Wikispecies:Village Pump/Archive 38

This page contains changes which are not marked for translation.

Moving vernacular names to Wikidata

I've asked for a bot to copy vernacular names from {{Vn}} to Wikidata. Once this is complete, I'd like to look at removing them from Wikispecies, and instead having the template fetch the data from Wikidata, automatically (as we do for values in {{Authority control}}). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:54, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm - not a good idea. There's an awful lot of dreadful junk in the vernacular names at wikidata - scientific name synonyms misinterpreted as "vernacular" names by the bots, and above all, archaic names dredged up from out-of-copyright texts from 100 years ago or more. I'd say we should stick to authoritative modern sources like IOC for birds, or BSBI for European plants (both English, but similar sources exist for many other languages) - MPF (talk) 18:18, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
These are not insurmountable problems. We need to increase the integration of the two projects, and storing the same things in two places - indeed, different versions of the same things - is neither a sensible nor a sustainable model. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:50, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There's an awful lot of dreadful junk in the vernacular names at Wikispecies. Do the Wikidata folks really want more unsourced garbage shoveled over there? From the recent discussion at Wikidata:Wikidata talk:WikiProject Taxonomy#Populating common names, it would seem that they don't. I don't see any problem with archaic names dredged up from out-of-copyright texts, provided that the text is given as a source. The problem on this end is represented by stuff like @MPF:s recent change at Ribes petraeum of "rock currant" to "Rock Red Currant". ARS-GRIN is listed as a reference in the article, and while they have both "rock currant" and "rock red currant", they don't have "Rock Red Currant". Where did those capital letters come from? Well, ARS-GRIN does have a bad habit of reformatting common names so they don't match the cited source. In this case, I have the source cited by ARS-GRIN, and it is still lower case there. Then at Juniperus virginiana, Wikispecies has "Eastern Juniper", and MPF knows perfectly well that practically nobody calls it by that extremely uncommon name (though one could dig up a citation in a soon to be out-of-copyright text). If it's desirable to call it a juniper, Wikispecies could've gone with BSBI's "Virginian Juniper" (or even with ARS-GRIN's misrepresentation of the BSBI name as "Virginia juniper").
The vernacular names on Wikispecies are no better than those on Wikidata, and often worse. Wikidata has been adding sourced vernacular names from USDA PLANTS database recently. Wikidata and the Wikipedias tend to at least have links to the biodiversity databases that include vernacular names, while these databases are far from the gold-standard for references at Wikispecies. Plantdrew (talk) 20:13, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The example you cite was a tricky one; the species isn't on BSBI's list, but PFAF are generally fairly reliable, so I used that. "Wikidata has been adding sourced vernacular names from USDA PLANTS database recently" - a lot of those are very inaccurate for European species, compare with BSBI, which is the definitive source for English names for European species. Yes, it's definitely desirable to use accurate vernacular names (calling a juniper a juniper), we should avoid misleading and scientifically inaccurate vernaculars, as they only serve to confuse, or to encourage creationists wanting to obfuscate evolutionary relationships. - MPF (talk) 20:36, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's not good to have both the same stored here and there. As far as I see, if some unacceptable name is shown here from WD, it can be changed immediately when noticed. Only the place of change is different then. Anyway, changes at WD that affect WS can be shown at the WS watch list. Here and then some vernacular names are added or changed in languages I can neither read nor understand. If such additions or changes are made at WD and also shown in the Wikispecies version in these languages, I feel more confident, that not much VN junk will be imported here. In such cases I trust the community of native speakers and anyway cannot check anything. --Franz Xaver (talk) 20:59, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Just a quick point or two. In England we do tend to capitalise common names particularly when used formally i.e. as a Vernacular Name. USDA and GRIN are definitely not international sources. Great for US plants but relatively poor for other countries. Non-English VNs need to be sourced from countries of origin or language. VNs on WS often get added by non-specialists. VN on WS is just an added bonus for info only and perhaps to help searching, not essential data and therefore we do not usually reference, reserving this section for the information required for nomenclature, taxonomy and classification. This can change in the future, but it would be a tedious to redo older pages and most of us would not bother. Andyboorman (talk) 21:42, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There's a further comment on this proposal here, but I don't speak German (perhaps that's why I wasn't pinged when User:Succu mentioned me), so can someone who does give a summary, please? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:04, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why should I ping you in a private conservation? --Succu (talk) 21:20, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It would be really good to add common names to WD. But preferably from other sources than WS (GRIN, BSBI etc). I think all of them. Maybe on of them should be given a preferred rank if several different names exists. It is no problem at all to have several values with different sources in WD. As here there has been a lot of original research on WD but to add (all) these would definitely be a step in the right direction for both projects. --Averater (talk) 08:37, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

INFO: User:Magnus Manske will soon start importing the vernacular names of Wikispecies to Wikidata. --Succu (talk) 14:53, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion on Wikidata; it might be best to keep talking there. --Magnus Manske (talk) 08:29, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tringa like Charadrius, but more messed

Tringa says ♀, so:

  • T. glareola
  • T. incana
  • T. melanoleuca
  • T. nebularia
  • T. semipalmata
  • T. solitaria

but ♂?:

Sobreira ►〓 (parlez) 12:14, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In the protologues, the epithets Canutus, Ocrophus, Totanus, and Vanellus are written with upper-case initials. So, these are nouns in apposition as well and do not change their gender. I have not checked the two other cases. --Franz Xaver (talk) 13:41, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
From enwiki: The specific erythropus is from Ancient Greek eruthros, "red", and pous, "foot"; The specific ochropus is from Ancient Greek okhros, "ochre", and pous, "foot"; only fuscus and guttifer left. Sobreira ►〓 (parlez) 11:00, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the epithets Ochropus and Erythropus very likely are nouns in apposition. According to this paper, the species seems to have been described by Pallas as Scolopax erythropus. As Scolopax is of female gender, and has been since the times of Linnaeus, this is one more indication for being a noun. However, the epithet fuscus should be adjectival and therefore would change its gender. I found two older books in German: [1], [2], where for "Dunkelbrauner Wasserläufer" and "Dunkler Wasserläufer" the names Scolopax fusca, Totanus fuscus, and Limosa fusca are listed. So, this epithet has to be changed to fusca, when combined with Tringa. However, for me the correct nomenclature for this species is not fully clear. There seems to be some other problem, that the epithet fuscus/fusca cannot be used here. Finally, I also could find the protologue of Totanus guttifer by Nordmann (1835). As the epithet guttifer, if used adjectival having the male termination -er and the female termination -era, was combined with the male genus name Totanus, it is not unambiguous, whether this was intended as a noun or as an adjectival epithet. Maybe the first author, who combined it with a genus name of female gender has decided the case. (Not sure about the relevant rules in the zoological code.) --Franz Xaver (talk) 12:31, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, @Franz Xaver:. In the end, I understand that fuscus is wrong but fusca less used, and guttifer, who knows!? Anyway, this is driven by use, so I leave the species we have as they are, only to mention fusca (and the others) as a variant. Tomorrow or the next day I shall render my table with what I found. Sobreira ►〓 (parlez) 08:11, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Empty category

{{Empty category}} is now available for use on categories, such as Category:Candidates for speedy deletion, which are usually, or occasionally, empty. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:02, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Scoloplax as Antilocapra

I was climbing up the taxons (or cladi) of Scoloplax because I found the same huge length of the non-collapsible box than the one for Antilocapra mentioned before, and I wanted to do it myself. I was surprised that there is no box in the whole branch up to Cordata. And that Reptiliomorpha is mentioned in the tree for Antilocapra. Do we have a new way of showing the upper taxons without boxes and mentioning the parallel branches? Or are we in the middle of some transition into merging cladistics? Sobreira ►〓 (parlez) 07:53, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I see, there is nothing special here. These collapsible boxes are missing at many places, where they should be. It is easy to fix it. --Franz Xaver (talk) 08:58, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Problem concerning Flow activation on user talk pages

At the moment it is not possible to activate and deactivate Flow on a user talk page. Activate or deactivate Flow will lead to an empty page, with an error message.

Developers are fixing it. I'll post news when some updates will be available.

