User talk:Tommy Kronkvist

From Wikispecies
Jump to navigation Jump to search

There are archives of this talk page:
2012–2014   2015–2016
2017–2018   2019…
The archives are searchable:


ResearchGate[edit]

Hi Tommy. ResearchGate never points directly to a PDF, but sometimes a PDF is available on a click. I tend to indicate that fact or not if an abstract is all you get. Cheers. Andyboorman (talk) 08:23, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi @Andyboorman: Yes, I try to do the same. However I never add link text in a way that people may be lead to believe that the link points directly to a PDF file – unless of course if it actually is a direct link to a PDF file. The reason is that some PDFs can be rather big (I've seen examples of PDF files around 100 megabytes or more), which can make some users hesitant to click the link if they're surfing via a mobile network, a pay-per-minute, or pay-per-megabyte connection. Cheers, Tommy Kronkvist, 11:52, 15 March 2019 (UTC).

Deleting valid author data[edit]

Hello Tommy Kronkvist, I see you have been recently deleting partial author category taxa. I would like to know why. User Burmeister has converted well over one hundred of these entries to full entries by supplying full first and/or middles names for these authors. Why are you interfering with this process? What purpose do you have in mind? Pease consider reverting all your recent deletions unless you can come up with some compelling reason for these deletions, since we are both wasting valuable time by putting them in and taking them out. Thank you for a prompt reply to my question. kind regards, Nytexcome (talk) 00:03, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello @Nytexcome: Are you referring to edits like for instance this one? If so, the reason is that wrongly named categories often leads to a lot of duplicates. After some time (weeks, months, years...) they can be hard to spot, and we risk ending up with a bunch of duplicate categories like for example Category:Peter Ax taxa, Category:P. Ax taxa, Category:Ax taxa and so forth, all regarding one single authorship. There are a lot of examples of this happening throughout Wikispecies' history. This is also true not only for "Taxa by author" categories, but also for the author pages themselves.
I've added the data for Peter Ax to all the pages from which I removed "his" category. However, the following authors remain. If you or @Burmeister: could please help me specify the following full author names, I will be happy to create properly named "Taxa by author" categories for each of them, and add the category links to the correct taxon pages. It's only eight pages so if you can supply the author names I will have all of the categories set up in a few minutes: properly named, and without risk of mixing them up or creating duplicates.
Best regards, Tommy Kronkvist, 00:49, 19 March 2019 (UTC).
Note: I've checked about half of the author names + categories, and marked them as "Done" in the above list. Tommy Kronkvist, 03:40, 19 March 2019 (UTC).
Honestly, I do not think it's a good idea to remove these partial categories because they help in identifying and correcting pages. Partial author categories (red links) are grouped into "wanted categories", making it easier to identify pages that need maintenance and specifically this helps me in search for the full names of the authors, since some are very difficult to find, requiring a more complex search. Burmeister (talk) 12:34, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Anopla systematics[edit]

Hej!

We could to this in Swedish, but for the sake of other users, I write in English. Please take a look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Anopla and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Nemertea#Anopla/Enopla_and_changes_in_higher_rank_taxonomy where we would like a re-structuring of the taxonomy, but we have not got a comment from the community. Can you help out? Olle Terenius (UU) (talk) 11:38, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Hej @Olle Terenius (UU) – 48 år och Uppsala här också faktiskt. :-) Thank you for the heads up. For starters I've updated the Anopla and Enopla pages here at Wikispecies, sort of to get my bearings on the matter while checking out the new(ish) publications. There is still some work that needs to be done on those two WS pages – feel free to add to or mend my edits in any way you find appropriate since I'm neither much of an helminthologist nor annelidologist. By the way, do you or @Malin Strand (SLU) have a citation and/or link for the "Andrade et al., 2012" reference mentioned on the WoRMS' Anopla page? I guess I could try to find it myself but considering proboscis worms aren't even close to being within my field of expertise I run the risk of citing the wrong Andrade et al. work instead of the correct one. All in good faith of course, but still...
In a day or two I plan to bring up the whole Nemertea issue at the Wikispecies' Village Pump. That will most likely attract the attention of Wikispecies editors better suited for the task than me, and then we'll take it from there. After all most of us active Wikispecies' users are fairly used to edit the English Wikipedia as well – it's merely a question of having access to the correct data.
–Med vänlig hälsning, Tommy Kronkvist, 22:40, 4 April 2019 (UTC).

