Abbreviazioni: WS:V, WS:VP

Wikispecies:Village Pump

Da Wikispecies.
Vai alla navigazione Vai alla ricerca

Welcome to the village pump of Wikispecies.

This page is a place to ask questions or discuss the project. If you need an admin, please see the Administrators' Noticeboard. If you need to solicit feedback, see Request for Comment. Please sign and date your post (by typing ~~~~ or clicking the signature icon in the edit toolbar). Use the Wikispecies IRC channel for real-time chat.

If you're going to critique the work of fellow editors (blatant vandals excepted) in your post on this page, you should notify them, either by mentioning them with a {{Reply to}} template, or with a post on their talk page.

If you insert links to Wikipedia pages in your comments, don't forget the leading colon (:) before the wiki language code (including when you reference a remote user page instead of using a local signature), otherwise it will generate spurious interwiki links collected in the sidebar instead of in the expected location within the discussion. Thanks.

Village pump in other languages:

1 (2004-09-21/2005-01-05) 2 (2005-01-05/2005-08-23)
3 (2005-08-24/2005-12-31) 4 (2006-01-01/2005-05-31)
5 (2006-06-01/2006-12-16) 6 (2006-12-17/2006-12-31)
7 (2007-01-01/2007-02-28) 8 (2007-03-01/2007-04-30)
9 (2007-05-01/2007-08-31) 10 (2007-09-01/2007-10-31)
11 (2007-11-01/2007-12-31) 12 (2008-01-01/2008-02-28)
13 (2008-03-01/2008-04-28) 14 (2008-04-29/2008-06-30)
15 (2008-07-01/2008-09-30) 16 (2008-10-01/2008-12-25)
17 (2008-12-26/2009-02-28) 18 (2009-03-01/2009-06-30)
19 (2009-07-01/2009-12-31) 20 (2010-01-01/2010-06-30)
21 (2010-07-01/2010-12-31) 22 (2011-01-01/2011-06-30)
23 (2011-07-01/2011-12-31) 24 (2012-01-01/2012-12-31)
25 (2013-01-01/2013-12-31) 26 (2014-01-01/2014-12-31)
27 (2015-01-01/2015-01-31) 28 (2015-02-01/2015-02-28)
29 (2015-02-28/2015-04-29) 30 (2015-04-29/2015-07-19)
31 (2015-07-19/2015-09-23) 32 (2015-09-23/2015-11-21)
33 (2015-11-21/2015-12-31) 34 (2016-01-01/2016-04-17)
35 (2016-03-22/2016-05-01) 36 (2016-05-01/2016-07-12)
37 (2016-07-13/2016-09-30) 38 (2016-10-01/2016-12-04)
39 (2016-12-04/2017-01-17) 40 (2017-01-18/2017-01-28)
41 (2017-01-29/2017-02-13) 42 (2017-02-14/2017-03-21)
43 (2017-03-20/2017-08-11) 44 (2017-08-10/2017-12-07)
45 (2017-12-08/2018-01-08) 46 (2018-01-19/2018-03-11)
47 (2018-03-11/2018-09-11) 48 (2018-09-01/2019-02-17)
49 (2019-02-22/2019-06-18) 50 (2019-06-19/2019-10-06)
51 (2019-10-07/2019-12-23) 52 (2019-12-24/2020-04-03)
53 (2020-04-03/2020-07-16) 54 (2020-07-17/2020-09-05)
55 (2020-09-08/2020-11-27) 56 (2020-11-27/2021-06-21)
57 (2021-06-05/2021-09-24) 58 (2021-09-25/2022-01-24)
59 (2022-01-26/2022-02-27) 60 (2022-02-27/2022-04-13)
61 (2022-04-14/2022-05-10) 62 (2022-07-01/2023-12-17)
63 (2022-12-24/2023-04-20) 64 (2023-04-20/2023-xx-xx)

Too many orphans....[modifica]

We have accumulated here too many orphaned pages - more than 3000 - see [1]

An orphaned page is one which isn't referenced or mentioned by any other page, this probably means that is is in some kind of error.

I'm trying to reduce the orphans, but it involves some hard work...

So I'm asking the members to follow some basic rules to cut down on the number.

