User talk:Open2universe/December 2008

From Wikispecies
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Monobi's RFA[edit]

Can you please close this? It is over two weeks overdue. ---- Anonymous DissidentTalk 13:04, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

POTY 2007[edit]

Thanks for voting ;-). Lycaon 14:13, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Shameless canvassing...[edit]

Hey, if you could pop over to Wikispecies:Village Pump#Email sent with new talk page edits, I'd appreciate it. I'd like to get this feature activated for Wikispecies, but I need a wider sampling before presenting it to the devs. (of course, if you don't think it's a wise idea, please say so; I want the feature, but not if everyone else hates it) Thanks! EVula // talk // // 23:09, 12 January 2008 (UTC)


I don't think this username is acceptable; it promotes a real website, which is a violation of policy. ---- Anonymous DissidentTalk 00:28, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I contacted Lycaon, but realised s/he wasn't on since the 11th, so I contacted you, but s/he got there first. Lol, complicated. Thanks anyway for your time. ---- Anonymous DissidentTalk 00:38, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Secar one's categories[edit]

look at his contribs in the category namespace... should they all be deleted? -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 09:36, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and the articles that use them all need to be cleaned up. He was trying out a new format that we did not adopt. --Open2universe | Talk 13:26, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Standardized format[edit]

Thanks at all! Bye --Rosarinagazo 14:24, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

*scratches head* What are you talking about? OhanaUnitedTalk page 20:17, 22 January 2008 (UTC)


Many thanks for your support!!

I’m trying now to complete by myself a big mammalian order – the Chiroptera (bats), which contains about 900 species, and countless subspecies. I think a systematic and collaborative work is the key to wikispecies’s success; otherwise ultimately no definitive progress will be gained. Everyone is entering data haphazardly – one species here, another there, resulting in huge gaps!

Maybe you can promote the idea of systematic team-work on the main page, to gain more publicity? It seems to me nobody else is enthusiastic about it.

Thanks again,

Mariusm 16:52, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

perhaps a place to start is to improve the Wikispecies:Done and to do to help people focus. --Open2universe | Talk 19:55, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

You asked me to add VN's below References, but that is not the order for Panthera tigris.Should Panthera tigris be changed? or VN above Ref is acceptable?Eric ARG 01:41, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I think Panthera tigris should be changed. --Open2universe | Talk 04:24, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Knud Andersen[edit]

To answer your question: Yes, he is Knud Andersen. He wrote the "Catalogue of the Chiroptera in the Collections of the British Museum" which remains the most comprehensive treatment of the Megachiroptera (Old World fruitbats). Mariusm 05:55, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Question on formatting[edit]

Right now, I see that most pages such as Cetonia aurata list out their full name in their own articles. However, templates in Help:Taxonavigation section show that they are shorthanded (reducing the genus to one letter, you know what I'm saying...) Which one should we use? OhanaUnitedTalk page 06:53, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Good question. I hadn't realized that there was the discrepancy. I like the full name for a species myself, but I can see that when you are using a template it will get tricky. I have also seen a few instances of {{PAGENAME}} used on species pages. I don't have strong feelings one way or the other. --Open2universe | Talk 13:41, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Should we move this discussion to village pump to get consensus? OhanaUnitedTalk page 15:10, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I think so --Open2universe | Talk 02:53, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Project checkusers[edit]

Quick question: do you think it would be worthwhile for Wikispecies to have local CheckUsers? We currently have none, and while it hasn't been much of an issue in the past, I'd rather have that extra little bit of insurance.

According to WMF policy (m:CheckUser policy#Access to checkuser), we would have to start off with two CheckUsers. I'd be happy to do it (hell, that was one of the reasons I was investigating it :D), and as the most active admin/bureaucrat on the project, it would make sense for you to be the other one (assuming you're over 18).