Please share that information with other users. Trizek (WMF) (talk) 14:23, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Update : activation of Flow as a Beta feature will be available again on Monday December 5 at 19:00 UTC. Trizek (WMF) (talk) 10:36, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Main Page changes

Protections Per this discussion, I have removed cascading protection from Main Page--it can be easily restored if there is a problem. I also think that we should stop making new templates such as Template:Distinguished author 2016-08 and Template:Species-2013-11 and just have Template:Distinguished author and Template:Featured species and then just overwrite them. What does everyone else think? —Justin (koavf)TCM 00:23, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I guess the reason for this, is to maintain an archive. If, however, if theres no need to keep an archive, I agree with with you. Dan Koehl (talk) 12:58, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Dan Koehl: But, of course, someone can just view past versions of the templates if he really wants to see the Main Page as it was. Besides, the current Featured Species is a redirect to one from 2013 anyway. —Justin (koavf)TCM 13:28, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sometimes users asked for 'species of previous months', and they can find these pages easily here. The current way to change the page monthly is better than to have the same page for a long time. We had a longer discussion about this about one year ago. If one of us is bored of redirects to earlier pages, he is free to write a new page. I don't see any reason for going back to the old system. --Murma174 (talk) 16:56, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Murma174. The current system is sufficient and makes it easy to see an overview of all the different versions. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 02:09, 12 October 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Sounds fair I will keep it so that if someone wants to edit Template:Languages, he will just have to post to talk. Thanks. —Justin (koavf)TCM 02:32, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Other Scolopacidae genera genders: Numenius

After simplifying myself the issue, I reached to the question of whether: is Numenius ♀ or ♂? Numenius americanus, Numenius minutus vs. Numenius arquata? Sobreira ►〓 (parlez) 13:00, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I see, Numenius is male. However, Arquata is a noun in apposition, which is shown by the upper-case initial in the protologue. --Franz Xaver (talk) 14:25, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So the Numenius arquatus of Avibase is a boutade, kind of a boast. Sobreira ►〓 (parlez) 09:50, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Avibase is mostly using the correct name Numenius arquata, but is simply reporting that American Ornithologists' Union had used Numenius arquatus in 1931 und later had changed. No problem so far. --Franz Xaver (talk) 10:28, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Can, please, somebody creat slovak logo of Wikispecies (File:Wikispecies-logo-sk.svg)? Text in slovak is

slobodný adresár biologických druhov

(free - slobodný, directory - adresár, species - biologické druhy - genitiv biologických druhov; see also w:sk:Šablóna:Sesterské projekty). I wanted to creat it, but I haven't got good PC program.   --MDsmajlik (talk) 16:54, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I might be able to do a Slovak version in Adobe Illustrator CC 2015, even though Illustrators' support for the SVG format isn't the best. (I haven't got a clue on how to use Inkscape instead, which would be a better choice otherwise.) Does any one know which fonts are used for the official, English version of the logo? –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 22:10, 12 October 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Editing News #3—2016

17:50, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Offline Wikispecies

Hello people,

We're releasing an offline version of Wikispecies via Kiwix following several requests. But apart from "hey, it'd be cool to have it", we would like to put a nicer spin to it to accompany the release. Any idea of the type of audience we should aim at? Biologists in the field? Entomologists? Students? Thanks! Stephane (Kiwix) (talk) 07:59, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Stephane (Kiwix): I'm not 100% certain who a target demographic may be but a suggested use that I would write into the copy is someone in the field looking at/for species and who doesn't have reliable Internet access. I'm not sure how purple your prose is going to be but if you had something like, "Offline Wikispecies is ideal for an amateur explorer in the heart of the Amazon, a professional mycologist traversing the Sahel, a class of students learning in the forest, or anyone else needing offline access to a taxonomic directory. Take it on vacation with you to help identify the flora and fauna." Please understand that I'm only giving a friendly suggestion and in no way dictating how you write up your own release. Thanks for all the good work you do. —Justin (koavf)TCM 15:37, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Stephane (Kiwix): In many of the less well explored countries, the latest comprehensive taxonomic literature, which you can take with you on a field trip as an ebook, can be very outdated. For example, botanists doing field work in Congo Republic (Brazzaville), Central African Republic or Chad still might have Flora of Tropical Africa (first volume from 1868) with them. An offline version of wikispecies might help as an additional tool, which can be used to look up recent classification or synonymies of the names found in the outdated flora or to check, if in a certain genus (family) additional taxa have been described since then. Nevertheless, an offline version is only half the fun, as external links would not work. Regards --Franz Xaver (talk) 20:35, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply] is a pity, that the Kiwix-version can not be edit or expanded at home. Orchi (talk) 10:24, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
From my perspective, as a taxonomist, I would see the target audience for offline being those students and academics who are doing a lot of writing on the run or in places with limited access. The information in Wikispecies is useful for writing, be it grant proposals, reports or journal articles. As it gives the correct names, synonymies and general references for this. People in the field only are more in need of field keys, which help with the identification of species. We are not producing keys. Having a list of names of the species in a given area does not mean you can identify them. It would be useful for those preparing for field work however. This would be because they can get lists of the species expected in their field site and prepare for what they might find. By and large though I think it would be most useful as a tool for writing. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 13:01, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent. Thanks a lot for the feedback! For the next iterations we also want to prepare a simplified landing page, for example getting rid of Species of the month and annoucements, as after a few months of offline use they can get quite stale (and also Kiwix does not include meta space so a lot of links are acually unclickable). If you don't mind I'll come back and ping you for suggestions and feedback as to what is really necessary to hit the ground running when opening this app on a phone (except a search bar, obviously). Cheers, Stephane (Kiwix) (talk) 08:48, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Offline app now available

Wikispecies now has its own dedicated offline Android app.Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 14:45, 28 October 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Really ornatus?

Gelber Schlankcichlide (Gestreifter Tanganjikabarsch)

This picture from commons is used on enWp as Julidochromis ornatus, but in my eyes it looks more like a Julidochromis marlieri, Julidochromis transcriptus, or a hybrid. What do you others think? Dan Koehl (talk) 13:37, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That is definitely not a Julidochromis ornatus, nor the somewhat similar looking J. regani. In my opinion the image depicts a (fairly juvenile) J. marlieri. However, the colour pattern of marlieri can differ quite remarkably between different localities and breeds, and as you point out some of them are rather similar to J. transcriptus. And yes, to make identification even harder the two species often interbreed, at least in aquaria. In any case, J. ornatus never have any vertical patterns below the lateral line (as can be seen on FishBase) while J. marlieri and J. transcriptus almost always do. So whatever species in the photo, it is not J. ornatus. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 19:50, 22 October 2016 (UTC).[reply]
I can confirm its is J. marlieri and not J. transcriptus, since J. transcriptus lack the lower stripes on the cheek. Dan Koehl (talk) 11:08, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Please take a look at Template:Carnivora and the newly added taxon Ferae. As far as I know, Ferae is unranked. What gives? –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 00:23, 25 October 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Back about 40 years ago, Eutherian mammals were subdivided into Grandorders. Ferae covered Carnivora and some others, Archonta contained primates, and Ungulata (I think) covered hoofed mammals and subungulates. I don't know if these are still accepted. Neferkheperre (talk) 08:29, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we need to engage in such a minute resolution clade-wise because this isn't going to add any clarity to our data. Anyhow the Pholidota also belongs to the Ferae and it isn't indicated as such. My inclination is to remove the Ferae. Mariusm (talk) 08:59, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 10:22, 25 October 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Pages with duplicate arguments in template calls

What am I missing? Why are the three pages Ornithorhynchus, Ornithorhynchus anatinus and Orthorhyncus cristatus listed in Category:Pages using duplicate arguments in template calls? Thank you for your help! Best regards, Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 01:17, 25 October 2016 (UTC).[reply]

VN template (Vernacular names) had duplicate arguments for the same language, e.g. "|ar" and than again "|ar". I fixed this. Mariusm (talk) 04:31, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well spotted. I generally dislike the VN sections as such, and as far as templates goes most often primarily focus on the ones related to taxonomical data and systematics. Hence I missed that one – thanks! Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 10:26, 25 October 2016 (UTC).[reply]
I fixed 50 of these pages. There are 150 more pages remaining to be fixed. Mariusm (talk) 12:11, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I'll fix the rest of them later today. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 14:33, 25 October 2016 (UTC).[reply]
I've done a few more, and will tackle more later - MPF (talk) 17:52, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Same here. It takes a bit more time than I expected, since quite frankly most of the pages in that category have heaps of other problems as well. Also, not all of the pages share the same issue, i.e. not all of them have duplicate arguments in the Vernacular names section, but other template related issues instead. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 08:35, 1 November 2016 (UTC).[reply]


I thought we already agreed that the geographical categories are very much unhelpful (see discussion regarding Stho002's use of these). Especially such a specific category like Category:Stachys (Greece). In the case when Stachys spans 100 countries, this would be a waste of time and also confusing. User:Fagus is making an abundance of such categories. What should we do? Mariusm (talk) 09:20, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I just noticed this the other day. As far as I understand we do have consensus, and those categories should be deleted altogether rather than left dormant in the fog of war... I hereby ping @Fagus: in order to make him/her aware of this discussion. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 10:33, 25 October 2016 (UTC).[reply]
I think it is useful for these categories. There are examples in other sites. It should not only be focused on classification. as a botanist, I would like to know the geographical distribution of a taxon. It will help in this regard. --Fagus (talk) 10:49, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Fagus: But really, there are better methods of doing this. See for example Cycas, section distribution and Aerangis, section distribution. These are more useful ways of adding the geographical information. The category method just isn't adequate for this! Mariusm (talk) 12:07, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Fagus: I definitely agree that distribution is useful but that should probably be done with a map and with users referring to Wikipedia for more information. There are several problems with this approach of using categories: 1.) at what level do we apply a category? If we are talking about ants (Formicidae) then they are all across the world so we may choose a more specific species but then what do we do with species such as homo sapiens? Or sea creatures? 2.) Political borders change, so will we split categories for South Sudan when it secedes from Sudan? Will we have a category for politically-contentious territories like Kosovo? Where will species found in Crimea be categorized? 3.) Although some national and political borders are more-or-less self-contained biospheres (such as the New Zealand categories that Stho002 added), many more are not. The divisions in my homeland--the United States--include virtually every type of climate across two continents and a completely arbitrary two-piece border with Canada. Saying that a certain tree is from America is almost useless since it could be in Alaska, Hawai'i, Maine, or New Mexico. 4.) Wikispecies is supposed to be language-independent. Choosing category names will invariably lead to making this less internationalized. I definitely agree with adding distribution maps from Commons but I don't agree with text or categories that are added to entries here. —Justin (koavf)TCM 15:51, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I do not think there was over-riding consensus for maps over the type of non-political geographical text found in Orchidaceae and other families. Particularly given the later can be found on other fairly robust sites. There was definitely no support for making distributions out of scope. There was definitely consensus against categories and templates based around a political entity based concept of endemic. It was also pointed out that accurate maps featuring distribution were not readily available and time consuming to create. I guess ideally we ought to head towards maps as policy, but we will also need to discuss map types and features. In addition, accurate map boundaries for most plant distributions are rare. Andyboorman (talk) 20:48, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

