User talk:Thiotrix

From Wikispecies
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Archive 2009-2017

Thanks for your help, but I need more instruction[edit]

Hello Thiotrix,
your help is very appreciated, e.g. here: Patrick A. D. Grimont. But as far as I understand your edits, you have to manually add all the publications (in the way of adding {{Grimont et al., 1981a}}) etc.? So if I create a reference template, I should always add it on the pages of the participating authors? There's no way that this is done automatically? I'm asking, because {{Taxa authored 2}} obviously adds the taxa.
Thanks in advance, --A doubt (talk) 11:36, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Hello A doubt, yes you are right, the reference template has to be added manually to all author pages and all taxa pages. The template {{Taxa authored 2}} works quite differently, because it adds the taxon names to a category, which is just linked to the author's page.
I have a question about the authorities in microbiological taxa. Usually in Wikispecies, we add all authors to the name and have an author category for each author (for example, Polyopes tasmanicus). In Cedecea, the publication has 4 authors. Does this mean, they all are the authorities of the name, or only some of them, or just the first one? Maybe it is unusual in microbiology to list all authors? Kind regards, --Thiotrix (talk) 11:51, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
Hello Thiotrix, thank you for the clarification. Regarding your question on microbiological taxa/nomenclature I can recommend the article de:International Code of Nomenclature of Bacteria. I'm following the "Rule 33b": "The citation of the name of a taxon that has been previously proposed should include both the name of the author(s) who first published the name and the year of publication. If there are more than two authors of the name, the citation includes only the first author followed by "et al." and the year." Examples: Serratia marcescens Bizio 1823; Citrobacter Werkman & Gillen 1932; Cedecea Grimont et al. 1981, gen. nov. (the latter is because of "Rule 33a").
The International Code of Nomenclature of Bacteria (ICBN) (source is cited in the article) furthermore gives "Advisory Notes" on "Quotations of Authors and Names": "Multiple authorship (et al.). When the new name of a taxon is published under two authors, both are cited; when there are more than two authors and when there is no definite designation of a single individual as the author of the name, the citation may be made by listing the names of all the authors or by giving the name of the first author, followed by the abbreviation "et al." (et alii)." So for the taxa page it is possible to write "et al.", but list the names of all the authors within the "Primary references". Probably there is no "must-have" for adding an author category for each author, but I think it would be "fair" and be in accordance with the ICBN and the "Advisory Notes". What do you think?
By the way, the best source to look up for examples is List of prokaryotic names with standing in nomenclature (LPSN), which I'm adding as a link to the pages I'm editing. Kind regards, --A doubt (talk) 13:20, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
Hello A doubt, thank you for your answer. Indeed, microbiology seems to use authorities somewhat different than botany. I also feel it would be fair to have a category for each authority on pages like Cedecea. But you should discuss this matter at the Wikispecies:Village Pump, so that all editors of microbiological pages can contribute and will use the same standards.
On page Cedecea, I added a template for the genus. We use a system of nested templates for all taxa above species level (those can even be used for species as well, if they have many subspecies). See Help:Taxonavigation section for more info, and how I made Template:Cedecea. Just ask me, if you need help with this. Kind regards, --Thiotrix (talk) 14:11, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Share your experience and feedback as a Wikimedian in this global survey[edit]

WMF Surveys, 18:36, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Reminder: Share your feedback in this Wikimedia survey[edit]

WMF Surveys, 01:34, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Your feedback matters: Final reminder to take the global Wikimedia survey[edit]

WMF Surveys, 00:44, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Typus von Salsola rosacea[edit]

