Wikispecies:Village Pump/Archive 55

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.

Primary references with higher taxa

Hi all, probably a silly question but I'd rather check this with the community first. I see papers with nomenclatural acts at the species level in the primary references section of higher taxa, e.g. the family level. Such paper should be in the primary reference section of the species, but should it be in the primary reference section of its family too? or rather in the additional reference section of its family? or not be included at all in the reference section of its family? As an example, have a look at Pentatomidae, the original description is drowned in the primary references section with other papers whose relevance is debatable in this very section. Thanks in advance for your inputs. --Hiouf (talk) 07:17, 8 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'd say the protologue reference should be the first. I suspect part of the problem stems from difficulty in locating protologues for higher taxa, they are surprisingly hard to find, as they are so rarely cited elsewhere - MPF (talk) 08:17, 8 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I tend to put them in additional references as they do not contain nomenclatural acts related to the higher taxon itself, though they may provide evidence that certain genera or species (etc) are actually included within it. I don't know what other people on Wikispecies do though, maybe I'm alone in this way of thinking. Monster Iestyn (talk) 15:20, 8 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree with both of you MPF & Monster Iestyn. I will follow your recommendations unless the community thinks otherwise. Cheers. --Hiouf (talk) 09:45, 9 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For higher rank taxa, I tend to include as primary only the work that is cited for the name of the taxon, as well as papers that legitimize the name, or that contain the first publication of listed synonyms of the name. And for very high ranks (e.g. phylum), I tend to include as additional references only those papers containing world or significant-region checklists (continents, large nations, or isolated regions with isolated or unusual biota) and papers which establish the taxonomic placement and major subordinate taxa within the group. At other ranks, I tend to be flexible based on the composition of the group. I might include species papers on a family page if the paper has significance to the taxonomy of the family, or if the family is smallish. --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:32, 10 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Invitation to participate in the conversation

Distribution template - edit request

An edit request for the NADI distribution template please: it currently has problems co-existing with images, which force it down below the bottom of the image; this frequently causes lots of annoying blank space. Please edit it so it can fit alongside images, instead of being forced below. Example:

A tall tree


Native distribution areas:
  • Somewhere
    • A bit of somewhere
      • A place.

References: Brummitt, R.K. 2001. TDWG – World Geographical Scheme for Recording Plant Distributions, 2nd Edition

Thanks! MPF (talk) 15:31, 10 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks @MPF: got to chuckle. Andyboorman (talk) 18:47, 10 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It can be avoided by putting a smaller image. In this case in commons there are 49 images of Sequoia sempervirens disponibles. Saludos.--MILEPRI (talk) 07:59, 11 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not a good solution. The request by MPF is the way to go, as the problem is gone forever. Andyboorman (talk) 10:27, 11 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yep; it would severely restrict the images one could use (basically, only landscape format, no portrait format). All the other Wikispecies templates are OK, it is just the NADI one that has the problem; I suspect the solution is very simple (something like adding "float:left"??), I just don't know enough about template formatting to do it myself. - MPF (talk) 12:17, 11 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I was thought that only distribution maps are allowed in chapter "Distribution", like in Cypripedioideae. Could you give some examples if this chapter contains a suitable other image than a distribution map?--Estopedist1 (talk) 17:20, 11 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, it's something in the NADI template that forces it to go below the bottom end of any illustration on the page, including the main taxon photo(s) at the top of the page. At times it doesn't matter, but other times, a tall image, or 2 images, is long enough to extend down to below the point where the NADI template is. The tree above right here is above the NADI template, not in it. - MPF (talk) 18:07, 11 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@MPF: sorry, my bad. We are talking about images outside {{Nadi}}. And usually these articles are very short and full-length {{Nadi}} affects the article. Maybe user:ShakespeareFan00 or user:Christian Ferrer can help?--Estopedist1 (talk) 19:23, 11 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not possible to repair without a complete re-write of the templates concerned , or the back end. The problem is that the embedded table is hard-coded to a 100% width and no float on either side.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 20:57, 11 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There also isn't a straightforward way to calculate how wide the table should expand to.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 20:59, 11 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks! Unfortunate. Is there any reason why it needs to be hard-coded to a 100% width? If a re-write could be managed, that would be good. - MPF (talk) 00:45, 12 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A tall tree


  • Hi,
a simple edit in {{Nadi}} can give this result, if it is what you wish.
replace clear={{{clear|both}}} by clear={{{clear|left}}}|width={{{width|50%}}} Christian Ferrer (talk) 05:21, 12 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
note that 50% is arbitrary, you can set 70%:
The issue being that the size of the image can vary within you preference selection, and if you chose a thumbnail size bigger that the percentage set in {{Nadi}}, the issue will reappear and {{Nadi}} will be placed after the image as there wouldn't be sufficiant place for both... if you chose 50% then you have sufficient place for the maximum thumbnail size allowed (400px) and the template. Christian Ferrer (talk) 06:06, 12 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note also that it depend also from the size of your screen (or from the size of the window where the page is open), e.g. on my screen the Village Pump open at full screen accept the 70% sized template + the image at the same level, but when I reduce the size ofthe window at the half of my screen then only the 50% sized template + the image are showed at the same level. I don't know either how this work with mobile as I don't have any :). But in summary 50% appears to me an acceptable choice. Christian Ferrer (talk) 06:32, 12 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Excellent, thanks! I've got a fairly wide screen and 70% would work for me. What do others think would be best? - MPF (talk) 07:54, 12 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Works well on my laptop. Thanks Andyboorman (talk) 08:18, 12 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OK to go ahead with this? Which should I try, 50%, or 70%, or a split-the-difference at 60%? - MPF (talk) 15:28, 13 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Liston Anopheles

Who was Liston, who named Anopheles stephensi (and A. funestus var. listoni)? None of the people at Liston have dates that fit. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:22, 12 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you all. Now on Wikidata, and Wikisource, too. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:24, 12 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And now on en.Wikipedia. too. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:04, 13 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In similar vein, who is "P rashad", who named A. annandalei? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:12, 12 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

en:Baini Prashad, original description of Anopheles annandalei available at Christian Ferrer (talk) 05:53, 13 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you again. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:04, 13 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Author sorting

Palmer is an unsorted list. Do we prefer to sort such pages alphabetically by first name or by date of birth (or flourit)? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:31, 18 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

alphabetically by first name. Burmeister (talk) 21:34, 18 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
agree with Burmeister. Most of the authorities disambiguation pages (DABs) already use "alphabetically by first name" -style--Estopedist1 (talk) 05:21, 19 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Help:Name section

  • T:34 Translations reviewed so far seem to be identical, Querying need for translation on these sections?
  • T:39 Translations:Help:Name section/39/en Seems to be an 'orphan' translation- No mention of <--!T39--> in Help:Name section
  • T:44 Translations reviewed so far seem to be identical, Querying need for translation on these sections?
  • T:52 Translations reviewed so far seem to be be identical, Querying need for translation on these sections?

Resolving this cleans up some stripped tag Linter concerns..

Is they syntax for all the tags the Translate extension concerned uses documented? I'd like to know a bit more about it, and what all the tags are supposed to do, indidcate, so I don't break things when trying to fix some pages. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 22:01, 19 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Preparation works for the poll: mandating the author+date format via Help:Reference section

The near-future poll because of Wikispecies:Village_Pump#Some_Phytotaxa_templates_to_be_deleted.

In general, Help:Reference section is well-written and we already follows it. But now, we have to mandate it thoroughly or to mandate some chapters, eg firstly, the chapter "Reference Templates". Or if Help:Reference section or any chapter consists of too many uncertainties and flaws, then to mandate only one point, eg author+date format for reference templates (except external databases and Opinions/Directions, see eg Category:ICZN references).

I opened the draft for improvements here: User:Estopedist1/Help:Reference section (see red text and strikethroughed text). If you do any edit in this draft, please use red text ({{Red}}) or strikethroughed text (<s></s>)--Estopedist1 (talk) 14:01, 9 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A lot of my three author templates are et al., sorry. If a bot can not change them no idea what to do. Andyboorman (talk) 19:40, 9 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Andyboorman: don't worry, step-by-step we will fix these templates which are not harmony with our reference policy. Although, there is still no policy yet, only user:Accassidy creates "own-style" templates--Estopedist1 (talk) 05:24, 10 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Added some thoughts in red at the end - MPF (talk) 20:16, 9 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@MPF: thanks, but much is already decided in Wikispecies:Village_Pump/Archive_33#Reference_Format--Estopedist1 (talk) 05:24, 10 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Where is the discussion happening? There is a section here, as well as a "thoughts" place elsewhere, and a pointer to another discussion. What is the actual location of the discussion? Could that be made clear? And could the purpose of the discussion be made clear? Are we discussing the content of references, the naming of reference templates, some combination of those two things?

Is the motion going to force a rename of the {{LSP}}, {{LSP1}}, and {{LSP2}} templates? How exactly would that work for {{LSP1}}, since the current template is set to auto-provide information without knowing the volume number in advance? --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:23, 10 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@EncycloPetey: comments/improvements add please here User:Estopedist1/Help:Reference section--Estopedist1 (talk) 05:24, 10 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Linneus stuff was created 10 years ago when no standard was in place. Linneus stuff also needs systematic approach to be consistent with our near-future reference policy. At the moment, it is probably rational to add LSP-templates to the exceptions list.--Estopedist1 (talk) 05:50, 10 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@EncycloPetey: analysis of Linneus templates is here: Talk:Carolus_Linnaeus#Linnaeus_duplicate_references_templates--Estopedist1 (talk) 14:31, 10 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

centralized discussion takes place in new place: Help_talk:Reference_section#Preparation_works_for_the_poll:_mandating_the_author+date_format_via_Help:Reference_section--Estopedist1 (talk) 07:21, 10 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Am I right in thinking that once these preliminary discussions have concluded then a formal RFC or series of RFC need to be set up? See Wikispecies:Requests for Comment particularly the Archive. Andyboorman (talk) 07:56, 10 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Correct. In other Wikiprojects (like Commons and English Wikipedia) polls/proposals which affect official policy, take place not in Village Pump.--Estopedist1 (talk) 14:45, 10 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That may be true on Commons and Wikipedia, but it is not true on Wikisource or Wiktionary. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:26, 16 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
An RFC contacts all editors, as this is a relatively small wiki and many here drop in and out it enables all concerned to be notified and participate. Therefor, that is my advice. Andyboorman (talk) 06:25, 16 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

notice: updated info in Help_talk:Reference_section#Current_status_and_postponing_notice--Estopedist1 (talk) 07:03, 21 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

ZooBank down

ZooBank has been not responsive since Monday. This morning there is a notice that they are offline. Large cyber attack apparently. They will be back online when they finish more formidable defenses. Neferkheperre (talk) 14:15, 16 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

IOC (World Bird Names) are down too for the last few days - wonder if this is a related attack? When I need to look something up there I'm using a recent (18 August) sampling. Presumably the same is possible for Zoobank. - MPF (talk) 22:20, 16 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I suppose some of you may have noticed by now, but ZooBank is back online. Monster Iestyn (talk) 20:39, 21 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Two pages for one toad taxon

We have Bufotes boulengeri and Pseudepidalea boulengeri for the same taxon, and both are linked to wikidata items. Please could a zoologist have a look and merge them into the current name? Thank you, --Thiotrix (talk) 13:24, 17 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

hopefully  Done. If zoologists don't have time, then amateurs try to give best :) Just a sidenotice: if Wikidata uses the rule that "one synonym one individual entry", then this is probably way to hell (see eg Wikidata:Wikidata:Project_chat#Merge_request), but I hope I miss--Estopedist1 (talk) 06:05, 20 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In this case is necessary move to preserve the historic of the page. Burmeister (talk) 12:46, 20 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Burmeister: to be noticed that the redirects preserve history. At the moment, maybe the history of Pseudepidalea boulengeri is overwritten or substituted by the history of Bufotes boulengeri. But I concede that merging/splitting/overwriting of articles history are quite difficult stuff and many harms can be done via these activities --Estopedist1 (talk) 18:05, 20 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Pseudepidalea boulengeri was recombined to Bufotes boulengeri, when Pseudepidalea was synonymized with Bufotes, is not a case of synonym, as you cited above, but a (re)combination (combinatio nova) of the same name (as a taxonomic act). So a case for move the page to preserve the historic of users editions. Burmeister (talk) 18:37, 20 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for solving this one. Probably the Pseudepidalea boulengeri combination should be added to the Bufotes boulengeri page. I noticed that Wikispecies has double pages for all the species of Pseudepidalea / Bufotes that need to be fixed. --Thiotrix (talk) 20:54, 20 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
all Pseudepidalea articles are provided with a redirect-link (eg Pseudepidalea brongersmai) and the content is waiting to be merged to the respective Bufotes article--Estopedist1 (talk) 06:50, 21 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Anthocephalus macrophyllus

Anthocephalus macrophyllus (Roxb.) is valid name? —Rex Aurorum (talk) 19:01, 20 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

