Wikispecies:Village Pump

From Wikispecies
Jump to: navigation, search

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

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

Village pump in other languages: Czech - česky · Finnish - Suomi · French - Français · Hungarian - Magyar · Korean - 한국어 · Russian - Русский · Ukrainian - Українська · Hindi - हिन्दी · Nepali - नेपाली
Post a comment
if you use the title box, you don't need to put a title in the body
1 (2004-09-21/2005-01-05) 2 (2005-01-05/2005-08-23)
3 (2005-08-24/2005-12-31) 4 (2006-01-01/2005-05-31)
5 (2006-06-01/2006-12-16) 6 (2006-12-17/2006-12-31)
7 (2007-01-01/2007-02-28) 8 (2007-03-01/2007-04-30)
9 (2007-05-01/2007-08-31) 10 (2007-09-01/2007-10-31)
11 (2007-11-01/2007-12-31) 12 (2008-01-01/2008-02-28)
13 (2008-03-01/2008-04-28) 14 (2008-04-29/2008-06-30)
15 (2008-07-01/2008-09-30) 16 (2008-10-01/2008-12-25)
17 (2008-12-26/2009-02-28) 18 (2009-03-01/2009-06-30)
19 (2009-07-01/2009-12-31) 20 (2010-01-01/2010-06-30)
21 (2010-07-01/2010-12-31) 22 (2011-01-01/2011-06-30)
23 (2011-07-01/2011-12-31) 24 (2012-01-01/2012-12-31)
25 (2013-01-01/2013-12-31) 26 (2014-01-01/2014-12-31)
27 (2015-01-01/2015-01-31) 28 (2015-02-01/2015-02-28)
29 (2015-02-28/2015-04-29) 30 (2015-04-29/2015-07-19)
31 (2015-07-19/2015-09-23) 32 (2015-09-23/2015-11-21)
33 (2015-11-21/2015-12-31) 34 (2016-01-01/2016-04-17)
35 (2016-03-22/2016-05-01) 36 (2016-05-01/2016-07-12)
37 (2016-07-13/2016-09-30) 38 (2016-10-01/2016-12-04)
39 (2016-12-04/2017-01-17) 40 (2017-01-18/2017-01-28)
41 (2017-01-29/2017-02-13) 42 (2017-02-14/2017-03-21)
43 (2017-03-20/2017-08-11) 44 (2017-08-10/ …)

Bot-generated list based on Wikidata[edit]

I came across the page nl:gebruiker:bdijkstra/Wikidata/Doublures, and thought it would be useful to have such a list to identify duplicated pages as discussed in the section above: Varanus duplicates.

If it is OK, we could create a page titled Wikispecies:Duplicated pages for example, import or copy the templates en:Template:Wikidata list and en:Template:Wikidata list end, and ask Magnus Manske to set ListeriaBot up on Wikispecies. Korg (talk) 13:20, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

I think this sounds like an excellent idea. Dan Koehl (talk) 04:45, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
Agreed Andyboorman (talk) 08:12, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
I agree. Duplicated pages exist, and are rather common. I find them from time to time, and solve them. Setting up this page would allow us to use free time to address these duplicates. Neferkheperre (talk) 13:08, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
I agree as well – such a page would really be helpful. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 22:50, 28 October 2017 (UTC).
The templates {{Wikidata list}} and {{Wikidata list end}} are now imported. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk),20:50, 1 November 2017 (UTC).
Thank you! I've submitted a feature request on Bitbucket. Korg (talk) 23:14, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Boraginales and Boranginaceae another conundrum[edit]

Hello botanists. Since late 2016, there is now a distinct split in taxonomic opinion as regards the circumscription of Boraginales and subsequently Boraginaceae. Basically {{APG, 2016}} hold firmly and consensually to a monotypic Boraginales with a single family Boraginaceae s.l. , whereas Boraginales Working Group {BWG) proposed Boraginaceae s.s. with an additional 10 families in the order, {{Luebert et al., 2016}}. WS, at the moment still follows a largely traditional circumscription based upon Boraginaceae s.l., but I have made a few edits including; templating and adding references, whereby changes can be made either way. Most literature added after the publication of these two papers follow Leubert et al. (2016), but there again the authors are members of this group. I think we should more or less suspend editing on this group for a few more months at least until it is clearer what direction the wider botanic community are most happy with. Again this problem highlights a weakness in WS and Wikis in general. Thoughts anyone? Andyboorman (talk) 19:36, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Since we are not an actual database, there's absolutely nothing preventing from reflecting this sort of disagreement in the article with the appropriate warning about it and a version of the Taxonavigation that forks at the appropriate levels to reflect that there are two competing versions. At least that's what my thought went toward before I left (and I'm well aware the inertia around here would play against this idea very much, but on the technical side there is genuinely nothing against it.). Circeus (talk) 16:37, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
Probably there is no need for a hurry now. Anyway, I would not call the APG approach "traditional". Traditionally, Boraginaceae and Hydrophyllaceae were separated for a long time, as well as the parasitic Lennoaceae. So, this new approach by the Boraginales Working Group implements only the necessary splits, in order to rescue the traditional families by making their core concept monophyletic. --Franz Xaver (talk) 07:50, 6 November 2017 (UTC)


A new species of Pongo: original paper and sciencenews press release. I've not added it [yet], but I guess people are going to expect to find it here. - MPF (talk) 22:54, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the information. By the way, do you happen to know which "Bilberg" is the author of the Pongo synonym Macrobates Bilberg, 1828? –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 08:34, 3 November 2017 (UTC).
This was Gustav Johan Billberg (1772–1844) and the book is Synopsis faunae Scandinaviae. tom. 1, pars 1. Mammalia. See BHL Mariusm (talk) 09:23, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
@MPF, Mariusm: Thank you both for the information! I have now created the Pongo tapanuliensis page. Contrary to our naming conventions I named the reference template as {{Nater et al., 2017}}, using “et al.” rather than listing all of the almost 40 authors. I hope you are okay with that. Best regards, Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 20:59, 5 November 2017 (UTC).
@Tommy Kronkvist: - thanks! I'm certainly OK with the 'et al.' (though I thought it was accepted practice where there are more than 3, or is it 5, authors??) - MPF (talk) 21:10, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
Our convention there is 'et al.' for >3 authors. That is what I have been following since 2015 when I took over Zootaxa citations. My largest citation is 43 authors, about half were not listed here. Took most of one day for me. Neferkheperre (talk) 01:08, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
I agree with Neferkheperre: template's name should include et al. when there are more then 3 authors, but its contents should include all the authors. (even if some of the authors remain in red links). I revised the template accordingly. Mariusm (talk) 05:07, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Correct, and this was all decided upon in a poll about the References format (clause 5) back in December 2015. I'm currently on the road not using a "proper" computer as I normally would, and adding all of those author names simply is too tedious on an iPad… Thanks Mariusm for your help entering them! Most of the author names in the reference template are currently red-linked, but I can create the missing author pages when I get home in a day or two. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 07:35, 6 November 2017 (UTC).

