". Please restore it, asap. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:03, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

I am not recreating a nontemplate (if a template is not in use, then it's not a tempalte) which was literally a copypaste of part of the template's documentation. If you need use cases that badly, that's what your own userspace is for. Circeus (talk) 23:08, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Template:Evenhuis & Pont, 2004

Could you explain this change you made to it? What puzzles me in particular is that you changed the "year" in the zootaxa template to 2014 rather than 2004. In doing so, you also removed the link to the preview PDF that was available there (which is not accessible via the doi as far as I can tell). Monster Iestyn (talk) 21:52, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

@Monster Iestyn: Putting a post-2012 date tricks the template into generating a DOI (the years serves no other purpose whatsoever). The preview makes no difference whatsoever here as it only contains the abstract, which is accessible anyway. Honestly, most of Stephen's template are more trouble than they are worth in my opinion, and I live in wait of the day Zootaxa's website makes a tiny change that breaks every single one of those links and we can finally get rid of them (we already had to do so for {{NZEnt}}).

Case in point regarding {{Zootaxa}}: there are some Zootaxa articles floating around who have DOIs that do not follow the template's pattern, and cannot use it at all as they either generate a broken link or a broken DOI. Circeus (talk) 22:06, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Ah, figured it was some kind of hack, fair enough then. And yeah, Template:Bickel, 2007 is the first that came to my mind personally; it can't generate a preview PDF with the zootaxa template at all, probably because it's a one-page closed-access "Correspondence" article though. Monster Iestyn (talk) 22:19, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Which is double funny because I remember a time when such article DID have previews. Circeus (talk) 22:37, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

re Sphaerocarpos michelii

That's odd [3], the Tropicos database refers to this book as "Appendix Ludovici Bellardi ad Floram Pedemontanam" [4] but the title page of the books.google copy clearly does not bear that title. I wonder if this was standardized as its title in a nomenclatural bibliography somewhere, and the error persisted. --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:41, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

@EncycloPetey: That would be because the RLL index entry that Lichenes used to create the template actually confounds this and the publication of which this is technically a preprint, and that other one formats the title differently. See also the relevant TL-2 entry. Circeus (talk) 23:51, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Synonymy

"A family-level name cannot, by definition, be synonymous with a genus-level name" - got a reference for that, please? If the circumscription is identical, surely it can? Synonymy doesn't have to be of equal rank. And b.t.w., it's subfamilial level, not familial. MPF (talk) 11:05, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

@MPF:

1. It's just common ontological sense
   • Also, we are not Wikipedia, monotypical ranks are distinct from their one included taxon and should not be redirected. A room is not a house even if some houses have just one room.
2. That's just ONE of the problems I have with this.
   1. We ought to be minimally consistent across articles, and Cacatuidae lists subfamilies.
   2. Cacatuidae also has a relevant recent (2012) citation in favor of subfamilies.
3. Under the ICZN, there is no difference between any familial and infrafamilial ranks, so yes (i.e. just like a new comb. is not a new name under the ICZN and generates no priority, a name at any rank between superfamily and subtribe establishes priotrity for all of these ranks, so yes a subfamilial name is a family-group name under ICZN. That's literally the technical term under Art. 35)

Circeus (talk) 18:58, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Template:Fikáček

Circeus,

You delete the reference templates from Fikáček. I shell fix them again and make a link to the objects. I see a lot of reference templates that are not correct. You can ask me to update them. PeterR (talk) 08:30, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

@PeterR: Stephen left behind a lot of templates that were very incomplete (and none of them in use, either). I do not object in any way to them being recreated if they are needed. It's just that more often than not, the template is so incomplete—those with a link like Template:Fikáček & Falamarzi, 2010 are actually in the minority!—that it is more efficient to delete it than to waste time verifying that it's even nomenclaturally relevant. Half-assed blue-linked pages are more harmful in the long term than redlinks in my opinion. Circeus (talk) 14:44, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Galanthus samothracicus

[context pasted from Fagus' talk:] Are you sure about the dating on this (Template:Tan, Biel & Siljak-Yakovlev, 2013)? Volume 20 issue 1 is dated April 2014, and the PDF itself clearly says "Accepted: February 10, 2014". Circeus (talk) 18:51, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

I'm aware but IPNI record showing 2013 year. See. https://www.ipni.org/n/77147205-1 --Fagus (talk) 19:20, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

@Fagus: ... But the reference being cited by IPNI (Phytologia Balcanica 19(3): 377) is clearly not to this paper? That's the citation for the actual protologue, which is to be found on page 377 of this paper. Circeus (talk) 20:02, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Campsicnemus hardyi Evenhuis

I noticed this species was listed on User:Circeus/Homonyms, so just thought I'd let you know: it was renamed to Campscinemus elmoi by Evenhuis in 2010, in the same article that Emperoptera hardyi was moved to Campsicnemus in the first place.

