Wikispecies

Wikispecies:Village Pump/Archive 33

< Wikispecies:Village Pump

Lemma: Genus (Subgenus) species

IMO it is not a good idea, to use this form in Wikispecies (although it is used in scientific literature). Example:

There are two disadvantages: (1) Wikidata (robots) won't find it. (2) If someone should create the article [[Proctotydaeus therapeutikos]], he produces a duplicate.

My suggestion: As a general rule use the lemma [[Genus species]]. In (the rare) cases it is disambiguous, create a disambig-page [[Genus species]], that links to [[Genus (Subgenus 1) species]], [[Genus (Subgenus 2) species]] and so on.

This question was probably discussed before, please apologize my ignorance. Thanks for your attention. --Murma174 (talk) 17:51, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I really wish we could formalize that as a naming policy. This was probably one of the few things about which I agreed with Stephen. It is a serious problem if you can't find a species just because you don't know (or care) which subgenus it's put into. Not to mention tat the subgenus is not (I believe) part of the species name? Just a convenient convention for the specialists to better keep track within huge genera. Circeus (talk) 02:52, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, I suggest you make a poll. Dan Koehl (talk) 04:06, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I support every single word of Murma174. Mariusm (talk) 05:10, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are also some arguments in the section Wikispecies:Village_Pump#Apparent_duplications for using the form [[Genus species]] as a general rule. I'd like to start a poll, whether we:

  • Use the form [[Genus species]] as a general rule
  • Where the form [[Genus (Subgenus) species]] already is used and it is unambiguous, we redirect it to [[Genus species]]
  • Where the form [[Genus (Familia) species]] is used and it is unambiguous, we redirect it to [[Genus species]]
  • In cases, where [[Genus species]] is ambiguous, we create it as a {{disambig}}-page with links to [[Genus (Familia) species]] or [[Genus (Subgenus) species]]

Polls starts Nov. 24 09:09 ; Poll ends Dec 01 09:09.

  Support

  1. --Murma174 (talk) 09:09, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  2. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 10:56, 24 November 2015 (UTC).[reply]
  3. We debated this issue as far back as I can find on January 2010 - see Wikispecies:Village_Pump/Archive_20#Template confusion. The problem is many users don't pay any attention or maybe don't care about the decisions we make here. This time, if this poll passes, we must update the help section to make things absolutely clear. There's a template I created back then - Template:sbgsp which can be used to display species as Genus (S.) species (on the Subgenus page, instead of the Template:sgsp), but to link to [[Genus species]]. Mariusm (talk) 12:26, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    You're right, some users don't read or don't know of the guidelines. But if we agree in the points mentioned above, we can change the titles (lemmata) and delete duplicates. --Murma174 (talk) 13:16, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Dan Koehl (talk) 12:52, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  5. I shall support it even its again ICZN. You don't now stabilisize the original name in the museums. [written by PeterR Mariusm (talk) 15:23, 24 November 2015 (UTC)][reply]
  6. What is important to me is to have two pages for any species, one with the binomen AND a second with the binomen+the subgenus. The latter (or the former) redirects to the former (or the latter). The redirection applied to either page is, for me, a matter of convenience: the reader will find the species, whatever his choice, and the code (ICZN) is respected. See what I did with Astrida caprimulgi. Hmandre (talk) 12:11, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The way of redirection is important: [[Genus (Subgenus) species]] should redirect to [[Genus species]]. See: Astrida (Astrida) caprimulgi. In any case the reader will find the species. --Murma174 (talk) 17:23, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  Oppose

  1. .

  Neutral

  1. Actually this is less relevant for botany. Anyway, if the last sentence of the proposal, concerning ambiguous names (homonyms), is changed to ".... with links to [[Genus species (disambiguation term)]]", I may support it. "Disambiguation term" may refer to a higher order taxonomic group (e.g. family), or the author of the taxon, or the relevant code (e.g. ICZN, ICN/ICBN). This "disambiguation term" always would be at the end of the taxon name, never in between genus name and epithet. The present wording of the proposal may result in pages that seem to continue the kind of naming, i.e. [[Genus (Subgenus) species]], we want to get rid of. This may give confusing signals to newcomers. At present, different ways of disambiguation terms are used, e.g. Lasioglossum imitatum, Kefersteinia, Adesmia. So, it seems that my proposed wording is more or less in line with the present state of disambiguations, and does not require a lot of updating work. --Franz Xaver (talk) 12:16, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusion

  • As there were no votes against, we'll use the binominal form [[Genus species]] as a general rule for the title (lemma).
  • Titles of the form [[Genus (Subgenus) species]] will step by step be redirected to [[Genus species]]. (The title only! Not the content!)
  • Ambiguous Genus-names get the title [[Genus (Familia)]] or [[Genus (Regnum)]] or another appropriate disambiguation term (which already is good practice)
  • The ICZN-nomenklatura will be respected within the page content and in form of a redirect, so that readers will find the species in either way.
  • Duplicate articles must be revised manually, because sometimes they don't have the exact same content. This will take a lot of time, but hopefully never will happen again! Genera to be revised should be announced in a special maintenance page / todo-list (not yet created).

--Murma174 (talk) 13:02, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I'll start with Genus Euphaedra --Murma174 (talk) 13:19, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Citations – test

Hi all,
As a test I installed a template {{Citations}} in Template:Putnam, 1863.
I'd love to hear your opinions, whether it is correct/useful/superfluous/whatever. --Murma174 (talk) 12:31, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just found the first error myself: In Fundulus_chrysotus the template Template:Citations appears, where it should not. Maybe someone more apt in programmin templates has an idea? --Murma174 (talk) 13:20, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Murma174: I removed Fundulus chrysotus from Category:Reference templates by using mw:Noinclude. Are you saying that you don't want the text "find all Wikispecies pages which cite this reference" to appear on the page as well? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 15:02, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that {{Citations}} has to be surounded by <noinclude></noinclude> like this: <noinclude>{{Citations}}</noinclude>. Better still you can add <noinclude></noinclude> inside {{Citations}} like this:
<noinclude>**[http://species.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:{{BASEPAGENAMEE}} find all Wikispecies pages which cite this reference][[Category:Reference templates]]</noinclude>

Mariusm (talk) 15:10, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your hints! I think, I found a way now (Mariusm's first idea) to get the template working in the reference page, but not in the article (where it doesn't belong). And the reference page is listed in the Category:Reference templates.
Example: Template:Putnam, 1863, used in Fundulus chrysotus
I must confess, it is not an elegant solution to use <noinclude>{{Citations}}</noinclude> within a reference page, but is it helpful? --Murma174 (talk) 18:15, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that the {{Reftemp}} template was created already back in 2012 and does exactly the same thing. I've used it when creating more than 500 new reference templates, among them the "Putnam, 1863" template mentioned above. It must be substituted in order to work properly – i.e. inserted as {{subst:reftemp}} – and then automatically adds the same "Find all Wikispecies pages…" text string and Category:Reference templates as the {{Citations}} template. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 19:45, 24 November 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Uups, yes, appears as if I invented the wheel the second time. Sorry all for wasting your time. {{subst:reftemp}} is exactly, what I wanted. --Murma174 (talk) 21:38, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

</test>

New Zealand

MPF just deleted the article New Zealand, and I got curious as to if there was any links to the page, and yes, there was a few. As far as I can see most of the links can be replaced by the word "New Zealand", but without link brackets. In other places maybe "New Zealand" can just be deleted. Any opinions? Dan Koehl (talk) 23:21, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are not that many of them. I'll sort it out. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 00:16, 25 November 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Excellent, thanks! I guess the links to it on talk pages (which is most of the links) don't matter, but there are also some on taxon pages :-( MPF (talk) 01:30, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, my idea exactly. On taxon pages the brackets need to be removed, but as for the talk pages much of it is more or less gibberish, and those pages can be deleted altogether. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk),01:32, 25 November 2015 (UTC).[reply]
I've started the process on a few pages. It seems to work well, but I'll keep the rest of the work on hold for a few days, in order let more users have their say here first. :-) Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 05:25, 25 November 2015 (UTC).[reply]
In my opinion, some of these talk pages, e.g. Talk:Empididae, Talk:Syrphidae, can be deleted, some others as Talk:Rhytididae contain information which is worth keeping. Probably it is best, to remove only the brackets for now. Deletion of talk pages can be done on request, case by case. --Franz Xaver (talk) 08:44, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Talk pages are a record of whatever discussions have occurred for a page they should be let be unless completely inappropriate for some reason. Anyone can comment on a page through its talk page, as a process of requests etc, something that is and should be encouraged across all wiki projects. This is not encoraged by the unnecessary deletion of these pages, they are generally archived not deleted. As such I would suggest fixin the redlinks sure but not delete these pages. Cheers, Faendalimas talk 23:56, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Although there is not much information in these talk pages, and new users could be irritated, my opinion is near Faendalimas: Keep the content as historical record. --Murma174 (talk) 11:06, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Stho002 used the talk pages to convey taxa-distribution data. I likewise see no benefit in deleting these pages. Mariusm (talk) 05:09, 26 November 2015 (UTC) [On second thought, most of these pages contain only the data: "Distribution: New Zealand etc." where etc. may include another 100 countries. It can be misleading ... so I would like to have these pages deleted Mariusm (talk) 06:08, 26 November 2015 (UTC)][reply]

