Wikispecies:Village pump/Archive 25

Wikidata edit

Happy New Year! Are there any ideas / concepts how Wikispecies will use Wikidata? In a few weeks Wikidata will be able to collect the basic infos (called "properties") for info boxes. You can add your suggestions & wishes here: d:Wikidata:Infoboxes task force/terms. --Kolja21 (talk) 02:27, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is my third visit here which seems to be roughly annual. The question above seems key. If you have 10s of thousands of new species then should yu not load them centrally. This would make wikispecies into the 2wikimedia commons" for species data. I actually came here to work out that if I'm labelling a botanic garden with QRpedia codes then should the visitor be taken to wikipedia or wikispecies. Ive loaded up a list of the 1900 species in "my" botanic garden and I'm wondering whether I get a better payback per click by using wikispecies or wikipedia. Any ideas or help welcome. See my recent load into my sandbox space for background. (It doesn't display well as I need to add some templates). Thanks for listening Victuallers (talk) 09:47, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please also see d:Wikidata:Project_chat#Include_Wikispecies_into_Wikidata. PiRSquared17 (talk) 22:57, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And I have replied on the page that it's a terrible idea given the lack of quality control for the incoming information. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 21:45, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Left a note on your talk page here. PiRSquared17 (talk) 03:20, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Illustrated Wikispecies Tree edit

I've created an interactive illustrated tree of life based on the Wikispecies data. You can check it out here. (See Village_Pump#Taxon_Tree, especially EncycloPetey's comments, for discussion of what such a tree can and cannot be.)

Apart from being fun to play with, one purpose this can serve is to help spot erroneous links on Wikispecies. For example, the plant family Melastomataceae is currently listed as containing Dionycha, which is a group of spiders. I've already corrected a bunch of these errors locally, so they're no longer visible in the tree linked above. However I wasn't sure how to go about correcting them on Wikispecies. Presumably what the person who entered "Dionycha" intended was something like "Dionycha_(Plantae)", so I shouldn't just delete the link, right? In any case, here is a list of erroneous links I noticed.

If you're interested in using this as a tool for verification, here is an uncorrected version based on the most recent dump (2013.01.05). Some further issues are also discussed there.

-- Lifetree (talk) 03:41, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That is really cool! Thanks for taking the time to make this. Best of all, not only does it actually illustrate the tree of life, it even helps us in identifying errors. But don't overlook archaea and virus (yes, I know viruses aren't considered as "living", but they are probably part of the tree of life). Do you happen to be User:Csparr? Also, do you mind if I post the link to the broader Wikipedia community? OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 04:22, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Glad you enjoyed it! No, I'm not User:Csparr. Actually, I've never edited Wikispecies. I just wanted to see what it would look like in this form. I'll try running the same code on Archaea, Bacteria and Virus when I have a chance. Although since those sections are so sparsely illustrated, the resulting trees may not be a good representation of their underlying structure. Sure, you can go ahead and post links broadly. The project is currently hosted on a server at my university, and I guess it should be able to handle the traffic (though it does go down from time to time). Ideally, I'd like to find a more reliable place to host this. -- Lifetree (talk) 05:12, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the links in the errors file linked to above are for homonyms and those links have now all been corrected (although the disambiguation of the page linked to is a more time consuming process for later. There are two exceptions. The first, Pertusaria globospora, was a case of host information listed incorrectly in the taxonavigation section, and that is now corrected. The second, two links from Tephritoidea, should be restored in your tree, because the links are actually correct, and I am not sure why they showed as errors. Koumz (talk) 16:56, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for correcting those! Ah, yes, the links from Tephritoidea are correct. It's the next links down that were the problem (Pyrgotidae>Osa and Richardiidae>Richardia). I've fixed these on Wikispecies and updated the errors file. -- Lifetree (talk) 23:53, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The interactive tree is extremely cool. I love the way one can zoom in or out with the mousewheel, and click to less- or more-inclusive taxa. I was playing with the large Fish taxon Ovalentaria on the tree, and noticed that it omits some major families (such as Cichlidae) and many small families (such as Phallostethidae). In comparing the Ovalentaria tree with the Ovalentaria page, I see that the groups omitted from the tree are those lacking representation in the Taxonavigation section as Ordines or Subordines. The omitted families are currently listed only in the Overview of families section. I see no easy fix, as the "traditional" Ordo (Perciformes) and Subordo (Labroidei) of the Cichlidae, e.g., have been shown to be non-monophyletic; therefore, these are not listed in the taxonavigation of Ovalentaria. Comparable problems, I suspect, afflict many other higher taxa (a temporary, but real, problem as our phylogenetic knowledge rapidly advances). MKOliver (talk) 05:16, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this feedback. Actually both the families you mentioned are represented in the tree... they just might not be where you want them. :) To take Phallostethidae as an example, you might think that since it's directly linked to from Ovalentaria it should be directly connected to that node. However it turns out that Phallostethidae is also linked to from Atherinoidei lower down the tree. Whenever my program runs into a situation like this, it hangs the node at the lower position. As for Cichlidae, it actually appears outside of Ovalentaria. This unfortunate decision is due to a similar problem. Cichlidae is linked to both from Ovalentaria and from Labroidei, so the program has to decide where to hang it. Since Labroidei is lower in the tree, it goes there. -- Lifetree (talk) 08:01, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For reference, the program is making use of both the Taxonavigation and the Overview links, and doesn't distinguish between them. Because it resolves ambiguous cases by choosing the lower position (as described above), "long" links from Overview sections usually end up getting pruned. -- Lifetree (talk) 08:01, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In order to understand the Ovalentaria case in detail, one needs to look at the pages themselves. Unfortunately, this case requires some special handling because the link to Cichlidae on the page Labroidei is in fact a notation about Cichlidae having been removed from Labroidei, so Cichlidae shouild actually not be placed under Labroidei, but under Ovalentaria (possibly we will move the notation at some point). We are keeping such notations for now because the Wainwright paper is new and we want to allow people some time to adjust out of the previous thinking. Koumz (talk) 14:57, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, that makes sense. Sadly, there's no way for the program to interpret any qualifications like "removed by Wainwright et al. 2012" that appear next to links. It's nice that this information is there, but I also wonder if it couldn't be reorganized to a different section of the page. The assumption my code makes is that links in the Taxonavigation section below the current taxon will be contained within it. For the time being, I've added Labroidei to the list of remaining issues here. -- Lifetree (talk) 16:43, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I've moved the Labroidei links to the talk page by adjustment of the note on the page itself. Cymatium was a blatant formatting error which is now fixed. As for Dictyozoa and other top-level taxa answerable to Thomas Cavalier-Smith, that situation is confused by multiple opinions (Cavalier-Smith's and others) and noone here wants to take time trying to sort it out (from what I can see), so those ranks are largely ignored here and likely to remain so. Koumz (talk) 17:05, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome, it's good to know that when I re-render everything using next week's dump, these kinks will be out. -- Lifetree (talk) 18:11, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Was looking at Pinaceae, and see there are 10 larches shown (~70% of the total) and 18 spruces (~60%), but only four firs (~10%) and just one pine (<1% of the total) - is it a formatting fault on wikispecies that not all of the species are shown, or does the problem lie elsewhere? - MPF (talk) 22:32, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, all this is "great fun", but we only have pages currently for about 5% of all species, so shouldn't that be our priority, or are we falling into the common trap of "let's develop ways to do cool things with data, and worry about actually getting the data later ..."? Stho002 (talk) 22:39, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's about making sure our data is accessible to users. This could potentially be a way of spotting missing taxa that should be added, but it isn't working as such yet. As for priorities on wikispecies, I'll gladly add taxa where I feel competent to do so, but in my areas of knowledge, wikispecies is closer to 95% complete, not 5%. However, good formatting is not so complete. - MPF (talk) 23:37, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, good for you! But one only has to look at pages like, for example, Curculionidae to see how incomplete the project is, even for genera ... Stho002 (talk) 02:40, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I figured out the pines problem. I'd been mistakenly ignoring some templates that inserted extra text into links (f, nothosubsp, nsect, nvar, sect, ser, subgplant, subsect, subser, subspforma, subspplant, subspvar, supersect, var). If I'd been working directly from the HTML, this wouldn't have been an issue... but I thought I'd spare Wikispecies the bandwidth and work from the XML instead. Anyway, I've fixed my code, and the graph for Pinus now contains around a hundred nodes (not online yet though). I'll rerun everything tomorrow from the ground up with all these corrections in place and update the web page. -- Lifetree (talk) 06:12, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It also shows how much work lies ahead. I just took a dive into dinosaur articles and found most of them did not have images on the page but the media is available elsewhere (hence many species don't show up on the tree of life). OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 07:21, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I left a message in the suggestion page for Wikipedia Signpost(a weekly newsletter). Assuming that they will pick up this story, the traffic would start coming on Monday or shortly afterwards. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 05:21, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The server hosting the life tree was getting really flaky, so I moved the project to another site. This newest version also fixes many of the problems people had noticed, including the issues at Ovalentaria and Pinaceae. Around 3,300 taxa that were not in the tree before have been added, including a bunch with names like "Pinus subg. Strobus" that I'd been mishandling before. Additionally, the tree now includes Archaea, Bacteria and Viruses. -- Lifetree (talk) 16:16, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! And for Stho002, the ease of spotting errors with it has prompted a lot of editing - MPF (talk) 17:50, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

One comment from Wikispecies mailing list. Someone suggested the svg diagram text on the website should accommodate small monitors.[1] OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 06:18, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for passing this along. For me it looks fine on a small monitor as long as Javascript is enabled for zooming with the mouse wheel. Zooming may not work properly in IE though. -- Lifetree (talk) 14:48, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The main content is now being hosted by Amazon, so the site should be faster and more reliable. -- Lifetree (talk) 14:48, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

350,000th article edit

Ladies and gentlemen, our project have reached 350,000 content articles (which include taxon authorities but exclude categories, images, userpages and other discussion-related pages). The 350,000th article was Tetramorium alpestre, created by User:Stho002. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 02:14, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Still only about 5% overall coverage at the species level on Wikispecies, so plenty of work left for everybody to do .. Stho002 (talk) 02:24, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It took us 451 days to get from 300,000 to 350,000 articles. That's way too slow. At the current rate, we will never finish because the describing front will outpace us. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 03:26, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

yes, at the current pace, the task is getting bigger, not smaller! Stho002 (talk) 04:23, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We should also take into consideration the question of what exactly is "a species coverage"? Is it enough to include the species name and authority? Should the original reference be mandatory; should a proper link and doi to the publication also be included? And what about the type material? I bet the majority of the species are containing only the bare-bones. This hardly has a useful value for anyone. For me, the quality i.e. the content is much more important than the quantity. Mariusm (talk) 05:26, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree in part, but the flipside of that coin is "why waste time on minor details when we don't even have any page at all for so many species?" ...Stho002 (talk)

Because less pages which have accurate and complete data are better than more pages with wrong or incomplete data. A single genus with all its species listed properly is better scientifically then 100 genera with half the data missing or plainly not true and not up-to-date! WS is not intended to be a show-off of species-numbers, but needs to make itself useful and informative. Mariusm (talk) 05:50, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree, but there is a balance to be had. My opinion is that name, author/date, original reference citation with link, and any really important recent references (with links) is sufficient for any species page, and anything more is pointless (except in the context of a special project) ... Stho002 (talk) 20:29, 15 January 2013 (UTC) PS: Copying stuff over from open access references is a particular waste of time ... Stho002 (talk) 20:32, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To be a useful source of information, WS needs to provide something extra in addition to the name/author. So many other sites provide the name/author stuff more comprehensively and accurately, that to engage merely in that bare minimum, is the real waste of time. You should ask yourself, why a researcher or information-seeker would bother to look at WS, and how can we attract this potential person to consult it and contribute to it more often. Lots of pages with no-one looking at them ... well, what's the use ... Mariusm (talk) 06:00, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, but didn't I just allude to the fact that THE REFERENCES are the most important thing?? Stho002 (talk) 06:05, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, but 80% of the pages either don't carry them at all or have them ambiguously. And Stho002, one more thing, please allow us a little breathing space, and don't enforce your dictatorship manner on anything you don't like. It is reaching a level where I feel you nominated yourself as the supreme chief of WS, and wouldn't tolerate anything which is contrary to your whims. Mariusm (talk) 08:17, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The mistake you are making is to consider them "whims" ... they are carefully thought out views, based on having made nearly 400,000 edits on this project ... Stho002 (talk) 02:57, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Returning to the "slowness" issue that this discussion began with: I wonder how much faster expansion of this wiki would be if there weren't such a toxic atmosphere created by users who can't seem to "work well with others"? Ah, well... perhaps we'll never know. - dcljr (talk) 07:55, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sister links edit

It looks as if you don't have much infrastructure for links to sister projects; is that right? I see a template for linking to wikisource, and one for wiktionary, but that's basically it. (I've just modified an existing, but nearly unused, template {{Wikinews}} to use the same style as {{Wikisource}} and {{Wiktionary}}.) --Pi zero (talk) 15:52, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Other than links to Wikipedia (through the interwiki links) and Commons (through template), I don't really see much need to connect to other sister projects. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 03:46, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if that's a comment on opportunities for relevant links from here, or on the importance of providing such links when opportunity arises.

Off hand, I'd guess in addition to the sisters I've already mentioned above, there'd be occasional opportunities for relevant links from here to Wikibooks and, conceivably, Wikiversity.

As for importance, none of the sisters can stand alone (despite a few Wikipedians' misapprehensions on that point). The entire sisterhood is stronger when the sisters support each other. At Wikinews, we're fairly aggressive about providing relevant (obviously) sister links, and we position them fairly prominently. --Pi zero (talk) 06:27, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wiktionary has etymologies and can provide translations. Wikicommons has organized many photos and other images into taxonomic categories. WP often has more current taxonomy than Wikispecies or, at least, an alternative view. DCDuring (talk) 01:26, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedian in Residence: Natural History Museum, London edit

Hi all,

The Natural History Museum in London is advertising for a Wikipedian in Residence, working jointly there and at the Science Museum next door; it's a paid post for four months, and applications are open until 10th February. I've worked with Ed Baker at the NHM to define the scope of the program, and it looks really promising - there's some real opportunities for interesting projects here. Details are available on the National Museums site, and there's some details about other upcoming UK residency programs here.

Please pass this on to anyone who might be interested, and feel free to get in touch with me if you've any questions (email or my enwiki talk page is probably quickest). Thanks, Andrew Gray (talk) 11:50, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is this only for UK citizens ? That does not seem to be specified anywhere. Shyamal (talk) 09:42, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

By UK law, it would have to be open to any European Union citizen. But presumably London residency is required. - MPF (talk) 01:35, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for not replying sooner! A UK work visa is required, but as MPF says that more or less means any European citizen (technically, citizens of all EU states bar Romania or Bulgaria at the moment). When I was talking to the NHM last month I brought up this point to make sure they were aware of it; we have a lot of non-UK Wikimedians who may be interested in it, and it'd be great if some of them have applied! Andrew Gray (talk) 23:24, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Erroneous Links edit

In putting together the latest version of my illustrated tree, I came across a bunch more erroneous links on Wikispecies. Mostly these are links accidentally going from an animal taxon to a plant taxon or vice versa. Since I won't have time to be working on this for a while, I've posted the list of problem links here, in case someone wants to go through and fix them. -- Lifetree (talk) 23:50, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nieuwe bestuursleden gezocht - Algemene Ledenvergadering 23 maart 2013 Vereniging Wikimedia Nederland edit

Block request for CorazonTh edit

CorazonTh (talk • contribs • block log • all projects)

Please consider blocking this pattern spambot. See m:User:Mathonius/Reports/Ntsamr for more information. Thanks, Mathonius (talk) 16:29, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Thanks for flagging this user to our attention. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 23:37, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Grant for consolidate wikiArS to involve Art Schools edit

Hi, this message is to communicate that I have submitted an Individual Engagement Grant (personal grants for projects that benefit the Wikimedia movement) to the Wikimedia Foundation that would allow me push the initiative wikiArS in the coming months, between spring and autumn.

Since last academic year (see Llotja and Serra i Abella) we are collaborating with Schools of Art and Design to generate missing images for Wikipedia (and publish it to Commmons) or outreach materials (and publish it to Outreach wiki). This year there are already seven schools contacted, 4 of which have already begun to work. With this Grant I could increase my time commitment to coordination and support to volunteers, consolidating the project. The idea is also to produce a travelling exhibition and supporting materials.

