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 (2019-02-22/2019-06-18) 50 (2019-06-19/2019-10-06)
51 (2019-10-07/2019-12-23) 52 (2019-12-24/2020-04-03)
53 (2020-04-03/2020-07-16) 54 (2020-07-17/2020-09-05)
55 (2020-09-08/2020-xx-xx)

Eugène Simon to Eugène Louis Simon?[edit]

user:PeterR requested me to move members (524 entries) from Category:Eugène Simon taxa to Category:Eugène Louis Simon taxa? It is technically easy (with cat-a-tool), but all other Wikipedias (see wikidata:Q741948) use the name Eugène Simon. I guess it is not the first time, when analogous major moving from the category to the category takes place? Opinions?--Estopedist1 (talk) 11:50, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

The agreement is that we use the full names. So this is not for discussion. PeterR (talk) 12:06, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
I have already moved a lot of authors with abbreviation names to full names together with Tommy Kronkvist
Yes the standard here is to use full names - see this page as an example. Saves confusion I guess. Thanks Andyboorman (talk) 14:30, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure he literally never used his full name while he was living, though. I've been working with a lot of his articles recently since I'm aligning IRMNG with the World Spider Catalogue and I don't think I've seen him referred to with "Eugène Louis" anywhere (hence why his Wikipedia entries have only one given name). Regardless of what an entry in a biographical directory may say about an individual's name, the use of multiple given name is much, much less common in French than in English (compare also the French vs. English for Léon Abel Provancher, who I would personally also move to just "Léon Provancher"). Circeus (talk) 15:14, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
    • Circeus I know you prefer to redirect full names to abbreviation names but that is out of order. You create only a mess, because some authors have more abbreviation names.PeterR (talk) 15:07, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
Honestly, I don't see any common sense neither any value added in moving usual names, already used by other wikis, to complete names that never, or just ocasionally, has been used in literature. We have hundreds of entries for Alcide d’Orbigny, are we going to move everything to Alcide Charles Victor Marie Dessalines d’Orbigny? Waste of time and bytes.--Hector Bottai (talk) 17:51, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
Or Orbigny, Alcide Charles Victor Marie Dessalines d' its IPNI full entry? If we were going for standardisation I would advise commonality with the accepted third party practice and sources, eg IPNI for plants. Back to genus red links! Andyboorman (talk) 18:17, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
Excuse my ignorance, Andy. I don't understand what you mean.--Hector Bottai (talk) 22:18, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
@Hector Bottai: It is not your ignorance but my poor syntax. IPNI has formats for both author abbreviations and full names that are most commonly used in botanical sciences outside WS, my suggestion is we follow this consensus. Apologies. Andyboorman (talk) 16:49, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
@Andyboorman: quite often IPNI hasn't stated full name and IPNI systematically does mistakes with name particles (like van, le, von) writing them like Van, Le, Von. But this is another topic--Estopedist1 (talk) 05:55, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

───────────────────────── probably more important is to focus those names which are really abbreviated, like Roderic D.M. Page, but we know the full name. Discussions about long names like "Alcide Charles Victor Marie Dessalines d’Orbigny", or is it "Alcide Charles Victor Maria' Dessalines d’Orbigny" or something else, are often not rational and probably out of WS scope. If we have already 500 members in cat:Eugène Simon and most of the sources use the name "Eugène Simon" then let it be so.--Estopedist1 (talk) 05:55, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

@Estopedist1: IPNI may not always be grammatically correct in relation to local preferences, but it is the international standard, so must be used here for the authors of plant names. Andyboorman (talk) 07:28, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Stale discussion. So, I was BOLD and now we are using one category: category:Eugène Louis Simon taxa. Same topic discussions are encouraged in future--Estopedist1 (talk) 07:32, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Questioning the systematic move to full names[edit]

@PeterR: "The agreement is that we use the full names" What agreement? @Andyboorman: "the standard here is to use full names" Has it already been discussed? IPNI shouldn't be regarded as the sole authority for author names, as it contains errors too.

I know this is a standard practice, which I'm not really against, but should it be done systematically?

I recently came across the page of the malacologist Jacques Sébastien François Léonce Marie Paul Fagot who published under the name Paul Fagot. Since there is no real ambiguity here, shouldn't the name Paul Fagot be used as the page title for simplicity? Discussion can take place at Talk:Jacques Sébastien François Léonce Marie Paul Fagot.

I think there are particular cases that need to be discussed. Maybe other considerations of the choice of the name should be taken into account: used in literature, well-established... Regardless of the page name, full and alternative names would still appear in the introduction. Korg (talk) 13:04, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

@Korg: If you think IPNI contains an error then contact them and if you are right they will quickly change the entry with thanks. Easy. In addition, we did discuss the preferential use of full abbreviated names on the Name Section, but I can not remember when as it was a few years ago, but see Help Section it is there in black and white for botany with succinct reasoning. Andyboorman (talk) 13:57, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
@Andyboorman: Thanks for the suggestion about IPNI, I do contact them when I encounter an error. What I meant is that I do not consider them that authoritative when it comes to author names, unlike plant names and standard forms of course. Sometimes they do not prefer the full name (e.g. Fredy Archila, IPNI), and quite often they do not know it (e.g. Juan Manuel Aparicio Rojo, IPNI).
I would be interested to read previous discussions on the subject. Regarding Help Section, where is it exactly, please? The page Help:Author Names does not mention it. Korg (talk) 16:06, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
The Help Section is here. Andyboorman (talk) 17:21, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
This page does not seem to address the subject... or maybe I've missed something, or there is a misunderstanding somewhere? I am referring to page title/page name for authors and naming conventions. There is a reference to Help:Author Names, but it isn't covered there either. Korg (talk) 17:56, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Name order confusion[edit]

I was about to make the "Keezhpattillam Viswajyothi" page just now, having just made a template for a second publication by the author, when doubts entered my mind as to which order these two names should be in, and which one of them is actually the family name: "Keezhpattillam" or "Viswajyothi"?

To give you an idea of what I mean, according to {{Bezděk & Viswajyothi, 2019}} and other publications by her available on her ResearchGate profile, as well as her ZooBank author page she is cited as "Viswajyothi", "Viswajyothi, K." or "Viswajyothi, Keezhpattillam" (with her full name being given as "Keezhpattillam Viswajyothi" in Bezděk & Viswajyothi, 2019 in particular). Yet the text of {{Viswajyothi & Konstantinov, 2020}} states that it should be cited with her name as "Keezhpattillam, V.", while other publications where she is not the author (e.g. here) as well as her ResearchGate profile itself refer to her full name as "Viswajyothi Keezhpattillam". These are all definitely the same person as far as I'm aware. Monster Iestyn (talk) 01:45, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

@Monster Iestyn: let the specialists do the job: see en:Wikipedia_talk:Noticeboard_for_India-related_topics#Surname_problem_for_Keezhpattillam_Viswajyothi. Interesting may be also en:Indian surname--Estopedist1 (talk) 06:32, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
Yeah I had a look at the Indian name page on en:w before I asked about this, unfortunately of course it only showed that I could not possibly figure out the answer for myself. Monster Iestyn (talk) 16:31, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
Also bringing attention to this to PeterR since he just made Keezhpattillam Viswajyothi, I assume he was unaware this discussion was going on. Monster Iestyn (talk) 16:37, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
Viswajyothi is the first name and Keezhpattillam is the last name. -- 14:36, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
@Monster Iestyn and PeterR: we got answer by native (see enwiki). Correct is Viswajyothi Keezhpattillam. Now, corrections need to be made--Estopedist1 (talk) 19:31, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
Then that means all the other articles she authored before 2020 have gotten her name wrong (at least in terms of which is the family name). Weird then. Monster Iestyn (talk) 20:03, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
        • All done PeterR (talk) 11:19, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

───────────────────────── Follow-up to this discussion: another article by Viswajyothi Keezhpattillam (or Keezhpattillam Viswajyothi) has just been published in the last 24 hours, this time with "Viswajyothi" as the last name: I thought this was resolved but now I'm confused again. How can two articles authored by her on ZooKeys be published with her names in different orders?

