Wikispecies:Village Pump

From Wikispecies
(Redirected from Wikispecies:Village pump)
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)

Consolida regalis bacomes Delphinium consolida[edit]

Hello, It seems that the genus Consolida is now included into Delphinium. Please, have a look on this paper : Jabbour F. , Renner S., 2011. Consolida and Aconitella are an annual clade of Delphinium (Ranunculaceae) that diversified in the Mediterranean basin and the Irano-Turanian region. Taxon 60 (4): 1029–1040. Gtaf (talk) 21:12, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Not yet. Note the comment in the abstract (my emphasis): "To achieve a classification of mutually monophyletic genera in Delphinieae may require transferring the species of Aconitella and Consolida into Delphinium". The new combinations needed are yet to be formally made. So one to put on hold for wikispecies. - MPF (talk) 00:42, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Hibiscus hispidissimus[edit]

See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Plants#File:Hibiscus_hispidissimus_at_Kadavoor.jpg. Jkadavoor (talk) 09:40, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Removed the redirect by Shyamal now. Thanks. Jkadavoor (talk) 09:42, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
Redirect of Merremia vitifolia also seems wrong. Jkadavoor (talk) 09:44, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

The Plant List[edit]

This resource, which is used by many contributors has recently been updated to version 1.1. Is it possible for an admin to write a bot that can automatically update pages that already cite it? For example, using Berberidaceae, the old URL link is Berberidaceae and the new would simply be Berberidaceae. Mind you the reference ought to be a simple template - The Plant List (2010) Version 1.1 Berberidaceae. Published on the Internet. Accessed 9 Sept 2013. is a bit chunky! Thanks Andyboorman (talk) 19:36, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
Feel free to use the TPLF template it gives a full citation do not forget to use the date and add the plant name at the end for more complex pages, e.g. Camellia page. Andyboorman (talk) 15:13, 2 February 2014 (UTC)


Does the template:nomen really work? If I expand the button, I only get to see a {{{1}}}. Example on Cottus schitsuumsh.--Haps (talk) 15:45, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

I am astonished that there is now a Category:New species 2014 established by Stho002. When in 2012 I established a Category:New species-group name 2012 it was immediately eliminated with its contents by Stho002. Kempf EK (talk) 18:33, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
I only see you creating 5 categories in 2012. There're more categories like Category:New taxa for Ostracoda in 2012 that are created by you but they are from 2013. From what I can see, you only have 6 deleted contributions. They are all article pages and created in 2011. Am I missing something here? OhanaUnitedTalk page 06:34, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

new to wikispecies[edit]

Hi I am a biologist turned teacher who has wandered into the world of wiki editing. I have taxonomy in my blood and a little red-legged spider named after me (Neoramia margaretae) so would like to join here and maybe even be allowed to edit... I really like the layout but think a 1 para description of each major group would be really helpful... very concise and accurate information about the defining features of that group of organisms. I know i have to serve an apprenticeship first but that is ok by me... if someone could just write back about the process please :) I would be most grateful. Reefswaggie (talk) 11:40, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello Margaret and welcome. The first thing is to read the page called Templates which gives you an idea about how editing can be made effective and approximately standard. Then look at existing pages that are in your area of principal taxonomic concern and see how they have developed and been laid out. A lot of the wiki-formatting is obscure until you click on the 'edit' button at the top of the page and then you can inspect the raw code to see where italicisation or boldening or Small Capitals for authors have been used. I've put ''[[]]'' around your patronym above to italicise it and make it a hyperlink see if there as already a page for it on the system (there is). If the name had been in red, then it would still await creation. As well a pages for taxa, we also have pages for authors and Templates for references, so that they can be universally updated from a single point. Once you have done a little background reading, then I suggest you just test out a few things in an area of taxonomic interest (mine is primarily Oriental Lycaenidae). Lastly, always click on the [Show Preview] button before the [Save Page] button - a bit like checking your shoes are laced up before leaving the house. As a pastime, it can become quite addictive, as there is always more work to do and like all taxonomy it will never be finished. Contributing works for me though, as it acts as a repository of things I think I have understood and that are hard to remember. I hope you grow to like it too. Alan Accassidy (talk) 21:35, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
I forgot about your other question. The main point of Species Wiki is that it is primarily independent of language and opinion. So adding even "concise and accurate" information is not really the point. However, each taxonomic page is backed by a discussion page, and this might well be a good place to put description or indeed any other language based material that may be of help to others. Alan Accassidy (talk) 21:40, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
It would seem possible to integrate Wikidata with Commons and Wikipedia, for Wikidata to contain the taxonomic information... maybe? Gryllida (talk) 02:00, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
Welcome! At this project and its sisters, anyone can edit. It's the core philosophy of the projects. Gryllida (talk) 20:44, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

mw:Requests for comment/UploadWizard: scale to sister projects[edit]

Hi all.

I had observed apparent need of items wizards - upload wizards, article wizards - in interactivity everyone can edit. Gadgets seem too unsafe, were everybody given access to edit ones which are on by default; however ones only available for you, like a user script, are useless for a non-tech-savvy newcomer.

I have opened a request for comment for the Wmf engineering people to put some of their work on Common's upload wizard into extracting the useful bits and perhaps isolating them in something sister projects can safely reuse and edit.

Yes or no? How? Thoughts? Feedback? Please participate in the discussion and help me spread it to other sister projects.