How can wikiArS help Wikispecies? Producing scientifically supervised images about species, especially the extinct ones. We've started with Llotja students drawing mammal pictures. In one or two months we could start to publish them.

You can read the IEG proposal here:

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IEG/Consolidate_wikiArS_to_involve_art_schools

Any comments or suggestions are welcome in this Village Pump or on the discussion page of the proposal. In addition, to the IEG succeed it needs the support of the community, so I ask you, if you find it interesting, to give your support in the Endorsements section.

Greetings. --Dvdgmz (talk) 13:07, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Spambots edit

Kszrmvvyt (talk • contribs • block log • all projects)
Ksuiifiwa (talk • contribs • block log • all projects)
Ksncfdxzl (talk • contribs • block log • all projects)
WillieLin (talk • contribs • block log • all projects)

Please consider blocking these spambots and deleting their spam. Thanks, Mathonius (talk) 00:23, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deletions done. I won't bother blocking them unless it happens again ... Stho002 (talk) 00:33, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FideliaMu (talk • contribs • block log • all projects)
ShannonBu (talk • contribs • block log • all projects)

Thanks for the deletions. I noticed two more spambots. It's a crosswiki problem, so I've already locked them and globally blocked the underlying IP's. Mathonius (talk) 18:15, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 23:53, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

About Kassina maculosa/decorata edit

Hello, I have a doubt about some synonymy, on Wikipedia's article en:Kassina maculosa, they say one of its synonyms is Kassina decorata (Angel, 1940), but that synonym is not here on Kassina maculosa. Maybe you can please check it (I have not idea about species), and maybe this category of Commons can be useful to illustrate your article on Wikispecies. Thanks. --UAwiki (talk) 16:25, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Using wikispecies as the source for Taxonavigation information in Commons edit

Hi,

There are a number of species-level pages on WikiSpecies which have images from Commons, but where the appropriate image category (and/or gallery) on commons is lacking a Taxonavigation template. Also, the classification used on Wikispecies could start diverging from that in the relevant Taxonavigation template.

Might it be an idea to insert appropriate metadata into templates such as {{Carabidae}}, to flag them up as for use in the Taxonavigation template. Then it should be (relatively) easy to automatically construct correct Taxonavigation templates for Commons categories using the classification in WikiSpecies. You could also use this to check on the accuracy of existing Taxonavigation instances.

Or is this all going to be replaced by WikiData?

HYanWong (talk) 16:26, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion request edit

Can an admin delete Cecropis daurica (a duplicate) please, so I can move Hirundo daurica to the vacated name so as to preserve the latter's page history. Thanks! - MPF (talk) 12:09, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 01:43, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! - MPF (talk) 09:05, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jaarplan en begroting 2014 Wikimedia Nederland edit

Dit Nederlandstalige bericht is geplaatst in De Kroeg of soortgelijke pagina op de projecten Wikipedia, WikiWoordenboek, Wikibooks, Wikiquote, Wikisource, Wikispecies, Wikiversity, Wikivoyage, Wikinews, Commons, Wikidata, Outreach in de bestaande taalversies Nederlands, Fries, Limburgs, Nedersaksisch en Zeeuws van deze projecten.
Dit bericht is in de eerste plaats bedoeld voor mensen die in Nederland wonen.
Voel je vrij om dit Nederlandstalige bericht te vertalen in het Fries, Limburgs, Nedersaksisch of Zeeuws.
De Vereniging Wikimedia Nederland ondersteunt onder andere het werk van de vrijwilligers die op Wikipedia of een van de zusterprojecten daarvan actief zijn.
Heb jij ideeën over wat Wikimedia Nederland wel of niet zou moeten doen? Wil jij invloed uitoefenen op wat Wikimedia Nederland wel of niet doet en waar Wikimedia Nederland geld aan uit geeft?
Een half jaar geleden is het jaarplan en de begroting van Wikimedia Nederland (WMNL) voor het jaar 2013 vastgesteld door de Algemene Ledenvergadering (ALV). Op basis daarvan is een subsidie aangevraagd bij de Funds Dissemination Committee (FDC) van de Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) middels een proposal form. De board van de WMF heeft de aanvraag gedeeltelijk toegekend in overeenstemming met de aanbeveling van de FDC.
Over een half jaar, dat is voor 1 oktober 2013, dient WMNL een proposal form bij de FDC in te dienen voor het jaar 2014. Net als vorig jaar wil WMNL dat doen op basis van een door de leden tijdens een ALV vastgesteld jaarplan en begroting. Tijdens de ALV van 23 maart 2013 is de volgende motie vastgesteld: "Het begrotingsproces dient zoveel mogelijk open en transparant te verlopen. Leden worden, zowel aan aan het begin van als gedurende het proces om tot een ontwerpbegroting te komen, om hun input gevraagd en actief betrokken," zie daarvoor ook de concept-notulen van de ALV 23 maart 2013. Op WikiZaterdag 4 mei 2013 presenteren de onderzoekers van Motivaction de resultaten van een survey gehouden onder gebruikers van Wikipedia. Dat onderzoek en de discussie daarover zal mede input zijn voor jaarplan 2014. Kom ook, en discussieer mee!
De pagina jaarplan 2014 op de wiki van de vereniging staat open voor ieders bijdragen met ideeën over wat WMNL wel of niet zou moeten doen in het jaar 2014. Wat wil jij bijdragen aan het bereiken van de missie van de Wikimedia beweging? Hoe kan de Vereniging Wikimedia Nederland jou daar bij ondersteunen? Laat daar van je horen. Ad Huikeshoven (talk) 10:12, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pages that link to "Dunn" edit

There is a mistake with taxonomy authority in Wikispecies and Wikipedia alike, where Dunn automatically redirects to Stephen Troyte Dunn, British botanist who worked extensively in China.

Somehow, Dunn is also a name used in herpetology for Emmett Reid Dunn, a U. S. herpetologist who was largely active at the same time with S. T. Dunn (especially 1910s and 1920s). See Cryptobranchoidea, Salamandroidea, Rhyacotriton, Xenodontinae etc. As a result these all link to botanist Dunn.

While I had originally believed I could correct this inconsistency myself, there are problems I found while checking relevant taxonomy web sites. Unlike in botany, there are a number of Dunns who may be responsible for animal taxa. I have to ask for help as I only got interested in taxonomy by accident while writing some biographies on Wikipedia. TIA Tar-ba-gan (talk) 08:03, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello: At present, there are two taxon authors "Dunn" listed in WIKISPECIES. I changed the Redirect page "Dunn" into a Disambiguation page "Dunn" which allows the differentiation. Kempf EK (talk) 18:23, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

- Thank you Kempf EK. I am wondering though what I shall do about Wikipedia in that respect. Also, aren't authors of zoological taxa supposed to have initials, as E. R. Dunn? Tar-ba-gan (talk) 05:55, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, authors in zoology, unlike in botany, are not cited with initials when citing their taxa... Stho002 (talk) 07:11, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - I am far from being a specialist in that but Wikipedia states the opposite. Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Code_of_Zoological_Nomenclature and other pages. Tar-ba-gan (talk) 16:18, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Initials are necessary when there are two different authors sharing the same family name, e.g. A. E. Brehm (author of e.g. Galerida theklae) and C. L. Brehm (author of e.g. Emberiza cineracea). Of Dunns, there is also the ornithologist Dunn after whom Dunn's Lark Eremalauda dunni is named, though I don't know if that Dunn is also a naming author - MPF (talk) 09:56, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As far as Ostracoda are concerned, there are several cases as well. For instance:
Cypris O. F. Müller, 1776
Eucytherura G. W. Müller, 1894
Elpidium Fritz Müller, 1880
--- Kempf EK (talk) 12:54, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Move request edit

Two moves that need an admin, please (edited redirects in the way):

Onychoprion fuscata to Onychoprion fuscatus
Onychoprion lunata to Onychoprion lunatus

Thanks! - MPF (talk) 14:29, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done! Mariusm (talk) 05:00, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Something's gone wrong, though - both pages redirect to each other now! MPF (talk) 08:16, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've done a temporary fix by copy-and-paste, but the page histories are at the redirects instead of where they should be - MPF (talk) 08:22, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

IP block exemptions flag request edit

Please, give me IP block exemptions flag because I run Tor node. I already have this flag in ruWikipedia and ruWikiquote. Caesarion (talk) 08:57, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 04:48, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Interwiki linking edit

I've noticed there are a lot of species type articles on en.wikipedia, and I'm wondering what the interwiki link is so that I can start adding links back to here and try and sync some of these articles up to improve the quality of the articles on both sites. Thanks, Technical 13 (talk) 00:52, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On WP, just put {{wikispecies}} to link back here. Here, we put [[en:{{BASEPAGENAME}}]] to link to WP ... Stho002 (talk) 02:33, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Link to this page edit

Could someone add a link to this page in the main directory, between 'Main page' and 'Community portal', please? It's a bit silly that the main discussion area for the project is only accessible indirectly. Thanks! - MPF (talk) 11:42, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think that involves editing MediaWiki namespace. Do you know which MediaWiki page is it? OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 19:15, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, not got the faintest idea! That's why I came here to ask ;-) MPF (talk) 22:13, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template request edit

Could someone make a reference template for the Euro+Med PlantBase, please? Something similar to Template:GRIN. It should be possible to link to individual taxa pages using the NameId= and PTRefFk= (both essential!) in the URL (e.g. http://ww2.bgbm.org/EuroPlusMed/PTaxonDetail.asp?NameId=19575&PTRefFk=7100000 for Arbutus andrachne). Thanks! - MPF (talk) 11:42, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Protection request edit

Please semi-protect Hoamseitn (incl. templates), the main page in bavarian language!

And maybe you could adjust the links to Hoamseitn in the protected pages, because I moved the page from Hauptseiten to Hoamseitn.

Thanks! --Bua333 (talk) 06:19, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 21:48, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Werksfeer en onderlinge communicatie zijn voor verbetering vatbaar edit

Dit Nederlandstalige bericht is geplaatst in De Kroeg of soortgelijke pagina op de projecten Wikipedia, WikiWoordenboek, Wikibooks, Wikiquote, Wikisource, Wikispecies, Wikiversity, Wikivoyage, Wikinews, Commons, Wikidata, Outreach in de bestaande taalversies Nederlands, Fries, Limburgs, Nedersaksisch en Zeeuws van deze projecten. Voel je vrij om dit Nederlandstalige bericht te vertalen in het Fries, Limburgs, Nedersaksisch of Zeeuws.
De Vereniging Wikimedia Nederland ondersteunt onder andere het werk van de vrijwilligers die op Wikipedia of een van de zusterprojecten daarvan actief zijn.
Onder de bewerkers van Wikipedia is aan het begin van dit jaar een enquête gehouden met uitndogingen via de banner op deze site. Het onderzoeksbureau concludeerde onder andere "Werksfeer en onderlinge communicatie zijn voor verbetering vatbaar." Wat kunnen we daar gezamenlijk aan doen? Het onderzoeksbureau deed enkele suggesties met de volgende aanbevelingen: "Het ondersteunen van huidige vrijwilligers en het mobiliseren van nieuwe vrijwilligers ziet de achterban als de belangrijkste taken van WMNL. Behoud is dus net zo belangrijk als werven. Met name wat betreft het behouden van vrijwilligers zijn verbeteringen te behalen door de vereniging, want ruim een kwart is ontevreden over de werksfeer binnen Wikipedia en ook ontevreden over de onderlinge communicatie tussen de bewerkers. Sommige pleiten voor meer toezicht vanuit WMNL, door bijvoorbeeld alleen geregistreerde personen te laten bijdragen. Ook zouden wellicht richtlijnen voor bijdragers kunnen helpen bij het verbeteren van de collegialiteit." Op WikiZaterdag 4 mei 2013 hebben de onderzoekers de resultaten van het onderzoek gepresenteerd. Graag ga ik over voorgaande het gesprek aan, bijvoorbeeld tijdens Wikipedia-café. De vereniging is in de gelukkige omstandigheid te beschikken over een budget van enkele honderdduizenden euro en heeft een kantoor in Utrecht waar inmiddels vijf enthousiaste mensen werken, mede om jullie bewerkers van Wikipedia te ondersteunen. Op WikiZaterdag 15 juni 2013 is er een brainstorm met bestuur, leden en vrijwilligers over voortgang strategie, voortgang jaarplan, ideeën leden en vrijwilligers voor activiteiten jaarplan 2014 en begroting 2014. Het bestuur van WMNL wil graag dat van onderop mede richting gegeven wordt aan de activiteiten van WMNL. Laat van je horen! Ad Huikeshoven (talk) 11:26, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Navigate taxonomy edit

Is it possible to navigate the taxonomy via (for example) Python? In other words, is the taxonomical structure available as a separate data structure or is it only stored in the Wikiarticles themselves? PanderMusubi (talk) 21:58, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The only thing that comes into my mind is this topic. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 16:53, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Try here - MPF (talk) 23:48, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

MPF, I think he meant the programming language called Python, not the snake. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 02:56, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Species of the week edit

Can someone correct 'color' to 'colour' (Australian species, so Australian spelling, not US spelling, applies). Thanks! - MPF (talk) 15:15, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but missed one, and also an 'honor' and an '-ize' or two to do ;-) MPF (talk) 20:42, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I look forward to the first Species of the week from the Hebrides. Will that be in Scots or Scottish Standard English? See w:Scottish English. DCDuring (talk) 16:22, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Misnamed taxon edit

Isopyrineae should be Isopyrinae AFAICT, -ineae being used for fungi and -inae being used for subtribes of plants, which Isopyrinae is, apparently.

Is there a template to mark such possibilities? Is there a different page to bring such things? The entry's talk page? I'm a Wiktionarian with little biological knowledge, but some familiarity with some linguistic aspects of taxonomic names. DCDuring (talk) 19:50, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Correction made, thanks for flagging it up. You can however make corrections like this yourself, use the 'Move' command (under the downward-pointing arrow next to 'View history' at the top of each page) and then correct the spelling in the box that comes up. - MPF (talk) 09:21, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I didn't see anything for moving that looked like what I'm used to at Wiktionary. I somehow expected that you maintained tighter control of things like page-deletes and -moves than I'm used to at Wiktionary.

