Wikispecies:Village Pump/Archive 42

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

Template:ZooBankAut - proposing deletion

{{ZooBankAut}} is redundant to {{Authority control}}, which automatically fetches the ZooBank author Id from Wikidata, if present. There are 468 instances of the ZooBankAut template.

I have just copied 403 such IDs - all of those for biographies with an equivalent on Wikidata - from instances of the ZooBankAut template to Wikidata.

I propose that we:

get someone with a bot to remove the template from every author biography with a Wikidata equivalent
have the bot add {{Authority control}} to those articles, if not already present
Create Wikidata items for ~ 63 articles on which {{ZooBankAut}} is present, where no Wikidata item already exists
repeat steps 1 & 2 for the new articles
check for and resolve any uses of {{ZooBankAut}} not on biography articles
delete the template

Thoughts? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:07, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Pigsonthewing: This seems wholly sensible and with <500 transclusions, it could really be done by hand with AWB. We could also redirect to the template to {{Authority control}}. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:41, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Koavf: I have AWB, but have not yet used it. If there is consensus to undertake this task, perhaps you would assist me in doing so? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:48, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Pigsonthewing: Definitely. I will keep my eyes peeled here. As far as I'm concerned, no objection in several days constitutes consensus as this is not a controversial task at all. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:30, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Koavf: I think we've given that long enough. I have AWB up and running, and have made a few trivial Wikipedia edits with it. Shall we contune on my talk page? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:33, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As ZooBankAut is included in {{Authority control}}, and really provides no information than author's name, I agree it is pretty much useless here. Neferkheperre (talk) 17:41, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Pigsonthewing: Yes please. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:08, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikidata discussion of interest

Colleagues here may be interested in an ongoing discussion on Wikidata of how to represent taxon names. Expert input will be welcome there. The outcome may affect how we pull data into this project. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:53, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of, could someone with actual understanding of the ICZN have a look at how Brya has been dealing with various homonyms recently? Just looking at Perophora pulverula I see first the issue that the page arguably shouldn't be there in the first place (there is certainly no consensus for listing names not in current use). Most glaringly, the name is invalid because the species is not placed in that genus anymore (it wasn't even placed there prior to being moved to Eadmuna!), not for any reason linked to the generic name's homonymous nature (which wouldn't even make the name unavailable[=invalid sensu ICBN] under ICZN I believe). Circeus (talk) 11:14, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Pigsonthewing: I'm not sure how to contribute to the discussion you linked, since it seems to be about how to use a particular bot, but I am quite interested in how wikidata is acquiring its information on taxonomy. Over the past few months, I have been trying to sort out Fungi on here since it was very outdated. I understand the view point that eventually data should be updated directly into Wikidata and then pulled to here, but I was hoping (perhaps naively) that when wikidata was first populated it would use information from wikispecies as the authority for taxonomy. This does not seem to be the case. For example, I cleaned up the Tremellomycetes back in November, members from this class like Kwoniella were added to wikidata last week using the old outdated information that appears to be from wikipedia. Is there a way to ensure that wikidata is getting the best information it can from the beginning? Voganaa (talk) 13:59, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Voganaa: While bots were mentioned, they key point seemed to me to be about the correct data model to use. You can raise issues about Wikidata and its taxonomic content at at ~~:d:Wikidata:WikiProject Taxonomy/Participants~~, or if you do not find that forum conducive, at d:Wikidata:Project chat. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:44, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Voganaa: Sorry, that should have been d:Wikidata talk:WikiProject Taxonomy (to which I have moved your comment). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:14, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Salvia

Heads up - a new paper on this large but paraphyletic genus advocating splitting it into several genera. Full text obtainable via sci-hub (if you have no objections to using it!); doesn't make the necessary new combinations though (likely to follow in subsequent papers, I guess). Also converse paper advocating monophyly by instead lumping in several genera, including Rosmarinus. My personal preference is for splitting; having gigantic genera doesn't make for easy understanding. Note too that our subgeneric classification here is well out of date. - MPF (talk) 16:45, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It does not matter what our individual preferences are - WS has to reflect the most "accepted" circumscription(s) according to evidence and opinion in the community of specialists. Salvia is going to be contentious for the near future with lumpers and splitters vigourously fighting their respective corners. No doubt the subgeneric classification will alter as consensus emerges, if indeed it does! For now it probably would be best just to get rid of the present subgeneric classification altogether, as it is clearly artificial and of no help. Another change on the horizon is in Brassicaceae, where the splitting seems to be going into reverse, particularly as many specialist are fed up of numerous genera differentiated by fiddly morphological details, such as seed coat. Andyboorman (talk) 19:17, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Aye, but if there's a 50:50 split between the two viewpoints, we have to decide which to use! - MPF (talk) 23:00, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In my view while the splitters and lumpers are fighting it out there is no consensus, neither is doing anyone a favor and are basically being disruptive to stability. Ignore them. Let them fight it out, which can take a decade or more, and in the meantime stick to the most up to date stable nomenclature, sure ditch the subgenera if its clearly no good, put all the taxa under their genus and if any of the lumpers and splitters try to influence tell them that when they reach consensus we will follow the outcome until then their views are useless. I recommend against picking a side, we report the stable view that has reached consensus based on current knowledge. An example of this issue still raging is the frog genus Anura, that one is still being fought over 11 years later. Honestly this is one of the things that give taxonomists a bad name, and particularly phylogeneticists. They have little understanding of the code and are really trying to cram sub genera into unrealistic gaps to prevent any changes to the binomen, because its inconvenient. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 23:26, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

At the moment, as long as the combinations in the seggregate genera are missing, nothing can be done, anyway. At least, we should wait, what WCSP will do. I expect, that the community will be divided between the Old and New World. --Franz Xaver (talk) 11:07, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Folks can get very stubborn and political. Case of Acacia where African Plants Database still do not accept its segregation into Acacia s.s., Acaciella, Mariosousa, Senegalia and Vachellia. This is after 2011 Melbourne Conference approving the consensus albeit without proscription. Some in Australia still have a problem with Dryandra being subsumed into Banksia and whether or not Actinostrobus is a synonym of Callitris is a matter of opinion between Australia and Kew (needs a decision for WS)! Andyboorman (talk) 16:45, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm for keeping Actinostrobus as a distinct genus - MPF (talk) 01:28, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@MPF: I have made some edits on both Actinostrobus and Callitris thoughts? Andyboorman (talk) 14:33, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Andyboorman: yep, looks good to me - MPF (talk) 14:56, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. The phylogeny of this clade, including Actinostrobus, Callitris, and Neocallitropsis, still seems to be work in progress. As long as contradictions between results from morphological and molecular analyses are not yet resolved, it certainly is too early to draw taxonomic conclusions. In my opinion, this means being conservative and stick to the initial situation. Of course, it often happens, that new combinations are made at a premature state of knowledge, in order to secure one's priority. (Probably, this is one of the motivations, that in zoology there exists no author citation for new combinations.) It's not necessary, that WS follows promptly all these moves. --Franz Xaver (talk) 15:15, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed; one other option that would need to considered is potential recognition of Octoclinis F.Muell. (for Callitris macleayana). A converse Cupressaceae example is the merger of Fokienia into Chamaecyparis, which does have support from both morphological and molecular analyses - MPF (talk) 16:01, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think we can make allowances for Octoclinis F.Muell., but I will contact Kew in relation to Fokienia for their opinion. Andyboorman (talk) 18:14, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Andyboorman: Thanks! The case for merging Fokienia into Chamaecyparis is strong. The basionym description actually originally placed it in Chamaecyparis (then treated as a Sectio of Cupressus); this was confirmed on morphology by Rushforth, and subsequently by at least two genetic studies which leave Chamaecyparis paraphyletic if Fokienia is excluded. - MPF (talk) 18:29, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Andyboorman: Acacia is a special case. Splitting the old Acacia into several segregate genera certainly is OK, but I dislike the way, how the genus Acacia, still being attributed to the description by Miller, received a conserved type, which now causes, that all the "sorts" listed by Mill. are excluded. Miller listed mostly American acacias. Probably Miller, if still alive, now would not be able to recognize his own genus any more, nor would he very likely be able to recognize, that the conserved type Acacia penninervis would belong to his genus. Anyway, the case seems to be decided. --Franz Xaver (talk) 15:58, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Franz Xaver: Acacia was most definitely controversial, but now has settled I guess except for African Plant Database! Andyboorman (talk) 18:14, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have added templates for the papers above to the Salvia taxon page and transferred notes to its Discussion Page. I have also @Uleli: to see if this editor wishes to contribute considering their contribution to the pages and subgeneric classification. Andyboorman (talk) 18:25, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

IP 217.118.78.124

Please keep an eye for edits by the IP-address 217.118.78.124 and report back to me when there's edits:

Edits on my user talk pages here and meta: 1, 2

Dan Koehl (talk) 14:46, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Koavf blocked this IP for one week due to vandalism. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 10:18, 27 February 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Auto:substing templates

Templates like {{Welcome}} should always be Subst:ed. Do we have a bot to act on {{Subst only}}? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:56, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Pigsonthewing:I dont think there is such a bot existing on Wikispecies. Dan Koehl (talk) 08:53, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'll see if I can find someone with such a bot, wiling to run it here. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:54, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Circular Redirects...

Being:

Usnocetraria sinensis →‎ Allocetraria sinensis →‎ Usnocetraria sinensis

Any thought on where this was supposed to point? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 08:44, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

According to Wang et al. (2015), DOI: 10.5248/130.577 PDF, it should be Allocetraria sinensis. For nomenclature see also Index Fungorum. (Usnocetraria sinensis anyway seems to be an invalid combination.) --Franz Xaver (talk) 09:56, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have undone the last edit. This should get rid of circular redirect for now. But needs checking and updating by an expert in the field. Andyboorman (talk) 14:15, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also out the ref on the genus page. Andyboorman (talk) 14:27, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is it correct to say that WikiSpecies considers M.J. Lai and J.C. Wei to be incompetent Lichenologists and their combinations with the genus Usnocetraria should not be allowed?

Usnocetraria denticulata (Hue) M.J. Lai & J.C. Wei, 2007

Usnocetraria flavonigrescens (A. Thell & Randlane) M.J. Lai & J.C. Wei, 2007

Usnocetraria globulans (Nyl. ex Hue) M.J. Lai & J.C. Wei 2007

Usnocetraria kurokawae (Shibuichi & K. Yoshida) M.J. Lai & J.C. Wei 2007

Usnocetraria leucostigma (Lév.) M.J. Lai & J.C. Wei 2007

Usnocetraria melaloma (Nyl.) M.J. Lai & J.C. Wei 2007

Usnocetraria oakesiana (Tuck.) M.J. Lai & J.C. Wei 2007

Usnocetraria potaninii (Oxner) M.J. Lai & J.C. Wei 2007

Usnocetraria sinensis (X.Q. Gao) M.J. Lai & J.C. Wei 2007

Usnocetraria weii (X.Q. Gao & L.H. Chen) M.J. Lai & J.C. Wei 2007

Usnocetraria xizangensis (J.C. Wei & Y.M. Jiang) M.J. Lai & J.C. Wei 2007

Ed Uebel (talk) 15:38, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ed Uebel: Did you read the paper by Wang et al. (2015)? As far as I see, J.C.Wei is also one of the co-authors of this more recent paper. In 2007, they simply did not fulfill some of the requirements of ICBN, so that their combinations were invalidly published according to the code. Anyway, the paper from 2015 has confirmed, that these species are not closely related to the type of Usnocetraria. --Franz Xaver (talk) 18:09, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Taxon names using real words

I'm looking for examples of taxon names (or parts thereof) which are everyday words in English or other languages.

