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 {{Ping}} template, or with a post on their talk page.

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

Village pump in other languages:

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-...)

A lot of data on species at russian Lomonosov Moscow State University resource[edit]


Thanks a lot for your work! World wouldnt be such a great place without wiki resources. I don't know how to contribute here, I'm not in biology at all, but i just found this data source.

Go here, pess ESC, then swtich to EN at the top right corner, for example mark the "Specimens with photo only" checbox on the popup window, click "OK". Then at the top ringt corner change a "Rows" to 1-20000 (max) and I bet you will be impressed how many rare species photos are availible there.

I bielive you could gather much more usefull information there, some of it choul be translated. Maybe somebody could contact MSU, but even if not, somehow we have to save this content before a possible isolation of russian net.

P.S. Other depositaries:

Thanks again, and sorry me for breaking your commetns publishing rules.

Regards, @sntxerror. — The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) 22:22, 12 April 2019‎.

Range block[edit]

Moved to the Administrators' Noticeboard. Diff: [1]

Use of a ping template to send private message[edit]

How do I send a private message to another editor usng a ping template? I don't know how to do this. Could someone please explain? Thanks, Nytexcome (talk) 13:55, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

If by "private" you mean "sending a message that no one else can see", that is by design not possible with a wiki edit. The point of pinging is to alert a user that they are being addressed on a page other than their talk page. To generate a ping, you use the {{Ping}} template in an edit that you sign. You must be adding a Fresh ~~~~ for the ping to register, editing a past post (as was pointed out to me not long ago) will not work without a new signature. Circeus (talk) 19:44, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
Nytexcome: A late note, but strictly speaking the template is called {{Reply to}}. However {{Ping}} will work too since it automatically redirects to the correct template. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk) 19:04, 7 January 2020 (UTC).
@Nytexcome: If they have email enabled, you can send them a private message via a wiki page, by using the "Email this user" link in the left-hand navigation page, on their user page. Note that doing so will reveal your email address to them. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:51, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

700,000 articles on Wikispecies[edit]

Yesterday, Wikispecies exceeded 700,000 articles! Good work: our editors created the last 100,000 pages during about 13,5 months. This should be added to the "Wikispecies milestones" (do we have a page like this, and where?). I will update the English and German Wikipedia. Kind regards, --Thiotrix (talk) 13:07, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Can someone tweet that? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:25, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
I believe @Tommy Kronkvist: is who took over the account after me. Circeus (talk) 22:11, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
Should go on all our mass-media platforms I think @Dan Koehl: has a couple of them too. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 22:23, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
This is indeed good news, and a great success. I believe I only created a Facebook page, I now updated the Wikispecies article on Meta but will look if theres more I can do. Dan Koehl (talk) 01:40, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the update, @Thiotrix! And yes @Circeus, it was me he took over the Twitter account. @Andy Mabbett: I've now sent out a tweet about the 700K milestone. Sorry for being late about it, but I'm renovating my house, just got a new job (while still keeping my old one...) plus haven't been near my "home base" for some time. For @Dan Koehl and @Scott: I've added a short Facebook note about the milestone too. Do we have any other mass-media platforms as well? I dunno... — The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tommy Kronkvist (talkcontribs) 10:03, 11 December 2019‎.
After some pain-staking counting, the 700,000th article is Almita texana, created by User:PeterR. OhanaUnitedTalk page 23:02, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
I don't know that we have a separate Milestones page, but we have Wikispecies:PR, albeit that page has had little attention given to it. --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:33, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
It would be nice to notify Wikipedia Signpost (submit blurb via Signpost newsroom). That should raise the project's profile and potentially draw more editors. OhanaUnitedTalk page 00:59, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
I left a comment at w:Special:Permalink/932450536#Wikispecies asking that a note be added. We'll see what happens --DannyS712 (talk) 01:21, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
It's mentioned in the current edition, see last line. OhanaUnitedTalk page 03:38, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
@Circeus, Dan Koehl, DannyS712, EncycloPetey, Faendalimas, OhanaUnited, Pigsonthewing, and Thiotrix: Thanks, OhanaUnited. I didn't know we created the last 100,000 pages in a mere 13.5 months. Rather astonishing considering we only have 188 active users. That's about 500 page creations from each of them! I suggest we take a moment to lift our fingers from the keyboards, and give ourselves a hand! :-) Please also remember that the 700,000 milestone only regards "content pages", i.e. taxon- and author pages and such. If we also consider talk pages, categories, redirect pages, templates + the Village Pump etc. the total number of Wikispecies pages is 1,359,177. Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 22:36, 29 December 2019 (UTC).

Anyone has access to old issues of Reichenbachia?[edit]

I'm trying to clear "Onthophagus novaki Petrovitz", an old creation of Stephen. Despite all my efforts I can find no reference to such a name whatsoever, however, I noticed that the article is about "species from the Near East", and Boucomont's species is from Israel and Jordan 🤔, so I am seriously starting to believe this is another of those name misattributions (though where Stephen got it from I have no idea).

However, it is impossible to verify this without access to Petrovitz's publication. Anyone can help? Circeus (talk) 20:16, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Not an answer to the original question about Reichenbachia (I can't help there), but here's some useful notes about the species themselves I gleaned from Catalogue of Palaearctic Coleoptera Volume 3 (DOI: 10.1163/9789004309142 ):
  • There is no mention of a Onthophagus novaki Petrovitz anywhere in the Catalogue that I can see.
  • Onthophagus novaki Boucomont, on the other hand, appears in the Catalogue as "novaki Gillet & Boucomont, 1927: 125", reportedly a replacement name and synonym of "muelleri P.Novak, 1921: 100" (rather than the other way round according to WikiSpecies).
  • ...muelleri P.Novak, 1921 itself is presumably a hononym of Onthophagus muelleri Lansberge, 1883, possibly? (The latter does not appear in the Catalogue so this is just pure guesswork)
I think you're probably right about the Petrovitz name being a misattribution, though on the other hand the Catalogue of Palaearctic volumes have had many mistakes and corrections. Monster Iestyn (talk) 01:36, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
Unless you can get hold of the putative primary reference listed on the taxon page for Onthophagus novaki Petrovitz, you cannot confirm or refute the correctness of the name attribution. Note that "Stephen" explicitly stated on the taxon page that he had not personally seen the primary reference. I suspect that he got it from a generally reliable secondary source, such as ION, which has the same attribution and reference for that name ... WSBiography (talk) 02:39, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
Here is at least one such journal; reichenbachia. It seems to be complicated subject. `Neferkheperre (talk)
@Neferkheperre: That's en:Reichenbachia: Orchids Illustrated and Described (1886-1895), the one I'm interested in is ISSN 0070-7279 (1963-).
@WSBiography: Thank you, but I'm well aware I need the asserted place of publication before I can clear it out! Mind you, ION and other aggregators without dedicated taxonomic or nomenclatural editors are not all that reliable (and the zoological literature in general is brimming with similar issue), and tend to propagate errors if anything else. Circeus (talk) 16:34, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
It isn't propagating errors if it is made clear that the information is from secondary sources only and has not been verified from the primary source. It is simply a heads up to an issue which could do with looking into at some stage ... WSBiography (talk) 21:04, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
Clearly you and me have very different definitions of "propagating errors". Circeus (talk) 00:39, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

