User talk:Tommy Kronkvist/Archive 2015–2016

From Wikispecies
Latest comment: 7 years ago by Tommy Kronkvist in topic Re Template:VN
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This is an archive of closed discussions. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this archive.


I suggest it would have been more useful to add the missing doi, rather than removing the doi template. Don't you agree? Stho002 (talk) 20:58, 18 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

Indeed, however I couldn't find it. Thank you for adding it. Tommy Kronkvist, 21:02, 18 January 2015 (UTC).Reply
To find it, you could have clicked on the journal link, then on the link to the journal website, and then looked in the relevant issue contents. It all makes sense if you think about it. Stho002 (talk) 21:05, 18 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

Login problem with templates

Tommy, I noticed that you edited Template Garcia et al. which according to PeterR, made his computer to logout. I looked on the content on that template, and couldn see anything strange, and I gather, that you had no issues, when editing the Template?

If you have any further ideas what could have caused Peters problem, please kindly add you views on PeterR:s talk page, Dan Koehl (talk) 13:41, 7 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hello Dan. Yes, I saw your correspondence with Peter regarding his issue with the template(s), and that was the main reason for me editing it. As far as I can tell there is nothing wrong or odd about the template at hand, and I didn't have any problems with it whatsoever. I will surely follow it up with Peter if I get any new information, but right now it seems most likely to have been a temporary fluke; though whether the problem originated from Peter's web browser or from the Wikimedia servers, I cannot say. All the best, Tommy Kronkvist, 11:50, 8 February 2015 (UTC).Reply

Template loop Agamidae

While checking to see if one Zootaxa article had been stubbed into its proper taxon page, I got "Template loop" message. It went as high as Agamidae, so it must be higher. I am not very familiar with troubleshooting that. I could not see anything obviously wrong. Could you check it out and let me know what you did to fix it? Neferkheperre (talk) 00:56, 14 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

Ananda suguthan

I just now deleted this page, then scrolled down to find you did same 1 hour ago. ??? Maybe we should keep eyes out. Neferkheperre (talk) 23:05, 28 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

@Neferkheperre:, I blocked the account User:Anandusugathan. Those kind of spam articles by registered users should be easier to find and identify, when most trusted users are autopatrolled. Articles created which are not patrolled can be find easily at hidden patrolled pages. Dan Koehl (talk) 23:16, 28 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

Clarification please?

Does case make any difference in categories? My shift key is erratic at times, and I accidentally discovered that first letter after left hand brackets and first letter after ":" are invariably capitalized. When saved, those capitalizations are invoked. Neferkheperre (talk) 14:08, 4 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

Yes, caps or not can brake a category link, but not always. It is all rather confusing. In some cases there is a redirect in place to amend common unintentional errors. For instance, there is a difference between Category:Taxon Authorities and Category:Taxon authorities – the first one is the "real" category, while the latter actually only leads to a redirect page to the first. When using either one of them it is easy to spot the difference, after clicking the "Show preview" button. If you use the proper category name, the category shows up in plain style at the bottom of the page, but if you use the incorrect one it is rendered in italics. Then again, in some other cases there seems to be no difference whatsoever. As an example, both Category:Repositories and Category:repositories end up in the first category, seemingly without any redirecting going on if you chose the all-lower case alternative. Lastly, and more important, in some cases the capitalisation makes all the difference. For instance, using Category:ISSN will be all well and dandy, but using any other combination such as Category:Issn, Category:iSsn or Category:issn will not work at all, but instead render a red link. Weird as it may seem, there is an exception even to this, since Category:iSSN will work… See here for a screenshot with examples: Catcase.jpg
The underlaying reasons for all of this is thus far not apparent to me, but I actually pondered upon the matter just the other day, and will be sure to look into it soon. Until then and as in most cases, simply preview your edits before you hit "Save page", and then make any necessary corrections accordingly. :-)
–All the best, Tommy Kronkvist, 16:07, 4 March 2015 (UTC).Reply
I shall go back to old system then. I have noticed that first letter to right of colon is invariably capitalized in final save no matter what I want. I had one instance where I wanted all lower case, but couldn't get it. Neferkheperre (talk) 18:54, 4 March 2015 (UTC)Reply
Yes, I don't know of any category with a name that starts with lower caps. I guess that by using the so called "magic word" {{DISPLAYTITLE:title}} it would be technically possible to make a category page look like its name begins with a lower case character. However, that would only be a question of on-screen presentation: the actual category name (i.e. its document filename on the Wiki-servers) would still begin with a capital letter. (The "displaytitle" magic word has its place anyway, especially on the different language versions of Wikipedia: it is mainly used for articles with trade names, such as "iPad" and "µTorrent".)
By the way, this issue is not exclusive for categories – the same goes for template names. You must use the correct capitalisation for templates, since an improper use wont work. Hence {{ITIS}} will be okay, but not {{Itis}} or {{Itis}}. I don't think there are any Wikispecies templates starting with a lower case letter. They all start with a capital letter, but then it gets complicated. Some of them use upper case for the first letter only, while others are all-caps, using capital letters for the entire name. Please be aware that this behaviour differ between sister projects! For instance, the template names in the Swedish language version of Wiktionary exclusively use lower case, also for the first letter. –Tommy Kronkvist, 20:36, 4 March 2015 (UTC).Reply


Thanks, Tommy-"Genus" was purely an oversight on my part. When I get a chance to put some more thought into it, I'd actually like to work on an expansion of Help pages/best practices, at least for botany. I don't want to initiate a lot of "rules enforcement", but I think if we all got together, we could probably get consensus on about 80% or 90% of formatting, and describe a few clear alternatives for the areas where we didn't agree. I know I feel more comfortable contributing data when there are community-supported rules (because it's less likely I'll have to go back and redo things later, even voluntarily), and it would probably let us use a few more templates so we'd spend less time typing formatting.

Let me know what you think. I feel that because of the way the site was run until recently, the community was discouraged from trying to discuss and reach agreement on subjects like "what types of data should we store on WikiSpecies?" or "What references should we include on pages?" If we do that all at once, it will overwhelm us, but I think we could use some more of that as we go forward. Choess (talk) 18:10, 5 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

The bot

Hallo Tommy, I just wonder how much you have developed the bot previoulsy discussed? The reason why Im asking is because I made a request to Pathoschild regarding the bot, and now Im not sure as if the request should be cancelled, or renewed with detailed specifications? Dan Koehl (talk) 10:14, 17 March 2015 (UTC)Reply


Thanks a lof for doing some patrolling! Dan Koehl (talk) 13:58, 17 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, I do what I can. Tommy Kronkvist, 13:00, 18 March 2015 (UTC).Reply

The bot

Here is the discussion, and I think if more opinions rise, like it should be updated every second hour, its easy to change. More updates will not bring any cimplications or bad consequences. Dan Koehl (talk) 20:36, 21 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

Har du sett förändringarna efter hjälpen från Italienarna? Ett nytt skript som integrerar panorama bilder med länktext automatiskt. väldig skillnad, kul att de dök upp och villa hjälpa till. Dan Koehl (talk) 02:48, 22 March 2015 (UTC)Reply
Snyggt! Själv sitter jag och jobbar med att bli kvitt de artiklar som saknar "standard taxon formatting". Har hunnit med ett tiotal idag. Dag och dag förresten… :-P Tommy Kronkvist, 03:16, 22 March 2015 (UTC).Reply
Bra där, vad skönt att bli av med dem. det känns som operation storstädning inletts på WS! Dan Koehl (talk) 03:27, 22 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

Non-standard taxon formatting

Thanks for a good job with the Non-standard taxon formatting. Dan Koehl (talk) 15:38, 22 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

I'm glad to be of service, to the benefit of the community. –Tommy Kronkvist, 15:45, 22 March 2015 (UTC).Reply
Vad tror du om mallen, är det hans egen katalog över gjorda sidor i början e.d.? Ser ingenting relevant i denna gömda mall. Dan Koehl (talk) 00:06, 28 March 2015 (UTC)Reply
Hej. Jag upptäckte den för ett par månader sedan, och det verkar ju i princip bara vara en mall för att slippa skriva Species: ''Vetenskapligt namn'' efter ==Name== rubriken. Det är faktiskt rätt smidigt på sätt och vis. Istället för "Species: Vetenskapligt namn" skriver man bara {{Spage}} och det vetenskapliga namnet hämtas automatiskt från "BASEPAGENAME", komplett med dubbla apostrofer så att det genereras med kursiver. Den stora fördelen är att man minskar risken för att stava artnamnet fel – förutsatt att själva artikeln har rätt namn – men i övrigt förstår jag inte vad mallen fyller för funktion. Exempelvis måste man ju fortfarande fylla på med auktorsnamn direkt efteråt.
Jag ser flera problem med mallen, och anser att den bör raderas. Först och främst känns det som att vi inte bör förvirra nya användare med ytterligare en för "nybörjarna" kanske lite svårbegriplig mall, särskilt i en så pass viktig del av sidornas kod som själva artnamnen. Haken är dock att mallen är rätt vanlig, och om man utan omsvep raderar den så kommer artnamnet automatiskt försvinna från "Name"-sektionen på fler än 8 000 artsidor… Studerar man mallens kod ser man dessutom att den hämtar data från en annan mall, {{Title without disambig}}, som jag inte riktigt begriper vad den gör. Och för att ytterligare komplicera hämtar den mallen i sin tur data från flera andra mallar…
Innan {{Spage}}-mallen raderas bör man alltså först studera och sedan åtgärda dessa detaljer. Men vad mig anbelangar får den gärna flyga och fara efter det… :-) Tommy Kronkvist, 00:53, 28 March 2015 (UTC).Reply
Bra synpunkter som vanligt. Med AWB som jag använder för rensningen är det lätt att radera en en textsträng och ersätta med vad som helst annat utan större krångel, jag kan göra det på tusentals sidor på någon timme. Just nu har jag hittat massor med stumpar, utan referenser etc. märker upp dem. Jag såg att du tog upp det på pumpen, låt oss se vad andra tycker. Men vad är det sinnrikaste att ersätta den med? Dan Koehl (talk) 01:15, 28 March 2015 (UTC)Reply
Stort tack för input, åsikter och ideer, och jag noterade att du har samjobbat lite, raderat kategorier m.m. Nu några timmars sömn för mig. God natt! Dan Koehl (talk) 06:30, 28 March 2015 (UTC)Reply
Varsågod, jag gör vad jag kan. Och tack själv – du har ju fått en himla rulle på redigerandet de sista dagarna! Angående samjobbet så upplever jag att vi (dvs inte bara du och jag, utan hela communityn) erhåller bättre resultat om vi tar tag i några fåtal ämnen i taget, och är flera om att jobba mot några få gemensamma, begränsade och framför allt väl definierade mål. Tillsammans med det faktum att jag mer eller mindre dygnet runt håller ett vakande öga på "Recent changes" blir det då ganska enkelt för mig att hjälpa till med några extra spadtag på de ställen där det för stunden är mest aktivitet. Sakta men säkert arbetar jag mig igenom mina vänner tandkarparna också. Tidigare i morse avslutade jag den sista art-artikeln för Pamphorichthys – ett släkte som jag så sent som till för bara någon dag sedan hade glömt bort att det fanns… Det är säkert minst tvåhundra rödlänkade killi-arter kvar, men jag räknar vara klar med hela Cyprinodontiformes innan maj månads utgång, alltså även levandefödarna. Sammanlagt säkert åtminstone fyrahundra arter, men det går undan när jag sätter fart.
Hoppas du fick en god stunds sömn; själv tänkte jag både påbörja och avsluta något litet släkte till innan jag knyter mig i några timmar. –Tommy Kronkvist, 08:53, 28 March 2015 (UTC).Reply

I have started to go through those pages again, and remove the double en: links. Dan Koehl (talk) 12:53, 29 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

Great, since they can be confusing and if nothing else makes the code look sloppy. Yesterday I tried to help out by manually removing a few of them, but soon realised that AWB made a very swift job of putting them back in… –Tommy Kronkvist, 15:45, 29 March 2015 (UTC).Reply
Good. Please also see the latest discussions on Village pump, where I have made suggestions of starting to reorganize WS, establishing working groups and setting up project pages. The sooner we start, the better, but you may as often, have clever input, which may be important before we go ahead. Dan Koehl (talk) 15:55, 29 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

10 years on Wikimedia

Congratulations to your TEN YEARS anniversary on Wikimedia today!

