Wikispecies:Village Pump/Archive 37

From Wikispecies
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Translation undone


This edit doesn't seem very helpful. Why was it made? I'm also concerned that there's nothing at User:FuzzyBot to say who operates the bot that made the edit. I've blocked the bot, per Wikispecies:Bot#Requirements, until the latter is rectified. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:02, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody edits this account "per se". Check its meta account for description. OhanaUnitedTalk page 05:48, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You should blame the translator administrator who invalidated the translations, not the name under which the edits are spread. Please point the translation administrators to the documentation on mw:Help:Extension:Translate if they need instructions. Anway, blocks don't affect FuzzyBot, which will continue to operate normally. Nemo bis (talk) 14:35, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There is currently only one translation administrator at Wikispecies, namely @CreativeC38:, and he is hereby pinged about this discussion. Please also see the Welcome template languages section below, which relates to this issue. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 18:34, 1 July 2016 (UTC).[reply]
@Nemo bis: What have I made wrong ? CreativeC38 (talk) 18:49, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@OhanaUnited: I'm not sure to which of my two points you are replying, but the bot has been operating contrary to our bot policy. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:32, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I meant to ping Nemo bis, not OhanaUnited. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:55, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It does indeed seem that the bot is still active on this wiki, despite remaining blocked, and despite not meeting our bot policy. What now? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:33, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]



So a few days ago, WikiSpecies had, yet again, ~15K pages without an associated Wikidata item. I reorganised/rewrote some of my bots to match or auto-create items, as far as this is possible. We are, at this moment, down to ~950 pages without item. My bots now run daily, so the number should go up slower than before, but it will increase if no one here cares. Also, there will be wrong associations and duplicate items from those bots; I can only do so much to interpret the incomplete, inconsistent, and unstructured wiki text on this site, so please help to keep an eye on these things.

We should also resolve the remaining pages, as much as possible. I am tempted to just create items for all of them; worst-case scenario, Wikidata gets 1K duplicate items. But I would like to cut down on that first as much as possible. But some of these are not easily resolved; a person with a common name and no other biographical info (e.g. birth date) is almost impossible to match. I will list some other issues here, which I don't want to resolve on my own; please help out fixing them, and add more you can find. — The preceding unsigned comment was added by Magnus Manske (talkcontribs) 09:23, 8 July 2016.

Thanks @Magnus Manske: for all your efforts. It helps a lot, if you point us to to the questionable articles/items. --Murma174 (talk) 09:41, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A vital task. Thank you, @Magnus Manske:. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:59, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Good initiative. I always manually create (or add to an existing) Wikidata item for all new taxon and author pages I create at Wikispecies, excluding redirect pages and such. I will try to have a look at the other Wikidata items/properties as well. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 22:13, 10 July 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Possible duplicates


Either merge/redirect the pages, or create a new item for one of them.

Same person?


What is this?

I converted the last one into a redirect. The other two seem to have to do with protists. --Franz Xaver (talk) 13:52, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please delete




@Pigsonthewing: How can I get the list the WS pages without an associated Wikidata item. I want to help to see what's wrong. When I press the link above, I get a list of only 8 items. Mariusm (talk) 14:00, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Use Special:UnconnectedPages. --Succu (talk) 14:05, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Succu: Do you have an idea, why Gartnerago appears at this list? --Franz Xaver (talk) 14:28, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is a known issue, but I don't know what's causing it. Maybe Lydia Pintscher can tell you more. --Succu (talk) 15:27, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know yet either unfortunately but it is on the list of things to investigate. --Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) (talk) 15:34, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's a mystery to me why so many ref templates are in the list. In my search I found some odd templates such as "Template:Histoire naturelle generale et particuliere des Crustaces et des Insectes 3" which don't fit in any of our schemes. @Succu: does a reference template such as "Template:Bussing, 1980" have a unique parallel item on Wikidata? If yes, how is it used there? Mariusm (talk) 14:28, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Category: Nominal taxa of X – are we going to allow this?


User: Stho002 begun creating a new class of categories in the style of "Category: Nominal taxa of XX" (see for example Category:Nominal taxa of A. Matthews). Our established consensus is the format "Category: XX taxa". This is apparently a setback to our strive in establishing a uniform and coherent database. Mariusm (talk) 06:33, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I mentioned this already above. That's going to far, in my opinion. Stho002 is single-handedly creating new categorial systems. When I addressed this above in the mentioned thread, he commented this and that, but he avoided consistently to explain the reasons for these new categories. It seems, he is content with being in the exclusive possession of all rational reasons. He does not even want to share these with others. Regards --Franz Xaver (talk) 07:48, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Stho002: I don't think that making new categorization schemes is wise--especially at this time. Can you explain your thinking? Are you having some conflict over formatting references as well? I seriously think this should be resolved ASAP. —Justin (koavf)TCM 07:57, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I know the following categories are involved:
Also, Stho002 made a note about it as early as July 4, on Neferkheperre's talk page, see "Authored taxa". In my opinion only the "Publications" and "Nominal taxa by author" categories are of any real use. Even though "Nominal taxa by author" is in fact a more correct category name, I find it questionable whether we should go through the struggle to rename all of the 10,719 subcategories already present in Category:Taxa by author, and the many, many more taxon pages where they are used. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 08:55, 13 July 2016 (UTC).[reply]
We now have for example Category:Nominal taxa of A. Matthews and also Category:Andrew Matthews taxa each one with a taxa list. Also "A. Matthews" is an ambiguous name, whereas a full name is much more appropriate. (for example "J. Grant" can be James Grant but also John Grant). Mariusm (talk) 11:02, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. That's also one of the reasons why using a bot to rename all categories from "Category:XX taxa" to "Category:Nominal taxa of XX" wont really do the trick, since we would end up with some duplicate categories anyway, e.g. "Category:Nominal taxa of Andrew Matthews" and "Category:Nominal taxa of A. Matthews".Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 13:16, 13 July 2016 (UTC).[reply]
I don't think that the names of the categories have to be changed. As far as it concerns the comment of Stho002 on the talk page of Neferkheperre, it would be sufficient to change the text in the header of the cat "List of taxa authored by xxx" into "List of taxon names authored by xxx". Anyway the term "nominal taxa" is used only in zoology. In botany, the correct term would be "taxon names by author". Probably, this would be acceptable also for zoology. The difference has its foundation in the fact, that in botany every combination is a name in its own right with an own authorship, whereas in zoology authorship of later combinations is anonymous. --Franz Xaver (talk) 20:11, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It is entirely inappropriate for restrictions to be put on any user's use of categories. There can be as many categories as users want, it doesn't matter. What matters is that article content is correct and intelligible (which it isn't for some user's work), so please stop trying to force others to obey arbitrary and pointless restrictions which have no bearing on the usefulness or otherwise of the project ... Stho002 (talk) 21:06, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Koavf: I largely agree with @Franz Xaver: that it is preferable for uniform category names for both botany and zoology, so I will alter my "Nominal taxa of ..." categories to "New taxon names authored by ..." As for Mariusm's comments, they are overblown as per usual. If there are two or more authors called A. Matthews, for example, then they can be treated with standard disambiguation techniques Stho002 (talk) 21:32, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Koavf: PS: Note that Franz Xaver's suggestion/comment was a constructive one, whereas the same cannot be said for Mariusm's comments Stho002 (talk) 21:39, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We looped back to the same starting point. S. seems happy to adopt any name as long as it isn't the one used by consensus. The exact semantics of the name isn't the important issue. The important issue is WS getting incoherent. The hyperbole "It is entirely inappropriate for restrictions to be put on any user's use of categories" speaks volumes of S'. general attitude. And the statement "If there are two or more authors called A. Matthews, for example, then they can be treated with standard disambiguation techniques" is a laugh: how can a list of names by several persons lumped together on a common category be treated by disambiguation? Mariusm (talk) 07:14, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To answer your question "how can a list of names by several persons lumped together on a common category be treated by disambiguation?" There are several straightforward options, like, for example "New taxon names authored by A. Matthews (2)" ... Stho002 (talk) 20:57, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I now have started to change the text header in some categories in order to fix the problem addressed by Stho002, e.g. [1]. However, there are many of them. Do we have a bot at our disposal to help with this? --Franz Xaver (talk) 09:08, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Franz Xaver: Better drop "List of taxon names authored by XX" altogether don't you think? Or are you planning a bot to change everything to this name-style? I remember way back when we debated what's better: "XX taxa" or the former version of S. "Taxa of XX". Mariusm (talk) 14:07, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Stho002 blockage vote results and conclutions


The User:Stho002 blockage vote's final results are:

  • Remove block — 3 (Stho002's vote for himself doesn't count - the person on trial can't serve in the jury)
  • Re-block — 8
  • Neutral — 1

This largely represents the general sentiment that the unblock was either premature or that its conditions were inappropriate. @Koavf: you struck a deal with S. which is inadequate and you unblocked him without consulting the community. Therefore it's your responsibility and your duty to re-block him until better circumstances crop up. You released the demon out of the bottle so to speak therefor you have the obligation to contain him back. We feel that when weighting the benefits versus the disadvantages of S. contributing to WS, the scale tips towards the later side.

I already specified the conditions of a reasonable deal:

  • To comply with the community's consensus as expressed in the help pages.
  • To behave in an affable and cordial way towards the other community members.

I hope this episode in the ongoing saga of Stho002 have reached the culmination so we all can devote our energy to editing. Contrary to what Stho002 may contemplate, the main advantage of WS lies on the cooperation and collaboration of its members rather than on "experts" imposing their "standards" disregarding the rest. Mariusm (talk) 04:30, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Koavf: A few points for you to consider after the above rant from Mariusm:

(1) Mariusm rants "Stho002's vote for himself doesn't count - the person on trial can't sit in the jury". I say that is nonsense! This isn't a trial by jury! Besides, he is just as involved in this dispute as I am (but on the other side), so if my vote doesn't count, neither does his. If we allow only unbiased votes, then I don't think we can allow many votes!

(2) Since being unblocked, I have added a great deal more constructive information to the project than Mariusm has contributed in several months (his main "contributions" over this time being just rants!) I haven't done anything wrong (no vandalism, no wheel warring, etc.), so there is no justification for blocking me again at this stage (and I'll only come back as endless socks anyway);

(3) Mariusm rants "collaboration of its members and not by "experts" imposing their "standards" and disregarding the rest". This strongly suggests that Mariusm has a massive chip on his shoulder. I am a member of the community here. His distinction between "members" and "experts" is divisive and unhelpful to the project. He seems to want to exclude anybody who actually knows what they are doing! I don't "disregard the rest". I take what anyone says on its merits, and what Mariusm and a couple of others say is usually lacking merit.

(4) Mariusm rants "We feel that when weighting the benefits versus the disadvantages of S. contributing to WS, the scale tips to the later side". Easy to say! Does anybody really think he actually weighed anything up?

Stho002 (talk) 04:41, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • You say I haven't done anything wrong (no vandalism, no wheel warring, etc.). But you have change a lot of my latest contributions without to communicate it with me. The latest contributions where good even after agreements. You think you are god, but that isn't even you have a few disciples PeterR (talk) 11:30, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You don't own your edits, Peter! Nobody does. The sooner you understand that and stop trying to stop others from improving your edits, the better for all concerned. I'm an aetheist, so how can I think that I am God??!! Stho002 (talk) 20:55, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not too difficult to explain. Maybe you are an atheist, because you cannot accept there would be a being greater than you. --Franz Xaver (talk) 21:18, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And Peter (this is God speaking!), please try to learn the difference between an author template and a reference template! You keep creating reference templates, but calling them "New author template". For example, here. Thanks ... Stho002 (talk) 21:11, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well so that is a vote I guess. Whether @Stho002:'s vote counts or not is not important in the scheme of things as the positive was outnumbered 2:1 in any case. I voted positively because I am willing to give him a chance, and I would rather it was done in a way that we can see. However, the majority voted otherwise and I accept that. I was borderline, like a few seemed to be, but I decided to go with the positive side of this rather than be negative. I also do not like the idea that he will attempt to use sock-puppets in the future which we are not well equipped on WS to handle. He does make a valid point, @PeterR: you do not own your edits, nor I mine, if someone wants to change them they can. As long as this is not vandalism then the changes should be open for discussion. When I first came to WS many years ago I had major confrontations with Stho002 and he used his sysop privs to overrule anything I tried to do. This resulted in me giving up on trying. I came back by invitation after the events that resulted in his blocking.
Personally I think that outright blocking was a mistake, my view is that removal of sysop privs and removal of auto-patroller would have been more constructive (yes that is me playing politics). Looking at the timing, and based on some discussions I had with him, it was clearly the blocking that lead to the sock-puppetry. I believe that being made to have all edits examined and possibly some additional restrictions, would have achieved a better for the community result. He needs to learn to work with others, and not go into every issue like it is a conflict to be fought for. I am not saying he is always wrong, but that the lack of humility in discussions lead to conflict. A little humility goes a long way, being open to a genuine 2 way discussion on an issue will always achieve a better result. The "my way or the highway" approach just makes enemies, and considering we are a community of volunteers this is not needed.
I hope this explains my deeper reasons for voting positively, yes @Mariusm and Franz Xaver: I noticed the tone in his answer to my question, I asked it to determine if his reasons for coming back were destructive or constructive, nothing more, this was because of his severe criticism's on other forums of Wikimedia Foundation. @Stho002: I was genuine in voting positively, I do feel you can contribute significantly, but the others have also raised valid points. No one should feel they are going to be attacked and vilified in an environment where they are a volunteer. Cheers Faendalimas talk 02:23, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Faendalimas: "No one should feel they are going to be attacked and vilified in an environment where they are a volunteer" Exactly! So why have I been continuously attacked and vilified for so long now? Anyway, the re-block isn't going to happen, and even if it does, I'll be back to continue to contribute positively to the project, whatever username I choose to use Stho002 (talk) 03:38, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My two cents


