User talk:Mariusm/Archive4

Re:A good source

Yes, indeed, and here is a better source for virtually all names (genus and species) published after 1977: http://www.organismnames.com/query.htm 130.216.1.16 19:47, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi

So, Marius: where abouts in the world are you? I'm in New Zealand. Perhaps we have easier access to different literature, so exchange could be useful??? I have access to Zootaxa...

Re: Hi

Well, I might ask you for a copy or two of articles from Israel Journal of Entomology, at some stage. I do try to do all the taxa in a group, but being in N.Z. means I have better access to N.Z. literature, so it makes sense to focus somewhat on N.Z. taxa, don't you think? Besides, my main purpose in doing this is for me - I need a place to put info on names and references for the species I see and identify, and those are mostly N.Z. species. I just can't be bothered adopting a name right now, and I don't want to use my own name, as I have one or two enemies who would try to stop me doing this if they could (since they want to extract funding $$$ for cataloging the N.Z. fauna, but I am doing it for free!)130.216.1.16 07:36, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Rapala cassidyi

Marius,

Please can you look to Rapala cassidyi. Someone have change it and how can I add the species?

Thanks for your help. I can't do Rapala now, because I'm very busy with the books of Esperiana Band 13, 683 pp. and Esperiana Memoir 4, 303 pp.

Regards,

PeterR 19:54, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Microcraspedius and Ochrodia

Marius,

Please can you look to Microcraspedius and Ochrodia? Someone have redirect to Ephysteris. Both genera are valid.

Thanks for your help

Regards,

PeterR 11:30, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Index to Organism Names

Marius,

I saw that 130.216.1.16 recommend the side Index to Organism Names. Don't forget this side is not reliable. I have often e-mailed Nigel from Reuter about species etc. that are not reliable. Every month they have a side with new species. This side is reliable.

Regards,

Peter

Thyatirinae

Marius,

How can I make a talk page for Thyatirinae?

Thanks., but how can people see that I have make a discussion page for Thyatirinae?

Knows people this or can I better in the page of Thyatirinae type for note on Thyatirinae see discussion button

Regards,

PeterR 17:59, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Redirection

Thanks for the link. I looked for it in Hlep, as I'd seen it somewhere before, but did not find it. Accassidy 18:43, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Genus

Marius,

You have allways told me that I must no make templates for Genera. Only one to the Familia. Now I see that you make for each genus a template. What is the status of Genera?

This is one of your answers to me.

You don't have to create a template for each Genus! Templates are just to save typing. Instead of template for Genus Polex you can write for each species:

Regards,

PeterR 10:40, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Angulopis puntalaraensis

Marius,

I have Angulopis puntalaraensis nominated for speedy deletion.

Thanks for your information

PeterR 18:10, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Request for comment

There is presently a discussion on the use of daggers to denote extinct taxa. This will affect a large portion of the pages in wikispecies as the project grows so if possible please read the contributions so far and comment. Thanks --Kevmin 06:52, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Acoelomorpha

I have undone your redirect to Bilateria of Acoelomorpha, as it serves no purpose and means that the user cannot read the information on the Acoelomorpha page. This information is what the user will want to know, and simply being redirected to the Bilateria page will hardly be instructive! Stho002 20:21, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned page

I have added it. Yes, it's Belarusian. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 02:22, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Improving my edits

Hello Marius,

Thank you for getting in touch. I will separate the lines in the Name section with extra lines if you wish. Previous admins reporting on my work had not mentioned this. I will do it for new uploads, but I think my time would be better spent creating new pages rather than going back through previous ones and making such a minor change manually. When I quote references, I generally use the same style as is used in the document from which I am sourcing the information. This is invariably as you describe. If there is a particular page where you feel the reference needs to be re-formatted, please let me have the specifics. Thank you, Alan Accassidy 10:33, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Hybrid name syntax

In reply to your question on my page.

For the hybrid syntax I'm following the International Code of Botanical Nomenclature (ICBN) APPENDIX I. NAMES OF HYBRIDS. Article H.5 [1]. I see no reason why not, but I'm not stubborn if Wikispecies agree to another convention. Epibase 15:07, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

response

Marius I thank you for the support. Such you know I add taxa only from bulletins and books or reliable sides what me cost a lot of money. In my opinion he is a frustrated man and because he did not get the permission for protected his sides he set up now others for vandalism. I have try to make me clear about the use of NOT reliable sides. Accassidy gave me herein support. But Meganmcarty don't want the support of me or Accissidy. Now the genus Cercyonis is a compleet mist with adding subspecies that don't excist. He get now help from Ed Uebel. If you now have a look too Cercyonis you can see what a mist it is. I'm a little bit frustrated now and only if meganmccarty use the wright sides I come back. Who support him don't matter, but those person must have affinity with the wright sides and information. 84.84.150.164 19:20, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Inappropriate conduct

