Wikispecies:Village Pump/Archive 30

Reducing time for working at Wikispecies


At Wikispecies about 2 million taxon pages are missing. Instead of really contributing to Wikispecies, that is adding new pages, there is a playing around with an AWB and modifying or deleting things that do no harm, like the double square brackets of taxon names on hundreds of thousand pages. And proudly is told of "contributions". That are no contributions. There is nothing professional in it. Wikispecies is the only Wiki that expects to have users from the scientific community. Observing what is done at present, will not attract such users. It will lead to a number of closed Wikis for groups of organisms, as first ones are already existing, so that such unprofessional actions are not possible.

I'll considerably reduce my working time here under the present circumstances. Kempf EK (talk) 16:18, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Kempf EK: I'm sorry you feel the way you do. I'm sure your concerns are acute. But can't the 2 factions live together; the one which contributes new data and the other which organizes the already available data in a more coherent style, which does some necessary tidying-up of the existing data? Some users are inclined towards the science while others towards the organization and maintenance. Can't these two groups cooperate to the benefit of WS? Mariusm (talk) 04:19, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Kempf EK: It is unfortunate, but if I may add a point. You are correct, at least 2 million taxa are missing from WS at this point and it is needed for people to add this material. However it is also necessary to present it in a way that the public expects. If you intend to make a public database, which is what WS essentially is, it has to be user friendly, this includes consistency and it will change over time. I do not think AWB modifications that change presentation are significant contributions either, not in terms of adding content, but Wikimedia tends to count all edits as a contribution. Wikispecies came up on the ICZN List-serve last night, raised by one of the ICZN Commissioners, (for those who do not this is a web forum where nomenclatural taxonomists basically discuss the code) as one of two websites currently in place that could be of assistance to all taxonomists in regards to Gender Agreement, as a means of looking up the gender of each name, so these can be utilised correctly under the code. The other site being ZooBank which is far from finished too. So we do need people who just want to contribute taxa pages, we need people who will deal with formatting, these two groups are going to tread on each other occasionally, it is inevitable. This can be minimised though by good communication, where all will see it, and to not do things without discussion first. We need to get formating policies in place, then modify. Yes sometimes that may require 1000's of automatic edits, I am hoping not. But patience is needed here. Some of the formatting in the past is not user or editor friendly, or both. Cheers Faendalimas talk 16:14, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]



Do members of the community have a view on the classification Supertribes/Supertribus? See

in which a number of Supertribes are delineated for Poaceae. I gather this taxon is not commonly used on WS. Are there other examples? Thanks Andyboorman (talk) 16:27, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It tends to be used by authors who adhere to PhyloCode rather than the Linn. system, but that probably does not help as far as whether to use it. Faendalimas talk 16:41, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The authors have "translated" clades into formal classification I guess, so that fits. Thanks Andyboorman (talk) 16:56, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The quoted article (Soreng, et al., 2015) is in my view an inconsistent mess. There are more subfamilies than supertribes. In some instances a number of tribes are grouped into a subtribe while, in the same subfamily, another number of different tribes are placed directly subordinate to the subfamily. Thus the use of supertribes and subtribes is inconsistent. At the very least, if all the tribes in a subfamily are indistinguishable at the supertribe level there should be a monotypic supertribe designation with a name based on the subfamily. To use supertribes or subtribes in some lineages but not others just seems pointless, even though it might appear superficially to reflect a cladistic analysis based on some particular molecular data. If the hierarchy is not consistent inits application I am not sure it should be included at all. Accassidy (talk) 17:28, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You raise a number of interesting points, but I think I ought to deal with the last point first. It seems that their conclusions are not based upon a superficial "cladistic analysis based on some particular molecular data", but a meta-analysis derived from a plethora of studies, both molecular and morphological. The authors are acknowledged leaders in Poaceae, so their opinion has a weight, but of course they are not the only important group in this field. However, your criticism of inconsistency is surely just something that has happened in contemporary plant taxonomy and classification? Many other families have small sub-families with just a couple of genera and also sub-families that have a number of tribes and numerous genera. And then their is incertae sedis! However, as this approach has evolved, with evidence, it now contains a lot of useful information that would be lost by a purist simplistic Lin. system of family, genera and species. Balance and consistency is impossible without reverting to just that. But that is why we discuss here - do we want to do away with infra-familial, generic and species taxa? As to the specific 2015 proposal for Poaceae it is perhaps too early to implement, as it is unlikely to pass into consensus without comment and modification. Andyboorman (talk) 20:24, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have had a look into ICN. In Art. 18 and Art. 19 there are families, subfamilies, tribes and subtribes, but no mention of supertribes. So, "supertribe" is a rank not regulated by the present botanical code. The names of supertribes are derived from genus names in a rather irregular way in the cited paper: Arundinarodae from Arundinaria (stem Arundinari-), Bambusoidae (or Bambusodae) from Bambusa (stem Bambus-). In Pooideae, the use of supertribes is really a bit confusing. There are tribes directly subordinated to the subfamiliy, supertribe Poodae includes only one single tribe, i.e. Poeae, and only the supertribe Triticodae includes more than one tribe. In my opinion, use of supertribes in this paper is a bit pointless. They could have used informal clade names to name some small groups of tribes, instead of these supertribes that look more formal, but also have no base in the present code. --Franz Xaver (talk) 20:49, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for reminding us about ICN. On reflection that is probably the killer on WS and under the code supertribes are unranked? So, in this case, perhaps we should use the KISS principle, particularly as most of the tribes and sub-tribes are already commonly used. In general, on WS, supertribes are unnecessary for a formal classification and only have some use when looking at cladistic relationships - or am I barking up the wrong tree? Wait until the system hits a journal like Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society (like APGIII)? Regards Andyboorman (talk) 06:55, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The formation of names of supertribes etc are governed by principals laid out in the PhyloCode. Yes they are based on genus names, its literally an entirely different system of nomenclature, one not followed by a majority of taxonomists. Its also not governed by the International Codes for Botany or Zoology, so should not be included here. It is difficult if not impossible to present both forms, in some groups they do not correlate well. I would suggest sticking to the ranks governed by the respective Codes we have to follow here. Cheers Faendalimas talk 07:16, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Examine Braun, 2015, which came out in Thursday's Zootaxa. Middle of Preview page gives nice concise summary of Supertribe issue, and alternatives. Neferkheperre (talk) 15:08, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

