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)