Wikispecies:Village Pump

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

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
Archive
Archives
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/ -)


Automating new page creation[edit]

We can signifitely accelerate our new page creation by harvesting data from the Catalogue of Life. It currently has 1,656,180 living and 12,852 extinct species in their records. It gets its data from 156 reliable databases.

Data of unavailable WS genera can be harvested in the form of the following lines:

Gastroserica haucki Ahrens, 2000 Species accepted name
Gastroserica herzi (Heyden, 1887) Species accepted name
Gastroserica higonia (Lewis, 1895) Species accepted name

Each line can be transformed into the following page (data taken from the 1st line):

== Taxonavigation ==

{{Gastroserica}}
Species: ''[[Gastroserica haucki]]''

== Name ==

''Gastroserica haucki'' Ahrens, 2000

== Status ==

* Species accepted name.

Haplorhini[edit]

Over ten years ago, Haplorhini was renamed to Haplorrhini with a redirect left behind, assumedly as an alternative spelling. For consistency, a case might be made to reverse this to make "Haplorrhini" the alternative and "Haplorhini" the main species page after reading why the en-Wiki article was renamed on its discussion page.  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  22:35, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
Note: This was recently corrected in Wiktionary.  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  22:45, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

I wonder what "no response" means? Has consistency among sister projects become a very low priority?  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  17:07, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay. I move the article, thanks for the colaboration. Burmeister (talk) 17:21, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
Thank you very much, Burmeister!  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  17:28, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

The strategy discussion. The Cycle 2 will start on May 5[edit]

The first cycle of the Wikimedia movement strategy process recently concluded. During that period, we were discussing the main directions for the whole Wikimedia movement over the next 15 years. There are more than 1500 summary statements collected from the various communities, but unfortunately none from Wikispecies. The strategy facilitators and many volunteers have summarized the discussions of the previous month. A quantitative analysis of the statements will be posted on Meta for translation this week, alongside the report from the Berlin conference.

The second cycle will begin soon. It's set to begin on May 5 and run until May 31. During that period, you will be invited to dive into the main topics that emerged in the first cycle, discuss what they mean, which ones are the most important and why, and what their practical implications are. This work will be informed and complemented by research involving new voices that haven’t traditionally been included in strategy discussions, like readers, partners, and experts. Together, we will begin to make sense of all this information and organize it into a meaningful guiding document, which we will all collectively refine during the third and last cycle in June−July.

We want to help your community to be more engaged with the discussions in the next cycle. Now, we are looking for volunteers who could

  • tell us where to announce the start of the Cycle 2, and how to do that, so we could be sure the majority of your community is informed and has a chance to feel committed, and
  • facilitate the Cycle 2 discussions here, on Wikispecies.

We are looking forward to your feedback!

Base (WMF) and SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 22:49, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

It appears to me that you have found the best place to initiate discussion with contributors to WikiSpecies, right here. Accassidy (talk) 12:58, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
@Accassidy: thx for your response. What do you think, why there was no feedback to my previous message? Was it unclear? SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 17:15, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
@SGrabarczuk (WMF): Because the message was written like other WMF regular updates and people tuned out. And many of us already got used to not receiving any support from WMF and we somewhat became self reliant while WMF focused almost exclusively on its poster child, Wikipedia. Anyhow, it's too late to start now that it has already moved on to cycle 2. OhanaUnitedTalk page 07:16, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
@OhanaUnited: you're right, the messages were written by WMF staff (or contractors) and are after one fashion. This is justified to some extent. There isn't many WMF employees who know various communities personally, so they don't write personalized messages. Announcements are written once and sent globally to all, with little adjustments. On the other hand, I'm a Wikipedian, with different approach, that's why you can see the bullet points and bolded words. As for the timing, the movement strategy is about the movement, not about individual projects. You can join any time and add your feedback, concerns etc. SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 14:38, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

TOC's in Village Pump archives[edit]

I have noticed that about a handful of the Village Pump archives (for instance Archive 1 and Archive 26) doesn't have a table of contents ("TOC"), while most of them (for example Archive 2 and Archive 27) do have a TOC. Does anyone here know why this is different from archive to archive? As far as I can see there are no __NOTOC__ codes in any of them, which would otherwise explain the lack of a TOC. Since many of the archived VP pages are very long having a table of contents in all of them would increase legibility; it's also helpful when linking to old discussions and poll results. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 22:21, 30 April 2017 (UTC).

I looked to the first archive and noticed there has been included a template that uses __NOTOC__. I guess that is the reason why more archives don't have a TOC. QZanden (talk) 22:25, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
You're correct: in "Archive 1" it's the {{Animalia}} template which adds the NOTOC magic word. I'll go through them all and try to remedy the problem, of course without losing any data from the actual discussions. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 23:07, 30 April 2017 (UTC).
Yes check.svg Done. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 23:53, 30 April 2017 (UTC).
I've fixed the template so that it only applies __NOTOC__ in main (article) space. Please watch for issues and revert if it causes problems. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:42, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
Great, thanks! As far as I have seen it works well. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 21:40, 4 May 2017 (UTC)-
Is there any reason the Animalia template needs a NOTOC in it? Why not just remove it altogether? - MPF (talk) 09:54, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
The Template:Animalia (likewise: Plantae, Fungi, ..) is used by hundreds of other templates. Without __NOTOC__ you would see a TOC in each page, that transcludes {{Animalia}}. --Murma174 (talk) 07:04, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
Yes, but it's already in {{Eukaryota}}, which is higher up the tree above Animalia, Plantae, Fungi, etc. So having NOTOC in Animalia (and Plantae, Fungi, ..) is superfluous. Just have it the once at the very top of the taxonavigation tree, and not anywhere else. - MPF (talk) 12:30, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
Maybe there is some reason, why the template {{Eukaryota}} is NOT included in the template {{Animalia}} ? I don't know, just asking. --Murma174 (talk) 13:11, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
@Murma174: Nope, the {{Eukaryota}} template is not included within the {{Animalia}} template. That seems a bit odd, to say the least, and I do not not why. The same goes for the {{Archaea}} and {{Bacteria}} templates. They both include a link to Prokaryota, but not a {{Prokaryota}} template (which as you can see isn't even created yet). –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 15:36, 9 May 2017 (UTC).

