Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of Life/Archive 49

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 45←Archive 47Archive 48Archive 49Archive 50Archive 51→Archive 55

WikiSpecies and WikiCommons project boxes

Over the last two weeks, WikiSpecies and WikiCommons project boxes have been added to several hundred bird articles (example here). As links to these entries are already present on the left-hand column under the "In other projects" header and sometimes additionally in the taxonbar at the bottom of the page, I consider these project boxes to be redundant and an un-necessary cluttering of the page.

A discussion on this use of project template boxes was started on the WP:BIRDS talk page, but is now being raised here as it has a wider scope across all TOL subjects. It has also been discussed before on these pages (here) and queried with no response on the WikiSpecies template talkpage (here).

Now that there are links to these projects elsewhere on the article page, should we discontinue the use of these two project boxes on TOL articles? Has there already been such a discussion/decision? Loopy30 (talk) 13:57, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

One issue has been that taxonbars and the left hand panel don't appear in the mobile version, which statistics have shown to be more commonly viewed than the 'normal' version. So if these boxes aren't added, the links to Species and Commons aren't present. Personally, I think the answer is to make the taxonbar visible in the mobile version, which would mean that the boxes wouldn't be needed. Peter coxhead (talk) 14:52, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
Making {{taxonbar}} mobile friendly is currently being discussed at Template_talk:Taxonbar#Making_Taxonbar_mobile-friendly_and_serve_half_of_all_Wikipedia_readers. It looks like the version in the sandbox shows up in mobile view. —  Jts1882 | talk  15:30, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
I would argue that most readers, particularly casual ones, probably have no idea what the taxon bar is. And the links in the left hand column aren't particularly obvious either. A couple of little boxes down at the bottom of the reference section doesn't strike me as "clutter", personally. And I'll bet readers are far more likely to click on that than the taxon bar. MeegsC (talk) 22:40, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
The pedant in me likes the idea that there should be exactly one link on each page for each function, but I don't think real people work that way. Anything in the left column may as well be invisible to most readers (and especially smart-phone readers) and the taxonbars are almost as invisible. I don't think the cost in clutter is too high to also include those templates where they are available. SchreiberBike | ⌨  23:23, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
I also don't think it's much of a concern, the links are far down below everything most readers would even bother to look at, so I wouldn't call it clutter. Whether it's redundant or not is another issue, but I'm not particularly concerned by that. FunkMonk (talk) 01:02, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
I raised this question in the past too as I also think they are redundant/unnecessary, and in most cases there is little gained from adding them. —Hyperik ⌜talk⌟ 23:29, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
Is that because you don't think most people bother to click-through to the other sites? Or because there are other links on the page? Have we ever analyzed usage to see which method gets the most click-throughs? MeegsC (talk) 23:58, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
The redundancy aside, for most taxa (i.e. across the tree of life, not just the most "popular" spp.), the content at the external sites provides little additional information to what's already been listed in the article. e.g. the Commons page lists the same 1 photo already used in the article or the Wikispecies page lists the journal article and vernacular name already listed in the article. Here's the first one I looked at, as I'm cleaning up some Pleurothallis and related spp.: [1][2][3][4] —Hyperik ⌜talk⌟ 00:57, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
Working with WP:BIRDS, we clearly get a lot more pix than some other projects do; often far more than we can use in an article. I do see value to adding links to articles with additional pix on Commons. There are dozens of good pix for many bird species, for example — particularly those found in NA, Europe, India and Australia. MeegsC (talk) 09:08, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
I may be able to shed some historical insight into this plus have a few things to add about it. For those who do not know me I am a crat and CU on Wikispecies and have edited there a long time, also edit a fair amount on WP. Many years ago that template was created a believe as a snub because a number of Wikipedia pages were using a nomenclature for species that was not up to date and when people from Wikispecies tried to correct this their edits were overturned. So it gave a way to link to the Wikispecies page when it was under a different name to the Wikipedia page. I was not involved in that but I am aware it happened. The user involved in that has been permanently banned from here, Wikispecies and Meta. However for some reason they kept getting used. I think there are cases where it is useful, however others they are not. I do not know why they might be getting auto added to pages here. I do not think they should. I agree that for computer users this information is readily optained elsewhere on the page, I will agree though for the mobile app version this is not the case. The function of the two sites is different, WP is an encyclopedia generally providing secondary references etc for each species, Wikispecies is highly specialised and \I do not expect the average reader to get much out of it, its more used by people who really have an interest in taxonomy and nomenclature, it provides the type locality, type specimen, address of museum housing it, original combination, all synonyms and the original publication of the name, where possible a link to that paper (obviously depends on copywrite issues). Wikipedia generally does not provide any of that. Most readers are not interested in that info either, fair enough, but we cater to the specialist. You cannot look at a single page and understand Wikispecies, you need to follow the whole hierarchy up to see all the information. Personally if the mobile app issues are sorted I can see them being removed but please note if the Wikipedia Mainspace name is not the scientific name it does help with linking and some of your readers are specialists who want the additional information. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 03:09, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
@Hyperik: in your comparison you linked above you compared Pleurothallis anthrax a species that has not as yet been created on Wikispecies. So I looked through and of the 540 species in that genus very few almost none actually, are found on both sites. However Pleurothallis epiglottis WP, Pleurothallis epiglottis WS is for comparison. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 03:50, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
I agree that the boxes clutter the page and add little, if any, information. They seem to me like an advertisement for WikiSpecies and WikiCommons, and it's quicker for me to read the taxonbar. Using the boxes, one page may have WikiCommons and not WikiSpecies, while another page may have both or neither, without regard to its presence on those projects. The taxonbar has more consistent, complete information. Maybe the best solution is to make the taxonbar mobile friendly, as Jts1882 suggested.
Those of you who say "it's quicker for me to read the taxonbar" are thinking like editors. Not like readers. I'm a longtime (i.e. nearly 14 year) editor who regularly works on organism articles, and I only recently discovered what the taxonbar does. I figured it was some machine-readable thing that linked wikidata stuff—not something of interest to me as a reader. I'd be willing to bet serious money that most of our readers don't even know to look at it. MeegsC (talk) 07:39, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Advice needed for adding species common names on Wikipedia

Hello, I'm looking for advice on an efficient way to add species common names to Wikipedia. These common names are developed via a national working group in Canada (official website) and the names undergo a rigorous review process (see here for details). I've created a draft Wikipedia article for the working group that's responsible for coordinating the development of the common names. I tried to add the common names for all 17,286 species in this draft page with links to the corresponding articles for the species (see below for an example of the format, the species code is also included). However, my draft submission was very quickly rejected and I was informed that this list needed to be removed since I had now created an article that was 2.7 times longer than the longest ever Wikipedia article!