Our system is soooo complicated

I'm witnessing now and again how newcomers are struggling with our wiki system of templates, titles, links, categories etc. Imagine a zoologist in his sixties or seventies who worked all his life at a museum, missed the computer revolution, and is trying to add his expertise to WS. We indeed perfected and streamlined our system very smugly but is it accommodating such a person? This person is facing such a daunting task that I would not be surprised if he runs away frustrated and bewildered after just a few edits! What I'm trying to say is this: our system is indeed fit for seasoned wikipedians and for computer-savvy youngsters but it is not so for the average older scientist, so let's also engage ourselves in thinking how to simplify our system and let's be very very patient toward these newcomers. Mariusm (talk) 13:00, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Mariusm: Completely agreed. We could use a system for inputting new data similar to voy:en:. For instance, go to voy:en:Indianapolis and you will see a number of links to "edit" existing listings which cause a much more friendly and restrained box to pop up. It's far easier to edit this and you don't need much technical expertise outside of being able to type. The upside is that this project is mostly made up of the kind of data which could easily be added using forms and fields like this. The downside is that the listings need to exist in the first place. If we could implement a system like that for the interface here, it would probably aid non-tech savvy individuals as well as robots trying to import info from databases and other sites. Thoughts? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 14:35, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Its have nothing to do with age. If I want start with add a species and I look for an example I see many different ways to add a species. If people don't see a good example they add the species on their own way. In the past their where templates. You could find them on the left side under Templates and their was support. Since we don't work after templates anymore it is a chaos. Example: Their was an agreement not to use subgenera in the species anymore, but if you look in wikispecies their are thousands species with a subgenera. Who change this? etc. If I'm new I use species with subspecies after an example. PeterR (talk) 15:01, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@PeterR: yes, our help section needs revision, and our templates need a more extensive help section. Mariusm (talk) 15:12, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Someone created a {{Nomen}} Template, but I don't find it intuitive and don't use it myself. I use templates for Taxonav and for References, because the value of templates is to save time when creating several page instances that refer to the object concerned. This is of course most suitable for genera with lots of species and authors of prolific volumes. I agree that more complex templates may initially be a deterrent, regardless of the age of the subscriber... Accassidy (talk) 19:25, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A while ago I made comments that the use of templates etc should not be a priority. The most important thing is to learn wikimarkup, templates can come later, with the only real exception to this being the Taxonav template, that one should be used. Part of my reasoning for that is the complexity issue discussed here. I agree without some scripting language knowledge it can be very difficult to learn this stuff. People need to be able to start basic and work into it with help. Cheers, Faendalimas talk 05:23, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Koavf: It's essentially what User:Pigsonthewing has done with his new template for biographies {{Biography}}, am I right? @Pigsonthewing: can you come up with something similar for taxon input? It would be great to have such an option! Mariusm (talk) 15:05, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes; I'm already thinking about how to structure a taxon template (or templates). But first I'd like to get the new biography journal and institution templates finished, and more widely deployed; and introduce data transclusion from Wikidata, Once people sse that working, I think they'll be more willing to accept the same for a taxon template. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:44, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Claudio (De) Oliveira

I'd like to merge these two author-pages, describing the same person apparently:

But which name to choose? Any ideas? --Murma174 (talk) 15:52, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well I imagine his name is actually Cláudio de Oliveira following typical South Americaqn name formation. Faendalimas talk 05:19, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, thanks, that might be the best solution. --Murma174 (talk) 10:56, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

444.444 articles

From the top of Special:RecentChanges : Wikispecies: 444.322 articles - Village Pump - Policy - #wikispecies (IRC channel) | Help: General Wikispecies - Editing - Templates - FAQ - Search
Which will be the 444.444th article? I'll spend a (virtual)   to everybody! --Murma174 (talk) 17:16, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We reached the 444.444th article with Alana Cioato by User:Neferkheperre. Gratulations to all! --Murma174 (talk) 17:16, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Image size and choice

At present, the default setting for the {{Image|Picture.jpg}} template is 250 pixels wide, which is very small. I suspect this is a hangover from the days when computer monitors were 640 pixels wide. But now, they're usually far larger, typically 1600 pixels or more wide. I was wondering what people thought about making it larger, perhaps 400 pixels, or even 500. But equally, it is at least hypothetically possible that some people may be coming to Wikispecies on mobile phones with a 50 or 100 pixel wide screen — is this a realistic limitation, does anyone really do so?? Would it be possible to set different default sizes for computers and mobiles? Or even set no images for mobiles?

I'd also like to re-write the whole Help:Image Guidelines page, which is woefully out of date (it doesn't even mention the {{Image|Picture.jpg}} template!). Some suggestions I was thinking about including, if they meet with general acceptance:

  1. Where available, give preference to photos over paintings (reason: it looks more modern and "with it")
  2. Where available, give preference to photos of organisms in their native environment over captive, cultivated, or invasive alien organisms (captive / cultivated individuals are worryingly frequently misidentified, and often atypical or abnormal in appearance)
  3. Where the information is available, give the location where the photo was taken (this helps give an idea of the native distribution of the taxon)
  4. When adding a photo to a higher taxon, give preference to the lectotype species or subspecies of the higher taxon (it helps proof against future taxon splits – I have seen several genus and family pages illustrated with a taxon no longer included in that genus or family, because someone forgot to change the pic when they updated the taxon's circumscription!)
  5. Be less strict over the number of images permitted (currently "Only one image per species, unless the species is sexually dimorphic") - encourage adding images of distinct subspecies, distinct juvenile plumages of birds, summer / winter differences, and for large organisms like trees, whole organism and close-up detail (e.g. foliage / flowers / fruit)
  6. On species (and infraspecific taxa) pages, encourage more use of distribution maps (very valuable for understanding species)

Thoughts, please, everyone! - MPF (talk) 20:53, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your initiative! (Unfortunately there are not many distribution maps around.) I agree generally up to:
a.) image size could be defined in percent (30% ?) to fit for every monitor
b.) number of images must be limited for not getting into useless discussions (max. 3 ?) The rest can be viewed at commons. --Murma174 (talk) 22:53, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the % idea (I didn't know that was possible ;-)); perhaps 25% rather than 30%? Yep, perhaps 3 images max makes good sense. - MPF (talk) 23:15, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly I dont know, how this %-idea can be realized, but I'm sure we'll find a CSS-specialist for such a task --Murma174 (talk) 06:54, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Currently all portrait photos are 220px and landscape photos are 250px. The {{Image}} template sets everything to 250px (to me, 30px difference is no big deal). If someone is coming from mobile, they are first presented with mobile view. In mobile view, the image takes the centre and disregards any image size specified in the page. OhanaUnitedTalk page 03:35, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You could make it a percentage if you wanted by using coding to over-ride the wiki markup, however, although many monitors are now 1600+ as OhanaUnited indicated this is also meant for mobiles, tablets etc. My thought is that when people wish to and can see the full size image they can easily enough by clicking on it and going to commons to see it. Also we need to think of our purpose which unlike wikipedia for example is to present the nomenclature. Lots of photos are not required for that. An example photo, a map if available not much more is all that is required, our aim is more informational. Cheers Faendalimas talk 14:12, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Template I'm confused as to why we even use a template in the first place: how is this better than the standard MediaWiki functionality? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 14:57, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No idea. I don't use the template either. OhanaUnitedTalk page 19:10, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The template is very useful, as it saves us discussions about the size. We surely can agree, that sizes < 50 px or > 500 px are inappropriate. So 250 px has been a good compromise. But the monitors have changed and the question is allowed, whether the size should be changed, and how. --Murma174 (talk) 22:50, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I always think that the images in the articles provide an overview of what it looks. So if a person wants to examine it in detail, he/she can click the image to see the full size version of it. OhanaUnitedTalk page 01:16, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Access to data on Wikidata is here

Hi everyone :)

We just enabled access to the data on Wikidata for you. This means you can now access data like the number of inhabitants of a city or get a link to a picture for a famous person and much more. You can access the data in two ways - via a parser function and via Lua. How to use it:

I hope this will help you do great things here. If you have any questions please don't hesitate to ask. Good places to start are d:Wikidata:Wikispecies and d:Wikidata:Project chat.


