Wikispecies:Village Pump/Archive 53

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.

Taxon is incorrectly named

Childonini's taxon is incorrectly named, the correct term is Chlidonini. Jackson Cordeiro Brilhador (talk) 07:22, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, the Spanish wikipedia seems to have made the same typo. Even worse still, the correct name and the incorrect spelling also have separate Wikidata items! (see [1] and [2]) This is a fair bit of mess to fix... (I'll see what I can do about it now) Monster Iestyn (talk) 15:20, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done, I've fixed everything except the Spanish wikipedia article's name, and the "Childonini" redirect page and its unused template just need to be deleted now. Monster Iestyn (talk) 15:32, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Spanish wiki all fixed. Template here deleted. Thanks!!--Hector Bottai (talk) 15:39, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nordenstam taxa

Right now there are 25 taxon names redirected from the "Nordenstam" disambiguation page. Most of them probably refers to Åke Nordenstam (specialized in Isopoda and other crustaceans) but some of them may instead refer to the Swedish botanist Bertil Nordenstam (B.Nord., born 1936). Please help out specifying the author name on each of those taxon pages. –Thanks! Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 10:12, 10 March 2020 (UTC).[reply]

And similarly, but far worse, over 320 taxon pages linked to the "Gmelin" disambiguation page . . . MPF (talk) 22:25, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And even worse still, 470 taxon pages linked to the "Gould" disambiguation page . . . MPF (talk) 10:17, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I get the feeling linking to author surnames is rather widespread across Wikispecies. For instance, I've just found 140 pages link to "Jones", 221 pages link to "Chen", and 400 pages link to "Smith". Monster Iestyn (talk) 16:33, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Same species, different name

The genus Chlidones has eight species, but one of the species I have a doubt about the validity of the name.

Sp. 1 - C. rufovaria (Wikidata) described in 1901 by Fairmaire (Cf. in BHL). This species is used here on Wikispecies, on Wikipedia NL, and is referred to on the websites TITAN, GBIF, CoL and EoL.

Sp. 2 - C. rufovarius (Wikidata) described by the same author, is used on seven Wikipedia pages, and is referred to in BioLib, EoL, and IRMNG. It was referred to in GBIF but has been deleted. But here at wikispecies there is no page for this species.

Therefore, I would like you to clarify about the correct validation of this taxon. Thanks! Jackson Cordeiro Brilhador (talk) 16:22, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What gender is the name Chlidones? If it's masculine then the species should be rufovarius, if feminine then it's rufovaria. At least, to my understanding, that's the issue here. Judging by the other species names listed it looks like it's masculine, but I'm just guessing. Monster Iestyn (talk) 16:46, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
According to the ICZN Code, most (but not all) genera ending in -es are masculine (Article Waterhouse treated it as masculine when he assigned the only original/type species to it, C. lineolatus BHL which to me confirms it as masculine (although I am not really an expert in genders). Under that reasoning, rufovarius is correct, rufovaria (Fairmaire's original spelling, see BHL) incorrect (he or she also misspells the genus as Chelidones and gives Waterhouse's species as "lineolata") but is a correctable error (authority remains the same). TITAN lists rufovaria only, lists it under Chelidones rufovaria as a misspelling (without indicating that both the genus and species are misspelled), but has no entry for the correct name; the TITAN record for "Chlidones rufovaria" then ends up in CoL as "accepted name" (go figure).
So in my reading, Wikispecies, etc. should be using rufovarius as a corrected original spelling (original spelling Chelidones [sic] rufovaria); either the entry for rufovaria can remain as an incorrect original spelling pointed to the correct version, or the correct version can merely note the incorrect original spelling - not quite sure how Wikispecies normally handles misspellings, whether original or subsequent... Tony 1212 (talk) 18:35, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We have a template {{Orth. err.}} that is used for marking correctable orthographic (spelling) errors. The original name can be listed on the species page with that template marking it. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:52, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hm, that template appears to be used only on one page currently (specifically, the plant division Anthocerotophyta), and it links to the corresponding glossary entry where it talks about ICBN requirements. The trouble is, Chlidones is a beetle genus, so ICZN rules apply here, and I'm not sure if using orth. err. is okay here or not. Monster Iestyn (talk) 16:05, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There's a variant {{OE}} that's used on a few more pages, but serves the same function. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:47, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Editing news 2020 #1 – Discussion tools

19:28, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

What is the purpose of this template? How are we defining it for our purposes, and where (if anywhere) should the template be placed? There are a lot of questions this template raises. I've seen it used at Nepenthaceae, which includes a single genus but many species. Should it be used it there is only one extant member, but there are extinct ones? Only one subordinate taxon of lower rank, and how much lower? Only primary ranks, or do we count the additional ranks like Tribe, Subfamily, etc.?

And where should this taxon be placed when it is used? Right now it seems to be used in the Name section, but it has nothing to do with the name. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:11, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • It is just a tag to indicate that a particular taxon is monotypic and is not compulsory. It is botany not taxonomy, but can be useful. Andyboorman (talk) 19:19, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    That response failed to address any of my several questions. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:38, 9 April 2020 (UTC)Placed under name, that is the name[reply]
    • Placed under Name, that is the extant taxon (of the page) is monotypic. It does not, of course apply to subordinate taxon and additional ranks. It is simplicity in its self. Harmless and not essential, just like author categories, VN, distribution, images, additional references and so on. All in my humble opinion. Andyboorman (talk) 19:46, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      That answered some of my questions, but not all. It still doesn't answer what we mean on Wikispecies when we say a taxon is "monotypic". What are our criteria for that decision? Do we count only extant subordinate taxa, or accepted subordinate taxa, even if extinct, at for which level of subordinate taxa?
      • Examples:
      • Is Tyrannosaurus a monotypic taxon because it contains a single accepted species, or not because it contains no extant species?
      • Is Aristidoideae monotypic because it contains only one tribe, or not because it contains three genera and genus is the next lower primary rank?
      Questions about terms like "monotypic" are neither simple nor straightforward because the definition is highly plastic depending upon the context. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:25, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Surely both of them are monotypic because "monotypic" has nothing to do with being extant or extinct, and it refers only to the taxon immediately below? Monster Iestyn (talk) 04:47, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"Surely" isn't always the case for these. Your choices suggest that if there is only one living member of a taxa, but for which extinct species are known, then the taxon is not monotypic. Therefore Ginkgo is not monotypic, despite having many known fossil species, but yet we have it tagged as monotypic.
And your second response means that whether a taxon is monotypic or not depends on which ranks of subtaxa we recognize. So a subfamily like Aristidoideae might be monotypic if we recognize tribes as a rank within that group, but would not be if we excluded the rank of tribe from our classification. What benefit is gained by tagging such groups whose status as "monotypic" depends on the inclusion or exclusion of data, and not on any property of the item itself? --EncycloPetey (talk) 07:12, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
For Aristidoideae it is not monotypic, as it contains more genera than the type, but I take your point. For this subfamily it could be argued that the use of a tribe is rather meaningless. Personally I would delete it as it, as serves no useful taxonomic function and could be even demoted to a homotypic synonym of the subfamily. Andyboorman (talk) 10:50, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is why I am asking that we either set precise criteria for what we mean by "monotypic", or else not bother tagging "monotypic" taxa. Right now we have no consistency in the way the label of "monotypic" is being applied. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:21, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Did we decide to begin including a Distribution section on pages? I see that @MILEPRI: has added one to Dumortiera hirsuta.

I also note that this particular addition has multiple typos. So if we are going to have a Distribution section, what standard for names of regions will we follow? And in what language will they be presented? --EncycloPetey (talk)

@EncycloPetey: This has been discussed many times and we last landed on keeping them. —Justin (koavf)TCM 19:03, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Something should be added to the Help pages then. It hasn't.
That also doesn't answer my question about standards for names of localities. Doe we include only nations? subnational regions? In what language? The addition I've linked too contains a list of US states, various islands and provinces, is in more than one language, and includes multiple glaring typos. What level of localities are expected, and under what standards? --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:37, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Standards should follow the outlines advocated by the commonly used Brummitt, R.K. 2001. TDGW – World Geographical Scheme for Recording Plant Distributions, 2nd Edition, which is in English. But some editors are going OTT and seeming to drill down to almost postal code data! The example you mention has this in spades includes a blank VN. But it is not something I add to taxon pages, because of the concerns you raise. Andyboorman (talk) 19:54, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The distribution in the article mentioned above was pasted from Catalogue of Life, it does not follow any standard. -RLJ (talk) 00:20, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
TDWG is a commonly accepted standard for vascular plants. The European scheme of floristic territories follows Flora Europaea, that of Northern America follows Flora of North America. It defines phytogeographical units with state names. Some islands (Svalbard, Corse, Sardegna, Sicilia, Kriti etc.) have vernacular names. The territories do not always correspond to current political units and should not be confused with them. "Ireland" includes Northern Ireland, "France" includes the Channel Islands and Monaco, but excludes "Corse" (Corsica) as well as the overseas territories, "Turkey" excludes "Turkey-in-Europe", "Czechoslovakia" and "Yugoslavia" continue to exist, etc. --RLJ (talk) 00:20, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've worked in one herbarium that used TDWG, and they successfully applied it to their bryophyte collection as well. Will this system work for animals as well, including migratory species? And what options do we have for marine and freshwater species? --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:57, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Due to all the concerns raised, I continue to be radically against including distribution in WS pages. There are so many priorities, so many poorly edited pages, without references, etc etc, why loosing focus with problematic Distribution!!!--Hector Bottai (talk) 22:19, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I note that the previous discussion concluded that we accept Distribution, but it also said another poll would follow to decide the format of the section. Perhaps we should begin that discussion now? I also think we should not add any additional Distribution sections until we agree on at least some minimum standards. --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:06, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes the current status quo on this is to decide how to do it, not to just start adding them. I am doubtful there will be any one method due to differences in terrestrial/ aquatic and migratory issues. There are standards in many animal groups also, but nothing consistent. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 01:20, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed we need to move onto standards. Extant plants tends to be simpler, as long as editors stick to the/an agreed formula and not invent their own. Andyboorman (talk) 10:43, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Das Natur-System der vierfüssigen Thiere von J. L. Frisch, "P. S. in G."

I'm trying to find the author of the name Vulpes. On dewiki it is Johann Leonhard Frisch, on frwiki it is Just Leopold Frisch (wd), and the enwiki article doesn't specify it.

In the original publication, Das Natur-System der vierfüssigen Thiere (1775), the author is stated as J. L. Frisch, followed by the mention "P. S. in G.". What does "P. S. in G." mean? Korg (talk) 15:38, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In this digitalisation, the author stated at top left is "Frisch, Johann Leonhard". Christian Ferrer (talk) 15:57, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note that there is also an ICZN opinion about the same publication but they use "Frisch, J.L." [3]. Christian Ferrer (talk) 16:17, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
According to this article in Wildlife Online it was by Just Leopold Frisch. This makes more sense to me than Johann Leonhard Frisch since Johann died in 1743, so a 1775 publication would have to be 32 years after his death. Interestingly it also talks about the 1954 ICZN opinion, which it turns out was later revoked. It also turns out that this may be all moot as François Alexandre Pierre de Garsault used the name Vulpes first in 1764 in his Les figures des plantes et animaux d’usage en médecine anyway. Monster Iestyn (talk) 16:55, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Going by this article from Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature in 2009 (paywalled though accessible through Sci-Hub), Vulpes Garsault, 1764 (pl. 702) is the accepted authority for the genus, though it appeared without any listed species. The type species, Canis vulpes Linnaeus, 1758, was fixed by ICZN in Opinion 1129 (1982). Monster Iestyn (talk) 17:03, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It is indeed the German zoologist Just Leopold Frisch's publication of 1775, but according to the rule of precedence the French naturalist François Alexandre Pierre de Garsault, used the genus name Vulpes in his 1764 publication, albeit without a species, but he accompanied it with a Red Fox drawing. Consequently it should be Vulpes Garsault, 1764 rather than Vulpes Frisch, 1775. Mariusm (talk) 18:04, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And please see Here Mariusm (talk) 18:17, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

───────────────────────── Interesting information, thank you! Korg (talk) 22:09, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Main Page needs attention