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
@MPF: Back in 2015 NOTOC used to sit in the {{{Main Page}} template instead, which was worse. See User talk:Tommy Kronkvist/Archive 2015–2016#Removing "Main page" template. Cheers, Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 12:34, 9 May 2017 (UTC).

Yep, I can see having it cover the whole of wikispecies would be a nightmare! But it should be OK having it just once at the top of the taxon tree, rather than in the top dozen or more layers - MPF (talk) 13:09, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
@MPF: Indeed, I can't see any reason for including it to all the regna Taxonavigation templates, since it is already included in all of the superregna (and virus) Taxonavigation templates. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 15:36, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
But the highest level classification is disputed (in parts). Not even speaking about Adl et al., 2012 (Groups), Cavalier-Smith, 2009 (Supergroups):
Superregnum: Eukaryota
Regna: Protista (disputed: Protozoa + Chromista ?), Animalia, Plantae, Fungi
Superregnum (??): Prokaryota
Superregnum, but also Regnum: Bacteria
Superregnum, but also Regnum: Archaea
So it might be the best to leave the __NOTOC__-tag in the Regnum-templates. --Murma174 (talk) 16:22, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Orchid ID[edit]

Unidentified Dactylorhiza
Unidentified Dactylorhiza 02

Hi, can you can me with identification of this plant? I think that is one of Dactylorhiza species, but I'm not sure. Tournasol7 (talk) Migrated here for more help. Andyboorman (talk) 15:15, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

@Tournasol7: can you tell us a bit more, for example; time of flowering, description of leaf (spotted?), where it was located, habitat and associated vegetation. Thanks Andyboorman (talk) 16:19, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
Time of flowering - april; location - Lot, France; habitat - meadow, scrub. Tournasol7 (talk) 16:29, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
That's certainly not Dactylorhiza. Most species of this genus have much larger and green bracts. As far as I see, it is Orchis mascula (s.lat.) --Franz Xaver (talk) 16:34, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
@Franz Xaver:, I added other image. Tournasol7 (talk) 16:37, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
Yes, that's the same species – Orchis mascula. But, don't ask me for the subspecies. I am not an orchid specialist and I am not sure, how to distinguish subsp. laxifloriformis from subsp. mascula. --Franz Xaver (talk) 16:48, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
Ok, thank you very much! Tournasol7 (talk) 17:04, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
The question of subspecies is why I asked about more details. Assuming it is not cultivated then subspecies are more localised. For example, Subsp. laxifloriformis tends to be found in the Central Pyrenees down to Morocco. Subsp. mascula is very widespread flowering now in woods near me in definitely non-montane Essex, but these populations have the distinctive spots on the leaves! Andyboorman (talk) 18:13, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Phytolacca[edit]

Is there an editor or two familiar with Phytolacca? I am particularly concerned that the 2 subgenera and 2 sections may not be appropriate for the more reduced species circumscription that is now accepted. Any thoughts appreciated. Andyboorman (talk) 19:28, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Did you also find this paper? There are three subgenera in this paper, but non of these seems to be monophyletic. Anyway, I am missing a reference for the present subgeneric classification. --Franz Xaver (talk) 20:58, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
@Franz Xaver: To answer your second question first - no I could not find a reference for the present WS classification, which is one reason for my post here, as somebody else may have come across it. I have read Ali et al. (2015), which finds Nowicke (1969) untenable, but as they state their own suggestions are tentative at the best. So IMO we can not really get rid of the current unreferenced WS classification in favour of either Nowicke (1969) or Ali et al. (2015). Therefore, it may be best to dispense with any subgeneric classification for now. Andyboorman (talk) 09:59, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
@Andyboorman: In my opinion, even an outdated classification with references is better than any classification without. Anyway, Nowicke (1969) cannot be implemented here without regarding the nomenclatural corrections by Rogers (1985) – JSTOR. However, I did not check the code for this. It seems possible to me, that in the light of the present code also Rogers requires some adjustments. Moreover, the list of generic synonyms in Phytolacca seems to need correction. According to Rogers (1985), Pircunia Bertero ex Ruschenberger would belong to Anisomeria. Also Ali et al. (2015) must be used with some caution. A weakness of this study is the choice of the outgroup taxa, none of which presently belonging to Phytolaccaceae. And the disregard of Nowickea, of course. --Franz Xaver (talk) 10:44, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
@Franz Xaver: Good points. I am now not sure of the value of any classification for the much reduced Phytolacca s.s. I am inclined to suggest in this case no classification is better than a problematic one given the needs of a few combinations and the difficulty in bringing back Nowickea into a subgenus and section. For this once segregate, I am happy with the analysis of Hernández-Ledesma et al. (2015) even though I can not get hold of a copy of Ramírez-Amezcua & Steinmann (2013) that casts series doubt on its segregation. I will try to improve the synonymy of Phytolacca in the mean time. Andyboorman (talk) 19:23, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Editing News #1—2017[edit]

18:06, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Susan Loiseaux[edit]

Is Susan Loiseaux also known as "Susan De Goer Loiseaux", or are they different people? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:30, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Susan Loiseaux only seems to exist until shortly after 1982. After that, Susan Loiseaux-de Goër (as then spelled), is sole version. Probably married name. Both work on genetics of mostly algae. Neferkheperre (talk) 23:58, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
Thank you. I've added those aliases to Wikidata; how should we record them on the page here? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:51, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
My idea is to make redirect of married name to original name, and make note of that fact on author mainpage. Neferkheperre (talk) 22:55, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
Done; also for the Susan Loiseaux de Goër variant of her name - please check. I've also updated the category on Iyengaria quadriseriata - do you agree with that? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:53, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Citation templates, redux[edit]

Having worked on adding structured, machine-readable data to our projects for over ten years now, it saddens me that we still see edits like the recent good-faith creation of {{Sclater & Salvin, 1860a}}.

The wiki-source of that template includes:

{{a|Philip Lutley Sclater|Sclater, P.L.}} & {{a|Osbert Salvin|Salvin, O.}} 1860. Characters of eleven new species of birds discovered by Mr. Osbert Salvin in Guatemala. ''[[ISSN 0370-2774|Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London]]'' pt28. In: ''Biodiversitas Heritage Library''. [http://biodiversitylibrary.org/page/12866850 P. 299-301]

while it is good that the authors are templated, it is problematic that there is no programmatic way to distinguish:

  • date
  • title
  • publication
  • part
  • pages
  • host website name

this means that we are providing less of a service to our users than we otherwise could.

