Wikispecies:Village Pump/Archive 52

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.

Cochabamba in... Hymenoptera?[edit]

I was recently updating articles for the leaf beetle subfamily Galerucinae when I discovered this possible mess involving the genus name Cochabamba. (I seem to have a habit of finding messes for some reason.)

Cochabamba, as far as any online sources I've found so far indicate, is a beetle genus (order Coleoptera), in family Chrysomelidae, subfamily Galerucinae. However, here on Wikispecies it appears to be placed in order Hymenoptera, family Megachilidae, subfamily Megachilinae for some reason. I have checked around on Google rather thoroughly and I can find no evidence a genus was ever placed in Hymenoptera under this name. So I can't say that any homonyms are involved here.

Additionally, Wikispecies only lists one species under Cochabamba, Cochabamba volxemi. This species does not appear at all in the PDF for the taxon page's only reference. On the other hand, online articles such as this and this suggest it is a species combination placed in the Cochabamba genus in Coleoptera, Chrysomelidae, Galerucinae.

Not only that, but the linked Wikidata item and all linked Wikipedia pages in multiple languages classify Cochabamba under Coleoptera, Chrysomelidae!

I think it's very likely that Cochabamba was accidentally given the wrong classification on Wikispecies somehow, and that it should be put under Coleoptera, Chrysomelidae, Galerucinae (I think you get the idea by now). Can someone else double check in case I went horribly wrong somewhere? Monster Iestyn (talk) 10:18, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

You can do an IRMNG search "including near matches" via the IRMNG "advanced search" page, relevant result in this instance here. Only one Cochabamba, with the author Bechyné, 1955, that IRMNG knows about (fairly complete for animal names to about 2014, but nothing else shows up under Google Scholar), in Chrysomelidae as per posts above, (in case that helps), and no near matches in Hymenoptera - just one more, again in Coleoptera, Cochabambia Marcuzzi, 1985, which therefore cannot be the source of this problem. Regards Tony Tony 1212 (talk) 21:58, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

───────────────────────── Okay, so it's been 3 days since the last comment now, and there's been no response from PeterR nor has there been any new information to suggest I'm wrong here otherwise. I also just checked this list of genus group names for bees from 1997 and Cochabamba does not appear there either. Maybe I should just go and make the necessary corrections assuming I'm right? Monster Iestyn (talk) 14:41, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

I am 100% sure you are right, and you have discussed the issue here with no contra indications, and there is nothing in IRMNG or Google Scholar to suggest otherwise, so I would say yes, just fix the error; you might want to add a note on the talk page for the taxon name in case anyone wants to know what was done and why. BTW IRMNG (http://www.irmng.org) is my go-to for genus names in the first instance (hint hint: I am the compiler) and, supplemented by Google Scholar for very recent names, should be pretty complete. Cheers Tony Tony 1212 (talk) 18:35, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
Okay then, I'll do that now then. That said, I personally prefer to track down and look at the actual articles where possible rather than check databases, since some of the records on the databases aren't entirely correct invariably. But the databases are good to have as a backup at least. Monster Iestyn (talk) 19:12, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
Fair call, my database (and those of others), best viewed as a pointer to the literature rather than an authoritative source in its own right, is a "best effort" and can still contain errors and omissions - although hopefully not *too* many, and these are rectified as discovered and time is available... Cheers Tony Tony 1212 (talk) 19:50, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
While we're on the subject, if there's any corrections I can point out to be made in IRMNG (which there definitely are), is your talk page the place for that I take it? At least, I assume it is judging by existing discussions there. Monster Iestyn (talk) 18:53, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
Correct, at the present time at least... small fixes are normally done with priority, larger batches of changes needed may take longer... At some point we may come up with a better method, but this one seems to work, and provides a publicly accessible record of what was requested and action taken/place where issues can be discussed. Another route is to email info@irmng.org which will reach me as well (plus the IRMNG IT support team), however there is then no public record of the request and response - but that one will (should) still work if I am not online for any reason. Regards - Tony Tony 1212 (talk) 21:22, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
And all is done now! Monster Iestyn (talk) 19:28, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Large watchlist not editable[edit]

Hello fellow editors, I am not able to edit my watchlist, because is has grown too large, so that I get a timeout. Is there another possibility to edit it? Or to remove parts of it, e.g. all categories or all redirects? Thank you for any help, --Thiotrix (talk) 08:51, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, Christian Ferrer. The raw watchlist was very helpful for removing categories and templates. Does anybody know, if there a possibility to list all redirects created by a user? --Thiotrix (talk) 10:07, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
@Thiotrix: Here is a list of the "new redirects" created by you: [2]. Christian Ferrer (talk) 12:02, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
Thank you very much. --Thiotrix (talk) 09:07, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Classes[edit]