Patroller rights for Dimon2711[edit]

Hi! Can you give me patroller or autopatrolled rights? You can see my user page to see my rights in other wikis. Thanks! Regards, Dimon2711 (talk) 19:46, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

 Done. Tommy Kronkvist, 14:04, 12 June 2019 (UTC).

Proper treatment for synonyms[edit]

Hello Tommy Kronkvist, I am wondering now what is the proper way to show synonym status for a correctly set up Wikispecies page. I have always seen so far that a redirect is used on a page which has been determined to be a synonym for another already existing taxon. I myself have used a redirect in just such a way. However, I've just noticed on page Taccocua that the entry

  • Status:   invalid   Synonym for Phaenicophaeus is shown instead of the usual redirect.

Is this usage a valid method? Would changing this to redirect be in order? Thanks in advance for speedy response.Nytexcome (talk) 09:05, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

@Nytexcome: Odd as it may seem I don't think we have an official guideline for this. I guess it's pretty much up to the user, really. That being said, the praxis is to create redirects just in the way you have done so far, keeping the synonym's page free of any information about taxonomy or nomenclature. However in some cases we occasionally still keep the synonym page as a "full" taxon page rather than change it into a redirect page. This most often occurs when the taxon at hand is currently being under scrutiny and the outcome of the revision is still unclear. One could say that we keep them as full pages while waiting for the taxonomists involved to come to a closure, instead of deleting the pages and then maybe need to recreate them again, later on. Although if kept as a full page the synonym's page must of course include the correct template to notify the status, for example the {{Invalid genus}} template as you mention above. Please see Category:Name status templates for other templates that may be used, depending on taxonomical status and/or other issues regarding the taxon/taxon name. Tommy Kronkvist, 09:49, 18 June 2019 (UTC).

Vernacular names[edit]

Ciao Tommy. I saw that you canceled some of my contributions ([1] etc.). In fact I had forgotten how much is indicated in the help page that you linked to me. Therefore I thank you for report and I assure that I will correct my other changes of the same type as soon as possible. Greetings. --Discanto (talk) 12:59, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

@Discanto: You're welcome. Please do not hesitate to ask if you need more information – I will be happy to help. Best regards, Tommy Kronkvist, 13:05, 2 July 2019 (UTC).
Hi. For example in such cases it is not easy to understand which name to leave. Because, especially for languages ​​other than one's own, the first name from the list may not be the one most used in publications. Do you think it's the case to take the risk? --Discanto (talk) 22:01, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
@Discanto: Yes I know: this can be difficult, especially for the "big" languages such as for example Spanish, English, Italian, Portuguese etc. that are spoken in many different parts of the world. Often, a vernacular name used in Madrid is not the name they use in for example Buenos Aires or Mexico City – even though they all speak Spanish, and each of the three different vernacular names are considered "semi-official" in the respective country. My way of dealing with this problem is usually to check for the vernacular name in Wikidata and Wikipedia. If I can't find correct information in printed publications, the vernacular names listed in Wikidata and Wikipedia are often good – or at least good enough... :-)
Using you're above example for Calluna vulgaris, the Wikidata page for that taxon can be found by here: Q26615. Scroll down to the section named "taxon common name" on that page. If there is no relevant vernacular name listed there, then you can check Wikipedia. You will find links to all Calluna vulgaris-pages in the many different language versions of Wikipedia on the top right side of the Wikidata page. Often, the first vernacular name listed on each Wikipedia page is the correct one. Not always, but I guess it's the best we've got... –Tommy Kronkvist, 22:53, 3 July 2019 (UTC).
As I guess you know, all taxon- and author pages here at Wikispecies should have a corresponding Wikidata page. The link is called "Wikidata item" and can be found in the "Tools" menu on the left side of all Wikispecies' taxon- and author pages. Tommy Kronkvist, 23:07, 3 July 2019 (UTC).
Yes Tommy, I know a little Wikidata ... :D (--1--)
Thanks for the reply. I hadn't thought of verifying on Wikipedia and even on Wikidata that, with all its limitations, is in any case an additional element available. I will certainly treasure your advice. --Discanto (talk) 19:54, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Template IUCN[edit]