AWB run and deletions

Per consensus I am removing these and deleting Template:Endemic per discussions at Wikispecies:Village Pump/Archive 27 and Wikispecies:Village Pump/Archive 36 as well as the talk page of the template. Simply put, this kind of information is not fit for Wikispecies although it is good and useful in general. —Justin (koavf)TCM 16:46, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Koavf: Shouldn't the information about the species distribution be kept into the articles? Maybe the template Template:Endemic should be modified to remove the unwanted category then substituted? Korg (talk) 16:55, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Korg: I don't think that distribution is bad as such but we should include it as a map rather than text. There is no discussion in the Charter about distribution and unless I am misreading consensus, the community has decided against it. Plus the discussions were long enough ago that I feel like any prospect for objections or alternatives has had a sufficient time for proposal. —Justin (koavf)TCM 17:00, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This clean up has my support. Endemic and the offending categories have little meaning outside of a local flora and are usually an information poor concept in relation to phylogeny, classification and taxonomy. Andyboorman (talk) 20:48, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
My opinion as well. While geo-categorising and data regarding distribution might be interesting as such, it very seldom has anything to do with the taxonomy. There is a place for that information within the Wikimedia project – but that would be Wikipedia, not Wikispecies. Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 23:53, 25 October 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Templates This means that I will also get rid of Template:Country and Template:Nadi. Does everyone agree with that? —Justin (koavf)TCM 14:37, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I thought there was a consensus on accepting Template:Nadi, see Wikispecies:Village Pump/Archive 35#A Few Thoughts on Distribution. --RLJ (talk) 16:59, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If anywhere, distribution data should be in Wikidata, from where it can de displayed on a map in this project, or any language's Wikipedia, using the new Kartographer extension. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:06, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Pigsonthewing: Agreed. All kinds of data like this are appropriate for d: and can be added into other WMF projects (including here if we choose to amend the Charter!) —Justin (koavf)TCM 21:48, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Template:Ety This template has only one use—Viola adunca—do we want to keep it or expand this to other articles? Should we refer readers to Wiktionary for etymological data? If so, which language edition? —Justin (koavf)TCM 14:37, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think at some point we decided not to worry with etymology, as many times it is impossible to determine it. Also not very germaine to taxonomic data. Neferkheperre (talk) 15:01, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I also think that the other templates under Notes - life cycle and flowering time, are out of scope. Opinions of others? Andyboorman (talk) 15:21, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
For instance sexual dimorphism, length of egg incubation, and such. In my opinion they're all out of scope of this project, and should be left for Wikipedia. (However sexual dimorphism may be illustrated using pictures, and notes like the one regarding Strabomantidae might occasionally be useful.) –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 20:30, 26 October 2016 (UTC).[reply]
@Tommy Kronkvist: Not only Wikipedia but also d:--this information is perfect to source there and then insert into the editions of Wikipedia or Wikibooks as appropriate using a template. —Justin (koavf)TCM 21:44, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Koavf: Indeed, you are of course correct. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 21:45, 26 October 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Language-dependent headings

Can someone tell me why the section titles are being changed in the manner of == Name == to =={{int:Name}}== by User:Koavf ?? Mariusm (talk) 14:51, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Mariusm: to localize the site interface. —Justin (koavf)TCM 14:53, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So are you planning to change all the titles? Isn't this going to increase the editing difficulty in adding 8 chars to every title? Have we discussed this change anywhere? Mariusm (talk) 15:03, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I for one disagree to this change and think it produces more harm than good. @Koavf: please stop this change until we discuss this properly. Mariusm (talk) 15:09, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Mariusm: We have discussed localization here before and everyone seemed in favor of it at the time. Why object now? I don't understand why it is bad to have the option to see "Name" or "Nombre" if you speak Spanish. This is supposed to be a multilingual resource. —Justin (koavf)TCM 21:46, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Can we have an example of occurrence, please? Andyboorman (talk) 15:18, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
example. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:02, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This seems to me to be a sensible change, making it possible for non-English speakers to see headings in their preferred language. What do people have against that, besides the trivial "adding 8 characters"? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:02, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Change seems sensible. Is it possible to change the Wiki markup code? This will make it easier for less experienced or casual editors, rendering the change automatic and invisible. By the way {{BASEPAGENAME}} should not have italics around it, if it is to be universally used, as it is no good for taxa higher than genus. Indeed var., subsp. etc. are not italicised either. Andyboorman (talk) 20:18, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't use {{BASEPAGENAME}} in normal editing. also, by ICZN, subspecies designations are covered under Species-Group taxa, and thus are italicized. They are formatted so in every article I have seen. Neferkheperre (talk) 22:56, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Neferkheperre: Andy's referring to botany rules, where statement of rank is required, with the rank not italicised: Pinus nigra subsp. nigra, Cedrus libani var. stenocoma. - MPF (talk) 00:20, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Language-dependent headings – discussion

The language changeable headings aren't a good idea idea for the following reasons:

  1. The site is intended to be used by scientifically-oriented biologists who are supposed to be acquainted with English, especially with simple words such as "name" and "references".
  2. English is considered the lingua franca of science. Almost all the papers or at least their abstractions are written in English. It would be therefore strange to mix other languages on this site.
  3. The notes, distribution, etc. specific to certain taxa are written in English and can't be translated.
  4. The reference titles are in English and are also un-translatable.
  5. The templates which are supposed to be attached to every heading will put an additional burden on the editors. An additional eight characters must be attached to every heading to accommodate this change.
@Mariusm: The site is intended to be used by scientifically-oriented biologists who are supposed to be acquainted with English - can you cite some evidence for that, please? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:36, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have to cite the "evidence" because it can be deduced by default from the material or the subject-matter that WS is composed of. This material consists of taxonomic data abbreviated from scientific papers and from catalogs, while including a minimum of general verbose material. I can't see a person who isn't such inclined as to be called "scientifically-oriented biologist" or may I add "scientifically-oriented hobbyist" getting much benefit from WS. A person who is at a loss facing the word "name" would probably not visit WS anyway or if he visits, won't get any benefit from the information presented herein. Mariusm (talk) 12:03, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You say you "don't have to cite", evidence, but I suggest you have none; just as there is no evidence for your newly introduced claims. Your "person who is at a loss facing the word 'name'", for example, may arrive here from a link on a non-English, or even a non-Western-alphabet, Wikipedia. there is nothing at all to support the assertion that they "would probably not visit WS anyway". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:42, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Re "the opinions of non-native English speakers should prevail." - the poll is being conducted in English. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:53, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Poll regarding language-dependent paragraph headings

Poll regarding whether to keep section headings such as ==Name== and ==References== in English, or change them into language specific ones, such as =={{int:Name}}== and =={{int:References}}==

Poll started 09:00, 27 October 2016 (UTC). Poll will end 09:01, 3 November 2016 (UTC).

Poll closed as unresolved. Dan Koehl (talk) 19:44, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]


I vote for keeping the now used English-only headings for page sections.

  1. Tommy Kronkvist (talkcontribsblock logall projects)
  2. Mariusm (talkcontribsblock logall projects) — as I've said, the negative effects will exceed the positive ones.
  3. Neferkheperre (talkcontribsblock logall projects)
  4. RLJ (talkcontribsblock logall projects)
  5. Faendalimas (talkcontribsblock logall projects)


I vote for changing the now used English-only headings into language dependent ones.