Cheers --Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) (talk) 14:19, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

One species - one article

When I started transforming duplicates to redirects in the Genus Euphaedra, there arose a (IMO) fundamental question: Do we need two (or more) articles for one species? Example: Crambus anapiellus. In my opinion the article Crambus anapiellus is not necessary and should be changed to a redirect -> Euchromius anapiellus. Why? Because we have two articles describing the same one species. All the information in Crambus anapiellus can easily be integrated into the article Euchromius anapiellus. PLEASE let us agree to the rule: One species -> one article! --Murma174 (talk) 15:34, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree, that there should be only one article for one taxon. Synonyms should be integrated into the respective taxon page and a redirect should be created. However, there exist cases of unresolved names, which cannot be synonymised definitely, e.g. Brackenridgea elegantissima. For this, and a few similar cases, I also have created separate pages. --Franz Xaver (talk) 17:20, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I see you don't have knowledge of ICZN. You always add first the original species combination. Sometimes the species transferred to an other genus or even genera. Still the first combination is the author taxa and you find this species under the first name in the museum. Not under other names. When some holotype species are lost, zoologist take often a syntype and designated one syntype as lectotype. In this case Crambus anapiellus and not Euchromius anapiellus.
I don't agree with your solution, because before we add author taxa and museum we add the species on your idea. If we go back to that system it means the end of category:author taxa and category:museum. PeterR (talk) 17:45, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@PeterR: As far as I see, there is no problem with category:author ### taxa. You simply categorise the redirect pages in the author category, as I have done in Category:Robert Hippolyte Chodat taxa. --Franz Xaver (talk) 18:44, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And yet again (or is it "as usual"?) we run into a fundamental split in how things are done between specialties. *exasperated sigh* Circeus (talk) 17:56, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Circeus:. We have just an agreement how to update ==references== on 23.nov.2015. And now a proposal for delete the other references?. I can also say and yet again etc.. I try to give arguments not to do it. PeterR (talk) 18:38, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, agree; one taxon, one article. Synonyms should be redirects to the accepted name — and therefore also, since circular redirects are to be avoided — synonyms listed on the page of the accepted name should not be links. - MPF (talk) 18:55, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also agree one taxon, one article and with the way redirects should be handled @MPF:, @Murma174: and @Franz Xaver:. As to a replaced basionym @PeterR:, its information should be placed with the current combination on its page and not in a separately article. If not why not? IMO if you use its full scientific name (Name, Author, Abbreviated article, Date) preferably with a link to the original publication then that should be sufficient. I thought that WS is a repository of current names (OK with "bells and whistles") am I right? As to unresolved names, such as mentioned by Franz, I have often avoided them as usually on review they just disappear! Maybe that is because I have tended to concentrate on monocots, which are the most intensively reviewed group of higher plants, where most genera do not have unresolved species combinations, but rarely genera do have a handful of unplaced names left to be dealt with. Or maybe I am over pragmatic! Andyboorman (talk) 21:04, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think that making pages for synonyms has some advantages. The specific information concerning the synonym can be displayed more clearly including type, residency, references and mentions. When all reference data for a number of synonyms is grouped together, it can be unclear as to what belongs to which synonym. On top of that when one is redirectred, one can quickly loose track of what one is looking at. Except for a small notice at the page's top, there's no clear indication of what exactly is displayed when redirected. On the other hand when a synonym page opens with all its relevant information, with a clear indication that it's an invalid name and which is the replacement name, things get much clearer and more obvious. Anyhow, I don't propose synonym-pages to be mandatory, nevertheless I think that creating them should not be prohibited.
Another related important issue is to add all the synonym names to the relevant genus page. See for example the Tortrix page: If Tortrix alhamana is a synonym it should be added to the Tortrix page under the subsection "In synonymy" or "Names in synonymy". Mariusm (talk) 05:35, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Tortrix is a good example, where things went wrong: 1. If you click on the Subgenus Cnephasia, you are directed to the Genus Cnephasia. 2. There is no redirect from Tortrix alhamana to Paramesia alhamana. And all that trouble only because an ancient name Tortrix (Cnephasia) alhamana seeks its way into our system. There is no Subgenus Tortrix (Cnephasia) anymore. So why list it on the page Tortrix as Subgenus? Put it as additional information into the Names-section. That's why I'm agitating so strongly for 'one species-one article': In this one article we can collect all the information about synonyms in the Names-section. --Murma174 (talk) 08:38, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Mariusm: Im following this "one taxon one page" approach for some time now. In my opinion, it works very well, at least with plants. I give some examples, where a lot of names with their types are listed together: Brackenridgea arenaria, Cespedesia spathulata, Elvasia elvasioides. Is this really that confusing? Maybe, it is more difficult with zoological names, as there combinations are handled in a different way. As far as concerns adding synonyms to the genus page, you may have a look at Monnina. --Franz Xaver (talk) 10:01, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Franz Xaver:. I don't see category:author taxa. In the zoology we make overviews. See Franz Daniel under Authored taxa. PeterR (talk) 11:25, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@PeterR: Sorry, I don't understand. Please, see Robert Hippolyte Chodat and Category:Robert Hippolyte Chodat taxa. For example, Monnina patula is only a redirect to Monnina hirta subsp. cuspidata, but the redirect page is categorised in Category:Robert Hippolyte Chodat taxa and visible there. --Franz Xaver (talk) 11:33, 3 December 2015 (UTC) - I also want to point to the fact that in Category:Robert Hippolyte Chodat taxa names that are still accepted and synonyms can easily be distinguished by typeface: Synonyms are in italics. --Franz Xaver (talk) 11:41, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Franz Xaver: I mean under Heterotypic by Brackenridgea arenaria PeterR (talk) 12:06, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@PeterR: Sorry, I still don't have any idea. Please, explain what you expect to see and where it should be. --Franz Xaver (talk) 14:10, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Murma174:. What you tell about Tortrix (Cnephasia) alhmana is bull shit. After ICZN Razowski have designated a lectotype with name Tortrix (Cnephasia) alhamana and In the museum HNHM you can find this species under Tortrix (Cnephasia) alhamana. and not under Paramesia alhamana or Tortrix alhamana or Cnephasia alamana. So Tortrix (Cnephasia} exist. If you make subgenus Tortrix (Cnephasia) the problem is over. Let me tell this. If you change my work I stop with WIKI, because I work after ICZN. PeterR (talk) 10:38, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@PeterR:1. Yes, the name Tortrix (Cnephasia) alhamana exists. No doubt! But the name Paramesia alhamana also exists. That's why Tortrix (Cnephasia) alhamana is mentioned there as a synonym. And as the more common/accepted name we list Paramesia alhamana. That doesn't mean, that one name is right and the other is wrong, there are good reasons for either name. It is just an agreement and a way, not having two articles for the same species.
2. I'm not glad about your wording towards me. It doesn't solve the problem. I have great respect towards your knowledge and your tremendous contributions here! My intention never was to dismiss your contributions. If you understood it this way, please accept my sincere apologies. --Murma174 (talk) 11:42, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Murma174: Do you know what ICZN means? There are a lot of troubles more with use (as example) genus Euphaedrana and not use Subgenus Euphaedra (Euphaedrana). PeterR (talk) 11:57, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Murma174: If you want change it you need a solution for the authors taxa see Phtheochroa fulviplicana. PeterR (talk) 11:59, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@PeterR: I still can't understand, why we need two separate articles, e.g. Euphaedra (Euphaedrana) variabilis and Euphaedra variabilis, describing the exact same species. And why don't they at least link to each other? And wich one should be connected to Wikidata? For my part I give up. I'll revert all the edits I made in the Genus Euphaedra within the next days. --Murma174 (talk) 12:36, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Murma174: Please wait with this. The problem is that Euphaedra (Euphaedrana) variabilis is after ICZN. But it can be that Euphaedra variabilis is after ICZN and later it is transferred to Euphaedra (Euphaedrana) variabilis and even Euphaedrana varibilis is after ICZN and transferred to Euphaedra (Euphaedrana) variabilis. It is not so simple as it likes. So have patience. I have ask Mariusm for a solution for this problemPeterR (talk) 12:57, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Franz Xaver: suppose you have 20 synonyms each with 3 dedicated references totaling in 60 references. Do you think a normal user will be able to distinguish which refs belong to which synonym? Do you think he'll be able to hunt down among the wealth of information the specific synonym he's looking for? On the other hand imagine a user looking for a name and getting all the data which belongs only to this specific name with a clear indication it's a synonym. Isn't this a more clear and easy way to accommodate the user? Mariusm (talk) 13:01, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Mariusm: Yes and no. You are right, when there are many synonyms, as a consequence there will be many references, but of course some important references will be relevant for most of the synonyms. Yes, it can be difficult to find a certain reference belonging to one of several names. That's the reason, that usually, if possible, I link from page numbers directly to the respective pages at BHL or similar resources. Moreover, in botany it is commons usage, that scientific name and author combination are followed by an abbreviated citation of the reference, see IPNI entries as e.g. [1]. Seemingly, that makes the task easier for botany pages. An advantage of pages like Brackenridgea arenaria, if names are ordered chronologically, is IMO, that it is easier to grasp, which of the many names is the correct one according to the code (priority, legitimate etc.). If the relevant information is scattered over many pages, this would be more difficult. By clicking from one page to the other you easily get lost. --Franz Xaver (talk) 14:07, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Franz Xaver: please take a look at the African Plant Database at <<Pleuroridgea ferruginea>> which is a synonym of Brackenridgea arenaria. Isn't this page far better than your interpretation of Pleuroridgea ferruginea as just 2 lines in a 150-line page? I think it's superior in every way in terms of clarity and usability. Mariusm (talk) 15:14, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Mariusm: I don't agree. Nowhere on this APD page on Pleuroridgea ferruginea it is made visible, that its basionym Ochna ferruginea actually is an illegitimate homonym. If I only see this page, I would get confused by the fact that Ochna ferruginea (1893) has priority over Ochna arenaria ("1901"), but the younger epithet should be used for the correct name. Another point is, that it is shown correctly that Pleuroridgea ferruginea is a synonym of Brackenridgea arenaria. However, it is not really correct, that all other names synonymised under Brackenridgea arenaria show up as heterotypic synonyms of Pleuroridgea ferruginea. Synonyms of a synonym? Anyway, if it should be decided to create an own page for every name, including links to all other names belonging to the same taxon, this means a multiplication of work to be done. Of course much of this can be done with copy and paste, but then there is high risk of errors created by some minor edits that should habe been done, but were forgotten. --Franz Xaver (talk) 16:51, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Mariusm: @Franz Xaver: Is WS primarily a repository of all published names for a species and additionally by implication all taxa, or the single name that is currently accepted by expert consensus and hence should be used? If the later then one page is most appropriate for us and we then move on to approaches to the design of the page. If some editors and users want the former, then I feel we need a much wider discussion, as this is widening the scope of the project, or have I got the "wrong end of the stick", so to speak. The discussions below are relevant as well. Andyboorman (talk) 16:32, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Andyboorman: Let's categorize WS for now as neither encompassing all the published names ever nor as restricted to the valid taxa only. Let us add named in both categories as the editor deems necessary. Mariusm (talk) 09:35, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Overview of species