@Mariusm and Stho002: Stephen, I want to see you contribute to the community here and in spite of evidence to the contrary, I feel like that is still possible. The will of the community is clear, and doubly so since some users even changed their votes from "unblock" to "block". I think a major sticking point is your insistence on using sockpuppets, which you know for a fact is strictly prohibited and it should be. Here's what I plan on doing:

  • I will give Stho002 24/48 hours to wrap up conversations that he is having with other users--please restrict your edits to those relevant namespaces and avoid creation of anything new or editing in the main namespace or other namespaces related to the content of the site (like Category: or Template:).
  • I will then block Stho002 for 30 days and leave him the ability to edit his talk page. In that time, I suggest that you come up with some constructive conversation and ideas about how to move forward. If it's technically possible, maybe creating subpages of your talk page would be useful so that you can sketch out what you see as being the problems/shortcomings of Wikispecies and how you would like to see it go forward. I'd recommend against calling out particular users, including in any passive-aggressive or backhanded ways (e.g. "the vain idiots running the cabal against me", etc.). It would also be nice if you reflected on where you have gone wrong but I don't think it's necessary to publish all that in public.
  • After 30 days, I'd like you to post to the Pump and let us know what your assessment is--what do you want to add to the community here? What kind of things could be improved?
  • If there are any sockpuppets that are confirmed to be of you in this time, I will extend the block to six months or other admins will block as they see fit and I won't get in their way.

This is the best that I can do to try to meet everyone half-way. If any other admins have a problem with that, then I will step aside in my self-appointed mediator role. I was bold in unblocking you and some may consider it wreckless. In the time that you have been back, you have undoubtedly added to the project but you have also not really heeded my warnings about being overly cautious. Thoughts from everyone? —Justin (koavf)TCM 04:43, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Koavf: Nah [abuse deleted]. Back to square one (socking again) Stho002 (talk) 04:47, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Koavf:, Justin, I noticed that you blocked Stephen after the last dialogue above, and it was the right thing to do. Although I support you in giving Stephen a second chance, Wikispecies admins can not accept abusive and disruptive behavior, or persistent sockpuppetry. Its important to give him clear signals, if he contribute to WS in a cooperative way, and treat other users in a normal way, he is welcome to contribute. If not, he will be blocked, again, and again, and again, especially if he is using sockpuppets. I do suggest that his user talk page will be opened again though, within a couple of days, so he can communicate a possible will in the future to follow WS rules, OR confirm that reasons why he is blocked. Dan Koehl (talk) 05:46, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Koavf and Dan Koehl: I fully agree with his blocking now. However, I propose to unlock his talk page. If Stho002 finds words to apologize for his abusive language, we may proceed according to the plan as described above. Regards --Franz Xaver (talk) 08:11, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Koavf: thanks for your patience and understanding. I apologize again for my harsh comments. Sometimes I speak too loud, I know that and I try my best to contain myself. All the best, Mariusm (talk) 13:31, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]



Archaea need an update IMO. Please give your 2 (or more) cents here: Talk:Archaea Thank you. --Murma174 (talk) 09:06, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

<- discussion moved to Archaea talk page -> --Murma174 (talk) 07:05, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Noctua caprimulgus Garsault


Per [2], Noctua caprimulgus Garsault seems to be a synonym for Caprimulgus europaeus. How should this be addressed? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:00, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is a difficult case of a double homonym. Noctua caprimulgus Garsault, 1764 (Aves). and Noctua caprimulgus Fabricius, 1775 (Lepidoptera). According to ICZN double homonym isn't homonymy! I'm not sure the synonym you mention is valid. Better leave it for now as it is. Mariusm (talk) 13:47, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The proposed synonym is no more than a taxonomist's speculation. Without a more solid elaboration such as a paper mention, we certainly can't consider the taxa as synonyms. Mariusm (talk) 15:08, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It seems counter-intuitive to leave it as an "orphan", with no link to (or from) a current taxon. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:43, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This got me intrigued. Noctua Garsault 1767 is very obscure. ICZN Opinion 450 definitively sets Noctua Linnaeus, 1758 as only accepted form, setting aside Noctua Linnaeus 1761 (nomen nudum) and Noctua Gmelin, 1771 (junior homonym), which renders Garsault homonym. GBIF was no help, considering Noctua caprimulgus as lepidopteran. Original description of Garsault is here. It is in French, and I am not too good there. "N." caprimulgus as species concept seems to be considered valid, but I can't find where it went. Neferkheperre (talk) 13:56, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Formats and categories


The most recent sock of User:Stho002, User:Adam Zappel, has offered his innovations here. It is time to discuss these I think. I do not know whether or not he can contribute on VP. If not it may be best to migrate a discussion to his talk page where he can contribute. He also uses Basepagename which is being discouraged, or am I wrong on this? I have deleted the categories from a few pages until discussion, but feel free to revert if I have done wrong! Andyboorman (talk) 14:48, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can you specify which innovations do you consider valuable? For instance "Status: Accepted species name" and "Category: Accepted species name" are practically useless. Not only that: they're also distracting and superfluous. And "Category: Subsequent combination" even more so. As for "Basepagename" I use it too. I don't have a clue on why it isn't encouraged. Mariusm (talk) 15:05, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I do not think any of the innovations are at all valuable for plants. They are being made so need discussion IMHO. As to Basepagename I thought there were problems if combinations need to be changed, but maybe I am wrong. Andyboorman (talk) 15:32, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Andy is right. The magic word variable {{BASEPAGENAME}} causes problems when a taxon has its rank changed, for instance when a species is lumped in together as a subspecies of another species. That also applies to nomenclature and naming schemes not related to biological taxonomy, such as new car models using the same name as old ones (think VW Beetle), or people changing their surnames when getting married. Looking at it from a more wiki-technical standpoint, {{BASEPAGENAME}} only works in namespaces that have the possibility of subpages enabled in the wiki software. For these as well as other reasons, the use of {{BASEPAGENAME}} is discouraged on the English Wikipedia, and also considered deprecated. Personally I would like it gone from Wikispecies as well. Always using the full page name instead of a magic word is a bit more tedious, but also more "future proof". –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 00:08, 18 July 2016 (UTC).[reply]
{{BASEPAGENAME}} is very convenient for me since there are so many comb. nov. where it saves 2 changes in the species name. Plus it makes writing new species much more easy and error-free. Mariusm (talk) 04:16, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Since years I use {{BASEPAGENAME}}. I don't understand this discussion again. We already agree that we don't use template in the Name section for author. PeterR (talk) 07:23, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean? Are you saying that there is a consensus that we should not use {{A}} and/or {{Aut}} for author names in the "Name" section? If so, where is that discussion? –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 08:26, 18 July 2016 (UTC).[reply]
@Tommy Kronkvist: PeterR probably means, that in the name section there should be a link from the taxon author to its author page, and not to the reference template. I personally agree to this point. --Franz Xaver (talk) 09:00, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Franz, that's what I mean. PeterR (talk) 09:06, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oh... Well in that case I agree too. I replace reference templates in name sections with plain author templates whenever I see them. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 09:09, 18 July 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Collection of new suspected sockpuppets of Stho002

User:Eves Pair have change all my contributions in Robinsonia (ICZN) and in the template {{Grote, 1865a}} in non standard format. When will this stop? Every time when I started to add new species, I have first change the species the day before. PeterR (talk) 10:56, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, he's S. no doubt about it. Mariusm (talk) 05:46, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Mariusm: Now blocked. --Franz Xaver (talk) 06:44, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It seems, he has acquired a smartphone. --Franz Xaver (talk) 06:02, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Robinsonia mossi


Does anyone have an explanation for this pair of articles by User:Eves Pair: Robinsonia mossi and [[Robinsonia mossi (2)]]??? Probably the latter simply has to be deleted? --Franz Xaver (talk) 06:55, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very busy to update Robinsonia. Stho002 (Eves Pair) is destroying my new updates. I shall look to day what I can do to update them after Vincent & Laguerre, 2004. PeterR (talk) 07:23, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Rothschild, 1922 "described" Robinsonia mossi twice in his article: On page 458 and then again on page 486 — which is a junior secondary homonym. Mariusm (talk) 07:54, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This seems to be a bit tricky. I suppose, both pages have exactly the same date of publication? I do not know the zoological code well enough. What are the rules to determine, which of both descriptions has priority over the other? In ICZN, is there a page number priority? (There is nothing alike in the botanical code.) I suppose, the intention of the author was to describe only one species, based on two specimens. He may have separated both descriptions, because one specimen was from Pará (Brazil) and the other one from Peru. Anyway, there are some differences in the description of the described specimens, and these differences may be important enough to separate these specimens into two species. Anyway, if the intention of the author was to describe only one species, in my opinion, this would be a case to be solved by lectotypification. It seems, this cannot be decided based only on the protologue. Some more recent taxonomic revisions will be necessary.
Anyway, this case is a strong argument, that always page numbers should be indicated in the taxon pages, and if possible these should be linked to BHL and Co. Regards --Franz Xaver (talk) 08:47, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I recognized, Rothschild himself gave the answer here at the bottom of the page. --Franz Xaver (talk) 08:53, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Although the code does not specifically go beyond date of publication, it is generally done by most by page priority and is the decision of the first revisor. Basically under the code the first revisor can determine priority and spelling of names that are ambiguous for some reason, generally applied when an author spells a name different ways in the same paper. Most people accept the first mention in the paper by page number, even line number if needed, as the correct spelling and the senior name. But it is what the first person to publish the name after the original publication that determines this. Cheers Faendalimas talk 14:11, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Reference templates


