Wikispecies:Village Pump

From Wikispecies
(Redirected from Wikispecies:Village pump)
Jump to: navigation, search

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.

Note: 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: Czech - česky · Finnish - Suomi · French - Français · Hungarian - Magyar · Korean - 한국어 · Russian - Русский · Ukrainian - Українська · Hindi - हिन्दी · Nepali - नेपाली
Post a comment
if you use the title box, you don't need to put a title in the body
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 - -)


Wikimania 2016: call for proposals is open![edit]

Dear Wikispecies users,
the call for proposals for Wikimania 2016 is open! All the members of the Wikimedia projects, researchers and observers are invited to propose a critical issue to be included in the programme of the conference, which will be held in Italy, in Esino Lario, from June 21 to 28.
Through this call we only accept what we call critical issues, i.e. proposals aiming at presenting problems, possible solutions and critical analysis about Wikimedia projects and activities in 18 minutes. These proposals do not need to target newbies, and they can assume attendees to already have a background knowledge on a topic (community, tech, outreach, policies...).
To submit a presentation, please refer to the Submissions page on the Wikimania 2016 website. Deadline for submitting proposals is 7th January 2016 and the selection of these proposals will be through a blind peer-reviewed process. Looking forward to your proposals. --Yiyi (talk) 09:11, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

The deadline for the call for proposals for Wikimania 2016 has been moved on 17th January 2016, so you have 10 days to submit you proposal(s). To submit a presentation, please refer to the Submissions page on the Wikimania 2016 website. --Yiyi (talk) 09:38, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Discussion for Distinguished Author of main page[edit]

As we can see we need to update Distinguished Author time to time. lets make the specific time to change it. we can make template as like of Species of the month and change it through template after discussion you can see the example here. we can make the Category of the Distinguished Author‎ and a page of collection of the Distinguished Author‎ like Wikispecies:Species of the month and make the task easy.-BRPever (talk) 11:05, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Agree, good idea, go ahead! - MPF (talk) 11:50, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
Yes, that is a good idea. I suggest we aim for changing the "Species of the month" template at or around the shift of every month, and rotate the "Distinguished author" at about the 15th every month. That way the main page will change more frequently, making it more interesting to the occasional visitor. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 19:42, 21 December 2015 (UTC).
Thank you for accepting my proposal.-BRPever (talk) 00:47, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

VisualEditor News #6—2015[edit]

Elitre (WMF), 00:06, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

List of viruses[edit]

Happy New Year 2016!
I'd suggest to delete List of viruses. It is outdated and doesn't contain any information, that couldn't be found in Virus. Opinions? --Murma174 (talk) 12:23, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

I fully agree. Lists like those might be suitable for Wikipedia, but not here at Wikispecies. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 19:48, 1 January 2016 (UTC). PS. Happy New Year! –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 00:46, 2 January 2016 (UTC).
O.K. Deleted. --Murma174 (talk) 09:14, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

New formatting templates[edit]

I have created a couple of new formatting templates, namely {{fam}} and {{famlast}}. They are intended for listing familiae in the Taxonavigation section, and work in the same way as the {{sp}} and {{g}} templates (used for listing species and genera, respectively, together with {{splast}} and {{glast}}). Use them if you like. Please note that {{subfam}} and {{subfamlast}} templates for listing subfamiliae are already since long available.

Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 18:06, 4 January 2016 (UTC).

Thank you, that's helpful. --Murma174 (talk) 18:24, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
Agreed very helpful, thanks Andyboorman (talk) 20:41, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Now {{ordo}} and {{ordolast}} templates are available as well, intended for ordines. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 22:00, 9 January 2016 (UTC).

Author names[edit]

Who can help me with the full author names for R. Vergely and P. Willien. Both French entomologists. PeterR (talk) 18:40, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Can we get a few publication references to get the sleuthing started? Circeus (talk) 06:26, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
I only found this reference, but no author information. --Murma174 (talk) 09:09, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
They have described Parnassius mnemosyne rencurelensis as a new subspecies in Entomops, 1972, 4(26): 37-38. PeterR (talk) 09:15, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
I haven't found anything regarding "R. Vergely", but "P. Willien" is probably Pierre Willien, French entomologist specialised in Erebia and Parnassius. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 20:36, 9 January 2016 (UTC).
Thanks, but have someone connection with french wikipedia to find out? PeterR (talk) 21:39, 11 January 2016 (UTC)


Do we have a policy regarding cultivars? I added one to Agapanthus africanus. Does it go beyond the scope of Wikispecies? --Murma174 (talk) 19:12, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

As far as I know, cultivars are not taxonomic entities per se. Plus they're regulated by an entirely separate nomenclatural code. My instinct is to say they don't belong any more than dog breeds do unless they have a name under the ICN. Circeus (talk) 06:04, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
It can be argued that cultivars can be a taxon - culton, but that is stretching things somewhat. They are regulated by the International Code of Nomenclature for Cultivated Plants (ICNCP) and their names will not appear in IPNI or any source that deals with the taxonomy, classification or nomenclature of naturally occurring plants. In addition, many cultivar names now have the status of "trade names" and patents and have their own registrations - International Cultivar Registration Authorities (ICRAs). It is a vexed area, as there is considerable money to be made and the breeder of a cultivar has intellectual property rights. There is also a mass of names that arise over tiny differences. An area fraught with problems that is best left to the RHS and other sites. I always assume that WS deals with natural combinations whether varieties or nothospecies/genera. Andyboorman (talk) 17:14, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
I don't think we have an actual policy regarding cultivars (though we should!) however the matter is on the table quite frequently. Personally I think that cultivars (and breeds) are very much out of scope of Wikispecies, and fully agree with Andyboormans' view. Taxon ranks such as varietas and forma are of course okay though, however only in botany. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 20:30, 11 January 2016 (UTC).
Good arguments, Andyboorman. I reverted my edits. --Murma174 (talk) 20:48, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
+1 for excluding cultivars. As an aside, also try to avoid using photos of cultivars to illustrate WS pages, as they are not typical of the taxon involved (including often being of hybrid origin, or [as in the case of Agapanthus africanus[1]] very commonly misidentified); best, where available on Commons, to use photos taken of the taxon in its native environment. Sadly, Commons doesn't appear to have a reliable image of Agapanthus africanus at all. - MPF (talk) 10:35, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
I am happy with that. Cultivars should be excluded. Personally, I feel some reservation against ornamental plants in general. (1) The demand for ornamental plants is one of the more important drivers of the introduction of organisms, that later turn out to be invasive. (2) Ornamentals distract attention from the "wild" nature. That's maybe the reason, that Commons has masses of photos of ornamentals, but often only few from wild plants. By the way, it can be a problem for the public acceptance of nature conservation, when people in their mind draw a line between valuable and usefull "nature" (i.e. gardens, cultivated fields) and worthless (or even dangerous) "wild" nature. Anyway, there is no such sharp dividing line. --Franz Xaver (talk) 11:07, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
"By the way, ... and worthless (or even dangerous) "wild" nature" — I'd say it's the reverse, at least for many people (me included!), that wild = valuable and cultivated = worthless ;-) That's why there are so few photos of wild plants on Commons, they are valuable photos which cost a lot of money to take, so not many people are willing to release them with a CC license. - MPF (talk) 11:41, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
Perceptions are different. What I meant can be illustrated by two sentences from an Austrian politician, expressed during discussions resulting in en:Occupation of the Hainburger Au and finally in establishment of the en:Danube-Auen National Park. The president of the federation of the trade unions in 1984 said [2]: "Der Auwald ist kein Wald, sondern ein Wildwuchs. Wenn wir ihn wegreißen, werden wir das begrünen und neu pflanzen, dann wird das Bild schöner sein." This can be translated as "The floodplain forest is no forest, but uncontrolled growth. When we rip it off, we will revegetate and replant it, then the view will be more beautiful." --Franz Xaver (talk) 14:00, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
Which is more beautiful: a wild patch of forest or a highly manicured Japanese garden? Considering the aesthetic values the answer is obvious, but would you trade the one for the other? For this the answer should be no. Cultivars have a place as long as they don't displace the wild varieties. What I'm concerned about is when cultivars aren't produced by means of selection or hybridization but by genetic engineering. Mariusm (talk) 06:51, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
I do not have a problem with gardens and cultivars as long as they support biodiversity as well as aesthetics! But I am also a fan of Japanese gardens. Andyboorman (talk) 11:50, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
Doesn't make much difference how cultivars are created (selection, hybridisation, or GM) but they are – by being mass-produced identical clones – the antithesis of biodiversity. You could instead call them bio-uniformity or biomonotony ;-) - MPF (talk) 23:19, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
Selection and hybridization are natural processes as well as breeders' tools. They unfold naturally in response to environmental conditions or stresses — albeit over much longer periods. On the other hand GM entails inserting selected foreign genes, even an insect gene into a plant genome — a process which can never occur naturally. That's why we must consider the two methods in different terms. Mariusm (talk) 08:47, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

How to create a page with title "Weed"?[edit]

Because I found a second author name which has in part the name "Weed" I tried to create a disambig page with subject "Weed", and failed. I could only choose Henry Weed Fowler but could not create a page Weed. So I included the word in two brackets in a test page and learned, that I do not have permission to create this page, because it was deleted once, in case of vandalism. Well, I think it would be good now, to have it as a disambig page to choose between Henry Weed Fowler and Walter Harvey Weed, III..--Haps (talk) 10:01, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

As far as I see, it was not only deleted, but moreover Thorpe has protected indefinitly the empty page. Probably, someone should remove the protection? --Franz Xaver (talk) 10:07, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
@Haps: Hi Haps, I changed the protection status one step down from 'admins only' to 'registered users'. You should be able now to create the page. --Murma174 (talk) 11:57, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
All right, it worked! Thanks Murma174--Haps (talk) 12:20, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
Problems could have originally happened from vandalism. "Weed" is US colloquial term for marijuana in very common use now. Neferkheperre (talk) 14:01, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for your information, Neferkheperre. In case of vandalism we can protect it again. --Murma174 (talk) 15:04, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

I have moved the "Walter Weed" page to Walter Harvey Weed, III (without the full stop at the end). Do we have any more information regarding him, like nationality, years of birth and death, and such? Or at least some authored taxa. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 07:07, 20 January 2016 (UTC).

Wikidata & GLAM 'down under'[edit]

In February, I'm undertaking a three-week tour of Australia, giving talks about Wikidata, and Wikipedia's GLAM collaborations. Do join us if you can, and please invite your Wikimedia, OpenData, GLAM or OpenStreetMap contacts in Australia to come along. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:37, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

The tour has now been extended to Indonesia. I'll be in Jakarta from 25-28 Feb. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:52, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
Sounds great! I wont be joining in from Sweden though... :-) Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 10:17, 26 January 2016 (UTC).
I'd be happy to come and give a talk there, too... Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:00, 26 January 2016 (UTC)


Like spoiled dinner, User @ has returned, vandalising several taxon pages with drivel and reverting legitimate edits. @Tommy Kronkvist: had blocked it last September for 1 week. When I got wind of it, its edits had been reverted by sysops. I resumed block for 30 days. This one appears to be incorrigible, as this at least second time. Neferkheperre (talk) 19:05, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, @Neferkheperre: I took the liberty of extending the block to three months, since we really don't need those kinds of edits here… –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 05:48, 23 January 2016 (UTC).

