Wikispecies:Village Pump

From Wikispecies
(Redirected from WS:VP)
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.

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

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

Village pump in other languages: 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 (2017-03-20/2017-08-11) 44 (2017-08-10/2017-12-07)
45 (2017-12-08/…)

Possible duplicate journals[edit]

We have ISSN 1217-8837, and ISSN 0001-7264, each representing Acta Zoologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae. Can these be merged?

Likewise, ISSN 2299-6060 and ISSN 0065-1710 for Acta zoologica cracoviensia. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:52, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Also ISSN 0365-7000 and ISSN 0001-3943. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:50, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Anyone? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:06, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
Why are these considered duplicates? Taiwan versus Germany? Confused! Andyboorman (talk) 22:43, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Another: ISSN 1095-5674 vs. ISSN 0040-9618. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:51, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

The later is the Bulletin of the Torrey Botanical Club 1870-1996 and the former The Journal of the Torrey Botanical Society 1997-, so they can not be merged, as they are technically different journals. I can not vouch for the zoological journals. Hope this helps Andyboorman (talk) 22:38, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
Fixed on Wikidata. Thank you. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 00:02, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Also ISSN 1999-4095 and ISSN 1999-4079. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:22, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

on these later two I have emailed a Russian colleague for advice on this. will let you know. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 15:43, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
Hi @Pigsonthewing: got a response, they are the electronic and printed version of the same journal. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 16:22, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
Thank you. Merged to ISSN 1999-4095. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:55, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

ZooBank having database issues?[edit]

When visiting ZooBank the past few days I've frequently been met by an CFML RunTime Error rendered by their Open BlueDragon ("OpenBD") software, and at those times their database hasn't been able to respond. Whether entering the site from the main URL or from one of our ZooBank templates (e.g. {{ZooBank|E777AD0C-E27A-4C2A-B09E-37ACEA60F00C}} = ZooBank) doesn't seem to matter. At each occasion the problem remains for a short while (often ≈ 15 minutes), and then everything is working again. Am I the only one with this experience? –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 12:39, 12 December 2017 (UTC).

I had it all weekend. It finally came back on Sunday night. I understand they are having big funding problems, and there have been calls to fix that in this past week. Neferkheperre (talk) 13:44, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
Also of possible impact, the person who runs it has been rather busy with issues in his personal life. Its possible he was unable to get to fix it when an issue came up. Cheers, Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 15:58, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
Thank you both for the updates. I gather then that it isn't a problem in any way generated by our servers, so I guess there's nothing much we can do to help. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 15:26, 14 December 2017 (UTC).
referring to what you just added below @Pigsonthewing:. Am happy to see a template effectively closing these topics. Was wondering though do we have one that could block them up similar to the various voting ones, but says resolved instead. So that they can be seen as resolved and eventually archived. Difference being I would not put the "please do not modify" in and as you said if someone wants to continue in the time before its archived they replace your template with text as you suggest. I know most of these type of templates require you to put a _top and _bottom template in, but if there is one that can go at the bottom that will grab the heading of the topic to the template would be great, maybe even collapse it to make reading this page easier. I put this above your template so it would remain in this section. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 16:36, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
if this is what your doing from your last message just posted, ignore this and let me know when your finished. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 16:38, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:41, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Wikistats usage data for Wikispecies, more than 1 million views per month[edit]

Not sure if this is news to this community or not, but Wikistats have realised data on usage of all the wiki projects. Wikispecies is obviously a fairly niche project relative to, say, the English language Wikipedia, but in November it had 1 million page views (and that was a month of relatively low traffic). Getting equivalent data for other biodiversity projects is not easy, but I doubt whether many (if any) biodiversity projects get this many views. Full details at --Rdmpage (talk) 09:33, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the update @Rdmpage: Interesting information, so I added it as a @Wikispecies tweet. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 12:57, 16 December 2017 (UTC).
@Rdmpage: what does -34.84% year over year mean for total page views? Similarly for edits and edited pages? ... WSBiography (talk) 22:33, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
Presumably it's the difference in page views (or other statistic) over the previous year. Hence, 34.84% fewer views than last year. Likewise, month on month is a comparison with the previous month. --Rdmpage (talk) 12:21, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
I'm curious why there's 13k page views towards Special:CreateAccount page in the past month. This sounds like a really high number. OhanaUnitedTalk page 05:50, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
True, most of the hits are probably acount creating scripts, with the intention to automatically create an acount, and then spread spamming ads. I guess the Wikimedia programmers update the acount creating scripts, with a protection against this. Dan Koehl (talk) 08:44, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Flycatchers in eBird[edit]

eBird has two entries;

which I am trying to resolve on Wikidata, where Q1586049 has the label "Slaty-backed Flycatcher" and the taxon name and alias Ficedula hodgsonii, and links to our Ficedula hodgsonii, where we also give the English vernacular name "Slaty-backed Flycatcher". We have no entry for Ficedula sordida (and neither does Wikidata), and no mention of that name on our Ficedula page.

Can anyone advise, please? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:03, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

"Pygmy Flycatcher" is Muscicapella hodgsoni (Moore, 1854) here. F. sordida is apparently a replacement name for Ficedula hodgsonii (J. Verreaux, 1870/1) when Moore's species is included in Ficedula. Plantdrew (talk) 16:27, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
This is my understanding; when moving Muscicapella hodgsoni Moore, 1854 to Ficedula, that already happened in other classifications (but not in IOC, which this Wiki follows), it would have priority over existing Ficedula hodgsonii (Verreaux, 1871). In that case, this taxon would have to change to Ficedula sordida Godwin-Austen, 1874. See Template:Zuccon, 2011.--Hector Bottai (talk) 17:26, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
"IOC, which this Wiki follows" I've asked for evidence to support this claim, in the following section. None has been forthcoming, and there is no sign that there is consensus to support it. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:01, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
If a replacement name due to the creation of homonyms has occurred and this has been proposed in the literature it should be followed. We report valid revisions. Keeping Ficedula hodgsonii (Verreaux, 1871) when there now exists Ficedula hodgsoni Moore, 1854 due to recent recombinations cannot occur under the ICZN code. My recommendation is to cite whoever did the revision and update to bring the nomenclature in line with the code. In the end our arrangements must be code compliant, we do not do revisions, we report them. But if a revision can be cited then the solution has been presented to science. @Pigsonthewing:I have no idea where it states the following of the IOC to the exclusion of everything else either Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 22:14, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:20, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Inclusion of new taxa,or splits, or other taxonomic changes in Aves not yet listed by IOC[edit]