What is the since to add Category:Reference templates in the author reference template? PeterR (talk) 07:48, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm rephrasing Peter's question: What is the rationale behind adding "Category:Reference templates" to the author reference templates? Mariusm (talk) 09:57, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If I interpret this right, we are talking about citation templates? Category:Reference templates is automatically added by {{Subst:reftemp}}. Provides good place to look for references, and prevents reference citations from becoming completely orphaned. Neferkheperre (talk) 16:07, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
OK, two reason. However, in my opinion, not really good ones. (1) "good place to look for references" is invalidated by the high number of almost 40.000 entries in this category. It would be extremely time consuming to search in this category for something special, which you expect it would exist somewhere in WS. OK, most of the reference template created by Stho002 can only be found in this large category, as he does not add them to author pages. (2) "prevents reference citations from becoming completely orphaned" I am not sure, if this is true. In Special:UnusedTemplates there is a big number of reference templates, which all have this category. Simply linking to the template, probably does not cause to disappear from "Unused", neither does being categorized. Anyway, if it were true, maybe it is better to show up in "Special:Unused Templates" than being dumped in a category that large. If we want that reference templates could be found, it they are existing, they have to be used in the respective author pages. In my opinion, this category does not do any harm, but it also is not very useful. --Franz Xaver (talk) 16:33, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Franz Xaver:. You find normal the author reference templates under the author name in publications. So add in my author reference templates the Category:Reference templates is overdone. So my proposal is to stop the Category:Reference templates. If you upgrade the author reference templates or others you can delete the Category:Reference templates and add the Author reference templates by the author or authors after our agreements. PeterR (talk) 17:58, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree, but there exist too many reference templates, many of them by Stho002, which are not used under the header "publications" in the author pages. --Franz Xaver (talk) 18:02, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Category:reference templates may not be ultimately necessary, but until we get most of citation templates linked with author pages and at least plugged near appropriate taxon pages, we might want to keep it. And, I have seen very many references not even templated, placed in taxon reference sections. Very long ways we have to go. Neferkheperre (talk) 20:02, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Franz Xaver:@Mariusm:@Neferkheperre:@PeterR: (listed alphabetically). I agree there's a lot to be done. I guess we will always have to deal with these kinds of things: references that are not templated, new taxon pages lacking author names, author pages without categories regarding the author's scientific disciplines, etc. However, that does not mean that the system is wrong, as such. I like the categories: among other things they're good for checking up on statistics. For instance it is easy to turn to the category pages and see that there are currently 36,377 templated references, and that out of a total of 28,685 taxon authorities no less than 1,883 are herpetologists. Yes of course that data is incomplete, since not all references are templated and not all author pages list all of the necessary categories, but it's better than nothing! Perhaps eventually we will get all those templates and author pages complete. Someday, as the wiki software and its functions evolve, we most certainly can put those statistics to some real use – for instance when planning which areas of Wikispecies needs the most attention. Personally I would like these kinds of categories on taxa pages as well: at least categories listing in which (super)regnum a taxon is included. Contrary to changing the categories on reference- and author pages, that could be easily done by a bot. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 06:53, 23 July 2016 (UTC).[reply]
As I am writing citations for Zootaxa and Zookeys, I am making author pages and upgrading as I locate them. I also remove redundancies and move author pages to full name titles. I make every such page as complete as I can before moving on. Neferkheperre (talk) 16:03, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Tommy Kronkvist: Concerning categories for higher taxa, in my opinion, no bot is necessary for this. You could add this cat to the respective taxonavigation template. If this is required only for statistics, it could be done only temporarily. --Franz Xaver (talk) 09:27, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am personnaly not a big fan of categories. I would restrict these to a necessary minimum. Every new category or new system of categorization will consume work time for implementation. At the moment, the categorization of taxa according to the authors of their names is only at its start and far from complete. As it seems, many of the regular contributors, don't care a lot about this. (Many also don't care about WD object, when creating new taxon or author pages.) As soon as this situation does not change, it is probably better, not to start with any new category systems. --Franz Xaver (talk) 09:42, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Franz Xaver: I fully agree that no new category systems should be created at this time. The already present system is messy enough, and "over-categorized". Some pages use a ridiculous amount of categories; worst of them all is Myosotis stricta, with a staggering 47 categories! In my opinion we don't need categories such as Category:Name status categories, Category:Coral reef taxa, or Category:Turkish Taxon Authorities (none of them used on the Myosotis stricta page). But once we agree upon which categories to keep and which to delete, resulting in a slimmer set of categories, then we may look into making changes to the category system itself. By the way your idea about adding higher taxa categories directly to the respective taxonavigation templates is good – but again, it should only be done if we decide we want to, and when we are ready to do it. Now is not the time. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 11:30, 23 July 2016 (UTC).[reply]
category:Coral reef taxa is my creation. I made that category to house subcategories for ecological niches. Mainly I am using subcategories for symbionts and associates, which where my Cirripedia would fit. My reasoning: Certain areas of study are particularly "hot", and coral reefs are very much so. Reefs are dying off very quickly, and taxonomic/ecological studies are important to mitigation of these problems, or at least to get these species/ecologies described before they go extinct. Categories such as these make simpler research for someone studying these subjects. Ecological categories provide great benefit. Neferkheperre (talk) 16:03, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Anyway, in this case, it seems to be better to keep the category and the automatic categorization by {{Subst:reftemp}}. --Franz Xaver (talk) 09:49, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
: I have stop to delete Category: Reference template in the reference template until we have an agreement PeterR (talk) 09:35, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In our agreement about reference template see The majority chose the format to be like this:
* {{a|María Soledad Moleón|Moleón, M.S.}}, {{a|John Mike Kinsella|Kinsella, J.M.}}, {{a|Pablo Gastón Moreno|Moreno, P.G.}}, {{a|Hebe Del Valle Ferreyra|Ferreyra, H.D.V.}}, {{a|Javier Pereira|Pereira, J.}}, {{a|Mónica Pía|Pía, M.}} & {{a|Pablo Martín Beldomenico|Beldomenico, P.M.}} 2015. New hosts and localities for helminths of carnivores in Argentina. ''[[ISSN 1175-5326|Zootaxa]]'' 4057(1): 106–114. {{doi|10.11646/zootaxa.4057.1.6}} [ Preview (PDF)]


Nobody did a proposal for Category:Reference templates or other proposals. See as example Template:Aishan, Triapitsyn & Xu, 2016. PeterR (talk) 10:55, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Robinsonia (Arctiidae) vs. Robinsonia (ICZN)


@PeterR, Mariusm, and Tommy Kronkvist: The sockpuppet is unable to move pages. So, instead, he creates new pages with the name he thinks should be correct, and requests speedy deletion for the other, e.g. Robinsonia (Arctiidae)Robinsonia (ICZN). If the new page is (partially) copied from the old one, both better should be merged by an admin into one, conserving edit history of the former content of the page. I did similar merging yesterday, e.g. with the reference templates {{Günther;1861}} and {{Günther, 1861}}, or {{Dognin, 1904}} and {{Dognin, 1904a}}. However, in this case, I am not sure, what would be the most appropriate name. Robinsonia (ICZN) might be OK, but at some point in the future, the acronym of the Code might change, as has happened with the botanical code: ICBN → ICN. If this happened, a very large number of page names etc. would have incorrect disambiguation terms. So, I am more in favour of taxonomic disambiguation term, i.e. names of families. Of course, also there changes may happen, but they would concern only a low number of pages/templates. As far as I see, Arctiidae is not upheld as a separate family, and probably will never be revived. Should the disambiguation term be "Arctiinae", "Erebidae", "Noctuidae", or "ICZN"? What do you think? I personally prefer the first one. Regards --Franz Xaver (talk) 08:16, 18 July 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Franz, I prefer to use in this case the genus name with author Robinsonia (Grote). The author name change never. PeterR (talk) 09:10, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@PeterR: OK, this seems to be a good solution. Please, leave the different versions of the Robinionia genus page, as they are at the moment. (It seems, there is enough work to do with species.) In the evening, I will try to merge all, as far as possible, in order to keep visibility of the edit history, which seems to be required by licensing under cc-by-sa. The genus page, would at the end be found under Robinsonia (Grote), as you prefer. Regards --Franz Xaver (talk) 09:19, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I prefer the "Taxon (Author)" style as well, for the same reason as PeterR. We should aim for a consistent system, since using all three (or more?) styles might be considered confusing. For instance the disambiguation page Desmia links to both Desmia (Agardh) and Desmia (Insecta).
(P.S. Yes, I know that it was yours truly who created the "Desmia (insecta)" page… Indeed contrary to my preferences, but I did so anyway due to the fact that the page name was already used as a redlink on several other pages. It will be remedied within the next couple of days.)
Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 09:52, 18 July 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Franz, this is a proposal, so we have to wait for other comments before we introduce this proposal. Maybe you can made a vote proposal? with Robinsonia (Arctiidae), Robinsonia (ICZN) and Robinsonia (Grote). PeterR (talk) 09:41, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose, it is not necessary to have a vote here. Until late afternoon, there is time enough for everyone to comment here. Anyway, as soon as version histories are merged, in case that page name has to be changed again, the resulting genus page can easily be moved over the respective redirct pages, which then will not contain anything important. --Franz Xaver (talk) 09:51, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe we should take the WS consistency also into consideration: as far as I can see most duplicate names are in the form of "Genus (Family)" and not "Genus (Author)". I would prefer then "Robinsonia (Erebidae)" although "Genus (Author)" is indeed the better choice. Mariusm (talk) 10:09, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I also do prefer the form [[Genus (Author)]], but I think, we shouldn't spend our energy in renaming pages like [[Desmia (Insecta)]] into [[Desmia (Westwood)]]. Most important is to have unambiguous titles. --Murma174 (talk) 10:15, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Franz, you change the author reference page Dognin, 1904a in Dognin, 1904 as described above. Now I have to make a new author reference template for Dognin, 1904a. I'm doing my contributions after Vincent & Laguerre, 2014. Please don't be to fast with changes it. I'm working after the reference list in this article. PeterR (talk) 10:25, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@PeterR: Sorry, this was not me but Stho002. You should not create a new template. If you prefer to have the present one under a different name, you should "move" it to the preferred name. --Franz Xaver (talk) 10:44, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@PeterR: I moved it now. Do you want to have the same move also for {{Dognin, 1903}} and {{Dognin, 1905}}? You can move/rename it yourself easily: At the top of your screen, you find the button "Meer" (or "More"). When you are in the page to be moved/renamed, there you simply have to choose "Hernoemen" (or "Move"). --Franz Xaver (talk) 11:04, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We can start with [[Genus (Author)]] now and later we can update the others. PeterR (talk) 11:01, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@PeterR: Now there exists the template {{Robinsonia (Grote)}}, with redirects from {{Robinsonia (ICZN)}} and {{Robinsonia (Arctiidae)}}. When you update species pages, you can simply can change the template name as I now did in Robinsonia marginata. Regards --Franz Xaver (talk) 11:20, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@PeterR and Franz Xaver: Just for my two cents worth I prefer not to use Genus (ICZN) as it implies there is an opinion on the matter by the ICZN (if there is this can be mentioned and cited on the page not in the namespace), there may not be, also whether a name is used is not only a nomenclatural decision but a taxonomic which is beyond the mandate of the Code. I can agree to Genus (author) but wish to ask what is the suggestion with multiple authors? Follow typical publishing practices, ie Genus (author A & author B) or for more Genus (author A et al) or just use the first author for purposes of naming the page? Cheers Faendalimas talk 14:04, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
When I edited Chromista the last months I found a lot of ambiguous Genus names. In most cases I used 'Genus (Author)', sometimes 'Genus (AuthorA & AuthorB)', but in rare cases with several authors I used 'Genus (Phylum)' for not losing the readability of the title. --Murma174 (talk) 14:47, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Faendalimas and Murma174: Another completely different argument, which however results at the same conclusion, that "ICZN" should better not be used for disambiguation. I personally prefer family (e.g. Schwartzia (Marcgraviaceae)) over author for disambigation, but in this special case it probably should be handled the other way round. My reason is, that (1) it is easier to remember, where a genus belongs, than to remember its author and (2) the family name, especially its termination (-aceae vs. -idae), even if I never heard this name, also is telling, if it falls under the zoological or the botanical code. Moreover, your argument is true, author combinations, especially in botany, can be rather long, and there seems to be an increased tendency to publish new names with a list of co-authors. Anyway, we should not be too dogmatic, and should leave room for case by case decisions. --Franz Xaver (talk) 15:27, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed @Franz Xaver: my personal preference is also to use the hierarchy as given, ie taxon A (Taxon one order up) in this case Genus (Family) as most people with an interest in this do at the least have an idea of the families they are looking up. Authors could be anyone, and yes they can be rather long lists these days. I myself have papers with 3 to 4 authors. I have seen many more particularly when the molecular people get involved. However I was just following the conversation. In any case, leeway to make judgement calls is important. Cheers Faendalimas talk 17:11, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@PeterR: OK, now it has happened. I moved the content, including version histories, of Robinsonia (Arctiidae), Robinsonia (ICZN), and even Robinsonia (Arctiinae) to Robinsonia (Grote), and undeleted all previous versions, in order to make visible everything, that exstisted at one or the other moment under Robinsonia (XXX). Hopefully, I made no mistake. Anyway, as all version are merged now under one page name, renaming the page should be possible simply by "move" over one of the redirects. --Franz Xaver (talk) 16:06, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Franz Xaver:. Thanks for your efforts regarding this Genus! We shouldn't forget, that our pages are linked to not only within the Wikimedia world, but also from hundreds or thousands of websites we are not aware of. That's why it is so important to keep outdated titles as redirects (as far as possible) and not to delete them. --Murma174 (talk) 16:22, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am aware of this and, of course, did not intend to delete the redirects. --Franz Xaver (talk) 16:36, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion & sock puppets


The English Wikipedia policy on speedy deletion allows for the immediate deletion of:

...pages created by banned or blocked users in violation of their ban or block, and that have no substantial edits by others.

and similarly, other edits by socks of blocked users may be reverted on sight. Should such a policy apply here? Should we adopt, or adapt, the wording of that English Wikipedia page section? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:51, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Probably, it is better not to go too far into speedy deletion. In our specific case, any handling of the affair will result in allegations, probably uttered in some external forums. If we go into speedy deletion, we will hear someone yelling "vandalism". It's better to adopt and to adapt his creations. If he expresses his discontent with our changes, we may respond, that he wanted to "possess" his edits, against the Wikimedia rules, he had agreed on, when he started to edit. --Franz Xaver (talk) 13:10, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Despite what the WP criteria say I think we have an unusual case here, I am inclined to agree with @Franz Xaver: and look at this on a case by case basis for this situation. Cheers Faendalimas talk 14:06, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You'll notice that my question is - very deliberately - phrased in general terms; no "specific case" or "situation" is mentioned. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:17, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Do not delete If the content is good and useful, then it's worth keeping as far as I'm concerned. I don't know why we should set back our work by virtue of someone using a sockpuppet. —Justin (koavf)TCM 22:23, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]



I created Template:Wikidata as a stop-gap, before we had integration with that project. Now that we do, it is redundant, and I have just orphaned it by removing its last four transclusions. I shall delete it soon, unless there are any objections. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:57, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK, no objections from my side. --Franz Xaver (talk) 15:12, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Go for it. Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 23:29, 18 July 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Well, User:Koavf reverted my removal of those four, so I'll give it a day or two longer to see if anyone else objects. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:39, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion I think that having the template will make it more likely that users will see the project versus the mention in the sidebar. —Justin (koavf)TCM 20:42, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There being no other objections, and three of us in favour of deletion, I'm going to do that. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:33, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Pigsonthewing: I hope, your English is better than mine. Otherwise your plan will end up like this one some months ago. --Murma174 (talk) 14:55, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Murma174: While English is my native language, I have no idea what point you're trying to make. Please be specific. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:19, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Pigsonthewing: As English is your mother tongue, you will be able to respond cleverer than I did to Justin's attacks in January. --Murma174 (talk) 16:30, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
O.K., you can declare my posting as off-topic, but that doesn't solve the problem, that users with minor command of English language can't participate in discussions with equal means. And @Koavf: exploitet this advantage in the January "discussion" mentioned above. --Murma174 (talk) 16:44, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A communication breakdown?