  1. I'm also delighted to see that this poll uses multilingual headings, with no drama. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:36, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Justin (koavf)TCM 13:54, 27 October 2016 (UTC) @Tommy Kronkvist:, @Neferkheperre:, @RLJ: Can you explain why you don't want the site to be localized? What is gained from taking away the option to have the interface in your preferred language? —Justin (koavf)TCM 13:54, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Some of the arguments presented by Mariusm don't convince me. The position of English is not uncontested to the same amount in taxonomic literature as it is in other areas of biology. There is still quite a lot of descriptive/floristic taxonomic literature published in other languages, as e.g. Spanish, French, Portuguese, Chinese, Russian, and even some in "minor" languages as e.g. Vietnamese, Farsi, or Italian. This seems to be an indication to me, that the group of people, who is interested in our content but does not feel very comfortable in English, is not too small. Anyway, nobody has suggested to translate titles of papers or names of journals in the references. However, translating headers and some other frequently used text modules probably would be helpful in order to improve accessability. Franz Xaver (talk) 20:58, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  4. --Fagus (talk) 06:51, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Good idea to make Wikispecies accessible in more languages - MPF (talk) 00:28, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]


I do not have an opinion in this matter, or feel that both options are of equal merit.

  1. – I think both options are of merit, but on balance tend to the conservative scientific nature of WS. However, I feel that the opinions of non-native English speakers should prevail. Andyboorman (talk) 15:36, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]


@Koavf: I do want Wikispecies to be as accessible as possible, to as many users as possible. However, in this case accessibility is not simply a question of supplying localised versions of the material. I feel it is also important to encourage more users to take on a roll as active editors, rather than only visit the site as "consumers". That would benefit the whole community. In order for it to happen the wiki code must be fairly straight forward and easy to grasp – i.e. accessible. Changing the headings to =={{int:Whatever}}== would add to the already cluttered and somewhat "user-hostile" code that can be found in some pages, with their multitude of other templates, magic words, wiki code for images and tables, category calls, and what not. The present ==Whatever== code strings are a lot more basic. To sort all of this out, I have a proposal. With the possible exception of ==Taxonavigation==, why not simply get rid of all of the standard wiki code headings altogether? Instead we could use templates, such as {{Name}} and {{References}}. The template pages could then include the code for the respective headings – with added translations, pretty much like for instance the {{Uw-vandalism4im}} template does. This would add the possibility of serving all of the headings in any user's preferred language, while still keeping the taxon page wiki code as simple as possible. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 22:52, 27 October 2016 (UTC).[reply]

@Tommy Kronkvist: I agree that the interface should be more like d: or voy:en: (see how you add listings to the latter project--it is very user-friendly). —Justin (koavf)TCM 02:57, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Koavf: Can you please give me a more specific example from enVoy, since it seems I can't find any translations at all there..? Tommy Kronkvist (talk), Tommy Kronkvist (talk) 12:23, 28 October 2016 (UTC).[reply]
@Tommy Kronkvist: Excuse me for being obscure. What I mean is, go to a page such as voy:en:Indianapolis and you can edit individual listings, so rather than edit the raw source of the whole page (or use the Visual Editor on the whole page), you can edit just one attraction and there are fields like "Price" and "Name" which function a little more like d: where you have specific fields where you can enter data. At this project, there are only so many pieces of information to include, so having a pop-up window like editing listings on Wikivoyage would be useful I think. —Justin (koavf)TCM 19:43, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Aha, I see. The "Add listing" pop-up looks very good, and could probably be implemented here as well, and for several languages. Luckily it also works if "Always give me the text editor" is set in the user preferences, since I really don't like the visual editor option, regardless of language... :-) Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 20:06, 28 October 2016 (UTC).[reply]
@Tommy Kronkvist: Please remember Wikispecies:Village Pump/Archive 37#Template Publications. I suppose, changing headings into templates will have the consequence, that a new user will find himself editing the template, when he expects to edit the respective section of an article. That would be even more "user-hostile" in my opinion. Regards --Franz Xaver (talk) 09:00, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Franz Xaver: Thanks for the reminder and yes, you are correct. A truly odd bug which should of course be fixed as well – but that's another discussion. Oh well, back to the drawing board then… Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 12:23, 28 October 2016 (UTC).[reply]
@Franz Xaver and Tommy Kronkvist: No. Checking Sisymbrium isfarense, the example I gave above, and which currently still uses {{int:Taxonavigation}}, this is not the case. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:14, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Pigsonthewing: I'm afraid you misunderstand, Andy. The archived VP discussion Franz Xaver mentions above debates an issue that seems to regard "headline templates" alone. On all pages using the {{Publications}} template, clicking the "edit" link next to the "Publications" headline opens up an edit window for the {{Publications}} template itself, and not the author page it (most often) resides on. You can open any of the pages where the template is used and see for yourself. Any fix for his would be most welcome! At present we instead use the standard ==Publications== heading, followed by the {{Inc}} template directly below it.
I am familiar with the earlier discussion. It is you who misunderstands: the issue is caused by including sub-headings in templates; not vice versa. It is therefore not an issue in this case, whether {{int...}} is used directly or - as I demonstrated elsewhere - a wrapper template for that. You are welcome to test either of the pages I mentioned for yourself, or to provide a counter example if you find one. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:21, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This problem does not replicate when using {{int:Taxonavigation}} for headlines, since as I mentioned it only occurs when using templates. Even though {{int...}} looks like a template it is really treated as a magic word (see MediaWiki: Help:Magic words#Localization), and therefore not affected. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 19:15, 28 October 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Again, this has nothing to do with {{int...}}, in templates or not. See above. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:27, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the clarifications! Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 20:06, 28 October 2016 (UTC).[reply]
@Koavf: What are we going to do with the common taxonomic phrases: "Type species", "by original designation", "by monotypy", "by subsequent designation", "original description", "junior homonym" etc. etc. ? Are you planing to adjust these also? Mariusm (talk) 09:10, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Mariusm: Yes. The total amount of text in Wikispecies amounts to a several dozen strings. Compare that with ~4,000 messages in MediaWiki software. Determining all of the likely strings of text that we use here and translating them is not really impossible, especially compared to the task of creating a database of ~2 million species in the first place. Again, I'm not seeing why removing the option to translate the interface is a good thing. We have been talking about localization for well over a year and have a banner on the top of every page soliciting feedback. You've surely seen posts here to the Pump about users wanting to translate the interface and only now when I'm starting to implement it do you object--and over a few characters being added to subheadings? —Justin (koavf)TCM 09:17, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not quite right. Translating help pages is one thing but imposing language-assisting templates on headers is quite a different story. Mariusm (talk) 13:22, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Koavf: The phrases I've mentioned aren't headers, so how are you going to deal with them? Another point: the information of the "type locality" and the "holotype" for every species is also in English (Look at Jennidayus makrokolosus for an example). How are you going to translate the info at Jennidayus makrokolosus? Mariusm (talk) 15:17, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
They are headers, but are not marked up as such, as they probably should be (but that's a separate issue). The headings (or labels) can be deployed using templates, say {{Holotype location}}, while the values should in the medium-to-long term, be represented by Wikidata items, which can have multi-lingual labels. Those Wikidata items might themselves be included in templates, which will fetch and display those labels; say {{Holotype location|Q12345}}. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:03, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Mariusm: Doesn't matter--internationalized text can occur anywhere in the wiki. E.g. here: Name. —Justin (koavf)TCM 19:50, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This localisation proposal is very well meaning, but it has important ramifications, probably making it too problematic to implement without fundamental changes in the way taxon pages are created and edited. Is it worth it for a handful of Wiki Markup section headings? At the moment it is relatively easy for a non-Wikipedian editor to create and edit pages to the agreed format,as long as they have the required scientific knowledge. I assume that is why the current processes were evolved. Implementing changes without replacing this ease could be seen as counter productive. It will also mean that much of the help pages will have to be re-written as well. Given that the "meat" of the content of a taxon page is not in English except for a number of key concepts, such as section headings, type, type species, holotype and so on. In addition, the majority of references are written in English or link to scientific sites using English, so a user needs a good command of this language to get the best out of a page. So I pose these question. What type of user will want to access WS who does not understand the basic terms expressed in English that are used on the site? What sort of editor will be attracted to the site, if they have to become a template maestro or skilled Wiki editor before adding information? I would respectfully suggest that @Koavf: and other proposers create a basic alternative mirror site incorporating their suggested changes, so that the community can examine them for ease of use and editing. Andyboorman (talk) 18:16, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have just created {{Taxonavigation}} and deployed it on Raorchestes silentvalley. That simplifies the markup Koavf used, and reduces the extra characters from 8 to 4. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:20, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK, but the wiki cite procedure produces an output that does not follow WS reference consensus nor current scientific usage so is not recommended here. — The preceding unsigned comment was added by Andyboorman (talkcontribs) 21:02, 28 October 2016 (UTC).[reply]
@Andyboorman: If we only use it for the Taxonavigation, Name, Synonyms and References (sub)headings I guess that wouldn't be a problem, since the headings do not include any actual references? –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 21:34, 28 October 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Just wanted to make the point. As has been mentioned the language of science in the modern world is English, for better or worse, this is just the reality. You go to an International Conference in Science anywhere, the official language of the conference will be English. Anyone working in science these days who does not become proficient in English is at a distinctive disadvantage. I live in Brazil where obviously their main language is Portuguese. However to get into University here for any postgraduate degree the student must pass an English exam. I get that this is unfair to those for whom English is not their native language. I live in a country where this is a reality, and they have my sympathy. I spend hours helping students here become more proficient in English. I am not an English teacher I am a taxonomist, originally from Australia. I am sympathetic to the difficulties these native Brazilians face. But to be internationally successful they have to use English. There is no way to fight this now. It is shift in science that has occurred over time. I do not think Wikispecies can do anything about this either. We should present in English. It is important that those who are not so proficient have every opportunity to get access to science in the way it is accepted internationally. Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 18:58, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Then let me also make a point: The vision of the Wikimedia Foundation imagines "a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge". That's "everyone", not "everyone who can read English". It may be that those of us who write Wikispecies (and literally no-one else has commented here) are all comfortable doing so in English, but we cannot, should not and must not assume that that is true for everyone who desires to acquire the knowledge it contains. As for "every opportunity to get access to science in the way it is accepted internationally", anyone may change their settings to display the headings in question in English, if they wish to learn that way. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:10, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I fully understand Scott's arguments, but have to go with Andy on this one. If we can make Wikispecies available for everyone, then I think we should. It is true that most modern publications upon taxonomy and biological systematics are written in English – but it can't be wrong to present that data in other languages, as long as we don't fiddle with the data itself! As for the {{Taxonavigation}} template, yes that would most likely work well also for "Name", "References" and all the other headings. Good thinking. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 19:37, 28 October 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Please note my argument here is applicable to Wikispecies, not to Wikipedia or other Wikimedia projects. It is because WS is presenting the raw taxonomic and nomenclatural science. I fully support the development of Wikipedia in multiple languages. Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 19:51, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Faendalimas: I don't dispute that English is the lingua franca in science (and business and international relations...) and that even comes with some strengths to be sure but I don't see why removing the option to see text in your native language is a better alternative. Especially after we have been soliciting translations (including of the site interface) for the past year. The Charter references wmf:Meetings/September 5, 2004 and is explicit about how Wikispecies exists in order to not reduplicate effort across language editions of Wikipedia: the entire function is to be multinlingual. Alternately, as the project is introduced at m:Wikispecies: "It is multilingual and has no language variants, much like Commons." The purpose of this site is to be multilingual and that can and should include the basic interface of the site. For that matter, Spanish speakers should have every right to enter new taxonomic data with headers such as ==Nombre==... and if they are internationalized with ==⧼Nombre⧽==, then they will appear in the default English (which no one is suggesting should be changed) or whatever language a logged in user chooses. —Justin (koavf)TCM 20:05, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Andyboorman: It's not a problem if someone edits an entry in a manner that is "incomplete" or not perfectly formatted: the entire project is a work in progress... Just like how almost no entry is perfect with an image, an instance of {{Commons}}, all vernacular names, etc. but they are still useful, it's okay if someone just puts in English-name headers because I can easily come along and change them with AWB or a bot could very easily be written to replace this text. —Justin (koavf)TCM 20:00, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Koavf: I do appreciate your arguments and fine there is a tech fix to maintain ease of editing. But WS is a scientific site and therein lies the dilemma. It is also about the appearance and perception of the site as well as content. Andyboorman (talk) 21:02, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Andyboorman: Granted, incomplete entries are not preferable but virtually every entry here is in some measure incomplete and either way, if someone just typed ==Name== instead of =={{int:Name}}== then that would not make this site look any less professional. Somehow, it seems that @Mariusm: is arguing that there are editors that would have no problem doing the former wiki markup but would somehow be stifled by the slightly more complex internationalized version. Does anyone here seriously believe that there are potential editors who can understanding ==Name== but who could not understand =={{int:Name}}==? Is this an actual problem? And does it somehow outweigh the scope of Wikispecies as a multi-lingual resource? We have no language policy so as it stands right now, there is nothing stopping anyone from adding a new taxon in Spanish, correct? Help:General_Wikispecies#Language_convention simply states that we have a convention for using English but our actual stated goal is to be as "language independent as much as possible". I'm surprised and dismayed that other editors are apparently opposed to implementing this principle. —Justin (koavf)TCM 03:10, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I for one am not at all opposed to implementing that principle, but find it important that we do so in the best possible way. Utilising the {{int:}} function may be the best road to take, but I don't think it is wise to change the current praxis without having investigated other possible solutions. Also, of course I do not believe that there are any users who understand ==Name== but can't grasp the concept of =={{int:Name}}== instead. The trouble is the sheer mass of templates and magic words etc that can potentially clutter a page. It is an extreme example, yes, but I don't want to see taxon pages with code like this:
{{Family template}}
Species: {{g|G|enus|species1}} {{glast|G|enus|species2}}