I understand that, for Aves, this Wiki follows IOC. Meanwhile, we have seen some new inclusions not yet listed by IOC been edited. There are many new descriptions or splits or other taxonomic changes published that it take years to be adopted, or simply never happens. These are two recent examples, but for sure there are many others in pages which I do not follow: Machaeropterus eckelberryi in Machaeropterus and Myrmoderus eowilsoni in Myrmoderus. This is food for discussion, I personally continue to think that if we abandon the "IOC policy" and do not put anything else in place, it will be a chaos, with anyone doing whatever thinks is the best taxonomic approach. Another example, the 2017 edition of the Handbook of the Birds of the World alive have promoted dozens of subespecies to species, and this is not necessarily followed by other classifications, should we include all them here? By the way, the edition of Myrmoderus eowilsoni includes a long Etimology that doesn't seem (to me) one of the objectives of this wiki.--Hector Bottai (talk) 01:20, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

This Wiki provides information on the nomenclature and circumscriptions of taxa based on whichever nomenclatural code is relevant, case in point the ICZN code. So people should make editions that reflect the code. I do not see the IOC as any more than a guiding reference, but if they are not up to date then new taxa should be added. If a description is in compliance with the code it is valid, unless you refute it. Not on the IOC list is not a refutation. The only principals people should be following are the principals of the codes. Although personally I do not consider books a good way of defining new taxa, it is currently permitted. So if a book has elevated a bunch of subspecies, refute the book (with data) or accept them. That's how nomenclature and taxonomy are supposed to work. I am only in favour of using the IOC, FishBase, WoRMs or the IUCN lists etc as guides and references. But the codes determine what is and is not available and valid. Cheers, Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 02:06, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
Aves is a special case, unlike any other taxa and I strongly advise we follow the IOC checklist for now, until the 27th International Ornithological Congress in Vancouver takes place in August, 19-26, 2018, where a consolidation of the various checklists will be attempted. See [1]. Mariusm (talk) 07:16, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
If you're going to critique the work of fellow editors (in this case, User:Neferkheperre and me, respectively), please have the courtesy to notify them, either by mentioning them (as I have just done), or with a post on their talk page. As for your "IOC only" contention, despite searching, I can't find it documented anywhere (it's not in the FAQ, nor Help:Contents, for instance). Please can you provide a link? As for the "Etymology:" statement, this wiki has several hundreds. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:12, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
Response to User:Pigsonthewing. My intention not mentioning your names was exactly the oppositely that you understood: not to critizise, but raising the issue in general terms and showing the examples. I am sorry if you took that as a personal issue, and I apologize for that. Specially to User:Neferkheperre, a fellow editor whose work I follow and admire. With respect to Etimology, I was clear that seemed "to me" unnecessary, and I was looking for opinions. I remember to see some etymology being removed by some authorized administrator, but I don't recall where. My personal opinion is that should not be included, making the pages too long. (As the bunch of vernacular names does). Response to User:Faendalimas. I am not totally sure I understood your position. Should we, editors, be able to make an interpretation if some determined article in in compliance with ICZN code? If so, you will be limiting that ability to very few specialists, and I am out! I am just a retired engineer doing this by passion and I have absolutely no idea what that code says. Who says a publication is in compliance? Not me for sure. One example: Tolmomyias sucunduri, published by highly respected ornithilogists, in a highly respected publication, it was rejected as full species by the SACC committee and is not listed as such by major classifications, except CBRO. What I should do? Keep as the authors described or follow IOC? There are hundreds of cases like this "example only". Response to User:Mariusm. Fully agree with you, and this was the orientation I received when started editing here.--Hector Bottai (talk) 11:33, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
So, no link to support the "IOC-only" approach? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:58, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
@Hector Bottai: Any peer-reviewed article in an established magazine is supposed to be in compliance with the ICZN code; this isn't the question here. We simply have to exclude Aves from our usual automatic routine of incorporating new articles-data in WS and to restrict our editing to the IOC checklist (for now). @Pigsonthewing: see this link, where the International Ornithologists' Union is pointing out: "The Union is nevertheless concerned about conflicting taxonomies among the various global checklists today. Although such conflicts are important in generating research in systematics, they can be confusing for users outside that field, particularly in wildlife management. Accordingly, it is sponsoring a round table at the 27th IOCongress in Vancouver, chaired by Frank Gill and Les Christidis, towards unification that will consolidate a checklist that the IOU can support. In the interim, the Union is using the current web-based version of the IOC World Bird List for the bird names in its publications." Mariusm (talk) 12:10, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for the link, but it is neither part of Wikispecies, nor binding on us (however, it does say "There are now several web-based lists of the birds of the world. Each has different strengths and emphases in information... The IOU does not grant imprimatur or take a position in supporting any specific list"). What I asked for is a link to a page where I can find evidence of Wikispecies reaching a consensus to follow IOC decisions, solely. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:35, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
@Hector Bottai:My point was not a criticism, my point was to follow whatever checklists have been a proven and reliable source, in this case IOC, but if information comes to hand that should be used, ie it meets ICZN standards, it should not be held up waiting for the IOC. My specialty is turtles, I follow the IUCN Checklist for Turtles as the main source of names. However, I do not wait for their updates when new species are described. They are added once they are available. In other words if you have new information that should be includedhere, but the IOC has not incorporated it yet then add it. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 18:47, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
@Mariusm:why is Aves a special case for this? I know the ornithologists are keen on the idea of bureaucratic oversight of nomenclature, they make that clear in Garnett and Christidis, 2017 where they want to force this upon all other taxa as well. If people publish in compliance with the methods of science they have the right to have their work recognised. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 18:52, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
@Faendalimas: It's having to do with the acceptance by the international community of ornithologists. For them new publications are only "proposals" which are "validated" when incorporated in the IOC by their editorial team and advisors. The list is updated 4 times a year and we might wait for these updates before hurrying on to modify the data. Of course this is only my recommendation and I'm not forcing any prerogative of mine. Mariusm (talk) 05:33, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
@Faendalimas: @Pigsonthewing:. I fully agree with @Mariusm:, that is how ornithology taxonomy works. Not only IOC but others, like eBird/Clements, AOU (including SACC) validate taxa proposals and higher taxa changes. Please see these links, the Spanish wiki, where I am very active, follows Clements by definition on the es:Wikiproyecto:Aves/Estándares while the English wiki follows IOC also by definition, see en:Wikipedia:WikiProject Birds/References. I am quite new here and I am not able to recall when and where the IOC recommendation for Wikispecies was done. For me it was. Cheers.--Hector Bottai (talk) 15:02, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

If anyone wishes to wait for the IOC before they effect changes I have no issue with that. The point is its not a policy here. Its also not binding to taxonomists in general. My own recommendation, as I noted above, is that if revisions, by anyone, are made that need to be followed to be in line with the ICZN code they should be reported here, whether the IOC has caught up or not. Its no different to following Reptile Database, done here to a significant degree. However, it is not binding and not done blindly. From what I have been hearing there is significant differences of opinion between some of the Avian sites and that this is getting worse over time. It also does not cause anarchy if one follows the requirements of the codes. As I said though I have no issue if you wish to do this. But we cannot call it policy. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 15:35, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

