Wikispecies:Village Pump/Archive 35

From Wikispecies
Jump to navigation Jump to search

More leftover junk to clear[edit]

Category:Latitude and all its subcategories need a robot to clear all content and then delete them. Anyone with a bot want to take it on? Thanks! - MPF (talk) 19:10, 22 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'll sort it out during the next couple of days. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 21:23, 22 March 2016 (UTC).Reply[reply]
Excellent, thanks! - MPF (talk) 22:56, 22 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Seems they are still up, I can fix them. Dan Koehl (talk) 16:36, 27 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Done. I did not remove the different categories, yet, since they contain categories like Category:Biota_(Falkland_Islands). Dan Koehl (talk) 17:01, 27 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Excellent, thanks! - MPF (talk) 20:43, 27 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I see no reason to keep those, but want to hear others opinion. categories can of course be renamed, if they serve any purpose. Dan Koehl (talk) 17:01, 27 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Kill 'em all! :-) - MPF (talk) 20:43, 27 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Agreed never saw the point, but others may disagree. Andyboorman (talk) 08:14, 28 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK, I stop delete, until we see what other people think. Dan Koehl (talk) 10:37, 28 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As far as I see, the question also applies to Category:Biota by region and lastly also to Category:Biota. The idea to manage distribution info by a system of categories, obviousely has not been continued. Seems, there is nobody left, who believes that it could be made operable. In my opinion, there is no value to keep it. This approach, although possibly acceptable in a final stage of implementation, bears some important shortcomings. The most important point is, that on the one hand the biota by region categories hardly ever will show complete lists of the respective biota, on the other hand the categories in the taxon pages also hardly give useful information on distribution, as long as all the relevant categories have not been created. Moreover, the original conception by Thorpe does not distinguish between native and alien occurrences. It even has happened that a category was created for a taxon recorded in error for the respective region – see Category:Nematoceras sulcatum (Macquarie Island). --Franz Xaver (talk) 13:38, 28 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm still hoping to reach a consensus on how to display "Distribution" but these categories are ill-conceived for this purpose. So yes, I'm in favor of getting rid of them. Mariusm (talk) 14:06, 28 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am in agreement, remove them, how distribution can be done I am not as yet sure, but categories is not the way. Faendalimas talk 16:49, 29 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What I have been doing in Cirripedia, is to put "Distribution" line under Name section, using occurrences reported in literature. See Conopea merrilli. This removes most need for distribution categories. Most objections to distribution categories stem from Stho's system. Distribution categories by national boundaries are doomed completely. Natural organisms just don't care. Only applicable distribution categories which would coincide with national boundaries would be isolated areas of high endemism, such as New Zealand, Australia, and Madagascar. Neferkheperre (talk) 18:13, 29 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A Few Thoughts on Distribution[edit]

As I see it, the best chance of tackling the "Distribution" is by a system similar to the one used by the "Vernacular names" section. A similar template can be constructed which will handle ISO 3166 country 2-letter abbreviations optionally followed by region(s).

The system could be constructed hierarchically:

  1. First level: similar to the "World Geographical Scheme for Recording Plant Distributions", consisting of 9 regions: Europe, Africa, Asia-Temperate, Asia-Tropical, Australasia, Pacific, Northern America, Southern America and Antarctic.
  2. Second and 3rd levels: the coutry/region as mentioned above.

Here's an example to what I mean:


