Wikispecies:Requests for Comment/Archive 1

From Wikispecies
Jump to navigation Jump to search
These RFC's have reached conclusion. Please do not edit them.

Novice contributor seeks general feedback

Hey, I'm an inexperienced contributor and I was wondering if someone could check my recent contributions and let me know if anything I've done is messed up or contrary to convention. Abyssal (talk) 20:27, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

@Abyssal: It looks like you're doing a fine job. I know this feedback is pretty late--I hope you decide to come back to us. —Justin (koavf)TCM 08:02, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
This is an archive of closed discussions. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this archive.

I propose to change the actual logo wich looks too old for me and doesn't attract new users. I propose two logos:

Tell me wich one you prefer, or if you prefer the current logo. Archi38 (talk) 21:54, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Previous logo designs can be found here. OhanaUnitedTalk page 22:19, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Support the first

  1. Symbol support vote.svg Support As creator. Much more modern. Archi38 (talk) 18:15, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Support the second

  1. Because it makes it clear it's a double helix - but more shading would be better. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:31, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
  2. Symbol support vote.svg Support As creator. Much more modern. Archi38 (talk) 06:17, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
  3. Symbol support vote.svg Support Replacing the existing logo is a huge undertaking, still I believe it is very needed. This new logo is also has a much better color contrast. --Abbe98 (talk) 20:10, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. I would say no for now. I don't see a major difference between the current logo and the 2 proposed versions. From other perspectives, changing a logo slightly causes far more trouble. WMF has to file an update to the trademark office. Then they have to update and reprint brochures on top of revising all the wiki pages that use the logo. You will need to change the logo on every single project's main page (over 800) and their subpages (for any multi-language projects). As if that's not enough trouble yet, Wikpedia Store sells items such as stickers and lapel pins which would need to be revised for such a trivial change. I don't feel that it's worth all the trouble just because the logo feels old and needs to be modernized (but not by a substantial degree of difference). OhanaUnitedTalk page 22:44, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
    @OhanaUnited All Wikimedia projects use this file in Commons, so we just have to overwrite on it and it will change everywhere. For the brochure, WMF and wikipedia store just have to sell the last pins with old logo and then change it. Also see my comment below Archi38 (talk) 06:17, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
    @Archi38: I would consider it if the new logo is substantially different from the current one (not saying that the current one needs to be replaced). But as it stands right now I don't feel that it is vastly different. OhanaUnitedTalk page 02:04, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
  2. Keep the current logo. Even beyond the compelling arguments just above by OhanaUnited, the shading variations on all components of the current logo make it appear more three-dimensional (and just more professional) than either of the two newly proposed variants. MKOliver (talk) 02:54, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
    @MKOliver The problem is that the mode is flat design and we have to follow the mode if we want to attract new users. And the current logo spoils among others Wikimedia logos, wich are all flat. Archi38 (talk) 06:40, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
    That is not true. For instance, Wikipedia as well as MediaWiki and Wikinews all use "non-flat" logos. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 10:56, 19 April 2016 (UTC).
  3. Keep the current logo. In my opinion, it's nonsense to think that flattening the current logo would attract anybody, who is able and willing to contribute. --Franz Xaver (talk) 09:37, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
  4. Keep the current logo, at least for now. From a practical point a view I agree with OhanaUnited – changing the logo is a bigger deal than we might first expect. On a more personal note, I simply like the current logo. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 11:00, 19 April 2016 (UTC).
  5. I don't see anything wrong with present logo. Quite easy for me to tell which project I am on, by stylized DNA helix. Neferkheperre (talk) 11:13, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
  6. I prefer todays logo. PeterR (talk) 11:16, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
  7. I am sympathetic to the idea of a new logo and I like option 2 but I don't feel it's really necessary or will make this project any stronger to have a new logo (slick and attractive though it may be). Had this been proposed 10 years ago, it may have won the day. —Justin (koavf)TCM 02:21, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this archive.


This is an archive of closed discussions. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this archive.

Flow on beta feature

Hello, I suggest to add Flow to beta features. Flow is much better than the "normal" talk system. Archi38 (talk) 19:53, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Short explanation – what is Flow?
  • Flow is a project for building a modern discussion and collaboration system for Wikimedia projects.
  • It provides features that are present on most modern websites, but which are not possible to implement in wikitext. For example, Flow automatically signs users' posts on talk pages, threads replies, and permits per-topic notifications.
  • The main goals for the Flow project are:
  1. to make the wiki discussion system more accessible for new users
  2. to make the wiki discussion system more efficient for experienced users
  3. to encourage meaningful conversations that support collaboration

Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 15:02, 8 May 2016 (UTC).

Support

  1. Symbol support vote.svg Support really good feature Archi38 (talk) 19:53, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
  2. Symbol support vote.svg Support I will give a go as well Andyboorman (talk) 16:21, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
  3. Symbol support vote.svg Support I've been checking it out a bit on MediaWiki, and it seems good. (You can try it out yourself by changing your MediaWiki user settings here.) Tommy Kronkvist (talk) 10:12, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
  4. Symbol support vote.svg Support Dan Koehl (talk) 21:48, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Against

  1. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Awful interface. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:02, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
  2. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Beta testing may take place somewhere else. --Franz Xaver (talk) 13:10, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Comments

  • @Archi38: Can you tell me a little about why you prefer Flow? Have you noticed any particular problems here on Species that would be fixed by this extension? —Justin (koavf)TCM 03:50, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
@Koavf: Automatic signpost, threads replies with auto indentation, switch from source to visual editor only for your message, adding posibility to subscribe to a topic and be notified and tons of other things :) Archi38 (talk) 05:16, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
I hope that switching to the visual editor is a choice made by the user, and not mandatory? ’Cause I really, really dislike the visual editor, and never, ever use it – except to check whether it's gotten any better. Which in my opinion, it hasn't... :-) Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 19:16, 4 May 2016 (UTC).
Yes of course, it's the user who decide. By default if you click on edit it will be in source editor. And I hate visual editor too ! Archi38 (talk) 19:34, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
  • I do agree with Andy that the interface needs quite a lot of work (it's still in beta, after all) but considering the features rather than the UI I still think we should give it a try. Also, as far as I understand every user can decide whether to use it or not. This will most likely be true also after Flow is out of beta, since I guess it will show up in the "Appearance" section of the user settings, with a check box next to it? Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 21:35, 10 May 2016 (UTC).
    • I believe your understanding that "every user can decide whether to use it or not" is incorrect. I'm forced to use it, on other projects, on talk pages where it has been enabled. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:27, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
    • On Wikidata, you activate and desactivate it, you're not forced. It would be like it. Archi38 (talk) 16:49, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Hello Wikispecies! I'm Trizek, community liaison for the Collaboration team. I'm here to assist you with that Beta feature. If you have questions, please ask! Do you need a test page for Flow? Just agree on a link and ping me; it can be on any page. Thanks, Trizek (WMF) (talk) 16:14, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
    Symbol support vote.svg Support the idea of a testing page. Archi38 (talk) 16:49, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
    Symbol support vote.svg Support the idea of a testing page. Dan Koehl (talk) 22:18, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Deployment

Hello!

Deployment has been done at 23:00 UTC, May 11.

You now have Flow available as a Beta feature. You can activate or deactivate it on your talk page. When you activate it, your current talk page will be automatically archived on a sub-page.

If you have questions, you can read the documentation, or ask me directly on my talk page.

Cheers, Trizek (WMF) (talk) 09:07, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you! –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 16:48, 12 May 2016 (UTC).

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this archive.


This is an archive of closed discussions. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this archive.

Checkusers

Please comment We need at least two. If any others come in the near future, please transclude them here as well so the community can see them:

Wikispecies:Checkusers/Requests/Dan Koehl

Dan Koehl (talk-contribs-block-all projects)

This poll has closed. Final results:
  • 28 Symbol support vote.svg Support
  • 1 Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose
  • 1 Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral
  • 93% approval (97% not counting neutral votes). This nomination passes, pending any community review of the voting process.


Referring to earlier discussions regarding local Checkuser policy, I herebye apply to get Checkuser user rights, as a request to the Wikispecies community, as per local Checkuser policy on META. I am aware of that we havnt reached a consensus reg Checkuser policy, but I want to give it a try if I can get the required votes. For a request to succeed a minimum of 25 support votes and an 80% positive vote are required (subject to the normal bureaucrat discretion). Requests for checkuser run for two weeks. I am well over 18 years of age, of legal age in my place of residence, and I am already identified to the Wikimedia Foundation (Verify identification at Wikimedia).

Please also note that CheckUser actions are logged, but for privacy reasons the logs are only visible to other Checkusers. Because of this, Wikispecies must always have no fewer than two checkusers, for mutual accountability. I don't want to suggest anyone, but hope that someone feel inspired and will step forward and also apply for checkuser.

Dan Koehl (talk) 01:26, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Poll ends 2017-02-11T01:26 (UTC)

Support

  1. Symbol support vote.svg Support Trusted User. Alvaro Molina (Hablemos) 04:36, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
  2. Symbol support vote.svg Support Dan is a very valued member of the community here. —Justin (koavf)TCM 04:47, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
  3. Symbol support vote.svg Support --Murma174 (talk) 07:34, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
  4. Symbol support vote.svg Support of course --Ruthven (talk) 08:05, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
  5. Symbol support vote.svg Support AfroBrazilian (talk) 08:30, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
  6. Symbol support vote.svg Support No doubt in my mind Andyboorman (talk) 09:50, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
  7. Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 11:27, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
  8. Symbol support vote.svg Support Wikispecies needs a CU. Céréales Killer (talk) 13:03, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
  9. Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Neferkheperre (talk) 13:28, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
  10. Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Orchi (talk) 14:02, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
  11. Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:26, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
  12. Symbol support vote.svg Support Burmeister (talk) 17:27, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
  13. Symbol support vote.svg Support Accassidy (talk) 18:35, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
  14. Symbol support vote.svg Support --Hector Bottai (talk) 19:26, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
  15. Symbol support vote.svg Support --RLJ (talk) 19:49, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
    xxxxxxxx -- Mariusm (talk) 05:50, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
  16. Symbol support vote.svg Support -- BanKris (talk) 07:41, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
  17. Symbol support vote.svg Support --Info-farmer (talk) 00:11, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
  18. Symbol support vote.svg Support --Fagus (talk) 06:49, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
  19. Symbol support vote.svg Support --Thiotrix (talk) 15:30, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
  20. Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Floscuculi (talk) 00:34, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
  21. Symbol support vote.svg Support Jianhui67 (talk) 11:30, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
  22. Symbol support vote.svg Support Stephen G. Brown (talk) 20:03, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
  23. Symbol support vote.svg Support User:Amdb73 (talk) 20:30, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
  24. Symbol support vote.svg Support --Djiboun (talk) 21:10, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
  25. Symbol support vote.svg Support Plantdrew (talk) 20:42, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
  26. Symbol support vote.svg Support user:UtherSRG (talk) 22:23, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
  27. Symbol support vote.svg Support lycaon (talk) 05:22, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
  28. Symbol support vote.svg Support MPF (talk) 09:10, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Lost faith after the pump discussion. Mariusm (talk) 05:52, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Neutral

  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral --Succu (talk) 21:03, 29 January 2017 (UTC)


For greater visibility, all requests made here are transcluded onto the central Wikispecies:Requests for Comment page.

Wikispecies:Checkusers/Requests/Koavf

Koavf (talk-contribs-block-all projects)

This poll has closed. Final results:
  • 25 Symbol support vote.svg Support
  • 3 Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose
  • 2 Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral
  • 83% approval (89% not counting neutral votes). This nomination passes, pending any community review of the voting process.

As pointed out at Wikispecies:Checkusers/Requests/Dan_Koehl, for us to have one Check User, we must have at least two. I am happy to serve the community here if that's what others think is best. Dan and I are also in opposite time zones so that will help us have more comprehensive coverage. I have had admin rights here for a year, have advanced rights on a few other wikis (custodian on en.v, bureaucrat on outreach, etc.) as well as Staff rights on WikiIndex and I have Check User on wikilivres:. I had an unsuccessful bid here for bureaucratship and have had a some successes and setbacks with my initiatives here. I hope that everyone who !votes gives careful consideration and if you think I'm not a good fit, please nominate yourself so that at least DK can get the rights he deserves to serve the community.

Regarding verification, I am a very verified wiki user and can provide proof to the WMF if necessary.

Justin (koavf)TCM 05:06, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Poll started 05:28, 28 January 2017 (UTC). Poll ends 05:28, 11 february 2017 (UTC). Dan Koehl (talk) 22:21, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Support

  1. Symbol support vote.svg Support Trusted User. Alvaro Molina (Hablemos) 05:28, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
  2. Symbol support vote.svg Support AfroBrazilian (talk) 08:33, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
  3. Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:26, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
  4. Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 15:17, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
  5. Symbol support vote.svg Support Dan Koehl (talk) 15:24, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
  6. Symbol support vote.svg Support Andyboorman (talk) 15:28, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
  7. Symbol support vote.svg Support MKOliver (talk) 16:43, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
  8. Symbol support vote.svg Support Burmeister (talk) 17:27, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
  9. Symbol support vote.svg Support Accassidy (talk) 18:36, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
  10. Symbol support vote.svg Support --Hector Bottai (talk) 19:27, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
  11. Symbol support vote.svg Support --RLJ (talk) 19:51, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
  12. Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Neferkheperre (talk) 20:25, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
  13. Symbol support vote.svg Support -- BanKris (talk) 07:40, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
  14. Symbol support vote.svg Support --Info-farmer (talk) 00:12, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
  15. Symbol support vote.svg Support --Thiotrix (talk) 15:31, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
  16. Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Floscuculi (talk) 00:35, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
  17. Symbol support vote.svg Support --Jianhui67 (talk) 11:40, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
  18. Symbol support vote.svg Support Céréales Killer (talk) 14:27, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
  19. Symbol support vote.svg Support Stephen G. Brown (talk) 20:02, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
  20. Symbol support vote.svg Support --Djiboun (talk) 21:12, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
  21. Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Mariusm (talk) 05:55, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
  22. Symbol support vote.svg Support --世界首都环游 (talk) 09:53, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
  23. Symbol support vote.svg Support Plantdrew (talk) 20:43, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
  24. Symbol support vote.svg Support - user:UtherSRG (talk) 22:24, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
  25. Symbol support vote.svg Support - Brya (talk) 05:21, 11 February 2017 (UTC) : I guess three is better than two.

Oppose

  1. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Fagus (talk) 06:48, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
  2. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose --Murma174 (talk) 10:03, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
  3. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose --This is a taxonomic project. I'm not convinced on your experience in that matter. lycaon (talk) 05:26, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
    1. @Lycaon: Please can you explain the relevance of that, to the use of checkuser tools? — The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pigsonthewing (talkcontribs) 9 February 2017.

Neutral

  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral --Succu (talk) 21:06, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral. I haven`t well knowladge about user contibutions. User:Amdb73 (talk) 20:30, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

For greater visibility, all requests made here are transcluded onto the central Wikispecies:Requests for Comment page.

Please place any additional comments below:

− Thanks. —Justin (koavf)TCM 05:46, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

− − And now:

− −

Wikispecies:Checkusers/Requests/Pigsonthewing

Pigsonthewing (talk-contribs-block-all projects)

This poll has closed. Final results:
  • 18 Symbol support vote.svg Support
  • 5 Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose
  • 4 Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral
  • 66% approval (78% not counting neutral votes).

