User talk:Kevmin

Please note that if you post something for me here, put this page on your watch list -- I'll respond to it here.

---

If I posted on your talk page, you can reply on your talk page and I'll be watching your page.

This makes it easier for both of us to keep everything in context.

Thanks.

---

Taxon Formatting Templates

Please stick to 'standard' syntax. Following templates may assist. Also Genera in italics.

Type of list	What to type	What it makes
Species	{{sp|G|enus|species1}} {{sp|G|enus|species2}} {{splast|G|enus|specieslast}}	G. species1 – G. species2 – G. specieslast
Subspecies (Non-plantae)	{{ssp|G|enus|s|pecies|sub1}} {{ssp|G|enus|s|pecies|sub2}} {{ssplast|G|enus|s|pecies|sublast}}	G. s. sub1 – G. s. sub2 – G. s. sublast
Subspecies (plantae)	{{sspplant|G|enus|s|pecies|sub1}} {{sspplant|G|enus|s|pecies|sub2}} {{sspplantlast|G|enus|s|pecies|sublast}}	G. s. subsp. sub1 – G. s. subsp. sub2 – G. s. subsp. sublast
Subgenus format 1	{{subg|G|enus|subg1}} {{subg|G|enus|subg1}} {{subglast|G|enus|subglast}}	G. (subg1) – G. (subg1) – G. (subglast)
Section format 1	{{sect|G|enus|sect1}} {{sect|G|enus|sect21}} {{sectlast|G|enus|sectlast}}	G. sect. sect1 – G. sect. sect1 – G. sect. sectlast

Lycaon 21:23, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

while updating...

Hi. Thanks for your help. Could I ask you that while updating, you also remove distribution data? It should not be on wikispecies. Thanks. Lycaon 17:45, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

That is not a problem. Kevmin 19:33, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

"Taxonavigation" Double Header

Template:Leptostrobales doesn't need "==Taxonavigation==" because the article page Leptostrobales also has it. Peltaspermales had the same issue - it was fixed. --Georgeryp 23:30, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Georgeryp. I double checked the remainder of those I enetered this afternoon and fixed the others with douulble headers also. --Kevmin 03:13, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Sphecidae

Kevmin you create the Sphecidae with tribus. I have a new species Solierella cerinusipedalis from Hai-Yan Zhang and Qiang Li, 2007. Sphecidae:Larrinae:Miscophini. Why didn't you add the subfamilia and tribus too your page?

Regards,

PeterR 12:25, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

____ Schmidt

I think you're looking for Johannes Schmidt. He seems to be the candidate that falls into the biologist area and quite close to the timeframe. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 05:26, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

__References

Hi, do we really need that Treatise on invert paleontol. reference under Mengea??? It isn't really crucial and is just one of thousands of low relevance references that could be listed...

AMNZ

Having worked there as a volunteer for several years, I can assure you that the correct name for AMNZ is Auckland War Memorial Museum! Cheers, [[User:130.216.201.46 03:52, 7 July 2008 (UTC)]]

I apologize for the revert, we get a fair amound of IP vandals through and I thought this was as some. Kevmin 06:44, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Tambulyx

Kevmin

You add Tambulyx in the Ambulycini. I don't know the genus Tambulyx. Which species have Tambulyx and which information you have?

I have my informations from Ian J. Kitching.

Regards,

PeterR 15:11, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Replies

• Parazoa image: Ok, I'm not too bothered about that one, but it made the page format look odd, and there is an image of a sponge under the phylum Porifera anyway, which is the only phylum within Parazoa. Hence the Parazoa page itself really is just somewhat redundant.
• Replacing content: MUST WE REALLY BE STUCK FOREVER WITH REDUNDANT AND NOW IRRELEVANT TALK ON THE TALK PAGES??? It is still in the history archives if anybody wants to read it (which I'm sure they won't)

Stho002 03:10, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

• • Just as people won't think to look in the history, they also won't bother to wade through a whole pile of irrelevant and outdated rubbish to see if there is anything worth reading on the talk pages. It is a perfectly valid edit to remove something that is no longer relevant - just as one would remove a name from a taxon list after it has been synonymised ...

