Tony 1212

Please note, my username (previously Tony1212) has been modified to Tony_1212 as of March 2016 at the request of Wikipedia (clash with another Tony1212 somewhere else in wikiworld apparently). It appears that all of my wikipedia edits (from October 2006) have been retrospectively re-assigned to this new username so those are OK, but the old one is attached to some historic images as file uploads to wikimedia commons (in the upload history, which cannot be changed). I have changed the reported authorship of those files to the new username so most things should work (so long as you do not trust the upload histories...). Hope that is as clear as mud - Tony Rees, Australia Tony 1212 (talk) 03:29, 31 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

 

A tag has been placed on Ian Date requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a band or musician, but it does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Toddst1 (talk) 22:04, 26 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

Contested and successfully resolved last year (I think...) Tony 1212 (talk) 11:27, 3 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I'm Slatersteven. Tony 1212, thanks for creating Dennis Curry!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. Not sure this is quote enough to establish notability.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse.

Slatersteven (talk) 09:06, 7 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

No problem, I am still constructing the page and have more material to add over the next couple of days. However the fact that the Guardian newspaper (UK) felt that Prof. Curry deserved an obituary should be a good pointer to notability :) Cheers - Tony Tony 1212 (talk) 09:26, 7 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

Now improved, extra refs, I have removed the "more references needed" notice which is hopefully now not needed. Tony 1212 (talk) 12:03, 7 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

Great contributions to the Sandy Denny page! I was wondering if you might be interested in starting up a separate "Sandy Denny discography" wiki entry, since the "posthumous releases" section is getting a big long to be on a main page. What do you think? Thanks! :) Shamrox (talk) 20:11, 10 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Shamrox: Hi Shamrox, thanks for the suggestion. In fact that page already exists at Sandy Denny discography, although it is not very well referenced on the main Sandy Denny page at present (you or I can improve that - just needs a "main article = ..." reference). To my mind the discography page is for bald statements of fact, the main page has more of the status of a commentary as well as a conversational tone. I agree that "posthumous releases" is getting a bit long but then, there are far more of these than studio releases during Sandy's lifetime, also tracking what is and is not on each gets quite complex. I think given the prospective user's interest in the latter aspect - especially maybe what to buy for specific content - the posthumous releases section is presently appropriate. (IMHO). Regards - Tony Tony 1212 (talk) 22:08, 10 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

Also note, I've added some more items to "posthumous releases" on the S.D. page, not in the discography page as yet, filling out all I can find for now! Tony 1212 (talk) 08:03, 11 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

Please stop changing these headings to "References" and "Bibliography" with the entirely false claim that these are the usual WP style. They are not. See MOS:NOTES, and check what featured articles use. In particular, as the MOS page says, "bibliography" should be avoided because it implies completeness, and being up to date, features unfortunately rarely found in WP lists of references. Thank you. Johnbod (talk) 02:17, 1 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Johnbod:OK, I will not change any more, just going by my previous user experience and also creator/updater of numerous articles... in my experience references cited as {ref}{/ref} (angle braces here with curlies so they display) form a "reflist" which is then cited as the section "References". When multiple references cite the same work (e.g. Bloggs, p.1 / Bloggs p.2 etc.) that work is then cited in a section "Bibliography".

The portion of the style manual says: (italics added by me for emphasis)

Title: Editors may use any section title that they choose.[9] The most frequent choice is "References"; other articles use "Notes", "Footnotes", or "Works cited" (in diminishing order of popularity) for this material.

Several alternate titles ("Sources", "Citations", "Bibliography") may also be used, although each is questionable in some contexts: "Sources" may be confused with source code in computer-related articles, product purchase locations, river origins, journalism sourcing, etc.; "Citations" may be confused with official awards or a summons to court; "Bibliography" may be confused with the complete list of printed works by the subject of a biography ("Works" or "Publications").

