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/ -)

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

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

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

@Animalparty, Faendalimas, Mariusm: Sorry for not being as active in this thread as I should. Personally I find "Featured author" to be a much better title than "Distinguished author". My main criteria for choosing authors for the Distinguished author category has so far been that it should include authors of both sexes, from all continents of the world, working within different scientific disciplines. However that turns out to be rather difficult since male, European and American authors are overrepresented, and about half of all of the authors listed at Wikispecies are entomologists. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 01:01, 25 June 2017 (UTC).

Good and bad news about cross-wiki search results in Wikipedia[edit]

Good news: The cross-wiki search results from other projects are now live in Wikipedia. Bad news: The search results from Wikispecies are suppressed via RfC discussion in English Wikipedia, meaning users won't see those results in English Wikipedia. Don't feel down yet. Non-English users from non-English Wikipedia sites may still be directed to any pages of Wikispecies. Feel free to share your thoughts here. --George Ho (talk) 20:29, 22 June 2017 (UTC); see near bottom, 12:40, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

suppressed via RfC discussion in English Wikipedia Not so; Wikispecies was never - it says there - in scope for this change. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:38, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
um I just read it, wikispecies was specifically mentioned as was wikidata in same viepoints. So how is wikispecies not included in their rfc? I wish I had known about what they were doing. I think WP has absolutely zero taxonomic capacity in all honesty, their data is outdated, incorrect and driven by personal ionterests and pet projects. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 23:37, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Wait, Andy and Scott. I was wrong. Wikispecies is not included yet as part of the cross-wiki search. Same for Wikidata. --George Ho (talk) 12:40, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
Also, the task was tried but declined due to that RfC discussion. --George Ho (talk) 12:44, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Proposal for new template for people[edit]

I am sorry I messed up the project. However, as I know literally nothing about taxons, I want to improve Wikispecies in a different way.

I propose a template (below) to make pages for people much easier to navigate and understand.

I hope you accept it. --PokestarFan (talk) 21:07, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Template for People[edit]

Village Pump


Please see the template {{Biography}} Mariusm (talk) 06:32, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Seems comprehensive, not an expert on templates or an editor that works with authors, but look forward to hearing from those who could be interested in this approach. Andyboorman (talk) 22:08, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
@Andyboorman: I pointed out the {{Biography}} template to PokestarFan not because I think it's a good way to treat author pages but merely to show him his author template suggestion has been dealt with before. Mariusm (talk) 06:21, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
I suggest to remove all these points from the template, which already are covered by {{Authority control}}. --Franz Xaver (talk) 06:30, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
The {{Authority control}} template is transcluded within {{Biography}}. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:12, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
...also, unfortunately it places it in the wrong place on the pages. See [1], [2] and [3] (all used as examples in the template's documentation.) –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 13:43, 24 June 2017 (UTC).
The fact, that it places the information in the wrong place, is the reason, that I would prefer these points to be removed from the biography template. --Franz Xaver (talk) 19:18, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
No; that's not a reason to remove parts of the template; it's a reason to continue to improve the template. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:43, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
Yes; Improve its usability by reducing its complexity. --Franz Xaver (talk) 20:49, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Stegomyia --> Aedes (Stegomyia)[edit]

Hi all,
Given that Stegomyia is a subgenus of the genus Aedes, the page Stegomyia should be titled Aedes (Stegomyia). Can someone move the page? Thank you in advance.
SenseiAC (talk) 11:45, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

@SenseiAC: We're treating the subgenera here as genus-type names meaning that Stegomyia is an adequate and legitimate page name as long as it's labeled as a subgenus, which it is. Some contributors like to format the subgenera as Genus (Subgenus) and we've here many subgenera of either format - both formats being adequate. Therefore I say - let this name remain unchanged. We have here hundreds of subgenera with this same format. On top of that, if we change the name according to your suggestion we'll need to change the child taxa meaning the Stegomyia species pages which will be a considerable task. Mariusm (talk) 12:50, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
@Mariusm: it seems to be the only subgenus of Aedes in this case. Also, it just complicates the understanding for the “random” reader not to have a uniform way of titling the articles of subgenera. Maybe a community decision should be taken, either in one direction or the other, for things to be coherent. SenseiAC (talk) 12:54, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
By the way, I have removed this morning “Stegomyia” from the list of subgenera on the page Aedes since it was practically twice in the list: once as “Stegomyia” (the only subgenus written as such there) and once as “Aedes (Stegomyia)” (the one I let, as it is for all the other subgenera). SenseiAC (talk) 12:57, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
@SenseiAC: I personally side with the Stegomyia format and I'm editing my contributions accordingly, and yes, we need to reach a consensus about this but it would be a difficult decision due to different opinions here. I think that the Stegomyia format is more simple and more coherent, more flexible and also it is used in a considerable number of catalogs and of listings. Mariusm (talk) 13:03, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
I put it back as ''[[Stegomyia|A. (Stegomyia)]]'' - it displays as A. (Stegomyia) but links to Stegomyia Mariusm (talk) 13:08, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
[Also discussed here.] I agree with Sensei, "a decision should be taken, either in one direction or the other, for things to be coherent". There are pages been moved to one direction to another, and this cause instability in WS. It's time to discussed this issue. Burmeister (talk) 13:35, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
@Burmeister: I also agree with you both. The problem is that too few users are interested here in this kind of controversy and I presume a poll would unfortunately yield fewer than 5 votes. Nevertheless I encourage you to set up a vote or if you don't feel like it I'll ultimately do it. Mariusm (talk) 14:32, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
I personally would prefer the Genus (Subgenus) format to be the standard solution, as this reduces the risk of having hemihomonyms with botanical genus names. --Franz Xaver (talk) 19:27, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
@Franz Xaver: I'm sorry, but your reasoning entails a narrow point of view. You being a botanist don't have to contend with the subgenera, which are a major stumbling block in WS-Zoology. The hemihomonyms are a very tiny problem compared with the problems arising from the Genus (Subgenus) system, which wreaks havoc with many zoology pages. Please allow for a little consideration towards your fellow-zoologists. Mariusm (talk) 04:35, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
@Mariusm: You should not complain, "that too few users are interested here", when you try to brush aside my argument here. As I understand the situation now, zoological WS editors apply different approaches. Why not add an argument, about how zoological and botanical nomenclature are interfering? By the way, also in botany, subgenera are in use, e.g. Elvasia subg. Elvasia. --Franz Xaver (talk) 11:46, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
@Franz Xaver: I don't brush aside your arguments, it's just a case of priorities and of weighting the benefits against the drawbacks for each party. That's all. Mariusm (talk) 12:19, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
Mariusm, maybe to soon to make a pool, perhaps call editors (via bot message ?) to discuss the issue is a better approuch. Burmeister (talk) 13:46, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Problem of limit of template recursion depth[edit]

