Wikispecies:Village Pump

From Wikispecies
(Redirected from WS:V)
Jump to: navigation, search

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.

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

Village pump in other languages: Czech - česky · Finnish - Suomi · French - Français · Hungarian - Magyar · Korean - 한국어 · Russian - Русский · Ukrainian - Українська · Hindi - हिन्दी · Nepali - नेपाली
Post a comment
if you use the title box, you don't need to put a title in the body
1 (2004-09-21/2005-01-05) 2 (2005-01-05/2005-08-23)
3 (2005-08-24/2005-12-31) 4 (2006-01-01/2005-05-31)
5 (2006-06-01/2006-12-16) 6 (2006-12-17/2006-12-31)
7 (2007-01-01/2007-02-28) 8 (2007-03-01/2007-04-30)
9 (2007-05-01/2007-08-31) 10 (2007-09-01/2007-10-31)
11 (2007-11-01/2007-12-31) 12 (2008-01-01/2008-02-28)
13 (2008-03-01/2008-04-28) 14 (2008-04-29/2008-06-30)
15 (2008-07-01/2008-09-30) 16 (2008-10-01/2008-12-25)
17 (2008-12-26/2009-02-28) 18 (2009-03-01/2009-06-30)
19 (2009-07-01/2009-12-31) 20 (2010-01-01/2010-06-30)
21 (2010-07-01/2010-12-31) 22 (2011-01-01/2011-06-30)
23 (2011-07-01/2011-12-31) 24 (2012-01-01/2012-12-31)
25 (2013-01-01/2013-12-31) 26 (2014-01-01/2014-12-31)
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/ …)

Wikimania 2017[edit]

Wikimania 2017, the annual conference of the Wikimedia movement, will be held in Montreal next week. Are any of you going?

I will be there. I have a round-table discussion session, "Wikispecies and Wikidata - a match made in heaven, or hell?", scheduled for Saturday, and hope to see some of you there. There will also be an etherpad (URL to follow), for anyone wishing to participate remotely. This is the only Wikispecies-specific session in this year's programme, though several of the more general sessions are relevant. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:07, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Interesting read is anyone with an understanding and knowledge of Wikispecies from the point of view of a taxonomist attending this? If not I would like to prepare a response to this. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 16:59, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
This seems a concoction of a totalitarian-regime-style trial with Mr. Mabbett in the role of the prosecutor bringing the proceedings in favor of annihilating WS within WD but with no representative out there to plead for the accused. Mariusm (talk) 05:25, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
I would not say, it looked like a trial. Maybe, it will have some similarity with a conspirative meeting. --Franz Xaver (talk) 09:19, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
I do not know about a trial or conspiracy, but I do know that WD is about mass data for data handlers and WS is about taxonomic data for scientists and interested users. Chalk and cheese. Andyboorman (talk) 10:10, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
In essence I agree with Andy Boorman. As far as I understand it Andy Mabbett puts the limelight on an important question. The abstract of his Open Submission is pretty straightforward, and to me it certainly does not look like any sort of "prosecution". Personally I have no problem seeing a future where Wikispecies and Wikidata can function side by side, and that both projects will benefit from it. Unfortunately and regardless of this discussion, I can't attend at this years Wikimania. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 12:12, 3 August 2017 (UTC).
It's hard to judge the content of the presentation based on the title itself (just like judging a book by its cover), especially when a title has a lot of creativity leeway to attract attendees. I wonder if the presentation slides will be uploaded after Wikimania so we can all take a look. OhanaUnitedTalk page, 19:03, 3 August 2017 (UTC).

I agree with OhanaUnited, and adds a copy of the abstract, to aid in further discussion:

On the face of it, Wikispecies can easily be populated with data from Wikidata. But there is much resistance to this within the Wikispecies community. Do they have a point? Are Wikidata's interface and/ or community norms off-putting to the taxonomists who make up a significant proportion of Wikispecies editors? How can their needs be accommodated? Do we need to store data more than once?
What will attendees take away from this session?
An understanding of the issues currently affecting the relationship between Wikidata and Wikispecies, and ideas for how to address them.

Also, the presentation slides would indeed be interesting to see, but I don't know whether it is praxis to upload them or not. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 20:15, 3 August 2017 (UTC).