New Higher Level Classification paper


In PLOS one here. Maybe we should follow it here? - MPF (talk) 16:45, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would wait and see, this is just out, see if it is followed or refuted, what discussion it generates. Before we make sweeping changes here. Faendalimas talk 18:14, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting. This doesn't seem to be a revolutionary classification, but rather "a consensus". Mariusm (talk) 04:38, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I included part (at least the higher taxa) of this classification in the sections of Altenative classifications (see Archaea, Bacteria, Eukaryota). Zorahia (talk) 14:36, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It seems quite useful for all of the databases that aspire to cover all kingdoms. It is at least a baseline to use for explaining any departures a given database makes or a target for potshots. DCDuring (talk) 23:36, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Brace for many †'s to come


A new study predicts that One in six of world's species faces extinction due to climate change. The earth has already lost half of its wildlife in the past 40 years. Can we help in raising the awareness to this calamity? Mariusm (talk) 04:34, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sad point is that I feel that study underestimates by an order of magnitude the number of species that will go extinct in the next 50-100 years, it fails to take into account feed back loops. Cheers, Faendalimas talk 23:09, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A problem is that the anropogene climate change is not scientifically valid and since over 19 years the climate change is not even existing. Most of the claims is a politically campaign by en:IPCC. Dan Koehl (talk) 23:46, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Mariusm: We have a Species of the Week. We could also have an Engandered/Critical Species of the Week as well. —Justin (koavf)TCM 23:52, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You could also keep an eye on World Wildlife Fund and Conservation Interantional, they have different focus points at times and support those by making the same species a focal species and linking to them.Faendalimas talk 00:40, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There is a lot of politics against recognising climate change, mainly because of global financial costs of dealing with it. Particularly in big business in the Western World. Unfortunately 97% of the science agrees with the climate shift, and the more detailed it is studied the more the models seem to be under predicting how much change there will be instead of overestimating. As a paleonologist I am i8nterested in extinction and extinction events, our species is also facing an extinction event. Cheers, Faendalimas talk 00:50, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree very much with that we could in raising the awareness regarding species extinction, but not on political grounds, wikispecies should not act as partial in controversial issues, but keep a strict scientific approach. The Guardian is one of the medias accused of again falsely declares Rajendra Pachauri a Nobel laureate, as well as filtering facts like the serious sexual offenses for which he is being investigated. The "97% of the science agree claim" is a political fabrication. Cook et al. (2013) claimed that 97.1% of 11,944 papers on “global climate change” endorsed the consensus, which they defined in their introduction as the “scientific consensus” that “most current warming” is anthropogenic. However, setting aside the fact that there has been no “current warming” for getting on for two decades, the authors’ own data file shows that they had marked only 64 papers out of 11,944, a dizzying 0.5%, as endorsing the “consensus”. =99,7% of 11 944 did not say C02 caused most global warming since 1950. Logically, anthropogenic CO2 represents only 3% of the total free CO2 in the Earth-atmosphere system, which can not be a source for any climate change? But apart from poltics, I see no reason why Wikispecies inform about facts on species faces extinction, following scientific claims. But WS should not act as an political instrument, giving support to controversial political claims. Dan Koehl (talk) 02:07, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well the researchers whose work I know and can independently analyze, and do not take part in the politics, would disagree with you. However its not about warming that is a misnomer, and its not about CO2, it is about carbon and energy, lastly its not about the total carbon but the increase. The increase from 320ppm to 450ppm that has been continuous since the 1970's is anthropogenic because you can use isotopes to identify the source of the carbon, 2% of it is Volcanic, 98% comes from sources only attributable to humans. I am a scientist data speaks to me, not politics. In the end though, humans will have to make a choice listen to the science, or listen to the politics, and they have to do it as a species. I do not think our species is actually capable of thinking as a species, hence they will continue as they are till the bubble bursts. Statistically that is the most likely outcome.
Anyway, enough doom and gloom. I agree that WS is not the place for this it is not part of our agenda. Cheers Faendalimas talk 03:00, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Already with this statement @Faendalimas:, you can easily see weather such "science" is scientific or political. Most people would agree that liquids can, and will hold more gas (including 02 and C02), the colder it gets. During all ice ages C02 gets trapped in oceans (while atmosphere C02 decrease), and return to atmosphere when the climate gets warmer, (In fact not more complicated than how opened bottles of Coke or beer reacts to different temperature, but for some reasons seldom referred to by IPCC) this happened during the last ice age WürmII/Weichsel, as well as during en:Little Ice Age, and for some very odd reason, IPCC omit to mention this, and therefore the media. Why anyone could forget how many % of C02 (mega, mega, megatons...) that presently come from the ocean is a mystery I guess is better solved by real scientists like DR Roy Spencer who explains about the fraud in the article Global Warming Theory in a Nutshell on [his website]. IPCC may of course have economical reasons, at