I have created the templates for three missing levels in the Homo structure: Choanobionta, Filozoa and Holozoa (the proper pages are to be created, I have only created the templates so far), that are above Animalia and below Opisthokonta. However, now, in the Homo page, there is a red message saying “Template recursion depth limit exceeded (40)”. Is there a way to solve this problem? The best would certainly be to be able to extand the limit of the template recursion depth (to at least 50, but I would go even farther, maybe directly 100, in order not to have to change again if additional intermediate levels should be added: I have already found several other missing intermediate levels in the Homo structure, such as Olfactores, Euteleostomi, Euarchonta, Primatomorpha).
By the way, I mistakenly created Template:Opistokonta (with a missing “h”, while the correct Template:Opisthokonta also exists); could someone remove the erroneous page?
Thank you in advance.
SenseiAC (talk) 16:58, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

@SenseiAC: please be careful and do not insert undefined templates (red links)!!!!! They affect all the ranks below. Your insertion of Olfactores affected all the chordata pages in removing the __NOTOC__ option to all the Chordata pages. Before inserting a template please define (or create) it first! Please remove all the red-link templates you've inserted. Mariusm (talk) 04:25, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
Sorry @Mariusm:, it was a unique case, I had a computer problem yesterday when I wanted to edit the page of the Craniata (I was neither sure that the edit was saved, neither was I able to create the template). I created the template this morning and added back Olfactores. However, we still have the problem of recursion depth. I also added a number of missing levels in Elephas (Elephantiformes, Elephantimorpha, Elephantida, Elephantoidea, Elephantinae, Elephantini and Elephantina) and we have the same recursion depth problem. Any idea how to solve it? SenseiAC (talk) 09:36, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
@SenseiAC: Unfortunately templates can't be nested more than 40 levels deep. This means the template ladder from top to bottom can have 40 steps at the most (and see this). WS is more about species than about the upper (and isoteric) levels of classification, so you'll have to remove the steps you've created from the ladder, and try to restyle the classification in another way - not by templates but in the articles themselves. Mariusm (talk) 10:24, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
@Mariusm: an easy way to keep everything would be to not use as many inclusions. What I mean is that, for example, in Template:Elephantidae, instead of « "Template:Euelephantoidea" / Familia: Elephantidae », there could be « "Template:Elephantoidea" / Cladus: Euelephantoidea / Familia: Elephantidae » for example. In other words, some levels would simply need to use a template two (or more) levels above itself, instead one one level above now, + adding by hand the two (or more) levels down to itself. Would it be fine for you? SenseiAC (talk) 10:47, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
@SenseiAC: This isn't a good idea because if Elephantoidea has several cladi in addition to Cladus: Euelephantoidea the Cladus: Euelephantoidea will also show in all the other cladi whenever the "Template:Elephantoidea" will be evoked, which isn't what we want to achieve. Mariusm (talk) 11:13, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
@Mariusm: you didn't get what I meant. Euelephantoidea and Elephantidae wouldn't be written in the template "Elephantoidea" but in the template "Elephantidae" of course. Therefore, obviously Euelephantoidea and Elephantidae would not appear when calling the template "Elephantoidea"; it would not make any sense if it would. Practically, we would have this :
  • Template "Elephantoidea": as for the moment, call "Template:Elephantida" + write by hand "Cladus: Elaphantoidea"
  • Template "Euelephantoidea": call "Template:Elephantoidea" + write by hand "Cladus: Euelphantoidea"
  • Template "Elephantidae" : call "Template:Elephantoidea" + write by hand "Cladus: Euelphantoidea" and "Cladus: Elephantidae".
SenseiAC (talk) 11:17, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
@SenseiAC: Sorry I lost track with all these cladi. I need to see an example to verify if this really works. Again, the best way would be to omit the more esoteric cladi and to concentrate only on the ranks of familia and below which are the important ranks for Wikispecies. Mariusm (talk) 11:42, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
I have to agree with Mariusm here. Also, familia and lower taxa are far more susceptible to taxonomical revisions than higher taxa. Adding more taxa "by hand" to the templates therefore will request more work for us when such revisions occur. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 12:26, 25 June 2017 (UTC).
I agree with Mariusm and Tommy, given the restrictions, the lower taxa should be preserved against the higher, and manually adding definitely is not a good idea.--Hector Bottai (talk) 13:55, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Possible duplicate[edit]

Does anybody here know whether the pages Hans Weber and Hans Martin Weber perhaps refer to the same person, hence should be merged? Personally I can't find specific enough data regarding the taxa "they" have named, respectively, and therefore don't know. Sometimes Wikidata carry useful information to help sort these matters out, but not in this particular case. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 00:41, 25 June 2017 (UTC).

