Shortcuts: WS:V, WS:VP

Wikispecies:Village Pump

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

WikiSpecies notext-invert.svg Welcome to the village pump of Wikispecies.

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

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

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

Village pump in other languages:


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


MD. Mizanur Rahman[edit]

As far as I know the "MD" part of Bangladeshi ichthyologist MD. Mizanur Rahman's page name is a title rather than part of his actual name. If that's the case the page should be moved to Mizanur Rahman, but I'm not 100 % sure. Does any one here have good information about this? –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 14:45, 26 February 2020 (UTC).

It might not be a title, he uses "Md" even on his ResearchGate profile. Maybe it's supposed to be written as "Md." and is short for Muhammad, Mohammad or some variation? (though that is just a guess of course) Monster Iestyn (talk) 01:47, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
Additionally, none of the journals for articles he's authored show titles for anyone else, so to include a title for Rahman would be inconsistent to my knowledge. Monster Iestyn (talk) 01:51, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
Monster Iestyn is right: It is Md and it is a shortcut for Mohammad. Mariusm (talk) 16:23, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
So... ought it be moved to Md. Mizanur Rahman then at least, since "Md." is not an acronym? (I bet you that it was copying one of the Zootaxa articles, even though the rest of the author's name was probably also in all-caps) Monster Iestyn (talk) 01:39, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
Since nobody responded or did anything since my last comment, I've gone and moved the article myself and fixed all linked pages as well as the wikidata item. Monster Iestyn (talk) 19:14, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Template:Taxa by author[edit]

So, I've been aware for a while now that we've been using the {{Taxa by author}} template in "Category:Author taxa" type pages. I've myself converted some of these category pages to use the template whenever I come across them. However, I've noticed that PeterR has (at least recently) been doing the complete opposite: he removes this template from any author taxa category pages he comes across (examples: here, here, here and here). I'm not sure what to make of this to be honest, I don't want there to be some kind of edit war over this. Monster Iestyn (talk) 11:36, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

The template is preferred; those edits should be reverted. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:02, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
I do not use it, but its unilateral removal must be reverted unless the community consensus is otherwise. One editor's preference or opinion is never a good enough reason for this type of action. Andyboorman (talk) 14:33, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
Yes, {{Taxa by author}} is the current standard. @PeterR: make an effort to follow it too please! Mariusm (talk) 14:50, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
He hasn't even substed it properly, so those category aren't properly alphabetized. Circeus (talk) 16:09, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
I have the feeling he's not even substing but just re-writing them the way he prefers. I also have the feeling he's not going to respond to this, since he didn't respond to the previous discussion involving him either. Monster Iestyn (talk) 17:32, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
He's still doing it. Monster Iestyn (talk) 14:56, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
I have left a notification on his talk page; I am surprised to see that that was not done when this section was opened. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:25, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
      • I have given already an answer. I copy the new {{Taxa by author}} from an old one. So if the old ones are not updated, than the new one is also wrong. Its time that some people do their jobs properly and finish it. (I didn't know that it was changed, I work al ready ca. 10 years after the old one. I didn't get a message). — The preceding unsigned comment was added by PeterR (talkcontribs) 12:53, 25 March 2020.
This is partly a response to the discussion at your own talk page PeterR, but in any case it's not really my responsibility to update all of the author category templates to match the new standard. Or rather, at least, not my responsibility alone. I didn't actually have anything to do with deciding to use {{Taxa by author}} across Wikispecies, I am merely following this new standard just to be helpful while doing all the other things I usually do on the wiki. Additionally, as with Circeus's response to the reference templates discussion started by you just earlier, there are just too many pages for one person to update alone: currently, Category:Taxa by author lists 36,244 subcategories! Like most here (I assume) I'm doing my bit for Wikispecies (as well as Wikipedia) in my free time, though I possibly may have even more free time than most for multiple reasons. I would hope we work at tasks like this together as we go along, rather than leaving it to one person to do all the work, as they get much more quickly done when multiple people are involved.
Also apologies for not involving you earlier, I wasn't sure how best to handle this. I still feel relatively new to being part of Wikispecies, even though I've been making edits for nearly two years now (apparently). Monster Iestyn (talk) 16:33, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
      • Why to change things like {{Taxa by author}} if you create a mess, because it is to much work to update that. In the real business you have first make a cost profit analyse. If the profit is higher than the cost you can introduce the new {{Taxa by author}}. But in Species.wikimedia one cry for change something and an other one make it. So I know now why nobody want to work for Species.wikimedia. It is a chaos site. PeterR (talk) 14:34, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Which Hanitsch for Acanthoblatta?[edit]

In the list of synonyms for the Rhyparobia family taxon name there's a synonym listed as "Acanthoblatta Hanitsch, 1950". Does anyone know whether this is a posthumous publication by the German-born/British entomologist Richard Hanitsch (who passed away in 1940), or perhaps a totally different author? And if it is someone else, what's his/her name?