{{Species-2020-04}} isn't working in the Main Page since April 1st. Can somebody here see to it? Mariusm (talk) 08:22, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It can only be created by admins because it is transcluded on the main page --DannyS712 (talk) 08:57, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The past months it was Tommy who created these templates: Template:Species-2020-03, Template:Species-2020-02, Template:Species-2020-01... For October 2019, Faendalimas created Template:Species-2019-10.
In the past, redirects to other templates have been created as a quick way to replace the red link, see e.g. [4], [5]. Maybe for now a redirect to one of the previous templates could be created. Korg (talk) 13:47, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As an admin, I can take action, but correcting this requires either locating a target for the link or writing a new content. If someone creates the content, I can insert it, but a general "do something" request isn't actionable. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:53, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 Done (only for April). Mariusm (talk) 09:09, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Blog post of relevance

Wikidata and the bibliography of life in the time of coronavirus. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:04, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Pigsonthewing:Thanks for the alert Andy - I've added some comments after the blog post - mainly about some guiding principles for personal research data management, but a few comments RE wikidata etc. at the end... Cheers Tony Tony 1212 (talk) 07:05, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

3D reconstitution

Hi, yesterday I found and uploaded the file c:File:Pagurus fraserorum (10.1371-journal.pone.0203107) Interactive.stl, a 3D reconstruction of the well-calcified structures of the Pagurus fraserorum male holotype. That's fun. Christian Ferrer (talk) 05:45, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ibatia ganglinosa

Please can a botanist check Ibatia ganglinosa? The page is sparse (but has interwiki links), and the image filename refers to Matelea ganglinosa. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:39, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks to User:RLJ, who has added all needed information to the Ibatia ganglinosa page. --Thiotrix (talk) 11:23, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]


To entomologists: I created this Lamprotes disambiguation page, based on info here at WS, I am pretty sure on the Aves side, please review the Insecta side. Thanks! --Hector Bottai (talk) 10:27, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest move the disambiguation page to Lamprotes (disambiguation), and have the valid genus as the stand-alone Lamprotes page. In general a single name should only be a disambiguation page if there are two valid genera with the same name (e.g. a plant and an animal, like Prunella or Oenanthe). Invalid names should not displace a valid name into disambiguation. - MPF (talk) 09:51, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@MPF:  Done. Very valid suggestion.--Hector Bottai (talk) 19:20, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Obrigado! - MPF (talk) 19:36, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant eponym templates

We have both:

  • {{Eponyms by person}} - created (by me) May 2019, about 140 transclusions
  • {{Eponyms of}} - created January 2020, about 20 transclusions

and only need one of them. Which should we keep? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:29, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Pitke: I assume you didn't know about the existing template?
Personally I prefer the wording in Pitke's version but otherwise the "X by Y" naming convention is fairly well established for template names of this type (documenting templates in use is yet another reason the entire Help: series needs to be rewritten). Circeus (talk) 22:23, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've been using Eponyms by person myself, since that seemed to be the most commonly used (as you can tell from the transclusions count), but if it turns out we prefer the other one that's not a problem with me. We also ought to have both {{Taxa by author}} and the chosen Eponyms category formatting template listed in Wikispecies tools. Monster Iestyn (talk) 15:40, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am fine with either, but there should only be one, so keep one kill the other based on conensus I guess. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 17:38, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the oldest.--Hector Bottai (talk) 20:39, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the oldest. Christian Ferrer (talk) 23:14, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Confirming I didn't know of the earlier template. Technically fine with using either, but have two notes on the original one: 1) can be confused for authorship instead of origin-of-name status, 2) non-person eponyms for bands, fictional/mythological entities, and less importantly places (these might have some other sort of term instead of eponym?). --Pitke (talk) 15:59, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strictly speaking the sentence "Eponyms by NN" doesn't mean the same thing as "Eponyms of NN". From a Wikispecies perspective the first one is incorrect, since a category listing eponyms by a person should list the eponyms coined by a certain author. So if for example Linnaeus had named a bunch of taxa after his own apostles, then those eponyms would be named by Linnaeus and should be listed in the category, as named by him. And that's not what we want, is it? Instead we want the category to list the taxon names which are eponyms of the respective apostle, whether named by Linnaeus or not. I therefore strongly suggest:
  1. We move {{Eponyms of}} to {{Eponyms of person}} and then stick to that one. It's presently only being used on less than 20 pages so fixing the transclusions after renaming (i.e. moving) it should only take minutes.
  2. After that, using a bot or JSW to change the circa 140 {{Eponyms by person}} links shouldn't take more than a few hours at most, after which we delete the template.
I can make all necessary alterations fairly quickly, regardless which solution we come to agree upon. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 21:12, 23 March 2020 (UTC).[reply]
I see: the "sorted (by)" can of course be implied rather than printed out. It doesn't happen too often, but this is one of the few occasions when my understanding of English gets "tricked" by the fact that it isn't my native language. Linguistics aside, which of the templates do we want to keep? In the above discussion we currently have two votes each for {{Eponyms by person}} and {{Eponyms of}}, and three for "either one". –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 16:46, 29 March 2020 (UTC).[reply]
I would prefer {{Eponyms of person}}, because it is precise and clear, even for non-native English speakers. --Thiotrix (talk) 17:48, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There have been no comments here for three weeks. How shall we resolve this? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:19, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm up for switching to {{Eponyms of}} or {{Eponyms of person}} at this point if the rest of us all aboard with that. Since this discussion started (and stopped), I've apparently since subconsciously changed my habits and started using {{Eponyms of}} instead of {{Eponyms by person}} without realising it until now. It really does seem more natural to use "Eponyms of [person]" in English than "Eponyms by [person]". Monster Iestyn (talk) 01:05, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
no Agree support switching to {{Eponyms of person}} for clarity of purpose. I agree that the "by" alternative can be confusing. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:34, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]


OK, I have moved {{Eponyms by person}} to {{Eponyms of person}}, and redirected {{Eponyms of}} to the latter.

The only significant difference remaining is that the template now uses the wording "List of eponyms of...", where {{Eponyms of}} used "Taxa named after...". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:20, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are now 191 209 pages transcluding {{Eponyms of person}}, but 248 in Category:Eponyms - in other words, 57 39 pages don't use the template, but could. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:46, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Papers

Could tell me how is the complete or ideal structure of the papers. On the page Lafresnaye, 1849, shows nomenclatural acts, date of publication and new names. There are other parameters to add? Thanks! Jackson Cordeiro Brilhador (talk) 09:57, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bit late, but unfortunately I don't think we have a commonly accepted "ideal" Paper page right now. Even with the bare minimum of {{Reftemp}} being subst'd at the end, not everyone actually seems to actively follow that, I've seen some editors that leave out the category and/or the include-only "Reference page" part. I myself may add a date of publication or ZooBank link where available, but I'm not sure how to handle nomenclatural acts or which acts to list exactly (for instance, there can be new combinations as well as new names). Monster Iestyn (talk) 15:40, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nomenclatural acts include taxon names proposed as new or as replacement names for unavailable names. New combinations, synonymizings, or restorations from synonymy are taxonomic acts. Neferkheperre (talk) 13:14, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Distribution maps

I have created {{Map}}, based on {{Image}}. It will pull distribution map images from Wikidata, but can be overridden locally. You can see it in use on Chaetocercus astreans. On Alpheus luiszapatai, it displays nothing, because there is no distribution map on Wikidata. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:08, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We could, perhaps, change the caption ("distribution map"), to use a translation template to ensure internationalisation. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:13, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We also need to consider how to display or link to, and internationalise, the legend, as seen on Ardea cinerea. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:17, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment The "legend" assumes that every map is using the same color scheme and that the taxon is an animal which migrates. This scheme isn't applicable to other kinds of organisms. --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:05, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, just a very small fraction of Aves does have a distribution map available. Vast majority doesn't.--Hector Bottai (talk) 12:45, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Language labels in VN template

I recently added the Kachchi language (કચ્છી) to {{Vn}}. It's label is showing up (for example on Cnidaria) as "kfr". What needs fixing? I've looked everywhere I can think of (documentation is sadly lacking), and purged all the relevant caches i can find, to no avail. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:25, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Since no one else has offered any help towards this, I may as well throw my hat in. Since I noticed "kfr" is a three-letter language code, I decided to test all other three-language codes with the VN in a new section on my userpage, using this category's list of templates as reference. I've found that many of these have the same problem as kfr in that their labels show the language code rather than the native name for the language. I've also found that some of them are actually missing from VN (e.g.: bgn, dir, dje), and even one of the codes in particular (bem) appears to have two labels in VN! Monster Iestyn (talk) 18:32, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Two repository pages that need merging

Back in November I flagged both BPBM and BMHU as needing to be merged into each other, since they are clearly both for Bernice Pauahi Bishop Museum. However, I'm not sure which acronym should be used as the main one. It's also worth noting that both of them have their own Wikidata items at the moment. Monster Iestyn (talk) 21:30, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Another two repository pages that need merging are NMSE and RMSE. Monster Iestyn (talk) 17:04, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sometimes different acronyms reflect historically separate collections. For example, both UC and JEPS are housed in the same location, but are separate collections. Do we know that the acronyms you;ve listed are the same collection and not merely repositories housed in the same physical location? I am familiar only with the situations for herbaria, and not for zoological collections. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:57, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well, in the BPBM/BMHU instance I have no idea what's going on. Both their pages currently have largely the same content, though BPBM is linked to the Bishop Museum Wikipedia pages via Wikidata, and it wikilinks another collection acronym (BISH). In the NMSE/RMSE case though, yes they do seem to have been historically separate, as the two museums involved were merged in 2006 (according to the information written on the NMSE page). This does make me uncertain whether they should be merged or not now though... I could have sworn I saw similar pages on Wikispecies where several acronyms were listed for the same museum for different collections. The trouble is, Wikispecies provides absolutely no standard for how respository pages should be handled as far as I can tell. Monster Iestyn (talk) 00:34, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I can only partially answer that. The BISH acronym is the official designation of the herbarium of the Bishop Museum. The Index Herbarorum is an international registry for herbaria and each herbarium gets its own designation. The holding institution may have its own name or acronym, and additional herbarium collections housed by the same institution may have their own individual designations. So a single institution might have an acronym for its name, but then have one or more official designations for the collections it houses, and these designations are often quite different from its name. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:04, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What confuses me is where Wikispecies stands on multiple acronyms for the same institution, whether for multiple collections or not. From what you say it makes sense for each collection to have its own page, but then as I was trying to say earlier I believe I have seen other repository pages where other acronyms were treated as redirects to the main one. Luckily I just remembered an example I came across recently: OUMNH, which includes six alternative acronyms which are all redirects to the page. Monster Iestyn (talk) 01:21, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Historically, collections abbreviation have been poorly, if at all standardized outside the botanical literature (the GRSciColl has been an absolute failure in this regard), and users (last I was mucking around in that area, it was mostly PeterR) have a tendency to uncritically create pages for every acronym they stumble across without ever making any effort at checking whether the institution has other acronyms. Circeus (talk) 14:01, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hm, no wonder things are a mess then. Meanwhile, do you think either of the pairs of pages I mentioned should be merged? Monster Iestyn (talk) 16:43, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, absolutely. IMO we should not have a BMHU category at all, and the page should redirect to BPBM. It is clearly a nonstandard abbreviation for the same institution that sees a fraction of the use that BPBM does. Circeus (talk) 04:06, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]


IZCAS is redirect to IZAS (IZAS Institute of Zoology, Academia Sinica (1930–1962)). I get every day info that the species are deposed in IZCAS. Why is IZCAS redirect to IZAS? PeterR (talk) 11:04, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is IZCAS a different institution? Circeus (talk) 23:42, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sofar I know not see Institute of Zoology, Chinese Academy of Sciences (1957–present). I think that first the academy ws IZAS and after that it was IZCAS.

Fauna Sinica: Invertebrata Vol. 35

Who can help me with Fauna Sinica: Invertebrata Vol. 35. It is in Chinese and a summery in English. In the English summery they have forget to say where the species are deposed. PeterR (talk) 11:24, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mollusca in the MNHN

Hi, just for info I'm currently uploading more than 17000 images of the molluscs diplayed in the MNHN web site and in their corresponding GBIF dataset, they are in c:Category:Mollusca in the MNHN. At that precise time the uploading it not finished yet. I started this morning at around 08h00 and it will be finished tonight at around 23h00 IMO. Regards, Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:06, 3 May 2020 (UTC) (note that it will take me a little longer (lol) to check the categories, create them if necessary, or check the synonyms.)[reply]

How do you mark a taxon page as being outdated or inaccurate?