@Faendalimas, Hector Bottai: I propose a compromise where changes not validated by the IOC will be marked in some manner. For example the line under the Name section could be:
Myrmoderus eowilsoni Lane et al., 2017 [not validated by IOC]
This can be done with a template and can include a category so all the non-validated taxa can be listed. If this seems too intrusive, they can be marked only with a category. Mariusm (talk) 16:32, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
The compromisse solution proposed by @Mariusm: looks ver reasonable. At the species level, a category only would be fine. At the genus level, after species, we could create a line
Species not validated by IOC:
or at the family level
Genera not validated by IOC:
And so on.
--Hector Bottai (talk) 17:06, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
If you wish to flag them somehow do so, it will help if you had a search term for this I can see that. You do not need to set this as policy for you to do this. A category would be fine, you could also opt for it to be a hidden cat if you wish. These options would permit tools such AWB to find them for later revision as needed. However, I do not think policies unique to one group that enact requirements that are outside the codes of nomenclature are a good idea. Cheers, Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 21:04, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
Tagging a negative seems likely to be problematic; better to tag with - if anything - "is validated by IOC". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:15, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
Positive validation doesn't really help here. The problem is the IOC validates circumscriptions, not scientific names per se, and roots the circumscriptions to a vernacular name. "Western Osprey" is Pandion haliaetus sensu IOC. "Osprey" is Pandion haliaetus sensu lato (including P. cristatus), and "Osprey" is not currently explicitly tied to any one IOC taxon. If something is tagged as validated by the IOC, is it still validated if the IOC later splits it and no longer recognizes a broader circumscription? Plantdrew (talk) 07:46, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:21, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Alexandr I. Miroshnikov[edit]

On the talk page of Alexander Ivanovich Miroshnikov, User:SchreiberBike suggests that it and Alexandr I. Miroshnikov are likely about the same person. This seems plausible. Does anyone disagree? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:50, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Potential problem with taxa authored 2[edit]

"Hi, do you have any clue why the link to Category is working properly but is showing 0 taxa authored?--Hector Bottai (talk) 16:22, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi, @Hector Bottai:. I have no idea. I notice 12 taxa are listed when link is clicked. Counter is not working. This has happened before, and no has determined why. Within 1-2 days, it catches up. Neferkheperre (talk) 17:48, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
I am afraid it won't. That is the reason I had left the very old template for authored taxa. Let's wait.--Hector Bottai (talk) 17:59, 24 December 2017 (UTC)"
Originally, I thought this might be re-iteration of our old intermittent problem of taxa authored counts not keeping up with included lists. But this one seems to be slightly different. When installing {{taxa authored 2}} either to new author pages or in updating older ones, whatever number of taxa was held in that category remains at that integer, even when new taxa are added to the category. Possibly minor errors in programming, or Wiki hiccup? Neferkheperre (talk) 19:47, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
It's almost certainly impossible to debug such issues without examples. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:59, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
Advise, the problem with John Patton O'Neill not counting authored taxa existed even with the Taxa template and persists with taxa authored 2.--Hector Bottai (talk) 22:03, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
There is that, and Ray T. Perreault, which had 3 existing taxa listed and counted. Today I went into my page, updated to taxa authored 2; then I went to another one of my authored species and added it to the category. Category count failed to update. Neferkheperre (talk) 22:10, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
Perreault is no showing 4 species. The issue might have been be down to a backlog in the job queue: en:Help:Job queue; that shows "0" under "jobs" at [2] (compare with en.Wikipedia's queue, currently showing 35528, at [3]). For O'Neill, the count is still (at the time of writing) 0; but is the same using {{taxa authored}}. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:31, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
Correct. At O'Neill is not a delay. Is a bug.--Hector Bottai (talk) 22:33, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
@Hector Bottai: Some time ago, I observed the same effect with Yin Ch’An Wu. It can be fixed by changing the character used for the inverted comma in the name, both in the author page and in the category. Of course, all taxa then need to be re-categorised. --Franz Xaver (talk) 09:55, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
Done! @Franz Xaver:, and worked fine. Now I will edit all the related pages. Many thanks.--Hector Bottai (talk) 13:16, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
All fixed with O’Neill, but...there are dozens of O’ written O' names to be fixed. And probably a lot more on other uses of the inverted coma X'. Good luck!!--Hector Bottai (talk) 13:56, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
A more sensible approach would be to examine why category names with certain punctuation characters cause a a failure (and which if any, other characters cause it); and to fix that. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:43, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
I have the same problem with Roberta D'Archino. Where can I find the curly quote sign on the keyboard? --Thiotrix (talk) 10:54, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
@Thiotrix: Go to Special characters > Symbols and you will find it, 5th line.--Hector Bottai (talk) 20:24, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Punctuation in names[edit]

In applying the above work-around, Hector moved John Patton O'Neill (with a straight, ASCII apostrophe) to John Patton O’Neill (with a single curly quote). Which (if any standard exists) is the preferred usage on Wikispecies? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:47, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Kiyoshi Ando[edit]

Would anyone like to rescue the data from this good-faith edit, apparently by the page's subject, which I have just reverted as malformed? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:52, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

 Done Mariusm (talk) 09:41, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:40, 2 January 2018 (UTC)


Can I add species by their familiar names or only their scientific names? --Gary Leo AF7M (talk) 15:58, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello this is a taxonomic site, so you need to add using scientific names. The familiar names have there own Vernacular Name section. Andyboorman (talk) 18:20, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:22, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Broken redirects[edit]

Osteospermum caulescens and Dimorphotheca caulescens currently redirect to each other. Can someone say where they should point, please? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:50, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

I am fairly certain that Dimorphotheca caulescens is the correct name currently (GBIF). Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 15:52, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
No Osteospermum caulescens is correct Dimorphotheca are all annuals. I have sorted this one. Andyboorman (talk) 15:57, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
Fair enough, I was not sure so did not change anything, and am not a botanist. Hard t tell from searches. Thanks @Andyboorman:. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 16:23, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:40, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Missing reference templates[edit]

The following templates are each used on 4 or 5 pages, but do not exist:

Please create them or fix the uses, if you can. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:12, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the information. I'll sort them out later today. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 11:51, 1 January 2018 (UTC).
It turns out I can't find the correct data for the "Beier, 1938" reference. The others are done though. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 06:24, 2 January 2018 (UTC).


