Wikispecies:Requests for Comment/Archive 3

This is an archive of closed discussions. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this archive.

Translation Admins and the Admin Review Policy

I have recently done our roughly bi-annual admin review for activity. During the course of this it was clear that some of or Translation Admins had not been active enough to keep their administrative rights. However, I have elected not to consider the translation-admins at this time because I was concerned our policy may be a little harsh on this user-group. Translation-admins have the admin tool so they can translate protected pages and other similar pages that regular users cannot edit. As such the admin tool is a requirement for their tasks. They are trusted users who have to be elected to have this right. However, this is all they do with the tools and it is an ad-hoc as needed basis. Because of the nature of this wiki the pages subject to translation are largely the policy and help pages and other similar content. Where I am going with this is that its probably not surprising that they may be absent from this wiki for extended periods as there is little for them to do and they go to do their work on other wikis.

As such I believe that Translation-Admins should be exempted from the rigor of the Admin Review policy with regards to inactivity. Still of course subject to the admin abuse section. I think we need to discuss this and decide do we just make them exempt from the inactivity section, or do we modify the policy to have a section relevant to them on this issue. Initially I would appreciate comments. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 17:47, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Comments

  • Sounds sensible to me! Circeus (talk) 18:18, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
  • no Agree . Dan Koehl (talk) 11:44, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
  • no Agree .--Rosičák (talk) 21:00, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
  • no Agree. Applying a rigid time-limit followed by auto-demotion of the Translation Administrators is impractical and unnecessary, contrary to for example membership of the Interface administrator user group which is granted together with some very powerful tools that may be potentially dangerous. The Translation Admin tools are more or less exclusive to matters related to localization only, and can't really be used to inflict any extensive damage to the site or the community. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 18:44, 29 October 2019 (UTC).

Result

As this did not raise any objections or much comment I will take this as done and agreed upon. Translation Admins are no longer subject to the Inactivity Section of Admin Reviews. Will leave this here a couple of days then archive it. Thanks everyone, Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 07:35, 6 November 2019 (UTC)


The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this archive.


This is an archive of closed discussions. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this archive.

Citation templates

Rationale

New or irregular editors (and some of us who have been around for a while!) often find it difficult to remember how citations should be formatted, or make mistakes in doing so.

Using a template makes the contents into structured data. This means that it can be made machine readable (so people can use tools like Zotero to read it); wizards can be made, to assist people to complete the template (see the upload wizard on Wikimedia Commons, for example); and the layout can be tweaked for all instances across the site, with a single edit; or made configurable according to user preference.

Data about citations can be easily exported from such templates, and reimported into Wikipedias or Wikidata, and, if desired later, the template could display some or all of its content using data that is stored in Wikidata, with local overrides always possible.

Templates facilitate internationalisation.

We would probably need a few such templates for citing:

  • journal papers
  • books/ book chapters
  • websites/ online databases

The templates' structure and display style would always be in the control of Wikispecies editors.

The use of such a templates would not be mandatory, and existing manual methods would still be available to those who prefer to use them, or for exceptions which do not suit the templated format.

en.Wikipedia, for example, has tools that will pre-populate such a template (and then allow a human to tweak the results before saving) given just a DOI, ISBN or URL. We could make use of the same functionality on Wikispecies.

I propose that we adopt and develop a set of such templates and encourage their use.

Example

Consider an exiting citation template, for example, {{Cottarelli et al., 2017}}:

It's a lot to expect Wikispecies contributors to remember where to put the date, how to format the authors, how to punctuate, etc.

An alternative is to use a template, which might be entered as, say:

{{Cite journal |title=''Chirocephalus sarpedonis'' sp. nov. (Branchiopoda, Anostraca, Chirocephalidae) from Turkey questions the monophyly of the traditional Chirocephalus species-groups |last1=Cottarelli |first1=V. |author-link1= Vezio Cottarelli |last2=Mura |first2=G. |author-link2=Graziella Mura |last3=Ippolito |first3=G. |author-link3=Giuseppe Ippolito |last4=Marrone |first4=F. |author-link4=Federico Marrone |journal=Hydrobiologia |year=2017 |volume=801 |issue=1 |pages=5-20 |doi=10.1007/s10750-017-3271-7 }}

which (currently) renders as:

  • Cottarelli, V.; Mura, G.; Ippolito, G.; Marrone, F. 2017. Chirocephalus sarpedonis sp. nov. (Branchiopoda, Anostraca, Chirocephalidae) from Turkey questions the monophyly of the traditional Chirocephalus species-groups. Hydrobiologia, 801(1): 5-20. doi:10.1007/s10750-017-3271-7. 

The completed template can be expanded as:

{{Cite journal 
|title        = ''Chirocephalus sarpedonis'' sp. nov. (Branchiopoda, Anostraca, Chirocephalidae) from Turkey questions the monophyly of the traditional Chirocephalus species-groups 
|last1        = Cottarelli 
|first1       = V. 
|author-link1 = Vezio Cottarelli 
|last2        = Mura 
|first2       = G.
|author-link2 = Graziella Mura
|last3        = Ippolito 
|first3       = G. 
|author-link3 = Giuseppe Ippolito
|last4        = Marrone 
|first4       = F. 
|author-link4 = Federico Marrone 
|journal      = Hydrobiologia 
|year         = 2017 
|volume       = 801 
|issue        = 1 
|pages        = 5-20 
|doi          = 10.1007/s10750-017-3271-7 
}}


Without data, the underlying structure of the template is:

{{Cite journal 
|title        = 
|last1        = 
|first1       = 
|author-link1 = 
|last2        = 
|first2       = 
|author-link2 = 
|last3        = 
|first3       = 
|author-link3 = 
|last4        = 
|first4       =  
|author-link4 = 
|journal      = 
|year         = 
|volume       = 
|issue        = 
|pages        = 
|doi          = 
}}

which is effectively a blank form for people to fill in; a pro forma copy can be made available on the template's documentation page. This is much easer, than the current method, for novice editors to complete, and for anyone to check and if necessary fix.

Discussion

Please add your thoughts. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:51, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

