Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of Life/Archive 47

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 40←Archive 45Archive 46Archive 47Archive 48Archive 49Archive 50

Taxa by author subcategories

Is there actual ToL support/consensus for the existence of Category:Taxa by author's subcategories Category:Animal taxa by author and Category:Botanical taxa by author? Look2See1/Caftaric creations, hence me asking. 🙄 Right now, the implementation of this categorization tree is slipshod and only very partially implemented. I'd be happy to spend a day or two cleaning things up; I'd also be happy to list them at WP:CfD for merging back into the main category, but before putting in a heap of effort I'd rather like to know which option is preferred. (Additionally, if there is consensus for their existence, is there any preference for treating them as diffusing or non-diffusing? Right now they're mainly treated as non-diffusing, so mostly every category in those subcats is doubled up in the main category) AddWittyNameHere 22:19, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

As time allows, I've been only adding new ones to the main category, so it doesn't matter to me if you keep either.....Pvmoutside (talk) 22:50, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
Oh dear God no! I wasn't aware of those subcats. They should not exist; the glaringly obvious issue is the hundreds of scientists who've described both plants and animals. Plantdrew (talk) 23:08, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, that was my feeling too. I could dump those hundreds in both, but it frankly seems like a waste of time to me. Especially considering the only case in which someone will come across "taxa described by author" categories is on taxon articles, in which case they really don't need a parent category to tell them whether the taxa described are plants or animals, I'd hope... AddWittyNameHere 23:15, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
The subcategories absolutely should not exist, for the reason that Plantdrew gives; many biologists have described both.
It also makes no sense to me to have an article like Chinook salmon in Category:Taxa named by Johann Julius Walbaum. He did not name a group of animals "Chinook salmon". He did not name a group of animals "Oncorhynchus tshawytscha" (the currently accepted name). He authored the combination "Salmo tshawytscha", and in particular the specific name "tshawytscha". A category "Taxon names authored by ..." would make sense if always placed on the scientific name, article or redirect. Otherwise, these categories are, in my view, misleading and pointless. I never add them to any article I create. Peter coxhead (talk) 17:57, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
Absolutely, Peter coxhead. I do add them, both to articles I create and to articles created by others, but I absolutely agree they should only be placed on the scientific name, whether that is article or redirect. Like you said, the scientific name is the one they authored, not the common name. (A similar issue tends to occur with "... described in [year]" categories. They're species-only categories, but where it comes to monospecific genera, I somewhat frequently come across them on the genus-level article when it should be on the species redirect.)
As it seems we're so far in agreement here, if no one posts here to disagree by, say, end of the upcoming weekend or so, I'll be listing them at CfD. AddWittyNameHere 19:12, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
Edit: That said, I do believe that where a species on the zoological side of things was described and later moved to a different genus, the "Taxa named by" should be placed on the article (edit:provided the article is at the scientific name, of course) rather than redirect because 1. they did describe the specific name and 2. they are still considered that taxon's author, at least on the zoological side of things. Denoted between parentheses, sure, but the taxon authority all the same, and unlike on the botanical side of things, the names of the people involved in moving the species to a different genus are not mentioned. AddWittyNameHere 19:18, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
so I do have a problem with eliminating taxa named by for any common name that has an article written about it. In my eyes, the categories help to identify the taxon author. If it only appears for the scientific name, then those authors will be buried in many redirects, not too helpful with identification...…Pvmoutside (talk) 21:06, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Taxon authority is also present in the taxobox, Pvmoutside, and at least in certain areas of the Tree of Life (e.g. Lepidoptera), there's currently an effort to put the authority in the actual prose as well. (Of course, with ~100k articles on Lepidoptera, it's going to be a fair while before that's done--but it's not like the taxon authority categories have anywhere near a complete coverage either) So for people who look at a specific taxon article and want to figure out the authority, the chances of them relying first and foremost on the category seems small, and the number of those who, after not finding a taxon author category, are then unable to figure out the taxon author from taxobox or text seems even smaller. More generally, I'd say this is, at least for articles located at vernacular names, practically a textbook case of WP:INCOMPATIBLE. AddWittyNameHere 21:39, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Certainly support an upmerge. (In response to some of the above comments) categorizing redirects like that is a bit of a departure from normal wp categorization which categorizes the topic of the article rather than it's name (i.e. if an article is renamed to a synonym the category tags shouldn't need to be changed). Categorizing the redirects for (just) this characteristic also means they won't work with Petscan etc - e.g. if anyone intersects a named-by category with Category:Spiders it won't find any articles where the named-by category is on a redirect, but the spiders category (or a subcat of it) is on the article. DexDor (talk) 21:50, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
@DexDor: Not really a departure: WP:Categorizing redirects specifically states "There are some situations where placing a redirect in an article category is acceptable and can be helpful to users browsing through categories. The following are examples of some of these situations: Redirects whose target title is incompatible with the category [...]". AddWittyNameHere 21:57, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
@DexDor: people don't author taxa, they author taxon names. So given that our articles are explicitly about taxa not names, a strict application of normal wp categorization ... categorizes the topic of the article rather than its name would mean that the "named by" categories shouldn't be used at all because the topic is not the taxon name. Peter coxhead (talk) 22:10, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
Agree Joseph Gaertner wrote an unpublished description of Metrosideros armillaris. The name was published by Daniel Solander but the species was later renamed Melaleuca armillaris by James Edward Smith. Who named the taxon? Gderrin (talk) 22:47, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
Well actually the species is still under Solander, as the genus and species names often have different authors, however, not the point. I agree also that these cats can go, if you want to categorise species I personally think its better to cat them by their taxonomic hierarchy than by author. We have 2 million odd described species, many authors may only describe one species in their career, some may describe many. You would theoretically end up with 100s of thousands of categories which is ridiculous. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 23:59, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
Nothing about categorizing them by author prevents us from also categorizing them by taxonomy as well (which definitely is the case on the great majority of taxon articles). As for authors, I think the unspoken agreement currently is to only bother with categories for authors who have described a substantial number of taxa. At least, I know I don't bother creating categories for folks with maybe a handful of taxa to their name. AddWittyNameHere 00:06, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
so the only problem with reserving categories for authors who have named multiple taxa is where is the cutoff, and what about existing authorities naming future taxa. I also think it is difficult to determine what authors have named a few taxa, and what authors have named many if you are unfamiliar with the authors....I also see some value in retaining taxa author categories for article pages, whether they be common name or scientific, because it allows you to group many pages together, and allows general readers to see that, which the taxoboxes don't allow you to do....Pvmoutside (talk) 13:35, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
Well, the former might be worth a discussion of its own (but so long as even among the big, no-doubt-enough names there's a sizeable bunch without a category or with those categories only very partially implemented, it hasn't really been a priority to me); for the latter, if they're existing authors with categories, categorize those taxa. If they're existing authors without category, create such a category if-and-when they reach the to-be-determined minimum number of taxa. On the common name versus scientific name redirect categorizing I've already stated my piece above and don't feel like repeating myself (I'm already long-winded enough without doing so). AddWittyNameHere 16:06, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Redirect templates using Module: Science redirect: further parameters?

