User talk:Thiotrix

From Wikispecies
Jump to: navigation, 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 the 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!

Please ensure that pages you create are following the proper formatting. I have made some changes to Halothamnus afghanicus, which I changed the "type" section.[1] Please go ahead and fix others that you created and ensure other pages that you came across (but not created by you) also follow the same formatting. OhanaUnitedTalk page 13:44, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

For synonyms, please limit it to the species itself. If it is about subspecies, such as Halothamnus glaucus, please remove them and place synonyms in that subspecies' page. In addition, each synonym should be marked with a bullet (for easier readability). OhanaUnitedTalk page 19:23, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

About Halothamnus (Chenopodiaceae)[edit]

Here is what I did to change the subfamily. First, go to Halothamnus (Chenopodiaceae), click on edit and locate the template that the taxonavigation uses. In this case, it is {{Halothamnus (Chenopodiaceae)}}. I'm not sure if you know what is a template and how it works, so let me know if it is a new term to you. So I went to that template and changed it's parent template from {{Chenopodioideae}} to {{Salsoloideae}}[2]

I don't understand what you meant by creating a section, do you mean creating a section in the middle of the page (such as Taxonavigation, Name, Synonym)? If so, you just need to type ==Title== or in the case of synonym, type ===Title===

Linking subspecies (when there is a list of subspecies) requires the use of template, so I'll wait on you to confirm whether you know how to use templates or not.

And finally, we prefer to link author names each and single time, since there are many authorities have same last name or those individuals are in the same family so it's impossible to differentiate by last name alone.

OhanaUnitedTalk page 14:40, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I admit template is one of the 2 things that are hardest to learn for beginners in wiki (the other is creating a table) Templates have to be created manually. All templates start with Template:(Name) and you have to manually type in "Template:" when you want to access that specific template.
I am not sure what you meant by "insert a botanical section between genus and species level". Perhaps you should show me a rough draft so that I can determine whether we include such data in Wikispecies?
And finally, no, older revisions can never be deleted per our copyright policy (as well as any other wiki which belongs to Wikimedia Foundation) OhanaUnitedTalk page 15:46, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
I don't see any problem. Is it because you haven't purged the page? Go to Wikipedia:Purge and see if that solves your problem. OhanaUnitedTalk page 06:04, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Interwiki links[edit]

Hello Thiotrix. Please note that interwiki ("IW") links shouldn't be added anymore. That feature is now automatically added by Wikidata functions. Wikidata works well and the IW links are now added "invisibly" – i.e. the IW links show up in the left hand menu just as they used to, but contrary to before there are no longer any [[lang:taxa]] code strings visible in the actual page code.

Because of this new praxis I have removed the IW code strings you added to the Kali australis page. As you can see the previously visible IW links to the Cebuano, Swedish, or Winaray Wikipedias aren't visible anymore. This is due to the fact that Wikidata currently lists those pages under the synonym Salsola australis, but I'm sure this will be sorted out as soon as the Wikidata databases catches up, and as said, then the IW links will be added automatically. Thanks, and keep on editing! Best regards, Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 09:49, 1 December 2015 (UTC).

Autopatroller[edit]

Wikispecies-logo.svg

Dear Thiotrix, 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.

Wikispecies-logo.svg This user has autopatrolled rights on Wikispecies. (verify)

As an autopatroller you may use the autopatroller user box on your user page. That is of course optional, but if you like it you can copy and paste the following code on your user page: {{User Autopatroller}}

Best regards, Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 11:05, 3 December 2015 (UTC).

redirects von Synonymen[edit]

Hallo Thiotrix, vielleicht hast Du Interesse an einem zeitsparenden Werkzeug, um redirects von Synonymen schneller zu erstellen. Einige User und ich benutzen das Werkzeuk schon tausendfach. Du müsstest Dir analog zu diesem Werkzeug User:Orchi/common.js ein eigenes tool einrichten. Zur Entstehung hier einige Infos: User:Orchi/createRedirects. Falls Du Interesse hast, gebe ich Dir gern weitere Antworten zur Handhabung. Ich persönlich sezte dieses Werkzeug auch in commons ein. Grüße. Orchi (talk) 16:38, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Hallo Orchi, vielen Dank für das Tool. Bei den Salsoloideae, die ich derzeit bearbeite, sind meine Synonymlisten ja noch recht überschaubar. Aber für die ellenlangen Synonymlisten von Meeresalgen wird mir das Werkzeug äußerst hilfreich sein. Grüße von --Thiotrix (talk) 07:51, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

IPNI and Plant List[edit]

Hello Just to let you know about two simple templates you can use for IPNI and The Plant List Version 1.1 - see Suaeda as an example. Great work by the way! You do not need the codes as they (and Tropicos) pick the page name. Regards Andyboorman (talk) 13:59, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

References[edit]

Hello again. I have edited a couple of your references on Suaeda so that they follow the recommended WS policy. See the Village Pump for a discussion that was had a few weeks ago. If you have references that appear on a number of pages, it is best to write a template, such as Kapralov et al., 2006. If you then need to make a change then it will update all the pages. Hope this helps. Andyboorman (talk) 16:04, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Chenopodium[edit]