Hello,
I feel your behavior towards PeterR is inappropriate. Your arguments may be acceptable, but you must control the way you express them. My impression is PeterR is a serious contributor, even if his English is not always easily understood. Please try to be more polite. He really deserves an apology. Mariusm 09:34, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I disagree - I initially simply stated my objection to Megan being told what to do in moderate fashion, but PeterR refused to accept my argument, so my wording got stronger. He still refused to aknowledge the point, threatened to quit, and invoked his 30,000+ edits, etc., so then my wording got even stronger still. Tell you what, I'll apologise to PeterR after he apologises to Megan! Particularly for the hypocrisy of complaining that he had to run around after Megan fixing up her edits, when I have had to do the same on several occasions with his edits! Stho002 20:50, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Furthermore, PeterR (as an anon. IP) in the message above on this page still says 'only if meganmccarty use the wright [right] sides I come back'. This is not a proper attitude...
Stho002 21:24, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I agree, and if you check out PeterR's talk page you will see that I have already apologised...
Stho002 07:26, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Marius, Thanks for your support. I have accept the apology from Stho002 and go further with Wiki. You have right about my bad english. Since the sixties I never write in english again. I started with writing in english again here in Wiki. But we have discus a lot of subjects as References, help to others, synonyms etc. PeterR 09:21, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Lycaon strikes again

• yet again Lycaon reverts edits for two important pages that I improved (Animalia and Platyhelminthes) with the effect of removing the phyla overview on the Animalia page, despite Mariusm's support (above) for such overviews, and his plea for Lycaon not to waste time targeting my edits. I have no wish to start a wheel war, but I have undone Lycaon's meddling yet again. It would be nice to see Lycaon actually add a significant number of new taxon pages...

Stho002 20:31, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Redirect

Marius,

How can I redirect a genus to a side where this genus is synonymized. For example Spragueia is now syn. nov. of Acontia (Acontia).

Spragueia is now a synonym of Acontia (Acontia)

Have I done it well?

PeterR 17:23, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Temnothorax

Marius,

I have link the side Acta Zoologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae to Temnothorax. On google you can have all the documents from these side for free 1994-2008.

PeterR 18:08, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Thoughts?

See here. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 12:40, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Reference format

What is your opinion of the referencing format sampled at the bottom of this page? Andropogon bifidus. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 12:14, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Hello? What about Andropogon binatus? —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 14:22, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

How essential is the date of classification and/or discovery in a taxonomic reference (ie. "Steud. 1858")? And can you please refer me to a site or two online that you believe to be reliable for taxonomies; PeterR keeps telling me the site(s) I use are not reliable (zipecodezoo.com). —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 13:28, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Hello again. I don't mind fixing up my errors; it's for the best of Wikispecies. Have I done the right thing with Andropogon acicularis, for example? I redirected the page and noted it as a synonym of Chrysopogon aciculatus. Did I do this correctly? —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 19:56, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

• The problem with the site you linked me to is that it appears to be incomplete when we compare it with Wikispecies' page on Andropogon. If I search for other websites to use for myself, how can I know if they're reliable or if they can be used? —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 11:59, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Unassigned (Notodontidae)|Unassigned

Marius,

How can I make a template for Unassigned (Notodontidae)|Unassigned?

I have found the mistake. In the family page was written Unassigned Notodontidae|Unassigned. Now I have made Unassigned (Notodontidae)|Unassigned.

Regards,

Peter

my reply

Please see Village Pump Stho002 07:40, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Boarmiini

Marius

Please can you look to the Boarmiini? There is something wrong but I don't see it.

I have found the mistake. You don't have to look anymore.

Regards,

PeterR 11:57, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Award

Sure, you don't need to ask me before handing out awards. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 01:02, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

information

Marius

I'm missing your contributes. Are you sick? Or have you holliday.

Regards,

PeterR 11:20, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Main Page draft

Looks very good. I still need to figure out how to add the ZooKeys collaboration announcement though since it doesn't really go hand-in-hand with the new page layout. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 05:04, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

We should also place the 5 pictures into a template and transclude it onto the main page. This way non-admins can still update (but we have to turn off cascade protection) OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 05:38, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Holotype

Marius,

I see you are back. I have seen your design and its lookes gratefull. I have a question about Holotype. Is it possible to make a redirekt from the species side to the Holotype side? What I mean is this. When I add Holotype: NSMT and I push on NSMT i come in the Holotype list. I have to scroll till i have found NSMT. If it don't exist i have to add the Museum. Can it be made : If the Museum don't exist in the catalogue it stays red and if the Museum exist it colours blue and you arrived direkt to the Museum?. (Like Author)

