User talk:Neferkheperre

From Wikispecies
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Golden file cabinet.png

Archive 01                 to 31 Dec 2014
Archive 02 Jan 2015 to 31 Dec 2015
Archive 03 Jan 2016 to 31 Dec 2016

Chinese names[edit]

E.g. Ming-Qiang Wang Their family name comes first, so sorting as "Wang, Ming-Qiang" is incorrect. Also, please use Category:Taxon authorities rather than Category:Taxon Authorities. Thanks. —Justin (koavf)TCM 06:36, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi @Koavf:. As Zootaxa and Zookeys are not 100% consistent in presenting Chinese names, I do some backchecking when something looks odd. I have found that Chinese family names are usually one syllable. In Zookeys, Ming-Qiang Wang was stated as Wang Minqiang in article citation. Clicking on author names gives profiles. Profile name was Mingqiang Wang. So, sorting as "Wang, Ming-Qiang" would in that case be correct.
For taxon authorities, I am using quick-click on Wikispecies Tools. We need to get Wikigeeks to correct that. While they are at it, they should add {{Authority control}} and {{inc}} to speed up things. Neferkheperre (talk) 19:13, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
Sorry Please excuse me then. Thanks for your kind note. —Justin (koavf)TCM 19:14, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
Quick-click Can you direct me to this tool? I'm not familiar with it. —Justin (koavf)TCM 19:19, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
MediaWiki:Edittools I figured it out and amended it. Thanks a lot. —Justin (koavf)TCM 19:22, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
Great! I see it, and access.Neferkheperre (talk) 19:37, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Invalid names[edit]

Hello @Neferkheperre: Do we really need invalid name taxon pages such as Tocris latirostris? I was very tempted to blank and delete the page in Nov. 2016, which you have recently edited. Many of the global links result in "Not Found", "no results" and other unhelpful information. The rest of the data is mainly duplicated in Anagotus latirostris the valid combination. What do you think, particularly as Thorpe and some others have made a number of these types of taxon pages? I think they are out of scope and unhelpful, but I am not an expert in insects and they may have a use that I am not aware of. Regards Andyboorman (talk) 22:05, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi @Andyboorman:. My original project yesterday was going through Wanted Categories special page and doing simple cleanups. I do this every couple of months. I found [[Category:Invalid combinations]] with one entry. I felt such was unnecessary, so eliminated it. I didn't follow through with taxon page, as I don't know insects much, either. Really, invalid combinations should be made into redirects, and noted with explanation on valid taxon pages.
Hi @Neferkheperre: I totally agree with you perhaps I will redirect the taxon page, keeping the data and see if there is any flack! Andyboorman (talk) 15:58, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

High-order categorization[edit]

Hey there. I have started to write a post for the Village Pump about the stuff in category:categories, and since quite a few of the more complicated cases turn out to be old creations (ca. or pre-2014) of yours, I figured I should talk about it with you if only so I don't end up making an asshole of myself. I'm especially concerned about whether the category set under fossil taxa, or more accurately the somewhat... clunky classification system of the subcategories is useful.

More specifically, if you don't believe this system to be useful/functional anymore (unlike when you started creating it), I would go ahead and state so in my review instead of calling for discussion that will probably end up with no clear course of action (which is probably what will happen about the parasite/symbiont categories) Circeus (talk) 12:51, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi @Circeus:. I had about forgotten about some of those heirarchies. I had originally envisioned top-level categories for each geological period, such as Eocene, etc. These would subdivide into marine, fresh-water and terrestrial, then into major taxon groups. These were partially based on @Kempf EK:'s Ostracod category system, and my idea was to inclusive of that. Of all of this, only Cirripedia and Ostracoda have been active, rest just became clunky. During this time, we were all fighting with Thorpe, so nothing else was noticed. Extended system may prove impractical at this time, although I would like to see it kept in mind..
For some of these others, we need to keep in mind what researchers are trending towards. Much research money and effort is spent on coral reefs, invasive species, and parasite/symbionts. Those categories are well worth maintaining, to make searching easier for researchers. Really, invasive species needs no subdividing, but is helpful for other two. Neferkheperre (talk) 17:54, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
How I see the invasive species category(ies) is basically that taxonomy is relevant to it, but the reverse is not true. As such that type of information is strictly a Wikipedia thing to me, not a Wikispecies one.
As I see it ATM, the simplest solution might well be to have a simple Extinct species with a single subcategory of fossil species and leave creation of a more elaborate system for a later time. Managing things through list pages is probably a better option in the meantime.
I have no set opinion as to whether to conserve the parasite/symbiont category (though some probably need at least renaming), which are often tangentially relevant to taxonomy in much the same way that locality/stratigraphic information is. Circeus (talk) 06:45, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

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

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

Join discussions[edit]

At the water pump is presently discussed two topics;

1.) is to follow a previous consensus and change all [[BASEPAGENAME]] into [[susbt:BASEPAGENAME]], something which already has started.

