Hi Wikiklaas - Actophilornis is one of those odd cases where the name ending differs between the two species, with Actophilornis africanus and Actophilornis albinucha (ref: IOC). I'd guess you'd need to search through the David & Gosselin papers on avian name genders to find the reasons why (see e.g. Regulus ignicapilla). - MPF (talk) 14:13, 25 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm sorry but although I have great respect for your work here and on Commons, in this case you don't seem to know what you are talking about. There is really no such thing as epithets being alowed to be male AND female adjectives in the same genus. In zoological nomenclature, ornis is a masculine word (in classical Greek, it can be both male or female), and the specific epithet should agree with that in gender if it is an adjective or a participle. You can find numerous cases where Actophilornis africanus is erroneously spelled as A. africana but this doesn't mean it should be spelled as africana. The only way one can have an epithet ending in a female ending when the gender of the generic name is male, is when the epithet is not a Latin or Latinized adjective or participle. "Nucha" is the Medieval Latin word for "the nape (back) of the neck". If the epithet albinucha, as explained by Isidore Geoffroy Sint-Hilaire, when he writes "Jacana a nuque blanche" (see below), is an adjective, it should agree in gender with Actophilornis. If it is a compound noun (or noun phrase) in apposition, it need not agree in gender. I have seen several instances where this epithet is used in other genera (Exetastes, Buarremon, Atlapetes, Lorius, Pachyrhynchus, Metopidius (= Actophilornis), Thryothorus, Thryomanes, Aetophiltis). There may be some errors in the usage but in combination with all these generic names, the epithet has been used as albinuchus. That's too many cases to think the epithet is to be treated as a noun in apposition.
The confusion arises because both names were published with a different genus name. Actophilornis africanus was first published by Gmelin in 1789 as Parra africana (), Parra L. being a female noun. Actophilornis albinuchus was first published by Geoffroy Sint-Hilaire as Parra albinuca [sic] (). In 1896, R.B. Sharpe placed both species in the new genus Phyllopezus, as P. africanus (gender of specific epithet correctly adjusted) and P. albinucha (female epithet not adjusted to male). When the name Phyllopezus appeared to be occupied by Phyllopezus Peters 1877 (for a genus of reptiles), Harry Church Oberholser proposed the new name Actophilus. He thereby also adjusted the epithet of the Madagascar species to albinuchus (). When it was brought to his attention that Actophilus was already occupied by a beetle genus, he finally proposed the name Actophilornis. The new names werd spelled by him as Actophilornis africanus and A. albinuchus (). I think you'll have to come up with a source pointing out why Oberholser's spelling of the name is erroneous or otherwise undo your last move. With the best intentions, Wikiklaas (talk) 21:40, 25 March 2013 (UTC) I'm quite sure Regulus ignicapilla is the erroneous spelling of R. atricapillus. Capillus is the Latin word for "hair". The name of the species was first published as Sylvia ignicapilla, signifying that the epithet was meant as an adjective. When the species was transferred to Regulus, the gender of the epithet should also have been adjusted. In my edition of Peterson's A field guide to the birds of Britain and Europe, the name is indeed spelled as Regulus ignicapillus.Reply[reply]
Maybe; I don't know. But we need to follow the standard authority for Aves here (i.e., IOC), rather than make our own decision. If you're right (which you may well be!), then it should be taken up with IOC to see what they say: they will have good reasons for using the spelings that they do use, but they will change it if presented with valid contrary evidence; then after that, we would take it up here. Oh, and if you get the latest edition of the field guide to the birds of Britain and Europe, you'll find it is R. ignicapilla now (as it is in all post-2003 ornithological literature, subsequent to David & Gosselin's paper). - MPF (talk) 09:21, 26 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ah, thank you. That's more like a good reason. It's indeed not about gender but about following the specialists, with which I can live. Cheers. Wikiklaas (talk) 09:58, 26 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi Wikiklaas - Recently you were caring about Dactyloceras. In my opinion the generic name Dactyloceras Mell 1930, Dtsch. ent. Z., 1929, 389: Lepidoptera could be preoccupied by Dactyloceras Fischer 1879 J. Conchyliol., 27, 254: Mollusca. Is that case settled yet? Kempf EK (talk) 13:53, 18 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Is this just your opinion or are you referring to a paper in which a scientific author brought this to the general attention of the scientific community? I had a look at the "protologue" of your "DactylocerasFischer" and noticed that Fischer cites the name in a list, and attributes it to Hyatt, 1867. And if we then take a look at the protologue of Hyatts name (Hyatt, A. (1867). The Fossil Cephalopods of the Museum of Comparative Zoölogy. Bulletin of the Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard College1(5): 95), we immediately notice that Hyatt published the name as Dactylioceras. In cases like these, where two nearly equal but established names compete and are not likely to be confused because they are used in different fields, the International Commission has always ruled that a one letter difference was enough for both names to be available. Fishers name was no more than a typographic error, certainly not a validly published name, nothing to be worried about. There is nothing to be "settled". Wikiklaas (talk) 11:53, 19 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ah well, but on that page, it is also stated that the record has not yet been verified against the original. Once they do that, they will find: "Dactyloceras (err. pro -lioceras Hyatt 1867) Fischer 1879 J. Conchyliol., 27, 254." "Dactyloceras Fischer" is not an available name because it was not validly published, and Dactyloceras Mell cannot be a homonym of something that has no standing, at least not the standing of an available name. Wikiklaas (talk) 16:16, 20 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It is complicated to explain, and I don't have time, but please don't add diambiguation letters to the actual reference citations, just their template titles. We can link directly to the correct template, so we don't need the letters in the citation itself. The letters are context dependent. It makes no sense, for example, to have a page which refers only to 1891c.
