Knowledge talk:WikiProject Tree of Life/Archive 42

3624: 4932:= table#2 { metatable = table#3 = "assessors : authors,\ vassessors : vauthors,\ assessor# : last#,\ assessor#-link : author#-link,\ assessor-link# : author-link#,\ assessorlink# : authorlink#,\ assessor#-mask : author#-mask, \ assessor-mask# : author-mask#, \ assessormask# : authormask#,\ display-assessors : display-authors,\ displayassessors : displayauthors,\ last-assessor-amp : last-author-amp,\ lastassessoramp : lastauthoramp,\ assessment_year : year,\ taxon : title,\ downloaded : access-date", = "id, version, new, IUCN_Year, iucn_year, criteria-version", = "cite journal", = "International Union for Conservation of Nature", = "harv", = "https://www.iucnredlist.org/species/14144/4408913%22, = "IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2018-1", }, = function#1, = function#2, = function#3, = function#4, = function#5, = function#6, = function#7, = function#8, = function#9, = function#10, = function#11, } 2869:) could be equally valid. In the third case, information is added (clearly with the purpose to make the description of the original authors more intelligible) that is clearly incorrect and this lapsus could be prevented when an actual Latin or Greek dictionary was consulted. So, your quite strict on what "original research" might entail, but these three cases, might be sensu stricto, also examples of original research, but with different degrees of collateral damage. So, it seems that in case an original description is lacking some vital information (Greek or Latin? The actual word?), in some cases, you felt the necessity to complete the etymological description. Others, that might spot all kind of etymological inconsistencies in some articles, might equally feel the need to complete the etymological description. 813: 2542:"Starting from the baseline of the 3rd edition of MSW (MSW3), we performed a review of taxonomic changes published since 2004 and digitally linked species names to their original descriptions and subsequent revisionary articles in an interactive, hierarchical database. We found 6,495 species of currently recognized mammals (96 recently extinct, 6,399 extant), compared to 5,416 in MSW3 (75 extinct, 5,341 extant)—an increase of 1,079 species in about 13 years, including 11 species newly described as having gone extinct in the last 500 years. We tabulate 1,251 new species recognitions, at least 172 unions, and multiple major, higher-level changes, including an additional 88 genera (1,314 now, compared to 1,226 in MSW3) and 14 newly recognized families (167 compared to 153)." 3630: 825: 2909:, I don't see how pointing out the error constitutes a significant violation of OR policy, given that the discovery of the error is trivially accomplished, and trivially corroborated. Cases where an author misspells a scientific name are cited in numerous articles, as well, and those are not removed as being OR. A common class of such cases involves gender agreement: the ICZN mandates that all adjectival species names in zoology MUST match the gender of the genus at all times; since such corrections are 3473: 703: 2913:(i.e., a correction is not given authorship, and cannot be cited), an editor correcting such a spelling error in a Knowledge article is not violating OR by doing so. I would say that the same basic principle and logic can be applied here - so long as the edit is citing the original etymology, and pointing out an obvious and easily corroborated error involving that etymology, then this should be a non-controversial procedure. I agree that providing an etymology for a name where the original author did 745: 5109:"Here we report phylogenomic analyses based on high-coverage, cultivation-independent transcriptomics that place Hemimastigophora outside of all established eukaryote supergroups. They instead comprise an independent supra-kingdom-level lineage that most likely forms a sister clade to the ‘Diaphoretickes’ half of eukaryote diversity (that is, the ‘stramenopiles, alveolates and Rhizaria’ supergroup (Sar), Archaeplastida and Cryptista, as well as other major groups)." 2463:, I think. There was unanimous agreement to put the † in both places, BUT there was also unanimous agreement in that discussion to get rid of the separate binomial/trinomial box altogether. However, when I proposed alternatives, which I was prepared to try to implement, no decision was made on which to adopt, and the discussion petered out, so the status quo remains. Given that the separate box is still present, adding the † is probably the right thing to do. 2861:) (or even another word). In the same Wiki article you wrote: "The generic name Protomycena is derived from a combination of the Latin proto meaning "first", and "Mycena"", while the original authors (Hibbett et al., 1997) wrote: "The generic epithet means ‘‘first Mycena.’’", without providing the word "proto" nor telling us from which language they derived this "proto-" part, that is actually not a full word nor it is Latin, but actually Greek, i.e. πρῶτος ( 3577: 1319:, directly, with no intermediate century-cats. Otherwise, there would be a mismatch between cat name (year/century) vs. contents - in other words, "if it's important enough to distinguish 'year' and 'century' as their own cats, then they should only include years and centuries, respectively". Currently, with non-insect cats, the situation is more lax, probably due to the smaller deepest-category sizes, with century-of-formal-description cats residing 31: 846: 3534: 3438:

meaning ." Like, have the author's intention for the etymology, but don't word it in such a way that the article has incorrect information. Hopefully most of these examples have other taxonomic sources discussing the (incorrect) etymology -- I wouldn't rely on just a Latin/Greek dictionary to explicitly say the stated etymology is wrong, but it might be useful to add more information about the etymon referencing a dictionary.

