Wikispecies:Village Pump/Archive 44

From Wikispecies
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This is an archive of closed discussions. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this archive.

Bad DOIs

The DOI link in {{Hoffmann, Lessa & Smith, 2002}} appears to be malformed. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:37, 10 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Same at {{Samonds, 2007}}. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:45, 10 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The doi informed is this:<0408:SOOWDO>2.0.CO;2 (Hoffman, Lessa & Smith) and[39:LPBFFA]2.0.CO;2 (Samonds), but when put in template create that, how to fix? Burmeister (talk) 22:46, 10 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Pigsonthewing: When manually adding the DOIs to the "Resolve a DOI Name" service at they both seems to work; the two DOIs lead to [1] and [2], respectively. Our template can't handle them though. May be it's an HTML entity thing, with all the square + angle brackets and semicolon? –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 23:03, 10 August 2017 (UTC).Reply[reply]
@Pigsonthewing: @Burmeister: The problem was last @Tommy Kronkvist: edit of the {{Doi}} where he also removed the displayed number. I reverted it in accordance with our recent vote. Mariusm (talk) 06:45, 11 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Mariusm: Thanks for resolving the issue. As a side note this is also a problem when using the {{Doi-inline}} template on English Wikipedia, which I have noted on the template's enWP talk page. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 08:31, 11 August 2017 (UTC).Reply[reply]

Ernst Fuchs

Ernst Fuchs has the dates 1830 or 1839 - 1904, but Gurubira apicalis cites a 1966 work attributed to that author. Can anyone help to clear up this issue, please? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:52, 13 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The years stated on Austrian entomologist Ernst Fuchs' page are really the years of birth and death of the German entomologist August Fuchs. I've deleted them from the Ernst Fuchs page. I haven't been able to find the correct data for Ernst Fuchs, but I do know that he described at least 20–30 (sub)species during the 1950s–1970s. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 18:24, 13 August 2017 (UTC).Reply[reply]
I've updated the equivalent Wikidata item Q36349323 to match the "Ernst Fuchs" page on Wikispecies. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 18:52, 13 August 2017 (UTC).Reply[reply]
See here. He lived 1910–2000. --Franz Xaver (talk) 19:26, 13 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks! I've updateed both the Wikispecies page and the Wikidata item accordingly. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 19:43, 13 August 2017 (UTC).Reply[reply]

Wikispecies amongst other WMF projects

See phab:T173295. I have seen several places where Wikispecies is not listed alongside our other sister projects. If anyone notices them, please let me know. —Justin (koavf)TCM 16:25, 14 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Iris Sheila Collenette

Does anyone have citation to support Sheila Collenette&oldid=2395050 the reported death of Iris Sheila Collenette, please? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:08, 24 July 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Her death was announced here: [3], [4]. The IPNI page has been updated. Korg (talk) 15:11, 15 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Parnara guttatus or Parnara guttata?

Please check these diffs regarding the butterfly genus Parnara and the taxon name Parnara guttatus. The editor (an IP user) changed the specific name Parnara guttatus to Parnara guttata. Catalog of Life's "2017 Annual Checklist" claims P. guttatus is correct, and P. guttata isn't listed at all. However I haven't got any good sources to thoroughly check it up. Hence the two edits are still marked as unpatrolled. Any entomologist here with the correct data and a verifiable source? –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 19:58, 14 August 2017 (UTC).Reply[reply]

Butterfly entomologists do not follow the Principal of Coordination so the spelling is as per the original combination and spelling. ie ``Eudamus guttatus`` Bremer & Grey, 1853. P guttata is incorrect. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 02:52, 15 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As far as I see, in ICZN Art. 31.2 there is no exception made for butterflies. As the gender of Parnara is feminine, an adjectival epithet would have to change its gender from masculine guttatus to feminine guttata. However, maybe it is a matter of tradition of usage to regard guttatus as a noun in apposition, so that it does not need to be changed. Is there evidence from old literature, that this epithet has been regarded as a noun in apposition? --Franz Xaver (talk) 05:57, 15 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There is no exception made by the ICZN for this, its just the standard practice from the butterfly entomologists. They choose not to follow the Principal of Coordination. Its their standard practice. Using something else would be at odds with their species checklists. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 06:09, 15 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Examples from old literature: Parnara guttatus in Elwes & Möller (1888) vs. Parnara guttata in Leech (1893–1894). However, when Parnara was established by Moore (1881), p. 166, he made the combination P. guttata. It seems, that the standard practice of lepidopterologists is deliberately neglecting the Code. Anyway, also in recent entomological literature, Parnara guttata can be found – see [5]. --Franz Xaver (talk) 06:31, 15 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
By the way, the Principle of Coordination seems to be something different – see ICZN Art. 36. --Franz Xaver (talk) 06:34, 15 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
From what I can gather, and I did check this with an ICZN commissioner who is an entomologist, not all lepidopterists follow this but it is met with difficulties and infighting. So to me easier just to follow their typical pracrice of using original species spelling only and live with it. I do not agree with them, but I am not a lepidopterist so am not challenging them on this. Not my place. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 06:43, 15 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Authors use guttatus and guttata as the same species. Its often that the old used guttatus change in a transferred genus in guttata. Those changes are not only in the butterflies. PeterR (talk) 07:11, 15 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(1) The Principle of Coordination is not relevant to this case. (2) Following the practice, the name should be Parnara guttatus due to the original combination Eudamus guttatus. Mariusm (talk) 07:17, 15 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

───────────────────────── So... in a way either both taxon names are correct, or both taxon names are incorrect..? Confusing! Anyway, following the practice I guess the edits should be reverted – or is that too close to original research? –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 08:00, 15 August 2017 (UTC).Reply[reply]

@Tommy Kronkvist: Just make Parnara guttatus the species-name and Parnara guttata its synonym. Mariusm (talk) 08:19, 15 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Done. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 09:47, 15 August 2017 (UTC).Reply[reply]

Xolmis coronata: synonym or error, or both?

In Xolmis coronatus (no doubt, correct name), an editor removed Xolmis coronata as synonym with the argument that it was an error, not a synonym. This is absolutely not a complain but just open the discussion with the aim of establishig a sort of policy, because the situation may repeat in hundreds of pages. The question is: should we treat this "gender" errors as synonyms as in Avibase, see latim ? Or not? My opinion with no taxonomic or scientific base: we should.--Hector Bottai (talk) 16:26, 15 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As far as I am aware, in plants the combination with the incorrect suffix not a synonym and is not specifically mentioned as such in ICBN Art62. As an example see here Echites agglutinatus, where I have mentioned the "errors" at the end of the citations, but placed a note regarding the masculine suffix on the genus taxon page. Andyboorman (talk) 18:10, 15 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Xolmis coronata is not a "synonym", but is a name combination with mispelling (gender agreement) that can be treat under synonymy/combinations. Burmeister (talk) 18:23, 15 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Burmeister: Under articles or conventions and for all groupings? Andyboorman (talk) 18:43, 15 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Andyboorman: I did not understand your question. But my comment is based on this old discussion, recommending "Not to include recombinations under the "Synonyms" header" and "For recombinations either use "Synonymy" or "Combinations" section header"; Cnemidocarpa radicosa is a example of how I deal with this subject recombinations versus synonyms. Burmeister (talk) 19:10, 15 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Burmeister: Sorry just seeking clarification. I did not participate in the above discussion, as I assumed it was for zoology. As I noted above, I think that an ontological recombination for a plant is corrected all the way back to the protologue with a quick note of the changes, if required. Thereafter, they become unimportant and not really synonyms or part of a synonymy. Thanks for your example - plants and zoology are clearly different! Andyboorman (talk) 19:44, 15 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't have much knowledge/experience with plants/botany, so my comments tend to be specific to zoology. Burmeister (talk) 19:49, 15 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

───────────────────────── I think the best way to deal with these gender "synonyms" is to make the section title "Synonymy" instead of "Synonyms" and add them there. It's much better to have a single "synonym" section then a couple or more. Then you can add there to line: "Xolmis coronata [gender error]". Mariusm (talk) 04:14, 16 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

At least in zoology, a synonymy is the list of available names for a taxon (Art 79) and as such includes any available name (zoology term) but excludes unavailable names. Gender corrections as species change genera are still available names, just not the current one necessarily. Recombinations should be in the synonymy anyway so I place them in as recombinations into the synonomy, I do not use the term synonyms as its not the correct term in this instance. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 04:57, 16 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

New PD images of insects - superb quality

Long-horned bee, female (Apidae, Svastra petulca (Cresson))

The 'Insects Unlocked' project at the University of Texas at Austin are making superb, high res images of insects, like the one above, available in the public domain - almost a thousand, so far. I'm uploading them to Wikimedia commons, in Commons:Category:Photographs by Insects Unlocked.

Please help, by adding categories on Commons, attaching them to Wikidata items, and then using them in this project, by applying the {{Image}} template to relevant pages. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:18, 24 July 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Great initiative by the UT Austin. Thanks for the heads up, Andy – I'll start helping out tomorrow. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 09:18, 25 July 2017 (UTC).Reply[reply]
Missed this one before. Yep, good pics, but I'd still rather see a photo of a species alive in its natural habitat, than a dead museum specimen. Yes, use them where such doesn't exist (as I'd guess will often apply), but don't automatically use them to displace existing pics of live specimens in nature. - MPF (talk) 08:17, 23 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Beta feature: advanced filters and more options for Watchlists, starting September 5


Sorry to write in English. If needed, Please help translate to your language!

As you may already know, the Global Collaboration team has created a Beta feature. This feature is on your wiki since few months: "⧼eri-rcfilters-beta-label⧽". You can activate it in your Beta preferences.

What is this feature again?

This feature improves Special:RecentChanges and Special:RecentChangesLinked. It adds new features that ease vandalism tracking and support of newcomers:

  • Filtering - filter recent changes with easy-to-use and powerful filters combinations, including filtering by namespace or tagged edits.
  • Highlighting - add a colored background to the different changes you are monitoring. It helps quick identification of changes that matter to you.
  • Bookmarking to keep your favorite configurations of filters ready to be used.
  • Quality and Intent Filters - those filters use ORES predictions. They identify real vandalism or good faith intent contributions that need help.

You can know more about this project by visiting the quick tour help page.

What's new?

On September 5, the Beta feature will have a new option. Watchlists will have all new features available on Recent Changes Beta now.

If you have already activated the Beta feature "⧼eri-rcfilters-beta-label⧽", you have no action to take. If you haven't activated the Beta feature "⧼eri-rcfilters-beta-label⧽" and you want to try the filters on Watchlists, please go to your Beta preferences on September 6. It will not be possible to try the filters only on Recent Changes or only on Watchlist.

Please also note that later in September, some changes will happen on Recent Changes. We will release some features at the moment available in Beta as default features. This will impact all users, but we will provide an option to opt-out. I'll recontact you with a more precise schedule and all the details very soon.

You can ping me if you have questions.

All the best, Trizek (WMF) (talk) 15:20, 24 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Cacti identification request

From our sister: c:Commons:Help_desk#Looking_for_cacti-knowledgeable_people_to_help_me_upload_a_bunch_of_cacti_photos. —Justin (koavf)TCM 21:46, 26 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

César I. Barrio-Amorós

Is César I. Barrio-Amorós possibly a typo for César L. Barrio Amorós ? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:23, 27 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes [6], [7]. I've redirected the page. Korg (talk) 20:22, 27 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:29, 27 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Scholia - a tool for scholarly profiles

I think most editors here will be interested in Scholia, which gives visualisations of data about works, journals, authors and topics, obviously including those related to taxonomy, using data from Wikidata.

Here is an example, based on One hundred and one new species of Trigonopterus weevils from New Guinea, which is our Template:Riedel et al., 2013 and Wikidata's Q19966966.