See Monnina, Brackenridgea, Ochna. Here I am deviating from the way most people are working here. I add the list of "Accepted species", "Names in synonymy" and "Unresolved names" in an own section "Overview of species" after the name section, as in my opinion it would be an overload of the taxonavigation to include hundreds of names there. The essential part of a taxon page is the names section and not the taxonavigation. It would be a long way down to the essentials then. Moreover, higher taxa (genera, families) nowadays are no more defined by visible characters, but by phylogenetic results. When in former times the circumscription of higher taxa more or less was based on distinguishing characters, this is now based on the species, which are included in the same monophyletic clade. So, in my opinion, an overview of included species is part of the circumscription (definition) of a higher taxon, and thus has more significance than listing in the taxonavigation header is suggesting. Some thoughts? --Franz Xaver (talk) 10:01, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Franz Xaver: your way is a very nice way to clearly organize the various types of species, but it contrasts with the format of the WS huge established base. I'm preferring to use the current format and modify it a little like Liogluta for example. Mariusm (talk) 13:11, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Mariusm: Pace didn't described Atheta gonggana but Liogluta gonggana. After ICZN you have to stabilize the original species. In MHNG you find only information about Liogluta gonggana. So the information by Category:Roberto Pace taxa Atheta gonggana and MHNG is not correct. If this is the solution, we can better stop with add false information and delete Category:Roberto Page etc. and delete the museum categories like MHNG. I was started with this project on your demand and shall now stop with it. PeterR (talk) 13:34, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@PeterR and Mariusm: I made modifications in Atheta gonggana and Liogluta gonggana. As far as it concerns authored taxa, is the problem solved now? --Franz Xaver (talk) 14:22, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Mariusm:. Marius there is a connection between author and museum. The original labels are in the museum. PeterR (talk) 16:32, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@PeterR: please calm down. We are trying to improve things by discussion and by correcting each other's errors. Maybe you're right about the author and the original name. We must find the best way to do things. We are talking here about authored species and not about museum names. A list of authored species can contain the current name and not the original one. In some aspects it is better to have the list of current names. But I'm open to new ideas, so if the majority decides otherwise, I'll follow suite. Mariusm (talk) 15:30, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Mariusm: I am aware, it's different from the usual design. Anyway, there is a variety of designs and WS is to some extent a work in progress. Improvements should be possible. In my opinion, there are two advantages: (1) Taxonavigation would not get overloaded. This concerns especially genera with hundreds of names. (2) By separating the species list from taxonavigation, it stresses that circumscription of a higher taxon is a topic on its own. --Franz Xaver (talk) 15:08, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Franz Xaver: agreed, yet we must strive for a unified page design. It is practically impossible to modify the basic WS page design at this stage. Most genera contain far less species than your example, so your design would be an overkill for them. Mariusm (talk) 15:22, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Mariusm:, @Franz Xaver:: In my opinion this is the only solution see Phtheochroa fulviplicana. This is set up after agreement with Marius. PeterR (talk) 15:33, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@PeterR: Why is Hysterosia fermentata given as a synonym in Hysterosia fermentata. Is this a copy and paste error - see above? --Franz Xaver (talk) 17:03, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Franz Xaver:. When I have text by a species I always note this in synonyms. Maybe this is wrong, but I don't know an other way. PeterR (talk) 13:13, 4 December 2015 (UTC).[reply]
@PeterR:, @Mariusm:, @Franz Xaver: I think I disagree with Peter and Marius as giving every synonym its own page can be seen as a problem on two main grounds. Firstly it can lead to page over-kill and create a huge amount of additional work for an editor to get all the required page information onto these additional pages. Agrostis capillaris, for example, has 4 homotypic and 105 heterotypic synonyms and the existing WS page needs work! Secondly, if an outsider searches for Idiographis fulviplicana you firstly get the "incorrect" combination and need to perform the redirect yourself, whereas if you search for Liogluta gonggana at least you are directly redirected to the "correct" or "accepted" combination. I think I will stick with the one page, one consensual name approach, but I will also add (for now) just accepted species below the Genus and synonyms etc. below the Name. However, I do not think it is appropriate for me to dictate how others work, but if consensus tells me to change then so be it, as like others I would like greater consistency on WS. Andyboorman (talk) 17:02, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Partly this comes down to what our purpose is. Are we a list of published names, nomenclature? or a list of names organised by accepted taxonomic hypotheses with all available names included. Unless you are a nomenclatural specialist, and most people are not, a list of names will make little sense to people. It makes far more sense to have a single page for each terminal taxonomic concept and list all other names on that page. Keeps the information together. This is not the ICZN List of Available Names in Zoology, it is not Zoobank. I mean many would not be correct anyway. Oldest name for the Matamata is Testudo terrestris, its current name is Chelus fimbriatus, originally Testudo fimbriata. Testudo belongs to Testudinidae, Chelus belongs to Chelidae. These names pre-date the splitting of the Testudines into Cryptodira and Pleurodira The name Testudo terrestris is now the name for a member of the Testudo graeca complex, complex but this is true. So I do not see any value in listing all of these names on separate pages. Using my example, we have a page for Chelus fimbriatus and all the synonyms and other names are on it for information with references, not as links, or at least they should be. So to me, to make this usable by the most people, and hence feasible, stick to terminal taxa and explain their nomenclature. Cheers Faendalimas talk 00:31, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
For me it is easy. If you want an author with all his published genera, subgenera, species, subspecies etc. and you want a list from all species etc. in a museum you have to work out all synonyms. If you don't want those lists you delete all catogories from author taxa and museum. Nobody have profit by a not reliable information list. When I started with species.wikipedia (a longtime ago) it was the meaning to set up a reliable Information System. Now the reliability is far away. PeterR (talk) 13:13, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@PeterR: Probably, you don't know, that it is possible to categorise redirect pages. So, if a taxon page presents synonyms together with the correct name (valid name), you don't add the author categories of the synonym author to that page but to the redirect pages. Please, have a look at Securidaca ovalifolia: You find the heterotypic synonym Securidaca fallax. Category:Augustin François César Prouvençal de Saint-Hilaire taxa is added to the taxon page, but Category:Robert Hippolyte Chodat taxa is added to the redirect page Securdaca fallax. So, in every author category you will only find those names which belong there. --Franz Xaver (talk) 21:37, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Franz Xaver:. Franz, I didn't know that. I have try it out and it works. So the problem seams over. See Phtheochroa vulneratana. Thanks PeterR (talk) 11:41, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Has anyone other ideas on how to organize the species list of a genus page into valid/synonyms/unresolved subsections? Mariusm (talk) 09:40, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I guess because I am used to writing checklists I have a way of doing this that seems to work in peer reviewed official checklists. By no means am I saying it is the only way though. For clarity it would seem that the genus page should really be dealing with the genus, ie its name, data and synonyms. The species list should be a list of terminal taxa. synonyms of the species can easily be done as a full synonymy on the species page. I would suggest that junior synonyms are not required on the genus page. Incertae cedis however I guess could be listed, I would suggest placing them in a separate section after the species list, whether they are links or not though I would not see as a priority. The size of the genus is going to impact this. I do not think it is necessary to have information on the genus page that is also and preferably in more detail on the species page. Fossil Checklist I am author on as an example. Cheers Faendalimas talk 02:23, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Listing the synonyms on the genus page is important for a number of reasons: (1) A user has no way of knowing whether a name is missing from the species list due to list-incompleteness or because it's a synonym. Many species aren't listed simply because of lack of knowledge or of thorough research. (2) A concentrated synonym-list can facilitate research. (3) It can prevent an editor from adding a "valid" species because he isn't aware of a subsequent paper which assigned it as a synonym. (4) It prevents naming-errors. Mariusm (talk) 08:55, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It could become unreadable. In vertebrates species, particularly older ones can average 5 - 10 synonyms per valid taxa, some have many more, even 40 - 50 odd. In a large genus of say 100-150 species this could mean over 1000 names on the genus page. No one will read that. The synonyms should still be redirects which can help prevent the issues you mention. Cheers Faendalimas talk 14:32, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The case you mention is extremely rare. I've never encountered such a genus. Mariusm (talk) 15:50, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Mariusm: There exist plant genera with more than 1000 accepted species, e.g. Astragalus, Euphorbia, or Solanum – see en:List of the largest genera of flowering plants. These also have a lot of synonymous names. Genera with more than 100 accepted species and about the same number of synonyms are very common. That's one reason, why I prefer not to pack the species lists into the taxonavigation header. --Franz Xaver (talk) 19:46, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Franz Xaver: I know. What I was referring to was a genus having 100 species and 1000 synonyms which I think is rare. What Faendalimas suggests is to eliminate entirely the synonyms from the genus page, which I suspect you'll not approve of. Mariusm (talk) 05:12, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I understand. Yes, the synonyms should also be found on the genus page. --Franz Xaver (talk) 11:32, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
OK well may I ask how if I look at Astragalus for example do I see which a valid names, which are junior synonyms, and which species they are synonyms to, on that page. What if I want to visit the genus page to get some idea of the number of valid taxa: without a way to see which is which. Also do realise that in many organisms described in the last 100 years there may only be 1 or 2 synonyms but many of those, and this is rampant in vertebrates, that are older they were re-described ad nauseum. Hence vertebrate synonymies are very complicated. Rana as an example of a large vertebrate genus. Cheers Faendalimas talk 21:47, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Faendalimas: Seems, these are all validly published names, nevertheless some of them may be synonyms. When considering plants, please don't use the term "valid" in the sense, how you would use it in zoology. The botanical code (ICN) knows only "validly published" names, which is equivalent to "available" names in zoology. If you mean something equivalent to "valid" name in zoology, you may call it the correct name of an accepted species.
Astragalus certainly is an extreme example, as it is the most species-rich genus of plants. As far as I understand, the present version of the Astragalus article intends to list only accepted species. Probably, for readability it does not make much difference, if there are "only" 3000+ names of accepted species or some thousands of additional synonymous names in a separate list. Anyway, especially in this case, there is an overload of the taxonavigation and the name section is hidden at the end of the page. --Franz Xaver (talk) 23:25, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My opinion is that having currently not used names in genus or species lists is NOT helpful or advancing the scope of WS. We are a database of current used combinations. Synonyms should be treated in the current accepted/valid named article.--Kevmin (talk) 13:58, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ISSN 0341-8391/37