I've started a discussion about the activation of two further parameters for the redirect templates using Module:Science redirect at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Redirect#Templates using Module: Science redirect: consensus for activation of further parameters?. Please comment there to keep discussion together. AddWittyNameHere 02:51, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Signpost Article Interview

Hello members of Wikiproject Tree of Life! I am writing a Wikiproject Report about this Project for the Signpost, and I was wondering if two or three of you might be open for a couple questions about this Project. If so, please ping me here and we can get connected. I need 2-3 people willing to interview. Thank you all, Puddleglum2.0 Have a talk? 16:28, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Puddleglum2.0, Happy to answer some questions. Enwebb (talk) 15:56, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
@Enwebb: Fantastic, I'm planning on carrying out the interview on the talk page of the article draft, so we can start it when we get 1-2 more people. I will ping you when we start. Thanks a lot! Puddleglum2.0 Have a talk? 16:02, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
If no one else signs up, you can take me. FunkMonk (talk) 16:11, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
@Puddleglum2.0: Same as FunkMonk: if no other editors sign up, I'd be willing—but I'm also recently returned from a 13 month health-related wiki-absence, so it'd probably be more preferable to find an editor who's actually been around for more of 2019 than just "half November onwards" AddWittyNameHere 16:14, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
@FunkMonk: and AddWittyNameHere OK perfect, I think I will take sign-ups until the 5th. Thanks for you're willingness! Puddleglum2.0 Have a talk? 16:44, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
I'll participate. Plantdrew (talk) 17:01, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
I can answer some questions. Haven't been very active since October started, but I've been pretty active in ToL since mid-2018. starsandwhales (talk) 02:47, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

@Enwebb: @FunkMonk: @Plantdrew: @Starsandwhales: Excellent. I will get the interview page set up and ping y'all there when it's ready. It shouldn't I should have it done before December 4. (UTC) FunkMonk and AWNH, you can feel free to answer the questions if you would like, 3 is not an official number of anything. The more the better, right? Thank you all! Puddleglum2.0 Have a talk? 05:55, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

First annual Tree of Life Decemberween contest

After all the fun with the Spooky Species Contest last month, there's a new contest for the (Northern hemisphere's) Winter holidays at Wikipedia:WikiProject Tree of Life/Contest. It's not just Christmas, but anything festive from December-ish. Feel free to add some ideas to the Festive taxa list and enter early and often. --Nessie (talk) 17:28, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

I couldn't think of new species to add, but it's nice the list can also be used for years to come, like the spooky list. FunkMonk (talk) 16:59, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
@FunkMonk: thanks for the eyeballs. I hope we keep up the momentum. --Nessie (talk) 23:08, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Carnivora taxonomy edits

Does someone who has an overview want to have a look at the sweeping taxonomy updates at Carnivora and Caniformia? I'm getting the impression that at least for Carnivora, this no longer corresponds to the cited source (HMW 2009). --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 23:25, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

I am no expert, but my take on it is that, a) the taxobox is now much more confusing. Additionally, a quick search of google scholar for Palaeogalidae pulls up absolutely nothing. A lot of the other added ranks are just plain confusing in how they are explained/organized; I do not think they add anything to the article.
That said, someone else should probably take a look at this.--SilverTiger12 (talk) 17:54, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
According to Jian & Zhang (2015), Palaeogalidae was described by Martin & Lim (2001).
I don't think the taxobox needs such a detailed taxonomy. I think it useful to list the families, but perhaps just under Feliformia and Caniformia. Leave the superfamilies etc for the taxonomy section. Having said that, I note that I added Viverroidea over two years ago because the caniforms were already subdivided.
As for the taxonomy itself, I doubt that it is from HMW. I don't have access to HMW but I think it only deals with extant species, organised by family. I can't rule out that it includes a more general taxonomy but the general section is only a few pages. However, looking through the article history most of the taxonomy existed unsourced before HMW was published. The reference was added later.
The taxonomy (and phylogeny) as presented is probably a reasonably accurate one, but some ranks and names may be original research. While logical, I've never seen Feloidea in the sense used. Scott and Jepsen (1936) used Aeludoidea for Felidae alone (which then included the sabre-toothed taxa) and Simpson (1945) discussed using Feloidea for this group but decided to use it for the broader group as is usual now. Again, though, the history shows this was an old addition (edit from 2007). A bit late to simply revert it.
More generally, what do we do to match content with sources? I don't know of a recent detailed taxonomic of Carnivora as a whole. The problem is most comprehenive taxonomic assessments of Carnivora with fossil species for Carnivora are pre-2000, while the phylogeny of extant species has changed substantially since then due to molecular studies. The latter don't tend to made taxonomic decisions and when they do they are of local scope (e.g. Barbourofelidae and Prionodontidae are recognised as families closely related to Felidae, but without defining a parent taxon).   Jts1882 | talk  14:07, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Qbugbot: Insects described in 2053

Qbugbot creates and modifies stub articles for arthropods. I would like to add the "Animals described in year" categories to these articles. I noticed a that lot of the categories were removed several months ago, and that makes it feasible (I think) to add the "described in yyyy" categories to new articles. It looks like, from the page Category:Animals_described_in_1990, that I only need to divide the arthropods into Crustaceans, Spiders, Beetles, Moths, Butterflies, Insects, and Animals for the described-in categories. Is that correct? Bob Webster (talk) 07:06, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