───────────────────────── It looks like the first 15 volumes of Reichenbachia (1963-) are available to buy from Conchbooks, if that's an option at all: [2]. (On the other hand, they're 250.00 €) Monster Iestyn (talk) 01:26, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Holdings in German academic libraries. --RLJ (talk) 01:58, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
Unfortunately I'm in Montreal, and there are apparently no sets in all of Eastern Canada (and let's be honest, I'm not hardcore enough that I would travel out of town just for that). Hence why I was hoping someone had access to a run at their local university library. Circeus (talk) 04:44, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Found a copy[edit]

@Jmchutchinson: has helpfully sent me a scan of the article, which both muddies and clarifies the issue. In it the species is cited as "Onthophagus novaki MÜLL." [capitals as in the article]. It is clearly not meant to be a new species if compared to the actual new taxa in the article, and the full paragraph in German tersely reads "Diese syrische Art ist über fast ganz Anatolien verbeitet: Kasatamonu im Norden und Burdur, Isparta und Eğridir im Westen [specimen citation removed]. —Tiere mit roten Flügendecken sind ab. rufipennis nov."

I believe that last line means "Individuals with red elytra are removed to rufipennis [sp.] nov.", could someone confirm that? If so this is definitely not available from this publication and I am 90% sure this is an error for O. novaki Boucomont & Gillet. Both O. novaki's are then synonyms of O. muelleri as the substitute name was unnecessary (muelleri is not a homonym of mulleri Lansberge). Circeus (talk) 16:58, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Hm, "ab. rufipennis nov." sounds more like a variety/aberration (i.e. an infraspecific name) is being named here to me. Luckily I already recently linked the relevant part of the ICZN code recently in the #Variety vs subspecies discussion to clarify those. Monster Iestyn (talk) 17:56, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
OH. Thank you for pointing that out. The "ab." bit was the only part still tripping me. Definitely confirms my thoughts then: name is not available, likely meant to be Boucomont & Gillet. Circeus (talk) 19:20, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Species (taxa) counts[edit]

Have we as a community ever decided in favor of or against the inclusion of species counts, such as in the Taxonav section of Glauconycteris? I didn't see anything at Help:Taxonavigation section that advocated for them, but nothing that forbade them either. --EncycloPetey (talk) 05:16, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Far as I'm aware, it's entirely a Stephen thing. Mind you, rewriting the style guide from cover to cover is a long-term project I have. Circeus (talk) 15:14, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
It might be worth deciding this point, either for or against, since we seem to have some new(ish) contributors making a special effort to propagate these counts. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:02, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
Same, I've been inconsistently including taxa counts or not in my contributions, since I wasn't sure if they're was accepted or not. If it was made clear whether we should include them or not, that would things much easier for me. The same could be said about a lot of other minor details of making a taxon page though. Monster Iestyn (talk) 18:21, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
Perhaps we could decide this issue as a test run, and simultaneously make a list of similar issues we'd like to see resolved. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:31, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
WoRMS does it as well. I find it useful in comparing with lists provided by authors, reviewers, and WoRMS. Any discrepancy can be spotted in seconds, and evaluated. Neferkheperre (talk) 00:15, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
Personnally, I feel like it's asking for trouble. I mean, in theory it's useful, but in practice? It's really just another punctilicious detail to keep track of (like whether or not there is a letter in the date of the template you're happening to be referring to). And that's presuming it is easy to make such counts the first place! Circeus (talk) 01:43, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
AFAIK the WoRMS count is self maintaining (just an auto generated count of the number of present child records in WoRMS, which would be a mix of accepted and unaccepted names as well). If it were to be maintained manually that would be more of a headache and also harder to verify since the base data would not necessarily be there for reference... (I guess I would say no unless someone is a glutton for punishment and continuous updating). On the other hand, I do find such counts useful in other works e.g. printed lists, so... Tony 1212 (talk) 04:33, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
I can't see the utility of such counting. Many pages it is easy, a fast counting of a handfull of taxons, others, there are hundreds, and changing constantly. No value added.--Hector Bottai (talk) 12:58, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
I'd vote against the counts, particularly due to the issue of updating as mentioned previously. It would however be very useful if we had some sort of tool to get this information. As in a way to query number of instances of rank X under rank Y, i.e. number of species in a genus or number of genera in an order.Voganaa (talk) 19:41, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
The problem is that a wiki is not a database. It functions as a database, but the content is not structured as one the way Wikidata is. (worth pointing out additionally that any counts can only give however many of those taxa have been created). In wikipedia projects, such numbers can only be reliably extracted from categories, and wikispecies has made the choice not to use such categories. Circeus (talk) 21:09, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

─────────────────────────yes this is one reason the complete removal of categories concerned me a little in the past. I get it was a reaction to the over-categorization done by stho01 but some categories to identify currently used combinations may be useful for the purpose of determining how many species we have created, its not the same as the article count. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 01:16, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Remember though that right now we have a non insignificant amount of synonym pages which should be redirect, and would certainly render most category numbers incorrect (there are alos various issues with the naming of some categories).Circeus (talk) 15:15, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
Yes agree all the synonyms should be redirects, My thinking on above is only a currently used name would be categorized, the valid name in zoology, synonyms would not be. The idea is to be able to determine how many recognized species we have catalogued. Not how many names. This count would be relevant beyond nomenclature and make us more usable to others as a source of information. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 17:40, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