A more structured approach would have this in a template, as something like (line breaks added for clarity):

  • |author1= {{a|Philip Lutley Sclater|Sclater, P.L.}}
  • |author2= {{a|Osbert Salvin|Salvin, O.}}
  • |year= 1860
  • |title= Characters of eleven new species of birds discovered by Mr. Osbert Salvin in Guatemala
  • |journal= Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London
  • |journal-ISSN= ISSN 0370-2774
  • |part= pt28
  • |republisher= Biodiversitas Heritage Library
  • |republisher-url= http://biodiversitylibrary.org/page/12866850
  • |republisher-pages = 299-301

Not only would this be easier for tools to read (parse), but we could have other tools that build such templates, given a URL or DOI (like the new Wikipedia/OCLC tool) , or we could import data from tools like Zotero. That will make our lives as editors easier.

How can we move towards this model? I know {{Cite journal}}'s format was not liked, but can we adapt it? If not, what is the solution? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:17, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the highly technical comment on this template, I didn't know those resources. I honestly thought I had done a good job putting a reference where there was nothing or a plain text with no link in at least 9 species grouped in the same original description. If you are sad with that, just go and improve it. I assure you it will be easier than spending a few hours finding to whom all those original description belongs now. That's Wikipedia. Sincerely.--Hector Bottai (talk) 14:37, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
You'll notice that I purposefully described your edit as "good-faith". I was lamenting the lack of more advanced facilities, not your actions. I can't improve on what you've done - no-one can, including you - until we agree what those facilities should be, and implement them. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:07, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
Hector - your basic template conforms to WS Help so do not be ashamed of your work. However, the additional information is not required on a reference template and is probably best on the taxon pages. At the moment Andy's cite template is discouraged on WS, as it does not follow our journal based reference format. It has been developed for a WP style page and format, which also needs in text citations.
Andy who are our prime users? I make the assumption that they are people simply interested in taxonomic and classification facts and references or simply adding the required data. This is a different clientele compared to bots or people using the site for data mining, who require advanced features. I do not have the facts to back up my or your assumption, does anybody? Andyboorman (talk) 15:19, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
It's not "my" citation template. Our "prime users" may indeed by "people simply interested in taxonomic and classification facts and references" - and they will want to find the works we reference, in their (or another) library; or to curate them in citation management tools like Zotero in order to more easily cite them on their own works (or indeed elsewhere on Wikispecies, or on Wikipedias). Structured data such as I suggest will aid them in doing all of these things. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:55, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
Despite my comments in the past against the Cite_Journal template, wikipedia style, I am not against a better system here. I just think that template is ridiculous, and I know its not yours for the record. Most taxonomists do not use Zotero since they generally have institutional access to EndNote or they use Mandelay or something similar.So introducing Zotero as a method just adds to the things they have to do with references. These people are not concerned about freeware, they want sharable results. Of the 100 odd coauthors I have had over my career I can share endnote exports with them since thats what they use. So this is a part of the issue also. To move forward, first up the cite templates will have to output the reference in an acceptable fashion, ie, journal style, that is in the way we authors have to write our references when we submit papers. This gets very complicated when dealing with book chapters and I would suggest that journals, books and book chapters will need to be separate templates. Internally these can be formatted in the way you want, so long as the output is the way taxonomists want. Most of the litertature in taxonomy is very old and as such electronic versions are not that useful, some people datamine references, most do not. Its going to have to be a balanced approach with good proposals, maybe do one at a time. Develop a good journal reference template and work from there is my suggestion. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 16:33, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
Zotero was an example; the same applies to Endnote or any other citation-management tool capable of parsing metadata. The example paper under discussion is "very old", but has an online copy which is linked to; I can't understand why you would claim that "electronic versions are not that useful". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:47, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
Which ever system I get the need to have the references minable. I think that is important. I said not always useful, I have spent too much time scavenging for very old papers to believe everything is online, its not. Some texts are lost to history, some are very difficult to find. Eitherway, thats not the issue. I agree a change is needed. Focus on that. I agree that when they are available we can import them and format the output accordingly. When they are not, and this is more frequent than you believe I think, we will have to do it manually. Hence the template needs to be quick to use. The downside of the cite journal template is its not worth the time and effort to use, its useless. As I said come up with a proposed template for journals only that creates an acceptable output showing the full reference in journal style. Then we can discuss that and try to get it through. Once achieved we can work on books then chapters. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 17:08, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
remember that the only reason many old papers have online copies is because some librarian somewhere thought it would be good if this particular paper was available, it has lost its copywrite, and hence it ends up on BHL or something. This has not happened to all old papers yet. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 17:18, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Coming to it from a practical point of view, typing out all that |author1=, etc., stuff, is an awful lot more tedious than Hector's original version. I'd not want to have to do it. Hector's version looks fine to me, except for the ugliness of inconsistent spacing (why spaces after some fullstops, but not others - it looks horrible!). - MPF (talk) 18:16, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
I fully agree. It's fine as it is. In the case, we would have to change to something more favourable for data mining, I expect a lot of problems with reference templates like the following one: {{Acevedo-Rodríguez & Strong, 2012}}. --Franz Xaver (talk) 21:07, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
It is not "fine as it is", because such text cannot be used by the tools I described. "Acevedo-Rodríguez & Strong"'s functionality can easily be included in a more general, structured template. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:03, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
"typing out all that... is an awful lot more tedious than Hector's original version" Probably so. Who said anyone would have to do that? As on Wikipedias, we would have blank versions to copy and fill out, like a form. The visual editor would act as a wizard. And other tools could be made avaialbe to perform such mundanc=e chores. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:03, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
Technically it is fine as it is. The references work as we currently wish to do them as a community. The correct question is should our refs do more. To me the answer to that is yes they should. I think we need to look at how to do that. This would be an improvement. I will argue for this in a different way to Andy has. The response to "we should make our references data-minable for programs like zotero" (liberal summary of what has been requested) is basically "why should we, what we do is good enough." This is not helping or achieving anything. My reasoning is that it will help those that are starting careers in taxonomy, who come from a modern background in utilizing software tools to do many of these tasks. Including the acquisition of reference lists and the obtaining of these references. In other words it will help modern students of taxonomy. Considering taxonomy is almost a fossil of a science these days anything we can do to encourage and assist people to become a part of the science of taxonomy is a positive. Andy has his reasons for doing this, that is fine, I have mine. I am thinking of the students. I know how hard it is to find references, type data etc for species I have suddenly become interested in because I started a masters or something. So please it does not matter whether you agree or disagree with Andy's reasons, or mine. The goal is the same. Look at what we do, think about modern computing and the people who use its methods and what we can do as a Wiki to step up to that. To me making our references more mine-able is a clear step in the right direction.
So I think this is something that we should look into. Our references should follow standard research publication practices in their presentation, they must be fully written out, no abbreviations. They must be mine-able, where possible should provide a link to a pdf. The template should be simple to use, personally I would prefer to not use the visual editor it horrible but thats just opinion. So we need to look at a way forward in this. First steps will be for a number of us to think this issue in terms of modernisation and what this wiki can and should do for our readers, a tone down on the frustration will also help. Whether we like it or not we need to discuss this, and I do not care how many times we have come to consensus on refs in the past, what we are currently doing is retro and has to be brought into this century. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 23:03, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
Just an addit, it may help if this issue was given a policy development page of its own, and I would ask that all interested people partake in that page and discuss the issue properly. Develop possible templates and work together forwards on the issue. I think this issue being re-hashed over and over with no continuity between this because previous discussions are archived before any satisfactory resolution is just not helping. Get it all together, discuss and develop it properly. What we are currently doing is just a constant re-hash of the same argument. With that development until such time as it produces an outcome that has been voted on by the current community the current system in place has consensus and is therefore acceptable. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 23:22, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
I for one would prefer a template structure, especially assisted with a Cite journal or Cite book tool that autofills fields by simply entering a DOI or ISBN, as can be done on English Wikipedia. (Note the autofill is not perfect, and may require some additional formatting). Anything that facilitates both uniformity in style and convenience in creation should be encouraged. -Animalparty (talk) 19:37, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Template:Ale[edit]