Amanitaceae

I'm wondering if you have any ideas on how I can make the common names accessible on Wikipedia. They're currently stored in an Excel spreadsheet on the working group website and as a result, they aren't very accessible to the general public. Would it be possible to create species lists for the different taxonomic groups reviewed by the committee, like the species list that currently exists for Andrena bees? Or is there a better approach? Thanks in advance for your help and feedback. VioletBrew (talk) 04:16, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

In general I am not a huge fan of common names they get added to wikispecies pages where in my view they are irrelevant. However, looking at your issue here. I certainly agree you cannot make a page as large as the one you were proposing, remeber pages here can be loaded on mobile devices too. As the English WP of course in reality that often means it is the USA WP for the most part, eve though all English speaking countries contribute to it. I wonder how many of these 17000 odd species have distributions in the USA too and the same common name? I would imagine significant saving can be achieved there.
One piece of advice on your draft while at it, I am an IUBS Working Group secretary so I understand how your organisation would work. Just talk about what the organisation does not the list itself.
All you can really do with the names from my perspective is store the spreadsheet and refer to it so anyone can get it if they want it. You may be able to edit some species semi automatically if you have AWB permissions. Getting the whole list spread out across Wikipedia would be hard though. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 21:58, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
Not sure I have an opinion about exactly how to proceed (like whether this calls for bulk edits or just use by individual editors or what), but the part of this which I think does make this at least a little interesting is "national working group" and "rigorous review process". Neither of those two automatically means that we should use these names instead of others (see for example WP:OFFICIAL although strictly speaking that is about article titles rather than the bodies of articles), but given how hard it is to find any good sources for common names, I suspect this list may be helpful one way or another. Kingdon (talk) 23:21, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
It's not at all clear to me that we should be giving publicity to made-up vernacular names that are not actually in common use. Various organizations (e.g. the British Mycological Society in the UK) have produced made-up names in an effort to make their subject more attractive to non-experts. I'm not aware of any evidence that this is successful, and it can be a source of confusion when the vernacular name is based on the scientific name which can change. Sticking to fungi, the churn in names as genetic/genomic evidence is increasingly used in classification has been huge. If you call Amanita abrupta "American abrupt-bulbed amanita", what happens if it's later moved to a different genus?
There's also the issue of different lists being produced in different countries, which doesn't aid communication. At least for birds there's an international list. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:00, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
It seems to me that this issue of made-up "common" names has been discussed before, many years ago. Certainly, names from such a list should generally not be used for article titles, per the injunction at Wikipedia:Article titles#Common names to "use commonly recognizable names." Personally, I don't think made-up "common names" should be used in Wikipedia at all until such time as they actually are used in multiple sources as common names for the species. - Donald Albury 21:11, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
Correct, I've seen it discussed on Wikipedia before. I believe the consensus was that "common names" made up by an organization were just that: made up names, not common names. I say don't include them, but either way, policy and prior consensus dictates that the pages remain at their current names. --SilverTiger12 (talk) 00:51, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
Thanks everyone for weighing in and providing your perspectives. I understand that common names are a bit controversial. I think one of the benefits of having a working group develop common names is that it helps to ensure some level of consistency within/across taxonomic groups. This working group also reviews the list of common names twice a year to add new species and if necessary, to update existing ones (e.g., a species is moved to a new genus).
I think for now, I'll just focus on creating an article for the working group with a link to the common names list. Thanks again! VioletBrew (talk) 19:12, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
To make it possible to these names to Wikipedia, it would really help if the www.wildspecies.ca group would publish their proposed common names as a PDF document (or maybe better, a series of documents, one for each large group) or on a webpage (or both), so that it could be easily cited. I would certainly consider adding a line similar to "The National General Status Working Group, tasked with establishing a set of common names for all wild species in Canada, has proposed "crinkled snow lichen" for Flavocetraria nivalis." to lichen articles I create. But even this isn't possible at the moment, as one can't cite an Excel spreadsheet. Esculenta (talk) 19:43, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for the suggestion Esculenta! I'll make sure to pass it along to the coordinator of the group. Would another option be to cite the website instead of the list directly? Thanks also for considering adding references to the common names. I really appreciate it. VioletBrew (talk) 18:10, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
Well, the info being cited needs to be on the web page and not buried in a document. Esculenta (talk) 18:37, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
Well if the spreadsheet was part of a published document that is available on the website, even as supplementary material. It can theoretically be cited. It all depends on how you do this. That said I would be against page moves based on this, don't mind it being added to discussion in pages as appropriate though that would be subject to consensus. So it may not work for all pages. In general I am not a fan of vernacular names as they are subject to local variants and change over time, as others have said made up ones are even more problematic. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 21:38, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for your input. I think including the common names in the body of the articles with either a reference to the working group or the species list, would probably be the best way to add them to Wikipedia pages. VioletBrew (talk) 22:29, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
@VioletBrew: given that there should eventually be many such references, I would strongly recommend creating a special citation template (like e.g. {{Cite iucn}} or {{WCSP}}). This ensures that if the URL changes in future, it can be updated once at the template and doesn't have to be fixed in every article. We've been caught by URL changes to lists and databases before (I'm currently having to update 1,000+ articles for an issue with the URL of the BSBI list of the English names of plants). Peter coxhead (talk) 10:40, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
Thanks Peter coxhead! That's a good suggestion. I'll definitely have to look into it. VioletBrew (talk) 22:18, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Bulk category creation

We might need some sort of admin intervention to address the categories created by Phil Fish, many of which are underpopulated and several of the taxonomists don't have articles. I don't think these categories are helpful. If they can't be populated (especially if the taxonomist in question is deceased or retired), my thought is they should be deleted.

redlinked author, <10 taxa

redlinked author, ≥10 taxa

bluelinked author, <10 taxa

bluelinked author, ≥10 taxa

Stopping here for now because there's about 100 more. Enwebb (talk) 17:22, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

When the editor first started that up, I deleted a dozen or so additions of non-existing categories to articles and left them a note. I have foreborn to do anything about the existing but minimal categories that followed, since I don't really know much about category guidelines. But spamming categories that may stay at one or a very few members forever certainly does not feel in the spirit of the system to me. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 17:49, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
Elmidae, My thought is that redlinked taxonomists are unlikely to warrant a "Taxa named by X". Per WP:SMALLCAT Avoid categories that, by their very definition, will never have more than a few members. So if a given scientist is dead or retired and only ever named five or fewer taxa, those categories should be deleted IMO.
This type of activity is more suitable for Wikispecies and Wikidata. Maybe Phil Fish could direct their attention to a sister site. Enwebb (talk) 17:56, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
Yes, if the author isn't notable, so an article isn't justified, then the corresponding category won't be either. Delete! Peter coxhead (talk) 19:43, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Greetings my fellow Wiki editors. Yes you have noticed that I have created many categories for "Taxa named by ????" Currently I am posting Categories for fish that do not have category for the describer, so that the describer's category will have as many of his described species listed. Along the way I have found describers have no Category page, and I create one for them. Many of the ichthyologists that have a category with few species is because I have not got to them all. When I finish (or decide to move on) I will be creating pages for those individuals that rate a page. I can only do so much, as you all have realized, and this type of work takes time. It's seems like a waste of your time to go and delete all the work I have put in. Phil Fish (talk) 20:13, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

I tend to agreed that categories are only necessary when the author is notable enough to have an article and/or (probably and) has ten or more named species. So Emile Blanchard (15 members) and Jörg Freyhof (22 members) in the above list. It's also fair to consider that this is a work in progress and that articles will be created and the categories filled up. A compromise might be to put this discussion on hold and see which articles and categories get created or filled. A better approach from the start might have been to create relevant articles and categories for notably taxonomic namers rather than create the categories first.
In short, if you think most of the names will get articles and fuller categories when you have finished your planned project, then I would postpone a decision on these deletions. —  Jts1882 | talk  20:42, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
Phil Fish in general, I don't create categories until I've identified around ten articles that can be placed in the category. By creating the category first, I think you are putting the cart before the horse. Perhaps in the future it will be best if you only create categories for authors who have biographies and you have identified enough taxa to keep it from being a SMALLCAT. Enwebb (talk) 20:51, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

