Shortcuts: WS:V, WS:VP

Wikispecies:Village Pump

From Wikispecies
(Redirected from Village Pump)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

WikiSpecies notext-invert.svg Welcome to the village pump of Wikispecies.

This page is a place to ask questions or discuss the project. If you need an admin, please see the Administrators' Noticeboard. If you need to solicit feedback, see Request for Comment. 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.

If you're going to critique the work of fellow editors (blatant vandals excepted) in your post on this page, you should notify them, either by mentioning them with a {{Ping}} template, or with a post on their talk page.

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:

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 (2014-01-01/2014-12-31)
27 (2015-01-01/2015-01-31) 28 (2015-02-01/2015-02-28)
29 (2015-02-28/2015-04-29) 30 (2015-04-29/2015-07-19)
31 (2015-07-19/2015-09-23) 32 (2015-09-23/2015-11-21)
33 (2015-11-21/2015-12-31) 34 (2016-01-01/2016-04-17)
35 (2016-03-22/2016-05-01) 36 (2016-05-01/2016-07-12)
37 (2016-07-13/2016-09-30) 38 (2016-10-01/2016-12-04)
39 (2016-12-04/2017-01-17) 40 (2017-01-18/2017-01-28)
41 (2017-01-29/2017-02-13) 42 (2017-02-14/2017-03-21)
43 (2017-03-20/2017-08-11) 44 (2017-08-10/2017-12-07)
45 (2017-12-08/2018-01-08) 46 (2018-01-19/2018-03-11)
47 (2018-03-11/2018-09-11) 48 (2018-09-01/2019-02-17)
49 (2019-02-22/2019-...)

A lot of data on species at russian Lomonosov Moscow State University resource[edit]


Thanks a lot for your work! World wouldnt be such a great place without wiki resources. I don't know how to contribute here, I'm not in biology at all, but i just found this data source.

Go here, pess ESC, then swtich to EN at the top right corner, for example mark the "Specimens with photo only" checbox on the popup window, click "OK". Then at the top ringt corner change a "Rows" to 1-20000 (max) and I bet you will be impressed how many rare species photos are availible there.

I bielive you could gather much more usefull information there, some of it choul be translated. Maybe somebody could contact MSU, but even if not, somehow we have to save this content before a possible isolation of russian net.

P.S. Other depositaries:

Thanks again, and sorry me for breaking your commetns publishing rules.

Regards, @sntxerror. — The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) 22:22, 12 April 2019‎.

Standardize the reference templates please![edit]

I still see that some editors aren't using {{subst:reftemp}} in their reference templates. They still are painstakingly entering all the data manually and not according to standards we strive for. See for example PeterR's Template:Deuve, 2001a. Would you please make use of {{Reftemp}} in your ref templates ?? Mariusm (talk) 16:20, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the advise. I confesse had no idea of the existence of this tool. Please supply one example of the utilization, including the Nomenclatural acts section.--Hector Bottai (talk) 00:00, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

@Hector Bottai and PeterR: and others: the reference template composition procedure is simple:

1. Compose the reference template without any additions. Example:
* {{a|John Richard Abbott|Abbott, J.R.}} 2011. Notes on the disintegration of ''Polygala'' (Polygalaceae) with four new genera for the flora of North America. ''[[ISSN 1934-5259|Journal of the Botanical Research Institute of Texas]]'' 5: 125–137. [ BHL]

Which dispays as:

2. add at the end of the reference: {{subst:reftemp}} without any spaces.