My issue is the statement in the abstract that "Wikispecies can easily be populated with data from Wikidata." Not sure I totally agree with this, I think the issue there as has been discussed before is that the information at Wikidata is not including all the information needed for a correct taxonomic statement on each species. Here we develop each page with the information needed by taxonomists and others interested in this informaton. To me Wikidata should mine the data from wikispecies or the links to it and actually do a genuine service by being the source of information for Wikipedia. Particularly in our case, in the area of taxoboxes. Recent statements for example that Wikipedia can do species accounts better than Wikispecies I find self grandiose and completely untrue. There are many species accounts on Wikipedia with incorrect taxoboxes, and different taxoboxes between languages. Reign in the Wikipedia so they all use nomenclature instead of constantly shoving an unreviewed database down wikispecies throat that in places is just not correct. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 20:38, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
Indeed there are difficulties – that's exactly why this issue should be brought to the Wikimania conference. For instance it can be difficult to handle synonyms correctly, which is often apparent in the different Wikipedias. As an example several language versions of Wikipedia lists the species (and legit taxon) Devario aequipinnatus under the (dubious) synonym Danio aequipinnatus. This can easily be seen on the taxon's equivalent Wikidata page. Here Wikidata might be a huge help, if as Scott say it mines the information from Wikispecies, and the Wikipedias then automatically implement that data into their taxoboxes. However I'm not sure whether that can actually be done, in practice. In other words I don't know whether it is possible for the Wikidata software to differentiate between the multitude of sister projects, and only import taxobox data from a specific one of them (but never export to it), and then "push" that data to the others (but never fetch that data from them). I'm confident Mabbett and the other Wikidata gurus know whether it can be done, and if not perhaps it is possible to implement in the future. It is a very versatile and competent software, after all.
Another, bigger problem in regards to synonymy is that the same name can be a synonym for several other, very different but legit taxa. For instance the name "A" might be a synonym for the valid taxa "B", "C", and "D". There are hundreds if not thousands of such examples. The normal Wikimedia approach to handle duplicates is of course to use disambiguation pages, but for synonyms this wont work. Sure the synonym "A" can be the source of a disambiguation page, but it must also be listed on every single one of the "B", "C" and "D" (but not "E" etc.) taxon pages, or else the taxonomic data on those pages will be incomplete. Can Wikidata solve this? I don't know. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 09:06, 4 August 2017 (UTC).
Why beat around the bush? Mr. Mabbett clearly stated his opinion in the past that WS's role is to serve as a front-end for WD, where all the data will be entered at WD and the sole role of WS will be to take it from there and display it in a suitable format. This argument he's going to present at the conference with no-one to contradict him there. All I know is that this idea is thoroughly bad and that someone should tell this to the audience. Mariusm (talk) 14:38, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
I think to be fair it was me that said WS could be a front end but not the way you describe it. I feel that Wikispecies should develop the pages and Wikidata can template the data for Wikipedia`s to utilise in taxoboxes. This way all wikipedia taxoboxes would be the same irrespective of language, as Nomenclatural information should be, it is designed under the codes to cross language barriers. Nomenclatural data is complex and precise. Not something Wikidata has the people to do well. There are a few there but not many. But they can bundle the data in a usable format for insertion into Wikipedia taxoboxes. Trying to have everything on Wikidata is a failure to appreciate where skill sets are. That is generally a big mistake in database design. The fact that their database is not relational is also disconcerting. However that`s their design issue and one that can be worked around. However in all honesty if Wikipedia`s are not going to migrate to a system of utilising Wikidata in a way that will produce the best outcome I am not sure what the point is. I certainly see no reason to populate our data from Wikidata if Wikipedia will not do it appropriately. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 17:10, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
My point as well. Also, we must remember that Wikispecies is not a sovereign site in the Internet universe. It is a part of the Wikimedia community. In a way Wikidata is for information what Commons is for images. Should we ban pictures from Commons and instead upload "our own" images to Wikispecies? No, of course not. The reason is that Commons does this so much better – but that doesn't mean that the sole purpose of Wikispecies is to serve as a front-end for Commons media files! Wikidata works in the same way, only it serves us dry data rather than media files.
The whole point of having different sister projects is that each of the projects have their own and very specific purposes. Wikispecies is good at presenting hard facts regarding taxonomic nomenclature, Wiktionary is a good dictionary, Wikinews is getting better and better at handing us the recent tidings, and so forth. Wikidata is one of those sister projects. It is as a hub collecting and serving structured data to and from almost all of the other wikis, but nothing much more. In other words Wikidata is to Wikispecies what an index is to a book. It's nice to have an index, but the index can never replace the story told by the book itself. The problem for Wikidata is that it serves as a single index for many, many books (i.e. wikis) but I sincerely believe that problem can be overcome, and in a good way for all projects.
To conclude my point of view: It is far better to have several specialized sister projects benefitting from each other, rather than to scrap them all and instead create one huge Omnipedia carrying all of the information. And the only way those different sister projects can benefit from each other is by sharing their data via the Wikidata hub. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 20:57, 4 August 2017 (UTC).
Well then Scott and Tommy, how can it happen that a person representing himself as a WS administrator is lecturing and endorsing the opposite of our consensus while the points you've just raised above are getting no chance of being heard at the conference? And why didn't Mr. Mabbett ask for our opinion before going on and presenting his lecture? As a WS administrator he has some obligations towards the community among which is not to go out and misrepresent us. Mariusm (talk) 06:07, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
Please read the submission again, per the link given above. There you will find that:
  • it is not a "lecture by Mabbett" as you say, it is a roundtable discussion. In the submission he is not endorsing any viewpoint opposite to anything. In fact he asks the question "How can the needs of Wikispecies be accommodated?" If anything at all that seems helpful to us, rather than the opposite.
  • it is still an open submission. It is not yet accepted and therefore perhaps will not take place. Hence Mabbett actually is asking for opinions.
Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 11:47, 5 August 2017 (UTC).
Yes, of course. However, does anyone at the round-table know about the needs of Wikispecies? I have doubts. The list of properties and qualifiers in D:Wikidata:WikiProject Taxonomy is insufficient for both taxonomic and nomenclatural purposes: (1) There exists D:Property:P1420, but no difference is made between homotypic and heterotypic synonyms. In the latter case, there should be given the possibility to add references for the synonymization. (2) There exists D:Property:P427, but where can we see, if such a type is the holotype, a lectotype or a neotype, and in both latter cases, who in what place has designated this type? Moreover, there exist difference concerning types between zoological and botanical codes, and between types of species/subspecific taxa and types of higher rank taxa. I am in doubt, if one simple property would be able to serve the needs of all. (3) What about homonyms? (4) What about blocking names? (5) Generally, I am missing awareness, that taxa and names of taxa are a different matter, probably needing different kinds of data objects. --Franz Xaver (talk) 13:12, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
"How can the needs of Wikispecies be accommodated?" really means "How can my way of thinking be implemented?" and "round-table" and "lecture" both involve persons who are unaware of our arguments and therefor either way it's "unfair" of Mabbett to make his submission the way he did. Mariusm (talk) 13:25, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
We should remember that the annual Wikimania conference and nearly all of its roundtables, workshops – and yes even lectures – are open to each and every one of us. For various and rather obvious reasons not all of us can attend every year, but that is also why each conference is held in different parts of the world. Wikimedia is a global organisation, and every community member should have the possibility to partake at some point or another. Approximately 700–800 people attends Wikimania every year. It's open to everyone within the community, and if we taxonomists doesn't show up, quite frankly we can only blame ourselves. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 13:38, 5 August 2017 (UTC).
As an outsider interested in both Wikidata and Wikispecies, it seems that there is lots of scope for fruitful collaboration. For example, things such as people and journals would seem an obvious thing for Wikidata to host and Wikispecies to make use of. Wikidata is already set up to be able to describe journals in lots of detail (including multiple identifiers, links to publishers, URLs for services to get lists of all or most recent articles, etc.). It seems sensible to make use of this wherever possible. One could imagine a discussion where things that are core to Wikispecies are identified, and those that are relevant but not necessarily unique to Wikispecies (e.g., people, journals, references) could be devolved to Wikidata, assuming it can provide the information Wikispecies needs. Wikidata does have limitations, but so does Wikispecies. For example, Franz Xaver wrote of Wikidata: "Generally, I am missing awareness, that taxa and names of taxa are a different matter, probably needing different kinds of data objects". I would argue Wikispecies also fails to make a clean distinction between names and taxa. For example, the use of redirects for synonyms means we lose an opportunity to provide details about that particular name (where was it published, why is it considered to be a synonym, etc.). From my perspective Wikispecies would be more valuable if it focussed on nomenclature rather than taxonomy, or at least treated both equally. At the moment it seems something of a mishmash. Lastly, it seems that dialogue is going to be a challenge given that both Wikidata and Wikispecies are somewhat fluid communities comprising people with rather different visions of what the goals are. --Rdmpage (talk) 09:47, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
@Rdmpage: You are right, that at present also a good portion of WS is not, where it should be. Anyway, it is not true, that "the use of redirects for synonyms means we lose an opportunity to provide details about that particular name". See for example Brackenridgea zanguebarica or Ouratea longifolia. It is very well possible to provide all these informations together at one place in a taxon page. It is not possible to deal with nomenclature alone, without having based it on a definite taxonomic concept. Nomenclature does not make any sense, when not at first instance it is made clear, which taxa are to be distinguished and where are the limits between the taxa – see ICN Principle IV: Each taxonomic group with a particular circumscription, position, and rank can bear only one correct name ... That means, as long as the circumscription of the taxa is not clear, it is not possible to apply the rules of the Code concerning priority. Regards --Franz Xaver (talk) 10:56, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
Not sure I follow "Nomenclature does not make any sense, when not at first instance it is made clear, which taxa are to be distinguished and where are the limits between the taxa" We have databases of names (e.g., IPNI) that simply record names and their publication, but which make no judgements as to what taxon the name applies to. This is what I mean by nomenclature, the act of publishing a name is a "fact", doesn't that exist independently of what taxon (if nay) it applies to? Regarding redirects, to me it makes more sense to have one page per name, so that the page for Ochna longifolia would be a page that gives the publication details for that name, and is also linked to any nomenclatural synonyms. A taxon page would gather all the names that have been applied to that taxon (homotypic and heterotypic synonyms). That way you can avoid treating many names as simply redirects to other names. --Rdmpage (talk) 13:41, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
@Rdmpage: Sure, it is possible to restrict nomenclature only to the publication data of the respective names. However, if this is, what WS is supposed to be about, for me personally it does not make any sense to invest a single hour in such a project. IPNI already is existing and I see no merit in an exercise to repeat the same thing under the name of WS. There would be no gain of any surplus value, compared to IPNI. I am aiming at something providing information comparable to WCSP, but covering families not covered by the Kew project. Anyway, nomenclature is not only about publication of a certain name, but a set of rules within the Code requires, that at first instance the circumscription of taxa is fixed. This concerns rules about priority, as this is about the oldest name belonging to a certain taxon, and about conservation. I would not be satisfied with a list of names, which cannot be applied correctly to anything beyond their type collection, because nobody is defining taxa and their circumscription. --Franz Xaver (talk) 15:26, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
Surely it can be about both? Treat BOTH names AND taxa as first class citizens, and show the links between them. Furthermore, WS does add value beyond IPNI as IPNI references are rather cryptic "micro citations" that mean little to people who aren't familiar with the botanical literature, whereas most WS citations are given in full and often provide links digitised versions of those references.--Rdmpage (talk) 16:00, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
A taxon page has to include not only homotypic and heterotypic synonyms, but also misapplied names, if it is supposed to provide a key to the existing taxonomic and floristic literature – see e.g. Tinospora macrocarpa.
There is nothing bad with redirects. For, example they can be categorised: Ochna longifolia is listed in the list of taxon names authored by Jean-Baptiste Lamarck. Unfortunatelly, is is not possible to have interwiki links to redirect pages. This is a shortcoming of WD, that this possibility is not provided, most easily noticed in monotypic genera --Franz Xaver (talk) 15:26, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
As far as I see, a main problem of WD is, that the data objects are just names, with separate objects for basionyms and other synonyms, but they are used for administration of interwiki links, i.e. for connecting wikipedia articles describing taxa. As a consequence, there exist many inconsistencies with the interwiki links. For example, it would make sense to have interwiki links between en:Polygala macradenia and sv:Hebecarpa macradenia, as both are dealing with the same species, however WD has two different data objects: D:Q15580855 and D:Q17467552, and thus two different sets of interwiki links. In my opinion, a solution could be to have own data objects for taxa, which are used for administration of interwiki links, and a separate set of data objects for names, which are attributed to taxa by some properties. --Franz Xaver (talk) 11:24, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
I agree that having separate objects for taxa and for names makes sense. Names are the domain of nomenclators, and hence would have idenfifiers from IPNI, IndexFungorum, ION, ZooBank, etc., and links to the publications that published those names. Taxa would have links to higher and lower taxa, and links to the name being applied to that taxon. I'm assuming the reason for two objects for the same taxon that you gave is because Wikidata has been automatically populated by data from the different Wikis, and it's not obvious that these two pages are about the same taxon (at least to the tools used to populate Wikidata). --Rdmpage (talk) 13:35, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
@Rdmpage: Adding Polygala macradenia as the basionym to D:Q17467552 does not improve anything concerning the interwiki links, although this makes it clear, that both names belong to the same species. --Franz Xaver (talk) 15:26, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
Sure, because as far as I know the Wikipedia projects are not using Wikidata to reconcile different taxonomic pages. I guess this is the long term vision though. --Rdmpage (talk) 16:00, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
It feels like the core issue is whether or not a species is a piece of data. If it is, then it could be represented as an item in wikidata with various properties. If it is in fact a larger concept (which I feel like is the view of most wikispecies contributors) than wikispecies should make use of the various data hosted on wikidata (names, references etc.) to describe the species. Personally, I would take the extreme approach and say wikidata entries should not be relational. So Polygala macradenia should not point to Hebecarpa macradenia, nor should Hebecarpa point to the family Polygalaceae. However, this means wikidata could not be effectively used to create taxoboxes throughout wikipedia.Voganaa (talk) 19:51, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
@Voganaa:"So Polygala macradenia should not point to Hebecarpa macradenia, nor should Hebecarpa point to the family Polygalaceae." – If this was the path to follow, I cannot imagine, how Wikidata should be useful for anything. As far as I can see, at present it does not even properly provide the service, which it is supposed to do, i.e. administration of interwiki links between WP articles describing the same biological objects. Typically, Wikipedia articles are on larger concepts, which not necessarily have a 1:1 counterpart in other language versions, as these concepts are centered around words in that languages, i.e. lemmas. And of course, different languages may follow different concepts. Maybe I don't understand, what you mean, when you write "piece of data". Probably many of the Wikidata objects (e.g. D:Q10884) are representing "larger concepts" and are not pieces of data.
Anyway, if I am searching for taxonomic or nomenclatural data, I would not use WD to get informed. Yes, there are existing many data objects on taxon names, but usually there is not much information beyond the fact, that the name is existing. It is better to go directly to IPNI, Tropicos or WCSP. WD seems to be only a big heap of placeholders. --Franz Xaver (talk) 22:07, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