For an example of the style I follow, see e.g. Oxford Castle - a page I have contributed to, but did not author. Also in my experience, (foot)notes are best separated from "References" since they typically amplify a portion of the main body, rather than give the source for it, for an example see Harry Robertson (folk singer). Anyway, I was doing my tiny bit in passing for what I perceived as standardization but am happy to stop changing if you feel it is not a helpful contribution. Best - Tony Tony 1212 (talk) 02:42, 1 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

I certainly agree about having two sections, unless they are all one-web sources etc. In my experience the first is generally called "Notes" (which I use) or "Citations", or "references" if it the only section. Of course some people use a further section for prose notes a, b, c etc, and then usually use "Citations". The section listing the main sources is usually called "References" - eg today's main page FA Messier 87 has "Notes" and "References". "Bibliography" is sometimes used as a "Further reading" section, but I think the term is best avoided altogether - WP versions rarely live up to the name. Johnbod (talk) 03:16, 1 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Johnbod:So far as I can see, the FA you cite Messier 87 uses "Notes" and "References" exactly as I employ them - "notes" for expansion/comments on the side, and "references" for cited sources i.e. the "{reflist}". The only portion missing compared with my usage as stated above is "Bibliography" which as I said above, I use (following other articles I have seen) for (e.g.) a single work which may be cited in different portions/pages in the "References" section, to avoid re-citing the entire work details each time, together with other key works not necessarily cited as specific sources in the article. Also note in the passage cited above: " "Bibliography" may be confused with the complete list of printed works by the subject of a biography " [my itals] - note we are not dealing with biographies here, so this source of confusion does not apply; in any case I would not use "bibliography" in the context stated, preferring "list of publications by author xxx", "selected publications by author xxx", or similar. Just my opinion of course. Best - Tony Tony 1212 (talk) 06:18, 1 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

That should be changed, as obviously in the real world "bibliographies" are by no means limited to biographies, nor is a list of works by a single author the normal meaning of the word. Johnbod (talk) 12:18, 1 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

Agreed, that definition is one of the ones found e.g. here https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bibliography but not a particularly common one... Tony 1212 (talk) 00:04, 2 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

Maria Kahlert (SLU) (talk) 09:06, 3 October 2018 (UTC)Hej Tony1212,Reply

I am contacting you because you did the latest edits on the page "DNA barcoding", and obviously have some insights into the matter, being biologist and a data person. Myself, I am working as researcher at SLU (Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences), and we are planning for a course in DNA (meta)barcoding next year. I am not a very active Wikipedia-person, but I think that I should become better. The planned course is therefore organized so that the PhD students are supposed to create a Wikipedia account, and then atert editing the DNA barcoding page with recent information, hopefully also some nice pictures, links and recent article links. So much has happened, is is currently happening, that I think this must come out to the public! However, I would like to have help from the Wikipedia-people, so the students don't get disencouraged when things they did just migh vanish or so.

That is why I contact you (on advice of Olla Terenius, who is helping SLU researcehrs to get better on Wikipedia). The DNA barcoding page is quite heavy to read for the public, I think, and also is very long. I would suggest to split it up into a common page describing what DNA barcoding is, and sub-pages for the different organism groups. That is how our course will be organized, too. The idea of the course is that all students work on the overview page to improve it and make it more digestable and fun to read, and then small groups of students to work on a subpage for an organism groups, for example protists, fish, or invertebrates, or plants. The methods are nowadays so different for the different groups, and different challenges arise.

We will have several teachers in the course explaining the latest research in these organism groups, and with this knowledge, the students will be able to create pages with latest resrearch on it. We plan as well for a “Single media file” in the Open Access journal Metabarcoding and Metagenomics where all students and the teachers will be coauthors, thus a file that will not be edited by Wikipedia, but which we can refer to.

I understand that such a change in the DNA barcoding page might be controversial, but on the other hand, we do not think the page is so attractive now, and it could be so much better and updated, and in this way we would not only teach 10-20 PhD students, butu the entire Wikipedia community.

Would you help us?

How would be start in this case? The course is planned for end of march 2019, and the PhD students will have tasks to do before, so we could for example agree to split the page already and work on the common side before the course, if that is a good idea.

