Wikispecies:Village Pump/Archive 39 - Wikispecies
Jump to content
From Wikispecies
Wikispecies:Village Pump
A new category
Category:Monotypic taxa
Not sure where to put this so I figured I would just alert other editors that I have created it. —
Justin (
ko
vf
04:44, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
reply
In my opinion, this category is not a useful one. Please, delete it. --
Franz Xaver
talk
05:33, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
reply
Actually it is not really clear, where to use
Template:Moty
, including this category. Should it be used e.g. for the family
Symplocaceae
, which contains only one genus with however about 300 species? (This would be contrary to the usual practice in botany.) Should it be used for every species, which at present is not subdivided into subspecies? In this case, it would concern the vast majority of species. --
Franz Xaver
talk
06:00, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
reply
Franz Xaver
Do you think the template should go as well? —
Justin (
ko
vf
06:02, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
reply
Yes, this should also be removed, however only after a final discussion. There was some controversy on this template – see
Wikispecies:Village pump/Archive 26#Help
. The template was blanked for some time. I do not know, whether anybody is using it at present. --
Franz Xaver
talk
06:08, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
reply
Of course I disagree that moty should be blanked and deleted. It is to me clear to where it can and is used - for a monotypic taxon at whatever rank where I commonly encounter its use in scientific literature. I really do not see a problem except where monospecificity is required. I was also going to suggest that
Category:Monotypic taxa
be created as the first stage of using categories. We then could have a hierarchy of subcategories perhaps culminating on Monospecific. It seems that Franz disagrees. Of course I will go with consensus, if moty is to go, even though I do use it, for example on
Brassicaceae
where the term is much used by the specialists in lierature. However, I must point out that moty was unilaterally deleted by Stephen Thorpe without consensus or vote, although there was some agreement by others for his action.
Andyboorman
talk
13:43, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
reply
Andyboorman
OK, I could accept a solution, where
Category:Monotypic taxa
is a category containing e.g.
Category:Monospecific genera
Category:Monogeneric tribes
Category:Monogeneric families
. --
Franz Xaver
talk
14:00, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
reply
Franz Xaver
Koavf
my thoughts as well. We then could go to a situation where moty is removed from the name section of the main taxon pages and the data allocated to respective categories - is that the way forward through the semantic maze?
Andyboorman
talk
14:05, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
reply
Collembola: entomologists?
Are people who work on
Collembola
considered entomologists? Or should we have a new category
Category:Collembologists
Korg
talk
11:10, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
reply
In my opinion they should not be considered entomologists, since these days Collembola aren't insects anymore... However instead calling them "collembologists" might be a bit premature, at least until there is some more research done on
Entognatha
. To some degree this is also reflected by Google: a search for "collembologist" will only give you 694 hits. –
Tommy Kronkvist
talk
),
07:46, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
reply
Article creation wizard discussion
Hi all,
This proposal
suggests WMF to fund the writing of an article creation wizard at Wikipedia, but with enough interest it may -- or may it not? -- be expanded to write an article creation wizards framework or library for use at non-Wikipedia wikis, such as here. If desired, please join the discussion
before December 12
. (I've sent this message to English wikis; I ask you to deliver it to non-English wikis, if you can. Even delivering it in English there may be better than nothing.)
What
tools
do we use here, now, to make article creation easier for newbies?
What
requirements
do we have for a potential implementation?
How would you like to
inform
the people of the article creation perks and difficulties on this wiki?
What else needs to be considered?
Thanks. --
Gryllida
talk
03:53, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
reply
Template Nomen
Hello. Does anybody have a use for the template
{{
Nomen
}}
and indeed what actually does it do? One thing it does do apparently, is to make the use of bots to make widespread changes very much more difficult. It is
used on approximately 3900 pages,
mostly zoological. I have removed it from a number of plant and zoological pages and have had no feedback or complaints. I am proposing we discuss the complete removal of this template. I have feeling that it may have to be largely manually removed, as it embeds key information, but perhaps somebody more knowledgeable can enlighten us. Thank you for your time and input. Regards
Andyboorman
talk
16:45, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
reply
This template, along with Syn created collapse boxes to click on for detailed information. They are disabled, and I have been removing them as I have been updating Cirripedia. That probably will remove no more than 1000. Most others are probably with insects.
Neferkheperre
talk
18:44, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
reply
I find the
{{Nomen}}
template pretty much useless and in my opinion it should be deleted, together with the already disapproved
{{
Syn
}}
template (currently used on approximately 970 pages). I'm prepared to delete all occurrences of them both before January 1, should the community decide that we don't want them. –
Tommy Kronkvist
talk
),
07:55, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
reply
I agree. Should be removed. --
Franz Xaver
talk
09:53, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
reply
I also agree they should be removed, I also have been removing them, as and when I come across.
Andyboorman
talk
10:42, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
reply
As long as contained information survives.
Neferkheperre
talk
13:27, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
reply
Nomen nudum
or not?
Recently, the
Plant List
replaced the widely-used name
Widdringtonia cedarbergensis
J.A.Marsh by the older name
Widdringtonia wallichii
Endl. ex Carr. Marsh's name (
protologue
) was coined because he considered
W. wallichii
protologue
) to be a
nomen nudum
with no description. Looking at Endlicher's protologue, I agree with Marsh, and consider the
Plant List
to be in error. Therefore, I'd like to return the page to
W. cedarbergensis
, but (particularly with the
Plant List
being considered the top botanical authority by some at least) would appreciate opinions from one or two others familiar with defining
nomina nuda
before going ahead. Thanks! -
MPF
talk
23:18, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
reply
To answer myself - turns out
W. wallichii
does have a valid description later,
here
. -
MPF
talk
23:34, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
reply
The Plant List is an automatic compilation from different sources, certainly not the top authority, but only a starting point, where you can find the path to some reliable sources. In this case, the
entry
was based on
WCSP
. Anyway, I agree that Endlicher's protologue is missing a description or diagnosis (see
ICN Art. 38
). If there is not at least one character given, which distinguishes the new taxon from other taxa, the new name is not validly published. In this case, Endlicher only states, that it is different, but does not tell any distinguishing characters. That's certainly not sufficient. However, Endlicher gives a reference to
Hook.f.
, London J. Bot. 4:
141
(–142). If there were given some distinguishing characters (= diagnosis) or a (short) description, this could validate Endlicher's protologue. However, at the end of the page, we can find only the sentence "Dr. Wallich has sent another
Pachylepis
from South Africa certainly distinct from P.
cupressoides
, which may however be the C.
stricta
." So, this reference does not change anything. Endlicher published a
nom. nud.
, which however was validated by
Carrière
. I am not sure, if Marsh's name actually is a
nom. illeg. superfl.
(see
ICN Art. 52
), as he does not explicitly cite Carrière's description. It depends on the typification of Carrière's name. If it's holotype or all syntypes were listed by Marsh in the list of included specimens, this actually would make the new name illegitimate. Moreover, I did not check, if one of the references listed by Marsh gives a reference to Carrière's description. I am not sure, if this could make the name illegitimate under ICN Art. 52.2 (e). --
Franz Xaver
talk
01:21, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
reply
Excellent, thanks! -
MPF
talk
10:42, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
reply
Hello
MPF
and
Franz Xaver
I have a couple of points to make. Firstly, I agree with Franz that the Plant List is not an authority, but it is very good at generating a basic list to be checked using the CSV files. It is also not updated regularly the last update was 2012. WCSP is an authority, but not perfect and sometimes can be in error or there can be discussions to be had, however, they are contactable - see the site and are willing to discuss and explain. Now with
Widdringtonia
there is a disagreement between WCSP and the African Plant Database concerning the status of
Widdringtonia cedarbergensis
Widdringtonia wallichii
and also the synonymy with
Widdringtonia nodiflora
. See
WCSP
Widdringtonia wallichii
APD
Widdringtonia wallichii
APD
Widdringtonia cedarbergensis
WCSP
Widdringtonia nodiflora
and
APD
Widdringtonia nodiflora
. In this sort of case I contact WCSP and ask the questions! I would recommend that you do so here and sorry about the spanner in the works so to speak.