Also, I guess R. Hanitsch is the same author as Richard Hanitsch? Should the two pages be merged? –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 09:58, 10 March 2020 (UTC).

According to his obituary, Hanitsch had come back to England and indeed was living in Oxford itself at the time of his death. He had made Malayan Blattidae something of a specialist, so they seem clearly to be the same author. The recorded protologue for Acanthoblatta is Revue de zoologie et de botanique africaines 43:36. — The preceding unsigned comment was added by Circeus (talkcontribs) 12:42, 11 March 2020.
Thanks! –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 14:11, 13 March 2020 (UTC).

Nordenstam taxa[edit]

Right now there are 25 taxon names redirected from the "Nordenstam" disambiguation page. Most of them probably refers to Åke Nordenstam (specialized in Isopoda and other crustaceans) but some of them may instead refer to the Swedish botanist Bertil Nordenstam (B.Nord., born 1936). Please help out specifying the author name on each of those taxon pages. –Thanks! Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 10:12, 10 March 2020 (UTC).

And similarly, but far worse, over 320 taxon pages linked to the "Gmelin" disambiguation page . . . MPF (talk) 22:25, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
And even worse still, 470 taxon pages linked to the "Gould" disambiguation page . . . MPF (talk) 10:17, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
I get the feeling linking to author surnames is rather widespread across Wikispecies. For instance, I've just found 140 pages link to "Jones", 221 pages link to "Chen", and 400 pages link to "Smith". Monster Iestyn (talk) 16:33, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Hering[edit]

Hi all, is it possible that the Erich Martin Hering and Martin Hering pages actually refer to the same person? It looks like they published Lepidoptera-related articles in the same journal around the same time. --LamBoet (talk) 06:52, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes they are likely the same person, see [1] section Hering, M. (1937a) match with {{Hering, 1937}} which is here assigned to Hering, E.M.. Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:37, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
@Christian Ferrer: indeed, thank you. If no one objects, I will merge the pages. --LamBoet (talk) 17:44, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Categories for Jurassic taxa etc.[edit]

Are the categories Category:Mesozoic taxa, Category:Jurassic taxa, Category:Cretaceous taxa etc. and perhaps above all Category:Amber taxa something we really need and want? In my opinion, no. What say ye? Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 00:55, 17 March 2020 (UTC).

No not needed at all. Delete. Andyboorman (talk) 08:31, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
I have been using Category:Jurassic Cirripedia, etc. for my own barnacle pages. I actually find them useful, and am a cirriped taxonomist. Set up properly, it does help me guide my research. Neferkheperre (talk) 14:18, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
If there were good data at Wikidata for the stratigraphy of taxa, and if we had a way to make use of that data, then I could see this being a valuable tool. But as the categories currently stand, there is almost zero use made of them. --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:47, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Handbuch der speciellen Ornithologie[edit]

This Reichenbach 1853 publication is the reference for a bunch of Aves taxa. I couldn't find an online library for it. Somebody to help pls?--Hector Bottai (talk) 11:13, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

This looks like it may be it. More accurately the "Handbuch" is the first part. Quoth the bibliography here:
  • Reichenbach, H. G. L. 1853. Handbuch der speciellen Ornithologie. Die Vögel, viii + 36 + XXXI pp. Exp. Vollst. Naturg., Dresden & Leipzig. [Footnote 24: Also variously cited, part title: Avium systema naturale; its three different components were usually bound together.]
Circeus (talk) 14:02, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, looks perfect.--Hector Bottai (talk) 01:28, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
I preferred to divide this in more than one template, see the results: Template:Reichenbach, 1853, Template:Reichenbach, 1853-10, Template:Reichenbach, 1853-11. Thanks.--Hector Bottai (talk) 22:10, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Redundant eponym templates[edit]