Servus! Ich hab gerade bei den Angaben zum Typus von Salsola rosacea eine Ungereimtheit entdeckt: Holotypen (Art. 9.1) werden üblicherweise nicht konserviert. Eine Konservierung ist eher etwas für Lectotypen oder Neotypen. Wenn dieser Typus für eine Linnéische Art erst 1992 gesammelt wurde, dann ist das doch sicher ein Neotypus, und seine Dubletten sind dann Isoneotypen und nicht Isotypen. Grüße --Franz Xaver (talk) 06:10, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Abgesehen davon, müsste man zum Vorgang der Konservierung auch den entsprechenden "Report of the General Committee" (Barrie 2006, doi: 10.2307/25065657 bzw. [1]) zitieren und nicht nur den "Report of the Committee for Spermatophyta" (Brummitt 2000). Letzteres ist ja nur eine Empfehlung (recommendation) und es kommt vereinzelt schon auch vor, dass am Ende die Empfehlung nicht angenommen wird. Grüße --Franz Xaver (talk) 06:55, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
Hallo Franz Xaver, danke für deine Hinweise. Mit dem Neotyp hast du Recht. Möchtest du die Änderungen gleich selbst in dem Artikel eintragen, da du ja Zugriff auf Barrie 2006 hast? Kannst du mir bitte auch den Link schicken, wo man die beschlossenen Proposals abrufen kann? (ich finde ihn nicht mehr). Grüße von --Thiotrix (talk) 07:53, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
Servus! Den Zugang zu Barrie (2006) hast du selbst ohnehin auch. Das geht zwar nicht zwangsläufig über JSTOR, falls du dich dort nicht registriert hast, aber über Ingenta (zweiter Link!) kann der Artikel für jeden frei heruntergeladen werden - bei Taxon-Artikeln, bei denen es um Konservierung geht, geht das grundsätzlich immer.
Den von dir angesprochenen Link hab ich auch nicht gleich parat gehabt. Ich hab nur gewusst, dass es nach Brummitt (2000) noch einen entgültigen "Report" geben müsste und ganz einfach nur mit der Nummer des Konservierungsantrags gegoogelt. Ich hab die Seite aber jetzt auf der Homepage der IAPT ([2]) auch gefunden: [3]. Grüße --Franz Xaver (talk) 08:34, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
Herzlichen Dank, Franz Xaver. Salsola rosacea habe ich inzwischen aktualisiert. Gruß --Thiotrix (talk) 09:52, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Hello Thiotrix again


Editing or adding templates for subfamila, tribus etc.[edit]

Hello Thiotrix
I somewhat understand how to edit a template but don't know how to rename it to show the new lower taxon/taxa or alternatively how to set up a new template. Any help would be appreciated. Thanks nytexcome (Robert Blanton)--Nytexcome

Hello @Nytexcome, for editing or creating a template, you type in the search mask Template:Taxonname. Existing templates can be edited by changing the parent taxon in the first line (example: Template:Eutropistini). If you still do not see your alterations on the taxon page using the template, press the F5 key (load new), and then it should work.
If the template does not exist yet, you can create a new one: First line: parent taxonname in swift parentheses, second line: taxonname as link, followed by line break (br).
{{Parent template}}
Rank: [[Taxonname]]<br> (For genera you can use {{gbr|genusname}}, that will add the br and italics also)
If the template exists, but it is for a hemihomonym (e.g. a plant, a fungus, or a protist with the same name), you have to create a new template, using the form Template:Taxonname (Family), e.g. for Heinsenia:
{{Duriina}}
Genus: {{gbr|Heinsenia (Tropiduchidae)|Heinsenia}}
This means "Heinsenia (Tropiduchidae)" is the link, but "Heinsenia" is shown. For hemihomonyms several more edits are necessary: creating a disambiguation page for Heinsenia, modifiying the plant page and all pages linking to it, and an entry on List of valid homonyms. For now, please just tell us on our discussion forum Village Pump about the hemihomonym, and somebody will manage all this. Kind regards, --Thiotrix (talk) 13:29, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Hello Thiotrix
I have edited Template:Tropiduchinae by adding tribus Tambiniini. Still can't get name changed to "Template: Tambiniini". If I change name in Tropiduchinae to Tambiniini in preview a get a message which says I am creating some kind of feedback loop. Please help !!!Nytexcome (talk) 03:21, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Hello @Nytexcome, why did you want to rename template Trodiduchinae to Tambiniini? Usually templates are not renamed (unless they contain spelling errors). I reverted your edit at Template:Tropiduchinae. I guess you wanted to alter Template:Tambiniini instead, to show Tropiduchinae as parent taxon. User PeterR has done this meanwhile. Look at all the templates of the tribes under Tropiduchinae, and alter them if they are not yet updated. --Thiotrix (talk) 09:55, 19 November 2018