2.) is what to do with the Category: <<taxon name>> (<<any country>>) files created by Stephen Thorpe. Some 5 000 have so far been moved together at Candidates for speedy deletion, but concearn has been objected, that some of those files may be useful, in all, or that parts should be transfered somewhere, before a major mass delete. Please join the discussion at pump and take part in shaping a consensus.

Best regards, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:48, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Application for Checkuser[edit]

Referring to earlier discussions regarding a local Checkuser policy, I herebye apply to get Checkuser user rights, although we havnt reached a consensus reg Checkuser policy, but I want to give it a try if I can get the required votes. For a request to succeed a minimum of 25 support votes and an 80% positive vote are required (subject to the normal bureaucrat discretion). Requests for checkuser run for two weeks, and I ask kindly that somone starts the poll, like we do for adminship applications.

Please also note that CheckUser actions are logged, but for privacy reasons the logs are only visible to other Checkusers. Because of this, Wikispecies must always have no fewer than two checkusers, for mutual accountability. I dont want to suggest anyone, but hope that someone feel inspired and will step forward and also apply for checkuser.

My request to the Wikispecies community is here

Dan Koehl (talk) 01:40, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Another application for Check User[edit]

As pointed out above by User:Dan Koehl, we need at least two Check Users for this wiki. I am nominating myself and would be happy to receive any feedback that you have to give (positive, negative, or neutral). Wikispecies:Checkusers/Requests/Koavf. Thanks. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:08, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Third application for checkuser[edit]

Further to recent messages, I am also offering to serve, so that we have three checkuser operators, to ensure adequate coverage in case one of the others is unavailable. Please comment at Wikispecies:Checkusers/Requests/Pigsonthewing. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:47, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Additional Checkuser Application[edit]

I also have added my name to those willing to be a checkuser. Please see my application here Wikispecies:Checkusers/Requests/Faendalimas. I listed this yeasterday but have been encouraged to do a mass mail. I would also take the opportunity to make sure everyone knows that any editor can vote but that it is imperative that as many do as possible, for all 4 of the current applicants, please have your say. Checkuser voting has strict policy rules regarding number of votes. You will have other messages from the other Users concerned you can also read about it in the discussion on the Village Pump - Wikispecies:Village_Pump#Application_for_Checkuser. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:53, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Heads up re:Category:Littoral Marine Species[edit]

I'm going to assume you're aware that I'll start the first round of high-order category deletion soon and have no objections to it?

As I stated there, I intend to create list pages for you (unless you have done so since I posted that announcement?), and I wanted to ask if you had any specific request regarding Category:Littoral Marine Species. Will just creating it in your userspace and leaving a note on your userpage or pinging you be enough? Circeus (talk) 07:27, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for reminding me. I had quite overlooked that section since these geographical categories came up. Sheer number of them astounded me. I am tending to think we should all concentrate on removing those categories first, instead of getting ourselves spread out with too many projects. There has been very little activity on those fossil etc. taxa category discussions. They are really very small in comparison to Thorpe's geographic categories.
Category:Littoral Marine Species really belongs more in section C, as it is ecological in nature. When it is transferred thus, other section B categories can be pretty much irrelevant. This applies to first, second and fourth entries there. Category:Invasive species could be open to discussion, as it is quite relevant to research, and easy access to taxonomic information of known invasive species can be highly helpful to researchers. Neferkheperre (talk) 23:29, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
I've explained my criterion here here. To me both these categories fail to be facially applicable by looking at the page and to have a nomenclatural taxonomic relevant. I.e. Taxonomy is relevant to the study of invasive species/of ecology, but the reverse is simply not true. Anyway, if you want to formally oppose me clearing these two categories out, I'll wait until further discussion/attempt to relaunch discussion later, because I want a reasonably formal community conclusion, which, as I explicitly said when I started the convo, tends to be especially hard to get on Species:. The project is practically a monument to the en:Law of triviality XD Circeus (talk) 01:23, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
I understand and share your exasperation on community conclusions. Let us table this until geographic categories are gone, as nobody is going to pay much attention otherwise. Really, this group needs to make decisions as to what we want to provide for needs and requirements of our stated target, namely researchers and taxonomists. Once that is done, it will be easier to organize categories and hierarchies, and to eliminate unnecessary ones, smoothly. Neferkheperre (talk) 02:08, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
That's fair. The ability of the discussion to deviate never ceases to amaze me (e.g. the separate discussion that popped up about years, and which will probably lead nowhere either in the end). Circeus (talk) 04:28, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

