Wikispecies:Village Pump

From Wikispecies
Jump to: navigation, search

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

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

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

Glyptostrobus europaeus author(s)[edit]

Dear botanists (which I'm not), please add your views to the discussion at Talk: Glyptostrobus europaeus. Thank you. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 09:40, 24 July 2017 (UTC).

New PD images of insects - superb quality[edit]

Long-horned bee, female (Apidae, Svastra petulca (Cresson))

The 'Insects Unlocked' project at the University of Texas at Austin are making superb, high res images of insects, like the one above, available in the public domain - almost a thousand, so far. I'm uploading them to Wikimedia commons, in Commons:Category:Photographs by Insects Unlocked.

Please help, by adding categories on Commons, attaching them to Wikidata items, and then using them in this project, by applying the {{Image}} template to relevant pages. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:18, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Great initiative by the UT Austin. Thanks for the heads up, Andy – I'll start helping out tomorrow. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 09:18, 25 July 2017 (UTC).
Missed this one before. Yep, good pics, but I'd still rather see a photo of a species alive in its natural habitat, than a dead museum specimen. Yes, use them where such doesn't exist (as I'd guess will often apply), but don't automatically use them to displace existing pics of live specimens in nature. - MPF (talk) 08:17, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Iris Sheila Collenette[edit]

Does anyone have citation to support the reported death of Iris Sheila Collenette, please? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:08, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Her death was announced here: [1], [2]. The IPNI page has been updated. Korg (talk) 15:11, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Adding the taxon as category to each page?[edit]

Hello, all. Maybe this is a very basic question. Is there a possibility to find each taxon in a category, e.g. I added in Strigidae the category "category:Familia" as an example. It would be quite a lot of work to do so, but it would mean to find ALL families at one place. Scabba (talk) 21:56, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

@Scabba: Having hierarchical navigation in categories displayed like at OrthodoxWiki (see e.g. the bottom of is one of my long-term goals here at Wikispecies. I have not made any traction on it, tho. —Justin (koavf)TCM 22:09, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
@Koavf: How would such a navigation look like as example for these nested categoried, as you have aimed it? Scabba (talk) 22:25, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
@Scabba: I would like it if there were a hierarchy of linked categories at the bottom of the page reading "Vita → Domain → Kingdom → Phylyum → Class → Order → Family → Genus → Species" or whatever equivalent exists for a given organism or collection of organisms. —Justin (koavf)TCM 22:33, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
@Koavf: Just to understand it better, how would this be different from the taxonavigation at the top of a page?Scabba (talk) 22:38, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
@Scabba: They would have the same hierarchy but the top would lead to entries and the bottom would lead to categories. —Justin (koavf)TCM 23:39, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
@Koavf: So the the category "Strigidae" would lead down to the 3 subfamilies (this would make it not nexessary to order it manually in alphabetical order... right? — The preceding unsigned comment was added by Scabba (talkcontribs).
@Scabba: No, it would only lead up. So Strigidae would have the following at the bottom of the page: "Category:VitaCategory:EukaryotaCategory:AnimaliaCategory:EumetazoaCategory:BilateriaCategory:NephrozoaCategory:DeuterostomiaCategory:ChordataCategory:AvesCategory:SaurornithesCategory:OrnithothoracesCategory:OrnithuraeCategory:CarinataeCategory:NeornithesCategory:NeognathaeCategory:Strigiformes". —Justin (koavf)TCM 05:41, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
@Scabba: and @Koavf: given this data is replicated at the top of the taxon page in the classification tree, what actually is the point of these categories? It just seems to add unnecessary clutter. Andyboorman (talk) 16:57, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
@Andyboorman: It's just another way to view the data and could be especially useful for seeing a tree--it's easier to visualize in categories. —Justin (koavf)TCM 18:21, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
@Koavf: could you hide the clutter under a single "View Category Tree"? I am concerned that WS is really a simple easy to edit design about taxonomic and classification. Of course there are a few additional, but relevant features, such as images, location and VN. However, there seems to be a move to category creep, much of which gives editors a non-taxonomic task but not much added value. Just my opinion, mind. Andyboorman (talk) 18:44, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
@Andyboorman: The initial idea was to include only the taxon type itself as a category in order to identify each taxon. This would also enable a count of the number of species, of genera, families etc. At least, the number of species would be very important. Scabba (talk) 01:37, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
@Scabba: Simple and useful is something I can live with, but an endless list of taxon categories at the bottom of the page replicating the classification structure at the top of the page could be off putting to a user, I feel. Andyboorman (talk) 08:52, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
Why are some people doing so difficult? If they want help species.wikipedia they have to do it on the way all others. If they don't agree with it they can do a proposal or leave species.wikipedia. PeterR (talk) 09:17, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
Absolutely non sense to add the tree at the botom of the page. Maximum we can accept is one category, for example: Family of Aves or Genera of Mammals and so on.--Hector Bottai (talk) 14:25, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
I have to agree to me this seems to be a redundancy and not useful, possibly even a detraction. However, if some want this done it needs to be proposed and then discussed with a community input and decision. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 15:05, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
Please also see the thread "Calculation of species per taxon" on Andy Boorman's talk page. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 06:28, 1 August 2017 (UTC).
So I see, the tree is off from this topic, and still there is the minimum possibility to add only one category of the taxon itself like for the familiy "Strigidae" the category "Category:Familia". By this we would populate all taxons as categories with their members. E.g. we would know by how many species we have now :) Scabba (talk) 19:40, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

DOI template[edit]

As it stands, the DOI template does two distinct things: (1) it creates a useful link to content via the DOI identifier; and (2) it displays the DOI identifier. I suggest that (2) is not useful, but rather just adds unnecessary clutter and complexity. I therefore propose that we modify the DOI template (or create a new one) which simply displays the useful link in the form DOI, rather than as doi10.7931/J2/FNZ.73 (i.e. the link is the same, but it displays differently). What do others think? ... Allspecies (talk) 21:57, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Good idea. That's also how most of the other external link templates works, for instance the {{BHL}} template. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 22:52, 26 July 2017 (UTC).
I agree too. Good idea. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 23:08, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
As the current DOI template is is used on numerous reference templates it makes much more sense to modify it rather than creating a new one. How easy will this be? If this proves to be impossible then I guess we will have to live with an historic error once again. Andyboorman (talk) 16:52, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 13:06, 31 July 2017 (UTC).

