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 {{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:


Archive
Archives
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-...)


Use int[edit]

What is the benefit for using int:? PeterR (talk) 09:51, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

@PeterR: It will automatically translate the text into any of the languages listed in Wikispecies:Localization, depending on each user's different languages settings set in their user preferences. So Chinese speaking users will automatically get the text in Chinese, Spanish speaking users will automatically see the text in Spanish, etc. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 15:19, 14 March 2019 (UTC).
@Tommy Kronkvist:. I see only all the text in English, not in Dutch. PeterR (talk) 14:27, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
@PeterR: Sorry for my very late response. The reason most of the words are still in English rather than Dutch are that most of them simply aren't translated yet. I personally always use the English version when editing Wikispecies, but in order to make a comparison I checked the Dutch version with the Swedish version (i.e. my mother tongue) a few weeks ago. You can see the differences in the following JPEG screenshots ("schermafbeeldingen"):
As you can see, in the Swedish version almost all of the English "original" words are translated, whereas in the Dutch version only a very few words are translated. The reason for this can be found here: Wikispecies:Localization. If you check those tables you find that most of the Dutch ("nl") links are red = not yet created. Adding them is easy: simply click a red "nl" link, enter the Dutch translation (always start with a Capital letter), and save. See for example MediaWiki:Original combination/nl and MediaWiki:Synonyms/nl were the English phrases "Original combination" and "Synonyms" have been translated to the Dutch equivalents "Originele naam" and "Synoniemen". Please note that the Dutch pages should only include the translation: no wiki code, no templates, no categories, etc.
I would be glad to add all the translations myself, but unfortunately I can't speak a very good Dutch. Also, the big tables at Wikispecies:Localization mentioned above includes translations for a lot of different languages, and I understand that some admins may therefore hesitate to edit them. In order to help out I've created this page: User:Tommy Kronkvist/Localization/Nederlands. It is a bit more user friendly since it's only intended for Dutch translations, no other languages. If you want to you can replace the "—" in the "Nederlands" column on that page with the proper Dutch translations. Please also check the already added translations for any errors. I can then copy any new or corrected translations to their proper position in the "offficial" Localization database/list.
Best regards, Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 10:25, 10 April 2019 (UTC).

Unpatrolled changes[edit]

We have ~2,300. The typical reason why is that one user (e.g. User:Monster Iestyn) makes a lot of very small, very fine edits (e.g.) in a short period. I recommend admins/bureaucrats take a look at the queue and give appropriate autopatroller rights to users making good edits to weed out what are good editors who may make a mistake but don't need oversight versus individual edits that genuinely need patrolling. —Justin (koavf)TCM 22:40, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

I agree with that @Koavf:, and while it is important to evaluate newcomers edits before making them autopatrolled, maybe we should be a little faster in giving autopatrolled rights? Dan Koehl (talk) 11:33, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
@Dan Koehl and Koavf: I partly agree... Recently about a handful of new users have become very active, and the vast majority of their edits are excellent. This is of course very welcome, however in some cases the quality of their edits differ between namespaces. For example some of the users create good pages in the Template namespace but uphold a somewhat lesser standard in the Main- and/or Category namespaces. This should be up for discussion with each respective user before granting them autopatroller rights. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 15:38, 14 March 2019 (UTC).
Maybe a polite suggestion to study the instructions closer, combined with a proposal of granting autopatrol rights, if they confirm to follow instructions, would make those users to take a step in a wished directon? Dan Koehl (talk) 15:44, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
Sure but if no one is reviewing their edits anyway, there is no reason to leave them unpatrolled. This way, we can focus on the new users whose edits are generally poor rather than the overall good editors who are struggling in some specific area. —Justin (koavf)TCM 15:51, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
One of the problems is that there are too few active patrollers. I've reviewed more than 700 edits the past week, but the workload most certainly is too big for one single user. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 17:53, 14 March 2019 (UTC).
Sorry I did not realise this had got out of hand again. I have been extra-ordinarily busy the last 12 months working on an entire museum collection, some 18000 specimens. Anyway I will try to do some patrolling over the next week to do my share. Although I agree with some points above that maybe we should look into when people get the autopatrol rights, we also do have to be wary of issues. It should never be given blindly just based on number of edits or time editing, the quality must be assessed to. But perhaps we can speed it up a little. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 18:10, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

───────────────────────── @Dan Koehl, Faendalimas, and Koavf: Not counting translations (which can sometimes be difficult to mark as patrolled due to technical limitations) we're now down to approximately 400 unpatrolled edits. Still quite a few of course, but a lot better than 2,300. Some edits are difficult for me to check, simply because I haven't got the proper literature or references. For example please have a look at the two last edits of Agra vation [sic] and the most recent version of Plectranthus amboinicus. Any help is much appreciated. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 01:03, 19 March 2019 (UTC).

Thanks a lot. I'm gated by 1.) lack of knowledge of the subject matter and 2.) not knowing certain languages. Some of the Chinese translations I looked at seemed good enough but I was hesitant to mark them patrolled. :/ —Justin (koavf)TCM 01:25, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
Understandable. Cross-references via the external links at the Wikidata "taxon pages" and/or zhWP helps a lot, but it takes time. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 03:53, 19 March 2019 (UTC).
In case of Plectranthus amboinicus, the diff by the IP was a subtle vandalism, changing basionym and heterotypic synonym. I have corrected this page. --Thiotrix (talk) 17:07, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
It may not be vandalism as some botanist do not accept Coleus being sunk into Plectranthus - see Hassler c.f. WCSP. Andyboorman (talk) 22:00, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
Some of those unpatrolled edits were actually Japanese, not Chinese. OhanaUnitedTalk page 19:38, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Biographies with no UIDs[edit]

The page I have just at Wikispecies:Biographies with no identifiers contains a Wikidata query which returns a list of people with a Wikispecies biography, but with no UIDs (VIAF, ISNI, ORCID, IPNI, Zoobank, etc) on Wikidata - in other words, if {{Authority control}} is used on their biography, it will have no content.

There are currently 21,347 people in the list! Some of them, such as A. Murdoch, have an ID (Zoobank, in this case) in the Wikispecies article text; but many have none there, either. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:42, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Customizing link color of redirects[edit]

Hello, for information it is possible to change the colors of redirect links by editing the CSS at your skin subpage (for all skins: common.css; for vector: vector.css; for monobook: monobook.css).

