Wikispecies:Village Pump/Archive 54

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.

Category for discussion: Category:2 letter genera and other two

Taking advantage of the discussion about categories, I would like to include these (Category:2 letter genera, Category:3 letter genera and Category:4 letter genera) in the discussion. Are they necessary and within the scope of the WS? Regards, Burmeister (talk) 21:25, 17 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I suggest to delete Category:2 letter genera, Category:3 letter genera and Category:4 letter genera (created by user:Stho002 (in 2012), user:Pitke and user:Estopedist1, both in 2020).

  • Nominator's rational: out of Wikispecies' scope, no need to categorise taxons by the number of letters. If kept, many problems can be arised, eg making subcategories (eg "2 letter subgenera"), making "5 letter genera" etc, making "2 letter genera (Animalia)". Also notice that even enwiki hasn't do it. --Estopedist1 (talk) 05:35, 18 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Agree delete; two-letter genera are mildly interesting as trivia but not relevant here, and the others of no significance at all. I've emptied Category:4 letter genera for starters so that can be deleted any time. - MPF (talk) 07:49, 18 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Support removing these categories is a simple bit of housekeeping. Andyboorman (talk) 08:19, 18 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Category:3 letter genera is empty now - MPF (talk) 09:37, 18 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose per my previous response on my talk page: <ping> No, I simply went with the pre-existence of 2 letter genera. (...) 3 letters for sure is outstanding almost as much as 2 letters. Of course these categories aren't any use in the strict sense, but then same can be said for Category:Species named after celebrities. My argument for the existense of these categories is their "oh neat" value to editors like me, whose first 1k edits consist almost entirely of putting taxa-by-author categories to a consistent format and setting sortkeys. It's boring, it's needed, and it can't be easily automated (what with international name conventions being so variant), and running into "oh neat" taxa in these endless little categories (and being able to catalogue the finds in an easy way) is definitely a motivator. In any case, should this sort of category be deemed too unsightly and distracting by the community at large, and not of general interest, they're very trivial to take out of the public's eyes, just set them as hidden. --Pitke (talk) 20:49, 26 March 2020 (UTC) --Pitke (talk) 09:10, 19 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

───────────────────────── All three x-letter genera categories emptied and now Extinct - MPF (talk) 23:48, 20 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Once again, Wikidata can solve this problem. The categories are not needed, and can be deleted. I have created "List of two-letter genera" page, populated by ListeriaBot, with a query for taxon names which have the rank of genus, have two letters, and have a Wikispecies entry. Likewise List of three-letter genera, although the latter has some entries like Fiddler crab which I intend to change to display as Uca. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:36, 19 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Support fine with deleting these categories, I see no reason for them to exist. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 20:30, 19 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Pigsonthewing: very good job. This Wikidata-based list is a good solution. Currently, we have two suspicious categories yet: category:Taxa named after mythical and fictional subjects and category:Species named after celebrities. Because Wikidata probably couldn't help here, we can change these two categories to the list, eg List of species named after celebrities (or "List of taxa ..."). Or maybe we should move these two lists to enwiki to get more attention. Eg exists a redirect en:List of species named after Barack Obama--Estopedist1 (talk) 07:36, 20 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Pigsonthewing: Hi Andy, this is a good solution. I did notice one glitch (first check - not exhaustive!) - not sure if it is systemic or a one-off - e.g. I queried IRMNG for one of the 2-letter names on the list (Io) and got 3 records, whereas the current wikidata list only has 2. The missing one is Io Blanchard (represented in IRMNG as Io Blanchard in Gay, 1852) which has a Wikispecies record Io Blanchard and also a Wikidata entry (Io Blanchard (1852) non Lea (1831)); it is a junior homonym and synonym. To my mind homonyms and synonyms should appear on the list (as published names), though others may wish the list to be restricted to accepted/current names only - that is a separate (sub) discussion. Anyway, just wondering if there is a programmatic reason that this name is not appearing... Regards Tony Tony 1212 (talk) 19:46, 20 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The list at present is displaying the "taxon name" for each "instance of taxon" that has a "taxon rank" of "genus" and has a Wikispecies page, where "taxon name" is two letters. Your example, Io Blanchard (1852) non Lea (1831) (Q21365388) is not an "instance of taxon", has no "taxon name" and is not ranked as a "genus". If there is consensus to proceed, I'll see what can be done about pulling out such data, but that won't be easy (and may not be possible) as there is neither anything in the Wikidata data item to say it has a rank equivalent to "genus", nor that the name has two letters. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:46, 20 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Pigsonthewing:So, the problem is incomplete content at the wikidata end... not sure how that gets solved (although manual fixup is always possible), one would have to understand more about the process of creation of such wikidata items to know if it likely to be more widespread, also whether it can be addressed in any machine-actionable way...Tony 1212 (talk) 02:15, 21 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This page might be useful to refer to, not to mention the tutorial linked from there. It seems like it's been decided later homonyms are not meant to be given "instance of: taxon" at all on Wikidata, nor those other properties that are "missing" from the Io Blanchard example. Monster Iestyn (talk) 05:25, 21 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm not clear whether it's incomplete content on Wikidata, or simply a difference in the method of modelling. How would you - anyone - change the Wikidata item in question? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:14, 21 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The tutorial I linked in my last reply indicates it may not be incomplete content, but an intentional format for those kind of taxon names. Unfortunately it does make things confusing when linked Wikipedias or other Wikimedia projects haven't caught up to use replacement names if they exist. I personally keep "instance of taxon" etc for the old names if that's the case (but it's all confusing anyway). Monster Iestyn (talk) 14:15, 21 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, in that case they'd be "intentionally incomplete". I note that that tutorial is headed by a banner that says, in part, "This page is a work in progress, not an article or policy, and may be incomplete and/or unreliable.". It is also largely the work of one person. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:56, 25 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've now resolved the "Fiddler crab" issue by adding another column, which includes just the taxon name. I've also created pages for four- and five- letter names; unfortunately there are currently 3,958 results for six-letter names; too many for a page. We could perhaps break them down by, say, first letter or, say, A-D, E-H, etc., if we need to. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:50, 25 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The "Io Blanchard" solution is to reduce it to a redirect and unlink it from wikidata (as I have also done for the former Aka de Laubenfels), because it shouldn't have been a separate page to begin with. Dammit Janet Stephen.... Circeus (talk) 03:49, 26 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please look that

Are anyone noticed this?. Jnovikov (talk) 13:43, 21 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No idea what this is all about! @Fierodelveneto: please explain in your own language if English is difficult. Andyboorman (talk) 17:27, 22 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Pretty sure Jnovikov is referring to the "Finnish" section which he himself made? Monster Iestyn (talk) 17:33, 22 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Jnovikov and Monster Iestyn: Hi, thanks for the question. I had asked for a list of words / phrases to be translated .. but in the end I did it myself and I have already translated everything into the Venetian language - vec --ꜰɪᴇʀᴏᴅᴇʟᴠᴇɴᴇᴛᴏ (Talk) - (Contributions) 17:52, 22 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I meant my Finnish translation request. Jnovikov (talk) 14:21, 23 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Done, I have added the finnish translations to Wikispecies:Localization. Kind regards, --Thiotrix (talk) 11:06, 24 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Thiotrix: thanks you! Jnovikov (talk) 15:13, 25 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category for discussion: Category:Biologist-Stubs

I suggest to delete Category:Biologist-Stubs

--Estopedist1 (talk) 08:29, 8 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Consider also {{Astub}}, which only has two transclusions. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:13, 8 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Neutral for Category:Biologist-Stubs as there are only 2 entries. But the general Category:Stubs is very important for further improvement of articles. Stubs are not always short pages, some of them have more than 1000 bytes but still do not cite any references, e.g. Amphianthus (Hormathiidae). The stubs from Algaebase were created semi-automatically and are not really short pages. But they too need further work, so it is very helpful, that they can be found easily. --Thiotrix (talk) 11:38, 9 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

───────────────────────── relisting this discussion. With associated {{Astub}} which should be deleted as well. Our goal is to simplify taxon articles, not to encumber with numerous templates which deter scientists and amateurs.--Estopedist1 (talk) 06:53, 27 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category for discussion: Category:Articles containing Japanese-language text

I suggest to delete Category:Articles containing Japanese-language text (created by user:Pigsonthewing in 2018).

@Pigsonthewing:. Just noting this [1]. Andyboorman (talk) 14:23, 9 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Delete Just because an imported template uses it (and that template is strictly for formatting) doesn't mean we ought to. There's is nothing that category does that Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Nihongo can't do. Circeus (talk) 15:44, 9 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Delete unnecessary. Mariusm (talk) 16:00, 9 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Delete Problematico, porque implicaría incluir todos los taxones que lleven nombre vernaculo en ese idioma y conllevaría añadir todos los demás idiomas.--MILEPRI (talk) 07:15, 10 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • that's a pity, that this good point by user:MILEPRI is in non-English. Google translates: "Problematic, because it would imply including all the taxa bearing vernacular names in that language and would entail adding all the other languages.")--Estopedist1 (talk) 09:06, 10 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Over 2 weeks passed. Discussion closed. 5 people vote for "delete", 1 (creator) vote for "keep", 1 vote for "neutral". Result: deletion --Estopedist1 (talk) 07:06, 27 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hi everyone, I had a look through the stubs list while the watchlist was not working I removed the template from some of them, if people have the time please have a look through, there are a number of these that clearly had the stub template added due to lack of refs etc but these have since been added without the removal of the template. This is something that could be corrected. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 21:09, 26 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Faendalimas: checking this stubs category manually is not very rational. Actually, we can think, maybe we don't need {{Stub}} at all, and focus on Special:ShortPages which is automatically updating and gives the 10,000 shortest articles--Estopedist1 (talk) 11:30, 27 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
and if we want massive list (over the 70,000 shortest articles) we can run SQL-quarry in --Estopedist1 (talk) 11:36, 27 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I tend to find myself agreeing. Most of what is marked as "stubs" is certainly below average, but not IMO what I'd qualify as a stub from the specific point of view of Wikispecies. On average, I'd consider that most pages in Category:Non-standard taxon formatting are more important to work on than literally 99% of what actually ends up in Category:Stubs. Circeus (talk) 19:04, 27 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I also agree, they were here when I started here 12 years ago, I think stub is useful for wikipedia but less so for us. Our pages tend to be short anyway comparatively, its the data presented thats more important, So maybe run a bot and just get rid of them?? Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 19:54, 27 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The Non-standard taxa are almost universally protists and I'm pretty sure the reason that they have persisted so long is that a major overhaul/update of all protist lineages in WS is desperately needed. There is a deeper issue that the taxonomy of the groups themselves are largely unsettled and actively debated in the literature, but there's been some consensus here previously to follow Adl et al., 2012, which now has an update (2019). It'd be great to see this happen, but it would take some time and dedication. Voganaa (talk) 20:21, 27 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There are certain groups of protists that desperately need cleanup here. However, the ones I've investigated for cleanup have usually led into a morass of conflicting and incomplete classifications. The Desmids, for example, have undergone heavy revision in recent years and are no longer considered monophyletic as a group. The Adl et al., 2019 paper does not help because they do not give any internal classification, and sloppy editing of the names means that Table 1 puts them all in the family Zygnemataceae, but Table 2 puts them in class Zygnematophyceae. Other papers suggest that the correct, first-published name of the class is Conjugatophyceae and that Zygnetamophyceae was never validly published. Without someone to put forward a single, consistent, well-edited classification, we merely end up reflecting the mess that is the state of the current literature. --EncycloPetey (talk) 05:00, 28 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Unique articles New Tribus 1, 2, 3

user:PeterR has created three articles with names:

I guess, this is unacceptable solution?--Estopedist1 (talk) 07:12, 25 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@PeterR: & @Estopedist1: Yes as it is taxonomic nonsense. If the tribe is unnamed then the classification goes up to the Subfamily and Tribus is omitted. Andyboorman (talk) 08:32, 25 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
all deleted per speedy request and this discussion. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 02:16, 31 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Non-standard taxon formatting

An idea from previous discussion (Wikispecies:Village_Pump#Stubs). If I see Category:Non-standard taxon formatting, then maybe it is rational to create a subcategory called "Category:Non-standard taxon formatting (Protista)". This new subcategory will solve also problem with Special:UncategorizedPages which is cluttered with Protista stuff. As user:Voganaa alluded, Protista stuff needs dedicated specialist--Estopedist1 (talk) 05:08, 28 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

any objections if I create subcategory: Category:Non-standard taxon formatting (Protista)?--Estopedist1 (talk) 20:56, 30 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]