Following this, I also noticed that the PDF download for the earlier 2020 article on ZooKeys (the Blakealtica one) actually has "Viswajyothi" as the last name as well, in contrast to the online version. Monster Iestyn (talk) 01:38, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Is it possible maybe that she is indexed by her first name instead of her last name? That would explain everything. Monster Iestyn (talk) 03:10, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
@Estopedist1: Should we go back to the noticeboard? I am starting to think that, while her names may actually be ordered Viswajyothi Keezhpattillam in normal usage, she is actually indexed by her first name, so articles with her name flip them the other way around (a bit like with Chinese or Japanese authorities etc). However, that online version of the Blakealtica article on ZooKeys (which started all my confusion) indexed her by her second name. I suspect this was possibly by mistake, as the PDF download as well as the version of the article on PMC indexes her by first name instead. It's a shame there's not been any kind of erratum or corrigendum to clear this up on ZooKeys, at least far as I can tell. (Maybe whoever was the anonymous IP could answer this if they know something, alternatively?) Monster Iestyn (talk) 17:21, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
@Monster Iestyn: it is unlikely that Indian Wikipedian User:Sreejithk2000 did a mistake. See again this enwiki discussion. I don't know how authors indexing is working in Zookeys, but there is certainly inconsistency, see eg . We probably should ask directly to Zookeys and if they are sure that correct order is "Keezhpattillam Viswajyothi", then we should disturb our Indian Wikipedists again. Other, but related topic: Chinese names are nightmare for non-Chinese people and we definitely need Chinese Wikipedians to solve problems related to Chinese names--Estopedist1 (talk) 18:24, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
@Estopedist1: I'm not saying Sreejithk2000 made a mistake about the order of the names themselves as such (indeed she uses them in that order on her own Facebook, so there's no doubt it's correct), it's that last time we weren't asking about what named she's indexed by, and what name she should be cited as in articles: "Viswajyothi, V." or "Keezhpattillam, V."? (or even what name should be used in authorities for taxa authored by her: "Viswajyothi" or "Keezhpattillam"?) Monster Iestyn (talk) 18:34, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
@Monster Iestyn: if we know that surname is surely "Keezhpattillam", then WS goal should be to propagandize correct name order. I mentioned this name stuff in here: Viswajyothi Keezhpattillam. If someone will state objections about name order, we can revive this discussion--Estopedist1 (talk) 18:57, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
Update so the bot doesn't archive this discussion just yet: I asked about indexing the name at en:Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics, though it has been at least 4 days and no reply yet as of writing. Monster Iestyn (talk) 20:34, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Author templates to be jettisoned or we are in big troubles!?[edit]

see also: Wikispecies:Village_Pump/Archive_30#Strange_display
see also: Wikispecies:Village_Pump/Archive_43#Template:Ale
see also: User:Estopedist1/Varia templates (explanation in the header)

As discussions above alludes, plus allusion in Circeus' userpage: user:Circeus, we probably have to jettison our author templates (Category:Author templates) to avoid several problems in future. Why?

  1. a non-standardized style to link authors. We are using {{A}} and it should be the only style to avoid misunderstandings and inconsistency. And WS is not botany/mycology-focused to give special status and special linking for botany/mycology authors.
  2. conflicts with taxa templates, see Template talk:Silveira
  3. Question? conflicts with zoology and botany taxa authors, eg Sykes vs {{Sykes}}
  4. IPNI database is massive and is growing. If there will be over 100,000 names, it would be huge templates clutter in WS.

At the moment, it seems that only user:RLJ and user:MILEPRI create author templates. --Estopedist1 (talk) 11:42, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

I have always advocated not using author templates, whenever it has come up for discussion. Not sure why they are used, I assume in good faith and not a vanity project. Well put @Estopedist1:. I am now seriously considering removing from now on, only if I come across them on a page I am editing/updating, of course. By the way, I thing equally annoying are the Linnaeus versions, but that is another discussion. Andyboorman (talk) 12:30, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
This is not even how I thought there templates were used in botany/mycology?? I thought they were strictly for postnominal abbreviations in the botanical area (though I never used them because i found it simpler to link to the abbreviation directly). I agree sith all the points, and I also notes that I do not believe in standardizing author names in references (other than correcting errors in where the family name starts and ends, e.g. for Iberic names): we should list them as they are given in the actual source. Circeus (talk) 12:58, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
I have nothing to add or change from my two previous contributions. Neferkheperre (talk) 13:30, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
All specific author templates should be avoided, in my opinion. Maybe this seemed to be time-saving in the beginning, but now this lazy style of editing leads to a big mess, as Estopedist1 hat pointed out above. In addition, it is frustrating for readers of taxon pages or reference templates with author templates (instead of template a), that they do not show the full name of the author, when moving the mouse on the name, and one has to click through several pages to get there. And the IPNI abbreviation should just be a simple redirect to the full named author page. --Thiotrix (talk) 08:55, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
A single test suggests that these can be safely Subst:; does anyone have any counter examples? Perhaps a bot could do a sample of, say, 100, chosen at random?
An equal concern, perhaps, is that my example, "Subramanyam, K. & Henry, A.N. 1972 Bull. Bot. Surv. India 12: 5.", is entered inline, and not as a reference template, and does not appear on either Krishnaier Subramanyam nor Ambrose Nathaniel Henry. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:51, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
I support Andy' idea of a bot trial and review, as soon as possible. I notice that @RLJ: and @MILEPRI: have not contributed. Andyboorman (talk) 12:00, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
It looks like @RLJ: is happy for the Subst. trial - see the Edit History for Barkeria uniflora. Andyboorman (talk) 12:21, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
I disagree. -RLJ (talk) 22:07, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Conclusion: this topic is finished. Step-by-step all authority templates to be substituted and when unused then to be deleted--Estopedist1 (talk) 06:24, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Substitution by a bot[edit]