@Tommy Kronkvist: Maybe this move has come too early. I just came across a case, where the DOI identifier would be useful: see here under Ortiz & Croat (2017). Regards --Franz Xaver (talk) 11:32, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
@Franz Xaver: For those so far rather few cases I've created the alternate {{DOI-ID}} template, which will show the DOI including the identifier. Using the above example: {{DOI-ID|10.7931/J2/FNZ.73}}Template:DOI-ID The help files for both templates include information about the other template, and their differences. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk)‚ 12:23, 1 August 2017 (UTC).
Thanks!!! --Franz Xaver (talk) 16:03, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Error LUA[edit]

In Charles Robert Darwin. Parece un error de este módulo aunque no sé que puede ser. --Jcfidy 22:38, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

@Jcfidy: No veo ningún error de LUA en la página que indicas. —Alvaro Molina ( - ) 23:51, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
@AlvaroMolina: pues no, ahora ya no aparece el error pero antes en vez de aparecer la plantilla {{Authority control}} apareciía un link rojo que abría un cuadro de texto mostrando el error y un enlace para editar ese módulo. No sé si alguien lo ha arreglado o fue un error puentual. Gracias de todas formas --Jcfidy 00:04, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
@AlvaroMolina: al parecer es un error conocido en en Phabricator. --Jcfidy 15:23, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Strategy discussion, cycle 3. Challenge 5[edit]

Hand 3.svg

There are only three days left (plus today) to take part in Cycle 3 of the Wikimedia strategy discussion. Insights to the last challenge our movement is facing has just been published. The challenge is: How does Wikimedia meet our current and future readers’ needs as the world undergoes significant population shifts in the next 15 years?

The previous challenges are:

  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. How does Wikimedia continue to be as useful as possible to the world as the creation, presentation, and distribution of knowledge change?

On this page, you may read more, and suggest solutions to the challenges. Also, if you're interested in related discussions that are taking place on other wikis, please have a look at the weekly summaries: #1 (July 1 to 9), #2 (July 10 to 16), #3 (July 17 to 23).

In August, a broad consultation will take place, but it'll differ from what we've been conducting since March. This is your last chance to take part in such a discussion! SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 17:43, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Interpolated subgeneric names in species page names[edit]

I notice that quite a few species in the Genus Etheostoma have the subgenus included in the page name, e.g. Etheostoma (Doration) stigmaeum. This seems wrong, since the subgeneric name isn't part of the binomen, just additional information. It would also make things messier when species get assigned to different subgenera.

Is this a mistake by one contributor that no one has gotten around to fixing, or is it supposed to be that way?

I would note that there's a page for Etheostoma stigmaeum that User:Haps converted to a redirect when they created the Etheostoma (Doration) stigmaeum page. Shouldn't it be the other way around, with Etheostoma (Doration) stigmaeum a redirect to Etheostoma stigmaeum? Chuck Entz (talk) 21:56, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

When species.wikipedia started it was all like Etheostoma (Doration) stigmaeum. So the old species like Etheostoma stigmaeum where transferred to Etheostoma (Doration) stigmaeum. To day fauna europaea works with subgenera (about 120 entomologists). It is not clear which additing is the best.
We work with sgsps see Carpelimus curvus. — The preceding unsigned comment was added by PeterR (talkcontribs) 11:05, 4 August 2017.
The distinction I'm getting at is between showing/linking to subgenera in the content of the species pages and embedding the subgeneric membership in the very name of the species entry. In Linnaean taxonomy, the most basic unit is the binomen- genus and species. The binomen can be extended at the end with names of infraspecific taxa, but the subgeneric name isn't part of it, any more than the name of the tribe/tribus or subfamily/subfamilia. All of those are parts of the classification of the species, but not the name itself. It's true that the ICZN, at least, specifies the format for displaying the subgeneric name within the binomen, but it says that it must be in parentheses, and it explicitly states that it's not part of the binomen. The real clincher is that you can't, AFAIK, have the same specific epithet in two different subgenera of a genus without one superseding the other- so the subgeneric name is, by definition, never needed to distinguish between different species. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:45, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

I. Căpuşe[edit]

Who can help me with the full name for I. Căpuşe: It is an entomologist who published in the seventy years. PeterR (talk) 10:08, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

I think that he could be the same as Capuse as Iosif equates to Josif in Romanian I believe. Andyboorman (talk) 10:28, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
Indead it is Iosif Căpuşe. Thanks PeterR (talk) 12:19, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
A good source I've used in the past is Biographies of the Entomologists of the World, which has a page on this entomologist, listed as "Capuşe, Josif". Chuck Entz (talk) 03:01, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

World Plants Online[edit]

Hello botanists. I would like to draw your attention to the developing World Plants Online database hosted by RBG Kew. It is found here POWO. I believe it is still under development, but does seem OK for the less controversial taxa or those that have not had a very recent make-over. Very improved compared to my last visit. So a useful check at least and perhaps even better than COL or Euro+Med. Certainly time to ignore The Plant List! Andyboorman (talk) 19:46, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Link added to Help:Project sources. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 20:32, 1 August 2017 (UTC).
I have used POWO for a few eeks and like COL or Euro+Med it is not perfect, so please cross check before blindly adding data from the site. Andyboorman (talk) 16:15, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Wikimania 2017[edit]

Wikimania 2017, the annual conference of the Wikimedia movement, will be held in Montreal next week. Are any of you going?

