Abbreviazioni: WS:V, WS:VP

Wikispecies:Village Pump

Da Wikispecies.
Jump to navigation Jump to search

WikiSpecies notext-invert.svg 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 {{Ping}} 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-...)

A lot of data on species at russian Lomonosov Moscow State University resource[modifica]


Thanks a lot for your work! World wouldnt be such a great place without wiki resources. I don't know how to contribute here, I'm not in biology at all, but i just found this data source.

Go here, pess ESC, then swtich to EN at the top right corner, for example mark the "Specimens with photo only" checbox on the popup window, click "OK". Then at the top ringt corner change a "Rows" to 1-20000 (max) and I bet you will be impressed how many rare species photos are availible there.

I bielive you could gather much more usefull information there, some of it choul be translated. Maybe somebody could contact MSU, but even if not, somehow we have to save this content before a possible isolation of russian net.

P.S. Other depositaries:

Thanks again, and sorry me for breaking your commetns publishing rules.

Regards, @sntxerror. — The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) 22:22, 12 April 2019‎.

Hylotelephium telephium or Sedum telephium?[modifica]

Please see this discussion regarding the synonymy of Hylotelephium telephium and Sedum telephium. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 00:53, 21 August 2019 (UTC).

@Michael Goodyear: is correct, if he is citing Plants of the World, but COL holds to the opposite view. Both secondary sources are reputable, so it is a judgement to hold one over the other. Sedum is highly paraphyletic and the solution is to either lump two thirds of the family into the expanded genus or dismantle it into a monotypic unit. Kadereit et al. 2016. Which changes are needed to render all genera of the German flora monophyletic?. Willdenowia 46(1): 39-92 PDF, favours the later approach and in this publication Sedum s.s. is preferred, but Hylotelephium would need expanding. Based upon secondary sources we have a taxonomic opinion not a definitive answer and science is not much of help and indeed has not made all the necessary taxonomic transfers one way or another! I would keep the taxa as they are for now. By the way the whole family needs updating to current levels of acceptance. Andyboorman (talk) 08:51, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
That's roughly correct, which is why I did not try to change it, but I think the page should reflect it, as should the WP page. I have never used GRIN as as authoritative source, but rather TPL and WCLSPF. And now there are more, with POTWO and WFO. But none of these explain their decisions. Taxonomic revision is a very formal process. Crassulaceae taxonomy is very complex and unstable, due partly to extensive homoplasy, but also to the effect of Sedum, a very large part of the family, that is polyphyletic. From almost the start, Sedum has been recognized as an artificial catch-all taxon, and as noted above, there are two schools of thought, s.s. and s.l., although the tide seems to be moving towards splitting. Ohba segregated 27 species of Hylotelephium from Sedum in 1977, including T. telephium, where it became the type species. Since then a number of species have shuttled back and forth between the genera. The Plant List actually contradicts itself by pointing to Ohba as the source.
The real question is - where is the science? Molecular phylogenetics has been disappointing in sorting this out. But what there is, suggests T. telephium is a sister of T. sieboldii (Lim and Choi 2018), which is accepted. This points to to the former being properly accepted. As you may have noticed I am working on setting all this out on WP.--Michael Goodyear (talk) 15:12, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
Agreed the science is emerging but not there yet and even APW is a bit thin. The secondary sources boil down to POTWO, as Hylotelephium embedded into Sedum versus the rest (COL, WFO, TPL etc.), where there is segregation. As @Michael Goodyear: points out species circumscription is not stable across secondary sources, for example COL has the most combinations. I would also tend to ignore GRIN and use Tropicos with care. So what should WS do? In my opinion, for now the most conservative view would be Hylotelephium s.l. sensu COL, unless there is compelling evidence otherwise on a species by species basis from scientific sources. If I undertake the work here in updating the pages, I will add a note, either on the taxon page or more likely on the Discussion Page. I would also avoid embedding Hylotelephium into Sedum sensu EnWP - other language WPs differ.
Incidentally, as TPL was last updated 2013, I now longer use it as a source of first resort, preferring COL, which was updated this year. --Andyboorman (talk) 18:41, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
See my note on the TPL page. It has officially been superseded by WFO, so should not be used in the first instance. Yes, I agree the phylogeny is inherently unstable. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 22:32, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
Returning to my original point re the status of H. telephium, I reviewed Ohba's later work, which was based on molecular phylogenetics. It is clear, eg Mayuzumi and Ohba 2004, that Hylotelephium is itself polyphyletic. Therefore the concept of type species is moot, and the simplest step would be to simply omit it from the genus page.
Not sure that it is a good idea to leave this species in Sedum based upon a single analysis within which this route is not even proposed. I think this proposal borders on OR, without additional support. The concept of type species is always a construct, so again my advice is the leave things as they are pending more research and a wider consensus. Andyboorman (talk) 07:51, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
No, I would not advocate returning Hylotelephium to Sedum, despite POTWO. Numerous phylogenetic studies of Telephiae demonstrate that the segregates from Sedum there, such as Hylotelephium, continue to show a distinct separate lineage, but on the other hand don't allow stable infrageneric taxonomy. In fact if there any changes made to the WS page for this genus, I would not go further than deleting the type species (many WS genera pages do not include type species) to avoid the confusion I pointed to in my original note. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 15:15, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

I would be happier if others would contribute. @RLJ: how about it you have very good taxonomic opinions in the past and are working on Hylotelephium at the moment? Cheers Andyboorman (talk) 19:04, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