I see under some ISSN numbers information about the contents from the bulletins. After Sthoner is gone, I can't see that anybody have update those sites. Are those informations necessary? or can they delete them. See ISSN 0341-8391/37 PeterR (talk) 15:47, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think these pages can remain for now or even updated. Mariusm (talk) 08:55, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Marius, It is the same problem as anywhere. Not from all bulletins is make an ISSN bulletin site. PeterR (talk) 11:29, 6 December 2015 (UTC).[reply]
If kept, needs some cleanup of the uncouth and misleading Stho-style: fullstop not colon after year, commas not semicolons between authors (and ampersand before last author), spacing between volume and part number [ 23 (2), not 23(2) ], removal of commas after periodical title, and debolding of superfluous bold on volume numbers - MPF (talk) 21:57, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I can't say I mind the bolding. It's part of the default Wikipedia style, and if the set of {{cite stuff}} templates weren't a mind-numbingly complex interconnected system, I would just port them over for simplicity's sake. Circeus (talk) 00:27, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Same here, I don't particularly mind the bold style volume numbers. That said, I wouldn't get upset if the bolding were removed – as long as it's not changed to italics… As for various types of punctuation within the citations I have the same standpoint as MPF. Now then, back to the main issue: whether we should keep or delete the "ISSN volume subpages", for instance ISSN 0341-8391/37 mentioned by PeterR above. They're not harmful as such, but for the sake of simplicity I vote for deleting them. In my opinion they're not very useful and I don't think anyone would miss them if they are removed. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 17:33, 9 December 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Yep, the bold is the one I'm least concerned about (that's why it was the last in my list!). Conversely, colon after the publication year is a more serious problem as it makes the publication year look like a volume number (as colons are used between volume and page number); can be very misleading given the number of journals where the proceedings of the year before is the volume number [e.g. Proc. Zool. Soc. London 1867: 34–56 (1868), where volume 1867 was published in 1868]. And not putting spaces consistently after brackets is just Stho's plain ugly bad grammar ;-) Of the ISSN subpages, I'd vote delete as well, they're not of any significant value here. - MPF (talk) 21:46, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@MPF and Tommy Kronkvist: I must confess I'm puzzled: if you look at the Help:Reference_section you'll see the following example on how to write a reference:

* Linnaeus, 1758. Systema Naturae Tomus I(II): 339-823. BHL.

We are given there an example with bold number and with no spacing between volume and part number. I'm following this example for 7 years now, and so are many other editors. Now you both say this is no good. Really, what am I supposed to do now? Can't we reach a consensus on this, at least among the admins? And can't we reflect this decision to be stated on the help page? Mariusm (talk) 11:04, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I guess because no-one ever thought to look at the Help section! Most of those Help pages are very out-of-date; I've just updated the Help:Reference section to make the style better, and will go through the rest over the next few days - MPF (talk) 12:06, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@MPF and Mariusm: Bolding volume number is unusual and restricted to some few journals, but in my experience there is no space between volume and fascicle number - see also IPNI and Tropicos. However, very often fascicle number is omitted at all, if pagination is continuous from one to the next fascicle. It is obligatory only for references to journals, where every fascicle of one volume starts again with page 1, which is a rare case anyway. --Franz Xaver (talk) 12:26, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Spacing between volume and part number is unusual if not confusing and I think it has to be avoided. What about year-parentheses? What about the publication's date which many add at the ref's end? Mariusm (talk)

Redirect

I have some problems with use REDIRECT by genera. If I redirect a genus to a new genus i have no problem. But how can I redirect the species under the old genus? If I do it on species level there is no connection with the genus. So if they cleanup the species without connection all is gone.PeterR (talk) 10:21, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Have you used the page move function to move the article to the current name combination. Alternatively is the problem something to do with the taxonav templates? --Kevmin (talk) 13:56, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Institut für Zoologie der Martin-Luther-Universität Halle-Wittenberg

Who can help me with the original abbreviation for Institut für Zoologie der Martin-Luther-Universität Halle-Wittenberg? PeterR (talk) 09:58, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My German is a bit rusty these days, but perhaps this PDF might be helpful: Gattermann, Rolf & Neumann, Volker 2000. Die Geschichte der Zoologie in Halle. Zoologie pp. 5–26.
The full document is available as a 184 page paperback book printed in 2005: Geschichte der Zoologie und der Zoologischen Sammlung an der Martin-Luther-Universität Halle Wittenberg von 1769 bis 1990, ISBN 978-3777613918.
Regards, Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 17:54, 9 December 2015 (UTC).[reply]
I dunno about "original", but the university itself's in GrBio under HAL (Index Herbariorum), HALLE and MLUH. I'm tempted to go for MLUH (if only because that's exactly where I would've ended on my own having to come up with an acronym). Circeus (talk) 06:27, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There exists ZNS as an additional acronym - see [2]. However "Zentralmagazin" does not mean, that the Herbarium HAL ([3], [4]) is also housed there. As far as I see, both the zoological and the botanical collections are separate organisations within the university and housed at different locations. So, I would reserve HAL for the herbarium and a different acronym for the zoological collections. --Franz Xaver (talk) 09:13, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I only mentioned HAL for completeness. IH abbreviations tend to be based on geographical rather than institutional names. This can make them somewhat unintuitive. Circeus (talk) 18:01, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reference Format

Does everybody agree with the format outlined in the Help:Reference section, so we can all follow it to standardize WS? Please let us know if someone has any reservations.

I know that many follow for many years other formats (me included) but it's due time to revise it and make it uniform, clear and precise.