Gryllida (talk) 11:54, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

New Zealand categories (continued)[edit]

Reopening this, as it was archived before any conclusion was reached, due to a regrettable descent into personal animosities. At the end of that discussion, Stho002's comment was (my emphasis):

Managing my work in progress is not the issue here. What I want to be able to do is to browse Wikispecies for a particular country rather than just globally, and N.Z. is my first priority country. I would be very happy to see others do the same for other countries. References for a species in a particular country are not important enough to put on the global taxon pages, but obviously are important on the country pages, which link back to the global pages if you want info. on nomenclature or global distribution. Stho002 (talk) 23:19, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Recently, while doing other work on Equisetum, I took out the erroneous New Zealand category (the taxon is noted for its destribution "Cosmopolitan except for Australia and New Zealand": [1]); Stho002 added it again, despite the genus' absence from the New Zealand native flora. As a trial experiment, I tried Stho's suggestion welcoming the addition of categories for other countries; the result (here; scroll to end of page) was not a success in terms of Wikispecies formatting, so I undid the trial. But it leads me to conclude that distributional categories, particularly using nations, are not an appropriate format to use in Wikispecies. First, the data is cumbersome, particularly for widely-distributed taxa; second, nations (human political entities) are not appropriate for dealing with taxon distributions, given the huge disparities in unit size (nearly 40 million-fold, from the Vatican City's 44 hectares up to 17,098,242 km2 for Russia) and their lack of coincidence with biological regions; and third, because incomplete categorisation is misleading to users, but (if they were to be used) would require a vast additional editorial input to reach any form of completion — input which we don't have, and could better spend on adding taxa with no wikispecies pages. I therefore propose a formal vote on the subject; everyone please add your votes / opinions. Thanks! - MPF (talk) 17:53, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

The addition of categories also works in Equisetum, but in a different way. It should not be done under the genus name, but on the different species pages where you need information on the type locality. Have a look at Equisetum bogotense.

Kempf EK (talk) 02:10, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

There is no need to change it. It is perfectly fine as I have been doing it. I would put [[Category:Equisetum bogotense (Colombia)]] on the Equisetum bogotense page, and then [[Category:Equisetum (Colombia)]] on the [[Category:Equisetum bogotense (Colombia)]] page. Any references relating specifically to the species in Colombia would then be listed on the [[Category:Equisetum bogotense (Colombia)]] page rather than on the Equisetum bogotense page, which is reserved for global context references (including nomenclature and descriptions of the species, so there may be a little bit of relevance overlap). One would have to be an idiot to assume that [[Category:Equisetum bogotense (Colombia)]] somehow implies that the species is endemic to Colombia (though it might be). Stho002 (talk) 02:22, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
Distributional categories should not be admitted in Wikispecies
  1. MPF (talk) 17:53, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
Distributional categories should be permitted in Wikispecies

1. The Wikispecies database is a very powerful system which has the potential to support researchers in their work, provided that Wikispecies pages are based on those publications with the original description. The Wikispecies system, I think, is too powerful than to end up just with a list of species, like some other online databases that are of no use to scientists.

Categories within Wikispecies can be a very helpful tool for arranging species in different groups. The need or the advantage of categories may be different in the many organism groups of Wikispecies. I am mainly contributing to the field of Ostracoda which are Crustacea living world-wide in freshwater of any kind, but also in the marine realm from the intertidal zone down to abyssal depths. In addition, they have an extremely long fossil record of about 500 million years.

I established quite a number of categories. For living freshwater ostracods I established categories for the ecozones, from where the species originally had been described, for instance: Palaearctic Ostracoda, Neotropic Ostracoda, Australasian Ostracoda. For living marine ostracods I established categories like: North Atlantic Ocean Ostracoda, Indian Ocean Ostracoda, South Pacific Ostracoda. For fossil Ostracoda there are categories like: Cenozoic Ostracoda, Mesozoic Ostracoda, Palaeozoic Ostracoda and their subdivisions.

I see some problems with categories for single countries. In those cases it should be made clear that it is not a matter of endemic species, but just a listing of species that have ever been found in that country, native or as an exotic element.

Kempf EK (talk) 18:24, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

2. I am with Kempf. Wikispecies is becoming a powerful tool for scientists and the more links with other sources the better. I have not created categories, but can see their uses. Of course we need to make sure the genera and species get added, but a minimal list adds nothing new. Andyboorman (talk) 20:16, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

3. As for MPF's comment "and could better spend on adding taxa with no wikispecies pages", I draw your attention to Category:New_species_2014, where I have created articles for well over 1000 new species described so far in 2014, and MPF has contributed nothing, so I don't think he is in any position to pontificate about where "input" is better spent! Stho002 (talk) 20:23, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Inconsistency between Cathartes page and Cathartes aura page?[edit]

I'm not an expert on taxonomies, but I use wikispecies regularly to help me add keywords to my wildlife photographs (thanks for an incredibly useful web site), and I noticed that there appears to be an inconsistency between Cathartes and Cathartes aura. While the former page includes "C. aura" in the list of species and links to the latter page, the former page says Cathartes is classified under Ciconiiformes/Ciconiidae/Cathartinae, the latter page says Cathartes is classified under Accipitriformes/Cathartidae. I assume one of the pages must be in error, but I'm not sure which one. FWIW, one of my other references is the University of Michigan's "Animal Diversity Web", and [2] shows something different than either those pages, namely that Cathartes is classified under Falconiformes/Cathartidae.