We have both:

and only need one of them. Which should we keep? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:29, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

@Pitke: I assume you didn't know about the existing template?
Personally I prefer the wording in Pitke's version but otherwise the "X by Y" naming convention is fairly well established for template names of this type (documenting templates in use is yet another reason the entire Help: series needs to be rewritten). Circeus (talk) 22:23, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
I've been using Eponyms by person myself, since that seemed to be the most commonly used (as you can tell from the transclusions count), but if it turns out we prefer the other one that's not a problem with me. We also ought to have both {{Taxa by author}} and the chosen Eponyms category formatting template listed in Wikispecies tools. Monster Iestyn (talk) 15:40, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
  • I am fine with either, but there should only be one, so keep one kill the other based on conensus I guess. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 17:38, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep the oldest.--Hector Bottai (talk) 20:39, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep the oldest. Christian Ferrer (talk) 23:14, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Confirming I didn't know of the earlier template. Technically fine with using either, but have two notes on the original one: 1) can be confused for authorship instead of origin-of-name status, 2) non-person eponyms for bands, fictional/mythological entities, and less importantly places (these might have some other sort of term instead of eponym?). --Pitke (talk) 15:59, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Strictly speaking the sentence "Eponyms by NN" doesn't mean the same thing as "Eponyms of NN". From a Wikispecies perspective the first one is incorrect, since a category listing eponyms by a person should list the eponyms coined by a certain author. So if for example Linnaeus had named a bunch of taxa after his own apostles, then those eponyms would be named by Linnaeus and should be listed in the category, as named by him. And that's not what we want, is it? Instead we want the category to list the taxon names which are eponyms of the respective apostle, whether named by Linnaeus or not. I therefore strongly suggest:
  1. We move {{Eponyms of}} to {{Eponyms of person}} and then stick to that one. It's presently only being used on less than 20 pages so fixing the transclusions after renaming (i.e. moving) it should only take minutes.
  2. After that, using a bot or JSW to change the circa 140 {{Eponyms by person}} links shouldn't take more than a few hours at most, after which we delete the template.
I can make all necessary alterations fairly quickly, regardless which solution we come to agree upon. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 21:12, 23 March 2020 (UTC).
  • No problem with any of that, but for the record, the "by" in "Eponyms by person" is to be read as "sorted by", as in "publications by year". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:58, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
I see: the "sorted (by)" can of course be implied rather than printed out. It doesn't happen too often, but this is one of the few occasions when my understanding of English gets "tricked" by the fact that it isn't my native language. Linguistics aside, which of the templates do we want to keep? In the above discussion we currently have two votes each for {{Eponyms by person}} and {{Eponyms of}}, and three for "either one". –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 16:46, 29 March 2020 (UTC).
I would prefer {{Eponyms of person}}, because it is precise and clear, even for non-native English speakers. --Thiotrix (talk) 17:48, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

2 references in one template[edit]

Hello, this is about {{ICZN Opinion 1152}}, and in fact in this template I putted a reference to the opinion + 1 reference to the corrigenda which is very important because it leads to new synonymy for several names. Currently this template is only used in one page, but it will be potentially used on the species pages when they will be created. My question is if the formating of this template is ok? or is there a better way? Christian Ferrer (talk) 22:04, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

My approach for "secondary" elements to a ref like this is to use square brackets and keep eveything on a single item, something like:
  • ICZN 1980. OPINION 1152 (Case 1772). Ophiura Lamarck, 1801 and Ophioderma Müller & Troschel, 1840 (Ophiuroidea): ruling on application of these names. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 37(2): 78–80. BHL. [Corrigenda: 38(4): 317, 1981. BHL.]
I'm not repeating the author and journal, since they are the same, much like I wouldn't repeat the title and author if the bracketed ref was to a convenient reprint cited because the original is unavailable online. Circeus (talk) 22:36, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
Thanks you, your method is good, and I just applied it. Christian Ferrer (talk) 06:46, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Reference template[edit]

Who have decided that in the author reference templates with doi should place also after the doi number Open access, Paywall, Hybrid open access journal and [nonfunctional] Broken access? And who should update the old author reference templates. I see that this is not completed. It is now a mess. PeterR (talk) 12:42, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