I think it is primarily a matter of nomenclature and not of phylogeny. To be validly published, it is obligatory that a genus name has a nomenclatural type (art 10.1 ICNafp), which is in the long run the type specimen of a species designated as type of the genus (so it would also formally correct to cite the basionym , Sedum telephium, as type of Hylotelephium, but Ohba indicated Hylotephium telephium in the protologue). A circumscription of the genus containing Hylotelephium telephium will always be Hylotelephium unless it conflicts with priority by containing the type species of another, older, genus. A circumscription containing other species currently included in Hylotelephium, but not H. telephium will get another name, unless the type of Hylotelephium is changed by conservation (but it is highly unlikely that this could be accepted by the Nomenclature commission of IAPT). I think that focus on quantity or lack of information are the main reasons for missing type indications in WS articles. I advocate for keeping the type species in the article. --RLJ (talk) 21:05, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
@RLJ: @Michael Goodyear: could not have put it better myself. Occasionally a genus is generated without a formal type, but this is not the case so Art. 10.1 is relevant. When editing older pages, I always add the type when it is missing, as they are usually easily sourced. Andyboorman (talk) 08:36, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
To be quite clear, WS should follow nomenclature, not simply phylogeny, even though these days one follows the other. However this can be a long convoluted process. Case in point, in 1984 another cluster of Sedum was suggested to be elevated to genus Petrosedum, on morphology grounds. In 2016 this was further recommended on phylogenetic grounds (Nikulin et al 2016), and finally implemented (Galllo 2017). Anyway the point I was making is that unfortunately there is a muddle in the online literature which was likely to confuse the reader. I suspect the placement in POTWO is an error resulting from migration, which I may pursue. I do not know anyone who had advocated returning Hylotelephium to Sedum, quite the opposite, with the Russian team that have been leaders in this in the last decade presenting evidence to restrict Sedum to Sedeae.(Nikulin et al 2016)
On the other issue, I am delighted to hear that type species are being systematically added, I also do so on WP. Anyway the page is now much improved. Thankyou. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 17:34, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Crassulaceae will now get even better, I hope. Thanks @Michael Goodyear: Andyboorman (talk) 21:28, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

New tools and IP masking[modifica]

14:18, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Old taxonomists, listed here, but missing from Wikisource[modifica]

This Wikidata query may be of interest:

It shows people, who died before 1949 (so whose works are out of copyright, by the lifetime + 70 years rule), with a Wikispecies entry, but no entry in any Wikisource.

There are currently 4,413 results.

Caveats and discussion: on en.Wikisource. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:14, 22 August 2019 (UTC)


I was looking at Special:WantedCategories and this author (Category:Guschanskaja taxa) is completely eluding me. Here's what I've pieced up:

  • Family name transcribed variously as gush- or gusch-, and -aïa, -aja or -aya. This transcription issue is pervasive in pre-70s slavic names, but "Gushanskaya" seems the more frequent in recent publications
  • Given name starts with L (Л), patronymic initial is transcribed variously kh or ch, so I assume it starts with cyrillic Х
  • Female (judging by the form of the family name, the male form would be Guschansky)
  • Worked in Trematoda, possibly Platyhelminthes more generally.
  • Worked at least from the 30s to the 50s
  • Collaborated with Konstantin Ivanovich Skrjabin on several occasions

... and that's it. I'm usually one to puzzle these out, but this one is beyond me. The full name has totally eluded me (at least in that period I don't think married Russian women took on their husbands' names?). Do wehave anyone who can do research in Russian? Circeus (talk) 21:14, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

I've asked the folk of en.Wikipedia's 'WikiProject Russia' for help. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:06, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
Several papers by Skrjabin and Guschanskaja are listed here [1], (annoyingly, in a format that can't be copied & pasted). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:24, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
[ec] en:Acuariidae lists "Viktorocara Guschanskaja, 1950", but it's a red link, and otherwise uncited. "Viktorocara schejkini Guschanskaja, 1950 (по Гушанской 1950)" is discussed, in Russian, at [2], which give us "Гушанской", but that may be a reverse transliteration. I've also added some papers to Konstantin Ivanovich Skrjabin. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:24, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

The Russian name is: Гушанская Л.Х. (or Guschanskaja L.Kh.).
Few of her publications:

  • Гушанская Л.Х. 1945. Влияние специфических особенностей брачной жизни птиц на их гельминтологический статус // Докл. АН СССР 50.
  • Гушанская Л.Х. 1946. К фауне паразитических червей тетеревов и рябчиков // Сб., посвящ. К.И.Скрябину. М.; Л.
  • Гушанская Л.Х. 1952. К гельминтофауне диких куриных птиц СССР // Тр. Гельминтол. лабор. АН СССР 6. ———Mariusm (talk) 12:16, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

As a start, I've gathered what I can from the above into L.Kh. Guschanskaja, made a category under that name, and created a corresponding Wikidata item. Would anyone care to deal with the Viktorocara red links? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:46, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

I've also founds mentions ([3], [4]) of "Cyrnea apterocerca (Guschanskaja, 1931)"; also on [5]; again as "(по Гушанской, 1931)". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:20, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
In case it helps, IRMNG has the following genera authored by "Guschanskaja" or "Gushanskaya":
Most of these probably originate from Nomenclator Zoologicus in the first instance (details, with microcitations, on relevant linked taxon pages). You could search for other name variants too if you want. Regards Tony Tony 1212 (talk) 20:36, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
Of course the most inclusive IRMNG search input term would be "Gus%hanska%a". It turns out, though, that this does not return any records not in the above 2 sets:
- Tony Tony 1212 (talk) 22:14, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Guschanskaja is simply Gushanskaya transliterated in fashion of German. She seems to have favored parasitic helminths, mainly nematodes and trematodes. Гушанской is Gushanskaya in a non-nomnitive case inflection. The Soviets had several labs and publications devoted to parasitic helminths. Тр. Гельминтол. лабор. АН СССР means "Proceedings of Helminthology Laboratory Academy of Sciences USSR, where Tp. stands for Trudy (=Proceedings). Doklady (ДоклaДй) is Transactions. There is one devoted entirely to trematodes, all aspects therof.

Viktorocara is a nematode, here is a not too recent revision: PDF. Neferkheperre (talk) 21:19, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
IRMNG page for Viktorocara is here: - species data from a range of sources, not necessarily complete or up to date (or entered at all), but useful as a starting point, as often as not :) Cheers - Tony Tony 1212 (talk) 22:29, 24 August 2019 (UTC)


I have made significant changes to Crassulaceae, based upon the latest literature and the conversations with @Michael Goodyear: above. Have a look and post comments please, if required. Not perfect but OK for a work in progress I feel. Andyboorman (talk) 14:06, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

This is clearly a difficult area, but I think we need to be realistic. Whether we like it or not Thiede and Eggli (2007) established the current taxonomy of the family, which has not been revised since, and has been used by every subsequent author. Trying to avoid a technically illegitimate tribe name (Telephieae) by transferring its genera to another tribe is misleading. Umbiliceae (correctly named) is not composed of two clades. The appropriate name for Telephieae is probably Hylotelephieae, but this has not formally been proposed. If the intent is to avoid having a Telephieae page, then the problem should be addressed under the higher order (Sempervivoideae), not Umbiliceae. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 21:09, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
Alternatively, if someone is willing to, publishing required names for a system used in a different/upcoming publication is a long-established tradition. It's not OR if we publish it formally specifically so we can use it in Wikispecies. Circeus (talk) 15:36, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
Why is Telephiineae listed there at all? It's based off the Caryophhillaceae unranked infrafamilial name by Bartl. and has no business being here, it should be listed at Corrigioleae (Telephieae would be the correct name for that tribe were it not for unranked basionyms not establishing date precedence). The name to list is the illegitimate _and_ invalid (art. 32.1 by way of art. 19.3, not based on an included generic name) Telephiineae 't Hart (the "basionym" of the Ohba & Thiede name). It was published as "Telephineae", but correctable under Art. 32.2 unless I am mistaken, in 't Hart & U. Eggli (eds.), Evol. & Syst. Crassulac. 167 (1995). Circeus (talk) 16:23, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
I have removed Telephiineae as per advice from Circeus. OK? Andyboorman (talk) 19:45, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
If anyone's interested, I'm entirely willing to collaborate on a publication that would validate Hylotelephieae (this could be easily done if 't Hart published a description or diagnosis). I was about to suggest maybe seeing about validating Brachyglottidineae (see unplaced Senecioneae and its talk page), but there are serious paraphyly issues between the genera involved, so better not touch that. Circeus (talk) 20:01, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
I think this would be a good approach and hopefully @Michael Goodyear: would be willing to collaborate. Have you tried approaching @Franz Xaver: I think he has experience with this sort of rapid publication, and he is a very good taxonomist and botanist. Andyboorman (talk) 12:18, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
I would think that making a formal correction would be the ideal approach. Michael Goodyear (talk) 21:46, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

[undent] What do you mean, "making a formal correction "? The name "Telephiineae 't Hart" is not validly published (and "Telephieae ('t Hart) Ohba and Thiede " even less so), not because of requirements but because its very form precludes it ever being a valid name for the group in question, so it can't be "corrected" under Art. 33.2. Even if we COULD publish a nomen novum (which is not possible because, again, not validly published), it would not be possible to put 't Hart even as ex author, even if we are citing his description as our validating description (again, assuming there is one, as I do not have access to a copy of the book anywhere near Montreal to check on that). Circeus (talk) 00:15, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Re-reading this, it came off as a LOT more abrasive than I intended it to. What I mean is I genuinely have no idea what you mean by "making a formal correction would be the ideal approach". Circeus (talk) 03:01, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

I did not read it as abrasive, I was merely supporting your previous statement proposing "a publication that would validate Hylotelephieae" given that I had suggested this would be the more appropriate name for the tribe representing the Hylotelephium clade. I was speaking informally, ie that this would be a formal proposal that would correct the existing error. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 18:39, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
The only description for Telephieae ('t Hart) Ohba and Thiede ined. I have managed to read is on page 100
  • Thiede, J. & Eggli, U. 2007. Crassulaceae in Kubitzki, K., Bayer, C. & Stevens, P.F. (Eds.) Flowering plants : Eudicots ; Berberidopsidales, Buxales, Crossosomatales, Fabales p.p., Geraniales, Gunnerales, Myrtales p.p., Proteales, Saxifragales, Vitales, Zygophyllales, Clusiaceae Alliance, Passifloraceae Alliance, Dilleniaceae, Huaceae, Picramniaceae, Sabiaceae pp. 83–119 doi: 10.1007/978-3-540-32219-1_12 ISBN 3540322140 Crassulaceae PDF in Research Gate Reference page. .
As far as I can tell, G&G (and thus presumably 't Hart) are discussing "Telephiineae"/Telephium/Hylotelephium clade as a much broader group (see the figure on p. 796) than Thiede & Eggli's Telephieae (who put only five genera in it). They are also casting some serious doubt on the monophyly of Thiede and Eggli's Umbilicieae. If the aforementioned figure is accurate as a consensus tree, I can't fault them about that second point. I've found two recent papers that are very relevant too:
  • Nikulin A. Yu., Nikulin V. Yu., Gontcharov A.A. (2015) "[On the Phylogenetic Structure of the Tribe Telephieae (Sempervivoideae, Crassulaceae) on the Base of rDNA Sequence Comparisons]." (in Russian) Ботанический Журнал 100(10):1030–1040. doi: 10.1134/S0006813615100038. PDF.
    • A pretty decent confirmation (judging by the figures) that Hylotelephieae is phylogenetically fully characterized as monophyletic.
  • Shaw, J.M.H. (2017). "(2512) Proposal to conserve the name Orostachys with a conserved type (Crassulaceae)." Taxon 66(2):521–522. doi: 10.12705/662.24 (open access).
    • A broader summary of the situation with focus on the polyphyletic nature of Orostachys (which means that we basically really ought to recognize Kungia, btw), but including, amongst other things, a brief aside about a morphological synapomorphy for Hylotelephieae.
Circeus (talk) 17:54, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
Yes, I think I covered that evolving literature in my WP pages on Crassulaceae, Sempervivoideae and Sedum. As I read it, the Russians, who have been the most prolific in this area recently, support the revision in Kubitzki of the earlier taxonomy by t'Hart, but nowhere do they see a problem with the nomenclature. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 18:57, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
Among other authorities adopting the Thiede and Eggli nomenclature is David Mabberley: Plant Book. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 19:16, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
Thanks @Circeus: for the papers I have templated them. Clearly there is emergence, but not yet clarity - interesting stuff. @Michael Goodyear: good and comprehensive pages on WP. Working molecular botanists rarely see a problem with nomenclature, but WS tries to follow ICBN processes and procedures, as it is primarily a source for taxonomy and classification. I am sure there is enough to publish a valid tribal name for Hylotelephieae side stepping all the problems with Telephieae. To go for a nom. cons. for the later is taxonomically more problematic, or is it? Sorry I still think the name is illogical, but what do I know! Andyboorman (talk) 20:14, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