I invited you to Ten Year Society on your Swedish and English user pages.

Maybe its about time to setup Ten Year Society here as well... Dan Koehl (talk) 15:55, 29 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

Thanks a bunch, Dan! And yes, may be it is time for that. Not that we are all that many, and btw I think I made my first Wikispecies edit in May 2005, rather than March as in Wikipedia. :-) Tommy Kronkvist, 17:45, 29 March 2015 (UTC).Reply

AWB Criteria

Please note that I have moved the discussion to Wikispecies_talk:Project_Cleanup#AWB_Criteria so more people can take part of the discussion, and maybe some sort of consensus decision can be made. Dan Koehl (talk) 00:27, 30 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the heads-up: furthermore, I will be joining the project. Cheers, Kronan, 00:32, 30 March 2015 (UTC).Reply

Nomination for bureaucratship status

Dear Tommy, I have nominated you as bureaucrat on Wikispecies, please confirm here if you accept the nomination. Dan Koehl (talk) 16:44, 12 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

Thank you Dan. I accept the nomination, and have responded accordingly. –Tommy Kronkvist, 09:28, 13 April 2015 (UTC).Reply


Congratulations, you are now bureaucrat on Wikispecies.

Bureaucrat may use the bureaucrat user box on their user pages. Copy and paste the following code to your user page:

{{User Bureaucrat}}

If you have a Meta-Wiki user page, you can put the Wikispecies bureaucrat user box for Meta on your Meta-Wiki user page.

Dan Koehl (talk) 12:07, 20 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

Diuca speculifera

Hi, 88... IP's person is vandalist. Diuca speculifera is at Turkish and at Azeri. --buzulkuşu: penguen (talk) 17:31, 23 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

Indeed you are correct, however the section on the species' page regards the vernacular name in Turkish and Azeri (also called "common name"). Most likely Diuca speculifera is not that species' vernacular name in any language (except perhaps Latin…) Instead, Diuca speculifera is the scientific name, not the vernacular (or common) name.
As a comparison, the Turkish vernacular name for the Common Blackbird is "karatavuk", not Corvus corax (which is the scientific name). Personally I do not know much Turkish or Azeri, but by your actions I guess that neither "Buzlaqquşu" nor "Buzulkuşu" are the Turkish and Azeri common names of the species? Because of this I have temporarily removed both the Turkish and Azeri sections from that page, until there is good information stating the proper names. One thing comes to mind: perhaps there are no proper Turkish or Azeri common names for that particular species? After all it is a South American bird, and I guess many of them don't have a vernacular name in all of the European or Asian languages.
By the way, the English Wikipedia's page regarding common names can be found here. Unfortunately there is no Turkish version yet. Best regards, Tommy Kronkvist, 19:03, 23 May 2015 (UTC).Reply
He is trying to spread the word buzulkuşu by meaning a penguin. Don't you see his signature? — The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 10:27, 3 June 2015
Yes I know but still, reverting the name back to Diuca speculifera is incorrect, since that is not the right vernacular name. In the same way, the Turkish vernacular name for "human" is not Homo sapiens – it is "İnsan". That's why I removed the Turkish and Azeri sections from the Diuca speculifera page, since Diuca speculifera is not the the correct vernacular name in those languages. Actually, Diuca speculifera is not the correct vernacular name in any language. –Tommy Kronkvist, 12:55, 6 June 2015 (UTC).Reply

Invitation to join the Ten Year Society

Dear Tommy Kronkvist/Archive 2015–2016,

I'd like to extend a cordial invitation to you to join the Ten Year Society, an informal group for editors who've been participating in the Wikispecies project for ten years or more.

Best regards, Dan Koehl (talk) 11:31, 3 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

Author names in section on synonymy

Tommy, I see you taking a fair bit of time to put author names in synonymy section to small caps and linking to author pages. This is not wrong, of course, but when links to author pages are already present in Reference section using ref templates, it seems to be not exactly essential to link again from synonyms. Maybe you could save some time for yourself. Also, for years the pages I have created have followed the style without asterisks on the rows noting the Type locality and Type designation/depository. Adding these asterisks is, again, not wrong but neither is it essential, in my opinion. So perhaps here are 2 time-saving suggestions. Regards, Alan Accassidy (talk) 22:01, 23 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hello Alan. Thank you for your input, and please excuse my late reply. As for wiki linking, I very much appreciate the Wikipedia-style of always linking the very first instance of a subject on a page, be it an author name or any other relevant subject. Albeit not in any way necessary, I still think it makes sense to do so. And of course the author names should be linked in the reference section too, since – well, it is the references, after all… :-)
As for the leading asterisks on rows noting type locality and -depositories I've mainly added them because I think it increases the legibility. However I have recently quit this habit of mine, primarily due to the fact that there is no consensus on Wikispecies for using them – rather the opposite, if Help:Name section is to rule. I still use asterisks for lists of synonyms though, again following the conventions put forward in the "Help" pages. Regards, Tommy Kronkvist, 13:37, 20 July 2015 (UTC).Reply


We seem to keep deleting this ever 3-4 days. Is this one same person? Pages seem to be getting more incoherent as well. Neferkheperre (talk) 12:59, 19 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hello Ray. Yes, this seems to be repeating itself. I haven't done a full investigation of the exact routings of the underlaying IP numbers, hence can't really say whether it is the same person being the culprit or not. My guess is, however, that it is not the same person: the IP's used so far are registered in Bolivia, Angola and Pakistan, respectively. Regards, Tommy Kronkvist, 13:51, 20 July 2015 (UTC).Reply

Please, please don't remove recursive author links. The reasons of including them are:

  • The links emphasize the name making it more prominent in the respective page (the same as with species name in the species page).
  • It permits a quick copy and paste when a ref is needed in another page.
  • These links inflict no harm and they are incorporated in many author pages.
  • When adding ref templates to author pages, they too have in fact recursive names, which can't be discarded.

Thanks, Mariusm (talk) 07:11, 22 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

gbr fix

Hi Tommy Thanks for bringing this to my attention - neat fix. I wonder if there is a bot that could trawl through the templates making the required edits. Regards Andyboorman (talk) 18:11, 25 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hello Andy. You're welcome. If you like you can also check out the {{Zfg}} template, which rather than at genera level should be used for familiae. I'll look in to whether there is a suitable bot that can add the {{gbr}} template to Taxonavigation sections, were applicable.
Regards, Tommy Kronkvist, 14:35, 1 August 2015 (UTC).Reply

Reversion of Necora puber

Is this information on pt:Necora_puber wrong (navalheira = common name for Necora puber?) Jberkel (talk) 14:47, 8 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hello Jberkel. While my data might be incorrect, to my knowledge "navalheira" is not the common name specific for Necora puber, but rather the common name for a whole group of portunids (i.e. the family Portunidae). This is also stated on the Portuguese Wikipedia page you refer to: "Navalheiras é o nome vulgar em língua portuguesa de um grupo de caranguejos portunídeos abundantes nas águas costeiras do Oceano Atlântico. Algumas espécies, como a Necora puber, têm importância comercial."
–Best regards, Tommy Kronkvist, 10:25, 9 August 2015 (UTC).Reply

Deleting duplicate pages

Hi Tommy, could you tell me how to deal with duplicate pages ? I have seen a few since I started working on wikispecies a couple of weeks ago and maybe I should start a list. E.g. Hyponephele przhewalskyi and Hyponephele przewalskyi --Melderick (talk) 00:31, 10 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hi Melderick. There are two main ways to handle duplicate pages: either to simply delete the wrongly named one, or to redirect it to the correctly named one. (Though of course sometimes both can have the wrong name, in which case they both should be deleted.)
  • For duplicate pages listing species, genera or other taxa it is often better to delete the flawed page, rather than redirecting it. Contrary to redirecting, only admins can delete pages – but giving us a hint about which pages to remove is always very welcome! This can be done by adding the {{Delete}} template to the page you wish to see gone. The template should be placed at the very top of the page, above all other text, and preferably – though not strictly necessary – it should also contain a vertical bar (i.e. "pipe") followed by a reason for the request: for instance {{delete|Duplicate}} or {{delete|Spam}}. All pages marked with the "delete" template will automatically be put in the Candidates for speedy deletion category, which many of the admins monitor quite vigilantly. Hence if the reason for deletion is valid, most pages in the "speedy deletion" category will be removed within an hour or two.
–All the best, Tommy Kronkvist, 03:29, 10 August 2015 (UTC).Reply

Attalea eichleri

Hi Tommy. I'm new to wiki, I begun yesterday adding images of Attalea eichleri and I will soon add images of other palm tree species. I decided to do this because I do my research on these poorly studied species and I noticed that there are no images att all for then on Wikimedia Commons and on Wikispecies.

For Attalea eichleri I needed to create the page, since the name was in red on the species list of the genus. It was a bit hard to find the way to do this. I am not very satisfied because "my" page seens to be out of the pattern. Could you check it and give me a feedback?

To add my images to Wikispecies I did the following:

  1. add to Wikimedia Commons
  2. then add in to Wikispecies page

But I added 5 images in Wikimedia Commons, and I would like to see all of them on the Wikispecies' A. eichleri page. I understood that I have to do this manually and that all images will appear in the right side of the page... this seens to be out of the pattern. I noticed that for some species with more images on Wikimedia Commons (e.g. Attalea speciosa) there appears on the Wikispecies page the note "For more multimedia, look at Attalea speciosa on Wikimedia Commons." How do I insert this note on the A. eichleri page? Or it will be done automatically? Or should I add manually all of the 5 images?

Thanks for helping, Marcelo Cavallari (talk) 11:19, 27 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hello Marcelo. I think that after the contributions from you, Murma174 and me, the Attalea eichleri page now looks okay. As for images, first adding them to Wikimedia Commons and then linking them to Wikispecies is the right way to go. This is not restricted to images – in fact, Wikimedia Commons should de used for all media files, including for example video- and sound files (though they are seldom used on Wikispecies.) It is technically possible to upload media files directly to Wikispecies instead of Wikimedia Commons, but this is not recommended. The reason for this is that media files uploaded to Wikispecies can only be used on Wikispecies, whereas media file uploaded to Wikimedia Commons are always automatically available to all wikis, including Wikipedia, Wiktionary, Wikinews, etc. And yes, after uploading the files to Wikimedia Commons, they must then be manually added to the pages at Wikispecies, Wikipedia, and so forth.
As for adding five images to the A. eichleri page (or any other Wikispecies' page), this is not recommended either. As stated on the What Wikispecies is not help page, Wikispecies is not an image repository. Wikispecies is only a database of biological taxonomy and systematics, it is not a general encyclopedia. That is one of the main differences between Wikispecies and Wikipedia. Using a whole bunch of pictures can be a nice touch on Wikipedia, but on Wikispecies images should only be used if they add information directly related to the taxon. For instance, pictures of habitat etc are generally not useful. Therefore most often only one image should be used, but in some rare occasions it's okay to use two pictures: for instance for describing sexual dimorphism between genders, or differences between adult and juvenile specimens or eggs, or to show fully grown plants in comparison to their seeds, etc. And using three or more pictures on a page is very rare, since most often there is no need for it – at least not from a taxonomical point of view.
The "More multimedia on Wikimedia Commons" link is added with the help of the {{Commons}} or (more often) {{Commons category}} templates. This is much preferred over adding too many pictures on the Wikispecies page itself. I have recently added the "Commons category" template to the Attalea eichleri page. Please check out the code there for an example of how it is used.
Best regards, and happy editing! :-) Tommy Kronkvist, 15:07, 27 August 2015 (UTC).Reply
Hi Tommy, fully understood, thanks for answering! Marcelo Cavallari (talk) 17:11, 28 August 2015 (UTC)Reply


Hi Tommy,
you completed author names, e.g. here and resolved the redirects. Isn't it much easier for us to use the abbreviation instead of the full name? For example Boisduval --Murma174 (talk) 10:00, 4 September 2015 (UTC)Reply
P.S. .. or Fukuyo (new) --Murma174 (talk) 11:06, 4 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

True, however "easy" is not the same as "correct". Nor is "lazy" – even easier would be not to link the author names at all… :-) Also, while it might be easy for us human users, the redirects make the servers work harder since they have to serve two pages instead of one. That doesn't add a huge workload to the servers, but still. In any case I guess my main point is that we experienced users should try to edit "as correct as possible", since setting a good example helps less experienced users to learn correct wiki code and wiki templates. (For the same reason I also change {{aut|[[Author name]]}} to {{a|Author name}} whenever I come across it.)
This is not a major issue in any way, but I tend to rectify it if I'm already on the page checking out other edits. On a more personal level, I think the "(Redirected from xxxx)" text shown on top of every redirected page clutters the information. –Tommy Kronkvist, 09:36, 5 September 2015 (UTC).Reply
I think the "(Redirected from xxxx)" text shown on top of every redirected page clutters the information.Yes, that's ugly, I agree. Though, there might be tools tu suppress the text (not sure).
Another point is coming into mind (maybe it has been discussed before): If you use the format {{a|Jean Baptiste Boisduval}}, why isn't that species/genus/.. automatically a member of the Category:Jean_Baptiste_Boisduval_taxa? Should be a "finger exercise" (<includeonly>[[:Category:{{{1}}}_taxa]]</includeonly>)for a template-programmer, eh? --Murma174 (talk) 10:12, 5 September 2015 (UTC)Reply
Yes, that would be a simple matter to fix. However, the main reason for not auto-connecting author templates to taxon categories is that author templates aren't used exclusively on taxon pages, but also on reference templates, journal and ISSN pages, and such. ––Tommy Kronkvist, 13:34, 5 September 2015 (UTC).Reply
O.K. Thanks! --Murma174 (talk) 10:26, 6 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

Block vandal

Hi, can you block this vandal please? Thanks.--Syum90 (talk) 15:33, 17 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

Globally blocked meanwhile --Murma174 (talk) 16:13, 17 September 2015 (UTC)Reply
 Done. Tommy Kronkvist, 19:31, 17 September 2015 (UTC).Reply


Jag har messat dig på din fb. mvh Dan Koehl (talk) 20:00, 27 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

Main page in Sicilian language

Hello Tommy

I thank you a lot for your quick help and answer to my message.

Good work !

Best regards :)

--Sarvaturi (talk) 23:01, 4 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

You're most welcome! :)
Tommy Kronkvist, 14:55, 6 October 2015 (UTC).Reply

My images of biology

Hello. Are there errors in my Images of Biology? Benefit me.Thank you --ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 17:44, 26 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

@ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2: Hello. No, I can't see any errors in the page, however I fail to grasp the purpose of it. In what way is it supposed to benefit? –Tommy Kronkvist, 07:46, 13 November 2015 (UTC).Reply


Hi Tommy, thank you for the welcome. I will edit the corresponding Wikispecies page of my articles in Wikipedia. --Josuevg (talk) 17:48, 26 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

Senna ser. Armatae

Hej! Varför ändrar du i referenserna så författarnas initialer hamnar först? Se till exempel Senna ser. Armatae. Det blir märkligt för mig eftersom referenser alltid följer efternamn? Uleli (talk) 07:19, 7 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hej. Ojdå, det var inte alls meningen – naturligtvis ska initialerna komma sist! Just i detta fallet var orsaken att jag först ändrade auktorsmallarna i "Name"-sektionen, och där ska Irwins initialer komma före efternamnet, eftersom "H.S.Irwin" är hans auktorsförkortning. Sedan kopierade jag helt enkelt denna min redigering, klistrade in den i "References"-sektionen och förhandsvisade, samt klickade på "Save". Att jag inte observerade fadäsen då berodde till stor del på att jag utförde redigeringen på min iPhone där man inte lika lätt får korn på alla små detaljer – trots att jag valde "Desktop"-visningen snarare än "Mobile"-läget. Vanligtvis brukar jag inte använda mobiltelefonen för redigeringar på Wikispecies överhuvudtaget. I det här fallet satt jag i en kommunal buss fast i bilkö och hade inget annat för mig, i väntan på att en bilkortege med konungen, drottningen, Tunisiens president och femton–tjugo polisbilar skulle ta sig genom Uppsala centrum på sin väg tillbaka mot Stockholm. Det är tråkigt att Wikispecies och dess användare ska behöva lida på grund av ett statsbesök där en statschef från främmande makt önskar lägga en krans på Dag Hammarskjölds grav, but there you are… :-) Tack hursomhelst för att du påpekade tabben, och jag har nu reviderat mitt tillkortakommande. Trevlig fortsatt helg, and happy editing! –Tommy Kronkvist, 13:33, 7 November 2015 (UTC).Reply

Re: Bot needed for bulk category renames (from Village pump)

I made an initial trial with some 10 files, which can be found through my contributions. Please double-check that the files were modified according to the plans. As far as I can see, they were changed correctly, with no problem. Dan Koehl (talk) 02:12, 9 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

Will do. Thanks for your excellent efforts. –Tommy Kronkvist, 13:25, 9 November 2015 (UTC).Reply
This file, Category:Taxa_of_C._Johnson is pointing to a file with a link back to the old category, but the link is not visible, maybe theres a link to the old category from any of the templates? Dan Koehl (talk) 13:40, 9 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
Same problem here, I think those links has to be located and removed. Dan Koehl (talk) 15:38, 9 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
At the moment I'm situated at the actual village pump, hence not well suited for checking out the details. First thing tomorrow though, and after that you (or rather the bot) should be good to go. Cheers! [sic!] Tommy Kronkvist, 16:13, 9 November 2015 (UTC).Reply
@Dan Koehl: It's been a few days so perhaps you have already sorted it out, in any case I can't see any problem with the (now deleted) "Taxa of C. Johnson" category. –Tommy Kronkvist, 08:28, 13 November 2015 (UTC).Reply

Template Eukaryota

Ahoj, odmaž (delete) prosím (please) z (from) šablony (template) Template:Eukaryota text {{{{Main Page}}}} v (in) každém (all) rozbaléném (decompress) navboxu máme (we have) totiž odkaz (link) na (to) Main Page.--Rosičák (talk) 18:07, 11 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

Resolved. –Tommy Kronkvist, 09:53, 12 November 2015 (UTC).Reply

Removing "Main page" template

Why did you remove the {{Main Page}} template from Animalia? By this you removed all __NOTOC__ to all pages! I reverted your edit. Please, please, please before touching this kind of critical page, discuss it on the pump first. Mariusm (talk) 07:48, 13 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hi @Mariusm: I didn't realise that the __NOTOC__ would get lost in the process. My main reason for removing the {{Main Page}} template was to get rid of the wiki link to Main Page on top of each and every taxonavigation section. That link doesn't make sense there, since "Main Page" is obviously not a taxa higher than superregnum Eukaryota, Archaea, or Bacteria etc. Tommy Kronkvist, 08:51, 13 November 2015 (UTC).Reply
Oh, I see, then you can indeed remove it and add the __NOTOC__ to the {{animalia}}. Mariusm (talk) 05:25, 15 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
 Done. Also made the change for other regna. –Tommy Kronkvist, 11:33, 15 November 2015 (UTC).Reply

Minor thing happening a week ago?

Just checking here – my autopatrolled rights were suddenly removed and my talk page said something about "misconduct"? Anyway, they were restored promptly. Just making sure everything is fine :) Aryamanarora (talk) 04:58, 15 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hello! Yes, I remember that incident, and I'm sorry. It was all the result of grave misconducts made by another user (now blocked) with a user name rather similar to yours, and unfortunately you got caught in the crossfire. I guess the removal of your autopatrolled rights can be seen as a sort of collateral damage… However, I managed to revive your autoatrolled rights within 12 minutes, and everything should be fine now. Sorry for the inconvenience – and happy future editing! :) Tommy Kronkvist, 10:38, 15 November 2015 (UTC).Reply
Ahh, okay. Thanks for the explanation! Aryamanarora (talk) 14:30, 15 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

Wrong spelling, Alan or Allen?

A new user claim on the talk page that his name is Allen, maybe you can double check if this is correct? Also, I guess theres a need to change of author category, please see your change of author category from Category:James Lee Peters taxa, to Category:Alan Riverstone McCulloch taxa (or Category:Allen Riverstone McCulloch taxa? Dan Koehl (talk) 13:41, 21 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

Yes, I've already tried to check that out. It seems like both spellings are used – right know I don't really know what to make of it, but I'll try to dig a little deeper… –Tommy Kronkvist, 13:50, 21 November 2015 (UTC).Reply
Strange, but maybe he used two different spellings on his name... Anyway, I guess that the Category:James Lee Peters taxa in the link is simply an error? Dan Koehl (talk) 14:59, 21 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
Yes, and the "Taxa by author" category is now fixed. I'll look in to the Alan/Allen matter when I get back home from on the road. –Tommy Kronkvist, 11:14, 22 November 2015 (UTC).Reply


Many thanks and best regards from Ireland Notafly (talk) 16:34, 9 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

You're welcome! –Tommy Kronkvist, 09:15, 9 February 2016 (UTC).Reply

Need assist in editing Wikipedia

Sorry to repeat my message but I'm very hungry and curious about editing the wiki. Please help me out : how to use the taxobox in Wikipedia. Thank you. Ankit2299 (talk) 10:59, 13 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hello. First of all: this is Wikispecies, not Wikipedia. :-) Hence we don't utilise the Taxoboxes used in Wikipedia. Instead we use a much more straightforward Taxonavigation section, explained here: Help:Taxonavigation section. Wikispecies is only about taxonomy and systematics, so information regarding habitats, natural distribution, cultivars, etc. is generally out of scope. Therefore – and contrary to the Taxoboxes used in Wikipedia – there is no place for such data in Wikispecies. (That said, vernacular names of species are commonly added to pages, but personally I never do that, since vernacular names really doesn't add any data regarding a taxon's taxonomical status.)
Please note that using parentheses (or not) for author names can be a big deal. They are not merely used for text formatting or as punctuation, but have a different purpose when used (or not used) for authors of scientific taxa. See Binomial nomenclature in Wikipedia for details.
As for further usage notes regarding the Taxonavigation section, I'm afraid that you have to be a bit more specific. What do you want to know? :-) Regards, Tommy Kronkvist, 11:32, 13 December 2015 (UTC).Reply


Thanks. This edit was supposed to go on someone's talk page. Embarrassing. —Justin (koavf)TCM 01:28, 25 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

You're welcome. We can all make mistakes – also, this particular one wasn't huge, and got resolved fairly quickly. No real harm done I think. –Tommy Kronkvist, 23:12, 29 December 2015 (UTC).Reply


You don't need to give existing admins with autopatrol rights. It's automatically inherited. OhanaUnitedTalk page 05:50, 25 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

