User talk:MPF

From Wikispecies
Jump to navigation Jump to search

User talk:MPF/Archive 1


Noia 64 apps help index.png

Dear, MPF! Would you accept to be an Administrator on Wikispecies? Wikispecies need more Administrators and presently there is only 27 out of 220 active users.
Please see Administrators for information about Admins rights. If you are positive, I can nominate you on the requests for adminship on your behalf.

Dan Koehl (talk) 03:45, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
@Dan Koehl: Hi Dan - OK thanks, I'll give it a go! - MPF (talk) 11:31, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
Great, thanks! Dan Koehl (talk) 11:38, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
You are now an Admin on Wikispecies, Congratulations! You may indicate your adminship with the userbox {{User Admin}} on your user page.
Dan Koehl (talk) 13:12, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
Heres something to delete at the Candidates_for_speedy_deletion Dan Koehl (talk) 19:29, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
Done! - MPF (talk) 20:05, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Re: Species of the week[edit]

Yes, you are welcome to revise it. Congratulations for your admin nomination! Mariusm (talk) 09:53, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! Will do later today. - MPF (talk) 09:54, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
Are you still planning to revise the "Species of the week" template? In case you don't I'll do it. Mariusm (talk) 08:24, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
Yes, still planning - been distracted by 'certain events' taking up too much time! - MPF (talk) 09:26, 17 January 2015 (UTC)


@MPF: @Franz Xaver: @Floscuculi: Hi I was looking through WS for a bit of mini work to do and would like to tidy up Fagales. However, I notice that you have an interest in this taxon. I would like to start with Myricaceae and notice that it has one of those NZ categories at the bottom - this family is naturally found pretty well across the world except New Zealand and Australia I believe and so it will have to go! However, to update the family it will need Morella and Cerothamnus to be incorporated into Myrica s.l. anybody got a problem with that? Andyboorman (talk) 14:34, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi Andy - yes, please, go ahead! The genus split of Morella (e.g. GRIN) is well founded; not sure on Cerothamnus though. - MPF (talk) 14:54, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
The Morella/Myrica split is certainly well established (Huguet, 2004 doi: 10.1016/j.ympev.2004.11.018) , but controversial (eg. Tropicos). The sort of thing I like! I will keep digging but we may have to accept that it is not black and white. I will do my best of course. Andyboorman (talk) 15:42, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks! If I recall rightly, it's more a matter of dry [Myrica fruit] or moist [Morella berries] ;-) I've seen a few things before on Tropicos that weren't too good, so I'd be for keeping them separate. - MPF (talk) 16:01, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
Kew suggest three genera in Myricaceae. Andyboorman (talk) 16:20, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
No details or reasoning, unfortunately! - MPF (talk) 17:38, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
@Andyboorman: Based on Huguet et al. (2005), it is quite obvious that Morella should be kept separate. The controversy at Tropicos is easy to explain: In two older of their projects, i.e. Flora of North America (1997) and Flora of China (1999), it has been included in Myrica. Tropicos simply reproduces these synonymizations. However, under "references" it lists three refs from 2001, 2002, and 2011 that accept Morella. Moreover, most listed "projects", i.e. Antioquia, Bolivia, Madagascar, Madidi Checklist, Mesoamerica, Nicaragua, accept Morella as well. Also the treatment in Manual de Plantas de Costa Rica from 2007 accepts Morella. So, the "controversy" in Tropicos is only a documentation of an older classification side by side with a more recent one.
The listing of the monotypic Canacomyrica in the Kew genus list seems to be safe - see [1]. Regards --Franz Xaver (talk) 21:18, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
@Franz Xaver: @MPF: @Floscuculi: @OhanaUnited:. I have made a start, so thanks for your advice. If you would like to look through Myricaceae I would be grateful for comments about content. Unfortunately, Stho002 has decided to use "recent changes" follow me around and indulge in an edit war introducing his own non-standard formats and removing at least one legitimate reference. I have largely reverted his changes, but left one useful template in place. What to do? I cannot protect the pages as I will be accused of abusing admin powers. I have tried reason in the past but to no avail. Any advice? Andyboorman (talk) 09:31, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
@Andyboorman: @Franz Xaver: @Floscuculi: @OhanaUnited: thanks! I'll take a look. Unfortunately, I'm getting the same treatment, so anything I do to restore will just get reverted too. - MPF (talk) 13:49, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
I stuck some comments on his talk page - here's hoping. Andyboorman (talk) 16:13, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Discussion page[edit]