1) Where else would you have put it? It had to be put somewhere.
2) In case you didn't notice, there are over 70K reference templates, of which I guesstimate half use {{Doi}} alone. Running through such material is a maintenance task and users in Wikispecies are neither keen to do such tasks, nor kind to those who are stuck doing them. I'm on an extended wikileave, so, yeah, not one's doing it because there's, what, 30 of us at best at any given time? Circeus (talk) 14:11, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
Why to change the reference templates if you can't handle it. But who update now the reference templates.PeterR (talk) 14:34, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
We all do. That's how all wikis work. It is a collaboration by all of the users, together. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 16:20, 26 March 2020 (UTC).
I promise to add these when and if I come across the older templates. Andyboorman (talk) 16:52, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
I've been doing it for references whereever I usually edit, so it's not quite true that nobody does it at all. Monster Iestyn (talk) 19:28, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Distribution (nadi) template[edit]

This still conflicts with images - if there is a tall image which stretches down to below the distribution header, the nadi template pushes down below the bottom of the image, creating an area of whitespace. Can someone who knows how to format templates edit it not to do this, please? Thanks! MPF (talk) 19:00, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

c:Category:Crustacea in the MNHN[edit]

Hello just for information, being confined at home because of the pandemic, I have a little time that allowed me to speed up a little my uploads, I made a batch upload (more than 10 000 images, not yet finished at that time) of the crustaceans collection (IU) of the Muséum national d'Histoire naturelle (MNHN - Paris), available in Wikimedia Commons with the link above. I noticed yesterday that the Smithonian have put a signifiant nimber of images in the Public Domain, and I will include those collections in my "to do list", the next batch upload will be 3500 images of echinoderms from Smithonian commections. Christian Ferrer (talk) 19:04, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Here we are, I just started the batch uploading of the c:Category:Echinodermata in the National Museum of Natural History, USA, it will be ended in a few hours. Christian Ferrer (talk) 08:40, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Taxonomic opinion please[edit]

Hello. I am down to the last red link genus in Rubiaceae until new names are described, if course. The monotypic genus Fergusonia is poorly analysed and so rather cryptic and here seems to be two opinions regarding the name of its species. Fortunately the protologue is freely available on BHL here under an article entitled Fergusonia thwaitesii. Now Christine Taylor in Tropicos maintains that the correct name for the species is Fergusonia tetracocca (Thwaites) Baill. (1880) rejecting both Fergusonia thwaitesii and Fergusonia zeylanica Hook. f. (1872). The later is the species named and described by Hooker in the protologue and illustrated on plate 1124 and is also accepted by WCSP. Unfortunately, Taylor does not refer to any ICN Articles in her reasoning, which, in my opinion, leaves the question of what is the correct name for the species still to be resolved. I would be grateful if colleagues with a greater understanding of ICN could look through Taylor's arguments and give us their opinions. Thanks in advance and best wishes in these difficult times. Andyboorman (talk) 17:15, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

The first available name is Borreria tetracocca Thwaites BHL. Fergusonia zeylanica (F. thwaitesii is a nomen nudum) is a replacement name citing Borreria tetracocca, without Hooker giving any reason for that. As the epithet "tetracocca" is available under Fergusonia and Enum. Pl. Zeyl. (1864) is no suppressed work. If this name has been validly published Fergusonia tetracocca is the valid name.. At least the reason why the basionym should be invalid is not obvious. --RLJ (talk) 18:31, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
I agree. Seems a pretty clear-cut case. Unless there is a different reason that B. tetracocca is not legitimate or validly published (and I don't see any looking at its protologue), the rejection of it as the correct basionym by WCSP is without any justification. Circeus (talk) 21:53, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
I am not convinced, as Hooker's protologue is pretty clear, if we ignored the use of Fergusonia thwaitesii nom. nud. as the title. He acknowledged Borreria tetracocca, but preferred to use Fergusonia zeylanica as his type given he was describing a gen. nov.. Articles 7, 11 and so on must apply surely? Please cite your articles for the arguments above, so that we can work through your logic chain through IAPT. By the way I am not saying that WCSP is correct, but that I would like to be clear, if and when, I contact them. Thanks Andyboorman (talk) 09:26, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
Indeed article 7 and 11 are exactly what draws us to the conclusion that the only correct name under the code is F. tetracocca. [Emphasis mine]
  • 7.5: "A name that is illegitimate under Art. 52 is a replacement name, typified automatically by the type of the name (the replaced synonym) that itself or the epithet of which ought to have been adopted under the rules (Art. 7.4; but see Art. 7.6)"
    • 52.2 "[Inclusion of a type rendering a name superfluous and hence illegitimate] is also effected (e) by citation of the name itself or any name homotypic at that time, unless the type is at the same time excluded either explicitly or by implication."
  • 11.4 "For any taxon below the rank of genus, the correct name is the combination of the final epithet of the earliest legitimate name of the taxon at the same rank, with the correct name of the genus or species to which it is assigned"
There is nothing in Hooker that establish a separate type for his new name. Even if this were so, if the two names are considered synonyms, then no provision of the code applies to override article 11.4 here. The correct epithet can only be tetracocca because Hooker had no business not using that epithet to begin with. Circeus (talk) 00:03, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks I will contact Kew with your reasoning. They are working at home so I should be able to get a reply fairly soon. Andyboorman (talk) 09:00, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

