Wikispecies:Village Pump

From Wikispecies
Jump to: navigation, search

Welcome to the village pump of Wikispecies. This page is a place to ask questions or discuss the project. Please sign and date your post (by typing ~~~~ or clicking the signature icon in the edit toolbar). Use the Wikispecies IRC channel for real-time chat.

Note: If you insert links to Wikipedia pages in your comments, don't forget the leading colon (:) before the wiki language code (including when you reference a remote user page instead of using a local signature), otherwise it will generate spurious interwiki links collected in the sidebar instead of in the expected location within the discussion. Thanks.

Village pump in other languages: Czech - česky · Finnish - Suomi · French - Français · Hungarian - Magyar · Korean - 한국어 · Russian - Русский

Post a comment
if you use the title box, you don't need to put a title in the body
1 (2004.09.21 – 2005.01.05) 2 (2005.01.05 – 2005.08.23)
3 (2005.08.24 – 2005.12.31) 4 (2006.01.01 – 2005.05.31)
5 (2006.06.01 – 2006.12.16) 6 (2006.12.17 – 2006.12.31)
7 (2007.01.01 – 2007.02.28) 8 (2007.03.01 – 2007.04.30)
9 (2007.05.01 – 2007.08.31) 10 (2007.09.01 – 2007.10.31)
11 (2007.11.01 – 2007.12.31) 12 (2008.01.01 – 2008.02.28)
13 (2008.03.01 – 2008.04.28) 14 (2008.04.29 – 2008.06.30)
15 (2008.07.01 – 2008.09.30) 16 (2008.10.01 – 2008.12.25)
17 (2008.12.26 – 2009.02.28) 18 (2009.03.01 – 2009.06.30)
19 (2009.07.01 – 2009.12.31) 20 (2010.01.01 – 2010.06.30)
21 (2010.07.01 – 2010.12.31) 22 (2011.01.01 – 2011.06.30)
23 (2011.07.01 – 2011.12.31) 24 (2012.01.01 – 2012.12.31)
25 (2013.01.01 – 2013.12.31) 26 (2014.01.01 – 2014.09.01)

Authority control[edit]

I've made a start on {{Authority control}} (imported from Wikidata; see also en.Wikipedia version), but it relies in the class hlist. Can somebody copy that cross please?

It will be useful for both pages on authors; and user pages. Andy Mabbett (talk) 12:58, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Other than the CSS tweak (which would improve the display, but isn't a show-stopper), the template is now ready for use; see, for example, Charles Robert Darwin; and my user page. Eventually it should be possible to populate it from Wikidata, rather than by repeating the values in this project. Andy Mabbett (talk) 14:52, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikidata links[edit]

Pending proper integration between this project and Wikidata, I've created {{Wikidata}}, for links to the equivalent pages on that project. You can see it on use on Andricus aries.

What do people think? We could change the styling, or position, or have a separate sub-header.

(Note that, for author pages, the Authority Control template now includes a |Wikdiata= parameter.)

If this template is liked, a bot could be used to apply & populate it. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:50, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

A desperate call for help.[edit]

Hi, I’m Mariusm, an experienced editor here at Wikispecies, and an administrator. I ran into a difficulty which makes editing here for me a nightmare: The user Stho002 is continuously harassing and disturbing me. Every edit which he thinks disagrees with his standards, he immediately proceeds to alter it, causing me confusion and annoyance. Not that my edits are scientifically incorrect. Not that they disagree with the formatting rules. No. Stho002 just wants to enforce his own-devised rules upon everyone else. I mean, is it acceptable that one person will impose his standards upon all the other users? Does it stand in accordance with the spirit of the Wiki project? The standard, basic rules are specified here in the help section, and they radically disagree with what Stho002 is forcefully imposing upon us.

Let’s suppose his rules are “better” than those specified in the help section (which I think they are not). Isn’t it required of him to ask us for approval? Isn’t it required of him to write them down and post them? Isn’t it required of him to conduct a vote before he applies his rules? His rules which are nowhere specified, which are cumbersome and difficult to grasp, especially for a novice, are deterring many users from editing here. I know of at least 10 users who left as a consequence of his harassment and his constant modification of their edits. This kind of conduct would be unthinkable in the English Wikipedia, yet here, a site of low-volume where users are reluctant to “start a fight”, this outrageous behavior is going on unimpeded.

I’m asking everyone who agrees with me that this situation can’t be allowed to continue, to sign their name here. Mariusm (talk) 05:15, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Call for names I'd recommend against a call for names as such because that can quickly devolve into a witch-hunt or a mob. Have you and he spoken directly? Do you know what the "rules" are that he has in mind? —Justin (koavf)TCM 05:19, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
With all due respect Justin, I must point out that you haven't done enough editing around here to experience the feeling when you have barely posted an edit and a person rushes in, unnecessarily changing your work seconds after being posted, with no appropriate reason except that he does't "like" the way you do things, and that he is keen on enforcing his own way - so my only desire is not to fight or argue, but to be left alone to proceed with my work, provided of course that I do it properly. Mariusm (talk) 04:35, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
@Mariusm: Far be it from me to trivialize your experience. My point is that there are some things which are universal or common to conversations and conflict and wikis. If you don't want my help, then I'll bow out. —Justin (koavf)TCM 05:11, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
Justin, I do want your help. My conflict with Stho002 goes on for years, so I though you might not be entirely aware of all the implications of Stho002's conduct. I tried in the past for many times to speak reason with him to no avail. He won't budge an inch from his convictions. I would really like you to persuade him not to enforce his way of doing things upon all the rest of the Wikispecies community. I'm not speaking of instances of flawed data, but of formatting (templates, categories, etc.). Mariusm (talk) 05:36, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
@Mariusm: How do you respond to Stho's point below? —Justin (koavf)TCM 05:57, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
(1) There is a big difference between a "good advice" and to enforce one's opinion upon a fellow user. What Stho is doing is to forcefully changing my pages without warning, without a chance of appeal, just like that.
(2) If he thinks his method is so good, why doesn't he put it for the community vote? Two years ago he tried to do just that, yet he failed to get a majority approval. Since then he resorts to just making his awn rules, and enforcing them upon everyone else.
(3) I don't have my "own made up formatting standards". I try to adhere as much as possible to the standards which are specified in the help section. I try to make my pages as simple and as clear and as accurate as possible.
(4) Stho's conduct confuses many contributors because his system isn't simple, isn't easy to grasp, especially for newcomers, isn't written down anywhere, and needs much extra work - forming complicated templates and links. How can a newcomer possibly know what exactly Stho expects from her? His habit of changing immediately all the edits which are not up to his standards chases away almost all newcomers - I've witnessed this recurring for many times.
(5) Using templates for references as he advises is not always the best practice. This is not the place to specify all my reservations. Suffice it to say that for papers describing only one or two species, the work of creating reference-templates doesn't justify future reduction in effort should the respective reference need to be modified.
(6) Many components of his "system" aren't really a matter of reducing "hard writing" as he proclaims. They are just a matter of appearance and formatting. I would say they are a matter of taste alone, so why should he enforce his taste upon the entire community?
(7) @Koavf:, all I'm asking is that a Wikispecies user will not be unnecessarily harassed. I can testify for myself that Stho's behavior vexed me so much that I've abandoned this site for many months. I ultimately resolved not to give up and to claim my right not to be dictated. Thanks for trying to resolve this issue. Mariusm (talk) 12:02, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
@Mariusm: I'd recommend you frame this in terms of style issues and maybe RsfC related to them. It may be the case that Stho is inflexible and rude (I honestly don't know) and if he's a problem user then he may need to amend his behavior or be blocked. But it may also be the case that you two just have different preferences and there are strengths and weaknesses in both approaches. If the community talks about that rather than a specific user's behavior as such then we can just avoid conflict or blocks or anything punitive. Does that make sense? —Justin (koavf)TCM 16:39, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
@Koavf: what you say sounds very reasonable to me. I only wish the community will be more active in this discussion, especially as I know for certain that other members suffer from the same harassment that I do. If the majority decides to go for his "system", then I will happily comply. Another important point to clarify the situation we are dealing with: Stho is active on WS eight hours a day, seven days a week, 52 weeks a year (I respect his perseverance), so he practically overwhelms other users in this low-volume wiki. I would say he pretty much transformed WS to become his "kingdom": dictating the rules and eradicating anything which displeases him. Are we going to encourage such a situation? Is this a healthy situation? I would say it isn't.
I urge the community to participate in the following vote. Sign your choice by 4 tildes. Please feel free to add any comment or clarification: (Mariusm (talk) 05:23, 11 September 2014 (UTC))

*** VOTE ***

Are you in favor of changing the official WS page-format to the one practiced by Stho002? (See for a typical Stho page example: Sagola spiniventris; as opposed to a generic example - endorsed in the help pages Hymenochirus boettgeri.)[edit]

  • Yes, I am in favor of Stho's format

  • No, I'm against it
    • The collapsing boxes are over elaborate, but Reference Templates are very useful. Spend less time changing other people's pages and more creating new ones. Accassidy (talk) 08:36, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
      • Then should not your vote be in the category below? By the way, I am not actually "in favor of changing the official WS page-format to the one practiced by [me]". My argument has always been that a range of formats should be acceptable, from simple to elaborate, and if someone improves a page by reformatting to more elaborate, then that is good. If the only allowed format is simple, then the project cannot become as good as it can be ("dragged down by the lowest common denominator"). If the only allowed format is elaborate, then we risk alienating new users and established users who can't get their heads around the more elaborate formats ... Stho002 (talk) 21:35, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
      • I considered that, but I don't want to make "modifications" exactly, so neither response was particularly accurate. I just want to see valid data with good referencing to original material and relaible revisions. Accassidy (talk) 22:02, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
        • I fully concur with your last statement, and I do wish Mariusm wouldn't try to divert our energy into pointless disputes! Stho002 (talk) 22:08, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Some parts of it all right, but it needs modifications
    • Mariusm (talk) 05:23, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
    • Tommy Kronkvist (talk) 20:18, 14 September 2014 (UTC). I too consider the collapsing boxes with the {{Nomen}} and {{Syn}} templates somewhat over elaborate: they look good, but can probably seem somewhat complicated to new users. The Reference Templates are good though, and helps a lot when creating (or correcting) references that are used on several different pages, for several different taxa. For instance the reference template {{Cuvier,Valenciennes;1846}} is used on as many as ten other pages. It is a lot more convenient to only change the reference template once—should the reference need to be updated—rather than to make corrections to every single one of those other ten pages. I realize that new users might face an even more arduous task trying to comprehend the Reference Templates (in comparison to the collapsing boxes) but I find the Ref Templates to be such a good improvement that we should consider using them anyway.
    • And.Martire I hate dictators. I agree with Mariusm — The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 15:22, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Note: Not participating in this vote will prevent us from adopting an agreed-on format resulting in chaos, and in aggressive users enforcing their way upon this entire community. This site has practically became a one-person dictatorship. Do you wish this situation to go on? Do you want your work to be deleted or altered beyond recognition? If not, please do vote!

