User talk:JoJan/Archive 16

MSU Interview

Dear JoJan,

My name is Jonathan Obar user:Jaobar, I'm a professor in the College of Communication Arts and Sciences at Michigan State University and a Teaching Fellow with the Wikimedia Foundation's Education Program. This semester I've been running a little experiment at MSU, a class where we teach students about becoming Wikipedia administrators. Not a lot is known about your community, and our students (who are fascinated by wiki-culture by the way!) want to learn how you do what you do, and why you do it. A while back I proposed this idea (the class) to the community HERE, where it was met mainly with positive feedback. Anyhow, I'd like my students to speak with a few administrators to get a sense of admin experiences, training, motivations, likes, dislikes, etc. We were wondering if you'd be interested in speaking with one of our students.

So a few things about the interviews:

Interviews will last between 15 and 30 minutes.
Interviews can be conducted over skype (preferred), IRC or email. (You choose the form of communication based upon your comfort level, time, etc.)
All interviews will be completely anonymous, meaning that you (real name and/or pseudonym) will never be identified in any of our materials, unless you give the interviewer permission to do so.
All interviews will be completely voluntary. You are under no obligation to say yes to an interview, and can say no and stop or leave the interview at any time.
The entire interview process is being overseen by MSU's institutional review board (ethics review). This means that all questions have been approved by the university and all students have been trained how to conduct interviews ethically and properly.

Bottom line is that we really need your help, and would really appreciate the opportunity to speak with you. If interested, please send me an email at obar@msu.edu (to maintain anonymity) and I will add your name to my offline contact list. If you feel comfortable doing so, you can post your name HERE instead.

If you have questions or concerns at any time, feel free to email me at obar@msu.edu. I will be more than happy to speak with you.

Thanks in advance for your help. We have a lot to learn from you.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Obar --Jaobar (talk) 07:30, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Re: About the automatic taxoboxes documentation

Hi JoJan, More improvements have been made to the automatic taxobox since the time you had trouble with it. Please give it a check and let me know if you have any questions. Please review this page and let me know your thoughts. — Ganeshk (talk) 23:20, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Ganeshk. If I understand well, each time I create a new article about a genus or a species, I also have to create a new corresponding.template. However, questions remain, especially when moving an article. Can you explain in detail what has to be done in the following cases :

a move of a species to a red link in the same genus
a move a species to a red link in another genus
a move from a genus to a red link in another family

In all these cases , does it entail making a new template ? What happens to the old template ? Can you give examples ?

deleting an article (in most cases because of a misspelling; this also involves the creation of a new article with the accepted name), must the template be deleted too ?

I guess, to make it easier for all of us, that new articles should be made by your bot (perhaps we should discuss an accelerated tempo). This should eliminate for all (and especially for newbies) the detailed knowledge of the creation of automatic templates and how to work with them. JoJan (talk) 15:02, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, when you create a new article about a genus, you will need to create the corresponding taxonomy template. This is not needed on a species article as long as a taxonomy template for its genus exists.

Can you find me some examples for your scenarios? I trolled on WP:GASTINV, but could not find any for moving species to a red link of the same genus.

Having the bot create new articles using the automatic taxobox would be a good idea. Just need to get an okay from all project members.

Accelerated tempo...yes, please. :) May be you should check 10 articles in random from my list of 100 and give me the okay to proceed. Will that work? — Ganeshk (talk) 04:55, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I give some examples :

a move of a species to a red link in the same genus: Nassarius plicatellus to Nassarius niveus (A. Adams, 1852) (an existing red link)
a move a species to a red link in another genus : Fusinus faurei to Granulifusus faurei (Barnard, 1959) (a species not mentioned yet in Wikipedia)
a move of a genus to a red link in the same family : Austrogemmula has to be moved to Epidirella Iredale, 1913, a genus not yet mentioned in Wikipedia (not even a red link). I couldn't find at first sight an example of a move of a genus to a red link in another family. But you can give a hypothetical example of a move with a genus B in family C to genus D in family E.

A new problem : "nomen dubium", e.g. Fusus cygneus. How to proceed here ? The same for "nomen inquerendum".

