![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 35 | ← | Archive 37 | Archive 38 | Archive 39 | Archive 40 | Archive 41 | → | Archive 45 |
I've been spending some time in rodents, and I noticed some of the extant monotypic genera there only list the genus for the title page, but not the species. I know fossil monotypic genera, plant monotyoic genera, and nonvertebrate monotypic genera usually list the genus only, but I thought higher class extant and "recently extinct" vertebrate monotyopic genera (mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, and fish) list both genus and species. I know all extant and "recently extinct" bird species in monotypic genera list genus and species. Before I change any more I thought I'd reach out for any history...... Pvmoutside ( talk) 18:38, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
though I recognise @ Peter coxhead:'s point about this not being the pace. Please note I am not suggesting change of policy here either but want to make some observations with this issue. With monotype genera where there is only a scientific name (no vernacular name exists) it is often the case that I have seen that the page name is the genus name. Personally I think that is not the best method. Taxonomy can change and the thing that should be stable is the species name. We cannot use the species name alone, as homonyms are only an issue if two identically named species are in the same genus. I think you should use the binomen with authors as the title. Then even if the combination changes, requiring a page move, part of the original title will be maintained. I am no fan of vernacular names as titles at all, they are messy, unstable and honestly unprofessional. But that is another topic. I think this is a topic that could use a decent discussion with all viewpoints presented. However this is not the place to do it. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 06:36, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
-- Snek01 ( talk) 11:06, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
for the sake of continuity Speciesbox must be linked to Automatic taxobox of the genus. Taxoboxes are never linked. If you use {{ Speciesbox}} for a species and {{ Automatic taxobox}} for the genus to which the species belongs, monotypic or not, both obtain their taxonomy from the taxonomy template for the genus (at "Template:Taxonomy/GENUS_NAME"). Why is that a problem?? The higher level taxa to which a species belongs are necessarily the same as those to which the genus belongs.
I propose a change in the guideline WP:MONOTYPICFAUNA.
From this (deleted that will be deleted are stroked):
A monotypic taxon is a taxonomic group which only contains a single subgroup (e.g., a genus with only one known species, even a subphylum with one family with one genus). In such a case, the ranks with identical member organisms should not be separated into different articles, and the article (if there is no common name) should go under the scientific name of lowest rank, but no lower than the monotypic genus. Redirects should be created from the other ranks to the actual article.
The species name Myrmecobius fasciatus and its monotypic genus Myrmecobius are both redirects to the article at the common name of the species, Numbat.
The two-species genus Xenoturbella has redirects from the monotypic family Xenoturbellidae and subphylum Xenoturbellida.
The genus Nodocephalosaurus has a redirect from its sole species, Nodocephalosaurus kirtlandensis.
The family Amphionidacea, redirects to its single genus Amphionides, as does the sole species Amphionides reynaudii.
The exception is when a monotypic genus name needs to be disambiguated. The article should then be at the species, since this is a more natural form of disambiguation.
Viator picis with a redirect at Viator (bird) rather than vice versa.
To this:
A monotypic taxon is a taxonomic group which only contains a single subgroup (e.g., a genus with only one known species, even a subphylum with one family with one genus). In such a case, the ranks with identical member organisms should not be separated into different articles, and the article (if there is no common name) should go under the scientific name of lowest rank. Redirects should be created from the other ranks to the actual article.
Could you do all formal things regarding the proposal for updating of guideline page, please? Thanks. -- Snek01 ( talk) 13:47, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
I wrote there Wikipedia:Village_pump_(idea_lab)#MONOTYPICFAUNA_initial_guideline_change_proposal and probably RfC will be fine too. -- Snek01 ( talk) 15:54, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
"should go under the scientific name of lowest rank". Then it introduces the exception
"but no lower than the monotypic genus". Why? When there is a species name it makes no more sense to use a monotypic generic name than a monotypic family name or monotypic order name. This already happens when there is a common name because there is an exception to the exception for this case. Another exception is when there is a need for disambiguation, which would never be the the case with a species name. Use of the species name would avoid the need for the exception or the exceptions to the exception.