Note that I am not forcing others to follow "my format" (I'm not forcing others to do anything). They can use whatever format they wish, but as soon as they click on 'save', the page becomes fair game for others to modify ... Stho002 (talk) 05:28, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

This statement is equivalent to saying: <<I will tolerate no format but mine. No matter what you do or say, no matter what the rules are, your work will not be respected; it will be very soon modified according to my standards.>> Mariusm (talk) 07:17, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
If this was a recommended format I may agree with it with some reservations, but I can not agree with it being the 'official' format. For example, somebody will be deleting the location information already on Orchidaceae and other sites. Where is the type of synonym, vernacular information and interwiki links? I do not like YYYY: as (YYYY) is far clearer. Finally it is template heavy which will likely put off less experienced contributors. Anyway we need to concentrate our energies into getting blank and partially completed pages filled with high quality information. To prioritize a format wars is a waste of time and energy in my opinion. Having said that it is a neat and tidy layout. Andyboorman (talk) 08:46, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
It effectively is a recommended format (=a best practice format, not compulsory or "official"), so you may wish to reconsider your vote? Stho002 (talk) 21:01, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
I have withdrawn my vote, as long as only the broad generic and simple format found on Help remains as the one recommended to new users, I am happy. I would suggest any admin/contributor who wishes to make major changes do so with care. I for one welcome content updates, as long as they are referenced or minor (eg VN interwiki links), tidying up of (my) inevitable mistakes, better pics, format suggestions/help etc.. Please no impositions without bureaucrat backing, do not get rid of content without first contacting the contributor(s) and be very very wary about driving people off WS. Enough said guys and maybe seek arbitration. Andyboorman (talk) 18:01, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
The quote: "It effectively is a recommended format" can be o.k. Orchi (talk) 19:38, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
Agree with Orchi, but no format impositions. You guys both do good work here, as do most of us. Agree to disagree. Energies into quality content, surely? Andyboorman (talk) 22:15, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

The problem here Mariusm, is that you are deliberately ignoring my good advice (see this diff), just to spite me. You are also charging ahead with your own made up formatting standards (again just to spite me), as anyone can see if they review your recent edits. Stho002 (talk) 05:21, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

The latest contribution by Mariusm (Nazeris wuyiensis) illustrates his refusal to listen to reason. He is hard writing the information on to the page (instead of using templates), so any correction (or addition of a new link to the reference, for example) will need to be made separately on every single page! This is not a good approach! Stho002 (talk) 05:13, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

  • I will not vote in this argument as I'm not sure what it's all about... really. I also think Stho002 made some strange things in the past and he follow his own "the page becomes fair game" a little too zealously. It's not hunting we're doing here but a collaboration to build something together. Uleli (talk) 15:12, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Sth002 was my primary mentor when I joined Wikispecies, so I learned a system heavily oriented to templates. I found at first they were difficult to manipulate, but now that I am familiar with them, I am seeing their great flexibility and convenience. Reference templates are excellent, and when studied, should contain lists of nomenclatural acts. I spent some time on Wikipedia before concentrating here, and templates are not as well supported. References there must be hard entered. I like ISSN and Taxon Authority templates. Someone above had questioned wisdom of templating references without nomenclatural acts. But there are revisions with very few or no nomenclatural acts which I have transcluded up to 50 times.
  • I am in the process of informing other cirriped workers (all 16 of us) of what I am doing, and am getting very good reception. I have been receiving helpful suggestions. So we are onto something very good. Just providing good clear reference links is excellent. Older references are hard to find, many bibliographies just pass along old abbreviations which are now hard to understand. Templates should provide full names, online links where possible, and ISSNs. In my own work, I am examining original descriptions wherever I can, identifying typos, discrepancies in citations, and occasional pre-occupied names. These should be indicated.
  • One size fits all format is impossible anyway, as botanists do things very differently from zoologists, and within zoology, vertebrate people consider themselves apart from invertebrate people. Certain citation and taxonomic formats are peculiar to each. For aesthetic criteria, both template-heavy and hard written formats look good. But I feel that templating and linking give easy access to further information for researchers. Casual searchers might want a little more information on something they saw on their beach or back yard. Large blasts of technical information might put them off. Collapsible boxes have merit here. I feel we should provide as much concise information as we can for researchers in one place, while keeping in mind needs of curious non-specialists. Building species synonymy can be simplified by us. That is my aim here. I have spent many hours digging in libraries to build a synonymy for a paper. As time goes on, it can only build up more.
  • I do have two suggestions right now to improve this project. First one is rather minor: Publications of so-and-so pages, so-and-so being Taxon Authority, I find as redundancy. This list can and should be placed on that individual's TA page. I have been somewhat lax in that particular in my little fief, but will catch up. The other is more formidable. That is type repository pages. Holotype category I find to be unsatisfactory. Links dump investigator into entire list, which must be waded through. Not all repositories are adequately listed. Anything placed to right of pipe glyph puts one into the repository page. I submit development of category similar in format to Category ISSN. That works beautifully, at least for me. Neferkheperre (talk) 02:56, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

I would like to thank everyone for their responses. I have a few comments to make:

  • To those admins seeking to be only left in peace and quiet, and who don't want to get involved in any debate I would say: so why did you choose to become administrators? One of the tasks of an administrator is to act as a policeman and to stand guard against anyone breaking the laws. I'm sure you wouldn't want the police officers in your community to seek peace and quiet instead of pursuing the villains, would you?
  • We need to be more friendly toward each other and especially towards newcomers. This means not to change or delete one's work without warning or explanation; to increase our tolerance and patience is mandatory.
  • Some aspects of Stho's system are welcome, and should become a standard, while others such as unnecessary collapse boxes should be arguably abandoned.
  • We need to compose new help pages to reflect our new attitude. @Neferkheperre: your suggestions sound very reasonable to me. Would you like to take on this task? We need firstly a draft, which will be posted to be revised by others, and later to be used as our platform and guide.
  • I hope the community sees this debate, not as an unnecessary skirmish, but as a way of progressing towards a better WS. Mariusm (talk) 04:56, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
    • "Collapse boxes" are vital. The last thing a new user wants to be faced with is a load of highly technical nomenclatural and/or synonymic detail, but this is what sophisticated users will be most interested in. However, I have abandoned nested "collapse boxes" in favour of giving synonyms a page of their own, which makes a great deal of sense (but I won't explain now) ... Stho002 (talk) 05:09, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
      • Another reason for "collapse boxes" would relate to page appearance. With these boxes in place, taxon pages are more likely viewable without scrolling overmuch. I have been doing some nesting of synonym boxes for further information, and I shall be proposing some ideas on treating synonyms in the near future. Neferkheperre (talk) 20:37, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
    • Stho, I think you are wrong. On the contrary - a new/casual user may be deterred by the meager amount of information presented on the page. The page is so minimal that it almost isn't presenting any information at all. See for example pages of similar wikis like this and this. I would like to incorporate more details such as distribution, maps, description etc. rather then hiding out the minimal details we do have. Mariusm (talk) 08:07, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
      • I have of late been giving more study to other taxonomic wikis. Most high-information sites are highly specialized towards taxonomic groups (like AntWiki), or geographical areas (such as BiotaTaiwanica). Most generalists, like ITIS, GBIF, WoRMS, provide very little besides listing currently accepted name and original author. They are of minimal use to researchers seeking to build taxonomic synonymy sections. We should avoid redundancy with either concept. If we are doing exactly same as some other site, one of us is unnecessary. We are set up to handle all species, as are generalists, and to provide specialized information, but not too extremely detailed. Greater use of external links to specialized sites would solve problems of redundancy. Neferkheperre (talk) 20:37, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
    • In botany easy access to synonyms is vital, both for new/casual and sophisticated users. Therefore, I am not with happy with collapse boxes for synonymy and will not use them and may remove them, if they interfere with the clarity of the page, as I see it. The main, but not only reason, is the considerable number of changes in nomenclature up and down taxa over the last ten years or so. These are ongoing and not always immediately accepted by all authorities or experts complicating the picture, but we can deal with this situation, as long as contributors do not go off on their own individually preferred route or format. The way I see it, is that an important reason for a visit is to answer the questions "what is the currently accepted name?", "what is the level of acceptance?" and "why have the changes been made?". Also casual users particularly may be searching using a synonym and so redirects, or notes and links on pages, are also needed, but that is another discussion. Andyboorman (talk) 09:30, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
      • In brief: In reply to Mariusm, I say that I have incorporated more details than was initially envisaged for the project, but at the end of the day, we do not want to become merely a copy of Wikipedia, so we have to focus on our strengths. Our main strength, as I see it, is referencing. We do not have to copy snippets of information from the references. Rather we choose good references, link to them, and indicate briefly what sort of useful information is in them (e.g. distributions, redescriptions, keys, etc.) Useful content is then just a mouse click away. In reply to Andyboorman, you are conflating a couple of different issues! I agree that the synonymy is vital (and I want to give each synonym a page of its own!) The "collapse boxes" do not interfere with clarity, they add to it! They simply give you a brief overall look at the page (overview) and what information is there, and if you want to see synonyms then you just click on the synonyms box! What's so "unclear" about that??? Stho002 (talk) 22:02, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
        • I am full editor on en.Wikipedia, and have created many species pages there. I have already commented on my issues with their formatting. They also complain I am too technical. I could be convinced to forgo Nomen boxes, but not synonym boxes. Neferkheperre (talk) 20:37, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
      • Stephen I totally agree with your point vis-a-vis referencing etc. However, I think we must agree to disagree with respect to whether or not collapsing boxes add or detract from clarity when it comes to synonyms and nomenclature as opposed to taxonavigation. I am not conflating issues but prefer a more in your face approach - the older layout. Hopefully I am not forced to adopt collapse boxes I feel are not needed. Andyboorman (talk) 12:18, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
        • Nobody is "forcing" anyone to do anything. You can use whatever format you like, as far as I am concerned, but nobody owns pages that they create/edit, so their format can be changed by others ... Stho002 (talk) 23:37, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
        • I can not disagree with what you say above, but then why do you sometimes high-handedly invoke 'edit wars' when original contributors (or others) revert your edits or change what you have added if you do not like those contributions? Fair enough, if references are provided, but this is not always the case, so it can seem to others that its "all in a whim". May be leading to the above. Goose and gander? Andyboorman (talk) 07:35, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
          • Examples? It all hinges on "improvement" of the page. Format changes without improvement are unjustified ... Stho002 (talk) 07:39, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
          • Example - Tainia/Ania. The main contributor and myself thought your attitude was euphemistically "uncalled for". Particularly given the immense amount of work that has been put into the whole family and the impressive results! Of course the paper by Li et al (2014) was important, but their proposal has not met universal acceptance by academic orchid experts, as far as I read it. WS can not take sides surely? Anyway we must always treat each other with respect and diplomacy. Anybody can "improve" my pages and I promise to not revert without justification and evidence.....Andyboorman (talk) 18:36, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
            • My level of diplomacy might have been better, but my point still stands. When you consider WS as a whole, as I do, there is no such thing as "general acceptance" (How long do we wait? Who do we look to for the answer? Isn't that "taking sides"??) Precisely because WS cannot take sides, we must by default accept all peer reviewed and published research that is currently uncontested in the peer reviewed literature. Otherwise, the project as a whole falls apart. Stho002 (talk) 22:07, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
            • I agree 100% with all your points above! In this incidence, I read the paper in detail and realised that an alternative conclusion can be reached from the data. Lumping Tainia/Ania and Collabium will also seem to achieve monophyly. Hence my edits/improvements, but without the personal conclusion regarding Collabium as this is not the job of WS, as I see it. I also think that is why Li's conclusions have not achieved rapid acceptance in the wider academic orchid community, as this inclines to "lump" not "split". Time will tell. But, like you, I normally implement non-controversial changes based upon peer reviewed journals without comment or note just references. Andyboorman (talk) 09:08, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
              • Try pulling that stunt on English Wikipedia!! Stho002 (talk) 22:15, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Echo and watchlist[edit]