Dcoumenting page types[edit]

In order to enable better understanding of Wikispecies, I have started a page, listing the types of pages on the project: Wikispecies:Page types

Have I missed any? Without overloading it, are there more (or better) examples that should be included?

And would somebody like to mark it for translation, please? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:10, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

What about taxonavigation templates? E.g. Template:Brycon. --Franz Xaver (talk) 14:43, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
This list is a good idea. The examples for species pages should be well referenced examples, one for animals and one for plants each, if possible with subspecies (to serve as good examples for new editors). Additionally we have disambiguation pages, both for taxa (e.g. Echinosporangium), and for authorities (e.g. Okamura). As these are both in Category:Disambiguation pages, maybe this category has to be split?. --Thiotrix (talk) 17:38, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
What about Reference templates pages? E.g. Template:Vieillot, 1816.--Hector Bottai (talk) 01:39, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Peniocereus viperinus[edit]

In the cited reference for Peniocereus viperinus (F.A.C.Weber) Kreuz., Verzeichnis Amer. Sukk. Rev. Syst. Kakteen 18. 1935, there is only the following information: "viperinus (Web. 1904) Klusáč. 1932" [1]. So the author might actually be Klusáč., possibly Karel Klusáček [2]. Does anyone know where to find the full reference for "Klusáč. 1932"? Thanks! Korg (talk) 20:02, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

I am not a Cacti expert, but there is a possible clue in here on p.318. Good hunting Andyboorman (talk) 20:31, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the link! I've emailed Pavel Pavlíček of the site and he gave me another clue for the author Klusáč.: "Ing. A. Klusáček, Kounice near Český Brod, grower - Lobivia, Pilosocereus ...". The search continues... Korg (talk) 11:06, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
This is probably an ex name, with Klusac coining it outside a proper publication (e.g. in a letter). I investigated a similar issue over at wp: about a birn name. Circeus (talk) 16:48, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
Interesting, thank you. If this is indeed the case, how should we write the name(s) of the author(s) of Peniocereus viperinus? Korg (talk) 23:32, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Unsolved mysteries[edit]

Are you aware of cases where there is no information about an author or a publication? If such cases exist, perhaps it would be interesting to list them (to advertise them so more people could help to solve them). Korg (talk) 11:06, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

There are several such cases so yes – good idea! I've recently created Category:Missing or unresolved author names – feel free to change or populate it if you like to. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 15:38, 9 November 2017 (UTC).
Thank you! Korg (talk) 23:32, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

strange automatic categorization[edit]

The taxon pages Thymus (Lamiaceae) and Thymus sect. Hyphodromi are automatically categorized into Category:Reference templates. Does anybody know why, and how this could be stopped? --Thiotrix (talk) 10:14, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

The category was outside the <noinclude>...</noinclude> tags in Template:LSP: [3]. Korg (talk) 10:27, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
Thank you, --Thiotrix (talk) 10:41, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Community Wishlist[edit]

In case you glanced over the header, WMF is running its annual community wishlist survey. This is a great opportunity to ask for developer help to create tools that help Wikispecies grow. Anyone got ideas on improving our workflow (from navigation to creating articles to referencing)? OhanaUnitedTalk page 23:33, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

So nobody has an idea or suggestions for tools? OhanaUnitedTalk page 16:48, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
We need more templates for structuring page content, and more integration with Wikidata. Both of these things are within our gift as Wikispecies editors; and neither requires the kind of tools discussed at the above page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:37, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
@Pigsonthewing: There's a subpage for Wikidata related request and you can submit this suggestion there. What I'm thinking is to propose an illustrated Wikispecies Tree of Life, which draws on similar initiative in 2013. The renewed page can be done automatically updated every month or so. This can become an educational interface as there is demands for these interactive webpages. Thoughts? OhanaUnitedTalk page 18:28, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
"you can submit this suggestion there" Which suggestion? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:20, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
Like the details of the Wikidata integration. OhanaUnitedTalk page 22:04, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
As I wrote just above "Both of these things are within our gift as Wikispecies editors; and neither requires the kind of tools discussed at the above page.". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:28, 17 November 2017 (UTC)


Why are we manually maintaining Category:ISSN when we have software to do that for us? It is not being applied as a category, in the usual MediaWiki sense. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:41, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Good question. One reason might be that it's perhaps easier for a not-yet-Wikispecies-savvy user to find a publication if it is listed in plain text by title rather than by ISSN only. It's quite often the case that only the name of a publication is listed in (non Wikispecies) references, without ISSN (if any). Hence finding for example the Journal of the Georgia Entomological Society on the ISSN category page may be more convenient than first doing an online search to find the corresponding ISSN, and then look up the equivalent ISSN 0016-8238 page here at Wikispecies.
Apart form that my guess is that our current "manual" approach is an archaic praxis left over from the days of Wikispecies' youth, before Wikidata and other such helpful additions to MediaWiki even existed. (As an example, our ISSN category predates Wikidata by approximately two years.) –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 16:27, 12 November 2017 (UTC).
I think most people would find such pages by searching for the title, rather than looking on a "fake" category page they're unlikely to know exists (not least because it's not linked at the foot of the articles it contains). I'd also suggest that for every ISSN page there should be a redirect from the title (and so I've just turned what was your red link, blue). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:50, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
I very much agree that there should always be a redirect for every journal's title to their respective ISSN page, and over the years have been creating a whole bunch of such redirects myself. The problem with this system arises when a name of a journal is also a taxon name, in which case the taxon page of course takes precedence over the redirect. This also sometimes makes searching for journals by their title difficult: for instance a search for the scientific journals Austrobaileya (ISSN 0155-4131) or Sydowia (ISSN 0082-0598) will only show the taxon pages for the genera Austrobaileya and Sydowia, without mentioning the journals (except for the occasional use of disambiguation hatnotes, which are currently under (a sleepy) discussion. Listing the journals by name in the ISSN category is a crude and rather inefficient solution, but at least dodges that problem. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 20:03, 12 November 2017 (UTC).
In this case creating redirects from Austrobaileya (journal) and Sydowia (journal) to the respective ISSN pages should help. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:09, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