To show redirects as green links, you can add the following code (Example here):

a.mw-redirect {color:#398131}
a.mw-redirect:visited {color:#71C567}

For more info, see w:Help:Link color. You can also choose the color of your choice, see w:Web colors and https://htmlcolors.com/ for color codes. Korg (talk) 10:24, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the information! Here's another hint to all users. I've always disliked the extra dotted line under parts of taxon names in the Taxonavigation section. The dotted "lines" are automatically added by formatting templates such as {{sp}} and {{sgsps}} that we use for listing taxon names, however technically speaking they actually aren't lines at all, but the lower part of a border attribute to the HTML "abbreviation" element. Thus, getting rid of them is easy. Simply add the following line to you CSS file:
.mw-body-content abbr {border:none}
Then save your edit and refresh your browser, and all the dots go poof... :-) Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 00:54, 25 March 2019 (UTC).

Removing synonym genera in family pages?[edit]

In several family pages, for example Asteraceae, Ericaceae or Primulaceae, several synonym genera are listed.

For example in Primulaceae, Steironema and Trientalis redirect to Lysimachia. Is it ok to remove them off the list, provided they are listed as synonyms in Lysimachia, or should we keep them? Korg (talk) 10:27, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

I would prefer to keep those names in synonymy on the family page, but list them separately, like in Amaranthaceae (chapter Overview of genera).--Thiotrix (talk) 12:20, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
I would prefer to remove them from the family list and keep this for currently accepted genera. My reasoning is that the family page will become incredibly cluttered and opaque.Amaranthaceae is bad enough with two competing and legitimate classifications and a long list of family synonyms, without all those genera in synonymy that just redirect to the accepted genus. I can not see the point myself. I tend to remove the synonyms once I have updated a family, subfamily or tribe page and really do not have any intention of re-editing those. Andyboorman (talk) 14:35, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
I prefer the solution, as is implemented in the Amaranthaceae page. There exist always some recently synonymised names, which are still in the minds of visitors, who expect to find these names somewhere on the taxon page. OK, you could use the search and hope you would be redirected, but doing this you will have to leave the family taxon page.
In my opionion, the Amaranthaceae page is informative, not cluttered. Anyway, it is well structured. --Franz Xaver (talk) 16:26, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
I agree with Franz Xaver, but only when a "Genera overview" or "Accepted genera" section is provided (or a "Genera" section when no Subfamiliae exist). Then a "Genera names in synonymy" section is perfectly in place at the familia level. BUT in the cases which Korg provides, e.g. in PrimulaceaeSteironema and Trientalis MUST be removed from the main genera list and placed in a DIFFERENT subsection. Mariusm (talk) 16:38, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
I am happy to go with the consensus, but I am unlikely to go through old edits resurrecting familial generic synonyms, whilst there are so many red links. Andyboorman (talk) 16:49, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
I've removed/ not included synonymized genera for most fungi, except when there are species which have not been transferred, or when there seems to be ongoing discussion. Personally I think not having all genera listed is one of the benefits of WS. It can be rather confusing looking at other databases which list 20 genera in a family to then realize that only 2 are accepted. Voganaa (talk) 17:50, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
1. Recently synonymized names may be still in use in literature, as Franz Xaver notes above. 2. Moleculargenetic investigations may cause the need to split a genus, and it may be helpful for a scientific reader to know about the existence of validly published old names in that family, before creating new (superfluous) genus names. 3. Some of those names in synonymy have priority against younger homonyms. So in my opinion, they should not be omitted from Wikispecies. --Thiotrix (talk) 20:00, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

New server for ZooBank[edit]

Please note that ZooBank was recently moved to a new server. All should be fine by now, but during a short transitional period oddities may arise... Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 23:32, 24 March 2019 (UTC).

Help from outside[edit]

I've been in contact with an editor at PLAZI and I received today the following mail from him:

Dear Marius

Just to inform you that we are back on the extraction of Zootaxa, and other journals too. The goal is that we extract all the information you need, including type locality and the type.

In fact we export this information to speciesID https://species-id.net/wiki/Forcepia_microlabis and we could discuss how we could import this automatically into wikispecies?

Another issue is whether you have a list of journals that you use to extract data. If so, do you have a ranking of which are the most important in regards of the number of new species?

All the best, etc.

Any suggestions?? Mariusm (talk) 18:13, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

It would be very nice to be able to automatically import data from PLAZI into WS. Since speciesID is a wiki constructed similarly to WS, and since PLAZI editers know how to export data to it, there's no reason it can't be done similarly with WS. For example, today PLAZI published 976 species from Zootaxa. These same species can theoretically be also imported into WS in the appropriate WS structure. This will be an enormous boon for WS.
As for the most important journals in regards of the number of new species I think the list at http://www.organismnames.com/metrics.htm?page=tsj is adequete, Can anyone add to this list? Mariusm (talk) 15:20, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
This data (not least speciesID identifiers, which seem to be taxon names, and for which a new property would be needed) should be added to Wikidata, from where it can be transcluded into Wikispecies. Note the existence of P1992, "Plazi ID", which facilitates this. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:05, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

─────────────────────────

Here are further exchanges with the PLAZI editor:

My mail:

Thanks for your willingness to help. There are a couple of issues to consider:

(1) WS is relatively strict on the format and content of its species pages. Can your bot produce a format similar to https://species.wikimedia.org/wiki/Platyola_brasiliensis? For example no "Description" or "Discussion" sections are allowed.

(2) You must be granted a bot permission from the WS community by a user poll. This necessitates a procedure involving communicating with the users and explaining the background and the scope of the bot. I'm willing to help with this, but the WS community will be expecting to communicate directly with the bot producer/operator, otherwise the bot acceptance is unlikely. I know this sounds tedious, but this is a communal site and a bot must pass an approval procedure. Please see https://species.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikispecies:Bot.

His mail:

Dear Marius
We can deal with 1. With 2 we won't be able an[d] need your input. We either spend our time liberating data or in distribution. At the moment we focus on the former and assure that at least all the data is in GBIF.
Why isn't your community acting on 2?
Best regards

Well, is it a dead end? Mariusm (talk) 13:58, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

No. See my reply to your first post in this section, above. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:20, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
See This for PLAZI-bot contributions to species-id. Mariusm (talk) 18:08, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
@Mariusm: Would it be possible for them to post a dozen pages here? Korg (talk) 19:00, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
@Korg: Thanks for your interest. I can ask, but I need some sort of a consensus to do that. I see here a total lack of enthusiasm to proceed with this any further, although I think this is a great opportunity to make WS grow and prosper. Mariusm (talk) 07:54, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
"...a total lack of enthusiasm to proceed..." Not so. Please refer to my reply to your first post in this section (to which you have not yet replied). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:51, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
@Mariusm: I understand, but in the meantime I think it would be interesting to have some concrete examples so people could form an opinion. Maybe with several examples we could generate some enthusiasm, and then go further. Korg (talk) 19:10, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
@Korg: For examples just look here. Species-id is wiki identical to WS and it uses the same software. The Plazi people are not permitted to run bots on WS, and asking them to modify their bot just for experimenting, will certainly be rejected. Mariusm (talk) 07:27, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
@Mariusm: Thanks. But how we could go further? Korg (talk) 21:49, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Hoax taxa[edit]

