User talk:Mariusm

From Wikispecies
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Around 1.9 million extant species are believed to have been described by now.
My dream is to see them all listed here!

Archive 01                 to 30 Apr 2008
Archive 02 May 2008 01 Aug 2008
Archive 03 Aug 2008 01 Nov 2008
Archive 04 Nov 2008 31 dec 2014

Archive 05 Jan 2015 31 dec 2015

Trachylepis vezo[edit]


Is this the new way for additing species: Trachylepis vezo. PeterR (talk) 11:57, 31 December 2015 (UTC) Its after Sthoner.Reply[reply]

That's very strange for me, too. --Murma174 (talk) 06:46, 1 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Same here. I've never been very fond of the {{Spage}} or {{Tysp}} templates, or other templates like them. In my opinion they make the code unnecessary complex, without adding any real content or information. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 19:32, 1 January 2016 (UTC).Reply[reply]
Yes, I'm not in favor of these templates too. I'll try to explain this to User:Alfredalva Mariusm (talk) 14:36, 2 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Reference templates[edit]

Great work with all the reference templates! Thanks! –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 15:12, 23 January 2016 (UTC).Reply[reply]

Aleš Smetana[edit]


Thanks for updating publications Aleš Smetana. I was a few days with holiday and I'm back to day, So I can work it out further. PeterR (talk) 09:54, 31 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Author taxa[edit]


I have some remarks on your author taxa contributions for Paraloconota muscicola and others. 1. The original species is not Paraloconota muscicola but Atheta (Paraloconota) muscicola. 2. Atheta (Paraloconota) hazarana as synonym have no author category 3. Atheta (Philhygra) kashmiricola as synonyms have no author category.

On this way you give a fault indication about the species described or authored by the author. In the museum you find only the original description and the description with the designator for the lectotype etc. The lectotype etc. is always described from the original paper. As exemple see Xanthorhoe alluaudi. PeterR (talk) 09:15, 9 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@PeterR:, I disagree with you. Atheta (Paraloconota) muscicola and Paraloconota muscicola are the same species, and the fact is that Cameron described it, no matter how you call this species. Certainly Paraloconota muscicola wasn't described by the person who transferred it from Atheta to Paraloconota. We cannot handle our species-by-author list according to "museum records". The best way is to handle it by "current acceptable name". That to my mind is the best way to avoid errors and duplication. Mariusm (talk) 12:22, 9 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Please note that there are 2 types of synonymy: (1) A transferred name which changed its original name but retains its parameters (like Atheta (Paraloconota) muscicola to Paraloconota muscicola). (2) A true synonym where the species was synonymized to another species altogether (like Atheta (Philhygra) kashmiricola to Paraloconota muscicola). In this case the author can be assigned to this original name since it is unique and different. Mariusm (talk) 12:30, 9 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@PeterR: The example of Xanthorhoe alluaudi is demonstrating exactly how NOT to handle synonymy: (1) You redirect Larentia alluaudi onto itself. (2) You don't specify "Category: author taxa" for this species. There's no wrong in the "author taxa list" including accepted names rather than original names. In any case, when you click a name in the list, you can look at the Synonyms section and see clearly what the "original name" was. Mariusm (talk) 04:25, 10 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is a better example Ophiorrhabda hyeroglypha PeterR (talk) 10:23, 10 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@PeterR: There are 2 problems with this example too: (a) You have 2 pages for essentially a single species with the same type info. (b) You have to remember that species with () have no author category, and also the reader has to go to the other page in order to get this info. You make another page just for the category of author-taxa – this is a bit exaggerated for me. Mariusm (talk) 14:07, 10 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hello Mariusm, could you please have a look here: Category:Wikispecies articles with authority control information.
Only for authors and for taxa also? Burmanniaceae, Trifolium etc. Regard. Orchi (talk) 14:47, 18 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm surprised to see it applied on taxa. I think this was not the original intention of "Authority" to include it on taxa. But please ask it on the pump. Mariusm (talk) 14:56, 18 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
o.k.Orchi (talk) 15:02, 18 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]



I have make a decision to stop with author taxa and museum taxa. The reason is that every one give an advise to do this and others say it is worse. 1. Ophiorrhabda hyeroglypha is your own advise 2. Xanthorhoe alluaudi is an advise from Franz Xaver (done in 2015 in Overview of species).

It is impossible for me to add the published species or subgenera to the author or museum. PeterR (talk) 11:38, 22 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@PeterR: For once please try and think reasonably (as a science-inclined person would). There's absolutely no conflict between subgenera, author and museum. The fact that the title name doesn't correlate with the "museum" name, doesn't mean that it isn't accurate. Every species has its unique types which remains with it throughout its life. When the name changes with or without subgenus, the types stay consistent and can be traced by the synonymys and by the data provided on the species page. Mariusm (talk) 11:57, 22 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thats not what I mean. I mean the overview of original combination made by an author like Franz Daniel. Their I have to see the species original labeled by him and not todays combination. PeterR (talk) 08:18, 25 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]



I thought we had stopped with those categories:


PeterR (talk) 06:49, 25 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@PeterR: I left Bioref, (who is really Stoner) a message. Lets wait and see. Mariusm (talk) 08:29, 25 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think it don't help anyway see template: {{Baehr, 2014f}}. Was made in his old own style. Update after agreements by Tommy Kronkvist. PeterR (talk) 14:22, 25 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I see no point in "ZooBankAut", as it never has any information but name, and no way to add anything else. "ZooBankRef" is essential, as all taxonomic references after 1 January 2013 are required to be registered. Failure to do so renders articles incomplete. "ZooBankAct" is not mandatory, but highly advisable. This is ICZN rulings. Neferkheperre (talk) 14:36, 1 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Neferkheperre: yes I agree. I see no reason why not use {{ZooBankRef}} and abolish {{ZooBankAut}}. Mariusm (talk) 14:45, 1 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree as well. An extra disadvantage to the {{ZooBankAut}} template is that it is frequently used with an incorrect ZooBank Author ID. I'm sure those pages might have been fine once, but thereafter the ID# got changed at ZooBank. As a result, those {{ZooBankAut}} templates now render an invalid ZooBank URL. There are even some cases when no ZooBank ID is used at all, such as in Keith Arthur John Wise. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 14:56, 1 May 2016 (UTC).Reply[reply]



He is making his own author templates again see

I left a warning for him.Mariusm (talk) 06:03, 27 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Chthamalus hedgecocki[edit]


We have an agreement not to use Spage, but Neferkheperre use it in example Chthamalus hedgecocki PeterR (talk) 17:04, 30 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Many of my older taxon pages were written with it, but I have not made any new pages in over one year containing it. It was one of Sthoner's things, and I never really liked it, because I could not put some symbols where I wanted them. Neither have I been changing them out. Am I supposed to? Neferkheperre (talk) 17:39, 30 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't think you should hunt them down, but when you encounter them, please make the changes. Mariusm (talk) 05:13, 1 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
When I see those species I shall change them PeterR (talk) 10:49, 1 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]



Why don't you block Merophyas, alias Bioref, alias Sthoner? It is a complete mess again. PeterR (talk) 07:30, 4 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

He's coming under a new name every single day. This necessitates a range block. Mariusm (talk) 04:30, 5 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Species with subgenus[edit]


Is this ok for you? Meroleuca (Meroleucoides) diazmaurini PeterR (talk) 08:18, 4 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@PeterR: Everything is fine except the page's name which must be Meroleuca diazmaurini. We already discussed this many times in the past. You have now two separate pages for a single species. Mariusm (talk) 04:27, 5 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Checklist poll on the pump[edit]