I can send you the course plan, or anything else you are interested of. I really think we can do a good thing together!

PS: I also would like to mention that I am part of DNAqua-Net http://dnaqua.net/ a EU COST research network that is working towards the implementation of DNA barcoding for monitoring purposes (in water),and plan to link to this network as well.

Best wishes, and hope to hear from you soon, Maria Maria Kahlert (SLU) (talk) 09:06, 3 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hi @Maria Kahlert (SLU):, thanks for the message. Actually I am not really involved in the DNA barcoding page other than to fill in and correct some outdated information so that it made sense to me as a reader, and also I am not an expert on the subject, just a passing observer... I would advise you to suggest any changes to the page on the Talk page Talk:DNA_barcoding so that relevant interested parties can engage you in a suitable discussion (my interests lie elsewhere mostly, sorry); that is the recommended course of action for any page on Wikipedia - small edits are made directly (but may be reverted or edited by others), more substantial changes should be discussed by the community before implementing. Hope this helps - best regards Tony Tony 1212 (talk) 10:17, 3 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hi again, that was a fast reply! Yes, Olle told me that large changes should be suggested and discussed by the Wikipedia-community, so he advised me to contact you, instead of starting on the page. So whom shall I contact now? You were the last one on that pages somehow engaged into it, the rest of the edits are much older, and nobody really seems interested in the moment. The last thing I want to do is to start changing, and then everybody just jumps on my students.. I would be happy to suggest changes and how we want to do those changes to the Wikipedia community, and I started with you. If you have advice on how to do it differently 8and exact how, as I am a bloody beginner), please let me know and I will do so! best, MariaMaria Kahlert (SLU) (talk) 10:39, 3 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hi @Maria Kahlert (SLU):, I've added a few general comments on the Talk:DNA_barcoding page, probably reached the limit of my knowledge with these (I have no particular association with the topic myself, I was just following a different trail and ended up here and was somewhat dissatisfied by the state of the article as I found it, so decided to do a little "research" myself with a view to improving it a bit). I will read any further discussion on the talk page with interest. Best - Tony Tony 1212 (talk) 20:35, 4 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hi again- now we are finished, and would appreciate if you could have a look before we finally replace the original DNA barcoding text with our updated content & new structure. Find more info about what we did on the talk page of my sandbox, where the new page also can be found! More explanation on my sandbox talk page [sandbox] Best Maria (talk) 08:07, 21 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

Thanks Maria, but I could not get the sandbox link to work... Tony 1212 (talk) 09:34, 21 May 2019 (UTC) -=-- OK, got there from your other post. Cheers Tony Tony 1212 (talk) 09:36, 21 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

It's great to see your work adding your photos to articles. But if there is no photo in the infobox of the article, don't be shy about adding one of your photos to the infobox. If you need to know how to do this, please see Mount Burrell as an example, where I moved your photo to be the infobox photo. Happy to help, just ask. Kerry (talk) 05:41, 4 August 2019 (UTC)Reply

Thanks Kerry, I will do the same with one of my pics of Nightcap Range... Tony 1212 (talk) 06:08, 4 August 2019 (UTC)Reply

OK, done. Cheers - Tony Tony 1212 (talk) 06:11, 4 August 2019 (UTC)Reply

 

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of original (pre-war) Martin D-45s is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of original (pre-war) Martin D-45s until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:37, 5 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

Discussion was completed, and the decision was "keep", back in Jan-Feb. Cheers Tony Tony 1212 (talk) 06:13, 28 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

I just happened to notice one of your edits on the Nightcap Range and saw you going to a lot of unnecessary work to add a citation to Trove. As it happens, Trove provides us with Wikipedia-format citations for its contents. So in this case, you were citing this Women's Weekly article. If you look at the article in Trove, you will see an "i" in a circle over on the left-hand tool bar. Click that "i" symbol and then scroll down to the bottom and you will find a Wikipedia citation ready to copy and paste into the Wikipedia article. It's very easy and a great time-saver. When you are looking at books, journal articles, etc in Trove, there is a "Cite this" button that does the same thing (if you don't see it, it generally means there are multiple editions of the work, and you have to look at a specific edition and you will find the "Cite this" there). Kerry (talk) 00:14, 2 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

