User talk:Monster Iestyn

From Wikispecies
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Welcome to Wikispecies![edit]

Hello, and welcome to Wikispecies! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might like to see:

If you have named a taxon, then it is likely that there is (or will be) a Wikispecies page about you, and other pages about your published papers. Please see our advice and guidance for taxon authors.

If you have useful images to contribute to Wikispecies, please upload them at Wikimedia Commons. This is also true for video or audio files containing bird songs, whale vocalization, etc.

Please sign your comments on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username (if you're logged in) and the date. Please also read the Wikispecies policy What Wikispecies is not. If you need help, ask me on my talk page, or in the Village Pump. Again, welcome! -- Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:49, 9 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have sent an email to Ingenta regarding the DOI issues in vol. 55 and 56 (as well as their absence in vol. 57) of Annales Zoologic. I've generally found them to be fairly responsive when such issues are pointed to them. Circeus (talk) 17:52, 16 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ah okay, that's good to know then. Thanks. Monster Iestyn (talk) 18:03, 16 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
On the other end, they seemed as puzzled as i was as to why they never received the information for vol. 56 issue 1 (which is thus missing online). But at least they told me as such lol. Circeus (talk) 19:14, 16 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Volume 56, issue 1 is now online. Circeus (talk) 21:31, 22 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Nice! Though there's no DOIs for them still, oddly enough. Monster Iestyn (talk) 00:07, 23 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is this supposed to be a single fascicle/livraison within this whole volume? I think the reasonable approach is usually to give a date range for the volume and cite it as a whole. You can always document detailed dates of publication on Biologia Centrali-Americana. That's one of the major reason we have there work pages (even if they're not used that way enough, especially in zoology).

In this particular case, it's especially awkward to use the "in:" style since the page range a) doesn't match a clear subdivision within the work and b) that style is intended for cases where the larger work has different authorship. Circeus (talk) 04:40, 10 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