I support both of the currently-open requests for checkuser access, from Dan Koehl and Koavf. I am offering to serve so that we have three checkuser operators, to ensure adequate coverage in case one of the others is unavailable. I am an active admin, patroller and contributor on this project. I am UK based, and am over 18 (which should be no surprise, as I've been contributing to WMF projects since 2003!) The WMF know me, and I am willing to identify myself to them formally as required for this role. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:34, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Poll started 15:18, 28 January 2017 (UTC). Poll ends 15:18, 11 february 2017 (UTC). Dan Koehl (talk) 22:23, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Support

  1. Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 15:18, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
  2. Symbol support vote.svg Support --Experienced on the whole Wiki project and good conciliator Andyboorman (talk) 15:27, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
  3. Symbol support vote.svg Support Dan Koehl (talk) 16:18, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
  4. Symbol support vote.svg Support Alvaro Molina (Hablemos) 16:23, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
  5. Symbol support vote.svg Support Trusted and valued member. I have never had a problem interacting with Andy and I think he would take the responsibility seriously. —Justin (koavf)TCM 17:20, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
  6. Symbol support vote.svg Support Burmeister (talk) 17:27, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
  7. Symbol support vote.svg Support Accassidy (talk) 18:37, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
  8. Symbol support vote.svg Support --Hector Bottai (talk) 19:28, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
  9. Symbol support vote.svg Support --RLJ (talk) 19:30, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
  10. Symbol support vote.svg Support - Neferkheperre (talk) 20:20, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
  11. Symbol support vote.svg Support --BanKris (talk) 08:56, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
  12. Symbol support vote.svg Support --Thiotrix (talk) 15:32, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
  13. Symbol support vote.svg Support --Info-farmer (talk) 15:44, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
  14. Symbol support vote.svg Support --MKOliver (talk) 02:56, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
  15. Symbol support vote.svg Support Céréales Killer (talk) 14:25, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
  16. Symbol support vote.svg Support Stephen G. Brown (talk) 20:02, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
  17. Symbol support vote.svg Support Kaldari (talk) 03:59, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
  18. Symbol support vote.svg Support Plantdrew (talk) 20:47, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Oppose

  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - How could I trust you? Your are the only one nominated user (of 4) who did not informed me. --Succu (talk) 20:55, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
    • You appear to have overlooked this. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:16, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
      • I'm only a guest here, so I didn't noticed. But because of your common manner at Wikidata and elsewhere I do not trust you. Sensitive information shouldn't be at your fingertips --Succu (talk) 22:49, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
        • I am an administrator on this project; a position I hold by consensus of the Wikispecies community. I invite you to either nominate me for de-sysoping, to test whether that consensus holds, or to withdraw your objection. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:15, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose --Murma174 (talk) 10:05, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose --This is a taxonomic project. I'm not convinced on your experience in that matter. lycaon (talk) 05:27, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose -- Your manner of challenging the opposing voters with de-sysoping you implies intimidation and harassment. I would advise you to remove these comments. I don't trust you and please be kind enough not to challenge me with your invitation, please. Mariusm (talk) 18:27, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
    • You misunderstand; I have not "challenged the opposing voters with de-sysoping me"; I have offered, in the face of egregious ad hominem attacks, to stand for recall - a standard practice across many WMF projects. Your allegation of "intimidation and harassment" is utterly baseless. I'm unclear as to why you think such a falsehood should not be similarly "challenged". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:29, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
      • Perhaps you're unaware of what a free voting entails. The voter should not be demanded to give any explanation or to be coerced through any subsequent procedure following his vote. Any demands, suggestions or requirement are bound to be considered an illegitimate interference, especially when they come from the candidate. Calling such a behavior a falsehood is qualifying the candidate as unaware of his obligations and unfit to stand to be elected. Mariusm (talk) 09:33, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
        • You again misunderstand. What I called a falsehood was your outrageous allegation of "intimidation and harassment". Recognising it as such does not disqualify me from anything; however failure to do so well might. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:49, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Your handling of people expressing even the slightest doubt in this nomination has been at best indecorous, bordering on uncivil, at worst the exact demonstration of a confrontational and adversarial temperament that is IMO unbecoming of any higher duties on a WikiMedia project. At first I had merely nagging doubts about this, and expressed why I couldn't possibly vote in favor. Now your behaviour toward not just me (and I was not even opposing the damn nomination), but everyone above who opposed has been more than enough to convince me these doubts were well-founded. Congratulations. Circeus (talk) 06:48, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Neutral

  1. Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral. I haven`t well knowladge about this user contibutions. AfroBrazilian (talk) 17:13, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
  2. Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral. I haven`t well knowladge about user contibutions. User:Amdb73 (talk) 20:30, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
  3. Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral. While I've had little interaction with Andy here or on Wikipedia, I can't help being wary of handing this tool to a user with a background of adversarial behavior who's been fully banned or otherwise sanctioned by arbcom at least three times. Yes I'm aware several of those sanctions were subsequently lifted, but the background remains worrisome nonetheless, and I have to be honest with my thoughts on this issue. Furthermore, as much as I respect his technical work, I feel he is mostly present as a side effect of his Wikidata work rather than for the advancement of Wikispecies itself. Circeus (talk) 04:09, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
    1. I am an administrator on this project; a position I hold by consensus of the Wikispecies community. I invite you to either nominate me for de-sysoping, to test whether that consensus holds, or to strike your comments. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:18, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
  4. Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Jianhui67 (talk) 15:02, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

For greater visibility, all requests made here are transcluded onto the central Wikispecies:Requests for Comment page.

− − −

Wikispecies:Checkusers/Requests/Faendalimas

Faendalimas (talk-contribs-block-all projects)

This poll has closed. Final results:
  • 27 Symbol support vote.svg Support
  • 0 Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose
  • 2 Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral
  • 93% approval (100% not counting neutral votes). This nomination passes, pending any community review of the voting process.

I was initially willing to do this, including some years back when I investigated the policies and created the CU pages here on WS. I then thought I would hold off after seeing a total of three applications currently going. But since Dan Koehl has encouraged me to do so I will apply. I have been actively involved in Wikimedia projects for over 10 years and am a member of numerous sub projects that can be seen on my user page here, or at Wikipedia. I also do some editing on Wikidata, also have edited the Portuguese Wikipedia. In the past I have been involved in some Checkuser cases, importantly one on Wikipedia where other editors were asking me to check a particular pair of users but I declined to do so as I did not feel there was evidence to do it. It turns out the users were indeed two different users and hence there was no reason to invade their privacy with such an action. A checkuser not only has the responsibility to know when to do it, but when not to do it. I am not a checkuser on any other project just have been involved in the issue a few times while mediating editing issues. I am an administrator on Wikispecies and have been heavily involved in a number of discussions regarding policies and planning, also development issues. Additional to creating pages, largely on Turtles which are my specialty as a professional taxonomist. Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 23:30, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Poll started 23:42, 28 January 2017 (UTC). Poll ends 23:42, 11 february 2017 (UTC). Dan Koehl (talk) 22:18, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Support

  1. Symbol support vote.svg Support Faendalimas has a good insight in the CU issue, he imported many of the WS CU documents. Dan Koehl (talk) 23:42, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
  2. Symbol support vote.svg Support Scott does good work here and shows some discretion. It's not a problem to have (e.g.) a half-dozen CUs. Better to have one or two too many than too few. —Justin (koavf)TCM 23:49, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
  3. Symbol support vote.svg Support. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:50, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
  4. Symbol support vote.svg Support Alvaro Molina (Hablemos) 08:13, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
  5. Symbol support vote.svg Support --BanKris (talk) 08:56, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
  6. Symbol support vote.svg Support Céréales Killer (talk) 17:55, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
  7. Symbol support vote.svg Support --RLJ (talk) 18:00, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
  8. Symbol support vote.svg Support Accassidy (talk) 18:00, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
  9. Symbol support vote.svg Support Burmeister (talk) 18:08, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
  10. Symbol support vote.svg Support --Ruthven (talk) 18:32, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
  11. Symbol support vote.svg Support Andyboorman (talk) 18:32, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
  12. Symbol support vote.svg Support --Hector Bottai (talk) 19:01, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
  13. Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Neferkheperre (talk) 19:13, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
  14. Symbol support vote.svg Support--Aboulouei1 (talk) 20:33, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
  15. Symbol support vote.svg Support My (few) interactions with you and my "gut instinct" say yes --Succu (talk) 20:48, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
  16. Symbol support vote.svg Support --Info-farmer (talk) 00:13, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
  17. Symbol support vote.svg Support --Fagus (talk) 06:50, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
  18. Symbol support vote.svg Support --Orchi (talk) 11:21, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
  19. Symbol support vote.svg Support --Thiotrix (talk) 15:33, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
  20. Symbol support vote.svg Support I do not know this user, but he seems like a good guy. Can be trusted with extra tools. Jianhui67 (talk) 11:41, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
  21. Symbol support vote.svg Support --Murma174 (talk) 16:40, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
  22. Symbol support vote.svg Support Stephen G. Brown (talk) 20:00, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
  23. Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Mariusm (talk) 05:54, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
  24. Symbol support vote.svg Support Plantdrew (talk) 20:44, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
  25. Symbol support vote.svg Support - user:UtherSRG (talk) 22:24, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
  26. Symbol support vote.svg Support --lycaon (talk) 05:24, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
  27. Symbol support vote.svg Support MPF (talk) 09:19, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

  1. Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral. I haven`t well knowladge about user contributions. AfroBrazilian (talk) 17:12, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
  2. Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral. I haven`t well knowladge about user contributions. User:Amdb73 (talk) 20:30, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

For greater visibility, all requests made here are transcluded onto the central Wikispecies:Requests for Comment page.


The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this archive.


This is an archive of closed discussions. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this archive.

Removal of User Rights Policy and Considerations

Result:- Voting tallied at 10 positive, 0 neutral, 0 against. Those voting included a number of Bureaucrats and Admins. Motion is passed and to be implemented as the Administrator Review Policy of Wikispecies. Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 00:25, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

The following proposal laid out by Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 00:45, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Our current list of 30 admins and 10 bureaucrats includes many who have been innactive for extended periods. It is not fair to the community and in particular to new users who may need help to not receive replies for requested help due to innactivity. It is also unproffessional. Therefore after numerous discussions on this in the past (2015-2016; Early 2015; 2014) we are resolved to do something about it. This issue has also been formed into policy and a review process on Meta which can be read here. In this The review process is undertaken by the Stewards with the exception of those Wiki projects with an Abitration Committee such as EN Wikipedia (Here) or who have developed local policy to deal with this issue and an example of this is the Wikimedia Commons whose policy is here. One difference between Wikispecies and the Commons is that we can remove admin privelages from Administrators, though we cannot do it for Bureaucrats. So we need to do things a little differently but the spirit of the proposal would be the same. The removal of rights can only be done by Stewards so upon reviewing the activity of an admin or bureaucrat we must ask the Stewards to change the user groups of the user.

In theory this policy applies to all higher user rights, Administrator, Bureaucrat and CheckUser being those present on this Wiki. However, CheckUser's are subject to review by the Stewards and other CheckUsers so we will leave them to that scrutiny. Which is much higher than the others.

Policy Proposal

Activity

The implementation of this part of the policy is dealt with at subpage of wikispecies/administrators to be constructed.

As with the policy for administrator access on Meta, inactive Wikispecies administrators (including those holding bureaucrat privileges) will have their rights removed. An "inactive admin" is one who has made fewer than 5 edits and 5 admin actions on Wikispecies in the past 12 months. An "admin action" for this purpose is an action requiring use of the admin tools and which is logged as such according to Logs.

However if an admin places a message on the administrators' noticeboard stating that they will be away for a period of not more than 12 months and giving an intended return date, then no action should be taken over inactivity until two months after that date.

Inactivity: De-adminship process as a result of inactivity

  1. A notice (Commons example) must be placed on the inactive admin's talk page linking to this policy and explaining that admin rights may be lost. An email should also be sent.
  2. If there is no response from the admin requesting retention of rights as required by the notice within 30 days, the rights will be removed.
  3. If the admin responds to the notice as required but then fails to make five admin actions within the period of six months starting at the time of the notice, the rights will be removed without further notice.

Administrators who have lost admin rights through inactivity but who expect to become active again may re-apply through the regular process.

Removal of rights

Where an admin loses rights under this policy, that should be effected by means of a local Bureaucrat removing the rights, for or a Bureaucrat looses rights a request to the a stewards at Meta will be made by a local Bureaucrat for the removal of advanced rights. (local bureaucrats do not have the power, themselves, to remove another user's admin or bureaucrat rights). The ex-admin or bureaucrat should be notified by a talk page message.

Voting

Symbol support vote.svg Support:

  1. Mariusm (talk) 05:48, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  2. - Andyboorman (talk) 09:44, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  3. Justin (koavf)TCM 22:23, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  4. - Dan Koehl (talk) 22:48, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  5. - Neferkheperre (talk) 22:58, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  6. Tommy Kronkvist (talkcontribsblockall projects) 20:13, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
  7. --Samuele2002 (talk) 22:48, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
  8. MKOliver (talk) 03:49, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
  9. Zerabat (talk) 15:07, 3 March 2017 (UTC) Advanced rights without supervision is a risk in case of breach of the account.
  10. Alvaro Molina ( - ) 15:21, 3 March 2017 (UTC)


Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose:


Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral:


Icon Bubble.png Discussion: The adminstats page is returning 0s for everyone. Wouldn't it be faster to check via Logs instead? OhanaUnitedTalk page 16:30, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Whatever means of obtaining an overview of the activity should be fine. Commons uses the Administats tool apparently, so I assumed it would work. Possibly it cannot grab the data from this wiki. I will switch for the logs page. Cheers, Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 17:32, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this archive.


This is an archive of closed discussions. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this archive.

Admin Review Part 2

Result:- As a result of this discussion which ran for two weeks the following users with advanced rights will have requests to the Stewards made to remove those rights for innactivity: Admins - @Ark, Totipotent, and Uleli: and the following Bureaucrats - @Benedikt, Maxim, Open2universe, and UtherSRG:. Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 00:31, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

This proposal was added by Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 01:07, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

As a part of the above proposal it is also necessary to deal with currently innactive admins and bureaucrats. The two will have to be dealt with separately, we can only remove admin rights locally. Removal of admin or bureaucrat rights must go to the Stewards as outlined above in the policy proposal.

I am listing those that I feel have been inactive for too long. Please feel free to add or argue against any of these names and we shall make a decision on removal of advanced user rights as appropriate. My initial list I have been generous, some of those I did not include have two or three edits this year, after not editing for over two. But they did have 2017 edits so I did not include them. Others may wish to see it differently. I am very well aware of who some of these editors are and their role in the history of Wikispecies. But they can be honored for that without keeping the admin flag.

