Wikispecies:Village Pump/Archive 32

From Wikispecies
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Institution abbreviations and Category:Repositories

I'd like to raise a few points regarding this area since by and large most editing has been done by User:PeterR, but I have been unable to get any commentary from him.

Generally, I believe this is a good idea. The old "Holotype" page (now renamed Repositories) was always of dubious usefulness in these matters and irregularly edited. However, with a grand categorization scheme being put in place, there seems to be clearly a need for discussion on basic documentation issues. Two major issues that I raised (though without being as specific as I now wished I had been) with PeterR were:

  1. What is the procedure for institutions created under multiple abbreviations?
  2. How exactly do we treat the distinction between a collection and an institution, both as far as abbreviations and categorization go?
  3. How do we deal with the fact Zoology and Botany have different approaches to that very issue?

1) My opinion on the first case is that we are not in any way beholden to the abbreviations used in the source material. This doubly so now that the Global Registry of Biodiversity Repositories (GRBio) specifically exists to provide documented standardized abbreviations. Abbreviations are only a shorthand to the institution names and as such there is no reason to not standardize them ruthlessly (without touching to specimen numbers themselves, of course). Documenting alternative abbreviations (and even creating redirects) is also a good idea, but not merging them not only perpetuates but in fact also amplifies the problems with the original Repositories page.

2) On the second case, the issue has more to do with classification: most "collections" are currently categorised under category:repositories instead of being subcategories under the relevant institutions (which comes as an issue where there is no connection between the abbreviations, as with the various FIOCRUZ collections). There is also little to no standardization in the way they are created, as with the FIOCRUZ collections vs. LACM vs. MNHN. Note that we also

3) Botany has for decades had a well-established, curated and standardized list of abbreviations (Index Herbariorum) for major herbariums.[1] Because it is not concerned with identifying institutions and only with straightforward, short abbreviations, in many cases there are major differences. Two examples:

  • The proper institution abbreviation for the Universidad Nacional de Colombia (or more accurately its Instituto de Ciencias Naturales) is apparently ICNMHN (we have it as ICN-MHN), but the national herbarium (part of the institution) is known as COL.
  • From the point of view of Index Herbariorum, NHN does not exists, but there are three distinct collections now assembled at NHN: AMD (formerly Amsterdam, moved to L in 2007 and kept separate), L (Formerly Leiden Brench) and WAG (formerly Wageningen).
  1. I'm amazed we also have one for publications (books and periodicals alike), something which is as far as I can tell completely nonexistent for zoology.

Circeus (talk) 05:35, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Institutions may change their name and acronym, but the Index Herbariorum codes are much more constant. E.g. LE (formerly Leningrad) is still used for the herbarium of the Komarov Botanical Institute in St. Petersburg, Russia. For botany, only the Index Herbariorum codes make sense. Everything else would create confusion. In the acronyms of institutions, the letters M (museum) N (natural, national) and H (history) are used too often, which results in a lot of similar acronyms. It's hard to keep these in mind. --Franz Xaver (talk) 07:16, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The contact person for museums etc. is Neferkheperre. On my talk page he have answer already about the problems. So if you want know more, please contact him. I'm now three weeks in Portugal. PeterR (talk) 10:02, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
First, I won't be able to contribute fully until Tuesday, due to my stepmom's birthday blast tomorrow. However, category Repositories is very workable system. GRBio is very useful to work out acronyms. Several things are notable: (1) Botanists have systematized repository acronyms much better than zoologists. In every case, botanical and zoological collections are separate. (2) Many large repositories have subdivided their collections into taxonomic categories. This is because some type collections are becoming gargantuan. In some cases, collections have separate acronyms (CAS, FIOCRUZ). In others, (see SIO), main museum acronym is used, with prefixes to indicate which collection. I have much more to add, as this needs to be tailored better, but we do need to consider that one institution should gather together all previous and subsidiary acronyms under one acronym. Redirects will be necessary. Neferkheperre (talk) 20:43, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Here is what ICZN has to say about repositories:
"Recommendation 72F. Institutional responsibility. Every institution in which name-bearing types are deposited should
72F.1 ensure that all are clearly marked so that they will be unmistakably recognized as name-bearing types;
72F.2 take all necessary steps for their safe preservation;
72F.3 make them accessible for study;
72F.4 publish lists of name-bearing types in its possession or custody; and
72F.5 so far as possible, communicate information concerning name-bearing types when requested."
Neferkheperre (talk) 20:43, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I applaud attempts to create standardisation. However, it seems that even the quoted Global Registry of Biodiversity Repositories cannot reduce ambiguity completely. I just searched Natural History Museum London, and got 2 options: BM<IH> for "Natural History Museum Department of Botany" and NHMUK for "Natural History Museum, London". Currently, most relevant pages in Lepidoptera quote BMNH. How can we standardise if there is no standard? Keep a master list under Repositories and convert any duplications to Redirects? To change all the existing BMNH to a different 'standard' (if it existed) would only sensibly be achieved with a Bot. Accassidy (talk) 10:47, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As it seems, what you quote as BM<IH> actually is BM, and "<IH>" means this is the code from Index Herbariorum. As far as it concerns collections not covered by Index Herbariorum, it is still a bit messy. Searching for the institution code "BNHM" results in two entries with exact the same acronym: Beijing Natural History Museum, Bombay Natural History Museum. --Franz Xaver (talk) 12:39, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
GrBio seems aware of the issues with the process they are trying to lead. They are mostly user-fed, and they in fact maintain a list of ambiguous acronyms and have an outstanding call for information about them, but admittedly it's not clear they're making much of an effort to contact these institutions rather than passively waiting for information to come in.
I launched this thread mostly to discuss how Wikispecies specifically wishes to deal with these issues, and was pointing out toward GrBio as primarily a possible source for unambiguous acronyms were we have several listed. Circeus (talk) 20:42, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed "style guide"

(See Wikispecies:Nontaxa pages.)

The main points on the above page:

  1. Institutions are assigned a single standardized abbreviation for use on Wikispecies, and that abbreviation is used for their page- and category name. (This means all existing duplicates are to be merged when found)
    1. The institution page is in Category:Repositories and serves as the main page within its own category
  2. This abbreviation is used regardless of the one used in the source for any given taxon page, as long as the institution is the same.
  3. Pages should document past and alternative abbreviations and redirects or disambiguation pages created for such.
  4. Collections have their own categories and codes, but no individual pages.
  5. Collection abbreviation redirect to the relevant institution page, where all information for the collection is given.
    1. This redirect should be listed in the collection category as the main page.
  6. Only institution categories are listed in Category:Repositories. Collections are listed under the relevant institution category (and/or possibly a separate Category:Collections).

This leaves a few issues unaddressed:

  • We may want to rename Category:Repositories to the slightly more intuitive Category:Institutions, especially since moving colelctin categories under the parent institutions seemed to be approved by commenters.
  • Collections and institutions are still treated within the same namespace. GrBio treats them as separate categories, so they don't have the issue of potentially running into a collection and an institution sharing an acronym. We do, because both collections and institutions have their own categories.
    • I personally favor systematically preceding the collection with the institution acronym and a hyphen.
  • Index Herbariorum acronym are still kept in use with a similar set of issues.
    • This can be partly solved either by the GrBio solution of appending "IH" (or _(IH)" in our case since we can't use angle brackets) to the acronyms, and by treating the herbarium as a collection whenever possible.
  • I'm leaving out to be sorted later the amount of work, if any, we want to do to follow GrBio abbreviations (besides how people seem to agree on using Index Herbariorum abbreviations). However, if we choose to go our own way, it may be a lot of work if we later decide to move to GrBio abbreviations to avoid idiosyncratic usage.