To answer the question at the start, it's actually supposed to cover all "Parts" within the volume that were published in the year 1890, while the whole volume I think was published between 1880 and 1892? See here (pages 67-100; see 87 for the relevant dates table for the volume supplement named in the template we're talking about) for some useful info on how Biologia Centrali-Americana is supposed to be dated. Basically it follows some dates in the bottom left corners of specific pages, as far as I'm aware.
That said, in a way I was also following the example of the existing templates Template:Jacoby, 1881, Template:Jacoby, 1882 and Template:Jacoby, 1891, none of which I made (though I later modified them to be in a "book" format apparently).
Otherwise, yeah, I can see what you mean, I probably have been a little confused how to actually format book references in general. If it makes more sense to use a date range for the templates, then I don't object to those changes being made. Monster Iestyn (talk) 05:10, 10 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Forgot to mention I may also have been following references within other publications themselves, which generally seem to do the same thing as in the templates (at least regards the page range and year), which may have added to my confusion. Monster Iestyn (talk) 10:54, 10 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I dunno what the usage is in zoology for such cases (in botany, abbreviated references never stopped being used, and they don't run into this problem)
We don't have a set policy, but my thought definitely lean toward a volume reference (for the reasons above). I usually link the specific page when citing the reference, to remove ambiguity, though I haven't run in many cases where I had multiple references that would be ambiguous in the same article. Me and PeterR do not exactly see eye to eye regarding references and I'm kinda surprised he hasn't jumped down your throat or just plain reverted you given his typical reaction to any substantive edit I apply to templates he has created. Circeus (talk) 14:59, 10 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So I've noticed. But yeah, I'm not sure what the correct usage in zoology is for this either.
Also, I've just been digging into the author pages listed at Biologia Centrali-Americana itself and found that ...many of the templates do not even link to it, or even mistakenly link to a page for an unrelated periodical. And that's just in the first 11 author pages! I've edited the templates I've seen so far to fix these issues, but there are likely to be many more with the same issues I predict. Additionally, some do year ranges like you suggest, and others do per-year like with the Jacoby templates here. What a mess. Monster Iestyn (talk) 17:46, 10 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm not surprised most template creators don't link to it. As mentioned, the vast majority of work pages are for botany (a little abusively, sometimes, as people basically import the IPNI/Tl-2 abbreviations somewhat indiscriminately), so basically people creating zoological templates have no idea about the page's existence. Circeus (talk) 21:51, 10 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Would you lend me a hand and investigate these names? Entomological matters are not a specialty, but there's some indication (i.e. I can't find any literature whatsoever that mentions them with a formal placement) that neither of these names are in use, but if so I can't find any indication what names they are currently treated under. Circeus (talk) 02:46, 18 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Here's what I've found so far, quickly having a look around google:
  • Lasia coerulea appears to be a synonym of Lasia nigritarsis according to this article from 2018:
  • Lasia caerulea meanwhile is listed as a valid species in this 2010 poster by Gillung and Carvalho: [1]
Monster Iestyn (talk) 03:12, 18 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Huh, you were luckier (or had better keywords) than me. I didn't find either of these. I wouldn't trust the poster too much as it seems based on literature report mostly, and one of the few mentions I could find (as Apsona caerulea: hdl: 10125/8835 ) indicates the placement of the species was not entirely resolved at least at the time. Circeus (talk) 03:24, 18 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah, unfortunately there doesn't seem to be any other recent literature for Lasia caerulea I can find; in fact, the only time I've found that particular combination for that species so far (besides the poster) is in Schlinger's 1957 "A Generic Revision and Catalogue of the Acroceridae" dissertation (viewable on Google Books in Snippet view only; there may be a better link possibly?) ...which probably means it's considered "unpublished" according to the ICZN. Or something like that. Monster Iestyn (talk) 03:31, 18 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hm, considering the poster is a catalog of species from Brazil, I went around and looked around for articles of the same subject. I think I've found one already (DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.2175.1.3), but unfortunately I cannot view its contents. That said, if Lasia caerulea is listed anywhere in the literature it could be here possibly, if I could only read it! Monster Iestyn (talk) 03:43, 18 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I had the same idea and found the same article. Unfortunately, it really is only about genera. Not one species of Lasia is mentioned. Circeus (talk) 14:36, 18 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Circeus: Update: Finally got to check out the article I linked earlier for myself, and it in fact *does* list the Brazillian species for each Acroceridae genus ...but Lasia caerulea is not listed among them for Lasia in it (though the other four listed in the 2010 poster are definitely listed). Monster Iestyn (talk) 01:30, 2 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

───────────────────────── @Circeus: Extremely late update to this discussion, but I have now created a page for Lasia nigritarsis and made Lasia coerulea a redirect to it. Lasia caerulea on the other hand I'm still not sure what to do about, though all evidence I'm aware of so far suggests nobody has formally used that combination outside of Schlinger's 1957 dissertation (which probably doesn't count as "published" according to the ICZN, which would mean none of its nomenclatural acts would be valid). If this true, I suspect it would be best to move the page to Apsona coerulea instead. Monster Iestyn (talk) 15:17, 2 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(That is, unless Gilling & Carvalho's 2010 Catalog of Brazilian spider flies poster on ResearchGate counts as "published" itself.) Monster Iestyn (talk) 15:21, 2 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This was the edit I actually intended to make. I changed the wrong 2019 XD Circeus (talk) 03:55, 3 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Haha, I did wonder if that was what happened. Monster Iestyn (talk) 03:58, 3 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Pseudodirphia menander[edit]

Please can you add the photo from Pseudodirphia menander by the species? The photo can you download from commons.wikipedia. PeterR (talk) 17:18, 14 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Done, I just had to link the new page to the existing Wikidata item (here) and then use {{Image}}, if you were wondering how I did that. Monster Iestyn (talk) 17:28, 14 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks PeterR (talk) 08:34, 15 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I have a lot problems with image. When I transfer a species with an image to a new species combination I got no image. See Fereachalinus meiguensis. Please can you repair this? Maybe you can made an example for the additors to make an image. PeterR (talk) 12:32, 19 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The new species page needs to be linked to a Wikidata item with an image in order for {{image}} to do anything ...but there also needs to be an image too. I don't see any image for Fereachalinus meiguensis or even Achalinus meiguensis on commons besides a distribution map so I don't think I can help there. Monster Iestyn (talk) 13:39, 19 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hi Monster.