In the absence of reactions on your part here or at the Village Pump thread, I have created User:Neferkheperre/Littoral Marine Species for your personal use. It lists every page that was in Category:Littoral Marine Species as of today. Circeus (talk) 18:52, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

OK, thank you. I can put that data on distribution entry on taxon species mainpages. I had originally planned to create hierarchy of marine ecological zones, but there are now plethoras of such. Also I can go into better detail, such as upper, middle and lower littoral. Neferkheperre (talk) 19:02, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Standing for role of checkUser[edit]

Like some of our colleagues (who I support), I am offering to serve as a checkuser, not least to ensure adequate coverage in case one of the others is unavailable.

Please comment at Wikispecies:Checkusers/Requests/Pigsonthewing.

[Apologies if you receive a duplicate notification; I wasn't aware of Wikispecies:Mail list/active users, and sent my original notification to the list of administrators instead.] MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:59, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

RFC on Checkusers[edit]

With one week to go I wanted to remind everyone of the importance of voting on the current CheckUser applications. They can all be found together on a single RFC: Wikispecies:Requests_for_Comment#Checkusers.

It is extremely important with votes such as this for everyone to be involved. There are strict rules in the Wikimedia Foundation Policy guidelines on these votes. I would urge people to have a good understanding of what a CheckUser does. This can be read up on here on the page discussing CheckUser's Wikispecies:Checkusers. Links on this page will take you to other policy information on Meta, HowTo for our site etc.

I would also urge people to look at our own policy development and some past discussion on this can be found here: Wikispecies_talk:Local_policies#Local_CU_Policy.

Wikispecies has in the past had issues that has required the intervention that is supported by the ability to do a CheckUser. Many of us are aware of this. The capacity to do this ourselves greatly speeds up this process. Although SockPuppetry can sometimes be identified without using a CheckUser in order to do the necessary steps to stop it or even prevent it requires evidence. We all know that sockpupets can do significant damage.

This is an important step for Wikispecies. It is a clear demonstration we can run ourselves as a Wiki Project part of Wiki Media Foundation. When I and several others first discussed this we knew it would be difficult at the time to meet all the criteria. We have only now decided to try and get this feature included in Wikispecies. By doing this it can lead to other areas where Wikispecies can further develop its own policies. In some areas we have unique needs, different to the other Wiki's. It is timely we were able to develop all these policies.

Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:15, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Pérez Santa-Rita or Santa-Rita[edit]


You have made a reference template Santa-Rita & Baxeiras, 2017, with author names Jose V.P. Santa-Rita and Joaquin Baxeiras. In Zootaxa 4227(1), 135-143 the name is Jose V. Pérez Santa-Rita. So the question is, is the back name Pérez Santa-Rita. or Santa-Rita. I have search for more publications but couldn't find any one. PeterR (talk) 14:43, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi, @PeterR:; for some reason, I failed to notice this. I fixed this. This must be Santa-Rita's first publication. Neferkheperre (talk) 23:37, 8 February 2017 (UTC).
Nefer, you didn't failed, but i know a lot of spanish back names beginning with Pérez. So I have sent Baixeras an e-mail and ask him the correct back name PeterR (talk) 13:04, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
I have now answer from Baixeras: the real name is J.V. Pérez Santa-Rita.. The second name Santa is fathers name and the third name Rita is mothers name.
Thanks, @PeterR: Neferkheperre (talk) 19:05, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Request for vote reg use of BASEPAGENAME[edit]

The previous discussions regarding if we should subst:ing BASEPAGENAME and change all [[BASEPAGENAME]] into [[susbt:BASEPAGENAME]] did not really reach a consensus.

Please vote here on the Village pump!

If you are not sure on your opinion, you can read and join the discussion about the claimed advantages and disadvantages of using BASEPAGENAME

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:29, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

re: The Challenger categories[edit]

@Koavf: This should be an obvious cautionary tale: don't create categories if you're not ready to populate them (duh).