least the former chairman and former railway engineer Rajendra K. Pachauri, who resigned from IPCC this year as chairman, following allegations of sexual abuse of a junior colleague at his New Delhi based organization, TERI. As you may know TERI during his time had a substantial share of a $500,000 grant from one of America's leading charities, along with a share in a three million euro research study funded by the EU. Not to mention how many millions IPCC got during the years since it was founded by Bert Bohlin, as swedish climate scientist, who made much more fame and money after he left science and became IPCCs first chairman, following his campaign during the seventies in Sweden when he said that we should pump out as much C02 as possible, since we were entering a new ice age. Bohlin supported all his statements on the now 110 year old theory (and it needs to be repeated, this theory has until today not a single scientific proof) and computer model predictions. Some 20 years later, IPCC only produce more model predictions, and although ALL of them until today was proven wrong after the stated time lapse, media still cite the latest IPCC predictions as if they could actually happen, and always with the sentence "the scientists say" or "believe", or "think" . For some odd reason IPCC and media don't mention that polar bear population increased from 5 000 during the seventies, to over 30 000 until today, or that Antarctic has had, since 2007, four records of ice mass increase, during the start of satellite photos, by NASA. (since the 25% increase in summer melt in Arctics, the ice has since then only increased as well). As turtle expert you may know that Sweden even had turtles during the bronze age, when the temperature was much, much warmer than today, and during that time, humans had of course as little to do with that global warming, or any global warmings, as today.Dan Koehl (talk) 04:53, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My last point on this, because its a topic that requires a lot of research, avoiding the political agendas of both sides of the debate and you have to realise what its about it is about Climate and Carbon, not weather and CO2. In the end it comes down to choices for our species. Choice 1 Accept climate change and do something about it.. if we are wrong then we get a cleaner planet and greater biodiversity survival which is not a bad thing, if we were right then our species can actually survive it. Choice 2 Reject Climate change.. if we are wrong we go extinct, possibly within 100 or so years, if we are right then world keeps spinning. Basically choice 1 gives us close to 100% chance of surviving as a species, choice 2 gives us a 50% chance of surviving as a species. The stakes are that whichever choice our species makes, you are betting your life on it, and the lives of every other human. So I would say its not a light choice that one should allow to be dictated by the politics of big business. Cheers, Faendalimas talk 11:27, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And I would reply that no thinking person can reject climate change, since it has been going on since the creation of earth, and is following cycles. From the same reason I found it strange that anyone on earth actually believe that climate change started in the fifties, especially since it was warmer in the thirties, but then again, you wouldn't be able to accuse man and antropogene carbon, and ask people to pay taxes, or AL Gores $9 million Montecito oceanfront villa, with six fireplaces, five bedrooms and nine bathrooms, located on a place which he has predicted should be below water now... or why noone reacts on the familiar graphics, always showing the period 1850-2000, very seldom before, and almost never after.
One institution that seems not to agree with you, is Metoffice. It would be transparent and a political failure, to try to remove the confidence for their measurements, with labels like denier (Al Gores invention in 2002, at the same time when he said the discussion is over, I wonder which taxonomist would ever say that, or any scientist?), Metoffice has officially confirmed what we have seen with our eyes, global warming is over since 19 years, 2 years more than the real global warming. In spite of the highest C02 levels during the measurements. A valid scientific argument that old Mr Svante Arrhenius was wrong, when he 110 years ago thought C02 triggered global temp a lot. As we can see, it doesn't. I would threrefore prefer to push the denier and bad naming s on IPCC, who do not wish to discuss this, in spite of all tax money we give them. And they refuse to follow the scientific method, because they are a political unit, taking 2 "experts" from all countries all over the world, not he best "experts". And all they is producing new predictions, trying to scare us. But the new ones, will not be better than the past, what they try to give evidence for, is simply lacking.The recent pause in warming Dan Koehl (talk) 12:04, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Dan Koehl: The rhetorical techniques you employ to promote climate change denialism won't mask the fact that climate change is very much the consensus among the climatologists and the meteorologists. 2% of the scientists (as well as 30% of the US population) also deny evolution. So what? You'll always find the odd scientist who'll embrace the most bizarre and unlikely theory. You'll always find someone who is willing to fund "research" which helps to "prove" that some hazard is non-existent and by this to get the public off his back. Mariusm (talk) 06:27, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is not the same thing. While IPCC claimed consensus of 97% of researchers is simply not existing, we can not find their names and their undersigning anywhere, there's 31,487 American scientists who have signed a petition that they there is no scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide etc, will cause disruption to earths climate. To call someone else opinion denialism is politics, ant science, and such terms used about persons on Wikispecies, should in my opinion, not be used, and using them in argument with anyone is possibly breaking the policy rules.
