Shortcuts: WS:V, WS:VP

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.

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

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

Village pump in other languages:

Post a comment
if you use the title box, you don't need to put a title in the body
1 (2004-09-21/2005-01-05) 2 (2005-01-05/2005-08-23)
3 (2005-08-24/2005-12-31) 4 (2006-01-01/2005-05-31)
5 (2006-06-01/2006-12-16) 6 (2006-12-17/2006-12-31)
7 (2007-01-01/2007-02-28) 8 (2007-03-01/2007-04-30)
9 (2007-05-01/2007-08-31) 10 (2007-09-01/2007-10-31)
11 (2007-11-01/2007-12-31) 12 (2008-01-01/2008-02-28)
13 (2008-03-01/2008-04-28) 14 (2008-04-29/2008-06-30)
15 (2008-07-01/2008-09-30) 16 (2008-10-01/2008-12-25)
17 (2008-12-26/2009-02-28) 18 (2009-03-01/2009-06-30)
19 (2009-07-01/2009-12-31) 20 (2010-01-01/2010-06-30)
21 (2010-07-01/2010-12-31) 22 (2011-01-01/2011-06-30)
23 (2011-07-01/2011-12-31) 24 (2012-01-01/2012-12-31)
25 (2013-01-01/2013-12-31) 26 (2014-01-01/2014-12-31)
27 (2015-01-01/2015-01-31) 28 (2015-02-01/2015-02-28)
29 (2015-02-28/2015-04-29) 30 (2015-04-29/2015-07-19)
31 (2015-07-19/2015-09-23) 32 (2015-09-23/2015-11-21)
33 (2015-11-21/2015-12-31) 34 (2016-01-01/2016-04-17)
35 (2016-03-22/2016-05-01) 36 (2016-05-01/2016-07-12)
37 (2016-07-13/2016-09-30) 38 (2016-10-01/2016-12-04)
39 (2016-12-04/2017-01-17) 40 (2017-01-18/2017-01-28)
41 (2017-01-29/2017-02-13) 42 (2017-02-14/2017-03-21)
43 (2017-03-20/2017-08-11) 44 (2017-08-10/2017-12-07)
45 (2017-12-08/2018/01/08) 46 (2018-01-19/…)

ZooBank having database issues?[edit]

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

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

Flycatchers in eBird[edit]

eBird has two entries;

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

Missing reference templates[edit]

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

While you're at it, we also need:

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

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

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

I have set up separate tab for Beier, with his list of publications, and Western Australian Museum website with some of his taxonomy. There are 398 papers total. One problem is that WAM's ordering of Beier's papers is not co-inciding with his official list. Bit slow, but I shall be working on it. Neferkheperre (talk) 18:36, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Found and created Stephens, 1836, but the others are tricky. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 00:30, 15 February 2018 (UTC).

Bryan Alwyn Barlow[edit]

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

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

Again concerning Bryan Alwyn Barlow[edit]

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

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

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

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

ISNI down?[edit]

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

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

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


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

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

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

Gyrophaena boops[edit]

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

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

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


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

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

I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:45, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Pages that seem ... incomplete?[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

And an update on some present statistics:

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

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

I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:45, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Main page error[edit]

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

And I have now had to do the same for Template:Especies-2018-02. How can we stop this from happening? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:42, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Shûhei Nomura[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:40, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Hibiscus - Malagasy Azanzas/ sect. Furcaria[edit]

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

@Pigsonthewing: Comments reviewed and the anonymous editor is correct. Some changes made, however, Hibiscus needs a more thorough review. If I made blanket changes to the species list it may create a few orphans or maybe not. Thoughts. Regards Andyboorman (talk) 15:42, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
This ip user seems to know the issues in this group, maybe ask them to make an account and help by advising on how it should be, ask for their sources of info and help them to fix it. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 15:44, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
Good idea. I have made such as request on the Talk Page [2]. Fingers crossed. Andyboorman (talk) 16:08, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Oxypoda (Podoxya)[edit]

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

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

I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:39, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

SpBot & archiving this page[edit]