Who can help me with add classes etc. I have now : Class Insecta Linné, 1758 Subclass Scarabaeona Laicharting, 1781 (= Pterygota Lang, 1888) Infraclass Gryllones Laicharting, 1781 (= Polyneoptera Martynov, 1923) Superorder Perlidea Latreille, 1802 (= Plecopteroidea Martynov, 1934) Order Cnemidolestida Handlirsch, 1937, nom. transl., Cnemidolestodea Handlirsch, 1937, Cnemidolestoidea. Type family: Cnemidolestidae Handlirsch, 1906. I can find only Subclass Pterygota (= Scarabaeona). Can I change Subclass Pterygota in Scarabaeona and then lower. I find this in Far Eastern Entomologist, 2014, no. 277 thanks PeterR (talk) 16:41, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

@PeterR: I guess you refer to {{Aristov, 2014}}, where Order †Cnemidolestida is revised. I'll see what I can do. Mariusm (talk) 16:41, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
Please note that in recent taxonomy Polyneoptera and Pterygota are valid and not synonyms, so please don't base your rank changes exclusively on Aristov, 2014!! Mariusm (talk) 16:54, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
According to this article from 2016 (particularly Chapter 4), the use of Scarabaeona instead of Pterygota at least doesn't seem to be internationally accepted, but rather part of a different classification used only by Russian entomologists? (Or at least, that's the impression I get.) I suspect there may be a similar thing going on with the other higher taxa names with stated synonyms in Aristov, 2014 and others like it. Monster Iestyn (talk) 11:09, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Renaming page[edit]

Hello, I was too fast creating a reference template and I would need help to rename the page. Could anyone help me rename Dusoulier & Lupoli, 2016 in Template:Dusoulier & Lupoli, 2016. Sorry for that mistake and thanks for your help.--Hiouf (talk) 10:33, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

OK, I did it. Neferkheperre (talk) 13:56, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
Great, thank you very much! --Hiouf (talk) 14:07, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
Damn it! I made the exact same mistake with Zhao et al., 2019b @Neferkheperre: Any chance you can help me one more time? Is there any way I can fix it myself? --Hiouf (talk) 14:04, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
I fixed it. In the "More" tab on your tool bar, find "Move". You may need to be an administrator. Neferkheperre (talk) 14:29, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
Thanks again. Next time I'll use that tool. Cheers. --Hiouf (talk) 14:40, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

───────────────────────── @Hiouf: Please remember to uncheck the "Leave a redirect behind" check box when you move a wrongly named page to a new name. Leaving a redirect page in place of the old name is great when moving say, the author page "N. Smith" to "Nicholas Smith", so that links pointing to the old page will be automatically redirected to the new one. However for misspellings and such it's useless, since there's no point in having redirect pages that will never be used. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 18:15, 15 January 2020 (UTC).

Reference template where author name isn't used[edit]

Hi. I have found a lot of uses of the following reference, and was going to create a template for it:

  • Mammal Species of the World, A Taxonomic and Geographic Reference, 3rd edition, 2005 ISBN 0801882214

However, the uses I found almost always omit the author names, but Help:Reference section#Reference Templates says template names should start with the author's name. Is it okay to create Template:Mammal Species, 2005 without the author name? Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 08:14, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

In the world I move in (not Wikispecies I would point out) it is almost invariably referred to as "Wilson & Reeder". Home page here: https://www.departments.bucknell.edu/biology/resources/msw3/ . Preferred citation is given as: "Don E. Wilson & DeeAnn M. Reeder (editors). 2005. Mammal Species of the World. A Taxonomic and Geographic Reference (3rd ed), Johns Hopkins University Press, 2,142 pp". In case this helps... Regards Tony Tony 1212 (talk) 08:22, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
The reference template already exist {{Wilson & Reeder, 2005}}. Regards, Burmeister (talk) 12:12, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
It appears that the template has a different ISBN? --DannyS712 (talk) 16:44, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
Maybe because that: ISBN-13: 978-0801882210 // ISBN-10: 0801882214 ? Burmeister (talk) 16:54, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
Yes, using the ISBN-10/13 converter at ISBN.org proves that 0-8018-8221-4 equals 978-0-8018-8221-0. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 17:59, 15 January 2020 (UTC).
There are a few references that aren't authors, usually because the author is taken to be a group (i.e. the ICZN opinions are usually cited with the ICZN as the author, as do certain other large groups of authors such as APG) or because it's better taken to be an external link to some database (Stephen created quite a few of those).
As a side note, special:search can be restricted to the template namespace. It's very convenient when trying to find out if a reference exists. Circeus (talk) 23:51, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Cupressus s.l. versus Cupressus s.s[edit]

A genus of c. 16-20 species. Recent genetic evidence (* Little, D. P., Schwarzbach, A. E., Adams, R. P. & Hsieh, Chang-Fu. 2004. The circumscription and phylogenetic relationships of Callitropsis and the newly described genus Xanthocyparis (Cupressaceae). American Journal of Botany 91 (11): 1872–1881. Abstract) shows that the New World Cupressus are less closely related to the Old World Cupressus than previously thought, being more closely related to Callitropsis and Juniperus than to the rest of Cupressus. A change in generic classification for these species is likely in the near future, either to Callitropsis or to a new genus.