For the above example it will be:
* {{a|John Richard Abbott|Abbott, J.R.}} 2011. Notes on the disintegration of ''Polygala'' (Polygalaceae) with four new genera for the flora of North America. ''[[ISSN 1934-5259|Journal of the Botanical Research Institute of Texas]]'' 5: 125–137. [ BHL]{{subst:reftemp}}

3. Publish the template. The result would be:
* {{a|John Richard Abbott|Abbott, J.R.}} 2011. Notes on the disintegration of ''Polygala'' (Polygalaceae) with four new genera for the flora of North America. ''[[ISSN 1934-5259|Journal of the Botanical Research Institute of Texas]]'' 5: 125–137. [ BHL] <includeonly>[[Template:Abbott, 2011|Reference page]].</includeonly> <noinclude> ** [[Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:{{BASEPAGENAME}}|Find all Wikispecies pages which cite this reference]].[[Category:Reference templates]]</noinclude>

Which will display as:

Thanks for complying with the above procedure. Mariusm (talk) 15:11, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

@Mariusm: Many thanks, understood, applied succesfully.--Hector Bottai (talk) 02:49, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

@Hector Bottai: Please note that if you want to include "Nomenclatural acts" in your ref template, you should type {{subst:ReftempZt}} instead of {{subst:reftemp}}. In this case you need to proceed in two stages: (1) Save the template with the ReftempZt subst but without the Nomenclatural acts. (2) Reedit the template and add the data for the "Nomenclatural acts" section. Mariusm (talk) 10:34, 20 June 2019 (UTC).
There is not an agreement to use Nomanclatural acts in the reference template or Category:Reference templates.PeterR (talk) 17:14, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

J.M. Campbell[edit]

Who can help with the full names from J.M. Campbell. He is a Canadian entomologist (coleoptera). Published his work in the Canadian Entomologist. PeterR (talk) 17:31, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

John Milton Campbell. Cf. Klimaszewski, J. (2008). "under the leadership of Ales Smetana and John Milton Campbell (Biosystematics Research Institute, Ottawa)" Circeus (talk) 18:20, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
Thanks PeterR (talk) 13:00, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
There were some left-over dead links and broken redirects after PeterR moved J.M. Campbell to John Milton Campbell, including links to Category:J.M. Campbell taxa and other pages. All of those are now re-linked, and again working as intended. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk) 03:18, 2 July 2019 (UTC), 03:18, 2 July 2019 (UTC).
This come because the move don't work correkt. If you move J.M. Campbell taxa to John Milton Campbell taxa, the taxa are not moved. I have move first J.M. Campbell to John Milton Campbell. But it don't move the J.M. Campbell taxa to John Milton Campbell taxa. After this done you can't see the taxon names authored any more. If you use the move, you have to do a lot more work. PeterR (talk) 13:04, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
@PeterR: I know that it is a lot of work, but if we move one page then all related links must be changed as well. Otherwise we will get a lot of double redirects, broken redirects, or worse. For example, say that we have a page named "J.M. Campbell" and redirects that page to "John M. Campbell". Sometime in the future we maybe redirect that page to "John Milton Campbell". Because of an error in the MediaWiki software, this may break the first redirect – then the link stops working.
In other words, if we move "J.M. Campbell" to "John Milton Campbell", then we must also move "Category:J.M. Campbell taxa" to "Category:John Milton Campbell taxa" and then correct all the category links on the taxon pages. Potentially, this can mean having to change several hundreds of links... That is why pages should be moved as seldom as possible, and only after careful consideration.
As I said, this is mainly because of an error/bug in the WikiMedia software, and hopefully it will be corrected in the future. You can find more (non-technical) information about this matter on Wikipedia, for example "Dubbele redirects" (in Dutch) and "Double redirects" (in English). Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 21:13, 3 July 2019 (UTC).
In the future I shall not move the wrong author taxa to the wright auto taxa. I shall made this by hand.PeterR (talk) 09:58, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
Sometimes, these transfers are really necessary, even if rather formidable. Install cat-a-lot. This makes bulk category entry moving much easier, and allows to correct, delete and install category entries on mainpages without having to go to edit mode. Neferkheperre (talk) 13:47, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
Yes, I agree. For reference, Cat-a-lot can be installed from the user preference settings, here. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 15:08, 4 July 2019 (UTC).