These might be homographs for words meaning something else, for example, the genus Circus, or names which have everyday use in one language, but are translated differently in another ("Chrysanthemum" in English being "Crisantemo" in Spanish).

Does anyone know of a document listing examples? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:16, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know of any document but try this search of en.wiki for some examples. There are a number of false positives or items that might not qualify as "everyday words", but the first page of results turns up chaos, siren, ego, pan and age. Running the search for other parenthetical disambiguation terms will turn up some more; (genus) is the single most common disambiguation term for genera on en.wiki, but other terms are more frequently used with certain groups of organisms. Here's the search for (plant); and (moth), (gastropod), (butterfly) also see a lot of use as dab terms. Plantdrew (talk) 21:18, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Plantdrew: Very helpful; thank you. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:25, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Names like Rhododendron where the English and scientific names are the same? - MPF (talk) 23:05, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wiktionary might be a place to search for scientific names used as common names. Here's a search for German words that are also scientific names (including Rhododendron, Diplodocus, and Norovirus). Wiktionary has separate pages for wikt:Rhododendron and wikt:rhododendron, so the German practice of capitalizing nouns put the scientific name and German common names on the same page. Searching Wiktionary for English usage of lower-cased, non-italic scientific names as common names is more complicated as the scientific name will be on a capitalized page and the common name will be in lower case. Plantdrew (talk) 05:02, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bot

Hello. I'm writting to see if you'd be interested in a bot I operate (MABot) to perform double and broken redirect fixing tasks and also page archiving using the archivebot.py module. My bot is active and flagged on other projects as well. In order to avoid wasting community time in opening a request for bot flag if there's no interest for it, I thought it'd be better to ask here first. Please let me know if you have any questions or comments. Best regards, MarcoAurelio (talk) 17:25, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion @MarcoAurelio:, fixing double and broken redirects sounds good, and I believe that we don't have any page archiving bot until now, why I think that also is a positive contribution to the Wikispecies project. Dan Koehl (talk) 17:49, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Dan Koehl: BrokenRedirects is just 'd'oh!'. Someone should be removing the redirects from those pages if they ain't really intended to be there. MarcoAurelio (talk) 18:12, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This Bot is now listed at Requests for approval.Dan Koehl (talk) 10:40, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikispecies Oversighter

Wikispecies has no local Oversighter. Since I had the communitys confidence regarding the previous application for Checkusers rights, as per local Oversight policy on META, I hereby apply to get Oversighters user rights, as a request to the Wikispecies community.

Application is located at Requests for Comment.

Please also note that Oversighter actions are logged, but for privacy reasons the logs are only visible to other Oversighters. Because of this, Wikispecies must always have no fewer than two oversighters, for mutual accountability. I don't want to suggest anyone, but hope that someone feel inspired and will step forward and also apply for oversighters rights.

Dan Koehl through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:01, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Overarching Question

I do have two overarching question about oversighting. First, I don't think I have seen a sufficient need to even request that in the first place. All admins already have access to revision delete to hide offending contents (username or edits) from non-admins already. And even with access to RevDel, I don't recall seeing that being used often (because there was no such demand in the first place). If such edits show up, all it takes is temporary RevDel first and contact Steward to oversight it. To me, it seems like the request was not to address a real problem, but to anticipate an imaginary problem that might become realistic only on an odd chance.

Second, we identified a number of voting issues on the checkuser RfC. So we know there were problems with "single purpose/one dimensional" non-mainspace-editing voters + inactive users casting ballots and yet we didn't seek to address it. Now, what should we do if such problems return in oversight RfC? OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 06:51, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@OhanaUnited: in response to you second point. At this point we shall have to deal with it the same way as before. We will have to go through the votes and see if any are dubious, then look at the votes remaining and see how it fared, prior to going to the Stewards. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 20:43, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Faendalimas: it still doesn't address the needs of this tool in the first place. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 00:27, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@OhanaUnited: I know I did not address that. I can see your point. I admit it was not a position I had thought of filling just yet. We are a small wiki, though I want to see it grow. I guess there is an advantage of having as many tools at our own administrative disposal as possible, hence if we can grow the wiki, and this I agree with your point in another discussion we have some catch up to do to be competitive with EoL, the tools will be in place. However, is that a justified reason to get all the tools now? I see your point on this. Basically I have decided, for myself, to see how this goes. I am not nominating, and although I voted for Dan straight away to get the ball rolling I have refrained from taking further part at this stage as I want to see how it pans out. I will become involved later as needed. I am assuming this will require a similar voter turn-out to CheckUser, I have not checked, or maybe it just requires consensus. I will look it up to clarify this. Sorry very political answer to your very valid point. Cheers, Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 00:57, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That is right (25+ supporters, 70-80%). As far as paperwork the rights are the same, just no CUwiki and no access to the CU IRC channel, and if you want a mailing list or OTRS queue to take requests you're responsible for making the arrangements on Phabricator or contacting the OTRS admins. --Rs chen 7754 03:27, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@OhanaUnited: I don't understand that objection in principle to Oversight/Suppression here. If you think that a given candidate is inappropriate (e.g. me) then by all means, that makes sense but surely it's better for the community to not have to appeal to Stewards at all, isn't it? Ideally, the advanced user permission should never need to be used but I don't see why you don't want anyone locally to be able to use them. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:39, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fossil taxa categories, reminder

Reminder that baring any well-argued opposition I'm starting the move toward reducing all fossil taxa categories to a single one (see above) in 24h. Circeus (talk) 06:35, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sheer numbers must be considered. Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology was published over many years, mostly finishing up in early 1970's. Within just a few years, large parts were obsolete, and one resulting commentary was published. It stated that about 1,000,000 fossil species had been described, and keeping pace with updated Treatise volumes would be prohibitive. I no longer have that one article, but there is this:

David M. Raup, 1976. Species diversity in the Phanerozoic: a tabulation. DOI: 10.1017/S0094837300004917. It estimates about 190,000 fossil species as at 1970.

Very much research has been done since. Estimates of modern and fossil diversity have increased immensely, and already described species are in excess of these estimates. Now, after 40 years, we have Internet, which speeds things up, but still, this is one huge number for dumping into one undivided category. Alphabetizing will result in average of 38,451 taxa per letter. Deciding to just dump them all together now, and maybe later subdividing will be prohibitive, as then each page will have to be examined for properly locating its place. Oversimplifying can be at least as bad as oversplitting. Neferkheperre (talk) 15:19, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are arguing completely beside the point. It's not about having the categories right now for stuff that is gonna be created only god knows when. It's about having a useful, manageable category system right now. And right now, these categories are far more detailed than necessary, and form multiple competing systems (in some cases with circular categorisation that violate the basic premises of the category tree) that are mostly unmanageable and/or uncared for. Nothing prevent the devising of a proper system later on, but right now they simply do not pull their weight. Circeus (talk) 04:34, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

From looks of CoL discussion above, that day is coming on FAST. Looks to be nice and chaotic, too. Now is time for organizing, or re-organizing, not just rip it down to nothing and hope.

While we are simplizing things, why not eliminate all these discipline categories (entomologists, etc.) and every one goes into category:taxon authorities only. Perfectly in line with present trend. Neferkheperre (talk) 09:31, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Besides, since the CoL creation are likely not gonna be sorting into subcategories anyway (assuming any categorization occurs at all during article creation), keeping them for that purpose when we both know it'll take months before anyone even starts doing any editing at all on those articles is a pretty spurious argument. Circeus (talk) 10:51, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Some recent additions like Paraglaphyrus yixianensis and Copris pristinus or older ones like Moschops capensis are not marked to be a fossil taxon. --Succu (talk) 22:49, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

result

Category:Fossil taxa
- Subcategories left untouched for the time. This can be discussed at a later time, since this round is mostly for dealing with what's under category:categories.
~~Category:Pliocene Marine Taxa~~ deleted
~~Category:Geologic Formations~~ renamed "taxa by geologic formation" and categorized under category:fossil taxa
~~Category:Taxa described from archaeological contexts~~
~~Category:Ostracoda subcategories~~ done

Circeus (talk) 11:07, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Blocking old bots

We have a number of bots approved on this project nearly a decade ago, which have not edited for some time.

This is a security risk.

I propose to block all such bots which have not edited for over a year, with a block-log entry indicating that no bad faith action is assumed, unless anyone has a sound objection, or there is consensus for a different time frame. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:59, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Understandable. I am fine with it. Do take into account the tasks of the bot, how often its needed and who is managing it though please. Sometimes they just are not needed alot. But I agree some are being managed by inactive users. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 23:43, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with blocking it. Just take off their bot flag will do. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 00:26, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deflagged. Dan Koehl (talk) 05:51, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Dan Koehl: What is deflagged? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:54, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Who can do that? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:54, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'd disagree with blocking them as well. Removing the bot flag from their accounts would be enough. Any bureaucrat can add/remove any user to/from the 'bot' usergroup. Regards, -- MarcoAurelio (talk) 19:51, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Pigsonthewing:, with "deflagged", I meant that I had removed the bot flag for those inactive bot accounts. One or two, which was deleted, I removed completely from the list. Bureaucrats can assign and remove bot flag for a bot. Dan Koehl (talk) 00:21, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Dan Koehl: Thank you for clarifying. I see that User:OhanaBot last edited in 2008 and User:JCbot in 2009. Should they not have the flag removed, too? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 01:09, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Pigsonthewing:, while the other bots I deflagged belongs to users not active here anymore, the two bots you mention are belonging to trusted users, who, I believe, are still active on the project. Ohaha can deflag his bot himself, and for the other bot, maybe we could have use for it, if we get a consensus on changing on Pagename substed. Dan Koehl (talk) 01:17, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken the bot flag off my bot. As for JCbot, I think it should be taken off too because it was an awfully long time since it edited and things have probably changed from its 2009 request comparing to current needs. If JCbot needs to restart, they should start a new request. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 05:08, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

┌─────────────────────────┘ JCbot's bot status was revoked by Dan Koehl in March 7, 2017 (See User rights log.) –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 15:12, 11 March 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Main page in Portuguese for Spanish users with Spanish set in their preferences

Hello. Please see Talk:Página principal for the issue. Regards, -- MarcoAurelio (talk) 18:03, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That is indeed the case. When Spanish is set as the preferred language users end up on the Portuguese main page Página principal rather than the Spanish Portada equivalent. Very odd! I will bring it up on the Administrators' Noticeboard and hopefully some of the other admins may know how to fix it. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 23:46, 11 March 2017 (UTC).[reply]

@Tommy Kronkvist: Fixing it would be to convert all of this to using the Translate extension instead of having separate pages. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:41, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Koavf: Yes I know that would be the best long term solution, and it would work for all languages. However in this particular case something is wrong specifically for users with Spanish as the preferred language. Users with any other language setting e.g. French or German will end up on the correct pages if they click the top left "Main page" link ("Accueil" and "Hauptseite", respectively). But Spanish users will be directed to the Portuguese "Página principal" main page instead of the correct Spanish "Portada". Admittedly I haven't tried all of the 80 or so available languages but at least eight or nine, including all of the above plus Swedish (my mother tongue) and a few languages using non-Latin alphabets. They all work as expected, save Spanish. My Wikispecies preferences are normally set to use English as the preferred language, and of course that works as well. But not Spanish... What gives? :-) Furthermore this problem seems to be exclusive for the link to the Spanish main page: links to the Spanish versions of "Recent changes", "Administrators" etc are all correct. Lastly – not that it should be related to this problem, but anyway – I've checked the {{Languages}} template used on every language version of "Main page" to list the available languages, and as far as I can see it looks okay. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 02:55, 12 March 2017 (UTC).[reply]

