Wikispecies:Village Pump

From Wikispecies
Jump to: navigation, search

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

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

Village pump in other languages: Czech - česky · Finnish - Suomi · French - Français · Hungarian - Magyar · Korean - 한국어 · Russian - Русский · Ukrainian - Українська · Hindi - हिन्दी · Nepali - नेपाली
Post a comment
if you use the title box, you don't need to put a title in the body
1 (2004-09-21/2005-01-05) 2 (2005-01-05/2005-08-23)
3 (2005-08-24/2005-12-31) 4 (2006-01-01/2005-05-31)
5 (2006-06-01/2006-12-16) 6 (2006-12-17/2006-12-31)
7 (2007-01-01/2007-02-28) 8 (2007-03-01/2007-04-30)
9 (2007-05-01/2007-08-31) 10 (2007-09-01/2007-10-31)
11 (2007-11-01/2007-12-31) 12 (2008-01-01/2008-02-28)
13 (2008-03-01/2008-04-28) 14 (2008-04-29/2008-06-30)
15 (2008-07-01/2008-09-30) 16 (2008-10-01/2008-12-25)
17 (2008-12-26/2009-02-28) 18 (2009-03-01/2009-06-30)
19 (2009-07-01/2009-12-31) 20 (2010-01-01/2010-06-30)
21 (2010-07-01/2010-12-31) 22 (2011-01-01/2011-06-30)
23 (2011-07-01/2011-12-31) 24 (2012-01-01/2012-12-31)
25 (2013-01-01/2013-12-31) 26 (2014-01-01/2014-12-31)
27 (2015-01-01/2015-01-31) 28 (2015-02-01/2015-02-28)
29 (2015-02-28/2015-04-29) 30 (2015-04-29/2015-07-19)
31 (2015-07-19/2015-09-23) 32 (2015-09-23/2015-11-21)
33 (2015-11-21/2015-12-31) 34 (2016-01-01/2016-04-17)
35 (2016-03-22/2016-05-01) 36 (2016-05-01/2016-07-12)
37 (2016-07-13/2016-09-30) 38 (2016-10-01/2016-12-04)
39 (2016-12-04/2017-01-17) 40 (2017-01-18/2017-01-28)
41 (2017-01-29/2017-02-13) 42 (2017-02-14/2017-03-21)
43 (2017-03-20/2017-08-11) 44 (2017-08-10/ …)

Draft strategy direction. Version #2[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@Tommy Kronkvist: Is this just a helpful reminder or do you actually see a particular instance here? All that the suggested language says is the "Wikimedia community" but just below that on Portada it reads "Véase Wikimedia Commons para subir o buscar imágenes libres de especies." (English: "See Wikimedai Commons to submit or search for free [free culture] images of species.") —Justin (koavf)TCM 19:45, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
@Koavf: It was primarily intended as a reminder, and of course not specifically to you but to all participants of the discussion. When using the Latin alphabet the trademark "Wikimedia Commons" must remain "as is". There are instances where the trademark is translated and/or transcribed, but to my knowledge that is only the case in language versions of wikis using non-Latin graphemes. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 19:58, 18 September 2017 (UTC).
@Tommy Kronkvist: This is the exact opposite impression that I get from wmf:Trademark_policy Question 2.1 which says that you can use "any of the official translations and transliterations of the Wikimedia marks" on WMF sites and then links to m:List_of_Wikipedias, which has plenty of localized names on those projects linked from that listing. —Justin (koavf)TCM 20:03, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
A pesar que este hilo tiene ya un mes y recién me doy cuenta, como hablante nativo del español, confirmo que las modificaciones realizadas son correctas. Saludos. / Although this thread has already a month and I just realize, as a native speaker of Spanish, I confirm that the modifications made are correct. Regards. —Alvaro Molina ( - ) 21:50, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Translating the main page[edit]

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

I think this would be the most ideal, since that would allow the translations could be handled more easily, in addition, several main pages of other languages are outdated and this would make it easier to keep them updated in conjunction with the English main page. Regards. —Alvaro Molina ( - ) 21:50, 17 October 2017 (UTC)


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

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

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

"For" template for hatnotes[edit]

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

Hatnotes and a wider discussion on layout of the taxon pages[edit]

These notes have been migrated from my talk page for wider discussion. The first paragraph started the thread and subsequently Tommy added the above regarding a hatnote template. I feel that this now deserves a wider discussion, as it could fundamentally alter the current taxon page format and more. Andyboorman (talk) 16:35, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

