species.m.wikimedia.org
Wikispecies
Wikispecies:Village Pump
Welcome to the village pump of Wikispecies.
This page is a place to ask questions or discuss the project. If you need an admin, please see the Administrators' Noticeboard. If you need to solicit feedback, see Request for Comment. Please sign and date your post (by typing ~~~~ or clicking the signature icon in the edit toolbar). Use the Wikispecies IRC channel for real-time chat.
If you're going to critique the work of fellow editors (blatant vandals excepted) in your post on this page, you should notify them, either by mentioning them with a
{{Reply to}}
template, or with a post on their talk page.
If you insert links to Wikipedia pages in your comments, don't forget the leading colon (:) before the wiki language code (including when you reference a remote user page instead of using a local signature), otherwise it will generate spurious interwiki links collected in the sidebar instead of in the expected location within the discussion. Thanks.
Village pump in other languages:
Chinese - 中文 Czech - českyFinnish - Suomi French - FrançaisHungarian - Magyar Hindi - हिन्दीItalian - Italiano Korean - 한국어Nepali - नेपाली Russian - РусскийTamil - தமிழ்Ukrainian - Українська​Vietnamese - Tiếng Việt



Archives
1(2004-09-21/2005-01-05)2(2005-01-05/2005-08-23)
3(2005-08-24/2005-12-31)4(2006-01-01/2005-05-31)
5(2006-06-01/2006-12-16)6(2006-12-17/2006-12-31)
7(2007-01-01/2007-02-28)8(2007-03-01/2007-04-30)
9(2007-05-01/2007-08-31)10(2007-09-01/2007-10-31)
11(2007-11-01/2007-12-31)12(2008-01-01/2008-02-28)
13(2008-03-01/2008-04-28)14(2008-04-29/2008-06-30)
15(2008-07-01/2008-09-30)16(2008-10-01/2008-12-25)
17(2008-12-26/2009-02-28)18(2009-03-01/2009-06-30)
19(2009-07-01/2009-12-31)20(2010-01-01/2010-06-30)
21(2010-07-01/2010-12-31)22(2011-01-01/2011-06-30)
23(2011-07-01/2011-12-31)24(2012-01-01/2012-12-31)
25(2013-01-01/2013-12-31)26(2014-01-01/2014-12-31)
27(2015-01-01/2015-01-31)28(2015-02-01/2015-02-28)
29(2015-02-28/2015-04-29)30(2015-04-29/2015-07-19)
31(2015-07-19/2015-09-23)32(2015-09-23/2015-11-21)
33(2015-11-21/2015-12-31)34(2016-01-01/2016-04-17)
35(2016-03-22/2016-05-01)36(2016-05-01/2016-07-12)
37(2016-07-13/2016-09-30)38(2016-10-01/2016-12-04)
39(2016-12-04/2017-01-17)40(2017-01-18/2017-01-28)
41(2017-01-29/2017-02-13)42(2017-02-14/2017-03-21)
43(2017-03-20/2017-08-11)44(2017-08-10/2017-12-07)
45(2017-12-08/2018-01-08)46(2018-01-19/2018-03-11)
47(2018-03-11/2018-09-11)48(2018-09-01/2019-02-17)
49(2019-02-22/2019-06-18)50(2019-06-19/2019-10-06)
51(2019-10-07/2019-12-23)52(2019-12-24/2020-04-03)
53(2020-04-03/2020-07-16)54(2020-07-17/2020-09-05)
55(2020-09-08/2020-11-27)56(2020-11-27/2021-06-21)
57(2021-06-05/2021-xx-xx)



Name etymologies?
Should we put etymologies in taxa articles, or is it too late now since there are so many? DeanDingus23 (talk) 07:23, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
Some users like them, others don't. We haven't got a strict policy or guideline about etymologies, so in that sense they have a similar status as the vernacular names. Quite frankly it's up each user whether to add them or not. However if you add etymologies they should always be placed in the "Name" section, more specifically after the scientific name and any information about type material and type locality, but before the list of synonyms (which is a subsection of the "Name" section rather than a section of its own).
For completeness: vernacular names should always be added to the very bottom of a page (if at all), below any list of names, synonyms, data about distribution, references, external links, etc. The reason is that information about vernacular names isn't particularly valuable in regards to the actual taxonomy, and therefore comes last. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 08:05, 18 August 2021 (UTC).