Did you already add the pictures I asked? PeterR (talk) 12:52, 31 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You mean for Fereachalinus meiguensis? I couldn't find any images of the species to add so I couldn't do that. Monster Iestyn (talk) 16:28, 31 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No. I had placed in Wikispecies:Village Pump for help to add over 100 pictures. If you had time you should do it. I can't find it back in Wikispecies:Village Pump.PeterR (talk) 10:17, 2 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Is this the discussion you were referring to?: Wikispecies:Village Pump/Archive 51#Photos Monster Iestyn (talk) 11:03, 2 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, can you fix it? PeterR (talk) 18:13, 3 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
To be honest, I'm not really someone who uploads images normally, so maybe I'm not the best person to ask about adding them. Monster Iestyn (talk) 21:10, 3 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Acronymolpus mandjeliae page deletion[edit]

I added reasons to keep page as redirect with references in the talk page if you could please take a look there. Robertreadman (talk) 02:45, 6 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

ISSN 1690-6357[edit]

I have a theory that this is a misdocumented alternate ISSN for ISSN 0041-8285. Possibly it was assigned retroactively? Either way the journal seems like it was published at least for some time both online and in paper, which would normally have required two separate ISSNs. Circeus (talk) 00:22, 1 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yeah, I did wonder if it was related to ISSN 0041-8285 myself. Though on the other hand, ISSN Portal's page for ISSN 1690-6357 says it was published in print (ISSN 0041-8285 is also "print" on its own page). Whether the ISSN Portal is right on this fact I have no way of knowing. Monster Iestyn (talk) 01:46, 1 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Igor Ya. Grichanov[edit]

Hi Monster

Why have you make a redirect from Grichanov to Igor Ya. Grichanov? Such you now we makes redirects to the full names in this case Igor Yakovlevich Grichanov. I have already move Igor Ya. Grichanov to Igor Yakovlevich Grichanov. PeterR (talk) 11:38, 9 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

According to this page it was actually Tommy Kronkvist who made the redirect back in 2016, not me. Monster Iestyn (talk) 15:06, 9 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@PeterR: Also, I've fixed all the pages linking to Igor Ya. Grichanov for you, by the way. Monster Iestyn (talk) 17:30, 9 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks Monster PeterR (talk) 16:26, 16 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Reference Templates[edit]


Have you make this? * Romantsov, P.V. 2011. A new species of the genus Otiothraea Warchałowski, 1990 (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae: Cryptocephalinae: Clytrini) from Morocco. Caucasian Entomological Bulletin 7(2): 145–146. DOI: 10.23885/1814-3326-2011-7-2-145-146 Open access.

No, I haven't made a reference template for that article. You can make one for it if you want. Monster Iestyn (talk) 21:01, 16 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Can you see who have done this? Their are hundres of false reference templates like this one. Those person have forgot to add  
Find all Wikispecies pages which cite this reference.. PeterR (talk) 15:42, 17 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What reference template do you mean exactly? If you mean that Romantsov one, that's not really a false template, just a reference that hasn't been turned into a template yet. I sometimes don't make a template for a reference straight away. However, I do know there are many reference templates that are missing the cite links like you say. Monster Iestyn (talk) 16:37, 17 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

───────────────────────── Who have make this? Andrei Alexsandrovich LegalovPeterR (talk) 16:49, 19 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You can check in the page's revision history here. Monster Iestyn (talk) 17:01, 19 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fernando M.S. Dias[edit]


Can you please move Fernando M.S. Dias (all) to Fernando Maia Silva Dias? Normal Tommy do this but he have no time yet. PeterR (talk) 10:17, 25 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm a bit busy at the moment, I'll move it when I have the time maybe. Monster Iestyn (talk) 14:24, 25 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@PeterR:  Done Just merged the two pages, going to fix all the links to Fernando M.S. Dias now. Monster Iestyn (talk) 16:52, 30 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Caelidia vs. Parastasia[edit]