FWIW, although I don't oppose the general idea at all, I don't believe there was any need for these categories to be half as fine-grained as you made them. The single Category:Challenger voyage taxa would probably have been sufficient. Generally, though, I believe a list page would have been more appropriate anyway, if only because a category deals poorly with taxa that may have been synonymized later on. Circeus (talk) 19:12, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

@Circeus: What do you think about making one unified taxa category? Neferkheperre, how about you? It's not a problem to restore the one and put them all into it. —Justin (koavf)TCM 20:27, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
I have no objection to that at all, assuming the category doesn't lay empty for weeks. Automated, but empty categories have reduced Special:UnusedCategories to utter irrelevance. Circeus (talk) 20:57, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Does anybody have any concept of sheer size of this project? There are 83 zoology volumes, most over 100 pages, and up to 700+ pages so far (I am currently working on V. 34). Vol. 34 has 534 pages, I am on p. 239, and have registered 124 taxon names. This is going to total thousands of taxa. Dumping all into one category will implode everyone's eyes who tries to use it. Challenger is probably THE most important oceanographic expedition of history, and it has set major baselines for climate change and biodiversity. It is still very actively published upon and studied. To complicate things some more, most taxon authorities published preliminary papers describing discovered taxa ahead of their comprehensive reports. As nineteenth century citation practices were not up to our standards, full bibliographies were not considered important. It is necessary to look in species synonomies to find any preliminary references. My Challenger voyage page contains all of these.
Cross-referencing systems I had envisioned and devised for this project are as follows: Each reference template as is generally customary, contains all new nomenclatural acts in their original form. These will link to their taxon pages expressed as presently accepted names, or redirects thereto. Category:Challenger (taxon) presents these names in their presently accepted form. These taxon categories are named using names accepted at that time based on appropriate named volumes, and include all preliminary references. This way, all is covered, and interlinked.
See this discussion: Challenger category discussion Village Pump. There is one other when I originated Challenger project, near about that time, soon after 15 January 2015. It was replied to, but everyone was at war with Thorpe, and it went almost unnoticed.Neferkheperre (talk) 23:17, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
Again, I have no objection whatsoever to linking taxon to expeditions. As far as I know, there is not so much as an informal policy on category size, but 4,7K (which is the approximate number quote on Wikipedia, and may well not take synonyms into account) doesn't seem that unreasonably large. In fat, in so far as we make no attempt whatsoever at splitting "oversized" categories (category:taxon authorities has over six times as many pages as might end up in Category:Challenger voyage taxa), it would be on the smaller size of these categories of ours. Circeus (talk) 00:01, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
What we must do in cases such as (category:taxon authorities) and (category:reference templates) is simply admit we can do nothing to subdivide them. Fortunately they are rare. That should not dictate our attitude in general. We must always consider others who wish to use this site for resource for synonymies, reference citations and historical information. If we cannot or will not provide needs for scientific community, why are we here? Neferkheperre (talk) 14:41, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
Well, we could diffuse these categories (e.g. taxon authorities by specilization or reference templates by year). —Justin (koavf)TCM 18:49, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
We will have to address this problem eventually, sooner is better. If our goal is to record all taxon names with supporting reference data etc., these two categories are very small now by comparison. Neferkheperre (talk) 00:10, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
I think we're also not clear what, as far as wikispecies goes, is an overly large category. I'm not even sure what's considered a reasonable cutoff on Wikipedia! Circeus (talk) 19:20, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
No really we are not much clear on anything with this project. We need to start from basics, discussing and defining what we want to do. Now we are discussing things which were discussed two years ago. In this particular instance, this discussion actually went like I had proposed, and now suddenly, all is different. There needs to be consistency. Neferkheperre (talk) 00:10, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  • @Koavf:, @Circeus:: I just totaled all nomenclatural acts in all volumes thus far treated. Total is 2083, and I am working on 34th out of 83 volumes. Now I for target of opportunity reasons templated 3 which I have not yet recorded new names. With this percentage, a good estimate will be 5000-6000 new names of all types. Dumped into one category this is formidable. For people attempting to research from this source, this would be seriously off-putting, at default size of 50/page. Neferkheperre (talk) 22:36, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
    • For what it's worth, default category size is 200 a page. Do you have a list of the taxa/species somewhere? —Justin (koavf)TCM 02:25, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
      • Lately I have been working on Special Pages, which does default to 50, but allows preference up to 200. There is no total comprehensive list of Challenger biota, except what has been done here so far. Only other complete treatment is compilation of Reports themselves, which do not list anything. I am compiling these lists by examining each page. There are no bibliographies, and most major taxon groups have one to several preliminary publications which provide original descriptions. They can only be found by looking at synonymies, and tracking down citations. This Wikispecies section will be first to treat all original taxon descriptions, taxon authority bios, and type specimen publications all in one place. I would like to see taxa organized in easily cross-referenced fashion. Neferkheperre (talk) 09:19, 18 February 2017 (UTC)


Thank you for closing the RfC, but the proposal under discussion was "I propose that we adopt the same policy as Wikimedia Commons...". You have read it as the reverse. Please review your close. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:11, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Wikispecies Oversighter[edit]

Wikispecies has no local Oversighter. Since I had the communitys confidence regarding the previous application for Checkusers rights, as per local Oversight policy on META, I hereby apply to get Oversighters user rights, as a request to the Wikispecies community.

