User talk:Estopedist1

From Wikispecies
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Previous discussion was archived at User talk:Estopedist1/Structured Discussions Archive 1 on 2020-08-02.

Welcome to Wikispecies![edit]

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! -- Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:20, 10 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hi Estopedist1. Please note that we don't use Wikipedia-style <ref>...</ref> or {{Reflist}} templates on Wikispecies. Instead, please use the format described in the Help:Reference section guideline. Best regards, Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 22:38, 12 March 2020 (UTC).Reply[reply]

I understand--Estopedist1 (talk) 14:16, 5 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hey Estopedist1! Thanks for helping out with your contributions to the fungal taxonomy. Please note that one of your pages, Alboleptonia is a synonym, so I've changed it to a redirect. Another page you created, Actinoscypha is a bit trickier. It's somewhat of a zombie taxon, that is, the genus and type species are considered to be congeneric with another genus, but there are species for which no new combinations have been made, like Actinoscypha muelleri. It's not wrong to create these pages, but certainly not a priority as they can be a bit messy. It is a good idea to make a note of this issue on the page. Additionally, it's not a great idea to only reference GBIF, for fungal taxonomy mycobank and index fungorum are the trusted databases. All the best, Voganaa (talk) 20:41, 1 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

thanks for the info!--Estopedist1 (talk) 14:16, 5 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hi Estopedist - thanks for adding various bird subspecies pages! Please note though that wikispecies follows IOC taxonomy, check against this to see the taxa are as listed there (e.g. Acanthis cabaret is treated as a separate species, not a subspecies of Acanthis flammea). Also, for references, it is best to give the taxon protologue, rather than a list like GBIF. Thanks! - MPF (talk) 23:17, 1 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

thanks for the info. I understand!--Estopedist1 (talk) 14:16, 5 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]


@Faendalimas: really thanks for the "autopatrolled" status! I also see that Wikispecies community has urgent (about 1000 unpatrolled edits!) need of new patrollers. Because, I have 15+ years experiences in other Wikimedia projects, I would be a good patroller in Wikispecies and would be very happy to help Wikispecies community.--Estopedist1 (talk) 06:17, 7 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't have an issue with this. Just need to check though. One thing that often comes up here in patrolling is people adding vernacular names for whatever country they are from for species, these can be in any number of languages. So it can get tricky. Also there is often little you can do for any of the translations, we have Translation Admins here that tend to deal with these. As was pointed out to you today no need to go to Meta, we have our own admins for that. I realise you have many thousands of edits across many wikis and considerable experience, yes I checked before granting autopatrol, its my job, but we do have local policies too. You up for that? Also just pinging @Tommy Kronkvist: and @Dan Koehl: two of our other Crats to see if they have anything to add. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 06:54, 7 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Faendalimas: yeah these vernacular names-related stuff clutters our patrolling system. I guess, sooner or later, we should discuss do de-activate our "Vernacular names" section and fetch related data from Wikidata, using {{#invoke:VN|main}}--Estopedist1 (talk) 07:17, 7 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You can request patroller rights at Wikispecies:Patrollers#Requests for patroller rights --DannyS712 (talk) 07:19, 7 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah removing vernacular names has been discussed, I see no value in them myself as I think they are outside the scope of this wiki, let WP use them. But not just my call. Anyway, if you want you can apply for Patrol rights as indicated by DannyS712 above, I will not give this as a bold move alone unless one of the other Crats agrees. I do not mind if it does not go to the vote page it can be dealt with here but I would like to wait and see what another Crat has to say. Or as said you can apply at the appropriate page. I would support it. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 07:52, 7 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]


You asked for Codonoboea to be speedily deleted, but it is an accepted genus with 124 species to date! I suggest that you check the edit history and if there has been a recent edit, then check with last editor before making such a request - I was making edits and had to come back to this genus! Best regards. Andyboorman (talk) 13:14, 8 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Andyboorman: well done! Maybe Henckelia should be also somehow mentioned here, compare en:Codonoboea. Actually, this "unlucky" Henckelia was the reason of this little mess :)--Estopedist1 (talk) 13:54, 8 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You are correct Henckelia is an old page with too many species and not enough synonyms. I will edit it. Andyboorman (talk) 14:02, 8 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hi Estopedist1! Following this discussion, Taxonbar template is not recommended or consensual, please don't insert it on the pages. Regards, Burmeister (talk) 18:54, 15 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Burmeister and Caftaric: thanks! {{Taxonbar}} is our only rational solution for Links-section, but unfortunately it is not yet accepted by community. In enwiki it works well. Some our users still try to use {{Global}} but it is a deprecated template--Estopedist1 (talk) 19:07, 15 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]


As per your request at Wikispecies:Patrollers#Estopedist1_(talk_•_contribs_•_block_•_all_projects) I have approved your request and added you to the appropriate ser group. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 16:26, 16 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Faendalimas: thumbs up Great! Thanks mate! I try to be a good patroller--Estopedist1 (talk) 18:21, 16 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Moved to: [[Talk:Wikispecies:Village_Pump#Anagrams]]
-Estopedist1 (talk) 19:50, 17 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Templates Ino and Noi[edit]

Hi Estopedist1! The templates {{Ino}} and {{Noi}} are used in {{Taxotemp}} template for substitution, so I restaure both. Be more careful in the maintenance tasks. Regards, Burmeister (talk) 12:31, 24 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Burmeister: yeah, invisible stuff is always problematical. No "links here": But could you test, do we actually need these two templates at {{Taxotemp}}?--Estopedist1 (talk) 12:55, 24 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes no links because the "subst" mode. I don't create the template so I don't known if the templates Noi/Ino can be substitute. Without the templates Noi and Ino, the template Taxotemp don't work well, I tested before restaure both. Burmeister (talk) 13:01, 24 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Orchid templates[edit]

Copied from Singchia template. Many of these newly described genera are not recognised by Govaerts et al., but are used in local, particularly Chinese Flora and in papers published by Chinese orchidists. At the moment there is a reluctance in the wider community to keep on adding new genera by splitting, as it is neither contributing to nomenclatural stability or adding to monophylyl (Kew pers. comm.). If these templates are deleted they may have to be resurrected if the circumscriptions gain wider acceptance. This is one of the reasons I have not deleted them in the past. Andyboorman (talk) 14:02, 26 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Andyboorman: it is very easy to resurrect/re-create taxon template. Currently, they clutter Unused templates--Estopedist1 (talk) 14:10, 26 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I appreciate your task, so no problems. It is just that taxonomy and plant classification particularly, are only creaking towards a fixed feast. Even the mantra "one plat one name" breaks down at times in rare , but often highly significant, instances, for example Acacia sensu African combinations. Believe you me it is not now simply lumpers versus splitters, or morphology versus molecules those old chestnuts are history. Sometimes, unfortunately it seems to be somewhat political and other messy non-scientific considerations. My task on WS is to get rid of red links at the generic level, which nearly always causes more red links! My judgements, by NOR policy, have to err on the side of the conservative where evidence is incomplete, hence, for example, those templates in Orchidaceae where many of the genera you highlight (Singchia) are noted as new to science in Chase et al., (2015), but did not appear in the wider flora or secondary sources. I am happy to do the housekeeping five years on when they have now dropped off the radar in scientific online searches. Andyboorman (talk) 20:36, 26 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Andyboorman: hehe, pretty difficult English. ... I guess that, to get rid of red links at the generic level is challenging but quite possible. For me, one of the hardest question is: to do disambiguation page or to reserve a generic name to one specific taxon, eg Tetraphleps or Dinocephalia--Estopedist1 (talk) 21:08, 26 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Tetraphleps Fieber, 1860 is used and once the taxon page is completed you may not need a disambig page. Andyboorman (talk) 08:36, 27 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Andyboorman: back to the red links at the generic level, I guess, our first goal may be to cover all IRMNG genera, although it is a bit zoology focused. IRMNG main author (user:Tony 1212) maybe want to say something--Estopedist1 (talk) 08:56, 27 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Andyboorman: @Estopedist1: Thanks for including me in this discussion, although I am not sure exactly of the context here... at any rate, IRMNG aspires to cover all published generic names (e.g. as reported in IPNI), then (either at time of entry or as a subsequent action) use other "trusted" sources such as Govaerts et al. to determine their present taxonomic status, i.e. accepted name or not. So whether a name is in widespread use or not - or used at all subsequent to its publication - does not affect its potential for inclusion in IRMNG, though it may in Wikispecies. Also of possible relevance is that many of the more obscure IRMNG genera for animals - less so for plants - presently have status="unknown" (unassessed), since getting round to assessing all of them is a mighty task, which would take big resources to complete if ever... Regards Tony Tony 1212 (talk) 23:48, 27 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hi Estopedist1, thank you for converting the old taxoboxes into normal text! Just one thing: Template:Basionym should only be used on pages of plants, fungi, or algae, but not on pages of animals. In zoology, the corresponding concept is called "protonym", but we don't usually write this word in wikispecies articles: see the 1st example at Help:Name_section#Synonyms_or_Synonymy. Thanks! --LamBoet (talk) 04:51, 28 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@LamBoet: thanks for the feedback! Now, I follow the current tradition. In future, there should be implemented global harmonization when writing components of taxa names and other components (like types of synonyms). Unless, there are objective reasons against global harmonization between Regnums (botany, zoology etc)--Estopedist1 (talk) 06:10, 28 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am all for harmonization in general, but as you probably know, botany and zoology unfortunately have distinct Codes of nomenclature, slightly different vocabulary & different practice. I guess this somewhat limits the level of harmonization than we can eventually achieve on wikispecies :-/ --LamBoet (talk) 06:57, 28 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@LamBoet: harmonization is in progress, see eg --Estopedist1 (talk) 09:56, 31 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Any harmonisation that contradicts the codes will not be accepted by taxonomists and other scientists. Codes are guarded jealously and changes only made after due diligence and consultation. Zoology and botany have evolved differences in codes for very good reasons. For example, the concept of basionym is crucial in botany, as the first instance of a description and naming to which subsequent changes must acknowledge. Illegal name without reference to a basionym is a unwanted tag. Andyboorman (talk) 10:41, 31 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Request - Eurypygiformes[edit]

