User talk:Tommy Kronkvist

From Wikispecies
Jump to: navigation, search

There are archives of this talk page:
2012–2014   2015–2016
The archives are searchable:

Which works to add in pages for taxon authorities?[edit]

Hi, I was wondering if, when listing an author's works in pages for taxon authorities, one should limit them just to those works which contain taxonomic/nomenclatural acts, or if they are meant to eventually become a complete list of works by that authority. Thanks for any clarification! :) Umimmak (talk) 14:13, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

P.S., the brackets you removed were to indicate that, although he was the author, his name was not explicitly listed. See, e.g., [1]. Is there a better way to have done this? Umimmak (talk) 14:21, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi @Umimmak: Only list works regarding taxonomy and nomenclature, please. For example, Vladimir Nabokov was a renowned entomologist as well as a novel writer, but Wikispecies has no interest in also listing his fiction and novels, such a Lolita or Pale Fire – nor any of his many published chess problems, for that matter… :) Such information is better suited for Wikipedia.
As for Bassett and brackets, see this diff. for an alternative way. –Tommy Kronkvist, 14:32, 7 November 2017 (UTC).
I wasn't considering adding works entirely outside the field of biology, but many works fall in between: e.g., works which discuss taxa's nomenclatural history, works which mention a taxon's name (so one gets a sense of how quickly/widespread the adoption of nomenclatural acts was). And re the bracketed example, maybe I'll just have to explain in words if the bracket isn't standard... Umimmak (talk) 14:53, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
P.S., re brackets see IZCN "Recommendation 51D. Author anonymous, or anonymous but known or inferred.v If the name of a taxon was (or is deemed to have been) established anonymously, the term "Anon." may be used as though it was the name of the authors. However, if the authorship is known or inferred from external evidence, the name of the author, if cited, should be enclosed in square brackets to show the original anonymity." And other style guides recommend similarly for works cited, e.g., CMoS17§14.79 "If the authorship is known or guessed at but was omitted on the title page, the name is included in brackets (with a question mark for cases of uncertainty)." I'm going to add back the bracket, although it might be useful to have an explicit note as well. Umimmak (talk) 03:58, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
P.P.S., ugh update it's all a moot point anyway I suppose since even though they read "nov. gen.", they were actually formally named in earlier works (with thankfully clearer authorship). I realized this after I already made a template Template:H.F. Bassett, 1882. I suppose then, there's no reason to ever cite this on wikispecies, the template should be deleted and it stricken from the list of works, then, yeah? Sorry :( :( :( I don't mean to make you spend your time just fixing all my mistakes. Umimmak (talk) 04:45, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
P.P.P.S., although I now see "Loxaulis Mayr, nov. gen" is a misspelling of "Loxaulus Mayr" so maybe that does make it potentially citable as creating a synonym? Particularly since one does see a few other texts referring to "Loxaulis Mayr" or "Loxaulis mammula" Sorry again for the barrage of messages. Umimmak (talk) 05:40, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
First of all, I think IZCN's Article 51. Citation of names of authors only refers to citing author names when referring to named taxa – not publications. In other words Article 51 is a recommendation on how to write for example "Hemigrammus Gill, 1858" but does not present any recommendations on how to cite the accompanying work "Gill, T.N. 1858. Synopsis of the fresh water fishes of the western portion of the island of Trinidad, W. I. Annals of the Lyceum of Natural History of New York 6(10–13): 363–430".
Secondly, unless we find a verifiable source of Loxaulis Mayr being accepted as a synonym, we can not use it. That might be considered original research and is a very big no-no here.
Lastly, I'll get back to you with more data on the Bassett templates. Meanwhile, do you happen to know which "Masi" is the author of Pseudotorymus Masi, 1921? The only one presently in our database is Luigi Masi, but he is listed as an ostracodologist. As for the barrage of messages – no worries! I was born in Finland, and through history we've had 750 years of barraging from both east and west. I think I can cope with a few talk page messages without any sort of problems... :) Tommy Kronkvist, 15:23, 8 November 2017 (UTC).
Noted, yeah I haven't yet seen a ref explicitly place Loxaulis Mayr [in Bassett], 1882 in synonymy with Loxaulus Mayr, 1881, so then there's no reason to ever use that template.
That paper was authored "L. Masi", and unfortunately I've only seen it cited with the initial by others. I would presume the "L. Masi" is the Genoese chalcidologist Luigi Masi (1879–1961), based on the journal and the subject matter and the date and the being in Italian. Not sure if it's the same Luigi Masi already with a page, but it'd be quite a coincidence if two contemporary Italian taxa authorities had the same name... And heh okay good to know I'm not a bother :) Umimmak (talk) 16:55, 8 November 2017 (UTC)