@AlvaroMolina and Tommy Kronkvist: This is the problem. Portuguese and Spanish are so similar that they will frequently have the same word for concepts in their languages and I needed to manually set "Main Page" to be "Portada" for Spanish. Let me know if that doesn't work for some reason. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:27, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to work great. Thanks a lot! –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 03:40, 12 March 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Editors' interests

Is there a way to learn more about an editors' taxonomic interests here? I noticed that some additions or major taxonomic changes (eg. in fishes, birds or mammals) are not picked up here. So a contact to an taxonomic expert could probably help to improve Wikispecies. --Succu (talk) 20:43, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

for me its all on my user page. I am a specialist reptile taxonomist. I guess you can ask people if its not there. There are over 5000 taxa named every year. We are a small group. We need more taxonomic editors, those here need to encourage more taxonomists to participate. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 20:47, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I know. I had a category or a babel on my mind, providing a search. --Succu (talk) 20:52, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I like that idea actually either one, I think it is valuable that it is obvious where the taxonomic specialties of those editors here lay. It also helps see where our real gaps are and we can possibly target those areas for trying to find new editors. As I have said a few times, taxonomists as a generalisation are not fans of Wikimedia, its guilt by association they judge all projects by Wikipedia and scientists often have a low view of WP. In other words we have to go to them and show them why their input would be useful and appreciated and why WS is different. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 22:05, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, would be good, and categories for this may serve that goal. Dan Koehl (talk) 00:17, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So how to proceed? --Succu (talk) 22:24, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

┌─────────────────────────┘ Since this can never be a rule, or a plight, for users to participate in? We have to relay on the free will to participate in this. I would say, the first step to proceed is either to bring it up here as a suggestion, and see if the community agree, OR simply create those categories, and invite users to use them. A third alternative could be user boxes, which automatically categorize users. My suggestion is to start with a presentation of the idea, and hopefully find a support for it within the community. Dan Koehl (talk) 22:34, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So where "to start with a presentation of the idea", Dan Koehl?! --Succu (talk) 22:49, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Succu:, I would suggest making a good described suggestion of your idea, with motivation as to why and reasons, and present on Wikispecies:Requests_for_Comment where it comes more official that you would like to see feedback, eventually followed by a poll, once the details are more outlined and at least some users support the idea, so the poll can include a couple of alternatives to choose from. Please bear in mind though, that Wikispecies, although being a community of users, consists of a highly differentiated group, with individuals, more focused on the work, than belonging to a social community, compared with other Wikimedia projects. we have very social users, who discuss everywhere and everyday, and users who didnt even had a dialogue with anyone on their talk page during ten years, - and still contribute to the project with their expertise, knowledge and willing to contribute. And all those different characters are nevertheless highly welcome to contribute here, This means, from users you will get a lot of feedback and frequently made comments, and others will never, ever comment on any kind of discussion. It has, in that sense, to be remembered, that Wikispecies was not started with an intention to attract a lot of experienced wikimedia users, used to "normal wikimedia" traditions and behaviors, but rather was initiated as a website for taxonomy experts. Meanwhile this has partly changed, but my personal opinion is if anyone here should get any sort of priorities, then its the professional taxonomists. Wikispecies is a part of Wikimedia, and should follow the policies and be integrated with other projects as much as possible, on the other hand there is a high tolerance for its users focus, some or many of them, never ever participated in any other project than here, and the knowledge, and insight in taxonomy, must always stand above all other priorities which other projects may have. That's why, the best way of introducing any new routine, and new idea, is to ask for the communities support, and hopefully through a democratic process, get it, and implement. Any other method could create a negative feeling for the WS contributors, and make them choose to stop contributing, which is always a tragic loss for the project, where everyone is important to keep it developing. WS is also, compared to other projects characterized as a flat organization model, where most users after some time can become an dmin, and everyone have more or the less the same "rights", WS users are, I would say, more equal, than users or other projects. hence, you may get only support from 6 users, but if noone else make objections, this may be enough. Silence may be a signal of accepting, or a "never mind" opinion, and sometimes things develop very slowly. Sime ideas I suggested here took three years to implement. But it was worth the time waiting. With so few active users just everything may be delicate, if anyone would "push" to much, this could result in several important users leaving the project, something we can not risk for any reason, except for situations when one user clearly and without any doubt disturb the working environment for the rest of the community. Dan Koehl (talk) 23:20, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How to link a reference to a reference template? (WD/Ws)

For me linking infomation held by WS and WD is of major concern. That's why I opened this thread. Maybe your interested in. --Succu (talk) 20:29, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Visual tree of life for sharks

https://sharksrays.org/ —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:37, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rays of Sharkness! Thank you for a useful link. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 15:17, 11 March 2017 (UTC).[reply]

'No original research' policy

Above it is suggested that we should have a "No original research" policy. I have posted a draft at Wikispecies:No original research. Does anyone have any suggestions for amendments or additions, before we have an RfC on its adoption? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:20, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be "original research", when you find out, that a name already has been validly published in an earlier paper, that has been overlooked in literature? Would it be "original research", when you compile a taxon page on a genus, where no recent generic synopsis or revision is existing, based on different sources. I did a lot of this kind, e.g. Stephania, Securidaca, or Elvasia. Would it be "original research", when you only are applying the relevant code of nomenclature in a simple and straightforward case, that never would justify a separate paper in a scientific journal?

An example: When I created Xanthophyllum albicaule on March 1^st, I changed the name from Xanthophyllum albicaulis, according to ICN Art. 23.5 and 32.2. After having notified IPNI on March 8^th, they corrected their entry on March 9^th. OK, now I can refer to IPNI, but for more than a week this maybe was forbidden OR??? Regards --Franz Xaver (talk) 11:59, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have put this together into an rfc, it needs to be discussed we have unique issues with regard to OR on wikispecies. Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 13:14, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Upcoming changes

There are a lot of small changes happening in the next couple of weeks, and I wanted to give you all a quick heads-up about them. Please share this information with other people/languages/projects that will be interested:

There's a change to how columns in reference lists are handled, at the request of the German Wikipedia. This change will improve accessibility by automatically formatting long lists of <ref>s into columns, based on each reader's screen width.
- What you need to do: Nothing visible is happening now. If your project uses the normal <references /> tag (or doesn't really use refs at all), then file a Phabricator task or just tell me, and I'll get your wiki on the list for the next config change. If your project uses a "reflist" template to create columns, then please consider deprecating it, or update the template to work with the new feature.
The label on the "Save changes" button will change on most projects tomorrow (Wednesday) to say "Publish page". This has been discussed for years, is supported by user research, and is meant to be clearer for new contributors. (Most of us who have been editing for years don't even look at the button any more, and we all already know that all of our changes can be seen by anyone on the internet, so this doesn't really affect us.)
- If you have questions or encounter problems (e.g., a bad translation, problems fixing the documentation, etc.), then please tell me as soon as possible.
- When we split "Save page" into "Save page" and "Save changes" last August, a couple of communities wondered whether a local label would be possible. (For example, someone at the English Wikipedia asked if different namespaces could have different labels [answer: not technically possible], and the Chinese Wikipedia has some extra language on their "Save page" button [about the importance of previewing, I think].) Whether the Legal team can agree to a change may depend upon the language/country involved, so please ask me first if you have any questions.
As part of the ongoing, years-long user-interface standardization project, the color and shape of the "Save changes" (or now "Publish page"), "Show preview" and "Show changes" buttons on some desktop wikitext editors will change. The buttons will be bigger and easier to find, and the "Save" button will be bright blue. (phab:T111088) Unfortunately, it is not technically possible to completely override this change and restore the appearance of the old buttons for either your account or an entire site.
You may remember that nobody could edit for about 30 minutes twice last April, because of some work that Technical Ops was doing on the servers. The same kind of planned maintenance is happening again. It's currently scheduled for Wednesday, April 19th and Wednesday, May 3rd. The time of day is unknown, but it will probably afternoon in Europe and morning in North America. This will be announced repeatedly, but please mark your calendars now.

That's everything on my mind at the moment, but I may have forgotten something. If you have questions (about this or any other WMF work), then please {{Ping}} me, and I'll see what I can find out for you. Thanks, Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 19:19, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New species article mined from the CoL

Just to notify you: User:Mariusm created (and creates) new articles in a bot like manner - serveral thousands this week. Are you fine with this? -Succu (talk) 19:58, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

was discussed above generally seemed to be ok but needed to keep them flagged to be checked. Or something such similar. Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 21:39, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think @Mariusm: has taken a very good initiative with this new concept, and I trust him completely regarding the outcome, and I am convinced that he is checking the creations. I will very soon try this, which may develop Wikispecies number of species much faster. I would highly recommend more users to try it. Dan Koehl (talk) 22:11, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OMG: Lsjbot is greeting you... --Succu (talk) 22:48, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is the only method to progress WS to another level and make it more significant. At the current rate of new species-formation we'll never attain a decent species coverage. I ask hereby volunteers to join me and participate in this fast-creation of a species-base which ultimately I believe will cover 95% of the described species in just a few months work instead of the current coverage of less then 20% of which many look like this. We can then improve and update on this solid base further at our leisure. Of course we need to do it with extreme caution and to check our sources very carefully. Mariusm (talk) 05:16, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Succu: Is Lsjbot literally greeting somebody now, or was that a metaphor for CoL scraping in general? Statistics on Wikidata representation of Mariusm's new Wikispecies articles would be interesting. How many of the new Wikispecies articles are already on Wikidata (and how many have Lsjbot involved in their ultimate presence on Wikidata)? How often do the new Wikispecies article include data that's not yet in Wikidata (authorities, alternative views of parent taxa, etc.)? Any chance you could provide from statistics from the Wikidata side? Plantdrew (talk) 05:32, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Are Firminus or Geotrogus better than the above mentioned Aleucis? Is creating a clone of CoL a valuable goal or becomes Wikispecies that way another disrespected Botipedia? It's not up to me to judge. --Succu (talk) 07:40, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

These genera (mind – not species!) were created only as a means to avoid red links for the species' templates. They were created with the specific intention to fill them up manually with content as soon as I can. See for example Hilarianus which I refined only yesterday. Mariusm (talk) 08:06, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My intention isn't making a CoL's clone. No. As I said earlier in the discussion, CoL is only one of the sources I intend to use. This method is intended to serve as a basis for further refinement and elaboration; but without a basis the building is shaky. Mariusm (talk) 10:19, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Mariusm: In my opinion, the basis should be references. So, Hilarianus still is a shaky building, as CoL is a "reference", which itself is missing further references, at least for Scarabaeidae. What is Blanchard (1851)? Moreover, I miss a reference for Evans (2003)? Actually, that's not really a big progress. --Franz Xaver (talk) 12:10, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

┌─────────────────────────┘Just be aware that all these online databases also have sources. CoL, EoL often refer to Wikipedia as a source. Be wary of the circular sourcing. Any sources to a name should be original reference. It is safer. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 12:36, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Franz Xaver: I intend in due course to use ABW to track & refine all the Blanchard (1851) instances with the appropriate template(s). Meanwhile, I hope you'll agree with me that presumably we got a genus of 100 species out of which 20 have fabulous references and the rest of 80 are red links, and this situation persists for years, then the better choice is to have the 80 as stubs, from which at least some information can be gleaned and which will give some added coherence to the genus. Mariusm (talk) 15:49, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a fear of red links. It least, nobody would be cheated to click on a link, only to notice, it would be a stub without any substantial informaiton. --Franz Xaver (talk) 16:50, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But I think that species stubs with some substantial information will make it easier for other taxonomists to contribute here. (I still remember my starting difficulties in 2009 to create just one decent species page, when even the genus was missing and never heard about templates...) Today I have tested the "semi-automated" creation of species stub pages, with the help of Mariusm. Here you can look at my first test results. --Thiotrix (talk) 19:56, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Thiotrix: With less then 1200 species algae are not well represented across Wikimedia projects. --Succu (talk) 21:02, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Thiotrix: Thanks for your support. I'll be happy to assist you in the future, even to create a list containing thousands of species.