The material presented includes:

  • A bar chart of "Citations per year"
  • A list of "Citations to the work" (each linking to an equivalent visualisation for the work concerned)
  • A list of "Cited works" (ditto)
  • A dynamic "Citation graph"
  • A list of supported statements (e.g. Trigonopterus zygops -> parent taxon -> Trigonopterus; each item linked)

Scholia is an open source project, hosted on the Wikimedia Foundation's toolserver, with code on GitHub, should anybody wish to contribute code, or report issues. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:57, 31 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Taxonomic vandalism (off-wiki)

See —Justin (koavf)TCM 01:29, 9 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

thanks for linking this myself and several others were interviewed for this, @Dyanega: being another wikipedian who has edited here on species interviewed for this. I think thepoints were relatively well made by the author. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 03:56, 9 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, we should beware of self-published journals like Calodema and Australasian Journal of Herpetology and especially be cautious of editing the names which were authored by Raymond Terrence Hoser. I strongly suggest to refrain from editing his authored names although they are technically legitimate. Mariusm (talk) 06:44, 9 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
An interesting article, Justin. Thanks for the link. Tweeted.Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 06:52, 9 September 2017 (UTC).Reply[reply]

Grant for a Wikimedia Projects DVD

Hi everyone, in this page of Italian Wikiversity We are discussing to request a grant for the creation of 500/1000 DVDs to be distributed to Italian schools with all Wikimedia projects (including this one). What do you think about it? Let me know on that page. (here draft of the request)--Ferdi2005 (talk) 12:36, 9 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Name of clade pages

The page name for the clade Craniata in phylum Chordata is Chordata Craniata. What's our naming scheme praxis in these cases? Shouldn't it rather be named Craniata (Cordata)? Also, the page format is way off, but that's another matter. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 13:03, 10 September 2017 (UTC).Reply[reply]

Spellchecking publication-titles and type-info

Recently @Dan Koehl: is using the AWB program to "correct" the spelling of publication-titles and of type information. I was certain until now that the original spelling/phrasing of both can't be manipulated or changed as we always strive to keep the original intact due to scientific consistency. Even when the original is misspelled or mis-phrased it must remain as it was originally spelled or phrased. Am I right in this presumption? Mariusm (talk) 12:00, 30 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fully agree. We shoud never change what is written in the original publication.--Hector Bottai (talk) 12:09, 30 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Do we have any written consensus for this? I have been trying to find something written on this, but without success. Its important that, if this is part of the WS rules, we can refer to such a consensus, and personally, I would suggest that such misspelling are tagged with the template "Template:Not_a_typo" tag, in order to avoid that such titles gets corrected against such a possible rule. Dan Koehl (talk) 12:52, 30 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Using the notatypo template would also be good in cases like this: where I first corrected continedcontinued, but after double-checking the page, a language project by Andreas Schroeter and Patrick Uecker, describing a conține as to contain to hold to be composed of to be made up of to comprise , I felt the safest thing was to revert my own edit. After this, user @Burmeister: again changed continedcontinued, and now I really dont know what is right. If the contined is correct and it would be submitted within the Template:Not_a_typo like {{Not_a_typo|contined}} we would all know, including AutoWikiBrowser, that its not a typo, and should not be corrected. — The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dan Koehl (talkcontribs) 13:46, 30 August 2017‎.
I'm not a native english speaker, so I assume that contined was a typo/error committed by me (in some entries I wrote continued and in other I wrote contined), and continued was the "correct spelling" corrected by you, if I wrong I'm sorry for that. Burmeister (talk) 13:51, 30 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No problem at all @Burmeister:, and I was assuming the same, in any case, it would be good to establish some sort of routines for this, and to make it easier to spell-check pages, manually, with AutoWikiBrowser or with a bot. What we may need now, is some sort of consensus regarding those issues? Dan Koehl (talk) 13:58, 30 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree, that publication titles have to reproduce the original spelling. Corrections should only be done after having compared with the original. This means, in my opinion, that such corrections should not be done by bots. Is it possible to change the settings of a bot, that it generally would not touch publication titles? --Franz Xaver (talk) 14:09, 30 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
About the discussion, I agree with the others, publications title and type localities have to reproduce the original spelling. Burmeister (talk) 14:20, 30 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It seems my suggestion o using the "Template:Not_a_typo" tag at all misspellings, did not gain any cmments. So I ask alternatively, since the WS if full of hundreds with misspellings, also in the publication titles sections, how should we know when the misspeling is reproducing the original spelling, and when its not, its just an error by the editor? — The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dan Koehl (talkcontribs) 10:28, 31 August 2017 (UTC).Reply[reply]
Using the "Template:Not_a_typo", in my opinion, is a good solution in many cases, but here it would be better to have some solution, which enables to mark a longer sequence of text as being written in a certain language. In the linked example, it is clear, that the Spanish word autor is correct and must not be changed into the English word author, provided that this can be recognised as being Spanish. How can you be sure, that a spell-checking bot would not change the words en casa into in case?
Anyway, I don't think, that a spell-checking bot is the best solution for WS, as texts are rather short an in a variety of languages, so that it is risky, that a bot would make unwanted "corrections" of publication titles, type localities etc. Most errors can only be corrected by checking with the original publication. Back to the example linked above: The title of the Chilean flora by Gay actually is Flora Chilena not Flora Chileana and the part on Algas by Montagne starts from page 228 to 393. As the Algae were published in two parts, i.e. pages 228–256 in 1852 and pages 257–393 in 1854 (see [8]), the whole reference needs a refreshment. A spell-checking bot here can contribute nothing. --Franz Xaver (talk) 11:37, 31 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Franz Xaver:, thanks for your input, I believe that a spell-checking bot would not change the words en casa into in case, IF en casa is tagged with the lang template like ({{lang|es|en casa}}). Dan Koehl (talk) 00:23, 1 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The recent run of spell-checking bot has not only "corrected" original text in references and type localities, but also the file names of images. Settings of the bot have to be adjusted to skip text that is in template:image. --Thiotrix (talk) 07:25, 1 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That is news for me, @Thiotrix:, would you be kind and inform me which file it is, or give a link to the edit? Dan Koehl (talk) 13:05, 1 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Examples are the last edits on Ectocarpus fasciculatus, Litosiphon, and Litosiphon laminariae. --Thiotrix (talk) 13:35, 1 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you @Thiotrix:, I see what you mean. By all means, it seems as of the temlate did not break the exposure of the picture e.g. didnt change the filename, but I reverted those edits anyway. It actually makes more sense to change the filenames at commons, IF sea-weed is regarded as less correct than seaweed. Dan Koehl (talk) 16:18, 1 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It looks however, like most of those file names reflect the original spelling, why I agree that it makes sense to name those files as the original naming, why the "Template:Not_a_typo" may be useful. I will await more opinions on this subject though, and keep an eye on that image file names dont get changed until we can reach some consenus also on this issue. Dan Koehl (talk) 16:18, 1 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
An alternative to the template "Template:Not_a_typo" tag, is when the text has origin in a non-english language, like on the page Spongites verruculosus where the Portugese spelling of Rio de Janeiro is protected with‎ ({{lang|pt|Rio de Janero}}). Dan Koehl (talk) 16:29, 30 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
{{Lang}} should always be used in such cases, as it marks up the text, semantically, as being in the given language not English, which aids, for example, screen-reading software and translation tools. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:55, 31 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Trying out the {{Lang}} on some pages (example), I suddenly realized that instead of tagging specific words, maybe the entire non-english text should be tagged, like this edit? Dan Koehl (talk) 16:41, 1 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Dan Koehl: Precisely so, yes. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:57, 4 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I also would like to ask the WS community if you agree that a page category like [[Category:Pages with non-english content]] could be useful, in order to identify and categorize pages that may need maintenance like inserting {{Lang}} tags? Dan Koehl (talk) 17:23, 1 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Dan Koehl: I don't think, that such a category would be a good idea. As soon as type localities and all relevant references are added to taxon pages, most of them will be in this category. Taxon pages with short texts in a variety of languages will be the rule. For example, I counted five different languages in Brackenridgea arenaria or Luxemburgia octandra. So, such a category will not be very helpful with maintainance tasks, but itself will generate workload for keeping it up to date. Generally, I would prefer, that a spell-checking bot is not used at all. That's a good tool for wikipedias, where we have long texts in only one language, but not here. --Franz Xaver (talk) 22:38, 1 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So far, I inserted [[Category:Pages needing cleanup]] on three pages with non-english content, as a test. Dan Koehl (talk) 17:30, 1 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am late to this topic, but want to add that I strongly support keeping original spelling errors in titles. A good example from my field: Trewavas, E. (1949) The origin and evolution of the cichlid fisches [sic] of the Great African lakes, with special reference to Lake Nyasa. Comptes Rendus 13th Congrès International de Zoologie 1948: 365-368. I also agree with Franz's comment above that a spell-checking bot should not be used on WS. There would seem to be many possibilities for "errors" to be "corrected" that are actually correctly formed (or not!) scientific names. For example, I can imagine a bot "correcting" sapiens to the English word sapient. MKOliver (talk) 00:44, 2 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OK. So, jokingly, who supports, strongly, that Wikispecies have, or at least had, hundreds of misspelled pages?


Im afraid that we somehow have to look into this, and find a solution where original spelling will remain, when it should be misspelled, but that we can at least once a month clean ot misspellings, which should not be on the project? Instead of remining with problem that most users dont see, neglect, or simply close their eyes for, let us put our heads together and see if we can find a solution? Dan Koehl (talk) 08:40, 11 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikimania 2017

Wikimania 2017, the annual conference of the Wikimedia movement, will be held in Montreal next week. Are any of you going?

I will be there. I have a round-table discussion session, "Wikispecies and Wikidata - a match made in heaven, or hell?", scheduled for Saturday, and hope to see some of you there. There will also be an etherpad (URL to follow), for anyone wishing to participate remotely. This is the only Wikispecies-specific session in this year's programme, though several of the more general sessions are relevant. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:07, 2 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Interesting read is anyone with an understanding and knowledge of Wikispecies from the point of view of a taxonomist attending this? If not I would like to prepare a response to this. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 16:59, 2 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This seems a concoction of a totalitarian-regime-style trial with Mr. Mabbett in the role of the prosecutor bringing the proceedings in favor of annihilating WS within WD but with no representative out there to plead for the accused. Mariusm (talk) 05:25, 3 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I would not say, it looked like a trial. Maybe, it will have some similarity with a conspirative meeting. --Franz Xaver (talk) 09:19, 3 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I do not know about a trial or conspiracy, but I do know that WD is about mass data for data handlers and WS is about taxonomic data for scientists and interested users. Chalk and cheese. Andyboorman (talk) 10:10, 3 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In essence I agree with Andy Boorman. As far as I understand it Andy Mabbett puts the limelight on an important question. The abstract of his Open Submission is pretty straightforward, and to me it certainly does not look like any sort of "prosecution". Personally I have no problem seeing a future where Wikispecies and Wikidata can function side by side, and that both projects will benefit from it. Unfortunately and regardless of this discussion, I can't attend at this years Wikimania. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 12:12, 3 August 2017 (UTC).Reply[reply]
It's hard to judge the content of the presentation based on the title itself (just like judging a book by its cover), especially when a title has a lot of creativity leeway to attract attendees. I wonder if the presentation slides will be uploaded after Wikimania so we can all take a look. OhanaUnitedTalk page, 19:03, 3 August 2017 (UTC).Reply[reply]

───────────────────────── I agree with OhanaUnited, and adds a copy of the abstract, to aid in further discussion:

On the face of it, Wikispecies can easily be populated with data from Wikidata. But there is much resistance to this within the Wikispecies community. Do they have a point? Are Wikidata's interface and/ or community norms off-putting to the taxonomists who make up a significant proportion of Wikispecies editors? How can their needs be accommodated? Do we need to store data more than once?
What will attendees take away from this session?
An understanding of the issues currently affecting the relationship between Wikidata and Wikispecies, and ideas for how to address them.

