User talk:Hiouf

From Wikispecies
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Welcome to Wikispecies!

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!

–Best regards, Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 18:09, 24 January 2019 (UTC).Reply[reply]

Species-level Taxonavigation templates[edit]

Hi again. Are there any subspecies of Graphosoma interruptum? We generally only create species-level Taxonavigation templates (such as the {{Graphosoma interruptum}} template you created) if there are also subspecies. Otherwise we use genus-level as the lowest rank for Taxonavigation templates, since there is no real point in creating templates for taxa without daughter-taxa. –Regards, Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 00:31, 28 December 2019 (UTC).Reply[reply]

Hi @Tommy Kronkvist: there is no subspecies for Graphosoma interruptum. I'm sorry, I wasn't aware of this policy. You can then delete the template. I'm actually having troubles to find recommandations or policies on how things are done on Wikispecies. It's not mentionned in Help:Taxonavigation section. Would you know where to find such information? For example, the template for references, are all references eligible for a template, or only some of them? Best.--Hiouf (talk) 08:52, 28 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Unfortunately you're not the only one having trouble finding good recommendations and guidelines, and I think most users would agree that the Wikispecies Help pages are incomplete and often very poorly updated. The problem is that from the start in 2004 and until only a few years back, Wikispecies had a rather small group of registered users. Since around 2015 the community has been growing rapidly, but we're still only 235 active users – a very tiny portion of the 2,906,196 persons that are registered here. (For reference, our software counts any registered, logged in member who have performed at least one action in the last 30 days as an "active user". That's a very wide range of users, counting many, many persons who perhaps only make one contribution a month, as well as admins and other highly productive users. As an example I made 246 edits to Wikispecies yesterday, but I'm pretty sure there were at least a handful of others who were more fruitful than me. So even though the user statistics are updated several times a day the sum of active users may sometimes be a bit deceiving.)
The small number of active users is troublesome, since we "old coots" who have been here forever already know the dos and don'ts and therefore don't need any written guidelines. Over the years we've all worked that out when discussing between each other. However, enter a bunch of very welcome and productive newcomers, and suddenly problem arises... Almost all of the experienced users here are of course taxonomists, and when they have to chose between updating user help files or writing pages about new taxa, binomial nomenclature wins over being friendly. :-) I really can't blame them, but it's still a sad reality. I think that the actual "manual labour" needed to update all of the help files would only take a person perhaps five or six days, but it's not that simple. During that work the community must reach formal consensus regarding many of the details in the policies and guidelines, and that process will take months. So no one really wants to take on the challenge of fixing the problem, and here we are... That said, we do make a bit of progress all of the time. It's slow, but we'll get there! And if ever in doubt, you're very welcome to bring forth any question to the Village Pump (for most issues) or the Administrators' Noticeboard (for tricky and/or technical stuff, or if you specifically need to reach an admin). We also have the Translation Administrators' Noticeboard for things related to the localization of Wikispecies (or perhaps language-related issues in general).
As for your question about reference templates, that's an easy one. First of all and templates aside, not all references are wanted. That's pretty much obvious and self-explanatory, but I'll mention it anyway: If for example you focus on completing an author page about a parasitologist who also works as a physicist, feel free to add any citation of works about taxa within the fields of parasitology, helminthology and trematodes and so forth, but please don't add any purely medical papers about myiasis and schistosomiasis etc. Yes all of those medical conditions are the result of parasitic organisms with their own taxon names but no, that of course doesn't make it taxonomy. The same goes for other scientific disciplines as well. There are several entomologists who are also geologists: please add the insect references, but skip the papers about minerals and gravel. :-) So finally, your question: "Are all references eligible for a template, or only some of them?" Yes. All references that are eligible as references (according to the above criteria) should also have a template. If you ever find a template that seems out of scope, please report it – because that means that both the template and the reference should probably be deleted.
–Cheers, Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 12:38, 28 December 2019 (UTC).Reply[reply]
Thanks a lot for the detailed answer. I fully understand the difficulties of maintaining up-to-date guidelines. However, I think they are essential for new users and taking the time to do them properly would probably save a lot of time in the long term to experienced users. But I'm sure you know this better than I do. Anyway, I'll definitely use the Village pump more often and I hope you won't have to clean up after me too often :).–Cheers.--Hiouf (talk) 18:39, 28 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Anton Dohrn[edit]

I have just created a Wikidata item for Anton Dohrn. Do you have sources for his biographical data, please?

I note that en:Heinrich Wolfgang Ludwig Dohrn says:

Heinrich Dohrn’s family was from Pomerania (now in Poland). His father was the entomologist Carl August Dohrn (1806–1892) and his brother Anton Dohrn (1840–1909), founder of the short-lived marine station at Messina and then Stazione Zoologica.

and wonder if you have perhaps conflated the latter two people? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:23, 23 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Pigsonthewing: I found the following biographical data from the Deutsche National Biobliothek for Anton Dohrn, his brother Heinrich Wolfgang Ludwig Dohrn and their dad (according to fr:wiki) Carl August Dohrn. There are more biographical links their respective fr:wikis but I'm not sure which ones are the most relevant. I hope I got all 3 of them correctly. In the reference template I made, it looks like Anton was the writer of the paper published in a journal edited by his dad. As to which one is also a marine biologist, I honestly don't know, I copied in Anton's page what was in the Dohrn disambiguation page. But as you said, Anton was the founder of the zoological stations of Messina and Napoli, so it would make sense that he also is a marine biologist. --Hiouf (talk) 12:04, 23 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you. You have "Anton Dohrn (1806–1892),"; none of your sources support that, and the disambiguation page has "1840–1909". I;l assume you made a mis-paste, and correct it. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:57, 23 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh! I now see my mistake. Indeed that was a mis-paste. Thank you so much for correcting it! --Hiouf (talk) 14:00, 23 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Author names and their links[edit]

When adding author names to the references, as you did here, please also remember to always link the author name, if possible. The citations in the "Reference section" should be as complete as possible, and forgetting to add an author link in the "Reference section" is a bit like forgetting to add the taxon name to the "Name" section... :-) Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 09:27, 28 January 2020 (UTC).Reply[reply]

Hi @Tommy Kronkvist: Thanks for pointing that out. I normally do it all the times but I forgot this one. I was hoping to find the original publication online and replace it with a reference template but I was not successful. Cheers. --Hiouf (talk) 12:20, 28 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]