User talk:Faendalimas

Faendalimas is currently:

{{{1}}}

{{{1}}}

2006-2014 Archive
2015-present Archive

Pages for synonyms

Hello, I thought I understood that you are in favor of having pages for synonymous taxa. But what page do you create for a name that has had several combinations before to have been synonymised? A page named like the original combination, or like a potential most relevant combination? Christian Ferrer (talk) 13:18, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

@Christian Ferrer: The page can be created under the original name and any other spellings or otherwise occurances that can be written off as lapsus pro or something can go on the same page if they are deemed necessary. This is more about have pages for available names (that are now junior synonyms) not every name as some are just typos or other problems. Cheers Scott Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 13:31, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

Not sure I understand exactly. I don't talk about redirects but well as pages on their own. E.g. I created one page Ophiacantha setosa, and I created redirects for each names listed within the synonymy section. Do you mean it would be better to create a page for each of those names, a bit as they do in some external database, e.g. for that name in WoRMS? Christian Ferrer (talk) 14:27, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

@Christian Ferrer: well I assumed you were referrign to what I have said before that Wikispecies should be a compilation of not just species but names. As no other list does that. We need our own identifty too. Anyway, my view is that all synonyms should have their own page, available names only. An example is here Chelodina_longicollis each synonym has a page including its metadata, and a link to the senior valid name also. Plus they are tagged appropriately to show their status as names. All the metadata for each available name is needed, particularly if a taxon is later split. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 14:50, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

Ok thanks, just to be sure of the reasoning: in the synonymy of Ophiura ljungmani there is Ophioglypha thouleti Koehler, 1895 which is available and have been transfered to the genus Ophiura in 1901 and later synonymised, in your reasoning we have a page for Ophioglypha thouleti or for for Ophiura thouleti or for both? Christian Ferrer (talk) 16:27, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

IP Block

Hi,

I disagree with your block of User:2405:6E00:2225:BA3C:28C7:44B3:8580:FFD9—their edits, which were restricted to the sandbox, do not appear to be spam.

In any case, an IP address, which may be shared by many people, should not be indefinitely blocked (unless it clearly in one of several specific categories, such as open proxies, which do not seem to apply in this case). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:20, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing: My intent is to reverse it after a week, I am hoping to make a point to them, since they have made the same edit, which is irrelevant on this wiki under multiple IPs. I also agree IPs should not be indef blocked. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 21:03, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

In that case, block them for a week. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:31, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

I already tried that this is the third IP, and also consitutes block evasion. Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 21:42, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

That's immaterial to the length of the block, if it is your intention to unblock manually. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:23, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

Its not actually block evasion is a serious issue. That said I have removed the blocks and instead followed the option I raised on admin noticeboard. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 12:01, 31 August 2025 (UTC)