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

Sounds good. Thanks. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 20:04, 20 January 2018 (UTC).
SpBot is great and if you wish it can also do the same archiving as MABot does with the 'timeout' parameter. However I don't think SpBot currently supports the archiving system you use on this page with numbered archives. You'll have to either switch the archival method to use some of the recognized params for SpBot (year, months, quarters, weeks, or a combination of all of them). Nothing bad. I never quite liked the Archive 1/2/3 thing, makes searching for things a little more complicated IMHO. Once SpBot is working here, please let me know if you want my bot to suspend archiving on this project. Best regards, —MarcoAurelio (☎ talk) 11:37, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Error statistics[edit]

An update on some present statistics of errors on WS:

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

Just so everyone knows, these are dynamic numbers that is to say, Dan didn't copy and paste the values as of 2018-01-20T22:43; these numbers will go up and down as we have more or less of these problems. I've taken the step to add them to everyone's watchlist so we always have visibility on this. —Justin (koavf)TCM 06:11, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
Yes sure, they are dynamic, and maybe I should work that script a little more, so any numbers below 1, simply is not exposed? Im glad you found it handy, I used that script on my user page for pretty long time, thanks for putting in on the watchlist, I hope more users will find it useful, I can see that the valid pages has been heavily reduced? Dan Koehl (talk) 11:50, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
Dan's idea of hiding results <1 is good. It's worth noting that the sum of unpatrolled edits often lags a bit behind, while the other stats are always spot-on. This because the list of unpatrolled edits is being generated by a bot which only runs twice a day, while the other statistics are fetched and served a la minute from different Wikispecies categories. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 14:52, 22 January 2018 (UTC).
This is true, but unless someone would speak against it like last time we discussed it I am sure we can have it updated more often than twice a day, What would be ideal? Dan Koehl (talk) 09:30, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

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

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

@MarcoAurelio: Can you please acknowledge? —Justin (koavf)TCM 23:59, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
[3] - you can also change the maxarchivesize/counter yourselves at any time. The bot reads the template and archives threads according to it. Regards, —MarcoAurelio (☎ talk) 10:36, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
Nice. Grazie. —Justin (koavf)TCM 07:19, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:39, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Year in Alectoris_barbara#Name[edit]

I found different sources. Any idea to clarify? Sobreira ►〓 (parlez) 13:19, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

This is a tricky question. Bonnaterre's volume on 'ornithologie' was part of the 196-volume-strong Encyclopédie Méthodique which was issued in many "livraisons". The problem is that although the 'ornithologie' volume is dated 1790, much of the text was actually added in the 1791 and 1792 livraisons, and it's very difficult to determine when Perdix Barbara text was precisely added. I suggest to write under 'Name' section: Alectoris barbara (Bonnaterre, 1790 [? 1791–1792]) Mariusm (talk) 06:38, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
For the sake of clarity, I would suggest to add your own great explanation. Sobreira ►〓 (parlez) 09:59, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:38, 3 February 2018 (UTC)


I'm not familiar with cladistics. Is the expression unrancted right? Sobreira ►〓 (parlez) 13:20, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

I would suggest the term is ""unranked"". Andyboorman (talk) 16:45, 24 January 2018 (UTC)


Draba incerta states that taxon's author to be "Payson, 1917", but new editor User:Gerald A. Mulligan has stated, on Gerald Alfred Mulligan, that that person (themself?) is the author, citing {{Mulligan, 1972a}}. Which is correct?