Reading a «it would have been "more civil", to say the least, if MPF had approached me privately about this matter in the first instance» quote at the village pump, thought it is something you would like to keep a note of for future reference. (Were it possible to move discussions from a village pump to a personal talk page without losing history, things would be much easier, as far as I can see.) Gryllida (talk) 01:44, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Platycarya etc.[edit]

Are you 100% certain that the the species you removed are actually synonyms? Just because the species of Platycarya do not appear in Flora of China but without references in this source it is not definitive on its own. The level of detail in Tropicos tends to show a different picture. Similarly for Juglans. Removing Tropicos because it differs in circumscription is a bit of a cheat. However, I am not an expert in these genera so I am happy to go with you if you are 100%. Thanks for your interest by the way as it adds another voice if an edit war appears. Cheers Andyboorman (talk) 11:47, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi Andy - not 100.00% certain, but very close, say 99%; I'm not aware of other sources accepting any of the other names. I'm not convinced how good a resource Tropicos is in cases like this, like IPNI (and often the Plant List, too), it acts more as an index of published names, rather than a verified list of distinct taxa ;-) MPF (talk) 12:00, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
99% good enough for me. I agree with Plant List and Tropicos - good for a start. IPNI is what it says on the tin just an index of validly published names. Tropicos is a much better start than TPL and has lots of other useful info, I use the later for its CSV files so easy to write Excel macros to generate WS lists for the larger files, but it needs a thorough checking. At least the genera and species in World Checklist have been or are being reviewed. I wonder if our work on Juglandaceae generates an edit war. If so I cannot really help as off for a few days break and away from a computer, so good luck and you have my support. I prefer the full citation for the original description in the Reference Section and the complete scientific name (see IPNI) in the Name Section. Just me being fussy! ;-) Andyboorman (talk) 14:49, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
@Andyboorman: According to this, Platycarya longzhouensis was published after the Flora of China treatment, actually at about the same time in 1999. So, it may well fall within the circumscription of Platycarya strobilacea of the FoC treatment, but it seems that it has not been formally synonymised yet. Therefore, technically it is an accepted species, unless it can be shown, that someone has put it into synonymy. The three other names are listed in synonymy in the FoC treatment. --Franz Xaver (talk) 10:09, 26 January 2015 (UTC)



Why are you making Zt templates and not author templates? PeterR (talk) 12:21, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi Peter - I was just improving on Stho's rather odd formatting for his Zootaxa template - MPF (talk) 12:23, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
OK. PeterR (talk) 04:15, 30 January 2015 (UTC)


I suggest that this family be circumscribed based upon

Do you have any objections? Andyboorman (talk) 16:21, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Fine by me (and for the rest of Lamiales as well) - MPF (talk) 16:24, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
I have made a good start on both. Stho002 had a real issue with Olmstead I think and took to interfering with the work a few months ago, so I temporarily abandoned it. Just have a look at Acanthaceae! Back on track. Do you have an opinion over the sockpuppetry?
Typical mess! If it's easier, just go back and restart form the 19:17, 27 October 2014 version, before he interfered? On the sockpuppetry - well, on other wikis, it's a permanent banning offence for the first account as well as the puppets. - MPF (talk) 20:31, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Re:Bird names[edit]

Hi. Okay, but in Spanish is not capitalised by spelling rule. See our rules provided by the Spanish Ornithological Society. Thanks! Jacobo Vásquez  Express yourself  05:29, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

This version (1994) is obsolete -SEO is working on a new release-. New versions do not capitalize the names, e.g. this (2009). Regards, Jacobo Vásquez  Express yourself  16:38, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

a couple of points[edit]