Also, the presentation slides would indeed be interesting to see, but I don't know whether it is praxis to upload them or not. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 20:15, 3 August 2017 (UTC).Reply[reply]

My issue is the statement in the abstract that "Wikispecies can easily be populated with data from Wikidata." Not sure I totally agree with this, I think the issue there as has been discussed before is that the information at Wikidata is not including all the information needed for a correct taxonomic statement on each species. Here we develop each page with the information needed by taxonomists and others interested in this informaton. To me Wikidata should mine the data from wikispecies or the links to it and actually do a genuine service by being the source of information for Wikipedia. Particularly in our case, in the area of taxoboxes. Recent statements for example that Wikipedia can do species accounts better than Wikispecies I find self grandiose and completely untrue. There are many species accounts on Wikipedia with incorrect taxoboxes, and different taxoboxes between languages. Reign in the Wikipedia so they all use nomenclature instead of constantly shoving an unreviewed database down wikispecies throat that in places is just not correct. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 20:38, 3 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Indeed there are difficulties – that's exactly why this issue should be brought to the Wikimania conference. For instance it can be difficult to handle synonyms correctly, which is often apparent in the different Wikipedias. As an example several language versions of Wikipedia lists the species (and legit taxon) Devario aequipinnatus under the (dubious) synonym Danio aequipinnatus. This can easily be seen on the taxon's equivalent Wikidata page. Here Wikidata might be a huge help, if as Scott say it mines the information from Wikispecies, and the Wikipedias then automatically implement that data into their taxoboxes. However I'm not sure whether that can actually be done, in practice. In other words I don't know whether it is possible for the Wikidata software to differentiate between the multitude of sister projects, and only import taxobox data from a specific one of them (but never export to it), and then "push" that data to the others (but never fetch that data from them). I'm confident Mabbett and the other Wikidata gurus know whether it can be done, and if not perhaps it is possible to implement in the future. It is a very versatile and competent software, after all.
Another, bigger problem in regards to synonymy is that the same name can be a synonym for several other, very different but legit taxa. For instance the name "A" might be a synonym for the valid taxa "B", "C", and "D". There are hundreds if not thousands of such examples. The normal Wikimedia approach to handle duplicates is of course to use disambiguation pages, but for synonyms this wont work. Sure the synonym "A" can be the source of a disambiguation page, but it must also be listed on every single one of the "B", "C" and "D" (but not "E" etc.) taxon pages, or else the taxonomic data on those pages will be incomplete. Can Wikidata solve this? I don't know. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 09:06, 4 August 2017 (UTC).Reply[reply]
Why beat around the bush? Mr. Mabbett clearly stated his opinion in the past that WS's role is to serve as a front-end for WD, where all the data will be entered at WD and the sole role of WS will be to take it from there and display it in a suitable format. This argument he's going to present at the conference with no-one to contradict him there. All I know is that this idea is thoroughly bad and that someone should tell this to the audience. Mariusm (talk) 14:38, 4 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think to be fair it was me that said WS could be a front end but not the way you describe it. I feel that Wikispecies should develop the pages and Wikidata can template the data for Wikipedia`s to utilise in taxoboxes. This way all wikipedia taxoboxes would be the same irrespective of language, as Nomenclatural information should be, it is designed under the codes to cross language barriers. Nomenclatural data is complex and precise. Not something Wikidata has the people to do well. There are a few there but not many. But they can bundle the data in a usable format for insertion into Wikipedia taxoboxes. Trying to have everything on Wikidata is a failure to appreciate where skill sets are. That is generally a big mistake in database design. The fact that their database is not relational is also disconcerting. However that`s their design issue and one that can be worked around. However in all honesty if Wikipedia`s are not going to migrate to a system of utilising Wikidata in a way that will produce the best outcome I am not sure what the point is. I certainly see no reason to populate our data from Wikidata if Wikipedia will not do it appropriately. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 17:10, 4 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
My point as well. Also, we must remember that Wikispecies is not a sovereign site in the Internet universe. It is a part of the Wikimedia community. In a way Wikidata is for information what Commons is for images. Should we ban pictures from Commons and instead upload "our own" images to Wikispecies? No, of course not. The reason is that Commons does this so much better – but that doesn't mean that the sole purpose of Wikispecies is to serve as a front-end for Commons media files! Wikidata works in the same way, only it serves us dry data rather than media files.
The whole point of having different sister projects is that each of the projects have their own and very specific purposes. Wikispecies is good at presenting hard facts regarding taxonomic nomenclature, Wiktionary is a good dictionary, Wikinews is getting better and better at handing us the recent tidings, and so forth. Wikidata is one of those sister projects. It is as a hub collecting and serving structured data to and from almost all of the other wikis, but nothing much more. In other words Wikidata is to Wikispecies what an index is to a book. It's nice to have an index, but the index can never replace the story told by the book itself. The problem for Wikidata is that it serves as a single index for many, many books (i.e. wikis) but I sincerely believe that problem can be overcome, and in a good way for all projects.
To conclude my point of view: It is far better to have several specialized sister projects benefitting from each other, rather than to scrap them all and instead create one huge Omnipedia carrying all of the information. And the only way those different sister projects can benefit from each other is by sharing their data via the Wikidata hub. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 20:57, 4 August 2017 (UTC).Reply[reply]
Well then Scott and Tommy, how can it happen that a person representing himself as a WS administrator is lecturing and endorsing the opposite of our consensus while the points you've just raised above are getting no chance of being heard at the conference? And why didn't Mr. Mabbett ask for our opinion before going on and presenting his lecture? As a WS administrator he has some obligations towards the community among which is not to go out and misrepresent us. Mariusm (talk) 06:07, 5 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Please read the submission again, per the link given above. There you will find that:
  • it is not a "lecture by Mabbett" as you say, it is a roundtable discussion. In the submission he is not endorsing any viewpoint opposite to anything. In fact he asks the question "How can the needs of Wikispecies be accommodated?" If anything at all that seems helpful to us, rather than the opposite.
  • it is still an open submission. It is not yet accepted and therefore perhaps will not take place. Hence Mabbett actually is asking for opinions.
Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 11:47, 5 August 2017 (UTC).Reply[reply]
Yes, of course. However, does anyone at the round-table know about the needs of Wikispecies? I have doubts. The list of properties and qualifiers in D:Wikidata:WikiProject Taxonomy is insufficient for both taxonomic and nomenclatural purposes: (1) There exists D:Property:P1420, but no difference is made between homotypic and heterotypic synonyms. In the latter case, there should be given the possibility to add references for the synonymization. (2) There exists D:Property:P427, but where can we see, if such a type is the holotype, a lectotype or a neotype, and in both latter cases, who in what place has designated this type? Moreover, there exist difference concerning types between zoological and botanical codes, and between types of species/subspecific taxa and types of higher rank taxa. I am in doubt, if one simple property would be able to serve the needs of all. (3) What about homonyms? (4) What about blocking names? (5) Generally, I am missing awareness, that taxa and names of taxa are a different matter, probably needing different kinds of data objects. --Franz Xaver (talk) 13:12, 5 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"How can the needs of Wikispecies be accommodated?" really means "How can my way of thinking be implemented?" and "round-table" and "lecture" both involve persons who are unaware of our arguments and therefor either way it's "unfair" of Mabbett to make his submission the way he did. Mariusm (talk) 13:25, 5 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We should remember that the annual Wikimania conference and nearly all of its roundtables, workshops – and yes even lectures – are open to each and every one of us. For various and rather obvious reasons not all of us can attend every year, but that is also why each conference is held in different parts of the world. Wikimedia is a global organisation, and every community member should have the possibility to partake at some point or another. Approximately 700–800 people attends Wikimania every year. It's open to everyone within the community, and if we taxonomists doesn't show up, quite frankly we can only blame ourselves. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 13:38, 5 August 2017 (UTC).Reply[reply]
As an outsider interested in both Wikidata and Wikispecies, it seems that there is lots of scope for fruitful collaboration. For example, things such as people and journals would seem an obvious thing for Wikidata to host and Wikispecies to make use of. Wikidata is already set up to be able to describe journals in lots of detail (including multiple identifiers, links to publishers, URLs for services to get lists of all or most recent articles, etc.). It seems sensible to make use of this wherever possible. One could imagine a discussion where things that are core to Wikispecies are identified, and those that are relevant but not necessarily unique to Wikispecies (e.g., people, journals, references) could be devolved to Wikidata, assuming it can provide the information Wikispecies needs. Wikidata does have limitations, but so does Wikispecies. For example, Franz Xaver wrote of Wikidata: "Generally, I am missing awareness, that taxa and names of taxa are a different matter, probably needing different kinds of data objects". I would argue Wikispecies also fails to make a clean distinction between names and taxa. For example, the use of redirects for synonyms means we lose an opportunity to provide details about that particular name (where was it published, why is it considered to be a synonym, etc.). From my perspective Wikispecies would be more valuable if it focussed on nomenclature rather than taxonomy, or at least treated both equally. At the moment it seems something of a mishmash. Lastly, it seems that dialogue is going to be a challenge given that both Wikidata and Wikispecies are somewhat fluid communities comprising people with rather different visions of what the goals are. --Rdmpage (talk) 09:47, 7 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Rdmpage: You are right, that at present also a good portion of WS is not, where it should be. Anyway, it is not true, that "the use of redirects for synonyms means we lose an opportunity to provide details about that particular name". See for example Brackenridgea zanguebarica or Ouratea longifolia. It is very well possible to provide all these informations together at one place in a taxon page. It is not possible to deal with nomenclature alone, without having based it on a definite taxonomic concept. Nomenclature does not make any sense, when not at first instance it is made clear, which taxa are to be distinguished and where are the limits between the taxa – see ICN Principle IV: Each taxonomic group with a particular circumscription, position, and rank can bear only one correct name ... That means, as long as the circumscription of the taxa is not clear, it is not possible to apply the rules of the Code concerning priority. Regards --Franz Xaver (talk) 10:56, 7 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not sure I follow "Nomenclature does not make any sense, when not at first instance it is made clear, which taxa are to be distinguished and where are the limits between the taxa" We have databases of names (e.g., IPNI) that simply record names and their publication, but which make no judgements as to what taxon the name applies to. This is what I mean by nomenclature, the act of publishing a name is a "fact", doesn't that exist independently of what taxon (if nay) it applies to? Regarding redirects, to me it makes more sense to have one page per name, so that the page for Ochna longifolia would be a page that gives the publication details for that name, and is also linked to any nomenclatural synonyms. A taxon page would gather all the names that have been applied to that taxon (homotypic and heterotypic synonyms). That way you can avoid treating many names as simply redirects to other names. --Rdmpage (talk) 13:41, 7 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Rdmpage: Sure, it is possible to restrict nomenclature only to the publication data of the respective names. However, if this is, what WS is supposed to be about, for me personally it does not make any sense to invest a single hour in such a project. IPNI already is existing and I see no merit in an exercise to repeat the same thing under the name of WS. There would be no gain of any surplus value, compared to IPNI. I am aiming at something providing information comparable to WCSP, but covering families not covered by the Kew project. Anyway, nomenclature is not only about publication of a certain name, but a set of rules within the Code requires, that at first instance the circumscription of taxa is fixed. This concerns rules about priority, as this is about the oldest name belonging to a certain taxon, and about conservation. I would not be satisfied with a list of names, which cannot be applied correctly to anything beyond their type collection, because nobody is defining taxa and their circumscription. --Franz Xaver (talk) 15:26, 7 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Surely it can be about both? Treat BOTH names AND taxa as first class citizens, and show the links between them. Furthermore, WS does add value beyond IPNI as IPNI references are rather cryptic "micro citations" that mean little to people who aren't familiar with the botanical literature, whereas most WS citations are given in full and often provide links digitised versions of those references.--Rdmpage (talk) 16:00, 7 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A taxon page has to include not only homotypic and heterotypic synonyms, but also misapplied names, if it is supposed to provide a key to the existing taxonomic and floristic literature – see e.g. Tinospora macrocarpa.
There is nothing bad with redirects. For, example they can be categorised: Ochna longifolia is listed in the list of taxon names authored by Jean-Baptiste Lamarck. Unfortunatelly, is is not possible to have interwiki links to redirect pages. This is a shortcoming of WD, that this possibility is not provided, most easily noticed in monotypic genera --Franz Xaver (talk) 15:26, 7 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As far as I see, a main problem of WD is, that the data objects are just names, with separate objects for basionyms and other synonyms, but they are used for administration of interwiki links, i.e. for connecting wikipedia articles describing taxa. As a consequence, there exist many inconsistencies with the interwiki links. For example, it would make sense to have interwiki links between en:Polygala macradenia and sv:Hebecarpa macradenia, as both are dealing with the same species, however WD has two different data objects: D:Q15580855 and D:Q17467552, and thus two different sets of interwiki links. In my opinion, a solution could be to have own data objects for taxa, which are used for administration of interwiki links, and a separate set of data objects for names, which are attributed to taxa by some properties. --Franz Xaver (talk) 11:24, 7 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree that having separate objects for taxa and for names makes sense. Names are the domain of nomenclators, and hence would have idenfifiers from IPNI, IndexFungorum, ION, ZooBank, etc., and links to the publications that published those names. Taxa would have links to higher and lower taxa, and links to the name being applied to that taxon. I'm assuming the reason for two objects for the same taxon that you gave is because Wikidata has been automatically populated by data from the different Wikis, and it's not obvious that these two pages are about the same taxon (at least to the tools used to populate Wikidata). --Rdmpage (talk) 13:35, 7 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Rdmpage: Adding Polygala macradenia as the basionym to D:Q17467552 does not improve anything concerning the interwiki links, although this makes it clear, that both names belong to the same species. --Franz Xaver (talk) 15:26, 7 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sure, because as far as I know the Wikipedia projects are not using Wikidata to reconcile different taxonomic pages. I guess this is the long term vision though. --Rdmpage (talk) 16:00, 7 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It feels like the core issue is whether or not a species is a piece of data. If it is, then it could be represented as an item in wikidata with various properties. If it is in fact a larger concept (which I feel like is the view of most wikispecies contributors) than wikispecies should make use of the various data hosted on wikidata (names, references etc.) to describe the species. Personally, I would take the extreme approach and say wikidata entries should not be relational. So Polygala macradenia should not point to Hebecarpa macradenia, nor should Hebecarpa point to the family Polygalaceae. However, this means wikidata could not be effectively used to create taxoboxes throughout wikipedia.Voganaa (talk) 19:51, 7 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Voganaa:"So Polygala macradenia should not point to Hebecarpa macradenia, nor should Hebecarpa point to the family Polygalaceae." – If this was the path to follow, I cannot imagine, how Wikidata should be useful for anything. As far as I can see, at present it does not even properly provide the service, which it is supposed to do, i.e. administration of interwiki links between WP articles describing the same biological objects. Typically, Wikipedia articles are on larger concepts, which not necessarily have a 1:1 counterpart in other language versions, as these concepts are centered around words in that languages, i.e. lemmas. And of course, different languages may follow different concepts. Maybe I don't understand, what you mean, when you write "piece of data". Probably many of the Wikidata objects (e.g. D:Q10884) are representing "larger concepts" and are not pieces of data.
Anyway, if I am searching for taxonomic or nomenclatural data, I would not use WD to get informed. Yes, there are existing many data objects on taxon names, but usually there is not much information beyond the fact, that the name is existing. It is better to go directly to IPNI, Tropicos or WCSP. WD seems to be only a big heap of placeholders. --Franz Xaver (talk) 22:07, 7 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