2891:. My question was whether it was sufficient to use/refer to a general Greek (or Latin) dictionary, in case the original authors' etymological explanation was incorrect, or that I had to use other sources, that would specifically deal with the incorrect derivations of the original authors. The latter would be the best solution, but I doubt there are enough sources that discuss individually these etymological slips of the pen. 2689:)? I asked the user not to change the etymologies in several articles where the source author was cited (and noted that taxa named with out an etymology explanation really shouldn't get one on WP per WP:OR) and now the user is actively finding any and all article where they feel the describing author has made a translation or sourcing error in the name and leaving talk page posts that should be addressed somehow. 3828: 5015: 4498:. If it contains a url for the old site, it ignores this and passes a url generated using the numbers in the electronic page number. This change needs to be made manually by changing the reference from "cite journal" to "cite iucn". The url doesn't need to be edited (as it is ignored), although long-term it is preferable to change it or remove it (as redundant). Ths would need a bot. 354:). There would also have to be some indication of why the putative species included (i.e. sources). If someone made the effort to fix it, I would support its continued existence. Alphabetic listings are fairly common in encyclopedias, even though Knowledge has other more convenient means of navigating. But in the current form it seems more appropriate in user or draft space. 1467:, who worked on plants and animal groups). Then NotWith/Caftaric/etc. began to muddle the system. Because there is still a pretty active bunch of editors at WP:PLANTS, we managed to keep 'our' system organized, but for many animal groups, the muddlers had a pretty free rein. I'd like to see the even simpler 3-level system (i.e. without decades) becoming universal. 3281:

the wrong gender. The ICNafp also has had to specifically state that compounds of certain Greek stems have a particular gender. Expertise in Latin hasn't been wide enough for such errors to be reliably caught for centuries - errors in epithetal gender are not a new phenomenon. (It can also be difficult to distinguish between an adjective and a noun in apposition.)

3227:, and I can explain the core problem briefly: since gender agreement is mandatory and automatic, no one EVER publishes papers with the sole intent to fix gender-matching errors. In plain fact, if someone were to submit a manuscript to a peer-reviewed taxonomic journal whose SOLE purpose was to correct a gender-matching error (where there is 1155:-type categories would need up to 2 category pages, since they will have at most ~265 subcats, and it would take at least another ~35 years for them to spill over onto a 3rd category page. Is this enough of a barrier to want to keep the century cats, or is there another reason to keep them, or is there a desire to remove them? 3385:

differ from classical usage/orthography. But in using such dictionaries, you have to be knowledgable as well, as Hentschel and Wagner's Zoologisches Wörterbuch transliterate ου as u and it seems that Stearn's Botanical Latin writes κ as c, but if you pay attention, you would notice that in many instances it refers to Greek word

2817:

slight inaccuracy with type description reporting, to full on complaining that the authors are not using the correct words (something that is not controllable by wiki). Giving a sourced explanation of a name, with no indication from the original describing author regarding said name, is fully original research.--

2283:

assumptions as to how it should work, and partly because of multiple bug fixes and updates obscuring the original logic. In an ideal world, the whole system would be moved to Lua, but it's a large task and, as can be seen today, the slightest error can affect thousands or even hundreds of thousands of taxoboxes.

3547: 3558: 3931:

and a bunch of subcategories and did their usual job of barely populating them. I don't think these categories are very useful, and was clearing them out until I was questioned about it. If these categories are desired, we need to come up with some clear criteria regarding what goes in them. Basionym

2917:

is a different situation, and should probably be avoided, but goodness only knows how many such cases are actually already established in Knowledge at this point! I'd be willing to bet that most of the species described by Linnaeus and Fabricius did not have formal published etymologies, and yet many

2550:. It is published by the American Society of Mammalogists (not sure of any implications regarding their views as compared with any others). (By the way, I do not have access to the full paper in Journal of Mammalogy, and sci-hub cannot retrieve it at the moment...). In case of interest - Regards Tony 1635:

I suspect it's different for different groups of organisms/different WikiProjects, but for WP:PLANTS, the "Plants described in YEAR" categories were started by Rkitko in March 2009‎, well after the "Plants described in CENTURY" categories he started in August 2008‎. A key point is that his categories

110:

was just created. Could I ask project members to note their opinion on whether we a) need this, and b) if yes, what form it should take? In its current incarnation, I find it both ugly and undesirable. I suppose the most frequent problems with vast list articles - vague inclusion criteria, impossible

5286:

There is a proposal to elevate the Australian subspecies to species, included in the "Taxonomic recommendations" section of Grosser et al (2015). However a google search for "Eudyptula novaehollandiae" finds little beyond that paper and a few news reports about a new species. It's still a subspecies

3280:

One problem that has occurred is that Latin tree names ending in -us are feminine (Euonymus, IIRC, however is a Latin borrowing from Greek, and is masculine), but high school Latin teaches that nouns ending in -us are masculine. This resulted in a lot of names being published with the epithet having

