Shortcuts: WS:V, WS:VP

Wikispecies:Village Pump

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

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:

Post a comment
if you use the title box, you don't need to put a title in the body
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 (2018-09-01/2018-10-11)


Redundant disambiguation pages and categories Template:Disambig and Template:Disambiguation[edit]

We currently have two different but redundant templates: Template:Disambig and Template:Disambiguation. The former has well over 1,000 incoming links, is connected to other similar templates through Wikidata, and automatically places entries in Category:Disambiguation pages while the later is used on less than 500 pages, and places pages in additional, and apparently redundant category trees: Category:All disambiguation pages and Category:All article disambiguation pages. I think {{Disambiguation}} should be merged into {{Disambig}}, although I am not certain if it's as easy as creating a redirect. And is there a reason to have three different disambiguation pages with little or no distinction? I think it would be useful to separate taxonomic disambiguation pages (e.g. Agarista) from authority pages (e.g. Smith), but the current category tree should be clarified before the mess gets any messier. Thoughts? -Animalparty (talk) 20:49, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

And for context, I note former discussions dating back years regarding disambiguation (e.g. here, here, and here). Seems like lots of discussion, little meaningful action. -Animalparty (talk) 20:59, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

@Animalparty: to give the correct numbers: {{Disambig}} has 5851 occurrences while {{Disambiguation}} has only 52 occurrences. I can replace {{Disambiguation}} with {{Disambig}} using AWB bot. Does anyone have any objections to this? Mariusm (talk) 10:11, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
Go for it! Andyboorman (talk) 11:21, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
No objections here. I always use {{Disambig}}. Neferkheperre (talk) 13:24, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
The template we keep should, eventually, be named Template:Disambiguation, with Template:Disambig being a redirect to it. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:47, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
Why? What is the big deal about Template:Disambiguation? Andyboorman (talk) 20:50, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
"Disambiguation" is a word; "Disambig" is jargon. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:05, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
I agree that Template:Disambiguation should be the preferred name, with other variants as redirects to increase convenience for users. The equivalent template in English Wikipedia has redirects "Dab", "Disambig", "Disamb", among others. Rather than forcing users to memorize a plethora of arcane templates, we should be bending over backwards to make templates as user-friendly and intuitive as possible, if we ever expect more than a handful of users to contribute at any given time. Animalparty (talk) 22:00, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
...so, no more discussion, no action? Typical. Animalparty (talk) 17:42, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
@Animalparty: since the discussion was clearly in favor of getting rid of the current implementation of {{disambiguation}}, you could have done this yourself easily enough. Following Andy's suggestion, I have solved the issue by moving {{disambig}} over {{disambiguation}}, leaving a redirect as recommended, and deleted the categories. Circeus (talk) 02:48, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
@Circeus: Thanks for that. I am a bit hesitant to unilaterally modify/redirect templates, although it appears they work just like article redirects. Cheers, Animalparty (talk) 03:01, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Possibly duplicate author pages[edit]

These author pages are possibly duplicates. As they concern zoologists, I ask the zoology editors to check them and please merge, if necessary:

Kind regards, --Thiotrix (talk) 20:20, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Please also check Sebastian Rosenfeld and Sebastián Rosenfeld. DGtal (talk) 12:49, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Bot needed[edit]

Hello folks. Can anybody write a bot to get rid of la="taxon name" from the VN section? Latin is not a vernacular name after all. It is getting a bit frustrating to remove it manually every time I come across it. Thanks once again. Andyboorman (talk) 13:59, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps a job for @KoehlBot:? The |la and spaced | la part would most likely be easy to get rid of, since that portion of the string is more or less identical on all of the taxon pages. For the rest of the string (i.e. the equals sign, any white space, and any letters) I think a fairly simple regular expression would suffice. It should be set to remove everything after la until it reaches a | pipe (i.e. when it reaches the next VN language) or a } curly bracket (i.e. the end of the VN template).
If a remember correctly the regular expression for finding any character is (.) where the round brackets acts as delimiters from the rest of the code string. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 06:04, 8 January 2019 (UTC).
Yes, @Tommy Kronkvist, Andyboorman:, Ill try it out, maybe today. Dan Koehl (talk) 10:12, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
@Tommy Kronkvist, Andyboorman:, I think now it is working. Maybe it would be wise to stop editors from inserting any more |la= ?? Dan Koehl (talk) 13:34, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
@Dan Koehl, Tommy Kronkvist, Andyboorman: Thanks Dan. I will post a message to the effect of not adding |la=. Best Regards Andyboorman (talk) 13:58, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
@Tommy Kronkvist, Andyboorman:, after doing some succesful trials at my personal user account, I have not yet identified any errors, so now I let User:KoehlBot continue this task, which means the edits will no longer be visible on recent changes, unless Bot edits is chosen. If possible, please help me check a couple of times, that the Bot is working properly. Dan Koehl (talk) 15:27, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
@Dan Koehl, Andyboorman: I've checked all of the (currently) 68 edits made by KoehlBot in regards to this issue, and all of them are good. Also, I've added the following segment to the Help:Vernacular names section help page in order to point out this whole thing:

"Please note that while most scientific names use Latin grammatical form they are most often not to be considered proper Latin. Hence the correct Latin vernacular name of a taxon is very seldom identical to the scientific name of said taxon. As an example the Latin vernacular name for domestic cat is not Felis silvestris catus, but "cattus".