@Voganaa: As far as I understand (and regardless of species and taxa) the Wikidata database isn't relational, by design. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 20:01, 7 August 2017 (UTC).

@Tommy Kronkvist: Ahh, well I think I've misunderstood how the Taxobox is intended to be implemented.Voganaa (talk) 20:13, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
I'm puzzled by the notion that "Wikidata database isn't relational". Wikidata is full of relations between entities (e.g., a journal may be linked to its publisher, place of publications, various identifiers, etc.). Not all relationships need to be expressed in a Wikidata item, many can be computed. For example, if an article has a Wikidata item and that item is linked to the Wikidata item for the author, we can then compute a list of publications for the author, rather than list them explicitly on the author's Wikidata itsm. Likewise, from my perspective we should have some relationships between names in Wikidata. For example, IPNI often has information on the basionym of a name. We could use that to compute all the objective synonyms of a name. A more sophisticated approach would be to link names to types, and then compute object synonyms that way. I think it's worth thinking about Wikidata as much more than a way to standardise information across the various Wikipedias. It is potentially much more useful than that. --Rdmpage (talk) 21:52, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
Indeed one can do a lot of complex searches within Wikidata (as in any database) and this will of course show a lot of relations between objects. But that's using the word "relation" solely in the semantical way. What I meant is that from a technical viewpoint Wikidata isn't constructed as a relational database. I might be wrong though: while I add a lot of data to Wikidata, I'm not one of the tech guys there. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 08:45, 9 August 2017 (UTC).
@Tommy Kronkvist: Ah, I did wonder whether that's what you meant by "relational", but I guess I wasn't quite sure why this was relevant to the discussion. Wikidata isn't a relational database as such, although it runs on MediaWiki which itself uses relational databases such as MySQL and Postgres to store the data. Wikidata can be thought of as a key-value store (it has properties with values), or a graph database (it stores relationships), or a triple store (which is how the SPARQL interface at treats Wikidata). — The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rdmpage (talkcontribs) 20:51, 9 August 2017 (UTC).
Thanks for the information! It was Faendalimas who at 17:10, 4 August 2017 (UTC) first stated that the database isn't relational, which Voganaa then caught up on. Indeed it's not really relevant to the discussion (especially given how Wikidata's database is designed) but I sort of wanted to sum things up. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 11:51, 10 August 2017 (UTC).

Session starting[edit]