As User:IJReid and User:Lusotitan commented in the discussion above, that the guideline WP:MONOTYPICFAUNA should cover prehistoric taxa. It can be done like this. For extant there was deleted "but no lower than the monotypic genus". For prehistoric there were just changed examples:
For extant taxa: A monotypic taxon is a taxonomic group which only contains a single subgroup (e.g., a genus with only one known species, even a subphylum with one family with one genus). In such a case, the ranks with identical member organisms should not be separated into different articles, and the article (if there is no common name) should go under the scientific name of lowest rank. Redirects should be created from the other ranks to the actual article.
For prehistoric taxa: A monotypic taxon is a taxonomic group which only contains a single subgroup (e.g., a genus with only one known species, even a subphylum with one family with one genus). In such a case, the ranks with identical member organisms should not be separated into different articles, and the article (if there is no common name) should go under the scientific name of lowest rank, but no lower than the monotypic genus. Redirects should be created from the other ranks to the actual article.
The species name Myrmecobius fasciatus and its monotypic genus Myrmecobius are both redirects to the article at the common name of the species, Numbat. Add prehistoric example
The two-species genus Xenoturbella has redirects from the monotypic family Xenoturbellidae and subphylum Xenoturbellida. Add example for a monotypic prehistoric family.
The genus Nodocephalosaurus has a redirect from its sole species, Nodocephalosaurus kirtlandensis.
The family Amphionidacea, redirects to its single genus Amphionides, as does the sole species Amphionides reynaudii. Add an similar prehistoric example.
The exception is when a monotypic genus name needs to be disambiguated. The article should then be at the species, since this is a more natural form of disambiguation.
Viator picis with a redirect at Viator (bird) rather than vice versa.
Feel free to modify examples. --
Snek01 (
talk)
21:54, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
See here. ~ Tom.Reding ( talk ⋅ dgaf) 15:42, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
(Initially asked here.)
I have a request on improving taxobox. On a taxobox for a taxa; it should be explicitely mentioned; which system of classification has been used. If a mixture of system has been done (although that is highly unrecommended). It is important because classification systems change; where not only the taxa fusion and splits; but ranks of the taxa sometimes changes; and although quite rarely; rank names too changed. So whenever publish a taxobox; please mention which system of classification is followed. Best if a taxobox contain 2 or 3 columns for the hierarchies according to separate classification systems. This not only improve correctness of the articles; but also will work as better reference and would help literature search. Thanks in advance, RIT RAJARSHI ( talk) 19:37, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
Facto Post – Issue 10 – 12 March 2018
![]() Milestone for mix'n'matchAround the time in February when Wikidata clicked past item Q50000000, another milestone was reached: the mix'n'match tool uploaded its 1000th dataset. Concisely defined by its author, Magnus Manske, it works "to match entries in external catalogs to Wikidata". The total number of entries is now well into eight figures, and more are constantly being added: a couple of new catalogs each day is normal. Since the end of 2013, mix'n'match has gradually come to play a significant part in adding statements to Wikidata. Particularly in areas with the flavour of digital humanities, but datasets can of course be about practically anything. There is a catalog on skyscrapers, and two on spiders. These days mix'n'match can be used in numerous modes, from the relaxed gamified click through a catalog looking for matches, with prompts, to the fantastically useful and often demanding search across all catalogs. I'll type that again: you can search 1000+ datasets from the simple box at the top right. The drop-down menu top left offers "creation candidates", Magnus's personal favourite. m:Mix'n'match/Manual for more. For the Wikidatan, a key point is that these matches, however carried out, add statements to Wikidata if, and naturally only if, there is a Wikidata property associated with the catalog. For everyone, however, the hands-on experience of deciding of what is a good match is an education, in a scholarly area, biographical catalogs being particularly fraught. Underpinning recent rapid progress is an open infrastructure for scraping and uploading. Congratulations to Magnus, our data Stakhanovite! Links![]()
Editor Charles Matthews, for ContentMine. Please leave feedback for him. Back numbers are here. Reminder: WikiFactMine pages on Wikidata are at WD:WFM. If you wish to receive no further issues of Facto Post, please remove your name from
our mailing list. Alternatively, to opt out of all
massmessage mailings, you may add
Category:Wikipedians who opt out of message delivery to your user talk page.