Sorted; Accipitriformes/Cathartidae is correct (ref). The genus page had a hangover from an outdated classification that held temporary sway in the late 1990s. Thanks for spotting it! - MPF (talk) 09:58, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Visible links from Wikispecies pages to Wikipedia pages - wanted or not wanted?[edit]

When contributing to the Wikispecies page Equisetum bogotense I found two invisible or spurious links to Wikipedia pages:

en:Equisetum bogotense
es:Equisetum bogotense

I corrected those links as mentioned above (Note: If you insert links to Wikipedia pages in your comments, don't forget the leading colon (:) before the wiki language code) so that they became visible and clickable on the Wikispecies page:

en:Equisetum bogotense
es:Equisetum bogotense

However, Stho002 immediately changed those links back to

en:Equisetum bogotense
es:Equisetum bogotense

so that they became invisible or spurious again.

Are links from Wikispecies to Wikipedia not wanted?

Kempf EK (talk) 13:32, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

The format [[en:Equisetum bogotense]] is actually correct, that's the standard interwiki format; look at the bottom of the left-hand column and you'll see "In other languages", and below that, links to en and es wikis on the Equisetum bogotense page. Obviously, for better-known species (e.g. Panthera leo), the interwiki list is far longer. - MPF (talk) 17:33, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
Added a couple more interwikis, for Arabic and Runa Simi - MPF (talk) 17:42, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Sorry! But thanks for the information. I had been concentrating on the Wikispecies page and neglected the sidebar.

Kempf EK (talk) 00:01, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

revert the edit[edit]

some body please revert the edit i have made just now. I was not comfortable with this interface.--ଶିତିକଣ୍ଠ ଦାଶ (talk) 01:39, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done Stho002 (talk) 04:35, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
thanks. --ଶିତିକଣ୍ଠ ଦାଶ (talk) 17:48, 4 March 2014 (UTC)


Is there any plans to implement wikidata for the language links? Dan Koehl (talk) 10:13, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

It is on the development plan, but no exact dates yet.--Micru (talk) 19:20, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Bureaucratship nomination[edit]

I would like to draw all of your attention that there is a current bureaucratship nomination. It is scheduled to end in about 4 days. Please participate in the process. OhanaUnitedTalk page 05:46, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

IMPORTANT: Admin activity review[edit]

Hello. A new policy regarding the removal of "advanced rights" (administrator, bureaucrat, etc) was recently adopted by global community consensus (your community received a notice about the discussion). According to this policy, the stewards are reviewing administrators' activity on smaller wikis. To the best of our knowledge, your wiki does not have a formal process for removing "advanced rights" from inactive accounts. This means that the stewards will take care of this according to the new admin activity review here.

We have determined that the following users meet the inactivity criteria (no edits and no log actions for more than 2 years):

  1. Benedikt (administrator)
  2. Brion VIBBER (administrator, bureaucrat)
  3. Kempm (administrator, bureaucrat)
  4. Lightdarkness (administrator, bureaucrat)
  5. MaximBot (administrator)
  6. MonoBot (administrator)
  7. Monobi (administrator, bureaucrat)
  8. Mário e Dário (administrator, bureaucrat)
  9. Totipotent (administrator)
  10. UtherSRG (administrator, bureaucrat)

These users will receive a notification soon, asking them to start a community discussion if they want to retain some or all of their rights. If the users do not respond, then their advanced rights will be removed by the stewards.

However, if you as a community would like to create your own activity review process superseding the global one, want to make another decision about these inactive rights holders, or already have a policy that we missed, then please notify the stewards on Meta-Wiki so that we know not to proceed with the rights review on your wiki. Thanks, Rschen7754 23:55, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Three comments. First, I think Benedikt should be kept with his admin status (and perhaps assign him the "founder" flag that English Wikipedia use for Jimbo Wales). Benedikt was the founder of this project so out of courtesy his rights should be kept. Second, Brion VIBBER is a unique case because he's the most prominent MediaWiki developer that wrote most of this wiki interface. I don't oppose him keeping his rights if he wish to. As for the 2 bots (MaximBot and MonoBot), just take away their rights since they are inactive anyways. OhanaUnitedTalk page 06:42, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
I agree with you, just a note reg Brion VIBBER, as a developer he can make himself admin, bureaucrat, etc whenever he wants or need to. Dan Koehl (talk) 07:26, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
Agree with OhanaUnited. Accassidy (talk) 10:15, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
We cannot grant anyone the founder flag like it is on en.wikipedia, because that allows them to change all userrights on this wiki. That would include CheckUser and oversight, which would be a violation of global policies. Brion VIBBER is a System administrator, so removing flags would not have an effect on his capabilities. --Rschen7754 22:42, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for your clarification. In this case, I suggest making a single exception to Benedikt while removing the rights of others. OhanaUnitedTalk page 02:23, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Now that one issue is solved, I want to bring up another one. What should we do when they return in the future and request for them back? In my opinion, I would just give it back to them since going through another round of vote is just unnecessary bureaucracy. OhanaUnitedTalk page 02:24, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