But my point is, that while I think its positive to increase information reg species extinction, Wikispecies should not be a political toll, for anyone who want to spread controversial opinions, and the C02 theory is for sure one of those. Wikispecies is not about politics, and even if 70%or present members deny evolution, and those members would claim a consensus, deny evolution is not what wikispecies is about. That sort of politics should be performed elsewhere.Dan Koehl (talk) 12:07, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I once again repeat, that according to official measurements, thres not any global warming existing since 19 years, why a discussions of what is causing something that doesn't exists, is waste of time. Dan Koehl (talk) 12:12, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Dan Koehl: Sorry, I have to disagree. There are good reasons that climate characteristics (for a station) are described as the means of a period of 30 years, the climate normal period - see [1] or de:Normalperiode (I know you understand German.) So, the last official normal period is 1961-1990 and the next one, i.e. 1991-2020, of course, can not yet be calculated. Often there exist also values for the period 1971-2000 and maybe for 1981-2010. However, the means for these latter periods often are not available, as they are somewhat inofficial, by the terms of the en:World Meteorological Organization. Anyway, 19 years are a too short period to make conclusions, if climate is changing or not. And I have serious doubt that your claim, that global warming did not happen since 19 years, is true. At least in Austria, a significant increase of temperatures during the last years was measured. You may read the yearly summary reports by the Austrian official en:Central Institution for Meteorology and Geodynamics: The report for 2014 bears the header "Wärmstes Jahr seit Beginn der Messungen" which translates as "Warmest year since begin of the measurements", i.e. since the year 1768. Also the years 2013, 2012, 2011, 2009, 2008 etc. were warmer than the 30 years reference period. Only 2010 was a bit cooler, but this year has started with the eruption of the volcano Eyjafjallajökull in Iceland. Of course, data from Austria don't mean anything global, but at least this is a region with good measurements that go back quite a long time. --Franz Xaver (talk) 19:48, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have to add, that in Austria the reference period 1981-2010 is 0.8°C warmer than the longer period 1901-2000, though there is an overlap of 20 years between both periods. As the years since 2010 were warmer than the 30 years reference, I cannot recognise a stop of increasing temperatures. --Franz Xaver (talk) 19:57, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Just a thought Skeptical Science or two, or three....Andyboorman (talk) 19:21, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe I would convince anyone, and that was not my goal. Franz write that 19 years are a too short period to make conclusions why logically the 17 years of global warming during industrialization would be judged according to the same principle, but obviously isn't, for some reason. And anyone have their right to believe what they want. What I have tried to point out, is that the climate issue is a political and economical controversial issue, not following normal standards for science, why we should avoid to bring that issue into Wikispecies, which is not a project based on beliefs and political agendas. Please keep Wikispecies free from politics. Dan Koehl (talk) 19:59, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that global warming is not within the WS premises; but we also can't turn a blind eye to the reduction in wildlife and to the ongoing species extinction. Having said that, I must protest the linking of science with politics. Global warming involves big money. Money can "buy" scientists. Science can be distorted and manipulated by clever attorneys and politicians. @Dan Koehl: it is sad to realize that you were captured by stray manipulations, yet if science can't convince a third of us that man isn't a God creation than it surely can't convince you that global warming isn't a manipulative conspiracy. Mariusm (talk) 04:33, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Since 2002 people being skeptic to that 4% of the total amount of C02 should be the reason of global warming, including the both inventors of the satellite temperature measurements, have been under personal attacks by the political IPCC, its former chairman the Indian railroad engineer, and others. This is all very political and very not scientific, science doesn't work through pressure on people, it work with proof and evidence. Please accept that you can not force me to believe in the 110 year old theory by Svante Arrhenius, and accept that the C02 theory is a controversial theory, never proved by evidence, and a multi-billion dollar source of income. Please stop with personala attacks, @Mariusm: and accept that Wikispecies is not a forum for IPCC propaganda. I am positive to your suggestion, as long as it is non political, please be content with that, but stop acusing people of different opinions for this and that, I now give 1st warning for breaking Wikispecies:Policy. Dan Koehl (talk) 05:05, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Dan Koehl: Right. I'm more than willing to comply. I'll be posting on this no more. I just consider it somehow inappropriate to establish here this sort of threat-atmosphere. Mariusm (talk) 07:01, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
An amusing but rather fruitless discussion about the pros and cons of climate change. However, the greatest cause of species extinction currently, and over the last few decades, is loss of forest habitat due to expansion of material consumption by Homo sapiens. The biggest threat to biodiversity is not global warming, because species adapt, but human population expansion and resource exploitation. WikiSpecies can do nothing about that. Accassidy (talk) 08:37, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We have the Category:IUCN Critically endangered species with 1,272 entries, while enwiki has IUCN Critically endangered species with 3,370 entries. we can start by updating aur list, and maybe advertising it on the main page. Also @Koavf: your idea of adding a critically endangered species as a feature on the main page is great. I'll see what I can do about this. Mariusm (talk) 04:28, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A good idea and non-political. Andyboorman (talk) 19:21, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For those of you who use social media