Thanks Kerry! I will take a look and adjust the citation in a day or so - if someone else e.g. yourself does not get there first... Cheers Tony Tony 1212 (talk) 03:57, 2 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

 

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Snowycats was:

This submission does not appear to be written in the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia article. Entries should be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources. Please rewrite your submission in a more encyclopedic format. Please make sure to avoid peacock terms that promote the subject.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

We're not really a place for autobiographical pieces.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Tony Rees (scientist) and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Tony Rees (scientist), click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Snowycats (talk) 03:25, 28 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Snowycats:Hi Snowycats, thanks for the review. I guess the question in my mind (that I was having trouble answering by myself) was, am I a notable person by WP standards - if so, having an article in my own name adds a "missing link" to existing WP pages on systems that I have created. But if not, no drama, and I am happy to have the draft page deleted (I believe this will happen automatically if I do not edit it further). Regards - Tony Tony 1212 (talk) 03:40, 28 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

Tony 1212, ~Crap~ I only meant to comment! But thinking about it more - you are notable. Let me fix things up. Snowycats (talk) 03:42, 28 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Snowycats:Thanks for that. I will do my best to avoid mere vanity self-promotion :) Tony 1212 (talk) 03:56, 28 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

IRMNG has stenolaemate bryozoan orders that are accepted under different spellings/suffixes, e.g. Cryptostomata, Cryptostomida (and the correct spelling seems to be Cryptostomatida). It looks like you've caught some of them; Tetrastomatida lists Tetrastomata as a synonym, but Tetrastomida has a record that lists it as accepted. Plantdrew (talk) 02:09, 22 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

Thanks Plantdrew, I will take a look and take relevant action over the next week or so, and report back when done... Cheers Tony Tony 1212 (talk) 06:27, 22 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

OK, I have taken a look... here is the present list in IRMNG (22 Dec 2020):

Phylum Bryozoa: Class Stenolaemata

IRMNG Order Cryptostomata
IRMNG Order Cryptostomida † ... in Bock

IRMNG Order Cyclostomatida ... = Cyclostomata in Ruggiero, also Bock

IRMNG Order Cystoporata †
IRMNG Order Cystoporida † ... in Bock

IRMNG Order Fenestrata †
IRMNG Order Fenestrida † ... in Bock

IRMNG Order Hederellida † ... in Bock

IRMNG Order Rhabdomesida † ... included genus (Rhombipora) is in Cryptostomida: Rhomboporidae in Bock

IRMNG Order Stenolaemata (awaiting allocation)

IRMNG Order Trepostomata † accepted as Trepostomatida †
IRMNG Order Trepostomatida † ... in Bock
IRMNG Order Trepostomida †

IRMNG Order Tubuliporata ... syn. of Cyclostomata in Bock

Current plan is to follow the Bock treatment (http://www.bryozoa.net/orders.html) even if endings are inconsistent in the first instance... IRMNG is a follower, not a leader (but can choose whom to follow!) Tony 1212 (talk) 07:55, 22 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Plantdrew: OK, all fixed (hopefully). New listing of class Stenolaemata in IRMNG is as follows (23 Dec 2020), https://www.irmng.org/aphia.php?p=taxdetails&id=1013 :

Order Cryptostomida †

Order Cyclostomatida

Order Cystoporida †

Order Fenestrida †

Order Hederellida †

Order Trepostomatida †

Order Stenolaemata (awaiting allocation) (temporary name)

Order Cryptostomata † accepted as Cryptostomida † (variant spelling)

Order Cyclostomata accepted as Cyclostomatida (variant spelling, shared with a superclass of jawless fishes)

Order Cystoporata † accepted as Cystoporida † (variant spelling)