Gender in Taxa authored 2[edit]

Can someone please make {{Taxa authored 2}} pick up gender from Wikidata (with that being overridden by a local value, if present)? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:27, 30 June 2019 (UTC).

You often know only the author, not the gender, masculine, feminine or neuterPeterR (talk) 17:08, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
I've made an attempt, not sure if it works for all settings. Korg (talk) 08:27, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Kin Onn Chan herpetologist[edit]

What is the real name? Kin Onn Chan or Chan Kin Onn? herpetologistPeterR (talk) 17:05, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Ah, East Asian names strike again! I'm pretty sure "Kin Onn" is the given name and "Chan" the family name (Malaysian Chinese or Chinese Singaporean, probably?). It's Chan Kin Onn at LKCNHM but Kin Onn Chan at Kansas University. You could consider, y'know, contacting them to make sure (having a chinese spelling, if any, on record would be a nifty addition). Circeus (talk) 20:55, 2 July 2019 (UTC). Normal it is not a problem. But in this case there where 10 authors with their first name(s) and then back (family) name. Chan is published as Chan Kin Onn. After surging on google I find out that the name is Kin Onn Chan.PeterR (talk) 13:11, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Zoobank link not working[edit]

The Zoobank link at the Reference templates is not working. See Template:Arias et al., 2018 as example. Somebody to fix? --Hector Bottai (talk) 21:42, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

The LSID you copypasted in there has non-ASCII hyphens (U+2010, generates a broken, URL-encoded link: ZooBank) instead of the ASCII, url-valid hyphen-minus that your keyboard generates (U+002D). Always make sure what your pasting in from (I assume) a fancy pdf uses the right characters. There seems to be an additional issue on Zoobank's side (It doesn't know anything about Ameivula apipensis), but in my experience I have never been able to find anything I needed on that thing anyway, so it's nothing new to me. Circeus (talk) 21:58, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
@Circeus:The problem with Ameivula apipensis was that nobody had updated the ZooBank record when it was published (I have now done so), so that it was still a hidden "in press" record. However, lack of public visibility doesn't affect the availability of any new names. The ZooBank record for the publication has been entered with only the first author, presumably because it was too onerous to add all authors, but that also does not affect anything important ... Betweenfootandshoe (talk) 05:44, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
So, the error must be in the Template {{subst:ReftempZt}}, because I did not type anything. Simplyfying, I am deleting this link from my editions.--Hector Bottai (talk) 19:14, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
I suspect that the problem arises as an unintended side effect from the mass edit a few years ago of hyphens to dashes ... Betweenfootandshoe (talk) 05:47, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
A more serious issue is that I'm pretty sure that description of new taxa in an MS Word supplementary document is invalid according to the ICZN! ... Betweenfootandshoe (talk) 05:58, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
@Hector Bottai and Betweenfootandshoe: When using {{subst:ReftempZt}} please either insert the proper Zoobank link or else delete the * {{ZooBank|}} line when re-editing the template. Mariusm (talk) 13:12, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
Indeed. All of our four different ZooBank templates are notoriously picky when it comes to matters like these. Also, it doesn't help much that the ZooBank database often seems unresponsive and/or slow. I always double-check all ZooBank links from within the preview before hitting the save button. Even though I use a 250 Mbit/s fiber connection it can sometimes take more than a minute before the ZooBank web page responds, and the waiting sometime makes me believe the link is dead. FishBase used to have the same problem for several years but seems to have got their act together now. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 18:57, 5 July 2019 (UTC).


Could an entomologist please have a look at the Lezininae page, particularly this edit. I only have access to online sources and they are inconclusive: some states Gryllacrididae as the correct family, others say Anostostomatidae. (Also, feel free to mark the aforementioned edit as patrolled, if it is correct.) Thanks! –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 20:37, 3 July 2019 (UTC).