Thoughts? EVula // talk // // 20:50, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think we need to. I think it has only come up once in the last few years. --Open2universe | Talk 02:53, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Sorry to butt in here, but it won't work here. We don't have an active-enough community to get 25 supports votes (with 80% minimum support in total) over two weeks, IMHO. Maxim(talk) 23:26, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
One question, does a checkuser have to be a burecrat? But regardless of the question, I oppose having checkusers until heavy and persistent vandalism arrives (which is very unlikely because vandals tend to vandalize popular sites, like wikipedia, more often than those that don't have much exposure. And Maxim was right, no way we can get 25 supports with 80% as total votes. Looking at RFA can give you a rough idea. Rarely does an RFA pass or fail with more than 10 votes in total. OhanaUnitedTalk page 02:31, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Not enough traffic to make it worthwhile. Poke a steward if we need anything ;) Mønobi 03:46, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Let's move this discussion into village pump, shall we? OhanaUnitedTalk page 05:38, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

To be honest, we need more admins patrolling Category:Candidates for speedy deletion. As I'm not an admin, I can't delete junk pages. And they sit around for half-day at times... :-( Maxim(talk) 01:59, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, all that answers my question, more or less. :) EVula // talk // // 21:51, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Proposal for a new Main Page[edit]

Can you tell me please what you feel about this as a subtitute for the Main Page. It should be updated every week or so and will be a lot more attractive than the preset one and maybe it will channel some more interest on our project. I'm willing to work on the updates. Perhaps you have some suggestions for improvement.

Mariusm 11:04, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I think having the main page more inviting is a good thing. I am concerned about the amount of text. One: it will be difficult to maintain the main page in all of the languages and two: I am concerned that it might misrepresent what wikispecies is. We don't want people to expect to find articles describing all the species.
I don't have a good answer for this, but I will continue to think about it. --Open2universe | Talk 03:29, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Can I put the new MAIN PAGE proposal for a vote? How and by whom should the decision be made? By the admins? By all the users?
Mariusm 10:57, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Sorry for the delay. If you want to put it up for a vote, you would do that at the community pump. --Open2universe | Talk 12:26, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Candidate for speedy deletion[edit]

I think I've found a bad page. Kurtamia is not found on any reference page I could find (Fishbase, ITIS, etc.) It seems the user did a string of unreferenced, unrecognized names when I took a look at at his user page at wikipedia. His user page is user:Isfisk........Can you speedy delete????????......Pvmoutside 13:56, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I found reference to it being a new genus. It may be that it was never formally recognized. I am leaving it for now. --Open2universe | Talk 14:08, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Deleting pages[edit]

Thank you for the advice! Next time I will insert the script as you suggested! Bye! Feri 12:34, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Re: Removing indents[edit]

I'm well-aware of that problem. It's another blind spot for my AWB bot. OhanaUnitedTalk page 23:57, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

No problem, as long as you know. --Open2universe | Talk 00:15, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
As a heads-up, this bot also can't arrange sections (so it can't move reference section before VN section) OhanaUnitedTalk page 00:31, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Reference section proper format[edit]

I noticed you're adding references to pages lacking this section. It is great, but a preferable practice is to also add the author's name in the same reference line, otherwise no one can tell who the author really is. You and I may know it is by the species' author, but it can also be by anyone else.

So instead of writing:

* A monograph on the anatidae, or duck tribe. p.168 

Please write:

* {{aut|Eyton, T. C.}} 1838. A monograph on the Anatidae, or Duck Tribe. p.168.

Mariusm 11:14, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Oops, my bad. --Open2universe | Talk 11:30, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Snellen van Vollenhoven[edit]

You have make an author catalog for Snellen van Vollenhoven under Vollenhoven. In the species list I write Snellen van Vollenhoven and NOT Vollenhoven. Please change Vollenhoven in Snellen van Vollenhoven.