Order Fenestrata † accepted as Fenestrida † (variant spelling)

Order Rhabdomesida † accepted as Cryptostomida † (synonym)

Order Trepostomata † accepted as Trepostomatida † (variant spelling)

Order Trepostomida † accepted as Trepostomatida † (variant spelling)

Order Tubuliporata accepted as Cyclostomatida (synonym)

I have retained Cyclostomatida (cf. "Cyclostomata" in both Bock and Ruggiero et al.) as per WoRMS at this time, since "Cyclostomata" is also a former class, current superclass in Vertebrata (jawless fishes), and an earlier name. Also its suffix better suits the remainder of the bryozoan orders.

Hope this is now better! (also moved/merged/renamed relevant child taxa as needed). BTW I have not checked other bryozoan classes for similar issues, but may do at some stage... Cheers - Tony Tony 1212 (talk) 03:56, 23 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

I took a look at the other Bryozoan classes in IRMNG and the orders seemed to be OK, with the exception of one bad entry, now deleted. Happy to receive notification of any further issues :) - I have no doubt there are plenty still lurking in the IRMNG higher taxonomic treatment in general, assembled (="crashed together") from a range of sources and only partially reviewed to date (most QC effort having being focused on the genus level). Cheers Tony Tony 1212 (talk) 18:35, 24 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

Is this still working? I now get a error when trying to access the Aphia client. The WoRMS client still works. —  Jts1882 | talk  12:26, 23 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Jts1882: Thanks for the alert, I have notified the tech folks and will await their response. Cheers Tony Tony 1212 (talk) 18:27, 23 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

I heard back from VLIZ, according to their tests everything is supposed to be working fine as of now. Can you check again, and if you still encouter problems, give the URL you are trying to access and whatever error message is received. Thanks, Tony 1212 (talk) 08:27, 24 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

The php line that fails is $client = new SoapClient("http://www.irmng.org/aphia.php?p=soap&wsdl=1"); (https is the same). As the php file returns nothing I get the error xhr status: 500 and error thrown: Internal Server Error in the ajax request. If I substitute the WoRMS version ($client = new SoapClient("http://www.marinespecies.org/aphia.php?p=soap&wsdl=1");) the code runs.

On another matter, I noticed an issue in class Aves. The family Caprimulgidae is placed in Striformes rather than Caprimulgiformes. The Sibley classification had the caprimulgiform families in two suborders of Strigiformes. Eurostopodidae and Batrachostomidae should also be in Caprimulgiformes although they are not usually recognised as families any more (placed in Caprimulgidae and Podargidae, respectively; e.g. see IOC 11.1 and Birds of the World). Presumably these families got left behind when the other families were moved. —  Jts1882 | talk  15:27, 24 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Jts1882:The VLIZ folk have got back to me with this message: "We need to see the full POST request with all parameters, the urls below just work fine… Please let him contact us to debug the issue." So could you respond directly to info@marinespecies.org, with the subject line "RE: Aphia webservice for IRMNG - problem?" and they will hopefully be able to investigate the problem further and resolve it. (I am happy to receive a cc for my information as to what may be going on - Tony.Rees@marinespecies.org).

Thanks for checking. The problem is not with the POST request, but with initialising the SOAP client in PHP. The new SoapClient() call fails with the IRMNG file (execution stops at that line) but it works fine with the WoRMS file. I'll try and put a simple file to demo the problem and drop them a line (with cc). —  Jts1882 | talk  17:15, 3 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

With regard to the issue/s in Aves, I am working through some updates in IRMNG macroalgae at present but will look into that when I get some time (probably a few weeks away), but thanks for the alert. I have made a start by moving Caprimulgidae, Eurostopodidae and Batrachostomidae to Caprimulgiformes, and will deal with the synonymies and moving of child taxa as I get some time (also probably the whole of Aves is overdue for review...) Cheers - Tony Tony 1212 (talk) 21:21, 2 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

BTW it looks from your past WP contributions that you have wide interests in the taxonomic arena. If you are interested in reviewing any sector of IRMNG in order to align it with latest/defensible "trusted sources", let me know :) :) Tony 1212 (talk) 06:19, 3 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

I'd be happy to help review some sections of the IRMNG taxonomy against appropriate sources. One of the reasons I'm using the Aphia service is that I like to compare different sources for their taxonomies using webservices and downloaded databases or checklists. Birds are the flavour of the month as I'm currently working on (or playing with) something using the IOC bird checklist to generate an interactive taxonomy tree. I can currently compare with the Birds of the World (Clements) checklist, so if I can get the IRMNG system working again it should be easy to do some side by side comparisons. —  Jts1882 | talk  17:33, 3 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

OK, sounds good. Currently I am trying to get the Algae higher taxonomy up-to-date for this month's (March 2021) release, then I have a request from CoL to add superfamilies in Coleoptera (not previously entered), then after that anything goes at this stage... Cheers Tony Tony 1212 (talk) 17:57, 3 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

I heard back from Bart Vanhoorne and he'd tested my script and found no issue. He suggested a possible WSDL caching or old PHP problem and it looks like it was the latter as an upgrade solved the problem. Why it worked for WoRMS and not for IRMNG will remain a mystery. Thanks for your help. —  Jts1882 | talk  17:47, 12 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

OK, glad it is sorted - I am presuming you have relayed the above back to Bart (I saw a copy of his previous response). All the best - Tony Tony 1212 (talk) 18:43, 12 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

IRMNG has this species as Phaea hogei. Should it be Phaea hoegei per ICZN art 35.5.2.1? Plantdrew (talk) 00:32, 12 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Plantdrew: Possibly yes, possibly no - yes if the original ö is from German, no if from another language: "32.5.2.1. In the case of a diacritic or other mark, the mark concerned is deleted, except that in a name published before 1985 and based upon a German word, the umlaut sign is deleted from a vowel and the letter "e" is to be inserted after that vowel (if there is any doubt that the name is based upon a German word, it is to be so treated)." In this case I do not know ... IRMNG is just following TITAN/Cat. of Life, which has (https://www.catalogueoflife.org/data/taxon/4FKST) :

Phaea hogei Bates, 1881

= Phaea högei Blackwelder, 1946

= Phaea hoegei Noguera & Chemsak, 1996

= Phaea hoegei Monné, 1995

= Phaea högei Bates, 1881

= Phaea högei Aurivillius, 1923

(etc.)

Unless this is discussed anywhere else in the literature (which it may be), IRMNG takes what it finds and leaves alone... maybe a question for the TITAN database compilers?? Cheers - Tony Tony 1212 (talk) 05:28, 12 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Plantdrew: Just looked further, and it seems that the TITAN database, source of the above, is now using hoegei, see http://titan.gbif.fr/sel_genann1.php?numero=6332, which change must post-date its last harvesting into CoL. . So I shall change the IRMNG record/s accordingly, thanks for the suggestion. Cheers Tony Tony 1212 (talk) 01:40, 20 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

OK, now fixed, see updated IRMNG record for hogei here: https://www.irmng.org/aphia.php?p=taxdetails&id=10073163 , together with new record created for hoegei Bates. Cheers Tony Tony 1212 (talk) 01:59, 20 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

IRMNG has the family for Vishnucyon as Odobenidae. It apparently should be Amphicyonidae. And Vinayakia, also published by Pilgrim in 1932 should apparently be in Felidae, not Odobenidae. Plantdrew (talk) 19:06, 24 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