Regards,

PeterR 13:21, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

re: References format

Thanks for your advice. I try to know, which form of citing is correct in English (I met many), so didn't use any :) From now, I'll be using form you wrote. BTW, do you know anything about plans, in wikispecies, to collect references in e.g. catalog form, something like taxon authorities. I thought to use templates for references. Then, there will be no problem with formatting. Ark (talk page) 17:15, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Re: Main Page revision

It will take place, but not now. I have 4 assignments plus 1 quiz next week. And then that begins the exam period which will end on the 17th (also my birthday) so I will be busy for next half a month. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 05:36, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi, are you still around? I got some time now so we can implement the revision if the community agrees to it. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 22:38, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Seeing that you don't have admin tools, looks like I have to do the work though since everything will be cascade protected. Either way, let me know which pages need to be moved. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 01:08, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Alternatively, why not apply for admin? OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 16:58, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Template

Marius,

Indead i use the template sgsp for subgenera. They told me that if i add species to it i have use the button move. That there are more templates i didn't know. The communication inside Wiki about changes and new templates are very bad. I work on the way you learned me and for me i can do all the contributions i want. They want first the species without subgenera and then the species with subgenera. If people type Papilio tyndeus the come automaticly by Papilio (Meneloides) tyndeus. But what is the official way to add species with subgenera? Rock000 is repaired all the subgenera. Arachn0 had changed the template sgsp and all the contributions were gone.

I shall use the new template, but then you don't have a redirect from species without subgenus to species with subgenera.

But what to do now? That is one of the matters without communication. Rocket000 is repair it. So we can sgsp use normaly. I had communication about this with OhanaUnited (see talkpage).

Regards,

PeterR 11:01, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Arachn0

Marius,

He have answer you on his own talk page

PeterR 14:18, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Re: Main page

• What screen resolution & size are you using?

• 1680x1050; 22" screen.

• What version of Windows?

• XP 64-bit, but this shouldn't matter (not everyone uses windows).

• Does the entire page seem empty at the right side or only the top portion?

• Made you a screenshot: File:MainPage1screenshot.png.

• Does the current Main Page show well on your screen?

• Yes. Rocket000 12:50, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Works for me. :) Rocket000 09:44, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

sgsp

Marius,

There are outher troubles too. See Zygaena (Mesembrynus) araxis.

Regards,

Peter.

Oops, my mistake. Rocket000 10:12, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Administrator

Congratulations, you're now an administrator. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 00:47, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Template species

Marius,

I see that some additors use templates for species when there are subspecies. Is that correct? If this is the new philosofy then we have to make all templates for this kind of species.

Regards,

PeterR 09:19, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Village pump

Marius,

I don't understand all the proposals in village pump. There are now more people for changing species.wikipedia then additors. Maybe you can explain me why they want change the templates etc. For me as additor (so far i can see) means it more work. But i see additors who don't work after todays templates. If every body can add species on his own way you can make much of new templates but that does not work. My proposal is that some people look to the contributions if they are made after the templates. If they don't they ask the additor to change it in the original template format. If they don't you blog them off. I have to change now a lot of pages after original templates. Such as authors [name], genera [[]] –, species [[{{{2}}} {{{3}}}|. {{{3}}}]] – etc. You have done this by me for months and its works.

Regards,

PeterR (talk) 11:50, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Subgenera

Marius,

I see Arachn0 is transfered the species with subgenera to species without genera. Who have decided that we don't add species with subgenera? In the original bulletins all the species are mentioned with subgenera. I can understand that he makes species without subgenera and that he redirect those species to the species with subgenera. But the official species are with subgenera.

If you add the species without the subgenus under === synonyms === every body who type the species without subgenus find the species with subgenus. So why to make a redirect?

Regards

PeterR (talk) 14:24, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Please check genus!

Please check your current edits (wrong genus!) Stho002 (talk) 04:37, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Re:Fauna of New Zealand Online

Yes, I put links to all the volumes. I hadn't got around to volume 64 yet, though ... Stho002 (talk) 20:44, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Chamaeleo

Marius

Is the genus Trioceros a synonymy of Chamaeleo?

Regards

PeterR (talk) 08:02, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Publications

Marius,

Thanks for your answer. I have make the publication sides after example of Stephen Sthoner. The first side is for information of the author such as defaultsort etc. all other information is in the discussion sides.