OK, thanks. In that case, I'll als remove the letter from the Lucas papers for 1889. Cheers. Wikiklaas (talk) 22:02, 20 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Putting a comma after the author and before date in a reference citation is unnecessary and nonstandard. Most reference citations on WS do not have the comma. Therefore please remove the comma when you see it, and please do not add a comma. Thanks Stho002 (talk) 22:20, 20 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It is certainly not nonstandard as you say it. But what I tried to do is be consistent for one author at least. I started my edits by copying the contents from an existing Lucas-template, in order to be consistent with what was already there. Wikiklaas (talk) 22:24, 20 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Most WS refs do not have the comma. Why be consistent for one author, and thereby add inconsistency for the whole site? Stho002 (talk) 22:27, 20 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, that's a good question. But as far as I'm concerned, I did not see any consistency, and there was no consistency either when you finished your business. Moreover, in literature (that's where Wikispecies takes it information from) the comma IS a standard thing, so why be different on WS? Just your own preference? Or just your way of making a tiny edit to every contribution someone else makes? I thought of quickly adding five Lucas papers that were not yet listed here. And I end up in an edit war. I could think about that myself but you certainly will have some very serious thinking to do. Cheers, Wikiklaas (talk) 22:36, 20 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The issues are complex. If you are going to go for consistency for one author, it makes sense to choose consistency with the majority of WS reference citations. What we have done is now looking good, but it is a "team effort" Stho002 (talk) 22:39, 20 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
One more thing, by the way: I noticed, just when I was editing, that it came in very handy when choosing a template to edit, when a letter was added tot the year. I think most users will understand that "1889b" means that the author issued more papers in that same year, even if they don't see "1889a". So that "disambiguation" is not in the way when a paper is listed in a list, but it is certainly helpful in other cases. Again I wonder if this is just your personal thing or something that was reached consensus about on this project. But fort now, I return to my home project. I came here only to check which Lucas published a name and saw something I could add. I still have a lot of work to do on Lepidoptera on the Dutch Wikipedia. Wikiklaas (talk) 22:45, 20 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Neither. It makes sense to link directly to the correct reference, treating it as any other case of disambiguation. I know readers will understand what 1889b means, but it is unnnecessary information. Given how much there is to do here, I don't know why you would want to waste time adding unnecessary/redundant information?? Stho002 (talk) 22:51, 20 November 2014 (UTC) Surely the most important thing is that we have made a significant improvement? Stho002 (talk) 22:52, 20 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, in my opinion, given the amount of things there is to do here, and given the fact that I was adding five titles of papers of Lucas that were not listed here before, using the format that was already used for other papers by the same author: why would you spend so much time on reverting my edits and deleting information? Wikiklaas (talk) 23:19, 20 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I didn't "delete information". You made some mistakes which I fixed up. I didn't know how extensively you were going to continue editing here, so I needed to make sure that you don't go adding significantly to the level of inconsistency. Stho002 (talk) 23:22, 20 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am a very regular visitor of WS. I have a prety good idea of what's consistent here. And I tried to add information in a way that was consistent with what I see, severasl tiems a day, on many other pages. For example, a ist of articles on the page where the authors name is found. Wikiklaas (talk) 23:26, 20 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You obviously don't look at a representative range of pages across the whole site. If you want consistency, perhaps you would like to follow PeterR! Stho002 (talk) 23:28, 20 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh, is that's what was on your mind: me critisizing PeterR for his sloppy work? Wikiklaas (talk) 23:33, 20 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, I agree with you about him! I'm just making the point that he is not the only one who is stubborn and doesn't listen to reason! I can show you many author pages where the publications are listed only on an associated category page, so you are quite wrong to say that all other pages have publications listed on author page. Stho002 (talk) 23:36, 20 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK. I thought this over a little. I have visited hundreds of pages on authors here over the last few weeks while I was looking for full names to complete the surnames of authors on the pages about insects on the Dutch Wikipedia. So far, I did find a lot of them having a list of publications, immediately visible for the visitor when he opens the page. So far I did not find one page where the works were hidden behind an extra link, meaning the visitor has to make an extra effort to see the work. This is really cumbersome when one tries to identify an author by one of the works he published. It means that one has to make at least two extra clicks for every page visited. Thats really awful if there is in fact no need for that. There is nothing wrong with displaying a list of works on the main page about the author.