Similarly, Draba oligosperma is claimed, cited to the same source, but others give "Hooker, Fl. Bor.-Amer. 1: 51. 1830." Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:59, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Draba incerta is Payson, according to GBIF. Looking at Mulligan's article would indicate what is happening. Neferkheperre (talk) 14:02, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
Draba incerta is Payson, according to IPNI and also Brassibase. Draba oligosperma is Hooker by both authorities. Mulligan is a reviewer I guess not author. Under ICBN articles the earliest author is the one to be cited, as long as publication is valid. Andyboorman (talk) 14:17, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, both. The other taxa claimed look right, so I'm putting those two down to a forgivable memory lapse. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:47, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:38, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Systematic linking to sites outside Wikispecies[edit]

[ Moved from Wikispecies:Requests for Comment ]

  • Why doesn't every entry link to Wikipedia (English or other); WikiCommons (for further images); Wiktionary (English or other, from vernacular names)? Couldn't this be done semi-automagically in stages?
  • Why doesn't every entry link to the main external databases (eg, Encyclopedia or Life, ITIS, NCBI) and also to the specialized kingdom- (eg, APWeb), higher-taxon- (eg, Bug Guide) or habitat- (eg. WoRMS) -specific sites? Also the scholarly sites. Wikidata should make this also potentially semi-automagical. DCDuring (talk) 14:39, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
@DCDuring: Links to sister projects are made by adding the Wikispecies page to the corresponding item at Wikidata. Automated links to external databases, for taxon pages (we already do them for journals and taxon authors), were proposed in this recent discussion. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:41, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
To summarize the argument made at the Village Pump link: 'The perfect to be achieved at some unknown date is better than improvement now.
I imagine that we can still crowd-source content by making it easy for amateurs to compare what is reported in other various external sources, but perhaps others believe that we are past that stage due to the vast number of professional contributors that are now diligently working on adding and updating entries. DCDuring (talk) 22:40, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
One problem is accuracy of the data presented at other sites, eg EoL good luck, ITIS ok if your ok with it being out of date, etc. Wikispecies is charged with presenting and accurate and resourced nomenclature for each species. The best nomenclature is not obtained from the same places in all cases. Every entry should be checked. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 22:45, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
Where is the taxonomists' workbench to support the checking and prioritization of the work of checking? I think that Wikispecies, as a wiki, is itself the workbench.
Even out-of-date data is valuable as some older documents use older placements and circumscriptions. I'd recommend linking the the 1911 edition of the Century Dictionary as well as the current databases.
For the ranked taxa and clades that they cover AP Web, WoRMS, Mammals of the World, Bird Names, List of Prokaryote Names, and Tropicos, MycoBank are all pretty good. NCBI and Fossilworks aren't bad. EoL includes several placements and circumscriptions allowing comparison. None of these are definitive; all are useful. Narrower scope efforts (eg, Bryozoa, Lepidoptera, Algaebase, Grasses, etc) can be valuable. The whole project of taxonomy is one of emerging consensus and gradual dissemination of the consensus to databases. Even efforts like that of Ruggiero et al have their use. DCDuring (talk) 23:38, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
Yes but our references are the original circumscriptions of the names, and the most recent appropriately published reviews. Web sites such as EoL etc are not valid publications under the codes. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 01:11, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
EoL harvests from us. Taxon entries cannot be originated there. All of these other sites provide only portions of what we do here. They are useful in their own way, and contribute greatly to us. Neferkheperre (talk) 02:13, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
Nowhere did I suggest that Wikispecies not try to duplicate the work of the various other taxonomic databases. I was only advocating links to those databases to facilitate comparisons of placement and circumscription and to detect where consensus has emerged. Passive users, if there are any, might also find such links helpful. DCDuring (talk) 16:25, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Peneothello sigillata or Peneothello sigillatus?[edit]