[Undent] Okay, so, the key element we'd need to be able to look at would be the relevant "protologue" in 't Hart, 1995 (which ideally we'd want to refer to for a validating description IMO, though Thiede & Eggli is an option too). I can make a source request at en: for that if no one is near a library that has it. t' Hart 1977 (mentioned in Shaw, 2017) doesn't really work for a validating description. This verified, it should be easy enough to draft a short note (e.g.), should/could we do this on-wiki? Circeus (talk) 17:53, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

I have put up a source request at en:wp (though I suspect it won't be that useful b/c the clade has since been used in a narrowed circumscription). I'll start drafting something in my userspace soon. Anyone believe in the usefulness of publishing a name for the "Leucosedum clade" while we're at it? (no need for Sedineae, as it already exists anyway... assuming 't Hart's publication of it was valid, anyway). Circeus (talk) 02:42, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
First draft is up. I'm still waiting on help re: 't Hart (1995). Circeus (talk) 00:23, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Category:Primary types[modifica]

Category:Primary types and its few subcategories have hardly any entries. Should they (the categories) be deleted? Or kept and replicated across Wikispecies? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:00, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Delete if you want my opinion. Just clutter. Andyboorman (talk) 20:16, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
Delete. Burmeister (talk) 21:14, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
Done and gone. Another leftover project of Stephen showcasing his usual habit of dumping info in category pages...Circeus (talk) 21:19, 31 August 2019 (UTC)


While we're on this, do we want to keep the Category:Eponyms subset? I thought we were documenting these directly on author pages? Circeus (talk) 21:19, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Author pages use {{Eponyms}}, which is formed and accumulated exactly as {{Taxa authored 2}}. We did this recently as alternative to Patronyms. Category is automatically created. Discussion is in Pump archives. If some type of cleanup is desired, why not convert Patronyms to Eponyms. Neferkheperre (talk) 12:52, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Publication dates[modifica]

I quite curious for your opinions about "who to follows?" when external databases quote different publication dates. One precise example:

  • an article by John McCrady : "Gymnopthalmata of Charleston Harbor" have been published with a clear date quoted at the begining of the article :"April, 15th, 1857".
  • one name Hippocrene carolinensis McCrady, 1857 is published there. The date is confirmed with ITIS here and here with the valid name.
  • however on WoRMS the citation is Bougainvillia carolinensis (McCrady, 1859), so I check at the title page of the volume 1 of this publication of the Proceedings of the Elliott Society of Natural History of Charleston, South-Carolina, and it is quoted that those procedings concern indeed the period november 1853 to december 1858, but at the bottom the print date is 1859
  • GBIF, have created two data entries ([6] and [7]) and they consider that the right quotation is the one with 1859. Note that they call one synonym of the other, but it's very likely more of a tecknic constraint due to their database than a true "synonym", but that's not my subject.

If I wanted to create an entry for this publication, what date should I enter: 1857, when the article were accepted by the journal, or 1859 when the journal have been printed and beeing made available to the public? Christian Ferrer (talk) 15:24, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Well the dates when a paper was presented to a meeting and the date when it was actually published per the code can vary wildly. In this particular case, there's an article with a discussion specifically on dating this paper (note 4, on page 50):
Circeus (talk) 15:39, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
Thanks you, interesting, note that WoRMS quote the first article of the same author in the same volume of that journal as to be from 1857... [8]. Christian Ferrer (talk) 16:33, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
  • There is also:
  • Calder, D.R.; Stephens, L.D. & Sanders, A.E. 1992: Comments On The Date Of Publication Of John Mccrady's Hydrozoan Paper Gymnopthalmata Of Charleston Harbor. The Bulletin of zoological nomenclature. 49: 287-288 BHL
Christian Ferrer (talk) 16:51, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
After having read two or three time that last article, and as far my understanding of the English language allow it to me, I think the WoRMS is right and that ITIS seem to be running behind. I understand that the first article have been made available on sept. 15th 1857 and that the second article have been made available with the complete volume in may 1859. Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:24, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
that's also how I understand it: they found further evidence that the paper was published later. Good find! Circeus (talk) 17:46, 1 September 2019 (UTC)


We have 42 pages linking to Template:Diopsoidea, which does not yet exist - it's our most-linked such template. One such page is Diopsidae. Can someone create the template, please? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:44, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

user:Atylotus made an edit to {{Diopsidae}}, with (as far as I can tell) no follow through on any other page whatsoever (e.g. the superfamily where that family had previously been placed), much less creation of the invoked template. I'm reverting the edit since it wasn't even sourced to anything. Circeus (talk) 22:39, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
Thank you. @Atylotus: The ping above was broken. Do you wish to comment? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:01, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
Nothyboidea is junior synonym of Diopsoidea: see in book [9] (page 1432), "The oldest familial name in the group is Diopsidae, which dates from Billberg (1820). Therefore, Diopsoidea supersedes previously used superfamily names such as Nothyboidea and Tanypezoidea " and also [10] --Atylotus (talk) 09:24, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
We have no opposition to the change as such, as long as it's done properly and every relevant page is edited accordingly. Circeus (talk) 14:11, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Challenger voyage[modifica]

Why all of a sudden we are removing Challenger Voyage categories? That is a very important oceanographic/zoological voyage which is being used as a baseline for climate change and biodiversity change studies. A few years ago, when I started the Challenger project, I discussed its format here and it is archived. Helpful suggestions were made. I estimate well over 8000 species were described, and these categories can help workers. I find them helpful in my own work. Neferkheperre (talk) 13:17, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