China: Yunnan
India: Southern Bengal

The benefit is that anyone can easily add/remove countries/regions in the same manner they do with the Vernacular names. Mariusm (talk) 10:23, 31 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Here's an example of a species with the distribution section included: Trioceros jacksonii (of course the CSS code will be implemented by an appropriate template). Any comments on how to improve/change/revise/discard this? Mariusm (talk) 06:41, 3 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I do not mind this, seems fine. One question though, will it get a bit over the top for more cosmopolitan species? Also how would you propose dealing with oceanic species such as sea turtles? Cheers, Faendalimas talk 02:26, 4 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We can make an additional category for the world major oceans and seas to include the Pacific, Atlantic, Indian, Southern, Arctic, Red sea, Arabian sea, black sea etc. For true cosmopolitan species it can be simply specified "cosmopolitan", otherwise the list can take a certain length as sometimes the "Vernacular names" can and does. Mariusm (talk) 04:22, 4 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For plants, I prefer to continue using Template:Nadi, as e.g. in Elvasia or Schwartzia. This is based on "World Geographical Scheme for Recording Plant Distributions" and so is more or less in line with the suggestion of Mariusm. In my perception, these grey bars of the new proposal are a bit flashy. However, for animals, "World Geographical Scheme for Recording Plant Distributions" probably is not usable without modifications. (1) How to deal with migratory animals? (2) As said above, marine species need additional thought.
@Mariusm: In your example of Trioceros jacksonii, Hawaii is given as part of "Northern America". However, in the "World Geographical Scheme for Recording Plant Distributions" it belongs to "Pacific", which in my opinion is more appropriate. Anyway, this also raises the question, how to deal with non-native distribution. --Franz Xaver (talk) 07:36, 4 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Franz Xaver: Allow me a few remarks on your Nadi template: I gather that for anyone besides you, it would be a hard time to keep with this format. The 2 lines preceding the country-names are somewhat of an overkill. For an average user to find and to type these 2 title lines even before reaching the county-name would represent a task which is difficult and time-consuming. I can't see what's the benefit of the line couplet: "Continental: Southern America"; "Regional: Northern South America" preceding the name "Venezuela" for instance. Are we trying to educate users where Venezuela resides or what? Another thing: for the Genus Elvasia you throw in: "Brazil North, Brazil Northeast, Brazil Southeast, Brazil West-Central". This is way too cumbersome with way too much ambiguity. I'd Prefer something resembling: "Brazil: Amazonas, Para, Mato Grosso". The fact that the distribution section is "in hiding" and needs to be "clicked out" of oblivion is another negative in my view.
I'm having serious doubts on the necessity of including master regional names at all. The best practice would be to enter country-names and oceans/seas-names alphabetically followed with sub-regions like this: Brazil: Amazonas". This would make the simplest and the most inviting way to add data, much the same way we do now with the vernacular names. Mariusm (talk) 10:07, 4 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Non-native distribution can be important for invasive species, major staple foods etc. so I won't ignore it. It can be simply marked-out by an (N), a different color, bold-lessness atc. Mariusm (talk) 13:55, 4 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have created broad categories for part of this: Category:Cosmopolitan Taxa and Category:Invasive species. Cosmopolitan taxa should be thought of as achieving that status naturally, and invasive species for non-intentional hitchhikers. I don't believe taxa of commercial interest purposefully introduced have much value here. Neferkheperre (talk) 18:40, 4 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Do remember to check Commons to see if there's a map available - if there is (and is reasonably accurate), it's better than any text description of distribution. Can be worth drawing maps too, if there aren't any at Commons. - MPF (talk) 08:52, 5 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Just testing the ground: shall I take this to a vote? Vote for particular features? Make first a workable template? Mariusm (talk) 15:22, 5 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Mariusm: To be correct, I must stress that this is not "my" template. It was created by User:Orchi. I only use it, because I think it makes sense. I don't understand, why you think its usage is more cumbersome than using your proposal – at least when I compare source codes in the respective articles. Anyway, usage of Template:Nadi can be simplified, as I have just done now in Elvasia and Brackenridgea. However, the template follows "World Geographical Scheme for Recording Plant Distributions" and also makes a reference to it. (PDF can be downloaded.) So, the recording units (= "botanical countries") and their hierarchical structure are given. Also, World Checklist of Selected Plant Families follows the same scheme, but instead of full names of regions and "botanical countries" it only uses codes. Anyway, in my opinion it is much better to present the country records in a structured form. It would not be an improvement, if in Brackenridgea all the regional structure would be removed and all country name were arranged alphabetically. --Franz Xaver (talk) 19:09, 5 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Franz Xaver: to remind you: not the Nadi template nor its format were ever put to the test of a vote; furthermore, no-one else seem to use your format. You may think it's the best way, and I respect your view, but we must adopt