POWO (Plants of the World online) has A. macrophyllus as syn. of Neolamarckia macrophylla (Roxb.) Bosser . According to the Wikipedia page on Neolamarckia, "The genus name was created to replace Anthocephalus, which had been based on two unrelated herbarium specimens, one of which was mislabelled. Consequently, the true Anthocephalus is a synonym of the genus Breonia, and a new name was needed for the trees that had been generally known by the incorrect name." (ref. given is J. Bosser, "Sur le type du Cephalanthus chinensis Lam. Neolamarckia, nouveau nom pour Anthocephalus auct. non A. Rich. (Rubiaceae)", Bulletin du Muséum National d'Histoire Naturelle, Section B, 6: 243–248). So it looks like Anthocephalus macrophyllus (Roxb.) is indeed a non-current name, with Neolamarckia macrophylla being the current one.Tony 1212 (talk) 19:53, 20 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The Bosser publication dates from 1985, available via BHL here.Tony 1212 (talk) 19:59, 20 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The answer to the question is no, as explained above. Breonia page has been created on WS. Neolamarckia is now created at the genus level with one species page also created. Andyboorman (talk) 07:08, 21 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Done including redirects and so on. Andyboorman (talk) 07:35, 21 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Out of interest, the Bosser publication apparently dates from 1985 although the printed year is 1984, (and that date appears e.g. in Tropicos), refer Index Nominum Genericorum:
Neolamarckia J. Bosser, Bull. Mus. Natl. Hist. Nat., B, Adansonia 6: 247. 1 Feb 1985 ('1984').
T.: N. cadamba (W. Roxburgh) J. Bosser (Nauclea cadamba W. Roxburgh)
PHAN.-RUBIACEAE (104) 20 Sep 2002
Tony 1212 (talk) 18:59, 21 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for such a detailed answer. —Rex Aurorum (talk) 20:49, 22 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hello botanists and taxonomists. Advice is needed with respect to the order Boraginales. WS, at the moment follows APGIV (2016), however, there is a competing circumscription used by the Boraginales Working Group (BWG) {Leubert et al. 2016) and the Angiosperm Phylogeny Website (APW). The former, recognises a single family, but the later has 8 families mainly by raising the subfamilies. The BWG also uses subtribes as well as tribes, but there is a fly in their ointment Namaceae has not been validly published, as far as I can gather, because the journal is illegitimate. Given that should WS maintain its present circumscription or move to the BWG version for the order? References are on the taxon pages or through APW. Thanks Andyboorman (talk) 08:06, 24 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've advocated before that in such peculiar cases, there is nothing preventing a format where a genus is given a dual possible classification at family/ordinal level. In this case the problem is that this requires us to have two pages for the same taxon at the different levels. Circeus (talk) 16:57, 25 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

New Resource for Plants

Please note this site that should be of real use to botanists World Plants. It has been published by Dr Michael Hassler one of COL and looks very up to date and robust. A genuine alternative and complementary to Plants of the World (PWO) in my opinion. Hopefully one of our code savy editors can write a search link so that it can be easily used in our Reference Section. Regards Andyboorman (talk) 08:12, 24 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Took a quick look at one or two genera and found a few odd errors, and several things I'd disagree with (including e.g. an over-reliance on Silba names) - MPF (talk) 22:13, 24 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I guess you mean names in conifers, such as Cupressus? Andyboorman (talk) 16:16, 25 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Among others, yes - but it isn't just my preference for Cupressus s.l., it is also the internal inconsistencies, e.g. they accept Cupressus x leylandii (with the wrong author citation!) yet its two parents are both excluded from that genus; and also while splitting some Cupressus out to Hesperocyparis, they also include most of Chamaecyparis within their very peculiarly circumscribed Cupressus (which no-one has done since the mid/late 19th century!). Basically, it's a mess, at least at the moment :-) - MPF (talk) 20:26, 26 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Building a biodiversity index

Let’s assume I would like to know all species (animals/plants) of a given country in order to build a biodiversity index, how could I use Wikispecies to answer this question? I have asked the same question to wikidata. Any idea how to solve this problem with the wikiverse? --AntoineLogean

It's a fair question - but would require Wikispecies/Wikidata to be complete at species level, which is some way off (presently quoted total for Wikispecies is 739,637 articles at all ranks, cf. maybe 2.2m accepted species names alone plus maybe 300k genera, 20k families, etc.; wikidata is probably more complete), plus every article/taxon page/wikidata entry would then need to be geo-tagged in a consistent, machine readable way by country (allowing also for oddities like offshore territories: do they count or not). AFAIK geo-tagging is not in scope (or not a priority at least) for WS but others would know more than me regarding this - I am sure it has been discussed in many places before and is conceptually do-able, but only with a lot more effort than is presently available.
The other way to to it (without geo-tags of some sort) is from occurrence data coded by lat/lon (think GBIF for all habitats, OBIS for marine data) and then do some sort of polygon intersection with country boundaries - or rely on those operations to have done that already (may be in train or done, again not sure). Their data/species lists may be more or less complete than those in Wikispecies/Wikidata at this time, probably depending on the degree to which different countries and their national data collecting agencies participate in those initiatives (i.e., variable by country - some will be very limited I suspect, others less so). (Which does not answer your question but shows some other avenues/approaches out there).
So it is interesting and I am sure others can comment further, but not really do-able as yet, or ever, unless someone decides to make it a priority and throw resources at the issue (and even then the task would be very large, bigger than e.g. Catalogue of Life which is still not complete after 20 years). Regards Tony Tony 1212 (talk) 19:30, 28 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Difficult to use any existing database for such a task and I can not think of a publicly accessible one that allows conditional searches by country. WD might allow such, not sure and although has more incidents I am not convinced of it accuracy. Andyboorman (talk) 20:05, 28 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, there are national systems (incorporating checklists) for UK, Scotland and Ireland maybe, various European countries, Australia, New Zealand, presumably more; plus there is a pan-European one (PESI) which integrates a range of national and regional checklists and permits search by country; for example this search gives a listing for species (and subspecies) of the genus Quercus (oak trees) in the country "United Kingdom". However I know that a *lot* of resources have gone into the development of PESI plus the underlying data sources that it queries, that the assembly and standardization of the data from these sources is not trivial, and that there are no doubt residual data gaps; also that this is a Europe-based solution, where resources and data are moderately well available for "big data" projects, and not a global one by any means. Anyway, some food for thought there, maybe. Cheers Tony Tony 1212 (talk) 23:46, 28 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Plus I do not know how well that system would cope with a request for "all species" in a given country - probably not set up for that... Tony 1212 (talk) 00:32, 29 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Country checklists are usually specific so select groupings: Insects, Mammals, Vascular Plants, Algae. And you come up against issues such as invasives, non-natives, ferals, cultivars, and other issues even when you have a complete list. But I doubt that you'd find anything close to a comprehensive list for many countries for nematodes, bacteria, or protozoa. Some countries, yes, but for most countries those lists would be very spotty. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:39, 29 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]


MycoBank is an important database for fungal nomenclature, and MycoBank numbers are an integral part of taxon names. A couple day ago, they launched a revamp of their website, and now the {{MycoBank}} template no longer connects to the proper taxon. Incidentally, the MycoBank link used in the taxonbar for wikipedia is also now broken. I've been trying to figure out how to fix it, but have had no luck. Could someone with more experience with this type of thing take a look? Thanks! Voganaa (talk) 11:19, 23 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Voganaa: thanks! I informed Wikidata property maintainers: Wikidata:Property_talk:P962#MycoBank_taxon_name_ID_is_changed!. They probably fix this problem quickly and after that we can estimate situation in WS--Estopedist1 (talk) 17:17, 24 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What exactly is not working anymore? Any examples? --Succu (talk) 18:22, 24 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Succu: For the WS template, it no longer links to the given taxon, but just a generic search page, ex. MycoBank: MB 16391. The wikipedia one is just giving a 404 from any link. MycoBank changed their entire structure, if there isn't an easy fix, I may contact them and see if they can modify their end to make it friendlier to external links. Voganaa (talk) 09:08, 25 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Looks like there is no (documented) way to link to a MycoBank Id at the moment. Regards --Succu (talk) 17:27, 25 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've made the template link to archived pages, in the Wayback Machine, for now. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:18, 25 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The current changes have it linking to the wrong taxa, I may just make it a generic link to MycoBank in the mean time Voganaa (talk) 07:20, 29 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK, I heard back from MycoBank and got a template that works. It's not perfect as it links to a search result, but it will do for now. Voganaa (talk) 14:40, 29 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

NADI template

I've carried out the edit suggested above by @Christian Ferrer:; any problems, please report here - MPF (talk) 21:57, 24 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@MPF and Christian Ferrer: I recommend to align this structure to the left. Currently, it is in the center and it seems to be a bit strange--Estopedist1 (talk) 05:26, 26 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It doesn't shock me and anyway I can't help here, if it exist a parameter to do such a thing with the current template, I don't know it, and I don't have the technical knowledge to add it. Christian Ferrer (talk) 05:50, 26 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Estopedist1 and Christian Ferrer: - Thanks! I'd agree it would be better left-aligned, but I fear I don't know how to do it either! - MPF (talk) 09:16, 26 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
maybe user:ShakespeareFan00 has technical knowledge?--Estopedist1 (talk) 10:48, 26 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You might need to set a style on the container DIV used.
<div style="margin-left:{{{indent|0}}}; display:table; float:left; ><!-- NOTE: width renders incorrectly if added to main STYLE section -->
and move some of the table styling to the container DIV. Please sandbox first though.

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:31, 26 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

After the corrections made it has been worse than it was. (now it only occupies a third of the screen in the central part). Please, better leave it as it was.--MILEPRI (talk) 08:11, 29 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Lepus curpaeums

Lepus curpaeums is valid name? —Rex Aurorum (talk) 20:05, 28 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Could it be a machine-read recognition error for Lepus europaeus? - MPF (talk) 22:05, 28 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Agree with MPF, not a valid name, (almost) certainly an error for Lepus europaeus, the European hare - but an odd one, not really fitting any standard machine reading, OCR-type error with its character pattern. Even weirder is its occurrence in google searches (7,840 hits, mostly as a name for rabbits, which Lepus europaeus is not), and even 57 on Google Scholar (same)... it would be interesting to see where this non-name originated! (No "proper" hits on BHL though, except on one page of "Animal keepers' forum" from 2014 - again as the scientific name for rabbits!). Just very odd. Cheers - Tony Tony 1212 (talk) 04:17, 29 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I was surprised at the number of hits too; wherever it came from, it must have become something of an internet meme. I see there's even two twitter accounts using the name, perhaps Wikispecies' twitter account holder could ask them if they know the origin? Though one of the accounts (here) has never tweeted, and the other (here) inactive for 2 years, so an answer isn't too likely - MPF (talk) 07:29, 29 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
On Google Scholar, it first appears in 2012 (I think...)Tony 1212 (talk) 08:59, 29 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I observe that when the {{MBG}} acts, it appears "The page is not redirecting properly", which indicates in case instead of a sporadic failure it is an update of the Trópicos website.--MILEPRI (talk) 09:22, 29 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@MILEPRI: We need more information; on which article(s) did you expereince this? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:17, 29 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Pigsonthewing: It was produced in all the articles that I produced and in the old ones, although now I have verified it again and it works correctly. I guess it was a sporadic failure.--MILEPRI (talk) 14:52, 29 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wiki of functions naming contest

21:25, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Ask to the snake

If you don't how to eat a a toad covered in poison then you can still ask to the snake... Christian Ferrer (talk) 15:33, 30 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

NADI template

After the corrections made it has been worse than it was. (now it only occupies a third of the screen in the central part). Please, better leave it as it was.--MILEPRI (talk) 07:10, 2 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Por ejemplo Atriplex_fissivalvis--MILEPRI (talk) 08:06, 2 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@MILEPRI: I'll up it to 70%, see if that's OK? I suspect anything higher than 70% will bring back the problem of image conflict we had before (I worked out for my screen, 72% is about the limit; 75% wouldn't work) - MPF (talk) 14:49, 2 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@MPF: For your verification, take as reference a page with an image (as indicated in the example) since there are hundreds of pages with an image that will look very bad.--MILEPRI (talk) 15:08, 2 October 2020 (UTC).Reply[reply]
@MILEPRI: - thanks! Yes, I did look (using your example above); it looks fine for me, what I can't tell is how it will look for other users with different size screens and different image size preference settings. Does it look OK for you with 70%? Anyone else wish to comment, please?! - MPF (talk) 15:14, 2 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@MPF: I see it correctly, even with the screen at 140% magnification. Thank you.--MILEPRI (talk) 15:21, 2 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Firstly, I link here {{Nadi}}, where this specific discussion should be taken place. Secondly, 70% and alignment to the left will do the job in most of the cases, but unfortunately we don't have technical expertise to align this template to the left, see Wikispecies:Village_Pump#NADI_template--Estopedist1 (talk) 05:06, 3 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Linnaeus, 1758