Newsletter delivered by MediaWiki message delivery |
MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 12:26, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
Hi, I'm sure I'm not the first to think of this, so I was wondering if there was a list of natural history museums whose specimen photographs are licensed appropriately for wikipedia? It seems that the Natural History Museum, London and the Museums Victoria are good about having their specimen photographs be CC BY 4.0. The Muséum national d'Histoire naturelle, Paris is inconsistent: some images are CC BY 4.0 and some are CC BY-NC-ND 4.0, but at least the images are clear about which license they have.
Anyone else know other museums whose specimen collections are (a) (to some extent) photographed, digitized, and searchable online and (b) use licences for their images which mean they can be added to Wikimedia Commons? Thanks :) Umimmak ( talk) 03:33, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
As for the Carassius auratus grandoculis article I wrote up and which Pvmoutside blanked and replaced with a redirect to goldfish, could you be more careful and not perform this task mechanically? This was effectively deleting an article, and I dont think I was even notified.
I gather the "subspecies" is not recognized anymore (I think the version of FISHBASE formerly mentioned it, but I cant find it archived). I have accordingly removed the {{ taxobox}} on it, but the main thrust of the article wasn't taxonomy and differentiation (perhaps I should have tagged it as WP:FOOD earlier).-- Kiyoweap ( talk) 04:08, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
Following on from a note by AshLin ( Talk:Physalia_utriculus#Correct taxonomic status?), I'm finding that for quite some time we have been at odds with generally accepted taxonomy regarding Physalia physalis, the Portuguese man-o'-war, and Physalia utriculus, the blue bottle. A 2007 paper synonymized the latter with the former. [1] Personally I find that paper quite unhelpful - apart from being badly written, all conclusions are so artfully hedged that it is really difficult to figure out what they are concluding. Nevertheless, based on that source all the major databases seem to have switched to treating P. utriculus as a junior synonym of P. physalis: WoRMS [2], World Hydrozoa Database [3], Catalogue of Life [4]. Neither can I find any specific rebuttal/criticism of this paper.
How to handle this? Options appear to be a) keep current structure (separate species) and add discussion of reclassification as alternative interpretation, or b) merge the species articles, and also update Physalia. I think the latter is indicated. -- Elmidae ( talk · contribs) 08:54, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
References
I have noticed that some species articles have been created with a redirect to the genus. I will admit it raises my hackles, since it seems pointless (except to make the project seem to have more articles than it does) but is it against a guideline or MOS, such that I would be justified in deleting the redirects? My thinking is that redlinks encourage editing, redirects discourage it. But I hesitate to delete based on my own preferences rather than an established rule. -- TeaDrinker ( talk) 16:39, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
It sounds like there's a shared opinion here that redirects to higher taxonomic levels should be used when the lower taxon is unlikely to ever support an article. Specifically, fossil species which are poorly known scientifically should be made to be redirects to the genus. My personal view is that every species, even fossil species, can support an article (in fact, I have written two articles on species which were known from a single specimen: Anelosimus terraincognita and Pita skate. But I would not stand in the way of consensus. If people feel like we should make a change to the MOS, perhaps we should propose some wording. -- TeaDrinker ( talk) 18:30, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
When I come across species to genus redirects (aside from those for monotypic and paleontological genera) I tag them with (as appropriate) {{ R animal with possibilities}}, {{ R plant with possibilities}} or {{ R taxon with possibilities}}. I also add {{ R from species to genus}} (which is itself a redirect to {{ R from subtopic}}; I use R from subtopic in cases of other ranks redirecting, e.g. tribe to family). Occasionally I come across synonyms or common names that redirect to a higher taxon where no article on the appropriate target species exists yet; I use the same redirect category tags for these, but add a hidden text note identifying the desired target. Add the redirect category tags allows us to keep track of these redirects for eventual conversion to articles (or deletion to encourage article creation via red-links).