I propose to replace the above page with a copy of User:Pigsonthewing/ISSN, which will be updated daily by a bot, drawing the contents from Wikidata. This will remove the need for manual updates, and ensure that there are no omissions - anything with an ISSN page on Wikispecies and an entry on Wikidata will be included. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:13, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Symbol support vote.svg Support. Good initiative. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 12:13, 14 November 2017 (UTC).
Symbol support vote.svg Support Burmeister (talk) 12:49, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
There are some (old) journals that don't have issn code, would not it be interesting to make a list for them too? Burmeister (talk) 13:00, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
I'd be happy to do so; but by what criteria? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:37, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
My suggestion: 1) Create a category for journals without issn, 2) Populate it manually, 3) Use the bot to create the list from the category data. I believe that it is possible to do it this way. Burmeister (talk) 21:15, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

The list is now at ISSN. Please look for errors or omissions, and fill in missing parameters on Wikidata. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:38, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Hancockia uncinata[edit]

Can someone please check the author of Hancockia uncinata, as queried in this edit? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:58, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

See p. 345. Author is given as M. Hesse. Neferkheperre (talk) 16:49, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
Not to be confused, presumably, with M.Hesse, Q21515767, born 1943? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:57, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
It seems possible to me, that actually the author is the malacologist Paul Hesse and the "M." stands for "Monsieur" and does not represent a personal name. --Franz Xaver (talk) 19:31, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
I don't think it's Paul Hesse (see Zum 70. Geburtstage von Paul Hesse!). --Succu (talk) 20:01, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
Also, on several occasions the author is referred to as "Hesse." including the full stop, which at least in theory says it might be an abbreviation... –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 20:08, 12 November 2017 (UTC).

On WoRMS, the author is referred to as " Hesse, H."; I'll ask if they have more information and if it is a typo. On BEMON, there are two other authors with the surname Hesse: Charles Eugène Hesse and Edmond Hesse. It seems to be Charles-Eugène Hesse [4], according to this book. Korg (talk) 01:12, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

User:Franz Xaver is right: M. stands for "Monsieur". It's Charles-Eugène Hesse‎ and User:Umimmak made all the necessary edits to reflect this. Mariusm (talk) 07:13, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
Wikidata apparently still needs to be fixed; I'm not sure how to change names for the entry someone made for "M. Hesse". (Perhaps things like authority pages, wikidata entries, etc shouldn't be made until the identity is fully known? It's easier to create once the details are known than fix everything later) Umimmak (talk) 13:01, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
Wikidata is sorted, now. Thanks, everyone, for your help. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:21, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

ISSN 2226-0773[edit]

Anyone can look at this with a little more intent? This journal looks very much like a humanities journal with low likelihood of having relevant content, plus it's not linked by any article and is the only contribution from its creator, so probability of it being some sort of linkspam seems nonnegligible. Circeus (talk) 13:46, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Just looking at random issue TOCs, it looks like something for humanities and teaching thereof. I clicked on its ZooBank entry, and 78 relevant taxonomic articles are cited. I would say to keep it, for now. Neferkheperre (talk) 15:01, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
Keep it. See for example this article - it's a perfectly useful taxonomic article. Mariusm (talk) 16:42, 12 November 2017 (UTC)


The Mesostigmata page is rather messy, with (possible) superfamiliae mixed up with ordines in the Taxonavigation section, and "et al." instead of complete lists of authors in the references section, and so forth. Is there an acarologist amongst us up for the task of cleaning it up, please? :) Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 01:08, 13 November 2017 (UTC).

According to Krantz & de Walter, 2009 : A Manual of Acarology. 3rd Edition, the classification includes 3 suborders and 6 cohorts. I've updated the page accordingly. Mariusm (talk) 06:44, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Commons category templates[edit]

I have modified {{Commons}} so that it calls values from Wikidata, where available. It can still be used with values entered here in Wikispecies, if needed.

Please check for any bugs or problematic edge-cases.

It is now possible to replace, say, {{Commons|Category:Actiniaria|Actiniaria}} with {{Commons}}, and we should consider having a bot do this in bulk.

We should also consider making {{Commons}} invisible, where there is no value on Wikidata (like we do for {{Authority control}}), so that we can apply it to every article, and let the software determine whether there is anything to display.

I see that we also have {{Commons category}}; can that be merged into {{Commons}}? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:45, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

I've tried, without success, to make {{Commons}} a wrapper for {{Commons category}}; can anyone improve on my (self-reverted) edits there?
I've also created a test page, for both templates, at Template:Commons/Testcases. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:25, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
@Pigsonthewing: I just did this and checked some "What links here" and it seemed to work. —Justin (koavf)TCM 02:25, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
@Koavf: Thank you. Unfortunately that doesn't work. In the example given above, it would try to link to "Commons:Category:Category:Actiniaria". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:08, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

I always use simply {{Commonscat}}, without any further embellishment. Granted it looks slightly scatological, but it takes you straight to the category at Commons, which is the best place to aim for. - MPF (talk) 01:10, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

That is simply a redirect to {{Commons category}}. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:31, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
@Pigsonthewing: Unfortunately, the new feature of {{Commons}} is still not available. Please reset the function to the version before 3 Nov. 2017 until a new version is in function. Thank you. Orchi (talk) 17:47, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
Which "new feature" do you think is not available? On what evidence? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:39, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
The Commons - galleries are not accessible via {{Commons}}. Orchi (talk) 20:39, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
They are not intended to be. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:33, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
Why and who decided that? Orchi (talk) 15:55, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
Curious myself, where was this decided? Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 17:16, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
I'm afraid it's not clear what either of you are complaining about. All previous instances of the template are working as they did before. I have simply added extra functionality, which is working as intended - leastways, no evidence of it not doing so has been presented, despite my request for such. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:30, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
If "all previous instances of the template are working as they did before", it would be o.k. But unfortunately the {{Commons}} links Commons with {{Commonscat}}. Both options should be preserved. Orchi (talk) 18:47, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

for myself I am interested in the decision to redo this template to incorporate Wikidata, in a way that apparently is not working as it was, without discussion. cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 20:16, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