The etymology can have some uses and it is information that is recommended to be part of a species description, not compulsory. It comes in handy for determining the gender of names for the Principal of Coordination. So is not useless information. I am not going to go out of my way to add it myself but if its something someone wants to do it could reasonably go as the last part in the name block after the type data. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 09:47, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
I would like to put etymologies at least when they are relevant to eponyms. I suppose theseedits made by Andyboorman are based on the idea that Wikispecies should play a different role from Wikipedia, Wiktionary and other WikiProjects and it should be concentrated on taxonomic character. I accept Tommy Kronkvist's concept presented above that information about vernacular names isn't particularly valuable in regards to the actual taxonomy and then I will someday request extension of languages used for 'Vernacular names' sections. Even so, I do not know what Andyboorman thinks about eponym categories. If you tolerate them, don't you think that it is preferable that editor explains about etymology linked with any epithet? It is not likely that every reader would understand in a glance that the generic name Temochloa is taken after Thai botanist Tem Smitinand (source), so I think it is the most sincere way that we place explanation for etymology and source (like this) when we add eponym categories; category addition without any explanation may be indeed insincere. --Eryk Kij (talk) 10:03, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
Personally, given there is so much taxonomic work to be completed, etymologies, eponyms, vernacular names and similar data is a waste of my time and knowledge and I will not be editing that data, except if I spot obvious errors. However, if fellow editors wish to contribute in this way then go ahead. In addition, WS is fundamentally taxonomic unlike WP etc. and aims at teasing through the minefield in order to produce robust scientific data that can be accepted by plant and animal students and scientists. We have a long way to go. Best regards Andyboorman (talk) 13:28, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
These can be added at Wikidata. Here, I only add them - by way of an "Eponyms of..." category - when they honour a taxonomist, for whom we have a page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:42, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
A bit late to this one - but one reason not to include them, is that they are inevitably language-dependent. Take e.g. Chroicocephalus; of Greek derivation, in English it means 'coloured head'. But to a reader from Greece, the English translation is less comprehensible than the actual name, so is completely pointless. To a reader from Mongolia, both are equally obscure. So unless one includes the etymology in every language we support, why have it at all? It only makes sense in the individual language wikipedias. - MPF (talk) 15:43, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
Naming scheme for homonyms
Oddly enough I've forgotten our preferred naming scheme for homonyms. We currently have three ways of doing this, favoured as well as unpreferable:
I looked in Category:Homonyms for hints, but it doesn't mention our preferred naming convention in this matter. I guess that our policy recommends "Taxon name (Author)" since the taxonomy may change—while a published scientific work is "forever" in that is doesn't suddenly get a new author. However I quite honestly can't remember which system we are supposed to use. Which one is it? –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 07:50, 18 August 2021 (UTC).
Agreed Actaea (Xanthidae) can be moved to another family so such a name would become misleading for the laymen unless potential maintenance work and page renaming. "Taxon name (Author)" is the best IMO. Christian Ferrer (talk) 10:48, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
I also agree that author is better, if you were going to use a parent taxon I would argue it would need to be at the level both are available, ie Kingdom level for example, a plant an an animal name. This would avoid rearrangements of families and genera. Author is the better way. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 11:14, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
Looks like we don't have a preferred naming scheme for homonyms! Therefore, this discussion could be used to decide once and for all a standard scheme for homonyms. Would the author option be with or without parentheses? Burmeister (talk) 11:44, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
I know that it's been up for discussion several times over last couple of years, but I'm not sure where… As for setting a standard I would personally prefer using parenthesis, whether we chose to use author (preferably) or parent taxon. In my opinion using a parenthesis would be clearer, and as an extra bonus also more in line with how its done in Wikipedia and other sister projects. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 12:27, 18 August 2021 (UTC).
Yes for me Name (Author, year) would be my preference, however I am not insistent on the date part so please see that is optional on my part just suggesting it. If no one likes it Name (author) is fine. Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 14:39, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
The use of the date is likely a bad idea, i.e. for kingdom Animalia if you have a binomen being also an original combination you have the citation of name being: "genus epiteth author, year", now in case of homonymy if you name the page with author+date and parantheses you obtain "genus epiteth (author, year)" whitch would be the name citation of a recombination. Precise exemple: if you take Chelodina mccordi in the case of homonymy, with that system, the page name would become Chelodina mccordi (Rhodin, 1994) while that name is not a recombination. This is quite disturbing IMO. Forget the year. Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:43, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
Finaly, after what i just wrote above, I wonder if I don't prefer a differentiation at Kingdom level, e.g. "name (Kingdom)". Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:46, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
The year is essential for plants given the number of isonyms floating around. I hope we are not talking about a discrete taxon page for homonyms! These should be removed ASAP, as soon as the disputed status is cleared up. Why do zoologists wish to routinely retain these pages as the information can be presented on the valid/accepted taxon page, once this is established. Andyboorman (talk) 18:01, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
I would hope we are talking about available (per zoology meaning, ie valid per botany) homonyms which generally means identical names from different codes, I have no plans to make a page for Chelus terrestris for example, and parentheses only mean recombination when used in the right context, which a page title is not, it is within the context of synonymy it matters. There is no homonym of Chelodina mccordi of course and if their were it would be unavailable hence not needed. On Andyboorman's point, one of the criticisms of Wikispecies is that we do not make pages for every name, rather than every species, then tie the juniors to the valid/ accepted name thus providing a database of names and nomenclature rather than a hybrid taxonomy/ nomenclature checklist. Its a fair point and is something we should be doing. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 19:01, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
Apparently you don't understand my comment. You said "There is no homonym of Chelodina mccordi of course and if their were it would be unavailable hence not needed"→ don't you understand on purpose? it is just an exemple on how this construction of page name can lead to such situation, and yes of course I'm right and such situation can happen with valid homonyms, but I will not even try to provide to you a valid exemple, search it by yourself or remain convinced. You said also "when used in the right context, which a page title is not": I'm not sure it will be so obvious for all the potential readers what is the "right context", what the title mean and what the title don't mean. Also search engines such as Google and others may display the page titles without even less context, and regarding taxa, the web is already full of typos, mispellings and author citation mistakes, without we introduce additional misleading "taxon names". I will not be surprise if some misspelling of taxon names have more results in the web than the right spellings, just because one person have typed it in a database. Therefore I would not encourage anybody to read/re-write a wrong citation simply because they did not understand our "right context". But well, do as you want, I will follow . Regards,Christian Ferrer (talk) 20:00, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
┌​─────────────────────────​
Please note in order to avoid misunderstanding such as the ones Christian Ferrer refers to, each page with an invalid homonym should be clearly marked as such. See for example Clarkiella (Sclerodactylidae) or Thylax. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk)‚ 22:18, 18 August 2021 (UTC).
