User talk:ShakespeareFan00

From Wikispecies
Jump to navigation Jump to search

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:

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!

Best regards, Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 19:34, 5 April 2016 (UTC).

User accounts[edit]

Hello User:ShakespeareFan00 – and perhaps also User:Sfan00 IMG? Please note that the common – and recommended – way of conduct is to use only one Wikimedia user account, at least per Wiki. The use of several user accounts might in some cases be considered illegitimate (see sock puppetry) and if so can lead to countermeasures, such as the user account(s) being blocked, etc. That said: welcome back, and thank you for the recent redirects! –Best regards, Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 12:36, 5 June 2016 (UTC).

See User talk:Sfan00_IMG, I've asked for a lock-down ( technically it's an alternate at Wikipedia, but as your policy seems to want a single account, it seems reasonable to ask for the alternate to be locked down on other projects. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:09, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for your swift reply. The Sfan00 IMG user account is now locked. If you like to, I can make a redirect from that account's User talk page, so that any subsequent messages to the locked account end up here instead? –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 13:54, 5 June 2016 (UTC).
That would be helpful. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:54, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
 Done. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 14:32, 5 June 2016 (UTC).
You might also consider leaving a "Closed alternate acccount" notice somewhere, lest anyone query the blocking reason as bad faith (which it certainly isn't.) ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 14:37, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
I believe that User:Koavf already sorted that out. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 14:41, 5 June 2016 (UTC).

Signing[edit]

Please always remember to sign your comments on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~), which will automatically produce your username (if you're logged in) plus the time and date. At present I think you sometimes sign with five tildes, which only adds the time and date, but not your username. (Three tildes is equally bad: that only adds the user name, but not the timestamp.) Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 14:49, 5 June 2016 (UTC).

I noted that as well :) ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 14:50, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
Yep, I saw. You actually fixed it while I was writing my "complaint", which is of course welcome. Keep up the good work! –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 12:40, 6 June 2016 (UTC).

ISBN[edit]

Thank you for changing the now deprecated plain ISBN format into the new {{ISBN}} templated format. However, please remember to retain the dashes within the ISBNs. In addition to information regarding country (or sometimes region) of publication, all ISBNs also contain specific publisher IDs, serial number of the specific edition and so forth, and the dashes makes the ISBNs more legible when decoding that information. Thank you. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 23:38, 2 January 2017 (UTC).

Do you have the specfic format block notes to hand?ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 00:03, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
Additionaly I updating, I noted that some ISBN cropped up more than once and perhaps should be templated? I assume that's an ongoing project. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 00:03, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
  1. Unfortunately not. It's difficult to use a "fixed" system (such as X-XXX-XXXXX-X) since the different blocks can differ in length. For instance the country/region block can consist of anything from 1 to 5 digits: for example "2" for French-speaking countries, "87" for Denmark, or "99936" for Bhutan. Furthermore the full length of an ISBN can be 10 or 13 digits, which complicates matters even more. I guess the English Wikipedia's page on ISBN can be of some assistance, but unfortunately only to some degree. That said there's a trick when trying to find out were the dashes are supposed to go. The official ISBN agency run a free online service, which main purpose is ISBN-10 to ISBN-13 conversion (and vice versa). When entering for example an ISBN-10 (with or without dashes) it will first check whether the ISBN is valid, and then show the correct format for the ISBN-13 equivalent, including dashes. The resulting ISBN-13 can then be entered "in reverse" to produce the ISBN-10 you used in the first place, however now it will show the dashes as well.
  2. Indeed it is an ongoing project. The {{ISBN}} template was created January 1, so it's only a few days old... Eventually all of the ISBNs listed in Wikispecies must be templated, or they will be unlinked. A current discussion regarding that can be found at the Village Pump: New template to replace magic words. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 01:51, 3 January 2017 (UTC).
@Tommy Kronkvist: What I meant with point 2, was that I was seeing the same reference crop up more than once. In other situations the full reference has been templated, so it can be entered as short-form like {{Kronkvist, 2017}} (to give a contrived example) as opposed to having to write the full citation every time.
I also as you will see in the last few edits, noted what appeared to be reference Duplication. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 09:45, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
Ah, okay. Well yes: creating reference templates and, when applicable, changing fully spelled out citations with those templates is an ongoing task here – and probably always will be. Also, indeed I've seen your notes regarding duplicate references. These particular duplicates involving Wilson & Reeder's Mammal Species of the World have been an issue for quite some time, and I intend to help address the problem as soon as I can rid myself of this horrible cold.... In any and all cases, thank you for your contributions! –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 11:39, 3 January 2017 (UTC).
@Tommy Kronkvist: Just to be clear, I don't know for certain that they will be taken out from hard-coded magic links but they are already turned off by default in MediaWiki. Templates certainly have the advantage of checksums as well but it's strictly speaking not impossible that magic links will stay indefinitely. —Justin (koavf)TCM 06:56, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for clarifying that. While magic words often can be very convenient, I feel that in this particular case a template is the way to go. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 11:39, 3 January 2017 (UTC).

