User talk:MILEPRI

• Archive to the end of 2018
• Archive to the end of 2019
• Archive to the end of 2020
• Archive to the end of 2021
• Archive to the end of 2022
• Archive to the end of 2023

nadi

Something has gone wrong recently with your formats for the nadi template. You seem to be adding a ^ to Regional as well as placing it in bold not italics. See my edit on Microlicia selaginea as an example. Hope this helps. Andyboorman (talk) 11:03, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Also it would be ideal if you would use Regional: in its fullest and not use terms too broad a term for Continental. The guidance is in Brummitt. Andyboorman (talk) 11:51, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

@MILEPRI This time I regret to remind you of what I told you before. We have to conform to Brummitt's format, or refraining from use of {{nadi}} would be another choice. --Eryk Kij (talk) 16:40, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

@Andyboorman: Sorry to interrupt, but I have almost never seen the practice of Regional-italicization. Does it have any consensus? I always make it bold. --Eryk Kij (talk) 16:40, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

@Eryk Kij: Common practice by most editors over many years has Continental in bold and Regional in italics. But as nadi is an addition and not essential, I assume you can format as you wish. My point about origin is that if too vague it just becomes a collection of possibly geographically disconnected names. Andyboorman (talk) 18:04, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Another tip or two

A couple of friendly points. APD is a link not additional reference. Also be careful when creating redirects. A name could have homonyms and you may inadvertently create a redirect over an accepted name. Check for green coloured links on the list of species or genera. Best regards Andyboorman (talk) 11:47, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Page moves

Hi Milepri - please do not use cut-and-paste for page moves, as this breaks the page history. Only ever use the 'Move' tab (under 'More' in the action bar). Thanks! - MPF (talk) 22:05, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Hi MPF - I already use 'Move' when the destination page does not exist. I use the copy-paste when she is busy. I guess I should clear the page and then use 'Move'. I would appreciate it if you let me know if this is correct. Saludos. MILEPRI (talk) 07:22, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

I just use Move and then edit the original page, as required. It saves using the copy/paste and keeps the valuable edit history - just in case. I have learnt the hard way! Andyboorman (talk) 07:44, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Eponyms - 'Bon'

Please be careful before you add eponym categories to pages. I removed all of your edits claiming these names are attributed to Marcel Bon since all of the basionyms were published before 1925, i.e. Marcel's birth year, therefore DEFINITELY have nothing to do with him. Yes, categorization ALWAYS needs discretion to some extent. I have also given eponym categories by deduction sometimes, but always only after checking that birth year of person are before collection/publication date. We are always responsible for providing data. --Eryk Kij (talk) 09:49, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

thanks for your help. MILEPRI (talk) 09:59, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Links

I have asked a fellow admin to see whether or not they can run a bot to automatically change == Links == into === Links ===. The problem with the former is that it produces an unnecessary section break with an underline. Links are part of the References and do not require a separate section. In the mean time could we all please use === Links === as provided. Andyboorman (talk) 09:51, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

OK. Saludos MILEPRI (talk) 09:52, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

nadi, again

I have had to correct edits to the distribution on several pages that you have recently worked on, and I came here to advise you about the correct use of the nadi template, but I see that the topic has already been mentioned to you a few times here. The full list of continental, regional, and countries/sub-regions can be found in this PDF. If you cannot follow that arrangement for whatever reason, may I suggest that you don't add or edit the distributions, and leave it for others to complete.

I also want to point out that there should only be one image per species page, unless the images show male and female variations. See Help:Image Guidelines for more details. Cheers, Junglenut (talk) 22:54, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Roemeria pavonina

This species is accepted by both Hassler and POWO. It should be kept. Andyboorman (talk) 08:42, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

It is already updated, it's just that I left it unchanged yesterday due to lack of time. Thanks for the notice. Saludos MILEPRI (talk) 08:54, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

Thanks Andyboorman (talk) 09:00, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

nadi, yet again

I reverted your edit on Phyllanthus androgynus because you are still not using the nadi template correctly, despite having been told on several occasions about your errors. Please read and understand the information that has been pointed out to you. Cheers, Junglenut (talk) 22:38, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

POWO etc.

Please note that POWO has no data for subfamilies, tribes and the like, so please do not add these to our taxon pages. Could you please review recent edits and remove the link if required. Hassler rarely has such taxa and MBG needs checking before adding it o a taxon page. Finally {{Catol-Hassler}} is under discussion and now it is not to be recommended to be used if it entry is identical to POWO. Thanks Andyboorman (talk) 07:50, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

OK, gracias por la información. MILEPRI (talk) 09:06, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Template:Commons

Did we decide to begin eliminating this template from pages? There is no indication on its documentation. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:43, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

¿? It does not specify what it mean, Saludos MILEPRI (talk) 17:00, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

I do not understand your reply. The template explains on its documentation page what the template is for, yet you are removing it from pages without any explanation. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:13, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

I don't recall deleting any templates. I'd appreciate it if you could give me the name of a specific page so I can explain it to you. I only remove MBG from Wikispecies when there's no link to the page (as suggested by Andybooman) or Commoscat from Commons when there's a link to Wikidata, because it already appears in the left margin of the page and the link is repeated (as suggested by Junglenut). Saludos MILEPRI (talk) 07:27, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

@MILEPRI - When you made this Wikispecies edit, you removed the link to Commons. You also did the same here, here and in a number of other cases. I edit Commons pages to remove the link to Species because it is in the infobox — but in the reverse case we keep the link from Species to Commons because there is no link to Commons in the infobox. So we keep Species⇒Commons links, remove Commons⇒Species links. I hope that's clear. 🌳 Junglenut · Talk 10:13, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

I have no qualms about including Commons in the species taxon (I've always done so), but your clarification doesn't reflect reality. Look at your last edit of "Nanorrhinum acerbianum" and you'll see that "commons" appears in the left margin as a link to this page "In Other Projects". Saludos MILEPRI (talk) 10:36, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

I think you'll find that that left hand column is based on personal user preferences - both the right and left columns can be adjusted in your personal settings, including hiding one or both of them. In any case, it is not a part of the editable taxon page. 🌳 Junglenut · Talk 10:48, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

@EncycloPetey I have reverted a number of these edits myself as I'm not aware of any reason to remove it. 🌳 Junglenut · Talk 19:44, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

Protologue

In Wikispecies, using Veronica baylyi Garn.-Jones, 2007 for plant taxa is incorrect. The correct usage is Veronica barkeri Cockayne, Trans. & Proc. New Zealand Inst. 31: 421 (1898 publ. 1899). Please pay attention to this.--Fagus (talk) 10:36, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

I think @Fagus: is incorrect. According to all my sources and experience of the flora of New Zealand, both names require their own taxon pages. I am waiting for a reply from a message I sent. Andyboorman (talk) 10:53, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

@Andyboorman I might be wrong here, but I thought @Fagus was referring to the correct way to cite an author, rather than the validity of the species? 🌳 Junglenut · Talk 21:00, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

@Junglenut: You are correct, just a slight misunderstanding. Andyboorman (talk) 07:16, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

VN

Why are you adding an empty local names (VN) template? Add it only if there is information. Please ? Fagus (talk) 08:33, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

OK. Saludos MILEPRI (talk) 08:36, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

citation format

Hello,

Thank you for your contributions. I've noticed you've been using a citation format like Platanus glabrata Fernald, 1901. This format, which only includes the author and year, is standard in zoology (e.g., Carduelis carduelis (Linnaeus, 1758)).

However, for botany, the standard practice on Wikispecies is to provide the full publication information. This is crucial for proper taxonomic referencing and verification. The correct format for a botanical name is to include the author(s), the abbreviated journal or book name, volume/page numbers, and the year of publication.

For example, the correct citation for Platanus glabrata would be:

Platanus glabrata Fernald, Proc. Amer. Acad. Arts 36: 493 (1901).

This practice helps ensure consistency and accuracy across all botanical entries.

Could you please make sure to include the full publication details for any new botanical names you add? I appreciate your understanding and cooperation in helping to maintain the quality of our content.

Thank you, Fagus (talk) 19:41, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

As you can see on the Platanus glabrata page, the information you requested is already included in the Primary Sources section. I understand that you are asking me to also include this information in the Name section of the same page. Saludos MILEPRI (talk) 07:38, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

@MILEPRI Yes that's true, although the information in the two sections is formatted differently, and they serve different purposes. In the name section it is:

Taxon name abbreviated-author-name(s) abbreviated-publication volume(issue): page(s) (year)

whereas in the reference section it is:

Surname, initials. Year. Title of the paper (if known). Journal name volume(issue): page(s).

The latter should be followed by a link to the paper or archive if it is available. 🌳 Junglenut · Talk 20:06, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

Armeria alboi

I have contacted IPNI as they use albi as the epithet. Best regards Andyboorman (talk) 11:19, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

MILEPRI

MILEPRI, I have written you many things and given you warnings, but for some reason you don't take them into account. You continue to do what you think is right. You really have a peculiar personality. You keep going in a 'I'll do what I want' mode. You have really tired me out. A person considers what is said, but you don't at all. I give up on you. --Fagus (talk) 19:48, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

I follow your advice with pleasure and don't know what you base your opinions on. I think that when I create a page, I include all your recommendations (see the latest "Armeria filicaulis" and tell me what I've left out, so I can correct it). However, when I complete another author's page, I only include what they're missing, without altering the rest, out of respect for the work they've done. Saludos MILEPRI (talk) 08:36, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

@Fagus: It is OK to alter another editors page, if you see basic errors or praxis particularly taxonomy, but also format. WS has evolved over the years and some pages are still crying out for basic updates. However, I am not obsessed with things like the placement or not of a full stop after a date bracket. However, one of my current projects is to add the protologue in the correct reference format with an appropriate online link where it is available. If this link is not available a committed scientist can access the literature through a deposit library, like the British Library, therefor it is not wasted work to give as much detail as you can, AI is great help (hint). Protologues can be critical for botanists and are normally required if you are discussing a taxon with IPNI or POWO, for example. Best regards Andyboorman (talk) 09:28, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

Look, folks, Wikispecies is currently using a different system. I'm not going to list everything one by one. For instance, when you visit a POWO page, you can see that there's a standard from top to bottom, a structure that's also present on other taxonomy pages. For some reason, we lack standardization. Everyone creates a different page according to their own preferences. This prevents us from creating quality, uniform pages. Instead, we end up with a chaotic series of pages full of errors. Frankly, this bothers me. But you might say this is illogical, that anyone can create a page however they want. Fine. Then continue as you are Fagus (talk) 11:31, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

I think the problem is that there are acceptable variations around a common Harvard style theme - see Google Scholar Cite popup. Journals specify their own house style variant, as do academic intuitions. As we do not use a template for a reference citation, then editors tend to use the one the one they are most familiar with. The Help pages are a guide but not over proscriptive. Mine (29/8/25);

Name

Armeria welwitschii Boiss., in A.P.de Candolle, Prodr. 12: 676. (1848)

Protologue/PrimaryReference

• Boissier, P.E. 1848. Prodromus Systematis Naturalis Regni Vegetabilis (DC) 12: 676.

This is the style I used to teach as well as publish and it fits the Help, as well as results of past Pump Discussions. However, some editors tinker with these and I longer bother to change their well meaning edits. To me the most important factors are that the taxonomy is correct, formats fit academic convention and links work.

Hope this helps. Andyboorman (talk) 13:25, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

Armeria nebrodensis

According to POWO, the WS synonymy for Armeria nebrodensis is incorrect. I can not find any source to contradict POWO. I will edit when I have heard from Kew, as IPNI has a different name registered. Best regards. Andyboorman (talk) 08:22, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

In the meantime, I have placed the reference to the data collection of the synonyms on the page so that there is a record of the data collection. Saludos MILEPRI (talk) 08:36, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

Kew have recently told me that there are problems with the names in Statice that are now Armeria and other genera such as Limonium, where there are differences, then we are advised to use POWO and disregard IPNI whilst changes are made. Best regards. Andyboorman (talk) 15:08, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

OK.Saludos MILEPRI (talk) 07:23, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

POWO

Thanks for your edits on Poaceae. However, please not that WCVP and WCSP both now link to POWO and where they are encountered they should be changed. WVCP should be removed from Additional References and the template {{WCSP}} changed to {{POWO}} with the date changed if required. Best regards Andyboorman (talk) 10:03, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

As you can see from the edits I have made, I have modified almost all of them, although some may have been overlooked. Thank you for letting me know.. Saludos. MILEPRI (talk) 10:08, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

Cheers. I should repost on the Pump and will do very soon. Andyboorman (talk) 10:41, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

Rec 50F of of the ICNafp

Hello @Brya: has bought to my attention Rec 50F of the new code. To follow this we need to add a note in the Name Section, as this will help the reader who is expecting a caffrum or similar species epithet. See my edits on Senegalia afra, as an example. BTW I have removed dead links as well. Saludos Andyboorman (talk) 14:21, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

Hello Milepri, please note that the renaming into afra etc. is only valid for plant names! Please do not alter names of animalia. Please undo your page moved in Pheidole, Bunaea, Siccia and others. Kind regards, Thiotrix (talk) 13:28, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

I appreciate your information. I thought that all the pages with the suffix 'caff' needed to be changed. I have tried to undo those done today, but the page tells me they have already been undone. I would appreciate it if you could help me remedy the mess. Saludos MILEPRI (talk) 15:48, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

I think all incorrectly renamed animalia are now undone. --Thiotrix (talk) 19:13, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

Eponyms of 'Taquet'

I did and will revert most of your additions of Category:Eponyms of Philippe Taquet to pages on plants occurring in Korea and described before 1940 by H. Léveillé (1863–1918) as Émile Joseph Taquet (1873–1952), missionary who collected plants in Korea, is obviously irrelevant to Philippe Taquet (1940–2025). PLEASE every time check birthdates of person whom you think is origin of each eponym. It is quite regrettable that you didn't take this matter more seriously after I had warned you of a similar eponym-related issue and you make the same mistakes repeatedly. --Eryk Kij (talk) 14:57, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

I appreciate your information. MILEPRI (talk) 08:20, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

Please add to IPNI

You are doing a great job on Poaceae, but please remember to add the IPNI n number to our template. For example it is 17483-1 for Anthoxanthum. Best regards Andyboorman (talk) 18:01, 19 December 2025 (UTC)