How should we deal with cases like Ctenophthalmus nepalensis, a fake taxon, published as a hoax - not least to prevent good-faith from someone unaware of this fact? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:27, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

I think case by case. Many taxonomists have a sense of humour, and name taxa which can sound like hoaxes. I have verified some of these myself. However, C. nepalensis does not register to me as possible hoax. Neferkheperre (talk) 01:10, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
It was rather a test than a hoax – see de:Ctenophthalmus nepalensis (in German). The background seems to have been a controversy over the introduction of a peer review for the respective journal. --Franz Xaver (talk) 11:23, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Natural history collections on Wikispecies and Wikidata[edit]

I was hoping to gauge the interest Wikispecies contributors may have in contributing to a global list of natural history collections in Wikidata. As sketched in Where is the damned collection? Wikidata, GrBio, and a global list of all natural history collections I'm interested in using Wikidata as a global database of collections or at least, the institutions that house collections, and many of these institutions already have Wikidata entries. The Wikispecies pages Repositories (A–M) and Repositories (N–Z) list numerous collections by their acronym, many of these have their own pages in Wikispecies, and these pages in turn often have equivalent pages in Wikidata. In some cases these are not linked to the Wikidata page for the institution, in other cases the Wikispecies-derived page may be the only entry for that institution. Clearly Wikispecies is an important source for this project.

There are two Wikidata properties that are relevant here, one is Index Herbariorum code P5858 the other is Biodiversity Repository ID P4090. What I would like to see is every repository having a Wikidata entry that includes one or both of these properties, so that we can have a list of all acronyms applied to collections from the repository.

To get a better sense of what is in Wikidata I built a little tool Where is the damned collection? that takes an acronym and tries to find the corresponding page in Wikidata. For example, try NHMUK or SING.

I am exploring Wikidata using this tool (among others) and adding properties and data where possible. It seems to me that there are a couple of approaches that can be used, one is to add Index Herbariorum codes and/or Biodiversity Repository IDs to existing Wikidata entries for museums, botanic gardens, universities, etc. Many Wikispecies-derived records are little more than stubs, but can be regarded as entries for a specific collection (e.g, a herbarium) rather than the parent institution that houses that collection (e.g., a university or botanic garden). In these cases one can either (a) merge the Wikispecies-based record with the record for the parent institution (adding appropriate identifiers such as the Index Herbariorum code, or link the two records together using a property such as part of P361.

Let me know whether you think this project would be useful to Wikispecies contributors. --Rdmpage (talk) 14:29, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

See: Repositories/Wikidata (this does not yet include repositories with neither P4090 nor P5858). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:28, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
Thanks Andy, I hope to see this list grow in the coming weeks. --Rdmpage (talk) 19:41, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
It certainly looks as though it will. I have concerns about granularity. For example, we show FLAS as "Florida Museum of Natural History"; but should that be "herbarium at Florida Museum of Natural History", with a separate Wikidata item? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:41, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
I think this will evolve naturally. As a rule of thumb, if a collection has its own web domain (or subdomain), or Facebook page, or Twitter or Instagram stream, then it probably merits its own item. Likewise, if people want to add facts about a collection (e.g., its size, or that a scientific article is about that collection) then having a separate item makes sense. If all we have is a collection code, then assigning that to the least inclusive entity that contains the collection seems the obvious strategy (i.e., if a collection is housed at a university then, in the absence of an existing item for that collection we could assign the collection code to the university). — The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rdmpage (talkcontribs) 14:45, 14 April 2019‎.
I've added a "county" column, and am busy populating it via Wikidata; everyone is welcome to join in! Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:01, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
Ditto a "website" column. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:00, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Read-only mode for up to 30 minutes on April 11[edit]

Because of a hardware problem, users will not be able to edit most Wikimedia wikis for up to 30 minutes on 11 April 05:00 UTC. You can still read all the wikis: only editing will be limited. This will affect Wikispecies as well as 889 other wikis. Sorry for the short notice, but after all this is an emergency... In any case the database master failover procedure shouldn't take longer than half an hour, perhaps even less. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 08:45, 10 April 2019 (UTC).


I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:02, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Should Wikispecies contain invalid taxon names in lists of taxa?[edit]

Since the taxon name Candida auris is invalid (see the taxon page for references) I recently removed it from the list of species in the Candida page. My edit was promptly reverted by the user @Voganaa together with an edit summary saying that the species name is "Useful to have represented due to media coverage". In a way I can understand that. The species is one of few fungi that may cause the fungal infection candidiasis in humans and therefore is indeed frequently discussed in media – however should that really matter to us? The prime scope and focus of Wikispecies is to maintain a correct database of the taxonomy, biological systematics and nomenclature of organisms. In my opinion media coverage etc. shouldn't change that fact. Surely we shouldn't include incorrect and/or misleading data simply because the press sometimes enjoys a few shortcuts? "Tabloid Wikispecies..." No thank you!

I understand and fully respects Voganaa's viewpoint here, but feel we need to discuss the matter at the Village Pump so that we can find a way to perhaps include this kind of data without compromising the objectivity and verifiability of the information presented. And, as always, we need to do it while remembering what Wikispecies is not (for example we're not Wikipedia).

Thoughts and ideas about all this, anyone? Cheers, Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 17:18, 11 April 2019 (UTC).