Hi, I put the "new names" list of {{Linnaeus, 1758}} in a sortable table, you can now sort the list by alphbetic order of the original names, by the accepted names (when relevant), or by page number. I think this is a good potential idea for the publications that have a big number of names. Feel free to add modifications, to make suggestions, to comment or to revert if necessary. Regards, Christian Ferrer (talk) 16:07, 3 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The sortable table is fantastic and could be a significant differential for WS. I don't know any other taxonomy that offer this detail at the level of a Publications. I am personally afraid not having time for such a detail. My other doubt is regarding links to synonyms redirects that ends taking you to the same page. Great work!--Hector Bottai (talk) 17:24, 3 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I tried to improve it, I removed all the links from the original names, and I put all the link in the second column, tha seems better indeed. Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:31, 3 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I like this, although you might want to note that there are potentially quite a few new names involved here - then again the list only has to be built once! IRMNG (the database I curate) can generate a somewhat similar list (for genera only, built by traversing the taxon pages for the linked source "Linnaeus, 1758, Systema Naturae..."); this currently has 322 genera, although I note that the equivalent list at ZooBank has 352 (or 353?) names at genus-group, so maybe I am missing some (now will have to check!). Zoobank also has 4,442 species-group names, although various web sources quote either 4,236 or 4,238 of these... AnimalBase (Germany) allows one to list "early animal names" by author; their list for "L" starts here, I have not counted how many belong to "Linnæus, 1758" but obviously the list is there and should be complete... AnimalBase sorts species name by epithet, not by binomen, in "true" (?) zoological fashion (the epithet is the "name", the binomen is just either the original or a subsequent combination). If I search IRMNG for species where authority = "Linnaeus, 1758" (I have not yet linked species names via the "original work" field, although this could be done for these as per the genera), I currently get this list which numbers 2,746 species names so obviously I am missing around 1,500 species names somehow. Anyway, the above may be useful perhaps... Cheers - Tony Tony 1212 (talk) 19:50, 3 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Diving spider

A quite rare picture of a Dolomedes fimbriatus (Clerck, 1757) diving: before, diving and after. Christian Ferrer (talk) 22:07, 1 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Alas, not Creative Commons licensed, so ineligible for use here. If you're on Flickr yourself, have a try at persuading the photographer to make them available under CC-BY-SA? No harm in asking! - MPF (talk) 22:21, 1 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes good idea, I will ask the photographer. Christian Ferrer (talk) 07:17, 2 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Good luck! But I suspect from the professional quality, the answer is likely to be 'no'; not many professional photographers like to give their work away for free. Important though to make sure he understands exactly how CC licenses work, don't try to deceive him into thinking he is "only giving it to wikipedia" rather than the whole world! - MPF (talk) 14:47, 2 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
One workaround for professional photographers is to make (e.g.) a low resolution image available for free web re-use, and mention in the associated text where and how the higher resolution image may be obtained. Although I have not seen many do this, it seems a reasonable compromise to me (and in my former science agency, they did do this for their professionally taken fish images).Tony 1212 (talk) 22:12, 2 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
To try to deceive him, as a (an amateur) photographer myself (therefore a kind of colleague), as one of his followers in Flickr and as administrator in Wikimedia Commons is the last thing that I am going to do... I haven't even dared to ask him if he wanted to change his license, by fear to disturb him. @Tony 1212: it is possible to do such things however you may read "Can I apply a CC license to low-resolution copies of a licensed work and reserve more rights in high-resolution copies?". Christian Ferrer (talk) 16:42, 3 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks @Christian Ferrer:, I was unaware of that, it does seem to defeat the purpose of the practice I suggested :) Cheers Tony Tony 1212 (talk) 19:08, 3 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ok, it's done I asked him the question... let's wait for an answer now. Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:14, 3 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I got an answer, he is not a pro photographer but he plans to maybe be therefore he keep his library of images for now, but he has already thought about uploading some selected images into Wikimedia Commons. The 3 images linked above have a very few, if no none, chances to be uploaded into Commons, because, as I felt it well, the images are quite good and rare, and several publications are already scheduled. Christian Ferrer (talk) 07:03, 4 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

GBIF does not work

Still showing 404 example across all pages, just one example Ammocharis. Can somebody get a bot to delete all instances until it can be fixed. It is very unprofessional keeping poor practice for so long. Andyboorman (talk) 07:43, 4 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The creator of this article entered a GBIF ID which is wrong at least since 2015. Replace by {{GBIF|{{Subst:#property:P846}}}} to obtain the correct ID. -RLJ (talk) 08:17, 4 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
{{Taxonbar}} does also the job well. Although, not yet fully accepted in WS--Estopedist1 (talk) 14:52, 4 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@RLJ: Thanks for GBIF fix. Andyboorman (talk) 15:27, 4 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Can somebody bot fix now? Andyboorman (talk) 19:58, 4 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Poll: Zt- and Pt-templates to be banned?

The poll "Zt- and Pt-templates to be banned?" is started. Everyone is pleased to vote here: Wikispecies:Requests_for_Comment#Poll:_Zt-_and_Pt-templates_to_be_banned?? Thanks! — The preceding unsigned comment was added by Estopedist1 (talkcontribs) 05:42, 28 September 2020‎.

relisting. One week passed. The poll will end on 12 October 2020 ---Estopedist1 (talk) 07:12, 5 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This author's name is giving me some confusion, so I'm asking here for help about how to handle it. May be worth noting that this is about an entomologist from Malaysia.

For a start, I recently discovered A.B. Idris is actually the same person. This I've managed to confirm from several sources, including the author's CV on his own website. (So those two pages need to be merged clearly) But then, I found that the same author goes by other names such as "Idris bin Abd. Ghani", "Idris Abdul Ghani" and even "A. G. Idris"! Totalling up the information from these names though, the full expanded name would seem to be "Idris bin Abdul Ghani", but I have my doubts whether we really need to rename the author page to this, as it's not actually used anywhere as far as I know... does anyone think we should switch the author page's name to that expanded name, or would it be best to stick to the current name "Idris Abd. Ghani" (which seems to be the author's own preferred version of the full name anyway)?

However, there is also the related issue of what name to index him by in publications, or even in the sort key on Wikispecies. For the most part, his publications tend to prefer "Idris", though he also is indexed by "Ghani" sometimes. Looking into the topic of Malaysian names on Wikipedia, Idris may not actually have a family name at all! "Abd." (or "Abdul") is likely a patronym, but I'm not entirely sure if "Ghani" is part of the patronym as well or not. "bin" is definitely not a middle name though. So, should we index him by his personal name "Idris" instead of "Ghani"?

Monster Iestyn (talk) 08:14, 5 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I feel your pain. This essay, a perennial favourite, is of tangential relevance, and should inform all our considerations about naming people: Falsehoods Programmers Believe About Names.
That said, in this case you have the advantage that the subject is apparently living; have you thought about contacting them? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:22, 5 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Pages and Wikidata items merged. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:31, 5 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for handling the merge Andy. I have considered contacting him but 1) I'm too shy to actually contact them directly if I'm being honest and 2) I feel like I'm close to the right answers without needing to contact the actual person, though I feel I need opinions of others here just in case I'm wrong. Monster Iestyn (talk) 17:34, 5 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Don't be afraid to ask, its a good way to find out what their name actually is and shows you have the politeness and decency to just ask them so you can present it correctly. I think most people these days realize their names do not always translate well into other languages and are going to be happy they were asked. Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 02:17, 6 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

IPNI abbreviations

Does anyone know what the IPNI standard abbreviation 'Pl. Or. Nov. Dec.' (published during 1870s at least) stands for, please? IPNI don't say themselves, and google search just gives returns for football trivia. BHL search doesn't work at all with IPNI abbreviations (it has to be exact words, down to the correct accenting on letters like 'é'), so without the full name I can't search for original copies. On which point - can I make a plea that Wikispecies reference citations should not use IPNI abbreviations, since they are useless for finding originals via either BHL or google (I had to go through three separate search phases to slowly build up the full name from IPNI's "Magyar Tud. Tars. Evkon." to eventually reach Magyar Tudományos Akadémia Évkönyvei; it is tedious, to say the least!). - MPF (talk) 09:47, 6 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

For 'Pl. Or. Nov. Dec.' see TL-2. In Google, use inverted commas (") before and after the search expression. -RLJ (talk) 10:07, 6 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't think Magyar Tudományos Akadémia Évkönyvei even is in IPNI (I think you're mixing it up with BPH in this case). I agree though that abbreviated work names are annoying to deal with and I sorely wish the botanical literature would adopt the Payne et al, 2018/Wägele et al., 2011 concept (largely, but not universally taken up in zoology, including in BZN proposals for conservation), but that doesn't seem to be happening anytime soon, putting us at the mercy of idiosyncratic or erroneous abbreviations despite the existence of BPH and IPNI as standards. Circeus (talk) 12:31, 6 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks! @Circeus: IPNI has it in the citation of "Haberlea rhodopensis Friv., in Magyar Tud. Tars. Evkon. ii. (1835) 249". - MPF (talk) 13:05, 6 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Apparently a part of the imports from Index Kewensis still has the old format and authors and publications have not yet been fully integrated into the database. In my opinion, authors and publications should be cited in the name section after each name in the standardized, abbreviated form in botanical articles. In the Reference section literature should be cited in full length. --RLJ (talk) 15:03, 6 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@MPF: Oooh, yeah that would be an issue. When you spot small problems like that, don't be too afraid to flag them to the IPNI staff. They're usually very happy to have things like this reported. "in" records do have a high risk of slipping through the crack of previous standardization efforts. Circeus (talk) 17:12, 6 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am probably a bit ahead of time, but when using fully or partly my solution, we don't need these bizarre abbreviations for references. My draft-solution is here User:Estopedist1/Ideal taxon article--Estopedist1 (talk) 18:34, 6 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Personally I think using the references extension is a little overkill. Most of the dedicated botanical users already expand references anyway. Circeus (talk) 13:18, 7 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Estopedist1: I do not think that the "Reflist" style reference list will pass muster here - I think that particular stable door has been well and truly opened for too long. In addition, many botanists prefer to use the full abbreviated style name in the Name Section, as per IPNI. Finally, most prefer the protologue to be the first instance in the Reference List, as it is the most important, whether it be the shortened or full version. Major changes in taxon page format will take the relatively few, but highly active, new taxon page editors away from what they feel is the main focus of their work on WS. Andyboorman (talk) 15:42, 7 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I find it highly uncomfortable to have the reference at another place remote from the name, as it is done in POWO or in Catalogue of Life, and as it is proposed here. For zoology: do what you like. For botany: I disagree. -RLJ (talk) 18:01, 7 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Why? Every normal reference in a botanical paper does that (well, unless it's a proposal to conservation, but that's a different kettle of fish) so I absolutely fail to see why, for some reason, protologues should have a unique sttaus other than accidental historical reasons. Zoology made the transition just fine, so there is no jsutification that botany can't, much less shouldn't. At least if they have to cite the full material, they have to get the full reference right (and even THEN they often fail to do so anyway, but it's slightly less likely that unnecessary errors and confusion will be introduced). Circeus (talk) 02:15, 8 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Call for feedback about Wikimedia Foundation Bylaws changes and Board candidate rubric

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

Today the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees starts two calls for feedback. One is about changes to the Bylaws mainly to increase the Board size from 10 to 16 members. The other one is about a trustee candidate rubric to introduce new, more effective ways to evaluate new Board candidates. The Board welcomes your comments through 26 October. For more details, check the full announcement.

Thank you! Qgil-WMF (talk) 17:09, 7 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Pages to merge backlog

I noticed we have a lot of pages we need merging according to Category:Pages to merge, but it's quite difficult to work with so I made a subpage in my userspace to help if someone wanted to tackle these eventually: User:Monster Iestyn/Pages to merge. I've done my best to try and figure out which should be merged into what, but unfortunately I couldn't figure out all of them. Monster Iestyn (talk) 21:01, 7 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks. Three  Done.--Hector Bottai (talk) 23:46, 7 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Author templates to be jettisoned or we are in big troubles!?

see also: Wikispecies:Village_Pump/Archive_30#Strange_display
see also: Wikispecies:Village_Pump/Archive_43#Template:Ale
see also: User:Estopedist1/Varia templates (explanation in the header)

As discussions above alludes, plus allusion in Circeus' userpage: user:Circeus, we probably have to jettison our author templates (Category:Author templates) to avoid several problems in future. Why?

  1. a non-standardized style to link authors. We are using {{A}} and it should be the only style to avoid misunderstandings and inconsistency. And WS is not botany/mycology-focused to give special status and special linking for botany/mycology authors.
  2. conflicts with taxa templates, see Template talk:Silveira
  3. Question? conflicts with zoology and botany taxa authors, eg Sykes vs {{Sykes}}
  4. IPNI database is massive and is growing. If there will be over 100,000 names, it would be huge templates clutter in WS.

