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)


Wikidata discussion of interest[edit]

Colleagues here may be interested in an ongoing discussion on Wikidata of how to represent taxon names. Expert input will be welcome there. The outcome may affect how we pull data into this project. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:53, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Speaking of, could someone with actual understanding of the ICZN have a look at how Brya has been dealing with various homonyms recently? Just looking at Perophora pulverula I see first the issue that the page arguably shouldn't be there in the first place (there is certainly no consensus for listing names not in current use). Most glaringly, the name is invalid because the species is not placed in that genus anymore (it wasn't even placed there prior to being moved to Eadmuna!), not for any reason linked to the generic name's homonymous nature (which wouldn't even make the name unavailable[=invalid sensu ICBN] under ICZN I believe). Circeus (talk) 11:14, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
@Pigsonthewing: I'm not sure how to contribute to the discussion you linked, since it seems to be about how to use a particular bot, but I am quite interested in how wikidata is acquiring its information on taxonomy. Over the past few months, I have been trying to sort out Fungi on here since it was very outdated. I understand the view point that eventually data should be updated directly into Wikidata and then pulled to here, but I was hoping (perhaps naively) that when wikidata was first populated it would use information from wikispecies as the authority for taxonomy. This does not seem to be the case. For example, I cleaned up the Tremellomycetes back in November, members from this class like Kwoniella were added to wikidata last week using the old outdated information that appears to be from wikipedia. Is there a way to ensure that wikidata is getting the best information it can from the beginning? Voganaa (talk) 13:59, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
@Voganaa: While bots were mentioned, they key point seemed to me to be about the correct data model to use. You can raise issues about Wikidata and its taxonomic content at at :d:Wikidata:WikiProject Taxonomy/Participants, or if you do not find that forum conducive, at d:Wikidata:Project chat. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:44, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
@Voganaa: Sorry, that should have been d:Wikidata talk:WikiProject Taxonomy (to which I have moved your comment). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:14, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Category:Non-standard taxon formatting and old files[edit]

Until yesterday there was (for years, I think) 2 articles in the Category:Non-standard taxon formatting, I fixed one, and started a little research. With help of Special:AncientPages I found many old Non-standard taxon formatted articles, most of them created 2005 by User:Josh_Grosse~specieswiki (contributions), files which I believe needs to be sorted and later updated to the present standard. Im now going through such files, adding the Category Non-standard taxon formatting, but Id like to hear what other think about this, critic, comments, suggestion etc. Dan Koehl (talk) 18:21, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Dan, I've had a look at the page you linked, but feel unable to do much about it. Yes, the formatting is nothing like standard, but correcting it would be way outside my area of comfort, which is restricted really to just a few insects. Accassidy (talk) 18:43, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
Yes, but thanks for confirming I treat those files correct, by adding them to the category Category:Non-standard taxon formatting. In order not to disturb so much on recent changes, I will now mark the edits "minor edit". If noone objects, Id prefer to run this operation in Bot mood instead. But I will await some more comments from other users. Dan Koehl (talk) 18:56, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
Seems to work fine, now the work is taken care of by KoehlBot, should anyone see errors in its behaviour just tell me. Dan Koehl (talk) 19:52, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
Had to move back to manually use of AWB, some Taxon authorities was in the group, and I had to revert the bot. Dan Koehl (talk) 21:09, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
Now its down to totally 98 files in Category:Non-standard taxon formatting which need to be updated. Please brief me of bad formatted files I have missed, so they can be submitted in this category. Dan Koehl (talk) 21:53, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Files in Category:Candidates for speedy deletion[edit]

I now start to go through the +4 000 categories in Category:Candidates for speedy deletion and speed delete categories with no obvious interesting content. Files with ptentially intersting content will not be deleted, but marked with merge template, and a link to the file, that info may be merged into, for an example, see Category:Euhexomyza_coprosmae_(New_Zealand).

Such categories with potentially interesting content, that may be transferred to the correctly named category, will be categorized in category:Pages to merge and category:Non-standard taxon formatting. (Should I also remove them from Category:Candidates for speedy deletion?)

I hope this helps to make it easier and faster to go through those categories, before those categories also get deleted. Dan Koehl (talk) 12:47, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Considering the sheer number the only thing I can think of that would at least be a start is to delete all the empty ones and then have a look at the rest and see what we have. These have been hanging around for a while with no sensible reasoning for their existence. So I propose to just delete the empties, then see what the rest are. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 13:40, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
Yes. I guess one step in this direction is to sort those files which has some content, and like you say, delete the more or less empty ones.

The question is now, wether the files with content, should be removed from Category:Candidates for speedy deletion? Dan Koehl (talk) 13:52, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

No I think leave them there because in all likelyhood they will be deleted, or merged or something. Keeping them in speedy deletion keeps them flagged to be dealt with. Remove as needed once examined. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 14:16, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
Agreed leave them. I have been going through some plant based pages and removing references and links as required prior to deletes. Careful some possibly relevant files/links etc on the discussion page as well. Andyboorman (talk) 15:17, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Please note that there are quite a few additional categories in the form of Category: Australia <<taxon name>> and Category: New Zealand <<taxon name>>. For example: Category:Australia Dynastinae -- Mariusm (talk) 15:58, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Oh yes, now I remember them. Must be hundreds, maybe thousands of those also. Ill mark them up and sort them in relevant categories. Dan Koehl (talk) 16:57, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

I just looked at Category:Candidates for speedy deletion. So many useless categories, most of them created by the same Stho002, without approval from the community. My opinion is that Wikispecies should be usable and editable by any taxonomist, not only a by a minority who creates categories and adds useless complexity. My conclusion: Delete them all. Jeanloujustine (talk) 21:38, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

That's been pretty much agreed. We're working on it XD. Any discussion that crops around here relates to technicalities (mostly about details of applying Dan's bots to the problem). 07:51, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
I think I have sorted out the majority of those files, now theres well over 6 000 files in Category:Candidates for speedy deletion. Ive seen to that theres a warning not to delete the Category:Non-standard taxon formatting files without consideration, and theres a direct link from each file to the correct formatted file, to make it easier to transfer content, which may be useful. Dan Koehl (talk) 11:24, 30 January 2017 (UTC)


Could someone who speaks Spanish please see whether there is anything salvagable in Culebra de cuatro lineas, and assist the IP editor who created it? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:44, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

I checked and the article Elaphe quatuorlineata already exists and in good WS format. I don´t see any need to keep this article. Maximum I can do is adding this spanish name to VN. Honestly, should be deleted.--Hector Bottai (talk) 19:10, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
Agree. It's a description (with grammar and orthotypographical errors and typos) where only the vernacular names can be salvaged. I moved them to Elaphe quatuorlineata. Sobreira ►〓 (parlez) 20:32, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Year-of-description Categories — do we need them?[edit]

I want to remind you we have several YEAR-OF-DESCRIPTION categories meaning the year when a certain author described a species/genus/familia:

  • [[Category: New species xxxx]]
  • [[Category: New genus-group name xxxx]]
  • [[Category: New genus-group names xxxx]]
  • [[Category: New family-group name xxxx]]
  • [[Category: New family-group names xxxx]]
  • [[Category: New fossil species xxxx]]

Where xxxx denotes the year.

Most categories were made by Stephen [Stho002] and are scarcely used.

My questions:

  1. Do we really need them? Are they useful in any way?
  2. If we decide they're OK, can we devise a bot to add them to all pages?
  3. do we need the duplication of <<New genus-group name xxxx>> and <<New genus-group names xxxx>>?

Mariusm (talk) 07:49, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

I was intending to bring that up later on, but my feelings are pretty clear:
  1. I don't believe sorting by years is improper, especially from a nomenclatural data point of view. It may be more appropriate to do so on Wikispecies than on Wikipedia, in fact.
  2. A bot may not work very well, however, because priority cannot be readily extracted from virtually any botany page (and maybe not even from zoology pages). Plus priority works differently between ICZN and ICBN: the former has only group-level priority while the latter attaches priority to each combination. Creating the categories (ca. 250 of them: one for each year starting with 1758) and moving already categorized articles, however, could easily be automated, I believe.
  3. If we choose to keep these categories, the hair-splitting introduced by Stephen (which is only applicable to zoology anyway) seems entirely unnecessary and "names published in xxxx" (basically the same as on wp:) should be more than sufficient for our needs.
Circeus (talk) 08:30, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

But Wikipedia has a much more elaborate category system. For example for 2016 alone they have the following category hierarchy:

  • Category:Species described in 2016
    • Category:Bacteria described in 2016
    • Category:Eukaryotes described in 2016
      • Category:Animals described in 2016
        • Category:Insects described in 2016
          • Category:Beetles described in 2016
          • Category:Moths described in 2016
      • Category:Fungi described in 2016
      • Category:Plants described in 2016
    • Category:Fossil taxa described in 2016
      • Category:Ootaxa described in 2016

All these categories are very much incomplete. Mariusm (talk) 10:25, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Personally I can see no real value in them. If you are doing some project such as a checklist it will not be sorted by year. It will be sorted by taxonomic categories, I am thinking in terms of used by the reader not by the editors. I do not think it is worth our time to create information that will not be used. I do not use them on Wikipedia either for the same reasons, though eventually someone comes along and adds them to pages I create there. I do not remove them, but I think its a waste of effort. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 10:40, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
I did not know these categories existed at WS, I can't see any value at all.--Hector Bottai (talk) 11:18, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
The category tree becomes more elaborate on wikipedia owing more to an approach that tries to keep category size somewhat smaller than what you'd find on other projects more than due to any specific usefulness of the subcategories themselves (hence beetles and moths being separated from insects and not, say, ants: it's entirely dependent on what's been put there and can be split off). I would never argue in favor of anything that elaborate for wikispecies! At best a separation by codes may be relevant.
As I said earlier I'm not particularly arguing in favor of the categories, but given that publication date is nomenclaturally a very important piece of data about a name, I have a hard time believing they are inherently useless (year of publication is certainly more impactful on nomenclature than the author, and we categories in far more details by that criterion). Circeus (talk) 12:36, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
(speaking specifically for the zoology) I find this kind of categorization helpful, creating the possibility to cross search data, for example cross the "Category:MNRJ" and "Category:Names described in 1998" and obtain specific data on species described in the year of 1998, housed in the MNRJ. The creation and maintenance of these categories can be robotized, facilitating the work and not overloading the users. And I agree with Circeus, we already have author taxa categorization, year is important too. Burmeister (talk) 12:53, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

I agree that the description years can be valuable in various cross searches but there are some problems we nust overcome:

  1. How we automate the process of entering these categories for the vast majority of pages which lack them.
  2. How we solve the discrepancy between zoology – where the year is presented for the original combination and botany – where the year is presented for the latest combination.
  3. How we name the categories and how we divide them.

Without automation and without a reasonable agreement between zoology and botany it would be impossible to glean any benefit from these categories. Mariusm (talk) 13:23, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

The discrepancy self-solves if we solve the naming issue. Priority in Botany still starts with the original name at any given rank (these ranks are just more numerous than in zoology), and new combination must respect that priority.
The problem is not with the creation of new pages (we could easily have a simple categorization template, say {{nomencats|1810|Robert Brown|XXX}} with a bot following after and creating missing categories), but with updatng existing pages. But since massive work is needed either way on existing pages, I don't see it as much of an argument. Circeus (talk) 13:40, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
Repositories have the template {{rl|Repository}} that automatically categorize (not yet in currently usage, but I think it can be robotized), so it's possible create a {{yl|YEAR}} with the same purpose for the years. Burmeister (talk) 13:47, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
Hey, someone else knows about that! Nice to see this idea of mine got noticed at some point. Circeus (talk) 13:49, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
I think my feeling can be best summarized as such: we are already categorizing by two out of three key elements that define a name: author and type (in the form of repository). If we're gonna specifically not categorise by the third element (year of priority), then we better have some damn good arguments against doing so. Circeus (talk) 13:54, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
@Circeus: in botany the original combination is not dated unless the Basionym is added as part of the Synonyms section. In many pages there's no Basionym listed. How can we deal with this situation? Another problem is that our botanists here believe that the latest combination should take precedence over the original combination when adding the <<Category: yyy taxa>> to the page. Mariusm (talk) 15:20, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
Year of description is only useful within a single taxon. That is Priority under the code is for the synonymy, it looks at which name is usually the valid names among the list of available names for one taxon. The date of publication is part of the author field. How can a category that lists all organism described in a given year help with this when Priority is only applied within one taxon and needs all names from whatever date lined up in order from oldest to youngest. Priority is not relevant here. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 15:29, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
Marius, that is precisely my point: it doesn't matter that a bot can't add the date to these pages since the data required to categorise needs to be added manually anyway, and it should be easy enough to add the date category/template at the same time.
It seems to me we are forgetting a basic principle of a wiki: the fact it's a constant work-in-progress. Unlike the unwieldy fossil taxa category systems we have and need to simplify greatly, a date category system is easier and faster to put in place than the author category system we already have (for starters, there's a defined, closed number of possible categories and they can be bot-generated in 20 minutes).
Geeze, I swear you people think that only category systems that a bot can generate an populate from even the barest of pages should be implemented. If bots could do the job, we wouldn't need editors! Circeus (talk) 16:21, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
@Circeus: I have no issues with categories including manual ones, I just don't see how this set of them is useful in our context. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 19:34, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
@Faendalimas: I'll give you a scenario where the description-dates will be useful: Suppose you're researching on an expedition to the Brazilian Amazon which brought back insect samples to a certain museum. You want to find out which specimens were discovered as new to science from that particular expedition. You can perform a cross-search of the particular expedition-year with the museum-name to get the candidates for your inquiry. @Circeus: regardless of a bot, there's a difference of opinions for botany: You think the relevant description year is the date of the original-description (basionym) while the botanists think it's the current-combination date. Mariusm (talk) 08:13, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
I'm aware of that. I'm not the one who brought up basionym dates. Mind you, this can be easily fixed by using something along the lines of "Names published in xxx" (for nomen novum, basionyms and everything zoology, where combinations are not treated as separate names at all) and "combinations published in xxx" for the other cases. Original date is still relevant for botany, since that is what establishes priority. Circeus (talk) 11:15, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
I would prefer Circeus' last proposal, if we decide to have categories for publication year. But in botany it's sometimes more complicated with priority, if the rank of a taxon has changed. Priority is only for the same rank. So the date and even the first name at species level may be quite different from the date and name of the first description of that taxon, (thus making it difficult to search for new taxa from a particular expedition). --Thiotrix (talk) 12:58, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Actually your scenario would not work @Mariusm: when specimens were found and when they were described are rarely the same year, in fact the difference can be as much as 20 years. Several of the turtle species I described were discovered over a decade earlier. I still see no real value in this, I am not arguing against it if you want it fine. But it will not help for synonymies, I doubt it will help for your expedition scenario, I can think of little consistance taxonomic or nomenclatural value. Just a list of how many species were described each year if you want that. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 16:48, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

@Thiotrix: @Circeus: I'm somewhat confused. Lets take for example a particular plant species — Pycnarrhena poilanei. What would you prefer to be written there – [[Category: Names published in 1938]] or [[Category: Combinations published in 1972]] or both?? Or perhaps [[Category: Plants published in 1972]]?? Mariusm (talk) 13:33, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Really, the issue comes down to whether we want these category to reflect bibliographical information only (publication date) or also nomenclaturally accurate (i.e. date of basionym publication for species combinations). While these two pieces of data are identical in zoology (since subsequent combinations are not separate names), they differ considerably more in botany. For example most new combinations have priority based on their basionym, but raising an infraspecific taxon to species status creates a name with separate priority date from its basionym (because priority is determined separately for each ranks).
I had to make the point since using combination's publishing dates would precisely makes your scenario unworkable: combinations based on that expedition's names would inevitably have later dates and not register in your search. Unless, that is, we chose to create and categorize redirects in a similar fashion to what we're doing for repositories. But this is getting a little complex, I'd assume. Yes I'm aware that I'm kind of arguing against myself here. Circeus (talk) 13:59, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Probably such categories are not fully useless, but their implementation will need much time. And I suppose, that most work will have to be done manually. I am not sure, if it is worth the effort.
Concerning differences between zoology and botany, it is true that combinations are "names" in the botanical code. So, having different categories for "names" and "combinations" does not seem correct to me. The botanical code distinguishes between "name of a new taxon", "name at new rank", "replacement name" etc. – see Glossary. In my opinion, there should be only "Names published in xxx", and both zoology and botany would categorise everything, what are names according to their codes. That means, that botany would categorise combinations, but zoology would not. Anyway, for full implementation, also synonyms will have to be categorised. Also in zoology, heterotypic synonyms often will exist only as a redirect page. I suppose, mass categorising of redirct pages cannot be done by a bot, as the information needed for correct categorisation is to be found somewhere else.
@Mariusm: The date of the name is about naming, not about the description. Even if we don't have to do with a replacement name or a new combination, it is possible to validate a "name of a new taxon" by reference to an existing older description – see ICN Art 38.1. So, as combinations are names as well, their relevant date is, when the new combination has been established. Priority can be important also here, e.g. when an already existing combination is blocking the transfer of an even older basionym.
In case of Pycnarrhena poilanei, the name "Pycnarrhena poilanei" should be categorised in 1972 and both "Pridania poilanei" and "Pridania petelotii" in 1938. --Franz Xaver (talk) 14:09, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
@Mariusm: Actually, the case of Pycnarrhena poilanei is a nasty example. When I created the taxon page, I felt obliged to reproduce, what is written in the papers, I had used. However, when the code (ICN) is applied here, it appears, that Gagnep. in 1938 has managed to create three invalidly published names: Pridania, P. poilanei and P. petelotii – see ICN Art. 35.1 and Art. 38.5a. (He missed to give a separate description of the genus Pridania and destroyed his attempt to suffice with a "descriptio generico-specifica" by adding a second species.) When Forman revised the genus, he obviously overlooked this fact and published a new combination based on the invalid name Pridania poilanei, which he was not entitled to do. However, it maybe is possible, that Pycnarrhena poilanei Forman can be regarded as a "name of a new taxon" validated by the Latin description given by Gagnepain (1938). In this case (Gagnep.) has to disappear from the author combination, the name then is to be treated like a basionym – it anyway would be the oldest validly published name. However, I am not yet sure, if there is one more pitfall somewhere in the code. --Franz Xaver (talk) 15:33, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

@Circeus: @Franz Xaver: @Thiotrix: I feel we can agree on having only [[Category: Names published in xxxx]] and categorize for zoology the original-combinations-years and for botany the latest-combinations-years, with an option of categorizing also the synonyms for zoology and the original combinations for botany – but with a lower priority. Can we agree on that? Mariusm (talk) 06:14, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

That was really what I was expecting we'd get to anyway should we decide in favor XD. We can't do much about synonyms anyway until/unless we figure out what to do with, for example, pages that would be a list of 3+ different homonyms. made by User:Circeus
Does that mean, that each taxon page should have at least 3 categories: [[Category:xxxx taxa]], [[Category:Names published in xxxx]] (or shortly template:y|xxxx), and [[Category:Repository xxxx]] (or template:r|xxxx) for the Holotype? --Thiotrix (talk) 07:41, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
The main question is, if Wikispecies is meant to be a hypertext database about taxa and taxonomists, or if it wants to allow for combined requests (e.g., "which plants were first described from Sicily"?). This would need even more categories and maintenance effort, and I think, wikidata could be the better place for such complex questions. In my opionion Wikispecies may have categories for the basic questions "who - when - where - what (for fossils)"
For lists of homonyms, I think they should be treated as disambiguation pages, where each item is linked to its own redirect page, which can easily be categorized. --Thiotrix (talk) 09:22, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
Multiple discussions have established that geography was not proper to Wikispecies. As far as taxon pages are concerned, my belief is that we should stick to nomenclaturally-relevant categories (since taxonomy is taken care of via taxonavigation, but I'll make a suggestion later on about a specific type of taxonomy-related category). Circeus (talk) 10:18, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
My edit was misunderstandable, with "where" I meant of course not geography but the repository of the holotype. --Thiotrix (talk) 10:39, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
It's not such a big hassle really: instead of writing {{a|author|author name}} , xxxx we can write {{a|author|author name|xxxx}} and modify the template {{a}} to take care of the new category. It even would be less typing! – instead of " ," we'll need only "|". Mariusm (talk) 11:19, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
@Mariusm: You are aware, that the template {{a}} is also used in different contexts, e.g. in reference templates as Template:Fabrizi & Ahrens, 2014? --Franz Xaver (talk) 14:55, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
Making an optional category-generating parameter is easy. Besides, I do believe we want a template that can unify the variopus author link templates, because having {{a}}, {{aut}}, {{auth}} and {{author}} is pretty much pure madness IMO. The range of situations this would needs to handle is not so complex that a single template couldn't do the job easily. Circeus (talk) 22:53, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
@Franz Xaver: Circeus is right! Templates can be smart... The 3rd parameter can be conditional: If you put only 2 parameters it will behave like it used to; when you add the 3rd parameter (the date) it will do the additional job of adding the category. @Circeus: can you give it a try and modify {{a}} for the additional task? Mariusm (talk) 06:30, 3 February 2017 (UTC)


[undent] @Mariusm: I'll look into it later today. I should point out I'm not a huge fan of the smallcaps style. Circeus (talk) 13:48, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

{{au}} handles everything except being used in references. The current version also has a no small-caps formatting but only because I didn't want it complicating code until I was fully done. Besides, that should almost certainly be moved to a separate {{sc}} meta-template anyway and reference formatting should be done with frickin cite templates! (They should really not be so hard to update for our few peculiarities.)
  • Parentheses are excluded from the link, but this isn't too hard to change. It's just convenient since it makes for less parserfunction calls.
  • Parentheses cannot be automated around a name built with ex or with the ":" of en:sanctioned names.
  • I can add a parameter for alternate links (there's a lot of stuff in the form [[Template:Author, 2000|{{aut|Author}}, 2000]], but I dunno if that's a Stephen-only thing), however, clever used of the parameters and a= can effect a similar result:
    • Original: ([[Template:Broun, 1894a|{{aut|Broun}}, 1894]])
    • templated: {{au|Template:Broun,|1894a|1984|p=yes|a=Broun}}(Broun, 1984)
      • Technically, the template can link to ANY page on the wiki in this fashion.
Circeus (talk) 20:53, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
@Circeus: thanks for your effort but I think there's some misunderstanding here: (1) the format [[Template:Author, 2000|{{aut|Author}}, 2000]] is unacceptable (this was discussed a long time ago and agreed upon). It was introduced by Stephen and isn't used by others. (2) {{au|Georg Frey|Frey|1969}} doesn't seem to produce the desired effect: There's no link to the author and no "Category: Names published in 1969" produced. (3) The small caps are essential to my mind and this is also the case with the user majority here. Mariusm (talk) 08:59, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
Is the documentation on the template page not clear? 'cause I feel like you haven't even tried to look at it:
  1. That this sort of link to ref templates can be achieve is a side-effect of the template design, not a goal. I only mentioned it in passing.
  2. On the contrary it produces the exact desired effects:
    • Using the template like that causes it to try and link to an hypothetical "Georg Frey Frey". The correct format is clearly intended to be {{au|Georg|Frey|1969}}. Parameters are given name(s), family name (i.e. the displayed part, replaceable with the custom "a" parameter), the combination of which should form a page that exists, lest a link is not generated, and year.
    • Categories are not generated unless the extra parameters date or cat (d and c for short) are used. The reason for this should be blatantly obvious: if it did, the template could not be used more than once per taxon page without suppressing the categories every time! The code that generates categories, clearly stated in the documentation is either {{au|Georg|Frey|date=1969}} or {{au|Georg|Frey|1969|d(ate)=yes}}
    • Same for the author category, which can even be customized if it happens to differ from the two parameters used in the template, as in the Broun example.
    • Note that categories are, very sensibly IMO, never created outside mainspace, so try as you might, you can't generate them on the Village Pump.
  3. As I clearly stated, the small caps are only not there for now as I make sure I've got the core of the template running as smoothly as I want/need it to. I intend to use a separate template to integrate it in this one anyway.
I'm not sure where you even got the idea that {{au|Georg Frey|Frey|1969}} is a valid syntax for the template to begin with. It's not even a valid syntax for any of the templates this one would replace. Circeus (talk) 10:56, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
@Circeus: Sorry for the misunderstanding but it's not how the template {{a}} behaves like. It works both for {{a|Georg Frey|Frey}} and also for {{a|Georg Frey|Frey, G.}} hence the first parameter is the full name and the 2nd is the displayed one. I supposed the {{au}} will work in the same manner. Mariusm (talk) 14:45, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
I could work the {{a}} default format, since {{a|Georg Frey|Frey}} is the same as {{au|Georg Frey||Frey}}, however, it's impossible to work in {{a|Georg Frey|Frey, G.}} alongside that. I am fine with that, because the same template should not handle both author orf names and author of references. Again, there was no excuse for not using the cite templates as early as possible, leaving us with an issue bigger than Stephen's personal gardens: we have more than forty frickin thousand pages in category:reference templates!
At least the use of {{a}} in reference template is easily removed by bot, fixing that issue temporarily (i.e. while waiting for conversion to cite templates) if we choose to: {{a|Georg Frey|Frey, G.}} would have the parameters intact, but the wraparound altered to {{sc|[[Georg Frey|Frey, G.]]}}. Circeus (talk) 06:19, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
@Circeus: No, no, please!!! The cite templates have been decided to be unsuitable for WS! I must also stress that all uses for authors templates except for {{a}} and {{aut}} are extremely rare! 99% use only {{a}} and {{aut}}! Only Stephen used the {{auth}} and so on. You seem to work against the consensus established here for the author templates. Mariusm (talk) 06:34, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
Why? As far as I can tell there are exactly two "standard" differences in formatting (besides the fact that for the most part people just do whatever the fuck they want): small-cap authors (so easy to put in it's not even worth mentioning), and ISSN used for series links (which could in fact be automated if we used these templates). Wikispecies is literally the single most backward project on this issue, so excuse me if I don't take it very seriously. Circeus (talk) 09:04, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
I should point out this issue is specifically making Wikispecies less relevant, see here someone whose specialty is working with big taxobibliographical data bemoaning specifically "the lack of a decent bibliographic template" as an impediment to doing things with Wikispecies. That was six years ago and there was no questioning of the status quo ever since? What are we? The Japanese Imperial family?! It prevents any sort of interaction with any tool at all, starting with reference gathering like Zotero. How can we pretend to try to make Wikispecies relevant when we are not to much shooting as nuking ourselves in the foot? Circeus (talk) 09:48, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
You know what? As soon as the geographical category thing done with, I'm turning to THAT instead of the high-order categories, because it's just so damn ridiculously petty. I'm betting that even with the citation module having been converted to Lua on Wikspecies, I can still make the tiny spacing and punctuation changes required to follow the "species" style. (I still find that ridiculous from this crew. You are constantly having to deal with journals/editors who have subtly different styles from each others, and you spit in the face of a system designed to remove that whole formatting hassle—and it's not like anyone can't just do as they please if they choose to anyway; who would even notice?) Circeus (talk) 11:11, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Sorry for that digression, but this sort of things just riles me up like crazy (it's a perfect example of the "important issues getting sidetracked and nothing ever getting done" that I mentioned before, and by saying it now I'm probably derailing this conversation again...). I'd like more opinions though. Does anyone else think the template must be able to handle the use case of {{a/au|name surname|surname}} in a way that generates a link? I'm pretty sure, however, that detecting a sequence of the form "string|string" and deleting the first string is easy. @Dan Koehl: any thoughts about that and the possible conversion of {{a}} in reference sections I outlined above? Circeus (talk) 11:19, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