Malfunctioning Edit button[edit]

Could someone please have a second look at Saccharomyces cerevisiae ?
The Edit button (right of the headlines) looks strange and doesn't work (for me). --Murma174 (talk) 17:45, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

I noticed some days ago the same phenomenon in other pages: The edit button for the sections within the page looked strange. In this case now, it disappeared for me after having saved the complete page without having done any changes. --Franz Xaver (talk) 18:31, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
Yes, it's OK now. Danke! --Murma174 (talk) 18:43, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Armenian language code[edit]

Hello, The hy code for Armenian just gives a series of squares, anybody have a clue how to fix this? ThanksAndyboorman (talk) 15:49, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

@Andyboorman: Install (on your device) the relevant font. See: en:Help:Multilingual support#Armenian. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:37, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
Thanks good to know it was me! Andyboorman (talk) 19:00, 28 January 2016 (UTC)


The modern classification of this family is based upon a clade based approach down to the genera (Legume Phylogeny Research Group, 2013),which does not fit with the traditional tribal Linnean classification found on WS. The Legumes of the World does offer a taxonomic approach on their site, which attempts to merge classical and phylogenetic approaches, but this is a work in progress in some areas. Differences between LPRG, LOWO and WS occur at the tribal and sub-tribal levels. GRIN is out of date (last updates 2003) and should not really be followed. I suggest we follow Legumes of the World on WS. Comments and advice please, as the current WS classification below the well accepted subfamilies seems a mess particularly for Faboideae a name we ought retain over Papilionoideae, IMO. Andyboorman (talk) 09:22, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Actually, at the moment any formal suprageneric classification in the Fabaceae is only possible, when a lot of paraphyletic and polyphyletic taxa is accepted. Many taxa that would be required for a formal classification following recent phylogenetic knowledge still are awaiting description/establishment. Moreover, also circumscription of some important genera, as Caesalpinia and Bauhinia, is in a state of change. As I understand the Kew classification, it perpetuates existing older non-phylogenetic classifications. OK, so far. Anyway, in my opinion the only possiblity we have is to follow the Kew classification, as long as there does not exist any better one. One point that is in favor of the Kew classification is the fact, that many (sub)recent publications are cited with each suprageneric taxon.
Anyway, in the long run, Caesalpinioideae certainly will be split up. Its general acceptance at the moment is only with reservations, as it certainly is paraphyletic. --Franz Xaver (talk) 11:01, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
My thoughts exactly. We have the same problem with suprageneric classification of Apiaceae - work in progress as well. Andyboorman (talk) 14:56, 29 January 2016 (UTC)


Self-advertising of User:Simonny. I think this page should be deleted (including d:Q21447464).--Succu (talk) 12:47, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done OhanaUnitedTalk page 07:17, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
@Succu: In the future, please use the {{Delete}} template for deletion requests. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 09:04, 31 January 2016 (UTC).


What to do with this? Wrong language? What is it about? --Succu (talk) 19:08, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Someone's test page; no WS-relevant content. I've deleted it. - MPF (talk) 21:02, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Patrolling activity[edit]


Sometimes theres quite a large number of pages that needs patrolling, but only a limited number of users who patrol those edited files.

Created files and edits by IP-addresses and users who have not yet been given autopatrolled user rights, need to be patrolled and checked that they follow Wikispecies rules and standards.

Those files have a red ! in front of them on the list at Special:RecentChanges.

At the bottom right corner those files have a link, [Mark as patrolled], which if the file is correct, can be clicked by an Admin or Patroller so the file gets patrolled.

The easiest and fastest way of patrolling a number if files is through the RTRC extension. To the left, under "Tools" you find the link to RTRC. After clicking that link a new window will open, where you easily can configure your patrolling. Just check the box "unpatrolled only" and click the blue button "apply". The unpatrolled files will now show in a list where you can click each one and if the edit was correct, click "mark as patrolled", and that file will disappear from the list.

Please consider carrying out daily patrols of new pages and edits made by users who are not autopatrolled.

Not yet a Patroller?[edit]

Theres always a need of patrolling files edited by unregistered users, and if you think you have a good understanding of Wikispecies policies and guidelines and want to help out with patrolling, you can request patrol rights at Patroller.

Dan Koehl (talk) 21:32, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing this up. Together with about a handful of other users I try to help out, but it would certainly be welcome if more users did some patrolling as well. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 00:46, 9 February 2016 (UTC).
Thanks to Cgt on Danish Wp, we can now see statistics on patrolling: Dan Koehl (talk) 19:27, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
Please note that the patrolling stats URL has now changed from the da:WP user Cgt's personal web page (listed above) to a URL within the Wikimedia project itself, more specifically at Wikimedia Tool Labs. Since there is a redirect in place the old URL still works, but that might soon change. Hence, please update all instances of the old URL you guys might have added to templates or user pages etc. Best regards, Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 08:21, 17 March 2016 (UTC).
The old URL no longer works without a proper SSL certificate. Please use the Wikimedia Tool Labs' URL instead. All the best, Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 08:11, 17 April 2016 (UTC).

Inline en-WP link[edit]

In Zika virus I installed an inline link to Zika Forest (English Wikipedia). One could argue, why not to the French or Russian version? - Keep or delete? --Murma174 (talk) 13:14, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

In my opinion: delete. Wikispecies is not a general encyclopedia, and as far as I'm concerned all inline links to any language version of Wikipedia should be removed, unless served by Wikidata. The exception would be inline Wikipedia links on our help- and policy pages, and Wikimedia Commons related templates. But Wikipedia links on taxon or author pages? No please, not according to me. The scope of Wikispecies is to be a database describing nomenclature and taxonomy, and nothing much else.
I think, you are right, and - up to now - noone was backing inline links to WP. So I deleted the link now. In WPs it is also a no-go to set inline-links from one WP to another WP-version. --Murma174 (talk) 07:41, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

(new topic)

Also, while not strictly forbidden, as far as I know there is no consensus regarding wether to list etymological data at all? The etymology of a taxon name is – with very rare exceptions – never directly related to the nomenclature, taxonomy or systematics, and therefore of doubtful use at Wikispecies.
Again, this is of course my opinion, and as always open for debate. Best regards, Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 10:11, 10 February 2016 (UTC).
While not "officially" permitted, I think that (1) etymology and (2) distribution are two items which should be incorporated in WS. There are already some users who routinely add these items to their pages and I think these two items add a considerable value to WS. As for inline links, I would leave them out. Mariusm (talk) 11:15, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
Etymology can be rather complicated to explain, although sometimes it is a very simple story. Anyway, in order to avoid that longer explanations in whatever language would be neccessary here in WS, in my opinion, etymology should not be included in WS articles. Moreover, it might require some references that go beyond the scope of WS. In this case here, what is titled "etymology", in plant or animal articles probably would be named "type locality". I don't know, if there exists something as "nomenclatural types" in virology?
No, the nomenclature in virology appears a little arbitrary. In several cases the species within a genus just get numbers (Alphapapillomavirus), in some cases the virologists must have smoked (Che8likevirus), a geographical indication (Zika virus) isn't found very often. In most cases the name derives from the host and the impact (Begomovirus). --Murma174 (talk) 17:54, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
Anyway, linking to the respective wikispecies articles, would be easier (by wikidata), if we had articles on localities here at WS. I just had the idea, that possibly it should be good thing to have short articles on (some) place names. Many authors, especially in older times, described a lot of taxa from a more or less restricted area, and often the name of the place (and also state/country borders) have changed since then, i.e. since colonial times. These articles, as I imagine them, would not include a description of that area. However, there would be coordinates, historical and actual place names, a list of authors who attributed (sometimes in error) their species to this place/area, a list of collectors and if possible date/year when they collected in this area, and a list of species who have their type locality in this area/place. Some examples of such places that may deserve such articles: (1) There are many species described by different authors from "Ega", which today is named Tefé (in Amazonian Brazil). (2) The island Phú Quốc, now belonging to Vietnam, but in former times to Cambodia, is the type locality for a number of species. Some erroneous country records for Cambodia are based on the fact that the protoloque presents outdated information - see e.g. protoloque and Flora of Thailand draft of Xantonnea quocensis. Articles on these localities would link both the actual name and (via redirect) the historic name/orthography to the same article. Moreover, such articles should reveal outdated country information given in the protoloque. Opinions? --Franz Xaver (talk) 17:33, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
@Franz Xaver: can you be more specific? What would such locality articles include? Can you give an example of such an article? And what do you refer to when you say "locality"? It can be anything from a country to a mountain to a city to a continent. Mariusm (talk) 05:44, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
@Mariusm: I have given two examples of possible candidates for such articles. It would be about places of smaller size, not country nor continent. As far as I know, such kind of articles does not yet exist. So, I can not point to some examples. --Franz Xaver (talk) 08:42, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Why taxonomic expertise is in decline[edit]

I stumbled upon a lecture made by the Coleoptera renown specialist Ivan Löbl about why the number of taxonomic experts is in decline nowadays and why current taxonomic papers are being authored by groups of several researchers rather than by true experts. Very regrettable. Mariusm (talk) 15:16, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for sharing! –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 16:28, 11 February 2016 (UTC).

On some parrots or parakeets[edit]

There is an incoherence of data. The family assignation to Psittacidae or Psittaculidae is wrongful in some of:

Someone with the bibliography Joseph 2012 cited in Psittacinae and Platycercinae? Bandeira Nunca M C3 A1is.png Sobreira (parlez) 13:52, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

New info: c:Category:Melopsittacus notes that IOC classification 5.3 moved genus Melopsittacus from family Psittacidae to Psittaculidae, but we have to choose.... — The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sobreira (talkcontribs) 13:57, 12 February 2016‎.
IOC recently revised the circumscription of the families in Psittaciformes; Wikispecies has yet to catch up. You can get the up-to-date classification here; please feel free to edit the above and any other Psittaciformes taxa that are still out of date! - MPF (talk) 10:33, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

A.A. Bolov[edit]

Who can help me with the full names from A.A. Bolov. He is a russian entomologist and he described the new species Catoptria kabardinica in Entonudagical Review, Vol. 79, No. 4, 1999, pp. 455-456. and official in Entomologicheskoe Obozrenie, Vol. 78, No. 3, 1999, pp. 67/-673. PeterR (talk) 17:39, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

VisualEditor News #1—2016[edit]

Elitre (WMF), 19:21, 26 February 2016 (UTC)


Biodiversity Heritage Library not working this morning - anyone know if it's temporary problems or something worse? MPF (talk) 10:12, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

About two weeks ago, there were already the same problems. However, BHL had recovered later again. I suppose it is temporary. --Franz Xaver (talk) 10:55, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Also Tropicos and Angiosperm Phylogeny Website are down at the moment. There seems to be a bigger problem with Missouri Botanical Garden. --11:09, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
BHL does go down from time to time, evidently for upgrade and maintenance. ZooBank has been down since 1900 GMT Friday. That is unusual, 24 hours is usually maximum. Neferkheperre (talk) 11:43, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Thanks! BHL working again now ;-) MPF (talk) 13:54, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Wikimania 2016: call for posters, discussions and trainings[edit]

Hi people,
the calls for posters, discussions and trainings for Wikimania 2016 are officially opened, you can find all the relevant links on the conference wiki:

The calls will be closed on March 20.

