Wikispecies:Village Pump

From Wikispecies
Jump to: navigation, search
Shortcut:
WS:V

Welcome to the village pump of Wikispecies. This page is a place to ask questions or discuss the project. If you need an admin, please see the Administrators' Noticeboard. If you need to solicit feedback, see Request for Comment. Please sign and date your post (by typing ~~~~ or clicking the signature icon in the edit toolbar). Use the Wikispecies IRC channel for real-time chat.

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

Village pump in other languages: Czech - česky · Finnish - Suomi · French - Français · Hungarian - Magyar · Korean - 한국어 · Russian - Русский · Ukrainian - Українська · Hindi - हिन्दी · Nepali - नेपाली
Post a comment
if you use the title box, you don't need to put a title in the body
Archive
Archives
1 (2004-09-21/2005-01-05) 2 (2005-01-05/2005-08-23)
3 (2005-08-24/2005-12-31) 4 (2006-01-01/2005-05-31)
5 (2006-06-01/2006-12-16) 6 (2006-12-17/2006-12-31)
7 (2007-01-01/2007-02-28) 8 (2007-03-01/2007-04-30)
9 (2007-05-01/2007-08-31) 10 (2007-09-01/2007-10-31)
11 (2007-11-01/2007-12-31) 12 (2008-01-01/2008-02-28)
13 (2008-03-01/2008-04-28) 14 (2008-04-29/2008-06-30)
15 (2008-07-01/2008-09-30) 16 (2008-10-01/2008-12-25)
17 (2008-12-26/2009-02-28) 18 (2009-03-01/2009-06-30)
19 (2009-07-01/2009-12-31) 20 (2010-01-01/2010-06-30)
21 (2010-07-01/2010-12-31) 22 (2011-01-01/2011-06-30)
23 (2011-07-01/2011-12-31) 24 (2012-01-01/2012-12-31)
25 (2013-01-01/2013-12-31) 26 (2014-01-01/2014-12-31)
27 (2015-01-01/2015-01-31) 28 (2015-02-01/2015-02-28)
29 (2015-02-28/2015-04-29) 30 (2015-04-29/2015-07-19)
31 (2015-07-19/2015-09-23) 32 (2015-09-23/2015-11-21)
33 (2015-11-21/2015-12-31) 34 (2016-01-01/2016-04-17)
35 (2016-03-22/2016-05-01) 36 (2016-05-01/2016-xx-xx)

Stho002 et al[edit]

Checkuser on User: Bioref[edit]

I suspect the user Bioref (talkcontribsblockall projects) to be User: Stho002 who was blocked indefinitely 16 months ago. He refuses to conform to our rules, and he made an abusive post towards me on his talk page (deleted). He was consequently blocked by User:Pigsonthewing for 3 days. He's back now and he still uses formatting unacceptable by WS. See for example Pheidole protaxi and Megaselia bisticta - edits which he made today.

I would like to request a formal Checkuser on User: Bioref. Please sign below your stand. The poll is due to close on 8th May. Mariusm (talk) 05:51, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Discussion:
@Ajraddatz: The last time this happened we were advised to seek consensus before the CheckUser was permitted, hence the poll. Subsequently User:Stho002 was banned indefinitely and also retired himself. If he wishes to return then there are mechanisms, including a personal appeal or seeking advocacy from a sympathetic sysop or editor. Opening multiple accounts simply in order to circumvent a ban is not acceptable, surely? Andyboorman (talk) 14:43, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
Yes, ban evasion is of course a legitimate reason. Who asked you to get consensus for a check? They might have just been trying to ensure that it wasn't being used for political control. Ajraddatz (talk) 19:26, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
I agree. Start here [1] and here [2] Thanks Andyboorman (talk) 22:15, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
To be a bit frank, the "requirement" to get community consensus for a check was a quite novel interpretation of policy by a former steward who is no longer a steward. It is certainly not working practice of the vast majority of stewards, at least it wasn't when I was one. --Rschen7754 00:43, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
  • This has become very urgent because User:stho002 can't be blocked - he's capable of changing accounts daily! Mariusm (talk) 04:15, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
  • See also this link to Steward's Noticeboard. --Murma174 (talk) 11:19, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
@MPF: New sockpuppet: Targaremini (talkcontribsblockall projects) --Murma174 (talk) 07:03, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
@MPF: @Murma174: I have blocked the account for three days subject to the pending CheckUser with a method of reply to me - see here Targaremini (talkcontribsblockall projects) Andyboorman (talk) 08:13, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Support[edit]

  1. Mariusm (talk) 05:51, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
  2. --Murma174 (talk) 10:44, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
  3. Andyboorman (talk) 11:05, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
  4. MPF (talk) 14:48, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
  5. PeterR (talk) 12:58, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
  6. Dan Koehl (talk) 09:07, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
  7. Too many suspected sockpuppets now. CU required to make clear, if an IP-range block is possible. --Franz Xaver (talk) 11:09, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Against[edit]

Neutral[edit]

# It seems quite obvious to me that this is the usual duck. The account can be closed down also without, but CU would be helpful to be absolutely sure. --Franz Xaver (talk) 16:17, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

CU is now requested at Meta. Dan Koehl (talk) 19:34, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Unblock Stho002 User talk page?[edit]

As I wrote before, CU is now requested at Meta. But the question is if we can get a IP-range block or not, and if User:Stho002 will turn up with new User names?

There is presently some discussions on Stewards' noticeboard at Meta with accusations from User:Stho002 that

WS sysops are abusing their powers, specifically using threats of CU as a political tool to enforce territoriality and keep unwanted contributors away (see relevant CU policy here), addressing CU requests as a political tool to enforce territoriality and exclude contributors, and referring to some users as a mob of agressively territorial WS editors and sysops.

