User talk:Thiotrix

From Wikispecies
Jump to: navigation, search

Archive 2009-2016


Mixing books and online sources in one reference is a bit of an oddity I feel. Anyway, I also do not see the point in separating out links and printed sources in the list - a reference used to construct the taxon data is just a reference after all. I guess it gives improvers something to do and is not that important, just does not conform to scientific and academic standards. Lomonosova & Freitag, 2011 needs templating as it belongs in the subfamily. Regards Andyboorman (talk) 13:54, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello Andyboorman, you are right that usually books and online sources should not be mixed. But the Flora of China is an exception, as it was first printed in 2004, and later in 2008 the same text was used for the eflora version, where the page numbers are cited. (The same is true for Flora of North America, FNA, also). I think the "Links" section in the references is mainly for databases, because these are not so "scientific" as biological works. - I will create the requested template and make more templates for often used references during the next weeks. Kind regards, --Thiotrix (talk) 14:30, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
Hi @Thiotrix:. You are right about the exception with some online floras - good point. However, how authoritative are they in book form - a lot has changed in plant nomenclature since 2008? I tend to refer to Flora of China sparingly as they sometimes do not accept current changes or are slow to make the alterations and their data are in other sources. At least with Jepson and FNA they now incorporate changes rapidly and take on board consensus.
Another point is that not all databases are equally unscientific. Take WCSP it updates quickly, edits out errors rapidly and does not incorporate families until they have been extensively reviewed. It also avoids those families that are controversial and being worked on, for example Brassicaceae. For this family there is BrassiBase, which ongoing and its self will change in due course, but is better than any other source for the family. Both these online databases are managed by plant scientists (RBKew and Heidelberg University respectively) and in a scientific manner. IPNI is a repository of plant names and is invaluable, as it is where you go to get the Name. OK many combinations on IPNI are no longer used, but again for publication details of synonyms, useful - reference or link, the former IMO. Tropicos is another scientific database run by scientists and OK it is not always clear on synonymy and needs a cross check, but is much better than an outdated book. The Plant List is 2012 and needs a thorough check except for the less controversial - a good example of a link if you want to dump it there.
That is why I go for papers whenever I can. It does annoy me when page improvers dump the papers I have sourced into Additional References and the like, as they are most definitely not Additional being used to compile the circumscription. Being a scientist and academic, a Reference is any source used to compile a scientific communication, in the context of WS, the taxon page. Again see Brassicaceae and there will be a few more in due course, nothing Additional about these sources. Rant over and kind regards Andyboorman (talk) 19:19, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
Hi, Andyboorman, I did not doubt about the scientific background of databases, but they give mainly informations about names and actual taxonomy, and few info about the taxa themselves. Yes, it is true, that the Flora of China often does not use the most actual names, and several species are now considered belonging to other genera. But for many taxa from Asia it is nevertheless a good online source for species descriptions, sometimes even with illustrations, or distribution ranges. Even from the Flora of URSS (from 1936 and surely outdated) we still can get the information from where the taxon was described, if the original russian descriptions are not available. And as the scope of wikispecies is "to feed in for wikipedias", such a reference may provide useful informations for users writing wikipedia articles. Kind regards, --Thiotrix (talk) 09:11, 16 January 2017 (UTC)


Noia 64 apps help index.png

Dear, Thiotrix! Would you accept to be an Administrator on Wikispecies? Wikispecies need more Administrators and presently there is only 26 out of 205 active users.
Please see Administrators for information about Admins rights. If you are positive, I can nominate you on the requests for adminship on your behalf.

Dan Koehl (talk) 17:38, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Hallo, Dan Koehl, and thank you for your invitation. If Wikispecies really needs more Administrators, I will accept to candidate for Admin and contribute to further improvement of this wiki.
My first edits on Wikispecies were in 2009. Then I had to notice the boycott of German Wikipedians, it was either not "allowed" to cite Wikispecies on taxon pages. But I thought, if this had happened to Wikipedia, to be boycotted shortly after start, the idea of free encyclopedic knowledge would have never succeeded. So in 2012, I came back to Wikispecies and began to work on plant family group Amaranthaceae/Chenopodiaceae at genus level. Since 2015, my project is to achieve well researched pages on species level. After 10,000 edits here I'm quite familiar with Wikispecies, although not yet experienced with adminship. Kind regards, --Thiotrix (talk) 13:42, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, please confirm that you acept nomination here Dan Koehl (talk) 14:35, 30 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)

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)

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)

Administrator rights[edit]

Wikispecies Administrator.png

Dear Thiotrix, You have been granted administrator user rights, congratulations!