Circeus (talk) 22:23, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Circeus: I agree with most of your remarks regarding repository standardization. However, there's a major obstacle on the way to implementing it, namely the data available to the average WS editor. Mostly, the average editor doesn't have at his disposal the full article where the concerned species is described and where the full name of the institution where it resides is specified. I for myself often struggle to obtain articles from obscure journals to verify the holotype data. It would require an exceptional amount of work and perseverance to get and to verify the repository names. Mariusm (talk) 04:09, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
couple of things. Some institutions have changed their acronyms over the years, the obvious one is British Museum was BMNH is now NHM, but a more recent one is the Dresden Museum fur Teirkund was MTKD is now MTD, keeping up with those can be hard. Also for Zoology if your not sure ask me I have had to visit many of these museums so tend to know their official acronyms. I cannot be so helpful with botany, sorry. Cheers Faendalimas talk 06:43, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You mean Museum für Tierkunde Dresden. --Franz Xaver (talk) 09:42, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes sorry did that off the top of my head, but it makes older papers harder to track. Cheers Faendalimas talk 10:40, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Mariusm: This is no obstacle at all. The standardization obviously cannot be applied if the institution is unknown in the first place (in which case specimen data about the name-bearing type, if any, will be unknown anyway), but it should be once that information is available, or am I completely misunderstanding your point? Circeus (talk) 13:11, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Circeus: I mean when an editor has only the residence acronym for a certain species (say from a catalog or from species-list) but cannot access the article where the species was originally described. How can the editor verify what the acronym he got stands for without having the full article? Mariusm (talk) 13:38, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Mariusm: If the acronym is entirely impossible to associate with a known institution, then that should be indicated in the article. Maybe a category for unknown and ambiguous repositories can be created to house such cases where e.g. the acronym is too idiosyncratic, or 100% ambiguous between two or more institutions. I don't, however, consider an acronym that can be easily associated with an institution ambiguous just because that institution is not listed in the article. If it turns out that the user mistook an institution for another, well, isn't that exactly why this website is a frickin' wiki? So these can be fixed quickly and efficiently when errors are found and documented? Circeus (talk) 14:03, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Faendalimas: Acronyms of this sort have a strong staying power. Many publications still use BMNH over the more recent NHMUK (so do we, I should point out!). In fact, Index Herbariorum never changed an acronym no matter what happened to the collection (it continues listing closed herbariums precisely to offer trackability, I'm recommending redirection instead, with the same result).
In many instances, acronyms are changed little because new unforeseen homonymies may then arise, and because of the disconnect with older publications. You mention Museum for Tierkunde Dresden as an example, but many sources just continue using MTKD as the preferred acronym (e.g. Sabaj Pérez 2014), especially since it is still perfectly applicable to the name. My recommendation does enshrine the current best practice of documenting and redirecting as many alternate acronyms as possible.
I'm not sure what the actual issue is supposed to be about, honestly, and I'd like to see examples of problems in articles that these guidelines create rather than such theories that don't seem to be actual problems as long as we do the job right (i.e. of documenting and redirecting alternate acronyms). Circeus (talk) 13:11, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Circeus: I agree with your points, many of these acronyms have very strong staying power. However, all I was point out is that some have changed and whatever we do must try to account for that when it occurs, redirects is a good way to do this. With MTKD they changed their acronym last year, I only found out because I recently published a taxonomic review using one of their specimens and one of the reviewers was from there and told me and asked me to change this in my paper. So I did not know either. It has not become general knowledge yet. Just something to be mindful of (ref = Thomson et al, 2015 pdf preview). Cheers, Faendalimas talk 11:33, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've received a response from GrBio regarding BNMH/NHMUK and it seems to imply their policy (which could REALLY use some paper to explain their processes, btw) is more akin to ISBNs: change of names lead to new acronyms. Can't say I like it, but in theory current institutions will still all have distinct acronyms. Circeus (talk) 01:07, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Circeus: One other thing I thought of, sorry. Those museums that do change their acronyms do not usually change this on the specimens. There is a reason for this, for example. the lectotype of Elseya dentata is BMNH 1947.3.6.2 from the NHM. If they change on the specimen label the acronym BMNH they are in effect changing the id. number of the specimen. Plus it would be a curatorial nightmare. So what appears on the label will stay as BMNH if it was labelled while that was their acronym. New specimens will have NHM. Hence this is another reason that for those institutions that have changed their names, hence acronyms, it's important to have a track of these via redirects or something. This is also important as when for example I do a review of the taxonomy I state the id. number of the specimen as it appears on the specimen, irrespective of whether the museum is now known differently. At least for type specimens. Another option is that for where we have pages for the institution eg Natural History Museum have on that page a section giving the known acronyms if there is more than one. Cheers, Faendalimas talk 11:43, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Documentation of duplicates and moves

I've started documenting categories and pages that need redirecting, merging, or move to subcategories (for being collections) on my userpage. I'm currently up to M. Circeus (talk) 15:01, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In case of CAS, the Index Herbariorum code is also CAS. CASBOT (for the herbarium) seems to be a new creation. In my opinion, wikispecies should only use acronyms that already exist, not create any new acronyms. --Franz Xaver (talk) 23:41, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In the case of CAS, the more specific descriptors seem to be used only in journals (and then in limited use, only CASENT and CASIZ seem to have more than a single instances in google scholar). The databases themselves actually use CAS and the sequential numbers are actually shared between the collections. I'm not sure these should be kept separate on Wikispecies. Circeus (talk) 04:43, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Bearing in mind the recent activation of Wikidata links on this wiki (here's the announcement), it should be borne in mind that each institution or collection should be represented by an item on Wikidata. We may need to create Wikidata properties for identifiers such as 'Index Herbariorum code'; I can assist with that if needed. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:21, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

European Science Photo Competition Greece 2015 - Grant (PEG) proposal

Dear friends, Wikimedia Community User Group Greece submited a grant proposal for European Science Photo Competition 2015 in Greece (as part of the Wikimedia Eesti proposal). Your comments and feedback are more than welcome on the proposal's page. You can find the proposal here on Meta.--Glavkos (talk) 22:46, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See here Wikidata has enabled "Other site" links to species. (e.g. this edit to d:Q16777007). —Justin (koavf)TCM 02:52, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Faster than I can do it... ;-) So yes. I recently announced you'll get access to Wikidata. We start with access to interwiki links. This means you can for example add your help portal to the Wikidata item for all the other projects' help portals ( This has happened now. If everything goes well the next step is giving you access to the actual data like the date of birth of a famous person, the current version of some software and so on. I'll let you know in advance again when that'll happen. In case you have questions or need some help please come to d:Wikidata:Wikispecies.

Cheers --Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) (talk) 07:33, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

These are good news. Dan Koehl (talk) 10:37, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Good news indeed. This probably renders the |Wikidata= property of {{Authority control}} redundant; please see discussion at Template talk:Authority control#Wikidata links enabled. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:06, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
{{Wikidata}} is also now redundant, and should be deprecated, if not deleted, once the data has been migrated. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:38, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to Wikidata, Wikispecies community! --Tobias1984 (talk) 12:26, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations Wikispecies! I am excited for better connections between Wikispecies and Wikipedias of all languages. I hope that Wikidata eventually is mutually beneficial to both projects Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:13, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please make use of Wikispecies:Project Wikidata. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:38, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And add importScript( 'User:FelixReimann/taxobox.js' ); to your commons.js on Wikidata (mine is here: d:User:Tobias1984/common.js. It will show you an automatically generated infobox for each Wikidata item about a taxon. --Tobias1984 (talk) 18:54, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

R.J. West

Who can help me with the full names of R.J. West? It is an entomologistPeterR (talk) 10:36, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@PeterR: Evidently, he work/ed here but I don't see him listed. This paper was published in 1987, so a lot could have changed. Have you contacted that centre? —Justin (koavf)TCM 19:15, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@PeterR: Reginald James West (1894-1939) [1] Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:24, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template error

There's a bug in the ISNI code displayed by {{Authority control}} in Carl H. Eigenmann. The fault probably lies in {{Authority control/ISNI}}, but I can't locate it. Can anyone help, please? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:37, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Pigsonthewing: This solved it for now. —Justin (koavf)TCM 19:18, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Koavf: Good catch, thank you. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:27, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]