Hi. I was wondering why you reverted my edits on Sicalis... I assume there must be a good reason, but as I'm a newbie at this Wiki I'd like to learn. :) Thanks in advance. Petillés (talk) 12:20, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello @Petillés: and thank you for your contributions! Wikispecies is very different from the other Wikimedia sister projects, especially in comparison to Wikipedia. While Wikipedia is a generally kept "all you can eat" encyclopaedia, 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 much else. That includes etymology, excluding the very rare exceptions when etymologies can actually add some important information in regards to taxonomy. In other words: Wikispecies always take on a much more scientific approach, while Wikipedia is more mainstream. For more information about this, please read What Wikispecies is not. Having said that, I'm aware of the fact that we do have some 5,500 pages that includes an unwelcome section about etymology – but as with all other Wikimedia sites, Wikispecies is a work in progress... :)
–Happy editing, and best regards! Tommy Kronkvist, 16:15, 9 November 2017 (UTC).
@Petillés: Well, I think that Wiktionary has already been playing the role at least in this case... Yours sincerely, Eryk Kij (talk) 17:36, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
@Tommy Kronkvist, エリック・キィ: Thank you so much for your nice replies! I was perfectly aware of the fact that Wikispecies isn't an all-you-can-eat Wikimedia project, so I searched for pages containing etymologies (finding lots of them) and I thought it was common practice. Anyway, Tommy is right: What Wikispecies is not makes it clear that paragraphs of prose aren't welcome. And Eryk, if you look carefully to the Wiktionary entry, you'll see it was me who added the info there, but I wasn't sure that putting it there was appropriate either. Kind regards to both, Petillés (talk) 18:37, 9 November 2017 (UTC).

Ficus sycomorus and F. sur[edit]

Thank you for guiding me, but I still have a question. Please see this book at pages 111 and 112, where the same local name Mukuyu (orthographically mũkũyũ) is given to the two different species. How should we cope with it? My solution was providing both of them with the same name. Is there any better means? There is at least one other case similar to this one. Yours sincerely, Eryk Kij (talk) 17:36, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

@エリック・キィ: A further investigation proves you correct: there are several species of Ficus called "mũkũyũ" in the Kikuyu language. In fact there is even a subspecies of butterfly carrying the word in its taxon name: Charaxes cynthia mukuyu (often feeding from fig trees). I've again added the Kikuyu vernacular name to the Ficus sur page. Kind regards, Tommy Kronkvist, 08:19, 10 November 2017 (UTC).

Tineidae incertae sedis[edit]


On 1 August this year, you deleted Tineidae incertae sedis. However there are 122 pages linking to it. Please can you review the situation? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:39, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi Andy. I'm on it – it will take about a day though. Thanks for the heads-up. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 21:54, 23 November 2017 (UTC).
This is taking quite a bit longer that anticipated. Partly because I suddenly got a lot of unexpected off-wiki work handed to me, but mostly due to that aside from the unwanted "Tineidae incertae sedis" links, almost all of the pages also lack all needed author templates, "Taxa named by author" categories, templated references and so forth. At least I'm now down to 60 pages, and the work continues. By tuesday it's all history. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 23:51, 26 November 2017 (UTC).
Yes check.svg Done. Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 18:08, 28 November 2017 (UTC).