@Franz Xaver: When you click a stub you're not being cheated: you get (1) author (2) year (3) species validity (4) species living/extict status (5) a link source to trusted authority (6) a solid foundation for further expansion/elaboration. How is this less appealing than a red link I can't get. Did you know that before I starting stubing the Scarabaeidae it was represented here with 300 species out of the 30,000 available ones? Did you know that its majority of genera were red links? How is that better than 30,000 well organised stubs I can't get. Mariusm (talk) 05:33, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Mariusm: Obviously, you are determined to continue as you have started. So, I will not be able to convince you, that these stubs are more or less insufficient. OK, visitors will find some basic information, which easily also can be found somewhere else: (1)/(2) Author and year without a reference of the protologue/original description is almost worthless. (3) The fact, that a species name is accepted, is already indicated by a red link in the genus page. (4) Without sourcing, e.g. to IUCN Red List, this is almost worthless. (5) You have to trust – no possibility to check anything. (6) OK, yes, it has to be expanded.

If the justification of the existence of WS is questioned, it is no enough, to simply reproduce data volumes from other similar websites. (What's the surplus value here?) The best justification is, when WS is superior to other competitors. In my opinion, superiority cannot be achieved by mass-production of stubs, but only by higher quality of entries. Of course, with restricted personal capacity this is only possible starting with some taxonomic groups. That's the reason, why I have concentrated on some families, which are not covered by WCSP. (And Thiotrix and Orchi have concentrated on other families.) So, for Ochnaceae, Menispermaceae, Marcgraviaceae, and some genera of Polygalaceae and few other families, now WS probably is the best taxonomic resource in the web, though these families are not completed yet. However, on WS for these families everyone can find information compiled at one place, which had been dispersed over a big number of publications and websites. Anyway, even if compared with WCSP, WS has the advantage, that linking to original publications is possible here. You may compare Cardiopteris quinqueloba with the respective WCSP entry. Regards --Franz Xaver (talk) 10:25, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Franz Xaver: Cardiopteris quinqueloba is impressive, but the majority of the contributors here are satisfied with the Boloria selene style; and therefore 90% of current WS pages are stub-style pages even worst-looking than Boloria selene. Take a look at Hieracium djimilense and at Alectrias alectrolophus and you'll see what I mean ... Mariusm (talk) 10:48, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Mariusm and AfroBrazilian: I do not think, that the majority of WS contributors is satisfied with a page like Boloria selene, as it doesn't contain even one reference page (let it at least be a link to a directory, where you can find further information). The other two examples of course are not worth discussing. Maybe we should have a template/category 'under construction' or something like that for such cases. --Murma174 (talk) 12:10, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Murma174: We have Template:Stub. --Franz Xaver (talk) 12:42, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Franz Xaver: Thank you! Yes, {{Stub}} is useful, and I used {{Noref}} sometimes. --Murma174 (talk) 12:49, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Murma174: and see all the species of Lycosa: ‎Lycosa adusta, ‎Lycosa apacha, ‎Lycosa bedeli, ‎Lycosa bezzii etc. etc. how would you call these "articles"? The problem is that the AWB will skip these "present articles" and they wouldn't even be updated to the discussed stub! Mariusm (talk) 13:06, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Franz Xaver. In my opinion Wikispecies should provide higher quality references for a taxonomic treatment. Simply coping (some) data from an external database is not more than generating substubs. But Wikispecies understands itself as a species directory, so maybe the phonebook approach is OK. --Succu (talk) 19:18, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Methods to progress Wikispecies

"I think this is the only method to progress WS to another level and make it more significant." Well, you should know that it isn't, because - as I keep telling you, and you keep ignoring - the data could be put into Wikidata, and displayed here through the intelligent use of templates. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:52, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have to disagree, Andy. The data should be put in here, where there are specialists to examine it, taxonomic data requires significant human interaction to interpret and expertise to do so. Then mined by Wikidata for use in other projects. Data from WS to WD should be a one way flow chart ie WS --> WD --> all other projects. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 19:21, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are, of course, at liberty to hold an opinion as to how our databases should be organised. But it is untenable to claim that my comment about how they could be organised is false. It would be equally untenable to pretend that the data will not be held in Wikidata; and untenable to suppose that Wikipedias will not be taking data from Wikidata (or will be doing so directly from Wikispecies). You may certainly argue that data should flow only from Wikispecies to Wikidata, but I see no appetite whatsoever for that, or against adding and updating data directly in Wikidata. Which simply leaves a debate about whether the data should be in one place, or two. Feel free to make a case of the latter. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:49, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've sought wider input, at meta:Wikimedia Forum#The future of Wikispecies. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:19, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

One question is where "here" is. What I see on my computer monitor, is what I refer to as "here". But where the record I am reading, updating and saving is physically, doesn't really matter? For sure, the technical side has lately been very developed at Wikidata, and I doubt theres a better place to store records on Wikimedia. This doesnt mean that the project here on Wikispecies can be developed and completed (possible?) regardless as to where the files are stored, on which server, in which country, in which cosmos? Dan Koehl (talk) 20:24, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I used - and read - read "here" as "Wikispecies. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:38, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

yes by here I meant wikispecies, but I was talking as a programmer, of databases, so I was referring to data entry. Not storage. I think WD should store the data, but should not enter it. It should not then be back entered into WS as that creates an error loop of database logic. That is it risks the data. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 20:46, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Never said your claim was false I just disagreed with you. Unusually I guess I am both a taxonomist and a programmer, my specialty as a programmer is databases. I build sql databases as it were. So yes my opinion with databases is that they should have a flow chart to demonstrate their underlying processes. So basically data entry, data storage and management, and then data usage. Looking at who can do the entry, and has the skillset to do it in this case, it is clear that WS has the capacity and knowledge base to do data entry for taxonomic data. What Wikidata needs to do is then take that data and store it. But needs to do so in a way it can be utilised in whatever way it can be down the path. Wikidata should be taking all the data, not just some of it. It should be done by a bot. Does this mean that maybe WS needs to have a mre rigid formality on its pages? Probably, and that can be discussed. But a constant back loop from Wikidata to Wikispecies is defeating one of the purposes of having a database. Data entry is the most error producing section of a database, having that done at two points doubles the risk of error. It calls into question the quality of that database. The entry should be done where there is and by those who have the most expertise for that type of data. For taxonomy that is here. The database management should be aimed at the down flow usages. To me the biggest use for the taxonomic data at Wikipedia is to be used to populate the Taxoboxes in all the different wikipedia languages, then no matter what language any organism with a page will have the identical taxonomy, not currently the case. Wikidata should be storing and managing data. Ensuring it can be accessed in the ways the wikipedias can utilise it best. I have spent time on Wikidata going through the taxonomy pages there, I have about 400 odd edits where I made corrections. The thing that is truly obvious in that data is that Wikidata does not have the broad sweeping taxonomic knowledge or capacity to interpret this data adequately. I know some there do and I think Succu and Brya do great jobs. But overall WD does not. It is a pure database, albeit a human managed one. Its scope is very broad, as it should be that is not a criticism, Taxonomic data is highly specialised. I may work as a taxonomist but I have a Bachelor of Software Engineering and to me as a database specialist, back running the database to overwrite data entry is high risk database management. You will have other wikiprojects I am sure that are in a similar situatioon to WS, the various dictionary projects come to mind. Seriously, if you want to build a database you need to think of projects in terms of data in and data out and data management. What matters is the data, there is nothing more crucial. The management model your proposing at present is high risk and undermines the integrety of the data. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 20:24, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I said "the data could be put into Wikidata, and displayed here through the intelligent use of templates". If you disagree with that, that is saying it is false. Your analogy with dictionaries is nota sound one. A better set of examples would be WikiChemsitry, WikiPhysics and WikiAstronomy - but of course they do not exsit; all the data is held on Wikidata, not separately. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:43, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I get what you meant by display, but with no dynamic way of updating wikidata whenever we make a needed change here, anything displayed here is seen and considered as an edit here. So by displaying the wikidata entries here you are in effect editing here. That is dangerous to the integrity of a database. For the higher orders it may not be a problem they are generally quite stable. But anything that could be changed at any time by some new analysis. It needs to be very clear what data is what, and that cannot be determined visually at this point. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 20:51, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I said "the data could be put into Wikidata, and displayed here through the intelligent use of templates". If you disagree with that, that is saying it is false. No not false, what you said can be done. I do not disagree with that. What I disagree with is whether it should be done. I did not falsify your argument, or refute you. I just think it is not the best way. That there is a better way, more in line with appropriate safe database management. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 22:22, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. @Pigsonthewing: can you please explain how all this works out when I need to transfer 10 species from one genus to another. I'll have to do a double work: (1) to update the Wikidata database (2) to update the WS pages (3) to double-check the the two sites always synchronize (4) to introduce newcomers to the complexity of interwiki templates. All this entails lots of work and lots of efforts and is prone to errors for the sake of creating an "elegant" database. You seem to care more for the "elegance" than for the taxonomic practicality. Mariusm (talk) 06:02, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. It's a nice concept of having an elegant database at Wikidata, but if that means that people who consider cite tempaltes far too complex (Nope, I'm nowhere done harping about that) are going to have to do that, we might as well delete Wikispecies altogether right now. Circeus (talk) 06:26, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Who does that work when you transfer them from one genus to another on WS, but not on WD? And I have asked you before not to ascribe words or beliefs to me; as indeed have others. I will ask you again not to do so. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:57, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Have you considered the concept that if Wikidata had a say species having a single property with the absolute essentials as qualifiers, ie property species name, various identifiers being, original ref, parent taxon, holotype, type locality, junior synonyms (each with original ref), reference for most recent review. This could be mined from here by a bot and then WD can basically have the data from here. Where you can actually have it used down the line by other projects. Then we can keep this updated, any updates we do are updated to WD by the bot, either new taxa, or changes to existing taxa (we include q numbers when relevant use it as an identifier here to link to there). Then you are storing the data at WD for usage, it is being taxonomically managed here. You can still add other identifiers over there, the stuff we do not cover. For example I personally consider common names a waste of time. But at least the raw taxonomic data will be done well. At the moment the taxonomy over at WD is largely incorrect from a taxonomic point of view. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 19:25, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Some conclusions