I'm no entomologist, but... OSF (Orthoptera Species File, supplies data to Catalogue of Life) has it in Anostostomatidae at this time. Vandergrast et al., 2017 ( Tackling an intractable problem: Can greater taxon sampling help resolve relationships within the Stenopelmatoidea (Orthoptera: Ensifera)?) say: "The OSF (Cigliano et al., 2017) places Lezina in the subfamily Lezininae in the family Gryllacrididae. We support Lezina, within the Stenopelmatoidea, in Anostostomatidae (Clade C) sister to the tribe Glaphyrosomini. This position is supported by Gorochov and Cadena-Castañeda (2016)..." So it looks like OSF has changed its allocation from Gryllacrididae (in 2017) to Anostostomatidae (2019), in line with Vandergrast et al. I would therefore go with the latter. My database (IRMNG) presently has Lezina in Lezinidae, so I need to update it and will follow OSF :) Cheers - Tony Tony 1212 (talk) 05:58, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
@Tommy Kronkvist: Lezininae belongs to the Anostostomatidae. See:
See comment in page 9: Comments: Subfamily Lezininae is back to the family Anostostomatidae, such as Gorochov (2001 a), proposed, as it has characters which associate it more to that family than with Gryllacrididae, such as the presence of tympani in the first pair of tibiae and the outer side of hind femora with only traces of chevron ridges. Chevrons are one of the synapomorphic characters that define anostostomatides and which is absent in gryllacridines, as are the tympani on fore tibiae.
See revised Anostostomatidae and Lezininae. Mariusm (talk) 12:57, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
@Tony 1212 and Mariusm: Thank you both for the information! I think all affected Wikispecies pages are checked and updated now, thanks to Mariusm, the IP, and me. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 18:18, 5 July 2019 (UTC).

Daniel B. Blake & Daniel Bryan Blake[edit]

Are Daniel B. Blake and Daniel Bryan Blake perhaps the same person? The former is listed as a U.S. palaeontologist on Wikispecies, and as a U.S palaeontologist + geologist at Wikidata (see Q21502551). The latter is listed as micropalaeontologist and ostracodologist on Wikispecies, but listed as a zoologist on Wikidata (Q22108473). In Wikimedia both are exclusive to Wikispecies: neither one of them have a page in any of the 303 different language versions of Wikipedia. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 15:46, 7 July 2019 (UTC).

The former is [1] which lists a conference paper titled "Toward a History of the Paleozoic Asteroidea (Echinodermata)" and says he works (or worked) at the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign and thus leads us to [2]
The latter name is used for the author of "Toward a History of the Paleozoic Asteroidea (echinodermata)" in Issue 394 of Bulletins of American Paleontology, (2018) [3] whose PDF [4] credits "Daniel B. Blake Department of Geology, University of Illinois", so I think we have a match. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:15, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
Confirmed by [5] and [6]. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:23, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
Thank you very much! I've merged the two Wikispecies pages into Daniel Bryan Blake and edited all "Daniel B. Blake" links accordingly. I've also merged the two Wikidata items. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 01:08, 9 July 2019 (UTC).



Can someone merge Tan Heok Hui and Heok Hui Tan?

Cheers, VIGNERON (talk) 12:26, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Which is the correct name? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:25, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
@Pigsonthewing: both are technically correct depending if you want to put the last name first or last. English Wikipedia use en:Heok Hui Tan (with the western name order). Cheers, VIGNERON (talk) 13:29, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
@VIGNERON: Done. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:58, 12 July 2019 (UTC)


Hello, is it that way that we quote a type species? I mean is it the good formating? and how is the good way to quote it in the species page? Christian Ferrer (talk) 20:46, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

It's one of several formats people are using, nothing to complain about! It's good form to cite the publication where it was designated as type, if you know it. Circeus (talk) 21:30, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
On species pages, types can be cited like on Promalactis petasumella (example for animals), or like Nelsia quadrangula (example for plants). Kind regards ,--Thiotrix (talk) 11:38, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
Please see Cubanotyphlus for example. Note the type fixation info. Mariusm (talk) 16:05, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Translations of template:Inc[edit]