I just lost my dad, my mind is confused and I have trouble concentrating. So take anything I may have said with caution, as I may had get mixed up a bit. I don't know. Regards, Christian Ferrer (talk) 05:07, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
@Christian Ferrer: sorry to hear about your father, my condolences. I did get what you meant, I also had said date was an optional suggestion I could live without it. Main reason I liked date was because it can be made useful for both Botany and Zoology, it has issues as well as pointed out. We do have to weave a path between ICZN and ICBN at times. Its not always going to be successful. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 10:07, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
Bit late to this discussion, but I thought I'd better add my thoughts here: I've somehow wound up using some kind of mix of both author and family as a means of disambiguating homonyms. In particular I tend to use "Taxon name (family)" for a valid name that is also a hemihomonym. For junior homonyms (for which I create redirects usually, unless there is currently no valid name), I instead use "Taxon name Author", sometimes with year if necessary to disambiguate. If the name is the senior homonym and is not a hemihomonym I tend to use just "Taxon name".
I'm not sure how I came to this system though, I think I must have followed others or read previous Village Pump discussions and mixed all this information up in my head resulting in this. So it would be nice to finally standardize homonym pages, though we should be wary of the kind of homonyms we're likely to get: I remember in a previous discussion it was pointed out even "Author, Year" would not be enough to disambiguate in an extremely rare case. Monster Iestyn (talk) 11:33, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
 Question what to do with Elasmopoda in {{Théel, 1879}} it should be redirected to Elasipodida but is is also an insect genus. What must we use? Elasmopoda (Théel), Elasmopoda (Théel, 1879) or Elasmopoda (Holothuroidea)? Christian Ferrer (talk) 06:02, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
I would imagine name it as Elasmopoda (Théel) and redirect it, its an emended name per Elasipodida Théel, 1882 the original spelling is invalid. You may find the date useful on this one as the same author published both spellings. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 07:39, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
Validity of WS lists of homonyms
Does anyone know how the List of valid homonyms, List of valid homonyms 2, List of valid homonyms 3 and List of valid homonyms 4 pages are reviewed? Can we be 100% sure that all of the homonyms listed there are pairs of one animal taxon and one non-animal taxon, i.e. "valid" homonyms? If that's the case it would be a fairly easy thing to sort out the remaining 184 and presumably still unreviewed homonyms listed in Category:Homonyms. Many of them seems to be junior homonyms hence listed as invalid under the relevant nomenclatural code. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 12:23, 18 August 2021 (UTC).
By the way the four "List of valid homonyms…" pages lists approximately 870 pages altogether (i.e. circa 220 each). –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 12:34, 18 August 2021 (UTC).
Just had a quick look and they're incomplete - happened to notice that Agathis and Agathis montana are not listed. How many others?? - MPF (talk) 22:50, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
Hard to tell. I've also seen a few "invalid" homonyms in Wikispecies, e.g. when both taxa are placed within the same Regnum (i.e. aren't hemihomonyms). Also, perhaps members of Category:Hemihomonyms (such as for exampel Agathis and Agathis montana) was automatically excluded from checking whether they were "valid homonyms" or not, hence not listed in the "List of valid homonyms #" pages? Who knows. It may help sorting this out if we had any form of categories for homonyms (apart from the hemihomonyms). –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 10:11, 25 August 2021 (UTC).
Data from Wikidata
Hello, just for your curiosity , after entering the relevant data in Wikidata for the names available in {{Alcock, 1893}}, I retrieved the data here thanks to {{Wikidata list}} as you can see in Template talk:Alcock, 1893. Note that the links available with the taxon names leads to Wikispecies when the taxon page exist, and to the Wikidata item otherwise. Christian Ferrer (talk) 19:06, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
Interesting observation. Thanks. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 09:56, 25 August 2021 (UTC).
Fernando Mañé-Garzón
I'm trying to determine whether Fernando Mañé-Garzón (fl. 1985, helminthologist) is the same person as es:Fernando Mañé Garzón, (Uruguay, 1925-2019). Can anyone help, please Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:45, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
Translating a paragraph from that eswp article:
"Amongst other discoveries is notable the description of a new animal phylum, Mesoneurophora, done in a monography with his disciple Raúl Montero expounding the phylogenetic justifications for this new morpho-evolutionary creation."
That seems pretty conclusive to me given that this is clearly the second article listed on the wikispecies page! Circeus (talk) 00:06, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
Rebel, 1907
These sources:
appear to be the same work, albeit with overlapping page numbers. How should they be resolved? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:17, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
Going by Zobodat and its PDFs of this issue, 31–130 are the correct pages, while 1–30 are for an unrelated article by another author about Orthoptera. What is strange to me though is that Zobodat says this issue was published in 1931 rather than 1907, while it says 71(1) was published in 1907. Mistake on Zobodat's part, or something else? Monster Iestyn (talk) 15:01, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
Additionally, the correct title appears to be "Zoologische Ergebnisse der Expedition der Kaiserlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften nach Südarabien und Sokótra im Jahre 1898/99. Lepidopteren." The one used on both templates looks like it may have been mixed up with the title of the Orthoptera article. Monster Iestyn (talk) 15:08, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
probably same work and yeah I agree pagination is likely wrong as pointed out above. The journal in question does however publish in themed series, so it can theoretically have two papers from same volume with different pagination. Though I do not think this is the case here. Volume 71 is 1907, so if someone is referencing it as 1931 for volume 71 then the date is wrong, plus I think 1931 may be after Hans Rebels death, but I am not sure of that, he was publishing close to that period still (1925).. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 16:18, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
According to a 2015 thread on Taxacom, "Rebel initially published this as a free-standing pre-print in 1907 [...] but it was republished in 1931" The thread suggests that the page numbers for the reprint were different. "Lepidopteren aus ... Insel Sokotra" is the title given in that thread. I have now written to the author of the thread, to see if he can shed any light on the matter. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:45, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
AfroMoths ([1]) has 'Rebel 1097' as " Lepidopteren aus Südarabien und von der Insel Sokotra. — Denkschriften der österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Wien 71(): 31–130, pl. 1." and 'Rebel 1930' as "Zoologische Ergebnisse der Expedition der Kaiserlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften nach Südarabien und Sokotra im Jahre 1898/99, Lepidopteren. — — —Verbatim reprint of Rebel 1907, Denkschriften der Kaiserlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Wien 71(2): 31–129. (): 31–129." Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:52, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
A preprint would definitely explain it. they can thoroughly fuck up the record for a citation, especially if there is some subtle difference between the publications, as with Bonelli, 1810, where the preprint alone must be consulted for most new generic names, as the Tabula Synoptica is not in the reprint. Circeus (talk) 12:14, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
I have a reply from Donald Hobern (the originator of the 2015 thread on Taxacom). He says:
I can't add very much to what you see in that thread. The result of it was that Zobodat added a copy of what is presumably the 1931 (re-?)print. A couple of people said they'd take a look for the 1907 copy but I never heard of one. I believe someone suggested to me verbally (so perhaps someone at the museum in Copenhagen) that these volumes had a complex history, where they were planned as a set of papers which were initially published loose and then bound together as the volumes and that the massive delay in finalising this volume was an oddity - but I'm not sure how much this was speculation.
Is "preprint", in the modern sense, the correct term in this case? Either way the question remains: how should we resolve this, on Wikispecies? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:23, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
I would not use the term preprint as it has specific meanings in the code and a pre 1930 publication is excluded from it. As Donald said a lot of this may be speculation we can really only judge what we see. If the new nomens are in these papers I suggest using the first date as the available date, hence Priority, and making sure the template refers as best as we can to the 1907 publication. Which being a pre 1930 publication is published as it is not required to meet any of the main code requirements for publication. It may not be completely resolvable until someone really looks at the issue from a date perpective, which will likely only happen if there are contested names with Priority. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 13:56, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
According to Lepidopterorum Catalogus the "preprint" (or "reprint", as it is called here) has 100 pages and 1 plate, which would explain the page details of the first template at the start of this discussion. The way it is cited here could also be suitable for Wikispecies I think, if the 1907 and 1931 prints are found to be identical. Unfortunately, it doesn't seem like the 1907 one is available online to check this... Monster Iestyn (talk) 16:45, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
I have now combined these sources into one template, {{Rebel, 1907}}, which renders as:
Rebel, H. 1907. Zoologische Ergebnisse der Expedition der Kaiserlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften nach Südarabien und Sokótra im Jahre 1898/99. Lepidopteren. Vienna. 100 pp., 1 pl. [not seen]
[Reprinted in 1931 as Zoologische Ergebnisse der Expedition der Kaiserlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften nach Südarabien und Sokótra im Jahre 1898/99. Lepidopteren (mit 1 Tafel und 41 Textfiguren). Denkschriften. Akademie der Wissenschaften in Wien. Mathematisch-Naturwissenschaftliche Klasse. 71(2): 31–130. PDF.] Reference page
and I have replaced and deleted {{Rebel, 1907a}}.
Two points: note "[not seen]" for the 1907 version, as no-one seems to have found a copy, and given that I have doubts that "71(2)" and even "Denkschr. K. Akad. Wiss. Wien" are correct for 1907.