@MPF: Thanks for suggestions re format. Only one not sure about is the space between author initials, just looks odd to me. I know there has been a lot of learned debate about this over the years! Also see Dan's talk page, another probable sockpuppetry by the usual suspect. Andyboorman (talk) 12:30, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

@Andyboorman: Thanks! Yep, spacing between initials is variable in use in different journals; I think the important thing is to be consistent, either no spaces (A.N.Author; as used by e.g. ICBN and IPNI) or fully spaced (A. N. Author). What I find looks bad and I think should be avoided is mixed spacing with spaces after some fullstops but not others (A. N.Author, A.N. Author). Agree on the CU request; I've added my support. - MPF (talk) 13:26, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
Had it crossed your mind that the person recently blocked for adding "<nowiki>" to some beetle pages, B-vivace.Y, might be another sockpuppet of Stho002? Or am I over-suspicious? Accassidy (talk) 08:58, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Hmmm . . no idea! I guess it might need to be checked, though. - MPF (talk) 08:59, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
@Accassidy: I don't think so, as this account had vandalized at enwiki recently in the same fashion and earlier (before Stephen was blocked) in other fashions. Its edits both there and here are also at times of the day when Stephen did not generally edit. (Very late night/early morning antipodean time) Koumz (talk) 01:43, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
@Andyboorman:, @Koumz: Thanks for the detail. I will leave it there. Alan Accassidy (talk) 18:05, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

10 years contribution to Wikispecies[edit]

Its not everyday we get credit and appreciation for our idealistic work, why its a joy for me as fellow wikispecies user to congratulate and thank you for 10 years of contributions to Wikispecies, which I believe is today. Dan Koehl (talk) 16:56, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Then I would like to say "thanks and well done" too. That is some effort. Accassidy (talk) 22:15, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
Ouch, have I been here that long?? Thanks! - MPF (talk) 23:37, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the

Ten Year Society.svg

Mariusm (talk) 05:48, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Today's new user[edit]

Please look at User:Miguel Angel Mancera. Is in Spanish, which I am very poor with. It appears to deal more with US border cartels, and may not be in our line. He is definitely not spamming, and his only contributions are on his user page. Neferkheperre (talk) 23:21, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! It's a copy/paste from es:Narcotráfico en México; I've removed the text and redirected the user page to his talk page; will keep an eye on it. - MPF (talk) 23:31, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Reference formatting[edit]

Hello, I hope we can reach an agreement regarding reference formatting. I saw you changed the Template:Latham, 1790‎ from YEAR: to (YEAR). I would like to point out that in ZOOLOGY, 95% of the refs have YEAR: while in BOTANY the majority have (YEAR). My proposal is to leave it as it is and not start messing with this, or have you other ideas...? A discussion was started on the ref standardization, which ended without conclusions. Mariusm (talk) 14:16, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi Marius - a tricky one! I see "(YEAR)." a lot in ornithological literature, though admittedly not universally. Have to confess, I associated "YEAR:" very strongly with Stho-style and assumed it was one of his offbeam weirdo formats (so my preference is for "(YEAR)." throughout ;-) MPF (talk) 14:26, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
I wrote Franz, who started earlier a discussion on this to conclude it. The best solution would be to set a standard or maybe a couple of them for Zoology & Botany, so we wont have dilemmas regarding the ref formatting and will direct our energy towards adding content. Mariusm (talk) 14:44, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks! I guess it does not matter if more than one format is used within Wikispecies, but also think it is a good idea to stick to one format on any one taxon page - MPF (talk) 14:48, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
I have seen "YEAR:", "(YEAR).", and "YEAR." in journals. There is no one universal standard citation. Some even put "YEAR" at end of citation. Our system can be easily copy-pasted into reference sections by scientists with minimal adjustment. I am doing this myself for 2 manuscripts I am working on. Zootaxa uses "YEAR.".
I have been covering Zootaxa since Jan 23, which means about 10 reference templates, and 30 thereabouts author pages per day, plus stubbing into taxon pages as required. I have been following format as we discussed it on Village Pump, where template titles mention up to 3 authors, with 4+ as FIRSTAUTHOR et al. All authors are named and linked in citation body.
Botany and Zoology are different formats, so we would do well to accomodate. I am not very familiar with Prokaryote reference formats, so it might be good to examine those as well. Neferkheperre (talk) 15:10, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Invitation to join the Ten Year Society[edit]

Ten Year Society.svg

Dear MPF,

I'd like to extend a cordial invitation to you to join the Ten Year Society, an informal group for editors who've been participating in the Wikispecies project for ten years or more.