Administrators

Bureaucrats

Discussion

I would like to add User:UtherSRG, who is bureaucrat and admin, but inactive, with 3 edits 2017 (voting on the CU elections) 1 edit from 2014, but in reality stopped editing in April 2010, after he reverted on edit from Stho002 on his userpage. Since his votes was questioned as valid only some days ago, because of his absence from WS, this gives an indication on whether he should remain admin on WS.Dan Koehl (talk) 10:27, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

I nearly did for the exact same reasons. Will add him in for now. This will be a dynamic list till we get consensus. Once we have agreed I will take what names we have to the Stewards. Get the policy worked out at the same time for the future. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 10:37, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
Same for Maxim. He only commented once in November 2016 on inactive bureaucrats but effectively stopped editing in 2014. In my view, both UtherSRG and Maxim should have been considered as inactive. OhanaUnitedTalk page 05:27, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
Yes Maxim is there. Please note as all Bureaucrats are also admins I am not listing them twice here, so if a crat is listed please assume they are on the admin list too. I will request both sets of rights removed from inactive crats once we have some consensus. cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 22:49, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
Just a point on the above list. Some of these users appear to not meet the criteria set out above, but this is mostly because they made 2-3 edits recently, some only during our recent checkuser nomination. However in all other points have not edited for a considerable amount of time. Therefore I am listing them to have the privileges removed anyway. But I will do that if we have agreement to do so. In future once the policy is in place we will follow the policy. I felt it would be good to do a general clean up of this issue at the outset. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 23:05, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
  • For the above users a formal request has been made to the Stewards on Meta to remove advanced rights HERE. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 02:12, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this archive.


This is an archive of closed discussions. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this archive.

Oversighters

Please comment Requests for oversighter run for two weeks. . We need at least two. If any others come in the near future, please transclude them here as well so the community can see them:

Wikispecies:Oversighters/Requests/Dan Koehl
This is an archive of closed discussions. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this archive.

Result: This nomination failed to garner at least 25 support votes as per policy for obtaining access. OhanaUnitedTalk page 15:19, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Dan Koehl (talk-contribs-block-all projects)

Wikispecies has no local oversighter. Since I had the communitys confidence regarding the previous application for Checkusers rights, I herebye apply to get Oversighters user rights, as a request to the Wikispecies community, as per local Oversight policy on META. On wikis without an m:Arbitration Committee, the community must approve oversighters by consensus. The candidates must request it within the local community and advertise this request to the local community properly (community discussion page, mailing list, etc). After gaining consensus (at least 70–80% in pro/con voting or the highest number of votes in multiple choice elections) in their local community, and with at least 25–30 editors' approval, the user should request access on m:Steward requests/Permissions with a link to the community's decision. I am well over 18 years of age, of legal age in my place of residence, and I am already identified to the Wikimedia Foundation (Verify identification at Wikimedia). I already signed the Wikimedia Foundation's confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information and I am familiar with the privacy policy.

Please also note that Oversighter actions are logged, but for privacy reasons the logs are only visible to other Oversighters. Because of this, Wikispecies must always have no fewer than two oversighters, for mutual accountability. I don't want to suggest anyone, but hope that someone feel inspired and will step forward and also apply for oversighters rights.

Dan Koehl (talk) 12:35, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Requests for oversighter run for two weeks.
Poll started 13:25, 3 March 2017 (UTC). Poll ends 13:25, 17 March 2017 (UTC).

Support

  1. Symbol support vote.svg Support — He convinced me. - BanKris (talk) 13:25, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
  2. Symbol support vote.svg Support — Me too. Seems a very good idea all in all to have Oversighters. Andyboorman (talk) 14:09, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
  3. Symbol support vote.svg Support per above. Trusted user and a need for local oversighters. –Juliancolton | Talk 15:03, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
  4. Symbol support vote.svg SupportAlvaro Molina ( - ) 15:06, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
  5. Symbol support vote.svg Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 15:09, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
  6. Symbol support vote.svg Support Nothing against ;) Céréales Killer (talk) 15:15, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
  7. Symbol support vote.svg Support Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 15:53, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
  8. Symbol support vote.svg Support Full confidence! Orchi (talk) 16:12, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
  9. Symbol support vote.svg Support Plantdrew (talk) 16:56, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
  10. Symbol support vote.svg Support MKOliver (talk) 18:07, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
  11. Symbol support vote.svg Support --Samuele2002 (talk) 18:53, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
  12. Symbol support vote.svg SupportJustin (koavf)TCM 19:41, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
  13. Symbol support vote.svg Support --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:09, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
  14. Symbol support vote.svg Support --DenesFeri (talk) 08:57, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
  15. Symbol support vote.svg Support Burmeister (talk) 14:05, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
  16. Symbol support vote.svg Support Accassidy (talk) 17:16, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
  17. Symbol support vote.svg Support Jianhui67 (talk) 15:33, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
  18. Symbol support vote.svg SupportGreen Giant (talk) 22:49, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
  19. Symbol support vote.svg SupportTommy Kronkvist (talkcontribsblockall projects) 18:34, 10 March 2017 (UTC).
  20. Symbol support vote.svg Support - PeterR (talk) 18:41, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
  21. Symbol support vote.svg Support - Franz Xaver (talk) 14:39, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

For greater visibility, all requests made here are transcluded onto the central Wikispecies:Requests for Comment page.


The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this archive.
Wikispecies:Oversighters/Requests/Koavf
This is an archive of closed discussions. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this archive.

Result: This nomination failed to garner at least 25 support votes as per policy for obtaining access. OhanaUnitedTalk page 15:20, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Koavf (talk · contribs · block · all projects)

Per our other Oversighter request, we must have at least two members with this advanced user right. I am nominating myself, Koavf (talkcontribsblockall projects) and hope that you'll see me as a fit option to view our deleted entries. Per m:Oversight policy, "Local oversighters should generally handle local oversighting, when they're available" and this would be a useful step in Wikispecies being a mature and self-regulating wiki. Frankly, I hope that if we end up deciding to have Oversighters we never have to use our privileges but if someone has to do it, I hope it's a local trusted member. I would encourage anyone investigating me to take a look at my CheckUser application. Please feel free to ask me any questions on- or off-wiki that you think are relevant. If you find me unsuitable, I'd suggest that you nominate yourself or ask someone else whom you think is a good fit so that Dan can get these rights and help the community. —Justin (koavf)TCM 19:37, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

This poll will run for two weeks: 15:37, 3 March 2017 (UTC). Poll ends 15:37, 17 March 2017 (UTC).

Support

  1. Symbol support vote.svg SupportBanKris (talk) 19:52, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
  2. Symbol support vote.svg Support Céréales Killer (talk) 19:57, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
  3. Symbol support vote.svg Support Sensible choice for the required second oversighter. –Juliancolton | Talk 20:23, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
  4. Symbol support vote.svg SupportAlvaro Molina ( - ) 20:42, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
  5. Symbol support vote.svg Support --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:09, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
  6. Symbol support vote.svg Support RLJ (talk) 21:41, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
  7. Symbol support vote.svg Support MKOliver (talk) 01:37, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
  8. Symbol support vote.svg Support --DenesFeri (talk) 08:57, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
  9. Symbol support vote.svg Support Accassidy (talk) 17:17, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
  10. Symbol support vote.svg Support--Rojypala (talk) 08:35, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
  11. Symbol support vote.svg SupportSobloku (talk) 05:42, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
  12. Symbol support vote.svg Support Jianhui67 (talk) 15:33, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
  13. Symbol support vote.svg SupportGreen Giant (talk) 22:48, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
  14. Symbol support vote.svg Support Andyboorman (talk) 08:58, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
  15. Symbol support vote.svg Support Burmeister (talk) 12:54, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
  16. Symbol support vote.svg SupportTommy Kronkvist (talkcontribsblockall projects) 18:35, 10 March 2017 (UTC).
  17. Symbol support vote.svg Support - PeterR (talk) 18:39, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

Discussion

Really, the title should be "Overseer", from the verb to "oversee", not "Oversighter" from the noun "oversight"... but then I speak English not American! Accassidy (talk) 17:20, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

@Acassidy: The user right is also known as suppressor. —Justin (koavf)TCM 02:00, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
@Accassidy: I agree that "Overseer" sounds a lot better, however the term "Oversighter" is used by all other Wikimedia projects. I guess the underlaying reason is that it is derived from the now deprecated MediaWiki extension (and noun) Oversight (superseded by RevisionDelete in the MediaWiki core database). For the sake of consistency we should use the same title. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 23:43, 9 March 2017 (UTC).
Not until now I realise that the information about the title is actually shown in plain sight on the Wikispecies:Oversight page itself. Silly me had an awkward time figuring it out using archived extensions- and tech pages on MediaWiki instead... :-) Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 21:20, 11 March 2017 (UTC).

(Moved from talk) Hi Dan, I noticed the two requests for oversight. I know that it's kind of late to comment, but do we really need such rights on Wikispecies? I mean: how many needs for such actions are needed yearly? More than 2-3? --Ruthven (talk) 15:40, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

@Ruthven:, I don't know who decided which user right that should exist on Wikispecies, and which not, this may even have been performed without any formal decision on Phabricator, which may be a starting point to find out about the origin and reasons for different user rights on different projects. It seems originally, that the user right was an MediaWiki extension more than a specified user right. I suggest you start there with your request, but maybe someone else has an idea as to find out why certain user rights exist on Wikispecies, and not.
As for your second question, I also don't know where to find those statistics, how many cases there has been, and how many cases there should be, or what to expect in the future. I remind you that this falls under the Privacy cases, why a fully exposed transparent statistic may not be available. On the page global oversight policy no specific numbers are specified, it only says:
On wikis without an Arbitration Committee, the community must approve oversighters by consensus. The candidates must request it within the local community and advertise this request to the local community properly (community discussion page, mailing list, etc). After gaining consensus (at least 70–80% in pro/con voting or the highest number of votes in multiple choice elections) in their local community, and with at least 25–30 editors' approval, the user should request access on Steward requests/Permissions with a link to the community's decision.
If I understand you right, that you believe this user right should not exist on WS, I guess a suggestion to remove it could be brought up here, and with a link from the Village pump, so everyone are aware of the suggestion to remove the right. After that, if there is a consensus to remove the right, I guess next step would be to discuss it on meta and/or Phabricator.
Maybe you will get response here, right now also, as to what other users think regarding your question. I hope my answer address your question at least in some parts. Dan Koehl (talk) 12:31, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Dan Koehl (talk) 12:31, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Stewards handle oversight actions on all wikis without oversighters. That's a better option than removing the right entirely, which WMF might not be okay with, and which is a bad idea because then I could put in someone's credit card number onto a page, hit Save, and nothing could be done to remove it. --Rschen7754 00:42, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
I was just surprised that local oversighters were necessary here when on it.wiki the stewards are sufficient. Generally the revdelete is enough to hide private information, which is something that admins do, and hiding information even to admins is quite rare. --Ruthven (talk) 20:14, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
@Ruthven: I don't know how necessary it is as such but it's just generally better for this project to be self-sustaining and it's generally better for Stewards to have their workload reduced. I don't have any anticipation that Dan or I would need to use CheckUser or Oversight but if it's needed, it's nice to have someone local who can do it. —Justin (koavf)TCM 23:32, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this archive.




The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this archive.


This is an archive of closed discussions. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this archive.

Original Research Policy

Wikispecies:No original research
This is a draft proposed policy with no standing as yet.

Wikispecies articles must not contain original research. The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikimedia projects to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist. By "exists", the community means that the reliable source must have been published and still exist—somewhere in the world, in any language, whether or not it is reachable online—even if no source is currently named in the article. Articles that currently name zero references of any type may be fully compliant with this policy—so long as there is a reasonable expectation that every bit of material is supported by a published, reliable source. This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources. To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented. (This policy of no original research does not apply to talk pages and other pages which evaluate article content and sources, such as deletion discussions or policy noticeboards.)

The prohibition against OR means that all material added to articles must be attributable to a reliable, published source, even if not actually attributed.

Despite the need to attribute content to reliable sources, you must not plagiarize them or violate their copyrights. Rewriting source material in your own words, while substantially retaining the meaning of the references, is not considered to be original research.

For questions about whether any particular edit constitutes original research, see Wikispecies' Village Pump.

For an in-depth analysis of OR, see en:Wikipedia:No original research.

Result: no clear result, has been on RfC two months. Resubmit discussion for clarity in future.

Discussion

--copied from pump--
Above it is suggested that we should have a "No original research" policy. I have posted a draft at Wikispecies:No original research. Does anyone have any suggestions for amendments or additions, before we have an RfC on its adoption? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:20, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Would it be "original research", when you find out, that a name already has been validly published in an earlier paper, that has been overlooked in literature? Would it be "original research", when you compile a taxon page on a genus, where no recent generic synopsis or revision is existing, based on different sources. I did a lot of this kind, e.g. Stephania, Securidaca, or Elvasia. Would it be "original research", when you only are applying the relevant code of nomenclature in a simple and straightforward case, that never would justify a separate paper in a scientific journal?
An example: When I created Xanthophyllum albicaule on March 1st, I changed the name from Xanthophyllum albicaulis, according to ICN Art. 23.5 and 32.2. After having notified IPNI on March 8th, they corrected their entry on March 9th. OK, now I can refer to IPNI, but for more than a week this maybe was forbidden OR??? Regards --Franz Xaver (talk) 11:59, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

--copied from pump--

I made this into an rfc as it is a complex issue for wikispecies. We have a significant number of taxonomists contributing and using to support this what is in reality their own research. Myself included. What needs to be clear is that what those in this position must not do is utilise unpublished information in this, must publicly acknowledge their potential NPoV issue and ensure that everything they use is clearly referenced to an existing scientifically acceptable research article or similar. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 13:19, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

The questions of Franz Xaver are important for all taxonomists contributing here. From the explanations on en:Wikipedia:No original research and the essay en:Wikipedia:These are not original research, I think these examples resemble OR, but they are not: 1. When you find out, that a name already has been validly published in an earlier paper - Very often taxonomic works cite different papers as first publication. So Wikispecies authors can "reasonably expect", that there probably exists a scientific work, which cites this earlier paper, too. Nevertheless, the info of the "re-discovery" should be sent to a reliable database. 2. When you compile a taxon page on a genus, where no recent generic synopsis or revision is existing, based on different sources - This kind of compilation work is done at all wikipedia pages too and is ok. But we must not use references A and B to come to conclusions C and D which are not cited in any of the references. So of course no new combinations of names should be made here! 3. Regarding those small correctable errors according to ICN, the essay states that "We have a responsibility to present an accurate and factual overview of the topic addressed in the article....In many cases, the best solution is to remove minor incorrect claims." The incorrect claim should then be sent to a reliable database, and be additionally noted in the taxon page, until the database is updated. - Would you agree with this assessment? --Thiotrix (talk) 15:33, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
@Thiotrix: Yes, I agree more or less. (1) In my opinion, the least problematic point is the first one, as you can use the neglected publication as a valid reference in WS. Anyway, there may be objections by someone, whether the earlier paper actually is a valid publication according to the relevant code. So, an interpretation of the Code would be necessary, and this might be counted as OR. That's why I reported the case of Xanthophyllum colubrinum (and two other species) to IPNI: They updated their entry today. Before that, they had neglected the earlier paper in J. Bot. (Morot), which conforms to the rules on valid publication for 1908, but would be invalidly published today. (2) Compilation of this kind generally is accepted, and references can be given for the separate components. However, it is inevitable in such a case, that the final species count in a genus deviates from published species numbers. E.g. for Stephania, compare the numbers in the rather recent treatments in Flora of China (2008) and Flora of Australia (2007), i.e. ca. 60 vs. 35–40, with my result of at least 64 species. On the other hand, for Securidaca compare the numbers in Flora of China (2008) and Flora Malesiana (1988), i.e. ca. 80 species in both references, with the lower species count resulting from my compilation. (It's not yet finished, but at the end it will probably be between 60 and 70.) So, any species count resulting from such a compilation would be OR according to some opinions, if there exists no publication reporting exactly this number. That's why the species count is hidden text in the genus articles compiled by me. (3) I agree, that such simple corrections should be reported to IPNI or other relevant databases. Anyway, when IPNI is updating in consequence of having contacted them, it's not their research, which is the basis of the update. Anyway, this should be allowed. Regards --Franz Xaver (talk) 16:38, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
I agree with above points also, as discussed by Franz Xaver, in zoology of course it is a little different in some places. In zoology until a nomenclatural act is made to deal with a previously unused but older and valid name, the younger though incorrect name remains in place and should not be dismissed. A nomenclatural act requires a publication that meets the ICZN code with regards to being a valid publication. Which we are not. So we can mention the issue but cannot change it. I am aware of several species in this situation but I cannot do anything about it here. I cannot tell someone about it because that message would be to me in regards to these species, I already know. I cannot do anything yet.
@Pigsonthewing: Andy just so you know I am not against what you proposed here, the problem is that we are in an unusual situation and we have to carefully modify this policy to suit our specialist needs. Many of the taxonomists on here who edit are the original sources of the information.
With this in mind I think it is imperative to make the point that our editors must restrict themselves to peer reviewed published in acceptable science journals any information that technically originates from them. In other words anyone could have obtained the information because it is published, I just happen to have done it myself from my own publications. But the point is it has been peer reviewed, it has been published, it has been open to scrutiny by other scientists, before we use it. It is not some theory or hypothesis I have in my head. We need to be clear on this point in our policy. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 01:18, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
When I posted to the Village Pump, I wrote (emphasis added) "Does anyone have any suggestions for amendments or additions, before we have an RfC on its adoption?". My intention was explicitly to encourage discussion before voting (so that we could, indeed, "carefully modify this policy to suit our specialist needs". You have copied my comment here, without asking me, and with a voting section, without it being clear what people are voting on, and discussion has effectively ended. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:23, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
Which is why I moved it so we could have a discussion. But fair enough I should have discussed that with you (we need to communicate better Andy, I am at fault here too). In any case the issues specific to Wikispecies have been laid out, above. Otherwise I am fine with it. Or I would not have supported it. I am trying to keep the Pump clear of some of the basic policy discussions, in the hope they get dealt with quickly and better. In the past they have had a bad habit of getting smothered by other issues coming up. People stopped reading it. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 11:37, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Voting

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support This or something like it. I'm glad that we don't have a flood of amateur entomologists coming up with "Todd Beetles" or "Lepidotera Stupidia" here but having a firm policy will dissuade it. —Justin (koavf)TCM 04:58, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support the above is a reasonable policy if it can just be made to highlight the discussion points above. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 09:49, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Dan Koehl (talk) 11:51, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Abstain, since there is no indication of what is being voted on. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:44, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral, per Andy Mabbett. --Zerabat (talk) 11:59, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Abstain, per Pigsonthewing. Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 05:06, 16 April 2017 (UTC).
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral --Samuele2002 (talk) 07:23, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support The development of a simple policy statement based upon the above and supported by references to a more in depth Wiki policy and other relevant sources. However, caveats may be required to deal with ongoing work that may be OR when started but not so when completed - see discussion. Andyboorman (talk) 10:12, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Further discussion

If the OR policy passes, how would this affect all existing pages, Wikispecies:Criteria for speedy deletion, and Wikispecies:Policy, which mentions deletion policy? Is the "deletion discussion" process needed? Also, how would this affect scientists and researchers contributing to this taxonomy database project? --George Ho (talk) 20:21, 14 May 2017 (UTC)


The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this archive.


This is an archive of closed discussions. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this archive.

Maik Bippus

Moved to Wikispecies:Administrators' Noticeboard#Maik Bippus. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:36, 23 March 2017 (UTC)


The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this archive.


This is an archive of closed discussions. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this archive.

Change of Bot policy

This poll has closed. Final results:
Support = 9
Oppose = 2
The motions have passed, changes to the bot policy as per this poll are accepted. Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 19:15, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

After some concerns were brought out regarding (a) 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. (b) the breach of automated Bots and assisted-editing speed limits.

I propose the following modifications to be made to the Wikispecies:Bot policy 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." 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. 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.
  • Change 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." 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 at a rate of up to 50 edits per minute.

See also the discussions at Wikispecies:Village_Pump#Proposal_of_bot-policy_modification and at Wikispecies:Administrators'_Noticeboard#AutoWikiBrowser.

Voting

Vote started Saturday, 20 May, 15:38 (UTC) and will end on Saturday, 27 May, 15:38 (UTC).

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Mariusm (talk) 15:38, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Andyboorman (talk) 15:54, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 15:54, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose the unjustified extension from the current limit of 6 edits per minute to a hefty 50 edits per minute. The meaning of "excluded from the bot definition to be considered assisted editing" is unclear. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:58, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Franz Xaver (talk) 18:13, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Thiotrix (talk) 18:31, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Dan Koehl (talk) 23:53, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- MKOliver (talk) 00:43, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose you not alone in the Wikmedia universe. Especially when page creations are involved. BTW: What are urgent tasks? --Succu (talk) 19:32, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I think this should be good to meet most users' needs. I would probably add a corollary to the final text such as, "For example, if you are fixing a small formatting error that affects a few dozen pages or if you are adding a template that only applies to a narrow subset of entries." — The preceding unsigned comment was added by Koavf (talkcontribs) 20:21, 23 May 2017 (UTC).
  • Symbol support vote.svg SupportAlvaro Molina ( - ) 07:27, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Neferkheperre (talk) 00:54, 28 May 2017 (UTC) Action was not feasible Nonvalid. User cast their vote after the poll was closed. Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 18:55, 28 May 2017 (UTC).

Comments

Our bot policy currently makes clear: "The term bot... refers to a script that modifies Wikispecies' content with some degree of automation, whether it is entirely automated, or assists a human contributor in some way. This policy applies to any such process."

Note also that there is also voting underway on an overlapping proposal, at Wikispecies:Village Pump#Proposal of bot-policy modification. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:02, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

This RfC is the vote to change the bot policy, so what the policy currently says is irrelevant. Why you wish to hamstring the taxonomic editors on this site I do not know. But they are deciding here what is best for Wikispecies in regards to this. The current proposals aim to redefine bots, place awb in this scenario. Rates are also being set in accordance with the needs of Wikispecies, not EN WP from where the original policy here was taken. The RfC vote is open to all and its outcome on 27 May will determine the policy here. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 16:10, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
It is highly relevant that people understand what is proposed to be undone; and what conditions proposed to be discarded. It is doubly relevant when the RfC opens with claims about whether or not AWB falls within the terms of the current policy. Your claim that I "wish to hamstring the taxonomic editors on this site" is both false and itself a breach of our own policies.; and I ask that you therefore strike it, and desist from repeating it. Your reference to EN WP is a straw man; no one has claimed that we must or should act in accordance with its needs. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:00, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
Fair enough I have struck out the line you wished. As for reference to EN WP being a straw-man argument, I would argue against that, since our original policy did come from their's. The point being that issues there are not entirely relevant here. I never said you think we should follow their policy, I said our current policy was derived from their policy and is in need of modification. People should know what is being changed of course. The original policy is still apparent. Since it has been discussed as to whether or not AWB / JWB falls under the definition of bots, it would seem important to be clear on this issue too. I have closed the other discussions (without removing them of course) so that all discussion can now take place here, with a community vote on what we need here on Wikispecies. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 17:18, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

@Succu: Re: "urgent" tasks - the current bot policy 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).". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:45, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

What left us defining what a urgent task is, Mr. Mabbett. --Succu (talk) 21:04, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this archive.


This is an archive of closed discussions. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this archive.

Applying for Importers

In order to extend and in some cases simplify the functionality of Wikispecies we sometimes need to import data from our sister projects. For instance, there is a way to branch translated templates based on user language preferences, but for this to work we need to import all these pages from Commons to Wikispecies. To be able to import files we need local Importers and Transwiki importers, but right now both of those user groups are empty. These user rights can only be assigned by a Wikimedia steward (not by Wikispecies' administrators or bureaucrats). Contrary to Wikimedia policies regarding for example Checkusers we do not need two or more (transwiki) importers, but one of each group will suffice.

Please note that we did discuss this about a year ago (Administrators' Noticeboard 2016: LangSwitch) but that conference sort of died out...

I ask the community whether or not we should apply for such user rights? Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 11:21, 7 July 2017 (UTC).

Discussion

  1. I often import templates (in fact, I did so just a few minutes ago), and doing so manually is sub-optimal. We should introduce this user-right, and I would be happy to serve in that role. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:20, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
    "we sometimes need to import data from our sister projects" Note that this is utterly distinct from including data from Wikidata. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:21, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
  2. Symbol support vote.svg Support CreativeC38 (talk) 15:23, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
  3. Symbol support vote.svg Support Precisely because Andy imports so much and it would probably make things easier for him. —Justin (koavf)TCM 17:23, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
  4. Symbol support vote.svg Support the notion of an importer on this wiki. Further if Andy (@Pigsonthewing:) wishes this role I have after consideration no objection to it. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 02:47, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
  5. Symbol support vote.svg Support It would facilitate the import of mass pages (in the case of XML import), however, it is necessary to configure import wikis before the transwiki import can work (accessible by default to administrators and transwiki importers). —Alvaro Molina ( - ) 09:57, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Results

Transwiki Importers

Importers


The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this archive.
This is an archive of closed discussions. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this archive.

Interface proposal

I think it would be very valuable to employ mw:Manual:$wgUseCategoryBrowser on this project. I think we should use categories for a hierarchy of taxonomic levels and show the navigation down to the current level by <includeonly> in templates. E.g. on Diceros bicornis, text at the bottom of the page would lead to categories Category:EukaryotaCategory:AnimaliaCategory:EumetazoaCategory:BilateriaCategory:NephrozoaCategory:DeuterostomiaCategory:ChordataCategory:CraniataCategory:VertebrataCategory:GnathostomataCategory:TetrapodaCategory:ReptiliomorphaCategory:AmniotaCategory:SynapsidaCategory:EupelycosauriaCategory:SphenacodontiaCategory:SphenacodontoideaCategory:TherapsidaCategory:TheriodontiaCategory:CynodontiaCategory:EucynodontiaCategory:ProbainognathiaCategory:ProzostrodontiaCategory:MammaliaformesCategory:MammaliaCategory:TrechnotheriaCategory:ZatheriaCategory:TheriaCategory:EutheriaCategory:PlacentaliaCategory:BoreoeutheriaCategory:LaurasiatheriaCategory:PerissodactylaCategory:RhinocerotidaeCategory:DicerosCategory:Diceros bicornis. I imagine that this could be partially done by bots and by modifying templates such as {{Perissodactyla}} were modified to something like {{Perissodactyla|Diceros bicornis}}. Note that this has been discussed several times by me: Wikispecies:Village_Pump/Archive_43#Adding_the_taxon_as_category_to_each_page?, Wikispecies:Village_Pump/Archive_40#High-order_category_system_of_Wikispecies, and Wikispecies:Village_Pump/Archive_39#Taxonavigation_templates. I want to propose this to the community and if the consensus is in favor, add a ticket to phab:. Thoughts? —Justin (koavf)TCM 07:14, 27 January 2018 (UTC)


For an example, see OrthodoxWiki:Assyrian_Church_of_the_East. —Justin (koavf)TCM 20:03, 27 January 2018 (UTC)


I wouldn't rule this out, but have some concerns. This seems to duplicates the taxonomic hierarchy on the page; I'm not clear what the advantages of doing so are. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:15, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
Good point. I think it would be visually useful to click on them at the end of longer entries and it also serves a similar purpose to categories and lists on Wikipedia. Sometimes it's just useful to have a clean listing as in a category with no clutter (e.g. for making a list of related taxa in AWB). E.g. a page about a family is useful for showing the hierarchy and how it is arranged but a category for said family would simply list its genera in alphabetical order. I can easily imagine someone just wanting to see those genera listed. There would be some overhead but I think it could be semi-automated and draw from d: as well. —Justin (koavf)TCM 20:41, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
@Koavf: I don't understand your point. Why do you need a category, when you want a list of genera within a family in alphabetical order? Such lists already are existing, e.g. in Boraginaceae, including even genera, where the respective taxon pages not yet have been created. Here, a category would contain only an incomplete list compared to the existing one. I cannot recognise, why this doubling of structures should be necessary. Moreover, I am not sure, that drawing anything semi-automated from WD would be a good idea. Regards --Franz Xaver (talk) 21:33, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
I have to agree at present from what I can see of this it is a duplication of the page information. I can see a benefit to this on sites such as wikipedia where they do not present entire phylogentic nomenclatural relationships, however we do on each page. The same navigation potential of these categories is already available in the correctly set up taxon accounts. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 01:14, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
I am with the doubters, as I was during the original discussions. With our dear Rhino there would be some 36 plus categories and unlike the the nomenclatural relationships there would be no possibility of using a taxonavigation collapse. Cheers Andyboorman (talk) 14:32, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
I don't see the necessity. Cheers MargaretRDonald (talk) 04:57, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this archive.


This is an archive of closed discussions. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this archive.

New user group for editing sitewide CSS and JavaScripts

Dear fellow Wikispecians, please note that in order to improve the security of our readers and editors, permission handling for editing CSS and JavaScript ("JS") pages has changed throughout Wikimedia. These are pages like MediaWiki:Common.css and MediaWiki:Vector.js which contain code that is executed in the browsers of users of the site.

One of the changes includes the creation of a new user group called Interface administrators (interface-admin). Starting two weeks from now, only members of this group will be able edit CSS/JS pages that they do not own (that is, any page ending with .css or .js that is either in the MediaWiki: namespace or is another user's user subpage). You can learn more about the motivation behind the change here.

We need to realize that this is a potentially dangerous permission to hand out; a malicious user or a hacker taking over the account of a careless interface-admin can abuse it in far worse ways than "standard" admin permissions could be abused. Therefore this permission should only be assigned to users who really need it, who are trusted by the community, and who follow common basic password and computer security practices – and preferably also use two-factor authentication when logging in to Wikispecies (which by the way is a good idea regardless of user rights).

I'm not at all sure we actually need any interface-admin's on Wikispecies, but if we want to they can be added the same way as new administrators are appointed, i.e. by Wikimedia stewards or our own Wikispecies bureaucrats (not by admins). It's important to remember that our local bureaucrats can only assign this user right to a user, but not revoke it. Hence we will require the help of a Wikimedia steward to remove a user from this user group, if need be. Here are some details, and a proposal:

The WMF has decided that the following will take place on August 27, 2018
  • The ability to change .js and .css pages is removed from administrators and bureaucrats
  • Instead, a new group of interface-admin will be created
  • The reason is increased security

We need a plan for how we intend to handle this. Here's my proposal.