Posters will be reviewed just to make sure that there aren't things which are too much out of scope. Since we have a whole village we will surely find places to attach them, even if we they will be a lot!

Discussions will be managed by a guiding committee who will work on the wiki to meld all the proposals and suggestions.

Trainings will be reviewed by the programme committee. Please note that we request that each training has at least 3-5 interested attendees in order to be put in the programme.

By the beginning of April we will have a first list of all the accepted proposals.

If you have questions we suggest you to ask them on the discussion pages on wiki, so that everyone will be able to see them (and their answers, of course).

We are looking forward to read your ideas! --Yiyi (talk) 12:43, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Identical Achterberg's?[edit]

Does anyone know whether any of the pages concerning the Dutch entomologists Cornelis van Achterberg, Cees van Achterberg and/or Kees van Achterberg actually refers to the same person, and hence should be merged? (In Dutch, both "Cees" and "Kees" are short versions of "Cornelis".) Neither one of the authors are found in any language version of Wikipedia, so no help there. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 23:15, 5 March 2016 (UTC).

Yes, obviously the same person: zobodat --Murma174 (talk) 23:55, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
Thank you – nice link as well! I'm starting the merge. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 00:14, 6 March 2016 (UTC).
Yes check.svg Done. Thanks also to Neferkheperre, for help during the process. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 00:21, 6 March 2016 (UTC).
I had run across that situation some months ago and planned to fix it. Something side-tracked me, likely my family. Working on something at one time with another can be mind-playing. Worked out perfectly. This person uses all three versions quite interchangeably. Neferkheperre (talk) 00:42, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Identical Rudolf Pinker's?[edit]

As far as I can see, those two articles is about the same person, and can be merged? : Rudolf Pinker and Rudolf Pinker (2). Dan Koehl (talk) 03:28, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done They were identical, even to references. Neferkheperre (talk) 13:40, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Typos and common misspellings on Wikispecies[edit]


None of us are perfect, we are humans and not machines, and therefore, now and then over the years, we have also submitted errors into Wikispecies like typos and misspellings.

I have started to try to remove as many as possible, and warmly greet anyone who would like to join in this project. Only the last night I corrected in over 500 articles.

For the sake of cooperating more effectively, Iv made a lists of common misspellings where we can add errors we find and correct now and then, so we know what to look for next time we hunt errors.

Any comments and suggestions regarding this subject are warmly welcome. Dan Koehl (talk) 22:29, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Great initiative – this should have been done ages ago! I've added a few misspellings to the list. I also took the liberty to rename it List of common misspellings (singular), since that's Wikimedia praxis, and after all it's only one list. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 03:20, 8 March 2016 (UTC).
Thanks for that, glad you liked it! Dan Koehl (talk) 03:46, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
Good one! One comment though, the listing of 'Brasil' as an error for 'Brazil' should perhaps be left out, as Brasil is the correct spelling in its own language. So if Sao Paulo is to be corrected to São Paulo, then instead, Brazil should be corrected to Brasil ;-)
That apart, I'll add a few more common typos to the list over the next few days. MPF (talk) 00:45, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
Now it comes tricky @MPF, Tommy Kronkvist:. I guess citations in another language than English, should have the correct spelling in its own language. But in case of text in English, then the normal spelling in English should be used? So, in that case, Brazil should be kept in English text, and Sao Paulo should be spelled as that? Maybe we need more opinions in this matter, or is there any type of accepted nomenclature rule? Dan Koehl (talk) 01:58, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
I generally favour native spellings over anglicised ones for place names (e.g. Göteborg, Sverige, not Gothenburg, Sweden), but I know not everyone else agrees. — The preceding unsigned comment was added by MPF (talkcontribs) 10:52, 9 March 2016.
I add all the information after original bulletins or books. Sometimes it is only in French, Portugese, German, Italian or an other language. If it is in a language that I can't read (without english summery) I ask for translation. PeterR (talk) 11:00, 9 March 2016 (UTC).
There are some few cases, where I have used both the original spelling in that language and a modern translation in brackets, e.g. Template:Engler, 1876: Lipsiae [Leipzig]. (Actually Lipsiae is not the nominative, which would be Lipsia, but it means in Leipzig. Should I have changed this to nominative?) --Franz Xaver (talk) 15:41, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for your input, @Tommy Kronkvist, MPF, PeterR, Franz Xaver:, personally I agree with PeterR about local spelling, but frankly I don't really have any strong opinion, that's why I ask others. I just want everyone to be happy with the chnges I do, and eventually, if I stumble on a case where we seem to lack a standard norm, I want to bring it to your attention, so we can't think about what we regard is the best solution. OR accept that we don't have a norm.
Meanwhile, I have configured this spellchecking more, now also going into the cleanup project, Im removing all old language links like [[en:some local name in different language]] since they have all been replaced with Wikidata.
Im also replacing structure of Vernaculair names , when they are in one like {{VN |en=bla bla |de=bla bla |hu=bla}}, and I change so they are on different lines like:
|en=bla bla
|de=bla bla
as well as a few other tidy things, hope this is OK with you all.
Soon, after watching this carefully, it may be used as a Bot, presently it has to be watched and analyzed, and Im grateful for any help of carefully watching my changes. BUT if you start feel annoyed by all edits, I can make the edits into "minor edit", just tell me.
Dan Koehl (talk) 03:14, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
I think it starts to look good, but hope everyone will check my changes on the their watched pages.
I change to "minor edit" in order to annoy less, tell me if you want me to change back.
Dan Koehl (talk) 14:22, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
Actually, {{VN |en=bla bla |de=bla bla |hu=bla}} is a lot easier to work with than it is as a lengthy list, it cuts out having to scroll half-way to Australia to get to zh= at the end. I very much prefer it, and always change to it when adding to the VN. Both display the same on the saved page, so there's no real need to enforce one over the other, but I certainly wouldn't like to be required to use the list format. - MPF (talk) 16:53, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for that input @MPF:, I will leave out that edit as for now. Dan Koehl (talk) 22:32, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

One other useful point, not a typo but for language-neutral internationalisation, would be to replace 'male' with ♂, and 'female' with ♀, throughout - could this be added to the "things to do"? - MPF (talk) 17:11, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Come to think of it, could ♂ and ♀ be added to the 'Special characters' drop-down in the edit box? And also a few other useful things like hybrid symbol ×, degrees °, extinct dagger † and ndash –. Thanks! - MPF (talk) 18:45, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
I add the information about male ♂ and female ♀ after the museum. Some people add only the symbols before the Museum. Such as ♂ BMNH.
That is certainly possible, and easy to do, @MPF:. But should we try to get a consensus regarding that before I make a major change, or is it not needed? (maybe a combination would be best: male ♂, and female ♀? Dan Koehl (talk) 22:32, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
Thanks! Adding them to the Special characters drop-down menu shouldn't need consensus; it's just a useful extra that people can ignore if they don't use them (same as for everything else there!) - I'd guess very few people need Ÿ or Ħ but they're still available there :-) Using "male ♂, and female ♀" - could do if you think it's necessary, but I think most people (of the level of education of Wikispecies users!) will be familiar with the symbols. - MPF (talk) 23:16, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

@Dan Koehl: I see that you're deleting, as part of the cleanup, the spaces after Category: Isn't this taking the concept of "cleanup" too far? What possible harm can the space inflict? Anyhow, thanks for your mopping up. Mariusm (talk) 06:29, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

@Mariusm:, that's not really me being so particulair, its part of the inbuilt function in the spellchecking in AutoWikiBrowser. Im not sure of the consequences of putting a space where there shouldn't be one, it may make transfer more difficult to XML and likewise, but I don't have a clue why the AWB team implemented that, or what it can harm. Maybe it isn't harmful at all. Its possible to ask and discuss this here as well as suggest changes. Im happy you enjoy seeing articles getting a check-up, and any suggestions for further corrections are highly appreciated. And of course please tell me, if you see any weird things, cleaning up over 100K articles, for sure makes the eyes a little blind sometimes, so any assistance and correction is great!
Also, feel free to try the AWB yourself, Im happy to share the configuration Im using for this minor project. More hands can do more than one, and more users will come up with more ideas how to optimize the application than one... :)
Dan Koehl (talk) 06:50, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
@Dan Koehl: I understand now. I'd love to help with the AWB but I simply don't have the time to add content (my priority) and also to engage in swabbing the site clean. But please don't hurry. The minor errors can wait another month or two before being cleared out ... Mariusm (talk) 07:48, 14 March 2016 (UTC)


For the more technically interested, there is also a Wikispecies:AutoWikiBrowser/Typos file, which loads into Wikispecies:AutoWikiBrowser, when you click the check-box "Regex typo fixing" in the "options"-tag. This file can be updated as well, but needs more technical interest and at best some insight in en:regular expressions.

Theoretically, also all scientific names could be included, in order to avoid misspellings of species.

These regular expressions find and fix common misspellings and grammatical errors. The primary advantage of RegExTypoFix over other possible spellchecking engines and approaches is accuracy and the return of only one possible replacement. The rules below are developed to give as few false positives as possible. Errors should be encountered only in extremely rare usages or when parsing other languages (though even then if there are too many false positives the expression will be modified). On everyday English, accuracy should hit 100%.

RegExTypoFix is used across diverse sources of text from many languages, the English en:Wikipedia. RegExTypoFix is also used on other en:MediaWiki-based wikis, and derivatives can be leveraged in other software. This leads to a massively tested, well-vetted set of automatic corrections. Even so, due to the great variability of text, RegExTypoFix is not accurate enough to be run without a human checking every proposed correction when running against an encyclopedia such as Wikipedia.

Syntax of the expressions is described in full on the MSDN website, though for the purposes of this page the Well House summary is likely easier to use.