@Tommy Kronkvist: Good work, thank you. I see now that we also need:

which is used on eleven pages. Then there are the following, with three uses each:

-- Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:42, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Found Beier, 1938. Must resolve journal issue, as it is German, presented as abbreviation. Takes slightly more time. Neferkheperre (talk) 14:23, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, and great work with adding the "Nomenclatural acts" and "new names" stuff! As you might have noticed I corrected a minor spelling error in the template. I'm fairly fluent in German, and many of the odd ä/Ä/ö/Ö etc. letters are readily available on my Swedish keyboard since the keyboard layout is fairly similar to the official German ditto. However I have trouble finding the correct information for the "Beier, 1953" and "-1963" templates, so please take care of them as well if you can. I've come across 30 or so Beier publications from those two years, but none of them regarding the taxa at hand...
The "non-Beier" templates in the list are easier and I'll create them tonight – but no harm if another editor beats me to it of course. :-) Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 18:12, 2 January 2018 (UTC).

While you're at it, we also need:

with one use each. Note that Max Walter Peter Beier has a Beier, 1935a and Beier, 1935b. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:38, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Yup, he was a busy guy. I've seen some statistics earlier on, and it wasn't uncommon for Dr. Beier to publish 30–35 papers per year! Considering he was active for about half a century we could do well having a designated Beier expert among us, but unfortunately it's not going to be me... Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 19:32, 2 January 2018 (UTC).
His German-language Wikipedia biography seems to be maintained by de:Benutzer:Dreizung. Maybe a German speaker could reach out to him? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:59, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
An excellent idea. I'll look into it tomorrow. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 20:05, 2 January 2018 (UTC).
I shall get to work on these Beier cites. It seems some relatively recent revisions and catalogs make frequent reference to them. It remains to match citations to their taxa so there is no confusion. Neferkheperre (talk) 21:36, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
All of Beier's papers are listed in "Hofrat Professor Dr. Max Beier zum Gedenken" (PDF). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:28, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

@Tommy Kronkvist, Neferkheperre: May I nudge you both? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:40, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

I have set up separate tab for Beier, with his list of publications, and Western Australian Museum website with some of his taxonomy. There are 398 papers total. One problem is that WAM's ordering of Beier's papers is not co-inciding with his official list. Bit slow, but I shall be working on it. Neferkheperre (talk) 18:36, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Allium sect. Amerallium[edit]

The template {{Allium sect. Amerallium}} is used on two pages, but does not (and never did) exist. It does not not appear to be a typo. Should it be removed? If not, what should be in it? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:42, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

I solved the case by creating the template. -RLJ (talk) 11:36, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:40, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia fully-protected templates[edit]

Several templates appear in the badly-named, red-linked Category:Wikipedia fully-protected templates. It does not appear in their markup. What causes that? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:55, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Bryan Alwyn Barlow[edit]

I composed an article for wikipedia on Bryan Alwyn Barlow, based on the spanish article for him, but when I came to put it up, I found a Wikispecies article for him, which I then edited. However, I don't know how to link to the wikispecies article when in wikipedia. Hoping someone can help me with this. (P.S. Thanks, very much for the editing help for the wikispecies article.) MargaretRDonald (talk) 22:25, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

@MargaretRDonald: This is done in Wikidata; but it seems they (Wikispecies and Spanish Wikipedia) are already linked. Have you published your English Wikipedia article, yet? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:57, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Again concerning Bryan Alwyn Barlow[edit]

I see that for the article "Category: Taxa authored by Carolus Linnaeus" the following code is used List of taxon names authored by Carolus Linnaeus.

I would like to create a corresponding list for Bryan Alwyn Barlow, but am unclear about how to go about it... MargaretRDonald (talk) 22:40, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

@MargaretRDonald: Category:Bryan Alwyn Barlow taxa is currently empty. You need to edit the pages about individual taxa, to make them members of the category. If you have an example, I can demonstrate how to do this. [As an aside, it would be easy to generate such lists automatically - if the Wikispecies community would allow it - once the data were in Wikidata. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:44, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
Hello MargaretRDonald, on the page Bryan Alwyn Barlow, you click in the left side menu on "What links here". The result is a list of pages, but here without taxon names, as there are two authors named Barlow. Go to Barlow and click again on "what links here". The resulting list of taxa are from both Barlows, all the Melaleuca species are from the botanist. The author category has to be added to each taxon page; see my additions at Melaleuca araucarioides, where I added also the missing references and corrected the author link. (For a complete list of names authored by Bryan Alwyn Barlow, see here at International Plant Names Index, IPNI). Kind regards, --Thiotrix (talk) 23:20, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:25, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

ISNI down?[edit]

Staring at my computer screen it looks like the ISNI search function is down. That brakes all ISNI links automagically served by Wikidata to the "Authority control" template used on our author pages (including the one for Bryan Alwyn Barlow). Or perhaps it is only my VPN that's acting up... Can someone please verify whether the ISNI search is working or not? Thanks beforehand! –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), Tommy Kronkvist (talk) 02:40, 3 January 2018 (UTC).

My server cannot find any webpage for ISNI. Neferkheperre (talk) 02:58, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. From here I can see that their main page and most of their sub-pages are working fine, but I can not search their database (per links above). Furthermore their SSL certificate (for secure https connections) looks shifty, but that's probably not related. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 03:13, 3 January 2018 (UTC).
At the moment the ISNI search itself is working, but trying to fetch data from an external source directly does not resolve.Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 10:58, 3 January 2018 (UTC).
Search is indeed working now. If this recurs, you can often find an ISNI by searching at VIAF. Wikidata's user script 'authority control' user script will perform several searches at once. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:55, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:26, 20 January 2018 (UTC)


Taxonomists, please help. See image caption at Turdidae. Is it correct to add a type species to a family page? or the correct is a genus type? Thanks!--Hector Bottai (talk) 20:51, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

No, that should read type species of Turdus. For families, it would be type genus. Neferkheperre (talk) 23:30, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, @Neferkheperre:.--Hector Bottai (talk) 21:38, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:26, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Biol. Tiere Deutschl.[edit]

Can anyone give me a full title for " Biol. Tiere Deutschl.", please? Bonus points for a URL or ISSN. My web searches have not been productive. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:02, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Probably: "Biologie der Tiere Deutschlands" see here. Burmeister (talk) 13:44, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
No ISSN, apparently ceased publication about 1938. See WorldCat. Neferkheperre (talk) 13:51, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Resolved Yes, that fits the dates I have. Thank you, both. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:19, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Forms of Vidensk. Medd. Dansk nat. Foren.[edit]

Are Videnskabelige meddelelser fra den Naturhistoriske forening i Kjøbenhavn (Q23073022), Videnskabelige meddelelser fra Dansk Naturhistorisk forening i Kjøbenhavn (a red link on the former item) and ISSN 0373-3874 (Q21385465) one, two or three publications? The latter page refers to the minor name change between the first two; and has BHL links for volumes from 1849-1924. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:25, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

All one journal. Older journals, particularly European ones, changed names from time to time. Part of their confusion, especially after some time has passed. BHL is helpful in disambiguating these various incarnations. Neferkheperre (talk) 02:11, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
Thank you. Merged to ISSN 0373-3874, and to Q21385465 on Wikidata. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:06, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 6 January 2018 (UTC)

More journals[edit]

I have searched for each of the following journal abbreviations (many cited on Wikispecies) using a variety of sources, but cannot determine the full titles. Can anyone help, please?

