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)

Template:Warchałowski, 2005[edit]

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)

Ah okay, that's good to know then. Thanks. Monster Iestyn (talk) 18:03, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
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)
Volume 56, issue 1 is now online. Circeus (talk) 21:31, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
Nice! Though there's no DOIs for them still, oddly enough. Monster Iestyn (talk) 00:07, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Template:Jacoby, 1890[edit]

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)

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)
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)
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)
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)
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)

Lasia caerulea/Lasia coerulea[edit]

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)

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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
@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)

Template:Bezděk, 2019[edit]

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

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

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)

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)

image[edit]

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)

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)

pictures[edit]

Hi Monster.

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

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)
      • 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)
Is this the discussion you were referring to?: Wikispecies:Village Pump/Archive 51#Photos Monster Iestyn (talk) 11:03, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
    • Yes, can you fix it? PeterR (talk) 18:13, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
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)

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. https://species.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Acronymolpus_mandjeliae Robertreadman (talk) 02:45, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

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)

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)