Hi. There is a technical problem on this page. Could you please have a look? Best regards. Abraham (talk) 20:31, 29 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Abraham: I guess, the problem was related to massive taxonavigation?--Estopedist1 (talk) 20:42, 29 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Estopedist1: Yes, thanks. 😀 Abraham (talk) 20:46, 29 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Pigsonthewing: could you check this discussion and my edits related to taxonavigation in this Ordo article?--Estopedist1 (talk) 04:54, 30 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fixed author syntaxes[edit]

Hi, I read your message on my discussion page and went back to fix the mistakes I'd made. If you have the time, could you check if some of the edits were done correctly? For instance when comparing this page (Agyneta nigripes) with most of the author links in Category:Eugène Simon taxa, the overwhelming majority of them still seem to use the old/incorrect author syntax, unless I misread or misunderstood your message. I just want to make sure that I'm getting this right. Kind regards, [[User:|ReneeWrites]] (talk) 11:19, 2 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@ReneeWrites: yes, many older articles use old style (ie without {{a}} or {{aut}})). More info about linking is here: Help:Name_section#Author_templates--Estopedist1 (talk) 11:46, 2 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is too minor a thing to create a new header for, so I hope you don't mind that I'll ask it here: why was for Adrien Dollfus {{taxa authored 2}} changed to {{taxa authored}}? ReneeWrites (talk) 07:56, 3 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@ReneeWrites: we are moving to the direction that instead of {{Taxa authored 2}} and {{Taxa authored}} we have only one: {{Taxa authored}}. --Estopedist1 (talk) 08:41, 3 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I hadn't realised they were actually two separate templates, rather than one with a changed parameter. I'll use the proper one from now on. Can I still add the "Taxon names authored" header text manually, or is that something that's in the process of being phased out as well? ReneeWrites (talk) 10:11, 3 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@ReneeWrites: no don't add manually "Taxon names authored". It is template's work. I started discussion in Village Pump, see Wikispecies:Village_Pump#Template:Taxa_authored_and_Template:Taxa_authored_2_must_be_merged--Estopedist1 (talk) 11:22, 3 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think that's a good idea, and I hope the Wikispecies community agrees with it. And thank you for your time and your patience. ReneeWrites (talk) 12:36, 3 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Name format in botany[edit]

Hello. We basically use IPNI format for plant names, with perhaps a few modifications and updates from older style typography. Your independent use of a semi-zoological format on Sinalliaria was not acceptable without a Pump discussion - see Help Pages. A coming together of zoo and bot formats maybe more difficult than you hope. Andyboorman (talk) 20:56, 2 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Andyboorman and MILEPRI: are you sure that botanists like the format SURNAME, Phytotaxa 186(4): 192. (2014) instead of SURNAME, 2014: 192?--Estopedist1 (talk) 04:59, 3 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@MILEPRI: Yes the former is used on thousands of pages here. The alternative abbreviated version is often SURNAME, (2014). The full taxon names is as used on IPNI and a lot of other third party sites, such as WCSP and is the widest accepted version of the name space for a plant. Hope this helps. Andyboorman (talk) 06:50, 3 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Technically, Wikispecies does NOT encourage the use of the abbreviated format. The difference is that in botany the date is not part of the normal author citation. So if a date appears, it's expected to be either a pinpoint citation (see, e.g. Solanum nigrescens or any of the various Solanum pages I've worked on) or the standardized abbreviated format. I believe Wikispecies is not bound to the context that shaped print's usage of these mini-citations (which Zoology journals have jettisoned already) and should be following the guidelines in Wägele et al. 2011 & Payne et al. 2014. Circeus (talk) 16:14, 3 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Circeus: That is another way of ;looking at it. Agreed avoid abbreviations, but I will still follow INPI standard names format, as WS is not citing within a scientific paper, but expressing a taxonomic opinion. Andyboorman (talk) 16:20, 3 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh yes! Obviously, author names themselves should still follow botanical standards. Some databases do use a zoology-like format, but that is a very idiosyncratic usage, usually because they include both zoological and botanical records (cf. WoRMS, IRMNG, but not Mycobank, or GCA). Circeus (talk) 18:04, 3 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I just wanted to thank and congratulate you on your tireless (and largely thankless, which was why I myself burned out a little) cleanup work as of recently. It's nice to know other people have similar concerns and are willing to act on it. Circeus (talk) 16:13, 3 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

hehe, thanks user:Circeus! My main task is to help scientists and others in Wikispecies, who are not so familiar with wikitechnical stuff. And yes, removing of {{Taxobox}} was quite laborous task. I also like a quote said by deceased user:KempfEK (2013):

In my opinion it is really necessary to keep the Wikispecies system as simple as possible to let it successfully grow. There is no need of templates for species or references and no need for taxoboxes, and so on. We should not allow that the Wikispecies system unnecessarily is complicated by nerds.

--Estopedist1 (talk) 18:15, 3 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Prena et al., 2014a[edit]


I see that You templates with ZT move to names see Prena et al., 2014a. You have to change the names with full names and al the names.PeterR (talk) 08:06, 7 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@PeterR: If there is four and more authors, we are using <FIRSTSURNAME> et al., <YEAR>--Estopedist1 (talk) 08:13, 7 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    • Thats not true. In the description you notice all the names. Only in the head of the Template by four or more you using first name et al. I don't know who tells you this nonsens. PeterR (talk) 11:53, 7 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@PeterR: yes, the template name and template's description are different things. The template's description is compiled by banned Sthoner; and he was sloppy. A lot of work is waiting to do--Estopedist1 (talk) 12:01, 7 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        • No, the template and the way of making a template is accepted by us. Sthoner have nothing to do with it. He was making templates not after the agreements and thats is why he is banned. I see you make the templates on the same way. Thats not donePeterR (talk) 12:08, 7 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Adelbert Fenyes[edit]


You have make a mistake by update the authors. you have to use Taxa authored 2. See Wikispecies tools. PeterR (talk) 12:27, 7 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@PeterR: please see Wikispecies:Village_Pump#Template:Taxa_authored_and_Template:Taxa_authored_2_must_be_merged. Community wants that one template will stay and it is logically {{Taxa authored}}--Estopedist1 (talk) 12:31, 7 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • You have it to change in Wikispecies tools.