Proposal
  • Neither administrators nor bureaucrats should automatically become interface administrators
  • No bureaucrat should assign himself to the interface-admin user goup
  • If an administrator needs to edit JavaScript- or CSS files he should ask a bureaucrat about this on Wikispecies Administrators: Requests for adminship. Since this privilege entails a security risk, a request for interface adminship should not lead to a public poll.
  • When assessing whether a person is to be authorized, the bureaucrat should take the following into account:
    • Has the person shown technical skills involving JavaScript and CSS?
    • Has the person proven responsible?
    • Most often it isn't necessary to edit JavaScripts or CSS files on a frequent basis. Therefore it is likely that the assignment of the privilege should be time-limited, after which it will be automatically revoked by the software
    • If uncertain, the bureaucrat is invited to ask other trusted users for their opinion
  • Interface administrators should consider the following:
    • Use a good, unique password for your account. Using two-factor authentication for logins is highly recommended. (This can be set globally using Special:Preferences. However be careful to read up on the details first, or you might be unable to at all login to Wikimedia later on. A simple password reset wont help if you are locked out, and due to security related technical limitations the Wikimedia staff may not be able to help you if that's the case.)
    • Never copy-paste JavaScript or CSS code that you do not understand
    • Never include anything from an external URL (such as fonts, images) as it violates Wikimedia's policies
    • If you leave Wikispecies, ask a bureaucrat to revoke your interface administrator user rights

Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 04:22, 14 August 2018 (UTC).

Discussion:

  • Oppose high barriers to entry I agree that editing the site CSS and JS can be pretty devastating but I don't see the problem with allowing admins and bureaucrats to have the right as we've never experienced a problem with it. I've tooled around with it in the past couple of years and so has User:Pigsonthewing and unless I'm mistaken, it's never lead to anything disastrous. —Justin (koavf)TCM 06:11, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
I get your point and to some degree also agree with you (as I most often do, btw). However I suspect that rather few people understand how badly this user right might be misused. Meta-Wiki lists some of the problems that can occur. Here's an excerpt from the above mentioned "motivation behind the change"-link:
"By editing pages such as Common.js interface-editors can instantly execute code on the machines of our millions of readers and thousands of editors. By sending malicious code to readers/editors, one can basically do anything: phish passwords or credit card numbers, redirect monetary donations, deanonymize editors, make edits in another editors' name, trick people into installing malware, send spam, orchestrate DDoS attacks against third-party sites, etc.
Unlike other dangerous powers (e.g. CheckUser) which cannot be monetized, this is a lucrative target for an attacker. Recently we have seen someone abuse their privileges to run bitcoin miners on visitors' machines; there are far worse things that are attractive to any attacker looking for some easy income. The damage is not limited to a single wiki. Due to Wikimedia wikis all using a single global login system, an exploit on one wiki can be used to take over admin accounts on any other wiki and extend the attack further. Thus, rogue admins and hackers stealing admin accounts present a serious threat, and we should do what we can to reduce it. It's a small miracle no major incident has happened so far, even though admin accounts are stolen regularly; we need to reduce our reliance on miracles.
At the same time, Wikimedia communities' ability to shape the workings of their sites is extremely valuable and should be preserved."
Because of the above I think that at the very least any assignment to the interface-admin user group should be time-limited. One of the reasons for this is that after August 27, edits to JavaScript- and CSS files in the MediaWiki namespace can't be reverted by "ordinary" admins or bureaucrats. They can only be reverted by interface-admins, and we certainly don't want any lengthy "edit wars" between a couple of interface-admins reverting each others edits, recurrently changing site-wide code and layout in the process. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 23:44, 14 August 2018 (UTC).
I support a time-limited assignment, given temporarily by a bureaucrat. I think I may be among the few who updated such files in the past, when noone else seemed concearned, but I welcome a higher security in those matters, and agree that different changes should reflect a higher security demand, so noone just change relevant files on their own wish, like I used to do in the past. Dan Koehl (talk) 09:08, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I think this proposal is somewhat exaggerated in the case of administrators/bureaucrats (maybe these rules would apply better for the case of normal users), it would be strange to think that any of us could insert, intentionally or maliciously, spam or destroy the CSS/JS pages of Wikispecies (unless your account was compromised). We should be able to rely on our sound judgment and that administrators or bureaucrats are sufficiently aware of the security measures and risks involved in the permission. For example, in Commons all administrators can obtain permission on request from bureaucrats without having to go through a vote; here maybe we could do that with the current administrators, and for the future that the candidates be put to a vote, but without so many requirements (suffice it to have a secure account and maybe, that you have at least 6 months as administrator [like the bureaucrats on Meta]). Regards. —AlvaroMolina ( - ) 16:50, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
In the strictest sense there are only two Wikispecies-specific requirements stated in the above proposal, namely that (after the 27th of August): "no admin or bureaucrat should automatically be assigned to the interface admin group", and that "no bureaucrat should assign him/herself to the interface-admin user group". The third requirement ("If an administrator needs to edit JavaScript- or CSS files he should ask a bureaucrat on the 'Requests for adminship' page") is in effect a Wikimedia global requirement and nothing we can decide locally for Wikispecies, since on all Wikimedia sister projects only bureaucrats can assign a user to this particular user group. Admins can't.
As for Commons and admins being "promoted" to the interface-admin user group without having to go through a vote: yes, you're right. However again, one must remember that there is a huge difference in user level capabilities between admins and interface-admins, and perhaps not even all bureaucrats know this. First of all, a "regular" admin in a wiki project can't really do anything outside of that specific wiki project. This is not true for interface-admins. For example an interface-admin on any wiki project can instantly and automatically make all visitors on all Wikimedia sister projects start to send spam and/or set off a DDoS attack towards for example the United Nations, the Central Bank of Russia‎, or the FBI. Yes: all who even visits any of the currently 882 Wikimedia projects are affected, even if they've never made a single edit (registered or not). Considering that all together the different Wikipedia, Commons, Wikispecies, Wikivoyage etc. sites have several millions of visitors every day, this is potentially a huge security risk.
Lastly I wish to remind everyone that after August 27 only interface-admins will be able to edit JavaScript and CSS files in the Wikimedia namespace. Our admins and bureaucrats will not. This is a global Wikimedia decision we can't change locally here at Wikispecies. We can only decide whether we want interface-admins or not, and if so, how to assign them. And after they're assigned we can't take them away. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 11:38, 16 August 2018 (UTC).
Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Apologies I have been at a conference. Hence unavailable last few days. I agree with @AlvaroMolina: that this is probably a little overboard. When this came up I asked what advice Meta had and the response was not as exclusive as this. That basically said that account security, ability to do this and experience were basically the main issues. Above it has been suggested that a time limited access to this user right be considered. I can see this being appropriate, since I would suspect anyone wanting it legitimately has a single objective in mind anyway. This could all be negotiated between the user and our current admins etc at the time. Then given accordingly if deemed appropriate. Not really a formal vote just a discussion and a decision. Maybe it would be better to develop a policy of what we expect from people wanting this in terms of their account security, demonstrated experience etc, and outline of what they are attempting to do. Then any applicant can provide the information we need when asking and we can all just decide based on this. Keeping it a semi informal process with a few checks. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 23:27, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
As for formal votes I already in my first draft above propose that "Since this privilege entails a security risk, a request for interface adminship should not lead to a public poll", so no argues there. :-)
We will need a formal Wikispecies:Interface administrators page listed in Category:Wikispecies user access levels (analogous to Wikispecies:Administrators, Wikispecies:Checkusers and Wikispecies:Oversighters etc.) so that users can find information about the policy and at any given time check a list of current interface administrators. The user group itself has already been created globally and may henceforth be populated by our bureaucrats so in theory our interface-admin page could be created right away, but I guess there's no real point in doing so before we have an agreed upon policy? –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 12:42, 17 August 2018 (UTC).
Btw here's the current proposal for the equivalent policy at English Wikipedia: Interface administrators. (As noted on the page local enWP bureaucrats have the ability to not only assign but also remove users from the interface-admin (and admin) user groups. At present this ability is not a part of the toolset available to our bureaucrats; see Special:ListGroupRights.) –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 00:14, 18 August 2018 (UTC).
That is a fair point. Considering the potential risks for this type of user right, at present our only option to stop someone abusing it would be to block them and request assistance from a Steward. Maybe before we assign any of these the capacity to remove this right immediately should be considered. As we can for bots with admin rights. I am hopeful such an issue could be avoided by careful decisions on who to give it to, but things can go wrong. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 01:00, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
Agreed, however the process of granting bureaucrats the technical ability to remove admin flags isn't altogether trivial: see for example RFC: Granting bureaucrats the ability to remove the admin flag and RFC: Bureaucrat removal of adminship policy at enWP. Also, since only interface-admins are allowed to edit CSS and (more importantly) JS files (in Wikimedia: namespace) I guess that implies only interface-admins can revert them as well. Not 100% sure about that though, but it seems logical. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 02:00, 18 August 2018 (UTC).

───────────────────────── So, if we all agree that assigning this user right should be time limited, how long do you guys feel we should consider a good "standard" period of time? A week, a month, a year? –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 20:28, 23 August 2018 (UTC).

1 year or more seems like a prudent and reasonable time. —AlvaroMolina ( - ) 16:05, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support, agree with Alvaro, 1 year (or more) sounds reasonable. Dan Koehl (talk) 10:17, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

@Tommy Kronkvist, AlvaroMolina, and Faendalimas:, It seems this discussion somehow never resulted in a clear direction in regard to some sort of community consensus and similair. While this discussion may be actualized, I boldly created the page Wikispecies:Interface administrators, a user box, and would like to suggest that we elect at least one Interface admin. Dan Koehl (talk) 10:37, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks @Dan Koehl: This issue has been on my agenda for some time, but I haven't really got around to do it (my computer is still acting up somewhat). However now that you've created the Interface admin page I would like to be as bold as to nominate myself. I had an issue just the other day when I needed to edit a JS file (regarding localization of the GUI, since I'm also a Translation admin) but all that work had to be paused since I can't edit the script files. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 16:12, 30 September 2018 (UTC).
Very good @Tommy Kronkvist:! we havnt really managed to gat around the corner with this issue, and the question is, how can we proceed? Shall we announce a nomination on Requests for adminship and let users vote, or apply some easier method? Will anyone care, so far, there was very little feedback on this. what is the next step? Dan Koehl (talk) 19:30, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
@AlvaroMolina, Dan Koehl, Faendalimas, and Koavf: In my opinion the first step of this last (?) part of the process is to finalize and above all formalize the Wikispecies:Interface administrators page in a way that as many users as possible are comfortable with. The version created by you is good and covers most of the bases, but we need to add stuff about the more technical details. When this particular user right is granted it comes hand-in-hand with a potentially very powerful toolbox. Therefore I think the interface-admin page should be exceptionally crisp and clear when informing about the one year time-limit (which of course can be extended), how to file a formal complaint against an interface-admin, how the process of demoting an interface-admin works (including links to Wikimedia Stewards), and so forth. Thereafter announcing the nominations of the first interface-admins on Requests for adminship is not a bad idea, however we should consider adding a "Requests for adminship" section to the actual interface-admin page itself rather than use the "standard" admin page. All future interface-admin requests are likely to be made on the interface-admin page and eventually also end up in an archive, and keeping all of the requests in the same archive is a lot more translucent and makes it a lot easier for the community to investigate what's been going on. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 23:29, 30 September 2018 (UTC).
Agreed that language around what this user right is should be completed before the process surrounding it is finalized. —Justin (koavf)TCM 01:15, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
For my part, I think that for a point of order, it would be good if the requests were made on the Wikispecies:Interface administrators and not in the Wikispecies:Administrators page, since then it can give rise to confusion. Given that Tommy Kronkvist has been involved in this topic more than all of us, it could be good that it was responsible for adapting the page to suit the consensus that has been reached here and adapts to the other pages of the project. Regards. —AlvaroMolina ( - ) 02:28, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
Very good, it seems we are heading somewhere with this issue. I have made some changes to the new page Wikispecies:Interface administrators, please add anything relevant, so it gets clearer and more precise in its description, and like Alvaro write; adapting the page to suit the consensus that has been reached here and adapts to the other pages of the project. Dan Koehl (talk) 06:25, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

───────────────────────── I've made some changes to Wikispecies:Interface administrators (diff.) as well. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 13:10, 3 October 2018 (UTC).

@AlvaroMolina, Dan Koehl, Faendalimas, Koavf, and Pigsonthewing: Using the Admin noticeboard as model, I've created Wikispecies:Interface administrators' Noticeboard (and the accompanying {{IAnheader}} template) and added links to it on the Interface administrators page. Please have a look at both the noticeboard and the template and chisel out any oddities you may find in the code. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 22:21, 4 October 2018 (UTC).

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this archive.


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

Vernacular names

Should the names in the == Vertacular names == section be spelled correctly, that is, according to the spelling of the language to which they are assigned?-Rosičák (talk) 10:54, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Because of the doubts, I tried to rationalize and match the sources to present the current help.

Vernacular names

čeština: medvěd malajský[1]
dansk: malajbjørn[2]
Deutsch: Malaienbär[3]
English: Sun Bear[4]
español: oso malayo[5]
français: ours malais[6]
magyar: maláj medve[7]
italiano: orso malese[8]
lietuvių: malajinis lokys[9]
Nederlands: Maleise beer[10]
norsk: malayabjørn[11]
polski: biruang malajski, niedźwiedź malajski[12]
русский: солнечный медведь, медовый медведь, бируанг[13]
slovenščina: sončni medved[14]
  1. https://www.biolib.cz/cz/formsearch/?action=execute&searcharea=1&string=medv%C4%9Bd+malajsk%C3%BD
  2. http://denstoredanske.dk/Special:Tags?tag=malajbj%c3%b8rn
  3. https://www.geo.de/geolino/tierlexikon/510-rtkl-tierlexikon-malaienbaer
  4. https://www.nationalgeographic.com/animals/mammals/s/sun-bear/
  5. https://sostenibilidad.semana.com/medio-ambiente/articulo/oso-malayo-el-mas-pequeno-del-mundo-amenazado-por-el-comercio-de-bilis/36161
  6. https://www.especes-menacees.fr/dossiers/ours/ours-malais/
  7. https://444.hu/2017/01/18/csontsovany-malaj-medvek-konyorognek-etelert-egy-indoneziai-allatkertben
  8. http://www.meteoweb.eu/2017/02/animali-ripreso-orso-malese-nelle-foreste-del-myanmar/855637/
  9. https://www.etaplius.lt/malajinis-lokys-indonezijoje-uzpuole-sutuoktinius
  10. https://www.ouwehand.nl/nl/ontdekken/maleise-beer
  11. https://www.naturfakta.no/dyr/?id=1573
  12. https://www.ekologia.pl/wiedza/zwierzeta/biruang-malajski
  13. http://terramia.ru/photo/malajskij-medved/
  14. http://193.2.71.42/medvedi/?option=com_content&view=article&id=66&Itemid=83&lang=&fontstyle=f-larger

Research

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Names should be written correctly.--Rosičák (talk) 10:54, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Names should be written correctly e. g. should distinguish gramatically correct german (de) first capital (majuscule) and many other languages gramatically correct first small letter (minuscule). Visitors should not be misleaded. --Kusurija (talk) 18:54, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Remember though in UK English Vernacular Names are usually capitalised. Sun Bear not sun bear. Andyboorman (talk) 19:02, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
@Andyboorman:Bingo! So who knows perfect english, should distinguish between cases as Sun Bear and bear or daisy (not Bear or Daisy) (if these are correct - I'm not so good in english). --Kusurija (talk) 19:27, 8 October 2018 (UTC)P. S.: cf. „A ‚sun bear‘ photographed at Miller Park Zoo“--Kusurija (talk) 19:37, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Unless someone can provide a relevant motivation for the opposite. Dan Koehl (talk) 19:38, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Franz Xaver (talk) 20:48, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Comments