Stho002 03:27, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Requests for comment

One of the people you just requested comment from I would not personally ask for comment on anything! Judging from his edits, that is! Stho002 06:55, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

And that person is User:Biotaman??? and fyi I am asking everyone who has been active in the last couple of days on wikispecies for comment on this community issue--Kevmin 06:57, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Requests for comment part 1

I get a request from you about use of daggers. I don't understand your request. Have I done something wrong?

Regards,

PeterR 19:08, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Authority/date for names above family-group

Authorities/dates for names above family-group are not regulated by any code, and so are meaningless and pointless. Please let us concentrate on adding meaningful and useful information. Stho002 03:28, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Regulation or no every database, encyclopedia, and scientific paper which gives credit, gives credit to ALL names at ALL taxonomic levels. Just because the ICZN currently doens't want to regulate above the Family level does not mean the names there are not worthy of having the original author and date noted. And in case you haven't notice I AM spending most of my time adding information, so the "concentrate on adding meaningful and Useful information" statement is rather insulting, imho. --Kevmin 08:46, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, we have already discussed this issue in the Village Pump some time ago, and nobody really cared either way. If you target my edits and keep reverting, then I am justified in taking measures to stop you. Move on from the Animalia page, please. One problem with having authors/dates for such names is that it implies that priority applies, but it doesn't. These days, Metazoa is often used instead of Animalia, mainly because Animalia implies the inclusion of "Protozoa", which are now assigned to other regna. Stho002 21:48, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not "targeting your edits" Animalia happens to be one of the pages I have on my watchlist. Also you will notice that I have been concentrating the vast majority of my editing time on other project so the insinuation that I am "Wikistalking" does not hold water. I found the "discussion" on VP, considering it consists of one comment by you I would agree tehre was not much interest at that time. However considering the timing of the comment and the fact it involved you and Lycaon, it is not surprising that others didn't comment and so I wouldn't classify that as a "we have discussed" situation. Please point me to spots where Metazoa is preferred of Animalia and the standard practice of noting the describing author is not used due to lack of regulation above the family level.--Kevmin 02:25, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

You are reverting an edit of mine against all rational argument from me as to why authority/date for class-series zoological nomina is not a good idea. You need to read:

• Dubois, A. 2009: Incorporation of nomina of higher-ranked taxa into the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature: the nomenclatural status of class-series zoological nomina published in a non-latinized form. Zootaxa, 2106: 1-12. Abstract & excerpt

There are no rules at present governing authority/dates for such names, and if they do come they could render incorrect any that are already on Wikispecies, so we would then have to correct them all. This is a perfectly rational (and strong) argument, so I am reverting your edit accordingly. Thanks, Stho002 01:24, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

• Furthermore, Lycaon is clearly behind this whole silly dispute - he is focussing attention on it in order to stir up trouble for me. He has been around long enough to still have some friends here. Stho002 01:29, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

APG II

I see that Wikispecies has finally begun the shift to an actual system of plant classification, namely APG II (2003), instead of a self-invented one. This is a great relief. Perhaps there is hope now for the English Wikipedia (as you may know, MPF organized to have me banned there, merely for trying this). Keep up the good work. - Brya 11:54, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Synonyms and Daggers

You seem to be the one using the dagger, Kevmin! Anyway, a name is trivially a synonym of itself, and I use that fact to keep the Name section as simple as possible, while adding more details about the name in the Synonyms section. There is a fairly widely held view here at Wikispecies that editors be given some small amount of freedom to do things their own way (within policy limits), and if you don't like that, then perhaps you would be better off elsewhere. Also, please do not target my edits - for your own sake, as this is against policy and could result in action against you. BY the way, just out of interest, are you Bruce Archibald, or connected with him in some way??? Stho00207:26, 7 July 2009 (UTC) NOTE:Copied from an email sent to my personal computer rather then to my account here at WS --Kevmin 07:56, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

NOTE: This was using Wikispecies "E-mail this user", a perfectly proper facility that WS provides for communication - I think Kevmin is reading too much into it! Stho002 08:09, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Including the Current valid name in the synonyms section is needlessly confusing to editors and users.

