User talk:Voganaa

From Wikispecies
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Welcome to Wikispecies!

Hello, and welcome to Wikispecies! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might like to see:

If you have named a taxon, then it is likely that there is (or will be) a Wikispecies page about you, and other pages about your published papers. Please see our advice and guidance for taxon authors.

If you have useful images to contribute to Wikispecies, please upload them at Wikimedia Commons. This is also true for video or audio files containing bird songs, whale vocalization, etc.

Please sign your comments on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username (if you're logged in) and the date. Please also read the Wikispecies policy What Wikispecies is not. If you need help, ask me on my talk page, or in the Village Pump. Again, welcome! Dan Koehl (talk) 07:50, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Hi, Voganaa,
you changed several taxonavigations like this one. Does it mean, that Tremella ramalinae does not belong to the Genus Tremella anymore? --Murma174 (talk) 11:12, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, @Murma174:. The Tremellas that I moved from genus Tremella to family Bulleraceae are all related to each other, but are not closely related to the Tremella genus proper. Many of the current names, including Tremella ramalinae, are being kept as pro tem until the systematics of the groups are formalised, but the authors state that they are waiting till they have more sequence data to do this. As such they have kept their old names, but have been assigned to the new family, Bulleraceae. Voganaa (talk) 12:14, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your reply, Voganaa! I was just wondering, because MycoBank still shows the old classification. Maybe you could add a source of your information? Otherwise readers (like me) could be confused. Thanks again. --Murma174 (talk) 14:44, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Murma174:, I've put a reference on the Bulleraceae page. Do you think I should put one on each species page as well? Thanks for the feedback. Voganaa (talk) 15:26, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I'd suggest to put it on each species page. Please see Bulleraceae, where I replaced the reference by a template. --Murma174 (talk) 16:41, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
P.S, If you'd write reference templates, please do it like this pattern: * {{aut|Liu, X.Z.}}, {{aut|Wang, Q.M.}}, {{aut|Göker, M.}}, {{aut|Groenewald, M.}}, {{aut|Kachalkin, A.V.}}, {{aut|Lumbsch, H.T.}}, {{aut|Millanes, A.M.}}, {{aut|Wedin, M.}}, {{aut|Yurkov, A.M.}}, {{aut|Boekhout, T.}} & {{aut|Bai, F.Y.}}, 2015. Towards an integrated phylogenetic classification of the Tremellomycetes. ''[[ISSN 0166-0616|Studies in mycology]]'' 81: 85-147. {{doi|}} []{{subst:reftemp}}. The {{subst:reftemp}}-part does a lot of useful things, as you can see here: Template:Liu,_X.Z._et_al.,_2015 --Murma174 (talk) 17:03, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Great! Thanks.Voganaa (talk) 08:41, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Naganishia diffluens[edit]

Hi, Voganaa

I see you make templates for species, but we only make a template for species if their are subspecies. PeterR (talk) 13:07, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @PeterR:, thanks for the info! Voganaa (talk) 13:17, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Request for speedy delete[edit]

Hello I have removed your request for a speedy delete from Exobasidiomycetidae and have placed the reasons on its talk page. Thanks Andyboorman (talk) 19:20, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Andyboorman: and @Voganaa: We also have the Cintractiellaceae page up for speedy deletion, saying "rejected by Begerow, Stoll and Bauer (2006)". I'm not at all saying that Voganaa is wrong (I have no reason to, whatsoever) but then again I don't have access to Begerow, Stoll and Bauer's paper either, and therefore don't feel comfortable deleting the page... But I'm sure you guys can sort it out?! :-) Tommy Kronkvist (talk)‚ 13:48, 29 November 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Share your experience and feedback as a Wikimedian in this global survey[edit]


  1. This survey is primarily meant to get feedback on the Wikimedia Foundation's current work, not long-term strategy.
  2. Legal stuff: No purchase necessary. Must be the age of majority to participate. Sponsored by the Wikimedia Foundation located at 149 New Montgomery, San Francisco, CA, USA, 94105. Ends January 31, 2017. Void where prohibited. Click here for contest rules.