Yes, I see no reason to doubt they are the same person. Both were added by @Kempf EK: in 2013 and both as Micropalaeontologists/Ostracodologists. Mariusm (talk) 04:44, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Aptenia cordifolia authorithy[edit]

Hi. If you're a botanist please head over to Talk:Aptenia cordifolia and share your wisdom. :-) Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 18:00, 25 June 2017 (UTC).

Moved from Wikispecies:Requests for Comment for visibility[edit]

It seems that Wikispecies is against freedom of expression, or more specifically against the right of a person to correct even the simplest mistaken statements or omissions about that person's biography and bibliography and lists of new taxa as presented by Wikispecies.

Until a couple of days ago, I had never accessed Wikispecies. Then someone pointed put to me that it has the most extensive bibliography of my publications in ichthyology available anywhere. I found out it also included a list of taxa supposedly named after me, and lists of higher taxa, new genera of fishes, and new species named by me.

Finding that a number of the patronyms named robertsi are named after persons other than me, I corrected the list accordingly, and added some new names. Apparently this has been accepted. But according to your policy, it should not have been because it was proposed by me, and according to Wikispecies (and Wikipedia), that is a conflict of interest. So you evidently employ a double standard in this. It is not evident how such decisions are made, so there is an issue of transparency here.

According to Wikispecies, correcting erroneous personal information is a conflict of interest! THIS IS NOT THE FIRST TIME I encounter someone or some institution defining "conflict of interest" to suit its own interests or purposes--isn't that a conflict of interest? Your concept of "conflict of interest" conflicts with my interests. When insurance and finance companies make mistakes about persons, such as providing wrong birth dates, they sometimes do not permit the person concerned to make a change. These are the sort of companies that have similar conflict of interest policies similar to Wikispecies.

Previously Wikispecies included an incomplete list of new fish genera of fishes named by me. The list included 18 names. I added some missing names, bringing the total to 23. Now all of these names have been erased.

Wikispecies also included a list of species named by me, with 161 entries. i added a half-dozen, bringing the number to 167. Now the entire list has been erased.

Wikispecies did have a list of 6 higher fish taxa (above genus level) named by me. I added one more, bringing the total to 7. Now that list has been replaced by an entry that provides references only to about 7 taxa at generic level. There is a comment that "this list may be incomplete." That is an invitation to add to it, which I did, and then the entire list was deleted.

Because of the University of Chicago Press and Wikipedia, I am now known as "the world's foremost authority on the oceanic oarfishes or Regalecus." I never claimed this for myself. In fact, I resent being referred to only as that because it slights all the other work done by me. Most of my work has been on tropical freshwater fishes. When i tried to redress the balance by adding very general statements about my work and my research results and interests, none of it in conflict of interest with anybody, it was rejected.

Most of the statements made by me cannot be documented by any published sources. Am I not a legitimate source about information concerning me?

In Wikipedia it was formerly stated that I am affiliated with the Center for Ecology and Conservation of Mahidol University. That center no longer exists. I am now affiliated with the Institute of Molecular Biosciences of Mahidol University. I made this change and it apparently has been accepted. But again, it should not have been accepted because since it was proposed by me it is a "Wikispecies confllct of interest" I mention Wikipedia here, because such a problem could easily have occurred in Wikispecies.

When I looked up the entry on me in Wikispecies, I clicked on edit. There was no warning about prohibition of self-editing by Wikispecies. The same applies to Wikispecies. This is unnecessarily misleading and caused me to do a lot of work for nothing.

I request that Wikispecies restore the corrected lists of taxa higher than genera, genera and species named by me that I recently provided.

I also request that Wikispecies allow the additional biographical material that I provided by me, so that I can now be known as an authority on oarfishes or Regalecus and also someone who has done a lot of work on freshwater fishes.

Wikispecies needs to modify its policy of self-editing, so that persons like me can make appropriate additions to lists of taxa, etc.

Thus far I have found Wikispecies response inappropriate and inadequate. I look forward to some substantive response addressing the species issues raised by Wikispecies account of me. Tyson R. Roberts (talk) 19:26, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