Hello again Thiotrix
I guess we are having a communication problem here. (LOL) I do not want to rename template Tropiduchinae. What I have been trying to do (as all the other creations of templates have done) is to edit Tropiduchinae by adding a new tribus as the final entry and then to SAVE this revision as "template new tribus" or "template new subtribus" without in any way permanently altering template Tropiduchinae. This has apparently been done by yourself and other administrators since there has been a new "template tribus" for each tribus which I have run across and to which I have been adding new genus pages. But when I try to do this, I can't seem to get anywhere. Perhaps we are having a communication problem in using the proper terminology since I am new to this and may not be understanding all the terminology you are using and how you are using it. This is not a criticism of yourself but rather my being a novice at this. Perhaps you could consult with another adminstrator and determine a simpler way (such as a step by step illustration) to explain the process to me. Thanks for all your help and I have still not yet given up on this Nytexcome (talk) 04:53, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Hello Nytexcome (@Nytexcome), when I was a new editor at Wikispecies, I had the same difficulties, so please do not give up. I will try to explain step by step. You meanwhile know, that the taxon pages consist of a "Taxonavigation section" (with tree and list of subtaxa), a "Name section" (with authority, year, type material and its repositories), and a "References section". On Wikispecies, templates are used for the classification tree in the Taxonavigation section. Templates are pieces of text, that will be used on several pages, with the advantage, that this info has to be typed only once, or altered only once, if classification changes. The template of a family should be used on the family page. The template of a tribus should be used on the tribus page. The template of a genus should be used on the genus page and on all species pages in that genus. Templates are named Template:Taxonname, and they are called by swift parentheses:
{{Taxonname}}

.

Now I will show you, how to create Template:Isporisini. Type or copy Template:Isporisini in the search mask at the top right. This template does not exist yet. Now you can create it. Copy the following 2 lines and save your new template. The first line calls the template for the direct parent taxon Tropiduchinae.
{{Tropiduchinae}}
Tribus: [[Isporisini]]<br>

.

Please use this template on page Isporisini just above the subtaxon list (remove your first 3 lines in the Taxonavigation section), and then tell me, if you were successful. In a next step, I will explain it for genus templates. --Thiotrix (talk) 09:23, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Hello again Thiotrix, I have followed your clear instructions and now believe I have created template Isporisini and inserted it on page for Isoporisini. Please check to see if this is indeed the case. I got a sense of adventure and decided to see if I could create a template for a genus. I used genus Sogana. Please check the Sogana page to see if this correct and let me know if I have been successful. Thanks for all your help.Nytexcome (talk) 16:51, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
Hello again (revised) Thiotrix, A flash just hit and I went back to page Isporisini and found my error and just corrected it. I hope it is now correct.Nytexcome (talk) 16:58, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Hello @Nytexcome, that's fine. Template:Isporisini is correct, and page Isporisini too (the br after the template in line 2 is not needed, because it is already included in the template). Your modified Template:Sogana now shows the right content, but is still a bit too large, as it refers to 2 parent taxa. It should only call the template of the direct parent taxon:
{{Isporisini}}
Genus: {{gbr|Sogana}}

.

which is the same like

{{Isporisini}}
Genus: ''[[Sogana]]''<br>

.

You see that the use of gbr for the genus name makes a link, italics and br. Kind regards, --Thiotrix (talk) 17:28, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Setting up Disambiguation page for 2 different genera under different parent taxa[edit]