Best regards, Dan Koehl (talk) 00:56, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! :-) - MPF (talk) 01:26, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
Did you get my email? Dan Koehl (talk) 23:32, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Nomination for bureaucratship status[edit]

Dear MPF, I have nominated you as bureaucrat on Wikispecies, please confirm here if you accept the nomination. Dan Koehl (talk) 23:26, 19 April 2015 (UTC)


Wikispecies Bureaucrat.png

Congratulations, you are now bureaucrat on Wikispecies.

Bureaucrat may use the bureaucrat user box on their user pages. Copy and paste the following code to your user page:

{{User Bureaucrat}}

If you have a Meta-Wiki user page, you can put the Wikispecies bureaucrat user box for Meta on your Meta-Wiki user page.

–Best regards, Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 07:40, 27 April 2015 (UTC).

Lanius isabellinus[edit]

I did pass your message to our curator of ornithology. He confirmed what you told me. I will change captions and in place of the image in a few hours. Bravo for your vigilance: you're the best! --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 08:33, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! MPF (talk) 10:50, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Abies alba[edit]

I think you may find that your recent edits on the synonyms of the above are incorrect, for example, Pinus picea is a basionym not a heterotypic synonym. But may be you have a reference that differs from those presented, Govaerts is usually authorative. In addition the PubMed link is dead. Regards Andyboorman (talk) 18:05, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi Andy - There's no mention of Linnaeus's Pinus picea in Miller's protologue, so nothing to indicate that it has any status as a basionym, or even be homotypic. Govaerts also seems to have missed that Miller also only used Linnaean binomial nomenclature consistently from the 8th ed onward of his Gardeners Dictionary, so the 7th ed doesn't count as validly published; ditto Duhamel, which is why his early name isn't valid. I'll check and update the PubMed link. - MPF (talk) 20:40, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
Fair enough. I notice that PubMed and Govaerts (as an option) use the term Replaced Synonym for such a combination. Should WS do the same? This could be undertaken by a rewrite of template HET/HOT, perhaps with the name REP. I appreciate that this term is rarer than BAS but clearly fits the bill. By the way what do you think of the current HOM template in WS? In my humble opinion it just covers the junior homonym and not the wider category as well as being atypical in relation to layout. Thanks for your time. Andyboorman (talk) 17:24, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
Thanks! Yep, sounds like REP could be a good idea. I'll take a look at the HOM template. - MPF (talk) 11:37, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

New Zealand[edit]

Just saw that you deleted the article New Zealand, thanks for that, nothing to object of course, but I got curious as to if there was any links to the age, and yes, there was a few... Dan Koehl (talk) 22:58, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! Oh gosh, I thought it was just linked from talk pages (where it doesn't matter too much), but also from quite a few taxon pages - that'll need a bot to deal with, I guess. - MPF (talk) 01:27, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I will take care of that, unless someone has another opinion, see Village pump.Dan Koehl (talk) 15:34, 25 November 2015 (UTC)


Hello, is there a particular reason not to substitute {{BASEPAGENAME}} for the taxon name? I see you're replacing it. One reason in favor of {{BASEPAGENAME}} is not to have to change it when the taxon is transferred to another name. Mariusm (talk) 05:18, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

I've no huge opinion either way, but I remember it being disliked a while back on the village pump - I don't remember the reasoning though. I can leave it for now. When a taxon is renamed, the synonyms list will of course still need changing to add the old pagename, maybe it was a worry that might get forgotten too easily? - MPF (talk) 09:54, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
Just thought, it's not going to work when changing rank (subspecies to species, or vice versa), that could be the reason why - MPF (talk) 10:09, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Patrol stats[edit]

Thanks to Cgt on danish Wp, we can now see statistics on patrolling: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:07, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Please note that the patrolling stats URL has now changed from the da:WP user Cgt's personal web page (listed above) to a URL within the Wikimedia project itself, more specifically at Wikimedia Tool Labs. The old "" URL no longer works without a proper SSL certificate. Best regards, Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 22:50, 17 April 2016 (UTC).