here the easiest and most straightforward way to add data. The proven system which works is the one used with the vernacular names. I think that "Distribution" is a strict necessity for WS as it sure is almost an integral part of every respected species-list, catalog or directory, and it's a pity we didn't include it in our repertoire a long time ago. Your way won't bring many adheres to come along and contribute data. It may be best suited to your needs and inclinations, but we need here something more general, easier, more straightforward. But I need to hear what the other users are thinking on this. Mariusm (talk) 04:25, 6 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Mariusm: The main user of the Nadi template is not me but it is Orchi. Yes, of course the Nadi template should also come to a vote. Anyway, in my opinion the distribution data should not at all be added piecemeal to a certain taxon, as this produces several stages of misleading (or at least incomplete) distribution information. I am not happy, if someone just adds a single country (e.g. New Zealand, Spain, Turkey etc.) to all relevant taxa, skipping the rest of the distribution range of these taxa. So, actually to me it seems that the VN section is not a good analogy. If template Nadi discourages some casual editors, who simply want to add some patchy information here and there, this is OK to me. Persons, who are willing to do some investigation on overall distribution of certain taxa or base their edit on distribution data from World Checklist of Selected Plant Families, anyway will have to engage in the "World Geographical Scheme for Recording Plant Distributions". For them, the Nadi template is easy to use. Anyway, there exists a standard system for recording plant distribution, i.e. this "World Geographical Scheme for Recording Plant Distributions". This certainly needs not be adopted also for distribution data of animals, but for plants there is no good reason to apply some free style system, where e.g. Hawaii is part of "Northern America" and not of the "Pacific". --Franz Xaver (talk) 08:52, 6 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have just noted that the link to the PDF explaining the "World Geographical Scheme for Recording Plant Distributions", hosted at Natural History Museum until January 2016, does not work any more. Also at the Kew WCSP page the link has not been updated. The PDF exists at Internet Archive: [1] or [2]. As I am not able to update the source code of the Nadi template, please someone, who is able to do so, change the link. Regards --Franz Xaver (talk) 09:12, 6 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well without wanting to be difficult here. I looked at the Nadi results. It seems a reasonable template also. I get that it is designed for plants and the accepted methods of defining distributions for them. With animals it could be used if that was desired by everyone. I won't deny I (as a taxonomist) tire of the multiple systems we have for plants animals etc, eg ICZN vs ICBN. We classify life it does not need to be that difficult, but I digress. One thought I had on the Nadi system I looked at what it did for Brazil and it showed NE, NW etc rather than specific states. I can see value in the directions as not everyone knows or cares about states, but in animals within countries the states they occur in is often included. I completely concur with @Franz Xaver: on the point of not doing it completely. I would prefer people either do the whole distribution, as best as is possible, or not do it. Half done looks bad, and is not that informative. The point on Hawaii is very true, Hawaii's fauna and flora is related to Pacific forms and is derived from geographic events that are irrelevant to mainland USA, who owns the chunk of land is secondary to the biota. Another point brought up was to use maps when available, this probably should be a preference as they are much easier for people to locate, not everyone can list all the countries in the world and know where they are. But a map usually gives them a rough idea. However, failing a map we need something. One advantage of Nadi also is its already there and being used, I tend to prefer adaptive usage of existing objects rather than doubling up. Just my thoughts on this. Cheers Faendalimas talk 09:30, 6 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Faendalimas: you speak of Nadi as if it were a big deal of accomplishment and programming-skill manifestation, which it is not. ALL it does is to collapse the information. The manner of data-representation is up to the user. The user can decide for himself whatever format to adopt. No rules here: just enter whichever text you want in whatever format you wish. While in the VM format you have restrainment on the possibilities: there is a country (or ocean) and there's a region or an area. That imposes a common structure and clarity on the information as a whole. Go ahead and leaf through a few species-catalogs and you'll see noting fancy, just lists of countries and of regions. I am quite certain that 90% of the species are restricted to 5 countries or less. For this we don't need the overhead and the collapse-feature of the Nadi template. Maps would be great, that's certain, but the process of constructing them is difficult and they aren't feasible for the average user. Mariusm (talk) 10:23, 6 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Mariusm: I just commented on the results, its not a spectacular piece of programming you are right. I think it is feasible to adapt it to animals is all I was saying. I had already commented on your proposal I figured if this was going to a vote its only fair to look at Nadi also. With maps I said if they are available, ie on the commons, I do not think people should have to make them. Just use them when they are there. I agree with you that a common structure is best for consistency and clarity. Faendalimas talk 11:11, 6 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Preliminary vote on a DISTRIBUTION section[edit]