  1. when editing a genus species list or removing a synonym from a list please retain a mention either under a synonym title or on another species page, else redirect or delete that name altogether.
  2. when creating a new author page, please include at least one reference to one taxon the author contributed to, or at least to one taxonomic publication the author participated in. Pages such as Ana Sanz are truly unacceptable. Mariusm (talk) 05:33, 8 May 2023 (UTC)Rispondi[rispondi]
Very sound rules. I fully agree. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 10:50, 8 May 2023 (UTC).Rispondi[rispondi]
As an inveterate creator of orphans when first editing here and now a curer, I also whole heartedly agree. Andyboorman (talk) 13:22, 8 May 2023 (UTC)Rispondi[rispondi]
Fully agree.--Hector Bottai (talk) 19:51, 8 May 2023 (UTC)Rispondi[rispondi]
@Lyttle-Wight: Who created a number of the orphaned biographies - can you resolve any of these, please? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:06, 8 May 2023 (UTC)Rispondi[rispondi]
Really hard work. In a brief overview of the list, identified and de-orphaned >40 Aves taxa. Many are "nomen nudum" related to Linnaeus, 1758, created by @Kheller: easily linked to the corresponding template Template:Linnaeus, 1758 new names list. I suspect there are many other classis taxa with these characteristics. --Hector Bottai (talk) 12:25, 10 May 2023 (UTC)Rispondi[rispondi]
FYI Kheller has not been active since 2014 according to the user page. Apologies for earlier typo. Andyboorman (talk) 12:40, 10 May 2023 (UTC)Rispondi[rispondi]

"Formae loc. f." ..?[modifica]

The "infraspecific" part of the Taxonavigation sections for about half of the species listed on the Ornithoptera genus page looks very odd, for example (including big and bold type):

Subgenus: Straatmana
Species: Ornithoptera aesacus
male ♂ f
O.a.♂f. azurus - O.a.♂f. claudei   […]
female ♀ f
O.a.♀f. massaea - O.a.♀f. purpurea

The affected pages are: Ornithoptera aesacus, Ornithoptera alexandrae, Ornithoptera chimaera, Ornithoptera meridionalis, and Ornithoptera rothschildi.

The following taxon pages looks okay, though: Ornithoptera croesus, Ornithoptera goliath, Ornithoptera paradisea, Ornithoptera priamus, Ornithoptera tithonus, and Ornithoptera victoriae.

Does anyone know what to make of this? As far as I know the term forma has no standing under the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (in contrast to botanical nomenclature where forma is accepted for infraspecific taxa). Also, what's up with the "male ♂ formae" and "female ♀ formae" stuff? Surely the taxonomy of these butterflies doesn't differ depending on gender? –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 18:14, 8 May 2023 (UTC).Rispondi[rispondi]

These forms which are really local variations have no taxonomic significance and are not recognized by the ICZN. Therefore they don't belong to WS and should be deleted. Just a waste of time and energy... Mariusm (talk) 05:32, 9 May 2023 (UTC)Rispondi[rispondi]
Hence, when deleting the lists of formae from for example Ornithoptera aesacus I guess we should also delete the pages Ornithoptera aesacus ♂f. azurus and Ornithoptera aesacus ♀f. purpurea (etc…) instead of leaving them as orphans? –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 09:22, 10 May 2023 (UTC).Rispondi[rispondi]
Right. All formea must be deleted! Mariusm (talk) 08:23, 12 May 2023 (UTC)Rispondi[rispondi]
Only for taxa subject to ICZN, therefore not using a blanket bot. Andyboorman (talk) 08:29, 12 May 2023 (UTC)Rispondi[rispondi]
Would it be worth listing these names as synonyms of the species instead? Otherwise, I think it was PeterR who made all these pages for formae, I don't know if he was aware these are unavailable under ICZN. (I am a bit surprised that infrasubspecific names are being coined as recently as 2015 though, is this something lepidopterists still do in the present day?) Monster Iestyn (talk) 14:42, 12 May 2023 (UTC)Rispondi[rispondi]
The main problem with that is they aren't synonyms. We can't go ahead and call an unrecognized "rank" for a synonym, just because it seems convenient. It is of course possible to list them in some other way, but we can't call them synonyms. Synonyms are taxon names (albeit outdated), while forms are not recognized as such (except in botany).
By the way, here's how Wikidata threats them, in this case Ornithoptera rothschildi ♂f. kenricki: Q25397049.
Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 19:39, 12 May 2023 (UTC).Rispondi[rispondi]

Global Compositae Checklist[modifica]

Global Compositae Checklist is no longer available and should be deleted off Reference Lists. However, a partial replacement is found here - Regards Andyboorman (talk) 14:17, 12 May 2023 (UTC)Rispondi[rispondi]

I have replaced all GCC templates with GCD templates using the above mentioned webpage.--RLJ (talk) 19:08, 12 May 2023 (UTC)Rispondi[rispondi]
For convenience, here's a link to the template RLJ created: Template:GCD. The GCC template has been deleted. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 02:30, 13 May 2023 (UTC).Rispondi[rispondi]