Application is located at Requests for Comment.

Please also note that Oversighter actions are logged, but for privacy reasons the logs are only visible to other Oversighters. Because of this, Wikispecies must always have no fewer than two oversighters, for mutual accountability. I don't want to suggest anyone, but hope that someone feel inspired and will step forward and also apply for oversighters rights.

Dan Koehl through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:01, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Oversight nomination[edit]

Please refer to Wikispecies:Oversighters/Requests/Koavf for a second Oversight nomination. Note that we must have at least two Oversigthers in order for anyone to have these user rights. All feedback is welcome. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:50, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Templates Zootaxa[edit]


Don't you make anymore the templates for Zootaxa: I'm missing a lot. PeterR (talk) 17:49, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

I am, but slower, as recent life events including getting dragged into my nephew's Hollywood-style nasty divorce and getting my newest research paper ready for publication, have taken up much time. I just started sleeping earlier at night to be awake after midnight to get quiet time for work. I expect this weekend will allow me to catch up partially. If you need an article fast, just make it, and I can format it when I get there. sorry. Neferkheperre (talk) 18:12, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
You don't have to say sorry, because you can't help it. PeterR (talk) 18:43, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Restaure template[edit]

Hi Neferkheperre. Can you restore this template Template:Ochrotomyini? The taxon is in use again. Thanks Burmeister (talk) 00:43, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi @Burmeister:. Did it. Neferkheperre (talk) 00:48, 12 April 2017 (UTC)


Hi, can you block user Hoggardhigh, he is vandalizing several articles in last hour. Thanks Burmeister (talk) 02:06, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

He is blocked for one month at present, and I am watching that page. Neferkheperre (talk) 02:48, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Russian author names[edit]


Can you tell me the full names of Russian authors?. L.V. Kaabak, A.V. Sotshivko and V.V. Titov. Those people are entomologists and works in Moscow Society of Nature Investigation Hertsen st. 6 Moscow 103009 Russia. PeterR (talk) 14:58, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello @PeterR: I have created the pages Leonid Vladimirovich Kaabak and Andrei Vladimirovich Sotshivko. Unfortunately I have no verified information about V.V. Titov, but perhaps he is identical to Vadim V. Titov on ResearchGate. But again: please note that I am not 100% certain about that. May be @Lasius: knows more? Best regards, Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 00:36, 10 July 2017 (UTC).
@PeterR, Tommy Kronkvist, and Lasius:I'm sorry for writing here without calling me, but I had some time and also searched for V. V. Titov. I've found this site [1], where Viktor Titov (as "Виктор Титов") and Andrei Sotshivko (as "Андрей Сочивко") is mentioned by the author Kaabak (as "Каабак Л.В."). I've also found an article in pdf [2], where "V.V. Titov (Zheleznodorozhny, Russia)" is mentioned by the author Stanislav K. Korb. It seems to me, that Vadim Titov [3] paleontologist is another V. V. Titov. I haven't found any information of V. V. Titov entomologist, but I hope, I could help you a little. Regards and have a nice day, --Sphenodon (talk) 10:56, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
@Sphenodon: Thank you for your input! I haven't got time to check this up thoroughly at the moment, but I know that a problem with the author name "Titov" in relation to Kaabak's work is that the latter frequently co-operated with both one "V.V. Titov" and one "S.V. Titov". This makes it tricky to know for sure which one of these Titov's are the "Viktor Titov" you mention. Cheers, and I hope you have a nice day too! Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 17:21, 10 July 2017 (UTC).


Hi friend. I see you have added newly described C. calcirupicola to the sp list. Let me remind that the recommendation for bird taxonomy is following IOC, and this sp is not listed yet there, neither at SACC or Clements. May (or may not) be recognized as a valid taxon sometime in the future, as I had seen in many cases. My best. --Hector Bottai (talk) 16:42, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

A handy hint[edit]

Hi Ray! We have a special template for welcoming IP users that aren't yet logged in with a user name. In those cases the template {{Welcome-IP}} can be favourable over {{Welcome}}, since it includes links to information about creating a user account, and logging in. By the way, thanks for you great work with creating new author pages – we need many, many more, and your efforts are most appreciated. Regards, Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 19:28, 1 August 2017 (UTC).