Mao et al. (2010) and Terry & Adams. (2015) reversed the circumscription which segregated Hesperocyparis, Callitropsis s.s. and Xanthocyparis s.s. into separate genera. Therefore, the segregation of this genus into Old and New World clades and genera by Little (2006) and Adams et al. (2009) cannot be sustained. The generic circumscription on the taxon page follows Govaerts et al., 2017. Andyboorman (talk) 15:42, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

However, note the recently published Zhu et al. (2018), which has resurrected the proposals to segregate the above genera and revert to a Cupressus s.s. reserved for the Old World species. Govaerts et al., 2018 has decided to follow this circumscription, but with the a number of "Accepted by/Not Accepted by" provisos on their web site. Therefore, it seems that the lumping/splitting debate has not been satisfactorily resolved. Perhaps, WS should maintain a conservative approach for now and retain Cupressus s.l.? See also Christenhusz et al., (2011) Andyboorman (talk) 08:53, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes; a broad circumscription of Cupressus is the only one that is workable - any subdivision is very premature with many taxa not yet examined, and the monophyly of Cupressus s.l. still highly likely - MPF (talk) 16:22, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
You may or may not be right, however, the reversion of Cupressus s.l. to Cupressus s.s is now gaining increasing support. WS must not take a side in this discussion as that would be OR. It would be better to produce pages for the segregates with notes referring to the alternative view. The disputed tag may also be appropriate, as also taking this to the pump. Andyboorman (talk) 18:43, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
One example of the problems with splitting is that Mu et al. (2006; Front. Biol. China 4: 349−352 DOI 10.1007/s 11515-006-0044-5 ) found a species pair of Cupressus funebris and C. duclouxiana (neither examined by the proponents of splitting the genus) to be sister to C. nootkatensis, with those three in turn sister to C. torulosa: i.e., "Callitropsis" nootkatensis is from their results deeply embedded among Asian Cupressus s.str. The net result is that any splitting of the genus is likely to result in extensive paraphyly somewhere in the group. - MPF (talk) 19:01, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

───────────────────────── You make my point for me. I will migrate the discussion to the Pump. Andyboorman (talk) 20:37, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

I don't see that it does! It makes the case for splitting much worse, as it makes acceptance of Callitropsis containing only Cupressus nootkatensis (sensu Zhu et al.) untenable - MPF (talk) 17:29, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
As an aside on the wider Cupressaceae questions, I can see the case for lumping the Callitroid genera into one genus, but when the proposers of the lump themselves say further evidence is needed ("Further molecular data are needed to test these results and explore the cause of the conflict between these estimates of the phylogeny within the group" - Piggin & Bruhl 2010), the lumping done by the Kew List is I think premature. Other options (particularly the transfer of the New Caledonian Callitris to Neocallitropsis, and recognition of Octoclinis) need to be considered. - MPF (talk) 17:29, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
Sorry I am not clear about what you mean in relation of the Kew List lumping. Are you writing about genera other than Cupressus e.g. Callitris? Andyboorman (talk) 10:51, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
Yes, thought that was clear from the 'as an aside on the wider ...' mention! - MPF (talk) 00:30, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Please note the above taken from the Cupressus discussion page, do a search and comment. Thanks. Andyboorman (talk) 20:37, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

The point is that there are now two diametrically opposite taxonomic opinions of a well known genus. Both Cupressus s.l and Cupressus s.s. have scientific support, but there is no definitive evidence for one or the other. Therefore, as an example, Govaerts et al. on WCSP and supported by Christenhusz, Fay & Chase (2017) in their Plants of the World project favour s.s. with segregate genera. However, Earle on the Gymnosperm Database project advocate s.l. with the putative genera as sections. Can WS legitimately take one side over another irrespective of personal, but obviously well informed opinions, of our editors? Andyboorman (talk) 18:56, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Does anybody have a strong objection to me modifying the Cupressus taxon page in order to reflect the two main differing taxonomic opinions? Andyboorman (talk) 14:18, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
I fear I do :-) I'd very strongly say we should retain it as one genus, as a minimum until every taxon has been tested. - MPF (talk) 00:30, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
Why? It is illogical to retain a disputed species list, whichever way the coin eventually falls. Particularly, as only a very few taxa have not been tested and some of these may turn out to be in synonymy. At least there must be note on the taxon page itself, as well as a disputed tag and not just in the Discussion Page. Leaving the present situation is favouring one valid opinion over another, which is contrary to Wiki policy, as well as science. If there was an editorial consensus here, then I would follow the majority view. My purpose for this thread was to stimulate discussion, which unfortunately has not happened Andyboorman (talk) 21:13, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Wiki Loves Folklore[edit]

WLL Subtitled Logo (transparent).svg

Hello Folks,

Wiki Loves Love is back again in 2020 iteration as Wiki Loves Folklore from 1 February, 2020 - 29 February, 2020. Join us to celebrate the local cultural heritage of your region with the theme of folklore in the international photography contest at Wikimedia Commons. Images, videos and audios representing different forms of folk cultures and new forms of heritage that haven’t otherwise been documented so far are welcome submissions in Wiki Loves Folklore. Learn more about the contest at Meta-Wiki and Commons.