In the construction of disambiguation pages, when making pages of homonyms, I find that they can be done in two ways: Name of the taxon plus the name of the author or name of the taxon plus the name of the family to which it belongs (example: Parkinsonia L or Parkinsonia (Fabaceae)), the latter is mostly used in both wikispecies and commons. As this case is not detailed in helping templates, I would be grateful if the community could tell me if they have already debated this topic or what is the consensus on this matter to conflict with the realization of these pages.--MILEPRI (talk) 07:04, 28 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@EncycloPetey and MILEPRI: some notices about disambiguation pages (DAB).
  • be sure that a disambiguation page is needed, we have many redundant DABs
  • I encourage to only use familia name instead of authority name. We definitely don't want monstrums like hypothetical DAB links: Taracaxum Peng, Li & Zhao; or Taraxacum Abdurahmanov & Abdulhameed; or Taraxacum Absolon, Abushik et al. . Imagine what monstrum taxon templates will come!
    • when dealing with Fungi, Chromista, Bacteria then links like hypothetical Agrostis (Fungi) , Agrostis (Bacteria) is OK, or maybe even recommended. These regnums families tend to be changed quite often--Estopedist1 (talk) 18:32, 28 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I have discussed the topic before, but I cannot locate the specific instance over which the discussion occurred. All I can remember of the discussion was that the page name for a disambiguated taxon page name could legitimately use either the author or an unambiguous parent taxon as part of the name to aid in disambiguation. The potential shortcoming of using the author is that some careless authors reuse names, so the author's abbreviation alone does not disambiguate the names. The potential shortcoming of using a parent taxon for disambiguation is that classifications change, and taxa may be moved from one parent taxon to another.
    @Estopedist1: Using (Fungi) or any high level grouping taxon has the potential for many problems as there can be names appearing in the literature with different authors but assigned to the same kingdom or other high-level taxon. For example, there are three Acrostigma and two of them are animals in the family Formicidae. The disambiguation page in this instance must use more information than simply the kingdom or family to which it is assigned. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:20, 28 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In plants families are very rarely changed and so I tend to use these. However, I was reminded by @EncycloPetey: that if an author was used and it was not a problem then we would not remake the disambig using the family. Point taken about monstrums - common sense is required. Andyboorman (talk) 19:32, 28 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Your generalization about the stability of plant families does not hold. The Liliaceae and Scrophulaceae are prime examples of unstable families among flowering plants, and many families of liverworts, mosses, and algae have undergone enormous revision over the past twenty years. APG has stabilized the families of extant flowering plants, but there is no such stability yet in other extant plant groups and most especially not for fossil taxa. I do agree with your call for "common sense". --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:37, 28 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For plant family Amaranthaceae, I recommend to use the name of the author for disambiguation, as this family is still unstable. Most taxonomists prefer to use Chenopodiaceae as a separate family and do not seem to follow the AGP-proposed inclusion in Amaranthaceae. Also brown, red and green algae "change" their family rather often, and homonyms exist within these major groups. IMO it's ok that disambiguations may use either author or family, depending on the choice of the editor making the disambiguation. --Thiotrix (talk) 20:42, 28 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Secondary related topic: We have never drafted a page regarding the standard format of taxon disambiguation pages nor for the naming of disambiguated taxon pages. This thread seems a logical place to collect thoughts for the content of such a set of guidelines. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:41, 28 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am in favor of Taxon Author for disambiguation. This is the way that many papers are presented when a Taxon is mentioned. Lessonia Swainson is much better than Lessonia Aves. Of course when the Author is múltiple names, the second option, family or order, should be used. Totally agree with @EncycloPetey:, we do need a comprehensive help page for disambiguation.--Hector Bottai (talk) 10:23, 29 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Using specifying words "Animalia" and "Plantae" (eg hypothetical Taraxacum (Plantae) or Taraxacum (Animalia)) should be unacceptable. Also unacceptable should be to use tribus, ordo, superfamilia or other rank above familia, except for Protista, Bacteria and Fungi where using Regnum name should be acceptable--Estopedist1 (talk) 06:03, 29 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
some extra reading: User_talk:Thiotrix/Archive2#proper_formatting_of_disambiguation_pages--Estopedist1 (talk) 06:03, 29 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Important note: In cases where a valid genus is available it should be the carrier of the genus-name and not a disambiguation page. All the homonyms are to be listed in the synonymy section of the valid name. This would make this disambiguation much clearer and simpler. Mariusm (talk) 08:03, 29 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just asking just in case, but are we talking about both hemihomonyms (taxa under different codes) and junior homonyms (those in the same code)? Monster Iestyn (talk) 09:20, 29 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Monster Iestyn: Of course in the case of hemihomonyms a disambig. page must be created because the same name is valid in two different domains. Mariusm (talk) 10:13, 29 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm aware, though I was actually trying to ask about the discussion in general to be honest. Monster Iestyn (talk) 10:24, 29 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Mariusm: do you mean something like this: (variant A: Special:Diff/7624182 or variant B: Special:Diff/7624177 in article of Zaglyptus)?--Estopedist1 (talk) 12:45, 29 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Estopedist1: I prefer the following line in the synonymy section:

  • Zaglyptus LeConte, 1876 (Insecta, Curculionidae) [homonym, preoccupied genus name; see replacement name Buchananius Kissinger, 1957]

Mariusm (talk) 13:08, 29 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Am I correct that homonym and symonym are different concepts in biology? If they are, we can't put a homonym into a synonym section. Besides, I guess we surely should use hatnote which is common in all Wikimedia projects when dealing with disambiguation stuff--Estopedist1 (talk) 14:52, 29 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes they are different. A homonym has narrower definition, as they have the same name e.g. Acacia caesia that usually refer to different organisms not always even in the same regnum. Synonyms are always attached to the same organism, for example Equilabium laxiflorum. You are technically correct about sections and ideally we should have the {{HOM}} laying out as its own section, IMHO. Not sure about obligatory hatnotes for disambiguations, but they are often encountered, to be discussed. Andyboorman (talk) 15:27, 29 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Homonyms should be in the synonymy list, a junior homonym may be the oldest name for a taxon and hence the original name and combination it would be listed first and noted as a junior homonym, the next available name would be the currently used name. A junior homonym may be a senior synonym but is unavailable due to the Principle of Homonymy, hence looses Priority. Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 02:51, 30 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
let homonyms be then in synonymy list, although in some cases we have used the individual section called "Notes", eg see Alkanna. But, because homonyms refer to other taxa, then I think we have to use always a hatnote too, like I did here: Zehntneria. And if there are over two homonyms, then we also need a DAB called "TAXONNAME (disambiguation)" (eg see Zetobora)--Estopedist1 (talk) 06:13, 30 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I prefer to list homonyms not in the synonymy list (like in Zehntneria), but under a separate subtitle, like in Achyranthes aspera, because they mostly refer to different taxa (in botany). --Thiotrix (talk) 06:36, 30 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not both homonyms, the one that is relevant to the species page in question. The two homonym names are different taxa of course but each one of them is applicable to some other species and should be on the appropriate pages in the synonymy. For example Megalochelys is a homonym and is referable to both the giant extinct tortoise and the Aldabran tortoise, the senior homonym is the name for the extinct tortoise, the junior is the oldest available name for the Aldabran, on the Aldabran page it should be listed as the oldest name for Aldabrachelys with the note it is a junior homonym and hence unavailable, thus we use Aldabrachelys. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 11:32, 30 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Since it's relevant to this discussion, where do we stand on disambiguation using the nomenclature codes themselves? For instance, I've found just now there are just over 40 pages on Wikispecies that use "(ICZN)" in the title. (see this link) Monster Iestyn (talk) 21:12, 29 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Monster Iestyn: links which consists of nomenclature codes themselves should be renamed and deleted. Sidenotice: I am not sure what to do with "TAXON_NAME (genus)", like in Zea--Estopedist1 (talk) 06:08, 30 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Monster Iestyn: @Estopedist1: I have got rid of {{Zea-genus}}, as it was my unwanted creation. Aldo agree with the ICZN and ICBN problems, which are left over from a previous editors side project. Andyboorman (talk) 10:29, 30 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just a cautionary note here from my experience, regarding homonyms, most of the time citing the authority (+year as desired) is sufficient to distinguish different instances of the same name, but not always (a smattering of "edge cases" if you like). For example just a couple of days ago I was dealing with Mossia N.E.Br. (or Mossia N.E. Brown, 1930 as I hold it in my own system), described twice in the same family and publication by Brown but with different types (the second was intended as a correction of the first where the type was incorrectly assigned). Relevant records in ING:

Mossia N. E. Brown, Gard. Chron. ser. 3. 87: 151. 22 Feb 1930 (non N. E. Brown 25 Jan 1930).

T.: M. intervallaris (L. Bolus) N. E. Brown (Mesembryanthemum intervallare L. Bolus) PHAN.-AIZOACEAE (104) 20 Apr 1999

[C] Mossia N. E. Brown, Gard. Chron. ser. 3. 87: 71. 25 Jan 1930. T.: M. intervallaris (L. Bolus) N. E. Brown (Ruschia intervallaris L. Bolus) PHAN.-AIZOACEAE (10/104) 07 Apr 1999

For cases such as this I have decided the only way to go is "Mossia N.E. Brown, 1930" for the initially published record and "Mossia N.E. Brown, 1930 [2]" (etc.) for successive ones. Regards - Tony Tony 1212 (talk) 22:18, 29 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

FYI, latest issues on svwiki

Im sad to report of the latest blocking of my account by the same admin that blocked me a month ago, in both cases after discussions about articles, where he was involved. In such a Situation, I guess its also honest of me to resign my duties on Wikispecies, should users on Wikispecies think, that there may be a shadow upon how I have contributed to Wikispecies as admin, or if those issues on svwiki, by any chance is creating a negative impact on WS. Relevant on Meta is: meta:Requests for comment/Swedish Wikipedia blocking policy violation and Administrator abuse2, meta:Requests for comment/Do something about svwiki, meta:Requests for comment/Swedish Fork, and even my user discussion page on meta. Maybe even latest reelection application for adminship on Wikidata. Im very sad for all this, and think its correct of me to inform the WS community, and let you consider, if its better I resign, if this makes anyone on WS have less confidence in me. Dan Koehl (talk) 10:57, 30 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

here is a google translate of the discussion, which rendered me to be blocked for two weeks. Again, I think I was blocked 3-4 times this year, by admins who had other opinions than me, and sorted out the problem by blocking me. Dan Koehl (talk) 11:04, 30 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I do not think you should resign, and would personally prefer you did not. I have seen no complaints here on this wiki that would require an assessment of your fitness to hold sysop positions. As was stated by the responsible admin in closing your RfA on Wikidata, information not relevant to the Wikidata proposal was brought from another wiki including what was deemed canvassing on SV-WP part. I cannot comment on what happened on SV-WP I only saw what was added to the Wikidata RfA and I doubt that is the complete picture. What happens on SV-WP is their business and for them to deal with, not us, though it clearly effects you. The conclusion of the Wikidata RfA was unfortunate but with the way it went I saw no other course for the responsible admin. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 11:21, 30 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Faendalimas:, thanks, but by all means, if anyone feel I may damage Wikispecies, feel free to say so.

When reading through google translation of my user discussion page, translated with google, so not perfect, I also try to defend a biologists view on how txonomy should be viewed, which may have interest for the Wikispecies community, since admins on svwiki, was trying to delete citations from my previous director at Skansen Zoological gardens, Dr. Pelle Palm, who argued that taxonomy should not be defined and monitored by molecule biologists, and that taxonomy should not be defined in encyclopedias by culture and social antropologis, without any support of biology expertise. Since then, his citations are deleted, but a small rest is there at sv:Pelle Palm. Dan Koehl (talk) 13:43, 30 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Dan Koehl: Please do not resign over a feud that is confined to svwiki, in spite of the unfortunate over-spill to your RfA on Wikidata with its very high hurdle. The above post by you is not a canvass by the way IMHO, but a legitimate request. I base my judgement on your long-term impeccable behaviour and valuable contributions here on WS. For example, when we had the unfortunate problems with Mr Thorpe you were very much trying to act as an impartial arbiter. Andyboorman (talk) 13:50, 30 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
….I can remember only good, valuable and fair work and cooperation here. Orchi (talk) 14:53, 30 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Cannot agree more with @Orchi:. Absolutely no reasons for resignation here.--Hector Bottai (talk) 21:24, 30 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Aglaiocercus kingii

We have:

Aglaiocercus kingii (Lesson, 1832)

but en:Wikipedia has:

Aglaiocercus kingii (Hartert, 1898)

which is correct? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:48, 30 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Lesson 1832 to the original description of the species. Hartert 1898 is one of the subspecies and hence a junior synomym at species level.
Species - Aglaiocercus kingii (Lesson, 1832)
Subspecies - Aglaiocercus kingii berlepschi (Hartert, 1898)
Subspecies - Aglaiocercus kingii caudatus (Berlepsch, 1892)
Subspecies - Aglaiocercus kingii emmae (Berlepsch, 1892)
Subspecies - Aglaiocercus kingii kingii (Lesson, 1832)
Subspecies - Aglaiocercus kingii margarethae (Heine, 1863)
Subspecies - Aglaiocercus kingii mocoa (Delattre & Bourcier, 1846)
Subspecies - Aglaiocercus kingii smaragdinus (Gould, 1846)
cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 11:27, 30 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Correct, Lesson is the original as Ornismya kingii, here is: BHL
See also the confusion about kingi or kingii in Zoonomen:
"Aglaiocercus kingii Nomenclature
Listed by Peters Checklist 5:124 as Aglaiocercus kingi (with one -i), and this is followed by HBW 5:659.
Peters Checklist 5:124 lists the original combination as Trochilus kingi Lesson, though in fact the orginal combination appears to be Ornismya kingii (with a double -i). This apparent error looks to have started with Cat.BirdsBrit.Mus. 16:137 where Salvin lists "Trochilus kingi" in the synonomy of Cyanolesbia gorgo.
Zimmer lists "Ornismya kingii Lesson" correctly when he proposes it as the type for Aglaiocercus on p.291 of his 1930 FieldMus.Nat.Hist.Pub.Zool.Ser. 17."
By the way Aglaiocercus berlepschi Hartert, 1898 is a full species now not a jr. synonym.
Cheers. --Hector Bottai (talk) 12:12, 30 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks, all. I've updated the en.Wikipedia article accordingly. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:02, 31 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[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.

Template for discussion: template:Source

I suggest to delete or to redirect template:Source (created by user:Caftaric in June 2020).

  • Nominator's rational: we are already using template:Just. Let be only one template for source(s) of checklist. Our goal is to simplify taxon articles, not to encumber with numerous templates which deter scientists and amateurs--Estopedist1 (talk) 19:46, 31 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Is the use of Just or Source consensual? I don't see or participate of any discussion about that kind of format. Burmeister (talk) 21:18, 31 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Neither template is well documented, but the documentation of {{Source}} is better, and should not be discarded. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:23, 1 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • I use {{Just}} when I need to "justify" a list of taxa that, for example, may differ from one source compared to another. However, normally the "source" for the list is inherent in the Reference Section, so I do not use {{Source}} considering it redundant. Lack or presence of documentation is an easy fix and should not form a basis for decision. Andyboorman (talk) 17:30, 1 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • It looks as though the only purpose for this template is to translate the word "Source". I don't see any rationale for using or keeping it, as almost any citations can circumvent using this word in the text entirely. --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:17, 3 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Requesting help

Hi greetings, I have requested for marking some pages for translation at TA Noticeboard. Please mark them for translation for reviewing the change. Kindly please help. Thank you.--Path slopu (talk) 12:09, 2 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Xue-Xiong Yang

Xue-Xiong Yang (created in 2015 by User:PeterR) has virtually no content, and the only inbound link is from Yang.

The corresponding Wikidata item, d:Q21390113 is also sparse, and nothing else links to it there.

Does it have any value, or shall we delete it? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:40, 31 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's possible it might have been made by accident, I just found out PeterR made the very similarly named page Yue-Xiong Yang just two minutes before making Xue-Xiong Yang. Monster Iestyn (talk) 21:14, 31 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Obviously the Wikidata is sparse: it exists because a bot generated it from Wikispecies, and preliminary evidence is that the page should have been deleted years ago. @PeterR: You got anything to help us here? Circeus (talk) 19:56, 1 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It appears not; @PeterR: has edited within the last few hours, but not responded here, despite being pinged twice in preceding days. So I'm going to redirect the page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:21, 3 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Templating citations

A recent RfC found consensus to use a template to standardise the formatting of citations, and to emit machine-readable metadata.