Dear Tommy, There is something wrong with the IUCN template. I think it has to do with changes the IUCN herself made on her website. Because I do not know houw to improve this template I hope you know who will adapt this template to the new URL. Thanks for your help. --Hwdenie (talk) 06:45, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Hello @Hwdenie: I have contacted one of the major contributors to the {{IUCN}} template, asking for assistance. Best regards, Tommy Kronkvist, 23:44, 12 July 2019 (UTC).
BDijkstra fixed the problem! See here. This was his first action on wikispecies. Kind regards, --Hwdenie (talk) 15:35, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
@Hwdenie: Great! I have sent him my thanks, and the other contributor I mentioned above has been notified. Thank you for bringing up this problem in the first place, so that it could be fixed rather quickly. That's of course extra important for templates that are used very often – and the IUCN template is used on 12,911 pages! –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 08:46, 16 July 2019 (UTC).
Great, job, @BDijkstra:! Dan Koehl (talk) 10:49, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
@Hwdenie, BDijkstra, and Dan Koehl: Hello, I did the new IUCN template. See. IUCN2 - Pinus jaliscana --Fagus (talk) 21:37, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Rampant vandalism ! ! ![edit]

What is going on here with user 147.30.131.240 ? He has vandalized my user talk page and I now see that he has done the same thing to yours. Thankfully, user Praxidicae has caught these and has restored our user talk pages. Has he fipped out or just holing a grudge against Wkispecies users? Nytexcome (talk) 18:07, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

@Nytexcome: I haven't got a clue, actually. These things happen from time to time, most often for no apparent reason. The IP even did a bit more harm than you've probably been able to see, since some of their edits were not reverted – instead the pages involved were altogether deleted by my fellow admins (hence won't show up in most of the public logs). Anyway it's all sorted now: yesterday I blocked the IP for a couple of weeks, during which time they can't edit Wikispecies at all. The IP turned out to be guilty of some cross-wiki abuse on other Wikimedia sister projects as well, so additionally to our block it's also been globally blocked by a Wikimedia Steward, thus can't edit any of the other Wikimedia projects either. On top of that I've semi-protected my talk page so that it can only be edited by (unblocked) and fairly seasoned registered users: it can't be edited by newly registered or unregistered users.
Please note that we very seldom block IP users for any extended period of time, since not all IP addresses are static. Many of them are frequently shifted by Internet service providers (ISP). Our IP blocks are therefore fairly short-term since we wouldn't like to inadvertently block any user who was recently assigned a new IP address by their ISP. The same is true for my talk page, in a way. It's important that more or less all users are able to contact me at all time – whether they're registered or not – since I'm one of only six bureaucrats on Wikispecies. Therefore write-protecting my talk page for an extended period of time isn't really an option. Luckily we 'crats and the 27 administrators are fairly good at taking care of the defense of one another's user- and talk pages when someone of us is currently offline, so most often it's not a big deal. Regards, Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 19:03, 13 August 2019 (UTC).

Community Insights Survey[edit]

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

 Done. Good survey, by the way. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 08:30, 10 September 2019 (UTC).

Vernacular names[edit]

Moved to User talk:Abraham#Vernacular names, where the discussion started.

One Question[edit]

As you can see I´m quite inexperienced within here. I did write Eduard Assmuss. As far as I know he did research mainly in the field of bees and also was a chemist. However, I cannot say whether an animal or plant genus was ever named after him. Therefore I wonder whether it is usual to see every researcher here automatically, in addition to his main field of work, also as a namesake. With Assmuss I do not know anything about taxonomic activities. --Bodhi-Baum (talk) 07:06, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

@Bodhi-Baum: Hello again, and thank you for your contributions. Please note Wikispecies is only a database for taxa, taxonomy, biological systematics, type repositories, and information about the authors and references needed to verify that data. Nothing else. Information about any author's other scientific disciplines or fields of work (chemistry, taxidermy, mathematics, etc.) is out of scope and shouldn't be listed at all. I have therefore removed all publications not related to taxonomy from the list of Eduard Assmuss's scientific work. That information is better suited for Wikipedia, but not Wikispecies. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 18:19, 16 September 2019 (UTC).
(By the way the same is true about the Sonja Wedmann page. Her year of birth may be more important in a Wikipedia article than here, if such a WP page is ever created.) –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 18:24, 16 September 2019 (UTC).
Thanks, I will keep that in mind. --Bodhi-Baum (talk) 16:22, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Request[edit]