Special:Notifications & Special:Watchlist substantially overlap in functionality, except the former also contains extra (some non-public) events and doesn't provide with passive usage options (means to turn off web-nagging or email-nagging and to just keep visiting the page whenever I'm free), while the latter doesn't provide with options of active web-nagging notifications (but already provides email interface). Partly, in my personal view, the Echo/Notifications project was driven by low usability of watchlist; [1] comes to mind. It's also perhaps worth noting that Echo users aren't exposed to Special:Notifications unless thy have JavaScript disabled — in which case it's their only means of reading the notifications.

I'd like to get this done:

  1. Merge these two pages into one.
  2. To remedy large inflow of information, introduce multiple levels of importance of the web-nagging notifications (red for mentions, orange for thanks, blue for new watchlist items, etc and configurable in your settings).

Thoughts on both, please? --Gryllida (talk) 02:28, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

10 year anniversary[edit]

In August 2004, Benedikt Mandl (User:Benedikt) gathered people and launched Wikispecies. 10 years ago, on September 14, 2004, the project merged to become a sister project under Wikimedia Foundation. Today, this wiki has over 405,000 article pages, 2 million page edits since inception, and viewed by 22,000 individuals per hour. Let's keep this project going for years to come. OhanaUnitedTalk page 04:48, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

What We Want to Convey[edit]

  • In our recent discussion, talk and suggestions were made on what scope of information we want to put into our entries and how we want to format it. We seem to have good agreement on Taxonavigation and Name section. We seem to have come to some level of agreement on reference templates. Other contents need work.
  • We have long since selected our scope to include all life, taxonomically organized. This makes us the largest biological site online with the capability to provide detailed information or links thereto. Many similar sites are mere listings of currently valid species with author, and little else. Others specialize in particular taxa, or geographical areas. These present highly detailed information, much more than we really should present here, but all the above are more information endpoints, without links to other sources. Here is where we can and should excel. Provide good basic information on site, with external links to specialized sites.
  • One purpose I have aimed for is to support taxonomic researchers and reviewers. I personally know how much time it takes to build a good synonymy with type data, and full information. We can save multitudinous hours of time for researchers. Particularly with older references, this can take time, and older references are hard to find.
  • After the name section, we have been providing type locality and repository information, and for some of us, geographical range. I have been putting in geological range for extinct species, and host data for symbionts. This is what user:Stho002 and I have been putting in collapsible Nomen boxes. If we do decide to use taxon descriptions, these would go here, as well. Use of Nomen boxes is as yet undecided, but might be best decided on quantity of information contained. I am all for including geographic range, symbiosis data, invasive species data, and short note on environmental preference.
  • On descriptions: Really rather than full descriptions, we should provide diagnosis which shows how this taxon differs from others. These are found as separate entries in more recent literature, with original descriptions or taxon revisions. In some cases, we might have to improvise, but we should avoid that. By now, we might want that Nomen box.
  • Synonyms: I see some past discussion on where to put synonyms. I feel it much less confusing to put synonyms and homonyms in the taxon page they affect. I really do support concept of collapsible Syn box for this category. I think synonyms should be templated as are valid species, but with more limited information, and re-directed. Reason: Future reviewers may re-validate synonyms, and in case valid name is found to be invalid, next available synonym becomes new valid name. In addition, some names are not considered synonyms by all specialists. Reason for synonymy should be noted. Generic re-assignments do not belong here, but in references section (see below). If synonyms are re-validated, then re-direct pages are easily re-configured. I have not been putting synonym references in with Selected references.
  • Selected references: Original description citation, generic re-assignments, major reviewers belong here. Our scope does not include most non-taxonomic references, but a citation providing an exhaustive list can be included. We need to think about DNA taxonomy references.
  • External links: Since we have discussed sites like Antwiki and BiotaTaiwanica, links can be place here as applicable. I personally think maps and photos can be linked here as well, instead of taking up much megabytes. DNA information is becoming more important, and is better linked to external specialty sites. Neferkheperre (talk) 02:09, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
No, we really should not go anywhere near descriptions! We just cite good references with descriptions in them. Nomen boxes are for nomenclatural details only, and Syn boxes are for synonymy ... Stho002 (talk) 02:27, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
@Neferkheperre: I firstly want to thank you for your work trying to put some form and frame to WS. I agree with most of your suggestions, yet as Stho says, descriptions will put an immense overload on our still very incomplete species basic data and detract us from adding as many species as we should. Can you please compose and post an example species page which will incorporate your vision so we have something concrete over which to debate and comment? Many thanks, Mariusm (talk) 04:31, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
In my opinion, WS is not the place to add descriptions of taxa. This kind of information should be reserved for the different wikipedias. However, the references should include links to the respective papers, if they are available online, either in Biodiversity Heritage Library or somewhere else. This will provide a lot of links to descriptions at one place. I suppose, this also will help wikipedias, when some author intends to write an article on a certain taxon. I also oppose the idea of adding "diagnosis which shows how this taxon differs from others". I larger genera this would mean to work on a diagnostic key, which certainly is beyond our capacity.
Synonyms are essential and they should not be hidden in a collapsible box. I regard this as an unfriendly act to casual visitors: When they enter a synonym into the search field they are redirected to the respective accepted taxon and there do not easily find the name they were searching for. However, synonyms concern a general question: What is the scope of WS? Is it on names? Or is it on taxa? If it is on names, we should consider to change our design to a solution similar to Tropicos or World Checklist of Selected Plant Families (Kew Checklist), where there exists an own page for each name. However, as I understand, WS is on taxa. This means to have one article for each accepted taxon and synonyms redirected to this. As far as I see, such design is more suitable to deal with misapplied names/pseudonyms. In this case I simply may add such a pseuonym at the end of the heterotypic synonym list, as e.g. in Ouratea crassinervia. Actually, in Flora of Panama they had used the name O. curvata for the taxon now treated as O. crassinervia in the Flora Mesoamericana draft. According to this, the true O. curvata is restricted to Brazil. It is rather confusing when Tropicos in the O. crassinervia page links to O. curvata under "Accepted Names" based on some outdates references. You will realise that O. crassinervia actually is a currently accepted taxon only when you find links to recent "References" or if you proceed to the Flora Mesoamericana draft.
The only point, where I consider to add pages for names currently not accepted, concerns unresolved names, as e.g. Brackenridgea elegantissma. Kanis (1972) writes this name is based on a sterile plant, which is either conspecific with Brackenridgea hookeri or Brackenridgea palustris. Moreover, Brackenridgea elegantissima is an older name than both. So, maybe sometimes I will create a page for B. elegantissima including a note that reports the point made by Kanis. However, most of the names marked in TPL as "Unresolved" actually are not unresolved. They simply have not yet evaluated all of the relevant papers. An example: If you go to the original paper, you easily see - if you understand German - that Ochna rigida Kuntze is based on Ouratea rigida Engl. and actually has to be cited as Ochna rigida (Engl.) Kuntze. TPL provides a link to IPNI where a link to the Kuntze protologue is included, but nobody has checked the protologue. So, this can be seen as the advantage of WS that we may solve such easy cases of "Unresolved" names from TPL. --Franz Xaver (talk) 15:25, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
I am with Franz Xaver on descriptions, synonyms and more importantly WS is mainly about taxonomy. Distribution and images make a valuable contribution by adding interest to users, but descriptions belong elsewhere e.g. Wikipedia and there is provision to link there. However, I must admit I have not had Franz's luck when it comes to unresolved species. More often than not I seem to end up in a digital dead end! I also place the tribe, genera or species lists etc. at the top of the page making the taxonomy explicit and user friendly, but that is not as important as content and references of course. Andyboorman (talk) 19:16, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
So ... can someone volunteer and present us with an example species-page which reflects his wishes on how a WS page should look like? We need this as a starting point for agreeing on a standardized format for WS. Mariusm (talk) 04:24, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
So ... here is an example GENUS page (just make sure that the last edit is mine, or it may not convey what I intended!) Stho002 (talk) 05:11, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
This is another example of Stho002 rude behavior. I started editing Calybe, when Stho002 immediately stepped in, without giving me a chance to finish it, changed it, thereby interfering with my work, and now he proclaims it's an example. Please ignore his post on this discussion above! Mariusm (talk) 05:46, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
......why no difference between "synonym" and "homonym".Orchi (talk) 10:40, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Sorry for my delay. My stepfather passed recently, and it was necessary to secure his possessions and mineral collection, see to his 12 cats, and get his succession under way. In spare moments, I have rebuilt species page Megabalanus tintinnabulum, including completed reference and taxon authority pages to show about what I had in mind. It is the regular species page, and can be readily changed.
  • Really, I do not favor descriptions or diagnoses either in this wiki. Others have mentioned this ever several months, so I brought it up for discussion. That would be a huge can of worms, as definitions of terms would be brought in as well. I didn't do anything with repository, as that is the next subject. I favor sticking with taxonomic and nomenclatural information, with rich linkage to external sources for expanded study. Neferkheperre (talk) 17:32, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Neferkheperre and Franz Xaver have, in my opinion, both produced excellent pages Megabalanus tintinnabulum and Brackenridgea hookeri respectively. OK they differ in format, but it must be a down to preference or fitness for purpose not "house style", which one is followed. They both have strengths and weaknesses. Also they both have used the scientific names for the species and good references - brilliant. I also think that for another contributor or admin to move onto somebodies work imposing their own version of format is, to put it euphemistically, undiplomatic. Even if it is within the rules it counters the spirit of the project. Fine if the page is ridiculous, but how common is that? I also commend Orchi for the work on Orchidaceae, which is "What We Want to Convey" surely? Andyboorman (talk) 19:16, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

There is enough work left to do for everybody. So, it is not necessary to make people busy by changing one acceptable format into another acceptable format. Cheers --Franz Xaver (talk) 19:55, 29 September 2014 (UTC). Well put! Andyboorman (talk) 20:00, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
I fully agree, but I have not done that. The only pages I have edited have been to add new content and/or make corrections. On the other hand, Mariusm deliberately chooses to take my formatting style and change it in a way that adds nothing. Anyway, the most important features of a good Wikispecies page are as follows:
  1. Justification of species (or genus etc.) checklists, so the reader knows where the information came from;
  2. Good selection of informative references; and
  3. Links to the references on BHL, or doi, or links to PDFs; and
  4. Use of templates to minimize the workload associated with making changes (e.g. if an online source for a reference becomes available, we just add it once to the template, and not to every page that the ref. is cited on).