I'd rather "Taxa described in year" categories weren't broken down into any taxonomic groups... —Hyperik ⌜talk⌟ 18:12, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
That'd be a great way to end up with unmanageably large categories that would additionally end up mostly out-of-sight for the various relevant WikiProjects. At least now they're sort-of-visible within various categorization structures. It's not ideal, no, but I'd say that's mostly the result of Wikipedia's categorization system being far from ideal for projects/subjects with anywhere near the sheer number of articles we have. AddWittyNameHere 18:37, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
Do many WikiProject editors use these categories other than to assign articles to them? If so, a set of saved Petscan links would be easy to set up, e.g. Hymenoptera described in 2016, 2017, 2018. —Hyperik ⌜talk⌟ 19:23, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
Many? No clue. I use the moth/butterfly sets for some of my wikiwork, but it depends a fair lot on what tasks I'm focused on. (Lepidoptera has far, far more work that needs doing than there are people to do it. Goes for most of the ToL, of course, but Lepidoptera is in a particularly dire state with its ~100k of stubs.)
Suppose a pet-scan could work for most of those purposes. ("Most" because in addition to the actual purpose of those categories, I've also found that looking for butterfly and moth species that still linger somewhere up the categorization tree is a good way to catch a sizeable number of articles that need a good look at their entire categorization, not just taxa-by-year. Often those have more issues than just that single non-diffused diffusing category. I'll readily admit that's a side effect of the existence of those categories, not their actual purpose, though) AddWittyNameHere 20:00, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
(EDIT CONFLICT) I don't know if any editors use them. I don't, and I don't bother adding them (it takes quite a bit more effort to find the description date for a plant/fungus than an animal). I'm not sure if readers use them either. Intersectional categories on Wikipedia have some issues (see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of Life#Intersectional distribution categories above). Petscan can be used for category intersections, but very few readers (and not all editors) know about it. Ideally there would be a reader friendly category search tool linked in the left-hand panel, and we could deprecate intersectional categories altogether.
However, as long as we have a bot owner offering to populate existing interesectional categories, we should take advantage of that. @Edibobb:, Crustaceans, Spiders, Beetles, Moths/Butterflies, Insects and Animals are the relevant existing categories for arthropods. Plantdrew (talk) 20:08, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
Thanks! I'll plan on those. I don't think I'll ever use them, but there have been requests and it may save some editors some time if I add the categories automatically. Bob Webster (talk) 20:39, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Using Catalogue of Life (CoL) as a cited reference seems fine when it's directly improving the article, but it would seem a bit excessive to me as an external link on every taxon article, e.g. [1][2][3][4]

Taxonbars condense long lists of links to these types of databases. But unfortunately it doesn't look like there is a CoL property on Wikidata. This is the only mention of this I could find regarding CoL and taxonbars: Template talk:Taxonbar/Archive 4#Catalogue of Life ID? (January 2019) and this discussion on Wikidata was almost 4 years ago. Anyone know of an update / familiar with that process?

If getting it added to taxonbars via Wikidata really isn't a possibility, then any thoughts on the addition of links to CoL as external links on taxon articles? Thanks! Hyperik ⌜talk⌟ 19:32, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Well, you've found the relevant previous discussions. The big question is whether CoL has stable identifiers. If it doesn't, it's not suitable for Wikidata (or as an external link on en.wiki). Even if it does have stable identifiers, the two most active taxonomy editors at Wikidata have a rather dim view of CoL and might oppose adding a Wikidata property for it. If the identifiers are stable, I would support adding a Wikidata property and including CoL in the taxonbar.
I don't think we should have separate external links for databases that are (or could be) included in the taxonbar (however, taxonbar isn't displayed in mobile view). I don't think CoL links add much value, as CoL aggregates other databases that may already be represented in the taxonbar (although this is also true of WoRMS). Plantdrew (talk) 21:02, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
Probably worth noting that the account involved in each of those four diffs above appears to have a fairly blatant conflict of interest (sp2000 is fairly obviously Species 2000), which was pointed out in 2008 after their first two edits. Subsequently, the account went dormant until late 2014, after which they started adding a handful of CoL external links a couple times per year (usually with several months, or sometimes close to a year between their short activity bursts). This pattern held until today. They've just returned again, but seem to be adding a significantly larger bunch of links this round. AddWittyNameHere 22:17, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
I have never seen the point of linking to the CoL when it simply has a copy of an old version of another taxonomic database. Take lycophytes for example. The source of the CoL entries is the Checklist of Ferns and Lycophytes of the World ("World Ferns", CFLW). This is currently at version 8.11, dated 2 November 2019. Right now, the CoL monthly updated editions have been suspended since April 2019, but when they were active, fern entries were necessarily behind the Checklist of Ferns and Lycophytes of the World. Now they are a year out-of-date, which matters because CFLW has been in the process of updating to the PPG I system of classification.
The identifiers are not stable, at least since 2015 when they changed radically. Thus Osmolindsaea himalaica is "afe4ba17e9b28c5a233d536e46c83da8" in 2015 but "11ea9b1d31e899a5156c8fcf06bedc01" in 2019:
The 2015 to 2018 versions have an "LSID" at the bottom (the 2019 doesn't). But these aren't the same either, even if you strip off the "colDATE" bit. If you follow the links above, 2015 has "urn:lsid:catalogueoflife.org:taxon:324b2b16-c365-11e4-869f-239583ce8323:col20150401" and 2018 has "urn:lsid:catalogueoflife.org:taxon:96adc4f2-4e2c-11e8-9ed0-fa163e792e6e:col20180509".
Peter coxhead (talk) 22:56, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
Another issue is WP:ELRC. When the source database that CoL uses has been used as a reference, it's wrong to add CoL as an external link, since it simply duplicates the reference (or is an older version of the reference's data). Peter coxhead (talk) 23:11, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
IUCN uses CoL as their taxonomy in their searches. I think ITIS also uses it as a basis. So it is already there, kinda, in the taxonbar. --Nessie (talk) 01:30, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
ITIS is a source for CoL, not the other way around (for many years, ITIS was the single largest source for CoL). Plantdrew (talk) 17:13, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
A direct link to a CoL page has been add to List of the largest genera of flowering plants by User:Sp2000secretariat with this edit and this edit. The references may be appropriate, but it should use a citation template rather than s direct link.   Jts1882 | talk  08:08, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
Hyperik has, rightly in my view, reverted these additions. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:20, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Mass replacing of range maps with ones that lack borders

I'd like to get some input from the community on edits which take an existing distribution / range map and replace it with a version that is typically identical except that all the geopolitical borders have been removed. Here are a handful of the many such edits and comparison example to the right.[5][6][7][8]

Eastern spotted skunk (Spilogale putorius) range maps
Before
After
The edit diff

The distribution of an organism is almost always first described by its continental, then national and subnational occurrence(s). It's important enough information to be included in the lead of most taxon articles. The distribution category system is defined by them.