It sounds as thought no one here thinks the species counts on pages are useful, and many think they would be a headache to maintain. So do we want to (a) tolerate species (taxa) counts on pages, (b) discourage species counts on pages, or (c) remove/prohibit species counts on pages? --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:36, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

at least discourage them until we are ready to revamp properly revamp the style guide. Circeus (talk) 22:34, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
Excuse me. Up above I indicated they had usefulness, so thus I would be one to tolerate them. They are not that big of a headache if one is diligent to adjust each time making change to list. Neferkheperre (talk) 02:36, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
I agree with Neferkheperre, they are useful/relevant and can be tolerate, until a better option come. Burmeister (talk) 03:18, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
Sorry yes I got a little side-tracked by another issue relevant to this. I can tolerate it, but do agree we need to revamp the style to make it more widespread. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 04:44, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

So it seems we're not happy with the counts, but will tolerate them until some better solution can be found. One remaining question is: Do we tolerate them far all ranks of taxa, or for species only. This is a situation where I personally favor "species only" as the numbers of species are less subjective and not tied to the choice of classification scheme. I would recommend we discourage and even remove counts for any taxa above the rank of species. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:11, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

I'm going to assume that a week of silence implies tacit agreement. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:00, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
Give it a little more time. This is the holidays. Circeus (talk) 20:29, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
"tolerate all" until a robust discussion about format/style can be done! Burmeister (talk) 20:39, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Contributions in Science and Science Series the same journal?[edit]

According to this PDF the two NHMLA journals Contributions in Science (ISSN 0459-8113) and Science Series (ISSN 0076-0943) are the same journal. The title page of the PDF paper refers to "Science Series 39" while the page footer from page 2 and onwards refers to "Contributions in Science, Number 39". Can anyone please elaborate on this? Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 14:06, 24 December 2019 (UTC).

I'm not entirely sure why the PDF bears the "Contributions in science" footer, but I highly doubt they are the same. Science Series is clearly a monograh series (though it has the ISBN labeled as a ISSN), and COntributions in science is a proper journal with articles and all, and over 500 issues. Circeus (talk) 17:13, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
Contributions is their monograph series, released ad hoc with single large articles in each one, science series is their regularly issued journal with multiple articles per issue, both released by Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County so same publisher, not same journal. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 17:17, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
I think you got the title swapped there, but yeah, same conclusions I reached. Would be easier to clear out had the museum not (as far as I can tell, since Google insists it exists) removed the webpage for their publications.Circeus (talk) 17:26, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
Going by an archived version of their publications page (see here) they seemed to me to be separate series. It's weird that they decided to get rid of the page though, did they think visitors would not want to know/access what they publish? Monster Iestyn (talk) 18:57, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Naturalista Siciliano, Giornale de Scienze Naturali and ISSN 0394-0063 the same journal?[edit]

How about Naturalista Siciliano, Giornale de Scienze Naturali and ISSN 0394-0063 then? Are the two WS pages referring to the same journal? –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 08:34, 27 December 2019 (UTC).

I think so. --RLJ (talk) 12:55, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, duplicates happen sometimes. Circeus (talk) 00:48, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
Thank you both for the input. Also thanks RLJ for changing Naturalista Siciliano… into a redirect page. I've subsequently altered all pages linking there so that they now link directly to ISSN 0394-0063 instead. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 01:21, 28 December 2019 (UTC).

───────────────────────── @Circeus and RLJ: I guess that Brotéria. Série Botânica; Revista de Sciencias Naturaes do Collegio de S. Fiel and ISSN 0871-0473 are also the same? (There's also a "Série Zoológica" but I don't think we have a page for that one yet.) –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 10:36, 28 December 2019 (UTC).

Definitely. at least part of the problem is that a sizeable amount of pages were created based off solely Tropicos+IPNI data, neither of which document ISSNs. Circeus (talk) 16:24, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
For the record, Brotéria, Série Zoológica is ISSN 0871-0481. Circeus (talk) 16:25, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. I've created a page for Brotéria, Série Zoológica per your ISSN links, but feel free to fill in any of the gaps! Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 21:47, 28 December 2019 (UTC).

Translations of templates[edit]

Hello, today Rosičák made this on {{Commons}}, which I saw as a bug and which I reverted. Then I added a {{LangSwitch}}. Please let me know, if I was wrong, if this solution is suitable, or if it's better to opt for a system with a layout and template subpages for each translations. Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:29, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Now I see that there is also {{Commons category}}!? already available with translations.. why there is 2 templates? Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:35, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
There are at least four such templates now: {{Commons}}, {{Commons category}}, {{Commons2}}, and the recently created {{Commons(with translations)}}. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:08, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
The main reason (at least originally) for creating more than one is that they link to different namespaces. {{Commons}} links to a page in Commons' main namespace, while {{Commons category}} links to a page in Commons' category namespace. Much like we have for example {{Linnaeus, 1758}} which adds a reference from a specific Wikispecies page, while {{Taxa authored 2}} always links to an entire "Taxa named by NN" Wikispecies category.
As for the other two {{Commons2}} redirects to {{Commons}} since 2017 (they're both created in Sept./Oct. 2005) and the new {{Commons(with translations)}} is... experimental. It was created by user Caftaric: please see User talk:Caftaric#Localization and translation for an ongoing discussion about this. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 20:18, 27 December 2019 (UTC).
Thank Tommy for introducing me and my experimental tranlation template. I think it has no utility anymore, if Christian is authorized to continue with his change of the main commons template. May I suggest in this case, that I add the French translation contained inside my experimental template to it? Cheers, --Caftaric (talk) 05:13, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

───────────────────────── I was not aware that: "{{Commons}} links to a page in Commons' main namespace, while {{Commons category}} links to a page in Commons' category namespace", I was only aware about {{Commons}} and always have used it for the category namespace, example. And this is because I use it daily that I noticed the change made by Rosičák, which made disappear the english version (which I saw as a bug). I don't want to be "authorized to continue", I only added a {{LangSwitch}} because I thought 1/that this was not appropriate 2/after to have reverted Rosičák, I wanted to help them with an alternative solution 3/I did not know at all {{TranslateThis}}, neither is was already used in several place such as {{Commons category}}, which I was neither aware about it.