Hello Thiotrix,
Finally I can move on to another topic now that I comfortable with templates. Question: Can I set up a disambiguation page or is this for adminstrators only? The genus in question is Pachyacris which had been previously set up in Plantae but which is also valid for Orthoptera. I have set up a proper page for this genus as Pachyacris (Orthoptera) in correct subfamilia. But entering Pachyacris in search box gives a redirect to Xysmalobium a genus in Plantae and this page shows Pachyacris as a synonym for Xysmalobium. Can you resolve this problem or explain to me how to fix it? Thanks, Nytexcome (talk) 08:48, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Hello Nytexcome, for now I will fix this for you, because the moving of pages is restricted to experienced editors. Usually the new names for hemihomonym pages are "Genus (Familia)". What has to be done? 1. move of page Pachyacris to Pachyacris (Apocynaceae). 2 Edit of the redirect page Pachyacris to be a disambiguation page. 3. Fix all links to Pachyacris to either Pachyacris (Orthoptera) or Pachyacris (Apocynaceae). 4. Make an entry on List of valid homonyms. When you will be more experienced with Wikispecies, you will get autopatrolled rights, and then you will find the "Move" function under the "More" tab, at the left side of the search mask. Kind regards, --Thiotrix (talk) 09:41, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Hello Thiotrix
I have found two other sets of genera that need disambiguation pages set up.
1.) Genus: Thymbra set up as
Familia: Tropiduchidae Subfamilia: Tropiduchinae Tribus: Tropiduchini Genus: Thymbra AND AS
Familia: Lamiaceae Subfamilia: Nepetoideae Tribe: Mentheae Subtribus: Menthinae Genus: Thymbra
2.} Genus: Pachystoma set up as
Familia: Orchidaceae Subfamilia: Epidendroideae Tribus: Collabieae Genus: Pachystoma AND AS
Familia: Pachychilidae Genus: Pachychilus (Animalia)

Again thanks for your helpNytexcome (talk) 15:41, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Hello @Nytexcome, I have fixed it for Thymbra and Pachystoma. And please: never copy content from existing pages to new ones and blank the existing pages. This is regarded as vandalizm. The editing history of a page has to be saved. That is one of the reasons, why the moving of pages is restricted to experienced editors. In future cases of duplicate names just tell us at the Village Pump. There are always experienced editors online, and will help you with disambiguation. --Thiotrix (talk) 18:53, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Hello Thiotrix
Thanks for the information concerning copying pages. I never realized that the history would not transfer with the copy. I will use Village Pump next time. Thanks againNytexcome (talk) 23:10, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Repository category P[edit]

Achtung! Die Category:P bezieht sich nicht auf das Herbarium P. Siehe Chenopodium petiolare. Grüße --Franz Xaver (talk) 10:25, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Uups, das war mir noch gar nicht aufgefallen. Da P so ein weitverbreitetes Herbariumkürzel ist, wird das sicher noch häufiger falsch verwendet. Vielleicht sollten wir für die Kategorie P eine disambiguation anlegen? Grüße von --Thiotrix (talk) 11:14, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
Servus! Ich hab auch noch an zwei andere Benutzer eine Nachricht geschrieben. Damit sind wohl die meisten Personen benachrichtigt, die die Kategorie mit Pflanzen gefüllt haben. Dass eine Begriffsklärung hier helfen würde, das bezweifle ich. Ein Großteil der Einträge ist nämlich dadurch entstanden, dass ungeschaut die Vorlage {{Rl}} verwendet worden ist. Wenn man nicht hin und wieder nachschaut, was die eigene Bearbeitung bewirkt, dann hilft auch eine Begriffsklärung nichts. Grüße --Franz Xaver (talk) 11:28, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Sabine Von Mering[edit]

Please see User talk:Neferkheperre#Sabine Von Mering. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:08, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Bump. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:45, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
I don't understand what you mean with bump?? (no native english speaker). This misspelled name was a candidate for speedy deletion and no other page linked to it, so I deleted it. But if you like to restore this misspelling, please do it. --Thiotrix (talk) 15:03, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
In short (and somewhat simplified), one can say that a "bump" is an Internet equivalent to a gentle tap on a user's shoulder in order to raise the user's attention, asking "have you seen this?". I haven't found any good German translation of the internet concept to "bump" a thread, but perhaps the Dutch Wikipedia page can be helpful, giving a more thorough explanation: Bumpen. Best regards, Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 20:03, 3 December 2018 (UTC).
Thank you, Tommy Kronkvist, for this explanation. Kind regards, --Thiotrix (talk) 19:42, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

AWB[edit]

