Overleg gebruiker:Izno

Hallo Izno, en welkom op de Nederlandstalige Wikipedia!

Welcome message in English

Hartelijk dank voor je belangstelling voor Wikipedia! We werken hier aan het ideaal van een vrij beschikbare, vrij bewerkbare, volledige en neutrale gemeenschapsencyclopedie. We waarderen het enorm als ook jij hieraan wilt bijdragen!

De Nederlandstalige Wikipedia is sinds 19 juni 2001 online en telt inmiddels 2.157.194 artikelen. In de loop van de jaren zijn er voor het schrijven of bewerken van artikelen en voor de onderlinge samenwerking een aantal uitgangspunten en richtlijnen geformuleerd. Neem die als nieuwkomer ter harte. Lees ook eerst even de informatie in dit venster voordat je aan de slag gaat. Geen van de richtlijnen heeft kracht van wet, want Wikipedia is en blijft vóór alles vrij bewerkbaar, maar een beetje houvast voordat je in het diepe springt kan nooit kwaad.

• De vijf pijlers van Wikipedia
  Uitgangspunten en richtlijnen in vijf regels
• Snelcursus
  Leer stap-voor-stap bewerken in een ogenblik
• Tips voor het schrijven van een goed artikel
  Slimme aanwijzingen van ervaren Wikipedianen
• Dingen die je beter niet kunt doen
  Veelgemaakte fouten en hoe je ze vermijdt
• Conventies en relevantie
  Nuttige hulp voor het schrijven van een nieuw artikel
• Portaal:Hulp en beheer
  Algemene handleiding van Wikipedia
• Zandbak
  Voor het experimenteren met bewerken
• Helpdesk
  Voor al je vragen over Wikipedia en over zaken buiten Wikipedia
• Veelgestelde vragen
  Antwoorden op de meest gehoorde vragen
• Coachingsprogramma
  Een coach helpt je bij jouw eerste stappen op Wikipedia

Deze pagina, die nu op je scherm staat, is trouwens je persoonlijke overlegpagina, de plaats waar je berichten van andere Wikipedianen ontvangt en ze kunt beantwoorden. Iedere gebruiker heeft zo'n pagina. Wil je een nieuw overleg met iemand anders beginnen, dan kan dat dus op zijn of haar overlegpagina. Sluit je bijdragen op overlegpagina's altijd af met vier tildes, dus zo: ~~~~. Een druk op de handtekeningknop (zie afbeelding) heeft hetzelfde effect: je bericht wordt automatisch ondertekend met je gebruikersnaam en de datum en tijd waarop je je boodschap voltooide. Versturen doe je met de knop "Wijzigingen publiceren".

Fish names

Natuurlijk, beste Izno, zijn Scolopsis taeniatus en Scolopsis taeniata synoniemen van elkaar, net als Scolopsis bimaculatus en Scolopsis bimaculata. Wat ik me afvraag is hoe je er zo zeker van kunt zijn dat het grammaticaal geslacht van Scolopsis vrouwelijk is, en je van de namen met een mannelijk epitheton dus zeker een redirect naar die met een vrouwelijk epitheton kunt maken. Ik lees daarvoor geen enkele verantwoording.  Wikiklaas  overleg  14 jun 2013 04:41 (CEST)
('Translation, provided later: (by the original author) Off course, dear Izno, Scolopsis taeniatus and Scolopsis taeniata are synonyms, just like Scolopsis bimaculatus and Scolopsis bimaculata are. I wonder, however, how you can be so sure of the grammatical gender of Scolopsis being female and how you can thus be sure the articles with the masculine epithets should become redirects to the articles with the female epithets. I don't see justification for that.)

Oof, Google Translate chokes on that.

I'm just trying to clean up the IW links on Wikidata. They do seem to be synonyms. I'm kind of ambivalent about which is the more correct, so whichever makes you feel happy. That said, the use on another wiki was the "a" form rather than the "us" form. --Izno (overleg) 14 jun 2013 04:53 (CEST)

The same for the one you actually reverted me on. Trust me, those were synonyms based on the analysis on Wikidata. I've been working from d:User:Soulkeeper/dups. --Izno (overleg) 14 jun 2013 05:00 (CEST)

Hi, and sorry for not immediately recognizing you. It's the different environment, you see? I'm always suspicious when I see names changed without a source. But seeing who did it, I will try to find the source myself. My revert was not out of unwillingness to trust you but because no mention of the synonymy was made in the second article. Before I reverse my undo, I need to have a source for it to cite in the remaining article. Feel welcome here again, thanks for pointing at the irregularities. Cheers.  Wikiklaas  overleg  14 jun 2013 05:06 (CEST)

By the way: No need to notify me of your reply on my talk page. I did put your talk page in my watchlist. Good night.  Wikiklaas  overleg  14 jun 2013 05:08 (CEST)