''{{BASEPAGENAME}}'' {{a|Named Author|Author}}, year
*Holotype: [[ABSRC]]. ♀ 12.IV.2002 No. 1305.
*{{tysp|Genus species2|(Author1) Author2}}
*{{tysp|Genus species3|Author3}}
*{{tysp|Genus species4|Author4}}

==={{int:Primary references}}===
*{{Author, year}}

{{commons|Genus (genus)|Genus}}
[[Category:Author Name taxa]]
That would be a complete taxon page, from start to end. Please note that all of the templates above are fairly common today, but luckily we never see them all on one page like in this example. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 04:34, 29 October 2016 (UTC).[reply]

 @Koavf: you completely ignore that WS is not a "bare bones" site as you wish to imply. There's a surprising number of pages where explanatory notes are essential. For example:

  • Some taxonomic authorities (including IOC) treat the family Trochilidae (Hummingbirds) as within the Order Apodiformes.
  • This familia was recently established from the Leptodactylidae to indicate a separate lineage.
  • This is a newly created familia by Frost et. al. Formerly these genera were placed in Leptodactylidae: Cycloramphinae.

There are type localities with description of the exact geographical location where the type was collected. For example:

  • Type locality: Austria, vicinity of Vienna.
  • Lake Biwako Shiga-ken, Japan.
  • Early Eocene, Klondike Mountain Formation, Republic, Washington, USA.

In author pages, there's a short biographical resume. For example:

  • Eugène Simon (1848–1924), French arachnologist and entomologist.
  • Volker Assing, (24.11.1956 -), German entomologist. Specializes in Staphylinidae (Coleoptera).
  • Volker Puthz (9.7.1941 - ); German entomologist. Specialist on Staphylinidae, (Coleoptera). Described more than 1,300 species and 2 genera, and has published more than 340 articles.

The section headings are just a minor and insignificant portion of the total English found in WS. To concentrate in them and proclaim to internationalize WS will be false and misleading. I ask you therefore to rethink carefully about your proposal. Mariusm (talk) 07:14, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Mariusm: Maybe we should reconsider, how type localities are presented here. As far as I see, the text referring to the type locality originally goes back either to a publication, the protologue/original description, or to a label attached to the type collection/specimen. Actually the original text can be in any language, as a majority of type specimens was collected and the species described in a time, when English was not yet the "lingua franca" in science. In my opinion, we should not translate all this by default into English, but rather present it as a citation from the original description or label. If we regard this as a citation of the original text, there is no need for translation any more. You may see some examples in Brackenridgea arenaria. Regards --Franz Xaver (talk) 11:15, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Franz Xaver: your claim that "a majority of type specimens" localities were originally described in non-English language isn't exactly standing up to scrutiny: An overwhelming amount of specimens were collected in the last 50 years, mostly 'in English'. Additionally many specimens of older names were assigned as holotypes, syntypes etc. by subsequent designation of modern authors since no specimens were provided by the original author or because the original specimens were lost. Type localities aside – we still got on our hands the notes, the authors' description, the repository descriptions etc. which are not connected to this and which have to be made in English. Mariusm (talk) 12:47, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Mariusm: Please, don't misrepresent, what I have claimed. I wrote "a majority of type specimens was collected and the species described in a time, when English was not yet the "lingua franca" in science", I did not claim they "were originally described in non-English language". Of course, also in older times English was used as well, besides Latin, French, German, Spanish, Russian, Italian, etc. However, the dominance of English is not older then 50 years, and even until 1990 the language was not much present within the influence sphere of the Soviet Union. Anyway, it's true that most collected specimens are younger than 50 years, but the overwhelming number of these specimens belongs to species described before 1940. And of course, the types of these species are older. Even neotypes of older species tend to be old collections. Of course, English is an important language. However, it's dominance, as this is developing now, in my opinion is dangerous. Younger people get the impression, they would get around exclusively with this single language, they don't bother to learn other languages, and at the end the ability to read older scientific texts is lost. This may be irrelevant in "modern" fields of work, but at least in taxonomy this will do harm. --Franz Xaver (talk) 13:28, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Franz Xaver: you still didn't address the issue of how shell the NOTES, AUTHOR'S DATA, REPOSITORY, EXPLANATORY ELABORATIONS etc. be rendered? Perhaps in Esperanto? Or would Latin be the perfect choice? I hope you're not thinking of translating the Latin binomials ... I wouldn't be surprised to discover that Koavf was considering this option too ;). (It is sporadically done in the "Etymology" section). Mariusm (talk) 13:46, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Mariusm: OK, I don't see a problem, if some of these will continue to be in English. Anyways, English will be the default language, in case someone is using language settings, where the localization does not offer a suitable translation. OK, there probably will appear a mixture of languages. However, when Commons can handle these problems, why WS should not be able to do? --Franz Xaver (talk) 14:28, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Franz Xaver: I'm not a big fan of English either, and as you can witness from my phrasing I'm not a native speaker of English. I just want to follow what's best for WS. The English phrases other than headings on WS do not amount to "some" as you say. I estimate them to be in around 50% of the total pages. There's no way we can circumvent this and translating only the headers would be just self-deception. Mariusm (talk) 15:16, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Koavf: Poll results and conclusions — The poll's score is even: 5 against 5, one neutral. My gut feeling is that the proposal requires further refinement to achieve a wider agreement before being implemented. To impose it right now in its current form and with the partial advantages it possesses would be premature. Mariusm (talk) 13:37, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with @Mariusm: could we please leave things as they are for now and let @Koavf: and others refine their procedures then come back here. Wiki markup maybe clunky but it is easy for those who have the expertise in taxonomy, but not in Wiki editing, to contribute and then more or less produce pages conforming to consensual format. Perhaps it is now the time to refine the Wiki markup here on WS? Andyboorman (talk) 21:25, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