{{Ale}} is unused, undiscussed, and undocumented. Does it serve any purpose? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:43, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

I don't see any sense in keeping it. It looks like Author template (category:Author templates), which are at best redundant. They are from older ages, and do not use our present accepted naming format. They mostly direct to author pages. Occasionally, they have interfered with taxon pages. This needs to be evaluated, as there are over 3000 of these. Neferkheperre (talk) 20:44, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
Thank you. Deleted. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:07, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Unused templates[edit]

Further to the above, there are thousands of templates listed at Special:UnusedTemplates; is there any reason not to start deleting them, beginning with unused author-name templates? We'd also need to keep any /doc templates listed there. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:57, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

IMO do not start with the author pages, as they could be waiting for the relevant taxon pages and associated references to be created or simply they could be used on stubs and semi-stubs. A lot of the taxon templates could be disambigs, orphans, synonyms or again waiting for a taxon page to be created. Repository templates are not a delete category either. This whole task will need the help of taxonomists I feel. It is most definitely not a task for a bot. WS has a lot of these OMG moments! Regards Andyboorman (talk) 11:09, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
This is indeed a mess, and will take some time to wade through. As for the author templates (whether used or not) many of them are also malformed, using HTML and CSS instead of proper wiki code. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 11:21, 15 May 2017 (UTC).
Who mentioned a bot? Which unused templates would you delete? If templates are used on stubs and semi-stubs, they will not show on the above page, as "unused". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:26, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
I did not write that templates are being used on stubs and semi-stubs. Sorry what I meant is that they may have a place on incomplete taxon pages. Andyboorman (talk) 11:34, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
Do you mean they could have potential use on stubs in the future? How long after creation should we keep such templates? Indefinitely? And, again: Which unused templates would you delete? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:37, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
Look I am not trying to be awkward, but for example, I looked at A.Fleischm. and found that I could use it by enhancing the existing page Nepenthes flava. However, I was happy to delete Aizoön, as the actual taxon page has been previously redirected. Two down a few thousand to go! I guess this is great and valuable tidy up project. Andyboorman (talk) 15:15, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
Many templates from this lists are reference templates, which simply have to be added to the respective author pages, e.g. {{Bigelow, 1967}}. After having done this, they will no longer show up as unused. IMO it is best to start with this kind of templates. --Franz Xaver (talk) 15:12, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
@Andyboorman: Anyway, {{A.Fleischm.}} still is unused, as {{a|A.Fleischm.}} actually is working with the redirect page A.Fleischm. and not with the template. Probably this kind of author templates can be deleted altogether, but in some cases creation of a redirect page might be necessary before. --Franz Xaver (talk) 15:27, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
Franz Xaver Too true! Andyboorman (talk) 15:32, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
@Franz Xaver: So you would add {{Bigelow, 1967}} to Robert S. Bigelow? How? - Please can you do so now, so that it can be used as an example for others? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:26, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
@Pigsonthewing: Done. Regards --Franz Xaver (talk) 16:31, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
Thank you. Is there any reason that such content needs to be in a template (presumably, it will only ever be used on that one page?), rather then entered directly? Either way, I think it would be worth having a bot scan Special:UnusedTemplates for similar cases, and then either i) applying them or ii) writing a list for human attention. Afterwards, if agreed, such templates could be "Subst:-ituted". Does anyone have a bot that could be approved to do such a task? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:40, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
@Pigsonthewing: Of course, the template {{Bigelow, 1967}} can be used in many taxon pages, probably in most pages on grasshoppers from New Zealand. Similarly, most other reference templates are to be used on more than one page. That's the reason, why these are templates. --Franz Xaver (talk) 17:04, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
And I did not say you are trying to be awkward. I simply asked you what you meant, since your first statement was not clear; and asked you a second time, "Which unused templates would you delete?", since you did not answer the first time (and I asked that, because you gave a list of types of template which you think we should not delete). And indeed, you have not yet answered that question. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:22, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
Sorry I really do not have time to trawl through unused templates for possible deletes. I was just pointing out a few possible pitfalls given your original post. Andyboorman (talk) 20:13, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
I found these templates {{Btname}}, {{At}}, {{2015sp}}, {{2014sp}}, {{X1}} unused, undocumented and with apparently no use. Possible candidates to delete! Burmeister (talk) 17:33, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
I agree. However, the list also includes a bunch of template documentation pages which actually are in use. For instance {{Boddaert, 1785/doc}} which really isn't a template in its own right, but the information ("help") subpage of the {{Boddaert, 1785}} reference template. These /doc pages should of course be kept (unless truly unused). –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 18:07, 15 May 2017 (UTC).
Hence "We'd also need to keep any /doc templates listed there." in my original post. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:35, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
Thank you. I've deleted the first. The last is provided for use as a sandbox. And the rest are labelled as being for substitution only, so I wouldn't expect any uses. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:38, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Let me ask another question: how long should we keep unused templates, before deleting them? And another: what purpose does, for example {{Ampelosicyinae}} serve, when it duplicates Ampelosicyinae? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:17, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Please do not forget that some templates are always used by substituting them. But if you use a substituted template, it will not appear in the list of linking to. QZanden (talk) 13:35, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
As discussed in my reply to Burmeister, above, you mean? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:27, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
How long is a piece of string? Each unused template should be treated on it own merits or lack of them. As to your second question, in my view the taxon page Ampelosicyinae was poorly constructed in the first place. Now the template has value and is used. This class of unused template can be dealt with by page edits. We like to use templates in this way so that if classification changes it can be dealt with quickly and simply. Andyboorman (talk) 20:33, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Yes, {{Ampelosicyinae}} is now used, because you've just deployed it. But you told us above, that you "really do not have time to trawl through unused templates". So how to you envision the issue of these thousands of unused templates being resolved? Meanwhile since you've removed my last example; here is another: {{Adamietta}} duplicates Sulcospira, to which Adamietta redirects, apart from using Genus: ''[[Adamietta]]''. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:26, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Adamietta was synonymised within Sulcospira; the page was redirected, but the template was forgotten. I think in these cases the template could be deleted without prejudice for WS. If Adamietta was resurrected in future, the template always can be restored to be used again. Burmeister (talk) 21:49, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
@Burmeister: Thank you. Is there a programmatic way to detect such templates? Maybe someone could draw up a list? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:11, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
I very regularly find these templates waiting around to be used when I undertake my edits and updates. I think we are talking at cross purposes. I am seeing templates that could be useful, for example those that could/should link to a taxon and must not be deleted until evaluated or used. However, I cannot comment on authors as I am not an author geek. In other words I will be helping out through my taxon page creations, edits and updates. However, you still seem to see all used templates as the same entity, but of course it would be great if there was a sort program, but my skill set is elsewhere. Sorry Andyboorman (talk) 11:14, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
"you still seem to see all used templates as the same entity" This is patently untrue, as should be obvious from even a brief reading of this short section. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:08, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
Sorry if I offended you - this refers to the "how long should we keep unused templates" as, in my opinion, this is a question with no blanket answer, but you have asked it a couple of times as if there could be one answer. Hopefully this helps. Andyboorman (talk) 14:31, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
I'm sure our colleagues are capable of framing an answer in the manner of "two months in the case of authors, but a year in the case of a taxon", or whatever. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:39, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Proposal of bot-policy modification[edit]

After some concerns were brought out regarding the definition of AWB whether it qualifies as a bot or is just considered an assisted editing and in view that some admins are making use of it without a bot account, and comparing to the practice used at the enWP, I propose the following modification to be made to the Wikispecies:Bot text.

After the phrase "Use of tools to assist with repetitive tasks, such as reverting vandalism, is termed assisted editing, and is not usually considered to be operation of a bot." I propose to add the following: Some software-tools may also be excluded from the bot definition to be considered assisted editing. The tools currently excluded are: AWB (AutoWikiBrowser) and JWB (JavaWikiBrowser), which is a web-version of the AWB. Please note that if you're using these programs regularly to make more than a few edits per minute you're strongly advised to open a bot account.

I for one am applying now to be approved a bot account. See my request for approval here: Wikispecies:Bots/Requests for approval. Mariusm (talk) 04:36, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