{{Update}}, {{Needs update}}, {{Outdated}}, {{Inaccurate}}... hmm, I give up. Kaldari (talk) 18:49, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Kaldari: {{Disputed}} might do the trick --DannyS712 (talk) 19:10, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You should just update, I assume you are referring to Pochytoides. It all seems clear to me and I am only a mere botanist not a jumping spider taxonomist. Andyboorman (talk) 20:00, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Pochytoides is a good genus. I don't know what Kaldari is doing.PeterR (talk) 11:03, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@PeterR: & @Kaldari:. In botany the alteration of the description or diagnostic characteristics does not warrant a change of authorship, as long as the type remains the same - Art. 47 of the code. Is this the same for zoology? It appears not I guess, according to Wesołowska (2020) unless she has also changed the type. I can not read her full article. Andyboorman (talk) 14:19, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Here is the fullarticle. I published recently (Wesołowska 2018) a revision of the African genus of jumping spider Pochytoides. The genus includes eight species now. However, as there is some controversy concerning the authorship of this generic name, this matter needs elucidation.
Pochytoides was originally established as a subgenus of Pochyta Simon, 1901 by Berland & Millot (1941) for three species from Guinea. Unfortunately, the authors did not designate a type species for this taxon so that according to Article 13.3 of the Code (Anonymous 1999), their new name is not available.
I elevated Pochytoides to the full generic rank (Wesołowska 2018), provided a new diagnosis of the genus and designated Pochyta poissoni Berland & Millot, 1941 (diagnosis in Wesołowska 2018) as the type species of this genus. My intention was to keep the name used by Berland & Millot in recognition of them noticing morphological separation of Pochytoides. Unluckily, the generic name Pochytoides was not indicated in my paper as intentionally new, as required by Article 16.1 of the Code and therefore was not made available. To solve this nomenclatural problem, I hereby propose the generic name Pochytoides gen. nov., type species by present designation Pochyta poissoni Berland & Millot, 1941 (diagnosis in Wesołowska 2018).
I am grateful to Yuri Marusik for pointing this nomenclatural problem. PeterR (talk) 14:40, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty clear then and as a gen. nov., Pochytoides Wesołowska (2020) is the correct name. Same as in botany and thanks for the info. Disputed needs removing I assume. Andyboorman (talk) 15:01, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Would it be worth listing Pochytoides Berland & Millot, 1941 in the synonymy, with a note that it is unavailable? Monster Iestyn (talk) 20:02, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Getting back to my original question, the purpose and usage of {{Disputed}} are not clear to me. Is {{Disputed}} for cases where there is a dispute in the literature, a dispute on Wikispecies, or both? Since the template has no documentation, it's impossible to tell. Kaldari (talk) 21:12, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
According to here it adds the page to Category:Disputed taxa. As for whether it's for literature or Wikispecies disputes, as far as I can tell it's for both? Monster Iestyn (talk) 23:49, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
[edit conflict] All the instances where I have seen it used are for disagreements in the scientific literature. The template includes a link to the taxon's Talk page where the situation for all sides of the dispute is laid out with references. --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:50, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it is meant to be used on pages where there is a dispute about what the correct name is for a taxon. Not because the page needs updating but because there is genuine disagreement in the literature. We could possibly use a template and cat to highlight pages people think should be updated I do not think we have one. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 05:07, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Marsdenia sectiones

Does anybody mind if I remove sectiones from the Marsdenia taxon page? I can not find easily obtained references to fill these taxa with relevant information. In addition, it seems that they are not used in current scientific literature and finally the genus is busy being reviewed making it even more difficult to justify sections and subsections. Thoughts and comments gratefully received. Cheers. Andyboorman (talk) 14:07, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Right they are going| Andyboorman (talk) 15:44, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Warning: You are editing an out-of-date revision of this page. If you save it, any changes made since this revision will be lost

What does this mean? PeterR (talk) 13:55, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like you were looking at an old version of the page before you clicked the edit button. It means that your edit will be based on that old version you were looking at, and not a later version. Monster Iestyn (talk) 14:03, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This I see by every edit PeterR (talk) 15:06, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
For me it has just today appeared when I create new pages. Andyboorman (talk) 15:18, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This message started appearing today when creating a new page. Looks like some sort of a bug. Mariusm (talk) 15:21, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A bug report has been filed on Wikimedia's Phabricator: phab:T251404. Korg (talk) 15:28, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you @Korg:. Dan Koehl (talk) 19:58, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Is anyone familiar with the Zoological code who can also read Russian? Toxoglugeidae has made it's way into a couple papers summarizing fungal taxa 1 2, where it's credited to J.I.R. Larsson with no year, and has now been propagated into Index Fungorum. This website claims it does not exist. The only proper reference to it that I can find is this manuscript, where it looks to be informally proposed? But I'm relying on google translate and am not familiar with the Zoological code. Anyone have an idea on whether it's a valid taxa or not? Voganaa (talk) 10:09, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Paper deals with new genus and species of parasitic fungus. Zoology Code will not be relevant code, Botanical Code I think still deals with Fungi. Neferkheperre (talk) 14:11, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like this family is supposed to be a Rozellid. Rozellids and Microsporidia (related groups) are included in lower fungi in some treatments, or as Protozoa in others. Microsporidia are still treated under the zoological Code and explicitly excluded from the ICBN (Preamble, point 8), if Rozellids are included as a subset then the same would apply... In any case it looks to me (from the information given above) like the name is an old one considering that the Russian work cited dates from 1993; in the cited work by Wijayawardene et al. that cites "Toxospora Voronin 1993, Toxoglugeidae", Toxoglugea itself is assigned to Thelohaniidae. Thus (if it were me) I would merely cite Toxoglugeidae as a possibly obsolete synonym of Thelohaniidae, with status = uncertain (not further researched). Regards - Tony Tony 1212 (talk) 21:19, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There is a 1986 Larsson publication - Larsson, R. (1986). Ultrastructure, function and classification of Microsporidia. Progress in Protistology, 1, 325–390 - that might be the source of this name, but I do not have the means to check it; perhaps someone else can. Earlier (1980), Larsson placed Toxoglugea in Thelohaniidae (Ultrastructural study of Toxoglugea variabilis n. sp.(Microsporida: Thelohaniidae), a microsporidian parasite of the biting midge Bezzia sp.(Diptera: Ceratopogonidae). R Larsson - Protistologica, 1980). Just in case this helps at all. Cheers Tony Tony 1212 (talk) 05:26, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the help! Google books does have "Progress in Protistology" on record and a search does not turn up any hits to Toxoglugeidae, so I don't think that could be the source. If I've understood the Russian work correctly, they specifically mention the discovery of a second genus (Toxospora) as necessitating the new family, so I'd suspect if Toxoglugeidae has been validly published somewhere, It'd be after 1993. I think I'll have to give up for now unless more information comes to light. Voganaa (talk) 11:10, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Reading the Voronin paper again, that includes the name Toxoglugeidae, I think if that name is to be cited at all it should be as Toxoglugeidae Voronin, 1993, nom. nud. (or "not validly published"), as an unavailable syn. of Thelohaniidae, and that the attribution to Larsson is misleading/incorrect (which is why there is a statement elsewhere that the family (read combination of name + authorship) "Toxoglugeidae Larsson" does not exist); and in Wikispecies, both Toxoglugea and Toxospora should be assigned to Thelohaniidae as suggested above. That's my (latest) take, anyway, I will leave others to action if you agree. Cheers - Tony Tony 1212 (talk) 18:57, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I've taken your advice and made a redirect of Toxoglugeidae to Thelohaniidae. From the Voronin manuscript, it does seem like he considered Toxospora as a member of Thelohaniidae as well "In our opinion, differences in the structure of the polar tube these two types of microsporidia go beyond the species level. Equivalent differences in the structure of the polar tube were used to allocation of new genera in the family." Voganaa (talk) 09:27, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good. I took the opportunity of checking my own database (!) to see what I had - the names and family placements mostly from Neave (Nomenclator Zoologicus) and Index Fungorum, 2009 version, respectively, and turned up a couple of interesting points:
  • (1) I have Toxoglugea L. Léger & E. Hesse, 1924 (nomen novum for Toxonema Léger & Hesse, 1922, preoccupied), plus its synonyms, in Thelohaniidae, see IRMNG, so this seems still OK;
  • (2) one of its synonyms is Toxospora Kudo, 1925, a superfluous replacement name, which means that (other things being equal) Voronin's Toxospora is invalid, being a junior homonym, and
  • (3) in 2009, Index Fungorum had Toxospora Voronin, 1993 listed as an accepted name, in family Metchnikovellidae (still the situation in IRMNG as at now, but I will adjust as per information above, noting that Toxospora Voronin, 1993 is treated as accepted but in fact a junior homonym, and moving it to Thelohaniidae...)
Interestingly, the 2014 paper by Becnel et al., "Checklist of available generic names for microsporidia with type species and type hosts", lists both instances of Toxospora with Toxospora Voronin in the regular "available names" listing (without mentioning its homonym status), Toxospora Kudo, 1925 in "other generic names" as "Junior objective synonym of Toxoglugea Leger and Hesse, 1924" - possibly an oversight?? (paper available via sci-hub, doi is 10.1002/9781118395264) Tony 1212 (talk) 19:43, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OK, now adjusted in IRMNG, updated IRMNG record for Toxospora Voronin here.

Circular redirect

These appear to be circular redirects.. And don't resolve to an article.

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 16:48, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The first was my mistake, already fix. Burmeister (talk) 17:00, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The second not my mistake but sorted, taxon page is a very weakly referenced, but is an accepted species according to COL without synonymy. Tropicos has Dicranella rufescens an accepted name, so contradictory. I suggest a specialists needs to have a look. Andyboorman (talk) 18:08, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I see that the TROPICOS reference for Anisothecium rufescens as the correct name is A Checklist of the Mosses (1999). However, Dicranella rufescens is the name used in the 2007 Flora of North America volume 27, and it is the more recent bryological publication from MoBot. Since the authors of the checklist are also editors of the FNA bryological volumes, I'd say the more recent publication is likely to be the correct name. So unless there is some information I'm missing here, Dicranella rufescens looks like the correct name. --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:37, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

TaxonBar - what is it good for?

Basically, I think that the Taxon Bar is welcome as an efficient access to useful external links. But it should not be regarded as part of the reference section, as it does not give any information on the sources used for the writing of the corresponding article. @Fagus: obviously has a different opinion, see Sideritis romana subsp. curvidens for example. What is your opinion? --RLJ (talk) 15:26, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Following this discussion, there aren't consensus for your use, or the name, or format of the template, or what databases will be included and so on. Perhaps we should begin/restart that discussion now? Burmeister (talk) 15:35, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It was @Caftaric: who made the module; I added it to c. 50 articles (a minority). From my view as botanist, the format should be closer to that of English Wikipedia, without the unnecessary lengthy title [and the pagename --RLJ (talk) 00:51, 24 April 2020 (UTC)]. For a better differentiation of the items the captions of the links ("Wikidata:") should have another font, or the Wikipedia links, which are of minor interest here, should be removed. I do not think that the quantity of items should be reduced. Actually there exists a selection of databases which is currently focussed to the English-speaking world, links to the important French databases INPN and Tela-Botanica are missing as well as to the German Floraweb or to Belgian, Dutch and Finnish databases. Instructions are necessary how to use the template and where to place it. TaxonBar should not replace the reference section; websites used for the article should be cited separately, even if there is a double entry in the taxon bar. By using TaxonBar, it would be easier than it is now to separate "Useful links" from "Cited websites" used for the article. --RLJ (talk) 21:51, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi to all. Thank you RLJ for pinging me. Following that discussion, I just created the documentation for the "taxonbar" template. Hope it helps! For the rest of the suggestions, it might take me a moment to put them into practise. Cheers! --Caftaric (talk) 08:10, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Got to agree with @RLJ: see this page Spicantopsis_amabilis for a better treatment, if indeed it is going to be used. Sideritis romana subsp. curvidens is an outlier according to what links here. Andyboorman (talk) 13:26, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I would urge editors who are blindly carrying on adding taxonbar desist until the discussion has closed and consensus has been reached. It is not an essential component of taxonomy and classification and they could just be adding work for others in the future. I am considering removing taxonbar from pages that I have created and so appear on my watch list and also where I have had significant input. As has been pointed out, it can to be distracting and ruin the appearance as it stands. Andyboorman (talk) 06:53, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vote of "taxonbar" template use in Wikispecies articles