Kind regards,
Wiki Loves Folklore International Team
— Tulsi Bhagat (contribs | talk)
sent using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:15, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

How do you find the common name[edit]

How do you find the common name of an animal on his page cuz most people like me can't use the scientific name I like that it's on there but still would like the common name. — The preceding unsigned comment was added by Datnip (talkcontribs) 20:51, 16 January 2020.

We have a section called 'Vernacular names' near the end of each page, giving the name in various different languages. Of course not all species have common names, lots of less conspicuous insects and plants don't have any. - MPF (talk) 00:18, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
MPF is correct. I can add that there is also a "Search Wikispecies" function near the top right of all our pages. Enter a search string there and hit "enter" to search for scientific names, vernacular names, journals, authors etc... –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 12:46, 17 January 2020 (UTC).
@Datnip: When no common name is given in a Wikispecies article, you can also just click on one of the Wikipedia links (i.e. the language names in the left column) to see if they have one. --LamBoet (talk) 19:19, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Subgenera[edit]

Hello, I wanted to create a subgenus page for this genus, and I wonder I will have to use {{Sgsps}} or {{Sgsp}}, Help:Taxonavigation section suggest to use the second, but that implies to create species in this form. I think to have understood that this is not the preferred way. In summary, is it the good way? Christian Ferrer (talk) 13:46, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

If you feel you absolutely must show the subgenus page i specie sname on the page for that subgenus (which seems redundant to me... I mean, what other subgenus are they supposed to be in??), then {{Sgsps}} is the one. Last I knew, consensus was well away from including subgenus in pagenames of species. I've personally come to be on the fence about whether to use "Genus (Subgenus)" or "Subgenus" for the page title of the subgenus, though. Circeus (talk) 03:27, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
I don't understand your fist sentence, what is redundant? only the species that are not affected to a subgenus are currently listed in the the genus page, it's not me who did that, I found the page like that. I just wanted to create Ophiura (Dictenophiura), as suggested by the red link in the genus page, in order to have the possibility to list some more species that are not yet available there. But thanks you, you confirmed what I was thinking, I will use {{Sgsps}}. Though this should be made clear in Help:Taxonavigation section, as it is currently suggested there to use {{Sgsp}}. Christian Ferrer (talk) 08:30, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
For your last sentence "Genus (Subgenus)" is likely the best solution, as in some cases it will avoid confusions, example [3] vs [4], it is maybe not the best example as the both taxa are not accepted, but well... Christian Ferrer (talk) 08:37, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
Sorry, I wasn't clear. What I mean is that
  1. Regardless of the way they are written in the subgenus page, the species page title should be "Genus species", not "Genus (Subgenus) species" (that is because the subgenus is not part of the actual species name. ICZN art. 6.1)
  2. On the page "Genus (subgenus)", it seems redundant to list species as "G. (Subg.) sp." because... why do that on that page? Of course they are species of that one subgenus if we are listing them there!
  3. The case you mention regarding "Subgenus" vs. "Genus (Subgenus)" for the page title wouldn't be a problem because they are the same name/synonyms, they literally could not be two separate pages. That it increases the chances of homonyms needing disambiguation (i.e. it reveals otherwise unnoticed genus-subgenus or subgenus-subgenus homonyms) is a feature in my opinion. Also, it makes it easier when genus-group taxa are moved around, since we no longer have to rename these pages, just adjust the taxobox accordingly. (The main issue that remains is the nomnotypical subgenus, for which there is no elegant solution...).
Circeus (talk) 15:26, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
See Geostiba for my way of treating subgenera: (1) No use of "Genus (Subgenus) species", only "Genus species" for page titles (2) use only "Subgenus" as the subgenus-page title (3) use of "Genus (Subgenus) species" only in the name section (4) no special page for "Genus s. str.". Mariusm (talk) 16:18, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
Ha ok, Circeus, thanks, now I understood what you said. Thanks you Mariusm, for your example, I will follow it regarding the section "overview...", but regarding the page name the issue is when we have a subgenus with same name as the genus, you can not have two pages with the same name. Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:08, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
I think Mariusm was saying he doesn't bother with a separate page for a subgenus with the same name as the genus, but just lists the species for that subgenus under "Genus s.str.". Monster Iestyn (talk) 18:57, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
I am quite new to these discussions on Wikispecies, but I don't understand why any page should be named "Genus (Subgenus)" at all. A subgenus name consists of one single word, and the Code only mentions putting it in parentheses when it is between the genus and species name in a binomen or trinomen. By using "Genus (Subgenus)" alone, Wikispecies is spreading bad practice.--LamBoet (talk) 19:40, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
Since for the longest time I dealt exclusively with plant names, I really don't know how it happened, sorry. We're left with a mix of the two systems now. Circeus (talk) 02:27, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
Thanks Monster Iestyn, I did not noticed that. I listed the species in an overview section. But I found a little issue, I don't know how to deal with that case: 2 binonem homonyms that are accepeted within the same genus, see Ophiura costata Rasmussen, 1972 † vs Ophiura (Ophiuroglypha) costata (Lyman, 1878). Christian Ferrer (talk) 21:56, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
Yep, that's a species-level homonym. That happens sometimes. Unless you intend to publish a new named for O. costata Rasmussen yourself, you'll have to grit your teeth, disambiguate the pages and use {{Homonym}}. Circeus (talk) 02:27, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
Yes, it seems, indeed. @Mariusm: what does exactly mean the abbreviation "s.str."? Christian Ferrer (talk) 06:40, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
I know I'm not Mariusm, but "s.str." is short for "sensu stricto". Monster Iestyn (talk) 10:54, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
  •  Comment: Note that I decided to create the page in this form Ophiura (Dictenophiura) H.L. Clark, 1923, using the name that is quoted in the section "name", because there is also a name Dictenophiura H.L. Clark, 1923. Even if one is synonym to the other, I find it more clear to make clear the distinction. Christian Ferrer (talk) 08:27, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