style="background:#9F9;vertical-align:middle;text-align:center;" class="table-yes"|Yes I'm in favor of a DISTRIBUTION section in the VN template format (Vernacular Names section style).

  1. Mariusm (talk) 11:54, 6 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  2. Tommy Kronkvist (talkcontribsblock logall projects) 09:36, 11 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

style="background:#9F9;vertical-align:middle;text-align:center;" class="table-yes"|Yes I'm in favor of a DISTRIBUTION section in the Nadi template format (with the collapse feature).

style="background:#9F9;vertical-align:middle;text-align:center;" class="table-yes"|Yes I'm against a DISTRIBUTION section.

  1. PeterR (talk) 09:11, 7 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

style="background:#9F9;vertical-align:middle;text-align:center;" class="table-yes"|Yes None of the above (please include text for another proposal). (Mariusm (talk) 11:57, 6 April 2016 (UTC))Reply[reply]

In my opinion, voting at this point seems to be premature. Do we have a common understanding, what are the essential points, where opinions are divided? E.g., the collapse feature in my eyes is not an essential point of the Nadi template. This can be changed easily. However, following "World Geographical Scheme for Recording Plant Distributions" in my opinion is an important point, when plant distribution data are presented. So, we may vote, if this (or some existing alternative?) recording scheme should be followed. Or if the distribution records may use any geographical descriptors in a more free style, and at different levels of precision. If this scheme should apply to plants only or also to animals? We may collect points, where modifications are necessary, in case that the scheme should be applied also to animals. Moreover, we may discuss or vote, if distribution data are presented only for native distribution, or also for naturalised distribution, or even including sub-spontaneous and cultivated occurrences. However, participation in the present discussion has been only by a few persons. So, either people are not aware of the discussion or they are not interested in it. Both is no good foundation for voting. Regards --Franz Xaver (talk) 15:50, 6 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

...see these projects: World Geographical Scheme for Recording Plant Distributions or here Wikipedia:WikiProject Plants/World Geographical Scheme for Recording Plant Distributions and here WGSRPD maps

use Stanhopea and in Commons Stanhopea Orchi (talk) 16:09, 6 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am with editors who think that it is too early for a vote on structure for distribution. However, World Geographical Scheme for Recording Plant Distributions is the most common, appropriate and accurate of the available systems for plants even if its live and accessible source keeps changing! However, whether or not distribution information is; "essential", "desirable, but important","desirable, but not important" or "not to be used" has yet to be agreed by consensus or have I missed something? Andyboorman (talk) 18:11, 6 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm obviously outnumbered here by the plant-guys ;) but seriously, I can't see the advantage of grouping "Ivory Coast", "Liberia" and "Nigeria" under "Regional: West Tropical Africa" rather than listing them alphabetically. On the contrary: I see more benefits in terms of ease of use and searchability. Really, we must reach a consensus which will accommodate both the plants-diggers as well as the animal-groomers. We can't have many customary ways of doing Distribution. The fact that some users went ahead and established their way of doing Distribution doesn't mean that they are right or that they represent the community's wish. I would like to see some other opinions. Mariusm (talk) 05:33, 7 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm in favor of a distribution section! This information is essential for me and should normally not be hidden. (Maybe very long distribution sections could be collapsed). If possible, plant distribution should follow "World Geographical Scheme", but a free text info like "Middle Asia, Sibiria, Mongolia, Afghanistan" (as used in Flora Iranica) is useful for the readers, too, and should also be allowed. Alphabetical order of countries is less useful than geographical. Comparing the distribution sections of Stanhopea and Elvasia, I prefer the shorter version of Elvasia, because all the "continental" and "regional" words give no information. --Thiotrix (talk) 07:41, 7 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm against, because it is a lot of work and it is never complete. You have to work after original papers to do this job. PeterR (talk) 09:17, 7 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ok a few points on this. First up @Mariusm: I agree this is actually an important piece of information to add. However, I also think a vote is premature. It is a complex problem because the data presented should be relevant to the groups of interest. Hence as @Franz Xaver: has argued the plants should follow their recognized system. I do not care at all about the drop downs they are easy to remove, and in general should be. I realize as @PeterR: has mentioned distribution is a significant amount of work, however, I would agree it is essential in what we do here. I believe we should be presenting the information required to describe a valid species as our priority, which we do. However, a distribution is also useful for the creation of fauna/ flora lists for regions. Hence it is something we should add as a means to make Wikispecies a useful product. I said before I wish the plant and animal taxonomists could just get off their high horses and come to an agreed system for both, but it is not our place to do this for them.So any distribution method must meet the interests of both Botany and Zoology and we need to think of a way to do that. I felt the Nadi system could be adapted for Animals, however, its botanical divisions of distributions would be unrecognizable to people who specialize in Zoology. I would imagine the reverse is true also. Remember that in Zoology distribution is divided into Biomes for example eastern Brazil is called Atlantic Forest, The Amazon region is called Amazonas, etc. So we need to figure a way to bring that together. I do not envisage it being easy, and I honestly imagine we would have to adapt an existing template to do it. Maybe this needs a project page of its own for development and then implementation. In the meantime, we have roughly half a million taxa done out of some 7 million?, and that's just Eukaryotas. We still have a lot of work on our primary objective. Cheers, Faendalimas talk 13:20, 7 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Faendalimas: I think that the format "Country: Region" will accommodate nicely both parties. I've seen lots of catalogs both for botany and for zoology where the entries go like this: "Helophorus hirsutiventris Angus, 1984: 544 E: AL BH GR A: TR" where E stands for Europe, AL for Albania, A for Asia, TR for TURKEY etc. with a glossary at the start. Can you imagine an avarage user prefacing "Japan" with: "Continental: Asia-Temperate" / "Regional: Eastern Asia"?? Mariusm (talk) 14:01, 7 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Translationadmin group[edit]

