User talk:Tommy Kronkvist

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

Rosibot?

To advance the internationalization of the project ... I propose to comment on this proposal dated 11.10.2018.--Rosičák (talk) 18:22, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

@Rosibot and Rosičák: The bot is now approved for trial; please see Wikispecies:Bots/Requests for approval#Rosibot and the links found there. –Best regards, Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 03:03, 26 November 2018 (UTC),

Setting up disambiguation page for 2 different genera

Hello, I've just set up new page Heinsenia (Tropiduchidae). But if you enter "Heinsenia" into the "Search Wikispecies" box in the upper right hand corner, you will only get one page reference to "Heinsenia" in Regnum: Plantae. How do you get the search results to show both "Heinsenia" pages and allow a user to choose which one they want? --Nytexcome (talk) 08:27, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

@Nytexcome: Sorry for my very late reply, but unfortunately my computer is out of order. As you know from his talk page, Thiotrix has already been kind enough to take care of the problem and also explained our praxis. Hence I guess the matter is settled. Happy editing! –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 23:17, 25 November 2018 (UTC).

to undo a redirect for a questionable synonym

Hello,
I'm still quite new here and trying to learn the many different aspects of editing. My question is: if and how I would go about undoing a synonym redirect. The genus in question is Raorhynchus in Familia Rhadinorhynchidae which has a redirect to genus Rhadinorhynchus as a synonym. I question the validity of this synonym since the following sources all show Raorhynchus to be a valid genus: Catalogue of Life, ITIS, BioLib, WoRMS, GBIF & IRMNG. Unless some other authority can show this to be a synonym, it would seem proper to undo this redirect and set up a page for Raorhynchus (which I will be happy to do). I just don't know how to undo the redirect. What do you think? Thanks for any help you can give. Nytexcome (talk) 04:36, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Request of Translation Adminship on "Recent changes" page

Hello Tommy Kronkvist, I just noticed, that the headings of the "Recent changes" page still announce (with yellow marks) the latest request of Translation Adminship, although this was already finished. Kind regards, --Thiotrix (talk) 14:50, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

 Done, I removed it, @Thiotrix:. Dan Koehl (talk) 06:59, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

@Thiotrix and Dan Koehl: Thank you both. Not only is my computer acting up these days but I'm also on travel, hence can only contribute with the bare necessities. Things will be back in (and in better-than-ever) good order around New Year. Merry Christmas! –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 23:55, 21 December 2018 (UTC).

Template Qx

Hi, I do not disturb the existing Q template, I have exported the Q template from the Commons under the title Qx for practical use in the article PRC, see also https://species.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:Charles_University the template makes it easy to internationalize the terms introduced as a Wikidata entry. --Rosičák (talk) 02:30, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Greetings

Good day Tommy Kronkvist,
I wish you festive holidays and for the year 2019 all the best for you.
May bring us all the new year a peaceful coexistence.
Best greetings. Orchi (talk) 17:34, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

@Orchi: Thank you for your kind words. Season's Greetings, and I wish you a happy 2019 too! –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 18:30, 23 December 2018 (UTC).

Pravopis?/Spelling?

Ahoj, všiml jsem si uzavření žádosti o komentář. Pokud to dobře chápu, tak i když je správný pravopis požadován, závěr přikazuje psaní velkého písmene na začátku názvu? Rád bych se mýlil a pokračoval ve vkládání pravopisně správných tvarů. --Rosičák (talk) 16:31, 11 January 2019 (UTC) / Hello, I noticed closing my comment request. If I understand it well, even if the correct spelling is required, the conclusion commands writing a big letter at the beginning of the title? I would like to be mistaken and proceed with the insertion of orthographically correct shapes.--Rosičák (talk) 16:31, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes, the first letter in the list of vernacular names should be in an upper case ("big") letter. The reason is that the list of vernacular names is just that: a list. It is not body text ("tělo textu"), and all items in a list should start with a capital ("big") letter. This is also standard for the names/titles of all wiki pages. Or, as stated in Help:Vernacular names section: "Titles of the articles in interwiki always begin with a capital letter (Sentence case). The Vernacular names list should follow suit, even when the within-sentence convention for vernacular names is in lower case in some languages."