@OhanaUnited: Yes, I know that the autopatrol rights are automatically inherited by all accounts granted admin rights or above. However, none of us are administrators or bureaucrats forever. Hence I added autopatrol rights to all of the present admins, since most of them should probably still be considered autopatrollers even after their sysop rights have been revoked. In other words I added the autopatrol rights since it eliminates the risk of forgetting to add them when the admin rights are withdrawn. Best regards, and Happy New Year. –Tommy Kronkvist, 18:58, 30 December 2015 (UTC).Reply
I guess we have different philosophies and approaches to assigning user rights (which is fine). On a similar topic, I would offer a reminder that if you nominate or vote in support (or oppose) in an RfA or poll setting, it's important for you to recuse from the process and not to declare the result or promote the individual. Voicing your opinion in the process and also doing the promotion process (or closing the poll) is deemed as having an inherent conflict of interest and an involved party. You must defer the decision process to another individual who is not an involved party. OhanaUnitedTalk page 20:45, 1 January 2016 (UTC)Reply
You are of course right, and I will pay heed to your advice. –Tommy Kronkvist, 18:10, 4 January 2016 (UTC).Reply

User sandbox

How can i create my own sandbox page rather than practising from someone's sandbox. I think need this and everyone does. Sorry for inconvenience. Thanks Ras Benjih (talk) 05:25, 5 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

I'm not sure, whether I understand your question properly. You have created User:Ras Benjih/Sandbox as a subpage of your userpage. And every user can do this. --Murma174 (talk) 08:54, 5 January 2016 (UTC)Reply
Hello @Ras Benjih: and there's no inconvenience, I'm glad to help. :-) You do have a sandbox, and you have actually created it yourself. Here is a direct link to your present sandbox: User:Ras Benjih/Sandbox
It is easy to create other sub-pages as well. First, simply go to your own User page. The URL (i.e. "Internet address") in the address bar at the top of your web browser should then say "" (but of course without the quotes). To create a new sub-page, simply add a slash directly after that Internet address (no space), immediately followed by the name of your intended sub-page. So if you would like to create a sub-page with the name, say, "Sandpit", then you add /Sandpit directly after the Internet address already there. In that case the full Internet address should read "". Hit enter, and take it from there… :-)
This is one of the reasons why the [[Special:MyPage/Sandbox]] syntax used in the "need this" link you refer to above is not a good idea. Unless the users' sub-page is named exactly "Sandbox" (with a capital "S") it wont work. Many users have subpages named "sandbox" instead (with a small "s") or something completely different, and in those cases that way of linking will not work at all.
Lastly, a few rules that are pretty much the same across the whole Wikimedia project, and are equally important here at Wikispecies: Only create sub-pages from your own User page, or perhaps from your own sub-pages. Creating sub-pages from taxon pages, template pages or Talk pages etc is not strictly forbidden, but it is almost always unnecessary and can make things very confusing for other users. Above all, never create a sub-page from any other users' User page, Talk page or sub-page. That is considered very rude. Also, most often changing other users' sandboxes isn't very nice – that's why we have sandboxes of our own, right? :-) Furthermore, please don't go ahead and create a whole armada of sub-pages, not even from your own user page. Most of us make do with a few, like in my case, two or three.
–Best regards, Tommy Kronkvist, 09:18, 5 January 2016 (UTC).Reply

Thanks for help with references

Thank you for helping out with those Dinornis references; I'm brand new to Wikispecies, and will now go and RTFM on better reference formatting! Giantflightlessbirds (talk) 00:55, 8 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

You're welcome, and yes, please do. :-) If you have any questions, I'm happy to help out. Regards, Tommy Kronkvist, 00:58, 8 January 2016 (UTC).Reply


Hi Tommy,
thanks for helping with virus species! But the virus list in Gammaretrovirus is not after ICTV 2014. Or do you maybe have a newer list? --Murma174 (talk) 13:31, 23 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hi! The list of viruses I added is incomplete, but as far as I can see it does follow ICTV 2014 in all other aspects – or maybe I'm reading the list wrong? The one exception from ICTV 2014 is the Xenotropic MuLV-related virus, which I got from enWP: Xenotropic murine leukemia virus-related virus. I see now that the information given there might very well be obsolete and out-of-date. Hence, I have removed it from the list of species in Gammaretrovirus. Thank you for notifying me! Also, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong about the other taxa, because viruses isn't really my expertise… :-) Tommy Kronkvist, 13:52, 23 January 2016 (UTC).Reply
I didn't find Xenotropic murine leukemia virus-related virus in the ICTV database (not even as outdated name). In such cases I take it onto the list as 'disputed species'. I think, that's better than ignoring a species completely. Or what do you think? --Murma174 (talk) 14:04, 23 January 2016 (UTC)Reply
Yes, I think you're right. –Tommy Kronkvist, 14:14, 23 January 2016 (UTC).Reply

Author names


You're changing the author names after for example by the species. This is not official. Both are good. What not is good are the author names create by Sthoner with aut. There is no a connection with the author. PeterR (talk) 13:05, 6 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

Can you give me an example of were I have done such a mistake, please? –Tommy Kronkvist, 13:13, 6 February 2016 (UTC).Reply
See Eucosma hohenwartiana. PeterR (talk) 14:07, 6 February 2016 (UTC)Reply
@PeterR: I honestly don't know what seems to be the problem. The only thing I did with my edit was to change author links with common link brackets into author templates instead, which is recommended. But perhaps I misunderstood you? Feel free to answer me in Dutch or German instead, if you find that easier. Best regards, and thank you for your good contributions. –Tommy Kronkvist, 01:02, 9 February 2016 (UTC).Reply

Patrolling stats

Thanks to Cgt on Danish WP, we can now see statistics on patrolling: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:07, 10 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

Good news! Thanks Dan – and of course Cgt. –Tommy Kronkvist, 09:55, 11 February 2016 (UTC).Reply
The old "" URL no longer works without a proper SSL certificate. Please use this Wikimedia Tool Labs URL instead. All the best, Tommy Kronkvist, 08:14, 17 April 2016 (UTC).Reply


Tommy, I have noted your question to the recent editor of Chilasa and its species. If there is no quick response, I will take action to revert the deletions. Accassidy (talk) 12:40, 29 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hello Alan. Yes, that's my intention as well, but figured it's only fair to give the user a chance to at least try to present some verifiable references. But in all essence: yep, I agree with you. Tommy Kronkvist, 15:04, 29 February 2016 (UTC).Reply
The edits are now reverted. For details, please see the ongoing discussion in your own talk page. Best regards, Tommy Kronkvist, 19:15, 2 March 2016 (UTC).Reply


Could you please make a page for Pelorovis oldowayensis? 07:10, 3 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

Reference Deletions

Tommy, the block is probably best. I have been trying to work out why someone might be just deleting references, but can only make wild guesses. If the person would explain themselves, we might be able to set up a dialogue, but this seems very unlimely, now, to be a successful course of action. Regards, Accassidy (talk) 18:57, 4 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

Indeed. Also, in this case it is a fairly "mild" block, in that the IP still can edit his/her Talk page, send emails, and create a proper user account. I've put the IP's talk page on my watch list, so I will be aware if there is a reply. –Tommy Kronkvist, 21:18, 4 March 2016 (UTC).Reply

300 år sedan Pehr Kalm föddes

I morgon, 6 mars, är det enligt frWp och Öviks Allehanda 300 år sedan Linnés lärjunge Pehr Kalm föddes. Kanske bör uppmärksammas? Dan Koehl (talk) 13:04, 5 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

Det tycker jag. Vi får grunna på det. Det är hög tid att uppdatera Wikispecies:Distinguished author också, vilket jag ju tagit på mig att göra månatligen – men kanske är han inte lämplig just där. Som motpol till de tidigare dignitärerna skulle jag vilja uppmärksamma en icke-europeisk kvinna, men hittar ingen lämplig. Har du några förslag? –Tommy Kronkvist, 13:17, 5 March 2016 (UTC).Reply
Adriana Hoffmann Jacoby, Hoffmann has authored over a dozen books on the flora of Chile and has identified and classified 106 new species of cactus. She was Chile's Environment Minister in 2000 and 2001. She has advocated for the sustainable management and protection of Chilean forests, leading opposition to illegal logging in her role as coordinator of Defensores del Bosque Chileno (Defenders of the Chilean Forest) since 1992. Dan Koehl (talk) 14:01, 5 March 2016 (UTC)Reply
Tackar för det. Tar tag i det under dagen. –Tommy Kronkvist, 14:04, 5 March 2016 (UTC).Reply

Har försökt pusha fiwp att ta med Kalm på morgondagen startsida. Jag vet däremot inte vilka copyrightregler fiwp använder, de har laddat upp ett frimärke, men inte på commons, se

Det finns mycket om Kalm, har uppdaterat den svenska sidan en del, mer kommer: The Mint of Finland have issued (28th January) a new silver coin to honor one of their most well known and celebrated scientists, Pehr Kalm (1716-1779). He is considered to be the most famous Finnish representative of the Enlightenment and one of the ‘apostles’ of Carl Linnaeus. Mint of Finland Issues Pehr Kalm 10 Euro Silver Coin. Dan Koehl (talk) 15:04, 5 March 2016 (UTC)Reply


(Moved to origin of discussion.)

Your opinion needed

Hi Tommy, Upucerthia jelskii was merged, conespecific with Upucerthia validirostris and accepted by major classifications. I already did all the editions and references. Your opinion, should we leave U. jelskii as a species page as it was, with a redirection for Upucerthia validirostris jelskii (done), or the opposite? Regards--Hector Bottai (talk) 16:13, 29 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hucho bleekeri

Thanks for locating the original paper on Hucho bleekeri and many other assistances. I made minor correction in the spelling of the author's name. Best. Zhenqinli (talk) 04:19, 6 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

Thank you too! I originally thought that Seishi Kimura was the author, but soon realized that is not likely. He is still publishing papers, hence would probably be just over 100 years old today if he also wrote the paper regarding Hucho bleekeri. Although high age is not at all uncommon among the Japanese people, most of them who are 100 or older are not still writing scientific papers on ichthyology... :-) After finding the original paper I created a page regarding the true author, Shigeru Kimura. By some odd reason I forgot to make the author change in the Hucho bleekeri page, and I thank you for fixing that error. All the best, Tommy Kronkvist, 10:05, 6 April 2016 (UTC).Reply

Hi, could you add this banner on anonnotice to inform users ? And also could I create Help:Translation to explain what and how to translate, the needs, etc. I also asked Dan Koehl. Thanks Archi38 (talk) 06:13, 15 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

@Archi38: Hello, the banner is now added. As for the help page regarding translations: yes, please go ahead and create it. Regards, Tommy Kronkvist, 07:32, 15 April 2016 (UTC).Reply
@Tommy Kronkvist: Could you also add it on MediaWiki:Sitenotice ? For registered users. Archi38 (talk) 08:09, 15 April 2016 (UTC)Reply
 Done. –Tommy Kronkvist, 11:16, 15 April 2016 (UTC).Reply
Thanks Archi38 (talk) 11:34, 15 April 2016 (UTC)Reply
This is a total success! Within one day, users have already translated, in at least one language, each page marked for translation! Otherwise, I don't know how long we should keep the Sitenotice. Archi38 (talk) 14:22, 15 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

───────────────────────── Sounds good. I have started adding Swedish translations. I'm about half-way, and will finish during the weekend (i.e. no later than tomorrow). As for the Sitenotice my suggestion is that we let it stick for about a week or two, and then bring up the issue at the Village Pump for the community to decide.
Tommy Kronkvist, 08:11, 16 April 2016 (UTC).Reply


I suspect User:Leptostiba to be our old friend Stho002. He's acting/interfering on my edits in a way very familiar to me. Not that he vandalized anything, but anyway ...Mariusm (talk) 07:34, 17 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

Yes, I was considering that myself, just a minute ago. Thank you for your input. As always I will monitor all activity by all users, regardless of their username. –Tommy Kronkvist, 07:43, 17 April 2016 (UTC).Reply
Seems to metamorphose under another incarnation: User:Bioref Mariusm (talk) 06:43, 24 April 2016 (UTC)Reply
Please look at the last exchange with Bioref at his talk page. What do you suggest? Mariusm (talk) 07:00, 27 April 2016 (UTC)Reply
I have been keeping a close eye on both Leptostiba and Bioref, but missed that one. Bioref's answer is not at all acceptable, and @Pigsonthewing: did the right thing administering a three day block. Unfortunately it probably wont help much.–Tommy Kronkvist, 10:44, 27 April 2016 (UTC).Reply
I agree that it won't help much to block him for three days. He has been an could again be a great editor here. But unfortunately I don't have any idea how to tell him, that his aggressivity destroys every reasonable cooperation. --Murma174 (talk) 11:14, 27 April 2016 (UTC)Reply


(Discussion moved to Wikispecies:Administrators' Noticeboard.)