See (koavf)TCM 05:39, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria for the upload project of Naturalis Biodiversity Center?


Naturalis at Leiden, The Netherlands, has lately scanned millions of biological specimens (say 5 million herbarium sheets and three million other biohistorical photographs, art works, documents etc., quite a bounty). They intend to donate a selection to Wikimedia Commons and are of course interested in use in Wikispecies as well. I am a temporary wikipedian in residence and looking for selection criteria. I would like to find out the expert opinion of the Wikispecies community.

  • Are you interested in herbarium sheets (example)? If so, an option could be to upload for every plant species one (or two) images of recent (because best condition) herbarium sheets - Naturalis has them for 400.000 plant species.
  • Would you (also) appreciate holotypes - but they tend to be old and so in lesser condition -, (extra) images of endangered/extinct species etc.?
  • For the zoological collections (professional photographs, fossils etc.) similar criteria might be valid, what do you think?
  • What extra biological image material is NOT wanted on Commons, because....?

Perhaps you agree or know better selection schemes and considerations.
Please comment. Remarks, suggestions, wishes and criticism are most welcome, thanks Hansmuller (talk) 12:49, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Two things: 1. Please look at Repository entry Naturalis Biodiversity Center, and check for accuracy and completeness. It needs improvement for access to primary type number dbases.
Yes, photos of type specimens and representative examples of species are welcome. I do mainly fossil/modern Cirripedia, and those photos are not met with frequently. Neferkheperre (talk) 23:43, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Hansmuller: If you have images of type specimens in zoology, especially insects, and can make those available openly they would be of interest to many. Accassidy (talk) 08:22, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Hansmuller: In my opinion, every kind of type specimen is interesting, not only holotypes. I have started to add links to scans of type specimens at some pages, see e.g. Blastemanthus gemmiflorus subsp. gemmiflorus, and I will continue. So, usually it will be sufficient, when this scans are accessible at the respective collections. However, there are many species, where neither photos nor illustrations exist at Commons. In these cases, we possibly could use a scan of a well preserved (type) specimen as an image in our pages. A considerable part of the collections of Naturalis is accessible here. However, we cannot upload these images at Commons. Would it be possible to establish some procedure, where we could place wishes for upload? Regards --Franz Xaver (talk) 09:25, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your very useful comments. I'll update Naturalis Biodiversity Center. Type specimens come out as general favourites, so i'll include them. Likewise Cirripedia and insects. For the moment, you can enter desired uploads at my Talk page, so i can include them - i have copied your suggestions there. I will discuss with Naturalis staff how they can cater permanently for upload requests. Further comments are welcome. Kind regards, Hansmuller (talk) 07:44, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Franz Xaver: If you search for, e.g., Blastemanthus gemmiflorus at you'll find downloadable CC0-licensed images that are fit for Commons. Alternatively, using the registration code, L.2390717, the image can be found at Unfortunately, there is a run time error in the Brahms interface you mentioned ( when one clicks on an image thumbnail i'll ask about. In the mean time, you can get images there by clicking on them and then manually repairing the malformed double URL of the error message. I hope this helps, kind regards, Hansmuller (talk) 08:15, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Hansmuller: Thanks for the information. I was not aware of the existence of these CC0 images at and there seems to be a big part (or all) of the images, which are accessible through the Brahms interface. However, uploading to Commons from would not work as there I can not find a suitable license information. The same of course applies to the Brahms interface. It seems that the Brahms interface only works without problems for images of type specimens. I have found myself a way to circumvent the runtime error: Right click on the image, copy image address into browser line of new window, change end of address from "small" to "large".
By the way, the two images of Blastemanthus gemmiflorus at obviously show duplicates of the original material used by Martius for the protologue of the basionym Godoya gemmiflora. I am not sure, if these specimens can be counted as part of the original material as definded by ICN Art. 9.3. This specimen has a label telling "Herbar. reg. monacense Duplum 1864". So the specimen still was in Munich when Godoya gemmiflora was published and could have been used by Martius. However, more likely it was in a pack of unmounted duplicates and was not used as base of the original description. Anyway, when sooner or later a lectotype is selected (from the Munich specimens), the Leiden specimens would be isolectotypes, as far as I see. I will link these images in Blastemanthus gemmiflorus. Regards --Franz Xaver (talk) 09:55, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Franz Xaver: You wrote "uploading to Commons from would not work as there I can not find a suitable license information". Perhaps you have found already the CC0-license for example on a herbarium sheet of Blastemanthus gemmiflorus subsp. gemmiflorus. (However, U.1446019 and U.1446017 specimens are not found on the bioportal apparently, though present in medialib via Naturalis Brahms, so the CC0 for those sheets is not made explicit, although it holds true for all images in the Naturalis database. I will request an overall explicit CC0-statement by Naturalis for this Brahms online website. (By the way, the malformed URL has been fixed.). Thanks for your remarks, regards, Hansmuller (talk) 10:34, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Hansmuller: Thanks! I noticed yesterday, that this bug has been fixed. --Franz Xaver (talk) 15:54, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Metadata template for biological data on Wikimedia Commons?