Taxon author page changes you are making[edit]

I just noticed some changes you are making to taxon author pages recently, and I have a few questions/things to note:

  • Why are you switching from {{Taxa authored 2}} to {{Taxa authored}}? I suppose the answer to this one is obvious in light of the Pump discussion, but the two templates have not been merged yet, so currently the results look messy. Wouldn't it be better to make these changes after the templates have been merged?
  • Why are you removing {{Inc}} from the "Publications" sections? This tells people that the publications list may be incomplete, and it is specified in Help:Author Names.
  • Your edit summaries are saying that {{Authority control}} was removed, but in none of the diffs I've seen so far is this template actually removed at all.

Monster Iestyn (talk) 18:31, 7 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Monster Iestyn: thanks, mate!
  • (1) OK, I wait when we will redirect {{Taxa authored 2}} to {{Taxa authored}}. To me, it seems obvious
  • (2) {{Inc}} is infopollution. Almost every publication list is incomplete, so it is just redundant. But, I removed this command from AutoWikiBrowser, if Wikispecies community thinks otherwise
  • (3) agree, I tricked with AutoWikiBrowser to reduce manual work. Now removed --Estopedist1 (talk) 18:45, 7 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Full author names[edit]


Do you change author names to full author names? Tommy is doing this for me, but he is ill. Can you do this? — The preceding unsigned comment was added by PeterR (talkcontribs) 9 August 2020.

@PeterR: please be more exact. Related to which articles?--Estopedist1 (talk) 09:59, 9 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Dmitri N. Federenko to Dmitri Nikolayevitch Federenko. All the templates and taxon authorities. PeterR (talk) 10:25, 9 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I ask him to do Can you move every thing from to (see his talk Page) Most of the templates I have done. Urgent is Category:Dmitri N. Fedorenko taxa to Category:Dmitri Nikolayevitch Federenko taxa.PeterR (talk) 10:29, 9 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@PeterR: no problem, I know the wikitechnical stuff. So just let me know.--Estopedist1 (talk) 11:04, 9 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Done Special:WhatLinksHere/Dmitri_N._Fedorenko in finished--Estopedist1 (talk) 11:11, 9 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Do not span {{Noref}} on pages for valid taxa that clearly have references. --EncycloPetey (talk) 14:03, 10 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Also: "Primary references" are for works which include the first publication of names. If a page transfers a taxon, but does not treat the name of the taxon on whose page it appears, then it is a secondary reference, not a primary one. --EncycloPetey (talk) 14:06, 10 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@EncycloPetey: thanks for the info! I try to follow Help:Reference_section--Estopedist1 (talk) 17:54, 10 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please STOP renaming templates until there is a consensus. Consider this a warning before you are blocked. --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:05, 13 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Full author names[edit]


Please can you controll the category author taxa from below. I don't know if I have forget something:

  • Category:Uda Gedara Sasanka Lakmali Ranasinghe taxa
  • Category:Nicolas López Carrión taxa
  • Category:Filipe dos Santos Paula taxa
  • Category:Sergei Lev Zonstein taxa

I have a lot more done, but if these are good than it is ok. PeterR (talk) 13:39, 12 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Done all checked. Only some problems with Zonstein. Now all fixed--Estopedist1 (talk) 14:34, 12 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
forgot pinging to @PeterR:--Estopedist1 (talk) 14:37, 12 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks. Can I sent you more author taxa for controll? PeterR (talk) 06:48, 13 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@PeterR: no problem, my task is to help Wikispecies' scientists. So, send as many author-taxa-for-control as you can :)--Estopedist1 (talk) 07:28, 13 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sandra Ines Uribe-Soto[edit]


Have you an easier way to move Sandra I. Uribe and Sandra Uribe-Soto to Sandra Ines Uribe-Soto?. Now I have delete every time Sandra Ines Uribe-Soto and then move the others one by one.PeterR (talk) 06:48, 13 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@PeterR: do you agree that correct should be Sandra Inés Uribe-Soto instead of without diacritics Sandra Ines Uribe-Soto?--Estopedist1 (talk) 07:28, 13 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It could be, She answer me Sandra Ines Uribe-Soto as correct name. On internet I see also Sandra Inès Uribe-Soto. PeterR (talk) 08:08, 13 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
{{On hold}} if no further info will come, then let's do so, that base name is Sandra Ines Uribe-Soto?--Estopedist1 (talk) 10:16, 13 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The official name is Sandra Inès Uribe-Soto. PeterR (talk) 06:27, 14 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Done all links fixed--Estopedist1 (talk) 15:12, 14 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Full author names[edit]


Here follows 10 more category author names to controll

  • Category:Maria Sergeevna Ivanova taxa  Done
  • Category:Vasily Nikolaevich Kovtunovich taxa  Done
  • Category:Prashanthakumara Sunnadahalli Murthappa taxa  Done
  • Category:Dhruv Anilkumar Prajapati taxa  Done
  • Category:Pradeep Moothedathu Sankaran taxa  Done
  • Category:Eduard Ashotovich Khachikov taxa  Done
  • Category:Artem Evgenievich Naydenov taxa  Done
  • Category:Tomás Michel Rodríguez Cabrera taxa  Done
  • Category:Sergei Leonidovich Esyunin taxa  Done
  • Category:Mykola Mikhailovich Kovblyuk taxa  Done
@PeterR: all is checked. User_talk:Estopedist1#Sandra_Ines_Uribe-Soto is on hold--Estopedist1 (talk) 11:44, 13 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Full author names[edit]


Here follows 10 more category author names to controll

  • Category:Antonio Ramón Pérez-Asso taxa  Done
  • Category:Julio Antonio Genaro taxa  Done
  • Category:Zeeshan Ayaz Mirza taxa  Done
  • Category:Rajesh Vithoba Sanap taxa  Done
  • Category:Ranil Pradeep Nanayakkara taxa  Done
  • Category:G.A. Saddah Mangala Ganehiarachchi taxa  Done
  • Category:Estevam Luís Cruz da Silva taxa  Done
  • Category:Sunil Jose Kanniparambil taxa  Done
  • Category:Vitaly Mikhailovich Spitsyn taxa  Done
  • Category:Grigory Sergeevich Potapor taxa  Done
@PeterR: all is checked--Estopedist1 (talk) 17:59, 13 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Gesture of support[edit]

Thanks for your very good work here to date. I appreciate you have found a toe or two to step on, e.g. Pt and Zt, but this is to be expected on WS, as taxonomists can be a cranky lot! It also seems that you have come across examples where Admin rights could have been useful for you. However, we tend to only support applications where these are underpinned by the creation and editing of a taxon pages, as we are a specialist scientific site. I have re-edited your Liebigia barbata as an example in botany. Hope this helps. Do you have experience or interest in a particular group of taxa that you could build on? If it is plants I may be able to help - you do not need a PhD, by the way. Best regards Andyboorman (talk) 09:18, 14 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wow, really thanks, User:Andyboorman! You have a good eye and sense!

Yes, I am ready to become a WS administrator. I am already one of the most active patroller in WS. If I also will get administrator's rights, it would be a great victory for WS. Definitely, daily maintenance work for current WS administrators will be reduced markedly. I have 15+ years experiences in Wikimedia projects and over 0.5 million useful edits. Therefore – trust and usefulness is quaranteed.

Biology background: I have MSc in hydrobiology and I was specialized in macrozoobenthos, especially Chironomidae larvae. But working with larvae on a microscope wasn't my calling. Therefore, master's thesis (or master's project) was a small dictionary about freshwater ecology. During the university time, biological terminology and databases (especially Estonian-language Wikipedia) were my hobbies. Last years, I have massively edited in lingua franca projects: enwiki, Commons, Wikidata.