Removing the borders from the range maps makes it less clear as to which of these locations the organism is found, and to me these are unhelpful, politically motivated edits.

thanks for any thoughts, and hopefully for some help cleaning these edits up here and other places like Wikidata (edit:) and Commons. —Hyperik ⌜talk⌟ 00:19, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

With very few exceptions, such maps are bordering on (no pun intended) if not outright misleading—with or without borders. "Occurs in Maine", for example, does not (necessarily) mean the same thing as "occurs in all of Maine", but that is how such maps interpret it: by coloring the entire state(/country/etc). The versions without borders are even worse than those with, though. At least with borders (and preferably an additional note stating as much) one can interpret it as "has been recorded from these rough geographical areas"; without borders, it's not even clear what areas those supposedly are. AddWittyNameHere 01:00, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
The particular maps in question here aren't coloring in the entirety of a political entity. Or did I miss something? Plantdrew (talk) 01:23, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
That's right. These maps are almost all sourced from much more nuanced geospatial data available at the IUCN Red List website. They aren't just shading in an entire country, state, or province. —Hyperik ⌜talk⌟ 14:46, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
@Plantdrew and Hyperik: Okay, good. Should have looked deeper into things, my apologies—I'm just used to seeing distribution maps/range maps that really aren't that nuanced, but now that you're saying this, you're right that those aren't actually the ones Wikipedia uses. Again, sorry. AddWittyNameHere 16:10, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
No worries, of course! —Hyperik ⌜talk⌟ 16:14, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
It's not clear in the second map whether the skunk is present in Mexico or not (the article states that it is present); I know the US/Mexican border is somewhere in the vicinity of the southern end of the blue range, but I'm not sure whether the blue crosses the border. The editor replacing the maps seems to be on a mission to remove borders from maps for various topics where present day national borders aren't "relevant". I won't dispute that species distributions don't respect political borders (although conservation legislation does). But people are generally familiar with political maps of the world, and the national borders add some context that an otherwise blank map of a continent is lacking. Plotting range on a topographic map, or a map of ecoregions would also give additional context, and such maps would also be preferable to a blank map of a continent. A blank map of a continent is not an improvement over a map with some other details. Plantdrew (talk) 01:23, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
I've seen this change (always by the same user) pop up on maps used in e.g. list of felids, etc., and I find it unhelpful- the skunk in the example may not care about national borders, but the reader curious if the skunk is found in Mexico does, especially for ranges that cross borders where one country has a much more expansive animal protection policy or where the reader can intuit a geographical change (e.g. a mountain range) where the map is otherwise monotone. The borders add information, is what I'm saying, for little to no cost, and removing them is not helpful. --PresN 01:50, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
In some instances, however, there have to be exceptions, like if the species' range is synonymous with an entire continent or island, or an area where national borders aren't drawn over. Myrhonon (talk) 02:21, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
There are a couple I have noticed so far that I chose not to revert, for example one species was only found in the very far south of India and the borders with Nepal, China, Pakistan, etc. had all been wiped from the map. Though in that case, the map was way too far zoomed out in the first place, and a much closer crop showing the borders of the Indian states would have been a better change to make. (edit:) Like this. Time can be better spent than removing borders of countries thousands of miles away from the species' distribution.
In other cases, despite the organism being wholly contained within a political unit, it can also helpful to see how close it might come to another border. So yes, I agree there could be some borderless exceptions where other data like topography or waterways could be substituted, but that it would be very species-specific. Even with purely historical range maps, showing modern-day borders on map is useful. In those cases they could be shown with lighter, dashed rather than solid lines. Simply removing the borders is unhelpful in almost all circumstances. —Hyperik ⌜talk⌟ 14:55, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
No it isn't. It just reinforces the idea that borders are an inherent part of the landscape, which they're not. We should be representing facts and not personal ideas. And then we'd have to change each and every one when the borders change (which they inevitably will). Myrhonon (talk) 00:29, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
Ranges of organisms will inevitably change as well, and may change faster than borders. The borders of the United States and the individual states haven't changed appreciably in more than 100 years. There are many species in the US that have seen massive reductions or expansions in range in that time. That doesn't mean we shouldn't have range maps at all.Plantdrew (talk) 01:11, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
All the changes should be reverted. Unfortunately Myrhonon (talk · contribs) is making similar changes in articles about other topics. The original maps are better as they help readers identify what they are looking at. A computer with a perfect model of the globe might not need national borders, but most humans find them helpful. Johnuniq (talk) 03:05, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
If we have to have these maps it is better to have the ones with borders, since it makes it clearer what is going on. Especially without borders it looks as if the maps are accurate range maps, where as really they just show whether the species has been reported in a given large political unit. The changes should indeed be reverted. Strobilomyces (talk) 12:03, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
See comment above — none of these are maps that just show whether or not the species has been reported in a large political unit. —Hyperik ⌜talk⌟ 14:46, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
Exactly so. Peter coxhead (talk) 14:12, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
Political boundaries are useful in range maps as they provide context to readers, who are used to looking at such maps. It is often relevant to the article anways, as the political boundaries of a species's range often determine any legal protections it may have. I'm not sure that a boundary-less map would ever me more helpful than one with some additional context. Enwebb (talk) 16:14, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
It's helpful in that it helps reduce the culturally ingrained idea that borders are inherent to a place, which is a form of dogma. Myrhonon (talk) 23:04, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
Part of what is involved here is a dispute over how to show disputed areas, such as whether the Crimea is part of Ukraine, part of the Russian federation, or in dispute. Editors have been switching maps to present their preferred version of the political landscape. Removing political boundaries from maps is seen by some editors as a way of isolating articles from the fighting over such contested boundaries. - Donald Albury 18:15, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
In such cases I think alternative changes could be made instead of a total removal of borders. If the disputed region is included in the taxons range, perhaps having the colour over top of the borders (making them no longer visible but still showing their approximate beginnings and ends with respect to the taxons range). If the disputed region and country aren't involved in the area (eg something is known from Romania and Belarus but not Ukraine or Russia) maybe only the borders of the relevant nations are shown, and surrounding borders removed. There should be other methods to resolving this that don't involve a site-wide blanking of borders that provide context and relevance. IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 19:55, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
It is early in this dispute, but it is possible a community-wide consensus will have to be sought on whether and how to depict disputed territories on maps. In the interim, I guess the community of editors interested in articles about living things that have ranges can seek a consensus on maps in those articles. - Donald Albury 22:42, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

The 2020 WikiCup is on!