As mentioned above, maybe it is possible to use a bot to substitute authority templates--Estopedist1 (talk) 06:29, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing and Rosičák: about bot-assisted edits:
in name section {{a|Subr.}} --> {{a|Krishnaier Subramanyam|Subramanyam}}
in reference section {{a|Subr.}} --> {{a|Krishnaier Subramanyam|Subramanyam, K.}}
Hence - maybe not so trivial task for bots. But if the bots can recognise name section and reference section, then no problem I think--Estopedist1 (talk) 07:07, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
Do you have an example of a reference section where a template like {{a|Subr.}} currently displays the equivalent of {{a|Krishnaier Subramanyam|Subramanyam, K.}}? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:14, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
@Pigsonthewing: sorry, I wasn't precise. These templates can be correctly used only in References section or at Reference templates. So, the substitition seems to be easy. However, there are some occurences where these templates are misused, eg see Obtegomeria and its Name section--Estopedist1 (talk) 13:05, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
@Pigsonthewing, Rosičák, and Mariusm: any news? Substition in References section should be easy? And no problem, if some rare occurences in Name section will be also substituted by the bot--Estopedist1 (talk) 06:11, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation pages and Caftaric[edit]

Just a heads up, I've noticed Caftaric has been continuing the same sort of internationalisation efforts as he did with author pages a while back, but now mainly focusing on disambiguation pages. In addition though, he appears to be splitting disambiguation pages linking to both taxa and authors into separate pages, one for taxa and one for authors. Case example: almost all of "Chen" has been split into a separate page named "Chen (author)".

Once again, Caftaric's efforts are clearly meant in good faith, but he has not cooperated with anyone about his format changes which is concerning. Monster Iestyn (talk) 18:26, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. This is, my opinion, an over-complication creating pages that have no meaning. The goose is a redirect and the other a list of Chinese authorities. I suggest that the pages be deleted without redirects and editors reminded that DAB be used for homonyms and the like, as this is a site for taxonomy not an all singing all dancing database for names. Andyboorman (talk) 18:57, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
That process of internationalization (disambiguation pages) was never discussed by the community (as I remember it), so this whole mass edition is not consensual. Burmeister (talk) 20:54, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
yes, solo and not-cooperating users who massively make potentially harming edits in WS system are always hard cases in Wikiprojects, especially in smaller Wikiprojects like WS--Estopedist1 (talk) 05:43, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
Templating and doing significant structural changes without previous consensus I fully agree should be avoided ad cohibited. Meanwhile, what Caftaric did separating Chen authors in a separate disambig page looks to me correct, additionally I don´t see anything wrong in categorizing Authors different than Taxa disambigs. We have to be careful being rough and discouraging people who is editing in good faith, having some good proposals, just needing some orientation.--Hector Bottai (talk) 15:01, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

these massreverting, adding and again massreverting (see eg Special:Diff/8009880) are not constructive ways to solve problems. Therefore, I opened "template for discussion".--Estopedist1 (talk) 07:27, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Categorisation have been reverted for the time being. There could be a laps of time before the sub-categories are empty (time for the servers to get the updates, thento correct the links added separately to the disambiguation template. I suggest you continue discuss the subject and you let me know your decision. Cheers Caftaric (talk) 07:40, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Template for discussion: template:occupation and template:nationality[edit]

[relisting to here to reach some conclusion --Estopedist1 (talk) 06:21, 12 October 2020 (UTC)]

Ask to the snake[edit]

If you don't how to eat a a toad covered in poison then you can still ask to the snake... Christian Ferrer (talk) 15:33, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Diving spider[edit]

A quite rare picture of a Dolomedes fimbriatus (Clerck, 1757) diving: before, diving and after. Christian Ferrer (talk) 22:07, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Alas, not Creative Commons licensed, so ineligible for use here. If you're on Flickr yourself, have a try at persuading the photographer to make them available under CC-BY-SA? No harm in asking! - MPF (talk) 22:21, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
Yes good idea, I will ask the photographer. Christian Ferrer (talk) 07:17, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
Good luck! But I suspect from the professional quality, the answer is likely to be 'no'; not many professional photographers like to give their work away for free. Important though to make sure he understands exactly how CC licenses work, don't try to deceive him into thinking he is "only giving it to wikipedia" rather than the whole world! - MPF (talk) 14:47, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
One workaround for professional photographers is to make (e.g.) a low resolution image available for free web re-use, and mention in the associated text where and how the higher resolution image may be obtained. Although I have not seen many do this, it seems a reasonable compromise to me (and in my former science agency, they did do this for their professionally taken fish images).Tony 1212 (talk) 22:12, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
To try to deceive him, as a (an amateur) photographer myself (therefore a kind of colleague), as one of his followers in Flickr and as administrator in Wikimedia Commons is the last thing that I am going to do... I haven't even dared to ask him if he wanted to change his license, by fear to disturb him. @Tony 1212: it is possible to do such things however you may read "Can I apply a CC license to low-resolution copies of a licensed work and reserve more rights in high-resolution copies?". Christian Ferrer (talk) 16:42, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
Thanks @Christian Ferrer:, I was unaware of that, it does seem to defeat the purpose of the practice I suggested :) Cheers Tony Tony 1212 (talk) 19:08, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
Ok, it's done I asked him the question... let's wait for an answer now. Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:14, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
I got an answer, he is not a pro photographer but he plans to maybe be therefore he keep his library of images for now, but he has already thought about uploading some selected images into Wikimedia Commons. The 3 images linked above have a very few, if no none, chances to be uploaded into Commons, because, as I felt it well, the images are quite good and rare, and several publications are already scheduled. Christian Ferrer (talk) 07:03, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

NADI template[edit]

After the corrections made it has been worse than it was. (now it only occupies a third of the screen in the central part). Please, better leave it as it was.--MILEPRI (talk) 07:10, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Por ejemplo Atriplex_fissivalvis--MILEPRI (talk) 08:06, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
@MILEPRI: I'll up it to 70%, see if that's OK? I suspect anything higher than 70% will bring back the problem of image conflict we had before (I worked out for my screen, 72% is about the limit; 75% wouldn't work) - MPF (talk) 14:49, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
@MPF: For your verification, take as reference a page with an image (as indicated in the example) since there are hundreds of pages with an image that will look very bad.--MILEPRI (talk) 15:08, 2 October 2020 (UTC).
@MILEPRI: - thanks! Yes, I did look (using your example above); it looks fine for me, what I can't tell is how it will look for other users with different size screens and different image size preference settings. Does it look OK for you with 70%? Anyone else wish to comment, please?! - MPF (talk) 15:14, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
@MPF: I see it correctly, even with the screen at 140% magnification. Thank you.--MILEPRI (talk) 15:21, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
Firstly, I link here {{Nadi}}, where this specific discussion should be taken place. Secondly, 70% and alignment to the left will do the job in most of the cases, but unfortunately we don't have technical expertise to align this template to the left, see Wikispecies:Village_Pump#NADI_template--Estopedist1 (talk) 05:06, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Linnaeus, 1758[edit]

Hi, I put the "new names" list of {{Linnaeus, 1758}} in a sortable table, you can now sort the list by alphbetic order of the original names, by the accepted names (when relevant), or by page number. I think this is a good potential idea for the publications that have a big number of names. Feel free to add modifications, to make suggestions, to comment or to revert if necessary. Regards, Christian Ferrer (talk) 16:07, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