Hahahaha, it's okay. :) The synonyms weren't explained on Wikidata either, but they were linked to their "synonyms". Also, in these cases, the authors were the same. I definitely wouldn't have redirected if that weren't the case. --Izno (overleg) 14 jun 2013 05:16 (CEST)

Hi Izno, I checked the synonymy of the Pimelodella names in Fishbase. In the record on Pimelodella laticeps no synonyms are mentioned (under Synonyms). In the record on Pimelodella australis, under Synonyms one can find Pimelodella laticeps australis, a name for a subspecies but not the same taxon as Pimelodella laticeps. This may however have caused some confusion. It is clear that right now, FishBase recognizes laticeps and australis as the names for two different taxa. In Wikidata, Pimelodella australis should be placed in an item holding both the articles treating the taxon australis as a species and the articles treating it as a subspecies (if a local Wikipedia has both, then that's an error). On the Dutch Wikipedia we thus keep the articles Pimelodella australis and Pimelodella laticeps, until off course, someone comes up with a paper stating the two names actually represent the same taxon. Right now, a search in ITIS also yields both names as being valid at the species level. A similar search in Catalog of Fishes ends up with the same result.

For the gender of Scolopsis I also checked FishBase. They have proven to be quite reliable on that. Indeed Scolopsis is treated as a female name there. The names in Scolopsis with masculine epithets are explicitely identified as misspellings. I'm going to check now if any information was lost when you transformed the two articles into redirects. Or did you check yourself already if the synonymous articles could be merged? Cheers.  Wikiklaas  overleg  16 jun 2013 04:21 (CEST)

I always check to make sure no information is lost. The articles were near or exact duplicates (another way to know whether a page is the same, though I realize many of these pages are bot-generated, no?). As for Pimelodella, I'm not quite sure what you said but I think it means that they shouldn't have been merged? :)

I have another fun set for you; see d:Q2062016, d:Q2654964, d:Q4038868. --Izno (overleg) 22 jun 2013 05:04 (CEST)

Hi Izno, no need to "ping" me. Your talk page on the Dutch Wikipedia is on my watchlist, something I check multiple times a day. Yes, the Pimelodella pages were about separate taxa, so they should not have been merged but no harm done here: it was quite easy te restore the situation; I expected the biggest mess to be on Wikidata but everything checked out OK there. We're more or less "famous" for having such an amount of bot-generated articles but even those articles, when created in different runs (which is more then likely if synonyms appear to be in different articles), can have differences, especially with respect to the cited authority for the status of the name (so not the author of the name but the latest revisioner) and the database where the data was read from (if any of these is cited off course). As soon as I've gone through the rest of my watchlist, I'll have a look into the items you linked. Love to solve these problems. Regards,  Wikiklaas  overleg  22 jun 2013 14:26 (CEST)

Haha, Eubazus longicaudus, longicauda and longicaudis, all three with a different author but the same taxonomic position. There must be many more such cases in our list of articles. For this one, you'll find the result in the only link that will keep its nice blue colour. I'll take care of deleting the superfluous Wikidata items. If it's OK with you, you're more than welcome to report these cases here. Cheers.  Wikiklaas  overleg  22 jun 2013 15:05 (CEST)

I prefer to ping someone; I personally watch every page I edit, so it gets to the point where it's easy to miss an user-user communication. I have no problem communicating problems here or there.

You might want to have a look through d:User:Soulkeeper/dups#Pending stuff and in some of the archives; there are several merges that were listed for nl that you might want to look into. :) --Izno (overleg) 22 jun 2013 15:36 (CEST)

In fact, I just went and pulled everything that might still be pending out of the archives, and there are certainly a few nl links. Have a look! --Izno (overleg) 22 jun 2013 16:36 (CEST)

It took me a few hours to find the sources but here is the outcome, showing it's a good idea to have someone look into such cases is detail. The three names appear to be different taxa, so the different authors are no mistake. Eubazus longicaudus, a Canadian species, was published as Blacus longicaudus Provancher 1886. When it was transfered to Eubazus, the name was occupied by the two other names already, so Achterberg (the reviser) coined a nomen novum for it and named it Eubazus provancheri. The status of Eubazus longicauda (Curtis 1832), published as Zele longicauda, is unclear. A personal remark of Achterberg was cited on a webpage (not important where) he was going to synonymize it with an unmentioned other species. The name does have priority however over Eubazus longicaudis Ratzeburg 1844 (ICZN Art. 23). For the latter I did not find a nomen novum but untill this is solved, the two articles, together with the two Wikidata items, are to be kept like this. For other cases, I'll have a look into Soulkeepers data soon.  Wikiklaas  overleg  22 jun 2013 23:45 (CEST)

All Chaetonotus-conflicts have been solved now. I've started to go through the rest of Soulkeeper's list of conflicts on nlwiki and will continue to do so untill I've solved the last one. Cheers.  Wikiklaas  overleg  25 jun 2013 04:41 (CEST)