I think the VN help page needs to be further updated to state that we only recommend modern languages in the VN list, and that all dead languages – Latin included – should be left out altogether. Quite frankly the entire VN help page is in need of a total remake, but in all honesty I currently don't feel up for the task... –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 00:19, 9 January 2019 (UTC).

Species names determined in public auction?![edit]

Apparently several groups are staging public auctions to sell newly discovered species' names (see here). The winners can name the won species after themselves, their mother, their pet dog - just about anything they wish. The minimum bid for each species name is $10,000 and the auctions are conducted in a conventional auction house. This is a strange way to eke money out of taxonomy. Anyone here interested in bidding? Mariusm (talk) 12:30, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Nothing new there. Callicebus aureipalatii (seems it needs to be updated?) got its name that way thirteen years ago. Circeus (talk) 12:47, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
More sensible than taxonomic vandalism by "scientists". Money for conservation doesn't just fall out of the sky. Animalparty (talk) 21:37, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Homonyms Mabokiana[edit]

Hello zoology editors, please have a look at Mabokiana (disambiguation), as both names cannot be valid. Thanks, --Thiotrix (talk) 13:04, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Seems to me a clear case of junior homonymy. Mabokiana Leraut, 2015 appears to be invalid. You can contact the author Patrice Leraut at pleraut@mnhn.fr and ask... Mariusm (talk) 13:56, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
Mabokiana Boulard, 1976 is a currently accepted name according to the Membracoidea of the World Database, as referenced in the current Catalogue of Life. Interestingly the name seems to be obscure in both its published versions, neither appearing in a current Google Scholar search. They are, nonetheless, indexed in the ION database, see http://www.organismnames.com/query.htm?q=Mabokiana&Submit.x=17&Submit.y=9&searchType=simple&so=a0&pp=10 (with some uncertainty about the publication year of the Boulard name). Regards - Tony Tony 1212 (talk) 21:19, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Rubiaceae[edit]

Advice and comments please, particularly from botanists. Rubiaceae is the largest family here on WS still with numerous redlink genera and indeed tribes. It has had a lot of work on it by the scientific community and I have added some of the most important to the taxon page Reference Section. However, the biggest postulated change is a move to two rather than three tribes (Robbrecht & Manen, 2006 and Rydin, 2017) this has recently been taken up by Stevens on the APW site. This change will involve the merging of Cinchonoideae and Ixoroideae, under an expanded Cinchonoideae, leaving Rubioideae largely intact. Do we think that WS should adopt this approach? I would like to begin to get rid of redlinks, but need some advice before starting, so over to the community. Best regards Andyboorman (talk) 09:05, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

In my opinion, subfamilies and tribes are not the most urgent issues within Rubiaceae. Still Rydin et al. (2017) are writing about "conflicting results". So, it is not very likely, that dust already has settled. Anyway, many genera are missing in WS, also rather large ones as e.g. Faramea. Adding these, would be independent from infrafamiliar systematics. On the other hand, some genera have been re-circumscribed during the last years. For example, the change concerning Psychotria versus Palicourea seems to be settled already and WCSP has followed, but some species in WS still are in their old genus, e.g. Psychotria poeppigiana, which now should be Palicourea tomentosa. --Franz Xaver (talk) 11:38, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
I am reluctant to just place genera at the family level ignoring classification completely, but I do agree that WS is a complete mess, which ever way you look at it. Thanks Andyboorman (talk) 12:09, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
@Andyboorman: Placing genera at family level ignoring infrafamiliar classification, is not exactly, what I wanted to propose. As far as I see, adding a genus makes sense also, if its present placement is not final, as a reclassification within the infrafamiliar systematics does only require to update one single taxonavigation template. However, a missing taxon page for a genus is likely to prevent, that someone would add species pages on occasion. So, it would be nice to have taxon pages at least for all large genera of Rubiaceae. Regards --Franz Xaver (talk) 16:30, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
@Franz Xaver: I am in agreement with your last statement and general thoughts. It does look like that most tribes are settled for now, as are most of the major and important genera. Regards Andyboorman (talk) 18:15, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
@Franz Xaver: I have had a look in the last few days and made some changes, added papers and resources - see Palicoureeae. I will not do any more work until I have contacted Govaerts, for example asking why they have not accepted the full synonymy of Psychotria put forward by Razafimandimbison et al. (2014), which will render Psychotrieae monotypic. Best regards Andyboorman (talk) 20:03, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
@Andyboorman: I personally prefer to call it "monogeneric" instead of "monotypic", as also subgenera and sections within Psychotria are required to have types. Regards --Franz Xaver (talk) 15:12, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