The sortable table is fantastic and could be a significant differential for WS. I don't know any other taxonomy that offer this detail at the level of a Publications. I am personally afraid not having time for such a detail. My other doubt is regarding links to synonyms redirects that ends taking you to the same page. Great work!--Hector Bottai (talk) 17:24, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
I tried to improve it, I removed all the links from the original names, and I put all the link in the second column, tha seems better indeed. Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:31, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
I like this, although you might want to note that there are potentially quite a few new names involved here - then again the list only has to be built once! IRMNG (the database I curate) can generate a somewhat similar list (for genera only, built by traversing the taxon pages for the linked source "Linnaeus, 1758, Systema Naturae..."); this currently has 322 genera, although I note that the equivalent list at ZooBank has 352 (or 353?) names at genus-group, so maybe I am missing some (now will have to check!). Zoobank also has 4,442 species-group names, although various web sources quote either 4,236 or 4,238 of these... AnimalBase (Germany) allows one to list "early animal names" by author; their list for "L" starts here, I have not counted how many belong to "Linnæus, 1758" but obviously the list is there and should be complete... AnimalBase sorts species name by epithet, not by binomen, in "true" (?) zoological fashion (the epithet is the "name", the binomen is just either the original or a subsequent combination). If I search IRMNG for species where authority = "Linnaeus, 1758" (I have not yet linked species names via the "original work" field, although this could be done for these as per the genera), I currently get this list which numbers 2,746 species names so obviously I am missing around 1,500 species names somehow. Anyway, the above may be useful perhaps... Cheers - Tony Tony 1212 (talk) 19:50, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

GBIF does not work[edit]

Still showing 404 example across all pages, just one example Ammocharis. Can somebody get a bot to delete all instances until it can be fixed. It is very unprofessional keeping poor practice for so long. Andyboorman (talk) 07:43, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

The creator of this article entered a GBIF ID which is wrong at least since 2015. Replace by {{GBIF|{{Subst:#property:P846}}}} to obtain the correct ID. -RLJ (talk) 08:17, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
{{Taxonbar}} does also the job well. Although, not yet fully accepted in WS--Estopedist1 (talk) 14:52, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
@RLJ: Thanks for GBIF fix. Andyboorman (talk) 15:27, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
Can somebody bot fix now? Andyboorman (talk) 19:58, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Poll: Zt- and Pt-templates to be banned?[edit]

The poll "Zt- and Pt-templates to be banned?" is started. Everyone is pleased to vote here: Wikispecies:Requests_for_Comment#Poll:_Zt-_and_Pt-templates_to_be_banned?? Thanks! — The preceding unsigned comment was added by Estopedist1 (talkcontribs) 05:42, 28 September 2020‎.

relisting. One week passed. The poll will end on 12 October 2020 ---Estopedist1 (talk) 07:12, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Idris Abd. Ghani[edit]

This author's name is giving me some confusion, so I'm asking here for help about how to handle it. May be worth noting that this is about an entomologist from Malaysia.

For a start, I recently discovered A.B. Idris is actually the same person. This I've managed to confirm from several sources, including the author's CV on his own website. (So those two pages need to be merged clearly) But then, I found that the same author goes by other names such as "Idris bin Abd. Ghani", "Idris Abdul Ghani" and even "A. G. Idris"! Totalling up the information from these names though, the full expanded name would seem to be "Idris bin Abdul Ghani", but I have my doubts whether we really need to rename the author page to this, as it's not actually used anywhere as far as I know... does anyone think we should switch the author page's name to that expanded name, or would it be best to stick to the current name "Idris Abd. Ghani" (which seems to be the author's own preferred version of the full name anyway)?

However, there is also the related issue of what name to index him by in publications, or even in the sort key on Wikispecies. For the most part, his publications tend to prefer "Idris", though he also is indexed by "Ghani" sometimes. Looking into the topic of Malaysian names on Wikipedia, Idris may not actually have a family name at all! "Abd." (or "Abdul") is likely a patronym, but I'm not entirely sure if "Ghani" is part of the patronym as well or not. "bin" is definitely not a middle name though. So, should we index him by his personal name "Idris" instead of "Ghani"?

Monster Iestyn (talk) 08:14, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

I feel your pain. This essay, a perennial favourite, is of tangential relevance, and should inform all our considerations about naming people: Falsehoods Programmers Believe About Names.
That said, in this case you have the advantage that the subject is apparently living; have you thought about contacting them? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:22, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
Pages and Wikidata items merged. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:31, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for handling the merge Andy. I have considered contacting him but 1) I'm too shy to actually contact them directly if I'm being honest and 2) I feel like I'm close to the right answers without needing to contact the actual person, though I feel I need opinions of others here just in case I'm wrong. Monster Iestyn (talk) 17:34, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
Don't be afraid to ask, its a good way to find out what their name actually is and shows you have the politeness and decency to just ask them so you can present it correctly. I think most people these days realize their names do not always translate well into other languages and are going to be happy they were asked. Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 02:17, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

IPNI abbreviations[edit]

Does anyone know what the IPNI standard abbreviation 'Pl. Or. Nov. Dec.' (published during 1870s at least) stands for, please? IPNI don't say themselves, and google search just gives returns for football trivia. BHL search doesn't work at all with IPNI abbreviations (it has to be exact words, down to the correct accenting on letters like 'é'), so without the full name I can't search for original copies. On which point - can I make a plea that Wikispecies reference citations should not use IPNI abbreviations, since they are useless for finding originals via either BHL or google (I had to go through three separate search phases to slowly build up the full name from IPNI's "Magyar Tud. Tars. Evkon." to eventually reach Magyar Tudományos Akadémia Évkönyvei; it is tedious, to say the least!). - MPF (talk) 09:47, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