Stho002 (talk) 21:15, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Differences between these two pages is mainly due to approaches to taxonomy which have evolved separately over years with botany and zoology. Zoology format such as in Megabalanus tintinnabulum would not work in botany, and Brackenridgea hookeri would not do for zoological synonymies. Other kingdoms have their own unique parameters, as well. Neferkheperre (talk) 00:28, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

@Neferkheperre:, can you please explain in what way Megabalanus tintinnabulum format is better than User:Mariusm/Megabalanus tintinnabulum? You adopted there the format devised by Stho002, which includes collapsible boxes that the majority here think unnecessary. See also the vote above, where none of the admins endorsed these boxes. Mariusm (talk) 04:28, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

OK, try page now. I removed boxes for open format. I use "Spage" template normally, so that re-formatted slightly the nomenclatural/ecologic information. I do prefer to keep "Original genus", for clarity. Selected references is preferable usage simply because it is impractical to list all references. Stho002 is who originally guided me when joining Wikispecies. How about using Syn box for lengthy synonym/homonym lists? Neferkheperre (talk) 13:42, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
The difference between your and Stho002 use of Selected References compared to References is one of culture and linguistics I feel. Many of us use Bibliography for a comprehensive list of literature and esources relevant to a topic. We then use References for those that have been specifically used to construct a WS page, paper, essay etc. I for one will continue to use References not Selected References for that reason. Like wise my use of brackets around dates - its a northern hemisphere thing, maybe. Syn boxes could be considered, but often the "lengthy" list is germane to the page taxo information, so I am inclined to not to use them, but they do look good. The length of the page is not as important as its quality of content. Andyboorman (talk) 13:09, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
Yes, for me Megabalanus tintinnabulum looks much better now. I don't worry as much about long pages as I worry about too short ones. Too short pages with too many collapsible boxes look very ugly and are very cumbersome to use. The best way is to grasp all the available information in a single sweep. I apologize for bringing up again the subject of Stho002 stubbornness, but when we do decide on an accepted format, it would be a very difficult task to persuade him to comply. Neither do I agree that the format isn't important, and that each user should use his own proprietary style. The integrity and the reputation of WP much depend on a uniform style. I do encourage other users to comment or post their preferred versions. Mariusm (talk) 11:19, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
@Andyboorman: and @Neferkheperre: Neferkheperre, thanks for you efforts. I appreciate the fact that you came forward and tried to devise a model species, but there is a reluctance here at WS to adopt a standard style, (or shall I say an indifference) even if standardization would have brought great advantages for us. When we consider ease of use and clarity on the editorial side as well as on the reader side, it would make sense to adhere to the simplest format possible, and this would mean discarding collapsible boxes. I'm disappointed, yet what can I do? The admins aren't involved enough, hard feelings accumulate and we start stepping on each other's toes, having unfruitful format-wars. A lot of energy and confusion would have been reduced had a certain standardization been adopted, but the majority spoke its word, so let's keep on the existing state of affairs. Mariusm (talk) 16:34, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

How to add custom button on this project ?[edit]

Hi, I had got a custom vector.js to add custom button but it seems to be obsolete now (don't know why. So by any chance maybe some of yours have a usable custom .js page which allow to create custom button. Like that i'll be able to copy-paste it and create mines. Thanks.V!v£ l@ Rosière /Murmurer…/ 09:31, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Limnophila (genus) is Plantaginaceae or Scrophulariaceae family  ?[edit]

I found for that genus this both family. But which choose then ?

Scrophulariaceae :

Plantaginaceae  :

So what should we do in this case ? V!v£ l@ Rosière /Murmurer…/ 11:00, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
As far as we are concerned our treatment here Limnophila is currently correct. Jstor refers to the herbaria entries so uses the original classification. For some reason the USDA (NRCS) and eflora sources do not always follow APGIII, which we (and most other botanists) do. The book is out of date. But see the authorities below;

  • Borsch, T., Müller, K. & Fischer, E. (2005) The Linderniaceae and Gratiolaceae are further lineages distinct from the Scrophulariaceae (Lamiales), Plant Biology (Stuttgart), 7(1): 1-12. Available on line [3]. Accessed 2014 June 7.
  • Olmstead et al (2010) Lamiales – Synoptical classification vers. 2.2 (in prog.) Available on line [4]. Accessed 14 Feb. 2014. As Gratiolieae.
  • Albach, D.C., Meudt, H.M. & Oxelman, B. (2005) Piecing together the “new” Plantaginaceae, American Journal of Botany, 92(2): 297-315. Available on line [5]. Accessed 2014 May 15.

Have a browse on the Lamiales section on the APGIII website [
OK we need to tidy up the Plantaginaceae pages on WS! Hope this helps Andyboorman (talk) 11:54, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very much, that'll help for sure ;-) . V!v£ l@ Rosière /Murmurer…/ 17:14, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

The case of Limnophila is and will remain not the only case where an assignment to different families occurs. Within the Regnum Plantae I am confronted with the case of Azolla. For many decades within the Salviniales the genus Azolla was assigned to the family Azollaceae and the genus Salvinia was assigned to the family Salviniaceae. Since a few years both genera are assigned by some authors to the Salviniaceae based upon very few molecular studies. This is, however, not generally accepted. There are still authors who are in favour of a separate family Azollaceae.

I myself have studied many megaspores and microsporangia of Salvinia and Azolla with the aid of transmission and scanning electron microscopes. The differences in the organisation and in the morphological characteristics of the spores are that great that I am also in favour of a separate family Azollaceae. But in Wikispecies both genera are presented under Salviniaceae, as that proposal was taken for the Taxonavigation. Time will tell the truth...

In general, species and genera are the building stones of the taxonomic system. They represent the upward taxonomy. But there is also a downward taxonomy, often using theoretical assumptions. And these two kinds of taxonomic work are clashing in the range of families, subfamilies, or tribus.

Kempf EK (talk) 17:16, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Stho002 disregards wiki's fair play[edit]

Reading my lamentations is sure to be tiresome to you by now, but I must relate what happened lately between Stho002 and me:

I started innocently enough to edit the genus page Calybe by creating for it a template Template:Calybe, then I proceeded to gather taxonomic data, which took several minutes. When I was ready to post my work, I realized to my dismay that Stho acted faster then me - he already managed to step in and post his initial version. You can imagine my frustration and anger: not only he took possession of my ongoing edit, but he made my work of twenty minutes superfluous. He had at his disposal millions of species and genera to choose from, yet he chose instead to interfere with my present pick. Since his first edit was preliminary and incomplete, I decided to nevertheless put on the page my more comprehensive version. You can imagine what kind of "war" ensued, where Stho immediately reverting everything I was posting on this page, regardless whether it added more content or not, whether it was more accurate or not. You can see for yourselves the page history. To add insult to injury, he started proclaiming that Calybe is his model genus page - see here.

Would you regard this type of conduct legitimate? Would you call it a fair play, especially when done by an admin? What am I supposed to be doing now? Wouldn't it be appropriate to expect some kind of protection from the admins here? Am I supposed to fight or succumb and remain quiet?

In a normal wiki the conduct mentioned above would have been handled firmly, yet here it is ignored completely. Be it enough to say that Stho was blocked from editing in the English Wikipedia for a much lesser offence. Mariusm (talk) 15:46, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

I must say that such a quick interventions after the creation of a Template for a genus that had remained untouched for some time does seem much more than a coincidence. Personally, I would not take such action after seeing the Genus Template on the "Recent changes" list, and it does strike me as being a very rude interaction by Stho002. To then continue an edit war for two days is juvenile behavior without discussion on your two user pages about how you see things differently. Swapping backwards and forwards between Reference Template and Author formats seems also to be a waste of time for both editors. I do feel that Marius has a sound reason for complaint. Accassidy (talk) 17:43, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
Nevertheless, Mariusm is removing content when he repeatedly undoes my formatting on that page, and for that reason, I consider it to be vandalism and revert Stho002 (talk) 19:43, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
Furthermore, Mariusm's claim to have started editing the page "innocently enough" is deliberately misleading. I have been watching his edits for some time (I also watch the edits of anyone else who I suspect may be problematic). He has been deliberately using his own, rather hastily thought through, variations on the formatting that I have developed, i.e. not standard formatting and not my formatting, but a deliberate attempt to go against my formatting. I don't care so much about species pages, but I jumped in quickly to tidy up the genus page Calybe for this reason Stho002 (talk) 19:49, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
I'm willing to complay with any agreed-on format, while you wouldn't budge an inch from your proprietary-devised format to accommodate other views. Mariusm (talk) 08:48, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
@Mariusm: my passive support is with you. It's a pity that the admin staff here is not strong enough to do something with this long "usurpation of the power". Kuzia (talk) 21:47, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
Now seeing the very long story of Stho002's blockage in enwiki, I must ask an obvious question: is it not enough to dismiss his adminship here if the "internal" evidence is not sufficiently strong? Kuzia (talk) 22:19, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
@Stho002:, I want to pose you a simple question: Are you willing to promise not to touch a fellow's edit for 2 hours after the edit has been posted (provided it's not a vandalism) YES OR NO? I would like to get a straight answer to that question, because if the answer would be negative, it would be a compelling proof that you are willing to go on harassing contributors. Mariusm (talk) 07:51, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
Patience is not one of my many virtues :) But, yes, I agree, but for a logged in editors only (not for an anon. IP), and bearing in mind that removal of useful content is vandalism Stho002 (talk) 22:29, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
OK, let's shake our virtual hands, and concentrate on improving WS. Mariusm (talk) 06:59, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
I suggest only that we do not get into editing wars over something as inconsequential as formatting detail. I would not reformat another's work just for the sake of the layout. If there is a clash over authorship or taxonomy, then please try to sort out differences of opinion by correspondence, rather than just through mutual deletions. Content is the key issue and if the content is correct then please let all of us move on to providing more content on more pages, rather than wasting time reformatting the work of others. Surely this is a more mature, adult approach. Accassidy (talk) 15:00, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
@Accassidy: Firstly, I would like to thank you for being the sole admin who seems to care and who is willing to get involved around here. Since Stho promised to exercise more patience and not to rush in upon an ongoing edit, let's see this case as closed for now. Mariusm (talk) 06:59, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Type repositories[edit]