The etherpad is at: etherpad:p/Wikimania2017-Wikispecies+Wikidata. Session starts ~2.5 hours from now. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:23, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Reading the session's protocol here it's obvious that the participants didn't have a clue on our point of view on the matter. Mariusm (talk) 06:59, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
No Mariusm, you are once again completely wrong. I've refrained from commenting until the session was past, but it's very obvious from the ignorant bile you have spilled here, and on the session's talk page, that you have no clue what you're talking about with regard to Wikimania, Wikidata, my proposal, the backgrounds (or even identity) of those who participated, the nature and contents of the discussion, or our policy on Assuming Good Faith. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:03, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
So how was the question Is Wikidata complex enough yet? answered by the participants? --Succu (talk) 18:26, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
Are there any conclusions about how WS and WD can more tighly work together, Mr. Mabbett? --Succu (talk) 21:46, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
@Succu: Let me answer this in a more general way: I was attending the session together with @Regiomontanus: and had the feeling that no other people were in the room who are deeper in taxonomy than we are - this was also the conclusion after asking the audience about that. So it was more a round table discussing how to get the people envolved, who are experts in this topic, than to overrun them with Wikidata stuff. So - it is well known that I am not really a fan of having one fixed taxonomy set as it is the case in wikispecies by concept (and saying all this, I am aware, that I am one of the drivers of excluding wikispecies links from the german wikipedia in the last years) and I am also very aware of all the problems we have in wikidata on the parallel hypothesis of taxa names / taxa / synonyms / whatever - who would know better than you? So my thought would be that it's not the best way to discuss options to get wikispecies and wikidata closer to each other to have positive effects without all partys on board and from my feeling Andy Mabbett also knows about that. So, from my opinion, if you want to have "any conclusions about how WS and WD can more tighly work together", there is now way without first sit together and discuss with each other on eye-level than discussing over the heads of each other from the one or other position. I think, it will be a long way to get wikidata at a point where it will be really useful as a taxonomy database, but on the other hand I also would say that this is true for wikispecies - and maybe going hand in hand would be one option to get the best of both worlds. One suggestion was (I think coming from a later discussion with Andy Mabbett) to start with something beside taxa and taxonomy - so e.g. start with the items of the people (authorities), who are collected both in wikidata and wikispecies and lead to double work, mistakes and dublicates. As a further suggestion: Maybe it's time for a cross-wiki-meeting with peaople from wikipedias, wikispecies, wikidata, ... to discuss how to move forward. Only suggestions, but I know that there will be interest in the topic and ways to realize this, if it is wanted. All the best -- Achim Raschka (talk) 10:28, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
Thanks to Achim Raschka for his elaborate statement. In my opinion, a meeting as suggested by Achim will be necessary sometimes, but hopefully with a longer period of preparations in advance than this time. It was not very pleasant to be notified only one week before this meeting happened – too late for anything. Next Wikimania will be in Cape Town – nice place for a naturalist, but not just around the corner. Would it be possilbe to send delegates from WS, WD and Wikipedias for a meeting there? (Who should attend from our side? Whom would we like to meet there from WD? Who would pay for the travel costs?) Or maybe it would be easier to organise a meeting somewhere in Europe or North America. (Where?) Montreal should have been a good place for this, but too late, when we heard about it. --Franz Xaver (talk) 12:23, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
"a longer period of preparations in advance than this time" How much longer? Wikispecies:Wikidata was created in April 2015. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:49, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
I don't see any rush for it - to get something starting in summer of next year would be great from my opinion. @Franz Xaver: For us I think it would be easy to arrange a meeting in Berlin together with the WikiData-Team and delegantes from all interested Wikiworlds. I would think WMDE would be able and willing to finance a meeting like this with pleasure. I don't see Cape Town as a real option for this. What do you think? -- Achim Raschka (talk) 12:57, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
@Achim Raschka: Yes, of course, Berlin is a good option. (Although, booking with Air Berlin seems to be risky now.) Actually, I did not really expect, somebody would be funding a meeting in Cape Town. (So, I will have to go for the Cape flora at a different occasion.) @Pigsonthewing: "How much longer?" Long enough, at least, to be able to decide about participating. --Franz Xaver (talk) 13:49, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
Mr. Mabbett calls my postings "ignorant bile" yet he refuses to listen to our arguments why his proposal isn't attractive to us. Mariusm (talk) 10:52, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
Yet another false claim, by Mariusm, about me. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:38, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Cacti identification request[edit]

From our sister: c:Commons:Help_desk#Looking_for_cacti-knowledgeable_people_to_help_me_upload_a_bunch_of_cacti_photos. —Justin (koavf)TCM 21:46, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

César I. Barrio-Amorós[edit]

Is César I. Barrio-Amorós possibly a typo for César L. Barrio Amorós ? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:23, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes [1], [2]. I've redirected the page. Korg (talk) 20:22, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
Thank you. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:29, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Resolved.

Spellchecking publication-titles and type-info[edit]

Recently @Dan Koehl: is using the AWB program to "correct" the spelling of publication-titles and of type information. I was certain until now that the original spelling/phrasing of both can't be manipulated or changed as we always strive to keep the original intact due to scientific consistency. Even when the original is misspelled or mis-phrased it must remain as it was originally spelled or phrased. Am I right in this presumption? Mariusm (talk) 12:00, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Fully agree. We shoud never change what is written in the original publication.--Hector Bottai (talk) 12:09, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
Do we have any written consensus for this? I have been trying to find something written on this, but without success. Its important that, if this is part of the WS rules, we can refer to such a consensus, and personally, I would suggest that such misspelling are tagged with the template "Template:Not_a_typo" tag, in order to avoid that such titles gets corrected against such a possible rule. Dan Koehl (talk) 12:52, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
Using the notatypo template would also be good in cases like this: where I first corrected continedcontinued, but after double-checking the page, a language project by Andreas Schroeter and Patrick Uecker, describing a conține as to contain to hold to be composed of to be made up of to comprise , I felt the safest thing was to revert my own edit. After this, user @Burmeister: again changed continedcontinued, and now I really dont know what is right. If the contined is correct and it would be submitted within the Template:Not_a_typo like {{Not_a_typo|contined}} we would all know, including AutoWikiBrowser, that its not a typo, and should not be corrected. — The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dan Koehl (talkcontribs) 13:46, 30 August 2017‎.
I'm not a native english speaker, so I assume that contined was a typo/error committed by me (in some entries I wrote continued and in other I wrote contined), and continued was the "correct spelling" corrected by you, if I wrong I'm sorry for that. Burmeister (talk) 13:51, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
No problem at all @Burmeister:, and I was assuming the same, in any case, it would be good to establish some sort of routines for this, and to make it easier to spell-check pages, manually, with AutoWikiBrowser or with a bot. What we may need now, is some sort of consensus regarding those issues? Dan Koehl (talk) 13:58, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
I agree, that publication titles have to reproduce the original spelling. Corrections should only be done after having compared with the original. This means, in my opinion, that such corrections should not be done by bots. Is it possible to change the settings of a bot, that it generally would not touch publication titles? --Franz Xaver (talk) 14:09, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
About the discussion, I agree with the others, publications title and type localities have to reproduce the original spelling. Burmeister (talk) 14:20, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
It seems my suggestion o using the "Template:Not_a_typo" tag at all misspellings, did not gain any cmments. So I ask alternatively, since the WS if full of hundreds with misspellings, also in the publication titles sections, how should we know when the misspeling is reproducing the original spelling, and when its not, its just an error by the editor? — The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dan Koehl (talkcontribs) 10:28, 31 August 2017 (UTC).
Using the "Template:Not_a_typo", in my opinion, is a good solution in many cases, but here it would be better to have some solution, which enables to mark a longer sequence of text as being written in a certain language. In the linked example, it is clear, that the Spanish word autor is correct and must not be changed into the English word author, provided that this can be recognised as being Spanish. How can you be sure, that a spell-checking bot would not change the words en casa into in case?
Anyway, I don't think, that a spell-checking bot is the best solution for WS, as texts are rather short an in a variety of languages, so that it is risky, that a bot would make unwanted "corrections" of publication titles, type localities etc. Most errors can only be corrected by checking with the original publication. Back to the example linked above: The title of the Chilean flora by Gay actually is Flora Chilena not Flora Chileana and the part on Algas by Montagne starts from page 228 to 393. As the Algae were published in two parts, i.e. pages 228–256 in 1852 and pages 257–393 in 1854 (see [3]), the whole reference needs a refreshment. A spell-checking bot here can contribute nothing. --Franz Xaver (talk) 11:37, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
@Franz Xaver:, thanks for your input, I believe that a spell-checking bot would not change the words en casa into in case, IF en casa is tagged with the lang template like ({{lang|es|en casa}}). Dan Koehl (talk) 00:23, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
The recent run of spell-checking bot has not only "corrected" original text in references and type localities, but also the file names of images. Settings of the bot have to be adjusted to skip text that is in template:image. --Thiotrix (talk) 07:25, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
That is news for me, @Thiotrix:, would you be kind and inform me which file it is, or give a link to the edit? Dan Koehl (talk) 13:05, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
Examples are the last edits on Ectocarpus fasciculatus, Litosiphon, and Litosiphon laminariae. --Thiotrix (talk) 13:35, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
Thank you @Thiotrix:, I see what you mean. By all means, it seems as of the temlate did not break the exposure of the picture e.g. didnt change the filename, but I reverted those edits anyway. It actually makes more sense to change the filenames at commons, IF sea-weed is regarded as less correct than seaweed. Dan Koehl (talk) 16:18, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
It looks however, like most of those file names reflect the original spelling, why I agree that it makes sense to name those files as the original naming, why the "Template:Not_a_typo" may be useful. I will await more opinions on this subject though, and keep an eye on that image file names dont get changed until we can reach some consenus also on this issue. Dan Koehl (talk) 16:18, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
An alternative to the template "Template:Not_a_typo" tag, is when the text has origin in a non-english language, like on the page Spongites verruculosus where the Portugese spelling of Rio de Janeiro is protected with‎ ({{lang|pt|Rio de Janero}}). Dan Koehl (talk) 16:29, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
{{Lang}} should always be used in such cases, as it marks up the text, semantically, as being in the given language not English, which aids, for example, screen-reading software and translation tools. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:55, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Trying out the {{Lang}} on some pages (example), I suddenly realized that instead of tagging specific words, maybe the entire non-english text should be tagged, like this edit? Dan Koehl (talk) 16:41, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
@Dan Koehl: Precisely so, yes. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:57, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
I also would like to ask the WS community if you agree that a page category like [[Category:Pages with non-english content]] could be useful, in order to identify and categorize pages that may need maintenance like inserting {{Lang}} tags? Dan Koehl (talk) 17:23, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
@Dan Koehl: I don't think, that such a category would be a good idea. As soon as type localities and all relevant references are added to taxon pages, most of them will be in this category. Taxon pages with short texts in a variety of languages will be the rule. For example, I counted five different languages in Brackenridgea arenaria or Luxemburgia octandra. So, such a category will not be very helpful with maintainance tasks, but itself will generate workload for keeping it up to date. Generally, I would prefer, that a spell-checking bot is not used at all. That's a good tool for wikipedias, where we have long texts in only one language, but not here. --Franz Xaver (talk) 22:38, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
So far, I inserted [[Category:Pages needing cleanup]] on three pages with non-english content, as a test. Dan Koehl (talk) 17:30, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
I am late to this topic, but want to add that I strongly support keeping original spelling errors in titles. A good example from my field: Trewavas, E. (1949) The origin and evolution of the cichlid fisches [sic] of the Great African lakes, with special reference to Lake Nyasa. Comptes Rendus 13th Congrès International de Zoologie 1948: 365-368. I also agree with Franz's comment above that a spell-checking bot should not be used on WS. There would seem to be many possibilities for "errors" to be "corrected" that are actually correctly formed (or not!) scientific names. For example, I can imagine a bot "correcting" sapiens to the English word sapient. MKOliver (talk) 00:44, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

