User talk:Monster Iestyn

Welcome to Wikispecies!

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:

• Help:Contents provides a good introduction to editing Wikispecies.
• Templates are there to help you following syntax and formatting rules.
• Have a look at Done and to do.

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

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

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

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:

• González, C.R., Elgueta, M. & Ramírez, F. 2018. A catalog of Acroceridae (Diptera) from Chile. Zootaxa 4374(3): 427–440. DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4374.3.6 . ResearchGate . Reference page. 

• 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)

┌─────────────────────────┘ @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)

(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)

Template:Bezděk, 2019

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

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)

Thanks PeterR (talk) 08:34, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Image

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

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

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

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)

Igor Ya. Grichanov

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)

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)

@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)

Thanks Monster PeterR (talk) 16:26, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Reference Templates

Monster,

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 .

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)

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)

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)

┌─────────────────────────┘ Who have make this? Andrei Alexsandrovich LegalovPeterR (talk) 16:49, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

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

Fernando M.S. Dias

Monster,

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)

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)

@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)

Caelidia vs. Parastasia

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

┌─────────────────────────┘ 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)

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)

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)

Ah, thanks then. Monster Iestyn (talk) 18:55, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Template:Rech & Linzmeier, 2020

Monster,

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

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)

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)

Author page for Matthew L. Lewis

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 (talk • contribs) 14:48, 10 August 2020 (UTC).

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

Elchin Fizuli Huseynov

Monster,

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)

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)

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)

Reverted your editions on template

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)

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)

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)

Admin status

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)

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)

That is absolutely fine, so we will put it on the back-burner. Cheers Andyboorman (talk) 18:18, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

We sent you an e-mail

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 surveys@wikimedia.org.

You can see my explanation here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:45, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Empty templates

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)

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)

Full author names

Monster,

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)

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)

@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)

@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)

Yes I mean Olga Vladimirovna Selivanova to Olga V. Selivanova. PeterR (talk) 11:30, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Reference templates

Monster,

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)

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)

Template for taxa by author categories

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)

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)

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)

@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)

@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)

Reference format

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

Incertae Sedis

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)

@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)

No problems. Andyboorman (talk) 14:34, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Be careful with IP addresses and Usernames

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)

@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)

Junior

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)

@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)

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)

Sorting East Asian names

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)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:24, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

@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)

Thanks. I'll revert. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:30, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

redirect

sorry. yes my fault. I did the routing wrong. Fagus (talk) 12:11, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

@Fagus No worries, I saw what happened through Recent Changes and I can somewhat understand how it happened actually. XD Monster Iestyn (talk) 12:15, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

@Fagus: I brought this up at the admin noticeboard just earlier and the issue is resolved now thanks to Burmeister, Template:Template:Commonscat has been renamed to Template:Commonscat as you intended. Monster Iestyn (talk) 12:44, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Thank you very much. --Fagus (talk) 12:45, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Hi! there are something wrong with template:commons category, is mark the pages for deletion, but i can't find the problem, could you take a look. Thanks, Burmeister (talk) 01:30, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

@Burmeister Editing and saving individual pages removes them from Category:Candidates for speedy deletion for me. I have no idea why they're suddenly appearing in this category now though. Monster Iestyn (talk) 02:11, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

All I can think of is that maybe the server cache is only just now catching up to events from a few days ago, when Template:Commons category became Template:Template:Commonscat, and at the time the redirect Template:Commonscat had a speedy deletion notice. But that was only for a few hours at most... Maybe the problem will go away in another few days, hopefully? Monster Iestyn (talk) 02:20, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

That's very strange! At least the number has stopped increasing and is decreasing very slowly. Let's wait. Regards, Burmeister (talk) 02:29, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Chlamydera cerviniventris

Can you improve/replace the references on Chlamydera cerviniventris? Thanks! FooBarBaz (talk) 07:04, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

@FooBarBaz  Done Monster Iestyn (talk) 12:09, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Anophthalmus hitleri

Can you also add a reference for Anophthalmus hitleri? Thanks! FooBarBaz (talk) 18:34, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

@FooBarBaz: Sure, but can we make this the last one for a while? I hope I'm not sounding rude but if you're going to be a regular contributor to Wikispecies, it would help if you could find the relevant references yourself, via Google, Google Scholar, maybe the Biodiversity Heritage Library if the source is public domain (probably not this one I suspect), or checking the references of articles that mention the relevant species name (it might actually be easy for Anophthalmus hitleri given how notorious it is, maybe not for more obscure species though). Monster Iestyn (talk) 19:08, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Oh, actually, it turns out A. hitleri's original article is freely available from Zobodat, which is another good resource sometimes. Monster Iestyn (talk) 19:13, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

@FooBarBaz  Done Monster Iestyn (talk) 19:17, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

I'll try to find references without relying on other contributors to add them with aid. Usually, I use templates, but the issue is that I'm pretty lazy. Besides that, I'll follow your advice. FooBarBaz (talk) 20:58, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

R. H. Lewis

This entomologist gets some exposure: he is currently on the front page of Wikidata :-) Korg (talk) 14:15, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

@Korg Nice! If that would help people find out more details about him that would be great. I've had no real luck searching for any further information through Google and Google Books, etc. myself. Monster Iestyn (talk) 14:21, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes indeed! The information may not be online but in a library somewhere...