Admin userbox on Wikispecies[edit]

Wikispecies Administrator.png This user is an administrator on Wikispecies. (verify)

Administrators may use the administrator user box on their user page. Copy and paste the following code to your user page:

{{User Admin}}

In your case, using babel, you can actually use this code:


Dan Koehl (talk) 09:21, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Userbox on EnWp and Meta-Wiki[edit]

Theres also a Wikispecies userbox which you can use on the English Wikipedia, located at en:Template:User admin Wikispecies.

If you have a Meta Wiki user page, you can put the Wikispecies admin user box for Meta on your Meta-Wiki user page.Dan Koehl (talk) 13:43, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Hallo Thiotrix,
zu Deiner Wahl mit uneingeschränketer Zustimmung möchte ich Dir ganz herzlich gratulieren und Dir als admin stets ein "gutes und stressfreies Händchen" wünschen.
Alles Gute und viele Grüße. Orchi (talk) 16:39, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
Dan Koehl and Orchi, thanks for your gratulations and good wishes. --Thiotrix (talk) 07:20, 7 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)

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)


Hi Thiotrix, I did some linkfixes to Fucus and Fucus vesiculosus. Please check. Thanks for stepping into the semi-automated creating of species articles. --Murma174 (talk) 10:53, 6 March 2017 (UTC) P.S. Bei Deinem Benutzernamen muss ich immer an Thiothrix denken. Sorry. --Murma174 (talk) 11:02, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Tja, ich hab auch mal Mikrobiologie studiert, und bei diesem netten Schwefelbakterium musste ich immer an Asterix denken...--Thiotrix (talk) 12:04, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
Great work on Fucus ! --Murma174 (talk) 21:22, 6 March 2017 (UTC)


Congratulations for successfully applying AWB to create new species quickly and efficiently. This is a wonderful tool and I hope you'll be joined by others to expand the basic database of WS which stagnated in its incompleteness for a long time. Mariusm (talk) 08:13, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

ThiotrixBot isn't a Bot[edit]

I was amazed to see that User:ThiotrixBot has not a bot flag. It is just a regular user. It can use the AWB only because the name is entered in Wikispecies:AutoWikiBrowser/CheckPage. Why don't you ask a crat to add the bot flag according to the vote done a few months ago? Mariusm (talk) 09:26, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Mariusm, thank you for your information, so I will ask for the flag now. --Thiotrix (talk) 10:12, 21 August 2017 (UTC)


Dear Thiotrix, you reverted my ediit where I, with AWB changed sea-weeds to seaweeds, and from australian algae to Australian algae. Reverting other users edits is commonly used for vandalism, but Im not really sure I vandalized the page, in fact, at Talk:William_Henry_Harvey I give several examples on a different spelling than the one you prefer? Dan Koehl (talk) 09:00, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I just pushed the "wrong button" to set most of those AWB corrections back, and so I got no space for an explanation. Of course, the spelling "Australian" is right, and I modified it already in "Harvey, W.H. 1859. Phycologia Australica", before your notes on the talk page there. But in three other publications, the spelling "sea-weed" (not seaweed) is used in the original publication title and should not be replaced by the modern spelling. Kind regards, --Thiotrix (talk) 09:14, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
===When to revert===
The English Wikipedia reads in en:Status quo ante bellum and en:Revert only when necessary that reverting is appropriate mostly for vandalism or other disruptive edits. The Wikipedia edit warring policy forbids repetitive reverting.

Im not sure that we have adopted the same interpretaton on Species, but reverting another user is, as far I have seen on Sp, very seldom performed?