Your opinion. Stho002 08:09, 7 July 2009 (UTC)].

Yes my opinion as one who has been on species since 2006 and never seen the practice anywhere before.--Kevmin 08:39, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

everything starts somewhere! Stho002 08:47, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I have not seen a paper list the current name as a synonym when a new taxon is being described, this is why I removed the synonyms section.--Kevmin 07:56, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

WS is not a "paper" Stho002 08:09, 7 July 2009 (UTC)].

But if it is not used in papers and publications why include it here?--Kevmin 08:39, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

You might be missing the point: WS is not a paper. WS is basically a database. Hence, you must judge what I'm doing relative to the facilities/strengths/weaknesses of WS's structure, not by comparing it to a "paper". Stho002 08:46, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I am aware of the latitude and policies of ws. I would also note that the extinct taxa represented on WS would be almost nonexistent , excluding the well known groups, if not for my contributions so I think I belong here fine. --Kevmin 07:56, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I think I might be right up there on the extinct taxa contributions, actually! But it isn't a competition! Stho002 08:09, 7 July 2009 (UTC).

I can state taht moset of my 6466 edits have been in or related to extinct taxa. Im impressed if you have that many edits in extinct taxa.--Kevmin 08:39, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

It is hard for me to count my edits on extinct taxa, as I also do extant taxa... Stho002 08:46, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I will state again I am not "targeting" anyone's edits. I clarified two of your edits out of how many you have made in the last few weeks? That is anything but "targeting" and would like clarification as to what type if "action would be taken against me?--Kevmin 07:56, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

You will be asked, politely, to refrain from doing it!! :) Stho002 08:09, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

THe porble m with this answer is that the statement was IN and e-mail politly asking me to "refrain from doing this" , which clearly implies more severe action will be taken next. This is what I want to know about. --Kevmin 08:39, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

The problem with your answer is that you are clearly "pushing" for something. I think you need to lighten up a bit. Go buy a teddy bear and punch the stuffing out of it, or something! Just kidding! :) Stho002 08:46, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Regarding DR. Bruce Archibald, as you should know having received my email informing you that i would answer here, I am not Dr. Archibald. I do know him as he is working extensively with the fossil insect collections at Stonerose. -- Kevmin 07:56, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

OK - I was just curious! Stho002 08:09, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Eukaryota

Honestly, what were you thinking with that revert[1]? Why did you remove references? OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 05:21, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I have just unblocked you, but that does not mean you are right. You need to provide a good and satisfying answer to why you did such a stunt. However, you're free to contribute on anything outside of the dispute page. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 05:31, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

As I stated in my email to you personally I was in the process of posing my reasons and concerns regarding the changes made to Eukaryota when I was blocked. I will post my comment there for all to see and comment on--Kevmin 05:36, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Email received. I'm sure both sides have their valid points, so that is why I allowed you to post your views. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 05:38, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

APG II reference: broken link

Hi Kevmin - saw you'd added a link to the APG II paper on several pages; unfortunately, the link you added is a now broken one, giving an error page. There was also a typo in the title. I've repaired it on a few pages, but not sure how many more pages need doing. If you know where you've put it, copying and pasting in the following will repair it:

* {{aut|Angiosperm Phylogeny Group}} (2003). An update of the Angiosperm Phylogeny Group classification for the orders and families of flowering plants: APG II. ''Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society'' 141: 399–436 [http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/fulltext/118872219/PDFSTART pdf file]

Hope this helps! MPF 13:06, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice about the link, and thanks for the fixes on the pages needing it. I'll sub in the correct info on the pages I notice needing it.--Kevmin 19:30, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Translated names aren't vernacular