  • Ann. Mus. Congo Tervuren, Zool. (possibly related to ISSN 0379-1785?)
  • Ann. Mus. Roy. Afr. Centr., Zool.
  • Ann. Natur-hist. 'Mus. Wien (possibly "Ann. Wiener Mus. Naturgesch."?}
  • Cat. Faun. Austr.
  • Jahrb. Ges. Natur, u. Technik Wien
  • Miss. Sc. l'Omo., Paris
  • Mitt. Höhlen-Karstforsch.
  • Nat. Hist. Rennel Isl., Brit. Solomon Isl, Copenhagen
  • Orthopt. Catal. (possibly "A Synonymic Catalogue of Orthoptera"?)
  • Rendiconti, Cl. Sc., Milano
  • Ree. S. Austral. Mus.

Again, URLs or other identifiers would be useful, too. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:12, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

are you sure the last one is not a typo for Records of the South Australian Museum Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 00:26, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
Indeed it is. Thank you. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 00:36, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
@Pigsonthewing: Ann. Mus. Roy. Afr. Centr., Zool. == Musée Royal de l'Afrique Centrale, Tervuren, Belgique: Annales - Serie in 8° - Sciences Zoologiques ISBN is per volume as its a monograph series. Its changed its name over the years and also has language variants. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 18:41, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
Also you are correct on Ann. Mus. Congo Tervuren, Zool. see here this journal is also related to the monograph series above. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 18:46, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
Thank you again. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:52, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Gyrophaena boops[edit]

Could someone please fix this entry. Thx --Succu (talk) 21:50, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

 Done I moved it to Phanerota boops which is the correct combination. Mariusm (talk) 10:41, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:27, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

JSTOR web page[edit]

Please note that the URL for JSTOR's database has changed from "www" to "plants", e.g. "" for Muellerina eucalyptoides. I have updated our {{JSTOR}} template accordingly. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 08:47, 7 January 2018 (UTC).

The template is mostly used for linking to the core part of JSTOR, the collection of digitized literature, with the URL "" plus an ID number. Global Plants is essentially a collection of pictures of botanical type specimens. A template pointing to Global Plants should have another name than "JSTOR". -RLJ (talk) 10:55, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
I changed the template and its documentation correspondingly. --RLJ (talk) 11:59, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
I don't have a problem with that at all, and agree that the few "JSTOR plant" links we have should have a separate name. What should we name such a template? Suggestions please. Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 12:38, 7 January 2018 (UTC).

Template APNI not working[edit]

The template APNI seems not to work anymore, see at Muellerina eucalyptoides. Can someone correct the links, please? --Thiotrix (talk) 13:55, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

The {{APNI}} template hasn't been edited since August 2015.(diff) It was working well earlier today – I know because I made an edit to the Muellerina eucalyptoides page which involved adding the template twice,(diff) and I checked the links in the process. Hence this error is most likely due to temporary problems at the APNI end, and not related to our template or database calls. (See the ISNI down? thread above for a similar case, which btw is by now resolved by ISNI and/or their web site host.) Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 16:32, 7 January 2018 (UTC).
The template is pointing to, for example, That redirects to which in trun returns a 404 'not found' error. The page at redirects to The latter website has a page about Muellerina eucalyptoides, at - note that the ID has changed from "470093" to "63880", and that using the old ID in the new format URL, as: fails. The Wayback Machine does not have the original page archived. For now, I've disabled display of the template. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:39, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing this out Andy. I've added HTML wiki links for the APNI data at Muellerina eucalyptoides until this (somehow...) gets fixed. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 22:29, 7 January 2018 (UTC).
Incidentally, there are around 137 pages using this template. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:44, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

New template for use on taxon author talk pages[edit]

I have forked {{Welcome}}, and created {{Autobiography}}, for use on the talk pages of Taxon Author pages which have been edited by an IP editor who is or may be the page's subject. If the page has been edited by a named account, please leave a {{Welcome}} on that account's talk page, instead.

I did this because many "IP" editors who edit author pages may not see the welcome templates left on the IP's talk page, if the next time they visit they are using a different IP address.

Translations of the new template are needed, please. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:56, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Israel Journal of Ecology and Evolution[edit]

Can we merge ISSN 2224-4662 and ISSN 0021-2210? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:34, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

One ended in 2005, other started just after. They seem to be separate, as there are two different ISSN numbers. Publishers changed as well. Neferkheperre (talk) 16:28, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
@Neferkheperre: Thank you. Which is which? Which publishers? Could you update the relevant pages please, or provide a source, so that I can? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:57, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
I updated relevant pages. They are indeed successive names, but with entirely separate ISSN numbers, they must be handled separately, but with interlinkage. Taylor and Francis seems to be handling all dissemination now. I have installed or verified T&F's links. I can't find anything on "Science from Israel" any more. Neferkheperre (talk) 14:41, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
Thank you. I've done the same on the corresponding Wikidata items. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:06, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:07, 11 January 2018 (UTC)


Ist Wikispecies nicht fähig oder nicht willens international und mehrsprachig zu sein?- 12:20, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

[Google translation: "Is Wikispecies unable or unwilling to be international and multilingual?"]
If you have a specific issue, please give a link or diff. If you just want to moan, this is not the place.
[Google Übersetzung: "Wenn Sie ein spezifisches Problem haben, geben Sie bitte einen Link oder einen Unterschied an. Wenn Sie nur stöhnen wollen, ist dies nicht der richtige Ort."]. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:14, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
Meine Deutsche nichte ist gut but... ja Wikispecies ist en Deutsche, Anglaisch, Spanisch, etc. —Justin (koavf)TCM 19:13, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
The google translations in this case are acceptable. It was a honest question, not just moaning. It's obvious that wikispecies unlike wikipedia, wikisource and wiktionary is English. Even if the un- or semi-translated help pages (e.g. Help:Contents/de) were fully translated, it wouldn't change the fact that wikispecies is English as seen by the English links at the left (e.g. "Main page") and by the English entries (e.g. "References", "Synonyms", "Vernacular names", "Publications", "Chinese entomologist"). And even if registered and having changed the preferred language which changes the language of the links at the left, the entries remain English. The Polnish wiktionary does at least translate terms like synonyms for registered users. Having figured out that wikispecies is English, the question is "why?" which leads back to the original question above. - 03:21, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
A thing to remember is that Wikispecies ( is one separate wiki while in fact "Wikipedia", "Wikisource" and "Wiktionary" aren't really wikis at all… However the English language versions of Wikipedia (, Wikisource ( and Wiktionary ( are all wikis. And they are all English – not international – in the same way as for example and are German and Polish wikis, respectively, rather than international. Currently there are a total of 298 different Wikipedias, and as far as I know none of them has a truly international user interface. The same goes for most of the other ones like Wikinews, Wikivoyage, etc. Apart from a handful of exceptions like Wikimedia Commons they are all language specific wikis.
Having said that, I still acknowledge that your question is important. The work with making Wikispecies more language independent is always ongoing, but slow. We only have about 200 active users, and most of them are not taking part in the work with translating the wiki. I wish this would change, but that is a slow process as well... As a comparison Wikimedia Commons and Wikidata are both language independent wikis too – each with a user base of tens of thousands of active users, rather than 200. But we do our best! :) Best regards, Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 04:28, 10 January 2018 (UTC).