2300:

Yes, I appreciate that. When I wrote the module for the clade template I dutifully followed the wikitext template to the letter (including the bugs in the table structure). It's only later that I could remove these. Incidentally, I wrote a module for the paraphyletic group template and have extended

2282:

When I re-wrote the recursive traverse of taxonomy templates in the automated taxobox system in Lua, I deliberately changed as little of the rest of the code as possible. Some of it is very convoluted and hard to understand, partly because it was written by different people with different underlying

523:

I am in general agreement with others on this. There is no constructive form to the list. I was not aware of these lists I also looked at the Reptilia one, not complete, and wonder where its going. They are so cluttered with text, effectively, with no structure it rendors them unusable. I wonder why

2585:

This database seems to be substantially more up-to-date (and promises to remain so), AND is easier to navigate. Those are big pros. The downside is that it seems to lack all information beyond the taxonomic bare bones, plus a distribution map. No details on taxonomic history, type locality, or even

631:

It's a historical accident that there wasn't already a list of mammal species, rather than the topic being divided between two articles. In theory you could merge those two articles, but there might be problems doing it cleanly. The list of mammal genera doesn't link neatly to the lists of species.

614:

I don't think it is redundant as the organisation is different. Many people are not familiar with the taxonomy and might prefer an alphabetical listing. I personally don't find much utility in such lists as Knowledge has better methods of searching for information, but if other editors are prepared

341:

I'm unclear on why this page has been created and, in its current form it is not much use. Most of the species names are redlinked or link to inappropriate targets (disambiguation pages, place names, asteroids, plants, insects, etc) and it seems that it will take a lot of work to fix it. A sortable

4242:

Sooo... currently we don't seem to have a single working IUCN species link on the site. That's I don't know how many tens of thousands (?) broken links, clicked not that infrequently, often acting as a major source for the article. I find that really worrying, and not something we can just sit on.

3384:

I'll agree that references to a dictionary of Classical Latin or Ancient Greek is not sufficient in each single case. Actually, I have Hentschel and Wagner's Zoologisches Wörterbuch and Stearn's Botanical dictionary just on the left side of my chair. So, in some cases, I double check, whether they

3110:

is seriously flawed, with you being unable to see the conflict between you as a ICZN commissioner and you as a wiki editor. WIKI will never be the first printed/written source for a new spelling, even though you say it should be. Wiki only ever reflects what is already written, and NO source uses

2816:

I tend to agree with FunkMonk on this, unless there are specific secondary references that discuss a names etymology, WP:Original Research would expressly prohibit making commentary on the "correctness" of a name or its roots. Right now the edits that are being made range from productive notes on

4347:

The main problem I see is that, if the link points to the most recent assessment, with no specific DOI, then the Knowledge text that is being referenced needs be to confirmed with one of the available assessments (ideally updated to match the most recent assessment, then solidified via DOI in the

3235:

whether the species epithet was adjectival), no competent editor would send it out for review, and no competent peer-reviewer would recommend accepting it for print. I cannot in fact think of a single such paper in the history of zoological taxonomy, and if you're saying that WP won't budge until

3072:

shouldnt actually be used as arguments for the numerous cases that are in wiki articles at the moment to continue, and they are a result of them being in areas that don't get as much outside review from editors that are familiar with policy. How many of those instances are core level articles or

3059:

which Wimpus notes is has a mismatch to the gender, but no source since the species was transferred has ever used matching gender for the species epithet. We here can NOT make that correction, as it absolutely violates wiki policy. and anything stating that its in violation would be walking a

2766:

I disagree. It's not OR to give a sourced explanation of the meaning of a scientific name, regardless of whether the author did or not, especially if the source is one that is devoted to explaining scientific names, provided of course that the explanation isn't incorrectly attributed to the taxon

1769:

the real issue, as you have rightly raised elsewhere, is the "Fossil taxa described in" categories. They have all kinds of problems, such as including ranks not covered by the nomenclature codes, like orders, where priority doesn't exist, so it's not clear what "described in" means, and including

1708:

the "Taxa described in" categories are a typical Caftaric creation: no discussion, no consensus, and woefully incomplete. Those that exist should be deleted, and as soon as possible. Plant genera aren't placed in any "described by" category; species, including the type species, are placed in the

3437:

I think the stated etymology should be included, even if it's incorrect -- it should just be said in a way which doesn't make it seem like a fact. " chose because he claimed " is Latin for " is fine, but the wording should not presuppose a false statement, e.g., " named after the Latin word ,

2785:

If the original description states a specific meaning (whether "correct" or not), we have to explain this was the intended name. We can not "correct" this, at most we can state afterwards that the given word can also be translated in another way. It is not up to us to judge whether something is

3695:

Anyone out there good with mammal taxonomy? I was about to add the taxoboxes to the chipmunks, but the taxonomy seemed out of whack a bit. I see listed on the main chipmunk page 3 subspecies, but on the species pages with 3 different genera, along with the links for each of tbe species as the

3164:

There's a fine line here. I don't know about the ICZN, but the ICNafp is clear, for example, that incorrect gender agreements in species names are always to be corrected: "23.5. The specific epithet, when adjectival in form and not used as a noun, agrees with the gender of the generic name...