Hi to all. I propose now that the template use on WS is put to the vote. I don't know how to do it so I propose to do it simple with one person expressing its opinion ("yes", "no" , "neutral") as a line in a bulletted list. If the vote begins now for the duration of two weeks, it should be ended on 13:50, 17 May 2020 (UTC). --Caftaric (talk) 13:52, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
here my answer. Cheers, --Caftaric (talk) 06:18, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vote is closed. With 3 "yes" against 7 "no", the template "Taxonbar" is banned from use in Wikispecies articles. --Caftaric (talk) 13:51, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Surely the "ban" is only qualified as developments will likely allow a reversal? Andyboorman (talk) 16:05, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Change of author and date for several taxon names

Based on the discussion above and this publication by Welter-Schultes & Klug (2009), I would suggest the change of author and date to "Garsault, 1764" for the following taxon names:

Additionnaly, changes may or may not be made to the authorship of the following names:

  • Alosa - in the publication mentioned above, it has been suggested to change the author and date to "Garsault, 1764". However the Latin name written in Garsault's work is "Clupea seu Alosa" and may seen as confusing, as he did not use explicitly a single name, contrary to the other ones. Note that the change has not been made in Catalog of Fishes.
  • Vipera - author and date could also be changed to "Garsault, 1764". On AnimalBase, current allocation is Vipera Gronovius, 1763: [6][7].
  • Antalis - in the publication, it has been been suggested that Antalis Adams & Adams, 1854 should be attributed to Herrmannsen, 1846. Change has not been made in WoRMS.

I may update the pages later, if no one objects. Korg (talk) 15:34, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No objections, since they're currently considered the correct authors and dates they should be the ones used on Wikispecies, IMO. Monster Iestyn (talk) 15:18, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
For Coturnix, Garsault, 1764 is already accepted by IOC, so yes, change - MPF (talk) 09:12, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

{{Taxa authored 2}} not behaving well

The {{Taxa authored 2}} template in the authors pages isn't behaving well in the cases of Steve Lawrence O'Kane and Sean T. O'Keefe: it displays "0 taxon names authored by ..." when actually there are such names in the relevant categories. Mariusm (talk) 16:08, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not first time of this. It seems to spontaneously happen, then spontaneously fix itself. Neferkheperre (talk) 18:14, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It happened before with Alcide d’Orbigny and John Patton O’Neill. I don't think it is spontaneously fixed. I had to change everything from O' to O’ using symbols. Don't know why that happens.--Hector Bottai (talk) 20:21, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Look, Sean T. O’Keefe fixed.--Hector Bottai (talk) 20:39, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think I spotted this in another author page some time back, I need to find that and see how I worked around it. It seems to be linked to the use of ' in their names though. Monster Iestyn (talk) 20:57, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Aha, here we go, Paola D'Alessandro was the page I was thinking of. When I used {{Taxa authored 2|Paola D'Alessandro|g=f}} instead of {{Taxa authored 2|g=f}}, it fixed itself. Monster Iestyn (talk) 21:00, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I realize that {{BASEPAGENAME}} can't handle properly the " ' " character. 2 options are available to fix this error: (1) Replace with " ’ " the " ' " in the author's name and (2) use {{Taxa authored 2|<Author's name>}}. Mariusm (talk) 15:03, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Clades re-visited.

Are we still "banning" clades in plants on WS for taxa below Ordinales and hence following a strictly Linnean format? Have a look at Apioideae and particularly scroll through the Acronema Clade The references support what is presented and not much has changed in the last few years, but of course this is non-Linnean. I thank @Culex: for the edits and for agreeing to a discussion here. Thanks Andyboorman (talk) 13:54, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We allow pages to have "Alternative Classification" as a section. It would seem more appropriately placed there than in the Taxonavigation, since it is a classification of sorts but not a set of taxa. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:59, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, would it be possible to have an exemple of page with alternative classification ? As I previously said to Andyboorman, I will be trying to create all clades for Apioideae (and checking what's in it or not), but I dont have to correct all the templates to add the clade for each genus though if it is a problem. Culex (talk) 04:02, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The page Marchantiophyta has such a section, with two collapsible classifications. Some other pages have many classifications. --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:26, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Self generated taxon page formats

Hello. A few editors @Fagus: are self-generating their own taxon page formats by manually editing pages. These "improved" formats could be easily undertaken by a bot and fresh tools placed on the edit screens, if there was consensus on the Pump. Therefore I am initiating a discussion now before the editors find themselves well and truly out on a limb. See Moraceae, Morus, Fagaceae and Fagus as examples. I do not have an opinion one way or another, but of course we are developing significantly differing taxon page formats not covered in the Help Sections. If fellow editors like theses changes then they could be formally taken up as part of format policy. Best regards. Andyboorman (talk) 13:58, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have no issue with this the changes seem ok, definitely could be done by a bot and am ok with it being proposed for the style. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 18:51, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
...if essential parts of a page are to be translated, there is no reason for me, to destroy the frequently used form === {{Overview of species}} === with international translations (like here: Moraea) by the word: "Species". Orchi (talk) 16:50, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not a fan of breaking the nesting of taxon ranks by elevating some of them to section headers. But I'd be curious to know what others think. --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:24, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Me parece una modificación interesante, ya que destaca lo que contiene y además gana en estética.--MILEPRI (talk) 07:18, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure I am a fan of editors making numerous fundamental changes without testing them here first. We have had several unpleasant episodes where this has happened in the past, only to lead to acrimonious disagreements resulting in strong actions by admins and crats. I would suggest that the editors concerned desist for now and see if community consensus emerges over the next few days. As to the proposed changes I am happy to go with consensus, but wait for a bot to make mass edits. Andyboorman (talk) 07:43, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I agree with @Andyboorman: I said above I agree with it being developed as a proposal, not to just start doing it. These things effect the accepted style here and should go through the usual process. Personally I have no major issue with the changes if people like them fine propose them and see how it falls out then it can be accepted and we move on. Then a bot can update all existing pages. If there are people who would like to propose this set an RfC to propose the changes and see how it pans out. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 14:43, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unless the editors who wish to use this format change are willing to go for an Rfc, then this discussion should be closed as new taxon page formats are not recommended? Andyboorman (talk) 19:38, 30 May 2020 (UTC) I understood. The wiki is not open to such innovations. everything is so hard here. yes let's close this matter. Believe me, I don't know what RFc is. --Fagus (talk) 21:50, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gustav Adolf Fischer and Gustav Fischer

Just for knowledge. Merged this two author pages, obviously the same author. Merged and fixed [[Category:Gustav Adolf Fischer taxa]].--Hector Bottai (talk) 17:13, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ZooBank placement

I wonder where is the better location to place {{ZooBank}} in a taxon page:

I observed both methods being practiced and it would be nice to have a definitive decision on this. Mariusm (talk) 12:27, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I use Name section myself, since ZooBank registration is somewhat more fundamental to ICZN. Neferkheperre (talk) 14:34, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I already started to follow Neferkheperre and some other users and use Name section me too. Christian Ferrer (talk) 15:10, 23 May 2020 (UTC) Note that the Zoobank reference for a name is for one and only one name, and thus a(several) synonym(s) can have a Zoobank reference, therefore it is logic to place this Zoobank reference below the corresponding name. Christian Ferrer (talk) 20:08, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I always argue that all references should be placed in the References section and I try to make edits accordingly (adding ZooBank templates to the Links subsection, if divided). In my opinion this is not limited to the ZooBank template, but other templates as well (often added to the Name section by user Stho002). For an example of that please see this diff, including its edit summary. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 11:39, 24 May 2020 (UTC).[reply]
I'm also in favor of placing Zoobank in the Links section. It is essentially nothing more than a link; it doesn't deserve the 'honor' of the name section. Mariusm (talk) 15:02, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with it being in references or links section. It is nothing but a link to info on another page. It is not relevant to the taxon block about the taxon. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 18:50, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
But in the case where the name has a Zoobank record, and that you have two synonyms with their own Zoobank records, that's mean that you have 3 Zoobank numbers listed in the reference section and that you have to click on each links to find out which names they correspond to. When they are below the names that is not the case. Christian Ferrer (talk) 04:31, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You can always add text to identify which is which in the reference section. Personally I only add the zoobank record for the valid name. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 14:45, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note that in almost all scientific publications that have both Zoobank records for their names and a reference section at the end of the article, the Zoobank record for a specific name is, for 99% of the cases (if not 100%), placed just below the name and not in the reference section. Even when there is only one new name in the publication. Christian Ferrer (talk) 05:05, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Two things on this, first up the zoobank LSiD is usually placed around the title author section somewhere. I describe many taxa and thats where mine are and I have no say i where it goes. Second in the primary publication naming a new taxon it is a requirement that this is done under the ICZN code for electronic versons of publications to be valid. So these papers are fulfilling the requirements of the code. We are not a primary publication, nor the original source for the new taxon name. We do not have to comply wth this and are not doing it for the same reasons. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 22:01, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
to choose between being inspired by original papers (and by the requirements that goes with) and between to do the opposite "just because we can", my choice is done and the other is ununderstandible to me. But of course I will follow a consensus if there is one. Christian Ferrer (talk) 04:23, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

─────────────────────────Not quite my point. My point is the the original publications are fulfilling a requirement under the ICZN Code. We do not have to. So we can put it where it suits us. I am not aware of a consesus on this for us. Above I stated my preference, as have others. Not sure it actually matters that much as long as there is some sense to where it goes. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 18:16, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, very fine. Thanks you. Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:36, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

─────────────────────────Perhaps I can hijack this discussion a bit for a related fungal issue. For fungi an identifier for one of the three recognized repositories (Index Fungorum, MycoBank, or Fungal Names) must be included in the protologue (Article F.5). Reading the discussion here makes me think that it should therefore be included on pages under the Name section. Currently on nearly all fungal pages it is in the Links section. I can certainly make the change for any new pages I create if there's a consensus, but changing all other pages is perhaps something a bot would be required for. Maybe in the end it's not so important where the information is displayed rather than maintaining consistency among pages. Voganaa (talk) 08:41, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am querying the naming on the basis that the name used here is NOT one I've generally heard used.

The history of the entry, previously had this as part of a the article on the family of viruses to which the 2019 novel corona-virus is part.

What is the accurate taxonomic categorization of this?

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 08:06, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That page has since been moved to Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2, and marked for speedy deletion, as a duplicate of Severe acute respiratory syndrome-related coronavirus 2. I've just changed that, to a suggestion to merge (and thus redirect) to the latter. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:46, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wuhan coronavirus is more a political term used by Trumpniks. It seems there is a conspiracy theory going around by them that COVID-19 is an escaped or planted weapon-grade microbe. It has gotten so stupid that one or two groups push the concept that the Democratic Party invested millions of dollars into a Chinese lab in Wuhan to develop this just to make Trump look bad. Another term tossed around is Chinese Coronavirus. Neither is used in academic settings. If this sort of thing keeps persisting, we may have to protect that page. Neferkheperre (talk) 13:11, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest that Wuhan coronavirus is removed from the list of synonyms and either deleted altogether or placed in VN. Andyboorman (talk) 13:39, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
agree this is a vernacular name not the correct name for the virus, it is also a politically motivated name mostly used by people seeking retribution and revenge, I think it is beneath us here. Delete the page altogether. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 17:18, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, my reapplication for Admin ship on Wikidata

Asking for support in any election is considered bad, and Im not doing that, but after reapplying for Adminship on Wikidata, I think I have become a victim of solicited attack, mainly from users at sv.wikipedia, and want to bring this to attention of users on Wikispecies. Dan Koehl (talk) 12:20, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to read about this. Unfortunately, I do not contribute enough on WD to participate in the vote or discussion. However, thank you for all your fair minded efforts on WS and I would urge editors here who can participate to do so. It is a shame to see a toxic attitude exported to WD. Andyboorman (talk) 18:00, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have voted and made a comment, I am a little suspicious that some canvasing has taken place on the part of the Swedish editors, a point already raised by someone at Wikidata. Cheers, Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 18:43, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Voted. --Hector Bottai (talk) 19:02, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am glad that I do not engage with WD and do not have any intention to do so in the future unless I correct a silly mistake, which annoys me enough to hit the key board. I can not prove my suspicions so will leave it. Andyboorman (talk) 09:31, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Implied new species combinations (in zoology)

What's the best way to handle a new species combination that is not stated in any zoology-related publication, but implied as a result of a genus being renamed or placed in synonymy with another? Is Wikispecies actually supposed to deal with them at all?