2020 WikiCup

Do you want a fun and exciting Wiki challenge? An opportunity to get involved in some of the most important editing on Wikipedia? A giant shiny cup to display on your userpage? Well then you should join the WikiCup challenge! Folks of all experience levels are welcome to join. It's a good way for veteran editors to test their mettle, and for new users to learn the ropes. The competition revolves around content creation, such as good and featured articles, DYK's, reviewing such content, and more. See Wikipedia:WikiCup/Scoring for full details. Over the course of the year, users compete to create the most and best content in a round based format. The top performers in each round will advance to the next, until just 8 remain in the final round. Out of those, one Wikipedian will walk away with the coveted WikiCup. Could that user be you? Find out by signing up! Signups are open until January 31, 2020. Good luck! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:01, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Clarification: common names in taxoboxes

I've been having a discussion on my talk page about the "name" parameter in taxoboxes, and found that there actually seems to be no clear guideline on this. If a species article is under the scientific name because that is the most commonly used term, but there also exists a vernacular name, is it then okay to title the taxobox with the vernacular, resulting in a mismatch between article title and box title? I was under the impression that we don't do that, and that the vernacular should only be in the box if it is also the article title. - Specific case here is Betta akarensis. If the article gets moved to "Akar betta" (which I don't believe is justified, based on usage stats), then that name in the box would of course be fine.

I can't find any firm statement on this in MOS or template docs (the closest is Template:Taxobox#Name, but that can be interpreted in various ways). Any standing consensus? --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 02:00, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

The taxobox should use the same name as the article in most cases, without the disambiguation. The policy on naming articles (WP:COMMONNAME) is to use the common name where that is clearly established, e.g. Guinea pig (not: Cavia porcellus). This project's main page says In cases where there is a formal common name (e.g. birds), or when common names are well-known and reasonably unique (e.g. "Cuvier's dwarf caiman"), they should be used for article titles. Scientific names should be used otherwise. in the Article_titles section. The taxobox should follow suit and use the common name in the article title when there is one. The scientific name is already used in the taxobox. If the article is at the scientific name that will usually be because there isn't an established or universal common name, in which case there isn't a suitable common name for the taxobox.   Jts1882 | talk  07:28, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
Guidelines are different for different groups of organisms. Wikipedia:Naming conventions (flora) requires stronger criteria for the use of vernacular names as article titles than Wikipedia:Naming conventions (fauna). Practice varies across animal groups, partly because of the existence of "official" English names for birds, and partly from long-established conventions. Template:Taxobox/doc#Name says: "Provided under this parameter [name] should be the single most common vernacular name when one is in widespread use, or a single current scientific name otherwise." Nothing says that the taxobox name has to match the article title. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:25, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
Also, all taxoboxes (whether automatic or manual) will default to use the page title for the name of the taxobox when the "name=" parameter is empty or not present. As the scientific name for a species is present in both an abbreviated form and a full binomial near the bottom of the taxobox, it is additionally redundant to include it as the title of the taxobox when an accepted common (vernacular) name can be used instead. As a guide, if a single, or dominant, common name is worthy of a prominent inclusion in the lede of the article introduction, then it is also worthy of being included as the title of the taxobox. Loopy30 (talk) 11:45, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
Exactly. And this is, in my view, the common practice in many taxonomic groups. Peter coxhead (talk) 11:58, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
All right; thanks for the clarification! --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 14:25, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

converting the last {{cite journal}} and {{cite web}} to {{cite iucn}}

You might have noticed that I have been converting {{cite journal}} and {{cite web}} templates that cite the IUCN Red List, and the {{IUCN}} family of templates to use {{cite iucn}}. That job is mostly done.

For those of you with an interest and in need of something a bit different to do for a spell, here is a list of articles that use {{cite journal}} (a few) and {{cite web}} (most) that for various reasons, my automated tool could not convert. In many cases, the templates link to the IUCN home page which isn't helpful to our readers, or they use obsolete urls that 404 or get redirected to the IUCN home page.

If you fix any of these, please mark them in some way: strike it out with the <s>...</s> tag, add a check mark Green tickY ({{aye}}), add a note, whatever; just so others coming after don't try to fix something that you have already fixed.

As an (imperfect) aid, there is {{make cite iucn}} which can reformat IUCN's recommended citation into a {{cite iucn}} template.

articles with IUCN references using {{cite journal}} or {{cite web}} that need to be converted to {{cite iucn}}

—Trappist the monk (talk) 17:17, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

@Trappist the monk: Should we get this automated with a bot? Also maybe @Citation bot: and similar tools should also do this as they scan pages. --Nessie (talk) 23:40, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
For 250-ish articles? Hardly seems worth the effort. And, of the articles in this list that I sampled, links to the IUCN homepage aren't helpful to readers so I suspect that bots won't know what to do with them. I wasn't able to construct simple translations from the obsolete urls to some sort of working url – where working is defined as linking to a meaningful IUCN page, not a url that gets redirected to the IUCN homepage. There are a variety of obsolete urls so each translation, were it possible, would have to be tailored for that specific style.
Bots and scripts are very, very good are doing mindlessly repetitive work; my script has no mind but it converted {{cite journal}}, {{cite web}}, and the {{IUCN}} family templates to {{cite iucn}} in some 25,000+ articles so that editors don't have to do that – and even so, the conversions are imperfect: see Category:Cite iucn maint and Category:Cite iucn errors (articles in these categories may be more amenable to repairs by bots that are more sophisticated than my script).
The articles in the above list seem to me to be cases that require a mind; someone has to decide what the original editors intended when they placed these {{cite journal}} and {{cite web}} templates in these articles and then take appropriate corrective action; that, I think, is the realm of the human editor.
Of course, many of the the 'List of mammals of ...' articles appear to rely on a single long-long-long url (since gone 404) so a bot or script could certainly delete that but that leaves the question of proper referencing for those lists; again, the realm of the human editor...
—Trappist the monk (talk) 00:41, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
There are a lot of Polbot created articles that reference IUCN without using any citation template, and where the IUCN status hasn't been updated since 2007. Macleania loeseneriana is a typical example (the string "Downloaded on 22 August 2007" would perhaps a good way to search for a bunch of these). Plantdrew (talk) 03:13, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
That is outside the scope of this particular discussion; still: ~14.5k articles.
—Trappist the monk (talk) 03:57, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

WikiProject Rodeo is a thing

I'm not affiliated with this project, but looks like WikiProject Rodeo is now a thing, claiming descendent from two ToL projects, Livestock task force and WikiProject Equine, and I imagine much overlap with WikiProject Animal rights. They have one taskforce, Bull riding which has its own talk page template {{WikiProject Bull riding}}, separate from {{WikiProject Rodeo}}. I don't see many articles having taxoboxes or taxonbars, but maybe some {{Infobox horse breed}} or {{Infobox cattle breed}} templates. Anyways, just a heads up for ya'll. --Nessie (📥) 16:54, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Shadow biosphere