--- Poll closed as unresolved. Dan Koehl (talk) 19:44, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Mystery tracking category

Category:⧼magiclinks-isbn-category⧽ Somehow, this started appearing where entries have the ISBN magic word. Maybe this is because it is being phased out/changed in MediaWiki soon. I don't see the value of this tracking category. Does anyone else have thoughts? —Justin (koavf)TCM 23:41, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See also Category:⧼magiclinks-pmid-category⧽ The other magic word—RFC— is not likely to be used here. —Justin (koavf)TCM 23:56, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
They seem to just add a red link category to some pages that have a ISBN link in the ref section. Need to go IMO? Andyboorman (talk) 19:24, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Something called User:YiFeiBot is installing them. Not of us, evidently, nor any indication of why. Neferkheperre (talk) 20:56, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So far the bot has made almost 68,000 edits to Wikispecies, so it is obviously doing something... I have noted the bot operator about this ISBN link issue, both on the bot's talk page here in Wikispecies, and on the operator's Meta-Wiki talk page. Regards, Tommy Kronkvist (talk),12:48, 28 October 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Hello, can I have a diff that shows this category being added to be sure what went wrong with my bot? I just checked the first page of the category, Acanthocnemidae, and it simply mysteriously appears within the category, with no indication of why; I suspect this is unrelated to my bot but something broke within MediaWiki. If that's the case, I can help reporting to the bug tracker --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 13:34, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Just looked it up. This seems to be phab:T149310 --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 13:37, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In any case, I'm currently draining the category by null-editing them all. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 13:50, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  Done The category is now empty, the issue is not caused by my bot --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 14:07, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  Thank you.Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 18:05, 28 October 2016 (UTC).[reply]
It seems, this problem has found a continuation with Category:Pages using ISBN magic links. --Franz Xaver (talk) 23:06, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I saw it about an hour ago when editing the Belonoidei page. Looks horrid and odd, and I for one have no clue how to fix it...   Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 23:53, 9 November 2016 (UTC).[reply]
@Tommy Kronkvist: The same category exists also on Commons since yesterday. Probably someone of from Mediawiki developers made a change. Now I also created the category and made it to a hidden category. So, it can be ignored more or less. Regards --Franz Xaver (talk) 09:57, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  Thank you.Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 23:54, 11 November 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Fetching vernacular names from Wikidata

The vernacular names in {{Vn}} have now been copied into Wikidata. We should now make that template call data from Wikidata, and then work to remove the values stored here - like we currently do in {{Authority control}}.

Who has the ability to edit the template in this manner? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:13, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the update. I'll look into it during this weekend. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 18:03, 28 October 2016 (UTC).[reply]
@Tommy Kronkvist: any thoughts? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:01, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Pigsonthewing: Sorry Andy. I didn't see it coming, but became very busy with urgent non-Wikispecies related matters. I think @Korg: is right, though. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 13:34, 3 November 2016 (UTC).[reply]
We would need to create Module:Wikidata (see en:Module:Wikidata, c:Module:Wikidata), or Module:VN (like Module:Authority control). Korg (talk) 14:53, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I just saw that Commons is fetching vernacular names from Wikidata: see for example c:Ursus maritimus, and see c:Template:VN and c:Module:Wikidata4Bio. Korg (talk) 00:54, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Are you sure you want to (re)import unrefenced data? --Succu (talk) 22:40, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Pigsonthewing and Succu: I just wrote up Module:VN and Template:VN/sandbox. A few things:
    • I wasn't sure how the ordering of languages was supposed to work, so I just had it sort by language code alphabetically.
    • When vernacular names in a language are given both locally and on Wikidata, the module uses the Wikidata name(s) and ignores the local content for that language.
    • When they're available only locally, the listing is marked with an asterisk with explanatory hovertext.
    • When multiple names are given on Wikidata, they're separated with a comma followed by a space (", ").
    • Since the current Template:VN doesn't apply lang attributes, the new version also doesn't.
    • Re referencing, at the moment 338936 out of the 420003 vernacular name statements on Wikidata have (non-"import") sources. Module:VN currently treats unsourced statements the same as sourced ones. Should the unsourced vernacular names be skipped?
  • An admin can implement the module by copying over the content from Template:VN/sandbox to Template:VN. --Yair rand (talk) 07:28, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Yair rand: Should the current data in {{VN}} be removed during that process, or should the data in {{VN/sandbox}} simply be included as an addition to the already present code? –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 07:41, 1 December 2016 (UTC).[reply]

National Museum of Victoria

NMV represents the "National Museum of Victoria". According to this Wikipedia article, that institution merged with the Science Museum of Victoria to form the "Museum of Victoria" in 1983, which in 1998 was renamed "Museum Victoria". How should we reflect this? Do we need to preserve the old name, or should we use the current name? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:58, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

They are known as the Museum of Victoria officially with the acronym MOV to the best of my knowledge. I was last there conducting research in 2015 this is what they preferred in my communications with them. I think their own website has Museum Victoria though. So not sure. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 19:01, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am presently near completion of my newest research paper with Australian colleague. We are using that repository. I can assure that present acronym is NMV, at least for fossil marine invertebrates. Typically, invertebrates, vertebrates and plants get separate collections and acronyms, with fossils getting more subdivided. It is advised to make sure. Neferkheperre (talk) 19:33, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Holotype" redirecting to the dictionary instead of to the repositories

The holotype word was used to redirect to the repositories page. It was (and is) used in the manner of Holotype: [[Holotype|BM]]. Now someone changed it to redirect to the dictionary, letter H. Mariusm (talk) 08:06, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've (temporarily) reversed the redirect, since the pages that link to it are meant to link to Repositories. But shouldn't the repository links point directly to their respective repository pages if they exist (e.g. MNHN), or to Repositories otherwise? In your example, Holotype: [[Holotype|BM]] could be changed to Holotype: [[BM]] (by the way, BM should probably redirect to BMNH).
If the repository page doesn't exist, like BLXU, maybe a redirect to the repositories page could be created. Korg (talk) 01:11, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Or better yet, one can create the BLXU page. It's only two minutes of work... :-) Tommy Kronkvist (talk)‚ 08:46, 1 November 2016 (UTC).[reply]


I have the "Twinkle" gadget activated in my preferences, but it doesn't seem to work. Anyone know why, and what we need to do to fix it? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:08, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Have you imported the tool over? If you don't import it, the site can't locate the files to use this gadget. OhanaUnitedTalk page 15:44, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I know none of the Twinkle tools nor necessary extensions are correctly imported to Wikispecies. If one checks the Gadgets tab in the user preferences, Twinkle will show up as "⧼gadget-section-Twinkle⧽" and looks flawed. For instance the Twinkle "Preferences panel" link available there links to Wikipedia:Twinkle/Preferences. That doesn't seem right, since for all I know the preference page should reside here at Wikispecies instead? –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 02:42, 7 November 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Navigation pop-ups

I use the 'Navigation popups' on Wikipedia, and find it very useful. Could we activate it here? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:09, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You can import the script manually into your user files, though. I have. Circeus (talk) 11:30, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bureaucrat review

Inactive accounts I made a request at Wikispecies:Bureaucrats for increased user access levels and when I did, I noticed that about half of our bureaucrats are inactive here. Out of nine, five have not edited in over a year, most more than two years:

This leads me to two questions: do we want to deactivate any of these accounts' increased access? And do we feel like four active bureaucrats are enough for this project? (Leaving aside my request--which I encourage any to leave feedback there.)