  • Agreed But I would go even further: I think we should have a single template (possibly with the option to choose type=journal, type=chapter, etc. but even that doesn't seem strictly necessary) and we should mandate references be created or converted into a machine-readable format. There's no reason for a diversity of styles and a lack of structure. We have 70,374 reference templates (and another ~1,100 I've been working on categorizing) and there are many instances of users here doing blatantly ridiculous things like blanking pages for no discernible reason and leaving them that way or malforming templates. Standardized forms of all templates using a citation template for structure is the way forward, especially for a site that claims to be a database. —Justin (koavf)TCM 12:05, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Disagree as the above process assumes somebody coming onto work here is an experienced Wiki editor, which may or may not be true. If they are more or less familiar with the way that Reference Lists are composed in science then our process should not be too daunting, as it is a fairly standard Harvard modification. It just requires cutting and pasting into a simple {{Author, date}} template. Andyboorman (talk) 14:14, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
    • No such assumption is made; indeed, I refer explicitly to "new or irregular editors" and "novice editors". I introduce people to editing Wikipedia on a regular basis, and they always find it easy to complete pro-forma templates. There is nothing "fairly standard Harvard" about {{a|Vezio Cottarelli|Cottarelli, V.}}, or ''[[ISSN 0018-8158|Hydrobiologia]]''. Nor does "fairly standard Harvard" address issues such as machine readability and automation. This proposal is about the creation of the content of {{Author, date}} templates, not their use. We would still use {{Author, date}} templates on species pages. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:28, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
    • @Andyboorman: Your concerns are well-taken: someone just showing up here from the academic community will probably not know anything about using templates in MediaWiki but 1.) we can still have a rule preferring standardized templates, 2.) experienced users can help educate and convert them, and 3.) if we have wizards and tools that can effectively do this for them, they don't really need to get too into the guts of it. @Pigsonthewing: do you know enough about how the listing templates work at w:en:voy: that you could reproduce that functionality here? I've always thought that project has a very user-friendly and intuitive way to update listings that really needs to be reproduced in sister projects. —Justin (koavf)TCM 15:05, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
  • The structure of this template needs completion and simplification. There should be one "Authors" field (as in German Wikipedia) allowing to enter every quantity of authors. "801" is a volume (implemented but not listed above), "1" is the issue. "Page" should be renamed "Pages" to include page ranges. Several links should be possible to online versions or downloads. The template should exactly produce the format in Help:Reference section. --RLJ (talk) 16:42, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
    • I've fixed |volume= etc., in the example above. |authors= already exists in the (currently deprecated) version of the template on this project, but the specifics of the parameters is, I suggest, something to be discussed once we have agreement in general to proceed. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:15, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Fully agree we should have an structured template for citation references. It eliminates personal options, preferences, different sequences. Myself is an example. I was reluctant to use at the Spanish Wiki, until I started to learn and use. There is no way of comparison between the "manual" vs the structured template. The "autor" option when multiple authors is very useful and welcome. Other question is BHL or other repository on line library, should we have a field for a citation or not? Today there is a BHL template that basically replaces the "url" field. Excelent initiative and discussion needed.--Hector Bottai (talk) 17:44, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
  • What happens with ResearchGate, JSTOR and most importantly PDF links? Andyboorman (talk) 19:37, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
  • no Agree ... and Wikidata links. We should encourage those. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:07, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
    • We should also consider the general Handle System of which DOI is a subset. Currently the {{hdl}} template is transcluded on 1,316 Wikispecies pages. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 01:21, 25 February 2020 (UTC).
  • Agree that such templates would be extremely helpful, for all the already mentioned reasons. Then, the point about using data from Wikidata is promising: Wikipedia has templates that can generate the whole citation just from a wikidata QID (example on wp:en and wp:fr), but I guess it would be a separate, more controversial debate. --LamBoet (talk) 23:25, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Agree if the required links to PDF, ResearchGate, JSTOR, BHL etc. can be implemented. The later three are templates in their own right. Although I probably do not need to use the citation template myself. Andyboorman (talk) 10:34, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
  • no Agree provided we see to that the resulting format is rendered in accordance with of our previous poll about the References format, e.g. no comma between the journal name and volume number, and we use ISO-standard en-dash rather than hyphen for page numbers. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 15:50, 22 February 2020 (UTC).
  • At first view, agreed, provided that one or more custom links can be added, such as the link "Online" on {{Dawson, 1953}}, otherwise strongly opposed. Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:22, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
    @Christian Ferrer: Adding a named parameter for custom links is easy. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 19:08, 23 February 2020 (UTC)~.
  • no Agree Dan Koehl (talk) 13:40, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
  • no Disagree For me at least it would be more strenuous and more tedious to work with the template. It would be also less fun: I would feel like a silly automaton filling in pre-designed blanks. Mariusm (talk) 16:14, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
    • You seem to have overlooked this part of the proposal: "The use of such a templates would not be mandatory, and existing manual methods would still be available to those who prefer to use them". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:49, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
  • I agree with this being developed, must follow our MoS and needs to contend with the generally high rigor in taxonomic papers, the priority should be keeping it simple, its usage must become part of the help pages and the priority is Wikispecies and external txonomic sites not other wikis. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 07:16, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Author names should only be linked for taxonomic references. Authors in papers who are not taxonomic authorities should not be linked. Otherwise we expand our coverage of authors to anyone who was a co-author on a cited paper, even if they did not publish a name. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:53, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
    • I very much agree with EncycloPetey on this. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 20:22, 14 March 2020 (UTC).
  • Question why is it necessary to format citations in the first place? Ottawahitech (talk) 16:00, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
    • There are several reasons for this. First of all, consistency is almost always a good thing for an encyclopedia or database, don't you think? A more specific reason is that because of Wikispecies' very narrow and well specified scope (i.e. taxonomy), we use an entirely different set of templates for references than most other sister projects, such as Wikipedia. For instance we don't use the <ref> or <references /> tags, nor the {{Cite web}}, {{Cite journal}} and {{reflist}} templates. Instead we use a type of reference templates specific to Wikispecies. This works best for us but it's important that all references follow the given guidelines in order to keep all citations consistent throughout Wikispecies. You can read a lot more about that here: Wikispecies:Village Pump/Archive 33#Reference Format. Regards, Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 19:07, 14 April 2020 (UTC).
      • Thanks for answering @Tommy Kronkvist: I assume what that means is that wikispecies wants to have editors who specialize in editing this project as opposed to users who participate in several wmf-projects? If so, I would suggest clarifying this point in the documentation which seemed contradictory to me when I read it yesterday. Ottawahitech (talk) 19:17, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
        • @Ottawahitech: We are developing the resource for users who wish to explore an accepted view of the taxonomy and classification of organisms. Therefore editors ought to have a basic discipline working knowledge and be prepared to learn more. An assumption is that editors are prepared to research scientific literature and bring back the results to their edits here. Hope this helps. Andyboorman (talk) 19:40, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
          • @Andyboorman:, Thanks for replying. So I guess what you are saying is that the participants here are expected to understand the assumption that you describe. I see no problem with that. I am just suggesting that this may not be obvious to newbies such as myself. I have visited a few wmf-sites recently, and many send out automatic welcome messages that give newbies some pointers. Since I did not get a welcome message when I joined I checked out the main page that says:Welcome to Wikispecies The free species directory that anyone can edit right at the top. I am just suggesting that maybe if you are making assumptions those assumptions should be spelled out to avoid misunderstandings. Am I making sense? Ottawahitech (talk) 20:14, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

───────────────────────── @Ottawahitech: Yes, you're making a lot of sense. Not only that – you actually describe a scenario that's usually in place and working here at Wikispecies, even though as on most of the smaller wikis its done manually rather than automatically. Note however that this particular Requests for Comment ("RfC") issue is not the place for that discussion, but you're most welcome to bring it up at the Village Pump. Kind regards, Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 14:28, 18 April 2020 (UTC).