I noticed your edit to Talk:Willdenowia. In my understanding, it is a customary practice to add a hatnote at the top of the page when another page shares a similar title, with the aim of a better navigation. Users will not necessarily look at the talk page to find the link they are looking for. There are other precedents here, see for example Garcia, Pavlova, Webbia or Alfaro. I suspect that the subject has not really been discussed before. Maybe we should have some consistency in the placement, the wording and the style of such notes? Regards, Korg (talk) 21:04, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi @Tommy Kronkvist: @Korg: I think that we need a wider discussion. It is my understanding that WS is different to WP and others in that the pages contain little additional information over and above that required for the nomenclature and taxonomy. The exceptions being; image(s), vernacular names and distribution all of which have direct relevance to the taxon. In addition, some editors add selected categories off the page right at the bottom. The device we have used here for pages with similar titles is disambiguation, which works well where there are two or more taxon pages. I really do not see the point of adding author names and journal titles as hatnotes, but maybe I am wrong, as placement and links are found elsewhere, for example through {{a|}} templates. Thoughts? Andyboorman (talk) 10:06, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

From a strict Wikispecies viewpoint I think you're correct, Andy, and in essence I agree with you. However this diehard approach to the Wikispecies system is for the most part only working well when only involving experienced Wikispecies' users. We know how to find "homonymous" authors, taxa and journals by the use of Catalog:Taxon Authorities + Category:Series identifiers and other such somewhat hidden Wikispecies resources. Unfortunately this is probably not the case for most other, more infrequent users of the project. Let's say a user is interested in an author named "Pavlova" based on some information they find in a publication. However due to the journal's praxis the author is only referenced to by the surname. The user then heads over to Wikispecies and enters "Pavlova" in the WS search field, and instantly ends up on a page regarding the genus Pavlova. In such cases a hatnote (or similar) would really help, since without knowledge of the taxon authority catalog the user might have a hard time finding any author named Pavlova, whether Ljudmila V. Pavlova, Maria Pavlova, or N.S.Pavlova. But thanks to the hatnote pointing to Pavlova (authority) the user can now quickly find them all. I think this kind of user friendliness is important in order to try and involve more new users in the project. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 12:11, 25 September 2017 (UTC).

Thanks for your comments, Andy and Tommy. Andy, I think I understand your concerns. The hatnote could be seen as quite distracting and somewhat unwanted if the current page the user is browsing is actually the one they are looking for. But on the other hand, it could really be of great help to the user seeking another page, and who could have some difficulties finding it. I agree with Tommy in this regard.

Concerning disambiguation pages, there are several cases where taxon pages are disambiguated alongside author pages. See for example Cotes, Karsten, Mahanta or Zea. To use the example given by Tommy, should we move Pavlova to Pavlova (genus), and move the disambiguation page Pavlova (authority) to "Pavlova" as the main title? In this scenario, the hatnote in Pavlova would no longer be needed. Or should we favour the genus as the primary topic? More generally, should we create a disambiguation page when there are two or more pages with a similar title, regardless of their nature, or should we support the concept of a "primary topic"? Perhaps this needs a broader discussion, as there are many inconsistencies.

If the concept of primary topic is retained, then I think a hatnote or otherwise an indication that a page with a similar title exists would be helpful. Perhaps a good compromise would be to reduce the text of the note, and to change its position. To use the example in Austrobaileya, the note could be changed to simply "Disambiguation: Austrobaileya (journal)" or "See also: Austrobaileya (journal)", for example, and placed at the top right-hand corner of the page, like it is done in c:Commons:Village pump. We could even make it more minimalistic with an icon in lieu of the text: Disambiguation Austrobaileya (journal). Please see also: "Disambiguation page or hatnotes?". Korg (talk) 08:14, 26 September 2017 (UTC) [Message edited on 14:15, 27 September 2017 (UTC)]