I would like to further suggest that those de-crated members can be "fast-tracked" to bureaucrat status by simply asking any active bureaucrat in the future as they are all in good standing. @Benedikt:, @Maxim:, @Open2universe:, @UtherSRG:, @Keith Edkins:. —Justin (koavf)TCM 02:27, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For reference, this issue was discussed earlier this year: Wikispecies talk:Administrators/Archive 2. Those exchanges of views were preceded by another discussion: Wikispecies talk:Local policies#Local admin activity review. Regards, Tommy Kronkvist (talk)‚ 23:35, 3 November 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Several years ago (seems like 8..!), I think most of the admins, if inot all, were also crats. It wasn't a big deal. Back then, I got the rights, both admin and crats, because few others were doing the maintenance tasks (deleting pages that needed deletions, reverting vandalism, changing usernames -- all the boring stuff). I peek in from time to time, although in past ~two years I have been more busier in real life and user renames were migrated globally, so no edits. I still keep the rights if there presents an opportunity to help out more! --Maxim(talk) 12:51, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
From this and other occasional posts it is clear that @Maxim: and @Open2universe: at least look in still, for their own reasons they are not editing much at present, I am not asking why. The others I do not know what is happening. This as was mentioned by @Tommy Kronkvist: has been discussed several times, also I believe in reference to crats. I do not believe any conclusion was come to in the past. The activity of the bureaucrats and admins is listed on the admin page, it is obvious if they are not very active at present. So since it has not achieved anything previously, and it takes a steward to deal with it, and we do not have one, I do not see this going anywhere. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 15:54, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not all of Wikimedia's many different sister projects have their own official policy stating when to discharge an inactive administrator or bureaucrat. Wikispecies is one of them. In those cases the Wikimedia Admin activity review requires that Meta-Wiki Stewards undertake a regular audit of the activity levels of advanced permissions holders, and remove those permissions if the user statistics show zero edits and zero administrative actions over a period of two years. It is a so called "global policy", and therefore applies to each and every Wikimedia project. However, In reality those audits are often only done twice a year (in April and October) which means that the time frame might actually increase to at least two and a half years. And even then, often nothing much happens... This is a bit odd since Wikimedia Policies are supposed to enforce required practice (in contrast to Wikimedia Guidelines, which merely document and explain best current practice). This whole thing might be handled a lot more efficiently if Wikispecies had its own, local inactivity policy. We would still need Meta-Wiki stewards to remove the elevated user rights of inactive admins and bureaucrats (our 'crats can't do this) but at least we could give the stewards a heads-up, and ask them to do it... Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 21:53, 10 November 2016 (UTC).[reply]

African Butterfly Research Institute

User:Tulsi Bhagat recently moved ABRI to African Butterfly Research Institute. It's my understanding that repository pages are named for their abbreviations here on Wikispecies. Which of us is correct? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:36, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This bears some discussion. I have made some few repository pages as full names. I am wondering if that might be good all around idea. Neferkheperre (talk) 13:35, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
To use the full names at on the type data would be cumbersome and time consuming. The main repository name must therefore be the abbreviation with the full name redirected to it (and not vice versa). Mariusm (talk) 13:44, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Another concern: the full name can harbor a few variants while the abbreviation is standardized. Mariusm (talk) 13:49, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The only instance prior to this where a full name was used is LSU Museum of Natural History, where the institution as a whole has no abbreviation per se (LSU itself is the standard abbreviation for the herbarium), but encompasses several collections with different conventional acronyms. NCB was previously that way, but not anymore. INPA (Museum) is really just a dupe and should be merged into INPA. Circeus (talk) 06:54, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
INPA done. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:09, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In view of the above consensus, I've moved it back. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:07, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agrodiaetus damocles urartua

Can someone please check out the status of – and preferably fix – the species and subspecies taxa ("Polyommatus damocles" and "Agrodiaetus damocles urartua", respectively) in the Taxonavigation section of Agrodiaetus damocles urartua? Thank you. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 23:21, 3 November 2016 (UTC).[reply]

…and in Polyommatus damocles, while at it. :-) Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 23:23, 3 November 2016 (UTC).[reply]
There's a confusion: Polyommatus damocles belongs to subgenus Agrodiaetus [Polyommatus (Agrodiaetus) damocles] (Agrodiaetus damocles is a synonym of Polyommatus damocles) and Agrodiaetus damocles urartua is a synonym of Polyommatus damocles urartua. Mariusm (talk) 08:46, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for sorting that out! –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 00:35, 5 November 2016 (UTC).[reply]

<translate> causes section-edit errors

Some pages such as Wikispecies:Bureaucrats generate the error message "Cannot find section" when pressing the edit link on a section. This is caused by the <translate></translate> which encloses the section headings and prevents the markup from recognizing the sections as such. The "==" or "===" must always remain the first characters in the line. Mariusm (talk) 11:55, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you @Mariusm: for bringing this up again. The problem was originally discussed here at the Village Pump back in August, more precisely in this subsection. Mariusm and I have fixed some of the pages (for instance Wikispecies:Administrators, Wikispecies:Bureaucrats and Wikispecies:Policy), but the issue remains unresolved for several other pages. Other users are welcome to help us clean out this incompatibility from Wikispecies wherever you see it! It's fairly easy, and mostly just a question of positioning "==" and "===" section heading tags correctly in relation to any <translate> and </translate> tags. Check out this diff. for an example on how it can be fixed. Thank you. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 01:31, 7 November 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Stho002 is back

Stho002 came back to haunt us disguised as Jim E. Whales (talkcontribsblock logall projects) . It seems we can't escape his insistence on "helping us". Mariusm (talk) 08:53, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

He do his own ideas again, see Alysia PeterR (talk) 09:15, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Edit style and timing is duck-like. However, leaving Alysia in such a mess is a bit strange. @PeterR: will you fix this? What do people want - block now or leave it for 24 hours? He is meant to communicate first @Koavf: has he emailed you? Regards Andyboorman (talk) 09:56, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Alysia species section formatted now. --Murma174 (talk) 10:32, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It seems it is him. However, I am not absolutely sure. Anyway, I now temporarily have blocked the original IP ( (talkcontribsblock logall projects) ) of Stho002, which he used, before he created an account – see Wikispecies:Administrators/Archive 2. As I understand the comments from Checkuser, he always has edited from the same stable IP. So, this probably will help. If User:Jim E. Whales or any new user with similar edit style returns in the next days, this is either a person different from Stho002 or the latter now edits from a different IP. Regards --Franz Xaver (talk) 11:08, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Just now found out, that according to en:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Stho002/Archive he more recently used a different IP (talkcontribsblock logall projects) I also have blocked the other one. --Franz Xaver (talk) 11:28, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for blocking the IPs. Dan Koehl (talk) 11:39, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I sorted out both Alysia and {{Latreille, 1804a}}. As to the identity of User:Jim E. Whales I'm perfectly sure he's our S. Mariusm (talk) 14:17, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've blocked 'Jim E. Whales'; if nothing else, it's not a suitable user name. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:37, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Koavf: On well just checking, but not surprised. Here we go again I guess. Thanks Andyboorman (talk) 16:34, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Two-Factor Authentication now available for admins


Please see announcement and discussion at en:Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Two-Factor Authentication now available for admins.

I suggest we centralise Wikispecies-related discussion of this here. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:09, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Poll — Requirements for requesting elevated user rights

**** I addressed some ambiguities and revised the poll ****

This poll is placed here rather than at the administrator-noticeboard to allow for increased visibility. It follows the discussion: "Requirements for requesting elevated user rights".

What should be the minimum requirements from a candidate for elevated user rights (admin or crat)?

Please select letter & number.

a. Minimum number of required edits:

  1. 300
  2. 500
  3. 700
  4. other (please specify).

b. Clean Wiki record (no blocks or warnings).

  1. Clean record required.
  2. Not mandatory.
  3. Depends on warning/block context – some blocks may be the result of misunderstandings or the admin's easy hand on the trigger.

c. English knowledge.

  1. Very basic.
  2. Basic yet enough to allow participation in discussions and votes.
  3. Intermediate.

d. Taxonomic content and taxonomic knowledge.

  1. Required – as manifested by edits with taxonomic content, which are in accordance with prevailing nomenclature standards.
  2. Not required – all edits are emendations of wiki-errors or typo-corrections or of structural/programming nature.
  3. Some – mainly edits which address errors and typos, augmented by some edits which are involved with taxonomic data proper.

e. Participation in discussions and polls.

  1. Required (this is obviously connected to the need to possess some English knowledge).
  2. Not required.

f. How to ensure that the applicant's qualifications are in line with the requirements.

  1. Before application, the candidate must receive an approbation from an admin or a crat.
  2. There's no need for an approbation - a candidate can apply directly.

g. Voter restrictions.

  1. Any registered user can vote.
  2. Restrict to users with at least 200 edits.
  3. Only patrollers, admins and crats will be allowed to vote.