  • no Agree - ALSO @Tommy Kronkvist: would suggest formatting this to have a clear voting section, cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 15:03, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
    • @Faendalimas: Please take care of that, if you may. I'm sad to say I haven't got time to see to it right now. Kind regards, Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 08:57, 21 April 2020 (UTC).
    • That would be pointless bureaucracy. There is clearly consensus here for the proposal. We just need an uninvolved person (ideally an admin, or otherwise a long-term editor in good standing) to close the discussion to that effect. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:09, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

What actually needs to be standardized

I have a laundry list of stuff that is currently not handled (or even not agreed about) whatsoever:

  • Book pagination
    • Is a book to be given as "1–300" or "300 pp."?
    • How is roman pagination to be given (especially for books)?
    • What about plates? Why should the number of plates ever be listed in a reference template to begin with? (I think this is a weird split in citation style between zoology and botany, I've never seen plates mentioned in a botanical reference list unless the work is specifically bibliographical or is citing the plate itself)
  • Should we systematically omit subtitles/shorten the titles of over overly long work titles?
    • E.g. "Species plantarum, exhibentes plantas rite cognitas, ad genera relatas, cum differentiis specificis, nominibus trivialibus, synonymis selectis, locis natalibus, secundum systema sexuale digestas" versus just Species Plantarum
    • Same for journals subtitles
  • What's the best way to deal with material in non-Latin languages (in practice mostly Russian Japanese and Chinese)?
    Do we permit a Latinization (Romanization) of the title? If so, what would the format be?
    Do we permit a translation of the title into English? Any major language using the Latin alphabet? If so, what would the format be?
    Do we prefer one or the other of the above, and under what circumstances?
  • How should we format monograph series such as Bibliotheca Botanica, Regnum Vegetabile or Systematic Botany Monographs, which usually have both an ISSN series and an ISBN?
  • In the same context, what's the format for multi-volume works? What about volumes issued in parts?
  • How to present journal series?
    • There are two competing format "(A)" vs. ", Series A" and having 2 pairs of parenthesis following each others can be jarring.
  • This has been a subject of dispute, but what's the best wording and formatting for "post-reference links"?
  • How do you format a reprint whose date is different from the earliest form?
    • That is, what's the best way to deal with citing, for convenience, a publication from technically a different place of publication?
  • More generally, what's the way to deal with inaccurate date of publication on the printed work?
    • This is not an issue restricted to old works (often because they were issued in part, see above): modern advanced online publishing is rife with it! Do we go with journal volume date or advanced online date?
    • This one might affect how we name templates!
  • How do we capitalize series titles?
    • Some users have been doing title cap, other sentence cap, and this has actually resulted in duplicates in category:Sources!
  • What's the best way to present "articles" in multiple parts running across an entire volume or even multiple volumes? These were common until the early 20th century!
    • Do we want 12 different templates with essentially indistinguishable title or a single template covering a range of volumes and issues?
    • There are still some fields in which such articles are still being published. This problem did not disappear in the 20th century. Some prolific authors are notorious for this.
  • I think there are some templates that should really use the et al. format because their other lists are just preposterously long

If you wondered why I was working so much on standardizing new templates back last autumn? This is why. Circeus (talk) 15:43, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Articles running across multiple volumes or, in some cases, even journals (!) may look rather horrible and complex if combined into one reference, so I'm not sure if it's a good idea. Multiple parts within a single volume may be okay though, I've seen some zoology works at least combine those into one. If you want examples though of the problems I refer to, here are some:
  • Haruo Takizawa, from what I've gathered so far of his publications, published parts 1-3 of "Notes on Chrysomelid-beetles of India and its Neighboring Areas" (the exact title varies) in Entomological review of Japan, part 4 in Kontyû, and part 5 in Proceedings of the Japanese Society of Systematic Zoology. There are more parts after that but they're not all listed on the author's page yet. That's at least three different periodicals for a single series!
  • Maurice Pic is more problematic. His "Coléoptères du globe" series in L'Échange, Revue Linnéenne seems to span at least as far back as 1927 up until 1954. Then he also has multiple articles in L'Échange, Revue Linnéenne which are broken up by issue within each volume. The latter case at least I've seen the Catalogue of Coleoptera book series just merge those into one reference.
Monster Iestyn (talk) 09:09, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
Sorry, I meant Catalogue of Palaearctic Coleoptera! Monster Iestyn (talk) 17:20, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
As I said above "the specifics of the parameters is, I suggest, something to be discussed once we have agreement in general to proceed". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:41, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
Oh, Andy, when will you actually learn to read I actually say instead of just regurgitating the last thing you said before that? Because literally 99% of what I'm listing above has nothing to do whatsoever with the basic, easy format for a simple journal article precisely because it falls outside the ambit of those types of references.
Seriously, I <sarcasm>love it</sarcam> when you assume that I'm such a moron that I can't realize I'm talking about stuff you think will literally solve itself. (Spoiler alert: it won't~ ~ ~!) Circeus (talk) 13:29, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
The reality is that we must connect the data presented by Wikispecies to Wikidata. Wikispecies is, after all, a member of the Wikimedia community. Hence the practical question isn't whether we should make connections to Wikidata or not, but how we should do it. The trouble is that "simple" text-only references without templates most likely wont suffice when making those Wikidata connections. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 16:16, 26 February 2020 (UTC).
If your post is not directly about the proposal at hand - which, as anyone can see is not merely about "a simple journal article" ("when will you actually learn to read I actually say [sic]", indeed) - then it is off-topic and should be hatted. My delight at your attempts to read my mind is tempered only by the disappointment that you so clearly lack the ability to do so correctly. And I assure you that my views are based on observations, not assumptions. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:31, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Conclusion

As i was baerely involved in this I will close it. The original request has been agreed to in that this proposition will be developed further. Agree = 8, Disagree = 2. Those developing please note the comments. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 21:29, 28 April 2020 (UTC)


The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this archive.


This is an archive of closed discussions. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this archive.

Poll: Zt- and Pt-templates to be banned?

Do you agree, that Pt- and Zt-templates (eg {{Zt3690.1.1}}) must be banned in Wikispecies? And once banned, to be renamed to {{Author, Year}}?--Estopedist1 (talk) 05:39, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

This poll lasts from 28 September 2020 to 12 October 2020.