You should point out that F. zeylanica and F. thwaitesii should in fact have the exact same protologue reference: one happens to use a page number and another a plate number, but they really refer to the same protologue. Those two names are homotypic synonyms of each others because they were accidentally published simultaneously for the same taxon (Tropicos puts F. Thwaitesii as a nom. nud., but that doesn't seem a correct interpretation of the code at all to me).
Given that, I have NO idea why WCSP and Tropicos list the names with different years unless somehow the text and plate were published at different dates, which seems unlikely. Circeus (talk) 17:56, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
In zoology, in late 1800s, it was quite customary to publish written descriptions one year, and illustrations 1-2 years later. Neferkheperre (talk) 05:34, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
Except this was published in Hooker's Icones Plantarum, a publication specifically designed for publishing plates accompanied by text (in fact, several volumes have no page numbers, only using the plates as pagination)! Circeus (talk) 23:32, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Raoul Michel May[edit]

Hello, I wanted to create a page for the author quoted above, he is the author of this publication in which this species have been described. I found R. M. May here, he seems to be a french scientist. I also found a page in Worldcat but are included a lot of works about a wide range of topics (nervous system, greffe, tardigrades...). Do you think this is the same author? Christian Ferrer (talk) 22:32, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

"Incertae sedis" pages[edit]

So, what's the way we're supposed to name an "incertae sedis" page? Looking around, there seems to be several ways of naming them being used on Wikispecies:

Which of these is better to use? Monster Iestyn (talk) 20:01, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Incertae sedis pages already been banned, many already deleted, others need maintenance (move the validated content to the relevant page and be deleted). Regards, Burmeister (talk) 21:05, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
Ah, fair enough then. I did spot those older discussions on doing some digging, but wasn't sure if it still applied because of pages such as the ones I linked still existing. But thanks for clearing that up anyway. Monster Iestyn (talk) 21:13, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for bringing this up. We talk about it from time to time, but never get around to actually fixing 100% of the pages. Currently there are approximately 570 "incertae sedis" pages in Wikispecies so it certainly wouldn't be an impossible task. Here's a list of all pages with names containing "incertae sedis" in case you would like to help out. As you can see only about 130 of them start with "Incertae sedis…" while the majority of the page names instead ends with it. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 07:38, 31 March 2020 (UTC).

Use of term Hybrid[edit]

Some editors are changing the scientific term Nothospecies into Hybrid, or adding the later. This is not acceptable and against consensus. Please desist and go over you edits and revert them, before I or another editor does it for you. I do not know why some editors go ahead making such basic changes before going to the Pump seeking an opinion. Andyboorman (talk) 08:53, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Wikispecies tools[edit]

Could somebody add the following tools to the Wikispecies Tools: '''{{int:Type locality}}''' (in bold); ==={{int:Typus}}=== and {{commonscat}}. Thanks. --Hector Bottai (talk) 14:59, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

 Done, however formatted the tools according to Wikispecies praxis and as described in our formatting guidelines (i.e. "Type locality" without bolding and "Typus", holo- and syntypes etc. should not have their own subsections). Also, I used the full name of the {{Commons category}} template in order to avoid linking via redirects. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 01:50, 3 April 2020 (UTC).
Great, thanks!!--Hector Bottai (talk) 02:17, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Lamprotes[edit]

