User talk:Franz Xaver

From Wikispecies
Jump to: navigation, search


Template gbr[edit]

Hello @Franz Xaver: Why do you not like the template {{gbr}} I notice that you got rid of it from Template:Spathiphyllum? It is a useful fix IMO and does the same job as your changes. I have use it a lot and will continue to do so in the future. By the way have you had any joy with our problems with the tribes in Ranunculoideae? Regards Andyboorman (talk) 22:30, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

@Andyboorman: Hello! Yes, it is true, I am not a friend of templates, which cause the standard wikicode to disappear and are only marginally shorter. In my opinion, such "fixes" decrease accessibility by new contributors. I remember, that in the time, before I started contributing to WS more actively, at some occasions I wanted to fix some small errors here and there, e.g. changing something, that was in italics but should not have been, but stopped my attempts at the moment, when I encountered such kind of templates: You do not know, what the template actually is doing and where you get what you want. You have to find and open the template in order to understand it. And then it may happen, that another template is embedded in the first one, like Russian puppets.
Sorry, no news from Ranunculoideae tribal names. Regards --Franz Xaver (talk) 00:02, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Opinion please[edit]

Hi @Franz Xaver: I would like your considered opinion on Marcus-Kochia. I am not sure whether the protologue or IPNI have the correct spelling. ICN is not that clear, as far as I can find, when it comes to generic names that are a combination of two personal pronouns. Although, the hyphen seems legitimate. IPNI might have "automatically corrected" by taking out the second capital letter, but I have not checked with them. I would like to get this right before making corrections in the classification of Malcolmia and its other segregates - see also Brassibase. Thanks in anticipation. Andyboorman (talk) 20:44, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

@Andyboorman: Hi! It seems that the correction by IPNI is correct: ICN Art. 20, Ex. 8 presents Solms-laubachia and Neves-armondia as hyphenated generic name, which therefore are validly published. These names originally were published as Solms-Laubachia – see protologue – and Neves-Armondia – see [1]. If the Code in its examples makes this kind of correction, we can accept it as correct, although I also cannot find a rule, explicitly giving a statement to this point. Anyway, there seems to be some confusion on this topic. The Index Nominum Genericorum database is contradictory: Solms-Laubachia vs. Neves-armondia. --Franz Xaver (talk) 21:51, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
@Franz Xaver: Good morning. Thank you for your opinion, particularly as it matches my thoughts! I will follow IPNI on this as I make the pages and redirects. Regards Andyboorman (talk) 08:44, 3 December 2016 (UTC)


Hallo Franz Xaver,
ich wünsche Dir ein frohes und friedvolles Weihnachtsfest und hoffe,
dass Dir das neue Jahr 2017 viel Freude und viel Gutes bringt.
Vielen Dank für Deine exzellente Arbeit hier.
Beste Grüße. Orchi (talk) 22:49, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Servus Orchi! Die besten Wünsche auch von mir. Grüße --Franz Xaver (talk) 09:26, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Documentation for reference templates[edit]

See here Do you think that we should have documentation for all reference templates or is there something special about this one in particular? —Justin (koavf)TCM 07:18, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

@Koavf: Documentation is only for a minority of the reference templates. This special template is using optional parameters, the use of which has to be explained somewhere. Originally I myself did not include such kind of documentation, but I was advised by User:Tommy Kronkvist to do so in a similar case – see User talk:Tommy Kronkvist/Archive 2015–2016#Berchemia discolor.
Moreover, it's the template itself and not its documentation to be categorised in Category:Reference templates. --Franz Xaver (talk) 07:29, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
Agreed I responded on my talk. Good point. Thanks, Franz. —Justin (koavf)TCM 07:31, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
Categorization Not sure why you put the category on the template since it is already transcluded from the documentation (that is one of the purposes of documentation) but you'll notice that now it is categorized there by both methods. —Justin (koavf)TCM 07:33, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
@Koavf: See above. It was only for a moment that both were in the category. --Franz Xaver (talk) 07:35, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
Categories To be clear, the documentation was never in the category--it just transcludes categories. Either way, it's categorized correctly and the documentation is clearly valuable. —Justin (koavf)TCM 07:37, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

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

Application for Checkuser[edit]

Referring to earlier discussions regarding a local Checkuser policy, I herebye apply to get Checkuser user rights, although we havnt reached a consensus reg Checkuser policy, but I want to give it a try if I can get the required votes. For a request to succeed a minimum of 25 support votes and an 80% positive vote are required (subject to the normal bureaucrat discretion). Requests for checkuser run for two weeks, and I ask kindly that somone starts the poll, like we do for adminship applications.