Image size[edit]

What is the reason for the larger images? Uleli (talk) 07:23, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi Uleli - it was discussed a bit at Wikispecies:Village Pump/Archive 33#Image size and choice, but not acted on at the time. The preferred option would be to make image size 25-30% of screen width; unfortunately I don't know how to do a % width; my increase to 350px is a rough approximation to 25% of a modern monitor width - at 250 px, ideal for 1990s monitors, hardly any detail is visible in the pics. If you know how to make it 25%, please do so! - MPF (talk) 18:23, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
Does this change also apply to the "mobile" version of Wikispecies, found at rather than – and if it does: how? I usually sit in front of a nice 27" screen, but I know that quit a few users enjoy their smart phones or tablets instead. Surely there must be a big difference when editing using a 4" iPhone or 9.7" iPad, rather than a +20" computer monitor..? Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 11:45, 2 March 2016 (UTC).
I don't know! I never use a mobile, so don't know what would happen. But I think that's why the % width idea was made. Hope someone can find out how to do it, I think the pages look poor with a vast expanse of white and just a small thumbnail in the top corner. - MPF (talk) 21:40, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
Okay, fair enough. :-) As for percentage values for image sizes, I had that discussion in enWP and svWP some years ago. Back then there was no support for it in the Wiki software. That might of course have changed, since the Wiki software is constantly being upgraded and added to. Also, it's often done in a rather diaphanous manner, with changes being made that most users never gets aware of. But as far as I know, nope, it's not possible – at least not yet. It can of course be done using CSS instead, but to me that seems like a very "contra-wiki" way of solving the problem. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 00:46, 3 March 2016 (UTC).

Reference template formats[edit]

Hi MPF – thanks for your good work! However, please note that edits like this one doesn't comply with the recommended format for reference templates (see Help:Reference section). The format was decided upon in a Village Pump poll (results here). In the case with your edits this is not a huge deal at all, and I can understand if you chose to write author names as Author, A. B. C. rather than the recommended Author, A.B.C. when you create new pages. The same goes for scientific journals, such as Acarologia 9 (1): 55–75 instead of the recommended Acarologia 9(1): 55–75. But that's for new pages you create. In my opinion, and since we do have a recommended format, editing pages specifically to only change the format to a non-decided format is, well... not right. Any thoughts?

Last but not least: I'm not here to pick a fight, mind you. I just want us to reach some sort of agreement, or at least understanding. :-) Regards, Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 21:22, 10 May 2016 (UTC).

Hi Tommy - I guess it's being a bit on 'auto-pilot', I tend to forget the exact spacing recommendations. Though the current recommended spacing is illogical and inconsistent, with spaces after some punctuation but not others, so very odd-looking; it would be much more logical if either fully spaced (Author, A. B. C.) or fully non-spaced (Author,A.B.C.). Maybe it could be revisited at some point? - MPF (talk) 00:49, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
We certainly can, and I think at some point we should. As for now, one thing that comes to mind is line breaks. If we use the now recommended formatting of author names, we might come across line breaks such as
A.B.C., rest of citation
which is unfortunate, but personally I find it okay. On the other hand, if we use "your" system we might have to suffer with line breaks such as
Author, A. B.
C., rest of citation
which from my point of view looks awful. Again not a huge deal, but still. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 09:38, 11 May 2016 (UTC).