This is not worth getting caught up on. However you want to do it is fine with me, but it is useful to be able to have it generate a link in the form of {{a/au|name surname|surname}} since when listing the synonyms each taxon name in zoology is proceeded by the surname and year, this should link to the author page whose namespace will be in the form of first names surname, in saying that I do not care if only one of the options does it, I am happy to use both {{a}} and {{aut}} or whatever for example for different purposes. As for a decent author template I am guessing you are meaning like the Wikipedia one, I have to say I am no fan of it, I do not use it on WP. I find it cumbersome and does not produce a proper citation style format as a writer I find that displeasing so I do it myself on wikipedia. In saying that I guess some sort of template that produced scientific style citations in a format acceptable in science would be useful. But I am yet to see one on any wiki. Digressing a little, if you go the path of automating the link in an author citation template to find for example the doi or something of the paper, I would rather you did not make this automatic, there are far better, licence free places to obtain access to publications than through the doi. However, that is a digression. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 12:15, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
And yet no one back then even ATTEMPTED to simply adjust {{cite journal}} (thankfully that is the pre-lua version because god helps us if it were the lua thing. I'm sure it's a very elegant thing to a programmer, but to common mortals like myself, it morphed into a monstrosity that no one can do anything with anymore) for the minute changes needed. And I do mean minute. Literally minuscule. Things like punctuation (I can remove the date parentheses in less time than I need to add small caps to {{au}}!) and a few things that are not even connected to the template itself. And suddenly Wikispecies could become relevant to people. It would have usable, machine-harvestable data, of which we currently have not a single piece anywhere on the website. While I'm aware taxonomic data in the form we present it will probably never be machine-harvestable, having references that are would be a gigantic step in making Wikispecies genuinely useful to the greater community. Circeus (talk) 12:40, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
@Circeus: Let's stay calm and not get needlessly agitated on these issues. You're speaking from a programmer's point of view. If you needed to enter 100 citations in the {{Cite journal}} format you'd be very quickly exasperated. It is much harder to chop a complex citation into the various fields of {{Cite journal}} then to lay it down in one piece. It is also very difficult for a casual user to master the intricacies of such a complex template. You're right when you say it's much more machine-friendly, but is it also more human-friendly? I say it is not. Mariusm (talk) 13:27, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
I have no idea why {{cite journal}} was not modified, I agree it could have been. I need to ask though what are you trying to accomplish. I was under the impression you are talking about the templates used in our name declarations eg: Rheodytes devisi Thomson 2000 coded as {{a|Scott Thomson|Thomson}} 2000. Are you trying to have it so that it will also create the reference list ie as per {{reflist}} on wikipedia? If so I would support that. All I personally would ask of that is follow standard harvard science format. What others think on that I do not know. Reference list is simple, it follows standard journal practices and it will be fine. But when it comes to name declarations we are governed by the rules of nomenclature, of which there are 5 for different sets of organisms and they do not agree with each other. They were also written prior to computerisation and hence were never intended to be data mined or automated. This is an unfortunate side effect of how long they have been used but not one easily dismissed. Please explain exactly what your are trying to accomplish and I can help you. I am a programmer but I am not understanding everything you want this template to do. I thought you were just adding the date to it so that we can do something like this if we wish {{a|Scott Thomson|Thomson|2000}} though personally I would want an extra option of page number on date ie {{a|Scott Thomson|Thomson|2000|595}} which would appear as Thomson 2000:595. Where the page number is the page of the species declaration, not the pages of the article, ie that article actually goes 593-598. No need to yell ok, I am trying to help I know nomenclature is frustrating done it for 25 years. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 13:38, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
The conversation derived to the cite templates because {{a}} is heavily used in them (i.e. to generate the small caps and author links), and I was pointing this usage would not be supported in {{au}}, at least not in the default formatting, because I was of the opinion the template used to format taxon authorities should never have been used in references in the first place.
I think people are annoyed because when they think "unfriendly", they think of the HUGE list of possible parameter (I think around 50 as of this writing), when 90% of references are handled with something like 10 parameters, even less so when there are fewer links or only one author.
I said that people would do whatever the hell they want either way... and that's what they do. It took me 10 minutes to find out people are formatting books in series in at least three different fashions.
There is no reason{{au}} to be machine-harvestable (nor is there even a standard applicable in this case as far as I can tell). People are confusing two completely different points about {{au}} for taxon authorities and the cite templates for references (thus completely sidelining the discussion, again as predicted). Circeus (talk) 05:56, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
There really was no need to protect the project from Stephen. The userbase does a good enough job of making it a useless closed garden without his intervention. Circeus (talk) 05:59, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
Ok @Circeus: now I get what your trying to do. I agree with you the template should not be used to create references lists. As I pointed out I would support the idea of an automatic reflist similar to the reflist template in wikipedia for this. It is an aside but I wanted to comment on it. The user friendliness of the cite templates could be made simpler by acknowledging the different types of articles better, we have cite journal and cite book, we really need a different one for cite chapter as these are written out differently to true journal articles but are also not really a book. Having three different cite templates for the different types of articles would reduce the parameter load individually and hence user friendliness. However this is an aside, so please do not let this distract the main discussion. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 19:00, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

As a side note I will agree with one point of @Mariusm's the {{Cite journal}} template is ridiculously user unfriendly and fails completely on the ideal of any program/ script/ template of KISS ie "keep it simple stupid". It would be better done away with wiki wide. But lets move forward do the best we can. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 14:01, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

I was asked for opinion, and Im afraid I will do everyone frustrated or disappointed. I would support that all the input done here were done directly into the wikidata database, rather than through all kind of different templates, but what would come out with a visually identical result. Im a friend of standards, and for each submission manually done now, theres a risk for some indivuals error, or that some small difference is done, this would not happen, when all records were in their own little pocket in a database. I would therefore work more to make a fusion between WS and Wikidata, rather than discuss and develop all those different templates. Dan Koehl (talk) 22:48, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
@Dan Koehl: you indeed frustrated me with this post. A crat who doesn't believe in the wiki he's crating is not an easy matter to digest. I for one believe that Wikidata isn't suited for taxonomic data and that WS is very much more so. Mariusm (talk) 05:39, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
Actually, I wanted to know how bot-friendly converting {{a|name surname|surname}}, year to {{au|name|surname|year}} would be. Circeus (talk) 05:56, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
@Circeus:, I think thats an easy task to do, with AWB, and evventually in botmode. Dan Koehl (talk) 10:55, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

@Circeus:, if you give me a couple of examples, I can happily try it out with AWB. If its not many that may be enough, with out bot. Dan Koehl (talk) 01:55, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

@Mariusm:, you misunderstood me, and You put words in my mouth which I did not myself write. I believe in this wiki very much, I was was not comparing Wikispecies and Wikidata in that sense, I was referring to a method uf submitting records, the data into the database. I dont think its being done in the most easiest and efficient way now, and being forced to make semi-produced templates for each and every new article, is not user friendly, and unattractive for new users, therefore against the goal of the project. With an alternative interface, where the records were stored in wikidata, (which they already partly are?) would make the work easier. In 2004, when I started here, there was no wikidata existing. If it had existed back then, Im sure the submission of data would have been performed in another way, similar to what I described. Dan Koehl (talk) 10:55, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
@Dan Koehl: Sorry if I misinterpreted your meaning, but you said fairly clearly "I would support that all the input done here were done directly into the wikidata database" and I postulated that in that particular situation there's no way that WS can continue to exist as a separate wiki. The "wikidata database" doesn't allow for many WS features to be expressed, including notes, comments, type species, holotypes and much more. "Wikidata database" will cripple WS and make it totally ineffective. Why rather than help us improve the existing WS would you rather give up and throw us upon the "wikidata database", why? Mariusm (talk)
@Mariusm: it seems we are speaking about different things, I was referring to an easier interface, where posts are submitted through windows into a database, where the records in the end get stored, in which database, and physically where, is for most users unknown. I dont think anyone dreams of that I would not defend WS wiki and its use and existence. I am helping. I have not fiven up anything, I havnt thrown anyone anywhere. Please dont waste more time for us both, discussing non existing issues.
On the other hand, if you read Help:General_Wikispecies, its already written there: The founder of the Wikimedia Foundation, Jimbo Wales, has written a note, that already makes clear the difference between Wikipedia and Wikispecies. The Wikimedia Foundation also hosts a project called Wikidata. Wikidata is a database for various types of content. Wikidata centrally stores (and allows users to manage) data from all Wikimedia projects, and to radically expand the range of content that can be built using wiki principles.
Imagine that you can edit the content of an infobox on Wikipedia with one click, that you get an edit form specific to the infobox you are editing, and that other Wikipedias automatically and immediately use the same content (unless it is specific to your locale). Imagine that some data in an article can be automatically updated in the background, without any work from you — whether it is the development of a company stock, or the number of lines of code in an open source project. Imagine that you can easily search wiki-databases on a variety of subjects, without knowing anything about wikis. Wikispecies data will eventually be stored in Wikidata..
You are referring to yourself as member of the group us, like if I was not member in the group you think you belong to. This is going a little bit to far now, and I want to kindly remind you about Wikispecies:Policy: Be civil. Being rude, insensitive or petty makes people upset and stops Wikispecies from working well. Try to discourage others from being uncivil, and be careful to avoid offending people unintentionally.'
Discuss the issue, and the subject, not my person, please!
Dan Koehl (talk) 12:44, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
@Dan Koehl: Please make an effort and be less aggressive in your speech. You're mixing being rude with a natural wish of mine to clarify our standpoints following a statement of yours which seemed to me to be rather incompatible with WS basic aspirations. Mariusm (talk) 13:59, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
@Mariusm: What seems to to be my standpoint according to you, is not the subject here. You already confirmed that you have misunderstood me, now please drop the efforts making my person a subject for this discussion, or weather I am incompatible with WS basic aspirations. Thats a personal attack, please follow Wikispecies:Policy. I have been referring to submitting records the interface of WS, and I dont believe that all the templates is the fastest, easiest, and best solution for the future. I think there must be better and more user friendly methods. Dan Koehl (talk) 14:08, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
@Dan Koehl: Fine. The vary last thing I want to do here is to engage in an argument with you. You just need to allow more free rein for opinions contradicting yours to be heard, and heard aloud. In the present case, your statement was of major consequences and of paramount importance for me, therefor I was in a need to clarify it once and for all. You're entitled to hold any view you want as long as you let others express theirs without being harassed. You don't have to apologize or to make any excuses. The only thing I demanded is to clarify your position. I wish you all the best. Mariusm (talk) 16:00, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
As far as I know, I havnt harassed anyone, if Im wrong, please give me a diff. All I did, was having an opinion, which was an answer requested by Circeus, and I dont view that as any kind of "Statement", it was merely a personal comment. I always let anyone express their opinions, and therefore dont see any need for excusing myself. You did a lot more than "demanding that I clearified my position, among other things questioned my loyality to WS you indicated that I was rude, that Im a crat who doesn't believe in the wiki Im crating, that I throw you upon the "wikidata database", etc, etc. Can we quit the discussion about Dan Koehl and focus on the project now, please? Dan Koehl (talk) 16:15, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

@Circeus: I think such a change is easy to make, with AWB and/or a bot. Dan Koehl (talk) 10:55, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

@Mariusm: I believe you misunderstood me, and I ask you please not to put words in mouth, like that I believe in the wiki, you are completely wrong. And I didn't compare the projects in that sense, what I mean is that it would be easier to update all records in an easier and more precise way than today, and without being forced to make a semi-complicated template for ean and every new aricle/file. When I started here in 2005

Circeus: don't get me wrong - I'm not against {{au}}. I think it's a fine template. My problem is the elimination of the small caps for author's name. It is used in most publications and catalogues. I don't see why you're against it. And yes - the {{Cite journal}} is for a different discussion. Mariusm (talk) 06:25, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm not even eliminating it. I just didn't happen to put in the template at the time. I DO intent to have it in there. In fact I've just created the subtemplate {{sc}} for that as I prep the citation templates.
ETA: {{au}} and {{cite journal}} now feature small-capped authors. Furthermore {{cite journal}} now accounts for all the style differences with the original cite templates. The remaining differences (i.e. display of identifiers and use of ISSN to link the periodical) are not an issue of referencing style per se (you can do the latter already), and a small amount of additional wrangling can easily automate ISSN links. I have not yet started on {{cite book}} because it seems people are not quite in agreement (Didn't I say something earlier about people doing whatever they wanted anyway? Yes, yes I did.) regarding the proper formatting for books within series. I have found three distinct formats. Circeus (talk) 11:18, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
Circeus: What would happen while using template au, if the authority is a new one and its page or the "category:xxxx taxa" are not yet created? Can they be created as redlinks? --Thiotrix (talk) 08:03, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
Redlinks happen indeed: the template checks and will not create a link if the author page is missing, but the categories will always be generated as long as the relevant parameters ("date" and "cat" respectively, d and c for short) are triggered. The template won't generate categories if the page isn't in mainspace, however. Circeus (talk) 10:34, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
@Circeus: How would you use Template:Au in Rhamdia quelen? As it seems, the parenthesis parameter would not work correctly with two authors having described the taxon. As parenthesis easily can be added manually at the right place, it is probably better to remove this optional parameter from the template. Regards --Franz Xaver (talk) 13:36, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
Indeed the template cannot handle any cases where two links/names are present within parentheses. I don't see this is as much of a problem at all since it should be blatantly obvious in the first place that the template isn't meant to handle for than one author at a time in the first place (not that it couldn't, but since people around here have refused to use cite templates on account of so-called user-unfriendliness, I dare not assume they would be willing to use {{au}} if it had the several extra parameters needed to do so). Circeus (talk) 14:01, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Wikispecies need Patrollers[edit]


  • Autopatrollers: Most users with Autopatrolling Rights are experienced wikipedians and hence generally understand what is needed.
  • New users and not Autopatrollers: However, what we are looking for when a not autopatroller has edited a file, a patroller checkup that the page has been edited or created in lines with what we need on Wikispecies, following our accepted formats. The page does not have to be complete, particularly if it was only recently created. That is: be friendly and give users time to finish it. This work is done by Patrollers.
  • Patrollers:. Many users already have the Patrollers right, but doesnt use it, maybe because they dont know what to do, and how:

Article edits and submission done, by users who are not yet Autopatrollers need to be checked up. One way to see unpatrolled edits is to go to RecentChanges where unpatrolled articles has a red-colored ! in front of the article name.

A more affective way though, is to follow the link to the left, called RTRC, where you see a list with the last edits. In order to filter out the unpatrolled edits, you mark by clicking the checkboxes: "Hide bots", "Hide registered users" and "Hide patrolled edits", and set the Autodiff on "on". Then you click the blue button "Apply" to get the list of unpatrolled edits. Once you do, to patrol an edit, click on the link "Diff" before the file name, and you will see the latest revison change. If its OK, you can patrol it by clicking the [Mark as patrolled] link. Or, if the file has been vandalized, you can click on rollback. In ordet to patrol next file, ckick on "close" in the upper right corner of the patrol window, and again click on "Diff" for the next file to patrol. You can get new diffs automatically, if you check the checkbox, "Autodiff".

There is presently approximately 948 not patrolled edits (+5) unpatrolled edits, in need to be patrolled.

On Wikispecies, only a limited number of users help with patrolling, as you can see on Wikispecies Patrollers activity, and it would be good if more users engaged in this, helping out to keep the back log as short as possible.

If you want to help with patrolling, please apply for Patrolling Rights in the section Requests for patroller rights. The statistics for recent patrols can be seen here.

Dan Koehl (talk) 11:34, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

@Dan Koehl: In case you didn't notice, that template by SteinsplitterBot is old--the bot is defunct. —Justin (koavf)TCM 09:26, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the info, @Koavf:, I checked with Steinsplitter, and he says that now it should work again. Dan Koehl (talk) 15:49, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
@Dan Koehl: That it is! Thanks a lot. There were some old reports from that bot and some templates that I had been thinking about deleting for housekeeping but if it's running again, then that is handy. — The preceding unsigned comment was added by Koavf (talkcontribs) 20px Alvaro Molina ( - ) 05:01, 14 February 2017 (UTC).


This is an archive of closed discussions. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this archive.

  • Summation: Discussion was made on whether disclosure policy for paid editing should be regulated by Wikimedia Commons' policy or by special in-house policy. Proposal was made to adopt Wikimedia Commons' policy, as paid editing is less likely to occur on this project, and open to alternatives. Since 11 February 2017, no votes or comments have been posted. At that time, there were four support votes, two neutral, and no oppose votes for adopting WC policy. Thus this RFC may be considered closed with consensus. Wikimedia Commons paid editing default policy shall become Wikispecies policy. Neferkheperre (talk) 02:46, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Unless I've missed it (I have searched, extensively) Wikispecies does not have its own policy on paid editing. This means that the default WMF policy:


I propose that we adopt the same policy as Wikimedia Commons:

The Wikispecies community does not require any disclosure of paid contributions from its contributors.

Thoughts? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:20, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I agree Dan Koehl (talk) 22:37, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Redundant. It's already implemented in foundation:Terms of Use in every page across all projects. Besides, we don't have the power to modify it even if we want to. OhanaUnitedTalk page 01:34, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
    • Your comments are orthogonal to reality. The default policy is the one I linked to, not the one I propose here. And the WMF have explicitly invited projects to set out a policy different to that default (as can be seen on that linked page), as Wikimedia Commons have done. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:45, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support It's probably not necessary to even create a page for that here but to simply mention in passing at some policy page. The likelihood that this project would even encounter a problem with it is low compared to Wikipedia. —Justin (koavf)TCM 02:19, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I support it but I too was under the impression we have no say in this anyway. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 07:16, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I think that Wikispecies is systematic and standardized enough that paid vs. unpaid contributions would be very unlikely to produce any conflicts of interest. Nicole Sharp (talk) 08:41, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Like Ohana, I find it somewhat redundant. Sound enough otherwise. Maybe throw this over at WS:RFC since there's a wikiwide message about RFCs right now? Circeus (talk) 11:42, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Paid editing probably never will be a big issue for WS. Why then have own policy? --Franz Xaver (talk) 12:28, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
    • Many people who edit are (by the WMF definition) making paid edits. Why make them declare that (or put them in a position of jeopardy for not doing so), if it "probably never will be a big issue" here? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:24, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Current position[edit]

At the time of writing, and while this project has no local policy on the matter, we are bound by the WMF policy on paid editing.

I have created Wikispecies:Paid editing to make that clear.

It is apparent from the above discussion that some colleagues have not been aware of this, or of what that policy actually says. I encourage all editors, whether professional or amateur taxonomists, to make themselves familiar with that policy. It states:

These Terms of Use prohibit engaging in deceptive activities, including misrepresentation of affiliation, impersonation, and fraud. As part of these obligations, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. You must make that disclosure in at least one of the following ways:

  • a statement on your user page,
  • a statement on the talk page accompanying any paid contributions, or
  • a statement in the edit summary accompanying any paid contributions.

Applicable law, or community and Foundation policies and guidelines, such as those addressing conflicts of interest, may further limit paid contributions or require more detailed disclosure.

A Wikimedia Project community may adopt an alternative paid contribution disclosure policy. If a Project adopts an alternative disclosure policy, you may comply with that policy instead of the requirements in this section when contributing to that Project. An alternative paid contribution policy will only supersede these requirements if it is approved by the relevant Project community and listed in the alternative disclosure policy page.

For more information, please read our FAQ on disclosure of paid contributions.

We reserve the right to exercise our enforcement discretion with respect to the above terms.

Please express your views about whether to maintain this status quo, or adopt a local policy, in the above section. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:33, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Not sure about what I think about the need etc, but I chose to support you with this, just because I value the initiative and your will to develop the infrastructure at Wikispecies, and every step in that direction I regard as positive. Im therefore not sure on whether a local policy is really needed, or not, but my first suggestion, since you start with such issues, maybe you could also develop some categories, where those different documents belong to, so it will be easier to trace them, and find them? As well as to find out which documents we miss, and should be added? You will surely come up with something relevant.I may come back reg your question, but would like to see other users answers and opinions first. Dan Koehl (talk) 18:21, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for your kind words. You mean categories like Category:Wikispecies policies? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:30, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
Quick query then. I am a professional taxonomist and paleontologist. I am obviously employed as such. However I do not get paid to contribute to Wikispecies. It is not part of my job description. Everything I do on wikispecies is done in my own time. However I do if writing about species I described clearly use publications as references that like all science I am not paid to write, but the science behind them I may have been paid to do. Sometimes I am not paid, typical science we do it because we love it. No money in it. How does this figure in in peoples views. Not referring to NPoV or OR here, just in relation to this policy.
As for whether we should include something then I guess we should even if we just agree with the general policy which I have no issue with. I do not foresee any special circumstances for this wiki. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 22:50, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
AIUI, that is a grey area. Some people would regard you writing about your paid work as being within the bounds of the policy. Some would also regard it as "paid editing" if you cite a work in which your employer has an interest, for example. I always advise editors I am training on sister projects to err on the side of caution, and under the default WMF policy I would advise you to make a declaration on this project. The policy propose above would render that utterly unnecessary, even if you boss explicitly tells you to edit Wikispecies. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:59, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
My user pages on all wikis declare what I do and who I work for, which taxa I have described so its all in B&W and has been for some time. With taxa I have described if I write the wikipedia page about them I ask for the information to be reviewed by other editors, making it clear I have an NPoV issue on that topic, and accept their decision. So I have no issue with it. Science is strange, My employer has a vested interest in me and my research but my publications are my problem. In saying that, of course my publications are a big part of my CV so there is a feedback loop there. Anyway I have digressed a little here as I wanted clarity where this issue potentially effected me. On your proposal as I said before I can see why we need to say something here, personally I have no issue with the standard policy and think it could be adopted here. I can think of no reasons for anything out of the norm mfor this wiki. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 00:36, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
Yes, your user-page declaration meets the requirements of the WMF default policy, without question. For the avoidance of doubt, I was speaking generally. However, you suggest that "the standard policy... could be adopted here". My point is that it applies already, by default, and will continue to do so unless we adopt an alternative. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:18, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
Mr. Mabbett could you please add some examples where this is relevant? --Succu (talk) 23:08, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
We're discussing such an example in the posts immediately preceding yours. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:57, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
In all honesty my reasons for stating what I do have been more about NPoV and OR than paid editing, however I can see that it could be seen that way too, although personally I do not consider myself paid per se to edit in any way. I do not get paid for my publications like most scientists I publish because I more or less have to. I realised you were talking about adopting a policy here that made this issue less of a problem. However considering this is more than a paid editing issue, ie the NPoV and OR issues, I feel any scientists should declare their interests up front, particularly on this project. Hence I think the standard policy for this issue is fine. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 12:37, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this archive.


