Wikispecies:Village Pump/Archive 47

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.

Translating taxonomic ranks into local languages.

Apparently adding {{}} around a taxon rank enabled it to be translated as an example see here I am not familiar with this procedure. Can somebody confirm that it is suitable and works. In the example does the use of {{Tribus}} affect all occurrences of the word Tribus or just in the template? However, more importantly, do we want and/or need this on WS? I understand that we use Latin names for taxonomic ranks precisely because this is local language independent. Persoanlly I think it renders the site less scientific in look and feel if these taxonomic ranks appear not in the Latin but in the local language. This is just my opinion and so I wish to open this up to wider discussion seeking consensus and guidance. Andyboorman (talk) 14:30, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a newcomer to Wikispecies, having mainly been editing Wikiquote in the past. I've noticed that most articles here do not include a link to Wikipedia. This is contrary to the standard practice on Wikiquote. Does Wikispecies have an official policy regarding Wikipedia links, or is it just a matter of habit? (By "link to Wikipedia" I am referring to this; Template:Wikipedia Just A Regular New Yorker (talk) 01:14, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome here. I am not sure I understand what you mean, but all the articles are linked to ALL the Wikipedias where the same article exists, through Wikidata. For example see Tyrannidae linked to more than 30 other wikis. --Hector Bottai (talk) 02:19, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Just A Regular New Yorker: Hector Bottai is correct: links to available, equivalent pages on all language versions of Wikipedia can be found in the left-hand side menu section called "In Wikipedia". (You will also find those links here at the Village Pump: simply look to the left :) This is way better than using the {{Wikipedia}} template, which is language specific and always only links to the English version of Wikipedia. Best regards, Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 16:34, 12 March 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Vernon Antoine Brou Jr.

We need to merge Vernon Antoine Brou and Vernon Antoine Brou Jr., and to do the same for the associated categories. Which form of name is preferred on Wikispecies - with or without the suffix? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:28, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There's even a third page: Vernon Antoine Brou Jr (not ending with a full stop). Their Wikidata equivalents are Q21339609 ("Vernon Antoine Brou"), Q25796389 ("Vernon Antoine Brou Jr.") and Q21394286 ("Vernon Antoine Brou Jr"). The form without "Jr." is preferred by BHL with a 9:1 ratio. Regardless of that I recommend we stick with the "Jr." form in order to lessen the risk for Wikidata mixups in the case there is a future Wikimedia page created about his father, U.S. Navy veteran Vernon Antoine Brou. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 17:40, 13 March 2018 (UTC).[reply]
Thanks. I've made the merges, here and on Wikidata. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:29, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I've added the publications + authored taxa that were listed on the now deleted pages, to the remaining main page Vernon Antoine Brou Jr.Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 19:39, 13 March 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Template help collapsible citation

Heya everyone,

been making this template: Template:Thomson etal 2018 which is a rather large authorship paper, 184 authors, hence I was hoping to make it appear as a citation the way the journal has recommended here, that is:

  • Thomson SA, Pyle RL, Ahyong ST, Alonso-Zarazaga M, Ammirati J, Araya JF, et al. (2018) Taxonomy based on science is necessary for global conservation. PLoS Biol 16(3): e2005075.

However I am hoping to have the template also permit people to see al the authors since many of them are taxonomic authorities and hence have pages here. Hence why I am slowly editing this template I am linking all authors to their respective pages. Any suggestions on how to make it look like above with some sort of internal link that will show all authors would be helpful, on ResearchGate here it has a link in the author list, short form, that says show all 184 authors allowing it to expand for those interested. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 19:01, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

───────────────────────── Done, in etal 2018&oldid=3662669 this edit. The template now renders as:

but all names are shown on the template page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:14, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also, moved to {{Thomson et al., 2018}}. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:16, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And now in Wikidata, too: Q50702912. Interestingly, only three of the authors seem to have included the paper (or, at least, its DOI) in their ORCID profiles. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:26, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus Romero Napoles taxa

An IP manually added a list of taxa to Jesus Romero Napoles. I've moved them to the article's talk page, in case anyone is interested in working on them. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 00:10, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Promoting Microbiology

Hello Wikispecies authors,
I'm trying to add a bit information on pages dealing with Bacteria or other Prokaryotes (or taxon authors). Some of you already helped me with understanding how templates work, thank you again. Burmeister created a template to format subspecies of Bacteria, because their taxonomy deviates from Plantae or Animalia. I added the information about the template already here: Templates#Taxon formatting templates and Help:Taxonavigation section#Templates for taxonavigation. Now I would like to add the International Code of Nomenclature of Prokaryotes (Manuscript Draft) respectively the International Code of Nomenclature of Bacteria to Help:General Wikispecies#Formatting rules, but thought that I should ask beforehand.
Kind regards, --A doubt (talk) 22:45, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this addition would be fine and thanks for your efforts in promoting this otherwise WS neglected section of Prokaryota. Mariusm (talk) 15:17, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Annals of the Transvaal Museum

There's a en:w:Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request#Annals of the Transvaal Museum request on en.Wikipedia:

Looking for: Roberts, A. (1946). Descriptions of numerous new subspecies of mammals. Annals of the Transvaal Museum, 20(4), 303-328.

This would be helpful to expand the article I just created on the Damara horseshoe bat, as Roberts is the one who initially described it.

Please reply there if you can help. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:11, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Try Annals of the Transvaal Museum. Older volumes might be challenging to find. Neferkheperre (talk) 19:20, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Extinct or fossil species

I used this category for the first time. Doesn't look to me appropriate or at least, useful, to join under the same category a fossil extint millions of years ago with a known, described species, recently extint. There are only 110 pages under the category and should not be very difficult to split. But this is only my opinion. --Hector Bottai (talk) 23:01, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The whole system with categories such as "Category:Extinct or fossil species" and "Category:Fossil species" etc is rather messy. We also have a Category:Fossil taxa which together with its sub-categories (including Category:Taxa by geologic formations...) is very big, and perhaps not very useful? And then of course we have Category:Extant species to "match" the extinct taxa. In my opinion all of Category:Name status categories and its sub-categories needs to be cleaned up. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 23:39, 25 March 2018 (UTC).[reply]
If people wish to use these categories they need to come to a consensus on what they mean. Technically fossil species is a subset of both extinct species and extant species, it is rarer in extant, but one example is Elseya lavarackorum. All it means is the taxon exists in the fossil record. It may still be living, or not. Extinct species is usually split into 3 subgroups in science. Recent Extinct, since 1600 A.D.; Historically Extinct, extinct during the rise of our species ie basically during the Holocene, and prehistorically extinct, extinct before the Holocene, and hence before our species. As I said before anyone can utilise these I suggest deciding how to use them, otherwise its just a mess. IUCN has refs on this. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 11:44, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cross symbol

On a couple of occasions recently, I've seen this symbol: "†" used to annotate a taxon name. No explanation was given. What (if anything) does it mean? It's problematic, not only because of the obscure meaning, but because it cannot be searched for. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:23, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Really is dagger symbol. For taxa, meaning is extinct. When used for taxon authors, they are deceased. Neferkheperre (talk) 00:35, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it is a symbol that is known by the specialists contributing here and those interested in our topics. Please do not delete. Andyboorman (talk) 07:28, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Our audience is not just "specialists", much less only those "contributing here". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:58, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, they should be replaced by {{Extinct}} (; which I have just updated to use HTML's <abbr> element) or {{Deceased}} (Template:Deceased; which I have just created), as appropriate, for reasons of accessibility. I suggest we also consider using categories for reasons of searchability. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:58, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The dagger symbol has been used to denote extinct taxa for over 100 years, in everything from general information books to specialist literature. So I personally see no issue with it and it is considered correct notation. Out of curiosity why did you update the current template? It already presented the work extinct upon hover. Cheers, Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 22:45, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
never mind the last I see what you did, replaced span with abbr, updated the coding, fair enough. Cheers, Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 22:49, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
One difference is that the <abbr> tag underlines the abbreviations (or in this case the dagger symbol), making users aware that hovering will present additional information. In most browsers the <span title...> method used by you will not. From an aesthetic point of view I find the underscore a bit less pleasant, but it serves well as a heads up about the hovering. Both methods are fully supported by the HTML5 standard, so no issue there. (As a comparison, the similar <acronym> tag is not officially supported by the latest flavours of HTML.) Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 23:29, 31 March 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Validity disputed

We have just two entries in Category:Validity disputed:

Both are Ordo: Therapsida, and were created by a long-absent user in 2006, and were tagged as disputed by User:Lycaon (who hasn't edited for over 12 months) in the same year. In neither case was the recommended discussion started on their talk pages. Can anyone suggest what should be done with them? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:02, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

These two taxa were accepted as valid about 30 years ago. This was attempt to subdivide Order Carnivora at that time. Taxonomy seems to have moved on, and I don't know if anyone still accepts them. Neferkheperre (talk) 00:38, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
These two "disputed names" are suborder synonyms: Canoidea is a synonym of Caniformia and Feloidea is a synonym of Feliformia. Mariusm (talk) 08:04, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Both items have now been redirected. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:09, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:09, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Turtle ID

Did I identify File:Red-eared slider × yellow-bellied slider on a rock.jpg correctly? I'd like to know before adding the picture to the Wikipedia article. I had asked Faendalimas but think he missed it or doesn't know. Alexis Jazz (talk) 16:22, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I saw your message last night and had a brief look, just have not had time to reply. hybrids are difficult to identify. I need some info about the animal, ie, is it wild caught, or captive, exactly where it was found. If you have one a photo of the plastron, belly,. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 12:05, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
She (I am told its a she) was born in captivity and currently living in a paludarium. The current owner doesn't really know anything about it and got it from the previous owner when it was very young. The previous owner didn't know much either. She lives with a male turtle that is (afaik) a yellow-bellied slider. I won't put the photo of the hybrid belly on Commons because the quality is poor, but you can see it here: Alexis Jazz (talk) 13:48, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Heya, thanks, yes there was no need to put the plastron phot on commons I just needed to see it. I agree this is T. s. scripta x T. s. elegans based on what I can see. That is yellow belly slider crossed with red ear slider. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 22:35, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In my work on our sister projects, I find the Navigation popups gadget immensely useful.

I would like to have it enabled here, and make it an option for all users, according to the steps at en:Wikipedia:Tools/Navigation popups/FAQ#Using the script on other wikis. Can someone assist, please? I think we may need a bureaucrat. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:51, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the necessary importScriptURI etc… code string to the MediaWiki:Common.js file, in order to import the "popups.js" JavaScript we need. Unfortunately I don't have access to the "LocalSettings.php" file on the Wikispecies server, hence can't add the necessary two lines of code needed to enable the "User Style" setting for the script. (See Manual:LocalSettings.php on MediaWiki for details.) The same is true when I try to enable the "short URLs" setting, since I have no access to our Apache server either. (See MediaWiki Manual:Short URL). All of this is of course possible to fix, but atm I don't know how. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 14:57, 1 April 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Unsafe scripts

Why is my browser reporting WS trying to load scripts from unsafe sources? Is this a concern or just my browser having a hissy fit? Andyboorman (talk) 20:51, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, emptying your web server's cache- and cookie files may help, and then please restart your computer. If the problem persist, does this happen when you visit any Wikispecies page, or just some specific pages? Hopefully the latter. If that's the case, my guess is that some of the public TLS- and/or SSL identity key certificates used by the Wikimedia servers are no longer valid. These encryption certificates adds an extra layer of security by helping your web browser verify the true identity of the recipient server, thus protecting against man-in-the-middle attacks and other threats. This is signified by the "s" in https:// (i.e. "HTTP Secure") at the beginning of every Wikimedia web page address.
These certificates are issued by external certification authority companies (e.g. Verisign, Thawte, Symantec). They are only valid for a fixed period of time – often a year – just like any other identity document such as an ID card, passport, or driver's license. All modern web browsers warn if you try to enter a page that uses an expired certificate. Valid certificates does of course not render a warning, and for most browsers neither will you receive a warning if the server doesn't use any identity key certificate at all (in other words when the address starts with http:// without the "s").
Different parts of Wikimedia uses different security certificates, with different levels of security and expiration times (depending on need/price and when they were issued). Can you please give an example of a Wikispecies page which renders you the warning, so I can check the validity of the certificate and if necessary contact the Wikimedia tech guys for an update? –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 11:58, 2 April 2018 (UTC).[reply]
Its all pages including this one. However, there is no alert on Commons, Wdata or WP. I have cleared cache etc. as suggested and it is still occurring. I am using Chrome and the alert shows at the top right of the page by a half full shield next to the Bookmark star. Andyboorman (talk) 13:06, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Metophiurida (infraclass of Ophiuroidea) has 79 inbound links; our most-linked taxon page that does not yet exist. Can someone make it, please? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:57, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Done Burmeister (talk) 23:25, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Most missed articles