Mind looking at Thiopedia rosea as well, to see if I messed up anything? Thanks in advance. Jarnsax (talk) 23:21, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

@Jarnsax: Most of it already looked great, but I made some small changes per the Help:Reference section guideline plus added a few templates. Thank you for your contributions! –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 03:50, 11 October 2019 (UTC).
Thanks. I'm actually working on transcribing the 1957 Bergey's manual over at Wikisource, and figured it would be worthwhile to pull the reference information over here while I'm at it, instead of hoping that someday someone else would do it. I'm not specifically a biology person, but I am good at being pedantic, which seems like a significant part of what this project wants. :) Jarnsax (talk) 04:03, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
Very much so, yes. :-) Wow, transcribing the Bergey's is a huge job! Also, I saw that the differents parts and editions of the manual are represented on Wikidata in a fairly diverse and not-too-logical way, so it will need some attention there as well. Then again that's a very small task in comparison to transcribing and proofreading the actual book... It's a very important publication so I may help out with some of the proofreading if I can find the time.
By the way, when you're done with the 1,130 pages of Bergey's Manual of Determinative Bacteriology I trust you'll have a go at Bergey's Manual of Systematic Bacteriology as well as Bergey's Manual of Systematics of Archaea and Bacteria too, right? ;-) Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 04:56, 11 October 2019 (UTC).
(lol) Perhaps. Luckily, there is no deadline, right? The Bergey's actually is rather fast to proofread... the OCR is quite good, and the text is repetitive enough that it was easy to get the missing terms into the spellchecker dictionary. Mostly it's just formatting and giving it a quick skim, other than making sure the actual references aren't mangled. Jarnsax (talk) 15:50, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Cloud Forest[edit]

Heya, as I also do some work on Wikiversity, I am on the Editorial Board of Wikijournal of Science, I wanted to warn them about Cloud Forest and mentioned you there too here on Admin page. Just a heads up. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 01:16, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

@Scott: Good initiative, thanks! Just a note though: the user name is "Cloud forest", with a lower case "f". I've therefore changed the heading of your Wikiversity post in order to avoid future mix-ups. For example the link Special:Contributions/Cloud forest will work fine showing the user's contributions here on Wikispecies, however Special:Contributions/Cloud Forest with a capital "F" will not. The same is true on Wikiversity. All the best! Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 01:46, 11 October 2019 (UTC).
Thanks for that, yes the cross wiki issue is starting to look problematic. If this continues he may find himself globally blocked. Lets hope he does not become a sock problem if that happens. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 01:54, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
Wikiversity blocked him, cannot say I blame them he moved the stuff from here to there. EN WP has denied an unblock request twice. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 01:59, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
Yes, I saw. German WP even went ahead and write protected his user page, so now it's only editable by admins. Anyway I don't think this will transmute into a sock problem, regardless of how it all turns out. I mean, a new user that suddenly adds 15 thousand characters each to a bunch of pages wouldn't be particularly transparent... Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 02:28, 11 October 2019 (UTC).

Mirafra africana sharpii[edit]

Dear Tommy, Maybe I made a mistake by making a subspecies-article Mirafra africana sharpii (according IOC list), not realizing others already made a species article Mirafra sharpii (IUCN). I hope the solution I found was correct. 15:18, 20 October 2019 (UTC)~--Hwdenie

Hello @Hwdenie, and thank you for your contributions. Unfortunately I haven't got access to all the proper literature needed regarding Mirafra nomenlature and taxonomy, but most sites like IOC/BirdLife International and ITIS etc. seems to list it as Mirafra africana sharpii. If this is correct, I can make the appropriate page moves and other necessary changes to our Wikispecies pages, however I may need some more references in order to do so in the correct way. The two Wikidata items Q27623835 and Q15728561 also needs some attention in that case.
I already took the liberty to create+add a template for the primary reference to the Mirafra sharpii page, using the same citation you had already added. Kind regards, Tommy Kronkvist, 20:04, 23 October 2019 (UTC).
Again something went wrong and I do not know how to handle it. There are two articles Zosterops kikuyensis in Wikispecies. Hope you can repair it. Henirk--Hwdenie (talk) 18:46, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
@Hwdenie: I guess you refer to the pages Zosterops kikuyensis (only listed on Wikispecies) and the very similarly named Zosterops kikuyuensis (also listed on Wikimedia Commons and the Basque, Dutch, English, Spanish and Swedish Wikipedias). Is Zosterops kikuyuensis the currently correct taxon name for the taxon? –Tommy Kronkvist, 19:12, 29 October 2019 (UTC).
Yes, according to ITIS and IOC this is no longer a subspecies of Zosterops poliogaster. I did not understand the differences, the spelling is the same. Or I must immediately consult my opticien? Anyhow, the first you named has to be deleted. --Hwdenie (talk) 19:58, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