Pages that seem ... incomplete?[edit]

I am trying (yet again) to match/create Wikidata items for Wikispecies pages, but some pages are incomplete or confusing to the point where I can't tell what it's about...

It would be great if someone could fix them up, or delete/redirect them. Also the various "to merge" articles I flagged here. And if they are fixed up, maybe add them to Wikidata? Thanks! --Magnus Manske (talk) 11:21, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Now down to <20 articles without item, list! --Magnus Manske (talk) 15:17, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
Gyrophaena brevidens done; as Q47169496. Two deletions struck from your list. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:45, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
I deleted those two as not using standard taxon formatting, and being empty. For Philodila, P. hoenei is correct, as umlauts are not allowed by ICZN, and properly converted by adding "e". Looking at that situation, there is much generic re-assignment, which is not completely coherent. Someone familiar with that taxon should unravel it. Neferkheperre (talk) 02:12, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
I sorted out Limenitis mimica pe and deleted Gyrophaena bicarnella which is a misspelling for Gyrophaena bicarinella. Mariusm (talk) 05:36, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
As to Philodila hönei, this indeed cannot be a name under the zoological Code, and I removed the error over a year ago, but User:PeterR put the error right back in. Note that User:PeterR indeed disagrees with himself what the valid name is: Lepchina hoenei or Dahira hoenei. - Brya (talk) 06:34, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
@PeterR:, whose edits are discussed here. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:58, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
There is still a link to Gyrophaena bicarnella at Gyrophaena. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:55, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

On a related note, there are 143 pages linking to Gyrophaena (Gyrophaena), which does not yet exist. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:00, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you all! As always, once-a-day updated list of articles without Wikidata (also tends to indicate other problems) here. --Magnus Manske (talk) 15:49, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

And an update on some present statistics:

Dan Koehl (talk) 22:53, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

I do a lot of new page patrolling, but the vast majority of teh current backlog are translations, which I - a monoglot - am not qualified to review. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 01:24, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
According to this site Euleechia Dyar, 1900 . Can. Ent. 32 : 347. is the accepted name of Chelonia in the homonym list. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 01:59, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Locally saved protologues[edit]

Please have a look at the Prostanthera page, more specifically this edit (with one intermediate revision by the same user not shown). After the edit(s) the "Name" section now includes an inline link to a page named Prostanthera:Protologue in English, which was recently created by the same editor and despite the name also includes the Latin protologue. This of course doesn't comply with the Help:Name section guide, and creating Wikispecies pages with complete protologues isn't praxis either (compare Ixanthus viscosus). What is the community's view upon matters like this?

Incidentally, in this particular case the protologue was published in 1806 so I don't think there are any copyright issues involved. I propose to rename the protologue page to "Prostanthera protologue", should we decide to keep it. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 07:43, 11 January 2018 (UTC).

First point is that the protologue in the Name Section is not required, as long as it appears in the Reference Section. IMO it would be best to avoid it. Secondly, having a separate WS page is again not needed, as there should be a direct third party link on the reference. Thirdly, I do not know the potential copyright issues linking to Google Books - beyond my pay grade, but I do use BHL or similar copyright free site, in preference. Finally, I now prefer to link to the protolgue simply through the page on the reference (compare Garuleum). Andyboorman (talk) 09:01, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
There are no copyright issues with linking to Google Books. The content of out-of-copyright works belongs (if anywhere in the Wikimedia system) on Wikisource; where of course we can link to it from Wikispecies. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:46, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
@MargaretRDonald: whose edit is discussed here. Please notify people whose work is queried here. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:48, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Ideally, a correctly transcribed text should (will) be available in Wikisource in the original language, together with the facsimile page (to always allow verification of the transcription), and then the automatic translate within wikisource could kick in. But this seems a long way off yet, with most latin botanical texts either not or just barely started. In the meantime I think it is sensible for now to keep the this protologue (for both the transcription and the inadequate translation, for as William T. Stearn points out, Botanical Latin is a language of its own). MargaretRDonald (talk) 21:53, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

@MargaretRDonald: More I think about it I feel it would be good idea to have protologue translations here, perhaps in a category repository, as well as linked to the reference on the taxon page. Anybody know an AI that can be trained up! Regards Andyboorman (talk) 20:20, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
@MargaretRDonald, Andyboorman: In my opinion, it is not really worth the effort to translate these old protologues from Latin into English, as far as it concerns WS. A link to the original (Latin) text (at BHL or anywhere else) would be sufficient for us. Yes, in a certain sense, Botanical Latin is a language of its own. So, a translation into English is not really comprehensible, if you don't know a lot about the botanical terminology and, beyond that, the change in the meaning of terms during time. The protologue of Prostanthera contains an example: "Corolla monopetala" verbally can be translated into "Corolla a single ... petal". However, in todays terminology the family description in reads "flowers ... with five united petals". This obvious contradiction must be explained by the fact, that the meaning/usage of the word "petal" has changed since 1806, so that, what was regarded as one single petal then, now is seen as five united petals. So, translating old protologues without explaining such apparent differences to modern usage of botanical terms probably will only cause a lot of confusion. It's Ok for me, if someone started such a translation project in Wikisource, but in my opinion this is beyond the scope of WS. --Franz Xaver (talk) 15:23, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Missing repository categories[edit]

The following categories, and more, have members, but do not exist as category pages (and thus do not have a description, a parent category, nor representation on Wikidata).

Collapsed list of categories

They seem to relate to repositories (e.g. Category:GAZI == GAZİ). However, several of them do not match to existing repository pages (AD, OSC).

Some, but not all, are generated by {{Repository link}}.

What should be done? Should the categories exist? Should the repository pages?