Recently, I updated the pages relating to Neofidia, which is a new name recently published for Fidia Baly, 1863 to resolve a homonymy. The reference with the new name ({{Kumari et al., 2020}}) helpfully provides a list of all species currently in the genus. That is, all except one: Fidia chapini, which was named and described in a previous revision of the genus under the old name. I am not aware of any move of the species to another genus, and it does not appear in synonymy with any of the other species. The name "Fidia chapini" itself is actually completely absent from the 2020 reference's text. Could this be a mistake on the part of the authors?

Since someone else had already made a Fidia chapini page on Wikispecies back in 2008, and I wasn't sure what else to do considering the above, I moved the page to Neofidia chapini to be consistent with the rest. Was this right to do? If so, should anything be added somewhere to indicate the new name is implied?

Monster Iestyn (talk) 02:03, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In this instance I would agree with moving it. It is in all liklihood an error by the sounds of it. In any case if Fidia is a junior homonym then the species chapinicannot use it in its binomen anyway, so you can either put it in another genus or let it go as nomen dubium. Personally I agree with just putting with the rest of the species if someone corrects this later deal with it then. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 02:13, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well okay then, that much makes sense. Can't help feeling I ought to clarify what's going on in the page somewhere though, do I need to? Monster Iestyn (talk) 02:31, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In botany it seems that it would qualify as a comb. ined.. WS does not really have a protocol to deal with these, except if the original combination is valid then this has to be retained. Andyboorman (talk) 06:53, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
For the botanical/fungal nomenclature, I've ran into this problem often. So far my best solution has been to leave the old genus with species that have not been given a comb. nov. regarding new synonymy and put a note in the Name section. See Entylomella. If anyone has a better suggestion, I'd love to hear it. Voganaa (talk) 08:59, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Monster Iestyn: you should add a note in the synonymy section containing the relevant info. for example:

  • Eurylister bakewelli (Marseul, 1864: 309) — Mazur, 2007: 73 [Implied recomb. as Eurylister ex. Eblisia; see Mazur, 2007: 73]

- and to add the relevant reference. Mariusm (talk) 14:10, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ah thank you, I'll do that then. Voganaa's suggestion made sense too but it feels awkward to keep around an old name just for one species name. Monster Iestyn (talk) 14:17, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but you must be absolutely sure that the called "old name" really changed the genus. Look at this example, all species moved to other genera except the type species. --Hector Bottai (talk) 15:49, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Your wording confuses me a bit. There's nothing to suggest something similar to Myrmeciza happened here though. Monster Iestyn (talk) 16:36, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You said that didn't find any reference of new name for Fidia chapini and you would move on your own to Neofidia. Excuse me if I missunderstood and my example is not adequated.--Hector Bottai (talk) 19:07, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ah I see then. In this case, Neofidia is a replacement name for the Fidia of Fidia chapini (which is Fidia Baly, 1863, a junior homonym of Fidia Motschulsky, 1861), not the name of a separate genus. I'm not sure if I made that clear enough earlier. Given no evidence to suggest the species moved to another genus (or any other action at all), I moved Fidia chapini on my own to Neofidia based on the fact Neofidia is a replacement name for the genus it was placed in. Monster Iestyn (talk) 20:15, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confusing non-standard page format

Hi, I'm new to this site, but I happened to notice something very confusing in the work of one particular editor. I corrected the first one I noticed, assuming it to be a simple mistake, but it looks like the editor is doing it consistently. I think I know now what they mean, but it is still very confusing to see "Genus unassigned" in the taxon hierarchy. I guess they mean that the genus hasn't been assigned to any subfamily or tribe, but this is pure speculation on my part. It is a very non-standard way of doing things which has great potential to cause confusion. See: WikiTaxon (talk) 05:01, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Stephen. Andyboorman (talk) 09:49, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Taxanavigation: how do I get it to work?

Hi. I want to add (fossil) species, but its genus and family weren't created yet. Somehow, I don't get it to work. I created a page fo the genus nothosaurus, whith the template text Taxonavigation

Taxonavigation: Nothosauria 

Superregnum: Eukaryota
Cladus: Unikonta
Cladus: Opisthokonta
Cladus: Holozoa
Regnum: Animalia
Subregnum: Eumetazoa
Cladus: Bilateria
Cladus: Nephrozoa
Superphylum: Deuterostomia
Phylum: Chordata
Subphylum: Vertebrata
Infraphylum: Gnathostomata
Megaclassis: Osteichthyes
Cladus: Sarcopterygii
Cladus: Rhipidistia
Cladus: Tetrapodomorpha
Cladus: Eotetrapodiformes
Cladus: Elpistostegalia
Superclassis: Tetrapoda
Cladus: Reptiliomorpha
Cladus: Amniota
Classis: Reptilia
Cladus: Eureptilia
Cladus: Romeriida
Subclassis: Diapsida
Cladus: Sauria
Cladus: Archelosauria
Superordo: †Sauropterygia
Ordo: Nothosauria

Familia: †Nothosauridae
Genus: †Nothosaurus
. But the result gives a navigation to the order and not to the family (so I miss one level). What am I doing wrong? Jhnijman (talk) 12:42, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See my modifications in {{Nothosaurus}} and {{Nothosauridae}}. I hope that this help! Regards, Burmeister (talk) 12:47, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted some "internationalization" editions on disambiguation pages where links to taxons and authors are systematically removed. Is there any guideline on that which I am missing? I suspect there are much more editions ahead the pages I follow.--Hector Bottai (talk) 12:02, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Examples please, the page I follow all seem OK. Andyboorman (talk) 13:25, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Example here. Please see before rollback.--Hector Bottai (talk) 14:50, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks - a classic example of removing useful and required data. Definitely against policy. @Caftaric: Hopefully the editor will go over their work and rectify any errors. Andyboorman (talk) 15:57, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Two author pages that may need merging

Georgij Georgiewitsch Jacobson and Georgy Georgijevič Jakobson are probably the same person, but using different transliterations of his name in Russian. If this is true though, which name should be used as the main one? Monster Iestyn (talk) 02:00, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well... neither is perfect. The best choice would be Georgiy Georgiyevich Jacobson. This spelling also used in Wikipedia and Wikidata. Mariusm (talk) 10:00, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If this is the case I suggest merge both into a new page with the more correct and widely used spelling. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 14:01, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The two pages also has two different wikidata objects: d:Q1982370 and d:Q28189838. Dan Koehl (talk) 14:58, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Also worth noting that it's only the English Wikipedia (and the corresponding English label on Wikidata item Q1982370) that uses "Georgiy Georgiyevich Jacobson". The other languages, even if you ignore Russian, all use various different spellings, including those two page names here on Wikispecies (on Wikidata, German uses "Georgij Georgiewitsch Jacobson", while Czech and Slovak use "Georgij Georgijevič Jakobson" which is almost the same as the other one). Monster Iestyn (talk) 20:23, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have sent an email to a friend at the Rusasian Academy, I am asking what they consider the correct spelling, transliterated, to be. Will report back when I have an answer. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 20:47, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We must be consistent in our Russian transliteration! See Georgiy Vladimirovich Nikolajev, Georgiy Anatol'evich Lazkov, Vitalii Georgievich Ochev, Vsevolod Georgievich Egorov, Alexander Georgievich Ponomarenko etc. Mariusm (talk) 06:32, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Faendalimas: Any response from them yet? If not, maybe we could just go for "Georgiy Georgiyevich Jacobson" after all. Monster Iestyn (talk) 17:14, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

─────────────────────────yes, Igor Danilov is going to ask at the Entomology Dept for me, he works at the same institute Jacobson did. Has not got back since then though. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 17:58, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Scott,
His name in Russian is Георгий Георгиевич Якобсон. The correct English transliteration of his name is Georgiy Georgievich Jacobson. The German transliteration of the same name is Georgij Georgiewitsch Jakobson. All other variants depend on a preferred system of Cyrillic-English (German) transliteration.
I hope this will help.

This is from the Russian Academy of Sciences. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 13:28, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ah good, thanks. Using "Georgievich" and not "Georgiyevich" seems to be consistent with other Wikispecies pages, so Georgiy Georgievich Jacobson definitely seems like the best option then. Monster Iestyn (talk) 16:10, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And done, Georgij Georgiewitsch Jacobson has now been moved to the new name, all linked pages corrected, taxa categories fixed, etc. Monster Iestyn (talk) 18:24, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ICZN recommandation 51G

Hello, I find it so rare that the ICZN recommandation 51G ("Citation of person making new combination") be followed in online databases, that I find it funny to notify it here. Christian Ferrer (talk) 16:46, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

should be done in the synonymy though, not a fan of the way WORMS is doing this. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 16:59, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Faendalimas: "not a fan of...": can you develop? Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:55, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
WORMS has this Apatemon gracilis (Rudolphi, 1819) Szidat, 1928 with no explanation of what is what, to figure it out I have to go to the synonymy to determine that Rudolphi named the genus and Szidat the species. Now the genus is in brackets, does this mean the usual issue that the name is not in its original designation? or just to separate it from the species author. As I said its confusing and goes against long established conventions in nomenclature. Chelodina has a synonymy of the genus which includes the authors of all the major changes. Each species does the same. This is part of the purpose of synonymies. They show, Priority, spelling, combinations and literature. This is where all this information should go. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 19:59, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Euh... that's not that, unless I misunderstand (English langage) your sentence. WoRMS follow in this exemple exactly the ICZN recomandation, that is: if you have a recombination, e.g. Apatemon gracilis (Rudolphi, 1819) [in the way that we do usualy in Zoology] then you should add the author and year of the recombination; here: "Szidat, 1928". That gives Apatemon gracilis (Rudolphi, 1819) Szidat, 1928. This have nothing to do with the genus author, it can, yes, but the genus author and the recombination author may be different. An exemple is clearly written in the ICZN code. Christian Ferrer (talk) 20:20, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore it is more easy to understand if you go first into the code in order to read the explanations... that's a bit the purpose of "a code".... I gave a link to the relevant section, and the specific number of the recomandation a bit above. Christian Ferrer (talk) 05:11, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry misunderstood what you were getting at and hence the example. Its a recommendation of how to style it if it is desired to do it. Many groups do not. Am still not a big fan of it, in saying that not saying it cannot be done, I just prefer all this information in the synonymy. Where additional commentary can also be made to explain decisions. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 05:46, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. Note that this is the first time I see that recomandation be applied online, hence my message here (apart by me here in Wikispecies), and as far I saw only one contributor of WoRMS did this, thus only very limited number of records seems concerned. Christian Ferrer (talk) 10:29, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Here is an exemple where it is applied to several names, included into the synonyms: Ophiurothamnus clausa. Christian Ferrer (talk) 11:17, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That page layout is quite complex, but the information seems very informative, and is comprehensible, so I have no issue with leaving it. Accassidy (talk) 14:00, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I should point out, perhaps, that the best section heading to use is Synonymy not Synonyms, as the list may well include homonyms and varying genus associations. Thus Synonymy is the correct term to cover these different aspects of the naming system. Accassidy (talk) 14:06, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks you, note that the subsection Synonyms is the exemple (I guess the exemple to follow) given in Help:Name section. Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:21, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that section includes the use of either Synonymy or Synonyms; I stll prefer the former, and it is essential when the list includes a Homonym. Just having another Section Homonyms would be rather cumbersome. Accassidy (talk) 17:30, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, in fact I missed that part... thanks you, I will think to that. Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:53, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Accassidy: I tried to make it a bit more clear by sorting the combinations within the section "Synonymy". Christian Ferrer (talk) 19:30, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Richards

Hi, does someone think that Stephen Richards and Stephen J. Richards are not about the same person? or can I make only one entry here and in Wikidata? Christian Ferrer (talk) 05:08, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure but love his "A new caruncle-bearing fanged frog". Evocative. Andyboorman (talk) 19:27, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Both of them have the same ZooBank ID in their authority control, and a mix of publications in both pages are included in said ZooBank page. It seems possible to me they're the same person. Monster Iestyn (talk) 19:44, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merged. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:51, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
ok, thank you everyone. Christian Ferrer (talk) 04:39, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Afrikaans vernacular words for some Encephalartos species.