Regards,

PeterR (talk) 11:58, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

DOI

Please use DOI template wherever possible, like I have done here: Acheilognathus striatus thanks --Stho002 (talk) 05:10, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Main Page Pictures

Your note on editing the Main Page pictures says that this is restricted to Admins, but it has been changed many times recently by User:Shizhao who does not appear on the Admins list. Am I missing something? Cheers. Accassidy (talk) 18:14, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Cryptobatrachidae

Why did you link Hylidae to this page? Was it on purpose or by mistake? Vearthy (talk) 21:06, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Same here and here. Vearthy (talk) 01:47, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Merge verification

I control this account. Mariusm (talk) 07:55, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

How Many Species

OK Marius, I see your header. Is there an easy way to see how many species-level taxa are included so far in WS? Accassidy (talk) 18:45, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Still plenty of work to do then... Cheers Accassidy (talk) 09:10, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Species of the Week

Why is it that every "Species of the Week" this year has been a vertebrate? --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:23, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Ranks in botany

Please note that in botanical taxonomy rank is always written in a plant taxon (name), as subsp. (subspecies, var. (varietas), f. (forma)... etc. Plant taxonomy is different from that of zoology. A plant name is never without obvious rank. Ref: ICBN (http://ibot.sav.sk/icbn/main.htm) Uleli (talk) 07:33, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

A kind request

I've translated the heading of the template (Species of the week) to Tamil (ta). So, when ever you changes this page feel free to add the same content in this page too. {{Species of the week-ta}}. Unless our main page shows the same content.

I try to keep updating the template. But I am just telling you this as a preventing method. :) --Surya Prakash.S.A. (talk) 15:00, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Species of the week

Marius,

What is the meaning of species of the week? So far I can see (Bombyx mori) it is a good detailed information of the moth. Maybe with addition for the flight period etc. It could be used by en.wikipedia. Maybe it could be the master for translations in other languages for the other wikipedia sides.

Regards,

PeterR (talk) 17:44, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Help Dubatolov

Marius,

Dubatolov needs a lot of help to add his genera, species etc. I have answer him that he can all the the help he needs gets from you. (See his talk for help)

I agree with you. I do my best. Dubatolov is a Russian Entomologist with a lot of publications (Arctiidae). He understand english very well.

Regards,

PeterR (talk) 17:14, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Please, help me

Marius,

Thank you very much for a nice and helpful Wikispecies site! Could you kindly explain me how to insert photographs in Wikispecies pages? I shall be much thankful!

V.V.Dubatolov

Thanks

Thanks for all your work on designing and updating the main page and making it interesting. It is one of the reasons I am addicted to editing here. Koumz (talk) 17:21, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Please, help!

Hi, Mariusm, Could you kindly help me to delete incorrect redirection from Nyctemera (Orphanos) tripunctaria to Nyctemera annulatum (Insecta, Lepidoptera, Arctiinae, Nyctemerina, Nyctemera)? Nyctemera tripunctaria Swinhoe, 1916 is a synonym of Nyctemera annulatum (Boisduval, 1832), but Nyctemera (Orphanos) tripunctaria (Linnaeus, 1758) is quite a distinct species. Unfortunately, I could not understand how to do this. Vvdubat (talk) 17:12, 02 October 2011

Thanks!

Thank you very much for correcting! Vvdubat (talk) 20:05, 02 October 2011

Name section convention

Greetings - and thanks for your comments here. I always appreciate constructive criticism. How rigid do we, the admins and users, want the "standards" to be? Recently, I questioned Stho002 along the lines that you wrote to me, inquiring about variation in how he formatted some section headers, and I like his answer: "The problem with 'standards' is that they don't allow for experimentation to see what works better." I don't recall from which WS user I first saw the bullets-with-indents convention applied (it was not my invention), but I liked it and adopted it. This convention takes nothing away from the plain-vanilla "standard" format. On the contrary, it slightly increases the information content of the Name section, because it visually shows what information is subordinate to what. In my opinion, the bullets and indenting also make the section easier to read.

You ask, "Should we change the help section, and the scores of pages that comply with it?" Of course not. In a wiki, some variation in style is absolutely inevitable (unless we want to make rigid conformity a higher priority than information content) and perfectly tolerable. And you ask, "Should we make your version a standard?" Of course not; see preceding answer. My recent formatting practice that you question is only one of dozens of variations in formatting that are found in the pages of our wiki; the treatment of References, for example, includes many useful innovations not found in our "standards." -- Respectfully, MKOliver (talk) 12:13, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Since you (Marius) have asked for my opinion on this, I'll give it here, although, for the reasons I'll state below, I believe it is important only to me. Let me first state openly for the record that I am not a trained taxonomist, just an fish enthusiast. I will give some observations first, and then my opinion.

Observations: I have read earlier comments by Accassidy in a discussion elsewhere (Village Pump Archives, I think), which suggest that MKOliver, Stho002, and Accassidy, are all of a similar opinion on the subject (roughly that stated above by MKOliver). It also seems to me that this opinion mirrors to a high degree the ways things work in the "real" taxonomic world (in which each of the users I named above has experience), i.e. everyone goes by a set of basic standards (ICZN), but there is wide freedom for differing opinions and treatments within those standards as long as evidence is given to support those opinions. One example of this is the rejection by some in the herpetology community of the 2005 Frost et al. paper on frogs although many authors of the paper are experienced frog specialists. (This may be an outsider opinion, though.) Thus, there would seem to be justification for having it this way for that reason, and also for the reasons that MKOliver gave above about the nature of wikis.