What is the valid name and what is the synonym? Peneothello sigillatus (Wikispecies) or Peneothello sigillata (Wikimedia Commons)? --Metrónomo (talk) 01:59, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm going to make a non-prescriptive prediction: It will be found that P. sigillata is the valid name. Matthews renamed Poecilodryas sigillata as Peneothello sigillata in Birds of Australia (1921). (pene "almost" + Othello because the species is mostly black [Shakespeare's character was black.]) Othello would seem best construed as masculine, but the original gender assignment survives in most databases for all the other species and subspecies names. DCDuring (talk) 03:22, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
ICZN article 30.2.1. states the following: If a name reproduces exactly a noun having a gender in a modern European language (without having to be transliterated from a non-Latin alphabet into the Latin alphabet) it takes the gender of that noun. Because Peneothello doesn't have a a real noun with a gender in a modern European language (the Latin meaning is almost Othello) and because (Mathews, 1920) used the combination Peneothello sigillata when establishing the genus Peneothello, it follows that the correct name is feminin: Peneothello sigillata Mariusm (talk) 11:44, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
According Zoonomen, it is feminine. Petroicidae --Hector Bottai (talk) 15:03, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
So, if I understand correctly:
  1. the physical gender of a holder of a proper name in English doesn't matter, presumably because English doesn't have grammatical gender
  2. the Italian equivalent Otello, which is a proper name of a play, a character in that play, and of various persons also doesn't matter, presumably because the spelling is not exactly the same.
I'd be surprised if it is true that taxonomists have always used the same reasoning in similar cases. To me the only thing that we can rely on is that the taxonomic community has simply followed Matthews, who simply transferred the specific epithet without modification from the feminine genus Poecilodryas. DCDuring (talk) 15:32, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
I have similar thoughts on this matter. (1) The plays of Shakespeare certainly are part of the text corpus of a modern European language, i.e. English. (2) A personal name would be a noun, as the word noun seems to be derived from the Latin word nomen - see [4]. (3) The article cited by Mariusm does not restrict the term gender either to the grammatical gender or to the physical gender. Anyway, English at least has female, male and neutral personal pronouns. However, I don't know, how ICZN does apply this rule to composite words. That means, if Othello is male, would Peneothello also be male? --Franz Xaver (talk) 09:46, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
@Franz Xaver: Shakespeare intended Othello to be an African Moorish name (in the play he was a Moorish prince living in Venice, as an ambassador of the Moors) and not an English name. The name-source is actually from Hebrew: (אות = Ot = Sign) + (אלו = elo = his God) and the name means "The sign of his God" in Hebrew. I suppose than you can't claim that Othello is an English name or noun. Mariusm (talk) 10:55, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
@Mariusm: I did not claim, this would be an English name (or noun), but it would be a noun having a gender in a modern European language. The article from ICZN does not tell, that this noun (or name) must be heavily used in that language, but only, that it must have a gender in that language. Isn't it? --Franz Xaver (talk) 12:08, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
@Franz Xaver: But the implication of your "have a gender in that language" is that every foreign name ever used as a person-name in literature in an European language falls into your criterion. I can't believe it was the intention of the phrase "a noun having a gender in a modern European language" especially when adding "without having to be transliterated from a non-Latin alphabet". Mariusm (talk) 13:22, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
@Mariusm: If it was not their intention, they better should have chosen a different wording. Anyway, why would there be any problem? At the end, some rules leave open different possibilities, how this can be interpreted. Maybe, it will be necessary to bring this to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature? --Franz Xaver (talk) 14:23, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
@Franz Xaver: Very well. But what about the other variable in this equation, namely that the original genus-name-author mentioned the species (which he recast to be a Combinatio nova) in his original article by the feminine name combination. To override this mention we have to bring up a robust justification, which is unattainable here. Mariusm (talk) 16:50, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
If this combination was a plant I would recommend taking a sounding at IPNI along with your reasoning - see this discussion on my Talk Page. Andyboorman (talk) 19:08, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Lesquerella (Plantae)[edit]

Advice on 'house style', please (feel free to point me to any documentation, or examples, I have failed to find).

I created Lesquerella (Plantae) and marked it as deprecated, with some bold text. Is there a better way (a template, perhaps?) to do so?