Second, and that is what got me pissed yesterday, I came here to add five extra works to the list of works of Thomas Pennington Lucas. In order to be consistent with what was already there, I copied one of the templates of the his works. This template had, as is quite normal in scientific literature, a comma between the author name and the year. Only when the year is enclosed in brackets, it is customary to not place a comma. But it is normal and quite understandable that a typographic mark is made to distinguish the name from the date or the title. Anyway, I copied what was already there. Second, I noticed that in the list of works, a letter was added to the year if the author published more then one work in a year. Again this is quite normal. And I have seen it in the majority of lists of works on WS. And as I said above: if one wishes to edit a template, it comes in very handy when the letter is visible, otherwise one has to find the correct template by trial and error. Very cumbersome. And again, I copied what was already there. Just moments after I saved my first additional template, you started to change it. Not a single word of explanation in the edit summary. And you only changed my contribution but left the ones unchanged that were already there. So when I looked at the page where Lucas' works were now listed, I saw a mess. And that mess was created, not by me. If, as you say, there is so much to do, then just do your thing, leave an occasional message on a talk page and please refer to the Manual Of Style that WikiSpecies certainly must have if you are so convinced that I was doing it wrong and you were doing it right. Because syaing "it is quite complicated but just do what I say" sounds very much like "I cannot explain this at all and I never will but I just want you to adhere to my personal preferences". So far on stubborn editors. I had a very real "Big Brother is Watching You" experience, yesterday. I can tell you it takes a lot of the fun out of the work. Wikiklaas (talk) 16:43, 21 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Wikiklaas: we have a lot of problems on this project at present. We have several editors like PeterR who are incompetent but at the same time are aggressively defending their sloppy editing. I am just trying to deal with all this chaos as best I can. You said that you were formatting your references based on "consistency", but it wasn't really consistency if you look at the whole site. I am the major contributor on this project (with >500K edits), so I do know what is or is not consistent with the site as a whole. What you were doing is detracting from consistency. Therefore, I ask you to please trust me on this issue. What you interpret as "big brother" is just a negative spin on collaboration and working together. Together we can make a positive contribution, but not if we are at war. Thanks Stho002 (talk) 21:32, 21 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Stho002, you would have been much more convincing if you would have pointed me to a page where the new format for WS is set out. It is obvious that the format I choose, with the comma and the added letter to the year, is the one that is the most abundant here. One doesn't have to make tons of edits to be able to check that. I kept checking this over the last week and my sample size is big enough to be confident. It may very well be that you planned to reformat all what is here. In that case, create a manual of style or change the one that is already there (I couldn't find it), and refer other editors to that page, so they know there is some plan. Because right now I don't believe you and I don't trust you. I get the impression that this is just your own thing. And you may be the major contributor here but that doesn't give you the right to impose your personal preferences onto other editors. For you too, cooperation is not being at war but trying to convince other editors, showing there is a plan that has been reached consensus upon. If you can't do that, then you can't blame other editors for ignoring your wishes. In the end, you won't succeed on your own because this is way too much work for just one editor, and if you can't convince other editors to follow your plan, your reformatting edits will be outnumbered by the edits contributors make while not following your personal preferences. I will be pleased to follow you wishes if you can convince me there is some bigger plan than just what is there in your head. Otherwise, I will keep making my contributions in the format that is most abundant here, for reasons of consistency. Please think about that. Wikiklaas (talk) 14:30, 29 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You are making all the same mistakes as several others here. Bad judgement, twisting my words, think you know better Stho002 (talk) 02:35, 30 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think I have been very clear: just provide the evidence that there is some plan and this is not just your own agenda, and I will be happy to follow your directions. If you can't, then I'll gladly join the "others" with "bad judgement" here. I did not twist any of your words. I only asked you to show that there is consensus on what you aked me to adhere to. That's normal Wikimedia procedure: to first reach consensus. Even if one makes tonnes of contributions, if one wants to change a habit (like omitting comma's and additional letters to years, or moving lists of publications to hidden places) one has to seek approval for it. As I see a number of changes you clearly wish to make that are not improvements in my opinion, on the contrary, I'm entitled to ask who is backing you up on this. If the answer is "noone, these are just my personal preferences" then that's fine but then I'm also free to neglect your wishes. It's not that complicated you know. Wikiklaas (talk) 21:58, 8 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Dear Wikiklaas, You have been granted autopatrolled user rights, which may be granted to experienced Wikispecies users who have demonstrated an understanding of Wikispecies policies and guidelines. In addition to what registered users can do, autopatrollers can have one's own edits automatically marked as patrolled (autopatrol). The autopatrol user right is intended to reduce the workload of new page patrollers and causes pages created by autopatrolled users to be automatically marked as patrolled. For more information, read Wikispecies:Autopatrollers.