1371:

The intermediate level is just a way of making access to the large number of year categories easier. "Xs described in the Yth century" is a short-hand for "Xs described in the years of the Yth century". The alternative makes navigation more confused by replacing a tree by a net with no single

3529:

images. An item that has sitelinks but no illustrative image can be tested to see if the linked wikis have a suitable one. This works well for a volunteer who wants to add images at a reasonable scale, and a small amount of SPARQL knowledge goes a long way in producing checklists.

1382:

441:

This sort of pointless list, of enormous size and basically no encyclopedic purpose, and of course no citations, is exactly what Knowledge does not need. If the creator can't take the hint from other editors then they'll need to take a more direct suggestion from an admin.

4305:

s during this process. Not all of the templated ~19k will be easily convertable, that's more of an upper limit. I'll post back here when I've got a stable version going for BRFA, but in the meantime if effort could be focused on those 2770 that would be most productive.

3796:

to the subfamily thinking that is a better fit now. I have not moved the western NA chipmunks yet to the new genus or added speciesboxes since there are 23 of them and you may want to make changes. Let me know when all the articles satisfy you, and I'll make the other

2612:

Progress has been extremely disappointing. When I first saw the beta I thought this would be the MSW3 successor (and MSW4 is overdue with no signs of a publishing date) but now I'm dubious. The forum on the website is full of spam, which suggests little is happening.

2848:

is Latin, while the original author (Schultz, 2007) did not provide any language designation, only: "ETYMOLOGY: The species name indicates that this is a species of the pilosum group, and probably of the pilosum complex, in amber (electrum)." Similarly, in another

2565:

I've being watching this database for the last year. The ASM committee that oversees the database is the successor to the committee that used to oversee MSW. It's good in that the taxonomy is up to date and has nice options for searching via an API (described

3696:

different genera. I did read along the way there is some flexibilty with tbis group as far as using eitber 1 genus (Tamias) for all or the tnree genera as we cite the individual species, but nowhere did I see any subgenera being used....any preferences?....

3541:

It should be noted, though, that there are currently 53 Wikidata properties that link to Commons, of which P18 for the basic image is just one. WD-FIST prompts the user to add signatures, plaques, pictures of graves and so on. There are a couple of hundred

3888:

This includes the following animal cats: Anemones, Ants, Aphids, Bees, Caddisflies, Centipedes, Cicadas, Damselflies, Dragonflies, Fleas, Flies, Lacewings, Mantises, Mites, Scale insects, Sea cucumbers, Stink bugs, Termites, Ticks, Urchins, & Wasps, @

1734:

benefit to the "Taxa described in" categories - that they serve as a container for "Fossil taxa described in" and "Species described in" categories. Whether or not this is enough to keep them, or if there's a better alternative, I don't know. Might notify

2590:, but provides little beyond that. If that's all that is wanted from this source - i.e., all other detail to be referenced to other sources anyway - then I'd say it would be useful. - NB, if anyone wants the paper and cannot get to it, drop me a mail. -- 3561:

of properties linking to Commons does contain a few that concern video and audio files, and rather more for maps. But it contains gems such as P3451 for "nighttime view". Over 1000 of those on Wikidata, but as for so much else, there could be yet more.

111:

to curate, open-ended and arbitrary selection - don't apply here; still I don't feel that this is the way to present a navigational article for mammals. We already have fine taxonomic navigation, and who the heck is going to look them up by alphabet? --

1636:

were accepted by WP:PLANTS editors and documented at the WikiProject (the current documentation is an update by me based on what was present earlier), whereas Caftaric et al.'s categories were without consensus and, even more importantly, undocumented.

4541:

as the preferred IUCN reference format a wrapper template had been used, the change to the new redlist website now could have been made simply by modifying the template. The wrapper template future-proofs against any later changes made by the IUCN.

3015:. The etymology of the name should be what the authors considered it as meaning in their original paper. If the authors come along and correct this it is as Dyanega said quite trivial. I do not think this is an OR issue. Can be left as is. Cheers 2534:) regarding the potential successor to MSW3 (2005 I think) for mammals, now significantly out-of-date. It seems there is some traction behind the new online Mammal Diversity Database (MDD) as an updated version of MSW3, see Burgin et al., 2018 3169:... to the proper form of the termination (Latin or transcribed Greek)". So for botanical names, it's not only desirable but required in the case of error that we say something like: "ORIGINAL-AUTHOR first described the species under the name 2141:

IF extinct is not specified in the taxobox THEN set extinct to the value in the genus taxonomy template ENDIF CASE extinct OF no, false, blank: output nothing; any other nonblank (including yes, true, date string): output a dagger;

5287:

on the IOC list (version 8.1) and and the BirdLife International/IUCN lists. Boyd's World Bird list has it at species, though. It seems the new article is premature and there doesn't seem enough material to justify a subspecies article.