Wikispecies:Most missed articles was compiled in 2008. Does anyone have the means to update it, please? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:58, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I can look in to it during the Easter holidays. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 11:09, 28 March 2018 (UTC).[reply]
Many are vernacular names, and wikispecies don't have the habit to create redirects of the vernacular names; is wright? so lion and others redirects created should be delete, or not ?! Burmeister (talk) 13:01, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
They cost nothing, and are clearly pages that people are looking for here. Why would we not assist our users to find the correct page? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:46, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
So we need create pages in all the languages?! And this will cost a lot. Vernaculars are not the scope in WS (my opinion). Burmeister (talk) 18:28, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Where do you get that idea from? It's got nothing to do with what I wrote. We are discussing Wikispecies:Most missed articles which is - as clearly stated at the top of that page - a list of (my emphasis) "Most often requested nonexistent articles per day ". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:24, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
From lion, cat, bearded dragon, yak, grizzly bear. Why created those redirects? all present in "most missed articles" Burmeister (talk) 19:53, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You've just answered your own question. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:21, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Vernacular names are a minefield. There isn't a one-to-one relationship between vernacular names and taxa. Why have "cat" redirect to Felis and not Felis silvestris catus or Felidae? People searching for cat almost certainly want the domesticated subspecies, and if they do have a broader concept in mind, it's more likely the family than the genus. Plantdrew (talk) 14:25, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think that vernacular names are a bit of fluff, like pictures and most definitely not essential information on a taxon page. As Plantdrew says - a minefield. However, If they are over represented on "most missed articles" then it is another good reason for just getting rid of vernacular names. The information belongs quite rightly on WP and WD and so can be viewed on their links. Andyboorman (talk) 14:41, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
How do you propose to "get rid of" vernacular names from "most missed articles"? How would you propose to redirect someone searching Wikispecies for "cat" (or more importantly, a term that exists in more than one language) to a particular Wikipedia article? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:27, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Where a "most missed article" term applies to more than one taxon, especially of different ranks, it makes sense to direct users to the highest rank in the hierarchy. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:27, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

─────────────────────────I agree the vernacular names are not what we do with any consistency, not are we meant to. I do not care that they are there but they should not be appearing here as they detract from identifying issues related to our actual purpose. Plus as stated they are a minefield, even within a singular language. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 11:34, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by "there" and "here"? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:33, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. I do not mind that they are included on pages as additional information. However, they should not be showing up in special pages used to identify important missing items on this wiki. Since vernacular names are not part of taxonomy or nomenclature, are unstable by nature and generally not useful. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 18:38, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"special pages used to identify important missing items on this wiki" I think you're misunderstanding what the "Most missed articles" page is. I'm still not clear what you mean by "there" and "here", in your earlier post. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:06, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Vernacular names are garbage information and not relevant to a wiki on taxonomy and nomenclature. That clear enough for you? There is no constant usage for them, no reference of any value for this, no nomenclatural rules for their stability. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 22:41, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Clear, but not at all relevant to the point at hand. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:05, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I am strongly opposing the idea to create any redirects from vernacular names to taxon pages. I will try to explain this on the example of the vernacular "biber". How would you know, if someone is searching for the German word "Biber" or the Turkish word "biber" or the Bosnian word "biber"? Creating a certain redirect is prohibiting, that the rest of the people searching for a different meaning of the same sequence of letters will find, what they want. When such redirects do not exist, the search at least will result in a list of pages, where this vernacular is occurring. You may try the search with the word "biber" and at the first page of the results you get at least the German and the Turkish target. (No result for Bosnian so far.) --Franz Xaver (talk) 13:01, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see "biber" on the list of Most missed articles; what makes you think it will appear there in the future? Also, Most missed articles is not a list of pages people have searched for, it is a list of pages they have tried to visit, directly. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:55, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I was not talking about this obscure list, but about the issue of redirects for vernacular names. Anyway, if the word "Trakulje" is on this list now, why not any other vernacular could happen to occur there sometimes in the future? --Franz Xaver (talk) 14:09, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Here's some background information, for reference

The Wikispecies:Most missed articles list was created in November 2008, in Wikispecies namespace. It uses data from the three User subpages User:Melancholie/mmA, User:Melancholie/mmA frame, and User:Melancholie/mmA blacklist. They were created the same day or the day before, and of course all reside in User namespace. (Btw the user's latest contribution to Wikispecies was in August 2009. This is also true for the now inactive bot MelancholieBot, run by the same user.)

The "Most missed articles" list was/is conducting its searches using source code that were once found on this page, on an external non-Wikimedia site. That particular URL is now dead, but was crawled and archived one time by the Wayback Machine. (Click "March 6, 2016" in the calendar to see the archived page.) Furthermore information in the list tells us we should import this JavaScript code last updated in 2011 from the German language version of Wiktionary into the Wikispecies' file MediaWiki:Common.js in the MediaWiki namespace. So in order for the list to work in the best way possible we rely on code from three Wikispecies' subpages of a User page, JavaScript from a dictionary Wiki sister project, and some now non-existing and therefore unreadable source code from a non-wiki page that isn't updated anymore? Surely this can't be the best way to maintain such a list..?

If we decide to keep the list (which as Andy Mabbett explains above may be a good idea) and update it in the future, I suggest we scrap the current version and start anew, using Wikispecies specific templates (e.g. not pages in User namespace) and fetch data from Wikidata and/or Toolforge (formerly "Wikimedia Tool Labs" i.e. "WMFlabs") plus Cloud VPS (formerly "Wikimedia Labs"). –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 13:37, 31 March 2018 (UTC).[reply]

In its current format I would vote to delete it. Am open to suggestions but need convincing. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 22:43, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Deleting the list would not make the issue go away; it would just keep us ignorant of it. I'm not seeing any advantage in that, to us or our users. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:55, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Category templates consensus please

A have noticed that some editors add [[Category:Taxonavigation templates]]</noinclude> + <includeonly>[[Category:Pages with taxonavigation templates]]</includeonly><noinclude> to taxonavigation templates, whereas at least one editor deletes these categories. I have not yet seen an edit war, so that is encouraging. Firstly, what is the advantage of these bits of code? Do we need them? What are the reasons for deleting them? Finally if there is consensus to keep or delete can a bot do this semi-automatically? Regards Andyboorman (talk) 12:10, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm ambivalent about the latter, but the former is useful (or, would be if widely applied). See, for example, en:Wikipedia:PetScan for how categories can be utilised. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:30, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I am fairly neutral on this, though the second one I consider a bit of a waste of time, the first I am neutral. I do not see it as that useful here. Cheers, Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 11:30, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose the intent was to have each Wikispecies:Page types categorized to at least one category. I think, Category:Taxonavigation templates could be useful. I do not know what was the purpose of Category:Pages with taxonavigation templates, just copied both categories from older taxonavigation templates to new ones. If the community decides not to use those categories, those entries should not be deleted manually, as Category:Taxonavigation templates includes more than 67,000 entries. But I prefer to keep the first category (maybe a bot can add it to all taxonavigation templates). --Thiotrix (talk) 08:29, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Most of these categories were added in the course of a single bot action on 17th Jan 2017, without having discussed the issue before. A discussion was started, after much of the action already had been completed. (Anyway, at that moment this kind of categorisation was not completed for all taxonavigation templates existing at that moment.) To me, the discussion was not convincing, that such categories would make any sense, and if something like this would be nice to have, that it should be done exactly this way. Therefore, I have remove manually some of these categories here and then in a number of taxonavigation templates.
OK, Category:Taxonavigation templates might be useful, but Category:Pages with taxonavigation templates probably is a waste of resources. And the fact, that this also places all the taxonavigation templates into the same category as the taxon pages, in my opinion, seems to be a somewhat dirty implementation of a spontaneous idea. --Franz Xaver (talk) 11:14, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]


I accidentally messed up the page Brachypelma smithi trying to put the character ♀ into the caption after identifying the image as female, but now it just says a bunch of boogaloo in red! Plus, this page is on the front page! HELP HELP HELP I DON'T WANT TO BE A VANDAL HELP!!! GermanGamer77 (talk) 20:21, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I revert your editions, but you can revert yourself in "View history" section, when a mistake is made. Regards Burmeister (talk) 20:28, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@GermanGamer77: Danke for helping--you're not a vandal. I've fixed the caption now--the WikiWay works! —Justin (koavf)TCM 20:31, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Non-standard taxon formatting

We have just 84 entries in Category:Non-standard taxon formatting; most (but not all) relate to the work of Thomas Cavalier-Smith. Can we clean them up, between us, and so empty that category? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:28, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Could somebody create some articles on namespace "MediaWiki" as below:

Thanks. --Garam (talk) 18:24, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. Thanks! —Justin (koavf)TCM 06:13, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Translation markup at Welcome templates

Could you please mark up those templates for the part as follows?

Specifically, two sentences needs to be marked up. "If you have named a taxon, then it is likely that there is (or will be) a Wikispecies page about you, and other pages about your published papers. Please see our [[Special:MyLanguage/Wikispecies:Autobiography|advice and guidance for taxon authors]]"

Thank you! ----Omotecho (talk) 06:27, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Category:Patronyms seems under-populated; should it be more widely used?

Also, should it not be "Category:Eponyms"? (And didn't we discuss that, recently?). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:45, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A patronym is just a subset of an eponym. It is not part of a taxonomy or classification, but if editors want to populate the category(s) it can be seen as harmless fun in the same way as a vernacular name or image. IMO anyway. Andyboorman (talk) 11:01, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone confirm if the bot is performing correctly? It looks like it's trying to update links but ended up shifting the links to a different entry. OhanaUnitedTalk page 03:55, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Temminck's: Nouveau recueil de planches coloriées d’oiseaux

[ Moved from Wikispecies talk:Village Pump ]

Somebody can help me on how the order works on these references for Temminck. I can find the planche number reference in Zoonomen, but in the 5 volumes of Nouveau recueil de planches coloriées d’oiseaux accessed through BHL the planches are not in a logical order...and it would take a lot of time to find it manually searching the five volumes...Example: plate 2 is followed by plate 407 ???--Hector Bottai (talk) 17:01, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Hector Bottai:! Dickinson (2001) may help. Burmeister (talk) 17:18, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Circular redirect(s)

Eupatorium trapezoideum , Where was this supposed to go? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 09:33, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also -

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 09:34, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Done Andyboorman (talk) 10:27, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ON Wikisource...