I appreciate that this poll has only been open for 4 days, but you will need to think of the time limit, particularly as the suspected sockpuppet seems to be busy inventing new aliases almost daily. IMO it is not a good idea to spring the close of the poll too suddenly. However, you may wish to take soundings and advice from the crats. Dan Koehl, MPF, OhanaUnited and Tommy Kronkvist are the only ones active here at the moment. Regards Andyboorman (talk) 20:06, 4 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Andyboorman: yes, you're absolutely right. This has become an urgent situation. I limited the poll to May the 8th. Mariusm (talk) 04:23, 5 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Mariusm: Time to declare the poll closed now? Will @Dan Koehl: follow up on the CU and range block? It seems that Thorpe is operating out of a public library or similar with multiple computers, but I really do not know enough about this side of computing. He also appears to be sockpuppeting on English Wikipedia on which he also has an infinite block. In addition, some of the aliases have been around for a year or two - see Macarostola miniella (talkcontribsblock logall projects) . I guess this may have to go above our "pay scale". Regards Andyboorman (talk) 15:27, 9 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
CU is now requested at Meta. Dan Koehl (talk) 19:32, 9 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Dan Koehl: thanks for your involvement with this complicated and delicate matter. @Andyboorman: all this demonstrates how vulnerable the wiki system is. When a person is determined enough he can inflict painful damage, at least he succeeded in damaging my morale... Stho002 openly admits on the CU page he's sockpuppeting, and he claims it to be an honest and legitimate measure in combating political wars among various clans... I'm not seeing how I can continue editing in this atmosphere. I'm waiting to see what Stho002's next moves be before I decide whether I carry on editing or quit WS altogether. Mariusm (talk) 04:39, 10 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Mariusm: I for one would be unhappy if you left permanently, as another example of collateral damage! Stho002 has also challenged the Stewards that he is likely to continue to sockpuppet here in the future. I have no idea how the Stewards @Ajraddatz: will respond to this, but will probably ask a few germaine questions. Andyboorman (talk) 16:13, 10 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Andyboorman: A complete list of when and to which wikis he did attach the "Macarostola" account can be found here. That page also includes the current block status and edit count for all of the different wikis. However, contrary to one of the links you gave, it does not show any of the edit summaries he added for each of his edits, such as "Who's the idiot who wrote this garbage?" (in his very first edit to enWP) and "Crap!" (a few days later.) As usual he probably have all the entomological data and taxonomical facts straight, but his conduct is far too aggressive and imperious. That's unfortunate, since as far as I can understand he is a good entomologist, as such. –Regards, Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 09:19, 11 May 2016 (UTC).Reply[reply]
@Tommy Kronkvist: @Fagus: He does seem to be good entomologist and entomological taxonomist, less careful with plants. He is a Visitor for Auckland University, New Zealand for his expertise, but I do hope he is not using their facilities for his sockpuppetry, as the potential for collateral damage is severe. But you are right, his attitude is very odd to say the least. I know Kiwis like to call a "spade a f***ing spade but it is normally jocular and between friends. Along with Dan I am trying to get movement re-started on our Local CU Policy on the Pump, if you or Fagus are interested. Regards Andyboorman (talk) 19:59, 11 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]



Are you stop with wiki? You can block Stohner again and block also Koafv. Stohner have changed my contributions again. He told Kuafv that I have to except that people change my contributions. So he don't stop with it. If you stop, I stop tooPeterR (talk) 05:44, 5 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello @PeterR:, a little patience would be truly appropriate right now. Mariusm (talk) 14:59, 5 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

recent poll[edit]

Hi Marius

I think it would be a good idea to give the poll a time frame. I will leave the timing to you but suggest no more than a week. Andyboorman (talk) 11:14, 6 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Right. Certainly. Mariusm (talk) 11:43, 6 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Trichopteryx fucicola[edit]


Is this after our standard? Trichopteryx fucicola. PeterR (talk) 08:00, 9 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@PeterR: This isn't our standard. I'm trying to argue against it on the pump, but it seems that many users will allow Stho002 anything, as long as he agrees to edit here, including exclusive rights... But what can I do? We're a community, and all the opinions must be taken into account. Mariusm (talk) 08:40, 9 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]



Stohner is changing my contributions again even the reference pages. We have an agreement about references, who I follow. He didn't first discussing it with me on my talk page. PeterR (talk) 07:03, 13 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@PeterR: Please refer this to @Koavf:. He made the deal with Stho002, and he must be addressed for any infringement of its implementation. Mariusm (talk) 07:21, 13 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category made by Stohner[edit]


I thought we had earlier a discussion about the categories made by Stohner and we make the decision to delete them, but I can't find it back. Can you? PeterR (talk) 09:03, 14 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, @PeterR: I found a discussion on the need to delete by bot the categories in the form of "Taxa of XX" made by Stho002 See here please. On the New Zealand categories cleanup see here and here. Mariusm (talk) 09:47, 14 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks Marius. Do you know if this is done? Otherwise we can start on new again like with spage. PeterR (talk) 10:26, 14 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@PeterR: better wait for a few days to see how things develop. Mariusm (talk) 10:29, 14 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have already given a reaction on Wikispecies:Village Pump about he is changing my contributions again. I have let Tommy changing his latest Author template after our agreements. He have done it, but not communicate it with Stohner. PeterR (talk) 11:37, 14 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]



If you add only under synonyms, you make mistakes. The lectotype etc. will always designated from the original combination. Never from the latest combination. Thats mean the information about (for example) a species is not correct and also the author taxa. PeterR (talk) 09:06, 21 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

But @PeterR: the original combination will always by the first entry in the synonyms list since it has the oldest date. the combination & synonyms will be listed from old to new according to the year. We'll not lose any information. The original combination will look like: Genus species Author, year. Mariusm (talk) 09:29, 21 July 2016 (UTC).Reply[reply]
But you don't add all the information in the original combination. So the information in the author taxa is not reliable. PeterR (talk) 09:52, 21 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@PeterR: I don't understand exactly what you mean. Can you give me an example? See for example Apricia jovialis. Where I lose there some information do you think? Mariusm (talk) 10:13, 21 July 2016 (UTC).Reply[reply]
Thats exact what I mean. Now under Category: Ludwig Carl Christian Koch taxa you see Apricia jovialis and not the original species Marptusa jovialis. So the information about the taxa from Ludwig Carl Christian Koch is not correct. If you add the original species you can add: This species is invalid, Current status is Apricia jovialis.

You have no further information, but if their is a lectotype,, the lectotype is always designated from Marptusa jovialis. PeterR (talk) 09:12, 24 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@PeterR: Taxa by author category is only a list of species. When you click on Apricia jovialis you see all the information you need including the original combination name and the lectotype if there's one. Taxa by author category need not be composed of original-combination names, because if there isn't a redirect you reach a dead-end, and you can't easily reach the full information. Mariusm (talk) 09:32, 24 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Marius, this is a better example Sebrus perdentellus. PeterR (talk) 08:03, 25 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In my opinion is the list of taxa by author, a list from all described species etc. by this author and not the later combinations. Otherwise you don't need an author list. PeterR (talk) 08:09, 25 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@PeterR: I'm sorry, I don't agree with you on this. The list is of authored taxa and not of named taxa because if it were named taxa it would have to also include the list of all the recombinations. Mariusm (talk) 08:40, 25 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For me is the list without combinations (because other authors have made these combinations etc.) and only a list with original genera, species etc. See Category:Stanisław Błeszyński taxa PeterR (talk) 08:53, 25 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@PeterR: we can't make a new page for every re-combination and every invalid name. It will take an enormous amount of time because there is an enormous amount of (Author, data) species. Mariusm (talk) 04:11, 26 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Reference templates[edit]


What is your opinion on Category:Reference templates? It seems that Tommy want to keep this category. PeterR (talk) 09:02, 24 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@PeterR: I'm neutral regarding this category. It's harmless yet does't help in a significant way. Because there's such a large base that includes this category, I'd let it be. Mariusm (talk) 09:32, 24 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]



Is this what you mean for Incertae sedis? See Taleporiinae PeterR (talk) 17:04, 4 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@PeterR: yes, this is a very good display of genera not assigned to a tribus. Another possibility (which I prefer) is "Genera Overview" (all the genera) and "Genera not assigned to a tribus". Mariusm (talk) 15:10, 5 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Marius, you get some genera double. You can add all the genera under Overview genera or split it up such my example. I have already make the split overview together with Accassidy. PeterR (talk) 15:32, 5 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Reference templates[edit]


I thought we had an agreement for create a reference template. Not everyone make a reference template after our agreements See Template:Jarvis, 2007 from RJL and many other from him. PeterR (talk) 11:30, 7 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply][edit]


This person is made a mess of the contributions. See Template:Van Achterberg & Carrón, 2016 and Paralipsis tibiator PeterR (talk) 13:12, 9 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@PeterR: if you see edits which are wrong, you can revert and delete them yourself. This person is probably new to WS. In Paralipsis tibiator there's some useful information. It's not totally vandalism. Mariusm (talk) 13:25, 9 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Marius. In the past there was a control from you and others of contributions. I'm missing this today. I don't see this as vandalism, but they need support. Like RJL and many others. You know my english is bad, so please will you explain them what is wrong? PeterR (talk) 13:42, 9 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@PeterR: OK. I'll do it tomorrow. Today I don't have the time. Mariusm (talk) 13:45, 9 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Marius, thanks PeterR (talk) 15:04, 9 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

PDF file[edit]


I have received the PDF file from Schintlmeister. Thanks a lot. PeterR (talk) 17:59, 15 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Interesting Discussion/Dispute[edit]