So, using Parus major as an example, the VN template could look like this:

{{VN

|cs=Sýkora koňadra

|de=Kohlmeise

|en=Great Tit

|fr=Mésange charbonnière

}}

That will be shown like this:

čeština: Sýkora koňadra
Deutsch: Kohlmeise
English: Great Tit
français: Mésange charbonnière

"sýkora koňadra" or "mésange charbonnière" etc. would be incorrect, since sentences and list items should normally alway start with a capital letter. In English, all of the words in a VN list should start with a big letter (i.e. "Big Tit") since that is the standard for that particular language. This is also stated in the RfC discussion: "The rule of sentence case should be extended to "Title Case" for languages with such a praxis." However in most other languages (Czech, French, Swedish etc) the normal rule is not to use caps for the second word in a name: hence, "Sýkora Koňadra" would also be incorrect.

–Best regards, Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 17:15, 11 January 2019 (UTC).

Promiň, ale to je nesmysl. Buď to má být pravopisně správně, a potom budu do té sekce svobodně doplňovat. Nebo to má být pravopisně správně s velkými písmeny na začátku a můžu doplňovat názvy jen do některých jazyků, kde je to pravopisně je například do němčiny./

Sorry, but that's nonsense. Either it should be spelled correctly, and then I will be free to add to that section. Or, it should be spelled correctly with capital letters at the beginning, and I can only add names to some languages where it is spelling for example in German.--Rosičák (talk) 18:01, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

My opinion on spelling

So, using Parus major as an example, the VN template could look like this:

{{VN

|cs=sýkora koňadra

|de=Kohlmeise

|en=great tit

|fr=mésange charbonnière

}}

That will be shown like this:

čeština: sýkora koňadra
Deutsch: Kohlmeise
English: great tit
français: mésange charbonnière

--Rosičák (talk) 18:01, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Why "Kohlmeise" (German standard) but not "Great Tit" (English standard)?

–Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 18:16, 11 January 2019 (UTC).

Please also note that for example Haliaeetus pelagicus, both of the following are incorrect:

{{VN

|cs=Orel východní, Orel kamčatský, Bělokřídlý, Stellerův

}}

and

{{VN

|cs=orel východní, orel kamčatský, bělokřídlý, stellerův

}}

These and all other similar combinations are incorrect (or at least unrecommended), since there should always only be one (1) vernacular name per language.

–Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 18:35, 11 January 2019 (UTC).

The great tit (Parus major) is a passerine bird in the tit family Paridae. It is a widespread and common species throughout Europe, the Middle East, Central and Northern Asia, and parts of North Africa where it is generally resident in any sort of woodland; most great tits do not migrate except in extremely harsh winters. Until 2005 this species was lumped with numerous other subspecies. DNA studies have shown these other subspecies to be distinctive from the great tit and these have now been separated as two distinct species, the cinereous tit of southern Asia, and the Japanese tit of East Asia. The great tit remains the most widespread species in the genus Parus.

Die Kohlmeise (Parus major) ist eine Vogelart aus der Familie der Meisen (Paridae). Sie ist die größte und am weitesten verbreitete Meisenart in Europa. Ihr Verbreitungsgebiet erstreckt sich jedoch noch weiter bis in den Nahen Osten und durch die gemäßigte Zone Asiens bis nach Fernost.

--Rosičák (talk) 18:43, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a good encyclopedia, but contrary to Wikispecies it is not very scientific. Almost all formal lists (e.g. IOC, BSBI, MSW, etc.) use "Title Case" (e.g. Great Tit, Blue Whale) when listing English vernacular names. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 18:50, 11 January 2019 (UTC).

If Wikispecies does not promote the correct spelling, it will drop to a completely wall level.--Rosičák (talk) 18:56, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Exactly, and I agree. The correct capitalization of English vernacular names within scientific journals is title case. In other words: Great Tit, Blue Whale, and Brown Bear = correct. To instead write great tit, blue whale and brown bear is not correct! The English Wikipedia does it wrong. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 19:03, 11 January 2019 (UTC).

Pokud jsem pochopil tvoje vyjádření správně, je to tak, že v aglickojazyčných vědeckých publikacích jinou formou zápisu taxonů v anglickém jazyce nenajdu./If I understand your point correctly, it's like I will not find in English-language scientific publications another form of taxonomy in English.--Rosičák (talk) 03:25, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand... Vernacular names has nothing to do with taxonomy.