This is probably rather old, s:Index:Icones muscorum.djvu but I wonder if it's of interest. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 19:32, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lima (genus)

Would anyone like to rescue Lima (genus)? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:48, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Very important bivalve genus. I need to find pertinent data, then shall do it. Neferkheperre (talk) 21:46, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
WoRMS treatment here, in case this helps: Regards - Tony Tony 1212 (talk) 23:15, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I got it rescued as bivalve. WoRMS entry was tremendous help there. There also appears to be some sort of plant involved, maybe one of our botanists can help with it. I edited Lima disambiguation page to include Lima (genus). There is still much more work, as Cretaceous-Tertiary Gulf Coast species are still missing. Neferkheperre (talk) 12:40, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No Lima in Plantae according to my "exhaustive" genera database (a small number names of names still missing), . Nearest I have is a Limia Vandelli, 1788 (Plantae-Lamiales) (synonym of Vitex L.) which could conceivably appear as a typo "Lima" somewhere, I don't know.
You may also find this GNA (Global Names Index) search useful (or depressing...): Regards - Tony Tony 1212 (talk) 22:30, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Accepted species name

Category:Accepted species name has over 33K members, but is not used comprehensively. What is its purpose, and do we need it? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:39, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In botany, unless stated otherwise, for example by using {{disputed}}, all taxon pages are "accepted" by a consensus, which ideally is featured in the Reference section. Therefore, this category is superfluous and can be deleted on mass, IMHO. Cheers Andyboorman (talk) 13:26, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
agreed, this is useless information and honestly a given on the basis that the name appears at all. Delete all. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 16:14, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Also agree--names are accepted until we know otherwise. —Justin (koavf)TCM 17:27, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps all Category:Accepted names have the same problem and deserve to be deleted altogether. Burmeister (talk) 17:39, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Totally agree, I am sure they all are unused. Clutter or vanity project, me thinks. Andyboorman (talk) 20:15, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

───────────────────────── Indeed. Category:Accepted names and all of its subcategories are more or less pointless, and should be deleted. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 21:03, 25 May 2018 (UTC).[reply]

I feel confident that this is consensus among many long-time users of the site and this is one of many pet projects of User:Stho002. I feel good about deletion. —Justin (koavf)TCM 21:09, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I would be happy to remove these myself but note that we don't have floodflag on this wiki. How do we want to proceed? —Justin (koavf)TCM 21:11, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think they may be mass deleted with Huggle. Dan Koehl (talk) 00:43, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
EDIT: Sorry, I was wrong there of course, this is not a question of mass delete, but category removal. removing that category from files should be easy with AutoWikiBrowser? Dan Koehl (talk) 00:47, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oh sure, I'd be happy to do it. I'm just saying that it will clog up special:RecentChanges. If everyone is cool with that, I'll go for it. —Justin (koavf)TCM 01:04, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Fine by me Andyboorman (talk) 07:28, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What is the alternative? This is used if species etc. are valid. PeterR (talk) 09:08, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Names should be assumed to be valid unless we know otherwise. A disputed or invalid name would be noteworthy but correct, standard information is the norm. Why does this need to be categorized? —Justin (koavf)TCM 17:14, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Koavf and Andyboorman: I don't see why the rush to delete the Category: Accepted species name before giving it the time for a proper discussion. I also can't understand why botanists should deem it unnecessary when clearly it is a zoology-category and is irrelevant for botany. I think this category is useful because it stands as a counterpart for Category: Invalid species name. I consider this deletion improper and unproductive for WS. Mariusm (talk) 09:17, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Mariusm and Koavf: I also never understood the need for Category: Invalid species name, please enlighten me, thanks. Andyboorman (talk) 09:23, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What instantly looked like a clear case of a consensus, may actually not be so, and further discussions during at least a week may have foregone this action. I'm sure the category changes can be reverted, should there arise a large support of keeping this category. In either case, seems this case should be brought to the community's attention on a broader scale, so everyone can make their opinion heard? Dan Koehl (talk) 09:28, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Andyboorman: Category: Invalid species name is VERY important because MANY invalid names have their own page and not merely a redirect. It is VERY important to indicate that these names are invalid. See for example Liogluta nigrobusta. Mariusm (talk) 09:36, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Mariusm: That does not really answer my question. To rephrase, what is it about Liogluta nigrobusta that qualifies it for its own taxon page? Why is it different from the synonyms under Cotula? In other words do we need a category to deal with taxon pages that do not belong on WS? Cheers. Andyboorman (talk) 10:02, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Andyboorman: What makes you say Liogluta nigrobusta doesn't belong to WS? Of course it does. Many synonyms have a lot of relevant information which can't fit in the valid-species relevant page, and if it does it wont be represented clearly enough. Some species have such a convoluted history that it's necessary to give their synonyms their due place. We never agreed that synonyms can't have their own pages which isn't a redirect. Many databases are giving the synonyms their specific pages where all their relevant data is represented, and I consider it a good practice. Mariusm (talk) 14:30, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Mariusm: I think we will have to agree to disagree, as I think that the data can be accommodated on the accepted taxon page. Regards Andyboorman (talk) 16:13, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well as a zoologist I see no value for the cat either. To me it is not about botany vs zoology and the slight differences between the codes. Yes the definitions of invalid and unavailable are different, however, accepted is not actually a zoological term either. Names in zoology are either unavailable or available (based on requirements) and if available they may be valid or invalid, based on whether they are the currently used synonymym or ajunior of some type. I see no value myself in junior synonyms having entire pages, redirects to the senior synonym sure, but I see no reason for making pages for taxa that are invalid. All the type data of the synonym and its refs can be included on the main page, why can this not happen. These categories are a waste of time and space. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 18:49, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

─────────────────────────in regards to Category: Invalid species name I am also in favor of deleting this, however, accept that may need more discussion. I ask this, what does it achieve creating a page for an invalid species, only to have it sit in this category plus have a link to its senior synonym and a template showing its invalid. What purpose does this serve for the nomenclature of the living world? Why can this information not be placed on the senior synonyms page. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 19:04, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't it make more sense to include all taxon pages using the {{invalid}} template automatically in a Category:Invalid taxon name instead of adding them manually to such a cat? - And yes, I think, invalid taxon pages are useful for documentation purposes. Just in case, a user should want to search for such a name. --Murma174 (talk) 19:23, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Murma174 and Mariusm: The documentation and data for the so called "invalid" taxon can be part of the senior synonym, or "accepted" taxon page. If the so called invalid taxon is in the synonymy of this page, as it should be, then it would feature in a search by a prospective user, or am I wrong? I think that is the way to progress WS for relatively complex taxonomies rather then the less transparent system of nested categories. I suggest this is more implicit and data driven. OK there are a few cases where consensus has not been achieved and names are in dispute, but that is a separate argument. Andyboorman (talk) 21:55, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
agree with @Andyboorman: and this is my point. It should be in the synonymy on the valid name page, and if you use a search it will still find them if it is either a redirect to the valid name, or it is contained in the page. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 22:04, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Andyboorman and Faendalimas: This isn't a search-question. My point is that a senior-synonym page is too restricted to handle a bunch of junior-synonyms, each with its type-data; each with its name-combination-history; each with its group of references and mentions. Eventually this poor senior-synonym page will become a mess of entangled data. Thanks-God the senior-pages contain presently only the BARE-MINIMUM for the junior-synonyms data, but for the full-blown-data the best way is to use dedicated pages for the juniors. Mariusm (talk) 08:43, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Mariusm and Faendalimas: This is a huge expansion of the current WS and its scope. Whilst there are so many red-linked accepted taxa then I will not be joining you any time soon. Andyboorman (talk) 09:56, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Settle back, this isn't for ALL synonyms, only for selected ones (for now). Mariusm (talk) 10:07, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

───────────────────────── A little OT meanwhile, but anyway: Abutilon Brazil virus is no synonym, but lost its status as a species, because the genetic difference to Abutilon mosaic Brazil virus is too small, and thus the first was merged into the latter. I added some information from the first page into the valid species page, and now(!) the invalid species page could be replaced by a redirect IMO. But we should keep the invalid species pages, where it is not yet done, or not that easy to merge the pages. --Murma174 (talk) 10:55, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. And - again - it would help a lot, if all pages with {{invalid}} template did show up in one maintenance category. --Murma174 (talk) 11:06, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

searching was brought up hence I mentioned it. I get this is not for all synonyms. I just honestly do not see the value in it. However, if it is being used by some for whatever reason, eg maintenance, updating etc, it is also harmless so long as its not extended to all taxa. Those using it can use it as they see fit I guess. But I myself prefer to add all synonyms to the valid name only and have no pages for synonyms unless the are redirects. I only do the redirects where taxonomy has been dynamic and recent. In other words the synonyms have been used and may be searched for. Therefore, if some people wish to keep this category and its not automatically applied or reqiuired then for me it can stay to be used by those who wish to use it. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 18:12, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Another problem with redirecting synonyms is that there are cases where a specific taxon name is the synonym of several other, accepted but separate taxa. Where to redirect the synonym then? –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 20:41, 27 May 2018 (UTC).[reply]
@Tommy Kronkvist: Not sure, whether I understand your question properly, but we have lots of disambiguation pages in Category:Disambiguation pages with synonyms and homonyms. --Murma174 (talk) 21:45, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Tommy Kronkvist: that occurs occasionally when there are syntypes that represent different species and no one has bothered to split the type series to resolve it. However, it does at times happen. Technically it should be redirected to the older name as if it was a valid name that is the taxon that would be resolved to get the name. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 17:00, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"this isn't for ALL synonyms, only for selected ones (for now)" How - on what criteria - are these selections made? Where is this process documented? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:31, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This approach will only benefit a few taxa and a single editor. I am sure that is fine, as long as there is consensus as to its harmlessness and the experimentation may have a long term benefit. However, I feel that when it impacts outside its confines and dictates to WS as a whole then that is not acceptable. Therefore, these categories and others like them should be deleted in the same way as we agreed to delete location categories. We have got to focus on the basics - WS is primarily a database concerned with currently accepted taxa and their relationships and classifications. It is not a database of categories, surely? Andyboorman (talk) 19:29, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes @Andyboorman: you are correct, as I indicated I am ok with it so long as no attempt to extend it is made. In other words it is and remains harmless. However, I will go with consensus here. If everyone wants them deleted I am ok with that decision too. To @Pigsonthewing:, Andy I do not know where or even if it was ever discussed or documented, why not I also do not know. Should this mean it should be deleted, to me no, not for that reason, byut as I indicated I do not think this is of any value either and for that reason they could be deleted. As I said above though if it can remain harmless then I can accept it staying. If it stays please do not ever ask me to comply with it. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 00:58, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see the point of opposing either the Category: Accepted species name or the Category: Invalid species name. Both are harmless. More than that, they are beneficial in many ways. One benefit is the ability to group together and to manipulate all the valid-zoological-species. In the current situation we can't do that which is a significant drawback. Another benefit is the ability to instantly switch a valid species to an invalid one while preserving all the page information. Currently more than 3000 species are assigned as invalid species, which is a significant asset (see the templates {{Invalid}} and {{Invalid genus}}). The deletion of the Category: Accepted species name was a major mistake to my mind, and the procedure to go ahead and delete it without a proper discussion was a misjudgment. I hope to be able to gradually reintroduce the Category: Accepted species name to be able to utilize all its advantages. Mariusm (talk) 09:42, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Mariusm: In contrast, I and it seems a number of others, can see the point in not concentrating on the plethora of invalid names in favour of those that are accepted and there was no major mistake made in the deletion. Nevertheless this whole business could have been dealt with by proper discussion and consensus before you spent a lot of energy on this categorisation project. It seems that as a harmless side-show you should be free to go ahead without consensus or a vote, but I am unhappy with this, as it could open the flood gate to a host of private projects on WS. This has happened in the past with the build up of acrimonious consequences. I think the way forward is now to convene a separate discussion with a view to seeking consensus culminating in a vote. In addition, as you originated, or at least are a major user of the procedure, you ought to open the case for retaining these categories. Hopefully this sounds a reasonable way forward. Andyboorman (talk) 13:18, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Andyboorman: I think the above categories and the invalid names to be an ancillary part of the routine work we do and not something out of the ordinary as you imply. These bits of data are designed to add value to the respective pages and are not mandatory. Furthermore they are irrelevant to the botanical section of WS where you contribute. Why categories which clarify and help organize our database be termed "without consensus" when they are present here for many years and were never until now been opposed to. Mariusm (talk) 13:44, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
well I work on the zoological data and I am also not for them. Since it has created discussion its not unreasonable to make a proposal and a vote to keep or discard. Recreating a category that has been removed by consensus without new discussion is also not of any benefit. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 21:48, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Both are created by an IP in 2008. What to do with them? --Succu (talk) 20:42, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

both are I am guessing new unnamed genera of the tribe Dirhagini. No additional info, quick seach I could find nothing helpful. I suggest delete both the n.g. pages. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 21:45, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If described in formal text as such, then they are considered as described in open nomenclature. They are not formally named, so I would agree to delete. Neferkheperre (talk) 22:37, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 08:27, 1 June 2018 (UTC).[reply]
Thx. I requested deletion at Wikidata. --Succu (talk) 15:41, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mantophasma zephyrum or Mantophasma zephyra? EOL and ITIS say -um, GBIF and most Wikipedias say -a. I'd bet for -um. Has anybody access to the original source? (Klass, K.-D., O. Zompro, N. P. Kristensen, and J. Adis. 2002.) --Murma174 (talk) 11:07, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe this (Damgaard et al., 2008) can help: "We also agree with Zompro (2005) that the gender of ‘‘Phasma” is neuter, which also applies to all genus names ending with —phasma in Klass et al. (2003a); consequently, the ending ‘‘—ensis” of species names is changed into ‘‘–ense”,‘‘zephyra” is changed into ‘‘zephyrum”, and‘‘subsolana” into ‘‘subsolanum”." Burmeister (talk) 14:14, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Great! Thank you. --Murma174 (talk) 16:20, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

IRMNG as a potential resource for Wikispecies

Hi all, I am not currently a Wikispecies contributor (because there are only so many hours a day and my energies are mainly directed elsewhere, see below) but do lurk occasionally at the WS Village Pump to catch what is going on. However I thought it might be worthwhile to introduce my taxonomic names-collecting project to you, IRMNG, the Interim Register of Marine and Nonmarine Genera, in case there are aspects of it that might help Wikispecies - for example for gap analysis or as a source of names you might otherwise not find so easily. IRMNG contains as many genus names as I have been able to locate over the lifetime of the project (2006 onwards), currently over 485,000, with more added on an intermittent basis, all arranged in a coherent taxonomic hierarchy (although not all are allocated to family at this time). In addition to a simple name search and a browsable taxon tree, one of the things that distinguishes IRMNG from some other compilations (apart from its scope which, like Wikispecies, is "all life", both extant and fossil) is the facility to fine tune searches to one's particular needs e.g. filter by taxonomic group and by cited year - this facility being available via the IRMNG "advanced search" page at For example, a search for genus names published in 2010 in Coleoptera yields 248 names and is set up as follows:

  • Authority [contains] 2010
  • Rank [is] Genus
  • Belongs to: Coleoptera (selected from picklist once "Coleoptera" is entered)

The resulting list looks like this (start):

IRMNG Taxon list

Search returned 248 matching records, showing records 1-100.