That might not always be a good idea. Remember Lycaon? I think a quick vote to reinstate them could be a good idea! Stho002 (talk) 02:45, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
They left due to inactivity (2 years), quite different from leaving due to controversy (or being a drama magnet). Waiting for a vote that lasts 7 days when the outcome was clear from the beginning makes it a rather redundant and somewhat time-wasting process. OhanaUnitedTalk page 05:55, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
Firstly: hello, I am back ;) and thanks to Dan to notify me of this discussion. Secondly, it is very flattering to consider me "founder" of WikiSpecies, but I feel it is too munch honour - I had the idea of creating a wiki-based, GFDLed species directory and mobilised a few people, and wrote some of the first articles with my user name as well as through an alias, but I am a mere initiator and many other people have done more than me for WikiSpecies than me in the almost 10 years since its creation. Thirdly, about my status - I keep checking Wikispecies for new entries about every three to four weeks and have done so ever since 2004, but due to largely work-related committments, I am not actively editing. Now there would be an easy way to avoid the loss of my status by simply making some edits here and there once in a while (I will do so now), but essentially I will not be able to become as active as I may have been back in 2004/5 and whatever the community decides on my status, I would ask you to take all of these points into consideration. Fourthly, regarding Brion Vibber, I second OhanaUnited; fifthly, UtherSRG was one of the key people at the time of starting WikiSpecies and I would suggest to try contacting him. Finally, I will keep coming to WikiSpecies and am looking foward to celebrating its 10th anniversary this summer. --Benedikt (talk) 07:46, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
Hallooo! I ditto a bunch of what Benedikt said. I've been busy with other things as of late, but I do get some questions on Wikipedia bout WikiSpecies from time to time, since my user page here points to my page over there. But wow! 10 years! Where has the time gone?? - user:UtherSRG (talk) 12:54, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
Welcome back. Seems like this policy discussion draws the return of 2 experienced admins (and crossing off 2 names from the list above). I checked all remaining names on that list and they all appear to be inactive in other projects. OhanaUnitedTalk page 22:53, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
Howdy Everybody! Unfortunately, I neglected this project after having children and being hired as a medical entomologist. If supported, I will return to contribute. I understand the desire to have admins for different languages. I would also submit that it is also important to have admins for different taxonomic groups. Stho002 seems to be the only admin active on the Araneomorphae and Culicomorpha. These are the groups I aim to contribute to. This way Stho002 can focus on other arthropod groups. Totipotent (talk) 08:30, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

10th anniversary[edit]

Benedikt mentioned above the 10th anniversary, which I believe is in September 2014. It sure is something so celebrate, since there was initially some scepticism within the wikimedia society against the project.

Would it make sense to make up some strategy plans for this celebration? Im refering to some sort of marketing campaign, which would make Wikispecies more known, and may attract more persons with interest and competence, who will contribute, and develop the project further? Dan Koehl (talk) 12:05, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Definitely. Its birthday is September 14. OhanaUnitedTalk page 22:54, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
I recall correspondence with Jimbo Wales in early summer 2014; it was Angela Beesly and Brion Vibber who helped with setting it up. I suggest considering the date of the first page as the official birthday, as this can be easily determined. Although you could also take the date when I first registered, as I uploaded the first pages immediately thereafter even before the wiki was set up; or the date when the domain was transferred from me to the Wikimedia Foundation.--Benedikt (talk) 12:36, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
Your first edit was on September 14, which presumably is how people determine the official start date. I don't know if other dates can be as easily determined as this. OhanaUnitedTalk page 21:47, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
Its now five days to the 10th anniversary! Dan Koehl (talk) 06:01, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Edit request[edit]

Mediawiki:Wikimedia-copyright: Could a local sysop please update the license title to Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. It is currently like this: "Attribution/Share-Alike". See the official website here: . Also see m:MediaWiki talk:Wikimedia-copyright. Thanks, Glaisher (talk) 05:02, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Done. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 06:00, 17 April 2014 (UTC).

More admins?[edit]

In short time we now have three more admins, and are better prepared for the forthcoming removal of some of the inactive ones. I have no intention to make new suggestions, I guess its good it if other members come up with suggestions. Which need is there for more? I guess it doesnt hurt to a couple of more admins, who are presently active, but what I see as an urgent need are admins who speak other languages than english. What opinions do you other have? Dan Koehl (talk) 19:13, 21 April 2014 (UTC)


Is anyone doing Trematodes? I was at LSU Library today, which has very large zoology periodical section, including Soviet. I happened to trip over a large group of works on Trematoda, including about 20 volumes of Трематоды животных и человека (Trematodes of Animals and Humans), which does have taxonomic articles. Neferkheperre (talk) 23:20, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia vs. Wikispecies[edit]

Hi all, Over the years, I've added quite a few species pages to Wikipedia, but I'm new to Wikispecies. Can someone explain to me the difference between Wikispecies and Wikimedia? It seems like there's a lot of redundancy given that both efforts stem from the same foundation. Srloarie2 (talk) 27, May 2014 (UTC)

Well, Wikispecies has a much better data structure than WP for some kinds of information (better referencing, using templates, etc.) Both sites have their strengths and their weaknesses, but Wikispecies is on track to complete the global species catalogue long before Wikipedia ever will. Stho002 (talk) 22:00, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Move request[edit]