For 'Pl. Or. Nov. Dec.' see TL-2. In Google, use inverted commas (") before and after the search expression. -RLJ (talk) 10:07, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
I don't think Magyar Tudományos Akadémia Évkönyvei even is in IPNI (I think you're mixing it up with BPH in this case). I agree though that abbreviated work names are annoying to deal with and I sorely wish the botanical literature would adopt the Payne et al, 2018/Wägele et al., 2011 concept (largely, but not universally taken up in zoology, including in BZN proposals for conservation), but that doesn't seem to be happening anytime soon, putting us at the mercy of idiosyncratic or erroneous abbreviations despite the existence of BPH and IPNI as standards. Circeus (talk) 12:31, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
Thanks! @Circeus: IPNI has it in the citation of "Haberlea rhodopensis Friv., in Magyar Tud. Tars. Evkon. ii. (1835) 249". - MPF (talk) 13:05, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
Apparently a part of the imports from Index Kewensis still has the old format and authors and publications have not yet been fully integrated into the database. In my opinion, authors and publications should be cited in the name section after each name in the standardized, abbreviated form in botanical articles. In the Reference section literature should be cited in full length. --RLJ (talk) 15:03, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
@MPF: Oooh, yeah that would be an issue. When you spot small problems like that, don't be too afraid to flag them to the IPNI staff. They're usually very happy to have things like this reported. "in" records do have a high risk of slipping through the crack of previous standardization efforts. Circeus (talk) 17:12, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
I am probably a bit ahead of time, but when using fully or partly my solution, we don't need these bizarre abbreviations for references. My draft-solution is here User:Estopedist1/Ideal taxon article--Estopedist1 (talk) 18:34, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
Personally I think using the references extension is a little overkill. Most of the dedicated botanical users already expand references anyway. Circeus (talk) 13:18, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
@Estopedist1: I do not think that the "Reflist" style reference list will pass muster here - I think that particular stable door has been well and truly opened for too long. In addition, many botanists prefer to use the full abbreviated style name in the Name Section, as per IPNI. Finally, most prefer the protologue to be the first instance in the Reference List, as it is the most important, whether it be the shortened or full version. Major changes in taxon page format will take the relatively few, but highly active, new taxon page editors away from what they feel is the main focus of their work on WS. Andyboorman (talk) 15:42, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
I find it highly uncomfortable to have the reference at another place remote from the name, as it is done in POWO or in Catalogue of Life, and as it is proposed here. For zoology: do what you like. For botany: I disagree. -RLJ (talk) 18:01, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
Why? Every normal reference in a botanical paper does that (well, unless it's a proposal to conservation, but that's a different kettle of fish) so I absolutely fail to see why, for some reason, protologues should have a unique sttaus other than accidental historical reasons. Zoology made the transition just fine, so there is no jsutification that botany can't, much less shouldn't. At least if they have to cite the full material, they have to get the full reference right (and even THEN they often fail to do so anyway, but it's slightly less likely that unnecessary errors and confusion will be introduced). Circeus (talk) 02:15, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Call for feedback about Wikimedia Foundation Bylaws changes and Board candidate rubric[edit]

Hello. Apologies if you are not reading this message in your native language. Please help translate to your language.

Today the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees starts two calls for feedback. One is about changes to the Bylaws mainly to increase the Board size from 10 to 16 members. The other one is about a trustee candidate rubric to introduce new, more effective ways to evaluate new Board candidates. The Board welcomes your comments through 26 October. For more details, check the full announcement.

Thank you! Qgil-WMF (talk) 17:09, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Pages to merge backlog[edit]

I noticed we have a lot of pages we need merging according to Category:Pages to merge, but it's quite difficult to work with so I made a subpage in my userspace to help if someone wanted to tackle these eventually: User:Monster Iestyn/Pages to merge. I've done my best to try and figure out which should be merged into what, but unfortunately I couldn't figure out all of them. Monster Iestyn (talk) 21:01, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. Three  Done.--Hector Bottai (talk) 23:46, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Jardine & Selby - Illustrations of Ornithology[edit]

This publication have 4 volumes, I was able to find online 1 and 2 at BHL and 4 at Google Books, see here, but unable to find volume 3. Can anybody help? Thanks.--Hector Bottai (talk) 21:52, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

I've asked on Birdforum (here); some of the people there are very good at finding items - MPF (talk) 22:06, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
Great! I didn't know that fórum. Thanks.--Hector Bottai (talk) 22:38, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
@Hector Bottai: Unfortunately it looks like others have had the same problem - volume 3 not available online :-( MPF (talk) 17:10, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
A pitty @MPF: Thanks anyway. It is the source for at least 5 or 6 bird taxa. I will create the template anyway without online reference.--Hector Bottai (talk) 20:19, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
@Hector Bottai: - I'll let you know if it turns up later! - MPF (talk) 21:00, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Template for discussion: template:Date[edit]

I suggest to delete template:Date, which is created by user:Caftaric on March 2020.

  • Nominator's rational:
  1. usage at authority articles is incorrect (eg at Leopold Fitzinger ({{date|1802|4|13}} – {{date|1884|9|20}}), but should be (1802–1884).
  2. usage at taxon articles is redundant (eg at Terebratulidina: [Source: Fossilworks - {{date|2020|06|10}}], but should be {{just|Fossilworks - accessed on 10 June 2020}}

Overall, our goal should be to simplify taxon/authority articles, not to encumber with numerous templates which deter scientists and amateurs.--Estopedist1 (talk) 05:56, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

I remember a decision here at the Pump to list dates in ISO format (not "accessed on 10 June 2020", but "accessed 2020-06-10"). And I do not remember that we have decided, that it is "incorrect" to list the full life dates of authorities. --Thiotrix (talk) 08:24, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
@Thiotrix: Firstly, standardized Wikisubstition is {{subst:CURRENTDAY}} {{subst:CURRENTMONTHNAME}} {{subst:CURRENTYEAR}}, which renders as "13 October 2020"). So it is probably logical mistake not to allow the latter format. Secondly, using full life dates is bad idea, because then we have to struggle with Julian and Gregorian calendar, and it is out of scope topic. Full life dates can be theoretically useful, when we deal with namesake persons, like Chen Wang and both Chen Wang's are entomologist and both are born eg in 1950. So the correct link should be "Chen Wang (entomologist, born January 1950)"--Estopedist1 (talk) 07:09, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Second attempt: Template for discussion: template:occupation and template:nationality[edit]

see also Wikispecies:Village_Pump/Archive_53#Author_page_formatting_and_Caftaric
see also Wikispecies:Village_Pump#Disambiguation_pages_and_Caftaric

I suggest to delete {{Occupation}} and {{Nationality}}, which are created by user:Caftaric in February 2020.