"apparently is not working as it was" Again: no evidence of it not doing so has been presented, despite my request for such. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:08, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
Here the evidence of the difference:
The page Gentiana is prepared at the end of the page:
A: „This version is in function after changes of the 13. November 2017:“ with the current original template of this page.
Click on the word Gentiana in the this text: “For more multimedia, look at Gentiana on Wikimedia Commons.“ and it opens the "Commons Category: Gentiana".
B: „This version was in function before changes of the 13. November 2017:“
Click on the word Gentiana in this text: “For more multimedia, look at Gentiana on Wikimedia Commons.“ and it opens the "Commons Gallery: Gentiana". Orchi (talk) 20:41, 4 December 2017 (UTC)


ISSN 0210-5160 says one of the journal's short names was issued by "BPH". I've searched here and on Wikipedia, but can find no relevant organisation with those initials. What do they stand for? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:20, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Maybe this ??? Burmeister (talk) 12:52, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
Indeed see here as an example of a BPH (Botanico-Periodicum-Huntianum) number. Andyboorman (talk) 19:59, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
It's worth pointing out that abbreviation listed in IPNI are usually the same as the BPH ones, but BPH encompasses a great many more publications than what is found in IPNI (which only has ones with new names). BPH abbreviations for non-IPNI publications are commonly used in citations, both long and short forms. Circeus (talk) 12:46, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Possible duplicate journals[edit]

We have ISSN 1217-8837, and ISSN 0001-7264, each representing Acta Zoologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae. Can these be merged?

Likewise, ISSN 2299-6060 and ISSN 0065-1710 for Acta zoologica cracoviensia. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:52, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Also ISSN 0365-7000 and ISSN 0001-3943. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:50, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Why are these considered duplicates? Taiwan versus Germany? Confused! Andyboorman (talk) 22:43, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
Anyone? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:06, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Another: ISSN 1095-5674 vs. ISSN 0040-9618. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:51, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

The later is the Bulletin of the Torrey Botanical Club 1870-1996 and the former The Journal of the Torrey Botanical Society 1997-, so they can not be merged, as they are technically different journals. I can not vouch for the zoological journals. Hope this helps Andyboorman (talk) 22:38, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
Fixed on Wikidata. Thank you. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 00:02, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Also ISSN 1999-4095 and ISSN 1999-4079. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:22, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Language of journal titles[edit]

A reminder that journal titles (and other text not in English) should be marked up using {{lang}}, like this; using the relevant ISO code for the language (which can be found in the infobox on the en.Wikipedia article about the language, if needed). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:04, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Also, please remember that it is recommended to use the shortest language tag possible that sufficiently describes the target language. As an example, for Italian the two-letter it language tag stated in ISO 639-1 is preferred over the three-letter ita tag stated in ISO 639-2 and ISO 639-3. Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 13:42, 11 December 2017 (UTC).

I've written up the above comments, at Wikispecies:Languages. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:19, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Use {{doi}} instead of {{BHL}}[edit]

We're using regularly the template {{BHL}} for many articles. There's a better possibility – to make use of the {{doi}} instead. The doi prefixes for BHL are 10.5962/bhl.part. for an article and 10.5962/bhl.title. for a book. These prefixes are followed by "<number>"

The number can be obtained by clicking on the "Advanced search" on the BHL screen right corner and than searching either for "Articles/Chapters" or for "Books/Journal//Title".

For example for the book: Stephens, J.F., 1835: Illustrations of British entomology; or, a synopsis of indigenous insects; containing their generic and specific distinctions; with an account of their metamorphoses, times of appearance, localities, food, and economy, as far as practicable. 5: 369–448. London: Baldwin and Cradock. BHL – search for title "Illustrations of British entomology", click on the result "Illustrations of British entomology; or, A synopsis of indigenous insects: containing their generic and specific distinctions." You'll get "". the doi would be: doi: 10.5962/bhl.title.8133 Mariusm (talk) 07:07, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Note: Many BHL articles were not assigned a DOI (due to cost: see here), so the above recommendation isn't applicable in most cases. Mariusm (talk) 10:45, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Abandoned templates[edit]

Unless anyone objects, I plan to delete the templates in Category:Wikipedia:Plantillas generales de navegación. They appear to have been abandoned by their creator, User:Xzit, who last edited in 2009. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:42, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

I agree, they should be deleted. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 21:02, 22 November 2017 (UTC).
OK, all gone Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:21, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Old logo file[edit]

I have orphaned File:Wiki.png, which was barely used, and plan to delete it. Note that Commons has a different file of the same name, and the Wikispecies logo is available there as File:Wikispecies-logo.png. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:52, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Now deleted. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:33, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Template:Taxa by author[edit]

I have just created {{Taxa by author}}; you can see an instance of its use to replace raw text here. Note that there are no changes to the displayed page.