(@RLC:, who added some when creating Isoetes caroli, and in this edit for example.) Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:33, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Sorry - @RLJ:. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 00:28, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
I used {{rl}} as a mark-up for the herbaria. Their acronyms are standardized by the Index Herbariorum ( I am not the creator of this template, and the question is if the work linked with creation and maintaining of the repositiory pages and category has priority in the limited resources of this project. For botany the item could be solved by a template with a link to Index Herbarium plus acronym, e.g. . --RLJ (talk) 11:58, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
I've made a template for this, {{Botany repository}} - see, its use on Category:OAC. But that still leaves the issue that OAC does not exist. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:55, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Fixing {{GRIN}}[edit]

This is a temporary fix to resolve a number of LINT errors. However this means the italcised titles don't display as italics. Ideally the template should be repaired properly, or the relevant italicised names PROPERLY supported by additional options.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:47, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

@ShakespeareFan00: Your in good faith fixes on IPNI generate nonsense - see here [4]. Could you please revert all those affected. Does this also affect GRIN? I have not checked. By the way few of us are coding experts and depend on outside help, I, for one, would prefer a working link without italics rather than a dead search. Thanks. Andyboorman (talk) 15:24, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Now fixed for that page, do you know of a grep style search that would find other instances of issues with calling this template? I am checking my own revisions with quarry, but would like to know how to find other malformed uses of this template, with a view to eliminating them? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:55, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
So far I'm not finding any malformed calls to {{IPNI}} on other pages, much as checking 500 or so pages manually is probably a good thing, in that I found some errors in other template calls whilst checking. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 12:37, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
I did however on someone else edits find a malformed call here Cattleya × hardyana, perhaps someone can examine the underlying template and take a hammer to it until it works as the documentation SAYS it should work? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:36, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
I think the problem is with the search procedures on the sites linked to by the templates. I have never got WCSP and IPNI to work with hybrids, either directly or remotely via templates, but they do a good search without the "x" and then show the hybrid taxon page. Very odd. Also I do not know a grep style search - not a code head! Cheers Andyboorman (talk) 15:06, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Main page error[edit]

Template:Especies-2018-01 does not exist, but is used on our main page; I have redirected it to Template:Especies-2017-11 for now, to avoid showing a red link there. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:10, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Opinions welcome[edit]

Do you think that this publication Template:Taczanowski, 1877, ahead of showing on Taczanowski page should also show on Jelski and Stolzmann pages? This is an example, there several other cases like this. Thanks.--Hector Bottai (talk) 14:14, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

I do not think so, it is a list of birds collected by Jelski and Stolzmann it is not a paper written by these other two authors. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 17:25, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
It could perhaps be added under a "See also" or "Further reading" heading? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:30, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
I'm not sure how to read that. Is it two papers ("pt2" and "pt4")? From a sequence of how many? What about "pt1" and "pt3"? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:34, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
English "List of Birds collected in 1876 in northern Western Peru by M. Jelski and Stolzmann. Pt2: 319-333 BHL; Supplement to the list of birds collected in northern Peru by Mr. M. Jelski and Stolzmann Pt4: 744-754" It is a multi-published monograph with suppliments, but all by the author Taczanowski. The author is just saying who collected them. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 18:38, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
I will give an analogy. In one of my papers I have the title "A Revision of the Fossil Chelid Turtles (Pleurodira) Described by C.W. De Vis, 1897". Charles de Vis died about 55 years before I was born. Clearly he never saw what I wrote, I am just identifying the specimens as those collected by him. Should he receive an authorship style credit? I do not think so. If you wish to link to the collectors because they have done their own works as well and its relevant then do so, as Andy says this could be done under Further Reading or something. However, I do not think they should be indicated as having any authorship connection to this paper. Since if they did they would be authors. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 18:47, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
I liked the"Further Reading" idea, a way to remember the contributions of these collectors to the descriptions.--Hector Bottai (talk) 20:52, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
Thank you, I understand the issue of authorship (hence my "further reading" suggestion); but I'm still not clear about the number of papers and the "missing" parts . Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:31, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
Without reading it and hence confirming, what I have found with other publications of the same era is that they are describing multiple species, but the specific section being referred to is just part 2 and part 4 for the page in question. Hypothetically for example, part 1 may e 10 species, part 2 may be 10 other species, part 3 may be lithographs of part 1s species, part 4 may be lithographs of part 2s species. I would have to look to know but this often happens with 18-19th century monographs. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 22:39, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
The "parts" are referring not to the articule itself, but to the part of the "Proceedings" where it is included. My source are Zoonomen and Avibase.--Hector Bottai (talk) 23:03, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Shûhei Nomura[edit]

Apparently there are two Japanese entomologists named Shûhei Nomura: who born in 1962 (who worked since 80's), and one who was active at least since 1951 (authored Nipponaphodius gotoi). There are many species described in the 60's and early 70's by "S. Nomura". In Wikispecies they are combining as if it were the same person. --Metrónomo (talk) 00:18, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

The linked article's earliest paper is dated 1972, so is most likely written by the second of those people, unless the first was a child prodigy. If it helps the person referred to by Zoobank ID 7D7B230B-D2CF-4AEE-AA58-AF1BEB8278C9 has a doctorate, which may help to disambiguate them from the other (unless, of course, Zoobank conflates the two IDs). What fun! Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:08, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
@PeterR:, who created and developed the Shûhei Nomura page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:12, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

I've made the original page a disambiguation, moved the 1962-born person to Shûhei Nomura (II) and created Shûhei Nomura (I) for the earlier person. Please check and clean up the contents of both new pages, and those that link to them. VIAF 2029148390826610830001 may refer to the earlier person. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:28, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

I also asked about this on the Taxacom mailing list, where there have been several helpful replies, including one saying that the earlier person was not called Shuhei Nomura, but Shizumu Nomura. The latter name occurs on this work about beetles, and is transliterated as "Sizumu" on this page and our own Paederus formosanus. See also page 8 of this PDF, which uses both spellings. Accordingly, I've moved/ retitled all the relevant pages and links. Again, please check. Inparticular which author abbreviaton's) apply?Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:01, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Wow, thank you Andy Mabbett. I find that Maladera yaeyamana was first-time described by S. Nomura in Some New Species of the Coleoptera from Loochoo Islands and its Adjacent Regions, The Entomological Review of Japan 15(2):37-42 as Maladera kamiyai yaeyamana (ref). What is the correct way to incorporate this information? I am newbie in Wikispecies. There are 17024 reserchers called "Nomura" (not all are taxonomists) but none "Shizumo Nomura" or "Sizumo Nomura". It is possible because he signed as "S. Nomura" and his papers are separated instead of identified as being made by the same author. Identify them is very difficult... --Metrónomo (talk) 18:05, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
I've linked Nomura's name to our page about him in this edit, without otherwise changing the existing page content. Whether that content is correct I'll leave to others. Shizumo Nomura is in CiNii; see this entry; and this entry for one of his papers. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:54, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
Ah, now I see. I wanted for "Shizumo" but not "Shizumu" (d:Q47393070). Searching for "Shizumu Nomura" I find more info, such as Formophora arisana, Formophora karenkonis and Hosophora nomurella were descripted by Shonen Matsumura on 40's based in specimens collected by Shizumu Nomura in Mount Ari on 8-10 June 1938 (Type specimens of Matsumura's species of Cercopoidea in the Hokkaido University Insect Collection, Japan (Homoptera: Auchenorrhyncha)) ("Shizumu+Nomura"&btnG= and a bit more). --Metrónomo (talk) 19:38, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Reference page links in source templates[edit]