3052:

you state that its automatic for gender fixes to happen. BUT wikipedia policy its ONLY to report what is already stated in sources, and never to make new synthesis or original research, this is where the problem occurs. An example is

142:. I do appreciate the effort, and think the article should be allowed to exist, after some sprucing up. I agree that a taxonomic listing is better than alphabetical. If the latter is still desired, a sortable table could be used. -- 4410:

template without an electronic page number or doi. The template can be modified to use their oldredlist site, which at least would provide a temporary solution for the deadlinks. This can be done using the template modified by

5126:"Canadian researchers have discovered a new kind of organism that's so different from other living things that it doesn't fit into the plant kingdom, the animal kingdom, or any other kingdom used to classify known organisms. 4701:

How are we supposed to handle amended assessments? Should "(amended version of 2016 assessment)" be added to the title or is there a better way (which doesn't include the text in the linked title)? Any wrapper template for

4143: 3755:

I'm inclined to go with 3 genera. But that's not a strong preference and mammals aren't my area of expertise. It's going to be a bit of a mess either way. With a split, chipmunk loses the taxobox and we need an article on

5028:

Not sure if ToL cares about landraces and feral populations and alleged breeds, since they're sub-subspecific. This AfD is about evenly split and is just going to end in a "no consensus" if there's not further input:

3008:

This has little to do with validity as the etymology though desirable is not compulsory. There are examples of names where no one actually knows where the name came from and may even have been totally made up, eg

5363:

The first link out says the term is not preferred, and it seems a legacy of an outlook that predates genomics, maybe Darwin, so the parenthetical dab appears awkward. According to the boxified arrangement in the

4911:

is a general purpose template utility, never intended to be called from within a module. It is not clear to me why one would want to call it from within a module. Care to explain the why behind your question?

5132:

A genetic analysis shows they're more different from other organisms than animals and fungi (which are in different kingdoms) are from each other, representing a completely new part of the tree of life ..."

4243:

Would the IUCN give us some information on what the intended final state is with the DOIs? (I suspect we are responsible for a fair number of their incoming visitors...) Does someone have contacts there? --

3518:, and if the number is large, it is still only 5% or so of items that have one. All such images are taken from Wikimedia Commons, which has 50 million media files. One key issue is how to expand the stock. 524:

Wikiversity is permitting this honestly. But not my decision. I do hope there are not plans to use this here. Link to better structured lists, wikispecies and wikidata for this type of info I think. Cheers

5030: 3092:

You happen to be absolutely wrong about this point, there's no other way to say it. Your statement is exactly the opposite of how the ICZN works, as I explained in some detail on the Merrifieldia page.

4123:

Before I update these, is tbere any value in keeping tbem, or can we make these redirects of the subfamily pages?...Species can be found on the genus pages, and would prevent creating double work.....

4835:{{IUCN/sandbox | taxon = ''Myotis ater'' | assessor = Wiles, G. | assessment_year = 2008 | version = 2018-1 | access-date = 26 October 2018 |new=y |doi=10.2305/IUCN.UK.2008.RLTS.T14144A4408913.en }} 2853:, you wrote, without providing any additional reference: "The specific epithet electra was coined by the authors from the Latin for "amber" ...", while the original authors stated about the epithet 4265:

The other alternative would be to get a bot going, to concatenate the page number with the species ID following the new format (provided above). Which would presume they stick with that now... --

1993:). No, because this is not what I would have expected. It is according to the instructions which say "delete the extinct parameter or leave it blank" but it's not surprising people set it to no. 615:

to put in the work on such lists, I accept that others will find them useful. A more useful list might be one big sortable table with subclass, orders and families, but such a large table (: -->

1482: 5093:

Wow! (?): A new kingdom or superkingdom - Hemimastigophora (e.g. Hemimastix) "outside of all established eukaryote supergroups ... instead comprise an independent supra-kingdom-level lineage"

2865:). In those three cases, the first one, could be admissible, as the form "electrum", as provided by the authors, is clearly Latin. The second case, is however troublesome, as Greek ἤλεκτρον ( 2800:

Yes, that's exactly my view. We state, with the ref, what the author said. We state, with a ref, what a reliable source on the meaning of scientific Latin says. It's then left to the reader.

2444:

Looking at extinct felids I find the same. Few were marked extinct. One question, should the binomial/trinomial also have a dagger to indicate extinction. It's redundant but more consistent.

1179:

The 'ideal' size of a category is a matter of opinion, but although I'm very much in favour of the removal of the decadal categories, I think it's worth keeping the century categories as per

5129:

Two species of the microscopic organisms, called hemimastigotes, were found in dirt collected on a whim during a hike in Nova Scotia by Dalhousie University graduate student Yana Eglit.

3590: 4504:

There is also the matter of all the older templates in the IUCN template family. These all have the same problem as {{tl:IUCN}} and have to use the old redlist site or the web archive.