─────────────────────────Thanks! I'd think that would argue for the "Author,A.B.C." format, or else use of non-breaking spaces. Though it can't happen often, as author names are at the start of a line, unless there's dozens of authors? - MPF (talk) 18:02, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Page Request[edit]

Can you please make a page for Cyclommatus metallifer? I'd really appreciate it. 16:39, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Done: Cyclommatus metallifer; not a species I'm familiar with, so just basic details ;-) MPF (talk) 17:05, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
Good enough, I'd say! I added a list of subspecies. :-) Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 11:41, 5 July 2016 (UTC).
Thank you. :-) 13:29, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

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)

Hopefully no offence[edit]

Hi Please do not take offence to any of my remarks and opinions on our recent discussions on my talk page. Just a few not particularly strongly held opinions except for the use of the full taxon name, including abbreviated publication details, in the name section and synonymy. For this is is imperative that WS follows scientific taxonomic treatments and hence my discussions on the pump and additions to the help page. I am persuading colleagues to follow this and also add more details on the reference section and that this should include the protologue with links, if possible. Generally I feel that the reference section for most taxa is very thin and try to beef it up whenever I can, for example; with appropriate templates for journal articles, the use of IPNI and WCSP, and so on. I appreciate you are an experienced editor so hopefully I have not caused offense or discomfort. Cheers Andyboorman (talk) 16:02, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi @Andyboorman: - sorry, been forgetting to reply - don't worry, no offence taken! - MPF (talk) 17:20, 16 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)

Cephalotaxus harringtonia[edit]

Well I tried - is Wikidata now a dead end? Brya can be very stubborn in my few contacts. I see that you have updated Wikicommons. Not a lot can be done with Wikipedia except to add a WS link there - can you do that as I am not a WP adept? I have a added a note to the WP entry and its discussion page, but that's it for me I guess, as I do not even feel comfortable adding a reference to WCSP or Farjon (2010). By the way I do not use Typus. I have nothing against the term and I know it would be better to use it, but have used Type Genus and Type Species for so long it would need a bot and consensus on VP to change my (and many others) approach. All the best Andyboorman (talk) 21:57, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

@Andyboorman: Thanks for trying! I use 'typus' simply as it is botanical Latin, and therefore more fitting to WS's language-neutral policy, but it isn't something I consider very important. Best wishes! - MPF (talk) 23:15, 17 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)


i dunno why IPs are blocked indefinitely - they shouldnt! 14:16, 17 April 2017 (UTC)


Hi @MPF: Thanks for your edits on Phytolacca. Do you have anything to contribute to the discussion here on the VP? I am seriously considering getting rid of the subgeneric classification, as what we have is not correct, unreferenced and confusing. It also appears that there will be real problems correcting it and to do so may conflict with the OR policy. I addition, I am not sure any classification will add useful information, but I am not an expert on the genus. Regards Andyboorman (talk) 18:08, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi Andy @Andyboorman: - unfortunately not; I know even less about the genus than you do. I saw the discussion, which was what prompted me to look at the page, but all I felt I could do was tidy it up a bit and replace the dubious cultivated plant pic with a wild-origin pic of the type species (future proofing against any other species being removed from the genus!). - MPF (talk) 20:46, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
Hi Thanks anyway. Andyboorman (talk) 07:53, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Cervidae sp. in their right place[edit]


I try to create order among Cervidae; to put the species in their right genus, subfamily; but I dont know how to create new family trees and rename old pages. This is an example: Hyelaphus. Regards. DenesFeri (talk) 08:39, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

I'll take a look, but it might be a few days! - MPF (talk) 09:49, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

OK. Thanks. DenesFeri (talk) 10:44, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Vernacular Names[edit]

I know your opinion for vernacular names - that is not to use those that ordinary people use, unless they meet your precise criteria. However, once again to prevent edit wars I would suggest that you take your ideas to the pump for opinion and consensus. If the majority agree with you then fine. Lets face it the whole English speaking world calls it Norfolk Island Pine, which must be the definition of a vernacular name in this case. Andyboorman (talk) 14:27, 23 December 2017 (UTC)


Ahoj, dej prosím pozor na to, abys bezdůvodně neměnil pravopis názvů. V této editaci došlo k pavopisným chybám. (velká a malá písmena). / Hello, please be careful not to change the spelling of names unreasonably. This editing has encountered misspelling errors. (uppercase and lowercase).