To entomologists: I created this Lamprotes disambiguation page, based on info here at WS, I am pretty sure on the Aves side, please review the Insecta side. Thanks! --Hector Bottai (talk) 10:27, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

I'd suggest move the disambiguation page to Lamprotes (disambiguation), and have the valid genus as the stand-alone Lamprotes page. In general a single name should only be a disambiguation page if there are two valid genera with the same name (e.g. a plant and an animal, like Prunella or Oenanthe). Invalid names should not displace a valid name into disambiguation. - MPF (talk) 09:51, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Taxon is incorrectly named[edit]

Childonini's taxon is incorrectly named, the correct term is Chlidonini. Jackson Cordeiro Brilhador (talk) 07:22, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Hm, the Spanish wikipedia seems to have made the same typo. Even worse still, the correct name and the incorrect spelling also have separate Wikidata items! (see [2] and [3]) This is a fair bit of mess to fix... (I'll see what I can do about it now) Monster Iestyn (talk) 15:20, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
Done, I've fixed everything except the Spanish wikipedia article's name, and the "Childonini" redirect page and its unused template just need to be deleted now. Monster Iestyn (talk) 15:32, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
Spanish wiki all fixed. Template here deleted. Thanks!!--Hector Bottai (talk) 15:39, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Same species, different name[edit]

The genus Chlidones has eight species, but one of the species I have a doubt about the validity of the name.

Sp. 1 - C. rufovaria (Wikidata) described in 1901 by Fairmaire (Cf. in BHL). This species is used here on Wikispecies, on Wikipedia NL, and is referred to on the websites TITAN, GBIF, CoL and EoL.

Sp. 2 - C. rufovarius (Wikidata) described by the same author, is used on seven Wikipedia pages, and is referred to in BioLib, EoL, and IRMNG. It was referred to in GBIF but has been deleted. But here at wikispecies there is no page for this species.

Therefore, I would like you to clarify about the correct validation of this taxon. Thanks! Jackson Cordeiro Brilhador (talk) 16:22, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

What gender is the name Chlidones? If it's masculine then the species should be rufovarius, if feminine then it's rufovaria. At least, to my understanding, that's the issue here. Judging by the other species names listed it looks like it's masculine, but I'm just guessing. Monster Iestyn (talk) 16:46, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
According to the ICZN Code, most (but not all) genera ending in -es are masculine (Article 30.1.4.4). Waterhouse treated it as masculine when he assigned the only original/type species to it, C. lineolatus BHL which to me confirms it as masculine (although I am not really an expert in genders). Under that reasoning, rufovarius is correct, rufovaria (Fairmaire's original spelling, see BHL) incorrect (he or she also misspells the genus as Chelidones and gives Waterhouse's species as "lineolata") but is a correctable error (authority remains the same). TITAN lists rufovaria only, lists it under Chelidones rufovaria as a misspelling (without indicating that both the genus and species are misspelled), but has no entry for the correct name; the TITAN record for "Chlidones rufovaria" then ends up in CoL as "accepted name" (go figure).
So in my reading, Wikispecies, etc. should be using rufovarius as a corrected original spelling (original spelling Chelidones [sic] rufovaria); either the entry for rufovaria can remain as an incorrect original spelling pointed to the correct version, or the correct version can merely note the incorrect original spelling - not quite sure how Wikispecies normally handles misspellings, whether original or subsequent... Tony 1212 (talk) 18:35, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
We have a template {{Orth. err.}} that is used for marking correctable orthographic (spelling) errors. The original name can be listed on the species page with that template marking it. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:52, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
Hm, that template appears to be used only on one page currently (specifically, the plant division Anthocerotophyta), and it links to the corresponding glossary entry where it talks about ICBN requirements. The trouble is, Chlidones is a beetle genus, so ICZN rules apply here, and I'm not sure if using orth. err. is okay here or not. Monster Iestyn (talk) 16:05, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
There's a variant {{OE}} that's used on a few more pages, but serves the same function. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:47, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

The Papers[edit]

Could tell me how is the complete or ideal structure of the papers. On the page Lafresnaye, 1849, shows nomenclatural acts, date of publication and new names. There are other parameters to add? Thanks! Jackson Cordeiro Brilhador (talk) 09:57, 6 April 2020 (UTC)