Another accusation says

Wikimedia is brought into disrepute if it is seen to be controlled by sysop mobs who exclude other contributors and have full control over content and who can or cannot contribute. This is an extremely serious issue which threatens the very core of Wikimedia credibility. I am saddened that no steward appears to have the integrity to address these serious issues or to escalate them to the attention of WMF.

I personally find those accusations rather serious, and instead of getting angry, I started asking myself, is there a risk that we, the Wikispecies community, have behaved unnecessarily hard, and that we could have handled this issue better, when we even closed out User:Stho002 from editing his talk page?

Im fully aware that discussions on his user talk page could be annoying, but you can simply look away without reading them, and they could be time limited, and conditioned, and serve as a possibility for Stho002 to communicate a change of attitude. I do want to remind everyone that he not only has a history of abusing the project, but also has contributed with a huge lot of good-faith work. In the name of humanity, I suggest that we, as a community, open up User:Stho002s talk page, so he can communicate. This can be anything from permanent, to some limited time daily, all weekends, once a month, or whatever you may find suitable.

The reason why I do this, is because in this particular case, where I have blocked Stho002 several times, and recently voted FOR a CU-check, I, in the role as a bureaucrat, feel uncomfortable with the present accusations against Wikispecies project on META. I would be happy for all ideas to keep WS reputation spotless clean, to make sure that we don't appear to enforce territoriality and keep unwanted contributors away, and one point may be to give Stho002 access to his talk page? YOU may have alternative suggestions?

I would like to know if the community would like to unblock User: Stho002s talk page. Please sign below your stand.

Dan Koehl (talk) 21:05, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Discussion:
  • He has a long history of using highly offensive behaviour and language towards other users, regardless of whether he had formal access under his primary account or posted via sockpuppets. "Serious", but actually unsubstantiated, accusations of ill-treatment are also a major part of his appeals to others not familiar with his longer-term habits - don't fall for crocodile tears. For this reason, I would not support any restoration of access. - MPF (talk) 21:55, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
  • To throw in my own opinion as someone dragged into this from meta, conversations can be good - if they lead somewhere. A lot of long-term abusers make very good content contributions but cannot interact with others in a positive manner, and there is certainly the potential for unlocking the talk page to just lead to endless rehashing of the same arguments. But there is also the potential for it to go somewhere else, and to have a positive result where the user can re-join the community to continue making good contributions, while staying away from previous controversial areas. If you can focus on those sorts of conditional unblocks, then that might be best for everyone. Of course, I don't know anything about the local context, so it's all up to you :-) Ajraddatz (talk) 23:34, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
  • No, because Stho002 creates an atmosphere on WS, that frustrates and demoralizes other users. We already lost several active users not because of Dan and Tommy (as Stho002 is claiming again and again), but because of his insulting behavior. No, in recognition of all his contributions. --Murma174 (talk) 07:33, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
  • This discussion may be a trifle premature, as Stho002 has made a promise on the Steward Notice Board "By the way, I can't see any of this making much difference. I will continue to use my unique IP to make constructive contributions to WS, any way I can (and it is technically pretty easy). I will not however exploit any of the many other IPs which I have easy access to, for fear of collateral damage. At least I care about the innocent and don't pander to the guilty. Pity others don't seem to ...". In others words more sockpuppetry aimed at avoiding his ban is likely. How will the Stewards respond? Perhaps @Ajraddatz: can give us an opinion. It is always good to discuss, but not when held hostage IMO. If it was not for this I would be with Tommy Andyboorman (talk) 15:45, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
    • You may be right there @Andyboorman:, maybe its time to renew the work with Local CU Policy? Dan Koehl (talk) 20:44, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
    • It seems, he is determined to force his way back by all means. Under these circumstances, any discussion most likely will end in bellicose arguments. Anyway, maybe it is nevertheless worth the try. --Franz Xaver (talk) 13:54, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
    • Apologies for the slow reply; I've said this in an email to Dan Koehl, but I'll put it here as well. It seems to me that Stho002 is moving on to bigger and better things, so hopefully this is completely resolved as of now. I will be checking back periodically to ensure that no further accounts are being made to by-pass the ban here, and will block any IP addresses or ranges as needed, or inform admins in ways that do not violate the privacy policy. If there are any other accounts made that you see, you may request checks of them at m:SRCU - no prior community discussion is required. We can then provide you with any other accounts being used, and get a better idea of some of these other IP ranges that he has threatened to use. At the moment, there is no observable collateral damage from blocking his IPs, and the autoblock is handling it well. Ajraddatz (talk) 22:41, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Support[edit]

  1. It seems fair that he gets a channel to communicate through. Tommy Kronkvist (talk) 23:50, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Against[edit]

  1. MPF (talk) 21:55, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
  2. Murma174 (talk) 07:28, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
  3. PeterR (talk) 07:30, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
  4. Andyboorman (talk) 15:45, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Neutral[edit]

  1. Franz Xaver (talk) 13:54, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Result from CU[edit]

Result from Checkuser requested at Meta:

Quite a few of the listed accounts are stale. The user in question is using one range that I can find. There are some confirmed accounts which remain unblocked on species: Flycatcher007, Pachliopta, Gelechiidae, Noctuoidea, Leiodidae. I cannot disclose the IP, but can discretely block it if needed. I am also in the process of contacting enwiki CheckUsers regarding potential abuse on that project as well. Ajraddatz (talk) 21:54, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Following confirmed accounts has now been blocked on species: User:Flycatcher007, User:Pachliopta, User:Gelechiidae, User:Noctuoidea, and User:Leiodidae.