And in this particualir case, I have to ask why Wikispecies should use an alternative spelling from the other three mentioned sources? Can you refer me to any rule on Wikispecies that claim that misspelling should be used, and in which cases?

Why I am asking is because IF we should spell seaweeds sea-weeds, we must correct and configure the spelling list for the AutoWikiBrowser.

Dan Koehl (talk) 09:22, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

As I said before, the use of revert was in error. Sorry again, I did not want to "attack" your edit,
The spelling of a title should be like it is, especially for historical old books. For example, this is also done in BHL: Phycologia Britannica, or, A history of British sea-weeds. --Thiotrix (talk) 09:39, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
I can however, not see on this picture on the book at, that seaweeds are spelled sea-weeds? Dan Koehl (talk) 09:43, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
On Amazon you see Volume 4 of Phycologia Australica, where "seaweeds" is right and already used like this on the authors page. But in Phycologia britannica, Volume 1-3, the spelling is sea-weeds. --Thiotrix (talk) 09:56, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
@Dan Koehl: Hello Dan. First of all welcome back. I hope you're in good health. The use of the AWB for "correcting" publications-titles or holotype/type locality phrasing is very problematic and to my mind should be avoided, because we want the original spelling and not the corrected spelling. Mariusm (talk) 09:46, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
It seems that we are discussing personal opinions here, rather than rules for Wikispecies? In any case, @Mariusm:, when you look at the picture of the book, what do you interprete as the original spelling? Dan Koehl (talk) 09:58, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
@Dan Koehl: in this particular case you're right, but I'm talking of the general principle of not correcting the original. Of course the AWB can't check every title before correcting it... I would like to discuss this on the pump to get some other opinions. Mariusm (talk) 10:37, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
@Mariusm: and Thiotrix, I agree with you that we should discuss this on the pump, and see what others have to say. Dan Koehl (talk) 10:56, 30 August 2017 (UTC) I also wonder if you can link to the general principle of not correcting the original? Dan Koehl (talk) 10:59, 30 August 2017 (UTC)


Gracias por su aportación, no conocía dichas referencias. Saludos.--MILEPRI (talk) 15:02, 8 September 2017 (UTC)


  • You're right. I will add synonyms. it is in my mind. thank you so much --Fagus (talk) 09:35, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
  • thank you... --Fagus (talk) 10:24, 1 October 2017 (UTC)


Guten Tag Thiotrix,
guten Tag Franz,
darf ich um Hilfe bitten zu einer Nomenklatur-Frage. Es geht um den gültigen Namen von Prasophyllum exile oder Prasophyllum exilis Hier haben User:Gderrin und Rafaël Govaerts (KEW) das Thema angesprochen. [1]. Leider bin ich zum Thema ICBN nicht gut informiert.
Vielen Dank und Grüße. Orchi (talk) 17:42, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Hallo Orchi, die Endung des Artepithetons muss mit dem grammatikalischen Geschlecht des Gattungsnamens übereinstimmen (Artikel 23.5). Wenn bei der Erstbeschreibung eine Endung im "falschen Geschlecht" gewählt wurde, muss der Artname angepasst werden, aber ohne Autor und Datum zu ändern (Artikel 32.2). Der Gattungsname Prasophyllum ist im Neutrum, dann wäre das korrekte Epitheton "exile". Gruß von --Thiotrix (talk) 18:12, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
Hallo Thiotrix,
das war ja eine blitzschnelle Auskunft. Es gibt doch nichts Wertvolleres, als Fachleute zu kennen, die man fragen kann. Vielen herzlichen Dank. Orchi (talk) 18:52, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Alexander Doweld[edit]

Hello Thiotrix! I've opened up a discussion regarding Doweld at the Village Pump, see: Alexander B.(orissovitch) Doweld). Kind regards, Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 15:02, 28 November 2017 (UTC).


Hallo Thiotrix,
schon wieder ist ein Jahr vergangen und Weihnachten steht vor der Tür.
Ich wünsche Dir ein frohes und friedvolles Fest und hoffe,
dass Dir das neue Jahr 2018 viel Freude und viel Gutes bringt.
Beste Grüße.
Orchi (talk) 20:42, 23 December 2017 (UTC)