{{Wikidata}} is now redundant (all pages using it now have interwiki links on Wikidata) and should be removed from all pages, then deleted. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:07, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Pigsonthewing: I disagree: there is value in someone being able to see sister links. Wikidata is a project of its own and not just a repository for interwiki links, so showing that it exists at the end of records will encourage users to edit that project as well. —Justin (koavf)TCM 14:05, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
People will still be able to see the sister links for Wikidata; they're displayed in the (desktop view) left-hand navigation; just as they are on all our sister projects. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:13, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Pigsonthewing: The "Wikidata item" text is small and obscured by long lists of interwiki links and help pages. Having a template at the bottom, just like with (e.g.) Commons, makes it more visible and more likely that someone will actually see or use it. I think it enhances pages and users' ability to understand sister projects and their relationship to one another. Plus, this menu is unavailable on mobile view. —Justin (koavf)TCM 14:16, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Koavf: But at least the code should then be changed to pull the current ID from the Wikidata item. Otherwise it will be a lot of work to keep the numbers up to date. --Tobias1984 (talk) 16:59, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Tobias1984: Agreed. I just think that we should keep a visual of some sort to encourage cross-editing. —Justin (koavf)TCM 03:30, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
But I think we need to wait for data-access to do that, and then somone has to create Module:Wikidata (en:Module:Wikidata) on WikiSpecies. After that {{#invoke:Wikidata|pageId}} should work on WikiSpecies as well. --Tobias1984 (talk) 13:46, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In which case, this template is not the best method to achieve that outcome. We should restyle the Wikidata link in the left-hand menu; or have an "edit in Wikidata" link on every page, by default. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:57, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Pigsonthewing: I like that idea too. It could also go into the tab bar. For example like this: [Read] [Edit] [View history] [Edit Data]. --Tobias1984 (talk) 16:40, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Repository identifiers

What is the name for identifiers like HLMD for the Hessisches Landesmuseum, Darmstadt, Germany? From where are they sourced? I'm thinking we probably need a property for them, on Wikidata. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:22, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

GrBio calls them "institution code". For decades they have been elaborated with "ad hoc" standardization (except for herbarium, who are very highly standardized through Index Herbariorum). GrBio is the only current effort to try and standardize them across biological disciplines (e.g., which calls them "symbolic codes"), but to be entirely honest they're not doing very well at it at all as far as I can tell from my efforts communicating with them. I think we can definitely have Index Herbariorum code (if they're not in use already), but five how many duplicates I keep finding in our own and GrBio records for other institutions, it might be better to hold off on a global identifier for now.
Tl;dr version:
  • We call it "acronym"
  • GrBio calls it "Institution code"
  • They're currently not standardized enough for a Wikidata property (unless we call it "Wikispecies code" or soemthing like that)
  • Except for "Herbarium/Index Herbariorum codes" (which we want separate from general codes anyway, because there are duplicates and divergences).
Circeus (talk) 16:08, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So we should probably have two Wikidata properties, one for herbarium IDs, and another GrBio IDs (and maybe a third for Wikidata's version)? And if we have a template for repositories, like {{Biography}}, equivalent parameters there? I'll make a start on such a template, shortly. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:19, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Right now, I wouldn't even consider GrBio standardized enough for acronyms. It's pretty much in the same state as us, only kinda worse. It's still a mish-mash of barely standardized abbreviations that barely (and not always) manages to separate collections and institution, is still filled with duplicates and sometimes fails to differentiate entire institutions (it seems to conflate en:UNESP and en:University of São Paulo, for exemple), and has a huge amount of missing data.
  • Index Herbariorum codes definitely have a place in Wikidata. (but note that a given institution can manage more than one IH herbarium)
  • Given that our "institution pages" are at the abbreviation we've picked anyway, a separate property for that seems unnecessary (also removes the need to change the property when/if we move or merge the page).
  • I'd hold off on GrBio for now. It's not even half as complete or well-documented as various subfield lists like [2] (quite a few issues in this one too, though) or [3], fore example.
Circeus (talk) 21:20, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks for clarifying. Can you suggest some pages with IH identifiers, please? I've searched, but can't find any. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:53, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vivi Täckholm

We list Vivi Täckholm's IPNI abbreviation as "Tackh."; Wikidata has it as "Täckh.", with an umlaut. Which is correct? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:55, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The IPNI entry is with umlaut. --Franz Xaver (talk) 18:52, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Franz Xaver: Thank you. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:17, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

New template for biographies

I've started work on a new template {{Biography}}, for author pages. It's still very much a draft, and only used on a couple of articles, by way of demonstration. Please take a look, and suggest improvements (in particular, are the parameter names optimal?).

This has several advantages now, and in the future.

  • It will ensure that all author pages have a common layout
  • We can add error checking and validation
  • It makes page creation easier - just like filling in a form
  • It makes the data machine readable
  • It makes it easier for the data to be imported into Wikidata
  • Once we have the capability, due soon, we can make the template fetch data from Wikidata, so we only need to store it in one place
  • We can then also include an "Edit in Wikidata" link.

Once everyone's happy that we've got this right, we can do the same for repositories, journals and, eventually, articles and taxons.

Thoughts? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:43, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Great initiative, and it already looks good! I'll check it out more thoroughly as soon as I'm back home (now working out of town). –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 20:28, 25 October 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Would you mind if I tried that out on my own biography page, that way since I know what should be there very well I may see better what it could use. It looks good though. Cheers Faendalimas talk 12:48, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done. It failed, because your middle initial isn't in the name of the category for your taxa. I've removed the initial from the template temporarily. The options are 1) leave it like that (presumably not your preference) 2) rename the category 3) require the category name to be entered in the template. What would folk prefer? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:39, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion we should always name categories for author taxa using the exact same name of the author as the actual author page itself. Otherwise me will run into disambiguation problems, i.e. troubles with differentiating between author taxa categories for, say, David G. Smith and David R. Smith, etc. Using the same naming scheme on both the author page and the author taxa category avoids this altogether. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 16:22, 26 October 2015 (UTC).[reply]
In this case, the page and category are both "Scott Thomson", but the name on the page was "Scott A. Thomson". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:44, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Aha, I see. Well that's another matter of course. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 20:22, 26 October 2015 (UTC).[reply]
@Tommy Kronkvist: I've added an |Alias= - that will also allow for married names, non-Western scripts, etc. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:18, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What about authors with 400 publications or more. Would this format fit that burden? I would like to have a separation of the "publications" into repeated | Year | Publications | because otherwise, with hundreds of publications it will inevitably become a chaos. I would also like to have a "patronyms" section. Nevertheless this is a good initiative. Mariusm (talk) 13:20, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It should do - but it will also work without that section, and the publications listed below it. It may also be sensible, regardless of this template, to move them to a sub-page or pages. Do you have a an example in mind? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:30, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
See for example Roberto Pace. Without the separation into /=== year/ sections this page will be a publication-chaos. The publication section as a sub-page was already practiced before by Stho02 (I don't know if you knew him) but was discarded by the majority here. Mariusm (talk) 13:43, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Actually Stho002 used for publications the format <<Category: Publications of ...>>. See for example Category:Publications of D. Sharp and he marked every publication template with a publication category. Mariusm (talk) 16:08, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've converted Roberto Pace; it works and the section headings are retained. Please take a look. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:52, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't like for a page with this many/big sections to have uneditable sections. Plus we're unlikely to ever do anything fancy to that element of the template, so it seems more likely to cause unforeseen trouble down the line. Circeus (talk) 01:51, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Pigsonthewing: Roberto Pace looks OK (except that you replaced birth_year with birth_date, so the birth date doesn't show) but for such big sections as "publications", the template seems inappropriate. If I want for example to edit just the year-2000-publications I must load the whole page and search for the right place, which takes more time and effort. Subsection were made to make editing more easy and the template disables this feature. Mariusm (talk) 12:24, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, as I said, the template will also work with publications outside; if that's what people want, we can do that (or maybe someone will have a work-around?). I've fixed the birth date issue, but please see the template talk page for a discussion of dates vs. years. Again, whatever the community wants by consensus is fine, but we do need to be aware of data privacy issues. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:41, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Update I have now removed |publications= from the template. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:56, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Couple of thoughts. While at it could add Institution as a parameter, then in there put the acronym for their institution if it exists already. Be it a Museum or a University, or optionally blank if neither. eg John Edward Gray would be NHM, if the acronyms for the Institutions are on Wikidata, this could then pull the name of the Institution if desired. Some sites that do this sort of thing also have a parameter they often refer to as Citation Name, ie how their name looks in publications. This can be useful for people who have multiple versions of this. Sorry to pick on her but a good example is the french paleontologist France de Broin, who may appear as de Broin, F. or de Lapparent de Broin F. etc. Or myself where I am sometimes shown as Thomson, S. or Thomson S. A. depending on the journal. Cheers, Faendalimas talk 15:13, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'll add a parameter for a linked institution shortly. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:56, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding institution acronym on Wikidata, see my answer to Andy above. Acronyms outside botany have in practice been used on a per-publication basis (they only have to be unique within the article) rather than with any genuine attempt at standardization (hence why these publications always have a list giving what the acronyms refer to, which you'll never find in Botany). Circeus (talk) 01:51, 27 October 2015 (UTC