On a different note, Naturalis would like to use for its herbarium sheet donation etc. a more elaborate metadata template than previously available, in line with GBIF and some Darwin core fields, but also accomodating artworks and publications of biological import. I propose Biohist with a test (here for a fantasy case with various objects at the same time).

  • Could anyone comment? Suggestions?

Thank you, kind regards, Hansmuller (talk) 10:08, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Hansmuller: Hi, if it is about a template on Commons, it should not be discussed here but somewhere at Commons. Has there already a discussion been started at Commons? Where? I have to admit, that I do not fully understand the complexity of the template. Perhaps it will be better to have two different templates, one for photos/scans of collection specimens, and another one for artwork/illustrations. Regards --Franz Xaver (talk) 09:25, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template loop


When I click on "expand" in Agaminae and Acanthocercus, I see "template loop detected". Don't know how to fix this. JMK (talk) 17:48, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed this. What happened is that somebody used {{Taxonav|}} two times in template hierarchy. What I did was go into {{Agamidae}} and other, changed {{Taxonav|Acrodonta}} to {{Acrodonta}}, removing loop. Neferkheperre (talk) 23:19, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

AN and RfC are live plus a request


Please correct I have created:

in English and Spanish. I am somewhat competent in Portuguese, so I can try to translate into that language as well, if the community wants it. If anyone thinks these pages need to be changed around, please do improve them. I have tried to add conspicuous links in the usual places to make it clear that these pages exist but more incoming links might be useful.

Dear @Koavf:, thanks a lot for making this! Dan Koehl (talk) 11:15, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As a request, since it seems like there was support for an Endangered Species of the Week, I would like to nominate Diceros bicornis (Black rhinoceros), which is Critically Endangered has two subspecies and another that was declared extinct in 2011. The rhino trade (specifically of white rhinos) is notoriously brutal for poaching and has resulted in retaliatory vigilantism to protect the creatures. It would be an honor if the community saw fit to recognize this Critically Endangered species for me. Thanks. —Justin (koavf)TCM 03:54, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  Support Dan Koehl (talk) 11:15, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  Support Neferkheperre (talk) 13:44, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  Support Faendalimas talk 15:12, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]



Please see Wikispecies:Village Pump/Archive 29 I left the above discussion about #Reducing_time_for_working_at_Wikispecies in case anyone wants to respond but I feel like the other conversations were over--if I'm wrong, please just copy and past them back here to restart. Thanks. —Justin (koavf)TCM 17:53, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong counting of taxa in Category:"author name" taxa