However, if this kind of variation is considered acceptable, it would then also seem logical to me that the format of a page should be left as originally written except to correct errors in the information itself, or particularly egregious display problems. In practice, this is not what I see, as I see many, many edits by multiple users that are concerned primarily with adjusting the lower-level formatting out of the version used by a previous editor and into that used by the current editor. The time spent on this, which I would characterize as largely wasted, is one of the inherent issues of a system where everyone does things slightly differently, like a wiki. (I could now launch off into a thermodynamics discussion about the level of work required to maintain order, but I'll spare everyone).

Now my opinion and personal experience: I am coming to believe more and more firmly that the WMF statement on the main page could be more accurately written as "... anyone can edit, but not everyone should." By this I mean that some personality types (and here I speak most pointedly of my own, from my experience) are just a very poor fit for participation in a wiki. This is my own problem and not the responsibility of anyone else here. There is something innate about how I approach everything that I do that is not very compatible with this kind of collaboration or with WP:OWN. It's not that I don't have a great deal of respect for others' work, or that I really want to control them, or that I think I'm more important than they are (quite the opposite is true, in fact.) It's just that I can't help wanting things to be very highly ordered so I know what to be consistent with, since I am not very confident in my own opinion. I think that some of the same attitudes that make it easy for a person to program and automate cause problems for participation in a wiki. I have the same discomfort trying to sort out the disagreements in taxonomic sources that I do with the formatting inconsistencies here.

So in that sense I agree with your comment that users like me who are not confident in their opinions, and just trying to follow correctly, are likely to be repelled by all the different variations as I have been. Users who are falsely confident in their own opinions will run afoul of others and are likely to leave or be driven off, leaving only those who are properly confident due to experience and knowledge as MKOliver is. This means that the wiki is likely to wind up being "by taxonomists, for taxonomists", and will likely serve that function very well. The Help pages, however, do become largely pointless in that situation, unless rewritten to be much more general and allow for these variations.

I am guessing it will not be intuitive to MKOliver or others why this should have to be an "all-or-nothing" thing for me or you, but I must live with the facts as they are. I may even be called neurotic (and have been before) for approaching things this way, but that is my reality, so I must face it and try to be of benefit to others the best I can anyway. Koumz (talk) 16:21, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you that it would be much better if the site had very consistent formatting. I don't care which format we use as long as it is consistent. I am confused and frustrated just like you are, because the site is currently not consistent . I think others don't care so much about whether the formatting is consistent, though. This is all I was trying to say. Koumz (talk) 18:32, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

I am not going to enter too deeply into this debate, but please consider this: the amount of useful content on WS is growing vastly quicker than on EoL or any other similar sites. Why? It is perhaps because they spend too much time and effort worrying about standards and format, and not enough time and effort worrying about content. Useful content consists of verified information and extensive references with links (BHL, doi, PDF, etc.) Stho002 (talk) 20:32, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

While I'm at it, I might as well tell you the hard and ugly truth that the original content/format guidelines for WS were drafted on the assumption that we weren't going to do anything particularly useful. The original vision of WS was as a "poor man's" Catalogue of Life, just compiling minimal information from various secondary sources. Stho002 (talk) 20:47, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Your argument is strong on rhetoric, but fails to take into account several points. One such point is that a consistent format would have to be understandable by everybody who contributes, even some of those who contribute regularly on Lepidoptera. I don't think that would work. I think we need a "best practice" format, and a "minimally acceptable" format, and something in between Stho002 (talk) 06:48, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Special characters

Marius,

advanced and help are in blue and I can use them, but Special characters is in black. Koumz had the same problems with Special characters. Maybe there is a virus but by controll my computer say there are no virus.

Yes I mean these characters such as š ñ etc. Normaly u can use them if you add species by Authorname or type locality.

I know those characters but there are others (Czech, Hungarian etc.). Now I write author Nemes but it has to be ç but then with s. Normaly I open Special characters and sort these character.

Regards,

PeterR (talk) 08:30, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

New SOTW

Did you see the suggestion that I wrote, especially for the Christmas season? It's on the Template's talk page. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:47, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

No, I meant the write-up on Viscum album. Did you see that?