The way my progression works is this: I go to the Genus of the fish, look at each species, check to see if the describer is credited, fill in the Taxa Category if not, along the way if I run into a describer that does not have a category, I create one. I can not be sure if as I continue that I won't run into the same describer in another genus. I plan to create pages for notable describers, when I can. Right now as I approach each species, if it is named in honor of someone, I place that info on both the species name and the Honoria's name. This all takes time and I ask for some indulgence here as my work continues.Phil Fish (talk) 21:04, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

@Phil Fish: I don't see evidence that you have accepted the point that has been made here: unless the taxon author is notable, there should not be a category. Your workflow doesn't include a test for this. You should first establish that there would be, say, 20+ entries, and only then create the category. Peter coxhead (talk) 21:47, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

I completely understand where you are coming from. If the author does not have a page already, then they only deserve having a page and/or category if there is say 20+ entries. While I understand what you are saying, my work method does not allow me to keep a separate record of who has how many descriptions. Therefore when I find an author that does not have a category, I establish one for them after I have searched for a category for that person. Many times, after finding the author on one page, I find them later on on another. Ichthyologists sometime specialize in certain fish, and others are varied across the genus'. Many are not represented by a page, and I intend to rectify the situation when I can. Please bear with me, while I finish up what I am doing. I have found the ichthyology information lacking on Wikipedia and thought that I could rectify that situation a bit. I still have a lot to learn. Thanks.Phil Fish (talk) 22:09, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

@Phil Fish: sorry, I don't accept that this is the right way for you to proceed. Anyone can create a category, but it needs an administrator and usually a prior process to delete one. So the onus should be on the creator to have checked beforehand that the category is sufficiently notable.
There are various ways of searching to see whether the author has enough mentions here. A simple one is to put insource:"authority NAME" in the search bar. Thus if I search for insource:"authority Hirotoshi Asano", I find only three articles, immediately suggesting that Category:Taxa named by Hirotoshi Asano should not have been created. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:07, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
It seems you can easily modify your work method to avoid premature creation of categories. You can create a subpage in your user space, say User:Phil Fish/Potenial categories for taxa named by taxonomic authorites and make sections for each authority with the named taxa. When these authority lists get long enough you can create the relevant articles and categories. —  Jts1882 | talk  10:25, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Question about taxon article title

I'm creating a page for the monospecific lichen genus Burrowsia. Currently, there is a redirect in place, as this name is also a junior synonym for the moth genus now called Marumba. So should I

  • (a) write the article at Burrowsia, overwriting the junior synonym redirect, and add a hatnote mentioning the moth synonym on the resulting lichen page.
  • (b) make Burrowsia a dab page listing the two target options (i.e. Burrowsia (moth) and Burrowsia (fungus)), move the current Burrowsia to Burrowsia (moth), and then make it redirect to Marumba.
  • (c) write the article at Burrowsia cataractae (because the genus is monotypic, and using the philosophy of avoiding dab pages and using the full name when the genus is monospecific) ... but then I'm still not sure what to do about Burrowsia (dab/hatnote?).

Advice appreciated. Esculenta (talk) 16:55, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

  • I think I'd suggest option A. With only two choices, I don't think you need a dab page — particularly as one is a junior synonym. Just be sure to hatnote both articles. MeegsC (talk) 17:56, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Ok thanks, I did option A. Not sure how to word a hatnote on Marumba ... is it even necessary there? People landing on that page would not be looking for the lichen genus, and the moth taxonomists will notice that Burrowsia is listed in the synonymy ... Esculenta (talk) 18:38, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Redundant "Family ...idae entries"

Redirects are cheep, but no point to clutter enwiki database. If someone agree, then to be deleted:

  1. Family hominidae
  2. Family strigidae
  3. Family tytonidae
  4. Family Ambystomatidae
  5. Family Anguidae
  6. Family Anniellidae
  7. Family Ascaphidae
  8. Family Boidae
  9. Family Bufonidae
  10. Family Chamaeleonidae
  11. Family Colubridae
  12. Family Crotaphytidae
  13. Family Dicamptodontidae
  14. Family Gekkonidae
  15. Family Helodermatidae
  16. Family Hydrophiidae
  17. Family Hylidae
  18. Family Iguanidae
  19. Family Leptotyphlopidae
  20. Family Mobulidae
  21. Family Phrynosomatidae
  22. Family Pipidae
  23. Family Plethodontidae
  24. Family Ranidae
  25. Family Rhyacotritonidae
  26. Family Salamandridae
  27. Family Scaphiopodidae
  28. Family Scincidae
  29. Family Teiidae
  30. Family Viperidae
  31. Family Xantusiidae

--Estopedist1 (talk) 16:27, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Cheap, perhaps. But they should remain, since they link to the taxonomy template, to Commons and to Wikidata. JoJan (talk) 16:38, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
Isn't it the Hominidae article that is linked to Commons and Wikidata rather than the Family hominidae redirect? It's the "family" in the article title rather than a redirect for the family name that is the issue. These seem harmless but unnecessary. —  Jts1882 | talk  20:37, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Preferred disambiguators

Hi, there's some discussion at User:Estopedist1/Taxons and disambiguation and User talk:Estopedist1/Taxons and disambiguation that could I think benefit from input from the Wikiproject. Specifically, is there already any guideline of this nature? (Have I missed it? Wouldn't be the first time...) If not it seems a good idea to me... but I'm not a specialist in this very complex area. There are also several relevant RMs under discussion. Andrewa (talk) 00:29, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Automatic taxobox disambiguation questions

I'd like switch to automatic taxoboxes for the lichen genus Niebla, but there's already a dinosaur genus occupying Template:Taxonomy/Niebla. What's the best way to resolve this? Will a disambiguator in the taxonomy template title (e.g. Template:Taxonomy/Niebla (fungus) break the system? If not, should I also move the dinosaur template to Template:Taxonomy/Niebla (dinosaur)? Is that the proper dab for dinosaur taxa (see also section above)? While you're thinking about disambiguators, is "lichen" a better disambiguator than "fungus" if the taxon is a lichen? Esculenta (talk) 22:40, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

We don't have any clear guidance on such matters. Google and Google Scholar searches show that neither the dinosaur nor the lichen meaning of "Niebla" is at all common compared to other uses, so that doesn't help.
It makes life easier for other editors, e.g. in creating taxoboxes for species, if the taxonomy template for the genus either uses no disambiguator or uses the same disambiguator as is used for the genus article. So there are two possibilities:
  • Move the dinosaur template to Template:Taxonomy/Niebla (dinosaur), on the grounds that we don't (normally) have species articles for fossil taxa (and the genus is currently monotypic anyway), so |genus=Niebla (dinosaur) will not have to be used in speciesboxes. Put the lichen one at plain "Template:Taxonomy/Niebla" so that all the species articles can use |genus=Niebla. This would be my preference.
  • Move the dinosaur template to Template:Taxonomy/Niebla (dinosaur) and put the lichen one at Template:Taxonomy/Niebla (lichen), accepting that the species articles will have to use |genus=Niebla (lichen). This keeps the taxonomy templates consistent with the genus articles, which has some advantages, but at the cost of complicating speciesboxes.
Peter coxhead (talk) 08:35, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for the advice, I used your first suggested solution above. Esculenta (talk)
Would disambiguating the templates by the family (or other 'parent' taxon) be an intuitive solution, it is a common practice in other publications. ~ cygnis insignis 09:13, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
@Cygnis insignis: it might have been once, but the standard that is reasonably well established in the English Wikipedia is to use an English word for the "main group" to which the genus belongs. Look through the larger categories within Category:Monotypic plant genera, for example, and you'll see that almost all use "(plant)". If you look through Category:Monotypic animal genera and its subcategories, they either use an English group name or "(genus)". As has been pointed out before, the latter is not a good idea, because genera covered by different nomenclature codes can have the same name. You can also look through Category:Taxonomy templates, remembering that animal subgenera have names with parentheses.
The lack of clear guidance only extends to which such "main groups" should be used. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:40, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Template:Taxonbar databases @ TfD