Pterocnemia pennata to Rhea pennata - taxonomic update (ref [scroll to near end of page]). Needs an admin as the destination page has a history that needs deleting first. Thanks! - MPF (talk) 11:43, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Still waiting for this to be done. Pretty shocking to have to wait over 4 months for a simple admin request to be done :-(( MPF (talk) 17:07, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
I will look into it, but your ref link is dead Stho002 (talk) 21:31, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
I see insufficient evidence to sink Pterocnemia as a synonym of Rhea at present Stho002 (talk) 21:57, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
Here's the updated reference. The official ornithological authorities concerned (IOC and SACC) have merged the two genera, so it is incumbent on us to follow their lead, rather than make your own differing decision. - MPF (talk) 22:10, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
Here is the actual discussion. Taxonomy doesn't work by democratic vote! We do not need to follow the outcome of that vote. Crucially, they only took into account extant species, and did not consider fossils. Stho002 (talk) 22:35, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
You personally might not want to follow the outcome of that vote, but I do, as do most other ornithologists elsewhere. If you have superior knowledge that contradicts their conclusions, I suggest you take it up with SACC and get them to reverse their decision. Wikispecies is not the place for original research. - MPF (talk) 22:54, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
Choice of sources to follow is not OR! I have noted both options on the relevant taxon pages, and created redirects, so it is a "non-issue" Stho002 (talk) 23:19, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
"I have noted both options on the relevant taxon pages" No you have not, you have deleted all mention of the name Rhea pennata on the species page even as a synonym, and deleted the link from the genus page. Though it is nice to see that the reference you cited contradicts your opinion by accepting it as Rhea pennata. MPF (talk) 00:08, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
Rhea pennata redirects to Pterocnemia pennata. It is not really a synonym, just an alternative combination, which is why it isn't listed under Synonyms Stho002 (talk) 00:17, 29 May 2014 (UTC) PS: The Delsuc ref. I cited is just evidence for the generic synonymy, but not conclusive evidence, as intergeneric hybrids are known Stho002 (talk) 00:19, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Leaflet At Wikimania 2014[edit]

As per this notice, I have submitted one to raise our project's awareness. If you have any suggested changes, please leave your comments here. OhanaUnitedTalk page 01:05, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

  • I would suggest to add in the "Short Description": It covers living and fossil representatives of Animalia, Plantae,... And in the "Longer description": to reflect the Recent and fossil diversity of life on our planet Earth. Kempf EK (talk) 01:47, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
  • I would suggest that one of the main aims of Wikispecies is to create a browsable, taxonomically classified library of links to publications for all living and fossil species on Earth. Stho002 (talk) 02:04, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
    • Added both suggestions. Please double check (purge the page if necessary) to see the changes made. OhanaUnitedTalk page 04:48, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
    • OK. Many thanks. Kempf EK (talk) 01:09, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Here is the leaflet version (scroll down slightly to see it). Note: The leaflet is designed by someone else. OhanaUnitedTalk page 23:03, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

400,000 articles reached[edit]

Yes we crossed another milestone (but there is still a lot of work to do). The 400,000th article, according to Special:NewPages, is Junellia spathulata, written by User:Ironlion. OhanaUnitedTalk page 21:55, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Editing Fungi-->Basidiomycota-->Agaricomycetes-->Agaricomycetidae-->Agaricales-->Agaricaceae[edit]

While doing some research on Genera & Species within Agaricaceae (in both Wikipedia & Wikispecies) I came across a fair amount of information that I feel needs to be updated. Given that the majority of the "last edited" dates in Wikispecies are 2006, this is not surprising. Since I use these Wikis extensively, I am willing to do the editing and page creations/moves/deletions that are necessary. I did some playing in the sandbox earlier today, and have an Excel spreadsheet that shows the various changes I want to make. Most of my information came from Species Fungorum and I already have permission to use their data as long as it gets referenced (see sandbox).

Rlschultz (talk) 06:42, 21 June 2014 (UTC)Rlschultz

By sandbox you meant Wikispecies:Sandbox? I talked to a public health prof back in January and he also mentioned that the fungi taxonomy at Wikispecies was out of date. Otherwise, there could be student editors coming here and help create some pages. OhanaUnitedTalk page 02:12, 22 June 2014 (UTC)


Thrinax and related pages need some attention. In Animalia, the insect genus has priority, and is apparently a synonym of Strongylogaster. The shark genus is a junior homonym, and was replaced by Proteothrinax Pfeil, 2012. I've no idea how synonymy and homonymy should be addressed on a disambiguation page at Wikispecies, let alone how this project is currently formatting synonym sections (which presumably should be added to Strongylogaster and Proteothrinax). Plantdrew (talk) 20:21, 20 June 2014 (UTC) Yes check.svg Done See: Thrinax ... Stho002 (talk) 02:58, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Hungarian translation[edit]

Can anybody deal with Hungarian? I am having serious trouble dealing with this reference: Kolosvary, 1941. It took 3 days to find good idea on the periodical title - A. Tenger. I finally got a full title and translation from Google Books, but that is about all. Article title is completely opaque, as my translation engines won't deal with Hungarian well. user:Sphenodon helped once with another reference, but he does not have talk page enabled. I have almost no hope of ISSN or web link, but anything to make it look better will be appreciated. Neferkheperre (talk) 22:32, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi, I've found this one, but this is just a reference for the article: [3]. "Kolosváry, G. & Wagner, J. (1940): Tengerbiológiai tanulmány a kacslábúak, puhatestűek és korallok társulásáról. – A Tenger. p. 3–16. Budapest. – Dombóvár." I try to find something else too. --Sphenodon (talk) 23:18, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Huh, maybe there is problem: two article with the same title. Maybe there is a two-part article, maybe it is a misspelling.

  • KOLOSVÁRY, G. & WAGNER, J. (1940): Tengerbiológiai tanulmány a kacslábúak, puhatestűek és korallok társulásáról. – A Tenger. p. 3–16. Budapest. – Dombóvár.
  • KOLOSVÁRY, G. (1941): Tengerbiológiai tanulmány a kacslábúak, puhatestűek és korallok társulásáról. – Tenger, 31: 1–15. Budapest.