I don't specially want tu use {{LangSwitch}} of something else. It was just that when I used the template yesterday, the english version has disappear, which I saw as a bug... If someone want to use {{TranslateThis}} such as in {{Commons category}}, that is fine for me. I repeat I was just thought to a bug...
That being said, in Wikimedia Commons, I already was abble to create those things (with layout and subpages, ect...), which provides the translations of templates as you can see in c:File:Marasmius bellipes Morgan 1132468.jpg. If it is appropriate I can try to do the same here. Let me know if you are interested. Otherwise I don't plan to use {{LangSwitch}} or {{TranslateThis}}, and if nobody make disappear the english version of the templates that I use, then I have currently no specific reasons to add translations. Regards, Christian Ferrer (talk) 07:57, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
The whole localization project is a bit messy at the moment, but I'll try to have it sorted in a few days (early next year..?) Ideally the {{Commons…etc}} templates shouldn't include any translations at all. Instead they should use the same system as all other localization in Wikispecies, i.e. the MediaWiki {{int:}} transclusion magic word in combination with the Wikispecies Localization database. Then we only need to add the {{int:}} interface magic word to the templates, and the server software will handle the actual translating in the background, automagically.
Please also note that the Translation Administrators' Noticeboard is always available for questions, discussions, and presenting new ideas. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 10:31, 28 December 2019 (UTC).

Variety vs subspecies[edit]

Hello, is there an interest to create a redirect from a variety to a subspecies. Here is my case:

Addison Emery Verrill published in 1899, there, the following variety: Ophiomusium eburneum var. elegans; now accepted as a subspecies. My question is: is it better to quote in the reference page {{Verrill, 1899b}}, [[Ophiomusium eburneum var. elegans]] (and then later create a redirect to the subspecies page when it will exist) or directly [[Ophiomusium eburneum elegans]]? Christian Ferrer (talk) 15:03, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
You can do this: [[Ophiomusium eburneum elegans|Ophiomusium eburneum var. elegans]]. Burmeister (talk) 16:07, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
Yes Burmeister, of course, thanks you. I just wondered if there was any interest to have a redirect for historical accuracy... Christian Ferrer (talk) 16:19, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
I did as you suggested. Christian Ferrer (talk) 16:30, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
Someone doublecheck me please, but I thought ICZN considers that "Ophiomusium eburneum var. elegans" is functionally the same as "Ophiomusium eburneum elegans", in so far as the code does not recognize any rank other than subspecies? Circeus (talk) 18:50, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
It's complicated last I checked, it depends on the year it was named and the context I think? Monster Iestyn (talk) 20:08, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
Ah here we go, Articles 45.5 and 45.6 cover infraspecific names: [3] Monster Iestyn (talk) 20:10, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the links, if I well understand, Article 45.6.3 matches with Verrill's 1899 publication, as he used "var." the name is available as a species-group name. Christian Ferrer (talk) 21:29, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Cochabamba in... Hymenoptera?[edit]

I was recently updating articles for the leaf beetle subfamily Galerucinae when I discovered this possible mess involving the genus name Cochabamba. (I seem to have a habit of finding messes for some reason.)

Cochabamba, as far as any online sources I've found so far indicate, is a beetle genus (order Coleoptera), in family Chrysomelidae, subfamily Galerucinae. However, here on Wikispecies it appears to be placed in order Hymenoptera, family Megachilidae, subfamily Megachilinae for some reason. I have checked around on Google rather thoroughly and I can find no evidence a genus was ever placed in Hymenoptera under this name. So I can't say that any homonyms are involved here.

Additionally, Wikispecies only lists one species under Cochabamba, Cochabamba volxemi. This species does not appear at all in the PDF for the taxon page's only reference. On the other hand, online articles such as this and this suggest it is a species combination placed in the Cochabamba genus in Coleoptera, Chrysomelidae, Galerucinae.

Not only that, but the linked Wikidata item and all linked Wikipedia pages in multiple languages classify Cochabamba under Coleoptera, Chrysomelidae!

I think it's very likely that Cochabamba was accidentally given the wrong classification on Wikispecies somehow, and that it should be put under Coleoptera, Chrysomelidae, Galerucinae (I think you get the idea by now). Can someone else double check in case I went horribly wrong somewhere? Monster Iestyn (talk) 10:18, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

You can do an IRMNG search "including near matches" via the IRMNG "advanced search" page, relevant result in this instance here. Only one Cochabamba, with the author Bechyné, 1955, that IRMNG knows about (fairly complete for animal names to about 2014, but nothing else shows up under Google Scholar), in Chrysomelidae as per posts above, (in case that helps), and no near matches in Hymenoptera - just one more, again in Coleoptera, Cochabambia Marcuzzi, 1985, which therefore cannot be the source of this problem. Regards Tony Tony 1212 (talk) 21:58, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

───────────────────────── Okay, so it's been 3 days since the last comment now, and there's been no response from PeterR nor has there been any new information to suggest I'm wrong here otherwise. I also just checked this list of genus group names for bees from 1997 and Cochabamba does not appear there either. Maybe I should just go and make the necessary corrections assuming I'm right? Monster Iestyn (talk) 14:41, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