Hi I came across this recently, which may interest you as an entomologist. Protosclerogibba Discussion Page. It does raise some interesting general points. Regards Andyboorman (talk) 09:21, 19 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yea, you can't escape dispute and controversy even in taxonomy, but it may be better to have several opinions than to follow just a single line of thought. Mariusm (talk) 14:07, 19 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

template BasePageName[edit]

I thought we had been advised not to use this template due to structural problems? Andyboorman (talk) 15:45, 22 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

{{BASEPAGENAME}} is very convenient for me since there are so many comb. nov. where it saves 2 changes in the species name. Plus it makes writing new species much more easy and error-free. Can you specify exactly which "structural problems" can arise by using this magic-word? Mariusm (talk) 08:21, 23 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It does not work directly with disambig pages named like this Palmeria (Monimiaceae) and you need to introduce a fix ''[[{{BASEPAGENAME}}|Palmeria]]''. However, this gives a bold format which should not be used for plants in the Name Section where a simple Palmeria is sufficient. Now look at it without the nowiki, it would try to link back to your uncreated "BASEPAGENAME", so it will need editing out anyway. In addition, if you then rename the taxon page you will have to remember to alter the BASEPAGENAME templates as well. We did discuss this on VP, but no rule was suggested just an advisory. Personally I do no care, but do find it unnecessary and a bit of a pain so do not bother with it. The question came as you edited a page on my watch list. Regards. Andyboorman (talk) 14:31, 23 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
99.9% of the pages do not have the name disambiguation issue, and those which have will be treated in a special manner. Mariusm (talk) 14:59, 23 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Aotine herpesvirus 3[edit]

Hi, Mariusm,
you listed Aotine herpesvirus 3 under Cytomegalovirus. According to this source (ICTV) it should be deleted completely. What do you think? --Murma174 (talk) 11:22, 16 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Very well, it was an orphaned page, so I suspected it was omitted by mistake. I've listed it as an invalid name. Mariusm (talk) 12:45, 16 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Mariusm and Murma174: I took the liberty of adding the above reference link to the Aotine herpesvirus 3 page. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 14:58, 16 October 2016 (UTC).Reply[reply]
@Mariusm and Tommy Kronkvist: Thanks to either of you. I put it one level higher according to the source. --Murma174 (talk) 18:26, 16 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Marius, Many thanks for your help. I did a "redirect" from "Coccotydaelus" to "Coccotydaeolus". Is there another way to delete a card with a misspelling? Hmandre (talk) 12:49, 24 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I deleted it. Mariusm (talk) 12:52, 24 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]



Till now we only add the defaultsort in the Authors name. But I see thar Neferkheperre add it too in Category:Issakhar Zelmanovich Livshits taxa. Is this normal and is it communicated with others in Village Pump? PeterR (talk) 14:05, 30 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@PeterR: very well, I'll ask him. Mariusm (talk) 15:47, 30 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@PeterR: Please see the discussion here (Default sort) Mariusm (talk) 07:01, 31 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for your answer, but means it that we have to add them in Category:author taxa? and is this not double? PeterR (talk) 05:58, 1 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@PeterR: No, you don't have to because it isn't important, and we have thousands without it. Mariusm (talk) 06:18, 1 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]



We have an new person, who works after his own ideas. Se Alysia PeterR (talk) 09:12, 11 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, this is Stho002 (see my pump message). Mariusm (talk) 09:16, 11 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Deletion Why did you delete this category? There is a scheme for Category:Publications by author... If you respond here, please use {{Ping}}. —Justin (koavf)TCM 07:49, 9 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Koavf: Because using the author's initials is ambiguous. All the rest of Category:Publications by author should be also deleted; they are empty anyway. All were created by Stho002 and all are superfluous. Mariusm (talk) 09:00, 9 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Author categories I will definitely delete these then. Thanks. —Justin (koavf)TCM 16:44, 9 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Mariusm and Koavf: I agree with you both. The whole system works pretty much the same way as a relational database such as SQL or Microsoft Access based databases. We already have Category:People on one side (including subcategories Category:Publishers, Category:Scientists, Category:Taxon authorities, etc), and Category:Publications on the other (including subcategories Category:ISSN, Category:Reference templates and Category:Series identifiers, etc). Any search for "publications by a certain author" (or the other way around) can be made by combining one (sub)category from each of those two groups in the search. Hence having specific "Publications by NN" categories with both author name and publications in the same category is redundant. It can even be malignant, since it introduces "nested" categories. From a technical standpoint this makes database normalisation more difficult; even though in our case we of course "normalise" categories rather than database tables.
This brings up the question whether not all of the Category:Taxa by author categories should be deleted as well. I say no, since in this case unfortunately we only have one of the two branches. We do have categories listing the author's (per above), but contrary to Category:Publications we don't have any Category:Taxa equivalent to match them with. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 10:42, 10 January 2017 (UTC).Reply[reply]
@Tommy Kronkvist: I'm probably slow witted. I don't get it why would you need to search for "Publications by NN" when the list of publications is supposed to be displayed on the NN page. Mariusm (talk) 12:11, 10 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Mariusm: From a taxonomist's point of view you are perfectly right, and such a search would of course be pointless since the result is already listed on a page. However, from a more technical (or perhaps a librarians...) point of view things can look a bit different. Not all data can be found already pre-rendered. For instance one may like to get statistics about how many and/or which authors are cited regarding Plantae in a certain set of publications. This could of course be done manually by wading through all of the author and publication pages, but it would take forever... As the Wikispecies database grows and gets more closely knitted to Wikidata we will also gain the ability to get more specific statistics, for instance the number of references published by Colombian authors in year 1911, references regarding Asian taxa in Coleoptera, or whatever other stats one may be looking for. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 08:28, 11 January 2017 (UTC).Reply[reply]
Very well, @Tommy Kronkvist: I see your point. To prevent confusion, we are in need of a category-list we can follow and a list we may abandon. At the moment there's no clear-cut guide and everyone is doing as he seems fit. Are you willing to compile a list and bring it to the pump for approval? Mariusm (talk) 11:00, 11 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sure, I will be happy to do that. It may take a few days since I'm currently (and less happily...) also fighting a water-leak in my bathroom, but I'll post a list at the VP in the end of the weak. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 13:59, 11 January 2017 (UTC).Reply[reply]

Category:Reference templates[edit]


First place have a nice year.

I ask you what the status is from Category:Reference templates. Koavf is add this category on my reference templates and ask me to do the same by new reference templates and to stop with delete them on the old reference templates. But in the new agreement about Reference templates I can't find it in the text. So far I know we had in the past an agreement about delete all the categories from Stho002. PeterR (talk) 15:18, 9 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Have a very nice year too, @PeterR:. To my mind the Category:Reference templates adds noting useful ... but it would be a waste of time to argue with persons who think it's essential. I would let Koavf add the category to his heart's content and not worry too much about it. Mariusm (talk) 05:16, 10 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Mariusm, as for the (possible) usefulness of categories listing reference templates, see my above answer to you and Koavf. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 10:42, 10 January 2017 (UTC).Reply[reply]
Marius thanks for your answer. PeterR (talk) 15:00, 11 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Share your experience and feedback as a Wikimedian in this global survey[edit]


  1. This survey is primarily meant to get feedback on the Wikimedia Foundation's current work, not long-term strategy.
  2. Legal stuff: No purchase necessary. Must be the age of majority to participate. Sponsored by the Wikimedia Foundation located at 149 New Montgomery, San Francisco, CA, USA, 94105. Ends January 31, 2017. Void where prohibited. Click here for contest rules.