Hello, I request to be added at this group cause for the moment, I can't translate technical templates. Thank you. Archi38 (talk) 16:03, 2 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]



Lemyra venosa[edit]

Lemyra venosa and Lemyra (Lemyra) venosa seem to refer to the same subject. If so I think they should be merged. --Ermanon (talk) 10:17, 4 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, please do! - MPF (talk) 23:51, 4 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This duplication isn't restricted only to Lemyra venosa but includes about 50 other species of Lemyra as well. The Genus (Subgenus) version of this lot has to be redirected (or deleted). Mariusm (talk) 06:59, 5 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@PeterR: you created this double naming, can you please handle this? Mariusm (talk) 07:12, 5 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Done PeterR (talk) 09:38, 6 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you. Mariusm (talk) 10:47, 6 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Authority and Taxon disambiguation pages, and question on redirects[edit]

The Category:Disambiguation pages contains taxon pages, such as Anax, as well as Authority pages, such as Smith. I think it would be useful to separate the two. I am also aware of at least one case where where an Authority surname is also a taxon name: See Pavlova and Pavlova (authority). Is "(authority)" the preferred suffix in this case?

Secondly, I've come across the redundant categories Category:Paleontologists and Category:Palaeontologists. Does Wikispecies have a soft redirect function that will automatically transfer pages from one to the other in the same fashion as category redirects on Commons? Animalparty (talk) 22:25, 6 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I strongly recommend using author full-names where possible and eliminate the practice of linking Smiths and Johns. I don't believe we got here something equivalent to {{Category redirect}}, but it might be possible to construct one. Mariusm (talk) 12:29, 7 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
True. The equivalent template found at Meta-Wiki might serve as an example. Then we can use the code string {{Category redirect|Target category}} in order to create a soft redirect to the proper category page. Feel free to give it a try; personally I have a bit too much work at the moment, but might get around to it eventually. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 06:21, 15 April 2016 (UTC).Reply[reply]

APG IV[edit]

Hello botanists. Just to let you know that APG IV has at last been published March 2016, it is here - DOI: 10.1111/boj.12385 as an open access article in line with APG II and APG III. I have created the template {{APG, 2016}} see Asparagales where I have placed its first incidence. I assume that we will be implementing changes soonest or at least as and when. Regards Andyboorman (talk) 14:45, 10 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks! Yep, I'd agree with updating to it. Couple of points on the Asparagales page linked; Asphodelaceae is listed twice (once in full size, once in small text in square brackets), and (if I'm reading the abstract right - I've not read the whole thing yet) Xanthorrhoeaceae becomes a synonym of Asphodelaceae. MPF (talk) 09:01, 11 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The square brackets are the older constituent families pre-APG. They were kept as reference, as the changes were so surprising at the time and not 100% accepted. However, there is little or no disagreement now, so perhaps the square brackets have become redundant and could be seen as "clutter". I propose getting rid of them, if there are no objections. You are right, Asphodelaceae is now going to be substituted as the family name subject to final approval next year by the Nomenclature Section of the XIX International Botanical Congress in Shenzhen, 2017, which will leave Xanthorrhoeaceae as a synonym. A lot of botanists were unhappy that a small very specialist family, Xanthorrhoeaceae, had become the "new" name for the group based on precedence of publication and the Asphodelines are seen as more central to the circumscription of the clade. I am more than happy to do the edits over the next couple of days. Andyboorman (talk) 18:29, 11 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Translating templates for wikisp-cy[edit]

Hi all. Just translated the home page of cy (Welsh); I now need to translate the 'Template:Species of the week' - do I need to add 'cy' after it or just plod on as on Wicipedia? ie does it have wikispace for every language or is it shared? Ah! just like commons! So if I can't create a seperate template, how do I do it? Ah well... Another quicky - where do I translate the navigation buttons please? Just one word remains - 'translation'; very ironic! Llywelyn2000 (talk) 14:59, 15 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Merge request[edit]

(Sorry for not finding an outline of the proper procedure) I think John R. I. Wood and John Richard Ironside Wood are the same person and possibly could be merged here? -- Gymel (talk) 14:00, 16 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Also: João Rodrigues de Mattos and Joáo Rodrigues de Mattos. -- Gymel (talk) 14:18, 16 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Resolved. Duplicate pages now changed to redirect pages, and any links to the new redirect pages corrected accordingly. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 17:48, 16 April 2016 (UTC).Reply[reply]
There are three Wikidata items for Wood (Q21516395, Q10538823, Q5933549), and some Wikipedias list both (as red links) on a disambiguation page (e.g ro:J.R.I.Wood (autor)). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:39, 16 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Bot approval[edit]