Andyboorman
talk
17:26, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
reply
Andyboorman
and
MPF
Hello! I have to add, that also
APD
can be contacted and is reacting positively to suggestions. In this case, I suspect there to be an issue with the typification of
Widdringtonia wallichii
Endl. ex Carrière and/or the identification of the Wallich specimens. It seems possible, that Carrière's name has to be typified with some collections different from the mentioned Wallich specimens. Moreover,
Widdringtonia wallichii
Endl. (APD) and
Widdringtonia wallichii
Endl. ex Carrière (WCSP) not necessarily do belong to the same species. Carrière could have merely used Endlicher's name, but could have described something different. So, this apparent contradiction between APD and WCSP actually maybe is non-existent. Probably the answer is in one of the books by A.Farjon. Regards --
Franz Xaver
talk
18:57, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
reply
OK, I have checked for Wallich's specimens in
BM
and
. Both were revised by A.Farjon, the one in K (lectotype of Endlicher's name) as
W. nodiflora
, the other collections in BM as
W. cedarbergensis
. I am still missing an information on the type of Carrière's name. I could not find anything in P. --
Franz Xaver
talk
19:30, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
reply
Franz Xaver
and
MPF
Franz your logic vis a vis
Widdringtonia wallichii
Endl. (APD) and
W. wallichii
Endl. ex Carr. seems very reasonable. A.Farjon recognises
Widdringtonia cedarbergensis
and
W. nodiflora
, but not
W. wallichii
Endl. ex Carr. in his A Handbook of the World's Conifers, 2012. WCSP note him as a reference extensively, but not for
W. wallichii
Endl. ex Carr. Incidentally and not unexpectedly, Oxford University's
Conifers of the World
follows Farjon as he helped develop the resource. It also does not mention
W. wallichii
Endl. ex Carr. at all, but there could be clues in this extensive database. I can only assume that WCSP made their changes subsequent to publication of A Handbook of the World's Conifers. Anybody contacted WCSP or APD yet? Regards
Andyboorman
talk
14:10, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
reply
Andyboorman
and
MPF
OK, if in the book from 2012
W. cedarbergensis
still is upheld, it will be best to contact WCSP, who deviate from this. APD seems to reproduce an older state of knowledge. I did not contact any of them. Regards --
Franz Xaver
talk
14:43, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
reply
Franz Xaver
and
MPF
I will contact WCSP, but I predict that they have not made an error, as their change was in the last couple of years, but perhaps have an opinion contrary to the book. However, their reasoning will be interesting. I will update next week when I hear.
Andyboorman
talk
15:11, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
reply
Thanks all! Yep, the change is a recent one; clearly the original 1847
W. wallichii
Endl. is a
nom. nud
.; presumably what happened is that the validation of the name by Carrière in 1867 was overlooked by later writers such as Farjon. It isn't the first valid name to be overlooked, of course. Of the BM and K specimens that
Franz Xaver
linked to, I would not set much store by Farjon's determinavit slips; I regret to say, I have seen a number of clear misidentifications on his determinavit slips on other specimens. -
MPF
talk
19:22, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
reply
Franz Xaver
and
MPF
I have heard back from Kew and your analyses are correct. To quote "
W. wallichii
Carriere (1867) is a valid name but has never been typified.
W. cedarbergensis
is superfluous, as it includes
W. wallichii
so the name cannot be used." They also go on to say that it is unlikely that there is a Carriere type for the 1867 name (though not impossible), therefore a neotype will need to be designated and ideally this should be the holotype of
W. cedarbergensis
. In addition they do not deal with
W. wallichii
Endl. as it is nom. nud. and they generally do not include invalid names on their synonymy, but they confirm that it is likely to be synonym of
W. nodiflora
. Hope this helps, I will add the synonymies using WCSP not APD or Farjon.
Andyboorman
talk
11:38, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
reply
Thanks! Re "a neotype will need to be designated and ideally this should be the holotype of
W. cedarbergensis
" - until this has been done, presumably we can't say the two names are homotypic? -
MPF
talk
16:20, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
reply
Andyboorman
and
MPF
Thanks for contacting Kew. In my opinion, the rationale that
W. cedarbergensis
is a
nom. illeg. superfl.
can only be accepted based on the fact, that both Marsh and Carrière cite Endlicher's protologue of
W. wallichii
, who mentioned Wallich's specimens. I don't know, if Carrière could have seen these specimens. If yes, this could be regarded as original material, and a lectotype should be selected from these. However, Carrière's description most likely was based on a living plant – he was "chef de culture" of the living plants collection at Muséum nationale d'histoire naturelle in Paris – see
[1]
. His statement on
W. wallichii
in an earlier edition of "Traité général"
[2]
suggests, that he had it in the Paris live collection. So, it seems possible that there exists some specimen in P, collected before 1867 from the living plant cultivated there and used by Carrière for his description. If yes, this would be the type specimen. Anyway, as according to
ICN Art. 52.1
nomenclatural superfluity requires definite inclusion of the type of an older name, it is difficult to argue that
W. cedarbergensis
is superfluous, when for Carrière's name no original material is extant and thus cannot have been cited by Marsh, and when Marsh did not cite Carrière's protologue. A selection of the holotype of
W. cedarbergensis
as a neotype of
W. wallichii
Endl. ex Carrière would make both names homotypic, but not cause
W. cedarbergensis
to be illegitimate, as such a neotype would not be a "previously designated type" under Art. 52.2. --
Franz Xaver
talk
18:30, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
reply
In short: The inclusion of
W. wallichii
Endl.
by Marsh does not make
W. cedarbergensis
illegitimate, when
W. wallichii
Endl.
and
W. wallichii
Endl. ex Carrière
are not homotypic. --
Franz Xaver
talk
18:54, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
reply
Franz Xaver
So
W. cedarbergensis
is just a synonym in your opinion?
Andyboorman
talk
19:51, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
reply
Yes, as far as I see, it is just a younger synonym. So, the name could again come into use, if by typification of Carrière's name it should turn out, that also this name would fall into synonymy of
W. nodiflora
. As long as it is not typified, everything is possible. --
Franz Xaver
talk
21:08, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
reply
Endlicher's
nomen nudum
may well have been supported by a herbarium specimen somewhere, though unfortunately, many of his specimens were destroyed in WWII. I think it can be presumed that he obtained seed, which he passed on to Paris where Carrière grew it and described the plant from the seedlings. That Carrière cited Endlicher as the author of the name strongly suggests his plants derived directly from Endlicher's named specimens; there is no reason to suggest the two names refer to different taxa. Carrière is well-known for not keeping herbarium material of his plants, so we can be fairly certain that there is no original material for Carrière's description, but if any of Endlicher's material is ever traced (unlikely!) it would be a good lectotype. Carrière's description of the foliage is 100% consistent with seedlings (alternate juvenile leaves, and opposite adult scale leaves), but what is interesting is his description of the tree size & shape ("Arbre pyramidal ..." et seq.) - where did he get those details from? Correspondance from Endlicher, perhaps? Or could there be some other earlier published description overlooked somewhere? -
MPF
talk
01:16, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
reply
MPF
I don't think, that Endlicher actually did play an essential role here. He most likely only repeated in other words, what
Hook.f.
had written in London J. Bot. 4:
141
, and, yes, he baptised the species. (Please, compare both, and also Carrière 1855. There are the same pieces of information.) I suppose, if Endlicher had seen a specimen, he would have given a short description. So, the basis of Endlicher's name would be the Wallich specimens in BM and K. If Endlicher had received a duplicate from the Wallich collections, it is probably lost. Anyway, a specimen seen by Endlicher but not by Carrière cannot be regarded as original material of Carrière's description. (However, it could be used as a neotype.) Paris probably got seeds directly from England. Carrière could have received additional information together with the seeds in a letter, possibly from Kew Gardens (J.D.Hooker). There certainly was some exchange between these institutions. Either this additional information had its basis in notes of the original collector Wallich, or there were reports from later (British) travellers to the Cape. In the latter case, a confusion with a different species (
W. nodiflora
?) cannot fully be excluded. Anyway, Carrière most likely had only a juvenile plant. He writes in 1867, that the plant was frozen in Paris ("Gèle à Paris"). As he gives some indication in 1855, that he had the plant in his live collection, he would have received seeds around 1850. In my opinion, the ID of the Wallich specimens in BM and K should be checked again, and a neotype for
W. wallichii
selected from these. --
Franz Xaver
talk
08:12, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
reply
Caesalpinia
Anyone interested in this genus? Some splitting of it
here
, for anyone that wants to add it. Full details in the cited refs at the end. -
MPF
talk
21:24, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
reply
Thanks for sharing the information. Great! On page 63 of the publication in PhytoKeys (
DOI
10.3897/phytokeys.71.9203
), they used one of my photos I had uploaded on Commons:
File:Caesalpinia godefroyana 1.jpg
The splitting of
Caesalpinia
is no surprise. I am waiting since about five years, this would happen sometimes. --
Franz Xaver
talk
21:55, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
reply
Have added a couple of references.
Andyboorman
talk
16:48, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
reply
Re: Template:VN
Apparently the thread
here
was archived, but to answer your question: Implementing the new version of VN would be replacing the content of
Template:VN
with that of
Template:VN/sandbox
, not adding it to it. --
Yair rand
talk
21:38, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
reply
Thank you. The
{{
VN
}}
template is now updated. –
Tommy Kronkvist
14:20, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
reply
I notice that English vernacular names are now automatically uncapitalised irrespective of the input. Typically in English many authorities use capital letters, but I guess it is not that important. The en option seems to disappear as well. Are these features of the new "improved" template?
Andyboorman
talk
13:03, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
reply
Hello
Andyboorman
The vernacular names should of course be capitalised, as is also noted in the
Help:Vernacular names section
. As you say it's not hugely important, but still... The trouble here is that the data is automatically copied from the Wikidata Property called "taxon common name" (
P1843
), and if listed uncapitalised there then the names will be rendered using only minuscules in Wikispecies as well. An example of that is the Wikidata item
Q608215
which mirrors the uncapitalised vernacular name "nicker" (rather than "Nicker") to the Wikispecies
Caesalpinia
page. Compare this to the Wikidata item
Q18498
which instead uses capitalised vernacular names – the result can be seen on our
Canis lupus
page, complete with capitals.