Please try it out, and let me know if there are any issues. Once it's been checked, I'll ask for a bot to apply it to every "Taxa by author" category. Then, we can mark it up for translation. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:33, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

The botanists usually prefer "authored taxon names" instead of "authored taxa" (e.g. Category:Paul Falkenberg taxa). And will the sortkey still work with the new template? --Thiotrix (talk) 18:40, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
Your string isn't used by your example page, so I'm not clear what you're asking for - nor what we would do for someone who authored taxon names for animals and plants. {{DEFAULTSORT:}} can sill be applied, separately, If that template is used widely on these categories we could make it part of the new template, with an additional parameter. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:03, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
I'm asking if the string should be "List of taxa authored by..." or better "'List of taxon names authored by..."? We can wait for more feedback of wikispecies editors here. A sortkey included in the new template would be fine. --Thiotrix (talk) 19:26, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
Yes, it should be "List of taxon names authored by..." Circumscription of taxa is something largly independent from naming. E.g., the name Plantaginaceae Juss. (see [5]) is presently applied to a family, which consist mostly of genera, that Juss. would have included in his Scrophulariaceae (see [6]). So, both names are authored by Juss., but the taxa, that presently bear these names, are very different from the concepts of Juss. He can only be regarded as the author of the taxon names, but the present taxonomic circumscription of these taxa is based on the works of recent authors, e.g. Albach et al. (2005). --Franz Xaver (talk) 23:06, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
Fine by me, so long as everyone else is happy with that. I've changed it. I've also added a second, optional parameter for sorting; see this implementationAndy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:53, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
It seems to be functioning well. I have had no problems. Neferkheperre (talk) 15:21, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
...I will use it too. Orchi (talk)

Do we have someone with a bot that can handle this task? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:12, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps @KoehlBot:? –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 16:09, 23 November 2017 (UTC)-
Yes, maybe. Give me a couple of days, so I will look into it! Dan Koehl (talk) 16:14, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Author page wording[edit]

Very good initiative! While we're on the subject, I would like to propose to change the standard author page paragraph "Authored taxa" to "List of taxon names by author" or similar. The reason is that the actual taxa of course can't be "authored". If we decide to make this change, perhaps it should also be handled by a bot? –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 22:55, 22 November 2017 (UTC).

That, too, should be templated, using {{Taxa authored}}, which should also be marked up for translation. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:16, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
I've added a note to the Translation Administrators' Noticeboard asking for the "Taxa authored" and "Taxa by author" templates to be translated. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 16:12, 23 November 2017 (UTC).
As for changing paragraph headings by use of a template we've tried that before, but it caused some problems with the "edit" links (automatically placed next to the respective paragraph headings). Please see the Template Publications talk in the VP archives regarding the now unrecommended {{Publications}} template. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 16:23, 23 November 2017 (UTC).
There are no headings involved. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:41, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
Yes there are, but perhaps I was unclear/vague. As I wrote above, I would like to propose to change the standard author page paragraph "Authored taxa" (…in other words the heading of the paragraph…) to "List of taxon names by author" or similar. That approach didn't work well when adding headings using the {{Publications}} template; hence we created the {{inc}} template instead and left the paragraph headings alone. But perhaps there is another more suitable and above all working method, that still involves a template and can be used for the "Authored taxa" paragraph, including its heading? IMO I don't possess as much know-how about Wikimedia templates as you (Andy), but I'm willing to listen and learn! In either case I would like the "Authored taxa" headings to be changed to something better, since authors may very well coin the name of taxa, but hardly "author" taxa. This issue has been up for discussion at least two times before, but at the moment I can't find a link to the proper archives. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 17:57, 23 November 2017 (UTC).
Thank you, that's clearer: you want to change the heading, not the text below it. In that case, see the method used at, for example, d:Wikidata:Property proposal/Directeur de publication, using d:Template:TranslateThis. That could eb sued here, inside a template. I'l see if I can get it working. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:30, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
Update:' OK, that's working, see the top of User:Pigsonthewing/Sandbox. I'll start on a template now. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:41, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
Done, as {{Taxa authored 2}} and in use on Michel Adanson. The answer to the heading issue is, it turns out. really simple. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:12, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
OK, {{Taxa authored 2}} works well with new pages, so we can go. I note that there is no edit function, but that is really not necessary, as properly there is only one entry. {{Taxa authored}} has its uses also. Where two authored taxa pages are necessary, as for married names, original template can be used for original name, without problems. See Huzio Utinomi where I tried it out. Neferkheperre (talk) 00:14, 24 November 2017 (UTC)


We have over 57 thousand pages linking to Olfactores, which is currently a red link.

Should it be created, perhaps as a redirect? Likewise, 32 thousand linking to Euteleostomi; and:

-- Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:09, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

I long ago wanted to revert the edits of SenseiAC who unnecessarily added a number of superfluous clades. the Olfactores are foreign in the Wikispecies context, being a loosely bound group which only makes understanding our tax tree more difficult. Consequently I eliminated the Olfactores from the Chordata Craniata ladder. Mariusm (talk) 05:21, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
User:Mariusm, is it really that more difficult to understand things with one more level? Please be serious. The taxon exists, there is no reason to remove it more than any other. And yes, of course, the pages should be created as they are existing taxa. SenseiAC (talk) 00:25, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
@SenseiAC: I could have inserted 10 more ranks between Animalia and Chordata, but it would have made things worse and not better. For one thing: there is a limit to the number of nested templates (20) of which the hierarchy ladder is constructed. Secondly, WS is not about the higher clade-grouping and sub-grouping, but about (mainly) familia rank and below. Thirdly, NEVER add a higher rank which affects thousands of pages without first consulting the pump and without creating the page for the specific rank. Mariusm (talk) 05:07, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
@Mariusm: the limited number of nested templates is not a good reason since there is a very easy way to have all the levels despite it. After, the "family and below" is arbitrary, and even meaningless from a phylogenetic point of view. If Wikispecies aims deliberately at missing half of the useful information, then there is no point to go here to look for information. 08:35, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
Technically clades are not officially recognised by the codes and do not have to be used, actually nothing outside the major divisions have to be used. They are optional. If they do not add to the information about the taxon, and as @Mariusm: points out actually detract from it, then they should not be added. Also definitely agree the changing of higher orders that effect thousands of pages without asking about it first should never be done. In these cases I agree with undoing these revisions and removing the clades. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 21:37, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Aniba rosaeodora[edit]