I'm having a problem with the Category:"author name" taxa. In my case its Category:Wilson José Eduardo Moreira da Costa taxa. If you go there, you will find at present 4 taxa listed, but if you go to the authors page Wilson José Eduardo Moreira da Costa it tells you that there is -> 1 taxa authored by Wilson José Eduardo Moreira da Costa. Can't find the bug in my code. Need some help.--Haps (talk) 20:30, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed it with entry I made myself about 10 minutes ago. I checked out yours and my formats and can't find anything wrong. Somebody geekier may have to look at this. Neferkheperre (talk) 12:30, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I might be geeky enough… :-) I'll check it out in about 8 hours, when I get home from work. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 13:00, 25 May 2015 (UTC).[reply]
I just noticed something really curios: If I had written the line "[[:category:Wilson José Eduardo Moreira da Costa taxa..." with a small 'c' in 'category', and the correct number of taxa didn't appear, and I changed it to a capital 'C' then the correct number appeared. But the same also happens if it was opposite (in another case), and it was originally written with a capital 'C', then I changed it to a small 'c' and it worked. Changing it again, and it will still work. ???--Haps (talk) 15:51, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I can confirm the previous comment. It is clearly an issue to do with forcing a re-count of the function, which happens when the page is amended but not when it is refreshed. Someone must know how to overcome this??? Accassidy (talk) 09:32, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I tried purging the page but that didn't force it to re-count. Very odd indeed. OhanaUnitedTalk page 17:55, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ask Mariusm. after add author name taxa, go to the authors page and save. Now you can see the new total. PeterR (talk) 14:46, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation and Orphan Pages


Whilst going through orphaned pages I noticed that one major group are the disambiguation pages. I guess they appear here by default as they do not often link out from the main taxon pages although they usually link to at least one taxon page. An example of a good disambiguation page is the first one you will encounter Acianthera punctata. In my opinion pages such as this do not belong in the orphan category, as they are most definitely not "lonely". I appreciate that a fix could be to link to the disambiguation page from the taxon pages, but I think that this is unnecessary and possibly unhelpful.
Is there any other way of removing disambiguation pages from the Special:LonelyPages category?
In addition, IMO well made disambiguation pages serve a real purpose when a user is doing a blind search and so should be well contrusted such as the example cited. They do look and feel professional and serve a useful function.
What do others think?
Andyboorman (talk) 19:19, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Andyboorman: For cases like Acianthera punctata, I found a different solution which works without a disambiguation page – see e.g. Ochna ferruginea. --Franz Xaver (talk) 16:00, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Franz Xaver: Personally I do not have a problem with well constructed disambiguation pages and think they have a role in giving an immediate synopsis from a blind search, which your elegant solution does not immediately have. Although, of course, the information is all there via a click or two. I was just worried that they appear as "lonely pages", which they are not and as Justin pointed out this is a construct of MediaWiki. It would be better if MediaWiki offered a solution via their Orphan filters, if possible, as I do not feel inclined to follow Justin's rather clunky work around at the moment. However, I do appreciate that there may be a disinclination to use the disambiguation route, which is one of the reasons why I asked the original question.

OK try again. Are there opinions regarding the value of Disambiguation Pages? Andyboorman (talk) 20:24, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The reason for my solution is to be able to indicate homonyms of the names in synonymy. For example, in Brackenridgea arenaria these Kuntze homonyms are necessary to explain, why the older epithets ferruginea and floribunda are illegitimate. It is a by-product, that proceeding this way, disambiguation pages are dispensable. By the way, it is the same number of clicks, or even one less. However, as the disambiguation statement is integrated into the synonymy, it might be less visible. My solution does not get in the way of a disambiguation page. However, if you change the redirect page Ochna ferruginea into a disambiguation page, you have one click more to come to the information.
In my opinion, disambiguation pages anyway are necessary, if the same name is used in zoology and in botany. Such names are not homonyms according to the nomenclature codes. --Franz Xaver (talk) 21:03, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Small formatting note


Template:Village Pump header I created this template to move all of the navigational clutter into one line of code on this page. Now, if a user wants to edit this page directly, he doesn't need to wade through all of that material at the top. For that matter, category:Wikispecies is now added using mw:INCLUDEONLY, so it can't be removed by accident or easily. This shouldn't affect anything about editing the Village Pump as such except to make it slightly more manageable/readable. —Justin (koavf)TCM 04:28, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

VisualEditor News #3—2015


10:44, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Request of classification


Hi, does anyone have access to the full article needed to finish the following incomplete classification?