As for the "en" option gone missing, yes it has, and no it hasn't... The Wikidata "taxon common name" property overrides any vernacular name listed in the Wikispecies pages: if there is an English vernacular name listed at Wikidata, any English vernacular name on the corresponding Wikispecies page will be ignored. The opposite is true as well: if no English VN is listed at Wikidata, then all English VN's listed on Wikispecies will be shown instead.
Note that this is language specific. It is easy to see whether a VN is derived from the Wikispecies page itself, or from Wikidata. Again using the
Canis lupus
page as an example, all vernacular names fetched from Wikidata are listed without a leading asterisk (English, French, German and Spanish: again,
Q18498
), whereas the rest (58 languages) are fetched from the Wikispecies page itself and marked with a leading asterisk for each language. I'm sure that in time more and more non-English vernacular names will be added to Wikidata, so that they all reach the same "status", so to speak.
Indeed the system is not yet perfect, but it is my belief that using Wikidata as a main database for these types of data is the right way to go. It will help linking material from
all
of the different Wikimedia sister projects in the best possible way, so that data not found in for instance Wikipedia can instead be easily found in Wikispecies, and vice versa. Personally I still think we should rid the Wikispecies taxon pages from all vernacular names, or instead perhaps move them all to a few exclusive "vernacular names" pages, with links to the respective taxon pages. This could easily be done by a bot, and would help unclutter the taxon pages. But that's my personal opinion, and another matter. All the best,
Tommy Kronkvist
14:16, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
.< br />
reply
(The above edits were moved from
User talk:Tommy Kronkvist
at
18:04, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
reply
Unfortunately, it is pulling in a whole lot of junk (inaccurate names, names attributed to the wrong language, bad capitalisation, cluttering with multiple names in a single language, etc.) and duplication (same names repeated multiple times). Looking really ghastly, and very confusing - it is going to be really hard for casual readers to know which vernacular name is correct in each language. It would be nice if a vernacular name included here with a particular language code could over-ride imports from wikidata so that
only
the name here is shown. Until then, can the whole mess be turned off? -
MPF
talk
01:22, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
reply
I have now got to agree with
MPF
there really is a lot of junk coming over from Wikidata. Can we stop the process now and revert back to where we were, then have a discussion about the value of vernacular names on WS. At the moment VN is best deleted, which may not what people want!
Andyboorman
talk
10:26, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
reply
If we decide to (temporarily or not) change back to the "Wikispecies only" vernacular names,
reverting to the prior version of the VN template
is only two click away. Personally I haven't spotted any problems with the new version, but that is most likely due to the fact that I would like to see the vernacular names section gone altogether, hence very seldom read it... In any case, discussing the purpose and value of WS vernacular names
as such
should probably be done in a separate thread. –
Tommy Kronkvist
talk
),
09:32, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
reply
MPF
and
Andyboorman
If there is junk imported by this template, I am very much in favour of correcting this on Wikidata. Anyway, can you give examples? --
Franz Xaver
talk
10:08, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
reply
Franz Xaver
One important issue that would fix a lot is to create the language en-us (American) at Wikidata (very surprisingly, it hasn't been made there, even though en-ca [Canadian] has been), and change all the vernacular names imported from USDA Plants frm 'en' to 'en-us', so they are correctly listed as American names, and not (as at present) incorrectly as English names. While at it, adding en-au (Australian), en-za (South African) and en-in (Indian English) would also be helpful. I'd do it myself, but don't have the computing skills needed to add languages (needs understanding of something called "phabricator"). -
MPF
talk
11:09, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
reply
MPF
OK, I understand. There exist similar issues in German between Austria, Germany and Switzerland – see e.g.
Pinus cembra
. Drawing parallels, I suppose that also en-br (British) should be implemented. So, vernacular names that are used in all the English speaking world would be "English", but other names would be restricted to UK, USA, Canada, Australia etc. I understand, that "English" is derived from England, but I suppose that also US-Americans are claiming to speak English. So, a vernacular name restricted to England/UK, should better be marked as British. I don't know, if it would be necessary to subdivide even further, e.g. Scotland? --
Franz Xaver
talk
11:53, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
reply
Franz Xaver
Thanks! There is already an "en-gb" but in general, I'd say that English is first and foremost the language of English people, so should be added as straight 'en' (particularly for taxa that are native in the region); one option would be to call en-us "American English" rather than just "American", though it is a bit cumbersome. On Scotland, etc., English names for plants are regulated by BSBI with just one official standard name for each taxon, and similarly for most if not all other taxa groups. There are a few very local regional names (particularly for birds in Shetland, e.g. '
Bonxie
' for
Stercorarius skua
), but I'd say these are beyond the remit of Wikidata as well as Wikispecies. -
MPF
talk
15:32, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
reply
Fixed the capitalization issue. --
Yair rand
talk
18:56, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
reply
Great! Formatting all of the vernacular names in the same way, whether fetched from Wikidata or not, is a good thing. –
Tommy Kronkvist
talk
),
09:32, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
reply
Excellent, thanks! -
MPF
talk
11:09, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
reply
This still can lead to some "duplicates", of sorts. See for instance
Cyanistes teneriffae
(African Blue Tit) which exclusively utilises Wikidata for the vernacular names. The corresponding Wikidata item (
Q10546857
) lists both "Herrerillo Canario" and "Herrerillo canario" (i.e. "tit from the Canary Islands") as Spanish vernacular names. Since the "auto-caps" feature only works for the
very first
word in a vernacular name they are both rendered in the exact same way here in Wikispecies as well, with one "canario" using lower case initials. Compare this to the Swedish vernacular name of the same species: Wikidata lists "Koboltmes" and "koboltmes" (i.e. "cobalt blue tit"), but since that vernacular name only consists of
one
word they are both rendered as "Koboltmes" and "Koboltmes" in Wikispecies, i.e. both capitalised. I guess the main problem here is that Wikidata accepts users to input data into its database in a fairly haphazardous manner, but the troubles spills over to our side of the fence, nonetheless... –
Tommy Kronkvist
talk
),
12:29, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
reply
It seems that most of the vernacular names at WD, are imported by bot or similar tools from somewhere. Concerning this Swedish example of "Koboltmes", WD is telling, that one of both entries was imported from Wikispecies. So, deleting this should be acceptable to fix this "duplicate". --
Franz Xaver
talk
12:44, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
reply
Some languages (such as Spanish
[3]
) not capitalize vernacular names as in English. Then "Herrerillo canario" is the correct form.
Burmeister
talk
14:48, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
reply
I've merged the duplicates at Wikidata on the cited
Cyanistes teneriffae
, but it will be tedious to do so for everything, unless a bot can be set to do it. -
MPF
talk
15:32, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
reply
Note: In Swedish the vernacular names are not capitalised at all. If "Herrerillo canario" were a Swedish vernacular name it would be formatted as "herrerillo canario", using only lower caps. In consequence we write "blåval" for Blue Whale (
Balaenoptera musculus
), "vandringsalbatross" for Wandering Albatross (
Diomedea exulans
), "gråvarg" for Gray Wolf (
Canis lupus
), etc. –
Tommy Kronkvist
talk
),
09:45, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
reply
Even at the start of a sentence, or in a list like the index of a book? Because that is how the VN list should be considered; items in it are not in the middle of a sentence! -
MPF
talk
12:27, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
reply
The use of vernacular names – or not?
A bit of a spanner in the works and a question - is VN really worth it? Just take
Primula veris
BSBI common name Cowslip, but UK vernacular names include, in alphabetical order; Bedlam cowslip, buckles, common cowslip, crewel, cuy lippe, fairy cup, galligaskins, gaskins, herb Peter, key flower, keywort, key of heaven, lady's bunch of keys, lady's candlestick, lady's keys, lady's seal, luck flower, paggles, paigle, paiglewort, palseywort, palsywort, paralysis, peggles, petty mullein, plumrocks, primerole, primet, St Peter's wort and tittypines - all wonderful names! Of course we can have a policy that en (GB) uses only Cowslip. However, Wikidata should really include all of the above plus others as they come light, surely? Is this not the time to question the role and value of VN on WS? Looking at some of the current lists I do wonder.
Andyboorman
talk
19:55, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
reply
That's why the Wikispecies
VN guidelines
say what they say ;-) "Note that as vernacular names are not an important part of Wikispecies, the vernacular names list in Wikispecies is only a summary; it is not intended to be a comprehensive listing of every local variant that has ever been used. Only include one name per language, which should generally be the standard name used in official publications in the relevant language (such as the IOC World Bird Names list, or the Botanical Society of Britain and Ireland plant list)." I think it is a good idea to include the official standard name in each language, but definitely not a good idea to include all those mostly long-forgotten archaic names, it just confuses readers and isn't in our scope -
MPF
talk
21:34, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
reply
The use of Wikidata to import VN to WS has made me once again question the value and use of these names. In addition, is filtering Wikidata for standard names for all languages at all possible? How realistic is the fact checking? Some plant taxon pages have become largely an exercise in generally substantiated synonymy, but then to add a large list of largely unsubstantiated VN - I do now seriously question the later and would be happy to discuss getting rid of the section.