Hello. It seems that there are some errors in the articles Shadow biosphere and Desert varnish. The citations from them: Carol Cleland, a philosopher of science at the University of Colorado (Boulder), argues that desert varnish, whose status as living or nonliving has been debated since the time of Darwin, should be investigated as a potential candidate for a shadow biosphere; It has been suggested that desert varnish should be investigated as a potential candidate for a "shadow biosphere". I am almost certain it is a kind of misinterpretation or very poor paraphrasing, because the source materials clearly say that according to some scientists the Desert vanish could be a possible product (or effect) of hypothetical microorganisms, but not the Shadow biosphere itself. For example: And a promising example is provided by the desert varnish proposed as a target by Cleland and backed by David Toomey in Weird Life. "No laboratory microbiologist has been able to coax bacteria or algae to make desert varnish," he states. "It is also possible that the stuff is the end result of some very weird chemistry but no one has been able to reproduce that either." So yes, these sites could provide proof of the shadow biosphere's existence, he argues, (Life on Earth… but not as we know it); Cleland speculates that a microscopic form of life may have been producing desert varnish for eons, but scientists simply haven't figured out how to detect it (Is desert varnish a pathway to detecting 'alien' life?); also, according to the sources Darwin wasn’t really wondering if it is living or nonliving, but rather biological or not - it’s not the same thing, the citation from the second one of the sources I previously mentioned: Although some scientists have claimed they solved the mystery, Cleland said nobody has really proven what causes it since Darwin himself puzzled over those dark patches of varnish in the 1800s. "He himself was wondering if they were biological," Cleland said. "He might be the first person who wondered if they were biological." Additionally, I found this comment in the talk page of the Shadow biosphere article, it’s from 2012(!): Is there any evidence to back up the idea that anyone has ever claimed 'desert varnish' is (or even could be) a life-form? Could someone take a look on it, and corect these sentences, please? You’re much more experienced than me, and additionally I don’t speak English very fluently, so wouldn’t want to make any mistake. I’d be very grateful for your help. Thank you in advance. Kind regards, Jojnee (talk) 01:45, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Using {{PAGENAME}} in taxoboxes

One editor has started to produce plant species stubs that replace all instances of the species name in the box with template {{PAGENAME}}, e.g. here. For some reason this fills me with a nameless dread, particularly since they have about a hundred stubs sitting in userspace and about to roll out. Before I say anything to them about that, could someone assess how good/bad an idea this approach is? --Elmidae (talk · contribs)

@Elmidae: what if they subst-ed instead? --awkwafaba (📥) 19:48, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
No idea. I've never seen this usage before, on any page, and that indicates to me that there's likely some issue with it, which template-savvy people might be able to point out. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 21:04, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
Seems like a bad practice. It will produce problems if an article is moved to a different title (e.g. a vernacular name). Taxoboxes already have some logic to use the page title to generate the name at the top of the taxobox from the page name (if |name= isn't specified). Pretty sure there's nowhere else on Wikipedia where {{PAGENAME}} is used to generate the bolded instance of the page name in the lead sentence. Plantdrew (talk) 03:01, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
It's also pointless. If the stubs are being generated automatically they have the name (it's used for genus and species) so the process ahould insert the actual name rather than {{PAGENAME}}. In these examples the |name= parameter is unnecessary. Also if the page was moved the title of the citation would change which would be an error. I think substitution ({{subst:PAGENAME}}) is what should have been used. —  Jts1882 | talk  08:02, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
Yes, it's a thoroughly bad idea to use the unsubst'ed template for all the reasons mentioned above. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:56, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
All right, dropped them a note. Cheers --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 13:25, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Horizontal double images in taxoboxes?

Close up and diagram of the holotype skull

We are able to place two images vertically in taxoboxes, for example to show two sexes, as in Western rosella. While working on Bellubrunnus and some other articles about fossil taxa, I wondered whether it would be possible to also include two images side by side horizontally instead? For example in Bellubrunnus, it would make sense if the photo of the slab fossil was side by side with the diagram of the same, similar to how I have arranged the photo and diagram of the skull in the same article (copied here on the right). Is that possible already, or could it maybe be something to tweak in the taxobox template? FunkMonk (talk) 22:48, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

test
Bellubrunnus
test for two images
Scientific classification Edit this classification
Domain: Eukaryota
Kingdom: Animalia
Phylum: Chordata
Order: †Pterosauria
Family: †Rhamphorhynchidae
Subfamily: †Rhamphorhynchinae
Genus: †Bellubrunnus
It wouldn't be difficult to implement if there was consensus, but would there by much demand? It seems easier to make a composite image and upload that. You could use <imagemap> to link the images to different articles if desired. —  Jts1882 | talk  09:02, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
It turns out you can use two imagemaps in one image parameter. The alignment is awkward, though. —  Jts1882 | talk  09:45, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
The other issue is one of size. The width of taxoboxes should be kept down to avoid a narrow column of text to the left of them. In most cases, and I certainly think this includes the case above, the images would be too small viewed side by side when in a taxobox. What is the point of the right hand image above at that size? Put them in text where the width can be increased. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:39, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
So far I have just made composite images, yeah, so that's why I was wondering whether there was/could be a built in way to do this. The test is interesting, though if both images were bigger, they would maybe fill out the space between? The images I would have put side by in the taxobox would be these, which are quite narrow, so would make more sense than the skull:[9][10] FunkMonk (talk) 11:22, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Linking taxobox to nomenclatural databases, e.g. WoRMS (Aphia)