Votes:

  1. no Agree --Estopedist1 (talk) 05:39, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
  2. no Agree --Andyboorman (talk) 08:22, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
  3. Symbol support vote.svg SupportJustin (koavf)TCM 08:43, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
  4. Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Renaming of the templates is not enough. The template text (eg. "[[Template:Zt3690.1.1|{{int:Reference page}}]]") should be changed to the new name. In the articles using the template the old template name should be replaced by the new one. --RLJ (talk) 08:54, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment to @RLJ: there are several ways to manually or (semi)automatically fix the text inside the template. But first, we need consensus to ban Zt- and Pt-templates--Estopedist1 (talk) 10:44, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
  5. no Agree --Hiouf (talk) 12:12, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
  6. no Agree --Hector Bottai (talk) 13:57, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
  7. no Agree Monster Iestyn (talk) 15:12, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
  8. no Agree Burmeister (talk) 15:51, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
  9. no Unnecessary I don't see the point in formally doing such a "ban". All we need is to properly publicize the naming convention for reference template. Once the renaming is done with, the problem is gone and is exceedingly unlikely to ever return! Circeus (talk) 15:58, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment While normally I would agree, there was some objection to renaming the Pt templates in particular in our last discussion on them at the Village Pump, precisely because there hadn't been a "community decision" on the matter. If this vote succeeds then this argument wouldn't hold anymore and we can actually get somewhere with renaming the templates maybe. Monster Iestyn (talk) 17:37, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
      • Given the above, I will shift to no Agree , but I do wish we didn't have to do this hoop jump. Circeus (talk) 17:17, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
  10. Leaning to Symbol support vote.svg Support I acknowledge the issue and certainly want to see them renamed, however @Circeus: has a point and I am a little wary of too many rules when this problem could be removed by renaming and clear guidelines on various conventions here. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 19:15, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
  11. no Disagree For taxonomic journals, a template name based on the journal, issue, number, and pages is just as useful, and avoids two common problems of author-date template names: (1) there is never any ambiguity of the name, and (2) never any need to add a, b, c, etc. to disambiguate articles. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:43, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
    • Even Stephen, who "pioneered" the method, had to pepper the reference sections of pages using these templates with HTML comments recording the authors so he could order and actually differentiate them without having to refer to the preview constantly. That alone is a good enough reason to avoid such a naming convention at all costs if the initiator of the idea had to use a workaround! Circeus (talk) 17:17, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
      • We would have the same problem with authors who regularly published more than one article per year, which is a great many of the important authors. There are many authors where name of author + year is not enlightening at all as to which article is meant, so I fail to see any merit in your counter-argument. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:34, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
  12. Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral for a "ban", but Symbol support vote.svg Support for renaming all of them, according to our reference guidelines. I guess, we will find doublettes, because most editors using the author+year style did not know that other editors had already created Pt- and Zt-templates. --Thiotrix (talk) 07:26, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
  13. no Agree --LamBoet (talk) 19:39, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Given this has run for two weeks I would suggest closing this in 24 hours so last comments then will tally it. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 13:04, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Voting results: 13 participants of whom 1 participant voted "disagree", 1 participant voted "neutral" and other participants voted "agree".

Conclusion: Pt- and Zt-templates are banned and to be renamed to {{Author, Year}}--Estopedist1 (talk) 05:23, 13 October 2020 (UTC)


The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this archive.


This is an archive of closed discussions. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this archive.

Deletion

What does this mean?? Where is now placed Celastrales, Malpighiales and Oxalidales? Is it vandalism or is it legal change? --Kusurija (talk) 16:21, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

@Kusurija: & @Esculapio: It is a well meaning change, not vandalism, but you have a fair point as the orders themselves still link back to Eurosid 1 and are thus semi-orphans. I assume that this change follows the non-authoritative NCBI Taxonomy Browser for its justification. WS does not follow this nor any of the quasi-Linnaean classifications for taxa higher than orders by the way cf. Celestrales in Tropicos. Until WS sorts itself out for the higher taxa we may have to revert these edits. Andyboorman (talk) 18:16, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
@Andyboorman: After saying "Until WS sorts itself out for the higher taxa we may have to revert these edits. ", I don't see, what action has been made. Would you show me the link to it? Thank you. --Kusurija (talk) 19:47, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

───────────────────────── The discussion has been continued here: User talk:Kusurija#Deletion Wikispecies:Requests for Comment. As far as RfC I propose we close it. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 10:27, 21 June 2021 (UTC).


The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this archive.


This is an archive of closed discussions. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this archive.

Weird Automatic Squiggles

Can someone look at the page named Neposa armandoi and please tell me why the system puts in a weird, unexplained squiggle between the latin, italicised, species name and the capitalised author name, in two places? Accassidy (talk) 10:14, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

@Accassidy: In those two places the phonetic symbol for an apical consonant has been inserted instead of a common blank space. Perhaps a copy-and-paste thing? I've replaced them with blank space. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 12:25, 10 July 2021 (UTC).
@Tommy Kronkvist: I've tried many things, including lots of common blank spaces, but this keeps coming back. I often compose the pages first in Notepad in an attempt to keep them as "clean" as possible. Accassidy (talk) 12:13, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

───────────────────────── The discussion continued here: Wikispecies:Village Pump#Odd character after italicised Genus name.Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 14:46, 23 July 2021 (UTC).


The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this archive.


This is an archive of closed discussions. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this archive.

Data from Wikidata

Hello since a few days I add data (using {{Wikidata list}}) from Wikidata in talk pages of references. What is potentially that data?

When a page exist for the name here then it is given in the lists, otherwise the link leads to the Wikidata items (I don't know of that function is modifiable)
The role of the reference for the name (first descritpion, recombination, replacement of junior homonym, taxonomic treatment, ...)
The pagination
A link to BHL (e.g. Template talk:Alcock, 1893)
A link to the Plazi treatment (e.g. Template talk:Lau & Reimer, 2019
An image

Currently I did that on Template talk:Alcock, 1893, Template talk:Shimomura, 2017, Template talk:Anderson & Zhang, 2017, Template talk:Zhou, Yang & Chen, 2019, Template talk:Liu, Tang & Luo, 2017, Template talk:Lau & Reimer, 2019, Template talk:Théel, 1879, Template talk:Murakami, 1944.

Questions, are you agree that I continue?

Christian Ferrer (talk) 11:51, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

  • OK, silence gives consent. For info the pages where I added are listed in Category:Lists based on Wikidata. Let me know if there is an issue, something to discuss or if you want to display specific data for specific publications. Regards, Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:23, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
How this work? What code I have to insert on talk page? I try in two pages with no good results. Burmeister (talk) 18:26, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
  • The exact code is:

{{Wikidata list|sparql= SELECT ?item ?itemLabel ?referenceHasRole ?referenceHasRoleLabel ?Pages ?BHL_URL ?PlaziID ?PlaziID_URL WHERE { ?item p:P225 ?statement . ?statement prov:wasDerivedFrom ?reference . ?reference pr:P248 wd:Put here the Q item number of the publication. OPTIONAL { ?item p:P225 ?statement . ?statement prov:wasDerivedFrom ?reference . ?reference pr:P248 ?publication. OPTIONAL { ?item p:P225 ?statement . ?statement prov:wasDerivedFrom ?reference . ?reference pr:P248 ?publication. ?reference pr:P6184 ?referenceHasRole} OPTIONAL { ?item p:P225 ?statement . ?statement prov:wasDerivedFrom ?reference . ?reference pr:P248 ?publication. ?reference pr:P1992 ?PlaziID BIND(IRI(CONCAT("http://treatment.plazi.org/id/",?PlaziID)) as ?PlaziID_URL)} OPTIONAL { ?item p:P225 ?statement . ?statement prov:wasDerivedFrom ?reference . ?reference pr:P248 ?publication. ?reference pr:P304 ?Pages} OPTIONAL { ?item p:P225 ?statement . ?statement prov:wasDerivedFrom ?reference . ?reference pr:P248 ?publication. ?reference pr:P687 ?BHLpageID BIND(IRI(CONCAT("https://biodiversitylibrary.org/page/",?BHLpageID)) as ?BHL_URL)} } SERVICE wikibase:label { bd:serviceParam wikibase:language "[AUTO_LANGUAGE],en". } } |columns=label:Taxon,?referenceHasRoleLabel:Reference role,?Pages:Page(s),?BHL_URL:BHL,?PlaziID_URL:Plazi,P18 }} {{Wikidata list end}}