Andyboorman
talk
14:21, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
reply
I really question how worthly VN is at WS, pages are becoming to have 60% or more of the text occupied by dozens of names. I would leave official name in English as used by almost all the classifications and one name, official when existing, for each language where the sp occurs. Or nothing.--
Hector Bottai
talk
18:42, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
reply
Hector Bottai
Yes, exactly right; that's what the current VN guidelines already state, though they have unfortunately not been followed by some contributors. As the Wikidata import doesn't allow for this, we should delink from it. -
MPF
talk
09:45, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
reply
I've taken the liberty of undoing the VN import from wikidata, given the lack of enthusiasm it has generated here -
MPF
talk
20:37, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
reply
Thanks. I'm frequently on the verge of deleting the
{{
VN
}}
template altogether, but since it would be wrong to do so without prior discussion I've luckily been able to resist that urge, so far. –
Tommy Kronkvist
talk
),
05:44, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
reply
My personal opinion is that listing vernacular synonyms on Wikispecies could be confusing and overwhelming. Vernacular synonyms for species should be in the purview of Wiktionary instead. It would be easier to just have a template for Wikispecies, linking from the Wikispecies entry to the Wiktionary and Wikipedia pages for the same species name. Wikipedia provides encyclopedic information on the species, and Wiktionary provides etymological and synonym lexical information for both the common and scientific names of the species, as well as translations.
Nicole Sharp
talk
03:26, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
reply
I wasn't aware that Wiktionary also had entries for each species - often in several languages. As well as us, and Wikidata, and each Wikipedia.
Andy Mabbett
Pigsonthewing
);
Talk to Andy
Andy's edits
13:45, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
reply
Missing names
I understood that all our vernacular anmes had been copied to Wikidata (by
User:Magnus Manske
), but when
I just removed them from the template
at
Tyto alba
(since reverted), many were not fetched from Wikidata. Anyone know why this happened?
Andy Mabbett
Pigsonthewing
);
Talk to Andy
Andy's edits
19:25, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
reply
Wikidata currently lists the vernacular names for
Tyto alba
(Barn Owl) in 26 different languages, seen here:
Q25317
. If changing the Wikispecies code in
Tyto alba
to the plain
{{
VN
}}
string without any other parametres, the Wikispecies page will list all 26 of them. As you point out, that's a lot fewer than the 145 vernacular names that
used
to be listed on the page. The past months
Succubot has made quite a few edits to the Wikidata "Barn Owl" page.
I haven't checked any of those edits yet, but they might explain why 119 of the vernacular names are now missing. From a quick glance at the Wikidata "Revision History" page it seems that quite a few vernacular names used to be listed under the wrong language(s). –
Tommy Kronkvist
talk
),
13:21, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
reply
As far as I'm aware the export done by Magnus is very incomplete. The names my bot added are from the last two IOC lists. --
Succu
talk
) 21:01, 27 December 2016 (UTC) PS:
Tommy Kronkvist
: Unfortunately I missed a structural change in
IOC World Bird List. Version 6.4
which I corrected later. --
Succu
talk
21:08, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
reply
Succu
That's okay – mistakes can happen. Thanks for the corrections! –
Tommy Kronkvist
talk
),
11:53, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
reply
References for taxa authored by Vieillot
(This matter was discussed on
user Dan Koehl's talk page
prior to being brought up here.)
Vieillot
is the author of hundreds of bird taxa described at the giant 36 volumes of Nouveau Dictionnaire....edited between 1816 and 1819 all available at BHL. I would like your opinion about creating templates for these references and I can see 3 options, first is one template with multiple 36 BHL links to each volume; second is obviously 36 templates, which would make it simpler and direct for each taxon reference; and third, since the volumes were publicated from 1816 to 1819, would be 5 templates each with multiple BHL links. At
Vieillot
page you can see examples of Tomes 1, 2 and 14 already created. Thanks for your opinions.--
Hector Bottai
talk
12:12, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
reply
I just have seen that the same applies to
Gmelin
works and the solution adopted was 1 template for each Tomus and Section.--
Hector Bottai
talk
12:24, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
reply
In my opinion, the best solution is to have a reference template for each volume or for each part published separately. Moreover, it might be useful to apply optional parameters, so that the reference may be changed in order to refer to chapters within the volume – see e.g.
Template:Oliver, 1868
. --
Franz Xaver
talk
14:49, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
reply
I agree: Personally I would prefer the 36 templates option. It is certainly the most convenient solution in the long run – especially with the extra functionality proposed by Franz Xaver. –
Tommy Kronkvist
talk
),
15:34, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
reply
Excelent suggestion
Franz Xaver
, at Vieillot there are no chapters or section, so the only parameter is page. Could you format as an example the Tome 1 so I can just copy it for all the 36? Thanks.--
Hector Bottai
talk
17:04, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
reply
Hector Bottai
See
Template:Vieillot, 1816-1
and its use in
Geositta cunicularia
. --
Franz Xaver
talk
15:17, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
reply
Great
Franz Xaver
--
Hector Bottai
talk
23:45, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
reply
After our agreements for reference templates we have to make 36 templates with a, b, c etc. We dont have an agreement about use in the template Nomenclatural acts or Category:Reference templates.
PeterR
talk
13:38, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
reply
I will work on it, 3 done plus Analyze d'un ornithologie...More important is to use them properly. Happy new year!--
Hector Bottai
talk
12:00, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
reply
Every body a happy new year too
PeterR
talk
13:38, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
reply
Protonym orthography
What does everyone feel about orthography of protonym citations? In the distant past, a lot of species names were capitalised, a practice forbidden now in both botany and zoology. Is it best to cite protonyms with current capitalisation, or as given in the protologue? I'll admit I've usually done the former without thinking about it, but as an example to show the reverse: the
protologue
of
Phalacrocorax aristotelis desmarestii
gives the protonym as
Carbo Desmarestii
rather than modern
Carbo desmarestii
. Which is best to give on pages? -
MPF
talk
23:48, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
reply
In plant taxa, I give both the correct spelling and the original – see e.g.
Legnephora moorei
. --
Franz Xaver
talk
07:43, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
reply
My very personal opinion, not based in any nomenclatural rule or something like that, is that there is no value in using the original spelling, two capitals or things like atri-capilla, or whatever.--
Hector Bottai
talk
23:59, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
reply
I can understand Hector Bottai's standpoint and on a few occasions I've removed the capitalisation from "protonymic" specific names, much like MPF describes. However, from a technical viewpoint I much prefer Franz Xaver's method, as it is more true to the actual records regarding the nomenclature. –
Tommy Kronkvist
talk
),
05:57, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
reply
New template to replace magic words
Template:ISBN
I have ported over
w:en:Template:ISBN
and
w:en:Module:Check isxn
from en.wp.
Magic words
as links are being phased out and although we don't have to replace all instances of them now, they will all be removed from MediaWiki in 2017. See
mw:Requests_for_comment/Future_of_magic_links
. We have about 16,000 entries in
Category:Pages using ISBN magic links
. —
Justin (
ko
vf
02:42, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
reply
Given how widely used that will be, I've protected it, to admin-only editing.
Andy Mabbett
Pigsonthewing
);
Talk to Andy
Andy's edits
18:05, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
reply
Pigsonthewing
Wise. Not sure if you've seen my cross-wiki edits but I have done the same at all the multingual sources (
c:
d:
outreach:
s:mul:
, but not
m:
or
mw:
) and the English-language editions (but not
simple
s yet). A couple of them (e.g.
s:en:
) also have the Citation module and I'm not sure how to edit that to include the template rather than the magic link. If you are game to help me, that's handy. If not, then thanks for all your other hard work. —
Justin (
ko
vf
20:26, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
reply
Somewhat off topic, but perhaps some of the ISBN related information
on this user talk page
should be added to the
{{
ISBN
}}
template documentation? –
Tommy Kronkvist
talk
),
01:58, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
reply
"Generic groups" etc
Sometimes I come across taxonavigation "ranks" such as the "
Cyphogastra
generic group" in
Paracupta
. What's your take on that format? By the way, in this particular case the "
NN
generic group" text string is included already in the
{{
Paracupta
}}
taxonavigation template, rather than entered on the taxon page itself. –
Tommy Kronkvist
talk
),
06:36, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
reply
Not sure about zoology, but in plants these sort of groups are sometimes used by botanical workers to indicate a temporary "work in progress". They have no formal taxonomic standing and IMHO have little use here.
Andyboorman
talk
18:57, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
reply
In zoology, and most used in insects, these are used mainly for species-group taxa. They are informal only, and exist to group together species with some similar traits, but not enough to convince majorities to formally name. They should not be included in Taxonavigation, but can be of some informational status on mainpages of next higher taxon. They are used mainly to subdivide taxa with very large diversity.
Neferkheperre
talk
20:04, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
reply
ISSN
I see that Koavf the ISSN numbers used for reference templates. In our agreement about reference templates we have to add the reference template in the author page. A lot of his contributions are not in the author pages. He is following here Sthoner.