Hi, can you check please whether you can log to the AWB? I recently get "aborted" when I try to log in as "Mariusm" as well as "MariusBot". Mariusm (talk) 12:44, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Hello Mariusm, I tried and could not log in too. But I got the message that I had to download the new version, AWB 51010. After doing this, login was successful. Cheers, --Thiotrix (talk) 16:31, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
Did you get my email? Mariusm (talk) 09:27, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
Hello Mariusm, yes I got your mail. Before trying with your password, have you looked at this message Wikispecies:Administrators' Noticeboard#New Wikimedia password policy and requirements? On December 13, the password requirements have changed, and maybe your password for your bot account is just too short? --Thiotrix (talk) 09:36, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
Oh my God! You're correct! My passwords were only 8 chars. Many many thanks!!!! Mariusm (talk) 09:54, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Grüße[edit]

Guten Tag Thiotrix,
ich wünsche Dir festliche Feiertage und für das Jahr 2019 alles erdenklich Gute.
Möge das neue Jahr uns allen ein friedliches Miteinander bringen.
Beste Grüße. Orchi (talk) 17:38, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Hallo Orchi, herzlichen Dank für deine Weihnachtsgrüße. Auch dir wünsche ich eine schöne Zeit "zwischen den Jahren", und ein frohes und friedliches neues Jahr 2019. Viele Grüße von --Thiotrix (talk) 21:51, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Atriplex[edit]

Vielleicht hat diese Wiki-Site keinen Platz für phylogenetische Systematik --Penarc (talk) 14:38, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Es gibt keine Einschränkungen für die Seitenlänge in Wikispecies. Auch alternative Klassifikationen können und sollten dokumentiert werden. Was schlägst du vor? (There are no limitations of page length in wikispecies. Alternative classifications can and should be documented, too). (Beispiel /example: Phaeophyceae). What is your proposal? --Thiotrix (talk) 07:39, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Oriontiophyllum[edit]

Oriontiophyllum ferreri geht es hier, Ich suche es in Russischer Wikipedia heraus, aber Ich weis es nicht ob richtig ist daheim --Penarc (talk) 14:25, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Es gehört zu den Orontioideae. Ich helfe bei der Formatierung. Grüße von --Thiotrix (talk) 15:00, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Sarcocornia[edit]

In Catálogo de Plantas Vasculares de Chile (Gayana Bot 75 ) Salicornia andina Phil is cited a Sarcocornia andina Freitag, I hope a comment from your side otherwise I want to delete Salicornia andina--Penarc (talk) 12:54, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Hello Penarc, the taxonomy of Salicornia (including Sarcocornia) is based on
As Sarcocornia is paraphyletic in relation to Salicornia, Piirainen et al. proposed to merge Sarcocornia under Salicornia. After I discussed this matter with Professor Freitag, Wikispecies follows Piirainen et al. since May 2018. Kind regards, --Thiotrix (talk) 16:41, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

proper formatting of disambiguation pages[edit]

Hi, Please see revisions that user EncycloPetey has made to page Macvicaria. His point of view is that author name in parentheses should be made to disambiguation pages rather than the current usage we have both used of putting the family name in parentheses. I have followed the example you yourself have used. (see Sabia). His format of page Macvicaria makes it very difficult to find the proper placement of this genus under family Macvicaria (Opecoelidae). I do believe his usage should be disallowed. Unless you have changed the formatting rules we both have been using, please advise him to undo his revert of page Macvicaria and stop putting author names in parentheses and to move data from page Macvicaria (Gibson & Bray) back to page Macvicaria (Opecoelidae) where it belongs and to delete page Macvicaria (Gibson & Bray). Thank you. Nytexcome (talk) 05:13, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Hello Nytexcome, both formattings (Taxonname+(family), and Taxonname+Authorname) are often used and allowed here at Wikispecies. As User:EncycloPetey is the first editor of the disambiguation page Macvicaria, he chosed to use Taxonname+Authorname, and there is no need to alter this page. I myself often use Taxonname+Authorname, e.g. Fucus capensis, as it is much more exact than Taxonname+(family). And the page lemma will still be correct, if the classification of the taxon changes to another familiy (e.g. many fungi and algae change their familiy rather often...). Kind regards, --Thiotrix (talk) 09:40, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Fernandezia[edit]