@ WP:Templates for discussion/Log/2021 May 2#Template:Taxonbar databases.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  21:34, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Type species names for species now considered to belong to different genera

Over at Talk:Mammoth, there has been some recent discussion over whether the type species should be labelled in the taxobox Elephas primigenius as originally named or Mammuthus primigenius, based on relevant ICZN guidelines. This seems like a broader style issue than just that article, so I thought it was worth bringing up here. Hemiauchenia (talk) 11:12, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

It's not an ICZN "guideline" but a requirement that the original binomial be used for the type species. We should always follow the relevant nomenclature codes. Peter coxhead (talk) 20:39, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
If that's the case, we'll want to be sure to have a comment to that effect in bold capital letters somewhere in any taxobox containing the original (i.e behind the scenes, not visible unless the article is being edited). Otherwise, well-meaning editors are going to be repeatedly "correcting" the genus, because it's going to look wrong if a species that's reputedly in one genus has a binomial name with another. MeegsC (talk) 21:32, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
It’s already stated in the documentation for Template:Taxobox § Type Species: For animal entries, i.e. names under the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (ICZN), the type species should be the original binomial name of the type species, but linked to its current article, and the authority should be plain (no parentheses). See Mirza for a type species example. Template:Automatic taxobox says similarly: type_species The original name of the species that was initially used to describe a genus, without regard to its present-day nomenclature. I think that’s sufficient, to my knowledge we haven’t had well intentioned editors “fixing” type species en masse. Umimmak (talk) 22:05, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
Perhaps not en masse, Umimmak. But I do wonder how many species are not listed correctly. Are you telling me that every species that was a type for a genus is still listed under that genus, even if the genus is now obsolete, or if the species has since changed genera? I'm sorry, but I don't believe it. Is there some way to get a list of type species so that we can check? I'll bet that most people who regularly use infoboxes don't even look at that documentation. MeegsC (talk) 09:08, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
Getting a list of type species can be done with a search (e.g. 15,514 results with automatic taxobox). A useful list and comparison of names is more difficult. —  Jts1882 | talk  10:22, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
Well a useful starting point might be to see all |type_species_authorities= with the author citation in parentheses. That would indicate the name is not presented in its original combination (assuming editors have been consistent in accurately using parentheses in this way.) Limiting to pages with “Animalia” (I’m less familiar with ICN, but the template:taxobox documentation says For botanical entries, i.e. names under the International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants (ICN), the currently accepted name in the genus should be used. The term "type species" does not occur in the ICN, but is used here for convenience.) gives this list of 1,337 [5], so about 10% of all Animalia with a type_species_authority.
But I’m not sure bold capital letters are useful; people writing stubs might figure some information (i.e., the current combination of the type species) is better than no information, and many of these pages might have been made well before Wikipedia decided to formally follow the ICZN for type species citation (or rather to explicitly spell it out). If people are systematically “fixing” the type species to be their current combinations, then perhaps that’s a sign something is unclear, but I’m not sure that right now there’s need for any warning sign. Umimmak (talk) 15:53, 23 April 2021 (UTC) (clarified 17:06, 23 April 2021 (UTC))
So Umimmak, does this mean that Diploicia canescens, the type species for Diploicia, should be labeled Lichen canescens instead? If so, the type species of pretty much every genera of lichens may be wrong here, as they were pretty much all in Lichen initially. MeegsC (talk) 18:16, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
@MeegsC: Fungi are covered by the ICNafp, not the ICZN. Like I said in my response above, Wikipedia treats |type_species= differently for non-animals, using the correct name. Umimmak (talk) 18:42, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
And, strictly speaking, "type species" isn't an ICNafp concept. The IPNI, usually a good guide to the ICNafp, when it gives a type for a genus, either uses the name in that genus or sometimes includes the basionym in parentheses, as e.g. at Leuenbergeria. Peter coxhead (talk) 18:58, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
Okay, Umimmak, to use an animal then. The Venezuelan troupial was first described by Linnaeus as Oriolus icterus. Two years later, it was moved to the genus Icterus. So you're saying the binomial should be displayed as Oriolus icterus, even though it's no longer in that genus? I'm willing to bet that most of the type species for bird genera don't do this. MeegsC (talk) 20:29, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
@MeegsC: it looks like the article/infobox for the genus Icterus doesn't have anything for the |type_species= parameter, but if it did, then yes it should should be written Oriolus icterus Linnaeus 1766 not Icterus icterus (Linnaeus, 1766). See, e.g., doi:10.1080/00222935708655951 p. 224. Umimmak (talk) 20:47, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
For clarification, the binomial name should be the current name, not the original one, i.e. It should be Icterus icterus. The type species should be the original name, not the current one i.e. Oriolus icterus.....Pvmoutside (talk) 22:12, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

slight side note here, this is why it is useful in many cases to actually present a proper synonymy, as these have standard formats that will permit type species to be listed correctly but still make sense. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 22:26, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Category names for genera with disambiguators that are common names

The article Ataxia (genus) was moved to Ataxia (beetle) back in March. Since nobody seems to be particularly opposed to that move, I thought I would ask for a speedy move of the corresponding category per WP:C2D. However, the question has now arisen of whether it should in fact be Category:Ataxia (beetles), rather than Category:Ataxia (beetle). My feeling is no, but I think it's best to get consensus, and then include the outcome in any guidelines that emerge from the current discussion on disambiguators for individual articles. Can anybody weigh in with examples of current practice, as well as opinions? TIA. I will ask for the speedy move to be put on hold pending the outcome of this discussion. William Avery (talk) 18:26, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

ya..i'd advise against using plurals....Pvmoutside (talk) 18:47, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Template:Taxonomy/Rhabdotis

Not quite sure if this is the correct place for this, but given the articles on Rhabdotis species and subspecies it may be worthwhile to set it up. Regards, 31.41.45.190 (talk) 02:15, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