What's our process for approving bots? I've read Wikispecies:Bots/Requests for approval, where there's an outstanding request (more comments there welcome), but it's not clear on how a request gets moved to trial, or approved, status. @Tommy Kronkvist: for his expertise. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:59, 17 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm afraid we currently don't have any set policy or guideline for this – we do need one though. In any case I've approved KasparBot for a seven day trial period. Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 22:31, 17 April 2016 (UTC).Reply[reply]
I don't see any controversy that would arise from it, but it would be better to leave it open for more than a day before moving it to trial period. OhanaUnitedTalk page 03:24, 18 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Data Download[edit]

Hello everyone,

it might be likely that this question came up before, but I could not find an answer:

Is there a possibilty to download the actual phylogenetic data behind the wikispecies project?

I'm aware that you can download the entire wikispecies, which leaves you with a 5GB large file. Converting that is naturally something I'd like to avoid, as I am basically just looking for the core relational data.--Taeping5347 (talk) 11:01, 18 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Proposal to globally ban WayneRay from Wikimedia[edit]

Per Wikimedia's Global bans policy, I'm alerting all communities in which WayneRay participated in that there's a proposal to globally ban his account from all of Wikimedia. Members of the Wikispecies community are welcome in participate in the discussion. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 14:50, 18 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:WayneRay wasn't (very) active on Wikispecies --Murma174 (talk) 16:04, 18 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The user is already indefinitely blocked from the English Wikipedia, Commons, Wikinews, Wikisource, and Wikiquote.(Global account info) Since he has only made a meer (and harmless) two edits to Wikispecies, he is unlikely to get blocked here. That said, I urge the users of Wikispecies to read the global ban proposal (as per Michaeldsuarez, above), and make up their own mind in the matter. Also, some more information can be found at English Wikipedia's the Signpost (a community-written and edited newspaper that covers stories, events, and reports related to the English Wikipedia, its sister projects, the Wikimedia Foundation, and the Wikimedia movement at large). –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 23:05, 18 April 2016 (UTC).Reply[reply]
The global ban was passed by consensus. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:56, 29 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Question: Only for authors and for taxa also? Burmanniaceae, Trifolium etc. Orchi (talk) 15:11, 18 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The more the merrier! Maybe easier for User:T.seppelt to work on people first, taxa later. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:33, 18 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Since people and taxa are both in the main namespace it technically doesn't make a difference. Decide what you want and I do it. Even though I agree with Andy. - T.seppelt (talk) 04:38, 19 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
...thank you for the comments. By the way: I would prefer "DEFAULTSORT: by surname". Orchi (talk) 15:18, 20 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I can't see that they serve any useful purpose for taxa; we don't otherwise encourage links to online databases, and these don't appear to be any different. - MPF (talk) 23:15, 25 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hello, I started a new request for comment to change the current logo wich looks extremely old compared to other Wikimedia logos. Archi38 (talk) 18:20, 18 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]


The U.S. entomologist Paul D. N. Hebert and the Canadian entomologist Paul D.N. Hebert seem to be the same person. -- Gymel (talk) 06:59, 19 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Gymel: What makes you think so? @PeterR: You created both; do you have a view? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:29, 19 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
According to the references (including the ones cited at the English Wikipedia) "both" Paul D. N. Hebert and Paul D.N. Hebert are specialists of DNA barcoding. It seems unlikely that they would be different persons. According to the English Wikipedia he is a Canadian (rather than U.S.) biologist within the field of carcinology, but the inline enWP links suggests work within entomology as well. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 11:46, 19 April 2016 (UTC).Reply[reply]
@Pigsonthewing: The linked article full texts here associate "them" with (although different or at least differently named) institutes at the University of Guelph: Biodiversity Institute of Ontario (2015) vs. Department of Integrative Biology (2009). -- Gymel (talk) 06:44, 22 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you. Now merged. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:05, 22 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Also Manden (with three references, are these typos?) is probably Manden., i.e. Ida P. Mandenova. -- Gymel (talk) 07:29, 19 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've merged the Manden items, here and on Wikidata. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:17, 19 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Auctor Hablitz or Hablizl[edit]


Maybe different for plants (IPNI) and animals? Maybe use of von (, Maybe a declension in Russian? Why? Which one is correct?