The idea is that this would sit inside work-specific templates such as {{Green et al., 2011}}, which would continue to be used as presently.

We currently have:

  • Template:Cite book
  • Template:Cite journal
  • Template:Cite web

whose use had been deprecated.

It seems to me that:

  1. We may need two or three templates (respectively, for books, journal article, and possibly online-only sources)
  2. the above templates can be repurposed, if we can agree stylistic changes.

To start with, here is an example of {{Cite journal}}:

  • {{cite journal|last1=Dehon |first1=M. |last2=Michez |first2=D. |last3=Nel |first3=A. |last4=Engel |first4=M. S. |last5=De Meulemeester |first5=T. |year=2014 |title=Wing Shape of Four New Bee Fossils (Hymenoptera: Anthophila) Provides Insights to Bee Evolution |journal=[[ISSN 1932-6203|PLoS ONE]] |volume=9 |issue=10 |pages=1–16 |doi=10.1371/journal.pone.0108865}}

which renders as:

  • Dehon, M.; Michez, D.; Nel, A.; Engel, M. S.; De Meulemeester, T. 2014. Wing Shape of Four New Bee Fossils (Hymenoptera: Anthophila) Provides Insights to Bee Evolution. PLoS ONE, 9(10): 1–16. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0108865. 

Aside from linking the author names, what stylistic changes would we want to make, to the output? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:57, 3 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Off the top of my head (and not covering the issues I mentioned last time):
  1. Wikispecies usage seems to be to relegate all external links to the "end" of the format, that is, including those that are not identifiers. Three different types of links being common: Abstract. PDF. Online. If we make these fields, they will need to be added and the template altered to take this in account.
    • Me and PeterR, I should mention, are in disagreement on how exactly these should be worded. IIRC, he uses Abstract/Full Article (PDF)/Full Article (HTML).
  1. If we're gonna use doi as a built-in parameter, I believe we will want to integrate {{Access}} fully.
  2. cite journal already has a built-in ISSN parameter. It is not really used on English Wikipedia, but here we should use it for generating the journal link.
Circeus (talk) 16:00, 3 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
[edit conflict] For taxonomic publications, there can be the date displayed on the work itself as well as the date of actual publication used for priority. On every other project, managing this is a headache because templates seldom allow for both dates to be added. But here, that information is critical for taxonomists who need the information. Can we make our templates to encode such information and clearly explain it in the documentation of the templates as well?
The is also the issue of encoding a work published by one set of authors within another work by different authors, but I assume that will be taken care of, as that has never been a problem for me using templates on other projects. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:04, 3 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I assume Andy means that we would import en:Help:Citation Style 1 (or more accurately en:Module:Citation/CS1) and adjust it for our needs.
I don't know how other projects have set this up but Citation Style 1 already handles original vs. printed date (the orig-year field), and has for a very long time.
The style also can handle parts-of via the chapter and editor fields.
The problem really, is that any adjustments made for Wikispecies is going to require someone knowledgeable in Lua, and the citation module is a fairly complex piece of programming. It is to me anyway, who can't program for shit. Personally, although I could handle my way around the old parserfunction-based templates, I can't make heads nor tail of the Lua module. Circeus (talk) 20:14, 3 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

sorry for interrupting, but maybe we can live without these three templates ({{Cite book}}, {{Cite journal}} and {{Cite web}}). When I see or edit enwiki referenced text massive, it is quite a nightmire. We also have some nightmires for editors, see eg Malcolm_C._McKenna#A-C. Our goal should be to simplify taxon articles, not to encumber with numerous templates which deter scientists and amateurs----Estopedist1 (talk) 18:59, 3 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think you underestimate the added value these can provide. For starters, there are already citation styles that can generate these (although the Zotero default has a very idiosyncratic ordering of arguments, I have found), and back when I was editing wikipedia a lot, en:COinS were a GODSEND when I needed to scoop up reference information in a wiki article or elsewhere. I firmly believe that using them wuold make the website tremendously more useful to scientific users. The reference templating system can be awkward as is without all that much added value (you still have to painstackingly format your ref manually, you just do it in the template page instead) anyway, and all the ugly code you loathe so much would be on those template pages instead. Circeus (talk) 20:02, 3 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

From above: "which renders as":

  • Dehon, M.; Michez, D.; Nel, A.; Engel, M. S.; De Meulemeester, T. 2014. Wing Shape of Four New Bee Fossils (Hymenoptera: Anthophila) Provides Insights to Bee Evolution. PLoS ONE, 9(10): 1–16. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0108865.

Changes needed, to appear like this: replace semi-colons after names with commas, and add '&' between last 2 authors; remove comma after journal title; add space between volume number and bracket of part number:

  • Dehon, M., Michez, D., Nel, A., Engel, M. S., & De Meulemeester, T. 2014. Wing Shape of Four New Bee Fossils (Hymenoptera: Anthophila) Provides Insights to Bee Evolution. PLoS ONE 9 (10): 1–16. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0108865.

MPF (talk) 22:57, 10 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In Help:Reference section, there is no space between volume number and bracket of issue number. Abbreviated forenames are without spaces. doi should be put into template:doi, likewise isbn. Journal name should be linked to the ISSN article (as in the template example). Authors should be linked as far as possible. Separation of first and last names is highly uncomfortable. -RLJ (talk) 23:18, 10 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
RLJ, please take the time to note that
  1. MPF is focusing on an entirely different aspect of the template (the citatoin module already handles Dois 100, as should be plain to see)
  2. The Help pages are at best outdated, and at worst entirely useless as a guide to follow, because during the Stephen era we had to beat him back over every small thing, and after that, no one had the energy anymore to actually coddle the pages into anything like a proper style guide because any discussion about style here amounts to herding cats. And that's not talking about the entire process of translating the damn thing would have to be started over.
I mean, I'd love to see these pages redone top-to-bottom, but right now I believe we can't really rely on them as a gyudie to actual practice. Circeus (talk) 23:50, 10 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
DOIs are handled with the magic word, not with the template. Help:Reference section is result of [this poll]. Your opinion on this help page is your opinion. --RLJ (talk) 00:23, 11 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

World Wide Wattle

Has anybody got the coding experience to make a template for the valuable resource World Wide Wattle. With a bit of luck incorporating a taxon page name search function to automatically find one of our pages, such as Acacia longifolia WWW page Acacia longifolia. I was hoping for something as found for IPNI or COL. Thanks. Andyboorman (talk) 19:50, 7 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How's {{WorldWideWattle}} looking? Feel free to create a shorter redirect, but me I felt {{WWW}} was... erm.. asking for trouble XD.
I'm not quite good enough to make it throw an error if the id contains letters. Circeus (talk) 02:09, 8 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Looking good. Any chance of access date? The site suggests "WorldWideWattle ver. 2. Published on the Internet at: [Accessed*]". Shame we can not pick up pagename for a search, but it is what it is I guess. Thanks.
I'm not including an accessdate because I'm not creating this as a reference template. I believe (and yes I disapprove of the way the IPNI template was designed!) this should be primarily an external link template (of exactly the sort that would ultimate be subsumed into an external links taxonbar), and so I have designed it as such. If one wishes to add an access date, one can do so manually (you'd have to write it out manually anyway even as a parameter).
Additionally, the site's suggested format is especially ugly-looking (I'm not sure WHAT citation style it's even supposed to match??) and completely inappropriate for online use: what's the point of writing the url in full (instead of just linking the frickin' page) and also not even saying which page of the website you're actually citing? Circeus (talk) 15:27, 8 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've made

@Circeus: I actually use IPNI, WCSP, MBG and so on to help construct my taxon page creations and so they belong in the reference section as citations not as a link in a taxonbar dump list. Andyboorman (talk) 15:29, 10 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template:taxobox and associated category

With help of en:Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser, I have finished {{Taxobox}} stuff. Any objection against deletion of {{Taxobox}} and Category:Pages using Template:Taxobox?--Estopedist1 (talk) 05:46, 10 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  1.  Support Andyboorman (talk) 19:31, 11 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Done Circeus (talk) 11:31, 12 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Artena uncinata

I have add Artena uncinata. This is not the normal way. Please can someone controll it? PeterR (talk) 12:15, 12 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have moved your comments to the talk page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:51, 12 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Decorum, civility and Stephen's legacy

Although he had good scientific knowledge, there's a lot to disapprove about how Stephen acted on Wikispecies. He had an uncollaborative attitude and treated the project like his own personal bibliographic and distributional database. He left behind scores of unused and inappropriate material, sometimes hidden away in category pages and talk pages, or with cryptic and problematic names. To this day we are still cleaning up this stuff. I'm saying all this to clarify that I believe as much as everyone else that Stephen behaviour was unfit for a project like Wkispecies (or indeed pretty much any Wikimedia project).

However, I have seen people use an improper nickname for Stephen. I know there's been some private discussion and requests in the past for some users to stop doing so on Wikispecies. And it happened again on this very discussion page a few days ago in a section header.

This needs to stop.

Aside from being childish (is this a serious citizen-science project or is it effing middle grade?), I really should not have to remind people that yes, Wikispecies has a civility policy, and it does apply to those who aren't there. yes, even if we don't like them.

So consider this a blanket warning. From now on, anyone (moderator or not) that I see using that nickname insult will be handed an automatic one-week block. Circeus (talk) 15:46, 8 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I totally agree. I am not a fan of Stephen but I think we should respect him as a collaborator for this project. The use of this nickname is unacceptable, and should be removed from wherever it has been used. Regards, Burmeister (talk) 16:52, 8 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Section header (cited above) amended as per this discussion. Tony 1212 (talk) 02:56, 9 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • 200% agreed, in Wikimedia projects civility must apply everywhere, by all and to all, and even to inactive users. Whether they are blocked or not does (should) not change anything. If I missed nothing it was Estopedist1 who made the section amanded by Tony 1212, therefore @Estopedist1:, just to remind them that civility should remain one of our priority. Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:58, 9 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • agreed. there should be no discussion about Stephen except as relevant to the project and within our policies. Personally I consider Stephen a colleague, we are both professional taxonomists heavily involved in discussions around the ICZN. I also do not condone what happened here, and it was dealt with accordingly, across number of projects. These days much of the discussion of Stephens edits here are in relation to them being out of scope for this project. They can be flagged and discussed as such and dealt with accordingly. No need for that to get personal. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 05:35, 14 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Namesake authors

Hi, I don't remember if I already asked but what is the usual practice for two exact homonyms? I want to create an entry for "Peter J. Smith" listed at DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.3165.1.1 (Researchgate profile), however there is already a Peter J. Smith but he seems to be botanist.... Though they are both Australian, I doubt they are the same person. Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:38, 31 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Looking around, I've seen some people with the same name who are disambiguated by their occupation, their years of birth/death ...and even father/son? If it helps though, I've managed to uncover some more information on the botanist Peter J. Smith, who it turns out was born in 1931 and whose address is from New South Wales. So yes, it's unlikely to be the same as the zoologist Peter J. Smith, whose institution address is in Victoria. Monster Iestyn (talk) 22:04, 31 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I recommend to use occupation, which is much more self-explaining than years. So disambiguation solution in Theodore Sherman Palmer is bad. If same occupation, then occupation + their years of birth/death. The special case is, if they are relatives--Estopedist1 (talk) 05:08, 1 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Done see Peter J. Smith. Christian Ferrer (talk) 09:36, 1 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

───────────────────────── As a sidenotice: it is also possible, that we do only one disambiguation page for one surname and not numerous 2-3-member disambiguation pages (eg instead of Theodore Sherman Palmer, we do only Palmer). As a result, in some cases (eg Smith, Lu, Hill) quite long disambiguation pages comes, but may be the good solution for Wikispecies to see whole picture.--Estopedist1 (talk) 17:38, 1 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I would rather we disambiguate by years when we know them, as there are plenty of taxonomists who have straddled different groups of taxa. I know of a significant bird fossil that was named and described by a botanist. Using the field of work can be misleading because of this. @Estopedist1: No, we need to disambiguate any form of the name that might appear in the literature, such as author abbreviations or full names, or name with initials. Sometimes one or more of these can be handled using redirects, but we shouldn't lump groups of people solely because they share a surname. It then becomes much more difficult for users to find the individual they are looking for, especially if they read primarily in a language that doe not use the Latin alphabet. --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:22, 3 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@EncycloPetey: I still think, that to avoid chaos in WS, we should lump groups of people who share same surname. How to structure these massive disambiguation pages (DAB; eg Smith, Lu) is another topic. Other thing, could you give please some example about DAB and difficulties for non-English users?--Estopedist1 (talk) 04:39, 3 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It is not an issue for non-English, but for people from countries that do not write their language with the Latin alphabet. Speakers of Arabic or Thai, for example. Grouping lots of people who share only a surname creates large numbers of items on a single page that a user has to sift through to find what they're looking for. If their first alphabet is not the Latin one, this becomes difficult. You haven't given any reason to lump people together except saying that there is "chaos". I don't see how putting people with the same name on the same page creates "chaos". --EncycloPetey (talk) 05:21, 3 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
chaos is coming, when we have different DABs for eg "Peter Collins", "P. Collins", "A. Collins, "P. A. Collins", "B. Collins" etc, instead of one DAB called Collins--Estopedist1 (talk) 06:57, 3 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
To be honest, I feel you might be exaggurating the "chaos" that would supposedly logically follow from having separate DABs for people that share the same names; most of those examples you just stated aren't likely to be practical in the first place. It sounds like the slippery slope fallacy even. The whole point of those DABs is to help find the taxon authority you're actually looking for when there happen to be multiple people with the same full name (or nearly). The Peter J. Smith example created recently is a perfectly acceptable example; if botanist people search for the name "Peter J. Smith" then they get to that page, and they can see they actually want to go to "Peter John Smith (botanist)" pretty easily. Likewise for the zoologist. Monster Iestyn (talk) 08:06, 3 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Estopedist1: That's not chaos, nor likely to be a problem. Wikisource already deals with author disambiguation of that kind, and it has never led to "chaos". See for example s:en:Author:John Brown or s:en:Author:Anthony Ashley Cooper. By contrast, the surname-only DAB has led to issues. When I am trying to find an article on Wikipedia, it can take a long time sifting through a surname DAB page to tell whether or not Wikipedia even has an article on the person I am trying to find. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:09, 3 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Monster Iestyn and EncycloPetey: there are two bad things which will happen or even are happening: Firstly: if we create individual DABs for, eg Theodore Sherman Palmer, Peter J. Smith or Peter Smith, then people forget to add these names also to main DAB (respectively Palmer and Smith). Result = chaos. Secondly: maintaining main DAB (eg Palmer) and so-called branch DAB (eg Theodore Shermn Palmer) may be irrational duplication.--Estopedist1 (talk) 17:58, 3 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
People forgetting to add them to the surname page is a minor issue. Someone with a bot can identify those cases and add them. I disagree that the alternative is "irrational" duplication. The surname page is the duplication. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:52, 3 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There is also extra duplication from Catalog:Taxon Authorities, at least when people actually remember to add people there as well. Monster Iestyn (talk) 19:25, 3 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
yes, manually created massive lists are almost always suspicious and, in general, should be replaced by automatic ones. In this case Category:Taxon authorities does the job--Estopedist1 (talk) 06:29, 4 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It does the job only, if editors use a correct {{DEFAULTSORT:}} in their author pages. If this is missing, e.g. Abel Fornes will be sorted into A instead of F. Maybe a bot could help here, to find author pages without defaultsort? I have already spent some time for adding or correcting defaultsorts, as some editors seem to just copy it from one author page to the next one. --Thiotrix (talk) 12:25, 4 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Thiotrix: very nice hint! Using wikitechnical stuff, I did full list of authors vs DEFAULTSORT. I can send you this very good list (Excel file) if you are interested in?--Estopedist1 (talk) 12:05, 5 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you, Estopedist1. But for the moment, I don't have much time for working on wikispecies . Maybe a bot should add all author pages without DEFAULTSORT to a new maintenance category, or at least checking the newly created author pages. --Thiotrix (talk) 08:05, 6 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Thiotrix: I am unable to run robots (notice to user:Rosičák, user:Mariusm). But with en:AutoWikiBrowser, I will try to solve these systematic mistakes--Estopedist1 (talk) 14:07, 6 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There are currently (by my count) 2037 pages in Category:Taxon authorities that are not redirects and lack a defaultsort being declared. Do you want a list? (note to self: SELECT page_title FROM page WHERE page_namespace = 0 AND page_is_redirect = 0 AND page_id IN (SELECT cl_from FROM categorylinks WHERE cl_to = 'Taxon_authorities') AND page_id NOT IN (SELECT pp_page FROM pa ge_props WHERE pp_propname = 'defaultsort') ORDER BY page_title ASC; DannyS712 (talk) 20:24, 6 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