The issue is what the parent taxon would be. GBIF based on the World Scarabaeidae Database says "Cetoniidae", as does EoL. Other sources agree with the article and have "Cetoniinae" (or lower) in Scarabaeidae. A Google Scholar search for 2016 onwards (i.e. the last 5 years) for "Coleoptera Scarabaeidae Cetoniinae" gave 845 hits, whereas "Coleoptera Cetoniidae" gave only 311 hits, with no real trend. Peter coxhead (talk) 06:14, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
@Peter coxhead: if all are articles consistently use the same taxonomy (admitting I haven't investigated everything listed at Rhabdotis) is there really any harm in going with that as an interim? This is a wiki after all, so it's nothing that can't be changed later.
Relatedly, Rhabdotis doesn't mention the disagreement among sources over it's taxonomy; I would think that at the very least a footnote would be warranted to explain things. In fact, I probably would have added one boldly had I known about this earlier, but I suppose there's no harm in discussing things first now since this thread is already open. 31.41.45.190 (talk) 15:55, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
I agree that we have to go with something for the taxoboxes, and "Coleoptera Scarabaeidae Cetoniinae" will cause fewer issues right now, so I will go with that. Template created. Peter coxhead (talk) 14:22, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
@Peter coxhead: Thanks. Since this has been open a while and no one objected, I also went and added a footnote to explain things at Rhabdotis, if there's some other standard way of explaining these occasional taxonomic discrepancies among sources feel free to change things around. Regards, 31.41.45.190 (talk) 15:47, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
It's fine to say this in the article itself; if it were longer, it could have a "Taxonomy" section. In either case, you should add a reference. I've converted the taxobox to {{Automatic taxobox}}. No more on beetles from me – not my area! Peter coxhead (talk) 16:50, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
@Peter coxhead:I thought about referencing since GBID and EoL are low-hanging fruit, but the current citation style is not one I'm familiar with, and I didn't feel like either looking up how to do a new citation style, or getting yelled at by someone because I introduced mixed citation styles and/or violated CITEVAR. And lets face it, even if I did look things up I'd probably get something wrong and have an angry complaint on my talk page anyway. Beetles aren't my area either but given the sheer number of beetles, and hence beetle articles, it probably would do me a bit of good to learn more. Regards, 31.41.45.190 (talk) 17:46, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Position Statement TTWG - Turtle Taxonomy Working Group

I have made a post Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Amphibians_and_Reptiles#Position_Statement_TTWG_-_Turtle_Taxonomy_Working_Group of relevance to this group. All papers referenced in it can be supplied on request as pdf's. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 06:48, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Nice to have some solid and authoritative statements on that at last. Has much of WP's herp coverage been Hosered? --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 20:00, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

List of dinosaurs is undergoing a review as it no longer meets featured list criteria. Please drop by if you would like to contribute. Mattximus (talk) 20:36, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Category:Redirects from alternative scientific names of animals at CfD

I have started a discussion at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2021_May_15#Category:Redirects_from_alternative_scientific_names_of_animals.

I don't now why it isn't included on the article alerts page for ToL, but as it's part of the Category:Redirects from alternative scientific names tree, it's probably of interest to some pagewatchers here. William Avery (talk) 12:53, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

@William Avery:, the ToL article alert report is not an aggregation of the articles alerts for all the ToL subprojects. Articles alerts are reported for ToL if a page:
a) has {{WikiProject Tree of Life}} on the talk page; this is mostly articles pertaining to taxonomy as a discipline, although there are a handful of taxa with a ToL banner
b) is included in Category:Articles with 'species' microformats; this is mostly populated via the presence of templates in the taxobox family, but also includes some articles with infoboxes for animal breeds, plant cultivars and individual animals.
c) redirects to a page included under a) or b).
ToL subproject banners may be present on articles that lack a taxobox; e.g. taxonomist biographies, articles on anatomical/morphological features, lists of species. And subproject banners may be present on pages outside of article space; Template, Categories, etc. The ToL article alert report catches many things, but subproject article alerts do pick up some things that the ToL report misses. Plantdrew (talk) 18:36, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Template:Zoologist

Page watchers may be interested in Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2021_May_11#Template:Zoologist. Izno (talk) 23:22, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Estopedist1's recent genera articles

Recently I've noticed User:Estopedist1 has been making a lot of articles for genera, both for plants and animals. However, as a semi-regular editor of fly and beetle articles myself, I am concerned about the state he has created a number of them in. For instance I just tidied up nine articles he created for genera of the fly family Dolichopodidae today, all of which was sourced only using GBIF, had no information on higher ranks lower than family rank, and all of them were at best bare-minimum stubs. Often these only included a single species taken from GBIF or maybe elsewhere (though in those cases at least nearly all of them were monotypic anyway). See also some examples from March or April, when he created article for leaf beetle genera such as Agasicles or Plagiosterna. These were given with a single species (and still do as of writing), even though both of them both have more according to other sources. The only reason any of these have subfamily and/or tribe ranks shown now is because I went and added them afterwards. I have no idea of the state he may have left other genera articles in, nor do I want to spend my time cleaning up after other users who rely on databases exclusively.

When I went to his talk page to complain about the quality of his work, he responded to me that stubs were allowed, and talked about moving "Wikispecies articles to enwiki" in the near future. I also noticed earlier he had responded to another user who asked about Wikispecies saying that "Wikispecies is dead". This seems strange to me as Wikispecies is still active (I am also active there myself), and is not supposed to be a fork of Wikipedia in the first place anyway.

Sorry if this seems like a rant about someone else not writing Wikipedia "the right way" and such, but I'm not sure what to make of this at all. What do the rest of you think? Monster Iestyn (talk) 21:06, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

@Monster Iestyn: hey mate, you are tricking with wording. Correct wordings related to Wikispecies were "for the visionaries, yes, Wikispecies is dead". Secondly: correct wording is "These stubs are also very useful when the progress of moving Wikispecies articles to enwiki will be in progress in (near) future" --Estopedist1 (talk) 06:10, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
You are creating stubs for genera not covered by Wikispecies, so I don't follow your reasoning there.
While I think there is a project goal to cover all species on Wikipedia and stubs have a useful purpose, I think you could do a bit more with the stubs. For instance, rather than a series of sentence fragments, combine them in a paragraph and add a species section for non-monotypic genera. An encyclopaedia is written in prose. You are creating taxonomy templates, but adding references that don't provide the information (e.g. the ITIS reference in {{taxonomy/Catharosoma}}). You are creating Wikidata items but not adding the taxon rank and parent as prompted by the warning icon. It seems that you could improve your additions with very little additional effort as you seem to have the information at hand. —  Jts1882 | talk  08:47, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
I also would like to hear some explanation of this, I agree that "moving" a wikispecies article from there to here is not simple since the purpose of the two sites is different, here is an encyclopedia, wikispecies is not written that way. There is a lot of information required here that is not on wikispecies, deliberately, we are not trying to step on Wikipedias toes here either. Each site has its function. But if your going to use a Wikispecies page to formulate a page here, its only going to give you a bare bones start, I would suggest you do the work properly for this. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 08:54, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
@Estopedist1: Apologies, wording is not my strong point as you might be able to tell (plus I was rushed to write it as by bad timing I had to leave that moment). It still confused me a lot though, either way. The talk of Wikispecies being dead, whether currently or in the long run, set off some alarm bells in me regardless. Monster Iestyn (talk) 09:34, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
Another problem is that many of these recently created genera have only the first two (alphabetical) species listed, leaving an incomplete list that omits the rest. See Xiphydria, Cephus, Cheiropachus, Diplazon, Stenomacrus, Perithous (wasp), etc. Loopy30 (talk) 02:50, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Estopedist1 means well, and in my opinion is a net benefit to Wikipedia. However, he edits very prolifically, which makes it challenge for other editors to keep up with shortcomings in his articles (and there are many shortcomings). Partial species lists in genus are unacceptable; better to leave the article uncreated than to mislead readers about the number of species and leave work for other editors to tackle. I'm coming across a bunch of genera from a few months ago without taxoboxes. And then at Batracobdella he has written "This genus is valid in Europe. But in North America, it has been synonymized to Desserobdella", which make me question his competence to be writing taxonomic articles. Plantdrew (talk) 23:51, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

To be fair that last is almost a direct quote of the comment at ITIS: "This genus is valid in Europe. However, in North America it has been synonymized to Desserobdella." It could mean the genus has been split and the North American species moved to the new/other genus. However, sources are rather inconsistent. The article lists the two species mentioned at GBIF. One of these is recognised by as Glossiphonia paludosa by ITIS and IRNMG. I can't find either on WoRMS, which recognises Batracobdella for four African species and Desserobdella for two North American species. WoRMS doesn't recognise the other two Desserobdella species accepted by ITIS and IRNMG. Overall, these sources are inconsistent for these genera and mainly based on old sources. I don't think much can be done with such articles without a secondary source that discusses the taxonomy rather than just database entries. —  Jts1882 | talk  08:28, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Can an experienced taxonomist check summary of the use of parentheses?