Have we a communication breakdown between Wikidata and Wikispecies? I think yes. --Succu (talk) 21:49, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In this particular case I am not at all surprised that many Wikispecies users refrain from partaking in the discussion. In the very same thread Stho002 himself openly claims to be using sock puppets, and while he is a competent entomologist and taxonomist, at the same time he can also be difficult to discuss with. As a result, he is currently blocked indefinitely on Meta-Wiki, the English Wikipedia, and Wikispecies. Apart from that and back to the main issue: yes I think you are right. There are many Wikispecies related issues that should be discussed on Wikidata, since some of the Wikidata items created from data fetched from Wikispecies are quite messy, or duplicates. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 23:50, 18 July 2016 (UTC).[reply]
User:Stho002 is throwing mud at us on Wikidata — see here and nobody there is telling him to shut-up. We must go there too and answer him so he wouldn't seem as a truth-speaker! Mariusm (talk) 09:03, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Mariusm: In my opinion, there is no reasion to be alarmed. He is a quite well-known guy across Wikimedia projects. And there is enough common sense around, they soon would know, what really is happening. You remember his story at Meta? I am not fond of entering a mud battle - some of the stuff might get stuck. --Franz Xaver (talk) 09:28, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
OK, but if there's a communication breakdown with Wikidata, why discuss it with him rather than with us? Mariusm (talk) 09:32, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes giving him a place to air his grievances is not helpful, he has been banned on here and EN WP from memory did get a block at least on Meta. Joining in just adds to the issue, best ignored. Succu did state socks are not welcome. @Succu: If you wish us to join in conversations at Wikidata, rather than have them here I am happy to do so and have in the past. To me at this point there is some duplication of discussions between the two. Perhaps it may be of benefit to have a discussion on how to advance this issue. Our users here I guess could have our discussions on the implementation of Wikidata at the page there, but it needs I think to be visible here too, at least for newer users. I think some discussion and planning on this could benefit us all. Cheers Faendalimas talk 10:27, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, your memory serves you right. As I mentioned above he is currently blocked indefinitely from the English Wikipedia and Wikispecies, as well as on Meta-Wiki. That page will also show his rather impressive WS edit count. Click the "Blocked" column header in the table for a more legible view of the current blocks. Also, as far as I know Wikispecies is the only project where he has been blocked "indefinitely" more than once… Which is okay though, since Wikimedia policies say that "indefinite blocks are blocks that don't have a fixed expiration date, but instead needs to be resolved by discussion". That said, I would like to remind every one that this thread should primarily focus on the communication between the Wikispecies and Wikidata communities, rather than any on single user's activity in either project. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 11:13, 19 July 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Has it really been helpful to have discussions located at d:Wikidata_talk:Wikispecies and species:Wikispecies talk:Project Wikidata? If it is, then it seems like those pages should be used consistently for discussions of stuff that impact the other project (and each project should be alerted to any new discussions on the other projects page). However, a recent discussion on common names that was relevant to Wikidata took place at species:Wikispecies:Village Pump, and was not posted to the Wikispecies Project Wikidata talk page, Wikidata's Wikispecies talk page, nor to d:Wikidata talk:WikiProject Taxonomy.

For my part, as somebody who is interested in taxonomy on WMF projects, I have no trouble keeping up with the WS Village Pump or WD's WikiProject Taxonomy talk page. But I don't think to check in on the WS page on WD or the WD page on WS. I'm not sure it's helpful to segregate discussion about WS/WD issues to subpages with very few watchers, especially when some relevant threads still end up on the main talk page anyway. Post in WS Village Pump or WD WikiProject Taxonomy and cross notify the other project of relevant discussions. Plantdrew (talk) 19:46, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I can see how it would possibly be of greater benefit to have these discussions on the d:Wikidata talk:WikiProject Taxonomy page, however I think two things should happen whenever a new discussion starts, first post a link to it on the Village Punp here, that is all that is needed just a mention the discussion is on, but also when the new topic is started take advantage and ping the Project Taxonomy group, that will also alert all of us. Cheers, Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 19:51, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ease of item creation


I just created a Wikidata item Q25703256 about Lipsothrix nigristigma; I then created an English Wikipedia article, en:Lipsothrix nigristigma, complete with a taxobox.

Is there a tool that will now create an outline Wikispecies article, from one or other of those? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:54, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Pigsonthewing: No, but there definitely should/could be. Part of the problem is that I am slowly working on localization and that would make a small but substantial change to basically every page here. —Justin (koavf)TCM 22:26, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Koavf: can you explain please what do you mean by "I am slowly working on localization"? Mariusm (talk) 04:25, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Mariusm: I want to make this site more internationalized (see another thread posted here about why this is all in English), so to that end, I made Wikispecies:Localization and started the process of defining terms. Since there is very little content on this site other than 1.) Latin terminology and 2.) images, then it's pretty easy to translate everything in the main namespace using this MediaWiki hack. For documentation like Help pages, we can use the Translate extension. —Justin (koavf)TCM 04:28, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I see. It's a noble task. @Pigsonthewing: it would be nice to have an automated converter from a WP taxobox to a WS page. Have you the know-how to manufacture such a tool? Mariusm (talk) 05:16, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, and nor would I recommend investing time and energy in making such a thing at this stage, better to 1) use standard templates (with internationalised labels as suggested by Koavf, above). I made a start on these with {{Journal}}, {{Biography}}, and {{Taxa}}. Then, 2) have those templates changed to pull in data from Wikidata. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:12, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Synonym conventions


I noticed we don't have a convention on how to display the data in the synonym section. I'm talking about comb. nov..

For example, lets take the following names in the synonym section, where the first is the original description and the rest are comb. nov.:

  • Marptusa jovialis Koch, 1879: 1109, table 97, figs 1–2
  • Breda jovialis — Simon, 1909: 198
  • Ocrisiona jovialis — Ruiz & Brescovit, 2013: 430
  • Apricia jovialisRichardson, 2016: 508

The last 3 names are comb. nov and are denoted by a "—" before the author name. This indicates the authors made the names as new combinations rather than authored them. Of course we can write also:

  • Marptusa jovialis Koch, 1879: 1109, table 97, figs 1–2
  • Breda jovialis (Koch, 1879)
  • Ocrisiona jovialis (Koch, 1879)
  • Apricia jovialis (Koch, 1879)

but it's not recommended, as much information is lost.

I've seen at other places also ":" and "–" used instead of a "—", with or without spaces. We don't have a standard for this here. Any thoughts? Mariusm (talk) 13:29, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Mariusm: OK, this problem occurs only with names ruled by ICZN. (In botany there exists an old tradition to cite combination authors, contrary to zoology. This is not an open question there.) I suppose, in many cases it will be difficult to establish, who was the first one to use a certain combination and where this was published. This applies especially to very old names, which were combined in a number of different genera. Anyway, if it should not be the first one to be cited here, who else? Some arbitrary example for its use? Probably not a good idea. As far as I know the ICZN, only the variants below, with "(Koch, 1879)", are correct names according to the zoological code. (The variants above remind me to botanical practice in the early 19th century, before it was decided both to cite the basionym author in parenthesis and the combination author.) Does the combination author really matter in zoology? In my opinion, it should be sufficient for listing in the synonymy section, that the references cited in the taxon page demonstrate the existence of the combination. --Franz Xaver (talk) 15:57, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose, how the information is presented in Apricia jovialis, is incorrect according to the code. Moreover, it is misleading, as there does not exist any publication authored by Koch in 2016. Someone may read this in a way, that the name Apricia jovialis was published on page 1879 in a paper by Koch (2016), especially if he compares with the citation shown with the name Marptusa jovialis. --Franz Xaver (talk) 16:07, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Do you know Recommendation 51G? --Succu (talk) 16:28, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This recommendation says "If it is desired to cite both the author of a species-group nominal taxon and the person who first transferred it to another genus". I wish to cite only the "person who first transferred it to another genus" Mariusm (talk) 12:12, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately recommendations in the Code do not have to be followed. For myself I do try to include new combination information, as per the recommendations of Art. 51. But it is not common practice. It tends to be done more by taxonomists who frequently publish checklists and synonymies, which I do, but many do not. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 16:36, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but as a project you can follow this recommendation in the same spirit you are using "subsp." and not "ssp." for botanical subspecies. --Succu (talk) 18:01, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I would agree to this, I think all zoologists should do this anyway and it is a good habit to be in. So I have no issue with a decision to follow recommendation 51G of Art 51 of the Code in Wikispecies as a local "rule" so to speak or whatever we wish to call it. This information is available, it can just sometimes take a little more searching. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 19:46, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is being done above can be confusing. Synonyms section should be reserved for junior synonyms and homonyms. Generic recombinations are not strictly synonyms. Best least confusing way to do this is to put citations for each recombination, then after, in parentheses, combination used, ending with "original description" or "generic reassignment". Neferkheperre (talk) 23:07, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes that is true, a name cannot be its own synonym, however, recombinations can be included in synonymies at the authors discretion. But they do need to be clearly identified if this is done. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 23:41, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Very true, recombinations aren't strictly synonyms but:

  • We don't have (or don't have the time) to produce citations for every recombination available, so the least thing we can do is provide the data as mentioned above.
  • The "—" separator makes it very clear which are true synonyms and which are recombinations.
  • While not strictly endorsed by the code, the separator notation is used by many authors in many catalogs.
  • Apart from the synonym section we don't have a place where to insert this vital information.
  • Maybe someone can think of a better name to replace "synonyms". I myself am using "synonymy" but "mentions" can be another possibility. Mariusm (talk) 04:21, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Synonym and Synonymy are not the same in nomenclature, the synonym is as you say other available names for a taxon, the synonymy is a list of all available names for a taxon, the later can include recombinations. In saying that the only one that is somewhat vital is the current combination. The rest can be added or excluded based on what information you have. I personally do not use separators in my checklists and publications but label them as such. ie I will write Genus species (comb. nov. sensu author Date). Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 11:19, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I see many disagree with the separator proposal. Maybe the following scheme would be better liked:

To split the "synonyms" section into two: "Combinations" and "Synonyms". See for example Sclerophrys taiensis. Do you think this would be a better arrangement?

Note: I'm amazed it took us so many years to start a debate and to try and reach agreements on such basic taxonomic issues. I see zillions of WS pages where synonyms and combinations are mixed together. Mariusm (talk) 11:48, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Marius: Bufo taiensis Rödel & Ernst, 2000 is the original combination = author taxa. So you get Original combination, New combination and synonyms. See Robinsonia cajali PeterR (talk) 12:01, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't disagree with the separator proposal, but in my opinion, you should not omit the author of the original combination/protonym (and the brackets around), replacing it solely by combination authors. --Franz Xaver (talk) 12:01, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well than we're back to the 51G recommendation e.g. Methiolopsis geniculata (Stål, 1878) Rehn, 1957; where Stål is "the author of a species-group nominal taxon" and Rehn is "person who first transferred it to another genus". Or would Methiolopsis geniculata [comb. nov. sensu Rehn, 1957] be OK too?Mariusm (talk) 12:31, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure about this, as zoological nomenclature is a bit out of scope for me. However, in botany I use "sensu" in cases, where a name was misapplied by some author, often excluding its type, but also when a name is applied in a wide sense comprising, what is now regarded as several different species – see e.g. Stephania psilophylla. All these authors (Turcz., S.Vidal, Merr.), cited names (including "correct" authors) for their plants, which later turned out to mean something different. In your example, I would not use the word "sensu". --Franz Xaver (talk) 13:03, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
PeterR proposes 3 sections: "Original combination" "New combinations" and "Synonyms". Mariusm (talk) 12:45, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Why not? However, I would propose "later combinations" instead of "new combinations". Some of the can be rather old. --Franz Xaver (talk) 13:03, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
New combinations or later combinations are inclusive stat. nov., stat rev. etc.? and synonyms is only the synonymized genera, species etc. PeterR (talk) 16:27, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes authors should go in, I use sensu because it mean effectively "as in" ie it is referring to statements within said document cited. Not sure I like the idea of separating it, this would be a very non-standard practice and not familiar to those reading the synonymy. Part of the purpose of the synonymy is to demonstrate changes over time, better if that is one list for readability. It is meant to be sequential by date. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 16:13, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I would translate "sensu" as "in the sense of" (verbally) or "as interpreted by" (more freely translated), both implicating there might have been some misinterpretation by these authors. --Franz Xaver (talk) 16:21, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If used as sensu stricto it does not, can also be used as sensu lato which would be closer to what your saying, basically what I mean by it when citing an author is as stated by and is a reference that the paper cited has defined the name I am referring to. Rightly or wrongly, will be up for discussion hence its use. But you are correct the exact translation is in sense of. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 18:10, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If I understand you right, Scott, you intention is to refer to a different taxonomic option? I'm more familar with the notation "according to" or "secundum" = "sec.". --Succu (talk) 21:15, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Vote for the synonymy section format [ZOOLOGY]


1. One section only called "Synonymy" with entries made sequential by date.

2. Two sections: "Combinations" and "Synonyms".

3. Three sections: "Original combination", "Later combinations" and "Synonyms"

<< >> << >> << >> << >>

a. Recombinations denoted as Methiolopsis geniculata (Stål, 1878) Rehn, 1957 where Stål is "the author of a species-group nominal taxon" and Rehn is "person who first transferred it to another genus".

b. Recombinations denoted as Methiolopsis geniculata (Stål, 1878).

c. Recombinations denoted as Methiolopsis geniculata — Rehn, 1957 [where the "—" effectively stands for the (Stål, 1878)].

d. Recombinations denoted as Methiolopsis geniculata [comb. nov. sec. Rehn, 1957]

e. Recombinations denoted as Methiolopsis geniculata (Stål, 1878) comb. nov. sec. Rehn, 1957. I left author out by mistake above as I mentioned, it should go in, particularly in Zoology where bracketed authors indicates it is not the original comb. I also feel it is important to indicate what the second reference did, i.e. new comb, or something else.