@Tyson R. Roberts: I respect what you're saying and I don't want you to be put off from contributing. Let me take a look and see what I can figure out but I am not a taxonomist and I encourage others who are specialists to take a look as well, please. —Justin (koavf)TCM 19:47, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
@Koavf, Tyson R. Roberts: It was I who removed the data from the Tyson R. Roberts page, about 40 minutes after leaving a welcome note on User:Tyson R. Roberts' talk page. The summary I wrote when removing the data reads "Removed a dead external link, inline named taxa that should be listed in category instead, and out of scope material better suited for Wikipedia." In other words, it had nothing to do with any "confllct of interest" between Dr. Roberts and his edits of the page. One of the links in the welcoming message from me points to What Wikispecies is not, which among other things points out that "Blocks of prose are language-specific and would incorrectly lead to the impression that Wikispecies is a fork of Wikipedia, which it is not". Another link in my welcoming message is Help:Contents, which in turn give information about authors and author names. There one can read that "We maintain articles in Wikispecies with minimum information. First line [on author pages] should be dates of birth and, if deceased, death. Second line can be a very brief description for clarification. This is generally nationality and speciality. There may sometimes be more clarifying information, especially if there is another author with a similar name." That's the reason for me removing the most part of the biography, for as I say in my edit summary that information is "out of scope material better suited for Wikipedia".
As for the removal of the lists of named taxa, well... those lists should not be there. Again per my edit summary "inline named taxa should be listed in category instead". If we use the page Hypergastromyzon Roberts, 1989 as an example and check the code we find the code string [[Category:Tyson R. Roberts taxa]] near the very bottom. That code snippet automatically adds that page to Category:Tyson R. Roberts taxa i.e. lists the taxon as one of the (now) 7 taxa mentioned by Roberts above. So in order to list all of the taxa named by Roberts, we must first create the corresponding taxa pages, and add them to that category using the above mentioned code snippet. This is consensus on Wikispecies, and the reason is that some authors have named thousands upon thousands of taxa. Listing them all directly on the author pages would clutter upp the code and make the pages very hard to manage, hence using a category instead is better.
In the same edit I also changed the heading "Patronyms (one genus of gobioid fish, 20 species of fishes, and one species of hymenosomatid crab)" into simply "Patronyms". This is Wikispecies praxis, the reason being that per our Language convention "Wikispecies is language independent as much as possible". Also, stating type of organisms in the list's heading is redundant, since one can easily find that out by simply reading the actual list.
With all this said I would like to firmly point out that I have nothing against Dr. Roberts as such, and think that he is a welcome addition as an Wikispecies editor. He has described a considerable amount of species and higher taxa, and soon preferably all of them will be represented with their own pages here in Wikispecies. However in some aspects Wikispecies have a very different set of editing standards in comparison to other Wikimedia sister projects, and it can take some time to learn them all. I'm willing to help with that, if needed, and I'm sure others are as well. Best regards, Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 21:07, 25 June 2017 (UTC).

@Tommy Kronkvist, Tyson R. Roberts, Koavf: Since Tommy has explained why the edits were changed etc I will not go into this. But I will explain the issue of COI, from the perspective of a taxonomist who also has described numerous taxa. As taxonomists we walk a fine line with regards to COI and NPOV, the latter is Neutral Point of View. Clearly if I edit about taxa I described I am not neutral, and it is easy for me to be accused of having a Conflict of Interest. How do I deal with this. First up I put nothing in that has not been formally published under peer review and I cite those refs. If you look at my author page Scott Thomson it lists all my publications relevant to species names used here. The authored taxa is automatically built from the pages on those species, I did not edit that. For the benefit of others I have been making templates for my publications they are on the talk page. There is no bio about me per se, just my name, date of birth, what I specialise in, authored taxa, and refs. On my user page User:Faendalimas I have the liberty to do a bit of bio, this is optional though, my user page links to my author page. The point is though I am very clear to follow guidelines I did not use any information that could not be looked up in a paper listed on that page. This avoids the COI issue, or more accurately acknowledges it with full disclosure. This can and has been checked by others, for example Tommy who edited it. We do not have to wait for some random person to put our own highly relevant work here. But we do need to be careful doing it. Feel free to use my page as a model, I suggest that for anything more biographical you put it in your User page. As Tommy pointed out, your edits were not removed for COI reasons, but because of guidelines, style etc that is kept consistent in Wikispecies. If you would like help please ask. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 18:47, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Further comments by Tyson R. Roberts: First of all, thanks to Koavf, Tommy Kronkvist, and Scott Thomson of Wikispecies for their responses. I am still waiting for appropriate response from Wikipedia. Removing the Wikipedia template from the account of me stating quote: "This section does not cite any sources. Please help improve this section by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (June 2017) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)" would be appreciated.
While no sources were cited for the brief biographical statements, they are based on personal knowledge useful for others interested in me and my work, such as where the fish specimens collected by me have been deposited. The bibliographical statements about my work on fishes of the Fly, Kapuas, and Congo rivers are all "referenced" (I find this word has crept into our language) in the section below on "selected publications."
It is all very well to cite specific Wikispecies statements I could have read that would have saved me from trying to edit the Wikispecies entry under my name, had I only known where to look or had I searched enough. Consulting the most obvious places, such as the Wikipedia tutorial, however, did not provide this information. It is not evident to beginners that Wikipedia and Wikispecies are "separate" entities, each with its own rules, etc. Having subsequently looked up a number of other Wikispecies entries on taxonomists it became evident that the biographical statements are invariably only one or two lines. That was not obvious when only the entry under my name was considered.
According to Koavf, [quote] In the same edit I also changed the heading "Patronyms (one genus of gobioid fish, 20 species of fishes, and one species of hymenosomatid crab)" into simply "Patronyms". This is Wikispecies praxis, the reason being that per our Language convention "Wikispecies is language independent as much as possible". Also, stating type of organisms in the list's heading is redundant, since one can easily find that out by simply reading the actual list [end quote]. Without help from me, is he or anyone else able to recognize that one of the 20 species named after me is a crab, and that the others are all fishes (note correct spelling of plural of for fish, when more than one species is involved)?
Yes some taxonomists have named thousands of species, and it would be too much and not very useful for Wikispecies to list them all. But Wikispecies made an effort to list all of the fish taxa named by me, and these lists were very nearly complete. A number of these species are endangered, and some are nearly or already extinct. It seems a step backward to have eliminated the lists. Such information apparently is not available anywhere else.
Koavf [or Scott Thomson] also states, "That's the reason for me removing the most part of the biography [added by Roberts to the Wikispecies account] for as I say in my edit summary that information is "out of scope material better suited for Wikipedia". OK, fair enough, but when the same information was submitted to Wikipedia, it was rejected.
All my life I have been against punishing innocents for the crimes of others. This is, of course, one of the ways used by dictators to control society, such as the widespread Asian practice of extending the death penalty to seven generations. I am referring, of course, to the Wikipedia and Wikispecies practice of prohibiting self-editing. Many people might abuse open editing, but prohibiting it punishes innocent persons by restricting their freedom of speech. Freedom of speech trumps political correctness (leaving aside some complicated and difficult issues such as hate speech) and it also trumps any restrictions by Wikipedia and Wikispecies. This issue was raised in my previous message, and so far there has not been any response.
Tyson R. Roberts
Advisor, Institute of Molecular Biosciences, Mahidol University
(Tyson R. Roberts (talk) 21:40, 26 June 2017 (UTC) )
Heya @Tyson R. Roberts: First up do remember that different projects, such as Wikipedia and Wikispecies, have their own scopes, rules, guidelines and policies. We cannot dictate what Wikipedia does, but we do know their scope. All we can do is suggest something that is beyond our scope may be suitable for theirs. Likewise, policies, templates and content they cover in their scope is not necessarily appropriate here. This is not about freedom of speech, it is about what this taxonomy only encyclopedia covers in its scope. What is outside of this is not covered. As for personal experience and information on specimens you examined or placed in museums, is this in the publication describing the species? if so include it, if not it is original research, another policy called NOR, ir No Original Research, hence again, if it is not published and cannot be independently verified then it cannot be here on Wikispecies. If you look at an examplae page of a species I described Elseya rhodini note the holotype is listed, as is the museum it is lodged in. Wikispecies is about species and their nomenclature. The original authors are just basic data. As I said before if it goes beyond the data needed for the taxoblock of a new description, ie the part that meets the code, then its not needed here. Wikipedia does the in depth pages on selected organisms and people. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 23:02, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Farsi speaker needed[edit]