I have to update the Phaegopterina after Benoît Vincent and Michel Laguerre, 2014: Catalogue of the Neotropical Arctiini Leach, [1815] (except Ctenuchina Kirby, 1837 and Euchromiina Butler, 1876) (Insecta, Lepidoptera, Erebidae, Arctiinae). pg(s) 137–533. But I can' do 400 pages in one day. If I have fix it, I shall give you a message. PeterR (talk) 09:21, 15 January 2017 (UTC). On page 164 they confirm this synonymy. PeterR (talk) 10:50, 15 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template:Zt3777.1.1 This has over 100 transclusions but was deleted several months ago. Do you know why? Can we restore or replace it with something to clear out these redlinks? —Justin (koavf)TCM 19:07, 16 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Mariusm and Koavf: The incorrectly named template Zt3777.1.1 that was deleted by PeterR is now restored by me and moved to {{Yang, Wang & Li, 2014}}. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 03:53, 17 January 2017 (UTC).Reply[reply]
@Tommy Kronkvist: Nice. Very helpful. I'm trying to clear out all of the Maintenance Reports and that was a big one. —Justin (koavf)TCM 03:57, 17 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]



We have discussed this already. If there are new genera or species or subspecies with subgenera we can add those. If you add author taxa and museum you take the official combination. I know you don't like that, but I want to add the species or subspecies after official bulletins. There are genera with subgenera with only species with subgenera, so there are no old species transferred to them. I'm a little bit tired over all the discussions. For instance ZT3777.1.1. I have make a new one after our agreements and replace Zt3777.1.1 through the new one via authored taxa. What Kronkvist have done I don't understand it. I see a lot of new contributions also with subgenera. Every body here is doing his own thing. PeterR (talk) 12:56, 18 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • I have send this to Koavf: On 18 july 2015 i have make a new one for Zt3777.1.1 namely Yang, Wang & Li, 2014. I have replace the new template by the species. See Edosa bicolor . total 24 pieces
    • @Mariusm: I have to repeat again, these categories are only about naming of taxa, not about discovery nor description. I don't want to impose any rules upon zoology. (The way as Peter is doing, seems to be perfectly OK to me.) However, as long as in botany the author citations both include the combining author(s) and (in brackets) the basionym author(s), I cannot see any reason, why I should not continue. Franz Xaver. We had a discussion but not an agreement. PeterR (talk) 13:14, 18 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

AWB och JWB[edit]

I didn't see before that you are using AWB. Im presently making way for us to use a browser version, called JWB JavaWikiBrowser, operated by a javascript, which works quite well, you can read about it at here. Dan Koehl (talk) 07:02, 21 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, I installed AWB just recently. this is such a powerful tool that it's a shame for admins not to use it... Mariusm (talk) 07:09, 21 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, that's true, and the browser version you don't even need to install, and has almost all the AWB functions. I was hoping to spread the word, once it works here, and get more users to try it. Its a little slower, it doesn't have bot function, but I think its pretty enough for most WS users. Dan Koehl (talk) 07:47, 21 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hello Mariusm, you edit the template "spage" in real text. Very good, but in the taxonomy there is missing "Species: speciesname". Greetings, Orchi (talk) 16:26, 23 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry, My fault, I'll see to that. Mariusm (talk) 16:32, 23 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks! Orchi (talk) 16:33, 23 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template:Neolarnaca vera[edit]


Is this category new? Template:Neolarnaca vera and Neolarnaca vera. — The preceding unsigned comment was added by PeterR (talkcontribs) 19:07, 27 February 2017.

Category:Gryllacridinae was added to the {{Gryllacridinae}} template by @Pigsonthewing: in this edit. We generally do not use categories for single taxa, but since he's an experienced and well trusted user I'm sure there is a valid reason for adding it. Hence I've pinged him so that he can give us the underlying purpose of going against praxis in this particular case. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 10:29, 28 February 2017 (UTC).Reply[reply]
To demonstrate a possible solution. See Pump&oldid=2942525 here. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:34, 28 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks. (The full thread/talk Andy is reffering to can be found here: Wikispecies:Village Pump/Archive 39#Taxonavigation templates.) –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 10:56, 28 February 2017 (UTC).Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

Mining from the CoL[edit]

Congratulations, you seem to produce a lot of new pages. If you would share the plugin-, and AWB configuration, Im sure more would follow your example. Dan Koehl (talk) 14:47, 4 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dan, I'm not so sure. I proposed for anyone to make species lists which I would than transfer to WS as articles and no one seems to be interested. Anyone who wishes to follow is welcome to contact me and I'll give him all the information he needs. Mariusm (talk) 15:08, 4 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello Mariusm, your half-automatic approach seems to be a good idea for creating species stubs that can later be refined manually. I would like to test it for some brown algae, using WoRMS as the reference and linking to Algaebase. Most species of marine algae are still missing on wikispecies. Should we use a duplicate of "Wikispecies:COL species" for "Wikispecies:WoRMS" species? --Thiotrix (talk) 09:15, 6 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Thiotrix: I'm very glad to see your approach. It can certainly be "Wikispecies:WoRMS" species. Since you're an admin you can use the AWB. Can you please send me your mail so I can instruct you how to do it? Mariusm (talk) 10:04, 6 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For a first test, I have gathered the species of genus Fucus in Wikispecies:WoRMS species. As I have not yet used AWB, I would like to ask you to perform the creation of these species (I will learn it later). Is the formatting of the list correct? Strangely, some species are listed as accepted taxa, both in Algaebase and WoRMS, although the names are nom. illeg., can this info be added by AWB? --Thiotrix (talk) 11:47, 6 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Thiotrix: Please make a sample page; let's say: Wikispecies:WoRMS species sample page. I'll make it as the template and base on it all the species in your list. It can be easily done. The page outline doesn't have to be mine. Mariusm (talk) 12:04, 6 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I made the sample page. --Thiotrix (talk) 12:38, 6 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Thiotrix: Done! Please tell me what you think. Mariusm (talk) 13:14, 6 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you, this was speedy work! The stubs look good and are surely a helpful base for the further refinement. --Thiotrix (talk) 13:29, 6 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Now I have checked all created species pages. Please have a look at Fucus sherardii and Fucus tremella. These species were listed without an authority, and here the last letter is missing in the created text. --Thiotrix (talk) 09:07, 7 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Thiotrix: It's because these two species hadn't an author at all, and the template is built to handle authors. I'll have to revise it. Good that you've noticed it now. glitches always exist; I'll repair that & the species. (It's actually the fault of the Word macro I use to process the data into a format which AWB undestands). Mariusm (talk) 10:07, 7 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Another error in your script: Tetraodorhina t. --Succu (talk) 19:38, 15 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hi Marius, you created several Species pages of the Genus Sparrmannia]. Do you also find a way to add all these species to the Genus page Sparrmannia (Scarabaeidae) per AWB? --Murma174 (talk) 08:22, 18 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, in fact I've just added them. I'm in the process of adjusting the genera of the Scarabaeidae but it can't be done all at once... Mariusm (talk) 08:29, 18 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Help in identification[edit]

Unidentified Dactylorhiza

Hi, can you can me with identification of this plant? I think that is one of Dactylorhiza species, but I'm not sure. Tournasol7 (talk) 13:03, 4 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Tournasol7: Sorry, I'm not a botanist. You'd better ask @Franz Xaver:. Mariusm (talk) 15:10, 4 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Tournasol7: and @Mariusm: I have migrated this to the pump for you. Andyboorman (talk) 15:16, 4 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I have blocked your account for an apparent beach of our bot policy. Please see Wikispecies:Administrators' Noticeboard#Mariusm. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:41, 13 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello @Tommy Kronkvist:, @Neferkheperre:, @Accassidy: I've been unjustifiably blocked by Pigsonthewing. It seems to be a revenge for not supporting him in the past on his Checkusers campaign. Can you help me with this? Mariusm (talk) 04:27, 14 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi Mariusm, I'm afraid, you are right, that this was an act of revenge. But if you want your block to be lifted, you should give a reasonable reply to his attack. --Murma174 (talk) 08:03, 14 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Mariusm: I have modified the block to last one week in order that you can discuss your use of the bot. I assume your auto edits were in good faith following the discussion of of the use of COL on the pump. I can not comment on @Pigsonthewing:'s motives except they do appear to prompt you to engage in discussion regarding the WS bot policy and the best way to proceed with this use of a bot. I suggest that you open a discussion on the pump, as soon as possible. Regards Andyboorman (talk) 08:17, 14 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, Andyboorman, Mariusm cannot "open a discussion on the pump", because he is blocked. He needs to give the required undertaking - not to run an unauthorised bot, as explained in the Administrators' Noticeboard section to which I linked - here on this talk page, which he can still edit. He can then be unblocked immediately. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:56, 14 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Apologies @Pigsonthewing: I assumed that he could still go to the pump as well as the admin board. Andyboorman (talk) 19:40, 14 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

To begin with, AWB isn't a bot at all. Hundreds use it on the EnWP without any bot clearance whatever. The 50 edits per minute limit is ridiculous since the AWB requires a manual confirmation for each edit either by clicking "SAVE" or by pressing the Enter key. One can press the confirmation more slowly or more rapidly. Would a rate of 20 edits per minute be adequate for Mr. Pigsonthewing? It would involve exactly the same process only made more slowly. Mr. Pigsonthewing's aim in this block is only to harass and humiliate me after commenting on his Checkusers-campaign page that he can't be trusted. He's affiliated with Wikidata in the first place and haven't made a single taxonomic edit here compared to tens of thousands that I've made. He's only seeking the thrill of power and isn't interested in taxonomy at all. Well, this is another case where an honest work succumbs to the indiscriminate exercise of authority. I'm not going to fulfill Mr. Pigsonthewing's request because it will humiliate me and will rob me of my self respect. So be it: I will leave WS for Pigsonthewing to conduct it according to his fancy. Mariusm (talk) 04:52, 15 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Mariusm: Hopefully your block will be lifted very soon given your comments above! In hind sight it may have a good idea to pass your semi-automatic use of an AWB across the pump for comment and wider dissemination, particularly as it looks to be a useful tool. Please do not leave this site as your knowledge and skills are a very valuable asset to WS. Take a breather, if needed, of course. Kind regards Andyboorman (talk) 07:29, 15 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Andyboorman: Thanks for you kind words. Please refer also to @Koavf: and @Dan Koehl: who used the AWB program to preform many edits with the same rate as mine and without asking for bot permission. What Pigsonthewing is asking from me is the same as asking an innocent man to confess a crime he never committed. Mariusm (talk) 07:40, 15 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

