User talk:Ternarius

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 to follow our syntax and formatting standards.
• 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! Dan Koehl (talk) 09:06, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Bombus terrestris

I merged them at Bombus (Bombus) terrestris, Which I understood from you is the proper name now. Dan Koehl (talk) 06:03, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

@Dan Koehl: We don't put subgenera in species page titles. We just list the subgenus in the taxonavigation section. All those species pages created with subgenera in the title should be deleted. Thanks Stho002 (talk) 20:33, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

My fault, I'm afraid. However, I think I was in good faith: All the bumblebee pages seem to be created that way, many of them as early as 2008 (and many of them by the same author.) It would have been beneficial if this fault had been discovered earlier... / Ternarius (talk) 20:43, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, we used to include subgenus in the species page name. We are now in the process of removing them. Stho002 (talk) 20:46, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

@Stho002: I saw that the Help:Name section states "The name section is used only for names regulated by the relevant nomenclatural code (for zoology, this means species-group, genus-group and family-group names only)", but, considering that far from all species have subspecies, that you obviously did include subspecies in the scientific name earlier, and that some 200 bee names still include it, don't you think a nota bene of that fact (i.e. that subspecies should not be included in the scientific name) in the Name section text would have been prudent? As a new user, it is very hard when you see a multitude of names on the form Bombus (xxx) yyyy to realize that the "(xxx)" actually should be omitted. / Ternarius (talk) 21:05, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

You are saying subspecies when you mean subgenera. The 'name section' referred to in your quote above is different to the page name. As a new user, you should be asking for advice before embarking on major edits. Subgenus is an optional part of a taxonomic name. We need to keep things simple. Using subgenus in page names interferes with disambiguation and linking to most external sites like CoL, etc., which don't use subgenera. Having the subgenus linked in the Taxonavigation section is sufficient. Stho002 (talk) 21:14, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes of cause I mean subgenus. I'm sorry for obfuscating things further by using the wrong term, I have written about bees for 8 years in Swedish (mainly) and English Wikipedia, I very well know the difference, and I can only blame my mistake to the stress when I realized what an error I made. I am truly sorry for that: However, I still think it is fairly easy to assume that subgenera names should be used when you see that virtually all bumblebee articles have them. When something seems obvious, you usually don't ask for help, I think. Anyway, I'm starting to move the wrongly named articles to the correct named ones. There seems no way to do that without getting the old page changed into a redirect, which means I will leave 13 pretty useless redirect pages behind. What should I do to have them deleted? As I asked Dan earlier, do you have something like an Administrators' noticeboard here on Wikispecies? Things seem to be a bit different here, compered to Wikipedia.

Dan or another admin can delete the old pages, or they can stay as redirects. Another issue is that you are forgetting to put author date in parentheses when the original genus is different to the current genus, e.g. any species described in Psithyrus as a genus. Stho002 (talk) 22:04, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Please note that parenthesis go like this (Author, Date), not like this (Author), Date ... Stho002 (talk) 22:12, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

I know that. (I accidently placed the parenthesis wrong once, but that was a mere typo). However, I see that you are removing the reference links (which I found in most older articles). How come? As a Wikipedian I'm used that references are regarded as more or less compulsory, but there are apparently other rules here. The Help:Reference section gives no explanation. / Ternarius (talk) 22:35, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Links to other databases are very weak "references". I have moved them to the species talk pages. Ultimately, we want good proper referencing on the species pages, but that is a big task. I have made a start here ... Stho002 (talk) 22:48, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, I guess you'll better have to continue, I'm afraid. The requirements you (i.e. you on Wikispecies, not you personally) have on sources are quite different from Wikipedia. I'll better return there. I leave a list of the redirect pages that will have to be deleted on my User page. / Ternarius (talk) 22:53, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Welcome back!

Its nice to see how the bees gets taken care of again! Dan Koehl (talk) 13:50, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello Ternarius. A Wikispecies' page regarding the Swedish Museum of Natural History (NRM) can be found at SMNH. They might have a lot of material regarding humlor, bin och andra sådana flygödlor. All the best, Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 11:18, 4 February 2015 (UTC).

Autopatrolled rights

Dear Ternarius, You have been granted autopatrolled user rights, which may be granted to experienced Wikispecies users who have demonstrated an understanding of Wikispecies policies and guidelines. In addition to what registered users can do, autopatrollers can have one's own edits automatically marked as patrolled (autopatrol). The autopatrol user right is intended to reduce the workload of new page patrollers and causes pages created by autopatrolled users to be automatically marked as patrolled. For more information, read Wikispecies:Autopatrollers.

This user has autopatrolled rights on Wikispecies. (verify)

You may as autpatroller use the autopatroller user box on your user page. Copy and paste the following code on your user page:

{{User Autopatroller}}

Dan Koehl (talk) 21:30, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, Dan! / Ternarius (talk) 13:03, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Bombus

Hi,

I have made Bombus abnormis after agreements with the additors. Please do the rest after this example. We don't put subgenera in species page titles. You got already an advice not to put subgenera in the species page title. PeterR (talk) 11:08, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Borek Tkalcu

Hi

The official name is Borek Tkalců. Please change it PeterR (talk) 11:24, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

I have chosen to answer bot this and your preceding remark under this headline.

I do not put subgenera in any titles. What I am doing, is quite the opposite – I copy articles in the old format (with subgenus in the title) to articles in the new format (without subgenus in the title), and with the intention to afterwards remove any "wrong" name format in the articles. That will have the effect that for a short period of time, before I edit the copied articles, their content will have subgenera included in their texts. To facilitate my work, I have chosen to first do the copying of all the articles in one subgenus, and then do the editing. That is to say, that the edits you did to the Bombus abnormis I intended to do after I had copied all the Pyrobombus articles. You may have opinions whether it is better to do the copy of all articles first and the editing after, of if I should do a more time-consuming copy + edit for each one of the Pyrobombus species. However, that I have chosen to do the former (faster) alternative do not merit, I think, this kind of harsh critcism.

As to Borek Tkalců, I know that his name is spelled with a diacritic sign. But since that sign is unavailable on most keyboards (including mine), since it often is excluded in the available sources, even in scientific works, and since the Wikispecies article about him is called Borek Tkalcu, not Borek Tkalců, I felt it acceptable to omit it. / Ternarius (talk) 12:09, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Besides, PeterR, the author name has been spelled Borek Tkalcu from the moment the article was created in 2008. Why do you chose to complain first now, and on me? / Ternarius (talk) 12:18, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Join discussions

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)