───────────────────────── thumbs up Great! , user:DannyS712! Always good to see people with good SQL skills. Direct link to this SQL quarry is here: [2]. I will see what I can do with these authority articles using AutoWikiBrowser. As a sidenotice: to compare authorities' names vs DEFAULTSORT, we can use Petscan--Estopedist1 (talk) 11:54, 7 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Thiotrix: all articles in Category:Taxon authorities are provided with DEFAULTSORT. I'll keep the eye on new authority articles where DEFAULTSORT is missing.--Estopedist1 (talk) 05:19, 14 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Very good, thank you! --Thiotrix (talk) 08:47, 14 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Today I discovered Category:Unverified; it has 2,580 members. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:39, 11 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's one of the pages linked from the Watchlist, if you remember this discussion from last month. Last I saw it it had over 1,000 pages, I take it Estopedist1 is adding more to it still? Monster Iestyn (talk) 19:45, 11 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
They are taxon pages with no refs so it is a fair tag, surely? It could also be useful for specialists in helping them prioritise page improvements. Andyboorman (talk) 20:18, 11 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
after user:EncycloPetey comment in my talk page, I do not add "Unverified" category to taxon pages. I guess, we have estimately 20,000 taxon pages where Primary reference is absent. But because this category is so important for WS, then it should be added somehow automatically--Estopedist1 (talk) 05:14, 12 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Just because Primary Reference is missing does not mean a reference to the protologue is also missing. This format is comparatively recent and still not used routinely. Andyboorman (talk) 08:03, 12 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We must remember that some of these categories are defined as they are in taxonomy we need to be cautious how they get used. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 05:38, 14 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Category:Unverified's header should explain, what members should be there. And it should be in harmony with {{Unverified}}--Estopedist1 (talk) 07:43, 14 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Personally I don't believe there should be subheader in the reference section anyway, but I'm not doing much taxonomic editing at this time, so... Circeus (talk) 15:05, 14 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]


see also Wikispecies:Village_Pump/Archive_19#Italic_titles (2009)

Occasionally come across taxon pages (e.g. Erigeron canadensis) with {{DISPLAYTITLE:''{{PAGENAME}}''}}, which displays the page title in italics. In the interests of consistency, should this be removed from the few pages that have it, or added to all the taxon pages that don't have it? - MPF (talk) 08:49, 13 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It (or a similar solution, such as including it in a taxonavbox) should be included in all appropriate levels of the taxonomic hierarchy (e.g. yes for species but no for kingdoms). —Justin (koavf)TCM 09:01, 13 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
{{DISPLAYTITLE:}}-construction is definitely info pollution in articles. But, if no automatical solution is available, then this construction should be embedded to the correct template, eg see {{Oenothera}}. I am not sure, how enwiki is solved this Italic stuff--Estopedist1 (talk) 12:17, 13 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For example, Erigeron sect. Erigeridium is incorrect it should be Erigeron sect. Erigeridium. Well meaning editor preference not policy. It will need a vote to become one. In plants also no taxon higher than genus, please. Andyboorman (talk) 13:08, 13 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It has just occurred to me that if an editor places {{DISPLAYTITLE:''{{PAGENAME}}''}} on the template for a genus then page names for sections, subspecies etc. will display incorrectly. Andyboorman (talk) 14:21, 13 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Actually, this topic is not Wikispecies-specific and hence needs wikiglobal solution (ie same solution for enwiki, simplewiki, wiktionary, wikisource etc). I guess that Wikidata can solve this problem. And before such wikiglobal solution, it is not rational to waste time by adding manually or semi-automatically DISPLAYTITLE to every article of every template --Estopedist1 (talk) 04:36, 14 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
EN WP uss w:Template:Italic_title to display the mainspace name in italics, not sure what level of automation is there though, probably manual. Theoretically, all species and subspecies page names should have the names themselves in italics, how best to do this I am not sure. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 05:45, 14 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As I pointed out it is only the Latin part of the name that is in italics. I am tending to agree with Estopedist1 that we should hold off until a global solution is found that follows taxonomic conventions. Andyboorman (talk) 08:22, 14 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The only way at present to get proper italics for sections and subgenera on is via DISPlAYTITLE (e.g. {{DISPLAYTITLE:''Erigeron'' sect. ''Erigeridium''}}); I would presume that is the case for Wikispecies as well. en:Template:Infraspeciesbox does have code to keep "var." and "subsp." from being italicized, which could presumably be adapted to other taxobox templates to keep sect. and subg. from being italicized. Italicization on is generally done automatically when a taxobox template is employed (the older en:Template:Taxobox is sensitive to a bunch of formatting issues that can break the italicization though; the newer templates en:Template:Automatic taxobox and en:Template:Speciesbox are much more robust in keeping italics in spite of formatting errors (the newer templates are now used on more than half of's taxa articles). Parenthesized subgenera (e.g. Mus (Mus)) also require DISPLAYTITLE for italics if the original taxobox template is used. Plantdrew (talk) 22:49, 14 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Bit of a side note relating to the Mus (Mus) example, but I vaguely remember reading somewhere that the parentheses around interpolated names including subgenera are not supposed to be in italics (so it should be Mus (Mus) instead, for instance). However, the only page I can find on that subject offhand right now though is the English Wikipedia's own Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Organisms. Monster Iestyn (talk) 23:50, 14 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Apologies, I was being sloppy in my markup. It should indeed be Mus (Mus), with the parentheses not italicized themselves. Plantdrew (talk) 03:25, 15 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Wait, I thought that function was integrated in the taxonav template? Circeus (talk) 15:06, 14 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks all! I'll zap any occurrences I come across. And yes, names of ranks like 'var.' and 'subsp.', and subgenera brackets like "Mus (Mus)", should not be italics. - MPF (talk) 00:39, 15 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Tests with {{Taxonbar}}

Hello just for info, I changed a bit the visual appearance of this template, and made a few tests that can be seen via the relevant talk page. There are obvioulsy many and many more possibilities (included the possibility to chose the identifiers that can be displayed or not). Christian Ferrer (talk) 11:49, 16 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Christian Ferrer: it is super that someone develops Taxonbar. WS users waste a lot of time to insert different databases identifiers manually. To be specific: (1) I just recommend to get enwiki appearance for Taxonbar, because this topic is already discussed there. (2) Embedding Commons category is not a good idea. (3) don't forget how synonyms are appeared, see eg en:Anagallis tenella--Estopedist1 (talk) 12:52, 16 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes indeed, the English version is good, I am currently not able to do it tecknically but I keep this in the things to do... Christian Ferrer (talk) 12:56, 16 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Christian Ferrer: the layout of Commons category box and Taxonbar box would be like there: Arthur Mills Lea. In addition, probably best is not mix with {{Global}}. Let {{Global}} be history--Estopedist1 (talk) 17:55, 16 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, yes, in fact I don't really plan to mix things, that was just some kind of experiences. I'm currently checking various modules, trying to understand how to get the same appearance than in ENWP. Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:59, 16 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I reverted my edits on {{Taxonbar}}, I currently don't have the skill, and I will not be able to find the time necessary to study the matter. Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:39, 16 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Technical : Loop redirect...

Trichosiopsis sinica →‎ Leptosciarella sinica Trichosiopsis sinica

which will never resolve.

Can someone fix this? Thanks.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:59, 18 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Estopedist1 may want to be involved here, since he appears to have made Trichosiopsis sinica a redirect to the other page here earlier this month. Monster Iestyn (talk) 14:06, 18 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@ShakespeareFan00 and Monster Iestyn: should be solved--Estopedist1 (talk) 15:28, 18 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Reference Wang et al., 2014z and next?

Any suggestion what to do after {{Wang et al., 2014z}}? Maybe we need some other system in these cases? Also checking of duplicates are very laborous--Estopedist1 (talk) 19:10, 5 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think once you have used up a-z you go aa, ab, ac etc. Pushes the problem down the road a bit... then when you reach zz we are all history, perhaps (or you can progress to aaa)... Cheers - Tony Tony 1212 (talk) 19:38, 5 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Do some of them have only three authors by any chance? Maybe those could be renamed to "Template:Author1, Author2 & Author3, Year" instead of using et al. Monster Iestyn (talk) 20:06, 5 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I... Uh... Jesus frickin' Christ, people, don't be afraid to go "A, B and al.", or to use initials! Template name are chosen for convenience, they don't have to match precisely what their reference call would be in most reference systems! Circeus (talk) 21:27, 5 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Why are the authors in uppercase? Never seen that one before on WS. Andyboorman (talk) 22:49, 5 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Copypasted from the source. Magnolia Press journals write the author names in all-caps on the article pages. Circeus (talk) 23:03, 5 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
More to the point, why are the author names not linked to author pages? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:59, 6 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This was formerly one of Stephen Thorpe's "Pt" templates for Phytotaxa references. He did that a lot with his "Zt" templates for Zootaxa too, it's really annoying in a way. Monster Iestyn (talk) 17:53, 6 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Also not all authors of papers should be linked? Authors of taxa are what we are interested in documenting. the other ones have no need (or business, as far as I'm concerned) being redlinked. Circeus (talk) 01:00, 7 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In that case, all but the third author needs to be linked in this example... unfortunately I think the "Jian Wang" currently linked is the wrong one, but the botanist one doesn't seem to have a page yet. Monster Iestyn (talk) 01:37, 7 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In the case discussed, none of the names were linked, and at least two have an existing author page (which I've since linked). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:12, 7 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Use initials ("Wang J. et al., 2014", "Wang L. et al., 2014", etc). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:59, 6 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
this Chinese stuff is really challenging. Eg "Wang, J. et al., 2014" is solution, but it seems to be dead-end after we have eg "Wang, J. et al., 2014k". Actually, user:PeterR maybe solved this stuff (see my talk page). Ie: we always give three autor's surnames, even if only four authors exist--Estopedist1 (talk) 08:19, 7 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We have an agreement how to create an author template. Are we forgot that? It is Wang et al, 2020z and nothing els. The author names have to link to the author pages. PeterR (talk) 11:59, 7 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We have an agreement for using citation style templates, Peter. The template names are a different issue and are chosen for convenience. People are agreeing that when we get to unnecessarily high or even double letters, it clearly is nowhere near convenient anymore to strictly stick to this naming convention. Circeus (talk) 12:28, 7 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Why dead after "k"? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:13, 7 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Because if you have to check 10+ possible template to find out whether your article is already templated, it's reasonable to say the system has failed. Circeus (talk) 18:37, 7 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm unclear why this is stated to be an issue for "Wang, J. et al., 2014k" , but not "Wang, et al., 2014aa". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:46, 9 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
But in the example template their are links to the authors. Estopedist1 dont do that. He move Zt templates to author names templates without connecting the Authors and no publish in the text all the authors. For me it is a complete mess. PeterR (talk) 08:05, 8 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
my first priority is that we don't do duplicate templates, eg You have done many of them, eg {{Zt3717.1.4}} (replace this to normal format and there we have {{Gildenkov, 2013}})--Estopedist1 (talk) 08:53, 8 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What is wrong with my created {{Gildenkov, 2013}}? — The preceding unsigned comment was added by PeterR (talkcontribs) 8 August 2020.
@PeterR: it is very good. Just wanted to show, that we have to rename all Zt-templates to avoid unnecessary duplication. But at the moment, we are a bit stuck, because we don't know how to rename Chinese ones, eg {{Zt3884.3.4}}--Estopedist1 (talk) 18:17, 8 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't understand what Estopedist1 means with we always give three autor's surnames, even if only four authors exist. PeterR (talk) 08:22, 8 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
this means that instead of {{Li et al., 2014u}}, we rename it to {{Li, Li, Weng et al., 2014}}. But, this was just an idea, and as you realize it means that we should rename every "et al.-template". Therefore: probably a (very) bad idea--Estopedist1 (talk) 09:03, 8 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

───────────────────────── I guess, I solved the referencing style puzzle. Rules:

  • style like SURNAME(S), INITIAL(S), YEAR is not allowed (eg {{Brown,FM, 1969}} is invalid)
  • style like SURNAME(S), INITIAL(S), YEAR is only allowed when we reach SURNAME(S), YEARi #until i-letter, because Wikisearch renders up to 10 entries. Hence {{Wang et al., 2014j}} is invalid
  • and if really happens that we reach until Wang, M. et al., 2014i, then let the next ones be Wang, M. et al., 2014j; Wang, M. et al., 2014k and so on. It is the ultimate exception!--Estopedist1 (talk) 15:31, 11 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Just to be clear about why we are having this discussion:
The naming convention for these templates has always been informal. Overall people agree that a baseline of "as it would be cited in a typical scientific article" is good, but in practical terms, that breaks down for certain very prolific authors and those (most commonly Chinese authors, burn Brown or Johnson in English fall into that category) with a lot of homonyms because Wikispecies handles a lot more citations than most citation guides ever expect a publication to! How to deal with those edge/extreme cases has never been fully settled. Circeus (talk) 16:40, 11 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
to avoid massive duplicate creations, we definitely need conventions. My proposed rules above are one step toward general harmonization and system. As a sidenotice: using my rules above we are able to rationally rename {{Zt3881.6.3}}, {{Zt3884.3.4}}, {{Zt3889.2.6}} and many others--Estopedist1 (talk) 05:25, 12 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't understand this discussion. When we started it was Wang, M.. Later we decide to use only Wang and now some people want back to the started way?PeterR (talk) 13:22, 12 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@PeterR:, yes I am based on User:Pigsonthewing suggestion, but instead of "Wang J. et al., 2014", we should use it with comma: "Wang, J. et al., 2014". And if double given name, then without space, eg "Wang, R.S. et al., 2014"--Estopedist1 (talk) 05:55, 13 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's back to the base, but we have to do every reference templates on this way. Wang, J. & Wang, R.S. But also Moore, F. etc. Thats a lot of work.PeterR (talk) 11:27, 18 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@PeterR: please read my suggested rules again. Eg "Moore, J., 1890" is NOT allowed, unless we have reach up to "Moore, 1890i"--Estopedist1 (talk) 12:12, 18 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
and eg "Wang, J. & Wang, R.S., 2010" is NOT allowed, unless we have reach up to "Wang & Wang, 2010i"--Estopedist1 (talk) 12:15, 18 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@PeterR: yes, we have 30 Wang, J. But this is not the case. Important is year of their's publications and association with authorship (ie: Wang, Year; Wang et al., Year; Wang & Author, Year; Wang, Author & Author, Year)--Estopedist1 (talk) 05:53, 19 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
          • For me we can use Wang et al. and year. I have no problem with that and I make a lot of Chinese reference templates. Who have problems with the old way? PeterR (talk) 14:12, 19 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Person with eponyms but not taxon authority, out of scope?

Person with eponyms, but is definitely not a taxon authority, out of scope? Eg Cas Vanderwoude. I guess, if similar cases are in WS scope, we may also have article of many celebrities? Also notice that this topic is strongly related to "Etymology"-section in WS articles.--Estopedist1 (talk) 09:45, 19 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'd say if someone has multiple (like, at least five or so), they can have an eponym category. I'd say you don't need an author page to have an eponym page (the relevant info can be put on the category page instead). Some people who've made a huge and wikispecies-relevant contribution that just incidentally doesn't involve name authorship (e.g. in phylogeny, as collectors, or because in Zoology new combinations don't get an authority attached) might be worth having pages for, but atm I can't think of any. Cas Vanderwoude is a specialist of invasiveness and biological control in ants, so he (his full given name is Casper) doesn't fall in those categories.
HOWEVER, there is IMO nothing preventing the documentation of who is being honored on the taxon page when the namesake doesn't/wouldn't have a wikispecies page. I have done so in the past.
Also, that author page currently exists only because of {{Prasad et al., 2016}}, an unused reference that which is clearly outside project scope as being entirely unrelated to either nomenclature or taxonomy writ large. I even went and looked it up to make sure. Circeus (talk) 13:03, 19 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Incorrect redirects

Please note this discussion copied from Talk:Repositories.

Andyboorman: user:Mariusm is redirected eg "holotype", "syntype" under "repositories". Isn't it user-unfriendly? Logical should be redirection to the glossary, like it originally was--Estopedist1 (talk) 12:24, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
@Estopedist1: I have asked the question and reverted the edits. A change like this needs a Pump discussion as well. Andyboorman (talk) 14:18, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
IIRC, "holotype" did once redirect to this page, but it's been agreed (as far as I know, anyway) for quite a while pages should link/redirect to the appropriate repository page (and not this list). Circeus (talk) 00:31, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
[ETA for clarity for later readers] And they should link with the acronym. Circeus (talk) 12:10, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
That is what I assumed as well, so I guess a well meaning mistake. Andyboorman (talk) 07:23, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

@Circeus and Andyboorman: so you suggest that instead of

* {{int:Holotype}}: [[Holotype#U|USNM]] 199058. 
* Paratypes: [[Paratype#U|USNM]]

we have

* {{int:Holotype}}: [[USNM]] 199058. 
* Paratypes: [[USNM]]

--Estopedist1 (talk) 13:26, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes. If a definition is required a redirect can be placed on ⧼Holotype⧽ although we get a strange format using int. Andyboorman (talk) 16:00, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
Pretty much. I suspect some abbreviation still redirect to Holotype and may need to be sorted out. Circeus (talk) 17:56, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
@Andyboorman and Circeus: not "some", but we have thousands and thousands of links like "MBUCV". I also agree with Andy, that using "int-structure" seems strange there and is maybe redundant at all. It is possible that in order to keep WS articles cleaner, then if we are dealing with international words (like holotype, references, synonyms), we don't use "int-structure". But this big and maybe breakthrough-like topic belongs to Village Pump--Estopedist1 (talk) 06:19, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
@Circeus: and @Estopedist1: Can a bot be created to change "MBUCV" to "MBUCV" by removal of the Holotype#M for example? That would require just 24 passes. Andyboorman (talk) 08:11, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
seems easy task for bots. Our bot specialists should be user:Rosičák and user:Mariusm. But before any actions, notices are needed in Village Pump to avoid creating these invalid links in future--Estopedist1 (talk) 09:05, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

We did discuss this, but I do not remember when. I will add this topic for discussion on the Pump. Andyboorman (talk) 10:55, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

We used * Holotype: USNM 199058. in the past. Now we use for years * Holotype: USNM. All info you can get by user:Mariusm. Holotype: USNM should clean up years ago, but so as a lot of clean ups never done. Not for all Holotype: USNM] are Holotype: USNM. PeterR (talk) 14:22, 19 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please discuss this topic and try to come up for reasons why a bot can not be used to fix this mess. Thanks Andyboorman (talk) 11:03, 19 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • @Estopedist1: Thank you for the warning. I take note of the discussion and will follow it. If you have any requests for robotic adjustments, please direct them to my discussion page. Currently, the shoe is 100% busy, but if necessary, I can interrupt the activity.--Rosičák (talk) 14:48, 19 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Mariusm: I am sure we need to hear from Mariusm being the largest user of this procedure. Andyboorman (talk) 15:32, 19 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template:Taxa authored and Template:Taxa authored 2 must be merged

we must to merge {{Taxa authored}} {{Taxa authored 2}}. New users are confused. I know that after merging some articles have manually created duplicate row Taxon names authored. But the earlier we merge, the better for Wikispecies community and especially for new users--Estopedist1 (talk) 11:20, 3 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Support Seems sensible to me. Andyboorman (talk) 13:01, 3 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Support Burmeister (talk) 13:14, 3 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Support yes do it. Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 13:28, 3 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Support ReneeWrites (talk) 13:53, 3 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Support Though mind that there are still pages that translude the former template or one of its redirects (Template:Taxa, Template:Authored taxa and Template:Taxa Authored). Monster Iestyn (talk) 15:43, 3 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Support I have been upgrading to {{Taxa authored 2}} whenever I encounter the situation during citation creation. Neferkheperre (talk) 13:38, 4 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Support {{Taxa authored 2}} is good. Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:35, 4 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Support {{Taxa authored 2}} fine.--Hector Bottai (talk) 23:42, 10 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Support: please always use {{Taxa authored 2}} and get rid of all other formats. --Thiotrix (talk) 07:42, 12 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Support {{Taxa authored 2}} I use this every time because you find it in Wikispecies tools and nothing else. PeterR (talk) 13:15, 12 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Here is (some of the) prior discussion:

And, yes, they should be merged. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:16, 3 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

the result is obvious here. Now, we have to copy syntax of {{Taxa authored 2}} and paste it to {{Taxa authored}}. After that, we accept only one format: {{Taxa authored}}--Estopedist1 (talk) 08:45, 12 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Any update on this? Currently we have a mix of pages using {{Taxa authored}} using the old way, {{Taxa authored 2}} using the current Help page standards, and increasingly a number of pages using {{Taxa authored}} in the same way as 2 assuming this merge will happen, which is making everything rather messy. Monster Iestyn (talk) 16:49, 21 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Monster Iestyn and Pigsonthewing: OK, {{Taxa authored}} is substituted by {{Taxa authored 2}}. Now, there are several tasks to do. Some of them are only for admins, like fixing MediaWiki:Edittools--Estopedist1 (talk) 17:21, 21 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
MediaWiki:Edittools done. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:37, 21 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
if new system (ie we only use {{Taxa authored}}) stays stable, then we have two problems: (1) double text in authority articles which have {{Taxa}} (about 10,000 articles); (2) documentation of tl:Taxa authored needs to be updated--Estopedist1 (talk) 20:13, 21 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nadi - layout..

What's the intended 'fromatting' for input to the {{Nadi}} template? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 14:23, 22 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Specifically which levels of the list typically included are italic, bold etc?

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 14:23, 22 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@ShakespeareFan00: nice catch! Manually created {{Nadi}} is maybe not rational in WS (there are many discussions about it), but correct format (no italic, top two levels are in bold) should be like this: User_talk:MILEPRI/Archive_1#Format_of_"Native_distribution"_template. Just in case I am pinging @MILEPRI:--Estopedist1 (talk) 17:56, 22 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Vaccinium praestans Was Asie a region or was this meant to be Asia?ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 18:02, 22 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Asia-Temperate, following TDWG, Asia-Tropical for the tropical countries. --RLJ (talk) 18:22, 22 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OT Rewards and Barnstars on WS?

thumb|Original Barnstar Throughout the years, Wikispecies has been a very successful project, in spite of some initial hesitation to allow its start, and fears that it would become a fork. WS has attracted more users over the years, but mostly through the dedicated work of a few, it has grown to its present volume with a growing number of articles and status. Everyone can feel happy and proud about sharing this success, and I think what many specifically enjoy, is that apart from some stormy periods, WS has remained a very peaceful place compared with some other Wikimedia projects, and with less needs of conflict solving etc.

All this is of course the result of such wonderful and generous people onboard, who with tireless energy continue towards glory and fortune for Wikispecies.

Now and then, when I see the tireless work being performed, I ask myself, apart from the positive sensation of satisfaction, that every contributor feels within themselves, how could possibly the work be rewarded? Apart from that we now and then just leve a note on someones user talk page, with a short well done, or great job, would it make sense to import any of the more common rewards used on other projects, and use them to show our appreciation for another user, in any way? Just to have the chance to say, Hey, I saw what you did, it took days and hours, and I just want to say, well done, and thanks, much appreciated...

What Im thinking about is the the option used on several Wikipedias with Wikipedia Barnstar awards, which can be seen on Commons. I guess some may think this is a childish way of showing appreciation, but if given with a good heart, I guess it doesn't hurt?

Moreover, as Wikispecies gets older, so does we. In the academic world, a tireless contribution would hopefully one day be rewarded, while here on WS I have not yet identified any way of honoring users who has spent years and years, by building up WS to what it is. Apart from Barn Stars, is there any other alternative suggestion how we could honor those who who invested so much time, with so good intentions? A prize? Medals? A Hall of Fame? Or flowers sent from a local flower shop?

Its not easy to know what someone else would appreciate, but with this said, I just want to plant a seed, and even if no one else find this important, I just want to remind you, that we all are grateful for what you have done, and how easy it is, to at least express this with a few nice words, now and then. And of course viewing the result, and enjoying the benefits of working in a team together, is always the best reward for good work! Dan Koehl (talk) 15:20, 20 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Whatever, but definitely no moving .gif files, please! - MPF (talk) 07:51, 23 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So no tireless contributor for you then? Andyboorman (talk) 11:12, 23 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Lint error resolution

I've removed a whole slew of lint-errors , however I hit a limitation in my browser with respect to language that are read right to left (such as Hebrew and Arabic).

Is there someone here that can look at the remaining lint errors here :-

and attempt a resolution of them, if the browser they use has suitable support. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:23, 23 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@ShakespeareFan00: thumbs up Great! , you have done good job with these div-stuff! This Hebrew and Arabic stuff is nightmare for Western users. Probably only solution to fix these div-stuff is to find some Arabic/Hebrew Wikipedian.--Estopedist1 (talk) 16:23, 23 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm not Arabic/Hebrew, but doing some checking myself apparently you can see how the source of a right-to-left page would look in left-to-right if you paste the contents of it elsewhere. Monster Iestyn (talk) 17:48, 23 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In fact I just managed to fix one of the pages with lint errors this way. Monster Iestyn (talk) 17:53, 23 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Eliminating deprecated stuff