  • Nominator's rational: these templates are redundant and clutter (see this previous discussion to see examples) authorities articles and disambiguation pages in WS. Our goal should be to simplify syntax in articles/pages, not to encumber with numerous templates which deter scientists and amateurs. --Estopedist1 (talk) 07:27, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
I can see why somebody would want to create these templates for coding practice, but agree they do not seem to add value. Going to the Pump for discussion and consensus always slows down bad feelings and editing arguments, a point I have made numerous times. Andyboorman (talk) 07:52, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
These templates are not fully redundant. It is true that {{Occupation}} cites our Wikispecies:Localization table, but in parts it adds languages and occupations not yet mentioned in the table. {{Nationality}} gives translations that are not at all included in the table and cannot be formed by using the int: magic word. If we want to translate Wikispecies for all languages, either our localization table needs to be heavily expanded, as many languages are still missing. Then for each word to translate, there will be more than 100 red links, which will clutter the maintenance category of wanted pages. Or we decide to keep {{Occupation}} and {{Nationality}}. The third possibiliy is to keep the author page untranslated: "Name (birth year–death year), French entomologist." I would prefer to have it translated. --Thiotrix (talk) 08:41, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
more input is needed here to reach some conclusion. Any comment eg user:Monster Iestyn or user:Burmeister? The point about red links stated by user:Thiotrix is not strong because our Special:WantedPages is heavily "cluttered" by translation stuff and hence rather useless--Estopedist1 (talk) 10:02, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
I don't really have much of an opinion on the templates themselves to be honest, that's up to everyone else as to what to do about translations as already pointed out by Thiotrix. Though, it would be a shame to get rid of the templates and not transfer any missing translations over to Wikispecies:Localization where possible. (As an aside, if I knew anything of languages besides English I would help contribute to Wikispecies:Localization, but sadly I do not even have much knowledge of Welsh despite where I live.) Monster Iestyn (talk) 19:00, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
I do not see the need to maintain two systems of internationalization. Improving and expanding Wikispecies:Localization can solve this. Perhaps it is time to open a broad discussion with the community about the internationalization of Wikispecies. Is there a consensus for internationalization? What will be translated, everything? How will it be translated, int:, templates or a hybrid system? Will be made by robots? will disambiguation pages and categories be translates? Burmeister (talk) 21:24, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
I guess most of us concede that without translation stuff, WS will make huge jump to unclutterness and our maintenance work reduces considerably. However, because Wikimedia Foundation provides that WS exist at all, then we may violate global Wikimedia Foundation rules when all translation stuff will be deleted in WS--Estopedist1 (talk) 06:55, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
very likely Wikimedia Fountation rules/guidelines are not problem (see User_talk:Estopedist1#Translation_deletions). Hence, if other users also will start to see that translation stuff is rather big problem, than rather big solution for Wikispecies, then we can do what is best for Wikispecies' users---Estopedist1 (talk) 11:03, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
My view is unchanged on last time, I am all for innovation, want to see things discussed though first, do not want to see any info lost, agree on internationalization of WS. In saying that I agree with @Burmeister: thats perhaps a broader discussion is warranted. I think in WS we need to balance between what we are presenting and Wikimedia norms on other wikis. We are presenting cold hard nomenclatural data, as such many of the words on our pages must not be translated, however many can be. I think as has come up several times recently some of our MOS and site policies and help pages need to be updated. It may bea good idea to look at all these issues and get the housekeeping side in order. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 18:13, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
@Faendalimas: and others: we definitely don't like such monstrum syntax like given below, and which also will make editing in WS almost impossible:
** {{intAuthority}} {{int:for}} {{int:placement}}: {{int:original}}
** {{int:Gender}}: {{int:unchangeable}} ({{int:patronym)
** {{int:Original}} {{int:genus}}: ''[[Megasoma]]'' {{aut|Kirby}}, 1825
** {{int:Original status}}: {{int:valid}} {{int:species}}
** {{int:Primary type}}: {{int:holotype}}
*** {{int:Fixation}}: {{int:designated}} {{int:and}} {{int:unique}}
*** {{int:Description}}: [{{int:adult}}] {{int:male}}
*** {{int:Repository}}: [[Collection of D. Svoboda]]

Hence, translation stuff has no future in WS. But before rooting out this translation stuff (potentially our biggest clutter), only one translation style should be allowed: not {{occupation|acarologist}}, but {{int:acarologist}}--Estopedist1 (talk) 06:33, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Second attempt[edit]

It is hard to do any useful conclusion from previous template-for-discussion. So, again I suggest to delete {{Occupation}} and {{Nationality}}. These are non-standard way of translating. Only consensual style is to use the form "int: ", eg "{{int:Name}}", {{int:acarologist}} etc.--Estopedist1 (talk) 06:24, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

new comments above--Estopedist1 (talk) 06:33, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Enumeratio Methodica Plantarum[edit]

Is Fabricius' 1759 Enumeratio Methodica Plantarum available anywhere online? I've found the 2nd edition (1776), but not the 1759 first edition. Thanks! - MPF (talk) 00:02, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Ah, found it! google books. - MPF (talk) 00:05, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Coracina - Campephagidae[edit]

These family genera needs a deep taxonomic update. I did the firsts shots here and here, but a lot of stuff to be done, new genera and split species. Work for some australasian birds specialist. No time for me, ahead of my Neotropical birds focus.--Hector Bottai (talk) 18:34, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

And when that's done, there's all the major updates in the babblers to do too - and that's shifts between several families (Timaliidae, Sylviidae, Leiothrichidae, etc.), not just genera! - MPF (talk) 12:40, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Date issues on Wikidata[edit]

This Wikidata query shows cases on Wikidata where a taxon's year of publication is inconsistent with the date of birth or death of the taxon author. Some of you may want to fix them there, but also check whether the error also occurs on Wikispecies. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:34, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Did a quick non-representative survey for a couple or three plants and the inconsistency is due, in those cases, as the protologue/description was published after the death of the acknowledged authority by a third party. For example the well known Clianthus puniceus (G.Don) Sol. ex Lindl., Edwards's Bot. Reg. ad t. 1775. (1835) was published by John Lindley in his equally well known Edwards's Botanical Register with a very complete description. Hope this helps. Andyboorman (talk) 14:32, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
In zoology at least, I know of at least one example of a publication with many new taxa that was published over 20 years after the author's death, with someone else as an editor. Monster Iestyn (talk) 14:47, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
A recent exemple, Frederick M. Bayer died in 2007 and is cited as author for 3 taxa in 2019. Christian Ferrer (talk) 16:42, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
In that case, I give you posthumous taxonomic act (Q100384765), as now used on Clianthus puniceus (Q1616054); I'll see if I can get the query updated. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:48, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
Updated query. --Tagishsimon (talk) 16:56, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
Meanwhile I've fixed the authorities or years for some of the animal taxa listed in the Wikidata query, where they were actual mistakes. Monster Iestyn (talk) 17:02, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
I've come across a few humorous ones - not here of course! - in my time, "Linnaeus, 1958" being one such... one could probably add a few bounds to any validation routine (like more than 50 years after an author's death, possibly should raise a flag for manual checking)...Tony 1212 (talk) 18:23, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
A lot of them for zoology seem to be simple author mixups, or sometimes even typos in the year. Unfortunately these seem to have been copied to the Wikipedias (usually by bots), so I've been correcting these too at the same time. (Though for whatever reason one of my edits on German Wikipedia got reverted just now [1], perhaps the admin didn't notice Percy Lowe was born 36 years after Epinephelus marginatus was described?) Monster Iestyn (talk) 19:54, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
For some plants and fungi, the ex-author is mentioned as author and the true authorities are missing. I have fixed some of them. --Thiotrix (talk) 06:24, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Definition of "author" and care in writing these pages[edit]

This is an issue I've seen repeatedly with careless author page creations: Not all named author of a taxonomic paper are taxon authorities. Not even all authors in ZooBank, because If someone has not taxon to their name, they are not a taxon authority. The category is calle dthat way for a reason, and this automatic creation of pages for all listed authors only manages to create more work down the line!

Specific case in point, I'm looking at Oana Paula Popa. First problem: not a taxon author. She's an author to the paper, but all involved taxon are explicitly and solely attributed to Ioana Cristina Constantinescu. Second problem: not an acarologist. Not even close. Looking at her researchgate profile, I find that the three papers registered in Zoobank are the only acarology papers she's ever been involved with: most of her work is genetics- or bivalves-related. In fact, her formal resume says she's a conservation scientist (specialist of invasive bivalves, to be exact) and a molecular scientist.