Subsection 1

  • The category for people are just entomologists, herpetologists, etc.
  • I would not include publications in the template. You want to edit that section separately far more than you want to be able to edit the other ones. Plus it leaves room for dedications (publications/taxa named after the person).
  • "IPNI_name" should really include "abbreviation" somewhere. Anyone who actually uses IPNI will assume "IPNI_name" refers to the full name as listed in IPNI, not the author abbreviation. It's also P428
  • Will there be a connection to P586, or is that connection done through {{Authority control}} (which I note if it ever appears on these page, should probably be above the publications list too)?

Circeus (talk) 01:44, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Circeus: It's my intention to provide a facility to fetch P428 & P586, and other property values, from Wikidata once that facility is made available. I've switched to using the current category names, but we may hit problems if we have multiple values, non-standard plurals or other complex cases. Regarding |IPNI_name=, are you referring to the displayed label, or the parameter name? Adding "abbreviation" to the latter would make it over-long and unwieldy. What about |IPNI_author_ID=, which is the current English-language label in Wikidata? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:18, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I mean that |IPNI_name= should be |IPNI_abbr= os something like that if it's meant to represent P586. It's a standardized abbreviation, not a name. Circeus (talk) 14:54, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Circeus: OK, I've made some changes to those params, and added "Zoobank". A good example is now Carolus Linnaeus - please take a look. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:04, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That works a lot better. Circeus (talk) 21:05, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Subsection 2

I just tried out this new template on Helmut Lehnert and Robert P. Stone. It took considerable time, but I can see with practice and memorizing nomenclature, it will speed up. I do need to remember to use adjectivial form of nationality, which is not my instinct when filling out such templates. One or two small things: With Helmut Lehnert, there are two institutional affiliations. They are presented with different layout formats. They need to be equal. With Zootaxa and Zookeys, I get these at least 5 per day. Examine Victor A. Zullo. In this and several other cases, I have made Biography section. Mostly these taxon authorities are deceased, and for carcinologists, it has been customary for decades to make these biographies 1-2 years after death. They are more obituaries, but contain important taxon and publication lists. Wherever I find them, I make reference templates, adding category:biographies to point them out. Section needs to be created to accomodate this. Is Wikidata going to be capable of automatically harvesting this data with minimum attention? I know this is possible, as EOL harvests Wikispecies to update itself. That is how I got here originally. Neferkheperre (talk) 21:00, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your feedback. I've fixed the institution display for Lehnert. Do biographies need to be in reference templates? Could they not be in "Links"? Or outside the template, as others are saying "Publications" should be? Yes, Wikidata will be able to harvest (some) data from templates. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:16, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's a prime example of a reason that I thought publications should be outside the template: it leaves room for extra stuff like this to be added easily on a page-to-page basis. However, it might be interesting to have a category:Biography templates with biography (though I think these categorues should be "authority pages with" not "biography templates with"), but that (as well as a possible "authority pages with publication list") can be done with a yes/no para,meter instead of a full integration. Circeus (talk) 08:10, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The categories are named thus because they only reflect what's on the template, not on all authority pages. They are tracking categories, which should be hidden once they are created. I wouldn't recommend adding a parameter to say there's something on the page, outside the template, when there's nothing to keep it in sync with whether it's actually there, or not. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:38, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Can't put biographies into "Links" as they are actual articles published in relevant journals. This why they are best recorded as reference templates. They won't fit into "Publications" section, as they are about someone and not authored by them. They could go outside, just above Publications, if we finally decide that route.Neferkheperre (talk) 15:59, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Best to leave them outside the template, at least for now, and probably until the data is in Wikidata. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:00, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

New Wikidata templates

Please note {{P}}, {{Q}} and Category:Wikidata templates. For example, {{P|428}} renders as "P428" and is shorthand for [[:wikidata:Property:P428|P428]]. These should be useful on talk pages in particular. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:04, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Pigsonthewing: I'm excited that you're helping to integrate this community with the rest of the WMF ones but I don't understand how this would be used... Can you show me a couple of uses in the wild? —Justin (koavf)TCM 03:00, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Koavf: In the section above, I wrote:

We list Vivi Täckholm's IPNI abbreviation as "Tackh."; Wikidata has it as "Täckh.", with an umlaut.

With these templates, I could have written:

We list Vivi Täckholm's IPNI abbreviation (P428) as "Tackh."; Wikidata (Q4983741) has it as "Täckh.", with an umlaut.

-- Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:17, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note also how Circeus has used {{P}}, in the preceding section. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:48, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A (complete?) list of institution with more than one abbreviation in Wikispecies

Pursuant to the idea that we should not use multiple abbreviations since scientific works only make abbreviations unique within a publication, I've compiles a lengthy list (200+) of abbreviation that could/should be merged: Wikispecies:Institution acronyms needing fixes.

It also includes some cases where I'm not sure whether the institutions are indeed the same, and some where the acronyms is problematic in some way. I've also included cases of of the acronym page or category missing.

My recommended process for merging (ignoring collections for now):

  1. Create a category:Unused institution acronyms (or whatever name is preferred) under category:Repositories.
    • This allows these ccategories to be easily monitored via a bot.
  2. Select a preferred acronym within each set.
  3. Move all other acronym categories to category:Unused institution acronyms.
    • If a category has been hard-redirected, recreate and categorise it.
  4. Insert a new template {{Unused institution acronym}} on these category pages (similar to en:Template:Category redirect)
  5. Redirect all acronym pages to the chosen acronym
    • Move all information not duplicated to the main page and include a list of the merged acronym on that page.
  6. Apply {{Repository link}} to all pages as they are moved (this makes it possible to change the institution link and category in a single place).
    • Eventually this template should be able to detect use of an unused/dispreferred acronym.
  7. Start back from 2)

Eventually the Repositories page could be used to provide a convenient list for the "correct" acronyms instead of its current mishmash of unqualified acronyms, some of which have categories, others not, and sonly some of which are redirected.

For collections which have specific acronyms (e.g. CNIN) I recommend using that acronym on pages, but prefix the category (this will require a small edit to {{Repository link}}) so the CNIN category becomes (say, since IBUNAM is listed under multiple acronyms itself) IBUNAM-CNIN. Circeus (talk) 03:03, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Circeus: Is this list visible anywhere? —Justin (koavf)TCM 03:04, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Just edited the section. I'd forgotten to link it.

Alright, in the absence of apparent objections to this, I'm going to get started on this process. Circeus (talk)

Name abbreviations in Wikidata

I'm seeing a number of cases, like Teodoro Rojas (Q6141790), where we have an IPNI Abbreviation but Wikidata, (and, in this case en.Wikipedia) has the same string as P428 ("botanist author abbreviation"), not P586 ("IPNI author ID"). There are no doubt some with the reverse.

