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, 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, 23:51, 26 November 2017 (UTC).
 Done. Tommy Kronkvist, 18:08, 28 November 2017 (UTC).

Long hyphens[edit]

I thought we were using long hyphens now in citation page numbers. Neferkheperre (talk) 16:20, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

@Neferkheperre: Since December 2015 all of the examples in Help:Reference section use n-dash rather than m-dash. This is ISO standard and was also discussed in the talks companioning our poll about the References format (very briefly, at the very end of the thread). I have updated the "Help:Reference section" page to state this in wording as well, rather than only by example. –Tommy Kronkvist, 15:56, 14 December 2017 (UTC).

Modul #invoke:VN|main[edit]

Ahoj, všiml jsem si, že u některých species čerpáme Vernacular names z wikidat. V modulu je následující problém. Při doplňování jazyka čerpá modul kód jazyka z jazyků vyplněných v položce (P1843), ale nepřiřazuje k tomuto kódu jazyka příslušný popis. Ve Wikispecies se zobrazuje název článku uvedený v interwiki. Do článku Ophioglossum vulgatum jsem se snažil to správně vložit ve Wikidatech, ale neúspěšně. översättning (Translation) (Übersetzung) --Rosičák (talk) 18:17, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

@Rosičák: Thank you for the information, however when looking at it now I can't seem to find any errors. I guess it is possible that the edits made by @Orchi: (after your edits) have corrected the problem? Or, maybe I'm missing something...
Sending a "ping" to @Pigsonthewing: Do you (Andy) perhaps have any ideas or explanations? The Wikidata item at hand is Q847497. (Překlad do češtiny) (Deutsche Übersetzung)Tommy Kronkvist, 21:17, 18 December 2017 (UTC).
I'm relying on the Google Translation, so may be missing something: what's the error? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:54, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
Ahoj, chyba? je v tom, že se jméno nepřenáší z položky (P1843). Její vyplnění nebo nevyplnění nemá na přenos k nám asi vliv. Popis se pravděpodobně přenáší z popisu položky v příslušném jazyce (eliminovány jsou shody s vědeckým názvem). Experimentálně jsem ověřil (pozměněním údajů na Wikidatech), že se chybně přenáší pravopis prvního znaku z této položky. Malé písmeno je změněno na velké . To nezohledňuje správný pravopis. Správný pravopis bohužel nepodporují ani interwiki, tam je 1. znak vždy velký, což je v mnoha jazycích chybné.
Podobná šablona existuje i na Commons. Tam je přenos názvu korektní stačí vyplnit (P1843). Viz Commons Použitím tohoto přenosu získají 24 jazykových popisů. U nás to hodí 20 názvů.
Wikidata nyní obsahují 28 interwiki 28 jazykových popisů 21 jazykových popisů (bez těch shodných s vědeckým názvem), 13 obecných názvů taxonu v položce (P1843).translate--Rosičák (talk) 18:52, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
@Pigsonthewing: I don't speak Czech but if I understand correctly, the Wikispecies {{VN}} template (and/or {{#invoke:VN|main}} string) used for example on the Wikispecies page "Ophioglossum vulgatum" doesn't properly fetch data from the Wikidata property P1843 (labelled "taxon common name" and used for example by the equivalent Wikidata Q847497 "Ophioglossum vulgatum" item). Rosičák compares this with Template:VN on Commons which according to him works better. (For reference, see Ophioglossum vulgatum on Commons.) At the time of my writing the Wikidata item for Ophioglossum vulgatum lists vernacular names in 21 languages. All of those are also present on the Wikispecies' Ophioglossum vulgatum page but for some reason the Commons ditto lists a few extra, reaching a total of 23 languages. Thats the stats when I'm checking them, right now. The odd thing is that when Rosičák wrote his last message above he claimed that Wikidata listed 21 languages. Of those only 20 were shown on Wikispecies, all while Commons went overboard and listed a whopping 24... (N.b. alternative/duplicate vernacular names is not an issue here, since we're counting the number of languages, not names.) I suspect Wikispecies lacking one language is simply a cache issue, but I guess it could also be the result of a true error somewhere in the code. I haven't studied the templates in detail, but it's apparent that the code in the Commons VN template is a lot cleaner than the Wikispecies VN code (but still manages to fetch stuff that isn't present in the database...)
The user continues to say that the Wikispecies template always render the names with a leading capital letter: "Malé písmeno je změněno na velké" = "Small letter is changed to big". This is 1) wrong in many languages, 2) not consistent with the matching Wikidata P1843 entries for those languages, and 3) not how the Commons VN template works. On Wikispecies (and contrary to Commons) all of the vernacular names are listed on separate lines and therefore should always use caps anyway – just like any other word in the beginning of a sentence. Hence this particular bug/feature isn't really a concern to us, but since Rosičák took it up I mention it for the sake of completeness. –Tommy Kronkvist, 21:07, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification. I'm not a Lua coder, so can't help in that regard. However, I note that the Commons template's documentation says that "scientific name(s) are retrieved from wikicommons pagename plus wikidata property P225" (my emphasis). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:33, 20 December 2017 (UTC)