Styling for {{Noref}}[modifica]

{{Noref}} is certainly very visible, but it is very different from our other templates and inconsistent with other templates. Do we want this template to look this way? —Justin (koavf)TCM 14:50, 12 May 2023 (UTC)Rispondi[rispondi]

In my opinion no, we very much don't. The same goes for {{Stub}}. I think that for example {{Cleanup}} looks a lot better. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 15:14, 12 May 2023 (UTC).Rispondi[rispondi]
It needs to be translated, also. That said, it only has fourteen (14) transclusions; do we need it at all? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits
Last year, it was cited on about 2700 pages, but meanwhile I found references for most of them. The template should be kept for maintenance purpose, but should be adjusted to the style of {{Cleanup}}. .--Thiotrix (talk) 15:21, 16 May 2023 (UTC)Rispondi[rispondi]
OK. Done. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:56, 18 May 2023 (UTC)Rispondi[rispondi]

Consider changing pages[modifica]

I was going to wikispecies for a project I'm working on when I noticed that it didn't give me descriptions of what each phylum, kingdom, domain, was characterized by. I think we should consider adding that to every page. I believe this would greatly improve WikiSpecies and help a lot of people. I know that its a species directory but what good is it if you dont even put even the briefest description of them or we could even put links to their pages on Wikipedia — The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ducklan (talkcontribs).

@Ducklan: Can you give me an example? Maybe copy and paste something to User:Ducklan/sandbox and show us what you have in mind? —Justin (koavf)TCM 17:32, 12 May 2023 (UTC)Rispondi[rispondi]
I did what you said but the main thing im trying to do is make wikispecies more accessible to those with less biological understanding. so like maybe when you hover over a link it tells you most common characteristic of that phyla or kingdom or whatever it is. or just link it to the wikipedia page although this is seperate, or you could just put it on that page
Ever Thankful Ducklan (talk) 17:43, 12 May 2023 (UTC)Rispondi[rispondi]
@Ducklan and Koavf: Please note that since yesterday the main thread for this discussion is here: Requests for Comment: Consider adding Descriptions, started by user Ducklan. Please keep the discussion in one place only, or it may become unnecessary confusing and lead to misunderstandings.
Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 18:40, 12 May 2023 (UTC).Rispondi[rispondi]
Agreed: let's move to that thread and discuss there. —Justin (koavf)TCM 18:59, 12 May 2023 (UTC)Rispondi[rispondi]


I propose we empty and delete the {{Wikipedia}} template, which only purpose is to add a corresponding Wikipedia link to any page it's used on, like this:

Wikipedia For more information, look at Village Pump on Wikipedia.
(It uses the PAGENAME magic word, hence the Wikipedia link always correlates to the page it's added to; in the above case of course "Village Pump" since it's added here at the Village Pump.)

The template was created back in 2016 when Wikidata was still fairly undeveloped. Today Wikidata functionality is a whole other ball game and among other things it automatically adds Wikipedia links to the far left of all Wikispecies taxon and author pages. Hence the {{Wikipedia}} template is no longer needed. Furthermore it only generates text in English, and exclusively links to the English language version of Wikipedia. This doesn't sit well with Wikispecies ambition to be as accessible and language independent as possible. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 02:36, 16 May 2023 (UTC).Rispondi[rispondi]

N Deleted. Thank you for your opinions. The template has been deleted. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 07:10, 18 May 2023 (UTC).Rispondi[rispondi]

For similar reasons, should we remove the |Wikipedia= parameter from {{Repository}}? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:18, 20 May 2023 (UTC)Rispondi[rispondi]

Theodore Sherman Palmer[modifica]

Wikispecies currently has two pages for taxon authors named "Theodore Sherman Palmer": a zoologist Theodore Sherman Palmer (1868–1955) and a botanist Theodore Sherman Palmer (1860–1962) (based on data from IPNI). However, I suspect these might actually be the same person.

According to an obituary for the zoologist from 1956 ([2]), he was President of the Biological Society of Washington from 1909 to 1910. As it happens, one of the two names IPNI gives for the botanist, Carex varians, comes from volume 14 of the same society's "Proceedings" journal. The other one, Dryopteris celsa, IPNI cites from a different source, Ferns of the Southeastern States. However, on looking this source up on Google Books ([3], page 477 if you can see it in Snippet view), it in turn cites volume 13 of the same Proceedings. In both cases the names come from the indicies of their respective volumes ([4] and [5] respectively), and the authorship of these names I presume come from the "Committee on Publications" pages of these volumes ([6] and [7], respectively).