OK. So, jokingly, who supports, strongly, that Wikispecies have, or at least had, hundreds of misspelled pages?


Im afraid that we somehow have to look into this, and find a solution where original spelling will remain, when it should be misspelled, but that we can at least once a month clean ot misspellings, which should not be on the project? Instead of remining with problem that most users dont see, neglect, or simply close their eyes for, let us put our heads together and see if we can find a solution? Dan Koehl (talk) 08:40, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Scholia - a tool for scholarly profiles[edit]

I think most editors here will be interested in Scholia, which gives visualisations of data about works, journals, authors and topics, obviously including those related to taxonomy, using data from Wikidata.

Here is an example, based on One hundred and one new species of Trigonopterus weevils from New Guinea, which is our Template:Riedel et al., 2013 and Wikidata's Q19966966.

The material presented includes:

  • A bar chart of "Citations per year"
  • A list of "Citations to the work" (each linking to an equivalent visualisation for the work concerned)
  • A list of "Cited works" (ditto)
  • A dynamic "Citation graph"
  • A list of supported statements (e.g. Trigonopterus zygops -> parent taxon -> Trigonopterus; each item linked)

Scholia is an open source project, hosted on the Wikimedia Foundation's toolserver, with code on GitHub, should anybody wish to contribute code, or report issues. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:57, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Iris tenuifolia or Cryptobasis tenuifolia?[edit]

Dear botanists (which I'm not), please check out the Iris tenuifolia page and the recent edits regarding Cryptobasis. If the Cryptobasis taxon name is (again) elevated from synonym status then the Iris tenuifolia page should be moved to Cryptobasis tenuifolia – otherwise the edits should be reverted, or at least updated. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 09:10, 4 September 2017 (UTC).

Does anyone of us have access to the full text of the following paper: doi: 10.11646/phytotaxa.232.1.1? --Franz Xaver (talk) 09:29, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
Try this: [] Please note that it's a fairly complex page and will take some time to load completely. You can then read the full text onscreen, or download a PDF from a link on the page. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 09:45, 4 September 2017 (UTC).
In my opinion this paper, which I have not fully read, has not yet been accepted by the wider community. Therefore Iris tenuifolia is the correct combination to use for now. Just look at he list of sources on this page from WCSP that contradict the edits on WS. The best thing to do is to contact WCSP and seek an opinion, as to why they have not followed the proposals by Cresp et al. after all they usually do a very quick turn around. As it stands the taxon page is a complete mess and not standard WS format any way. Andyboorman (talk) 10:22, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
The link provided by Tommy just hits the the login page. By the way Crespo does not force his proposals in subsequent publications see here. I still feel that WS must take a conservative view unless we can be firmly persuaded otherwise. Andyboorman (talk) 16:34, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
Yes, it requires login and payment. So, I will not be able to read more than the abtract. It seems to be a splitting proposol, which is not very compellent. I don't expect, that horticulturalist will be happy to learn new names for many of their irises. --Franz Xaver (talk) 18:56, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
@Franz Xaver: - you can get it from sci-hub by heading here ;-) MPF (talk) 10:38, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
@MPF: Thanks! It worked. --Franz Xaver (talk) 13:46, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
@MPF: @RLJ: questions the legitimacy of the link - anybody help us? Andyboorman (talk) 15:22, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
Sci-Hub is basically a pirate site violating copyright. I don't think this should be linked on Wikimedia projects. -RLJ (talk) 15:35, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
That view of Sci-Hub is not universally shared I will now create a new discussion topic. Andyboorman (talk) 15:49, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
This is odd. I've never logged in there (nor payed), and have no problem reaching the full page. The same goes for the PDF download link on that page. The PDF link doesn't load the PDF in the browser though: it simply and automatically downloads the file to my computer's download folder. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 19:17, 4 September 2017 (UTC).
Regardless of the links I agree with you both: we must be conservative and can't go ahead assuming stuff that isn't properly documented or accepted. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 19:27, 4 September 2017 (UTC).