Click on one of the taxon names listed below to check the details.

Of course you can do similar things with any other taxonomic group or with all names, or search for a particular author name, etc. etc. The entire IRMNG dataset (down to genus) can also be downloaded without restriction, see, and the download file is updated from the master (web) version a couple of times a year at this time.

Just mentioning this in case it is of value. I spend quite a lot of time trawling various resources out there (although always more work to be done!) and integrating the results so may be able to save downstream users such as yourselves a bit of time, perhaps. Of course in an ideal world this stuff would only require to be entered once into a single location and then flow seamlessly to other projects but that state of nirvana is still a little way off :) Best regards - Tony Rees Tony 1212 (talk) 00:28, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

BTW I should point out that IRMNG is fairly complete up to around 2012 or so (later for some groups) but less so for the most recently published names - a situation that may be rectified at some point ... Tony 1212 (talk) 00:38, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Also note the method above works for plant groups as well, since (in contrast to "classic" botanical tradition) I like to keep the publication year as well as the author names for botanical genera, as well as zoological ones. Of course, use of the year in the query filter is optional, if you do not use it you will simply get all names for any desired group (up to a limit of 10,000 per query via the web). Tony 1212 (talk) 05:33, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The best solution would be to propose a Wikidata property for your identifiers (e.g. "1469897" for Acanthocolum), then load them all into Wikidata's Mix'n'Match tool, and match them to existing Wikidata items, or create new items where necessary. Then, we can run a query on Wikidata, "list all items with an IRMNG ID that has no Wikispecies page". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:51, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
My Wikidata-Bot is able to read the Darwin Core Archive and can match the ID to the correct Wikidata item. --Succu (talk) 14:45, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Tony 1212, Do you distinguish or are you being able to distinguish between valid genera and genera names in synonymy, genera-names-class such as subgenera, and rank-transferred names. for example: (1) A search for "Empleurus" yields "Empleurus Hope, 1838 accepted as Helophorus Fabricius, 1775" but doesn't indicate that Empleurus is a subgenus of Helophorus. (2) A search for "Tachyusota" yields "Status unaccepted" which is correct, but wrongly states "Accepted Name: Ischnopoda Stephens, 1835" (the correct one is Tachyusa Erichson, 1837). (3) Calischnopoda is listed as "accepted" yet it's a synonymy of Ischnopoda. Mariusm (talk) 15:22, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Mariusm, thanks for checking out my compilation and for your questions which I will try to answer. For your question (1), as you realise, the taxonomicStatus field (mostly "accepted" or "unaccepted") refers to the presently stored status at generic rather than subgeneric level; IRMNG at present does not attempt to store subgenera as separate entities (a legacy from its original design and rapid assembly nature) although in future it could do so (with a lot of additional work). There is a "notes" field in the master file which, in the cited case of Empleurus Hope, 1838, reads : "Taxonomic remark: As Helophorus (Empleurus) in Hallan, 2000-. Currently valid as subgenus (Hallan, 2000-)." (refer; unfortunately these notes are only readable on the web version at present, not in the DwCA archive download (I could maybe ask VLIZ, the present database custodians, to think about preparing the notes fields as a separate table for download). (2) and (3) require me to do some further checking; if there are stated synonymies given in IRMNG they will have come from somewhere (again, sources are viewable via the web version) but they may be outdated compared with more recent sources - hopefully any such errors are for historic reasons rather than actual mistakes.
There is a fourth issue which you have not yet spotted but may become apparent: when I created IRMNG I had a status equivalent to "unassessed" for names of which the taxonomic status had not been further researched (i.e., their valid name or synonym status was not known), however in the current, VLIZ-hosted version that status does not exist and all such names (around 20% of animal genera) are treated as "accepted", although (once again via the web version) their is a note on validity "Not yet assessed" (or some such wording). Again for power users, I could get VLIZ to generate a list of the relevant IRMNG IDs/names if this is important for you. Cheers - Tony Tony 1212 (talk) 23:50, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I checked the cases you mentioned in points (3) and (4). Tachyusota Casey, 1906 is listed in IRMNG as a synonym of Ischnopoda based on Hallan's Biology Catalog from which I uploaded relevant information in 2012, in which it is given as a subgenus of Ischnopoda. I note, however, that in Löbl & Löbl's 2015 catalogue, Tachyusota is given in the synonymy of Tachyusa Erichson; I can update this in the master IRMNG version, from which it will propagate to the next web download in due course (but not for some months). Calischnopoda is a different case in that it is one of the "unassessed" names in IRMNG (sourced from Nomenclator Zoologicus but not encountered in other taxonomic lists yet used for IRMNG population or markup) but coming through as "accepted" for now via the VLIZ hosting procedure (although it will be on any separately generated list of IRMNG unassessed names). I see that Löbl & Löbl list this as a synonym of Ischnopoda as you point out, so I can update this record also, although there will still be perhaps 100,000 names not yet assessed in the IRMNG master file (along with 300,000+ that have been, at least from one cited source) which is just a fact of the current IRMNG data set that has to be borne in mind (with my apologies).
Perhaps the take-home message is that IRMNG will alert you to names that have been published in a particular group, but you cannot always rely on it for the latest taxonomic status of all the names held which should therefore ideally be verified independently. Over time, the treatment of particular groups is upgraded but because taxonomy is a moving target IRMNG cannot unfortunately be as up-to-date in all respects as other, more specialist compilations; however IRMNG does provide an integrated view across all groups (useful, e.g. for the detection of homonyms in particular) that its equivalents elsewhere typically do not, as well as open access to the data in an easily reusable form. By the way, more details on IRMNG data sources used plus some of its benefits and/or limitations are contained in this 2017 publication: IRMNG 2006–2016: 10 Years of a Global Taxonomic Database Tony 1212 (talk) 03:25, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Tony 1212: many thanks for your detailed answer. The IRMNG can indeed be of value when searching for genus-name basic attributes but the details must be double-checked for accuracy. Mariusm (talk) 09:59, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Mariusm:Correct! I named it "Interim" for this reason (also because when something better comes along, it can be superseded or retired...) Tony 1212 (talk) 21:09, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have now posted a proposal for a Wikidata property, at d:Wikidata:Property proposal/IRMNG taxon ID. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:16, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Pigsonthewing:, just letting you know that IRMNG has many duplicated names (homonyms sensu stricto plus sensu lato i.e. between kingdoms, nomina nuda, and published misspellings which collide with other, correctly spelled names of different taxa) that have to be borne in mind for any mapping exercise - see lists at When I last looked here were over 70,000 such cases at genus level (perhaps 30,000 discrete names) of which the worst is Wagneria with 14(?) instances... Plus there are also unrecognised cases, e.g. within the last 10 minutes I came across a genus Platydiscus in a botanical paper; the only Platydiscus in the present IRMNG download file is an animal, but this one is indeed a (fossil) plant genus name published in 2001 and not present in the major nomenclators. Incorrect mappings could have some (ahem) 'interesting' consequences. Regards Tony Tony 1212 (talk) 20:12, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tony, looks like the IRMNG REST webservice is not working. I'm getting only 404 errors. --Succu (talk) 15:19, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Succu:, thanks for notifying us of that. There was a small error in the implementation which is now fixed. As an example, is now working, with other options described at . Cheers - Tony Tony 1212 (talk) 20:15, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Great, Tony! I will check this tomorrow. --Succu (talk) 20:19, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikidata property now created, as P5055. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:46, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

FYI Tony: The integration at Wikidata is running (around 600,000 ids by now), but due to some new edit limitation it will take a while. Regards --Succu (talk) 18:59, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Succu: / Andy Mabbett. I'm not that familiar with wikidata so perhaps you can forgive these possibly naive questions - first, does your process harvest just the name/IRMNG ID/url (or LSID) or does it also grab other relations/properties (parent ID etc., valid name/ID if a synonym, etc.) and second, how does it deal with dynamic data - e.g. first, for a given IRMNG ID the name would not normally ever change (except in case of an unintentional typo, or adjustment to cited authority), but its associated relations/properties may, and second, as new items are added to the database (or occasionally deprecated); the latter will be added as the next available numbers so you can always trawl for those I am guessing (if you are working off the live master/web copy, not the static data dump).
There is one more thing you may encounter - a "feature" of the Aphia/WorMS data system in which IRMNG resides is that (apart from one or two special cases), the remote edit interface that is supplied for my and others' use does not support spaces in scientific names (these however can be inserted by the DB admins). So if I want to enter/edit an item named (say) "Mollusca (awaiting allocation)" it is entered/saved as "Mollusca_(awaiting_allocation)" for a while (generally a few weeks) until the underscores get replaced by spaces. Just letting you know in case you encounter any of these (maybe up to half a dozen out of 2.5 million at any one time). Regards - Tony Tony 1212 (talk) 22:06, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Just to note, if you are working off the Darwin Core Archive files, there will be no need to trawl for newly created records and also you will find no underscores. However if you are using the REST service these aspects may be of interest. Cheers - Tony Tony 1212 (talk) 22:22, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Tony the first (ongoing) run of my bot is matching a name present in WD to IRMNG within a "kingdom" only and is omitting homonyms therein. Underscores shouldn't be a problem, but thanks for your hint. --Succu (talk)

Improvements coming soon on Watchlists


Sorry to use English. Please help translate to your language! Thank you.

In short: starting on June 25, New Filters for Edit Review (now in Beta) will become standard on Watchlists. They provide an array of new tools and an improved interface. If you prefer the current page you will be able to opt out. Learn more about the New Filters.

What is this feature again?

This feature is used by default on Special:RecentChanges, Special:RecentChangesLinked and as a Beta feature on Special:Watchlist.

Based on a new design, that feature adds new functions to those pages, to 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. They are not available on all wikis.

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

About the release on Watchlists

Over 70,000 people have activated the New Filters beta, which has been in testing on Watchlist for more than eight months. We feel confident that the features are stable and effective, but if you have thoughts about these tools or the beta graduation, please let us know on the project talk page. In particular, tell us if you know of a special incompatibility or other issue that makes the New Filters problematic on your wiki. We’ll examine the blocker and may delay release on your wiki until the issue can be addressed.

The deployment will start on June 25. After the deployment, you will also be able to opt-out this change directly from the Watchlist page and also in your preferences.

How to be ready

Please share this announcement!

If you use local Gadgets that change things on your Watchlist pages, or have a customized scripts or CSS, be ready. You may have to make some changes to your configuration. Despite the fact that we have tried to take most cases into consideration, some configurations may break. The Beta phase is a great opportunity to have a look at local scripts and gadgets: some of them may be replaced by native features from the Beta feature.

Please share your questions and comments on the feedback page.

On behalf of the Collaboration team, Trizek (WMF) 14:56, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Many more Wikidata items for articles with DOIs

Our friend User:Magnus Manske has, at my request, extracted ~35K DOIs from Wikispecies, and is using a bot to create Wikidata items for those that lack them; see list here. Gradually, the Wikidata community (which of course includes many Wikispecies editors; all are welcome) will add links (again, where they are not already included) from those items to items about authors, publications, and the major subjects of the articles; and together we can associate the items with corresponding templates here on Wikispecies.