Hey all, I threw together a couple paragraphs in the article on Bracket to discuss the use of parentheses in taxonomy, particularly w.r.t. citing subgenera and also in author citations for non-basionyms: Bracket § Uses in taxonomy. I'd appreciate the eyes of people in this project to make sure my summaries are accurate and that I'm not forgetting any other major uses of parentheses. Appreciate it, thanks! Umimmak (talk) 01:03, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

hey Umimmak seems good to me. cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 01:44, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

PhyloCode

Faendalimas has objected to some of my recent additions of PhyloCode names to the turtle groups of Pleurodira and Chelidae. diff stating they are considered invalid by the ICZN and workers on living turtles. I understand that PhyloCode is controversial among zoologists, but PhyloCode definitions such as "Pan-Chelidae" and "Pan-Pleurodira", are widely used by fossil turtle workers to refer to the stem-groups of these taxa. I think these clade names are useful for distinguishing stem and crown group taxa and I don't see a good reason for removing reference to them, but I would like to know others opinions. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:17, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Hemiauchenia If you wish to utilise them alongside the nomenclature used for living and fossil turtles, I have described both living and fossil turtles by the way and fossils do use ICZN also, that is fine but there was no need to delete the ICZN nomenclature and replace it with PhyloCode which does not get used for living species which are included in these groups, all fossil turtles on Wikispecies are named using ICZN code btw. In the end PhyloCode is not an accepted means of nomenclature across almost all of the 2.2 million described species of life. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 10:04, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Need help with sexual system

One editor suggested I make an article on sexual systems. [Link to draft here].

There are clearly a good amount of sources on this topic. Like there is [this source], [this] and [this.]

There is even an entire book on sexual systems [right here.]

So it’s not like there is a lack of sources on this topic. It’s just there isn’t a proper definition of sexual system as a matter of fact some call them breeding systems or mating systems.

And I think one of the definitions in there clearly makes no sense.CycoMa (talk) 14:12, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Actually I made an article on Sexual system. It just needs help with expanding and needs.CycoMa (talk) 22:09, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Reliable sources list

Howdy. Do you guys have a list of resources or list of reliable sources? I'm trying to figure out what websites are generally reliable, so I can add them to my CiteHighlighter user script. Also, I was AFC reviewing today and marinespecies.org was used as a citation, and I have no idea if it's reliable. Thanks. –Novem Linguae (talk) 13:40, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

I don't know of a single list. Lists of resources tend to be in the individual project pages for mammals, bird, plants, etc. In this particular case, WoRMS (www.marinespecies.org) is definitely a reliable source and has its own template ({{Cite WoRMS}}). —  Jts1882 | talk  16:06, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
Wikipedia:WikiProject_Tree_of_Life#Taxonomic_resources is probably a good baseline for reliable sources? --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:12, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
Ah, I feel silly for missing this. This will work. Thanks! –Novem Linguae (talk) 20:30, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Deuterostomia vs Xenambulacraria

Recent genetic research has provided strong support that Deuterostomia is not monophyletic[6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13]. Does this mean that we should remove the Deuterostomia from Scientific classification? I think it is too early to choose between the Deuterostomia and Xenambulacraria hypotheses, but for a neutral point of view it would be more correct to show Bilateria as the parent taxon of Ambulacraria and Chordata. HFoxii (talk) 06:28, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Global Species List Working Group

I have begun writing a page for the Global Species List Working Group which is the organisation under the umbrella of the IUBS that is developing methods and moving us towards a single global list of species for all end users of taxonomy, hence I thought this would b a relevant organisation to this project. For purposes of full disclosure yes I am a member (Secretary) of the organisation and one of its principal authors of the publications we do. Second reason I am writing this is to make this clear. I will be grateful for any comments people have, this is an important project for many sectors of the biological community, and clearly particularly so for any Wiki Projects directly dealing with names of species, animal or plants. Its not finished yet I still have a lot I wish to add to this. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 21:15, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Reviving WikiProject Zoo

Hello, WikiProject Tree of Life members, I am reviving WikiProject Zoo as I feel many of the zoo articles are lackluster. If anyone is interested in helping out, please do so. -- PaleoMatt (talk) 17:24, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

5211 untagged pages

So I've been busy for the last year or so, and have had a little more time for gnoming here. So I have a Petscan that I bookmarked that tracks all pages with a taxobox or similar template, but are not tagged with any WPToL-related talk page templates. In early 2020, this was pretty much empty. I had done a lot of work to whittle it down, and it had stayed low for months with little attention. So I fired up the old link, and after modifying it to work again, it says 5211 instead of zero. So I need some help on this, if anyone is bored in front of the TV or something. Definitely install Rater. I know some of you will say "But Awkwafaba, you included drafts and stuff" and I did (I am a Wikignome), because they should be tagged too, but even so, that's 2152 articles in mainspace. Also, what happened that spiked the number so much? --awkwafaba (📥) 23:03, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

The first few I looked at were newly created articles by Estopedist1, e.g. Abderina and Abietinaria. Another possible cause is deletion of some projects which is leaving some pages untagged (e.g. see Future of WikiProject Carnivorous plants). —  Jts1882 | talk  09:02, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
I'm not at all surprised to find that every one of the dozen or so articles I looked at was created by Estopedist1 earlier this year; that's the spike in the numbers. Nor I am surprised that every one of these articles was either: in a group that DOES NOT have a new article report generated by User:AlexNewArtBot (e.g. any invertebrate that isn't a mollusc or arthropod); or didn't have any keywords that User:AlexNewArtBot looks for. I AM surprised by just how many articles there are.
I was only barely able to keep up with Estopedist1's articles that showed up in new article reports this spring; I tagged them for WikiProjects, and added taxoboxes, but I gave up on ensuring that (non-plant) genus articles had a complete list of species, rather than just the first 2-3 species listed on GBIF. So in addition to WikiProject tagging, Estopedist1 articles almost always need to have a complete list of species added, and some of the earliest created articles may need taxoboxes (Alloeotomus is one article lacking a taxobox). Estopedist1 articles generally can be placed in more specific categories than what they currently have, may have incorrect English vernacular names for a group (e.g. liverworts being described as mosses), and may have an bot generated short description that incorporates the incorrect vernacular name. Vernacular names are usually linked to the plural form, which is nonstandard.
Once I pointed Estopedist1 to {{Format_species_list}}, he used it to provide complete lists of plant species based on POWO. {{Format_species_list}} is wonderfully effortless for copy-pasting species lists from POWO, but doesn't work as well with many databases; would be nice if there was a switch for e.g. WoRMS or GBIF that could enable effortless copy-pasting for output from these databases.
I can look into that. I added the |compare= option as a crude way of excluding lines not beginning with a genus name to ignore the addition lines used by World Plants and World Ferns. Adding something for WoRMS and GBIF should be possible. WoRMS needs "species " trimmed from the beginning of each line and could select only valid species by ignoring any line with "accepted as". I'll have a look. —  Jts1882 | talk  07:23, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
Let me know if there are others. —  Jts1882 | talk  08:22, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
I've been thinking about creating a rule set for AlexNewArtBot that applies to all organisms, but haven't gotten around to it. If somebody else wants to tackle it, that would be fantastic. See User:AlexNewArtBot/Arthropods for one example rule set. I'd think that a template in the taxobox family should give full points, as should the phrase "a species of", with "idae" and "aceae" generating a large number of points. One drawback of automatic taxoboxes is that it makes it easier to omit ANAB keywords that would be present in a manual taxobox. If Acanthocnema had a manual taxobox, "arthropod" and "insect" would be in the text of the article (it does contain "flies", but this isn't a keyword that ANAB looks for). Plantdrew (talk) 02:38, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
Thank you Jts1882 for the improvements to Format species list. @Awkwafaba:, I went through all the species articles, and am now working backwards through the alphabet (at the moment I skipping working on any article that is monotypic according to the given source for subtaxa). Plantdrew (talk) 01:40, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