As to the accelerated tempo : I agree that this has to be done. This has precedence and I would stop describing the species of the newly created stubs. But this would make it much more difficult for me to find any inconsistencies in WoRMS. And then what about the existing taxoboxes ? Can a bot turn them over in automatic taxoboxes ? JoJan (talk) 09:17, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I worked on your examples:

Nassarius plicatellus move was straightforward. I just had change the taxon parameter after the move (diff).
Fusinus faurei required creation of taxonomy template for the genus (diff). Here is how it looked after the move. Here is the screenshot for creating the taxonomy template. See Template:Taxonomy/Granulifusus.
Austrogemmula required the following steps:
Fusus cygneus (nomen dubium) must be deleted. It should be added into the species section on the genus page. I would do the same with nomen inquerendum. Species should not have a page until their status is "accepted" on WoRMS.

As to the accelerated tempo : I would treat reviewing and describing the stubs as two separate tasks. Please continue to describe the stubs at a slower pace. If you could check 10 random articles and let me know if they are good, I can proceed with bot run. — Ganeshk (talk) 00:58, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it is possible for a bot to convert existing taxoboxes over to the automatic taxobox. But let us wait on that until we gain some experience with using automatic taxoboxes in general. — Ganeshk (talk) 03:33, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Ganeshk. These are examples we can work with. They show how to proceed step by step and this explains more than a lot of text. I think these examples with all their links should be incorporated in the instructions for the automatic taxobox. I still have one question: the type species, should it be incorporated in the template of the genus or should it be added to the taxobox of the article (the same for the type genus and the family template) ? As to the accelerated tempo, you can go ahead. I will follow, albeit a bit slower because I have to check and eventually update the list of species in the genus article (unless this can be done by bot as well, saving me precious time). JoJan (talk) 13:18, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

The type genus/species will need to be added to the taxobox. I just updated Epidirella. — Ganeshk (talk) 00:59, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Papillifera bidens or Papillifera papillaris

Can I ask you to look at the Nomenclature section of this article? Some changes were made by User:D Kadolsky in December. He seems to feel that the name of this species is now accepted officially as being P. papillaris. Is he correct? If so, we need to move the title back to that. Thanks JoJan. Invertzoo (talk) 21:52, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Done JoJan (talk) 22:52, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks JoJan. Invertzoo (talk) 16:43, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Supposed subspecies of Placostylus species

Hello JoJan, Back when Graham Bould was editing, he created 14 subspecies articles for Placostylus ambagiosus, and two for P. bollonsi. You can see them all listed here. Apparently, as is now mentioned in the main species articles of both species, Buckley et al. (2011)^[1] found based on both molecular phylogeny and shell morphology research, that there are in fact no subspecies of Placostylus ambagiosus.^[1] I usually prefer that subspecies info is included within the species article anyway. This new research is a especially relevant in this case because of the conservation implications. Do you have an opinion about what should we do in this situation? It seems to me we should at the very least combine the subspecies articles into one article. What would you say is the best easy to proceed under the circumstances? Invertzoo (talk) 14:03, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

[1]
Buckley T. R., Stringer I., Gleeson D., Howitt R., Attanayake D., Parrish R., Sherley G. & Rohan M. (2011). "A revision of the New Zealand Placostylus land snails using mitochondrial DNA and shell morphometric analyses, with implications for conservation". New Zealand Journal of Zoology 38(1): 55-81.doi:10.1080/03014223.2010.527997.