(you are welcome to add more possibilities with subsequent letters.)

Please vote with a number and a letter

Thanks for your involvement. Mariusm (talk) 04:21, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]



I went for c or d because it simply seems superfluous, if we're going to explicitly state it as a combination with the combining author, to mention the original author. Circeus (talk) 21:52, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In older literature, recombinations are frequently cited as in fashion of a, especially when introducing such discussions. I have never seen c. Always be sure to provide reference citation for recombinations. Using 2a provides clear and concise meanings for each entry. Neferkheperre (talk) 00:56, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Neferkheperre: please see examples of a "c" here at the reptile database and here at the amphibian database See there the "—" separators.

I never did a proposal for Three sections: "Original combination", "Later combinations" and "Synonyms". It was an answer on Franz his remark. I prefer "Original combination" and "Synonyms". The reason is that lectotype etc. always designated from the original combination. See Robinsonia cajali PeterR (talk) 09:11, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@PeterR: if you want only "Original combination" and "Synonyms" where do you put the other recombinations? What has the lectotype to do with the synonym format? I don't understand... Mariusm (talk) 14:37, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Under synonyms I add all the others. I can live with that all information you can find under Synonyms. But a lot of insect sides works with original combination. If you have a new combination with designation of a lectotype etc., this lectotype etc. is always designated from the original combination. So if you add all the relevant information under the new combination, you don't have the just information by author taxa. PeterR (talk) 09:52, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Faendalimas: you must take in consideration the ease of use factor. Compare "Methiolopsis geniculata (Stål, 1878) comb. nov. sec. Rehn, 1957" with "Methiolopsis geniculata — Rehn, 1957" - the same amount of information (just replace "—" with author and date of the name description) with five fewer words to type. Mariusm (talk) 07:22, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Mariusm: I understand that, but I am not just thinking from the point of view of the editor, but the reader. This is not an across the board standard practice, hence I wish to ensure anyone reading the synonymy will understand it. In the end it is not the editors we are aiming at, this is a specialised encyclopedia of names, it is the reader that is our priority. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 12:13, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Since only 4 users participated in this vote, it can't be considered conclusive and the preferred format is still undetermined. However I strongly recommend to:

  • Not to include recombinations under the "Synonyms" header.
  • For recombinations either use "Synonymy" or "Combinations" section header.
  • For recombinations specify the author of the comb. nov. either following a "—" separator or following the author of the nominal taxon. Mariusm (talk) 07:23, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Reference templates


I do a proposal to delete in {{subst:reftemp}} Category:Reference templates? PeterR (talk) 08:57, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please justify changing this well used template? I appreciate that the Category:Reference templates is very large with over 36,000 entries, but it is harmless and useful at times. The link in {{subst:reftemp}} does add new references automatically to the list and if your proposal is accepted then that will be that! Andyboorman (talk) 15:34, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Reference templates is overdone. I'm updating the Reference templates and delete Category:Reference templates. So the new Reference templates don't need Category:Reference templates any more. Its double work to delete them. PeterR (talk) 09:03, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I'm concerned there is nothing wrong with the {{Reftemp}} template. I think it is a good thing that all reference templates are stored together in Category:Reference templates. That makes them easy to find, together with all our other sources. For the same reason I think it is a good thing that all authors can be found in the category Category:Taxon Authorities. PeterR, is it your opinion that we should delete all of these categories, that collects all of the references and authors? –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 09:47, 22 July 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Tommy: I don't know if you remember that we already have make a decision to use Authored taxa in stat off Category:Taxon Authorities. So Category:Taxon Authorities had already been clean up. Such as many other agreements. We use now in category:author name taxa: List of taxa authored by Franz Daniel and Category:Taxa by author See: Category:Franz Daniel taxa. PeterR (talk) 09:42, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I definitely advise you not to make unilateral deletes/changes to Category:Reference templates or any other similar category. You really need agreement/consensus for such major changes. After all this is one of the reasons that Sth002 got into arguments. Andyboorman (talk) 10:12, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Andy, Sth002 have made all the categories without consensus. We have a consensus to place the reference templates under Publications in the author page and under reference. So Category:Reference templates is overdone without consensus. By the way I update the reference template after our agreements and make full authors names in them. See Template:Al-Haj & Al-Aidaroos, 2014. PeterR (talk) 10:11, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder something; if we remove category:reference templates, how will this affect ability of harvesting software to identify citation templates? I know little of this type of search software. Neferkheperre (talk) 15:34, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have stop to delete Category: Reference template in the reference template until we have an agreement PeterR (talk) 09:33, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Problem with Template:IPNI


I tried to correct the template used in Ambavioideae to {{IPNI|77118920-1|2016|July 21}} which should - according to the documented behavior - produce a link to, but results in a link to with no result at all. The correct searchlink is --Succu (talk) 20:55, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there was ever any sensible reason for shifting from the original id-based link to weird name-based search. This will break whenever the page is disambiguated or happen to be a homonym, and leaves the id, which is still documented on the page four years later, unused. I've also documented the use of a name different from the page name for these very reasons. Circeus (talk) 03:32, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Circeus: Actually there exists now a big number of articles with IPNI links missing an ID. For these, after your recent change in the template, the IPNI link does not work any more. Would it be possible to change it in a way, that it uses the ID in case there is one and that it performs the name search, if an ID is missing? Regards --Franz Xaver (talk) 07:10, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I tried it now, but dit not manage to succeed. --Franz Xaver (talk) 07:25, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Originally the template used to work with just ID's then was changed to Pagename in various search formats. It does not now work with anything but IDs and so I have reverted the revision by @Circeus: as thousands of pages are now de-linked! There must be a way to get it to work with both IDs and Pagenames but that is beyond me - I have tried! For example the link to Tropicos does both. By the way IDs only appear on the http output not on the Plant Name Details page itself, which makes it less transparent for inexperienced contributors/users. Also if you type in "subfam. Ambavioideae" in the IPNI Quick Search box you get the correct page(s). The name based search is not "weird" IMO, as it is far more contributor friendly and is used on many similar templates. The problem for disambiguation is minor as it will not pick up non-plants and the IPNI will generate plant based disambigs and homonyms automatically leaving the user to click on the one(s) they are interested in. In addition if you have a page named Annona (Annonaceae) then just add Annona at the end of the template , for example - {{IPNI||2016|July 21|Annona}}. Of course the template needs improving, but going all the way back to ID only is definitely not the way! Andyboorman (talk) 09:22, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If I'm right, Andyboorman, the template is intended to be placed in a section called References as a reference for the scientific name including author and publishing details? But it's not uncommon an IPNI search for e.g. A b var. c will give you results for A b subsp. c and A b f. c too, some times with a different authorship. --Succu (talk) 22:04, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Succu: that is how most of us use the template. The template is not perfect, but it is more or less fit for purpose. IPNI is the prime repository for plant names after all and it is best to use it. It does not make judgments about "accepted" names and just generates those that have been legitimately/validly published. Therefore it is not suitable on its own and in many cases needs cross checking with other sources. Andyboorman (talk) 18:41, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
IPNI is a "nomenclatural database", Andyboorman, which does not inlcude taxonomic opinions like "accepted" by some taxonomic authority. But why you (as a project) do not use a strict IPNI ID is unclear to me. Recently IPNI made efforts to link ambiguous internal ids via "same citation of / duplicate citation of" to each other. The outcome is not perfect, but much better than before and a lot better than the search performed by this template. --Succu (talk) 20:31, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

PARSERFUNCTIONS TO THE RESCUE. This new version should be able to handle everything. I also documented the fifth variable, which I had not noticed the first time around.

@Circeus: this one does not work on the pagename needs subfam. pagename! Andyboorman (talk) 17:15, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There is no way to make this work for every single rank without a massive overcomplication of the template. I am entirely fine with these names requiring the ID parameter since I would personally never have allowed the switch to name-based searches in the first place (that's @Orchi:'s doing). Circeus (talk) 05:10, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Circeus (talk) 13:02, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, thanks. E.g. Myrica is using the form {{IPNI}}. Should this be allowed? --Succu (talk) 15:15, 22 July 2016 (UTC) PS: There are more typical misusages as {{IPNI|2015|Dec. 12}} in Cypringlea or {{IPNI|798194-1 d|2009|07 Mar}} in Strelitzia reginae. --Succu (talk) 16:21, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Circeus: Thanks for the fix - now Kew is in maintenance! @Succu: There are few mistakes which I correct when I come across them. The {{IPNI}} is a hangover form our sock friends attempt to impose his thinking on the template. Others probably me mistyping! Andyboorman (talk) 16:27, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Circeus: Thanks. That's how I wished it should work. --Franz Xaver (talk) 18:56, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There are a little bit more than 100 usages of this form left. If you want to fix them I can provide a list. --Succu (talk) 16:35, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Drop the list on my talk page if you want. Thanks Andyboorman (talk) 19:34, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Done. --Succu (talk) 19:57, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Any more? --Andyboorman (talk) 09:39, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I have compiled another small list (126 entries) where the first parameter is not empty and not an IPNI ID. Should I drop this too? --Succu (talk) 13:28, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Advice for people we write about


I have started a page, Wikispecies:Autobiography, with plain-language advice for people we do or may write about. Suggestions or improvements welcome, but do bear in mind that it is for people outside our Wikimedia community. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:30, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"In particular, you may register for an ORCID iD; see ORCID in Wikipedia for details." -is this advertising? --Succu (talk) 21:13, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for this initiative, @Pigsonthewing:, well done, and needed. Dan Koehl (talk) 22:13, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody agreed with your rhetorical question, so I've reverted your removal of that text (for which your edit summary was "sort"). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:30, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like I'm right with my "rhetorical question" (as you coined it) about your advertising? It's advertisment. Any reason why you readded it? --Succu (talk) 21:28, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]



What's the reason not having a periodical like PhytoKeys under it's title but as one of two valid ISSNs ISSN 1314-2011 and ISSN 1314-2003 (redirect)? --Succu (talk) 20:13, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

One is for print version (Primary), and other is for online version. Redirect would make both findable. Neferkheperre (talk) 20:34, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but's not an answer to my question. --Succu (talk) 20:44, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A name may be written in several different ways such as "Canadian Entomologist"; "The Canadian Entomologist" or "Canadian Entomologist - Journal of the Entomological Society of Canada" but "ISSN 0008-347X" is a unique unmistakable name. Mariusm (talk) 07:00, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Also, homonyms. Circeus (talk) 08:17, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hm, Bot. Mag. (= Curtis's Botanical Magazine, Botanical Magazine) has an ISSN... There is also an international Standard called ISO 4 for the abbreviation of serial titles. --Succu (talk) 16:45, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Somewhere, we have decided not to abbreviate journal titles in our references/reference templates. However, you are right, there exits some variation here on WS. --Franz Xaver (talk) 17:13, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

───────────────────────── I like the fact that ISSN's are unique and never changes (or at least only very, very seldom). However, choosing to list periodicals under their ISSN rather than title poses problems when dealing with older periodicals which often lack an ISSN. Therefore it's a good thing that all of the periodicals are listed in Category:Sources or any of its subcategories. (The ISSN pages can be found in the "Series identifiers" subcategory.) Both naming schemes (i.e. ISSN's and titles) have their advantages, but I for one can't really decide upon which of them I think is the best. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 19:16, 23 July 2016 (UTC).[reply]

@Succu: I'm not resposible for Bot. Mag. (though I am for several of the old ones under Category:Sources). I made sure to use the IPNI abbreviations (themselves ultimately derived from the broader Botanico-Periodicum-Huntianum) when no ISSN existed. These are standard across botany for short abbreviations (and comes predisambiguated, where ISO doesn't, I should point out.). Case in point:

  • Bot. Mag., in IPNI's definition, does not separate between the original run (ISSN 0951-2446) and J.D. Hooker's (ISSN 0011-4073). Personally I agree with this since the volume numbering is continuous and the name change is not very strong.
  • There are two other homonymic publications, with IPNI disambiguation:

All this to say that doing thorough work in this area takes more than just 30 seconds to type up a title on a page. Circeus (talk) 10:03, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sure it's more than this. In the case of botany we have with Taxonomic Literature II (TL-2) a good starting point for the more crucial point when a name was really published. I wasn't suggesting you (as a project) should switch to abbreviations. I only try to understand why your approach (as a project) is totally different and not documented by a page e.g. Help:Publication. --Succu (talk) 21:41, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I documented it (somewhat) back in fall of last year. It's just that, mostly, not one seems to have seriously given proper thoughts to those pages before, leading to the messy case-by-case hodgepodge that we current got. I mean, for months I slaved on a project to try and standardize repository acronyms and despite all the discussion no one ever came forth to seriously assist or even not make my job more complicated than it already was: I had to actually go back and double check constantly for new uses of unstandard acronyms.
Yes, I may be a little bitter about it. Circeus (talk) 16:37, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I would never search for Nontaxa pages. Presumably I would rather look for Wikispecies:Author/Help:Author (and not Wikispecies:Autobiography), Wikispecies:Source/Help:Source or Wikispecies:Publication/Help:Publication and Wikispecies:Repository/Help:Repository - or the plural form if prefered. BTW: The repository data need some more integration with WD. --Succu (talk) 20:57, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the repository stuff can integrate with WD because there is no genuine cross-discipline standardized set of abbreviation. Botany has one (Index Herbariorum, though it's not exactly exhaustive, but it covers at least 99% of institutions with type specimens) and there's one by ASIH, but to be honest, GrBio has proven to be generally much less than useful overall.
In general, I've noticed a staggering lack of such data stanbdrdization across zoology. You'd think a set of abbreviation like that in use by IPNI would be useful for zoology... Circeus (talk) 04:59, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
ZSS stands for Sukkulenten-Sammlung Zürich listed at Index Herbariorum (=Index Herbariorum). So what? As far as I know ZooBank isn't using abbreviations, IPNI does. --Succu (talk) 21:12, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Circeus, I'm not familar with the Global Registry of Biodiversity Repositories (grBio), but after a first cursority lookup I have a lot of doubts. --Succu (talk) 21:47, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Template Publications


I just discovered one tiny glitch in {{Publications}}. Clicking edit when wanting to add citations results only in editing template itself. Neferkheperre (talk) 17:33, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A very peculiar behavior of sections that are included in templates. Every "== ==" section edit that is in a template edits the template itself rather than the section. Is it a wiki bug? I noticed that the template {{Spage}} which includes a section, also includes __NOEDITSECTION__ which disables section editing. Mariusm (talk) 08:09, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To work around this bug I made the template {{Inc}}. So it would be advisable to discard {{Publications}} and instead to use:
Mariusm (talk) 04:12, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you.! –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 10:49, 29 July 2016 (UTC).[reply]
@Tommy Kronkvist: please see here the help material on sections included in templates. No restrictions are mentioned to the effect of not using them. Do you think this edit button behavior is a bug particular to WS? Where can we report this sort of bug and get answered? Mariusm (talk) 12:52, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

───────────────────────── I have added an error message to the template's documentation, asking users to avoid using it for now. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 03:56, 19 September 2016 (UTC).[reply]

New similar template


@Neferkheperre: @Mariusm: Please note that I have created the template {{IncList}} which adds the text string "List may be incomplete" to a page, i.e. similar to the {{Inc}} template above, except without being specific for lists of publications. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 14:22, 15 August 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Other similar problems


I've recently discovered that a similar problem is found on some other pages as well (N.B. not templates). For instance on the Wikispecies user access level pages Wikispecies:Administrators and Wikispecies:Bureaucrats where clicking on an [edit] link next to any of the section headings results in a page saying "Cannot find section. You tried to edit a section that does not exist. It may have been moved or deleted while you were viewing the page", followed by a link back to the original page. The behaviour is odd, and does not show up in the other Wikispecies user access level pages used for Importers, Patrollers etc. Nonetheless it does replicate in some of the other pages in Category:Wikispecies, for instance on Wikispecies:Babel and Wikispecies:Policy. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 10:44, 14 August 2016 (UTC).[reply]

A Big Idea, A Species Reference Desk.


As you know Wikipedia has a reference desk, Would Wikispecies be an appropriate project to host a page the purpose of which was to identify natural species based on user posted questions/photos, and which could give classification/taxon advice?

Example questions would be:

  • "This is an unusal flower, I think it's species X, but the guide I have says it doesn't normally appear in violet?"
  • "I have a (linked) photo of a shurb in my garden, it flowered but we have no idea what it is?"
  • "These are almost certainly <named species>, but they seem on the small side, is there a hybrid I don't know about?"

…and so on.

The hope was that if the "species" desk was linked from Wikipedia, it might encourage more interest and possibly gain more contributors for Wikispecies which is at present a comparatively small project.

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 08:44, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Previous discussion, at Wikispecies:Village Pump/Archive 36#2 Big ideas..., saw little support for this idea. Why are Wikipedia's reference desks not sufficient? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:41, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Probably such kind of reference desk should better be placed in the different Wikipedia language versions. At least in de-WP and fr-WP there exists something of this kind. I am not sure about en-WP. --Franz Xaver (talk) 17:26, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
One issue would be is whether or not we have the expertise to do the identifications. We are a small community and those of us have our specialties, but to be able to identify any plant or animal from a photo sent in would be a big ask of us. Conversely, it could be used as a means of attracting a wider range of experts to this Wiki. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 18:24, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here does seem the obvious place, as it could / would combine all queries put in all languages, and enable identifications to be made by people who might never visit an ID-page on a single language wikipedia (as I e.g. don't visit the German ID page). Alternatively, perhaps at Commons where the files are hosted. But would it work in practice? Maybe if the various existing ID-pages could be merged and new queries sent here by having redirecting links from their old locations? It would definitely require the active cooperation of the existing groups to work, and we would have to accept that questions could be asked in any language (I'd be very happy with that). - MPF (talk) 22:41, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

NZEnt sock edits


NZEnt contributions a sock of Stho002 made a number of recent aggressive, but not entomological, edits before being blocked. These included his own brand of non-standard taxon page and reference formats. However, embedded in many of these were useful data. Have look carefully through pages that interest you before just rolling them back. Andyboorman (talk) 14:01, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Incertae sedis on Taxon Pages


NZEnt tried to delete incertae sedis from Proteoideae and all other pages linked to it. He then put page Incertae sedis(Proteoideae) and its template up for speedy deletion. I reversed these changes keeping some additional info he placed on some pages and also have protected a number of pages to allow for discussion. We tried to have such a discussion some time ago about the value/non-value of incertae sedis on taxon pages, however we did not really come to a consensus and vote at that time. His timely intervention suggest that we ought to resurrect this discussion as without consensus his type of edits can be considered vandalism or at the best loss of data. Therefore I will kick off with a couple or three points.

  1. It is not a formal taxon therefore should not be used as a Taxon Page.
  2. The term incertae sedis is commonly encountered in the scientific literature and should be accommodated as a Taxon Page.
  3. Clades are used as Taxon Pages, therefore informal exceptions are found all over WS.
  4. The term has no meaning in taxonomy.
  5. It has meaning for classification and phylogeny.....

Over to you - Andyboorman (talk) 14:25, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

6. Form: Which one to prefer? 'Incertae sedis (Taxon)', 'Incertae sedis Taxon', Taxon incertae sedis, . . --Murma174 (talk) 14:47, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
My 1.5 cents: incertae sedis as a tribus name is somewhat inaccurate. The best practice would be to insert within the page Proteoideae, after the paragraphs Tribus:... and Genera:... another paragraph named Genera unassigned to specific tribus: and there to list the relevant genera. This is the way I treat these cases. In my opinion there's no need to create a special page for the incertae sedis. But still, it's only my 1.5 cents... Mariusm (talk) 14:59, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Very definitely incertae sedis is not to be used as taxon page itself. Incertae sedis taxa are normally listed under next higher taxon they can be definitely placed in. See Sessilia. Here, genus-group taxon Pachydiadema is listed as incertae sedis, and cannot be confidently placed in any lower level. Incertae sedis is best used as low level section header, as such taxa tend to eventually be confidently placed or synonymized. Neferkheperre (talk) 15:45, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Neferkheperre: I'd agree, if there were a couple of taxa to be placed only. But what to do in cases with hundreds of taxa? --Murma174 (talk) 06:38, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Murma174:, from numbers it is indeed formidable. Really, eliminating them is much simpler than Category:Publications. Just need 2 WS tabs, one with Incertae sedis page, other with next higher taxon page. Copy off taxa from Incertae sedis page, insert on taxon page as in Sessilia format, then delete Incertae sedis page. Neferkheperre (talk) 14:35, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In the past we have used a lot incertae sedis for genera that didn't match with subfamilia, tribus or subtribus. Now we make an overview of genera and we make a connection with the family, Tribus or subtribus. You can add the genera as example the proposal from MariusM as well. PeterR (talk) 15:42, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As Murma174 as alluded, there are over 500 incertae sedis taxon pages with a mix of formats, but these should not hold us back if we decided to get rid of the concept. Andyboorman (talk) 19:18, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There are out there a myriad of Incertae sedis variants:

  • Incertae sedis xxx
  • Incertae sedis (xxx)
  • xxx incertae sedis
  • xxx familia incertae sedis
  • xxx (Incertae sedis)

etc. etc. The sooner we get rid of these pages the better (my opinion). Mariusm (talk) 04:15, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In my view a page name should by default be a taxon name only in this Wiki. Occasionally it is necessary for disambiguation reasons to add some more but that should be the only reason. I have no issue with the name being declared incertae sedis (preferably with some ref if not the original author) within the page for example under the name section, this is extra information of use. It certainly should not be in the page name. A good way to display it within page would be in the synonymy where you can write as the current name something like - Genus Author, Year (incertae sedis. ref if available) for a genus name. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 18:36, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My inclination would be to restructure the Proteoideae page; have the tribes as headers only (not links), with the genera listed under each tribe header and an extra, again unlinked, insertae sedis header, as follows:

== Taxonavigation ==
Tribus Conospermeae: Conospermum – Stirlingia – Synaphea

Tribus Leucadendreae: Adenanthos – Diastella – Isopogon – Leucadendron – Leucospermum – Mimetes – Orothamnus – Paranomus – Serruria – Sorocephalus – Spatalla – Vexatorella

Tribus Petrophileae: Aulax – Petrophile

Tribus Proteeae: Faurea – Protea

incertae sedis: Beauprea – Beaupreopsis – Cenarrhenes – Dilobeia – Eidothea – Franklandia

This way, users still have direct links to all the genera, and can also see the tribal structure of the subfamily, without having to click through several pages to see where each genus belongs - very useful for people not familiar with the tribal placements of the genera.

One final point: the Incertae sedis(Proteoideae) page is wrongly titled, missing a space before the bracket; if consensus is for the page to be kept, it will have to be moved to add the missing space. - MPF (talk) 08:05, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why no tribal links, as the pages exist and can be useful on their own? Andyboorman (talk) 19:12, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Why remove tribus from this particular page and leave hundreds of other tribus pages intact? Mariusm (talk) 14:03, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
OK, keep the Tribus links; but still I think a good idea to sort the overview species list under Tribus subheaders - MPF (talk) 08:07, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Poll on Incertae Sedis as Taxon Pages


I feel the discussion on this topic has run its course, so it is time to poll to see whether or not there is consensus.

Incertae Sedis Taxon Pages should be allowed

  1. In (a couple of) certain cases there are hundreds of Genera not assigned to a Familia or Ordo. The upper-level page would be overloaded by adding all this content there. --Murma174 (talk) 20:12, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    P.S. Example: Dinoflagellata_incertae_sedis --Murma174 (talk) 16:44, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Incertae Sedis Taxon Pages should be not allowed

  1. Incertae Sedis can be effectively incorporated in the upper-level page. A separate page for this is largely superfluous. Mariusm (talk) 14:03, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Agreed Andyboorman (talk) 14:06, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Agreed --Franz Xaver (talk) 14:34, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Agreed PeterR (talk) 15:22, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Agreed Using as taxon page is not proper taxon formatting and would fit best at end of Taxonavigation section as simple list with no special header format. Neferkheperre (talk) 16:23, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Agreed -- no separate page, place them in the next page up or within a page as relevant per taxon. Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 17:12, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  7. At WD these pages are simply tagged as incertae sedis and have no further meaning. We have the qualifier incertae sedis to denote this. --Succu (talk) 18:29, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Agreed - MPF (talk) 08:08, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Agreed. –Tommy Kronkvist (talkcontribsblock logall projects)





Poll to close 13.00 pm GMT 11 August 2016.