PeterR 09:40, 2 May 2008 (UTC)


Maybe this can help you [[1]]


PeterR 19:13, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I was just going to fix formatting, but I may add more information now. --Open2universe | Talk 19:15, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

New bot issue with right[edit]

Good catch! Changing wrightii to wii was not my intention, I swear, LOL! Anyways, I have modified the parameter from replacing "|right" -> "|" to "|right|" -> "" OhanaUnitedTalk page 01:07, 29 May 2008 (UTC)


I see you do good work with the authors. I have a lot of authors (entomologists] with no background. Is there a side where I can find these authors? I have allso a problem with Gerardo Lamas entomologist Peru. Everytime when I want make a new Taxon Authority I get an other one with Mueller. Please can you help me to change this?

Thanks for your help

PeterR 13:55, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I use google a lot to find names. I would google the name + entomology.
I also use the resources at Catalog:Taxon_Authorities
As for the problem with Mueller, I will create a disambiguation page. That means the Mueller can mean more than one person and you will need to direct it to the correct one. --Open2universe | Talk 05:21, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Re: Adding subgenera and other levels[edit]

Hi there,

A couple of answers:

One: OK, I did not know that template. Thanks.

Two: You're right, but I do not know which species belong to these higher taxa. I shall continue searching.

Greetings botanic. --Digigalos 19:12, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

No answers[edit]

Why don't I get respons or answers of you on my questions?


PeterR 16:54, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I must have missed it. Which question are you referring to? --Open2universe | Talk 19:48, 7 June 2008 (UTC)


Did you do Haliplus? These genus have some Subgenera like Liaphlus. I have get the new bulletin of Tijdschrift voor Entomologie volume 151 2008 with a new species. Can I addit this species?


PeterR 16:54, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

No, I was simply doing some format cleanup. Go ahead and add the new species. --Open2universe | Talk 19:48, 7 June 2008 (UTC)


I see in your User Talk that you have answer my questions. But it is easier for me if you answer the questions on my User talk.

Regards, 11:19, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

CommonsTicker failed to post update:[edit]

CommonsTicker was unable to post the latest update to the ticker page. This may happen if there is a temporary problem with the servers or the network, or if the page has grown verry big.

If you use "append" mode, please keep the page reasonably short, perhaps by moving old entries that still need attention to a separate page, which could be included in the main ticker page. Note that CommonsTicker will re-try to post the update on the next run.

If you use "replace" mode, please consider requesting a shorter interval (less days) to watch. CommonsTicker will not try to re-post the update, since it will replace the entire page on the next run anyway.

(this is an automated message) -- CommonsTicker 22:47, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Category ?[edit]

In which category I have place a GEOLOGIST?


PeterR 19:19, 16 June 2008 (UTC)


The mention links are they good or wrong. I ask a lot of people to make Taxon Authorities, but they refuse. They tell me that the international code for Authors is only the name. And by references only name and initionals. Wang is Wang and in the references Wang, L. Wang, Z. etc. I try to explain themthat for Wikipedia is Z.Wang and L.Wang butwithout result. Maybe you should mention in a page what they have to do with authors.


PeterR 14:02, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Taxon Authorities[edit]

For me are the Taxon Authorities a mist. I don't know any more what is good or what is wrong. I think we have to update the Taxon Authorities.


By the way, have you allready update Gerardo Lamas?

PeterR 15:16, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Gerardo Lamas[edit]

What I know are they NOT the same persons. I have a book from Gerardo Lamas and the bulletins mention only Lamas, G. I have now create Lamas, G Gerardo Lamas and Gerado Lamas with DEFAULTSORT etc. In the species the author link Lamas links to the wright Gerardo Lamas. Thanks for helping me.


PeterR 13:19, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned pages[edit]

Thanks for sending me this massage. I shall update the pages.


PeterR 14:13, 3 July 2008 (UTC)


Is it possible that you make a list only of Ordo:Lepidoptera? Now this list is enormous.