I am 100% sure you are right, and you have discussed the issue here with no contra indications, and there is nothing in IRMNG or Google Scholar to suggest otherwise, so I would say yes, just fix the error; you might want to add a note on the talk page for the taxon name in case anyone wants to know what was done and why. BTW IRMNG ( is my go-to for genus names in the first instance (hint hint: I am the compiler) and, supplemented by Google Scholar for very recent names, should be pretty complete. Cheers Tony Tony 1212 (talk) 18:35, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
Okay then, I'll do that now then. That said, I personally prefer to track down and look at the actual articles where possible rather than check databases, since some of the records on the databases aren't entirely correct invariably. But the databases are good to have as a backup at least. Monster Iestyn (talk) 19:12, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
Fair call, my database (and those of others), best viewed as a pointer to the literature rather than an authoritative source in its own right, is a "best effort" and can still contain errors and omissions - although hopefully not *too* many, and these are rectified as discovered and time is available... Cheers Tony Tony 1212 (talk) 19:50, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
While we're on the subject, if there's any corrections I can point out to be made in IRMNG (which there definitely are), is your talk page the place for that I take it? At least, I assume it is judging by existing discussions there. Monster Iestyn (talk) 18:53, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
Correct, at the present time at least... small fixes are normally done with priority, larger batches of changes needed may take longer... At some point we may come up with a better method, but this one seems to work, and provides a publicly accessible record of what was requested and action taken/place where issues can be discussed. Another route is to email which will reach me as well (plus the IRMNG IT support team), however there is then no public record of the request and response - but that one will (should) still work if I am not online for any reason. Regards - Tony Tony 1212 (talk) 21:22, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
And all is done now! Monster Iestyn (talk) 19:28, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Large watchlist not editable[edit]

Hello fellow editors, I am not able to edit my watchlist, because is has grown too large, so that I get a timeout. Is there another possibility to edit it? Or to remove parts of it, e.g. all categories or all redirects? Thank you for any help, --Thiotrix (talk) 08:51, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, Christian Ferrer. The raw watchlist was very helpful for removing categories and templates. Does anybody know, if there a possibility to list all redirects created by a user? --Thiotrix (talk) 10:07, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
@Thiotrix: Here is a list of the "new redirects" created by you: [5]. Christian Ferrer (talk) 12:02, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
Thank you very much. --Thiotrix (talk) 09:07, 10 January 2020 (UTC)


Another old formatting template of Stephen's I assume, this time for Pacific Insects. It turned out only three reference templates were actually making use of it, before I subst:'d it out of them just now. This template should definitely be safe to delete now, in other words. Monster Iestyn (talk) 19:23, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Resolved.
Done Circeus (talk) 19:33, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Cupressus s.l. versus Cupressus s.s[edit]

A genus of c. 16-20 species. Recent genetic evidence (* Little, D. P., Schwarzbach, A. E., Adams, R. P. & Hsieh, Chang-Fu. 2004. The circumscription and phylogenetic relationships of Callitropsis and the newly described genus Xanthocyparis (Cupressaceae). American Journal of Botany 91 (11): 1872–1881. Abstract) shows that the New World Cupressus are less closely related to the Old World Cupressus than previously thought, being more closely related to Callitropsis and Juniperus than to the rest of Cupressus. A change in generic classification for these species is likely in the near future, either to Callitropsis or to a new genus.

Mao et al. (2010) and Terry & Adams. (2015) reversed the circumscription which segregated Hesperocyparis, Callitropsis s.s. and Xanthocyparis s.s. into separate genera. Therefore, the segregation of this genus into Old and New World clades and genera by Little (2006) and Adams et al. (2009) cannot be sustained. The generic circumscription on the taxon page follows Govaerts et al., 2017. Andyboorman (talk) 15:42, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

However, note the recently published Zhu et al. (2018), which has resurrected the proposals to segregate the above genera and revert to a Cupressus s.s. reserved for the Old World species. Govaerts et al., 2018 has decided to follow this circumscription, but with the a number of "Accepted by/Not Accepted by" provisos on their web site. Therefore, it seems that the lumping/splitting debate has not been satisfactorily resolved. Perhaps, WS should maintain a conservative approach for now and retain Cupressus s.l.? See also Christenhusz et al., (2011) Andyboorman (talk) 08:53, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes; a broad circumscription of Cupressus is the only one that is workable - any subdivision is very premature with many taxa not yet examined, and the monophyly of Cupressus s.l. still highly likely - MPF (talk) 16:22, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
You may or may not be right, however, the reversion of Cupressus s.l. to Cupressus s.s is now gaining increasing support. WS must not take a side in this discussion as that would be OR. It would be better to produce pages for the segregates with notes referring to the alternative view. The disputed tag may also be appropriate, as also taking this to the pump. Andyboorman (talk) 18:43, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
One example of the problems with splitting is that Mu et al. (2006; Front. Biol. China 4: 349−352 DOI 10.1007/s 11515-006-0044-5 ) found a species pair of Cupressus funebris and C. duclouxiana (neither examined by the proponents of splitting the genus) to be sister to C. nootkatensis, with those three in turn sister to C. torulosa: i.e., "Callitropsis" nootkatensis is from their results deeply embedded among Asian Cupressus s.str. The net result is that any splitting of the genus is likely to result in extensive paraphyly somewhere in the group. - MPF (talk) 19:01, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

───────────────────────── You make my point for me. I will migrate the discussion to the Pump. Andyboorman (talk) 20:37, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

I don't see that it does! It makes the case for splitting much worse, as it makes acceptance of Callitropsis containing only Cupressus nootkatensis (sensu Zhu et al.) untenable - MPF (talk) 17:29, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
As an aside on the wider Cupressaceae questions, I can see the case for lumping the Callitroid genera into one genus, but when the proposers of the lump themselves say further evidence is needed ("Further molecular data are needed to test these results and explore the cause of the conflict between these estimates of the phylogeny within the group" - Piggin & Bruhl 2010), the lumping done by the Kew List is I think premature. Other options (particularly the transfer of the New Caledonian Callitris to Neocallitropsis, and recognition of Octoclinis) need to be considered. - MPF (talk) 17:29, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
Sorry I am not clear about what you mean in relation of the Kew List lumping. Are you writing about genera other than Cupressus e.g. Callitris? Andyboorman (talk) 10:51, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
Yes, thought that was clear from the 'as an aside on the wider ...' mention! - MPF (talk) 00:30, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Please note the above taken from the Cupressus discussion page, do a search and comment. Thanks. Andyboorman (talk) 20:37, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