BTW, at Wiktionary, I'm trying to include older definitions for higher taxa, whether or not they are in current use, based on our usual approach to inclusion based on usage, not the norm-following approach used here. And I'm trying to actively solicit vernacular names in local languages based on the reported range of the genus or subgeneric name. We have a translation-request template designed for such things. I still have a long way to go just to bring the very modest number (~10K) of taxa that we now have up to a good standard, with Wikispecies being at most two links away from any use of the name of a living thing in any Wiktionary definition. Please feel free to use Wiktionary in any way you'd like (within our scope, of course) to supplement the capabilities of the Wikispecies community. DCDuring (talk) 11:09, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Calling all UK-based Wikispecians edit

Hello Wikispecians! I am the (relatively new) Education Organiser at Wikimedia UK. I am particularly keen to get in touch with any UK-based Wikispecians. Please feel free to introduce yourself here, or directly on my WMUK talk page. --Toni Sant (WMUK) (talk) 15:43, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tony. Alan Cassidy, editing mostly on SE Asian butterflies. Also an Admin on WS. Living in Maidenhead, Berkshire. Accassidy (talk) 18:14, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Project Darwin edit

Wikispecies needs a new, cleaner interface to become a true reference for researchers and amateurs alike. Editing has to be simpler, and Wikispecies needs to be much more visual. We need a Project Athena like endeavour, which I'm calling Project Darwin I think that Wikispecies looks kind of "old" and makes it more difficult to find the information that we seek in its pages. We need to make the species pages more visual, with better, full res. pictures. We need to make bibliographie clearer and better (by separating peer reviewed academic papers from web links or vulgarisation books). A researcher has to be able to find immediately the papers published on the species, not the vulgarisation works done on it! I would love to discuss this project since I have quite a good idea of what it might look like. Pierre Estienne (talk)

90% of all species are of no interest to "amateurs" (i.e. too small and/or difficult to ID). I suggest you start your own wiki for birds, bears, and pretty shells! Stho002 (talk) 02:55, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

   That's right, but what about researchers? They need a very powerful tool to help them discover and describe new species faster

Pierre, I am not familiar with Project Athena, nor have you given a link to it, so I cannot make that comparison. All regular contributors to WikiSpecies in my area of interest (Oriental Lepidoptera: Lycaenidae)seem to be doing quite a good job. I'm not really sure what you mean by WikiSpecies looking 'old'; either it provides the information you want or it doesn't. "old" or "new" don't seem to have relevance if you are listing a species described in 1865 along with a citation of a reference from the same era which might be available on archive.org or the Biodiversity Library. I'm not sure I really know what you mean by "vulgarisation" books. Some comprehensive revisions appear in books and some peer-reviewed papers still occasionally turn out to be less reliable. The important thing is to include links to these references when they are available on the web. Most web resources quickly go out of date unless there is significant funding to keep them updated or unless, like the Wikis, they can easily receive updates from interested individuals, so links to other web databases seldom stay reliable indefinitely. The BMNH "Lepindex" database is one example of a good idea that has become outdated by neglect. Original papers, however, stay the same and most Journals published before 1922 are now available in web format. WikiSpecies has grown up using conventions for the layout of species pages and most contributors conform to these conventions. To change the style now to something that looks "new" would mean an enormous amount of work for very little gain. Far better for those with an interest to continue to add information and create new species pages in their areas of speciality than to try to reinvent the wheel while it is still turning. So I am rather against great revisions of format in favour of just getting more information out there. Accassidy (talk) 18:31, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

By old, I just mean the interface, the content is quite awesome I have to say. By vulgarisation I mean books for kids, etc... that don't really contain scientific information relevant for a revision but that nonetheless are interesting for some details of the entry. Being new here, I hope I'll have time to edit entries on species of my interest (Palearctic Cetoniidae). But I think that having a more refined interface would greatly benefit Wikispecies. Especially by putting the pictures front and center. Pierre Estienne (talk)

OK, we can add pictures where we have them, for example Catochrysops_panormus_insularis, but for many taxa good images are not available as they have been hidden in museums for ages. When reliable images are only available in non-academic books, it seems reasonable to cite them. Accassidy (talk) 08:12, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Have a look at eMonocot it may give you some ideas. Dismissing 'amateur' contributions to Wikispecies is somewhat arrogant, given some of the poor pages I have seen written by so called professionals that can not even be bothered to cite the original reference. When it comes to plants, 'amateurs' may often have a broader knowledge of a genus even if they may find it difficult to follow academic conventions. Also some web links are now the definitive sources, for example World Checklist of Selected Plant Families (just an example) for accepted genera and species of orchids, but unfortunately are self referencing and sometimes not easy to use!
I think would prefer to see an army of 'amateurs' filling in the blanks for the multitude of orchid species still left to be completed, well at least some work could get done! Dream on.Andyboorman (talk) 09:08, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Andyboorman. And e-monocot is quite awesome I have to say. A clean interface is needed for Wikispecies to become more easy, engaging to use. A new way to browse the tree of life could also be great. Pierre Estienne (talk)

Language edit

I think thath Wikispecies should be in more language, so it'll be more easy to consult. i'm sorry for how I've wrote but I'm not very very very good to speak and write English. --Apo99 (talk) 09:33, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Wikispecies is an annotated taxonomic database. It is international in format, and uses Latinised scientific names for all the entries, not English. Homo sapiens is understood to mean the same thing by scientists everywhere. Neither are the different headings on the pages exclusively English. Taxonavigation is in Latin, "Name" is understood in most languages, "Synonyms" is Greek (sunonumia), "Type" has equivalents in French, German, Greek and other languages, "Locality" is almost identical in French and Latin. "References" is also universally understood, and References are cited in the original language, e.g. Toxopeus, L. J., 1930. De soorte als functie van Plaats en Tijd, 198 pp., 4 pls. Amsterdam. (which happens to be in Dutch/Nederlands). So Wikispecies is not really in English at all, unlike this response to your question. Accassidy (talk) 18:47, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Geographic Distribution of Species edit

Dear All

I'm the Wikimedian in Residence at the Natural History Museum in London. I would like to know if there is any way of recording geographic distribution of a species on Wikispecies? I'm doing some work with some taxonomists and would love to use Wikispecies for this work.

Many thanks

Mrjohncummings (talk) 07:43, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are at least two ways to get some information.

One way is made possible, if a category was set up by a contributing person. If you have opened a species page, you may use the search possibilty and search, for instance: "Deep Sea Ostracoda". As a result you will get the list of species that are included in that category until now. If you are just searching for "New Zealand", you will get a much longer list of taxa of different groups of organisms, as Stephen Thorpe is a very active contributor to Wikispecies.

Another way is possible, if you are just searching for: "deep sea", and you will get a longer list of taxa of quite different groups of organisms. Other search possibilities are "nearctic", "palaearctic", "Gambia", "ostracoda freshwater", "ostracoda atlantic", "lepidoptera brazil", "lepidoptera brasil", "acer canada", and so on.

The "Search field" on Wikispecies pages is a very useful tool. The results will grow, as Wikispecies is growing. But it is especially dependent on the quality of the species pages. The information from Wikispecies pages on geographic distribution comes mainly from the information on "Type locality" or from the "References" section. And it is a pity that so many species pages are not founded on the original literature and don't give information on "Type locality" or "Primary references".

Kempf EK (talk) 11:29, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for the information, very useful. I'm going to do a presentation on the educational value of open licensing images for Wikimedia projects later in the week. Mrjohncummings (talk) 08:45, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Something which I've often thought wikispecies could do more to present, as distribution is a very important datum about a taxon. One option - where available on Commons - is to include a map as well as a photo of the taxon. This hasn't been done before much (if at all), but should work OK; I've added a map at Acer platanoides, as a sample. - MPF (talk) 09:23, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

John, Interesting to hear of your position. I have been an occasional visitor to the Dept. of Entomology for many years and have also been a contributor/admin here for 4 years now. I find this a very useful repository for information that can be updated easily and is clearly in the Public Domain. Occasional discussion with other editors is also a useful facet of the concept. Generally, I contribute to the Oriental and Australasian Lycaenidae, of which I have some experience. There are many such pages, but look at Rapala pheretima for an example. Distribution, as far as it is known, is dealt with by Type Locations for taxa, either current valid names or others in the Synonyms section. Distribution of a wider species can also be gained from the associated pages for subspecies. I understand that when WikiSpecies was established it was not intended to replace WikiPedia, which may well have more distributional data for common species, but to provide a taxonomic underpinning, so listing a wide range of locations without appropriate references could be controversial. Now that so many older papers are available on-line, looking up original descriptions has become easier, with less library time. WikiSpecies is a very useful repository for the arrangement of species-group names and is much easier to consult than labour-intensive cardex systems, which in any event are only available where they are housed. How useful would it be if this became an accepted repository for the results of all academic research (barring the occasional taxo-wars that occur between certain authors...). Alan Accassidy (talk) 15:15, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have been adding distribution maps to taxon (and vernacular name) entries at Wiktionary to try to coax more local-language vernacular names out of Wiktionary contributors. It may have some of the same value here. I look forward to the day when there is a regular process for sharing vernacular names between the projects. DCDuring (talk) 16:32, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Would it possible to add some links to your work so that we have examples. Here is a link to Caladenia a genus of orchids http://species.wikimedia.org/wiki/Caladenia and http://species.wikimedia.org/wiki/Neottia_cordata which is a species without a map of its distribution. Thanks Andyboorman (talk) 10:29, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As an aside, the distribution list of countries at Neottia cordata was very hard to read through; a more bulleted list by continent would be easier. I've tried to improve it a bit, but it could be further improved. - MPF (talk) 00:08, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As the original contributor, I like what you done with Neottia cordata, much improved and helpful for those species with s wide distribution. Andyboorman (talk) 07:39, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We must be careful not to go the way of GBIF, etc., where every species page automatically has a map of the world, but mostly without any points plotted on it! Stho002 (talk) 00:18, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed! Or even worse (as also seen at GBIF) a map showing dots for every museum / garden / zoo with specimens (dead or alive!), not distinguished from the taxon's natural occurrence - MPF (talk) 00:24, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Circular links edit

On quite a few pages I'm finding linked original names which just link back circularly to the page one is on; e.g. at Meles meles, under the synonyms it has the note "Original combination: Ursus meles", where clicking on that link doesn't take you anywhere different, just staying on the Meles meles page by redirection. My inclination is to remove these circular links since they don't provide any value. Why were they put there, and what do others think? - MPF (talk) 19:58, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can't think of a situation whereby a synonym would link to anywhere else, so it would appear that to put the synonym in square brackets was a waste of time, as you suggest. I don't know how to stop people doing this, however. In you case, it is almost certain that there used to be a page Ursus meles but that the person making the synonym then changed that page also to be a redirect. The mistake is putting the synonym in brackets. Suggest you delete them when you come across them. Accassidy (talk) 21:21, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I checked the page history of Ursus meles, it was made specifically as a redirect in the first place, and then linked from Meles meles straight after that - so it was intentional. - MPF (talk) 21:38, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is no harm in these circular redirects. In this example, we need to make Ursus meles link to Meles meles, and seeing it as a blue link is the quickest way to see that this has been done. I strongly suggest people don't waste time removing circular links when that time could be far better spent adding new content ... Stho002 (talk) 22:49, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, there is harm in them, in that they encourage people to click on the link, expecting to get taken to a new page, and get baffled when they (apparently) just stay on the same page. Very misleading, and a poor reflection on the quality of the site. Circular links are strongly frowned on in other wikipedias, and usually deleted on sight. - MPF (talk) 00:05, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of circular redirects may be a reason for present contributors to stop contributing. In addition, they are discouraging qualified scientists to become new contributors to WikiSpecies.

The same is even more true for normal redirects. There are situations where a redirect is necessary. But it is damaging the good idea of WikiSpecies, if thousands of redirects are produced, just to link to the latest combination. Pages of former combinations, often with important information on type locality or references are then hidden for the normal user of WikiSpecies. Authors of such redirects seem to have no real practice in taxonomical work. They should know and keep in mind that each new species or new genus is nothing more than a proposal. Time together with the development of new possibilities of research will judge, whether it will be accepted, or not. We don't have a patent office that accepts new taxa and gives them a stability forever. Taxonomy isn't a one-way system!

Blue links should be used instead of redirects, so that forward and backward ways are possible. We often have publications with ecological, geographical, or stratigraphical information connected with a former name of a taxon that was in use for 10, 20, 50, or even more years. We should think of those people, we are expecting to make use of WikiSpecies. Kempf EK (talk) 12:59, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am the author of the circular link in question. In my opinon the redirection of names is a core feature of Wikipedia and Wikispecies. In zoological nomenclature especially the original combination is the clue to detect and to prevent homonymy. Other historical combinations are not so important, because they have no permanent nomenclatoric status and may be left away as separate pages. If some bear taxonomist had the idea to describe a new species as Ursus meles he might be alerted by the existing page, that this name is not available any more. The same applies for historical descriptions from the literature. See for example Chrysomela elongata. Every original combination page may become a disambiguation page at some time. Other information such as literature references should not be included in combination pages, but better under the species page itself. Whether the original combination should be presented by a link or not, is a question of taste. I mainly see the advantages Stho002 mentioned, but I will leave the linkage out in the future, if this is disturbing to other users of Wikispecies. Kheller (talk) 07:24, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to plead for the extensive use of redirects when dealing with synonyms in certain circumstances, particularly for plants. For many sub-familial taxa there are numerous synonyms, for example Orchidaceae, and there are no or few specific pages for these synonyms, indeed much still needs to be added for accepted species anyway. In this family there have been a lot of recent changes leading to a need to alter existing pages where they exist and, of course, the original details need preserving. Much of this can be handled by incorporating these original details into the newer pages. However, the major advantage of redirects is that it allows a user searching Wiki-species using a synonym to go straight to the relevant page where they can see the currently accepted details, as well as some information about the synonym they used in their search. However, I appreciate that this only really works if the evidence used in the re-circumscription is cited in the list of references! This may not always be readily available, unfortunately. Andyboorman (talk) 07:44, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are missing the point of this thread. It is not about pages for synonyms, it is about these being linked to on the very page that they redirect to ... Stho002 (talk) 08:07, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK that's not the impression I got reading through much of the above - the thread has been made over complicated maybe? Andyboorman (talk) 09:57, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sprekers gevraagd voor Wikimedia Conferentie Nederland, Wikipediadag 2013 edit

Wij nodigen iedereen met een interessant idee voor een presentatie, discussie, workshop, poster voor de postersessie of iets anders van harte uit om een voorstel in te sturen. De voertaal tijdens de conferentie is Nederlands, maar ook presentaties in het Engels zijn welkom.

Lees verder op http://www.wikimediaconferentie.nl/oproep-voor-sprekers/ Ad Huikeshoven (talk) 19:44, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki-key edit

Has anybody created or considered creating a wiki based taxonomic key? Zman10110 (talk) 03:54, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yep: http://www.keytonature.eu/wiki/Wiki_key_examples ... Stho002 (talk) 04:01, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be defunct, though: "This page was last modified on 26 December 2010" - MPF (talk) 19:21, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Re MPF: That date only applies to that specific page. But you're pretty close. I don't see much recent activity in that wiki. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 17:46, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Its a shame there's no wiki standard for setting up a more modern system of keys such as the 'bayesian' one on ispot (www.ispot.org.uk/keys) so one can search the tree by entering known information without getting stuck by an unknown fact. This could be initialised with questions relating to primary classification (eg number of legs would help distinguish subphyla within arthropoda). If editors of articles at deeper levels could be encouraged to include some defining features appropriate to the level of the classification branch they were working at in a machine extractable format, the key could be generated automatically. Then even non-experts of a particular branch could more easily search and utilize wiki-species, which would also encourage greater numbers of users and ultimately encourage growth of the wiki. David, 21:00, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Species templates edit

I have been editing on Wikispecies now for more than two years. Ultimately I have been scanning the oldest described animal species by Linnaeus in his Systema naturae 1758, wich I tried to format in a standardized manner. The species pages troughout the classes and families, I came up with, were found to be quite different. How about the idea to fix still more a standard format of species pages by using templates? One major criticism of WS has been the lack of compatibility with database based projects. I appreciate the flexibility of the Wiki concept, but would prefer the increased use of templates. Two years ago bibliographic templates were still very rare, but have augmented a lot since then. Now it seems the time for species templates, which may eventually be extended to genera and higher taxa as well. My first proposal can be observed here User:Kheller/Taxobox. (The current user page template will of course be moved to a regular template if it is accepted.) Has anybody ever made a similar intent, which I have eventually overlooked? Can a consensus about the template concept be found? Details are to be discussed of course. In a previous thread for example circular links were discussed. With templates a link for the original combination can easily be added and deleted on all pages. Looking forward for your feedback, ideas and discussion. Kheller (talk) 22:14, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In broad principle, I agree, but there are details which need a lot of thinking about. I think this may be a bit premature. I would much prefer us to make the adding of useful content top priority, and we can worry about these issues later ... Stho002 (talk) 23:33, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A comment on frwiki about wikispecies edit

Hello,

Here is a comment on an article on the french Wikipédia about Wikispecies. In english: "how may I consult Wikispecies offline". Litlok (talk) 13:13, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Atrypa : taxonavigation + fossil edit

Hello, I've just created the page Atrypa but I don't know how to include 1. the taxonavigation ; 2. the fact that it is an extinct genus. Thank you very much. Cordially. Christian COGNEAUX (talk) 21:45, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done Christian COGNEAUX (talk) 21:53, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Abricta curvicosta edit

Hello, not edited much on this part of Wikimedia but I've stumbled across Abricta curvicosta and wondered what to do with it. It seems to have been copied from somewhere (maybe en.wikipedia) and doesn't fit the usual Wikispecies format. Delusion23 (talk) 19:24, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, page deleted. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 03:12, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The page it now redirects to Aleeta curvicosta needs a template (I'm not familiar with the species, so don't know the classification for it) - MPF (talk) 08:29, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Changes made - Kempf EK (talk) 13:39, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Global Abusefilters edit

Hi. A trial deployment of the global abusefilter function is active since one month now on Meta, mediawiki.org, and the test-wikis m:testwiki: and m:test2wiki:.
We stewards would like to propose that this wiki gets added to the testing as well, in order to have a wider range of test cases, so that the development of the function can proceed to allow better fighting of crosswiki vandalism and spam.
To be clear, the filters which are currently enabled for the testing of the "global" function do nothing except logging the caught edits on Meta. If at anytime the testing should be extended to further abusefilter functions, like disallowing edits, - or if the global abusefilter function should finally be deployed truly globally - we will ask the affected communities again whether they want to opt-in or opt-out. Best regards, --MF-Warburg (talk) 15:11, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, it was enabled on 11 Sept (see bugzilla:53537). --MF-Warburg (talk) 21:12, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Concept jaarplan en begroting 2014 Vereniging Wikimedia Nederland edit

Een jaar geleden is een subsidie aangevraagd bij de Funds Dissemination Committee (FDC) van de Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) middels een proposal form. De board van de WMF heeft de aanvraag gedeeltelijk toegekend in overeenstemming met de aanbeveling van de FDC.
Voor 1 oktober 2013, dient WMNL een proposal form bij de FDC in te dienen voor het jaar 2014. Net als vorig jaar wil WMNL dat doen op basis van een door de leden tijdens een ALV vastgesteld jaarplan en begroting. Tijdens de ALV van 23 maart 2013 is de volgende motie vastgesteld: "Het begrotingsproces dient zoveel mogelijk open en transparant te verlopen. Leden worden, zowel aan aan het begin van als gedurende het proces om tot een ontwerpbegroting te komen, om hun input gevraagd en actief betrokken," zie daarvoor ook de concept-notulen van de ALV 23 maart 2013.
De pagina jaarplan 2014 op de wiki van de vereniging staat open voor ieders bijdragen met ideeën over wat WMNL wel of niet zou moeten doen in het jaar 2014. Wat wil jij bijdragen aan het bereiken van de missie van de Wikimedia beweging? Hoe kan de Vereniging Wikimedia Nederland jou daar bij ondersteunen? Laat daar van je horen.

