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:


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]


We could to this in Swedish, but for the sake of other users, I write in English. Please take a look at and 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 ? 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).