This periodical doesn't exist now, it was published between 1911 and 1944. The periodical name is "A Tenger", in English "The Sea". I'm searching, but there is a few of information. --Sphenodon (talk) 23:39, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Here, in the e-catalog of Hungarian National Library, you can see some of information about "A tenger", but there is no ISSN. --Sphenodon (talk) 23:53, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

I got ahold of Hungarian National Library by email about ISSN number of „A tenger”. They informed me, that this peridoical hasn't had an ISSN number, so its citation doesn't need ISSN number. I need some time yet to control the article's bibliographical data in library, after this I could be able to correct them. --Sphenodon (talk) 09:24, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi, I was in library and I could see the article, so the correct form is:

  • KOLOSVÁRY, GÁBOR & WAGNER, JÁNOS (1941): Tengerbiológiai tanulmány a kacslábúak, puhatestűek és korallok társulásáról. – A Tenger: tudományos és tengerészeti ismeretterjesztő folyóirat, a Magyar Adria Egyesület közlönye., XXXI. évfolyam, I–III. szám, pp. 1–15. Budapest.

What shall we do?: the article was written by two, not just Kolosváry. I'm not at home in that, so I can correct only other parts of reference in Kolosvary, 1941. --Sphenodon (talk) 14:42, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

And I think, A Tenger hadn't been a monthly magazine in the 1940s, but maybe this remains in the template on the base of the e-catalog of Hungarian National Library. And I think, Magyar Adria Egyesület is better as Hungarian Adria Association in English (see this form in --Sphenodon (talk) 15:05, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
Judging from the fact that nobody has replied, I think we don't have a Hungarian speaker here to understand and deal with the issue. OhanaUnitedTalk page 00:06, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Using {{Taxobox}}?[edit]

I came across User:Kheller and he seems to be converting all pages into using taxobox template (see [4] as example). So are switching formats now? OhanaUnitedTalk page 20:06, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

I am not using taxobox, but staying with the standard page format with headings etc. The end result seems to be very similar as far as how the page looks when viewed normally. The Taxobox underpinning only becomes apparent when you try to edit the page. With a little bit of thought it is possible to edit in either format. Perhaps someone might care to explain why they use taxobox and what its advantages ore thought to be. Accassidy (talk) 21:32, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
For the necessary growing of Wikispecies we need much more contributors which will only be attracted, if we keep the creating and editing of Wikispecies pages as simple as possible. Too many templates, however, are complicating the system and discouraging new contributors. Kempf EK (talk) 23:13, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
User:PeterR also raised this issue. I guess all of us here didn't really like the idea of using taxobox template. Should something be done? OhanaUnitedTalk page 05:20, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Probably nothing we can reasonably do in the short term, as who would want to spend time re-formatting pages when there is still so much original work to do. All we can do is encourage people to follow a more standard procedure, but I would rather we had the data in a non-standard format than not at all. Accassidy (talk) 07:27, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
I agree that we should encourage users to utilise a straightforward approach to editing, without too many templates. That said, we might also want to point out that some templates are actually very much appreciated, such as taxon formatting templates (e.g. {{sp}}, {{ssp}} and their equivalent {{xlast}} templates). Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 15:47, 25 June 2014 (UTC).
Sorry, I was offline for a while and could not answer earlier. Some time ago I raised the topic [5] without any negative response and so I continued editing. I am glad, that after passing by species of different groups I have now alerted more contributors. The main advantage of using templates, as pointed out in my original post, is in my opinion, that it is easier to keep the appearance of the pages more consistent. Lepidoptera pages look slightly different than those for Coleoptera and for fishes. When I started on Wikispecies, even templates for references were still unwanted. This attitude has changed fortunately meanwhile and I am still optimisitc with my proposal. Of course further development and a better documentation are needed. But if it is consensus, that the taxobox concept is the wrong way, I will of course accept such a democratic decision. Kheller (talk) 15:54, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Wikispecies:Wantedpages -- where are New Guinea, Philippines, Java, and India?[edit]

This is a slightly edited version of a question I posted to Wikispecies bureaucrat OhanaUnited here.

"(I checked Wikispecies:Wantedpages and saw) some of the top entries are New Guinea, Philippines, Java, India, etc. My guess is those articles are not actually wanted here, but that they are listed automatically because Wikispecies articles link to them. So my question is, what would be wanted here? Those articles created, the links removed, the links changed to go to Wikipedia, or what? Thanks for your help.

OhanaUnited responded, "Good question. I honestly don't know what we should create for these geographical location entries." He suggested I post my question here. So what do people think about this? Alden Loveshade (talk) 03:34, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