Prioriteiten

In het concept jaarplan zijn de volgende prioriteiten voor het jaar 2014 door de directeur benoemd. Het bestuur heeft op basis van een onderlinge peiling de volgorde van de prioriteiten bepaald.

Meer vrijwilligers en meer bewerkers mobiliseren. Inzet van kantoorcapaciteit vooral op de activiteiten die hieraan maximaal bijdragen.
Verbeteren van de interactie met de Wikipedia-gemeenschap.
Inhoudelijk focus op één of twee (nieuwe) thema’s buiten het traditionele GLAM-bereik met groot potentieel om nieuwe bewerkers en vrijwilligers te werven
Bestendigen en verder uitbouwen van huidige relaties met grote GLAM instellingen; selectief/kritisch zijn bij het honoreren van nieuwe verzoeken tot samenwerking.
Verschillende doelstellingen op het gebied van communicatie met het grote publiek, leden- en donateurswerving aan elkaar koppelen door middel van één grote publiekscampagne.
Verkennen van de mogelijkheden om op het terrein van educatie actief te worden, leidend tot een beslissing over het al dan niet ontwikkelen van een programma op dit terrein.

Er zijn diverse manieren om te reageren op concept jaarplan en begroting 2014. Uiteraard per mail, maar ook op:

Wikizaterdag 31 augustus is er de mogelijkheid om over concept te praten met enkele bestuursleden
5 september 2013 bestuursvergadering, vaststellen concept dat naar de ALV gaat en het formulier voor de FDC-aanvraag
15 september 2013 uiterste inzenddatum laatste amendementen voor behandeling tijdens ALV
21 september 2013 de ALV stelt jaarplan en begroting 2014 vast

Gelet op het doel de interactie met de Wikipedia gemeenschap te verbeteren, vragen we ook aan de leden van de Wikipedia gemeenschap om hun vragen en opmerkingen bij het concept jaarplan 2014. Het gaat ook jou aan. Laat van je horen. Ad Huikeshoven (talk) 10:34, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Angiosperms and APGIII edit

The clades and orders listed under Angiosperms do not always follow APGIII and are a bit of a mess in places. They sometimes seem to be a mish-mash of APGII and other formats. I propose we tidy this up using; Angiosperm Phylogeny Group (2009) "An update of the Angiosperm Phylogeny Group classification for the orders and families of flowering plants: APG III". Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society 161: 105–121. pdf file and updated information on the APGIII website. This will mean replacing terms such as Euasterids I with, in this case, the APGIII alternative fabids and also getting rid of 'Unassigned' groups. There will be other edits as required. Does anyone have objections? Andyboorman (talk) 16:36, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Seems sensible to me. Also nice to be rid of that silly name Eurosids (which always looked like a group of people named Sid, from Europe). - MPF (talk) 18:03, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In 2009 Mark Chase and James Reveal published; Chase, M.W. and Reveal, J.L. (2009) A Phylogenetic Classification of the Land Plants to Accompany APGIII, Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society, 161, pp. 122-127. This gave the option of a formal classification for all land plants including Angiosperms, which for example did away with eurosid, euasterid, etc. and uses Superorders , such as Asteranae Takht. (1967) and so on. However, this does not appear to be universally accepted - is this worth pursuing? Andyboorman (talk) 10:11, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, definitely. Formally published ranked names are greatly preferable to unranked clades. - MPF (talk) 00:27, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Het voorlopig programma van de Wikimedia Conferentie Nederland is bekend! edit

De Vereniging Wikimedia Nederland ondersteunt onder andere het werk van de vrijwilligers die op Wikipedia of een van de zusterprojecten daarvan actief zijn.

Het voorlopig programma van de Wikimedia Conferentie Nederland is bekend! De conferentie is een mengeling van plenaire sessies en workshops waaruit iedereen zijn eigen programma ‘op maat’ kan samenstellen. Voor vaste bezoekers van deze website is deze dag een unieke gelegenheid om verhalen te horen over wat er om gebeurd rond Wikipedia en om andere vrijwilligers te ontmoeten. Kom zaterdag 2 november 2013 naar de conferentie en schrijf je vandaag nog in. Ad Huikeshoven (talk) 06:42, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Stem" as a taxon level edit

There are a few templates, easily found with search, that use "stem" where probably "clade" is meant. I'd have changed them if I were more sure that my surmise is right. DCDuring (talk) 01:23, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We really need to elimate all "clades" and "stems" from WS, as we are very much a Linnean system ... Stho002 (talk) 02:47, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Does that apply to Plantae, which uses the APGIII system down to family level? There is a way of converting APGII to an approximation of a Linnean system, but it does not really show the true nature of phylogenetic relationships and is a major move away from the spirit of APGII anyway. To banish clades completely is counter to current consensus surely, as this uses a mixed classification? Andyboorman (talk) 12:34, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, perhaps, but isn't 'clade' just another word for 'group', and so without any confirmed rank level within the hierarchy? A Family could be said to be a 'clade', and so could a Genus. Accassidy (talk) 12:55, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, but in contemporary classification a clade is a group of organisms that are agreed as monophyletic. In most incidences this can equate to a formal 'Linnean' taxon, such as accepted genera, but not always, for example commelinids or even monocots and eudicots. However, it is difficult, at the moment, to advise abandoning these 'informal' steps in the hierarchy as one moves down from the Regnum to the species, particularly if it forces artificial paraphyletic and even polyphyletic divisions. The debate continues I guess, but resolution gets closer and closer as new or resurrected 'formal' classifications are agreed that match informal 'working' monophyletic clades. Should Wikispecies reflect this, as work in progress, and modify itself as consensus arises in the wider community? Andyboorman (talk) 21:33, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Changes to Plantae edit

There have been changes to Angiosperms posted by Stho002 that I view with some trepidation. These have abandoned the APGIII system almost completely and have done away with the natural monophyletic clade divisions, namely angiosperms, monocots and eudicots and so on. Getting rid of accepted, familiar and useful terms is itself controversial. It also seems to force a misleading and inappropriate hierarchy as well. Of course these are the nub of the debate, which many have simply sidestepped in favour of the more liberal APGIII approach until a better formal classification has been agreed.

Incidently, the term Familiae incertae sedis on the Magnoliopsida page is definitely not to be recommended, as their phylogenetic and taxonomic status is not uncertain. It is a misleading and inappropriate use of a term that is meant to be a stop gap until relationships are clarified. For many of these families there are no accepted Ordines, or if there are, usage just generates a large number of monotypic high level taxa, which is redundancy and could be considered as not helpful. We tend to use the terms Unplaced Families or Unplaced Orders for those taxa that are hierarchically equivalent. In terms of a formal hierarchy it is difficult for an order, family and genus to be equivalent, but for plants nature knows different.

Those interested may want to read this paper, where Chase and Reveal propose a formal classification significantly different to the changes put into place by Stho002. Chase, M.W. & Reveal, J.L. (2009) A phylogenetic classification of the land plants to accompany APG III. Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society, 161, 122–127. An online copy can be found at Chase and Reveal. It is hierarchical and more or less matches APGIII as well, but I have not seen it used widely. It is perhaps too radical with all 'land plants' (embryophytes) changing to Class: Equisetopsida C.Agardh, Classes Pl.: 7. 20 May 1825. and angiosperms to Subclass: Magnoliidae Novák ex Takht., Sist. Filog. Cvetk. Rast.: 51. 4 Feb 1967. (not Magnoliopsida). It does however, meet the needs for strict formality and if Wikispecies is to change perhaps this is the way forward for plants? The main Plantae page will need modifying as will many others including numerous templates!

In my opinion the reinstatement of an older formal classification for angiosperms down to family level, selecting one without justification or consensus, from the suite that were available, is a retrograde step and is not one I can support. 14:33, 18 October 2013 (UTC)Andyboorman (talk)

Prijsuitreiking Wiki Loves Monuments 2013 tijdens de Wikimedia Conferentie Nederland op za 2 november edit

De Vereniging Wikimedia Nederland ondersteunt onder andere het werk van de vrijwilligers die op Wikipedia of een van de zusterprojecten daarvan actief zijn.

In 2011 en 2012 is een Guinness World Record gevestigd met de fotowedstrijd Wiki Loves Monuments. Zou er in 2013 een nieuw record gevestigd zijn? Aanstaande zaterdag 2 november vindt de prijsuitreiking plaats van de fotowedstrijd Wiki Loves Monuments 2013 tijdens de Wikimedia Conferentie Nederland. Voor vaste bezoekers van deze website is deze dag een unieke gelegenheid om verhalen te horen over wat er om gebeurd rond Wikipedia en om andere vrijwilligers te ontmoeten. Tijdens de conferentie is er Wikipediales voor beginners. Onder leiding van Sandra Rientjes, een ervaren mediator, zal er een gesprek gevoerd worden over de sfeer op Wikipedia. Er zijn in totaal 20 lezingen in drie tracks. Een track Wikipedia achter de schermen, een track over Wikipedianen aan het werk en track met vakdeskundigen over Wikipedia. Kom zaterdag 2 november 2013 naar de conferentie. Het aantal inschrijvingen loopt hard. Zorg dat je erbij bent en schrijf je vandaag nog in. Ad Huikeshoven (talk) 21:23, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Old English mainpage edit

Hello,

Would someone please rename Hēafodsīde to Hēafodtramet since we're in the process of renaming all OE mainpages to the latter?

Also, please make it so that the templates and such have "Ænglisc" instead of "Eald Englisc".

Thanks,

Espreon (talk) 16:21, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:OhanaUnited, User:Stho002, would you mind doing this? I was going to ask a steward, but I'd rather have a local admin do it. PiRSquared17 (talk) 04:24, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --Vituzzu (talk) 23:55, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Help pages, formatting and examples edit

It would be really helpful if the Help pages were updated to reflect current practice on Wikispecies. For example, I notice that there is often a "Primary references" for the original description, which is set apart from "Selected references". This seems like a good practice, but it's not documented anywhere. User:OhanaUnited mentioned the lack of up to date formatting guidelines in this discussion Wikispecies talk:Administrators#Administrator Stho002 (talk). User:Stho002's response was essentially that hashing out a consensus on formatting guidelines was a waste of time. I'm not at all interested in arguing about what guidelines should be adopted, but I'd like to see more formal guidelines and would be happy to follow them, whatever they are.. Stho002, there is a de facto consensus already; do things your way or get reverted. I'm fine with that, but please take the time to write out what your way is so that editors can try to follow your ideal formatting right away. In the long run, this will save time reverting incorrect formatting and avoid edit wars.

I'd also like to see an "ideal" example page. Wikispecies:Templates suggests that Panthera tigris is ideal. It would probably be better to construct a hypothetical example page (not in main article space) that shows all of the information that potentially could be included in a real taxon page. Maybe it could be a fossil parasite (so host and stratigraphy are part of the type data), with an earlier homonym (to show how replacement names are formatted). Make the example reflect as much data as might appear in the most complete Wikispecies page, and illustrate nomenclatural complications (synonymy, homonymy, changes in rank/placement, etc.). Plantdrew (talk) 17:11, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Plantdrew. I'm a little bit puzzled why someone who has not involved themselves very much at all here should suddenly turn up and start "calling the shots", but, no matter, let me stick to the actual point and try to answer your questions. It is an understood consensus here that the primary concern is with content and utility, not with formal guidelines. In other words, there is latitude for both formatting a new page and for changing the format of already created pages. If it adds something to the content and/or utility of the page, then there is no problem. As for an example "ideal" page, we are not idealists here, we are realists. More new species get named every day than we can keep up with, so a page is perfectly fine if it (1) contains no errors, and (2) contains useful information (most importantly reference citations with links wherever possible to at least the reference abstracts if not the full articles). Higher classification, as you well know, can be problematic, but I try for a pragmatic approach. Unlike Wikipedia, the main focus here is on the species and genera. Therefore, the pragmatic approach to higher classification is appropriate, wouldn't you say? Cheers, Stho002 (talk) 19:43, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Plantdrew. Wikispecies inevitably tries to cover a very wide spectrum of taxa, from the fossils to all living biota. Traditions of taxonomy are not uniform across this wide spectrum of organisms, and trying to fix a standard for all things will mean that most layouts are sub-optimal. Stephen Thorpe and I have both been on here a long time and made large numbers of page contributions. When I first started I looked at the layout prevalent in my area of expertise, and the recommended layouts for similar animal groups, and settled on a style that is both practical and largely standardised, making as Stephen says pages that actually work in their own context. 99.9% of my contributions are in the Oriental Lycaenidae and you can easily scan lots of pages under that Family and see how well the system works for butterflies. It would probably need amending for orchids or fossil bacteria, but very few people will want to use WS as a reference tool for such widely different groups. Anyone trying to find out original description data, synonymies and recent taxonomic changes can do so from any of my pages. This is what makes WS useful for others. Look for example at Rapala micans and see the sort of information that is available in this sort of format. As Stephen also said, adding new content in a format logical to the class of organisms concerned is far more important (and useful) than trying to make "standard" templates for such a diverse field of activity. Thanks for your interest. Accassidy (talk) 22:18, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also, editors here a wide range of abilities. Accassidy is up there with the best of them, but some others are not so, particularly newbies. If we standardise things with the bar set too high, they we alienate some editors and scare off newbies. If we standardise too low, then we cannot benefit fully from the greater ability of the likes of Accassidy. It is working just fine as is, thank you very much ... Stho002 (talk) 22:32, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also, User:OhanaUnited is basically our governor, so I refer all administrative matters to him, and I suggest that you do the same. I am happy to discuss matters relating to content only Stho002 (talk) 22:37, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. Like Plantdrew, I'm a regular editor of botany articles on English Wikipedia, but I'm also done a modest amount of work on sorting out ferns here (which I'm happy to say has led to a steady stream of corrections in TROPICOS, incidentally). I think all of us who regularly edit on en.wp are aware of the warts (to put it mildly) on its social processes. I certainly agree that we don't want a culture to grow up here as has arisen around the Manual of Style there, where you have a group of editors whose entire interest seems to revolve around writing elaborate formatting rules, forcing them on articles, and savagely attacking editors whose needs aren't well served by those rules. I'm glad to hear that Wikispecies recognizes that animals, plants, fungi, fossils, etc. will all have different needs in terms of what content a page will contain and how it is presented.