  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment In English, first letters of names should be capitalised, as that's what most formal lists do (e.g. IOC, BSBI, MSW, etc.). In all languages, the list should use title case: capitalise the first letter, if that language uses capitals in the title at the start of a page. These are index lists, not text in the middle of a sentence. Also the reminder: VN is not an important part of Wikispecies; stick to one name per language - here is not the place for long lists of often obsolete or rarely used colloquial names. The name listed should be scientifically accurate - we should not be misleading readers with inaccurate names - and preferably the name used in official national lists (unless that conflicts with scientific evidence). Thus, in the list above, e.g. Russian should be Малайский медведь, not "солнечный медведь, медовый медведь, бируанг" - MPF (talk) 09:21, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment ...thank you MPF. Orchi (talk) 17:25, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment ...Whats is meant by scientific accuracy? For example, Wollemia nobilis is known, in English, by the vernacular Wollemi pine, but is not a pine (see the Discussion Page for an attempt by over zealous pedantry to over-rule common sense). Rock roses are Cistus or Helianthemum, not Rosa and then there is the Japanese Umbrella pine - the list goes on. As MPF states it is not that important, but using the most familiar VN for a language is crucial, even if the plant is not botanically a daisy, flax, rose, pine or whatever. There is also a good reason for not insisting on one VN only, for example UK and US VNs can be different and no one culture should have precedence. Andyboorman (talk) 17:51, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Language 'us' or 'en-us' for American language is certainly needed; it has been added to the language list at Commons, but not yet here (or at wikidata). Cistus is Rock-rose, hyphenated, to show it isn't a rose. And no, we should not be promoting the misidentification of Wollemia as a pine - this sort of Trumpist fake news needs to be eliminated, not promoted. Facts First, please. - MPF (talk) 19:43, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
      • Pictogram voting comment.svg CommentYou can not impose your own opinions as "facts" - that is core Trumpism. The world is there as it is and not as you would want to make it. It is factual that the RHS in the UK call Cistus × purpureus Purple-flowered rock rose, the Australians treasure their Wollemi pine and the Kiwi name for Phormium is New Zealand flax. It is unscientific to consign a whole discipline of historic and vernacular knowledge to the dust-bin. WS reflects taxonomy not create it and the same should be for VN. Andyboorman (talk) 20:30, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
        • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment it is not my own opinions. Wollemia is not Pinus; demonstrable scientific fact - do a DNA comparison. Since it is not a pine, it should not be called a pine. To do so is a lie. - MPF (talk) 21:20, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
          • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment DNA is one source of evidence and local cultures another, both are undeniable and factual. This is getting so silly - a VN is a common name used by a particular language group or culture and is never a lie. To deny them its use is cultural fascism. I will not convince you nor you me - please close this as unresolved, but do not interfere with well meaning contributions that have their own justifications, as this causes bad feelings and can be a deterrent to contributions - see Wollemia Discussion page. Andyboorman (talk) 08:12, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
            • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Local cultures are not scientific; Wikispecies is scientific. Incorrect names may have a place being listed in the wikipedias for those cultures, but not here. And what you say about 'not interfering with well-meaning contributions' works both ways. If you are going to keep reimposing misleading and inaccurate names, that too is a deterrent to contributions. - MPF (talk) 07:06, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment ...if available to use the name of the article name of the respective country. What about a new abbreviation for: en (american) as for "de" and "de switzerland" = gsw? Orchi (talk) 18:47, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Thank you for the comments above. Perhaps we may be inappropriate, outdated or overcome names to refer to this Genus species.--Rosičák (talk) 03:14, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Can someone who hasnt participated in this discussion make an estimate of the consensus, and close the discussion, please? Dan Koehl (talk) 10:14, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

I think it's clear, but I would not like to do it.--Rosičák (talk) 18:17, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

The question hasn't been asked clearly. "Should the names in the == Vertacular names == section be spelled correctly"? Yes of course thet should be spelled correctly, no-one is going to say we should include deliberate typographical errors in names.

The question it seems that Rosičák really wanted to ask is "should the names in the == Vertacular names == list be treated as though they were in the middle of a sentence and not in a list?", as opposed to the current index list which - inevitably and correctly for a list, uses Title case. To this, the answer I would say is

  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose, strongly, - because (a) it makes the list very difficult for single users to create: it is one thing for me, as someone without a Cyrillic keyboard, to copy "Зверобой чашечковидный" from Wikidata and paste it into the list; another thing altogether to ask me to hunt down a lower-case "З" on a keyboard that doesn't include it; and (b) it looks incredibly untidy and unprofessional to have a mix of lower case and upper case in an index list. The only case where a vernacular name should not begin with a capital, is if it is in a language which never uses capital letters, not even at the start of a sentence or in the title at the top of a page. - MPF (talk) 10:30, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
It is easy to extend the page MediaWiki:Edittools by inserting characters of different alphabets.

Charmaps tools:

--Rosičák (talk) 16:59, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Results

Vernacular names should always use correct spelling, with the following praxis in regards to number of vernacular names in the table, and capitalisation (listed in order of importance):

  • When possible we should strive towards only listing one vernacular name per language, and then always an official one, if available. We should add the possibility of using specific ISO 639-2 and ISO 639-3 languages codes for regional variations of names, e.g. "de" for German, "gsw" for Swiss German. When ISO codes are not available, we may look in to the possibility of using IETF codes instead (e.g. "en-AU" for Australian English).
  • For languages using a writing system with case distinction, the first letter of any given vernacular name should always use upper case, regardless of language. In other words, all vernacular names should at least use "Sentence case".
  • The rule of sentence case should be extended to "Title Case" for languages with such a praxis.

Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 13:32, 11 January 2019 (UTC).

@Tommy Kronkvist:Your conclusion about the Results is not true, as many users expressed different opinion and contraargue is not clear enough, btw. in my opinion also not right (at least, because it is abusive contrary to grammar of some other languages.) I on no way can agree with such conclusions, and, if such mode will be enforced by power, I will not parcipitate here any more. --Kusurija (talk) 18:07, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
One problem is that as a database, Wikispecies should handle all data of a certain type in the same way. When possible, all author pages should be formatted in the same way, all categories should be constructed in the same way, all templates should follow the same standard, and so forth. This is also true for the list of vernacular names. Wikispecies can currently be presented in any of 32 different languages, and for the vast majority of them "Title case" (as desribed in Help:Vernacular names section) is correct. Sadly this may become a problem in some of the languages, but I guess the majority rules... Another example of this is how we have agreed to format author names. As explained in Help:Author Names all middle name initials should be written without spacing, i.e. written as "Gerald A.H. Bedford" and not "Gerald A. H. Bedford". This strikes many users as odd and some – including many of those with English as their mother tongue – even find it outright wrong. Nevertheless we have had this up for vote too, and the outcome of the poll clearly states that the majority prefers the format without spaces. This may be wrong in some languages, but since there is only one version of Wikispecies and that one version must simultaneously serve all the people on Earth regardless of their language, we will sometimes have to make compromises. It's of course easier on Wikipedia where there is one WP version for each language, and every single Wikipedia is supposed to be monolingual. Unfortunately, here at Wikispecies we don't have that luxury. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 14:36, 4 March 2019 (UTC).

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

Vernacular names, take two

Hello fellow Wikispecians, Tommy Kronkvist (talk) here, adding a note at 09:41, 30 July 2019 (UTC). The matter of caps in vernacular names is still often discussed on different talk pages here and there. As a result I wish to rise a new RfC regarding the same issue, only this time with a more up-front and stringent question, as follows:

Should the vernacular names in the "Vernacular names" sections on taxon pages be spelled using so called "title case", i.e. with a capitalised first letter, or not?

Discussion

  • Is this not language-dependent? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:54, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
    I argue that in this particular case it's not really a matter of language at all, but rather related to Wikispecies' overall layout conventions and GUI. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 10:02, 30 July 2019 (UTC).
    I can find not a single German-language web page where "Malaienbär", for example, is written with a lower-case first letter. I am not sufficiently knowledgebale as to be able to assert that there is not a language where the reverse convention applies. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:51, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
    In German orthography all nouns are always capitalised, whether they are the first word in a sentence or not. This convention is almost unique to German, shared only by the closely related Luxembourgish language and may be some dialects of the North Frisian language (which is related to German to a somewhat lesser degree.) In my opinion the vernacular names section should be considered a list (with one VN per row), or perhaps a table (with one VN per cell). I believe that throughout all of Wikimedia (regardless of language) it is most common to always capitalise the first item in every row of a list, and that the same is true for the first items in table rows. For the sake of consequence I think it would be best either to always capitalise all vernacular names, or never do it. A mix of caps depending on language is only confusing. As I wrote in March 4, 2019 in the very last post of the now closed thread above: "Wikispecies can currently be presented in any of 32 different languages, and for the vast majority of them 'Title case' (as desribed in Help:Vernacular names section) is correct. Sadly this may become a problem in some of the languages, but I guess the majority rules." After weighing all of these considerations together I opted for voting that all vernacular names should start with caps. Other users may of course come to other conclusions. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 13:50, 30 July 2019 (UTC).
    Not only is it language-dependent, it is context dependent. Some names in English derive from proper nouns and are capitalized by convention. We cannot force "spanish moss" when "Spanish moss is clearly correct. Likewise, German always capitalizes nouns. The option to always use lowercase is clearly not usable, yet it is the only alternative offered below: to always capitalize or always use lowercase. Neither option is correct. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:15, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
    I agree that it's context dependent: that's actually one of my main points. Surely we can agree that starting any list item (or sentence, for that matter) with a capital letter is okay in any language, whereas starting with lowercase letters seems more dubious? –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 20:59, 30 July 2019 (UTC).
    Even if I were to agree (and I do not), that doesn't solve all the capitalization issues currently under discussion. Do we use sentence case or capitalize every element? Both suggestions have come up in discussion, and the voting does not distinguish between these two situations. We really need to identify and sort out the various problems in discussion before we start a vote on them. The current vote will only lead to more voting, regardless of how it ends, because it doesn't consider the possibilities. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:26, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
    It's fairly straightforward to me. The alternatives (per the "Votes" section below) are to either start the first word with caps, or not. The rest is of a more academic nature: to my knowledge English is the only language where the rest of the words are ever capitalized (except for proper nouns which of course always use upper case in other Latin script languages as well). –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 16:36, 31 July 2019 (UTC).
    German capitalizes every noun, whether proper or not. French capitalizes some of them, at least in their WP policy, when the vernacular name is applied to a group (class of objects) versus a member (representative of that group). So English is certainly not the only language in consideration. But my point is that we are tackling this issue both backwards and in piecemeal fashion. Normally, one has the discussion first, then votes. And normally a vote is intended to settle the issue, not merely one tiny facet of the issue. Look at the previous discussion, where the vote was whether or not to "spell names correctly". What would the alternative to that be? To spell them incorrectly? Neither the previous vote nor this one was thought out well at all. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:18, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
    I see your point. It should also be noted that personally I think we ought to scrap the "Vernacular names" section altogether. I've said this a number of times before, and the main reason is that the VNs very rarely add any information related to the taxonomy or nomenclature of taxa. Hence, in my opinion adding vernacular names to the taxon pages is out of scope of the Wikispecies project. I therefore withdraw my vote, and will refrain from commenting any further. However I will of course continue to follow consensus and contribute in accord with any outcome of the voting. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 18:13, 31 July 2019 (UTC).
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment In languages which distinguish between capitals and lowercase, the name should be capitalized if the rules of grammar in that language say it should be capitalized, and should not be capitalized if the rules of grammar in that language say it should not be capitalized. German vernacular names should be capitalized because German grammar capitalizes nouns. Names of plants in English should not be capitalized because names like "moss" and "fern" are not capitalized in English. The voting options below do not allow for this fact, and it is premature to call for a vote before the discussion has happened. I will point out that title case is not correct for most Wiktionaries which includes the vernacular names of species. The English Wikipedia Manual of Style says that English vernacular ("common") names are given in lower case, except where proper names appear. (link). --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:07, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Lists are very often capitalised irrespective of the "correct" spelling. There is no consistency with UK English common names with authorities tending to use there own preferences, however capitalisation is most commonly encountered, for example Fir Clubmoss on Wildlife Trusts website. Andyboorman (talk) 15:26, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
    This is not done on the Flora of North America website: example: Spanish-moss, long-moss, black-moss, mousse espagnole, mousse. Here, the vernacular names appear in lowercase type, except for "Spanish" which is normally capitalized because of its etymology from a proper noun. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:34, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
    Note that the "Wildlife Trusts" website considers Fir Clubmoss to be a member of the "Mosses and liverworts" (aside: liverworts is not capitalized), yet that no clubmoss (Huperzia in this case) belongs to the bryophytes, as they are vascular plants in the Lycopodiaceae. If this website cannot be trusted with correctness of even basic taxonomic information, then it should not be used as a model for what we are trying to do here. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:39, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
    That the Wildlife Trust page has taxonomic errors is not relevant to capitalisation; what does matter is that they follow the standard capitalisation convention adopted by the botanical naming authority for the region, BSBI, which is to capitalise the first letters of English names. The same convention is adopted by many/most other naming authorities, e.g. IOC for birds; there are many good reasons for doing so, including consistency, the difficulty of determining capitalisation based on etymology, and perhaps most importantly, to indicate that a name is a formal accepted vernacular name (e.g. a common tern can be any species of Sterninae that is abundant, but a Common Tern is the specific taxon Sterna hirundo). - MPF (talk) 17:05, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
    I note that the BSBI does not use sentence case, which is the proposal being made here. On their site every part of the English name is capitalized. However, I fail to see why the British and Irish Botanical Society's choice for one region and one language should be made the standard for all languages and all nations across all taxa. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:57, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Neither of the options laid out for voting below are correct. We cannot force capitalization, and we cannot force lowercase. There are too many exceptions on both sides to make it entirely one or the other. For example, it should be "kelp" not "Kelp", but it should be "Arkansas oak", not "arkansas oak". We cannot claim that either capitalization nor removal of capitalization is always correct. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:34, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment In my opinion, this is not about linguistic correctness, whatever that is, but more concerned about consistency in a WS list. Therefore my vote goes for capitalisation, which just gives the list a professional appearance, as it just assumes that each member of the list is an independent entity. Andyboorman (talk) 18:34, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Why would such a proposal exist? All of them should be capitalized. This is not Wiktionary. --Znotch190711 (talk) 01:30, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment EncycloPetey says it right. We're making a scientific wiki here, so we should be as close to the truth as possible. The vernacular names section is supposed to give insight on other languages. But why even bother with it, if we don't intend to allow those languages to be written correctly? The only reasonable thought supporting the All Capital Team was the one with machine-readable data in the table. But this is something already solved by Wikidata, isn't it? (Here I could shout in a similar way Znotch190711 shouted: This is not Wikidata.) With that out of way, the only next objective reason for capitalizing would be aesthetics. And that seems to be a too poor of a reason to consider to me. Look at the table of vernacular names itself - are the language names written all capitalized? Of course they are not, that would be erroneous. Forcing users to use distorted mother tongue is something that will disgust a lot of people. National grammar is not something that should be overridden by a international community consensus. --GeXeS (talk) 10:46, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Votes

Symbol support vote.svg Yes, all of the vernacular names should start with a leading uppercase letter.