This isn't something I invented, I was merely "improving" that page's use of the "pattern"...
Eonatator Stegosaurus armatus Pachycephalosaurus Micropachycephalosaurus Dracorex Triceratops Torosaurus Torosaurus latus Pentaceratops Diceratops Albertaceratops Ceratosaurus Coelophysis Camarasaurus Saltasaurus Keraterpetontidae Microsauria Paracyclotosaurus Hybodus Helicoprion Heterobranchia Platecarpus Hypsognathus Neognathae Megadyptes Antiarchi Acanthopterygii Monoclonius Pachyrhinosaurus Einiosaurus Pentaceratops sternbergii Triceratops prorsus Triceratops horridus Arrhinoceratops Anchiceratops Hongshanosaurus Psittacosaurus Pampatheriidae Chasmosaurus canadensis Anchiceratops ornatus Chasmosaurus belli

The presence of translated names in the vern. names sections on these pages doesnt change the fact that these organisms are referred to by taxonomic name only. "Bells opening lizard" is not found in any literature anywhere, it is universally referred to as Chasmosaurus belli. Please do not add translations of taxonomic names to the Vernacular names section.--Kevmin 07:37, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

DOI templates

Please use the DOI template when citing DOIs, so that you can just click on them to link to the publication. The template is: {{doi|}} Thanks, Stho002 05:40, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! I wasnt certain how to link in the DOI.--Kevmin 05:48, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Another handy hint, particularly with old literature, is to add Internet Archive links to references, whenever they are available, e.g., see the second reference here: Phymatophaea longula Internet archive is really cool because you can link to a specific page and then read on or back by "turning the pages"! Stho002 05:57, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Aaveqaspis

Good to see this, but just one thing: the Peel & Stein paper is currently only published electronically, so should be listed as 'in press'. IF it doesn't come out in print before the end of the year, then the new names will be Peel & Stein, 2010. Also, it does have a DOI, so please use it (it makes it easier to update the details when it is published in print). Thanks, Stho002 23:00, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Re: Reference Template

Yeah, that's ugly. I'll look into how we can update this. First, I'll bring the template over and then see if we need any updates to our css. The template actually uses <references/> (a MediaWiki extension, not a template) but applies some formatting. Rocket000 16:06, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Ok,  Done. Let me know if there's any problems. You can use <references/> by itself as that now works the same. {{Reflist}} just changes the format a little like making the text smaller. Rocket000 16:25, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

P.S. Don't forget the refresh your browser's cache. Rocket000 16:27, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

nbsp

I don't really know what nbsp does, but I remember it saying somewhere on the format guidelines pages that it was important to put one after at least the first item in a list of taxa, or some browsers wouldn't be able to read the list. On the other hand, I might be misremembering??? At any rate, there was NO NEED to remove one that I put in (it doesn't do any harm to have it) ... Stho002 03:47, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Calm down, there is no need to shout. The &nbsp; is a non-breaking space meaning that whatever is at the right side of the &nbsp; code is linked to whatever is on the left side of the code. I ahve not seen anything on nbsp templates being crucial for browsers, I I know is that prevents the dashes between taxa from appearing at hte beginning of a line if there are multiple lines of taxa by attaching it to the last taxon on the higher line. Basically its an aesthetics thing. --Kevmin 03:55, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I am calm. So, it doesn't really make much difference, so no need to add OR REMOVE... [caps just for calm emphasis!] Stho002 03:59, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Might I recommend the use of bolding or italics instead, as all caps is the net equivalent of shouting and creates problems when missread and/or not clarified. --Kevmin 04:20, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Okay! — The preceding unsigned comment was added by Stho002 (talk • contribs) 04:22, 22 February 2010.

Autopatrolled rights

Dear Kevmin, You have been granted autopatrolled user rights, which may be granted to experienced Wikispecies users who have demonstrated an understanding of Wikispecies policies and guidelines. In addition to what registered users can do, autopatrollers can have one's own edits automatically marked as patrolled (autopatrol). The autopatrol user right is intended to reduce the workload of new page patrollers and causes pages created by autopatrolled users to be automatically marked as patrolled. For more information, read Wikispecies:Autopatrollers.