I'm probably going to see about publishing a reversal of precedence note on this, if you're interested in co-authoring. I've started work over at User:Circeus/article_sandbox. Circeus (talk) 02:45, 7 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Was this meant to be directed towards somebody else? I feel like I'd be completely out of my depth on this subject at least. Monster Iestyn (talk) 02:53, 7 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh, beg your pardon, I thought you were referring to the plant-related article in your main sandbox page. Writing an academic article isn't something I'm familiar with anyway to be honest, though thanks for offering. Monster Iestyn (talk) 03:02, 7 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Strictly speaking, it's not something I'm intimately familiar with either XD. I feel I should offer you coauthorship ccredits since you're the one who spotted the issue with Caelidia in the first place. Circeus (talk) 03:27, 7 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
True, maybe I should accept being credited as co-author then, admittedly I was surprised by the offer in the first place and had a knee-jerk reaction to it. What would I need to do exactly? Monster Iestyn (talk) 09:50, 7 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

───────────────────────── As far as "needing" to do, mostly review and sign off on the text and the choice of journal (I don't have much to add to the version as is, but I want to let it rest a week or two before I re-read it again for language. Feel free to make revisions in the meantime). For authorship itself, though it would have to include your name and any institutional link you may have, otherwise your address (but if you prefer you can send me those privately). I'm not sure if you could get away with just listing yourself as a Wikispecies contributor. I would be the author of contact, so no need for you to share an email. If sharing that info is an issue for you, I can stick to putting in a thank you in a credit section (which I was intending to do even if you did say no). Circeus (talk) 14:31, 7 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Would it be okay just to specify my address to city? I'm not linked with any institution, and I feel somewhat uncomfortable putting my full address even in the live version. Beyond that, I'm good. Monster Iestyn (talk) 16:07, 7 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Personally I have no issue with that seeing as, again, I am the author of contact and my adress is already out there on at least two different papers XD. Circeus (talk) 18:31, 7 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ah, thanks then. Monster Iestyn (talk) 18:55, 7 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template:Rech & Linzmeier, 2020[edit]


Why don't you make an author page for Rech? PeterR (talk) 12:39, 10 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think I wasn't going to make a page for Tarcila Rech until I knew of another publication she'd published, but then again I can't remember if we make author pages for people with only one publication? Monster Iestyn (talk) 13:58, 10 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Of cause we make. You have to make all such as new genus, new species etc. in text. I have make today a few author templates with new authors. PeterR (talk) 14:19, 10 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Author page for Matthew L. Lewis[edit]

I have make for you an author page for Matthew L. Lewis. Do you have more authors who need an author page? — The preceding unsigned comment was added by PeterR (talkcontribs) 14:48, 10 August 2020 (UTC).Reply[reply]

None that I can think of right now. Monster Iestyn (talk) 14:56, 10 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Elchin Fizuli Huseynov[edit]


I want move Elchin F. Huseynov to Elchin Fizuli Huseynov. The destination page "Elchin Fizuli Huseynov" already exists. Do you want to delete it to make way for the move?. I don't know to handle this. Please can you do this for me? Normaly Tommy did this for me. PeterR (talk) 14:24, 10 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I would help, but I am not an admin on this wiki so I can't. Monster Iestyn (talk) 14:24, 10 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Though you seem to be an admin here, I'd think all you have to do is delete the "Elchin Fizuli Huseynov" page, then move "Elchin F. Huseynov" to "Elchin Fizuli Huseynov"? Monster Iestyn (talk) 14:29, 10 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Reverted your editions on template[edit]

I reverted you supression of all new names on the template. It is quite hard to identify and list them, I cannot accept just to be cancelled. Without at least a previous consult or discussion on the reasons why. I have hundreds of template created with that content, it will be your task to supress all them?--Hector Bottai (talk) 15:45, 18 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I see it was a mistake. My apologies, I was really upset, should wait for a while. --Hector Bottai (talk) 15:48, 18 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No worries, I was trying to use subst:Reftemp to make sure it was standard, but the "="s must have ruined my attempt to keep the names in there. Monster Iestyn (talk) 15:50, 18 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Admin status[edit]

Hello. It has been suggested to me by a fellow editor on WS that you should be considered for Admin status on WS. Before I take further soundings I really need to ask if you are willing to serve, as not all productive and valuable contributors want the responsibilities. Take time to think about it no need to hurry. Have look at Wikispecies:Administrators. Thanks and best regards Andyboorman (talk) 12:39, 15 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I saw this being discussed the other day so I've had a little time already to think about this. I am honestly of two minds about this offer: I've already had some years of experience as an admin of a smaller wiki for a video game community, so it is possible I might settle in as an admin on WS just fine. I'm also aware having admin powers would be of great help with my editing here on WS. On the other hand, I am a bit burned out from years of responsibilities all over that same community I mentioned (including dealing with vandalism), though thankfully more recently new staff have been added lessening my need to be there constantly. Even so, I am not entirely sure if it'd be the best idea for me to add another responsibility to the list and split my attention span even further. So, while I'm not really declining the offer to be an admin on WS, I just can't make up my mind yet! Monster Iestyn (talk) 13:47, 15 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That is absolutely fine, so we will put it on the back-burner. Cheers Andyboorman (talk) 18:18, 15 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We sent you an e-mail[edit]

Hello Monster Iestyn,

Really sorry for the inconvenience. This is a gentle note to request that you check your email. We sent you a message titled "The Community Insights survey is coming!". If you have questions, email

You can see my explanation here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:45, 25 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Empty templates[edit]

You should go an slap hit up User:Caftaric, who created those. He was warned about that way back at the beginning of the year, but clearly never went back to fill them in. Circeus (talk) 12:23, 8 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No surprises there at all, I can usually tell when Caftaric created a template or edited a page. However, he doesn't seem to have been active since September. Monster Iestyn (talk) 16:40, 8 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Full author names[edit]


We use the full authors name and make a redirect the name with abbreviation to the full names. You make a redirect from the full name to the name with abbreviations. Thats not after our agreements. Please stop with creating a mess. PeterR (talk) 17:49, 18 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't actually remember making a redirect from the full name for anyone in particular, but if I did then I apologise for that mistake. Monster Iestyn (talk) 17:59, 18 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@PeterR: if this is about Olga Olegovna Maslova and Olga Vladimirovna Selivanova, please actually look at the full edit history before makign such commentary. The pages in quest where created by other users over two years before Monster ever touched them (indeed a year before he even had a wikispecies account at all!). If your issue is actually that he added the full name to the existing pages instead of moving them, please actually say so and do not misstate what has happened. It's confusing and unnecessarily accusatory. Circeus (talk) 18:27, 18 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Circeus: I think he means in the sense of "Olga Vladimirovna Selivanova" being a redirect to "Olga V. Selivanova" for instance, but I could be wrong. Monster Iestyn (talk) 18:31, 18 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes I mean Olga Vladimirovna Selivanova to Olga V. Selivanova. PeterR (talk) 11:30, 19 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Reference templates[edit]


If you make reference templates you have to make author pages. See Template:Alonso-Zarazaga et al., 2017 If you need help ask me. PeterR (talk) 11:32, 19 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I know how to make author pages, I'm sometimes just too busy doing other tasks on Wikispecies. So I leave making those author pages to later when I feel like it, and if I remember. Monster Iestyn (talk) 17:14, 19 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template for taxa by author categories[edit]