How should we represent the four species in that defunct genus, as listed on that page and on Gerald Alfred Mulligan? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:45, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

I would use the template {{invalid}} to produce this:
  • Status:   invalid   [syn. of Physaria (Brassicaceae)] Mariusm (talk) 16:25, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
Why create the page in the first place? It is assumed that taxon pages are generally reserved for accepted taxa, particularly where there is no controversy. In this case Lesquerella S.Watson (1888) will appear on the Physaria page and perhaps Paysonia pro parte, as a heterotropic synonym assuming the synonymy is accepted by BrassiBase, for example, which it is. Each of the species in your list will then appear on the equivalent Physaria species page, as a homotypic synonym. If we have a separate taxon page for every synonym then WS would be ridiculously unmanageable, in my opinion. By the way the consensus here tends to use the family name not ICBN, ICN or Plantae..... for a disambiguation. All the work has been done for the genus Physaria, just do the work at a species level and job done. Mulligan will get his credit on those pages. Andyboorman (talk) 17:02, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
Totally agree with @Andyboorman:, a simple redirection solves that taxon. By the way, and I am not sure this is the case, I see a very poor use of the Category:Obsolete taxa, which I have been populating with obsolete bird genera synonyms.--Hector Bottai (talk) 17:13, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
I also wonder at the nessecity, and what you mean by it being depreciated, I assume synonymised?? But one question you have 4 species in this genus listed and are redlinks, I assume these have also now been recombined? If so can these be redirected to the appropriate species pages. Though maybe it would be simpler to just have it all as a simple redirect at genus level. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 20:24, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
I don't share the reluctance stated above of creating invalid taxon pages. They can include very useful information which will be absent or lacking otherwise. There are the categories "Category:Invalid genus", "Category:Invalid species name" which in conjunction with {{invalid}} can appropriately indicate the taxon's status. Mariusm (talk) 05:25, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
just do not use that term on zoological pages, under ICZN invalid has a very different meaning to botany. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 06:50, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
Please do not use the term "invalid" on plant pages, if the name is "considered a synonym" or "currently not accepted". In botanical nomenclature, invalid means that the name was not validly published (in the sense of the Code). But Lesquerella is validly published. It is correctly redirected to the currently accepted taxon. The author category can be added on the lower part of the redirect page. For better visibility, the references should be copied to the accepted taxon, like it was done already. --Thiotrix (talk) 08:19, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
In accordance with current practice in many similar cases, I plead for reducing the article Lesquerella (Brassicaceae) to the redirect to Physaria and to the category. In the current state, the content is outdated, incomplete and faulty, and there is no information which has not been integrated in the currently accepted Physaria. For the sake of housekeeping I plead for deleting Lesquerella (Plantae), an unconventional, superfluous lemma. --RLJ (talk) 14:43, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
You have already edit-warred after I declined your speedy-deletion request of Lesquerella (Plantae); there is absolutely no reason to delete such a harmless redirect, especially as it is in use on this discussion page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:47, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
It is a redirect to the current name so I see no issue there, should the content of the page be commented out at least though as is usual with redirects? Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 18:08, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Eponyms / Patronyms[edit]

I would like to propose that we standardize to use the gender neutral word "Eponyms" instead of "Patronyms" on author pages (example). (Additionally, eponyms is not yet included in the Wikispecies:Localization table. As I did not find the localization team at Wikispecies:Projects, I'm asking here for translations). --Thiotrix (talk) 09:07, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Birth/death dates and multilingualism[edit]

We have many birth or death dates given in full (e.g. Achille Guénée, "January 1, 1809 – December 30, 1880"; see also dates including January, February).

These dates are obviously in English.

It is my understanding that we should use years only ("1809–1880"). Is that correct? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:41, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Better would be ISO dates: (1809-01-01/1880-12-30) or 1809-01-01 – 1880-12-30). —Justin (koavf)TCM 02:23, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
If we do want to show full dates, then that is certainly the most accessible form, in a multi-lingual sense. However, as I said, my understanding is that we should only show years (see Carolus Linnaeus, for example) and I'm seeking clarity on that point. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:38, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
Not allowing days means we will not be able to have, say, "entomologists of the day" on the anniversary of their birthdays or mourn them on the anniversary of their deaths. Just saying. DCDuring (talk) 04:45, 16 February 2018 (UTC)


Would a mammalogist care to check the format of recent edits to Cetartiodactyla, please? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:12, 2 February 2018 (UTC)


The WMF are running an awareness campaign, asking people to upload pictures of pigeons (feral, wild and captive) to Wikimedia Commons. They're being asked to add them to commons:Category:Unidentified pigeon breeds if they are not sure of they breed/ species. If any of you are Columbiphiles, please help to identify and re-classify the pics. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:03, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Translating templates[edit]

Hello everyone,

I changed the template Userpage to switch hid code to modern CSS3 by using Flexbox for mobile responsive. My modifications are now marked for translation but I am not sure about the template good working.

In my user page (in french), the template is written in English instead of French. Do everyone know what is this template's problem ?

Cordially. --Niridya (talk) 15:34, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Accepted species name[edit]

I see pages with accepted species name that are not accepted species name. See Protaetia mariae. The accepted species name is Protaetia (Euprotaetia) mariae see [5]. For me you give people false information. PeterR (talk) 08:19, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

@PeterR:, would you think that inserting the template {{Validity disputed}} would be relevant in this case? Dan Koehl (talk) 11:25, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
does not seem to be disputed, it needs a page inserted for subgenus. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 13:18, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
I have ask Naturalis for an explanation. They answer via Yury Roskov Catalogue of Life Executive Editor: Subgenus Aganhyboma is accepted in the Tree (, but not displayed in the binomen on Species Details page.
Both forms of names Deltochilum (Aganhyboma) alpercata and Deltochilum alpercata are validly accepted names. Depending on needs of your project you may decide to use binomen with interpolated subgenus name (as described in ICZN Article 6.1) or without it.
Only by author taxa you described the original combination. In this case Protaetia (Euprotaetia) mariae. This is the text on the labels and published species name. PeterR (talk) 09:19, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
FACT: Subgenera are an optional part of a scientific name, as per the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature. Both Protaetia mariae and Protaetia (Euprotaetia) mariae are equally "accepted species names" ... WSBiography (talk) 22:42, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
actually its not that simple. subgenera, subspecies etc are optional in general usage, however, in a nomenclatural work ie when one presents the nomenclature of an organism it is necessary to put in the entire name. We here at Wikispecies need to present the whole name. If a subgenus has been proposed we should present it. However, subgenera are not part of the binomen. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 00:18, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
No, the Code applies to all contexts of usage, not just "general usage". Of course subgenera are not part of the binomen, or else it would be a trinomen! At any rate, my point was to try to counter the incorrect assertion by PeterR that Protaetia mariae is not an/the accepted species name ... WSBiography (talk) 22:43, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Higher orders Reptilia[edit]

Hi everyone, we need to fix the higher orders of the reptilia. The current arrangement is not hierarchical, and hence not correct. For example testudines belong to archosauria, not procolophonia etc. I have asked a collegue for the latest accepted hierarchy and will make these corrections. This will impact all reptilia though so a heads up here. Hopefully, and I will check this first, it can be done by tweaking existing existing templates, being higher orders, so should not create any orphans. Cheers, Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 13:09, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

ok have fixed the turtles into Amniota --> Reptilia--> Diapsida--> Archelosauria--> Pan-Testudines--> Testudinata--> Testudines. Need to check for orphans and sort the rest of the reptilia, including the fossils appropriately. Follows Joyce et al. 2004, which is followed by bulk of reptilia phylogenetics these days. Chees Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 18:25, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

List of virus species[edit]

I have just become aware of List of virus species. Manual updates are a very inefficient way to keep such a list, and it will inevitably become incomplete, or fall out-of-date.

There are two better ways to do this. One would be to use a category - in which case we would need a bot to apply the category to every page currently in that list.

The other is to have a bot maintain the list from Wikidata, with (say) daily updates, as we do for ISSN.

Or indeed, we could do both - but that seems rather redundant. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:38, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

It is indeed a very inefficient way of maintaining huge lists – in this particular case perhaps even impossible. I vote for maintaining it from Wikidata instead. That's both fast and efficient, and on top of that I suspect we will eventually end up using Wikidata for these matters anyway, so why make a detour via categories..? –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 23:18, 14 February 2018 (UTC).
Wikidata is surely a better answer but I would like to lay the groundwork for when this list inevitably becomes far too long. How will we split it? —Justin (koavf)TCM 09:00, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
Note: In order to make way for a new structure, the page has been moved to List after ICTV 2016. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 11:38, 15 February 2018 (UTC).