Given taxonomy is dynamic, is it possible to have an auto taxobox on a species article automatically keep up to date with changes in published taxonomy by linking it with an identifier to a nomenclatural database such as the WoRMS (Aphia) database? Having the taxobox be dynamic in this fashion would allow taxon articles to avoid out-of-date taxonomies and save manually updating large numbers of taxon articles to reflect new information. Advice is very welcome. Frogs&dogs (talk) 02:38, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Modules can't use third party APIs so this could only be done via Wikidata. This had been discussed many times and the consensus is against it. One reason is that Wikidata can contain multiple taxonomies so how does one choose which to use. The biggest objection is that changes will be made that are not overseen by an English Wikipedia editor and will not be tracked by watchlists. The automated taxobox system, which is overseen by editors here, allows updating of taxonomy without editing every page.   Jts1882 | talk  07:58, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
I'm afraid all changes have to be done manually. The automated taxobox system can change taxoboxes, but changes to the text within the article have to be done manually, including redirects and keeping the list of synonyms up-to-date. JoJan (talk) 15:49, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
Hmmm... Says "Advice is very welcome", then almost immediately sets account to "retired". William Avery (talk) 15:56, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for your concern, William Avery. I retired that account because I had two active accounts (one I made at work and one I made separately at home) but wanted to not have two active accounts. Anyway, why then can't Wikidata pull data from WoRMS and feed that to Wikipedia? At present, keeping Wikidata and Wikipedia up-to-date with current taxonomy requires duplicated effort from a taxonomic expert to update both WoRMS and the wikis, which they don't have time to do and could be an automated process. Anomalocaris Anomalocaris 500 (talk) 05:39, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
Because we don't use WoRMS for all the taxa that it covers, and where we currently do, WikiProjects could in future reach a consensus to use a different main source for article titles and taxoboxes. To repeat a point that gets made endlessly, it seems, taxonomy is a highly subjective matter; reliable sources disagree substantially on the classification of many groups (bird specialists and dinosaur specialists are one very well-known example). We must never rely entirely on outside sources for taxoboxes and article titles, even if it were possible, which it isn't. Wikipedia works via consensus among active editors, not blindly copying one external source. Peter coxhead (talk) 11:06, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for mansplaining that to me Peter coxhead. I am not suggesting we 'blindly copy' a single external source. From my experience, most taxoboxes I've seen cite an expertly edited taxonomic database such as WoRMS or World Spider Catalog, which can, in most cases, be considered authoritative. So all I was asking is why can't those update automatically from that reference/link, to save editing a large number of species articles when a genus gets sunk for example. I was asking a genuine question and I understand now that this is fundamentally not possible because of the way Wikipedia works, so it was entirely unnecessary for you to be so condescending and unhelpful. Actually, the only reason I responded to this was to highlight that and hope that this sort of thing doesn't keep discouraging more people from contributing. Anomalocaris Anomalocaris 500 (talk) 06:44, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
@Anomalocaris: apologies if you found my response "condescending and unhelpful". I can see that it was somewhat terse. This issue – automatically updating taxonomy from an external source – comes up regularly, and it gets a bit tedious explaining the drawbacks. We could do with a more thoughtful user essay somewhere exploring this. Peter coxhead (talk) 12:03, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
Anomalocaris 500: While ordinarily Wikipedia strongly discourages editing other people's comments on talk pages, Wikipedia:Refactoring talk pages says that it is OK to do so, among other things, to correct signatures, so I have taken the liberty of correcting your signature twice above. Also, I have a suggestion, which you make take or leave as you see fit. In my experience, it's almost never useful to suggest that others are condescending, in Wikipedia or anywhere else. Assuming good faith (AGF) is a fundamental principle on Wikipedia. Moreover, even when you strongly believe other party really did condescend or otherwise act inappropriately, it usually works better to aim for their better selves. One time in a business meeting, someone called me a nasty name. I could have responded in kind, but instead, I said something like, "I must have mis-heard; that didn't sound like the gentleman I know you are." He apologized. By de-escalating, I was able to save the deal. Cheers!
Peter coxhead: No apology needed here in any case. It's apparent that your comment was intended for Anomalocaris 500, of whom I have requested a signature modification so that confusion like this won't happen again. Cheers! —Anomalocaris (talk) 06:11, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Nomination of Wikipedia:WikiProject Amphibians and Reptiles for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether Wikipedia:WikiProject Amphibians and Reptiles is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Amphibians and Reptiles until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. Enwebb (talk) 03:01, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Abbreviating botanical names between genus and species in taxoboxes

See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Plants#Abbreviating names between genus and species in taxoboxes for a proposal to change the default way that automated taxoboxes handle botanical names with connecting terms, like Scilla sect. Chionodoxa, or Pinus subg. Pinus. This would not affect ICZN names in any way. Peter coxhead (talk) 17:51, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Semicolon question

What does it mean when there is a semicolon between a species name and the author? For example at Lepidoptera and Some Other Life Forms, it says "Olapa argenna; Swinhoe, 1922" which has the semicolon, but above at "Cypra argenna Mabille, [1900]" it does not. Another example here. Thank you, SchreiberBike | ⌨  02:22, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

It means that this is not the author of the taxon name. Consider the entry "Orgyia mascarena; Swinhoe, 1923, Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist. (9) 11 (64): 406". The species was first described as Dasychira mascarena Butler, 1878. So the authority for all other generic placements using this specific name is "(Butler, 1878)". Hence they could have written "Orgyia mascarena (Butler, 1878); Swinhoe, 1923, Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist. (9) 11 (64): 406", meaning that in the publication "Swinhoe, 1923, Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist. (9) 11 (64): 406" can be found information under the name Orgyia mascarena (Butler, 1878), which if you follow the link from the page number is correct: Colonel C. Swinhoe lists "826. Orgyia mascarena".
It's a good convention. (The World Spider Catalog just lists all taxonomic references without making it clear whether the author(s) of the references is the authority for the taxon name or not, which means that you have to infer the latter. New editors frequently get this wrong.)
Peter coxhead (talk) 06:11, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Article evaluation

Hello, Tree of Life,

I'm hoping someone could look over Udotea flabellum which has been created by a new editor. There are some medical claims that need some evaluation. Thank you. Liz Read! Talk! 16:18, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Genitive of a name ending with "s" in species names

User Pvmoutside and I have different views on (1) how vernacular names containing genitive of a name ending with an "s" should be formed, and (2) should the spelling used in original sources be amended. The most recent case is Eutropis gansi, with vernacular names Gans' mabuya and Gans' grass skink (spelling used in the sources), after Carl Gans. Pvmoutside has amended these to Gans's mabuya and Gans's grass skink twice, the second time arguing that "his last name is Gans, not Gan. Wikipedia convention uses the extra s when last name ends in an s". As far as I can see, (1) «Gans'» is entirely grammatical, as is «Gans's», so there is no compelling need to systematically "fix" the spelling in one way or the other. (2) My impression is that in animal names, it is more common to use the single-s form (of course there are exceptions, as pointed out by Pvmoutside on my talk page). In the particular case triggering this exchange, the original sources cited use the simpler form («Gans'», not «Gans's»). Google search is not giving me any non-WP hits of «Gans's mabuya/grass skink». (3) I am not aware of any WP convention favoring one form over the other (apart from the more general principle of following the most common spelling in general).