Dan Koehl (talk) 03:46, 8 March 2016 (UTC)


Has anybody got the skills to update the GRIN template to make it and its species/genera lists conform to the new site? Thanks in anticipation Andyboorman (talk) 19:43, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Commons links[edit]

AWB is updating commons to Commons what is the difference? When I have used them there does seem to be no difference. What is the advised style for linking to Wikicommons? commons, Commons, commonscat, Commonscat or any thing different? Thanks Andyboorman (talk) 09:21, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

@Andyboorman: I wanted to comment on this but forgot to do so. It seems that Template:Commons points (after clicking) to Category:Commons resources while Template:Commonscat redirects to Template:Commons category which points (after clicking) at Wikimedia Commons. It should be exactly the other way around!! These two templates should be modified accordingly! As to template capitalization - WS capitalizes automatically any template name you enter. There's no possibility for a template name starting with a small letter. Mariusm (talk) 12:09, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
@Mariusm: Thanks very useful points. Hopefully someone will modify the templates. Andyboorman (talk) 17:18, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
When entering new links to commons, I use "Commonscat", which despite sounding a bit scatological, works fine - MPF (talk) 23:44, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Translate extension for templates[edit]

Hello, I suggest to install the extension Translate to be able to translate the technical Templates (like Template:Delete, Template:Disambig,...) and make Wikispecies more accessible.

To install an extension, we need a concensus. So you can vote below: Yes check.svg Done Extension is installed. Archi38 (talk) 10:37, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Symbol support vote.svg Support[edit]

  1. Archi38 (talk) 10:50, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
    Good idea 2A01:E35:8A47:4690:824:9B24:30A1:CCFF 15:43, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
    Indented as IP can't vote (but they can express their opinions). OhanaUnitedTalk page 05:52, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
  2. A good idea as long as it does not translate the Latin of the combinations. Andyboorman (talk) 20:00, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
  3. Good idea (I was the ip, I forgot to log in) Louis GP gouter (talk) 06:46, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
  4. Mariusm (talk) 15:35, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
  5. Dan Koehl (talk) 20:22, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose[edit]

# Many ref templates include languages other than English. On top of this they include many technical/taxonomic terms and names. All this will make a mess when applying the translation extension. Mariusm (talk) 12:23, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

  1. @Mariusm: I was talking to technical Template (like Template:Delete, Template:Disambig or Template:Editprotected) Archi38 (talk) 15:24, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
    Oh, I see. On these terms I'm in favor. Mariusm (talk) 15:35, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral[edit]

Thank you Archi38 (talk) 10:50, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Query - what options does it have for correcting common translation errors? For example, the Japanese plant name スギ is very often mistranslated in English as "cedar" (an entirely unrelated plant), when it should be translated into English as sugi. I can see it would be a very useful tool if errors like this were correctable by users familiar with them. - MPF (talk) 22:05, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
@MPF: I have no idea. I especially proposed it for translating technical templates. Archi38 (talk) 06:53, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Improper display of species in Virus entries[edit]

I don't think that, as is, {{Sp}}, when used in Virus entries, can be made to display virus names properly. Virus names follow their own format rules. See any of the Virus pages that use the template to see how the initial word of the species name is butchered. I have hand-edited one entry (Comovirus) to the (obvious) proper display. DCDuring (talk) 01:10, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Working on it . . . --Murma174 (talk) 08:21, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done --Murma174 (talk) 20:45, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. I was hoping that there would be another template or a modification of {{Sp}} so I could have copied it and used it at Wiktionary. ~|;-} DCDuring (talk) 17:46, 22 March 2016 (UTC)


Ok, I've been bold and tried to fix Psittaculidae to Psittacoidea through Template:Psittacoidea, but created a Template loop detected. I'm so dizzy now with so many templates and taxonavigation, that I can't tell my left hand from my right hand. I gess the key for all this is that subfamilia platycercinae sends to Psittaculidae, but the daughter tribus platycercini sends to Psittacidae. Someone fresh can help me? I might try again in half an hour, I need a rest. Bandeira Nunca M C3 A1is.png Sobreira (parlez) 10:02, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Template loop fixed. --Murma174 (talk) 10:08, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
As an aside, I'd think best to ditch the superfamilies and subfamilies; just go straight from Psittaciformes to the four families, and from the families to the genera, as IOC does - MPF (talk) 11:01, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks to both: I just wanted to consign the information given elsewhere. I'm now just wanting to refresh the template in Pezoporini. Murma, I've copied and adapted your global user template box from FRR to EN and GL. Bandeira Nunca M C3 A1is.png Sobreira (parlez) 11:05, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

  • (Tonkje jou / Tanke jo), by the way
I'm confused: why Template:Psittaculidae (edit) uses taxonav, but Template:Platycercinae (edit), Template:Platycercini (edit) and Template:Pezoporini (edit) don't? Bandeira Nunca M C3 A1is.png Sobreira (parlez) 11:20, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
The template {{Taxonav|...}} should be used with care, especially within other templates. The standard use should be at Familia level, see description: Template:Taxonav --Murma174 (talk) 12:19, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
More good reason to drop the subfamily and tribe pages altogether! It also often happens that fine detail of classification into tribes like this is disputed between different authors, while the overall classification of genera in families is robust and well supported across all of the research - MPF (talk) 14:56, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Unusual Nomenclature[edit]

If anyone is interested in unusual species names go check here. Some scientists are naming species after pop-stars like Aphonopelma johnnycashi after Johnny Cash, Captia beyonceae after Beyoncé Knowles and Heteropoda davidbowie after the Ziggy Stardust singer. Looks like biologists are not single-minded nerds after all... Mariusm (talk) 10:30, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Pedicularis milosevicii can be added to this overview, named after the former Serbian president - doi: 10.3417/2010132. One more case of a controversial person to be honoured recently. --Franz Xaver (talk) 10:54, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Some funny names also here: Che8likevirus --Murma174 (talk) 11:10, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Stearn's Botanical Latin also has a page or two of weird names - MPF (talk) 13:58, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
@Franz Xaver: Maybe there's a bit of ironic intention regarding Milošević: Pedicularis is in fact a root parasite, deriving its nutrients from other plants—not such a great honor after all... Mariusm (talk) 15:18, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
@Mariusm: Having read the full text of the paper, I did not get the impression that this was meant ironic. To me it seems, that Milošević in some circles has got a reputation of being some sort of Pan-Slavic hero, fighting against national separatism. --Franz Xaver (talk) 18:32, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
@Mariusm:@Franz Xaver: Does that mean that Milošević belongs in the genus Pan? :-) MPF (talk) 00:03, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Save these names for front page on April 1? OhanaUnitedTalk page 06:07, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Annoying wiki-editor quirk[edit]

I wander if anyone is annoyed with the following WS-editor feature: When I edit a section above a blank line, the editor automatically deletes the blank line (especially when I paste some text), forcing me to insert it again and again. Is the wiki-editor so much against blank lines? I think empty lines which separate sections are contributing to the edit clarity. Is there any way to remove this annoying feature, or are empty lines forbidden as a rule? Mariusm (talk) 08:24, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

I also prefer blank lines separating sections. --Murma174 (talk) 15:11, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Technical note regarding HTML line breaks[edit]

HTML5 logo and wordmark.svg

Please note that since September 2012 Wikimedia pages are rendered using HTML5, rather than the deprecated XHTML which was used before. This is also true for all pages at Wikispecies. One of the differences is that closing tags should now be omitted. For instance, when inserting hard line breaks we should use the <br> HTML5 tag, rather than the now invalid <br /> XHTML tag. Thank you. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 11:23, 18 March 2016 (UTC).

I derive my hard breaks from advanced section at top tool bar. Some WikiGeek needs to change that and bring it up to date.Neferkheperre (talk) 12:45, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Dan Koehl as part of his cleanup is changing right now hundreds of <br> and <br/> to <br />. Mariusm (talk) 13:35, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
I've always changed them in the other direction! Never seen the need for the extra space and slash – they seem to be like ritual observances, which slowly grow and become more complex in the belief that they're necessary, even though they aren't. - MPF (talk) 14:47, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Just checked: Both versions of the break are supported by HTML5, so no worry. (see here) Mariusm (talk) 15:42, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
I have noticed that not all articles use a HTML break, as a rule, only in some, and I don't really see the sense in using HTML breaks within articles. The entire idea behind the development of the Wikis, was that people shouldn't have to use any HTML. Why are HTML breaks used at all? Dan Koehl (talk) 10:13, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
Indeed HTML line breaks should not be used in main namespace, however they are necessary in some templates and such. For instance it is used in the {{gbr}} template, and one of the purposes of that template is that it automatically adds a line break, so that no HTML line break is necessary in main namespace (i.e. on taxon pages). –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 14:46, 19 March 2016 (UTC).
On a second note though, if there's a wish to keep the old HTML break as <br>, I have no problem with that, I can remove that part of the AWB configuration. Dan Koehl (talk) 10:13, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
Please do. While most modern web browsers (and the wiki software, as noted by Mariusm above) do interpret <br /> as a line break, strictly speaking it is not a valid tag according to the W3C World Wide Web Consortium HTML5 specification. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 14:46, 19 March 2016 (UTC).
@Tommy Kronkvist, Neferkheperre, Mariusm, MPF: I removed that config, but if you look on the source code for this very page, where we are discussing, you can see what the output is, and when you search for <br /> the page is full of them, while the Mediawiki, the engine behind this wiki, automatically produce the XHTML break, when you press enter for new line. The same goes for the source of the Wikispecies Main page, and this entire Wiki. You will not find a single <br> on the entire Mediawiki/Wikispecies, so I find it strange if that should be the default break, when inserted manually? Dan Koehl (talk) 19:21, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Regarding valid HTML, the The W3C Markup Validation Service provide an online service, and when I run a validation check on Rosa multiflora var. cathayensis on [my edited version] of Rosa multiflora var. cathayensis the <br /> validates, and when I revert my edit, the code validates also. As far as I can see both versions are valid. But the table has to be corrected, the width tag in the table is incorrect when made like align="center", the width should be submitted into the CSS.

Still, I trust you, and accept that XHTML is deprecated and will be replaced by w:Wikipedia:HTML5.

Is there anything more anyone thinks should be corrected, since Im going through thousand of files, and would be happy to reach a stage, where we can let those corrections be made in bot mode?