I have done a brief search etc. concerning this proposal by Crespo et al. and can find almost no acceptance. The only major flora that does use some of their segregates is Flora Iberica see Chamaeiris. This is hardly surprising as the editor for the family is Crespo himself! But this is not followed by other secondary sources for example; Euro + Med Plantbase, COL or indeed WCSP. A brief Scholar search was equally unproductive with all papers subsequent to his 2015 paper following Iris s.l.. However, I have added the Crespo et al., paper to the Iris taxon page and will in due course make a note on its discussion page that an alternative taxonomy is available. Additionally, I am of the opinion that the conundrum presented by the edits of Iris tenuifolia must appear at a higher taxon say Iris subg. Tenuifoliae for which this combination is the type species. Thoughts anyone before I blindly go off piste? Andyboorman (talk) 15:24, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

@Andyboorman: I'm really baffled by your reasoning: you say you disregard the findings of 3 botany-professors because some websites failed to update their data? This isn't what I would call a scientific criterion. By the way see also another paper: doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0106459 by Evgeny V. Mavrodiev, Mario Martínez-Azorín, Peter Dranishnikov and Manuel B. Crespo from 2014. Mariusm (talk) 09:19, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
@Mariusm, Andyboorman: That's not the point. This group promoting the splitting of Iris is not wrong, but they are presenting only one of two possilbe solutions to the problem, that Belamcanda chinensis was found to be embedded in the phylogenetic tree of Iris, as traditionally delimitated. The other option is that of Goldblatt & Mabberly (2005), who proposed inclusion of Belamcanda in Iris - see [4]. The acceptance of the splitting option would have the consequence, that most of the irises, especially many common and wide-spread ones, would end up in seggregate genera. These seggregates would require some specialist knowledge for their recognition, whereas at present Iris is one of the larger genera, which are recognised even by botanical laypersons. So, if there exist two possible solutions, which both are legitimate from a scientific point of view, the question is about acceptance in the scientific community. In this case, the splitting option would have far-reaching consequences and so it is advisible to be cautious and wait for other sites, before we update here. --Franz Xaver (talk) 11:26, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
I can't agree that our consideration whether or not to adopt a certain classification would be ease of recognition by laypersons. This would open up undesirable consequences. Well, 'wait and see' can be an option if we are not really sure we're doing the right thing. Mariusm (talk) 11:43, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
@Mariusm: I am disappointed in your disparaging comments about three websites versus three distinguished professors. You really ought to be aware that those websites are the online front-end for dozens, if not hundreds of distinguished botanists and academics in the natural sciences and not the pet projects of some random hackers. Incidentally, I have been aware of these proposals for over a couple of years and have contacted Kew a year or so ago. Their reply was more or less the same as the points made by Franz, but in addition, their opinion, even after the Crespo et al. (2015) publication, was that acceptance was unlikely in the near future unless more convincing evidence is made available. In botany proposals are just that! Andyboorman (talk) 18:41, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
Very well then, in the duel between the 3-professors and the 3-websites, the websites got the upper hand this time. Let's keep Iris in its conservative form and watch for further developments. Mariusm (talk) 04:17, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

I have made some edits on Iris and Iris tenuifolia that incorporate some findings from Crespo et al. (2015) and Mavrodiev et al. (2014), but without affecting the current wider consensus and WS conservative approach. These include notes on the discussion pages. I hope these are OK with the majority of botanists here. Andyboorman (talk) 10:26, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm not a botanist, but as far as I can tell it looks good to me. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 14:42, 8 September 2017 (UTC).

I have heard back from RBG Kew and they are unlikely to adopt the proposals by Crespo et al. anytime soon, they also pointed out that these proposals are correct, but so is the circumscription on WCSP etc.. Therefore, adoption of Crespo's proposals are a matter of consensus not science. Furthermore, and I have mentioned this before, this is what often happens in botany and is not unreasonable given some past problematic swings in the taxonomic pendulum. Peer reviewed changes are proposed not mandated. Andyboorman (talk) 09:58, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Taxonomic vandalism (off-wiki)[edit]

See —Justin (koavf)TCM 01:29, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

thanks for linking this myself and several others were interviewed for this, @Dyanega: being another wikipedian who has edited here on species interviewed for this. I think thepoints were relatively well made by the author. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 03:56, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
Yes, we should beware of self-published journals like Calodema and Australasian Journal of Herpetology and especially be cautious of editing the names which were authored by Raymond Terrence Hoser. I strongly suggest to refrain from editing his authored names although they are technically legitimate. Mariusm (talk) 06:44, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
An interesting article, Justin. Thanks for the link. Tweeted.Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 06:52, 9 September 2017 (UTC).

Grant for a Wikimedia Projects DVD[edit]

Hi everyone, in this page of Italian Wikiversity We are discussing to request a grant for the creation of 500/1000 DVDs to be distributed to Italian schools with all Wikimedia projects (including this one). What do you think about it? Let me know on that page. (here draft of the request)--Ferdi2005 (talk) 12:36, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Renaming Category:Tardiologists?[edit]

Maybe I'm mistaken, but it seems to me that the term "tardigradologist" is more common than "tardiologist". I would propose to move the category to Category:Tardigradologists, and to change the word in the author pages: [5] [6]. Korg (talk) 15:32, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

No experience of usage, but to me a tardiologist would just be someone who studies lateness. I'd agree with the proposed move - MPF (talk) 17:11, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
I agree, and so does Wikidata. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk) 11:34, 10 September 2017 (UTC), 11:34, 10 September 2017 (UTC).
Well, it's a bit biased, I created the Wikidata item :-). I searched for the term "tardiologists", and apart from misspellings of "cardiologists", the only usage of the word I found originates from the website Google search. The search returns more results with the term "tardigradologists": Search. Korg (talk) 12:57, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
Yes and not only Wikidata – I saw your footprints in Wiktionary as well. :-) For reference, neither "tardiologist" nor "tardigradologist" are listed by the free online versions of Webster's Dictionary or the Oxford Dictionary of English. And since the study of Tardigrada isn't considered a specific scientific discipline in itself we haven't got any of the words "tardigradology" or "tardiology" to use as a basis. There is a very clear pattern though. You searched using the plural forms (84 and 426 hits, respectively). When instead searching using the singular it's all pretty apparent: "tardiologist" only renders 245 hits, while a search for "tardigradologist" renders a whopping 146,000 hits. Some of them are "false positives", but still. I suggest we go through with the move. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 18:29, 10 September 2017 (UTC).


There has been some disquiet here Template:Crespo et al., 2015 about using Sci-Hub as a source of full text journal articles. It is a controversial site - see here. Views please. Andyboorman (talk) 15:54, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

To me science should be free anyway, thats opinion. However, the links to SciHub are legitimate, used by thousands. If we have no directive not to use them I see no issue with it. The main issue with SciHub is by companies such as Elseiver, They consider it a breach of their copyright, that is for them to sort out. For us the links are valid if the site is taken down they will no longer work then we will need to find a different source, until the site is taken down by some action it is a legitimate source. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 16:39, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
Personally, I'd not use it as a permanent link on a taxon page (so I'd delink it from the above template). I don't mind mentioning its existence on the village pump for helping editors to access "hard-to-get" material to assist in deciding whether to follow a particular taxonomy or not, though. At least our regulars will all know it exists now :-) - MPF (talk) 17:09, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
['political' comment]: as an aside, sci-hub only exists because the publishing houses are so greedy in misusing their monopoly of access; if they had made a fair charge that covered their costs (probably around a tenth of what they actually charge), there would never have been the impetus for people to try to get round them. So they fully deserve its existence. [end political comment] - MPF (talk) 17:22, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
It would be interesting to get a comment from Crats and Stewards as to legitimacy and indeed copyright versus open access. [political comment] excessive paywalls are a disincentive to citizen science in all disciplines and free access to quality peer reviewed information in general - current trumping down of debate on ACC in the USA is a good example of such an implication [end political comment]. Andyboorman (talk) 21:43, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
Probably it is better not to link SciHub from any reference template or taxon page. I can image, this sometimes might have the consequence, that wikimedia will be sued by some publishing house for contributing to copyright infringement. So, we should only use the {{Doi}} template. For people, who know, how it works, this will be more than sufficient. --Franz Xaver (talk) 22:00, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
I agree with Franz. Sci-hub links are useful in accessing the content but shouldn't be included as links due to its dispute with publishers (and there is an injunction issued by US court which is enforceable on the servers that power Wikispecies). OhanaUnitedTalk page 01:34, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Name of clade pages[edit]

The page name for the clade Craniata in phylum Chordata is Chordata Craniata. What's our naming scheme praxis in these cases? Shouldn't it rather be named Craniata (Cordata)? Also, the page format is way off, but that's another matter. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 13:03, 10 September 2017 (UTC).

