Shortcuts: WS:V, WS:VP

Wikispecies:Village Pump

From Wikispecies
(Redirected from Wikispecies:Village pump)
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 {{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-xx-xx)

Karl J. Marschall[edit]

Is there any evidence that Karl J. Marschall is a taxon authority at all? Just today I have discovered that all instances of "Marschall" on Wikispecies actually refer to August Friedrich Marschall (who I have just created a page for), while all I can find online referring to Karl J. Marschall (full name probably "Karl Joseph Marschall"?) indicates he is a insect pathologist active in the 20th century at least. If nobody else can find anything on this Marschall that is relevant to Wikispecies, it seems clear we should delete the page. Monster Iestyn (talk) 13:52, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

You're right this is Karl Joseph Marschall who is an entomologist from Western Samoa, e.g. DOI: 10.1016/0022-2011(82)90049-0, DOI: 10.1007/BF00406725, DOI: 10.1038/225288a0, he is part of the Rhinoceros Beetle Project [1]. But I don't know if he is taxon authority. See also [2] Christian Ferrer (talk) 16:34, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
We are not even citing any of his actual publications anywhere that I can see (unlike Oana Paula Popa, and I don't think we should have a page for her anyway)... I feel about 98% confident we can excise him off. Circeus (talk) 18:31, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
Since it sounds like nobody disagrees so far, I'll add a speedy delete notice to the page. It doesn't look like it ever had any meaningful content since it was created in 2010 anyway, it's just his name plus some categories. Monster Iestyn (talk) 14:45, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Call for review, comment and discuss my PhD thesis on Wikimedia movement[edit]


Just a short message to call people interested to review, comment and discuss my PhD thesis on Wikimedia movement. All the best, Lionel Scheepmans (talk) 19:44, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Do we want template:Journal?[edit]

@Pigsonthewing: So, Andy's {{Journal}} has lain unused for a long time, as have its multiple tracking categories, Do we actually want this? Circeus (talk) 16:48, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Never used it so as far I am concerned it can go. Andyboorman (talk) 21:37, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
Should I know its existence, would help the creation of a few publication pages I did.--Hector Bottai (talk) 00:26, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
I've never been entirely sure how to format ISSN pages, thanks to the varying formats for them used around Wikispecies. A template like this would be great if it was finished, though I never knew this one existed until now. Monster Iestyn (talk) 05:28, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
We should template anything that we can (and, pragmatically, that is non-contentious), and pull as much data as possible into such templates, from Wikidata. We cannot yet do so for taxons because there are various disputes over modelling, and the taxonomy itself. I know of no such disputes over data about mainstream journals. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:48, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
The amount of Stephen's templates we have deleted would argue significantly against the "non-contentious" part. Circeus (talk) 23:22, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
I'm unclear how they - or anything that is contentious - negates what I said about templating what is not contentious. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:55, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
Maybe your particular wording made it look like you were saying the action of templating anything itself was not contentious, rather than saying we should template anything that is non-contentious? Monster Iestyn (talk) 16:09, 27 March 2021 (UTC)


I have reason to believe Category:Carcinologists may have been misapplied to a number of pages for taxon authors who don't or didn't actually work on Crustacea at all. For instance, I just fixed this with Douglas C. Currie, who has only published articles on Diptera to my knowledge. On looking into the category, the first entry currently listed is Wataru Abe who has ...only a single Tardigrada publication listed on Wikispecies currently. Not to do with Crustacea at all. Monster Iestyn (talk) 02:26, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Also worth noting, these same mistakes have been copied to their Wikidata items as well, those will need fixing too. Monster Iestyn (talk) 02:27, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
Since nobody else seems to have taken interest in fixing this misinformation in the week following the above messages, I may as well start correcting the categories myself. If anyone wants to help me, please do so. Monster Iestyn (talk) 19:37, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
Nevermind, ...there were suprisingly only a few taxon authors in the wrong category in this case, despite my earlier impressions. So this can be considered done now. Monster Iestyn (talk) 20:00, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Bulk conversion of Rotifera names from ICZN LAN to wikispecies[edit]