Are any further changes needed? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:27, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
I have modified it to match the information from Lepidopterorum Catalogus, which seems to indicate the 1907 version was not published in that journal at all before 1931, but rather as a separate/offprint. Monster Iestyn (talk) 12:14, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
I'm unclear why you have removed the title "Lepidopteren aus Sudarabien und von der Insel Sokótra". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:03, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
That does not appear to be the actual title of the article, unless I'm mistaken? Though, that is used as a short title at the headers of some of its pages in the 1931 print, then again. Revert that if you think it's wrong, I was just copying Lepidopterorum Catalogus which stated that as the title. Monster Iestyn (talk) 14:28, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
Surplus linespaces
There's a couple of surplus linespaces appeared in all Pinus pages above and below the Subsectio line (see e.g. Pinus banksiana); I can't work out where they've come from or how to get rid of them. Can anyone deal with them, please? MPF (talk) 15:31, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
What has happened, I think, it that a <br> has been added to famlast, glast, splast, sectlast and so on. If you look at templates, such Pinus sect. Trifoliae you will see a <br> as well as sectlast. This seems to result in a double line break. It can be edited out by not using sectlast etc. in the templates. Hope this helps Andyboorman (talk) 15:45, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
@Andyboorman: Thanks! I guess it'll mean a lot of minor edits to remove the "br"s. Can a robot be set to deal with it? - MPF (talk) 16:03, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
@MPF: not a bot expert, but it looks feasible. I will put a request on the Admin Board. Andyboorman (talk) 16:58, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
@Andyboorman: Excellent, thanks! - MPF (talk) 19:19, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
I believe Tommy Kronkvist added line breaks to some of these templates recently, had been meaning to ask him about that since, apart from the added whitespace already mentioned, it now makes all the taxa link documentation pages a little inaccurate. Additionally, it makes templates like {{Gbr}} redundant? Monster Iestyn (talk) 19:35, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
I find the {{Gbr}} works just fine as I just use the genus name. I have not noticed the inaccuracies in the taxa link documents, but this can be edited out. I am happy with the improvements, but it needs publicity in order to remind editors not to add a br after a list of genera, species and so on. Incidentally I have never used the template format found in the Pinus pages what is wrong with embedding the taxon name works fine for me? Andyboorman (talk) 20:18, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
┌​─────────────────────────​
@MPF, Andyboorman, and Monster Iestyn:
Yes, it was me who added the recent line breaks to for example the
{{splast}}
and
{{glast}}
templates. I feel this is correct since the information about the line breaks for the "-last" templates was added to the templates' help pages already in October 2015 (Template:Splast/doc) and January 2016 (Template:Glast/doc). In other words, both templates (or their documentation) has been wrong up until recently. Some of the other "-last" templates have had this line break since I created them in 2015/2016, hence in accordance with their documentation; see for example the revision history of the "Ordolast" template.
As for the
{{gbr}}
and
{{fbr}}
templates I was under the impression that they were supposed to be exclusively used in Taxonavigation templates (e.g.
{{Quercus}}
) and not added inline to the actual Taxonavigation sections. And reversely, I've always only used the
{{splast}}
etc. templates in the Taxonavigation sections, but never in the Taxonavigation templates (i.e. not like this). Instead I simply embed the taxon name link, as Andy suggests above.
I'll have a thorough look at the "splast and <br>" situation later today or tomorrow, however my herniated disc is acting up again (was at hospital yesterday) so it may take some time. I'm sure the line break issue can be mended by the use of a bot though. Please give me a day or so and I'll have it fixed. Best regards, Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 11:59, 31 August 2021 (UTC).
@Tommy Kronkvist: - excellent, thanks, and hope you're well soon! - MPF (talk) 17:11, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
Hope you get well soon too, sounds awful. That said, {{Glast}} and {{Gbr}} for instance are now identical character-for-character as of writing, if you look at the wikicode for both. There is no difference between the two templates anymore. That is what I meant when I said the latter kind of templates are now redundant. Monster Iestyn (talk) 17:36, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
Thanks all. I think Pinus and its daughter taxa are now corrected, though I opted for +80 manual edits rather than a bot solution, since many of the taxon pages also needed a lot of other fixes (mainly in regards to references such as this example or author names like here). However for the future we need to agree upon a guideline for how and/or where to use the two types of templates. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 14:38, 1 September 2021 (UTC).
Duplicate author pages with different official IPNI forms
How should we best handle the cases where we have duplicates of author pages, where the authors are identical but the author abbreviations differ? See for example Betsy Rivers Jackes (Jackes), née Betsy Rivers Paterson (B.R.Paterson). Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 12:06, 31 August 2021 (UTC).
My personal view is we should make the page under their most recent, and possibly preferred, name as complete as possible. If there are other names, eg under maiden names or other reasons for changing ones name, these could be redirects and make sure the details are in the main page. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 18:09, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
I agree with Scott. Andyboorman (talk) 19:12, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
That's my view as well, however also means we'll lose some of the Wikidata auto-functionality, for example the
{{IPNI standard form}}
(for the redirected page). I was thinking we might try to find a way to stick to our present system (the one suggested by Scott and Andy) while still keeping the Wikidata-connectivity intact. Perhaps by altering or creating a new, complementary {{IPNI standard form}} template. Today the template fetch the author abbreviation by use of the P428 Wikidata property, but I don't know if it's possible to use the same WD property in one Wikispecies template for fetching two values from separate Wikidata items (Jackes and B.R.Paterson, respectively) and merge them into one Wikispecies' author page. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 09:13, 1 September 2021 (UTC).
It is possible (for someone with Lua skills) to code the template to fetch multiple values. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:23, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
Thanks. I will have to brush up on my Lua skills and get it done. It isn't assembler after all... Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 15:35, 2 September 2021 (UTC).
The 2022 Community Wishlist Survey will happen in January
Hello everyone,
We hope all of you are as well and safe as possible during these trying times! We wanted to share some news about a change to the Community Wishlist Survey 2022. We would like to hear your opinions as well.