I have no idea what you're talking about. Personally I have not touched this issue for years (since the discussion about high-level categories years ago that went nowhere). Circeus (talk) 14:12, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
Me neither. Have you got an example of a taxon, or editor who is undertaking this removal? Andyboorman (talk) 14:37, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
Pigsonthewing this morning removed category:Challenger Cirripedia from several cirripede pages, and deleted entire category. Yes discussions seem to fizzle out without accomplishing much, but it would be nice to have some type of opportunity to do so before deciding to eliminate what people have been working on. It wastes time to restore these things. Neferkheperre (talk) 17:17, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
So is @Pigsonthewing: going to reverse these changes and bring his proposals here for discussion? Andyboorman (talk) 17:37, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

───────────────────────── It is my understanding that such esoteric categories are deemed out-of-scope. Is there any evidence of consensus to use them? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:41, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

How is esoteric being defined here? These Challenger categories are broad-scoped enough to be useful without being so large to be unwieldy. That does not seem esoteric. I don't see categories listing discoveries of dedicated scientific expeditions as esoteric. There are many people who desire such information. Most of categories created by Thorpe can be considered esoteric, as they are so narrowly defined as to have only one or two entries. Yes, this was discussed here when I first began the Challenger project, about 2016. They are archived, and there was actual discussion, with helpful suggestions. So, not only do discussions fizzle out here, they don't get remembered, either.
Likewise, categories applying to one taxonomic group cannot necessarily be considered esoteric just because they don't apply to all groups. Category for turtle cirripeds applies mostly to Platylepadidae, as obligate symbionts. There cannot be any cognate category for turtle oysters, they don't exist. Neferkheperre (talk) 14:04, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
  •  Comment: I'm not enough experimented to fully know what is exactly the role of the administrators here in Wikispecies. But I'm administrator in Commons with several thousands of administrative actions, and it will not comes to my mind to delete arbitrarily the works mades by others (excepted for the cases listed in the relevant policies), putting them in front of the accomplished fact, and knowing that this will probably frustrate them. As an administrator in Commons, and knowing that the result will frustrate someone, the question would more have been for me: "Is there any evidence of clear and obvious consensus to delete them? ". I find that too rough towards Neferkheperre. Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:42, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
    • Since the deletion has caused an immediate reaction I would suggest that the category is being used. There is enough of a consensus for them to be retained. As such I think in the interrem these deletion should be reverted. If a case to delete them is made and accepted the issue can be addressed that way. Otherwise let them be. I have no issue that you deleted them Andy being Bold with editing is encouraged in Wikimedia, however, the downside of being bold is sometimes it does not go as expected. As such when this happens it is better to revert and then discuss as appropriate. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 18:32, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

As far as I can tell (from pigsonthewing's edit history, if a different account was involved, I wouldn't know about it), only three pages had the category removed, so we're not talking a MASSIVE edit spree here. This sort of taxonomically-adjacent historic/bibliographic content is a priori appropriate for Wikispecies, but clearly represents too much material to fit a single list page, so it does seem clear that a category is the best way to group all of it. Right now I strongly suspect subdividing Category:Challenger voyage taxa by group was not necessary (and I'm not sure I like dividing it ultimately either anyway). Either way, I definitely wouldn't object to recreating at least Category:Challenger voyage taxa. Circeus (talk) 22:05, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Range block[modifica]

Moved to the Administrators' Noticeboard. Diff: [11]

Biostor template[modifica]

{{Biostor reference}} (shortcut: {{Biostor}}) is now available, for linking to pages like

Simply type {{biostor|66034}}, which renders as: Biostor

-- Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:11, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Orphaned Pages[modifica]

This special page has become useless as a resource, as there must be ten, if not hundreds of thousands of orphans. The culprit is the automated, unintelligent use of MariusBot, which has mined species pages from COL without linking them. The net result of Mariusbot's activity to exceed the 5000 result data cache. Solutions anyone? Andyboorman (talk) 15:07, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Also this procedure is creating duplicates see Abryna-petri versus Abryna regispetri. There is a lot of mess being created and this is just a snap shot of the cached As! Is this bot still on the go? Please keep away from plants Urgh! Andyboorman (talk) 19:54, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Not sure the mining of CoL is a good idea in anycase. Even CoL acknowledge they are way out of date. They are currently developing CoL+ but its not released yet. In the meantime their database is dangerously error-ridden. They are not updating it anymore all their efforts go into the new version which is not yet available. Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 15:44, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
So was Mariusbot still mining? I have blocked it for now, so if its current users could post here then that would help. Sorry to force the issue. Andyboorman (talk) 15:57, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
Hi Scott, well CoL is as up-to-date as its contributing sources and there is a 2019 (April?) annual release - it is just the monthly updates since then that are suspended while they transition to a new hosting environment for next year's release as I understand it. I agree that some parts are more up-to-date than others, but to say that the Catalogue as a whole is "way out of date" is a bit unfair. List of latest and updated sources for the 2019 release is available at if interested. That said, there may indeed be sectors where better lists are available elsewhere, however in general the CoL's philosophy is (or should be) to find those resources and swap them in as available (presuming that they can be made available in a suitable format of course). That is not to deny that there can be errors in CoL, but if they are advised to the source databases they can (at least in principle) be corrected there. Presuming of course they are indeed errors, not just a difference of preferred taxonomic treatment etc. - Tony Tony 1212 (talk) 02:01, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
@Tony 1212: Please dont misunderstand me I am a big supporter of CoL and have been involved in it to a degree including discussions on its future. I have no issue with it being utilised on here as a source where appropriate, but note we are discussing automated usage here not using it as an appropriate source when someone has actually read it and made an informed decision on how up to date a particular page is. For my specialty, reptiles, I consider CoL as one of the 4 international checklists people should use and have said so in plenary lectures. For example this lecture. There is a big differnce between sources that are read and those that are datamined. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 20:17, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
@Rdmpage: (who was never very active on here, sadly) is also knowledgeable of these issues and especially how nightmarishly difficult it can be to actually correct meta-catalogs like CoL and GBIF, because (basically) entries in those catalogues are simply not manually curated whatsoever, leaving them at the mercy of data-transfer errors or minor discrepancies in the source catalogs. Circeus (talk) 23:52, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
@Faendalimas:Hi Scott, I'm sure we are basically on the same page, it's just that blanket statements like "They [i.e. CoL] are not updating it anymore" are not exactly accurate in this situation and may lead readers who have not checked to dismiss CoL as a potential useful source. As stated on its information page, it is easy to see which portions have been updated and when, and that *could* form a basis for more informed data mining... Anyway I will leave further discussion to others from here. Cheers - Tony Tony 1212 (talk) 21:10, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Wikispecies litterature[modifica]