The taxonomic community working with the phylum Rotifera produced a list of all available names at species and genus level, described until year 2000. The final documents are in the ICZN webpage: Do you think it will be possible to automatically transfer the information on wikispecies to complete the genus and species lists for the phylum? We may be able to provide the database in different formats to facilitate the bulk conversion into wikispecies. Thanks

DiegoRoti (talk) 19:23, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

It might be more useful to look into importing to Wikidata, because wikispecies would only want actual pages for name considered valid. Circeus (talk) 13:14, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
Thanks: which information would you need to import the dataset into wikidata? DiegoRoti (talk) 15:50, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Template tab[edit]

Hi, since a long time I use the useful gadget "Template tab" available in Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets, however, it don't work currently for me. Someone has some ideas? Christian Ferrer (talk) 15:36, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Hasn't worked for me for 4 days. I use it regularly.Neferkheperre (talk) 13:43, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
I asked help in Phabricator. Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:55, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
@Neferkheperre: the Gadget have been fixed, now it works again (though a few users may temporarily have some cache issues and may feel that it does still not work). Christian Ferrer (talk) 07:33, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
Working for me again, thanks. Neferkheperre (talk) 14:06, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Higher level classification on the Plantae pages[edit]

Hello fellow botany editors. I think we must discuss the categories and system used on taxa pages above the level of Order. It seems to me that at present use a big of a mixture of systems and names but use the Classification System: APG IV as the main reference. If we are going to use this cladistic/phylogenetic approach instead of a Linnaean system, then the categories should be emended to reflect APGIV as found here on WP. However, before doing this revision then we should endorse this mixture of phylogenetic and Linnaean classifications. As a possible alternative see Aubrieta in Tropicos. I look forward to reading your contributions. Andyboorman (talk) 18:20, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi Andy, all, I looked into this a couple of years ago for IRMNG, which aspires to an integrated, Linnean-based taxonomy for all life, not just Plantae. I ended up using the system of Ruggiero et al., 2015 for extant plants and merging this with a system for fossil plants based on a modified version of that in Novikoff & Barabaz-Krasny, 2015. From my published summary (Rees et al., 2020): "For land plants, a treatment has been developed for IRMNG which merges the system of Novikoff & Barabasz-Krasny (2015) for fossils with that for extant plants given by Ruggiero et al. (2015). To achieve this, several of Novikoff & Barabasz-Krasny’s phyla (“divisions”) have been reduced in rank, for example their divisions Rhyniophyta, Zosterophyllophyta, Progymnospermophyta and Pteridospermophyta are treated as classes (Rhyniopsida, etc.) within phylum Tracheophyta in IRMNG, while their division Langiophytophyta is treated as the earlier phylum name Horneophyta. Their divisions Cycadophyta, Ginkgophyta and Gnetophyta are also treated as classes (not phyla) within Tracheophyta, within superclass Gymnospermae."
To see the result for your example as cited (Aubrieta) see
I would consider this a published classification since the data as described are published along with the paper. I had a copy of the Novikoff & Barabasz-Krasny chapter somewhere, downloaded from the web (from where it appears to have since disappeared), but just looked and could not find it at the moment, however the portions I used are as listed in IRMNG:
(Update: as at 08 April 2021, Google still has a cached version at , however it may soon disappear once it is refreshed - grab it while you can!!)
  • Ruggiero, M.A., Gordon, D.P., Orrell, T.M., Bailly, N., Bourgoin, T., Brusca, R.C., Cavalier-Smith, T., Guiry, M.D. & Kirk, P.M. (2015) A higher level classification of all living organisms. PLoS One, 10(4), e0119248. (also correction at
  • Novikoff, A. & Barabasz-Krasny, B. (2015) System of Embryophytes. In: Novikoff, A. & Barabasz-Krasny, B. Modern Plant Systematics. Liga-Pres, Lviv, Ukraine, pp. 23–63.
  • Rees, Tony; Vandepitte, Leen; Vanhoorne, Bart; Decock, Wim (2020). All genera of the world: an overview and estimates based on the March 2020 release of the Interim Register of Marine and Nonmarine Genera (IRMNG). Megataxa. 1: 123–140.
Regards - Tony Tony 1212 (talk) 19:39, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
Thnaks Tony very useful. Andyboorman (talk) 19:57, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
For what it's worth, Ruggiero et. use a set of intermediate ranks above and below Tracheophyta that I did not/do not implement in IRMNG at this time, namely: Plantae (kingdom) > Viridiplantae (subkingdom) > Streptophyta (infrakingdom) > Embryophyta (superphylum) > Tracheophyta (phylum) > Spermatophytina (subphylum) > “Angiospermae” (superclass) > Magnoliopsida (class). Then they have subclass (none in Magnoliopsida), infraclass (same) and superorder (the latter is populated e.g. Ranunculanae, Rosanae). Again I kept things as simple as possible for my use, omitting subclass, infraclass and superorder, though of course Wikispecies may choose to implement these. Cheers Tony Tony 1212 (talk) 23:51, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