At the moment, it seems that only user:RLJ and user:MILEPRI create author templates. --Estopedist1 (talk) 11:42, 15 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have always advocated not using author templates, whenever it has come up for discussion. Not sure why they are used, I assume in good faith and not a vanity project. Well put @Estopedist1:. I am now seriously considering removing from now on, only if I come across them on a page I am editing/updating, of course. By the way, I thing equally annoying are the Linnaeus versions, but that is another discussion. Andyboorman (talk) 12:30, 15 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is not even how I thought there templates were used in botany/mycology?? I thought they were strictly for postnominal abbreviations in the botanical area (though I never used them because i found it simpler to link to the abbreviation directly). I agree sith all the points, and I also notes that I do not believe in standardizing author names in references (other than correcting errors in where the family name starts and ends, e.g. for Iberic names): we should list them as they are given in the actual source. Circeus (talk) 12:58, 15 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have nothing to add or change from my two previous contributions. Neferkheperre (talk) 13:30, 15 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
All specific author templates should be avoided, in my opinion. Maybe this seemed to be time-saving in the beginning, but now this lazy style of editing leads to a big mess, as Estopedist1 hat pointed out above. In addition, it is frustrating for readers of taxon pages or reference templates with author templates (instead of template a), that they do not show the full name of the author, when moving the mouse on the name, and one has to click through several pages to get there. And the IPNI abbreviation should just be a simple redirect to the full named author page. --Thiotrix (talk) 08:55, 16 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
gamblei&oldid=7080609 A single test suggests that these can be safely Subst:; does anyone have any counter examples? Perhaps a bot could do a sample of, say, 100, chosen at random?
An equal concern, perhaps, is that my example, "Subramanyam, K. & Henry, A.N. 1972 Bull. Bot. Surv. India 12: 5.", is entered inline, and not as a reference template, and does not appear on either Krishnaier Subramanyam nor Ambrose Nathaniel Henry. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:51, 16 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I support Andy' idea of a bot trial and review, as soon as possible. I notice that @RLJ: and @MILEPRI: have not contributed. Andyboorman (talk) 12:00, 16 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It looks like @RLJ: is happy for the Subst. trial - see the Edit History for Barkeria uniflora. Andyboorman (talk) 12:21, 16 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I disagree. -RLJ (talk) 22:07, 21 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Conclusion: this topic is finished. Step-by-step all authority templates to be substituted and when unused then to be deleted--Estopedist1 (talk) 06:24, 27 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Substitution by a bot

As mentioned above, maybe it is possible to use a bot to substitute authority templates--Estopedist1 (talk) 06:29, 27 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Pigsonthewing and Rosičák: about bot-assisted edits:
in name section {{a|Subr.}} --> {{a|Krishnaier Subramanyam|Subramanyam}}
in reference section {{a|Subr.}} --> {{a|Krishnaier Subramanyam|Subramanyam, K.}}
Hence - maybe not so trivial task for bots. But if the bots can recognise name section and reference section, then no problem I think--Estopedist1 (talk) 07:07, 5 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Do you have an example of a reference section where a template like {{a|Subr.}} currently displays the equivalent of {{a|Krishnaier Subramanyam|Subramanyam, K.}}? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:14, 5 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Pigsonthewing: sorry, I wasn't precise. These templates can be correctly used only in References section or at Reference templates. So, the substitition seems to be easy. However, there are some occurences where these templates are misused, eg see Obtegomeria and its Name section--Estopedist1 (talk) 13:05, 5 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Pigsonthewing, Rosičák, and Mariusm: any news? Substition in References section should be easy? And no problem, if some rare occurences in Name section will be also substituted by the bot--Estopedist1 (talk) 06:11, 12 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Disambiguation pages and Caftaric

Just a heads up, I've noticed Caftaric has been continuing the same sort of internationalisation efforts as he did with author pages a while back, but now mainly focusing on disambiguation pages. In addition though, he appears to be splitting disambiguation pages linking to both taxa and authors into separate pages, one for taxa and one for authors. Case example: almost all of "Chen" has been split into a separate page named "Chen (author)".

Once again, Caftaric's efforts are clearly meant in good faith, but he has not cooperated with anyone about his format changes which is concerning. Monster Iestyn (talk) 18:26, 16 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the heads up. This is, my opinion, an over-complication creating pages that have no meaning. The goose is a redirect and the other a list of Chinese authorities. I suggest that the pages be deleted without redirects and editors reminded that DAB be used for homonyms and the like, as this is a site for taxonomy not an all singing all dancing database for names. Andyboorman (talk) 18:57, 16 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That process of internationalization (disambiguation pages) was never discussed by the community (as I remember it), so this whole mass edition is not consensual. Burmeister (talk) 20:54, 16 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
yes, solo and not-cooperating users who massively make potentially harming edits in WS system are always hard cases in Wikiprojects, especially in smaller Wikiprojects like WS--Estopedist1 (talk) 05:43, 17 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Templating and doing significant structural changes without previous consensus I fully agree should be avoided ad cohibited. Meanwhile, what Caftaric did separating Chen authors in a separate disambig page looks to me correct, additionally I don´t see anything wrong in categorizing Authors different than Taxa disambigs. We have to be careful being rough and discouraging people who is editing in good faith, having some good proposals, just needing some orientation.--Hector Bottai (talk) 15:01, 17 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

these massreverting, adding and again massreverting (see eg Special:Diff/8009880) are not constructive ways to solve problems. Therefore, I opened "template for discussion".--Estopedist1 (talk) 07:27, 18 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Categorisation have been reverted for the time being. There could be a laps of time before the sub-categories are empty (time for the servers to get the updates, thento correct the links added separately to the disambiguation template. I suggest you continue discuss the subject and you let me know your decision. Cheers Caftaric (talk) 07:40, 18 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template for discussion: template:occupation and template:nationality

[relisting to here to reach some conclusion --Estopedist1 (talk) 06:21, 12 October 2020 (UTC)]Reply[reply]

Jardine & Selby - Illustrations of Ornithology

This publication have 4 volumes, I was able to find online 1 and 2 at BHL and 4 at Google Books, see here, but unable to find volume 3. Can anybody help? Thanks.--Hector Bottai (talk) 21:52, 10 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've asked on Birdforum (here); some of the people there are very good at finding items - MPF (talk) 22:06, 11 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Great! I didn't know that fórum. Thanks.--Hector Bottai (talk) 22:38, 11 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Hector Bottai: Unfortunately it looks like others have had the same problem - volume 3 not available online :-( MPF (talk) 17:10, 13 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A pitty @MPF: Thanks anyway. It is the source for at least 5 or 6 bird taxa. I will create the template anyway without online reference.--Hector Bottai (talk) 20:19, 13 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Hector Bottai: - I'll let you know if it turns up later! - MPF (talk) 21:00, 13 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template for discussion: template:Date

I suggest to delete template:Date, which is created by user:Caftaric on March 2020.

  • Nominator's rational:
  1. usage at authority articles is incorrect (eg at Leopold Fitzinger ({{date|1802|4|13}} – {{date|1884|9|20}}), but should be (1802–1884).
  2. usage at taxon articles is redundant (eg at Terebratulidina: [Source: Fossilworks - {{date|2020|06|10}}], but should be {{just|Fossilworks - accessed on 10 June 2020}}

Overall, our goal should be to simplify taxon/authority articles, not to encumber with numerous templates which deter scientists and amateurs.--Estopedist1 (talk) 05:56, 12 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I remember a decision here at the Pump to list dates in ISO format (not "accessed on 10 June 2020", but "accessed 2020-06-10"). And I do not remember that we have decided, that it is "incorrect" to list the full life dates of authorities. --Thiotrix (talk) 08:24, 12 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Thiotrix: Firstly, standardized Wikisubstition is {{subst:CURRENTDAY}} {{subst:CURRENTMONTHNAME}} {{subst:CURRENTYEAR}}, which renders as "13 October 2020"). So it is probably logical mistake not to allow the latter format. Secondly, using full life dates is bad idea, because then we have to struggle with Julian and Gregorian calendar, and it is out of scope topic. Full life dates can be theoretically useful, when we deal with namesake persons, like Chen Wang and both Chen Wang's are entomologist and both are born eg in 1950. So the correct link should be "Chen Wang (entomologist, born January 1950)"--Estopedist1 (talk) 07:09, 13 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Enumeratio Methodica Plantarum

Is Fabricius' 1759 Enumeratio Methodica Plantarum available anywhere online? I've found the 2nd edition (1776), but not the 1759 first edition. Thanks! - MPF (talk) 00:02, 14 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ah, found it! google books. - MPF (talk) 00:05, 14 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Date issues on Wikidata

This Wikidata query shows cases on Wikidata where a taxon's year of publication is inconsistent with the date of birth or death of the taxon author. Some of you may want to fix them there, but also check whether the error also occurs on Wikispecies. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:34, 15 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Did a quick non-representative survey for a couple or three plants and the inconsistency is due, in those cases, as the protologue/description was published after the death of the acknowledged authority by a third party. For example the well known Clianthus puniceus (G.Don) Sol. ex Lindl., Edwards's Bot. Reg. ad t. 1775. (1835) was published by John Lindley in his equally well known Edwards's Botanical Register with a very complete description. Hope this helps. Andyboorman (talk) 14:32, 15 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In zoology at least, I know of at least one example of a publication with many new taxa that was published over 20 years after the author's death, with someone else as an editor. Monster Iestyn (talk) 14:47, 15 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A recent exemple, Frederick M. Bayer died in 2007 and is cited as author for 3 taxa in 2019. Christian Ferrer (talk) 16:42, 15 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In that case, I give you posthumous taxonomic act (Q100384765), as now used on Clianthus puniceus (Q1616054); I'll see if I can get the query updated. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:48, 15 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Updated query. --Tagishsimon (talk) 16:56, 15 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Meanwhile I've fixed the authorities or years for some of the animal taxa listed in the Wikidata query, where they were actual mistakes. Monster Iestyn (talk) 17:02, 15 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've come across a few humorous ones - not here of course! - in my time, "Linnaeus, 1958" being one such... one could probably add a few bounds to any validation routine (like more than 50 years after an author's death, possibly should raise a flag for manual checking)...Tony 1212 (talk) 18:23, 15 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A lot of them for zoology seem to be simple author mixups, or sometimes even typos in the year. Unfortunately these seem to have been copied to the Wikipedias (usually by bots), so I've been correcting these too at the same time. (Though for whatever reason one of my edits on German Wikipedia got reverted just now [1], perhaps the admin didn't notice Percy Lowe was born 36 years after Epinephelus marginatus was described?) Monster Iestyn (talk) 19:54, 15 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For some plants and fungi, the ex-author is mentioned as author and the true authorities are missing. I have fixed some of them. --Thiotrix (talk) 06:24, 16 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Coracina - Campephagidae

These family genera needs a deep taxonomic update. I did the firsts shots here and here, but a lot of stuff to be done, new genera and split species. Work for some australasian birds specialist. No time for me, ahead of my Neotropical birds focus.--Hector Bottai (talk) 18:34, 14 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And when that's done, there's all the major updates in the babblers to do too - and that's shifts between several families (Timaliidae, Sylviidae, Leiothrichidae, etc.), not just genera! - MPF (talk) 12:40, 16 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Eugène Simon to Eugène Louis Simon?

user:PeterR requested me to move members (524 entries) from Category:Eugène Simon taxa to Category:Eugène Louis Simon taxa? It is technically easy (with cat-a-tool), but all other Wikipedias (see wikidata:Q741948) use the name Eugène Simon. I guess it is not the first time, when analogous major moving from the category to the category takes place? Opinions?--Estopedist1 (talk) 11:50, 14 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The agreement is that we use the full names. So this is not for discussion. PeterR (talk) 12:06, 14 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have already moved a lot of authors with abbreviation names to full names together with Tommy Kronkvist
Yes the standard here is to use full names - see this page as an example. Saves confusion I guess. Thanks Andyboorman (talk) 14:30, 14 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm pretty sure he literally never used his full name while he was living, though. I've been working with a lot of his articles recently since I'm aligning IRMNG with the World Spider Catalogue and I don't think I've seen him referred to with "Eugène Louis" anywhere (hence why his Wikipedia entries have only one given name). Regardless of what an entry in a biographical directory may say about an individual's name, the use of multiple given name is much, much less common in French than in English (compare also the French vs. English for Léon Abel Provancher, who I would personally also move to just "Léon Provancher"). Circeus (talk) 15:14, 14 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Honestly, I don't see any common sense neither any value added in moving usual names, already used by other wikis, to complete names that never, or just ocasionally, has been used in literature. We have hundreds of entries for Alcide d’Orbigny, are we going to move everything to Alcide Charles Victor Marie Dessalines d’Orbigny? Waste of time and bytes.--Hector Bottai (talk) 17:51, 14 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Or Orbigny, Alcide Charles Victor Marie Dessalines d' its IPNI full entry? If we were going for standardisation I would advise commonality with the accepted third party practice and sources, eg IPNI for plants. Back to genus red links! Andyboorman (talk) 18:17, 14 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Excuse my ignorance, Andy. I don't understand what you mean.--Hector Bottai (talk) 22:18, 14 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Hector Bottai: It is not your ignorance but my poor syntax. IPNI has formats for both author abbreviations and full names that are most commonly used in botanical sciences outside WS, my suggestion is we follow this consensus. Apologies. Andyboorman (talk) 16:49, 15 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Andyboorman: quite often IPNI hasn't stated full name and IPNI systematically does mistakes with name particles (like van, le, von) writing them like Van, Le, Von. But this is another topic--Estopedist1 (talk) 05:55, 11 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

───────────────────────── probably more important is to focus those names which are really abbreviated, like Roderic D.M. Page, but we know the full name. Discussions about long names like "Alcide Charles Victor Marie Dessalines d’Orbigny", or is it "Alcide Charles Victor Maria' Dessalines d’Orbigny" or something else, are often not rational and probably out of WS scope. If we have already 500 members in cat:Eugène Simon and most of the sources use the name "Eugène Simon" then let it be so.--Estopedist1 (talk) 05:55, 11 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Estopedist1: IPNI may not always be grammatically correct in relation to local preferences, but it is the international standard, so must be used here for the authors of plant names. Andyboorman (talk) 07:28, 11 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Stale discussion. So, I was BOLD and now we are using one category: category:Eugène Louis Simon taxa. Same topic discussions are encouraged in future--Estopedist1 (talk) 07:32, 5 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Questioning the systematic move to full names

@PeterR: "The agreement is that we use the full names" What agreement? @Andyboorman: "the standard here is to use full names" Has it already been discussed? IPNI shouldn't be regarded as the sole authority for author names, as it contains errors too.