───────────────────────── @Voganaa: As far as I understand (and regardless of species and taxa) the Wikidata database isn't relational, by design. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 20:01, 7 August 2017 (UTC).Reply[reply]

@Tommy Kronkvist: Ahh, well I think I've misunderstood how the Taxobox is intended to be implemented.Voganaa (talk) 20:13, 7 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm puzzled by the notion that "Wikidata database isn't relational". Wikidata is full of relations between entities (e.g., a journal may be linked to its publisher, place of publications, various identifiers, etc.). Not all relationships need to be expressed in a Wikidata item, many can be computed. For example, if an article has a Wikidata item and that item is linked to the Wikidata item for the author, we can then compute a list of publications for the author, rather than list them explicitly on the author's Wikidata itsm. Likewise, from my perspective we should have some relationships between names in Wikidata. For example, IPNI often has information on the basionym of a name. We could use that to compute all the objective synonyms of a name. A more sophisticated approach would be to link names to types, and then compute object synonyms that way. I think it's worth thinking about Wikidata as much more than a way to standardise information across the various Wikipedias. It is potentially much more useful than that. --Rdmpage (talk) 21:52, 7 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Indeed one can do a lot of complex searches within Wikidata (as in any database) and this will of course show a lot of relations between objects. But that's using the word "relation" solely in the semantical way. What I meant is that from a technical viewpoint Wikidata isn't constructed as a relational database. I might be wrong though: while I add a lot of data to Wikidata, I'm not one of the tech guys there. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 08:45, 9 August 2017 (UTC).Reply[reply]
@Tommy Kronkvist: Ah, I did wonder whether that's what you meant by "relational", but I guess I wasn't quite sure why this was relevant to the discussion. Wikidata isn't a relational database as such, although it runs on MediaWiki which itself uses relational databases such as MySQL and Postgres to store the data. Wikidata can be thought of as a key-value store (it has properties with values), or a graph database (it stores relationships), or a triple store (which is how the SPARQL interface at treats Wikidata). — The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rdmpage (talkcontribs) 20:51, 9 August 2017 (UTC).Reply[reply]
Thanks for the information! It was Faendalimas who at 17:10, 4 August 2017 (UTC) first stated that the database isn't relational, which Voganaa then caught up on. Indeed it's not really relevant to the discussion (especially given how Wikidata's database is designed) but I sort of wanted to sum things up. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 11:51, 10 August 2017 (UTC).Reply[reply]

Session starting

The etherpad is at: etherpad:p/Wikimania2017-Wikispecies+Wikidata. Session starts ~2.5 hours from now. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:23, 12 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Reading the session's protocol here it's obvious that the participants didn't have a clue on our point of view on the matter. Mariusm (talk) 06:59, 14 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No Mariusm, you are once again completely wrong. I've refrained from commenting until the session was past, but it's very obvious from the ignorant bile you have spilled here, and on the session's talk page, that you have no clue what you're talking about with regard to Wikimania, Wikidata, my proposal, the backgrounds (or even identity) of those who participated, the nature and contents of the discussion, or our policy on Assuming Good Faith. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:03, 19 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So how was the question Is Wikidata complex enough yet? answered by the participants? --Succu (talk) 18:26, 20 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Are there any conclusions about how WS and WD can more tighly work together, Mr. Mabbett? --Succu (talk) 21:46, 29 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Succu: Let me answer this in a more general way: I was attending the session together with @Regiomontanus: and had the feeling that no other people were in the room who are deeper in taxonomy than we are - this was also the conclusion after asking the audience about that. So it was more a round table discussing how to get the people envolved, who are experts in this topic, than to overrun them with Wikidata stuff. So - it is well known that I am not really a fan of having one fixed taxonomy set as it is the case in wikispecies by concept (and saying all this, I am aware, that I am one of the drivers of excluding wikispecies links from the german wikipedia in the last years) and I am also very aware of all the problems we have in wikidata on the parallel hypothesis of taxa names / taxa / synonyms / whatever - who would know better than you? So my thought would be that it's not the best way to discuss options to get wikispecies and wikidata closer to each other to have positive effects without all partys on board and from my feeling Andy Mabbett also knows about that. So, from my opinion, if you want to have "any conclusions about how WS and WD can more tighly work together", there is now way without first sit together and discuss with each other on eye-level than discussing over the heads of each other from the one or other position. I think, it will be a long way to get wikidata at a point where it will be really useful as a taxonomy database, but on the other hand I also would say that this is true for wikispecies - and maybe going hand in hand would be one option to get the best of both worlds. One suggestion was (I think coming from a later discussion with Andy Mabbett) to start with something beside taxa and taxonomy - so e.g. start with the items of the people (authorities), who are collected both in wikidata and wikispecies and lead to double work, mistakes and dublicates. As a further suggestion: Maybe it's time for a cross-wiki-meeting with peaople from wikipedias, wikispecies, wikidata, ... to discuss how to move forward. Only suggestions, but I know that there will be interest in the topic and ways to realize this, if it is wanted. All the best -- Achim Raschka (talk) 10:28, 12 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks to Achim Raschka for his elaborate statement. In my opinion, a meeting as suggested by Achim will be necessary sometimes, but hopefully with a longer period of preparations in advance than this time. It was not very pleasant to be notified only one week before this meeting happened – too late for anything. Next Wikimania will be in Cape Town – nice place for a naturalist, but not just around the corner. Would it be possilbe to send delegates from WS, WD and Wikipedias for a meeting there? (Who should attend from our side? Whom would we like to meet there from WD? Who would pay for the travel costs?) Or maybe it would be easier to organise a meeting somewhere in Europe or North America. (Where?) Montreal should have been a good place for this, but too late, when we heard about it. --Franz Xaver (talk) 12:23, 12 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"a longer period of preparations in advance than this time" How much longer? Wikispecies:Wikidata was created in April 2015. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:49, 12 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't see any rush for it - to get something starting in summer of next year would be great from my opinion. @Franz Xaver: For us I think it would be easy to arrange a meeting in Berlin together with the WikiData-Team and delegantes from all interested Wikiworlds. I would think WMDE would be able and willing to finance a meeting like this with pleasure. I don't see Cape Town as a real option for this. What do you think? -- Achim Raschka (talk) 12:57, 12 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Achim Raschka: Yes, of course, Berlin is a good option. (Although, booking with Air Berlin seems to be risky now.) Actually, I did not really expect, somebody would be funding a meeting in Cape Town. (So, I will have to go for the Cape flora at a different occasion.) @Pigsonthewing: "How much longer?" Long enough, at least, to be able to decide about participating. --Franz Xaver (talk) 13:49, 12 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Mr. Mabbett calls my postings "ignorant bile" yet he refuses to listen to our arguments why his proposal isn't attractive to us. Mariusm (talk) 10:52, 12 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yet another false claim, by Mariusm, about me. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:38, 12 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]


There has been some disquiet here Template:Crespo et al., 2015 about using Sci-Hub as a source of full text journal articles. It is a controversial site - see here. Views please. Andyboorman (talk) 15:54, 9 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

To me science should be free anyway, thats opinion. However, the links to SciHub are legitimate, used by thousands. If we have no directive not to use them I see no issue with it. The main issue with SciHub is by companies such as Elseiver, They consider it a breach of their copyright, that is for them to sort out. For us the links are valid if the site is taken down they will no longer work then we will need to find a different source, until the site is taken down by some action it is a legitimate source. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 16:39, 9 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Personally, I'd not use it as a permanent link on a taxon page (so I'd delink it from the above template). I don't mind mentioning its existence on the village pump for helping editors to access "hard-to-get" material to assist in deciding whether to follow a particular taxonomy or not, though. At least our regulars will all know it exists now :-) - MPF (talk) 17:09, 9 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
['political' comment]: as an aside, sci-hub only exists because the publishing houses are so greedy in misusing their monopoly of access; if they had made a fair charge that covered their costs (probably around a tenth of what they actually charge), there would never have been the impetus for people to try to get round them. So they fully deserve its existence. [end political comment] - MPF (talk) 17:22, 9 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It would be interesting to get a comment from Crats and Stewards as to legitimacy and indeed copyright versus open access. [political comment] excessive paywalls are a disincentive to citizen science in all disciplines and free access to quality peer reviewed information in general - current trumping down of debate on ACC in the USA is a good example of such an implication [end political comment]. Andyboorman (talk) 21:43, 9 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Probably it is better not to link SciHub from any reference template or taxon page. I can image, this sometimes might have the consequence, that wikimedia will be sued by some publishing house for contributing to copyright infringement. So, we should only use the {{Doi}} template. For people, who know, how it works, this will be more than sufficient. --Franz Xaver (talk) 22:00, 9 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree with Franz. Sci-hub links are useful in accessing the content but shouldn't be included as links due to its dispute with publishers (and there is an injunction issued by US court which is enforceable on the servers that power Wikispecies). OhanaUnitedTalk page 01:34, 13 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wesley Bicha

Someone may wish to salvage some data from Bicha&oldid=3452797 this good faith edit, which I have just rolled back as malformed. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:26, 12 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Iris tenuifolia or Cryptobasis tenuifolia?