Do we have a Farsi speaker, who could review edits by new user Ariamihr, and advise them on how best to contribute please? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:07, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

yes Ariamihr (talk) 14:15, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
@Pigsonthewing: There are two members of Category:User fa that are also listed as active users, namely Allforrous (fa-1) and ToJack (fa-4). Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 14:41, 27 June 2017 (UTC).

Monotypic genera[edit]

User:Lavalizard101 recently marked Daemonosaurus chauliodus and Eodromaeus murphi for deletion, saying "genus it belongs to is monotypic and all this information is stated there". Is that a valid reason, or do we want two pages in such cases? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:12, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Nope, legitimate taxa should have their own pages, even if their parent taxon is monotypic. I have reverted the edits, and noted the user on his talk page. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 15:06, 27 June 2017 (UTC).
@Tommy Kronkvist: Thank you. Please check Daemonosaurus and Eodromaeus also. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:13, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done, including creating repository pages and their categories, reference templates, and such. Throw me a bone and suddenly I start writing pages about fossils... :-) Thanks for pointing the whole thing out from the start though. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 16:53, 27 June 2017 (UTC).


I propose to add a "Zoobank author ID" parameter to {{Authority control}}, calling values from Wikidata, and then to delete {{ZooBankAut}}. The latter has around 445 transclusions, while Wikidata has over 1,400 values for the equivalent property. Any concerns? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:35, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Nah, I say go for it. We discussed a similar matter a year or so ago, and most users found {{ZooBankAut}} redundant to {{ZooBank}}. From a technical point the same goes for {{ZooBankRef}}, however it is used on several tens of thousands of pages (many of them old "Zt" templates that all should be renamed...)
The template {{ZooBankAct}} (used on 3,959 pages) is a bit different than the others, and is probably still useful as it is. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 16:04, 27 June 2017 (UTC).
Short of running a bot, there doesn't seem to be an easy way to distinguish between transclusions of {{ZooBank}} for papers or for people :-( Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:30, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

In fact, it turns out that P2006 is already in {{Authority control}}, so now we need a bot to replace instances of {{ZooBankAut}}, like this.

Afterwards, we need to check that all Zoobank IDs for people, in {{ZooBank}}, are in Wikidata, then have the bot do the same for those cases. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:45, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

And, after scanning the transclusions of {{ZooBank}}, only a few were for people, and I have - I think - manually replaced them all. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:32, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

'Official website' template[edit]

I have fixed {{Official website}} and it is now available for use in biographies or institution pages. It pulls its value from Wikidata and will display a bold, red warning if no value is present there. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:43, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

A very good initiative, and that will certainly save us some time when it is 100% working. The template seems to work well for all pages now using it, with the exception of Courtenay N. Smithers. There it links to but clicks are redirected to instead, i.e. not even the same top-level domain, and certainly not a page about Smithers. Maybe the Australian Museum changed their domain and/or server layout recently? –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 03:05, 28 June 2017 (UTC).
The template is already "100% working", the issue on Courtenay N. Smithers is not with the template (nor indeed with Wikispecies), but with bad data, which I trustingly copied from Wikispecies to Wikidata, without checking. It transpires that Smithers died in 2011. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:53, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Join the strategy discussion. We’ll talk about the challenges identified by research[edit]

One of many related in-person discussions. Iberoconf, Buenos Aires

Hi! I'm a Polish Wikipedian currently working for Wikimedia Foundation. My task is to ensure that all online communities are aware of the movement-wide strategy discussion. That, of course, includes you!

Between March and May, members of many communities shared their opinions on what they want the Wikimedia movement to build or achieve. (The report written after the first round of discussions is here, and a similar report after the second round will be available soon.) At the same time, designated people did a research outside of our movement. They:

  • talked with more than 150 experts and partners from technology, knowledge, education, media, entrepreneurs, and other sectors,
  • researched potential readers and experts in places where Wikimedia projects are not well known or used,
  • researched by age group in places where Wikimedia projects are well known and used.

Now, the research conclusions are published, and the third round is going to begin. Our task is to discuss the identified challenges and think how we want to change or align to changes happening around us. Each week, a new challenge will be posted. The discussions will take place until the end of July. Literally all of you are invited!