According to IPNI, Aniba rosaeodora needs correction to Aniba rosodora. Do we follow? - MPF (talk) 16:52, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Dew or rose scented? Andyboorman (talk) 19:48, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
In my opinion, IPNI seems to be correct here, when referring to Rec. 60G.1. Both components Rosa and odorus are Latin, but there is no connecting vowel inserted, when the second component starts with a vowel. Actually this is about a pseudocompound according to c), but according to Note1 this makes no difference. --Franz Xaver (talk) 01:33, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
See GRIN. - Brya (talk) 05:05, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
The complication is in meaning, as the Latin ros means dew in English. If the author wanted the epithet to refer to rose scented, as in the common name Rosewood and the use of the wood in rose-oil, then it could be a problem when the abbreviation generates a different meaning. Andyboorman (talk) 18:49, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
@Andyboorman: Now I understand your mentioning above of "dew scented". However the Latin word ros has as its genitive form roris. So, the stem would be ror-. No confusion comparable to Ex.4. and Ex.5. is possible, as in case, that the epithet should be composed of the Latin words ros and odora, the corrected epithet according to Rec. 60G.1. would by rorodora. Anyway, Ducke used the genitive form rosae-, which in my opinion makes it clear, that he was meaning rosa and not ros. --Franz Xaver (talk) 19:26, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
@Brya: I have only seen the publication by Ducke from 1930 mentioned in GRIN, not the protologue from 1928, but this is probably the same. The argumentation in GRIN is flawed to some extent. It is not necessary, that a reference to the botanical genus Rosa would be given, but it should be sufficient, that the Latin word rosa is used, which of course is much older than the genus. Moreover, the Romance language terms "pau-rosa" and "bois de rose", as used by Ducke, are derived from the Latin word rosa, as far as concerns the part of the terms relevant here, even if this refers only to the colour and the scent of the wood. Anyway, Ducke used the Latin genitive case rosae-, not the Portuguese or French endings from the cited vernacular names. So, this should be evidence enough, that Ducke was meaning the Latin word rosa. --Franz Xaver (talk) 19:15, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
Not taking side here, by the way, thanks for the info @Franz Xaver:. Another point IPNI was edited in 2014 whereas GRIN 2017. So we have two competing opinions from respected sources both using ICN. Is taking one side or the other a judgement call? Is choosing one opinion to the exclusion of the other OR? Andyboorman (talk) 20:36, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
In my opinion, this is not so much about date of update, but rather about the argumentation, if you are able to follow or if not. Anyway, as long as anyone is in serious doubt, we may continue to use the original spelling. --Franz Xaver (talk) 21:40, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
I agree that the argument at GRIN is somewhat tenuous. The obvious interpretation would indeed be to accept rosae as the genitive of rosa, the Latin equivalent of the Portugese "rosa" and the French "rose". But "evidence" seems a word that is too strong here. Since the genus Rosa is not involved, there is some room for argument here. Anyway, it shows a healthy reluctance to change the spelling of well-established epithets. - Brya (talk) 05:30, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
And rosiodora seems really far out. - Brya (talk) 05:30, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
Conservation of usage and stability of nomenclature should be paramount as far as is possible. If no compelling argument to change is presented, then the name should not be changed. It just makes everyone frustrated with taxonomists. When in doubt follow usage. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 09:38, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
On balance got to agree with Scott on this one. Andyboorman (talk) 09:47, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Red-linked templates[edit]

I'm clearing up some of our "wanted templates" - in other words, templates that are called from pages, but which do not yet exist.

The top five missing reference templates in that list are:

with many more listed at: Special:WantedTemplates. If you can, please create the above, and other missing templates. Or, if they are typos, fix the pages calling them, or make redirects. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:50, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

I think I have been adding on many. Some are inadvertent, as when I kill Incertae sedis templates without paying enough attention to their transclusions, but mainly due to this: It is very important to include original reference citation author, year and reference. So while I am entering Zootaxa citations, I am encountering many taxa of family- genus- and species-group names not provided with such. If I can find author and year readily, I put it into names section and in References section, install proper links. Many call up existing templates, many are red-linked. Neferkheperre (talk) 19:16, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
Likewise for me. I have dealt with Template:Blakea (Plantae)‏‎ (5 links) by the way. I must confess that I am most concerned with red link generic taxons and out of date species lists, as well as missing references and poor name sections. Apologies for over sights elsewhere. Feel free to ping my talk page. Andyboorman (talk) 20:42, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
@Neferkheperre: please refrain from adding reference red templates, because when eventually they are made, they may not correspond to the right reference, for example instead of Template:Baird, 1850‏‎, the correct reference may be constructed as Template:Baird, 1850a, without the editor being aware of your edit and your intention. Mariusm (talk) 06:30, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Template:Official website[edit]

{{Official website}} is now available for use on this project. It pulls the value from Wikidata, but can be overridden locally.

You can see it in use, for example, in the "External links" section of Roderic D.M. Page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:22, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

BPH journal IDs[edit]

Wikidata now has a property, P4569, "BPH journal ID", for the identifiers given to journals by the Hunt Institute's Botanico Periodicum Huntianum at Carnegie Mellon University.

I prose that we extend the {{Authority control}} template, so that it displays this and similar identifiers for journals, such as "ZooBank publication ID" (P2007). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:53, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 21:17, 25 November 2017 (UTC).
Done for P2007 and P2008 and used as en example on Journal of the Linnean Society. Botany. London and on ISSN 0028-0836. P4569 has no URL-per-ID, so I'm looking into how we do that. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:35, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
Now resolved; see the above examples. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:54, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
Face-smile.svg Thank you! Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 03:23, 26 November 2017 (UTC).


The question now is which of the other of the journal identifiers listed in d:Template:Bibliographical_properties do we wish to display on our journal pages? Bear in mind that, though there are many to chose from, most journals will only have a few of them. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:09, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

No comments? I've now added BHL IDs; see ISSN 0013-8851, for example. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:36, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Tylophora (Apocynaceae)[edit]

Can anybody explain why the page Tylophora is a disambiguation? Before I do any more work on it. Cheers Andyboorman (talk) 11:28, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

In Zoology, there are Tylophora too, at least two [Dahmer 1936 and Pavesi 1880], I will fix as a disambiguation page. Burmeister (talk) 11:49, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. I have altered the genus template in preparation. Cheers Andyboorman (talk) 11:57, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
Since the plant genus is the only valid one, I'd suggest moving the disambig page to [Tylophora (disambiguation)], and then move [Tylophora (Apocynaceae)] to just [Tylophora], with a hatnote at the top linking to the disambig page - MPF (talk) 01:24, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Journal confusion[edit]

We say that ISSN 0001-3943 is the Bulletin of the Institute of Zoology, Academia Sinica; but the corresponding Wikidata item, Q21384935, which shows the same ISSN, is labelled Abhandlungen der Senckenbergischen Naturforschenden Gesellschaft.