@Christian Ferrer: Please note that Genus and Subgenus are both in the genus-type category, so Ophiura (Dictenophiura) and Dictenophiura must be synonyms! An example for "Genus (s.str.)" is Ophiura (Ophiura). Mariusm (talk) 17:07, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Ok thanks you Mariusm, and thank you everyone. If the page I created: Ophiura (Dictenophiura) is not OK we can still move it. Incidentally as well as all the other pages about subgenus if one day there is a consensus to harmonize the pages in one way or another. Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:21, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Small caps for authors name[edit]

Hi all, I am curious about the use of small caps for the authors name. The ICZN doesn't say anything about using a special typography for the authors name, and the Code always use normal font and size in all its examples. As far as I know the small caps are not used in en.wikipedia or fr.wikipedia but seems to be a standard in de.wikipedia and it.wikipedia. So I would be interested in knowing the reasons for the small caps and perhaps talk the French wiki into it. Best. --Hiouf (talk) 19:26, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

It comes about through the extensive use of the templates {{a}} and {{aut}} in names and references. Andyboorman (talk) 20:39, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
I don't know the story behind Wikispecies' specific choice of style, but on a more general note it's quite common that different nomenclatural publications have their own praxis for preferred composition, syntax, and stylistics. Andy is correct in that "our" small caps are generated by the {{a}} and {{aut}} plus the unrecommended {{auth}} templates, but it would of course be very easy to change the templates to omit the small caps, should we chose to do so. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 20:48, 15 January 2020 (UTC).
Don't get me wrong, I'm very fine with the use of small caps, I find it easier to read a taxa and identify the author, but that's just a personal preference. And of course I use those templates all the times with Wikispecies. That's why I would love to introduce the French wiki with small caps but this choice has to be justified. If the ICZN doesn't recommend it and journals like Zootaxa don't use it, I really wonder what was the reasoning for the small caps. My German and Italian skills are not good enough to ask their respective wikis, but I was hoping you could give me some hints. --Hiouf (talk) 07:43, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
Don't get me wrong either – I like small caps a lot and sometimes even overuse them, at least outside of Wikispecies. :-) Perhaps our admin @Thiotrix can assist? She speaks German as a first language and way better than me. Unfortunately my skills in speaking German are getting rustier by the day: I took German classes for six years in school, but nowadays (30 years after school...) I very seldom speak or read German anymore and tend to forget a lot of the grammar. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 08:34, 16 January 2020 (UTC).
From my own experience so far, the only zoological journal I've actually seen use small caps for author names is Genus. On the other hand, the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature, which is published by the ICZN themselves (I think), uses small caps not for author names but for family-group names apparently! It's right there in their own guidelines for the journal. I don't think I've seen that latter use of small caps anywhere else at all except maybe a few ZooKeys articles.
That aside, should we be using {{aut}} at all in the titles of reference templates? I've been doing that for a while out of habit, but never thought to actually ask about that for some reason. Monster Iestyn (talk) 13:24, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
@Hiouf, Andyboorman, Tommy Kronkvist, and Monster Iestyn: small caps are used in the ICZN for family-group names. ICZN recommend that family-groupe names are written in a distinctive way, but doesn’t use italics. The Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature follows the ICZN. I have seen many other publications like that. TED (talk) 14:01, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

