Shortcuts: WS:V, WS:VP

Wikispecies:Village Pump

From Wikispecies
Jump to navigation Jump to search

WikiSpecies notext-invert.svg Welcome to the village pump of Wikispecies.

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

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

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

Village pump in other languages:

1 (2004-09-21/2005-01-05) 2 (2005-01-05/2005-08-23)
3 (2005-08-24/2005-12-31) 4 (2006-01-01/2005-05-31)
5 (2006-06-01/2006-12-16) 6 (2006-12-17/2006-12-31)
7 (2007-01-01/2007-02-28) 8 (2007-03-01/2007-04-30)
9 (2007-05-01/2007-08-31) 10 (2007-09-01/2007-10-31)
11 (2007-11-01/2007-12-31) 12 (2008-01-01/2008-02-28)
13 (2008-03-01/2008-04-28) 14 (2008-04-29/2008-06-30)
15 (2008-07-01/2008-09-30) 16 (2008-10-01/2008-12-25)
17 (2008-12-26/2009-02-28) 18 (2009-03-01/2009-06-30)
19 (2009-07-01/2009-12-31) 20 (2010-01-01/2010-06-30)
21 (2010-07-01/2010-12-31) 22 (2011-01-01/2011-06-30)
23 (2011-07-01/2011-12-31) 24 (2012-01-01/2012-12-31)
25 (2013-01-01/2013-12-31) 26 (2014-01-01/2014-12-31)
27 (2015-01-01/2015-01-31) 28 (2015-02-01/2015-02-28)
29 (2015-02-28/2015-04-29) 30 (2015-04-29/2015-07-19)
31 (2015-07-19/2015-09-23) 32 (2015-09-23/2015-11-21)
33 (2015-11-21/2015-12-31) 34 (2016-01-01/2016-04-17)
35 (2016-03-22/2016-05-01) 36 (2016-05-01/2016-07-12)
37 (2016-07-13/2016-09-30) 38 (2016-10-01/2016-12-04)
39 (2016-12-04/2017-01-17) 40 (2017-01-18/2017-01-28)
41 (2017-01-29/2017-02-13) 42 (2017-02-14/2017-03-21)
43 (2017-03-20/2017-08-11) 44 (2017-08-10/2017-12-07)
45 (2017-12-08/2018-01-08) 46 (2018-01-19/2018-03-11)
47 (2018-03-11/2018-09-11) 48 (2018-09-01/2019-02-17)
49 (2019-02-22/2019-06-18) 50 (2019-06-19/2019-10-06)
51 (2019-10-07/2019-12-23) 52 (2019-12-24/2020-04-03)
53 (2020-04-03/2020-07-16) 54 (2020-07-17/2020-09-05)
55 (2020-09-08/2020-xx-xx)


Last September, I deleted {{Author2}}, which was created in March 2020.

It was speedily deleted at the request of User:Estopedist1 who noted when tagging it that "The template was used years ago, when we haven't HotCat script"; I concurred it was unused, and further noted that it was non-standard.

In talk:Pigsonthewing&oldid=8322793 this comment on my talk page, its creator User:Pitke disputes this, and accuses me of deleting the template improperly.

I have therefore restored the template in order that a community discussion as to its merits can take place.

It should not be used in main space, until consensus to adopt it is shown.

Pitke also comments that the template "saved a lot of work for me"; I would respectfully suggest that any editor wishing to use a template for such purposes should either bring it to the community to seek widespread adoption; or apply their template through substitution, such that it leaves behind templates and other markup that their fellow editors expect to find.

I also note {{Repo inline}}, another non-standard template by the same editor, with fewer than 200 transclusions. Is there consensus to use this? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:40, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