I have duly recorded the outcome of this RfC at Wikispecies:Policy#Paid editing and meta:Alternative paid contribution disclosure policies. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:56, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Managerial inflation[edit]

We're seeing in the last months a torrent of managerial/administrative/cleansing projects which strive to straighten the crooked back of WS. While some are welcome, others are forcing far too much of a good thing which becomes expressively bad. Yet other good-intentioned enthusiasts enforce projects which are not in line with the common taxonomic practice. The administrator/user ratio has become insupportably high and as a consequence we reached a situation where even the mere existence of WS is questioned — the reasoning goes that Wikidata can and should absorb WS and replace it's function to become a more efficient substitute.

I understand the allure of "revolutionizing" a "limp old horse" but what we need here is primarily editors who perform the routine entry of taxonomic data and not endless managerial projects — they are just fine, but up to a certain limit. Mariusm (talk) 05:27, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

@Mariusm: I certainly don't disagree with you. If you have particular things in mind, then I'd be interested to get your perspective. Even if certain policy/administrative things aren't done, the value of the resource is that it provides good taxonomic data. —Justin (koavf)TCM 05:34, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
@Mariusm: I'd be interested to know which specific, recent, "managerial/administrative/cleansing projects" you think are superfluous, and should not have happened, and why. Furthermore, I don't see anyone seriously questioning the existence of Wikispecies, but - as I have here before - it is redundant to store data twice (or more) and it makes sense to store taxonomic data on Wikidata, where it can be used by this project, all the Wikipedias, and more. I also fail to see how the number of administrators impacts on this. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:50, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
@Pigsonthewing: regarding the Wikidata merger — Dan Koehl wrote above the following: "I would support that all the input done here were done directly into the wikidata database ... I would therefore work more to make a fusion between WS and Wikidata." I would say this puts a question mark on WS' existence, don't you think? You also may agree with me that managers engaged 100% of their WS-time in managerial tasks are prone to escalate their "projects" and come up with unnecessary mends, like plucking-out spaces from "Category: xxx" from between ":" and "xxx". When you're continuously in search for projects to do you inevitably come up with something too grandiose or something too superfluous. Mariusm (talk) 12:43, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
No, I don't think Dan's comment "puts a question mark on WS' existence" at all; I refer you to my above explanation. If someone fixes a malformed category name, such as in your example, I applaud them. If that is all they do on Wikispecies, so what - it relieves those who do the more hard-core taxonomy edits from the burden of having to perform such far-from-unnecessary fixes. I asked you "which specific, recent, 'managerial/administrative/cleansing projects' you think are superfluous, and should not have happened, and why". Is renaming categories your only example? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:24, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

@Mariusm: I want to repeat that 1. you have misinterpreted me in the discussion above, since I "dont puts a question mark on WS" at all. Im aprogrammer, I work with databases, and I was refering to where the records are stored, sorted, and how to update the base. I run the worlds largest elephant database, and it would take me ten times the time to update the records there, if I would use any similar method like the how the work is done here, Im trying to do the work as exact as possible, and theres no room for mispellings, and 2. what I referred to with a "fusion between WS and Wikidata" was the technical aspects, NOT THE WEBSITE, an easier interface, where you dont need to create one or more templates for each new file. But this is a matter of taste and opinion, and as long as I dont interfere with your opinions, or harass you for them, I demand the same from you. You have tried for some days now, to attack my person, and I once again, ask you kindly to focus on the subjects, discuss how and why to work on WS, and not me, my person, my opinions, or other users, whos opinions you dont like. And let users speak for their opinions themselves, dont tell others which opinion I have, please!

Please follow the Wikispecies:Policy:

  1. Avoid personal attacks: Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikispecies. Comment on content, not on the contributor. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users away from editing. Nobody likes to be abused. and
  2. Be civil. Being rude, insensitive or petty makes people upset and stops Wikispecies from working well. Try to discourage others from being uncivil, and be careful to avoid offending people unintentionally..

I am not working to destroy Wikispecies. Now I ask you to stop this personal cruisade you started against me some days ago during the Template discussions. OR, if you think I have broken any rules on WS, and abused my user rights or something, then report me on correct place, and let me undergo investigation, and defend myself. But trying to start rumors about this and that you accuse me for, Its useless, you and me are not enemies, I dont want to destroy Wikispecies, I am not questioning the existence of Wikispecies.

We had peace and a good working atmosphere here on WS, for a long time now, let it stay like that. I hope everyone agree with that, if Im wrong then tell me so. Dan Koehl (talk) 01:05, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Very well. Perhaps I misinterpreted the wiki code of conduct and misunderstood the good intentions fogged out by cover words. Let's leave it at that and close this chapter and be done with it. I'll keep my conversations here to the strict minimum. No harm intended. Mariusm (talk) 05:10, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Category:Names published in xxxx - Consensus to use it?[edit]

Resulting from of the discussions above, I see there are three positions about "Category:Names published in xxxx":

  • some regard this kind of category as unnecessary.
  • others regard it as useful and would prefer to have it for data management.
  • a third proposal was, that Wikispecies should begin using Wikidata as a tool for data input and categorization.

The third one is a more fundamental question and probably a more long-term goal, and it deserves its own extra discussion, of cause. Just to focus here on "Category:Names published in xxxx", can we achieve a consensus to use it from now on? (zoology: year of original-combination / botany: year of last accepted combination, plus year of basionym on its redirect page). --Thiotrix (talk) 10:13, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

As I understand the previous discussion, it has not been shown convincingly, that such kind of categories actually can serve some useful purpose. Of course, the year, when a name or combination was established, is an important information for all kind of priority issues, but why categories? Is this worth the effort?
Anyway, the date is a property of the name of a taxon, not of the taxon itself, considering that taxa may be re-circumscribed several times without changing name, author, and date. So, all kinds of synonyms also have their dates (and autors). If implemented, this will mean much work. --Franz Xaver (talk) 12:03, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
As I stated above, my view is that as a category this is not particularly useful, It is important information but being on the mainspace page for each taxa is enough, In terms of priority, for any of the codes priority only applies within a specific taxon and we do not list junior synonyms as mainspace pages in any case. Hence it is not going to group taxa together for this purpose. We should also recognise that issues of priority though reported by us are not for us to make nomenclatural acts upon. In saying all that if people wish to have these categories I have no objection to this, but I do not see significant value in it. This is not a reflection upon categories in general, they have many uses, some essential, but this one is a gray area for usefulness to me. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 12:16, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Introduction to Wikidata Live on YouTube[edit]

You can just now watch Tech Talk: A Gentle Introduction to Wikidata for Absolute Beginners [including non-techies!] Dan Koehl (talk) 19:16, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Changing photo[edit]

Yes check.svg Resolved.

New to this wiki and I've been unable to figure out how a photo can be changed. The photo in Telmatobius culeus (File:Lake Titicaca Frog 1.JPG) shows Telmatobius marmoratus. I've corrected it at commons and wikis where I could figure it out, but was left puzzled by wiki.species. I could just remove the {{image}} template, but I presume it is possible to changed it to an illustration of a real Telmatobius culeus, which is already on commons (File:Telmatobius culeus.jpg). Anybody able to help? Thanks, RN1970 (talk) 19:57, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Done this for you. I changed the image template to {{image|Telmatobius_culeus.jpg}} to specify an image, without specifying it defaults to an image based on the information at Wikidata I believe. Have a look at the source code on the page. You can follow a page here to its page on Wikidata by following the link with the Q number in it, ie. Q1628083. @Succu: I have not fixed the image on Wikidata, will do so later when I have a moment. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 20:07, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, appreciated. RN1970 (talk) 07:39, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
I've changed the pic at wikidata - MPF (talk) 11:00, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Graphical ancestry tree for higher taxa[edit]

This is interesting, go to this site and put in english or scientific name in "Root Item" and click the button "build". Dan Koehl (talk) 23:36, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Updates of Help[edit]

It seems like a long time ago on the VP that I indicated that I would have ago at the Name Section of the Help Pages. See here for the VP discussion Name Section. Well I have made a start here. I would be grateful if you have a look through my efforts and comment, suggest changes or indeed just edit as you feel free. Regards Andyboorman (talk) 11:32, 10 February 2017 (UTC)


As pointed out above, we have had a lot of policy-type discussions lately (for better or worse), so that results in: 1.) this page because big quickly and 2.) we need to archive discussions even though some of them are important--they have just gone stale. So I cleared out several conversations over the past week, even though they are some important enough topics (like the whole conversations on our categories). Also, Wikispecies:Village Pump/Archive 40 isn't an excessively long page, so please archive a few threads from here to there before you create Wikispecies:Village Pump/Archive 41. —Justin (koavf)TCM 18:51, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

I think you were a little bit fast there, one month old discussions should be available here and not archived, I think. But I dont object your move, Ill start a poll below reg the subst of PAGENAME, a discussion not really completed, which is now in the archive. Dan Koehl (talk) 11:20, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Poll reg subst:ing BASEPAGENAME[edit]

This poll has closed. Final results:
  • 13 Symbol support vote.svg Support - Not use {{BASEPAGENAME}} and subst all occurrence:
  • 6 Symbol support vote.svg Support - Keep {{BASEPAGENAME}} and not subst all occurrence:
  • 0 other alternatives.
  • Clear majority in favor of discontinued use and substitution of all occurrences. The poll ran for 11 days. So I am closing it. If people wish to discuss it further do so. Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 00:10, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Its not totally easy to interpret a consensus from the previous discussions, but I try to make a poll, and ask for comments from @Ruthven, MPF:@Orchi, PeterR, Pigsonthewing, RLJ, Ruthven, Thiotrix, Tommy Kronkvist: and from everybody else in the WS community. Please vote!

Not use {{BASEPAGENAME}} and subst all occurrence:

  1. Dan Koehl (talk) 11:23, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
  2. RLJ (talk) 11:55, 11 February 2017 (UTC) (taxon pages only)
  3. Andyboorman (talk) 12:36, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
  4. Burmeister (talk) 13:04, 11 February 2017 (UTC) [remove/substitute from taxon pages, but maintain the use in template domain]
  5. Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 13:20, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
  6. BanKris (talk) 14:48, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
  7. Samuele2002 (talk) 15:28, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
  8. AfroBrazilian (talk) 19:50, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
  9. Franz Xaver (talk) 16:59, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
  10. Orchi (talk) 18:33, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
  11. Thiotrix (talk) 10:19, 13 February 2017 (UTC) (for taxon pages, but maintain in templates)
  12. Tommy Kronkvist (talkcontribsblockall projects) (Taxon pages only.)
  13. MPF (talk) 10:47, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Keep {{BASEPAGENAME}} and not subst all occurrence:

  1. I'm not aware of any bad consequences the BASEPAGENAME may cause. On the positive side it: (1) Greatly facilitates new page creating in automating insertion of twice the species names. (2) Greatly facilitates comb. nov. in heading off the necessity for replacing species names. (3) Prevents naming errors and typing errors. Mariusm (talk) 14:25, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
  2. A big advantage of a page that uses the {{BASEPAGENAME}} convention is when changing a species to a different or new genus. I cannot see what advantage is gained by having to type in Subst: as well, and can not yet see what benefit adding this "subst:" function grants. Accassidy (talk) 14:54, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
  3. Although I'm always subst'ing BASEPAGENAME for reasons of a clear source code, I don't see the harm, if it remains. --Murma174 (talk) 15:18, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
  4. If we substitute all occurrences we will destroy some very usable templates, especially {{taxa}}, and in reference citation wiki formatting. I see no usefullness for it in taxon pages, as manual format adjustments are necessary in any generic reassignment. Neferkheperre (talk) 16:41, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
  5. I use BASEPAGENAME and nothing else PeterR (talk) 15:12, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
  6. MKOliver (talk) 16:40, 12 February 2017 (UTC) - I use subst:BASEPAGENAME (almost?) exclusively. However, I don't want to "destroy some very usable templates" (above). Looks to me like the option to continue using BASEPAGENAME is valuable.

other alternative:


  • I think it would be useful if someone could set out, succinctly and neutrally, the claimed advantages and disadvantages of using BASEPAGENAME, as expressed in the earlier discussion. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:55, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
  • I try to do a very brief resume of my point of view: using BASEPAGENAME makes sense if we want to automatise a process, e.g. a template that always writes in a fixed position the name of the page it's put into. If we want to use it for pages that will change name over time, AND the name has complex links with other pages, e.g. Taxonavigation, it's better to subst it or not use it at all. --Ruthven (talk) 12:40, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Opinion - In my view since this has been discussed several times over the last couple of years and each time it was more leaning to not use than use, its a template that should be removed as much as possible, eventually the template itself. However we should replace it first where it has been used. Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 13:51, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
You can't remove the 'template', as it is a 'magic word' and thus part of wiki code. --Murma174 (talk) 15:18, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
Sorry yes you are correct, but my point was that I was under the impression consensus on this had been achieved. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 20:28, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
  • I'm not aware of any wrong the BASEPAGENAME can do. Can someone explain to me what is it that makes BASEPAGENAME so undesirable? Mariusm (talk) 14:25, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
  • I'm definitely in a neutral camp. On the one hand, the less weird wiki coding words we use, the better but on the other hand, I suppose it's possible that a page would be moved (but how often is that? And someone will probably have to manually change some data if you move a page anyway...) —Justin (koavf)TCM 18:09, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
    • Page movements are considerable enough especially in the insecta domain. Species are being shuffled among genera incessantly. Yes, some data still may need to be changed, but editing is easier and less errors occur. Mariusm (talk) 05:46, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
  • I'm against changing. Keep BASEPAGENAME. Since some newcomers we have only discussions. Lets work. PeterR (talk) 12:25, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

It seems the opinions here are pretty even, so a consensus for anything keep, or remove, will be impossible...? Also, from my personal point of view, I never intended to destroy templates, I thought we were discussing putting BASEPAGENAME on taxon articles. Question: Should we change the vote to include only taxon articles, but not templates? Could that be a way to reach a consensus, where most users will accept either decision? Dan Koehl (talk) 16:50, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

As I understand the vote, it is about BASEPAGENAME in taxon pages. Of course, in templates the magic word can be useful. --Franz Xaver (talk) 16:59, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Now I recall previous discussion on this better. Yes it was always just mainspace taxon pages were it was determined to remove this magic word, not templates. For and against has usually been about the same, ie 2:1 supporting its discontinuation. Hence I was under the impression consensus had been achieved. Based on discussion I am not sure it is necessary to have a preference on this. Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 12:52, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I would also interpret that there is a majority for the transfer of BASEPAGENAME in taxon, to subst: while after the transfer those pages will not any longer have the BASEPAGENAME content, but the real name of the species etc.

However, is a 2:1 majority, in this case also consensus? Id like to hear what the users who wanted to keep BASEPAGENAME has to say, @Mariusm, Accassidy, Murma174, Neferkheperre, PeterR, MKOliver: , you were in 2:1 minority after the voting, would you say we have reached consensus and accept the majority wish, and do you regard this issue as properly discussed, and can we move on and make the change? Or, is there more to say, before this discussion is over? I simply would prefer to reacha point where at least most of accept this voting as consensus. If not, Im not sure how to handle the situation, and ask for advice? Dan Koehl (talk) 08:41, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

No-one convinced me yet that BASEPAGENAME is so trouble-inducing as to justify not keeping it. I would like to hear the arguments of discarding it so I can defend my vote - which I'm not being able to do in the present situation. The users who voted for keeping BASEPAGENAME are extensive-species-page-creators. This says something on the necessity of keeping it. Mariusm (talk) 13:27, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
My main worry is that it encourages sloppy editing - editors risk assuming that with BASEPAGENAME in use all taxon name changes become automated with the page move, when in fact, they don't. - MPF (talk) 23:13, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Note: for when the substituting gets done, note that as well as pages with Species: ''[[{{BASEPAGENAME}}]]'', there are also some with Species: '''''{{BASEPAGENAME}}''''' - the search commands will need to look for both - MPF (talk) 23:13, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Wikispecies:Sock puppetry[edit]

I was preparing to translate this template when I noticed that the links were [[Wikipedia:]] so I turned into [[Wikispecies:]], however, known that the sockpupper page does not exist then create it we have to decide if taking a cue from Wikipedia or that link directly and replace the link with [[w: Wikipedia:]] I think it would be better to create the page. What do you think? --Samuele2002 (talk) 11:24, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

You may have a point, if you are willing to create the page, I would say yes. Dan Koehl (talk) 15:21, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
@Samuele2002: I don't know if we need a special policy page here on sockuppetry--our perspective is the same: don't do it. You can direct users to Wikipedia but directing them to m:Sock puppetry may be wiser, since that is a multilingual site and it's more about the overall approach in Wikimedia. Unfortunately, that template needs some work. —Justin (koavf)TCM 16:30, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
Agreed, we will develop some local policy and pages on this, and have done for the checkuser pages which will lead to this. But the general policy of sockpuppetry will be no different to Wikimedia. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 16:41, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
Ok so now we link to the page on Meta and I would say that sock puppers we could turn it into a soft redirect. What do you think? --Samuele2002 (talk) 19:03, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

De-Recognition of Wikimedia Hong Kong[edit]

This is an update from the Wikimedia Affiliations Committee. Translations are available.

Recognition as a Wikimedia movement affiliate — a chapter, thematic organization, or user group — is a privilege that allows an independent group to officially use the Wikimedia trademarks to further the Wikimedia mission.

The principal Wikimedia movement affiliate in the Hong Kong region is Wikimedia Hong Kong, a Wikimedia chapter recognized in 2008. As a result of Wikimedia Hong Kong’s long-standing non-compliance with reporting requirements, the Wikimedia Foundation and the Affiliations Committee have determined that Wikimedia Hong Kong’s status as a Wikimedia chapter will not be renewed after February 1, 2017.

If you have questions about what this means for the community members in your region or language areas, we have put together a basic FAQ. We also invite you to visit the main Wikimedia movement affiliates page for more information on currently active movement affiliates and more information on the Wikimedia movement affiliates system.

Posted by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of the Affiliations Committee, 16:25, 13 February 2017 (UTC) • Please help translate to your languageGet help


Just letting you peeps know that the last (known) of Stephen's private garden category system have been deleted.

It took more than a month but Category:Candidates for speedy deletion has been basically cleared out. Circeus (talk) 17:24, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

momentous work, grats. I can tell by the all caps you just needed to yell that out, do not blame you. Sorry for anyone within 5 blocks of your home, I am sure you yelled it out for real too. I mean it though, jokes aside, big achievment. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 17:42, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
Thank you! Although it took several weeeks, I appreciate, that you did it manually. --Murma174 (talk) 18:09, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
P.S. I first had to find out, what peeps means ;-) --Murma174 (talk) 18:11, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
Good news, and yes, was better manually this time, than a mass delete. Dan Koehl (talk) 18:35, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
There are still a few stragglers but yes, they are disappearing rapidly. —Justin (koavf)TCM 19:23, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Tags traslate and languages[edit]

I report this request --Samuele2002 (talk) 19:08, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks very much. --Samuele2002 (talk) 19:13, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Auto-archiving bot for talk pages[edit]

Many wikis have a bot which archives talk pages, when there is a "marker" template present on that page, to indicate that this should be done. See, for example, my en.Wikipedia talk page.

I have asked User:Whym whether their ArchiverBot could kindly do this on Wikispecies, and they have agreed, subject to the five standard conditions:

  1. local community consensus for running the bot
  2. localization of the manual (if not yet available)
  3. the name of the marker template
  4. ensuring no AbuseFilter affects the bot
  5. flagging ArchiverBot as a bot.

Please see Whym's further explanation.

We already have User:MiszaBot/config available for point 3; see the instance on my talk page on this project.

The template can be used on user talk pages, article talk pages, and project discussion pages such as this one. It will not act on any of these, if the template is not present.

Is everyone happy to proceed? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:03, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

I am fine with a bot archiving pages, including the pump. However we do need to be careful of one thing. Particularly on this wiki we have a habit of discussing policy changes and issues on the pump. Probably because we are small and can get away with it. As those discussions pan out, even if they stop some of them should probably be moved to the Wikispecies:Local policies page this would have to be selective as not all of these discussions needs to be saved in an obvious place. Basically for the pump we will need to keep an eye on what is being discussed and move things occasionally. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 13:21, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
Good point. We don't need to move the discussion, just create a summary (which can link to the archived discussion, of course). We also have Wikispecies:Policy. Perhaps those two pages should be merged? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:40, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
@Pigsonthewing: My understanding of the difference between the two is that Policy actually publishes a complete and pithy, finalized statement, whereas Local Policy is a discussion of issues that may need to be different here than a default "this is how it is on Wikipedia/Meta". —Justin (koavf)TCM 07:39, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
Yes the concept behind setting up the page local policy was it would be a place to discuss, vote on etc policy issues. They could then be formalised where necessary for the policy pages. The reason for this was discussions of policy matters was cluttering up the pump, alot, so I tried to separate things out a bit. While recognising we are not Wikipedia in size and do not need massive numbers of subpages to accomplish this. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 11:51, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
Ah, in that case I'd consider moving "Wikispecies:Local policy" to "Wikispecies:Village Pump (policy)" (mirroring en:Village Pump (policy)). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:28, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Sorry to step in. My current BRfa for MABot, which is on trial now, does support archival of pages and trial is approved for such a task. I use User:MABot/config for this, with the same parameters as User:MiszaBot/config. Let me know if I can be of any help here. Regards, -- MarcoAurelio (talk) 11:28, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

@MarcoAurelio: Thank you. I my experience, archive bots generally recognise each others' templates, so your bot should be able to act upon parameters set in User:MiszaBot/config. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:54, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Template:ZooBankAut - proposing deletion[edit]

{{ZooBankAut}} is redundant to {{Authority control}}, which automatically fetches the ZooBank author Id from Wikidata, if present. There are 468 instances of the ZooBankAut template.

I have just copied 403 such IDs - all of those for biographies with an equivalent on Wikidata - from instances of the ZooBankAut template to Wikidata.

I propose that we:

  1. get someone with a bot to remove the template from every author biography with a Wikidata equivalent
  2. have the bot add {{Authority control}} to those articles, if not already present
  3. Create Wikidata items for ~ 63 articles on which {{ZooBankAut}} is present, where no Wikidata item already exists
  4. repeat steps 1 & 2 for the new articles
  5. check for and resolve any uses of {{ZooBankAut}} not on biography articles
  6. delete the template

Thoughts? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:07, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing: This seems wholly sensible and with <500 transclusions, it could really be done by hand with AWB. We could also redirect to the template to {{Authority control}}. —Justin (koavf)TCM 07:41, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
@Koavf: I have AWB, but have not yet used it. If there is consensus to undertake this task, perhaps you would assist me in doing so? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:48, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
@Pigsonthewing: Definitely. I will keep my eyes peeled here. As far as I'm concerned, no objection in several days constitutes consensus as this is not a controversial task at all. —Justin (koavf)TCM 20:30, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
@Koavf: I think we've given that long enough. I have AWB up and running, and have made a few trivial Wikipedia edits with it. Shall we contune on my talk page? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:33, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
As ZooBankAut is included in {{Authority control}}, and really provides no information than author's name, I agree it is pretty much useless here. Neferkheperre (talk) 17:41, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
@Pigsonthewing: Yes please. —Justin (koavf)TCM 18:08, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Using AWB to convert hyphens to en-dashes[edit]

Discussion moved to Project Cleanup/Using AWB to convert hyphens to en-dashes Dan Koehl (talk) 00:56, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

IRC Channel[edit]

Heya for those that use it I was thinking the channel #wikispecies should be added to the home page, same place as the twitter info. If you want I can make an instructions page for IRC that includes a hotlink to the channel. This will open the users preferred IRC application connect them and open the channel. Can also put information on registerring and cloaking their IRC names. We have an admin channel too but that is by invitation but all users can take advantage of the option of live chat in the open channel to solve issues or ask questions. I can more or less be logged in there most of the time, I have IRC on my computer and phone. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 09:10, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Just an addit for those unfamiliar. I am going to write a page about IRC how to etc, but briefly, you can download a client if you want, most are free. Or you can also add plugins to whatever browser you use. It is also available as an app for your phone if you prefer. My user page has a hotlink to the #wikispecies channel which I will put on a how to page when I have done it. Cheers, Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 15:41, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

High-order categories: planned deletions pt. 2[edit]

Last month there was a lot of talk, but fairly few arguments were put forth in favor of keeping most of the categories, so I'm gonna start applying the criteria I offered back then to the categories in question:

  1. Is the category directly relevant to the taxonomy or the nomenclature, broadly construed, of the name/taxon on that page?
    This would exclude, for example, categories based entirely on geography or ecology of the concerned taxon.
  2. Is it, from the data one can reasonably expect to find on a taxon page, straightforward to tell whether it belongs to that category?
    This would exclude category that may not necessarily fall criterion one (i.e. where symbiotic or parasitic relationships may be actually relevant to taxonomy), but are not normally recorded as nomenclatural data on Species (unlike, say, type location or locality).
  3. Is the category directly redundant to an existing page?
    This would mostly excludes categories based of taxonomic groups.