--Rosičák (talk) 17:49, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi @Rosičák: - The orthography was correct; please note that the VN list uses Title case (as you would expect in a formal list or index), not text case. Basically, add the name as it is displayed at the relevant wikipedia, as in e.g. cs:Třezalka kalíškatá - MPF (talk) 18:39, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
To je obecně chybný přístup, protože vzásadě všechny články začínají velkým písmenem (což možná ideální není). Abychom to kolektivně probrali, založil jsem před nějakým časem: Žádost o komentář.[2]
This is a generally erroneous approach because, basically, all articles start with a capital letter (which is perhaps not ideal). To do this collectively, I founded any time a go: Request for Comment.[3]

P.S.: Ubezpečuji tě, že název rodu (Genus) se v češtině, polštině, maďarštině i slovenštině uprostřed věty vždy píše s malým písmenem. Pravopis každého jazyka je jiný proto bych byl opatrný.

P.S .: I assure you that the name of the genus in Czech, Polish, Hungarian and Slovak in the middle of the sentence is always written in lowercase. The spelling of each language is different, so I would be cautious. See also cz-třezalka, Biolib (cz-třezalka), pl-dziurawiec

--Rosičák (talk) 03:40, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi @Rosičák: - yes, I am sure that the name of the genus in Czech, etc., is always written in lowercase in the middle of the sentence. But an index list is not the middle of a sentence; each line is the start of a new sentence. Therefore, it should show as the start of a new sentence does in Czech, etc. - MPF (talk) 10:46, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
Hi @MPF: - no, there is no start of new sentence with verb. Line starts with "čeština:". After colon is very "unusual" to write lists with capitals. There are fixed grammatical rules for lists: [4], [5]. Do you understand it? ---xfi- (talk) 23:06, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
Hi @-xfi-: - please use the agreed format of Sentence case; see Help:Vernacular names section, where it states "Attention: Titles of the articles in interwiki always begin with a capital letter (Sentence case). The VN list should follow suit, even when the within-sentence convention for vernacular names is in lower case in some languages" (my emphasis). Thanks! - MPF (talk) 01:09, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
@MPF: - What is reason for this? It is incorrect information about vernacular names. For example: on wikidata is duplicity of taxon common names (P1843) for Czech, and that duplicity for Czech language is due to incorrect information from Wikispecies. For whom is list of vernacular name useful with incorrect information? Thanks! ---xfi- (talk) 07:42, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

───────────────────────── @-xfi-: One problem is that as a database, Wikispecies should handle all data of a certain type in the same way. When possible, all author pages should be formatted in the same way, all categories should be constructed in the same way, all templates should follow the same standard, etc. This is also true for the list of vernacular names. Wikispecies can currently be presented in any of 32 different languages, and for the vast majority of them title case (as desribed in Help:Vernacular names section) is correct. Sadly this may become a problem in some of the languages, but I guess the majority rules... Another example of this is how we have agreed to format author names. As explained in Help:Author Names all middle name initials should be written without spacing, i.e. written as "Gerald A.H. Bedford" and not "Gerald A. H. Bedford". This strikes many users as odd and some – including many of those with English as their first language – even find it outright wrong. Nevertheless we have had this up for vote, and the outcome of the poll clearly states that the majority prefers the format without spaces. This may be wrong in some languages, but since there is only one version of Wikispecies and that one version should simultaneously serve all the people on Earth regardless of language, we will sometimes have to make compromises. It's of course easier on Wikipedia where there is one WP version for each language, and every single Wikipedia is supposed to be monolingual. Here at Wikispecies we don't have that luxury. Best regards, Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 17:31, 28 February 2019 (UTC).