I've started Wikispecies:Wikispecies in the litterature as a straightforward way to track anything published that originates directly or otherwise explicitly acknowledge material on Wikispecies material (or equivalent on other projects). Hopefully the list of articles will get longer. Circeus (talk) 22:07, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

I took the liberty to move the page to Wikispecies:Wikispecies in the literature. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk),21:25, 7 September 2019 (UTC).
My French was showing XD (sadly, you can't spellcheck text fields the way you can text areas...) 21:53, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for compiling this list. Google Scholar should be able to provide a quick list identifying these papers. OhanaUnitedTalk page 04:13, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Wikispecies Publications templates[modifica]

Hello, a few month ago we had a little discussion in Wikidata with Circeus about the way to "link" the templates relative to publications to the corresponding items. After a few time passed I think that the sitelinks are not too bad. Example with Template:Sutcharit, Ablett & Panha, 2019Q63651805c:Category:Media from Sutcharit et al. 2019 - 10.3897/zookeys.163.2003. On the left side of the template page here you have a link "Wikidata item" in the section "tools" and a link to Commons in the sections "in other projects", which is undoubtedly useful in case there is free media available, and there are many in Zookeys. Of course in Commons you have the link that lead here to the corresponding template. Some thoughts? Christian Ferrer (talk) 22:20, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

The problem is that only a small proportion of templates can be linked directly like that, nothing that has a page in category:sources can. It's a very frustrating situation but with Pigsonthewong's flip-flopping on the issue between the two proposals somehow, I don't think it's going to improve. Circeus (talk) 22:23, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
Why not? a lot (almost all?) seems already linked... Christian Ferrer (talk) 22:30, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
And in the extend that we don't create pages but templates for specific publications/articles, then it is very relevant to link those templates to the corresponding items, because the "items", here, about those publications here are indeed ... the templates. Christian Ferrer (talk) 22:35, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
More I think to that more I'd like to see a precise example where it is not possible to use the site links. Christian Ferrer (talk) 22:38, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
Literally anything in category:sources that has a matching template (or worse templates) cannot have the template connected to the wikidata item b/c there is already an item in wikispecies that "hogs" the connection, i.e. Plantas Hartwegianas (d:Q6077912) vs. Template:Bentham, 1839 or Man. Bot. N. United States, 2nd ed. (d:Q47062273) vs. Template:Gray, 1856. You can't do any wikidata connection between the template and the author or the work because the property that would allow doesn't exist (and was voted down twice, thank you Andy M. for that), so any such connection must be documented manually on wikispecies (in a rather haphazard fashion, I've found). Circeus (talk) 00:11, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
@Circeus: In the sources such as Plantas Hartwegianas imprimis Mexicanas, and that is connected to an item, is there several articles that will potentially lead to the creation of several templates? or will Template:Bentham, 1839 be the only template associated to that source? Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:51, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Muricea echinata[modifica]

Hello, I was searching for the publication of Muricea echinata Milne Edwards, 1855, I found a 1857 publication by Henri Milne-Edwards there, however he seems to states that the autorship ("Muricea echinata, Valenciennes, Gorg. [Compf.-rend., (. XLI, p. 13)" is for Achille Valenciennes. I found this publication there, the name is published within the binomen Eunicea echinata. Shoudn't be the current name Muricea echinata (Valenciennes, 1855) genus changed by H.Milne-Edwards? Christian Ferrer (talk) 20:48, 9 September 2019 (UTC) "

Possibly so, I have not looked, but the thing is we cannot make nomenclatural acts, whic includes corrections to current nomenclature. We can make a note of it but until that is appropriately published in a code compliant way we cannot actually change it, and then by referring to the publication that does it. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 20:52, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
This publication may help. Authors treated Eunicea echinata Valenciennes, 1855 as nomen nudum. Burmeister (talk) 21:00, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
@Christian Ferrer: take with a handful of of salt anything in WoRMS that does not have a full reference to the original description (and double-check that reference if it's there). Zoological literature (and even databases) are full to the brim with errors of all sorts in this regard (so glad botany has both author and combiner and no year, significantly harder to mess up IMO).
@Faendalimas: correcting authorship is not a "nomenclatural act" in any shape or form.
@Burmeister: I'm really confused by Breedy and Guzman's argument as to why Verrill 1866 and not Milne Edwards 1857 is the correct author. Is there some key difference between the botanical and zoological code at play here? Circeus (talk) 00:26, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
Good point, they jump Muricea echinata Milne-Edwards, 1857 and go directly to Verrill, 1866. Maybe email the authors for some explanation will help to untie this knot. Burmeister (talk) 01:47, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
They seem to be arguing that something about Valenciennes' purported specimens causes Milne Edwards' name to be unavailable. Under the ICBN, that is a load of crock (typification issues have nothing to do whatsoever with effective and valid publication), but I have no idea whether that is relevant under the ICZN code. Circeus (talk) 02:12, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

───────────────────────── Email sent, recorded here for further reference:


I am an editor on Wikispecies. Recently a contributor expressed some confusion with the authorship of M. echinata (, and someone noted the authorship assignation chosen in your 2016 revision ( However, we have remained somewhat puzzled as to why M. echinata Milne Edwards & Haime, 1857 is presumed to be unavailable.

As we understand it, Milne Edwards & Haime include a description ("Polypiéroïde rameux, étalé; branches de grosseur médiocre; papilles calicinales grêles, cylindriques et extrêmement saillantes. Couleur d'un brun-rouge."), which makes it automatically not a nom. nud. At the same time, whether Verrill actualy publishes such a description could be questioned (although I am not familiar with the finer points of the ICZN on this issue, for I usually deal in botanical nomenclature). If Verrill is presumed to publish a new name with improper attribution to Valenciennes due to "Eunicea echinata Valenciennes 1855" being unavailable, why wouldn't the exact same reasoning apply to Milne Edwards & Haime?

Hoping you can clarify this issue.


Circeus (talk) 02:34, 10 September 2019 (UTC).

  •  Comment: I bringed my concern to WoRMS, Prof. dr. Bert W. Hoeksema changed there the authorship from Muricea echinata Milne Edwards, 1855 to Muricea echinata Milne Edwards, 1857, they apprently don't follow Breedy and Guzman's reasonning regarding an attribution to Verrill. I assume that, as Valenciennes had never provided a description, they gives the authorship to Milne Edwards, the first who gave a description in its 1857 paper. That is an improvement. Christian Ferrer (talk) 11:05, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Deciding a name to be unavailable is a nomenclatural ac in zoology, also typification is a necessary part of the availability of a name, if a name is not correctly typified under the ICZN, ie it fails to meet a number of different acts concerning this, then the name is unavailable. Which means it effectively does not exist. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 12:46, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
    I'm not particularly knowledgeable about old names, but looking a little deeper into the code the question of availability and validity of names (well, names published before 1931 to be precise) are 100% disconnected from even the existence of a type. I'm well aware that names which cannot be linked to a taxon because they lack a type (or the designated type is ambiguous) are problematic. That's what proposal to reject are for. But this name is connected to a clear, in-use taxon. If Muricea echinata Milne Edwards & Haime has a common or otherwise clear application, but no type, the solution is not to find an excuse to not use it (especially when it does not even change the application of the name), it's to designate a neotype.
    As to the email, it may be a while to get an answer as the corresponding author is "out of the country with little access to internet". Circeus (talk) 15:28, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
    When I say it's an improvement, it is because Milne Edwards never published anything about this name in 1855, therefore nothing is more wrong than to say "Milne Edwards, 1855". In the extend that Breedy and Guzman, 2016 exist and that this publication adds a third element (the authorship of Verrill) to the equation, then this issue should be worth for to be a Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature case. Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:36, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
    Christian, please look back at the conversation and realize you are literally the only one stil talking about "Muricea echinata Milne Edwards 1855". EVERYTHING since has been about Muricea echinata Milne Edwards 1857. Circeus (talk) 20:40, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
????? Muricea echinata Milne Edwards, 1855 was the name and authorship quoted in the WoRMS page, and this have been the reason for why I opened the discussion. The authorship have been changed yesterday in WoRMS after I sent them an e-mail....I'm puzzled as to your last comment. GBIF and IRMING still have the heretic sentence "Milne Edwards, 1855", (heretic= because Milne Edwards never published a paper about that in 1855). So yes to go from 1855 to 1857 is maybe not the best solution (I'm neutral on that), but is is from my point of view a clear and obvious improvement. I will likely contatc GBIF and IRMING (both likely took WoRMS as source, or took the same source as WoRMS did) in the next few days. Christian Ferrer (talk) 04:44, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
Again, read the actual thread. Literally everything after Burmeister's post aside from your note about having emailed the WoRMS people is a discussion about why Breedy & Guzman consider that the correct authorship is Verrill 1866 and not Milne Edwards 1857. And the post (starting with "I'm not particularly knowledgeable [...]") that you seem to have been answering as though I was talking to you.... well was not adressed to you in any shape or form. I was talking to faendalimas. Why would I ever have posted something addressed to you after his post instead of after yours? Circeus (talk) 04:54, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
Just above you start with "Christian, please look back...", I guessed you talked to me. I'm more and more puzzled, I don't understand. Christian Ferrer (talk) 04:59, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
As the present IRMNG editor, I am happy to change the authorship for Muricea echinata to Milne Edwards, 1857 as per the recently adjusted WoRMS record (and have now done so) - IRMNG has a lot of species-level content from WoRMS and other sources (including an older copy of CoL) and generally does not independently check these for correctness, but they can be subsequently manually edited if required. GBIF will eventually get a revised record from WoRMS and will incorporate the new version following its next scheduled update, I imagine, since GBIF is a data aggregator, not an editing environment. (If WoRMS or another source revises the authorship further, then the IRMNG record can be changed again). As with Wikispecies, IRMNG needs a published source or "trusted" online database record to follow, but is not averse to suggesting corrections especially to the editors of online treatments if they appear to be incorrect or contain inconsistencies. In case this helps. Regards - Tony Tony 1212 (talk) 20:48, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
Great, thanks you, @Tony 1212:, so then it would be great if you can change those taxa too, that have been fixed today (spelling error engelmanni not englemanni) : [12], [13] and [14], + original combinations and desriptions for [15] and [16]. As for GBIF, it's true they don't (and can't) fix the errors individually as this is too much of reprocessing, however they already said to me that they are happy to register these kind of cases meanwhile, so that they can be checked during the next processing. Christian Ferrer (talk) 21:13, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
@Christian Ferrer:OK, I have changed 2 instances of "englemanni" to "engelmanni" in IRMG as per your notification (I did not have the third one, WoRMS' Rhipidogorgia engelmanni, and probably will not add it since it is neither a basionym nor a currently accepted name). In general, at present I am no longer searching for new species names for IRMNG since keeping up with the new genus names has been plenty to occupy me for the past 5 years or so :); also for the same reason I am not adding the level of detail that WoRMS editors can do at species level (identifying original combinations and links to descriptions etc.) although I am happy to do so for genera.
For the record, I have a wikispecies talk page User_talk:Tony_1212 where you can post additional requests or comments relevant to IRMNG content, which I will endeavour to attend to if they are not too onerous (or sometimes even if they are...) - Regards Tony Tony 1212 (talk) 22:04, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Note that I created the species page and its talkpage as well, including a solid link to this discussion. If there is a further change or progress in the authorship situation then it should be better to write there, and then to ping the potentially interested persons. Christian Ferrer (talk) 08:18, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

"eject HET Template"[modifica]

Is this consensus and is it useful? --RLJ (talk) 16:44, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

I do not consider this as useful. Many templates exist in an abbreviated form. The Rosibot should be stopped, until a consensus is found. --Thiotrix (talk) 16:52, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
...not useful. The translation already exists in the template. This conversion is complicated and no longer acceptable e.g. for commons. I asked the bot to stop in the moment.Orchi (talk) 16:56, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
It is not consensus, as its use has not been tested here by a vote. We are now aware of it existence, so now is the time to discuss. Meanwhile its use must cease whilst the originator presents a case for its use and automatic removal of the old template. Personally I do not find it at all useful, but if a case is made and a vote won, I will abide by the consensus. Andyboorman (talk) 17:36, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
As this botanical, I must stay out. To me, botany resembles more alchemy, or economics. I am into zoology, which Code is substantially different. Neferkheperre (talk) 19:22, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
The use of this template set is certainly not consensus at any rate. Circeus (talk) 20:41, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
I am not keen on writing thousands of "*;{{int:Heterotypic}}:" etc. instead of "{{HET}}", 22 letters instead of 7!. I think it is a good and time-saving practice to use templates for such repetitive expressions. May be their use should not be obligatory, but it should not be prevented either. --RLJ (talk) 21:15, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
Yes, this template should stay. That's no improvement to replace it. --Franz Xaver (talk) 22:46, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
  1. The template {{HET}} exists since 2011 and is used on many thousands of pages. Advantages: easy, time-saving, includes translations. Are there any disadvantages, besides that HET ist not a word, but an abbreviation?
  2. Since 2018, there exists also a template {{Heterotypic}}, it is used on 2 pages only. Advantages: easy to remember (at least for english speaking editors), includes translations. Disadvantage: needs more time for typing.
  3. "*;{{int:Heterotypic}}:" is no template, just includes translations. Are there any further advantages?. Disadvantages: needs more time for typing, rather complicated with several formatting signs.
The results of this discussion will also refer to the related templates {{BA}}, {{HOT}}, and {{REP}}. --Thiotrix (talk) 23:03, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

───────────────────────── I very much object to the way these templates add an additional level, entirely unnecessary IMO, of list items, and I oppose their use on any page I'm keeping tabs on. Circeus (talk) 00:20, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Here is an example of a page using the abbreviated templates #1: Atriplex pacifica. For me as a botanist, this information is necessary, as you can not know from the epithets, which names are based on the same type. @Circeus:, can you please give an example, how you prefer the list of synonyms? --Thiotrix (talk) 07:28, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
You misrepresent my post. I have no issue with dividing the synonym list (though I prefer to list a replaced name as just another homotypic synonym), I just prefer to not add an additional level to the list items, and especially not when that list level is hidden away in a template (I have always been very much opposed to the inclusion of the bullet point in the reference template too, but there's not much I can do about that one now). I just use the semicolon separations, e.g..
I also happen to think that the three-letter abbreviations are obnoxiously obscure (You can't even tell if a template is for nomenclatural status, typification or separating the synonym list). Some of our taxon abbreviating templates are hardly straightforward already, I think we want to make "mandatory" templates as easy to use as possible! (Also I could've swear there had been a discussion agreeing that distributions shouldn't be on taxa pages?) Circeus (talk) 15:21, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Rosibot has been making automated use of the so called "improved HET" template. This has left numerous pages with odd looking formats for example Agave parryi. Can somebody @RLJ: now use it to reverse these unsolicited changes, whilst this discussion is under way and until consensus is reached. Thanks. Andyboorman (talk) 07:34, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

547 articles? A one-click reset rolls back all Rosibot changes (also the previous ones) if nobody else edited the article in the meantime. @Rosibot: should be the first address for your request. The templates {{BA}} and {{MIS}} need translation, with which I am not familiar. -RLJ (talk) 08:50, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
For translations, the words "Basionym" and "Misapplied names" have to be included into the first table at Wikispecies:Localization (editable by admins). Then subpages can be created for different languages and the magic word {{int:}} will work. --Thiotrix (talk) 09:20, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
Thank you very much! --RLJ (talk) 12:48, 12 September 2019 (UTC)


Hello, is this template name ok, or should it be renamed? it doe's not really follow the relevant section of Help:Reference section. Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:35, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Thorpe created these, they apply only to Zootaxa reference templates before 2015. They are really not condoned, and should be re-directed to standard format reference templates. They typically have no author links, and list no more than three names, no matter full author list. So most need updated. I believe there may be cognate Pt templates for Phytotaxa references. Neferkheperre (talk) 19:32, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
@Christian Ferrer: Please note that when redirecting or moving a page, all links on the referring pages should be changed in the process. See Pages that link to "Template:Zt3700.2.3" for this specific case. Those links should all be changed too, so that they point directly to the new {{MacIsaac et al., 2013}} template without having to make a detour via the redirect page. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 18:57, 12 September 2019 (UTC).
OK, thanks you, it's done, I have replaced it in 2 pages, excepted this one. Christian Ferrer (talk) 20:06, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
For all you botanists, there are Pt templates referring to Phytotaxa citations. Neferkheperre (talk) 22:12, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Von G. Stiasny[modifica]

Hello, I wonder if I did not make a mistake about that name. I created this page this morning, with as well the wikidata item, but now I wonder if "Von" is a part of the name of if that is a kind of word that mean "mister". My source is this PDF at the page 735, but I did not know this language at all. Can someone confirm if "Von" is indeed a part of the name or if we have to ommit it. Christian Ferrer (talk) 10:37, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Hello Christian Ferrer, the language is German, and this "von" on page 735 means "[written] by". The full name of the author is de:Gustav Albert Stiasny. Kind regards, --Thiotrix (talk) 11:41, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
Great, thanks you! Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:34, 16 September 2019 (UTC)