I highly recommend that anybody working extensively on Tree of Life articles add a script that colors redirect links distinctly from direct links. It makes it far easier to identify potential genus to species redirects. One option is at User:Anomie/linkclassifier, which uses a variety of colors for various classes of links. Or I have simpler version at User:Plantdrew/common.css which just turns redirect links green. Plantdrew ( talk) 21:16, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
Spotted turtle is monotypic in the genus Clemmys. I was thinking of merging Clemmys into spotted turtle. Thoughts?.... Pvmoutside ( talk) 20:28, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
Given recent events, I plan on expanding
WP:BRFA#Tom.Bot 2's functionality (or creating a separate task (
Tom.Bot 3) to avoid confusion) to include placement of {{
Taxonbar}} on pages on which it's desired, which is what I'd like to determine here. My first guess would be any page which transcludes either {{
Taxobox}}, {{
Speciesbox}}, {{
Automatic taxobox}}, or {{
Oobox}}. If desired, I can also restrict addition of {{
Taxonbar}} to pages which have at least 1 taxon ID on Wikidata (listed
here and
here). ~
Tom.Reding (
talk ⋅
dgaf)
18:58, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
It's worth noting that the proposed tracking Category:Taxonbar template pages without Wikidata taxon IDs ( plug), once enacted, would be useful here, though the prevalence of TPL, EOL, & GBIF makes it slightly less so. So, to try to determine how useful, I've gathered some preliminary stats. Of the bottom 8000 sub-stubs Plantdrew prioritized, and the 3 not-to-be-counted taxon IDs they and Peter coxhead mentioned, this is the distribution of "1+ good IDs", to "only bad IDs", to "no IDs at all": 4624 / 998 / 2378, or 58% / 12% / 30%. Given this info, once the tracking cat is enacted, or possibly before, would putting {{ Taxonbar}} on pages without any taxon IDs be useful, possibly as a queue of pages to find IDs for? ~ Tom.Reding ( talk ⋅ dgaf) 15:15, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
Using only the 51 'good' numbered PIDs which currently exist on Module:Taxonbar/conf, the next 8000 pages gave this distribution of "1+ good IDs", to "only bad IDs", to "no IDs at all": 2133 / 5596 / 271, or 27% / 70% / 3%. Some of this change from the first 8000 may be due to the species/taxon type, but the queue is arranged by page size, so it should be mostly independent of taxon (unless a bot made many similarly-sized articles of a particular genus/family/etc.). Regardless, this will be the configuration going forward, to ensure that {{ Taxonbar}} only gets placed on pages which it will be useful on. I'll keep an eye on Module:Taxonbar/conf for updates. ~ Tom.Reding ( talk ⋅ dgaf) 17:41, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
Bot run complete:
109,403 {{
Taxonbar}}s added. Notable exceptions include these 3 17 redirects with article content:
and 24+ pages with a taxonomic infoboxes but no appropriate Wikidata item that I could find:
and 3 malformed/oddly-worded articles:
Please help resolve these if you can. ~ Tom.Reding ( talk ⋅ dgaf) 16:34, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
FYI I've started a discussion about storing multiple taxons/synonyms on WD at d:Wikidata talk:WikiProject Taxonomy#WD property (or something) for multiple taxons?. ~ Tom.Reding ( talk ⋅ dgaf) 15:14, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
Is there any interest in having a
Category:Articles created by Polbot
Category:Taxonomy articles created by Polbot, to compliment
Category:Articles created by Qbugbot? ~
Tom.Reding (
talk ⋅
dgaf)
18:24, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
18 total Polbot dabs found + 1 set index article (all created with the intent of being an article, not a dab). These are in the vast minority, and they probably shouldn't be lumped together with proper articles anyway, due to different maintenance procedures, expectations, assumptions, etc. (i.e. none of the dabs should have infoboxes, taxonbars, etc.). So I think it's best to exclude them, so as not to confuse/complicate usage of the cat, and prevent drive-by errors.