Also, I've started keeping a running log of past featured species at User:EncycloPetey/Species of the week, with ideas for future species as I come up with them. I'd be willing to write a few plant articles each year, but the animal suggestions are more ideas for you. They represent groups that haven't had much Main Page coverage. Note: the tables are sortable. If you click on the column header, then that column sorts alphabetically, regrouping the list. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:56, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. As I say, I'll try to write a plant feature every 4 to 8 weeks. We didn't have many plants featured last year. :( --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:56, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Systematics and biodiversity

Thanks for adding the contents of the latest issue (that first article being rather controversial in some ways!), but if you add them properly formatted, then one can easily just copy and paste them to other pages, which was my main reason for starting adding contents to journal pages ... Stho002 (talk) 22:59, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Species of the Week

Can we do Puya raimondii (Queen of the Andes) for the next featured species? I can help to write the text, if necessary. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:29, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I corrected the information about the original description. This one has a weird and interesting history behind the name. The original epithet had to be changed when the species was transferred to the genus Puya, because that combination was already in use. So, the person who moved it into Puya had to create a new epithet, and chose to name it after the botanist who first described it.

I'm next going to write a draft for a European alga, perhaps. However, the end of the school year is always busy for me with many papers to grade, so I might not start the draft until June! --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:15, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Template:Zootaxa

Hi, I strongly recommend that you use this template that I wrote. Not only is it quicker to type in, but if Zootaxa ever changes platform or URL structure, then all the individually written links to abstracts will break, but using the template they can all be updated just by updating the template page. Cheers, Stho002 (talk) 05:02, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Good ... even better still to use reference template: {{Bolton & Fisher, 2012}} ... Stho002 (talk) 05:23, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

n. comb.

Just a friendly comment about nomenclature. It is technically not possible to have a "n. comb" in Wikispecies, because that would mean that YOU are creating this combination in the Wikispecies page, which is, of course, impossible (a) because Wikipedia does not accepts new data, and (b) because this is not a publication according to the ICZN.

If an author made a new combination, you can (you should) indicate it with the date, such as Genus species (Author1, date1) Author2, date2 in which Author2 is the author who made the new combination.

I have noticed one n. comb. in one of your pages, but if you made more, you should edit them.

Good luck! Jeanloujustine (talk) 21:43, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Hey guys, hold up! You can *quote* an author who made an 'n. comb.', by putting it in quotes, like I just did ... Stho002 (talk) 23:04, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

taxon counts

it is quite useful for biodiversity estimation, with long lists of species or genera, to put in ( ) the number of items in the list (it is easy to do for a vertical list: just copy into Excel and scroll to the end to see how many) .... Stho002 (talk) 05:49, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

it was just a suggestion (not compulsory) ... if it is there on a page, then it is useful, and if it isn't there, then no big deal ... I guess I am guided more by utility than by "standards for their own sake" ... Stho002 (talk) 06:01, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

well, there are a fair few estimates out there of described global biodiversity, all of which take too many shortcuts to be very accurate. If we can build up the counts from the bottom up, we ultimately could have the best estimate of the total ... that's all ... Stho002 (talk) 07:03, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Drosophila reply

see my talk page Stho002 (talk) 05:57, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, but we are not quite there yet. It would be best if you put your species groups on the talk page of the subgenera. It makes the main pages just too complex, and I can't make head nor tail of it. I need to be able to easily see if a name is already on the list or not. Unless it is alphabetical, I can't do that ... Stho002 (talk) 06:46, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

OK, look ... one of the main reasons for having an overview of species is that it catches all of them, even the incertae sedis species. We don't need to list these twice! For a huge genus like this, we need to keep things as simple as possible ... Stho002 (talk) 06:49, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

>pages get too much cluttered if both partition and alphabetic order are present<

Yes, so go with alphabetical order only, for that very reason. If you start down the path of partitions, then you or others will want to do it for every phylogeny that gets published, and the result could be chaos ... Stho002 (talk) 06:54, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

At any rate, it is all pointless for Drosophila, as the current classification will probably change radically in the not too distant future ... Stho002 (talk) 06:56, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

"Mentions"

Please don't waste your time doing "mentions" ... there is far too much to be done. Please just list all the relevant references (in which the taxon is mentioned), and leave it at that ... Stho002 (talk) 07:02, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Unimportant revisions

Sorry, what do you mean? Kuzia (talk) 17:14, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Wikimedia

Marius,

Is the way Stephen works now the standard for Wiki? I don't understand this. Its a mist. No good authors, No good templates, No Museums, No subgenera, no subspecies. Where is your Wiki spirit? I don't agree with this way. Where are the templates?

For example he's making the wrong author templates. Zt. The chinese names are not correct. If I add new species I don't see the authors. Its often that different authors have discover a species. With the old way (he proposed too) you see all the authors. The entomologists, Dubatolov (Russia), two Japanese entomologists and Nässig (Germany) have add their species on the same way I do. So wiki need a standard and NOT the standard from Stephen. Stephen is the only additor who works on his way. You know their are official templates how to work in Wiki and I don't see his templates.

Regards,

PeterR (talk) 17:39, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

BASEPAGENAME

Marius,

Why use BASEPAGENAME?

I don' t see a template for making this and what is the profit to use BASEPAGENAME instead of using the old way?