@Estopedist1: Have you perceived that, ahead the removal of {{occupation}} which is fine, you are also removing all the {{int:}} for occupations? I haven't seen any agreement on this direction. By the way, the {{occupation}} should be replaced by int: and not just removed--Hector Bottai (talk) 10:18, 24 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

yep, this {{Occupation}} is huge clutter, still used in 846 times. It takes time to get rid of it. Secondly: international- or int-stuff in disambiguation pages is questionable, because (1) it is sparcely and randomly used; (2) is there really point to internationalize words like botanist, zoologist, dipterist, lepidopterist, coleopterist etc?--Estopedist1 (talk) 14:34, 24 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don´t think eliminating the :int internationalization template is something you can decide by yourself based on your single opinion when it was previously agreed by consensus. First consult the community, then act accordingly. I strongly disagree in removing stuff without consensus. I would ask you to go back to all the editions you have done and restore them.--Hector Bottai (talk) 16:45, 24 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Major changes and deletions that been agreed by consensus must be handled carefully and not unilaterally. Andyboorman (talk) 18:11, 24 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
By the way some of the int templates produce atypical formats ((tl|⧼Designation⧽}} as an example. Andyboorman (talk) 18:15, 24 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Andyboorman: This thing is obtained each time that you use int: for a word that is not in Wikispecies:Localization. Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:37, 24 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If I am correct then etymology is out of scope, unless it is related to the person or maybe fictional characters (we have category:Taxa named after mythical and fictional subjects). If I am incorrect, this topic need another discussion--Estopedist1 (talk) 19:17, 24 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes etymology is out of scope, as it is not part of taxonomy or classification and I also remove it whenever I encounter it. Andyboorman (talk) 19:31, 24 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As I'm quite new here but I am quite active and I added that kind of stuff dozen and dozen (hundred?) of times, it is a pity that not a single experimented user judged good to say that it was out of scope to me. It would have 1/ saved time for me and those who have to remove it 2/ saved me from the frustation to see content that I added be removed without I know exactly why. But now I know, thanks to me. Not a very collaborative work, but well. Christian Ferrer (talk) 19:41, 24 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It is not in Help and also unless paths cross it is difficult to offer advice unless asked. Apologies if offended. Andyboorman (talk) 19:50, 24 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Also where it is said we must use *{{int:Type species}}: instead of  :'''{{int:Type species}}''':? don't we have a little space of freedom to format a taxon page? otherwise where it is stated that one is better than the other? Christian Ferrer (talk) 19:22, 24 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Christian Ferrer: The recommended is {{int:Typus}}, see in the bottom at Wikispecies tools when editing a page, and not {{int:Type species}}; same for {{int:Type locality}}. These tools are supposed to help and standardize. I am sorry about your editions on etimology, I never crossed with one of those. Apologies.--Hector Bottai (talk) 21:29, 24 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Where is "Typus" stated to be recommended exactly? Monster Iestyn (talk) 11:20, 25 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am still waiting others opinions about @Estopedist1: removals of the agreed {{int:}} templates on authors occupations.--Hector Bottai (talk) 21:33, 24 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Hector Bottai: could You forgive me that some "{{int:acarologist}}" is changed to "acarologist". Or I must to dig out these old edits and revert?--Estopedist1 (talk) 11:09, 25 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Sorry to be a little stubborn, but several things:
To see the stats (31 views) of that page, I wonder who are the persons who have looked at it, and it is highly improbable that there were not some experimented users. I don't appreciate, despite the two apologies above, that one look to me working hour and hours without saying to me that I add deprecated stuff, and then someone come edit the page with "remove deprecated stuff" (not that page but similar pages). That is a clear "no go", and that will not work with me.
if "etymology" is out of scope, then firstly it should be said in the help section, and secondly I wonder the purpose to have {{Eponyms}} listed in the tools when editing a page, because when we talk about eponyms we talk about etymology so why it is more in scope to say that a taxon is named after someone than after a locality, after another taxon or after a morphological feature.
I also reinstalled bold text + format there, as I see nowhere that the standardization must follow one way instead the other. Otherwise please, as apparently "it is difficult to offer advice unless asked", then write a proper complete exemple in the help section on what is clearly allowed or not, included explanation for "etymology", and for why talking etymology is allowed about persons but not in other cases, potential use of bold text, use of " * " instead of " : ", use or no use of " * " before the name just quoted below the name section, ect, ect... otherwise I predict that if you go behind me to arbitrarily remove what you judge out of scope, then we go to an issue. Christian Ferrer (talk) 03:51, 25 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It is also quite funny that "Etymology" is quoted in Wikispecies:Localization, but in fact we should not use it because it is out of scope. Christian Ferrer (talk) 04:51, 25 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Christian Ferrer: you are doing great work here! Sometimes WS Help Pages/Guidelines may be uncompleted or even outdated (compared to eg enwiki ones). One reason, why etymology should be deprecated is because we have to provide it with references and these references may lead to non-scientific or pure linguistics sources So it would be real clutter to WS articles. But be aware that etymology stuff is very OK in enwiki, so you can move it to there. And, yes we have problems with eponyms as well, see eg recent Wikispecies:Village_Pump#Person_with_eponyms_but_not_taxon_authority,_out_of_scope?--Estopedist1 (talk) 05:45, 25 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Christian Ferrer, Hector Bottai and Estopedist1 are all doing good work. The later has been very valuable over the last few weeks pointing out where WS has moved away from it prime focus and trying to remind us that this project belongs to us all and we have got to be careful not to let personal projects and preferences take over, as this leads to article chaos. However, editors like myself have also got to realise that the project has moved on and prime examples are; the huge growth of authority pages both people and sources, template development and also internationalisation/translation. All very good work, but not taxonomy and classification of organisms. There is another debate that needs to be had and that is standardisation of taxon page format. Perhaps we now need to make a small check list of issues to be resolved and give each its own section for debate on the Pump. This then should lead to a revision of the Help Pages. Thought? Andyboorman (talk) 07:24, 25 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've always thought it a shame that the help section doesn't include an "ideal" taxon page template (or maybe even a couple good examples). This would help avoid the pains highlighted above and would also be of a lot of use to new or casual users as a source to copy/paste from and get a handle on how to format pages. I agree with @Andyboorman: that this would be a good time to try and get one put together. Voganaa (talk) 08:41, 25 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Wikispecies:Templates links to Panthera tigris as an example of an "ideal" taxon page. Though it seems type locality has been removed from it since I last looked at it, for some reason. EDIT: Nevermind, it just got moved down to "Distribution" instead. Monster Iestyn (talk) 11:13, 25 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Panthera tigris has not a complex synonymy, neither it shows a lot of potential infos (holotype, ect...), IMO a little thin as an example. I wonder how would be done Ophiurothamnus clausa if it should serve as an exemple, keeping in mind not to lose any information and that it remains understandable. Christian Ferrer (talk) 11:29, 25 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Yes agreed with Andyboorman and Voganaa, we need to revisit the help sections after a big discussion. Very great idea. Christian Ferrer (talk) 11:16, 25 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Funny, the endangered Panthera tigris example was missing the important IUCN link, and also the VN section should be at the bottom of the page. Done.--Hector Bottai (talk) 12:08, 25 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Agreed, we need to revisit the help sections and establishes solid consensus for the formats to avoid purely aesthetic editions that cause discomfort between users or friction. Burmeister (talk) 13:17, 25 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Important: maintenance operation on September 1st

Trizek (WMF) (talk) 13:48, 26 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Predatory Publishing

A speedy delete request has been made for {{Sharif et al, 2020}} with the comment "Seeded to multiple articles; unreliable predatory journal, Spam". Do not delete this template, as it is included on 6 taxon pages. An expert (Insecta, Pentatomidae) must assess the validity of the paper and its relevance to the transcluded taxa. Once this has been done and assuming the article is found wanting, then it can be removed from the affected taxon pages and the template deleted. Meanwhile I have temporarily removed the speedy delete request. However, I do agree that WS is no place for predatory publishing and this should be made part of policy, assuming consensus of course. Andyboorman (talk) 12:20, 27 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is journal website; website. has appearance of legit, maybe with more research. Neferkheperre (talk) 13:55, 27 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It is a pay for publication across the board, but other than that seems legit. I am no expert on this type of journal. Andyboorman (talk) 14:15, 27 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The Journal of Entomology and Zoology Studies is published by AkiNik Publication, and this publisher is listed as predatory here. The journal is also listed on this other list as predatory, but I don't know how legit those lists are. However, it is present in the the Beall's list. I'm no expert, so what do you guys think ? --Hiouf (talk) 14:53, 27 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note this relevant discussion on En-WP. Andyboorman (talk) 15:03, 27 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I proposed the speedy delete, based on the enWP discussion (but realize that a discussion here is better, thanks Andyboorman). The journal homepage has some red flags on the abstracting and indexing page. For example, it lists services that don't exist any more (e.g., Scirus) or that seem to be a lot but are basically trivial, such as "NIH US National Library of Medicine", which probably refers to having some articles included in PubMed Central because an author was NIH-supported and which does not even provide a link to it. It also proudly presents some "impact factors", provided by fake databases (InnoSpace, GIF, Citefactor, etc). Some of those fake impact factors are also displayed on the main page. Tellingly, it does not claim to be included by DOAJ (I didn't check this, but if indeed not in DOAJ, that's a huge warning sign). In all, I don't think there's much doubt that this is a predatory journal and articles published in it should be regarded as self-published and not peer-reviewed. --Randykitty (talk) 15:57, 27 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
How to proceed with the species described in this journal? Mark as unavaliable, delete, redirect to same place until an official decision (IZCN) or what? Burmeister (talk) 16:04, 27 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Burmeister: None of the species or other taxa dealt with by this publication are new to science and so parking then is not required. Although the generic taxon pages seem to be incomplete, but @Hiouf: seems to currently be working on these taxa. However, on his user page he does admit not to be an entomologist or expert, therefore edits are comprehensive and in good faith, but perhaps need a more insecta experienced editor to undertake a gentle review. I hope he will contribute on this discussion having now been pinged. It then comes back to the publication itself and thanks to @Randykitty: for your information. My advice so far is to remove and salt (I like that term from WP!), but no urgency to allow for more contributions here. Andyboorman (talk) 19:43, 27 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Absolutely, I'm no expert in taxonomy nor an entomologist. But I always understood this was not a requirement to contribute here. I would however love if an expert in heteroptera would review my contributions but that's not the topic here. The paper in question is not making any changes in taxonomy, it only provides morphological keys to identify some species in Pakistan, that I naively thought could be useful to mention. The importance of the paper is therefore very low and the taxon pages including this paper should not be affected by the presence or the removal of {{Sharif et al, 2020}}. As I was saying above (@Andyboorman: you see I was already contributing to this discussion;)), the paper does look predatory after a quick research and I'd be happy to remove it if it is deemed necessary. I however do not know how to delete the template. Cheers. --Hiouf (talk) 06:48, 28 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Hiouf: Thanks for your very good and well meaning work here and of course you do not need expertise to contribute here - more enthusiasm and a willingness to learn! Your comments about the paper and publisher fit with my thoughts and a developing consensus. An admin will need to do the the delete, but you can use a speedy delete tag to alert one of us. Thanks. Andyboorman (talk) 06:58, 28 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I just put back the speedy delete tag on {{Sharif et al, 2020}}. Feel free to check, this is the first time I'm doing this. I also removed the template from the taxon pages. What do we do about the journal page ? To keep it but tag it as predatory, could be useful so the next user adding an article form this journal can be warned ? Cheers. --Hiouf (talk) 09:46, 28 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Hiouf: Speedy delete is fine. Yes tag the ISSN for now. Cheers Andyboorman (talk) 11:18, 28 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Does any editor have concerns with other journals used here? Andyboorman (talk) 11:18, 28 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Problem with {{Image}}: captions in Italic or not in Italic?

Please see Template_talk:Image#Template Images, format on author pages--Estopedist1 (talk) 19:19, 29 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks Andyboorman (talk) 21:06, 29 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Some Phytotaxa templates to be deleted

I am working through Phytotaxa templates which are unused. I suggest to delete those where are given very few info, {{Pt59.32}}, {{Pt59.55}}, {{Pt59.64}}. Rational {{speedy|unused template, invalid name, totally unfinished}}--Estopedist1 (talk) 12:26, 4 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Done. I always deleted unused incompletes like this while cleaning up. (If they are correctly named and actually useful, people can recreate them later.) Circeus (talk) 13:00, 4 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Done me too. Andyboorman (talk) 13:09, 4 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

With well over 200 speedy deletions waiting appraisal this valuable resource is getting cluttered. I would suggest either all pt and zt dodgy templates are rapidly created and then parked in a separate space or @Estopedist1: hold off for a week or so. I have found some that are very useful, but have not had time to deal with them. Andyboorman (talk) 08:29, 6 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Estopedist1: Where did we agree to rename all of the Phytotaxa templates that are being used? I don't see that discussion. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:51, 9 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It would be natural extension of renaming Zt templates into standard WS format. Neferkheperre (talk) 18:59, 9 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
exactly! So please, user:EncycloPetey, rename templates You wrongly renamed, eg {{Pt100.1.2}}.--Estopedist1 (talk) 19:35, 9 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It would be a natural extension, but we already have a consistent naming convention in place for that journal. No, Estopedist1, I did not wrongly rename it; you are judging past actions by recent decisions. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:08, 9 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@EncycloPetey: yes this is consistent naming, but this naming is condemned by Wikispecies's users. I am also massively renamed Pt-templates to get complitely rid of them. As a sidenotice: I am finished with Mk-templates (MycoKeys); Zt-templates (Zootaxa) are waiting to be renamed.--Estopedist1 (talk) 04:52, 10 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I ask again: Where has this been condemned and where has a change been mandated? There is no community decision to force all reference templates to be renamed following a single convention. We have many standard reference templates that do not follow the convention, and we have made no decision to forcibly rename all pre-existing templates. --EncycloPetey (talk) 14:00, 10 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm aware of a few Village Pump discussions in the last few years indicating that all the Zootaxa templates at least should renamed to standard template names, e.g. here and here. I don't think anyone's talked about the Phytotaxa templates much by comparison though, but I could be wrong since I'm still relatively new myself. Monster Iestyn (talk) 14:16, 10 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@EncycloPetey: is there now consensus that Pt- and Zt-templates are condemned?--Estopedist1 (talk) 06:09, 11 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No. For there to be consensus, the community has to talk about the issue and come to an agreement. The community has not done this. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:13, 11 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree with EncycloPetey. PeterR (talk) 17:31, 11 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Maybe this would be a good point to have a poll on whether the Zootaxa and Phytotaxa templates should have standard names? Monster Iestyn (talk) 17:41, 11 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't know about Zootaxa, but the Phytotaxa templates already had standardized names before Estopedist1 began changing them. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:51, 11 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
By "standard names" I mean the general "Author, Year" names as explained in Help:Reference section. Monster Iestyn (talk) 19:13, 11 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The names for Phytotaxa templates may be standardised in their own way, but do not conform to the Help guidance. In addition, very often the contents are stubs, contain gibberish and sometimes are not even correctly linked - see Speedy Deletes. These give the whole category a bad name and are a pain to try and sort out. I would be more than happy to dump all those with non-standard or problematic contents and re-create if required. Do we have consensus for this at least? Andyboorman (talk) 19:19, 11 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Same problem with Zt templates. Years ago we decided to do away with them by converting them to standard WS format. Pt templates should follow by extension and inference. This of course would include installing author pages and citation of all authors, which frequently is lacking. Just simply dumping them for the next guy is simply lazy, and makes just more work for someone else. Neferkheperre (talk) 20:15, 11 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
like earlier on this thread said (about such kind of templates) by user:Circeus:

I always deleted unused incompletes like this while cleaning up. (If they are correctly named and actually useful, people can recreate them later.)