PeterR
talk
10:16, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
reply
Could we please have an example or two? Thanks
Andyboorman
talk
13:49, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
reply
PeterR
Sorry, I'm not following either. Can you give a diff of an edit that you think is incorrect? —
Justin (
ko
vf
17:25, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
reply
PeterR
Same here, I don't fully understand what you mean... Can you please explain further? (As always: feel free to use German or Dutch in my talk page, if you prefer that rather than English.) –
Tommy Kronkvist
talk
),
18:10, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
reply
The recent changes go not far enough back to look it back. This changes have koavf done in december. The only one who knows when he have add the reference templates in the ISSN is Koavf. I hope he can find it back. If I make a reference template I add them in the author page(s) after our reference template agreement, but not by the ISSN page. See:
ISSN 1317-5262
PeterR
talk
15:13, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
reply
PeterR
I have never made a reference template.
Does this help
? You can post in German but meine Deutsche nichte ist gut. You can also post on my talk directly. —
Justin (
ko
vf
05:33, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
reply
Collapsible data
Template:Nadi
, etc.
Several templates here use collapsible options, which are inaccessible to many users (who have scripts turned off, who have neuro-motor issues, etc.) See
w:Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Accessibility#Users_with_limited_CSS_or_JavaScript_support
and
w:MOS:SCROLL
. We shouldn't have content under collapsible templates because that makes it difficult for some of our readers to use our site. We discontinue the use of collapsible templates, especially for our actual content in entries. —
Justin (
ko
vf
19:12, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
reply
I thought we had dumped most of these some time ago. I know Nomen and Syn have been disabled, and I am cleaning them out wherever I find them.
Neferkheperre
talk
20:08, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
reply
Neferkheperre
Last year, I deleted a lot of that with consensus but there was an
earlier
consensus to keep
{{
Nadi
}}
. I would be open to discussing it, of course. But the bigger issue is collapsible templates in general and we have many of them. —
Justin (
ko
vf
20:20, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
reply
As I understand, the main issue is accessibility of all the content included in collapsible boxes, as e.g. taxonavigation and others. I don't know exactly, which groups of users are supposed to be affected. Is this issue just about smartphone users? (If it should be about users, who voluntarily have turned off some scripts, I don't think, we should pay attention to these.) If there exists a policy at en-WP, how far would this be applicable here at WS?
Koavf
Can you give a list of collapsible templates, which would be concerned? --
Franz Xaver
talk
20:48, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
reply
Franz Xaver
Users could have scripts turned off for many reasons: security, they are at stations which are controlled by someone else (like an employer or university), they have older systems which cannot handle them, etc. Additionally, there are users who have a hard time with fine-tuned movements due to medical issues so while some clicking and interaction of the mouse may be inevitable, it should be lessened (they will probably also use tabbed browsing). Some screen readers for users who are blind or who cannot see well will ignore collapsed text. These are all examples that immediately come to mind. This impacts thousands of templates by way of
{{
Taxonav
}}
. —
Justin (
ko
vf
21:04, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
reply
To me these examples do not sound, if the issue did affect a significant number of visitors at wikispecies. This seems to be an issue more relevant to wikipedias. For example, I can hardly imagine a person interested in taxonomy or nomenclature, who is blind. OK, there may be some few of them, who lost their sight later, in the same way, as there existed some few composer who happened to become deaf. --
Franz Xaver
talk
21:26, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
reply
Franz Xaver
I have to admit it's a little surprising and offensive that you wouldn't care about making this information more accessible. Yes, few of our users will have neuro-motor difficulties operating a mouse and a small percentage will use a screen reader but if we know best practices to make the site accessible to them, it takes virtually no effort on our part, and it's consistent with other best practices here and on our sister sites, I don't know why we
wouldn't
be concerned about accessibility. —
Justin (
ko
vf
21:30, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
reply
I am happy to solve a problem, if it actually is an existing one. However, I am not yet convinced about this here. (Maybe the problem is one an imagined one.) Anyway, the main issue to discuss here would be about the taxonavigation, which is found in almost all of our taxon pages. --
Franz Xaver
talk
21:51, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
reply
I think it is a bit unfair to allude that Franz does not care about accessibility. However, he does make a good point about the existence of a problem that may not be that real. I am not an expert on techniques used by the less able to access websites and screen based data, but perhaps I assume that in 2017 there are processes that overcome most, if not all, of problems associated with collapsible templates and the like. Another point is that if pages become very large and cluttered then it will put off many, as navigation becomes a nightmare. I think we need data before just getting rid of taxonav procedures and the like, particularly if this then requires a fundamental re-design of the pages.
Andyboorman
talk
18:48, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
reply
─────────────────────────
In my opinion making Wikispecies as accessible as possible to as many users as possible is a no-brainer. Of course we should! That said, I believe that most users with the knowledge of how to disable scripts probably also are tech-savvy enough to add site specific exceptions to any such rule. As a side note, as far as I'm concerned the Vernacular names sections actually
needs
to be made collapsible as soon as possible. On some pages they're huge, and add little or nothing to the taxonomy or systematics. –
Tommy Kronkvist
talk
),
02:27, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
reply
Tommy Kronkvist
"As a side note, as far as I'm concerned the Vernacular names sections actually
needs
to be made collapsible as soon as possible. On some pages they're huge" — any particular examples? Shouldn't be too bad if contributors have stuck to the guidelines. If they have multiple names per language, feel free to strip out the excess ones -
MPF
talk
13:22, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
reply
Agreed with Vernacular Names being collapsible ASAP. Why do we use collapse boxes? Surely it is to "hide" non-essential taxon information, but retaining the the data, as it is desirable and relevant, They also keep the basic page easier to read. The reason we did not like nomen and syn was that consensus agreed that these are essential data and should not be "hidden". Taxonav data could be considered essential being higher level classification, but not all agreed. In addition, as far as plants are concerned WS has a problem with higher level (above Ordo) classification, as it uses mixed systems, so it is probably best not to draw too much attention to it. I personally think we need to retain the existing minor use of collapse boxes and extend it to VN, unless there is compelling evidence that they create genuine problems with accessibility. Regards
Andyboorman
talk
15:42, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
reply
MPF
I cannot think of any
really
good examples off the top of my head, but one of the nominees for the best/worst/most voluminous VN section can be found on the
Passer domesticus
page. It contains vernacular names in 129 languages. With the exception of 4 languages listing 2 vernacular names each, they all list only one. The Serbian language is a special case, listing one vernacular name only but in both Gaj's Latin alphabet and the Serbian Cyrillic alphabet. So all in all the 129 languages lists 134 "versions" of the vernacular name, in one form or another. Another example is
Cyanistes caeruleus
, with 79 VNs in 78 languages. –
Tommy Kronkvist
talk
),
21:35, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
reply
Tommy Kronkvist
Thanks! I've cleaned those two up, though it doesn't make a big difference - I had been thinking more of pages like
this old version
before cleanup of
Primula veris
, where there was a huge lot of dubious names listed (under Spanish in particular). I'd think that there will be very few species with as large a number of languages added as
Passer domesticus
, but obviously, it will grow as wikipedias espand.
MPF
talk
11:32, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
reply
....I tried a test here:
Lilium martagon
; but I prefer only one name for each species.
Orchi
talk
13:00, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
reply
Orchi
I've stripped out the duplicates -
MPF
talk
21:46, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
reply
Orchi
But no scrolling is saved on
Lilium martagon
because the list of interwiki Wikipedia links is longer than the entry anyway. I don't see many pages on Wikispecies that are so long that they will break a browser and introducing
more
code will only make the pages
bigger
for the browser to download/parse/display. —
Justin (
ko
vf
20:53, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
reply
Koavf
I am not sure how much difference these few extra codes will make to download/parse/display issues given the computing power available to the average laptop/tablet/mobile. We do not have adverts after all. Interwiki links are on the separate side bar, so not relevant to the layout of the main taxon page and perhaps given the large number of links we should consider a collapse box for them! Are you also suggesting that VN belongs here? We are exploring ways of making the core taxon data more accessible/easier to read. Regards
Andyboorman
talk
09:22, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
reply
To me this is more a question of legibility and lucidity rather than page length. I most often use a 27″ screen so page length (or computing power) is very seldom an issue – however I don't like a Wikispecies page where almost 50% of the content is made up by vernacular names rather than information regarding taxonomy and nomenclature. It tends to shift the focus of what this site is all about. To me a simple text snippet saying "
For vernacular names, see Wikipedia
" would be sufficient. –
Tommy Kronkvist
talk
),
17:19, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
reply
─────────────────────────
Andyboorman
Vernacular names have been in here for awhile and I think they are helpful for searching. I certainly don't think it's out of scope. Do you know of discussion about when it was first added? —
Justin (
ko
vf
17:32, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
reply
Koavf
Justin, the first time vernacular names are mentioned at the Village Pump is September 15, 2004 in the
all of them ok, but how
thread. The first time a specific vernacular names section is mentioned as part of a full taxon page is August 7, 2005 in the
A few things
thread. –
Tommy Kronkvist
talk
),
17:56, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
reply
Koavf
and
Tommy Kronkvist
I do not often add to VN now except to correct obvious errors and capitalise. I agree there is some value, but not sure about the adherence to scope. I tend to put VN in the same category as images - adding interest, but not essential data. As to external searching, a brief test often shows that WS does not usually appear on the first page, unlike WP. The recent use of Wikidata information has highlighted a number of contentious issues as well. Time now to sideline/ditch? Regards
Andyboorman
talk
19:05, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
reply
Andyboorman
God forbid that a wiki can't change but if a feature has been around for 12/13 years then we'd probably want to be pretty deliberate about removing it. And for what it's worth, I meant
internal
search rather than from a search engine. I think that vernacular names are consistent with
Wikispecies:Charter
. —
Justin (
ko
vf
20:08, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
reply
Koavf
You are right - any removal of a well established and used feature needs a lot of thought, full discussion and consensus. I was throwing a bit of devil's advocacy around in good faith.