At some point, it may be worth running a bot to list all these cases, so that they can be (manually?) fixed. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:12, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a problem. You're simply not aware that P586 is a numerical identifier. In this case, it's 8544-1. I'm pretty sure they would have noticed that these are the same a lot earlier otherwise :p Circeus (talk) 07:58, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ah yes, you're right. Apologies for that. However, that means there may be a different issue: we have some author abbreviations labelled "IPNI" and some simply "botanist abbreviation" - if these are two distinct kinds of things, we'll need another property on Wikidata, rather than just P528. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:32, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm pretty sure all these abbreviations refer to the standardized citation abbreviated form (IPNI calls it "Standard form", but everyone else in botany calls it "author abbreviation"). I mean, the IPNI id (P586) is strictly a database number and is completely unknown to anyone in botany who doesn't specifically need to sync a database with IPNI. And even then they wouldn't list on a page. Every abbreviated form cited on Wikispecies is at least meant to match P428 (though some may turn out to include mistakes, and probably cover corner cases like using "HBK" for certain names in works attributed to Humboldt, Bonpland & Kunth).
I note, however, that on en:Carl Sigismund Kunth, the {{Authority control}} temlate calls up P428 with a header of "botanist" (with the proper url specific to abbreviated author names in IPNI). Is that why you got confused? Circeus (talk) 10:22, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' Noticeboard

Could an admin take a look at Wikispecies:Administrators' Noticeboard#hlist styling, please? The same styling will be needed for {{Biography}}. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:56, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

New template for repositories

As with {{Biography}}, discussed above, I've created a new template for repositories, {{Repository}}.

Once again, your comments and suggestions would be welcome, please.

[I renamed the existing template to {{Repository link}}.] Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:33, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikidata:Wikimania 2016

As the newest project under the Wikidata umbrella I am also posting this here. What should the Wikimania sessions on Wikidata include. You might be interested in training in queries, SPARQL-queries, using the pywikibot on Wikidata and Wikispecies. Please let us know d:Wikidata:Wikimania 2016. --Tobias1984 (talk) 11:22, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've proposed a Wikispecies+Wikidata talk there. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:47, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Distinguishing between names and taxa in Wikidata

I would draw your attention to the proposal at wikidata:Wikidata talk:WikiProject Taxonomy#Distinguishing between names and taxa. Your comments will be welcome there. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:05, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bot needed for bulk category renames

We have 158 categories (out of 5,515 total) in the form "Taxa of J. Doe", as opposed to the more standard "J. Doe taxa". Could someone with a bot rename them and move their contents, please? {{Biography}} needs the standard form, in order to work properly, but this should be done anyway, for consistency and ease of discovery. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:05, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Dan Koehl: Dan, would KoehlBot be capable of doing this? –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 11:00, 30 October 2015 (UTC).[reply]
I will look into this and answer within a day. Dan Koehl (talk) 11:25, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I quite frequently make a note to users adding "Author N.N taxa" categories using the wrong naming scheme (e.g named "Taxa by author N.N" instead), trying to give them a heads up on the preferred naming convention. In my opinion creating these wrongly named categories is a lot better than not creating them at all – however renaming them afterwards, in accordance to the communities' preferred naming praxis, is of course a subsequent job better suited for a bot, rather than by "manual labour". It would be great if KoehlBot or equivalent can do it. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 18:48, 2 November 2015 (UTC).[reply]
I believe last time I was involved with this, I had to remove the category which had errors, and add the preferred category, to the selected files which was categorized in error. And then, when the error category is empty, simply delete it. I guess I can do this again with KoehlBot, but would appreciate some assistance regarding the first trials, just helping me check-up that its working correct. Dan Koehl (talk) 01:43, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I made an initial trial with some 10 files, which can be found through my contributions. lease double echeck that the files were modified according to the plans. As far as I can see, they were changed correctly, with no problem. Dan Koehl (talk) 02:08, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It seems its working well, I now made the first edits with KoehlBot, please take a look. Dan Koehl (talk) 12:25, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Dan Koehl: I've only just seen this; can you post a more direct link, or some examples, please? Regarding your earlier comment, it may be better to keep the original categories as redirects, to prevent their inadvertent recreation or re-use. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:51, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Dear @Pigsonthewing:, you can find examples of my changes at my latest contributions. As for your suggestion, yes, although Ive already changed the large part, and just some hundreds edits remain, Ill be happy to execute whatever wish in this issue that reflect the will and consensus of the members of WS. Im not sure if I agree with you, you may have a point, but I also see a risk of confusion that we use two different concepts of categorizing. I suggest that you enquire others opinion, and if theres a support for your suggestion, its of course possible to implement on the deleted categories. What do you say, @Tommy Kronkvist: and @Mariusm:, as the two who showed interest in this issue so far? Dan Koehl (talk) 14:24, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion the wrongly named categories should be deleted rather than redirected, lest we will just switch one problem with another. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 14:34, 24 November 2015 (UTC).[reply]
@Pigsonthewing:, @Dan Koehl: No need to redirect. What if someone decided to start "The taxa of xxx" or "Authored taxa of xxx" - there's no end to possibilities, and we can't redirect everything in the anticipation that someone, sometime will start this or that category. Mariusm (talk) 14:56, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed I can, thank you - but that would be like looking for the proverbial needle in a haystack. As for redirected categories, on several projects, a bot fixes articles (as does the Cat-a-Lot tool) so that the target category is used. Why not do that here? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:39, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Pigsonthewing: There's another problem with wrong category-names which are redirected that I haven't mentioned. When someone new encounters a working category (even if it's redirected) he tends to continue using it, by this perpetuating a bad habit. I see lots of new users who see in some page or another one of Stho002's past bad practices. They tend to adopt them, making it difficult to uproot afterwards. We better keep to a minimum the "wrong" names. Anyway, if you feel so inclined, go ahead and redirect. I'm not vetoing it by any means. Mariusm (talk) 16:26, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

VisualEditor News #5—2015

Elitre (WMF), 18:18, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Journal template

In line with {{Biography}} and {{Repository}}, I have now created {{Journal}}. Once again, your feedback would be appreciated, please. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:56, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(Discussion moved to Template talk:Journal.)

Wikispecies on Twitter

Who looks after the @Wikispecies account on Twitter? It hasn't posted an update since January this year. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:19, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I don't have a clue who presides over the "Wikispecies news" (i.e. @Wikispecies) Twitter account. I don't think it is officially sanctioned by Wikispecies, since afaik it wasn't registered as a result of any "official" decision made by the community.
By the way there is also a "WikiSpecies" Twitter account, i.e. @wikispeciesbot.] That's just a bot tweeting a random article every hour, more or less working in the same way as the Random page link we can use here at Wikispecies. I don't know who moderates that Twitter account either, but in any case It can't be used for news or announcements. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 22:08, 3 November 2015 (UTC).[reply]
I actually am the one in control of the @Wikispecies account, and I have in fact offered to give it up to anyone who wants it on several occasions before. Circeus (talk) 22:59, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fairly well informed and accustomed to most things "Internetty", and feel comfortable in taking over the account. That said, I will certainly not tweet each and every day in the beginning. However my activity will increase over time, in order to connect with present users – and of course reach out to future ones! If this is okay with you please send me an e-mail with details. After an initial e-mail contact I will require the Twitter account password. Such sensitive data should preferably be sent in encrypted form, if possible. The ID# of my public PGP key is 76A540A9 and the key itself can be downloaded from hkp:// or hkp://, as well as several other PGP key servers. Please note that this key is valid only until December 31, 2015. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 21:49, 6 November 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Once you use it @Tommy Kronkvist: please ping me on Twitter from the account I am @Faendalimas on Twitter. Then I can add it to my watch list. Cheers Faendalimas talk 22:12, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for sorting this out. @Tommy Kronkvist: I suggest subscribing to the WMF "social media" mailing list, to coordinate with accounts like @Wikipedia. @MagnusManske posts tweets about links between Wikispecies and Wikidata, which may be worth retweeting. Also, I've just made {{Twitter}}. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 07:42, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Now up and running: @Faendalimas: is pinged, @MagnusManske is being followed, et cetera, et cetera… :-) Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 01:48, 11 November 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Temporary suspension of account for User:OhanaUnited for security reasons