--Estopedist1 (talk) 05:19, 12 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For major journal such as Phytotaxa and Taxon, I would allow (and prefer) template naming based on the journal, year, number, and pages, independent of the authors. As noted elsewhere, we are already running into lengthy lists of template names that have to be disambiguated with "a" to "z" on them, or which have the problem of requiring the names of multiple authors. A publication-based template naming scheme prevents this issue altogether. --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:09, 13 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@EncycloPetey: please see Wikispecies:Village_Pump#Reference_Wang_et_al.,_2014z_and_next?. This "a" to "z" question seems to be solved. To the topic: who says which are major, also some journals decline, new ones arise!? If we follow Your style, then probably all journals should have then some awkward templates, like "template:Zjl5643.1" for Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society or "template:SE14422.5" for Systematic Entomology. Nonsense!?--Estopedist1 (talk) 06:02, 13 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@EncycloPetey: therein lies both reference template chaos and a trashing of our Reference Guidelines. In addition, we should not base policy on exceptions. Finally even if Pt and Zt formats were allowed this still leaves the problem of useless and badly created examples as highlighted by @Estopedist1: on his Speedy Delete requests. Will you go help go through them; assess, improve and delete if required. I have not got the time or patience to deal with all of them! Andyboorman (talk) 08:04, 13 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The policy does not mandate the author+date format. In fact the policy page in question concludes with a table listing several prominent templates that fdo not follow this pattern. We have many such templates, including the ones for Species Plantarum {{LSP}} {{LSP1}} {{LSP2}}. Are you suggesting we need to rename all these templates as well? And if not, then why are you making an exception for a large body of templates, but not the Phytotaxa templates? --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:04, 20 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@EncycloPetey: the policy is just unfinished and needs to be updated. These Linneus templates were created over 10 years ago and should be revised, and also duplicates are existing (eg {{Linnaeus, 1753a}}). To avoid massive duplication, the only soluton is to use one reference style (ie author+date format). If we continue to allow these Pt45.32.11, Zt6532.4632.90 style we only deter new WS contributors--Estopedist1 (talk) 05:25, 24 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If the policy is "unfinished" then it is not policy yet. If you believe the Linnaeus template and many, many other templates that arer explicitly listed on the Policy page should be changed, then you need to make that proposal and start a community discussion. Policy is not decided by one person's say-so. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:33, 26 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@EncycloPetey: which policy page you are talking about? If you see Help:Reference section#Reference Templates. There is explicitly said that

The Reference Template is created on a page titled Template:Author, Year and can then be called up on a taxon page using the syntax: {{Author, Year}} Please only use the author's surname rather than full name when naming the reference template, and always use comma and a space before the year of publication: not semicolon, space/comma without the other, or something like that. If a particular combination is already in use by an existing author template, say {{Smith, 2015}}, then simply add a trailing serial number in the form of a single lowercase letter, i.e. {{Smith, 2015a}}, then {{Smith, 2015b}}, {{Smith, 2015c}} and so forth.

--Estopedist1 (talk) 05:47, 27 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And the very same policy pages lists multiple standard templates that do not follow that pattern. It is an informal naming convention, not a mandatory one, as other commenters have pointed out in these discussions. Are you reading those comments from others? --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:47, 28 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
To be fair, most of those templates that don't follow the pattern on that page are for online databases rather than a journal article, book, etc. (with the exception to MSW for Mammal Species of the World). Monster Iestyn (talk) 18:58, 28 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@EncycloPetey: it seems that this discussion is finished. Do we still need the poll to claim that Template:Author, Year is mandatory for journal article, book etc. It seems that only EncycloPetey has its own way--Estopedist1 (talk) 05:32, 29 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
To make such a monumental change that affects the entire project: (1) Make a clear proposal, and (2) obtain consensus. You have not made your proposal, and no one has explicitly supported your position. There is even a new thread at the bottom of this page that asks "Are they simple guidebook, or a guideline that we must absolutely follow?" There is no consensus that the "Help" pages are policy which must be followed. As others have pointed out, many of the points on those pages have been viewed as informal guidelines, and not as must-follow policies,
Your proposal at the start of this thread is "I suggest to delete those where are given very few info" which is what most people have responded to. Deleting useless templates after seeking community consensus has been achieved. That discussion is finished. But your idea that all templates must be named a specific way has not been proposed and has not received consensus. You can still say that conversation is "finished" if you drop the matter, but if you wish to pursue it, then start a new thread that is clearly labeled, which clearly articulates your proposal, allow time for comments, and then wait long enough for a significant fraction of the community to align with a choice in the matter. None of that has been been yet, so it is extremely presumptuous of you to assume the discussion is finished, when you haven't yet even made that proposal to the community as a poll seeking consensus. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:15, 29 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@EncycloPetey: yeah, lets do the poll on September. I hope the poll will end this Zt- and Pt-templates madness :) --Estopedist1 (talk) 08:45, 31 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Estopedist1: and I have got rid of Pt Speedy Delete templates. He has kindly expanded the useful stubs and I deleted the unwanted. Just to let you know I deleted Pt templates in favour of duplicated templates that used our conventional reference format. Sorry if that steps on toes. Andyboorman (talk) 14:35, 15 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Templates for nomenclatural statuses to be jettisoned?

I suggest to jettison/transform our templates in Category:Templates for nomenclatural statuses, because our goal should be to use more self-explanatory ones, and acronyms are already reserved to repositories. Eg instead of {{NIL}} we should use the link[[nom. illeg.]]. Also acceptable is to use just unlinked phrase "nom. illeg." to avoid superfluous linking in an article--Estopedist1 (talk) 05:39, 24 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Some nomenclatural catalogues in zoology use somewhat standardized abbreviation similar to those (and abbreviations for types are especially commons), but I do not know if they are standardized between catalogues or match those in wikispecies even for Zoology. Circeus (talk) 21:23, 4 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Templates for discussion: template:REF 1, REF 2, REF 3

I suggest to delete template:REF 1, template:REF 2 and template:REF 3, which are created by user:Orchi in 2014.

  • Nominator's rational: We already have established and self-explaining ==={{int:Primary references}}===, ==={{int:Additional references}}=== and ==={{int:Links}}===. Our goal should be to delete redundant and confusing/misleading stuff. --Estopedist1 (talk) 07:23, 2 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment: these template are in use, and so should not be deleted without first being removed from, or replaced on, the pages that use them. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:48, 2 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • of course, checking "What links here" before deleting is must-action for admins. But first, we have to be sure, that no one is against--Estopedist1 (talk) 11:44, 2 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Cypripedium is currently being dealt with by @Orchi:. It looks like template:REF 1 = Primary References, template:REF 2 = Additional References and template:REF 3 is equivalent to Links. If this is the case, using Cypripedium as a case study, the rest of the tidy up can be quickly done by a bot. Does anybody want to have a go, please. Andyboorman (talk) 17:28, 2 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
no problem, I can easily standardize these REF 1, 2, 3 using AutoWikiBrowser--Estopedist1 (talk) 18:53, 2 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I favor the removal and deletion of these templates. They are used in very few places and are redundant to standard formatting. --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:52, 2 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Support this, with care as pointed out by Andy. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 00:26, 3 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Done Andyboorman (talk) 14:57, 4 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

DISPLAYTITLE on pages of infrageneric and infraspecific taxa. Deprecated stuff?

DISPLAYTITLE is used for complex formatting of the title, for instance for excluding italic script for taxonomic qualifiers like "subsp." or "var.", which are commonly not written in italic, or for titles with qualifiers differentiating ambigous names. Why is it necessary to remove this template and who has decided so? --RLJ (talk) 10:13, 5 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

see discussion above: Wikispecies:Village_Pump#"Displaytitle"--Estopedist1 (talk) 11:10, 5 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Can someone fix this please. Thanks. --Succu (talk) 15:15, 22 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What is to fix. Assuming that the species has not stayed with Dendranthema then it is either a hybrid or not. Only WS holds with the hybrid origin with no specific active reference. Perhaps @Uleli: can help, but this editor has not been active for about 4 years. Views please. Andyboorman (talk) 15:51, 22 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Succu and Andyboorman: I added problem-templates to Chrysanthemum × aphrodite to show that there may be problems--Estopedist1 (talk) 18:16, 22 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There is no reference given for the hybrid origin. I think the two articles can be united. --RLJ (talk) 18:24, 22 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Agreed the two species complexes cited on the article are those that are most commonly found in the sources of hybrid florist Chrysanthemums, but I can not find a cultivar called Aphrodite. Andyboorman (talk) 18:48, 22 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Looks like it's OK with you to have two pages for the same taxon. --Succu (talk) 21:12, 6 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Help:Name section

Regarding the discussion a little earlier I think we can start a discussion about the Help:Name section and maybe by extension about other similar sections.

Before to decide what to modify, the first thing should be to agree on the scope of the help sections. Are they simple guidebook, or a guideline that we must absolutely follow? Do we have some freedom, exemple the use of bold text, or the use of lists, ect..? if yes, thus is it welcome that users comes after other users in order to change this kind of thing.

In summary what are the help sections? rules or simple exemples? The questions above should be addressed here in this discussion, and the result specified in the corresponding sections, so that we can focus on the taxonomic content. Christian Ferrer (talk) 15:54, 29 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I had been thinking it would be nice to have a master template that could then me mixed and matched depending on the needs of the taxon in question. Something along the lines of


''Species'' author, year.

{{int:Holotype}}: Herbarium Code

{{int:Type locality}}: substrate, locale, country

But more comprehensive to cover all possible cases. I then don't see a reason why not to standardize things that are purely aesthetic like use of bold. Alternative, we could just add text to the "full example" and make it explicit that that is how the section should appear. Voganaa (talk) 10:56, 30 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fully agree with @Voganaa:. Standardization is vital for the appearance of the pages and avoiding non productive discussion about aesthetics.--Hector Bottai (talk) 11:30, 30 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I feel that Help:Name section should make it clear how you should write the section exactly if possible. Perhaps it's the way my own mind works (and the fact I'm relatively new here), but the fact everyone uses a different style to write the Name section confuses me a lot. It means I can't make up my own mind up how to write the "Synonyms" or "Synonymy" subsection for instance. Monster Iestyn (talk) 14:13, 30 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Agree overall with @Voganaa:, except of course, for many taxa these details may not be relevant, or be unknown. Replace 'holotype' with 'lectotype' or 'neotype' as necessary, and most importantly, 'herbarium' with 'museum' so it covers animals as well as plants; and perhaps omit 'substrate' (probably not recorded for the bulk of taxa?). - MPF (talk) 19:26, 30 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I was thinking it would best to have all possible cases covered in the template, so of course "holotype/lectotype/neotype" but make a distinction between what should absolutely be included versus what should be included if available/appropriate for a given taxon (maybe colour coded?). It should then be explicit that any information not in the master template should not be included in the section, and will hopefully avoid having to try and put together a large list of things outside the scope of WS and/or the section in question.Voganaa (talk) 08:40, 31 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Question is it compulsory to use the form {{a|Theodore Lyman|Lyman}}, 1860:
Amphiura pugetana Lyman, 1860
or is it allowed to put a formated link to the template [[Template:Lyman, 1860|{{aut|Lyman}}, 1860]], which is not a bad idea in itself, and this principle is sometimes used online, even in articles:
Amphiura pugetana Lyman, 1860
? Christian Ferrer (talk) 19:56, 30 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
[[Template:Lyman, 1860|{{aut|Lyman}}, 1860]] is interesting solution (discussed also here), but I think we should avoid it, because there is no direct link to author(s) (we should honor author?!). Secondly, this solution is ugly when you edit any article which contains this structure. Actually, it also raises question, how we should reference statements/rows, see eg Broscosoma monticola.--Estopedist1 (talk) 06:31, 31 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
          • This is an own publication from Steven without consultation with other users. This is one of the reason why he is banned. PeterR (talk) 11:00, 1 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        • You have already templates for name section. Most of us use these templates many years. It is first {{int:Type locality}}: substrate, locale, country and than {{int:Holotype}}: Herbarium Code . for an example see Asalebria tutulla. PeterR (talk) 10:49, 1 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@PeterR: While there are examples available on the help page (the nice example you provided is not linked from there as far as I can tell), there is no template. The closest is the "full example" of Glomus przelewicense, which itself is inaccurate and incomplete. The format of author and date are inconsistent with the example at the top of the page, the synonym is actually an orthographic variant, no mycobank, index fungorum or fungal names code is provided and there's no mention of ex-type material. It would be good to decide exactly what the section should cover and provide that information, as well as agree on how the section should look, (bold, order of info etc.) or if aesthetics are something we want to enforce at all.Voganaa (talk) 08:19, 2 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The discussion above seems to focus only on the Name section of species pages. For botanical taxa, higher rank taxa will simply have a Type (species for a genus, and genus for a family) rather than a lectotype, holotype, etc. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:37, 6 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Image at Homo sapiens

Judging from the fact that the guidelines is to use a photo as opposed to an illustration of a species, I propose the current image on this page be changed to a photograph, as opposed to the painting that has been used previously. Obviously there are endless options on Wikimedia Commons, so I have started a discussion here to select one. See also the discussion at Talk:Homo sapiens. ImprovedWikiImprovment (talk) 16:17, 23 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@ImprovedWikiImprovment: this Linneus image is removed by user:Koavf. Linneus as the lectotpye of H. sapiens may be actually adequate image for Wikispecies, but currently there is the image from Wikidata--Estopedist1 (talk) 07:07, 25 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We don't have a photo of Linneaus. The current image is far better. —Justin (koavf)TCM 08:36, 25 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Just a point there cannot be a lectotype set for Homo sapiens. There was no type set originally that is true but a Lectotype can only be set to resolve a known nomenclatural issue. As there is none there is no need for a Lectotype and hence any designation of one is against the ICZN code. Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 02:00, 26 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For what it's worth, Linneaus is the lectotype of homo sapiens.[1]Justin (koavf)TCM 02:13, 26 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]