  1. Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 09:41, 30 July 2019 (UTC). I choose to refrain from voting. Signed, Tommy Kronkvist, 18:13, 31 July 2019 (UTC).
  2. Andyboorman (talk) 10:05, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
  3. Thiotrix (talk) 10:44, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
  4. RLJ (talk) 21:19, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
  5. MPF (talk) 17:05, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
  6. This is not Wiktionary. --Znotch190711 (talk) 01:29, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
  7. MKOliver (talk) 22:52, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg No, all of the vernacular names should start with a leading lowercase letter.

Cancelled process mini.svg Neither of the options above is correct.

  1. EncycloPetey (talk) 16:17, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
  2. Because all vernacular names should be grammatically correct. Avoiding grammatical acuracy is injuring. Neglecting the fact, that some editors does not matter it. Users/readers of the project has right to get true information, including gramar accuracy. Howgh. --Kusurija (talk) 19:09, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
    well here you ask the impossible. Different cultures have different grammar. Also does it really matter grammar is not that important in vernacular names. Seriously people make them up and they gain some local traction, this is all they are. I seriously do not see the importance of this. Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 20:18, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
    Please, could you (You?) avoid propagation of Newspeak for nations, who "tasted" any form of pressure from dictatures? Let's be more friendly and more cooperating. I'm for love and TRUTH (V. Havel). I'm opposite of "alternative truths", which are weapons of hybrid wars. Thank you for understanding. --Kusurija (talk) 04:56, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
  3. Proposal is unclear. In the proposal Tommy Kronkvist suggests using "title case"; e.g. Bald Eagle. Support votes are under "all of the vernacular names should start with a leading uppercase letter", which applies to both "Bald Eagle" and "Bald eagle". Most of the omments in the Discussion section of this RFC seems to be assuming that "sentence case" is the standard being suggested (i.e. "Bald eagle"). In my opinion, sentence cases should be used; the first letter of vernacular name should be capitalized, but the first letters of subsequent words should be lowercase unless those words are proper nouns. On Wikispecies, vernacular names are presented as line-spaced lists rather than running text. In some languages, line-spaced lists may be presented in sentence case (with an initial capital, but subsequent words in lower case), and non-proper nouns in running text are lower case. In some languages (e.g. German), all nouns use title case (each word capitalized). Is this a proposal for using sentence case (with initial words upper case when in line-spaced lists, but lower case in running text) or title case (with all words capitalized)? Are there any languages where it would be inappropriate to use capitalized letters in a line-spaced list? Plantdrew (talk) 03:11, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
  4. I'm not familiar enough with names of organisms in other languages to make a full statement, but since there are many languages that have no capital letters at all, it is nonsense to require that all languages use forms beginning with a capital letter. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:33, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
    @EncycloPetey: What languages and/or alphabets are you referring to? For single-case writing systems one could argue either that those languages use no capital letters at all, or that they only use capital letters. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 10:31, 11 September 2019 (UTC).
    The only one I know about is Georgian. Regards --Franz Xaver (talk) 13:28, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
    There are many writing systems that are ideographic, or have no capital letters: the Chinese languages, Japanese, Hindi, Malayalam, Thai, Hebrew, Arabic, etc. So to require all vernacular names to start with a capital letter means that many languages must be excluded from Wikispecies because that requirement cannot be met in those languages. The "capital letter" is a very Euro-centric concept. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:26, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
    Well, I sort of took for granted that people understood that the discussion regards writing systems using alphabets, such as for example the Cyrillic, Greek, or Latin scripts. As for the few alphabets using an abjad writing system (notably Arabic and Hebrew) they would of course be excluded since they generally doesn't have any distinct upper and lower case letter forms. Logographic writing systems and most of the languages using syllabic or logosyllabic scripts are of course also excluded, since the graphemes of those languages doesn't relate to phonemic letters. In other words, they don't use letters in the true sense at all. Is this difficult to understand, in any way? Languages that doesn't use different cases (because the are ideographic, logosyllabic, or whatever) are excluded simply because the issue doesn't relate to them. The same goes for digits, chemical formulæ, phonemic orthography, sign language, etc. In short, stuff that's not affected by the discussion shouldn't be part of it (and yes, I know that some typefaces include both upper and lower case digits, but you get my point, right?) Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 21:12, 12 September 2019 (UTC).
  5. (And stop discussing in the voting section. Discussion takes place above.) --GeXeS (talk) 10:49, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Result

  • Somewhat resolved.


Post vote addit

Sorry I did not vote on this. I have seen it discussed a multitude of times. I think no matter what rule you place on this there will always be exceptions and those who cannot agree. Then we are a nomenclatural taxonomy site in which case this is not that relevant to us. We have tried before, people will do what they want with vernacular names. Hence I abstain. Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 18:01, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Why did you "impose" unresolved (tongue in cheek)? A vote is a vote after all. Andyboorman (talk) 21:16, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
I did not that was there when I added the above comment. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 02:52, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Options

  • Ok since the current two iterations of this discussion have continued for a year, its all become rather mixed as pointed out by @GeXeS: and we have not really resolved the issue alluded to by @EncycloPetey:, honestly because I think we cannot. I would like to make a counter proposal and offer several choices. So please comment on the below options.
  1. I will close this discussion and archive it, I would rather it does not come up again. People can agree to disagree, vernacular names are not what we do anyway.
  2. If people insist on a vernacular name section each one is to be written correctly according to the language it is in. That is an english name would agree with English Grammar, a German name must follow German Grammar, etc.
  3. My preferred option I will say, and seemingly @Tommy Kronkvist:'s as well, we remove the vernacular section from pages as it is not relevant to nomenclature which is what we are about.
  • In any event I would like to close this so offer some choices before I do. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 00:44, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
I suggest a mix of the above. First we close this RfC as unresolved. This should best be done by a registered user (not necessarily an admin) that didn't vote in the poll. We then follow up with starting a new, broader RfC about whether to keep or remove the vernacular names as such. As far as I'm concerned the only benefit from the VN sections is that they have attracted more editors to Wikispecies as a whole, however many other users find them quite a bit more useful than I do so this needs to be discussed. Depending on the outcome of that RfC we then either:
  1. scrap all vernacular name sections and focus on taxonomy instead, or
  2. retain all vernacular name sections, but remove all manually added vernacular names from them and instead rely solely on automatically importing vernacular names from Wikidata. We already have most of the code and modules needed to do this, and it would help keep the format consistent throughout all of Wikispecies.
  3. or, we start this discussion all over again...
Regards, Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 02:57, 11 October 2019 (UTC).
I tend to agree with closing this down as unresolved. However, I think that @Tommy Kronkvist: has a better basic approach than @Faendalimas:, but not to start all over again! Firstly, open a discussion about scrapping all VN sections. If the vote is to retain then we can move onto discussing; a liberal versus structured approach suggested above, the automatic addition via Wikidata and other points that may arise subsequently. By the way a number of editors are continually adding a blank VN section as a matter of routine.
Regards Andyboorman (talk) 08:27, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
I am good with that approach, if retention is deemed appropriate by the community perhaps @Andy: has some ideas on how best to populate the VN box straight from Wikidata, perhaps we can then also look at the template so it is automatic. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 14:49, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
I would like to ask for last comments if no one is going to take this further. Is @Andy: on a break? I have not seen him in a while. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 00:35, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
Apologies; I missed the earlier ping; I'll take a look at this over the next few days. I have less free time overall, hence my contributons here have been reduced. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:16, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
This work is now in hand. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:11, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
Cool thank you @Andy:, you ok if I close this in the meantime? Further discussion can be done on Pump or Admin Noticeboard as you see fit. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 15:57, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
Fine by me. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:02, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

─────────────────────────Closing this as partially resolved. @Andy: is developing a way to obtain VN's from Wikidata and populate them this way. He will get back to the community with this. Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 16:41, 20 October 2019 (UTC)


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


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

Translation Admins and the Admin Review Policy

I have recently done our roughly bi-annual admin review for activity. During the course of this it was clear that some of or Translation Admins had not been active enough to keep their administrative rights. However, I have elected not to consider the translation-admins at this time because I was concerned our policy may be a little harsh on this user-group. Translation-admins have the admin tool so they can translate protected pages and other similar pages that regular users cannot edit. As such the admin tool is a requirement for their tasks. They are trusted users who have to be elected to have this right. However, this is all they do with the tools and it is an ad-hoc as needed basis. Because of the nature of this wiki the pages subject to translation are largely the policy and help pages and other similar content. Where I am going with this is that its probably not surprising that they may be absent from this wiki for extended periods as there is little for them to do and they go to do their work on other wikis.

As such I believe that Translation-Admins should be exempted from the rigor of the Admin Review policy with regards to inactivity. Still of course subject to the admin abuse section. I think we need to discuss this and decide do we just make them exempt from the inactivity section, or do we modify the policy to have a section relevant to them on this issue. Initially I would appreciate comments. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 17:47, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Comments

  • Sounds sensible to me! Circeus (talk) 18:18, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
  • no Agree . Dan Koehl (talk) 11:44, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
  • no Agree .--Rosičák (talk) 21:00, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
  • no Agree. Applying a rigid time-limit followed by auto-demotion of the Translation Administrators is impractical and unnecessary, contrary to for example membership of the Interface administrator user group which is granted together with some very powerful tools that may be potentially dangerous. The Translation Admin tools are more or less exclusive to matters related to localization only, and can't really be used to inflict any extensive damage to the site or the community. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 18:44, 29 October 2019 (UTC).

Result

As this did not raise any objections or much comment I will take this as done and agreed upon. Translation Admins are no longer subject to the Inactivity Section of Admin Reviews. Will leave this here a couple of days then archive it. Thanks everyone, Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 07:35, 6 November 2019 (UTC)


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


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

Citation templates

Rationale

New or irregular editors (and some of us who have been around for a while!) often find it difficult to remember how citations should be formatted, or make mistakes in doing so.

Using a template makes the contents into structured data. This means that it can be made machine readable (so people can use tools like Zotero to read it); wizards can be made, to assist people to complete the template (see the upload wizard on Wikimedia Commons, for example); and the layout can be tweaked for all instances across the site, with a single edit; or made configurable according to user preference.

Data about citations can be easily exported from such templates, and reimported into Wikipedias or Wikidata, and, if desired later, the template could display some or all of its content using data that is stored in Wikidata, with local overrides always possible.

Templates facilitate internationalisation.

We would probably need a few such templates for citing:

  • journal papers
  • books/ book chapters
  • websites/ online databases

The templates' structure and display style would always be in the control of Wikispecies editors.

The use of such a templates would not be mandatory, and existing manual methods would still be available to those who prefer to use them, or for exceptions which do not suit the templated format.

en.Wikipedia, for example, has tools that will pre-populate such a template (and then allow a human to tweak the results before saving) given just a DOI, ISBN or URL. We could make use of the same functionality on Wikispecies.

I propose that we adopt and develop a set of such templates and encourage their use.

Example

Consider an exiting citation template, for example, {{Cottarelli et al., 2017}}:

It's a lot to expect Wikispecies contributors to remember where to put the date, how to format the authors, how to punctuate, etc.

An alternative is to use a template, which might be entered as, say:

{{Cite journal |title=''Chirocephalus sarpedonis'' sp. nov. (Branchiopoda, Anostraca, Chirocephalidae) from Turkey questions the monophyly of the traditional Chirocephalus species-groups |last1=Cottarelli |first1=V. |author-link1= Vezio Cottarelli |last2=Mura |first2=G. |author-link2=Graziella Mura |last3=Ippolito |first3=G. |author-link3=Giuseppe Ippolito |last4=Marrone |first4=F. |author-link4=Federico Marrone |journal=Hydrobiologia |year=2017 |volume=801 |issue=1 |pages=5-20 |doi=10.1007/s10750-017-3271-7 }}

which (currently) renders as:

  • Cottarelli, V.; Mura, G.; Ippolito, G.; Marrone, F. 2017. Chirocephalus sarpedonis sp. nov. (Branchiopoda, Anostraca, Chirocephalidae) from Turkey questions the monophyly of the traditional Chirocephalus species-groups. Hydrobiologia, 801(1): 5-20. doi:10.1007/s10750-017-3271-7. 

The completed template can be expanded as:

{{Cite journal 
|title        = ''Chirocephalus sarpedonis'' sp. nov. (Branchiopoda, Anostraca, Chirocephalidae) from Turkey questions the monophyly of the traditional Chirocephalus species-groups 
|last1        = Cottarelli 
|first1       = V. 
|author-link1 = Vezio Cottarelli 
|last2        = Mura 
|first2       = G.
|author-link2 = Graziella Mura
|last3        = Ippolito 
|first3       = G. 
|author-link3 = Giuseppe Ippolito
|last4        = Marrone 
|first4       = F. 
|author-link4 = Federico Marrone 
|journal      = Hydrobiologia 
|year         = 2017 
|volume       = 801 
|issue        = 1 
|pages        = 5-20 
|doi          = 10.1007/s10750-017-3271-7 
}}


Without data, the underlying structure of the template is:

{{Cite journal 
|title        = 
|last1        = 
|first1       = 
|author-link1 = 
|last2        = 
|first2       = 
|author-link2 = 
|last3        = 
|first3       = 
|author-link3 = 
|last4        = 
|first4       =  
|author-link4 = 
|journal      = 
|year         = 
|volume       = 
|issue        = 
|pages        = 
|doi          = 
}}

which is effectively a blank form for people to fill in; a pro forma copy can be made available on the template's documentation page. This is much easer, than the current method, for novice editors to complete, and for anyone to check and if necessary fix.