I will be there. I have a round-table discussion session, "Wikispecies and Wikidata - a match made in heaven, or hell?", scheduled for Saturday, and hope to see some of you there. There will also be an etherpad (URL to follow), for anyone wishing to participate remotely. This is the only Wikispecies-specific session in this year's programme, though several of the more general sessions are relevant. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:07, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Interesting read is anyone with an understanding and knowledge of Wikispecies from the point of view of a taxonomist attending this? If not I would like to prepare a response to this. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 16:59, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
This seems a concoction of a totalitarian-regime-style trial with Mr. Mabbett in the role of the prosecutor bringing the proceedings in favor of annihilating WS within WD but with no representative out there to plead for the accused. Mariusm (talk) 05:25, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
I would not say, it looked like a trial. Maybe, it will have some similarity with a conspirative meeting. --Franz Xaver (talk) 09:19, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
I do not know about a trial or conspiracy, but I do know that WD is about mass data for data handlers and WS is about taxonomic data for scientists and interested users. Chalk and cheese. Andyboorman (talk) 10:10, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
In essence I agree with Andy Boorman. As far as I understand it Andy Mabbett puts the limelight on an important question. The abstract of his Open Submission is pretty straightforward, and to me it certainly does not look like any sort of "prosecution". Personally I have no problem seeing a future where Wikispecies and Wikidata can function side by side, and that both projects will benefit from it. Unfortunately and regardless of this discussion, I can't attend at this years Wikimania. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 12:12, 3 August 2017 (UTC).
It's hard to judge the content of the presentation based on the title itself (just like judging a book by its cover), especially when a title has a lot of creativity leeway to attract attendees. I wonder if the presentation slides will be uploaded after Wikimania so we can all take a look. OhanaUnitedTalk page, 19:03, 3 August 2017 (UTC).

I agree with OhanaUnited, and adds a copy of the abstract, to aid in further discussion:

On the face of it, Wikispecies can easily be populated with data from Wikidata. But there is much resistance to this within the Wikispecies community. Do they have a point? Are Wikidata's interface and/ or community norms off-putting to the taxonomists who make up a significant proportion of Wikispecies editors? How can their needs be accommodated? Do we need to store data more than once?
What will attendees take away from this session?
An understanding of the issues currently affecting the relationship between Wikidata and Wikispecies, and ideas for how to address them.

Also, the presentation slides would indeed be interesting to see, but I don't know whether it is praxis to upload them or not. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 20:15, 3 August 2017 (UTC).