I know this is a standard practice, which I'm not really against, but should it be done systematically?

I recently came across the page of the malacologist Jacques Sébastien François Léonce Marie Paul Fagot who published under the name Paul Fagot. Since there is no real ambiguity here, shouldn't the name Paul Fagot be used as the page title for simplicity? Discussion can take place at Talk:Jacques Sébastien François Léonce Marie Paul Fagot.

I think there are particular cases that need to be discussed. Maybe other considerations of the choice of the name should be taken into account: used in literature, well-established... Regardless of the page name, full and alternative names would still appear in the introduction. Korg (talk) 13:04, 17 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Korg: If you think IPNI contains an error then contact them and if you are right they will quickly change the entry with thanks. Easy. In addition, we did discuss the preferential use of full abbreviated names on the Name Section, but I can not remember when as it was a few years ago, but see Help Section it is there in black and white for botany with succinct reasoning. Andyboorman (talk) 13:57, 17 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Andyboorman: Thanks for the suggestion about IPNI, I do contact them when I encounter an error. What I meant is that I do not consider them that authoritative when it comes to author names, unlike plant names and standard forms of course. Sometimes they do not prefer the full name (e.g. Fredy Archila, IPNI), and quite often they do not know it (e.g. Juan Manuel Aparicio Rojo, IPNI).
I would be interested to read previous discussions on the subject. Regarding Help Section, where is it exactly, please? The page Help:Author Names does not mention it. Korg (talk) 16:06, 17 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The Help Section is here. Andyboorman (talk) 17:21, 17 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This page does not seem to address the subject... or maybe I've missed something, or there is a misunderstanding somewhere? I am referring to page title/page name for authors and naming conventions. There is a reference to Help:Author Names, but it isn't covered there either. Korg (talk) 17:56, 17 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Name order confusion

I was about to make the "Keezhpattillam Viswajyothi" page just now, having just made a template for a second publication by the author, when doubts entered my mind as to which order these two names should be in, and which one of them is actually the family name: "Keezhpattillam" or "Viswajyothi"?

To give you an idea of what I mean, according to {{Bezděk & Viswajyothi, 2019}} and other publications by her available on her ResearchGate profile, as well as her ZooBank author page she is cited as "Viswajyothi", "Viswajyothi, K." or "Viswajyothi, Keezhpattillam" (with her full name being given as "Keezhpattillam Viswajyothi" in Bezděk & Viswajyothi, 2019 in particular). Yet the text of {{Viswajyothi & Konstantinov, 2020}} states that it should be cited with her name as "Keezhpattillam, V.", while other publications where she is not the author (e.g. here) as well as her ResearchGate profile itself refer to her full name as "Viswajyothi Keezhpattillam". These are all definitely the same person as far as I'm aware. Monster Iestyn (talk) 01:45, 15 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Monster Iestyn: let the specialists do the job: see en:Wikipedia_talk:Noticeboard_for_India-related_topics#Surname_problem_for_Keezhpattillam_Viswajyothi. Interesting may be also en:Indian surname--Estopedist1 (talk) 06:32, 15 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah I had a look at the Indian name page on en:w before I asked about this, unfortunately of course it only showed that I could not possibly figure out the answer for myself. Monster Iestyn (talk) 16:31, 15 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Also bringing attention to this to PeterR since he just made Keezhpattillam Viswajyothi, I assume he was unaware this discussion was going on. Monster Iestyn (talk) 16:37, 15 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Viswajyothi is the first name and Keezhpattillam is the last name. -- 14:36, 17 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Monster Iestyn and PeterR: we got answer by native (see enwiki). Correct is Viswajyothi Keezhpattillam. Now, corrections need to be made--Estopedist1 (talk) 19:31, 17 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Then that means all the other articles she authored before 2020 have gotten her name wrong (at least in terms of which is the family name). Weird then. Monster Iestyn (talk) 20:03, 17 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

───────────────────────── Follow-up to this discussion: another article by Viswajyothi Keezhpattillam (or Keezhpattillam Viswajyothi) has just been published in the last 24 hours, this time with "Viswajyothi" as the last name: I thought this was resolved but now I'm confused again. How can two articles authored by her on ZooKeys be published with her names in different orders?

Following this, I also noticed that the PDF download for the earlier 2020 article on ZooKeys (the Blakealtica one) actually has "Viswajyothi" as the last name as well, in contrast to the online version. Monster Iestyn (talk) 01:38, 17 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is it possible maybe that she is indexed by her first name instead of her last name? That would explain everything. Monster Iestyn (talk) 03:10, 17 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Estopedist1: Should we go back to the noticeboard? I am starting to think that, while her names may actually be ordered Viswajyothi Keezhpattillam in normal usage, she is actually indexed by her first name, so articles with her name flip them the other way around (a bit like with Chinese or Japanese authorities etc). However, that online version of the Blakealtica article on ZooKeys (which started all my confusion) indexed her by her second name. I suspect this was possibly by mistake, as the PDF download as well as the version of the article on PMC indexes her by first name instead. It's a shame there's not been any kind of erratum or corrigendum to clear this up on ZooKeys, at least far as I can tell. (Maybe whoever was the anonymous IP could answer this if they know something, alternatively?) Monster Iestyn (talk) 17:21, 19 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Monster Iestyn: it is unlikely that Indian Wikipedian User:Sreejithk2000 did a mistake. See again this enwiki discussion. I don't know how authors indexing is working in Zookeys, but there is certainly inconsistency, see eg . We probably should ask directly to Zookeys and if they are sure that correct order is "Keezhpattillam Viswajyothi", then we should disturb our Indian Wikipedists again. Other, but related topic: Chinese names are nightmare for non-Chinese people and we definitely need Chinese Wikipedians to solve problems related to Chinese names--Estopedist1 (talk) 18:24, 19 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Estopedist1: I'm not saying Sreejithk2000 made a mistake about the order of the names themselves as such (indeed she uses them in that order on her own Facebook, so there's no doubt it's correct), it's that last time we weren't asking about what named she's indexed by, and what name she should be cited as in articles: "Viswajyothi, V." or "Keezhpattillam, V."? (or even what name should be used in authorities for taxa authored by her: "Viswajyothi" or "Keezhpattillam"?) Monster Iestyn (talk) 18:34, 19 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Monster Iestyn: if we know that surname is surely "Keezhpattillam", then WS goal should be to propagandize correct name order. I mentioned this name stuff in here: Viswajyothi Keezhpattillam. If someone will state objections about name order, we can revive this discussion--Estopedist1 (talk) 18:57, 19 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Update so the bot doesn't archive this discussion just yet: I asked about indexing the name at en:Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics, though it has been at least 4 days and no reply yet as of writing. Monster Iestyn (talk) 20:34, 19 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Definition of "author" and care in writing these pages

This is an issue I've seen repeatedly with careless author page creations: Not all named author of a taxonomic paper are taxon authorities. Not even all authors in ZooBank, because If someone has not taxon to their name, they are not a taxon authority. The category is calle dthat way for a reason, and this automatic creation of pages for all listed authors only manages to create more work down the line!

Specific case in point, I'm looking at Oana Paula Popa. First problem: not a taxon author. She's an author to the paper, but all involved taxon are explicitly and solely attributed to Ioana Cristina Constantinescu. Second problem: not an acarologist. Not even close. Looking at her researchgate profile, I find that the three papers registered in Zoobank are the only acarology papers she's ever been involved with: most of her work is genetics- or bivalves-related. In fact, her formal resume says she's a conservation scientist (specialist of invasive bivalves, to be exact) and a molecular scientist.

Taxonomic work clearly isn't in her wheelhouse and based off the information we already had we shouldn't have had a page for her to begin with. Circeus (talk) 17:36, 19 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

hard topic and probably several borderline cases. I think we must to be very rigorous, otherwise we have more articles about persons than taxons. If someone links the (suspicious) person, then proofing obligation lies on the link creator. See eg Talk:Brian R. Silliman with good summarizing by user:Neferkheperre. One specific topic is new taxons with "et al."construction, eg Template:Carter et al., 2011. I suggest that in similar "et-al"-cases we only link first three authors, not all 30 authors.--Estopedist1 (talk) 19:10, 19 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am far to be an specialist on this matter. Times ago I learnt that taxon authorities are not only those "naming" a taxon. For example, a paper that demonstrates that a certain genus is poliphiletic and propose the resurrection of two, three, sometimes more genera to accomodate the taxonomic change, they are also taxon authorities. I have no "authority" as an editor to judge whom is and whom is not.--Hector Bottai (talk) 22:03, 19 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In order to discuss this, we must first work on our definitions, and implications thereof. Many people can be taxon authorities without having named any taxa. Creating taxon name is nomenclatural act. Taxonomic acts include these, plus generic re-assignments, synonymizations, re-reinstatement from synonymization, as discussed in Talk:Brian R. Silliman. If we do not want to include these in our reporting, there is not much point in our existence.
When citing, customary etiquette requires listing all authors in the text body. This of itself does not mean we must create author pages for every one. Judgment must be used there. If any taxon named does not specify specific authors out of the complete list, then all authors are taxon authors. I have been creating links for all, unless I know they are not involved in taxonomy, but may leave them red-linked, for later. Our coverage of taxon authorities is woefully short.
I have examined Oana Paula Popa. She is principally geneticist, which puts her in gray area. however one bivalve publication makes her taxon authority. This one deals with three bivalve morphospecies found to have identical DNA. This is highly analogous to template:Zardus et al., 2014, which synonymizes three morphospecies of Chelonibia on DNA evidence. This assessment is widely accepted by cirripedologists, and has bearing on some of my present research.
Also have looked at Template:Carter et al., 2011. Fairly good number of taxa were named here. Most not in first three authors. In that case, I would look to Burmeister's method of listing page number and author, if different, in taxon lists. I have been copying his method, where possible.
Geneticists and molecular biologists represent gray area. As geneticists, they may add information and authority to taxon papers, produce taxonomic articles, then next week work on Rona or AIDS research. DNA is DNA. There is major philosphical discussion on this topic, including whether morphological descriptions should be abandoned in favor of DNA barcodes. Genetics must be included into our world. Neferkheperre (talk) 22:48, 19 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"However one bivalve publication makes her taxon authority. This one deals with three bivalve morphospecies found to have identical DNA." That does not make her a taxon authority, merely an author in a paper of taxonomic significance. These are different things. As far as I'm concerned, if the name does not appear after a taxon name, no page. I agree there's all sort of borderline cases, and that is exactly why I prefer to stick to this bright line because at least there's a lot less grey area as to who qualifies as an actual taxon author. (IMO, the zoological code should have just up and said "if the formal authors aren't listed after a new name, it's not available" a while ago to make everyone's life easier.)
As far as Carter et al. goes, it has six formal taxon authorities, that's it. Unless the other authors have separate names to their credit, no pages for them. It's hard enough tracking info about the actual authorities we have to deal with without actively increasing our workload from papers like these. Circeus (talk) 01:15, 20 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Then tell us your minimum criteria, definition, etc. of taxon authority, so we can work from there. Do you think if no new taxon is named, but there is generic re-assignment or synonymization, it should be ignored. Neferkheperre (talk) 02:03, 20 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"As far as I'm concerned, if the name does not appear after a taxon name, no page." So under this concept, Frank E. Rheindt, this prolific and important taxon authority does not deserve having a page. I will never agree with that conceptuation.--Hector Bottai (talk) 02:37, 20 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Of course he would: his name is properly attached to at least Circaetus gallicus sacerdotis. We just don't have a page for those. What did you think I meant? 😕 Circeus (talk) 03:08, 20 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
and also (but we don't have the articles for those on his author page) Phylloscopus rotiensis, Montecincla and Sholicola. At least according to ZooBank Circeus (talk) 03:14, 20 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sholicola page created now. Montecincla will need a lot more work, as it is a part of a huge rearrangement of several families of birds (see under #Coracina - Campephagidae 2 sections up!) - MPF (talk) 00:14, 22 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I'm not sure that we need to be too strict, the author of papers with taxonomic value should be tolerate. One exemple that concern me: Asteromorpha capensis, you see a red link for one of the author, I followed the recomandation 51G from ICZN code and I quoted the author(s) of the recombination, of course it is not compulsory it is just a recomandation, but is very relevant to taxonomy and a page for this author should maybe be tolerated. Of course someone can make research and found that this author is really an author, but that's not my point. This author could very well have modified taxonomy one time or even several times, and therefore he would be worth to be cited here and to have a page, even without being "true taxon author". I follow Neferkheperre. Christian Ferrer (talk) 04:44, 20 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