I thought I would check a gymnosperm, example: Cupressus; higher taxonomy follows Ruggiero et al in part (Divisio: Tracheophyta) but then departs from it in a weird way (Divisio: Pinophyta) i.e. the same rank repeated. - not sure why... Tony 1212 (talk) 09:02, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
It partially follows Wikipedia. However, it also differs significantly from Christenhusz et al. (2011) A new classification and linear sequence of extant gymnosperms DOI: /10.11646/phytotaxa.19.1.3, which I believe is now very widely used up to Subclass Pinidae Cronquist, Takht. & W. Zimm. (1966). Tropicos then goes to Equisetopsida C. Agardh. See what I mean by "several flavours are available". Andyboorman (talk) 09:39, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
Still logically inconsistent, though, with two different names at the same rank?? Tony 1212 (talk) 10:24, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
I'd be quite happy to change over to following Christenhusz et al. in treating Pinophyta as having several orders - long overdue, as the division between e.g. Cupressaceae and Pinaceae is ancient, but it's a big job in editing all the relevant pages . . . - MPF (talk) 10:30, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
I think that Catalogue of Life follows Ruggiero et al. for extant taxa (as a matter of principle - with some exceptions e.g. Aves is still a class, not a subclass of Reptilia), see here for Cupressus:, and here for Aubrieta: ... so Wikispecies may, or may not, like to be consistent with CoL... Tony 1212 (talk) 10:47, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
Do I sense both of you wish to move away from the APGIV approach to a more Linnaean system? In due course, do you think a more focused discussion may bring in a few more editors? Andyboorman (talk) 14:48, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
Personally - I know the Linnaean system has its drawbacks, but for IRMNG, I kinda like the degree of standardization/interoperability it brings with other systems with which I exchange data (CoL being an obvious example); clades are extremely mutable and can make life messy, for example I find the system/s as set out by e.g. Adl et al unworkable for "data management/interchange" purposes as they mix and match ranks more or less at random and leave out many taxonomic units that others use. However my biggest issue is where folk build a standalone classification of ferns or protists or whatever and their higher taxonomic units, while fine for standalone purposes, do not mesh with others developed for different groups. This is where the Ruggiero et al 2015 treatment tries to harmonise things across groups, having got (a subset of) the various "experts" in the room and bashed their heads together until something common and workable emerges, and why I believe it is a good idea to use whatever they produce (note I am a follower here, not a leader, just trying to pick who to follow...) But of course that is not prescriptive for wikispecies, which can do whatever it likes. If you think that there is a better way to progress this discussion for wikispecies, by all means go for it. Cheers Tony Tony 1212 (talk) 18:57, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Just noticed that WikiCommons uses a different system - see their treatment of Aubrieta here. It is Linnaean in approach very similar to NCBI, but differing from Tropicos and GBIF. Ouch! Can anybody trace from where these approaches originate? Andyboorman (talk) 08:05, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

The taxonavigation sections in Wikicommons were not meant as a taxonomical treatment but rather as a help for quick navigation. In the 2000s, all categories were lacking info, and it was very uncomfortable to reach from a species category over steps and steps of several parents (tribus, subfamily, family, order...) to a higher category. So the taxonavigation headings were created, mainly by User Liné1, assisted by several coworkers (e.g. MILEPRI and me), based on AGP and databases. They were copied from higher to lower categories, the last step from genus to species categories often by a bot. Today it proves as a huge disadvantage, that these taxonavigations cannot be updated easily (unlike Wikispecies with its template system). --Thiotrix (talk) 11:26, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
Thanks @Thiotrix: we can probably discount Commons then. Andyboorman (talk) 12:37, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Lists of genera names by number of letters[edit]

Just learned today that the Wikidata list pages under Category:Lists of genera names by number of letters may be excluding items for genera that have a P32 (instance of) that isn't taxon (Q16521) but something else (most likely either monotypic taxon (Q310890), fossil taxon (Q23038290) or monotypic fossil taxon (Q47487597)). Would it be worth updating these pages to use an updated SPARQL query that takes these alternative values into account? I've been looking up how SPARQL works to do this and I've already got an edited query that would work.