No he is not, just because someone declares it does not mean they got the code right. Cope also declared himself the holotype, but that is also not valid. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 06:42, 29 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The guideline should changed to "photograph or a reproduction of the image used in the original description", if this exists. IMHO. In addition, lectotype, holotype etc are artificial constructs and defined by consensus and convention. The use of Linnaeus for Homo sapiens is an honorific surely? Andyboorman (talk) 07:19, 29 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'd much rather return to the Linnaeus pic; while photos are in general to be preferred, a lot of people (particularly perhaps less regular visitors to the site) will find the new photo with nudity offensive (must admit, I do myself a bit too). And yes, Linnaeus is the lectotype; see the ICZN article by Notton & Stringer cited on the Homo sapiens page, which analyses the case very carefully from the perspective of the ICZN rules (including details why the Cope claim is invalid). - MPF (talk) 21:20, 29 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We are not censored. We should not sacrifice anything for the purposes of avoiding "causing offence". ImprovedWikiImprovment (talk) 07:58, 4 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Nudity is fine in my opinion. Lack of pubic hair is not. If an nude image is used it should (as far as possible) represent humans as they "naturally" appear, with minimal cultural body modifications. Plantdrew (talk) 16:21, 4 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think it reasonable to make an exception to the guidelines (and guidelines is all they are) in this case, and to use the image of Linneaus . Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:52, 4 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
But my question would be why? Why use an image that illustrates the subject poorly in comparison to an actual photograph? ImprovedWikiImprovment (talk) 11:06, 4 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Current image is not Homo sapiens, but Linneaus so the WD copy-out is incorrectly labelled. Needs to be changed back IMHO, as its label was spot on. Andyboorman (talk) 15:20, 4 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And why should we have an image of white humans? If the origin of Homo sapiens is in Africa, I guess it should be better an image of Africans. Or maybe we can find a photo with 5 persons, women and men, one for each continent (like the 5 Olympic colours). --Thiotrix (talk) 11:23, 7 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Conflation of two authors

Currently, Feng Zhang is a conflation of two different entomologists, Q22111642 and Q98912104. Could someone help to split the page and clean up? --Stevenliuyi (talk) 02:07, 5 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I love how one has five different Zoobank IDs because zoobank is such a poorly managed and totally uncurated mess. Circeus (talk)
Yes it’s a mess. Actually three of the five IDs contain papers of both authors. --Stevenliuyi (talk) 14:39, 5 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note that for having already discussed about that with one of the Zoobank staff member I know that Zoobank will fix that in the future, but before to resolve the duplicate author entries issue (they have a not visible structured database that allow them to find those entries, as we have our own) they work before on a system to prevent the creation of such duplicate entries. Christian Ferrer (talk) 15:24, 5 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I just found another page Fang Zhang, where the name has a typo (first name should be "Feng" instead of "Fang"). The only article in the page belongs to Q22111642. I also notice that the corresponding ZooBank ID lists articles from three different authors, including the two authors mentioned above, but all with the wrong name. The third author is the only one whose name is actually "Fang Zhang". --Stevenliuyi (talk) 08:33, 6 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Stevenliuyi: ultimate solution is the links like "Feng Zhang (entomologist, born YEAR)" and Feng Zhang goes to the disambiguation page.--Estopedist1 (talk) 09:26, 7 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks! I thought about splitting the page myself, but since I'm new here and not familiar with Wikispecies, I'm afraid to mess things up during the process. --Stevenliuyi (talk) 03:35, 8 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Why {{Image}} should be avoided

This blanket adding {{Image}} to pages should not be added by a stupid bot - see edit history on genus Leptopus. Notwithstanding the species does not carry through, but there are often errors in synonymy and labelling. I am now removing it routinely, if encountered, on all genus pages I edit. This applies even if an image is not displayed, as I do not know what will happen when an image is eventually linked by WD. When this wiki is more trustworthy for taxonomy, it will be different. I urge fellow editors to follow suit. Andyboorman (talk) 14:36, 3 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Agreed. I maybe added few {{Image}}s at my beginning here but since some times I always add the name of the image I want displayed. Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:00, 3 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Please do not use Rosibot for this reason until discussion matures towards resolution. Andyboorman (talk) 17:44, 3 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • Wikispecies has 737,336 articles at the time of writing; we don't have the people-power here to moderate mages for all of them manually. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:30, 3 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        • I support very much that Rosibot adds the {{Image}} to our species pages that are still without any image. Thousands of species meanwhile have good photos at Commons and Wikidata, but nobody added them yet to Wikispecies. But I admit, that for higher taxa, it may be better if our editors choose a correct image corresponding with the given taxon circumscription. --Thiotrix (talk) 18:45, 3 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Please do not refer to a fellow volunteer's good-faith contributions as "a stupid bot", especially for a bot whose approval you supported. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:30, 3 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • It is not the person who is stupid it is the bot, so please do not assume that I am making personal insults, please it is insulting. Andyboorman (talk) 19:14, 3 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Sorry @Pigsonthewing: I am not happy editing on WD, I have also fixed Leptopus through a page move, as it seems there is an insect with the same genus name. @Thiotrix: has a good point, but is the bot clever enough to distinguish between higher tax and species? Andyboorman (talk) 20:05, 3 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Can Rosibot be modified to just add image to taxon pages with two word page names ignoring all others? Andyboorman (talk) 14:56, 4 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • But we do want images on the pages of higher taxa, right? We just want to ensure that the image is one of good quality and that is suitably representative. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:24, 6 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Just noticed that Rosibot is now removing {{Image}} from higher taxa as we speak. As much as labelling has already been a concern here, I'm also not sure it's a good idea to just blanket-remove all uses of the Image template from everything that didn't specify labels. This may also remove instances of the template that were added manually before Rosibot started doing anything. Monster Iestyn (talk) 15:40, 6 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Monster Iestyn: I think your concerns are not well founded, as this is a careful structured procedure. Images added manually using the template will remain, it is the raw template that will go, as it pulls in unlabelled images of uncertain quality. I would certainly urge editors at add images to all higher taxa wherever possible. I will keep an eye on this, as I am sure you will. Andyboorman (talk) 16:00, 6 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
if eg user:Andyboorman says that tl:image is TOP 3 clutter in WS (in genus and higher rank articles), I am quite helpless here. But, I rather support user:Monster Iestyn that this mass removing by the bot is not very rational activity.--Estopedist1 (talk) 05:49, 7 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Estopedist1: Please explain lack of rationality. My points are {{Image}} without a caption on higher taxa is misleading and uninformative. Editors are free and encouraged to add an image, but it should be carefully chosen to represent the higher taxon and correctly labelled with a link to its taxon page. Your points? Andyboorman (talk) 08:02, 7 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Your point may be that an image "without a caption on higher taxa is misleading and uninformative", but that does not mean that it is correct, or that it consensus. Yes, ideally an image will be "correctly labelled with a link to its taxon page", but an uncaptioned image is better than no image at all. I see no consensus for the mass removal of templates by bot. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:01, 7 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Totally disagree with you point @Pigsonthewing: A randomly uncaptioned image contributes nothing to a taxon page, whereas a knowledgeable editor adding manually can add value. A bot is going by rote without judgements and is as likely to cause problems as not. I am more than happy for you to set up a vote and see if we can form consensus and of course I will follow irrespective of my own opinion. Andyboorman (talk) 14:09, 7 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What if {{Image}} without labels automatically added a page to a "Category:Pages with unlabelled images"? Mind you, that would only be a good idea if you want to include species pages in that category, unless there was a way to tell them apart from other pages automatically. Monster Iestyn (talk) 11:03, 7 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
{{Image}} does not "randomly" add images.
Furthermore, if the image hows, say, a lepidoptera, or a plant, then the user is given a visual - and immediate - indication of which of two identically-named genera is being discussed; value is demonstrably thus added. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:19, 7 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Rules or procedures based upon rare occurrences are not very useful. Andyboorman (talk) 15:52, 7 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Agree with @Andyboorman: that {Image} alone isn't helpful; too often, the pics set at Wikidata are decided by low grade 10-15-year old pics entered from en:wiki, rather than the best on Commons. For me, an image is best inserted inline with the name and location to show the taxon in its context. Ideally, the image selected for a higher taxon (including species with 2+ subspecies) should show the type species / nominate subspecies, as that 'future-proofs' the image against new splits (there's been far too many times, that I've found a genus illustrated with a species no longer included in that genus!). Again, ideally, a photo of a specimen in its native habitat is better than a painting, which is in turn (particularly for a protologe illustration) better than a cultivated / captive specimen (these last being horribly often misidentified, and even more often unrepresentative of the taxon). And to come back to Homo sapiens (@Koavf:), I strongly consider that we should restore the inline pic of Linnaeus we've had for many years: as well as being our species' lectotype, he is also our scientific 'father' of [wiki]species. Although mentioned above (Village Pump#Image at Homo sapiens) that "We are not censored", many people are very offended by nudity; I would add "Neither should we go out of our way to offend". This is one case where a painting is a good alternative to a photo which may be very hard to select uncontroversially. - MPF (talk) 21:10, 7 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I couldn't disagree more: our image guidelines already discourage paintings and encourage photos that show off sex dimorphism. This is a very poor representative of what an actual homo sapien (sapien) looks like. —Justin (koavf)TCM 22:32, 7 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Just to point out that there are brilliant, if historic, paintings and drawings of plants available, which can be used and are often far better than older pictures. A tempering of the advice advocating only photographs could be timely. Andyboorman (talk) 06:49, 8 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Small script. Deprecated stuff?

Small script (<small></small>) is contained in the toolbar of the Wiki Editor. It is useful for a visual differentiation, for instance of native and non-native occurrences, and for other purposes. Why is it necessary to remove this script and who has decided so? --RLJ (talk) 10:13, 5 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

in general, structure should be avoided whenever possible. Just clutter in article. See eg en:Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Text_formatting#Font_size. If WS accepts this wikitechnical clutter (in some places maybe useful?), then no problem--Estopedist1 (talk) 11:08, 5 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Agree with Estopedist1 WS has too much clutter anyway. It seems to be developing away from a simple effective taxonomic database into a format heavy fluffy site, IMHO, but I am having a bad day. Andyboorman (talk) 11:16, 5 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
just encountered one example, why <small></small> structure should be avoided, see Special:Diff/7966555--Estopedist1 (talk) 12:09, 5 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
One odd format was replaced by another unrecommended format, including the production of this stub. No reason for a global ban. --RLJ (talk) 11:27, 7 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Andyboorman: yeah, nature itself and its describers are also amazingly difficult :) But, could you give TOP 3 clutters in WS?--Estopedist1 (talk) 06:40, 6 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Estopedist1: Top one at the moment is the use of {{Image}} on higher level taxon pages, that is genus and above. Inconsistent layout of taxon pages, for example lower taxa lists appearing somewhat randomly on the page with inconsistent labelling. Pages constructed without references, so that users have no idea where the information came from. That will do for now. Andyboorman (talk) 08:11, 6 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Wandering topics in threads is a top clutter item for me. This thread started out being about small script and is now a personal pet peeves thread. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:23, 6 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Too true. Andyboorman (talk) 20:22, 6 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Actually, one reason to get rid of "<small></small>", is that it makes no difference whatsoever to the text size. My browser has default 12-point setting, and 'small' is 12 point too. If it were to be visibly different, it would need to be 8 point or smaller. Of its use for native / non-native occurrence (yeah, sorry, topic divergence warning!!): well, as per the title of this datum "Native distribution areas", non-native should not be there at all, fullstop - this section should be for natural distribution without human interference. Otherwise - again to diverge! - I agree 100% with @Andyboorman:, the clutter and format-heaviness of Wikispecies is making it more and more difficult to edit "properly" here; we ought to be following the KISS principle here, most particularly with respect to references and author links (@Estopedist1: on worst clutters). All the templates we are required to use now make editing impenetrable, and not just for beginners. - MPF (talk) 19:56, 7 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You should try another computer or another operating system to learn the difference between small script, normal script and large script. "Natural distribution without human interference" is an illusion - obligate agricultural weeds would then have no distribution - and it is not the topic of taxonomy. Sources as WCSP, the floras or distribution atlasses do not distinguish uninfluenced distribution properly. The flora of a given region consists of native and non-native components, and nearly all sources present both of them. As there are species which have been described from outside their natural distribution area, and hybridization can occur between native and non-native taxa, non-native occurrences have their relevance for taxonomy and not to forget, for nature conservation. I think source-based, wild and stable non-native occurrences should be included in the distribution lists and marked up by small script or by anything else more suitable. -RLJ (talk) 22:05, 7 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not sure why I should use a different computer just to view wikispecies?! Why not try something different, like pale grey text? Or, as someone else (I forget who, unfortunately) suggested, put the non-native in the Discussion page? In my experience, distribution atlasses do not normally include non-native distributions; e.g. Critchfield & Little's Geographic Distribution of the Pines of the World only gives native distributions; their map for Scots Pine does not include non-native instances in North America or New Zealand, and so on. Same for animals; the maps in Handbook of the Birds of the World only show native distribution, with e.g. no mapping of Psittacula krameri in Europe, etc. This is normal for most distribution maps I see. - MPF (talk) 22:45, 7 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Distribution should be in the article, not in the discussion page or in the version history. There are enough distribution atlasses displaying non-native occurrences, e.g. for Erigeron canadensis: Hultén [3], Meusel & Jäger [4], Deutschlandflora [5], Online Atlas of the British and Irish Flora [6], PLANTS Database [7]; Pinus sylvestris: [8]. Field Guides of European birds treat non-native species with descriptions, pictures and maps. --RLJ (talk) 00:00, 8 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Agree about regional field guides, and regional floras. There appears to be a difference here between regional texts (which include non-natives), and monographic works (global coverage of taxonomic groups), which generally don't. - MPF (talk) 00:24, 8 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The small tag should be removed because there's virtually nothing here that would be fine print. That is the (semantic) function of the small tag, not some stylistic change. —Justin (koavf)TCM 23:21, 7 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The small tag could also be replaced by any other more suitable tag as a less destructive way. --RLJ (talk) 00:00, 8 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Grey text, like I suggested above? I could live with that. - MPF (talk) 00:24, 8 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
thorougly grey phrase is probaby ugly and grey (ie {{Ti}}) is already reserved to repositories, eg CAG?. Any suggestions yet, eg in Italic?--Estopedist1 (talk) 06:47, 8 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I mean the text itself grey, not grey background to black text - I've seen it used various places, and it works well. - MPF (talk) 00:26, 9 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@MPF: please give an example. I see that {{Gray}} is unused--Estopedist1 (talk) 05:14, 9 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Estopedist1: if you look at a page history, or your user contributions, the edit summaries in brackets are in grey text. Sorry, not sure offhand how to code for a text colour, but I know it can be done, I'll see if I can dig out some details later - MPF (talk) 07:51, 9 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Estopedist1: lets see if this works: some grey text . . . or slightly darker grey if preferred . . yes, it does! - MPF (talk) 13:27, 9 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@MPF: whenever possible we should avoid these span-syntax stuff in WS articles. Template {{Grey}} (some grey text) does the job, but isn't Italic better?--Estopedist1 (talk) 17:44, 9 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Estopedist1: Thanks! I'd be happy with template:grey if it does the job; presumably it includes the 'span-syntax stuff' somewhere in its innards to make it work, though? Definitely better grey than italics to my mind. - MPF (talk) 19:31, 9 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Testing, with template:grey this text should be grey, and it is! - MPF (talk) 19:47, 9 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]