I would recommend a minor emendment that if autosave functions are used then AWB is to be considered a bot and approval by that route is required. I would set the edit limit to 20 per minute. I am aware this is still faster that WP but please realise a major reason this is deemed an issue is server lag and we do not have that issue on WS. However it can still cause flooding of recent changes so I think 20 per minute is a reasonable balance, over this and a bot flag is recommended (NOT mandatory). Cheers, Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 06:25, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
Both proposals would get my vote. All seems sensible. Andyboorman (talk) 08:26, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
@Faendalimas: Auto-mode will make saves automatically only for accounts registered as Bots, so your concern about autosave do not apply in this case. Mariusm (talk) 09:44, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
Oppose. This would make use of a bot-flagged account optional for anyone running AWB/JWB at 50 or more edits a minute. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:09, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
@Pigsonthewing: Take into account that AWB/JWB can be used only by admins or by users with a special permission and if these responsible individuals were told in a civilized manner that they exceed the speed limit and consequently they have to switch to a bot account, they'll readily comply. Mariusm (talk) 12:23, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
Agree with @Mariusm: here, I would prefer that users of AWB/JWB have a little latitude on what they are doing and agree that any issues admins have with an account doing this can be discussed and dealt with on a case by case basis. This is not something that new users will be doing. If Edit rates become an issue then it can be raised. In regards to autosave, yes Mariusm on WP you need a bot account to use the autosave capacity of AWB but is that true here? It is not clear to me if gaining AWB privelages on WP was global or whether other sites do not require this. When I received AWB privs on WP, before I was an admin here, I could use AWB here without asking for it. However as I said I do not know if thats because getting the flag to use AWB on WP made this global, or if WS does not require the flag to use AWB. If the later is true I would prefer to distinguish the autosave feature. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 13:06, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
When a bot is editing at 50 or more edits per minutes (that's 36,000 or more edits in 12 hours), and there is no indication as to whether or not a human is watching the edits, it needs to be blocked; waiting for discussion could take several hours. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:01, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
Recent evidence is that there are admins who use AWB in breach of the bot policy and who are not reasonable; when asked in a civilized manner to give an undertaking not to do so again, they refuse. Besides which, the change you suggest removes your hypothetical "speed limit". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:01, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
@Pigsonthewing: Nowhere was a speed limit specified for an assisted-editing and you might have well known that an account which isn't a Bot can't possibly edit in a fully automatic manner. Conclusion: A person must always be present behind a non-Bot account running the AWB. What is good enough for enWP which has a lot of AWB users can satisfy us also, and they aren't concerned by your concerns. If every casual AWB user would be requested to apply for a Bot it would be highly inconvenient and will necessitate a lot of bureaucratic procedures: applying, discussions, voting etc. all for running it once in a long while Mariusm (talk) 15:44, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
Your wording would exempt some users from any requirement to moderate the speed of their automated tools. That is not acceptable. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:04, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
I suggested a limit of 20 edits per minute and personally I think that is reasonable. I suggested that when it gets too high editors should consider applying for a bot account, I would imagine that as that happens this suggestion would be made too them by an admin. We are not EN WP where there are thousands of users with AWB permissions. We do not need to be draconian about this. I feel editors should have some freedom and admins should be able to make case by case decisions using the policy as a guideline. @Pigsonthewing: saying its unacceptable is the wrong word here, whatever we as a community come to consensus on is acceptable. What you can say is you oppose other editors may disagree with you. In the end the consensus of all editors is what prevails. This needs to be a simple process, our AWB editors are generally experienced users and few in number. I think we can handle this without making it too difficult for everyone. @Mariusm: If I could suggest, this has been on the pump for a day, write up the policy changes taking into consideration comments here. Give us some time to further discuss it then prepare to make it an RfC for a vote. I would like to see this issue dealt with. Also, if anyone else feels they may need a bot account for running their AWB edits please make an application on Wikispecies:Bots/Requests for approval, you should consider this if you are regularly using AWB to edit at a high rate per minute, note you will be subject to the bot policy in regards to this. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 17:53, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
Scott's suggestions have merit and have my support. I look forward to resolution and a vote, in due course, in order to inform consensus. Andyboorman (talk) 17:57, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
My reasons for trying to get through this is because I personally think this whole issue was not entirely necessary. However, deal with it we must. So lets get it done. Then we can move on to some issues that are actually important. One in particular is I want to see us discuss in detail and come to a proposal that permits us to move to a different referencing system. Something I had hoped you may actually consider important Andy since you have brought it up so often. Its a separate subject so do not respond on that here. But this I wanted a discussion page done on so we can actually do it. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 18:00, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
"Something I had hoped you may actually consider important" See #Citation templates, redux, just (at the time of writing) a couple of sections above this one. You commented there several times, so I would hope you would also recall my participation. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:14, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
"saying its unacceptable is the wrong word here" Under what circumstances do you think it would ever be acceptable for some editors to be allowed to use automated tools to edit at unlimited speed? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:17, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
I know you did that was my point. But lets not mix the topics. This is all about the bot policy. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 18:27, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
"Under what circumstances do you think it would ever be acceptable for some editors to be allowed to use automated tools to edit at unlimited speed?" Under any circumstance where the community had come to a consensus that it was ok, whether that is likely or not is not the point. My point was that we are discussing what can be done here and one person cannot determine an action is unacceptable. AWB may be capable of unlimited edit speed, this does not mean that will be used. I have no issue with our users hgere being trusted with this. As I said we do not face many of the issues that EN WP does. We do not need to be as proactive and can give our editors some freedom. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 18:31, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
I've never claimed to have "determined" that unlimited editing speed is unacceptable; I'm simply pointing out that it is. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:35, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
@Pigsonthewing: There exists no such thing, that is inherently unacceptable. If someone can accept something, it is acceptable for him, maybe not for other. You simply had pointed to the fact, that it was unacceptable for you, presuming, it certainly would also be unacceptable for others. --Franz Xaver (talk) 07:05, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
Change to 'more than 20 edits per minute', and for greater clarity please add: 'If autosave functions are used by these tools, then bot approval is always required'. --Thiotrix (talk) 06:42, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
@Thiotrix: This would be entirely superfluous because only bot accounts can run the autosave functions. Just try logging in to AWB with your regular accout; you'll see at the bottom Logged in, user and software enabled. Bot = False, Admin = True. This means that when you click the Bots tab and then the Auto save, you'll be denied. Mariusm (talk) 07:29, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
@Mariusm, Thiotrix: I note your point Mariusm, however, I think adding the autosave point in has merit, not so much as a condition but as an explanation, so there will be no confusion. Basically a statement that in order to use the autosave function a bot account is essential. This demonstrates to users that AWB does cross that boundary between assisted editing and a bot depending on how its used. I support what you have put above but would add something explanatory about autosave for clarity. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 13:04, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

@Faendalimas, Thiotrix: Ok than, lets modify the text to: Some software-tools may also be excluded from the bot definition to be considered assisted editing. The tools currently excluded are: AWB (AutoWikiBrowser) and JWB (JavaWikiBrowser), which is a web-version of the AWB. These tools need user-approval to complete each edit and can be used in an automatic mode (Auto save) only with a bot account. Please note that if you're using these programs regularly to make more than 20 edits per minute you're strongly advised to open a bot account. Mariusm (talk) 13:34, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

@Mariusm: I support this. Give some time for others to respond, then when appropriate take the entirety of the bot policy with your modifications (so that people can see what it will all say) make it into an RfC and put it to the community for voting. But do give a little time first for others to see this. Once it goes to RfC and is voted on we can be done with this. Cheers, Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 14:38, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
I have no problems with this wording and the Rfc suggestion by Faendalimas. Andyboorman (talk) 16:05, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

FYI, our current bot policy says: "Bots' editing speed should be regulated in some way; subject to approval, bots doing non-urgent tasks may edit approximately once every ten seconds, while bots doing more urgent tasks may edit approximately once every four seconds." That means maxima of six edits and fiteen edits per minute, respectively. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:49, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Read the bot policy, agree it needs to be changed, that is the point of this exercise. Make sure speeds are all 20 @Mariusm: we are not Wikipedia, server lag is not as big an issue here. Then we can vote on it. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 19:12, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