Hi Dan, I got that notice earlier today (although it still said "Patroller" then), and I already had a look at what it would mean. Thank you for your confidence. I don't think it will change my pattern of editing on Wikispecies. I have lots of work to do on my home wiki, and when I come here to add or correct something, it is most of the times as a consequence of the work I'm doing there. But it's nice to know that I at least will no longer overload the patrollers page. Cheers, Wikiklaas (talk) 00:15, 27 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Dear Dan, I'm quite active on the Dutch Wikipedia, my home wiki. I have been an administrator there for the best part of two years now. It takes up a lot of my time, so I guess there won't be too much spare time to invest in this project. So far, everything I could not do myself on Wikispecies, has been handled well by administrators. They have been really helpful.
Having said that, I have met circumstances where I could have done something myself in stead of having to ask an administrator, if I would have had administrator privileges. I have no idea what the effect of being an administrator on Wikispecies would be, and if I would become more active here. I see though that one administrator who often gave other users a hard time, is retired now, so that would bring back some more fun to this project.
So if you still think it would be a good idea to nominate me for adminship, then I'd accept. The terms would be that I cannot promise to be active on a daily bases, so I would only help when and where I can. I also understand the meaning of "misuse of administrative tools" and I can promise that I will use the privileges respectfully and not misuse them. Thanks again for your confidence. Wikiklaas (talk) 13:22, 3 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
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.
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[reply]
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.
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.
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.
Hi, I noticed you added a BHL link to Xolmis coronatus. Please, know that I have created a number of templates to use as references, very easy to use. In that specific case, please see Template:Bonnaterre & Vieillot, 1823-2. Should you have any doubt, let me know. For many other Vieillot templates, see Vieillot. It is also important that every time we use the template, the new name is added to the template reference page. Regards.--Hector Bottai (talk) 21:36, 14 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks Hector Bottia, and thank you for your efforts. In this specific case I checked the protologue, and as I had to make the effort of looking up the specific page, I wanted to prevent that others had to make the same effort. So I added the link to just that specific page. Feel free to replace the link with your template, as long as the specific page with the description of Tyrannus coronatus can be found easily. Wikiklaas (talk) 22:04, 14 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Dear Wikiklaas. I am writing to inform you that you are in danger of losing your adminship on Wikispecies because of inactivity.
If you want to keep your adminship, you need both to sign at Wikispecies:Administrators/Inactivity Section within 30 days of today's date, and also to make at least five further admin actions in the following six months. Anyone who does not do so will automatically lose administrator rights.
Hello Wikiklaas, I noticed that you changed the format of a lot of references and reference templates, e.g. for Charles Owen Waterhouse. The use of bold issues is not wanted in Wikispecies. Please refer to Help:Reference section for the currently accepted format, based on a vote some years ago. Kind regards, --Thiotrix (talk) 13:12, 3 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I was not aware of this poll; I just did what I know is customary in many journals and in other Wikipedia's. No big matter though: most important is that I added quite a number of titles to the list of publications. Wikiklaas (talk) 09:33, 10 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Indeed, and thank you for that! After all, content is more important than format. Nonetheless, now you also know about the soon six year old "new" preferred format. As always: thank you for your contributions! Regards, Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 10:46, 11 September 2021 (UTC).Reply[reply]