new IUCN update

An FYI...the latest IUCN red list update has been published. I'll slowly start updating tomorrow.....Pvmoutside (talk) 02:16, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Pvmoutside What has changed? Have you a link? According to this page any changes won't be published until 9 Dec 2021. The latest birdlife spreadsheet here is still dated Dec 2020. - Aa77zz (talk) 07:44, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
Table 7 (2020-2021) here says it was last updated on 4 September 2021, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 10:05, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
Looks like the next one is indeed 9 Dec 2021 but that the first update of the year was late (yesterday). The new list doesn't include any birds so it might be that they only update birds once a year in synch with the Birdlife checklist. —  Jts1882 | talk  10:34, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
Ya, no birds, but plenty of other stuff.. See -2 changes....Pvmoutside (talk) 12:22, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
I presume that you meant to link to -2 changes but somehow didn't?
—Trappist the monk (talk) 00:40, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
One of the things that I have been considering is a prospective bot task to replace old-form IUCN urls in {{cite iucn}} templates with new-form urls from the IUCN API (about 13000 articles). I have been holding off because there is a discrepancy between the citation that IUCN renders at the assessment url and the citation returned from the API. For example, this url https://www.iucnredlist.org/species/11389/115102240 has this citation
Powell, R. 2016. Leiocephalus herminieri (errata version published in 2017). The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2016: e.T11389A115102240. https://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2016-3.RLTS.T11389A71739645.en. Downloaded on 05 September 2021.
but, the API returns this:
{"name":"11389","result":[{"citation":"Powell, R. 2016. Leiocephalus herminieri. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2016: e.T11389A115102240. https://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2016-3.RLTS.T11389A71739645.en .Downloaded on 5 September 2021"}]}
The API citation is missing the errata information. I have raised that issue with IUCN who say that the two citations should be the same and have said that they will fix the problem. The prospective bot might also address the issue of Polbot-created articles raised at this archived discussion (the number is now 15400ish articles).
All of that aside, would a variant of the prospective bot task be useful in doing this new IUCN update?
—Trappist the monk (talk) 00:40, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
if you can get the bot to work, it would be great.....Pvmoutside (talk) 17:24, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
I have a preliminary version of the prospective bot code. Here are a pair of example edits:
Hokkaido – this edit replaces a plain-text IUCN citation with a {{cite iucn}} template (the rendered citation)
Acacia confusa – this edit updates the {{speciesbox}} |status=, |status_system=, and |status_ref= parameters. Interestingly, the pre-edit version of this article had a reference for Acacia richii (a redirect to Acacia confusa). It seems to me that the {{speciesbox}} should not have a status reference that links to an IUCN assessment of a different 'name'. Even if the article has redirects from a bunch of different 'names', the name of the article and the name derived from the {{speciesbox}} or the {{taxobox}} and hence, the name that |status_ref= links to at IUCN should all be the same. Am I misguided in this thinking?
For {{speciesbox}}, the script gets the species name from |taxon= or from |genus= + |species= or from |name= or (as a last resort) from the article title. For {{taxobox}}, the script gets the species name from |binomial= or from |name= or (as a last resort) from the article title. There are about 150 articles with {{subspeciesbox}} and four with {{infraspeciesbox}} in Category:Cite iucn maint. For the time being, I am going to ignore those two infoboxen. I would have made it so that {{taxobox}} also assembled a binomial from |genus= + |species= but the documentation at {{taxobox}} wants editors to write the abbreviated binomial in |species= (H. sapiens instead of sapiens). Seems silly to me; if we want the abbreviated form, the template can make that without any difficulty. I may still make it possible for the bot task to assemble a binomial from the {{taxobox}} |genus= + |species= parameters.
The script compares the current infobox |status= against what it read from the IUCN API. If they are the same, the script does nothing with the infobox. Is that the correct thing to do? If the script does nothing, an old, possibly out-of-date |status_ref= value may linger (forever). On the other hand, the script could unconditionally update |status=, |status_system=, and |status_ref= but that might run afoul of WP:COSMETICBOT because it is possible that the only thing that will change is the value assigned to |access-date= in {{cite iucn}}. Opinions?
—Trappist the monk (talk) 22:04, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
We definitely should not be adding IUCN statuses applied to names that are redirects from heterotypic/subjective synonyms. IUCN recognizes some species that are lumped into other species by the various taxonomy databases we follow for different branches of the tree of life. The IUCN status for a lumped species simply doesn't apply to the broader species concept into which it was lumped. Hypothetical example: IUCN recognizes a species endemic to Borneo and assesses it as critically endangered; an authoritative database for the group lumps the Bornean species into a species distributed from Japan to Sri Lanka; we cannot assume that the CR status applies to a more broadly distributed species concept. In the case of homotypic/subjective synonyms it is safer to assume that the species delimitation used by IUCN and another source is the same (although the genus concept would be different). Polbot created many stubs for IUCN assessed species back in 2007, and there are a lot of Polbot stubs that are regarded as synonyms in other databases. I am certain there are cases where a well-meaning editor has moved a Polbot heterotypic synonym to a currently accepted name without removing the conservation status; I don't know how to find these cases.
It seems unlikely to me that you'd need to look at anything besides |binomial= for the name in a manual taxobox. If the binomial doesn't match anything on IUCN, but either |name= or |genus=+|species= do match IUCN, something is wrong. If you're interested in generating a list of articles where binomial doesn't match IUCN but another parameter does, I'd be happy to look into those.
Personally, I'm fine with bots making cosmetic edits. But I'd argue that change the access date isn't entirely cosmetic; there will be a difference in rendering output. With a relatively dynamic source such as IUCN, as a reader, I do want to know how recently the source was checked. But I'm not sure I understand your alternatives in this case. Your script replaces a plain-text citation at Hokkaido (and in this case doesn't involve parsing the status in a taxobox). Plain-text citations would be replaced without regard to whether |status= has/hasn't changed; you're only proposing to refrain from running the script on pages where the only change would be updating |access-date= in articles that already cite IUCN via {{cite iucn}}? Do I have that right? Plantdrew (talk) 03:13, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
If I understand your first paragraph, I think that you are saying that the script did the right thing when it replaced an IUCN reference to Acacia richii in the Acacia confusa infobox. That sort of replacement would seem to be a beneficial side-effect of updating the status parameters.
Alas, the manual taxoboxen name parameters are sort of optional. That is why the script starts at |binomial= or |taxon= and works its way down the ladder to the article's title. At the moment, I don't think that I need another list. In my testing, articles in Category:Cite iucn maint seem to have something that the script can use to fetch data from the IUCN API.
I am the author of User:Monkbot/task 18 so I am sensitive to editors perceiving anything that I do as cosmetic – I don't need that kind of drama. In this case, I think that my script is similar to the scripts that audit date formats where those scripts sometimes only update the |date= parameter in a {{use dmy dates}} template; an invisible change from the reader's perspective. Still, some editors get their knickers in a twist about that ...
The primary purpose of this script is to replace old-form IUCN urls with current-form urls. The script can replace plain-text references with {{cite iucn}} templates and it can update status parameters in certain infoboxen – after all, it's already there fiddling with old-form urls – it doesn't have to do these other things but why shouldn't it? Often, the only {{cite iucn}} template in an article is in the infobox |status_ref= parameter. That parameter should, I think, always be updated to definitively state how recently the source was checked. But this is a case where it is possible that the only change to the article will be the {{cite iucn}} template's |access-date= so I expect that somewhere sometime knickers will twist.
—Trappist the monk (talk) 18:28, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
@Trappist the monk: I did this a few years ago, and updated all/most of the straightforward cases where |status= had changed. The <ref> maintenance was the worst part, and caused the most exceptions. At that time (perhaps it has decreased since), a non-trivial fraction of pages used |status_ref=<ref name="IUCN Status">...</ref> elsewhere in the body (<ref name="IUCN Status"/>), sometimes to re-cite the current status (which has changed), sometimes to cite the status as of a certain date (which is fixed), sometimes to cite the geographic footprint (which may or may not have changed), etc., so you have to inspect those pages more carefully to decide how to handle the new & old ref (or save them for the end of the run).
I'd also suggest that, when naming new |status_ref= to append the year to the ref name (e.g. <ref name="IUCN Status 2021">), which might aid future maintenance when having to move refs around.
You might also find Category:Taxonomy articles created by Polbot (32,175) useful for finding relevant Polbot pages.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  11:13, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
Hadn't thought about <ref>...</ref> tags. Thanks for that. Yeah, that's a puzzler. I'll go away and think about how to handle that. I did take your advice to name the reference in |status_ref=; since I have the access date from the new {{cite iucn}} template, I use that: <ref name="iucn status 8 September 2021">{{cite iucn|...}}</ref>; pretty sure that is sufficiently unique to not break anything.
—Trappist the monk (talk) 18:28, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
Looks awesome! A couple questions, will your bot pick up new iucn listings for pages not previously listing any, whether they be new listings or listings not previously determined....and will it "correct" manual listings not entered the way it likes?Pvmoutside (talk) 15:06, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
No, not in the plan. will it "correct" manual listings not entered the way it likes? From the tone of that question, I get the impression that you are about to complain about something. Let's not beat-around-the-bush. What is your complaint?
—Trappist the monk (talk) 18:28, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
not a complaint, just an observation....there are a few formats listed now in various species pages. Will it convert all of them? And what about new ones that come up for ones that don't have any?..... Pvmoutside (talk)⁓
Examples? I don't know what you mean by there are a few formats listed now in various species pages. Formats of what? What do you mean by listed?
—Trappist the monk (talk) 19:30, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
@Editor Pvmoutside: Could you answer my questions please?
—Trappist the monk (talk) 13:33, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
I've been picking away at my script. As it exists right now, when |status_ref= has a named reference (|status_ref=<ref name=...><citation></ref>), the script looks for <ref name=... /> in the article text. When found, the script replaces the first instance of the self-closed reference tag with the <ref name=...><citation></ref> from |status_ref=. The script then confirms or updates the values assigned to |status=, |status_system=, and |status_ref=. When |status_ref= is missing or empty, the script will create that parameter. Updated and new |status_ref= values have the form <ref name="iucn status 13 September 2021">{{cite iucn|...}}</ref>. Is this an acceptable solution?
—Trappist the monk (talk) 13:33, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
If anyone is interested, I have started a WP:BRFA for Monkbot/task 19. Details about the task are described at task 19's user page.
Comments about task 19 should be made at the task's BRFA page.
—Trappist the monk (talk) 16:55, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
@Trappist the monk: Your manual test edits ran over some of the mammal lists I've done, and they look great! Pleased to see the addition (and the fixes to use) of the errata parameter, that was always a minor pain.
Besides that, I just found the table 7 pdf so I'll check for updates for the list of felids, etc. list; does anyone know if there's a similar table/document/changelog for what species have been added? If not, I'll just manually check any NE species since there's relatively few of those in my lists, it's mostly just domesticated species. --PresN 01:02, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
There doesn't seem to be a list of new species assessed (a strange omission). The advanced search has a number of filters which may help you find what you want (year, update, geographic region (selectable down to country), taxonomy (selectable down to genus), habitat, status, etc). For instance you can select an update (2021-2) and a taxonomic group (Felidae) and get two global results for felid species with new assessments in the latest update. There is also one subspecies assessment (the filters default to species only). Or you can select all mammals in North America with new assessments this year (5 results). Unfortunately I don't see an option for linking to a complete search. —  Jts1882 | talk  07:11, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
I can save the searches to my account, but I'm not sure if you have access. The permalinks are Felidae in update 2021-2 and North American Mammals in 2021.
@Jts1882: The links work for me, thank you very much! --PresN 11:33, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Should Biology portal be linked from Template:WikiProject Tree of Life?