Thanks for editing Adenia

--I wish Merry Christmas R C Peña — The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 01:58, 26 December 2017

I guess you mean Adenia heterophylla. You're welcome. Happy New Year! –Tommy Kronkvist, 11:15, 27 December 2017 (UTC).

Muellerina eucalyptoides[edit]

I had a crack at Muellerina eucalyptoides on wikispecies.. I was hoping you might fix it up or tell me how to do so. (Thanks for the help you have already given). MargaretRDonald (talk) 00:00, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

@MargaretRDonald: Hi. The page looks alright – so thank you too! I added some links to author pages, links to ISSN pages, plus a reference template, APNI, JSTOR and "Repository link" templates. (The actual pages for the latter still needs to be created though: we're sadly behind on most of the repository pages, but that's of course not related to your edit.)
It is Wikispecies' praxis not to use external links to scientific journals etc in the "Name" or "Synonyms" sections. We only use "in-house" Wikispecies links to author pages there. All links to external (i.e. non-wiki) sites are usually found exclusively in the "References" section (or a subsection thereof). Hence I moved those links to the proper section.
As a final note apparently the APNI template needs some work for better functionality and legibility. However that's not related to "your" Muellerina page either, but rather needs to be fixed on the templates "own" page. I hope to be able to look into it in the next few days, but unfortunately I'm currently somewhat pressed for time. –Tommy Kronkvist, 08:41, 7 January 2018 (UTC).
Thanks for all this, Tommy MargaretRDonald (talk), 09:36, 7 January 2018 (UTC).
Thanks for reverting Tieghem, 1895. (and thanks for the template example) MargaretRDonald (talk), 01:17, 8 January 2018 (UTC).

An edit needed for Template:PWO[edit]

This attempt at a template is a failure.

The page Thymelaeaceae which uses it, should create the link to the appropriate page of Plants of the World online. That is, the code should retrieve the ipni reference code, recognise that ipni is referencing a family and then add #children, but if referencing a species do whatever is appropriate. (I have retained the incorrect referencing of Plants of the world in Thymelaeaceae below a correct reference, and one of the two needs deletion. MargaretRDonald (talk) 22:00, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

What do you do when a name is not the current (accepted) name?[edit]

e,g. in the pages Lagunaria & Lagunaria patersonii, Lagunara patersonii is given, but it is not the accepted name as can be seen when going to IPNI. The accepted name is Lagunaria patersonia. MargaretRDonald (talk) 08:55, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello @MargaretRDonald: This is clearly an error by the original editor(s) and it is difficult to understand how this occurred given the auto-correct in INPI and other sources. Maybe the editor did not go back to the basionym, but just to the protolgue. My understanding is that Art 23 of ICBN applies to the epithet patersonius, which as an adjective then automatically becomes the feminine patersonia and this is noted on the GRIN reference. Meanwhile both pages are pretty bad and need editing. I will do this as an example that you are free to follow in the future. In addition, Lagunaria patersonii has no legitimacy and is blanked and deleted and then given a brief appearance on the list of synonyms. On another point, this example shows why it is useful to date the synonyms in order to show priority of the orthological variants. Hope this helps and I will now get on with the edits. Andyboorman (talk) 19:07, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Smith, 1793[edit]

I disagree with your removal of the Wikispecies link from {{Smith, 1793}}. While the page is already linked to that via Wikidata - Q4659751 - i) the casual reader will not find it in a side-bar (as inded you did not!); and ii) the sidebar link will not appear on pages on which the template is transcluded. Unless there is some other reason for its removal, such as a prior consensus, please restore it. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:44, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing: The Wikisource link is actually fully visible in the left hand menu: see screenshot. It's marked with a yellow "featured text" star which makes it even more visible. Having said that, I see no harm in including the Wikisource link in the template, hence I've re-added it. Also, you're of course right in that the sidebar link will not appear on pages on which the template is transcluded. Kind regards, Tommy Kronkvist, 19:25, 20 January 2018 (UTC).