But when I started to analyze WS components (eg maintenance categories, templates, authority stuff, disambiguation pages etc), I saw many flaws. I also realized that WS community is amazingly small (compared to other lingua franca wikiprojects) and WS urgently needs a dedicated and experienced wikipedian.

I also would be a key person to work through Stephen's works (notably Pt- and Zt-templates; Mk-templates is already worked through by me), which still clutter WS system.

--Estopedist1 (talk) 13:04, 14 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Probably best to leave it for a bit, but keep doing the good work on taxon pages as well. Andyboorman (talk) 17:44, 14 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for the info, User:Andyboorman! If I don't qualify, then let it be so. I promise that now I do as few maintenance work as possible. Hence – I don't clutter our speedy-deletion category. Good luck!--Estopedist1 (talk) 04:40, 15 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Great work on Pt all done now! I can not help with Zt not my area! Collaboration works wonders Andyboorman (talk) 14:25, 15 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Eugène Simon taxa[edit]


Is their a tool to change Category:Eugène Simon taxa in Category:Eugène Luis Simon taxa?. Now I have to change it by hand (524). PeterR (talk) 11:22, 14 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@PeterR:, I answered there: Wikispecies:Village_Pump#Eugène_Simon_to_Eugène_Louis_Simon?--Estopedist1 (talk) 11:52, 14 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Full author names[edit]


Here follows 10 more category author names to controll

  • Category:Sergey Yuriyevich Rakov taxa  Done
  • Category:Alexander Vasilevich Kondakov taxa  Done
  • Category:Boris Yurievich Filippov taxa  Done
  • Category:Mikhail Yurievich Gofarov taxa  Done
  • Category:Yulia Sergeevna Kolosova taxa  Done
  • Category:Alena Andreevna Tomilova taxa  Done
  • Category:Natalia Andreevna Zubrii taxa  Done
  • Category:Ivan Nikolaevich Bolotov taxa  Done
  • Category:Suresh Prins Benjamin taxa  Done
  • Category:Erik Johannes Vanvan Nieukerken taxa  Done

— The preceding unsigned comment was added by PeterR (talkcontribs) 14 August 2020.

@PeterR: all checked except Erik Johannes Van Nieukerken, because correct should be Erik Johannes van Nieukerken--Estopedist1 (talk) 15:41, 14 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Done Category:Erik Johannes van Nieukerken taxa is also checked--Estopedist1 (talk) 05:49, 16 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Author pages[edit]

Good evening. You seem to have got quickly stuck into author pages. I tend to concentrate mainly on the science and red links of plant genus pages and ignore the wider aspects of WS. However, I have a couple of authors that need pages Weber, Anton and Möller, Michael. See {{Weber et al., 2013}} an important gesneriad work also see here Tetraphyllinae. Could you work up the author pages, as you did with Itziar Arnelas? If you read through Gesneriaceae you will keep coming across these authors. Thanks in advance. Andyboorman (talk) 19:36, 15 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Andyboorman: no problem. Just let me know, how I can easify your work in WS. I can also create stubs for all red genera in Gesneriaceae if you want.--Estopedist1 (talk) 19:44, 15 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, I see that you remove this template from a signifiant number of page with the edit summary "deprecated stuff", I'm not aware that it is deprecated, hence the fact I continue to use it, please point me the link where it is said to be deprecated, in order that I can see if I must stop or of I can continue to use it. thanks you. Christian Ferrer (talk) 09:20, 16 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Christian Ferrer:, thanks. Amazing, only here is critically mentioned: Wikispecies:Village_Pump/Archive_50#Template:Authority_control_for_species? This template should be substituted by {{Taxonbar}}, but unfortunately this template is under construction. We definitely have to get external links from Wikidata, like already enwiki does. But from now, I don't touch {{Global}}. Thanks again!--Estopedist1 (talk) 09:36, 16 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ok, no problems, if I find the time I will see if I am able to improve a bit {{Taxonbar}} in order that the discussion can go further. Christian Ferrer (talk) 09:42, 16 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

removing full Algaebase citation[edit]

Hello Estopedist1, please do not remove the Algaebase citation for Rhodophyta, Phaeophyceae and Chlorophyta, and do not replace it by template AlgaeBase, e.g. Neoanchicodium. Because this it not just used as a weblink, but as a full reference for all these algae pages. And this is the correct way, that Algaebase wants it to be cited. (In addition, the template is not working properly since years...) Thanks, --Thiotrix (talk) 06:50, 17 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Thiotrix: thanks! AlgaeBase construction should be given via {{Taxonbar}}, but at the moment this template is not accepted in WS. Solution from enwiki: see the taxonbar at en:Fucus ceranoides--Estopedist1 (talk) 07:04, 17 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
One problem with Algaebase is, that they change their identifiers from time to time. Since many years, I do the categorization for images of algae at the Commons, here also most links were broken after some years. So a full citation at wikispecies is much better, than an identifier that may be useless after some time. And please look at Algaebase Fucus ceranoides. At the bottom of the page, they state how they need to be cited: "Cite this record as: Wendy Guiry in Guiry, M.D. & Guiry, G.M. 2020. AlgaeBase. World-wide electronic publication, National University of Ireland, Galway.; searched on 17 August 2020." --Thiotrix (talk) 07:12, 17 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Thiotrix: Yes all URLs tend to be broken, so actually only solution is to give archieved URLs. Also notice that: citing and linking of external databases are different things. Nicely summarized by user:RLJ on 13.07.2020 @ Wikispecies:Village_Pump#Templates_linking_to_outside_databases--Estopedist1 (talk) 07:25, 17 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, during the last years, Algaebase links broke at least twice. And as I use Algaebase for Wikispecies as a valuable source, and not as a mere link, this needs a full citation and not just a taxonbar (if this should be accepted one day). --Thiotrix (talk) 07:36, 17 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Space between initials[edit]

Hello Estopedist1, I've noticed that you're spending some time removing the space between surnames and initials for mycologists. I just wanted to let you know that the style adopted in nearly all mycological literature and databases has a space. See Index Fungorum on the matter. Voganaa (talk) 08:52, 17 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Voganaa: thanks for pointing this out! All IPNI standard forms are without space. But I guess we are talking about situations where hypothetical "J. Walker" means that this is not IPNI standard form and unfortunately the Wikispecies' linker couldn't find the full name of the authority.--Estopedist1 (talk) 09:21, 17 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Voganaa: I just encountered with A. R. Nilsen at Siphulopsis. It seems that it is not IPNI standard form and per your Index Fungorum link [1] it states that: It was recommended by the Working Group that no spaces be left after full stops but as this is a matter of style of presentation in printed matter it is not adopted here. So, we should use here A.R. Nilsen--Estopedist1 (talk) 09:27, 17 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Voganaa: one case yet: see Induratiaceae and there is link M. Stadler. This space is invalid, because IPNI name is M.Stadler and full name is Marc Stadler--Estopedist1 (talk) 12:15, 17 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Estopedist1: I'm not so certain what is most appropriate as far as how to properly format the names across databases. But in the A. R. Nilsen case, this is how it's formatted in the original article, as well as on index fungorum. However, Mycobank does use the A.R. Nilsen format. For your other example, IF, MB and the original pub all use M. Stadler. If IPNI standard should take precedence over the original reference on WS, then I suppose that's the best to use. I feel like this is yet another case of where the impreciseness of the ICN leads to headaches for databases. Voganaa (talk) 13:33, 17 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Voganaa: global solution is easy: only to use surnames behind a taxon, like already zoology does, and IPNI-standard-form to be banned. But, this is already other topic and not WS-specific.--Estopedist1 (talk) 14:36, 17 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In wikispecies, we redirect both abbreviations (M. Stadler and M.Stadler) to the full name. And the IPNI-standard-form is essentially useful, because it gives a unique identifier for each taxon author. The system with surnames used in zoology is highly ambiguous, and zoologist often would like to have a precise system like in botany. --Thiotrix (talk) 15:20, 17 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Thiotrix, Voganaa, and Andyboorman: Chinese stuff would be real challenge for IPNI names administrators, like Y.Li7 or Y.Li15 :) But, I actually wanted to ask: is all persons with IPNI names automatically in WS scope? Or is it possible that a person has IPNI name, but actually he/she has no taxon authored and hence - out of WS scope?--Estopedist1 (talk) 09:18, 18 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
All authors in IPNI are taxon authorities, for plants, fungi, or algae (although for phycologists they are neither complete nor up to date. Maybe this is also true for mycologists?). And usually they do not use numbers, you can see it, if you search for authors named Li ( 436 results). --Thiotrix (talk) 09:35, 18 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Agreed with @Thiotrix: by using pin-yin variants IPNI do OK with Chinese authors. Not sure the Chinese like it but that is another debate. If your publication is lodged with IPNI you get an entry and it is only comparatively recently IPNI will check if the publication conforms with codes. Andyboorman (talk) 09:53, 18 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hi, as far I'm aware there is no policies that prevent us to chose one specific image instead of the one that is in Wikidata, otherwise point me this rules. Therefore you will be very kind to stop replacing the images that I carefully chosen by a template that is calling the one in Wikidata. Is it possible? Note that I reinstalled this one. Christian Ferrer (talk) 10:35, 21 August 2020 (UTC) because if you come behind me to remove this "deprecated stuff" that I added, and then I come behind you to reinstall it, you will easily understand that you and me are losing our time. Christian Ferrer (talk) 10:38, 21 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree with @Christian Ferrer: totally. WD images are rather random, not labelled and totally useless for families, genera etc., as the species name does not carry across to the label on the taxon page. {{Image}} should be banned. IMHO. Andyboorman (talk) 10:54, 21 August 2020 (UTC). In fact please remove {{Image}} from your AWB edits. This bot has to be used very carefully in order to make sure there are no unintended consequences! Andyboorman (talk) 11:01, 21 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Christian Ferrer and Andyboorman: no problem. I also recommend that if the image in Wikidata is obviously bad, then just replace it with better one. Also, I guess there is (or will be) possibility to fetch a image from Wikidata to any other Wikiproject with the image's caption--Estopedist1 (talk) 11:06, 21 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