@Succu: @Franz Xaver: WS had way back in 2008 a bot crafted to automatically create stub articles from ITIS - named User:MonoBot. It was designed to create articles from the list supplied by users at User:MonoBot/Requested Articles. See an example to its creation: Percina phoxocephala. This bot ultimately failed because it couldn't handle parentheses. (see Wikispecies:Village_Pump/Archive_13#The_Bot_needs_fixing). I think that the approach of using the AWB is much better. Moreover it was semi-voted in the positive above with 4 supporting and 2 neutral. As Succu mentioned WS is ultimately a species directory and as such stubs are a legitimate addition. I therefore don't see a reason to stop stubing this way Mariusm (talk) 08:05, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My test with algae is now finished, the results and some general conclusions are here: User:Thiotrix/Test AWB for species pages. --Thiotrix (talk) 10:38, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thiotrix: Wikidata holds several Fucus species that are not accepted since centuries... These items exist because we have a complete list of species described in the 1st edition of Linnés Species Plantarum. --Succu (talk) 14:44, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If everyone can add names to wikidata that are listed in a special book, and these names are displayed like and cannot be distinguished from accepted taxa, that makes the use of wikidata for taxonomical purposes rather complicated. --Thiotrix (talk) 13:02, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WD is not a taxonomic database but a knowledge base. So the concept of accepted/valid according to some taxon authority (aka POV) is not directly supported. What matters are references in which a taxonomic view point is supported. In case of Phaeophyceae WD has references to the latest taxonomic treatment An Updated Classification of Brown Algae (Ochrophyta, Phaeophyceae) (2014). --Succu (talk) 20:23, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mariusm, is there a reason why Gymnopleurus sisyphus (entry at CoL) is not marked as a fossil taxon? Why do you not provide a link to the correct CoL page? Similar is true for the Fucus species. All links refer to the genus not the species. --Succu (talk) 18:48, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Succu: Your're right about Gymnopleurus sisyphus, it turned out to be a glitch in my WORD macros which I use to process the retrieved CoL data into AWB acceptable format. It's truly difficult to provide CoL specific link for each species; in any case the links tend to metamorphose over the years and the hard work isn't worth the trouble. The Fucus species are the responsibility of User:Thiotrix who supplied me with the data. Mariusm (talk) 05:16, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, for the ease of test I just had one reference in the sample page, that was used for every species. Of course it is preferable to have the link to each species page at Algaebase. I think this could be managed by AWB, too. As Mariusm states below, this is not at all a "full-automatic" creation of species pages. It needs the careful manual preparation of a sort of table for each genus with all the data that shall be included in the page. Maybe the original citation can be added also. --Thiotrix (talk) 13:02, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Another glitch is Taiwanoserica chunlinlii (see CoL entry). Probably all recently created species of Taiwanoserica have the wrong parent. According to CoL they belong to the family Melolonthidae. --Succu (talk) 18:48, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A relevant comparison

Two things I'd like to point out: mass data import for generating barebone material have had mixed results. In Wikipedia (at least the english one), barebone creation of taxon like the one proposed here would probably be opposed. As far as I know, massive creation has been done on smaller language wikis to no significant gains other than inflating article counts. Indeed the mass creation from census data (particularly the US imports) and the very similar mass imports of TIGER data on OpenStreetMap have, in the long term, met with highly mixed result, since

They (at least in the case of Wikimedia projects) inevitably cause cases of circular referencing of data, as pointed out above
They give a false idea of project completeness and of what is considered a useful entry
- You see similar phenomena in other countries, such as with communes on fr: (compounded there because the template they used very often left a bunch of empty sections in the resulting "articles")
Because of such, they actually slow ulterior addition of data: redlinks are a greater driver of data addition than incomplete data
Automatic imports may contain errors (one might say they inevitably do), and such errors are especially slow to be detected, due to both the presumption that the data is good in the first place (why else would we have imported it?), and the sheer amount of it
- TIGER data for example included entire subdivisions that were never built and in many instances those still pollute OSM data to this day. Multiple tools had to be created specifically to try and deal with TIGER data that was only partially reliable, and the import is credited for impairing acquisition of new contributors in the US because the map just looks "complete" already.

As such I would actually oppose any such project of automatic creation (as opposed to automatically linking existing pages) as long as the result are so barebones. 14:20, 8 March 2017 (UTC) — The preceding unsigned comment was added by Circeus (talk • contribs) 14:20, 8 March 2017‎.

ETA: besides, why bother using Wikispecies as an intermediate if the ultimate goal, according to Andy, is WikiData? You want that stuff, why aren't you importing directly into WikiData? There must be a reason for that, surely, and I'm curious to know what it is. Circeus (talk) 14:32, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Circeus: this isn't an automatic import of data. Not at all. Each familia to be imported is first scrutinized and the ultimate source is carefully checked out. Actually it's a very selective import of data and the target is to build a base upon which much improvement can be done. It's really no use in creating 20 wonderful species per month for a familia which is 30,000 species strong. It simply won't get you anywhere in the long run. On the other hand the whole range of species can provide huge benefits. One of those is the ability to search for an author/date occurrence over a large familia and to easily insert all the instances of a ref-template where the specific author treated the familia-members in the specific publication. There are other great benefits to be gained from having all the members of a familia at your disposal to be manipulated as an integral unit. Believe me, I often create a species article for the sole reason of adding an instance of a ref-template I'm currently dealing with. Mariusm (talk) 15:51, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sick and tired of the WS-Wikidata tug of war. I see WD simply as a pointer and WS as the ultimate source for the entire range of taxonomic information. Mariusm (talk) 05:42, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Me too. Thanks for your words, @Mariusm:. --Murma174 (talk) 09:36, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Got to agree with @Mariusm: and others here. There is another point, which involves more controversial taxa and those in review and research. Taxonomic data on WD can be a matter of editors' opinion and entries from here can be just srapped, in spite of evidence presented, if it does not conform with their view. It can be the old chestnut of "one name one taxon", which is fine as a principle, but then there is real life where names can evolve. Here we do not make "original" contributions just act as mirror and we have the ability to give different views for controversial taxa, something that is impossible on WD. In conclusion I will stick it out here, if WD editors want to use my work that's fine and for example, there are plenty of papers that can be uploaded. comment done by Andyboorman

Yes taxonomic treatments can evolve over time. That's why WD has implemented APG I to APG IV. --Succu (talk) 09:57, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So has WS, somebody just needs to change the taxonavigation procedure. Andyboorman (talk) 11:36, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I too agree here. I think that WS may need to develop a policy on this issue. To me WD is a database, a repository. They can be well suited to that purpose. But taxonomic expertise across a majority of groups resides here. Cheers, Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 22:22, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Taxonomic data on WD can be a matter of editors' opinion". No. Data on WD, just as here, is supposed to be cited using to reliable sources. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:26, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"I see WD simply as a pointer and WS as the ultimate source for the entire range of taxonomic information" I'm sure you do. However, that does not seem to be what the rest of the Wikimedia movement - of which WS is a part - thinks. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:23, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Pigsonthewing: What I'm saying comes out of common sense. Fragmenting taxonomic data into bits and pieces is bringing more chaos than helping sort matters out. You're viewing this with the eyes of a data analyst not of a taxonomist. Organizing the data according to your wishes is a naturalist's nightmare. Taxonomy isn't a warehouse inventory or a yearly production chart my friend. This community's consensus isn't in accordance with your plans, so back off. Mariusm (talk) 14:01, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, an "appeal to common sense" fallacy. No-one is suggesting "fragmenting taxonomic data", much less doing so, tautologously, "into bits and pieces". Indeed, Taxonomic data is currently fragmented, and I suggest we rationalise it. However, I have no "plan" or "wishes", merely questions and suggestions. Yet again, you ascribe thoughts to me which are not mine. This is, if I have not under-counted, the fourth time I have asked you to cease doing so. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:40, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But what exactly is the suggestion? From what I can see this "rationalisation" is to create lower standard circular data. I am a member of the taxobox taskforce on Wikipedia. I have seen almost nothing on WP trying to get them to use templates from WD to fill automatic taxoboxes. This would be the ideal use of data at WD. Rather than make it lower quality and circular. WD does not reference its taxonomic data properly, the data there is missing key important information crucial in taxonomy. Rationalisation is politi-speak for centralisation and loss of services. I have said before that there is a reason no one has managed to create an all encompassing database of taxonomy and nomenclature, it is complicated. Much of it has to be done manually. To write the checklists I have peer review published I have had to get museums to go through the boxes of reprints left to them by long dead taxonomists in the hope they may have a certain paper. I have outstanding articles, original descriptions, that I have been searching for for over 5 years. No one has a copy. No bot can do this type of work I have to physically search for the specimens and the articles describing them. Then figure it out. This is the specialisation of taxonomy and nomenclature. WD should be a database, that I support. However, you must take all the pertinent data or the observable conclusions drawn from the data on each taxon is rubbish, it has no justification presented. So the first objective for WD is do the taxonomy right, and get the WP's to actually use it so their is a value to it, then I can make sure WS provides the information WD needs. As I said before, I think the taxonomists here need to present a policy to WD so they understand what they should do. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 15:07, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Pigsonthewing: I asked you before to outline your vision for WS but you declined. You keep saying I'm not this and I'm not that. What you imply is clearly suggesting a fragmented database and speciesbox-style templates. This amounts to WS' nightmare. I think your expertise and your qualifications can be put to better use elsewhere but not here. Mariusm (talk) 15:23, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In principle, the idea to store data at WD and use WS for presentation, does not seem totally wrong to me. However, at the moment (and probably for long) the data model applied in WD in my opinion is insufficient for the information available at WS. The WD data model would only be sufficient for our WS stubs – and not much more. @Pigsonthewing: You can convince me of the contrary, if you are able to bring all the information found in Brackenridgea arenaria to WD and if you can demonstrate, how this can be presented here at WS all together in one taxon page. In the unlikely case you succeed, how much time does this need? Regards --Franz Xaver (talk) 15:33, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Franz Xaver: suppose he succeeds. It would be impossibly cumbersome and difficult to update, modify, visualize, keep track etc. of this complex data in a manageable manner. It is simply forcing a an elephant into a shoe-box. Mariusm (talk) 15:39, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The claim that "tt would be impossibly cumbersome and difficult to update, modify, visualize, keep track etc. of this complex data" is pure FUD. You offer no supporting argument, much less evidence. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:41, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As I said earlier on this page "Wikidata can hold all [the taxonomic data fields Mariusm listed]. If there's anything else that Wikidata doesn't yet do, that we need for Wikispecies, we can propose a property for it there. You can find a list of Wikidata's current taxonomic properties, and examples of their use, at d:Wikidata:WikiProject Taxonomy.". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:44, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, Mariusm, I didn't "decline", I referred you to our previous conversation on the matter. Immediately after I ask you to cease ascribing thoughts to me which are not mine, you do so yet again. Far from "suggesting a fragmented database", it can be clearly seen above that I said "Taxonomic data is currently fragmented, and I suggest we rationalise it". A clear example of this is that you just created Maladera engana, making no link from it to the pre-existing item for the same taxon on Wikidata. It's far from the only case of your doing this. You did not respond, when I highlighted a previous example, on this page, on 21 February. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:39, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Are you aware that there are not one, but 295, Wikipedias? You may have "seen almost nothing" on one Wikipedia "trying to get them to use templates from WD to fill automatic taxoboxes", but on other Wikipedias' taxoboxes are already populated using data from Wikidata, just as other templates on the English-language Wikipedia are. There is no "politi-speak for... loss of services"; indeed the number of services available is multiplying rapidly - and WD offers far more potential for new services (such as populating infoboxes!) than does WS. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:52, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pigsonthewing, I clarified before that I'm in the process of updating the genera to reflect the species-stubing I do. It can't be done instantly, but eventually it will be done.

What do you mean exactly by to "rationalise" the database? You're very vague and imprecise in your suggestions.

Automatic infoboxes are the WS' anathema Mariusm (talk) 15:59, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure where you think I said "'rationalise' the database". Please can you clarify? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:09, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

┌─────────────────────────┘ I think he meant were you said rationalise the data. In anycase. Yes of course I am aware how many wikipedias there are, I have edited 4 of them. I was referring of course to the EN Wikipedia. But what I was referring to was that WD could provide the template for all Wikipedias to use, hence standardising the taxobox across all WP. That would be a noble goal. That is not something that should be done here due to circularity. Circular data is bad data. If you want to rationalise things that is a good rationalisation. But it is not what WD seems to be doing. Your taking partial data in a format impossible to use for taxonomy then wanting to feed it back here which will accomplish two things. Loss of quality and loss of editors. That is not in the best interests of any wikimedia site. I do not think you mean half of what you say the way it comes across. But words matter and that is part of the problem in these negotiations. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 16:28, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WD doesn't provide templates; it provides data. I'm not sure where I'm "taking partial data in a format impossible to use for taxonomy". Or did you mean WD? I'm not WD. I assure you mean eveything I say. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:34, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

well yes was referring to WD, not you personally. I am sure you mean everything you say that is not what I said. I said the way it comes across is not always the message you intend. Cheers, Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 18:22, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Side note – but still important, and addressed to all users rather than any one particular. Here and there the tone in this thread has become quite harsh. To give an example comments like "I think your expertise and your qualifications can be put to better use elsewhere but not here" may imply that the accosted user is unwelcome as a Wikispecies editor, simply because he doesn't share the same view as the "accostee". There are other examples as well, written by other editors. This needs to stop. It's only natural that we sometimes harbour different opinions and it is important that we air them here at the Village Pump, but please try to maintain a decent and civilised manner. All of the editors of this thread are seasoned Wikispecies users – most of us are admins! – and I can see no cause for any one of us not to stay polite. Thank you. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 18:24, 10 March 2017 (UTC).[reply]

How could both projects help each other

Do you have any ideas how both projects could gain an additional content benefit? --Succu (talk) 22:34, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wanted templates

It's very annoying to come across deleted, but needed templates again and again, like this one. It's so simple to create redirects (especially for admins).

Maybe there is a bot/AWB able to solve at least some of these cases ? --Murma174 (talk) 09:38, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

yes, if you mean removing links from pages, to the deleted template, that's easy with AWB. Dan Koehl (talk) 17:34, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Likely what happened is when someone changed Zt templates to current templates, they forgot to change over transclusions. That is what needs to be caught up on. Neferkheperre (talk) 18:36, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh no. I started to remove the links. You mean they should be replaced instead @Neferkheperre:? Dan Koehl (talk) 18:56, 28 February 2017 (UTC) The ones I changed so far (deleted the link) can be seen here between the comments on Village pump. Dan Koehl (talk) 19:01, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, whoever corrects Zt templates should either redirect to new template, or transclusions tracked and changed. Second option takes more work, but has better results at end. Simply deleting those links removes relevant reference citations. At this point, affected Zt templates will have to be resurrected to accomplish these ends. Neferkheperre (talk) 19:40, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK, sounds like need for discussion and a plan here, I reverted my edits. Dan Koehl (talk) 23:17, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@PeterR: It seems like a lot of these deletions are yours--I've posted on your talk page about this as well a couple of times. Can you help us here? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:36, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Koavf: I didn't start this section to blame single colleagues, but to ask for a solution. You obviously do not have an idea. --Murma174 (talk) 21:41, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Murma174: My point isn't to blame or criticize--I'm just asking if PeterR can assist. He may know better what he has done and not done or where links should point, etc. I'm not mad at him or calling him out, just pinging him to see if he can assist. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:54, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As a first step I redirected those Zootaxa templates, that showed a history with a part of the content, so the target template could be detected in most cases. But most of the Zt-templates do not show a history, example: Template:Zt2135.1 (missing link). Does it mean, this template has never been created? Or does one need special permissions to read the history? --Murma174 (talk) 18:52, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Murma174: Most likely, some of these templates never have existed. I suppose, that's a consequence of the system of numbering the templates. Thorpe probably has reserved template names, which maybe would be created later. --Franz Xaver (talk) 19:20, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also, quite a few of the Zt templates are nested within other Zt templates, which can make it hard to see what's really going on, linkwise... Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 19:50, 10 March 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Thank you! As a consequence the redlinks on pages like this may be deleted, right? --Murma174 (talk) 21:04, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Murma174: Not necessarily. If any of those redlinked templates is also redlinked in this deletion log that template should instead be restored, and then moved to a proper file name. For an example see this discussion regarding the template {{Zt3777.1.1}} which was deleted by PeterR, then restored by me and moved to {{Yang, Wang & Li, 2014}}. (Note that the bluelink Zootaxa templates in the above deletion log are already corrected, often by Neferkheperre or PeterR himself.) Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 21:56, 10 March 2017 (UTC).[reply]

@Tommy Kronkvist: Thanks for pointing me to the deletion log. That helps. --Murma174 (talk) 22:24, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

All these >1500 cases need a very individual care, no chance for a bot IMO. It might make sense dealing with those cases on top of the list first, as these are linked by numerous other pages. --Murma174 (talk) 17:04, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Some are obsolete, others link to spam links, some are overlooked, and many I cannot deduce any purpose for. I fixed two of mine, which I overlooked during some taxonomic rearrangement. Individual management is necessary. Neferkheperre (talk) 18:07, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

┌─────────────────────────┘ Most of the Zt. and Pt. templates are redirected now, which is, as Neferkheperre mentioned above, the second best solution only, but the redlinks are gone at least. On top of the list with ~1000 entries now I see several missing templates caused by incomplete imports of templates or modules from enwiki. This is unpleasant, but the redlinks don't appear on the taxon pages, thus I see it as a minor problem. --Murma174 (talk) 09:53, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Campylacantha

This page uses the taxonomy of Chromista using the 5- or 7-kingdoms of the eukaryotes. But why is it using that classificationsystem, instead of the 9-kingdoms, as the 9-kingdom is way more known (by me). This question arose when looking at d:Wikidata the possible merges based on the same name (Campylacantha). The Dutch and English have the same Qid, but the species id is different. Can someone tell me if the Dutch and English species are the same as described here? Dutch: nl:Campylacantha, English: en:Campylacantha. QZanden (talk) 14:36, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@QZanden: No, they can't be merged. d:Q10441287 (Campylacantha) is a Genus of Insecta. d:Q25368414 (Campylacantha) is a Genus of Chromista. --Murma174 (talk) 15:32, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Murma174: This (Tetragramma) species is the same on nl.wp (nl:Tetragramma) although it has a different classification. Look at the databaselink. QZanden (talk) 18:14, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@QZanden: The Wikispecies page Tetragramma refers to Tetragramma (Ehrenberg, 1843), the Enwiki page w:en:Tetragramma refers to Tetragramma (Agassiz, 1838). It should be investigated, whether these two records are describing the very same Genus (I doubt, they do). The Nlwiki page w:nl:Tetragramma is not correct in my opinion: It uses the taxonomy of Agassiz, 1838 (like Enwiki), but refers to the source Ehrenberg, 1843 (like Wikispecies). Resolving homonyms causes a lot of investigation sometimes (our daily job). Until this is done, I would never merge the two Wikidata entries d:Q25366022 and d:Q23005736. --Murma174 (talk) 18:41, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. If you check the Wikidata pages, you can see, that they are referring to different WoRMS records. --Murma174 (talk) 18:45, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

P.P.S. A first quick check lets me think, that Tetragramma (Ehrenberg, 1843) is a synonym of Terpsinoë (Ehrenberg, 1843). But that's a guess only, I didn't find a source for that yet. --Murma174 (talk) 18:52, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I moved the nl-sitelink to the correct item and added some more information to the genera. --Succu (talk) 20:38, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

AlgaeBase says: Tetragramma Ehrenberg, 1843, Taxonomic status: uncertain, requiring further investigation. link . I'd accept that as state of affairs. --Murma174 (talk) 21:36, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki 4 Coop

Hello everyone,

I come to you to invite to re-read the submission of a new partnership project between the Wikimedia movement and the Belgian NGOs. The project is titled Wiki 4 Coop and I invite you to discover its submission page on Meta-Wiki. Do not hesitate to endorse the project if you like it and even correct my English if you have a little time. A beautiful end of day for all of you, Lionel Scheepmans ^{✉ Contact} _{French native speaker, sorry for my dysorthography} 11:33, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Separate pages for species and nominal subspecies, is that necessary?

Is it necessary (or convenient) to have a specific page for nominal subspecies? In my opinion, species and nominal subspecies are the same taxon, the ssp page is just a repetition of the data contained in the main page. It would be easier to resolve that with a simple redirection. I am not a taxonomist neither a scientist, just a personal feeling. It creates at least one big distortion, the number of taxons described by the author in the Category:Author taxa just duplicate, there is no sense in that. As an example, please see Herpsilochmus axillaris and Herpsilochmus axillaris axillaris, but there are many others.--Hector Bottai (talk) 18:24, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is not the same taxon, as the circumscription is different, though they have the same type. Herpsilochmus axillaris includes the other subspecies, whereas Herpsilochmus axillaris axillaris excludes them. I don't know the rules of the zoological code, but in botany there is no authorship attributed to autonyms, which are only created by the description of one of the other subspecies – see e.g. Xanthophyllum discolor subsp. discolor compared to Xanthophyllum discolor subsp. macranthum. --Franz Xaver (talk) 19:09, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fully agree with @Franz Xaver: that the circumscription is different, but the authorship of the species, in Zoology, is always the same of the ssp, thus duplicated.--Hector Bottai (talk) 20:28, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, of course, but taxonomy, i.e. delimitation and circumscription of taxa, is something different from nomenclature. If you had written "Herpsilochmus axillaris and Herpsilochmus axillaris axillaris are the same name", I could have accepted this as correct. However, you wrote, they "are the same taxon" and this is not correct, as far as I see. The authorship is only for names and not for taxa. --Franz Xaver (talk) 20:47, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In botany authorship and publication details are most commonly different see the examples offered by Franz and therefore deserve their own page. Particularly as they may also have different supporting references and other information. Andyboorman (talk) 20:56, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also agree with others here. They are not the same, nether taxonomically or nomenclaturally. The species both in concept and name includes all other subspecies whereas the subspecies as said above excludes the sister subspecies. Also it is rare that a species is described and split into subspecies in the same paper, generally this is done later after further study and this should be referenced as such. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 21:06, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I apologyze if I was confuse. What I am trying to say (and this is a generic example) is that Tschudi is the author of one taxon name: Herpsilochmus axillaris and not two (the nominal ssp Herpsilochmus axillaris axillaris) as you can see in Category:Johann Jakob von Tschudi taxa. For me it is cristal clear that is a duplicated counting.--Hector Bottai (talk) 02:21, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Our purpose

Here is what I have been long saying is what sets us apart from all others. We alone can combine all of those other sites so that synonomies, homonyms, first citations, holotypes, taxonomic references, taxon trees etc into one place. Our tools have been provided to do it, we just need to get to it.