Summary:
We will be running the Community Wishlist Survey 2022 in January 2022. We need more time to work on the 2021 wishes. We also need time to prepare some changes to the Wishlist 2022. In the meantime, you can use a dedicated sandbox to leave early ideas for the 2022 wishes.
Proposing and wish-fulfillment will happen during the same year
In the past, the Community Tech team has run the Community Wishlist Survey for the following year in November of the prior year. For example, we ran the Wishlist for 2021 in November 2020. That worked well a few years ago. At that time, we used to start working on the Wishlist soon after the results of the voting were published.
However, in 2021, there was a delay between the voting and the time when we could start working on the new wishes. Until July 2021, we were working on wishes from the Wishlist for 2020.
We hope having the Wishlist 2022 in January 2022 will be more intuitive. This will also give us time to fulfill more wishes from the 2021 Wishlist.
Encouraging wider participation from historically excluded communities
We are thinking how to make the Wishlist easier to participate in. We want to support more translations, and encourage under-resourced communities to be more active. We would like to have some time to make these changes.
A new space to talk to us about priorities and wishes not granted yet
We will have gone 365 days without a Wishlist. We encourage you to approach us. We hope to hear from you in the talk page, but we also hope to see you at our bi-monthly Talk to Us meetings! These will be hosted at two different times friendly to time zones around the globe.
We will begin our first meeting September 15th at 23:00 UTC. More details about the agenda and format coming soon!
Brainstorm and draft proposals before the proposal phase
If you have early ideas for wishes, you can use the new Community Wishlist Survey sandbox. This way, you will not forget about these before January 2022. You will be able to come back and refine your ideas. Remember, edits in the sandbox don't count as wishes!
Feedback
Answer on the talk page (in any language you prefer) or at our Talk to Us meetings.
SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 00:23, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
Editing.
Wiki looks interesting, if I want to start a new page what do I need to do? Thank you.
64.39.87.169 15:46, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
There are several ways to start a new page. See Help:Starting a new page at MediaWiki for examples. Please also see Help:Contents and its sub-pages for information about the scope and preferred format for the Wikispecies project. Note that Wikispecies is a wiki specifically and exclusively encompassing the taxonomy (i.e. description, identification, nomenclature and classification) of biological organisms. Wikispecies is not a general encyclopedia such as for example Wikipedia – for more information about this please see Wikispecies:What Wikispecies is not. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 00:27, 9 September 2021 (UTC).
Call for Candidates for the Movement Charter Drafting Committee ending 14 September 2021
Movement Strategy announces the Call for Candidates for the Movement Charter Drafting Committee. The Call opens August 2, 2021 and closes September 14, 2021.
The Committee is expected to represent diversity in the Movement. Diversity includes gender, language, geography, and experience. This comprises participation in projects, affiliates, and the Wikimedia Foundation.
English fluency is not required to become a member. If needed, translation and interpretation support is provided. Members will receive an allowance to offset participation costs. It is US$100 every two months.
We are looking for people who have some of the following skills:
The Committee is expected to start with 15 people. If there are 20 or more candidates, a mixed election and selection process will happen. If there are 19 or fewer candidates, then the process of selection without election takes place.
Will you help move Wikimedia forward in this important role? Submit your candidacy here. Please contact strategy2030
wikimedia.org with questions.
This message may have been sent previously - please note that the deadline for candidate submissions was extended and candidacies are still being accepted until 14 September 2021. Xeno (WMF) 17:16, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
Server switch
Read this message in another languagePlease help translate to your language
The Wikimedia Foundation tests the switch between its first and secondary data centers. This will make sure that Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia wikis can stay online even after a disaster. To make sure everything is working, the Wikimedia Technology department needs to do a planned test. This test will show if they can reliably switch from one data centre to the other. It requires many teams to prepare for the test and to be available to fix any unexpected problems.
They will switch all traffic back to the primary data center on Tuesday, 14 September 2021.
Unfortunately, because of some limitations in MediaWiki, all editing must stop while the switch is made. We apologize for this disruption, and we are working to minimize it in the future.
You will be able to read, but not edit, all wikis for a short period of time.
Other effects:
This project may be postponed if necessary. You can read the schedule at wikitech.wikimedia.org​. Any changes will be announced in the schedule. There will be more notifications about this. A banner will be displayed on all wikis 30 minutes before this operation happens. Please share this information with your community.
SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 00:45, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
Talk to the Community Tech
Read this message in another languagePlease help translate to your language
Hello!
As we have recently announced, we, the team working on the Community Wishlist Survey, would like to invite you to an online meeting with us. It will take place on September 15th, 23:00 UTC on Zoom, and will last an hour. Click here to join.
Agenda
Format
The meeting will not be recorded or streamed. Notes without attribution will be taken and published on Meta-Wiki. The presentation (first three points in the agenda) will be given in English.
We can answer questions asked in English, French, Polish, and Spanish. If you would like to ask questions in advance, add them on the Community Wishlist Survey talk page or send to sgrabarczuk@wikimedia.org.
Natalia Rodriguez (the Community Tech manager) will be hosting this meeting.