User page


Hello, could you please remove my user page ? My meta's userpage will be displayed instead. Thanks Archi38 (talk) 11:15, 21 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

Done. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:29, 21 April 2016 (UTC)Reply
Thanks Andy! –Tommy Kronkvist, 07:55, 22 April 2016 (UTC).Reply

You really ought to be ashamed of yourself

You really ought to be ashamed of yourself, pandering to the inanities of the arrogant/ignorant on WS. I don't know what you expect to get out of WS (a medal perhaps?), but you are just wasting your time here, and publicly showing your lack of integrity when it comes to pandering. Ciao, Bioref (talk) 22:42, 30 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

The account connected to the above user name has been confirmed by a CheckUser as a sock puppet of Stho002 (talkcontribslogs), and has been blocked indefinitely.

Code Zt templates vs names

Fully agree with you!! Thanks. --Hector Bottai (talk) 22:14, 3 May 2016 (UTC)Reply

You're welcome. And yes, the templates are a lot easier to find when searching for them using author names, rather than Zootaxa numbers or other sorts of "code". There's a lot of "Zt templates" around though, and it would take forever to fix them all. –Tommy Kronkvist, 22:20, 3 May 2016 (UTC).Reply
That is nonsense! All you do is put, for example {{Zt3717.4.3‎}} in an edit and press "Show preview" to see if it exists. I assume you realise that the code just means Zootaxa issue 3717 number 4, third article? For recent Zootaxa articles, the code is part of the doi, which you can see on the preview page for the article. You can also easily look up the journal pages for Zootaxa here on WS, to find it. Your way just adds massive complexity and redundancy! But if that's what you want to spend your time doing, good for you!! Merophyas (talk) 22:26, 3 May 2016 (UTC)Reply
I tend to wonder if these rather massive lists are really necessary. They basically only provide duplicates of Zootaxa ref templates that link to "Zt" entries. I have not updated any since 23 January 2015, when I took over Zootaxa entries. Titles are doi's, which are also found on ref templates. Neferkheperre (talk) 22:36, 3 May 2016 (UTC)Reply
I'm not sure that your point is sufficiently clearly made? I can't make head nor tail of it, anyway! Ref. template names are dummy names which don't get displayed, you can name one "King Henry the Crab, III" and it would make no difference to anything, so why on earth would you want to change thousands of Zt template names into authorship templates? Just makes no sense at all! ... Merophyas (talk) 23:40, 3 May 2016 (UTC)Reply
Looks to me so simple and logical that template have the same "face" that the paper it summarizes...First name, bla bla, Year, easy to search for similarities, easier to organize in sequence, etc, cristal clear. It doesn't mean I would spend any time changing existing Zt's, even considering they are too academycist and nothing friendly.--Hector Bottai (talk) 00:20, 4 May 2016 (UTC)Reply
Looks to me so simple and logical that template names be as short and simple as possible, since they don't display and only act as dummy names, whereas paper author citations are often long and complex (e.g. try papers with multiple Polish authors!) Clearly it is easier to organise a numeric sequence than an alphanumeric sequence, so the Zt system worked just fine, and there is no need to search for a ref. template, just look it up under the author publication list or the WS page(s) for the journal. Merophyas (talk) 00:38, 4 May 2016 (UTC)Reply
OK. If you think that Zt3717.4.3 is easier and more friendly than dummy Isler et al., 2013, go ahead, use and create. I won't. By the way, if Zt only applies to Zootaxa papers (and this is a humble doubt from me), what we do with the other hundreds of journals?--Hector Bottai (talk) 02:38, 4 May 2016 (UTC)Reply
That is fine. You can use what suits you, but User:Stho002 has been "accused" of crimes such as using these Zootaxa templates, and certain people are replacing the Zt templates with new ones in their preferred format. That is just a petty minded waste of time and effort for names that don't even get displayed! Besides, the point of the Zt templates for Zootaxa was because this journal is the most prolific of all journals (averaging about 6 new articles per day, 5 days a week), so we needed a way to save time and make the process more streamlined for this journal. Do you think that User:‎Neferkheperre is going to be able to keep up with Zootaxa forever? When User:Stho002 came to WS, it was already many years out of date, and nobody was even using reference templates, just hard writing the references into each and every page! User:Stho002 made vast improvements to WS, only to be kicked out by an aggressively territorial mob of other editors. Think on it ... Merophyas (talk) 02:47, 4 May 2016 (UTC)Reply

───────────────────────── Please beware: User: Merophyas is also a sockpuppet of User: Stho002!! Mariusm (talk) 04:12, 4 May 2016 (UTC)Reply

That is another matter than the use of naming schemes of templates, but yes, several of the other administrators have been noted about that very likely possibility. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk) 08:45, 4 May 2016 (UTC), 08:45, 4 May 2016 (UTC).Reply



I see you change my templates after some we didn't agree. We don't make Category:Publications of A. Smetana or Category:Reference templates in the templates. So my request is to delete them. That I place a letter after the year have a reason. When I add species or some else I can immediate see which author template I need. Otherwise I have to look by edit and tell the place. PeterR (talk) 17:49, 8 May 2016 (UTC)Reply

Dear @PeterR: The "Category:Publications of…" categories are not recommended by Wikispecies, and personally I do not like them. Also, I do not use them. I'm afraid it is you who have added the Category:Publications of A. Smetana categories to all of the templates. Please see: Template:Smetana, 2015, Template:Smetana, 2015a, Template:Smetana, 2015b and Template:Smetana, 2015c. These links all go to the very first revision of the templates. In other words: they do not show the versions edited by me, instead they show how the templates looked directly after you had created them. If you click on the links above and check the bottom of every page, you will see that they all include the Category:Publications of A. Smetana, and that it was included by you. (The time, date and user name of the editor can be seen on the top of the page, directly under the headline.)
The Category:Reference templates is another matter. It is automatically inserted by the {{Reftemp}} template, which is good and recommended by many: see here and here. I often use it, for example in the {{Smetana, 2010}} template. I have used the {{reftemp}} template in all of the {{Smetana, 2015}} templates (created by you) and in the {{Smetana, 2010}} template (not created by you), and as you can see the Category:Publications of A. Smetana is only visible in the templates created by you.
To conclude: If you like, I can delete the Category:Publications of A. Smetana links you have mistakingly added to the Smetana templates. Sometimes we all make mistakes – that is only human! – and I am happy to help and fix them. However the Category:Reference templates should stay, since they are an important part of the indexing system of the 34,000 different reference templates on Wikispecies. Met vriendelijke groeten, Tommy Kronkvist, 19:59, 8 May 2016 (UTC).Reply
Thanks for your answer. I shall delete them by myself. The category Reference template is not a part of the agreement. You can find the Reference templates under the author name see Franz Daniel. PeterR (talk) 11:08, 9 May 2016 (UTC)Reply
So if I understand your correctly, you would like the whole "Reference templates" category to be deleted? If so, we should start a discussion on the Village Pump about deleting the category – and then remove it from all of the 34,614 reference templates where it is now used... Personally I disagree: I think the Category:Reference templates is a good main category for the reference templates. In the future we can add subcategories to it, for example [[Category:ISSN 0340-4943 references]] (for Mitteilungen der Münchner Entomologischen Gesellschaft) and [[Category:ISSN 0373-028X]] (for Zeitschrift der Wiener Entomologischen Geselschaft). Then it will be easy to quickly find all of the reference templates citing one specific scientific journal, regardless of whether the author is Franz Daniel, Martin Baehr, or someone else.
In fact, we already use the same system – but for the authors. We have the main category Category:Biologists. That is divided into a lot of subcategories, so now it is easy to list all entomologists, botanists, myrmecologists, and so forth. I think it is a practical system. –Tommy Kronkvist, 22:23, 9 May 2016 (UTC).Reply
I think you can better make this proposal, because your english is a much better then mine. In todays proposal it isn't mentioned. I see by some ISSN all the templates pro year for this bulletin. PeterR (talk) 10:54, 10 May 2016 (UTC)Reply


So, 3 rfcs are finished. Don't you archive it ? Archi38 (talk) 05:00, 12 May 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Will do, as soon as I get home from work! –Tommy Kronkvist, 15:30, 12 May 2016 (UTC).Reply

Not sure, but...

Hi @Tommy Kronkvist: Interesting and intriguing spot. The strategy is oddly familiar Why this? and the Chloris edits you sent me. Getting involved with Wikidata then coming back here with some "contributions"? Thanks for the heads up. Andyboorman (talk) 21:14, 13 May 2016 (UTC)Reply

You're welcome! And yes, it is a bit odd... In any case the user is good at finding spelling errors: Special:Log. –Tommy Kronkvist, 21:03, 15 May 2016 (UTC).Reply


(Thread moved to User talk:Wlodzimierz#Bouvardia juarezana, where the discussion started. –Tommy Kronkvist, 17:22, 17 May 2016 (UTC).)Reply

Publications category

I ran across this publications category just now and it is somewhat formidable: Wikispecies Category:Publications of D.J. Bickel I have been spending some free time on Wanted categories and solving at least some simpler problems for now. I have noticed that very many of these wanted categories are of Thorpe, with formula of (taxon page) (country). Have we decided these are not necessary? If so, I can be cutting very many loose. Neferkheperre (talk) 00:49, 30 May 2016 (UTC)Reply

Page numbers

You are changing the sign between page numbers of references. The sign you are using is not the normal sign used in literature citations. Users of such references in WS will have to change that sign back to that which is generally used. You should stop doing that, as it is not improving WS. Kempf EK (talk) 00:18, 3 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hello @Kempf EK: and thank you for your message. If you are referring to the use of "en dash" instead of hyphens, I follow the format given by examples on the Wikispecies Help: Reference section page. This issue was also discussed at the Village Pump in December 2015, when we reached consensus regarding which format to use for references. We did not vote specifically on the use of en dashes (nor em-dashes or hyphens), but en dash is the format given in all the examples, both on the Wikispecies Reference Section help page, and in that Village Pump poll. Also, even though we did not vote regarding which page number separator to use, we did at least discuss it. That part of the discussion can be found on the same page as the above Village Pump discussion, specifically at the very end of the Close poll section of that page.
As for the use of en dash as such, it is the proper ISO form for separating numeric ranges, i.e. page numbers, years of birth/death, etc. En dash is also recommended for APA style formatted academic documents (though not for AMA style format).
All this aside, the hyphen is still preferred by many scientific journals, and you are of course welcome to your own opinion in this matter. Feel free to bring the issue up for discussion at the Village Pump again, if you like to. Best regards, Tommy Kronkvist, 10:10, 3 June 2016 (UTC).Reply

A Big Idea

As you know Wikipedia has a reference desk, Would Wikispecies be an appropriate project to host a page the purpose of which was to identify natural species based on user posted questions.