Hi guys! I am an admin on the Afrikaans Wikipedia and has spend the past six months creating articles on Southern Africa flora focusing on Proteaceae species and cycads Encephalartos. I have noticed by change that for some of the Encephalartos species you have added the words Kafferbroodboom en Kafferbrood as vernacular names which were used in the past. The black community see the word kaffer as derogatory, it is the one word that we are removing from the Afrikaans vocabulary. Can you kindly remove these two words from the affected species? If in doubt please do not hesitate to contact me. I trust that you understand. Best regards. Oesjaar (talk) 16:05, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Oesjaar: Thank you; done. In most cases there were multiple Afrikaans names, when we should only have one, anyway. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:57, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Andy! — The preceding unsigned comment was added by Oesjaar (talkcontribs) 18:32, 14 June 2020‎.

Editing news 2020 #2

20:36, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

I am currently trying to add some content to the pages of the fishes of Suriname on and I was looking for some info about Hypostomus surinamensis. I found an interesting remark in Jan Mol's book[1] under the lemma of H. gymnorhynchus saying

H. surinamensis, H. occidentalis and H. tapanahoniensis are junior synonyms (Weber et al., 2002)

I was hoping to find what to make of this here, but all four species are only present as red links on the genus page. Can anyone help me sort this out? Jcwf (talk) 19:47, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Synonymy appears to be established in Weber et al., 2012, not 2002, in this paper - hope this helps. Cheers Tony Tony 1212 (talk) 04:31, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]


  1. The Freshwater Fishes of Suriname; Jan H.A. Mol; BRILL, 2012; ISBN 9004207651, ISBN 9789004207653

Jujiroa ana と古い学名 Ja ana につきまして

日本の環境省が発行したレッドデータブックによれば、Ja anaの現在の学名はJujiroa anaとなっております。--要塞騎士 (talk) 01:27, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

統合していいと思います。--Marine-Bluetalkcontribs 03:03, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Books from the Biodiversity Heritage Library

A mass upload of books from the Biodiversity Heritage Library, to Commons, is underway. Please assist in categorising them, and make use of them on Wikisource, and of course here on Wikispecies, in citations and for illustrations. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:09, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback on movement names

Hello. Apologies if you are not reading this message in your native language. Please help translate to your language if necessary. Thank you!

There are a lot of conversations happening about the future of our movement names. We hope that you are part of these discussions and that your community is represented.

Since 16 June, the Foundation Brand Team has been running a survey in 7 languages about 3 naming options. There are also community members sharing concerns about renaming in a Community Open Letter.

Our goal in this call for feedback is to hear from across the community, so we encourage you to participate in the survey, the open letter, or both. The survey will go through 7 July in all timezones. Input from the survey and discussions will be analyzed and published on Meta-Wiki.

Thanks for thinking about the future of the movement, --The Brand Project team, 20:33, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Note: The survey is conducted via a third-party service, which may subject it to additional terms. For more information on privacy and data-handling, see the survey privacy statement.

Miss vs Mrs.

Hello, how to deal with authors who are known by several names? my little problem of the moment is that I want to create an entry here for the author quoted Dean, L.M.I. here. After a few researches I found her full name: Laura Margaret Isobel Dean (see [8]). But I also found that she was published under the name Laura Margaret Isobel MacFadyen, see this publication (also available in WoRMS). I wonder what name for the author page here in Wikispecies should be used, and also therefore what would be the category name for the taxa described by this author. Christian Ferrer (talk) 15:44, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Use the most recent name, with "also published as"; here are some examples. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:27, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thanks yiou. I will see what I can do. Christian Ferrer (talk) 11:07, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
For info, it's done. Christian Ferrer (talk) 19:52, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
However the fact that the taxa authored nuder the name Dean are categorized under Macfadyen worry me a bit, exemple see Caementabunda simplex. Christian Ferrer (talk) 20:11, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
See how I tried to solve it, I created the both categories, subacetogies one each other. Please comment if it is not OK. Maybe should I simply put a note and a link to the other category on each categories: "see also....."? Christian Ferrer (talk) 20:18, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Christian Ferrer: I think it is a bad solution. One category per one person should be the rule--Estopedist1 (talk) 17:34, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ok thanks for the comment, I rearranged it. Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:52, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Twinkle is broken

When I enable Twinkle in the "gadgets" section of my preferences and then go to a page, nothing happens. It just... isn't there. Full disclosure: I am using Internet Explorer 11 if that makes any difference... SithJarJar666 (talk) 21:00, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

...and has been for four years. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:11, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that's not good... SithJarJar666 (talk) 21:20, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Paper of Relevance to this Project

I am sharing a paper that at the outset will state I am an author on. Of all my papers used on Wikispecies this is the first time I have ever brought attention to it. Please note it is open access and free to download so I am not trying to advertise here. I acknowledge however my part in this paper. I asked the Stewards at Meta for advice before posting due to possible breaches of policy here. As per their recommendations I am posting on this page only accepting my role in this, and have made a Wikidata item for the paper (Q97057911). The paper also appears on my taxon authority page in Wikispecies (Scott_Thomson).

The paper is a peer reviewed article in PLoS Biology, as stated it is free download. The relevance to everyone here is it looks at the formation of Global Lists of Species. It looks at the models in Wikispecies as existing efforts and places Wikispecies beside Catalogue of Life in Figure One for example, hence I thought Editors here may like to see your work being acknowledged in the Scientific Literature. Feel free to download this paper and I hope you may find it useful in your work with our work as aggregators of life data.

More papers are planned and we are hopeful of bringing about changes in the formation, governance and endorsement of Checklists which will greatly benefit this project. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 21:53, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Three mentions of Wikispecies, and no mention of Wikidata (nor Wikibase)? I'd be happy to contribute something on the latter, to a future paper. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:32, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am not the only author and we had many lists to cover, plus whereas Wikidata could form the database behind a list it cannot be the list as it would require a front end to be user friendly. Wikibase and Wikidata are options further into the process when we discuss that side of it in the future papers mentioned. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 00:42, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
hmm I am currently trying to understand the language behind and structure of Wikidata. Very interesting actually. I can see why Wikidata did this way now. Crash course in SPARQL and RDF lol. But I am getting the impression I underestimated it. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 01:33, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You should also add it to Wikispecies:Wikispecies in the literature. I think it fits the sort of material we want on it. Circeus (talk) 22:52, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
ok  Done Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 00:42, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Editing news 2020 #3

12:56, 9 July 2020 (UTC)


Despite all my years on wikispecies, I still find creation and formatting of templates very impenetrable. I've tried to make two new ones (by editing a copy-paste of Template:Bechstein, 1793), but they need checking over for formatting, please: Template:Bechstein, 1799 and Template:Bechstein, 1800. Or deleting, if they already exist under another name and I couldn't find them . . . Thanks! - MPF (talk) 16:51, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

look fine to me, cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 17:00, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If it helps to know, I find that {{subst:Reftemp}} is very helpful for putting in the Reference page link, What links here and the category parts of reference templates. Monster Iestyn (talk) 18:28, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Arrrgh, more squiggly brackets, I hate them, they frighten me! :-)) MPF (talk) 19:06, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Announcing a new wiki project! Welcome, Abstract Wikipedia

Sent by m:User:Elitre (WMF) 19:56, 9 July 2020 (UTC) - m:Special:MyLanguage/Abstract Wikipedia/July 2020 announcement [reply]

Munawar Maria / Maria Thomas Munawar

I suspect that Munawar Maria and Maria Thomas Munawar are the same person (both have co-authored with Eda Marie Barsalote, for example). Or possibly that the latter is a misnomer. Can anyone confirm, or give the Chinese name? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:19, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes same person, her name is Maria Munawar and uses it this way on her Research Gate (here). Probably best to follow her page and make all other versions point to it I am guessing. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 20:57, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I can find no evidence of her having used the name "Thomas", so I suspect it has "leaked" from a co-author. Everything we have now points to Maria Munawar. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:52, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You have to use the full names of the authors. If the full names is Maria Thomas Munawar then you have to use Maria Thomas Munawar like Eda Marie Barsalote.PeterR (talk) 10:06, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"I can find no evidence of her having used the name 'Thomas', so I suspect it has "leaked" from a co-author. ". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:30, 9 July 2020 (UTC).[reply]
It seems that Andy Mabbett is wright. Thomas is from Thomas O. Powers a co-author who published together with him.PeterR (talk) 11:30, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I agree it seems an accidental leak over I am fairly certain her full name is Maria Munawar. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 12:07, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The value of taxonomy for conservation (koavf)TCM 18:00, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thats the paper that started a very heated exchange in science that has culminated in the paper I linked earlier. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 22:21, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Invalid templates

invalid (no space after et al., ) templates to be renamed and deleted. I don't have sufficient rights to do it myself. List (source [9])

  1. Template:Allen et al.,2015
  2. Template:Allen et al.,2015a
  3. Template:Allen et al.,2015b
  4. Template:Chang et al.,2014
  5. Template:Chang et al.,2015
  6. Template:Cohen et al.,2015
  7. Template:Eakin et al.,2015
  8. Template:García-Alzate et al.,2015
  9. Template:Hundt et al.,2013
  10. Template:Kimura et al.,2000
  11. Template:Kimura et al.,2005
  12. Template:Kimura et al.,2008
  13. Template:Kon et al.,2007
  14. Template:Landim et al.,2015
  15. Template:Pappalardo et al.,2015
  16. Template:Remeslo et al.,2015
  17. Template:Sparks et al.,2005
  18. Template:Tashiro et al.,2015
  19. Template:Winterbottom et al.,2015

--Estopedist1 (talk) 09:01, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What about @Accassidy: who constantly creates template-names without spaces. See for example {{Kaye,WJ,1940}}, {{Bell,EL, 1959}}, {{Bell,EL,1937a}} etc. etc... Mariusm (talk) 10:19, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
i did two of them will get more later, cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 10:46, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Moved 3 more (numbers 2-4) - can the redirects please be deleted? DannyS712 (talk) 03:13, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unidentified image from Commons

Two images clutter Commons's upper category. Namely: and . It may be also a non-live object or even a hoax. Regards!--Estopedist1 (talk) 05:18, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Poor images of individual fruits of Osage Orange Maclura pomifera I would think. Andyboorman (talk) 07:05, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
no scale or anything but my first thought was breadfruit, maybe. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 08:22, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Maclura pomifera (Osage-orange [which is hyphenated, as it's not a Citrus] ;-) ) - MPF (talk) 09:23, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Going by other photos by the same person in the panoramio folder, cultivated in Portugal - MPF (talk) 09:28, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

San Diego State University - Terrestrial Arthropods Collection

Hi, just for the info, I uploaded this pretty nice collection of arthropods, see c:Category:San Diego State University - Terrestrial Arthropods Collection. Christian Ferrer (talk) 13:43, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted as being nothing but garbage. Neferkheperre (talk) 18:17, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

New template: QID

{{QID}} is now avaialable. It is the same as c:Template:Q on Commons (and similar on other wikis), but the name is changed as we already have {{Q}}, with a related but different function.


Carl Linnaeus (Q1043)

{{QID}} has other functions, detailed in its documentation. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:30, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Author page formatting and Caftaric

I've been noticing recently that Caftaric has been changing the format of some of the author pages he has come across, to make them more international using his own templates (e.g. {{Occupation}} and {{Nationality}}):

Examples of these templates of his in action (both entomologists since I usually work on insect pages):

I'm also aware he did the same for Carolus Linnaeus a few days ago, only for some of the changes to be reverted the same day.

While the ideas behind these templates of his make sense to me (at least towards making Wikispecies language neutral), obviously they're going against current guidelines in Help:Author Names. So I thought it might be a good idea to have a discussion about them here before it's too late to do so. Do we want them at all?