So, applying this set of criteria and unless there are strong arguments put forth by users toward keeping them, I'll begin emptying and deleting the following categories (and any subcategories thereof) starting a week from now (February 22):

I see no issues with creating list pages if requested, which I'll leave in the requesting user's userspace for them to work on however they see fit (as I told @Neferkheperre: regarding Category:Littoral Marine Species). I should mention that no matter what happens to it, Category:Littoral Marine Species would require a name change anyway to conform to basic page name principles. Circeus (talk) 20:11, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Basically I agree with your premise, we deal with taxonomy and nomenclature. What categories we use should be relevant to that and as you say not redundant. I am only referring to categories directly related to taxa here. Anything else is somewhat unnecessary so I do not see why they should exist. However, like before, before deletion they should be checked for any valuable information. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 21:40, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
Agree, zap them all. I've already dealt with the first (it only had 2 entries) - MPF (talk) 11:48, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
Somewhat related topic - looking at Category:Invasive species, the first listed item is Achatina fulica. This page has a lengthy references list, with most of the references related to its invasive biology, not to taxonomy. Should all the non-taxonomic refs be removed? I'd say yes. - MPF (talk) 12:05, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
I'm really only interested in the categories, but when I was dealing with Stephen's New Zealand categories, I only bothered to preserve references of taxonomic interest. Circeus (talk) 13:32, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
@MPF: I think only original reference, latest taxonomic review, possibly refs for various recombinations are relevant. Beyond that get rid of them that is for the Wikipedia account if it has one. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 19:04, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
My view is a little broader, but mostly I agree that purely papers on biogeography (e.g. new regional/country records) or invasive biology (Stephen was very interested in that particular topic) are not relevant. On the other end I'll keep things like bibliographic papers that help establish publication dates or authorship when relevant (e.g. stuff from Zoological bibliography), as well as things like redescriptions/description of previously unknown forms (it's not infrequent that not all genders or castes are known for insects, or the fruit/seed of a plant unknown at the time of its naming). Those fall within my meaning of "taxonomy or nomenclature, broadly construed" Circeus (talk) 19:14, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
I think any paper which mentiones the relevant species should be included in the species' page. (A mention is nomenclature/taxonomic treatment or attributes given to the species such as distribution, material, notes, inclusion in a checklists etc.) Any general works, mentions of the familia or genus the species belongs to, etc. should be excluded. Mariusm (talk) 16:11, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

These categories have all been dealt with. Circeus (talk) 20:10, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Pt. 3: reduction of fossil taxa to a single category[edit]

This next step is interested with dealing with the four following categories as well as all their subcategories:

There seemed to be agreement that while having a category for fossil taxa was relevant, more fine-grained categorization systems are not, at this point in time, manageable, as such my plan is to delete/collapse all categories into the single Category:Fossil taxa. As I did above, baring any strong argument about this based on the criteria outlined above, I will start recategorizing and deleting the emptied category in two weeks' time (Wednesday, March 8). Any user who wishes for the contents of a category/category tree to be formatted as a list for their own use can say so and I will leave it in their userspace. Circeus (talk) 20:10, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Huggle for wikispecies[edit]

I have applied at for the use of en:Wikipedia:Huggle (link to enwiki) at Wikispecies, see the application. Huggle is a diff browser intended for dealing with vandalism. Its a very good program to Patrol files, delete files (also mass delete) and contact affiliated editors at once regarding any specific file. I have no idea as to how long time this application stays in que, but i guess we should be able to use it in a couple of weeks. Dan Koehl (talk) 15:42, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Wikispecies on Wikipedia[edit]

I have reactivated the page w:en:Wikipedia:Wikispecies on enwiki, this page was before just a redirect to the enwiki article about Wikispecies.

w:en:Wikipedia:Wikispecies informs and discuss, about how Wikispecies relates to Wikipedia. There is links to the user box for Wikispecies contributors, which they can place on their enwiki user page, to market Wikispecies. There is also a mailing list for newsletters, where interested users on enwiki can be reached with newsletters and information regarding Wikispecies. Please have a look, maybe there's something you would like to change or add. Dan Koehl (talk) 09:49, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

well if anyone on EN Wikipedia wants it the user box for Wikipedia that says you edit here is {{Template:User Wikispecies}} just for info. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 10:33, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Automating new page creation[edit]

We can signifitely accelerate our new page creation by harvesting data from the Catalogue of Life. It currently has 1,656,180 living and 12,852 extinct species in their records. It gets its data from 156 reliable databases.

Data of unavailable WS genera can be harvested in the form of the following lines:

Gastroserica haucki Ahrens, 2000 Species accepted name
Gastroserica herzi (Heyden, 1887) Species accepted name
Gastroserica higonia (Lewis, 1895) Species accepted name

Each line can be transformed into the following page (data taken from the 1st line):

Species: ''[[Gastroserica haucki]]''

== Name ==
''Gastroserica haucki'' Ahrens, 2000

* Species accepted name.

== References ==
* {{aut|Roskov Y., Abucay L., Orrell T., Nicolson D., Bailly N., Kirk P., Bourgoin T., DeWalt R.E., Decock W., De Wever A., Nieukerken E. van, Zarucchi J., Penev L.}}, eds. 2017. Species 2000 & ITIS Catalogue of Life, 30th January 2017. Digital resource at []. Species 2000: Naturalis, Leiden, the Netherlands. ISSN 2405-8858.

@Dan Koehl: Do you think you can automate the line transformation into the resulting page? Mariusm (talk) 15:45, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Maybe, do you have any example which I can experiment with? Dan Koehl (talk) 16:06, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
Yes the 3 lines above; I repeat them:
Gastroserica haucki Ahrens, 2000 Species accepted name
Gastroserica herzi (Heyden, 1887) Species accepted name
Gastroserica higonia (Lewis, 1895) Species accepted name
Each line has to produce a different species page in the Genus Gastroserica Mariusm (talk) 16:42, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
How much of this data is not in Wikidata? The most effective and sensible way to proceed would be to crate new pages from Wikidata (preferably by transcluding, rather than copying, data) and to add any missing data directly to Wikidata. I see, for instance, that the first example Gastroserica haucki, is at d:Q14861805. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:58, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
eol is good, but like The Plant List and Tropicos it is not 100% reliable for plants due to a number of factors. The automatic page creation will need a thorough check with more reliable regularly updated databases and also the latest findings from phylogenetic/morphological studies. Just a thought. Andyboorman (talk) 17:08, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
@Andyboorman: This isn't eol i'm speaking of, it's the 'Catalogue of Life' and it takes its plant data from: "Mosses from MOST • Liverworts and hornworts from ELPT • Ferns and fern-allies from World Ferns UPDATED! • Cycads from The World List of Cycads • Conifers from Conifer Database • 4 flowering plant families from IOPI-GPC, 114 families from WCSP and 274 families from World Plants"
@Pigsonthewing: Wikidata does't have the data we need. It doesn't have neither the author nor the year, the validity and the references. Moreover, the 'Catalogue of Life' is updated for 2017 and is much more comprehensive. Mariusm (talk) 05:19, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
Which is why I said "add any missing data directly to Wikidata". Persisting in building two parallel databases is untenable. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:24, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I am entirely in favor of (semi-)automated article creation from reliable databases. If nothing else, it's not a problem to auto-create a couple dozen and see how they look. But Andy's point is well-taken that data belong on Wikidata, so any bot or tool should run on both projects. —Justin (koavf)TCM 05:27, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Again, our data is much more detailed than Wikidata and the two databases don't match in scope.
The 'Catalogue of Life' has 1,656,180 living species while we have a total of 505,000 articles including authors, repositories etc. I suspect we totally have about 300,000 living species. We can significantly and effortlessly increase our inventory and make our database more comprehensive. Mariusm (talk) 05:35, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
There was discussion about collaborating with EOL about 5 or 6 years ago (maybe even longer). But it went nowhere because Wikispecies was (and still is) much smaller project than EOL. Meanwhile, EOL has greater collaboration institutions, established a pipeline of newly published information with journals, secured funding for paid staff and more liberal use of images (they permit CC-BY-NC that Commons, and by extension Wikispecies does not allow). Our only advantage over EOL back then was the speed of adding newly described species within a day or a week after publication (which was Stephen's original goal before he went into something else) while it would take EOL or COL months and years to add or correct pages based on new information. If we want to overtake EOL or COL, we have to play catch up first. The problem back then (and still is to this date) is to figure out how to handle conflicting information when our project has already created the page while the bot is trawling the same page on EOL or COL. You need humans and especially editors specialized in that area to vet which information is more up to date. OhanaUnitedTalk page 05:50, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
I have to agree with the human factor. One of the reasons there is no genuinely accurate and up to date online database for life is the difficulty of the nomenclature. It is done for groups, eg Reptile Database etc, but groups can attract specialists for that group. For wikispecies we need to attract specialists for all groups. It is very difficult to know what are good and bad nomenclatural decisions if you are not specialised in that group and know all the relevant literature. Automation will get lots of duplication. We need people who can make these nomenclatural reasonings. One thing I ask please have any automatically generated page flagged as such so it can be easily found and a decision can be made to keep it or trash it. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 06:23, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
@Faendalimas: We could employ a Draft namespace. —Justin (koavf)TCM 06:56, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
"our data is much more detailed than Wikidata" Which data do we hold, that Wikidata cannot? "the two databases don't match in scope" This is not disputed, but it is also not a reason to maintain two sets of data separately, when one is a subset of the other. Furthermore, I'm not seeing any substantive argument for doing so. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:24, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
@Pigsonthewing: I want to understand once and for all what you mean by two sets of data. I see the only common data between WS and WD the species name; that's all! WD maintains links to other sites while WS holds valuable information: author, date, synonymy, references, comments etc. Can you tell me exactly where's the convergence you speak about? In the species name and what else may I ask? I can Similarly say there's a convergence between EnWP and WD and that WD is a subset of EnWP... What you implicitly say is that WS has no raison d'etre. What you implicitly say is that you don't believe in WS. If you don't find a reason to maintain two sets of data separately than the logical conclusion would be to shut WS down. Mariusm (talk) 10:59, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
Ok before this explodes I will say one thing. From the point of view of a scientist and a taxonomist the data that wikidata currently holds on these taxa is neither complete enough nor can it be presented in a way that would be acceptable to taxonomy. You have the species name then you prioritize the references by most recent. Ie it seems to be good enough to say stated in some recent ref. From a taxonomic point of view, wrong, that is not good enough. Taxonomy looks at refs from first to last for priority and last to first for justification, you need both. Using my specialty since I have looked, almost every turtle uses two refs, Fritz and Havas 2007 and TTWG 2014 as the standard accepted ref for every species. Not good enough for science. It has no type data, it does not do synonymies, it is inconsistent with its parent taxa, and for the most part is being edited as a database with no understanding of what that data is. Wikidata's scope is very broad, so broad it cannot effectively deal with t yyinformation that requires knowledge of how to apply it. In my own view the only way for wikidata to handle taxonomic data effectively is for wikispecies to do all the construction of that data and wikidata to mine it, but you have to mine all of it. The only reasdon to do that is if the wikipedias were actually using this data properly. In our case we do the taxonomy, wikidata mines it, the taxoboxes on every wikipedia use wikidata to supply the data to populate those. Which they do not do because each language has different taxonomies for the same species across the 80 odd languages of wikipeadia. So shrugs it should be done better I think. But I accept it is a work in progress. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 11:26, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
Depending on what you mean by "comments", Wikidata can hold all that you list (if by "comments" you mean "prose text", then it doesn't do much of that; but then neither does Wikispecies, and I don't think that's what you're proposing to import from CoL, either). If there's anything else that Wikidata doesn't yet do, that we need for Wikispecies, we can prose a property for it there. You can find a list of Wikidata's current taxonomic properties, and examples of their use, at d:Wikidata:WikiProject Taxonomy. Your suggestion that Wikipedia, which has large slabs of prose in 295 projects in different languages, is converging with Wikipedia in a comparable manner is palpably false. I have never aid or implied that Wikispecies "has no raison d'etre", and it is utterly false to say that I "don't believe in" Wikispecies; I ask you not to desist from attempting to put words into my mouth. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:18, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
@Pigsonthewing: I think we talk too abstractly. I would like to have an example. Let's take the species Tetraserica bendai to be our example. It carries the following data items: * Linked authors. * Year. * Description page. * Type locality text. * Holotype repository. * Holotype gender. * Holotype colector. * Reference. * Reference link. * Figure numbers. Do you think Wikidata is able or willing (1) to carry (2) to present clearly (3) to handle - all these diverse data items in a reasonable manner? Let's ask also @Succu: who's interfacing between WD and WS — Do you think Wikidata can hold & present the mentioned items? Mariusm (talk) 05:30, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
Yes. (I'm not clear how my suggestion "You can find a list of Wikidata's current taxonomic properties, and examples of their use, at d:Wikidata:WikiProject Taxonomy" was "talk[ing] too abstractly".). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:25, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
@Pigsonthewing: I must confess I wasn't aware of Wikidata's WikiProject Taxonomy and I apologize for being too hasty in my words. I fully understand the potential of WD to hold in its database diverse info on a taxon. However there are many data items that WD isn't providing for, for example: Type locality, Holotype information, detailed synonymy info, page numbers etc. I'm not seeking to quarrel with you, I just want to understand what your goal is; to chop WS species pages and transfer the data items to WD? to have all data stored at WD and just to display them on WS? Can you please state what your ultimate aspiration for WS to become might be? Mariusm (talk) 05:40, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
You say you were not aware of Wikidata's WikiProject Taxonomy, and yet I referred you to it in the comment to which you ere replying. You are incorrect in your assertion of what Wikidata cannot hold; for example the page number is already in place in the citation on the item for Tetraserica bendai. Also your later questions, I refer you to our discussion of April 2015 - nearly two years ago - when you were complaining about lack of integration with Wikidata. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:30, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
@Pigsonthewing: You still didn't give me a definite answer to my question: What role do you envision for WS to play in relation to WD. If, as you say, all the data on a species can be held, partitioned and displayed by WD, than what do you think is WS for? You speak below about "links" to WD items, but we usually don't link there. Can you give me an example of a WS article with links to WD? Mariusm (talk) 05:19, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
You continue to make false pronouncements; nearly every Wikispecies article (taxon, author or institution) links to Wikidata; as you ask for an example, I'll suggest a page with which you are apparently familiar: Tetraserica bendai. In that page's left hand menu (in the default desktop skin) is a Wikidata item link. The only articles that do not have such a link are new ones where the link, or a Wikidata item to link to, has yet to be created. These links have been in place since October 2015. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:14, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Arbitrary break[edit]

Perhaps I wasn't clear enough on what my proposal is all about. I don't mean to harvest automatically directly from COF. No, I mean that a WS editor will search for WS genera which aren't yes represented in WS at all. The species lines for these genera will be extracted manually from COF and only then the automation will be activated and the lines will be turned into pages. COF isn't acquiring its data haphazardly; it takes its data from databases run by specialists; for example the data on Scarabaeidae is taken from 'World Scarabaeidae Database' run by the world specialist Schoolmeesters. The COF is accurate as one can get. Certainly WS editors aren't more accurate or more specialized than COF is. Mariusm (talk) 08:21, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

See for example how COF's page for Gastroserica looks like: [1]. On the other hand please look at our Scarabaeidae and see how many genera WS has with red links! all these can be resurrected semi-automatically, accurately and with minimal effort. Of course it will be only the first stage and the base of building upon adding more information. Yet the base will at least be present! Mariusm (talk) 11:53, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support IN the way Mariusm present this, as a selected way of adding species which are yet not existing, Im for this suggestion. We can always add a special category to those pages, and go through them, checking that they are accurate. Since, like Andy mentioned, all those records should abolutely be submitted to Wikidata at once, this project should be coordinated with wikidata, and it may turn out to be a very nice example of cooperation within the both projects. Dan Koehl (talk) 11:21, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support agree also with the way Mariusm states it, but I do have a caveat on wikidata. If we are going to flag it to be checked, it should only go to wikidata after its been checked. No point deleting it on two sites. Only increases the chances of errors. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 11:38, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support I agree with utilizing COF as one source for new taxon pages. I do that with WoRMS. WoRMS is formatted such that it can be easily copied and pasted into next higher taxon page and easily reformatted and used. I looked up COF yesterday and plugged in Chthamalus, which is for me simple to evaluate. COF listed 13 species, several of which were synonyms which had been transferred to Euraphia (spelled wrong there). Chthamalus has 26 currently recognized living species. COF will be helpful, but must be taken as partial only. Neferkheperre (talk) 14:31, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral I can see the real advantages of a CSV download that can then be used, for example in Excel, by macros or similar for a blanket creation of WS formatted data. However, I looked at a couple of instances, Brassicaceae was not up to date enough, as the source they use does not make allowances for the many changes post 2010 and it gives a 404 on its link. Brassibase is better, but beware changes are afoot!. Similar for Cephalotaxus which has been reviewed in 2013, but this is not in place, as the database they use either may not recognise the changes or has not implemented them. Finally and importantly for me, I prefer to use the full scientific name, such as Saxegothaea Lindl., J. Hort. Soc. London 6: 258 (1851), nom. cons., rather than just name, author and date. Andyboorman (talk) 16:53, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support Mariusm (talk) 05:09, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Wikispecies may consider COL to be suited for insects, but from my experience with plants, it should be used with caution. Regarding Amaranthaceae, it is based on Chenobase and claimes to be "80% complete", but I found several taxa listed under two or three different names with the same basionym... COL was used as source for 3 of the 4 bot-written Wikipedias (ceb, sv, war), and there are a lot of duplicates on Wikidata because of these wrong entries.
But for algae I would support an half-automatic page creation, based on WoRMS or Algaebase. I made most categories for algal images on Commons, and most of them are still without pages both on Wikispecies or on Wikidata. --Thiotrix (talk) 09:29, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Arbitrary break 2[edit]

SUCCESS!! I created semi-automatically 3 articles with AWB and a create-article plug in: Gastroserica higonia‎, Gastroserica herzi‎, Gastroserica haucki‎ Please tell me what and if I should change something in the general scheme. Mariusm (talk) 11:32, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Looks good. — The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dan Koehl (talkcontribs) 14:47, 21 February 2017‎.
Gastroserica higonia‎ is already on Wikidata, as d:Q14861787; Gastroserica herzi as d:Q14861807; and Gastroserica haucki‎ as d:Q14861805. Your new articles here are not linked to those items. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:35, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

I made a few changes in the layout:

  1. Added a link and small caps to the author.
  2. Replaced reference by a template {{Catol}}
  3. Added a category — Category: Valid extant species. I think this is a category which we generally need. We currently don't know even how many valid species we have. This category can help keep a count on that.
  4. Added a category — Category: Mined from COL to keep track of articles which were extracted from the Catalogue of Life.
  5. Added the date of access: [accessed on {{subst:CURRENTDAY}}-{{subst:CURRENTMONTH}}-{{subst:CURRENTYEAR}}]

I created a special page Wikispecies:COL species where anyone can add species to be created as articles. Make sure the respective Genus and Genus template are present. The species are to be entered in the following format:

Genus species author, year Species accepted name Each species in a separate line.

Example: Gastroserica angustula Brenske, 1897 Species accepted name Mariusm (talk) 07:00, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

This is a very good initiative, well done @Mariusm:!. I think it would be good to synchronize this, would you mind sharing the specifications you made, or even put up the file, so all users the same file when creating species? Should there be need to change or develop that script, its handy if it gets changed for everyone.? Dan Koehl (talk) 08:49, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Maybe "template:Catol" should be renamed to "template:Catol, 2017", because COL has different Annual Databases for each year.
The "Category: Valid extant species" will be for valid extant animal species only, as the concept of valid species is not used in botany. A botanical name has to be "validly published", but that does not mean that the taxon is "accepted". And which species are considered as accepted, depends much on the opinion of the researchers. So a categorization of "accepted taxa" would be difficult (at least) and of course not be a documentation with Neutral Point of View. --Thiotrix (talk) 10:07, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
I agree, we'll use "Category: Valid extant species" for animals only, but we better make a similar category for plants also. There's already a Category:Valid species created by Stephen with 900 entries but it doesn't differentiate between extant and extinct species. Mariusm (talk) 11:08, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Would "extinct species" include both fossil taxa and e.g. Ectopistes migratorius? --Franz Xaver (talk) 08:47, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Instead of {{Catol}}, consider creating separate templates for the source databases (e.g. World Scarabaeidae Database) that show the entire citation given by CoL. Databases contributing to CoL vary wildly in coverage and quality. CoL provides and assessment of quality of source databases and source databases with a poor quality ranking should not be used to create Wikispecies pages. The Swedish Wikipedia's 1 millionth article was based on a CoL record for a nonexistent species (coming from LepIndex which has a 2/5 rating on CoL). See en:Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2015-09-09/News and notes (scroll way down to comments) for a discussion of that situation. CoL also may change source databases for a particular taxon (LepIndex has been replaced by GloBIS for the genus that had the bogus species on the Swedish wikipedia). Plantdrew (talk) 01:50, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Speedy creation of new species articles[edit]

This initiative was begun as a semi-automatic mining of data from the CoL (Catalogue of Life) but I'm extending it to any reliable source. It provides speedy creation of new species articles from the data provided by any user, contained in discreet lines, each line holds data for one species and will be transformed by me into an article.

The location where the data can be written to be converted is Wikispecies:COL species

The format for the a species-data is as follows:

<Genus_name> <species_name> <author (parentheses optional)> <year> <species status (valid, invalid, extant, extinct)>

Each species should be entered in a separate line. The pages will be created automatically by me with the aid of AWB software.

Example for the data to be provided for one species:

Gastroserica angustula Brenske 1897 Species accepted name

Notes: [*] If the data source is not the Catalogue of Life please add the relevant reference to be added. [*] Please ensure that the relevant Genus-pages and Genus-templates are present in WS. [*] More data fields if available are optional, as long as they are consistent to all the species in a list.

Any questions and suggestions are wellcome. Mariusm (talk) 05:36, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

My comment remains the one I made above: "How much of this data is not in Wikidata? The most effective and sensible way to proceed would be to crate new pages from Wikidata (preferably by transcluding, rather than copying, data) and to add any missing data directly to Wikidata.". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:38, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
"How much of this data is not in Wikidata?" Surely that's a rhetorical question; you're in a better position to know the answer than anybody else here. But I'll take a stab at it. There are 2,215,390 taxon names on Wikidata (d:Property_talk:P225), perhaps a majority of which came from Catalogue of Life records via articles created by Ljsbot on the Swedish and Cebuano Wikipedias. There is extremely little data with regards to taxon names (just the names) that is in CoL and not already in Wikidata. There are 282, 534 names that have a taxonomic authority on Wikidata (d:Property talk:P405) and 279,167 that have a year of description (d:Property talk:P574). There is a lot data on CoL with respect to authorities and dates that is not yet on Wikidata.
Presumably it wouldn't be very useful to create articles on Wikispecies that don't at least include the authority along with the taxon name, and the authority is often missing from Wikidata. So Mariusm's approach has some value. But it would've been better to get Wikispecies pages created via bots years ago based on high quality sources (CoL is not entirely a high quality source). Plantdrew (talk) 19:12, 23 February 2017 (UTC)


JWB is short for JavaWikiBrowser, which is a webversion of AWB, which you can use without downloading any program. All you have to do is open your your JavaScript file (for example Special:MyPage/common.js (just click, and YOUR file will open), or meta:Special:MyPage/global.js, or a skin-specific JS file):

Insert this script, and save.