Don' t forgett that we did' t have had take classes. I'm working now for Razowski (Tortricidae, Poland) and Nässig (Saturniidae, Germany).

I'm 67 year now and i need templates.

I work now with I MAC and i have to learn a lot for additing species etc.

What I mean is that Razowski and Nässig have ask me to add the species for them on the way I had (in accordance with you) make in Wiki. Also Dubatolov add them on the same way. I don't have take classes for java script?.

When I had a lot of contact with programmers I had to make cost and bate analyze, because if you change one item (in this case == Name == you have change them all). If you do this the cost could be higher then the benefit. So we didn' t do the changes. Now there is no consistency but chaos in additing.

I don' t what we using java script or?

I have tried template:BASEPAGENAME but I see a lot but not how I create a BASEPAGENAME

Thanks for all. Indead this is a lot easier.

Regards

Peter

Edit Request

Hi. I created main page for bn. please add [[প্রধান পাতা|বাংলা]] in Template:Languages and also fullfill This request. Thanks --Aftab1995 (talk) 16:37, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

This is Bengali (বাংলা) language (language code bn).--Aftab1995 (talk) 14:38, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. please fullfill This request (in bn sidebar version Templates shown in english) --Aftab1995 (talk) 16:28, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Gasteruption

Hi, just wondering if you have a single source for most or all of that long species list? Or is it put together from several sources? I note that taxapad (http://www.taxapad.com/local.php?returnmethod=refresh&indexname=Gasteruption+-+Latreille%2C1796&indexid=96470738&childreturn=taxon) has far fewer species. It would be good to able to source the extra ones in your list ... Stho002 (talk) 05:17, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

You need to do it in a way that others can check and make sense of. Accordingly, I have done a lot of work to fix it. Now you need to justify all the species that differ between your list and HOL, one by one, on their taxon pages ... Stho002 (talk) 07:00, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Admin Discussion

Marius, Stephen is very keen and has a lot of professional knowledge. He also has very strong opinions and tends to jump in and change things without a lot of discussion. The first of these attributes are admirable, the second can, I am sure, be very frustrating/maddening. As you say, most/much of his work is oriented at New Zealand, from where he originates. Those who have less to do with that country can easily ignore the additional New Zealand pages/categories, so I don't find that an issue. As my area of interest/expertise does not overlap excessively with New Zealand, I don't have any edit wars with him and I can operate alongside on the odd occasion where we do end up editing the same page. My own 'standard' page formatting is rather more simple than his, yet it contains all the necessary information, so I do not plan to go the same way as him in all respects. There are so many pages in my contribution history that appropriate reformatting could and would only be done slowly over a long period of time anyway. I am pretty sure that my pages convey a lot of relevant information and so do Stephen's, any or all of which would be helpful to someone researching in those particular areas. We should all realise that taxonomy is a moving target, and never becomes fixed and permanent, so stability is useful but new discoveries have to be implemented. Of course, there are sometimes different viewpoints expressed by different biologists about fundamental relationships, and this is where difficulties can arise. All WikiSpecies can do in this situation is try to show both possibilities in some way. As contributors and as Admins, we should all treat each other with respect. We should discuss our differences and, where appropriate, explain both opinions in a way that casual users of WikiSpecies might understand. I don't personally think anything positive is gained by banning someone when a better approach might be just to ask them to be more co-operative, listen as well as talk and occasionally back down when both sides have a good point to make. That is what I try to do whenever my path crosses that of another contributor. Ultimately, co-operation is the only way ahead, and I think that Stephen would acknowledge that if it was put to him directly. I imagine he will read this anyway so can confirm that for himself. Talking good, banning or exclusion bad. Cheers, Accassidy (talk) 17:48, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Marius, Yes, I have seen something of your battles with S, but this is in an area where I have no proper knowledge and I cannot arbitrate between you. If there are major taxonomic rivalries going on in the plant world and significant doubt about the most widely accepted arrangements, then there is no option but to compromise and to show in discussion pages where the different theories can be explored. He has also, very occasionally, made small changes to a few pages with which I have been concerned and as long as these do not change the taxonomy or the reduce the information given I have left them alone. On occasion I have exchanged emails with him privately and have been able to reach an agreement. Such negotiations are usually better done in private than on a public project page. Please keep me informed of any further problems that arise. Regards, Accassidy (talk) 17:08, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Re: Help request

Ok I'll talk to him and try to mediate things. But please do keep in mind that any edits saved is immediately available to be edited by others. You're from English Wikipedia so you know how active those New Page Patrol users are. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 02:30, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Free advice

If you link the authors in the name section in this way: [[Template:Zt2797.1|{{aut|Hu, Li & Zhao}}, 2011]], then the author names are linked only on the reference page, so if they need correcting at any stage, you only have to do it once, not for every new taxon from that publication. It is also useful for cases where the authorship of a taxon is different to the authorship of the publication, as it links directly to the correct publication. Stho002 (talk) 06:59, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Co-Operation