  • Within Wikispecies either categories for the species of those countries or for the respective Ecozone should be created. Examples: Category:New Zealand Ostracoda, Category:Indomalayan Ostracoda, Category:Australasian Ostracoda Kempf EK (talk) 10:50, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
I have checked for the Philippines and found that indications of type location included country links. I propose simply removing these links. Creating country articles is not the business of wikispecies. Creating some country categories in my opinion also does not make sense at the moment. A species with type location on e.g. Luzon (Philippines) might be wide-spread in tropical Asia or endemic on the island. Without additional investigation, choice of appropriate category/categories would not be possible. Moreover, as far as I know, a scheme of geographical categories does not exist until now. Has there been any discussion before on this topic? What about adding information on species distribution to the pages? I am thinking about something similar to Kew Checklist, e.g. [6], using the TDWG scheme - see [7]. However, maybe this already would be beyond the scope of wikispecies? Regards --Franz Xaver (talk) 12:26, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
You ought to look at the pages for Orchidaceae. Orchi has made a good job of adding location details. Andyboorman (talk) 13:02, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
OK, I was not aware of this. That's good work, but seems to be time consuming. Anyway, also there are no regional categories and that's good for me. --Franz Xaver (talk) 13:40, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
It has always seemed to me that WikiSpecies is intended to be a depository for taxonomic information, rather than biogeographic data. When I started editing some years ago, distribution lists were thought un-necessary and in any case prone to unreliability. I have no problem with those who want to add Categories that link to national faunas or floras, but this is not strictly taxonomy, which is generally blind to political notions of state. Accassidy (talk) 14:39, 29 July 2014 (UTC)


What happened to ZooBank? They have been totally down 24 hours now. Neferkheperre (talk) 16:04, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Back up again. Must have been servicing, but usually they are not down more than 6-8 hours. Neferkheperre (talk) 21:41, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Holotype category[edit]

A couple of months ago, I picked up on the holotype| utility, where repository acronyms can be highlighted to indicate the museums. I like this concept, but I find accessing repository information is not entirely satisfactory. When I click on of the links, I have to wade through entire list, which is at least alphabetized. At times, I cannot locate that particular acronym, even if it is highlighted blue. What is possibility of organizing repository acronyms as we do with Category ISSN? Thus, seekers would click link, and directly find the page with full name of repository institution, location, etc. And, as museums come and go, with collections being transferred, this can be indicated as well. Some repositories subdivide their collections numbers with additional prefixes for vertebrate/invertebrate departments, etc. These can be indicated on repository pages. Neferkheperre (talk) 22:18, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

I had the same idea years ago, but I've abandoned it because of the work & time needed, and since so many many pages point to the holotype template. Yet it would be nice if little by little we create pages for individual museums, and link to them. Mariusm (talk) 05:49, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
If I could get some sort of pointer as to create such pages while not destroying present holotype template, for now. We could all chip in, as we deal with our species pages. I deal with many of these. However, present holotype template is not really useful, as much time must be spent wading through multitudinous entries. We are eventually going to have to do this, formidable as it is, to make this best quality taxonomic website on world. As at now, several other taxonomic entities harvest from us.
Just for pure cussedness, I entered AARRGH, and came up shifting to holotype template, even though obviously there is no museum named AARRGH. Better control is definitely needed. Neferkheperre (talk) 02:25, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Only valid names in Taxonavigation section?[edit]

Hi. In the Taxonavigation section for a particular genus, should only valid species names be listed, or should all available names be listed? I'm new to Wikispecies, but I've encountered a couple cases where junior synonyms are included in the list of species. Once the synonymy has been listed on the valid species page, should the junior synonym be removed from the Taxonavigation list? Dryophthoridae (talk) 20:59, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