another tip[edit]

Primary Reference is only for a citation to the original description (protologue or protonym) and significant emendavit. Cheers Andyboorman (talk) 15:20, 21 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Andyboorman: the guideline (Help:Reference_section#Reference_Subsections) about "Primary references" seems to be wider, but I try to be more exact--Estopedist1 (talk) 15:26, 21 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes the Help is correct, I just tried more basic language lol and there is overlap between primary and additional, but the original description is the key concept! I may be wrong but I was told that {{Commonscat}} was the same as {{Commons category}}. Andyboorman (talk) 07:54, 22 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Andyboorman: yes, my program automatically correct this Commonscat when I am formatting and simplifying WS articles. If you see MediaWiki:Edittools, there is {{Commons category}} and it is more self-explaining as well--Estopedist1 (talk) 08:38, 22 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK NO problems. As you can see I even rarely divide the Reference Section being more concerned with getting red link plant genera filled with robust taxonomy. I do not divide References in my physical writing so old habits die hard. Thanks for the improvements! Andyboorman (talk) 09:20, 22 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template Images, format on author pages[edit]

Moved to: [[Talk:Template_talk:Image#Template Images, format on author pages]]

:int template[edit]

Dear friend: you wrote: "could You forgive me that some "acarologist" is changed to "acarologist". Or I must to dig out these old edits and revert?" I don't want to continue this public, so please review this page Alcide d’Orbigny, a single example of many other author pages you have edited were ALL the int: for occupations were removed. Please, do not simplify. And thanks for the good work. Cheers.--Hector Bottai (talk) 12:15, 25 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Hector Bottai: yeah, 10-15 years to be waited, and we definitely have intelligent translation tools which do the translation stuff automatically. Besides, Google Translate is already pretty good--Estopedist1 (talk) 14:54, 25 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Why did you undo my translations? They use the same markup as the original text and were marked as "needs update" with that change given as the change since last update. So why? If the links don't work for whatever reason on /sv but they do on /en then surely that's the problem. Sabelöga (talk) 05:49, 26 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Sabelöga: see eg Special:Diff/7854080 and there is a red link: $req. What should be in this article called "$req"?--Estopedist1 (talk) 05:55, 26 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
When translating the given text in English is A '''transwiki importer''' is a user with [[$1|transwiki import rights]], generally speaking., so naturally I thought that should be reflected in the translated text, especially when it's marked for update. Besides they do work, on Wikispecies:Transwiki importers/sv and Translations:Wikispecies:Transwiki_importers/5/sv that is, just not when reviewing the changes, so maybe it doesn't matter that much that it doesn't work on a page that readers won't view anyway? --Sabelöga (talk) 07:45, 26 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Sabelöga: I am not translation-stuff specialist, but other analogical pages (eg Translations:Wikispecies:Transwiki importers/5/hu) doesn't use these strange red links. Discussion will continue here: Wikispecies:Translation Administrators' Noticeboard--Estopedist1 (talk) 07:59, 26 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Edit revert[edit]

Hello. Regarding my edit on Nemipterus zysron, I only translated 'pulau' to 'island'. The reference in the article also stated 'eiland Nias'. So, please accept the edit. Thanks. --Anugrahgori (talk) 07:24, 26 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Anugrahgori: patience please. Usually we don't translate content of "type locality". I am thinking--Estopedist1 (talk) 13:11, 26 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Anugrahgori: primary reference very likely says (I couldn't find exact page, but hint in there [2]) that "Pulau Nias, Sumatra, Indonesia", so let it be as it is--Estopedist1 (talk) 06:17, 27 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hello. I really can not find any papers supporting the recent changes to the circumscription of Olea europaea by DaddyCell. Have you any clues? I have asked on this editors talk page and will wait a reply. Meanwhile I am sure you will not get into an edit war. Cheers - Andyboorman (talk) 11:51, 29 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OK located the paper Genetic characterisation of olive trees from Madeira Archipelago using flow cytometry and microsatellite markers. The circumscription this paper and DaddyCell uses are valid, but clearly taxonomic opinions. For example Olea maderensis (Lowe) Rivas Mart. & del Arco. (2002) is used almost exclusively by this group of researchers and Olea europaea subsp. cerasiformis is more commonly found in literature. The sub-species readily out-cross with fertile progeny and elevating this sub-species to a distinct species would have taxonomic complications. Have a read of this 2017 paper Recent developments in olive (Olea europaea L.) genetics and genomics: applications in taxonomy, varietal identification, traceability and breeding for a comparison. Finally botanists are very reluctant to disentangled long cultivated crops looking for new species! I will leave this for now. Cheers. Andyboorman (talk) 14:16, 29 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
BTW I have looked at this issue in more detail. O madarensis and O. cerasiformis were created using phytosociological principles and may not fully adhere to ICBN, as there could be questions in relation to their basionyms. In addition, the names are most definitely used only on the islands. I hope my solution is not too messy. Andyboorman (talk) 15:50, 31 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Are you sure?[edit]

I noticed your AWB edit on Eriopsis do you really want to risk offending well meaning long standing editors by making these sorts of bot edits without contacting them before hand @Orchi:? Yes it may be well meaning, but possibly could be seen as imposing your views of formats over others whilst there are discussions underway. Indeed if Orchi reverted the changes you would be on flimsy grounds by re-imposing them, given we do not do edit wars here. OK I do not use the "Species overview" format, but as far as I am aware it is not yet banned. Andyboorman (talk) 15:20, 31 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Andyboorman: it is very unorthodox to do "Species overview" if no subgenera exist. We really haven't rule of it? Any genus article may then have this "Species overview" section. Would be a real mess then!--Estopedist1 (talk) 15:30, 31 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Of course it would, but raise this with the editors who use this format or raise the issue at the pump. No there is no rule. Imposition of personal views are frowned on here due to bad past experiences. It is not "very unorthodox" BTW, just not that common compared to the simple formats. Andyboorman (talk) 15:43, 31 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Andyboorman: no problem, I don't touch this structure in weird places :). If someone else will be disturbed with these "Species overview", then we will discuss it anyway.-Estopedist1 (talk) 16:04, 31 August 2020 (UTC)NOthihgReply[reply]
I don't see any reason why somebody would feel offended with the exampled edition. Nothing else that following established standards. I do that every time, not as a main task, but when editing/improving certain pages.--Hector Bottai (talk) 17:55, 31 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There is another issue raised with me. Changing {{Commons}} to {{Commons category}} results in going to a page that the primary editor did not want. Their creation of a dedicated commons page has produced a very good selection of images that disappear under the blanket category link. A recent example was Eriopsis. Clearly this can not be easily resolved by a bot. Just a thought. Andyboorman (talk) 08:34, 3 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Andyboorman: I understand. Galleries and categories are different entities in Commons, but, in general, people develop categories. And every category had direct link to the gallery. Besides, we are not concentrated on images, hence link to {{Commons category}} is best and no confusing exist--Estopedist1 (talk) 08:58, 3 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sorry you are wrong| Forcing people into a box of your own choosing is not appreciated on a consensual based site like this, even if your insistence on simplicity and removal of depreciated stuff is well meaning. Please revert your recent edit on Eriopsis and contact the main editor (for the whole of Orchidaceae by the way). We have had major issues with forced non-consensual editing here on WS and do not appreciate experienced and knowledgeable editors being forced to consider their position and engagement. Sorry to be so insistent, but strong taxonomy is better than uniform format. We have plenty of page improvers, but fewer strong primary contributors. Thanks Andyboorman (talk) 09:19, 3 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Andyboorman: no problem, this topic is definitely worth of Village Pump due to big load of subjectivity. If someone else also cares then we will continue. Regards--Estopedist1 (talk) 09:59, 3 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Please!! Do not change the P.L. Sclater, he is universally known as this, to differenciate with his son W.L. Sclater.--Hector Bottai (talk) 20:52, 2 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Hector Bottai: I saw that many was without P.L. So some was unfortunately changed. But now, I don't touch them. Besides, many sources don't use P.L., so it is quite helpless fighting, but good luck!--Estopedist1 (talk) 05:43, 3 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Full author name[edit]


Here follows 1 more category author names to controll.

  • Category:Anton Valeryevich Volynkin taxa

PeterR (talk) 07:18, 4 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Done @PeterR:--Estopedist1 (talk) 09:01, 4 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks PeterR (talk) 10:53, 6 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Moved to: Talk:Dahlgrenodendron
--Estopedist1 (talk) 10:41, 5 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Full author name[edit]


Here follows 1 more category author names to controll.

 Done @PeterR:--Estopedist1 (talk) 11:16, 6 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks PeterR (talk) 14:55, 7 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hopefully you understand why Rosibot is undoing {{Name}} insertions on taxa higher than species. A consultation on the Pump or Admin would have sidestepped this. Best regards Andyboorman (talk) 20:29, 6 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Andyboorman: I guess, you mean {{Image}}, not {{Name}}--Estopedist1 (talk) 20:38, 6 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oops! Andyboorman (talk) 20:39, 6 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Full author name[edit]


Here follows 1 more category author names to controll.

  • Category:José Guadalupe Palacios-Vargas taxa PeterR (talk) 14:55, 7 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Done--Estopedist1 (talk) 15:15, 7 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks PeterR (talk) 14:38, 8 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Full author name[edit]


Here follows 1 more category author names to controll.

 Done --Estopedist1 (talk) 18:25, 9 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Help:Reference section‎[edit]

Your edition in Help:Reference section is not correct, that format was decided by a pool, if someone don't like it, he need open a discussion in VillagePump. Burmeister (talk) 21:22, 9 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Full author name[edit]


Please can you move José A. Gómez-Anaya to José Antonio Gómez-Anaya and Javier I. Arbea to Javier Ignacio Arbea-Polite? I don't know how to handl it.PeterR (talk) 16:46, 15 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@PeterR: sorry, only admins can help you. I did the request here: Wikispecies:Administrators'_Noticeboard#Overwriting_request--Estopedist1 (talk) 17:32, 15 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Dear Estopedist1, Thanks for the corrections in Pampusana erythroptera. This species was formerly incormporated in the genus Gallicolumba. I realized later that I made serious mistakes, because I made new articles and replaced the old article Gallicolumba erythroptera in a redirect to Pampusana erythroptera. By doing this the old wikidata-structure is ruined. I had to rename the former Gallicolumba-species in Pampusana-speces. I don't know how to repair these actions. Do you have any suggestions?

The same is true for P. beccarii – P. canifrons – P. erythroptera – † P. ferruginea – P. hoedtii – P. jobiensis – P. kubaryi – P. rubescens – † P. salamonis – P. sanctaecrucis – P. stairi – P. xanthonura.

Thanks for your reaction beforehand, --Hwdenie (talk) 07:46, 20 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Hwdenie: Thanks for the info! The scheme is as follows:

To do such large moves, I just in case pinging also our Aves specialist: user:MPF--Estopedist1 (talk) 08:38, 20 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for your quick reaction. Did you inform Aves specialist MPF? Or must I do this? (I do not use ping) --Hwdenie (talk) 08:57, 20 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Hwdenie: yes, MPF is automatically informed via {{Ping}}--Estopedist1 (talk) 09:11, 20 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Estopedist1 and Hwdenie: Thanks for the ping! I'll check fully later, but on a quick glance, the species listing appears correct now; just a few minor tweaks needed (change English language specific "Orig. comb." to linked international protonym, and some of the English VN wrongly hyphenated compared to IOC). - MPF (talk) 09:23, 20 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Actinocephalus (Eriocaulaceae)[edit]

Hopefully I have sorted out your query with respect to this genus and Paepalanthus s.l.. I have also made the necessary adjustments to the family and subfamily pages creating redirects, as required. WS has to be more conservative than WP. Regards Andyboorman (talk) 14:57, 24 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Andyboorman: well done! I reduced info in Actinocephalus to be more user-friendly--Estopedist1 (talk) 15:20, 24 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thang Johnson[edit]

@Neferkheperre:: not easy to find the proofs that any taxon authored. Only allusions that related to revised status of Nagathrips. Is this person in WS scope?. Sidenotice: correct name is Thang Johnson--Estopedist1 (talk) 15:41, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

I moved this discussion to your talk page to enable establishing of author page as full name. The article raised Nagathrips to a full genus from subgenus, and stating reasons. This is an example of a taxonomic act, and is well within WS scope. Genus status changes, synonymies, generic e-assignments are all taxonomic acts. Recording them is necessary to keep WS in up to date status. Neferkheperre (talk) 18:23, 4 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Neferkheperre: I understand, but the bad thing is that Nagathrips is actually authored by Varatharajan & Singh, excluded Johnson. In future, we may have same situation where we are dealing with an article of revised status of any taxon and the article in question can be written by, lets say, 30 people. So, if these 30 people are automatically in WS scope, we may have serious authority clutters--Estopedist1 (talk) 19:16, 4 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Author templates to be jettisoned"[edit]

Just a quick note regarding that Village Pump topic, since my userpage is mentioned there. The "userpage allusion "was specifically about {{Auth}}. That template is problematic because it generate links to pages in the form [[A. Bob|Bob, A.]], with an abbreviated first-name used as a redirect. "Author references" have two wildly different usages historically on Wikispecies, which muddies the discussion a little: a) For name authorities (i.e. Solanum L.), which generate competing interests between zoology and botany because the later are strongly standardized and b) Inside reference tempaltes. I'm not a huge fan of (B), primarily because I believe we should not have a policy to "standardize" author in reference templates, but that is a philosophical position on my part, and the problem with {{Auth}} is of a separate nature from both of these debates. Circeus (talk) 14:48, 5 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Circeus: Firstly, recently, I have removed about 16,000 occurences of tl:auth. Quite huge work. About 1,800 occurences are still waiting to be corrected. And then tl:auth is extinct. Secondly, botany and zoology definitely will close each other, and probably in future we need one huge global database which standardize taxon authorities full names, especially surnames. Eg, we need standardized names for Slavic and Chinese taxon authorities. And, in far far future every individual taxon authority will get unique ID, because huge disambiguation pages, eg Smith, Wang, Li etc are unmanageable for humans--Estopedist1 (talk) 18:41, 5 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm sorry, I didn't intend to come across as disputing. I just wanted to clarify that my userpage comment (which really only entails what I hoped/wished to do XD) was specifically aimed at that one template, and was never intended to affect the broader topics of whether or not there should exist author templates in general, and if so, what form and contexts they ought to be used in. Circeus (talk) 21:00, 5 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Tibia insulaechorab[edit]