Thank you for your time and consideration. Andyboorman (talk) 13:37, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Poll has now closed. The clear consensus is to not use Incertae Sedis as a Taxon Page. However, it may be sensible to continue with such pages if the transfer of the Incertae Sedis page(s) renders the main page over-cluttered. This is likely to be vary rare indeed. It would be best to leave this to contributors who have a specialist knowledge of the taxa concerned. Andyboorman (talk) 20:03, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Taxon author disambiguation


Wojtusiak is used as a taxon author a lot, but is in fact a disambiguation page. Is there a systematic effort to fix those? I may get a list of instances of those soon, would that be of interest? --Magnus Manske (talk) 10:04, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A considerable amount of author links are made to disambiguation pages. I personally pix them whenever I happen to see one but there isn't a systematic effort to fix them. Your help on this will be welcome. Mariusm (talk) 11:03, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here are a few. Note, these are not "human" on Wikidata, so in some cases, that could be the "fix".

Relevant discussion at Wikidata


See d:Wikidata:Project_chat#Taxon_vs._clade On applying "taxon" and "clade" to entries. —Justin (koavf)TCM 15:14, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Scope of "AUTHOR taxa" categories


The "<AUTHOR_NAME> taxa" categories were devised to group the taxa "authored" by a certain author. These are very useful categories, but we face a very difficult conundrum: What exactly do we mean by "authored"?

There are a number of possibilities:

  1. Authored are only the species which were "newly described" and were introduced as "new to science" and can include only valid names or synonymized taxa (my position).
  2. Authored are only the "original names" of a species which means that invalid names of transferred taxa can be included but the current valid name can't. (User:PeterR position).
  3. Authored are all the names ever introduced, be it synonyms, new combinations, invalid names etc. (User:Franz Xaver position).

This situation of uncertainty, where everyone interprets "authored" as he deems fit is a very confusing one. I would like to hear some opinions, and than to put this matter to a vote. (see also the discussion here) Mariusm (talk) 09:56, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Authored are in my opinion only the original names or combination. By a new combination it is always the original author(s) and never the author(s) who designated the new combination also by lectotype etc. You find the species under the original name (combination) in the museum never under the new valid name (combination). The original name or combination can also be newly described or new to science species. The new described species are often with a subgenus. It is for me difficult to except that we don't described the subgenus in the species name. You get now a list from species who don't described by the author and you don't find those species back in the journal etc. and museum. Only the original described species. You find here an example Lecitholaxa thiodora PeterR (talk) 10:25, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want to repeat here all my points from a previous discussion with Mariusm. So, please visit User talk:Franz Xaver#Authored taxa for this. In my opinion, we may use a somewhat different approach for zoology and botany. With names ruled by ICZN, I propose, following Peter's approach, to categorise only the original names (protonyms), i.e. in Category:Carolus Linnaeus taxa we should not categorise Salvelinus alpinus but instead of this Salmo alpinus, as the latter was the name used by Linnaeus. With names ruled by ICN (ICBN), as long as combining authors are part of the author citation, in my opinion there is no reason, why later combinations should not be categorised under the combining author. So, Rhytidanthera magnifica (Gleason) Dwyer is in Category:John Duncan Dwyer taxa and Godoya magnifica Gleason in Category:Henry Allan Gleason taxa. In botany, in older literature basionym authors generally where omitted from the author citation. Moreover, according to Art. 41.3 of the Code, when new combinations were published before 1953, an indirect reference was allowed, and according to Art. 41.4 it was even possible that no reference to an existing basionym was given. So, with botanical names it is often a bit tricky to find the track to the original author of a basionym, see e.g. Ex.7 given with Art. 41. According to the approach preferred by Marius (compare discussion at my talk page), Scaevola taccada (Gaertn.) Roxb. would only be categorised in the Gaertner category, although the Roxburgh protologue, consisting of a somewhat cryptic reference to a pre-Linnean illustration by Rheede, does not show the slightest trace of a connection to the basionym Lobelia taccada Gaertn. In my eyes, in cases like this one, this approach would be very confusing. In my approach, Scaevola taccade would be in the Roxburgh category, and Lobelia taccada in the Gaertner category. Regards --Franz Xaver (talk) 11:54, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We can't mix newly described taxa with new combinations or comb. nov. This is, I think the main problem we face here. These are two different categories and their importance-rank is not similar. All the species-lists attributed to a particular author that I've ever seen consist only of true new species. They don't mix in any new combinations. It's possible to initiate another category named for instance "AUTHOR combinations" or "AUTHOR names" where we can add the comb. nov. A mix between the two is to my mind incorrect and very misleading. Mariusm (talk) 04:16, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Mariusm: Yes, we can. You are continuously confusing naming of taxa with "description" or discovery of new species. Authorship is just for naming. (And the wording in the respective code is "author of name" and not "author of taxon".) A description can already exist long before, e.g. replacement name, nomen novum, or species names by Linnaeus. And the descriptions produced during later taxonomic revisions (often including a transfer to a different genus) are usually much more complete and correct. Also, often the person, who discovered a new species, is not the same, who baptised it. Moreover, the person, who has established the present taxonomic concept of an accepted species, usually is the author of a later taxonomic revision, e.g. by synonymisation, re-circumscription. In my eyes, giving a new name to something, which later may constitute (or include) the nomenclatural type of an accepted taxon, or may as well disappear in synonymy, is nothing extraordinarily special, that should be honoured separately from other nomenclatural acts. Anyway, my approach does only apply to botany, as here combinations are treated as names in their own right, and combining authors are part of the author citation. It does not apply to zoology, where only the original names (protonyms) should be categorised, in my opinion. I understand and accept that zoology does not honour authorship of later combinations. (Anyway, authorship of replacement names is also honoured in zoology, although barely more commendable.) --Franz Xaver (talk) 06:54, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have to mention, that in botany not only it is possible, that, as in the Scaevola example mentioned above, a name, that seems to be new name, later turns out, that it has to be treated as a later combination, but also the other way round. Art. 58.1 (and examples) allows, that something intended to be a new combination may be treated as a new name, with a priority dating from the act, that was intended to be only a combination. --Franz Xaver (talk) 07:23, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Franz Xaver: I'm sorry, I can't make the detachment between discovery and naming. They usually go hand in hand and the exceptions you mention are only the proof for the general rule. Even for botanists, their biographies talk about discovering new species and not categorizing e.g. in Wikipedia for Isabella Abbott it is written "She was credited with discovering over 200 species" where she has categorized or moved between genera countless more. As for a nom. nov. I treat is as a sp. nov. i.e. I do add the author to the category. Mariusm (talk) 07:50, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Mariusm: I mean e.g. Richard Spruce, only of the most important early collectors in Brazil. He not only as the first person collected many new species, but also in many cases had discovered they were new to science, which can be seen from the (new) names he noted at his herbarium specimens. However, for higher plants he rarely managed to publish a description required for a valid publication of his new names. As an example, his Gomphia vasivae was discovered and collected by himself, but his herbarium name was not validly published by him, but later Engler "described" it under the name Ouratea vasivae, and according to the code, exclusively Engler is the author of the latter species name. (Invalidly published names cannot be the basionyms of later combinations.) --Franz Xaver (talk) 08:21, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Franz Xaver: you're again talking about exceptions to the rule. Of course if a species was invalidly published, it can't count as a genuine discovery and someone else must take the credit for it. This doesn't address the more important point which I want to press: The existence of two ranks of importance in species names: discovered and repositioned. These two must not be mixed together in the same category. Especially not in zoology. Mariusm (talk) 09:30, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Mariusm: No, invalidly published names are not really a rare exception. Often invalidity is caused only by formal reason. E.g. invalidly published is also an name published after 1935 without a description in Latin, e.g. Parabaena racemosa Gagnep., Fl. Indo-Chine, Suppl. 1(1): 126. 1938, where the description in French four years earlier would have been sufficient for a valid publication. There are also not too few cases, where indication of a type specimen was missing, after this was made compulsory. Anyway, the more common case of invalidly published names are nomina nuda or names published as synonyms, the latter usually being herbarium names given by the collectors. --Franz Xaver (talk) 09:53, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Franz Xaver: invalidly published names can't make us reconsider our main goal which is in my opinion to make the taxa category represent the taxa discovered by a certain author. Your practice of mixing several levels of various importance into a single category is making the taxa concept very amorphous and therefore diminishes its usefulness. We can easily decide for example that nomina nuda can't "count" as author taxa. Let the details of particular cases not detract us from establishing the "AUTHOR taxa" category as a meaningful and coherent concept. Mariusm (talk) 10:41, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

───────────────────────── @Mariusm: I have to repeat again, these categories are only about naming of taxa, not about discovery nor description. I don't want to impose any rules upon zoology. (The way as Peter is doing, seems to be perfectly OK to me.) However, as long as in botany the author citations both include the combining author(s) and (in brackets) the basionym author(s), I cannot see any reason, why I should not continue.
Your separation into "discovered and repositioned species names" (Actually, what means a discovered species name?) seems artificial to me. We have discovery, description and naming of taxa. Sometimes all three actions fall together. Sometimes, as with the Spruce example above, discovery and naming does not include a description. Sometimes the first really thorough and correct description is done long after naming. Sometimes discovery and description is done without naming, e.g. "Genus sp. A" etc. in many modern floras. Sometimes, as with names by Linnaeus and other contemporaries, naming follows an earlier description, but nobody can tell, who actually has discovered the species. (Can you tell me, who "discovered" Vulpes vulpes? At least the vernacular name is older then the separation between English and German.) What is expressed by scientific names, is above all the naming process, including the rules in the respective codes. Discovery and taxonomic concepts (including description, re-circumscription, synonymisation etc.) are very different instances. The scientific naming does not reflect all of the taxonomic background and the scientific history of a taxon sufficiently. So, we should not stick to untenable ideas, that naming is meaning discovery. Or that the person, who named a taxon long in the past, still today is determining the taxonomic concept, to what the name is applied. So, authorship of names is about naming. That's it, nothing more. --Franz Xaver (talk) 11:39, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Mariusm: For the sake of hoping to add some weight to this. I think what @Franz Xaver: is getting at here is correct. The naming of a txon is only about the formal declaration of the name, according to whichever code is relevant. Who actually first discovered the species is not usually very relevant to the nomenclatur. Sometimes the taxon is named after the discover, eg Elseya lavarackorum was discovered by Jim and Sue Lavarack, hence White and Archer (1994) named it after them. So it will have some etymological relevance in this case. I think with many species it will never be known who really discovered it first. I mean the green sea turtle (Chelonia mydas) is attributed to Linneaus 1756, yet it was called Chelonia mydas by Aristotle in 350bc and also by Pliney the Younger. So did Linneaus discover this? Since the species has been a food item for humans for some 60 thousand years, who knows. It honestly is not that important or relevant who first discovered a species in terms of either nomenclature or taxonomy. Authors should give credit where known, but most times they may not even know. I also wonder at the value of populating the Wiki with lists of people for whom there is no real nomenclatural or taxonomic value associated. In regards to combinations, well this is realm of taxonomy, it is of course useful information so as to identify the evolution of the current nomenclature for a taxon. Which in some cases can be rather complicated. But I do not see the discoverer of a species as being a useful datapoint. Maybe that is just because I am a vertebrate taxonomist, and with most vertebrates the answer really is just a shoulder shrug. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 05:27, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Source of daily information on new species


PLAZI is a daily-updated source of new species and new re-descriptions or details of older ones. They claim to "catch" 25% of the daily new species which is a good number. Mariusm (talk) 10:44, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, they catch Zootaxa, which does publish about 25% of new species. What seems to be great is I may be able to recover Zootaxa nomenclatural acts not provided in abstracts. As I do not have $7000 per year for subscriptions, and nearest library with print copy is 400 miles away, I am restricted to open access or abstracts. Names in bold are new names, others are discussed or reassignments. Clicking on them provides further data. Thanks. Neferkheperre (talk) 14:14, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not only Zootaxa. For example on 2016-08-31 they have also species from African Invertebrates and Biodiversity Data Journal. Mariusm (talk) 15:16, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Plants seem mostly Phytokeys, but still valuable - thanks. It might have been better if they had used IPNI, as when the novel taxa appear there they have had some screening for adherence to ICBN rules and obvious errors. If authors do not lodge novel plant taxa with IPNI then they might as well be whistling in the wind! Andyboorman (talk) 19:30, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
has anyone considered using Zoobank to get a digest of new species from which to get this information. Since all new nomenclatural acts are in this database. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 00:52, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder how PLAZI manages to copy from zootaxa the data on species types, descriptions etc. - entire pages are copied, without being accused of copyright violation. Mariusm (talk) 12:24, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
They write on their website: "Switzerland ... has like each country its own copyright law. It is based on the concept of the “werk” (work). From a legal point of view, we assume that descriptions, and most likely the entire scientific publication, do not qualify as such a work, since they are not sufficiently original." This is a refreshing concept! Mariusm (talk) 06:44, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The descriptions out Zootaxa are not complete. I'm missing Materials and methods. Herein I can find the abbreviations. Now they describe the holotype without mention the museum. I can't use this site. They don't copy Zootaxa. PeterR (talk) 00:07, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Peter, all the information for type locality/holotype can be found there. Repository info is composed mainly of well-known acronyms. On top of this you have all the info for species which are treated in the respective article which aren't sp. nov. e.g. comb nov., st. nov., syn. nov. etc. Mariusm (talk) 05:17, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Marius, please look at Prosopogryllacris incisa from 2016-09-05. Please tell me in which museum it is deposit and Nothocasis rosariae, CREA-SAM means: ?. If you want to know what it means see my own contribution after original bulletin Nothocasis rosariae PeterR (talk) 07:11, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I see. For Prosopogryllacris incisa the repository is specified only in the Materials and methods section. Mariusm (talk) 07:47, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This month's commons competiton is Arthropoda