VN pedantry yet again

Editor @MPF: is removing English VN in favour of his own pedantic interpretations often with a smug comment. I know Cunninghamia lanceolata is not a fir I am not an ignoramus, but we call it and sell it as Chinese Fir in the UK, so it is the most legitimate common name and its removal is either OR or vandalism. A Screw Pine is also not a gymnosperm and Cabbage Tree definitely not a Brassica, but this unilateral revision of linguistic history and heritage is really not on and must be stopped. We have had this discussion in the past and came to a more or less consensual approach that favoured the most commonly used VN with only name if possible. Indeed WS is not one persons project, so I resurrect this discussion once again. Andyboorman (talk) 11:31, 20 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We really should not be promoting errors of historical misidentification over science: that sort of stuff may have a place in individual language wikipedias (with relevant explanation about its incorrectness), but not in a strictly science-based place like wikispecies. And I've never heard anyone call it a 'chinese fir' (or 'china fir') in actual speech; people who actually talk about them, talk about their Cunninghamias, just like they talk about their Rhododendrons - loan of the scientific name into English (with English grammar, plural, etc.) is by far the most commonly encountered name. - MPF (talk) 11:39, 20 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That is rubbish, sorry. Accuracy is a two way street. Biological science and historical vernacular are both valid descriptors, rewriting history to suite your narrative is just revisionism. I am not being dictated to by an over zealous editor who sees only what they want to see and is prepared to use WS as their own domain. Are you prepared to vouch for the so called scientific accuracy for all the language versions of all the vernacular names? I thought not. Lets just get rid of whole section if it is not science enough for you, rather than keep generating bad feeling over trivial stupidities. Andyboorman (talk) 15:09, 20 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Apparently தமிழ்: எலிக்காது கீரை is Tamil for Rat Spinach can @MPF: or other VN authority verify its veracity? Best regards Andyboorman (talk) 17:27, 21 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Important: maintenance operation on October 27

-- Trizek (WMF) (talk) 17:10, 21 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Species hemihomonyms

I think I may have just stumbled on the seemingly rare case of a binomial that is used in both zoology and botany: Cassida major is both the name of a valid species within the beetle genus Cassida, and a name of a plant which is currently a synonym of Scutellaria galericulata. The existing "Cassida major" page seems to have been created for the latter (so it is a redirect), but Cassida links to the same page as if it was the former. This does raise a few questions though:

  • Do we disambiguate species hemihomonyms by family name as with genus hemihomonyms?
  • What should I do about listing the disambiguated species in a species list, e.g. at Cassida? {{Sp}} does not seem equipped for disambiguation, but I don't want to edit such a widely used template in case I break something I wasn't aware of. Is there another template made for this purpose?
  • Actually do I even need to disambiguate the beetle species at all considering the plant name isn't even currently considered valid anyway?

Monster Iestyn (talk) 17:45, 24 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It also occurs to me there must have been a plant genus also named "Cassida" at some point, but I don't know if it's still used itself or not. Monster Iestyn (talk) 17:51, 24 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Cassida (the plant genus) is a synonym of Scutellaria L. according to Plants of the World Online (current version). I have just updated the relevant IRMNG record accordingly (formerly it was just "unassessed", as a matter of fact I am looking at some of these and fixing as we speak...). You can search IRMNG for what it knows about any instances of (e.g.) the genus "Cassida" thus: Cheers - Tony Tony 1212 (talk) 19:29, 24 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
See Category:Species-level hemihomonyms. Disambiguation method isn't totally consistent, but mostly uses the family as a disambiguating term. 2600:6C40:5900:13B8:D1C0:C639:F5CA:131B 19:11, 24 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I see, thanks. The template is still an issue though, last time I dealt with species homonyms (which were not hemihomonyms in that case) I recall had to manually recreate the {{Sp}} template but with a modified piped link. That doesn't seem ideal to me. Monster Iestyn (talk) 19:53, 24 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In this case, it seems fair to plop the beetle at Cassida major and have a hatnote ({{For}}, of which a more generic variant could be useful for cases like Adansonia) about the plant synonym. putting parentheses in two page names for this is unnecessary pedantry and makes the site less useful IMO. Circeus (talk) 16:10, 25 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
did solution per user:Circeus, see Cassida major. Notices:
      • we should do species-level disambiguation page only if at least three different taxa names exist, or if there exists only two taxa names, but both are valid (ie hemihomonyms).
      • we probably do not need {{SpDAB}} with {{SpDABlast}}, because eg {{sp|C|assida|major (Chrysomelidae)}} does the job--Estopedist1 (talk) 06:18, 26 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The "(Chrysomelidae)" would stick out quite visibly in a species list though, which is what we don't want I would have thought? By comparison, the {{G}} template at least allows us to hide disambiguation terms like those. Monster Iestyn (talk) 06:32, 26 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Second attempt: Template for discussion: template:occupation and template:nationality

see also Wikispecies:Village_Pump/Archive_53#Author_page_formatting_and_Caftaric
see also Wikispecies:Village_Pump#Disambiguation_pages_and_Caftaric

I suggest to delete {{Occupation}} and {{Nationality}}, which are created by user:Caftaric in February 2020.

I can see why somebody would want to create these templates for coding practice, but agree they do not seem to add value. Going to the Pump for discussion and consensus always slows down bad feelings and editing arguments, a point I have made numerous times. Andyboorman (talk) 07:52, 18 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
These templates are not fully redundant. It is true that {{Occupation}} cites our Wikispecies:Localization table, but in parts it adds languages and occupations not yet mentioned in the table. {{Nationality}} gives translations that are not at all included in the table and cannot be formed by using the int: magic word. If we want to translate Wikispecies for all languages, either our localization table needs to be heavily expanded, as many languages are still missing. Then for each word to translate, there will be more than 100 red links, which will clutter the maintenance category of wanted pages. Or we decide to keep {{Occupation}} and {{Nationality}}. The third possibiliy is to keep the author page untranslated: "Name (birth year–death year), French entomologist." I would prefer to have it translated. --Thiotrix (talk) 08:41, 18 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
more input is needed here to reach some conclusion. Any comment eg user:Monster Iestyn or user:Burmeister? The point about red links stated by user:Thiotrix is not strong because our Special:WantedPages is heavily "cluttered" by translation stuff and hence rather useless--Estopedist1 (talk) 10:02, 23 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't really have much of an opinion on the templates themselves to be honest, that's up to everyone else as to what to do about translations as already pointed out by Thiotrix. Though, it would be a shame to get rid of the templates and not transfer any missing translations over to Wikispecies:Localization where possible. (As an aside, if I knew anything of languages besides English I would help contribute to Wikispecies:Localization, but sadly I do not even have much knowledge of Welsh despite where I live.) Monster Iestyn (talk) 19:00, 23 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I do not see the need to maintain two systems of internationalization. Improving and expanding Wikispecies:Localization can solve this. Perhaps it is time to open a broad discussion with the community about the internationalization of Wikispecies. Is there a consensus for internationalization? What will be translated, everything? How will it be translated, int:, templates or a hybrid system? Will be made by robots? will disambiguation pages and categories be translates? Burmeister (talk) 21:24, 23 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I guess most of us concede that without translation stuff, WS will make huge jump to unclutterness and our maintenance work reduces considerably. However, because Wikimedia Foundation provides that WS exist at all, then we may violate global Wikimedia Foundation rules when all translation stuff will be deleted in WS--Estopedist1 (talk) 06:55, 24 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
very likely Wikimedia Fountation rules/guidelines are not problem (see User_talk:Estopedist1#Translation_deletions). Hence, if other users also will start to see that translation stuff is rather big problem, than rather big solution for Wikispecies, then we can do what is best for Wikispecies' users---Estopedist1 (talk) 11:03, 18 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
My view is unchanged on last time, I am all for innovation, want to see things discussed though first, do not want to see any info lost, agree on internationalization of WS. In saying that I agree with @Burmeister: thats perhaps a broader discussion is warranted. I think in WS we need to balance between what we are presenting and Wikimedia norms on other wikis. We are presenting cold hard nomenclatural data, as such many of the words on our pages must not be translated, however many can be. I think as has come up several times recently some of our MOS and site policies and help pages need to be updated. It may bea good idea to look at all these issues and get the housekeeping side in order. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 18:13, 14 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Faendalimas: and others: we definitely don't like such monstrum syntax like given below, and which also will make editing in WS almost impossible:
** {{intAuthority}} {{int:for}} {{int:placement}}: {{int:original}}
** {{int:Gender}}: {{int:unchangeable}} ({{int:patronym)
** {{int:Original}} {{int:genus}}: ''[[Megasoma]]'' {{aut|Kirby}}, 1825
** {{int:Original status}}: {{int:valid}} {{int:species}}
** {{int:Primary type}}: {{int:holotype}}
*** {{int:Fixation}}: {{int:designated}} {{int:and}} {{int:unique}}
*** {{int:Description}}: [{{int:adult}}] {{int:male}}
*** {{int:Repository}}: [[Collection of D. Svoboda]]

Hence, translation stuff has no future in WS. But before rooting out this translation stuff (potentially our biggest clutter), only one translation style should be allowed: not {{occupation|acarologist}}, but {{int:acarologist}}--Estopedist1 (talk) 06:33, 15 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Second attempt

It is hard to do any useful conclusion from previous template-for-discussion. So, again I suggest to delete {{Occupation}} and {{Nationality}}. These are non-standard way of translating. Only consensual style is to use the form "int: ", eg "{{int:Name}}", {{int:acarologist}} etc.--Estopedist1 (talk) 06:24, 12 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

new comments above--Estopedist1 (talk) 06:33, 15 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Conclusion: only one system of internationalization is allowed in Wikispecies. Templates {{Occupation}} and {{Nationality}} will be deleted--Estopedist1 (talk) 08:19, 2 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Scientific paper: Restoring indigenous names in taxonomy

In enwiki, I got the hint from user:Stho002 about the paper published in Communications Biology with the title "Restoring indigenous names in taxonomy". He calls this paper as "it is potentially catastrophic for taxonomy!". DOI: --Estopedist1 (talk) 13:11, 4 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please don't proxy for globally blocked users. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:31, 4 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Stephen is being awfully alarmist (and his take on it on the Taxacom mailing list reads almost like a neocolonialist screed... not being helpful in that regard). This is, and has always been, the remit of vernacular names, not the ICZN or any other formal nomenclatural code. We can debate it high and low for a long time, but at then end of the day it'll never get a fraction of the traction it needs to get anywhere near the actual code (see also Dubois' entire terminology for nomenclature or the PhyloCode). Circeus (talk) 00:54, 5 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Nice debate, but two of the pillars of the ICBN are nomenclatural stability and precedence. I think that the proposals in the paper are well meaning, but unlikely to gain traction for retrospective changes. Andyboorman (talk) 18:12, 5 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wiki of functions naming contest - Round 2

22:10, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Red links in disambiguation pages

I noticed recently Estopedist1 has been removing red links to taxon authors that don't have pages yet from disambiguation pages. I asked why, and ...well, see Estopedist1's talk page.

Do the rest of us agree with Estopedist1's way of handling red links in disambiguation pages? Should we remove them if there is no evidence for them on Wikispecies or Wikidata as he suggests? Monster Iestyn (talk) 16:52, 5 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oh, I'm definitely with you on this, but I wouldn't be surprised if ther was a bit of a rift on this. Circeus (talk) 21:32, 5 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't really see the problem with red links, I find them rather useful. Maybe we could add additional info with hidden text or a link to a publication. Korg (talk) 09:35, 6 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
good advice by user:Korg. Everyone who adds red links to the disambiguation pages of authorities, should give the proofing info about authorship, unless it is obvious, like authorities in IPNI databases with IPNI standard form--Estopedist1 (talk) 06:31, 7 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

IMHO, it seems that authorities topic are too hard for WS and it is possible that redirected link to Wikidata maybe only rational solution in future--Estopedist1 (talk) 06:31, 7 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]


  • When people are trying to work out what Latin/Greek/etc words or names a biological name comes from, it may be useful to link to an article about haplology as it affects biological names. There could be a category for species and clades, named [Category:Names affected by haplology]. Or merely put a note in the affected species's or clade's page pointing out the haplology. Examples are:
    • Hapalemur (gentle lemur): for *Hapalolemur, from hapalo- (Greek, "gentle") + lemur (Latin), = "gentle lemur"
    • Dracohors (a clade), for *Dracocohors, from draco- (Latin, "serpent", in later Latin "dragon") + "cohors" (stem "cohort-") (Latin, cohort), = "the dragon cohort", a very unusual example of a clade with a singular name. *Note: I ave seen each member of Dracohors clade by itself called a "dracohorsian", but this is ungrammatical Latin; it should be "dracohortian".