~ Tom.Reding ( talk ⋅ dgaf) 03:09, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
<!-- This article was auto-generated by [[User:Polbot]]. -->
too. ~
Tom.Reding (
talk ⋅
dgaf)
17:00, 20 March 2018 (UTC)This is largely done, but the database query used to find all these pages is limited to those that have been edited in the last ~3 months, due to how the revision table is produced. I've asked at mw:Talk:Quarry#How to find old pages created beyond the time horizon of the revision table? how to get around this. FYI in case anyone here knows another way. ~ Tom.Reding ( talk ⋅ dgaf) 13:18, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
fjc.gov|list of judges
text, which was after several other steps, so that # could be higher. I'm running a
dedicated query now to look for congress|fjc.gov|list of judges
, from which I'll remove non-mainspace pages & #Rs. It looks like, at most, only ~4,472 pages are missing from the cat, but the problem still is finding them. ~
Tom.Reding (
talk ⋅
dgaf)
14:55, 5 April 2018 (UTC)![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 35 | ← | Archive 37 | Archive 38 | Archive 39 | Archive 40 | Archive 41 | → | Archive 45 |
I've been spending some time in rodents, and I noticed some of the extant monotypic genera there only list the genus for the title page, but not the species. I know fossil monotypic genera, plant monotyoic genera, and nonvertebrate monotypic genera usually list the genus only, but I thought higher class extant and "recently extinct" vertebrate monotyopic genera (mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, and fish) list both genus and species. I know all extant and "recently extinct" bird species in monotypic genera list genus and species. Before I change any more I thought I'd reach out for any history...... Pvmoutside ( talk) 18:38, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
though I recognise @ Peter coxhead:'s point about this not being the pace. Please note I am not suggesting change of policy here either but want to make some observations with this issue. With monotype genera where there is only a scientific name (no vernacular name exists) it is often the case that I have seen that the page name is the genus name. Personally I think that is not the best method. Taxonomy can change and the thing that should be stable is the species name. We cannot use the species name alone, as homonyms are only an issue if two identically named species are in the same genus. I think you should use the binomen with authors as the title. Then even if the combination changes, requiring a page move, part of the original title will be maintained. I am no fan of vernacular names as titles at all, they are messy, unstable and honestly unprofessional. But that is another topic. I think this is a topic that could use a decent discussion with all viewpoints presented. However this is not the place to do it. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 06:36, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
-- Snek01 ( talk) 11:06, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
for the sake of continuity Speciesbox must be linked to Automatic taxobox of the genus. Taxoboxes are never linked. If you use {{ Speciesbox}} for a species and {{ Automatic taxobox}} for the genus to which the species belongs, monotypic or not, both obtain their taxonomy from the taxonomy template for the genus (at "Template:Taxonomy/GENUS_NAME"). Why is that a problem?? The higher level taxa to which a species belongs are necessarily the same as those to which the genus belongs.
I propose a change in the guideline WP:MONOTYPICFAUNA.
From this (deleted that will be deleted are stroked):
A monotypic taxon is a taxonomic group which only contains a single subgroup (e.g., a genus with only one known species, even a subphylum with one family with one genus). In such a case, the ranks with identical member organisms should not be separated into different articles, and the article (if there is no common name) should go under the scientific name of lowest rank, but no lower than the monotypic genus. Redirects should be created from the other ranks to the actual article.
The species name Myrmecobius fasciatus and its monotypic genus Myrmecobius are both redirects to the article at the common name of the species, Numbat.
The two-species genus Xenoturbella has redirects from the monotypic family Xenoturbellidae and subphylum Xenoturbellida.
The genus Nodocephalosaurus has a redirect from its sole species, Nodocephalosaurus kirtlandensis.
The family Amphionidacea, redirects to its single genus Amphionides, as does the sole species Amphionides reynaudii.
The exception is when a monotypic genus name needs to be disambiguated. The article should then be at the species, since this is a more natural form of disambiguation.
Viator picis with a redirect at Viator (bird) rather than vice versa.