While I don't feel licensed to take a "side" in this dispute I would simply like to say that I have in fact used AWB at high rates here and when I did, I encountered community pushback and adjusted my behavior. Mariusm is a valued member of the community and Andy is as well--I hope that the two of you can resolve this here. If it seems like I can help mediate your discussion, please let me know. I only came here since I was pinged and I really don't want to see any conflict between two users whom I trust and value. —Justin (koavf)TCM 07:45, 15 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Koavf: just tell us whether or not you consider a high-rate-AWB to be a bot? Mariusm (talk) 07:50, 15 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Mariusm: WS:BOT reads, "The term bot (an abbreviation of robot) refers to a script that modifies Wikispecies' content with some degree of automation, whether it is entirely automated, or assists a human contributor in some way." but it also reads, "Use of tools to assist with repetitive tasks, such as reverting vandalism, is termed assisted editing, and is not usually considered to be operation of a bot." which simply put is confusing. I can see the argument from either side. Generally speaking, I would not consider AWB use a bot unless someone was using its bot function. That's not something that I can know explicitly from your contribs, so it would be hard for me to say in this instance if it was literal bot editing or high-volume assisted editing. I personally don't see the big deal about the Recent Changes flooding (especially with the tools we have now to filter Recent Changes) but I know that other editors do. As other users can see on the Admin's Noticeboard, there is a similar situation with an admin instituting a block and other admins disagreeing with its scope or duration. I think that these disagreements need to be handled delicately, especially when the person blocked is also himself an admin. This is a long-winded answer but the take-away is: this is not an action I would have taken and it's not an issue that I frankly think is a big deal, but the blocking in and of itself (maybe not the duration but simply the act of a block) is within the realm of what the wording at WS:BOT says and not entirely inappropriate considering the function of a block can simply be to stop something from happening and talk about it. If the policy should be changed, then that's fair but it should happen as a result of this discussion. I see that Andyboorman has also suggested that he could mediate so I don't want to step on his toes either. Also, for what it's worth, the actual edits that you've made I highly approve of. —Justin (koavf)TCM 08:01, 15 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Koavf: Time and again, Mr. Pigsonthewing claims that the AWB is a bot while obviously it isn't. Please ask any admin or crat on the EnWP. The edit rate has nothing to do with this. As I said before the rate depends only on the speed of tapping the confirmation key. It can be 50 times per minute or 5 times per minute, whatever I choose. A bot, or the bot option on the AWB is something entirely different: it runs automatically; it requires a special bot account without which it can't be operated. How could have I operated a bot without this bot account? It's an absurd accusation. The fact is that WS admins are not familiar enough of what a bot or the AWB really are. They can be easily persuaded by any accusation based on false facts. Mr. Pigsonthewing doesn't address my reasoning and keeps requesting an absurd consent which I can't give. Mariusm (talk) 11:46, 15 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
When this first came up I felt the block was unjustified, however, I tried to encourage Andy to reverse his own decision. I checked on enWP at some of the applications for bot accounts and the only time bot accounts were created for AWB was when the autosave function was being used. From what you seem to be doing @Mariusm: this is not the case, based on what you have said above. I do not think Andy is doing this as some kind of revenge attack, I will give the benefit of the doubt there. What I think is Andy is applying policies to the letter without considerations. Personally I think the same as @Andyboorman: expressed that policy needs to be administered with consideration of the situation, carefully and not as law so to speak. I believe this block should be lifted, immediately, and have already said so on the PUMP. As @Koavf: stated the definition of a bot is a little grey, I would agree with that. However I think that generally speaking AWB does not classify as a bot and based on previous decisions on enWP it only classifies as a bot when the autosave function is being used, which you have stated you are not using. Personally I could not care less how many edits you make and I feel that what you are currently using this for has been clearly discussed by the community and hence accepted. My recommendation is the immediate lifting of the block, if the community wants maybe applying for a bot account will help just to avoid this issue again, but by my understanding of both bot policies and previous decisions of communities it is not completely necessary. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 14:26, 15 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
First off, I will say that I am glad that this isn't devolving into too much bickering and sniping. Evidently, Andy's concern is that your edits will flood Recent Changes and that you need the bot flag. Are you okay with this request? —Justin (koavf)TCM 17:30, 15 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:Faendalimas assures me that, despite your refusal to give an undertaking not to edit contrary to the bot policy, that "The block is now preventing resolution and... Nothing more is needed." Accordingly, I shall shortly release the block. Be aware that if you again edit against bot policy, such as you were doing prior to the block, it may be reinstated. If you wish to edit in that manner, you should create a separate account and apply for a bot flag for it. Alternatively, you may wish to suggest changes to the bot policy to see whether the community supports them. Regarding the speed of editing, and the need for limits, you may find the information at en:Wikipedia:Bot policy#Bot requirements useful. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:40, 15 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you Andy (@Pigsonthewing:). I have every confidence this can be resoved to everyones saticfaction. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 17:49, 15 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Changes to policy[edit]

@Mariusm: Don't forget to add a Rfc to get maximum coverage. Thanks for this initiative. Andyboorman (talk) 15:52, 20 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Andyboorman: Many thanks for your support & your mediating efforts. Mariusm (talk) 05:04, 21 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Personally I have not yet decided upon which solution I find the best, or which path we should best take. Nevertheless this is an important issue, and I have added an RFC: Change of bot policy link to the head of the Recent Changes page in order to raise community awareness of the issue. Together with the community we will most likely reach a consensus that is both good for the Wikispecies project as such, as well for the vast majority of single users. Thank you both for your good efforts so far. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 08:01, 21 May 2017 (UTC).Reply[reply]

Bot Approved[edit]

Hi Mariusm, I have approved your bot (Wikispecies:Bots/Requests_for_approval#Approved_requests) the bot flag has been set for the account. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 16:31, 24 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Faendalimas: Hi Scott, many thanks for this and for the support throughout. Mariusm (talk) 04:18, 25 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Zootaxa special volumes[edit]

Are you sure about revising this edit Bortoluzzi, Caron & Silveira, 2016? Zootaxa and Zookeys occasionally produce special volumes of related content articles. Neferkheperre (talk) 18:04, 21 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The special-volume-info has no added value. It only clutters the template and distracts from focusing on the real content. Mariusm (talk) 04:04, 22 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template:Tschudi, 1844[edit]

Hi friend, I have a question/proposal do discuss with you. This template Template:Tschudi, 1844 is very rich in new species described. Now I see that there are several genera first descriptions by Cabanis, but included in Tschudi article. See foot note at page 262. What do you think to add to the article title part of the footnote, something like this: "Avium conspectus quae in Republica Peruana reperiuntur et pleraeque observatae vel collectae sunt in itinere. (Genera quaedam nova, quae hoc in conspectum obveniunt proposita sunt a Dom. J. Cabanis)." Then we can use the same template for referencing all the genera described by Cabanis, 1844. Greetings--Hector Bottai (talk) 19:56, 9 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello @Hector Bottai:. The article you mention is essentially a species-list found in Peru. It includes already-known (and already authored) species, plus newly-described species. Each species-name is followed by the original author. E.g. "Tanagara Lin." (Carolus Linnaeus). Species authored by Cabanis are followed by "Cab.". Therefore, the species which are only mentioned here, should by referenced by this template under the "Additional references" subsection, and the template followed by "[distribution (Peru): p. 286]". The species which are authored by Tschudi in this article should be under the "Primary references" subrection and followed by "[original description: p. 286]". See for example Iridosornis analis. Mariusm (talk) 05:39, 10 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello, it looks I was not clear. I am referring to several genera which are first described by Cabanis into Tschudi's article: e.g Mionectes and Leptopogon p.275, Myiarchus p.272 and others. So, for these genera, this is the "Primary reference", not additional. And will be strange a taxon authored by Cabanis and in the primary reference there is no mention to Cabanis. For better undestanding I edited Mionectes, using the reference as it is and another potential solution.--Hector Bottai (talk) 10:22, 10 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Hector Bottai: Oh, I see. In my opinion you should make a new reference:

  • Cabanis, J. 1844. [New genera] in: Tschudi, J.J. von Avium conspectus quae in Republica Peruana reperiuntur et pleraeque observatae vel collectae sunt in itinere. Archiv für Naturgeschichte 10(1): 262-317.