I think the use of smallcaps for name authors (NOT reference authors) is a weird style quirk specific to wikispecies (a little like bolding volume numbers on Wikipedia). Does anyone knows whether that predates Stephen's rise to power? I know it's somewhat uncharitable, but it's true that quite a few quirks (some of them reversed, some not) on Wikispecies are direct consequences of his... heavy handed approach. Circeus (talk) 15:37, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

It's no odder than the style on Wikipedia, which prints authors' names and publication dates in a smaller size font inside of Taxoboxes. It's primarily a means of distinguishing the author names from taxon names and other information, so that the reader can visually parse the text. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:01, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
The use of small caps for authors of taxonomical names is quite common in German botanical literature (e.g., Rothmaler: Exkursionsflora) and international Floras (e.g., Flora Iranica). Small caps are generally used as a method of emphasis or distinctiveness. In my zoological books, authority names are either normal or in uppercase letters (e.g., Stresemann: Exkursionsfauna). This is just a typographical decision and nothing that is ruled by the botanical or zoological codes. --Thiotrix (talk) 16:16, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
Small caps are certainly used in English Wikipedia. Taxobox templates automatically put authorities in small caps, as do templates designed to format lists of taxa (e.g. en:Template:Species_list). Manually formatted lists of taxa on English Wikipedia don't always have small caps for authorities, but probably have small caps more often than not, and are slowly being standardized to use them. Looking at my edits (under a different account) on Wikispecies from early 2008 (pre-Stephen), small caps do not appear to have been standard at that time; not sure if Stephen was the instrumental in introducing them though. Plantdrew (talk) 18:01, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
Here's my four personal and very subjective takes on the notes above:
  1. The {{a}} and {{aut}} templates should be reserved for author names, since they can be extended with author-specific data in the future. If you need to use small caps for journal names etc. please use {{Smallcaps}} instead (or the {{sc}} shortcut).
  2. I like the use of small caps on Author Names, since it makes them stick out but still in a somewhat modest way.
  3. Using all uppercase letters for AUTHOR NAMES is far too shouty and should be avoided. Sure it makes the names stand out, but in such a harsh way that the focus of the rest of the citation is almost lost. This is especially true when there are SEVERAL AUTHOR NAMES MENTIONED AFTER EACH OTHER. I find it ugly, less legible, and well-nigh visually offensive.
  4. Italics for family-group names is bonkers. In my opinion italics should only be used for supergenera and lower ranks. And of course for book/journal titles and the names of ships!
Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 19:32, 16 January 2020 (UTC).
@Tommy Kronkvist: : italics are used for all names (including family-group names and above) in the International code of nomenclature for algae, fungi and plants, and the ICZN uses small caps for family-group names (and above). TED (talk) 12:48, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
The Code may say it, but no one actually does it. Not even Taxon, the official IAPT publication. — The preceding unsigned comment was added by Circeus (talkcontribs) 15:13, 20 January 2020.
@Thiotrix: the few publications (always journals) I've seen that do that are actually treating all citations that way (and the proof of that is they never put the author citation after a name without parentheses). Circeus (talk) 21:51, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
  •  Comment: I really appreciate small caps because it highlights the names. Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:08, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
  •  Comment: I'm not a huge fan of small caps, but I don't mind them so badly as to want to be rid of them. - MPF (talk) 00:26, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
  •  Comment: I guess we're trying to achieve a consensus on this issue? I never see small caps in the mycology literature, but I do appreciate how it looks on WS. What I do see often, particularly in old literature, is having the taxon name in bold and then regular text for the author. I don't really see a need for changing the templates though. Voganaa (talk) 09:19, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
  •  Comment: I really like our current small-cap author formatting, I think it improves legibility a lot, better than the smaller font size used by the French and English Wikipedias, and without the aggressivity of full uppercase. I have seen these small caps often enough in literature that they don't feel unnatural. Sure, the Code says nothing about this, but I don't think it forbids it? --LamBoet (talk) 19:29, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
  •  Comment: Small caps are used in the ICZN and many publications for family-group names (and above family), and therefore shouldn't be used for authors. TED (talk) 12:48, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
    What "many publications"? 'cause I've never seen any that actually did it outside the code and the Bulletin. Circeus (talk) 15:13, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
  •  Comment: It is used in a number of journals outside the ICZN, eg Chelonian Conservation and Biology, however this is not relevant. Yes it predates Stephen and seems to have been set up when Wikispecies first started. I do not think it makes any difference and have no interest in changing it. It does not effect even datamining software if its used well. Personally I prefer if people only used the {{A}} template as by adding the parameter |nolink=y to it it will display exactly as {{Aut}} meaning only one template can do both formats with or without the link. What the IUCN does is not relevant here, this is about formatting onsite and hence is only about our manual of style. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 20:00, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Movement Learning and Leadership Development Project[edit]

Hello

The Wikimedia Foundation’s Community Development team is seeking to learn more about the way volunteers learn and develop into the many different roles that exist in the movement. Our goal is to build a movement informed framework that provides shared clarity and outlines accessible pathways on how to grow and develop skills within the movement. To this end, we are looking to speak with you, our community to learn about your journey as a Wikimedia volunteer. Whether you joined yesterday or have been here from the very start, we want to hear about the many ways volunteers join and contribute to our movement.