Invitation link
See you! SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 03:03, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
Repositories with the same combination of letters
Hello, a quick question: is there a preferred way of disambiguating repository links? The holotype of Mesodermochelys undulatus is in the Hobetsu Museum ("Institutional Abbreviation: HMG"), but HMG is already occuped by the Hunterian Museum, Glasgow. Would HMG (Japan) or Hobetsu Museum or something else again be better? Thank you, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 13:08, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
Hello Maculosae tegmine lyncis. No, unfortunately we don't have a set system for disambiguating repository links/pages. It's been discussed several times before, but the talks have sort of dried out without the community coming to any conclusion. I'll copy this discussion to the Village Pump, in order to again raise this question to the community as a whole. Please continue the discussion there. Regards, Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 20:51, 13 September 2021 (UTC).
┌​─────────────────────────​
The above discussion was copied from User talk:Tommy Kronkvist#Repositories with the same combination of letters. Please continue the discussion below.
Though we tend to be a bit loath to them. This is one issue where either a category or a list may be helpful. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 01:42, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
…Or both, actually. A list of all repositories listing where they're situated etc. (like the author disambiguation pages) would be helpful when users need to do a quick search for a specific repository page, while the category is useful in a broader spectrum, for example when doing Wikidata-, tech- or bot related tasks. Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 08:08, 14 September 2021 (UTC).
This is surely a wider problem than just for wikispecies? I'd assume priority applies; whichever of the institutions was HMG first should keep it (Her Majesty's Government? ツ), and the other(s) should select, or be allocated, a different acronym? - MPF (talk) 10:34, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
I agree Tommy, at the least this could be initialised as a list of all repositories, a Cat can then be done that would be most beneficial to various tasks as you say. MPF, In regards to priority of acronyms, for major institutions I believe these are registered by the Institution and in general are their preferred acronym. I believe they are checked against an international database when created. I could be wrong on that just I do recall several museums being made to change their over the years, some were voluntary. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 10:48, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
FWIW, Evenhuis has HMUG for the Hunterian museum, but does not include Hobetsu. The official ASIH list uses HMG for Hobetsu and GLAHM for the Hunterian Museum. Circeus (talk) 11:45, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
In regards to priority of acronyms we should also remember that many repositories use several acronyms depending on faculty etc. For example the Swedish Museum of Natural History use NHRM, NHRS, NRM & SNHM; here at Wikispecies they're all redirected to the main one, SMNH. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 13:57, 14 September 2021 (UTC).
Yes. Acronyms have also varied over time for many institutions (Indeed, Hobetsu Museum's official name isn't even that anymore: it changed in 2006!), and the literature is full of adhoc usages because unless a journal editor mandates use of a standard, everyone remains free to abbreviate however they want. While Index Herbariorum, Evenhuis and the ASIH standards are convenient, they are only partial and ad hoc to their specialties. The early 2010s efforts at standardizing never really took off because very few projects actually need to handle collection acronyms across many specialties. Unfortunately, we're one of those! Circeus (talk) 14:27, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
┌​─────────────────────────​
"This is one issue where either a category or a list may be helpful". Don't we have Repositories already? Though it doesn't look like either of the two subpages have been updated very often in the last two years. Monster Iestyn (talk) 20:10, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
Yes, I had forgotten about the Repositories pages. However as you say they haven't been updated for a long time: you'll have to be familiar with Akkadian cuneiform to decipher some of it... Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 03:31, 15 September 2021 (UTC).
We basically stopped supporting that page when we stopped using it as the linking atrget for all repository acronyms. Circeus (talk) 02:11, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
You're right. It would be easier to update/support it (and of more value to the community) if there where categories to back it up. Right now it's only a somewhat misplaced page in main namespace that feels a bit too "autonomous" from a wiki structural point of view. Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 11:39, 16 September 2021 (UTC).
New replacement names
Hello!
For a new replacement name (Nomen novum) is it possible to modify the the old name page (if pre-existing) or is necessary to create a new independent page for each name?
If you need to modify an existing page, are there any examples?
Many thanks
Best wishes – Eve Hutch (talk), 11:49, 15 September 2021 (UTC). — The preceding unsigned comment was added by Eve Hutch (talkcontribs) 09:52, 15 September 2021 (UTC)‎.
Hello Eve Hutch, as Wikispecies has pages for taxa (not for names, unlike Wikidata), an existing page should be moved to the new replacement name. The move can be done by all experienced editors. For an example of a page with a nom. nov., see Neothomasella. Kind regards, --Thiotrix (talk) 15:59, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
Thanks a lot. What do you mean by "moving" an existing page? If you explain this to me, I can then modify an existing page for testing. Thanks again. Kind regards, Eve Hutch (talk) 14:57, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
He is referring to what is basically renaming a page. In the case you are mentioning the page would be renamed from its old taxon name to the new replacement name. First thing you should do is run the Special:WhatLinksHere tool to be sure of what pages would be affected by the move. If its a species page then the genus page will link there and needs to also be modified to direct to the new name. However, there may also be redirects from other unused names to the name you are replacing, to avoid double redirects these also need to be updated to point to the new name. So have a list of these before you move the page, the tool will help.
Once all this is sorted in the top right next to the search box is a dropdown box that says More, under this is a link for Move. Click on that from the page you intend to move and you can place a new name in for the page, you must give a reason, I suggest you do leave a redirect which it will ask you. Then you can move the page once you action this page. The page will now have a new Mainspace Name, so any pages that direct to it have to be updated to reflect this.