My issue is the statement in the abstract that "Wikispecies can easily be populated with data from Wikidata." Not sure I totally agree with this, I think the issue there as has been discussed before is that the information at Wikidata is not including all the information needed for a correct taxonomic statement on each species. Here we develop each page with the information needed by taxonomists and others interested in this informaton. To me Wikidata should mine the data from wikispecies or the links to it and actually do a genuine service by being the source of information for Wikipedia. Particularly in our case, in the area of taxoboxes. Recent statements for example that Wikipedia can do species accounts better than Wikispecies I find self grandiose and completely untrue. There are many species accounts on Wikipedia with incorrect taxoboxes, and different taxoboxes between languages. Reign in the Wikipedia so they all use nomenclature instead of constantly shoving an unreviewed database down wikispecies throat that in places is just not correct. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 20:38, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
Indeed there are difficulties – that's exactly why this issue should be brought to the Wikimania conference. For instance it can be difficult to handle synonyms correctly, which is often apparent in the different Wikipedias. As an example several language versions of Wikipedia lists the species (and legit taxon) Devario aequipinnatus under the (dubious) synonym Danio aequipinnatus. This can easily be seen on the taxon's equivalent Wikidata page. Here Wikidata might be a huge help, if as Scott say it mines the information from Wikispecies, and the Wikipedias then automatically implement that data into their taxoboxes. However I'm not sure whether that can actually be done, in practice. In other words I don't know whether it is possible for the Wikidata software to differentiate between the multitude of sister projects, and only import taxobox data from a specific one of them (but never export to it), and then "push" that data to the others (but never fetch that data from them). I'm confident Mabbett and the other Wikidata gurus know whether it can be done, and if not perhaps it is possible to implement in the future. It is a very versatile and competent software, after all.
Another, bigger problem in regards to synonymy is that the same name can be a synonym for several other, very different but legit taxa. For instance the name "A" might be a synonym for the valid taxa "B", "C", and "D". There are hundreds if not thousands of such examples. The normal Wikimedia approach to handle duplicates is of course to use disambiguation pages, but for synonyms this wont work. Sure the synonym "A" can be the source of a disambiguation page, but it must also be listed on every single one of the "B", "C" and "D" (but not "E" etc.) taxon pages, or else the taxonomic data on those pages will be incomplete. Can Wikidata solve this? I don't know. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 09:06, 4 August 2017 (UTC).
Why beat around the bush? Mr. Mabbett clearly stated his opinion in the past that WS's role is to serve as a front-end for WD, where all the data will be entered at WD and the sole role of WS will be to take it from there and display it in a suitable format. This argument he's going to present at the conference with no-one to contradict him there. All I know is that this idea is thoroughly bad and that someone should tell this to the audience. Mariusm (talk) 14:38, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
I think to be fair it was me that said WS could be a front end but not the way you describe it. I feel that Wikispecies should develop the pages and Wikidata can template the data for Wikipedia`s to utilise in taxoboxes. This way all wikipedia taxoboxes would be the same irrespective of language, as Nomenclatural information should be, it is designed under the codes to cross language barriers. Nomenclatural data is complex and precise. Not something Wikidata has the people to do well. There are a few there but not many. But they can bundle the data in a usable format for insertion into Wikipedia taxoboxes. Trying to have everything on Wikidata is a failure to appreciate where skill sets are. That is generally a big mistake in database design. The fact that their database is not relational is also disconcerting. However that`s their design issue and one that can be worked around. However in all honesty if Wikipedia`s are not going to migrate to a system of utilising Wikidata in a way that will produce the best outcome I am not sure what the point is. I certainly see no reason to populate our data from Wikidata if Wikipedia will not do it appropriately. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 17:10, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
My point as well. Also, we must remember that Wikispecies is not a sovereign site in the Internet universe. It is a part of the Wikimedia community. In a way Wikidata is for information what Commons is for images. Should we ban pictures from Commons and instead upload "our own" images to Wikispecies? No, of course not. The reason is that Commons does this so much better – but that doesn't mean that the sole purpose of Wikispecies is to serve as a front-end for Commons media files! Wikidata works in the same way, only it serves us dry data rather than media files.
The whole point of having different sister projects is that each of the projects have their own and very specific purposes. Wikispecies is good at presenting hard facts regarding taxonomic nomenclature, Wiktionary is a good dictionary, Wikinews is getting better and better at handing us the recent tidings, and so forth. Wikidata is one of those sister projects. It is as a hub collecting and serving structured data to and from almost all of the other wikis, but nothing much more. In other words Wikidata is to Wikispecies what an index is to a book. It's nice to have an index, but the index can never replace the story told by the book itself. The problem for Wikidata is that it serves as a single index for many, many books (i.e. wikis) but I sincerely believe that problem can be overcome, and in a good way for all projects.
To conclude my point of view: It is far better to have several specialized sister projects benefitting from each other, rather than to scrap them all and instead create one huge Omnipedia carrying all of the information. And the only way those different sister projects can benefit from each other is by sharing their data via the Wikidata hub. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 20:57, 4 August 2017 (UTC).
Well then Scott and Tommy, how can it happen that a person representing himself as a WS administrator is lecturing and endorsing the opposite of our consensus while the points you've just raised above are getting no chance of being heard at the conference? And why didn't Mr. Mabbett ask for our opinion before going on and presenting his lecture? As a WS administrator he has some obligations towards the community among which is not to go out and misrepresent us. Mariusm (talk) 06:07, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
Please read the submission again, per the link given above. There you will find that:
  • it is not a "lecture by Mabbett" as you say, it is a roundtable discussion. In the submission he is not endorsing any viewpoint opposite to anything. In fact he asks the question "How can the needs of Wikispecies be accommodated?" If anything at all that seems helpful to us, rather than the opposite.
  • it is still an open submission. It is not yet accepted and therefore perhaps will not take place. Hence Mabbett actually is asking for opinions.
Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 11:47, 5 August 2017 (UTC).
Yes, of course. However, does anyone at the round-table know about the needs of Wikispecies? I have doubts. The list of properties and qualifiers in D:Wikidata:WikiProject Taxonomy is insufficient for both taxonomic and nomenclatural purposes: (1) There exists D:Property:P1420, but no difference is made between homotypic and heterotypic synonyms. In the latter case, there should be given the possibility to add references for the synonymization. (2) There exists D:Property:P427, but where can we see, if such a type is the holotype, a lectotype or a neotype, and in both latter cases, who in what place has designated this type? Moreover, there exist difference concerning types between zoological and botanical codes, and between types of species/subspecific taxa and types of higher rank taxa. I am in doubt, if one simple property would be able to serve the needs of all. (3) What about homonyms? (4) What about blocking names? (5) Generally, I am missing awareness, that taxa and names of taxa are a different matter, probably needing different kinds of data objects. --Franz Xaver (talk) 13:12, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
"How can the needs of Wikispecies be accommodated?" really means "How can my way of thinking be implemented?" and "round-table" and "lecture" both involve persons who are unaware of our arguments and therefor either way it's "unfair" of Mabbett to make his submission the way he did. Mariusm (talk) 13:25, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
We should remember that the annual Wikimania conference and nearly all of its roundtables, workshops – and yes even lectures – are open to each and every one of us. For various and rather obvious reasons not all of us can attend every year, but that is also why each conference is held in different parts of the world. Wikimedia is a global organisation, and every community member should have the possibility to partake at some point or another. Approximately 700–800 people attends Wikimania every year. It's open to everyone within the community, and if we taxonomists doesn't show up, quite frankly we can only blame ourselves. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 13:38, 5 August 2017 (UTC).
As an outsider interested in both Wikidata and Wikispecies, it seems that there is lots of scope for fruitful collaboration. For example, things such as people and journals would seem an obvious thing for Wikidata to host and Wikispecies to make use of. Wikidata is already set up to be able to describe journals in lots of detail (including multiple identifiers, links to publishers, URLs for services to get lists of all or most recent articles, etc.). It seems sensible to make use of this wherever possible. One could imagine a discussion where things that are core to Wikispecies are identified, and those that are relevant but not necessarily unique to Wikispecies (e.g., people, journals, references) could be devolved to Wikidata, assuming it can provide the information Wikispecies needs. Wikidata does have limitations, but so does Wikispecies. For example, Franz Xaver wrote of Wikidata: "Generally, I am missing awareness, that taxa and names of taxa are a different matter, probably needing different kinds of data objects". I would argue Wikispecies also fails to make a clean distinction between names and taxa. For example, the use of redirects for synonyms means we lose an opportunity to provide details about that particular name (where was it published, why is it considered to be a synonym, etc.). From my perspective Wikispecies would be more valuable if it focussed on nomenclature rather than taxonomy, or at least treated both equally. At the moment it seems something of a mishmash. Lastly, it seems that dialogue is going to be a challenge given that both Wikidata and Wikispecies are somewhat fluid communities comprising people with rather different visions of what the goals are. --Rdmpage (talk) 09:47, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
@Rdmpage: You are right, that at present also a good portion of WS is not, where it should be. Anyway, it is not true, that "the use of redirects for synonyms means we lose an opportunity to provide details about that particular name". See for example Brackenridgea zanguebarica or Ouratea longifolia. It is very well possible to provide all these informations together at one place in a taxon page. It is not possible to deal with nomenclature alone, without having based it on a definite taxonomic concept. Nomenclature does not make any sense, when not at first instance it is made clear, which taxa are to be distinguished and where are the limits between the taxa – see ICN Principle IV: Each taxonomic group with a particular circumscription, position, and rank can bear only one correct name ... That means, as long as the circumscription of the taxa is not clear, it is not possible to apply the rules of the Code concerning priority. Regards --Franz Xaver (talk) 10:56, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
Not sure I follow "Nomenclature does not make any sense, when not at first instance it is made clear, which taxa are to be distinguished and where are the limits between the taxa" We have databases of names (e.g., IPNI) that simply record names and their publication, but which make no judgements as to what taxon the name applies to. This is what I mean by nomenclature, the act of publishing a name is a "fact", doesn't that exist independently of what taxon (if nay) it applies to? Regarding redirects, to me it makes more sense to have one page per name, so that the page for Ochna longifolia would be a page that gives the publication details for that name, and is also linked to any nomenclatural synonyms. A taxon page would gather all the names that have been applied to that taxon (homotypic and heterotypic synonyms). That way you can avoid treating many names as simply redirects to other names. --Rdmpage (talk) 13:41, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
@Rdmpage: Sure, it is possible to restrict nomenclature only to the publication data of the respective names. However, if this is, what WS is supposed to be about, for me personally it does not make any sense to invest a single hour in such a project. IPNI already is existing and I see no merit in an exercise to repeat the same thing under the name of WS. There would be no gain of any surplus value, compared to IPNI. I am aiming at something providing information comparable to WCSP, but covering families not covered by the Kew project. Anyway, nomenclature is not only about publication of a certain name, but a set of rules within the Code requires, that at first instance the circumscription of taxa is fixed. This concerns rules about priority, as this is about the oldest name belonging to a certain taxon, and about conservation. I would not be satisfied with a list of names, which cannot be applied correctly to anything beyond their type collection, because nobody is defining taxa and their circumscription. --Franz Xaver (talk) 15:26, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
Surely it can be about both? Treat BOTH names AND taxa as first class citizens, and show the links between them. Furthermore, WS does add value beyond IPNI as IPNI references are rather cryptic "micro citations" that mean little to people who aren't familiar with the botanical literature, whereas most WS citations are given in full and often provide links digitised versions of those references.--Rdmpage (talk) 16:00, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
A taxon page has to include not only homotypic and heterotypic synonyms, but also misapplied names, if it is supposed to provide a key to the existing taxonomic and floristic literature – see e.g. Tinospora macrocarpa.
There is nothing bad with redirects. For, example they can be categorised: Ochna longifolia is listed in the list of taxon names authored by Jean-Baptiste Lamarck. Unfortunatelly, is is not possible to have interwiki links to redirect pages. This is a shortcoming of WD, that this possibility is not provided, most easily noticed in monotypic genera --Franz Xaver (talk) 15:26, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
As far as I see, a main problem of WD is, that the data objects are just names, with separate objects for basionyms and other synonyms, but they are used for administration of interwiki links, i.e. for connecting wikipedia articles describing taxa. As a consequence, there exist many inconsistencies with the interwiki links. For example, it would make sense to have interwiki links between en:Polygala macradenia and sv:Hebecarpa macradenia, as both are dealing with the same species, however WD has two different data objects: D:Q15580855 and D:Q17467552, and thus two different sets of interwiki links. In my opinion, a solution could be to have own data objects for taxa, which are used for administration of interwiki links, and a separate set of data objects for names, which are attributed to taxa by some properties. --Franz Xaver (talk) 11:24, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
I agree that having separate objects for taxa and for names makes sense. Names are the domain of nomenclators, and hence would have idenfifiers from IPNI, IndexFungorum, ION, ZooBank, etc., and links to the publications that published those names. Taxa would have links to higher and lower taxa, and links to the name being applied to that taxon. I'm assuming the reason for two objects for the same taxon that you gave is because Wikidata has been automatically populated by data from the different Wikis, and it's not obvious that these two pages are about the same taxon (at least to the tools used to populate Wikidata). --Rdmpage (talk) 13:35, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
@Rdmpage: Adding Polygala macradenia as the basionym to D:Q17467552 does not improve anything concerning the interwiki links, although this makes it clear, that both names belong to the same species. --Franz Xaver (talk) 15:26, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
Sure, because as far as I know the Wikipedia projects are not using Wikidata to reconcile different taxonomic pages. I guess this is the long term vision though. --Rdmpage (talk) 16:00, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
It feels like the core issue is whether or not a species is a piece of data. If it is, then it could be represented as an item in wikidata with various properties. If it is in fact a larger concept (which I feel like is the view of most wikispecies contributors) than wikispecies should make use of the various data hosted on wikidata (names, references etc.) to describe the species. Personally, I would take the extreme approach and say wikidata entries should not be relational. So Polygala macradenia should not point to Hebecarpa macradenia, nor should Hebecarpa point to the family Polygalaceae. However, this means wikidata could not be effectively used to create taxoboxes throughout wikipedia.Voganaa (talk) 19:51, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
@Voganaa:"So Polygala macradenia should not point to Hebecarpa macradenia, nor should Hebecarpa point to the family Polygalaceae." – If this was the path to follow, I cannot imagine, how Wikidata should be useful for anything. As far as I can see, at present it does not even properly provide the service, which it is supposed to do, i.e. administration of interwiki links between WP articles describing the same biological objects. Typically, Wikipedia articles are on larger concepts, which not necessarily have a 1:1 counterpart in other language versions, as these concepts are centered around words in that languages, i.e. lemmas. And of course, different languages may follow different concepts. Maybe I don't understand, what you mean, when you write "piece of data". Probably many of the Wikidata objects (e.g. D:Q10884) are representing "larger concepts" and are not pieces of data.
Anyway, if I am searching for taxonomic or nomenclatural data, I would not use WD to get informed. Yes, there are existing many data objects on taxon names, but usually there is not much information beyond the fact, that the name is existing. It is better to go directly to IPNI, Tropicos or WCSP. WD seems to be only a big heap of placeholders. --Franz Xaver (talk) 22:07, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