The point is that there are now two diametrically opposite taxonomic opinions of a well known genus. Both Cupressus s.l and Cupressus s.s. have scientific support, but there is no definitive evidence for one or the other. Therefore, as an example, Govaerts et al. on WCSP and supported by Christenhusz, Fay & Chase (2017) in their Plants of the World project favour s.s. with segregate genera. However, Earle on the Gymnosperm Database project advocate s.l. with the putative genera as sections. Can WS legitimately take one side over another irrespective of personal, but obviously well informed opinions, of our editors? Andyboorman (talk) 18:56, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Does anybody have a strong objection to me modifying the Cupressus taxon page in order to reflect the two main differing taxonomic opinions? Andyboorman (talk) 14:18, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
I fear I do :-) I'd very strongly say we should retain it as one genus, as a minimum until every taxon has been tested. - MPF (talk) 00:30, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
Why? It is illogical to retain a disputed species list, whichever way the coin eventually falls. Particularly, as only a very few taxa have not been tested and some of these may turn out to be in synonymy. At least there must be note on the taxon page itself, as well as a disputed tag and not just in the Discussion Page. Leaving the present situation is favouring one valid opinion over another, which is contrary to Wiki policy, as well as science. If there was an editorial consensus here, then I would follow the majority view. My purpose for this thread was to stimulate discussion, which unfortunately has not happened Andyboorman (talk) 21:13, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Renaming page[edit]

Hello, I was too fast creating a reference template and I would need help to rename the page. Could anyone help me rename Dusoulier & Lupoli, 2016 in Template:Dusoulier & Lupoli, 2016. Sorry for that mistake and thanks for your help.--Hiouf (talk) 10:33, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

OK, I did it. Neferkheperre (talk) 13:56, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
Great, thank you very much! --Hiouf (talk) 14:07, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
Damn it! I made the exact same mistake with Zhao et al., 2019b @Neferkheperre: Any chance you can help me one more time? Is there any way I can fix it myself? --Hiouf (talk) 14:04, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
I fixed it. In the "More" tab on your tool bar, find "Move". You may need to be an administrator. Neferkheperre (talk) 14:29, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
Thanks again. Next time I'll use that tool. Cheers. --Hiouf (talk) 14:40, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

───────────────────────── @Hiouf: Please remember to uncheck the "Leave a redirect behind" check box when you move a wrongly named page to a new name. Leaving a redirect page in place of the old name is great when moving say, the author page "N. Smith" to "Nicholas Smith", so that links pointing to the old page will be automatically redirected to the new one. However for misspellings and such it's useless, since there's no point in having redirect pages that will never be used. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 18:15, 15 January 2020 (UTC).


Who can help me with add classes etc. I have now : Class Insecta Linné, 1758 Subclass Scarabaeona Laicharting, 1781 (= Pterygota Lang, 1888) Infraclass Gryllones Laicharting, 1781 (= Polyneoptera Martynov, 1923) Superorder Perlidea Latreille, 1802 (= Plecopteroidea Martynov, 1934) Order Cnemidolestida Handlirsch, 1937, nom. transl., Cnemidolestodea Handlirsch, 1937, Cnemidolestoidea. Type family: Cnemidolestidae Handlirsch, 1906. I can find only Subclass Pterygota (= Scarabaeona). Can I change Subclass Pterygota in Scarabaeona and then lower. I find this in Far Eastern Entomologist, 2014, no. 277 thanks PeterR (talk) 16:41, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

@PeterR: I guess you refer to {{Aristov, 2014}}, where Order †Cnemidolestida is revised. I'll see what I can do. Mariusm (talk) 16:41, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
Please note that in recent taxonomy Polyneoptera and Pterygota are valid and not synonyms, so please don't base your rank changes exclusively on Aristov, 2014!! Mariusm (talk) 16:54, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
According to this article from 2016 (particularly Chapter 4), the use of Scarabaeona instead of Pterygota at least doesn't seem to be internationally accepted, but rather part of a different classification used only by Russian entomologists? (Or at least, that's the impression I get.) I suspect there may be a similar thing going on with the other higher taxa names with stated synonyms in Aristov, 2014 and others like it. Monster Iestyn (talk) 11:09, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Reference template where author name isn't used[edit]

Hi. I have found a lot of uses of the following reference, and was going to create a template for it:

  • Mammal Species of the World, A Taxonomic and Geographic Reference, 3rd edition, 2005 ISBN 0801882214

However, the uses I found almost always omit the author names, but Help:Reference section#Reference Templates says template names should start with the author's name. Is it okay to create Template:Mammal Species, 2005 without the author name? Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 08:14, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

In the world I move in (not Wikispecies I would point out) it is almost invariably referred to as "Wilson & Reeder". Home page here: . Preferred citation is given as: "Don E. Wilson & DeeAnn M. Reeder (editors). 2005. Mammal Species of the World. A Taxonomic and Geographic Reference (3rd ed), Johns Hopkins University Press, 2,142 pp". In case this helps... Regards Tony Tony 1212 (talk) 08:22, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
The reference template already exist {{Wilson & Reeder, 2005}}. Regards, Burmeister (talk) 12:12, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
It appears that the template has a different ISBN? --DannyS712 (talk) 16:44, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
Maybe because that: ISBN-13: 978-0801882210 // ISBN-10: 0801882214 ? Burmeister (talk) 16:54, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
Yes, using the ISBN-10/13 converter at proves that 0-8018-8221-4 equals 978-0-8018-8221-0. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 17:59, 15 January 2020 (UTC).
There are a few references that aren't authors, usually because the author is taken to be a group (i.e. the ICZN opinions are usually cited with the ICZN as the author, as do certain other large groups of authors such as APG) or because it's better taken to be an external link to some database (Stephen created quite a few of those).
As a side note, special:search can be restricted to the template namespace. It's very convenient when trying to find out if a reference exists. Circeus (talk) 23:51, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Small caps for authors name[edit]

Hi all, I am curious about the use of small caps for the authors name. The ICZN doesn't say anything about using a special typography for the authors name, and the Code always use normal font and size in all its examples. As far as I know the small caps are not used in en.wikipedia or fr.wikipedia but seems to be a standard in de.wikipedia and it.wikipedia. So I would be interested in knowing the reasons for the small caps and perhaps talk the French wiki into it. Best. --Hiouf (talk) 19:26, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