Example questions would be:

  • "This is an unusal flower, I think it's species X, but the guide I have says it doesn't normally appear in violet?"
  • "I have a (linked) photo of a shurb in my garden, it flowered but we have no idea what it is?"
  • "These are almost certainly <named species>, but they seem on the small side, is there a hybrid I don't know about?"

…and so on.

The hope was that if the "species" desk was linked from Wikipedia, it might enocurage more interest and possibly gain more contributors for Wikispecies which is at present a comparatively small project. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 14:48, 5 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

Works include


You change Works include in Publications. But Publications is not official. Accassidy and I use Works include because this say that it is not complete and Publications suggest that this is authors complete work. PeterR (talk) 13:21, 5 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

@PeterR: @Accassidy: My main issue with the headline "Works include" is that it doesn't really seem to be good English. It is okay in a sentence, like "His works include the book Two new species of Culicoides from China", but as a headline it looks a bit... well, almost like an offhand shortcut. I have created the template {{Publications}} which perhaps can be used instead? You can see an example of it on the Pieter Hendrik van Doesburg page. Best regards, Tommy Kronkvist, 15:01, 5 July 2016 (UTC).Reply
Tommy, Accassidy is an englishman working in BMNH. PeterR (talk) 11:45, 6 July 2016 (UTC)Reply
"Works include" and "publications include" are entirely equivalent, except that the latter is more formal and therefore preferable IMHO. However, "selected publications" is even clearer and better ... Stho002 (talk) 22:29, 7 July 2016 (UTC)Reply
I wouldn't have any problem settling with either "Publications include" or "Selected publications". –Tommy Kronkvist, 18:43, 9 July 2016 (UTC).Reply

Three serious questions

Hi Tommy. The recent disagreements on WS have given me some concerns on a wider scale. Firstly, the suggestion to have WS taken down, which was pinged to @PEarley (WMF): and @Koavf: - how likely is this? Secondly, also pinged to the same, was the threat/blackmail that if the contributor is re-banned then he will just come back using multiple socks - can this be prevented? Another concern is the assertion that many contributors are too frighted to get involved with discussions - have you come across this? The disagreement is very unfortunate and heated and I have tried to more or less keep out of it and not voted yet. I am penning this to you both as a crat and as somebody who has voted to support the unblocking, and so is likely to be less entrenched. Hopefully you have some answers to my questions. Regards Andyboorman (talk) 17:51, 10 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hi @Andyboorman: I need some time to think about this, but meanwhile here's my right off the bat first draft answer, so to speak.
1. Suggestion to have WS taken down.
No, this is not very likely. First of all we need to remember that while the current discussion is very heated, it really only involves a handful of users. Many of them with loud voices, but still. Secondly (while I don't find it very likely) I guess he might suggest to terminate WS, but unfortunately he has a rather bad track record on both Meta and Wikipedia. This is not favourable when trying to sack one of their sister projects, such as Wikispecies.
2. Prevention of sock puppetry.
Yes, this is technically possible – at least to some extent – using an IP block. Personally I am very much against resorting to IP blocks, since they tend to obstruct other users not involved. The tools necessary to administer Global IP blocks can only be accessed by Stewards. Local IP blocks can be issued by any WS admin, but finding which IP address (or in the worst case scenario, IP range) to block can be difficult.
3. Contributors too afraid to take part in conference.
Yes, this has been apparent on several occasions, but as far as I can tell not during the last few weeks or so, and most likely not since the latest unblocking. We should also remember that the bulk of WS users probably are altogether oblivious to this matter.
As for me supporting the unblocking, yes, I still think that he can contribute in a good way. It's a difficult parley, but most likely worth it – for all parties involved. Surely this issue can't be an insurmountable obstacle stopping the future development of Wikispecies? At least I don't think so.
–All the best, Tommy Kronkvist, 21:10, 10 July 2016 (UTC).Reply
@Andyboorman: There are definitely several users across WMF projects who want to see Wikispecies closed or who simply tactitly assumed that it would close with the opening of Wikidata. I also do not see this being particularly likely and I don't see much work that has been done toward actually closing this but that contingent exists. As far as Stho002 perpetually making sockpuppets, all I know is his past behavior and what he says. My entire point was this: Look, he's going to do what he's going to do. If he were just a straight up vandal, it would be worth the effort to block him. He's not, so we can try to meet him half-way somehow. I agree that he shouldn't be rewarded for bad behavior but if we can induce good behavior by having him be a member of the community, then that's a good thing. One of the preconditions that I mentioned was coming clean on his past socks (which he has as far as I can tell). From a technical perspective, there are ways to combat sockpuppets but it's an uphill battle. As I also wrote elsewhere, even if he uses socks but those accounts are just helpful, it's not worth digging too deep into it. As far as others being intimidated... This project does not have that many active contributors and at least some of them are not interested in getting into fights or may not have the English proficiency. I don't know anything about anyone feeling intimidated but I'm willing to believe it's true. What I find more likely is that others are simply exhausted. —Justin (koavf)TCM 00:24, 11 July 2016 (UTC)Reply
Hi @Tommy Kronkvist: and @Koavf: Thanks to you both. Both worrying and reassuring. One of my worries is his ability to drive others off WS reducing the community and usefulness of the project. Clearly his insistence that he and only he has anything of value to contribute is a personality trait that can be difficult to ignore. Any chance you could ask him what he wants from WS other than adding data, as he seems to have a vision for the project, which is yet to be communicated with others. On another subject, what is involved in Category: Pages using duplicate arguments in template calls? Pages seem to work OK, but... excuse my ignorance. Andyboorman (talk) 18:11, 11 July 2016 (UTC)Reply
@Andyboorman: I asked him that and he didn't really answer. I said, "What is your roadmap for Wikispecies?" but the conversation went a different direction. I think that tracking category is not really necessary but is used for some maintenance. —Justin (koavf)TCM 19:39, 11 July 2016 (UTC)Reply
Thanks @Koavf: for the info for both points. At least heads have cooled a bit. Still not decided my vote probably go neutral with a consensus proviso. Andyboorman (talk) 20:02, 11 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

Bulbophyllum membranaceum


This editor use spage (not allowed after agreements). See Bulbophyllum membranaceum. PeterR (talk) 08:39, 11 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

I have removed the {{Spage}} template from the page. However, I don't think we have any formal agreement that the template should be avoided. To be honest I had forgotten about the whole thing, but I have now again mentioned the issue in the Village Pump. –Tommy Kronkvist, 09:39, 11 July 2016 (UTC).Reply

Author template


This editor makes author templates not after our agreements. see Template:Peyerimhoff, 1937. PeterR (talk) 08:45, 11 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

Authored versus named versus described

Hello, I've seen you changed "authored" to "named" on template taxa. Please see the discussion here on why we actually prefer "authored" over the other options. Mariusm (talk) 13:47, 13 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

@Mariusm: Fair enough. It's now reverted. –Tommy Kronkvist, 14:04, 13 July 2016 (UTC).Reply

Template:Prebus & Lubertazzi, 2016


This template is not after our agreements Template:Prebus & Lubertazzi, 2016. Please update this one. PeterR (talk) 08:27, 14 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

 Done. Tommy Kronkvist, 08:40, 14 July 2016 (UTC).Reply

Category:Taxa by author


I see a lot of samples with these texts: This category currently contains no pages or media. such as by Category:David Lubertazzi taxa. What is the since of this? Nefer makes a lot of Categories without contribute the species etc. It will be filled after add the species etc. like the authored taxa. PeterR (talk) 12:17, 14 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

@PeterR: I was the one who created the David Lubertazzi page. In this case the main reason for creating the page was that I updated the {{Prebus & Lubertazzi, 2016}} template, as per your request above, and I didn't want to leave a red link for Dr. Lubertazzi. Since I know that he has named some taxa I also added the Taxon Authorities category to "his" page, and as a result I also created the David Lubertazzi taxa category, hoping that in due time it will get updated with the appropriate information. If I don't now that an author of publications is also naming new taxa, then I never add the "Taxon Authorities" category or create a "Taxa by author N.N." category.
I know that Neferkheperre creates a lot of "empty" "Taxa by author N.N." categories, but the system works! For instance, the Category:David Lubertazzi taxa is no longer empty. Given time, I'm sure that the categories created by Neferkheperre will also be filled with data regarding nominal taxa. I guess the main problem is that we still have many thousands of pages without a link to the actual taxa categories. For example, Dutch ichthyologist Pieter Bleeker described almost 2,500 new taxa, but only 67 of them can be found in Category:Pieter Bleeker taxa. There are a many Wikispecies taxa pages without a link to "Taxa by author N.N." categories, and we need to work on this.
Another, more serious problem is that we have many pages that looks like this, and that is of course also very bad. –Tommy Kronkvist, 21:27, 14 July 2016 (UTC).Reply
Thanks for the explonation. PeterR (talk) 16:48, 16 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

Technical assistence possible?

Hi, I found two reference templates, which obviousely mean the same reference. The older one, {{Günther;1861}}, edited by Haps and you, was more complete, but incorrectly named. The newer one, {{Günther, 1861}} was created this night by a suspected sockpuppet of Stho002, i.e. User:Adam Zappel. I intended to delete the less complete one and, after having moved the more complete one to the correct template name, to restore it later for the version history. The move worked. However, probably I made some mistake with the restoration of the deleted template. Anyway, it does not show up in the version history. Can you help? --Franz Xaver (talk) 07:07, 17 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hi @Franz Xaver: I'm not sure I fully understand the problem. When you move a page, the version history moves with it. As a result the version history of the "old", wrongly named {{Günther;1861}} now only shows that you moved the page. The full, actual version history of the page accompanies the move to the correctly named {{Günther, 1861}}, and can since then be found in the version history of its new location. Is that what your looking for? If not, please explain further. :-) Tommy Kronkvist, 08:26, 17 July 2016 (UTC).Reply
The name of the template was blocked by the new template created this night by Adam Zappel. So, I first deleted this and wanted to restore it later in order to merge the version histories of both. Anyway, the problem is solved now, probably without any action needed. Also the deleted version now is visible in the history, as intended by me. I suppose, there was some time lag in the database behind. You may also have a look at the logs of this template, if it is still unclear what I did. Thanks --Franz Xaver (talk) 08:59, 17 July 2016 (UTC)Reply
No, it looks pretty straight forward. And yes, we might sometimes be exposed to outdated database caches, and/or minor lags in the database traffic. On top of that, as you know, the cache files stored locally by our own computers can sometimes make our browsers behave in a peculiar manner. Personally I have enabled the "UTCLiveClock" option, which can be found in the Wikispecies' user preferences under the "Gadgets" tab. It adds a clock in the upper-right personal toolbar that shows the current time in UTC. That's helpful since the timestamps rendered by user edit signatures and on version history pages are UTC by wiki standard, while my (and your?) computer's clock show the time in UTC+01:00 (or UTC+02:00 during daylight saving time), i.e. the time here in Sweden and central Europe. Furthermore, the UTC clock is clickable: a click "purges" the server cache of the current page shown, after which the web browser rebuilds the page from scratch. Hence after clicking it I always know that what I see is the latest possible version of the page. However one should of course take care not to click it while editing a page, since it will purge any unsaved edits as well… Tommy Kronkvist, 10:53, 17 July 2016 (UTC).Reply
Thanks for the advice. Not sure, if I will enable this clock. Probably, I am under risk to click it at the wrong moment. Regards --Franz Xaver (talk) 11:59, 17 July 2016 (UTC)Reply
@Franz Xaver:, In order to force the wiki to show the latest version of a file, simply add &action=purge# after the url, likeünther,_1861&action=history&action=purge# Dan Koehl (talk) 10:39, 18 July 2016 (UTC)Reply
...I thought, but its not working with history of a file of course, since action can not be used to perform two different functions... :( Dan Koehl (talk) 10:43, 18 July 2016 (UTC)Reply
Indeed. Simply trying &action=history&purge# on history pages instead wont help much – you will still only get the history page, without the purge command being executed. (You can actually add &action=history&Anything# with the same (lack of?) result, since any parameters after the last ampersand are ignored.) Tommy Kronkvist, 23:04, 18 July 2016 (UTC).Reply

Redir revert

Kindly please revert my redirection [1] – there are too many links, my mistake, sorry. Chrumps (talk) 23:05, 2 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

It seems okay now. I'll soon try to find a suitable bot to fix the many extraneous redirects. –Tommy Kronkvist, 08:32, 3 August 2016 (UTC).Reply

Crambe feuilleei

Hello Tommy,

Would you help me please.