Discussion

Please add your thoughts. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:51, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

  • Agreed But I would go even further: I think we should have a single template (possibly with the option to choose type=journal, type=chapter, etc. but even that doesn't seem strictly necessary) and we should mandate references be created or converted into a machine-readable format. There's no reason for a diversity of styles and a lack of structure. We have 70,374 reference templates (and another ~1,100 I've been working on categorizing) and there are many instances of users here doing blatantly ridiculous things like blanking pages for no discernible reason and leaving them that way or malforming templates. Standardized forms of all templates using a citation template for structure is the way forward, especially for a site that claims to be a database. —Justin (koavf)TCM 12:05, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Disagree as the above process assumes somebody coming onto work here is an experienced Wiki editor, which may or may not be true. If they are more or less familiar with the way that Reference Lists are composed in science then our process should not be too daunting, as it is a fairly standard Harvard modification. It just requires cutting and pasting into a simple {{Author, date}} template. Andyboorman (talk) 14:14, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
    • No such assumption is made; indeed, I refer explicitly to "new or irregular editors" and "novice editors". I introduce people to editing Wikipedia on a regular basis, and they always find it easy to complete pro-forma templates. There is nothing "fairly standard Harvard" about {{a|Vezio Cottarelli|Cottarelli, V.}}, or ''[[ISSN 0018-8158|Hydrobiologia]]''. Nor does "fairly standard Harvard" address issues such as machine readability and automation. This proposal is about the creation of the content of {{Author, date}} templates, not their use. We would still use {{Author, date}} templates on species pages. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:28, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
    • @Andyboorman: Your concerns are well-taken: someone just showing up here from the academic community will probably not know anything about using templates in MediaWiki but 1.) we can still have a rule preferring standardized templates, 2.) experienced users can help educate and convert them, and 3.) if we have wizards and tools that can effectively do this for them, they don't really need to get too into the guts of it. @Pigsonthewing: do you know enough about how the listing templates work at w:en:voy: that you could reproduce that functionality here? I've always thought that project has a very user-friendly and intuitive way to update listings that really needs to be reproduced in sister projects. —Justin (koavf)TCM 15:05, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
  • The structure of this template needs completion and simplification. There should be one "Authors" field (as in German Wikipedia) allowing to enter every quantity of authors. "801" is a volume (implemented but not listed above), "1" is the issue. "Page" should be renamed "Pages" to include page ranges. Several links should be possible to online versions or downloads. The template should exactly produce the format in Help:Reference section. --RLJ (talk) 16:42, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
    • I've fixed |volume= etc., in the example above. |authors= already exists in the (currently deprecated) version of the template on this project, but the specifics of the parameters is, I suggest, something to be discussed once we have agreement in general to proceed. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:15, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Fully agree we should have an structured template for citation references. It eliminates personal options, preferences, different sequences. Myself is an example. I was reluctant to use at the Spanish Wiki, until I started to learn and use. There is no way of comparison between the "manual" vs the structured template. The "autor" option when multiple authors is very useful and welcome. Other question is BHL or other repository on line library, should we have a field for a citation or not? Today there is a BHL template that basically replaces the "url" field. Excelent initiative and discussion needed.--Hector Bottai (talk) 17:44, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
  • What happens with ResearchGate, JSTOR and most importantly PDF links? Andyboorman (talk) 19:37, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
  • no Agree ... and Wikidata links. We should encourage those. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:07, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
    • We should also consider the general Handle System of which DOI is a subset. Currently the {{hdl}} template is transcluded on 1,316 Wikispecies pages. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 01:21, 25 February 2020 (UTC).
  • Agree that such templates would be extremely helpful, for all the already mentioned reasons. Then, the point about using data from Wikidata is promising: Wikipedia has templates that can generate the whole citation just from a wikidata QID (example on wp:en and wp:fr), but I guess it would be a separate, more controversial debate. --LamBoet (talk) 23:25, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Agree if the required links to PDF, ResearchGate, JSTOR, BHL etc. can be implemented. The later three are templates in their own right. Although I probably do not need to use the citation template myself. Andyboorman (talk) 10:34, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
  • no Agree provided we see to that the resulting format is rendered in accordance with of our previous poll about the References format, e.g. no comma between the journal name and volume number, and we use ISO-standard en-dash rather than hyphen for page numbers. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 15:50, 22 February 2020 (UTC).
  • At first view, agreed, provided that one or more custom links can be added, such as the link "Online" on {{Dawson, 1953}}, otherwise strongly opposed. Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:22, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
    @Christian Ferrer: Adding a named parameter for custom links is easy. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 19:08, 23 February 2020 (UTC)~.
  • no Agree Dan Koehl (talk) 13:40, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
  • no Disagree For me at least it would be more strenuous and more tedious to work with the template. It would be also less fun: I would feel like a silly automaton filling in pre-designed blanks. Mariusm (talk) 16:14, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
    • You seem to have overlooked this part of the proposal: "The use of such a templates would not be mandatory, and existing manual methods would still be available to those who prefer to use them". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:49, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
  • I agree with this being developed, must follow our MoS and needs to contend with the generally high rigor in taxonomic papers, the priority should be keeping it simple, its usage must become part of the help pages and the priority is Wikispecies and external txonomic sites not other wikis. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 07:16, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Author names should only be linked for taxonomic references. Authors in papers who are not taxonomic authorities should not be linked. Otherwise we expand our coverage of authors to anyone who was a co-author on a cited paper, even if they did not publish a name. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:53, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
    • I very much agree with EncycloPetey on this. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 20:22, 14 March 2020 (UTC).
  • Question why is it necessary to format citations in the first place? Ottawahitech (talk) 16:00, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
    • There are several reasons for this. First of all, consistency is almost always a good thing for an encyclopedia or database, don't you think? A more specific reason is that because of Wikispecies' very narrow and well specified scope (i.e. taxonomy), we use an entirely different set of templates for references than most other sister projects, such as Wikipedia. For instance we don't use the <ref> or <references /> tags, nor the {{Cite web}}, {{Cite journal}} and {{reflist}} templates. Instead we use a type of reference templates specific to Wikispecies. This works best for us but it's important that all references follow the given guidelines in order to keep all citations consistent throughout Wikispecies. You can read a lot more about that here: Wikispecies:Village Pump/Archive 33#Reference Format. Regards, Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 19:07, 14 April 2020 (UTC).
      • Thanks for answering @Tommy Kronkvist: I assume what that means is that wikispecies wants to have editors who specialize in editing this project as opposed to users who participate in several wmf-projects? If so, I would suggest clarifying this point in the documentation which seemed contradictory to me when I read it yesterday. Ottawahitech (talk) 19:17, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
        • @Ottawahitech: We are developing the resource for users who wish to explore an accepted view of the taxonomy and classification of organisms. Therefore editors ought to have a basic discipline working knowledge and be prepared to learn more. An assumption is that editors are prepared to research scientific literature and bring back the results to their edits here. Hope this helps. Andyboorman (talk) 19:40, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
          • @Andyboorman:, Thanks for replying. So I guess what you are saying is that the participants here are expected to understand the assumption that you describe. I see no problem with that. I am just suggesting that this may not be obvious to newbies such as myself. I have visited a few wmf-sites recently, and many send out automatic welcome messages that give newbies some pointers. Since I did not get a welcome message when I joined I checked out the main page that says:Welcome to Wikispecies The free species directory that anyone can edit right at the top. I am just suggesting that maybe if you are making assumptions those assumptions should be spelled out to avoid misunderstandings. Am I making sense? Ottawahitech (talk) 20:14, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

───────────────────────── @Ottawahitech: Yes, you're making a lot of sense. Not only that – you actually describe a scenario that's usually in place and working here at Wikispecies, even though as on most of the smaller wikis its done manually rather than automatically. Note however that this particular Requests for Comment ("RfC") issue is not the place for that discussion, but you're most welcome to bring it up at the Village Pump. Kind regards, Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 14:28, 18 April 2020 (UTC).

  • no Agree - ALSO @Tommy Kronkvist: would suggest formatting this to have a clear voting section, cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 15:03, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
    • @Faendalimas: Please take care of that, if you may. I'm sad to say I haven't got time to see to it right now. Kind regards, Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 08:57, 21 April 2020 (UTC).
    • That would be pointless bureaucracy. There is clearly consensus here for the proposal. We just need an uninvolved person (ideally an admin, or otherwise a long-term editor in good standing) to close the discussion to that effect. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:09, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

What actually needs to be standardized

I have a laundry list of stuff that is currently not handled (or even not agreed about) whatsoever:

  • Book pagination
    • Is a book to be given as "1–300" or "300 pp."?
    • How is roman pagination to be given (especially for books)?
    • What about plates? Why should the number of plates ever be listed in a reference template to begin with? (I think this is a weird split in citation style between zoology and botany, I've never seen plates mentioned in a botanical reference list unless the work is specifically bibliographical or is citing the plate itself)
  • Should we systematically omit subtitles/shorten the titles of over overly long work titles?
    • E.g. "Species plantarum, exhibentes plantas rite cognitas, ad genera relatas, cum differentiis specificis, nominibus trivialibus, synonymis selectis, locis natalibus, secundum systema sexuale digestas" versus just Species Plantarum
    • Same for journals subtitles
  • What's the best way to deal with material in non-Latin languages (in practice mostly Russian Japanese and Chinese)?
    Do we permit a Latinization (Romanization) of the title? If so, what would the format be?
    Do we permit a translation of the title into English? Any major language using the Latin alphabet? If so, what would the format be?
    Do we prefer one or the other of the above, and under what circumstances?
  • How should we format monograph series such as Bibliotheca Botanica, Regnum Vegetabile or Systematic Botany Monographs, which usually have both an ISSN series and an ISBN?
  • In the same context, what's the format for multi-volume works? What about volumes issued in parts?
  • How to present journal series?
    • There are two competing format "(A)" vs. ", Series A" and having 2 pairs of parenthesis following each others can be jarring.
  • This has been a subject of dispute, but what's the best wording and formatting for "post-reference links"?
  • How do you format a reprint whose date is different from the earliest form?
    • That is, what's the best way to deal with citing, for convenience, a publication from technically a different place of publication?
  • More generally, what's the way to deal with inaccurate date of publication on the printed work?
    • This is not an issue restricted to old works (often because they were issued in part, see above): modern advanced online publishing is rife with it! Do we go with journal volume date or advanced online date?
    • This one might affect how we name templates!
  • How do we capitalize series titles?
    • Some users have been doing title cap, other sentence cap, and this has actually resulted in duplicates in category:Sources!
  • What's the best way to present "articles" in multiple parts running across an entire volume or even multiple volumes? These were common until the early 20th century!
    • Do we want 12 different templates with essentially indistinguishable title or a single template covering a range of volumes and issues?
    • There are still some fields in which such articles are still being published. This problem did not disappear in the 20th century. Some prolific authors are notorious for this.
  • I think there are some templates that should really use the et al. format because their other lists are just preposterously long

If you wondered why I was working so much on standardizing new templates back last autumn? This is why. Circeus (talk) 15:43, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Articles running across multiple volumes or, in some cases, even journals (!) may look rather horrible and complex if combined into one reference, so I'm not sure if it's a good idea. Multiple parts within a single volume may be okay though, I've seen some zoology works at least combine those into one. If you want examples though of the problems I refer to, here are some:
  • Haruo Takizawa, from what I've gathered so far of his publications, published parts 1-3 of "Notes on Chrysomelid-beetles of India and its Neighboring Areas" (the exact title varies) in Entomological review of Japan, part 4 in Kontyû, and part 5 in Proceedings of the Japanese Society of Systematic Zoology. There are more parts after that but they're not all listed on the author's page yet. That's at least three different periodicals for a single series!
  • Maurice Pic is more problematic. His "Coléoptères du globe" series in L'Échange, Revue Linnéenne seems to span at least as far back as 1927 up until 1954. Then he also has multiple articles in L'Échange, Revue Linnéenne which are broken up by issue within each volume. The latter case at least I've seen the Catalogue of Coleoptera book series just merge those into one reference.
Monster Iestyn (talk) 09:09, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
Sorry, I meant Catalogue of Palaearctic Coleoptera! Monster Iestyn (talk) 17:20, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
As I said above "the specifics of the parameters is, I suggest, something to be discussed once we have agreement in general to proceed". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:41, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
Oh, Andy, when will you actually learn to read I actually say instead of just regurgitating the last thing you said before that? Because literally 99% of what I'm listing above has nothing to do whatsoever with the basic, easy format for a simple journal article precisely because it falls outside the ambit of those types of references.
Seriously, I <sarcasm>love it</sarcam> when you assume that I'm such a moron that I can't realize I'm talking about stuff you think will literally solve itself. (Spoiler alert: it won't~ ~ ~!) Circeus (talk) 13:29, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
The reality is that we must connect the data presented by Wikispecies to Wikidata. Wikispecies is, after all, a member of the Wikimedia community. Hence the practical question isn't whether we should make connections to Wikidata or not, but how we should do it. The trouble is that "simple" text-only references without templates most likely wont suffice when making those Wikidata connections. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 16:16, 26 February 2020 (UTC).
If your post is not directly about the proposal at hand - which, as anyone can see is not merely about "a simple journal article" ("when will you actually learn to read I actually say [sic]", indeed) - then it is off-topic and should be hatted. My delight at your attempts to read my mind is tempered only by the disappointment that you so clearly lack the ability to do so correctly. And I assure you that my views are based on observations, not assumptions. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:31, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Conclusion

As i was baerely involved in this I will close it. The original request has been agreed to in that this proposition will be developed further. Agree = 8, Disagree = 2. Those developing please note the comments. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 21:29, 28 April 2020 (UTC)


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


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

Poll: Zt- and Pt-templates to be banned?

Do you agree, that Pt- and Zt-templates (eg {{Zt3690.1.1}}) must be banned in Wikispecies? And once banned, to be renamed to {{Author, Year}}?--Estopedist1 (talk) 05:39, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

This poll lasts from 28 September 2020 to 12 October 2020.

Votes:

  1. no Agree --Estopedist1 (talk) 05:39, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
  2. no Agree --Andyboorman (talk) 08:22, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
  3. Symbol support vote.svg SupportJustin (koavf)TCM 08:43, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
  4. Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Renaming of the templates is not enough. The template text (eg. "[[Template:Zt3690.1.1|{{int:Reference page}}]]") should be changed to the new name. In the articles using the template the old template name should be replaced by the new one. --RLJ (talk) 08:54, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment to @RLJ: there are several ways to manually or (semi)automatically fix the text inside the template. But first, we need consensus to ban Zt- and Pt-templates--Estopedist1 (talk) 10:44, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
  5. no Agree --Hiouf (talk) 12:12, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
  6. no Agree --Hector Bottai (talk) 13:57, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
  7. no Agree Monster Iestyn (talk) 15:12, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
  8. no Agree Burmeister (talk) 15:51, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
  9. no Unnecessary I don't see the point in formally doing such a "ban". All we need is to properly publicize the naming convention for reference template. Once the renaming is done with, the problem is gone and is exceedingly unlikely to ever return! Circeus (talk) 15:58, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment While normally I would agree, there was some objection to renaming the Pt templates in particular in our last discussion on them at the Village Pump, precisely because there hadn't been a "community decision" on the matter. If this vote succeeds then this argument wouldn't hold anymore and we can actually get somewhere with renaming the templates maybe. Monster Iestyn (talk) 17:37, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
      • Given the above, I will shift to no Agree , but I do wish we didn't have to do this hoop jump. Circeus (talk) 17:17, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
  10. Leaning to Symbol support vote.svg Support I acknowledge the issue and certainly want to see them renamed, however @Circeus: has a point and I am a little wary of too many rules when this problem could be removed by renaming and clear guidelines on various conventions here. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 19:15, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
  11. no Disagree For taxonomic journals, a template name based on the journal, issue, number, and pages is just as useful, and avoids two common problems of author-date template names: (1) there is never any ambiguity of the name, and (2) never any need to add a, b, c, etc. to disambiguate articles. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:43, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
    • Even Stephen, who "pioneered" the method, had to pepper the reference sections of pages using these templates with HTML comments recording the authors so he could order and actually differentiate them without having to refer to the preview constantly. That alone is a good enough reason to avoid such a naming convention at all costs if the initiator of the idea had to use a workaround! Circeus (talk) 17:17, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
      • We would have the same problem with authors who regularly published more than one article per year, which is a great many of the important authors. There are many authors where name of author + year is not enlightening at all as to which article is meant, so I fail to see any merit in your counter-argument. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:34, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
  12. Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral for a "ban", but Symbol support vote.svg Support for renaming all of them, according to our reference guidelines. I guess, we will find doublettes, because most editors using the author+year style did not know that other editors had already created Pt- and Zt-templates. --Thiotrix (talk) 07:26, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
  13. no Agree --LamBoet (talk) 19:39, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Given this has run for two weeks I would suggest closing this in 24 hours so last comments then will tally it. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 13:04, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Voting results: 13 participants of whom 1 participant voted "disagree", 1 participant voted "neutral" and other participants voted "agree".

Conclusion: Pt- and Zt-templates are banned and to be renamed to {{Author, Year}}--Estopedist1 (talk) 05:23, 13 October 2020 (UTC)



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