Taxonomic work clearly isn't in her wheelhouse and based off the information we already had we shouldn't have had a page for her to begin with. Circeus (talk) 17:36, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

hard topic and probably several borderline cases. I think we must to be very rigorous, otherwise we have more articles about persons than taxons. If someone links the (suspicious) person, then proofing obligation lies on the link creator. See eg Talk:Brian R. Silliman with good summarizing by user:Neferkheperre. One specific topic is new taxons with "et al."construction, eg Template:Carter et al., 2011. I suggest that in similar "et-al"-cases we only link first three authors, not all 30 authors.--Estopedist1 (talk) 19:10, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
I am far to be an specialist on this matter. Times ago I learnt that taxon authorities are not only those "naming" a taxon. For example, a paper that demonstrates that a certain genus is poliphiletic and propose the resurrection of two, three, sometimes more genera to accomodate the taxonomic change, they are also taxon authorities. I have no "authority" as an editor to judge whom is and whom is not.--Hector Bottai (talk) 22:03, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
In order to discuss this, we must first work on our definitions, and implications thereof. Many people can be taxon authorities without having named any taxa. Creating taxon name is nomenclatural act. Taxonomic acts include these, plus generic re-assignments, synonymizations, re-reinstatement from synonymization, as discussed in Talk:Brian R. Silliman. If we do not want to include these in our reporting, there is not much point in our existence.
When citing, customary etiquette requires listing all authors in the text body. This of itself does not mean we must create author pages for every one. Judgment must be used there. If any taxon named does not specify specific authors out of the complete list, then all authors are taxon authors. I have been creating links for all, unless I know they are not involved in taxonomy, but may leave them red-linked, for later. Our coverage of taxon authorities is woefully short.
I have examined Oana Paula Popa. She is principally geneticist, which puts her in gray area. however one bivalve publication makes her taxon authority. This one deals with three bivalve morphospecies found to have identical DNA. This is highly analogous to template:Zardus et al., 2014, which synonymizes three morphospecies of Chelonibia on DNA evidence. This assessment is widely accepted by cirripedologists, and has bearing on some of my present research.
Also have looked at Template:Carter et al., 2011. Fairly good number of taxa were named here. Most not in first three authors. In that case, I would look to Burmeister's method of listing page number and author, if different, in taxon lists. I have been copying his method, where possible.
Geneticists and molecular biologists represent gray area. As geneticists, they may add information and authority to taxon papers, produce taxonomic articles, then next week work on Rona or AIDS research. DNA is DNA. There is major philosphical discussion on this topic, including whether morphological descriptions should be abandoned in favor of DNA barcodes. Genetics must be included into our world. Neferkheperre (talk) 22:48, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
"However one bivalve publication makes her taxon authority. This one deals with three bivalve morphospecies found to have identical DNA." That does not make her a taxon authority, merely an author in a paper of taxonomic significance. These are different things. As far as I'm concerned, if the name does not appear after a taxon name, no page. I agree there's all sort of borderline cases, and that is exactly why I prefer to stick to this bright line because at least there's a lot less grey area as to who qualifies as an actual taxon author. (IMO, the zoological code should have just up and said "if the formal authors aren't listed after a new name, it's not available" a while ago to make everyone's life easier.)
As far as Carter et al. goes, it has six formal taxon authorities, that's it. Unless the other authors have separate names to their credit, no pages for them. It's hard enough tracking info about the actual authorities we have to deal with without actively increasing our workload from papers like these. Circeus (talk) 01:15, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
Then tell us your minimum criteria, definition, etc. of taxon authority, so we can work from there. Do you think if no new taxon is named, but there is generic re-assignment or synonymization, it should be ignored. Neferkheperre (talk) 02:03, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
"As far as I'm concerned, if the name does not appear after a taxon name, no page." So under this concept, Frank E. Rheindt, this prolific and important taxon authority does not deserve having a page. I will never agree with that conceptuation.--Hector Bottai (talk) 02:37, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
Of course he would: his name is properly attached to at least Circaetus gallicus sacerdotis. We just don't have a page for those. What did you think I meant? 😕 Circeus (talk) 03:08, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
and also (but we don't have the articles for those on his author page) Phylloscopus rotiensis, Montecincla and Sholicola. At least according to ZooBank Circeus (talk) 03:14, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
Sholicola page created now. Montecincla will need a lot more work, as it is a part of a huge rearrangement of several families of birds (see under #Coracina - Campephagidae 2 sections up!) - MPF (talk) 00:14, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure that we need to be too strict, the author of papers with taxonomic value should be tolerate. One exemple that concern me: Asteromorpha capensis, you see a red link for one of the author, I followed the recomandation 51G from ICZN code and I quoted the author(s) of the recombination, of course it is not compulsory it is just a recomandation, but is very relevant to taxonomy and a page for this author should maybe be tolerated. Of course someone can make research and found that this author is really an author, but that's not my point. This author could very well have modified taxonomy one time or even several times, and therefore he would be worth to be cited here and to have a page, even without being "true taxon author". I follow Neferkheperre. Christian Ferrer (talk) 04:44, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

VN pedantry yet again[edit]

Editor @MPF: is removing English VN in favour of his own pedantic interpretations often with a smug comment. I know Cunninghamia lanceolata is not a fir I am not an ignoramus, but we call it and sell it as Chinese Fir in the UK, so it is the most legitimate common name and its removal is either OR or vandalism. A Screw Pine is also not a gymnosperm and Cabbage Tree definitely not a Brassica, but this unilateral revision of linguistic history and heritage is really not on and must be stopped. We have had this discussion in the past and came to a more or less consensual approach that favoured the most commonly used VN with only name if possible. Indeed WS is not one persons project, so I resurrect this discussion once again. Andyboorman (talk) 11:31, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

We really should not be promoting errors of historical misidentification over science: that sort of stuff may have a place in individual language wikipedias (with relevant explanation about its incorrectness), but not in a strictly science-based place like wikispecies. And I've never heard anyone call it a 'chinese fir' (or 'china fir') in actual speech; people who actually talk about them, talk about their Cunninghamias, just like they talk about their Rhododendrons - loan of the scientific name into English (with English grammar, plural, etc.) is by far the most commonly encountered name. - MPF (talk) 11:39, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
That is rubbish, sorry. Accuracy is a two way street. Biological science and historical vernacular are both valid descriptors, rewriting history to suite your narrative is just revisionism. I am not being dictated to by an over zealous editor who sees only what they want to see and is prepared to use WS as their own domain. Are you prepared to vouch for the so called scientific accuracy for all the language versions of all the vernacular names? I thought not. Lets just get rid of whole section if it is not science enough for you, rather than keep generating bad feeling over trivial stupidities. Andyboorman (talk) 15:09, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
Apparently தமிழ்: எலிக்காது கீரை is Tamil for Rat Spinach can @MPF: or other VN authority verify its veracity? Best regards Andyboorman (talk) 17:27, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Important: maintenance operation on October 27[edit]

-- Trizek (WMF) (talk) 17:10, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Species hemihomonyms[edit]

I think I may have just stumbled on the seemingly rare case of a binomial that is used in both zoology and botany: Cassida major is both the name of a valid species within the beetle genus Cassida, and a name of a plant which is currently a synonym of Scutellaria galericulata. The existing "Cassida major" page seems to have been created for the latter (so it is a redirect), but Cassida links to the same page as if it was the former. This does raise a few questions though:

  • Do we disambiguate species hemihomonyms by family name as with genus hemihomonyms?
  • What should I do about listing the disambiguated species in a species list, e.g. at Cassida? {{Sp}} does not seem equipped for disambiguation, but I don't want to edit such a widely used template in case I break something I wasn't aware of. Is there another template made for this purpose?
  • Actually do I even need to disambiguate the beetle species at all considering the plant name isn't even currently considered valid anyway?