This user has autopatrolled rights on Wikispecies. (verify)

You may as autpatroller use the autopatroller user box on your user page. Copy and paste the following code on your user page:

{{User Autopatroller}}

Dan Koehl (talk) 21:30, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Patrolling rights

After you were granted patroller user rights, it seems you did zero patrolling. (since you are autopatroller, the pages you edit gets automatically marked. But if you have patrolled pages , and marked them patrolled, your edit gets a "marked revision (number) of page (page name) patrolled")

If you dont wish to patrol pages, this is no problem at all, but please inform me if you tried and experienced any difficaulties, or if you have any questions.

Since you have not made use of your patroller user rights, I need to know if you still want to keep them, because you plan to use them in the future, or likevise. If you are not interested in patrolling, you dont need to do anything, and I will remove the user rights in a couple of days.

In any case you will keep your autopatrol user right, but there is no need for both.

But please consider carrying out daily patrols of new pages and edits made by users who are not autopatrolled.

If you want to try to patrol pages:

In Special:NewPages you can see the not patrolled new pages with yellow background. Presently there are probably none, since the pages made today and the last days has been made by users who already have 'autopatrolled' user rights. But if you do, or you choose to see the last 500 newly made pages, you may se files with yellow background. You can click on such a file, and scroll down to absolute down-right corner, where you can read "mark as patrolled" or similair, becasue the contributor does not have autoptarolled/patrolled user rights. When you click on the link, the file becomes patrolled.

But theres older files that need patrolling. In unpatrolled pages on recent changes, and you will see a list of unpatrolled pages. You will see a red colored ! in front of the unpatrolled file. If you click on each diff, you can mark the diff patrolled.

Dan Koehl (talk) 14:28, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Ive been on sporadically, and i will do my best to auto-patrol when I hop on. I cant say how confident I would be outside insects and fossil taxa lol.--Kevmin (talk) 00:53, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Dear Kevmin, I removed your patrol rights since you havnt used them during the last month. You are still autopatrolled, and should you wish start patrol pages in the future, you will get your patrol rights back. Best regards, Dan Koehl (talk) 23:26, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Local policies

Dear Kevmin, some time ago you showed interest in a future establishment of local policies. I believe we can now setup a project for this, and invite the community to such a project, and I just want to ask if you are still interested in this, and would be willing to participate? Dan Koehl (talk) 11:21, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Please see Wikispecies_talk:Projects#Project_local_policies. Dan Koehl (talk) 11:49, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Reference Section

Hello. Please note that WS does not use the standard Wiki method for citations. See your edits on Acer sect. Glabra, as an example. The reason being that most editors here are not Wikipedians and so find this type of citation very unfriendly to implement and edit. Can you edit these out? Thanks Andyboorman (talk) 09:15, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

Andyboorman The citation templates are a supported template here and not hard to use. They produce the same formatting that is being asked of editors just with a different set of mark up. If WS does not feel the templating should be used then documentation an links to the appropriate discussions should be provided and the templating deleted from the project. I have seen that consistency is very common thread of discussions and a standard template is an easier way to reference than hiding the refs in template space with names such as {{Li et al 2019o}}.--Kevmin (talk) 15:22, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

I agree, but that is not WS praxis - see Help Pages. It has been discussed and rejected in favour after a vote on the Pump. I would have to dig out the thread from the archive, but not now. Another reason is that we use a compact template format, which is easy to use on multiple pages with a built in link to show the multiple pages. If you want to change thousands of template spaces in order to conform to your view of consistency then I suggest a fresh debate on the Pump is required. Otherwise you could find a fellow editor changing your templates, which would be their right. Andyboorman (talk) 15:37, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