Thanks, Tommy. I had forgotten about that. Neferkheperre (talk) 19:39, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
To complete the list there is also a {{Welcome-belated}} template. It's the opposite of the {{Welcome-IP}} template, sort of... –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 19:15, 2 August 2017 (UTC).

Deborah L. Matthews[edit]


Why have you delete Category:Deborah L. Matthews taxa? PeterR (talk) 07:11, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

I merged her author page with Deborah Lott Matthews, as they are one and same person. I then redirected Deborah L. Matthews and that left that taxon category page orphaned. Before deleting, I went on all taxon pages and corrected category entries. So nothing is left dangling. Neferkheperre (talk) 11:06, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello, Neferkheperre and PeterR. After some search, it seems that this author is not really known as Deborah Lott Matthews, but rather as Deborah L. Matthews or Deborah Matthews Lott: [4]; Google searches: [5], [6]. I changed the redirection, things should be in order now. Regards, Korg (talk) 14:04, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Request for the 'Autopatroller' flag[edit]

Sir, With respect, I would like to inform you that I am a regular and experienced user of 'Wikispecies'. I work here almost everyday to enrich it. I have made many edits alrady. I also take data from wikidata and use it to enrich wikispecies and I have the 'Rollback' permission on wikidata. Now I am requesting you to give me the 'Autopatroller' flag. I hope you would be kind enough to give the flag. Tahmid02016 (talk) 09:41, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

@Tahmid02016:  Done.(verify)Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 10:02, 1 October 2017 (UTC).

Template:Unassigned Calliptaminae[edit]

In June, you deleted Template:Unassigned Calliptaminae. However, there are eight pages calling that template, via {{Acorypha}}. Please can you review them, and take appropriate action? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:27, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi, @Pigsonthewing:; Took care of it. I edited {{template:Acorypha}} to remove the unneeded item. Neferkheperre (talk) 15:51, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
Thank you. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:39, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Authored taxa on John Patton O'Neill[edit]

Hi, do you have any clue why the link to Category is working properly but is showing 0 taxa authored?--Hector Bottai (talk) 16:22, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi, @Hector Bottai:. I have no idea. I notice 12 taxa are listed when link is clicked. Counter is not working. This has happened before, and no has determined why. Within 1-2 days, it catches up. Neferkheperre (talk) 17:48, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
I am afraid it won't. That is the reason I had left the very old template for authored taxa. Let's wait.--Hector Bottai (talk) 17:59, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
Copied to Village Pump for discussion. Seems to be programming glitch. Neferkheperre (talk) 19:32, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Muscari subg. Botryanthus[edit]

Hi Neferkheperre, sorry for expressing myself misunderstandingly, but it was not my intention to delete this page including its content and version history, but to move it to Muscari subg. Muscari, which was blocked by a redirect I could not delete. Can you please restore Muscari subg. Botryanthus (not Muscari subg. Muscari nor Template:Muscari subg. Muscari) if possible? Thank you! --RLJ (talk) 19:51, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi @RLJ:; I restored Muscari subg. Botryanthus. I think merge might be better than redirect. I see Andy Boorman has been helping. My knowledge of botany is limited. Neferkheperre (talk) 00:33, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
Hi Neferkheperre, thank you very much, it saved a lot of time for me! From my point of view I got the result which I wanted to have. Taxonomy of Muscari and other Hyacinthaceae is complex and controversial. Best wishes, --RLJ (talk) 01:15, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

IP vandalism[edit]

You can nuke the IP's edits so you dont have to remove them all one by one. --Wiki13 (talk) 02:31, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Incertae Sedis (Cerambycinae)[edit]


You recently deleted Template:Incertae Sedis (Cerambycinae), but I see that it is used on three pages, and in two other templates.

Please can you check them? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:39, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Likewise Template:Neanurinae incertae sedis (one page, one template). Please check for uses, before deleting templates in future. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:58, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
I thought I had eradicated them entirely. sorry. Neferkheperre (talk) 12:44, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Lesquerella (Plantae)[edit]

I have restored Lesquerella (Plantae); I had already declined the speedy deletion request, which was improperly reinstated before you deleted it. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:19, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

I went to Speedy Deletion before proceeding to my Watchlist, and it looked in order. Otherwise I would have left it without action. Neferkheperre (talk) 15:05, 31 January 2018 (UTC)


Por favor al cambiar el nombre ponga Wollastonia (Asteraceae) que es como figura wn wikispecie o commons y sea más facil redirigirlo.--MILEPRI (talk) 16:10, 3 February 2018 (UTC)


The disambig should be Wollastonia (Asteraceae) not Plantae according to consensus here. Cheers. Andyboorman (talk) 17:57, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Gunther Koehler‎[edit]