Apart from that, in the first place these templates of Caftaric's seem to avoid the usual "int:" way of localisation here on Wikispecies, e.g. {{int:Naturalist}}, {{int:Zoologist}}, {{int:Botanist}} etc., and I can see that being potentially an issue if it's not addressed eventually. (As in, his templates seem to make some parts of the Wikispecies:Localization project redundant or something unless I'm mistaken?) Monster Iestyn (talk) 02:30, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

our overall goal should be to simplify syntax whenever possible. Otherwise we deter scientists and amateurs from Wikispecies. So instead of hypothetical
Vladimir  Komarov ({{date|1781|02|09}} – {{date|1826|03|14}})
{{ru|Влади́мир Лео́нтьевич Комаро́в}})
 {{occupation|Naturalist}} {{and}} {{occupation|Geologist}}
* {{Nationality|German}}
Should be Vladimir  Komarov (Russian: Владимир Комаров; 1781-1826), German naturalist and geologist

--Estopedist1 (talk) 05:09, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Good points above. WS seems to attract editors who wish to pursue usually well meaning coding developments, some of which go against WS policy, guidelines and existing practices. Unfortunately they do this normally without going for discussion first, or even early in their projects. It looks like these are similar concerns that I raised above with regards third party link templates. Agreed KISS principle applies and so these developments are not welcome unless authors can make a persuasive case. Look forward to hearing from @Caftaric:. Andyboorman (talk) 08:35, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We do need to be accomodating to well-meaning developments, I agree they need to be discussed and added t policy where appropriate. But the editors proposing them need to be encouraged to develop these appropriately. Not stamped on, some of these things are good ideas. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 13:55, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Some of these recent format additions, such as Nationality and Occupation seem to be imported from Wikidata, and not a product of our translator administrator group. Neferkheperre (talk) 14:11, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not stamping trying to encourage discussion. Andyboorman (talk) 14:14, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Introduction of such templates should be forbidden until consensus, approval and divulgation to the community. Otherwise Is chaos. I was using them on the believe they were previously introduced and approved. Dissapointing.--Hector Bottai (talk) 14:20, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I do not think you are @Andyboorman: but I have seen others do so. Just making the point to encourage new ideas and all editors. @Hector Bottai: its difficult to do this, but yes in theory people are supposed to follow our MoS and accepted templates and policies. If they feel a change should be made it can be proposed with reasoning and discussed here, moved to an RfC if necessary. To everyone, we cannot be against change, change is good, we must examine all proposals on their merits. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 16:22, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fully agree with @Faendalimas:, open to new ideas, but...if anyone does whatever think is good just for himself, this is a chaos. And must be firmly avoided.--Hector Bottai (talk) 16:40, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not clear how "these recent format additions [are] imported from Wikidata". Neferkheperre: could you explain please? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:53, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
To me they had the structured appearance of Wikidata information, as might be translated to here. I remember from some years ago a failed experiment in taxon author pages which used this type of entry. I believe it was an attempt to make our pages more accessible for Wikidata. Neferkheperre (talk) 21:57, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wallace LaBerg(e)

Wallace Edmund LaBerge, with dates "1927–2013", and published as recently as 2005, is linked to Wallace Edmund LaBerge (Q21388647), with dates "1918-1988". Can anyone advise, please?

In case it is relevant, I note that in August 2019, PeterR moved Wallace E. LaBerg (note spelling) to Wallace Edmund LaBerge, without leaving a redirect. Four pages still link to Wallace E. LaBerg. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:13, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This one is confusing, the page here does not match the information online, eg here. Date of birth and death is not the same as the orbituary I linked. I wonder if either its two separate people, or much of our page is wrong. At present I cannot be sure which. @PeterR: what was your reasoning for moving the page in the first place? Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 23:17, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

─────────────────────────Aha, I think I've solved what's going on with the dates. According to the Wikidata item's references for the birth/death dates, the dates "1918-1988" come from:

  • LaBerge, W.E. (1988) Lewis J. Stannard 1918-1988. Bulletin of the entomological society of America, 34, 215.

It looks like someone on Wikidata got the birth/death dates for Lewis J. Stannard confused as LaBerge's own birth/death dates somehow. So in other words, Wikispecies's dates are correct, and Wikidata's are wrong. Monster Iestyn (talk) 00:37, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also worth noting that the Wikidata item's own information is stated to be imported from the Wikispecies page. Even the labels were originally all "Wallace E. LaBerg" until some were changed to "Wallace E. LaBerge" just earlier this year. It does not use any other references, which honestly is quite lazy. Monster Iestyn (talk) 00:47, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Thank you. I've cleaned up the Wikidata item (and merged it with a duplicate there). I've also made the misspelling on this project a redirect, so that the items linking to if find their target. Does anyone have a source for his dates? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:44, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The "In memoriam" article Scott linked gives the exact birth/death dates, though I've already added it as a reference for them on Wikidata earlier today (from the journal's own website rather than through ResearchGate, mind). I also added some more information to the Wikidata item while I was at it. Monster Iestyn (talk) 20:55, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Templates linking to outside databases

There has been discussion on editors' talk Pages about the apparent unwanted proliferation of templates that link to outside databases (see my talk Page and here). From my experience, these templates include {{GBIF}}, {{GBIFID}} {{Tela Botanica|}} and so on. These templates are not formatted scientifically compared to developed templates such as {{IPNI}} used for plant names. I am sure that other editors can provide their own examples from their own disciplines. I would like to propose that all linking templates used on taxon pages conform to our basic guidance for references and also have the access date displayed, as these databases are regularly updated unlike papers or protologues. As examples from Botany, I link to Middletonia and Gennaria. Development of other templates is permitted, of course, but perhaps be confined to the Sandbox or on taxon pages where there is rapid development. Best regards Andyboorman (talk) 19:38, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I asked about taking all these links and putting them into a single template some time ago. External link sections tend to be something of a mess currently, and 99% of the time, the links certainly don't warrant to be given that prominence as they typically don't give any additional information comapred to the Wikispecies page. Circeus (talk) 00:41, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
All of this info should be stored at Wikidata and formatted in {{Authority control}}. —Justin (koavf)TCM 00:57, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
solution per user:Koavf, ie using {{Authority control}}. If some database property (eg CoF) is not in Wikidata, corresponding property should be added to Wikidata.--Estopedist1 (talk) 06:38, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Koavf: solution for taxa is actually {{Taxonbar}}. According to vote, the main problem was its layout. Mainly because in enwiki it seems to be with better layout.--Estopedist1 (talk) 11:58, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The specific topic is the outside databases which are used as references. Whenever possible, we probably should be avoided this, but if not avoidable, then ideal solution is not to use corresponding template, but structure <fullurl><accessed date> and definitely this <fullurl> have to be archived (manually) in here: Archieving guarantees that <fullurl> is immortal--Estopedist1 (talk) 06:38, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Many of these link sources have citation guidelines, which we often do not use contrary to their data user agreement. The prime example at the moment is GBIF. Our templates are simple links, but no format or citation and this is wrong on many grounds including I am sure numerous Wiki policies. This template and others like it, e.g. Tela Botanica @Caftaric: must not be used in their present formats, surely? Andyboorman (talk) 07:22, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Andyboorman: good points, but is there any case, where GBIF is used as an unreplacable reference? If not, then {{Taxonbar}} does the job brilliantly--Estopedist1 (talk) 11:58, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Estopedist1: Why does a link on the taxonbar sidestep data user agreements? Andyboorman (talk) 12:17, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think a difference should be made between citing external databases which have been used for the article and linking to external databases. For the latter {{Taxonbar}} would be great, but the template has to be reworked to find more consensus. I would prefer improving the old templates instead of creating double or triple templates for the same thing. -RLJ (talk) 16:19, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
thumbs up Great! brilliancy by user:RLJ--Estopedist1 (talk) 17:24, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So great indeed. Now could somebody make a start by rewriting {{GBIF}} and {{Tela Botanica|}} so that they look and work like {{IPNI}}, {{Catol-Hassler}} or {{WCSP}}. That is - fully compliant with the data user agreement, has the access date function, uses the ID or taxon page name and relevant aliases etc.? Taxonbar should be another discussion once an acceptable and data compliant link template format has been developed and agreed. Andyboorman (talk) 17:58, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The old template for Tela Botanica is {{TELA}} --RLJ (talk) 10:41, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @RLJ: Andyboorman (talk) 08:29, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is pretty obvious that WS must ban templates that do not conform to the originators data user agreement. I will not propose going to a vote now, as some existing well used templates may need a little updating, but welcome comments. In addition, there should be a place in the Help Section for acceptable and useful reference link templates in the same way that it has templates for taxonavigation. Andyboorman (talk) 14:47, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Taking GBIF as an example, please could you clarify which "data user agreement" you think we are bound by, and why, if we chose to either cite or link to a page in that database? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:56, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Pigsonthewing: Its on this page GBIF Data user agreement. I thought I linked it above. Many other sites have similar in their citation guidelines, for example WCSP, which actually recommends we use {{WCSP}} by negotiation. Why do you ask? Andyboorman (talk) 14:18, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I have seen that page. I asked why you think we are bound by it, if we chose to either cite or link to a page in the GBIF database. (The WSCP page can't decide whether we should use {{WCSP}} or {{Cite web}}, but in either case, only as a request, not a requirement) Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:01, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Data use means agreeing to a data use agreement surely? If you think not and this becomes policy, then I am off this site ASAP, as it will become Trumpian and unethical IMHO. Andyboorman (talk) 16:54, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Pigsonthewing: Its not rocket science Andy. I open up WCSP, get their species and synonym lists, cross check then use them to create a taxon page - that is data use, which means adhering to a data use agreement of which citation recommendations are a part. So what the problem? We do this all the time in science do we not? Why do you want to question this? Andyboorman (talk) 17:25, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"Data use means agreeing to a data use agreement surely?", no it does not - and nor does citing a web page equate to "data use". And please try to avoid emotional blackmail. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:31, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Pigsonthewing: I will refrain from emotional blackmail, but if WS goes off piste that is not good. What I meant was, that I and other scientists here, use the Reference Section to indicate to a user/editor from where the information originated, therefore this Section must adhere to an academic convention, in our case modified Harvard. The use of which is tantamount to acknowledging third party data use agreements and citation policies. Well it was when I taught Research Methodologies. In my case then, the use of Taxonbar is not a substitute on a scientifically orientated database, like VN it is a bit of fluff, IMO. Hopefully this clears up why I/WS must use citation conventions and by implication data user agreements in the Reference Section, including templates that link out to third party secondary sources, such as databases, books and flora. Andyboorman (talk) 18:57, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

───────────────────────── solution like user:RLJ said "I think a difference should be made between citing external databases which have been used for the article and linking to external databases." So {{Taxonbar}} solves almost all problems. And if, eg citation of GBIF is needed, then we have to follow the agreement what GBIF demands/recommends--Estopedist1 (talk) 07:54, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Syn template

Much like I did with the Zfg template last month, I have been removing translusions to the deprecated Syn template over the last few days. There are now only 12 pages linking to it (just a few days ago there were over 700), none of which are transclusions and all of which are talk, discussion or user pages.

I also removed quite a lot of transclusions of Nomen at the same time, but there still appears to be over 2500 links to that template as of writing.