I will not stop if others feel that the very hard to find and edit template space is a preferred location, but dealing with template species on multiple projects (here , commons, and En.wiki) I feel its much less open and compatible for new participants to a project and possibly a detriment in the long term. I will ask when the last large scale discussion by the significant portion of the community happened. the citation template with an appropriate documentation page makes creatin of citations literally just plug and play.--Kevmin (talk) 18:36, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

Do as you please your wiki citation template is supported on the Help Section after all and I can not be bothered to debate. I will not use it as many of my citations appear on multiple pages and I find the Reference page tag on the template very helpful for house keeping. Maybe if I had word processor macros set up it may be different. However, I generally cut, paste and tweak Harvard style citations from papers and Scholar and dump them into the template. Suits me. Andyboorman (talk) 20:04, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

I would like to draw your attention to the taxon authority pages and their list of publications. Randomly selected Hossein Akhani where, for example, the Publications list can be useful for the protologue when creating taxon pages. Not a wiki standard citation in sight. Andyboorman (talk) 20:16, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

A vote is needed for consensus

Could you please organise a formal vote in order to gain consensus with respect to the organisation of the species lists? Without this there is not consensus. As an involved admin I can not really do this. As non-involved admins, @MPF: and @Pigsonthewing: have been pinged to alert them. As far as I am aware there is no binding consensus without a formal vote just a loose agreement based upon a brief Pump Discussion. Thanks Andyboorman (talk) 20:22, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

@Andyboorman @Kevmin can you clarify what this refers to, please? I don't recollect seeing any lists using anything other than alphabetic, or (occasionally, like I did at Pinus), alphabetic by subgenus. - MPF (talk) 20:58, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

@Kevmin: wants to incorporate paleotaxa into a super list. See Acer where the species are categorised but sections are bundled together. Arceuthobium is another example of a bundled list. There was a discussion on the Pump, but no vote so no consensus. I think Kevmin would like greater consistency (herding cats?). Best regards Andyboorman (talk) 09:00, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

@MPF: I just realized @Andyboorman: did not actually provide a link to the ongoing discussion on the village pump and mischaracterized the situation as ME unilaterally trying to change the lists at Acer and Arceuthobium. The slow but generally consensual discussion is Here at "Paleospecies".--Kevmin (talk) 15:49, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

@Andyboorman, MPF, and Pigsonthewing: I can try to craft a poll, but would an admin be willing or able to post a notice flag for all editors to see when they log on so there is more then the usual 4 person interaction with village pump entries?--Kevmin (talk) 17:55, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

That's the way to go. I can not help as I was involved in the original discussion. Andyboorman (talk) 19:43, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

@Andyboorman: You keep stating that you are not able to "Start" a discussion. Per what Wikispecies policy? Involvement only used to come into effect with regards to closure of discussions to avoid the appearance of it being a "supervote" by for a particular position. The opening of a discussion and the advertisement of a discussion to the full community via banners was never prevented prior to my hiatus due to Sth002 shadow banning me.-Kevmin (talk) 14:15, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

Since the troubles with Sth002 I have been very circumspect. Andyboorman (talk) 14:52, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

Meaning what exactly?--Kevmin (talk) 15:44, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

@Andyboorman: I hope the lead up to the holiday week is treating you well. The poll has been up for nearing a month now, what do you feel is a good time to set a closing date and ask one of the 'crats to close and make a judgement on the community input?--Kevmin (talk) 22:12, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

Yes thanks all OK, just off to do some more shopping! I agree with your suggestion and will ask the 'crats for closure. All the best. Andyboorman (talk) 09:21, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

Fossil Acer

Hello. In my research I came across a couple of fossil Acer species that might be of use to your work. Follow this link. IFPNI. Best regards. Andyboorman (talk) 16:29, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

Good morning Andyboorman,

Thanks for the suggestion, I know there are a number of species I haven't added to the lists yet from Europe, which is where Saportas species will come in, if its not a jr synonym of a different taxon. As for Leo Lesquereuxs Acer gracilescens, it's covered by Wolfe & Tanai in the chapter on rejected species. R.W. Brown (1962) synonymized A. gracilescens (and a host other early names) into the Paleocene species Platanus raynoldsi (sic), which was most recently moved to Platanites raynoldsii by Nares, Huegele, and Manchester this past January.--Kevmin (talk) 18:19, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

Hi Oxystylis lutea etc.