3848: 1911: 1108: 1068: 3784:

so I went with the 3 genera split. Youre right it is a bit of a mess, but I did the best I could with all the splitting. I'm also not a mammal expert. I created a new article for

1076: 1032: 996: 960: 657: 3211:

Peter hits upon two of the primary points of relevance. (1) The ICZN also mandates that errors in gender MUST be corrected, just as in botany, but worded slightly differently: "

3657: 2214: 2033:| species = {{#if:{{{extinct|}}}|†|{{Taxon info|{{#if:{{{parent|}}}|{{{parent}}}|{{#if:{{{genus|}}}|{{{genus}}}|{{first word|{{#if:{{{taxon|}}}|{{{taxon}}}|<includeonly: --> 924: 497:, which is organised by orders and families. I do not like this article. If you know enough to search for a species by the generic part of its binomial name, it's redundant. 1285:

to include all years to satisfy some comment at cfd, the details of which I forget. I also think it is worth keeping the centuries ones and also keeping or creating such as

2460: 1152: 1097: 1021: 812: 94: 89: 84: 72: 67: 59: 3423:

seems unreasonable - for example it would forbid putting together North American ranges of plant species by combining data from USDA (Angloamerica) and CONABIO (Mexico).

4800:{{IUCN/sandbox | id = 14144/4408913 | taxon = ''Myotis ater'' | assessor = Wiles, G. | assessment_year = 2008 | version = 2018-1 | downloaded = 26 October 2018 |new=y }} 1501: 1286: 1201: 4200:, where the last number is the electronic page number. I assume this is new as the doi link also doesn't work either. The old website addresses can be used accessed at 1173: 2962:

Giving etymologies for component words in scientific names that were not explained in the original descriptions is "allowed", the problem is just when we try to make

1424:

I agree, a single starting point and less unnecessary duplication is better. I would also prefer that both insects and non-insects used the same general structure.

797:

actually diminishes with the prolific progress of science publishing. No, it really doesn't scale. Wikimedia as movement can do something in such cases. We know from

1308: 2930:). It's not ideal, and probably violates OR in the strictest possible sense, but it's also not harmful or misleading. I'd be inclined to accept it, done prudently. 2080:

it's not so simple, alas. Part of the problem is that the original design of taxoboxes, implemented prior to taxonomy templates and automated taxoboxes, uses the

1274: 1197: 1133: 1057: 985: 1463:) it was based on both the consensus at WP:PLANTS and what seemed to be the situation for most other groups (I seem to recall the involvement of editors, like 4851:| assessor = Wiles, G. | assessment_year = 2008 | version = 2018-1 | access-date = 26 October 2018 |new=y |doi=10.2305/IUCN.UK.2008.RLTS.T14144A4408913.en }} 3240:, then this is a serious and very damaging impasse. I have to go at the moment, but maybe if this needs to be discussed further, we need a new thread for it? 3189:

to change their entry, which then provides an indisputably definitive source. Then you can write ""ORIGINAL-AUTHOR first described the species under the name

1936: 751:

In an ideal world ... no, bear with your editor for just a minute ... there would be a format for scientific publishing online that was as much a standard as

4881:. This is nice and potentially very useful for citing various biology resources. Is there a way of using the wrap() function in a module. I've tried setting 4030: 2948:. By the way, my suggestion was not change the name of the Wiki article, but I was curious whether the name was valid (as I am not that familiar with ICZN). 1827:

I was updating some snake genera today, and noticed extinct daggers being automtically added to species from moves to another genus.......something off? see

1316: 1312: 3565:

Go on. Today is Wikidata's birthday. An illustrative image is always an acceptable gift, so why not add one? You can follow these easy steps: (i) log in at

1674: 1148: 1639:

On the last point, when the current valuable round of tidying is over, I do think it's important to get some documentation/guidelines in place at WP:TOL.

5348:. To my knowledge, the terms are just synonyms, with the former having gone out of favour in recent years. If that's the case, the two should be merged. 1210: 616:

6000) entries probably wouldn't work well and is better suited to a database or spreadsheet that can be got from MSW3 or the ASM mammal diversity sites.

266:

Deprodded by one of the usual suspects - was worth a try though. I'll try to make the time tomorrow to summarize this discussion and put it up at AfD. --

3915: 3619: 3185:

as shown by the use of references. In practice, for botanical names, I've found that when there's an obvious agreement error, it's very easy to get the

302:

If there's an AFD, I'll see it and contribute. I've made 32 edits to the page over 3 days, and I haven't finished with the bad links starting 'a-' yet.

4511:

thinks there might be an issue using wrappers for the citation templates, but it seems to me that the wrapper is the appropriate approach. The current

2084:

parameter supplied in the taxobox to hold the date of extinction for recently extinct species as well as to mean "is extinct". Look at the taxobox at

1414: 1151:). The century categories' contents are limited, by definition, to 1 category page, since they'll always contain less than 200 entries. The resulting 4112: 2857:: "The specific epithet refers to amber." and did not mention at all whether they used the Latin word electrum or the original Greek word ἤλεκτρον ( 201:

A lot of work will be needed to turn the redlinks blue: every entry is linked by specific epithet alone. I'm working on the bluelinks to DAB pages.

