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)

References[edit]

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).

I understand--Estopedist1 (talk) 14:16, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Synonyms[edit]

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)

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

Aves[edit]

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)

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

Autopatrollers[edit]

@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)

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)
@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)
You can request patroller rights at Wikispecies:Patrollers#Requests for patroller rights --DannyS712 (talk) 07:19, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
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)

careful[edit]

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)

@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)
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)

Taxonbar[edit]

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)

@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)

Patroller[edit]

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)

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

Anagrams[edit]

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

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)

@Burmeister: yeah, invisible stuff is always problematical. No "links here": https://species.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Noi But could you test, do we actually need these two templates at {{Taxotemp}}?--Estopedist1 (talk) 12:55, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
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)

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)

@Andyboorman: it is very easy to resurrect/re-create taxon template. Currently, they clutter Unused templates--Estopedist1 (talk) 14:10, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
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)
@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)
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)
@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)
@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)

Basionym[edit]

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)

@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)
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)
@LamBoet: harmonization is in progress, see eg https://www.gbif.org/species/8036857 --Estopedist1 (talk) 09:56, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
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)

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)

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

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

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)

@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)

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)

@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)
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)
@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)
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)

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)

@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)
@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)
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)
@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)
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)

Thanks[edit]

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)

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)