I've looked at the article Placostylus ambagiosus. To bring it in conformity with the article of Buckley et al. (2011), we could retain the so-called subspecies for historical reasons, but mention clearly that the differences are due to environmental plasticity. If I understand well, Buckley et al. were talking of the three New Zealand species. The other Placostylus articles deal with species from Australia or New Caledonia and should be retained. Can you do the necessary changes ? I'm drowning in the recently bot-generated articles of Turbonilla, a real headache just like Conus used to be. JoJan (talk) 14:17, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I will do the changes, but first can I ask: do you think we will end up deleting all the subspecies articles for P. ambagiosus? If so, then I will work on combining all 14 of them into the main article for the species as well as explaining that they are now thought to be invalid. Invertzoo (talk) 19:00, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

The articles I found on the subspecies of P. ambagiosus are all redirects to P. ambagiosus. I could delete them if you think it necessary. JoJan (talk) 15:25, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Subgenus

Tribes

Fusus (gastropod)

Neomphalina

Highbeam

Re: Your help would be appreciated

Hi JoJan, a quick response. Try Google Chrome and let me know how it goes. — Ganeshk (talk) 22:43, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

The village pump has good suggestions. Please clear up monobook.css, monobook.js, vector.css and vector.js to see if it helps. — Ganeshk (talk) 11:24, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

What do you mean by "clear up" ? Do I have to delete those subpages ? Do I need them anymore ? Anyway, the problem still persists, as you can see in my reply in Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 136#Problems when editing wikipedia. But strangely, after the blanking of the text in the edit mode of Turbonilla ignacia, I can still make this conversation with you on my talk page without all text being blanked. This problem apparently only occurs when going into the edit mode of the same article for the second time. I just made the test in the edit mode of my reply I just made in the Village Pump (technical) and the text appeared and then almost immedately blanked. Does this have any connection with the Java plug-ins in Firefox I mentioned in the Village Pump (Technical) ? JoJan (talk) 15:21, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I have commented one line here. I am not sure about Java plugins. Did you try Google Chrome yet? Did you turn on any gadgets (under My Preferences)? — Ganeshk (talk) 11:40, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Finally I tried Google Chrome. And it worked - so far, so good. I can edit again in a normal manner. But another problem has arisen. I check WoRMS almost on a daily basis for new additions and changes. When I click in the left column on "Statistics" and then in the upper right corner on "Latest taxa additions" I get a page in html instead of the normal layout. When I click on "Latest taxa checked", I get this message: "This XML file does not appear to have any style information associated with it. The document tree is shown below.". Very strange. I don't know if you get the same result. I don't know what has caused the problems in Firefox and Internet Explorer, but at least I can edit again. And that is the most important. JoJan (talk) 18:11, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I see the same behavior when clicking "latest taxa checked". Google Chrome does not seem to have a built-in RSS reader. You will need to use Google Reader (http://www.google.com/reader) for that. — Ganeshk (talk) 01:36, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Ganesh. I've added Google Reader and everything works fine. JoJan (talk) 14:09, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

New fern initiative

Please delete accidentally-created pages

You're mentioned

Ganeshbot

Your HighBeam account is ready!

Science lovers wanted!

Science lovers wanted!
	Hi! I'm serving as the wikipedian-in-residence at the Smithsonian Institution Archives until June! One of my goals as resident, is to work with Wikipedians and staff to improve content on Wikipedia about people who have collections held in the Archives - most of these are scientists who held roles within the Smithsonian and/or federal government. I thought you might like to participate since you are interested in the sciences! Sign up to participate here and dive into articles needing expansion and creation on our to-do list. Feel free to make a request for images or materials at the request page, and of course, if you share your successes at the outcomes page you will receive the SIA barnstar! Thanks for your interest, and I look forward to your participation! Sarah (talk) 20:05, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

In case your ears are burning and you can't work out why...

User:Yeah1234? needs to be blocked indefinitely (Vandalism only account)

Aporodoris

Hello JoJan, taxonomy is a very complex thing (probably too complex to be handled well on WP). Aporodoris most certainly is an invalid synonym of Taringa, and so belongs to Discodorididae, not Dorididae. I have tried my best to explain why on the Aporodoris page. I hope you can accept this, cheers ... Malacologist2 (talk) 23:40, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Indeed taxonomy can be very complex, but not too complex to be handled on Wikipedia. Wikipedia doesn't take sides, we only report what others have written in sources we can trust (such as a malacological journal). This is one of those cases. Let the ICZN decide. Dayrat (2010) writes on page 209 : "The next question is: Which name should we use for that clade, Taringa or Aporodoris?" and explains his point of view. Dr. Bouchet (a leading taxonomist) gives in WoRMS his opinion. We cannot beg the question, we only report. We don't have to take sides. We must stay neutral (one of the five pillars of Wikipedia). JoJan (talk) 07:57, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