  • At an earlier point, I had mentioned building viable repository database, as holotype| is wholly inadequate, based on standards we want, and ease of access of information. I propose building something similar to our ISSN database. I have been trying to salvage holotype, but can't seem to get anyplace. Since type numbers begin with repository acronym, this acronym should be the link to an individual information page for that repository. These pages will also be housed in a category erected for this purpose. Information contained to include at least the following:
    • 1. Full name of repository, location, years of operation. If repository is no longer operating, state where collections were transferred. Acronyms and numbers will be preserved in case of transfers.
    • 2. Website, if any.
    • 3. Many larger repositories subdivide their type collections into broad taxonomic categories, such as crustaceans, corals, etc. Here should be listed appropriate prefixes.
    • 4. Miscellaneous relevant information.
    • 5. Reference templates for type and figured specimen catalogs and inventories. I have created an entire 2 of these yesterday, and created Category:Type Number Inventories for them. These catalogs will be of invaluable use to all of us, because many older taxonomic works omit type numbers, even if assigned at that time, and such catalogs update condition and availability of type specimens.
  • I am suggesting Category:Repositories for housing these pages, and Type:(acronym) in square brackets for repository pages.
  • If we get some broad agreement on labels, and concept, I have information gathered for a sample page, which can easily be made official. Neferkheperre (talk) 20:07, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
This seems an attractive idea to me, a feature which will add interest to WS. We can add as well a category for each museum, so we could see in one click all the species resident in a specific location. Can you please post your sample institute page, so we can comment on it? Mariusm (talk) 04:10, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Here is my sample page: SMBL. Is entered as Type:acronym(pipe)acronym. SMBL does not use secondary prefixes. This was a simple, yet representative sample of repository. It preserves preferred format in publications of acronyms when citing type specimens. Explanation of acronyms is usually placed elsewhere in publications. Your idea of category for each museum is interesting, I added one. I used Category:acronym, to make it simple for use, and easy to remember. Neferkheperre (talk) 02:58, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
It looks nice, but why can't we name the page simply "SMBL" instead of "type:SMBL". This will make things simpler and easier. Mariusm (talk) 07:43, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
Agree with Mariusm suggestion. This would also make it easier changing from current [[Holotype|SMBL]] format by just deleting 'Holotype|'. Accassidy (talk) 09:19, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
  • I agree. I did realize Mariusm's suggestion only after I made my sample page and posted it. I only made that one, and did not implement it, so easily moved. And Accassidy makes perfect sense for transitioning. Neferkheperre (talk) 13:29, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
I made 2 repository pages: MZUSP and MZUEL, and I'll try to continue making them. Mariusm (talk) 13:59, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Accepted/Invalid status feature[edit]

What is your opinion of adding a STATUS feature for genus/species, by using the templates "Accepted" & "Invalid"?

Status:  accepted 
Status:  invalid 

Mariusm (talk) 07:12, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

In terms of the ICN, "invalid" (see nom. inval.) is not the contrary of "accepted". At least in botany, it is no found too rare that a taxon is accepted by some authors and synonymized by others - see en:Lumpers and splitters#Biology. So, in these cases such a feature will not be helpful without adding a note - by whom it is accepted an by whom not. --Franz Xaver (talk) 08:14, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
I have to agree with Franz Xaver the "invalid" feature would usually need qualifying for plants and is covered by nom. inval. and its variants, which can appear in a list of synonyms and should provide more information. Why would "iinvalid" appear in the Taxonavigation and Name sections? In general pages should concentrate on "accepted" names where ever possible. I also know there is a big debate to be had about acceptance, but I feel this can be put aside for the immediate future. There just too many blanks to fill in and also existing pages lacking basic information. Andyboorman (talk) 09:37, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
I thought that instead of just creating a redirect, which is very common in botany, it would be better to create a page with "invalid" status, author and reference, see for example a page I modified to this effect: Cereus poselgeri. Maybe such templates will better suited for zoology. Mariusm (talk) 10:21, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
That works and looks good. I have added a link on Echinocereus poselgeri HOT section just to complete the redirect, if that is OK. I will consider using this a the genus level, which is my main focus of work at the moment. Thanks Andyboorman (talk) 10:59, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
@Mariusm: No, in my opinion this is not a good solution. The name Cereus poselgeri is not "invalid" in terms of the Melbourne Code (ICN). Please compare the status definitions in Art. 6 of the Code. It's dangerous to use the same word for different things within the same context. Of course, you use the word "invalid" in a general meaning as in en.wiktionary. But in botanical nomenclature the meaning of the term "invalid name" is defined by the code in a different way. So, this "invalid" feature will only contribute to confusion. According to the code, a homotypic synonym anyway is a valid name. (And easily can become an accepted name, e.g. if circumscription of genera is changed.) If you want to stick to this idea of status templates, the appropriate dichotomy is "accepted name" versus "synonym". Anyway, often it will be necessary to add some specifications, if acceptance is only by part of the relevant literature. Remains the general question I had put somewhere above, whether wikispecies is on taxa or on names. The page Cereus poselgeri is in line with the names approach. Instead of splitting a taxon into separate pages on synonyms, I would prefer to add more references to the Echinocereus poselgeri page, e.g. FNA or Tropicos. The Coulter reference easily could have been added to the Echinocereus poselgeri page, whereas the Britton & Rose reference obviously belongs to Wilcoxia poselgeri. (When the basionym is Echinocereus poselgeri Lem., what nomenclatural act would have been done by Britton & Rose?). Regards --Franz Xaver (talk) 20:09, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
@Franz Xaver: we can easily add another template "Sy":
to straighten up the invalid ambiguity.
I think that a user seeking for a nomenclature which makes a synonym, and ends in being redirected, it apt to get confused. On the other hand, seeing clearly on the page that it is a syn., and having the relevant info on that particular syn. makes things much clearer and easier to grasp. I for one, searching sometimes for a synonymized name and being redirected, I didn't grasp initially that I've been redirected, and thought the page I reached is carrying the name I've searched for. Mariusm (talk) 04:37, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
We have categories to deal with this sort of thing. Having big colorful banners that appeal to Mariusm is unnecessary and I will oppose their implementation to the bitter end, thanks Stho002 (talk) 06:28, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
My own preference is to create REDIRECTs from pages titled with the combination of a taxon that is now subsumed under another. The page for the "valid" name will contain the "invalid" name in its section titled Synonymy or Synonyms, showing where the original synonymy was published when it is known. This redirect leads the enquirer to the appropriate "valid" taxon, shows how and when the synonym was created. Look, for example, at Neopithecops horsfieldi. This would be readily understood by anyone studying Lepidoptera. If people search for a binomial name that does not have its own page or redirect, then they will see a search lead to any page which contains the combination as a synonym. I think this is clear enough and I don't think enlarging the data on the junior synonym page is a good use of time. Accassidy (talk) 17:39, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks Accassidy a sensible exemplar page for both content and format - fit for purpose. Disregard my earlier comment. I will continue to attempt to modify this advice for my own work in botany. Please no more format wars these really are a waste of time. Andyboorman (talk) 20:04, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Wiki Commons alert[edit]

Somebody has been dumping Wiki Commons logo links for no useful reason - just to let you know! Andyboorman (talk) 21:08, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

User:Matsievsky's activity was fine up until last 2 edits. I think he/she may have clicked something by accident. OhanaUnitedTalk page 23:12, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Stho002's harassment forces me to stop editing[edit]

I regretfully must stop editing here, at Wikispecies. What caused my decision is the ongoing harassment by Stho002, who is targeting almost every edit of mine either deleting or reverting them. A recent example to his doings, which indeed was the straw that broke the camel's back is Template:Zt3860.6.3; originally it was:

I than changed it to:

Which Stho reverted back to this:

As you can see, I added all the four authors of this publication, and made links to them. Moreover, I added this publication to all those four author's pages. By reverting my edit, he removed this important content, and undone my work.

This is not an isolated case, but a systematic behavior, by which he made many users leave this site. Among them I can count Kuzia, Haps (see here) and PeterR.

This leaves me no other choice but to quit. As I've said before, this sort of harassment was met in the English Wikipedia with blockage, yet here I'm receiving no support from the WS' admins, who seem indifferent to Stho's misconduct. Stho is doing as he pleases, makes his own rules and enforces them, and generally acts as a dictator and as an owner of this site. So I'm forced to say goodbye. Mariusm (talk) 06:52, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Why did you make this revert Stho002? It does,on the face of it, seem petty and harassing. Andyboorman (talk) 08:05, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
Firstly note that I try to keep up with all the thousands of Zootaxa articles, which is a herculean task. I initially created that ref. template. I put et al. on any reference that has more than 3 authors, because it saves time, and since we can easily link Zootaxa refs to their online abstracts, there is no need to waste time copying long author lists. So, unless Mariusm wants to quickly add all authors to all 3873 issues of Zootaxa, it is best to be consistent. Secondly, Mariusm hasn't tried to talk to me about any of this. Had he, I would have tried to explain that he can still add categories of the form [[Category:Publications of AUTHOR]] to the reference template, which can then be used to link the reference to the publication lists of all authors, even if they are not listed on the ref. template itself. So nothing is lost, and much time is gained. Perhaps Mariusm would like to take over Zootaxa articles from me and try to keep them up-to-date?? I would be very happy to let him do so ... Stho002 (talk) 20:03, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
Your points above do sound fair enough, but as you mentioned to me once placed on WS we are open to edits, but templates can be protected am I right?. It is good to talk as well. Perhaps Mariusm and yourself could exchange emails and have a discussion off WS. Thanks Andyboorman (talk) 20:17, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
No, there is no justification in general to protect templates. Also, note that I didn't revert Mariusm's edit back to how it was originally, as the first author wasn't linked originally. As I said, the main issue here is consistency, particularly in view of the vast number of Zootaxa articles, which are a huge challenge to keep on top of. Stho002 (talk) 20:25, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
If Mariusm was genuine, he would be at least trying to talk to me, but instead he makes edits which seem designed to provoke a response from me, and then runs to the Village Pump to whinge and whine! Call me paranoid, but ... Stho002 (talk) 20:59, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