If you want to ask a question, ping me or read the FAQ. SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 19:40, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Rowans, service-trees & whitebeams[edit]

Sorbus has long been known to be paraphyletic, but no-one did anything about it. Now someone has, for the European taxa at least. Nearly 200 new combinations. I'm in no hurry to implement them, but I suppose we'll have to eventually. - MPF (talk) 21:23, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Related: proposal for conservation of Sorbus (2014) - MPF (talk) 21:57, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
I would recommend waiting for the proposal to go through scrutiny before changing anything here. Particularly given the proposal for five new "intergeneric" hybrid genera, including comb. nov. x Sorbomeles. Most botanists throw their hands up in horror when intergeneric hybrids are split and promoted to their own "natural" genera. I am sure the paper will generate debate and counter-proposals before resolution and consensus is achieved, but I am sure this is not going to happen any time soon. Andyboorman (talk) 08:38, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
in its original palce of publication. *vanishes back into darkness* Circeus (talk) 15:54, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Callistege vs. Callistege[edit]

In Wikidata the taxon name Callistege is mentioned both as a genus (Q1368450, also by English WP and other wikis) and as a subgenus (Q28466479, also by Dutch+Vietnamese WP and Wikispecies). Does any entomologist here have up to date information regarding this? Here is a link to the Wikidata issue: Interwiki conflicts / Unresolved / 2017 (check for "Callistege" under the March 2017 subsection, and be sure to click the "Expand" link to the far right in order to see the discussion). Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 07:53, 3 July 2017 (UTC).

Requesting help from a bot[edit]

AFAICT, we have no page equivalent to say en:Wikipedia:Bot requests, where an editor an ask for a bot operator wiling to perform a task. Am I wrong?

And can anyone help with the orphaning and removal of {{ZooBankAut}}, as described in #Template:ZooBankAut, above, please? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:58, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Zotero now has a Wikidata translator[edit]

Citation management tool Zotero now has two Wikidata translators. Not only does it read metadata from Wikidata items about works, so you can add them to your Zotero library, but it can export metadata in a format understood by QuickStatements, enabling users to more easily create Wikidata items about the works already in their Zotero libraries. Since Zotero can already read metadata about works from other websites, or data files such as BibTeX, it can now be used as an intermediary to import that data. See d:Wikidata:Zotero.

All we need now is a template, like Cite Q to display data about works here... Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:01, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Cite Q looks interesting, and probably better aligned with what Wikispecies has been doing, in the sense that Wikipedia has been embedding the same (hopefully) metadata overtime an article is cited, whereas often Wikispecies has been embedding a template for each article. The Wikispecies approach is better in many ways, as it avoids redundancy (this is a separate issue from whether the references themselves should be more structured using of templates). I suspect the stumbling blocks to adopting a Cite Q-like approach here will be whether it generates citations in the format Wikispecies editors like, and how easy is it to discover whether an article exists in Wikidata. I get the sense that most citations are added by people copying and pasting in text from articles, then tweaking the formatting. This is a lot easier than trying to find an article in Wikidata, so until discoverability is fixed desire to adopt Cite Q might be limited. It will also need Wikidata to have a lot more of the taxonomic literature than it currently has, which suggests the need to bulk import that literature, much of it from Wikispecies itself. --Rdmpage (talk) 15:36, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
Thank you, Rod, for the encouraging response. The output of {{Cite Q}} on Wikispecies can be styled however the Wikispecies community wants. On en.Wikipedia, it is a wrapper for Template:Citation, so the simplest way to achieve that would be to import that template (and its dependencies) here, and customise its styling. The closer the coding (not necessarily the styling) remains to the original, the more effortlessly we can benefit from improvements made over there. Colleagues would still be able to copy and paste text from articles; but it would remain open for someone else (or a bot, especially where DOIs are present) to then convert that to an instance of {{Cite Q}}. And yes, bulk import should be done; but that's chicken-and-egg (or should I say "Gallus gallus domesticus-and-ovum"?) - we can't automate import for citations from WS to WD while the former only has them as unstructured text (again unless DOIs are present). Which gives me an idea... Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:59, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
As you say chicken and egg. Your after converting citations here to using Wikidata queries, for items there that largely do not exist. So who goes first?? I support the notion of making the citations here more user friendly, including the ability for them to be data mined. I do not think EN WP is a good comparison since for the most part their taxonomic references are somewhere between irrelevant and ridiculous. There are exceptions but their methods are poor. I am no fan of Zotero I must admit, but I have for many years used much more robust systems, albeit not free. However that is not a major issue. Am still not a fan of the concept of using Wikidata as a source of data either, though for citations its not so bad if it has them all. I see no point changing to a system of extracting data from Wikidata if the majority of the data is absent. I think our method of using templates for citations has proven to be first of all robust and second has community preference, particularly from taxonomists. So I think alot of discussion is needed here. As I said I am not against it, but whatever is done has to receive the support of the vast majority of main space editors here, ie the ones who make the taxonomic pages. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 19:26, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
I've done a little bit of work on converting Wikispecies citations into structured data (more specifically Citation Style Language (CSL) JSON). If you go to and paste in the markup for a citation (e.g., the text you see when editing a reference page) this tool will attempt to parse it. This tool can be automated to parse lots of references. My initial goal is to use it to gather additional references to then add them to BioStor. One approach might be to convert the CSL into a form that can be imported into Wikidata. From an outsider's perspective, Wikispecies is full of templates that are trying to do the sort of things that Wikidata could do (e.g., lists of names published by authors). As always, the stumbling block is that the benefits of doing this might be obious to data miners ike me, but less so to those doing the actual work of creating pages. — The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rdmpage (talkcontribs) 20:13, 7 July 2017‎.