4116: 3635: 1915: 1112: 1072: 1036: 1000: 964: 47: 17: 3389:, not Greek words as such. So, using an additional dictionary that would take into account modern usage/orthography would increase reliability. 2278:

it's back from extinction now! I'll let this change settle in and look out for any more errors being reported before moving on to the next step.

288:

Yeah, I'm out of time for a bit to craft an AfD, otherwise I would have done that in response. I'll be back to revisit in a day or two though.

4789:. Both of these rely on template code implemented by Editor Markussep. Examples here use the minimum of cs1|2 parameter names. First using 5142: 3871: 3073:

featured article reviewed, and how many are C, B, or A, rated species articles that have never been looked at from a broad point of review?--

2191: 774:. Where scientific papers are delivered as XML downloads, you get all the ingredients ready to cook. But have to prepare the actual meal of 3678: 2459:

The general issue of the separate binomial/trinomial box has been discussed at some considerable length before; the main discussion was at

945: 869:

platform. Quote: "Disambiguating and merging individuals across multiple datasets is nearly impossible given their current, siloed nature."

3741:

looks like the IUCN also does the 3 genus system. Would that be your preference Plantdrew, or would you like me to do something else....

2221:

to pick up information from another taxonomy template, but allow it to be over-ridden. The two templates could have different values for

3853: 3526: 3362:(2nd decl., n. <γάγγλιον). So, you have to be really careful, but you would expect that some editors are aware of these variations. 891: 3839: 2367:, which is shared by manual taxoboxes (a total of 390,000 transclusions), and used in the display of conservation status. So allowing 1278: 755:

are for the content. Likewise cataloguing publications would not be onerous, because part of the process would be to generate uniform

252:

I'd say just redirect there instead at a minimum if not TNT. The article isn't needed at all. I've gone ahead and PRODded it for now.

4468:

template directly. These have electronic page numbers so the url can be updated for the new redlist site. I have created a template (

2103:

So I was wrong to say above it's not supposed to happen; it's how the system was designed. But ideally I think it should be changed.

2100:, because it too just tests for a nonblank value in the taxonomy template. There are likely to be more places that would need fixing. 5044: 3792:

article to Tamias, although I'm not sure how old those European Tamias species red links are (they may be Eutamias?). I also moved

3649: 3497: 3258:(Sohn, 2012) acknowledged in his dissertation (p. 320, p. 397) some "gender" violations in his previous work), but does not mention 3147: 2301:

it to simulate the manual and automatic taxoboxes. It's far from a finished item, but could be something to build on long-term. See

1979: 1949: 916: 727: 583: 556:

Well, the PROD has been removed, so AfD is the next step, if anyone feels like drafting a statement of the reasons for deleting it.

2905:

My two cents. Is it really such a fine line between OR and fixing an obvious error? If the describing author says a word is Greek

5377: 3724: 3503: 2340:

in taxonomy templates – although it's still not recommended to use this parameter value, it does produce the expected behaviour.

733: 4752: 3674: 3663: 3143: 2357:. The reason is that in addition to causing the addition of † to the species name when the genus isn't extinct, it's passed to 1682: 941: 930: 4102: 4089: 4043: 4012: 3974: 3653: 1813: 920: 885: 1144: 3600:

Find out how @TheContentMine are attempting to mine scientific and medical literature to improve the accuracy of Knowledge.

2197:, which is ultimately where the information in a taxonomy template is queried to decide whether to output a dagger or not. 5318: 5259: 5205:, so how accepted is the classification as separate species? Based on how this fundamental split has been shoehorned into 4999: 4277: 4255: 4232: 3933: 2602: 2503: 1964: 672: 406: 278: 191: 123: 3266:. Maybe, I am a bit naïve, but shouldn't such violations be spotted by an attentive editor of a journal or book series? 3139: 3126: 3084: 2828: 2743: 2096:, used to see if the genus is extinct if it's not specified that the species is, returns † if the taxonomy template has 763:, it might be reasonably be argued that sandwiches can be packaged much alike and have barcodes, whatever the fillings. 371:

The best place to find out about taxa named for or by Temminck, either by a common name or by a specific epithet, is in

5380:, so I assume the primitive article content has places to go and that title can be widowed, immediately or eventually. 1421:

a single starting point, but it splits in 2, and arrives at the same destination twice, by 1 longer and 1 shorter path.

5220:

would be all kinds of messed up, since almost the entirety of material therein is about Australian populations (i.e.,

4943: 4864: 4659: 4150:(FAC) so that source reviews would need to occur prior to any other reviews for FAC. Your comments are appreciated. -- 3834: 3819: 3135: 1277:(which I worked on - I think it was incompletely realised in the scattergun approach of NotWith/Caftaric eg I created 4625:

template, at least as a temporary solution to fix the thousands of deadlinks while a broader solution is determined.

