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)