After installing the script, simply go to this page to run the script.

For more information, and how to use the script, please see en:User:Joeytje50/JWB.

Dan Koehl (talk) 14:47, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

@Dan Koehl: This seems really handy. I have to question the wisdom of editing user comments in an archive, though. I don't think it really hurts anything but it's generally best to avoid editing other users' comments, especially after they have been archived. —Justin (koavf)TCM 17:42, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I agree and I will stop that. On the other hand, it was a good place to check the performance of the JWB, and see if it comes up with any surprises, but everything seem to be OK, its working wonderful actually. You can use it on all wikis, and you dont need to download anything. Did you try it? Dan Koehl (talk) 18:51, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
@Dan Koehl: Not yet--I'm at work--but I'm definitely intrigued. It looks handy. —Justin (koavf)TCM 20:54, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
@Dan Koehl: Thank you for the link. But to run the script need to be logged in with their own catchment bots or you can do with the main one? --Samuele2002 (talk) 22:57, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Login with your own account. Did you experience problems? Dan Koehl (talk) 23:12, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

After you have saved your Special:MyPage/common.js with the script line, you should be able to see a new link to the left in the browser window, under header "Tools" directly under and after "Wikidata item" and before the inter wiki links, is the link "JS Wiki Browser", which makes the program run, when you click on that link. Dan Koehl (talk) 23:37, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

The permissions for JWB are the same as for ABW namely, admins as default and other users on special permission. I think Samuele2002 doesn't have a permission to run it, or am I wrong? Mariusm (talk) 05:23, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks not here I do not have permission to do so was asking for it.wikiversity where I use my account bot --Samuele2002 (talk)
We were discussing this some months ago, and I actually think that WS does not have ny rules. But maybe we should have? Dan Koehl (talk) 16:14, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

I think AWB has more options then JWB (such as Regex checker, Plugins etc.) and also easier to use, but JWB is good for simple tasks. Mariusm (talk) 11:28, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes, it should be considered a light version. Still, useful I think. And maybe easier for a user who is unexperienced with AWB to take that step and try, without having to download a program. Dan Koehl (talk) 16:14, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Taxon names using real words[edit]

I'm looking for examples of taxon names (or parts thereof) which are everyday words in English or other languages.

These might be homographs for words meaning something else, for example, the genus Circus, or names which have everyday use in one language, but are translated differently in another ("Chrysanthemum" in English being "Crisantemo" in Spanish).

Does anyone know of a document listing examples? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:16, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

I don't know of any document but try this search of for some examples. There are a number of false positives or items that might not qualify as "everyday words", but the first page of results turns up chaos, siren, ego, pan and age. Running the search for other parenthetical disambiguation terms will turn up some more; (genus) is the single most common disambiguation term for genera on, but other terms are more frequently used with certain groups of organisms. Here's the search for (plant); and (moth), (gastropod), (butterfly) also see a lot of use as dab terms. Plantdrew (talk) 21:18, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
@Plantdrew: Very helpful; thank you. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:25, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Names like Rhododendron where the English and scientific names are the same? - MPF (talk) 23:05, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Wiktionary might be a place to search for scientific names used as common names. Here's a search for German words that are also scientific names (including Rhododendron, Diplodocus, and Norovirus). Wiktionary has separate pages for wikt:Rhododendron and wikt:rhododendron, so the German practice of capitalizing nouns put the scientific name and German common names on the same page. Searching Wiktionary for English usage of lower-cased, non-italic scientific names as common names is more complicated as the scientific name will be on a capitalized page and the common name will be in lower case. Plantdrew (talk) 05:02, 6 March 2017 (UTC)


Heads up - a new paper on this large but paraphyletic genus advocating splitting it into several genera. Full text obtainable via sci-hub (if you have no objections to using it!); doesn't make the necessary new combinations though (likely to follow in subsequent papers, I guess). Also converse paper advocating monophyly by instead lumping in several genera, including Rosmarinus. My personal preference is for splitting; having gigantic genera doesn't make for easy understanding. Note too that our subgeneric classification here is well out of date. - MPF (talk) 16:45, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

It does not matter what our individual preferences are - WS has to reflect the most "accepted" circumscription(s) according to evidence and opinion in the community of specialists. Salvia is going to be contentious for the near future with lumpers and splitters vigourously fighting their respective corners. No doubt the subgeneric classification will alter as consensus emerges, if indeed it does! For now it probably would be best just to get rid of the present subgeneric classification altogether, as it is clearly artificial and of no help. Another change on the horizon is in Brassicaceae, where the splitting seems to be going into reverse, particularly as many specialist are fed up of numerous genera differentiated by fiddly morphological details, such as seed coat. Andyboorman (talk) 19:17, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
Aye, but if there's a 50:50 split between the two viewpoints, we have to decide which to use! - MPF (talk) 23:00, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
In my view while the splitters and lumpers are fighting it out there is no consensus, neither is doing anyone a favor and are basically being disruptive to stability. Ignore them. Let them fight it out, which can take a decade or more, and in the meantime stick to the most up to date stable nomenclature, sure ditch the subgenera if its clearly no good, put all the taxa under their genus and if any of the lumpers and splitters try to influence tell them that when they reach consensus we will follow the outcome until then their views are useless. I recommend against picking a side, we report the stable view that has reached consensus based on current knowledge. An example of this issue still raging is the frog genus Anura, that one is still being fought over 11 years later. Honestly this is one of the things that give taxonomists a bad name, and particularly phylogeneticists. They have little understanding of the code and are really trying to cram sub genera into unrealistic gaps to prevent any changes to the binomen, because its inconvenient. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 23:26, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
At the moment, as long as the combinations in the seggregate genera are missing, nothing can be done, anyway. At least, we should wait, what WCSP will do. I expect, that the community will be divided between the Old and New World. --Franz Xaver (talk) 11:07, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
Folks can get very stubborn and political. Case of Acacia where African Plants Database still do not accept its segregation into Acacia s.s., Acaciella, Mariosousa, Senegalia and Vachellia. This is after 2011 Melbourne Conference approving the consensus albeit without proscription. Some in Australia still have a problem with Dryandra being subsumed into Banksia and whether or not Actinostrobus is a synonym of Callitris is a matter of opinion between Australia and Kew (needs a decision for WS)! Andyboorman (talk) 16:45, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
I'm for keeping Actinostrobus as a distinct genus - MPF (talk) 01:28, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
@MPF: I have made some edits on both Actinostrobus and Callitris thoughts? Andyboorman (talk) 14:33, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
@Andyboorman: yep, looks good to me - MPF (talk) 14:56, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
Yes. The phylogeny of this clade, including Actinostrobus, Callitris, and Neocallitropsis, still seems to be work in progress. As long as contradictions between results from morphological and molecular analyses are not yet resolved, it certainly is too early to draw taxonomic conclusions. In my opinion, this means being conservative and stick to the initial situation. Of course, it often happens, that new combinations are made at a premature state of knowledge, in order to secure one's priority. (Probably, this is one of the motivations, that in zoology there exists no author citation for new combinations.) It's not necessary, that WS follows promptly all these moves. --Franz Xaver (talk) 15:15, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
Agreed; one other option that would need to considered is potential recognition of Octoclinis F.Muell. (for Callitris macleayana). A converse Cupressaceae example is the merger of Fokienia into Chamaecyparis, which does have support from both morphological and molecular analyses - MPF (talk) 16:01, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
I do not think we can make allowances for Octoclinis F.Muell., but I will contact Kew in relation to Fokienia for their opinion. Andyboorman (talk) 18:14, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
@Andyboorman: Thanks! The case for merging Fokienia into Chamaecyparis is strong. The basionym description actually originally placed it in Chamaecyparis (then treated as a Sectio of Cupressus); this was confirmed on morphology by Rushforth, and subsequently by at least two genetic studies which leave Chamaecyparis paraphyletic if Fokienia is excluded. - MPF (talk) 18:29, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
@Andyboorman: Acacia is a special case. Splitting the old Acacia into several segregate genera certainly is OK, but I dislike the way, how the genus Acacia, still being attributed to the description by Miller, received a conserved type, which now causes, that all the "sorts" listed by Mill. are excluded. Miller listed mostly American acacias. Probably Miller, if still alive, now would not be able to recognize his own genus any more, nor would he very likely be able to recognize, that the conserved type Acacia penninervis would belong to his genus. Anyway, the case seems to be decided. --Franz Xaver (talk) 15:58, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
@Franz Xaver: Acacia was most definitely controversial, but now has settled I guess except for African Plant Database! Andyboorman (talk) 18:14, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

I have added templates for the papers above to the Salvia taxon page and transferred notes to its Discussion Page. I have also @Uleli: to see if this editor wishes to contribute considering their contribution to the pages and subgeneric classification. Andyboorman (talk) 18:25, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Species general categories[edit]

I proclaim we've neglected the general species-categories. These can help us in several ways:

  • Keep count on the species of different status we have on our inventory.
  • Aid in specific searches and statistics.
  • Help to make global editorial changes on article groups.
  • Make a species status being manifested.

The categories I'm referring to are:

I added the "Controversially accepted species name" to address the reservations of the botanists here about species which are accepted by some authorities but rejected by others. Obviously even for plants, there are indisputably accepted names for example Pinus pinea (Stone pine) that no authority rejects its validity and therefor can be classified as "Accepted species name". I can't stress enough the importance I see in adapting these categories. Mariusm (talk) 07:40, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Concerning this topic, there has also been a discussion at User talk:Franz Xaver#Species category. --Franz Xaver (talk) 09:54, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
And a similar past discussion here Andyboorman (talk) 10:59, 25 February 2017 (UTC)


Please keep an eye for edits by the IP-address and report back to me when there's edits:

Edits on my user talk pages here and meta: 1, 2

Dan Koehl (talk) 14:46, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Koavf blocked this IP for one week due to vandalism. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 10:18, 27 February 2017 (UTC).

Wanted templates[edit]

It's very annoying to come across deleted, but needed templates again and again, like this one. It's so simple to create redirects (especially for admins).

Maybe there is a bot/AWB able to solve at least some of these cases ? --Murma174 (talk) 09:38, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

yes, if you mean removing links from pages, to the deleted template, that's easy with AWB. Dan Koehl (talk) 17:34, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
Likely what happened is when someone changed Zt templates to current templates, they forgot to change over transclusions. That is what needs to be caught up on. Neferkheperre (talk) 18:36, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Oh no. I started to remove the links. You mean they should be replaced instead @Neferkheperre:? Dan Koehl (talk) 18:56, 28 February 2017 (UTC) The ones I changed so far (deleted the link) can be seen here between the comments on Village pump. Dan Koehl (talk) 19:01, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes, whoever corrects Zt templates should either redirect to new template, or transclusions tracked and changed. Second option takes more work, but has better results at end. Simply deleting those links removes relevant reference citations. At this point, affected Zt templates will have to be resurrected to accomplish these ends. Neferkheperre (talk) 19:40, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
OK, sounds like need for discussion and a plan here, I reverted my edits. Dan Koehl (talk) 23:17, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

@PeterR: It seems like a lot of these deletions are yours--I've posted on your talk page about this as well a couple of times. Can you help us here? —Justin (koavf)TCM 20:36, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

@Koavf: I didn't start this section to blame single colleagues, but to ask for a solution. You obviously do not have an idea. --Murma174 (talk) 21:41, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
@Murma174: My point isn't to blame or criticize--I'm just asking if PeterR can assist. He may know better what he has done and not done or where links should point, etc. I'm not mad at him or calling him out, just pinging him to see if he can assist. —Justin (koavf)TCM 21:54, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

As a first step I redirected those Zootaxa templates, that showed a history with a part of the content, so the target template could be detected in most cases. But most of the Zt-templates do not show a history, example: Template:Zt2135.1 (missing link). Does it mean, this template has never been created? Or does one need special permissions to read the history? --Murma174 (talk) 18:52, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

@Murma174: Most likely, some of these templates never have existed. I suppose, that's a consequence of the system of numbering the templates. Thorpe probably has reserved template names, which maybe would be created later. --Franz Xaver (talk) 19:20, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
Also, quite a few of the Zt templates are nested within other Zt templates, which can make it hard to see what's really going on, linkwise... Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 19:50, 10 March 2017 (UTC).
Thank you! As a consequence the redlinks on pages like this may be deleted, right? --Murma174 (talk) 21:04, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
@Murma174: Not necessarily. If any of those redlinked templates is also redlinked in this deletion log that template should instead be restored, and then moved to a proper file name. For an example see this discussion regarding the template {{Zt3777.1.1}} which was deleted by PeterR, then restored by me and moved to {{Yang, Wang & Li, 2014}}. (Note that the bluelink Zootaxa templates in the above deletion log are already corrected, often by Neferkheperre or PeterR himself.) Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 21:56, 10 March 2017 (UTC).
@Tommy Kronkvist: Thanks for pointing me to the deletion log. That helps. --Murma174 (talk) 22:24, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
All these >1500 cases need a very individual care, no chance for a bot IMO. It might make sense dealing with those cases on top of the list first, as these are linked by numerous other pages. --Murma174 (talk) 17:04, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
Some are obsolete, others link to spam links, some are overlooked, and many I cannot deduce any purpose for. I fixed two of mine, which I overlooked during some taxonomic rearrangement. Individual management is necessary. Neferkheperre (talk) 18:07, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Most of the Zt. and Pt. templates are redirected now, which is, as Neferkheperre mentioned above, the second best solution only, but the redlinks are gone at least. On top of the list with ~1000 entries now I see several missing templates caused by incomplete imports of templates or modules from enwiki. This is unpleasant, but the redlinks don't appear on the taxon pages, thus I see it as a minor problem. --Murma174 (talk) 09:53, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Popular-level article on bird taxonomy[edit]

I figure this may interest some of you: (koavf)TCM 20:35, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

I saw this artical earlier from Facebook where it was shared by someone. Yes the ornithologists get somewhat pedantic. I also do not think taxonomists sdhould be in the game of dealing with common names, at least not in the same way as we deal with scientific names. Common names are made popular through usage, they should be determined by a bunch of people who probably have little to do with the species. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 23:32, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
I'd like to point out that in French, unlike in English, the IOU created the fr:Commission internationale des noms français des oiseaux, which has published standardized lists of names, most of which have been taken up wholly (as far as I know) by the french birdwatching community, so obviously taxonomist sometimes DO deal in common names. Circeus (talk) 21:40, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
Yes they do, I just do not think they should. It is beyond the realm of taxonomy and has no set of rules to back up the decisions. Also as I said they creating names for species without local consultation with those who actually work with the species. Rather obnoxious actually. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 22:31, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
Had already seen it; some interesting points but nothing new. @Faendalimas: - I fear you're contradicting yourself there, first "they should be determined by a bunch of people who probably have little to do with the species", and then conversely "creating names for species without local consultation with those who actually work with the species"; you are of course correct with the second, not the first ;-) Yes, taxonomists should be dealing with vernacular names: their formation works from formal species lists (like IOC, or BSBI) which are followed by field guide authors, from where the public pick them up. And yes, care is needed in choice of names; there are two simple rules to follow: 1 vernacular names should be taxonomically accurate (so as to help counter creationist / anti-evolutionary misinformation), and 2 subject to 1, should follow local native preference, to avoid the obnoxious cultural imperialism exhibited by some such as ITIS, USDA Plants, and the Clements bird list (see e.g. example here). - MPF (talk) 14:44, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
Sorry yes I meant "should not" hence my apparent contradiction. Taxonomists and organisations of them, should not deal in vernacular names. They are irrelevant to taxonomy. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 15:53, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
Thanks! Though I'd disagree on the latter point - vernacular names derive from taxonomy, so taxonomists do hold a responsibility over their accuracy. As an example, in the past, Pseudopodoces humilis was thought to belong in Corvidae, and was called Hume's Ground Jay in English; subsequently it was found to be in Paridae, and was then renamed Ground Tit in English (with similar changes in other languages, e.g. Mésange de Hume in French, Tibetmeise in German, etc.), to indicate its correct taxonomic position. - MPF (talk) 16:36, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
Eh probably due to the unusual level of involvement of bird watches compared to say the situation with snails.Geni (talk) 20:00, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Auto:substing templates[edit]

Templates like {{Welcome}} should always be Subst:ed. Do we have a bot to act on {{Subst only}}? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:56, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing:I dont think there is such a bot existing on Wikispecies. Dan Koehl (talk) 08:53, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
I'll see if I can find someone with such a bot, wiling to run it here. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:54, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Circular Redirects...[edit]


Usnocetraria sinensis →‎ Allocetraria sinensis →‎ Usnocetraria sinensis

Any thought on where this was supposed to point? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 08:44, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

According to Wang et al. (2015), doi: 10.5248/130.577 PDF, it should be Allocetraria sinensis. For nomenclature see also Index Fungorum. (Usnocetraria sinensis anyway seems to be an invalid combination.) --Franz Xaver (talk) 09:56, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
I have undone the last edit. This should get rid of circular redirect for now. But needs checking and updating by an expert in the field. Andyboorman (talk) 14:15, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
Also out the ref on the genus page. Andyboorman (talk) 14:27, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Is it correct to say that WikiSpecies considers M.J. Lai and J.C. Wei to be incompetent Lichenologists and their combinations with the genus Usnocetraria should not be allowed?
Ed Uebel (talk) 15:38, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
@Ed Uebel: Did you read the paper by Wang et al. (2015)? As far as I see, J.C.Wei is also one of the co-authors of this more recent paper. In 2007, they simply did not fulfill some of the requirements of ICBN, so that their combinations were invalidly published according to the code. Anyway, the paper from 2015 has confirmed, that these species are not closely related to the type of Usnocetraria. --Franz Xaver (talk) 18:09, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Wikispecies Oversighter[edit]

Wikispecies has no local Oversighter. Since I had the communitys confidence regarding the previous application for Checkusers rights, as per local Oversight policy on META, I hereby apply to get Oversighters user rights, as a request to the Wikispecies community.

Application is located at Requests for Comment.

Please also note that Oversighter actions are logged, but for privacy reasons the logs are only visible to other Oversighters. Because of this, Wikispecies must always have no fewer than two oversighters, for mutual accountability. I don't want to suggest anyone, but hope that someone feel inspired and will step forward and also apply for oversighters rights.

Dan Koehl through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:01, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Overarching Question[edit]

I do have two overarching question about oversighting. First, I don't think I have seen a sufficient need to even request that in the first place. All admins already have access to revision delete to hide offending contents (username or edits) from non-admins already. And even with access to RevDel, I don't recall seeing that being used often (because there was no such demand in the first place). If such edits show up, all it takes is temporary RevDel first and contact Steward to oversight it. To me, it seems like the request was not to address a real problem, but to anticipate an imaginary problem that might become realistic only on an odd chance.

Second, we identified a number of voting issues on the checkuser RfC. So we know there were problems with "single purpose/one dimensional" non-mainspace-editing voters + inactive users casting ballots and yet we didn't seek to address it. Now, what should we do if such problems return in oversight RfC? OhanaUnitedTalk page 06:51, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

@OhanaUnited: in response to you second point. At this point we shall have to deal with it the same way as before. We will have to go through the votes and see if any are dubious, then look at the votes remaining and see how it fared, prior to going to the Stewards. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 20:43, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
@Faendalimas: it still doesn't address the needs of this tool in the first place. OhanaUnitedTalk page 00:27, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
@OhanaUnited: I know I did not address that. I can see your point. I admit it was not a position I had thought of filling just yet. We are a small wiki, though I want to see it grow. I guess there is an advantage of having as many tools at our own administrative disposal as possible, hence if we can grow the wiki, and this I agree with your point in another discussion we have some catch up to do to be competitive with EoL, the tools will be in place. However, is that a justified reason to get all the tools now? I see your point on this. Basically I have decided, for myself, to see how this goes. I am not nominating, and although I voted for Dan straight away to get the ball rolling I have refrained from taking further part at this stage as I want to see how it pans out. I will become involved later as needed. I am assuming this will require a similar voter turn-out to CheckUser, I have not checked, or maybe it just requires consensus. I will look it up to clarify this. Sorry very political answer to your very valid point. Cheers, Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 00:57, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
That is right (25+ supporters, 70-80%). As far as paperwork the rights are the same, just no CUwiki and no access to the CU IRC channel, and if you want a mailing list or OTRS queue to take requests you're responsible for making the arrangements on Phabricator or contacting the OTRS admins. --Rschen7754 03:27, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

@OhanaUnited: I don't understand that objection in principle to Oversight/Suppression here. If you think that a given candidate is inappropriate (e.g. me) then by all means, that makes sense but surely it's better for the community to not have to appeal to Stewards at all, isn't it? Ideally, the advanced user permission should never need to be used but I don't see why you don't want anyone locally to be able to use them. —Justin (koavf)TCM 21:39, 9 March 2017 (UTC)


Hello. I'm writting to see if you'd be interested in a bot I operate (MABot) to perform double and broken redirect fixing tasks and also page archiving using the module. My bot is active and flagged on other projects as well. In order to avoid wasting community time in opening a request for bot flag if there's no interest for it, I thought it'd be better to ask here first. Please let me know if you have any questions or comments. Best regards, MarcoAurelio (talk) 17:25, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

In my opinion @MarcoAurelio:, fixing double and broken redirects sounds good, and I believe that we don't have any page archiving bot until now, why I think that also is a positive contribution to the Wikispecies project. Dan Koehl (talk) 17:49, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
@Dan Koehl: BrokenRedirects is just 'd'oh!'. Someone should be removing the redirects from those pages if they ain't really intended to be there. MarcoAurelio (talk) 18:12, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

This Bot is now listed at Requests for approval.Dan Koehl (talk) 10:40, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

New species article mined from the CoL[edit]

Just to notify you: User:Mariusm created (and creates) new articles in a bot like manner - serveral thousands this week. Are you fine with this? -Succu (talk) 19:58, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

was discussed above generally seemed to be ok but needed to keep them flagged to be checked. Or something such similar. Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 21:39, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
I think @Mariusm: has taken a very good initiative with this new concept, and I trust him completely regarding the outcome, and I am convinced that he is checking the creations. I will very soon try this, which may develop Wikispecies number of species much faster. I would highly recommend more users to try it. Dan Koehl (talk) 22:11, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
OMG: Lsjbot is greeting you... --Succu (talk) 22:48, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
I think this is the only method to progress WS to another level and make it more significant. At the current rate of new species-formation we'll never attain a decent species coverage. I ask hereby volunteers to join me and participate in this fast-creation of a species-base which ultimately I believe will cover 95% of the described species in just a few months work instead of the current coverage of less then 20% of which many look like this. We can then improve and update on this solid base further at our leisure. Of course we need to do it with extreme caution and to check our sources very carefully. Mariusm (talk) 05:16, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
@Succu: Is Lsjbot literally greeting somebody now, or was that a metaphor for CoL scraping in general? Statistics on Wikidata representation of Mariusm's new Wikispecies articles would be interesting. How many of the new Wikispecies articles are already on Wikidata (and how many have Lsjbot involved in their ultimate presence on Wikidata)? How often do the new Wikispecies article include data that's not yet in Wikidata (authorities, alternative views of parent taxa, etc.)? Any chance you could provide from statistics from the Wikidata side? Plantdrew (talk) 05:32, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
Are Firminus or Geotrogus better than the above mentioned Aleucis? Is creating a clone of CoL a valuable goal or becomes Wikispecies that way another disrespected Botipedia? It's not up to me to judge. --Succu (talk) 07:40, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
These genera (mind – not species!) were created only as a means to avoid red links for the species' templates. They were created with the specific intention to fill them up manually with content as soon as I can. See for example Hilarianus which I refined only yesterday. Mariusm (talk) 08:06, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
My intention isn't making a CoL's clone. No. As I said earlier in the discussion, CoL is only one of the sources I intend to use. This method is intended to serve as a basis for further refinement and elaboration; but without a basis the building is shaky. Mariusm (talk) 10:19, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
@Mariusm: In my opinion, the basis should be references. So, Hilarianus still is a shaky building, as CoL is a "reference", which itself is missing further references, at least for Scarabaeidae. What is Blanchard (1851)? Moreover, I miss a reference for Evans (2003)? Actually, that's not really a big progress. --Franz Xaver (talk) 12:10, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Just be aware that all these online databases also have sources. CoL, EoL often refer to Wikipedia as a source. Be wary of the circular sourcing. Any sources to a name should be original reference. It is safer. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 12:36, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