Draft strategy direction. Version #2[edit]

In 2017, we initiated a broad discussion to form a strategic direction that will unite and inspire Wikimedians. This direction will be the foundation on which we will build clear plans and set priorities. More than 80 communities and groups discussed and gave feedback[strategy 1][strategy 2][strategy 3]. We researched readers and consulted more than 150 experts[strategy 4]. We looked at future trends that will affect our mission, and gathered feedback from partners and donors.

A group of community volunteers and representatives from the strategy team synthesized this feedback into an early version of the strategic direction that the broader movement can review and discuss.

The second version of the direction is ready. Again, please read, share, and discuss on the talk page on Meta. Based on your feedback, the drafting group will refine and finalize the direction.

  1. Cycle 1 synthesis report
  2. Cycle 2 synthesis report
  3. Cycle 3 synthesis report
  4. New Voices synthesis report

SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 10:06, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

I invite you guys to take a look at the strategy. Personally, I have said that there were insufficient/lack of resources given to most projects, including us. Meanwhile, piles of money, labour, and collaboration initiatives were thrown at Wikipedia, Commons and Wikidata. Can anyone name a tool designed by WMF that is geared towards Wikispecies? I have been around for almost 10 years and I can't even name one. OhanaUnitedTalk page 06:42, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
@OhanaUnited: Thanks for your invitation. In previous versions, there was a line "beyond Wikipedia", which was meant to put stress on the fact that there are more projects, but perhaps (it's only my personal guess) some people might have thought that there was a stress on "Wikipedia", and now, in the Direction, there's no name of any individual project whatsoever. SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 14:25, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Wesley Bicha[edit]

Someone may wish to salvage some data from this good faith edit, which I have just rolled back as malformed. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:26, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Endangered species of the month[edit]

Our Main page's "Endangered species of the month" hasn't changed since May (I've just fixed the main page by redirecting this month's template to May's). Do we wish to leave it stale, resume monthly updates, or drop it from the main page? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:45, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

  • This is kind of my pet project. I hope that we can keep it going but I feel like I've dropped the ball. If other express interest or still think it's worthwhile, I'll try to be more diligent. Better yet, if someone else is willing to offer to help with the work... —Justin (koavf)TCM 23:42, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Images on the main page[edit]

What does everyone think about how to rotate them? I last swapped out some media in January, so it's probably nice to refresh them.

Some thoughts I had on best practices:

  • It's probably nice to have at least one video or even an audio piece. It's more interesting than just static imagery.
  • We could have one extinct species represented by fossils, drawings, or wax sculptures
  • We should always have at least one microorganism of some kind (including a virus), preferably two
  • Animals from several families (i.e. not two birds or not a bee and an ant)
  • At least three media of plants and fungi
  • Keep it to two rows of eight so that there isn't excessive scrolling but the photos also aren't too small to really be appreciated.
  • We could make use of a script for randomizing images and just have a bank of [x] animal photos, [y] videos, [z] microoganisms, etc. I can probably figure out how to do it if we think it's just the lowest overhead option.

Do those ideas sound reasonable? —Justin (koavf)TCM 01:03, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Good ideas, though drawings and most probably also images of wax sculptures of extinct species contradicts our image guidelines. Photos of fossils is okay though. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 01:12, 15 September 2017 (UTC).
Yes. I used to update it once a day or so. Try to diversify the images so we don't end up with 5 or 6 pictures of birds. OhanaUnitedTalk page 06:31, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Catocala conjuncta or Catocala coniuncta?[edit]

According to en.Wikipedia, albeit uncited, Catocala conjuncta is a misspelling, and was corrected in 2010 to Catocala coniuncta (with an I instead of the J). Can anyone confirm (and cite) or refute that, please? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:17, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

(1) Probably, the original paper, where the species was described, will be necessary to clear this case. In my opinion, there exist too many taxon pages in WS, which miss any reference to protologues.
{2) Something must be wrong here anyway. If Catocala was established in 1802, it is not possible that this species was described in 1787 with the original combination in Catocala. At least, author citation must be in parentheses. Maybe we have to look for a description in the genus Noctua. OK, is telling, it was originally described in Phalaena. --Franz Xaver (talk) 11:42, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
OK, the original spelling was CONIVNCTA in the text and Coniuncta with the illustration. How are the rules in ICZN concerning orthographical corrections? --Franz Xaver (talk) 12:08, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
Thank you. Note that typographically, "U" sometimes looks like "V" in old texts; for instance on the page you cite, the heading including "CONIVNCTA" has its first word written "NOCTVA" ("Noctua"). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:20, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
@Pigsonthewing: Yes, I know. In ICN (not relevant here), there exists Art. 60.5 dealing with the pairs u/v and i/j. I was asking for a rule in ICZN dealing with the same matter. I found only, that terminations might be corrected. So, most likely the spelling with the illustration is the correct one, as at the other place classical Latin letters are used, which make u/v and i/j indistinguishable. --Franz Xaver (talk) 12:41, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
It can be spelled both ways. However, what the original author had in mind was "conjuncta" which means "combined" in Latin while "coniuncta" has no sense. Indeed, many subsequent authors starting from Noctua conjuga Hübner, 1803 (see here) spelled it with a "j". Therefore I think it should be Catocala conjuncta with Catocala coniuncta as a synonym/redirect. Mariusm (talk) 14:28, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
@Mariusm: In classical Latin the same letters were used for I and J and also for U and V. Cicero or Caesar would have told you, that CONIVNCTA were the correct spelling of this word. So, where in ICZN is the rule, that the original spelling Coniuncta has to be changed to conjuncta? --Franz Xaver (talk) 00:38, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
@Franz Xaver: I was referring of course to the Renaissance-Latin which the author practiced and not to the Roman-Latin. The relevant article is: "32.5.1. If there is in the original publication itself, without recourse to any external source of information, clear evidence of an inadvertent error, such as a lapsus calami or a copyist's or printer's error, it must be corrected. Incorrect transliteration or latinization, or use of an inappropriate connecting vowel, are not to be considered inadvertent errors." which indeed doesn't support the i-j correction, but because of the author-practice since 1803, it would be better to go along with the j change. Mariusm (talk) 04:23, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
The key phrase is "prevailing usage" (see Article - Brya (talk) 11:19, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
OK, I see. This seems to be characteristic of ICZN: When an unjustified change is practised by enough persons, it is deemed to be justified. (The same also in 33.3.1.) I expected, there would exist such kind of loophole. (In botany, a conservation of spelling would be necessary.) So, as long as the majority is not returning to the original spelling, we can continue with conjuncta. --Franz Xaver (talk) 12:21, 14 September 2017 (UTC)


@Franz Xaver: - as an aside, from your ICN citation, Art. 60.5 reads:
60.5. When a name has been published in a work where the letters u, v or i, j are used interchangeably or in any other way incompatible with modern practices (e.g. one letter of a pair not being used in capitals, or not at all), those letters are to be transcribed in conformity with modern nomenclatural usage.
Curious: why, then, was Buddleia recently (c. 5 years ago) changed from its long-established modern nomenclatural usage with that spelling, back to its original, but uncouth, out-of-modern-use "Buddleja"? It certainly drastically affects pronunciation in English, to the rather awful-sounding "buddledger". Seems to me someone, somewhere, recently neglected Art. 60.5 while trying to enforce original spelling. - MPF (talk) 14:32, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
The pronunciation is still "buddleea", but yes curious. Andyboorman (talk) 15:23, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
@MPF: That's probably, because Species Plantarum is not "a work where the letters u, v or i, j are used interchangeably or in any other way incompatible with modern practices". On page 112, you can easily see the difference between the I in BLÆRIA and the J in BUDDLEJA. Also in Flora Europaea from 1972 the spelling Buddleja is used. The majority of my books uses this spelling. I could find the spelling Buddleia only in Flora of Japan by Ohwi (1965) and The Flora of the Malay Peninsula by Ridley (1923). --Franz Xaver (talk) 00:24, 14 September 2017 (UTC)


There was a journal of this name in the 19th century, including e.g. volume 50 published in 1867. No doubt BHL have it, but their search system isn't well designed for isolating this journal from among the thousands of others containing the word 'Flora'. Anyone know what its BHL link is, please? Thanks! - MPF (talk) 13:59, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

OK, managed to find it myself ;-) - MPF (talk) 15:44, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
Right now the Wikispecies article Flora is an author disambiguation page for authors with "Flora" as a given name (rather than listing surnames, as standard author disambiguation pages do). I suggest we change it into a page about the journal. (As a side note the author page Flora Hartley needs a lot more information, such as scientific disciplines etc. Also, perhaps she is identical to 19th century zoologist Flora Hartley Greene, sometimes published as Flora Greene?) –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 22:45, 16 September 2017 (UTC).