For each item created, it is possible to see the data visualised, in Scholia, like this. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:28, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

...for others, we of course first need to create the Template: Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:16, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Andy Mabbett looks good, still lots to do in that a quick look suggests that most articles have the authors listed as strings (wikidata:Property:P2093) rather than as Wikidata items, even though many authors likely already exist in Wikidata. Part of the challenge will be developing queries across Wikidata and Wikispecies to find these cases and resolve them. But the potential is exciting. — The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rdmpage (talkcontribs) 11:38, 5 June 2018.
@Rdmpage: A script will eventually convert P2093 ("Author name string") to P50 ("Author"), provided the authors have an ORCID iD and have included the DOI of the article in their ORCID record. It runs on a batch basis, updating a few hundred records every day, or can be invoked for a specific author using the "ORCIDator" tool. Obviously, this excludes authors who died before 2012, and so are not eligible to have an ORCID iD, so manual intervention is useful in such cases. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:03, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Pigsonthewing: For "fun" I've created two SPARQL queries to try a different approach. Given that many taxonomic authors will have pages here and hence items in Wikidata, one way is to grab DOIs from Wikispecies pages for authors, then check whether those items in Wikidata have links to the author's Wikidata item. For example y9n64zmy checks whether the first author of 10.3897/ZOOKEYS.507.9536 wikidata:Q21187205 has a Wikidata item (it is). The second author isn't, and so would be a candidate for updating. When updating it would be nice to have a way to check that the authors are the "same", this query gets the Wikispecies name of a person and the name attached to the work so that they can be compared (for example by a script that does approximate string matching). I have scripts to parse Wikispecies references to extract data (nightmare) and am thinking it might be useful to bundle these together with the SPARQL queries so that we could generate the necessary Quickstatements to update Wikidata (i.e., delete author strings, replace with author items.--Rdmpage (talk) 11:54, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note that the tiny url links are blocked by Wikispecies so I can't include short links to the Wikidata queries (oh the irony).--Rdmpage (talk) 11:54, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
y9n64zmy. --Succu (talk) 20:50, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
y83hnfyg. --Succu (talk) 20:53, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Rdmpage: Work to deploy Wikimedia's own URL shortener, which will resolve this issue, is in hand; see Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:16, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Update on page issues on mobile web

CKoerner (WMF) (talk) 20:58, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gurney or Gurner?

BHL lists the Australian ornithologist and entomologist Victor Gurney Logan van Someren as Victor Gurner Logan van Someren, with an "r" rather than a "y" in "Gurney". Wikidata and four Wikipedias (enWP, esWP, fiWP and nlWP) uses the same spelling as we do. Which is correct? Should we move our page to say "Gurner" instead? –Tommy Kronkvist (talk)‚ 13:39, 16 June 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Correct name is Victor Gurney Logan Van Someren so we should all make sure thats what we have. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 17:26, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Faendalimas: Thanks Scott! Unfortunately it's quite frequently spelled "Gurner", for example in OCLC's WorldCat Identities.[1] By the way, do you happen to know whether he was the brother (or cousin, etc.) of Robert Abraham Logan van Someren, (M.B., Ch.B. 1904; M.D. 1907; D.P.H. [Edinburgh]. Uganda Medical Service, 1905; S.M.O. 1914; promoted to Captain in June 1915; mentioned in the University of Edinburgh Roll of Honour 1914–1919.)
They were co-writers of van Someren, R.A.L. & van Someren, V.G.L. 1911. Studies of Bird Life in Uganda; and van Someren, R.A.L. & van Someren, V.G.L. 1917. Provisional check list of the birds of East Africa and Uganda.
Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 08:46, 17 June 2018 (UTC).[reply]
Heya, sorry I have no idea of their relationship if any. Its not that uncommon a name. VGL wrote in a number of areas, as you note entomology and ornithology, maybe somewhere in all that someone did a biography on him. Cheers, Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 02:41, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]


A number of species of the wasp genus Ageniella are listed in commons:Category:Ageniella, based on images from the fine 'Insects Unlocked' collection; but do not have pages on Wikispecies, nor items in Wikidata. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:59, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Same for Anoplius, in commons:Category:Anoplius. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:17, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Have you checked if said supposed taxa are actually species. Since commons is populated by people putting up photos of what they think they saw or assume to know. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 02:35, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, I have not "checked". I'm prepared to take the statements at face value, given their provenance. Do you have any actual evidence to the contrary? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 07:05, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, quick look. According to Waichert, C., C.D. von Dohlen, J.P. Pitts. 2011. Ageniella accepta seems valid, but is a senior synonym of Ageniella conflicta‎. I do not know which subgenus it is in. This takes a lot of research to find the nomenclatural acts that show the currently accepted taxa in the group. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 21:14, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Linking names to types in Wikispecies

An essential element of nomenclature is the type specimen, but as far as I can see there is little or no information on Wikispecies about types. Why is this?

The reason I ask is that the Consortium of European Taxonomic Facilities has created a system of persistent identifiers for type specimens ( The intension is that the URI to the specimen will remain stable indefinitely, so we can link to type specimens without fear that the link will break. How could we go about linking types to names in Wikispecies? The type is linked to the name, rather than the taxon concept, so that aspect needs to be clear in the format.

There is no central authority for typification information and Wikispecies could be a valuable resource on typification. Qgroom (talk) 08:47, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There exist examples of taxon pages with information on types, e.g. Espeletia killipii, which I did recently. --Franz Xaver (talk) 09:18, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It is intended to include type information and type specimens to all taxon pages on Wikispecies (e.g. Salicornia cuscoensis). But Wikispecies needs more taxonomists, who will add those informations to the pages! --Thiotrix (talk) 09:25, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I always try to include the Type locality & Holotype info when available in my species pages (see for example Trisinus shaolingiger). Mariusm (talk) 10:18, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I try wherever possible to include type numbers and localities in my Cirripedia entries. These are good for my research work also. Finding primary type numbers can be seriously challenging. Types only came into existence about 1900, and until relatively recently, have been haphazard. In April, I decided I wanted catalog number for Lepas stenzeli Withers, 1953, allegedly held in Texas, for evaluation in my upcoming paper. Contacting them, I discovered they do not have that specimen, nor were they aware they were supposed to have it. I have access to Henryk Stenzel's correspondance, and discovered he had discussed with Withers on returning those specimens to Texas. Thinking maybe Withers had failed to return it, I contacted NHM. They promptly found it. After 81 years, it shall be returning to Texas this summer. For Darwin, there are only lectotype designations on species he described. For Megabalanus zebra, type locality in Darwin is a ship's hull. As this species is seriously invasive, to this day, its original distribution is uncertain. CETAF is very excellent project, and I wish US institutions would join in. For many cases, these collection websites may be our only source of type numbers and localities. Later publications can help, but in many cases, they simply copy original sources, mistakes and all. Neferkheperre (talk) 14:19, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think the most desirable attributes for a species are (1) Type locality (2) Distribution. An example for a typical catalogue entry is: Pella japonica Sharp, 1888: 290 TL: Bukenji, Distribution: Japan, Korea, far east Russia Where TL is type locality. Of course it's very desirable to include also the holotype (or lectotype/syntype). Mariusm (talk) 14:51, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
When possible types should be identified by their museum number and the institution they are from, the institution is usually a link to a page with more information on that institution. Some museums have online databases of their collection through which a link to any types they hold could be made. I think it would be better to link directly to the type at the institution holding it if possible, rather than through a third party. It is true the type is a crucial piece of information but to do anything with it if you interested in researching the group you need to examine it for yourself. Hence having information that can lead you to where the type is and its identification number is the most crucial piece of info on the type specimen. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 16:32, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be clear the CETAF Stable identifiers are links to the type holding institution. The main innovation has been to use URI redirection and a institutional commitment to stablility to encourage stability of these identifiers. From what you say there is no reason not to add type information, except the difficulties of finding it. Though I suspect there may be problems ensuring which name is associated with the type. For example, a type may be linked to the basionym, rather than the accepted name and this should be made clear. Qgroom (talk) 06:26, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, a type should always refer to the name it typifies. That is no problem, see Salsola australis for an example. --Thiotrix (talk) 09:21, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Another example: Lacunaria jenmanii --Franz Xaver (talk) 14:07, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The CETAF initiative creates "a joint Linked Open Data (LOD) compliant identifier system". The Wikimedia LOD project is Wikidata; therefore we should store this data in Wikidata, with an item for each type specimen, and from there transclude the URI and other data into Wikispecies, as we do for images from Commons. An unstructured, plain-text system like Wikispecies cannot function as a "central authority" in a LOD environment. Accordingly, I have proposed a new Wikidata property for these IDs. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:44, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Sandbox:Lucaspeñacorada was added by User:Magnus Manske to Wikidata some days ago. Are you supporting the sandbox concept here? --Succu (talk) 20:52, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to User:Lucaspeñacorada/Sandbox; Wikidata item nominated for deletion. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:03, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Wikidata item deleted. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:07, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Succu: Just a last note. We do have an "official" and public sandbox at Wikispecies:Sandbox, but we do not use a special "Sandbox" namespace (hence the link "Sandbox:Lucaspeñacorada" is out of scope) and also our public WS sandbox should not link to any subpages. Instead the use of user-specific sandboxes like "User:Lucaspeñacorada/Sandbox" are very much recommended. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 21:03, 26 June 2018 (UTC).[reply]
I hope User:Magnus Manske noticed this. Thanks. --Succu (talk) 21:06, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Possible resources

These are of course quite dated, but seem like they might be useful to you people, at least for the references to original publications....

I've made at least a start at transcribing them over at Wikisource, and more are to come. (And yes, before anyone asks, they are PD). Jarnsax (talk) 14:50, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 19:45, 30 June 2018 (UTC).[reply]


Please can someone help with the issue described at Talk:Bernieridae? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:28, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I just looked it over. Xanthomixis is definitely primary homonymy, with the bird name having precedence. I did change that entry to Xanthomixis (Aves). I can find no replacement name for the noctuid. @PeterR: would be one to find one, if it exists, as that page would have to be moved. Let me know about any replacement name, and I can fix everything. Neferkheperre (talk) 13:31, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Xanthomixis is still listed as a valid subgenus of Polymixis (Noctuidae) in both LepIndex (old) and Catalogue of Butterflies and Moths of the Natural History Museum (newer), although it is a preoccupied name, and I cannot find any published replacement via Google Scholar so am presuming none currently exist. Tony 1212 (talk) 05:48, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I did more research yesterday, and found Fibiger & Hacker, 2005, which presents complete taxonomy and listings of Noctuoidea. I templated it, and added it to Noctuoidea. They synonymize Xanthomixis into Polymixis on p. 150, without discussing homonymy. GBIF listed Xanthomixis (Noctuoidea) as doubtful. Apparently this one of those taxa whose status depends on who you talk to and when. I shall adjust things enough to avoid confusion. Neferkheperre (talk) 12:06, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've created the page Xanthomixis (Aves) but it still needs references. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 15:49, 9 July 2018 (UTC).[reply]


Does any one know whether the pages ISSN 1070-0048 (i.e. Haseltonia) and Haseltonia: Yearbook of the Cactus and Succulent Journal refers to the same publication, hence should be merged? –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 13:14, 9 July 2018 (UTC).[reply]

They are not the same, as there is a pre 1994 version with I guess the ISSN above. The new ISSN is 0007-9367. Cactus And Succulent Society Of America publishes two journals so it gets a bit complicated. Merge is not desirable, but a clean up is. Andyboorman (talk) 13:58, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I guess these are the pages involved:
Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 15:12, 9 July 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Malfunctioning Twitter bot

Don't know who maintains the bot on Twitter. It's been broken for quite some time posting "[following] [following]" instead of a link. OhanaUnitedTalk page 02:45, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I maintain the official @Wikispecies Twitter account but unfortunately don't know who is responsible for the @Wikispeciesbot account mentioned above. It was created about a year earlier than @Wikispecies, most probably by a user in the Netherlands. On November 29, 2017 there was a tweet saying "Yep, working again. the wiki changed to https and forced me to change my script. Updated, working, for as long as nothing breaks again." Later that day the "[following] [following]" messages started, and they've been going on ever since, once or twice every day. In July 3, 2018 there suddenly was a tweet saying "matches matches" which indicates that someone is working with the code, but the "[following] [following]" started again just a day after. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 04:20, 10 July 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Old synonyms from Pallas

Hello, new here (though a long-term Wikipedian / Wiktionarian). I'm thinking of adding some old synonyms from Peter Simon Pallas, many of which are still missing; e.g. Viverra lutra for Lutra lutra. This is probably of some wider interest, due to his Zoographia Rosso-Asiatica being an important early source for many animal names in Russian indigenous languages. For linguists who are not zoographically versed, it can be however difficult to figure out what animal exactly is being meant at various times. (Also, in case anyone is interested in collaborating, an index to his work has been compiled by Kecskeméti (1968).)