That said, I'm having a terrible time parsing what seem to be some very contradictory messages here. If suprageneric classification is largely peripheral to Wikispecies, why did Stho002 suddenly feel it was necessary to shift plants from the widely-used APG III to a "pragmatic" classification based on the "New Zealand inventory of biodiversity"? To convert it to a fully Linnaean system without unranked clades? Why not use the Chase & Reveal classification mentioned by Andyboorman a month before the changes made to Angiosperms? How is "We use a Linnean system for animals (and Fungi), so we should use a Linnean system for plants." to be reconciled with the acknowledged non-uniformity across the tree of life?

We're told we shouldn't worry about formatting, because editors in different taxonomic groups will format in a way logical to that group. Yet at Template:Thambematidae and Thambematidae, I see Stho002 edit-warring with the editor who actually wrote the pages over what appear to be solely formatting issues. Obviously it takes two to tango, but why was this escalated to such a level?

What he says obviously goes here, and I, like Plantdrew, can work with that: he is, after all, a professional taxonomist, and I am not. But telling people there are no rules, and then reverting them repeatedly, for not following the rules that, if they exist, are not written down, does a great deal more damage to newbies than simply writing the rules down in the first place. This is not a request on my part for mob rule or a stifling system of style rules or paralysis by consensus. I can get that at en.wp if I want it. But if we have to "have to evolve and experiment with formatting and content, learning by trial and error", then we should be doing what we tell every science student to do, which is to document our experiments. I am sure that he has a clear plan and vision in making the changes he does--the tremendous amount of work he's put into the project is evidence that he sees it going somewhere--but in a collaborative environment, a vision that isn't articulated to others is of little use. I know some of my questions above sound like "gotchas", but I'm having a lot of trouble understanding the context of why some of these changes were made, and being able to grasp the big picture would be helpful and encouraging. Choess (talk) 02:10, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is all looking increasingly like an attempted coup d'état. Choess, you are throwing out a whole load of vague issues in the fashion of a machine gun. If you want answers, you will have to go more slowly. You seem to be a fern guy (or girl), so perhaps you could point out to us all any particular aspects of our fern pages which you object to, and why? Stho002 (talk) 02:36, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hah. I don't have the energy for a coup. You needn't worry; and in any case, given the volume of your contributions here, any resolution that caused you to leave here in anger would pretty much gut the site, which make a "coup" a pointless victory. To be brief and composed: it is clear from past history that there are some issues of style that you feel strongly about, enough so to revert multiple times when people disagree. If these issues were documented as guidelines, we could follow them and avoid giving offence. That is the gist of it.

I am well aware that it will take me until the end of time to finish describing Aspleniums on en.wp, which is why I do it there. Here, I try (slowly; I haven't had much time for either website of late) to work through adding the usual taxonomic information for some of my favorite genera, and names from more recent fern literature that may not have reached secondary sources. It seemed to me this was what would be useful here; perhaps I was wrong. I'll go add a few more. (And I thank you for your compliment on my fern pages.) Choess (talk) 04:08, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings Plantdrew-- There's not much I can add to the points in the above replies to you, with most of which I heartily agree. In the groups I've worked on most here (fishes and beetles), the formatting is not rigidly standardized, and probably never should be for reasons already mentioned. When a far higher proportion of taxa are represented here than is now the case, the priority can shift to niceties like cosmetics and a modicum of standardization. Editing bots can make large numbers of changes fairly painlessly, but creating pages for the hundreds of thousands of taxa still missing is and should remain the clear priority, imo. MKOliver (talk) 02:43, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, MKOliver has hit the nail on the head, as we say! Please bear in mind that we currently have far fewer than 400,000 species pages, out of some 2 million named species (with more new species named every day). Our priority is to get basic pages created for these species, with useful references and links. I actually see WS as primarily a structured library (e.g. ISSN_1175-5326/2013.4). I see that Choess has created some very good and detailed pages on WP for some fern species, but to do that for all species of everything would take millennia! But if Choess wants to do that, then fine, he can do that at WP, and he doesn't have to come here, where we have other priorities. Where's the problem??? Stho002 (talk) 02:52, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I quote Choess from WP:

[Quote]I followed up on your comments at WS, which will probably end badly for me. It's too bad—I think the project has potential as a taxonomic "framework" and source repository for us to follow as we write—but there's obviously a severe vested contributor issue. And I really don't have the energy or enthusiasm for some sort of governance brouhaha at Meta. Choess (talk) 03:35, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[Unquote][reply]

"source repository for us to follow as we write" ... hmmm ... that's not how we see ourselves here, is it guys? Stho002 (talk) 06:16, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you find objectionable about that. Because Wikispecies articles just have basic taxonomic data (name, authority, type, synonymy, etc.) and a list of references, Wikispecies articles should, mutatis mutandis, exist for a species before a Wikipedia article does. That's very convenient as we write Wikipedia articles, because that information and those references make it easier to set up a short article as we begin. So if a genus has been completely "articled" here on Wikispecies, the Wikispecies articles act as a framework to nucleate the growth of Wikipedia articles on those species as time permits. I don't think that precludes other functions for Wikispecies, but I'm still, generally, having difficulty figuring out what the project's self-image is.

What I find objectionable about that is the "oh they may be a bit useful to us, so let's let them continue, at least for now" connotations. WS is not simply a "feed in" to WP, we are streets ahead of WP in a lot of this stuff (nomenclature, referencing). I also object to the explicit "us and them" dichotomy. Stho002 (talk) 19:29, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On a related note, I added two fern articles last night, as penance for running on so much about governance issues. You made some changes in the formatting in the first, which I tried to follow in the second. (Do you prefer to have all references made into templates now? I had been doing it just for ones that seemed likely to be used in multiple articles, but I'm happy to go further.) If I made some sort of "best practices" template for an example fern article in my user space, 1) would you object? and 2) would you critique it in point of style when ready ? Again, my intent is not to dictate over style, but simply to obtain some assurance that I will "do it right" the first time. Regards, Choess (talk) 15:42, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reference templates are extremely important, as they can always be used more than once (e.g. at least on the author publications page, the journal contents page, and one or more taxon pages, etc.) At this stage, I simply don't care about fine points of style for the template (though it should link, wherever possible, to authors, journal, and to the article itself if online). Using a template makes it easier to change the referencing style down the track, anyway. Stho002 (talk) 20:54, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As my name has appeared in this discussion I feel I need to add my twopence worth. My concern with Stho002 when he got rid of 'Angiosperms' and subsequent discussions with him was that a simplistic Linnean system could be seen to have removed information from the plant pages of WS compared to animals for example the already quoted excellent Lycaenidae, which uses a mixed cladistic and Linnean classification. APGIII is so embedded into my psyche that when threatened I had to do a double take to say the least. I agree with Stho002 that we need to concentrate on missing pages. However, my next point is that in two areas that I have worked Poaceae and Orchidaceae the existing content is/was very poor indeed. Both areas were extremely out of date. Up to 10% of genera were not accepted and as many as 30% of species were either synonyms or spurious and referencing non-existent, dead links or so badly formatted as to be useless. A lot of time is required to right the old wrongs before getting on with new material! Finally I would suggest that spats do not help and a softly softly approach will not put off contributors. By the way I will continue to use the full scientific names for plants, if that is OK? Andyboorman (talk) 14:40, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Again, I'm not interested in some massive political revamping of the project or in creating a Style Police. I do think that new contributors would best be attracted by having good examples for formatting and style as it's been worked out in the different taxonomic areas, rather than having to learn by inference as their contributions get tweaked. An overabundance of rules is stifling, but people are most comfortable when some structure exists. Choess (talk) 15:42, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If I can help (not an Admin by the way)? Perhaps have a look at our (Thanks to Orchi) Orchid pages such as Subfamilia Epidendroideae you can see how we evolved a style to suit that family. No reverts so we must please! Also we had a number of key up to date references; books, papers and online resources. We evolved a number of templates that pick up the page name, which really does help a lot. My ref formats follow a modified/simplified Author (Date) Harvard system as found in the majority of peer reviewed papers. Starting with and using the most recent and full sub-family classification really did help bring in the newer evidence and also target the most up to date accepted genera and species (lots of deletes for existing pages!). Do you want me to look at one of your pages for comments?Andyboorman (talk) 16:58, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

When I was working here previously on Stapelianthus species, I was interested in making well developed pages (including type data, citing original description and authoritative monographs). And there is a lot of editorial effort here in making well developed pages. Another editorial approach would be quickly banging out minimal pages; nothing more than species name, authority and a reference to a (reasonably) authoritative database. The existing guidelines document the quick and dirty approach pretty well, but don't help very much with slow, high quality approach. I'm not asking for rules/policy, but at least some formal documentation of a suggested style. I like the BMNH link on Rapala varuna. I can't imagine that linking the institutional abbreviation would be controversial (I'm not suggesting it be mandatory). An example page could document this practice. I'm mystified by the lack of a (documented) general template for citing scientific journals. Templates for specific publications are certainly valuable. If there are multiple accepted formats for citing journals, make multiple templates. I'm not picky about citation style, and would prefer to just be able to pick a template that produces a consistent format rather than trying to manually format references consistently. Plantdrew (talk) 19:47, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If people follow the existing guidelines, then the pages they create will be minimally sufficient and unproblematic. There is no need to change the existing guidelines. Some of us will, however, try to upgrade pages so created to a higher level of sophistication. I'm so glad you are not "picky about citation style", because you are just one person here among many, so I'm very glad you are not trying to "call the shots". WS citation style is vastly ahead of that at WP (which is really holding WP back). One important thing we need to prioritise here at WS is the consistent use of reference templates linked to pages for each journal. Stho002 (talk) 20:17, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

PS: The referencing on Stapelianthus is terrible. I will fix it up now. Check the diffs to see my changes Stho002 (talk) 20:18, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, it was worse than I thought! You had cited the wrong ISSN for the Bruyns & Klak (2004) reference! It was the ISSN for Taxon. I'm far more concerned with these sorts of errors than I am with minor formatting issues. You also didn't link the reference to the article (on JSTOR). Stho002 (talk) 20:24, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You "called the shots" and improved the my references. Thank you. I have absolutely no interest in "calling the shots". I just want some guidance ahead of time, so I know what the "shots" are. I sincerely apologize for getting the ISSN wrong; it was quite some time ago, and I have no memory of how I might have made that mistake. You made a template for Bruyns and Klak. Making templates for individual references isn't well documented; poking around various pages today, I found some use of templates for Zoo Taxa references, but most references were entered manually without templates. I can see why this is a good practice, but it's not something I was able to readily discover from browsing articles and guidelines now (let alone 5 years ago when I made the page). I didn't link to JSTOR; linking to JSTOR isn't documented. I didn't link the journal title to an ISSN page here on Wikispecies. Making these kind of links isn't documented. I'm not sure how you could call my referencing terrible (before you found the incorrect ISSN, which is pretty terrible), when none of the template/linking practices you implemented are documented and indeed aren't even followed on most of the pages I've looked at today. You made one change to the spacing from how I had the reference, removed the month of publication, and added some links. These issues were apparently important enough that you had to fix my edits, but not important enough to be worth documenting as good practices anywhere? Plantdrew (talk) 22:51, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Given that I was editing some serious issues on those refs anyway, I made a couple of unimportant format changes to better bring the format in line with the way I have been doing things. Nothing to get uptight about. Also, I didn't "remove" the month of publication, I just moved it to a better position (on the ref. template page, but not showing every time the ref. is cited on taxon pages). I was really the first editor here to seriously employ reference templates, which is why a lot of pages don't have them (they predate my employment of them, or they are written by editors who can't cope with them - there is at least one who immediately springs to mind). I do not wish to make reference templating compulsory. Accassidy has recently chosen to adopt ref. templating, following my lead, and the more who join in the better, as it improves the data structure of the site (and allows links to content to be changed once if URLs change). Anybody who doesn't think to add a link to the actual article, when one exists, e.g. on JSTOR, or wherever, because doing so "is not documented" is a complete mystery to me .. Stho002 (talk) 23:08, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good referencing on WS is essential (unlike WP?) and should ideally follow academic citation conventions found in reference lists of peer reviewed journals, although I feel minor details in formats are not a major issue. I also like to follow (more or less) citation guidelines found on sites such as WCSP, Tropicos, Plant List and so on - it is more than being polite it is acknowledging the hard work of third parties. There are some great templates so use them and also have fun by making your own using existing templates as a guide. Species really ought to have the original publication in full surely and at least Tropicos and IPNI as secondary sources? For genera, as a minimum, I always cite the sources I use to compile the list, name and synonyms, and add papers where there have been recent changes, although often these are better up the taxon tree. I am currently not too hung up on ISSN and JSTOR, but perhaps I should be? But do try to add links to sources where full free copies can be found. With referencing I am with Stho002, completeness, accuracy, relevance, quality and also pragmatism are five good friends. Andyboorman (talk) 19:20, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All good Andyboorman. Just a minor point of disagreement, but I tend to think that the most important part of a reference citation is the link to the actual article. Even if it is behind a paywall, you can usually at least read the abstract. Many of our users (such as myself) will have access to institutional subscriptions to JSTOR, etc. The imporatnce of ISSN is simply to try to create a browsable library for each journal, so that we can keep track of what needs adding from that journal, e.g. ISSN_1175-5326/2013.4 Stho002 (talk) 20:17, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Of secondary sources, just a caution, that ITIS and the Plant List are both decidedly unreliable (ITIS very out-of-date and US-centrist; the Plant List with numerous factual errors); I'd definitely recommend avoiding them as sources. No lists are infallible, but for plants overall, GRIN seems to be the best (though incomplete, particularly for tropical taxa), and for European / SW Asian / N African plants, the Euro+Med PlantBase is very good. - MPF (talk) 00:26, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to think we should slowly work to eliminate secondary sources altogether from WS. Once all the species in a genus (for example) are verified against primary sources, there is no need to cite secondary sources, except to highlight when they have got it wrong! This puts us in a much stronger position than the "sheep" over at WP, who actually are policy bound to use secondary sources in preference to primary sources! Stho002 (talk) 00:33, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting point, but I'm not sure if it is a good idea — primary sources are often shown by secondary research to be incorrect. Secondary sources like the Euro+Med PlantBase are a useful guide to what is valid. If we only used primary resources, we would include every plant under its basionym, regardless of whether it has been transferred to other genera by secondary research, or shown to be a synonym of another taxon, or whatever. Or am I missing something in definitions here? - MPF (talk) 01:23, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, no! I was meaning primary vs. secondary sources in the sense that a reference which recombines or synonymises is still a primary source (and this is particularly true for botany, where these are Code regulated nomenclatural acts). By secondary sources, I just mean things like the Plant List, ITIS, or published checklists (except in so far as they make taxonomic changes) Stho002 (talk) 01:40, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Yep, misunderstood the difference you meant. There's a slight problem though in that lists like these are by this definition often the primary result of elsewhere-unpublished research (e.g. a.f.a.i.k. both GRIN and the Euro+Med PlantBase make some primary decisions on synonymies in their lists) - MPF (talk) 09:57, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If a list does make a formal change, then it is a primary source for that instance. I don't see that as any sort of "problem"? Also, although I'm not fully versed in botanical nomenclature, I think I am right in saying that a formal synonymy cannot be made on an online database, and certainly not in things like CoL or WoRMS which our "colleagues" over at WP seem to love to follow. Stho002 (talk) 21:04, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Of formatting references, yes, it's good to be consistent, but a fairly low priority; when I'm editing a page for any other reason I usually format the refs (to the same format that most journals like e.g. American Journal of Botany use), but don't edit pages just to format the refs and nothing else. - MPF (talk) 00:26, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All 'lists' are imperfect, some more so than others. I tend to favour WCSP as a first general stop, but it is not comprehensive and Tropicos and IPNI are good validity checks. Perhaps The Plant List 1.1 out soon will be a giant leap in the right direction as its CSV files are really useful downloads. I will check Euro+Med PlantBase more often, but have had bad experiences with GRIN so avoid it. We all seem to advocate the need to double if not triple check and of course be circumspect. The strength and USP of WS is the increasing use of primary sources, which is so important as the recent combined phylogentic and morphological studies have upset so many taxonomic apple carts. Also let us not forget that referencing also acknowledges sources of information and gives others signposts to take their searches forward. It is good to see consensus emerging. Andyboorman (talk) 11:25, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bryophyte monophyly edit

At WP, this was written:

Regarding bryophyte monophyly, RealityCzecher (User:Stho002) is mistaken. He found two oddball papers to support an a priori position which has not been accepted as a serious claim against the overwhelming consensus opinion of the bryological community that the bryophytes are paraphyletic. See, for example, the summary paper introducing the "Bryophyte Biology" collected papers volume published by the Cambridge Press, p135-137, which summarizes the literature with, "A monophyletic concept of bryophytes has gained little support in recent years...[Most] studies resolve bryophytes as paraphyletic, too, but differ in the position of hornworts..." Regarding the two papers User:Stho002 found suggesting monophyly, one was a flwed study, in which gene sequences were converted to phenotypes prior to comparison, so the data was processed, signal hidden, and then analyzed. The other included only 5 bryophytes in the study, which runs a huge risk of long-branch attraction, and misplacement of the root. Neither of these papers was published in a major systematic journal, and both run contrary to recent research with much larger data sets, e.g. those in "Molecular Systematics of Bryophytes" (vol 98) published through the Missouri Botanical Garden. I'd raise the issue on Wikispecies, but User:Stho002 is not amenable to discussion. He has ignored/refused to discuss his changes, choosing to block instead to win his little edit war. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:16, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Since I have been blocked from editing WP, I cannot comment there, so I do so here: In this recent special publication (von Konrat, M.; Shaw, A.J.; Renzaglia, K.S. (eds.) 2010: Bryophytes: The closest living relatives of early land plants. Phytotaxa, 9: 1–278.), the authors state [quote]A broad consensus confirms that bryophytes may not be monophyletic, ...[unquote] (see 2nd sentence here: http://www.mapress.com/phytotaxa/content/2010/f/p00009p010f.pdf). This is rather different to EncycloPetey's claim that there is an [quote]overwhelming consensus opinion of the bryological community that the bryophytes are paraphyletic[unquote]. They may be paraphyletic. Even if they are paraphyletic, there is still no convincing reason why a useful paraphyletic group cannot be retained on pragmatic grounds for our purposes here at WS. We can tag it as possibly paraphyletic, but still use it. Over at WP, they can decide what they want to do, but they do not decide what we must do! WS has slightly different scope and goals to WP, and retaining Bryophyta may be more in keeping with our goals here than theirs at WP. Again, they don't dictate what we do here! Stho002 (talk) 22:25, 20 November 2013 (UTC) Stho002 (talk) 22:25, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Boletus chrysenteron edit

Hello, Would someone renames Boletus chrysenteron into Xerocomellus chrysenteron, its current name ? With best regards Gtaf (talk) 20:39, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't work like that. You will need to give us citations which trump Index Fungorum Stho002 (talk) 20:43, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The primary references cited at Xerocomellus look to do so; I'll investigate further when I've got some time - MPF (talk) 10:02, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Yes, Sutara describes in this paper why he creates Xerocomellus chrysenteron. Gtaf (talk) 20:04, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, agreed the current Wikispecies Boletus and Boletaceae pages are following a very outdated taxonomy, and need extensive revision; Šutara's paper and Nuhn et al. are useful starting points. First work here is to create the Xerocomellus genus page, and also change Xerocomus from a redirect to Boletus into its own genus page; second is to sort out all the species into their new genera. It's a big task, but please feel free to get on with it ;-) MPF (talk) 12:23, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We still have the problem that Index Fungorum does not appear to recognise the combination as valid. We need to make sure that there isn't a good reason for that. Stho002 (talk) 20:02, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The research looks sound, from what I can see. Just reactionaries in charge of the Index? Or (perhaps worse?) an unreformed disdain for East European taxonomic research based on the poor quality of pre-1991 research behind the Iron Curtain? Do they have contact details where they could be asked? MPF (talk) 21:49, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Addenum - note the comment on the Index main page "All these databases need to be improved and updated in terms of data content" - looks like they recognise it isn't up to date. MPF (talk) 21:53, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Index Fungorum does recognize Xerocomellus chrysenteron, in addition to Boletus chrysenteron. It's a simple database error that has both combinations are treated as current. Plantdrew (talk) 20:38, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Stho002 (talk) 20:59, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Gtaf (talk) 13:00, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

MAJOR NEW FORMATTING PROPOSAL! edit

Dear colleagues, I have been working behind the scenes for some time to develop a better data structure, and I think I have now made a major breakthrough! Please take a look here. You should not notice anything particularly unusual! HOWEVER, if you click on authority/date for any name on the page, you get redirected immediately to the relevant publication page! So what, I hear you ask?! Well, there is a major difference between references which are cited purely for nomenclatural reasons, and selected references that are actually useful and informative about a species. I propose that we only cite the latter on species pages, i.e., only the most important references, under the heading of 'Selected References', so that the reference list doesn't get swamped with uninformative incidental references (as it does on automatic sites like BHL). Nomenclatural references will not be cited on species pages (unless, as in this case, they are also useful and informative), but will be linked from species pages to the reference page in the manner that I have done so here. What do we think? Stho002 (talk) 04:00, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Potentially interesting. I made a couple of small formatting changes to improve appearance, but it could do with a couple more on the Template:FNZ page (rm comma, bold and brackets, add colon after volume number):

[[ISSN 0111-5383|''Fauna of New Zealand'']] {{{1}}}: [http://www.landcareresearch.co.nz/publications/books/fauna-of-nz-series/extracts/fnz{{{1}}} extract and pdf]<noinclude>[[Category:Reference templates]]</noinclude>

so as to appear with the normal formatting (e.g. Am. J. Bot. et multo alii) Fauna of New Zealand 61: 79

It would also be better with the external links after the page reference, not before. - MPF (talk) 09:52, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have undone your changes, as they are "nitpicky" to say the least (no offence, but really!). Reference formatting is extremely variable overall. Perhaps you only look at references in one particular area? Stho002 (talk) 21:08, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You speak of nit-picking in derogatory terms, but while it could be argued that Pediculus humanus is part of biodiversity, I personally would not wish to be carrying a population of them. So I regard nit-picking in a more favourable light ;-) Yes reference formatting is extremely variable overall, but I thought the whole point about this exercise was to make it more uniform for ease of use, and ease of comprehension? I am well aware that reference formatting is equally variable between different scientific journals, but any single journal is always consistent internally in its usage, and I think wikispecies should at least consider being so too. The Am. J. Bot. example I suggest is certainly visually the most easy to follow (colons rather than commas between volume and page, as commas between them can be confused with sequences of pages), and probably also overall the most widely used format in scientific journals. As an aside, decidedly sad that en:wiki has chosen a particularly ugly format used only in arts world to use right across the board. - MPF (talk) 21:51, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Now you're being pediculus! :) Seriously, I think we need to find a balance between sloppiness and total nitpickery. I have no wish to purge my colons (so to speak!) or whatever on all the many many thousands of references I have created here. At any rate, I fully agree that WP referencing format is absolutely appalling! Stho002 (talk) 21:55, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen, Some bits of it I might adopt. I have also made a couple of changes:

1. Surely the "Original Status" does not need the word "valid" alongside. All authors think that whay they are writing is valid. So the original status just needs to be "genus, species, subspecies" or whatever.
2. As you quote the original genus then you should add the reference template to that paper at the bottom as well, in the selected refs.
3. Lastly, as the ref templates already have a link to the ref template page, it is redundant to link to that same page in the author statement in the Name section. I think it would be better here to link to the Author page B. A. Holloway, although this is yet to be created. This link would tell about the author, not just about the single reference template.

Regards, Accassidy (talk) 18:30, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alan, I think you may have missed the point?! I hate to say it, but I very strongly disagree with everything you just said! Specifically:

1. This wasn't part of the proposal! As a matter of fact, the Code allows for some names in the old literature to be available even though they were originally proposed as junior synonyms (or conditionally proposed). There aren't many examples, but it does mean that the original status does not have to be "valid" in all cases.
2. Absolutely not! The original genus reference need not contain anything worth reading about the species. But, if you click on the author/date hyperlink associated with the original genus, it will take you directly to that reference page.
3. This was the major part of my proposal you have just poo-pooed! In this case, the Holloway (2007) reference appears in the 'Selected references' section, because it is informative and important about the species. In many cases the original reference will be old and uninformative, and will not appear in the 'Selected references' section. It will only be linked to in the 'Name' section. Please note that the reference template is linked to the author page B.A. Holloway (which does exist, by the way!), so you go from 'Name section' to reference page to author page, rather than directly from 'Name section' to to author page. Stho002 (talk) 21:19, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This example may be more illustrative? Here, the original reference is useless for anything other than nomenclatural purposes, so isn't listed under 'Selected references'. The only reference worth citing is Holloway (2007), which itself contains all previous relevant references anyway. Stho002 (talk) 21:41, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In general terms, I'm trying to emphasize more important stuff, and de-emphasize less important stuff. The big sites like BHL rely on automated methods, so, if you do a BHL bibliography for a taxon name, you get everything the site can find with that name in it, with no regard for importance. This can be a real problem for old names of widely published about taxa. We do have a slight problem in that the nomenclatural details in the 'Name' section dominate the page, but we should maybe think of putting them in a show/hide box, as we did with 'Taxonavigation'. Stho002 (talk) 23:34, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly oppose to eliminating the main references (i.e. the original description refs.) from the relevant page, and leaving the links only. It is the spirit of Wikipedia as well as common sense to show the most important references and not hide them as mere links. Mariusm (talk) 16:44, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm with Mariusm on this aspect, as this is the key source for every taxon. I take the same view as if writing a paper and list at the end of the page every reference that I have mentioned to in the Name and Synonymy sections, and even in any Discussions. Accassidy (talk) 17:54, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I too agree wholeheartedly with Mariusm that [quote]It is the spirit of Wikipedia as well as common sense to show the most important references and not hide them as mere links[unquote]. That is EXACTLY what I am trying to do! BUT, typically, the original description is NOT the main reference/key source. The original description of a species described in a paragraph of Latin by Fabricius in 1775 is NO WAY important enough to give a prominent place to on the page. A modern redescription of that same taxon is important enough ... Stho002 (talk) 19:58, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

PS: I strongly urge you to very think carefully about user needs, in an environment which is, behind the scenes, getting more and more "competitive" between independent projects and factions. We need to provide something for users that they find useful and which other sites don't provide in such useful form. BioNames is creating links from names to original descriptions in a semi-automated way. I'm not saying that we shouldn't do that as well, but it should be secondary. As far as I can see, becuase most other sites rely on automation, none of them highlights the most important/useful references for taxa, because it cannot be automated. We need to make that our primary concern, if we want to survive in the medium to long term Stho002 (talk) 20:39, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stho002, there's no way you can convince me that the original reference shouldn't be included on the species page. All your rhetoric won't mask the fact that omitting this cardinal piece of information stands in opposition to our aim here. Bear in mind that WS IS NOT your private site, and you can't decide such a cardinal modification on your own. Mariusm (talk) 06:24, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The problem, Mariusm, is that what you are saying doesn't make any sense. The fact that I started a thread to discuss this, indicates beyond any doubt that I am fully aware that I [quote]can't decide such a cardinal modification on your own[unquote]. As I tried to explain above, the original reference IS included on the species page, it is just that it is hyperlinked. I am therefore clearly NOT [quote]omitting this cardinal piece of information[unquote]! The point, again, is that very often, the original reference ISN'T a "cardinal piece of information", but merely a nomenclatural technicality. However, I am still including it, but via a hyperlink. You haven't said anything to undermine my argument, but I suspect that you are trying to undermine me ... Stho002 (talk) 06:37, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is also very strange that you should be making such a big deal of original references, when you don't even bother to create links to them (on BHL, etc.)! On the other hand, I AM adding links to original references Stho002 (talk) 07:11, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As an example of what I mean, Linnaeus, 1758 is by no means an important/informative reference for Homo sapiens (or for much else, come to that!), it is simply a nomenclatural technicality. We should still link the name Homo sapiens to the original reference (Linnaeus, 1758), but we should do so only by hyperlink. Stho002 (talk) 23:10, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm . . . two points: (1) "nomenclatural technicalities" are a very important part of taxonomy, and (2) in practical terms, the original reference is only part of a single line (unless it had an extraordinarily long-winded title!), so effectively, it doesn't occupy any more space than a hyperlink - MPF (talk) 23:30, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Two points: (1) Yes, but with ZooBank, BioNames, etc., etc., users are likely to go elsewhere for that information. I'm not saying that we shouldn't have that information, just that it should not distract from more important things. We need to provide the user with what they cannot get elsewhere, or we cannot justify our existence in the long run. Other sites are mostly semi-automated, so cannot highlight important references (e.g. a BHL bibliography for a taxon contains a link to every page of every publication they can find the name in!); (2) it isn't about space - it is about distraction, and highlighting more important references. Stho002 (talk) 23:36, 25 November 2013 (UTC) PS: ZooBank will soon be "cranked up a notch", and masses of references and taxon names will be automatically uploaded. We need to offer something different to just that! Stho002 (talk) 23:38, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, the format which best provides users with up-to-date useful information on a taxon is along these lines: Geodorcus Stho002 (talk) 23:40, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here my opinion about that important topic: The original reference is indispensable and the most important reference of all, because it is the source for the name. It does not matter if it is already linked somewhere else via ZooBank or Bionames. A link may of course serve for that purpose, but only, if the publication is available online, which is by far not always the case. Therefore a consistent citation of the original paper is desirable. It may be question of taste, but Geodorcus novaezealandiae (Hope in Hope & Westwood, 1845: 25) is not the correct citation of the name, which instead is Geodorcus novaezealandiae (Hope, 1845). A mixture of reference and name is not so nice in my opinion. Another question is: Which are the most important references? WS deals with nomenclature and with taxonomy, so only those references should be relevant. Other aspects of biology, including distribution are better to be treated on Wikipedias and the respective pages being hyperlinked (Why does Wikispecies not adhere to Wikidata? A lot of links are actually missing). I prefer to mention the original combination rather than only the original genus because of the gender agreement in zoological nomencature. The author of a name should be hyperlinked directly in the name part, but not necessarily again in the reference. The original status is rarely relevant and should only be explicitly mentioned if necessary for the understanding of the nomencature. The possibility to expand and collapse boxes of nomenclature and synonyms is a nice feature, which I would adopt, if there was a consensus about. In principle I am in favour of having separate pages for the synonyms with a detailed treatment of the nomenclature of each. Different pages are easier to handle, when the taxonomic treatment changes or to show eventually special figures of the type specimens (An argument, which I adopted from Stho002).

I do not fear that a tool like Wikispecies might become obsolete. There are many special cases which would not be detected by automatic nomenclators but only by human intelligence. In the course of my editing of species of Linnaeus´ Systema Naturae 10 I already came along many very good databases with insolved and undetected questions anyway. No one is as potentially complete and - more importantly flexible - as WS. I nevertheless strongly recommend a standardized representation of species pages. Achieving this aim needs positive discussion and consensus (and templates!). Kheller (talk) 14:51, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kheller, thanks for your comments. I agree with some things you said and disagree with others. Firstly, I agree totally, and thank you for pointing it out, that for cases like Geodorcus novaezealandiae, we don't need the "in Hope & Westwood" bit any more, but only if we use hyperlinks to the original reference! If we don't use hyperlinks, then we do need it, because there is no reference Hope (1845). The reference is Hope & Westwood (1845). Hyperlinking allows us to simplify the citation. More later ... Stho002 (talk) 19:42, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kheller, there are two extremely strong reasons why original genus is preferable to original combination: (1) original combination doesn't always tell you the original genus, because of homonymy, and also because the original combination could be an incorrect spelling of the original genus; and (2) gender agreement is best avoided, as hardly anyone on the planet these days knows Latin sufficiently well. Stho002 (talk) 02:41, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again Kheller, you said: [quote]The original reference is indispensable and the most important reference of all, because it is the source for the name... A link may of course serve for that purpose, but only, if the publication is available online, which is by far not always the case. Therefore a consistent citation of the original paper is desirable[unquote]

I am not proposing to leave out the original reference of any name! I just want to treat nomenclatural references slightly differently to informative taxonomic references (often the original ref. will be an important taxonomic ref., but often not, e.g. Linnaeus 1758). I want to highlight important tax. refs. on the species page, and just have the nomen. refs hyperlinked in case anyone wants to look at them.
I don't understand the rest of your comment in the quote above! It has nothing to do with online availability. My proposal is to consistently hyperlink nomenclatural refs. to the Wikispecies ref. template. There is nothing inconsistent about it! See, for example, Geodorcus ... Stho002 (talk) 07:40, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Stho002, for the moment it seems, that there is a majority of comments pro keeping the original citation in the reference section. You should accept this as a fact. But if the structure of the pages was more modular by making use of templates for more elements, the output could be changed quite easily if this was wanted at a later time. It woukd be possible to move the original source from the reference to the name section. For the beginning a well structured simple template for references is needed. There is one named Template:Cite journal, but it is copied from Wikipedia an does not conform with the scientific citation style on WS. Is there somone out there, who is able to change it accordingly?