Dan Koehl (talk) 10:16, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Local CU Policy[edit]

@Dan Koehl: @Tommy Kronkvist: @Faendalimas: @Franz Xaver: @Accassidy: @Green Giant: @Mariusm: @Neferkheperre: @Jianhui67: @MKOliver: @MPF: @Murma174: @PeterR: @Ajraddatz:, as active crats, participants here and in the previous CU discussions. I agree strongly with Dan we need to resurrect the implementation of our Local CU Policy, particularly as it was so advanced a year ago with Faendalimas prepared to produce the required pages after fruitful discussion and the poll. I appreciate that it was a mistake that we let things go in May 2015. However, I do not think we need another in depth discussion or poll, just to resurrect the initiative with some urgency. The first steps would be to transfer this to its own section for additional up to date comment and ask Faendalimas for a quick progress report. Comments ASAP? Andyboorman (talk) 18:19, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Agree, though I fear that despite being a crat, I don't have the faintest idea how it works! But yes, it's needed. - MPF (talk) 20:46, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
Creating the policy is the easy part. Most projects struggle with getting enough support on individual requests for the checkuser permission. There need to be 25 supports and 80% support overall for each successful candidate. You can of course advertise the votes on public forums, and there are in theory enough active users here to elect local checkusers. I'm not sure what past stewards have told you, but you can always request checks of obvious socks at m:SRCU without a prior local discussion, which would reduce the need for local users to hold these permissions. But I also understand the benefits to doing things "in-house", rather than needing to go to meta and justify every request for a check there. Ajraddatz (talk) 22:45, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
Yes my apologies for starting this and not finishing. I got tied up at the time. I have just returned from nearly a month overseas so have not been checking things of late. Ok at the time it was pointed out to me that as has been said we can of course request a CU when needed through the Stewards. There is a fairly strict process for the election of local CU's and it is often seen as almost impossible to meet the requirements on small wikis's. That said I think it is in our interest to try. But before we do, I think we should have a realistic discussion of whether it is needed here. Here is the crunch how many times has the option to do a CU actually been required in recent times? I know a few have been done but not many. Should we invest the effort of formalising the process here, or with so few occurances are we better off just bringing it to the Stewards on those odd occasions we need it. Cheers Faendalimas talk 23:51, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Boies will be Boies[edit]

I've just changed Boie from a redirect to Heinrich Boie into a disambig page, to add Friedrich Boie, who'd been left out despite already having a page. There's an awful lot of pages that link to Boie that need disambiguating though, and many of them should refer to Friedrich rather than Heinrich. I'll do some myself, but anyone else who wants to join in with sorting, please do! - MPF (talk) 12:48, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Wikidata and organization of items of genuses related to single species[edit]

Sorry to bother you.

After dealing with doubts especially interacting with itwiki users, I have asked at the village pump of wikidata a question about these genus and species items where basically there is only one species for the genus, and different languages use different titles but often link to the same item. It is here.

I hope it was not confusing for the other users as it was for me, but I am linking the discussion so I can be sure it is "universally accepted". This way next time a newbie ask me something I know that what I am saying is correct.

So every expert comment is welcome, if you have time.--Alexmar983 (talk) 08:54, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

In the discussion mentioned above two things are mixed up:
1. For a monotypic Genus Wikispecies uses one page for the Genus and another one page for the Species, and Wikidata should also do that IMO (for structural reasons).
2. Of course the Genus page and the Species page refer to the exact same living (or extinct) being, so Wikipedias might decide, NOT to create two different pages. Some list the Genus and some list the Species (I'd prefer the Species concept).
--Murma174 (talk) 10:08, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
3. P.S. How to solve the interwiki linking problem, should not be discussed here, but on Wikidata. --Murma174 (talk) 10:29, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

About <noinclude> and </noinclude> tags[edit]

Hi everyone,

I am trying to collaborate with the Spanish translation of that project, but I have a doubt that I want to resolve before to post the translation. Well, my first question is, if one English article (in this case Template:Welcome has <noinclude> </noinclude> tags, do I have to translate that? I mean, write the tags (in English of course) on the Spanish translation, or does it should be removed in the translation? There is an example:

  • English article. <noinclude></noinclude>Cat ipsum dolor sit amet, run in circles ignore the squirrels<noinclude></noinclude>
  • Spanish article. It should be translated in this way, <noinclude></noinclude>Cat ipsum dolor sit amet, run in circles ignore the squirrels <noinclude></noinclude> (I mean with the tags) or in that way: Cat ipsum dolor sit amet, run in circles ignore the squirrels.

Sorry if I am not explaining in the proper way :/ I hope that someone could help me clarifying that. Thanks in advance! Regards, Ivanhercaz (talk) 12:05, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Not a problem ;) You always have to put the same tags as the original text (and of course in English). Archi38 (talk) 13:29, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
All right! I will keep that in mind. Ivanhercaz (talk) 14:05, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Then, reading Help:Translation and another help articles, I have understand that the method to post an translation is use the "Export" on Special:Translate and then copy the code exported and paste it on the new article. Am I right? Regards, Ivanhercaz (talk) 12:05, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

To translate a page, you have to click on Translate this page at top of pages, then, click on translation units. Export is a feature to enable people to translate offline Archi38 (talk) 13:29, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
About it I have a doubt: I translate Template:Welcome Spanish like you have said but, how is added to the box languages? I mean that in the top of the article show a box with the language options. Does an translation administrator approve to be post? Ivanhercaz (talk) 14:05, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
I send a ping to @Archi38: who is probably best at explaining this stuff. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 13:18, 8 May 2016 (UTC).
Of course, I'm the "translation master" :) Archi38 (talk) 13:29, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
@Tommy Kronkvist: Thanks you so much :)
@Archi38: Thanks for your help! Regards, Ivanhercaz (talk) 14:05, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Flow[edit]

Hello, you're invited to vote on this page to decide if we accept Flow or not. Archi38 (talk) 14:20, 8 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), 14:59, 8 May 2016 (UTC).
Concensus reached. Created task in the Phabricator Archi38 (talk) 20:47, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
There are - in under a mere three days - four editors in favour, and one against. That's neither a consensus, nor sufficient time for one to emerge. What is the ticket number in Phabricator? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:29, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
It's T134898. Oh and I forgot to say that there's a testing step only on a try page. Archi38 (talk) 16:44, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
I fully agree with Andy here. So far way too few editors in favour, and above all far too short time. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 21:02, 12 May 2016 (UTC).