  1. Where can I find the section of this species?
  2. Would you delete please Crambe feuillei.

Thanks. Gtaf (talk) 12:12, 11 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

  1. In Crambe sect. Dendrocrambe.
  2.  Done.
Tommy Kronkvist, 08:12, 12 August 2016 (UTC).Reply
Thanks. Gtaf (talk) 23:21, 13 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

Vernacular names

Hello, Do you know this site ? Cordially.Gtaf (talk) 23:21, 13 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

No, and thank you for bringing it to my attention. I never add vernacular names to Wikispecies taxon pages, though. –Tommy Kronkvist, 15:35, 21 August 2016 (UTC).Reply

Euphorbia bourgeana et E. bourgaeana

Hello Tommy,

I think Euphorbia bourgeana and Euphorbia bourgaeana are the same taxon. The protologue is here. Kew gives bourgeana. Both are existing on Wikidata. Gtaf (talk) 21:46, 17 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

For my two pennies worth. The Plant List is not definitive "Kew" and in this case is wrong, as it can be in many cases. The Plant List is valuable but always needs checking with other sources and only gets updated every four or five years. IPNI, a more definitive secondary source, has
and no record of Euphorbia bourgeana. It is somebody using The Plant List or other source, as raw data and Euphorbia bourgeana is not a homonym, IMO, so page needs deleting here and on Wikidata. Andyboorman (talk) 09:47, 18 August 2016 (UTC)Reply
@Gtaf: & @Andyboorman: The Euphorbia bourgeana page is now deleted from Wikispecies, and the Wikispecies link is removed from the Euphorbia bourgeana Wikidata page. The Wikidata page itself still remains though, since it also contains links to nine language versions of Wikipedia. (The Euphorbia bourgaeana Wikidata page only contain one Wikimedia link, namely to Wikispecies.) –Tommy Kronkvist, 15:34, 21 August 2016 (UTC).Reply
Thanks Tommy and @Andyboorman:. I've changed it on fr.wp et fr.wt. Gtaf (talk) 16:07, 21 August 2016 (UTC)Reply


Hello Tommy,

Acronema is an alga and an Apiaceae. Please, tell me how to do. Best regards. Gtaf (talk) 18:30, 11 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

@Gtaf: I have created a page for the genus in Plantae, and moved the page for the bicosoecid. The page Acronema is now a disambiguation page: check it out to see the new links. –Best regards, Tommy Kronkvist, 20:21, 11 September 2016 (UTC).Reply

General lay-out

(Moved to User talk:Hmandre, where the discussion started.)


I am so so confused. Didn't I mark recently the typos Tempate:REF 3, Template Hall & Austin, 1997, Temlate:Černý, 1967, Teplate:Eoperipatus, Temnplate:Saintpaulia, Ttemplate:Pinguicula sect. Crassifolia, TemplateJiang & Zhang, 2016, Template Reid & Beatson, 2015 for deletion? It should have been around 13-14 sept. because in fact they all were deleted around those dates by you and Murma174. Those edits are not in the pages history or my contributions. 8I -- Sobreira (parlez) 12:34, 16 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

As far as I know, deleted pages vanish from your contribution list, but your contribution is still present in Special:Undelete/Temlate:Černý,_1967 --Murma174 (talk) 12:59, 16 September 2016 (UTC)Reply
@Murma174: Thank God, I thought I was becoming dellusional. I kinda assumed that for my contributions, but the thing is that I can see someone else's here -- Sobreira (parlez) 17:18, 16 September 2016 (UTC) PDː At least, creation, moving and deletion.Reply
What you can see here, are not all the contributions to that page, only administrative actions like moves or deletions. --Murma174 (talk) 18:00, 16 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

───────────────────────── @Sobreira: Case closed. Thank you for the explanations, @Murma174:
Best regards, Tommy Kronkvist, 09:54, 17 September 2016 (UTC).Reply

Author names

Hi Tommy,

Many thanks for your help on images and image template.

About author names, I am used to conform to "Recommendations to authors" published by scientific journals. The presentation of author names may vary even within the article, e.g. "small caps" in the reference section and usual "roman" in the other sections.

If I well understand, author names are always written in small capitals, whatever the section. From this point of view, the page on Brachytydeus is correct: Brachytydeus.

In contrast, the page on Calotydeus is incorrect and Oudemans, Baker, Wharton... should be rewritten with small caps: Calotydeus.

Best regards, Hmandre (talk) 09:43, 18 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hello @Hmandre:
Yes, in Wikispecies we have a consensus saying that all author names should be written in small caps. So yes indeed, the Brachytydeus page is correct (at least in that aspect), but caps should be added to some of the author names on the Calotydeus page. As you know, the {{A}} template will produce small caps with a link, and the {{Aut|}} template will produce small caps without a link. Different Wikispecies' editors have different ideas regarding when the author names should be linked, but personally I prefer to always link the first mention of every author in every (sub)section, but not link them again if they occur again in the same (sub)section. See my sandbox for an example of this. There you can see that the author Boulenger is linked the first time in every section, but not the second and third time, etc. My reason for not linking the name every time is that over-linking may clutter the text, making it harder to read. For instance, consider the synonyms list on the Aphanius anatoliae page. If all of the occurences of the author Akşiray would be linked, that would be a lot of links, making it hard to read – especially when accessing the page from a small-screen device, such as a mobile phone. However, please note that we don't have any fixed policy or praxis for how to link author names, so this is only my suggestion.
The "Reference" section (and its subsections, if any) is a special case. Preferably, all references should always be in the form of a reference template, for instance such as the template {{André, 1985}} which you have created yourself. In those cases the author link is of course added on the template page rather than the taxon page. Hence, in practice this mean that in the reference section all author names will always be linked. Cordially, Tommy Kronkvist, 13:59, 18 September 2016 (UTC).Reply
Thank you for the explanations. Best regards.Hmandre (talk) 09:02, 19 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

There many pages with non-formatted Wikipedia links. Should I just remove them then? Acer (talk) 15:46, 10 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

@Acer: Yes please. All interwiki links (except perhaps the occasional link to Wikimedia Commons) should be handled by Wikidata rather than "manually". See Wikispecies:Project Wikidata for more information. –Tommy Kronkvist, 01:32, 12 October 2016 (UTC).Reply

Belarusian Vernacular Names

Do we wish to dump all this without research? This appears to be lengthy list of Belaruski vernacular names for established species. It could be mined? Neferkheperre (talk) 00:03, 19 October 2016 (UTC) (Moved from "User talk:Yasen igra/Sandbox", where the discussion started.)Reply

@Neferkheperre: The list is also available here, though in table format, and sorted alphabetically by scientific names. –Tommy Kronkvist, 15:58, 19 October 2016 (UTC). (Moved from "User talk:Yasen igra/Sandbox", where the discussion started.)Reply
Thanks for giving me that link. It is much more useful. Neferkheperre (talk) 17:00, 19 October 2016 (UTC)Reply
You're welcome. The table is rendered entirely using standard wiki code plus a wee amount of inline CSS, so converting from the list format was a quick deal. I have deleted the original page, since orphaned talk pages of other deleted pages are pretty much pointless to keep. –Tommy Kronkvist, 19:14, 19 October 2016 (UTC).Reply
I'm not entirely certain, but after studying the vernacular names a bit more thoroughly it looks that the list isn't made up of Belarusian names alone, but also some Russian, Bulgarian, maybe Serbian and perhaps also other languages. I can't say for sure though, since my knowledge of the Slavic languages is pretty much nonexistent except for some rudimentary understanding of Russian. In any case we shouldn't simply copy the names into VN sections assuming all of them to be Belarusian (or any other language). –Tommy Kronkvist, 22:29, 19 October 2016 (UTC).Reply
I can read Cyrillic text quite well, and there are several variations amongst those languages. Belarus uses more archaic variants which are rarely used in Russian after 1925-1930. Belaruski is direct transliteration from Cyrillic. Ukrainian has adopted some Latin letters, and is 70% similar to Polish in vocabulary, although classed as Eastern Slavic. Serbian, Bulgarian and some minor languages in that area class as South Slavic. Serbian is written in Cyrillic or Latin side by side. If in Latin, they use Czech system, heavily laden with "pothooks".
Yes, we must verify some of these names as to precise language. Some cross over among several languages, or are at least very similar in consonant values. Neferkheperre (talk) 23:56, 19 October 2016 (UTC)Reply
Спасибо за объяснение! –Tommy Kronkvist, 09:31, 20 October 2016 (UTC).Reply

Berchemia discolor

Hi, I replaced Template:Oliver, 1868a by Template:Hemsley, 1868. Actually, Oliver is the editor of the respective volume of Flora of Tropical Africa, but he is not the author of the Rhamnaceae (Rhamneae) chapter. This was published under the authorship of Hemsley. In my opinion, Template:Oliver, 1868a should be deleted, as it is representing a false claim of authorship. Anyway, I have constructed Template:Oliver, 1868 in a way, that it can be used also for separate chapters authored by Oliver himself − see e.g. in Idertia axillaris. Regards --Franz Xaver (talk) 10:20, 20 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hi! Indeed your are correct, and the {{Oliver, 1868a}} template is now deleted. Good solution with the {{Oliver, 1868}} template! Can you please add some information to the template's page regarding the optional parameters that can be used to reference specific chapters and page numbers? Otherwise that possibility may not be obvious for all Wikispecies users, since it is necessary to check the actual template code to see it. –Tommy Kronkvist, 10:36, 20 October 2016 (UTC).Reply
You are right. I will add some info on these optional parameters. There also many other reference templates I have created with optional parameters. These all together will need some time.
I made some more changes and additions to the Berchemia discolor. Please check. Regards --Franz Xaver (talk) 10:52, 20 October 2016 (UTC)Reply
The Berchemia discolor page looks good to me. To complement your additions I added a "Taxa by author" category and made some small changes to the use of author templates (please see template {{A}} versus template {{Aut}} for information).
I like your additions to the {{Oliver, 1868}} template, though I made some changes there too. I created a template documentation subpage, which can be found here: Template:Oliver, 1868/doc. I then linked it to the {{Oliver, 1868}} template page, using the {{Documentation}} template. Please check the most recent {{Oliver, 1868}} template code on how to use it. Using this method we can create a separate, universal template describing how to add reference specific chapters and page numbers to the author templates. Basically in the exact same way you did for the Oliver 1868 template, but without using explicit author names or names of publications. We then create documentation subpages for all the other relevant "optional parameters reference templates" you have created, and insert the universal "description template" into each and every of those documentation subpages. That will probably be a lot quicker than writing separate descriptions for all of your "optional parameters" templates. Ideas? –Tommy Kronkvist, 20:15, 20 October 2016 (UTC).Reply

Uswa Public School

Why you delete my page Uswa Public School? Nouman Khan Sherani (talk) 09:47, 26 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hello @Nouman Khan Sherani: As can be seen in the log for the page, I deleted it because it is out of scope of the Wikispecies project. It is important to know that Wikispecies is not the same as Wikipedia. Wikispecies is only a database of material directly connected to information regarding the taxonomy, nomenclature and systematics of taxa. We do not have any pages about schools, universities, cities, countries and such, since those subjects are unrelated to taxonomy and therefore out of scope of this project. For such matters please use Wikipedia instead, which contrary to Wikispecies is a much more general encyclopedia, hence also serving a broader spectrum of interests. Best regards, Tommy Kronkvist, 11:37, 26 October 2016 (UTC).Reply



I have created the genus Ivesia (Petrunkevitch), because there is a plant genus Ivesia (Torr. & Gray). See English Wikipedia: Ivesia. I can't find this plant genus in Wikispecies. Would you please create this plant genus? PeterR (talk) 09:57, 1 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

@PeterR: The page Ivesia (Torr. & Gray) is now created, and added to Wikidata. I have also created the disambiguation page Ivesia, with links to both genera. Best regards, Tommy Kronkvist, 13:20, 3 November 2016 (UTC).Reply

Re.: Categories

Moved to User talk:Burmeister where the discussion started.

Re.: templates

Moved to User talk:Burmeister where the discussion started.

Typo in title and category

Hi, I find a typo in this page Célio F.B. Haddad and the associated category, may I move to correct the lack of space between the "F.B." or have I contact the creator of the page ? Thanks Burmeister (talk) 23:54, 13 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

Actually, Wikispecies' consensus and naming scheme states that there shouldn't be any space between initials. There are several examples of this, for example Saad S.J. Al-Sheikhly, Steven H.D. Haddock, and Leo W.H. Tan. It is not done in a very obvious manner, I admit to that, but this naming practice is also pointed out in the Wikispecies help pages, specifically in the Help:Reference section. The naming convention is the result of a community discussion started in December 2015, followed by a poll leading to this guideline. I know that there are some users who don't appreciate this particular part of Wikispecies' naming scheme. Most likely the main issue is that the rules of how to use spacing differs greatly between different languages, and Wikispecies' users come from all over the world... Personally I'm fine with it, and am happy to follow consensus. –Tommy Kronkvist, 00:43, 14 November 2016 (UTC).Reply
Thanks for explanation. In references it's ok, but in title it's very strange to me. Thanks again Burmeister (talk) 00:46, 14 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

Fusarium page revision


I am new to Wikispecies, so I am not sure whether I do things in the proper way. I edited the Fusarium page and later on you have removed large part of my contributions. Could you let me know what was wrong? Some of the parts, like etymology and definitions, are quite important, in my opinion. Also is there a species complex or lineage tag or only genus (g) and species (sp) tags?

All help and information is much appreciated! — The preceding unsigned comment was added by B-brankovics (talkcontribs) 08:28, 22 November 2016.

Hello @B-brankovics: and thank you for you contributions. It is important to know that the scope of Wikispecies is very different from that of Wikipedia. Some of the differences are described here: What Wikispecies is not. You can find more information in the Wikispecies help files, especially in the Taxonavigation, Name, and Reference sections.
In short and contrary to Wikipedia, Wikispecies only describes biological nomenclature and taxonomy, and to a lesser extent the type repositories, scientific publications and authors with references to those subjects. Topics not directly related to nomenclature or taxonomy do not belong to Wikispecies at all, and body-length pieces of text should be included to Wikipedia instead. Distribution and range data can be included in the talk page of an article, or (eventually) in Wikidata.
As for the taxon rank templates used in the Taxonavigation section, they are all listed in the formatting templates category. There are a lot more than only the {{G}} and {{Sp}} ones, but only for specific taxon ranks: none for species complexes and such.
Please sign your comments on talk pages using four tildes (like this: ~~~~). Doing so will automatically add your username (if you're logged in) and the date, which makes it easier for other users to follow a discussion. If you have more questions or need further help, please do not hesitate to ask me here on my talk page, or in the Village Pump. Best regards, Tommy Kronkvist, 12:09, 22 November 2016 (UTC).Reply

Tysp template

I see that you are removing {{tysp|}} is this now consensus? I can not think of a discussion about it that was resolved. What are the problems with this sort of template? Is WS going to a template free environment? If so this would make it more difficult for less experienced editors, IMO. For example, I am thinking of a taxa list say; {{sp|G|enus|species}} compared to the long way, which I cannot even remember! I use {{tysp|}} a lot as well as {{TG|}} and others. I do not think I will be trawling through my back copy changing them. By the way if we want to be strict about it we should use typus, but type species and type genus are so common that it probably does not really matter, maybe? Regards Andyboorman (talk) 08:34, 24 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hello @Andyboorman: No, I do not think removing {{Tysp}} is consensus. That said, neither is adding it – and there's the problem in a nutshell. Personally I have nothing against the use of templates, and feel that a Wikispecies without them would be both harder to edit, and less efficient in serving us the information it harbours. But there are templates, and there are templates… In my opinion we (i.e. the community) need to formulate at least some guideline stating which types of templates are recommended (and when to use them), and which that should be avoided. When specifically talking about {{Tysp}} + {{TG}} and the other formatting templates, I see at least two problems.
  • First, when trying to look at them from a novice user's point of view I don't find them all that easy. At least not compared to plain wiki code. I find it more difficult to intuitively grasp whats going on within a template such as
{{Tysp|Laetacara curviceps|{{a|Ernst Ahl|Ahl}}, 1923}}
compared to the plain wiki code
Type species: ''[[Laetacara curviceps]]'' {{a|Ernst Ahl|Ahl}}, 1923
Sure, the latter code string is a bit longer – but contrary to the {{Tysp}} string it does not contain a template within a template, hence no nested brackets which in my mind makes it more legible. But as you know: I'm always willing to discuss all of these matters, and will change my mind if presented with a better alternative, or proven wrong. And if there ever is a case when I don't change my mind I will follow consensus nonetheless!
  • The second issue is format. The most common guide for new users is probably our help pages, in this particular case Help:Name section. If we decide to advocate the use of formatting templates all of them should automatically render a format in accordance with those help files. Today, that is not the case. The help files says that the "Name" section should only include one subsection, named "Synonyms" or "Synonymy". However at present all the formatting templates {{TG}}, {{TGN}}, {{TSL}}, {{TSN}}, {{Type}} and {{Tysp}} renders as if they were level 4 subsections, which of course they are not. This issue was briefly discussed at the Village Pump as early as 2008. As far as I can see only the {{TS}} and {{TSNO}} templates are rendered correctly. Moreover, the majority of these formatting templates use an inline link to English Wikipedia (eg. Type genus: in the {{TG}} template), which is generally discouraged. In my opinion they should link to Wikispecies:Dictionary instead.
All the best, and have a nice weekend. Tommy Kronkvist, 23:43, 25 November 2016 (UTC).Reply
Hello @Tommy Kronkvist: All in all after thinking about your points above I tend to agree with most, except with the ease of use, which is perhaps marginal and the name section. On this point for plants at least, it is important to have the type with the actual name, or non designatus, if there is not one. Therefore, on this later point I think Help needs modifying. Some editors also add the lectotype/holotype, what it is and where this is located. The offending links to English Wikipedia can easily be dealt with by modifying the nested title template, but I notice that the entries to Wikispecies:Dictionary will need to be created! I do think that we ought to take this whole discussion to the VP, perhaps concluding with a possible poll to inform consensus.
However, if {{tysp}} and so on, are to be discouraged/banned then it begs the question - can a bot be created to retrospectively change all my (and others) use of the these templates? If not then VP discussion will need to be in informed by this, if we are being pragmatic.
I am having a decent weekend doing a bit of fencing in the garden, which I enjoy. Hopefully your weekend is also going well. Andyboorman (talk) 11:30, 27 November 2016 (UTC)Reply
Here is another one {{Lectyp|}} Andyboorman (talk) 17:38, 28 November 2016 (UTC)Reply
Hello again @Andyboorman: Your points are valid, as always. One thing that sometimes makes the {{Tysp}} template less legible is when it is nested within the {{Nomen}} template. One example can be seen here. In my opinion there's no need for the {{Nomen}} template at all. At the time of writing it is used on approximately 3933 pages, but would probably be difficult to remove by use of a bot, since the syntax varies a lot. For instance it is often mixed together with reference templates, incorrectly used in the "Name" section rather than the "References" section, like here. (Please note that's an old version: I've since removed the {{Nomen}} template and moved the reference templates.) As you know these are all issues that are well known and have been discussed before, however IMO they should be solved first, before seeking consensus in regards to {{Tysp}} and the other formatting templates. The reason is simple: with {{Nomen}} gone it would be a lot easier for a bot the handle the {{Tysp}}, {{TG}} etc templates, regardless whether we decide to remove them all, or add them to the pages were they are currently not used.
Hello @Tommy Kronkvist: I had forgotten about {{Nomen}} probably the most useless template. I guess it was created for a longer term project lost in the mists of time. I will get rid of a number of instances and unless there are howls of protest go to the pump and suggest that other editors also help getting rid of its use with a view to its deletion. I have also lifted its level of protection. Regards Andyboorman (talk) 19:10, 29 November 2016 (UTC)Reply
Indeed the Wikispecies Dictionary lacks a lot of information. I'll try to find the time to add the relevant entries during the nest couple of days – however we need to be careful lest we make it into a "mini Wikipedia". And yes, more or less all of the "Help" pages needs to be modified as well. I find they lack quite a lot of relevant information, and in some (luckily rare) places they are outright incorrect. That work is long overdue, and should probably be discussed on the Admins' Noticeboard fairly soon.
Agreed most readily. Andyboorman (talk) 19:10, 29 November 2016 (UTC)Reply
As for gardening the growing season is since long over here in central Sweden, but at least I planted a whole bunch of garlic cloves about a week ago. Now the ground is all covered in snow, and there's not much more to do than wait for spring to arrive. I do some "indoor gardening" though, growing a few species of Aponogeton and Barclaya in my aquaria. But that's another story... Cheers! –Tommy Kronkvist, 13:40, 29 November 2016 (UTC).Reply
Keep in literal touch with nature. In SE England winter is the season for muddy boots, grubby hands and bare root planting! Take care Andyboorman (talk) 19:10, 29 November 2016 (UTC)Reply


Hi! The template:zfg is still in use, or is one like tysp, nomen, syn that will be deleted soon? Burmeister (talk) 10:59, 14 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hi @Burmeister: As far as I know there is no (other) ongoing discussion regarding {{Zfg}} and therefore I guess the template is still in use, at least from a formal standpoint. However contrary to for example {{Gbr}} it is pretty much useless. I see no point in highlighting family names over other ranks, except for names of genera and species which are "automatically" highlighted by the use of italics anyway. As a result, these days I tend to delete the {{Zfg}} template whenever I come across it. Feel free to continue to use it if you like to, but my personal recommendation is to delete it together with any and all occurrences of the {{Nomen}}, {{Syn}} and {{Tysp}} templates. Regards, Tommy Kronkvist, 11:22, 14 December 2016 (UTC).Reply
I think it's useless too. Thanks for explanation! Burmeister (talk) 11:49, 14 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

Re Template:VN

(Moved to the Village Pump at 18:04, 17 December 2016 (UTC).

I was posting a suggestion to this effect! Cheers Andyboorman (talk) 18:12, 17 December 2016 (UTC)Reply
Would you please elaborate? What "effect"? I'm sorry, but it's been a very long day and my intellectual capacities are somewhat depleted... :-) Tommy Kronkvist, 18:24, 17 December 2016 (UTC).Reply
Sorry what I meant was that I was just about to reply with the suggestion we go to the pump when you transferred the discussion! Cheers Andyboorman (talk) 18:36, 17 December 2016 (UTC)Reply
Oh okay. See you there ...after I've brewed myself a bucket of coffee. Cheers, Tommy Kronkvist, 18:43, 17 December 2016 (UTC).Reply

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this archive.