Dan Koehl (talk) 05:27, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

@Dan Koehl: To be able to make an assessment we need to have the correction list. Can you provide one, or is it too lengthy to list here? Mariusm (talk) 07:39, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
I will be most happy to provide that, give me some hours. Dan Koehl (talk) 08:35, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
Thank you, that will be helpful. By the way, for W3C references regarding HTML5 line breaks, see br.html. The <br> line break tag is a so called "void element" in HTML5. As for all void elements (including <img>) the ending dash character is optional, at best. Please note that the tag for inserting a horizontal ruler is also a void element: hence the (thankfully few) times we use it, we should use <hr>, rather than <hr />.
To complete, void elements also only have a start tag; end tags must not be specified for them. Though in the case at hand that last part is fairly irrelevant, since we never write <br></br> anyway. In contrast, all non-void element must have an end tag, for instance we can't use <td> without ending it with </td>.
Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 09:30, 20 March 2016 (UTC).
But why does the Mediawiki, and Wikispecies website, use <br /> if its not correct? (Dan Koehl (talk) 11:30, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
The reason is that all HTML versions in all browser versions recognize <br /> while only HTML5 recognizes <br>. But either way the wiki software converts each one to the version it chooses for the final webpage, so all this argument is really inconsequential. Mariusm (talk) 11:16, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
It's the other way around, sort of. <br> is valid in all versions of HTML, from HTML version 2.0 up to and including the presently recommended HTML version 5.1 standard. Or in other words, <br> is valid in all versions based on SGML.
However, XHTML (based on XML rather than SGML) only see <br /> as valid, but not <br>. In spite of this XHTML does normally render <br> in the correct way, but strictly speaking it is not a valid XHTML tag. Mariusm is perfectly correct in that the wiki software sorts this out automagically, but since:
  1. Wikimedia pages follow the current W3C recommendation and render pages using HTML5 rather than XHTML, and
  2. the tag <br /> is 50% longer than <br>, I propose we stick with the latter. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 16:12, 20 March 2016 (UTC).
I must agree with Dan Koehl. When you view every single wikipedia/wikispecies page's source you see only <br />. I can't see why we must stick with <br>. Mariusm (talk) 06:25, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
In that case I argue that every instance of <hr> should be changed into <hr /> in order for the code to follow one standard only... More realistically I guess my main point is that ideally the change from <br /> to <br> should be made within the MediaWiki software itself, rather than solely on Wikispecies – however that is not an issue to be discussed here at the Wikispecies' Village Pump. Unfortunately I don't think I have any contact with anyone who programs the actual MediaWiki software, but perhaps @Mariusm: or @Dan Koehl: do? –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 14:56, 22 March 2016 (UTC).
@Tommy Kronkvist: please lets invest our energies in more important issues rather than bickering endlessly in these futile discussions. Is it really necessary to remove spaces before category names for instance as Dan Koehl is doing? Or does it help WP in the least Whether it has this or that BR? I really wonder... I agree with you as long as we put a stop to this arguing. Mariusm (talk) 15:14, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Category names[edit]

I'm not here for the arguing as such, so fine by me Mariusm – let the geeks sort it out. :-) As for category names I don't know whether a leading space does any real harm, but I do know that at least capitalization may in some cases be very important. For instance, using Category:ISSN will be all well and dandy, but using any other combination such as Category:Issn, Category:iSsn or Category:issn will not work at all. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 15:50, 22 March 2016 (UTC).

In cases of common misspellings (maybe category:issn ?) I'd suggest to install redirects rather than correcting them manually. Dan's bot could repair these incorrect links every now and then. --Murma174 (talk) 17:19, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
True, however in case of redirecting categories we can not use the common redirect function by adding #REDIRECT [[:Category:Target category]] to a category page. The reason is that articles added to a "redirected" category doesn't show up in the target category, and this of course prevents proper categorization. Also, since redirected categories do not become "red links", editors won't be aware even when they add an article to a redirected category. Instead we need to use "soft" redirects, but in order for them to work I think we first need to create a {{Category redirect}} template, perhaps like the one at Meta-Wiki. Then we can use the code string {{Category redirect|Target category}} to create a soft redirect to the proper category page. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 18:33, 22 March 2016 (UTC).
Thinking again about it, in case of categories it might be the better solution to leave the redlink to force the editor correcting the link himself. --Murma174 (talk) 18:51, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
@Tommy Kronkvist: To remind ourselves the way a wiki works: For templates and categories names — capital and small letters are treated as different characters EXCEPT FOR THE FIRST LETTER which must always be capital. If the template's or category's first letter isn't capital, the wiki converts it automatically to one. for example the category names "ISSN" and "iSSN" are referring to the same name, but "issn" and "issN" are considered different names.
Leading or trailing spaces don't count, so "ISSN" is treated exactly like "     ISSN     ". That's why I've said that Dan's investing energy in eliminating leading spaces is somewhat unnecessary. Mariusm (talk) 07:10, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
Face-smile.svg Thank you. And of course you're right. For the sake of completion: there is one exception, namely Wiktionary. The initial letter of all Wiktionary category names is (or gets redirected to) a capital letter, just like here or at Wikipedia. However for template names it's the other way around: all Wiktionary template names start with lower caps. They do have a bunch of redirects in place in order for the Wikipedia naming style to work as well, but lower case template names is their canonical form. Apparently this can be set differently for the individual wikis. Tricky stuff this – it sure would be a lot easier if the whole community could stick to a global standard for the naming schemes, at least for the wikis primarily using alphabets (rather than logograms, like kanji or Chinese). –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 11:48, 23 March 2016 (UTC).
I believe what you are discussing is the standard configuration of Wikispecies:AWB . Dan Koehl (talk) 12:58, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Translation rights[edit]

We must decide who can add users to the "translationadmin" group. — The preceding unsigned comment was added by Archi38 (talkcontribs) 10:44, 20 March 2016.

Bureaucrats only[edit]

  1. Only bureaucrats have to change the user rights Archi38 (talk) 10:44, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
  2. the same Louis GP gouter (talk) 15:28, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
  3. Tommy Kronkvist (talkcontribsblockall projects)
  4. MPF (talk)

Bureaucrats and administrators[edit]

Yes check.svg Done vote is closed. Only bureaucrats can add user to the translationadmin group. — The preceding unsigned comment was added by Archi38 (talkcontribs) 09:48, 28 March 2016.

More leftover junk to clear[edit]

Category:Latitude and all its subcategories need a robot to clear all content and then delete them. Anyone with a bot want to take it on? Thanks! - MPF (talk) 19:10, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

I'll sort it out during the next couple of days. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 21:23, 22 March 2016 (UTC).
Excellent, thanks! - MPF (talk) 22:56, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
Seems they are still up, I can fix them. Dan Koehl (talk) 16:36, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done. I did not remove the different categories, yet, since they contain categories like Category:Biota_(Falkland_Islands). Dan Koehl (talk) 17:01, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
Excellent, thanks! - MPF (talk) 20:43, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
I see no reason to keep those, but want to hear others opinion. categories can of course be renamed, if they serve any purpose. Dan Koehl (talk) 17:01, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
Kill 'em all! :-) - MPF (talk) 20:43, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
Agreed never saw the point, but others may disagree. Andyboorman (talk) 08:14, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
OK, I stop delete, until we see what other people think. Dan Koehl (talk) 10:37, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
As far as I see, the question also applies to Category:Biota by region and lastly also to Category:Biota. The idea to manage distribution info by a system of categories, obviousely has not been continued. Seems, there is nobody left, who believes that it could be made operable. In my opinion, there is no value to keep it. This approach, although possibly acceptable in a final stage of implementation, bears some important shortcomings. The most important point is, that on the one hand the biota by region categories hardly ever will show complete lists of the respective biota, on the other hand the categories in the taxon pages also hardly give useful information on distribution, as long as all the relevant categories have not been created. Moreover, the original conception by Thorpe does not distinguish between native and alien occurrences. It even has happened that a category was created for a taxon recorded in error for the respective region – see Category:Nematoceras sulcatum (Macquarie Island). --Franz Xaver (talk) 13:38, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
I'm still hoping to reach a consensus on how to display "Distribution" but these categories are ill-conceived for this purpose. So yes, I'm in favor of getting rid of them. Mariusm (talk) 14:06, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
I am in agreement, remove them, how distribution can be done I am not as yet sure, but categories is not the way. Faendalimas talk 16:49, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
What I have been doing in Cirripedia, is to put "Distribution" line under Name section, using occurrences reported in literature. See Conopea merrilli. This removes most need for distribution categories. Most objections to distribution categories stem from Stho's system. Distribution categories by national boundaries are doomed completely. Natural organisms just don't care. Only applicable distribution categories which would coincide with national boundaries would be isolated areas of high endemism, such as New Zealand, Australia, and Madagascar. Neferkheperre (talk) 18:13, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

A Few Thoughts on Distribution[edit]

As I see it, the best chance of tackling the "Distribution" is by a system similar to the one used by the "Vernacular names" section. A similar template can be constructed which will handle ISO 3166 country 2-letter abbreviations optionally followed by region(s).

The system could be constructed hierarchically:

  1. First level: similar to the "World Geographical Scheme for Recording Plant Distributions", consisting of 9 regions: Europe, Africa, Asia-Temperate, Asia-Tropical, Australasia, Pacific, Northern America, Southern America and Antarctic.
  2. Second and 3rd levels: the coutry/region as mentioned above.

Here's an example to what I mean:


China: Yunnan
India: Southern Bengal

The benefit is that anyone can easily add/remove countries/regions in the same manner they do with the Vernacular names. Mariusm (talk) 10:23, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Here's an example of a species with the distribution section included: Trioceros jacksonii (of course the CSS code will be implemented by an appropriate template). Any comments on how to improve/change/revise/discard this? Mariusm (talk) 06:41, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
I do not mind this, seems fine. One question though, will it get a bit over the top for more cosmopolitan species? Also how would you propose dealing with oceanic species such as sea turtles? Cheers, Faendalimas talk 02:26, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
We can make an additional category for the world major oceans and seas to include the Pacific, Atlantic, Indian, Southern, Arctic, Red sea, Arabian sea, black sea etc. For true cosmopolitan species it can be simply specified "cosmopolitan", otherwise the list can take a certain length as sometimes the "Vernacular names" can and does. Mariusm (talk) 04:22, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
For plants, I prefer to continue using Template:Nadi, as e.g. in Elvasia or Schwartzia. This is based on "World Geographical Scheme for Recording Plant Distributions" and so is more or less in line with the suggestion of Mariusm. In my perception, these grey bars of the new proposal are a bit flashy. However, for animals, "World Geographical Scheme for Recording Plant Distributions" probably is not usable without modifications. (1) How to deal with migratory animals? (2) As said above, marine species need additional thought.
@Mariusm: In your example of Trioceros jacksonii, Hawaii is given as part of "Northern America". However, in the "World Geographical Scheme for Recording Plant Distributions" it belongs to "Pacific", which in my opinion is more appropriate. Anyway, this also raises the question, how to deal with non-native distribution. --Franz Xaver (talk) 07:36, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
@Franz Xaver: Allow me a few remarks on your Nadi template: I gather that for anyone besides you, it would be a hard time to keep with this format. The 2 lines preceding the country-names are somewhat of an overkill. For an average user to find and to type these 2 title lines even before reaching the county-name would represent a task which is difficult and time-consuming. I can't see what's the benefit of the line couplet: "Continental: Southern America"; "Regional: Northern South America" preceding the name "Venezuela" for instance. Are we trying to educate users where Venezuela resides or what? Another thing: for the Genus Elvasia you throw in: "Brazil North, Brazil Northeast, Brazil Southeast, Brazil West-Central". This is way too cumbersome with way too much ambiguity. I'd Prefer something resembling: "Brazil: Amazonas, Para, Mato Grosso". The fact that the distribution section is "in hiding" and needs to be "clicked out" of oblivion is another negative in my view.
I'm having serious doubts on the necessity of including master regional names at all. The best practice would be to enter country-names and oceans/seas-names alphabetically followed with sub-regions like this: Brazil: Amazonas". This would make the simplest and the most inviting way to add data, much the same way we do now with the vernacular names. Mariusm (talk) 10:07, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
Non-native distribution can be important for invasive species, major staple foods etc. so I won't ignore it. It can be simply marked-out by an (N), a different color, bold-lessness atc. Mariusm (talk) 13:55, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
I have created broad categories for part of this: Category:Cosmopolitan Taxa and Category:Invasive species. Cosmopolitan taxa should be thought of as achieving that status naturally, and invasive species for non-intentional hitchhikers. I don't believe taxa of commercial interest purposefully introduced have much value here. Neferkheperre (talk) 18:40, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
Do remember to check Commons to see if there's a map available - if there is (and is reasonably accurate), it's better than any text description of distribution. Can be worth drawing maps too, if there aren't any at Commons. - MPF (talk) 08:52, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
Just testing the ground: shall I take this to a vote? Vote for particular features? Make first a workable template? Mariusm (talk) 15:22, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
@Mariusm: To be correct, I must stress that this is not "my" template. It was created by User:Orchi. I only use it, because I think it makes sense. I don't understand, why you think its usage is more cumbersome than using your proposal – at least when I compare source codes in the respective articles. Anyway, usage of Template:Nadi can be simplified, as I have just done now in Elvasia and Brackenridgea. However, the template follows "World Geographical Scheme for Recording Plant Distributions" and also makes a reference to it. (PDF can be downloaded.) So, the recording units (= "botanical countries") and their hierarchical structure are given. Also, World Checklist of Selected Plant Families follows the same scheme, but instead of full names of regions and "botanical countries" it only uses codes. Anyway, in my opinion it is much better to present the country records in a structured form. It would not be an improvement, if in Brackenridgea all the regional structure would be removed and all country name were arranged alphabetically. --Franz Xaver (talk) 19:09, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
@Franz Xaver: to remind you: not the Nadi template nor its format were ever put to the test of a vote; furthermore, no-one else seem to use your format. You may think it's the best way, and I respect your view, but we must adopt here the easiest and most straightforward way to add data. The proven system which works is the one used with the vernacular names. I think that "Distribution" is a strict necessity for WS as it sure is almost an integral part of every respected species-list, catalog or directory, and it's a pity we didn't include it in our repertoire a long time ago. Your way won't bring many adheres to come along and contribute data. It may be best suited to your needs and inclinations, but we need here something more general, easier, more straightforward. But I need to hear what the other users are thinking on this. Mariusm (talk) 04:25, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
@Mariusm: The main user of the Nadi template is not me but it is Orchi. Yes, of course the Nadi template should also come to a vote. Anyway, in my opinion the distribution data should not at all be added piecemeal to a certain taxon, as this produces several stages of misleading (or at least incomplete) distribution information. I am not happy, if someone just adds a single country (e.g. New Zealand, Spain, Turkey etc.) to all relevant taxa, skipping the rest of the distribution range of these taxa. So, actually to me it seems that the VN section is not a good analogy. If template Nadi discourages some casual editors, who simply want to add some patchy information here and there, this is OK to me. Persons, who are willing to do some investigation on overall distribution of certain taxa or base their edit on distribution data from World Checklist of Selected Plant Families, anyway will have to engage in the "World Geographical Scheme for Recording Plant Distributions". For them, the Nadi template is easy to use. Anyway, there exists a standard system for recording plant distribution, i.e. this "World Geographical Scheme for Recording Plant Distributions". This certainly needs not be adopted also for distribution data of animals, but for plants there is no good reason to apply some free style system, where e.g. Hawaii is part of "Northern America" and not of the "Pacific". --Franz Xaver (talk) 08:52, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
I have just noted that the link to the PDF explaining the "World Geographical Scheme for Recording Plant Distributions", hosted at Natural History Museum until January 2016, does not work any more. Also at the Kew WCSP page the link has not been updated. The PDF exists at Internet Archive: [3] or [4]. As I am not able to update the source code of the Nadi template, please someone, who is able to do so, change the link. Regards --Franz Xaver (talk) 09:12, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Well without wanting to be difficult here. I looked at the Nadi results. It seems a reasonable template also. I get that it is designed for plants and the accepted methods of defining distributions for them. With animals it could be used if that was desired by everyone. I won't deny I (as a taxonomist) tire of the multiple systems we have for plants animals etc, eg ICZN vs ICBN. We classify life it does not need to be that difficult, but I digress. One thought I had on the Nadi system I looked at what it did for Brazil and it showed NE, NW etc rather than specific states. I can see value in the directions as not everyone knows or cares about states, but in animals within countries the states they occur in is often included. I completely concur with @Franz Xaver: on the point of not doing it completely. I would prefer people either do the whole distribution, as best as is possible, or not do it. Half done looks bad, and is not that informative. The point on Hawaii is very true, Hawaii's fauna and flora is related to Pacific forms and is derived from geographic events that are irrelevant to mainland USA, who owns the chunk of land is secondary to the biota. Another point brought up was to use maps when available, this probably should be a preference as they are much easier for people to locate, not everyone can list all the countries in the world and know where they are. But a map usually gives them a rough idea. However, failing a map we need something. One advantage of Nadi also is its already there and being used, I tend to prefer adaptive usage of existing objects rather than doubling up. Just my thoughts on this. Cheers Faendalimas talk 09:30, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
@Faendalimas: you speak of Nadi as if it were a big deal of accomplishment and programming-skill manifestation, which it is not. ALL it does is to collapse the information. The manner of data-representation is up to the user. The user can decide for himself whatever format to adopt. No rules here: just enter whichever text you want in whatever format you wish. While in the VM format you have restrainment on the possibilities: there is a country (or ocean) and there's a region or an area. That imposes a common structure and clarity on the information as a whole. Go ahead and leaf through a few species-catalogs and you'll see noting fancy, just lists of countries and of regions. I am quite certain that 90% of the species are restricted to 5 countries or less. For this we don't need the overhead and the collapse-feature of the Nadi template. Maps would be great, that's certain, but the process of constructing them is difficult and they aren't feasible for the average user. Mariusm (talk) 10:23, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
@Mariusm: I just commented on the results, its not a spectacular piece of programming you are right. I think it is feasible to adapt it to animals is all I was saying. I had already commented on your proposal I figured if this was going to a vote its only fair to look at Nadi also. With maps I said if they are available, ie on the commons, I do not think people should have to make them. Just use them when they are there. I agree with you that a common structure is best for consistency and clarity. Faendalimas talk 11:11, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Preliminary vote on a DISTRIBUTION section[edit]

Crystal Clear action apply.png I'm in favor of a DISTRIBUTION section in the VN template format (Vernacular Names section style).

  1. Mariusm (talk) 11:54, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
  2. Tommy Kronkvist (talkcontribsblockall projects) 09:36, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Crystal Clear action apply.png I'm in favor of a DISTRIBUTION section in the Nadi template format (with the collapse feature).

Crystal Clear action apply.png I'm against a DISTRIBUTION section.

  1. PeterR (talk) 09:11, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Crystal Clear action apply.png None of the above (please include text for another proposal). (Mariusm (talk) 11:57, 6 April 2016 (UTC))

In my opinion, voting at this point seems to be premature. Do we have a common understanding, what are the essential points, where opinions are divided? E.g., the collapse feature in my eyes is not an essential point of the Nadi template. This can be changed easily. However, following "World Geographical Scheme for Recording Plant Distributions" in my opinion is an important point, when plant distribution data are presented. So, we may vote, if this (or some existing alternative?) recording scheme should be followed. Or if the distribution records may use any geographical descriptors in a more free style, and at different levels of precision. If this scheme should apply to plants only or also to animals? We may collect points, where modifications are necessary, in case that the scheme should be applied also to animals. Moreover, we may discuss or vote, if distribution data are presented only for native distribution, or also for naturalised distribution, or even including sub-spontaneous and cultivated occurrences. However, participation in the present discussion has been only by a few persons. So, either people are not aware of the discussion or they are not interested in it. Both is no good foundation for voting. Regards --Franz Xaver (talk) 15:50, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

...see these projects: World Geographical Scheme for Recording Plant Distributions or here Wikipedia:WikiProject Plants/World Geographical Scheme for Recording Plant Distributions and here WGSRPD maps

use Stanhopea and in Commons Stanhopea Orchi (talk) 16:09, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

I am with editors who think that it is too early for a vote on structure for distribution. However, World Geographical Scheme for Recording Plant Distributions is the most common, appropriate and accurate of the available systems for plants even if its live and accessible source keeps changing! However, whether or not distribution information is; "essential", "desirable, but important","desirable, but not important" or "not to be used" has yet to be agreed by consensus or have I missed something? Andyboorman (talk) 18:11, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm obviously outnumbered here by the plant-guys ;) but seriously, I can't see the advantage of grouping "Ivory Coast", "Liberia" and "Nigeria" under "Regional: West Tropical Africa" rather than listing them alphabetically. On the contrary: I see more benefits in terms of ease of use and searchability. Really, we must reach a consensus which will accommodate both the plants-diggers as well as the animal-groomers. We can't have many customary ways of doing Distribution. The fact that some users went ahead and established their way of doing Distribution doesn't mean that they are right or that they represent the community's wish. I would like to see some other opinions. Mariusm (talk) 05:33, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm in favor of a distribution section! This information is essential for me and should normally not be hidden. (Maybe very long distribution sections could be collapsed). If possible, plant distribution should follow "World Geographical Scheme", but a free text info like "Middle Asia, Sibiria, Mongolia, Afghanistan" (as used in Flora Iranica) is useful for the readers, too, and should also be allowed. Alphabetical order of countries is less useful than geographical. Comparing the distribution sections of Stanhopea and Elvasia, I prefer the shorter version of Elvasia, because all the "continental" and "regional" words give no information. --Thiotrix (talk) 07:41, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm against, because it is a lot of work and it is never complete. You have to work after original papers to do this job. PeterR (talk) 09:17, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Ok a few points on this. First up @Mariusm: I agree this is actually an important piece of information to add. However, I also think a vote is premature. It is a complex problem because the data presented should be relevant to the groups of interest. Hence as @Franz Xaver: has argued the plants should follow their recognized system. I do not care at all about the drop downs they are easy to remove, and in general should be. I realize as @PeterR: has mentioned distribution is a significant amount of work, however, I would agree it is essential in what we do here. I believe we should be presenting the information required to describe a valid species as our priority, which we do. However, a distribution is also useful for the creation of fauna/ flora lists for regions. Hence it is something we should add as a means to make Wikispecies a useful product. I said before I wish the plant and animal taxonomists could just get off their high horses and come to an agreed system for both, but it is not our place to do this for them.So any distribution method must meet the interests of both Botany and Zoology and we need to think of a way to do that. I felt the Nadi system could be adapted for Animals, however, its botanical divisions of distributions would be unrecognizable to people who specialize in Zoology. I would imagine the reverse is true also. Remember that in Zoology distribution is divided into Biomes for example eastern Brazil is called Atlantic Forest, The Amazon region is called Amazonas, etc. So we need to figure a way to bring that together. I do not envisage it being easy, and I honestly imagine we would have to adapt an existing template to do it. Maybe this needs a project page of its own for development and then implementation. In the meantime, we have roughly half a million taxa done out of some 7 million?, and that's just Eukaryotas. We still have a lot of work on our primary objective. Cheers, Faendalimas talk 13:20, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