Hi Neferkheperre, "Gunther Koehler" is probably a typo for "Gunther Köhler". Regards, Burmeister (talk) 00:40, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi @Burmeister:. Indeed they are same person. There is no typo, writing out German umlauts results in double vowel with "e" as second letter. Many people don't typically do this, so it can be easy to overlook. I will fix it. Thanks. Neferkheperre (talk) 02:04, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
Perhaps not in this particular case, but it could be a typo – albeit the other way around, since some names are actually spelled with "oe" rather than "ö" even in proper German (i.e. not transcribed). However Neferkheperre's explanation would be right for the most part – we need only ask our bureaucrat Dan Koehl and I'm sure he would confirm it. :) Regards, Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 13:51, 1 March 2018 (UTC).
For this particular case, I did confirm identity through same affiliation and occupation specialty. Umlauts originally came about to save paper in Medieval times by contracting "e"s. But of course, everything is complex. Neferkheperre (talk) 14:01, 1 March 2018 (UTC)


As you will know, Coleoptera are not plants. And since nomenclature of both is regulated by different codes, the same genus names may be used for both. So, Prathapan & Shameem (2017) will require to create new taxon pages in Chrysomelidae. --Franz Xaver (talk) 04:40, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

I have moved the plant genus to Wallacea (Ochnaceae) and Wallacea now is a disambiguation page. Regards --Franz Xaver (talk) 05:12, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
Thank you. I usually notice this myself, sometimes not immediately. Yesterday was very busy for me. Neferkheperre (talk) 12:46, 14 May 2018 (UTC)


Many editors in botany find the unassigned category very useful. We appreciate it is not a formal taxon name. In addition, cladi are not formal taxa, but are also found on WS. I not not think your deletes on Salicaceae are particularly helpful, particularly as you did not inform or engage the author. In fact they could be considered hostile in this context. We had this argument with Thorpe and it lead to a lot of bad feeling. Will you revert, if not why not? Andyboorman (talk) 16:56, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

In zoology, we have been deleting Incertae sedis and unassigned taxa pages and templates thereof, and putting the contents directly onto appropriate pages. I thought that applied across the project. It is what I did with Salicaceae. I do know that botanical nomenclature is much different from zoology, and have been trying to avoid much alteration for that reason. I was only working on this as part of my work on [Wikidata co-ordination], where I do 10-15 entries per day. If I see necessary updating to current format, I perform it. I shall revert those Salicaceae edits.
Could you go on the Wikidata to do page, and check out some of the first 14 entries? They are all botany, and I don't know what to call them. Particularly 1-3, 9, 13, 14. Neferkheperre (talk) 17:27, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
I have a look at some of the data you are concerned with. Items 13 and 14 are private out of scope projects by @Fagus: not sure what this editor is up to. They relate to this reference - Bräutigam, S. & Greuter, W. 2007. A new treatment of Pilosella for the Euro-Mediterranean flora. Willdenowia 37(1): 123–137. doi: 10.3372/wi.37.37106. Fora of Greece is not a "Flora" in the botanical sense. Hieracium and Pilosella are still emerging and controversial taxonomies made worse by extensive apomixis and there is yet no genuine consensus in the botanical world. The sectional treatment (1-3) in Cousinia is a project by Fagus. Unfortunately there is little referencing and the project is incomplete, so that it is difficult to check the veracity of the treatment. Arctium-Cousinia are another difficult taxonomy, but the traditional sectional classification of the genus Cousinia is maintained and a new one proposed here Arctium - see page refs esp López-Vinyallonga et al. (2011). Generally contemporary botany does not like pedantic sectional treatments without clear and justified causes. Hope this helps, but I would advise checking with Fagus. Kind regards Andyboorman (talk) 21:04, 30 October 2018 (UTC)


It was just pointed out to me that this category is currently labelled for the Ichthyological collection at MONZ. Aside form the fact it's not exactly the most useful abbreviation, the category is (unsurpridingly) already overrun by plant names as it is also the Index Herbariorum standardized abbreviation for MNHNP.