@Voganaa: As far as I understand (and regardless of species and taxa) the Wikidata database isn't relational, by design. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 20:01, 7 August 2017 (UTC).

@Tommy Kronkvist: Ahh, well I think I've misunderstood how the Taxobox is intended to be implemented.Voganaa (talk) 20:13, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
I'm puzzled by the notion that "Wikidata database isn't relational". Wikidata is full of relations between entities (e.g., a journal may be linked to its publisher, place of publications, various identifiers, etc.). Not all relationships need to be expressed in a Wikidata item, many can be computed. For example, if an article has a Wikidata item and that item is linked to the Wikidata item for the author, we can then compute a list of publications for the author, rather than list them explicitly on the author's Wikidata itsm. Likewise, from my perspective we should have some relationships between names in Wikidata. For example, IPNI often has information on the basionym of a name. We could use that to compute all the objective synonyms of a name. A more sophisticated approach would be to link names to types, and then compute object synonyms that way. I think it's worth thinking about Wikidata as much more than a way to standardise information across the various Wikipedias. It is potentially much more useful than that. --Rdmpage (talk) 21:52, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
Indeed one can do a lot of complex searches within Wikidata (as in any database) and this will of course show a lot of relations between objects. But that's using the word "relation" solely in the semantical way. What I meant is that from a technical viewpoint Wikidata isn't constructed as a relational database. I might be wrong though: while I add a lot of data to Wikidata, I'm not one of the tech guys there. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 08:45, 9 August 2017 (UTC).
@Tommy Kronkvist: Ah, I did wonder whether that's what you meant by "relational", but I guess I wasn't quite sure why this was relevant to the discussion. Wikidata isn't a relational database as such, although it runs on MediaWiki which itself uses relational databases such as MySQL and Postgres to store the data. Wikidata can be thought of as a key-value store (it has properties with values), or a graph database (it stores relationships), or a triple store (which is how the SPARQL interface at treats Wikidata). — The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rdmpage (talkcontribs) 20:51, 9 August 2017 (UTC).
Thanks for the information! It was Faendalimas who at 17:10, 4 August 2017 (UTC) first stated that the database isn't relational, which Voganaa then caught up on. Indeed it's not really relevant to the discussion (especially given how Wikidata's database is designed) but I sort of wanted to sum things up. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 11:51, 10 August 2017 (UTC).

The etherpad is at: etherpad:p/Wikimania2017-Wikispecies+Wikidata. Session starts ~2.5 hours from now. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:23, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Reading the session's protocol here it's obvious that the participants didn't have a clue on our point of view on the matter. Mariusm (talk) 06:59, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
No Mariusm, you are once again completely wrong. I've refrained from commenting until the session was past, but it's very obvious from the ignorant bile you have spilled here, and on the session's talk page, that you have no clue what you're talking about with regard to Wikimania, Wikidata, my proposal, the backgrounds (or even identity) of those who participated, the nature and contents of the discussion, or our policy on Assuming Good Faith. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:03, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
So how was the question Is Wikidata complex enough yet? answered by the participants? --Succu (talk) 18:26, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Pedigree for species in captivity?[edit]

Would it be OK to use wikispecies as a place to keep track of the species pedigree in captivity? There are a number of less common species that are at risk of in-breeding since their ancestry is unknown. If we had a updated pedigree available we could help ensure the same species, sub-species and localities are bred, while avoiding in-breeding. — The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 21:37, 5 August 2017‎ (UTC)

Doesn't look to be relevant to Wikispecies, sounds the sort of thing that needs a separate dedicated project of its own. Don't the zoos participating in such breeding programmes already do this, though? I'd understood they did. - MPF (talk) 10:43, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
You would be welcome to do this on Wikidata. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:10, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Rethinking {{Doi}} template format[edit]

In an above discussion it was decided to omit the DOI numbers displayed by the {{Doi}} template. I think this was a wrong decision because:

  • The number indicates to the user that the link follows a specific doi address and is not some other link type.
  • The DOI number is added to references in all the sites that I know of including the enWP, the french WP and all the other wikis.
  • The alternate DOI template which retains the numbers: {{DOI-ID}} is almost unused while {{Doi}} is used almost exclusively.
  • The DOI number does't add clutter as stated above. It adds clarity and conformity to standards.

I consequently propose to restore back the numbers to the template. Mariusm (talk) 10:58, 7 August 2017 (UTC)


@Neferkheperre: Regardless of rendered format, using data from it may perhaps be possible to add a built-in error control to the template that automatically adds a short error message after a faulty link, in the same way as the {{ISBN}} template does. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 12:53, 7 August 2017 (UTC).

en:Template:doi has some rudimentary error checking. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:09, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Naming scheme[edit]

Shouldn't the page Dufourea(Teloschistaceae) really be named Dufourea (Teloschistaceae), i.e. with a space between the taxon names? I propose a rename/move of the page, and all of its sub-pages. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 13:21, 7 August 2017 (UTC).

Shouldn't the page actually be named Dufourea (Ach.)? Naming after the family means that if the genus is reclassified in the future, the name will no longer fit. See Cryptococcus for an example where this is currently the case. Voganaa (talk) 14:47, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
Good point! In either case it should be renamed, since right now it is erroneous even without a taxonomic revision. ;-) Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 20:08, 7 August 2017 (UTC).

Share your thoughts on the draft strategy direction[edit]

At the beginning of this year, we initiated a broad discussion to form a strategic direction that will unite and inspire people across the entire movement. This direction will be the foundation on which we will build clear plans and set priorities. More than 80 communities and groups have discussed and gave feedback on-wiki, in person, virtually, and through private surveys[strategy 1][strategy 2]. We researched readers and consulted more than 150 experts[strategy 3]. We looked at future trends that will affect our mission, and gathered feedback from partners and donors.

In July, a group of community volunteers and representatives from the strategy team took on a task of synthesizing this feedback into an early version of the strategic direction that the broader movement can review and discuss.

The first draft is ready. Please read, share, and discuss on the talk page. Based on your feedback, the drafting group will refine and finalize this direction through August.

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

SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 16:11, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Natrix natrix[edit]

A new paper in Nature recommends splitting Natrix natrix into two species, with Natrix helvetica (currently given as a subspecies) in the west of Europe. The research looks good, I'd think we should follow it unless there's a particular snakes authority we already adhere to (in which case, wait until they also take it up). It has received a lot of press attention in UK at least, so people will be looking for it here. Thoughts, anyone? - MPF (talk) 22:25, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