I have just written some advice on the User Page of Stho002. I ask also that you contribute to a period of quiet reflection, while everyone calms down a bit. Thanks. Accassidy (talk) 15:53, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Marius, You will see that I am still trying to be persuasive on User talk:Stho002. I remain hopeful for a positive outcome. Accassidy (talk) 16:01, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Now I am a little disappointed that you allowed yourself to be provoked into responding to the latest Village Pump statements from Stho002. Please be patient a little longer. 86.135.159.115 09:31, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Marius, I note your recent correspondence on Stho002 talk page. For information, I keep a set of template documents in Word so that I can complete pages off-line, so to speak, and then upload the effectively complete page all in one go. Maybe an image comes later, or I find an extra synonym and update. But it seems to be inviting for intervention if you upload an "unfinished" page and then take a break. I am not condoning the intervention, but there may be steps you can take to avoid it in future. Thanks for your continued contributions. Accassidy (talk) 17:22, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Marius, @Accassidy:,@Franz Xaver: I also read your discussion with @Stho002: and would be happy to assist in suggestion of a draft, or of any document that reduces conflicts in this project, but want to put your attention to a possibly easier solution to the presently problem, the use of the Template:In_use or Template:Under construction. Those templates would let the editor decide how long time he or she needs to complete( As long as it is a relevent time period). Would you consider that concept could be applied as a solution for the present problem? Dan Koehl (talk) 01:40, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Please explain this diff!

You removed many species here, without explanation! Wtf? Stho002 (talk) 06:12, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

>The rest are synonyms< Really, says who? You have no source! Stho002 (talk) 06:36, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

I think you are missing the point! You NEED TO quote a source on the taxon page, or else removal of species is vandalism. Stho002 (talk) 06:41, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Online editing

It seems that you are experiencing always problems with online editing. Why not edit offline and enter the final version into Wikispecies. Then you will have less edits on WS in comparison with some other contributors, but you will also have less trouble. Kempf EK (talk) 14:03, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Stohner

Marius

I read that you have problems with Stohner. I have the same troubles. If I ask Accassidy how to add some species or to make author templates he change it every time. But what he is doing is not official. He change it by me but not by Accassidy. If I change it again he block me for a while. PeterR (talk) 15:52, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

templates

I have learned it from Accassidy. There are a lot of templates on this way. What is the standard? I have asked it but no answer PeterR (talk) 11:34, 9 December 2014 (UTC).

When I type template:Author1, 2, 3 or 4 I don't see anything PeterR (talk) 11:47, 9 December 2014 (UTC) (on search) Why don't you answer me? How can I find those templates? PeterR (talk) 13:04, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

What is after your opinion wrong?

See: Template:Paukstadt,Paukstadt, 2013

* {{aut|[[Ulrich Paukstadt|Paukstadt, U.]]; [[Laela Hayati Paukstadt|Paukstadt, L.H.]]}} 2013: ''Antheraea (Antheraea) selayarensis'' sp. nov., ein neuer wilder Seidenspinner von der Insel Selayar, Provinz Süd Sulawesi, Indonesien (Lepidoptera: Saturniidae). [[ISSN 1612-2674|''Beiträge zur Kenntnis der wilden Seidenspinner'']], '''11'''(3): 107-118. <includeonly>[http://species.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:Paukstadt,Paukstadt,_2013 reference page]</includeonly> <noinclude> ** [http://species.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:{{BASEPAGENAMEE}} find all Wikispecies pages which cite this reference][[Category:Reference templates]]</noinclude>

Thanks for the explain. But now we have to do the author templates on the same way. I see differerent options from Accassisy and Sthoner. Or are the templates mentioned by you proposals? PeterR (talk) 11:37, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

You say that you don' t understand what I'm meaning with the templates. You have a search option. When I type Template:Author1 I don't see a template example. PeterR (talk) 11:37, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

you know I'm not a programmer. So what means syntax example? PeterR (talk) 12:36, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

• This is an example from Sthoner Template:Phillips-Rodríguez et al., 2014
• This is an example from Accassidy Template:Grose-Smith,Kirby, 1887

How do you make a template with three authors on the new way? PeterR (talk) 11:37, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

now I understand what you mean with Author1, Author2 etc.. I have try it out with a template with 3 names, but it didn't work. I can't let see you this template, because Sthoner have made an other. When I make a new one and I have the same mistake, I shall ask you to look at this template. PeterR (talk) 11:54, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Please can you tell me what I have done wrong in this template: Template:Ou,Wang & Wei, 2014

Thanks for your answer. It works now. PeterR (talk) 09:18, 21 December 2014 (UTC)