Seeing as there are indubitably a great many more types in Paris than in Wellington, do you think it's sensible to move the New Zealand collections to something like category:MONZ-P? Circeus (talk) 18:00, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Apparently there is an inadvertant confusion, which you discovered today. That is very good solution, I shall fix tomorrow. Today is Thanksgiving, US holiday, celebrated by considerable overeating. This year at my house. Neferkheperre (talk) 23:22, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
After a closer look, it turns out there not even any fish species in the category yet (!!), so all that's needed was the creation of category:MONZ-P and adjusting the category tree and labelling. Circeus (talk) 03:00, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
OK, what I had thought to be Elminius turned out to be Eminium, so that eliminated any interest of mine. Last week I located updated MNHN collections website: [7]. This one links to pages for each type number, with pictures of types, and frequently pinpointing type localities on maps. It does work for plants as well. I am starting to make great use of it. BMNH is useful to lesser extents. I wonder if we might be able to eliminate 1-2 more single letter categories similarly. Neferkheperre (talk) 15:32, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
As far as I know, most single letters (and possibly quite a few 2-letters, e.g. BM, RB, WU, LE...) are Index Herbariorum herbariums with abbreviations based on cities. Zoological material tend to 3+ letter abbreviations (though it's incredible how often the abbreviation is ambiguous, abandoning the project to try and clear out reporitories with multiple abbreviations was the bets decision I ever made). Abbreviations added later than the initial IH are usually longer. It's a shame there isn't isn't something actually approaching IH for zoology (heck, there isn't even something like BPH for title abbreviations, though I'm given to understand the use of abbreviated references is not usual in zoology). GrBio wanted ot be that, but never came anywhere close and never actually tried to standardize a set of abbreviations. Circeus (talk) 16:45, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Sabine Von Mering[edit]

Please recreate the redirect at Sabine Von Mering, which you recently deleted; the name is used with that spelling at for example. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:41, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

It is unnecessary to create this name with incorrect orthography, which is used by BioOne, but not in the publication itself, see PDF. --RLJ (talk) 22:57, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
Done, @Pigsonthewing:. I regularly check Candidates for Speedy Deletion, and delete those which raise no questions in my mind. Many people's names do get used in several variations, which sometimes, not always, need redirects. I have encountered many instances of two different people with very similar and even in one case, identical names. Sometimes this takes some sleuthing to figure out.
Off topic, but I found out that Pink Floyd apparently provided some instrumental scores for the Russian musical Stilyagi. Is that true? Neferkheperre (talk) 23:22, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
No. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:56, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Unassigned Ruellieae[edit]

You recently deleted {{Unassigned Ruellieae}}, thought it has 13 inbound links. What should be done with them? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:31, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

I have restored the template and taxon page pending your discussion and to deal with the inbound links. Just to point out, I realise that this sort of page and template is a little out of scope for WS, but they are useful working pages where the botanical taxonomy is still fluid. Cheers. Andyboorman (talk) 17:30, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
I had done this over a month ago, and didn't remember it immediately. I was also at LSU, and my Android is not set up for editing. What I do when removing incertae sedis pages is to take all inbound links and return them under Heading xx Incertae sedis. That way no information is lost, and is actually more visible. I have been leaving botanical entries alone, as botany is radically different from zoology, more than I previously thought. Neferkheperre (talk) 23:52, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Zhang et al., 2011[edit]

You deleted Template:Zhang et al., 2011, but three pages use it; please check. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:57, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Fixed. Neferkheperre (talk) 14:05, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Deleted user page not editable?[edit]

Hello Neferkheperre, you deleted the vandalized user page of User:Nytexcome. Now he wants to edit this page himself, but it seems to be not possible for him, as he tells on User talk:Rwblanton. What is the reason, and could you please help him? Kind regards, --Thiotrix (talk) 07:30, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

undo of recent change to familia Echinostomatidae[edit]

Hello Neferkheperre, I have taken the liberty of using an undo for your recent edit of taxon page Echinostomatidae. The genus Rhopalias has been set up under familia Rhopaliidae based on information found in GBIF, ITIS, IRMNG, BioLib & EOL. But it is also true that Rhopalias and its familia Rhopaliidae cannot be found in either WoRMS or Catalog of Life. If you or any other editor have valid sources to show that genus Rhopalias should be included in familia Echinostomatidae, I will do a redirect for familia Rhopaliidae to Echinostomatidae and will move Rhopalias to that familia. If I don't hear from you concerning this matter, I will assume that you are satisfied with my undo. Thank you and kind regards.Nytexcome (talk) 04:15, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi, @Nytexcome:; please see:
This is the reference I used when I made my edit. For some reason, they are who definitely put Rhopalias into Echinostomatidae. They did not discuss reasons, but I note their References section lists both Looss, 1899, and Stiles & Hassall, 1898. Not like they simply overlooked anything.
Also this reference discusses other known Rhopalias species, with author/year. It should be very helpful in filling out taxon pages. I'm not much on helminths, and prefer crustaceans, especially barnacles. When I installed this reference, it did not seem anything but straightforward. Neferkheperre (talk) 16:29, 6 July 2019 (UTC)