About your revert. The file File:Tibia_insulaechorab.jpg is no longer believed to show Tibia insulaechorab but Tibia curta and was renamed to File:Tibia curta.jpg and replaced on the pages that used it including Wikidata. You are welcome to keep the wrong file but should at least place correct species name in the label. --Jarekt (talk) 18:52, 8 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Jarekt: thanks for the info! Should be OK now--Estopedist1 (talk) 20:06, 8 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Why are you adding "fl." to author pages with only the year of the author's first publication? According to WS's own glossary, Floruit is "a date or period during which a person was known to have been alive or active". These added "fl." dates seem to suggest they were active only for that one year, which is generally not the case. Monster Iestyn (talk) 15:57, 9 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Monster Iestyn: yeah, I am lazy. It may be very labourous to identify when exactly someone active period was begun and when was ended. IPNI also almost never uses the period but the date (ie a concrete year).--Estopedist1 (talk) 17:01, 9 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Monster Iestyn: if IPNI systematically uses misleading style, WS should be more exact. What style do you suggest? Style A: if lack of data, then "just blank section of born/fl." (person's publications give hints for fl. anyway); style B: "fl. ca 2001–"; style C: something I didn't know--Estopedist1 (talk) 05:59, 10 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't know to be honest. I don't usually state fl. dates at all personally, so this is not something I've really thought about much. Monster Iestyn (talk) 06:05, 10 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Full author name[edit]


Here follows 1 more category author names to controll

 Done @PeterR: --Estopedist1 (talk) 10:06, 12 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Herman de Jong[edit]

I know you already reverted your edit at {{Greenwalt et al., 2019}}, but Herman de Jong actually authored three of the new taxa in the article itself. Just thought I'd point that out. Monster Iestyn (talk) 20:30, 15 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Translation deletions[edit]

Normal translation admins (like myself) cannot delete translations, so I'm not sure why requests should be made at the translation admin noticeboard, but either way I don't think referring to a hat note you yourself added in support of a revert is best idea. I'm not going to restore the deletion tags, but I would request that you do - those pages should be deleted. --DannyS712 (talk) 17:13, 17 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@DannyS712: WS situation is very bad considering translation stuff. See eg Wikispecies:Translation_administrators#List_of_Translation_Administrators and theirs activities. I propose, that You should be given admin status in WS? So we have two (another is user:Koavf) active persons with admin+translation-admin rights. Do you agree?--Estopedist1 (talk) 20:08, 17 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think it would be up to the community, but if you want to nominate me I'll think about it - I'm not very active on the content side of things DannyS712 (talk) 20:43, 17 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@DannyS712: yeah, we all know that you are one of busiest and one of the most valuable Wikipedian :) Every Wikiproject tends to lure such skilled Wikipedians :) Actually, at first I would like to ask one question: my deep analysis (see here) shows that actually translation stuff has no future in Wikispecies. But do you think my statement holds: "However, because Wikimedia Foundation provides that WS exist at all, then we may violate global Wikimedia Foundation rules when all translation stuff will be deleted in WS". Thanks in advance!--Estopedist1 (talk) 06:27, 18 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't think there is any rule that would be violated by deleting translations. However, the translations of the interface messages via Wikispecies:Localization can and maybe should be moved to translatewiki DannyS712 (talk) 06:30, 18 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Heinrich Benno Möschler[edit]

You recently "merged" two 1878 references I had created, to two completely separate publications of Moschler in the same year. Please undo what you did so that the two separate papers have separate references. Thanks. Accassidy (talk) 12:58, 22 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Accassidy: I renamed these to correct names:
I am also noticed, that you are to only one in WS, who doesn't care what Help:Reference_section#Reference_Templates suggests. Eg User:Stho002 was banned because of doing solo work--Estopedist1 (talk) 15:35, 22 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Unused author templates[edit]

Hello Estopedist1, all unused author templates from your subpage /Varia templates are now deleted. (Except one that has been recreated after deletion.) Perhaps you remove the templates from your page, otherwise they will be listed as "Wanted templates". Kind regards, --Thiotrix (talk) 16:32, 24 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Thiotrix: wow, well done, mate! My user page is emptied--Estopedist1 (talk) 16:42, 24 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Truly extraordinary![edit]

It is truly extraordinary to see you and some others spending so much time and effort changing template names. They are dummy names which don't display in articles, so one dummy is being replaced by another dummy (so to speak!) The site is structured such that it is possible to keep track of templates, whatever dummy name is used. The changing of such template names would therefore seem to be a marathon waste of time and energy! What am I missing? GruesomeBalls (talk) 09:03, 1 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@GruesomeBalls: new and constructive views are always welcome. Are you against reference templates in Wikispecies or against the current names of reference templates in Wikispecies?--Estopedist1 (talk) 10:21, 1 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Don't bother with this. It's almost certainly Stephen himself and I've blocked him as such. He's never been that good at pretending to be someone else. Circeus (talk) 16:27, 1 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Format of author dates[edit]

Hello Estopedist1, I see you alter the format of life dates of taxon authorities. Please use the typographical correct "En dash" 1920–2015 (and not just a hyphen 1920-2015!). The En dash is created by ALT0150. Kind regards, --Thiotrix (talk) 10:35, 2 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Thiotrix: yes I know, it is systematic error in all Wikiprojects, I hope bots help here. Regards!--Estopedist1 (talk) 10:37, 2 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Removal of authors from disambiguation pages[edit]

If in doubt whether the taxon authors listed actually are taxon authors, wouldn't it be better to ask whoever added them first rather than unlist them without telling anyone? As it is I don't actually remember where I got "Alan J. Kohn" from for the Kohn page, but I probably had a good reason. Monster Iestyn (talk) 15:22, 5 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Monster Iestyn: if I am unable to find the proof in WS or Wikidata, I remove the person from DAB. Ideally, we shouldn't tolerate red links in DABs, same principle is already used in enwiki--Estopedist1 (talk) 16:20, 5 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Except we have a LOT more missing material than en:wp. As far as I'm concerned, if the authority is legit, it should absolutely be on the disambig page regardless of whether or not we have the page already. While in many areas it's useful to take some cues from wikipdia (e.g. a single link per entry on a disambig page, explicitly showing the full page name...), we will inevitably have a lot more links than Wikipedia, and that means in many cases they need to be on disambiguation pages. Circeus (talk) 21:31, 5 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Agree with @Circeus:. I see no reason for the removal of red links.--Hector Bottai (talk) 00:35, 6 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello Estopedist1. Proof cannot always be found in WS or Wikidata, as a lot of info has not been added yet. I find your arguments not really convincing, and the opposite could also be said: we should tolerate red links in DABs, same principle is already used in dewiki and frwiki. I found the way you handled the author Vladimir S. Murzin in the Murzin disambiguation page helpful. Instead of removing links without telling the users who added them, maybe you should add a template that can categorize problematic disambiguation pages, so we can check the links and remove them if necessary, or add some proof (link to a publication, example of name published) if they are indeed taxon authorities. Korg (talk) 11:50, 6 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Could you please stop removing red links, as you did here? Instead, please tag them, so we can have a chance to check problematic issues. Korg (talk) 08:23, 7 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Korg: I will move problematic persons to the talk page--Estopedist1 (talk) 08:26, 7 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That would be a sensible solution, thanks. Korg (talk) 08:33, 7 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

renaming of Taxa by author categories[edit]