Please also note that CheckUser actions are logged, but for privacy reasons the logs are only visible to other Checkusers. Because of this, Wikispecies must always have no fewer than two checkusers, for mutual accountability. I dont want to suggest anyone, but hope that someone feel inspired and will step forward and also apply for checkuser.

My request to the Wikispecies community is here

Dan Koehl (talk) 01:40, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Another application for Check User[edit]

As pointed out above by User:Dan Koehl, we need at least two Check Users for this wiki. I am nominating myself and would be happy to receive any feedback that you have to give (positive, negative, or neutral). Wikispecies:Checkusers/Requests/Koavf. Thanks. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:08, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Third application for checkuser[edit]

Further to recent messages, I am also offering to serve, so that we have three checkuser operators, to ensure adequate coverage in case one of the others is unavailable. Please comment at Wikispecies:Checkusers/Requests/Pigsonthewing. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:47, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Additional Checkuser Application[edit]

I also have added my name to those willing to be a checkuser. Please see my application here Wikispecies:Checkusers/Requests/Faendalimas. I listed this yeasterday but have been encouraged to do a mass mail. I would also take the opportunity to make sure everyone knows that any editor can vote but that it is imperative that as many do as possible, for all 4 of the current applicants, please have your say. Checkuser voting has strict policy rules regarding number of votes. You will have other messages from the other Users concerned you can also read about it in the discussion on the Village Pump - Wikispecies:Village_Pump#Application_for_Checkuser. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:53, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Standing for role of checkUser[edit]

Like some of our colleagues (who I support), I am offering to serve as a checkuser, not least to ensure adequate coverage in case one of the others is unavailable.

Please comment at Wikispecies:Checkusers/Requests/Pigsonthewing.

[Apologies if you receive a duplicate notification; I wasn't aware of Wikispecies:Mail list/active users, and sent my original notification to the list of administrators instead.] MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:59, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

RFC on Checkusers[edit]

With one week to go I wanted to remind everyone of the importance of voting on the current CheckUser applications. They can all be found together on a single RFC: Wikispecies:Requests_for_Comment#Checkusers.

It is extremely important with votes such as this for everyone to be involved. There are strict rules in the Wikimedia Foundation Policy guidelines on these votes. I would urge people to have a good understanding of what a CheckUser does. This can be read up on here on the page discussing CheckUser's Wikispecies:Checkusers. Links on this page will take you to other policy information on Meta, HowTo for our site etc.

I would also urge people to look at our own policy development and some past discussion on this can be found here: Wikispecies_talk:Local_policies#Local_CU_Policy.

Wikispecies has in the past had issues that has required the intervention that is supported by the ability to do a CheckUser. Many of us are aware of this. The capacity to do this ourselves greatly speeds up this process. Although SockPuppetry can sometimes be identified without using a CheckUser in order to do the necessary steps to stop it or even prevent it requires evidence. We all know that sockpupets can do significant damage.

This is an important step for Wikispecies. It is a clear demonstration we can run ourselves as a Wiki Project part of Wiki Media Foundation. When I and several others first discussed this we knew it would be difficult at the time to meet all the criteria. We have only now decided to try and get this feature included in Wikispecies. By doing this it can lead to other areas where Wikispecies can further develop its own policies. In some areas we have unique needs, different to the other Wiki's. It is timely we were able to develop all these policies.

Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:15, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Request for vote reg use of BASEPAGENAME[edit]

The previous discussions regarding if we should subst:ing BASEPAGENAME and change all [[BASEPAGENAME]] into [[susbt:BASEPAGENAME]] did not really reach a consensus.

Please vote here on the Village pump!