The translations of template {{Inc}} are missing, since User:Fagus edited the template. On 24 April 2019, I asked him to repair the template, but he did not answer and left the template without localization. Could someone else please make the necessary corrections? Thanks, --Thiotrix (talk) 12:11, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Done. Fagus' edits are very often questionable. Mariusm (talk) 16:00, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
I don't like your attitude. --Fagus (talk) 17:41, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
@Fagus: It's your attitude which needs readjustment. You fiddled with a widely-used template employed in virtually every author page, and failed to respond to a request posed to you in this regard on your talk page. Can you explain what was the purpose of your modification of this template? Mariusm (talk) 15:03, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
No need for discussion. I'm not interfering. --Fagus (talk) 17:14, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Aloe squarrosa / Aloe juvenna[edit]

Are the following edits correct? [7], [8] (image). Korg (talk) 18:22, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

I would say that the image is A. juvenna or possibly a young A. sguarrosa. The later has leaves that distinctly arch backwards, but otherwise the two species are similar in their markings on the leaves. I have replaced the Aloe squarrosa previous image with a botanical drawing, which is much more diagnostic and less confusing. Andyboorman (talk) 19:15, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
Thank you! Korg (talk) 21:50, 15 July 2019 (UTC)


After changes at KEW the {{IPNI}} is no longer in correct function.
Could an expert install and integrate from Wikidata: #property:P961. (Like {{IPNI standard form}})
What I mean: as test here: Bobartia Orchi (talk) 15:39, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

P.S....or of course another way.
Not sure what is expected, as the template works by correctly producing the search result in the new site format and also displays on the WS taxon page as expected. The new IPNI site is a lot less clunky than the old IMHO. Andyboorman (talk) 17:51, 16 July 2019 (UTC)


Bonjour, si un admin passait par là pour bloquer ce vandale [9] ce sera que du bonheur - merci et Bonne soirée Lomita (talk) 20:27, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Already blocked. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:36, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Template:Authority control for species?[edit]

I just separated three database links away from the references on a page. Mostly, while such links (CoL, WoRMS, Tropicos, IPNI, GRIN etc. etc.) are relevant, we do not typically use them as sources. Not when the actual relevant source is the literature material where the names are, y'know, coined and discussed. As such the databases are "sources" only in so far as they need to be discussed on the page (e.g. to point out errors or confusions), and I don't usually list them at all in pages I create.

Would it be more useful to have a version of {{Authority control}} tailored specifically for species that generates a table of the relevant external links and removes even the need to figure out a name for such a section? "External links" does not really feel appropriate to me. Circeus (talk) 21:07, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

That exists on en.Wikipedia, as en:Template:Taxonbar, "used on approximately 390,000 pages". I can import it if there is consensus to do so.Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:30, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
I'm all for this. Ideally it would also include CoF (i.e. the online database of Eschmeyer's Catalog of Fishes) but unfortunately I can't even find a Wikidata property for that. CoF is comparable to the much more frequently cited FishBase database (P938) however it's often a lot better updated, plus contrary to most FishBase records include information about type localities, holotypes, type repositories, links to protologues etc. Here at Wikispecies we currently use the {{CoF}} template instead; please see the "Links" section on the Devario leptos page for an example. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 00:23, 18 July 2019 (UTC).
A "taxonbar" with an overview of some relevant databases could be useful here, but I think the taxonbar of en-wiki is highly "overloaded" with its multiple links, even growing with each regional database that will be linked to Wikidata (see [10] for an example). By the way, in some cases, Tropicos and IPNI can really be used as sources for type material of genera or species. The CoL has different versions for each year that differ considerably, and it is mostly not linked on Wikidata (at least for those plant groups I am editing). --Thiotrix (talk) 07:16, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
en-wiki taxonbar is getting "overloaded" in some cases, but WikiSpecies can just remove support for the less relevant databases. The en-wiki taxonbar doesn't show every taxon ID that's on Wikidata (national taxon databases from non-English speaking countries aren't included at en-wiki). Catalog of Fishes doesn't have a property on Wikidata yet; it just needs to be proposed (as {{CoF}} states, "the id number for an individual record does not seem to be easily available using just the Catalog of Fishes..." which may be reason why a CoF Wikidata property doesn't exist yet). Catalog of Life identifiers can change between releases, which makes it difficult to have a Wikidata property. Also, Wikidata inherited a large number of garbage taxon records from CoL via the Waray/Cebuano/Swedish Wikipedias, and the active taxonomy editors on Wikidata have a rather dim view of CoL. Plantdrew (talk) 15:49, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
On the same topic, you will be happy to know that GBIF import the external identifiers for taxa from Wikidata, see at bottom of a taxon page. Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:49, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Difference between certain templates[edit]