Guten Tag Thiotrix,
Du warst erwähnt und beteiligt an der Diskussion über Fernandezia.
Ich bin leider etwas ratlos zu dem Thema auf der Seite von Andy. Sollte ich noch etwas ändern oder ist die Sache erledigt?
Vielen Dank für Deine Hilfe. Orchi (talk) 19:51, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Hallo Orchi, es geht ja nur um diese Versionsgeschichte, die in der neuen Fassung Fernandezia (Orchidaceae) fehlt. Auch du hattest mehrmals zu der Seite beigetragen. Wenn es dir, ebenso wie Andy, nichts ausmacht, dass die neue Fassung 2019 quasi "aus dem Nichts" beginnt, dann lassen wir es so. Eventuell könntest du beim nächsten Edit in der Zusammenfassung erwähnen, dass der Inhalt am 12.2. von Fernandezia kopiert wurde. Viele Grüße von --Thiotrix (talk) 10:02, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
Hallo Thiotrix, vielen Dank für Deine Klarstellung. Natürlich bin ich mit der Neuerstellung ohne Versionsgeschichte einverstanden. Viele Grüße. Orchi (talk) 15:07, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Format of disambiguation pages[edit]

Hi Thiotrix, I am just trying to determine correct formatting for disambiguation pages. I consistently use your example on the page Sabia. In the category section you use the format 'disambig' which Tommy Kronkvist changes to 'disambiguation' and then you come along and change it back to 'disambig'. I'm not trying to start a battle between the two of you (LOL), but can the two of you call a truce, remain friends and decide which format should be used. Thanks Nytexcome (talk) 02:45, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello Nytexcome, to which page(s) are you referring? On Sabia I see no such changes. The template {{Disambig}} redirects to template {{Disambiguation}}, so they both can be used here. Kind regards, --Thiotrix (talk) 07:36, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Hello @Nytexcome: and Thiotrix. The reason I use {{Disambiguation}} is that it is the parent of the two templates, hence should be preferred in order to avoid redirects. As Thiotrix says the {{Disambig}} template will work just as well, but I find it to be inferior since it requires the wiki servers to do an automatic redirect to the {{disambiguation}} template. This is also why we generally should always opt for direct links like for example {{a|Carolus Linnaeus|L.}} instead of {{a|L.}} for authors, and [[Canis lupus familiaris]] instead of [[Canis familiaris]] for taxon names. I mean, even though both variations lead to the same page in the end, why should we use two links – the redirect included – when one link is sufficient and only "costs" half the server load? Also, I'm confident that later this year we will have a bot set up to automatically change all occurrences of the "disambig" template into the "disambuguation" ditto. All of the above was last talked about at the Village Pump in December last year, and you can find an archive of the discussion here: Redundant disambiguation pages and categories Template:Disambig and Template:Disambiguation.
As for edit wars: no, I'm not that kind of guy. Especially not when it comes to the always welcome edits by a seasoned and since many years well respected user such as Thiotrix. Having said that, while I'm not in the hunt specifically for {{disambig}} links, I will always change a redirected link to a direct link if I find one. But as I said that goes for all links, not only the {{disambig}} template, and regardless of which user made the most recent edits before me.
Lastly: in my opinion many of the Wikispecies templates and the system surrounding them is quite messy and/or badly documented. Hopefully the community will soon come up with a plan on how to solve these problems. Until then, I wish you both a happy editing experience! Best regards, Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 11:21, 6 March 2019 (UTC).

Moving page rather than copy and paste[edit]

Hello, Thiotrix HELP Something has apparently gone wrong when I followed the advice of LamBoet concerning moving page rather than copy and paste in setting up new page for disambiguation purposes. When I type in name Ancistrorhynchus in search box, the result is Wikispecies:Ancistrorhynchus (Finet) which redirects to Ancistrorhynchus (Finet) without showing disambiguation page. Sorry for creating this problem. Please advise, Thanks Nytexcome (talk) 04:07, 16 March 2019 (UTC) Please note page Ancistrorhynchus (disambiguation) has been set up.