Now done and populated, with 3,580 items. The query requires the Wikidata item to be an instance of a taxon, with an "ICTV virus genome composition" property value. Are there any other parameters that should be included in the table? I'll check on the paging issue. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:23, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Looks good. As a bonus the list now also makes it a lot easier to populate the equivalent Wikidata Q-items with proper descriptions, where missing. Thanks! –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 14:43, 15 February 2018 (UTC).
Heading "Virus" should be changed to "Wikidata item" (or something similar). "Label" should be changed to "Species". Might be good to add the parent taxon from Wikidata (with heading "Genus"). Plantdrew (talk) 16:44, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
Col. 1 heading changed to "QID", col 2. to "Name". I've added the parent taxon, named as such. At the moment the latter uses the label value, I'll change that soon to the "taxon name" value. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:02, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
Now done. I've set it to show both the label and the taxon name, and the parent taxon's label and its taxon name. This apparent duplication should make it easier to spot discrepancies. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:54, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

C.J.H. Bierman[edit]

Who can help me with the full names from C.J.H. Bierman. He published: Homoptera aus Semarang (Java) gesammelt von Herrn Edw. Jacobson. PeterR (talk) 15:29, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Link for that publication:


-- Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:40, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Google finds some results for "C. J. H. Bierman, Prof. Ritzema Bosweg 28, Wageningen." (Wageningen being a University town); one which has the entry "C. J. H. Bierman, Ketelstraat 9, te Arnhem. — Rhynchota Homoptera. (1904—1905)." this page offers a scan of something related to a marriage, but it's paywalled. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:47, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

A list of taxon names mentioned in Homopteren aus Niederländisch Ost-Indien can be found here. Perhaps searching for some of the taxon names might help shed light on the given name behind the "C.J.H." initials? –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 00:07, 16 February 2018 (UTC).

Wikispecies:Project Tech Ambassadors[edit]

I started a new project on Wikispecies, Wikispecies:Project Tech Ambassadors, which is a new Wikimedia project (on meta:tech ambassador), to gather technically-minded volunteers who help other Wikimedians with technical issues, and act as a bridge between developers and local Wikimedia wikis. One goal of the ambassadors network is to make sure that users are notified of technical discussions and possible changes that impact them. The other goal is for users to get involved as peers in the development process, so that they can inform and guide software development, not just provide feedback after it's done. Please join as Tech Ambassador if you are interested. Dan Koehl (talk) 03:33, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Here is the latest Tech newsletter. Dan Koehl (talk) 03:40, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[edit]

Moved here after being deleted from the admin noticeboard. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 00:10, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

This page begins with "This space is for anyone who needs to contact an administrator ("sysop")..." I cannot find any other way to contact administrators of this site. My apologies if this is not the correct location to do so. 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.

ZipcodeZoo draws on the Catalogue of Life for its basic species list, Wikipedia and WIkispecies for some of its content, the Global Biodiversity Information Facility for its maps, Flickr and the Wikimedia Commons for many of its photos, YouTube for videos, the Taxonomicon for taxonomic information, and Xeno-canto for some of its sound recordings. All pages are published under one of the Creative Commons licenses.

I began creating in 2004, and have thousands of hours invested in its development. Much of this time was spent in developing tools that could competently harvest other trustworthy public sources of species information, integrate that information, and display all pages with a standard look and feel.

MediaWiki is now the engine behind page delivery for the website.

I've posted over 40,700 of my wildlife photos to (see here), and now want to act to preserve the intellectual content of ZipcodeZoo's pages by providing it to Wikispecies.

The addition of the content to Wikispecies would be a big change. Consider the difference between the descriptions of Zenaida macroura on and on Wikispecies.