To this:
A monotypic taxon is a taxonomic group which only contains a single subgroup (e.g., a genus with only one known species, even a subphylum with one family with one genus). In such a case, the ranks with identical member organisms should not be separated into different articles, and the article (if there is no common name) should go under the scientific name of lowest rank. Redirects should be created from the other ranks to the actual article.
Could you do all formal things regarding the proposal for updating of guideline page, please? Thanks. -- Snek01 ( talk) 13:47, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
I wrote there Wikipedia:Village_pump_(idea_lab)#MONOTYPICFAUNA_initial_guideline_change_proposal and probably RfC will be fine too. -- Snek01 ( talk) 15:54, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
"should go under the scientific name of lowest rank". Then it introduces the exception
"but no lower than the monotypic genus". Why? When there is a species name it makes no more sense to use a monotypic generic name than a monotypic family name or monotypic order name. This already happens when there is a common name because there is an exception to the exception for this case. Another exception is when there is a need for disambiguation, which would never be the the case with a species name. Use of the species name would avoid the need for the exception or the exceptions to the exception.
As User:IJReid and User:Lusotitan commented in the discussion above, that the guideline WP:MONOTYPICFAUNA should cover prehistoric taxa. It can be done like this. For extant there was deleted "but no lower than the monotypic genus". For prehistoric there were just changed examples:
For extant taxa: A monotypic taxon is a taxonomic group which only contains a single subgroup (e.g., a genus with only one known species, even a subphylum with one family with one genus). In such a case, the ranks with identical member organisms should not be separated into different articles, and the article (if there is no common name) should go under the scientific name of lowest rank. Redirects should be created from the other ranks to the actual article.
For prehistoric taxa: A monotypic taxon is a taxonomic group which only contains a single subgroup (e.g., a genus with only one known species, even a subphylum with one family with one genus). In such a case, the ranks with identical member organisms should not be separated into different articles, and the article (if there is no common name) should go under the scientific name of lowest rank, but no lower than the monotypic genus. Redirects should be created from the other ranks to the actual article.
The species name Myrmecobius fasciatus and its monotypic genus Myrmecobius are both redirects to the article at the common name of the species, Numbat. Add prehistoric example
The two-species genus Xenoturbella has redirects from the monotypic family Xenoturbellidae and subphylum Xenoturbellida. Add example for a monotypic prehistoric family.
The genus Nodocephalosaurus has a redirect from its sole species, Nodocephalosaurus kirtlandensis.
The family Amphionidacea, redirects to its single genus Amphionides, as does the sole species Amphionides reynaudii. Add an similar prehistoric example.
The exception is when a monotypic genus name needs to be disambiguated. The article should then be at the species, since this is a more natural form of disambiguation.
Viator picis with a redirect at Viator (bird) rather than vice versa.
Feel free to modify examples. --
Snek01 (
talk)
21:54, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
See here. ~ Tom.Reding ( talk ⋅ dgaf) 15:42, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
(Initially asked here.)