Hello Estopedist1, you have moved "Category:Ch. Lecordier taxa" to "Category:Charles Lecordier taxa". Please notice, that you have to recategorize all items in this category, too. This will not happen automatically. There are still 99 names in Category:Ch. Lecordier taxa. (You can use the Cat-al-lot tool). Please look for other categories that you have moved, if there are items left under the old name. Thanks, --Thiotrix (talk) 15:30, 15 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(talk page stalker)  Done for the Charles Lecordier taxa DannyS712 (talk) 16:50, 15 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]



First thank for the list. Please can you sent this list by e-mail? So far I can see its a couple of month work. See this: [Caridina demenica] His work is a mess. He don't know the procedure of working. I have ask to stop him but no response. PeterR (talk) 17:32, 19 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@PeterR: yes I can send you this list, but your e-mail is not visible in WS user page. It seems that user:Guwusy is a lonelywolf, but he is improving. Also notice that sometimes he is not logged in ( )--Estopedist1 (talk) 18:51, 19 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
My e-mail is: Can't you stop him. How longer we wait how greater the mess. — The preceding unsigned comment was added by PeterR (talkcontribs) 20 November 2020.
@PeterR: answered at Village Pump about user:Guwusy. In addition: if you don't mind, then let's wait a week or so after I send you the list to your e-mail. At the moment, I see that user:Guwusy adding more info to some articles--Estopedist1 (talk) 16:10, 20 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • But not all information after the original bulletin PeterR (talk) 17:23, 20 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You reverted my changes[edit]

Hi, you reverted my changed on but i see that the photo is still there. I assume it propagated from wikidata. Should i undo my other similar edits as well or wait? BumpySlug (talk) 03:36, 20 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@BumpySlug: Firstly, I recommend to put the image in Wikidata and after that it can be used in Wikispecies via the command {{image|FILENAME|DESCRIPTION}} --Estopedist1 (talk) 06:34, 20 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Mass creation of stub pages[edit]

Hello Estopedist1, why do you create a lot of stub pages without any references? (Example: Bdellasimilis and all genera of this family). If you use an external database for the authority, then please add it to the reference section. Unreferenced new pages should not be tolerated. In my opinion, it is better to have red links, instead of bulks of pages without useful content! --Thiotrix (talk) 18:03, 26 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We have had a lot of problems with mass creations, so please no more. Go over the ones you have created and check them for validity, acceptance, synonymy and so on. Thanks. Andyboorman (talk) 18:54, 26 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Thiotrix and Andyboorman: sorry, I was lazy. Maybe you are also interested in to comment/see big picture, see Wikidata:Wikidata_talk:WikiProject_Taxonomy#List_of_species,_how_to_check_available_taxons_in_Wikidata_(WD)? --Estopedist1 (talk) 07:25, 27 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Appreciate this being well meaning, but WS has thousands of orphan pages created by a fellow author using a bot that was just let rip. WD may have a place for all taxon names, but WS is meant to concentrate on the valid and accepted for the main taxon pages. Andyboorman (talk) 08:48, 27 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Reverts of Toxicocalamus stanleyanus and Gerrhopilus persephone[edit]

Hello Estopedist1, can you explain why you reverted these two accounts, removing the indent and bold settings I had applied?

With regards to Gerrhopilus persephone if you take a look at the other Gerrhopilus described in the same paper by Kraus 2017 (G. addisoni, G. eurydice, G. lestes) and his earlier Kraus 2005 G. hades, for all I have marked the holotype and type locality as intented and bold, and I plan to continue to add data for all the taxa in this genus. This arrangement is something I adopted following its use by other members because personally I think this it enhances the account.

With regards to Toxicocalamus stanleyanus, all the other species are also intended and bold for holotype and type locality.

With your reverts these two taxa accounts differ from those of their congenerics and I would much prefer to see uniformity, and judging by many of the other taxon accounts on Wikispecies the indended bold arrangement is popular. The snakes of New Guinea has been my specialist area since the mid-80s and it was my intention to gradually work through all the New Guinea herpetological accounts, editing and correcting, adding those taxa that were missing, images, and paratypes where relevant. But I would rather use a single standardized layout and the bold intended arrangment seems to be one favoured by Wikispecies authors.

You also asked for my rights to be changed to autopatrol / patroller. Could you explain what this means and entails. I am not new to Wikipedia but I am relatively new to Wikispecies. Papblak (talk) 13:42, 2 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Papblak: no problem, I reverted my actions. Using excessive bold text is not prohibited. Using repository categories is redundant, if you use construction, like {{repository link|UMMZ}}. About rights (autopatrolled): see Wikispecies:Autopatrollers --Estopedist1 (talk) 16:10, 2 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you Estopedist1, much appreciated, I like standardization, it makes for a tidy life. As regards repository categories, I did not know they were redundant. That is a shame, I am a museologist who spends a great deal of time working on specimens in museum collections. After fieldwork working on specimens in museums if my next preferred way to spend time. I know it sounds sad but I find it exciting, you never know what gem you might unearth. Papblak (talk) 16:26, 2 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Papblak: I am rewording my statement about repository categories. Repository categories are needed in Wikispecies, but respective categories are automatically created if you use construction, like {{repository link|UMMZ}}. See example in Gerrhopilus persephone--Estopedist1 (talk) 16:46, 2 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have been using {{rl|UMMZ}} since the get-go, so are you saying I do not need to also add <nowiki> at the bottom of the account? Papblak (talk) 17:51, 2 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]


The assertion:

NB! it is not recommended to create a Wikidata item for the taxon authority, if its first name is not known (eg E. Bottazzi, N.A. Ablasovp

is false; exactly the opposite applies. I have removed it. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:45, 10 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Pigsonthewing: please explain. If we are lazy and don't want to spend lot of time to find full first name, then it is not recommended to create such items, because it is the source of identical items (compare eg E. Botazzi, but eg Wikidata already has the item for Ernst Botazzi) --Estopedist1 (talk) 12:11, 10 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You say it is "not recommended". By whom? Please give a citation. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:31, 10 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Control Author names[edit]


Please can you control:

So far I known, I have all completed PeterR (talk) 12:55, 10 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Done: all checked; @PeterR: --Estopedist1 (talk) 16:54, 10 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
thanks PeterR (talk) 14:33, 15 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Control Author names[edit]

So far I known, I have all completed PeterR (talk) 14:33, 15 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

massive correcting almost fully  Done, except extra checking is needed with Hodges because maybe namesakes?--Estopedist1 (talk) 16:53, 15 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hi Estopedist1! Following this Wikispecies:Village_Pump/Archive_53#Vote_of_"taxonbar"_template_use_in_Wikispecies_articles, it would be possible to run AWB and remove this template from the articles. Regards, Burmeister (talk) 16:43, 18 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Burmeister: we definitely should make efforts to get {{Taxonbar}} to work. At the moment, we manually update "Links" section, and this is ridiculous, because it is Wikidata job --Estopedist1 (talk) 18:40, 18 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sorry to butt-in @Burmeister:, but at the moment {{Taxonbar}} has no place on WS until there is consensus, so in the mean time it should be removed off articles using AWB. If the community wishes to use this facility in the future then it can be re-added. Adding Links to the Reference section is not essential for taxonomy or classification it is merely a format issue. The resources in the links are used by editors to construct the taxon page, which is not the case with an inconsistent catchall such as {{Taxonbar}}. Apologies once again, but the remit of WS is as a stand alone taxonomic database not a WD or WP offshoot. Andyboorman (talk) 21:21, 18 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Estopedist1: and @Andyboorman: I have the same understanding as Andyboorman on the subject. In addition, new users are using the template without knowing that it is not accepted or consensual, see User_talk:ChristianSW and User_talk:Burmeister#Authority_control. Until a broad and definitive discussion is made, the use of the template is not allowed. Burmeister (talk) 13:16, 28 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please note that edits like this left inconsistencies in the author name formatting, rendering one author in regular font and the other in small caps. Unless you make sure to change all author names to use the {{A}} style, I suggest not touching the font. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 21:18, 3 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]