4348:

URL). If there hasn't been as assessment for some time, then it's easier to assume than if there had been several.

2669:

Does anyone have suggestions on how to work on the issues that are being posted across numerous taxonomy articles by

1589:

have been the case historically, (I would love it if someone could check, or knows, that, either way) and when those

4893:. I know frame objects behave differently (using metatables?) which means I'm probably missing something important. 4501:

The third issue is the doi. I assume the IUCN will work with the IDF to fix this, so there isn't much we can do now.

1527:

Another argument in favor of the year-century-year structure, and pertaining to my 'crux' post above in response to

4958:- old IUCN Red List links are now being redirected internally by IUCN to map to new Red List page. Problem solved. 4562: 3215:

A species-group name, if it is or ends in a Latin or latinized adjective or participle in the nominative singular,

38: 4588:

Happily, the IUCN link in the taxonbar of each article still points to the old IUCN red list page, so that works.

2371:

in Speciesbox to mean "not extinct" involves changing several templates and potentially altering the behaviour of

5381: 5341: 5239: 5230: 5189: 5160:

probably warrants a proper article based on that - rather than just being a redirect - any experts in the house?

4085: 4066: 3867: 3055: 579: 5384: 5357: 5323: 5297: 5281: 5264: 5169: 5150: 5084: 5068: 5049: 4982: 4967: 4947: 4903: 4868: 4722: 4687: 4663: 4635: 4597: 4583: 4552: 4366: 4338: 4324: 4295:

of these are bare URLs which will probably have to be converted by hand, and ideally they could be converted to

4282: 4260: 4237: 4214: 4162: 4132: 4106: 4047: 4016: 3978: 3945: 3876: 3806: 3779: 3750: 3736: 3719:(presumably following MSW) and changed to a three genus system by Innotata in 2010. The newish mammal database ( 3705: 3682: 3525:

exploits the fact that each Knowledge is differently illustrated, mostly with images from Commons but also with

3447: 3432: 3398: 3371: 3297: 3275: 3249: 3206: 3159: 3129: 3101: 3087: 3026: 2975: 2957: 2939: 2900: 2878: 2831: 2809: 2795: 2780: 2761: 2746: 2659: 2623: 2607: 2580: 2567: 2559: 2515: 2472: 2454: 2438: 2388: 2315: 2295: 2266: 2247: 2206: 2175: 2154: 2112: 2068: 2020: 2003: 1969: 1897: 1860: 1851:, which seems to have done the trick. I'm pretty sure complete removal of the parameter shouldn't be required. 1817: 1779: 1757: 1718: 1695: 1648: 1623: 1522: 1494: 1476: 1442: 1401: 1341: 1298: 1266: 1232: 1192: 949: 677: 645: 626: 609: 595: 565: 535: 506: 488: 466: 451: 430: 411: 384: 364: 342:

table might have some utility. Someone might be curious about how many species where named after a person (e.g.

311: 297: 283: 261: 247: 228: 210: 196: 174: 151: 128: 5146: 5079: 4615:

has been updated to use the oldredlist.iucnredlist.org urls. This is the change I think we should make for the

4439: 4419: 3843: 3288:), so it is not clear to me that reference to Classical Latin dictionaries is sufficient in all circumstances. 2637: 2211:

As with everything to do with the automated taxobox system, it seems, it's turning out to be more complicated.

170: 3892:

_with_very_confined_scope_and_small_size" title="Knowledge:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 November 4": -->

5136: 4939: 4908: 4876: 4860: 4816:| assessor = Wiles, G. | assessment_year = 2008 | version = 2018-1 | downloaded = 26 October 2018 |new=y }} 4655: 3202: 2805: 2776: 2768: 2682: 2655: 2511: 2468: 2434: 2384: 2291: 2243: 2202: 2150: 2108: 2016: 1942: 1893: 1856: 1775: 1714: 1644: 1490: 1472: 1397: 1188: 605: 561: 447: 375:. It isn't a difficult article to find. There are similar arguments for all other authorities and epithets. 372: 4746: 3928: 5365: 4682: 4204:. Hopefully they will make further changes as otherwise there are a lot of references that need changing. 3514:

Around 2.7 million Wikidata items have an illustrative image. These files, you might say, are Wikimedia's

1245: 293: 257: 107: 5345: 5041: 4706: 4535: 4492: 4482: 4462: 4449: 4390: 4299: 4186: 4081: 4062: 3846:

guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at

3428: 3293: 2361: 641: 633: 591: 502: 494: 476: 416:

Ah, the same editor. There was a discussion about the purpose and need to make proper citations on the [

380: 307: 234: 206: 5073:

Mac is correct, TOL has no interest below subspecies level. However, I will now cross to the AFD page.

3551: 3223:." (2) As Peter noted, there is no central authority for spellings of zoological names, and in a sense 2025:

I think it is a quirk of speciesbox from the way it passes the name to the core with an if conditional:

1916: