User talk:Anaxial

The new edition of Mammal Species of the World considers Irenomys and Punomys to be Sigmodontinae incertae sedis. The same goes for a number of thomasomyine genera. I therefore reverted your edits. Anyway,

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:

• Help:Contents provides a good introduction to editing Wikispecies.
• Templates are there to help you to follow our syntax and formatting standards.
• Have a look at Done and to do.

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!

Ucucha (talk) 17:16, 22 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, no problem. I'll watch out more carefully for that in future, but at least the pages are there now, and can be edited as more up-to-date information becomes available. Anaxial 20:07, 22 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

Yes, thanks for that :-). If you wish, I can send the Cricetidae list from this book. Ucucha (talk) 04:48, 23 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

Please link vernacular names, also when they do not yet exist at 'the other end'... Thanks Lycaon 20:38, 16 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for all the work you have been doing in Aves. It was one of the first sections I worked on and I know I left a few gaps. Open2universe 13:24, 7 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Please note the changes I made to Tachygyia. The latest format standard no longer uses colons and the Vernacular section uses a {{VN}} template. See Help:Taxonavigation section and Help:Vernacular names section. Thanks --Georgeryp 14:53, 24 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for all your contributions! If it's not too much trouble, it seems they try to use templates here all the way down to the Genus level. (e.g. Mesaspis and Barisia) --Georgeryp 17:56, 30 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

• For Helicops why not use the subfamily template {{Xenodontinae}} instead of a family-level template? Template:Xenodontinae has existed since Dec. 2006 (I realize Template:Helicops was just created though). Similar situation with Oxyrhopus. --Georgeryp 03:11, 16 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

• Missed it. I'll use it now, certainly. Anaxial 08:43, 16 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

Please note the current image caption guidelines: Help:Image Guidelines and for example, the corresponding changes to Python. Your opinons and input is welcome in helping better define the guidelines. See these conversations I've had recently with Jsk as a starting point. --Georgeryp 00:13, 20 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

• Well, if those are the new rules, I'll stick to them, though I don't really agree with them. On an entirely separate note, this place seems to have become a lot less welcoming since I first joined up; I think I'll finish this particular bit that I'm doing (which will probably take a couple of weeks) and then leave you all to it. No hard feelings, but it just doesn't feel worth it any more.

• I hope it wasn't because of me, with my couple of "fyi's" about format and templates. I'm fairly new here and I happened to be focused on consistency in format (I've seen some confusion caused by that inconsistency). At the same time, I speak of format guidelines, as just that - "guidelines", not static, strict rules. If I've modified some of your edits and that's created an unwelcome feeling, I appologize. I'll focus more on improvement (e.g. showing vernacular names ) rather than conformity to "guidelines". On a separate note, I too wonder if "it's worth it" - In other words, what is the future of this project? I guess its future is largely determined by what its contributors want it to be but, in light of the recent announcement of the Encyclopedia of Life (EOL) (with which the Wikimedia Foundation has some level of involvement?) and given that the Catalogue of Life [1] now has over 1 million species, what's next? What's happened to Wikidata? --Georgeryp 19:54, 20 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

• As I say, no hard feelings - I'm not complaining about anyone in particular. And if I didn't want my work to be edited, a Wiki is hardly the place to be! In fact, I expect my work to be edited, because I know its not going to be complete. Of course, it seems the templates have changed a lot since my last major work here 8 months ago, which I guess is fair enough. But if I'm causing more problems than I'm solving and - as you say - the Encyclopedia of Life is coming at some point anyway, I'm probably best off focusing my efforts somewhere else. Anaxial 20:23, 20 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

I see you removed a number of species because they have moved to other genera. This has left orphans. Could you change these to redirect to the correct species? Thanks. --Open2universe 02:47, 12 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

• Of course - or, at least, I would if I knew how. Is it simply a matter of replacing the page content with a link to the new species page?

If the new species page does not exist yet, then the easiest thing to do is to move the page using the move option. If it does exist then replace the existing page with a redirect. The syntax is

#REDIRECT [[newpage]]

And if it is a synonym, add that to the new page so that people will know why they were redirected. Hope I have been clear. Thanks. Open2universe 12:21, 12 July 2007 (UTC)Reply