───────────────────────── @Hwdenie: Nope, they are not spelled the same. See here:

Zosterops kikuyensis
Zosterops kikuyuensis

I will delete the shorter one. :-) Tommy Kronkvist, 20:16, 29 October 2019 (UTC).

Indeed, I need new spectacles! Thanks for your help. --Hwdenie (talk) 06:56, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

User Special:Contributions/Badlydrawnboy22[edit]

Hey Tommy, although a recent edition he seems to be doing well and communicates with Orchi when he needs to, though I do not read German. With his considerable number of edits do you think it too early to give him autopatroller? Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 15:16, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi @Scott! Handing him autopatroller rights is a very good idea, so please go ahead and do that. His talks with Orchi (and Thiotrix) mainly relates to how we handle data regarding repositories, synonymy, Taxonavigation templates and other fairly technical matters, and he seems to have a good basic understanding about how most of that works. He doesn't add {{BHL}} templates and other such "fine print" accessories to his edits yet, but I'm sure they will be applied to his every-day toolbox as his work progresses.
When checking his global account information one gets the impression that the user account was registered in 2015. That is incorrect, probably due to changes in the Single User Login "SUL" system that were made around that time. However his German WP track record shows he made his first edit as a registered user as early as March 2008. Kind regards, Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 19:30, 28 October 2019 (UTC).
 Done Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 21:43, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

MediaWiki:Sp-contributions-footer[edit]

Hi Tommy. I saw you're an active sysop. Can you restore this version of MediaWiki:Sp-contributions-footer? AlvaroMolina mistakenly removed an interpunct. Thank you! Kind regards, —Hasley (talk) 18:38, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

@Hasley:  Done. As you've already seen I didn't revert AlvaroMolina's edits, but rather I mended them. Thank you for your note about this, and happy editing! –Tommy Kronkvist, 18:53, 29 October 2019 (UTC).

Discussion about standard reference template format[edit]

Tommy,

I have no a reaction about : The discussion is not what I'm doing wrong, but have Circeus the right to change reference templates in templates that don't commit the standard reference template. Such as Full article (PDF) change in [PDF]. in the text use Open access.PeterR (talk) 10:01, 3 November 2019 (UTC). Circeus still chang templates with in the text Open access PeterR (talk) 17:46, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

I've answered on your talk page. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 18:54, 4 November 2019 (UTC).

Please Tommy, can you tell me what you find wrong in this template?

@PeterR: I think it looks good, for the most part. There are only two very small errors:
  1. The pagination uses hyphen ("-" koppelteken) instead of the longer en dash ("–" gedachtestreepje). It now says "71(6): 217-276" but it should be "71(6): 217–276". As I wrote on your talk page I know that hyphen is the standard in Dutch (and often in English), but consensus of the Wikispecies Community is to use the longer "en dash" instead. This is international ISO standard and was discussed and voted for in the poll we had on the reference template format in December 2015. It is also explained in the first part of the Help:Reference section guideline.
  2. There is no space (spatie) between "Full article (PDF)." and the following <includeonly> code. This means that there is no space between the PDF link and the "Reference page" link when the template is used on taxon pages. Shown without links (for clarity) it now looks like this:
"Full article (PDF).Reference page."
However it should look like this:
"Full article (PDF). Reference page."
with a space between "(PDF)." and "Reference page".
Both of these errors are of course easy to fix – simply change the hyphen to en dash, and add a space. When you create new reference templates in the future, please always add the code-string {{subst:reftemp}} directly after all of your other text, for example like this:
[http:// etc. Full article (PDF)].{{subst:reftemp}}
The {{subst:reftemp}} code will then automatically add that space, together with all necessary Wikispecies links to/from your reference template. The use of {{subst:reftemp}} is also described in the Reference section guideline, at the bottom of the paragraph called Reference Templates.
Best regards, Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 15:38, 5 November 2019 (UTC).