ISBN and templates[edit]

Hello ShakespeareFan00, and thank you for changing the ISBN to template format. For ISBN number 3-201-00728-5, I created the Template:Flora Iranica 172, which is to be cited with addition of the author of the genus (like in Anabasis aphylla). This Flora is cited very often in family Amaranthaceae, and I'm working on complete changing to template level. So you may skip this ISBN number if you like. Kind regards --Thiotrix (talk) 08:27, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

@Thiotrix: I have updated the Flora Iranica page and among other things added a list of the many volumes, including a link to the {{Flora Iranica 172}} template for volume 172. Best regards, Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 10:03, 4 January 2017 (UTC).
Who gave you order to update the ZT reference templates? In our agreements about reference templates we have an agreement about not using ZT templates. If necessary we make a new reference template after our agreement. So please stop with update them. PeterR (talk) 14
58, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
I'm sorry if good faith efforts to update the magic words are unhelpful, but I'll stop updating these for the moment, ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 15:00, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
@PeterR: It is true that all of the ZT templates needs to be changed into standard templates. They do not have a standardised format, and should be changed as soon as possible. Unfortunately there are several thousands of ZT templates, so fixing them all takes time.
Also, ShakespeareFan00 is ONLY correcting faulty ISBN links in the ZT templates. That is not a bad thing to do. If the ISBN links are not corrected they will probably stop working. Dann sind die ZT Vorlagen noch schlimmer, als sie jetzt sind.
Lastly: please post a link to the "agreements about reference templates" you refer to. You might very well be correct – I have no reason mistrust you – but unfortunately I can't find any poll or discussion with a decision about such an agreement. Thank you. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 15:29, 4 January 2017 (UTC).
I've reverted my edits to the Zt prefixed templates. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 15:52, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
Aside, Wiktionary names it's "reference" templates "R:<name>", I would reccomend something like this here for future ones. Depending on function you could probably also have "T:<name>" for taxonomy specific ones as well.. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 15:52, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
The Wikispecies consensus is to use "<author>, <year>" for reference templates, and that will probably be sufficient. The Zootaxa prefixed templates do not comply to this standard, and also they frequently contain other, inline subtemplates which makes the code hard to read for many of the newer contributors. And to make things worse these included subtemplates sometimes contain other subtemplates of their own, and they may do so too... In the end it can sometimes be difficult to wrap ones head around what's really going on. A bit like the odd "Dennis P. Gordon" link you mentioned when editing the {{Pole, 2012}} template, were clicking the link leads to the Dennis P. Gordon page, even though the actual linking is being made by the {{ISBN 978-1-92714505-0}} template... Very confusing for the unexperienced user! There are some merits to such a system, but all in all the benefits do not measure up to the cumbersome syntax involved.
Finally, creating a special T: prefix for taxonomy specific reference templates is probably overkill, since we're really not supposed to have any non-taxonomy specific references in the first place... :-) Kind regards, Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 16:20, 4 January 2017 (UTC).

Thanks[edit]

Hi! Thank you for your redirect fixes. It was a big help. Again thanks, BanKris (talk) 13:29, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

The "Oppose" template[edit]

Hi. You wrote that the {{Oppose}} template is broken. Can you please describe which problems you experience with it? Does it render oddly or wrong, or is there any other sort of problem? From my horizon everything looks fine both before, in between, and after your three edits. (For reference, I'm using macOS 10.13.2 "High Sierra" (with the Safari browser) and Windows 10 Pro "Fall Creators Update" (with the Microsoft Edge browser) on an Intel Core i7 desktop.) –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 19:13, 19 December 2017 (UTC).

@Tommy Kronkvist: It won't currently translate as I see it. ShakespeareFan00 (talk)
And to be fair, What turned out to be broken was a template that called it. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 19:15, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
Ah, I see. Quite frankly there seems to be heaps of problems with the translation of many, many templates. I've been pondering the issue for about a month, but even thinking of mentioning it to our translation admins gives me a headache... I haven't checked the nitty-gritty of things yet but from a quick glance it looks like there is something wrong with the underlaying MediaWiki routines used for translating, rather than errors within the actual Wikispecies' translations themselves. In either case sooner or later the issue needs to be properly examined. But not by a bureaucrat with the flu just a few days before Christmas, so for the time being you can count me out. :-) Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 19:55, 19 December 2017 (UTC).

Correct ref.[edit]

I've seen you're changing the ref. Sobczyk, T., 2011: World Catalogue of Insects Volume 10 Psychidae (Lepidoptera): 1–467.; because it's a book the correct format for this ref. would be:

and the best way to implement it is by a template - see please {{Sobczyk, 2011}}. Mariusm (talk) 09:45, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Have reviewed the last batch of updates I made as well.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:00, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
When you edit a reference which repeats itself more then a couple of times it's always better to use a template. Then, when you want a change to be done to the reference, you need to change only the template. Mariusm (talk) 11:29, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
Thanks Mariusm for pointing this out. By the way, it's a mere formality but the correct format for the ISBN is ISBN 978-87-88757-98-9. In order to get the dashes right one can use the ISBN converter at ISBN.org. The main focus there isn't fixing the dashes, but ISBN-10 to ISBN-13 conversion (and vice versa). Hence getting the dashes right without changing the actual ISBN is a two-step process. Using our example, entering the 13 digit ISBN "9788788757989" will render the 10 digit ISBN "87-88757-98-6". Adding that number to the converter will then, finally, result in the 13 digit "978-87-88757-98-9" which is what we're after here. It's only a few steps of copying/pasting and two clicks on a button, so its done in seconds. :-) Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 17:20, 20 December 2017 (UTC).

Thanks[edit]

Hello ShakespeareFan00, thank you for correcting my errors. Greetings. Orchi (talk) 18:16, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

My thanks[edit]

Hello. I also thank you for correcting my numerous errors, particularly with IPNI! Cheers. Andyboorman (talk) 15:42, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

re: {{IPNI}}[edit]

Since I hardly ever come by anymore, it would have been nice to

  1. have more information than "this template got borked because of your edit three years ago".
  2. be told that you actually figured the issue separately (especially since as far as I can tell the issue turned out to have nothing to do with my edit in the first place).

Circeus (talk) 09:29, 16 January 2018 (UTC)