There appears to have been a hack of the account of User:OhanaUnited reported through to English Wikipedia bureaucrats. Due to this hack, the identified user account has been temporarily locked. I am informing the community as the person has advanced rights at this community, though looking at the pertinent user page the user has retired locally. Either way, a heads-up to your community that at this stage there is no requirement for rights to be removed as the account is locked by stewards, and will not be released until stewards are sure that security measures have been resolved. Billinghurst (talk) 13:36, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for this important information. Even though officially retired, the user OhanaUnited occasionally makes a few edits to Wikispecies once in a while. Not very often, but still very much appreciated. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 22:23, 4 November 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Very unfortunate for him I hope it gets resolved soon. Thanks for letting us know. Cheers Faendalimas talk 22:14, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
All clear now. OhanaUnitedTalk page 05:37, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Great! I hope that not too much damage was done. If you feel up to it and have a moment to spear, please take a look at Administrators’ Noticeboard: hlist styling. The issue needs to be resolved, but I fail to wrap my head around the code, so to speak. Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 15:58, 7 November 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Technical mystery with category

Anyone wants to try and see if they can get Cossus tapinus out of Category:MHUB? I've exhausted all ideas. Circeus (talk) 00:55, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 01:50, 6 November 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Sparse, orphan authority pages

What's the point of pages like Sara Graciela Tressens? It has no inbound links, an no content other than the name. There is also insufficient information to determine whether it should be coupled to Q6121741. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 07:24, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There exists an entry in IPNI: [4]. --Franz Xaver (talk) 10:26, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There are no Wikispecies pages with taxa authored by her yet, but for instance Forsteronia correntina C.Ezcurra & Tressens and Mimosa barnebiana Fortunato & Tressens might very well be valid and in that case worthy of being created. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 14:57, 7 November 2015 (UTC).[reply]
These names are valid anyway, as the term "valid" has a different meaning in botany. Yes, both are accepted species in Catálogo de las Plantas Vasculares del Conosur. --Franz Xaver (talk) 22:17, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, both, for the additional information. However, I was questioning the usefulness of having pages like this example. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:46, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Apparent duplications

It seems the following pages have duplicates under another title:

Euphaedra alacris Euphaedra dargeana Euphaedra mayumbensis Euphaedra semipreussiana
Euphaedra albofasciata Euphaedra delera Euphaedra minuta Euphaedra simplex
Euphaedra alboides Euphaedra demeter Euphaedra miranda Euphaedra solida
Euphaedra amieti Euphaedra densamacula Euphaedra modesta Euphaedra stellata
Euphaedra apparata Euphaedra exerrata Euphaedra murphyi Euphaedra subprocera
Euphaedra appositiva Euphaedra fascinata Euphaedra occulta Euphaedra tenebrosa
Euphaedra asteria Euphaedra fontainei Euphaedra ochracea Euphaedra thierrybaulini
Euphaedra bergeri Euphaedra grilloti Euphaedra ochrovirens Euphaedra ueleana
Euphaedra bouyeri Euphaedra ignota Euphaedra persephona Euphaedra vandeweghei
Euphaedra centralis Euphaedra jacksoni Euphaedra piriformis Euphaedra velutina
Euphaedra compacta Euphaedra jolyana Euphaedra procera Euphaedra wojtusiaki
Euphaedra confina Euphaedra knoopiana Euphaedra regisleopoldi Euphaedra xerophila
Euphaedra congo Euphaedra luafa Euphaedra regularis
Euphaedra controversa Euphaedra luteolucens Euphaedra sangbae

For example, the first one is also under Euphaedra (Euphaedrana) vandeweghei.

If these are indeed duplicates, could they be redirected? --Magnus Manske (talk) 22:21, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Some users insist on using the "Genus (Subgenus) Species" format for pages, which, while oftentimes pertinent in scientific literature, I really don't see how it can be useful in a taxonomic database, where the subgenus name will clearly visible on the page. Plus, it leads inevitably to this problem since 99% of database names (which are frequent imports) don't use that format.
I'm not clear if the "Genus (Subgenus)" for subgenus (which these users also apply) is the correct way to display a genus name (or merely a popular one). Circeus (talk) 23:08, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, sadly some users either insists on using the "Genus (Subgenus) Species" format or, which I find more likely, doesn't know that leaving out the subgenus is preferred and also praxis. I guess there's no real harm in creating pages using that naming convention, but such pages should always and only redirect to a properly named page, i.e. a page using the "Genus Species" format. (For instance see Fundulus, with many examples of this.) I'll start redirecting the wrongly named Euphaedra pages to the correct ones. Feel free to help put. :-) Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 23:30, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately it's not as easy as simply redirecting the "Genus (Subgenus) Species" pages to the "Genus Species" ditto, since some of the wrongly named pages contain important data which should be incorporated with the correctly named pages first. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 23:36, 7 November 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Also, there are some subspecies that needs redirecting as well, see Euphaedra (Euphaedrana) splendens. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 00:07, 8 November 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Official it is Euphaedra (Euphedrana) alacris after ICZN. But we have decite not to use the subgenera in the species name. The original name never change from the author either in the Museum. .PeterR (talk) 03:42, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Likewise I think all "Genus (Subgenus) species" should be redirected or deleted after all info is incorporated into the "Genus species" corresponding pages. On the other hand, the "Genus (Subgenus)" pages should be retained as they contain important info not given in the "Genus" pages. Mariusm (talk) 05:17, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I share Mariusm's opinion, with the addition that I think all "Genus (Subgenus) species" pages should always be redirected, rather than deleted. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 12:15, 10 November 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Acronym trouble

I'm running into an acronym issue I'm not sure has satisfactory solution.

While sorting the uses of CMNH, I found out that apparently CNHM (itself currently a redirect to FMNH!) is used for the Cincinnati Natural History Museum. However, it turns out CNHM is also the anglizized form for the Croatian Natural History Museum (We currently have it only under HZMZ, a name for a predecessor institution.), not just in Index Herbariorum, but also in some zoological databases (e.g.) and articles (e.g.).

My feeling inches toward calling the Croatian museum HPM (per its native modern name, it seems poorly standardized anyway) and assigning a separate code to Cincinnati for use on Wikispecies (Maybe CMNHO? CIMNH and CINC are already established for other repositories.). CNHM would going ZMH and CMNH in the club of acronyms rejected for being ambiguous.

Right now there are no taxa linked to any of these actual institutions, so this proposal only affects HZMZ (which I'm probably renaming either way) and CMNH, with the creation of a disambiguation page and category for CNHM

Anyone has objections or alternate proposals? Circeus (talk) 04:47, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would certainly agree with using an acronym based on their native language for the Croatian Natural History Museum, if CNMH is an accepted anacronym for the Cincinnati Natural History Museum should maybe keep it as is and add an explanation on the issue for the Croatian Natural History Museum. Just my thoughts, but if they have no taxa attached its probably not that imperative. Cheers, Faendalimas talk 14:58, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Organizing references

I've seen lately that User:Hmandre has what seems to me a solid practice: to divide the references into 3 groups (see for example Pronematinae):

  1. Primary references (I would call it Primary reference) - the ref of the original paper describing the taxon for the first time.
  2. References cited (I would call it Mentions) - refs which mention the taxon e.g. its material, distribution, types, re-description. nom.nov. syn.nov. comb.nov. etc.
  3. Selected references (I would call it Additional references) - refs concerning the taxon but not dealing with it directly.

Reflecting on this I came to realize it's a good practice which will make browsing through the refs more easy and more productive. I've seen here an enormous amount of taxa without any Primary reference or any References cited. This division will entice us to pay more attention to the first 2 ref categories and will give WS a more professional edge.