Andyboorman
talk
20:48, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
reply
Change to
Main Page
See
here
In accordance with a
consensus
that we had about
18 months ago
, I have added an "Endangered Species of the Month" ("Week" would be nice but even the standard Species of the Week is now of the Month and is sometimes repeated). Any feedback is appreciated. —
Justin (
ko
vf
06:32, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
reply
Good work! Thanks. –
Tommy Kronkvist
talk
),
09:58, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
reply
500,000 pages
Pseudocalotes drogon
Created by
User:Burmeister
at 2017-01-07T11:29:37 is our 500,000 page (of course, we have entries on
Taxon authorities
publications
, and
repositories
, so we don't have quite a half-million
taxonomic entries
yet).
Special:Statistics
reads 500,014 and counting back 14 spots leads us to this entry. In total, there are 892,274 pages including talk pages and redirects. Thanks to Burmeister and all of the hard work of everyone over the past 13 years. —
Justin (
ko
vf
16:44, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
reply
Long pages
As listed at
Special:LongPages
we have a dozen pages that are over 100,000 bytes long. Excessive page length can cause problems reading or editing for some users.
The longest is
Cumacea
(183,785 bytes) - does it need so many references?
The next longest is
Auguste-Henri Forel
(179,593 bytes). It has a very long list of "Described taxa", none of which are linked to other pages on Wikispecies. It has a separate list of "Authored taxa", saying "5 taxon names... May be incomplete"! What should be done with this?
How can other long pages be trimmed?
Finally, we have some very long user talk pages, not listed on the above 'Special' page. Please check yours (look in the history), and if it is very long, archive some of it.
Andy Mabbett
Pigsonthewing
);
Talk to Andy
Andy's edits
12:27, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
reply
Agree that so large pages are not benefitial for WS. Listing described taxa is a redundancy and should be eliminated. If each authored taxon is adequately categorized, the taxon will appear at the separate authored taxa link, if not it will appear at linked pages. Related to so many references, I don't know if necessary, only the editor would say.--
Hector Bottai
talk
15:06, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
reply
Long taxon pages are mainly due to the large number of species - see
Rubus
Bulbophyllum
and
Hieracium
as examples. However, the situation can be improved by removing unresolved combinations and a very good example of this is
Rubus
. In addition, using a more contemporary approach will help - see the talk page for
Hieracium
and also for this page there are too many blue link synonyms. However, other that these techniques there is not much we can do about this, except by making the page easier to read by using TOC. I am surprised that
Astragalus
is not further up the list as it is the most speciose of the plants.
Andyboorman
talk
17:30, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
reply
The top 20 pages are:
genus 8
person 7
list 3
'Catalog:' 2
--
Andy Mabbett
Pigsonthewing
);
Talk to Andy
Andy's edits
21:42, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
reply
Pigsonthewing
As you may have seen, I split a few pages yesterday. Splitting catalog/list articles is pretty painless. What to do about genus and person ones is a bit trickier: it will require some more intelligent pruning. —
Justin (
ko
vf
16:37, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
reply
Yes, thank you or those edits.
Andy Mabbett
Pigsonthewing
);
Talk to Andy
Andy's edits
16:54, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
reply
Pages like
List of virus species
would probably be best dealt with as categories.
Andy Mabbett
Pigsonthewing
);
Talk to Andy
Andy's edits
16:54, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
reply
Pigsonthewing
Or even better, they could be generated from data on
d:
, like
w:en:List of paintings by Jacob van Ruisdael
. Does that seem like something we could or should do here? —
Justin (
ko
vf
18:59, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
reply
Well, of course. But first we need to get all the data
into
Wikidata.
Andy Mabbett
Pigsonthewing
);
Talk to Andy
Andy's edits
19:39, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
reply
Simplifying CURRENT DATE entry
We can possibly simplify the CURRENT DATE entry [e.g. Accessed on 10 January 2017] in templates such as
{{
IPNI
}}
{{
TROPICOS
}}
etc. by devising a currentdate template which will include:
{{subst:CURRENTDAY}}
{{subst:CURRENTMONTHNAME}}
{{subst:CURRENTYEAR}}
Which will result for today in:
10
January
2017
Mariusm
talk
14:07, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
reply
.....that saves a lot of time. Thanks.
Orchi
talk
18:05, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
reply
Agreed
Andyboorman
talk
18:32, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
reply
Category:Taxon authorities
Just to inform you: There is a little discussion at Wikidata:
d:Wikidata_talk:Wikispecies#species:Category:Taxon_authorities
. --
Succu
talk
21:05, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
reply
Redirects to the Repository
The following terms used to redirect to the Repository -
holotype
lectotype
neotype
paralectotype
paratype
syntype
and
type
. I am not sure why this was undertaken, but clearly as it stood it was nonsense. I have edited the redirects to the Dictionary and I have also made the entries, if required. I would be grateful if you could look through the dictionary entries and add/edit/amend as required. Thanks
Andyboorman
talk
19:55, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
reply
Dictionary items should of course reside in the
Dictionary
, so good work. Thanks. –
Tommy Kronkvist
talk
),
22:45, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
reply
Sorry, I don't agree with this. The above terms must redirect to the
Repositories
page where the user is supposed to look for the specific museum. E.g. for
[[holotype|MHNG]]
– the user would look for "MHNG" in the
Repositories
. The system was constructed this way before we started using
[[MHNG]]
. There's no sense in directing to the dictionary. I strongly advise to change the redirects back to
Repositories
Mariusm
talk
06:54, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
reply
The better solution would be to change all the respective articles by a bot in a way as I did manually in e.g.
Ambystoma annulatum
. Anyway, such a bot fix has been made necessary by the recent split of
Repositories
by
User:Koavf
, as also pages linking directly to
Repositories
now don't work properly any more – e.g.
Elvasia oligandra
. --
Franz Xaver
talk
09:04, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
reply
Franz Xaver
but why didn't you change it to our current standard which is
{{rl|USNM}}
or at least
[[USNM]]
??
[[Repositories (N–Z)#U|USNM]]
isn't the way we're supposed to do it.
Mariusm
talk
10:39, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
reply
Mariusm
OK, the template you mentioned would work with USNM, but not with botanical repositories listed in Index Herbariorum (NY, K, P ...). I did not know about this template and it is useless for botany. If
Template:Rl
is standard, I may have missed something. Can you give a link to the relevant discussion? Why is
USNM
not linked from
Repositories (N–Z)
? --
Franz Xaver
talk
13:18, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
reply
Franz Xaver
There's much confusion going on especially between Zoology and Botany regarding repository handling. The template
{{Rl|Repository}}
just simplifies the job. It adds both
[[USNM]]
and
[[Category: USNM]]
. The best way is to have
both
a page and a category for each and every MUSEUM, REPOSITORY or HERBARIUM and to add the missing ones. So when an HERBARIUM is missing you can go ahead and add one and than use the template
{{Rl|Repository}}
. We didn't have a specific discussion for this, but that's how we handle repositories in Zoology as a default, to improve on the previous
[[holotype|Repository]]
style.
Mariusm
talk
13:58, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
reply
Mariusm
I understand, that this makes sense for zoology. However, as for botany the
Index Herbariorum
website already is existing, which collects all the relevant information and is updating regularily, this approach would mean to create just a copy of it, including the risk that our copy is missing updates. In my opinion, for botany it would make better sense to link from taxon pages to one of both
Repositories
pages as I did. There we could add links to the Index Herbariorum entry, as I now did for the Herbarium of the Arnold Arboretum in
Repositories (A–M)
. This saves our worktime and a visitor always would find his way to the latest informations from Index Herbariorum. What do you think? --
Franz Xaver
talk
15:30, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
reply
In my opinion the main issue here is that "holotype" and "lectotype" etc aren't repositories, hence should not redirect to
Repositories
. Much like e.g.