I think I can get the gist of the synonym conventions from the examples appearing here so far, but are there any notable style guidelines or possible pitfalls I should watch out for? --Tropylium (talk) 01:34, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Tropylium:, thanks for your interest. For a guide to the synonyms style we employ here, please see Help:Name_section#Synonyms_or_Synonymy. If you have any doubts, make an edit to a page and ask me for my opinion. Mariusm (talk) 07:44, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What questions concerning the strategy process do you have?


I'm Tar Lócesilion, a Polish Wikipedia admin and a member of Wikimedia Polska. Last year, I worked for Wikimedia Foundation as a liaison between communities and the Movement Strategy core team. My task was to ensure that all online communities were aware of the movement-wide strategy discussion. This year, my task similar. Phase II of the strategy process was launched in April. Currently, future Working Groups members are being selected, and related pages on Meta-Wiki are being designed.

I’d like to learn what questions concerning the strategy process would you like to be answered on the FAQ page? Please answer here, on my talk page, or on a dedicated talk page on Meta-Wiki. Thanks!

If you have any questions or concerns, please, do ask!

Thanks, SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 18:22, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Consistancy across Wikipedia nomenclatural platforms

For instance: Wikipedia: Roccellaceae includes genus Opegrapha & — The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) 19:03, 2 March 2018‎.

Contrary to English WP and the other Wikipedias, both the Global Biodiversity Information Facility ("GBIF") and Mycobank places Opegrapha in Opegraphaceae Stizenb. rather than in Roccellaceae Chevall. (see Opegrapha Ach. at MycoBank). Index Fungorum regards it as an isonym (See Opegraphaceae Stizenb. at Index Fungorum). ITIS treats the taxon Opegraphaceae Stizenb. as "not accepted" due to Myconet, 2001 (Outline of Ascomycota, vol. 7) which places the type genus Opegrapha Ach. in the family Roccellaceae Chevall. Therefore ITIS is placing Opegraphaceae Stizenb. in synonymy under Roccellaceae Chevall. (see Opegraphaceae Stizenb. at ITIS. Personally I have no idea what is correct here, but perhaps some of our mycologists have data that is up to date? –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 09:05, 15 July 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Are some Coreopsis now considered Leptosyne?

According to the Jepson Flora Project (citing Mort et al. 2004, Syst Bot 29:781–789; Strother 2006 FNANM 21:185–198, and others) the following formerly Coreopsis species have been reassigned to Leptosyne:

See for example Keil, D.J. 2012 Leptosyne bigelovii, in Jepson Flora Project (eds.) Jepson eFlora,

What say ye, botanists, should our Coreopsis pages be updated and a Leptosyne page created? –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 04:46, 10 July 2018 (UTC).[reply]

There is no consensus as to the acceptance of this segregation. Crawford et al. 2009. Coreopsideae in Funk et al. Systematics, Evolution, and Biogeography of Compositae prefer to maintain Coreopsis s.l. and this is followed by Hassler in COL, Tropicos and Kew's POWO. However, Global Compositae Checklist prefers segregation of some species above. A separate page for Leptosyne would be disputed. Andyboorman (talk) 11:05, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
So should we remove the "section" parts of our Coreopsis page, or leave it as it is? –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 10:08, 15 July 2018 (UTC).[reply]
I would leave it for now. I have noticed there is only some agreement as to generic circumscriptions, as it is. The Sections seem to be useful to working botanists and more or less stable. Cheers Andyboorman (talk) 13:04, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Case closed and transmission over, for now. :) Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 10:29, 16 July 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Many duplicate pages

Here's some worrying reading: User:MatSuBot/Duplicates lists a total of 2354 duplicate pages, mainly involving subgenera pages. Some of them might be "false positives", but still. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 13:16, 22 July 2018 (UTC).[reply]

I have dealt with some that concerned my edits and expertise, but it seems most involve @PeterR:'s work. Not sure I can help here. Good bot though. Cheers Andyboorman (talk) 20:04, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
These are going to have to be carefully fixed. I looked at one in detail Oroncus (Arctoroncus) weigerti to see what is happening, the page Oroncus weigerti has better info even though the page Oroncus (Arctoroncus) weigerti is correctly named. So some combining of info is going to have to be done. One question didn't we have a discussion and determine the appropriate way to handle subgenera name spaces? I personally prefer the subgenus to be left out of the namespace, The reason being is that subgenera are not compulsory under the code and often not known by users, so they will search for Genus + Species not Genus (Subgenus) + species. Of course the subgenus would be included in the taxnav section. In the above example I would set Oroncus (Arctoroncus) weigerti to redirect to Oroncus weigerti and ensure the taxnav reflected the existence of a subgenus. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 23:11, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I too prefer to exlude the subgenera from the species page names, but they must of course be included in the Taxonavigation sections. By they way there are several cases that are more complex than Scott's Oroncus example, since they not only include a subgenus but a subspecies as well. For example Troides (Ripponia) hypolitus sangirensis i.e. Troides hypolitus sangirensis. Also many of those lack the proper formatting templates in the Taxonavigation sections, e.g. {{Sgssps}} or (less preferable) {{Sgssp}}. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 02:07, 23 July 2018 (UTC).[reply]
Yeah the one above is a real mess actually, once you start looking through the subgenera etc, no agreement on which species belong to which subgenus etc. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 02:47, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

───────────────────────── I've dealt with a few of the more obvious ones, like the genus page Masaakia TakeuchiMasaakia (Takeuchi) and the scientific journal Diagnoses Plantarum Orientalium novarumDiagnoses Plantarum Orientalium Novarum. However some are odd. For instance the template {{Nowrap}} is considered a duplicate of the similar but not identical {{Nobr}}. I haven't used either one of them in a while, but in my experience sometimes only one of them renders the desired effect. And it's not the same one every time, presumably depending on surrounding syntax and code. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 16:47, 23 July 2018 (UTC).[reply]

I will sort out the Oroncus examples tonight. Been short on time. But I have looked at the correct nomenclature so know what I need to do. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 22:03, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As an aside, just letting you know that a genus authority in parentheses is incorrect in zoology (in botany, parentheses are legitimate where they indicate a change of rank e.g. genus originally a subgenus, tribe etc.; in zoology this does not apply; parentheses are however common at species level, for a different reason i.e. changed genus assignment from the original). Thus Masaakia (Takeuchi) should read Masaakia Takeuchi, not the other way around. If in doubt see e.g. . Regards - Tony Tony 1212 (talk) 07:25, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
BTW The date for Masaakia is 1950, see Tony 1212 (talk) 07:29, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Faendalimas: Thanks. I'll try to help out with the other genera, but I'm also pressed for time right now.
@Tony 1212: Hi, and thank you for your notes. In this case it is only the page name that says "Masaakia (Takeuchi)" with parenthesis and I believe this is the preferred naming scheme on Wikispecies no matter whether the page regards a taxon, an author, a publication, or something else. However within the actual taxon pages the designation has always been "Masaakia Takeuchi" without parenthesis, and always stating 1950 as the year of publication. This is true for all versions of both the current Masaakia (Takeuchi) (four edits in 2018, see the revision history) as well as all versions of the now deleted Masaakia Takeuchi (eleven edits 2009–2018, but since it's a deleted page the revision history is only available for admins.)
–Best regards, Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 08:31, 24 July 2018 (UTC).[reply]
Thanks Tommy, my mistake. I thought the taxon name was the main name presented in bold at the top, evidently not... Now I see it is given lower in the page. However it is confusing to the reader (this one at least). All the best - Tony Tony 1212 (talk) 09:22, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

───────────────────────── In plants, this bot has exposed a couple of additional problems. For example, Saponaria bellidifolia Sm. - this seems to an older taxon page name format linked to a disambig page Saponaria bellidifolia, this procedure can be dealt with in other ways leaving the main taxon page named as one would expect. However, there are also taxonomic problems, for example in the putative hybrid Salix species, such as Salix × subalpina and Salix subalpina. The circumscription of these combinations is not straight forward and at the moment is based upon a single less reliable secondary source. In addition, most of these so called hybrids are based upon horticultural forms or selections. These will need a careful work through. Kind regards Andyboorman (talk) 18:54, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Circumscription of Salix

The bot above has highlighted a number of problems with our Salix taxon pages. Firstly, the presented infrageneric classification is out of date and no longer supported by recent research or many other up to date secondary sources. The generic circumscription has problems, but given that there are no other secondary sources that completely agree as to what species are accepted and those in synonymy. The list of nothospecies contains a mix of artificial and natural hybrids. In addition, some hybrids are accepted as straight species by some and not others, even the well known Crack Willow Salix fragilis or is it Salix x fragilis and I thought that one solved!. Conclusion, this genus has been a taxonomic nightmare for decades and still is and reading some current literature I can not see the Gordian Knot being unpicked anytime soon. Opinions anybody? Andyboorman (talk) 14:47, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

More precisely, which bot are you referring to? Writing "the bot above" in a new Village Pump thread (without stating the actual name of the bot) can sometimes lead to misunderstandings, since the different threads in the Pump are frequently and automatically moved to an archive, hence "disappear" from the page... :-) Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 09:37, 28 July 2018 (UTC).[reply]
Apologies I meant User:MatSuBot/Duplicates Andyboorman (talk) 11:11, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please merge

Federico Philippi and Federico H.E. Philippi. --Magnus Manske (talk) 10:29, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --Franz Xaver (talk) 13:19, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A.A. Thasun Amarasinghe

I have semi-protected A.A. Thasun Amarasinghe after an IP editor made good faith, but damaging, edits; which removed templated citations as well as adding new ones. I have also restored the templates, but kept and sorted the new data. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:57, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

'In use' template

To help us avoid edit conflicts when working on long or complex pages, the template {{In use}} is now available. Please make use of it, mark it up for translation and, most importantly, respect its message if you encounter it in use. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:11, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fritz Müller

We have Fritz Müller and Fritz Müller 1. What's the preferred method of disambiguation for these? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:44, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In most cases I prefer "Author name (year–year)" since "Author name (scientific discipline)" doesn't always solve the problem – for instance the above authors are both zoologists. However in this particular case it seems the full name of the latter is Johann Friedrich Theodor Müller. Hence I suggest we move Fritz Müller 1 to Johann Friedrich Theodor Müller, which will dodge the problem entirely. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk)‚ 11:44, 2 August 2018 (UTC).[reply]
What about making your latter change, but also moving Fritz Müller to Friedrich Müller, and making Fritz Müller a disambiguation page? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:30, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's even better of course. I'm on it but the full process will take a while since there are about 50 taxon pages that needs to be "re-linked" to the new author pages, when created. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 13:08, 2 August 2018 (UTC).[reply]
 Done, including the Wikidata pages for disambiguation etc. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk)‚ 14:50, 2 August 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Sources on Wikidata

Magnus Manske has written a blog post about the work he is doing, to add details of papers cited on Wikispecies (and on two Wikipedias) to Wikidata. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:29, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Template Molina, 1782

@Burmeister: @Neferkheperre:. This Template:Molina, 1782 was linked and indexed to a BHL file. Now, when you click at any of the more of 30 taxa using the template, all them are redirecting to the main page of the book at Biblioteca digital, for example: Athene cunicularia. The copy of the book is no longer at BHL, except the tittle (second one) who redirects to Biblioteca Digital. Does anyone have an idea how to fix it? Without having to rework all the 30+ taxa? --Hector Bottai (talk) 19:19, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In so far as the species pages use {{BHL}} to generate the offending BHL links, no. A bot could easily just remove all instances of that templates on these pages, though. Converting those links to page links at the bibliotheca digitale, if that is what you wish to see, is (most likely) only possible manually (and speaking from experience, "30+" pages is really not that much editing to do when it's this straightforward). Circeus (talk) 20:50, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Closure proposal

meta:Proposals for closing projects/Closure of Wikispecies Lojbanist (talk) 20:03, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify: this is a proposal to entirely close down the Wikispecies project. I urge everyone in the community to take part in the discussion. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 21:08, 7 August 2018 (UTC).[reply]
This proposal was speedy-closed. It was invalid and spurious. StevenJ81 (talk) 22:28, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Lojbanist: Why did you post this? Also, are you familiar with our efforts at translation/localization? —Justin (koavf)TCM 00:04, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-up link, for future reference when this version of the Wikispecies VP is archived: Meta-Wiki: Proposals for closing projects. (See August 7, 2018: "Result: Proposal was speedily-rejected as inappropriate and disruptive.") –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 16:34, 10 August 2018 (UTC).[reply]

I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 17:34, 10 August 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Contents section

Why has Araucariaceae a contents section but other Pinales do not? Any thoughts? Do we need this section? I cannot find a template for it anywhere, so any help would be appreciated. Best regards Andyboorman (talk) 13:27, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What "contents section"? Please explain. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 13:58, 14 August 2018 (UTC).[reply]
Its gone! Very odd. Andyboorman (talk) 15:30, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Probably a temporary effect from the Knson template edits. The contents are suppressed through the high-level templates, but when that is broken, the ToC can resurface. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:34, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, my thoughts as well. However by now server caches etc. should have been flushed, and things are back to normal. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 09:48, 15 August 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Two new useful templates

Hello. @RLJ: has produced two templates for use in the Reference Section of plant species. They are Template:Catol-WorldFerns and Template:Catol-ELPT for bryophytes. These compliment Template:Catol-Hassler useful for vascular plants. Best Regards and thanks to RLJ. Andyboorman (talk) 13:33, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this valuable notification! –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 21:32, 16 August 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Same author?