We do not encourage nor endorse the adding of etymology and haplology to WS pages, as this site is purely for taxonomy and classification. This type of information would be best edited into WP or WD pages where it would be of great interest and value to their users. Andyboorman (talk) 13:34, 10 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This name is 100% unnecessary, right?

So I'm looking at Szawaryn & Tomaszewska, 2020, of which here's the intro:

Recently the classification of the ladybird beetles’ tribe Epilachnini was revised based on morphological and molecular data (Szawaryn et al. 2015, Tomaszewska & Szawaryn 2016). Based on these findings a new classification of the tribe was proposed. The genus Epilachna Chevrolat in Dejean, 1837 sensu lato was split into several clades, with Epilachna sensu stricto limited to New World fauna, and one of the Afrotropical clades, formerly defined as Epilachna sahlbergi-group (Fürsch 1963), has been named Chazeauiana Tomaszewska & Szawaryn, 2015 (Szawaryn et al. 2015), with Epilachna sahlbergi Mulsant, 1850 as the type species. However, that taxon received an unnecessary replacement name, as Mulsant (1850) already described a subgenus of Epilachna named Cleta distributed in Afrotropics, with Epilachna eckloni Mulsant, 1850 as the type species, which also belongs to the E. sahlbergi-group. Consequently Cleta has been elevated to the genus level (Tomaszewska & Szawaryn 2016) and Chazeuiana was synonymized with Cleta as a junior synonym. Nonetheless, authors (Tomaszewska & Szawaryn 2016) were not aware that the name Cleta is preoccupied. It appeared that Duponchel (1845) established the genus Cleta in the family Geometridae (Lepidoptera) that makes Cleta Mulsant (1850) a junior homonym. Therefore, we propose here Afrocleta nom. nov. as a replacement name for Cleta Mulsant, 1850.

And I need a sanity check.

Afrocleta is entirely irrelevant, right? Have I massively misunderstood the code so that somehow the oldest, not homonymic name forthis genus is something other than Chazeauiana Tomaszewska & Szawaryn, 2015? And if that is the case, there is no possible justification whatsoever under the code for coining this new replacement name? Circeus (talk) 23:36, 30 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The relevant part of the code seems to be here. As far as I can tell just from this abstract alone you would seem to be correct, the valid name should be Chazeauiana Tomaszewska & Szawaryn, 2015. However, checking the 2016 article by the same authors (see here) reveals that Hypsa Mulsant, 1850 is also a synonym and could be a valid name, unless it is also a homonym or has since been removed from synonymy? Monster Iestyn (talk) 01:49, 31 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
yes, of Hypsa Hübner, 1819. Circeus (talk) 04:24, 31 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Although this is somewhat speculative, the problem seems to me to be a result of the authors being of the (presumably) incorrect opinion that unnecessary replacement names are unavailable names. If so, then Chazeauiana Tomaszewska & Szawaryn, 2015 would be an unavailable name and the new replacement name Afrocleta would be warranted (actually, still no, since Chazeauiana wasn't actually proposed as a replacement name, just a new genus for an unnamed clade, but the authors seem to be of a different opinion!) So, it is a big mess and my experience suggests that the authors, like most people, are unlikely to change their incorrect opinions! So, this raises a broader issue: Wikimedia sites are not allowed to invoke OR and since the authors are likely to maintain that they are correct, I suggest that Wikimedia sites unfortunately must follow their incorrect opinions, until such time, if ever, that someone publishes a correction in a form that can be followed on Wikimedia. There must be many such mistakes which go unnoticed. GruesomeBalls (talk) 22:43, 31 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
PS: The irony is that Afrocleta is an unnecessary replacement name (though still an available name), so the authors have published a paper whose only function has been to create the very problem that they thought they were trying to solve! Sigh! GruesomeBalls (talk) 22:50, 31 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have been able to get my hands on a pdf of the full article. The rest of it is just the new name+synonymy (which completely fails to document that Hypsa is itself also a homonym). The authors seem somehow to labor under the impression that their replacement "inherits" Cleta's priority, which is most definitely not the case. Circeus (talk) 16:17, 1 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"So, it is a big mess and my experience suggests that the authors, like most people, are unlikely to change their incorrect opinions!" Frankly I think we shouldn't be so derogatory and cynical when we don't even know these people; we should just contact them to let them know about their mistake, if someone else hasn't already. (This is ignoring the fact that GruesomeBalls has already been identified as Stephen, the point needs to be made anyway) Monster Iestyn (talk) 17:50, 1 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's not entirely impossible they may be assuming that Chazeauana Matile-Ferrero, 1988 is an earlier homonym, but this is also an incorrect assumption. Circeus (talk) 01:21, 2 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Speaking as an ICZN Commissioner; the name Afrocleta is indeed an unnecessary replacement name, and a junior synonym of Chazeauiana. It's likely to be very hard to keep editors from trying to change the entries in Wikipedia, Wikispecies, etc. to adopt this invalid name. The reviewers of this paper should be ashamed. Dyanega (talk) 19:47, 12 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- P.S. - What actually IS confusing here is how to determine what the correct type species is under the Code. Since Cleta and Hypsa were published in the same work, and subsequently typified, the situation is muddled. Ordinarily, if it were only Cleta and Chazeauiana, then by virtue of the latter being a junior synonym, the type species would be the one assigned to Cleta, but since Chazeauiana is a synonym of BOTH of Mulsant's genera, then I think it depends upon a First Reviser action to decide which type species designation has priority, in which case Hypsa was synonymized under Cleta in 2016. I don't see anything in the Code to suggest that this doesn't resolve the matter (i.e., I don't think it makes a difference which Mulsant name has the oldest type designation - it was Hypsa, in 1931). Dyanega (talk) 21:04, 12 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

───────────────────────── @Dyanega: I'm a little confused, as I'm not clear why the type of Hypsa is relevant. It might be under the botanical code, but the notion that a name is illegitimate for including the type of a previous name is not part of the zoological code. Afrocleta is explicitly a replacement name for Cleta, so its type is whatever the type of Cleta is (Art. 67.8), isn't it? According to these authors, the typifications go as follow:

  • Cleta/Afrocleta: "Epilachna eckloni Mulsant, 1850 (by subsequent designation by Jadwiszczak & Węgrzynowicz 2003: 9)".
  • Chazeauiana, by original designation: Epilachna sahlbergi Mulsant, 1850.
  • Hypsa: "Epilachna nigrolimbata J. Thomson, 1875 (by subsequent designation of Korschefsky, 1931) which is... surprising given I don't see how that species could be allowed as type under the code? However the place of designation (Korschefsky R. 1931. Coccinellidae I. In: Schenkling S. (ed.), Coleopterorum Catalogus. Part 118. W. Junk, Berlin, 224 pp.) is not accessible online so I cannot verify what's going on there.

Circeus (talk) 21:48, 12 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The type of Hypsa would be relevant only if no First Reviser action established whether Cleta or Hypsa had priority over the other. In this case, such a priority WAS established (in favor of Cleta), and my one nagging uncertainty has to do with whether a First Reviser action can ever be considered incorrect. I don't think it can. Dyanega (talk) 22:06, 12 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Okay, I just had to refresh my own memory - Article 67.8 is the one that applies, and it explicitly requires that a replacement genus name has to be PROPOSED AS a replacement name in order for it to share the type species of the name it is replacing. I recalled something about (1) "despite any statements to the contrary" (the actual wording is "both the prior nominal taxon and its replacement have the same type species, and type fixation for either applies also to the other, despite any statement to the contrary", but this REQUIRES that one of the names is a formally proposed replacement for the other), and (2) a junior name's type becoming the type of an older name if that older name did not yet have a type designated (and this does appear in the example under 67.8, but in that example, it was a formal replacement name involved, not just a junior synonym whose name was the oldest available name). Accordingly, I think you do in fact have the details correct above. That is, since Chazeauiana is the oldest available name, it is the valid name, but since it was not proposed as a replacement name, it retains its originally designated type species, rather than adopting the type species of Cleta. Cleta did not acquire the type species of Hypsa despite the latter having its type species designated first, because Hypsa was not a replacement name, either (and that designation has its own problems). I had to just go back and check what Art. 67.8 actually said, to get everything clear in my head. Dyanega (talk) 22:24, 12 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As for a species named in 1875 being the type of a (sub)genus named in 1850, I agree, that seems improbable on the face of it, since about the only scenario where this might work is if Thomson's name were a junior synonym of one of the originally included species. Dyanega (talk) 22:30, 12 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hello. Is the correct species epithet setiferus or setifer? See IPNI cf. PWO. Cheers. Andyboorman (talk) 08:22, 13 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The original spelling in the protologue is setiferus BHL. This has been corrected by PWO, Tropicos and many floras. The Grammatical Dictionary of Botanical Latin cites "setifer,-era,-erum (adj.A) (also setiferus,-a,-um)". So the correct ending is setifer, but the other form is also in use. IPNI cites the uncorrected spelling. Maybe you want to ask them about this matter. Some time ago I wrote them about a name with globifer/globiferus, and after some days they altered all those names to globifer. Cheers, --Thiotrix (talk) 09:14, 13 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks @Thiotrix: thanks for the info, just as I thought, but wanted to check. I remember the discussion regarding globifer/globiferus and so will contact IPNI for their opinion. Regards Andyboorman (talk) 09:36, 13 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template:Zootaxa and Template:Phytotaxa

What's our current thoughts on Template:Zootaxa and Template:Phytotaxa and other "shortcut" templates for references like them? While I'm aware some of us have already wanted to get rid of these, I have now more reason myself to wonder whether we should get rid of them, since I learned just earlier that Papblak was confused into thinking he needed to make a template like the Zootaxa example, which resulted in him creating Template:Herpetological Review (and then Template:ISSN 0018-084X) based on the text for Zootaxa at ISSN 1175-5326. (See discussion here.) This does bring home to me how unnecessarily complicated and messy Wikispecies must be for actual scientists to work with, even if wiki editors like me and others are totally used to how things are. What makes it worse is how inconsistent Wikispecies is with its own formatting and style, when Help:Reference section says to use one format and Zootaxa etc have another as a shortcut. Monster Iestyn (talk) 18:16, 13 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am not a fan of them, tend not to use them myself. As has been repeatedly and in multiple discussions pointed out, if we want to keep Wikispecies relevant we must make it readable, including by data-mining. The whole template system of references as it currently stands makes this hard. Unfortunately its also difficult to come to agreement and foresee how we can change this. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 20:29, 13 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

1-, 2-, 3-, 4- etc -letter authority disambiguation pages (eg S. Müller) to be banned

See also: Wikispecies:Village_Pump/Archive_54#Namesake_authors

We should definitely banned 1-, 2-, 3-, 4- etc -letters authority disambiguation pages (DAB) (eg S. Müller, H.J. Carter, James A. Scott), because:

  1. authority full name can be long, eg "Louis Adolphe Emeline Young", which means that we can create following DABs: L. Young, L.A. Young, L.A.E. Young, L.A. Young, A. Young, A.E. Young, E. Young. Nonsense!? Instead of one DAB: Young
  2. using the sub-DABs like "L. Young", "L.A. Young" means that authorities in these subDABs can be missed in Young which is very dangerous error.
  3. temptation to create mixed style DABs, like James A. Scott with "J.A. Scott", "J. Scott"
  4. massive manual extra work when keeping/creating thousands and thousands duplicate sub-DAB pages, like L. Müller, J. Müller, S. Müller, Fritz Müller. Instead of one DAB: Müller
  5. Eg Slavic forenames maye have different first letter, eg Юлія can be transliterated as Julia, Yulia, Iulia, so we can have DAB pages like J. Ivanova, Y. Ivanova, I. Ivanova. Instead of one DAB: Ivanova --Estopedist1 (talk) 07:20, 28 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree. Someone correct me if I misremember, but as I recall these were generated by our old friend Stephen because his pet template {{Auth}} generated links to these pages and literally could not accommodate full names. With that template gone, these pages have little to no usefulness except for the instances where the given names are actually unknown, and are going to be a nightmare to maintain.
Is there an easy way to generate a list of pages with a period as their second character?Circeus (talk) 13:44, 28 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Circeus: wished list: --Estopedist1 (talk) 17:29, 28 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A few of them may be useful to have in some weird cases (purely as redirects to benefit those searching for authors, though), like the A.B. Idris = Idris Abd. Ghani connection I mentioned in an earlier discussion here on Village Pump. Otherwise I wouldn't really miss them. Monster Iestyn (talk) 01:46, 29 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ignore me, I thought this discussion involved the redirects as well. In that case I don't really oppose a ban to these kind of disambiguation pages. Monster Iestyn (talk) 01:50, 29 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Absolutely in favour of banning such disambiguation pages.--Hector Bottai (talk) 06:27, 29 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Agree, we do not need these additional disambiguation pages. --Thiotrix (talk) 07:13, 29 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Conclusion: 1-, 2-, 3-, 4- etc -letter authority disambiguation pages (eg S. Müller) are banned --Estopedist1 (talk) 06:50, 16 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Homonymous taxa naming

I suggest to universally use the bracketed style "TAXON_NAME (AUTHOR_NAME)", eg Rodriguezia (Bott) and to avoid naming using the family name, ordo name or other taxon rank or the word, eg deprecated should be "Rodriguezia (Trichodactylidae)", "Zea (genus)", "Zea (Plantae)", "Papilio (ICZN)", "Papilio (Animalia)". Why and cases?