PeterR 11:18, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I could not run a report but I am working on it by hand. Here are the A's Orphaned Lepidoptera A

And here are the B's Orphaned Lepidoptera B

Cite book and Cite web templates[edit]

I hate to say this, but I think they are too generic. See here OhanaUnitedTalk page 04:34, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

No I agree, but I was too tired last night to think it through. We have already developed a number of reference templates. I think we need to do a better job of enhancing and documenting the ones we have. But we should have a better one for citing from scientific journals. --Open2universe | Talk 12:34, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


Are we supposed to have a redirect page for every synonym??? At this early stage, I don't see the point... 02:46, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

If people are likely to search on the synonym, then yes. Redirects do not cost much and it will keep new editors from mistakenly creating a new page. --Open2universe | Talk 02:49, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
What if Wikipedia shows the synonym as the correct name while Wikispecies shows the opposite? (Say on Wikipedia, species A is a synonym of species B. But on Wikispecies, species B is the official name while species A is the synonym of B.) OhanaUnitedTalk page 03:04, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Then one of them is wrong! There are plenty of errors on both sites. Anyway, that would be more good reason to have the WikiSpecies synonym redirected... 03:19, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Speedy delete[edit]

You want to handle Ceutorhynchinae and Cryptorhynchinae's speedy delete request? You commented on both of those talk pages on whether they should be redirected instead. OhanaUnitedTalk page 05:34, 21 August 2008 (UTC)


Thank you for your welcoming greetings. Newcomer on wikispecies, I live on Reunion Island : interested in Indian Ocean Islands fauna and flora, I run a website on mascarine fauna

Please rename me[edit]

Hi, I have changed my username at my homewiki and want to do it here to. Please rename me to Calandrella. Here is confirmation. Thanks, Leo Johannes 08:37, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Rename already done by Maxim, see Wikispecies:Changing username#Calandrella ← Leo_Johannes OhanaUnitedTalk page 16:55, 14 September 2008 (UTC)


What do you reckon about Biotaman - harmless "eccentric", or vandal? He did do a couple of counterproductive page edits a few days ago... Stho002 05:33, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it is vandalism. I think it is difficult to learn and work within all the "rules" we have at wikispecies. I would explain to them why the edits were not in line with our policies. --Open2universe | Talk 13:17, 26 November 2008 (UTC)


My continued ability to contribute to Wikispecies depends crucially on being able to protect just one page, called 'New Zealand', which is a faunistic page with links to (unprotected) pages on New Zealand taxa. My "friend" Lycaon keeps unprotecting it! I believe that such faunistic pages are well within the spirit and ideology of Wikispecies, and perhaps a new category ought to be created to accommodate them. However, I need to protect my New Zealand page for the following reasons: (1) in line with the Wikispecies philosophy, I am contributing this information for free, and there are potential conflicts of interest with other people/institutions here in N.Z. who are trying to extract as much funding as possible for similar projects; (2) if the page is open edit, it could very easily deteriorate into chaos, as what is needed is a single consistent view on the fauna. The classification isn't totally "objective", so other people may try to impose their own conflicting opinions and the result could be chaotic. Can the beauracrats please have a vote on this? Regrettably, if I cannot protect this one single page, I will have to leave Wikispecies...
Stephen Thorpe
Stho002 21:19, 27 November 2008 (UTC) PS: Other editors can still create their own versions of my 'New Zealand' page, expressing their own opinions, and they can give the pages disambiguated names, e.g. New Zealand, and link them to the appropriate taxa pages independently of me. Hence I am not trying to prevent alternative opinions, I am just trying to prevent alternative opinions from making my page into an unusable mess of conflicting opinions.
Stho002 22:41, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

update on situation[edit]