Invalid names can be accommodated on the accepted taxon pages and so do not require their own page nor deserve one under any circumstances. It is that simple. Andyboorman (talk) 18:16, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
There are 3,486 invalid taxon pages. This devalues WS, IMO. (talk) 17:31, 11 April 2019 (UTC) Andyboorman (talk) 18:16, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
It should at least be a redirect to the valid name. We might consider adding a "hat note" to the latter page, and to the genus page, in such cases, as done on, for example, en.Wikipedia. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:36, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
Invalid names are mostly mention in the synonymy of the valid names. They still in the museum and made a lectotype etc. as original combination. If the species become an other name then I place it in the synonymy with a link.See Echemoides penicillatus PeterR (talk) 18:03, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
Candida auris has received some lurid press coverage in last 36 hours as allegedly almost totally immune to antibiotics. How much factual basis was behind this I do not know. Names become invalid for several reasons, as junior synonyms, junior homonyms, generic re-assignments, etc. One author's invalidation is not invariably accepted by all, and many get resurrected. Homonyms and junior synonyms should always be re-directed to accepted names, and listed there under Synonyms. On my Cirripedia pages, I have been putting original authorship/citation, where first synonymized, and any known type and locality data. This can save time in case validity is restored. Neferkheperre (talk) 19:07, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
As far as I know Candida auris is the basionym and not in synonymy. If my data is correct the taxon name is nomen invalidum simply because the authors didn't include information about in which repository the type specimen is conserved (i.e. per Chapter V, Section 2, Article 40.7 in the ICN Melbourne Code). Hence for this particular taxon there are no other taxon names that take precedence over Candida auris, but it's invalid due to a mere technicality. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 05:11, 12 April 2019 (UTC).
What Tommy points out happens a lot in fungi unfortunately. The name Candida auris is used in all publications to refer to the same organism and is a "real" species, in the sense that everyone knows what you're talking about when you call it that. At some point I expect a taxonomist to properly publish the name to code, and it's unlikely to change names due to it's common use. Generally, I don't think invalid names should be represented in WS, but I think we can make exceptions when warranted. As a side note, Candida auris is naturally resistant to many antifungals and is a rapidly growing concern in clincs. Voganaa (talk) 08:25, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
Heterotypic invalid names deserve to have a page of their own. The full data for them can't be properly accommodated in the accepted-names pages. As long as these pages are properly marked with {{invalid}}, {{invalid genus}} etc., I endorse them. On the other hand homotypic synonyms can rather be accouned for in the accepted-names pages. Mariusm (talk) 13:08, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

A reminder that "Invalid names" has a very different meaning in zoology and botany. When I hear "invalid name" I'm thinking "not validly published, technically has no effect in the nomenclature of that taxon". In Zoology, "invalid name" is what we call in botany "incorrect", it's just not the name that the rules mandate for the organism, and encompasses things such as both taxonomic and nomenclatural synonyms as well as homonyms and suppressed names. (the zoologival equivalent of botany's invalid name is "unavailable").

In both case, my rule of thumb is: invalid names should be listed (including e.g. where the name is nomenclaturally valid, but taxonomically improper because a new name in the correct genus still has to be published) if and only if there is no valid/correct/available name for the taxon. Especially if the taxon is already known by its improper name. And everything that would apply to that name were it proper (i.e. the "permission" to be listed on the genus page) apply to it. Circeus (talk) 22:45, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

In my remark above I meant "valid name" in zoological terms, "correct name" being the botanical equivalent. I should have used the term "synonym". Mariusm (talk) 07:28, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Adding gadgets to this wiki[edit]

I'd like to use the Navigation popups gadget, as available on several of our sister wikis. Who can add it here? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:37, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

I now have "Interface admin" status, so have done this myself; details below. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:09, 21 April 2019 (UTC)


I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:09, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

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

Hello!

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 https://animal.depo.msu.ru/module/itemsearchpublic, 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 178.252.125.198 (talkcontribs) 22:22, 12 April 2019‎.

IPNI standard form template[edit]

To replace prose like:

Standard IPNI form: Santana Mich.

I have created {{IPNI standard form}} ({{Isf}} is available as a redirect).

I will call the value from Wikidata's P428, where there is no local value.

Please make use of it, and can someone mark it up for translation? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:16, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Request for Interface adminship[edit]

Please see my Requests for Interface adminship. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:18, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Please could a bureaucrat action this request, which has support? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:02, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
 Done OhanaUnitedTalk page 22:08, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
Thank you. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:08, 21 April 2019 (UTC)


I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:08, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Names in reference templates[edit]

I've been changing links like:

{{aut|Santana Mich.}}

to:

{{a|Francisco Javier Santana Michel|Santana Mich.}}

and another editor has now changed to:

{{Santana Mich.}}

I'm not saying one is right and the other wrong, but can we agree to standardise on one, so we don't all waste each other's and our own time? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:43, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

The first two forms are not in accordance with the standard format given in Help:Reference section, the second should be {{a|Francisco Javier Santana Michel|Santana Michel, F.J.}}. The third form is a template producing the correct second form. In the Name Section, the scientific names should be in italics, and nothing else. Reference templates should give complete references with article title, full page range and if available a doi and/or a link to the full text. -RLJ (talk) 20:43, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
Even with {{a|Francisco Javier Santana Michel|Santana Michel, F.J.}} in the mix, we have three different forms of template in use: {{aut}}, {{a}} and (in this case) {{Santana Mich.}}. That's not helpful. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:47, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
{{aut|Santana Mich.}} and {{a|Francisco Javier Santana Michel|Santana Mich.}} are incorrect formats for use in the Reference Section but OK for the Name or Synonym sections, as IPNI standard format is expected. RLJ is correct for the Reference Section where the authorship should look like this. Andyboorman (talk) 21:09, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
Again, my question is not what the text should look like, but which of the three available types of template we should be using. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:34, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
{{aut|Santana Mich.}} and {{a|Francisco Javier Santana Michel|Santana Mich.}} (resulting in Santana Mich.) should be used in the name section, {{a|Francisco Javier Santana Michel|Santana Michel, F.J.}} (resulting in Santana Michel, F.J.) or an author template containing this form should be used in the reference section. --RLJ (talk) 23:24, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
You've restated the issue. I'm looking for a solution. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:53, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
  • (1) "Santana Mich." is a an author botanical abbreviation standard, which is designed for citation with the botanical names.
  • (2) "Santana Michel, F.J." is author-name standard used at WS and elsewhere for publications.
  • (3) "Francisco Javier Santana Michel" is the author's full name used only in the author page.
  • Both (1) and (2) are imperative to the correct rendition of a botanical taxon and should be both used.
  • The usage of one form out of (1) and (2) depends on section (Name/Synonym or Publications) where the name is used.
  • (3) is used to direct to the correct author-page link, but is not displayed on the taxon page.
  • There's no solution to @Pigsonthewing:'s "problem" because there is no problem. Mariusm (talk) 16:14, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
    • As you fail to recognise the issue; allow me to explain: The problem is that we have multiple templates (and I note that not one of your several bullet points refers to templates, at all) for the same purpose, and we have editors changing from one to another, and then to another again. This is wasteful of effort, confusing to newcomers and more established editors alike and hinders our ability to write clear, simple, documentation, and works against automation, page-parsing and bot tasks. That's why I asked, above, "which of the three available types of template we should be using" I trust that is now clear. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:18, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
      • The template {{a|author}} and {{aut|author}} do the same thing with one difference as I know your aware. The first will create the name as a link the second will not and just do the formatting. The {{a|author}} is the preferred usage on this site, however, to avoid multiple links on one page to the same author page we go to the {{aut|author}} for subsequent usages on the same page. The other reason for not using {{a|author}} is to avoid a red link if no page exists for the author and for some reason it has been deemed unnecessary to create one. In general though {{a|author}} is preferred with the above exceptions. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 19:37, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
        • And what about single-author templates like {{Santana Mich.}}? Also, {{aut}} can produce a link, thus: {{aut|[[Francisco Javier Santana Michel|Santana Mich.]]}} which gives Santana Mich.. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:46, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
          • The single author templates have not come up in previous discussions to my memory. If people wish to make them I would say they can at present I do not believe we have restrictions on this method. Yes these template can be modified for output with various parameters. Since they are available they can be used. Why is this actually an issue? Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 19:51, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
            • For the various reasons I outlined just above. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:06, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
              • Templates {{a|Standard Author Abbrev.}} and {{aut|Standard Author Abbrev.}} automatically generate typographic tweaks which, by consensus is preferred only for Name and Synonyms, as you know. As Scott said single author templates may or may not produce these tweaks depending on design. As Tommy has pointed out it maybe necessary to use a use a redirect where two authors have the same abbreviation - not possible for botany. However, I agree with Andy, template proliferation is always a danger here as editors get into coding! My advice is KISS. Andyboorman (talk) 09:11, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing:: The standard for WS is as follows:

  1. For botanical taxon: {{a|Francisco Javier Santana Michel|Santana Mich.}} to be used in the Name and Synonym sections.
  2. For zoological taxon: {{a|Francisco Javier Santana Michel|Santana Michel}} to be used in the Name and Synonym sections.
  3. {{a|Francisco Javier Santana Michel|Santana Michel, F.J.}} to be used in publication templates and in Publications section.
  4. All other forms, abraviation templates and {{aut}} template are undesirable.
  5. I hope this settles your questions. Mariusm (talk) 15:12, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
Thank you. My question was "can we agree to standardise on one", so no, it does not settle that, unless we can persuade our colleagues - including those who have commented to the contrary, above - to adopt what you claim is the (de jure) standard, in place of current (de facto) practice. Do you have any suggestions for how to do that? Perhaps you can point to a record of past consensus, by which they should abide? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:00, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
Set the options up and go for a vote. Andyboorman (talk) 16:33, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
A vote is really not needed in this case: the displayed names are common taxonomic standard both in botanical and zoological nomenclature. The publication templates format is recommended in the help section. The linking to the full author-name is a sound wiki common practice. Therefore there are no other options to choose between save the ones I mentioned above. Mariusm (talk) 14:53, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
I fully agree with the proposed "standard", and also think there is no need for vote. Very useful matter, I, for example, was using the {{aut}} for synonyms, just following others practices.--Hector Bottai (talk) 15:38, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
I disagree with the blanket assertion that "{{aut}} [is] undesirable". It is NOT desirable for every single scientific author in the reference section to have a separate page. Authors of names, yes, but not all authors, especially given that there is a sizeable body of templated publications on Wikispecies already that have no nomenclatural acts at all. Circeus (talk) 21:44, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
By "{{aut}} [is] undesirable" I meant that we should strive to link every author mentioned to the author's page. This isn't imperative of course, and for obscure, one-time, difficult-to-locate or no-nomenclatural-acts authors, {{aut}} serves pretty well. Mariusm (talk) 09:19, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Moving forward[edit]

In the light of the above discussion, I have added a |nolink= parameter to {{a}}. Using that parameter with any non-empty value (I suggest y is preferred) will suppress the link; e.g {{a|Linnaeus|nolink=y}} will produce Linnaeus. There are more examples in the template documentation. This facilitates rapidly switching links, on, or off, without having to add or remove the target page parameter.

Additionally, I have made {{aut}} a wrapper for that template, with |nolink=y set.

We should now consider whether {{aut}} should be deprecated, replaced by substitution, and eventually deleted.

This just leaves the issue of {{a}} vs. individual author templates (such as {{Santana Mich.}}) to be resolved. I have yet to see any argument for their existence. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:13, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

In my opinion, this |nolink= parameter is undesirable. Having to add "|nolink=y" at the end, makes handling much more tedious, compared to the difference of only two letters between {{a}} and {{aut}}. Anyway, I wished these individual author templates would not be created at all. Such templates have minimal positive effects, but have the potential to swamp the project with a need of unproductive edits. --Franz Xaver (talk) 12:46, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
@Franz Xaver: I agree with the first part of your comment, but I'm confused by the second. Do you wish to discard both {{a}} and {{aut}} and use instead something like [[Malcolm Cameron|Cameron]]? Mariusm (talk) 13:44, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
The discussion came to a confusion now. Keep it simple! {{a}} for all nomenclatural authors in the page, and {{aut}} for non. And, there is another case for using {{aut}}: when the same author os repeated in the page, we should not repeat the link (except when in some template).--Hector Bottai (talk) 14:25, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
@Mariusm: No, I didn't mean, what seemingly you have understood. I am supporting both {{a}} and {{aut}}, but I would like to get rid of "individual author templates" – as I wrote – like {{Santana Mich.}}. --Franz Xaver (talk) 15:44, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
Oh, I see. I also wish them gone. Mariusm (talk) 15:58, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
Indeed. They are not using full-name format we presently favor. Neither do any seem to contain any information not found in title. Neferkheperre (talk)
I am good with whats being discussed here. I have no issue with depreciating {{aut}} if the parameter |nolink= is added to {{a}}as this would effectively mean that the preferred option now does the job of both templates. I also agree with the idea of getting rid of individual author templates. These are unnecessary and will often have minimal usage. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 20:03, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
Number of {{aut}} templates in use is astounding, as is {{a}}. Catching up with proposed change will be enormous. Neferkheperre (talk) 22:20, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Category:Author templates has 4,768 members. Some (I wonder how many?) like {{Johannes Michael Friedrich Adams}} have only one transclusion. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:12, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Edita Brestenska/Brestenská[edit]

It seems highly likely that Edita Brestenska is cs:Edita Brestenská. Does anyone wish to opine, before I merge the respective Wikidata items? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:56, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Yes. The thing is that people create pages on Wikispecies and are too restricted in characterizing what the authority studies. Far as I can tell she's a specialist of fossil microfauna in general, certainly not restricted to Ostracoda. Circeus (talk) 04:44, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
Wikidata items merged and our page moved to Edita Brestenská. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:56, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Taxonomic Changes to Chelidae[edit]

Hi everyone, I have put in some major taxonomic changes that came about from a recent paper. I acknowledge I am an author.:

Please check my recent changes due to this as I need to be clear on NPoV and OR. The paper is above it is published. Diffs: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, moves, deletion. 6, 7

  • edit: also in this paper the name Chelodina oblonga was declared nomen dubium and is no longer used. I have made it a redirect to Chelodina rugosa at present as it was used for this species however I am open to suggestions on where to store information on it.

Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 16:59, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Template:Publications[edit]

It has been drawn to my attention that the documentation of {{Publications}} includes the line "Please note that this template contains incompatibilities and should not be used.". There is nothing to say what those "incompatibilities " are, and the talk page is a red link

What are they, and is anyone working to fix them? If not, should the template be removed from 2500+ pages that use it, and deleted?

Or is it OK for use, in which case can we remove the quoted text?

As in the case of author name templates, above, it would be good to agree to standardise on one model or the other (the "other being:

=={{int:Publications}}==

{{Inc}}

) rather than having editors changing from one to the other, and back again. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:47, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Ping @Tommy Kronkvist: who added that text in September 2016. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:53, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
I discovered somewhat later the problem with {{Publications}}. It automatically created the {{Inc}} template, but when I clicked on the edit link to add new references, it failed. That was the incompatibility. Wherever I see it, I change to "other" model. I believe attempts to fix failed, and it was deprecated. Neferkheperre (talk) 13:12, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing: Due to a Wiki bug, the {{Publications}} template disables individual editing of all sections and subsection in the page it appears on. Therefore, all {{Publications}} should be replaced with:
=={{int:Publications}}==
{{Inc}}

If I get the OK I can perform this automatically using my bot. Mariusm (talk)

Are you sure? On Johann Hermann, for example, I can edit each of the year sections without problem (diff). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:06, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
The {{Publications}} template contained originally ==Publications== which caused the problem I mentioned above. Subsequently this was changed to <h2>{{int:Publications}}</h2> which isn't a section start as desired but a continuation of the previous section. Mariusm (talk) 15:04, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Rather like {{taxa authored 2}}, which is widely used. And it's not clear how that equates to "disables individual editing of all sections and subsection in the page". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:14, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Incorrect. I said "The {{Publications}} template contained originally". If you use both {{taxa authored 2}} and {{Publications}}, there would actually be no sections, but only year subsections. {{taxa authored 2}} is not needed to be a section contrary to Publication which needs to. Mariusm (talk) 16:03, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
You said "The {{Publications}} template [...] was changed to <h2>{{int:Publications}}</h2>"; {{taxa authored 2}}, uses <h2> {{TranslateThis | anchor = [...] }} </h2>. In what way is my comparison of the two templates' use of <h2> as "rather like" each other "Incorrect"? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:05, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
@Pigsonthewing: Please lets not argue on semantics. If you feel being wronged, than I apologize. The fact is that neither {{Publications}} nor {{taxa authored 2}} include "==xxx==" so neither is a proper section. We need Publications to be a section, but if you include "==xxx==" in a template a wiki bug disables individual section editing. This brings the conclusion that a template for Publications isn't adequate and that {{Publications}} isn't up for the task. Mariusm (talk) 09:10, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
If you dismiss my valid arguments as "incorrect", then I think it's reasonable for me to defend them, whether or not you then dismiss me doing so as "arguing on semantics". Just like it was reasonable of me to point out that your dismissal that my concern over author name templates as "no problem" was false. I don't accept other people's apologies for (their perception of) my feelings, but I would be grateful if you would stop behaving in such a manner. As to the point at hand, you're saying that {{Publications}} is inadequate, and should be deprecated, for a reason that also applies to {{Taxa authored 2}}, which is not deprecated; and is in fact widely used. This argument is incongruent. As with the author templates, we as a community need to agree one standard, and to stick to it; for all the reasons I explained in that discussion. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:45, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
@Pigsonthewing: I lack the capability to enforce my apology upon you on a par to lacking the competency to fathom your feelings. Contrary to {{Taxa authored 2}} which contains merely a link to a list, the {{Publications}} is an header to a hefty list of author's publications. Therefore I consider {{Taxa authored 2}} not being a section, reasonably accepted, while for {{Publications}} to be a substantial drawback. Mariusm (talk) 13:04, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Official URL template[edit]

I have imported {{Official URL}} (from en.Wikipedia). It can be used for authors, journals and repositories.

It pulls values from Wikidata; but if no value is found there, it does not display. Thus, it can be added to pages when we have no URL, and, when someone subsequently adds the URL in Wikidata, will magically start to show on the page.

For example:

{{Official website}} is also available, and displays the link text "Official website", instead of the raw URL, and displays an error if no value is found. Both templates can take a local value, to override the Wikidata value, if desired. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:46, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Template:Herbarium[edit]

Would anyone object to replacing and deleting {{Herbarium}}, which has fewer than 50 transclusions? It was created on 10 June 2018‎ by User:Fagus. We can use {{Repository}} instead, which already has over 250 transclusions, and also suits other types. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:43, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Navigation popups[edit]

Now that I have "Interface admin" status, I have imported the "Navigation popups" gadget to this wiki; you can now enable it in your preferences. It is documented on en.Wikipedia, at en:Wikipedia:Tools/Navigation popups. I find it enhances my productivity on other projects greatly, and I'm confident it will do so here, too.

It doesn't look quite so pretty here; I'll work on tweaking the CSS, later. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:08, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

I love the popups. I've been using them on Wikispecies for years, but I really, really wish there was a convenient way for it to skip ahead to the name section, because the preview function for it is incredibly useless on taxa pages. Circeus (talk) 01:02, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Synonyms[edit]

Have to be Synonymy after agreements.PeterR (talk) 12:11, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

But the edit tools still show int:Synonyms, of course. Andyboorman (talk) 20:07, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

New gadget: Links count[edit]

I have installed the gadget "Links count". This "counts total number of pages linked to a specific page on Special:WhatLinksHere (and transclusion, for templates)". Once activated, under "Preferences - gadgets", a "count" link is added in the "What links here" pane at the top of the Special:WhatLinksHere page. Just click that link to see the total. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:06, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Eugen Karl Kempf[edit]

I just found out Tuesday that our ostracod editor Eugen Karl Kempf passed away in 2017, one day after his 85th birthday. Wikidata did not have this information, I have updated his author page. Neferkheperre (talk) 22:36, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the information. Professor Kempf started editing Wikispecies in May 2011, and soon became a very experienced user. In total he contributed with well over 8,000 edits. More than 2,400 of those were new pages, and he created his last Wikispecies page only one month before he sadly passed away. Best regards, Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 18:18, 2 May 2019 (UTC).