  • familia name may change, especially usual for Fungi, algae, Protista
  • randomly used taxon rank, eg Protaspa (Filosa) #Filosa is subphylum. Or eg Sicarius (Araneae) #Araneae is ordo
  • when using AUTHOR_NAME and no brackets, we encounter misleading / not self-explaining names, like "Zeus Minter" #Zeus is taxa, described by Minter. Correct "Zeus (Minter)". Or eg Diana Minter # seems like the person name, but actually Diana is a taxon, desribed by Minter.
  • in general, any taxon with authority name is unique combination, hence – my suggested system is very easy to implement and already quite massively used in WS
  • using the year is not allowed, eg Discocelis (Vørs, 1988) is invalid, correct Discocelis (Vørs)
  • Question? if brackets already exist, then using double brackets is not allowed, eg "Lactarius ((Pers.) Gray)", correct "Lactarius (Pers.) Gray". I am also not against double brackets if it easifies system
  • not resolved are very rare situations like:

--Estopedist1 (talk) 12:29, 9 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fully agree, except we don't need the brackets. E.g. Lepidothrix Bonaparte. --Hector Bottai (talk) 13:57, 9 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sort of agree, except that the use of the family, particularly for plants, has gained so much momentum that turning back the clock may be too late. It made sense back in the day when APG had pretty well stabilised family nomenclature with one or two important exceptions, such as Boraginaceae and Amaranthaceae s.s. v s.l. and WS more or less consensually opted to follow APG. Andyboorman (talk) 14:54, 9 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sorry, what is APG?--Hector Bottai (talk) 17:32, 10 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Should have spelt out Angiosperm Phylogeny Group. Apologies. Andyboorman (talk) 18:11, 10 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Your aware that in zoology brackets have a nomenclatural meaning? eg Testudo graeca Linn 1756 means the species is in its original combination whereas Elseya dentata (Gray, 1863) means it is not was originally described as Chelymys dentata Gray, 1863. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 22:19, 10 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

While I'm not aware offhand of any actual cases, it is at least a theoretical possibility that the same author could describe both a plant and an animal with the same genus name. So 'Taxon name (Author name)' isn't an absolute guarantee. There are however, only two nomenclatural codes in which a single name can be valid, so surely 'Taxon name (animal)' / 'Taxon name (plant)', or 'Taxon name (ICZN)' / 'Taxon name (ICBN)' should be completely fail-safe? I'm working on the assumption that invalid later homonyms are (as they should already be) relegated to 'Taxon name (disambiguation)' - MPF (talk) 00:34, 11 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • But not only valid names are concerned, because a non-valid name can be in fact a redirect and therefore can have a title, e.g.: a valid plant name / a valid animal name / a non-valid animal name. I recently had to deal with such a case but I'm not able to remember/find that name. Christian Ferrer (talk) 07:01, 11 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Conclusion: although 2 weeks are not passed, I can say that (1) due to disharmony between Animalia/Plantae (compare eg L. vs Linnaeus, or A.D.Orb. vs d'Orbigny); (2) "brackets-has-meaning" in taxonomy, we cannot do general rules and we have to tolerate the mess we have in WS.--Estopedist1 (talk) 07:00, 16 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Klaas's Cuckoo

Chrysococcyx klaas was given its binomial name by James Francis Stephens, in 1815. But before that it was discovered and named (after Klaas, a Khoekhoe man native to south-west Africa) by François Levaillant who "opposed the use of binomial nomenclature introduced by Carl Linnaeus, preferring instead to use descriptive French names". So what did Levaillant call the species? Can someone provide a citation, that I can use in Wikipedia, please? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:59, 14 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I... genuinely have no idea what you're actually asking, but if your problem is that you refuse to cite something in French, you could try this. Circeus (talk) 04:05, 15 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What I was actually asking was "what did Levaillant call the species?", the answer to which is "Le Coucou de Klaas", and is found in the source kindly provided by Christian. I also actually asked for "a citation, that I can use in Wikipedia" which is what Christian provided, which is in French, and which I have duly cited in the Wikipedia article on the species. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:43, 15 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
My apologies. When I looked at it, I somehow overlooked the signature on Christian's post and thought that was part of your post, hence my confusion. Circeus (talk) 20:36, 15 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Just for the story, as a french native speaker, I must say that the first page and the two first lines of the second page of that text are a sincere and warm tribute to Klaas, who apparently was a faithful and precious assistant to the author in Africa. The author also precise that Klaas, living, I quote, in "lonely deserts", has probably never been aware of this tribute and of the fact that a species was named after them. Christian Ferrer (talk) 15:46, 15 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Alexander Martynov vs Alexander V. Martynov

Hi, this is about Alexander V. Martynov and Alexander Martynov, I trully think they are not the same person, the first is an Ukrainian entomologist and the second is a Russian marine biologist. The marine biologist is almost all time quoted in articles as simply "Alexander Martynov" but also sometimes as "Alexander V. Martynov" e.g. DOI: 10.1080/17451000701840066 or DOI: 10.1016/j.ympev.2016.12.006, but it is clear that all the papers and all the taxa relative to marine biology belongs to our Alexander Martynov. I suggest, as the marine biologist is often quoted as "Alexander Martynov", to keep our current speeling for the both authors.

I and several other editor made several confusions, included @Burmeister:, @Neferkheperre: and @PeterR:, I fixed some templates and some taxa categories, and it remains some author citations to be fixed in the taxa pages. I will take care of that but I ask my dear colleagues to be carefull not to confuse these both authors. Christian Ferrer (talk) 22:41, 2 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It seems that they have also been confused with each other on ZooBank: for instance, this article is linked to the entomologist but is actually co-authored by the marine biologist. Monster Iestyn (talk) 01:08, 3 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Also, if it helps to know, I've managed to discover that the patronyms of the authors are Володимирович [Volodymyrovych] (for the Ukrainian entomologist) and Владимирович [Vladimirovich] (for the Russian marine biologist). Essentially they seem to be the same patronym but in two different languages, unless I'm mistaken. There's no doubt they're different people though, as they have their own ResearchGate profiles as well as ORCID iDs. Monster Iestyn (talk) 01:45, 3 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Wow, that common patronymic is unfortunate, but also hilarious. For reference: Russian Martynov's RGate profile (Web of Science, Scopus), Ukrainian Martynov's profile (ORCID, Web of Science, Scopus). Circeus (talk) 02:10, 3 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I sent a mail to Zoobank, pointing them this discussion, in the purpose they take a look at theur entries in about these authors. Christian Ferrer (talk) 10:48, 3 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I wonder if should create a disambigation page as it is likely that the both "Alexander V. Martynov" be confused again in the future. And the taxa categories as well... Maybe should we rename one to "Alexander V. Martynov (entomologist)" and the other to "Alexander V. Martynov (marine biologist)"? Christian Ferrer (talk) 11:38, 3 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • I believe a disambiguation page is necessary, but using the full patronymics (similar, but not identical, thankfully!) as pointed out by Monster Iestyn should be sufficient to properly disambiguate them (especially if they are cross-referenced to each others). Circeus (talk) 12:57, 3 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Do note that I'm not actually sure how the Ukrainian's patronym should be transliterated normally, that's just what Google Translate gave me when I translated the name on its own. Putting in his full name in Ukrainian (Олександр Володимирович Мартинов according to his thesis on ResearchGate) turned the patronym into "Vladimirovich" instead, oddly enough. Monster Iestyn (talk) 15:31, 3 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
yes, firstly we need both scientists patronyms and transliterations to English. Then we can move on. Ukrainian transliteration is probably Volodymyrovych, see eg enwiki similar names--Estopedist1 (talk) 16:32, 3 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Note that if the english translation differs a bit (Volodymyrovych vs Vladimirovich), if you translate Володимирович into Russian then you obtain Владимирович, so the names are the same. IMO That don't help use very much. @Monster Iestyn: where did you find the full name for the entomologist? I ask because almost all sources in the web are mixing the both authors, for the marine biologist we have , but I did not find a page for the entomologist. Maybe should we send a mail to each author pointing them our issue and asking what exactly are their full names in their native langage and in English. Christian Ferrer (talk) 19:00, 3 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I found the full name for the entomologist on an upload of his PhD thesis on ResearchGate, where it is given as "МАРТИНОВ Олександр Володимирович". Monster Iestyn (talk) 19:27, 3 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Both transliterations are correct. Ukrainian underwent some amount of alteration while part of Poland for a few centuries. After re-annexation to Russia, Ukrainian was frequently suppressed in favor of Russian. This is why Ukrainian names can come up in Russian. Good idea to know both for Ukrainian taxonomists, as some of them change back and forth to Russia. Neferkheperre (talk) 21:14, 3 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Call for insights on ways to better communicate the work of the movement

The Movement Strategy recommendations published this year made clear the importance of establishing stronger communications within our movement. To this end, the Foundation wants to gather insights from communities on ways we all might more consistently communicate about our collective work, and better highlight community contributions from across the movement. Over the coming months, we will be running focus groups and online discussions to collect these insights. Visit the page on Meta-Wiki to sign up for a focus group or participate in the discussion.

ELappen (WMF) (talk) 18:56, 18 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Formatting of zoological subgenera

Hello fellow editors, while cleaning up unused templates, I noticed that subgenera of animals are formatted in several ways here. For examples see Carabus (Acoptopterus) and Nestus. And for the species lists, templates {{Sgsp}} (cited on Wikispecies:Templates), {{Sgsps}}, or {{Sp}} are used. Which formatting is our standard? --Thiotrix (talk) 10:36, 17 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's a bit of a fraught topic since I'm not sure we have a formal decision on how the article names for subgenera should even be named to begin with! I strongly suspect most users do not use the species template with the intercalated subgenus anymore and they are most there for backward compatibility (citing a subgenus is 100% nomenclaturally irrelevant at species level, after all, and is only ever done for additional context within scientific article). Personally I would be happy to see the species template gone, but this would require a discussion first. Circeus (talk) 03:28, 18 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I always use the format "Genus (Subgenus)", and it seems that this format is the most used in WS (this format is used in WoRMS too). I'm agree with Circeus, a discussion is need to resolve this topic. A previous discussion about subgenus in VillagePump. Burmeister (talk) 12:59, 18 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There is also a discussion there. Christian Ferrer (talk) 13:22, 18 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Thiotrix: template {{Sgsp}} should be not used, because it creates species links with brackets, eg
X. (P.) altaica –
So we should use {{sgsps|C|arabus|A|ccoptopterus|agamemnon}}. But if user:Burmeister has right, then maybe we dont need these subgenus templates at all? So we can always use {{Sp}}?--Estopedist1 (talk) 13:29, 18 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It is possible that species templates (eg template:Theobroma cacao) and infraspecies templates (eg for subspecies) should be deleted--Estopedist1 (talk) 13:29, 18 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
But, I am also thinking about, that maybe our subgenus naming (eg Ophiura (Dictenophiura)) is bad, and should be Ophiura subg. Dictenophiura which is always self-explaining and no confusing with disambiguation pages. Eg IPNI database always does so--Estopedist1 (talk) 13:29, 18 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If {{Sgsp}} should be not used because it does not create binomens, then it should be removed from our help pages as soon as possible! --Thiotrix (talk) 14:01, 18 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Estopedist1! The practice is for use Template:Sgsps, to show subgenus but not create a page (species page) with subgenus, as previous consensus. Your example "Ophiura subg. Dictenophiura" is aimed at botany not zoology. Tha format Genus (Subgenus) are already used in WoRMS database, is commonly used in zoological scientific literature and is recommended by ICZN (at least for use in species name), see Article 6. Interpolated names: 6.1. "Names of subgenera - The scientific name of a subgenus, when used with a binomen or trinomen, must be interpolated in parentheses between the generic name and the specific name; it is not counted as one of the words in the binomen or trinomen. It must begin with an upper-case letter"). Burmeister (talk) 14:05, 18 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Meanwhile I have removed the unwanted Template:Sgsp on our Help page Wikispecies:Templates and replaced it by Template:Sgsps. But I would prefer to use only Template:Sp on genus and subgenus pages. (And to get rid of complicated templates for subspecies in subgenera as well.) We should only use binomina as lemma for species pages. Does anybody know, how many pages are still named like Zerynthia (Allancastria) cerisyi? --Thiotrix (talk) 08:39, 19 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Thiotrix: it is probably great victory for WS, if confusing {{Sgsp}} (used in 1100 articles) and {{Sgsp}} (used in 1500 articles) will be deleted. PS! I guess we thousands of articles named like Zerynthia (Allancastria) cerisyi --Estopedist1 (talk) 11:59, 19 November 2020 (UTC)