Dear botanists (which I'm not), please check out the Iris tenuifolia page and the recent edits regarding Cryptobasis. If the Cryptobasis taxon name is (again) elevated from synonym status then the Iris tenuifolia page should be moved to Cryptobasis tenuifolia – otherwise the edits should be reverted, or at least updated. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 09:10, 4 September 2017 (UTC).Reply[reply]

Does anyone of us have access to the full text of the following paper: DOI: 10.11646/phytotaxa.232.1.1? --Franz Xaver (talk) 09:29, 4 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Try this: [] Please note that it's a fairly complex page and will take some time to load completely. You can then read the full text onscreen, or download a PDF from a link on the page. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 09:45, 4 September 2017 (UTC).Reply[reply]
In my opinion this paper, which I have not fully read, has not yet been accepted by the wider community. Therefore Iris tenuifolia is the correct combination to use for now. Just look at he list of sources on this page from WCSP that contradict the edits on WS. The best thing to do is to contact WCSP and seek an opinion, as to why they have not followed the proposals by Cresp et al. after all they usually do a very quick turn around. As it stands the taxon page is a complete mess and not standard WS format any way. Andyboorman (talk) 10:22, 4 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The link provided by Tommy just hits the the login page. By the way Crespo does not force his proposals in subsequent publications see here. I still feel that WS must take a conservative view unless we can be firmly persuaded otherwise. Andyboorman (talk) 16:34, 4 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, it requires login and payment. So, I will not be able to read more than the abtract. It seems to be a splitting proposol, which is not very compellent. I don't expect, that horticulturalist will be happy to learn new names for many of their irises. --Franz Xaver (talk) 18:56, 4 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Franz Xaver: - you can get it from sci-hub by heading here ;-) MPF (talk) 10:38, 9 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@MPF: Thanks! It worked. --Franz Xaver (talk) 13:46, 9 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@MPF: @RLJ: questions the legitimacy of the link - anybody help us? Andyboorman (talk) 15:22, 9 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sci-Hub is basically a pirate site violating copyright. I don't think this should be linked on Wikimedia projects. -RLJ (talk) 15:35, 9 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That view of Sci-Hub is not universally shared I will now create a new discussion topic. Andyboorman (talk) 15:49, 9 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is odd. I've never logged in there (nor payed), and have no problem reaching the full page. The same goes for the PDF download link on that page. The PDF link doesn't load the PDF in the browser though: it simply and automatically downloads the file to my computer's download folder. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 19:17, 4 September 2017 (UTC).Reply[reply]
Regardless of the links I agree with you both: we must be conservative and can't go ahead assuming stuff that isn't properly documented or accepted. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 19:27, 4 September 2017 (UTC).Reply[reply]

───────────────────────── I have done a brief search etc. concerning this proposal by Crespo et al. and can find almost no acceptance. The only major flora that does use some of their segregates is Flora Iberica see Chamaeiris. This is hardly surprising as the editor for the family is Crespo himself! But this is not followed by other secondary sources for example; Euro + Med Plantbase, COL or indeed WCSP. A brief Scholar search was equally unproductive with all papers subsequent to his 2015 paper following Iris s.l.. However, I have added the Crespo et al., paper to the Iris taxon page and will in due course make a note on its discussion page that an alternative taxonomy is available. Additionally, I am of the opinion that the conundrum presented by the edits of Iris tenuifolia must appear at a higher taxon say Iris subg. Tenuifoliae for which this combination is the type species. Thoughts anyone before I blindly go off piste? Andyboorman (talk) 15:24, 5 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Andyboorman: I'm really baffled by your reasoning: you say you disregard the findings of 3 botany-professors because some websites failed to update their data? This isn't what I would call a scientific criterion. By the way see also another paper: DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0106459 by Evgeny V. Mavrodiev, Mario Martínez-Azorín, Peter Dranishnikov and Manuel B. Crespo from 2014. Mariusm (talk) 09:19, 6 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Mariusm and Andyboorman: That's not the point. This group promoting the splitting of Iris is not wrong, but they are presenting only one of two possilbe solutions to the problem, that Belamcanda chinensis was found to be embedded in the phylogenetic tree of Iris, as traditionally delimitated. The other option is that of Goldblatt & Mabberly (2005), who proposed inclusion of Belamcanda in Iris - see [9]. The acceptance of the splitting option would have the consequence, that most of the irises, especially many common and wide-spread ones, would end up in seggregate genera. These seggregates would require some specialist knowledge for their recognition, whereas at present Iris is one of the larger genera, which are recognised even by botanical laypersons. So, if there exist two possible solutions, which both are legitimate from a scientific point of view, the question is about acceptance in the scientific community. In this case, the splitting option would have far-reaching consequences and so it is advisible to be cautious and wait for other sites, before we update here. --Franz Xaver (talk) 11:26, 6 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I can't agree that our consideration whether or not to adopt a certain classification would be ease of recognition by laypersons. This would open up undesirable consequences. Well, 'wait and see' can be an option if we are not really sure we're doing the right thing. Mariusm (talk) 11:43, 6 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Mariusm: I am disappointed in your disparaging comments about three websites versus three distinguished professors. You really ought to be aware that those websites are the online front-end for dozens, if not hundreds of distinguished botanists and academics in the natural sciences and not the pet projects of some random hackers. Incidentally, I have been aware of these proposals for over a couple of years and have contacted Kew a year or so ago. Their reply was more or less the same as the points made by Franz, but in addition, their opinion, even after the Crespo et al. (2015) publication, was that acceptance was unlikely in the near future unless more convincing evidence is made available. In botany proposals are just that! Andyboorman (talk) 18:41, 6 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Very well then, in the duel between the 3-professors and the 3-websites, the websites got the upper hand this time. Let's keep Iris in its conservative form and watch for further developments. Mariusm (talk) 04:17, 7 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

───────────────────────── I have made some edits on Iris and Iris tenuifolia that incorporate some findings from Crespo et al. (2015) and Mavrodiev et al. (2014), but without affecting the current wider consensus and WS conservative approach. These include notes on the discussion pages. I hope these are OK with the majority of botanists here. Andyboorman (talk) 10:26, 8 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm not a botanist, but as far as I can tell it looks good to me. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 14:42, 8 September 2017 (UTC).Reply[reply]

I have heard back from RBG Kew and they are unlikely to adopt the proposals by Crespo et al. anytime soon, they also pointed out that these proposals are correct, but so is the circumscription on WCSP etc.. Therefore, adoption of Crespo's proposals are a matter of consensus not science. Furthermore, and I have mentioned this before, this is what often happens in botany and is not unreasonable given some past problematic swings in the taxonomic pendulum. Peer reviewed changes are proposed not mandated. Andyboorman (talk) 09:58, 14 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Endangered species of the month

Our Main page's "Endangered species of the month" hasn't changed since May (I've just fixed the main page by redirecting this month's template to May's). Do we wish to leave it stale, resume monthly updates, or drop it from the main page? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:45, 12 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • This is kind of my pet project. I hope that we can keep it going but I feel like I've dropped the ball. If other express interest or still think it's worthwhile, I'll try to be more diligent. Better yet, if someone else is willing to offer to help with the work... —Justin (koavf)TCM 23:42, 12 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Images on the main page

What does everyone think about how to rotate them? I last swapped out some media in January, so it's probably nice to refresh them.

Some thoughts I had on best practices:

  • It's probably nice to have at least one video or even an audio piece. It's more interesting than just static imagery.
  • We could have one extinct species represented by fossils, drawings, or wax sculptures
  • We should always have at least one microorganism of some kind (including a virus), preferably two
  • Animals from several families (i.e. not two birds or not a bee and an ant)
  • At least three media of plants and fungi
  • Keep it to two rows of eight so that there isn't excessive scrolling but the photos also aren't too small to really be appreciated.
  • We could make use of a script for randomizing images and just have a bank of [x] animal photos, [y] videos, [z] microoganisms, etc. I can probably figure out how to do it if we think it's just the lowest overhead option.

Do those ideas sound reasonable? —Justin (koavf)TCM 01:03, 15 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Good ideas, though drawings and most probably also images of wax sculptures of extinct species contradicts our image guidelines. Photos of fossils is okay though. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 01:12, 15 September 2017 (UTC).Reply[reply]
Yes. I used to update it once a day or so. Try to diversify the images so we don't end up with 5 or 6 pictures of birds. OhanaUnitedTalk page 06:31, 15 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Catocala conjuncta or Catocala coniuncta?

According to en.Wikipedia, albeit uncited, Catocala conjuncta is a misspelling, and was corrected in 2010 to Catocala coniuncta (with an I instead of the J). Can anyone confirm (and cite) or refute that, please? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:17, 13 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(1) Probably, the original paper, where the species was described, will be necessary to clear this case. In my opinion, there exist too many taxon pages in WS, which miss any reference to protologues.
{2) Something must be wrong here anyway. If Catocala was established in 1802, it is not possible that this species was described in 1787 with the original combination in Catocala. At least, author citation must be in parentheses. Maybe we have to look for a description in the genus Noctua. OK, is telling, it was originally described in Phalaena. --Franz Xaver (talk) 11:42, 13 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK, the original spelling was CONIVNCTA in the text and Coniuncta with the illustration. How are the rules in ICZN concerning orthographical corrections? --Franz Xaver (talk) 12:08, 13 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you. Note that typographically, "U" sometimes looks like "V" in old texts; for instance on the page you cite, the heading including "CONIVNCTA" has its first word written "NOCTVA" ("Noctua"). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:20, 13 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Pigsonthewing: Yes, I know. In ICN (not relevant here), there exists Art. 60.5 dealing with the pairs u/v and i/j. I was asking for a rule in ICZN dealing with the same matter. I found only, that terminations might be corrected. So, most likely the spelling with the illustration is the correct one, as at the other place classical Latin letters are used, which make u/v and i/j indistinguishable. --Franz Xaver (talk) 12:41, 13 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It can be spelled both ways. However, what the original author had in mind was "conjuncta" which means "combined" in Latin while "coniuncta" has no sense. Indeed, many subsequent authors starting from Noctua conjuga Hübner, 1803 (see here) spelled it with a "j". Therefore I think it should be Catocala conjuncta with Catocala coniuncta as a synonym/redirect. Mariusm (talk) 14:28, 13 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Mariusm: In classical Latin the same letters were used for I and J and also for U and V. Cicero or Caesar would have told you, that CONIVNCTA were the correct spelling of this word. So, where in ICZN is the rule, that the original spelling Coniuncta has to be changed to conjuncta? --Franz Xaver (talk) 00:38, 14 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Franz Xaver: I was referring of course to the Renaissance-Latin which the author practiced and not to the Roman-Latin. The relevant article is: "32.5.1. If there is in the original publication itself, without recourse to any external source of information, clear evidence of an inadvertent error, such as a lapsus calami or a copyist's or printer's error, it must be corrected. Incorrect transliteration or latinization, or use of an inappropriate connecting vowel, are not to be considered inadvertent errors." which indeed doesn't support the i-j correction, but because of the author-practice since 1803, it would be better to go along with the j change. Mariusm (talk) 04:23, 14 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The key phrase is "prevailing usage" (see Article - Brya (talk) 11:19, 14 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK, I see. This seems to be characteristic of ICZN: When an unjustified change is practised by enough persons, it is deemed to be justified. (The same also in 33.3.1.) I expected, there would exist such kind of loophole. (In botany, a conservation of spelling would be necessary.) So, as long as the majority is not returning to the original spelling, we can continue with conjuncta. --Franz Xaver (talk) 12:21, 14 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]


@Franz Xaver: - as an aside, from your ICN citation, Art. 60.5 reads:
60.5. When a name has been published in a work where the letters u, v or i, j are used interchangeably or in any other way incompatible with modern practices (e.g. one letter of a pair not being used in capitals, or not at all), those letters are to be transcribed in conformity with modern nomenclatural usage.
Curious: why, then, was Buddleia recently (c. 5 years ago) changed from its long-established modern nomenclatural usage with that spelling, back to its original, but uncouth, out-of-modern-use "Buddleja"? It certainly drastically affects pronunciation in English, to the rather awful-sounding "buddledger". Seems to me someone, somewhere, recently neglected Art. 60.5 while trying to enforce original spelling. - MPF (talk) 14:32, 13 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The pronunciation is still "buddleea", but yes curious. Andyboorman (talk) 15:23, 13 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@MPF: That's probably, because Species Plantarum is not "a work where the letters u, v or i, j are used interchangeably or in any other way incompatible with modern practices". On page 112, you can easily see the difference between the I in BLÆRIA and the J in BUDDLEJA. Also in Flora Europaea from 1972 the spelling Buddleja is used. The majority of my books uses this spelling. I could find the spelling Buddleia only in Flora of Japan by Ohwi (1965) and The Flora of the Malay Peninsula by Ridley (1923). --Franz Xaver (talk) 00:24, 14 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Maybe I'm mistaken, but it seems to me that the term "tardigradologist" is more common than "tardiologist". I would propose to move the category to Category:Tardigradologists, and to change the word in the author pages: [10] [11]. Korg (talk) 15:32, 9 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No experience of usage, but to me a tardiologist would just be someone who studies lateness. I'd agree with the proposed move - MPF (talk) 17:11, 9 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree, and so does Wikidata. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk) 11:34, 10 September 2017 (UTC), 11:34, 10 September 2017 (UTC).Reply[reply]
Well, it's a bit biased, I created the Wikidata item. :-) I searched for the term "tardiologists", and apart from misspellings of "cardiologists", the only usage of the word I found originates from the website Google search. The search returns more results with the term "tardigradologists": Search. Korg (talk) 12:57, 10 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes and not only Wikidata – I saw your footprints in Wiktionary as well. :-) For reference, neither "tardiologist" nor "tardigradologist" are listed by the free online versions of Webster's Dictionary or the Oxford Dictionary of English. And since the study of Tardigrada isn't considered a specific scientific discipline in itself we haven't got any of the words "tardigradology" or "tardiology" to use as a basis. There is a very clear pattern though. You searched using the plural forms (84 and 426 hits, respectively). When instead searching using the singular it's all pretty apparent: "tardiologist" only renders 245 hits, while a search for "tardigradologist" renders a whopping 146,000 hits. Some of them are "false positives", but still. I suggest we go through with the move. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 18:29, 10 September 2017 (UTC).Reply[reply]