I am referring to the "original combination" after the correction of misspellings in the sense of the ICZN, e.g. Coccinella septempunctata instead of Coccinella 7-punctata. The original combination never changes in the case of homonymy and is therefore very important to detect unsolved homomymies like Staphylinus rufipes. The original genus instead is only a label and does not necessarily have anything to do with the actual classification. Gender areement must not be ignored, because it is part of the current Code. Dealing with zoological names simply requires a basic unterstanding of latin grammar. In Germany Latin is still very common as second foreign language after English.

I still don't think my meaning is clearly understood. If, for example, there was generic homonymy, the orig. combination Coccinella septempunctata would not tell you which Coccinella homonym was the original genus. We are talking past each other about gender agreement. I don't understand what you mean, and I'm pretty sure you don't understand what I mean. We are not really allowed to correct names for gender disagreement, or even correct misspellings, as this would be OR Stho002 (talk) 21:42, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are right. Online availability is not relevant here - my mistake. Kheller (talk) 21:30, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As a contributor in Plantae, on first glance I do like Stho002 formatting ideas. I must admit I would prefer the full original, not abbreviated, citation as number one in the ref list, but am open to persuasion. I need to look in more depth once I have finished a major updating on Poaceae. Thanks to him for his ideas and hard work. WS is an evolving beast, as is taxonomy, so no problems really and it will never be a finished entity lets face it. Andyboorman (talk) 19:45, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Counting the number of well-documented pages of species and genera in Wikispecies with type-locality information, hyperlinks and so on and comparing this with the huge number of already described taxa still to be included, Wikispecies is a little child at present. We are, therefore, in great need of getting a by far larger number of contributors, preferable scientists, so that Wikispecies could reach an adult state and become a reliable, well documented database system which is able to support new research.

During the last 18 months I tried to raise the enthusiasm of young researchers on international conferences to make use of and contribute to Wikispecies. But, even the classic way of producing pages is felt as complicated, especially the templates for the taxonavigation.

In my opinion it is really necessary to keep the Wikispecies system as simple as possible to let it successfully grow. There is no need of templates for species or references and no need for taxoboxes, and so on. We should not allow that the Wikispecies system unnecessarily is complicated. Kempf EK (talk) 17:10, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you, but that is why it is perfectly fine for anyone to create pages in very basic format. The new proposals aren't compulsory for everyone to follow. But a page created in basic format will be open to someone like myself coming along and giving it a better format Stho002 (talk) 21:44, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Pages where expansion depth is exceeded edit

Out of curiosity, what are they?? - MPF (talk) 21:58, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not entirely sure, but they don't seem to do any harm. If you do spot any negative consequences of such pages, please let me know Stho002 (talk) 22:57, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Agree they don't appear to do any harm, I was just wondering what triggers a page to get into the category - MPF (talk) 23:25, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is due to too many layers of nested templates, but it still all seems to work fine! Stho002 (talk) 23:29, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I think too. I think they are the results of species page transcluding genus template, which itself is transcluding family, then in turn transcluding order, etc. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 18:54, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

New Zealand categories edit

[originally started by Stho002 on my talk page; copied across from there to here]. Comments, from others welcomed, please. - MPF (talk) 01:00, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is a warning. You have been removing categories from taxon pages. Please stop doing that! Thanks Stho002 (talk) 00:20, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The category I removed is out of wikispecies scope (i.e., not taxonomic information). Your revertion removed other relevant information that I had added, so please restore it. - MPF (talk) 00:25, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, one vote for, one vote against. Stho002 (talk) 00:30, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you take it up on the Village pump, then, rather than destroying the work I've done. What's so special about New Zealand, as opposed to the other 190 countries of the world, that don't have any such categories? And Blechnaceae is not a New Zealand endemic family; it has a global distribution. - MPF (talk) 00:34, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing is special about N.Z.! Anyone is free to do the same for any other country they goddam like! But I haven't got time to do it for all countries, and I know most about N.Z., so I am doing it for N.Z. Is that alright with you, sir?? I am fully aware that Blechnaceae isn't endemic to N.Z. Please show me where I have indicated otherwise, 'cos I can't find it! Stho002 (talk) 00:44, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, it isn't alright with me, sir! It is very misleading. A single listing linking the family to New Zealand and to nowhere else looks very like a statement that it is endemic there. I know perfectly well that it isn't, but that may not apply to some, or even many, Wikispecies users. And I see nothing in the Wikispecies scope that permits the inclusion of this; it is thoroughly off-topic. Finally, it conflicts with your own stated point that adding new taxa is more important than side fripperies like this ;-) MPF (talk) 00:51, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Then you don't understand categories. The absence of a category for Australia, say, doesn't mean the family doesn't occur in Australia, just that nobody has yet added the category. It is not my fault if you misinterpret information. It is obvious that Blechnaceae is not endemic to N.Z., or else the species list on the N.Z. category page would be complete with all species on the global page. Policy allows addition of any categories that are broadly relevant to the taxon pages, and distribution is certainly one of those. Also, I wouldn't throw too many policy stones, as your edits lately have been very "idiosyncratic", shall we say? The N.Z. categories allows me to focus on missing N.Z. species from the main pages. I am adding new taxa to the main pages as fast as I can, the fact that N.Z. species are my highest priority is neither here nor there. Stho002 (talk) 00:58, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

- Note that MPF has cherry picked the parts of the discussion which suits HIS AGENDA. Note that he states that he can see nothing which permits such a category, whereas I say that there is nothing which forbids it. The category does no harm, and is useful to people in N.Z., so what is his problem? I encourage others to add similar categories for other countries. Stho002 (talk) 01:06, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just as you cherry-pick that which suits your agenda. Show me where in the Policy this is permitted. And yes, the categories do do harm by being misleading, as noted above. MPF (talk) 01:13, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

- Following my comment about "cherry picking", he has now added the missing bits Stho002 (talk) 01:10, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's just because I hadn't seen them when I first added here; you type too fast and I got an 'edit conflict'! - MPF (talk) 01:13, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please also note that this argument came about because MPF edited Blechnaceae into this: https://species.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Blechnaceae&oldid=1857949 , which is unsourced, unverifiable, and miles away from a sourced version which I have now changed the page to Stho002 (talk) 01:15, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The edit I did there was some minor cleanup mainly based around correcting typographical errors in the refs - MPF (talk) 01:21, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Don't you think than that your time might better be spent on more constructive edits, instead of removing categories that some people may find useful? Stho002 (talk) 01:23, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

More relevant discussion copied from my talk page: MPF (talk) 01:19, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that trying to stir up trouble may be punishable by admin action, though I will not be taking any admin action against you myself, but I may see what some (selected) other admins and 'crats think is the best way to handle problematic editors like yourself Stho002 (talk) 01:09, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd welcome comment from other admins, and other wikispecies contributors. This should of course be open to all admins, not just 'selected' ones. - MPF (talk) 01:18, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stho002, please leave MPF alone! I would like you to stop your outrageous conduct. You are intimidating the users here, and making in general their staying here unbearable! I'm planing to contact the higher Wikipedia authorities and report on your misbehavior. Mariusm (talk) 05:26, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, the situation is this: MPF decided to remove content that I had added to pages (specifically categories), without discussion or clear policy mandate. I warned him not to continue, as I would any other vandal. Any "outrageous" or "intimidating" conduct on my part is purely in your mind Mariusm, and in fact it is MPF and now you who are intimidating me.Stho002 (talk) 05:32, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Let me try not to rise to your bait, and try a different approach. What do you actually want me to do? I am more than happy to rationally discuss any specific issues relating to Wikispecies content and format, and I will be far more inclined to compromise on any differences in opinion if I don't feel that I'm being harrassed by a bunch of hostile contrarians. The ball is in your court to start meaningful dialogue Stho002 (talk) 06:00, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would like you foremost to lower your tone please, and to be more polite towards your fellow wikipedians. Remember you are an administrator, and as such you have an obligation of proper conduct. You can't enforce your rules, however well-meaning and well-thought you think they are. You raised a proposal of format-change which is controversial in the least and is unaccepted by the majority here, and you immediately proceeded to implement it. You've manipulated Wikispecies into an unbalanced New-Zealand site swarming with thousands of New-Zealand categories which have no justification at all. You are acting as a dictator: as if all the other contributors are subordinate to you and are in fact YOUR assistants. Think for a moment how would you like someone to do all these abuses to you; would you personally accept it? Sorry, but all this has breached any limit of tolerance, and can continue no more. Mariusm (talk) 05:41, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The flipside is that you and a few others appear to be contrarians, refusing any of my suggestions for improvement of the project without due consideration. You seem to see the New Zealand categories as something unbalanced and bad, but this makes no sense. Why should you deprive a country of a useful resource just because nobody else here can be bothered doing the same for any other country?* To claim that I think of other contributors here as my "assistants" is pure rhetoric. I do not. However, since I do put far more time into this project than anyone else, and yes, my suggestions are well-thought out (over a number of years), I do expect at least some rational discussion in response to suggestions for improvement, rather than just knee-jerk denial and quickly concocted counter-"reasons" which make no sense. As I have said before, there is plenty of work for all of us to do here. We have only about 300,000 species articles out of about 2 million named species. I respect those contributors here who quietly add species pages without making all this fuss about nothing. Stho002 (talk) 06:12, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

*By analogy, would you ban someone from giving charity to a needy person just because they can only afford to help one needy person? So why ban me from providing NZ with a useful resource just because this can't be done for all countries? And it is not as if I ONLY contribute N.Z. species to this project, I contribute thousands of non-NZ species also Stho002 (talk) 06:16, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Been thinking about this a bit. First, I don't have any major objection to New Zealand Categories being used for New Zealand endemics (the only time I removed one was for a page, which following a taxonomic update changing the name, left the category as a red link; I didn't know how to create / move the category so left it out). For taxa which are native in NZ but not endemic there, I'm rather less happy. And I do have strong objections to NZ categories being used on pages for taxa which are not native in NZ, as it is very misleading to other Wikispecies users. - MPF (talk) 14:16, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

However, I would also question whether categories are the best way to (a) document distributions on wikispecies and (b), for Stho002, whether they are really your best way to manage your work in progress. Categories in general are not used on taxon pages in Wikispecies. To come to (b) first: Stho, would it not make better sense to set up some user subpages like User:Stho002/Work to do and User:Stho002/Work completed? Or even just keep a log on your own personal computer? This is how task lists are usually done on wikipedias; by it you can maintain a clear record of what you have done and need yet to do without it impinging on the whole project, and free from edits by other contributors who could otherwise 'mess up' your work either advertently or inadvertently. Back to (a); I am strongly in favour of wikispecies including natural distribution information, as this is fundamental to the taxon. But I think this is best done by including (where available at Commons) a distribution map; I suggested this a few months ago (here, with Acer platanoides as a sample), but never progressed with it as there was no further comment by others. This is better, as it can show much better detail than a list of nation categories which won't show the distribution of a taxon e.g. within New Zealand (as e.g. here). - MPF (talk) 14:16, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Managing my work in progress is not the issue here. What I want to be able to do is to browse Wikispecies for a particular country rather than just globally, and N.Z. is my first priority country. I would be very happy to see others do the same for other countries. References for a species in a particular country are not important enough to put on the global taxon pages, but obviously are important on the country pages, which link back to the global pages if you want info. on nomenclature or global distribution. Stho002 (talk) 23:19, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion on Stho002 -- open to administrators only edit

I opened this discussion so I could hear the administrators' opinions on the conduct of Stho002. I want to bring up several issues which are making me uncomfortable:

Stho002 is using coarse language and is intimidating his fellow wikipedians who are not editing according to HIS preferences.
- Nonsense! Please provide proof of coarse language! I am doing no such thing! I am defending myself against intimidation by Mariusm and a few others! Stho002 (talk) 20:23, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Stho002 is reverting edits without explanation or reason.
- Proof please! This current rant by Mariusm was caused by my reverting edits by MPF, who was removing useful content (categories) from pages without explanation or reason! Stho002 (talk) 20:23, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Stho002 is making new formatting rules, and is implementing them without getting the community consent, and in spite of considerable opposition. This practice deters and confuses many users.
- As we discussed already (above), we have a consensus that exactly the same format does NOT have to be applied across all groups Stho002 (talk) 20:23, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Stho002 is making WS unbalanced in openning thousands of New-Zealand categories which are unnecessary and misleading, attaching them to species that are distributed among many countries, and not confined to N.Z. exclusively.
- Nonsense (see my comments above) Stho002 (talk) 20:23, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
For the very same conduct as he practices here, Stho002 was blocked from editing on the English Wikipedia.
- Irrelevant Stho002 (talk) 20:23, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I, for myself am annoyed and disturbed by these practices, especially as they originate from an administrator, who must sustain an exemplary conduct. We admins must reach an agreement as to the measures, if any, we should apply. Shall we put up with the above practices or contrive some actions to suppress them.

There's an inherent difficulty with the administrator community here: Of the 24 listed admins, half of them (12) are inactive for at least one year, some being absent since 2006. We must notify them and remove them from the list, so as to leave only the ones who can really contribute here. The absent admins are:

Benedikt: absent since 24 August 2009
Brion VIBBER: absent since 22 July 2006
Dan Koehl: absent since 17 November 2008
Geni: absent since 15 February 2012
Kempm: absent since 20 June 2009
Lightdarkness: absent since 12 April 2007
Mário e Dário: absent since 24 November 2009
Maxim: absent since 30 May 2011
Monobi: absent since 23 June 2008
Rocket000: absent since 8 July 2012
Totipotent: absent since 12 December 2010
UtherSRG: absent since 20 April 2010

Please comment here, Mariusm (talk) 16:28, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that you take a break, and regain your composure, as you are just causing trouble here at the moment Stho002 (talk) 20:25, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

While I don't want to sound like some sort of "conspiracy theorist", all this has come at a time just after a group of WP editors made it very clear that they do not see the point in WS, and would prefer to have it shut down. It is clear that WS is in fact streets ahead of WP in its coverage of taxonomy articles, which is why I suspect that these WP editors aren't happy. They are being territorial. It is not impossible that Mariusm is being influenced by them behind the scenes. At any rate, even if he isn't being so influenced, he is putting us in danger of destroying ourselves, leading to the same outcome. It is tough and hard work to keep WS ahead of WP. I suggest that we get on with it, without falling victim to internal (or externally influenced?) infighting Stho002 (talk) 21:10, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Stho002: Don't panic, please (this method we already know). Let others speak on this issue. Ark (talk) 21:22, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The problem, though Ark, is that others tend to speak on issues too hastily, without due consideration of the relevant facts. I have spent 5 years developing useful content and format ideas for WS. Are we to throw them in the rubbish just because Mariusm and a few others say "No!" within a few minutes of proposal?? It takes time to explain and understand these proposals. Stho002 (talk) 21:36, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So, „take a break, and regain your composure”. I'll repeat: let others speak on this issue. Ark (talk) 21:47, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The English wikipedia is for the most part disinterested in Wikispecies. FWIW despite being fairly plugged into the English wikipedia's political side I'm not aware of any attempts to influence Mariusm or any other wikispecies editors from behind the scenes.Geni (talk) 11:18, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I know that Steven (Stho002)'s behaviour is not perfect. But you're presenting multiple issues in this thread. One is regarding Stho002's behaviour, the other being inactive admins. Since the second item is much quicker to explain, I'll talk about it first. From the list you created, I can see 2 names (Benedikt and Brion VIBBER) that I will oppose taking away their admin rights for being inactive. Benedikt is the founder of this project. Brion VIBBER was the CTO and lead developer of the foundation. I'm ok with removing other inactive admins though. Now back to Steven. Even though you (MPF) may not have the intention, but you openly question Steven's conduct while the discussion is active and things are heated appears to be silencing your opponents. (Steven, same goes to you when you gave a warning to MPF on New Zealand dispute.) Steven made a suggestion to change the formatting. There were some parts which appear to be supported by those who are not involved and parts that were rejected. Ideally, it should have been broken up into smaller, more manageable size that can be discussed which helps determining whether the change garners enough support. Yet I don't see anyone made an attempt to split the proposal into smaller chunks. Same applies to this discussion. You're presenting multiple ideas at the same time and didn't divide it into sections. MPF, you should have known that behaviour of other users from other projects cannot be brought to other projects unless it is global abuse (e.g. spam, clear case vandalism, harassment). Both parties, I honestly don't know how you guys can find so much energy to go after each other just to prove that you're right and the other side is wrong. Could both of you please move on (whether you "won" or "lost" any part of the debate)? There will always be people who you find you consistently disagree with yet they will not go away. I won't allow drama frequently found in English Wikipedia brought over to this project and waste our precious time/personnel/resources. At this time I don't want to comment on my stance on this issue because I don't wish to feed the drama with more fire. Otherwise I would also become part of the problem and not the solution. However, let's remember why we gathered here in the first place. It's not to curse at people, win the battle of words, or do things that upset people. Both of you are valuable to the project and I don't want to see the project to lose either of you. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 04:00, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OhanaUnited, I'm very disappointed to hear you don't want to address the pressing points brought out in this discussion. This evasion and the "Laissez-faire" attitude encourage Stho002 to make WS his dictatorship. Just hear the tones he's using here and you'll realize that this attitude will only be disadvantageous to us all here. Mariusm (talk) 05:23, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I posted this on Mariusm's Talk Page yesterday. It seems I should put it here...