Ed Gilbert aka Edmund F. Giesbert - actor and entomologist[edit]

This discussion on the Wikidata mailing list, may be of interest. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:20, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

interesting ! Archi38 (talk) 14:54, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Cross wiki notifications will be released by default on May 12 at 23:00 UTC.[edit]

Hello

Cross wiki notifications will be released by default on all wikis on May 12 at 23:00 UTC

During the beta phase, the cross-wiki notifications feature was enabled by over 18,000 accounts across more than 360 wikis. We receive great feedback from a lot of very happy users. After that 3-months long beta period during which we made adjustments and that feature is now ready for a release by default.

Users who don't want to receive cross-wiki notifications will be able to turn them off on their preferences on each wiki. If you haven't activated Cross-wiki Notifications during the Beta phase, you may receive old unread notifications from other wikis.

More information is available on the documentation. The talk page is still open for any questions or feedback, in any language.

All the best, Trizek (WMF) (talk) 18:54, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Unconnected Pages to Wikidata[edit]

Hello, I found 9933 pages without Wikidata item on it. I think I'll work on it. Unfortunatly bots didn't do that because page names on Species are in Latin. Archi38 (talk) 14:57, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Strictly speaking not many of the scientific names of taxa are made up of pure and proper latin, but regardless of that I'll try to help out with a bunch of the unconnected pages. :-) Now there's a full 10 000 of them – let's shrink that number! Also, I added a tweet about it to our @Wikispecies Twitter account.Tommy Kronkvist (talk)‚ 20:48, 14 May 2016 (UTC).
Why doesn't a Wikidata bot do that job? --Murma174 (talk) 20:52, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
One issue might be that a bot perhaps have a hard time understanding that "Carrion crow", "Corneille noire", "cornacchia" and Corvus corone is the same item? It's probably easier with Wikidata items such as "Humphrey Bogart" and "Kenya". I'm just guessing here, but still. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 21:05, 14 May 2016 (UTC).
Is there an easy way to reach Wikidata from a new Wikispecies page? If I try to link to Wikidata ('Add links') from e.g. Bakuella, I'm asked to which language I want to connect, but not, whether I want to create a new item. --Murma174 (talk) 21:32, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
P.S. When editing with Firefox, I'm asked for another language version, with IE I'm asked for creating a new item ?? --Murma174 (talk) 21:55, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
Please see Andy's post "Useful Wikidata script" posted here at the VP in April 21. It's a great script for reaching a specific Wikidata page directly from its Wikispecies equivalent – and if no such Wikidata page exists, instead the link will help you create one, complete with the correct Wikispecies link and all. Regards, Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 10:46, 15 May 2016 (UTC).
Yes, works, thank you! --Murma174 (talk) 11:35, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
I've asked someone experienced in such matters to take a look; but one other issue is the relative lack of structured (templated) data in Wikidata. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:04, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
Bakuella is done meanwhile. Another example: Sterkiella --Murma174 (talk) 18:19, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
Another point: After creating the page Annulopatellinidae the js-Script says: 'Wikidata item not found', although there is a corresponding page in eswiki: w:es:Annulopatellinidae and there is a wikidata-item already: d:Q12155818. So if I had followed the link of the js-Script, I would have produced a duplicate item on Wikidata. That can't be intended. --Murma174 (talk) 16:54, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
It is intended that the user will check first; but if they fail to do so, duplicates on Wikidata can be merged. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:28, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Indeed, doing a search first is a very good habit. @Murma174: That said, perhaps one should point out that merging duplicate Wikidata items is very easy: the process is semi-automatic, whereas merging pages in Wikispecies is 100% "manual labour". In almost all Wikidata cases the only thing one has to focus on is merging the two items in the right "direction", so to speak. Most often a newer item should be merged into the first, original Wikidata item, but not always. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 21:14, 17 May 2016 (UTC).

A new "Welcome" dialog[edit]

Hello everyone. This is a heads-up about a change which has just been announced in Tech News: Add the "welcome" dialog (with button to switch) to the wikitext editor.

In a nutshell, later this week this will provide a one-time "Welcome" message in the wikitext editor which explains that anyone can edit, and every improvement helps. The user can then start editing in the wikitext editor right away, or switch to the visual editor. (This is the equivalent of an already existing welcome message for visual editor users, which suggests the option to switch to the wikitext editor. If you have already seen this dialog in the visual editor, you will not see the new one in the wikitext editor.)

  • I want to make sure that, although users will see this dialog only once, they can read it in their language as much as possible. Please read the instructions if you can help with that.
  • I also want to underline that the dialog does not change in any way current site-wide and personal configurations of the visual editor. Nothing changes permanently for users who chose to hide the visual editor in their Preferences or for those who don't use it anyway, or for wikis where it's still a Beta Feature, or for wikis where certain groups of users don't get the visual editor tab, etc.
    • There is a slight chance that you see a few more questions than usual about the visual editor. Please refer people to the documentation or to the feedback page, and feel free to ping me if you have questions too!
  • Finally, I want to acknowledge that, while not everyone will see that dialog, many of you will; if you're reading this you are likely not the intended recipients of that one-time dialog, so you may be confused or annoyed by it—and if this is the case, I'm truly sorry about that. This message also avoids that you have to explain the same thing over and over again—just point to this section. Please feel free to cross-post this message at other venues on this wiki if you think it will help avoid that users feel caught by surprise by this change.

If you want to learn more, please see https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T133800; if you have feedback or think you need to report a bug with the dialog, you can post in that task (or at mediawiki.org if you prefer).

Thanks for your attention and happy editing, Elitre (WMF) 16:49, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

@Elitre (WMF): Thank you for the heads-up. Just a few minutes ago I created an account and got confirmation + user rights as a translator on translatewiki.net, and will start helping out soon. All the best, Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 19:49, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Wlodzimierz[edit]

Who knows the idntity from Wlodzimierz? He don't make author templates and add species with spage. See Bouvardia juarezana PeterR (talk) 09:36, 17 May 2016 (UTC).

You refer to User:Wlodzimierz. Please notify users if you discuss them here. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:08, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Hello, PeterR. I am not that interested in authors at the moment. This is why I use template aut, not a. And I don't really understand the point raised about page template? Is it wrong to use it? Can you explain me in detail what are the problems with it? Cheers, --Wlodzimierz (talk) 12:23, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Template Spage[edit]

Does anybody want to speak up in defense of {{Spage}} before it gets deleted in the very near future? Andyboorman (talk) 18:22, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

I think {{Spage}} is a simple, useful and primarily timesaving tool. Orchi (talk) 19:04, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Apparently Spage is used on several thousand taxon pages. Simply deleting it may cause considerable appearance problems. It is not constructed as Nomen and Syn box templates were, where content became visible upon disabling templates. Yes, it is nice and simple, but some things cannot be done when using it. I am manually removing it as I revise my Cirripedia pages. Neferkheperre (talk) 19:14, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
One elemental problem with this particular template is that there is no documentation whatsoever on the template's page, telling new users how to use it. That's of course relatively easy to fix, but in my opinion we should simply delete the template instead. There are several reasons for this standpoint, but here's the main one: Todays praxis for taxon page formatting is easy to grasp, also to newcomers. There's one "Taxonavigation" section, one "Name" section, and one "References" section. It's rather self explanatory what kind of data goes into which section, and they're all clearly and distinctly separated by ==Their Headlines==. Not much room for errors or misunderstandings, which is good.
Sadly, the {{Spage}} template changes this. For instance, take a look at the Calectasia grandiflora page. The layout is simple and legible, with Taxonavigation, Name, and References sections, just as it should be. The page complies to more or less everything stated in the Wikispecies help texts, which a new user hopefully is familiar with. Now put yourself in that new user's shoes, and hit the "edit" button. You will be faced with this page, including the wiki code. You recognise most stuff: there's the "Taxonavigation" section, and sure enough the "References" as well. But wait – what on Earth happened to the "Name" section?? How come it has vanished from the code, yet it is still fully visible on the taxon page itself? Surely the Calectasia genus can't have been revised in between my two clicks..? This behaviour is confusing and from a pedagogical point of view rather awful, and should IMO be avoided.
On the issue of deleting the {{Spage}} and @Neferkheperre:s considerations: The template only does three things:
  1. It adds Species: ''[[{{BASEPAGENAME}}]]'' and a line break last in the taxonavigation section,
  2. then adds ==Name== in order to create the name section and its headline,
  3. lastly adds ''{{BASEPAGENAME}}'' immediately below the name section headline, to show the species name.
That's it. The template can't handle any arguments, so nothing else ever happens. I agree that simply deleting the template right off the bat would create havoc in all the taxon pages where it is utilized, but if we first use AWB to change the text string {{Spage}} into the text string Species: ''[[{{BASEPAGENAME}}]]''<br>==Name==<br>''{{BASEPAGENAME}}''&nbsp; on every page, then the template will no longer be used on any pages, and can safely be deleted. (Note regarding the code string: the trailing &nbsp; at the end is necessary in order to ensure a space is created between the species name, and the author name that should follow.)
Phew… :-) Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 23:33, 17 May 2016 (UTC).
Agree! Moreover, when subspecific taxa have to be added later, this cannot be done without replacing the template. --Franz Xaver (talk) 08:48, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
The template is small, timesaving and very easy to use. The documentation page can easily be written, and this should not be reason for deletion. I think including new section (Name) within template was quite good invention because this template prints out on the screen the invariable parts of those first sections. Also, it stops right before the author name, so the first new thing to include in a page is author's name and then the Reference section (this can be explained in template documentation page). When you finalize the work for bot to go through Spage including pages and to overwrite it with the proposed text, the template should be deleted and there should be a regulation against use of such templates (although I think that would be in vain). This kind of template is quite common all over other wikimedia projects, so the newcomers from other project easily grasp it and use it. And the future newcomers will readily create such templates and we will have this same situation all over again.
Also, administrators should think about including automatized creation of sections in new pages, by creating a button in Advanced toolbar that will create the skeleton of a page (three sections) together with magic word BASEPAGENAME you insist on using here.
I would also not include redundant link towards the page itself in the replaced code. So, the change of {{Spage}} should be into the text string Species: ''{{BASEPAGENAME}}''<br/>==Name==<br/>''{{BASEPAGENAME}}''&nbsp;
The problem with adding the subspecific taxa is the first real problem with the template. And this kind of problem will not be experienced by newcomers, and also we do not have subspecific taxa commonly. This is why I advocate this kind of button in Advanced toolbar, that will automate and save time, and be easy to use, too. And as I installed myself a button, I will stop using Spage (yay!).
phew phew :) --Wlodzimierz (talk) 08:57, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
If people find the template easy to use when creating pages, but it subsequently causes confusion, the asnwer is to Subst: it - a bot could do so on a regular basis. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:59, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
Andy's suggestion seems to have real merit. Andyboorman (talk) 18:08, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
I think replace then delete it. Its problematic with its usage as has been pointed out. Plus I thought, correct me if I am wrng, we had decided some time ago to stop using {{BASEPAGENAME}}. In anycase that it does not have modifiers for particular circumstances is more trouble than its worth. However it does need to be replaced first. Cheers Faendalimas talk 18:27, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
So, using of magic word basepagename was also decided against? This becomes weird to me. I've seen administrators using it. Usually decisions against particular magic words and templates are best implemented through bot actions, as Andy Mabbet suggested. So, whoever comes to wikispecies can use Spage and type the magic words on partcular places, but subsequently bot will go through all pages and change them to better format. --Wlodzimierz (talk) 21:48, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
I've been removing BASEPAGENAME when I find it too; it causes problems when a taxon has its rank changed (e.g. a species lumped in as a subspecies of another species). Better to keep everything fully named, so that it is clear for editors to know what text to change in editing. Same can be said for Spage, though (perhaps oddly!) I'd not run into it anywhere yet. - MPF (talk) 23:06, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
I very much agree that IF used, Species: ''{{BASEPAGENAME}}'' should be to Subst:ed. There has been discussions when I Subst:ed it when using AWB, why I stopped doing that, but my opinion is that Wikispecies shouldn't go into its own way in regard to code, design and layout, it should follow the standards other Wikimedia wikis follow. Dan Koehl (talk) 13:30, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Fill the gaps![edit]

Just to let you know that the Dictionary of Welsh Species has now become an Illustrated Dictionary of Species. It also includes clickbacks to corresponding articles on Wicipedia Cymraeg (Welsh language Wikipedia). All thanks to Wikimedia UK and the University of Bangor. All 10,000 Welsh bird names are on Wikidata, but there's quite a few images of birds missing on Commons, and if anyone can help fill the gaps, there's a Wikiproject here. Another, easier way, is to use the WikiData Free Image Search Tool on wmflabs, click run to generate a list and away you go! Thanks! Llywelyn2000 (talk) 16:23, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

A lot of the Welsh names need capitalising correctly, though (e.g. Llinos Bengoch, not llinos bengoch) - MPF (talk) 00:36, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
Yes, should have been done as they were uploaded onto WD. I'll drop them a line. Thanks! Any other suggestions? Llywelyn2000 (talk) 06:41, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
There's a number of English names which also need changing. Llywelyn2000 (talk) 05:17, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
Done! I find similar cases from time to time and change them whenever I see them ;-) MPF (talk) 22:47, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
@Llywelyn2000: most of the Welsh names at wikidata have been capitalised now in the top section, but it looks to be the ones lower down, at the end of the 'Statements' section (just above 'Identifiers') that more need correcting, as they're the ones adding Welsh names to e.g. the VN on Commons pages. - MPF (talk) 10:49, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
@MPF: How very decent of you! Brilliant! I'll try and finish them off after the next weekend. So much to do! Diolch! Llywelyn2000 (talk) 11:15, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
Diolch yn fawr! - MPF (talk) 21:42, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Confirmation please: Acrocephalus schoenobaenus[edit]

Can someone confirm that this image on Commons is in fact the Acrocephalus schoenobaenus? One of our ornithologists in Wales believes that it has too much yellow and that the colour of its legs is too light, not dark enough. Llywelyn2000 (talk) 05:06, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

I note that the colour of the legs just about ok (Collins). Photo maybe taken in bad light? Change from prefered image in Wikidata to another? Llywelyn2000 (talk) 07:26, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
In my opinion, it is the extremly rare species Acrocephalus paludicola. I am not really an expert. So, additionally you may put your question also at de:Wikipedia:Redaktion_Biologie/Bestimmung. They would understand English, no problem. Regards --Franz Xaver (talk) 21:18, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
Many thanks Franz! I've done that now. Llywelyn2000 (talk) 07:49, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
Any other thoughts by other users? Llywelyn2000 (talk) 13:24, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
Yes, Acrocephalus schoenobaenus is correct; the "too much yellow" is a colour balance problem with the photo. The plumage pattern fits A. schoenobaenus fully, and lacks important A. paludicola characters like the pale stripes down the mantle, and the unstreaked pale central crown stripe (compare here). - MPF (talk) 22:43, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
Thanks! Llywelyn2000 (talk) 11:16, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Resolved.

Taxonav-Boxes[edit]

Taxonav-Boxes don't collapse anymore. Tested with FF and IE. Anything OK on your system? Problem on my side? Murma174 (talk) 10:18, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Fine with me, after a brief interval - see Ericaceae and the newly edited template Actinidiaceae. I am using Chrome. Andyboorman (talk) 10:53, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, @Andyboorman:. After a PC newstart it's working fine again. Time for a new PC obviously, still working with XP. --Murma174 (talk) 11:09, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Protists: Things To Do[edit]

Hi, I have been working in some protist pages (creation of alternative classifications, creation of referenced pages for genera), but now I'm leaving Wikispecies for a time. However, I would like to make some suggestions (should I include them in Wikispecies:Done and to do? Or in Talk:Protista?):


Discussion moved to Talk:Protista --Murma174 (talk) 11:02, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

dewiki[edit]

de:Wikipedia:Löschkandidaten/28._Mai_2016#Vorlage:Wikispecies

Bitte beachtet die Löschdiskussion zur Vorlage {{Wikispecies}}. Ich bitte um fachkundige Diskussionsbeiträge dort, insbesondere da die Qualität von Wikispecies dort in Frage gestellt wird. (Ping an Dan Koehl, Franz Xaver, Murma174, Orchi, T.seppelt, Wikiklaas) Boshomi (talk) 18:24, 31 May 2016 (UTC) (sorry for german).