This is all logged in the recent changes that admins watch so if their is a problem we will see it immediately, so do not worry too much there will be people who see and can fix mistakes. Take care with spelling, as if you move the page and have made a spelling mistake you may need an admin to untangle that. So double check everything before you accept the changes. I would suggest you include in the references on the page the citation that makes the move in the literature, in your comments be explicit as to why your moving the page.
If you need more help feel free to ask, Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 15:59, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for the walk-through, Scott! @Eve Hutch: The dropdown menu with the "Move" link is called "Page" rather than "More". Other than that Scott's explanation is excellent. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 14:18, 18 September 2021 (UTC).
Thank you very much for the explanation! Eve Hutch (talk) 14:31, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
Tedicpus puiramis
does anyone want to make a stab at redoing the prose article at Tedicpus puiramis before I delete it? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:31, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
Looks like the text has been cribbed from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symphysodon_aequifasciatus​, with names changed to a genus and species that do not exist, for a reason that is not explained - perhaps someone is trying to legitimise in advance a planned change of name, but they are not doing it well at all. Delete as junk, maybe with an explanation as to why? Cheers Tony Rees Tony 1212 (talk) 19:31, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
Also found this, at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discus_(fish)​: "The discus fish has attracted a cult following of collectors and has created a multimillion dollar international industry complete with shows, competitions, and reputed online breeders." So maybe there is some additional shady backstory here, just guessing... Tony 1212 (talk) 19:46, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
Thanks all; deleted. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:36, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
Thank you. As a final side note the taxonomy of the Symphysodon i.e. Discus genus has always been a mess, but it's never encompassed a species named "Symphysodon puiramis". Furthermore I don't think there has ever been a genus named "Tedicpus" (fish or not) nor a specific name "puiramis" for any fish; the only fairly similar I can find is the saltwater blenny Enneapterygius pyramis Fricke, 1994, which is unrelated. Also and for what it's worth a Google search for "Tedicpus puiramis" renders zero hits. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 14:14, 18 September 2021 (UTC).
Circumscriptional names
Please have a look at Rhabdura (06:22, 19 September 2021 version). Ideas and thought about how we should best handle and format these kind of issues/taxa are welcome. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 10:56, 19 September 2021 (UTC).
By definition, circumscriptional name are unregulated under either botanical or zoological codes (though they are under the bacteriological code). Aside from the their form (which must be in -ales for plants), it's 100% dependent on whatever source has been selected as a valid classification by Wikispecies. There's literally nothing more we can use to guide us that wouldn't be original research. Circeus (talk) 15:34, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
In addition, WS pages are for taxa not names. By regulation names for taxa must conform to botanical or zoological codes, therefore WS pages for circumscriptional plant or zoological names are not allowed. Am I right or wrong? Andyboorman (talk) 18:08, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
A similar note is on the page for Dicellurata, the only other suborder in Diplura listed on Wikispecies. These notes were added by Nikita J. Kluge, who edited both of the pages back in 2013. Not sure if this helps at all or not. Monster Iestyn (talk) 18:57, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
EDIT: Ah hang on, he also added similar notes to other pages such as Insecta in 2013 (see here), only to be reverted by Stho002 later on (see here). It looks like there are only 6 pages altogether that Kluge edited that Stho002 didn't later revert: Dicellurata, Entomobryomorpha, Holodonata, Metapterygota, Odonatoptera and Rhabdura. I'm not sure what to make of this. Monster Iestyn (talk) 19:40, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
Leucadendron
The past month there's been quite a lot of activity on the Leucadendron page, where a total of 38 species were added by the same unregistered IP editor. Please have a look at this diff for an overview of the latest 18 edits from August 27 up until the day before yesterday. (Two edits by me, and 16 by the IP.) I'm not saying that the page now includes any errors, but perhaps a botanist with a registered user account should have a quick look just to verify? Thanks beforehand, Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 14:14, 21 September 2021 (UTC).
Not in my area of particular expertise, but Wikipedia says there are "about 80 species" and there are over 100 names (including synonyms) in Tropicos, from which one could potentially obtain a list of current names. The genus is also treated in Plants of the World Online. www.worldplants.de (source for the data in CoL) has a long list, some valid, some synonyms... BTW there are three different genera named "Leucadendron" according to ING and Tropicos, all listed in fam. Proteaceae, the earliest (Linnaeus, Sp. Pl. 1: 91) is a nom. rej. for some reason... Tony 1212 (talk) 19:19, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
OK, the type species of Linnaeus' (1753) genus, now rejected, Leucadendron lepidocarpodendron Linnaeus, is now treated as a species of Protea, see https://www.nhm.ac.uk/our-science/data/linnaean-typification/search/detail.dsml?ID=509600 . Tony 1212 (talk) 19:26, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
I have adjusted the species list using Plants of the World Online. This will need cross checking with South African Flora, but on the face of it looks much better. (sorry now signed) Andyboorman (talk) 19:44, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
For completeness, Kuntze's 1891 genus of the same name (attributed therein to "Linnaeus, 1840"), is now Leucospermum, refer ING. Cheers Tony Tony 1212 (talk) 20:03, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
Last edited on 22 September 2021, at 07:01
Wikispecies
Content is available under CC BY-SA 3.0 unless otherwise noted.
Privacy policy
Terms of Use
Desktop
HomeRandomLog inSettingsDonateAbout WikispeciesDisclaimers
LanguageWatchEdit