As a rule, whenever a peer-reviewed article is published in an established journal, which involves certain taxonomic changes, these changes are to be automatically adopted by WS. The rule is: the latest revisions take precedence over older ones. Unless of course the modification involves a radical change of concept or the authors are including certain reservations concerning the validity of their findings. There's no question here of "adhering" to a certain "snake authority" but merely of updating WS according to the latest taxonomic findings. Mariusm (talk) 04:20, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
I know these authors, their work is good. I would accept this. Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 05:45, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
Not every recent paper is resulting in quick updates. Some years ago, Anguis fragilis was split into several species – see doi: 10.1016/j.ympev.2010.01.007. Anguis has not yet been updated with this results. What do you think about this case? --Franz Xaver (talk) 08:09, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
@Franz Xaver: with our limited number of editors, and the limited time they invest in WS we can't possibly update for each and every new paper. It would be a gargantuan task. Sometimes I think what's the use of all our efforts if in the end of the day we update less then 5% of the total new taxonomic acts. Mariusm (talk) 08:35, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
I'll try and get both done - though the Anguis paper being behind a paywall doesn't help (time to call in on Sci-Hub ;-)). But on @Mariusm:'s general point (04:20 UTC post), often it's best to wait a bit to see if changes are taken up by other groups (e.g. IOC for birds) before adding them here - authorities like IOC are in effect the final stage in peer review, and not every new proposal gets implemented. See also my post in Archive 43 #66 where the feeling was to wait and see before implementing. - MPF (talk) 09:44, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
@MPF: For the paper on Anguis try this PDF. Regards --Franz Xaver (talk) 09:54, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
Have a look also here. There is a paper from 2013 on phylogeography of Natrix natrix --Franz Xaver (talk) 10:31, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
Thanks! I'd already downloaded the Anguis paper from Sci-Hub just before you posted, but the 2013 Natrix paper looks useful (tho' as an aside, his map in Fig 1 is inaccurate in UK, the northern limit is about 100 km further south than shown) - MPF (talk) 11:28, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
See here a partial list (2900 articles – about 60% of the total number) of the articles issued in 2017 so far which involve nomenclatural acts. Obviously we can't evaluate their validity prior to updating here the information. We must take it for granted. Mariusm (talk) 11:07, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
And only animals, not plants, etc.! - MPF (talk) 11:28, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
The even bigger problem is, that also most of the older names are missing in WS at present. So, adding some newly described species, often requires that an article of its genus has to be created first. When I recently created Gymnospora violoides, based on a paper from 2013, all the other names I had to deal with were 124–189 years old. Probably it is better to aim at a good coverage of taxa and names from all periods of taxonomic history in some smaller groups instead of running after all the taxonomic novelties covering the complete tree of life. Of course, vertebrates would be one of these bigger groups, where a good coverage including newly published results would be expected. --Franz Xaver (talk) 12:27, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
I have got to fundamentally disagree with the putative WS "rule" @Mariusm: that a peer reviewed proposal gets adopted in WS automatically and as quickly as possible. Most other authorities adopt a period of grace, which may be as long as a year, unless the proposals have been extensively subject to pre-publication consultation or are uncontroversial. There are many examples of incomplete acceptance and subsequent revision and indeed some important cases of hold-outs - c.f. Acacia in APD and Acacia in WS and the rest of the world. The "real world" can be messy indeed. In this case I can not really comment as I have no expertise - do they interbreed with fertile offspring? Andyboorman (talk) 13:31, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

I think if a journal article is peer reviewed, presents the science and makes nomenclatural changes we should adopt it. It is not for us to judge this. We are accumulators of nomenclatural knowledge, not reviewers. Also hybridization has little to do with species boundaries except to make it a bit messy at the edges. There are plenty of examples of hybrids that are fertile, including multi directional hybrids that if we collapsed the nomenclature to recognise these as single species, and still recognised phylogeny, would result in 10 or more species and even genera being synonymised. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 13:46, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

That is fine by me @Faendalimas:, as long as we are prepared to accept the fact that there will be two taxon pages for the same organism. As you said it is not for us to judge. Multiple names is something WD and WP will not do in any circumstances, just try it. Of course {{Disputed}} can be used for the nov comb. and original until consensus is more or less complete. Mind you Intergeneric hybrids give botanists nightmares! Regards Andyboorman (talk) 14:18, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
I am not sure, by reading all comments, that this discussion is involving Aves. It was cristal clear to me that Aves follows IOC. No taxonomic changes or new species, even published by highly recognized authors, can be edited BEFORE the formal adoption by IOC. If we abandon this policy, it will be a nightmare. Am I correct?--Hector Bottai (talk) 01:12, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
@Hector Bottai: Ornithology indeed is a special case where the published nomenclatural acts are revised by the IOC editorial team and advisors before being accepted as valid by the ornithological community. See here the pending/accepted proposals. This however is not the case with the other organism-types to which the my statement above applies. Mariusm (talk) 08:39, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
Correct @Mariusm:, thanks. Just to make it clear.--Hector Bottai (talk) 11:30, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
@Hector Bottai, Mariusm: yep; what I wasn't sure was if The Reptile Database (cited on the Natrix natrix page) fulfilled the same purpose for reptiles, or not. As an aside, quite a few bird pages here need to catch up with more recent IOC updates; I do quite a few, but don't have the time to do all of them - so please do join in! - MPF (talk) 17:27, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
@MPF: I also do a lot of IOC updates for Neotropical birds, but the outdate in many cases is 5-6 years old, involving large genera and families changes. For example: Emberizidae. Lot of work!!--Hector Bottai (talk) 17:36, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
Reptile Database although very good and I am an editor there, is not an official list of reptiles. There is no official lists of reptiles. In all likelihood the Reptile Database will adopt any new changes on its next update. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 00:39, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

A very interesting and germane discussion and great to see points raised from different specialisms. I must admit, if I come across a peer reviewed botanic article that proposes a paradigm shift or major revision, then I usually check with other experts outside WS. More times than not I get a "its too early to make the changes" piece of advice and indeed many proposals just seem to fade away. I have many less controversial plant red links to fill with data to lose sleep over changes that may or may not stand the test of time and consensus. I can always go back and re-edit the synonymy or create the required pages, as required. Also it is worth remembering that for plants not all secondary sources are created equal! Andyboorman (talk) 16:11, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Bad DOIs[edit]

The DOI link in {{Hoffmann, Lessa & Smith, 2002}} appears to be malformed. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:37, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Same at {{Samonds, 2007}}. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:45, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
The doi informed is this:<0408:SOOWDO>2.0.CO;2 (Hoffman, Lessa & Smith) and[39:LPBFFA]2.0.CO;2 (Samonds), but when put in template create that, how to fix? Burmeister (talk) 22:46, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
@Pigsonthewing: When manually adding the DOIs to the "Resolve a DOI Name" service at they both seems to work; the two DOIs lead to [3] and [4], respectively. Our template can't handle them though. May be it's an HTML entity thing, with all the square + angle brackets and semicolon? –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 23:03, 10 August 2017 (UTC).
@Pigsonthewing: @Burmeister: The problem was last @Tommy Kronkvist: edit of the {{doi}} where he also removed the displayed number. I reverted it in accordance with our recent vote. Mariusm (talk) 06:45, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
@Mariusm: Thanks for resolving the issue. As a side note this is also a problem when using the {{Doi-inline}} template on English Wikipedia, which I have noted on the template's enWP talk page. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 08:31, 11 August 2017 (UTC).