The above relates to a proposal to delete the template {{Wikispecies}} on the German-language. Wikipedia. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:57, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
Can't read German . . . anyone willing to give a brief English summary of the discussion there please? Thanks! - MPF (talk) 22:42, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
Summary (very brief): User:Boshomi created the template: w:de:Vorlage:Wikispecies in the same way as w:de:Vorlage:Commons for linking to the sister project. An IP deleted the template, because there was no consensus to create the template, another user reverted the deletion, the IP deleted again ... (edit war). The link above leads to the discussion, whether the template should be deleted or not. Some users are arguing, the link in the sidebar is enough attention for Wikispecies. Other users say, Wikispecies is a sister project like Commons and should be treated like Commons. --Murma174 (talk) 06:28, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
Thanks! Why do some there want to delink Species? - MPF (talk) 08:55, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
I'm not very active on dewiki, just getting a snapshot of the discussion: Wikispecies is incomplete, outdated and doesn't contain useful information for de-WP. In this thread there's one user mainly stirring things up. --Murma174 (talk) 09:15, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
I went through some discussions with this guy before, and both felt offended, as well as highly sceptical that 1-4 actually was the consensus in Dewiki. Bit I chose to withdraw from the discussions, in order not to to bring even more negative association to WS. On some projects, the "democrazy" is simply performed by those who speak loudest, and acts like they are some sort of boss over the community. Dan Koehl (talk) 15:46, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
Its been relatively typical practice that WS be treated like other sister projects, so that would be my preferred outcome, however, it is probably best for dewiki to make the decision. Interference from anyone here who is not a genuine contributor to dewiki would not be seen as good form I think. Cheers, Faendalimas talk 11:14, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
I recreated the template because I want a decision over the de facto ban of species in dewiki. The ban was made by some people in the biologic project about ten years ago. I avoided a direct discussion with these people, because there were a lot of this discussions in the past all with the same pattern. With the recreation of the template the discussion is now on a new place.Boshomi (talk) 19:38, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
@Boshomi: Maybe you are not aware, that this former "general ban" already has been lifted before – see de:Wikipedia Diskussion:Redaktion Biologie/Archiv/Januar 2016#Einzellink zu Wikispecies: Akzeptanz, falls Mehrwert klar gegeben (= acceptance, if surplus value is clearly given). I was not happy about your creation of this template, as this action obviousely provoked mass removal of existing wikispecies links by IP 147.142.118.40. --Franz Xaver (talk) 21:21, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
But it does not work as of today. There are very view links, and the links get deleted very fast, if you make a new one. The ban works. Boshomi (talk) 21:46, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
Seems ridiculous! Do I get the impression that a handful of de:wiki contributors think that ws is dangerously unreliable or something? If so, they need to cite examples (maybe done; I can't read the German discussion), not delete interwiki links. On principle, both de and ws are done by self-selected volunteers; neither group is any more, or any less reliable, than the other. Those who so detest ws that they cannot abide links here, why do they not come here to edit what they see as wrong? If they are correct, their edits will be reviewed and kept; if not, their changes can be undone - and presumably their same decisions at de can be changed. No doubt there will be some errors in both; working together should remove errors from both. - MPF (talk) 22:01, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

RE: IMPORTANT: Admin activity review[edit]

A discussion about establishing a local policy of admin activity review ended with that the community is content with the present situation, since the global is fair and has sufficient debate, follow the discussion at Wikispecies_talk:Local_policies#Local_admin_activity_review Local admin activity review Dan Koehl (talk) 07:40, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Infobox linking to Species via Wikidata[edit]

Hi, in Interlingua Wikipedia all article pages have an infobox that displays exclusively data from Wikidata and the local label. As the sitelink is not a normal property P<some number>, it is difficult to link to Species. How can it be done? ia:Template:infobox/typo/taxon currently links only to NCBI P685, WoRMS P850, EOL P830, ITIS P815, MSW P959, Dyntaxa P1939. 91.9.100.204 11:08, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

I haven't yet fully checked out the Interlingua Wiki template, but right off the bat I suggest that this Wikidata script might prove useful, at least to some extent. Best regards, Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 16:49, 4 June 2016 (UTC).
In the template there is just a check for the existence of a property, if it exists it is displayed. E.g. for Dyntaxa ID (P1939):
{{#if:{{#Property:P1939|}}|{{!}} ID Dyntaxa: [https://www.dyntaxa.se/taxon/info/{{#Property:P1939}} {{#Property:P1939}}]}}
The JS looks a little bit big for just displaying one value. 91.9.101.24 01:39, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
Indeed, but parts of the script could probably be used to show if a Wikidata item is represented by an equivalent page on Wikispecies. In that case the script must of course be modified, and should also be copied to the Interlingua Wikipedia itself, rather than linked from the Wikidata admin's User subpage where it resides now. Here at Wikispecies we (at least some of us) use the script to automatically show whether a Wikispecies' page has got a corresponding Wikidata item or not. Check this post for details regarding that. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 02:53, 5 June 2016 (UTC).
So there is no way to do it in wikicode? JS is not save, users may have turned it off, some user agents may not have JS at all. And loading the code for pages that are not taxons is just using more bandwith. 91.9.112.92 09:31, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

2 Big ideas...[edit]

In the front of an old house-plant book there is a chart that is intended to help the non-scientific reader categorise a plant they may be interested in by particular characteristics, like leaves, number of petals, flower color.

I appreciate Wiki Species is trying to be scientifically precise, but a basic "Plant ID guide" either here or on Wikibooks would probably be a good idea, especially if there are reasonable quality images to draw on from Commons. I am asking here because I feel the expertise here is more focused.

The other thought was that Wikispecies should have an enquiry desk, like Wikipedia has it's reference desk, wiktionary it's Tea Room , and Wikiyoyage a "Tourist Office". Ideally this could be split between detailed technical queries, and a general "What's this item?" from a photo questions. The latter occasionally occurs on the Wikipedia Science Reference Desk. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 21:28, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

@ShakespeareFan00: I like both of these ideas. Orthodox Wiki has a category structure at the bottom of their articles that I've always thought could be useful and replicated elsewhere. As for a place for asking questions, I think this page works well enough--we don't have enough outside questions. And since there is now a place for admin requests, that clears up this page a little. —Justin (koavf)TCM 23:42, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Solanaceae subfamily[edit]

Should it be Browallioideae sensu GRIN, Stevens and here on WS or Cestroideae sensu Olmstead et al., Reveal and Tropicos? Any clues? I favour the later, but want to take advice. Andyboorman (talk) 18:09, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