Sobreira (parlez) 12:28, 19 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As far as I see, he was born in a German-speaking Jewish family. In southern German dialects, probably also in Yiddish, "-l" is a termination for a diminutive. So, I suppose that Hablizl might be kind of a nickname. --Franz Xaver (talk) 13:57, 19 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Are these taxonomists male or female (or other)?[edit]

There are, at the time of writing, 3435 people who have an entry on Wikispecies, but whose Wikidata item does not indicate their sex (or gender). If you can, please add that information to Wikidata. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:40, 19 April 2016 (UTC

I saw a number of them are Chinese scientists. I tackled some of the easier ones and I'll take a look at the rest when things get quieter in June. OhanaUnitedTalk page 05:22, 3 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Useful Wikidata script[edit]

For those of you who also edit Wikidata, or wish to, I recommend the user script at d:User:Yair rand/WikidataInfo.js.

Simply add the code:

mw.loader.load("// rand/WikidataInfo.js&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript"); // Backlink: [[d:User:Yair rand/WikidataInfo.js]]

to your common.js page on this wiki, and it will insert, below a Wikispecies page's title, a link to the corresponding Wikidata item, or a link to create one if none exists. In the former case, it all also add the label and aliases, in your preferred language. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:57, 21 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Great! Thanks a bunch! –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 07:30, 28 April 2016 (UTC).Reply[reply]


Apparently I need someone geekier than me. Today I ran across a new taxonomic website JellyWeb, dedicated to 3 jellyfish classes. It has one section for taxonomic links. I have tried to create direct links for individual taxa on Website for taxonomic information on Scyphozoa, Cubozoa and Staurozoa.

, which I just created, and have experienced total failure.

I did create

some time ago, which is highly successful, but not so here? Can you check it out, and tell me what is wrong? Neferkheperre (talk) 23:42, 18 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The above moved from Template:Administrator (!) Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:15, 22 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Use "author, year " as reference link?[edit]

Recently User: Stho002 came to haunt us again using the newly adopted name of User:Bioref. He reintroduced his former practice of linking references to Author, year. See for example Setitachys macrops where the reference section is entirely omitted and instead it is just linked. @Neferkheperre: claims that in some occasions such a link is helpful. Following is the discussion between us on this issue copied moved from the Administrators' Noticeboard. I would like to have the opinions of other users on this.

Do we have some sort of ban on using [[template:Blah, 1593|{{aut|Blah}}, 1593]]? I find it indispensable, especially for synonyms, as it reduces less pertinent citations in References section. See Octolasmis. I noticed something with @Mariusm: on Bioref's talk page. Neferkheperre (talk) 13:14, 27 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Neferkheperre: but Bioref uses it to denote the author in the name section and he dispenses with the reference section altogether. He uses this to replace the primary reference for the species! See for example Setitachys macrops. Mariusm (talk) 13:25, 27 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Neferkheperre: you say this style reduces citations in References section, but this is done at the cost of clarity and of usability. The ref. is "hidden" until you click it and are thereby removed from the page. This style was never accepted as a practice at WS. I'm for discussing it at the pump. Mariusm (talk) 13:41, 27 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I do use this style in name section, and ALWAYS put full original reference in References section. For synonyms, two references are generated, one original, one indicates who originally synonymized it. By creating blue links for these, some space is saved. Synonym references are more used by specialists than general users. It might be useful to put this on Village Pump and I could propose third level heading "Synonym references". Neferkheperre (talk) 13:59, 27 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Neferkheperre: If I weight the benefits of this style against its shortcomings, I can't be persuaded to endorse it. We decided in a prior discussion that synonym-refs belong to the "Primary references" section, so why not enlarge the "Primary references" if needed? Wikipedia articles contain dozens of in-page refs which doesn't reduce their usability. I consider a ref-link that necessitates a page-transfer, a practice which is best avoided. The links should be reserved for the AUTHORS alone and not dedicated to the references. Mariusm (talk) 14:36, 27 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK, these can go into primary references very easily. Links for Author alone is highly impractical at this time. Linking Author only up in name section may not be fruitful, as there is confidence in completeness of author pages only for Zootaxa and Zookeys after 23 January 2016. I am still daily finding author pages with zero or very little content. Redundancies abound, and when I see them, I correct them. I still miss some, and other editors will notify me. Many author pages are represented only by first initial and last name, which invites redundancies. I think this new idea of installing Authority Control data may solve very many problems. Neferkheperre (talk) 18:48, 27 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Mariusm (talk) 06:01, 28 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Neferkheperre:. Please can you give an example of author templates with zero or very little content? PeterR (talk) 08:09, 28 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
He wrote "author pages", not "author templates". There are only a few author templates – for example {{L.}} – and they should have very little content, since in many cases they are only a sort of redirect. However, author pages should have much more content, for example like the Sven O. Kullander page. Unfortunately I have to agree with Neferkheperre: there are a lot of author pages with only a minimum of information, and I see them every day too. For example author pages such as Ian Stafford Ross Munro, Ian D. Naumann, and Elio Gentili.
Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 09:12, 28 April 2016 (UTC).Reply[reply]
I see the most of the examples are from Sthoner. We know that he didn't make author names after examples. Maybe one of you can create an author list for updating. I missing a lot of authors after Sthoner author templates. Who is updating his author templates and others? PeterR (talk) 09:32, 28 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Is there a definition for making an author, such is for making an author template? PeterR (talk) 09:56, 28 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