Thanks for the feedback, the issue is now resolved. Korg (talk) 18:20, 6 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]



There was a journal of this name in the 19th century, including e.g. volume 50 published in 1867. No doubt BHL have it, but their search system isn't well designed for isolating this journal from among the thousands of others containing the word 'Flora'. Anyone know what its BHL link is, please? Thanks! - MPF (talk) 13:59, 15 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OK, managed to find it myself ;-) - MPF (talk) 15:44, 15 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Right now the Wikispecies article Flora is an author disambiguation page for authors with "Flora" as a given name (rather than listing surnames, as standard author disambiguation pages do). I suggest we change it into a page about the journal. (As a side note the author page Flora Hartley needs a lot more information, such as scientific disciplines etc. Also, perhaps she is identical to 19th century zoologist Flora Hartley Greene, sometimes published as Flora Greene?) –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 22:45, 16 September 2017 (UTC).Reply[reply]

Upcoming Wiki Science Competition

Did you hear about the Wiki Science competition, starting in November?

Since there will be an intense workflow of technical uploaded by newbies, that will require some better categorization and translation of descriptions here and there, I think it's time to discuss it also here, because some pictures might be related to natural science and photos or diagrams of species. So I give you some details.

In 2015, limiting to Europe, we got thousands of entries, we can expect two or three times more this year. In the case of Italy for example we will send emails to many professional mailing lists, and other national wikimedia chapter will use their social media too to inform the public.

We have finished with Ivo Kruusamägi of WM Estonia to prepare some of the juries. I did my best to gather, besides people with a strong scientific background, also some expert wikipedians here and there to take a look to the files on commons and not just the quality of the images. I have also informed users on English wikipedia, and will do the same on some other wikimedia platforms in the following weeks. Now it is your turn.

The final international jury is made of expert researchers, usually with interest in photography, but no real knowledge of the details of wikimedia platforms. Some national juries should have enough expert wikimedians and wikipedians probably, because of the presence of active national chapter I guess, so someone might take care of some the uploads at least improving some categorization and using them in some articles.

Now that I am sure that we have enough "scientists" here and there and from different fields, maybe we can see if we can also gathers specifically expert wikimedia users. For the countries without juries, there is the possibility of creating a second-level international jury to select images from the rest of the world to the experts of the final jury. For such second-level jury I have found some names, but the numbers of entries could be high, so maybe that's where we can look for more other expert wiki users.

if you are a citizen of a country with a national jury you could also join them directly. I don't know the details in many cases, if they need more jurors or they are fine.

Anyone interested?--Alexmar983 (talk) 07:22, 17 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I have just imported {{Reflist-talk}}, which can be used to make references (or footnotes) show in the relevant section of talk pages, rather than at the foot of the page.

An example may be seen at here. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:41, 18 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Much appreciated! Thank you. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 13:28, 18 September 2017 (UTC).Reply[reply]

Draft strategy direction. Version #2

In 2017, we initiated a broad discussion to form a strategic direction that will unite and inspire Wikimedians. This direction will be the foundation on which we will build clear plans and set priorities. More than 80 communities and groups discussed and gave feedback[strategy 1][strategy 2][strategy 3]. We researched readers and consulted more than 150 experts[strategy 4]. We looked at future trends that will affect our mission, and gathered feedback from partners and donors.

A group of community volunteers and representatives from the strategy team synthesized this feedback into an early version of the strategic direction that the broader movement can review and discuss.

The second version of the direction is ready. Again, please read, share, and discuss on the talk page on Meta. Based on your feedback, the drafting group will refine and finalize the direction.

  1. Cycle 1 synthesis report
  2. Cycle 2 synthesis report
  3. Cycle 3 synthesis report
  4. New Voices synthesis report

SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 10:06, 11 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I invite you guys to take a look at the strategy. Personally, I have said that there were insufficient/lack of resources given to most projects, including us. Meanwhile, piles of money, labour, and collaboration initiatives were thrown at Wikipedia, Commons and Wikidata. Can anyone name a tool designed by WMF that is geared towards Wikispecies? I have been around for almost 10 years and I can't even name one. OhanaUnitedTalk page 06:42, 15 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@OhanaUnited: Thanks for your invitation. In previous versions, there was a line "beyond Wikipedia", which was meant to put stress on the fact that there are more projects, but perhaps (it's only my personal guess) some people might have thought that there was a stress on "Wikipedia", and now, in the Direction, there's no name of any individual project whatsoever. SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 14:25, 21 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"For" template for hatnotes

I have imported the template {{For}} and a bunch of required modules etc. from the English Wikipedia. See the original enWP version for complete documentation. The Wikispecies version of the template is still very far from perfect, as there are a lot of crazy stuff going on in the invoked For module and the other underlaying imported files. We probably also need to have a look at some involved Lua code, and right now the template's help/documentation subpage is incomplete and incorrect. That said, in its most basic form the template does already work, and I propose we use it as a starting point when trying to establish a "hatnote formatting standard". Please see Austrobaileya for a current example. Regards, Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 23:05, 24 September 2017 (UTC).Reply[reply]

Wikimedia Movement Strategy phase 2, and a goodbye


As phase one of the Wikimedia movement strategy process nears its close with the strategic direction being finalized, my contractor role as a coordinator is ending too. I am returning to my normal role as a volunteer (Tar Lócesilion) and wanted to thank you all for your participation in the process.

The strategic direction should be finalized on Meta late this weekend. The planning and designing of phase 2 of the strategy process will start in November. The next phase will again offer many opportunities to participate and discuss the future of our movement, and will focus on roles, resources, and responsibilities.

Thank you, SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 12:29, 30 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for the update, and for great WMF work in general! –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 13:21, 30 September 2017 (UTC).Reply[reply]
Since the next phrase focuses on resources, we should start collecting thoughts on what specifically will help benefit our project. OhanaUnitedTalk page 17:03, 30 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Varanus duplicates

There are several duplicate pages for species of the genus Varanus that includes the subgenus in their page name, which is unrecommended. This needs to be corrected. For instance all relevant data on the pages Varanus (Varanus) mertensi and Varanus (Euprepiosaurus) boehmei should be merged into Varanus mertensi and Varanus boehmei, respectively, and the "subgenus" species pages then emptied and redirected to their proper counterparts. Please note that this problem isn't explicitly limited to V. mertensi and V. boehmei, but comprises other Varanus species as well.

In some cases the problem has propagated into Wikidata, e.g. Q21377661 and Q21377512. This should be looked at after the Wikispecies issue has been dealt with. If you are unfamiliar with Wikidata and how it works – no problem! Just give me a holler after mending the relevant Wikispecies pages, and I'll fix the Wikidata side of things accordingly. Best regards, Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 09:51, 1 October 2017 (UTC).Reply[reply]

Thanks @Tommy Kronkvist:, for bringing this to a broader attention, both the subgenus in page names, as well as the problems if subnames are "imported" into Wikidata. Dan Koehl (talk) 20:33, 3 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Im tinking about wether those pages should be marked in some way, until they just remain redirectons, like Category:Duplicates or likevise. In any case, as far as I can understand, they should belong to Category:Non-standard_taxon_formatting? Dan Koehl (talk) 20:58, 3 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Of course Varanus (Varanus) mertensi should be merged into Varanus mertensi, but! Some merges of this kind were already done more or less automatically by Wikidata users by simply making the one page a redirect to the other one. A lot of information was lost by this method. - I agree, we need a maintenance category, but more important is IMO to merge these pages manually, never automatically. --Murma174 (talk) 15:19, 4 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I estimate there are HUNDREDS of such duplicate-names (e.g. Antheraea (Antheraea) kalangensisAntheraea kalangensis; Antheraea (Antheraea) kelimutuensisAntheraea kelimutuensis; Antheraea (Antheraea) korintjianaAntheraea korintjiana etc. etc.) mostly made by user PeterR. I used to redirect them but I gave up since PeterR is incessantly producing them. Mariusm (talk) 05:16, 5 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This query has more than 2300 results. --Succu (talk) 17:43, 5 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We must address these duplicates by:

  1. Comparing the Genus (Subgenus) species page to the Genus species page.
  2. Moving any content found in the Genus (Subgenus) species which lacks in the Genus species version to the Genus species page.
  3. Redirecting the Genus (Subgenus) species page to Genus species.
  4. Changing the link leading to Genus (Subgenus) species to that of Genus species.

This is a process which can't be automated. I will try to work on this occasionally and will appreciate any help to sort this out because such a quantity of duplicates can't just sit there as it is. Mariusm (talk) 05:58, 6 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The 2300 are just those detected at Wikidata; it is possible these are only the tip of the iceberg. - Brya (talk) 10:45, 6 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I eliminated a few of these, so the number dropped a little, although Salvia africana-lutea still needs attention (it does not exist; = Salvia aurea); there is also Palmella, based on a deleted page. - Brya (talk) 05:18, 7 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Salvia africana-lutea is an accepted species according to catol-Hassler, but it seems a bit of a taxonomic mess. Andyboorman (talk) 07:52, 7 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I know nothing about Salvia taxonomy but Salvia africana-lutea is not a validly published name. There cannot be a species by that name. - Brya (talk) 09:54, 7 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There is nothing to find about Palmella (in Bacillariophyceae), so I will alter the page to the valid Palmella genus (in Palmellaceae) and the wikidata item (Q25803968) can be deleted. --Thiotrix (talk) 12:10, 7 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Looks like a few minority source are mistakenly using that name for Salvia aurea (probably unaware that the name is almoste xplicitly invalidated by Art 23.6, ex. 14, which mentions the name next to it in Species Plantorum: "Salvia africa-caerulea" ≡ Salvia africana). Circeus (talk) 09:30, 8 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Redirects completed see Salvia aurea Andyboorman (talk) 10:37, 8 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is there any need for a consensus discussion about this, unless anyone has a different idea, the above statements sounds like there is a consensus discussion already, that all Genus (Subgenus) species pages should be considered Non-standard taxon formatting and that all existing pages of this type should follow the suggestions made by @Mariusm: above? Dan Koehl (talk) 19:02, 8 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Dan Koehl: please see the discussions here, here and here Mariusm (talk) 05:46, 9 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks @Mariusm:, I recognized some of those discussions now, and it really seems as if this is issue is well covered, discussed and that a consensus is reached. Dan Koehl (talk) 20:00, 9 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Salvia another case of lump or split.