If you are not sure on your opinion, you can read and join the discussion about the claimed advantages and disadvantages of using BASEPAGENAME

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:29, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Species category[edit]

Hi, I recently had the notion that categories for species are essential. I'm referring to the following: Category:Valid extant species and Category:Valid extinct species. These will allow to count, manipulate etc. specifically the species articles. The 2 categories I've mentioned were made for Zoology. Can you please provide 2 respective categories for Botany? Perhaps Accepted extant plant species? Mariusm (talk) 06:02, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

@Mariusm: I don't think so. Almost all taxon pages should be about accepted taxa. Synonyms should be redirect pages only. I cannot see much sense to have categories, that finally should contain almost all existing species pages. Anyway, there will be a lot of cases, where some authors accept a certain taxon and others don't. Regards --Franz Xaver (talk) 08:40, 23 February 2017 (UTC)


  1. You'll be surprised, but there are at least 3000 invalid species in WS which I know of (See {{Invalid}} template) and there a probably a lot more.
  2. An option to create invalid species is always nice to have at hand because all the relevant data can't always be contained in the parent article.
  3. There are a lot of non-species articles in WS and I want to differentiate the species from the non-species so various general edits can be applied on them.
  4. I want to differentiate extinct from extant.
  5. I want to be able to get a count of animal extant species, plant extant species etc. in WS, which at the moment I can't have. Mariusm (talk) 09:10, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
@Mariusm: I am not surprised, I am aware of this. However, as far as I know, these taxon pages on non-accepted speces are more or less restricted to zoology, and most of them can well be converted into redirects and the content be integrated into the page on the accepted taxon. I am not happy with taxon pages on mere synonyms. (The old controversy, whether WS is on (accepted) taxa or on names.) For statistics, it should be sufficiently accurate to count all pages containing taxonavigation and substract all "invalid" taxa. So, in my opinion, we should only categorise taxon pages, which are not accepted taxa. --Franz Xaver (talk) 09:32, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
@Mariusm: Do you remember Wikispecies:Village Pump/Archive 28#Category valid species? --Franz Xaver (talk) 10:40, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
Oh my God! We had this discussion before! But I nevertheless see the necessity of marking a species page as such + extant/extinct differentiation. Taxonavigation is held by lots of pages which aren't species: genera, tribus and such. Will "Extant animal species", "Extant plant species" satisfy you? Mariusm (talk) 10:51, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
@Mariusm: From a nomenclatural viewpoint, the essential distinction is between fossil taxa and such, whose description is based on recent specimens. There are different rules to be applied. However, as we know, non-fossil species can go extinct rather quickly. So, e.g. Ectopistes migratorius is non-fossil, but nevertheless extinct. Probably it is not sufficient to have only two classes to distinguish. Anyway, categorisation of extinct non-fossil species is somewhat critical. When a species has not been found for decades, some authors may classify them "extinct", but there are many cases, that species thought to be extinct have been rediscovered – see doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0022531. Being up to date will be rather difficult. --Franz Xaver (talk) 12:46, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Wikispecies Oversighter[edit]

Wikispecies has no local Oversighter. Since I had the communitys confidence regarding the previous application for Checkusers rights, as per local Oversight policy on META, I hereby apply to get Oversighters user rights, as a request to the Wikispecies community.

Application is located at Requests for Comment.

Please also note that Oversighter actions are logged, but for privacy reasons the logs are only visible to other Oversighters. Because of this, Wikispecies must always have no fewer than two oversighters, for mutual accountability. I don't want to suggest anyone, but hope that someone feel inspired and will step forward and also apply for oversighters rights.

Dan Koehl through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:01, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Oversight nomination[edit]

Please refer to Wikispecies:Oversighters/Requests/Koavf for a second Oversight nomination. Note that we must have at least two Oversigthers in order for anyone to have these user rights. All feedback is welcome. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:50, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

  1. This survey is primarily meant to get feedback on the Wikimedia Foundation's current work, not long-term strategy.
  2. Legal stuff: No purchase necessary. Must be the age of majority to participate. Sponsored by the Wikimedia Foundation located at 149 New Montgomery, San Francisco, CA, USA, 94105. Ends January 31, 2017. Void where prohibited. Click here for contest rules.