I have heard back from Rafael Govaerts and WCSP is as up to date to as possible for Rubiaceae. The biggest problem is where the scientific literature has not resulted in valid species combinations for changes at the generic level, for example in Psychotria, where Razafimandimbison et al. were a triffle lax in dealing with their synonymy leaving numerous loose ends. It was also pointed out to me that there are some 45000 outstanding combinations needed across the whole of the flora. Therefore I can recommend that editors be confident in using WCSP, but also be careful when interpreting the scientific literature and make a check for formal publication of changes. Best regards Andyboorman (talk) 13:22, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

@Andyboorman: Thanks for letting me know. That's one of the possible explanations I was thinking of, that not all of the required combinations are available yet, which would be necessary, when a genus is to be synonymised under Psychotria. There was a similar delay with transfer of the former Psychotria subg. Heteropsychtria to Palicourea. It seems, that in the latter case now all the required combinations have been published. So, WCSP meanwhile has implemented this move. An other reason I was thinking of, was that possibly they might still be hesitant to synonymize the genera of the "Pacific Psychotria clade", as there an alternative solution seems to be possible, where genera as Hydnophytum, Calycosia, or Amaracarpus could be saved by removing some few species of Psychotria into segregate genera.
"45000 outstanding combinations needed" seems to be a high end estimation, as Rubiaceae altogether is thought to have about 13500 species. However, the number of 45000 possibly refers to the total content of WCSP? Regards --Franz Xaver (talk) 15:08, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
You are correct the 45000 refers to all extant vascular plants that will comprise Global Flora Vol 4. Regards Andyboorman (talk) 17:18, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Advice on Hemimastix kukwesjijk[edit]

It appears that classification is very much up in the air. Does anyone here have a perspective on how this microorganism is being discussed taxonomically? —Justin (koavf)TCM 21:41, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

As far as I know, Hemimastix and Spironema are placed in Hemimastigophora. Hemimastigophora is technically a phylum, but the researchers argue that it should be considered its own supra-kingdom. Personally, I think WS needs to overhaul its higher eukaryotic classifications. I don't think that the four kingdom groupings presented at the main page reflect current opinions very well. Voganaa (talk) 16:16, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
Higher level classification of Kingdom Protista is very seriously in chaos. It is now several kingdoms, but nobody is in agreement as to their arrangement or names. I have no idea how long this shall continue. At LSU, workers are using classifications lower than Foraminifera, and leaving higher level arrangements alone until they become stable. Neferkheperre (talk) 00:16, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
In IRMNG (see www.irmng.org if unfamiliar) I try to follow the Ruggiero et al. (2015) higher classification, also used by Catalogue of Life (CoL), for protists for pragmatic reasons (maximum compatibility with other systems that also follow this reasoning), except where it seems to be in error, is already out-of-date, or some other reason. Phylum Hemimastigophora does not appear in Ruggiero et al. but is a good phylum according to Lax et al., 2018: "Hemimastigophora is a novel supra-kingdom-level lineage of eukaryotes. Nature." , available online at https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-018-0708-8, so I have re-instated it in IRMNG as of last month, see http://www.irmng.org/aphia.php?p=taxdetails&id=1345612 . This is the version of record that will appear in my next export to CoL (approx. March 2019), unless anything happens in the mean time to revise this opinion. (CoL currently uses IRMNG for its protist coverage, with exceptions where other good sources exist already e.g. for Foraminifera). Regards - Tony Tony 1212 (talk) 22:42, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Close discussion Vernacular names on RFC?[edit]

Can someone who hasnt participated in this discussion please make an estimate of the consensus, and close the discussion Should the names in the == Vertacular names == section be spelled correctly? Dan Koehl (talk) 10:10, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

I will take care of it tomorrow (busy today). –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 04:42, 8 January 2019 (UTC).

|la[edit]

Latin is not a Vernacular Name, please refrain from adding |la= to the Vernacular Name section. A bot has gone through editing out existing occurrences, so please do not add new ones. Regards Andyboorman (talk) 14:00, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Of course, there had existed Latin vernacular name in ancient times, but it is nonsense to add scientific names as "Latin vernacular names". Anyway, also adding the ancient names does not make much sense, as it is often not very clear, which plants were meant, when ancient authors as Plinius, Vergilius etc. used a name. For example, I now have found, that Prunus avium originally would have been named "cornum" or "durum" in Latin. (The first later shifted to Cornus mas.) However, even the ancient author, who wrote this in a commentary on Vergilius, might have reported only contemporary speculations. Later the name "cerasus" was adopted from Greek, which probably came with imported Prunus cerasus. Anyway, vernacular names should be restricted to living languages. Probably nobody here wishes vernacular names from Gothic, Old English or Middle High German, or even Hittite, though there certainly such have existed. --Franz Xaver (talk) 23:34, 8 January 2019 (UTC)