───────────────────────── Since Stho002 has made more than 540.000 edits to Wikispecies (many of which are page creations), it is nearly impossible for one man to update them all in retrospect. It is probably possible to make a list of all of the pages in Category:Taxon Authorities created by Stho002, but I'm afraid such a list would most likely consist of several thousand pages. Checking them all and making the necessary corrections would be a huge undertaking.–Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 11:38, 28 April 2016 (UTC).Reply[reply]

What about "Category: Publications of..."? There are several hundred of those! They should be incorporated into the author's pages in the Publications sections. Only Stho002 made them... For example Andrew Polaszek has 2 publications listed and Category:Publications of A. Polaszek has only one which isn't listed in the page. These categories are also inserted in specific ref templates which complicates matters. Mariusm (talk) 13:23, 28 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I know. In my opinion all of those "Publications of..." categories should be deleted, but they would have to be emptied first, i.e. all instances of them must first be removed from author pages, reference templates, etc. That's not as time-consuming as giving the many zero-info author pages a boost, but it is still quite a task. I've been thinking about it for a while though, and might just as well start working on it... –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 06:59, 29 April 2016 (UTC).Reply[reply]
When I encounter author pages with "Publications of ..." or "Taxa of ...", I always click on them. Largely, they are already empty, and I delete them. If included lists are rather short, I empty them and delete that category. Occasionally, they are too large for time considerations (up to 100 entries. I keep up Zootaxa and Zookeys, and complete each page and upgrade author pages pages before going on. For such cases, @Tommy Kronkvist:, would you like me to notify you? Neferkheperre (talk) 12:36, 1 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Neferkheperre: Yes please! –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 12:46, 1 May 2016 (UTC).Reply[reply]
@Neferkheperre: @Tommy Kronkvist: What's the use if User:Bioref is creating/enlarging right now more of the these same categories? Don't we need to stop him first? Mariusm (talk) 13:47, 1 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Administrative actions taken towards single users is one thing, and correcting page errors another. Fixing the "Publications of…" and "Taxa of…" categories needs to be done, regardless of any (other) troubles that might arise from any single user. Besides: there is nothing that says that we can't address both issues at the same time. Also, there are tools to rather easily delete every page creation made by a single user, although I would strongly advise against using them. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 13:59, 1 May 2016 (UTC).Reply[reply]


There was an inconclusive discussion in 2012, on its talk page, of deleting Template:Image. Do we need it? I'm concerned that it hard-codes pixel sizes. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:48, 28 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I use it a lot as its default 250px image size generally works well. It saves specifying image size, using thumb etc. when using the file route. It also handles captions well. So my vote, as an editor who like the KISS principle, is keep it. Andyboorman (talk) 12:05, 28 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We should not be specifying 250px, nor any other fixed value. Sizes should be relative, to allow for users' greatly differing setups. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:23, 28 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I also use it a lot. If there are technical problems, maybe the template could be changed? Maybe from 250 px to 25%? --Murma174 (talk) 12:21, 28 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Good idea. Andyboorman (talk) 12:53, 28 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I use it a lot too. Yes to changing to a % of screen width if it can be done; if not, then to a larger size than 250 px as that's very small. Maybe 350 or 400 px? - MPF (talk) 14:55, 28 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

───────────────────────── There's some useful discussion in the archives here. Be nice to see some progress on this one ;-) - MPF (talk) 15:05, 1 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Digging the ol' archives can be useful. If my memory serves me right we have already discussed whether or not percentage values are at all possible to use within image templates. I can't seem to find that talk page right now, but as far as I can recollect we never got to any real conclusion. Back then we also discussed static and relative image sizes in regards to tablets and smartphone screens, which is quite different than rendering images on a desktop computer screen or laptop. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 15:29, 1 May 2016 (UTC).Reply[reply]
Percentage sizes may be achieved through the use of the upright parameter; see en:Help:Visual file markup/upright. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:04, 1 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Patronyms in Wiktionary[edit]

Our sister project, Wiktionary, has a translingual taxonomic eponyms category. It also has work ongoing to record more Women honoured in scientific names. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:45, 28 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]