I can create the code that would create Wikispecies pages that do not exist, as well as to edit existing Wikispecies pages to incorporate the additional information. But I have some questions:

  1. The volume of edits that my bot would do will be great, and human editors will be overwhelmed for some time.
  2. Some number of MediaWiki templates are used in which are not installed in the Wikispecies system. Consider this text from for Zenaida macroura:

"The mourning dove is a medium-sized, slender dove approximately 31 cm (12 in) in length. Mourning doves weigh 112–170 g (4.0–6.0 oz), usually closer to 128 g (4.5 oz).[1] The elliptical wings are broad, and the head is rounded. Its tail is long and tapered ("macroura" comes from the Greek words for "large" and "tail"[2]). Mourning doves have perching feet, with three toes forward and one reversed. The legs are short and reddish colored. The beak is short and dark, usually a brown-black hue.[3]

The plumage is generally light ..."

My proposal is that

  • I would write the code that would transfer content from to Wikispecies;
  • All uploaded material will be available under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike License.
  • Prior to uploading, my code would remove all references to photographs other than those now at Wikimedia Commons.
  • No existing content in Wikispecies would be replaced. If Wikispecies had information on "Identification" for a species, my code would not overwrite that section.

Before I begin, I need to get some feedback on this proposal from those who've worked so hard on Wikispecies. I don't want to flood the site with species SPAM, and don't want to invest a month in coding a bot that won't be used. - David Stang (240) 477-8817. David Stang (talk) 13:31, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

@David Stang: Thank you, but I think you fundamentally misunderstand what Wikispecies is; we do not write prose in English about species (or other taxons). What you suggest seems more akin to Wikipedia content. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 00:13, 17 February 2018 (UTC)


  1. Miller, Wilmer J. 1969-01-16. The biology and Natural History of the Mourning Dove.'s%20WebPage/mourning__doves.htm. Retrieved 2008-04-14. "Mourning doves weigh 4–6 ounces, usually close to the lesser weight.". 
  2. Borror, D.J. 1960. Dictionary of Word Roots and Combining Forms. Palo Alto: National Press Books. ISBN 0-87484-053-8. 
  3. National Geographic

Josefa Celsa Señaris[edit]

Seems Josefa Celsa Señaris is referred in two different ways, on Dryaderces as Josefa Celsa Señaris and at J. Celsa Senaris in a different way. Dan Koehl (talk) 00:11, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

About creating a shortcut Policy/Help page (proposal)[edit]

Hello. I think we need a shortcut policy or a "help" page. Some of our sister projects [Source page: d:Q620197] (such as in multiple Wikipedias, Wiktionary, Wikivoyage, Wikisource, Wikidata, Wikiversity, Wikiquote, Wikinews, c:Commons:Shortcuts, etc) have a page talking about shortcuts (and those wikis use shortcuts).

Wikispecies is also using shortcuts (see for example Template:Shortcut) and this template is used with shortcuts, for example, WS:ADMIN, WS:CRAT, WS:AWB/T, etc. The template has a broken link ("Shortcut") and it has a name of an item of Wikidata. Perhaps it can be replaced with the new policy/help page I propose, and I think this proposal can be useful about using shortcuts. The proposed policy or help page could be linked with the Wikidata item.

I ask the community if you're agree with this proposal or not with a specified reason. Also, you can give your opinion about the namespace (Wikispecies: or Help:), which will be appropriate. But if my proposal is needed or not to be moved to this page, tell me about that. Thank you all. --Stïnger (会話) 01:49, 18 February 2018 (UTC).

@Stïnger:, I suppose you refer to that Help:Contents needs to be developed? I think this is a good idea, anything that makes it easier for newcomers to find their way here, will hopefully increase the number of users, which is important for WS. Dan Koehl (talk) 03:01, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
Yep, looks like ok to me. The help page is refered about contents, so I have another idea: we have another content (the shortcut) and could be created a section that talks about this; and after that, replacing the broken link in the template with the existent link should solve the problem. --Stïnger (会話) 03:17, 18 February 2018 (UTC).
Note: if we add the information about shortcuts, I will mark the new version for a translation :-) --Stïnger (会話) 03:43, 18 February 2018 (UTC).