@Franz Xaver: I intend in due course to use ABW to track & refine all the Blanchard (1851) instances with the appropriate template(s). Meanwhile, I hope you'll agree with me that presumably we got a genus of 100 species out of which 20 have fabulous references and the rest of 80 are red links, and this situation persists for years, then the better choice is to have the 80 as stubs, from which at least some information can be gleaned and which will give some added coherence to the genus. Mariusm (talk) 15:49, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
I don't have a fear of red links. It least, nobody would be cheated to click on a link, only to notice, it would be a stub without any substantial informaiton. --Franz Xaver (talk) 16:50, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
But I think that species stubs with some substantial information will make it easier for other taxonomists to contribute here. (I still remember my starting difficulties in 2009 to create just one decent species page, when even the genus was missing and never heard about templates...) Today I have tested the "semi-automated" creation of species stub pages, with the help of Mariusm. Here you can look at my first test results. --Thiotrix (talk) 19:56, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
Hi Thiotrix: With less then 1200 species algae are not well represented across Wikimedia projects. --Succu (talk) 21:02, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
@Thiotrix: Thanks for your support. I'll be happy to assist you in the future, even to create a list containing thousands of species.
@Franz Xaver: When you click a stub you're not being cheated: you get (1) author (2) year (3) species validity (4) species living/extict status (5) a link source to trusted authority (6) a solid foundation for further expansion/elaboration. How is this less appealing than a red link I can't get. Did you know that before I starting stubing the Scarabaeidae it was represented here with 300 species out of the 30,000 available ones? Did you know that its majority of genera were red links? How is that better than 30,000 well organised stubs I can't get. Mariusm (talk) 05:33, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
@Mariusm: Obviously, you are determined to continue as you have started. So, I will not be able to convince you, that these stubs are more or less insufficient. OK, visitors will find some basic information, which easily also can be found somewhere else: (1)/(2) Author and year without a reference of the protologue/original description is almost worthless. (3) The fact, that a species name is accepted, is already indicated by a red link in the genus page. (4) Without sourcing, e.g. to IUCN Red List, this is almost worthless. (5) You have to trust – no possibility to check anything. (6) OK, yes, it has to be expanded.
If the justification of the existence of WS is questioned, it is no enough, to simply reproduce data volumes from other similar websites. (What's the surplus value here?) The best justification is, when WS is superior to other competitors. In my opinion, superiority cannot be achieved by mass-production of stubs, but only by higher quality of entries. Of course, with restricted personal capacity this is only possible starting with some taxonomic groups. That's the reason, why I have concentrated on some families, which are not covered by WCSP. (And Thiotrix and Orchi have concentrated on other families.) So, for Ochnaceae, Menispermaceae, Marcgraviaceae, and some genera of Polygalaceae and few other families, now WS probably is the best taxonomic resource in the web, though these families are not completed yet. However, on WS for these families everyone can find information compiled at one place, which had been dispersed over a big number of publications and websites. Anyway, even if compared with WCSP, WS has the advantage, that linking to original publications is possible here. You may compare Cardiopteris quinqueloba with the respective WCSP entry. Regards --Franz Xaver (talk) 10:25, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
@Franz Xaver: Cardiopteris quinqueloba is impressive, but the majority of the contributors here are satisfied with the Boloria selene style; and therefore 90% of current WS pages are stub-style pages even worst-looking than Boloria selene. Take a look at Hieracium djimilense and at Alectrias alectrolophus and you'll see what I mean ... Mariusm (talk) 10:48, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
@Mariusm, AfroBrazilian: I do not think, that the majority of WS contributors is satisfied with a page like Boloria selene, as it doesn't contain even one reference page (let it at least be a link to a directory, where you can find further information). The other two examples of course are not worth discussing. Maybe we should have a template/category 'under construction' or something like that for such cases. --Murma174 (talk) 12:10, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
@Murma174: We have Template:Stub. --Franz Xaver (talk) 12:42, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
@Franz Xaver: Thank you! Yes, {{Stub}} is useful, and I used {{Noref}} sometimes. --Murma174 (talk) 12:49, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
@Murma174: and see all the species of Lycosa: ‎Lycosa adusta, ‎Lycosa apacha, ‎Lycosa bedeli, ‎Lycosa bezzii etc. etc. how would you call these "articles"? The problem is that the AWB will skip these "present articles" and they wouldn't even be updated to the discussed stub! Mariusm (talk) 13:06, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
I agree with Franz Xaver. In my opinion Wikispecies should provide higher quality references for a taxonomic treatment. Simply coping (some) data from an external database is not more than generating substubs. But Wikispecies understands itself as a species directory, so maybe the phonebook approach is OK. --Succu (talk) 19:18, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Methods to progress Wikispecies[edit]

"I think this is the only method to progress WS to another level and make it more significant." Well, you should know that it isn't, because - as I keep telling you, and you keep ignoring - the data could be put into Wikidata, and displayed here through the intelligent use of templates. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:52, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

I have to disagree, Andy. The data should be put in here, where there are specialists to examine it, taxonomic data requires significant human interaction to interpret and expertise to do so. Then mined by Wikidata for use in other projects. Data from WS to WD should be a one way flow chart ie WS --> WD --> all other projects. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 19:21, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
You are, of course, at liberty to hold an opinion as to how our databases should be organised. But it is untenable to claim that my comment about how they could be organised is false. It would be equally untenable to pretend that the data will not be held in Wikidata; and untenable to suppose that Wikipedias will not be taking data from Wikidata (or will be doing so directly from Wikispecies). You may certainly argue that data should flow only from Wikispecies to Wikidata, but I see no appetite whatsoever for that, or against adding and updating data directly in Wikidata. Which simply leaves a debate about whether the data should be in one place, or two. Feel free to make a case of the latter. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:49, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
I've sought wider input, at meta:Wikimedia Forum#The future of Wikispecies. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:19, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
One question is where "here" is. What I see on my computer monitor, is what I refer to as "here". But where the record I am reading, updating and saving is physically, doesn't really matter? For sure, the technical side has lately been very developed at Wikidata, and I doubt theres a better place to store records on Wikimedia. This doesnt mean that the project here on Wikispecies can be developed and completed (possible?) regardless as to where the files are stored, on which server, in which country, in which cosmos? Dan Koehl (talk) 20:24, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
I used - and read - read "here" as "Wikispecies. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:38, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
yes by here I meant wikispecies, but I was talking as a programmer, of databases, so I was referring to data entry. Not storage. I think WD should store the data, but should not enter it. It should not then be back entered into WS as that creates an error loop of database logic. That is it risks the data. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 20:46, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
Never said your claim was false I just disagreed with you. Unusually I guess I am both a taxonomist and a programmer, my specialty as a programmer is databases. I build sql databases as it were. So yes my opinion with databases is that they should have a flow chart to demonstrate their underlying processes. So basically data entry, data storage and management, and then data usage. Looking at who can do the entry, and has the skillset to do it in this case, it is clear that WS has the capacity and knowledge base to do data entry for taxonomic data. What Wikidata needs to do is then take that data and store it. But needs to do so in a way it can be utilised in whatever way it can be down the path. Wikidata should be taking all the data, not just some of it. It should be done by a bot. Does this mean that maybe WS needs to have a mre rigid formality on its pages? Probably, and that can be discussed. But a constant back loop from Wikidata to Wikispecies is defeating one of the purposes of having a database. Data entry is the most error producing section of a database, having that done at two points doubles the risk of error. It calls into question the quality of that database. The entry should be done where there is and by those who have the most expertise for that type of data. For taxonomy that is here. The database management should be aimed at the down flow usages. To me the biggest use for the taxonomic data at Wikipedia is to be used to populate the Taxoboxes in all the different wikipedia languages, then no matter what language any organism with a page will have the identical taxonomy, not currently the case. Wikidata should be storing and managing data. Ensuring it can be accessed in the ways the wikipedias can utilise it best. I have spent time on Wikidata going through the taxonomy pages there, I have about 400 odd edits where I made corrections. The thing that is truly obvious in that data is that Wikidata does not have the broad sweeping taxonomic knowledge or capacity to interpret this data adequately. I know some there do and I think Succu and Brya do great jobs. But overall WD does not. It is a pure database, albeit a human managed one. Its scope is very broad, as it should be that is not a criticism, Taxonomic data is highly specialised. I may work as a taxonomist but I have a Bachelor of Software Engineering and to me as a database specialist, back running the database to overwrite data entry is high risk database management. You will have other wikiprojects I am sure that are in a similar situatioon to WS, the various dictionary projects come to mind. Seriously, if you want to build a database you need to think of projects in terms of data in and data out and data management. What matters is the data, there is nothing more crucial. The management model your proposing at present is high risk and undermines the integrety of the data. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 20:24, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
I said "the data could be put into Wikidata, and displayed here through the intelligent use of templates". If you disagree with that, that is saying it is false. Your analogy with dictionaries is nota sound one. A better set of examples would be WikiChemsitry, WikiPhysics and WikiAstronomy - but of course they do not exsit; all the data is held on Wikidata, not separately. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:43, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
I get what you meant by display, but with no dynamic way of updating wikidata whenever we make a needed change here, anything displayed here is seen and considered as an edit here. So by displaying the wikidata entries here you are in effect editing here. That is dangerous to the integrity of a database. For the higher orders it may not be a problem they are generally quite stable. But anything that could be changed at any time by some new analysis. It needs to be very clear what data is what, and that cannot be determined visually at this point. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 20:51, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
I said "the data could be put into Wikidata, and displayed here through the intelligent use of templates". If you disagree with that, that is saying it is false. No not false, what you said can be done. I do not disagree with that. What I disagree with is whether it should be done. I did not falsify your argument, or refute you. I just think it is not the best way. That there is a better way, more in line with appropriate safe database management. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 22:22, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Mr. @Pigsonthewing: can you please explain how all this works out when I need to transfer 10 species from one genus to another. I'll have to do a double work: (1) to update the Wikidata database (2) to update the WS pages (3) to double-check the the two sites always synchronize (4) to introduce newcomers to the complexity of interwiki templates. All this entails lots of work and lots of efforts and is prone to errors for the sake of creating an "elegant" database. You seem to care more for the "elegance" than for the taxonomic practicality. Mariusm (talk) 06:02, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Good point. It's a nice concept of having an elegant database at Wikidata, but if that means that people who consider cite tempaltes far too complex (Nope, I'm nowhere done harping about that) are going to have to do that, we might as well delete Wikispecies altogether right now. Circeus (talk) 06:26, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
Who does that work when you transfer them from one genus to another on WS, but not on WD? And I have asked you before not to ascribe words or beliefs to me; as indeed have others. I will ask you again not to do so. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:57, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
Have you considered the concept that if Wikidata had a say species having a single property with the absolute essentials as qualifiers, ie property species name, various identifiers being, original ref, parent taxon, holotype, type locality, junior synonyms (each with original ref), reference for most recent review. This could be mined from here by a bot and then WD can basically have the data from here. Where you can actually have it used down the line by other projects. Then we can keep this updated, any updates we do are updated to WD by the bot, either new taxa, or changes to existing taxa (we include q numbers when relevant use it as an identifier here to link to there). Then you are storing the data at WD for usage, it is being taxonomically managed here. You can still add other identifiers over there, the stuff we do not cover. For example I personally consider common names a waste of time. But at least the raw taxonomic data will be done well. At the moment the taxonomy over at WD is largely incorrect from a taxonomic point of view. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 19:25, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Some conclusions[edit]

@Succu: @Franz Xaver: WS had way back in 2008 a bot crafted to automatically create stub articles from ITIS - named User:MonoBot. It was designed to create articles from the list supplied by users at User:MonoBot/Requested Articles. See an example to its creation: Percina phoxocephala. This bot ultimately failed because it couldn't handle parentheses. (see Wikispecies:Village_Pump/Archive_13#The_Bot_needs_fixing). I think that the approach of using the AWB is much better. Moreover it was semi-voted in the positive above with 4 supporting and 2 neutral. As Succu mentioned WS is ultimately a species directory and as such stubs are a legitimate addition. I therefore don't see a reason to stop stubing this way Mariusm (talk) 08:05, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

My test with algae is now finished, the results and some general conclusions are here: User:Thiotrix/Test AWB for species pages. --Thiotrix (talk) 10:38, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
Thiotrix: Wikidata holds several Fucus species that are not accepted since centuries... These items exist because we have a complete list of species described in the 1st edition of Linnés Species Plantarum. --Succu (talk) 14:44, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
If everyone can add names to wikidata that are listed in a special book, and these names are displayed like and cannot be distinguished from accepted taxa, that makes the use of wikidata for taxonomical purposes rather complicated. --Thiotrix (talk) 13:02, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
WD is not a taxonomic database but a knowledge base. So the concept of accepted/valid according to some taxon authority (aka POV) is not directly supported. What matters are references in which a taxonomic view point is supported. In case of Phaeophyceae WD has references to the latest taxonomic treatment An Updated Classification of Brown Algae (Ochrophyta, Phaeophyceae) (2014). --Succu (talk) 20:23, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
Mariusm, is there a reason why Gymnopleurus sisyphus (entry at CoL) is not marked as a fossil taxon? Why do you not provide a link to the correct CoL page? Similar is true for the Fucus species. All links refer to the genus not the species. --Succu (talk) 18:48, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
@Succu: Your're right about Gymnopleurus sisyphus, it turned out to be a glitch in my WORD macros which I use to process the retrieved CoL data into AWB acceptable format. It's truly difficult to provide CoL specific link for each species; in any case the links tend to metamorphose over the years and the hard work isn't worth the trouble. The Fucus species are the responsibility of User:Thiotrix who supplied me with the data. Mariusm (talk) 05:16, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
Yes, for the ease of test I just had one reference in the sample page, that was used for every species. Of course it is preferable to have the link to each species page at Algaebase. I think this could be managed by AWB, too. As Mariusm states below, this is not at all a "full-automatic" creation of species pages. It needs the careful manual preparation of a sort of table for each genus with all the data that shall be included in the page. Maybe the original citation can be added also. --Thiotrix (talk) 13:02, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
Another glitch is Taiwanoserica chunlinlii (see CoL entry). Probably all recently created species of Taiwanoserica have the wrong parent. According to CoL they belong to the family Melolonthidae. --Succu (talk) 18:48, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

A relevant comparison[edit]

Two things I'd like to point out: mass data import for generating barebone material have had mixed results. In Wikipedia (at least the english one), barebone creation of taxon like the one proposed here would probably be opposed. As far as I know, massive creation has been done on smaller language wikis to no significant gains other than inflating article counts. Indeed the mass creation from census data (particularly the US imports) and the very similar mass imports of TIGER data on OpenStreetMap have, in the long term, met with highly mixed result, since

  1. They (at least in the case of Wikimedia projects) inevitably cause cases of circular referencing of data, as pointed out above
  2. They give a false idea of project completeness and of what is considered a useful entry
    • You see similar phenomena in other countries, such as with communes on fr: (compounded there because the template they used very often left a bunch of empty sections in the resulting "articles")
  3. Because of such, they actually slow ulterior addition of data: redlinks are a greater driver of data addition than incomplete data
  4. Automatic imports may contain errors (one might say they inevitably do), and such errors are especially slow to be detected, due to both the presumption that the data is good in the first place (why else would we have imported it?), and the sheer amount of it
    • TIGER data for example included entire subdivisions that were never built and in many instances those still pollute OSM data to this day. Multiple tools had to be created specifically to try and deal with TIGER data that was only partially reliable, and the import is credited for impairing acquisition of new contributors in the US because the map just looks "complete" already.

As such I would actually oppose any such project of automatic creation (as opposed to automatically linking existing pages) as long as the result are so barebones. 14:20, 8 March 2017 (UTC) — The preceding unsigned comment was added by Circeus (talkcontribs) 14:20, 8 March 2017‎.

ETA: besides, why bother using Wikispecies as an intermediate if the ultimate goal, according to Andy, is WikiData? You want that stuff, why aren't you importing directly into WikiData? There must be a reason for that, surely, and I'm curious to know what it is. Circeus (talk) 14:32, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
@Circeus: this isn't an automatic import of data. Not at all. Each familia to be imported is first scrutinized and the ultimate source is carefully checked out. Actually it's a very selective import of data and the target is to build a base upon which much improvement can be done. It's really no use in creating 20 wonderful species per month for a familia which is 30,000 species strong. It simply won't get you anywhere in the long run. On the other hand the whole range of species can provide huge benefits. One of those is the ability to search for an author/date occurrence over a large familia and to easily insert all the instances of a ref-template where the specific author treated the familia-members in the specific publication. There are other great benefits to be gained from having all the members of a familia at your disposal to be manipulated as an integral unit. Believe me, I often create a species article for the sole reason of adding an instance of a ref-template I'm currently dealing with. Mariusm (talk) 15:51, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
I'm sick and tired of the WS-Wikidata tug of war. I see WD simply as a pointer and WS as the ultimate source for the entire range of taxonomic information. Mariusm (talk) 05:42, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
Me too. Thanks for your words, @Mariusm:. --Murma174 (talk) 09:36, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
Got to agree with @Mariusm: and others here. There is another point, which involves more controversial taxa and those in review and research. Taxonomic data on WD can be a matter of editors' opinion and entries from here can be just srapped, in spite of evidence presented, if it does not conform with their view. It can be the old chestnut of "one name one taxon", which is fine as a principle, but then there is real life where names can evolve. Here we do not make "original" contributions just act as mirror and we have the ability to give different views for controversial taxa, something that is impossible on WD. In conclusion I will stick it out here, if WD editors want to use my work that's fine and for example, there are plenty of papers that can be uploaded. comment done by Andyboorman
Yes taxonomic treatments can evolve over time. That's why WD has implemented APG I to APG IV. --Succu (talk) 09:57, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
So has WS, somebody just needs to change the taxonavigation procedure. Andyboorman (talk) 11:36, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
I too agree here. I think that WS may need to develop a policy on this issue. To me WD is a database, a repository. They can be well suited to that purpose. But taxonomic expertise across a majority of groups resides here. Cheers, Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 22:22, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
"Taxonomic data on WD can be a matter of editors' opinion". No. Data on WD, just as here, is supposed to be cited using to reliable sources. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:26, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
"I see WD simply as a pointer and WS as the ultimate source for the entire range of taxonomic information" I'm sure you do. However, that does not seem to be what the rest of the Wikimedia movement - of which WS is a part - thinks. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:23, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
@Pigsonthewing: What I'm saying comes out of common sense. Fragmenting taxonomic data into bits and pieces is bringing more chaos than helping sort matters out. You're viewing this with the eyes of a data analyst not of a taxonomist. Organizing the data according to your wishes is a naturalist's nightmare. Taxonomy isn't a warehouse inventory or a yearly production chart my friend. This community's consensus isn't in accordance with your plans, so back off. Mariusm (talk) 14:01, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
Ah, an "appeal to common sense" fallacy. No-one is suggesting "fragmenting taxonomic data", much less doing so, tautologously, "into bits and pieces". Indeed, Taxonomic data is currently fragmented, and I suggest we rationalise it. However, I have no "plan" or "wishes", merely questions and suggestions. Yet again, you ascribe thoughts to me which are not mine. This is, if I have not under-counted, the fourth time I have asked you to cease doing so. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:40, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
But what exactly is the suggestion? From what I can see this "rationalisation" is to create lower standard circular data. I am a member of the taxobox taskforce on Wikipedia. I have seen almost nothing on WP trying to get them to use templates from WD to fill automatic taxoboxes. This would be the ideal use of data at WD. Rather than make it lower quality and circular. WD does not reference its taxonomic data properly, the data there is missing key important information crucial in taxonomy. Rationalisation is politi-speak for centralisation and loss of services. I have said before that there is a reason no one has managed to create an all encompassing database of taxonomy and nomenclature, it is complicated. Much of it has to be done manually. To write the checklists I have peer review published I have had to get museums to go through the boxes of reprints left to them by long dead taxonomists in the hope they may have a certain paper. I have outstanding articles, original descriptions, that I have been searching for for over 5 years. No one has a copy. No bot can do this type of work I have to physically search for the specimens and the articles describing them. Then figure it out. This is the specialisation of taxonomy and nomenclature. WD should be a database, that I support. However, you must take all the pertinent data or the observable conclusions drawn from the data on each taxon is rubbish, it has no justification presented. So the first objective for WD is do the taxonomy right, and get the WP's to actually use it so their is a value to it, then I can make sure WS provides the information WD needs. As I said before, I think the taxonomists here need to present a policy to WD so they understand what they should do. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 15:07, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
@Pigsonthewing: I asked you before to outline your vision for WS but you declined. You keep saying I'm not this and I'm not that. What you imply is clearly suggesting a fragmented database and speciesbox-style templates. This amounts to WS' nightmare. I think your expertise and your qualifications can be put to better use elsewhere but not here. Mariusm (talk) 15:23, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
In principle, the idea to store data at WD and use WS for presentation, does not seem totally wrong to me. However, at the moment (and probably for long) the data model applied in WD in my opinion is insufficient for the information available at WS. The WD data model would only be sufficient for our WS stubs – and not much more. @Pigsonthewing: You can convince me of the contrary, if you are able to bring all the information found in Brackenridgea arenaria to WD and if you can demonstrate, how this can be presented here at WS all together in one taxon page. In the unlikely case you succeed, how much time does this need? Regards --Franz Xaver (talk) 15:33, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
@Franz Xaver: suppose he succeeds. It would be impossibly cumbersome and difficult to update, modify, visualize, keep track etc. of this complex data in a manageable manner. It is simply forcing a an elephant into a shoe-box. Mariusm (talk) 15:39, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
The claim that "tt would be impossibly cumbersome and difficult to update, modify, visualize, keep track etc. of this complex data" is pure FUD. You offer no supporting argument, much less evidence. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:41, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
As I said earlier on this page "Wikidata can hold all [the taxonomic data fields Mariusm listed]. If there's anything else that Wikidata doesn't yet do, that we need for Wikispecies, we can propose a property for it there. You can find a list of Wikidata's current taxonomic properties, and examples of their use, at d:Wikidata:WikiProject Taxonomy.". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:44, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
No, Mariusm, I didn't "decline", I referred you to our previous conversation on the matter. Immediately after I ask you to cease ascribing thoughts to me which are not mine, you do so yet again. Far from "suggesting a fragmented database", it can be clearly seen above that I said "Taxonomic data is currently fragmented, and I suggest we rationalise it". A clear example of this is that you just created Maladera engana, making no link from it to the pre-existing item for the same taxon on Wikidata. It's far from the only case of your doing this. You did not respond, when I highlighted a previous example, on this page, on 21 February. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:39, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
Are you aware that there are not one, but 295, Wikipedias? You may have "seen almost nothing" on one Wikipedia "trying to get them to use templates from WD to fill automatic taxoboxes", but on other Wikipedias' taxoboxes are already populated using data from Wikidata, just as other templates on the English-language Wikipedia are. There is no "politi-speak for... loss of services"; indeed the number of services available is multiplying rapidly - and WD offers far more potential for new services (such as populating infoboxes!) than does WS. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:52, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
Pigsonthewing, I clarified before that I'm in the process of updating the genera to reflect the species-stubing I do. It can't be done instantly, but eventually it will be done.
What do you mean exactly by to "rationalise" the database? You're very vague and imprecise in your suggestions.
Automatic infoboxes are the WS' anathema Mariusm (talk) 15:59, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
I'm not sure where you think I said "'rationalise' the database". Please can you clarify? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:09, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

I think he meant were you said rationalise the data. In anycase. Yes of course I am aware how many wikipedias there are, I have edited 4 of them. I was referring of course to the EN Wikipedia. But what I was referring to was that WD could provide the template for all Wikipedias to use, hence standardising the taxobox across all WP. That would be a noble goal. That is not something that should be done here due to circularity. Circular data is bad data. If you want to rationalise things that is a good rationalisation. But it is not what WD seems to be doing. Your taking partial data in a format impossible to use for taxonomy then wanting to feed it back here which will accomplish two things. Loss of quality and loss of editors. That is not in the best interests of any wikimedia site. I do not think you mean half of what you say the way it comes across. But words matter and that is part of the problem in these negotiations. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 16:28, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

WD doesn't provide templates; it provides data. I'm not sure where I'm "taking partial data in a format impossible to use for taxonomy". Or did you mean WD? I'm not WD. I assure you mean eveything I say. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:34, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
well yes was referring to WD, not you personally. I am sure you mean everything you say that is not what I said. I said the way it comes across is not always the message you intend. Cheers, Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 18:22, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
Side note – but still important, and addressed to all users rather than any one particular. Here and there the tone in this thread has become quite harsh. To give an example comments like "I think your expertise and your qualifications can be put to better use elsewhere but not here" may imply that the accosted user is unwelcome as a Wikispecies editor, simply because he doesn't share the same view as the "accostee". There are other examples as well, written by other editors. This needs to stop. It's only natural that we sometimes harbour different opinions and it is important that we air them here at the Village Pump, but please try to maintain a decent and civilised manner. All of the editors of this thread are seasoned Wikispecies users – most of us are admins! – and I can see no cause for any one of us not to stay polite. Thank you. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 18:24, 10 March 2017 (UTC).