(Pinging Nytexcome and Tommy, since they also contributed to the entry!) Korg (talk) 15:01, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, but unfortunately I don't have any further information regarding Lewis, Esq. :-) Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 17:28, 31 October 2023 (UTC).

Today there is Edward Ernst Ruppert, for the second time: [2], [3]. This means that in the space of 3 days, there have been two highlighted entries with Wikispecies as the only sitelink.

(Courtesy notification to Quasi-grip and Pigsonthewing, as they contributed to the Wikispecies and Wikidata entries.​) Korg (talk) 10:03, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Blanco

Sorry on this page [4] I think (Father) Manuel María Blanco Ramos is incorrect as is your use of Blanco, Fr.M.. As I pointed out on the Pump. Fr. is not an abbreviation for the clerical Father for Spanish authors, as this will be P. (Padre). You can see this on the links to the title pages of various digitised Flora he authored. However, at the moment I am only surmising that his clerical name was Padre Francisco. Hopefully IPNI will get back soonest. Andyboorman (talk) 21:39, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

@Andyboorman: Ah sorry for being hasty then, I did see the "P." but I assumed "Fr." was Friar/Father based on what the user on Pump (as well as what another user said in 2021: [5]). That said, English Wikipedia links [6] from Royal Academy of the History of Spain as a source for the name "Manuel María Blanco Ramos". While it doesn't answer the question of "P. Fr.", it does mention Flora de Filipinas, which gives "P. fr. Manuel Blanco" as the author, so it does seem to be the right person. Monster Iestyn (talk) 22:28, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

@Andyboorman: Googling for answers on "P. Fr.", a blog post online [7] gives another example of it in use, saying P." means "Padre" (=Father) and "Fr." for "Fray", indicating that he is both priest and friar respectively. Monster Iestyn (talk) 22:35, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

I get the Fr. = Fray = Friar as well and not Francisco as we previously assumed. I have yet to hear back from IPNI. Andyboorman (talk) 12:28, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

I have heard back from IPNI and they will drop the Francisco. It was appear after the next update. Andyboorman (talk) 13:01, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

That's good to hear. I wonder why IPNI hasn't gotten back to me about two other botanists I emailed them about 2/3 weeks ago... Monster Iestyn (talk) 15:41, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

@Andyboorman IPNI now has the correct name online: https://www.ipni.org/a/848-1 Monster Iestyn (talk) 17:09, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

What are the two other botanists? Perhaps if I gave them a nudge. Andyboorman (talk) 18:18, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

@Andyboorman: They are Heinz von Butin and S.F St.Cloud, which should be Heinz Butin and Stanley F. Goessling-St Cloud respectively. The "von" in the first is an error (I think this might be a misinterpretation of "von H. Butin" in an 1957 article of his here), while the second's fullest known name I found at cpbr.gov.au/biography (but he did publish as "S. F. St. Cloud" anyway despite the apparent double-barreled surname?) Monster Iestyn (talk) 20:15, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

I had a brief look. Butin seems a very minor figure, probably not worthy of an entry and I can not find anything other than the article. St Cloud seems more of a case that needs a follow up, in spite of his described taxa now found in synonymy and the fact he was not a practicing botanist. Orchardists are a disparate group in the nicest possible sense of course. Andyboorman (talk) 09:38, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

@Andyboorman: True, I did suspect that the 1957 article may be the only reason Heinz Butin even has an entry in IPNI at all, even if just publishes an invalid name for a fungus. But even so, the "von" is an error and should be removed. "fl." is also not needed for that matter, as those are his true birth/death years, that may be a leftover from when it was (presumably) "(fl. 1957)" in the past.

Correcting these two alone are not really a huge deal to me in the end, but there are a number of other IPNI author entries to correct (I should remind myself which ones those are and write up a list somewhere), and the fact that lately the IPNI team is either not getting my emails or missing my emails somehow does make that difficult for me. I hope it's nothing wrong on my end in particular. Monster Iestyn (talk) 18:26, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Zootaxa/ResearchGate

Reason I changed the access to closed is because Zootaxa indicates that, and they hold the copyright. I have noticed that ResearchGate has a few issues regarding copyrights, and I have my publications available as individual requests. Copyright agreements I have with Zootaxa license me back to share copies of articles with colleagues. ResearchGate may be stretching that a bit in some cases, with a little too open access. Neferkheperre (talk) 18:04, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

@Neferkheperre: Thanks for explaining. Though, marking them as "closed access" doesn't ring true either, since the full work is clearly available from that URL. Maybe the "access" template may not be appropriate at all for ResearchGate links? Monster Iestyn (talk) 18:08, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

As the original creator of the template, it was always intended for indicating whether the specific link it's appended to has the paper accessible. Admittedly, I have very little control on the interpretation people have since been making, especially since I am basically inactive, but it goes extremely counter to the idea that there should be explicit indication whether a link in the reference actually lets you read the damn paper. Circeus (talk) 22:54, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

thanks for your help.PeterR (talk) 09:03, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

ISSN 0072-9612

@Monster Iestyn: Could you just take a look at this one: ISSN 0072-9612 = "Mitteilungen aus dem Hamburgischen Zoologischen Museum und Institut", i think it matches whats on BHL as "Mitteilungen aus dem Naturhistorischen Museum in Hamburg". If so, maybe the wiki needs update just to indicate multiple titles. I linked the ISSN on these, would you please alter if not right. Template:Simon, 1905a / Template:Loman, 1905. Cheers! Sjl197 (talk) 19:40, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

@Sjl197: Digging into this... yes, they are related, but it's a bit complicated I think. As far as I'm aware, ISSN 0072-9612 is only meant for the "Hamburgischen" version of the title; each time a series changes title it's supposed to have a new ISSN assigned (unless I'm wrong?). All of the older titles entirely predate ISSN (which was introduced in the 1970s), so that might be why they don't have an ISSN that I can find.

According to ACNP (the Italian Periodicals Catalogue), the following are all the titles the series has had, and the years it was using each title:

• 1883-1914: Mitteilungen aus dem Naturhistorischen Museum in Hamburg
• 1914-1920: Mitteilungen aus dem Zoologischen Museum in Hamburg (might actually be starting 1915?)
• 1921-1936: Mitteilungen aus dem Zoologischen Staatsinstitut und Zoologischen Museum in Hamburg
• 1937–: Mitteilungen aus dem Hamburgischen Zoologischen Museum und Institut (ISSN 0072-9612)

(One odd thing I just noticed as a result of this: BHL is actually lumping together volumes of both "Naturhistorischen" (1883–1914) and "Zoologischen" (1915–1920) titles, but it's metadata is assuming it's only for the "Naturhistorischen" version of the title. Weird.)

But yeah, thanks for bringing this to my attention. I'll update ISSN 0072-9612 with this information shortly. Monster Iestyn (talk) 20:09, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

(Even weirder actually, the last volume on that BHL record is actually the first one with the "Staatsinstitut und" title. Though because BHL records only have volumes up to 1922 typically, I can somewhat see how this lumping together of the different titles isn't that obvious.) Monster Iestyn (talk) 20:18, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

@Monster Iestyn: Ok great - well in essence seems the succession of names is more direct than i feared, where some other journals like this suddenly split into multiples, or remerge etc. But BHL doesn't often put those clearly, and i wouldnt have known how to best format those on the wiki ISSN, so thanks for the effort! Sjl197 (talk) 14:47, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

@Sjl197 Yeah, thankfully the title history is rather simple here it appears. I'm not actually sure what the best format is for putting these ISSN-less titles on Wikispecies either to be honest, but what I've put on there seems presentable so I'm happy with it for now. And no problem, glad to help! Monster Iestyn (talk) 14:59, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Banffiidae

The correct spelling of the family name "Banffidae" is "Banffiidae", as per the original author and the ICZN. See en:Talk:Banffiidae. I've never edited at Wikispecies, so am reluctant to make any changes myself. Peter coxhead (talk) 14:46, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll fix that now! I don't remember why I didn't use the correct spelling on Wikispecies though, it may have been because whatever source I was was referring to used the wrong spelling. (maybe Aldridge et al. 2007?) Monster Iestyn (talk) 15:21, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

@Peter coxhead  Done Monster Iestyn (talk) 15:24, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

A bibliographical mystery

So, I'm probably going to be combining the various IPNI/BPH iterations of Contributions in Science into ISSN 0459-8113 because every other records just use "Contributions in Science" as the standardized serial title and the hairsplitting "disambiguation" by BPH seems clearly unnecessary and really just muddies the record. The only issue is that I can't comprehend why BPH insists the it starts in 1945?? The first issue, as can clearly be seen in BHL, is dated 1957, and there are no other publications recorded by the Museum that start in 1945, which could have otherwise explained an accidental/confused combination. Any idea? Circeus (talk) 01:30, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

@Circeus Hm, looking around online myself, I haven't a clue. My best guess would be that it's just a data entry error... though it would have to be an old error from the original print version of BPH, because I just discovered the same alleged start date of 1945 mentioned in an appendix of Guide to Standard Floras of the World from 2001 [8], which references said print version of BPH according to other pages [9]. Monster Iestyn (talk) 03:04, 4 February 2025 (UTC)