The mentioned reference:

• Evenhuis, N.L. 2010. Morphological and molecular evidence support the synonymy of Emperoptera Grimshaw with Campsicnemus Haliday (Diptera: Dolichopodidae). Bishop Museum Occasional Papers 108: 35–44. PDF.

Monster Iestyn (talk) 04:41, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

@Monster Iestyn: I'm not sure wtf the creator of this page was thinking, as it doesn't seem that "Campsicnemus hardyi Evenhuis" was ever in actual use. Also what reason could there be to formally create a permanently invalid/illegitimate combination while at the same time creating the replacement for it? If he tried that under the ICBN, it'd result in neither name being available/validly published (Art. 35.3)! Circeus (talk) 05:16, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

To be fair, it's clear from the article I linked Campsicnemus elmoi is the valid name meant to be used, maybe he was just being a little pedantic in showing the secondary homonymy that would have resulted? I can't find anything under the ICZN disallowing this sort of thing anyway.

It may be interesting to note that Evenhuis himself has research interests in zoological nomenclature (hence his many articles on publication dates of periodicals, etc) and was a past president of the ICZN (the commission, not the code), according to this page. I don't know if that helps matters at all though. Monster Iestyn (talk)

On a related note, another species from the same genus also on your hononyms page, Campsicnemus mirabilis Frey, was renamed to Campsicnemus atlanticus by this article:

• Dyte, C.E. 1980. Some replacement names in the Dolichopodidae (Diptera). Entomologica Scandinavica 11: 223–224. DOI: 10.1163/187631280X00545

At least here there's no trouble about names that have never been in use, but on the other hand it seems both of these pages were automatically created by a bot (the same bot, even) within minutes of each other. Monster Iestyn (talk) 06:37, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Leaving a comment here to attempt to get your attention to what I mentioned for Campsicnemus mirabilis Frey, since you seem to have missed it (or otherwise taken no action yet regarding it). Monster Iestyn (talk) 06:03, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I seem to have missed it. I will be updating the list tomorrow. For now, it's bedtiems for me. Circeus (talk) 06:13, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

formatting

If I remember, I'll stop bolding volume numbers.... Accassidy (talk) 20:20, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

PS I've made small change to Template:Kardakoff, 1928.

ISSN 0867-1966

Are there adequate reasons to delete almost all in the page? There is no content list of this journal anywhere in the Internet. The same thing for other journal content lists. — The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bjorn88 (talk • contribs) 14:53, 11 January 2020 (UTC).

@Bjorn88: Wikispecies is not an index of all the literature. The only reason these ever existed was because they were one of various obsessions of one disgraced admin. the ISSN pages are for collating relevant bibliographic, dating and disambiguating information of the journals, not indexing articles in them. Circeus (talk) 15:20, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

@Circeus: So why didn't you relocate every journal article to appropriate taxonomic category? You have simply deleted data, like it was something insignificant.

Let's choose an example from discussed topic. "New species of the genus Dicercomorpha Deyr. (Coleoptera: Buprestidae) Annals of the Upper Silesian Museum - entomology, 10-11: 135–138". This article is exactly relevant to "species.wikimedia.org/wiki/Dicercomorpha", but you preferred to delete it. However, it could be useful for a researcher interested in the genus Dicercomorpha.

Wikispecies is not a commercial project, but contributors often do a great work to make this resource good and useful. If someone considers bibliography is useless, others may not think so. — The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bjorn88 (talk • contribs) 17:03, 11 January 2020 (UTC).

Because we have very limited ability to conteract massive addition of undesired content. On average at any time, only one user will be working on ANY sort of cleanup task. If you want to relocate those articles, I am not going to complain (as long as they are relevant, but I will remove any such list of articles on a journal page that I find with no warning. I have deleted hundreds of templates for content that was entirely ecological or even methodological, none of which are of any relevance whatsoever to the taxonomenclature content of Wikispecies). Circeus (talk) 17:09, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Why do you consider this content "undesired"? This journal has high percentage of taxonomic novelties referred to different taxonomic categories. "Relocation of those articles?" - No, every "innovation" of Wikispecies can be unpredictable. I'm not going to do any contribution to Wikispecies from this moment. "Taxon-names and nothing more" - it's not that desired resource, which may interest a researcher. — The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bjorn88 (talk • contribs) 17:30, 11 January 2020 (UTC).