OK, to me it seems better to include more author detail than less. There is no agreement here on any kind of standardisation on the number of authors before something becomes "et al" and I find the lengthier version more helpful. So my sympathy is with Mariusm and I have taken it on myself to revert the page back to the last edit of his. My challenge to Stho002 is to leave this well alone and get on with something more constructive. I doubt anybody is trying to be provocative, so please both of you keep doing good work and stop treading on each others toes. I have myself got a reference published recently with 5 authors and I would not appreciate that being reduced in a similar way. Accassidy (talk) 22:29, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Sorry Alan, I have asked you to undo that revert, now I am going to do it myself. There is no sense in having full authorship for that one reference if we can't do it for all the thousands of others (and Zootaxa articles will keep coming at nearly 10 per day, and I am the only one who can be bothered trying to keep them up-to-date, which is impossible with full authorship). If you want to take over adding Zootaxa, and adding full authorship to all the backlog, then you are welcome to do so, but singling one article out makes no sense. Thanks, Stho002 (talk) 22:34, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
With the same logic, nobody would start wikispecies, as there would be no sense in creating some species pages, if it can't be done for all the thousands of other species. Since 2013-01-01, 2425 records have been added to The International Plant Names Index (IPNI) only for Orchidaceae, most of them new taxa and new combinations, 1322 for Asteraceae, 808 for Fabaceae, 405 for Poaceae, etc..... So, with our restricted personal capacity it seems to be nearly impossible to keep pace with taxa that are published currently from day to day. OK, wikispecies exists nevertheless. Therefore I think it cannot be accepted as a valid argument, that something is not feasible to be done for all. OK, consistency is a good point, but adding more information is another valid point. Anyway, if someone is suffering from a lack of time, why does he waste time with reverting edits that don't cause any damage? Regards --Franz Xaver (talk) 15:22, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
I disagree. Every species page which is created is useful and worthwhile in and of itself. Complete coverage of all species would be great, of course, but not vital. In the present case, Mariusm is taking time away from adding more new pages, by IMHO wasting time adding full author lists, which aren't really very useful (and it can be done in a better way using categories). We should be prioritising, and what Mariusm wants to do is last priority. The highest priorities should be adding new taxon articles, justifying them, and adding links to full texts of references (where available) Stho002 (talk) 20:39, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
OK, OK. And you think, consistency in the number of authors listed in the reference templates is vital? In a project based on the input of volunteers, everyone can set only his own priorities. I cannot imagine, that somewhere down the road the community will accept a boss telling what are the priorities (and the rules, etc.). Of course, people can come to common decisions and rules. If you think, that the edits of Mariusm should not have priority, this is not a sufficient reason to revert his edits. Did his edits violate any rules made obligatory by the community? Anyway, if you ignore the edits of Mariusm, he might take away his own time, but not yours. --Franz Xaver (talk) 21:43, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
I think Mariusm could show a bit more cooperation and thought. He hasn't tried to talk to me about anything. Someone who has experience and well thought through ideas should not necessarily be seen as "the boss" and rebelled against ... Stho002 (talk) 21:54, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Here are a couple of examples where Stho002 himself created reference-templates with more than 3 authors, and where he didn't use "et. al" (and there are many more):

Mariusm (talk) 06:46, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing these out. I have fixed them now. Please alert me to any others that you find. BTW, these were created by me a long time ago, while I was still experimenting with optimal formats. Stho002 (talk) 20:34, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

On a second thought, I decided not to surrender and to keep-on editing here. I'm going to open a special page named Stho002 unjustified edits, where I'll list all the cases where Stho harasses me or other WS members. I'll scrutinize every edit he makes on my recently-edited pages, and if I'll find it unjustified, I'll add it there. I encourage any user who feels his edits are unjustly being targeted to add their cases to this page too. With the accumulated data, I'm going to appeal to the Wikimadia Stewards, and ask then to look into this matter. Excluding Accassidy, whom I commend, no admin or bureaucrat seem to take interest in Stho's ongoing bullying and harassment. It is not a matter of format-wars anymore, nor it is a fight between equals. Out of an average of 350 edits per day made on WS, 200 are done by Stho. By this he overwhelms anyone who is trying to stand his ground.

I openly challenge the following admins/beaurocrats: Ark, Benedikt, Brion, Dan Koehl, EncycloPetey, EVula, Geni, Keith, Koumz, Maxim, MKOliver, Monobi, Neferkheperre, OhanaUnited, Open2universe, Rocket000, Tommy Kronkvist, Totipotent, Ucucha, Uleli, UtherSRG, why do you remain silent? Why don't you exercise your duty to prevent bullying and harassment? Why do you give Stho a free hand to chase out newcomers and users who don't accept his own-made rules? Rules which are rejected by everyone else. Please, I want to get answers to those questions!

Obviously, many users here are at the end of their rope, yet are too civilized and too scientifically-inclined to deal with such a conduct as exercised by Stho, so I'm going to appeal to Wikimedia Stewards, and see what they are going to say on this issue. Mariusm (talk) 05:20, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

@Mariusm: If you do decide to keep a public log of edits which you find objectionable, that would be deleted. —Justin (koavf)TCM 06:59, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
Mariusm, I don't know why you considered me to have done nothing. You approached me in July and I said I would try. Clearly things didn't work out between both of you. Then in a series of topics beginning in September, you said "Stho002 is continuously harassing and disturbing me" yet I see it more as content or format dispute. Unfortunately you escalated to name-calling with loaded section titles twice on this month. User:Koavf was right. Making attack pages aren't tolerated and this type of conduct will definitely be discounted if you present it to the stewards (not to mention that stewards will not intervene since there is sufficient editors on the project to make a decision). I have been watching all discussions happening on this page and I believed, at that time, I would not contribute much to the format discussion and would otherwise add fuel to the heated discussion. In hindsight, I should not have condoned with your name-calling approach on your first try. Moreover, I don't understand the logic of why you specifically want admins/bureaucrats to respond to your post. This is village pump, not admin noticeboard. Decisions with or without the input of admins/bureaucrats will be implemented as long as consensus is reached. OhanaUnitedTalk page 03:17, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Translation in Hindi language[edit]

Hi. Can you please tell me how can I translate wiki-species in Hindi language. I am an active sysop on hiwiki but I don't know how can I translate it in Hindi. I tried to create मुखपृष्ठ but it already exists in Marathi language. Please guide me.☆★Sanjeev Kumar (talk) 11:20, 17 October 2014 (UTC) (Moved from User talk:Tommy Kronkvist by Tommy Kronkvist (talk) at 17:57, 17 October 2014 (UTC).

Hello. That's a tricky question, since "मुखपृष्ठ" is the equivalent of "Main Page" in both Hindi and Marathi. I've moved your question from my Talk page to the Village pump in order to start a broader discussion regarding the matter.
Best regards, Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 17:57, 17 October 2014 (UTC).
@संजीव कुमार: @Tommy Kronkvist: Use language codes. E.g. on the multi-lingual Commons, there is c:Forsíða/fo for Faroese and c:Forsíða/is for Icelandic. c:Forsíða is a disambiguation page. —Justin (koavf)TCM 18:02, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
Moved. I moved it and added a request to Template_talk:Languages. —Justin (koavf)TCM 18:07, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 18:11, 17 October 2014 (UTC).
Special thanks to Tommy Kronkvist and also thanks to other who helped.☆★Sanjeev Kumar (talk) 14:48, 18 October 2014 (UTC)


The Mr. Stho002 has information in hundreds of pages damaged with the deleting of the template: moty (monotypic taxon). I request to restore this template. Orchi (talk) 09:43, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

It seems to me that it still works, at least in part. For example, the "Name" section of the page Acoraceae still lists that particular taxon as monotypic. (Also, see Pages that link to "Template:Moty" for a full list of pages that includes the {{Moty}} template.) In either case, I agree with Stho002's reason for deleting the template (i.e. "serves no useful purpose") since monotypy of a particular taxon should already be apparent in the taxonavigation of each page. (Again, for example see Acoraceae, which lists Acorus as its only daughter taxon.) –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 11:23, 18 October 2014 (UTC).
This template was a really silly idea. Not only does it serve no useful purpose, but it is potentially counterproductive, i.e., if a second species gets described, then we have to remember to remove the template from all affected pages! Why single out the number 1? A monotypic taxon just has 1 included species. So why not have a template for bitypic taxa, tritypic taxa, etc., etc. This is clearly nonsense, and I just cannot understand the rationale for having the monotypic template (a category would have been slightly better, but still serve no useful purpose). We really do need to purge Wikispecies of these pointless quirks and get our priorities right Stho002 (talk) 20:50, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
Holy crap! This is worse than I thought! The moty template has been added to hundreds of pages! What a sad waste of time and effort. There is no way to delete the template from each and every page, so I have recreated the template with null content. So, although the template is still on hundreds of pages, it doesn't show as anything. This seems to be the best damage limitation solution for now. Stho002 (talk) 21:04, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
I have no words to such a person. Orchi (talk) 21:33, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
It is a sad waste of time deleting a relatively harmless template that can have a use in education, nomenclature, systematics and taxonomy. Surely it should be up to the mature judgement of the page creator and editor with their knowledge and enthusiasm whether or not to use it? In am with Orchi on this, WS is full of redundancies that have been added by editors, for example, why use Genera (2): on a page with two genera? I have used moty, unless by mistake, where it is unlikely that a new taxon will over turn the monotypic status e.g. Amborella. At least moty was linked to an explanation - if education is not part of WS then get rid of nom. cons. etc!. Andyboorman (talk) 22:16, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
At the very least, it should have been a category, not a template! Surely, "mature judgement" would lead an editor to use their limited editing time to make the biggest possible improvement to Wikispecies? We have hundreds of thousands of missing species pages, with no information at all to educate anybody! How about adding some missing species pages, and referencing properly with links to BHL, etc., so that people can get further "education" by reading the actual original publications. It seems to me that some editors around here have fallen into a lazy routine of editing which really isn't helping the project. If I look at a WS page, the first thing I ask is where did they get their information from and please point me to the relevant references. This is a basic Wikimedia principle which we seem to have forgotten about here. Stho002 (talk) 22:30, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
If I look at a WS page, the first thing I ask is where did they get their information from and please point me to the relevant references. This is a basic Wikimedia principle which we seem to have forgotten about here Not by me, Orchi or Franz Xaver, please..Andyboorman (talk) 23:57, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
@Andyboorman: These Wikipedias devote the term "monotypic": [6]. More essential comes later. Orchi (talk) 22:39, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
I don't know what that is supposed to prove, but enWP has a policy (which we do not) of not having separate articles for a monotypic genus and its sole species. This is the only reason why they keep track of monotypic taxa, i.e. an internal policy reason. Stho002 (talk) 22:44, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
I do not think that this template is very useful. But in my mind, it is very bad style to delete without any discussion about pros and cons a template that is used in that many pages. I mean, in such cases there should be a discussion before deleting, not after. --Franz Xaver (Orchi) 22:50, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
As you can see from my comments above, I did not notice how extensively the template had been used until after I deleted it. I note that there was no discussion here before it was created and implemented Stho002 (talk) 22:55, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
So, at least I miss carefulness which I expect when admins make use of their buttons. It would have been easy to check how much the template was used. --Franz Xaver (talk) 09:07, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Considering the arguments from Stho002, Tommy Kronkvist, Orchi and Franz Xaver. My gentle advice is to revert deletions and then create a category to replace moty and then discuss this as a comparison. Thanks Andyboorman (talk) 23:57, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Have you any idea how much time would be wasted replacing the template with a category on all those pages? Tagging monotypic taxa was never discussed in the first place. Just forget about it - it is a pointless waste of all our valuable time. Technically, the template contravenes standard formatting, so I am fully justified in having deleted it. A category would not so contravene. Just let it go - we don't need it, and we need other things more ... Stho002 (talk) 00:02, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
But you are now replacing the tysp template - another waste of time surely? Andyboorman (talk) 00:08, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
Another nonstandard template which was never discussed or agreed to. You used it at least once when you should have used type genus. I am only replacing it as part of a general cleanup and adding reference templates, justifications, etc. - I am not specifically targetting it. You would be very well advised to keep your edits simple and concentrate on adding missing content. It is entirely up to you, of course, but you will, I suggest, find it best in the long run Stho002 (talk) 00:12, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
I am not perfect so a clean up is a good idea and adding references even better. The problem is that as part of this exercise you are imposing your own ideas of standard structure and content (particularly selected references, nomen and syn drop downs, etc), which the majority of contributors decided were unhelpful and not required. What next? Andyboorman (talk) 09:55, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
I guess a bot would be able to replace the template with a category quite easily. The template is present on some 950–1000 pages, which is a small task for a bot. Then again, someone would of course first have to write the bot, and then also manage it. Personally I might have the time to do it, but unfortunately I lack the necessary skills. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 01:00, 19 October 2014 (UTC).
I have not been that busy! Andyboorman (talk) 09:55, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
Actually, there is a much simpler technical solution, but I have no intention of mentioning it as we don't need the template or the category. Neither one serves any useful purpose. Stho002 (talk) 01:24, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
What are standard templates? Who has set these standards? And where can I find it? --Franz Xaver (talk) 09:09, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
I meant templates that result in nonstandard formatting on pages. Categories are different, because they just display in a simple way at the bottom of pages, and there are no formal constraints on their use. Having said that, I would still oppose even a category for monotypic taxa. Stho002 (talk) 20:19, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
That's not a full answer of my questions. Who has set these standards (on format and whatever)? And where can I find an overview of existing standards? --Franz Xaver (talk) 22:47, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
All I am saying is that "nonstandard formatting" has always been a standard reason in the menu for deleting pages. I can't see how it would apply to categories, but I can see how it would apply to templates. Stho002 (talk) 23:20, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
It seems, it will stay a secret, where users can get informed about "standard formatting". Or do you mean your private ideas about standards? --Franz Xaver (talk) 00:04, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Clearly, formatting issues are a "hot potato" just now, so I am saying as little as possible. However, you cannot go wrong if you just keep things simple, and remember that the two most important considerations are (1) verifiability/justification (i.e. where did you get the information from); and (2) providing doi or BHL links to full articles. Stho002 (talk) 00:28, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
As far as I can gather the only standard templates are those on the links to the left. The rest are created by editors or admins and distributed here or through networks of contributors. For example TG and tysp have been around for years and used by many if it an't broke.... Andyboorman (talk) 09:55, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Unblock request[edit]