@Faendalimas: I would like also to consider changing the following bot policy text: "Bots' editing speed should be regulated in some way; subject to approval, bots doing non-urgent tasks may edit approximately once every ten seconds, while bots doing more urgent tasks may edit approximately once every four seconds." In view that these criteria were crafted for and adopted from the enWP, where the usual editing rate is 70–100 EPM plus an additional 30–60 EPM bot edits. This is hardly applicable to WS. I would like to change the text to: Automatic Bots' editing speed should be regulated in some way; subject to approval, bots doing non-urgent tasks may edit approximately once every five seconds, while bots doing more urgent tasks may edit approximately once every two seconds. Assisted-editing with a short span of activity is allowed to edit in a rate of up to 50 edits per minute. Mariusm (talk) 06:03, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose There is no reason to give "assisted editing" a faster rate than other automated edits. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:17, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support Assisted editing will be under the control of an editor. Andyboorman (talk) 10:40, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support I agree and can see the rational with this. Assisted editing is always under human control and is therefore safer than a bot in anycase. I think this can go to an rfc now @Mariusm:. Basically write out what the bot policy in its entirety will now say, with a link to the current policy, this discussion, the discussion on the admin noticeboard, and set up a discussion and vote section. Convert to an RfC for full community vote. I believe 7 days is appropriate for this. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 14:30, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

I've set up the voting at Wikispecies:Requests_for_Comment#Change_of_Bot_policy Please vote! Mariusm (talk) 15:40, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

  • Please continue at the RfC, voting and any further points. Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 16:52, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.


Distinguished author on the Main page: criteria?[edit]

I was just wondering what the criteria or rationale is for selecting a "Distinguished author" and featuring him or her on the Main page. Is there a voting process? Is it arbitrary? What makes them distinguished? I see little correlation with the quality/completeness of the author's Wikispecies page (compare Francesco Redi and Mary Agnes Chase to Johan Christian Fabricius) and their selection. I'd assume we'd want to highlight the best of the best, similar to highlighting featured articles on Wikipedia's main page, to maximize usefulness to readers, and inspire greater interaction with Wikispecies. -Animalparty (talk) 19:03, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

I would change Distinguished author to Featured author, distinguished being a blurry term to use. Mariusm (talk) 04:04, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
I think a voting/discussion process similar to In the news/Candidates or Good article nominations would aid in the selection/promotion of quality and useful content. Criteria to consider could be: quality of author's article on Wikipedia (comprehensive biographies favored over stubs); relative completeness of Wikispecies page (e.g. more than a handful of named taxa in "Category:Joe Naturalist taxa", and a fairly complete list of at least major taxonomic works); and perhaps timeliness corresponding to significant dates (e.g. Joe Naturalist is featured during the month of the 100th or 150th anniversary of his birth, death, major publication, or other significant milestone). @Tommy Kronkvist:: I see you have been active in distinguished authors templates. Any comments on criteria, and/or ways to make the selection process more transparent? -Animalparty (talk) 05:01, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
I assume we are keeping this to authors who are deceased, avoiding Biography of Living Persons issues, I would suggest we figure out a way to do some sort of rotation between plant/ animal other taxonomic groupings etc just for the sake of both coverage and fairness. I would also think it may be good to advertise the new author (this would go for featured species too) on twitter and facebook pages. May attract additional editors. I think we have to be fair on their nomenclature, very old taxonomic works do not follow modern versions of the code and are very loosely accepted as given for taxa older than about 1930, however I think constant renaming of the same taxa may be something to be considered for assessing quality, John Edward Gray was very guilty of this. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 23:17, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
@Faendalimas: A featured author (or species of the month, for that matter; any featured content) need not have exhaustive bibliographic data, but should have more info than say Adriana Hoffmann Jacoby or Francesco Redi. No doubt both authors are "distinguished", but highlighting their impoverished Wikispecies page seems lackluster. Wikispecies is first and foremost a directory, not a biographical dictionary or encyclopedia. There should be concerted, before-hand effort to compile major publications (at the very least), and to populate the respective named taxa category with more than one or zero taxa. Formally opening up the distinguished author selection to community discussion would allow for such before-hand improvement, even if all taxa or publications are not recorded. From cursory glance I believe John Edward Gray is of a satisfactory level of completeness to warrant being "featured" on the Wikispecies main page, keeping in mind Wikispecies' function as a directory. -Animalparty (talk) 16:36, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Subgenus page[edit]

Hi! I like to ask about subgenus page. In the case of species there is a consensus to create pages as Genus species. Is there a consensus to create subgenus page just like "Subgenus" (example: Bombias) or "Genus (Subgenus)" (example: Bombus (Bombias) ? Thanks Burmeister (talk) 15:48, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Subgenera are complicated in a way because the nominate subgenus is identical in spelling to the genus name. so for clarity what I do is this example in genus Elseya where you will note the nominate subgenus is Elseya (Elseya). Similar to your example with Bombias. Nomenclaturally this is the correct way to write the nominate subgenus, and names are technically always binomial, ie a species name is for example Elseya rhodini even though this species belongs to the subgenus Hanwarachelys and could technically be written as a trinomial Elseya (Hanwarachelys) rhodini. Cheers, Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 16:00, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
@Burmeister: This subgenera issue is indeed a WS minefield! Ideally it would be nice to have Genus (Subgenus) pages for subgenera and Genus (Subgenus) species pages for species. However this will cause a lot of problems, a lot of confusion and a lot of duplication! See for example Antheraea cadioui and Antheraea (Antheraea) cadioui - and there are many more. We debated this issue several times and came to the conclusion not to create Genus (Subgenus) species pages, but always to stick with Genus species. I also strongly suggest to make subgenus pages not named Genus (Subgenus) but just Subgenus. See for example the page Goetzia I made today; and see Protaetia on how to display and link the subgenera pages. I think this is the best way to avoid confusion, duplication, search problems and inconsistency. If you still worry that "proper names" are not represented on WS, you can create redirects for Genus (Subgenus) and for Genus (Subgenus) species, but I think this is unnecessary. Mariusm (talk) 05:44, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
Note: There's a special template {{sgsps}} for species lists, which can be used to display the species in the trinomial format yet to link to the binomial names. {{sgsps|G|enus|S|ubgenus|species}} will display as G. (S.) species but will link to Genus species. Mariusm (talk) 11:29, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
Just to clarify, I don't have any problem with the consensus to use "Genus species" approuch. My question was about "Subgenus" pages only. In cases where the genus and subgenus are the same name, example Bombus and Bombus (Bombus), what is the format for disambiguation, continue using Bombus (Bombus) or use a different format, Bombus (subgenus). Burmeister (talk) 13:16, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
Yep as I said the nominate subgenus, the one identical to the genus name, is the issue. My preference is to name that page Genus (Subgenus) so as to disambiguate it from the genus page. I looked at the example given by Mariusm but it does not have a nominate subgenus for some reason, ie Protaetia (Protaetia). In the genus Elseya there is a page for Elseya (Elseya). Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 13:27, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
Yes, Elseya use the format most common in WS, Elseya (Elseya), Elseya (Pelocomastes) and Elseya (Hanwarachelys). Burmeister (talk) 13:34, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