Thanks! Zorahia (talk) 14:19, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]


What is the reason for Category:Pages with Wikimedia Commons links created by @Koavf:? Does it serve anything? It is a bit disturbing that most entries in the subcategories do not contain any links to Commons. If there are any good reasons to have this category, its use probably is for some maintainance or statistics. So, I would prefer to have this as a hidden category. For a normal visitor the category seems to be useless. Anyway, how to use the category for checking, if e.g. species in the genus Salix already have Commons links? Is it possible to add some header which enables to jump to a certain letter of the alphabet? --Franz Xaver (talk) 17:01, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sister projects In general, I am just of the opinion that it is a good and useful idea to link between our projects when necessary or appropriate but yes, I figured that this category could be useful for maintenance/tracking to see what does/doesn't have pictures and other media. It would also encourage readers to find more media which might be outside the scope of Wikispecies (e.g. migratory maps or scans of original sources describing the organism or video of it moving, etc.) —Justin (koavf)TCM 01:52, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want to question the Commons links. That's good. As far as I understand, the category is filled up by the Commons link template in which this categorisation is included. In order to enable visitors to find additional stuff at Commons, the Commons link is fully sufficient. The additional categorisations is not necessary for this reason, maybe even distracting. So the category very well could be a hidden one, isn't it? --Franz Xaver (talk) 10:36, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Franz Xaver: Yes, certainly. —Justin (koavf)TCM 14:01, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Koavf: Thanks! Moreover, I have added a TOC template, in order to make it easier to jump to somewhere in the middle or at the end of the alphabet. --Franz Xaver (talk) 15:07, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Format of the Name Section


If we look through the Name Section we see a number of commonly used formats, many (about 50%) do not conform with the exemplar Panthera leo. For example a couple of commonly used formats are highlighted by these examples;
Selenicereus grandiflorus (L.) Britton & Rose Contr. U.S. Natl. Herb. 12: 430 (1909) BHL

  • Type: Lectotype : Herb. Clifford: 182, Cactus 10 (BM-000628597), vide Lourteig (1991).


  • Selenicereus grandiflorus (L.) Britton & Rose Contr. U.S. Natl. Herb. 12: 430 (1909) BHL
    • Lectotype : Herb. Clifford: 182, Cactus 10 (BM-000628597), vide Lourteig (1991). This is more in line with the exemplar.

Using Random page also highlights other examples, such as;
Bryonora curvescens, Sinoen capsana, Pheidole spinicornis, Anthene nakoae albidior, Crassocephalum effusum, Bulbophyllum abbrevilabium
The biggest difference compared to Panthera leo is in the use or not of the asterix for the name itself and its subsequent uses. I have a few questions for the Pump.

  1. Is it important that there is a common format?
  2. If the answer is yes, then should it strictly adhere to the above exemplar or not?
  3. Is there a better alternative format, for example not using the asterix for the "Name", but using the asterix(s) thereafter in order to highlight details such as Lecotype, Type Species and so on?
  4. Can a bot be created that will generate any agreed format?
  5. If not, this surely will affect any discussions!

Thanks for your time and I look forward to your comments. Andyboorman (talk) 21:16, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that the formatting is as important as the information contained. Also, I don't know why Panthera leo is given as an exemplar, as it has had myriad editors and its layout has changed over the period. Just about all of the Lepidoptera pages that I have created or edited have a ==Name== section and subordinate ===Synonymy=== section as shown here. This is the same as in two of the examples given by Andy above Sinoen capsana and Anthene nakoae albidior. The things we need to know are the 'current' Genus/Species/Subspecies name, author and date, the type locality, the type repository (if known) and then earlier combinations, synonyms and so on. I think the asterisks are better kept for 'bulleted' lists, such as synonyms and references. It is virtually impossible to have open source editing and insist on a universally common format. But we can do our best to ensure that the critical content is there. Accassidy (talk) 22:43, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Accassidy that formatting issues should not be more important than content. Maybe you want to have a look at Brackenridgea zanguebarica or Elvasia elvasioides. --Franz Xaver (talk) 23:54, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with others here, I am not too concerned about the format as long as its clear, what I want to see is the information and that it is correct and as complete as possible. Cheers Faendalimas talk 15:17, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. It matters little if every page is formatted properly but very few pages in the projects. It is far more valuable if the project contains a lot of information but the formatting may vary slightly. Focus on generating information first, then focus on presentation of those data. OhanaUnitedTalk page 03:22, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strange display


Amongst others I created today the page Hara nareshi, but it looks at the beginning quite different to other pages (e.g. Parotocinclus variola) where I used the same style formatting templates. Any idea why?--Haps (talk) 12:06, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I just spent 30 minutes burrowing around, and found your problem. After all that, I did go ahead and fix it for you. Here is what happened: Template:Hara which you invoked expecting it to be taxon template, as any of us would, was actually something called Author Template, set up several years ago. What these seem to accomplish is to format author names in small caps, but in far more involved fashion than just simply using aut|Soandso. There is even Category:Author templates with well over 2000 of these. Seems unnecessary redundancy to me.
What I did was first check out for any other author pages for K. Hara, not wanting to cause any more weird surprises. Turns out there is no author reference anywhere here for Hara per se. Odd. I then converted it to taxon template, and everything fell right into place. Creator of Genus Hara mainpage got around this problem by using Template:Sisoridae as startpoint. Neferkheperre (talk) 13:14, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot for your work! Great that you could fix this problem!--Haps (talk) 11:23, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]