Regardless which system we decide to use I would strongly disapprove of "degrading" taxon pages such as Pavlova to Pavlova (genus). First of all I feel that the taxon pages are almost always the primary topic here. Furthermore a change of this praxis would create a lot of extra work with many Taxonavigation templates. For instance all genera links in Taxonavigation templates such as {{Alfaro}}, {{Austrobaileya}}, {{Garcia}} and {{Webbia}} etc. would have to be edited. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 20:49, 29 September 2017 (UTC).
The taxon must be the primary focus here and so Pavlova (genus) (redirect) must only be Pavlova and IMO with no hatnotes. Perhaps these can be accommodated through some sort of category at the bottom of the page? Andyboorman (talk) 22:34, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
I agree with Tommy Kronkvist. Some journals, as e.g. Blumea may concern rather large genera. The solution with hatnotes in my opinion is a good one. I only would try to implement some of the proposals by Korg in order to reduce the size of a hatnote. Anyway, I prefer a solution with a minimum of disambiguation pages and a minimum of page names with brackets for taxon pages. --Franz Xaver (talk) 22:44, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
I find in my work that hatnotes can be valuable. Many times while researching redlinked author names, I have landed on taxon pages with hatnotes directing me to disambiguation page titled <so-and-so (author)>. This simplifies work, and removes necessity of using title format of <taxon name (genus)>. Neferkheperre (talk) 01:24, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
I agree, though looking at the present {{For}} template I would like the blank space between the hatnote and the Taxonavigation section to be a wee bit smaller, i.e. less interfering with the main layout. I don't know how to fix that though. @Korg:'s suggestion to place the hatnotes in the top right-hand corner of pages is good for most cases, however those hatnotes are likely to interfere with the layout on any taxon- or author pages that also includes a picture. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 13:18, 30 September 2017 (UTC).

Hatnote and footnote drafts[edit]

@Andyboorman, Tommy Kronkvist, Franz Xaver, Neferkheperre: I've edited Wikispecies:Sandbox with the content of Correa and added two links to Author name Correa, one at the top right-hand corner of the page, and one at the bottom per Andy's comment. Permalinks: [1], [2], [3], [4].

For the note at the top, the text should remain rather short, otherwise it could overlap the title (but maybe that could be avoided with some CSS?). I haven't tested the result on mobile devices. I'm not sure what to do if there is a redirect from another page, like in Ehretia. Perhaps we could have another template, like en:Template:Redirect?

For the note at the bottom, if the page is quite long, like Rosa, the user might not see it. Maybe a solution would be to put a link to an anchor, so the user could directly skip to the bottom of the page?

It turns out that {{disambig}} was modified to handle such cases, see e.g. Plecoptera; Search results. Maybe in some of these cases, a disambiguation page could be created. Korg (talk) 20:47, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

The hatnote at top right is not displayed in mobile view. Korg (talk) 21:35, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Wikimedia Movement Strategy phase 2, and a goodbye[edit]


As phase one of the Wikimedia movement strategy process nears its close with the strategic direction being finalized, my contractor role as a coordinator is ending too. I am returning to my normal role as a volunteer (Tar Lócesilion) and wanted to thank you all for your participation in the process.

The strategic direction should be finalized on Meta late this weekend. The planning and designing of phase 2 of the strategy process will start in November. The next phase will again offer many opportunities to participate and discuss the future of our movement, and will focus on roles, resources, and responsibilities.

Thank you, SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 12:29, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the update, and for great WMF work in general! –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 13:21, 30 September 2017 (UTC).
Since the next phrase focuses on resources, we should start collecting thoughts on what specifically will help benefit our project. OhanaUnitedTalk page 17:03, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Varanus duplicates[edit]

There are several duplicate pages for species of the genus Varanus that includes the subgenus in their page name, which is unrecommended. This needs to be corrected. For instance all relevant data on the pages Varanus (Varanus) mertensi and Varanus (Euprepiosaurus) boehmei should be merged into Varanus mertensi and Varanus boehmei, respectively, and the "subgenus" species pages then emptied and redirected to their proper counterparts. Please note that this problem isn't explicitly limited to V. mertensi and V. boehmei, but comprises other Varanus species as well.

In some cases the problem has propagated into Wikidata, e.g. Q21377661 and Q21377512. This should be looked at after the Wikispecies issue has been dealt with. If you are unfamiliar with Wikidata and how it works – no problem! Just give me a holler after mending the relevant Wikispecies pages, and I'll fix the Wikidata side of things accordingly. Best regards, Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 09:51, 1 October 2017 (UTC).