Is there any reason that many "Reference page" links are coded using an external link format:

<includeonly>[,_1951 reference page]</includeonly>

and not using wiki links like:

<includeonly>[[Template:Nomura & Nakane, 1951|reference page]]</includeonly>

If not, can we get a bot to convert them, in bulk? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:07, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Because {{subst:reftemp}} is programmed that way. Neferkheperre (talk) 18:23, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
Yes. Is there any reason for that? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:46, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Fixing {{IPNI}} once and for all..[edit]

For some reason this has a missing DIV tag according to LintErrors. Where is it because I've exapnded out the template and can't see WHERE? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 09:40, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

And if LintErrors is going to moan on every single change, I've had it with trying to fix stuff for the new parser. Goodbye.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:32, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
Hmm, Looks like someone IS in fact willing to take a further look at at this. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 14:44, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Hibiscus - Malagasy Azanzas/ sect. Furcaria[edit]

Someone may wish to review the comments posted recently at Talk:Hibiscus#Malagasy Azanzas and Talk:Hibiscus sect. Furcaria#Species (in case those pages are under-watched). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:52, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing: Comments reviewed and the anonymous editor is correct. Some changes made, however, Hibiscus needs a more thorough review. If I made blanket changes to the species list it may create a few orphans or maybe not. Thoughts. Regards Andyboorman (talk) 15:42, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
This ip user seems to know the issues in this group, maybe ask them to make an account and help by advising on how it should be, ask for their sources of info and help them to fix it. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 15:44, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
Good idea. I have made such as request on the Talk Page [5]. Fingers crossed. Andyboorman (talk) 16:08, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Lint Errors, and resolving the issue of unbalanced tags...[edit]

The backlog at Special:LintErrors is thanks to efforts by myself slowly reducing.

However, I've hit a batch of pages which are essentially various different language version of the Main Page. Can someone please advise on the ONE true layout of these should be so that the various translated versions can be amended accordingly so that all the TAG's are appropriately 'balanced'. Looking at some of the them, I am suprised they've not broken previously, as they contain DIV opened inside table and not closed (within the table) and so on.

The other remaining large batch appear to be translations which can't be edited directly..

It would be nice to have Wikispecies as one of the first major WMF projects to be ready for the new parser. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 14:48, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Template:Distinguished author 2017-05 Fix is easy- span-> div but can't edit the page as it's protected. ShakespeareFan00 (talk)
Done. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:08, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
Template:Distinguished author 2016-08 is the same issue. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:45, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
Also done. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:29, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
Wikispecies:Village Pump/Archive 39 - Unclosed code tags. The archive is protected and in general talk pages shouldn't be edited by normal users.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 15:40, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
Done. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:38, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
Wikispecies:Village Pump/Archive 13 has font tags that need reworking to spans (to do with changing color I think.) ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 15:42, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
Done - I simply removed them. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:38, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Sakchoowong & Chanpaisaeng[edit]

Please can someone confirm that the second and third authors in:

are Watana Sakchoowong and Jariya Chanpaisaeng in both cases? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:06, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Nomination for Steward[edit]

Hi everyone, just wanted to mention to everyone here that I have nominated for steward in the upcoming elections Here. Thought I would mention it here because although I have equally, more or less, contributed in edit count to both EN WP and Species, my administrative role has largely been here. The election page is HERE for those interested and any questions pertaining to this can be asked there. Wikispecies does not currently have a member who has Steward permissions and currently when this is needed we have to go to Meta and ask for help. Which is no issue as they have always readily helped when we need it. Anyway this is just a heads up for everyone. Note that voting does not begin till 08 February 2018, 14:00 (UTC). Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 00:51, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up Scott. Good luck. Andyboorman (talk) 16:06, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Oxypoda (Podoxya)[edit]

Ninety-three pages link to Oxypoda (Podoxya), which does not exist. There is content at Oxypoda. What should we do about the former page? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:48, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Looks like its a work in progress, I assume the pages that link to it are mostly the species pages, the page Oxypoda (Podoxya) and the other redlinks on Oxypoda need to be created. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 18:00, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
It may be a work in progress, but if it is, it has been so for at least two and a half years, as Oxypoda zhagaensis, to pick a random example, was created with that red link in August 2015. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:37, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
I appreciate that, I just looked at them I did not create them. But for whatever reason they have not been finished. These subgenera pages need to be made then many of the redlinks will go. Unfortunately its a large clade. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 15:32, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
I created Podoxya and redirected Oxypoda (Podoxya) to it. Mariusm (talk) 15:59, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

SpBot & archiving this page[edit]

I have asked the operator of d:User:SpBot to operate the bot on this wiki, so that we can use {{Section resolved}} to archive sections of this and similar pages, as required. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:19, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Sounds good. Thanks. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 20:04, 20 January 2018 (UTC).

Error statistics[edit]

An update on some present statistics of errors on WS:

Dan Koehl (talk) 22:43, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Just so everyone knows, these are dynamic numbers that is to say, Dan didn't copy and paste the values as of 2018-01-20T22:43; these numbers will go up and down as we have more or less of these problems. I've taken the step to add them to everyone's watchlist so we always have visibility on this. —Justin (koavf)TCM 06:11, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
Yes sure, they are dynamic, and maybe I should work that script a little more, so any numbers below 1, simply is not exposed? Im glad you found it handy, I used that script on my user page for pretty long time, thanks for putting in on the watchlist, I hope more users will find it useful, I can see that the valid pages has been heavily reduced? Dan Koehl (talk) 11:50, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
Dan's idea of hiding results <1 is good. It's worth noting that the sum of unpatrolled edits often lags a bit behind, while the other stats are always spot-on. This because the list of unpatrolled edits is being generated by a bot which only runs twice a day, while the other statistics are fetched and served a la minute from different Wikispecies categories. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 14:52, 22 January 2018 (UTC).

User:MABot needs to start using Wikispecies:Village_Pump/Archive_45[edit]

Wikispecies:Village_Pump/Archive_44 is getting too big. I have protected it. Please change the bot to the new archive. —Justin (koavf)TCM 08:34, 22 January 2018 (UTC)