So, I'm working on a documentation template that will cover everything in Category:Templates for linking taxa and it's come to my attention that for some reason the templates {{Ordolast}}, {{Infraordolast}} , {{Famlast}} and {{Subfamlast}} include an extra hardcoded linebreak that other -last templates do not.

At first blush, this line break seems superfluous, but obviously I am not about to casually edit some of the most widely-used templates on the site! Is this linebreak necessary for some aspect of display? It seems odd that most -last templates can be freely used in running text, except these four... Especially when there is a separate {{Gbr}}. Circeus (talk) 00:28, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Just a quick note, since I'm about to log out for the night. The {{Gbr}} template can't be used for higher taxon ranks than genus, since it also adds italics. However when needed it can be substituted by the {{Fbr}} template. It works in the same way except without adding italics, hence can be used for family rank and higher. (That's also the reasoning behind the names of the templates: {{gbr}} for genera and subgenera, and {{fbr}} for familia, subfamilia, and superfamilia.) Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 01:07, 18 July 2019 (UTC).
I'd gotten that XD (though I admittedly failed to notice the fbr template. Moved it into the category), all code-compliant ranks below family have templates for them (as far as I can tell) and gbr is not part of the higher-level set that are actually interchangeable, so no issue there. What I still can't quite puzzle out is what purpose the linebreak in the four templates in question is supposed to serve. Circeus (talk) 01:15, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
1. The different {{'Taxonrank'}} and {{'Taxonranklast'}} templates are more or less exclusively used within lists in the Taxonavigation sections on Taxon pages. The reason for adding a trailing linebreak to the {{…last}} templates is pretty straightforward. Without it you would have to add a <br/> linebreak after the last taxon (per rank) in each and every Taxonavigation section. In my opinion it's a lot neater to instead include the linebreaks in the templates. This keeps the wiki code in the Taxonavigation sections free of HTML, making them a lot cleaner and more legible. I don't think the linebreaks within these templates pose a problem, since the templates are more or less never used in running text outside of the Taxonavigation sections.
The point is more why is it so crucial only for those two taxa levels? If we're going to have a huge family of templates that are crucial to taxonavigation, I think it's sensible to expect them all to behave in the same frickin' basic way! Circeus (talk) 13:15, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
I agree. The point is that the different templates were created by different authors. All of the above mentioned templates were created by me, with the exception of {{Subfamlast}}. Changing them afterwards (and/or the other similar Taxonav templates) will require us to add or remove linebreaks to/from all of the taxon pages. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 19:43, 19 July 2019 (UTC).
2. Please also take {{Infraclass}} and {{Infraclasslast}} into consideration, which for some reason aren't listed in Category:Formatting templates (nor in Category:Templates for linking taxa). Also, there may be more like them. Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 01:47, 18 July 2019 (UTC).
Thanks for that. I'll be honest: I can't be bothered to check every single damn rank @.@ so my list was entirely based off what was in Category:Templates for linking taxa. — The preceding unsigned comment was added by Circeus (talkcontribs) 13:15, 18 July 2019 (UTC).
I fully understand that. It's still odd that those templates doesn't show up in the categories though. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 19:47, 19 July 2019 (UTC).
If that's what you mean, {{Infraclass}} and the whole lot are not in Category:Formatting templates because I filtered them down in Category:Templates for linking taxa. I may yet create a "Category: Templates to generate taxonavigation". Circeus (talk) 14:54, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Consensus vote[edit]