Application for Checkuser[edit]

Referring to earlier discussions regarding a local Checkuser policy, I herebye apply to get Checkuser user rights, although we havnt reached a consensus reg Checkuser policy, but I want to give it a try if I can get the required votes. For a request to succeed a minimum of 25 support votes and an 80% positive vote are required (subject to the normal bureaucrat discretion). Requests for checkuser run for two weeks, and I ask kindly that somone starts the poll, like we do for adminship applications.

Please also note that CheckUser actions are logged, but for privacy reasons the logs are only visible to other Checkusers. Because of this, Wikispecies must always have no fewer than two checkusers, for mutual accountability. I dont want to suggest anyone, but hope that someone feel inspired and will step forward and also apply for checkuser.

My request to the Wikispecies community is here

Dan Koehl (talk) 20:14, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Additional Checkuser Application[edit]

I also have added my name to those willing to be a checkuser. Please see my application here Wikispecies:Checkusers/Requests/Faendalimas. I listed this yeasterday but have been encouraged to do a mass mail. I would also take the opportunity to make sure everyone knows that any editor can vote but that it is imperative that as many do as possible, for all 4 of the current applicants, please have your say. Checkuser voting has strict policy rules regarding number of votes. You will have other messages from the other Users concerned you can also read about it in the discussion on the Village Pump - Wikispecies:Village_Pump#Application_for_Checkuser. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:53, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Standing for role of checkUser[edit]

Like some of our colleagues (who I support), I am offering to serve as a checkuser, not least to ensure adequate coverage in case one of the others is unavailable.

Please comment at Wikispecies:Checkusers/Requests/Pigsonthewing.

[Apologies if you receive a duplicate notification; I wasn't aware of Wikispecies:Mail list/active users, and sent my original notification to the list of administrators instead.] MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:59, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

RFC on Checkusers[edit]

With one week to go I wanted to remind everyone of the importance of voting on the current CheckUser applications. They can all be found together on a single RFC: Wikispecies:Requests_for_Comment#Checkusers.

It is extremely important with votes such as this for everyone to be involved. There are strict rules in the Wikimedia Foundation Policy guidelines on these votes. I would urge people to have a good understanding of what a CheckUser does. This can be read up on here on the page discussing CheckUser's Wikispecies:Checkusers. Links on this page will take you to other policy information on Meta, HowTo for our site etc.

I would also urge people to look at our own policy development and some past discussion on this can be found here: Wikispecies_talk:Local_policies#Local_CU_Policy.

Wikispecies has in the past had issues that has required the intervention that is supported by the ability to do a CheckUser. Many of us are aware of this. The capacity to do this ourselves greatly speeds up this process. Although SockPuppetry can sometimes be identified without using a CheckUser in order to do the necessary steps to stop it or even prevent it requires evidence. We all know that sockpupets can do significant damage.

This is an important step for Wikispecies. It is a clear demonstration we can run ourselves as a Wiki Project part of Wiki Media Foundation. When I and several others first discussed this we knew it would be difficult at the time to meet all the criteria. We have only now decided to try and get this feature included in Wikispecies. By doing this it can lead to other areas where Wikispecies can further develop its own policies. In some areas we have unique needs, different to the other Wiki's. It is timely we were able to develop all these policies.

Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:15, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Dear, Voganaa! Would you accept to be a Patroller on Wikispecies? Wikispecies need more Patrollers and presently there is only 36 out of 150 active users.
Please see Patrollers for information about patrollers rights. If you are positive, I can nominate you on the requests for patroller rights on your behalf.

Dan Koehl (talk) 15:13, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Dan Koehl: I'd be happy to take the role of patroller. Voganaa (talk) 17:53, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Great, good news. Thanks so much. Dan Koehl (talk) 17:58, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Patrolling rights[edit]

Dear Voganaa, You have been granted Patroller user rights, which may be granted to experienced Wikispecies users who have demonstrated an understanding of Wikispecies policies and guidelines.