It comes about through the extensive use of the templates {{a}} and {{aut}} in names and references. Andyboorman (talk) 20:39, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
I don't know the story behind Wikispecies' specific choice of style, but on a more general note it's quite common that different nomenclatural publications have their own praxis for preferred composition, syntax, and stylistics. Andy is correct in that "our" small caps are generated by the {{a}} and {{aut}} plus the unrecommended {{auth}} templates, but it would of course be very easy to change the templates to omit the small caps, should we chose to do so. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 20:48, 15 January 2020 (UTC).
Don't get me wrong, I'm very fine with the use of small caps, I find it easier to read a taxa and identify the author, but that's just a personal preference. And of course I use those templates all the times with Wikispecies. That's why I would love to introduce the French wiki with small caps but this choice has to be justified. If the ICZN doesn't recommend it and journals like Zootaxa don't use it, I really wonder what was the reasoning for the small caps. My German and Italian skills are not good enough to ask their respective wikis, but I was hoping you could give me some hints. --Hiouf (talk) 07:43, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
Don't get me wrong either – I like small caps a lot and sometimes even overuse them, at least outside of Wikispecies. :-) Perhaps our admin @Thiotrix can assist? She speaks German as a first language and way better than me. Unfortunately my skills in speaking German are getting rustier by the day: I took German classes for six years in school, but nowadays (30 years after school...) I very seldom speak or read German anymore and tend to forget a lot of the grammar. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 08:34, 16 January 2020 (UTC).
From my own experience so far, the only zoological journal I've actually seen use small caps for author names is Genus. On the other hand, the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature, which is published by the ICZN themselves (I think), uses small caps not for author names but for family-group names apparently! It's right there in their own guidelines for the journal. I don't think I've seen that latter use of small caps anywhere else at all except maybe a few ZooKeys articles.
That aside, should we be using {{aut}} at all in the titles of reference templates? I've been doing that for a while out of habit, but never thought to actually ask about that for some reason. Monster Iestyn (talk) 13:24, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
@Hiouf, Andyboorman, Tommy Kronkvist, and Monster Iestyn: small caps are used in the ICZN for family-group names. ICZN recommend that family-groupe names are written in a distinctive way, but doesn’t use italics. The Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature follows the ICZN. I have seen many other publications like that. TED (talk) 14:01, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

I think the use of smallcaps for name authors (NOT reference authors) is a weird style quirk specific to wikispecies (a little like bolding volume numbers on Wikipedia). Does anyone knows whether that predates Stephen's rise to power? I know it's somewhat uncharitable, but it's true that quite a few quirks (some of them reversed, some not) on Wikispecies are direct consequences of his... heavy handed approach. Circeus (talk) 15:37, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

It's no odder than the style on Wikipedia, which prints authors' names and publication dates in a smaller size font inside of Taxoboxes. It's primarily a means of distinguishing the author names from taxon names and other information, so that the reader can visually parse the text. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:01, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
The use of small caps for authors of taxonomical names is quite common in German botanical literature (e.g., Rothmaler: Exkursionsflora) and international Floras (e.g., Flora Iranica). Small caps are generally used as a method of emphasis or distinctiveness. In my zoological books, authority names are either normal or in uppercase letters (e.g., Stresemann: Exkursionsfauna). This is just a typographical decision and nothing that is ruled by the botanical or zoological codes. --Thiotrix (talk) 16:16, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
Small caps are certainly used in English Wikipedia. Taxobox templates automatically put authorities in small caps, as do templates designed to format lists of taxa (e.g. en:Template:Species_list). Manually formatted lists of taxa on English Wikipedia don't always have small caps for authorities, but probably have small caps more often than not, and are slowly being standardized to use them. Looking at my edits (under a different account) on Wikispecies from early 2008 (pre-Stephen), small caps do not appear to have been standard at that time; not sure if Stephen was the instrumental in introducing them though. Plantdrew (talk) 18:01, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
Here's my four personal and very subjective takes on the notes above:
  1. The {{a}} and {{aut}} templates should be reserved for author names, since they can be extended with author-specific data in the future. If you need to use small caps for journal names etc. please use {{Smallcaps}} instead (or the {{sc}} shortcut).
  2. I like the use of small caps on Author Names, since it makes them stick out but still in a somewhat modest way.
  3. Using all uppercase letters for AUTHOR NAMES is far too shouty and should be avoided. Sure it makes the names stand out, but in such a harsh way that the focus of the rest of the citation is almost lost. This is especially true when there are SEVERAL AUTHOR NAMES MENTIONED AFTER EACH OTHER. I find it ugly, less legible, and well-nigh visually offensive.
  4. Italics for family-group names is bonkers. In my opinion italics should only be used for supergenera and lower ranks. And of course for book/journal titles and the names of ships!
Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 19:32, 16 January 2020 (UTC).
@Thiotrix: the few publications (always journals) I've seen that do that are actually treating all citations that way (and the proof of that is they never put the author citation after a name without parentheses). Circeus (talk) 21:51, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
  •  Comment: I really appreciate small caps because it highlights the names. Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:08, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
  •  Comment: I'm not a huge fan of small caps, but I don't mind them so badly as to want to be rid of them. - MPF (talk) 00:26, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
  •  Comment: I guess we're trying to achieve a consensus on this issue? I never see small caps in the mycology literature, but I do appreciate how it looks on WS. What I do see often, particularly in old literature, is having the taxon name in bold and then regular text for the author. I don't really see a need for changing the templates though. Voganaa (talk) 09:19, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
  •  Comment: I really like our current small-cap author formatting, I think it improves legibility a lot, better than the smaller font size used by the French and English Wikipedias, and without the aggressivity of full uppercase. I have seen these small caps often enough in literature that they don't feel unnatural. Sure, the Code says nothing about this, but I don't think it forbids it? --LamBoet (talk) 19:29, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

How do you find the common name[edit]

How do you find the common name of an animal on his page cuz most people like me can't use the scientific name I like that it's on there but still would like the common name. — The preceding unsigned comment was added by Datnip (talkcontribs) 20:51, 16 January 2020.