As far as I am concerned only valid and accepted names should appear in the Taxonavigation list. Synonyms need to appear in their own separate list, whether hom, hot or het. The difficulty with plants, particularly, is that many families are still under review and there often are many unresolved species names. These names may be either Synonyms or Accepted, but the jury is still out! Personally I do not incorporate them in the species lists that I edit, nor do I provide a separate list of Unresolved names. The only exception is where an unresolved species is well known, which fortunately is very rare. In these cases I add a hopefully helpful Note. Another issue is that the majority of plant species lists do not tell us that a species name is Unresolved and this needs teasing out! The Plant List does note Accepted, Synonyms and Unresolved, but it is about 2/3 years out of date. The World Checklist of Selected Plant Families only notes Accepted and Synonyms, Unresolved names have been discarded. It is the most up to date, but sometimes contains annoying errors and only deals with those families that have been reviewed. The International Plant Name Index just gives details of validly published names and nothing else as does Tropicos, but this site is changing slowly. Then there are specialist sites like eMonocot! Often it is a process of triangulation. Hope this helps Andyboorman (talk) 12:08, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
In Cirripedia, I am encountering similar problem. I do my basic species pulls from WoRMS, which is very WoRMY. Mis-spellings are not infrequent, and have given rise to many page moves. In addition, copyists in various scriptoria make many errors, which repeat through time. Thus, what I am doing is finding original species descriptions, on Internet, or at LSU Library, for actual spellings, author citations, etc. I am about 90% successful. I make correction notations where necessary.
Format I have been using is to put only valid species in Taxonavigation section, and in species pages. Where junior synonyms, homonyms, pre-occupied names exist, they go into Syn| template box, with explanations. I use (Swingline staple)Template:blahblah format to link to those references, with ZooBank Acts included. References section includes original reference, any references reflecting supra-specific changes, with particular appropriate citations included. Ultimate goal is for every nomenclatural act to be accounted for, in some way, and put into its current proper place. Needs to be done in such fashion that any taxonomic changes to any of these nomenclatural acts can be easily dealt with and re-oriented.
Of paramount importance is to use only previously published and referenced work. Unpubllished taxononomic acts can and will create problems in precedence. Neferkheperre (talk) 03:14, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
The best way in my opinion is to group the known species-name synonyms and leave them on the genus page; just put them under the valid names in a different section (see for example the Laena page). This is the clearest way to show that a certain species-name was nor omitted, but is in fact a synonym. Mariusm (talk) 05:45, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
I used to think it was a good idea to put synonyms on a genus page, but IT ISN'T! We can't create combinations that haven't been used, which means we would need to know, for each and every synonym, which combinations have been used, or else list them all in their original combinations, which would be messy, as it wouldn't correspond to the genus that the synonyms are currently placed in. So, please don't do it! Stho002 (talk) 06:21, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
As far as I understand, this is not about creating new combinations, but about listing names where a combination in that genus already exists. So, a visitor e.g. does not need to know that now Laena hongyuanica has to be searched in another genus, i.e. Hypolaenopsis. Of course, they could make use of the search function or simple enter the name into the browser and wait to be redirected, but would they know this? --Franz Xaver (talk) 08:20, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
The issue is far more complicated. For a start, Mariusm's proposal only seems to include synonyms, not species that were described in the genus but subsequently transferred out. This is another complication. Even for synonyms, Mariusm only seems to be considering those which were described originally in the genus in which they are currently placed. If they weren't, then we run into potential problems with unpublished combinations. Not a good idea! Stho002 (talk) 20:56, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
Let's than leave the word "synonym" out, and group all the synonyms and all the transferred taxa under the heading "invalid". This will prevent the confusion. On the other hand this will help users who aren't sure whether a name they encountered is a species which was omitted on purpose or just forgotten. Mariusm (talk) 04:14, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
The problem is still with synonyms originally described in other genera, but which have never been published in combination with the genus that they are currently placed in. I got roasted by a pissed off taxonomist for doing this on Wikispecies, for a genus he recently described! Stho002 (talk) 05:20, 6 August 2014 (UTC) PS: You haven't faced this problem in Laena, but it is a common general problem Stho002 (talk) 05:22, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
You are right Stho002 (talk), but I believe these names are still considered as Unresolved and therefore I ignore them on the Taxonavigation section of the pages I edit. In addition, just because a name is validly published, for example, in the definitive International Plant Names Index, does not mean that it is accepted, as acceptance comes from consensus. I also agree with the view that over-concentrating on Unresolved and Invalid names clutters and confuses the pages. Accepted synonyms are a different matter and deserve their own section and there are usually plenty of sources for getting hold of these. Generally where a species or indeed genus has been transferred out then its original nomenclature position(s) will appear on its Synonym section, surely? Taxonomy is continuously evolving and WS is at best a mirror to what is and not a prediction. Andyboorman (talk) 16:57, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
Botant is different to zoology in this regard. Zoological nomenclature is messier. Stho002 (talk) 20:58, 6 August 2014 (UTC). Not sure it is messier for zoology compared to botany, as there are many more proposed changes for plants. Not all of which go on to be accepted by the wider community of experts. Andyboorman (talk) 13:27, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

There are definitive and accessible lists of accepted and synonymous plant names, such as the World Checklist of Selected Plant Families, GrassWorld and eMonocot. However, these are always open to modification. The publication of a proposed name change or modification occurs through a range of peer reviewed journals, but this is only a proposal until consensus is achieved. Ultimately a ruling on these changes should reach the ICN for algae, fungi and plants for a decision and definitive publication, but this is not always the case. My suggestion is that species lists under the taxonavigation and synonym sections uses these lists, wherever possible and the sources acknowledged in the reference section. However, beware, not all lists are definitive, for example USDA, ARS, Germplasm Resources Information Network can be rather poor missing numerous Old World species and the Plant List is better, but certainly not definitive!
When it comes to proposed name changes, for example a re-resurrection of a genus, perhaps we should create a new page referenced only with the journal in which they appear, but make it clear through a note and link backs that the changes are currently only proposals until full acceptance. I offer my treatment of Tainia and Ania recently flagged up by User:Stho002 as an example. Andyboorman (talk) 13:27, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Formatting references[edit]

There are a number of referencing styles used on WS. (2014), (2014)., 2014: and 2014. being the most common. Does it matter that there is no house style? Should WS follow the original publication or source (this does not really happen at the moment)? This is easy for journal articles and web sources, but not for books, as there is no house style. Does it matter that reference lists use a mix of styles? How about templates? It can look messy, but that is just my opinion. Andyboorman (talk) 15:35, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

There are ICZN conventions for using brackets when citing authorship after a taxon name. I am ignorant of the equivalent conventions for plants. In zoology, the citation would normally be:
  • Genus species Name, Initial., yyyy: page, plate, figure.
If the taxon is now attributed to a genus different from the original description, this author/year element is put in round brackets, thus:
  • Genus species (Name, Initial., yyyy): page, plate, figure.
If the actual date of publication needs more specific definition - for example the December 1899 issue of a journal might actually have been published in 1900, the square brackets are used around the actual publiacation date, thus:
  • Genus species Name, Initial., [1900]: page, plate, figure.
or for a taxon outside the original genus:
  • Genus species (Name, Initial., [yyyy]): page, plate, figure.
The initial after the surname is optional and is often left out, unless the author has a very common surname in which case the initial(s) can be of assistance.
for example Linnaeus, yyyy:... or Smith, J. T., yyyy:...
If we are just talking about the References listed in the References Section, not in the Name or Synonymy sections, then only the square brackets around the actual publication date are appropriate
Does this help or just confuse further? Accassidy (talk) 16:57, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks it sort of helps. I think I will have to accept that contributors use the style that they are most used to and WS does not have a house style. So be it! Andyboorman (talk) 15:35, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Style is less important than content. As long as pages hold extensive and valid content, they will help others, even if styles vary slightly. Accassidy (talk) 17:52, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

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)

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; [8] 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)