The format essentially looks like this: 

* {{a|María Soledad Moleón|Moleón, M.S.}}, {{a|John Mike Kinsella|Kinsella, J.M.}}, {{a|Pablo Gastón Moreno|Moreno, P.G.}}, {{a|Hebe Del Valle Ferreyra|Ferreyra, H.D.V.}}, {{a|Javier Pereira|Pereira, J.}}, {{a|Mónica Pía|Pía, M.}} & {{a|Pablo Martín Beldomenico|Beldomenico, P.M.}} (2015). New hosts and localities for helminths of carnivores in Argentina. ''[[ISSN 1175-5326|Zootaxa]]'' 4057(1): 106–114. {{doi|10.11646/zootaxa.4057.1.6}} [http://www.mapress.com/zootaxa/2015/f/z04057p114f.pdf Preview (PDF)]

or:

Notes:

  1. Year is in parentheses.
  2. A point follows the year.
  3. Authors are comma-separated.
  4. Authors are designated by the full name.
  5. All authors are listed.
  6. For 2 or more authors, the last 2 are separated by an ampersand.
  7. No space between volume and fascicle number.
  8. Where possible a doi address and a link to preview or full article is given.
  9. Where possible to publication is linked to an ISSN page.

Mariusm (talk) 13:23, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In your example, page numbers are missing. These must be obligatory anyway. Concerning year, the most common version you can find in journals is without parentheses and followed by a dot. Concerning authors, there exist many variants in different journals - see examples in User:Franz Xaver/Reference formatting. Personally, I prefer the variant as can be found in Annals of the Missouri Botanical Garden or Novon, where only with the first author there is reversed order surname followed by initials of given name(s), separated by comma. With the following authors the order is initials of given names - surname, without comma in between. So, it is quite clear, which initials belong to which surname. Morover, there are fewer problems with non-European naming systems: You need not know which name is a surname, which a given name. (Some naming systems don't even have surnames, whereas on the other hand Brazilians usually have several surnames, some representated by initials.) --Franz Xaver (talk) 13:44, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I missed it. I added the missing page numbers Mariusm (talk) 13:47, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
1.Marius, this is not the way we add Zootaxa. Zootaxa 4052(5): 573–576. DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4052.5.5. This is the way. PeterR (talk) 13:54, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
2. 4057(1) have in Italics like 4057(1). PeterR (talk) 13:56, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Peter, (1) I know. I meant it to just be a general example for clarity. We can simplify the typing with templates.
(2) The majority thinks the bold number should be off. Mariusm (talk) 14:03, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I follow the above except that I do not add a full stop after the "year" parentheses, but am happy to do so if this is the consensus. In addition, I have usually used "{{aut|...." prior to the authors, as "{{a|...." tends to lead to too many red links! I would like to make a plea that all nouns are capitalised for journal titles - Google Scholar is atypical here. Andyboorman (talk) 15:48, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of the aut/a templates. Is there a genuine style justification for a hard-style small-caps in those templates? Why can't we just use a class for that template and let users style it to their heart's content? That style is pretty unusual to Wikispecies to begin with (even in scientific literature in general, it's a somewhat idiosyncratic choice as far as I can tell), and I'd much rather it be left to the user's choice rather than being thrust upon me. Circeus (talk) 18:18, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mostly OK, but I'd disagree strongly with the lack of a space between volume and part; it looks like bad format editing. There's also some inconsistent spacing in the initials there; it should be either A.B.C.Name (IPNI botanical author citation standard, with no spaces), or else fully spaced as A. B. C. Name or Name, A. B. C. (all other usages); but not mix-up spacing within a name like A. B.C.Name or A.B. C.Name or Name,A. B.C. - mixed spacing looks very ugly (and is something I associate with Stho's poor grammatic skills!). Also for 4 or more authors, I'd think an et al. is OK.
So thus:
* {{a|María Soledad Moleón|Moleón, M. S.}}, {{a|John Mike Kinsella|Kinsella, J. M.}}, {{a|Pablo Gastón Moreno|Moreno, P. G.}}, {{a|Hebe Del Valle Ferreyra|Ferreyra, H. D. V.}}, {{a|Javier Pereira|Pereira, J.}}, {{a|Mónica Pía|Pía, M.}} & {{a|Pablo Martín Beldomenico|Beldomenico, P. M.}} (2015). New hosts and localities for helminths of carnivores in Argentina. ''[[ISSN 1175-5326|Zootaxa]]'' 4057 (1): 106–114. {{doi|10.11646/zootaxa.4057.1.6}} [http://www.mapress.com/zootaxa/2015/f/z04057p114f.pdf Preview (PDF)]

- MPF (talk) 01:36, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • This Zootaxa format as our standard was put in place after discussion here last January, when I took over after Stho. Certain other tweaks, such as author page links, were suggested within one month. I have been making observations of reference formats in many other journals. Style can be extremely variable, and best approach is one where researchers building their cited reference lists can copy/paste with minimum editing. Our style seems to be at that point. I think there is only one French journal which uses our exact style. Other points:
Year in parentheses is definitely in minority. Year can rarely be found in parentheses at very last of citation.
IPNI is used only for botanical references. As botanical style is more standardized there, and different from zoological formats, why cannot our reference templates be standardized to reflect botanical practice and zoological practice, instead of trying to combine them?
Small-caps author naming is getting more popular in journals, let's leave it. It won't survive copy-paste anyway into word-processor programs.
We had agreed in January to title reference template pages as surnames, with "&" between last two, for up to 3 authors. Four or more go to "Author1 et al., year". In template body, to cite all authors. Having more than 4 authors is not that frequent.

Neferkheperre (talk) 12:37, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I remember a short discussion in February: Wikispecies:Village Pump/Archive 28#Towards standardisation in formatting of references. However, this ended without coming to an agreement. Seems, there was some agreement in one or the other point, but not an agreement covering all possible variations. --Franz Xaver (talk) 13:08, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously there's no way to please everyone, but some sort of consensus is emerging as to certain points:

  1. The general format outlined is acceptable.
  2. The use of year-parenthesis can be discarded.
  3. Spacing between initials isn't adding to clarity since it makes difficult to discern where a name ends (some go to the extreme and use "Ferreyra HDV" instead of "Ferreyra, H.D.V.").
  4. I don't see such a difference between botanical and zoological formats to justify a splitting. It may result in more confusion then benefit.
  5. Surname and initials reversal as Franz Xaver proposed can be hard to implement and is bound to result in more work and more errors. Also it contradicts with the existing WS base.

I think everyone has to make a (small) compromise (I did) and not be obstinate about particularities which in the end of the day aren't crucial. The format than would be like: 

* {{a|María Soledad Moleón|Moleón, M.S.}}, {{a|John Mike Kinsella|Kinsella, J.M.}}, {{a|Pablo Gastón Moreno|Moreno, P.G.}}, {{a|Hebe Del Valle Ferreyra|Ferreyra, H.D.V.}}, {{a|Javier Pereira|Pereira, J.}}, {{a|Mónica Pía|Pía, M.}} & {{a|Pablo Martín Beldomenico|Beldomenico, P.M.}} 2015. New hosts and localities for helminths of carnivores in Argentina. ''[[ISSN 1175-5326|Zootaxa]]'' 4057(1): 106–114. {{doi|10.11646/zootaxa.4057.1.6}} [http://www.mapress.com/zootaxa/2015/f/z04057p114f.pdf Preview (PDF)]

Mariusm (talk) 14:08, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Probably, it is easier to come to a common standard, if we divide the variations into separate points and have a vote on each separately, e.g.
  1. Parentheses around year or not
  2. Small caps for authors or not
  3. Spaces between initials or not, or even the variant without dots and spaces (I observe, many journals have adopted this in the last years - it's increasing)
  4. etc.
Maybe, we call it opinion poll and adopt one variant only as standard, if there is at least a two-thirds majority? --Franz Xaver (talk) 15:21, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A poll a good idea. Andyboorman (talk) 17:02, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Couple of thoughts on all this. First up the small caps is not a huge issue as if you copy and paste and walk it through Notepad it will be stripped of extra formatting, hence become normal text, this will also remove hyperlinks. There are several basic ideas of how to do references out there but unfortunately many journals have their own views on this. Zootaxa uses parentheses () around dates, this is becoming rare these days, many journals dropping it. Many these days are opting for a: author list. date. title. journal vol info style of format. Mainly because it is transferable across all languages including computer data-basing languages. Parentheses are a pain for data bases, particularly importing if not all items have them. In any case that's not our problem. The main thing people would usually have to do on copy and paste is manually remove the parentheses. Personally I prefer not to use them, obviously in saying that when I publish I must follow author's guidelines, hence you will see them in any of my Zootaxa papers. In EndNote I store all my references without them but have a format option with them. I am fine with a poll, and am not too worried how we here do this. What is shown above seems reasonable. Cheers Faendalimas talk 18:53, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Just an addit on spaces. Name, A. B. C. is still relatively common, as is Name, A.B.C. personally I prefer the latter as I think the spaces are literally a waste, and in journals every type space counts. I have also seen it starting to become popular to do Name, ABC however this I think can lead to confusion with Latin names and some other formats, for example France de Lapparent de Broin, is this de Broin, FdeL or de Broin FDL?? so I think the full stops to denote missing characters still helps here. Cheers, Faendalimas talk 19:02, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If desired, the smallcaps for authors can very easily be removed globally by a simple edit to the {{a|}} and related templates. Of spacing after initials, if it's to be removed, then it should all be removed (i.e. Name,A.B.C.) - it is the inconsistency of a mixture of some-spaced, some-not-spaced, that looks so badly formatted - MPF (talk) 21:43, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I should point out the "ipni standard" has nothing to do with reference formatting, but (as I see it anyway) is only applicabe to post-name authority, and certainly not to references. I've always favored full-name well over initials anyway, so I've hardly had to even consider the issue of spacing initials in references. Personally I far prefer parentheses, but I guess I can't fight off that one, but I'd like to note that the so-called computer parsing issue (Do people really parse wikispecies references?? I must say I have a very hard time believing parentheses are such a big issue.) only exists because we don't have active computer-parsable COinS in them to begin with, another reason I bemoan the difficulty--if not impossibility--of porting over the wp: citation templates. Circeus (talk) 04:22, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have to be honest, I don't use that formatting at all, as it seems very overly complex. I utilize the fully functional {{Cite journal}} template to generate uniform citations that match those of both EN.wiki and commons. Is the cobbled together ciation method doing something the template does not and I am missing it?--Kevmin (talk) 21:54, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Draft for a Poll on reference formatting.