Marius, Stephen is very keen and has a lot of professional knowledge. He also has very strong opinions and tends to jump in and change things without a lot of discussion. The first of these attributes are admirable, the second can, I am sure, be very frustrating/maddening. As you say, most/much of his work is oriented at New Zealand, from where he originates. Those who have less to do with that country can easily ignore the additional New Zealand pages/categories, so I don't find that an issue. As my area of interest/expertise does not overlap excessively with New Zealand, I don't have any edit wars with him and I can operate alongside on the odd occasion where we do end up editing the same page. My own 'standard' page formatting is rather more simple than his, yet it contains all the necessary information, so I do not plan to go the same way as him in all respects. There are so many pages in my contribution history that appropriate reformatting could and would only be done slowly over a long period of time anyway. I am pretty sure that my pages convey a lot of relevant information and so do Stephen's, any or all of which would be helpful to someone researching in those particular areas. We should all realise that taxonomy is a moving target, and never becomes fixed and permanent, so stability is useful but new discoveries have to be implemented. Of course, there are sometimes different viewpoints expressed by different biologists about fundamental relationships, and this is where difficulties can arise. All WikiSpecies can do in this situation is try to show both possibilities in some way. As contributors and as Admins, we should all treat each other with respect. We should discuss our differences and, where appropriate, explain both opinions in a way that casual users of WikiSpecies might understand. I don't personally think anything positive is gained by banning someone when a better approach might be just to ask them to be more co-operative, listen as well as talk and occasionally back down when both sides have a good point to make. That is what I try to do whenever my path crosses that of another contributor. Ultimately, co-operation is the only way ahead, and I think that Stephen would acknowledge that if it was put to him directly. I imagine he will read this anywaym so can confirm that for himself. Talking good, banning or exclusion bad. Cheers, Accassidy (talk) 17:48, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thus I echo OhanaUnited's plea that both sides of this debate reflect for a while and concentrate more on producing good data and less about the finer detail of how it is presented. Accassidy (talk) 15:41, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, my main point of frustration here arises from the instant answers of "no" to suggestions that I have developed over several years, without due consideration or discussion. The technical issues involved are complicated and take time to explain and understand. With that in mind, I wish to call for further thought and discussion on the following issue:

What are the most important references for a species (or genus, etc.)? There appears to be a widely held view here that the most important reference is the original reference. I strongly disagree! Sometimes it is, but often not. For example, if you want information about Homo sapiens, would you consult Linnaeus (1758)? I think not! It may be the most important reference for nomenclature of the species, but WS isn't just about nomenclature, nor should it be, or our potential user base would be very limited indeed. Most users want informative taxonomic (taxonomy and nomenclature are different things) and other (ecological, phylogenetic, etc.) information. Therefore, it makes a good deal of sense to highlight the most informative references, and play down (but still include) the references whose relevance is purely nomenclatural. Hyperlinking nomenclatural references to a reference template is a very elegant way of doing this. Looking at the example of Geodorcus, although the original ref. (Holloway, 1996) is a taxonomically informative ref., everything in it is repeated in a wider context by Holloway (2007), so I have only included the latter under 'Selected references'. It is available online and contains an extensive bibliography of all relevant references anyway, so why repeat that? Life is too short, and species are too numerous for that! Nevertheless, because Holloway (1996) is the original ref, for the name Geodorcus, it is included on the page as a hyperlink to the ref. template. But looking at the Geodorcus page, the attention of a user is directed immediately to the most important ref. (Holloway, 2007). Stho002 (talk) 19:48, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion shows perfectly well the perils of a small community such as ours: one individual can take the law in his hands and monopolize the rest. The fact that only 3 admins had the disposition to comment on this important issue, and even they seem reluctant to express their views on the specific points raised, can only encourage further and graver action from S. When someone realized no harm can be bestowed upon him as a consequence to his deeds, then there's nothing stopping him from increasing and aggravating his abuses. The issues I raised are perfect breaches of the very basic rules of WS: to abide by the majority consensus, not to threaten or intimidate others, not to apply changes without first getting the community's permission. Three admins are not enough to stand against someone who decides to force his way, admittedly through hard work and perseverance. What are the options facing us? Swallow the frustration feelings and keep going? I don't know. Maybe it's an unsolvable problem, but now we remain more vulnerable, more dependable upon the future whims of S. Mariusm (talk) 07:29, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What is alarming, Mariusm, is your reluctance to consider/discuss the actual proposals in this discussion, and instead you appear to be fixated on me! As a pathological attention seeker, I'm lovin' it man ... keep it up...!! Stho002 (talk) 20:59, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, Mariusm has been implementing his own formatting preferences for some time now (e.g. Wagneriunia), without prior discussion, and I personally find the format rather confusing Stho002 (talk) 21:01, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In terms of behavior Stho002 does need to stop bringing up question of blocks when someone disagrees with him.
In terms of the category for country issue purely from a wikispecies POV its not taxon information thus there is a valid argument for not including such categories so a central decision one way or the other (made by editors and editor/admins). That said since its likely that in the longer term this project will merge with wikidata (not any time soon mind wikidata isn't ready yet) scope creep probably isn't as undesirable as it might otherwise be.Geni (talk) 11:23, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The demand by S. for "proofs" to my claims is ridiculous. Suffice it to look above at the discussions titled "New Zealand categories" and "MAJOR NEW FORMATTING PROPOSAL!" to realize that my statements are factual.

You accused me of "coarse language", which means vulgar or indecent. I ask for proof because I have never used coarse language! Stho002 (talk) 07:04, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just to supply another example to what I mean by "new formatting rules" please see the Sarax page, where S. is hiding the "synonyms" and the "type species" behind <expand/collapse>. He didn't even mention this major (and unnecessary) change in his discussions, and he didn't ask for permission to implement it.

To be able to pursue this issue, I am asking each admin to pick a number which represents most accurately his opinion from the following list, and sign by 4 ~s:

I think S. is behaving well and I see no reason in further pursuing this issue.
S. sometimes goes over the top, but all is done with good intentions.
I decline to comment.
S. needs to be asked to be more considerate, and to improve his behavior.
S. needs to be given a warning.
S. needs to be deprived of his administratorship.

Accassidy:
Ark:
EncycloPetey: 6 EncycloPetey (talk) 03:50, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
EVula:
Geni:
Koumz:
Mariusm: 6 Mariusm (talk) 06:42, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
MKOliver:
OhanaUnited:
Open2universe:
Stho002: 2 Stho002 (talk) 07:02, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ucucha:

Thanks, Mariusm (talk) 06:42, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The biggest problem I see here is that you're making a lot of claims and backing up zero of them with diffs. I'm largely inactive on this wiki these days because I have too much other stuff going on in my life, and I'm not going to spend what little free time I have trying to do the work of verifying your claims when you don't do it yourself. EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:29, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Conduct of Mariusm edit

I consider the conduct of Mariusm to indicate that he is not suitable to be an admin here. To be able to pursue this issue, I am asking each admin to pick a number which represents most accurately his opinion from the following list, and sign by 4 ~s:

I think M. is behaving well and I see no reason in further pursuing this issue.
M. sometimes goes over the top, but all is done with good intentions.
I decline to comment.
M. needs to be asked to be more considerate, and to improve his behavior.
M. needs to be given a warning.
M. needs to be deprived of his administratorship.

Accassidy:
Ark:
EncycloPetey:
EVula:
Geni:
Koumz:
MKOliver:
OhanaUnited:
Open2universe:
Stho002: 5 Stho002 (talk) 07:07, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ucucha:

Thanks, Stho002 (talk) 07:07, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

M&S edit

Please, both of you, put down the handbags and have a few days on the beach. I don't want to have to waste any more time refereeing.

Stephen, the expanding/collapsing boxes tend to hide potentially critical information from first glance and they seem to me to have no point unless they contain a lot of secondary information that is otherwise filling the entire screen. In neither of the cases I have seen has this been the case. Nesting the boxes seems even more unnecessary. These are a complication for the casual user, not a simplification. With regard to the discussion about references, I don't think it is really the job of an editor on WS to decide which references are more or less important. The Synonymy section should show, in chronological order, how usage of the epithet has changed over time and the References should list all those documents that have contributed to the changes, in alphabetical order of authors. That's all we really need to report here. Readers can decide for themselves the levels of relative importance.
Marius, by all means ask Admins for a consensus on proposals for revision of standard formatting, but not for a popularity contest between those with opposing views. Democracy is about issues not personalities.

Accassidy (talk) 10:37, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm gratified to read your sincere and sympathetic comment, but it's really like showing reason to a burglar whom you caught breaking into your house; like asking him politely to refrain from future robberies. We, admins are the police force for this premises, and as such we sometimes need to reward disobedience by force. Persuasion is OK, but in this case stricter means must be used for this is a tough one. WS starts looking a mess-inconsistent, unbalanced and unclear, and this is a result of our past negligence. Mariusm (talk) 16:12, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we have 2 distinct problems here: (1) Mariusm; and (2) how best to evolve WS. I suggest that we simply ignore (1). As for (2), the difficulty is that we may not be able to agree ever on all details, or it may take a long time to reach agreement. Since we already have a more or less agreed mandate to format pages differently from each other, I suggest that we continue with that approach until it becomes clear whether or not agreement can ever be reached. Stho002 (talk) 20:35, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alan, to address your content/format comments: the main issue I would suggest that you give some thought to is what are WS users likely to want, in terms of information about taxa, and what are they likely to go elsewhere for? I suggest that very few users indeed are likely to come here for detailed nomenclatural information, and that what they mostly want is to be pointed to the most informative/important references for a given taxon. I am not suggesting that we remove (or fail to include) detailed nomenclatural information, just that we put it somewhere out of the way where the user can see it only if they want to. It is exactly the same principle as with the Taxonav boxes. Stho002 (talk) 20:42, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For further clarity on what I mean by "most informative/important references", in a case like Geodorcus, both genus and its species, Holloway (2007) is the most recent comprehensive revision, available online O/A, which itself cites all previous relevant references, so it seems to me to be a gratuitous waste of time to cite those refs. again on WS Stho002 (talk) 21:16, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See Euceraphis for good example of hiding nomenclatural complexities from first sight, as they are mere technicalities which would scare off may potential users. Stho002 (talk) 21:45, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I reckon that protologue data is something that people will come to look for here; it is often information that is important, but is (in my experience) not easily found outside of very expensive textbooks with limited availability, so a free, accessible source in WS is valuable (e.g. I was just looking for the publication data for Gypaetinae Vieillot, 1816, and could not find it with good certainty anwhere). And - as already mentioned - it doesn't take up any more space (one line) than a link to the information does. Additionally, putting it in separate templates makes it markedly less accessible for editing, limiting it to those who have long experience of editing here, combined with a detailed knowledge of the working of templates (among whom I do not include myself): if a casual visitor finds a typo in a reference (as I've seen happen), it becomes impossible for them to correct it (yes, there's a counter-argument that it makes it less accessible to vandalism, but that isn't a serious problem on WS). So, please, reconsider this one! - MPF (talk) 21:56, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We need to look to the future. There are several other free and accessible sources of this sort of data being developed. BioNames links all names to their original references. So does ZooBank, which also gives nomenclatural details. ZooBank is about to undergo a massive expansion phase. BHL gives a complete bibliography for any name (complete relative to its holdings and OCR reliability). Data from these sources will be harvested by GBIF, etc., so Wikispecies contribution will soon become far less significant (or at least that will be the perception). But all these other sources work by automation. They therefore have great difficulty highlighting what is important. This is our great potential strength. let's not waste it ... Stho002 (talk) 22:11, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As for supposed editing "difficulties" for new users, that is why I am happy for new users (and indeed any users) to keep creating pages according to the old formatting guidelines. Someone who knows what they are doing can then reformat the pages at some stage... Stho002 (talk) 22:15, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, but that doesn't help with errors in citations using the suggested new formatting - had that already been in use, I'd not have been able to correct "Equisitales" to Equisetales on the several pages where it appeared. Its complexity also makes the whole WS project a highly daunting prospect for new people to join (much the same as the hoops one now has to jump through to edit at en:wiki). The whole point about wikis is that they are supposed to be easy for anyone to contribute to - if all they see on arrival is 'new' formatting, they'll give up in despair. - MPF (talk) 22:57, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, the publication details that were cited for Gypaetinae Vieillot, 1816, i.e. Nouveau Dictionnaire d'Histoire Naturelle: 31, were incorrect! Stho002 (talk) 22:33, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I suspected it was incorrect, but couldn't locate the correct info - which reinforces my point ;-) MPF (talk) 22:57, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No it doesn't reinforce your point. The page was in the old format until just now when I added the correct info (in new format) Stho002 (talk) 23:14, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stho, could you take a look at my new notes above on NZ categories, please? I at least hope this offers a solution that is better for both of us. - MPF (talk) 21:56, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, you do not appear to understand my reasons and aims for the N.Z. categories. Your suggested solution is not compatible Stho002 (talk) 22:15, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Could you clarify them, then, please? (perhaps best in the section above). - MPF (talk) 22:57, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously. I stepped away for a few days and this turned more ugly than the last time I visited. Mariusm, you asked for my opinion and I gave my 2 cents. You aren't happy with what I said and decided to do something else. Accassidy and I asked for truce and disengagement between both of you yet you started a section calling for de-sysop (and a counter move by Stho002). We all know that more drama is certainly not going to help with resolving the issue. At this point, I think you (Mariusm) are turning this discussion into a drama and the individual responsible for extending the drama beyond necessity. You're forcing me to seriously consider getting involved in this matter and examine the conducts and interactions of both (yes, both Stho002 AND Mariusm) editors. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 03:17, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'm stepping out. Mariusm (talk) 05:20, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

New Search coming as BetaFeature edit

I plan to deploy our replacement search system CirrusSearch to all wikispecies December 18th as a secondary search system. You won't see any change until I make it available as a BetaFeature, which I plan to do December 20th. The lag is due to the time required to build the search index. If there are issues building the search index it might have to wait until early January given WMF's moratorium against non-critical deployments over the holiday. The short list of Cirrus features that are new will probably effect you:

Faster search updates. Not instant but normally within a few seconds.
Templates expanded in search text. This includes categories included in templates, transcluded pages, etc.

You can read the full list of features here: https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Search/CirrusSearchFeatures NEverett (WMF) (talk) 16:06, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

96.5.241.8 edit

This IP made some strange malicious edits about a month ago. Similar edits were made at English Wikisource over the last few days, so the IP is still active. Please look into this. --Eliyak (talk) 07:13, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I will block the moment it returns here. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 05:40, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]