The user right Patroller gives the user a right to have their page edits automatically marked as patrolled, but also to patrol new pages and mark them as patrolled. For more information, read Wikispecies:Patrollers.

This user has Patroller rights on Wikispecies. (verify)

You may as Patroller use the Patroller user box on your user page. Copy and paste the following code on your user page:
{{User Patroller}}

Please consider carrying out daily patrols of new pages and edits made by users who are not autopatrolled. Here you can see the Patrol statistics for the last 7 days on specieswiki.

Dan Koehl (talk) 17:59, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Request for vote reg use of BASEPAGENAME[edit]

The previous discussions regarding if we should subst:ing BASEPAGENAME and change all [[BASEPAGENAME]] into [[susbt:BASEPAGENAME]] did not really reach a consensus.

Please vote here on the Village pump!

If you are not sure on your opinion, you can read and join the discussion about the claimed advantages and disadvantages of using BASEPAGENAME

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:29, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikispecies Oversighter[edit]

Wikispecies has no local Oversighter. Since I had the communitys confidence regarding the previous application for Checkusers rights, as per local Oversight policy on META, I hereby apply to get Oversighters user rights, as a request to the Wikispecies community.

Application is located at Requests for Comment.

Please also note that Oversighter actions are logged, but for privacy reasons the logs are only visible to other Oversighters. Because of this, Wikispecies must always have no fewer than two oversighters, for mutual accountability. I don't want to suggest anyone, but hope that someone feel inspired and will step forward and also apply for oversighters rights.

Dan Koehl through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:01, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oversight nomination[edit]

Please refer to Wikispecies:Oversighters/Requests/Koavf for a second Oversight nomination. Note that we must have at least two Oversigthers in order for anyone to have these user rights. All feedback is welcome. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:50, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Share your experience and feedback as a Wikimedian in this global survey[edit]

WMF Surveys, 18:36, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder: Share your feedback in this Wikimedia survey[edit]

WMF Surveys, 01:34, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback matters: Final reminder to take the global Wikimedia survey[edit]

WMF Surveys, 00:44, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Community Insights Survey[edit]

RMaung (WMF) 14:34, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder: Community Insights Survey[edit]

RMaung (WMF) 19:14, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder: Community Insights Survey[edit]

RMaung (WMF) 17:04, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Dear Voganaa. The changes I had made to Conlariaceae were to reflect the paper "Hyde, K.D. et al. 2020. Refined families of Sordariomycetes. Mycosphere 11(1): 305–1059." (pp. 318, 534–537). They assigned Riomyces to Conlariaceae. I'm not an expert in the taxonomy of fungi except lichens, so I don't know whether the field agrees with these changes or not, but the current guidelines on Wikispecies suggest to go with the more recent publication. --Lichenes (talk) 05:13, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Lichenes: I'm happy to see you making updates, that reference should be a good one. Its just a matter of searching the pages for where a given taxa might already be represented and removing it from there so there are not multiple instances. There was also an issue where you took a family off a page but did not make it a redirect, so it became an orphan. Please try to avoid that. Voganaa (talk) 08:08, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Spencermartinsia, not valid?[edit]

You redirected Spencermartinsia to Dothiorella. Does MycoBank or Index Fungorum support it?--Estopedist1 (talk) 09:39, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

MycoBank and IndexFungorum do not have this synonymy yet. This is a noted weak point for both databases, though especially for MycoBank. The reference for it is here. However, it appears that Spencermartinsia yunnana Y. Zhang ter & Min Zhang, 2016 does not have a new combination under Dothiorella yet. So Spencermartinsia could be changed to have just this species with a note on the synonymy.

Redundant species template[edit]

Template:Filobasidium stepposum. To be deleted because: {{speedy|redundant. Species template only if infraspecific taxa exist}}. I personally think that at least three infraspecific taxa should be existed--Estopedist1 (talk) 09:32, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]