Thanks @Plantdrew: ... your corrections are appreciated and I have just made them. Actually I have a mental note to check a number of mammal names ex McKenna & Bell's 1997 book, but not allocated to family therein: M&B (p. 227) have both these names, plus some others, simply allocated to Carnivora, no family. I got these names, plus similarly unplaced ones (not sure how many) from Sheila Brands' compilation in 2006, where (in the data dump I received, or perhaps I mangled it upon uploading) they were allocated to incorrect families for some reason despite being stated to be sourced from "McKenna & Bell, 1997" (and now being correct in Sheila's live site). So there will be a swag of names to check further according to both M&B and more recent literature (although PaleoBiology DB helps in these 2 cases, at least...) - a task to get to within the next few months, I am thinking. Cheers - Tony Tony 1212 (talk) 19:26, 24 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Plantdrew:OK, first re-pass over "unallocated to family" names in McKenna & Bell completed (took a bit longer than expected, a number of side efforts also undertaken), hopefully this has fixed all/most of the inconsistencies arising from that route. Some genera that were previously allocated erroneously to a family are now unplaced in relevant next higher taxon, some are now placed in correct family per more recent (or occasionally other) sources. Not sure how many genus names were fixed but rough guess is around 100-150. If you or other spot any remaining or missed errors I am happy to hear them. Thanks for the original alert, these errors obviously lurked for c. 15 years in IRMNG before I realised that they existed and required some effort to fix them systematically :) Cheers Tony Tony 1212 (talk) 19:23, 24 October 2022 (UTC)Reply

Awesome. I'm curious about your edit to my user page. I guess you were looking at it and saw I'd mentioned your name there? I don't remember exactly why I put that note about the year for Macrathena sagitatta there. I'm sure part of it was noting that IRMNG is open to correction and that you can be contacted via Wikipedia (if I spot further discrepancies in IRMNG should I continue to contact you via Wikipedia or would you prefer email?). And I guess the other part of it was noting that Wikipedia editors rely heavily on taxonomic databases and may not have access to primary literature when it is necessary to resolve discrepancies between taxonomic databases (although BHL is making primary literature more available now). I worked (briefly) for ITIS and regularly consulted primary literature in the Smithsonian's National Museum of Natural History library to verify publication dates for taxa. I don't have access to that library any more (I do have access to an excellent library of taxonomic literature, but it's solely focused on botany). 20:02, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

I just went to your user page to get a bit of background and saw there was an IRMNG related item to follow up, so did so :) You can continue to raise issues on my talk pages on either Wikipedia or Wikispecies, both should reach me and form a convenient archive of both issues raised and actions taken. Cheers Tony Tony 1212 (talk) 21:43, 24 October 2022 (UTC)Reply

Hello! I'm a new page reviewer, and saw the new article you have written on Sandra Jayat. I haven't gotten into the bulk of the text yet, nor checked the references, but wanted to mention that some people of Roma/Romani heritage find the word "gypsy" to be derogatory. I modified its use in the lead section, and saw your thanks. It might be good to ask at Wikipedia:WikiProject Romani people what the current status is for the usage. It's good to meet you here. Netherzone (talk) 21:31, 29 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

OK, nice to meet you as well. I am fairly neutral about "gypsy" but since it is used in the title and/or text of many of the articles cited through the years, I do not think it should cause much trouble either way. Similar discussions have been had in the musical genre commonly known as "Gypsy Jazz" with a few folk objecting, but others including the main practitioners of the genre using it quite happily (examples: Bireli Lagrene's Gypsy Project, Angelo Debarre's Gypsy Guitars, to name but a couple). I note that in her own work (untranslated) she uses "Zingarina" to refer to herself, commonly translated as "Italian Gypsy woman". Anyway I am not precious about the term... Cheers Tony Rees, Australia. Tony 1212 (talk) 21:38, 29 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

I'm fairly neutral about the term as well, but just wanted to give you a heads up. Best of new year's cheer, Netherzone (talk) 21:50, 29 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

 

Thanks for uploading File:Sandra Jayat 1967 (from EP cover).jpg. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of fair use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of fair use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the file description page and add the text {{Di-replaceable fair use disputed|<your reason>}} below the original replaceable fair use template, replacing <your reason> with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
2. On the file discussion page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification, per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:41, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

 

Thanks for uploading File:Schnuckenack Reinhardt (jazz violinist) in performance - still from 2000 film.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:32, 7 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Dreadnought (guitar type), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page D-28.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:46, 21 July 2024 (UTC)Reply