I would like to make botanic editors aware that Salvia is another large genus that could either be split or lumped similar to Iris as discussed above. However, in this case the two opposing proposals are both subject to recent peer reviewed publications. See Drew et al. (2017) and Will & Claßen-Bockhoff (2017) on the reference section of Salvia. I would also like to make contributors aware that Kew (via the WCSP website) have rapidly endorsed Salvia s.l., but with the proviso that Pleudia Raf. (1837) is now recognised as a segregate from Salvia. Accepted combinations of Dorystaechas, Meriandra, Perovskia, Rosmarinus, and Zhumeria (Salviinae) would then become Salvia species. With the exception of Pleudia, is it too early to follow Drew et al. and Kew and expand Salvia s.l.? Kind regards Andyboorman (talk) 19:23, 9 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As far as I see, Pleudia (= relatives of Salvia aegyptiaca) only will have standing, when the splitting option completely is implemented. Unfortunately the phylogenies in the two papers are not fully congruent. The phylogeny in the paper by Will & Claßen-Bockhoff (2017) seems to require, that also Melissa and Lepechinia would be lumped into Salvia, as these genera here are part of the same polytomy as the other clades of Salvia For the time being, the lumping option can be followed easily, as this does not need many name changes, and the combinations already are existing. However, I am not sure about the final outcome. Maybe, when finally the phylogenies will be fully resolved, the splitting option will have the stronger arguments. Anyway, for the moment, the splitting option is no real possibility for us, as most of the necessary new combinations are still missing. --Franz Xaver (talk) 23:56, 9 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

More duplicates

There are Potentilla parvifolia and Dasiphora parvifolia about the same taxon, the first one was created from a simple redirect last week by MILEPRI. Which one should be kept as the accepted name? And there may be more new botanical duplicates in genera edited by this user. --Thiotrix (talk) 16:28, 10 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The later is the accepted combination according to catol-Hassler (2017), but the former according to the Plant List, which has not been updated since 2012. This synonymy and similar need a lot more research by an editor, particularly as the references dismembering Potentilla s.l. have not been added to taxon pages, such as Fragariinae and Potentilleae - these references would include Topel et al., 2011 as an example. This paper indicates Dasiphora parvifolia as the correct combination, by the way. I am also sure that a number of other pages edited and created by this contributor have this problem. I tried asking this editor not to use the Plant List without cross checking due to the numerous changes in the last five years or so. catol-Hassler is by no means 100%, but it is now a better starting point. MILEPRI's main interest is adding images, but WikiMedia is most definitely a very poor starting point! Perhaps you could have a word as well. Cheers Andyboorman (talk) 19:45, 10 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Audio files

As discussed on the UK mailing list, the Natural History Museum in London have made hundreds of audio files of species (including, less commonly, many non-avian) available via Wikimedia Commons, adding to those previously donated by the British Library, and via Xeno Canto, and other sources.

These are now being added to the relevant items in Wikidata.

Through the use of a template like {{Image}}, or better something more along the lines of {{Biography}} or {{Repository}}, we could transclude them from Wikidata, directly into our pages, without the need to edit pages individually each time a new file is added.

Audio files are good for a number of reasons: they add context; they're a-lingual; they serve people who cannot see our images; and in some cases they are diagnostic (for example, Phylloscopus collybita, Phylloscopus trochilus and others in the genus are visibly similar, and most easily distinguished in the field audibly). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:35, 10 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I wished to have audio files for all species of birds. For most birds, it is easier to hear them than seeing them at close distance. Also for frogs and toads audio files will be helpful, and in some cases are diagnostic. --Franz Xaver (talk) 08:43, 11 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Also, whale vocalizations may be useful when identifying species of whales, even though that is of course less common than spotting birds and amphibians. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 09:46, 11 October 2017 (UTC).Reply[reply]
Not to forget Orthoptera and cicadas. Actually, most of these audio files from NHM seem to be from such noisy insects. --Franz Xaver (talk) 14:41, 11 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hatnotes and a wider discussion on layout of the taxon pages

These notes have been migrated from my talk page for wider discussion. The first paragraph started the thread and subsequently Tommy added the above regarding a hatnote template. I feel that this now deserves a wider discussion, as it could fundamentally alter the current taxon page format and more. Andyboorman (talk) 16:35, 27 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I noticed your edit to Talk:Willdenowia. In my understanding, it is a customary practice to add a hatnote at the top of the page when another page shares a similar title, with the aim of a better navigation. Users will not necessarily look at the talk page to find the link they are looking for. There are other precedents here, see for example Garcia, Pavlova, Webbia or Alfaro. I suspect that the subject has not really been discussed before. Maybe we should have some consistency in the placement, the wording and the style of such notes? Regards, Korg (talk) 21:04, 24 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi @Tommy Kronkvist: @Korg: I think that we need a wider discussion. It is my understanding that WS is different to WP and others in that the pages contain little additional information over and above that required for the nomenclature and taxonomy. The exceptions being; image(s), vernacular names and distribution all of which have direct relevance to the taxon. In addition, some editors add selected categories off the page right at the bottom. The device we have used here for pages with similar titles is disambiguation, which works well where there are two or more taxon pages. I really do not see the point of adding author names and journal titles as hatnotes, but maybe I am wrong, as placement and links are found elsewhere, for example through {{a|}} templates. Thoughts? Andyboorman (talk) 10:06, 25 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

From a strict Wikispecies viewpoint I think you're correct, Andy, and in essence I agree with you. However this diehard approach to the Wikispecies system is for the most part only working well when only involving experienced Wikispecies' users. We know how to find "homonymous" authors, taxa and journals by the use of Catalog:Taxon Authorities + Category:Series identifiers and other such somewhat hidden Wikispecies resources. Unfortunately this is probably not the case for most other, more infrequent users of the project. Let's say a user is interested in an author named "Pavlova" based on some information they find in a publication. However due to the journal's praxis the author is only referenced to by the surname. The user then heads over to Wikispecies and enters "Pavlova" in the WS search field, and instantly ends up on a page regarding the genus Pavlova. In such cases a hatnote (or similar) would really help, since without knowledge of the taxon authority catalog the user might have a hard time finding any author named Pavlova, whether Ljudmila V. Pavlova, Maria Pavlova, or N.S.Pavlova. But thanks to the hatnote pointing to Pavlova (authority) the user can now quickly find them all. I think this kind of user friendliness is important in order to try and involve more new users in the project. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 12:11, 25 September 2017 (UTC).Reply[reply]

───────────────────────── Thanks for your comments, Andy and Tommy. Andy, I think I understand your concerns. The hatnote could be seen as quite distracting and somewhat unwanted if the current page the user is browsing is actually the one they are looking for. But on the other hand, it could really be of great help to the user seeking another page, and who could have some difficulties finding it. I agree with Tommy in this regard.

Concerning disambiguation pages, there are several cases where taxon pages are disambiguated alongside author pages. See for example Cotes, Karsten, Mahanta or Zea. To use the example given by Tommy, should we move Pavlova to Pavlova (genus), and move the disambiguation page Pavlova (authority) to "Pavlova" as the main title? In this scenario, the hatnote in Pavlova would no longer be needed. Or should we favour the genus as the primary topic? More generally, should we create a disambiguation page when there are two or more pages with a similar title, regardless of their nature, or should we support the concept of a "primary topic"? Perhaps this needs a broader discussion, as there are many inconsistencies.

If the concept of primary topic is retained, then I think a hatnote or otherwise an indication that a page with a similar title exists would be helpful. Perhaps a good compromise would be to reduce the text of the note, and to change its position. To use the example in Austrobaileya, the note could be changed to simply "Disambiguation: Austrobaileya (journal)" or "See also: Austrobaileya (journal)", for example, and placed at the top right-hand corner of the page, like it is done in c:Commons:Village pump. We could even make it more minimalistic with an icon in lieu of the text: Disambiguation Austrobaileya (journal). Please see also: "Disambiguation page or hatnotes?". Korg (talk) 08:14, 26 September 2017 (UTC) [Message edited on 14:15, 27 September 2017 (UTC)]Reply[reply]

Regardless which system we decide to use I would strongly disapprove of "degrading" taxon pages such as Pavlova to Pavlova (genus). First of all I feel that the taxon pages are almost always the primary topic here. Furthermore a change of this praxis would create a lot of extra work with many Taxonavigation templates. For instance all genera links in Taxonavigation templates such as {{Alfaro}}, {{Austrobaileya}}, {{Garcia}} and {{Webbia}} etc. would have to be edited. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 20:49, 29 September 2017 (UTC).Reply[reply]
The taxon must be the primary focus here and so Pavlova (genus) (redirect) must only be Pavlova and IMO with no hatnotes. Perhaps these can be accommodated through some sort of category at the bottom of the page? Andyboorman (talk) 22:34, 29 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree with Tommy Kronkvist. Some journals, as e.g. Blumea may concern rather large genera. The solution with hatnotes in my opinion is a good one. I only would try to implement some of the proposals by Korg in order to reduce the size of a hatnote. Anyway, I prefer a solution with a minimum of disambiguation pages and a minimum of page names with brackets for taxon pages. --Franz Xaver (talk) 22:44, 29 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I find in my work that hatnotes can be valuable. Many times while researching redlinked author names, I have landed on taxon pages with hatnotes directing me to disambiguation page titled <so-and-so (author)>. This simplifies work, and removes necessity of using title format of <taxon name (genus)>. Neferkheperre (talk) 01:24, 30 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree, though looking at the present {{For}} template I would like the blank space between the hatnote and the Taxonavigation section to be a wee bit smaller, i.e. less interfering with the main layout. I don't know how to fix that though. @Korg:'s suggestion to place the hatnotes in the top right-hand corner of pages is good for most cases, however those hatnotes are likely to interfere with the layout on any taxon- or author pages that also includes a picture. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 13:18, 30 September 2017 (UTC).Reply[reply]

Hatnote and footnote drafts

@Andyboorman, Tommy Kronkvist, Franz Xaver, and Neferkheperre: I've edited Wikispecies:Sandbox with the content of Correa and added two links to Author name Correa, one at the top right-hand corner of the page, and one at the bottom per Andy's comment. Permalinks: [12], [13], [14], [15].

For the note at the top, the text should remain rather short, otherwise it could overlap the title (but maybe that could be avoided with some CSS?). I haven't tested the result on mobile devices. I'm not sure what to do if there is a redirect from another page, like in Ehretia. Perhaps we could have another template, like en:Template:Redirect?

For the note at the bottom, if the page is quite long, like Rosa, the user might not see it. Maybe a solution would be to put a link to an anchor, so the user could directly skip to the bottom of the page?

It turns out that {{Disambig}} was modified to handle such cases, see e.g. Plecoptera; Search results. Maybe in some of these cases, a disambiguation page could be created. Korg (talk) 20:47, 12 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The hatnote at top right is not displayed in mobile view. Korg (talk) 21:35, 12 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Huggle is active on WS

Since some time Huggle is available for users at Wikispecies. Huggle is a diff browser intended for dealing with vandalism and other unconstructive edits, and can easily be configured to filter pages according to your choice. For users who doesnt engage in dealing with vandallism on other projects, Huggle may may appear a little confusing at first, but there are some good guides to read about how Huggle works. The program is presently free to use for anyone, on WS and most other projects, while it can be configured to be of limited use only for rollbackers (such is the case on the EnWiki) or admins. Dan Koehl (talk) 17:34, 13 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for the information. I've checked out the Mac version of Huggle (using macOS 10.13 "High Sierra" – a new, major version released just 18 days ago), and Huggle seems to work as advertised. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 18:31, 13 October 2017 (UTC).Reply[reply]
Yes, once you get used to the interface, with all the different windows and activities in each of them, Huggle is pretty handy to work with. I dont know of any program r script, which let you go through large number of files, showing the two last diffs, so fast and easy. This not only makes it an excellent tool for dealing with vandalism, but I think also a useful tool for any kind of cooperation a WS user may have with other user(s). Dan Koehl (talk) 20:46, 13 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]


en la Portada en español hay una sección titulada "Solicitud de ilustraciones: la Comuna de Wikimedia" (la cursiva es mia), en donde pone "Comuna" debería de poner "Comunidad". El contenido de esa sección es:

La taxonavegación permite actualmente acceder a un número considerable de taxones, si bien todavía es demasiado temprano para recomendar una plantilla para la estructura del contenido. En cuanto a las imágenes, varios usuarios ya han subido un cierto número de ellas y recomendamos para ello seguir las directrices de nuestra guía de imágenes. Véase Wikimedia Commons para subir o buscar imágenes libres de especies.

En donde pone "es demasiado temprano" debería de poner "es demasiado pronto". Yo no puedo editarlo por estar protegida, pero aunque pudiese no sé donde hacerlo. Perdón por escribir en español. Gracias. PD.- perdón, no estaba logeado --Jcfidy 11:20, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
— The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jcfidy (talkcontribs) 11:22, 18 September 2017 (UTC).Reply[reply]

───────────────────────── Google translates the above (with quoted text restored) as:

In the Spanish Cover there is a section titled "Solicitud de ilustraciones: la Comuna de Wikimedia" (the italics are mine), where it puts "Comuna" should put "Comunidad". The content of this section is:

La taxonavegación permite actualmente acceder a un número considerable de taxones, si bien todavía es demasiado temprano para recomendar una plantilla para la estructura del contenido. En cuanto a las imágenes, varios usuarios ya han subido un cierto número de ellas y recomendamos para ello seguir las directrices de nuestra guía de imágenes.