Mariusm (talk) 11:22, 10 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Agree, much better. Thanks.--Hector Bottai (talk) 13:07, 10 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Last year, you deleted Template:Tomogonus, but there are still two pages calling it: [1]. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:05, 20 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I fixed (redirected) the two pages. Mariusm (talk) 13:07, 20 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Invitation to join the Ten Year Society[edit]

Dear Mariusm,

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) 00:31, 25 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply][edit]

Hello, this IP blocked globally, so please if you can hide edit summary and revisions on it contributions? --Alaa :)..! 10:02, 31 March 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@علاء: I've hidden the edit summaries from the history of each of the pages, but retained the visibility of the actual text revisions. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 11:56, 31 March 2018 (UTC).Reply[reply]
@Tommy Kronkvist: Thanks a lot --Alaa :)..! 12:31, 31 March 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Full author names[edit]

Marius, Is there an agreement for not to use full author names? So far I know we use the full author names. Some people redirect the full author names to an author name with some abbreviations. See for example Marinus S. Hoogmoed. PeterR (talk) 08:19, 20 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@PeterR: Hello Peter. You're correct: we agreed to use the full name whenever possible. However, there's some precautions to take regarding the middle names - some authors are better known with their middle names abbreviated, and the full name is rarely known or used. (for example John F. Kennedy is better known or used than John Fitzgerald Kennedy). Mariusm (talk) 08:32, 20 May 2018 (UTC).Reply[reply]
For me if we have an agreement to use full names you have to use the full author names also in the reference templates. Some times in a bulletin you find an author name.
Yes, by all means, use the name which is specified in the bulletin. Mariusm (talk) 09:02, 20 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thats means chaos. For example Miguel Angel Monné. Some times they mention as author name Michel A. Monné in an other bulletin as Miguel Angel Monné. If I add the authorname Miguel Angel Monné, can you made a direct to Michel A. Monné?: We have an agreement to use Michel A. Monné Redirect to Miguel Angel Monné. Thats the way to do it. You make a direct from John F. Kennedy to John Fitzgerald Kennedy. PeterR (talk) 09:10, 20 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Very well. Let's use the full middle names when available and make redirects to the abbreviated ones. Mariusm (talk) 09:16, 20 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Good to know this :-)--Hector Bottai (talk) 22:12, 20 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Eleutherodactylus wetmorei[edit]

Dear Marius, I noticed that you created Eleutherodactylus wetmorei where Eleutherodactylus (Eleutherodactylus) diplasius is listed as Synonym, and I wonder if you have any comments on the question if Eleutherodactylus diplasius is regarded as valid species? I found IUCNs page abt the sp, but I doubst that IUCN have any taxonomy importance? The reason why I ask is the new created article en:Patternless_whistling_frog_(Eleutherodactylus_diplasius), which apart from obvious errors in standard for a Wikipedia article, also may describe an invalid species? several of the mentioned sources are old from 1973, or going to totally wrong species, etc, It has an item on Wikidata though. Dan Koehl (talk) 16:24, 23 September 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please also see discussion at en:Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Amphibians_and_Reptiles#Rfc_Patternless_whistling_frog_(Eleutherodactylus_diplasius), where the source Amphibian Species of the World 6.0 is mentioned as support that its a valid species. Dan Koehl (talk) 16:32, 23 September 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Dan Koehl: I made the Eleutherodactylus wetmorei artice back in 2008, and I didn't revise it since. In the same year, 2008, E. wetmorei diplasius was elevated to species status (E. diplasius) in the paper: "Hedges, S. B., W. E. Duellman, and M. P. Heinicke. 2008. New World direct-developing frogs (Anura: Terrarana): molecular phylogeny, classification, biogeography, and conservation. Zootaxa 1737: 1–182." (see this PDF). See page 64 in this paper. Therefore, the species Eleutherodactylus (Eleutherodactylus) diplasius is valid. I'll try to revise the data accordingly. Mariusm (talk) 08:42, 24 September 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
See Eleutherodactylus diplasius. Mariusm (talk) 09:09, 24 September 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks a lot for your time! I guess you already could follow the conversations I had on enwiki, resulting that the new page was kept, and developed. I guess we all won: a new species! :) Dan Koehl (talk) 20:56, 24 September 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Points to the wrong genus. --Succu (talk) 07:23, 20 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • @Succu: you're right again... I fixed that. So many inaccuracies at WS. We need an army of 1000 editors to fix them all... Mariusm (talk) 09:31, 20 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

is a redirect to Migadopiella. So Migadopidiella convexipennis and Migadopidiella octoguttata have an incorrect parent. Regards --Succu (talk) 11:46, 22 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Succu: apparently Migadopidiella is a misspelling of Migadopiella. Therefore I redirected Migadopidiella convexipennis and Migadopidiella octoguttata to Migadopiella convexipennis and Migadopiella octoguttata respectively. Mariusm (talk) 14:30, 22 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK, I merged the Wikidata items. --Succu (talk) 22:17, 22 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Good day Mariusm,
I wish you festive holidays and for the year 2019 all the best for you.
May bring us all the new year a peaceful coexistence.
Best greetings. Orchi (talk) 17:35, 23 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Same old problem (-). This is Sarothrocrepis m-nigrum. --Succu (talk) 20:02, 27 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Succu:, done, thanks, sorry, I try catching those elusive hyphens... sometime one manages to escape my net... Mariusm (talk) 09:19, 28 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]


how do your bot creating species articles — The preceding unsigned comment was added by Amirh123 (talkcontribs) 10:14, 2 January 2019‎.

Is the next problem I detected via WD. --Succu (talk) 20:28, 2 January 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Succu: The correct name is Analogisticus tonkineus since Analogisticus gender is male. I redirected Analogisticus tonkinea. Mariusm (talk) 16:17, 3 January 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Species articles[edit]

please creating species articles from — The preceding unsigned comment was added by Amirh123 (talkcontribs) 11:50, 5 January 2019‎.

… have the wrong parent taxon Eclipta (Asteraceae). --Succu (talk) 14:38, 5 January 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Succu: Thanks again. I made the disambiguation between Botnaical and Zoological Eclipta - see Eclipta. Mariusm (talk) 16:28, 5 January 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]


hi please run faster your bot to creat faster species articles because I want download dump of ws with all species in world very thanksAmirh123 (talk) 13:30, 18 January 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please have a look. Parent of this "genus" is a "genus". --Succu (talk) 22:54, 5 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Succu: Pachorhopalina is a subgenus. Corrected. Mariusm (talk) 16:05, 6 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hi. Please note that I haven't forgot about MariusBot and it's current work with reference templates and {{Reftemp}}, however it will take an extra day or two to thoroughly check its latest 100+ edits. Kind regards, Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 14:33, 18 June 2019 (UTC).Reply[reply]

The bot seems to run very well. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 18:58, 5 July 2019 (UTC).Reply[reply]

Reference templates[edit]


The reference templates you show me are they official? If they are official there are more templates not correct. See

@PeterR: YES the version I've shown you IS "official". I'm planning to run a "Bot" soon, which will automatically fix all the many "wrong" reference templates. Mariusm (talk) 10:57, 20 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]



How can I restore Liansu GongPeterR (talk) 12:44, 26 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@PeterR: I restored the page. Mariusm (talk) 14:53, 26 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you, Marius! Korg (talk) 16:44, 26 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Community Insights Survey[edit]

RMaung (WMF) 14:34, 9 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Reminder: Community Insights Survey[edit]

RMaung (WMF) 19:14, 20 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Reminder: Community Insights Survey[edit]

RMaung (WMF) 17:04, 4 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hi, do you want to add a translation template to the articles you create? You can find the tool in the section below. Wikispecies tools: (for most used headlines). Phrases like this are translated into the default language in the user interface. Use example: ==Name==--Rosičák (talk) 18:44, 30 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The block of User:MariusBot[edit]

Hey, Marius. I noticed that no one seem to have brought up issues with Mariusbot that triggered a block of it back in early September. I assume you may not have noticed because at the time (sept 7) you were not editing? It was never clear that the problem being reported was at all the cause of current editing by your bot at that time (and looking at it, it's doubly strange since it seems there were not even any edits since July...).