This can only be decided, after it is made clear, if the name Cestroideae has been validly establisthed by Schltdl. 1832 or by Burnett 1835. In the first case Cestroideae has priority over Browallioideae Kostel. 1834, in the second case it has not. (Also the validity of the name Browallioideae should be checked.) One important point with suprageneric taxa at that time is, if correct rank denoting terms had been used. You have to study the respective protologues and ICN. Regards --Franz Xaver (talk) 20:16, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
First finding: Cestroideae Schltdl., Linnaea 7: 52. 1832, is invalidly published because of ICN Art. 37.6, as "section" is rank between genus and species, not to be used suprageneric. --Franz Xaver (talk) 20:30, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
Second finding: Burnett 1835 used rank denoting term "type" in place of "family" and "subtype" in place of "subfamly". In a very rigid interpretation, these names might be taken for invaldly published. However, though I could not find an explicit statement in the ICN concerning their validity, these names are to be regarded as validly published. This is demonstrated by the listing of Brassicaceae Burnett, Outlines Bot.: 854, 1093, 1123. 1835, in the list of conserved family names. Conservation is a decision on legitimacy, being validly published is a prerequisite. So Cestroideae Burnett, Outlines Bot.: 985, 1095, 1106. 1835, is validly published. --Franz Xaver (talk) 22:34, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
Third finding: Kostel., Allg. Med.-Pharm. Fl. 3: 939. 1834, established a "Gruppe Browallieae". At first glance, it was not clear to me, why "Gruppe" (= group) should be taken as a rank denoting term in place of "subfamily" and not "tribus". OK, at page 875 of the same work, subdivisions of a family with the same termination are named "Unterfamilien" which is equivalent to "subfamily". So, Browallioideae Kostel. 1834 seems to be validly published and has priority over Cestroideae Burnett 1835. --Franz Xaver (talk) 22:55, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
Thanks Franz - seems thorough and definitive. However, I have another question. von Schlechtendal in his Latin description, can be argued to use Sectio not as a suprageneric category, but as a "section" in his monograph. That is Sectio (Section) I Cestrinae, later using Sectio (Section II) II Solaneae 66. If this argument holds then does Art. 37.6 still apply? However, not withstanding this both Olmstead et al. and Reveal refer to Cestroideae Burnett (1835), therefore they must be wrong I guess. Andyboorman (talk) 13:48, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
To me there is no doubt that Schlechtendal meant "section" as a rank-denoting term. The first sentence makes it clear: "Ad hanc sectionem pertinent genera: ..." (= To this section belong the genera: ...) Anyway, in case your argument could be agreed on, it would be a validly published name that is inoperative according to ICN Art. 37.3, as then it misses a "clear indication of its rank". Someone else first had to use it at a definite rank. And this had to happen at an earlier data than competing names were published. Priority works only within the same definite rank. Concerning Reveal, I am not sure, if you mean his Indices Nominum Supragenericorum Plantarum Vascularium. If yes, this does not mean too much. This indices are only lists of validly published (= available) names. Anyway, he lists Cestroideae Burnett, 1835, not Schltdl., 1832. I am not sure, if Reveal has evaluated the work of Kosteletzky at all. Concerning Olmstead et al., you mean the paper from 1999, Phylogeny and provisional classification ...? Or the paper from 2008, A molecular phylogeny ...? If yes, obviously nomenclature was not their concern. --Franz Xaver (talk) 16:46, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
Sorry I should have made it clearer. For Olmstead and Reveal I was referring to their references on the Solanaceae taxon page. I agree that Olmstead et al. in the 2008 paper is more interested in phylogeny, but Reveal presents the authoritative An Outline of a Classification Scheme for Extant Flowering Plants. I can not believe that he did not consider Kosteletzky, as Browallioideae was also an available subfamily name at the time he wrote the paper, but it is also not in his Indices Nominum Supragenericorum Plantarum Vascularium. We can only speculate that he rejected "Gruppe Browallieae" as a "clear indication of its rank", in the same manner we reject von Schlechtendal's Sectio. ("Zu diesem Abschnitt gehören zu den Gattungen:....) no I am not a linguist nor a fully fledged taxonomist!. I must make it clear that I am not arguing against your judgement, just trying to get my head around what appears to be a messy, but interesting taxonomic conundrum. So unless somebody comes up with new information, Browallioideae Kostel. (1834) it is. Thanks and regards Andyboorman (talk) 20:48, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
You are right, "Gruppe" per se is not a clear indication of rank. If we had only this, the name could be rejected as validly published, but inoperative. However, when applying Art. 37.5 and looking at other places in the same work it gets clearer. --Franz Xaver (talk) 21:09, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Wikimania[edit]

Wikimania's pre-conference sessions and hackathon have started and I'm here in Esino Lario. If any other Wikispecies folk are , or are going to be, here, please say hello. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:46, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Endemism and Template EN[edit]

There has been some discussion regarding the value of endemism and the use of the Template:EN on WS. See here for an example of such a discussion. A number of contributors would like to get rid of the Template:EN and indeed question the value of adding information about endemism, particularly where it is country specific. I think it is time to start a discussion before the use of Template:EN becomes too widespread and also the use of Country Endemism in Categories. For some of my views see here, but please note I am offering them as a starting point for discussion not trying to persuade. Regards and over to you. Andyboorman (talk) 17:58, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Agree that endemism can only be realistically dealt with by biogeographical regions; political areas make no sense. The Muscari dolichanthum is a very nice example; endemic to the western Caucasus; it was endemic to the USSR, but when the USSR broke up, it was left part in Russia, part in Georgia, endemic to neither. And as the Europe - Asia boundary runs along the Caucasus crest, it isn't even endemic to either Europe or Asia, though it is endemic to the Western Palaearctic biogeographical region. But how about instead, draw a distribution map for it and have that on the page, instead of a text description? - MPF (talk) 00:00, 24 June 2016 (UTC)