At the same time, we have ISSN 0365-7000, which we and Wikidata (Q21385161) call Abhandlungen der Senckenbergischen Naturforschenden Gesellschaft.

What needs to change? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:34, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Here's what WorldCat and ZooBank has to say:
  • ISSN 0365-7000. Abhandlungen der Senckenbergischen Naturforschenden Gesellschaft : OCLC, ZooBank (in both cases name of journal and ISSN are the same as in Wikispecies)
  • ISSN 0001-3943. Bulletin of the Institute of Zoology, Academia Sinica : OCLC. ZooBank (in this case the OCLC data is identical to Wikispecies', whereas ZooBank only lists the same name of the periodical, but no ISSN at all)
Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 16:26, 28 November 2017 (UTC).
In that case, the error was on Wikidata. Now fixed. Thank you. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:24, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Alexander B.(orissovitch) Doweld[edit]

Does anyone know whether the pages Alexander Borissovitch Doweld and Alexander B. Doweld refers to the same person? If so the latter page should be merged into the first; else we need to check up on the wiki links pointing to either page. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 14:32, 28 November 2017 (UTC).

Well, they're both at the "National Institute of Carpology (Gaertnerian Institution)". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:09, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
IMO the same person. Andyboorman (talk) 17:34, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
See --Succu (talk) 19:24, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
I can take care of it all, but it will have to wait until the weekend since there are quite a lot of links in a bunch of related categories, templates etc that needs to be altered as well. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 02:48, 30 November 2017 (UTC).

Yes check.svg Resolved. The pages are now merged. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 20:47, 3 December 2017 (UTC).

Image legends[edit]

Can we make {{Image}} pull in the legend from Wikidata? See, for example, the image on Anthidiellum, whose legend on Q14458686 (in English) is "Anthidiellum strigatum (male)". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 00:26, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Hm. How would this look if there are (e.g.) 70 legends written in various languages? Especially when most Latin-alphabet languages will be virtually or completely identical. —Justin (koavf)TCM 00:33, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
We can just fetch the English-language legend. After all, people currently enter just English text. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 00:54, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
In my experience the Wikidata picture legends are often too crude, and if they state gender it is almost always language specific. It is my understanding that the Wikispecies praxis is to use the language independent symbols ♂/♀ rather than the words male/female, or am I wrong? Furthermore it seems the Wikidata legends are not always fully imported to Wikispecies. I've made a change to the Anthidiellum page to reflect this. The image caption now says "♂ Anthidiellum strigatum". Prior to my edit the page used a "plain" {{Image}} template without any attributes, and the caption then only said "Anthidiellum", without the "strigatum" species epithet, and without mentioning the gender of the pictured specimen. As a last note, there is a Wikidata property named "sex or gender" (P21) that can be used together with the Wikidata image legends. Please see the Wikidata item for "Anthidiellum" mentioned by Andy above for an example. Among others it can take the labels "male organism" (Q44148) and "female organism" (Q43445) to specify the gender of the pictured organism, however the P21 property doesn't seem to be imported to Wikispecies at all. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 11:47, 1 December 2017 (UTC).
Another point to bear in mind: wikidata pulls most of its selected images from en:wp, which for whatever reason is very poor at updating images on its pages, so many of the images at wikidata are ancient (pre-2007) and therefore, low quality; they are also very often of unreliable captive / cultivated individuals, rather than good quality wild origin specimens. I'm frequently replacing old rubbishy photos at wikidata with better ones from Commons that I've also put in here. Finally, I think it important images here should give the location of the photo, as that is valuable scientific data relevant to the photo, and to the taxon. - MPF (talk) 01:22, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
This is utterly irrelevant to the proposal at hand; apart from your point on location, which can be included in the legend at Wikidata if desired. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:28, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
Not entirely: if one adds an image to wikidata and caption for it in English, and then other editors slowly build that up to say, 20 languages. Then someone else comes along with a better pic and replaces the old one: all the captions in those 20 languages will also need changing. Who is going to remember to do that for every language? - MPF (talk) 20:06, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
"almost always language specific" - such values are monolingual - in other words, Wikidata holds one value for English, another for French, another for German, and so on. So of course each legend will always include a language-specific word for gender, if any. I have never seen "♂/♀" used in Wikispecies. As for "Wikidata legends are not always fully imported to Wikispecies", they are not imported at all; this is a proposal that they should be. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:27, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
Not convinced this is a good idea. Based on discussion so far. Better to get the images from commons and do the legends ourselves as we have been doing. That way we include the data relevant to Wikispecies. I also doubt the quality and usefulness of many EN WP information's for this. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 14:59, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
The question here is not one of where to get the images. It is a question of whether we can import the legend, rather than nothing, when we do get the image link from Wikidata as we have been doing. We never "get the image from commons", in that sense. No one has suggested importing any "EN WP information". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:03, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
I am aware of what you asked and I know this is not about the images. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 16:13, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
I cannot agree more with Tommy. Personally I think this is not a good idea. By the way I don't like the {{Image}} template at all. I do prefer to go to Commons, to select the best and more representative image and to put the right legend. Why to import doubtfull, many times outdated images and legends? --Hector Bottai (talk) 01:50, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
No one is suggesting that we "import doubtfull, many times outdated images and legends". Why don't you go to Commons, select the best image, and add that and the right legend to Wikidata, then call it in Wikisource using {{Image}}? That way, up to 300 Wikipedias, and external re-users, also benefit. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:50, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Here's an example with ♂ and ♀ in use: Circus cyaneus. They're not much used mainly because they're difficult for most people to type, as they're not on any of the standard keyboards. When I want them I usually copy and paste them in from another page. - MPF (talk) 20:06, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
The gender symbols ♀ and ♂ are always shown on-screen if one opt for the "source editor" (i.e. "text editor") rather than "visual editing". This is also true for other frequently used symbols, like †. The source editor also makes it possible to add templates such as {{Authority control}}, {{inc}}, {{taxa}}, add a "subst'ed" {{reftemp}} template etc, with only one click. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 16:19, 3 December 2017 (UTC).

ok discussion closed. It is clear this is not wanted. My suggestion is to get Wikidata to import well corrected information then look at things like an image template. Then instead of just supplying several hundred wikipedias with templates you can supply them with accurate information. Not to be used here. Cheers, Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 14:13, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