Hello Open2, I hope you are Open2good-new-ideas, as well as the universe! Firstly, the conflict between Lycaon and myself is personal - I have encountered his type several times before, I call them "ego overloads"! He has been on my back for a while. Anyway, none of that really matters. More important is the potential I can see for making Wikispecies more powerful, and more highly regarded by serious biologists. I was at a function here recently, chatting to someone who is big on the international stage (let's just call him the chief editor of a VERY prominent taxonomic journal), and when I mentioned the potential I saw in Wikispecies he immediately dismissed it and said that Encyclopaedia of Life was the way ahead "because they have $14million"! I have already had positive feedback from several people in this country about how useful my New Zealand page was to them already. Hence, although I could perhaps have handled things better, can we please consider some of my ideas? I don't see the protection of one or two auxiliary pages as going against the wiki philosophy, and it does provide a more solid and reliable backbone for the userfied taxon pages... Stho002 21:41, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Here are my current concerns
  1. As a group we have not even established that distribution should be a part of a wikispecies article. Your arguments seem to hinge on this premise. I personally am against it but I could be persuaded.
  2. If we choose to add checklists, I would like to see guidelines created. Countries? Ecological regions? Insects only? You say people have found it useful. In what way? And how did they find it? Did you send a link?
  3. Until either of these is resolved I think your New Zealand page should be under your user account. You can still send people to that page.
  4. I do see the protection of an auxillary page when there has not been evidence of vandalism as problematic and do not believe it is justified

--Open2universe | Talk 13:24, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Here are my current answers:

(1) > As a group we have not even established that distribution should be a part of a wikispecies article
I think you mean that as a group you haven't even thought of it. I have many entomologist colleagues here in New Zealand who find my New Zealand page to be the ONLY thing on Wikispecies to be of any real practical use to them! Most (but not all) taxonomists in the world have a main focus on the country that they are based in. But this is even more true of amateurs - they mostly want to know what species are found in their country. The key point is that Wikispecies needs to be useful in a practical sense, and having distribution makes it a lot more useful. Personally, I can't see the point in having vernacular names for every little obscure species - not useful.

Distribution has been brought up in the past and discussed

(2) Guidelines: it would be most straightforward just to have distribution pages for countries, but no reason to restrict them to any particular taxon like insects. On the other hand, since the distribution pages are auxiliary, does it matter if they proliferate to include regions other than just countries (provided that they keep to a basic faunistic format)? I created my New Zealand page partly in response to demand from certain colleague/friends, so they know about it from me. In what way do they find it useful? Well, for example, one of them works in biosecurity risk assessment, and needs to know if a species has been recorded before from New Zealand. Particularly with Coleoptera (beetles), my New Zealand page is currently the only reliable source of such information.

I don't care if they proliferate as long as there is some site wide guidance. You speak English and your county is New Zealand. But other areas? And for plants and critters that range over wide areas then what?

(3) Protection: there are several good reasons for protection of the page:

  • Users of the page want to be able to cite it, but it makes little sense to cite an open edit article
  • Because taxonomy is always open to different opinions/interpretations, an open edit article could rapidly become a chaotic jumble of conflicting opinions, and I won't always be around to watch the page for such counterproductive editing. The linked taxon pages are open edit, and I have just tried to minimise the need for protection to JUST ONE PAGE in order to provide some sort of solid backbone to make the information reliable
  • There is a real danger here in N.Z. that certain people will continue to divert a great deal of research funding (which ought to go to taxonomic revisions) into doing these sorts of checklists and will spend far too much time on them and produce a poor quality product. As long as my New Zealand page is open edit, they can claim that it isn't to be taken seriously, but simply use the information I have provided for their own gain...

Stho002 20:20, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't buy any of your arguments, the desire to have one page that you and only you control does not fit into the philosophy of the wiki. And people can choose to not take your list seriously even if it is protected. The reality is it is easy to tell what has been edited and revert. If it gets a large number of edits that require protecting, we can protect it then.

--Open2universe | Talk 00:35, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

>the desire to have one page that you and only you control
incorrect: one page that has admin access only - not just me
>people can choose to not take your list seriously even if it is protected
yes, but at least people can cite it if protected, but it makes NO SENSE to cite an open edit article
The unfortunate reality seems to be that you are making far too much of a big deal of this - it is like you don't want to buy my arguments (you are sounding more and more like Lycaon...) Stho002 00:45, 4 December 2008 (UTC)


The genus is Ceroptres


PeterR 18:27, 3 December 2008 (UTC)