Because those conversation have a tendency to peter out and nothing happening:

Is there consensus to regularize the templates {{Ordolast}}, {{Infraordolast}}, {{Famlast}}, and {{Subfamlast}} by removing the hardcoded linebreak and using a bot to add it in articles and template where needed?

I write "where needed" because it is only needed in some of the taxonavigation uses, i.e. those where the template/list doesn't end at that level (because if that rank is the last item, it is followed by a header anyway). Circeus (talk) 14:54, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose In general they are the mid point of a list of taxa. I would like to see the line break in all such templates not just a selected few. Andyboorman (talk) 15:47, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
@Andyboorman: After each and every last-list-template there must be the ==Name== section which automatically adds a line brake. So why do you need two line breaks??Mariusm (talk) 16:02, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
Also {{Taxonav}} (which really ought to be used more) usually breaks off right before family/superfamily, so a break after whichever rank is right before is again not useful. Also, note that there is a separate {{Fbr}} already. Circeus (talk) 16:18, 22 July 2019 (UTC)


So, I stumblred across another @Fagus: creation. This is used only on authorities and is an autotranslate... for the word "Turkish". Why that word specifically when the rest of the page is in English, I do not know, but I'm also seriously doubting we want this to be how we proceed (assuming we decide the author pages must be autotranslated to begin with).

SO I'm bringing this up for discussion as to whether this sort of things should be kept. Circeus (talk) 21:36, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

I think translation of these descriptive elements has low priority for the project. Extended to all nationalities and to all grammatical properties of the different languages it will get complicated and time-consuming. Maybe taking the language-specific description from Wikidata could be a solution eaiser to achieve. --RLJ (talk) 11:04, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
Ask @Fagus: to delete and remove or justify in relation to a major project aimed at wider the development of language specific templates? Andyboorman (talk) 20:40, 19 July 2019 (UTC):
you can delete.. --Fagus (talk) 17:11, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
Done. All instances were replaced. Circeus (talk) 14:42, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

The code decoded[edit]

For the botanists among us, just published: the second edition of The code decoded by Nick Turland: . Open access, as PDF document or online. Recommended. --RLJ (talk) 11:04, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

I'll have to take a look. Wonder if it deals with my biggest code-related bugbear (unlikely). Circeus (talk) 18:40, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
Which is? Intrigued! Andyboorman (talk) 20:36, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
The code allows for lectotypification of a generic or infrageneric rank by merely naming a species (art. 10 Note 2, which should really be placed after 10.2, not 10.4...). Because there is no requirement whatsoever as to the typification of that specific name, doing so does not actually designates a specimen as type of that supraspecific name (art. 10.1), it merely asserts that whatever the eventual type of the designated species is or will be the type of the higher division.
It is sloppy and flies in the face of every other rules rlated to types in the code. As such, in my opinion, any such designation made without full and direct reference to an effective typification of the asserted type species should not be itself effective. Circeus (talk) 15:31, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
I see where you are coming from, but I assumed it was down to pragmatism, as one would think that a legitimate species used to define the type of a genus has already been typified under the earlier articles. Indeed types of genera can change over time and to require a completely new typification when there is a change in synonymy seems superfluous. What do I know! Andyboorman (talk) 18:34, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
It's not about asking for a new typification so much as making sure the type you are designating exists in the first place. It's entirely possible to designate as type species a species for which all material is lost and no neotype has been designated so that you are really not designating anything at all as the type of the genus, which is what I assert flies in the face of every other type-related requirement in the code. Circeus (talk) 17:11, 21 July 2019 (UTC)