Hello Nytexcome, you moved the page Ancistrorhynchus to Wikispecies:Ancistrorhynchus (Finet). The correct new page name for such kind of moves is either "taxonname (familyname)", in parentheses, or, more precise, "taxonname authorcitation". In the case of Ancistrorhynchus it would be Ancistrorhynchus Finet and Ancistrorhynchus L'Hardy without parentheses. That depends on the correct author citation, as the parentheses in authorcitations have a taxonomical meaning. After the move, the page Ancistrorhynchus is free, and can be edited to be a disambiguation page. Be sure to edit the original genus page and not the moved page. Ancistrorhynchus (disambiguation) is not needed and can be deleted. (I did this and altered the name of the plant page). For all pages that you create in error: please insert {{Delete}} in the first line of the page and add "|created in error" or another reason after the word delete. Then an admin will delete those pages. Kind regards, --Thiotrix (talk) 10:51, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
@Nytexcome: Could you both please remember to add a disambig fix to Reference templates - see Ancistrorhynchus, without it the whole reference section becomes a complete unlinkable mess! In addition, is there any chance you could go back over your older plantae disambigs? Cheers Andyboorman (talk) 14:33, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
Hello Andyboorman, I had fixed the {{Ancistrorhynchus}} already. During last week, I corrected most of those problematic pages in Category:Hemihomonyms, fixed their templates, and all linking pages. But today I noticed, that there are also disambiguation pages in Category:Homonyms. I will look for them next week. Cheers, --Thiotrix (talk) 15:01, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
Not sure we are talking about the same thing WCSP|2017|December|18 does not link out correctly it has to be WCSP|2017|December|18|Ancistrorhynchus. The same goes for templates {{Catol-Hassler}}, {{IPNI}} and so on. Cheers Andyboorman (talk) 15:46, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
Yes you are right. I see that you have fixed those templates for Ancistrorhynchus Finet already, thank you. --Thiotrix (talk) 18:26, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
Hello Thiotrix, Very grateful for your help and advice. Hopefully will do it properly next time!Nytexcome (talk) 19:11, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

───────────────────────── @Andyboorman: The "Catol-Hassler" should use caps, like this: {{Catol-Hassler}}Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 10:53, 17 March 2019 (UTC).

@Tommy Kronkvist: Works both ways. Andyboorman (talk) 15:47, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Of interest[edit]

As your circumscription and synonymy of Halothamnus turcomanicus differs from others, you may be interested in seeing if you can locate Memariani, F. & al. 2016. Plant diversity of the Khorassam-Kopet Dagh Floristic province (Irano-Turanian region) Phytotaxa 249: 1-180. given that your references are 1980/1990s. Personally I would not use a controversially definitive statement such as "! Not synonymous with Aellenia turcomanica (Aellen) Czerep., Plantae vasculares URSS: 176. (1981)" without a more current reference. Best regards Andyboorman (talk) 14:41, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello Andyboorman, this is one of those typical name errors in databases. Just because Aellenia is a synonym of Halothamnus, many databases make Allenica turcomanica a synonym of Halothamnus turcomanicus. But these are completely different taxa, as you can see from the photos of the types. I have deeply studied all type material of Halothamnus and its relatives for long years, and I know, that there are still many errors in databases, and also in literature basing on them. Maybe I should write to Hassler and Govaerts. Kind regards, --Thiotrix (talk) 15:34, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
I would definitely email them with your thoughts. By the way WS is not for original research or opinions and if you can not find published material supporting your thoughts then I suggest that you send your findings as a short paper to Phytotaxa, Phytoneuron or similar. Best regards. Andyboorman (talk) 17:48, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Of cause, I would not add unpublished material here. This is all published (as you noted, from the 1990s), but may have been overlooked or mixed up by those databases. Best, --Thiotrix (talk) 18:09, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
And yes older material is a treasure trove, but sometimes accepted wisdom can be passed down without challenge. Regards Andyboorman (talk) 08:23, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Invitation to join the Ten Year Society[edit]

Ten Year Society.svg

Dear Thiotrix, I belive tomorrow you have contributed to Wikispecies during ten years.