Dubois, A. 2017. A few problems in the generic nomenclature of insects and amphibians, with recommendations for the publication of new generic nomina in zootaxonomy and comments on taxonomic and nomenclatural databases and websites. Zootaxa 4237(1): 1–16. DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4237.1.1. Reference page.

I have support from fellow cirripede people. Our system makes it easy to develop taxonomic synonymies for research papers. For general work, homonyms become obvious, and ready for treatment. Neferkheperre (talk) 00:02, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting that you mention Alain Dubois' paper here from Zootaxa. I guess as some additional information on this. I am a member of the Observatory on Availability in Zoological Nomenclature, along with Alain Duboit and others. For those interested we have a Project Page here showing the list of collaborators in this. Personally I also have a project page to bring attention to Wikispecies here. I agree, we need to rapidly expand our base and the taxa we cover, this should be our priority. We have the tools here as said above. I add these additional links for peoples information, anyone is welcome to follow these projects. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 01:09, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikispecies is Basically the idea is to build a database of the basic taxonomy and nomenclature of all living organisms. It provides the names, references, and type data for each species presented in its basic nomenclatural phylogeny - as you put it. I do not understand your usage of the term basic. Taxonomy and nomenclature fulfill different purposes. --Succu (talk) 21:45, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why "your"? Why not "our"? Are you part of the project or not? --Murma174 (talk) 22:12, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I never was, Murma174. Why do you think so? --Succu (talk) 22:16, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are participating in votings on Wikispecies, although you are not part of the Wikispecies project? @all: What are the votes worth, if users are voting, who declare not to be part of the project? --Murma174 (talk) 23:20, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

First I am stating that in very general terms for a wide audience. By basic taxonomy I am meaning we present hierarchy, combinations and past combinations, all taxonomic issues, however we do not present or discuss or review the actual science behind that, just reference it elsewhere. Hence I am using the term basic. We do not examine, or re-examine the issues. Of course nomenclature and taxonomy are different, nomenclature refers to names only, taxonomy to combinations and relationships. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 22:17, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

we do not present or discuss or review the actual science behind that - isn't taxonomy about that? --Succu (talk) 22:27, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We are not a peer reviewed publication nor one that meets the code. So we have to be careful. Which is what I was getting at when I used the term basic. Possibly not the best choice of word now you have pointed it out. I will rethink the wording. We present the current prevailing taxonomy and nomenclature, citing sources for this as necessary. We cannot make new decisions. That is my point. I appreciate your input on this. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 22:50, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The enWP policy "No original research" is applicable here too, and we should probably have our own Wikispecies' version of it. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 00:33, 13 March 2017 (UTC).[reply]

I've posted a draft; see below. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:20, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I can't precisely recall, but there was a (chemistry? biochemistry?) journal that enforces a condition for publishing upon paper acceptance is to ask authors to create (or add) content on Wikipedia that is directly related to the compound they used in the study. Maybe we can do something similar if we can convince journals to do so? OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 16:00, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Zookeys already has such, where we can download taxon illustrations from Commons to our taxon pages. I can't think of any others right now. Neferkheperre (talk) 16:48, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It was a biology journal (see this wikinews entry). You can check its instructions for authors page and search for Wikipedia. In our case, rather than having us pull the info from Commons (or elsewhere), the author has to create the entry themselves. This way, not only will we receive more entries, we also broaden our editor base. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 23:08, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Citation templates

{{Hofmann & Tremewan, 2010}} renders as:

Hofmann, A. & Tremewan, W.G. 2010. A revised check-list of the genus Zygaena Fabricius, 1775 (Lepidoptera: Zygaenidae, Zygaeninae), based on the biospecies concept. Entomologist's Gazette 61: 119–131. Full article (PDF) Reference page.

A structured version of the first part, using the code:

* {{cite journal|author1={{a|Axel Hofmann|Hofmann, A.}} |author2={{a|Walter Gerard Tremewan|Tremewan, W.G.}} |year=2010 |title=A revised check-list of the genus ''Zygaena'' {{aut|Fabricius}}, 1775 (Lepidoptera: Zygaenidae, Zygaeninae), based on the biospecies concept |journal=[[ISSN 0013-8894|Entomologist's gazette]] |volume=61 |pages=119–131 |url=http://www.giraz.fr/docs/EntGaz_61_2_119-131_1288-Checklist.pdf}}<includeonly>[http://species.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:Hofmann_%26_Tremewan,_2010 Reference page.]</includeonly>

would render as:

Hofmann, A.; Tremewan, W.G. 2010. A revised check-list of the genus Zygaena Fabricius, 1775 (Lepidoptera: Zygaenidae, Zygaeninae), based on the biospecies concept. Entomologist's gazette, 61: 119–131. http://www.giraz.fr/docs/EntGaz_61_2_119-131_1288-Checklist.pdf. Reference page.

The advantages of this include the emission of machine-readable COinS metadata so that, for example, the citation can be exported into an aggregator like Zotero. What do people think about the slightly different presentation? Can we standardise on {{Cite journal}}? Do we need to modify it? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:57, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This second version is what is used in en:Wikipedia. Very time-consuming, and must be repeated each time. any changes must be hunted down individually. They could not point out any easier way. Templates much better, as they are easy to edit wholesale. One thing that turned me off about en:Wikipedia. Neferkheperre (talk) 01:15, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed the EN WP style cite journal template is ridiculous. I wont use it there either. Cheers, Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 02:08, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hard to edit? I can generate the list of references on your user page in templated form in less than 20 minutes (maybe even less than 10, but I tend to have attention span issues) if I need to. You need to learn that whining that you don't want to learn the tools is not the same as things being inherently difficult. Circeus (talk) 08:27, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Circeus: please don't brag when it isn't appropriate. To transform from straight normal ref to the cite journal format you must: (1) Slice the ref into 8 parts (or more for multiple author (2) add the required header to each part (3) add the Reference page suffix and the source lang prefix (4) treat satisfactorily unconventional ref formats, multiple page ranges, in cases etc. You tell us it isn't a chore. Show us then how it can be effortlessly done. I'm ready and prepared to be convinced. Mariusm (talk) 09:42, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The problem here is that we have too many data analysts, wiki programmers, administrators, inter-site integrators, advisers and so forth and too few down to earth editors who contribute the actual taxonomic data. Mariusm (talk) 10:30, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No. the problem is that everyone on here just wants to be allowed to do whatever it is they're doing (on either side of the medal) without really having to bother consider what anyone does on- or off-wiki. While in theory this was never much on issue, in practice (and I need to emphasize that although stephen was a majoc contributing factor, he is in no way the only one) the result is that we have nothing standardized in any useful way anywhere on the site and whatever data we have is completely useless to anyone off the site. Don't anyone fool themselves. Everyone around here is fighting tooth and nail to preserve their own little habits and the personal gardens they've built, and it's just a matter of time before we get another Stephen-level of inter-user issues. Circeus (talk) 10:43, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Pigsonthewing: Concerning presentation of references, we had a poll some time ago. We should stick to this agreement. Moreover, I dislike linking to PDF directly from the title of the publication. There may be more than one possibility to access the publication. And I use some reference templates with optional parameters, e.g. Template:Exell & Mendonça, 1951. I suppose, this would be difficult or impossible with your approach. --Franz Xaver (talk) 10:45, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fixing the {{Cite journal}} so it follows that formatting is very doable. Case in point: I have worked on it and it's now 95+% of the way there already. The leftover stuff is fairly easy to implement (I'm just working on small chunks to reduce the risks that I'll find myself burning out, and I've been focussing on the higher-order categories thing), but user-induced variation makes it almost impossible to be sure what should be the formatting for monographs in series. That is a small issue, really. See my userpage for an example. Circeus (talk) 11:34, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Franz Xaver: Please can you give an example where there is "more than one possibility to access the publication"? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:05, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks also for the link to the poll, which was started by Mariusm, who wrote: "Does everybody agree... so we can all follow it to standardize WS? [...] it's due time to revise it and make it uniform, clear and precise.". In the subsequent discussion there, he said: "We can simplify the typing with templates." and "I'm not categorically against the template(s) but you'll need to modify it to comply with our agreed format voted above, than we can recommend it to the editors and give it a try. Mariusm (talk) 06:32, 22 December 2015 (UTC) ". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:28, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Pigsonthewing: I already have given some examples below. --Franz Xaver (talk) 14:15, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I missed those, sorry. I see Tommy has already provided a solution to that issue. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:24, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Circeus: Regarding "everyone around here is fighting tooth and nail to preserve their own little habits", I beg to differ. Some of us actually always at least try to be very true to the preferred format presented in Help:Reference section. As for the {{Cite journal}} and other {{Cite…}} templates I personally often use them in Wikipedia but shun them here at Wikispecies, for the same reasons as those given by Neferkheperre and Mariusm. However Wikispecies is supposed to be freely available to everyone, hence I agree with you that we need to find a format that can be easily imported by other software- and web services. But as Faendalimas points out in the above threads – and this is important! – we need to do this without sacrificing the taxonomical scrutiny. Wikidata surely is the road to take, but it must be thread with great care to detail. Regards, Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 11:59, 11 March 2017 (UTC).[reply]

@Neferkheperre: Please can you explain what you mean by "repeated each time"? Do you have an example? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:05, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. When I was on Wikipedia (which I still am, but not very active) I found that their CiteJournal system required me to fill out entire citations from scratch each page I required it. This is cumbersome, especially with works like Darwin, 1854, Pilsbry, 1916 and other widely cited references. No one there could provide alternatives. My only solution became to create CiteJournal entries on my User Page and copy/paste. Neferkheperre (talk) 08:38, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I did the same, albeit in a more rudimentary way. They're still there, in my enWP sandbox. The system is very easy to use, but tedious when you have to add the same bulk of citations to perhaps 20 pages or more. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 11:54, 12 March 2017 (UTC).[reply]

@Neferkheperre: This is something which could/should be resolved with Wikidata as well. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:24, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is not so on Wikipedia, and it would not be so on WS. For example, the markup I demonstrated at the top of this section would be included in {{Hofmann & Tremewan, 2010}}, replacing the raw data currently there. The latter template's use on various WS pages would be unchanged. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:39, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Franz Xaver: I too dislike linking to PDF file directly from the title of the work. However, if we include the format= parameter things get slightly better. Broadband networks aren't common in all corners of the world, and while most users can easily download a HTML page with text and some images, not all users are comfortable downloading a perhaps 50 megabyte big PDF over their phone line or mobile phone. If we use the format= parameter it is easy to give a hint whether the file is a PDF document (or Word, Excel...), and most users know that such files can be significantly bigger than a webpage. The above example by Pigsonthewing would then render as:

Hofmann, A.; Tremewan, W.G. 2010. A revised check-list of the genus Zygaena Fabricius, 1775 (Lepidoptera: Zygaenidae, Zygaeninae), based on the biospecies concept (PDF). Entomologist's gazette, 61: 119–131. http://www.giraz.fr/docs/EntGaz_61_2_119-131_1288-Checklist.pdf. Reference page.