I have asked the crats to have a look at the behaviour of AbeCK. I suggest we leave AbeCK to keep digging their own hole. No admin will grant the speedy delete and its edit history has three editors getting hatted trying to help them. Thanks and hey we got our differences more or less resolved without bad feeling. Best regards Andyboorman (talk) 19:33, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

Works for me. I figured another voice in support of general consensus would be okay, and now I'm about to be done for the morning anyways. We did indeed, Im settling into the grove now with the editing process and getting all sorts of bogged down with Miocene species nomenclature tangles.--Kevmin (talk) 19:42, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

Formatting reference templates

Hi! If it helps you to know, for formatting reference templates to have the "Reference page" link, "Find all Wikispecies pages which cite this reference" and Category:Reference templates, it may help to use {{Reftemp}} so you don't have to write those bits of the template manually. Or rather, substituting it in as {{subst:Reftemp}} as given in the template's documentation, so that it then adds in all the code for the links and categories when you save the template. Anything else like publication dates, new names, etc. can be all added using a parameter to Reftemp. (You just have to watch out for "="s in the text, mind.) This was what Andyboorman was referring to in Village Pump recently.

I mostly only brought this up because I saw a stray </includeonly> in some templates you created recently (which I've fixed for you), I figure you've been manually copy+pasting formatting from another example? Monster Iestyn (talk) 00:56, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

@Monster Iestyn: Hey there, I usually find copy/pasting easier, and I had noticed that a few today seem to have been missing that line by accident. Thanks for the clean-up. I go with copy and paste due to most of the references I work with having associated taxa lists and published on lines that the {{subst:Reftemp}} doesn't seem to play well with. None of the documentation for the template shows any additional parameters that the template can perform.--Kevmin (talk) 01:04, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

...huh, somehow I had not noticed the documentation about the optional parameter was missing all this time, that is odd. No matter, all it does is that you can add extra text between the links and the category using {{subst:Reftemp|text}}

For instance on a new template I usually do the following:

(Reference){{subst:Reftemp|
=={{int:Nomenclatural acts}}==
* {{int:Date of publication}}: 1 January 2000
==={{int:New names}}===
* ''[[Foobar]]''
* ''[[Foobar rex]]''}}

Monster Iestyn (talk) 01:14, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

Huh, I just tried that on Template:Wolfe & Wehr, 1987, it seemed to just eat the extra text, I wonder if its due to my inclusion of div col templates in the names list?-- Kevmin (talk) 01:26, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

Did the extra text by any chance have =s in there? Those tend to cause the text to be eaten as they're interpreted as parameters in error. I think you can deal with those by using the templated version of them, {{=}}

If it's not that though, I have no idea offhand what else would cause that. Monster Iestyn (talk) 01:41, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

It did have the equals in there, I'm attempting again without the equals--Kevmin (talk) 01:47, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

Header notes on taxon pages

Not sure the value of the header notes on Acer sect. Rubra and Gypsophila tuberculosa The first is misleading as my last edit was to place the Additional References in alphabetical order. Confused! Andyboorman (talk) 09:47, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

Good morning Andy, I'm not sure I follow what this question is regarding? Are you talking about my placement of the "links" header before the databases section on Acer sect. Rubra. If so, all other wikiprojects clearly demarcate sourcing used in the article from what are more accurately titled "external links" (links leading off site). The links section clearly tells any reader that the papers and books in the Additional references were used in the page generation or could likely be done so. Conversely the external links are all the various quality website databases that have an entry for the taxon but are more a mirror of WS rather then a source for the page. I feel its good practice to have the websites separate from the research actually used for the page.--Kevmin (talk) 16:31, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