Can someone check whether Jon Lewis and Jon A. Lewis are the same? — The preceding unsigned comment was added by Circeus (talkcontribs) 20:34, 16 August 2018.

I've redirected Jon Lewis to Jon A. Lewis, since the "Jon Lewis" page is an orphan in respect to taxon-, reference- or other author pages.(links) In comparison several taxon-, author- and reference pages already links to "Jon A. Lewis".(links) I've also merged the two equivalent Wikidata pages. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 22:34, 16 August 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Problems in User:Knson2 edits

Please note that User:Knson2 is adding many cladi (plural of cladus) to the taxa templates, causing them to exceed the recursion depth limit of 40. See for example Eumaniraptora. Mariusm (talk) 10:14, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What is our policy towards adding obscure or controversial cladi to the stem templates which affect thousands of pages? I think it must be forbidden without prior discussion, especially when these cladi are red-links. Mariusm (talk) 12:48, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
User:Knson2 was blocked for 3 days until an agreement is reached on this issue. Mariusm (talk) 12:56, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a link to this VP thread to the users talk page, for clarity and transparency. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 13:05, 12 August 2018 (UTC).[reply]
Knson2 has done a mess with many important templates. We must somehow revert all his contributions. Mariusm (talk) 15:15, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Suggestions? I'm also concerned that the additions have no supporting citations. In plants, the rank and ending of the added taxa are completely unsupported, possibly arbitrary. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:32, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

───────────────────────── Not counting already deleted edits, the user has created a total of 7 new taxon pages and 48 Taxonavigation stem templates (most of them above familia rank). I could easily and swiftly delete all of them in one go, but sincerely feel we need to reach some sort of community consensus and agree upon a decision before I go ahead and do so. By the way I have already blocked User:Knson and User:Knson3, two verified sockpuppets. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 15:42, 12 August 2018 (UTC).[reply]

I have had a brief look through this editors work and would like to make a few points. The editor seems to be concentrating on cladi rather than taxa and WS is taxon based and Linnean. In plants we tolerate clades at a supraordinal level, but only when basically accepted by APGIV. Many of the cladi added are experimental and proposals, but probably not very useful for taxonomy and classification. The massive lists are confusing as well as exceeding the recursion depth and where they generate red links add to outstanding work. As has been pointed out there are no sources cited, so technically the pages are stubs and unverifiable. I would advise a rapid deletion of edits affecting important and key templates and unless there are good reasons for not doing so. However, outside plants I cannot comment on technical accuracy. Finally sockpuppetry is not tolerated here and so the contributor could be banned indefinitely. Kind regards Andyboorman (talk) 17:09, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The two last mentioned user accounts are already indefinitely blocked: see Meta-Wikis Global Account Information for user Knson and Knson3, respectively.
One problem with the edits of Knson2 is that some of them includes redirects which in turn has been changed into other redirects, and so forth. See for example SAR supergroup (page history) and Sphingobacteria (page history). I haven't checked all of them thoroughly enough yet but potentially broken redirects and double redirects needs to be checked and mended before any more drastic measures are taken, if any. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 20:50, 12 August 2018 (UTC).[reply]
It's amazing: User:Knson2 managed to alter ALL WS pages (except for authors etc.) without anyone raising a red flag or asking any questions. We must be more vigilant towards such users. I made an effort to redo all his contributions. I recommend blocking him indefinitely (he's blocked now for 3 days). Mariusm (talk) 10:24, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've made a note on User talk:Knson2#Obscure cladus about the very real risk of the block getting extended unless the user presents an explanation of their edits and intention. I have also taken the liberty to write protect the templates {{Animalia}}, {{Chromista}}, {{Fungi}}, {{Plantae}}, {{Protista}}, and {{Protozoa}} so that they no longer can be edited by new and unregistered users; in other words they can only be edited by registered users with at least either "confirmed" or "autoconfirmed" user rights. I figure this is okay, since the Taxonavigation templates for taxa as high as Regnum should very seldom need to be edited anyway? –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 03:14, 14 August 2018 (UTC).[reply]
The user account User:Knson2 is hereby indefinitely blocked as a result of persistent sock puppetry, together with the newly created User:Knson5. All edits by all related user accounts are currently being reverted. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 21:49, 14 August 2018 (UTC).[reply]
All edits by all known related user accounts are now reverted. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 22:34, 14 August 2018 (UTC).[reply]
Back, as User:Knson6. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:37, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked, see User:Knson6 and Category:Suspected sockpuppets of Knson. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), Tommy Kronkvist (talk) 03:08, 18 August 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Drepanocarpus lunatus


It seems that ”Drepanocarpus lunatus (L.f.) G.Mey“ is a synonym of Machaerium lunatum. See

Currently neither is ”Drepanocarpus lunatus (L.f.) G.Mey“ available in the record of Machaerium lunatum. Neither has Drepanocarpus lunatus a wiki page that redirects to Machaerium lunatum.

If this information is correct, could someone (with more knowledge than me) adding this informations?

Best regards — The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sommerluk (talkcontribs) 10:59, 30 July 2018‎.

Done. Best regards 17:46, 31 July 2018 (UTC)Andyboorman (talk)
Dear Andyboorman. Thanks a lot for adding 'Drepanocarpus lunatus' and the other synonyms! Best regards. Sommerluk (talk) 07:22, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikidata bot d:User:Reinheitsgebot is linking the page Phenuiviridae to d:Q1010102, but that's not correct. Phenuiviridae are a new virus family (2016, published 2017). Instead Peribunyaviridae should be connected to d:Q1010102 (renamed from Bunyaviridae in 2016, published in 2017). But my correction on Wikidata was reverted by the bot.

On the bot's disc d:User_talk:Reinheitsgebot#Q1010102 I explained, why this connection is not correct, but without reaction. Any ideas, what to do now? --Murma174 (talk) 10:15, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Technically, the bot did not revert you; you removed the link (without, I note, adding another), and the bot re-added it. I also note that Peribunyaviridae is already linked to d:Q29001087. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:38, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I added the correct link before, but that was reverted also (see history). I still don't know, how to clear the situation. --Murma174 (talk) 14:16, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

───────────────────────── @Magnus Manske: Ping. Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 17:38, 7 August 2018 (UTC).[reply]

The bot should not change existing sitelinks. It is possible that, because your edit was <1day before, the Labs DB replicas had not caught up, and the bot thought there is no sitelink. Anyway, once "Phenuiviridae" is set as a sitelink on the correct item, the bot should not touch this again, anywhere. --Magnus Manske (talk) 12:33, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Same journal?

Are the pages Videnskabelige Meddelelser fra Dansk Naturhistorisk Forening i Kjøbenhavn and ISSN 0373-3874 (i.e. Videnskabelige Meddelelser fra den Naturhistoriske Forening i Kjøbenhavn) refering to the same Danish journal? If they do, they should be merged. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 10:46, 24 August 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Yes most definitely IMO. IPNI standard form is Vidensk. Meddel. Naturhist. Foren. Kjøbenhavn and ID 1089-2 Andyboorman (talk) 10:54, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merged. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:56, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 00:44, 25 August 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Species Plantarum Templates

This discussion has been transcribed from @RLJ: and @EncycloPetey: concerning the best template to use when linking to Species Plantarum. I agree a wider discussion is appropriate. In addition, it appears that no one template is perfect!.

There is no need to circumvent the template. It already displays the author's name as part of the template function. --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:58, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

* I forgot the prefix {{a| . I think a direct link to the author article in such a much-used template is appropriate. Other users see this the same way.
* The "Tomus" contradicts Help:Reference section as well as the formats used in IPNI and WCSP. Volume numbers are normally not prefixed by "volume", "Tomus" or whatever. There are users who don't use this template and who correct LSP1 to LSP because of this. The first edition is clear because of the publication year 1753, the second one is additionally indicated in the title..
* I think it is absolute nonsense to have four templates for the same work: Template:LSP, Template:LSP1, Template:Linnaeus, 1753 and Template:Linnaeus, 1753a, of which three currently have an idiosyncratic format.
* Other opinions would be of interest. --RLJ (talk) 11:23, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
{{LSP}} does not allow for a page range. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:27, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
* {{LSP|1|1–2}} ->
But let's have a community-wide conversation about what format(s) we want and where to use them. It certainly seems we could reduce the number of templates in use. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:51, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Over to the community. Andyboorman (talk) 19:30, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A standard for private collections

Many species types, especially holotypes are being held in private collections rather then in public museums. Eventually these collections will be transferred to museums (when the collector dies), but we must keep track of these collections in a standard way, the same as we manage the museums. Therefore I recommend to:

  1. Group the private collections in the same way we do with Repositories page for the museums, possibly in Private collections.
  2. Devise standard naming and create a page for each private collection.
  3. Create a category for each private collection.

Obviously, the collector's name will be part of the page's name.

For example: the collection Private collection of Michael Schülke, Berlin can be named Coll. Michael Schülke with page & category carrying the same name. Any ideas? Mariusm (talk) 10:11, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, I would suggest adding the city to the name of the collection and a notation indicating it is private, using your example P.Coll. Michael Schülke: Berlin cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 19:00, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
no AgreeTommy Kronkvist (talk), 10:42, 24 August 2018 (UTC).[reply]
I prefer for clarity to construct the names as follows: <Last + Middle name>, <First name> collection. Most of the private collections are of insects and arachnids, which very few users contribute to, hence the little interest in this subject. I created Private collections; Assing, Volker collection and Category: Assing, Volker collection Mariusm (talk) 08:51, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. I would suggest the format, "Name" Private Collection for simplicity and consistency, as example Category:Volker Assing Private Collection. Burmeister (talk) 13:07, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Burmeister: As for "Volker Assing" instead of "Assing, Volker", it is always better to use the Last-Name first to keep the alphabetical order more accessible, and since many collection-names are first-name-acronimized in the papers. As for "Private Collection" instead of "Collection", many if not all of these private collections will be deposited eventually in a museum, as a bequest, where they will be called merely "collections", therefore it's better to omit the "private" in the actual names. Mariusm (talk) 14:13, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In herpetological collections they use Name-Last pattern, as example G. Brunner Collection, Adolpho Lutz Collection and others, and in wikispecies we already use Name-Last for taxa categories (Category:Volker Assing taxa), so for simplicity and consistency I think Name-Last Collection more appropriate than Last-Name Collection; the alphabetical issue may be reach through defaultsort; in the "private" issue i'm agree with you, is unnecessary. Burmeister (talk) 14:25, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Burmeister, Tommy Kronkvist, and Faendalimas: On further reflection, and to be consistent with the author handling, I ultimately see the point in what Burmeister is saying. Accordingly, the names will be constructed as follows: <First name> <Last name> private collection. For example: Volker Assing private collection and Category: Volker Assing private collection. I hope this settles the issue. Mariusm (talk) 08:06, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, sounds good to me. Also, ultimately the sorting will be handled by DEFAULTSORT anyway, so we might just as well stick to the naming scheme we already use for all the author pages, e.g. <First name> <Last name> etc… just as Mariusm and Burmeister agreed upon above. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk),22:05, 27 August 2018 (UTC).[reply]
I've added a Category:Private collections link to the "See also" sections of the Category:Repositories, Repositories (A–M), and Repositories (N–Z) pages. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 22:15, 27 August 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Bit out of my depth

I noticed that Abisara aita aita & co was on the orphaned pages list. On Abisara aita (the redirect Archigenes aita) there were red links to Archigenes aita aita, so I figured the pages of the subspecies should be moved to reflect a new genus name. But I realized that I'm a bit out of my depth, both in my knowledge of taxonomy (high-school level) and Wikispecies-specific formatting (the templates). So I figured I'd better ask before I blindly start changing templates and creating new ones. --Azertus (talk) 22:53, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comb. ined.