To learn more about the project, please visit the Meta page. If you are interested in participating in the project, please complete this simple Google form. Although we may not be able to speak to everyone who expresses interest, we encourage you to complete this short form if you are interested in participating!

-- LMiranda (WMF) (talk) 19:00, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Wikispecies:Localization[edit]

Hi everyone. I am quite new but I like the project. I have one suggestion. Shouldn't we be translating all this things over translatewiki or some other system that allows for easier translation? Bothering admins or interface editors for every translation seems like making things hard for the sake. --Ninovolador (talk) 19:19, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

@Ninovolador: Welcome. Translatewiki is not a WMF project and if you have any alternatives for how we can translate (e.g. by drawing lexeme data from Wikidata using templates), I'm happy to hear it. —Justin (koavf)TCM 20:24, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
@Ninovolador: For clarity, "WMF" is short for the "Wikimedia Foundation" e.g. the non-profit organisation that supports and oversees all the different Wikimedia sister projects, including Wikipedia, Commons, Wkisource, Wikispecies, etc. However, even though they (mostly) use the same software and have a similar name, Translatewiki is not a project run by Wikimedia, hence hasn't got full access to all of the Wikimedia data. So in effect it would be like trying to use any other translation service (for example Google Translate) and we would soon run into issues with user- and data integrity, incompatible software licenses, and much else.
I guess in theory we could use some of the Translatewiki features if they were implemented in the Wikimedia software, but that's nothing we can arrange from Wikispecies. Such things must be handled centrally by MediaWiki and/or Phabricator, and I think it's very unlikely to happen. We do need a better system for translations though, so as Justin says new ideas are very welcome. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 00:06, 22 January 2020 (UTC).
@Tommy Kronkvist: I have an idea... the reason (as far as I can tell) that we use the localization system in place is so that we can easily translate specific short messages. We can use int:... for existing messages added by core, and those added by extensions. Perhaps an extension custom for wikispecies that only serves to add messages, thus allowing localization to take place at translatewiki? --DannyS712 (talk) 00:31, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
@DannyS712: Perhaps, but we need to make sure we can maintain a way to localize Wikispecies in the event that Translatewiki is suddenly shut down, changes its license model, is monetized or starts coming with some sort of advertising, starts running on another type of (commercial) software, loses its funding from Netcup and/or Open Progess, is taken over by monoglot aliens from far side of the Moon, et cetera, et cetera... Sure, most if not all of those scenarios are unlikely to happen, but still. In order to maintain the Wikimedia Founding principles and other guidelines it would be better to have an in-house Wikimedia system. Or at least a system mirrored from the Translatewiki servers to ours in a way that would maintain the present license model for us in the event that Translatewiki changes (e.g. gets bought by a company and put to sleep). –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 18:36, 22 January 2020 (UTC).
If any of those situations occur, I'm sure the WMF would copy everything hosted on translatewiki. For perspective, the entire mediawiki message system, along with all extensions, is translated entirely on translatewiki. --DannyS712 (talk) 20:33, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
So basically we should get on the horn to the appropriate working group within the WMF and tell them we need this! Personally I don't really know how it works though, at least not anymore. I do have an account at Transwiki.net but I've only made three edits there and that was back in 2016... Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 07:49, 23 January 2020 (UTC).
If there is support for moving localization to translatewiki, then it would be pretty simple to do so. We could add the messages to the WikimediaMessages extension, in a separate folder. Once that is set up, I can copy all of the translations over to translatewiki, and then we can delete them here. All uses of int:foo would still work the same, and it would be easier to translate in the future. --DannyS712 (talk) 08:01, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Reference template for chapters within a book[edit]

Hello, I found online chapters 3 and 22 from this book. Those 2 chapters are great references and I'd like to use them in the relevant taxa and authors pages. What are the recommandations for referring to chapters within a book? Shall I make a template for the whole book or a separate template for each chapter? The first option makes more sense to me, but then how do I refer to each individual chapters? Furthermore, the book has 2 main editors, but each chapters has different authors, who will be credited as authors if I make only one template for the whole book? Many thanks in advance for your input. --Hiouf (talk) 09:05, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

I would edit 2 different templates, since authors and subjects are different. This is a good example on how I would do it: Template:Cabanis, 1844, or Template:Cabanis, 1849.--Hector Bottai (talk) 11:36, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
Great, I'll follow your examples. Cheers. --Hiouf (talk) 12:03, 24 January 2020 (UTC

Question about death certificate[edit]

Please see this edit summary and respond to the user (and me...) if you know the answer. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 13:42, 25 January 2020 (UTC).