I will also add to this the use of briefs between [parentheses] at end of important refs; for example: [original description: p. 234] or [material, distribution: p. 567, figs. 1, 2]. (see for example Falagria seminitens). Thoughts? Mariusm (talk) 06:24, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've been thinking about this myself for a while, and in my opinion it looks like a good idea. If we chose to adopt it I vote for the headings
  1. Primary reference
  2. Cited references
  3. Additional references
…however I guess in many cases citations in the latter paragraph could just as well reside in the "Links" subsection instead. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 08:34, 12 November 2015 (UTC).[reply]
"Cited references" are really refs cited by the original author(s) in the original paper. This is very different from "Mentions" which are done by subsequent authors. I would classify the original <<cited references>> in section #3. They are usually concerning other taxa than the taxon of the page title. Mariusm (talk) 15:28, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Mariusm: Okay, thanks for updating me; then of course "Cited references" shouldn't be used for #2. Personally I find the word "Mentions" a bit too vague in this context, but will of course stick to consensus if the community decides to use it. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 11:40, 13 November 2015 (UTC).[reply]
@Tommy Kronkvist: Perhaps you're right. I'm still thinking on a more suitable title to replace "Mentions". Mariusm (talk) 13:38, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We had this discussion with Sthoner about References and we had an agreement to use only References. 95% is only References such we had agree. I want keep that so. Why to change our policy? Why don't User:Hmandre working after our agreements and why we have to work after his solutions. He have to make templates like family, subfamily, tribus, genera templates and author category. I don't do this for him anymore. PeterR (talk) 08:40, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see the point, why there should be made a distinction between #2 and #3. If it seems to be necessary to divide the references section, it should be enough to separate
  1. Primary references [including also protologues of synonyms]
  2. Additional references [e.g. descriptions in later revisions, distribution, (lecto)typification]
--Franz Xaver (talk) 12:37, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@PeterR: If there are 10 refs it's really not easy to distinguish which ones are relevant and which are merely general works on the entire family. These 3 category will give you a fast preview on which info is available and which not according to 3 levels of importace. You ask "Why to change our policy?" - I answer because we want to improve.
@Franz Xaver: #2 is connected directly to taxonomy because mentions are cited in every serious publication on a specific taxa. On the other hand #3 are general works which broadly describe large groups of organisms, or are papers not concerned with taxonomy per se. consequently #2 and #3 are entirely of different importance, and must not be mixed together. Mariusm (talk) 13:01, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Mariusm:. Thats means if you have a bulletin with 10 or more references, that you have make all author templates?. By a new species mostly you have a Primary reference. See Astrotischeria neotropicana. PeterR (talk) 13:18, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@PeterR: Astrotischeria neotropicana is a new 2015 species, so no mentions could possibly exist (no section #2). However it is possible (but by any means not mandatory) to copy some of the refs the original author(s) bring to section #3. I would concentrate, though in fulfilling sections #1 (the most important) and #2 (for older species).
Please take note of Astrotischeria scalesiaella. Is the sole ref there primary or not? (#1 ref) There's only one author who described in the name section, but three authors who wrote the paper in the ref section, so it's really not clear. Is it #2 ref? Is there a mention for Astrotischeria scalesiaella in the paper or does it really contain only the key word Tischeriidae - the family to which this species belongs (#3 ref)? No one really knows! And this we should address! Mariusm (talk) 14:59, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[undent] I don't think full-on headers are really useful in this situation (unless there happens to be a lot of relevant references, e.g. original author, author who moved it to its current genus, author who designated the type...). I'm rather a fan of "fake" headers:

Primary reference
  • [ref 1]
Other references
  • [ref 2]
  • [ref 3]

But that's just me, I guess. If the original reference is cited properly, there is rarely much of a problem finding it in the references. Circeus (talk) 19:51, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am mostly concerned with filling red links and adding material directly related to taxonomy and classification. Therefore the sources are only related to the construction of the taxon page. So for the moment only a single heading is required and others such as Links, Others etc. are irrelevant. In other words a source is a Reference in the classic sense only! Thanks Andyboorman (talk) 08:28, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Andyboorman: Yes, "filling red links" is a noble aspiration - and one that with 1.5 million of them still in the red will never be accomplished; yet for the ones we do manage to "fill" - lets do it properly! Take for example your Ptychococcus contribution: It contains one ref. (the original description) and 3 more which are essentially merely links to external sites. This 4 items are grouped together. What if you would have subtitled them into "Primary reference" and into "Links". Wouldn't it make things more clear and easy to the viewer?
This reminds me I entirely forgot about link-references. So there are in fact 4 link groups we should consider:
  1. Primary reference
  2. Mentions (This title isn't final and needs rethinking).
  3. Additional references
  4. Links Mariusm (talk) 13:30, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Mariusm: For Ptychococcus all four sources were used in order to gather the data required to compile the taxon page. I do not think that being paper or electronic should make a difference and so IMO separating them into References or Links is not appropriate. My approach is not to load this section of the taxon page with "Other Sources" irrelevant to the taxon page construction, preferring the KISS principle. In other words a classic use of a reference section - informing the reader that this is where the information came from and how to get it for themselves. If another approach to WS, i.e. post taxonomy and classification, is evolving then so be it, but I will stick to my basic approach for now if that is OK. Andyboorman (talk) 14:00, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Andyboorman: Fine. I respect your wish. I'm not trying to force anyone. I'm not a S-2-style guy. Mariusm (talk) 14:21, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Mariusm: "S-2-style guy" chuckle! Andyboorman (talk) 14:10, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Primary references can only add by the original species or family etc. see Xanthia brevicornis and also by the Additional references? or is the Additional references then the primary references and the first primary references the additional references. See Nyodes brevicornis. PeterR (talk) 13:51, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@PeterR: No. No. No. this is not what I meant... For Xanthia brevicornis it would be:

=== Primary reference ===
{{Walker, 1857}}

=== Additional references ===
{{Laporte, 1971}}

And for Nyodes brevicornis it would be:

=== Mentions ===
{{Laporte, 1971}}

Please note the "===" sections!! Mariusm (talk) 14:17, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Its not clear for me. Why is the original renamed author bulletin now === Mentions ===? Laporte have Xanthia brevicornis renamed in Nyodes brevicornis so his bulletin is the primary refrence for Nyodes brevicornis. In this bulletin he explain why it is a Nyodes species and not a Xanthia species. === Mentions === confuse me. === Mentions === mean for me species mention in a bulletin (for example new for Gabon etc.). PeterR (talk) 14:29, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Couple of thoughts on this. The Primary Reference as you call it, I usually call this the Original Reference but I am not suggesting that be followed, is coupled also with some very important revision references. This is particularly important with older taxa. For example the species Elseya dentata was originally named Chelymys dentata (Gray 1863) and later put into Elseya (Gray 1867) it was subsequently set as type species by Lindholm 1929. The point being these are all primary references in that they establish major nomenclatural acts on the names. Secondary References I would consider in taxonomy and nomenclature to be reviews where recombinations or rearrangments, splits or lumping of species, genera, etc., with data presented not just overviews. The next type would be what I have just referred to as overviews you are referring to as mentions I guess. Then lastly a list of other references, I would think these should include references for the current usage of the name. Cheers Faendalimas talk 17:28, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@PeterR: I'll try to explain what I mean by "Mentions". These are all the papers where subsequent authors (not the original author of the name) mention the concerned taxon and adds or changes some information about it. These mentions can include transfer to another genus, establishment of a synonym, museum material for the species, distribution of the species etc. In all these cases the author "mentions" the species in his publication and adds some feature to its knowledge. Take for example the species Rana chevronta. It was described originally by <<Hu & Ye in Hu, Fei & Ye, 1978>> and this will be the Primary reference. Next <<Dubois, 1987>> put the species in the subgenus Rana (Rana), and this will be a Mention. Next <<Hillis & Wilcox, 2005>> transferred the species to the subgenus Rana (Laurasiarana) and this will be also considered a Mention. On the other end of the spectrum, a general paper on Rana will be considered in Additional references.