Mammalia[edit]

heirarchy

Cloud forest (talk) 10:55, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Thank you[edit]

heirarchy

Cloud forest (talk) 07:19, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

@Cloud forest: Why have you posted this here? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:29, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
I rollebacked some of the edits because they aren't clear what this user is trying to convey. We might need to temporarily block this individual until we figure out what's going on. OhanaUnitedTalk page 02:05, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
Agreed. I have made an indefinite block, with an explanation at User talk:Cloud forest#Blocked. Any admin should feel free to unblock User:Cloud forest as soon as, but only if, the conditions there are met. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:39, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
Agree with block, whilst we seek explanation. I also do not get what the user is trying to accomplish. This is nothing but a list of names, I am not sure where they come from, ie the ref source, or what is being proposed with them. I did not check how different they are from current arrangements here. I would like to see explanations of where this is going from the user prior to any changes. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 18:00, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

LUCA[edit]

heirarchy

Prokaryota

Eukaryota

Is there a solution? Thank you. Cloud forest (talk) 16:41, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

To what? Andyboorman (talk) 19:44, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Adansonia, the (triple) journal[edit]

Right now, Adansonia the journal is only connected to ISSN 1280-8571. However, the IPNI data for that journal is... a bit of a mess that covers three, maybe four (!!!) distinct ISSNs. I have reformatted the current entry at ISSN 1280-8571 in a somewhat temporary fashion, but I suspect a proper Adansonia (journal) disambiguation page will have to be linked from Adansonia instead of a specific ISSN... Circeus (talk) 05:32, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Indian Lepidoptera types[edit]

This new work may be of interest:

Help confirming the identity of the two "missing" authors (one also named as Suresh Kr. Shah,) would be appreciated, please. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:09, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Shah is probably Suresh Kumar Shah ([1]). Sheela is more complicated. The S. initial is most likely a patronymic (Sheela is a female given name), the long form of which is often hard to dig up. Circeus (talk) 11:25, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
Could Sheela be the Saroj Sheela of AntWiki? Circeus (talk) 11:32, 2 May 2019 (UTC) I see you arrived at the same conclusion. I didn't even think of checking against her publications even though I'd opened that file at the ZSI site XD. Circeus (talk) 11:33, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. All resolved, now. *mutters darkly about ORCID iDs* Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:48, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Which Taylor?[edit]

Does anyone know the full name of "F.H. Taylor", author of Cydistomyia and other Horse-flies? None of the authors currently listed on the Taylor disambiguation page seems to fit. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 18:46, 2 May 2019 (UTC).

Taylor, Frank Henry (1886-1945)? See [2], [3] (different date of death), and Q55073137. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:27, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
Thank you! Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 21:32, 2 May 2019 (UTC).
Most contemporaneous newspapers and scientific journals states December 20, 1945 as the date of his death. See the newly created Frank Henry Taylor page for references. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 22:41, 2 May 2019 (UTC).

Common names (pages)[edit]

Is Wikispecies going to create pages for the common names, or is it Wikipedias matter?93.242.241.111 20:15, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

No WS will not make separate pages for common names, as it is a site for taxonomy and classification only. However, there is a vernacular name section on the taxon pages, if required. Andyboorman (talk) 20:30, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, to hear that.93.242.241.111 11:45, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Merge of double authority pages[edit]

While sorting the authority pages for their surname during the last days, I found many double pages for the same authority. I have put the pages concerning zoologists into Category:Pages to merge. Any help with checking and merging is appreciated. Kind regards, --Thiotrix (talk) 07:43, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

After merging, please remember to merge the related Wikidata items (see d:Help:Merge), or at least let someone here know that that needs doing Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:49, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

BibForm[edit]

{{BibForm}} is marked as "long since deprecated", yet has 868 transclusions. Are there any plans to remove it? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:14, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

It's less than that: it's only directly transcluded on reference pages.
For context (since I assume very few people have used it), this template is mostly a roundabout way to auto-create the {{aut}} formatting and the link to the template page. It has a companion {{BibForm1}} that can generate the "find all Wikispecies pages which cite this reference" link. Circeus (talk) 15:17, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
{{BibForm}} is currently used by a total of 145 reference templates and {{BibForm1}} by 148. In my opinion using the two templates together is counterintuitive, and also quite often the backlinks created by them are malformed or otherwise rendered in a non-standard way. Give me a few days and I will have emptied them both, replacing them with the standard Wikispecies format. Simply using {{subst:Reftemp}} directly in every reference template is a lot easier and more convenient, since it creates all backlinks and automatically adds them to Category:Reference templates.
Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 13:21, 17 May 2019 (UTC).

Template:Author[edit]

{{Author}} (created by our no-longer-active colleague User:AryamanA in 2015) has just 290 transclusions; and simply applies the author category to taxon pages; it seems it can simply be subst: like this.

Applying the category in a template in this manner makes it invisible to HotCat, so it cannot be easily changed if the category is renamed or a duplicate category merged.

Could someone run a bot to subst: all instances, so the template can then be deleted? Would anyone object to this? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:26, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Reference template[edit]

We have an agreement how to create a reference template. I see now persons who making reference template not after the agreements. See Template:Andrews,RC, 1908 PeterR (talk) 12:11, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Peter, this kind of public callout is entirely unwarranted when it's quite obviously a copy-paste error when creating the template. Circeus (talk) 15:26, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
Thanks Circeus. I hope that this copy-paste error is over now PeterR (talk) 07:50, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Eponyms[edit]

I have created {{Eponyms}} and {{Eponyms by person}}, and am using them as I migrate categories from "Patronyms of..." to "Eponyms of...".

For example, see this category page and this author page.

Feel free to join in. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:33, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Good idea. Using "patronyms" creates linguistic conflict with East and South Slavs. In those cultures, patronymic refers to one's middle name and means 'son of' or 'daughter of'. It is referred to as such on Russian passports. Eponym will remove confusion.Neferkheperre (talk) 22:53, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
@Neferkheperre: I agree. Also, "patronym" (and of course "matronym") are gender specific terms, whereas "eponym" isn't. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 03:42, 16 May 2019 (UTC).
Very well done. From there I also learnt to use the gadget cat-a-lot. Thanks.--Hector Bottai (talk) 22:09, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
@Pigsonthewing: Good initiative Andy! I went ahead and created the {{Eponymy}} sister template which works in the same way as {{Eponyms}}, except for the wording. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 03:42, 16 May 2019 (UTC).
Why? How does having two templates for the same purpose help us? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:35, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
While some people may prefer one wording, I agree there is no justification for using two different section titles, and even less for using two different templates! Circeus (talk) 19:47, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
My reason for creating it was the one mentioned by Circeus: some people prefer using "eponymy" instead of "eponyms", just as they may prefer "synonymy" over "synonyms". Then I realised that since we don't have a {{Synonymy}} template to accommodate that user preference, we might as well skip the {{Eponymy}} one as well. Hence it's now deleted. Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 13:57, 17 May 2019 (UTC).
If we can't have variant citation styles, then we sure as hell aren't going to have this sort of pointless variation. Circeus (talk) 20:26, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

On archaea[edit]

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-01496-wJustin (koavf)TCM 20:55, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Alyssum[edit]

I have been updating the above genus and below is lift from the Discussion Page.