Terry Erwin
is a taxon author rather than a publication and therefore shouldn't be redirected to
Coleopterists Bulletin
– even though he is often published in it. The page about Erwin
is
however a member of
Category:Taxon authorities
. In the same way and for the same good reason
USNM
is
a repository, hence the page is a member of
Category:Repositories
That being said, we do need to do quite a lot of work on the
Repositories
page. For instance the mentioning of USNM and many, many other repositories needs to be linked to their respective Wikispecies pages. –
Tommy Kronkvist
talk
),
16:02, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
reply
The basic redirects, as I made them are most definitively not Repository items and they were responses to requests on the Dictionary Talk Page. There also seems to be a Repository/Herbarium/ redirect and/or template issue that needs developing. If a user hits a
typus
type
holotype
etc. redirect link that
cf.
just hits the basic
Repository
page then that way leads to confusion. So I will not reverse my work of redirecting to the dictionary, as it makes more sense and is more familiar to a general user in the context of the general taxon page. Regards
Andyboorman
talk
16:21, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
reply
Andyboorman
There are hundreds if not thousands of pages which carry the format
[[Holotype|MHNG]]
(see for example
Clubiona rama
). When a user sees "MHNG" as a link he expects to clarify on the "MHNG" and not to seek explanation about what an "holotype" is. The format was constructed with the specific intention to allow the user to seek for "MHNG". What you've done is unacceptable in that regard. I will reconvert the redirects myself.
Mariusm
talk
14:18, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
reply
Mariusm
Whatever,
[[Holotype|MHNG]]
was a silly idea in the first place. This "holotype" link should have been created differently to make it more explicit that is was designed to link to the Repository when editing the pages. Its consequence of having the word
holotype
now link to the Repository main page is bizarre to say the least. I do not have enough coding knowledge to correct the original problem, so to be honest I have better things to do on here than worry about this. Particularly, as I am not concerned about adding details about linking to holotype locations. However, in an ideal world you should seek consensus or least opinions before making your reverts.
Andyboorman
talk
17:26, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
reply
Andyboorman
As I've mentioned earlier, we at Zoology are using now
[[MHNG]]
and have abandoned the former
[[Holotype|MHNG]]
style. In due course perhaps a bot will fix the earlier pages. Meanwhile "holotype" should be retained as otherwise it will result in user-misguidance. Sorry for my interfering with your edits, but I saw no other solution. I didn't devise the former repository style so I can't take the blame, yet once the format is present in so many pages it can't be discarded either. Thanks for your cooperation.
Mariusm
talk
08:32, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
reply
Indeed we should seek consensus before risking an edit war amongst the admins... We've already been down that path. As a result some users ended up bereft of their admin credentials and banned, and many of the other users got a little less keen to contribute. That's not an ideal situation, and we all know it.
IMO in this particular case the best solution is to redirect all of the
holo
-,
lecto
- etc type pages to back Dictionary, then use AWB to change all present
[[Holotype|
XXXX
]]
links into
[[Repositories (A–M)|
XXXX
]]
and
[[Repositories (N–Z)|
XXXX
]]
links. The already present
[[
XXXX
]]
pages linking directly to a repository page (such as
[[
MHNG
]]
) should of course remain as is. That way I think most of us would be happy with what links where. As a side gain we would get rid of a whole bunch of redirects, since all of the present "holotype" redirects instead would link directly to the Repository pages. From a bot/AWB point of view there aren't that many repositories listed in Wikispecies, so it could probably be done in a day or two. –
Tommy Kronkvist
talk
),
09:05, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
reply
Mariusm
I think that
Tommy Kronkvist
has a very good plan, quick and easy to implement and uses bots as well. It will rationalise a problem none of us want and neither of us caused. At least we have avoided an unnecessary edit war. Can we have consensus? Got my vote for one. Regards
Andyboorman
talk
09:24, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
reply
Andyboorman
Tommy Kronkvist
Very well. I've no objection to Tommy's plan.
Mariusm
talk
09:37, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
reply
Great, that's the way, how it should be done. Moreover, when this task will be completed, I propose to have a second round and change also the instances with
[[Repositories|
XXXX
]]
into
[[Repositories (A–M)|
XXXX
]]
and
[[Repositories (N–Z)|
XXXX
]]
. Regards --
Franz Xaver
talk
09:53, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
reply
Why not change directly to
[[XXXX]]
pattern, if this is the model used in zoology pages?
Burmeister
talk
13:02, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
reply
Burmeister
Do you want to create a vast number of red links? At the moment, the majority of repository pages have not yet been created. And some of these only are redirects to
Repositories
, e.g.
UCCIPR
. --
Franz Xaver
talk
13:54, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
reply
Yes, red links are not big problems, and will stimulate the creation of the pages. Hidden the repositories link in the repositories list, will not help, and will create a second problem in future. And some repositories pages already exist [like MNRJ], and continue to use
MNRJ
is unnecessary. [sorry for my bad english]
Burmeister
talk
17:03, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
reply
Burmeister
Tommy Kronkvist
Franz Xaver
I strongly agree with Burmeister. Zoology's majority of museums (~ 90%) have already pages. It would be waste of time to make it a "double" transition. The best way is to transfer
[[Holotype|
XXXX
]]
directly to
[[
XXXX
]]
and it would be far better still to transfer
[[Holotype|
XXXX
]]
to
{{rl|
XXXX
}}
Mariusm
talk
05:13, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
reply
Mariusm
As only a few of the repositories listed in
Repositories (A–M)
and
Repositories (N–Z)
are linked to repository pages, this seems to be an unsubstantiated claim. It's certainly much less than 90% of repositories, but maybe these cover a higher percentage of types. --
Franz Xaver
talk
07:31, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
reply
Franz Xaver
I think we have a misunderstanding here: Almost none of the actual museum pages are marked with a blue link in the
Repositories (A–M)
and
Repositories (N–Z)
pages. The museum pages are indeed preset, for example
CNIN
isn't marked in blue in the
Repositories (A–M)
page.
Mariusm
talk
07:45, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
reply
Mariusm
See
here
. Moreover, some of these few existing repository pages don't show more information than
Repositories (A–M)
. --
Franz Xaver
talk
08:01, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
reply
─────────────────────────
I've added links to
all
the repository acronyms in both
Repositories (A–M)
and
Repositories (N–Z)
, whether the actual pages exists or not. That makes it is easy for anyone to help out by simply creating pages for the red links there.
Mariusm
I strongly agree with
Burmeister
as well; actually what he says is what I meant... The best solution is to have
[[
XXXX
]]
links/pages for all of the repository acronyms, but until the specific repository pages are created it is better to use
[[Repositories
XXXX
]]
redirects than
[[Holotype|
XXXX
]]
redirects. –
Tommy Kronkvist
talk
),
09:55, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
reply
Repository pages
Each repository should have a corresponding item on Wikidata - I've co-incidentally just
asked there how best to import the data we have here
. We should also have a page for each repository, using a template (
{{
Repository
}}
, which can be made to pull data like web links, street address, and coordinates (linking to a map), from Wikidata?
Andy Mabbett
Pigsonthewing
);
Talk to Andy
Andy's edits
15:54, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
reply
Further to the above, I have done some more work on
{{
Repository
}}
, adding additional fields. Please see the example in use on
USNM
, and compare with
the old version
. There is more still to do, not least importing values from Wikidata, and it would probably look better using table markup.
Andy Mabbett
Pigsonthewing
);
Talk to Andy
Andy's edits
16:35, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
reply
The two pages (A-M and N-Z) list a total of 1411 repositories.
Category:Repositories
contains 587 pages, of which at least a handful are not actually pages for single repositories. We'd therefore need to create around 800 pages. A bot could do this, using the template. We'd also need to create those ~587 pages to use the template. And that still leaves the matter of matching them to existing, or making new, Wikidata items.
Andy Mabbett
Pigsonthewing
);
Talk to Andy
Andy's edits
19:02, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
reply
So what is the conclusion here? Keeping things as they are is not acceptable IMO.
Andyboorman
talk
20:39, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
reply
Repository Pages Please Can Something be Done!
Tommy Kronkvist
Mariusm
Burmeister
Pigsonthewing
Franz Xaver
Koavf
This discussion has gone quiet with the problem left to just hang, which is not very satisfactory, surely? Please look at this recent quality edit
Coccinia intermedia
by
Pharaoh han
and focus on WAG, it is another incident of the confusion. These will continue to grow unless action is taken. It would be great if you could come to a quick consensus soon, particularly as it is so close. As Tommy suggested, a quick bot fix can then be undertaken and then those interested can move on to focus onto pages where detail or content is required. Regards in hope
Andyboorman
talk
16:44, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
reply
I think that a bot can run and change [Holotype|Repositorty] to [Repository] of the repositories pages already created like USMN, BMNH, FMNH, MNRJ... (I think it's a consensus) The pending issue is the repositories not yet created (the redlinks).
Burmeister
talk
17:18, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
reply
Indeed the redlinks are are issue, but we are coping with many of these as taxa. To me it is a very small price to pay and should lead to good development of the Repository, actually sooner rather than later.