For instance, this one would be for four-letter genera:

SELECT ?item ?taxon_name ?wikispecies
  VALUES ?taxon {wd:Q16521 wd:Q310890 wd:Q23038290 wd:Q47487597} # taxon, monotypic taxon, fossil taxon or monotypic fossil taxon
  ?item wdt:P31 ?taxon; # ?item is taxon
        wdt:P105 wd:Q34740; # taxon rank is genus
        wdt:P225 ?taxon_name .
  FILTER (STRLEN(?taxon_name) = 4)
  ?wikispecies schema:about ?item .
  ?wikispecies schema:isPartOf <> .

Try it!

As of writing, running this query gives 593 results, while the current query would give you 546 instead. Monster Iestyn (talk) 04:07, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, but is this for Wikidata or Wikispecies? Not sure of the utility for WS, as we have deprecated the use of Categories based on genera names by number of letters as being outside of project scope. Andyboorman (talk) 10:49, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
Not sure myself really. I know that they are outside of Wikispecies' project scope, but we have pages for them nevertheless, so I thought they may as well serve their purposes properly. Monster Iestyn (talk) 14:51, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
We are not discussing "Categories based on genera names by number of letters", but lists. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:29, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

─────────────────────────Rather than: VALUES ?taxon {wd:Q16521 wd:Q310890 wd:Q23038290 wd:Q47487597}, we can programmatically specify subclasses, which will also catch any new ones used in future. I have now implemented that, on the two-latter list, and made some efficiency improvements Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:29, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Oh good, thanks. I wasn't sure if any other subclasses were used at all to be honest, that's why I checked for just those four values for P31. Monster Iestyn (talk) 23:34, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Argentinian journals[edit]

Does anyone know whether the titles Revista Argentina de Entomologia and Revista de la Sociedad Entomológica Argentina both refer to the same journal? See for example the publications of Alberto F. Prosen. Kind regards, Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 10:42, 14 April 2021 (UTC).

The two titles belong to different journals. Revista de la Sociedad Entomológica Argentina (see also started in 1926, Revista Argentina de Entomologia (see had only two volumes in 1935/38 and 1944. -RLJ (talk) 11:47, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
That second link seems to be also about RSEA. This paper has some info (p. 39). Circeus (talk) 13:31, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
Sorry, corrected above. --RLJ (talk) 14:37, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
Revista Argentina de Entomologia does not have an ISSN that I can find (probably because of its short lifespan as already stated), while Revista de la Sociedad Entomológica Argentina is ISSN 0373-5680. The Italian Periodicals Catalogue website even seems to claim the former was written in Portuguese and the latter was (at least originally) in Spanish. Revista de la SEA was also at volume 12 by 1944 rather than volume 2, certainly no chance they could even be separate runs of the same journal. Monster Iestyn (talk) 15:43, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Bullet Points[edit]

Could whoever is responsible for the unwanted extra bullet points found when using lists of reference links such as IPNI, please tidy up their mess. Thanks Andyboorman (talk) 20:15, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

There's definitely a problem that some {{}} templates include an automated bullet point, and others don't - and there's no easy way of telling the difference. Please, go easy on anyone who doesn't get it right! - MPF (talk) 20:23, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
May be it is to do with the =={{int:References}}== code and not the templates themselves? It has only just appeared and templates like PWO were last modified at the end of March, if not much earlier. Changes like this should be speedily evaluated by the author and quickly reverted if there are unintended consequences. There is always the sandbox for experiments. Andyboorman (talk) 20:35, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
Any example page where this is happening? Monster Iestyn (talk) 00:24, 15 April 2021 (UTC)