@Faendalimas: your proposal is somewhat ambiguous. It poses considerable knowledge demands on the user. What I propose is a clear-cut boundary. On one end is the paper of the original name proposal. This will be the Primary reference. On the other end are general works which do not deal directly with the concerned taxon, or papers which deal on close relatives of the concerned taxon. These will make Additional references. All the papers in between which do mention the taxon, be it nomenclatural acts, type info, distribution info, re-descriptions etc. - all these will be considered Mentions. Bear in mind that all the mentions are listed in scientific taxonomic works. See the following example:

For Formica foreli:

  • Formica foreli Bondroit, 1918: 65 (w.q.m.) will be Primary reference.

All the following will be Mentions:

  • Combination in F. (Coptoformica): Müller, 1923: 146.
  • Subspecies of pressilabris: Müller, 1923: 146.
  • Revived status as species: Dlussky, 1964: 1033; Bernard, 1967: 324; Kutter, 1977c: 284.
  • Junior synonym of pressilabris: Arakelian, 1994: 97; Seifert, 1994: 41.
  • Revived status as species and senior synonym of goesswaldi, naefi, tamarae: Seifert, 2000a: 543.

The following work will be one of Additional references:

@Mariusm and PeterR: I was not really making a proposal just some commentary you may want to consider. I have no issue with the general premise of what your proposing. Basically the Primary reference is the one attached to the name of course, however there are significant levels of the "mentions" as you call them. I think those that present new data, and do recombinations etc are of more importance than those that just review a taxa. Lastly I think some credence should be given to whatever reference is being used to justify current usage of a name which will be the most recent major revision that determines the currently accepted synonymy. Cheers, Faendalimas talk 20:48, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Faendalimas: Well then, we're back at what @Franz Xaver: proposed: to make do with three categories only:

  1. Primary references [to include all nomenclatural acts: original description, synonyms, comb. nov., type assignment etc.]
  2. Additional references [to include all the rest of the taxa mentions: type revisions, distribution, material, taxon checklists etc.]
  3. Links

Does anyone have any objections to this scheme? Mariusm (talk) 05:15, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


  1. On the contrary. I'm all for it. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 23:41, 15 November 2015 (UTC).[reply]
  2. Mariusm (talk) 05:08, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Although I'd like for it to be okay to not use such categories on pages with few references. Circeus (talk) 06:46, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  4. As it is supposed to be my proposal, I can hardly be against it. Anyway, like Circeus, when there are only few references, it should be OK not to used these subdivisions. --Franz Xaver (talk) 09:23, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Yes as stated by Circeus, with few refs not needed but otherwise I agree. Faendalimas talk 18:54, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Agree. Dan Koehl (talk) 20:21, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Yes, is good idea. Most times, type information will be in original descriptions, esp. in more recent publications, as ICZN mandates it thus. Otherwise, lectotypes come in with taxon revisions, which would fall under "Additional references". I might suggest alternative of "Supplemental references", which would be taxon checklists, taxon reviews/revisions, distributions, and DNA analyses. Neferkheperre (talk) 23:53, 16 November 2015 (UTC). @Neferkheperre: Type assignment falls under "nomenclatural acts" (according to ICZN) so it will have to be under "Primary references", but type revisions which do not involve reassignment will be under "Additional references". Choosing between "Supplemental references" and "Additional references" is just a matter of taste. Mariusm (talk) 06:28, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Agreed a good idea - also see Circeus and Franz Xaver for "basic" pages. However, I would also counsel against just dumping all online sources into links. For plants; IPNI and WCSP are both peer reviewed and hence generally robust as well as being valuable sources for the basic info needed for genera and species. Tropicos and APG Website are both somewhat halfway houses, but GRIN, EOL, Plamweb, Grass World and so on, are probably best in Links. Andyboorman (talk) 20:38, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Agree. PeterR (talk) 13:21, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]



Poll ends Nov 23 2015. Mariusm (talk) 06:37, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

With nine votes in support and none opposing, I hereby announce the above reference organization-scheme accepted by the community as standard practice. I would like to request all editors to adhere to it excluding perhaps the instances where only very few references are involved. I will edit Help:Reference section to this effect. Mariusm (talk) 12:48, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Neolycaena lunara oksana

I have a problem with the new subspecies Neolycaena lunara oksana. This is a new subspecies 2015 published in the Caucasian Entomological Bulletin in russian [5]. Who can translate the type locality and museum. PeterR (talk) 09:34, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Материал. Голотип, ♂: 16.07.1962 [Таджикистан] Памир, хр.  Петра Великого [долина р.  Сурхоб в окр. пос.  Джиргатал] (К.Ф. Седых). Паратипы: 2♂, 16.07.1962, там же (К.Ф. Седых).

Material. Holotype, male: 16.07.1962 [Tadjikistan] Pamir, xp. Peter Velikogo [valley Surkhov in okrug settlement Djirgatal] (K.F. Sedyekh). Paratype 2 males, 16.07.1962, from same place (K.F. Sedyekh)
NOTE: Peter Velikogo would be Peter The Great. I just transliterated Sedyekh phonetically. Not typical Russian name formula, means gray-haired. May be local entomologist, not ethnic Russian.

Местонахождение голотипа на этикетке не указано, нами определено по другим экземплярам из коллекции К.Ф.  Седых, пойманным в тот же день. Голотип планируется передать для хранения в Зоологический институт РАН (Санкт-Петербург, Россия), паратипы хранятся в коллекции Института биологии Коми НЦ УрО РАН.

Holotype locality on label is not specified, we are certain on other copies from collection of K.F. Sedyekh caught same day. Holotype will be stored in Zoological Institute Russian Academy of Sciences (St. Peterburg, Russia), paratypes are stored in collection of Institute of biology Komi Science Center, Ural Branch Russian Academy of Sciences.

Neferkheperre (talk) 13:34, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for your great help. Are you russian? PeterR (talk) 13:42, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It seems, that the attempt by @Neferkheperre: to translate the location data was somewhat incomplete. "хр. Петра Великого" obviously means "mountain chain Peter Velikogo". The abbreviation хр. stands for хребет, meaning "mountain chain" or "mountain ridge". Seems, they have named some mountains in Pamir after tsar Peter the Great. The abbreviation р. stands for река and means river. I would translate the next sequence in brackets as "valley of the river Surkhov in the surrounding/district of the settlement Djirgatal". --Franz Xaver (talk) 23:16, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I tried to do more digging into that region. Djirgatal or Jirgatol has 12,600 people, quite large by Tadjik standards, and capital of Djirgatal District. Djirgatal city is also classed as "jamoat", which Tadjik administrative title approximates municipality. Okrug has generic meaning of district, or specific definitions equivalent to county, or administrative subdivisions of Moscow and St Petersburg. In those cases, it is part of their proper names. So we might also say "district surrounding Djirgatal municipality." I could not find Peter the Great Mountains at all, and it might be from Imperial Russia, which did rule Tadjikistan. Neferkheperre (talk) 02:07, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It is very likely that during Soviet times they have removed such names that honoured prominent people from the tsarist period. Certainly these mountains already before had a Tadjik name. --Franz Xaver (talk) 13:08, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, they have not removed this name. It is this mountain chain. Peter the Great is the same as Peter I. Here, the river Surkhov (Сурхоб, Surchob) is mentioned. So, the location is on the northern slope of the moutain chain. --Franz Xaver (talk) 13:17, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikidata data access is coming

Hi everyone :)

A while ago you received access to the interwiki links from Wikidata. Everything seems to be going well so I'd like to move on to the second stage. You will get access to the actual data in Wikidata like the date of birth of a person. You'll be able to make use of them in your templates via Lua or a new parser function (#property). We'll be enabling this on December 2nd. This will be the day for Wikinews, Wikispecies, Meta and MediaWiki. I hope this will open up great new possibilities for you and make your work easier. If you have questions please come to d:Wikidata:Sister projects. --Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) (talk) 16:54, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yay! Thanks. :-) Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 08:49, 19 November 2015 (UTC).[reply]

P. Thierry-Mieg

Who can help me with the full name from P. Thierry-Mieg. It is an entomologist, who discover ca. 300 new species between 1895-1910. PeterR (talk) 16:36, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Thierry-Mieg? Andyboorman (talk) 17:20, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yup. Looks like it: [6], [7], [8]. Circeus (talk) 18:59, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks 12:17, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]