Hi Monster Iestyn, following your recent diff I would like to check with you the correct template for taxa by author categories. I made that edit because that was the template I encounter most often, therefore assuming it was the standard one. I guess you're telling me it's not the case. If that's so, could you please point me toward a documentation page on this (if there is any)? I really suck at finding them... This would help me to modify those pages in the most appropriate way. Many thanks. --Hiouf (talk) 07:45, 25 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Right now it's not documented that we use {{Taxa by author}} as far as I know, though if it helps we did have a discussion on Village Pump last year about it (link to discussion). Monster Iestyn (talk) 14:19, 25 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh, wait, my mistake, that was mostly about PeterR, though it had been mentioned on VP two years before that. Hopefully you get the idea. Monster Iestyn (talk) 14:22, 25 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Hiouf: If you mean you're looking for documentation on how to use the template itself though, the template page itself has some you can refer to. Monster Iestyn (talk) 14:29, 25 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Monster Iestyn: I was hoping to find a doc or help page that says what should ideally be in pages Category: X taxa. Something that says: this is the favored template to use, etc... But I do get the idea ;) Thanks! --Hiouf (talk) 07:36, 26 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Reference format[edit]

OK, noted. --Keith Edkins (Talk) 14:59, 9 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Incertae Sedis[edit]

I have asked editors to revisiting the discussion regarding pages for Incertae Sedis given that pages for clades are now very common. I do not think that deleting Incertae Sedis pages is appropriate whilst a discussion is taking place. Would you be prepared to remove the Speedy Delete requests? Thanks Andyboorman (talk) 08:18, 29 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Andyboorman: Sorry, only just saw your message now, looks like they have already been deleted anyway. Monster Iestyn (talk) 14:14, 29 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No problems. Andyboorman (talk) 14:34, 29 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Be careful with IP addresses and Usernames[edit]

Hi Iestyn, sorry I have to explain to you an issue that can come up in Wikimedia projects. Please note I am explaining this so you won't do it again.

Under the Privacy Policy of WMF we cannot connect an IP address and a Username publicly. The Admin Noticeboard is public space. You will recall you recent responded to @Tommy Kronkvist: regarding some edits. In your reply (no names here please) you linked the IP and Username and provided evidence they were linked. We cannot do this.

I want you to know I consider this an in good faith and accidental breach of policy. As such this is not a formal warning. Just please do not link IP information and Usernames. At my request a Steward has deleted and oversighted the thread in question so it can no longer be seen. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 04:39, 28 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Faendalimas Thank you for explaining. To be honest though, once I saw that the Admin Noticeboard had been edited by the steward just last night, I realised that I had made a mistake in trying to identify the IP Tommy Kronkvist brought up in the discussion (in order to verify that its edits were in fact valid ones). Hopefully I'll keep this mind for next time. Monster Iestyn (talk) 13:23, 28 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I notice your quandry on name Junior. The chief editor of Zootaxa is Chinese, and has much trouble with South American names. He regularly treats Junior as a surname. Is best to do research, if possible. Neferkheperre (talk) 14:08, 20 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Neferkheperre I see, that would explain why it looked like one... Thanks for pointing that out then, I will probably have to dig out the real surname from Google then if I can, assuming "Ivan Cardoso L. Júnior" actually authored or co-authored any further articles. A Lattes Platform page probably exists for him assuming he's actually Brazilian though, which would help a lot. Monster Iestyn (talk) 16:47, 20 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Bingo! I found his CV on Lattes Platform and his real full name is in fact Ivan Cardoso Lemos Júnior. I'll go correct the page now. Monster Iestyn (talk) 16:56, 20 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorting East Asian names[edit]

For edits like to Guoqing Lu, are you aware that in East Asian names, it is more common for the surname to come first? E.g. with the Kims in North Korea: "Kim Jong-il" has the family name "Kim" and the personal name "Jong-il", so he should not be sorted "Jong-il, Kim". —Justin (koavf)TCM 20:24, 27 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Koavf Yes, I'm aware. Though in the case of Guoqing Lu, I'm pretty sure "Guoqing" is the personal name and "Lu" the family name, and they just swapped their names around for a Western world publication (?). I've found many of the Chinese authors relevant to Wikispecies swap their names around like that. Monster Iestyn (talk) 20:29, 27 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks. I'll revert. —Justin (koavf)TCM 20:30, 27 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]