What this tells me is that Theodore Sherman Palmer of IPNI is not necessarily a botanist at all, and he could well be the same person as the zoologist (unless by some chance two people named "T. S. Palmer" were linked to the Biological Society of Washington at roughly the same time, which I doubt). I also suspect that IPNI's years for the author are wrong, because it's not clear where they come from at all.

Does this seem right to everyone else? Have I missed something? Monster Iestyn (talk) 23:51, 17 May 2023 (UTC)Rispondi[rispondi]

He appears to only have contributed to the descriptions of two plants. I would advise that you contact IPNI and ask for clarification and then allow them to correct their entry. Clearly his work on game, field and habitat biology was far more important. Andyboorman (talk) 08:42, 18 May 2023 (UTC)Rispondi[rispondi]
Theodore Sherman Palmer (1868–1955) is very clearly the same T.S. Palmer who is given, with William Perry Hay & Charles David White, as one of the authors of the improperly published Carex varians in [8], as members of the Committee on Publications of the Biological Society of Washington, per The Auk's July 1956 obituary at [9]. IPNI has that person as also co-authoring Dryopteris celsa. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:39, 22 May 2023 (UTC)Rispondi[rispondi]

Merge now complete; someone still needs to inform IPNI. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:10, 22 May 2023 (UTC)Rispondi[rispondi]

Thanks, and apologies for not contacting IPNI yet about this issue. I'll send them an email later today. Monster Iestyn (talk) 14:51, 22 May 2023 (UTC)Rispondi[rispondi]
Done, I've asked them where their years come from, and provided some of the evidence I gave earlier to link IPNI's record with the zoologist who lived 1868–1955. Monster Iestyn (talk) 19:47, 22 May 2023 (UTC)Rispondi[rispondi]
I got a reply from an IPNI editor saying the dates come from Brummitt and Powell's book (Authors of Plant Names from 1992), but they've no idea where it sourced them from. It looks like they'll be correcting the IPNI record to use the dates I gave them (they've already updated HavardBotanist too), which should mean this is resolved now. Monster Iestyn (talk) 22:47, 23 May 2023 (UTC)Rispondi[rispondi]

Simple English vernacular names[modifica]

I think we should remove "Simple" as a language from {{VN}}. I can't think if any case where it would have a different value from the value for "en". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:45, 22 May 2023 (UTC)Rispondi[rispondi]

Agreed seems redundant. Also I think we ought not to add the taxon page name into VN unless absolutely essential. Andyboorman (talk) 13:29, 22 May 2023 (UTC)Rispondi[rispondi]
no Agree per both Mabbett and Boorman. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 21:15, 22 May 2023 (UTC).Rispondi[rispondi]
no Agree both--Hector Bottai (talk) 22:02, 22 May 2023 (UTC)Rispondi[rispondi]
no Agree both. Neferkheperre (talk) 11:58, 23 May 2023 (UTC)Rispondi[rispondi]

I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. Done. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:27, 23 May 2023 (UTC)Rispondi[rispondi]
Missed this discussion, but just to add that omitting it is already mentioned in the VN Guidelines - MPF (talk) 12:41, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Rispondi[rispondi]

The Template:Taxonbar and Template:Authority control are very convenient in effortlessly adding links. Can we consider launching a bot to attach them to every taxon or author page? Mariusm (talk) 05:20, 24 May 2023 (UTC)Rispondi[rispondi]

no Agree I would support this initiative if there is consensus. Andyboorman (talk) 06:29, 24 May 2023 (UTC)Rispondi[rispondi]
no Agree --RLJ (talk) 07:54, 24 May 2023 (UTC)Rispondi[rispondi]
no Agree I have been manually adding these to my cirripede pages and author pages wherever applicable. Neferkheperre (talk) 12:41, 24 May 2023 (UTC)Rispondi[rispondi]
no Agree Burmeister (talk) 12:43, 24 May 2023 (UTC)Rispondi[rispondi]
no Agree Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:07, 24 May 2023 (UTC)Rispondi[rispondi]
no Agree Please! Manual adding to every Aves page edited.--Hector Bottai (talk) 01:49, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Rispondi[rispondi]
no Agree --MILEPRI (talk) 09:50, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Rispondi[rispondi]
no Agree --Lupe (talk) 09:32, 1 June 2023 (UTC)Rispondi[rispondi]
no Agree --Thiotrix (talk) 13:26, 1 June 2023 (UTC)Rispondi[rispondi]
no Agree , but I would appreciate it if you checked settings of your bot before running lest duplication should occur. --Eryk Kij (talk) 13:35, 1 June 2023 (UTC)Rispondi[rispondi]
 Commento - I'd be wary of adding it to the pages of living authors, in case it results in any breaches of privacy - MPF (talk) 00:45, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Rispondi[rispondi]
no Agree IFPNI Staff (talk) 20:59, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Rispondi[rispondi]
We see eye to eye than on this useful feature. Anyone here feels up for the task to launch the bot? Mariusm (talk) 04:50, 8 June 2023 (UTC)Rispondi[rispondi]