Upcoming Wiki Science Competition[edit]

Did you hear about the Wiki Science competition, starting in November?

Since there will be an intense workflow of technical uploaded by newbies, that will require some better categorization and translation of descriptions here and there, I think it's time to discuss it also here, because some pictures might be related to natural science and photos or diagrams of species. So I give you some details.

In 2015, limiting to Europe, we got thousands of entries, we can expect two or three times more this year. In the case of Italy for example we will send emails to many professional mailing lists, and other national wikimedia chapter will use their social media too to inform the public.

We have finished with Ivo Kruusamägi of WM Estonia to prepare some of the juries. I did my best to gather, besides people with a strong scientific background, also some expert wikipedians here and there to take a look to the files on commons and not just the quality of the images. I have also informed users on English wikipedia, and will do the same on some other wikimedia platforms in the following weeks. Now it is your turn.

The final international jury is made of expert researchers, usually with interest in photography, but no real knowledge of the details of wikimedia platforms. Some national juries should have enough expert wikimedians and wikipedians probably, because of the presence of active national chapter I guess, so someone might take care of some the uploads at least improving some categorization and using them in some articles.

Now that I am sure that we have enough "scientists" here and there and from different fields, maybe we can see if we can also gathers specifically expert wikimedia users. For the countries without juries, there is the possibility of creating a second-level international jury to select images from the rest of the world to the experts of the final jury. For such second-level jury I have found some names, but the numbers of entries could be high, so maybe that's where we can look for more other expert wiki users.

if you are a citizen of a country with a national jury you could also join them directly. I don't know the details in many cases, if they need more jurors or they are fine.

Anyone interested?--Alexmar983 (talk) 07:22, 17 September 2017 (UTC)


en la Portada en español hay una sección titulada "Solicitud de ilustraciones: la Comuna de Wikimedia" (la cursiva es mia), en donde pone "Comuna" debería de poner "Comunidad". El contenido de esa sección es:

La taxonavegación permite actualmente acceder a un número considerable de taxones, si bien todavía es demasiado temprano para recomendar una plantilla para la estructura del contenido. En cuanto a las imágenes, varios usuarios ya han subido un cierto número de ellas y recomendamos para ello seguir las directrices de nuestra guía de imágenes. Véase Wikimedia Commons para subir o buscar imágenes libres de especies.

En donde pone "es demasiado temprano" debería de poner "es demasiado pronto". Yo no puedo editarlo por estar protegida, pero aunque pudiese no sé donde hacerlo. Perdón por escribir en español. Gracias. PD.- perdón, no estaba logeado --Jcfidy 11:20, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
— The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jcfidy (talkcontribs) 11:22, 18 September 2017 (UTC).

Google translates the above (with quoted text restored) as:

In the Spanish Cover there is a section titled "Solicitud de ilustraciones: la Comuna de Wikimedia" (the italics are mine), where it puts "Comuna" should put "Comunidad". The content of this section is:

La taxonavegación permite actualmente acceder a un número considerable de taxones, si bien todavía es demasiado temprano para recomendar una plantilla para la estructura del contenido. En cuanto a las imágenes, varios usuarios ya han subido un cierto número de ellas y recomendamos para ello seguir las directrices de nuestra guía de imágenes.

Véase Wikimedia Commons para subir o buscar imágenes libres de especies.

Where you put "es demasiado temprano" you should put "es demasiado pronto". I can not edit it to be protected, but even if I could not know where to do it. Sorry to write in Spanish. Thanks

-- Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:27, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

@AlvaroMolina: Por favor, eche un vistazo a esta solicitud. Supongo que tanto el "demasiado temprano" como el "demasiado pronto" estarían bien. Sin embargo, probablemente "comunidad" es mejor que "Comuna", si no "Wikimedia Commons" se usa en lugar de "Comuna de Wikimedia". ¿Qué piensas? – Please, have a look at this request. I suppose, both "demasiado temprano" and "demasiado pronto" would be OK. However, probably "comunidad" is better than "Comuna", if not "Wikimedia Commons" is used in place of "Comuna de Wikimedia". What do you think? --Franz Xaver (talk) 14:20, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
@Jcfidy: Gracias. Por supesto, "comunidad" es correcto. —Justin (koavf)TCM 15:56, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
Me inclino por "comunidad" y por demasiado "pronto". "Temprano" se usa más para cuestiones temporales, temprano en la mañana, por ej.--Hector Bottai (talk) 18:39, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
@Hector Bottai: Gracias otra vez. Claro, soy gringo y mi castellano no es perfecto. Quizas soy el mejor administrador en espan~ol pero es obvio que tengo muchisima dificultades. :/ —Justin (koavf)TCM 19:04, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Please note that the name "Wikimedia Commons" and its logo are trademarks of the Wikimedia Foundation and must remain in English. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 19:23, 18 September 2017 (UTC).

@Tommy Kronkvist: Is this just a helpful reminder or do you actually see a particular instance here? All that the suggested language says is the "Wikimedia community" but just below that on Portada it reads "Véase Wikimedia Commons para subir o buscar imágenes libres de especies." (English: "See Wikimedai Commons to submit or search for free [free culture] images of species.") —Justin (koavf)TCM 19:45, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
@Koavf: It was primarily intended as a reminder, and of course not specifically to you but to all participants of the discussion. When using the Latin alphabet the trademark "Wikimedia Commons" must remain "as is". There are instances where the trademark is translated and/or transcribed, but to my knowledge that is only the case in language versions of wikis using non-Latin graphemes. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 19:58, 18 September 2017 (UTC).
@Tommy Kronkvist: This is the exact opposite impression that I get from wmf:Trademark_policy Question 2.1 which says that you can use "any of the official translations and transliterations of the Wikimedia marks" on WMF sites and then links to m:List_of_Wikipedias, which has plenty of localized names on those projects linked from that listing. —Justin (koavf)TCM 20:03, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Translating the main page[edit]

This is actually something I've been thinking about for awhile now--should we use the translate extension on the main page as we do with most other pages or should we keep system we have now? —Justin (koavf)TCM 16:03, 18 September 2017 (UTC)


I have just imported {{Reflist-talk}}, which can be used to make references (or footnotes) show in the relevant section of talk pages, rather than at the foot of the page.

An example may be seen at here. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:41, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Much appreciated! Thank you. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 13:28, 18 September 2017 (UTC).

"For" template for hatnotes[edit]

I have imported the template {{For}} and a bunch of required modules etc. from the English Wikipedia. See the original enWP version for complete documentation. The Wikispecies version of the template is still very far from perfect, as there are a lot of crazy stuff going on in the invoked For module and the other underlaying imported files. We probably also need to have a look at some involved Lua code, and right now the template's help/documentation subpage is incomplete and incorrect. That said, in its most basic form the template does already work, and I propose we use it as a starting point when trying to establish a "hatnote formatting standard". Please see Austrobaileya for a current example. Regards, Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 23:05, 24 September 2017 (UTC).