@Faendalimas: I think that the format "Country: Region" will accommodate nicely both parties. I've seen lots of catalogs both for botany and for zoology where the entries go like this: "Helophorus hirsutiventris Angus, 1984: 544 E: AL BH GR A: TR" where E stands for Europe, AL for Albania, A for Asia, TR for TURKEY etc. with a glossary at the start. Can you imagine an avarage user prefacing "Japan" with: "Continental: Asia-Temperate" / "Regional: Eastern Asia"?? Mariusm (talk) 14:01, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Translationadmin group[edit]

Hello, I request to be added at this group cause for the moment, I can't translate technical templates. Thank you. Archi38 (talk) 16:03, 2 April 2016 (UTC)


  • Symbol support vote.svg Support as proposant Archi38 (talk) 16:03, 2 April 2016 (UTC)


Lemyra venosa[edit]

Lemyra venosa and Lemyra (Lemyra) venosa seem to refer to the same subject. If so I think they should be merged. --Ermanon (talk) 10:17, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes, please do! - MPF (talk) 23:51, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
This duplication isn't restricted only to Lemyra venosa but includes about 50 other species of Lemyra as well. The Genus (Subgenus) version of this lot has to be redirected (or deleted). Mariusm (talk) 06:59, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
@PeterR: you created this double naming, can you please handle this? Mariusm (talk) 07:12, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
Done PeterR (talk) 09:38, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Face-smile.svg Thank you Mariusm (talk) 10:47, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Authority and Taxon disambiguation pages, and question on redirects[edit]

The Category:Disambiguation pages contains taxon pages, such as Anax, as well as Authority pages, such as Smith. I think it would be useful to separate the two. I am also aware of at least one case where where an Authority surname is also a taxon name: See Pavlova and Pavlova (authority). Is "(authority)" the preferred suffix in this case?

Secondly, I've come across the redundant categories Category:Paleontologists and Category:Palaeontologists. Does Wikispecies have a soft redirect function that will automatically transfer pages from one to the other in the same fashion as category redirects on Commons? Animalparty (talk) 22:25, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

I strongly recommend using author full-names where possible and eliminate the practice of linking Smiths and Johns. I don't believe we got here something equivalent to Template:Category redirect, but it might be possible to construct one. Mariusm (talk) 12:29, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
True. The equivalent template found at Meta-Wiki might serve as an example. Then we can use the code string {{Category redirect|Target category}} in order to create a soft redirect to the proper category page. Feel free to give it a try; personally I have a bit too much work at the moment, but might get around to it eventually. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 06:21, 15 April 2016 (UTC).

APG IV[edit]

Hello botanists. Just to let you know that APG IV has at last been published March 2016, it is here - doi: 10.1111/boj.12385 as an open access article in line with APG II and APG III. I have created the template {{APG, 2016}} see Asparagales where I have placed its first incidence. I assume that we will be implementing changes soonest or at least as and when. Regards Andyboorman (talk) 14:45, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! Yep, I'd agree with updating to it. Couple of points on the Asparagales page linked; Asphodelaceae is listed twice (once in full size, once in small text in square brackets), and (if I'm reading the abstract right - I've not read the whole thing yet) Xanthorrhoeaceae becomes a synonym of Asphodelaceae. MPF (talk) 09:01, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
The square brackets are the older constituent families pre-APG. They were kept as reference, as the changes were so surprising at the time and not 100% accepted. However, there is little or no disagreement now, so perhaps the square brackets have become redundant and could be seen as "clutter". I propose getting rid of them, if there are no objections. You are right, Asphodelaceae is now going to be substituted as the family name subject to final approval next year by the Nomenclature Section of the XIX International Botanical Congress in Shenzhen, 2017, which will leave Xanthorrhoeaceae as a synonym. A lot of botanists were unhappy that a small very specialist family, Xanthorrhoeaceae, had become the "new" name for the group based on precedence of publication and the Asphodelines are seen as more central to the circumscription of the clade. I am more than happy to do the edits over the next couple of days. Andyboorman (talk) 18:29, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Translating templates for wikisp-cy[edit]

Hi all. Just translated the home page of cy (Welsh); I now need to translate the 'Template:Species of the week' - do I need to add 'cy' after it or just plod on as on Wicipedia? ie does it have wikispace for every language or is it shared? Ah! just like commons! So if I can't create a seperate template, how do I do it? Ah well... Another quicky - where do I translate the navigation buttons please? Just one word remains - 'translation'; very ironic! Llywelyn2000 (talk) 14:59, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Merge request[edit]

(Sorry for not finding an outline of the proper procedure) I think John R. I. Wood and John Richard Ironside Wood are the same person and possibly could be merged here? -- Gymel (talk) 14:00, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Also: João Rodrigues de Mattos and Joáo Rodrigues de Mattos. -- Gymel (talk) 14:18, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Resolved. Duplicate pages now changed to redirect pages, and any links to the new redirect pages corrected accordingly. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 17:48, 16 April 2016 (UTC).
There are three Wikidata items for Wood (Q21516395, Q10538823, Q5933549), and some Wikipedias list both (as red links) on a disambiguation page (e.g ro:J.R.I.Wood (autor)). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:39, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Bot approval[edit]

What's our process for approving bots? I've read Wikispecies:Bots/Requests for approval, where there's an outstanding request (more comments there welcome), but it's not clear on how a request gets moved to trial, or approved, status. @Tommy Kronkvist: for his expertise. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:59, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm afraid we currently don't have any set policy or guideline for this – we do need one though. In any case I've approved KasparBot for a seven day trial period. Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 22:31, 17 April 2016 (UTC).
I don't see any controversy that would arise from it, but it would be better to leave it open for more than a day before moving it to trial period. OhanaUnitedTalk page 03:24, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Data Download[edit]

Hello everyone,

it might be likely that this question came up before, but I could not find an answer:

Is there a possibilty to download the actual phylogenetic data behind the wikispecies project?

I'm aware that you can download the entire wikispecies, which leaves you with a 5GB large file. Converting that is naturally something I'd like to avoid, as I am basically just looking for the core relational data.--Taeping5347 (talk) 11:01, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Proposal to globally ban WayneRay from Wikimedia[edit]

Per Wikimedia's Global bans policy, I'm alerting all communities in which WayneRay participated in that there's a proposal to globally ban his account from all of Wikimedia. Members of the Wikispecies community are welcome in participate in the discussion. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 14:50, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

User:WayneRay wasn't (very) active on Wikispecies --Murma174 (talk) 16:04, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
The user is already indefinitely blocked from the English Wikipedia, Commons, Wikinews, Wikisource, and Wikiquote.(Global account info) Since he has only made a meer (and harmless) two edits to Wikispecies, he is unlikely to get blocked here. That said, I urge the users of Wikispecies to read the global ban proposal (as per Michaeldsuarez, above), and make up their own mind in the matter. Also, some more information can be found at English Wikipedia's the Signpost (a community-written and edited newspaper that covers stories, events, and reports related to the English Wikipedia, its sister projects, the Wikimedia Foundation, and the Wikimedia movement at large). –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 23:05, 18 April 2016 (UTC).
The global ban was passed by consensus. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:56, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Category:Wikispecies articles with authority control information[edit]

Question: Only for authors and for taxa also? Burmanniaceae, Trifolium etc. Orchi (talk) 15:11, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

The more the merrier! Maybe easier for User:T.seppelt to work on people first, taxa later. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:33, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
Since people and taxa are both in the main namespace it technically doesn't make a difference. Decide what you want and I do it. Even though I agree with Andy. - T.seppelt (talk) 04:38, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
...thank you for the comments. By the way: I would prefer "DEFAULTSORT: by surname". Orchi (talk) 15:18, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
I can't see that they serve any useful purpose for taxa; we don't otherwise encourage links to online databases, and these don't appear to be any different. - MPF (talk) 23:15, 25 April 2016 (UTC)


Hello, I started a new request for comment to change the current logo wich looks extremely old compared to other Wikimedia logos. Archi38 (talk) 18:20, 18 April 2016 (UTC)


The U.S. entomologist Paul D. N. Hebert and the Canadian entomologist Paul D.N. Hebert seem to be the same person. -- Gymel (talk) 06:59, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

@Gymel: What makes you think so? @PeterR: You created both; do you have a view? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:29, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
According to the references (including the ones cited at the English Wikipedia) "both" Paul D. N. Hebert and Paul D.N. Hebert are specialists of DNA barcoding. It seems unlikely that they would be different persons. According to the English Wikipedia he is a Canadian (rather than U.S.) biologist within the field of carcinology, but the inline enWP links suggests work within entomology as well. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 11:46, 19 April 2016 (UTC).
@Pigsonthewing: The linked article full texts here associate "them" with (although different or at least differently named) institutes at the University of Guelph: Biodiversity Institute of Ontario (2015) vs. Department of Integrative Biology (2009). -- Gymel (talk) 06:44, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
Thank you. Now merged. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:05, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Also Manden (with three references, are these typos?) is probably Manden., i.e. Ida P. Mandenova. -- Gymel (talk) 07:29, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

I've merged the Manden items, here and on Wikidata. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:17, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Auctor Hablitz or Hablizl[edit]


Maybe different for plants (IPNI) and animals? Maybe use of von (, Maybe a declension in Russian? Why? Which one is correct?

Bandeira Nunca M C3 A1is.png Sobreira (parlez) 12:28, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

As far as I see, he was born in a German-speaking Jewish family. In southern German dialects, probably also in Yiddish, "-l" is a termination for a diminutive. So, I suppose that Hablizl might be kind of a nickname. --Franz Xaver (talk) 13:57, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Are these taxonomists male or female (or other)?[edit]

There are, at the time of writing, 3435 people who have an entry on Wikispecies, but whose Wikidata item does not indicate their sex (or gender). If you can, please add that information to Wikidata. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:40, 19 April 2016 (UTC

I saw a number of them are Chinese scientists. I tackled some of the easier ones and I'll take a look at the rest when things get quieter in June. OhanaUnitedTalk page 05:22, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Useful Wikidata script[edit]

For those of you who also edit Wikidata, or wish to, I recommend the user script at d:User:Yair rand/WikidataInfo.js.