It has come to my attention that there are still over five thousand templates in need of correcting external links, and while I'm willing to do a lot of legwork, MariusBot is certainly a more appealing option (especially since for some reason I have run afoul of PeterR when working with these templates). If mariusbot is restricted to this template work, I certainly wouldn't mind unblocking it and posting to the Village pump to that effect. Circeus (talk) 23:51, 30 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Circeus: Thanks for notifying me on the block, which I wasn't aware of. It has been dealt with. As to the ref templates, I've been dealing with the ones which include [[Category:Reference templates]], which are straightforward to track down and correct. The ones without this category are more elusive, and I'm still trying to figure out how to manage them. I will conduct some experiments and report back to you. Mariusm (talk) 13:45, 1 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Is the problem generating a convenient list or handling the variety of potential formatting? If it's the first case, I can handle that part. While the search page has a displayed limit 0f 500 results, you can use an arbitrarily large number, and I believe some creative use of search and replace will easily transform it into a list of links that can be dumped on a wiki page. 14:14, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
@Circeus: Yes, it's generating the appropriate list on the AWB (AutoWikiBrowser). I can deal with the formatting. Mariusm (talk) 14:18, 1 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There ya go: User:Circeus/Mariusbot_list. I only had to remove a couple that were... Translation subtemplates? Not quite sure what's going on there. Circeus (talk) 14:27, 1 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Circeus: Awesome!! There are 4990 pages. I'll deal with this in a few days. Mariusm (talk) 14:34, 1 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Circeus: I made a trial run of 5 templates. Please find them out on MariusBot contributions, and check if they're good. Mariusm (talk) 14:59, 1 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Those look good, but it would be ideal if category:reference templates could be added where it's missing (this assumes it's present in at least some of the tempaltes on the long list...). Is not doing so a deliberate choice or due to some other limitation? Circeus (talk) 15:31, 1 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Circeus: I was the blocker, due to the bot creating too many orphans to count whilst Mariusm was not on WS! Will your procedure deal with these? Andyboorman (talk) 15:50, 1 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Unless a lot of edits have been deleted, the bot had not been creating new pages since March. I didn't look into it at the time of the block, but I would have pointed out it seems entirely unwarranted to emergency block a bot that had not been doing any edits for two months at that point. Circeus (talk) 15:56, 1 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You miss my point completely. It does not matter when the bot was messing up, just the fact it was messing up and nobody was doing anything about it! Frustration is a motivator and as you point out above creating taxa orphans that have yet to be tested for acceptance is not he only problem. I thought we had discussed the use of unsupervised bots and advised against it in normal circumstances. Any way I would have suggested that somebody clear up the mess before unblocking. Mariusm has indicated that he will be doing so, which is great. Andyboorman (talk) 16:14, 1 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Andyboorman: Circeus is right. MariusBot isn't adding new species for a very long time now, therefore the urgent pulling of the trigger could have waited until the concerned person was contacted and the issues clarified. @Circeus: I will try to also add the category. Mariusm (talk) 16:22, 1 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Circeus: Looks guys the block was obviously not that urgent its been two months. However, the uselessness of a special page has been around since at least June. This is a very important special page, as it allows editors to correct obvious errors, errors which contribute to the bad reputation of WS. I am not about to apologise for my actions, they were completely justified and as instructed on the bot. I am not the bots keeper or user! If I have offended anybody so be it, but the whole problem could have been avoided by more more thoughtful use of the bot. Andyboorman (talk) 17:10, 1 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Andyboorman: This is a question of priorities: Which is worst – A species not present in WS or a species listed on the orphaned-page? I think the former is. Mariusm (talk) 17:18, 1 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well I think we are both right! Your point is one that I make a lot, as most of the editors here are "improvers". However, I reserve the right to stop editors trashing a valuable resource for all. End of discussion with respect. Andyboorman (talk) 18:36, 1 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry to come back here, but look at this problem. Thanks! Andyboorman (talk) 22:01, 1 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Circeus: The bot is on and running! Mariusm (talk) 08:52, 2 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
yaaaay! Circeus (talk) 09:46, 2 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Mariusbot has literally dealt with 99% of the templates that has the external link issue (only a little over 600 left). If you're interested, another low-risk issue that could use a bot going hogwild on it are templates with </noinclude><noinclude> (some of them having a space or a linebreak inbetween). Again, if you're interested in having a go, I can whip a list quick. Circeus (talk) 03:06, 3 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Circeus: I don't see how </noinclude><noinclude> relates to external links. Anyhow, make a list and I'll see what I can do. Mariusm (talk) 16:42, 3 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's a completely separate thing, aside from being also found mostly on templates. It seems to originate in successive uses of bots (back in 2016, for some reason) who added or altered noinclude sections and were not set to handle existing ones well. Circeus (talk) 16:50, 3 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Circeus: Right. So do you want to eliminate the </noinclude><noinclude>'s ? Mariusm (talk) 16:54, 3 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah. I know it's a small thing, but some of them have a linebreak in there, which gets dumped into articles as a result, and it's one less thing I have to remember fixing when I go around adding {{Access}} to templates. Circeus (talk) 17:02, 3 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Circeus: Very well. Make the list on a page and I'll do it. Mariusm (talk) 17:15, 3 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
User:Circeus/Mariusbot_list Same place as last time. I've included a list of the leftover external link issues. At first glance, they seem to fall into a common category of templates with a correct "Find all Wikispecies pages which cite this reference" internal link, but a "Reference page" link that remains an external link (or possibly is malformed in some other, creative way). Circeus (talk) 19:57, 3 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Circeus: It was @Koavf: who added <noinclude>[[Category:Reference templates]]</noinclude> at the end of the refs without the category which caused the mess. I'll see to it soon. Mariusm (talk) 17:16, 4 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Circeus: The bot is on now doing the </noinclude><noinclude> stuff. When it finishes, make me another list for the remaining external links. Mariusm (talk) 16:27, 6 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Incorrect redirect[edit]

Hello, There has been an error in your redirect of genus Echinophallus to genus Xantholinus! Please note that genus Echinophallus is in phylum Platyhelminthes whereas genus Xantholinus is in ordo Coleoptera, phylum Arthropoda. I'm not clear as to what your intention here was, but genus Echinophallus is a valid genus in Platyhelminthes. Please see link I have removed this redirect and restored genus Echinophallus. It may be that there are homonyms for Echinophallus, and that this is what you intended and that a disambiguation page needs to be created. Kind regards,Nytexcome (talk) 17:33, 23 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Nytexcome: You're perfectly right. Echinophallus Coiffait, 1956: 60, which I was referring to, is a preoccupied genus name nec Echinophallus Schumacher, 1914 (Cestoda); also Echinophallus Riedel, 1960 (Mollusca). Echinophius Coiffait, 1983: 345 is the nom. nov. for Echinophallus Coiffait, 1956. Sorry for my oversight. Mariusm (talk) 17:02, 24 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please be careful[edit]

Hi, please be sure to keep the content already included in the article viz:[2]--Rosičák (talk) 21:39, 21 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Such a shame[edit]

The special pages orphans is almost totally populated by taxon pages created by MariusBot. All this data just hanging around in cyberspace more or less unavailable to users is such a shame. You know my feelings about this situation, but it would be great if it got sorted. I know nothing about the taxa so can not help. Andyboorman (talk) 15:43, 29 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Andyboorman: I'm keeping this in mind. In a week or two I'll begin sorting this out. Mariusm (talk) 17:04, 29 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Brilliant! In the meantime have a happy and productive New Year.--Andyboorman (talk) 20:36, 29 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
👍 Like Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 21:53, 29 December 2019 (UTC).Reply[reply]



Please can you help me with the classes? I have publish my problem in Village Pump. Till now nobody have help me. PeterR (talk) 16:14, 10 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]



The genus Pseudepidalea Pseudepidalea is not correct?. So far I know is the genus a synonymy from Bufotes. See [3]. PeterR (talk) 13:32, 13 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@PeterR: You're perfectly right. I edited Pseudepidalea in 2008, and since then I didn't look into it. it's as you say a junior synonym of Bufotes. Mariusm (talk) 16:33, 13 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Do you change it or have I to do it. PeterR (talk) 09:29, 14 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@PeterR: Do it please if you have the time. I'm not into Amphibia right now. Mariusm (talk) 16:42, 14 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I shell do it. PeterR (talk) 08:37, 15 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
done PeterR (talk) 17:19, 16 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Takehiko Nakane[edit]


