User talk:Faendalimas

Faendalimas is currently:

{{{1}}}

{{{1}}}

2006-2014 Archive

Administrator rights

Dear Faendalimas, You have been granted administrator user rights, congratulations!

Admin userbox on Wikispecies

This user is an administrator on Wikispecies. (verify)

Administrators may use the administrator user box on their user page. Copy and paste the following code to your user page:

{{User Admin}}

Userbox on Meta-Wiki

If you have a Meta-Wiki user page, you can put the Wikispecies admin user box for Meta on your Meta-Wiki user page.

Sea turtles

Do you by any chance, have anything to do with fossil marine turtles? Neferkheperre (talk) 01:41, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi @Neferkheperre: Not overly, in one of my papers I covered some of them. However, I do know people that do work on them and I have a lot of literature on them what do you need exactly? Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 01:54, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Peter

He never said jackshit to me after you moved the conversation to my talk, so I plowed ahead. In my "review" of new templates, I made minimal edits to his, but he still pounced on me again because (I think: He seems entirely incapable of explaining himself clearly, and I'm left to vaguely assume that what he means about the "bulletin" is this edit, which I actually poked him about because of weirdness in publication dates) of my working on older ones.

I'm editing his old templates for the link things (and also missing category:reference templates and </noinclude>), which I know everyone else will agree are simply not optional corrections. But I'm at my wit's ends as to how I'm supposed to explain that to him. And him being hyper-defensive of "his" content while at the same time accusing me of being a new Stephen is not helping (not to mention the irony therein...). I mean, is it my fault if he has been using these external links in his new templates right up until (!!) this June?

Circeus (talk) 15:21, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

@Circeus: Please also see this edit made by PeterR in the poll about the References format back in 2015. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 16:19, 1 November 2019 (UTC).

@Circeus and Tommy Kronkvist: I remember that now, frustrating, ok so what shall we do about it, suggestions? Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 16:30, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Honestly, I'm generally unconcerned with these minutiae, an issue (yes I an still salty about that) which would never have existed if a simple set of cite template had been implemented early on. As long as the information is in the right order and has the right amount of formatting in the right places (i.e. small-capped authors and italicized serial titles), further fighting over this stuff is just pointless and distracting for me.

Any consistency issues I think are actually pertinent (e.g. how to deal with books in series/journal issues with ISBNs, how to format serial titles with subseries, whether book pages should be given as 1-nnn or nnn pp. etc.) are completely ignored by the current (hardly documented, I should add) guidelines. Given the huge backlog of templates which became retroactively misformatted when this rigid standard was chosen, I don't think it's even in use for anything close to the majority of the reference templates to begin with anyway. So I'm sorry, but I really couldn't care less about all this hair-splitting when we have more relevant cleanup and documentation work to do (e.g. {{Zfg}}, {{Auth}}, {{Nomen}}...).

I am especially unconcerned on account that not a single one of the "issues" Tommy butted in to talk about are linked to any changes I made that angered Peter in the first place! I'm pretty sure 99% of his indignation is caused specifically by my disagreement about when and how to link to external pdfa and scans, and we can't argue we have anything close to a standard for that either! Circeus (talk) 16:47, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

@Circeus and Tommy Kronkvist: Believe it or not I do actually support the notion of a set of reference templates. However I am also aware of how much work it would be. Am familiar with the arguments, valid or not, against it. I do not like the Wikipedia ones as they never display references in a way standardized in Zoology, that could be overcome though. Could I ask a favor could we make a list of templates we must not use, and their prefered alternatives at some point please. Personally I am preferring these days to just use the {{A}} template with the "|nolink=y" parameter when I do not want a link rather than {{Aut}}, are you wanting the {{Nomen}} template used? I can start using it if people wish. Peter has his way of doing things, we possibly need to get him to realize that this is a wiki and is community edited, his edits may be overwritten at times. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 16:58, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Nomen being used? PLEASE NO. Literally all it does now is throw hard-coded linebreaks into the pages (no really, this right here is the entirety of the code for it: <br>{{{1}}}). The original idea (it was apparently supposed to create collapsible sections?) was of dubious usefulness and I think even Stephen had long abandoned it when he was banned, but there are still over 3K uses of it. Even if Mariusm's bot never creates new articles again, it will have plenty of work dealing just with some of these templates.

My list of templates to get rid of right now is {{Auth}}, {{Nomen}}, {{Syn}}, {{Species}} (this was apparently part of a proposed alternate scheme to the current taxonav templates, but never adopted; I've dealt with the rest of the set) and {{Zfg}}, but only some of those can be bot-removed. I expect more to go on it as I wade about Stephen's old stuff. I would personally do away with stuff such as {{NZEnt}} and {{Zootaxa}} too (mostly because it enforces the use of an issue number that doesn't necessarily exist), but people seem to like at least the latter. Circeus (talk) 18:47, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

I agree. I rid every page of {{Auth}}, {{Nomen}}, {{{Syn}}, {{Species}} and {{NZEnt}} templates when I come across them, but tend to keep the {{Zootaxa}} ones. Tommy Kronkvist (talk)., 19:04, 1 November 2019 (UTC).

@Circeus and Tommy Kronkvist: good that was my understanding, was not clear on what you meant with NOMEN, I will get rid of them as I see them. Certainly do not use them. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 19:20, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

{{NZEnt}} is not nearly as bad now that I removed the forced external links that had gone bad from its code, but I personally believe that the entire class of templates used to to generate the tail end of a reference starting with the journal name are a bad idea (hence my dislike of {{Zootaxa}}, whose design I find especially awkward to update). Unfortunately, Stephen loved creating this sort of templates, and now, there we are... I expect to continue finding new ones (hopefully less widespread) over time. Circeus (talk) 19:33, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Kinosternoidea redirect to Chelydroidea

With this redirect, what reference are you using? As far as I can tell neither TTWG(2017) or TEWG(2015) have this and they are the references on the destination page. Sun Creator (talk) 14:31, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Following these two:

• W. G. Joyce. 2016. A Review of the Fossil Record of Turtles of the Clade Pan-Chelydridae. Bulletin of the Peabody Museum of Natural History 57(1):21-56
• T. R. Lyson, W. G. Joyce, and J. J. W. Sertich. 2017. A new chelydroid turtle, Lutemys warreni, gen. et sp. nov., from the Upper Cretaceous (Campanian) Kaiparowits Formation of southern Utah. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology 37(6):e1390672

I do not use the Pan-... taxa as they are nomenclaturally not available, this makes the Kinosternoidea a synonym of Chelydroidea. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 14:40, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. What does "they are nomenclaturally not available" mean? How can I tell what is and isn't nomenclaturally available? Sun Creator (talk) 15:06, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

@Sun Creator: In the case of names such as Pan-Chelidae, Pan-Chelydridae etc that are popular in the PhyloCode papers these are illegal combinations under the code as you cannot have non Latin letters, symbols or numbers in a name, eg "-" hence the name is not available. We follow the ICZN nomenclature for animals, however, PhyloCode does have some better arrangements so we have to adapt them. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 15:26, 1 November 2019 (UTC)