On a broader scale, one thing is important to remember: in (proper) English they often use uppercase letters for a lot of things. Not only for vernacular names of taxa, but also for many mundane words such as weekdays and months (for example "Thursday", "September"). This is not very common in other languages, where we almost always use lowercase letters (for example Czech "čtvrtek", "září", or Swedish "torsdag", "september"). –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 03:50, 12 January 2019 (UTC).

@Rosičák: As I am a native English speaker, I can say that Tommy is absolutely correct. To suggest that WS will drop to wall level by adopting native conventions found on the sources is incorrect. In addition, indulging in edit wars over this relatively unimportant feature of a taxonomic site is disrespectful, potentially hurtful and contrary to policy. Andyboorman (talk) 20:09, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

@Andyboorman: Možná máš pravdu, když mluvíš o angličtině. Smutné ovšem je, pokud ministerstva v USA tyto chybné názvy používají ve svých publikacích a my na wikidatech to používáme jako zdroj. V angličtině zdá se panuje nekonzistence (ani v dokumentech EU nepanuje konzistence ohledně těchto názvů), ale nemusejí to snad odnést jiné jazyky, kde je 100% konzistence. Nezlob se na mě, ale pochybné údaje vkládat nehodlám. To je radši vkládat nebudu vůbec. To stejné platí, pokud pochybnosti nemám, ale měl bych vložit názvy pravopisně chybně.--Rosičák (talk) 03:00, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

@Rosičák: Thank you for your kind reply and I am sorry if I caused upset. You are right about the lack of consistency across the English language that is why Tommy and others are trying to introduce it here based upon the agreed praxis we discussed, so that at least WS shows a degree of commonality. We have not got separate templates for EN UK, EN US, EN Aus and so on, so for now it would be best to stick with EN UK I feel. Thanks for your valued contributions. Andyboorman (talk) 09:16, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

@Andyboorman: A bit off topic, but I take the opportunity to inform you that VN support for most of those regional variations is in the making. This includes Australian English, Brazilian Portuguese, Austrian German, and a bunch of others. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 09:44, 12 January 2019 (UTC).

CS

v češtině jsou názvy taxonů s malým písmenem s touto vyjimkou.: pokud je název species odvozena od vlastního jména osoby, v tomto případě orel Sellerův nebo kůň Przevalského/ in Czech there are lower taxon names with this exception: if the species name is derived from the person's own name, in this case the vendor eagle or the Przevalski horse.--Rosičák (talk) 19:06, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I think this is the true for almost all languages. It is the same in Swedish too (my mother tongue). This includes vernacular names derived from any proper noun, e.g. VN names with names of persons (Stellerův → Georg Wilhelm Steller), countries, cities, etc. However, those are special cases. Most vernacular names do not include such names. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 19:20, 11 January 2019 (UTC).

V češtině je pravopis psaní velkých písmen u taxonů podřízen obecnému pravopisu. Na názvy taxonů není nahlíženo jako na vlastní jména a píší se tedy s malými písmeny, pokud tedy neobsahují jiná vlastní jména osob. Většinou to jsou votivní pojmenování po různých biologech, které znáte i z vědeckých jmen, kde se ovšem píší s malým písmenem ve species. Z obecného pravopisu vyplývá i to, že druhové jméno taxonu v češtině tvoří téměř výhradně adjektiva a z toho důvodu se píší s malým i taková pojmenování, která jsou odvozena od vlastních jmen jako je Praha, Rakousko, Malajsie, Evropa tedy smrž pražský, pramenka rakouská, medvěd malajský, ochmet evropský.--Rosičák (talk) 02:55, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

I understand that, but again: we are not talking about vernacular names in a body text ("tělo textu"). I fully understand that you would use lowercase letters for vernacular names in, for example, a newspaper, an article, the main text in a book, or on a Wikispecies talk page. We do that in Swedish too (and in French, Italian, Hungarian, Russian, etc., etc...) In that case it is of course correct to use lowercase (for example "vrabec domácí, vrabec polní, karas obecný, a jelen lesní" in an article about European wildlife.) Everything else would be wrong. But the vernacular names list in Wikispecies is NOT text in an article or book – it is a list, like this:

• Vrabec domácí
• Vrabec polní
• Karas obecný
• Jelen lesní

Surely that is different, is it not? –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 03:18, 12 January 2019 (UTC).