Simply add the code:

mw.loader.load("// rand/WikidataInfo.js&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript"); // Backlink: [[d:User:Yair rand/WikidataInfo.js]]

to your common.js page on this wiki, and it will insert, below a Wikispecies page's title, a link to the corresponding Wikidata item, or a link to create one if none exists. In the former case, it all also add the label and aliases, in your preferred language. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:57, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Great! Thanks a bunch! –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 07:30, 28 April 2016 (UTC).


Apparently I need someone geekier than me. Today I ran across a new taxonomic website JellyWeb, dedicated to 3 jellyfish classes. It has one section for taxonomic links. I have tried to create direct links for individual taxa on Website for taxonomic information on Scyphozoa, Cubozoa and Staurozoa.

  • JellyWeb, which I just created, and have experienced total failure.

I did create

some time ago, which is highly successful, but not so here? Can you check it out, and tell me what is wrong? Neferkheperre (talk) 23:42, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

The above moved from Template:Administrator (!) Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:15, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Use "author, year " as reference link?[edit]

Recently User: Stho002 came to haunt us again using the newly adopted name of User:Bioref. He reintroduced his former practice of linking references to Author, year. See for example Setitachys macrops where the reference section is entirely omitted and instead it is just linked. @Neferkheperre: claims that in some occasions such a link is helpful. Following is the discussion between us on this issue copied moved from the Administrators' Noticeboard. I would like to have the opinions of other users on this.

Do we have some sort of ban on using [[template:Blah, 1593|{{aut|Blah}}, 1593]]? I find it indispensable, especially for synonyms, as it reduces less pertinent citations in References section. See Octolasmis. I noticed something with @Mariusm: on Bioref's talk page. Neferkheperre (talk) 13:14, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

@Neferkheperre: but Bioref uses it to denote the author in the name section and he dispenses with the reference section altogether. He uses this to replace the primary reference for the species! See for example Setitachys macrops. Mariusm (talk) 13:25, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
@Neferkheperre: you say this style reduces citations in References section, but this is done at the cost of clarity and of usability. The ref. is "hidden" until you click it and are thereby removed from the page. This style was never accepted as a practice at WS. I'm for discussing it at the pump. Mariusm (talk) 13:41, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
I do use this style in name section, and ALWAYS put full original reference in References section. For synonyms, two references are generated, one original, one indicates who originally synonymized it. By creating blue links for these, some space is saved. Synonym references are more used by specialists than general users. It might be useful to put this on Village Pump and I could propose third level heading "Synonym references". Neferkheperre (talk) 13:59, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
@Neferkheperre: If I weight the benefits of this style against its shortcomings, I can't be persuaded to endorse it. We decided in a prior discussion that synonym-refs belong to the "Primary references" section, so why not enlarge the "Primary references" if needed? Wikipedia articles contain dozens of in-page refs which doesn't reduce their usability. I consider a ref-link that necessitates a page-transfer, a practice which is best avoided. The links should be reserved for the AUTHORS alone and not dedicated to the references. Mariusm (talk) 14:36, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
OK, these can go into primary references very easily. Links for Author alone is highly impractical at this time. Linking Author only up in name section may not be fruitful, as there is confidence in completeness of author pages only for Zootaxa and Zookeys after 23 January 2016. I am still daily finding author pages with zero or very little content. Redundancies abound, and when I see them, I correct them. I still miss some, and other editors will notify me. Many author pages are represented only by first initial and last name, which invites redundancies. I think this new idea of installing Authority Control data may solve very many problems. Neferkheperre (talk) 18:48, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Mariusm (talk) 06:01, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

@Neferkheperre:. Please can you give an example of author templates with zero or very little content? PeterR (talk) 08:09, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
He wrote "author pages", not "author templates". There are only a few author templates – for example {{L.}} – and they should have very little content, since in many cases they are only a sort of redirect. However, author pages should have much more content, for example like the Sven O. Kullander page. Unfortunately I have to agree with Neferkheperre: there are a lot of author pages with only a minimum of information, and I see them every day too. For example author pages such as Ian Stafford Ross Munro, Ian D. Naumann, and Elio Gentili.
Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 09:12, 28 April 2016 (UTC).
I see the most of the examples are from Sthoner. We know that he didn't make author names after examples. Maybe one of you can create an author list for updating. I missing a lot of authors after Sthoner author templates. Who is updating his author templates and others? PeterR (talk) 09:32, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
Is there a definition for making an author, such is for making an author template? PeterR (talk) 09:56, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Since Stho002 has made more than 540.000 edits to Wikispecies (many of which are page creations), it is nearly impossible for one man to update them all in retrospect. It is probably possible to make a list of all of the pages in Category:Taxon Authorities created by Stho002, but I'm afraid such a list would most likely consist of several thousand pages. Checking them all and making the necessary corrections would be a huge undertaking.–Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 11:38, 28 April 2016 (UTC).

What about "Category: Publications of..."? There are several hundred of those! They should be incorporated into the author's pages in the Publications sections. Only Stho002 made them... For example Andrew Polaszek has 2 publications listed and Category:Publications of A. Polaszek has only one which isn't listed in the page. These categories are also inserted in specific ref templates which complicates matters. Mariusm (talk) 13:23, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
I know. In my opinion all of those "Publications of..." categories should be deleted, but they would have to be emptied first, i.e. all instances of them must first be removed from author pages, reference templates, etc. That's not as time-consuming as giving the many zero-info author pages a boost, but it is still quite a task. I've been thinking about it for a while though, and might just as well start working on it... –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 06:59, 29 April 2016 (UTC).
When I encounter author pages with "Publications of ..." or "Taxa of ...", I always click on them. Largely, they are already empty, and I delete them. If included lists are rather short, I empty them and delete that category. Occasionally, they are too large for time considerations (up to 100 entries. I keep up Zootaxa and Zookeys, and complete each page and upgrade author pages pages before going on. For such cases, @Tommy Kronkvist:, would you like me to notify you? Neferkheperre (talk) 12:36, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
@Neferkheperre: Yes please! –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 12:46, 1 May 2016 (UTC).
@Neferkheperre: @Tommy Kronkvist: What's the use if User:Bioref is creating/enlarging right now more of the these same categories? Don't we need to stop him first? Mariusm (talk) 13:47, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
Administrative actions taken towards single users is one thing, and correcting page errors another. Fixing the "Publications of…" and "Taxa of…" categories needs to be done, regardless of any (other) troubles that might arise from any single user. Besides: there is nothing that says that we can't address both issues at the same time. Also, there are tools to rather easily delete every page creation made by a single user, although I would strongly advise against using them. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 13:59, 1 May 2016 (UTC).


There was an inconclusive discussion in 2012, on its talk page, of deleting Template:Image. Do we need it? I'm concerned that it hard-codes pixel sizes. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:48, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

I use it a lot as its default 250px image size generally works well. It saves specifying image size, using thumb etc. when using the file route. It also handles captions well. So my vote, as an editor who like the KISS principle, is keep it. Andyboorman (talk) 12:05, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
We should not be specifying 250px, nor any other fixed value. Sizes should be relative, to allow for users' greatly differing setups. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:23, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
I also use it a lot. If there are technical problems, maybe the template could be changed? Maybe from 250 px to 25%? --Murma174 (talk) 12:21, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
Good idea. Andyboorman (talk) 12:53, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
I use it a lot too. Yes to changing to a % of screen width if it can be done; if not, then to a larger size than 250 px as that's very small. Maybe 350 or 400 px? - MPF (talk) 14:55, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

There's some useful discussion in the archives here. Be nice to see some progress on this one ;-) - MPF (talk) 15:05, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Digging the ol' archives can be useful. If my memory serves me right we have already discussed whether or not percentage values are at all possible to use within image templates. I can't seem to find that talk page right now, but as far as I can recollect we never got to any real conclusion. Back then we also discussed static and relative image sizes in regards to tablets and smartphone screens, which is quite different than rendering images on a desktop computer screen or laptop. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 15:29, 1 May 2016 (UTC).
Percentage sizes may be achieved through the use of the upright parameter; see en:Help:Visual file markup/upright. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:04, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Patronyms in Wiktionary[edit]

Our sister project, Wiktionary, has a translingual taxonomic eponyms category. It also has work ongoing to record more Women honoured in scientific names. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:45, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Checkuser on User: Bioref[edit]

I suspect the user Bioref (talkcontribsblockall projects) to be User: Stho002 who was blocked indefinitely 16 months ago. He refuses to conform to our rules, and he made an abusive post towards me on his talk page (deleted). He was consequently blocked by User:Pigsonthewing for 3 days. He's back now and he still uses formatting unacceptable by WS. See for example Pheidole protaxi and Megaselia bisticta - edits which he made today.

I would like to request a formal Checkuser on User: Bioref. Please sign below your stand. Mariusm (talk) 05:51, 1 May 2016 (UTC)



  1. Mariusm (talk) 05:51, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
  2. --Murma174 (talk) 10:44, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
  3. Andyboorman (talk) 11:05, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
  4. MPF (talk) 14:48, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
  5. PeterR (talk) 12:58, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
  6. Dan Koehl (talk) 09:07, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
  7. Too many suspected sockpuppets now. CU required to make clear, if an IP-range block is possible. --Franz Xaver (talk) 11:09, 5 May 2016 (UTC)



# It seems quit obvious to me that this is the usual duck. The account can be closed down also without, but CU would be helpful to be absolutely sure. --Franz Xaver (talk) 16:17, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

    • This poll is due to close on 8th May. This has become very urgent because User:stho002 can't be blocked - he's capable of changing accounts daily! Mariusm (talk) 04:15, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Boies will be Boies[edit]

I've just changed Boie from a redirect to Heinrich Boie into a disambig page, to add Friedrich Boie, who'd been left out despite already having a page. There's an awful lot of pages that link to Boie that need disambiguating though, and many of them should refer to Friedrich rather than Heinrich. I'll do some myself, but anyone else who wants to join in with sorting, please do! - MPF (talk) 12:48, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Wikidata and organization of items of genuses related to single species[edit]

Sorry to bother you.

After dealing with doubts especially interacting with itwiki users, I have asked at the village pump of wikidata a question about these genus and species items where basically there is only one species for the genus, and different languages use different titles but often link to the same item. It is here.

I hope it was not confusing for the other users as it was for me, but I am linking the discussion so I can be sure it is "universally accepted". This way next time a newbie ask me something I know that what I am saying is correct.

So every expert comment is welcome, if you have time.--Alexmar983 (talk) 08:54, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

In the discussion mentioned above two things are mixed up:
1. For a monotypic Genus Wikispecies uses one page for the Genus and another one page for the Species, and Wikidata should also do that IMO (for structural reasons).
2. Of course the Genus page and the Species page refer to the exact same living (or extinct) being, so Wikipedias might decide, NOT to create two different pages. Some list the Genus and some list the Species (I'd prefer the Species concept).
--Murma174 (talk) 10:08, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
3. P.S. How to solve the interwiki linking problem, should not be discussed here, but on Wikidata. --Murma174 (talk) 10:29, 3 May 2016 (UTC)