Hello. I won't pretend to be an active user on this wiki, since I am not. I do have some interest in taxonomy, but I am not, by any stretch of the imagination, an expert in the life sciences. I would like to request that local admins review the block of Eurodyne. This user was blocked based on a previous English Wikipedia block which has since been removed. Additionally, the user has requested deletion of a Wikispecies page on Meta-Wiki. Another user and I already asked the blocking admin to reconsider, but the request was declined (see my talk page for reason). The user tried to contact the blocking admin by pinging him/her on his talk page, but claims to have received no response. I think Eurodyne can be trusted not to deceive the Wikimedia community again, and deserves one more chance. I am leaving this message in part because Eurodyne's attempt at appealing the block have been met with no response, and some stewards recommended that another user request the unblock. I hope the uninvolved admins will at least consider this request, even if they decide to keep the block in place. It is my opinion that the unblock on enwiki indicates that the user can be trusted. PiRSquared17 (talk) 05:02, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

@OhanaUnited, GZWDer, Rschen7754, Stho002, Tommy Kronkvist, Uleli: Pinging some admins and other interested parties. I would also like to add that I would prefer to avoid any possible drama, so you can get back to creating and improving the content here. PiRSquared17 (talk) 05:08, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
This is an issue for a 'crat, not me ... Stho002 (talk) 05:10, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
Please note that Eurodyne's access to e-mail and his/her talkpage is now restored by OhanaUnited. While still blocked, Eurodyne will be able to use the talk page to present (preferably informed and substantiated) reasons for unblocking. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 10:02, 19 October 2014 (UTC).
For those who want to know why I blocked this individual, it's because he created multiple false identities to get various permissions across different projects (en.wp, outreach, education) then continuously change username to cover his tracks. My in-depth documentation of his deception can be found at English ANI (note: Eurodyne was previously called Akifumii and Xermano). As this project is scientifically based, users are held to the broadly accepted standards of the scientific community. Scientists don't use multiple identities for publication (especially with the intent for deception). It is a breach of expected ethics and morals for scientists, down to the same level as falsifying data in studies. While he may be able to sweet talk some admins into unblocking him at other projects, we expect integrity from people who contribute to our project. Good faith has long left the moment he created the first account and claiming to be someone else. So for all these reasons, I issued the block in the first place. OhanaUnitedTalk page 17:10, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
See his reply. PiRSquared17 (talk) 21:16, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
The information on the English Wikipedia (enWP) Admin's noticeboard was enlightening, along with Eurodyne a.k.a. Akifumii a.k.a. Xermano's user contributions to enWP. I currently find no good reason to unblock the user on Wikispecies, considering it's less than two months ago since she/he made his/her latest contra-productive and very deceptive edits to enWP. (Also, both the Akifumii and Xermano accounts are blocked indefinitely on enWP. Furthermore, two underlying IP addresses are blocked as well. The Eurodyne account there was blocked too, but got unblocked about two weeks ago.) Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 23:16, 19 October 2014 (UTC).
Another reply: here. Maybe you should reply there too, since I don't want to continue posting links to replies. PiRSquared17 (talk) 03:39, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
I'll post my replies here since this venue has more visits than his user talk. Eurodyne may have forgotten some accounts because he changed usernames several times. His previous account (Xermano) was blocked on Outreach (and by someone other than myself) for doing translation work on a language that he doesn't even speak. Honestly, he can't even keep track of his own accounts to see which one is blocked and which one isn't LOL. OhanaUnitedTalk page 04:33, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
(obviously speaking on behalf of myself and not on behalf of the stewards) Well, when Eurodyne was blocked on this project, he had made zero edits. On those grounds, we might as well block him from every project or globally lock him, but no steward has done so because that's not what we do for any other user in this category. This isn't Poetlister here. Now of course Wikispecies is free to do whatever they want in this regard, but this makes you guys look harsher than en.wikipedia... --Rschen7754 05:04, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Tell ya wot, Rschen7754, I'll unblock your guy if you unblock me at en.wikipedia! Have a nice day Stho002 (talk) 05:27, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Considering that the local community would likely remove your adminship for going against consensus, that would be a poor choice for you. --Rschen7754 01:38, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
Oh, so glad you warned me just in time, I was just about to unblock your guy! Stho002 (talk) 01:40, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
  • I see the community here seems unwilling to forgive Eurodyne's past deceptions, which are definitely valid concerns. However, I think the unblock on enwiki shows that he can be trusted, and he is unlikely to do anything like that again. He also gave some valid reasons to unblock on his talk page. Is the conclusion that there is no consensus to unblock Eurodyne at this time? PiRSquared17 (talk) 01:31, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Farewell guys![edit]

More information can be found here. --Franz Xaver (talk) 09:19, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
All the best, sorry to see you go and it is a shame to lose your expertise. You did great work. Andyboorman (talk) 13:43, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

yes, it is a shame to lose your expertise, though "hotheadedness", and the inability to listen to reason, will not be missed Stho002 (talk) 19:59, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

incertae sedis[edit]

I would like to give you a chance to have your say on the taxon category incertae sedis. I recently created a page Incertae sedis(Grevilleoideae) to replace the previously existing Unassigned Grevilleoideae, which had been up for some time (see edit history for Grevilleoideae). Both pages were promptly deleted by User:Stho002 on the seemingly reasonable grounds that incertae sedis was not a taxon and therefore could not have a taxonpage. I assume he means a formal Linnean taxon, notated as Name, Author, Publication (Year). However, on looking through WS I find that there are thousands of these pages created by a variety of users at many taxon levels and for a wide variety of organisms, including his specialism insects. I would like to offer an opportunity for you to give your opinions. I will plead for their defense. Incertae sedis may not be a legitimate formal taxon rank, but like Cladi can be very useful for taxonomy and classification. Secondly, creating a page for multiple instances (say Incertae sedis(Grevilleoideae)) is convenient and efficacious allowing a single informative link in the corresponding subtribe, tribe, family, whatever. In addition, it is a practice that is now common on WS and unilaterally banning it at this time is futile. Finally, who is going to go through and delete pre-existing pages with the inevitable cross taxa tidy ups? It is now up to you! Regards Andyboorman (talk) 18:02, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

The fact that we have used incertae sedis "taxon pages" in the past doesn't mean that we are obliged to continue the practice. WS needs to evolve and improve, not get stuck in a lazy and complacent rut ... Stho002 (talk) 19:57, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
I have just deleted another one of Andyboorman's incertae sedis pages. The version I deleted is copied below. It has his notes added on the main page, expressing his own limited understanding of things:

Having had some well reasoned constructive comment about this rag tag category, I would like to withdraw this discussion in favour of exploring other options, perhaps involving an optional section following the Name and Synonyms sections, which could cover other detail as well. You are right incertae sedis does not really belong at the higher taxonav level and convenience should not dictate what I do. Thanks for your time. Andyboorman (talk) 09:11, 21 October 2014 (UTC)


Taxonavigation: Lamiales
Classification System: APG III (down to family level)

Main Page
Regnum: Plantae
Cladus: Angiosperms
Cladus: Eudicots
Cladus: Core eudicots
Cladus: Asterids
Cladus: Euasterids I
Ordo: Lamiales

Familia: Orobanchaceae
Tribus: incertae sedis
Basal Genera: Brandisia – Rehmannia – Triaenophora
These three genera are basal lineages and so are sister to all others in the family. They have no tribal affiliation and so are here awaiting further developments (McNeal et al., 2013).