Monster Iestyn (talk) 17:45, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

It also occurs to me there must have been a plant genus also named "Cassida" at some point, but I don't know if it's still used itself or not. Monster Iestyn (talk) 17:51, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
Cassida (the plant genus) is a synonym of Scutellaria L. according to Plants of the World Online (current version). I have just updated the relevant IRMNG record accordingly (formerly it was just "unassessed", as a matter of fact I am looking at some of these and fixing as we speak...). You can search IRMNG for what it knows about any instances of (e.g.) the genus "Cassida" thus: Cheers - Tony Tony 1212 (talk) 19:29, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
See Category:Species-level hemihomonyms. Disambiguation method isn't totally consistent, but mostly uses the family as a disambiguating term. 2600:6C40:5900:13B8:D1C0:C639:F5CA:131B 19:11, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
I see, thanks. The template is still an issue though, last time I dealt with species homonyms (which were not hemihomonyms in that case) I recall had to manually recreate the {{Sp}} template but with a modified piped link. That doesn't seem ideal to me. Monster Iestyn (talk) 19:53, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
In this case, it seems fair to plop the beetle at Cassida major and have a hatnote ({{For}}, of which a more generic variant could be useful for cases like Adansonia) about the plant synonym. putting parentheses in two page names for this is unnecessary pedantry and makes the site less useful IMO. Circeus (talk) 16:10, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
did solution per user:Circeus, see Cassida major. Notices:
      • we should do species-level disambiguation page only if at least three different taxa names exist, or if there exists only two taxa names, but both are valid (ie hemihomonyms).
      • we probably do not need {{SpDAB}} with {{SpDABlast}}, because eg {{sp|C|assida|major (Chrysomelidae)}} does the job--Estopedist1 (talk) 06:18, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
The "(Chrysomelidae)" would stick out quite visibly in a species list though, which is what we don't want I would have thought? By comparison, the {{G}} template at least allows us to hide disambiguation terms like those. Monster Iestyn (talk) 06:32, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

1-, 2-, 3-, 4- etc -letter authority disambiguation pages (eg S. Müller) to be banned[edit]

See also: Wikispecies:Village_Pump/Archive_54#Namesake_authors

We should definitely banned 1-, 2-, 3-, 4- etc -letters authority disambiguation pages (DAB) (eg S. Müller, H.J. Carter, James A. Scott), because:

  1. authority full name can be long, eg "Louis Adolphe Emeline Young", which means that we can create following DABs: L. Young, L.A. Young, L.A.E. Young, L.A. Young, A. Young, A.E. Young, E. Young. Nonsense!? Instead of one DAB: Young
  2. using the sub-DABs like "L. Young", "L.A. Young" means that authorities in these subDABs can be missed in Young which is very dangerous error.
  3. temptation to create mixed style DABs, like James A. Scott with "J.A. Scott", "J. Scott"
  4. massive manual extra work when keeping/creating thousands and thousands duplicate sub-DAB pages, like L. Müller, J. Müller, S. Müller, Fritz Müller. Instead of one DAB: Müller
  5. Eg Slavic forenames maye have different first letter, eg Юлія can be transliterated as Julia, Yulia, Iulia, so we can have DAB pages like J. Ivanova, Y. Ivanova, I. Ivanova. Instead of one DAB: Ivanova --Estopedist1 (talk) 07:20, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
I agree. Someone correct me if I misremember, but as I recall these were generated by our old friend Stephen because his pet template {{Auth}} generated links to these pages and literally could not accommodate full names. With that template gone, these pages have little to no usefulness except for the instances where the given names are actually unknown, and are going to be a nightmare to maintain.
Is there an easy way to generate a list of pages with a period as their second character?Circeus (talk) 13:44, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
@Circeus: wished list: --Estopedist1 (talk) 17:29, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
A few of them may be useful to have in some weird cases (purely as redirects to benefit those searching for authors, though), like the A.B. Idris = Idris Abd. Ghani connection I mentioned in an earlier discussion here on Village Pump. Otherwise I wouldn't really miss them. Monster Iestyn (talk) 01:46, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
Ignore me, I thought this discussion involved the redirects as well. In that case I don't really oppose a ban to these kind of disambiguation pages. Monster Iestyn (talk) 01:50, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
Absolutely in favour of banning such disambiguation pages.--Hector Bottai (talk) 06:27, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
Agree, we do not need these additional disambiguation pages. --Thiotrix (talk) 07:13, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

This name is 100% unnecessary, right?[edit]

So I'm looking at Szawaryn & Tomaszewska, 2020, of which here's the intro:

Recently the classification of the ladybird beetles’ tribe Epilachnini was revised based on morphological and molecular data (Szawaryn et al. 2015, Tomaszewska & Szawaryn 2016). Based on these findings a new classification of the tribe was proposed. The genus Epilachna Chevrolat in Dejean, 1837 sensu lato was split into several clades, with Epilachna sensu stricto limited to New World fauna, and one of the Afrotropical clades, formerly defined as Epilachna sahlbergi-group (Fürsch 1963), has been named Chazeauiana Tomaszewska & Szawaryn, 2015 (Szawaryn et al. 2015), with Epilachna sahlbergi Mulsant, 1850 as the type species. However, that taxon received an unnecessary replacement name, as Mulsant (1850) already described a subgenus of Epilachna named Cleta distributed in Afrotropics, with Epilachna eckloni Mulsant, 1850 as the type species, which also belongs to the E. sahlbergi-group. Consequently Cleta has been elevated to the genus level (Tomaszewska & Szawaryn 2016) and Chazeuiana was synonymized with Cleta as a junior synonym. Nonetheless, authors (Tomaszewska & Szawaryn 2016) were not aware that the name Cleta is preoccupied. It appeared that Duponchel (1845) established the genus Cleta in the family Geometridae (Lepidoptera) that makes Cleta Mulsant (1850) a junior homonym. Therefore, we propose here Afrocleta nom. nov. as a replacement name for Cleta Mulsant, 1850.

And I need a sanity check.

Afrocleta is entirely irrelevant, right? Have I massively misunderstood the code so that somehow the oldest, not homonymic name forthis genus is something other than Chazeauiana Tomaszewska & Szawaryn, 2015? And if that is the case, there is no possible justification whatsoever under the code for coining this new replacement name? Circeus (talk) 23:36, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

The relevant part of the code seems to be here. As far as I can tell just from this abstract alone you would seem to be correct, the valid name should be Chazeauiana Tomaszewska & Szawaryn, 2015. However, checking the 2016 article by the same authors (see here) reveals that Hypsa Mulsant, 1850 is also a synonym and could be a valid name, unless it is also a homonym or has since been removed from synonymy? Monster Iestyn (talk) 01:49, 31 October 2020 (UTC)