See commons:Commons:Photo challenge/2016 - September - Arthropods if you want to take part. I hope that some nice useful pictures will be uploaded. Also, we probably need someone to check that the name are correct, or suggest for the files specific descriptions and categories.--Alexmar983 (talk) 10:09, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, but there's one user who is asking to split Greek contents to a separate domain. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 05:33, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal for dedicated namespaces


Separating taxonomy from other info Would it be useful to have alternate namespaces for authorities, publications, and repositories? I'm thinking that it may be useful to keep the (Main) namespace strictly the taxonomic directory and have something akin to Author: namespace for Wikisource (e.g. in English s:en:Author:George Orwell). Thoughts? —Justin (koavf)TCM 07:17, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why should this be useful? In any case, this would complicate the matter. A lot of renamings would be necessary for the existing pages concerned. Most taxon pages would have to be changed in order to avoid double redirects. So, such a big change can only be justified, if someone can explain, why it would be necessary and useful. Are there any problems that can be solved by this move? --Franz Xaver (talk) 08:00, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It would be useful only when genus and author or genus and repository names are identical, but it happens very rarely (I've never seen a species name which is identical to an author name). Mariusm (talk) 14:30, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There are some cases with names of publications identical to names of genera (for instance AdansoniaISSN 1280-8571, AlavesiaISSN 1887-7419, WilldenowiaISSN 0511-9618 and a few others) but in my opinion these occurrences are too uncommon to validate a massive rebuild of our namespaces. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 15:20, 9 September 2016 (UTC).[reply]
I can see some other advantages to splitting namespaces; not least templates "knowing" which namespace they are in, and acting accordingly. If we do go down that route, we'd need bots to move pages and fix links. I'd want to see a good roadmap before we started. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:09, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Chinese Wikipedia has an article on Myxobolus pyriformis (梨形碘泡虫), but this taxon is not on Wikispecies. Is it real? Thanks, Amqui (talk) 12:16, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Amqui: Yes, it is a valid Species in the Genus Myxobolus, but Wikispecies hasn't listed all of them yet. See e.g. this source --Murma174 (talk) 12:22, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The page Myxobolus pyriformis is now created. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 13:58, 9 September 2016 (UTC).[reply]
@Murma174, Tommy Kronkvist: Really? The EOL entry itself is based on the BioLib entry Myxobolus pyriformis (Ma, 1998) which in turn gives no references. This Google search adds more doubts. --Succu (talk) 21:58, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The ref. for this species:

  • Ma, C.L. in Chen, Q.L. & Ma, C.L. 1998. pp. 292–528 in Fauna Sinica Myxozoa: Myxosporea. Science Press, Beijing. pp. i-xxi + 1-993. [in Chinese with English summary] [see page 519]

Mariusm (talk) 07:20, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Template APC


Does anybody have the skills to link the template APC directly to a taxon page? See this page for an example of its use. I have tried but with no success. Thanks Andyboorman (talk) 20:51, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have an example of the URL it should link to, please? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:06, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Pigsonthewing: Hi here are a couple for Steganthera APC Search Results APNI and APC Genus Page. Andyboorman (talk) 14:01, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Andyboorman: Appears to work with Steganthera now. --Murma174 (talk) 21:08, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. In case the result is satisfying, the piece |{{BASEPAGENAME}} should also be added in these pages. --Murma174 (talk) 21:33, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @Murma174:, any chance that the Taxon Name shows on the reference, as it does for IPNI? Andyboorman (talk) 14:01, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Andyboorman: Not in the same way as in the IPNI template, but it shows up. --Murma174 (talk) 14:31, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Murma174:, looking very good, but I now realise that species go to a different link see here Atherosperma moschatum. The use ef BasePageName or the name itself does not therefor work! They do not make things easy. Andyboorman (talk) 16:10, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Andyboorman: I see the problem. I tried {{BASEPAGENAMEE}} instead of {{BASEPAGENAME}} in Atherosperma moschatum, but the server doesn't accept underscores. I'm sorry, I don't see a solution at the moment :-( . Maybe someone else is more apt in these things. --Murma174 (talk) 17:40, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. Hopefully working now (with urlencode:) Please report further problems. --Murma174 (talk) 17:52, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
P.P.S. Doryphora (Atherospermataceae) is a special case, the template can't handle, and the search string has to be inserted manually. --Murma174 (talk) 18:03, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Murma174: Brilliant! Thanks Andyboorman (talk) 18:51, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Contribution for the Greek language


The User:Murma174 told me to contact the village pump to you give me advice about how to contribute to the Greek language.--Ρητά και παροιμίες (talk) 20:32, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

IMO the best and most promising way to contribute in Greek language is to participate in our localization project --Murma174 (talk) 21:18, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Ρητά και παροιμίες: I'll be happy to help you add Greek content there. Thanks a lot. —Justin (koavf)TCM 01:55, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The user Ρητά και παροιμίες (talkcontribsblock logall projects) is globally blocked. --Murma174 (talk) 21:54, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Greek Wikispecies


Here conducted debate on the creation of a separate venture, namely the version of wikispecies in Greek language.--Ρητά και παροιμίες (talk) 21:02, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User now globally blocked, as a sockpuppet. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:30, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]



I signal to our users fonds of mammals, this recent article on the reorganization of the Giraffa genus. Maybe they will be happy to merge or split certain pages. Ciao! --Ruthven (talk) 08:54, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]



As the upper level classification appears outdated, I'd suggest to update it.
Please participate in the discussion at Talk:Fungi. Thank you --Murma174 (talk) 16:17, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gender for epiteths in Charadrius


If Charadrius is masculine, why ((TFBH)) Charadrius alticola, Charadrius hiaticula and Charadrius wilsonia in feminine? or they are not? Sobreira (parlez)

That's clear, it's about epithets being nouns in apposition: Epithets ending with -cola are not adjectival, but they are nouns in apposition. -cola means "inhabitant of". So, the meaning of "alticola" is not the adjectival "alticolous", but the noun "inhabitant of high altitudes". Anyway, nouns in apposition do not change their gender in accordance with the gender of the genus name. Also wilsonia seems to be a noun in apposition. (An adjectival epithet derived from Wilson would be wilsonianus, -a, um.) Concerning hiaticula: in the protologue you can find Hiaticula with an upper-case initial. That's an indication, that also here we have a noun in apposition. Regards --Franz Xaver (talk) 11:59, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Read the article here on Charadrius wilsonia versus Charadrius wilsonius. It seems that George Ord himself changed the name to Charadrius wilsonius in a later edition. Mariusm (talk) 12:43, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks you both. I didn't remember that particular, I was so immersed in the gender that I forgot the perspective. I'm more used to botany and I thought it could be a ICZN issue. I thought wilsonius would be the adj for a supposed Wilson. Imma add the synonym wilsonius. Maybe you know about this different thingː I was trying to fix Aderidae but the Template:Syn doesn't seem to be willing to work. -- Sobreira (parlez) 13:29, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. It was the "=", which cannot be used within the templateSynː I changed it for "& #61;". Even another topic. Anyone knows why when I'm writing all my special characters are all messed? Language preferences doesn't seem to be the case. Other projects don't give me that problem. I noticed at least when I write "[", there is no problem, but when "[" twice gives me " ʽ "; when "~" twice gives "̴" (special character ̴ ) to add signature I have to copy-paste; when "{" once gives me " ̪" and maybe more; and my two points : gives ː. Any idea? -- Sobreira (parlez) 13:51, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Sobreira: Please don't use the {{Syn}} template !!! It contains a section which is known to cause problems within templates. Please use the usual
=== Synonymy ===
followed with the data. Mariusm (talk) 15:20, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I just fixed something previously done. If it doesnt work, why do we have it? We are on time to change. It's not widespread used, better act now. Why don't we use it for that plain === Synonymy ===. I can change them where used myself (if my keyboard lets me) or a bot. -- Sobreira (parlez) 15:41, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Sobreira: I revised it myself to the present state to amend a previously unacceptable version. Because it is used in too many pages, it can't be deleted, which would be the preferable thing to do. Don't use it because: (1) It doesn't let you press "edit" on the section. (2) Too many templates which don't do much only confuse the other users. (3) Typing an extra 6 chars isn't worth it. (4) You can keep a text file on your computer with the most common phrases and just copy and paste the synonymy section title without needing to resort to templates. Mariusm (talk) 07:45, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know how I counted before, that I ended up with an amount of around 300 uses. I counted again and it gives me 1088. Not so much anyway. When I say change them, I mean remove them, as in Charadrius wilsonia. I can try a bit if there is no objection. -- Sobreira (parlez) 08:13, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I will also edit them as and when I come across the offending templates. Andyboorman (talk) 14:15, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The goal of <1000 uses of { { Syn | } } achieved. I'm changing them into = = = Synonymy = = = instead of { { Syn } } so they don't appear anymore in Pages linked to, but with the hopes that when finished one day a bot can replace the former for the latter (and then also any = = = = with four, three, two or five "=", for the sake of unification). Sobreira (parlez) 14:36, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please check the taxonomy of Isuasphaera isua. For details see here at WIkidata. --Succu (talk) 17:37, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I just worked on the Bacteria down to Familia level (and deeper in parts). There are no such taxa as in Isuasphaera and Isuasphaera isua. There are indications for the existence of this microfossil, but the taxonomy in these Wikispecies-pages is pure fantasy. --Murma174 (talk) 21:13, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe it is best to delete both pages? As they are now, they are unsourced anyway. If it should be accepted, that these actually were biological objects, it seems difficult to me, that someone could decide to place them either into Bacteria or Archaea. If not deleted, could these be (questionable) genus and species of uncertain affinity somewhere in Prokaryota? --Franz Xaver (talk) 06:55, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Isuasphaera isua is a questionable micro-fossil and all the names down the ladder: Phoslipidermi, Laniispongea, Prosthetica, Crateriformales, Margarcarbonaceae, Neomargarcarbonoideae, Isuasphaereae, Isuasphaerinae are pure fantasy. I deleted this page. Mariusm (talk) 08:05, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. --Succu (talk) 15:37, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all. Species acronyms is a request at Wikidata to tag the pages in your Category:Repositories. Maybe you could help to provide a better understanding of this category. --Succu (talk) 19:44, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]



Why Category:Notoparmelia (New Zealand) has that "(NZ)"? It's not the first I find on my tournée through the Syns: Balta insignis (Shelford). Sobreira (parlez) 12:16, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Creation of one former user. He was quite fond of creating many very limited use categories. We have been eradicating these haphazardly. We need to come to some sort of agreement and plan. Neferkheperre (talk) 13:24, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I think I read about him above somewhere. Imma gather them then. Sobreira (parlez) 14:16, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Synonyms treatment: redirected?


Dasypus mazzai and Dasypus yepesi. From my botanical point of view, if they are synonyms, shouldn't they be in the same page, one redirecting to another? Sobreira (parlez) 14:14, 25 September 2016 (UTC) P.S.: Ok, the same editor as the one before. Sobreira (parlez) 14:32, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct in my opinion. We should not have a separate taxon page for a synonym and the data needs to go on the page dedicated to the correct/accepted name/combination. There is a small programme that is used to create re-directs from a list of synonyms - it needs the ===Synonyms=== tag and the names to be in italics. Place [[User:Yourusername/common.js]] on your User Page you should get a Create Redirects option on your Tools list - give it a go. It means when a user searches they will be directed to the correct page. Another discredited category is the Invalid Species, which needs to go, IMO. Andyboorman (talk) 15:31, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have added the {{Synonym}} template to the Dasypus yepesi page, as a quick fix until the matter is fully resolved. Also, I agree that Category:Invalid species should be emptied, and then deleted altogether. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 17:31, 25 September 2016 (UTC).[reply]
There are 7 categories for valid and invalid species and genera. I don't see where any are necessary. Neferkheperre (talk) 11:11, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Length of boxes?


Why Template:Antilocapra americana is not collapsable? Sobreira ►〓 (parlez) 09:10, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have changed the template. The template is collapsed by "{{Taxonav|...}}" in Template:Antilocapridae. However, this was circumvented by going back to {{Ruminantia}} without including "Taxonav". Regards --Franz Xaver (talk) 09:41, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I just noticed then but I had no time to investigate and repair at that moment (NSFW after a morning at Commons), meaning to remember me, or even someone before me and before the time I could focus on that. As was the case :) Sobreira ►〓 (parlez) 19:20, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]