Thanks @Tommy Kronkvist: for a far clearer explanation than I could manage! - MPF (talk) 20:54, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Anti-Science Insult[edit]

To accuse me of being anti-science is crass, insulting, Trumpist and down right childish. It is behaviour that should be beyond a crat and admin. A brief review of my work and sourcing of scientific literature should be enough to prove you dead wrong. Please retract this statement. Andyboorman (talk) 15:32, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

@Andyboorman: Most of what you've added has been scientific, yes. But if you insist on calling it a pine, then you should provide the scientific evidence and transfer it properly to Pinus where it belongs if that is indeed the case. If you can't provide that evidence (I've never seen any genetic data supporting the case), then there is no case for adding inaccurate mistranslated/misconstrued information stating that it is something that it is not. - MPF (talk) 15:43, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
Who ever said that an Araucaria is a Pinus? I do not confuse plant taxonomy with common English, nor do I insist that the English speaking peoples of Australasia conform to my interpretation of their language preferences. In addition, I do not use wikis to further my own teaching agendas or OR, as per policy. Andyboorman (talk) 16:00, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
If you call it a pine, you are saying it is a Pinus. We need to educate to get away from historical errors in taxon naming in English, not perpetuate or promote them. We should stick to scientific evidence that it is not a pine, and therefore, should not be called one - MPF (talk) 16:16, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
To pursue a personal agenda, however well meaning, is not part of a wiki. Andyboorman (talk) 16:23, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
It's not a personal agenda, it's just scientific fact - MPF (talk) 16:49, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
Pine is a softwood timber used in carpentry and shipbuilding not necessary always from genus Pinus, hence common usage of the term in VN in Australasia. Denying cultural history because it does not fit your agenda is also Trumpist (you levelled the accusation first). Science is a method not a set of religious beliefs. Andyboorman (talk) 19:32, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
That was a long time ago. When the circumscription of the genus is changed (as it has since Linnaeus defined it), you change the vernacular names at the same time to match the new scientific data. - MPF (talk) 21:14, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
No the vernacular name is that which is now most commonly used in the country under consideration. That is the definition of vernacular, unless the dictionaries change this definition we have to go with this consensus not impose our own meaning. OK it does not have scientific precision, but facts are still facts and real life is real not an abstract of perfection. In my opinion we ought to dispense withe the whole section anyway. Andyboorman (talk) 10:00, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

How about Cordyline, particularly the Australian Palm Lilies or New Zealand Cabbage Trees? Neither palms nor lilies and neither cabbage nor trees. Incidentally the Maori for Cabbage Tree Cordyline australis - tī kōuka translates to an approximation of sugar cane in English. Not exactly "scientific", but very vernacular. Andyboorman (talk) 11:01, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

We need to stick to names that do have scientific precision, to avoid confusion, mixed messages, and misidentification. Cordyline should be hyphenated as 'Cabbage-tree', i.e., a tree with cabbage-like qualities (yes, it is a tree: "a woody, perennial plant which can attain a stature of 6 m or more on a single stem"). - MPF (talk) 16:47, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
Not a tree botanically, as the stem contains no wood - we prefer the more accurate term arboreal monocot, reserving tree for conifers and eudicots. Andyboorman (talk) 18:44, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Reference templates, Latham and others.[edit]

Dear friend, on my experience, these indexed templates, used more when an article references multiple pages, work perfectly. No need for reverting my edits. Thanks.--Hector Bottai (talk) 13:13, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi @Hector Bottai: - it is not so much that the template 'doesn't work', more that the template is poorly formulated for this context, not well designed for indicating a particular page in the normal standard format "Book title: 123" or "Journal title 6: 123". The template has been designed more for a bibliographic listing of the whole book (including publication information, etc.), rather than the brief single page citation wanted here. - MPF (talk) 18:03, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
Dear, unfortunatelly not in agreement. What is wrong in offering to the user of a page a full bibliographic reference of the autorship instead of a few words and a link? Lot of editors are using the reference template. In my thousands of editions you are the first in reverting one. I will respect your wikispecies seniority and your bureaucratic status and will not change what you have done, but I will respectfully ask you not to revert any of my editions unless there is a consensus and a policy established on a colective forum on how to use reference templates, that I am not fully aware. --Hector Bottai (talk) 11:50, 18 April 2019 (UTC)