This is not my opinion it is that of McNeal, J.R., Bennett, J.R., Wolfe, A.D., & Mathews, S. (2013) and so my note should read as above. It is an explanation of the incertae sedis. Apologies for not pointing this out earlier. But what is worse Admin abuse or forgetting a couple of words?


Orobanchaceae incertae sedis


  • Bennett, J.R., & Mathews, S. (2006) Phylogeny of the parasitic plant family Orobanchaceae inferred from Phytochrome A, American Journal of Botany, 93: 1039-1051. Available online [7]. Accessed Feb. 4 2014.
  • McNeal, J.R., Bennett, J.R., Wolfe, A.D., & Mathews, S. (2013) Phylogeny and origins of holoparasitism in Orobanchaceae, American Journal of Botany, 100: 971-983. Available on line [8]. Accessed Feb. 4 2014.
  • Stevens, P.F. (2001 onwards) Angiosperm Phylogeny Website. Version 12, July 2012 [and more or less continuously updated since]. [9]. Species list on [10].

A reminder of why we are here and what we aim for[edit]

A lot has been going on lately in the community. I won't be mentioning any names because all sides have done solid work and volunteered their time to believe in and contribute to a worthy cause.

While our projects have covered a lot of ground, we still have a lot more to go. Why are here to contribute? Our goal is to record all lifeforms on earth. Formatting debates can wait long after the articles are created. Articles are always a "work in progress". There cannot and will never be a "locked in version" of any pages because future studies will require amendment Who here thinks that EoL has got the right taxon or formatting perfectly correct across all domains? Of course not. This is always a challenge for databases that cover all domains. Unlike EoL, which has all the $ to throw around and hire experts to maintain their database, our biggest asset are editors who add and update contents (we are not as big as Wikipedia, and until we reach their size and popularity, our biggest asset will remain to be volunteers). Every one of us contributed for the betterment of this project. Each voice gives a different perspective on how to make this project more successful. We are only strong if we are unified and work together.

So who is with me on this? OhanaUnitedTalk page 03:38, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

@OhanaUnited: I agree. I think a lot of the interpersonal conflict could be avoided if we had more straightforward formatting guidelines. Claims that certain changes are not worth the time fall on deaf ears with semi-automated editors like w:AWB and getting into editing wars about them is even more of a waste of time. I also don't have an interest in choosing sides in any of the conflicts mentioned above and elsewhere but I will say that it's better to have many users who are adding what they can and helping a few hours here and there over few users who are insistent and persistent. Driving away anyone or making the place unwelcoming in the first place will ensure that we never get close to cataloging all life. —Justin (koavf)TCM 03:53, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
@OhanaUnited:@Koavf: The reality is that we will never get that close to complete coverage anyway. I can no longer keep up with Zootaxa, and every day we fall further and further behind. I remind you that when I started here in 2008, there were only about 60,000 articles, and I'm sure that my >500,000 edits have contributed most of the post-2008 new articles, but we are still very far indeed from complete coverage. My >500,000 edits does at least give me more relevant experience at judging the merits of various editing approaches than any other editor. It therefore pisses me off to see some other editors deliberately rebelling against my editing suggestions just to assert their own right to have a different opinion (and one which isn't based on careful thought or experience). There is also no point in having editors creating articles of poor quality. Some have been doing so. Being persistent is a good thing. Being insistent is not optimal, but sometimes necessary in the face of opposition by habitual contrarians. I'm not driving off anyone. Some editors are spitting the dummy and threatening to leave when they can't get their own way. Good riddance to them .. Stho002 (talk) 04:08, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
PS: Just look at the article by Andyboorman that I quoted above. No way is this acceptable. He is incerting comments like 'These three genera are basal lineages and so are sister to all others in the family. They have no tribal affiliation and so are here awaiting further developments'. This comment doesn't even make sense! Stho002 (talk) 04:10, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
@Stho002: Edit quality and quantity aside, your demeanor in the above post is not acceptable and especially not for an admin. No one is calling into question the quality or quantity of your edits in large part (obviously, there are concerns about some style issues but those are altogether trivial). The problem is your engagement with others. If Species was your own personal wiki, you would have amassed an impressive string of edits to make a substantial taxonomy. Since it's not and is by definition a collaborative effort, losing editors (and potential editors!) is crucial. This is especially so since—as you pointed out—we are not even close to cataloging all life. This is an achievable goal with a combination of a critical mass of editors and tools which will allow us to pollinate the site with data. This will be an impossible one if we have other editors turned off to helping here because of the attitudes of others. —Justin (koavf)TCM 04:49, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
Nice try, but you have missed or perhaps deliberately avoided the true root of the problem, which is that the project can only work if everyone cooperates in good faith. This is clearly not the case, as there are several (I won't name them, but you can easily guess) editors here who are habitual contrarians, constantly asserting their own right to hold a different opinion in the face of overwhelming rational grounds in favour of most of my suggestions. They simply refuse to even consider the suggestions. This makes "consensus" a sham, and undermines the whole project. If my tone is a bit confrontational now, it is through sheer frustration with these habitual contrarians, who refuse to budge an inch, and will not cooperate or discuss matters rationally. And, no, the goal isn't achievable, as there are probably 2 million named species and more published every day than we can possibly keep up with. Stho002 (talk) 05:10, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
@Stho002: Statements like, "Nice try, but you have missed or perhaps deliberately avoided the true root of the problem, which is that the project can only work if everyone cooperates in good faith." assume bad faith on my part. If you will read above, I suggested that most of these conflicts could be avoided if there were simply style guidelines. To choose an example from above, if we as a community decided (e.g.) that in the case of author templates with four or more entries, they shall all read, "Lastname, Firstname, et al." then we can all go about our business and if someone comes along and expands the template to read each individual name, you can refer him to that policy rather than personal preference and edit wars. Your dozens and dozens of reverts to a single page are wildly inappropriate and time-wasting. To use the example of Wikipedia, the English edition of that project has over 4 million articles (and even a short article has significantly more content than a taxonomic entry here) and it was only possible because there was a critical mass of editors. Imagine if we had just five editors as dedicated as you. It's really not that unreasonable. If we had 2.5 million edits from them over the past 10 years in addition to your 500,000, we would actually be pretty close to a comprehensive directory. Similarly, as technology advances in scraping databases and old journals which get digitized, the pace could well accelerate. But that can only happen in an environment where others want to contribute. —Justin (koavf)TCM 05:22, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
@Koavf: No, I'm not assuming bad faith on your part. Only in as much as you don't appear to want to have to grapple with the root cause of the problems, i.e. habitual contrarians. You say "if we as acommunity decided ..." Have we ever decided anything as a community? Could we ever? With habitual contrarians among us, any decision, even if made, would not be a rational one, but rather a "no" vote before the question was even asked! One thing is clear: for whatever reason (I don't really understand), there is nobody else in the world as dedicated as me to making reliable biodiversity information freely available. That's just the reality. It probably makes me an idiot rather than a saint, but that's just the reality Stho002 (talk) 05:32, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
E.g. To expand on the above, what is even the point of this edit? If the user is actually gone for good and will never read this project page again, then you're talking to no one. And if he does look at it, you're just making a petty and cruel jab at someone. It honestly serves no purpose other than being petulant and rude. —Justin (koavf)TCM 05:26, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
My comment is true, and someone needs to tell him in case he doesn't see it in himself. Telling someone in no uncertain terms how unreasonable they are being is not "a petty and cruel jab" Stho002 (talk) 05:34, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
Read this from Franz Xaver. No, I am not back, I only have given you an online tutorial here and there on this example. It is an excellent method for teasing out plant species to be placed on WS when there is a high level of uncertainty. It is also elegantly and reasonably argued. Stho002 is not always right, I just wish he would admit this fact. In addition, his arrogance and inability to be consensual has become insufferable. I DO make mistakes and AM willing to learn, but NOT slavishly follow the Stho002 party line. WS should be a democracy not North Korea. I am with OhanaUnited in principle. Unfortunately Stho002 would rather I and others like me were gone. Andyboorman (talk) 08:07, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

What is "consensus"?[edit]

Just a general comment for future reference. If we ever do manage to hold a vote for a proposal, it is not a vote about whether you do or do not want to accept the proposal. It is a vote about whether or not you agree that the reasons in favour of the proposal outweigh the reasons against it, and, if not, why not. This should make it harder for contrarians to prevent improvement of the project. Consensus must be rationally based if it is to be anything more than a mere sham. Stho002 (talk) 20:49, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

@Stho002: There is ample literature on consensus. To see how en.wp understands it, see w:WP:CONSENSUS. —Justin (koavf)TCM 04:00, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
All well and good, but we need to ensure that everyone here understands that consensus is more than just asserting an opinion Stho002 (talk) 04:20, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
@Stho002: Okay. I didn't realize that was in dispute. —Justin (koavf)TCM 04:53, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
Then you haven't understood what I have been saying about some editors here being contrarian. A contrarian, in the sense in which I am using it, is someone who automatically gives a "no" vote, without due consideration of reasons for or against. They simply assert their right to hold a different opinion, but rationality doesn't enter into it. Stho002 (talk) 05:11, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
@Stho002: You're right: I don't understand. It seems like you're having a conversation with yourself. This community should have guidelines in place to make sure that conflicts like all of the above don't happen (or are far less likely to happen) but those guidelines don't exist yet. —Justin (koavf)TCM 05:13, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
For example, User:Andyboorman appears determined to continue with incertae sedis, and nothing that I can say appears to be able to make him understand that it is no longer necessary, and overly complicates WS. If we held a vote right now proposing to stop using it, he would, I suggest, vote "no", without due consideration of the overwhelmingly good reasons to stop using it. How do you deal with such people? Orchi and some others would likely back him up. They could probably bring back some disgruntled editors who left us, and all these people would make "no" votes! I'm not sure that "guidelines" will help? Stho002 (talk) 05:26, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
Stho002 The above statement is untrue, clearly you have not bothered to read my last statement in the incertae sedis section. Why did you bring Orchi into this? This is getting far too personal. Why? Andyboorman (talk) 09:46, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
@Stho002: Then have a guideline about that. Consensus is not vote-taking (which makes me wonder if you're familiar with how it operates on en.wp). —Justin (koavf)TCM 05:28, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
Oh, believe me, I know how things work on en.wp! Stho002 (talk) 05:31, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
The community might be interested to read also these statements. It is not easy to figure out, how in the opinion of Stho002 a voting procedure should be. Does he think that the votes of "contrarians" should not be counted? Would these "contrarians" first have to prove that they have rationale reasons? Anyway, in my unimportant (probably contrarian) opinion, there would not be any vote without discussing the matter. --Franz Xaver (talk) 09:38, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
My first statement in this section answers your question. Participants in a decision making process must give reasons to back up their opinions. If those reasons are obviously weak/bogus, then their opinion should not be counted. Stho002 (talk) 21:22, 23 October 2014 (UTC)