Zotero 5 has just been released see:

One of its new features is the ability to subscribe to a journal's RSS feed, and have all (or selected) new articles added to a Zotero library. This opens up the possibility to add them all to Wikidata on a regular basis, as described above Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:34, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Cite journal, redux[edit]

I wasn't active here (I think) at the time {{Cite journal}} was discussed and rejected.

I've drawn up a comparison of the preferred style and {{Cite journal}}, in my sandbox, and the only difference seems to be how the online version of the paper is linked. Is that so? Why does it matter so much? Or have I missed something else? Feel free to point me at past discussion, by way of an answer! Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:15, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

How does this template handle the process of creating citation templates to be used on multiple taxon pages complete with the code {{subst:reftemp}}? I still prefer the simple and quick process used here, although I know it causes cross wiki problems. Again what do we do about the numerous already created citations, including simple ones like {{WCSP}} and {{IPNI}} that are used on thousands of taxon pages? Getting to commonality will be a massive long term programme, me thinks. Andyboorman (talk) 08:21, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
I'm not familiar with {{subst:reftemp}}, but it's perfectly feasible for the citation templates to which you refer could themselves to use this template. {{WCSP}}, for example, isn't for a journal, but a book, so could use en:Template:Cite book or en:Template:Citation - individual pages using it would not need to be changed. en:Template:Cite Q already accepts individual parameters, in the same manner. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:43, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
FYI WCSP and IPNI are not books but essential and highly regarded websites with their own cite policies. Andyboorman (talk) 15:53, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
Then en:Template:Cite web instead of en:Template:Cite book - but my point stands. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:02, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
? Andyboorman (talk) 16:36, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
fixed. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:45, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
@Pigsonthewing: It is possible, that there exist several online versions of the same paper, e.g. {{Giraldo-Cañas, 2009}} or {{Saint-Hilaire, 1824}}. I would not like to select only one of these, risking that there would remain no alternative, if the link should be broken, permanently or temporarily. How would {{Cite journal}} work with templates like {{Anonymous, 1902}}? --Franz Xaver (talk) 13:27, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
The Wikipedia version, en:Template:Cite journal accounts for this, for example with a |jstor= property. The template here could easily do the same. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:40, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
PS ...and "Anonymous, 1902" can be given as an editor in citation templates. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:46, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
@Pigsonthewing: My point was not about JSTOR, but generally about the possibility of having more than one online versions – see also {{Saint-Hilaire, 1824}}. Concerning {{Anonymous, 1902}}, my concern is also, how these optional parameters could be implemented. I am not satisfied with a claim, the template could do it, but would like to see an example, how it has been done. --Franz Xaver (talk) 17:06, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
I gave an example, above: "en:Template:Cite Q already accepts individual parameters". Likewise, the JSTOR property I mentioned was given as an example. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:33, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Citation templates matched to Wikidata: statistics, please?[edit]

The citation template Template:Mansion & Struwe, 2004 is matched to Wikidata's Q32824199 (I know, because I just created the later item and made the match).

A small random sample that I just took found several templates here not matched to Wikidata. Does anyone have any statistics, please, on what proportion of such templates are matched to an item in Wikidata; how many have a Wikidata item that is not yet matched; and how many do not yet have representation on Wikidata? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:33, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

I doubt anyone would have stats on that Andy, all I could say is that I suspect most will not have a wikidata item, those that do are unlikely linked. Even among my own papers I think only 3-4 of them have wikidata items. That means about 5%. But that is just using me as an example. My own papers that do have a wikidata item are not linked. There is a long way to go on this if you want to have this feature. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 18:50, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Or on how many works we cite in total; and how many have DOIs? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:52, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Example of mine with no current link Q20857562 and Template:Thomson_et_al.,_2015. Total citations would be enormous,many thousands. I do not know. I suspect less than half have a DOI as in taxonomy many are from older discontinued works that have no DOI. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 18:56, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
Case in point: virtually every single Zootaxa paper has a template (probably a lot of Phytotaxa too). That alone makes for a huge amount. Circeus (talk) 07:15, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Template Tysp[edit]

Something has happened during the last days to {{Tysp}}, which is used in hundreds of taxon pages. At the moment it does not show the words "Type species", nor any of its translations. I suppose this is the consequence of one of these edits by User:AlvaroMolina: [4] or [5]. Who is able to fix this? --Franz Xaver (talk) 20:29, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

This concerns also other templates, such as {{Lectyp}}, {{Moty}}, {{TG}}, {{TSL}}, {{TSN}}, {{Type}}, apparently all with a title subpage. --RLJ (talk) 21:21, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
The problem seems to be solved now. It's mysterious anyway. --Franz Xaver (talk) 19:04, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
@Andyboorman:, @Franz Xaver:,@RLJ: ....thank you for your actings. Orchi (talk) 15:44, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Strategy discussion, cycle 3. Let's discuss about a new challenge[edit]

Hi! It's the second week of our Cycle 3 discussion, and there's a new challenge: How could we capture the sum of all knowledge when much of it cannot be verified in traditional ways? You can suggest solutions here. You can also read a summary of discussions that took place in the past week. SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 15:40, 11 July 2017 (UTC)


The owner of ZipcodeZoo is interested in talking with someone about donating the contents of that site to wikispecies. (ticket:2017050610007861 for OTRS agents)

From the site: ZipcodeZoo is a free, online natural history encyclopedia. ZipcodeZoo has a page for every living species, supplementing text with video, sound, and images where available. The site's 6.1 million pages include over 1.2 million photographs, 52,000 videos, 223,000 sound clips, and a 3.9 million maps describing 4.7 million species and infraspecies.