How could both projects help each other[edit]

Do you have any ideas how both projects could gain an additional content benefit? --Succu (talk) 22:34, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Blocking old bots[edit]

We have a number of bots approved on this project nearly a decade ago, which have not edited for some time.

This is a security risk.

I propose to block all such bots which have not edited for over a year, with a block-log entry indicating that no bad faith action is assumed, unless anyone has a sound objection, or there is consensus for a different time frame. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:59, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Understandable. I am fine with it. Do take into account the tasks of the bot, how often its needed and who is managing it though please. Sometimes they just are not needed alot. But I agree some are being managed by inactive users. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 23:43, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
I disagree with blocking it. Just take off their bot flag will do. OhanaUnitedTalk page 00:26, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
Deflagged. Dan Koehl (talk) 05:51, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
@Dan Koehl: What is deflagged? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:54, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
Who can do that? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:54, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
I'd disagree with blocking them as well. Removing the bot flag from their accounts would be enough. Any bureaucrat can add/remove any user to/from the 'bot' usergroup. Regards, -- MarcoAurelio (talk) 19:51, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
@Pigsonthewing:, with "deflagged", I meant that I had removed the bot flag for those inactive bot accounts. One or two, which was deleted, I removed completely from the list. Bureaucrats can assign and remove bot flag for a bot. Dan Koehl (talk) 00:21, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
@Dan Koehl: Thank you for clarifying. I see that User:OhanaBot last edited in 2008 and User:JCbot in 2009. Should they not have the flag removed, too? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 01:09, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
@Pigsonthewing:, while the other bots I deflagged belongs to users not active here anymore, the two bots you mention are belonging to trusted users, who, I believe, are still active on the project. Ohaha can deflag his bot himself, and for the other bot, maybe we could have use for it, if we get a consensus on changing on Pagename substed. Dan Koehl (talk) 01:17, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
I've taken the bot flag off my bot. As for JCbot, I think it should be taken off too because it was an awfully long time since it edited and things have probably changed from its 2009 request comparing to current needs. If JCbot needs to restart, they should start a new request. OhanaUnitedTalk page 05:08, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

JCbot's bot status was revoked by Dan Koehl in March 7, 2017 (See User rights log.) –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 15:12, 11 March 2017 (UTC).

Main page in Portuguese for Spanish users with Spanish set in their preferences[edit]

Hello. Please see Talk:Página principal for the issue. Regards, -- MarcoAurelio (talk) 18:03, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

That is indeed the case. When Spanish is set as the preferred language users end up on the Portuguese main page Página principal rather than the Spanish Portada equivalent. Very odd! I will bring it up on the Administrators' Noticeboard and hopefully some of the other admins may know how to fix it. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 23:46, 11 March 2017 (UTC).
@Tommy Kronkvist: Fixing it would be to convert all of this to using the Translate extension instead of having separate pages. —Justin (koavf)TCM 01:41, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
@Koavf: Yes I know that would be the best long term solution, and it would work for all languages. However in this particular case something is wrong specifically for users with Spanish as the preferred language. Users with any other language setting e.g. French or German will end up on the correct pages if they click the top left "Main page" link ("Accueil" and "Hauptseite", respectively). But Spanish users will be directed to the Portuguese "Página principal" main page instead of the correct Spanish "Portada". Admittedly I haven't tried all of the 80 or so available languages but at least eight or nine, including all of the above plus Swedish (my mother tongue) and a few languages using non-Latin alphabets. They all work as expected, save Spanish. My Wikispecies preferences are normally set to use English as the preferred language, and of course that works as well. But not Spanish... What gives? :-) Furthermore this problem seems to be exclusive for the link to the Spanish main page: links to the Spanish versions of "Recent changes", "Administrators" etc are all correct. Lastly – not that it should be related to this problem, but anyway – I've checked the {{Languages}} template used on every language version of "Main page" to list the available languages, and as far as I can see it looks okay. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 02:55, 12 March 2017 (UTC).
@AlvaroMolina, Tommy Kronkvist: This is the problem. Portuguese and Spanish are so similar that they will frequently have the same word for concepts in their languages and I needed to manually set "Main Page" to be "Portada" for Spanish. Let me know if that doesn't work for some reason. —Justin (koavf)TCM 03:27, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
Seems to work great. Thanks a lot! –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 03:40, 12 March 2017 (UTC).

Fossil taxa categories, reminder[edit]

Reminder that baring any well-argued opposition I'm starting the move toward reducing all fossil taxa categories to a single one (see above) in 24h. Circeus (talk) 06:35, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Sheer numbers must be considered. Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology was published over many years, mostly finishing up in early 1970's. Within just a few years, large parts were obsolete, and one resulting commentary was published. It stated that about 1,000,000 fossil species had been described, and keeping pace with updated Treatise volumes would be prohibitive. I no longer have that one article, but there is this:
  • David M. Raup, 1976. Species diversity in the Phanerozoic: a tabulation. doi: 10.1017/S0094837300004917. It estimates about 190,000 fossil species as at 1970.
Very much research has been done since. Estimates of modern and fossil diversity have increased immensely, and already described species are in excess of these estimates. Now, after 40 years, we have Internet, which speeds things up, but still, this is one huge number for dumping into one undivided category. Alphabetizing will result in average of 38,451 taxa per letter. Deciding to just dump them all together now, and maybe later subdividing will be prohibitive, as then each page will have to be examined for properly locating its place. Oversimplifying can be at least as bad as oversplitting. Neferkheperre (talk) 15:19, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
You are arguing completely beside the point. It's not about having the categories right now for stuff that is gonna be created only god knows when. It's about having a useful, manageable category system right now. And right now, these categories are far more detailed than necessary, and form multiple competing systems (in some cases with circular categorisation that violate the basic premises of the category tree) that are mostly unmanageable and/or uncared for. Nothing prevent the devising of a proper system later on, but right now they simply do not pull their weight. Circeus (talk) 04:34, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
From looks of CoL discussion above, that day is coming on FAST. Looks to be nice and chaotic, too. Now is time for organizing, or re-organizing, not just rip it down to nothing and hope.
While we are simplizing things, why not eliminate all these discipline categories (entomologists, etc.) and every one goes into category:taxon authorities only. Perfectly in line with present trend. Neferkheperre (talk) 09:31, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
Besides, since the CoL creation are likely not gonna be sorting into subcategories anyway (assuming any categorization occurs at all during article creation), keeping them for that purpose when we both know it'll take months before anyone even starts doing any editing at all on those articles is a pretty spurious argument. Circeus (talk) 10:51, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Note: Some recent additions like Paraglaphyrus yixianensis and Copris pristinus or older ones like Moschops capensis are not marked to be a fossil taxon. --Succu (talk) 22:49, 8 March 2017 (UTC)


Circeus (talk) 11:07, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Editors' interests[edit]

Is there a way to learn more about an editors' taxonomic interests here? I noticed that some additions or major taxonomic changes (eg. in fishes, birds or mammals) are not picked up here. So a contact to an taxonomic expert could probably help to improve Wikispecies. --Succu (talk) 20:43, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

for me its all on my user page. I am a specialist reptile taxonomist. I guess you can ask people if its not there. There are over 5000 taxa named every year. We are a small group. We need more taxonomic editors, those here need to encourage more taxonomists to participate. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 20:47, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
I know. I had a category or a babel on my mind, providing a search. --Succu (talk) 20:52, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
I like that idea actually either one, I think it is valuable that it is obvious where the taxonomic specialties of those editors here lay. It also helps see where our real gaps are and we can possibly target those areas for trying to find new editors. As I have said a few times, taxonomists as a generalisation are not fans of Wikimedia, its guilt by association they judge all projects by Wikipedia and scientists often have a low view of WP. In other words we have to go to them and show them why their input would be useful and appreciated and why WS is different. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 22:05, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
Agree, would be good, and categories for this may serve that goal. Dan Koehl (talk) 00:17, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
So how to proceed? --Succu (talk) 22:24, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Since this can never be a rule, or a plight, for users to participate in? We have to relay on the free will to participate in this. I would say, the first step to proceed is either to bring it up here as a suggestion, and see if the community agree, OR simply create those categories, and invite users to use them. A third alternative could be user boxes, which automatically categorize users. My suggestion is to start with a presentation of the idea, and hopefully find a support for it within the community. Dan Koehl (talk) 22:34, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

So where "to start with a presentation of the idea", Dan Koehl?! --Succu (talk) 22:49, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
@Succu:, I would suggest making a good described suggestion of your idea, with motivation as to why and reasons, and present on Wikispecies:Requests_for_Comment where it comes more official that you would like to see feedback, eventually followed by a poll, once the details are more outlined and at least some users support the idea, so the poll can include a couple of alternatives to choose from. Please bear in mind though, that Wikispecies, although being a community of users, consists of a highly differentiated group, with individuals, more focused on the work, than belonging to a social community, compared with other Wikimedia projects. we have very social users, who discuss everywhere and everyday, and users who didnt even had a dialogue with anyone on their talk page during ten years, - and still contribute to the project with their expertise, knowledge and willing to contribute. And all those different characters are nevertheless highly welcome to contribute here, This means, from users you will get a lot of feedback and frequently made comments, and others will never, ever comment on any kind of discussion. It has, in that sense, to be remembered, that Wikispecies was not started with an intention to attract a lot of experienced wikimedia users, used to "normal wikimedia" traditions and behaviors, but rather was initiated as a website for taxonomy experts. Meanwhile this has partly changed, but my personal opinion is if anyone here should get any sort of priorities, then its the professional taxonomists. Wikispecies is a part of Wikimedia, and should follow the policies and be integrated with other projects as much as possible, on the other hand there is a high tolerance for its users focus, some or many of them, never ever participated in any other project than here, and the knowledge, and insight in taxonomy, must always stand above all other priorities which other projects may have. That's why, the best way of introducing any new routine, and new idea, is to ask for the communities support, and hopefully through a democratic process, get it, and implement. Any other method could create a negative feeling for the WS contributors, and make them choose to stop contributing, which is always a tragic loss for the project, where everyone is important to keep it developing. WS is also, compared to other projects characterized as a flat organization model, where most users after some time can become an dmin, and everyone have more or the less the same "rights", WS users are, I would say, more equal, than users or other projects. hence, you may get only support from 6 users, but if noone else make objections, this may be enough. Silence may be a signal of accepting, or a "never mind" opinion, and sometimes things develop very slowly. Sime ideas I suggested here took three years to implement. But it was worth the time waiting. With so few active users just everything may be delicate, if anyone would "push" to much, this could result in several important users leaving the project, something we can not risk for any reason, except for situations when one user clearly and without any doubt disturb the working environment for the rest of the community. Dan Koehl (talk) 23:20, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Vote for bot[edit]

I ask the community kindly to take a look on the changes done, and vote on the new bot MABot, which has a request to get bot flag. Dan Koehl (talk) 00:28, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

How to link a reference to a reference template? (WD/Ws)[edit]

For me linking infomation held by WS and WD is of major concern. That's why I opened this thread. Maybe your interested in. --Succu (talk) 20:29, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Citation templates[edit]

{{Hofmann & Tremewan, 2010}} renders as:

A structured version of the first part, using the code:

* {{cite journal|author1={{a|Axel Hofmann|Hofmann, A.}} |author2={{a|Walter Gerard Tremewan|Tremewan, W.G.}} |year=2010 |title=A revised check-list of the genus ''Zygaena'' {{aut|Fabricius}}, 1775 (Lepidoptera: Zygaenidae, Zygaeninae), based on the biospecies concept |journal=[[ISSN 0013-8894|Entomologist's gazette]] |volume=61 |pages=119–131 |url=}}<includeonly>[,_2010 Reference page.]</includeonly>

would render as:

The advantages of this include the emission of machine-readable COinS metadata so that, for example, the citation can be exported into an aggregator like Zotero. What do people think about the slightly different presentation? Can we standardise on {{cite journal}}? Do we need to modify it? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:57, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

This second version is what is used in en:Wikipedia. Very time-consuming, and must be repeated each time. any changes must be hunted down individually. They could not point out any easier way. Templates much better, as they are easy to edit wholesale. One thing that turned me off about en:Wikipedia. Neferkheperre (talk) 01:15, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
Agreed the EN WP style cite journal template is ridiculous. I wont use it there either. Cheers, Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 02:08, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
Hard to edit? I can generate the list of references on your user page in templated form in less than 20 minutes (maybe even less than 10, but I tend to have attention span issues) if I need to. You need to learn that whining that you don't want to learn the tools is not the same as things being inherently difficult. Circeus (talk) 08:27, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
@Circeus: please don't brag when it isn't appropriate. To transform from straight normal ref to the cite journal format you must: (1) Slice the ref into 8 parts (or more for multiple author (2) add the required header to each part (3) add the Reference page suffix and the source lang prefix (4) treat satisfactorily unconventional ref formats, multiple page ranges, in cases etc. You tell us it isn't a chore. Show us then how it can be effortlessly done. I'm ready and prepared to be convinced. Mariusm (talk) 09:42, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
The problem here is that we have too many data analysts, wiki programmers, administrators, inter-site integrators, advisers and so forth and too few down to earth editors who contribute the actual taxonomic data. Mariusm (talk) 10:30, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
No. the problem is that everyone on here just wants to be allowed to do whatever it is they're doing (on either side of the medal) without really having to bother consider what anyone does on- or off-wiki. While in theory this was never much on issue, in practice (and I need to emphasize that although stephen was a majoc contributing factor, he is in no way the only one) the result is that we have nothing standardized in any useful way anywhere on the site and whatever data we have is completely useless to anyone off the site. Don't anyone fool themselves. Everyone around here is fighting tooth and nail to preserve their own little habits and the personal gardens they've built, and it's just a matter of time before we get another Stephen-level of inter-user issues. Circeus (talk) 10:43, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
@Pigsonthewing: Concerning presentation of references, we had a poll some time ago. We should stick to this agreement. Moreover, I dislike linking to PDF directly from the title of the publication. There may be more than one possibility to access the publication. And I use some reference templates with optional parameters, e.g. Template:Exell & Mendonça, 1951. I suppose, this would be difficult or impossible with your approach. --Franz Xaver (talk) 10:45, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
Fixing the {{cite journal}} so it follows that formatting is very doable. Case in point: I have worked on it and it's now 95+% of the way there already. The leftover stuff is fairly easy to implement (I'm just working on small chunks to reduce the risks that I'll find myself burning out, and I've been focussing on the higher-order categories thing), but user-induced variation makes it almost impossible to be sure what should be the formatting for monographs in series. That is a small issue, really. See my userpage for an example. Circeus (talk) 11:34, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
@Franz Xaver: Please can you give an example where there is "more than one possibility to access the publication"? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:05, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
Thanks also for the link to the poll, which was started by Mariusm, who wrote: "Does everybody agree... so we can all follow it to standardize WS? [...] it's due time to revise it and make it uniform, clear and precise.". In the subsequent discussion there, he said: "We can simplify the typing with templates." and "I'm not categorically against the template(s) but you'll need to modify it to comply with our agreed format voted above, than we can recommend it to the editors and give it a try. Mariusm (talk) 06:32, 22 December 2015 (UTC) ". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:28, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
@Pigsonthewing: I already have given some examples below. --Franz Xaver (talk) 14:15, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
Ah, I missed those, sorry. I see Tommy has already provided a solution to that issue. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:24, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
@Circeus: Regarding "everyone around here is fighting tooth and nail to preserve their own little habits", I beg to differ. Some of us actually always at least try to be very true to the preferred format presented in Help:Reference section. As for the {{Cite journal}} and other {{Cite…}} templates I personally often use them in Wikipedia but shun them here at Wikispecies, for the same reasons as those given by Neferkheperre and Mariusm. However Wikispecies is supposed to be freely available to everyone, hence I agree with you that we need to find a format that can be easily imported by other software- and web services. But as Faendalimas points out in the above threads – and this is important! – we need to do this without sacrificing the taxonomical scrutiny. Wikidata surely is the road to take, but it must be thread with great care to detail. Regards, Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 11:59, 11 March 2017 (UTC).
@Neferkheperre: Please can you explain what you mean by "repeated each time"? Do you have an example? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:05, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
Yes. When I was on Wikipedia (which I still am, but not very active) I found that their CiteJournal system required me to fill out entire citations from scratch each page I required it. This is cumbersome, especially with works like Darwin, 1854, Pilsbry, 1916 and other widely cited references. No one there could provide alternatives. My only solution became to create CiteJournal entries on my User Page and copy/paste. Neferkheperre (talk) 08:38, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
I did the same, albeit in a more rudimentary way. They're still there, in my enWP sandbox. The system is very easy to use, but tedious when you have to add the same bulk of citations to perhaps 20 pages or more. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 11:54, 12 March 2017 (UTC).
@Neferkheperre: This is something which could/should be resolved with Wikidata as well. —Justin (koavf)TCM 19:24, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
This is not so on Wikipedia, and it would not be so on WS. For example, the markup I demonstrated at the top of this section would be included in {{Hofmann & Tremewan, 2010}}, replacing the raw data currently there. The latter template's use on various WS pages would be unchanged. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:39, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

@Franz Xaver: I too dislike linking to PDF file directly from the title of the work. However, if we include the format= parameter things get slightly better. Broadband networks aren't common in all corners of the world, and while most users can easily download a HTML page with text and some images, not all users are comfortable downloading a perhaps 50 megabyte big PDF over their phone line or mobile phone. If we use the format= parameter it is easy to give a hint whether the file is a PDF document (or Word, Excel...), and most users know that such files can be significantly bigger than a webpage. The above example by Pigsonthewing would then render as:

Thus clearly pointing out that the link is a PDF file. Regards, Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 11:59, 11 March 2017 (UTC).

It should be possible to add a PDF icon after links to PDF files, using CSS, as done on en.Wikipedia. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:05, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
@Tommy Kronkvist: Anyway, this does not solve the problem, that there may exist several options for access to the paper, e.g. Template:Fraga & Saavedra, 2006 or Template:Essi et al., 2011. I even have encountered the case, that (free) PDF files of the same paper were available from different places. --Franz Xaver (talk) 12:55, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
Indeed that's quite common, but shouldn't pose a problem. The {{Cite journal}} template already today includes separate parameters for url=, doi=, pmid=, oclc= and so forth, and it is not at all impossible to add one for BHL. We already have a {{BHL}} template that can be implemented in the {{Cite journal}} template. In the same way it probably wouldn't be too difficult to add "extra" url2=, url3= etc for any document that may be served from several different links. I'm not saying that I prefer the "Cite journal" template rather than any other method, but it is certainly possible to adapt it to our needs, should we chose to. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 13:52, 11 March 2017 (UTC).

Scott argues above that "Data from WS to WD should be a one way flow chart ie WS --> WD --> all other projects". That cannot happen, if data on WS is not in a structured (ie. templated) format. If the {{Cite journal}} template is not the solution, what is? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:05, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

The main problem with the Cite journal-template is, that the input is machine-friendly but not very user-friendly (and the same is true for input of taxonomical data into Wikidata). If we want more taxonomists working for Wikispecies, we should focus on how we make it easier for unexperienced contributors. Maybe we could create a simple input mask for a reference, which does the formatting to structured data "in the background"? --Thiotrix (talk) 16:48, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
@Pigsonthewing: Andy, yes I said the above, in the same post I also acknowledged that more standardisation of the presentation of the data on our end would also need to be discussed. How we cite publications is one of these areas. Above I said the current EN WP {{cite journal}} template is cumbersome for many users. However, we have to do something. Now as @Dan Koehl: points out in another post this Wiki unlike many others has many highly specialised taxonomists who are not effectively career wikipedians and we need them more as editors than we do as programmers. Hence we have to create a template that they can use. Having built databases that deal with references in sql I know from experience that computers cannot auto break up a reference written as you would see it in a book or something, ie as a single text string, into fields corrosponding to a database struct. So the options are that it either gets done as you put the ref in ie with a template such as cite journal, or it is done afterwards by someone else. Maybe a combination would be possible. So those that cannot or do not wish to go to the trouble of the pre breakup template could use a template that would flag this reference as needing to be rewritten into a cite journal type format. Maybe a modification of the old ref code. If we were to make a simple template that has a beginning and an end similar to the ones we use to archive a discussion that reference, existing as a single string, could be flagged and an editor more willing and familiar with cite journal could come along and using a search on these templates could rewrite them later. This would meet the needs of all editors and what they are willing to do. Other than that, I think the cite journal should be rewritten somewhat to take into account some of the other issues outlined above. I would use it if it made sense to do so. The EN WP one does not. We need peoples expertise here, their expertise is not in Wikimedia but in taxonomy. We have to make some allowances for this. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 18:56, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Using {{Cite journal}} can be incredibly easy. Please see this tool. Give it a DOI and it spits out a a prefilled cite journal. Granted, the exact output doesn't match Wikispecies needs, and Wikispecies has a high reliance on sources that may not have a DOI. But it is possible to make tools that simplify the use of cite templates. Plantdrew (talk) 19:15, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Agreed @Plantdrew: unfortunately unlike many pages WS requires the citation of original references, which are more likely not going to have a DOI and if are found anywhere online will be at Biodiversity Heritage Library. In fact one suggestion would be that a direct link to the paper on BHL be an option in Cite Journal. Probably instead of a DOI or PDF link. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 19:25, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
BHL mints DoIs for its content, for example If you enter the slug from that URI, 10.5962/bhl.title.1141 into the tool suggested by Plantdrewm, it will populate the template for you, as (for that example) <ref name="DyarBusck1902">{{cite journal|last1=Dyar|first1=Harrison G.|last2=Busck|first2=August|last3=Fernald|first3=C. H.|last4=Hulst|first4=George Duryea|year=1902|doi=10.5962/bhl.title.1141}}</ref>. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:01, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
Only for titles that exiisted still when DOI's came into being. Such as the one you listed. Most BHL titles we use have no DOI. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 20:09, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
You'll note I selected an example from 1902. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:03, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
I saw, but its also a Journal that is still in existence. National Geographic 1st ed 1888 would also work this way. Cheers, Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 22:04, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
One reason why it makes sense to keep the input format of a WS citation template the same as those used on WS is so that such tools serve both audiences; and there's less of learning curve for someone who edits in both venues. It's also worth looking at the tools for citation entry on en.Wikipedia (including, but not limited to, those listed at en:Help:Citation tools), which make the use of templates easy. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:32, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Actually, I don't understand, why this discussion has been started. For me, and probably most other contributors to WS, the present reference templates are OK. I cannot recognize any problems, why we should make a change. (Are some of us just now trying to solve non-existing problems?) We had a poll on reference style - one of not too many points, where we have come to a consensus – and should continue with this. --Franz Xaver (talk) 19:41, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

I am most certainly with Franz on this discussion. Any changes would have to go back to vote - chances of consensual support could be slim IMO. Andyboorman (talk) 19:51, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
I started this discussion because the current method, used in the first example I gave, is unstructured. The current templates may be "OK" for those using them, but they are not OK for anyone wanting to use the data in them programmatically (for example to export it to Wikidata, as Scott suggested). I wasn't aware, at the time of my first post on the topic, of the RfC on style and accept the points subsequently made about that (which Circeus seems to have mostly addressed), but it clearly did not address the use of structured data in templates. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:55, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
I understand @Franz Xaver, Andyboorman: and you are correct the current template has community support and is accepted. As such for myself I support it. Their point is that it should be done in a way that conforms to other Wikimedia projects and can be data-mined for other projects such as WD. One thing we have to remember is the needs and wishes of the types and editors here, hence if any changes are proposed there needs to be valid reasons, they need to take into account the needs of our editors and it needs to be done properly. I get the point on making references more usable, but the why to do this needs to take into account the types of editors we have here. Hence I suggested the ref system I did above as a way of meeting everyone in the middle. However, I have seen no proposal to change anything here yet so am happy to discuss possibilities. But as Andyboorman commented, it will be difficult since it was voted on recently. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 19:58, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
Other advantages of using templates like {{Cite journal}} are the COinS metadata I mentioned in my original post, and error-checking, such as warning abut invalid dates or DOIs/ISBN/ISSns. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:12, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
I see it as inconsiderate for someone who doesn't make ref templates to suggest such a change. A few minutes of extra work per ref for an editor who makes several templates per session can amount to a considerable time and can deter him from editing here altogether. If we take into account the many thousands of "normal" ref templates we already have in our stock and which will need transforming to the new format, this proposed change isn't worthwhile. Mariusm (talk) 06:06, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
For the avoidance of doubt, I don't give a flying proverbial what you think about "consideration". But I am not someone "who doesn't make ref templates", and in any case I don't think you can point to any policy requiring people to jump through that or any similar hoop before commenting here. Perhaps you will now restrict your comments to the suggestions made, rather than denigrating whoever made them - and, in particular trying to silence someone with whom you disagree, as you have now done three or four times in recent days? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:31, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
Looks to me there are people spending more time at Village Pump that really editing. For me the way of creating templates at WS is simple, practical and faster. What is the sense of changing it? I use them as a source for templates at Spanish wikipedia, and I would love to be as simplest there.--Hector Bottai (talk) 17:26, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
The problem is that right now most of the data in our citations is "Wikispecies only". We need to find a good way to both export and import the data to/from other sites, so that the information is interchangeable between the different services. That will make it easier and more errorproof to use the references both here and in the Spanish (and all other) Wikipedias. It will also help make the information more consistent throughout all of the Wikimedia sister projects. For example, today there are many instances of a species being listed as "Taxon One Author" in Wikispecies, and as "Taxon Another Author" in Wikipedias. Such mistakes can be easily fixed if we can find a good way to communicate the Wikispecies citations to Wikidata. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 20:26, 12 March 2017 (UTC).
"What is the sense of changing it?" As explained above; so that the data can be read by programmatic tools, such as Zotero; so that the data can be passed over to Wikidata; so that COinS metadata is emitted; and so that error-checking, such as warning about invalid dates or DOIs/ISBN/ISSNs, is possible. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:31, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Problems of reconciliation[edit]

It can be seen that using {{Cite journal}} is impractical here because of our focus. En.Wikipedia is very much footnote oriented, thus friendly to Cite Journal format. I have yet to see one footnote here on Wikispecies. That type of format is not used in taxonomy very often. Here, reference templates prove ideal. For Wikidata mining, our reference templates are opaque. Switching over will prove near-impossible, as pointed out.