I have raised this issue once under WP Animals, but got only one response from Chiswick Chap, who sided towards the simpler form but emphasized commonness as the main guiding rule. I am trying again here, hopefully triggering more responses that could lead to a broader consensus. Micromesistius (talk) 17:54, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

English_possessive#Nouns_and_noun_phrases leaves it less than clear cut. I read Strunk and White generally favour apostrophe-s, with exceptions such as Jesus', Augustus' and -ness'. Does Wikipedia's manual of style weigh in on this topic? Lavateraguy (talk) 19:23, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
Sorry this is dragging on. There is no perfect answer in any policy, standard, grammar or phrase book, nor any definitive naming committee for vernacular names, as by definition they are what people say. Here in England, we generally pronounce the "-es" sound for the genitive even if a name ends in -s; thus we say "the Joneses next door...", "My friend Cass's (pronounced Cassiz) recipe", and I suppose we'd pronounce it "Gansiz grass skink" too; I have no idea how I would SAY "Gans' (inaudible apostrophe) grass skink" as everyone would suppose I'd made a mistake. So I would write it "Gans's" really. Hope I didn't say anything different last time; if I did, well, perhaps that's a message not to get too steamed up about it all, it doesn't matter very much in the larger war, famine, Covid and death picture now, does it?. All the best (and that really IS the last I'm going to say here on this), Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:25, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
If you are guided by pronunciation, the issue seems to be to avoid a duplication of the vowel sounds. So I'm happy with "Gans's" and "Cass's" because there's no duplication of how I pronounce the added ending /iz/. Similarly I'm happy with "Jesus's" since I pronounce the "-us" in "Jesus" differently from the added /iz/ ("Jesus's" for me is roughly [dʒiːsəsɪz] in WP's IPA for English). But those that pronounce the added /iz/ as [əs] won't usually say [dʒiːsəsəz], so will naturally write "Jesus'". Given that we are to be as tolerant as possible of dialect differences, we should not be changing one to the other. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:05, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
In my opinion, the spelling given in sources should never be amended; that includes apostrophes, hyphens and spaces as given in the source (I'm personally inclined to follow capitalization as given in sources as well, but that ship has sailed). If there is an obvious typo or misspelling (e.g. "siknk" instead of "skink"), I suppose it could be amended, but it would be better to find a source that gives the correct spelling. When different sources give essentially the same name with slight modifications, there is some room for editor discretion in which variant to present. Plantdrew (talk) 23:46, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
I agree with Plantdrew (including the comment about capitalization). There are cases like "Douglas-fir" versus "Douglas fir" where sources that use the hyphen do so deliberately, in this case to emphasize that Douglas-firs are not firs, and then we should present both variants. But this doesn't apply to apostrophes: follow the sources must be right. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:42, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Minority local names in species articles

Sagotreespirit (talk · contribs) seems to have taken it upon themselves to add the Kwaza language name to a couple dozen species articles (note that this language appears to be spoken by a grand total of... 54 people.) Some random examples are Argentine black and white tegu, Leptodactylus stenodema, White-bellied spider monkey. I think this is a pretty clear case for a mass rollback, but I wanted to get some other opinions on this before either doing it myself or running it by an admin (mass rollback makes me nervous). Some explanation by Sagotreespirit as to why they consider this relevant, WP:DUE, or an overall good idea would also be welcome.

Note that they also have added Shawi language names to some, a language with 14,000 speakers. Lest this become focused on number of speakers, I think that the random addition of local names in general is not good article building, but extreme minority languages kind of underline the basic issue. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 19:34, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Elmidae, I agree, I think this is the addition of trivia and places undue weight on one or a few languages. Also probably relevant is NOTADICTIONARY, which lists translations as a key feature seen in Wiktionary but not Wikipedia. Perhaps we could encourage editing Wikidata instead? It would be fine to include an indefinite number of common name translations there. Enwebb (talk) 19:47, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
@Elmidae: I decided to include languages based not on the number of speakers, but rather on the phylogenetic positions of the languages. "Basal" and divergent languages are quite important in historical linguistics (for example, Kwaza is a language isolate despite having only 54 speakers). Names of species in such languages are very important for ethnobiologists and historical linguists, but I can see how Wikipedia articles should be written to serve a wide general audience, not just ethnobiology enthusiasts. — Sagotreespirit (talk) 12:57, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Well boo, I thought I figured out how to add labels in more languages on Wikidata, but I don't think Kwaza and Shawi are supported. Enwebb (talk) 20:38, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
I agree that particular material is out of place and bordering on the indiscriminate, though I wouldn't call it trivia. William Avery (talk) 20:00, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
@Enwebb: That's why I wanted to add some of them onto Wikipedia, because I couldn't see how they could be added to Wikidata and Wikispecies at the moment. Let's figure out how to do this on the other project sites. — Sagotreespirit (talk) 12:34, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Some of the species hardly have any indigenous names. I'm fine with a mass rollback for the better-known species, but Kwaza names for more obscure species such as Leptodactylus stenodema are probably the only indigenous names for those kinds of species that will ever be recorded. — Sagotreespirit (talk) 12:30, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

No need to do the rollbacks now. I've taken it upon myself to follow community consensus and remove the names. — Sagotreespirit (talk) 12:32, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
@Sagotreespirit: Thank you. I think we really ought to take care to grow these articles without allowing them to spread out into collections of indiscriminate information along the way. I've always gotten the impression that once a species article is so well fleshed out that it deserves the name "encyclopedic entry", then people are happy with a paragraph on local names (which in itself ought to deal with the most widespread ones first). But before that, it would be bolting off into frills & laces territory before the basis exists. Meaning that the obscure/stubby articles in particular should steer clear of this. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 13:07, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
@Elmidae: It probably does look like borderline indiscriminate information to the non-specialist. But compiling lists of plant and animal names in dozens of "obscure" languages is an entire discipline in itself. In historical linguistics, this is done in order to reconstruct proto-languages and Urheimat, identify isoglosses, and substantiate hypotheses about linguistic prehistory. I can see how this is outside the scope of Wikipedia articles about species, but I am not entirely sure if this is within the scopes of Wikispecies, Wiktionary, or Wikidata either. Compiling such lists is not supported by Wikispecies now, so I think Wiktionary would be the place to do this. — Sagotreespirit (talk) 13:15, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Just checked. Wikipedia and Wikispecies are not the best places to compile long lists of common names in little-known languages, but this is most likely suitable for Wiktionary and Wikidata. — Sagotreespirit (talk) 13:29, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
On wikidata the place to add the name would be a statement for taxon common name (P1843). However this requires a Wikimedia language code. They are listed here. I can't figure out where to request a wikimedia language code. —  Jts1882 | talk  14:21, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
@Sagotreespirit and Jts1882: Found it, I think. Apparently it's a Phabricator process. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 17:06, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Newsletter ideas

Does anyone have any ideas for the newsletter? How about interest in writing a guest column? Also, always looking for more people to interview :) Enwebb (talk) 01:05, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Tree_of_Life/Archive_47&oldid=968382902"