Penny Rose Smith[edit]

Tommy, can you handle this? "I'm Penny Rose Smith. I have created an account on Wiki Species to join the project. Could you give me a welcome page on my talk page and give me some tips, advice and some starters to help me?"
— The preceding unsigned comment was added by PeterR (talkcontribs) 16:24, 23 January 2018.

@PeterR: I saw her message on your talk page. I'm a bit busy right now but yes, I will see to it soon. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 16:51, 23 January 2018 (UTC).

Listing an author's taxa[edit]

Hi Tommy, I have been adding 'Category: X taxa' at the bottom of taxa entries. However, not all taxa entry names correspond to the taxa name, because of the need for disambiguation. The problem can be seen if you check the taxa listed for Robert Brown. I am hoping that some smart wiki-person can fix the problem where taxa such as 'Nelsonia (ICBN)' and 'Drymophila R.Br.' are listed. MargaretRDonald (talk) 21:16, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi @MargaretRDonald: I’m on the road right now, but will sort it out as soon as I have access to a real computer (rather than my phone which I’m using at the moment). Also, please note that there should be no space after the colon in category nsmes. After all this isn’t English – it’s wiki code! :-) Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 10:09, 26 January 2018 (UTC).

Mueller reference templates[edit]

Hi Tommy, I am struggling to build

How should I deal with Eucalyptus dealbata?[edit]

Hi @Tommy Kronkvist:. If you follow the APC link to Eucalyptus dealbata you can see that this species has now been subdivided into various full species and that E. dealbata only exists as a subspecies of itself. I am not sure how to handle this in Wikispecies.. Your thoughts would be most appreciated. MargaretRDonald (talk) 01:58, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello @MargaretRDonald: and Tommy. I read APC differently to you. I see just Eucalyptus dealbata as an accepted species with no subdivisions. Eucalyptus dealbata var. chloroclada Blakely is now Eucalyptus chloroclada (Blakely) L.A.S.Johnson & K.D.Hill and also Eucalyptus dealbata var. populnea Blakely is Eucalyptus infera A.R.Bean. They are in light blue in the list. However WCSP also shows the following homotypic synonyms for Eucalyptus dealbata - Eucalyptus viminalis var. dealbata (A.Cunn. ex Schauer) C.Moore & Betche, Handb. Fl. N.S.W.: 202 (1893), Eucalyptus tereticornis var. dealbata (A.Cunn. ex Schauer) H.Deane & Maiden, Proc. Linn. Soc. New South Wales 24: 466 (1899) and Eucalyptus umbellata var. dealbata (A.Cunn. ex Schauer) Domin, Biblioth. Bot. 89: 1021 (1928). Hope this helps. Andyboorman (talk) 10:10, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Tech Ambassador[edit]

Tommy, with your interest in scripts and technology, and in general being such a helpful person, I wonder if I may interest you for a function called tech ambassador, technically-minded volunteers who help other Wikimedians with technical issues, and act as a bridge between developers and local Wikimedia wikis. One goal of the ambassadors network is to make sure that users are notified of technical discussions and possible changes that impact them. The other goal is for users to get involved as peers in the development process, so that they can inform and guide software development, not just provide feedback after it's done. Dan Koehl (talk) 02:36, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Hej @Dan Koehl: Yes, that is very interesting. I've actually been nurturing similar thoughts fo quite some time now, and think that the community would benefit from such a feature. I would gladly accept becoming a tech ambassador, but think we should bring it up at the Administrators' noticeboard first. Best regards, –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 14:42, 18 February 2018 (UTC).
This function is just an informative, in fact every WS member can sign up if they want, so theres not really any need to run through Administrators' noticeboard, except for giving information. If you woud care to join, thats great, just sign up tech hereDan Koehl (talk) 14:45, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
 Done. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 14:56, 18 February 2018 (UTC).

Adding disambiguation pages[edit]

Hi Tommy, I was trying to add some plant genera with the same names as animal genera, and have no idea how to go about it. I was hoping you might point me in the right direction... Regards, MargaretRDonald (talk) 02:36, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Hello @MargaretRDonald: For homonyms we usually add the family name within parentesis to the page name, i.e. "Genus (Familia)". Please also add any suitable pages to List of valid homonyms. –Best regards, Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 14:41, 18 February 2018 (UTC).
Thanks @Tommy Kronkvist:, MargaretRDonald (talk) 22ː53, 18 February 2018 (UTC).