I'd like to extend a cordial invitation to you to join the Ten Year Society, an informal group for editors who've been participating in the Wikispecies project for ten years or more.

Best regards,

Dan Koehl (talk) 13:01, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Taxa authored 2|g=f[edit]

Hallo Thiotrix,
das in der Überschrift aufgeführte template war bisher wohl nur in deutscher Sprache in Funktion. Leider hat das zu Missverständnissen geführt.
Ich habe deshalb mal eine englische Version hinzugefügt.
Könntest Du bitte eine Überprüfung der Sprachauswahl und Funktion vornehmen?
Vielen Dank für Deine Mühe. Grüße. Orchi (talk) 20:33, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Hallo Orchi, die deutsche Übersetzung mit maskuliner und femininer Formulierung von {{Taxa authored 2}} hat User:Franz Xaver am 9.3.2018 ergänzt. [4]. Alle anderen Sprachen benutzen dagegen eine einfache Übersetzung, für die keine Gender-Endung nötig ist. Da die Option |g=f bislang nur für die deutsche Übersetzung benutzt wird, können andersprachige Editoren, die den Textstring Taxa authored 2|g=f auf alle Autorenseiten kopieren, auch nicht den grammatikalischen Irrtum erkennen. Eine einfache, genderunabhängige Formulierung wie "Autor/in folgender Taxon-Namen" fände ich daher praktischer, auch wenn es vielleicht nicht perfektes Deutsch ist. Gruß von --Thiotrix (talk) 13:23, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Hallo Thiotrix,
vielen Dank für Deine Antwort. User:Pigsonthewing hatte meinen Übersetzungsversuch umgehend rückgängig gemacht. Mir persönlich gefällt der Hinweis auf das Geschlecht der Autoren.
Grüße. Orchi (talk) 14:12, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Gut, wenn es also dabei bleiben soll, dann müssten wir zumindest auch auf der Template-Dokumentation eintragen, wie das Template korrekt zu benutzen ist. Ich versuche das mal. --Thiotrix (talk) 14:19, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Zhi-Qiang Cheng[edit]

Thiotrix

The chinese names are difficult. The official name is Zhi-Qiang Cheng. Sometimes they write Zhiqiang Cheng or Zhi-qiang Cheng. So don't change the links or make a proposal for changing PeterR (talk) 08:13, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Hello PeterR, for Zhi-Qiang Cheng and Zhiqiang Cheng, this is definitely the same person. Even the same publication is cited for both names. We should keep the page for the official name and make the other a redirect. Kind regards, --Thiotrix (talk) 08:18, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
I have done that allready. If you find more of these examples please ask me to change them. PeterR (talk) 08:24, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
Thank you. There a more double authority pages in Category:Pages to merge. As I am a botanist, I do not want to merge those zoology authors myself. Perhaps you can help. Kind regards, --Thiotrix (talk) 07:25, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Diacritic use of template[edit]

Thanks I learn how to use Default template (as Peñailillo)--Penarc (talk) 21:34, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Community Insights Survey[edit]

RMaung (WMF) 14:34, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Reminder: Community Insights Survey[edit]

RMaung (WMF) 19:14, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Reminder: Community Insights Survey[edit]

RMaung (WMF) 17:04, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Fragen zu Typus-Informationen[edit]

Guten Abend Thiotrix,
nach längerer Pause und Abschluss seiner Promotion ist User:Badlydrawnboy2 in Wikipedia wieder aktiv geworden. Er ist Spezialist u.a. für die Gattungen Gastrochilus und Holcoglossum.
Hier ist eine Hinterfragung zur Gestaltung von Typusinformationen: Belege. Könntest Du bitte diese Fragen überprüfen und eventuell Vorschlage machen.
Im Voraus vielen Dank für Deine Mühe und beste Grüße. Orchi (talk) 19:33, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Template:Philippi, 1892[edit]

Hello, shouldn't be Philippi, 1862??--Hector Bottai (talk) 23:25, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Sure, it was a typo error, it's now corrected. Thank you for your notice. Kind regards, --Thiotrix (talk) 07:07, 31 October 2019 (UTC)