A couple years ago, I attempted to remove the link to Portal:Biology from Template:WikiProject Tree of Life, but my edit was reverted by @Moxy:. Portals are apparently supposed to be more reader-facing than editor-facing, which makes me inclined to not have links from editor-facing WikiProject banner templates to Portals. In some other language Wikipedias (German, French?) Portals may function as hubs for editor discussions, but Portals have not achieved that status on English Wikipedia. WikiProject Tree of Life is a subproject of WikiProject Biology. Perhaps the link to the Biology Portal is appropriate in the WikiProject Biology banner template, but I don't think the Biology Portal needs to be linked from the TOL banner template. Does anybody object to removing the biology portal from the TOL banner template? Plantdrew (talk)

Honestly, linking the Biology portal in a project banner seems rather useless, since, as you said, portals are meant to be more user-facing. And biology covers much more than just the tree of life, making that portal link doubly inappropriate. --SilverTiger12 (talk) 12:09, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
  • I also agree with removing the portal link. Portal:Biology covers a much broader topic than WP:TOL does, so it seems a somewhat inappropriate match. I'm skeptical that a portal should ever be linked from a WikiProject template per the above, but that's probably a discussion for elsewhere. Ajpolino (talk) 17:32, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Add my name to the list of those agreeing to remove the Portal link from the banner. At some point probably worth considering removing all such portal links, but for the time being this one-off removal makes complete sense. UnitedStatesian (talk) 19:13, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Callitropsis nootkatensis

I closed a WP:RM discussion with the result of moving an article to Callitropsis nootkatensis. Some of the details of getting the taxonbox to handle that genus are beyond me. Can somebody with more experience make sure everything is set up correctly? User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 01:19, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

 Done. —Trilletrollet [ Talk | Contribs ] 02:04, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Discussion on whether Encyclopedia of Life is a reliable source

See Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Encyclopedia_of_Life nobody with any experience editing Biology related articles has weighed in yet. Participate if interested. Thanks. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:30, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks very much Hemiauchenia, I've started to collate information about EOL at the top of the discussion to help it be more informed. John Cummings (talk) 11:32, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Tree_of_Life/Archive_49&oldid=1063809800"