Thus clearly pointing out that the link is a PDF file. Regards, Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 11:59, 11 March 2017 (UTC).[reply]

It should be possible to add a PDF icon after links to PDF files, using CSS, as done on en.Wikipedia. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:05, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Tommy Kronkvist: Anyway, this does not solve the problem, that there may exist several options for access to the paper, e.g. Template:Fraga & Saavedra, 2006 or Template:Essi, Longhi Wagner & Souza Chies, 2011. I even have encountered the case, that (free) PDF files of the same paper were available from different places. --Franz Xaver (talk) 12:55, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed that's quite common, but shouldn't pose a problem. The {{Cite journal}} template already today includes separate parameters for url=, doi=, pmid=, oclc= and so forth, and it is not at all impossible to add one for BHL. We already have a {{BHL}} template that can be implemented in the {{Cite journal}} template. In the same way it probably wouldn't be too difficult to add "extra" url2=, url3= etc for any document that may be served from several different links. I'm not saying that I prefer the "Cite journal" template rather than any other method, but it is certainly possible to adapt it to our needs, should we chose to. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 13:52, 11 March 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Scott argues above that "Data from WS to WD should be a one way flow chart ie WS --> WD --> all other projects". That cannot happen, if data on WS is not in a structured (ie. templated) format. If the {{Cite journal}} template is not the solution, what is? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:05, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The main problem with the Cite journal-template is, that the input is machine-friendly but not very user-friendly (and the same is true for input of taxonomical data into Wikidata). If we want more taxonomists working for Wikispecies, we should focus on how we make it easier for unexperienced contributors. Maybe we could create a simple input mask for a reference, which does the formatting to structured data "in the background"? --Thiotrix (talk) 16:48, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Pigsonthewing: Andy, yes I said the above, in the same post I also acknowledged that more standardisation of the presentation of the data on our end would also need to be discussed. How we cite publications is one of these areas. Above I said the current EN WP {{cite journal}} template is cumbersome for many users. However, we have to do something. Now as @Dan Koehl: points out in another post this Wiki unlike many others has many highly specialised taxonomists who are not effectively career wikipedians and we need them more as editors than we do as programmers. Hence we have to create a template that they can use. Having built databases that deal with references in sql I know from experience that computers cannot auto break up a reference written as you would see it in a book or something, ie as a single text string, into fields corrosponding to a database struct. So the options are that it either gets done as you put the ref in ie with a template such as cite journal, or it is done afterwards by someone else. Maybe a combination would be possible. So those that cannot or do not wish to go to the trouble of the pre breakup template could use a template that would flag this reference as needing to be rewritten into a cite journal type format. Maybe a modification of the old ref code. If we were to make a simple template that has a beginning and an end similar to the ones we use to archive a discussion that reference, existing as a single string, could be flagged and an editor more willing and familiar with cite journal could come along and using a search on these templates could rewrite them later. This would meet the needs of all editors and what they are willing to do. Other than that, I think the cite journal should be rewritten somewhat to take into account some of the other issues outlined above. I would use it if it made sense to do so. The EN WP one does not. We need peoples expertise here, their expertise is not in Wikimedia but in taxonomy. We have to make some allowances for this. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 18:56, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Using {{Cite journal}} can be incredibly easy. Please see this tool. Give it a DOI and it spits out a a prefilled cite journal. Granted, the exact output doesn't match Wikispecies needs, and Wikispecies has a high reliance on sources that may not have a DOI. But it is possible to make tools that simplify the use of cite templates. Plantdrew (talk) 19:15, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed @Plantdrew: unfortunately unlike many pages WS requires the citation of original references, which are more likely not going to have a DOI and if are found anywhere online will be at Biodiversity Heritage Library. In fact one suggestion would be that a direct link to the paper on BHL be an option in Cite Journal. Probably instead of a DOI or PDF link. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 19:25, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

BHL mints DoIs for its content, for example http://dx.doi.org/10.5962/bhl.title.1141. If you enter the slug from that URI, 10.5962/bhl.title.1141 into the tool suggested by Plantdrewm, it will populate the template for you, as (for that example)

<ref name="DyarBusck1902">{{cite journal|last1=Dyar|first1=Harrison G.|last2=Busck|first2=August|last3=Fernald|first3=C. H.|last4=Hulst|first4=George Duryea|year=1902|doi=10.5962/bhl.title.1141}}</ref>

. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:01, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Only for titles that exiisted still when DOI's came into being. Such as the one you listed. Most BHL titles we use have no DOI. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 20:09, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You'll note I selected an example from 1902. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:03, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I saw, but its also a Journal that is still in existence. National Geographic 1st ed 1888 would also work this way. Cheers, Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 22:04, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

One reason why it makes sense to keep the input format of a WS citation template the same as those used on WS is so that such tools serve both audiences; and there's less of learning curve for someone who edits in both venues. It's also worth looking at the tools for citation entry on en.Wikipedia (including, but not limited to, those listed at en:Help:Citation tools), which make the use of templates easy. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:32, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I don't understand, why this discussion has been started. For me, and probably most other contributors to WS, the present reference templates are OK. I cannot recognize any problems, why we should make a change. (Are some of us just now trying to solve non-existing problems?) We had a poll on reference style - one of not too many points, where we have come to a consensus – and should continue with this. --Franz Xaver (talk) 19:41, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am most certainly with Franz on this discussion. Any changes would have to go back to vote - chances of consensual support could be slim IMO. Andyboorman (talk) 19:51, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I started this discussion because the current method, used in the first example I gave, is unstructured. The current templates may be "OK" for those using them, but they are not OK for anyone wanting to use the data in them programmatically (for example to export it to Wikidata, as Scott suggested). I wasn't aware, at the time of my first post on the topic, of the RfC on style and accept the points subsequently made about that (which Circeus seems to have mostly addressed), but it clearly did not address the use of structured data in templates. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:55, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I understand @Franz Xaver and Andyboorman: and you are correct the current template has community support and is accepted. As such for myself I support it. Their point is that it should be done in a way that conforms to other Wikimedia projects and can be data-mined for other projects such as WD. One thing we have to remember is the needs and wishes of the types and editors here, hence if any changes are proposed there needs to be valid reasons, they need to take into account the needs of our editors and it needs to be done properly. I get the point on making references more usable, but the why to do this needs to take into account the types of editors we have here. Hence I suggested the ref system I did above as a way of meeting everyone in the middle. However, I have seen no proposal to change anything here yet so am happy to discuss possibilities. But as Andyboorman commented, it will be difficult since it was voted on recently. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 19:58, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Other advantages of using templates like {{Cite journal}} are the COinS metadata I mentioned in my original post, and error-checking, such as warning abut invalid dates or DOIs/ISBN/ISSns. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:12, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I see it as inconsiderate for someone who doesn't make ref templates to suggest such a change. A few minutes of extra work per ref for an editor who makes several templates per session can amount to a considerable time and can deter him from editing here altogether. If we take into account the many thousands of "normal" ref templates we already have in our stock and which will need transforming to the new format, this proposed change isn't worthwhile. Mariusm (talk) 06:06, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For the avoidance of doubt, I don't give a flying proverbial what you think about "consideration". But I am not someone "who doesn't make ref templates", and in any case I don't think you can point to any policy requiring people to jump through that or any similar hoop before commenting here. Perhaps you will now restrict your comments to the suggestions made, rather than denigrating whoever made them - and, in particular trying to silence someone with whom you disagree, as you have now done three or four times in recent days? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:31, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Looks to me there are people spending more time at Village Pump that really editing. For me the way of creating templates at WS is simple, practical and faster. What is the sense of changing it? I use them as a source for templates at Spanish wikipedia, and I would love to be as simplest there.--Hector Bottai (talk) 17:26, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that right now most of the data in our citations is "Wikispecies only". We need to find a good way to both export and import the data to/from other sites, so that the information is interchangeable between the different services. That will make it easier and more errorproof to use the references both here and in the Spanish (and all other) Wikipedias. It will also help make the information more consistent throughout all of the Wikimedia sister projects. For example, today there are many instances of a species being listed as "Taxon One Author" in Wikispecies, and as "Taxon Another Author" in Wikipedias. Such mistakes can be easily fixed if we can find a good way to communicate the Wikispecies citations to Wikidata. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 20:26, 12 March 2017 (UTC).[reply]

"What is the sense of changing it?" As explained above; so that the data can be read by programmatic tools, such as Zotero; so that the data can be passed over to Wikidata; so that COinS metadata is emitted; and so that error-checking, such as warning about invalid dates or DOIs/ISBN/ISSNs, is possible. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:31, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Problems of reconciliation

It can be seen that using {{Cite journal}} is impractical here because of our focus. En.Wikipedia is very much footnote oriented, thus friendly to Cite Journal format. I have yet to see one footnote here on Wikispecies. That type of format is not used in taxonomy very often. Here, reference templates prove ideal. For Wikidata mining, our reference templates are opaque. Switching over will prove near-impossible, as pointed out.

This interesting DoI converter mentioned above could solve many problems. Figure out how to put it into our templates without cluttering up our citations, will greatly add to machine-readable data. It will never help publications with no DoI numbers possible. Some publishers, Taylor & Francis notably, retrofit DoI numbers to old articles. Neferkheperre (talk) 08:38, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"It can be seen that using {{Cite journal}} is impractical here because of our focus" No; that has not been demonstrated at all. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:32, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikidata mining

I hope you'll find a solution, but a "better" mining journal or article reference for Wikidata from Wikispecies shouldn't play a role hereby. --Succu (talk) 21:06, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Template error

These pages using {{Cite journal}} contain a redlink Template:Subscription needed. Anybody out there to fix that? --Murma174 (talk) 22:07, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:25, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. In my opinion the via= parameter shouldn't be wiki linked, since we are not Wikipedia. Thoughts? – Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 22:37, 12 March 2017 (UTC).[reply]

AIUI the use of that parameter is recommended best practice when editors use sources which are made available as part The Wikipedia Library - despite the name, which is used for clarity among potential donor organisations, those resources are equally available to WS editors. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:43, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I see. I've got no problem with the parameter as such but I'm a bit allergic to red wiki links, and creating Wikispecies pages for a bunch of publishing houses is way out of scope. Also, adding a w: prefix to the template to create a (blue) Wikipedia link instead is a rather dirty fix (if it's even possible). That being said I guess the {{Subscription needed}} template will probably be used rather infrequently, so it's not a huge issue. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 00:21, 13 March 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Yes; a w: prefix is probably the best solution. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:22, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback from data consumers

The issue has recently been mentioned on the Taxacom mailing list. Roderic D.M. Page (User:Rdmpage) said there:

One thing about Wikispecies which drives me a little nuts is the lack of standardised way to write references (compared, say, too the templates used in Wikipedia). Given all the interest in extracting citations from Wikipedia, is Wikispecies [likely] to adopt a similar template for citations, or is that wishful thinking?

and, subsequently:

At the moment the biggest obstacle I face is writing code to parse all the different ways contributors use to write references (and reference templates) in Wikispecies.

Also, it's worth bearing in mind the WikiCite initiative, which is " a proposal to build a bibliographic database in Wikidata to serve all Wikimedia projects". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:39, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if the mw:citoid service could address some of this need. It can process many doi and all PMID identifiers – basically, paste the doi and click twice to insert the ref. (Ping me; it's a busy season.) Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 23:44, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Been forgetting to look in here for a bit - one small point, the Entomologist's Gazette has a capital G (not as given above; see the journal's website). The incorrect decapitalising of journal titles was a Stho-thing, and needs checking for widely, unfortunately (can anyone set a robot to deal with it?). - MPF (talk) 00:49, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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