Monster Iestyn (talk) 20:36, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Just letting everyone know in advance, but Template:Zfg has only a few hundred pages using it now, so it won't be too long before it can be deleted maybe. I've been steadly removing hundreds of transclusions to it over the last few days, bringing the number of links to it from 2700-something to 660 as of writing (not including this page). I'll probably get rid of most of those last 660 links tomorrow in fact. Monster Iestyn (talk) 21:19, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Monster Iestyn: Thanks for this cleanup. It's due time to have them removed. Mariusm (talk) 15:36, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, glad to help out! Since my last comment, Burmeister did about a hundred or so of the links, and I've now brought the links count down to ~350. Monster Iestyn (talk) 15:46, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, there are now only 22 pages left linking to the zfg template, all of which are talk, discussion or user pages (or the template itself). No more mainspace pages use the template anymore! Monster Iestyn (talk) 18:31, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well done @Monster Iestyn:!--Hector Bottai (talk) 21:42, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

───────────────────────── this template should be also moved to category:Deprecated templates. Easy task for an admin--Estopedist1 (talk) 16:22, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Estopedist1: just noticed this hadn't been done - it has now! - MPF (talk) 21:25, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Moved: was at [[Talk:User talk:Estopedist1#Anagrams]]
I was unaware that anagrams were out of scope. Where should I contest the rule? As far as I can tell, forming anagrams from pre-existing taxon names is a fairly commonplace thing when splitting older phyla. This seems a relevant thing to note on etymology of otherwise meaningless taxon names. --Pitke (talk) 19:13, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Pitke: Village Pump is for general questions. In addition, etymology stuff is borderline topic for Wikispecies.--Estopedist1 (talk) 19:20, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I know what the VP is for. I asked you because you were the one who made the claim of anagrams being out of scope upon reverting some of my edits. I wanted your explanation (or rather, clarification) for your action. It came upon me that you might be under the assumption that I was marking taxa that merely happened to have anagrammatic names, rather than those whose etymology truly is derived from anagrams. Judging by your note about borderline topics, I now think you would consider either case to be off topic. --Pitke (talk) 19:26, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Tagging a taxon as an anagram is a vaguely interesting bit of non-taxonomic information and like most aspects of etymology is, at the moment, out of scope. However, if @Pitke: wants to make a case for expanding the scope of WS then that is his right and this is the place for making the request. Andyboorman (talk) 08:19, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Commenting to verify that my opinion is indeed that etymology or more precisely eponymy ought be considered in scope for WS--whether that eponymy be after a fellow/senior nature-scientist, a figure of reverence (musicians, royals, etc.), or a pre-existing taxon name reformed through anagram. --Pitke (talk) 09:18, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am happy for you to put forward a formal proposal to increase the scope of WS by including eponymy/etymology on taxon pages. Have a look here as an example, but my advice is to start the discussion with a reasoned synopsis of the merits of your proposal. You will probably need to look into setting up an RFC for a vote in due course, as well. Andyboorman (talk) 09:54, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As noted this is an expansion of scope hence needs to gain consensus. @Pitke: could you please layout your proposal so it could be discussed and voted on, provide about 3 examples of what your intending, how it is useful info etc. Then we can discuss it. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 06:00, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'll see when I can be bothered to snoop people's edit lists to find what few cases (with pre-existing WS entries) I had in the first place. --Pitke (talk) 19:31, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

error message on watch page

Has anybody else got an error message on on their watch list page? Andyboorman (talk) 07:16, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes; I think it's an issue with translation markup in one of the templates used in the page header. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:12, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Pigsonthewing: Thanks hopefully cured soon. Andyboorman (talk) 08:31, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Same problem with me.--Hector Bottai (talk) 12:07, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
First noticed it last night. Neferkheperre (talk) 12:57, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can tell, it's because @Estopedist1: has been adding many newly created pages to Category:Unverified, which now has over 1,000 pages. Specifically it's the use of #ifexpr with {{PAGESINCAT:Unverified}} (or PAGESINCAT for any category at all) that's bugged in MediaWiki:Watchlist-details. Monster Iestyn (talk) 21:23, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Probably - see MediaWiki talk:Watchlist-details for a solution --DannyS712 (talk) 05:02, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
strange, watchlist shows 3,001 stubs correctly. Side notice: I try to reduce entries in Special:Orphaned pages and Special:Unused templates. Hence, sorry for mass-creating of stubs--Estopedist1 (talk) 05:22, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, the difference with Category:Stubs is that #ifexpr isn't used at all, the page count is just displayed directly. With Category:Unverified, #ifexpr is used to color the text red if there's at least 1 page in the category. There's another part of the template that checks if there's at least 5 of them, but I don't get what that's for at all. Monster Iestyn (talk) 16:55, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I see we haven't here many admins who know parser function stuff. If user:DannyS712 solution (see MediaWiki talk:Watchlist-details doesn't work), I propose as a (temporary) solution to follow the syntax used at "Stubs". (Besides, to mark Unverified pages with red markup is maybe not so important, because we have tens of thousands taxon articles where primary reference is not said.) Maybe user:Pigsonthewing can help with this?--Estopedist1 (talk) 05:38, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've asked there for clarification. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:02, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've been making an edit of the page in my userspace here, where I've implemented DannyS712's solution in addition to other edits. It seems to work, at least if applied only to the expressions (I didn't want to get rid of the separators from the displayed text). I also did the same thing for the other expressions apart from those for Category:Unverified. Monster Iestyn (talk) 18:50, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

───────────────────────── I have not looked myself but has anyone checked if an inappropriate template was deleted. There have been a lot of speedy deletes lately maybe one that should not have was included? Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 04:08, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if this is known, I spend much more time on Wikidata than Species.

Is there a tool to bulk remove references to an external site? is defunct and has been taken over by url squatters detailing debt settlements. No more beetle info is there. — The preceding unsigned comment was added by CanadianCodhead (talkcontribs) 14:46, 23 July 2020‎.

A bot could convert them to link to, say, the Internet Archive, if available. On Wikipedia, for example, the "cite web" template has parameters both for such archive URLs, and for disabling links to original websites which are no longer fit places to send people to; the Internet Archive run a bot which periodically checks all inks an updates the template for those found to be dead. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:56, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

New patroller (Estopedist1) and Vernacular names

Hi! I am the new patroller in Wikispecies! I see that main patrolling problem is Vernacular names, especially exotic ones. Would be nice to get useful tips from experienced patrollers how to deal with Vernacular names? Because vernacular names are rather out of scope and should be fetched from Wikidata, I guess experienced patrollers do not check every tagalog-, tamil-, Arabic- etc name with Google(Translate) or responding Wikipedias?--Estopedist1 (talk) 19:23, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

unfortunately it requires knowing the local common names for species. I have doubts that Wikidata is any surer of the accuracy of that info than we are. If they are clearly rubbish names is not a problem the difficulty is ones that could be right. Personally as I have said I see no relevance for vernacular names on an international website on nomenclature, they are only relevant locally and in the non taxonomic literature. They are outside our scope I would refer to stop listing them. Sorry they are hard to patrol. Use other checklists etc that may have them, you will get a feel for this with experience. Check with the editors that do speak the language in question. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 23:23, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I tend to agree with Scott being more concerned with taxonomy and classification of plants. However, some editors use #invoke:VN|main to drag names from WD, but I do not use this is, as it contains a lot of poor examples in English (UK, OZ, NZ, UK etc.) and it means having to go on WD to correct errors. For most taxa I tend to depend on local users/editors to add their preferred names and add a few myself from time to time. Hope this helps. Andyboorman (talk) 07:17, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A better solution, and perhaps a more acceptable one, would be to make {{VN}} call names from Wikidata, if no local value overrides it, but only to take the first stated (or preferred if any) value? Could we at least trial this? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:48, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 Support. And do not forget related (?) {{VN/sandboxWD}} to avoid double developments--Estopedist1 (talk) 05:24, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment maybe Wikidata is only solution because there can be added references for vernacular names. In Wikispecies, we do not reference vernacular names and correct referencing would be huge info pollution in Wikispecies.--Estopedist1 (talk) 09:20, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good point: we could include only values with citations - this technique is routinely used in en.Wikipedia infoboxes, for example. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:32, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'd forgotten that; there is some discussion of it in my talk page archives; and here is a demo with the current template below it. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:43, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. WD is not accurate enough with "English" names, but I cannot speak for other languages. In addition, it could put off the many casual editors who come on here to add their VN, as they then have to go through WD. Worth a trial though. Andyboorman (talk) 08:11, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"as they then have to go through WD" They do not because, as I noted above, a local value will override one from Wikidata. This is no different to our authority control values, and I do not think anyone would seriously argue that they do not work well. It is no different to having images on Commons. It's a misconception to think of Wikispecies and Wikidata as completely separate systems; like Commons, they are parts of a whole. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:29, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, very strongly; importing from WD would in many cases import huge numbers (sometimes hundreds per species per language) of inaccurate, archaic, little-known, and barely-ever-used vernacular names, often badly formatted (not capitalised as per WS standard) that would clutter WS up horribly. We have a limit here of one vernacular name per language (the official one used in national lists), and that's clutter enough with species that have names in many languages. WS actually used to import VN from WD, and it was such a nuisance that we got rid of it. Also, as Andyboorman points out, WD is very uninformative and highly unhelpful with "English" names in particular; a huge number of the "English" names at WD are not English (en) at all, but American (en-us), but en-us does not exist as a data entry option on WD (thus resulting in severe unwelcome cultural imperialism, where English names are replaced by American ones to the exclusion of the English names as used by English people). If anyone with the know-how to create en-us as a new language at WD could do so, that would be a very welcome start (and then a bot replacement of all vernacular names sourced from USDA from 'en' to 'en-us'). - MPF (talk) 20:32, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
When you say "importing from WD would in many cases import huge numbers (sometimes hundreds per species per language..", you disregard the proposal, which is "only to take the first stated (or preferred if any) value". Also, Wikidata has the ability to mark names as being en-GB, which can be imported separately if desired. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:25, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
But it doesn't have the ability to mark names as being en-us, which is the one more importantly needed, as names in USA frequently differ from those in UK and elsewhere. It is important that the 'default Standard English' should not be the US variant as that is very misleading. - MPF (talk) 23:18, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The solution I've given resolves the problem described. As for "default Standard English", there has to be one; and we have to work with the one chosen. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:56, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see that it resolves the problem at all; and certainly not the problem of inaccurate / incomplete language display and attribution at WD. If the VN of a species is the same in every English-type language except American, WD should not be giving preferential treatment to the American version, and particularly not where the taxon is of no relevance to the USA, is highly relevant to other English-speaking countries, and even more particularly if the US renaming is grossly offensive to speakers of other English forms. It is a matter of basic common decency that for a species native to e.g. UK, or Australia, or India, the name set as default English name should be that used in that country, and not the renaming made by a country where the species does not occur. - MPF (talk) 13:47, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Your comment supposes that Wikidata "[gives] preferential treatment to the American version... particularly... where the taxon is of no relevance to the USA... and even more particularly if the US renaming is grossly offensive to speakers of other English forms". That is not so. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:25, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It is so. The American is listed as 'English' ('en', which it isn't; it should be 'en-us'), while the English name is demoted to the near-invisible 'en-gb' (e.g. no links to wikipedia articles). The result is American cultural imperialism, shouting out to the whole world that only the American renaming matters, and is what people should use. The American also comes at the top of the list of names, as the names are on a 'first entered, first listed' basis, and (with plants at least) someone made sure that a bot upload of USDA renamings was given top first billing in data entry, while the official standard BSBI names are often not even admitted. - MPF (talk) 14:47, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, Insist, VN is nothing but a pollution to our main objective:Taxonomy.--Hector Bottai (talk) 21:17, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's not clear what you're opposing here, since Wikispecies already includes vernacular names. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:25, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What are we voting: importing VN from WD, isn't? Is it clear now what I am opposing?--Hector Bottai (talk) 01:21, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No; and no. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:56, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 Support Worth a trial in my opinion. If it fails we can always go back to how things are now, though the current situation doesn't seem ideal as it is. I haven't much opinion on whether VN itself should be in Wikispecies' scope, that should probably be another discussion/vote altogether. On another note, did anyone look into why some of the VN language codes don't display the language names properly? Monster Iestyn (talk) 19:07, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as many know my preference is to remove this altogether from wikispecies as its basically irrelevant to what we do. However, they are here, but if they are going to be I think its best they are done here. I just spent 3 years writing a series of papers that always had this underpinned issue running through it, that of American names being applied in other countries. Its a big issue and is a part of why there are 4 international checklists of birds that do not agree with each other. For this to be done automatically we need the locality data on species to be added and common names to be called as a match to locality, to ensure the correct local name is applied and not some name no one who knows the species has even heard of. Until these data are set up in a way to cope with local usages of different languages, rather than the assumption that the american english name will do, and this goes for other languages too, eg Spannish, French etc, vernacular names are best dealt with locally. The point that it may encourage new editors is also a reasonabale point. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 20:28, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
actually, vernacular names as an instrument to lure new Wikisepcies contributors, may be strong argument against that vernacular names stuff to be moved to Wikidata--Estopedist1 (talk) 08:39, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strongest of Oppose Per scott. (Except I don't see how they can lure/encourage the kind of new editors that we actually want and not be a hassle in the butt, as I consider them to have been from day one.) Circeus (talk) 03:53, 26 July 2020 (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.