Please review the topics and add your comments whether there's a need for additional topics. PLEASE DO NOT VOTE YET.

  • 1. Year.
    • a. With parentheses and dot. (2015).
    • b. No parenthese and with dot. 2015.
    • c. With colon. 2015:
  • 2. Author(s) name(s).
    • a. No spaces between initials Ferreyra, H.D.V.
    • b. With spaces between initials Ferreyra, H. D. V.
    • c. Without dots or spaces between initials Ferreyra, HDV

** d. reverse initials and surnames after 1st author (Franz Xaver suggestion) H.D.V., Ferreyra

  • 3. Author(s) in small caps.
    • a. Yes. Ferreyra, H.D.V.
    • b. No. Ferreyra, H.D.V.
  • 4. Space between volume and fascicle number.
    • a. Yes. 4057 (1)
    • b. No. 4057(1)
  • 6. Volume number in bold type.
    • a. Yes. 4057
    • b. No. 4057
  • 7. Link authors to their respective pages.

Mariusm (talk) 07:32, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I propose to remove alternative d from point #2, as this is a matter independent from the rest. It could be a separate point. Anyway, it would be without comma between initials and surename - see Annals of the Missouri Botanical Garden (and many other journals) in User:Franz Xaver/Reference formatting. Actually, it would be the normal order, first name followed by surname, for all but the first author. Only for the first one we may call it "reversed". --Franz Xaver (talk) 08:57, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Second needs expanding slightly:
  • 2. Author(s) name(s).
    • a. No spaces Ferreyra,H.D.V.
    • b. With some spaces randomly inserted Ferreyra, H.D.V., Ferreyra,H. D.V., or similar
    • c. With spaces Ferreyra, H. D. V.
    • d. Without dots or spaces Ferreyra,HDV
    • e. Without dots, with some spaces Ferreyra, HDV
MPF (talk) 10:44, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In Zoology you have two templates:

PeterR (talk) 12:51, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Poll on the reference format

Please select your choices from the following reference options. References are a very important feature of WS, and till now were handled inconsistently with many variants. This is an attempt to standardize this section and bring some uniformity to WS. Please select in the form of 1a 2b etc.

  • 1. Year.
    • a. No parentheses and with dot. 2015.
    • b. With parentheses and dot. (2015).
    • c. With colon. 2015:
  • 2. Author(s) name(s).
    • a. No spaces between initials; space after coma. Ferreyra, H.D.V.
    • b. With spaces between initials. Ferreyra, H. D. V.
    • c. Without dots or spaces between initials. Ferreyra, HDV
    • d. Without dots or spaces between initials or comma. Ferreyra HDV
    • e. Entirely without spaces. Ferreyra,H.D.V.
    • f. Entirely without spaces or dots. Ferreyra,HDV
  • 3. Author(s) in small caps.
    • a. Yes. Ferreyra, H.D.V.
    • b. No. Ferreyra, H.D.V.
  • 4. Space between volume and fascicle number.
    • a. Yes. 4057 (1)
    • b. No. 4057(1)
  • 6. Volume number in bold type.
    • a. Yes. 4057
    • b. No. 4057
  • 7. Link authors to their respective pages.

Polls starts Dec. 13 12:20 ; Poll ends Dec 20 12:20 Mariusm (talk) 12:22, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vote

Notes:
  1. ↑ In retrospect the problem was not putting one here and putting one between issue and pages when issue is present, but it's either both or none IMO, per Vancouver Style (PDF). — The preceding unsigned comment was added by Circeus (talk • contribs) 14:23, 13 December 2015.

Close poll

Following are the results of the reference format poll. 11 users filled their choices and 2 declined to choose.

  • 1. Year.
    • 7 votes for 2015.
    • 4 votes for (2015).
  • 2. Spaces between author's initials.
    • 6 votes NO.
    • 4 votes YES.
    • 1 vote no-opinion.
  • 3. Author(s) in small caps.
    • 7 votes YES.
    • 4 votes NO.
  • 4. Space between volume and fascicle number.
    • 1 vote YES.
    • 10 votes NO.
  • 5. All authors should be listed.
    • 9 votes YES.
    • 2 votes NO.
  • 6. Volume number in bold type.
    • 2 votes YES.
    • 9 votes NO.
  • 7. Link authors to their respective pages.
    • 9 votes YES.
    • 2 votes no-opinion.
  • 8. Reverse surnames and initials after the first author.
    • 9 votes NO.
    • 2 votes YES.
  • 9. The last 2 authors are separated by an ampersand.
    • 10 votes YES.
    • 1 vote no-opinion.

The majority chose the format to be like this: 

* {{a|María Soledad Moleón|Moleón, M.S.}}, {{a|John Mike Kinsella|Kinsella, J.M.}}, {{a|Pablo Gastón Moreno|Moreno, P.G.}}, {{a|Hebe Del Valle Ferreyra|Ferreyra, H.D.V.}}, {{a|Javier Pereira|Pereira, J.}}, {{a|Mónica Pía|Pía, M.}} & {{a|Pablo Martín Beldomenico|Beldomenico, P.M.}} 2015. New hosts and localities for helminths of carnivores in Argentina. ''[[ISSN 1175-5326|Zootaxa]]'' 4057(1): 106–114. {{doi|10.11646/zootaxa.4057.1.6}} [http://www.mapress.com/zootaxa/2015/f/z04057p114f.pdf Preview (PDF)]

or:

I will adopt this format for my future edits and I hope all editors will follow suit. By this we'll make WS more uniform, coherent and overall better. Mariusm (talk) 09:20, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for organising the poll. I will now follow the agreed format and change my templates as and when I come across them. Andyboorman (talk) 09:45, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes thanks for this it will look more professional. I will use this also from now on. Faendalimas talk 15:43, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest I'm still waiting for an answer as to why the complex multitemplated format above is viewed as a better approach then the citation template that already exists and generates uniform formatting, plus has the DOI, ISSN, and URL embbeded already reducing the amount of typing and background data needed.--Kevmin (talk) 22:35, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Kevmin: (1) The Template: cite journal may have its advantages which I certainly don't deny, but it also has some drawbacks. It requires the editor to "chop" the citation into many parts which is time consuming and tedious. Instead of a single copy and paste he needs to perform at least 10 different operations. It also requires an understanding of the wiki markup language which many editors here are lacking. (2) We usually write the citations as templates. Creating a template inside a template may be difficult. (3) The cite-journal-template doesn't comply with the rules voted-on above. Mariusm (talk) 08:03, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Mariusm: There is the same amount of markup required with the formatting that was just proposed, and users are likely to be as unfamiliar with the very esoteric requirements that were discussed. Placing the citation template into the nowiki text into the references guidelines makes copy paste of a citation simple, and will automatically do all the markup that the complex amount of formatting is forcing editors to do. I dont see the above as an improvement to the project to be honest.--Kevmin (talk) 15:47, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
* {{a|María Soledad Moleón|Moleón, M.S.}}, {{a|John Mike Kinsella|Kinsella, J.M.}}, {{a|Pablo Gastón Moreno|Moreno, P.G.}}, {{a|Hebe Del Valle Ferreyra|Ferreyra, H.D.V.}}, {{a|Javier Pereira|Pereira, J.}}, {{a|Mónica Pía|Pía, M.}} & {{a|Pablo Martín Beldomenico|Beldomenico, P.M.}} 2015. New hosts and localities for helminths of carnivores in Argentina. ''[[ISSN 1175-5326|Zootaxa]]'' 4057(1): 106–114. {{doi|10.11646/zootaxa.4057.1.6}} [http://www.mapress.com/zootaxa/2015/f/z04057p114f.pdf Preview (PDF)]
* {{cite journal |authors={{a|María Soledad Moleón|Moleón, M.S.}}, {{a|John Mike Kinsella|Kinsella, J.M.}}, {{a|Pablo Gastón Moreno|Moreno, P.G.}}, {{a|Hebe Del Valle Ferreyra|Ferreyra, H.D.V.}}, {{a|Javier Pereira|Pereira, J.}}, {{a|Mónica Pía|Pía, M.}} & {{a|Pablo Martín Beldomenico|Beldomenico, P.M.}} |year=2015 |title=New hosts and localities for helminths of carnivores in Argentina |ISSN=1175-5326|journal=[[Zootaxa]] |issue=4057|volume=1 |pages=106–114 |doi=10.11646/zootaxa.4057.1.6 |url=http://www.mapress.com/zootaxa/2015/f/z04057p114f.pdf |format=PDF}}
yields:
Moleón, M.S., Kinsella, J.M., Moreno, P.G., Ferreyra, H.D.V., Pereira, J., Pía, M. & Beldomenico, P.M. 2015. New hosts and localities for helminths of carnivores in Argentina (PDF). Zootaxa, 1(4057): 106–114. doi:10.11646/zootaxa.4057.1.6. ISSN 1175-5326. http://www.mapress.com/zootaxa/2015/f/z04057p114f.pdf. 
with less formatting and guarantees that the punctuation and spacing is the same, so there is no need to specify all that extra complex rule cruft that ws just voted on.--Kevmin (talk) 15:55, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Kevmin: I still can count 11 pieces which have to be chopped off the {{a}}-pre-formatted ref and inserted at their appropriate places. How can you say it won't make an undesired overload for the editor? Mariusm (talk) 16:09, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Simple, the above proposed formatting is NOT a match to many of the journals out there, nor does it cover books (which the template does), so inevitably there will be "chopping" and reformatting ANYWAYS. You seem to be going on the assumption that all references are univerally formatted to fit the proposal, rather then using one of at least 4-5 other major citation formats currently used by journals. Just looking at the nitpicking about placement of punctuation in the proposal will give editors the same amnout of pause. Can you definitively show that the proposal will not have the same effect?--Kevmin (talk) 16:59, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Kevmin: I'm not categorically against the template(s) but you'll need to modify it to comply with our agreed format voted above, than we can recommend it to the editors and give it a try. Mariusm (talk) 06:32, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Why should it be modified, and not offered as an option as it stands?--Kevmin (talk) 13:53, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Because our goal is to standardize the reference section according to the majority's wishes and the cite journal template uses a non-standard format. Mariusm (talk) 14:51, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

┌─────────────────────────┘ The template was never offered in the poll, and given the amount of horse-trading that happened with the poll, I don't see that the cite tempalte should be changed before being listed as an option. It should have been listed in the poll, given its the standard citation template for the major wiki languages, and thus likely to be used or familiar to users that are starting here from them. and ANY formatting will be new or different to users that are not on WS already. I suggest offering the template as is and seeing what members think of it.--Kevmin (talk) 05:59, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Those quote marks round the paper title need killing - they're an Arts thing, not used in Sciences citations - MPF (talk) 01:22, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As I understand, the poll was not about this or that template, but about how the result should look like. So, the poll is also applicable here. If the template is able to support the agreed format, it will be fully acceptable. However, I could not find any documentation for the template and the source code is a big mystery. --Franz Xaver (talk) 10:21, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, agreed! - MPF (talk) 10:49, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Something odd here! I know I at least intended to vote for having a space between volume and part number, but I appear to be listed above as not?? I don't have the energy to check through the history to see what's happened . . . - MPF (talk) 11:49, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It wouldn't make much difference since the score happens to be 10 to 1 ... Mariusm (talk) 13:05, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
True 9:2 isn't very different! - MPF (talk) 13:14, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just one more trifling question: which do you think would be a better separator between the page numbers: The usual dash (-), the ndash (–) or the mdash (—)? Mariusm (talk) 15:51, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Usual dash seems almost universal for page numbers. Neferkheperre (talk) 19:12, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I always use the ndash (–). --Franz Xaver (talk) 22:43, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I also think the en-dash to be better than the other two options although it makes editing more difficult (you'll need to press alt + 0150 on the numeric pad). Mariusm (talk) 05:37, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
N-dash An n-dash is ISO proper form for a range like page numbers and this is an multilingual site, so we should use that. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:39, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I always use en-dash. It's ISO standard for good reasons, so yes. Tommy Kronkvist (talk) 05:54, 24 December 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Main page (again!)

I've done a new Species of the Month. But can someone please volunteer to do a new Distinguished Author? Bocage is getting very long in the tooth! - MPF (talk) 00:55, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sure thing. I'll see to it tomorrow later today (it's 02:05 A.M. here in Sweden now). –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 01:05, 13 December 2015 (UTC).[reply]
  Done. Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 21:44, 13 December 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Oberthueria nom. dub.

At the moment there are two genus pages that seems to be conflicting: Oberthueria (Kirby) and Oberthueria (Vuillet). Surely one of the taxa must be invalid, since they both regard a genus in the same kingdom and even subclassis, i.e. Pterygota (Insecta). At the English Wikipedia they are called Oberthueria (beetle) and Oberthueria (moth), respectively, so the problems exists there as well. Can some one with a better insight in entomology than me please sorts these bugs out? –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 06:41, 14 December 2015 (UTC).[reply]

For Vuillet, the publication is here. I can't even find the proper citation for Kirby, though (but it's almost certainly given in Zolothuin & Wang, which I don't have access to)... Curse zoology and its lack of useful databases.
These cases can survive for years after being discovered because the specialist dealings with these groups simply don't interact together, can't be bothered to actually care about the nomenclatural implications, or because specialist suspect that the junior homonym is not a taxonomically valid genus. Plus many authors want to incorporate a whole bunch of corrections in huge, sprawling revisions, even though such works are not very well adapted to the realities of modern taxonomy. Circeus (talk) 08:31, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You have four (4) genera from Oberthueria:
1. Oberthueria Kirby, 1892 (lepidoptera) (replacement name for Euphranor Oberthür, 1880). (A junior homonym of Euphranor Herrich-Schäffer, 1855 (Lep., Saturniidae). A synonymic catalogue of Lepidoptera Heterocera (Moths ) 1: 720.
2. Oberthueria Staudinger, 1892 (Lepidoptera) n Romanoff, Mémoires sur les Llépidoptères 6: 337.
3. Oberthueria Leech, 1897 (Lepidoptera)
4. Oberthueria Vuillet, 1911 {Coleoptera}
2, 3 and 4 are homonyms of Oberthueria Kirby, 1892
PeterR (talk) 08:48, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The citation for Oberthueria Kirby is Kirby W.F. 1892: A synonymic catalogue of Lepidoptera Heterocera. (Moths): Vol. 1. Sphinges and bombyces, pp. 951. page 720. Oberthueria Vuillet, 1911 is certainly invalid (probably a synonym of Tropidocerus). Mariusm (talk) 09:33, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that so long as no one has formally synonymized Oberthueria guiteli, we can't just ignore the genus and species name. Circeus (talk) 10:20, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Correct we cannot ignore it, nor is it our role to do the synonymy. So we have to find a way around it if both are being used as valid general in the accepted literature. Would note they are homonyms though. Cheers. Faendalimas talk 12:48, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
AKA do exactly what we are already doing. Do we have any info as to whether the species is valid? Because a small note to validate Tropidocerus guiteli is something I'd be willing to encourage anyone here who's more familiar with the entomological standards of redaction to go ahead and publish. I mean, I got Antillanthus discolor published with less credentials than the author of that name probably would have. Circeus (talk) 14:10, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ask User Dyanega on Wikipedia, not sure if he visits here. He is a professional entomologist. I would hazard a guess he would have a better idea. Cheers, Faendalimas talk 19:45, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

┌─────────────────────────┘ I'll go and poke them. Circeus (talk) 20:04, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Here is GBIF entry for Oberthueria. GBIF can be very helpful for puzzling out these kind of messes. If replacement names exist, they will be indicated. When homonyms are encountered, is best to create disambiguation pages to at least perform basic sorting and destinations. Neferkheperre (talk) 20:21, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikidata 'this zoological name is coordinate with' property proposal

The proposal for a 'this zoological name is coordinate with' property on Wikidata may be of interest. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:04, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the heads-up. I've made a few hundred edits to Wikidata but feel I still have quite a long distance to stride before I'll become fully comfortable handling the finer details of the project. It is interesting to learn though! –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 18:54, 17 December 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Retrieved from "https://species.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikispecies:Village_Pump/Archive_33&oldid=7502064"