After to have added the code you click on "Automatically update the list now". Christian Ferrer (talk) 19:05, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
If I found time I will try to see if it is possible to create a substitution template with the Qitem as parameter... that will be much more simple to use... Christian Ferrer (talk) 19:09, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
Another exemple for the code where "Q90136167" (at line 8) is the Q number of the publication (Q90136167). Christian Ferrer (talk) 19:18, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
  • @Burmeister: you can use this: {{subst:User:Christian Ferrer/sandbox2|Q90136167}}, and of course by replacing the Qitem number by the one of the article/publication of your choice.
Note that all this works only if the data is already in Wikidata (and at the right place), for all the exemples I gave at top I have entered the data myself in Wikidata. E.g. I added the data there for Nymphaster basilicus displayed in Template talk:Alcock, 1893.
If the comunity agrees I can create a template in the template namespace, e.g. Template:Taxa list instead of my user namespace, but nothing urges as this is a substitution. Note also that we can call everything from Wikidata, the query used here is my arbitrary choice, more less or different data can be shown, you can ask me if you want something different and I will see if I can do it.
Note that only one Wikidata list is allowed by page. I have chose arbitrary the talk page but this is maybe not the best place. Such a list can be displayed in the main page, and with the substitution template we can also call a subsection title (with potential translations) such as ==List of taxa treated in this publication==. Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:21, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this archive.


This is an archive of closed discussions. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this archive.

Cactus redirect to Mammillaria

I don't normally participate in this wiki, but while doing some research I came across this redirect, Cactus. For some reason it did not redirect to Cactaceae as expected, but to Mammillaria, a genus of Cactaceae. I assumed this was a mistake and corrected it, being that cactus is a common name of the family Cactaceae. But this was reverted, saying "this redirect is for the name "Cactus L., Sp. Pl. 466. 1753, nom. rej.", not the common name "cactus" itself".

While I guess this may be the policy of Wikispecies, this is ridiculous. The idea that a definition deprecated more than a century ago should be prioritised for a redirect over the common, in use name is nonsense. At best, this creates confusion and at worst may lead to people using this wiki to mistakenly believe that Mammillaria is the proper name for cactus.

Rather than get into an edit war over the matter, I thought it best to see what others say.Kylesenior (talk) 08:49, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

I have been working on bringing our Cactaceae pages into the 21st Century, but did not revert your well meaning edit. However, I must agree with you - the word Cactus should go to the family, redirecting to Mammillaria is a bit misleading. IMHO. Andyboorman (talk) 10:37, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Wikispecies is not Wikipedia, Its subject are the scientific names. As a scientific name Cactus is a genus published in 1753 by Linnaeus, typified by Cactus mammillaris and rejected in the early 1900's in favour of Mammillaria. "Cactus" in the sense of Cactaceae is a vernacular name. Vernacular names are a side product in the articles here, they do not have redirects to articles and do not have priority. Pragmatically a disambiguation page would help. --RLJ (talk) 12:25, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
  • I agree that a disambiguation page could be warranted here. But it is correct that here we are about scientific names and their usage, not vernacular names. As such the name Cactus being both a scientic and a vernacular name should be redirected according to rules of nomenclature. However, as I said above to avoid confusion in cases like this a disambiguation seems appropriate. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 16:09, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
@Kylesenior: Hi, I was the one who reverted your edit, sorry if I have caused trouble by doing that! I understood it as a well-meaning edit too, but I don't think we make redirects for common names at all on Wikispecies. Apart from anything else, "cactus" is only the common name for the family in English and a few other languages. Wikispecies is supposed to be language neutral (though we use English a lot in many places anyway despite this policy), so it seemed weird to me to have redirects specifically for English common names anyway.
... On that note though, should Platypus have a hatnote to Ornithorhynchus? That might have a similar problem to "Cactus" specifically for English speakers (though arguably much worse), but maybe not for other languages. Monster Iestyn (talk) 17:28, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
Sorry did not realise a new comment here. I would say yes for the same reasons @Monster Iestyn: Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 11:27, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this archive.


This is an archive of closed discussions. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this archive.

Taxon pages: vernacular name in title bar

Please see Felis catus (version) and Wikispecies:Sandbox1 (version; an exact copy of Felis catus, except it points to {{Sandbox1}} (version) rather than[struck, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 18:21, 15 March 2022 (UTC)] {{Sandbox2}} (version). The differences are (1) no [ ] in Wikispecies:Sandbox1 (I don't know how to display [ ] only if there is a value against, eg, de= within the {{VN}} template section on the page, when the user has selected de/German as their language from the language selector) — perhaps the dotted underline is sufficient (else the empty square brackets could be interpreted as a request to supply a vernacular name in the language in question); and (2) [struck, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 10:22, 15 March 2022 (UTC)] no display in Wikispecies:Sandbox1 of the French vernacular name (since frr= is being returned alongside fr= on Felis catus, when one has chosen French from the language selector (hopefully this can be addressed and French (re-)activated, but it should not prevent us displaying other vernacular names in this way; frr users can still see their frr= vernacular name)). [struck, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 18:21, 15 March 2022 (UTC)]

To make this functionality universal across taxon pages that include a vernacular name section, we just need to add {{Sandbox1}}, {{Sandbox2}} or {{Vernacular indicator}} to {{VN}}. The overall display method is as suggested at Phabricator:T303665 (Mon, Mar 14, 5:05 PM) and uses Page status indicators. Any users who do not wish to see the vernacular name displayed in this way might choose Latin from the language selector. We may wish to give {{Vernacular indicator}} administrator-level protection.