This interesting DoI converter mentioned above could solve many problems. Figure out how to put it into our templates without cluttering up our citations, will greatly add to machine-readable data. It will never help publications with no DoI numbers possible. Some publishers, Taylor & Francis notably, retrofit DoI numbers to old articles. Neferkheperre (talk) 08:38, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

"It can be seen that using {{Cite journal}} is impractical here because of our focus" No; that has not been demonstrated at all. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:32, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Wikidata mining[edit]

I hope you'll find a solution, but a "better" mining journal or article reference for Wikidata from Wikispecies shouldn't play a role hereby. --Succu (talk) 21:06, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Template error[edit]

These pages using {{Cite journal}} contain a redlink Template:Subscription needed. Anybody out there to fix that? --Murma174 (talk) 22:07, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Done. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:25, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
Thank you. In my opinion the via= parameter shouldn't be wiki linked, since we are not Wikipedia. Thoughts? – Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 22:37, 12 March 2017 (UTC).
AIUI the use of that parameter is recommended best practice when editors use sources which are made available as part The Wikipedia Library - despite the name, which is used for clarity among potential donor organisations, those resources are equally available to WS editors. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:43, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
I see. I've got no problem with the parameter as such but I'm a bit allergic to red wiki links, and creating Wikispecies pages for a bunch of publishing houses is way out of scope. Also, adding a w: prefix to the template to create a (blue) Wikipedia link instead is a rather dirty fix (if it's even possible). That being said I guess the {{Subscription needed}} template will probably be used rather infrequently, so it's not a huge issue. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 00:21, 13 March 2017 (UTC).
Yes; a w: prefix is probably the best solution. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:22, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Feedback from data consumers[edit]

The issue has recently been mentioned on the Taxacom mailing list. Roderic D.M. Page (User:Rdmpage) said there:

One thing about Wikispecies which drives me a little nuts is the lack of standardised way to write references (compared, say, too the templates used in Wikipedia). Given all the interest in extracting citations from Wikipedia, is Wikispecies [likely] to adopt a similar template for citations, or is that wishful thinking?

and, subsequently:

At the moment the biggest obstacle I face is writing code to parse all the different ways contributors use to write references (and reference templates) in Wikispecies.

Also, it's worth bearing in mind the WikiCite initiative, which is " a proposal to build a bibliographic database in Wikidata to serve all Wikimedia projects". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:39, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

I wonder if the mw:citoid service could address some of this need. It can process many doi and all PMID identifiers – basically, paste the doi and click twice to insert the ref. (Ping me; it's a busy season.) Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 23:44, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Been forgetting to look in here for a bit - one small point, the Entomologist's Gazette has a capital G (not as given above; see the journal's website). The incorrect decapitalising of journal titles was a Stho-thing, and needs checking for widely, unfortunately (can anyone set a robot to deal with it?). - MPF (talk) 00:49, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Visual tree of life for sharks[edit] (koavf)TCM 07:37, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Rays of Sharkness! Thank you for a useful link. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 15:17, 11 March 2017 (UTC).

Our purpose[edit]

Here is what I have been long saying is what sets us apart from all others. We alone can combine all of those other sites so that synonomies, homonyms, first citations, holotypes, taxonomic references, taxon trees etc into one place. Our tools have been provided to do it, we just need to get to it.

  • Dubois, A. 2017. A few problems in the generic nomenclature of insects and amphibians, with recommendations for the publication of new generic nomina in zootaxonomy and comments on taxonomic and nomenclatural databases and websites. Zootaxa 4237(1): 1–16. doi: 10.11646/zootaxa.4237.1.1. Reference page. 

I have support from fellow cirripede people. Our system makes it easy to develop taxonomic synonymies for research papers. For general work, homonyms become obvious, and ready for treatment. Neferkheperre (talk) 00:02, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Interesting that you mention Alain Dubois' paper here from Zootaxa. I guess as some additional information on this. I am a member of the Observatory on Availability in Zoological Nomenclature, along with Alain Duboit and others. For those interested we have a Project Page here showing the list of collaborators in this. Personally I also have a project page to bring attention to Wikispecies here. I agree, we need to rapidly expand our base and the taxa we cover, this should be our priority. We have the tools here as said above. I add these additional links for peoples information, anyone is welcome to follow these projects. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 01:09, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
Wikispecies is Basically the idea is to build a database of the basic taxonomy and nomenclature of all living organisms. It provides the names, references, and type data for each species presented in its basic nomenclatural phylogeny - as you put it. I do not understand your usage of the term basic. Taxonomy and nomenclature fulfill different purposes. --Succu (talk) 21:45, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
Why "your"? Why not "our"? Are you part of the project or not? --Murma174 (talk) 22:12, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
I never was, Murma174. Why do you think so? --Succu (talk) 22:16, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
You are participating in votings on Wikispecies, although you are not part of the Wikispecies project? @all: What are the votes worth, if users are voting, who declare not to be part of the project? --Murma174 (talk) 23:20, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
First I am stating that in very general terms for a wide audience. By basic taxonomy I am meaning we present hierarchy, combinations and past combinations, all taxonomic issues, however we do not present or discuss or review the actual science behind that, just reference it elsewhere. Hence I am using the term basic. We do not examine, or re-examine the issues. Of course nomenclature and taxonomy are different, nomenclature refers to names only, taxonomy to combinations and relationships. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 22:17, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
we do not present or discuss or review the actual science behind that - isn't taxonomy about that? --Succu (talk) 22:27, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
We are not a peer reviewed publication nor one that meets the code. So we have to be careful. Which is what I was getting at when I used the term basic. Possibly not the best choice of word now you have pointed it out. I will rethink the wording. We present the current prevailing taxonomy and nomenclature, citing sources for this as necessary. We cannot make new decisions. That is my point. I appreciate your input on this. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 22:50, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
The enWP policy "No original research" is applicable here too, and we should probably have our own Wikispecies' version of it. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 00:33, 13 March 2017 (UTC).
I've posted a draft; see below. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:20, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

I can't precisely recall, but there was a (chemistry? biochemistry?) journal that enforces a condition for publishing upon paper acceptance is to ask authors to create (or add) content on Wikipedia that is directly related to the compound they used in the study. Maybe we can do something similar if we can convince journals to do so? OhanaUnitedTalk page 16:00, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Zookeys already has such, where we can download taxon illustrations from Commons to our taxon pages. I can't think of any others right now. Neferkheperre (talk) 16:48, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
It was a biology journal (see this wikinews entry). You can check its instructions for authors page and search for Wikipedia. In our case, rather than having us pull the info from Commons (or elsewhere), the author has to create the entry themselves. This way, not only will we receive more entries, we also broaden our editor base. OhanaUnitedTalk page 23:08, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

'No original research' policy[edit]

Above it is suggested that we should have a "No original research" policy. I have posted a draft at Wikispecies:No original research. Does anyone have any suggestions for amendments or additions, before we have an RfC on its adoption? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:20, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Would it be "original research", when you find out, that a name already has been validly published in an earlier paper, that has been overlooked in literature? Would it be "original research", when you compile a taxon page on a genus, where no recent generic synopsis or revision is existing, based on different sources. I did a lot of this kind, e.g. Stephania, Securidaca, or Elvasia. Would it be "original research", when you only are applying the relevant code of nomenclature in a simple and straightforward case, that never would justify a separate paper in a scientific journal?
An example: When I created Xanthophyllum albicaule on March 1st, I changed the name from Xanthophyllum albicaulis, according to ICN Art. 23.5 and 32.2. After having notified IPNI on March 8th, they corrected their entry on March 9th. OK, now I can refer to IPNI, but for more than a week this maybe was forbidden OR??? Regards --Franz Xaver (talk) 11:59, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
I have put this together into an rfc, it needs to be discussed we have unique issues with regard to OR on wikispecies. Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 13:14, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Upcoming changes[edit]

There are a lot of small changes happening in the next couple of weeks, and I wanted to give you all a quick heads-up about them. Please share this information with other people/languages/projects that will be interested:

  • There's a change to how columns in reference lists are handled, at the request of the German Wikipedia. This change will improve accessibility by automatically formatting long lists of <ref>s into columns, based on each reader's screen width.
    • What you need to do: Nothing visible is happening now. If your project uses the normal <references /> tag (or doesn't really use refs at all), then file a Phabricator task or just tell me, and I'll get your wiki on the list for the next config change. If your project uses a "reflist" template to create columns, then please consider deprecating it, or update the template to work with the new feature.
  • The label on the "Save changes" button will change on most projects tomorrow (Wednesday) to say "Publish page". This has been discussed for years, is supported by user research, and is meant to be clearer for new contributors. (Most of us who have been editing for years don't even look at the button any more, and we all already know that all of our changes can be seen by anyone on the internet, so this doesn't really affect us.)
    • If you have questions or encounter problems (e.g., a bad translation, problems fixing the documentation, etc.), then please tell me as soon as possible.
    • When we split "Save page" into "Save page" and "Save changes" last August, a couple of communities wondered whether a local label would be possible. (For example, someone at the English Wikipedia asked if different namespaces could have different labels [answer: not technically possible], and the Chinese Wikipedia has some extra language on their "Save page" button [about the importance of previewing, I think].) Whether the Legal team can agree to a change may depend upon the language/country involved, so please ask me first if you have any questions.
  • As part of the ongoing, years-long user-interface standardization project, the color and shape of the "Save changes" (or now "Publish page"), "Show preview" and "Show changes" buttons on some desktop wikitext editors will change. The buttons will be bigger and easier to find, and the "Save" button will be bright blue. (phab:T111088) Unfortunately, it is not technically possible to completely override this change and restore the appearance of the old buttons for either your account or an entire site.
  • You may remember that nobody could edit for about 30 minutes twice last April, because of some work that Technical Ops was doing on the servers. The same kind of planned maintenance is happening again. It's currently scheduled for Wednesday, April 19th and Wednesday, May 3rd. The time of day is unknown, but it will probably afternoon in Europe and morning in North America. This will be announced repeatedly, but please mark your calendars now.

That's everything on my mind at the moment, but I may have forgotten something. If you have questions (about this or any other WMF work), then please {{ping}} me, and I'll see what I can find out for you. Thanks, Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 19:19, 13 March 2017 (UTC)


This page uses the taxonomy of Chromista using the 5- or 7-kingdoms of the eukaryotes. But why is it using that classificationsystem, instead of the 9-kingdoms, as the 9-kingdom is way more known (by me). This question arose when looking at d:Wikidata the possible merges based on the same name (Campylacantha). The Dutch and English have the same Qid, but the species id is different. Can someone tell me if the Dutch and English species are the same as described here? Dutch: nl:Campylacantha, English: en:Campylacantha. QZanden (talk) 14:36, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

@QZanden: No, they can't be merged. d:Q10441287 (Campylacantha) is a Genus of Insecta. d:Q25368414 (Campylacantha) is a Genus of Chromista. --Murma174 (talk) 15:32, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
@Murma174: This (Tetragramma) species is the same on nl.wp (nl:Tetragramma) although it has a different classification. Look at the databaselink. QZanden (talk) 18:14, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
@QZanden: The Wikispecies page Tetragramma refers to Tetragramma (Ehrenberg, 1843), the Enwiki page w:en:Tetragramma refers to Tetragramma (Agassiz, 1838). It should be investigated, whether these two records are describing the very same Genus (I doubt, they do). The Nlwiki page w:nl:Tetragramma is not correct in my opinion: It uses the taxonomy of Agassiz, 1838 (like Enwiki), but refers to the source Ehrenberg, 1843 (like Wikispecies). Resolving homonyms causes a lot of investigation sometimes (our daily job). Until this is done, I would never merge the two Wikidata entries d:Q25366022 and d:Q23005736. --Murma174 (talk) 18:41, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
P.S. If you check the Wikidata pages, you can see, that they are referring to different WoRMS records. --Murma174 (talk) 18:45, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
P.P.S. A first quick check lets me think, that Tetragramma (Ehrenberg, 1843) is a synonym of Terpsinoë (Ehrenberg, 1843). But that's a guess only, I didn't find a source for that yet. --Murma174 (talk) 18:52, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
I moved the nl-sitelink to the correct item and added some more information to the genera. --Succu (talk) 20:38, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
AlgaeBase says: Tetragramma Ehrenberg, 1843, Taxonomic status: uncertain, requiring further investigation. link . I'd accept that as state of affairs. --Murma174 (talk) 21:36, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Wiki 4 Coop[edit]

Hello everyone,

I come to you to invite to re-read the submission of a new partnership project between the Wikimedia movement and the Belgian NGOs. The project is titled Wiki 4 Coop and I invite you to discover its submission page on Meta-Wiki. Do not hesitate to endorse the project if you like it and even correct my English if you have a little time. A beautiful end of day for all of you, Lionel Scheepmans Contact French native speaker, sorry for my dysorthography 11:33, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Separate pages for species and nominal subspecies, is that necessary?[edit]

Is it necessary (or convenient) to have a specific page for nominal subspecies? In my opinion, species and nominal subspecies are the same taxon, the ssp page is just a repetition of the data contained in the main page. It would be easier to resolve that with a simple redirection. I am not a taxonomist neither a scientist, just a personal feeling. It creates at least one big distortion, the number of taxons described by the author in the Category:Author taxa just duplicate, there is no sense in that. As an example, please see Herpsilochmus axillaris and Herpsilochmus axillaris axillaris, but there are many others.--Hector Bottai (talk) 18:24, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

It is not the same taxon, as the circumscription is different, though they have the same type. Herpsilochmus axillaris includes the other subspecies, whereas Herpsilochmus axillaris axillaris excludes them. I don't know the rules of the zoological code, but in botany there is no authorship attributed to autonyms, which are only created by the description of one of the other subspecies – see e.g. Xanthophyllum discolor subsp. discolor compared to Xanthophyllum discolor subsp. macranthum. --Franz Xaver (talk) 19:09, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
Fully agree with @Franz Xaver: that the circumscription is different, but the authorship of the species, in Zoology, is always the same of the ssp, thus duplicated.--Hector Bottai (talk) 20:28, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
Yes, of course, but taxonomy, i.e. delimitation and circumscription of taxa, is something different from nomenclature. If you had written "Herpsilochmus axillaris and Herpsilochmus axillaris axillaris are the same name", I could have accepted this as correct. However, you wrote, they "are the same taxon" and this is not correct, as far as I see. The authorship is only for names and not for taxa. --Franz Xaver (talk) 20:47, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
In botany authorship and publication details are most commonly different see the examples offered by Franz and therefore deserve their own page. Particularly as they may also have different supporting references and other information. Andyboorman (talk) 20:56, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
Also agree with others here. They are not the same, nether taxonomically or nomenclaturally. The species both in concept and name includes all other subspecies whereas the subspecies as said above excludes the sister subspecies. Also it is rare that a species is described and split into subspecies in the same paper, generally this is done later after further study and this should be referenced as such. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 21:06, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
I apologyze if I was confuse. What I am trying to say (and this is a generic example) is that Tschudi is the author of one taxon name: Herpsilochmus axillaris and not two (the nominal ssp Herpsilochmus axillaris axillaris) as you can see in Category:Johann Jakob von Tschudi taxa. For me it is cristal clear that is a duplicated counting.--Hector Bottai (talk) 02:21, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Linking templates[edit]

Hi Is anybody out there skilled enough to take this Catalogue of Life citation template - {{Catol-Hassler}} and improve it, so that it automatically displays the Page Name and also links to the COL search results by name and/or id? I believe there are other similar templates as well, for example {{Catol-Schoolmeesters}}. Thanks in anticipation, as my rudimentary coding is not up to the job. Regards Andyboorman (talk) 14:00, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

What do you mean by "displays the page name" - do you mean the name of the page on which the template is used? If there are other templates needing the same functionality, the best solution would be to make each of them call a single parent template which has the necessary code - like {{Cite journal}}, as discussed above. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:23, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
I was thinking more like {{WCSP}} or {{APD}}, as the authors etc will not change, just in this case the link to COL and like the others the taxon page. The date will be the date of access, which is important for databases/sites that update at frequent intervals. It is more flexible that way and a lot easier to use. Thanks Andyboorman (talk) 19:46, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
I haven't got the time to check all the necessary parameters and conditions etc right now. However, a few weeks ago I created the template {{Mueller, 1876–1877}}. It uses page numbers as parameters in {{{1}}} and {{#if:{{{1|}}}}} code snippets, which renders links to specific pages within a 145 page long BHL document. I think it should be possible to use a similar method in the Catol-Hassler template, except using taxa names instead of page numbers. For instance the CoL link could be split into three parts. The first and last part are always the same for CoL links and could therefore be "static" within the template code. The mid part would be the taxon name, added as a template parameter.
First part, always the same:
Second part, the desired taxon name added as a template parameter, for instance Rumex
How about this:{{urlencode:{{{4|{{PAGENAME}}}}}}} {{{5|''{{{4|{{PAGENAME}}}}}''}}} to automatically pick up the page name? Andyboorman (talk) 19:30, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
Third part, always the same: /fossil/1/match/1
Why this is needed?
@Andyboorman: The "fossil/1" part is needed to also include extinct taxa. For instance will list zero records at CoL, while will list Tyrannosaurus, including all daughter taxa. The "match/1" part is needed to only match whole words. Otherwise trying to list for example Passer will also include Passeriformes, Passerivirus, Paradistomum passerculum, etc. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 11:48, 24 March 2017 (UTC).
Put together that would create the link i.e. to the CoL Rumex page.
The trouble comes when we need a CoL link to a binomial taxon, for instance Rumex patientia. The rendered link would have to be and right off the bat I don't know how to exchange the space in the taxon name with a plus sign in the template code. Or rather, it's getting late here in Sweden and I don't know right know, at least... If any one else know how to do this, please go ahead and update the template! :-) Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 22:25, 19 March 2017 (UTC).
My plagiarised code above works with the binomial as well! See here and here Andyboorman (talk) 19:30, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

@Tommy Kronkvist: and others interested. Please have a look at my attempts {{Catol-Hassler}}. @Mariusm: it may be of use for {{Catol-Schoolmeesters}}. It follows the citation request for COL, as does yours. @Pigsonthewing: Does this have relevance to Discussion No 46? Regards Andyboorman (talk) 20:56, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

@Andyboorman: I see no advantage of Accessed: {{{1}}} {{{2}}} {{{3}}} over accessed on {{subst:CURRENTMONTHNAME}} {{subst:CURRENTDAY}}, {{subst:CURRENTYEAR}}] because the latter doesn't require adding parameters to the template. Mariusm (talk) 05:19, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
@Mariusm: @Tommy Kronkvist: @Dan Koehl: and @Pigsonthewing: you maybe right about these code snippets, but I did not know they existed and indeed there use is a preference! How many more of them are out there and what other useful functions are available? No idea and how do you even begin to find out how to locate them? Indeed I also do not have the time, inclination and skills in writing them, but if I did then I would certainly publicise my efforts. However, as Andy has pointed out these and other approaches have no doubt contributed to the variation in citation styles on WS. Oh what to do? Perhaps a Special Page dedicated to such useful items, which is accessed on page one? Regards Andyboorman (talk) 13:52, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
I really would suggest looking at {{Cite journal}} (maybe by applying it on a sandbox page), and the examples given on the English Wikipedia version's talk page. Note also en:Template:EGA, which wraps the latter for a specific journal. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:27, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
The advantage of Accessed: {{{1}}} {{{2}}} {{{3}}} over accessed on {{subst:CURRENTMONTHNAME}} {{subst:CURRENTDAY}}, {{subst:CURRENTYEAR}}] is that the former set allows a user to cite something which they accessed on a day before the current one. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:27, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

French-speaker needed[edit]

Can a French speaker please check and translate the recent edit to Salomé Fabri-Ruiz? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:00, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

N'est-ce pas the unicorns? Andyboorman (talk) 20:30, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
There's nothing to translate. Obviously this was vandalism. I reverted. --Franz Xaver (talk) 21:11, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
@Franz Xaver: It doesn't seem obvious to me (I do not know French and relied on Google Translate): "also known as Salami, Salopette or Salamèche. French echinodermologist / urchinologist but especially licornologist in his hours." It seems like the user gave alternate names and a specialization. —Justin (koavf)TCM 21:16, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
@Koavf: The "alternative names" are inspired by the name Salomé, the first is an Italian sausage, the second a kind of (working) dress, the third a Pokémon. And as Andy has written, a "licorne" is a unicorn. To me, it is obvious, that this is no serious information. --Franz Xaver (talk) 21:28, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
@Franz Xaver: Thanks, then--this is obviously the correct choice. Didn't know about that pocket monster. —Justin (koavf)TCM 21:38, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
The contributor just wanted to test us ... he says. --Murma174 (talk) 07:45, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

We invite you to join the movement strategy conversation (until April 15)[edit]

Ping to 3 recently active admins: @Accassidy, Franz Xaver, Pigsonthewing:. SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 21:09, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

And now we need an Oversighter[edit]

If you want to track down the diffs, you can through my contributions or RfC but we need an Oversighter now and I would have been happy to do it but members of the community were opposed to it on principle. Note that I'm not upset that I don't have the rights but that some users were naysaying our necessity for it and less than a week after the RfCs close for Oversighters here on Wikispecies, we need Oversighters. Off to Meta I go. —Justin (koavf)TCM 15:55, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

The issue was there since July. You edited the page with the offending materials in November but didn't spot the issues at that time. It was until today when somebody complained and it was oversighted within matter of hours. This particular incident was handled exactly like what I described earlier this month. In other words, our current system of handling it is working fine. OhanaUnitedTalk page 04:55, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
@OhanaUnited: It wasn't an issue in July or November, so I don't understand your point. If personal information is posted here and that person requests its deletion, then it needs to be deleted. If someone here could do that without troubling a Steward to intervene, that would be better. —Justin (koavf)TCM 18:11, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
And how often does that happen? Not very often. OhanaUnitedTalk page 02:25, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Policy regarding biographies of living people[edit]

I have drafted Wikispecies:Biographies of living people. We should probably consider developing it further, I have been concerned for a while that we publish email addresses, without verification or checking for currency. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:49, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Personally I'd rather we did not actually list direct contact information. Normally we'd be linking to enough material (i.e.institutional pages, articles...) that the information, if they have made it available, can be recovered. Circeus (talk) 23:14, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Dinosaur (& bird) phylogeny[edit]

Press release and Nature abstract about some major new findings on dinosaur phylogeny from the Natural History Museum (London). If verified, will affect the higher classification of dinosaurs, and birds as well. - MPF (talk) 20:48, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

I read news article about it too. Question is, how are we going to present the information on the involved pages if the scientific community is split between the new and old system? OhanaUnitedTalk page 04:58, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
I would suggest waiting for the moment. New proposals such as this take time to be accepted by the scientific community, attempts will be made to refute it. Wait to see if the new arrangements are showing up in further review papers as evidence it is being accepted. Then switch to the new arrangements. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 09:42, 24 March 2017 (UTC)