Véase Wikimedia Commons para subir o buscar imágenes libres de especies.

Where you put "es demasiado temprano" you should put "es demasiado pronto". I can not edit it to be protected, but even if I could not know where to do it. Sorry to write in Spanish. Thanks

-- Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:27, 18 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@AlvaroMolina: Por favor, eche un vistazo a esta solicitud. Supongo que tanto el "demasiado temprano" como el "demasiado pronto" estarían bien. Sin embargo, probablemente "comunidad" es mejor que "Comuna", si no "Wikimedia Commons" se usa en lugar de "Comuna de Wikimedia". ¿Qué piensas? – Please, have a look at this request. I suppose, both "demasiado temprano" and "demasiado pronto" would be OK. However, probably "comunidad" is better than "Comuna", if not "Wikimedia Commons" is used in place of "Comuna de Wikimedia". What do you think? --Franz Xaver (talk) 14:20, 18 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Jcfidy: Gracias. Por supesto, "comunidad" es correcto. —Justin (koavf)TCM 15:56, 18 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Me inclino por "comunidad" y por demasiado "pronto". "Temprano" se usa más para cuestiones temporales, temprano en la mañana, por ej.--Hector Bottai (talk) 18:39, 18 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Hector Bottai: Gracias otra vez. Claro, soy gringo y mi castellano no es perfecto. Quizas soy el mejor administrador en espan~ol pero es obvio que tengo muchisima dificultades. :/ —Justin (koavf)TCM 19:04, 18 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

───────────────────────── Please note that the name "Wikimedia Commons" and its logo are trademarks of the Wikimedia Foundation and must remain in English. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 19:23, 18 September 2017 (UTC).Reply[reply]

@Tommy Kronkvist: Is this just a helpful reminder or do you actually see a particular instance here? All that the suggested language says is the "Wikimedia community" but just below that on Portada it reads "Véase Wikimedia Commons para subir o buscar imágenes libres de especies." (English: "See Wikimedai Commons to submit or search for free [free culture] images of species.") —Justin (koavf)TCM 19:45, 18 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Koavf: It was primarily intended as a reminder, and of course not specifically to you but to all participants of the discussion. When using the Latin alphabet the trademark "Wikimedia Commons" must remain "as is". There are instances where the trademark is translated and/or transcribed, but to my knowledge that is only the case in language versions of wikis using non-Latin graphemes. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 19:58, 18 September 2017 (UTC).Reply[reply]
@Tommy Kronkvist: This is the exact opposite impression that I get from wmf:Trademark_policy Question 2.1 which says that you can use "any of the official translations and transliterations of the Wikimedia marks" on WMF sites and then links to m:List_of_Wikipedias, which has plenty of localized names on those projects linked from that listing. —Justin (koavf)TCM 20:03, 18 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A pesar que este hilo tiene ya un mes y recién me doy cuenta, como hablante nativo del español, confirmo que las modificaciones realizadas son correctas. Saludos. / Although this thread has already a month and I just realize, as a native speaker of Spanish, I confirm that the modifications made are correct. Regards. —Alvaro Molina ( - ) 21:50, 17 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Translating the main page

This is actually something I've been thinking about for awhile now--should we use the translate extension on the main page as we do with most other pages or should we keep system we have now? —Justin (koavf)TCM 16:03, 18 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think this would be the most ideal, since that would allow the translations could be handled more easily, in addition, several main pages of other languages are outdated and this would make it easier to keep them updated in conjunction with the English main page. Regards. —Alvaro Molina ( - ) 21:50, 17 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

AWB problems

Is anyone else experiencing problems when using AWB as a Bot? I cant even see the Bot tab, and Im trying to find out why. Dan Koehl (talk) 19:42, 17 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Dan Koehl: Assuming this you try to do from your bot, I added it to this list and now should appear the tab. —Alvaro Molina ( - ) 21:40, 17 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks a lot @AlvaroMolina:, I forgot that new list. Now its working again. Dan Koehl (talk) 22:38, 17 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Greek reference template

Could someone with knowledge of both the Greek language and Wikispecies' reference templates + our naming scheme take a look at this template, please: {{R:PafilhsValakos}}. Thanks in advance, Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 18:19, 21 October 2017 (UTC).Reply[reply]

Can I get help with the scope of wikispecies stubs

Hello! I recently wrote a section for Bunyavirales modeled after a section for Mononegavirales on the main Wikipedia. It was removed for being out of scope. I don't think I have a good handle on what the scope of wikispecies stubs. Could someone explain that to me? — The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jcoleh7 (talkcontribs) 19:55, 23 October 2017 (UTC).Reply[reply]

@Jcoleh7: Hi, your edition was out of scope as the taxon pages here do not need to be accompanied by a description (for that are their respective Wikipedia articles). Regards. —Alvaro Molina ( - ) 19:55, 23 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Minowa & Garraffoni, 2017

Please can someone resolve:

which appear to refer to different works; respectively:

-- Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:34, 25 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

───────────────────────── These should be OK but they need doi and so on.


Andyboorman (talk) 10:40, 25 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Include species description

I'm suggesting to include species description (identification key and description of holotype) for reptile species on I'd appreciate feedback regarding this.

HenningLar (talk) 07:24, 31 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Participate in Dispute Resolution Focus Group

The Harvard Negotiation & Mediation Clinical Program is working with the Wikimedia Foundation to help communities develop tools to resolve disputes. You are invited to participate in a focus group aimed at identifying needs and developing possible solutions through collaborative design thinking.

If you are interested in participating, please add your name to the signup list on the Meta-Wiki page.

Thank you for giving us the opportunity to learn from the Wikimedia community. We value all of your opinions and look forward to hearing from you. JosephNegotiation (talk) 22:41, 1 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Bot-generated list based on Wikidata

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

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

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

Boraginales and Boranginaceae another conundrum

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

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


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

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

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

Dcoumenting page types

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

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

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

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

Peniocereus viperinus

In the cited reference for Peniocereus viperinus (F.A.C.Weber) Kreuz., Verzeichnis Amer. Sukk. Rev. Syst. Kakteen 18. 1935, there is only the following information: "viperinus (Web. 1904) Klusáč. 1932" [16]. So the author might actually be Klusáč., possibly Karel Klusáček [17]. Does anyone know where to find the full reference for "Klusáč. 1932"? Thanks! Korg (talk) 20:02, 6 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Unsolved mysteries

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

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

strange automatic categorization

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

The category was outside the <noinclude>...</noinclude> tags in Template:LSP: [18]. Korg (talk) 10:27, 7 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you, --Thiotrix (talk) 10:41, 7 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Community Wishlist

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

Hancockia uncinata

Can someone please check the author of Hancockia uncinata, as uncinata&oldid=1974500 queried in this edit? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:58, 12 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

On WoRMS, the author is referred to as " Hesse, H."; I'll ask if they have more information and if it is a typo. On BEMON, there are two other authors with the surname Hesse: Charles Eugène Hesse and Edmond Hesse. It seems to be Charles-Eugène Hesse [19], according to this book. Korg (talk) 01:12, 13 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

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


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

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


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

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

Use {{Doi}} instead of {{BHL}}

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

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

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

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

Old logo file

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

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

Aniba rosaeodora

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

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

Abandoned templates

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

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

Template:Taxa by author

I have just created {{Taxa by author}}; you can see an instance of M. Paterson taxa&oldid=2489055 its use to replace raw text here. Note that there are no changes to the displayed page.

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

The botanists usually prefer "authored taxon names" instead of "authored taxa" (e.g. Category:Paul Falkenberg taxa). And will the sortkey still work with the new template? --Thiotrix (talk) 18:40, 20 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Your string isn't used by your example page, so I'm not clear what you're asking for - nor what we would do for someone who authored taxon names for animals and plants. {{DEFAULTSORT:}} can sill be applied, separately, If that template is used widely on these categories we could make it part of the new template, with an additional parameter. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:03, 20 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm asking if the string should be "List of taxa authored by..." or better "'List of taxon names authored by..."? We can wait for more feedback of wikispecies editors here. A sortkey included in the new template would be fine. --Thiotrix (talk) 19:26, 20 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, it should be "List of taxon names authored by..." Circumscription of taxa is something largly independent from naming. E.g., the name Plantaginaceae Juss. (see [20]) is presently applied to a family, which consist mostly of genera, that Juss. would have included in his Scrophulariaceae (see [21]). So, both names are authored by Juss., but the taxa, that presently bear these names, are very different from the concepts of Juss. He can only be regarded as the author of the taxon names, but the present taxonomic circumscription of these taxa is based on the works of recent authors, e.g. Albach et al. (2005). --Franz Xaver (talk) 23:06, 20 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Fine by me, so long as everyone else is happy with that. I've changed it. I've also added a second, optional parameter for sorting; see M. Paterson taxa&oldid=3526876 this implementationAndy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:53, 20 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It seems to be functioning well. I have had no problems. Neferkheperre (talk) 15:21, 22 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
...I will use it too. Orchi (talk)

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

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

Author page wording

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

That, too, should be templated, using {{Taxa authored}}, which should also be marked up for translation. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:16, 23 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've added a note to the Translation Administrators' Noticeboard asking for the "Taxa authored" and "Taxa by author" templates to be translated. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 16:12, 23 November 2017 (UTC).Reply[reply]
As for changing paragraph headings by use of a template we've tried that before, but it caused some problems with the "edit" links (automatically placed next to the respective paragraph headings). Please see the Template Publications talk in the VP archives regarding the now unrecommended {{Publications}} template. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 16:23, 23 November 2017 (UTC).Reply[reply]
There are no headings involved. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:41, 23 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes there are, but perhaps I was unclear/vague. As I wrote above, I would like to propose to change the standard author page paragraph "Authored taxa" (…in other words the heading of the paragraph…) to "List of taxon names by author" or similar. That approach didn't work well when adding headings using the {{Publications}} template; hence we created the {{Inc}} template instead and left the paragraph headings alone. But perhaps there is another more suitable and above all working method, that still involves a template and can be used for the "Authored taxa" paragraph, including its heading? IMO I don't possess as much know-how about Wikimedia templates as you (Andy), but I'm willing to listen and learn! In either case I would like the "Authored taxa" headings to be changed to something better, since authors may very well coin the name of taxa, but hardly "author" taxa. This issue has been up for discussion at least two times before, but at the moment I can't find a link to the proper archives. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 17:57, 23 November 2017 (UTC).Reply[reply]
Thank you, that's clearer: you want to change the heading, not the text below it. In that case, see the method used at, for example, d:Wikidata:Property proposal/Directeur de publication, using d:Template:TranslateThis. That could eb sued here, inside a template. I'l see if I can get it working. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:30, 23 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Update:' OK, that's working, see the top of User:Pigsonthewing/Sandbox. I'll start on a template now. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:41, 23 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Done, as {{Taxa authored 2}} and in use on Michel Adanson. The authored 2&oldid=3532377 answer to the heading issue is, it turns out. really simple. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:12, 23 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK, {{Taxa authored 2}} works well with new pages, so we can go. I note that there is no edit function, but that is really not necessary, as properly there is only one entry. {{Taxa authored}} has its uses also. Where two authored taxa pages are necessary, as for married names, original template can be used for original name, without problems. See Huzio Utinomi where I tried it out. Neferkheperre (talk) 00:14, 24 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]


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

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

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

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

Red-linked templates

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

The top five missing reference templates in that list are:

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

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

Template:Official website

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

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

BPH journal IDs

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

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

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


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

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

Journal confusion

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

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

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

Here's what WorldCat and ZooBank has to say:
Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 16:26, 28 November 2017 (UTC).Reply[reply]
In that case, the error was on Wikidata. Now fixed. Thank you. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:24, 28 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Tylophora (Apocynaceae)

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

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

Alexander B.(orissovitch) Doweld

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

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

───────────────────────── Resolved. The pages are now merged. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 20:47, 3 December 2017 (UTC).Reply[reply]

Commons category templates

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

Please check for any bugs or problematic edge-cases.

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

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

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

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

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

That is simply a redirect to {{Commons category}}.