Thanks @Tommy Kronkvist:, for bringing this to a broader attention, both the subgenus in page names, as well as the problems if subnames are "imported" into Wikidata. Dan Koehl (talk) 20:33, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Im tinking about wether those pages should be marked in some way, until they just remain redirectons, like Category:Duplicates or likevise. In any case, as far as I can understand, they should belong to Category:Non-standard_taxon_formatting? Dan Koehl (talk) 20:58, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Of course Varanus (Varanus) mertensi should be merged into Varanus mertensi, but! Some merges of this kind were already done more or less automatically by Wikidata users by simply making the one page a redirect to the other one. A lot of information was lost by this method. - I agree, we need a maintenance category, but more important is IMO to merge these pages manually, never automatically. --Murma174 (talk) 15:19, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
I estimate there are HUNDREDS of such duplicate-names (e.g. Antheraea (Antheraea) kalangensisAntheraea kalangensis; Antheraea (Antheraea) kelimutuensisAntheraea kelimutuensis; Antheraea (Antheraea) korintjianaAntheraea korintjiana etc. etc.) mostly made by user PeterR. I used to redirect them but I gave up since PeterR is incessantly producing them. Mariusm (talk) 05:16, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
This query has more than 2300 results. --Succu (talk) 17:43, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

We must address these duplicates by:

  1. Comparing the Genus (Subgenus) species page to the Genus species page.
  2. Moving any content found in the Genus (Subgenus) species which lacks in the Genus species version to the Genus species page.
  3. Redirecting the Genus (Subgenus) species page to Genus species.
  4. Changing the link leading to Genus (Subgenus) species to that of Genus species.

This is a process which can't be automated. I will try to work on this occasionally and will appreciate any help to sort this out because such a quantity of duplicates can't just sit there as it is. Mariusm (talk) 05:58, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

The 2300 are just those detected at Wikidata; it is possible these are only the tip of the iceberg. - Brya (talk) 10:45, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
I eliminated a few of these, so the number dropped a little, although Salvia africana-lutea still needs attention (it does not exist; = Salvia aurea); there is also Palmella, based on a deleted page. - Brya (talk) 05:18, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
Salvia africana-lutea is an accepted species according to catol-Hassler, but it seems a bit of a taxonomic mess. Andyboorman (talk) 07:52, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
I know nothing about Salvia taxonomy but Salvia africana-lutea is not a validly published name. There cannot be a species by that name. - Brya (talk) 09:54, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
There is nothing to find about Palmella (in Bacillariophyceae), so I will alter the page to the valid Palmella genus (in Palmellaceae) and the wikidata item (Q25803968) can be deleted. --Thiotrix (talk) 12:10, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
Looks like a few minority source are mistakenly using that name for Salvia aurea (probably unaware that the name is almoste xplicitly invalidated by Art 23.6, ex. 14, which mentions the name next to it in Species Plantorum: "Salvia africa-caerulea" ≡ Salvia africana). Circeus (talk) 09:30, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
Redirects completed see Salvia aurea Andyboorman (talk) 10:37, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Is there any need for a consensus discussion about this, unless anyone has a different idea, the above statements sounds like there is a consensus discussion already, that all Genus (Subgenus) species pages should be considered Non-standard taxon formatting and that all existing pages of this type should follow the suggestions made by @Mariusm: above? Dan Koehl (talk) 19:02, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

@Dan Koehl: please see the discussions here, here and here Mariusm (talk) 05:46, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
Thanks @Mariusm:, I recognized some of those discussions now, and it really seems as if this is issue is well covered, discussed and that a consensus is reached. Dan Koehl (talk) 20:00, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Salvia another case of lump or split.[edit]

I would like to make botanic editors aware that Salvia is another large genus that could either be split or lumped similar to Iris as discussed above. However, in this case the two opposing proposals are both subject to recent peer reviewed publications. See Drew et al. (2017) and Will & Claßen-Bockhoff (2017) on the reference section of Salvia. I would also like to make contributors aware that Kew (via the WCSP website) have rapidly endorsed Salvia s.l., but with the proviso that Pleudia Raf. (1837) is now recognised as a segregate from Salvia. Accepted combinations of Dorystaechas, Meriandra, Perovskia, Rosmarinus, and Zhumeria (Salviinae) would then become Salvia species. With the exception of Pleudia, is it too early to follow Drew et al. and Kew and expand Salvia s.l.? Kind regards Andyboorman (talk) 19:23, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