V češtině je pravopis taxonů naprosto konzistentní. V žádném českojazyčném odborném časopise nenajdete uprosřed věty výraz Vrabec polní. VN nejsou seznamem. Je to spíše formulář. Z tohoto důvodu je velmi podivné, když vyplivně čeština:Vrabec polní. Je to zavádějící. Řekněme do očí bijící a znedůvěryhodňuje to přesnost projektu. Pokud se tuto chybu někdo znalý pokusí opravit a následně to někdo opraví zpět, nejspíš si zaťuká na čelo a bude informacím zde trochu méně věřit.--Rosičák (talk) 03:45, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Sooner or later, it is very possible that the vernacular names will be automatically linked to the different language versions of Wikipedia, via Wikidata. That is why the Vernacular names section Help page say "Titles of the articles in interwiki always begin with a capital letter (Sentence case). The Vernacular names list should follow suit, even when the within-sentence convention for vernacular names is in lower case in some languages." The purpose is that we should follow the same standard for linking, as all the other Wikimedia sister projects do. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 04:19, 12 January 2019 (UTC).

Ono to propojování už dávno probíhá. Problém bude, když do toho budeme vnášet pravopisné chyby zde na projektu. No nic. Tady asi nic nevyřeším. Vzhledem k tomu, že názvy chybně vkládat nechci a vzhledem k tomu, že Ústav pro jazyk český výhledově měnit pravopis taxonů nehodlá, s vkládáním chybných dat končím.--Rosičák (talk) 06:49, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Já plnně souhlasím s argumentací Rosičáka. Já si myslím, že nějaký Tommy Kronkvist nebo nějaký [Projekt Wikidruhy] nemají právo prznit češtinu (a jak předpokládám, tak i velké množství dalších jazyků). Aby to lépe pochopili neústupní zastánci kapitálek, doporučuji jim velmi důkladně si prostudovat politiku wikislovníků (např. wikt:cs:Wikislovník:Název článku, wikt:en:Wiktionary:Entry titles, wikt:es:Wikcionario:Convenciones para nombrar entradas, wikt:pl:Wikisłownik:Nazewnictwo a mnoho dalších). Pokud ten názor, že i [Projekt Wikidruhy] musí respektovat pravidla pravopisu každého použitého jazyka v jím použitém názvu nebude respektován, i já odmítnu dále přispívat do tohoto projektu. I fully agree with Rosičák's argues. In my opinion, some Tommy Kronkvist or some [Project Wikispecies] has no right to rape Czech language (and, as I suppose, also a large amount of other languages). For better understanding to obdurate/uncompromising supporters of Capitals in VN, I recommend them very thoroughly read up the policy of Wictionaries (e. g. - see above - and many others). If thus opinion, that either [Project Wikispecies] must follow grammar rules of every respective language in every respective used Vernacular Name will not be respected, I'll quit of editations on [Project Wikispecies] too. And I'm afraid, that so will do other editors too. --Kusurija (talk) 10:23, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

But in Vernacular names the list does not sound:

• Vrabec polní
  

but

• čeština: vrabec polní
  

so entry

• čeština: Vrabec polní
  

is totally wrong. If You would calculate with argue, that it is the list, so it would follow as

• Čeština: vrabec polní
  --Kusurija (talk) 18:36, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

So what?? --Kusurija (talk) 06:16, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