No; you don't get to declare an ongoing discussion closed, especially one in which you're an active participant. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:40, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
Actually I am not an active participant I have been following what others have said and looking for a consensus of opinion. What I see is everyone saying this is not a good idea, which I summerised earlier also, and you continuing to push your point, I can do my job as a bureaucrat on this Wiki. I have not looked at the particular template myself I have formulated a view from the consensus of views here. Elsewhere I have had to try to correct or affirm what I have been doing in this discussion when you take me out of context. I entered this discussion neutral, and have remained that way, I decided to be swayed by the arguments presented on both sides. So far you are the only one who wants this. So my decision on this matter stands. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 19:04, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
"I am not an active participant". Who posted this, then? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:46, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
You cannot be serious. Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 20:12, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
When I see them I frequently change wiki code [[File:...]] image calls into the templated {{Image}} equivalent, and if possible also add a gender symbol, like this. Sometimes the "clean" code snippet {{Image}} isn't good enough without also adding a taxon name, but I don't find entering {{Image|Example.jpg|♀ Taxon name}} any more difficult than [[File:Example.jpg|thumb|♀ Taxon name]]. Using the template makes the code string shorter and in my opinion more legible, since there is no need for any extra attributes such as "thumb" etc.
As for the gender symbols they are fairly common. For reference the {{Male}} and {{Female}} templates are currently used on 2952 and 3037 pages, respectively. These templates are unrecommended, and it is probably a lot more commonplace to add the symbols directly into the text, without using the "gender templates". So all in all, yes I think the gender symbols are quite frequently used on Wikispecies – however mostly when referring to type material (holotypes, paratypes etc.), and not so much in image captions. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 15:49, 4 December 2017 (UTC).
@Tommy Kronkvist: - agree, but as an aside, it's better to put the gender symbol after the name, rather than before: as here - MPF (talk) 23:39, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
@MPF: Yes, most likely: point taken! Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 23:51, 5 December 2017 (UTC).
Once again, I cannot agree more with Tommy, I do exactly the same, complementing the Image template with taxon name (when necessary), gender and place. Wikidata will not supply that. I don't understand why we are still discussing this, wasting time instead of being editing. This is my final intervention.--Hector Bottai (talk) 22:07, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
We're still discussing it because falsehoods like "Wikidata will not supply that" need to be refuted. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:46, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
I'm certain that Wikidata can supply what we want, but unfortunately I do not (yet!) know how it should be done properly, at least not in detail. I'm equally confident that all of the wikis – Wikispecies included – will benefit from it if/when all relevant parametres are configured correctly. Actually I think it will be more helpful to the other wikis than to WS, since some of them are rather far out when it comes to "identifying" specimen depicted amongst the Commons pictures... But hey – we've got a bunch of well renowned experts here at Wikispecies, so why not help out? Currently {{Image}} works both "as is" and with parametres, so I really can't see any huge pitfalls. And if some users prefer sticking to [[File:...]] then I say let them. That's still wiki code and can probably be shifted to the "Image" template by a bot as we go along, should we agree to do so. Besides, whatever praxis we decide upon there will still be a delay of several months before all users notice. As an example it's now a good 9 (nine!) months since we took a vote deciding not to use {{BASEPAGENAME}} on taxon pages, but a whole bunch of users are still unaware and/or doesn't care. Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 01:47, 5 December 2017 (UTC).

Two threats on taxonomy[edit]

In an article by Ivan Löbl: Assessing biodiversity: a pain in the neck. Bionomina 12: 39–43 (2017) doi: 10.11646/bionomina.12.1.3, he specifies 2 threats looming on the future of taxonomy:

  1. Article 73.1.4 of the code allows to establish new species in the absence of voucher specimens.
  2. New rules and regulations in various countries for "avoiding pauperisation of biodiversity", i.e. not allowing the killing of insects and other invertebrates for sampling and identification purposes.

Indeed these two developments are imposing a serious threat on the taxonomic science and are preventing many biologists from taking on the taxonomic preoccupation. Mariusm (talk) 12:57, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes totally agree with this. The establishing of species without vouchers I consider one of the worst. This causes a down the line issue, what happens when you want to add another taxon to said genus (assuming its a species|) what do you compare it with, new techniques, new characters, may not haqve been adequately covered in the description. I think this is heading to an increase in the numbers of nomen dubium. As for the failing to collect I have written on this issue in the past. Without vouchers you cannot guarantee what was examined. In my discussions on it I used Genbank as an example where it was possible to demonstrate that there are many samples wrongly identified and hence the usage of data from Genbank without vouchers is a dangerous practice. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 13:52, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
See also: Dubois, A. 2017. The need of reference specimens in zoological taxonomy and nomenclature. Bionomina 12: 4–38. doi: 10.11646/bionomina.12.1.2 – on the need to amend the code to make the deposition of at least one nomen-bearer (‘name-bearing type’) in a permanent collection compulsory. Mariusm (talk) 16:15, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

ZooBank having database issues?[edit]

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

I had it all weekend. It finally came back on Sunday night. I understand they are having big funding problems, and there have been calls to fix that in this past week. Neferkheperre (talk) 13:44, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
Also of possible impact, the person who runs it has been rather busy with issues in his personal life. Its possible he was unable to get to fix it when an issue came up. Cheers, Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 15:58, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
Thank you both for the updates. I gather then that it isn't a problem in any way generated by our servers, so I guess there's nothing much we can do to help. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 15:26, 14 December 2017 (UTC).

Wikistats usage data for Wikispecies, more than 1 million views per month[edit]

Not sure if this is news to this community or not, but Wikistats have realised data on usage of all the wiki projects. Wikispecies is obviously a fairly niche project relative to, say, the English language Wikipedia, but in November it had 1 million page views (and that was a month of relatively low traffic). Getting equivalent data for other biodiversity projects is not easy, but I doubt whether many (if any) biodiversity projects get this many views. Full details at --Rdmpage (talk) 09:33, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the update @Rdmpage: Interesting information, so I added it as a @Wikispecies tweet. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 12:57, 16 December 2017 (UTC).
@Rdmpage: what does -34.84% year over year mean for total page views? Similarly for edits and edited pages? ... WSBiography (talk) 22:33, 17 December 2017 (UTC)