As far as I see, Pleudia (= relatives of Salvia aegyptiaca) only will have standing, when the splitting option completely is implemented. Unfortunately the phylogenies in the two papers are not fully congruent. The phylogeny in the paper by Will & Claßen-Bockhoff (2017) seems to require, that also Melissa and Lepechinia would be lumped into Salvia, as these genera here are part of the same polytomy as the other clades of Salvia For the time being, the lumping option can be followed easily, as this does not need many name changes, and the combinations already are existing. However, I am not sure about the final outcome. Maybe, when finally the phylogenies will be fully resolved, the splitting option will have the stronger arguments. Anyway, for the moment, the splitting option is no real possibility for us, as most of the necessary new combinations are still missing. --Franz Xaver (talk) 23:56, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

More duplicates[edit]

There are Potentilla parvifolia and Dasiphora parvifolia about the same taxon, the first one was created from a simple redirect last week by MILEPRI. Which one should be kept as the accepted name? And there may be more new botanical duplicates in genera edited by this user. --Thiotrix (talk) 16:28, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

The later is the accepted combination according to catol-Hassler (2017), but the former according to the Plant List, which has not been updated since 2012. This synonymy and similar need a lot more research by an editor, particularly as the references dismembering Potentilla s.l. have not been added to taxon pages, such as Fragariinae and Potentilleae - these references would include Topel et al., 2011 as an example. This paper indicates Dasiphora parvifolia as the correct combination, by the way. I am also sure that a number of other pages edited and created by this contributor have this problem. I tried asking this editor not to use the Plant List without cross checking due to the numerous changes in the last five years or so. catol-Hassler is by no means 100%, but it is now a better starting point. MILEPRI's main interest is adding images, but WikiMedia is most definitely a very poor starting point! Perhaps you could have a word as well. Cheers Andyboorman (talk) 19:45, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Audio files[edit]

As discussed on the UK mailing list, the Natural History Museum in London have made hundreds of audio files of species (including, less commonly, many non-avian) available via Wikimedia Commons, adding to those previously donated by the British Library, and via Xeno Canto, and other sources.

These are now being added to the relevant items in Wikidata.

Through the use of a template like {{Image}}, or better something more along the lines of {{Biography}} or {{Repository}}, we could transclude them from Wikidata, directly into our pages, without the need to edit pages individually each time a new file is added.

Audio files are good for a number of reasons: they add context; they're a-lingual; they serve people who cannot see our images; and in some cases they are diagnostic (for example, Phylloscopus collybita, Phylloscopus trochilus and others in the genus are visibly similar, and most easily distinguished in the field audibly). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:35, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

I wished to have audio files for all species of birds. For most birds, it is easier to hear them than seeing them at close distance. Also for frogs and toads audio files will be helpful, and in some cases are diagnostic. --Franz Xaver (talk) 08:43, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
Also, whale vocalizations may be useful when identifying species of whales, even though that is of course less common than spotting birds and amphibians. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 09:46, 11 October 2017 (UTC).
Not to forget Orthoptera and cicadas. Actually, most of these audio files from NHM seem to be from such noisy insects. --Franz Xaver (talk) 14:41, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Huggle is active on WS[edit]

Since some time Huggle is available for users at Wikispecies. Huggle is a diff browser intended for dealing with vandalism and other unconstructive edits, and can easily be configured to filter pages according to your choice. For users who doesnt engage in dealing with vandallism on other projects, Huggle may may appear a little confusing at first, but there are some good guides to read about how Huggle works. The program is presently free to use for anyone, on WS and most other projects, while it can be configured to be of limited use only for rollbackers (such is the case on the EnWiki) or admins. Dan Koehl (talk) 17:34, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the information. I've checked out the Mac version of Huggle (using macOS 10.13 "High Sierra" – a new, major version released just 18 days ago), and Huggle seems to work as advertised. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 18:31, 13 October 2017 (UTC).
Yes, once you get used to the interface, with all the different windows and activities in each of them, Huggle is pretty handy to work with. I dont know of any program r script, which let you go through large number of files, showing the two last diffs, so fast and easy. This not only makes it an excellent tool for dealing with vandalism, but I think also a useful tool for any kind of cooperation a WS user may have with other user(s). Dan Koehl (talk) 20:46, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

AWB problems[edit]

Is anyone else experiencing problems when using AWB as a Bot? I cant even see the Bot tab, and Im trying to find out why. Dan Koehl (talk) 19:42, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

@Dan Koehl: Assuming this you try to do from your bot, I added it to this list and now should appear the tab. —Alvaro Molina ( - ) 21:40, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
Thanks a lot @AlvaroMolina:, I forgot that new list. Now its working again. Dan Koehl (talk) 22:38, 17 October 2017 (UTC)