@Burmeister: You have 2 choices:

  • Create the page named Elseya (Elseya) as done (but be sure to include in the species list links to Genus species).
  • Skip the nominate subgenus page altogether and simply add a section: "Elseya (s.str.) species" (see the page, I made at Talk:Elseya), where I listed in one section all the species in alphabetic order and in another section "Elseya (s.str.) species" for the Elseya (Elseya) species. (s.str. means in the strict sense [Latin: sensu stricto] and is used by many authors to denote the nominate subgenus). Since all the details for Elseya and for Elseya (Elseya) are the same (Author, publications, type species etc.) there's no need really to create the Elseya (Elseya) page. See also my modified Protaetia. Mariusm (talk) 15:21, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
@Mariusm, Burmeister:I have a couple of reasons for not doing it the way you did on the talk page. First the nominate subgenus is a new combination, and this is declared by the reference erecting the new subgenera. The term sensu stricto with regards to Elseya is referring to the nominotypical species, in this case Elseya dentata not its con-subgeners. The reason for this is that there are other taxa described that have been synonymised with the type species, eg Elseya intermedia, so sensu stricto must be qualified, There are also other genera synonymised with the genus, and hence the subgenus Elseya, again meaning you must qualify this statement. To me for completeness, accuracy and recognition of the entire nomenclature it is better to have a page for the nominate subgenus, and obviously this needs to be disambiguated in some way. The way you do it works as well, I am not saying you are wrong. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 16:19, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
Mariusm wrote "Since all the details for Elseya and for Elseya (Elseya) are the same (Author, publications, type species etc.) there's no need really to create the Elseya (Elseya) page." A nominate subspecies fall in the exactly same problema, it have the same author, publication, type locality and holotype, tecnically a duplicate of information, but we decide to create individual pages for it (see a discussion in village pump a few months ago). So this argument for not create nominate subgenus because of duplicate of information is not maintain oneself. The other technical details about new combination, taxonomic act itself and allocation of synonyms, already discuss in Faedalimas commentary [, so I will not details this here]. Honestly, Mariusm, I find your suggestion confusing. I agree with Faendalimas, one page for each subgenus including the nominate, exactly the same approuch for subspecies. The only question is about the format. Burmeister (talk) 17:19, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
I continue to sustain that both nominal subspecies and now nominal sugenus are huge mistakes and a lost of time and effort. A true duplication, that a simple redirection would solve. But looks I am, by far, a lost vote. --Hector Bottai (talk) 00:21, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
The same as Hector Bottai I can't understand why we have to make pages for the nominal subspecies and the nominal subgenus. These are duplicates which waste our time and efforts and don't contribute any information at all. @Burmeister: I would advice you to reassess their necessity. Mariusm (talk) 04:11, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
To me it is innaccurate representation of the nomenclature. Your page you made for Elseya on its talk page, I could not agree with that. You list it as having 2 subgenera, not true it has 3, including the nominate. When I declared the subgenera of that genus, yes my paper is cited, I declared 3 subgenera, diagnosed 3 subgenera, split the existing species of Elseya into 3 subgenera, not 2. The nominate is nomenclaturally a recombination it may have the same data as the genus, but it is not the same entity. Under the code the subgenus adopts its nomenclature from the genus, it is not however the same thing. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 15:53, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
All right, @Faendalimas: I see your point. I just thought that since the nominate SG must always be present among the SG, if there are any, it can be considered as default and consequently can be skipped. When I indicated "2" I meant 2 + nominate. Of course the G and the nominate SG are not the same entity, yet since they share the same information, we can save some work by skipping (or redirecting) the nominate SG. Mariusm (talk) 04:32, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Wrongly named (fossil) taxa pages[edit]

We currently have quite a lot of pages named "Unspecified Eusaurischia Suborder", "Incertae sedis Coelophysoidea" and such, which obviously aren't named after valid taxa and therefore doesn't meet our naming scheme policy. On top of that many of them are also otherwise malformed. Nonetheless some of them contain valid data and shouldn't be imprudently deleted. Ideas? Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 13:55, 26 May 2017 (UTC).

Wikispecies:Village_Pump/Archive_37#Incertae_sedis_on_Taxon_Pages. Incertae sedis pages already discussed and banned. Reassign the valid content and delete the pages, maybe is the solution. Burmeister (talk) 14:05, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
Yes, make ===Incertae sedis genera=== sections at the parent taxon and delete the pages. Mariusm (talk) 15:12, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Bot policy update[edit]

A direct link to the actual poll can be seen here.

I updated our bot policy according to the vote at Requests for Comment. We have yet to define what exactly are bot "urgent tasks" which allow an accelerated rate of editing. Any suggestions? Mariusm (talk) 04:19, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

The policy currently says "The urgency of a task should always be considered; tasks that do not need to be completed quickly (for example, renaming categories) can and should be accomplished at a slower rate than those that do (for example, reverting vandalism)." I think that suffices. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:31, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
Agree - I think we who are approving bots have a good understanding of urgency and vandalism is an adequate example. The bot policy can be let be I think, when people apply they can justify their needs in the application, if approved they can do what they have been approved for. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 23:33, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
I still think we need an AWB policy though, or at the very least some guideline pointing out the basic AWB dos and don'ts. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 23:41, 28 May 2017 (UTC).