I think that having two templates to format and link author names may invite errors to the many "Taxa by author" categories we use. The only practical difference between the two templates is that the more commonly used {{a}} template does not automatically add the page to a "Taxa by author" category, whereas the {{Author2}} does. We should bear in mind that the vast majority of authors listed on taxon pages aren't the ones who actually described that particular taxon. Quite the contrary: most of them are only referred to as writers of additional publications, or the authors of synonyms. Such writers/authors should of course not have those particular taxon names atomatically listed in their "Taxa by author" categories. Hence I argue that we should delete the {{Author2}} template, since it may be unnecessarily confusing for new and inexperienced users to know which of the {{a}} and {{Author2}} templates to use. In my opinion the current praxis to use the {{a}} template and then manually add specific "Taxa by author" categories works well.
The non-standard {{Repo inline}} template is easy to use, but has its shortcomings. First of all it was created five and a half years after the standard {{Repository link}} one (or {{rl}} for short). Furthermore, as of this writing it's only used on 128 pages, compared to 31,868 for the standard one. But above all it lacks some of the functionality found in the standard template, most notably how to render text. For example the Swedish Museum of Natural History (SMNH) is often referred to as "NRM" in older literature. "NRM" is short for Naturhistoriska Riksmuseet, i.e. a Swedish short form meaning "Natural history (state) museum". The trouble is that the actual Wikispecies page is called SMNH rather than "NRM", and using the template as {{Repository link|NRM}} leads to a redirect page, and then to the proper SMNH page. However the standard tempate can deal with this: the code string {{Repository link|SMNH|NRM}} will render the text "NRM" but link directly to SMNH, without a redirect. The non-standard {{Repo inline}} lacks this feature.
I propose we replace all current instances of the non-standard template with the standard {{Repository link}} one, and then delete it. I can set up a semi-automatic bot to do the necessary replacements before deletion: replacing 128 occurrences will only take 30–40 minutes or so. Kind regards, Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 05:03, 27 May 2021 (UTC).
I think that I have said this before, but here goes again. WS is a taxonomy database and really should not be used by editors for private experiments. Of course developments should be encouraged, but before use it is reasonable that editors bring them to the pump for comment. If the community reject these developments then they become deprecated, if not we all can use them. As to the above, I would advise that {{Repo inline}} be rejected and instances replaced with {{Repository link}}. As to {{Author2}}, I do not see any obvious benefits that could not be obtained by modifying {{a}} indeed if this is required. Andyboorman (talk) 08:54, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
Indeed. The {{a}} template could rather easily be modified, adding for example a |cat=yes and/or |cat=y parameter to automatically add a "Taxa by author" category, if desired. The template can be set to ignore the new parameter if given any other value than "yes" or "y", or if the parameter is left out altogether. This would ensure that the updated {{a}} template is backwards compatible with the old one on all the +30,000 pages where it is already used. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 09:56, 27 May 2021 (UTC).
Comment: HotCat was definitely around when I created Author2, and I am very familiar with using it on Commons where I do most of my work. The nature of my editing at the time relied on using page shortcuts and HotCat would necessitated the locating and clicking of a button. But that hardly matters now. My experience in other wikis has been that suggesting changes to current, widely used templates is usually fruitless, and that providing an example of the proposed functionality with a sample template will speed things along because users will be able to see the difference instead of trying to parse it from possibly very technical language. I'm also still just beginning to understand and remain somewhat intimidated by the local wiki culture, so singularly focused on recording taxonomic info that, say, etymology may only be recorded as a category, and if related to a taxonomist, an unreferenced line. Support: Having said that, since Repository link exists, has better functionality, and doesn't seem to have the inline issue I think I created Repolink for, I have zero issues with deprecating the few repo link templates I've created and moving on to using RL in my editing. As for Author2, I'm completely fine with using A instead and adding an option for |cat=1. --Pitke (talk) 16:36, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
I agree with the replacement of {{Repo inline}} then depreciate it,as for {{a}} yes modifying this should always be the fist option if possible rather than creating new templates. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 17:59, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Someone with admin ops please update Template:A with this:

<span style="font-variant: small-caps;" class="vcard"><span class="fn n nickname">{{#if: {{{nolink|}}} | {{{2|{{{1}}}}}} | [[{{{1}}}|{{{2|{{{1}}}}}}]] }}{{#if: {{{cat|}}} | [[Category:{{{1}}} taxa]] | }}</span></span><noinclude>{{documentation}}
<!-- Add categories to the /doc subpage and interwikis in Wikidata, not here! -->

-- Pitke (talk) 11:05, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Pitke:  Done. Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 15:09, 1 June 2021 (UTC).
Thanks a bunch! --Pitke (talk) 15:20, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Category:New taxon names by author[edit]

I've just now converted all the pages formerly in Category:New taxon names by author to standard author taxa categories (or redirected them if standard ones already existed), and now this category is empty. Should it be deleted, or redirected to Category:Taxa by author maybe? Monster Iestyn (talk) 15:36, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Deleted. Burmeister (talk) 15:46, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
I agree, it should be deleted. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 15:48, 5 June 2021 (UTC).
In that case, I'm proposing it for speedy deletion. Monster Iestyn (talk) 16:04, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
Deleted. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:43, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

New DOIs for old species descriptions[edit]

My friend User:Nicolekearney, Manager of BHL Australia, the Australian branch of the Biodiversity Heritage Library (based at Museums Victoria in Melbourne), has tweeted:

The species descriptions in John Gould's "A monograph of the Macropodidae, or family of kangaroos" (1841-2) now have DOIs (they're now persistently findable, citable & trackable!) Find the shiny new DOIs here:

Nicole and her BHL colleagues have previously minted DOIs for other historic species descriptions, also.