You create the author page Takehiko Nakane and you add on author page Takeshiko Nakane different publications. On author page Takeshiko Nakane under 1963 is write New or little-known Coleoptera from Japan and its adjacent regions. XVIII. Fragmenta Coleopterologica 6: 23–26, but the author is Takehiko Nakane. I believe that Takeshiko Nakane is the same person as Takehiko Nakane. PeterR (talk) 11:24, 14 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@PeterR: you're correct again. I moved everything from Takeshiko Nakane to Takehiko Nakane. Thanks. Mariusm (talk) 16:43, 14 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Authorship of Mendaxinus electus[edit]

Hello Masi! Back in November 2018 you created the page Mendaxinus electus. That's of course a good thing, however I have a question about the author. In the code you write {{a|Mikhail Yu. Gildenkov|Fauvel}} but surely you must mean {{a|Mikhail Yurievich Gildenkov|Gildenkov}} rather than Fauvel?
–Kind regards, Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 16:24, 16 February 2020 (UTC).Reply[reply]

@Tommy Kronkvist: Thanks for the observation. I've mended that oversight. By the way: I would prefer that you don't remove the * ''' ''' around my Type locality and Holotype. This is a matter of consistency & apearance. Mariusm (talk) 16:35, 16 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for your recent edit, though there's still at least one author link in error. Since you leaved it intact I guess that Fauvel (rather than the now linked Gildenkov) is the author of the synonym Thinodromus (Paracarpalimus) abnormalis – however which Fauvel? Specifying the names of Cameron and Herman would of course be welcome as well, but I know this kind of information can sometimes be hard to come by so I fully understand if you don't add their full names.
As for the leading bullet symbol and bolding, I'm afraid it's your style that is inconsistent. Please see Help:Name section#Full example for what I assume to be our standard and agreed upon format. To me it's not a huge deal though, and I can certainly stop changing your style of edits. That being said, I hope that the community as a whole can someday finally come to agree upon a crisp and clear-cut format that we all follow, much like in the same way Wikipedia has their Wikipedia:Manual of Style. Our present system here at Wikispecies is both flawed and unclear, especially to newcomers who can see a plethora of different formats spread across Wikispecies that more or less contradicts all of the guidelines given by our help files. Some day all of us admins needs to have a serious RFC discussion about all this, and it needs to be a discussion that results in actual, practical, written guidelines that we all agree upon. Again, much like the Wikipedia MoS. It's a shame most of the admins are so far apart, geographically speaking. We sure could use a "Wikispecies-Con" gathering where we meet face to face and come up with a fresh set of proper policies! Alas, I guess that is naught but a dream… Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 17:50, 16 February 2020 (UTC).Reply[reply]
@Tommy Kronkvist: Well, thanks again, Tommy. I've edited the page once more. As for the "clear-cut format", to my mind it's too simplistic in that it doesn't emphasize the subjects of the data paragraphs which must be obviously eye catching. Mariusm (talk) 19:06, 16 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
First of all: you're welcome, and thank you too! Secondly, I partly agree with you in regards to the "eye catching" bit, but personally I think we only should use a leading bullet for lists. As far as I've understood that's also the reason why we use leading * symbol for synonyms (which almost always lists more than one taxon name) but not for the currently accepted taxon name, the holotype and the type locality (which are always only one each). Anyway, that's a matter of personal opinion and taste, and not nearly as important as the actual data we present. And it goes without saying that your opinion and ideas have as much merit as mine.
Lastly. I've made a final link fix to the Mendaxinus electus page. The reason I stumbled upon the incorrect "Fauvel" link in the first place, is that PeterR have asked me to correct hundreds, and yet again hundreds of incorrect links for author pages that has been moved. You can see a glimpse of all that on my user talk page here: User talk:Tommy Kronkvist# Author page- and category redirects and all the way down to the very bottom of that page. Doctor Gildenkov's is one of the author pages affected by those changes, and all of the Gildenkov redirects are now finally mended – the last ones being the ones on the M. electus page. So that's all, I guess. Thank you for your cooperation. :-) Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 19:41, 16 February 2020 (UTC).Reply[reply]

Maladera imbella[edit]


Don't we make a link to the author any more? see Maladera imbella. This is nearly a good one Maladera attaliensis.PeterR (talk) 14:12, 4 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@PeterR: I made these pages automatically with a Bot in 2017. I since stopped this practice, and don't create pages automatically any more. Mariusm (talk) 15:24, 4 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Marius, that's possible, but who clean up those mistakes?PeterR (talk) 09:35, 5 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@PeterR: No hurry. Both formats can co-exist for now. Both are scientifically correct. Mariusm (talk) 09:42, 5 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]



on 20 nov. 2018 you redirect Taenosoma to Carpelimus. Fauna Europaea says that Taenosoma is a subgenus from Carpelimus.PeterR (talk) 13:11, 28 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@PeterR: Taenosoma is a synonym of Trogophloeus which a subgenus of Carpelimus. See:
  • Gildenkov, M.Yu. 2013. Обзор состава подрода Trogophloeus Mannerheim, 1930 из рода Carpelimus Leach, 1819 для Тропической Африки (Coleoptera, Staphylinidae, Oxytelinae). [The review of the Structure of the Subgenus Trogophloeus Mannerheim, 1930 from Genus Carpelimus Leach, 1819 for Tropical Africa (Coleoptera, Staphylinidae, Oxytelinae).] Izvestiya Smolenskogo Gosudarstvennogo Universiteta 1(21): 242–251. [in Russian, with Abstract in English]. Reference page
See there page 243. Mariusm (talk) 13:24, 28 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@PeterR: See abstract here



Do you have holliday? PeterR (talk) 13:50, 11 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

syntype and holotype[edit]

I have reverted your redirects on the above back to the Glossary. This was their original uses to allow for a definition. Why did you go for the Repository page? Andyboorman (talk) 14:16, 17 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How we will see unregistered users[edit]


You get this message because you are an admin on a Wikimedia wiki.

When someone edits a Wikimedia wiki without being logged in today, we show their IP address. As you may already know, we will not be able to do this in the future. This is a decision by the Wikimedia Foundation Legal department, because norms and regulations for privacy online have changed.

Instead of the IP we will show a masked identity. You as an admin will still be able to access the IP. There will also be a new user right for those who need to see the full IPs of unregistered users to fight vandalism, harassment and spam without being admins. Patrollers will also see part of the IP even without this user right. We are also working on better tools to help.

If you have not seen it before, you can read more on Meta. If you want to make sure you don’t miss technical changes on the Wikimedia wikis, you can subscribe to the weekly technical newsletter.

We have two suggested ways this identity could work. We would appreciate your feedback on which way you think would work best for you and your wiki, now and in the future. You can let us know on the talk page. You can write in your language. The suggestions were posted in October and we will decide after 17 January.

Thank you. /Johan (WMF)

18:19, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Plant Orphans[edit]

Hi. I think I have dealt with most of the outstanding plant orphans. Sorry If I have missed a few. Tedious but worth it. Doing this has shown me that a number of important genera and species need updating! Please give me a heads up if you spot problems or mass orphans being created. I have not dealt with ferns etc, as there seems to be several taxonomic opinions and this group of taxa are not my expertise. Thanks Andyboorman (talk) 13:08, 15 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks, @Andyboorman: I concentrate lately in reducing the orphans to a minimum, since almost every orphan represents an error. Then, new ones will be easily spotted and corrected. Mariusm (talk) 15:18, 15 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
My theory as well. Andyboorman (talk) 19:37, 15 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Huw Roberts[edit]

Hi Marius, could you please restore the page Huw Roberts? For information, this author coauthored this article: {{Roberts & Bengtsson, 2023}}. By the way, thanks for creating Unresolved or Unmentioned Authorities! Korg (talk) 13:46, 17 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Done! Mariusm (talk) 13:53, 17 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you! Korg (talk) 13:59, 17 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Unresolved or Unmentioned Authorities[edit]

Thanks for creating Unresolved or Unmentioned Authorities a while ago. I see that Alain Dupré and Simone Caldas Teves-Neves are listed on the page, even-though they are now "mentioned" in publications listed on their respective author pages. Hence I guess they should be deleted from the Unresolved… page. Or am I misunderstanding your intentions/purpose for that page? Regards, Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 14:26, 17 September 2023 (UTC).Reply[reply]

Righht, thanks. You also can freely edit this page. Mariusm (talk) 14:39, 17 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks. Dupré and Teves-Neves are now removed. Very useful page, and a good initiative by you. I'll keep on eye on it in future. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 09:51, 18 September 2023 (UTC).Reply[reply]
@Tommy Kronkvist: More important is to keep an eye on the Orphaned pages. Almost every one of them involves some error. I've worked through them from the letter A up to letter H. In total I already fixed more then 1000, but almost every day new ones emerge. About 1500 still remain to be dealt with. Mariusm (talk) 11:10, 18 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]