Ah I get it now @AbeCK: created them as part of his discussion on the Administrators' Noticeboard. I mistakenly thought thy were part of the taxon pages. Apologies. Andyboorman (talk) 16:41, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

University of British Columbia Vancouver

Apologies, You had previously reverted this. So what is your repair? Putting the alias as a list generates malformed HTML as the underlying template is expecting a SPAN based entry, a list is not a SPAN. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 17:16, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

Other than the page appearing on a lint report, does the listification of the alias generate a detrimental problem with the page or WS? If not, then Id say the issue should be ignored.--Kevmin (talk) 17:35, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

on repository pages and categories

I noticed your recent activities on NMC and RM. I see you tackle issue of several repositories with a duplicated acronym as I was tormented before (cf. Wikispecies:Village Pump/Archive 58#Repositories with the same combination of letters). I admit your non-acronym means (e.g. Rocky Mountain Herbarium for RM) is another solution though I prefer 'acronym with location' method (I usually handle herbarium links as seen in Draba incerta―the shorter links are, the more convenient our tasks become when we use {{rl}} in a way {{rl|RM (Wyoming)|RM}}, IMO), but now I have new questions. Why do you tolerate inconsistency between each page and category such as Rocky Mountain Herbarium vs. Category:RM (Wyoming)? Also, why don't you add disambiguation not only to the categories, but also to the ambiguous acronym pages themselves? I have modified RM in the way you did for Category:RM, so I would appreciate it if you compared both items and learned the existing inconsistency. It seems that NMC and Category:NMC also need disambiguation and recategorization of the belonging entries from Category:NMC to Category:New Mexico State University Biology Herbarium. What do you think of them? --Eryk Kij (talk) 15:42, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

@エリック・キィ: The way I see it, acronyms are not a viable solution, the number of duplicated usages I have found going though just a few small and one large paper on fossil taxa has shown that. There is a reason that all regular wikiprojects and Commons go with some concept of unambiguous test for picking page and category titles. It's unfortunate that when WS transitioned from using [[holotype|USNM]] (with linking to the Repository lists) to {{rl|USNM}} the cheap option was picked and acronyms were selected for the page titles rather then full Repository names. As it stands now, we have problems like seen at University of British Columbia and University of Wyoming where not only are there acronyms needing disambiguation, but multiple collections are all part of the larger Repository system, and in the case of U of WY there were near duplicates for one of the subcollections.

The reason for current inconsistency in my editing is more that I have to pick my time devotion and keep on track as much as possible with my major editing goals. If I don't, I know I will end up rabbit holing on side quests every few days and not actually finishing up any project at all. I'll run though Category:NMC and then convert it to a disambiguation this morning before I head to work.--Kevmin (talk) 17:30, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

Taxon pages for synonyms

Where and when was the discussion with reference to synonyms having their own pages and please show us the binding vote? I will continue to place plant synonyms as redirects unless there are other reasons for not doing so, whether these be basionyms, homotypic or heterotypic. I will not use your format preferences. The reason is purely pragmatic I will revert unless you can convince me otherwise. In addition, the term redundant under your warning sign has no taxonomic legitimacy as it is not a synonym under ICN, but by consensus between practicing botanists. It seems you need to bring the taxon page Aaronsohnia to the Pump for discussion before going head long down the route of trying to reformat WS using your own preferences. That can only lead to edit wars in my experience. Acknowledging a well meaning edit, I am trying to be helpful. Regards Andyboorman (talk) 20:55, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

Another editor would like to see Aaronsohnia reduced back to the redirect. Regards Andyboorman (talk) 10:10, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

Template:Evenhuis, 2014a

Hi, just to let you know, the PDF you used in the template {{Evenhuis, 2014a}} is actually for the original 1994 version of Evenhuis's catalog of fossil flies. For Version 2.0 of the catalog from 2014 you need to use the HTML version linked on the same website (here for Bibionidae). Monster Iestyn (talk) 03:52, 26 February 2026 (UTC)