Is anyone interested in adding these DOIs, manually or programmatically, to Wikispecies, and to Wikidata? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:38, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Cetainly, but I can't really start until the weekend or so. I've already retweeted her post to our official @Wikispecies channel though. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 16:37, 7 June 2021 (UTC).
Guess the credits should go to Roderic's BioStor... --Succu (talk) 21:18, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Wikidata to do list[edit]

Why is it that the Wikidata to-do list has not updated since 20 April 2021.

I have been making entries from this for a couple of years, and all of a sudden, something happened.Neferkheperre (talk) 02:07, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Sad to confess it, but I haven't been using that list for quite some time, and don't know what might have caused the changes. Perhaps @Magnus Manske has some answers? Regards, Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 19:06, 8 June 2021 (UTC).

Which date?[edit]

This page: [2] has two dates; June 2004 and June 2008. Which is correct? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:47, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

The actual article at sci-hub: https://sci gives 2006! (replace "sci hub" with "sci-hub" to get the link) - MPF (talk) 18:01, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
I suspect the June 2008 date is actually just the date the article was made available online, I notice for instance that volume 20 (2000) issue 1's articles were "first published" June 2008, while volume 19 (1999) issue 1's articles were "first published" March 2008, etc. On the other hand, volume 1 (1981) issue 1's articles have "January 1981". Monster Iestyn (talk) 19:46, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Mitrephora sirikitiae Weeras., Chalermglin & R.M.K.Saunders, Nordic J. Bot. 24(2): 203 (201-206; figs. 1-8) (2006) (IPNI, 2021}, I favour the June 2008 referring to epublishing or on-line publishing. The date tag 2006 for the taxon on the article could refer to the taxon being lodged with IPNI, but the journal home page definitely dates the articles as 2004. Perhaps the authors had a problem getting independent botanists to agree that they were describing a sp. nov.? Hey no idea really! I would use the IPNI citation for its WS taxon page unless proved otherwise - you always check with IPNI as they are very amenable to explanations. Andyboorman (talk) 20:01, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

New Megataxa issue with list of genera in insect orders Thysanoptera and Lophioneurida[edit]

See here, published just two days ago. It doesn't look like we have any information on the latter order on Wikispecies as of writing, so this could be useful. Monster Iestyn (talk) 01:44, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Wonder how many overlooked names will turn out to have been lurking in IRMNG...Circeus (talk) 23:12, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
Some if not most, I would hope... I view this new initiative as an expert-vetted, less "interim" product (therefore ultimately: better) than IRMNG, however unfortunately it will be print/pdf format, not a database (and therefore not amenable to interrogation or analysis with data-related tools). Also will not be complete for a good while :) Cheers Tony Rees, IRMNG Tony 1212 (talk) 23:26, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
I mean more along the lines of "So far I have rarely dealt with a work like that without running into at least a few names in IRMNG that were unaccounted for in the paper". Circeus (talk) 04:03, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
OK, I will take that as a compliment in IRMNG (I think), although of course IRMNG leans heavily on previously compiled works e.g. Neave (for animals) and Index Nominum Genericorum (for generic names in botany), so cannot take credit for that content. However Neave in particular includes many unavailable names (subsequent misspellings, nomina nuda etc.) which would be out-of-scope for "All Genera of the World" as I understand it. Nevertheless if you mean available names that are missing from the "new" lists, that would be something to engage the authors about (or maybe inform them of the availability of IRMNG as a resource for their use while compiling the list); also further check names presented as available but in fact possibly unavailable for reasons of homonymy etc., as I did with a previous list (not in this series) intended to have the "last word" on genus names in Decapod Crustacea, which resulted in a small flurry of papers introducing replacement names for a subset of them :) Cheers Tony Tony 1212 (talk) 19:49, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
Oh I intend to communicate with the authors about such topics when I get to do that paper! I usually end up spotting at least a couple issues. Even in the work of such a competent compiler as Evenhuis I ran into a couple cases of references that were either mislabeled or missing entirely (but luckily none where an abbreviated journal title was transformed into a title that no journal has ever borne, as happened for two different sources in Francke, 2019 lol). Circeus (talk) 01:38, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

BHL might temporarily be offline[edit]

Please note that starting earlier today, BHL services including page loading may be disrupted for the near future due to expected outages at Internet Archive. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 22:53, 15 June 2021 (UTC).