Does the community think that taxa described as comb. ined. (combinatio inedita), a provisionally accepted name without published description, deserve their own taxon page or not? Personally I think a discrete taxon page is outside the scope of the project without consensus, but that is just my opinion. Best regards Andyboorman (talk) 11:13, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Generally speaking, I would not create such a taxon page. If it is about a new combination, it means, that a wellknown taxon presently is still classified in another genus or at a different rank, and a reclassification or change of rank is pending. I propose the following solution: create a taxon page under the presently existing validly published name, even if this name is based on an outdated classificaiton, and add a note, possibly at the talk page, which cites sources that suggest, that a change of name (new combination) is pending. Anyway, a new combination does not need a description. So, it seems possible, that WS taxon pages may fulfill all requirements needed to validate a new combination. OK, WS does not have an ISSN or ISBN as required by ICN, Art. 29, but sometimes it might happen, that something like this will be created. As far as I see, the requirements of ICN, Art. 41 seem to be fulfilled by many of our taxon pages. In my opinion, we should not do anything, which might by chance result in an unintentionial validation of a new combination by WS. Validating new combinations certainly is out of our scope. --Franz Xaver (talk) 12:04, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
WS, by its open editing policy, would not be sufficiently secure to make valid combination changes. We really can only record published changes. New generic combinations should be treated as page moves, leaving redirects. Neferkheperre (talk) 13:04, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Aside from the fact I would refrain from coining names unless they are already used as nom. prov. elsewhere, names that are specifically noted as not published, hence technically not accepted, are automatically excluded from being published (Art. 36.1). Circeus (talk) 01:07, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Same author?

Does anyone know whether the similarly named pages K. Rajmohana and Rajmohana Keloth perhaps refer to the same author? Both are listed as Indian entomologists, and both are mentioned on the Rajmohana disambiguation page. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 18:46, 29 August 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Not an entomologist, but see here. Andyboorman (talk) 19:03, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Merged into the Rajmohana Keloth page. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 18:10, 30 August 2018 (UTC).[reply]
It's probably a patronymic, FWIW. Those are commons in part of India (hence the abbreviation). Circeus (talk) 18:17, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the information. Btw, she occasionally also goes by "Mohana S. Kumar" (perhaps she married?) but as far as I can tell that designation is exclusively used for non-scientific matters. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 18:49, 30 August 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Brazilian National Museum

Maxakalisaurus topai on display at MNRJ, i.e. the National Museum of Brazil.
Photo from 2006.

Brazilian version of Smithsonian Institution, MNRJ, burned down Sept. 2. Apparently all historical, cultural, zoological, botanical and anthropological collections were totally destroyed. The building was 200 years old, and had no fire protection system at all. Neferkheperre (talk) 19:15, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is not only about a missing fire protection system in the building, but it was reported in the news, that the firebrigade had some delay, because two fire hydrants close to the building turned out to be disfunctional. Anyway, fighting a fire with water would not be beneficial for entomological collections. --Franz Xaver (talk) 22:51, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If I understand this page correctly, part of the vertebrate and botany collections possibly have survived - and of course minerals. Let's have some hope. It's a tragedy for the collections - and for the research of the scientists working in this institution. --Franz Xaver (talk) 20:15, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Reportedly the entire herbarium is perfectly okay (see below), but most other stuff is gone. The museum turned 200 years old in June 6, 2018 and housed well over 20 million items. Not all of them related to biology or taxonomy of course – for instance they had a huge Egyptian collection with mummies and such – but their repositories of biological specimens were extensive. Among them more than 40,000 specimens of molluscs, though some of them are said to have been saved. Sadly most of the museum's other invertebrate specimens – mainly insects and corals –  are gone. They did also keep the holotype of Maxakalisaurus topai, a 13 meter tall long-necked dinosaur and the biggest dinosaur fossil ever found in Brazil. Furthermore the museum was home to the "Luzia Woman", i.e. the 11,500-year-old skeletal remains of a prehistoric woman found in a cave in 1976. Older than the oldest human remains ever found in North America, and considered one of South America's oldest human fossils.(Smithsonian) I'm not 100% certain those particular two specimen were destroyed, but it looks like it. There is a Wikimedia Commons category dedicated to this tragic event, which can be found here.
Lastly and as hinted above, there are at least some good news! It seems that only the museum's main building was damaged by the fire. The museum's fish and reptile specimens, herbarium, and library were housed separately and are thought to have survived.
Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 20:57, 4 September 2018 (UTC).[reply]
According to what I read, Luzia was destroyed. No idea on the dinosaur. I think crustacean types were housed near insects. Neferkheperre (talk) 22:48, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not the first collection in Brazil lost in recent history. Most of Instituto Butantan (IBSP) was lost in 2010. Circeus (talk) 23:18, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

───────────────────────── I've tweeted about this on our official @Wikispecies Twitter channel. If anyone have media from MNRJ from before the fire, please use the links in the embedded Wikipedia tweet to add them to Wikimedia Commons. Thank you. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 16:46, 6 September 2018 (UTC).[reply]

The problems with naming new species

Where one species ends and another species begins? Some biologists are naming new species for the glory of their own reputation, not because the newly named species is really distinct from other close relatives. Listen to this podcast which discusses the issue. Mariusm (talk) 09:35, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, of course, this is an existing issue. However, I am quite sure, that this is neither a new nor an increasing phenomenon − at least concerning botany. At all times, there were some guys, who created lots of "new species", which later ended up in the synonymy. For example, in Ochnaceae Phillippe Édouard Léon van Tieghem (1839−1914) or in Menispermaceae John Miers (1789–1879) are notorious for having "described" the same species several times under different names − and this in hundreds of cases. My impression is, that in the 19th century this was a habit among scientists much more common than it is today. Regards --Franz Xaver (talk) 13:39, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Author categories by nationality

If I remember correctly consensus is we don't recommend nor should use "narrow" Wikipedia-style categories like the newly created Category:Bulgarian botanists, attached to a nationality. Instead, we only use more generic categories such as Category:Botanists and Category:Palaeontologists – or am I wrong? –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 23:54, 7 September 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Please, don't start this kind of categories by nationality. Especially in Central Europe, with its many border changes in course of history, there are too many cases, where nationality at least is ambiguous. For example, Giovanni Antonio Scopoli can be claimed by Austria and Italy, and spent also important periods of his life in territories, which now belong to Slovenia (his main works!) and Slovakia (then Hungary). Better to avoid this battleground of patriots/chauvinists. --Franz Xaver (talk) 07:33, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I fully agree, and it wasn't me who created the category. They might be useful at Wikipedia but here at Wikispecies we don't need the categories to be that specific, since true taxonomy knows no national borders. But I need "current consensus" or a link to an already agreed upon decision before I start reverting edits that was clearly made in good faith. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 12:33, 8 September 2018 (UTC).[reply]
...I agree with Franz Xaver. There are Australian Botanists, Austrian botanists, Bulgarian botanists, Pakistani botanists, Russian botanists, Russian botanists and Turkish botanists. Orchi (talk) 13:02, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Fully agree, no to unnecessary categories. The nationality at author's page is more than enough.--Hector Bottai (talk) 13:09, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I fully agree, we do not need categories for author nationalities. --Thiotrix (talk) 16:06, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, too. --RLJ (talk) 18:52, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

───────────────────────── I've now deleted the category. Prior to that all authors listed in it was moved to Category:Botanists. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 19:49, 8 September 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Two pages for one species

I read at Wikidata, that we have two pages for the same beetle species: Biralus satellitius and Aphodius satellitius. Does someone know, which one is the accepted name, and please merge the pages? Kind regards, --Thiotrix (talk) 16:15, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps @PeterR: and/or @Mariusm: have access to the proper sources? –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 16:36, 8 September 2018 (UTC).[reply]
See below in section "Merge or not?" Mariusm (talk) 13:30, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or not?

I noticed that theres two articles named Ting-Kui Qin and Ting Qin. I think it is possible that those two names actually represent the same individual person (At Wikidata theres just one: Wikidata:Q21394816. Does anyone have more information, and can confirm? Dan Koehl (talk) 18:31, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And the two Aphodius satellitius (added 2006 by @Arachn0:) and Biralus satellitius (added 2017 by @Mariusm:) seem to be the same species? Please see discussion on Wikidata at Biralus satellitius (Q14897972) and Aphodius satellitius (Q1868625) Dan Koehl (talk) 19:27, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ting Qin is entomologist, while Ting-Kui Qin is acarologist. Probable overlap is limited. Also, it is quite unusual for Chinese names to vary much, unlike South American names. I would say they were two different people. Of course it would be very nice if people added useful information when creating author pages. Neferkheperre (talk) 00:41, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ideally, we would have Hanzi when adding character names, but finding that information is very difficult. Ting Qin is apparently associated with South China Agricultural University (SCAU) While Ting-Kui has been primarily associated with isntitutions in Australian and new Zealand. Circeus (talk) 02:20, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, I added Ting Qin on Wikidata. Dan Koehl (talk) 13:36, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Following Dellacasa et al. (2001) and Dellacasa et al. (2016) the subgenus Aphodius (Biralus) is promoted to genus, therefore I redirected Aphodius satellitius to Biralus satellitius.
[See: Dellacasa, G., Bordat, P., Dellacasa, M. 2001. A revisional essay of world genus-group taxa of Aphodiinae (Coleoptera: Aphodiidae). Memorie della Società Entomologica Italiana 79: 1-482.; Dellacasa, G., Dellacasa, M., Král, D., Bezděk, A. 2016. Tribe Aphodiini Leach, 1815. In: Löbl I. and Löbl D. (Eds.); Catalogue of Palaearctic Coleoptera, Scarabaeoidea, Scirtoidea, Dascilloidea, Buprestoidea, Byrrhoidea. Revised and Updated Edition. Brill, Leiden/Boston, 3: 98-155] Mariusm (talk) 13:04, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, @Mariusm:.

Another possible merge is Colombian entomologist Alexander García García ), created 2018 by @PeterR: (and has Wikidata Wikidata:Q22106821) and Alexander García, (no Wikidata) created 2015 by @Neferkheperre:? Dan Koehl (talk) 17:52, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In this case the taxon names of the four new names reportedly published in {{Ardila-Camacho & García, 2015}} would be helpful, but unfortunately I haven't got access to the full paper. Anyone? As a last resort I guess a complete list of all new species described in 2015 within the Mantispidae family would do, but such a list might be even harder to come by... Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 21:54, 10 September 2018 (UTC).[reply]
Seems a pretty obvious identical case to me, but... Trichoscelia andina, Trichoscelia gorgonensis, Trichoscelia karijona and Leptomantispa hoffmani are it (all credited to Ardila-Camacho). Circeus (talk) 22:15, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Indeed it looks like they are the same person. I guess the author's name is Alexander García and that "Alexander García García" is simply a typo. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 23:10, 10 September 2018 (UTC).[reply]
I just looked at both Garcias. Both have exact same institutional affiliation, which would lean towards them being one person. When I looked into @PeterR:'s entry and mine, there were no errors in transcription by either of us. So any error is by one of the journals. We may have to research into independent avenues. Neferkheperre (talk) 23:27, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Udistrital and ResearchGate, both cite Alexander García García. Burmeister (talk) 23:30, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Checked both Full Articles PDF, one is García and the other García García, same institution. At researchgate García García. Obvious same person. Please Merge. García García should prevail.--Hector Bottai (talk) 00:03, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

───────────────────────── Thanks to you all. Please go ahead with the merge if you feel up to it. Personally I'm busy creating a new author page – for Alexander García Antón... :-) Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 00:25, 11 September 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Agree, thanks everybody, now merged and deleted the error file. Dan Koehl (talk) 00:29, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this archive.