I propose we create {{Vernacular indicator}} as above and link this to {{VN}}. It would be good to know of any further considerations or objections others may be aware of or have. Thank you, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 00:50, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Personally I am against vernacular names, always have been for the last 15 years, I do not stop people adding them but they have no use or benefit to pages about scientific names, they are rarely consistent and by promoting them into the title as your doing we could end up in the endless arguments about what is the correct common name as is seen on Wikipedia. The species Tiliqua rugosa for example has six common names in different parts of Australia, all English, which one will you pick. I think we do enough permitting vernacular names being listed. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 01:40, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
While localization of the classification system has also been requested here (presumably as in genus → genus 属, if your language selector is set to Japanese), perhaps this proposal is for a way in for those less expert and from languages and cultures less rooted in Latin; certainly most of those I try to talk about this site with say they do not look at it since they don't know any of the Latin names. jawiki is not particularly helpful in terms of coverage, smaller wikis likely less so; other than specialist literature, ja speakers may not have good resources for learning (and hopefully valuing) more (about) the subject matter on offer here. How many potential users are we likely to alienate and lose by having this feature, vs. for how many might we help provide a stepping-stone? Perhaps we could turn the dotted underline into a hover, with the explicit instruction to select Latin rather than English if you prefer no such localization. In terms of your point here about increasing usability and also uniqueness, it's unlikely other projects are set up to deliver such a solution with such ease, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 02:14, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
(draft text for the hover: si quis nomen scientificum videre solum vult, oportet de ULS linguam eligere Latinam), Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 02:53, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
Looking at the Japanese Wikipedia, [1] for the domestic cat. They correctly list the scientific names in the Latin alphabet and the common names in Japanese. As per the international codes of nomenclature. Their links to the Japanese wiki pages at the different classification levels are Japanese alphabet of the scientific names, they should not but I get why they would do it and it makes sense. Here we are primarily about the scientific name. Those people who have a genuine interest in scientific names, and Japanese or any other countries researchers who study plants or animals, I assure you know the scientific names, in Latin alphabet, for the species they are interested in. They also publish with the names in the Latin alphabet as they are required to. The localization should be done for the ranks,and other title areas, within what we do here, but the information under those headings is presented in Latin alphabet as is required under the codes. My point on uniqueness is in response to directions that international and global lists are heading and with COL+ being promoted as the global list of species these days which everyone will, eventually, have to follow, we need to present what they do not. COL+ is a list of taxa, we are a list of names, types and taxonomic authors. In other words we are compilations of names, types and references. The first two are presented in Latin the later in original language. What local wikis would do well to do is what the EN wiki has done and link its pages, particularly when titled by common name, to the wikispecies and commons names for the same taxa. The people who mostly use this cite have a specialist interest in nomenclature, people who have that interest will expect it to be in the Latin alphabet. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 03:44, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
Well, as presumably can be evidenced from the number of orthographic corrections that need to be made to newly published scientific names, the lack of gender agreement, etc, and all the hair-raising "barbarisms" on display, many taxonomists/-ers are only engaging with this whole Latin thing under duress. (To improve the latinity and consistency of the taxonavigation section I also proposed we use eg "conspectus familiarum" rather than "overview of familiae" in the taxonavigation section.) The publishers {{Imamura & Yoshino, 2007}} of Ryukyupercis PDF themselves, in the very first line of the taxonomy section, before even the type species, provide the (new) Japanese name for the genus (and this is not the only example). The question is, how many scientists who use this site for all the information it offers are going to stop doing so because of additional provision for their less-/differently-educated compatriots (of whose existence and linguistic plight they are presumably at least dimly aware)? Might other currently-less-proficient users obtain some benefit? Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 08:49, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
Looking at COL [2] for Felis catus, they provide an (English) common name before even the references (Wilson & Reader/{{MSW}}, not also Linnaeus); also, where this is proposing a small vernacular name on the same line on the page as and clearly of lower priority than Felis catus, COL thrusts upon you an absolutely enormous advert for ITIS, as if those involved are of more importance than the species in question, completely ridiculous, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 09:09, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
Vernacular names have no taxonomic standing and are optional here and so it will be difficult to get consensus. Giving a vn more prominence on a taxon page is not a vote winner. Just my opinion. Andyboorman (talk) 18:41, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
But those who don't like it can select Latin as their language; those who do, can select xxx... Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 18:46, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
Latin names are not optional. The taxon name page should be more or less the same as the taxon name. Our present taxon page structure, order and wording reflects accepted practice in science. It has been consensually agreed over many years as has not using Latin in the VN list, which is always at the bottom of the taxon page after the science. Andyboorman (talk) 19:00, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
You can see why en:John Wycliffe was exhumed and burned... Is it possible that there are stakeholders beyond scientists (scientia being nothing but knowledge and awareness), that there is a mass extinction event underway due to apathy, that ignorance and apathy go hand in hand, one fuelling the other, and that we have here, ready to go, without detracting in any way from "the science", and giving far less prominence to the vernacular than COL(+), a potential way-in for 7+ billion users besides User:Andyboorman and User:Faendalimas? Is it the case also that it was consensually agreed over many years that users should be presented with a long list of ranks for taxon pages above the family level, or was this a constraint imposed by the taxonav functionality etc..., Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 19:16, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
To clarify re the selection of Latin from the language selector: precisely, as you say, for the reason that no "vernacular name" is entered against la= in the {{VN}}/vernacular name section on the page, were you to select Latin as your language, there would be no display of a vernacular name for any taxon, i.e., just as things always were in the good old days; thanks, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 20:34, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

───────────────────────── I am not convinced you appreciate the purpose of the pages on this wiki and the changes your proposing in this thread are against that purpose. The general articles on species are the purvee of the wikipedias not us, this is why we do not add all the information you will see on a wikipedia page. Much of our information is taken by wikidata to be used in the taxoboxes of the various wikipedias. If people do not have an interest in scientific names and nomenclature they are not going to come here, I accept that, and to make this site appealing to the masses that use wikimedia will effectively turn our pages into summaries of wikipedia pages. I do not expect Wikipedia will be happy about that and we are not trying to do it. The majority of our readers do not read wikipedia pages, as among the scientific community there is a lack of trust in the content of them. We present basic facts about the nomenclature only in heirarchical form for ease of obtaining the information this contains. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 20:49, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

in regards to your example above.
Taxonomy
Ryukyupercis, new genus
(New Japanese name: Wani-toragisu zoku)
ok after the section title they list the new genus name, with the defined term new genus, ie genus nova, this under the ICZN code is the declaration of the new taxon, this is where the name becomes a legitimate name, the type data later on is all about meeting other parts of the code. Many authors suggest a common name at this point, its in parentheses, I have myself, eg after naming Chelodina burrungandjii I suggested Sandstone Long neck turtle as a potential common name. But it has no relevance to the taxonomic decision to name the new species.
Also you are confusing Latin with Latin alphabet, names are not Latin per se, they can be many languages, the rule is they use the Latin alphabet. Its not a language. I named the species Elseya nadibajagu this name is not Latin, nadibajagu is an aboriginal phrase meaning from a long time ago, in the Couri language local to the area. I have to use the Latin alphabet though to meet the code, nowhere does it say the word is Latin. So its not about Latin language this is irrelevant. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 21:01, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
(eek, genus novum (neuter) or genera nova); wouldn't it be good, assuming scientists don't use wikipedia but..., if the majority of our users were wikipedia users, i.e., we were to grow our audience, without alienating one constituency, to another? Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 21:19, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
vernacular names are not part of nomenclature and of little relevance, people are free to add them at the bottom in their own section as is current practice. They are ignored for the most part by people studying nomenclature. Arguments over common names are part of Wikipedia's issue and mandate. Its also very unlikely that people with no interest or understanding of nomenclature are going to come here when they can get an encyclopedic style story about the species on Wikipedia. Most people do not understand, or want to understand the intracacies of of nomenclature. Adding the common name at a higher point of reference is unlikely to change that. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 21:36, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
The point is, that they absolutely cannot get an encyclopedic style story about the species on wikipedia; on enwiki, perhaps, for many species; on jawiki, not even for all the big cats, and that's one of the biggest wikis; non-English speakers absolutely cannot get such encyclopedic style stories, on jawiki they can't even get eg the primate names, scientific or vernacular, and jawiki is one of the biggest; that's (part of) what can be so readily provided in a more approachable fashion here, at so little cost, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 22:54, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
Fully agree with @Faendalimas:. Vernacular names are far to be a priority of Wikispecies. Absolutely out of purpose to move it from the bottom to anywhere.--Hector Bottai (talk) 23:55, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
Please could you clarify with which part of User:Faendalimas' argument you are in agreement, thank you, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 02:43, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
I sympathize with issues of other than english wikipedia articles. The solution though is for those wikipedias to write those articles. I write articles for the Portuguese wikipedia, so I know the amount availble there is 1/6 of that available on EN WP. However, adapting what we do here to autofil information on various wikipedias is not the solution. We have our own mandate here and wikipedias can and do use our information, as I said english wikipedia pages on various species link to us directly for information, the JA-WP can and should do the same. I am happy for localization to happen where it is useful. But that is so readers can see the structure of our pages in their own language. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 02:24, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
After nearly twenty-years, they are nowhere close, how long must users wait? What exactly is the cost? A loss of prestige? A threat to obscurantism? Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 02:43, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