I would say that a clear rule in the ICZN Code, which clearly contradicts Dayrat, trumps all else ... wouldn't you? We can't stay completely neutral on this one, because the result would be chaos. I think I have handled it adequately, appealing only to published sources (i.e. no OR)... Malacologist2 (talk) 08:48, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Dayrat and Bouchet rely on rule 23.9.1.1 "the senior synonym must not have been used as a valid name after 1899". The names Aporodoris rubra Bergh, 1905, Aporodoris risbeci Marcus and Marcus, 1967 and Aporodoris merria Burn, 1973 were all used after 1899. Then, can you tell me wich clear rule in the ICZN code has to be applied that contradicts this statement ? JoJan (talk) 13:11, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, sure can, though I already put it on the Aporodoris page, but here it is again, i.e. Art. 23.10:

23.10. Erroneous reversal of precedence. If action taken under Article 23.9.2 is found later to have been taken in error in that conditions 23.9.1.1 and 23.9.1.2 were not met, the case is to be referred to the Commission. Prevailing usage must be maintained [Art. 82] until the Commission has made a ruling (i.e. an author discovering that such an erroneous action has occurred must not automatically use the older synonym or homonym).

This means that Taringa must continue to be used as the valid name until the Commission has made a ruling (which it has not done, and has not been requested to do) Cheers, Malacologist2 (talk) 20:14, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

This is a problem I cannot solve. Therefore I've sent an email to Dr. Bouchet, member of the ICZN, with a request to give a solution or propose the matter to the ICZN. JoJan (talk) 14:51, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Good idea ... though I was talking to Philippe briefly yesterday, by email, on another matter, and he is very busy at the moment having just returned from a big trip. Realistically, we cannot hope to get all problems like this solved at the source, so we need a way to cope with problems on WP, by tagging tem appropriately, and explaining the problem on the relevant talk pages ... Malacologist2 (talk) 21:48, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

As I said above, it is good in such cases to represent all sides and explain them properly, while staying neutral. JoJan (talk) 07:39, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Hello JoJan, I have checked it out. It is interesting case that has very surprising results (at least for me). I think, that both of you agree that those two genera are synonymous and that they belong to the same family (family Discodorididae). I will let the question "what generic name should we use on wikipedia" open for meantime. So I will expand articles and I will try to "explain them properly". Let me some time to do so. I hope that then both will agree where to move article(s). OK? --Snek01 (talk) 11:13, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

OK. Go ahead. In the mean time, I'm awaiting the reply of Dr. Bouchet. JoJan (talk) 15:14, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I did my best and I have expanded articles "Aporodoris millegrana" and "Taringa (gastropod)". Apparently the generic name Taringa is in prevailing usage because there were described more species in that genus. I think, that luckily only two moves are needed:

article "Aporodoris millegrana" should be moved to "Taringa millegrana".
article "Aporodoris" should be redirected to "Taringa (gastropod)". --Snek01 (talk) 22:19, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Excellent work. I moved Aporodoris millegrana to Taringa millegrana. But I think the article Aporodoris should remain. A redirect to Taringa would remove the data in the article. I think the explanation should remain until the final allocation of the name is settled. JoJan (talk) 14:39, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

This the (belated) anser I received from Dr. Bouchet about this matter:

"Thank you for pointing out the contradiction between the two nomenclatural notes between Taringa (note by Serge Gofas) and Aporodoris (note by myself). I have amended the former, so that there is now no contradiction between the two. It still leaves unsettled the valid generic combination for the species currently classified in Taringa. But this is for a taxonomical paper to handle, not for WoRMS. Best regards, Philippe." JoJan (talk) 09:03, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Jolly good, though he has done somewhat of a "half-arsed" job at fixing WoRMS, where Aporodoris is still cited as a valid genus! Malacologist2 (talk) 03:27, 26 October 2012 (UTC)