I'd say IPNI is the answer, so information can be spread further? That's what I did when I uncovered the details for Wilhelmina Gerhardina Welman (which remidns me, I have to email them again because they entered it with with a typo in her given name...). Circeus (talk) 15:23, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Acidanthera laxa[edit]

Can any botanist please have a look at the Acidanthera laxa page and set it straight in regards to genus, author name, etc? Thanks beforehand! –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 14:39, 25 January 2020 (UTC).

Well, the name has not been deposited with IPNI and zero results from Scholar. Not a good start. I would be tempted to blank and delete, except for the Tropicos entry. My best guess is that it is a synonym of Freesia laxa, but without being noted as such by WCSP, because the of the lack of an entry in IPNI. Acidanthera in general is now treated as a heterotypic synonym of Gladiolus Tourn. ex L., Sp. Pl.: 36 (1753) with the type Acidanthera bicolor Hochst., Flora 27: 25 (1844) as a synonym of Gladiolus murielae Kelway, Gard. Chron., ser. 3, 92: 107 (1932). It seems that this Tropicos Iridaceae project is much better than the main pages. Thoughts? Andyboorman (talk) 21:01, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
Maybe a confusion with hand-written Anomatheca laxa. A botanical author called "Goldblume" does not seem to exist, maybe it is an error for Goldblatt. Tropicos refers to this work: Sosef, Marc S.M. 2009. Flore du Gabon 38. Alismataceae, Apiaceae, Goodeniaceae, Hernandiaceae, Huaceae, Iridaceae, Oxalidaceae, Smilacaceae, Sphenocleaceae, Taccaceae. Weikersheim: Margraf; Leiden: Backhuys, 62 pp. ISBN 978-3-8236-1562-0. -RLJ (talk) 22:38, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Kyphocarpa vs. Cyphocarpa, pt. 2[edit]

I have finally gotten around to writing a pretty much final draft of a request for a decision regarding this issue. I am waiting on responses from K. Gandhi at IPNI and G. Zijlstra at ING so make sure I have not misrepresented their positions.

Anyone interested in cosigning is invited to add their name and any relevant affiliation. Circeus (talk) 18:46, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks @Circeus: for moving this forward - it would be good to get either 1 or 2 opinions on this! Cheers Tony (for IRMNG) Tony 1212 (talk) 08:41, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

How to change a misidentified Wikimedia Commons species photo?[edit]

A colleague has found two pictures on Wikimedia that are misidentified, see [5] and [6] - the photos depict a springtail from the family Sminthuridae but are labelled as oribatid mite. I am familiar with editing Wikipedia articles but have never edited a Wikimedia item so I was looking for help on the community pages but didn't find anything useful. Is there a step by step guide how to do this? I can imagine this happens more often than we would like. (BTW: fortunately it seems that the mislabelled photos are not used on any WP or Wikispecies pages) Wurstendbinder (talk) 22:53, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

It is quite simple: 1. Change the name of the file. Click on "more" at top right of the page, will open a "move" option, click there and a self explanatory procedure will show. Fill it. A bibliotecary will have to approve. 2. Once it is approved, you have to edit the Summary to the proper content and 3.change the category(ies) to the proper one(s). That's all.--Hector Bottai (talk) 23:52, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
@Wurstendbinder: Hector Bottai is correct. Another way is to add this template to the very top of the Wikimedia Commons page: {{rename|Suggested new name.jpg|3|reason=Why should it be renamed?}}
You should of course replace the "Suggested new name" and "Why should it be renamed?" attributes with proper data specific for each file. The code string "reason=" must remain in front of the reason you add. Please also remember to always include the file extension with the suggested new name (e.g. ".jpg" in the above example).
The piped number "3" is important and should remain, since it adds a note about the so called "renaming criterion". Number 3 is used for "correcting obvious errors in filenames, including misspelled proper nouns, incorrect dates, and misidentified objects or organisms." If you use the above template one of Wikimedia Commons 385 designated file movers will soon do the actual renaming: usually within an hour or two. Additional information about the Wikimedia Commons renaming guideline and other renaming criteria than "3" can be found here.
–Kind regards, Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 02:43, 26 January 2020 (UTC).
One more thing: don't hesitate to correct the file's categories and the file description even before issuing the file renaming request. File renaming requires approval for technical reasons, but what matters most is to put the file in the proper category and to make sure its description is correct, and this doesn't have to wait. --LamBoet (talk) 04:10, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
Thanks a lot, it seems to have worked. Wurstendbinder (talk) 21:22, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Cerambycidae[edit]

Actualizando esta familia, encuentro template:CerambCat que creo no está totalmente constuido, ya que no puede dirigirse al género o especie requerido. Agradecería que algún colega qye ha realizado este tipo de página lo actualice para poder, de este forma, agregar una referencia contrastada a las miles de especies de esta familia. Gracias.--MILEPRI (talk) 14:12, 26 January 2020 (UTC)