─────────────────────────Perhaps this is putting the cart before the horse. (0) Is anyone here opposed to the Wikimedia Foundation's mission of developing educational content? (1) Is there anyone on this page who can confirm that they have never been guilty of using such a word as "cat" or "bird"? (2) If they have ever used such a word, or can imagine a scenario where such a word might have been used, a person who might use such a word, or perhaps have some sympathy with zh and ja users who still are taught 猫 and 鳥, do they agree with the concept that it is desirable to be able to associate such a word and the being so signified with its scientific name? (3) Do they agree that the formation of such associations might be termed education(al), i.e., leading, ducere, one out e/ex one's state of ignorance to a state of knowledge? (4) Could they imagine that a ja speaker might of heard of and know such words as チーター or ライオン, but not know the Latin/scientific name for this? Or that an en speaker learning ja might wish to know the ja for cheetah or lion, or even, if already amongst the select few who know of "Acinonyx jubatus" or "Panthera leo", the ja for these, so as to be able to communicate with ja speakers? How ja children might be able to learn of felid taxonomy through seeing ja beside la? Or, if able to recognize the images, of the English words at the same time by selecting en? (5) Is there anyone who thinks a scientist cannot condescend to such lower specimens of the human race by permitting them to see such a juxtaposition, or perhaps even put up with spending two seconds selecting la as their view so they do not have to be reminded of such unfortunates while they go about their more noble tasks? (6) On the basis that rolling out this solution would take an administrator a couple of minutes, do they know of any other comparable compendium of linked knowledge in this field that could be made, for a plethora of users, whatever their background and whatever their purpose, imagined or not, primary or otherwise, yes, more "accessible" (I hate that word but..) to billions of people speaking dozens or even hundreds of supported languages with so little effort, a wikispecies "priority" or not (talking about this certainly takes longer than delivering it)?

What is lost by doing this? What might potentially be gained? Thanks, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 02:43, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Might I suggest that the primary "stakeholders" here are our readers, not us? How about, if the above is to no avail, we try rolling this out for one month, then pause/deactivate and reassess, see if any/what comments / feedback / differences in editorial activity are elicited? Or if 3 vs 1 decides the fate of all, whether we, after a trial period, activate for three months each year? (a moment to toggle on and off, would just need to comment out a template on {{VN}}); thanks, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 03:15, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Would also be possible to disable en (?&es?) display / only display for ja/zh/ru / only display for users who have chosen from the language selector a language with non-Roman alphabets etc, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 03:15, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Or eg just activate for extant felids, as an education tool? Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 03:32, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

It has just struck me that this solution might help reduce repetitive strain injury as reported here, due to excess mouse scrolling to find the VN in one's own tongue; is there a duty of care issue (Felis catus is quite long)? thank you, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 04:19, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Can someone confirm whether papers such as this = this on higher-level marsupial systematics count as "science" or not. It's in Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences and they are "using a data set that included mitochondrial and nuclear genes", but it keeps referring to Monito del Monte so I'm a bit confused; should we be restricting our audience to only certain scientists, thanks, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 09:27, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes they are scientific papers and no we do not restrict our science audience. WS is only about taxonomy and classification of accepted taxa and not the wider information, such as uses, folklore, chemical properties and so on. However, taxonomy takes its information from wide sources and distils it down to those nuggets that are of specific use for its branch of science. Taxonomy is very useful to wider science, for example, pharmacognosy where investigations of useful molecules are guided by examining relatives. By the way the whole question of what is an accepted taxon can be vexed indeed and worthy of another discussion! Andyboorman (talk) 09:48, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
Thank you, that makes sense. (Here's a great examplate of the same point, {{Braun & Kimball, 2021}}: not a Latin/scientific name in sight (and I guess some of the materials for trainee/future scientists, such as the 2019 tenth edition of Vertebrate Life, which includes lots of words like tetrapods, amniotes, and verebtates, as well as Vertebrata, Amniota, Tetrapoda, etc, may also help provide ?stepping-stones?; interestingly in terms of wider purpose, that same book says that "the sustainability of populations, and even the continued existence of some species ... is becoming ever more problematic ... thus, as we have prepared this tenth edition, the study of vertebrates has taken on new urgency", which I guess they basically mean they are trying to address through their content), Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 13:40, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
Does the test edit to Dromiciops gliroides make things clearer for all potential constituents? Thanks, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 09:33, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

@Faendalimas: Hello again, a week or so has now gone by, please could you indicate whether you are still diametrically opposed to this going ahead/a wider trial by me asking for the relevant few lines of code to be added to the VN template (which of course will only affect pages with VN in the first place). It could be, if you are still opposed, that Wikimedia might countenance a project fork, along Wikispecies-for-all / Wikispecies-for-some lines (like Aves / Neornithes, presumably the crown version could have some kind of new name); or should we ping all (translation-)administrators and regular users first? My concern is that there may be some reluctance in terms of site politics to speak against the previously expressed wishes of such a high-status/long-term editor/administrator/bureaucrat, thank you, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 13:40, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

I am still opposed to this if I had changed my view I would have said so, two others have also expressed their opposition to it. I have nothing more to add and have been leaving the RfA the opportunity to run its course. One of us will close it after about 2 weeks without additional comments and whatever is the consensus at that point will be the result of the RfA. Its not up to me alone that is not what consensus means. I have to travel tomorrow but will be able to watch this once I get to Australia. Around a week from now if there is nothing new the RfA can be closed. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 18:37, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
Still not sure what this achieves. Sorry. Andyboorman (talk) 20:01, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

It may be a bit more decentralized for en (though eg our beloved EU follows the HBW-BirdLife Checklist (which includes VN)), but the 日本爬虫両棲類学会 (Herpetological Society of Japan) maintains here the 日本産爬虫両生類標準和名リスト or "Standard Japanese Names for the Reptiles and Amphibians of Japan", similarly the List of Japan's All Fish Species (I absolutely love this translation, wonder where the only partly fish are listed), birds, and on a larger scale DOI: 10.11238/mammalianscience.58.S1 mammals, the last endeavour headed up by 川田伸一郎 (a zoologist notable enough to have his own wiki page) and published in ISSN 0385-437X (哺乳類科学/Honyūrui Kagaku/Mammalian Science). VN seem to be an important thing for a country such as Japan with its different writing system, and its scientists seem to be involved in related endeavours.