Andyboorman
talk
17:57, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
reply
I miss the standard! herbarium abbreviations from Index Herbariorum being used (P is short for Paris herbarium, one of the largest herbaria). Unfortunately, zoological repositories have unstandardized and multiple abbreviations, and disambiguations can't be avoided. --
Pharaoh han
talk
16:44, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
reply
New page
Hi, I couldn't find a help-desk page to ask a question, so I'm taking it here (hope no one minds). I just created the page
Cerace cyanopyga
based on the wikitext format of
Nomada bouceki
, except that I was unfamiliar with the reference template, so I used the cite journal template from Wikipedia. I know that in Wiktionary, the cite web and cite journal are discouraged in favor of dictionaries, so I was wondering if my work on the
C. cyanopyga
page contradicted any community guidelines. Please let me know, and move this question to a more appropriate page if one exists. Thanks,
Icebob99
talk
21:55, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
reply
Hi
Icebob99
In Wikispecies the Village Pump actually doubles as a help desk, so you're in the right place! For a first edit I would say that the
Cerace cyanopyga
page you created is very good.
I've made some changes,
for instance I added the
mandatory "Name" section
(complete with author name and year of publication) and removed the discouraged
{{
Cite web
}}
in favour of a proper Wikispecies reference template. Information about how citations should be handled on Wikispecies can be found in the
Help:Reference section
. You can use that help page as a starting point for any type of reference you want to add, regardless whether you're creating templates such as the
{{
Diakonoff, 1950
}}
template I made for
Cerace cyanopyga
, or want to add the citations directly to the page code. Happy editing! –
Tommy Kronkvist
talk
),
01:01, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
reply
I suspected the reference template format was going to be used here. Thanks for the clarification!
Icebob99
talk
01:34, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
reply
Nominations for Species/Endangered Species of the Month
Suggestions requested
I'd like to encourage users to post a suggestion for February's Species of the Month and the new Endangered Species of the Month. Additionally, if anyone wants to start writing copy on either, that would be great. The past couple of years have seen some of the SotMs recycled from months past, which is a shame since we have almost half a million indexed here. I'm making a
MassMessage
to that end now so that we can have a couple of weeks to determine which one it should be. Let's say that we'll try to wrap up discussion around the 29th? —
Justin (
ko
vf
07:40, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
reply
My suggestion is the Ghost Orchid
Dendrophylax lindenii
. Looks good as pics as well.
Andyboorman
talk
13:12, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
reply
Andyboorman
The "good" thing about this nomination is that it's endangered, so it could be the nomination for that prospect. —
Justin (
ko
vf
17:58, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
reply
Cirl Bunting
Emberiza cirlus
is a personal favourite (and we have audio, too), but I hope we can include a mix of "ugly bugs" and the obscure, as well as the more photogenic headline species.
Andy Mabbett
Pigsonthewing
);
Talk to Andy
Andy's edits
13:49, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
reply
Agreed - like
Blobfish
False Cat Shark
or even
Lord Howe Stick Insect
Andyboorman
talk
17:43, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
reply
A personal favourite of mine is
Cyprinodon diabolis
, a critically endangered killifish which only natural habitat is the
Devil's Hole
cavern, Nevada. The cave is deep but the opening (i.e. only surface of the water) is only 1.8 by 5.5 metres, and it is probably the smallest species distribution of any vertebrate. It has been described as the world's rarest fish, with a population of fewer than 200 since 2005. Genetic analysis indicates that the species evolved at the same time the cavern opened up to the surface, about 60,000 years ago. –
Tommy Kronkvist
talk
),
07:25, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
reply
AutoHotkey for Windows
AutoHotkey
(AHK) is a free, open utility for Windows, that automates actions such as typing a particular string; or opening a programme or website. We've started to compile some example scripts for using it with Wikipedia and sister projects, at
en:Wikipedia:AutoHotkey
. If you have any AHK scripts that are useful when working on Wikispecies, please share them there, or in a comment here.
Andy Mabbett
Pigsonthewing
);
Talk to Andy
Andy's edits
20:48, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
reply
Ennomomima
genus/species — update required here?
Looking at Wikidata, the species for (all/man) Ennomomima genus are under Zatrephes genus, and that is the ref at GBIF. Just thought that I would mention it and leave you to work it out, though with no mention of "Ennomomima".
Billinghurst
talk
11:33, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
reply
Vincent B. & Laguere, M.
2010. Changements nomenclaturaux en vue de l’actualisation du catalogue des Arctiinae néotropicales (Lepidoptera, Arctiidae).
Bulletin de la Société entomologique de France
115(2): 175-184.
listed in page 176
Ennomomima
as a synonym of
Zatrephes
[Zatrephes Hübner, [1819] = Ennomomima Toulgoët, 1991, n. syn.] (see
[4]
).
Mariusm
talk
05:34, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
reply
Gyrophaena chees
I have copied this user comment from
Gyrophaena chees
, where it was the only content, and which I have just deleted:
This is clearly an error for CHEESMANI ,a species for which there is no information available, so that,for the moment,i have to leave it out.
I place the following notes on this page,as it has to be deleted anyway.
First note: I have read your "help" and "taxonavigation" pages,but only to my confusion, as i am not an IT specialist.I am only able to contribute the data,someone else then may arrange them correctly.
Second note: You have omitted about a hundred GYROPHAENA species.I could contribute a list of them if i knew where to place it.
It was posted by
User:Roenzer
Andy Mabbett
Pigsonthewing
);
Talk to Andy
Andy's edits
20:45, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
reply
P. Reich
Who can help me with the full name from P. Reich. He published in Internationale Entomologische Rundschau and Entomologische Rundschau between 1933 and 1938. I can't find anything about this man even not in de.wikipedia.
PeterR
talk
12:25, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
reply
It's probably Paul Reich. See
Mitteilungen aus dem Museum für Naturkunde in Berlin. Zoologisches Museum und Institut für Spezielle Zoologie (Berlin)
. --
Succu
talk
14:31, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
reply
Taxonavigation templates
Koavf
What is the reason for adding
Category:Taxonavigation templates
and
Category:Pages with taxonavigation templates
? For example see
[5]
. --
Franz Xaver
talk
11:52, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
reply
I'm concerned by these edits. Something as wide-ranging as this would best be discussed here first. And edits like
this one
seem very inefficient, as the categories could be emitted by the parent template, in this case
{{
Eustrophini
}}
, or the antecedents of that.
Andy Mabbett
Pigsonthewing
);
Talk to Andy
Andy's edits
12:57, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
reply
I don't like these edits at all. These are nested templates, sometimes 15 levels deep and more. The nested categories can cause trouble. I too would expect to have a discussion on this before diving into it.
Mariusm
talk
13:10, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
reply
Franz Xaver
Pigsonthewing
Mariusm
I've stopped adding them due to your concerns. I was just clearing out maintenance reports and I figured that a tracking category could be useful but it's certainly not necessary. I'm happy to do whatever everyone thinks is best--I didn't think it would be controversial to add these. I'll take a break for now and check in here to see what everyone says. Do you have alternative schemes that work better? Is this causing any problems with displays or template calls? I'll do some other maintenance in the meantime. —
Justin (
ko
vf
14:59, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
reply
Thank you. I can see some benefit in having categories, but, if used they should be along the lines of "Taxonavigation templates for genus", etc. And they should be namespace-sensitive (or use
, so that - for example -
Template:Aancistroger
should not appear in
Category:Pages with taxonavigation templates
Andy Mabbett
Pigsonthewing
);
Talk to Andy
Andy's edits
16:05, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
reply
Pigsonthewing
I considered adding some copy like {{#ifeq:{{NAMESPACENUMBER}}|0|[[Category:Pages with taxonavigation templates]]|}} but didn't know if it really mattered. As for dividing it by genus, then I would find it easier to do once they are all in the tracking category. —
Justin (
ko
vf
16:28, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
reply
I don't mean
by
genus, just by rank, so: "Taxonavigation templates for genus", "Taxonavigation templates for Family", "Taxonavigation templates for order", etc.
Andy Mabbett
Pigsonthewing
);
Talk to Andy
Andy's edits
16:38, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
reply
Pigsonthewing
I realized that as soon as I wrote my response above. Dumb. —
Justin (
ko
vf
16:40, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
reply
;-)
Andy Mabbett
Pigsonthewing
);
Talk to Andy
Andy's edits
16:44, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
reply
If we
are
going to add categories, we could do so
like this
Andy Mabbett
Pigsonthewing
);
Talk to Andy
Andy's edits
16:44, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
reply
Pigsonthewing
I 100% think we should use this for navigation. I've actually talked to users at OrthodoxWiki to try to replicate their category structure here. (e.g. see the bottom of
). The only question would be whether to include a taxa in
all
parent taxa or just the most immediately above it. That's a big change that I wasn't ready to present yet to the community but I sincerely hope everyone is in favor of that. —
Justin (
ko
vf
20:23, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
reply
Template:URL to diff
{{
URL to diff
}}
is now available for your (and my!) convenience. Simply type, say:
{{Subst:URL to diff |url=
|label=Foo}}
to render:
to diff/doc&oldid=2940206 Foo
{{
Diff
}}
is also available, should you prefer to enter diff IDs manually:
{{diff|page=Template:URL_to_diff/doc|diff=2941428|oldid=2940206 |label=Foo2}}
Foo2
--
Andy Mabbett
Pigsonthewing
);
Talk to Andy
Andy's edits
14:01, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
reply
Retrieved from "
Wikispecies
Village Pump/Archive 39
Add topic
US