Ernst Fuchs[edit]

Ernst Fuchs has the dates 1830 or 1839 - 1904, but Gurubira apicalis cites a 1966 work attributed to that author. Can anyone help to clear up this issue, please? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:52, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

The years stated on Austrian entomologist Ernst Fuchs' page are really the years of birth and death of the German entomologist August Fuchs. I've deleted them from the Ernst Fuchs page. I haven't been able to find the correct data for Ernst Fuchs, but I do know that he described at least 20–30 (sub)species during the 1950s–1970s. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 18:24, 13 August 2017 (UTC).
I've updated the equivalent Wikidata item Q36349323 to match the "Ernst Fuchs" page on Wikispecies. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 18:52, 13 August 2017 (UTC).
See here. He lived 1910–2000. --Franz Xaver (talk) 19:26, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
Thanks! I've updateed both the Wikispecies page and the Wikidata item accordingly. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 19:43, 13 August 2017 (UTC).

Wikispecies amongst other WMF projects[edit]

See phab:T173295. I have seen several places where Wikispecies is not listed alongside our other sister projects. If anyone notices them, please let me know. —Justin (koavf)TCM 16:25, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Parnara guttatus or Parnara guttata?[edit]

Please check these diffs regarding the butterfly genus Parnara and the taxon name Parnara guttatus. The editor (an IP user) changed the specific name Parnara guttatus to Parnara guttata. Catalog of Life's "2017 Annual Checklist" claims P. guttatus is correct, and P. guttata isn't listed at all. However I haven't got any good sources to thoroughly check it up. Hence the two edits are still marked as unpatrolled. Any entomologist here with the correct data and a verifiable source? –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 19:58, 14 August 2017 (UTC).

Butterfly entomologists do not follow the Principal of Coordination so the spelling is as per the original combination and spelling. ie ``Eudamus guttatus`` Bremer & Grey, 1853. P guttata is incorrect. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 02:52, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
As far as I see, in ICZN Art. 31.2 there is no exception made for butterflies. As the gender of Parnara is feminine, an adjectival epithet would have to change its gender from masculine guttatus to feminine guttata. However, maybe it is a matter of tradition of usage to regard guttatus as a noun in apposition, so that it does not need to be changed. Is there evidence from old literature, that this epithet has been regarded as a noun in apposition? --Franz Xaver (talk) 05:57, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
There is no exception made by the ICZN for this, its just the standard practice from the butterfly entomologists. They choose not to follow the Principal of Coordination. Its their standard practice. Using something else would be at odds with their species checklists. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 06:09, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
Examples from old literature: Parnara guttatus in Elwes & Möller (1888) vs. Parnara guttata in Leech (1893–1894). However, when Parnara was established by Moore (1881), p. 166, he made the combination P. guttata. It seems, that the standard practice of lepidopterologists is deliberately neglecting the Code. Anyway, also in recent entomological literature, Parnara guttata can be found – see [5]. --Franz Xaver (talk) 06:31, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
By the way, the Principle of Coordination seems to be something different – see ICZN Art. 36. --Franz Xaver (talk) 06:34, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
From what I can gather, and I did check this with an ICZN commissioner who is an entomologist, not all lepidopterists follow this but it is met with difficulties and infighting. So to me easier just to follow their typical pracrice of using original species spelling only and live with it. I do not agree with them, but I am not a lepidopterist so am not challenging them on this. Not my place. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 06:43, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
Authors use guttatus and guttata as the same species. Its often that the old used guttatus change in a transferred genus in guttata. Those changes are not only in the butterflies. PeterR (talk) 07:11, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
(1) The Principle of Coordination is not relevant to this case. (2) Following the practice, the name should be Parnara guttatus due to the original combination Eudamus guttatus. Mariusm (talk) 07:17, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

So... in a way either both taxon names are correct, or both taxon names are incorrect..? Confusing! Anyway, following the practice I guess the edits should be reverted – or is that too close to original research? –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 08:00, 15 August 2017 (UTC).

@Tommy Kronkvist: Just make Parnara guttatus the species-name and Parnara guttata its synonym. Mariusm (talk) 08:19, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 09:47, 15 August 2017 (UTC).

Xolmis coronata: synonym or error, or both?[edit]

In Xolmis coronatus (no doubt, correct name), an editor removed Xolmis coronata as synonym with the argument that it was an error, not a synonym. This is absolutely not a complain but just open the discussion with the aim of establishig a sort of policy, because the situation may repeat in hundreds of pages. The question is: should we treat this "gender" errors as synonyms as in Avibase, see latim ? Or not? My opinion with no taxonomic or scientific base: we should.--Hector Bottai (talk) 16:26, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

As far as I am aware, in plants the combination with the incorrect suffix not a synonym and is not specifically mentioned as such in ICBN Art62. As an example see here Echites agglutinatus, where I have mentioned the "errors" at the end of the citations, but placed a note regarding the masculine suffix on the genus taxon page. Andyboorman (talk) 18:10, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
Xolmis coronata is not a "synonym", but is a name combination with mispelling (gender agreement) that can be treat under synonymy/combinations. Burmeister (talk) 18:23, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
@Burmeister: Under articles or conventions and for all groupings? Andyboorman (talk) 18:43, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
@Andyboorman: I did not understand your question. But my comment is based on this old discussion, recommending "Not to include recombinations under the "Synonyms" header" and "For recombinations either use "Synonymy" or "Combinations" section header"; Cnemidocarpa radicosa is a example of how I deal with this subject recombinations versus synonyms. Burmeister (talk) 19:10, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
@Burmeister: Sorry just seeking clarification. I did not participate in the above discussion, as I assumed it was for zoology. As I noted above, I think that an ontological recombination for a plant is corrected all the way back to the protologue with a quick note of the changes, if required. Thereafter, they become unimportant and not really synonyms or part of a synonymy. Thanks for your example - plants and zoology are clearly different! Andyboorman (talk) 19:44, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
I don't have much knowledge/experience with plants/botany, so my comments tend to be specific to zoology. Burmeister (talk) 19:49, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

I think the best way to deal with these gender "synonyms" is to make the section title "Synonymy" instead of "Synonyms" and add them there. It's much better to have a single "synonym" section then a couple or more. Then you can add there to line: "Xolmis coronata [gender error]". Mariusm (talk) 04:14, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

At least in zoology, a synonymy is the list of available names for a taxon (Art 79) and as such includes any available name (zoology term) but excludes unavailable names. Gender corrections as species change genera are still available names, just not the current one necessarily. Recombinations should be in the synonymy anyway so I place them in as recombinations into the synonomy, I do not use the term synonyms as its not the correct term in this instance. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 04:57, 16 August 2017 (UTC)