Chinese users perhaps could have open and refer to this tool (with the Institute of Zoology, Chinese Academy of Sciences its contact address) (or over in Taiwan, this (Academia Sinica)), but it seems a bit perverse not to welcome 1.5 billion Chinese, or as many of them as have chosen Chinese from the ULS so as to be able better to access this site in their own language and script, through the screen real estate space ((not least) in the same place at the top of the screen, so you don't have to scroll, scroll, scroll, then hunt around), for Felis catus, that is occupied by the single character 猫 (amongst the many thousands of characters on this page).

As a third test, and for the purposes of this RfC, Panthera tigris now has this VN facility in the same space on the screen as Felis catus, but in this case you only see it if you know (or happen/are lucky enough to stumble upon it) and want to. Are those who have opposed, opposed also to this? Thank you, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 21:22, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

We could also display NV (nomen vernaculare) which you then hover over, or ? or even just . , all of which would be more visible than a complete blank (and far, far quicker to refer to than the scroll and hunt), but less prominent than the current Felis catus example, if this is too objectionable; this could alternatively be made less prominent in medium grey, for instance. I can mock up any of these, if you would like. Thanks, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 00:39, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
The VN on Felis catus and Dromiciops gliroides is now grey to further emphasize its subordinate nature to the scientific name (while still being more visible than that on Panthera tigris); this is less eye-catching but still there for those who might wish to see it or find it helpful (including every single one of my offline interlocutors with whom this I have aired); hopefully that is better, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 08:30, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

To respond here to the recent comments over at the Village Pump:

  • audience is (citizen) scientists not the hoi polloi
    • why not be of some help in the (presumably desirable) conversion of the latter to the former?
    • see Chomsky on Russellyoutube (the 20 seconds from 1:15) — which runs along the lines of "why are you wasting your time on demos when you could be working on logic and philosophy? --otherwise there will be no-one around to read the logic and philosophy", which kind of relates to the responsibility of intellectuals, if not to The Responsibility of Intellectuals — i.e., at no/?insignificant? cost to scientists, the great unwashed might also reap some benefit (and wider interest in eg animals other than as a food source etc is presumably not irrelevant at a time of the sixth mass extinction), plus/inc. a helpful tool for language-learners (including hopefully some scientists), etc
    • cf. Horace, Odes, III.1 Odi profanum vulgus et arceo "I hate the common herd and keep them at bay"...
  • "our aim is not to create content for Wikipedia's that do not create their own content"
    • if that is an/the implication of this initiative (and there are many articles here without any other wiki pages, even enwiki, eg Hynobius utsunomiyaorum), why not provide potentially useful/appreciated resource, if there is no/?insignificant? cost in so doing?
  • "We have a well established, searchable and prominent VN section - what's to fix ... There is nothing to fix"
    • if this is adopted, this will be (soon be) well established
    • searchable/prominent: why necessitate such a scroll, scroll, scroll and hunt (the ja/zh is always in a different place on the screen, and in long lists it can take a while to find the entry is looking for)? if someone has selected ja/zh as their language, they must be wishing for ja/zh-related localization, so why not serve up the ja/zh VN as proposed, rather then necessitating scroll and hunt? (I would suggest the Gould/Menuhin Schoenberg discussion youtube (40 seconds or so from 3:35) "I have always had the motto in my life that anyone who liked something knew more about it than one who didn't", but that could also be a little circular, because in preferring the scroll and hunt...) Thanks, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 10:45, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
I offer Galiniera saxifraga as, in my opinion, an exemplar botany page with respect to the current mission for WS. There are many many pages that need editing/starting to match this one. Andyboorman (talk) 15:09, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
minor. mut. mut. (eg/ie, as under discussion here) agreed — wouldn't it be a crying shame if even one Gĩkũyũ-speaker who might have lingered a little longer had they but seen and known that this page was about Mũtĩ-mũirũ, not knowing the Latin name or that all that he or she had to was scroll down to the bottom of the page and have a little look around, bounced away again. [On the technical front, I test added (without saving) this VN functionality to the Galiniera saxifraga page, and the VN wikidata link was maintained in the more convenient for affirmed Gĩkũyũ-speakers position at the top of the page.]
wikt:e pluribus unum, from zoology pages, I offer Raphus cucullatus as an exemplar of where many of their subjects seem likely to end up, if global education efforts fail to reach (through to) as many people as possible on the journey from wikt:Homo necans necansHomo sapiens sapiens. Who knows, were we to reach more speakers of some of these languages, one might even (in time be able or choose to) contribute here, advancing the various strands of the mission, even perhaps creating a page like that (though the User who did's command of VL(/VN) is formidable/inimitable), Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 07:10, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

N.B. Felis catus is the subject of a current Village Pump thread (and of recent edits), where further users have participated, seemingly without objection to the VN, if numbers are a consideration, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 07:10, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

They were discussing the scientific names and taxonomy there, its time to close this. I consider the RfC to have been rejected. Please leave vernacular names at the bottom as they were. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 09:12, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
Er, I don't think so, surely there is a bit of a governance issue if one and the same person voices their dislike (though without making any cogent arguments beyond the equivalent of "scientists don't use them, oh I actually I have in my publications"), and closes the discussion. Are there any points that have been made against to which a response is yet to be made? I would consider the proposal to have passed, since the request at the top was for viewpoints against, and from all internal users and the audience at large we have had three I-don't-like-its), Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 10:06, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
if I had closed it it would be archived. I said its time to close it. In all your comments, no one has supported this. You do not have consensus. The RfC has run for two weeks. We have not said more because there is no point, this proposal takes wikispecies in a direction we have never done and goes against what this wiki was created for. People could have said "oppose" and nothing else, there was no requirement for us to try to explain. Putting words in my mouth and insulting me is not necessary here. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 10:34, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
If commenting on a personal level, please note how difficult it is to encourage you to listen to what the other person is trying to say. Another user had to step in on the wikidata discussion (re {{I}}), while in the cat one, you are still insisting the very same document is something different—surely it should be possible to reach some kind of agreement there, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 12:58, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
RfC = Request for Comment not a request for a vote and so the proposal has not passed. That is a separate issue/procedure. @Maculosae tegmine lyncis:, you have tried your best, but to no avail. if you wish a vote then feel free to contact a crat. Andyboorman (talk) 12:24, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
So does this mean you oppose the Panthera tigris functionality too? Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 12:58, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
@Faendalimas: per the above, and I don't know the process, but I wish for there to be a vote and I understand you are a "crat"; thank you, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 13:12, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
This discussion is not going to achieve a consensus to fundamentally change how we use vernacular names. —Justin (koavf)TCM 19:59, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this archive.