Please add more qualifiers to the list if necessary. Mariusm (talk) 10:54, 17 November 2016 (UTC) --Revised Mariusm (talk) 09:49, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • a2 b1 c3 d1 e1 f2 g3 Mariusm (talk) 10:54, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I won't be !voting, as this poll seems really badly designed (for example, what's the difference between d1 and d3?), and does not adequately reflect the points made in the linked discussion. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:39, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with Andy that this is a little clumsy of a poll but basically my feelings are something like: a:2 (500), b:3 (context), c:1 (none), d:3 (some), e:1 (required), f:4 (no one), g:2 (200 edits). Bear in mind that these can all be a little flexible but are good rules of thumb in general. —Justin (koavf)TCM 17:31, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think a little more discussion and some warning it was going to a poll was warranted. Am inclined also to agree with Andy. I would agree to a:2; b:3; c:3; d: I think needs more discussion; e:1; f:4; g: I think needs more discussion, certainly not phrased in a way that agrees with discussion to date. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 19:06, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ok with regards to D: i think it is necessary for an admin or crat to have knowledge of taxonomy and nomenclature. I do not expect them to be specialists, but demonstrate understanding and willingness to learn. In regards to G: I think some edits are needed, just to rule out rigging, but I would think 200 is excessive, 20-50 would be ample in my view. I do not want it seen as people cannot vote, just a balance to ensure a fair result. Cheers, Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 16:30, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not sure that this poll can be easily used to get a consensus. But I will give it a go. a:2; b:3; c:3; d needs clarification/discussion too vague; e:ideally 1 but there could be exemptions; f:4; g:1/2?. Is a vote for these rights advisory or binding under most conditions? Regards Andyboorman (talk) 20:15, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • In my opninion, there should be no restrictions except minimum number of edits for a candidate and for voting. Of course, everyone will consider all the other criteria, when voting. a:2, g: 100 edits. --Franz Xaver (talk) 17:48, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe this poll was premature. Maybe it was concocted too hastily. I thought the discussion at Administrators Noticeboard was in the process of fading out. Rethinking it over, it perhaps wasn't. We nevertheless need some policy to sift out unsuitable candidates so that an eight-year old Ukrainian child will not be able to engage us in a vote merely by saying "I propose myself as a candidate for adminship". I welcome further discussion and will gladly call this poll off if someone comes along with a better one. I will hate though to see this discussion come to a dead end. This is an important subject which deserves to be addressed. Mariusm (talk) 08:04, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps we shouldn't allow eight-year-olds to edit, but I don't see why we'd treat Ukrainians differently to anyone else. Please make this the last time you post such comments here. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:08, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Pigsonthewing: I used the specific nationality because the last applicant for adminship expressed himself in Ukrainian - that's all. Mariusm (talk) 05:10, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In fairness to Mariusm I read this that way also, in that the nationality was only pointed out because it had already, the real issue of cause was it was clearly not an editor capable of being given higher user rights. However, I guess we do need to be careful how we say things. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 13:14, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: that the poll was edited after Andyboorman, and all those preceding him, had expressed a view. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:12, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The main problem with the poll was IMO, that there were too many questions mixed up in one. As far as I understood the discussion (in my clumsy command of English), it started with the question: What are minimal requirements for requesting admin rights, which should be easily verifiable and possibly lead to an early disqualification of a candidate. But it ended it up in too many aspects around this question with inevitable misunderstandings. --Murma174 (talk) 16:14, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I feel this entire poll is a bit premature. Not only is the discussion at the Admin's Noticeboard still alive (more or less...), but I also think we need to consider already accepted Meta policies and guidelines. That is especially important in regards to applicable global policies since they apply to each and every Wikimedia project regardless of any local policy we might decide upon. It is imperative that Wikispecies' local policies work in accordance with all of the global ones, and so far we haven't even began to discuss that matter. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 16:56, 20 November 2016 (UTC).[reply]

I agree that this poll is premature. The fact that it has been changed after voting had started, is an indication. --Franz Xaver (talk) 17:48, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mutally circular redirects

From: Special:DoubleRedirects

Pages: Scaligeria tripartita and Pimpinella tripartita.

Can someone figure out where these were supposed to go?

Thanks. 11:59, 19 November 2016 (UTC) — The preceding unsigned comment was added by ShakespeareFan00 (talkcontribs) 11:59, 19 November 2016.

Sure can has been sorted. Andyboorman (talk) 15:03, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is this article within the scope of wikispecies? As far as I'm aware this name was never formaly established. Linné rejected his earlier name in the 10th edition of Systema Naturae in favor of the name Mammalia. --Succu (talk) 20:26, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

IMO this article should redirect to Mammalia (classifications), as you find all the information there as well. --Murma174 (talk) 20:55, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Obsolete taxa This brings up a question of inclusion of Category:obsolete taxa. For instance, Fungi (classifications) mentions phased out systems for slime molds such as Gymnomycota (although that is presently a red link here). I think it may be worthwhile to have some discussion of obsolete taxa or non-mainstream schemes. —Justin (koavf)TCM 22:18, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I added an {{Obsolete taxon}} hatnote to the Quadrupedia page. Do you guys have any comments and thought regarding this, please? –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 04:07, 22 November 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Category:New genus-group/family-group

Hello! I would like to know what is the standard nomenclature for the categories "New genus-group"/"New family-group". There are two types in use "name" and "names" for those categories. Thanks Burmeister (talk) 13:08, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is no standard nomenclature in plants. The "new" name, once validly published according to ICN Arts 29 to 45, just takes its place alongside the others. Its nomenclature will not differ a jot from previously published names. Let us face it last years new names are just suffixed with (2015) and this years (2016). Terms such as comb. nov., gen. nov. and fam. nov. should only be used during its publication or possibly to make a point in a paper comparing older and newer nomenclatures. Terms referring to the "newness" of the name should not appear on the main taxon page, just the year of valid publication. IMO these categories at the end of a taxon page are an irrelevance, meaningless and do not have a place on WS. However, as usual I am open to persuasion otherwise! Andyboorman (talk) 16:03, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, "genus-group" and "family-group" are terms from zoological nomenclature (ICZN). It is problematic, from an academic point of view, if someone categorises plant names there. Generally, plant names should be removed from categories, which have their foundation in the zoological code. (There exist more ICZN based categories, e.g. Category:Valid genus.) I am not sure, if these categories actually make sense for zoological taxa. Opinions from zoologists?? --Franz Xaver (talk) 17:41, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
OK, personally I do not see the value of the category. That said, yes as said these are ICZN terms, species-group refers to names that are under the same nomenclatural rules as a species, ie species, subspecies, race, etc. Whereas genus-group are names under the same rules as genus, ie supergenus, genus, subgenus. This is all it means it is a term for grouping similar nomenclatural acts for the purposes of using the rules of the code. In a new taxon description under the ICZN after 2012 a new name must be accompanied by sp. nov or gen. nov. or whatever is relevant in order to be available. This is the nomenclatural act, ie the explicit declaration that this is a new taxon. New combinations do not have to do this. Though it is recommended by many. The term should only appear once, and only the first time the new taxon is mentioned. After that it is not stated. Ok next issue, in zoology, available name means it has been adequately published and may be used. unavailable means it has not been adequately published and may not be used. Valid means it is the name that has Priority as defined by the code and must be used for a taxon, invalid means it is not the name with Priority, generally it will be a junior synonym, maybe a junior homonym, though could also be nomen dubium, nomen nudem, nomen oblitum. A name ruled as invalid by the ICZN is automatically nomen oblitum, the name favored by the decision is nomen protectum. As I said I do not see why this would be categorised, and I agree plants do not belong in this, they have their own code. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 00:41, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Same author?

Might the page regarding U.S. carcinologist James Thomas by any chance refer to the same person as carcinologist James D. Thomas? (See also the disambiguation page Thomas.)
Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 02:48, 25 November 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Did some digging; yes. Both come up as James Darwin Thomas. Everything is now there, and J.D. Thomas as well. Neferkheperre (talk) 07:37, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! I've updated Wikidata accordingly. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 23:59, 25 November 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Status: Invalid

So I am occasionally working on WikiSpecies pages without Wikidata item. I seem to increasingly find pages like Microcalyptris bicornutus, which have "Status: Invalid". They refer to another (presumably "valid") name, which usually does have a Wikidata entry. So, should these "invalid" entries have their own Wikidata item? Or will they be rolled into the "valid" article at some point, and become a redirect? The latter would naively make more sense to me; why have an entire page about something that's known to be "wrong"? --Magnus Manske (talk) 10:40, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Our usual treatment is to have synonyms as redirects to the accepted name; I'd go with making this a redirect too - MPF (talk) 12:25, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'd agree with redirecting that page. In several cases (don't have an example at hand) the editor decided to keep the content on that page and not deleting it. Just put the redirect tag on top, which is smart solution IMO. --Murma174 (talk) 17:49, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I agree. However, this seems to be one of the points, where some zoologists among us proceed in a different way from botanists in our community. I remember some discussions with Stho002, whether WS taxon pages should be about taxa or about names. In the course of this, he came up with the concept of "nominal taxa", which is a speciality of zoological nomenclature. So, now I may ask the community: Should WS taxon pages be about accepted taxa, nominal taxa (only applicable to zoology) or all kind of names? The latter approach certainly would cause a big task for WD, to a lesser extent also the nominal taxa approach. --Franz Xaver (talk) 13:43, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
To be useful to those interested in botany and those interested in zoology I would think each group should be following the code for that group. Nominal taxa is a zoological term not applicable to botany as you say, but is an important issue in zoology. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 16:39, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Most definitely not all kinds of names! For my botanic edits in the rare instances when I have come across a taxon page for an invalid name then it has been deleted after the appropriate redirects etc.. Andyboorman (talk) 19:46, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]