@Kusurija: One problem is that as a database, Wikispecies should handle all data of a certain type in the same way. When possible, all author pages should be formatted in the same way, all categories should be constructed in the same way, all templates should follow the same standard, and so forth. This is also true for the list of vernacular names. Wikispecies can currently be presented in any of 32 different languages, and for the vast majority of them "Title case" (as desribed in Help:Vernacular names section) is correct. Sadly this may become a problem in some of the languages, but I guess the majority rules... Another example of this is how we have agreed to format author names. As explained in Help:Author Names all middle name initials should be written without spacing, i.e. written as "Gerald A.H. Bedford" and not "Gerald A. H. Bedford". This strikes many users as odd and some – including many of those with English as their mother tongue – even find it outright wrong. Nevertheless we have had this up for vote too, and the outcome of the poll clearly states that the majority prefers the format without spaces. This may be wrong in some languages, but since there is only one version of Wikispecies and that one version must simultaneously serve all the people on Earth regardless of their language, we will sometimes have to make compromises. It's of course easier on Wikipedia where there is one WP version for each language, and every single Wikipedia is supposed to be monolingual. Unfortunately, here at Wikispecies we don't have that luxury. Best regards, Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 08:42, 1 March 2019 (UTC).

ja

@Tommy Kronkvist:Your argue "there should always only be one (1) vernacular name per language" is not good for japanese language, as official names are all written in katakana fonetically. Maybe you do not know, but in japanese there is much, very much higher percentage of homofonity, so official vernacular names usually are not clear to understand enough in japanese (not in all cases, but, frequently enough). So in japanese language should follow to be at least official VN in katakana and VN in kanji too. So there in japanese should sometimes (in these of japanese (not of english or other european) origin) be more, than one (1) vernacular name. I suppose, that similar situation, where should exist better more, than one VN, might occur in some other languages too. But, I agree, that should not be obsolete or vulgar/folklor names. Absolutely. --Kusurija (talk) 19:23, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Vernacular names

Moved to User talk:PixelVulpix#Vernacular names were the discussion started.)

Odd reason

@Tommy Kronkvist: [tech] At your User page you write: "By some odd reason you only get the full captions, links and all, if you hover from the bottom of the images and up, rather from the top or sides." – i.e.: only if you hover the caption. When hovering from the bottom of the image and up, you are hovering the caption, hence expanding it to full caption. When hovering from either other side, you may not be hovering the caption, hence not expanding it to full caption. This explaniation may help you. Sincerely, -- Bartvs (talk) 23:10, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

@Bartvs: Thanks. I've also noticed that the behavior differs depending on which web browser and/or operating system is used. Best regards, Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 23:15, 3 March 2019 (UTC).

I am afraid that the number of possible combinations of web browsers en OSs is rather flabbergasting. I feel obliged to confess that I didn't test all of those. Kind regards, -- Bartvs (talk) 23:39, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

@Bartvs: Well... most of us don't, even though I cover the vast majority of the most common combinations. I use macOS in my everyday work (software development, mostly) and edit Wikispecies pages using Safari, the macOS native browser. Microsoft Edge and Internet Explorer aren't available for the Mac OS, however I also run Windows 10 on my Macs (natively, using dual-boot) hence can use those browsers as well. Furthermore, for compatibility checks I occasionally also use Google Chrome, Mozilla Firefox and Opera in both macOS and Windows. I also sometimes boot into Debian 9 using a whole array of more or less obscure browsers, but I can't really say I'm a big fan of Linux so it doesn't happen very often anymore.

Anyway, these days I'm no longer really bothered about the "caption hover oddity" on my Wikispecies user page, but I let the note about it still remain there – mostly simply to give other users a hint about how to be able to read the full captions in the best way. Quite frankly I should redesign my user page altogether, since I've noticed that with some screen resolutions the pictures are way too big or disarranged. Then again, there's a lot more important stuff to take care of here than my user page.. :-)

As always, feel free to ask any questions you may have, and all suggestions about how to improve Wikispecies are of course also welcome. Regards, Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 00:16, 4 March 2019 (UTC).

ResearchGate

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 (talk), 11:52, 15 March 2019 (UTC).

Deleting valid author data

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.

• Andrei G. Lukhnev (for Boreusyrtis)  Done.
• Charles Émile Blanchard (for Temnocephalida)  Done.
• Georges Du Plessis (for Otoplana)  Done.
• Nils Gustaf Erland von Hofsten (for Otomesostomatidae)  Done.
• Jerzy Kolasa (for Ventrociliella)  Done.
• Albert Mervyn Olsen (for Acholadidae)  Done.
• Otto Steinböck (for Lithophora)  Done.
• Werner Armonies (for Nesite)  Done.

Best regards, Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 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 (talk), 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

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 (talk), 22:40, 4 April 2019 (UTC).