The traditional sectional circumscription (Dudley, 1964) is not supported by either morphological or molecular evidence and should be removed pending further research Li et al. (2015) & Sˇpaniel et al. (2015). This is particularly important due to the many new nomenclatural combinations, mainly in the re-established Odontarrhena (77), but also Meniocus (6) and the monotypic Resetnikia gen. nov.. Andyboorman (talk) 09:05, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

In addition, Rešetnik et al. (2013) has found that although there are some morphological synapomorphies distinguishing A. sect. Alyssum, A. sect. Gamosepalum and A. sect. Psilonema, none of the sections are monophyletic. The sections are of minor importance in understanding lineages, relationships and taxonomy within Alyssum s.str. and will be removed unless there are reasoned arguments for their retention.

Comments before I go ahead with my proposal. Andyboorman (talk) 15:15, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Talk pages consultation: Phase 2[edit]

Category:New genus-group name 2014[edit]

A few years ago we have desided to cancel Category:new genus-group name etc. I see a lot of these categories on the pages. When is these transaction finished? PeterR (talk) 08:33, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

A list of these can be seen at Category:Names. I can depopulate and delete them if there is consensus to do so. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:33, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
Andy. there a lot more Categories: new genus; new species etc. All these can be delete. PeterR (talk) 15:12, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
@PeterR: No, there are no categories named Categories:New genus or Categories:New species etc. Which others have you found, except for the ones that are listed in Category:Names?
@Pigsonthewing: Andy, I agree with PeterR. All of those Category:New genus-group name 1817 (...1827, 1837, 1916, etc...) categories should be deleted, as we decided several years ago.
Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 02:39, 21 May 2019 (UTC).
I've emptied and deleted all those that were in Category:Names, but found a bunch more under Category:New genus group names. I'll work my way through them when I have time. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:43, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
Please give link to conversation where this was decided years ago. Neferkheperre (talk) 14:43, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
I found one, but no consensus reached. Burmeister (talk) 14:53, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
Oh yes, I remember that now. looks like most people were either neutral or hinging in favor at the time (I know I wasn't strongly opposed, my main concern was that the two codes work priority in very different ways). Most of the debate was focused on what structure to give the category tree. Circeus (talk) 15:24, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Other superfluous categories[edit]

I'm spotting a bunch of unneeded stuff, much of it leftover from Stephen's unilateral work. I remember trying to do work on the higher categories years ago, buuuuuuuut getting talk about this stuff is almost impossible and I was not confident enough to just boldly berserk my way through it until people started complaining.

Circeus (talk) 15:24, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

category:Original combination/Subsequent combination may be of some use to botanists; category:Primary types exactly duplicates information in our Repository categories, and primary type information, including catalog numbers where known, should be listed in Name section of taxon pages. Yes, any subspecies categories should be merged into species-group categories, to make consistent with genus-group and family group categories.
Valid names categories are nothing more than lists of taxon pages, and of little use. Invalid names categories sound of more use to botanists. I can see some use for some of the name status categories for special purposes, such as Conserved Names, nomen nuda. Gender mismatches are not much issue at all, and incorrect spellings are usually typos, and are sufficiently noted attached to reference citations. Neferkheperre (talk) 20:26, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
Except even without having looked at them I'm 80% sure the "invalid names" are all really in the ICZN sense, i.e. just synonyms that shouldn't even have pages. Circeus (talk) 02:46, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
category:Original combination/Subsequent combination is not useful to botanists, as it uses the wrong terminology. "Basionym" is the correct botanical term for "original combination". --Franz Xaver (talk) 13:16, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Procedures[edit]

Since only thing which seems to be agreed upon so far is that no definite agreement was ever reached, think maybe we can stop removing entries until we do reach one? If we do agree to keep them, we will have to put them all back. Seems kind of unilateral. Neferkheperre (talk) 12:42, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Not sure you have got that one right. There seems to be agreement here and in the past that most, if not all, of these categories are not required, superfluous and so on ...Their removal will certainly not produce a Wikispecies Lite, I feel. Andyboorman (talk) 17:58, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Don't delete please[edit]

Some users here are all too zealous to go ahead and delete categories en masse. I suggest cooling down a little before starting to delete. Especially please don't delete the following categories:

I gave the reasons for their existence several times in detail and I'm tired of repeating my claims again and again. Just be more considerate and wait to reach a consensus before starting any harsh action. Mariusm (talk) 17:50, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

"Some users here are all too zealous to go ahead and delete categories en masse. I suggest cooling down a little before starting to delete." Really, Mariusm? I acted in good faith on a request made by an editor in good standing, who reported that consensus had already been reached, only after waiting three days to see whether there were any ojections (as can be seen above, there were none in that time), and for another editor in good standing, whoa also reported prior consensus, to second the request. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:11, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
Mariusm, all the times you "gave the reasons for their existence" that I can locate are you arguing alone vs. everyone else involved in the conversation and the only reason people haven't done anything is that literally tens of thousands of pages are involved and they preferred to add content. Believe me, I would have felt no remorse whatsoever rampaging through it all with AWB, but I'm lazy. Circeus (talk) 19:47, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Link formatting in reference templates[edit]

Is there any reason that links in reference templates (for example {{Nonveiller, 1996}}) are marked up as:

[http://species.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:Nonveiller,_1996 reference page]
[http://species.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:{{BASEPAGENAMEE}} find all Wikispecies pages which cite this reference]

which renders as:

reference page
find all Wikispecies pages which cite this reference

and not as:

[[Template:Nonveiller, 1996|reference page]]
[[Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:{{BASEPAGENAMEE}}|find all Wikispecies pages which cite this reference]]

which renders as:

reference page
find all Wikispecies pages which cite this reference

The former including the "external link" icon, the latter not? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:09, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Because {{subst:reftemp}} appears to be programmed that way. Neferkheperre (talk) 15:34, 22 May 2019 (UTC)