Hello @Thiotrix: My edit on the above was very silly, apologies of course Chenopodium album can not be a type genus it is a species not genus! My only excuse is that I was making a few quick edits whilst waiting to go out for dinner with my son, oops. However, is there a reason why you do not use the more common type species - I have not come across "type of genus" as a term. Type species, lectotype and even just type.... I know type species is rather informal, but it is more or less universal on WS as well. Is there a reason you do not use this term? If you want to use type species there is a template that we encourage, which is; Type species:  Chenopodium album L. Sp. Pl. 1: 219. (1753), as it is the full scientific name plus a definition.
There is another point, we tend to discourage placing lists of species in synonymy on the main genus taxon page, preferring to leave this for the "accepted species" (how ever these are defined, ouch). The argument is that they will appear on the relevant species pages as synonyms anyway and it can make the genus page cluttered and confusing. Just think of one of those genera with hundreds or even thousands of accepted species, such as Astragalus or Bulbophyllum. However, I appreciate there are still a very few editors like yourself who do now add the species in synonymy, please do not expect it to become common, you may get some negative comments and it may get raised as a discussion on the pump - again!
Finally, I have been encouraged by more experienced editors to use {{a|L.}} not [[L.]] and to use {{a|L.}} for the first occurrence and then {{aut|L.}} thereafter. This is something we discussed on the pump and came to consensus. It is about getting better consistency on WS, I guess.
Apologies once again and please take these comments in the spirit of friendliness and cooperation. Andyboorman (talk) 19:01, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello Andyboorman, all is fine and you do not need to apologize, as mistakes may happen. Thanks for your notice and tipps for formatting of authorites. I did not use "type species" for plant genera, because it is defined just for zoology (sensu strictu). If "type of genus" is against the conventions of wikispecies, I can use "type" for my future edits.
For me as a plant taxonomist, the lists of "names in synonymy" are extremely helpful. For example, Chenopodium used to be a very large genus with many hundreds of species, that recently has been split into several own genera. I think it will be helpful for non-taxonomists too, to get an overview on the genus page, where all the "common" goosefoot species have gone. And for genera completely in synonymy, such a list is the only way to show the species, that were once included in this taxon. These are the reasons, after reading the discussions at the Village Pump, why I adopted the concept from Franz Xaver. Kind regards, --Thiotrix (talk) 20:50, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello @Thiotrix: As you probably realise I am not a full blown plant taxonomist, but I do know that Type Genus and Type Species are not formal terms in botanical taxonomy, but was advised when first starting to work on WS that these terms were preferable to Type, so just went with the flow so to speak. The template {{type}} had been deleted, but I have resurrected it with modifications. Have a look at Airyantha, which is my test, as you can see it links to a Wikipedia page for a number of languages. I trust it works for the language you are working in and feel free to use it. If you would like to modify the template or my words on Airyantha then go ahead.
My main interests on WS are with plants; to remove as many generic red links as I can, put the classifications from order to genera in a contemporary context with appropriate papers and other more or less robust sources. I am also interested in increasing the lists of accepted species, as the past use of GRIN has left off so many and through this have come across many synonymies, also lists of familial and generic synonyms have been lacking. I do admit that taxonomically my edits can be a trifle rough and ready! However, your work and that of Franz Xaver are exemplars, as is Orchi's on Orchidaceae in a slightly different way, IMO. All the best and regards Andyboorman (talk) 21:03, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello Andyboorman, the templates "type" and "typespecies" on Airyantha link to pages of the english wikipedia. Are they expected to link to wikipedias of other languages, too? Then how, or maybe it might not work?
Hello Thiotrix, the templates have a language switch function, but I am not sure how or if this works as I work in English. Try contacting @Orchi: as I think that is where it came from. Andyboorman (talk) 20:54, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
For wikispecies, my focus is mainly on Amaranthaceae. In 2012, I removed all generic red links and added actual references for each genus. Since December 2015, I am working on the species of the 8 subfamilies once belonging to Chenopodiaceae (about 2500 species, this project will take some time...). Phylogenetic research has led to several new combinations (not all of them accepted by all authorities). But al lot of species are yet unsufficiently known by botanists. Kind regards, --Thiotrix (talk) 12:32, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
I am working through Fabaceae at the moment loads of red links and the same problems and possibilities as Amaranthaceae, as the cladistic/phylogenetic analysis has left the taxonomy and classification behind. There are lots of interesting papers to go through, but I am glad that I do not need to go through the methodology in any detail! One big problem is that a number of poly and paraphyletic genera have been worked through, but the necessary new combinations have not been made. We do our best and it is ongoing I guess. Regards Andyboorman (talk) 20:54, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

efloras[edit]

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)

Admin?[edit]

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 25 out of 199 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:

{{#babel:Admin|de|en-3|fr-2|ru-1|la-1}}

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)

Fucus[edit]

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)

AWB[edit]

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)

Spelling[edit]

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 Aamazon.com, 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)

Referencias[edit]

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

Sorbus[edit]

  • 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)