We have a section called 'Vernacular names' near the end of each page, giving the name in various different languages. Of course not all species have common names, lots of less conspicuous insects and plants don't have any. - MPF (talk) 00:18, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
MPF is correct. I can add that there is also a "Search Wikispecies" function near the top right of all our pages. Enter a search string there and hit "enter" to search for scientific names, vernacular names, journals, authors etc... –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 12:46, 17 January 2020 (UTC).
@Datnip: When no common name is given in a Wikispecies article, you can also just click on one of the Wikipedia links (i.e. the language names in the left column) to see if they have one. --LamBoet (talk) 19:19, 18 January 2020 (UTC)


Hello, I wanted to create a subgenus page for this genus, and I wonder I will have to use {{Sgsps}} or {{Sgsp}}, Help:Taxonavigation section suggest to use the second, but that implies to create species in this form. I think to have understood that this is not the preferred way. In summary, is it the good way? Christian Ferrer (talk) 13:46, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

If you feel you absolutely must show the subgenus page i specie sname on the page for that subgenus (which seems redundant to me... I mean, what other subgenus are they supposed to be in??), then {{Sgsps}} is the one. Last I knew, consensus was well away from including subgenus in pagenames of species. I've personally come to be on the fence about whether to use "Genus (Subgenus)" or "Subgenus" for the page title of the subgenus, though. Circeus (talk) 03:27, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
I don't understand your fist sentence, what is redundant? only the species that are not affected to a subgenus are currently listed in the the genus page, it's not me who did that, I found the page like that. I just wanted to create Ophiura (Dictenophiura), as suggested by the red link in the genus page, in order to have the possibility to list some more species that are not yet available there. But thanks you, you confirmed what I was thinking, I will use {{Sgsps}}. Though this should be made clear in Help:Taxonavigation section, as it is currently suggested there to use {{Sgsp}}. Christian Ferrer (talk) 08:30, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
For your last sentence "Genus (Subgenus)" is likely the best solution, as in some cases it will avoid confusions, example [6] vs [7], it is maybe not the best example as the both taxa are not accepted, but well... Christian Ferrer (talk) 08:37, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
Sorry, I wasn't clear. What I mean is that
  1. Regardless of the way they are written in the subgenus page, the species page title should be "Genus species", not "Genus (Subgenus) species" (that is because the subgenus is not part of the actual species name. ICZN art. 6.1)
  2. On the page "Genus (subgenus)", it seems redundant to list species as "G. (Subg.) sp." because... why do that on that page? Of course they are species of that one subgenus if we are listing them there!
  3. The case you mention regarding "Subgenus" vs. "Genus (Subgenus)" for the page title wouldn't be a problem because they are the same name/synonyms, they literally could not be two separate pages. That it increases the chances of homonyms needing disambiguation (i.e. it reveals otherwise unnoticed genus-subgenus or subgenus-subgenus homonyms) is a feature in my opinion. Also, it makes it easier when genus-group taxa are moved around, since we no longer have to rename these pages, just adjust the taxobox accordingly. (The main issue that remains is the nomnotypical subgenus, for which there is no elegant solution...).
Circeus (talk) 15:26, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
See Geostiba for my way of treating subgenera: (1) No use of "Genus (Subgenus) species", only "Genus species" for page titles (2) use only "Subgenus" as the subgenus-page title (3) use of "Genus (Subgenus) species" only in the name section (4) no special page for "Genus s. str.". Mariusm (talk) 16:18, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
Ha ok, Circeus, thanks, now I understood what you said. Thanks you Mariusm, for your example, I will follow it regarding the section "overview...", but regarding the page name the issue is when we have a subgenus with same name as the genus, you can not have two pages with the same name. Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:08, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
I think Mariusm was saying he doesn't bother with a separate page for a subgenus with the same name as the genus, but just lists the species for that subgenus under "Genus s.str.". Monster Iestyn (talk) 18:57, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
I am quite new to these discussions on Wikispecies, but I don't understand why any page should be named "Genus (Subgenus)" at all. A subgenus name consists of one single word, and the Code only mentions putting it in parentheses when it is between the genus and species name in a binomen or trinomen. By using "Genus (Subgenus)" alone, Wikispecies is spreading bad practice.--LamBoet (talk) 19:40, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
Since for the longest time I dealt exclusively with plant names, I really don't know how it happened, sorry. We're left with a mix of the two systems now. Circeus (talk) 02:27, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
Thanks Monster Iestyn, I did not noticed that. I listed the species in an overview section. But I found a little issue, I don't know how to deal with that case: 2 binonem homonyms that are accepeted within the same genus, see Ophiura costata Rasmussen, 1972 † vs Ophiura (Ophiuroglypha) costata (Lyman, 1878). Christian Ferrer (talk) 21:56, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
Yep, that's a species-level homonym. That happens sometimes. Unless you intend to publish a new named for O. costata Rasmussen yourself, you'll have to grit your teeth, disambiguate the pages and use {{Homonym}}. Circeus (talk) 02:27, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
Yes, it seems, indeed. @Mariusm: what does exactly mean the abbreviation "s.str."? Christian Ferrer (talk) 06:40, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
I know I'm not Mariusm, but "s.str." is short for "sensu stricto". Monster Iestyn (talk) 10:54, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
  •  Comment: Note that I decided to create the page in this form Ophiura (Dictenophiura) H.L. Clark, 1923, using the name that is quoted in the section "name", because there is also a name Dictenophiura H.L. Clark, 1923. Even if one is synonym to the other, I find it more clear to make clear the distinction. Christian Ferrer (talk) 08:27, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

@Christian Ferrer: Please note that Genus and Subgenus are both in the genus-type category, so Ophiura (Dictenophiura) and Dictenophiura must be synonyms! An example for "Genus (s.str.)" is Ophiura (Ophiura). Mariusm (talk) 17:07, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Ok thanks you Mariusm, and thank you everyone. If the page I created: Ophiura (Dictenophiura) is not OK we can still move it. Incidentally as well as all the other pages about subgenus if one day there is a consensus to harmonize the pages in one way or another. Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:21, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Wiki Loves Folklore[edit]

WLL Subtitled Logo (transparent).svg

Hello Folks,

Wiki Loves Love is back again in 2020 iteration as Wiki Loves Folklore from 1 February, 2020 - 29 February, 2020. Join us to celebrate the local cultural heritage of your region with the theme of folklore in the international photography contest at Wikimedia Commons. Images, videos and audios representing different forms of folk cultures and new forms of heritage that haven’t otherwise been documented so far are welcome submissions in Wiki Loves Folklore. Learn more about the contest at Meta-Wiki and Commons.

Kind regards,
Wiki Loves Folklore International Team
— Tulsi Bhagat (contribs | talk)
sent using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:15, 18 January 2020 (UTC)