Global ban proposal for Leonardo José Raimundo[modifica]

There is an on-going discussion about a proposal that Leonardo José Raimundo be globally banned from editing all Wikimedia projects. You are invited to participate at Requests for comment/Global ban for Leonardo José Raimundo on Meta-Wiki. Grazie! Elton (discussione) 00:59, 26 May 2023 (UTC)Rispondi[rispondi]

As a result of m:Requests for comment/Global ban for Leonardo José Raimundo, Leonardo José Raimundo has been banned from all Wikimedia projects. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 02:13, 8 June 2023 (UTC)Rispondi[rispondi]

Selection of the U4C Building Committee[modifica]

The next stage in the Universal Code of Conduct process is establishing a Building Committee to create the charter for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C). The Building Committee has been selected. Read about the members and the work ahead on Meta-wiki.

-- UCoC Project Team, 04:20, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

I notice that four sections are used on the above taxon page without references, as an incomplete classification. However, this dates back to Schilling, E.E. & Heiser, C.B. 1981. Taxon 30(2): 393-403. DOI: 10.2307/1220139. It appears that contemporary phylogenetic work only partially supports this classification leaving only clades. I propose dispensing with these sections and series. Any thoughts before I act? Andyboorman (talk) 19:30, 31 May 2023 (UTC)Rispondi[rispondi]

Carlos Henrique Soares Caetano[modifica]

Carlos Henrique Soares Caetano seems to have a Spanish name. Is his family name Soares or Caetano? How should he be sorted, and templates for his works be named? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:43, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Rispondi[rispondi]

His email (on one of his papers we cite) starts 'chcaetano', which rather suggests he wants to be regarded as C. H. Caetano - MPF (talk) 13:51, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Rispondi[rispondi]
His affiliations in all his publications suggest he is actually from Brazil, so I believe this should be treated as a Portuguese name, and it should be sorted by Caetano (likely the paternal surname). See his CV on Lattes Platform, which confirms the name is cited that way in publications. When you search for his name on this page on the same website it displays a Brazilian flag, which as far as I know indicates Brazilian nationality. (I don't think this appears on the CV page itself) Monster Iestyn (talk) 18:33, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Rispondi[rispondi]


Is it possible to create/use/incorporate ORCID code for modern author's pages? ORCID is very useful in listing verified bibliographic lists of published papers. Who can help? Any objections? Anna Pavlova IFPNI Staff (talk) 21:07, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Rispondi[rispondi]

ORCID iDs are already included in {{Authority control}}. If the value is added to the person's Wikidata item, it will show up here, and on any Wikipedia or similar pages about them. You may also add your own iD to your user page, as I have done on mine; see also Wikispecies:ORCID. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:08, 6 June 2023 (UTC)Rispondi[rispondi]
Dear Andy: thank you for some explanation. I recently created a number of contemporary authors having ORCID, but none of them were listed in fact in the pages of WS: see Alexis T. Howe, David Bass, Josephine Margaret Scoble, Rhodri Lewis, etc. Strange looking, frankly speaking. Anna Pavlova IFPNI Staff (talk) 21:10, 7 June 2023 (UTC)Rispondi[rispondi]
The values need to be added to the respective Wikidata items; would you like me to explain how to do that? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:48, 8 June 2023 (UTC)Rispondi[rispondi]

WorldCat Entities ID, P10832[modifica]

I have added P10832 to {{Authority control}}; it can be seen, for example, in Carolus Linnaeus.

As there was an existing WorldCat link in the template, I've added it directly after that, before the VIAF value. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:32, 7 June 2023 (UTC)Rispondi[rispondi]

Should we keep the page for Prions?[modifica]

Wikispecies is supposed to have "all species of life", right? But what counts as life? While clearly all cellular life counts, we also include viruses. But do we include prions, nanobes or plasmid? We have a page for prions, but we don't seem to have any other pages for specific prions. 2007Gtbot (talk) 17:59, 7 June 2023 (UTC)Rispondi[rispondi]

No prions please! Mariusm (talk) 04:44, 8 June 2023 (UTC)Rispondi[rispondi]