Is there someone this person could talk to?--Sphilbrick (talk) 15:37, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

@Sphilbrick: Thank you. It sounds as though much of that material would belong on Commons (though it could be used here, of course, and on other projects). Are we sure that they have the rights to donate all the media under an open licence? I'd be happy to have an initial conversation with your contact, though it may be better in the long term for them to deal with someone geographically local - where are they based? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:07, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
@Sphilbrick: Update The image on is taken from where it has a CC by-nc-sa 2.0 licence; so obviously, and unfortunately, we can't use it.
Just making sure I have your permission to share your email address with the person who contacted us. It is, of course, troubling to see the nonconforming license on one of the images. If they compile this site by scraping images from Internet sources such as Flickr and not paid attention to proper permissions than this may be a nonstarter. On the other hand, if we get lucky the person who contributed that photo to Flickr is also the person who contributed to the ZipCodezoo site and may be willing to provide a workable license.
It would be a violation of confidentiality for me to tell you where they are but they are not local. Perhaps you'd be willing to start and when they share with you where they are located we can find out if there's anybody in the area who can help.Sphilbrick (talk) 17:31, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
@Sphilbrick: The permission is almost certainly valid for their site. By all means do put them in touch with me - do you have my email address? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:23, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
I think I have your address. I'll write to that person and copy you.--Sphilbrick (talk) 19:47, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
Email sent.--Sphilbrick (talk) 20:16, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
@Sphilbrick: Received, thank you. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:34, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
@Sphilbrick, Pigsonthewing: - Commons already has a lot of Francesco Veronesi's photos (though not this one); it may be that he used to have it under a Commons-compliant licence at the time ZcZ picked it up, but then later changed it to a non-compliant licence. I guess individual cases would need to be checked, unfortunately, as we can't retroactively tag them with an old licence if we don't have cast-iron proof for each pic. But if ZcZ recorded harvesting it with a compliant licence, then that remains valid. - MPF (talk) 20:24, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
Possibly so, but without a statement to that effect from the copyright owner, we can't use it. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:34, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
@Sphilbrick: - the other point worth making: I've not looked at ZcZ for quite a long time, but I do know in the past, they had a lot of their data harvested from ITIS, which was then (and a.f.a.i.k. still is) not a very reliable source, with outdated taxonomy and a lot of inaccurate data - MPF (talk) 20:37, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
@MPF: Thanks for that information. Obviously that means, that we can't simply import information but will have to take some care to curate it.--Sphilbrick (talk) 22:12, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
I concur with @MPF:, as in the past they have tended to just harvest names without checking synonymy or current acceptance. Andyboorman (talk) 16:47, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Noping templates[edit]

I've just imported {{Noping}} and {{Noping2}}. These allow editors to be named, for example, in talk-page newsletters and on list pages, without irritating them with unnecessary pings. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:29, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Protection and Block Indicators[edit]

Hello, I'm a bit new to this space. I've just adapted two gadgets in the Portuguese and Swedish Wikipedia. These are topicon and blockindicator, respectively. The first gadget generates an image of a padlock on the part of the article title, indicating the protection status of that article. This gadget is also used on Wikidata (see); in English Wikipedia, templates are used (like this), however, with this gadget the software itself creates the icon without having to insert a template in the article code. To prove it, you can add importScript('User:Jarould/Topicon.js'); in your JS personal page and you can observe a padlock on protected articles such as Archaea (a gray padlock for edit semi-protection) or this page the Village Pump (a green padlock for move full-protection). The second gadget (blockindicator) shows a prohibition symbol on blocked and/or banned user pages. It has a similar function as above, and is translated into a few languages.

If they like these gadgets, they could be moved to the MediaWiki namespace, or you could add them to your JS personal page. Thanks! Jarould  ¿Diga?  05:19, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Update of "category:XXX taxa"[edit]

Hello, I tried to use "category:XXXX taxa" in an authors page, but it does not update completely. Is there a way to improve this by changing the content in the author page or in the species page?

Scabba (talk) 01:12, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

This problem has happened before. It comes and goes when it feels like it. You might want to make sure all is formatted properly, just to make sure. Neferkheperre (talk) 12:00, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
Many thanks for this hint. I will check the formatting. Scabba (talk) 20:34, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Strategy discussion, cycle 3. A new challenge[edit]

Hi! It's the third week of our Cycle 3 discussion, and there's a new challenge: As Wikimedia looks toward 2030, how can we counteract the increasing levels of misinformation? You can suggest solutions here. Earlier challenges can be discussed as well. SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 12:19, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Pro-tip about the mailing list[edit]

I'm the admin of Wikinews-l and I have rights for Wikispecies-l as well. The former gets between 700 and 2,000 spam messages a day and the latter doesn't. Please don't publish the email address for Wikispecies-l or else spambots will get a hold of it and start inundating the list. —Justin (koavf)TCM 02:38, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Strategy discussion, cycle 3. Challenge 4[edit]

Hi! The movement strategy discussion is still underway, and there are four challenges that you may discuss:

  1. How do our communities and content stay relevant in a changing world?
  2. How could we capture the sum of all knowledge when much of it cannot be verified in traditional ways?
  3. As Wikimedia looks toward 2030, how can we counteract the increasing levels of misinformation?
  4. and the newest one: How does Wikimedia continue to be as useful as possible to the world as the creation, presentation, and distribution of knowledge change?

The last, fifth challenge will be released on July, 25.

If you want to know what other communities think about the challenges, there's the latest weekly summary (July 10 to 16), and there's the previous one (July 1 to 9).

SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 14:16, 20 July 2017 (UTC)