I have a request on improving taxobox. On a taxobox for a taxa; it should be explicitely mentioned; which system of classification has been used. If a mixture of system has been done (although that is highly unrecommended). It is important because classification systems change; where not only the taxa fusion and splits; but ranks of the taxa sometimes changes; and although quite rarely; rank names too changed. So whenever publish a taxobox; please mention which system of classification is followed. Best if a taxobox contain 2 or 3 columns for the hierarchies according to separate classification systems. This not only improve correctness of the articles; but also will work as better reference and would help literature search. Thanks in advance, RIT RAJARSHI ( talk) 19:37, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
Facto Post – Issue 10 – 12 March 2018
![]() Milestone for mix'n'matchAround the time in February when Wikidata clicked past item Q50000000, another milestone was reached: the mix'n'match tool uploaded its 1000th dataset. Concisely defined by its author, Magnus Manske, it works "to match entries in external catalogs to Wikidata". The total number of entries is now well into eight figures, and more are constantly being added: a couple of new catalogs each day is normal. Since the end of 2013, mix'n'match has gradually come to play a significant part in adding statements to Wikidata. Particularly in areas with the flavour of digital humanities, but datasets can of course be about practically anything. There is a catalog on skyscrapers, and two on spiders. These days mix'n'match can be used in numerous modes, from the relaxed gamified click through a catalog looking for matches, with prompts, to the fantastically useful and often demanding search across all catalogs. I'll type that again: you can search 1000+ datasets from the simple box at the top right. The drop-down menu top left offers "creation candidates", Magnus's personal favourite. m:Mix'n'match/Manual for more. For the Wikidatan, a key point is that these matches, however carried out, add statements to Wikidata if, and naturally only if, there is a Wikidata property associated with the catalog. For everyone, however, the hands-on experience of deciding of what is a good match is an education, in a scholarly area, biographical catalogs being particularly fraught. Underpinning recent rapid progress is an open infrastructure for scraping and uploading. Congratulations to Magnus, our data Stakhanovite! Links![]()
Editor Charles Matthews, for ContentMine. Please leave feedback for him. Back numbers are here. Reminder: WikiFactMine pages on Wikidata are at WD:WFM. If you wish to receive no further issues of Facto Post, please remove your name from
our mailing list. Alternatively, to opt out of all
massmessage mailings, you may add
Category:Wikipedians who opt out of message delivery to your user talk page.
Newsletter delivered by MediaWiki message delivery |
MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 12:26, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
Hi, I'm sure I'm not the first to think of this, so I was wondering if there was a list of natural history museums whose specimen photographs are licensed appropriately for wikipedia? It seems that the Natural History Museum, London and the Museums Victoria are good about having their specimen photographs be CC BY 4.0. The Muséum national d'Histoire naturelle, Paris is inconsistent: some images are CC BY 4.0 and some are CC BY-NC-ND 4.0, but at least the images are clear about which license they have.
Anyone else know other museums whose specimen collections are (a) (to some extent) photographed, digitized, and searchable online and (b) use licences for their images which mean they can be added to Wikimedia Commons? Thanks :) Umimmak ( talk) 03:33, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
As for the Carassius auratus grandoculis article I wrote up and which Pvmoutside blanked and replaced with a redirect to goldfish, could you be more careful and not perform this task mechanically? This was effectively deleting an article, and I dont think I was even notified.
I gather the "subspecies" is not recognized anymore (I think the version of FISHBASE formerly mentioned it, but I cant find it archived). I have accordingly removed the {{ taxobox}} on it, but the main thrust of the article wasn't taxonomy and differentiation (perhaps I should have tagged it as WP:FOOD earlier).-- Kiyoweap ( talk) 04:08, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
Following on from a note by AshLin ( Talk:Physalia_utriculus#Correct taxonomic status?), I'm finding that for quite some time we have been at odds with generally accepted taxonomy regarding Physalia physalis, the Portuguese man-o'-war, and Physalia utriculus, the blue bottle. A 2007 paper synonymized the latter with the former. [1] Personally I find that paper quite unhelpful - apart from being badly written, all conclusions are so artfully hedged that it is really difficult to figure out what they are concluding. Nevertheless, based on that source all the major databases seem to have switched to treating P. utriculus as a junior synonym of P. physalis: WoRMS [2], World Hydrozoa Database [3], Catalogue of Life [4]. Neither can I find any specific rebuttal/criticism of this paper.
How to handle this? Options appear to be a) keep current structure (separate species) and add discussion of reclassification as alternative interpretation, or b) merge the species articles, and also update Physalia. I think the latter is indicated. -- Elmidae ( talk · contribs) 08:54, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
References
I have noticed that some species articles have been created with a redirect to the genus. I will admit it raises my hackles, since it seems pointless (except to make the project seem to have more articles than it does) but is it against a guideline or MOS, such that I would be justified in deleting the redirects? My thinking is that redlinks encourage editing, redirects discourage it. But I hesitate to delete based on my own preferences rather than an established rule. -- TeaDrinker ( talk) 16:39, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
It sounds like there's a shared opinion here that redirects to higher taxonomic levels should be used when the lower taxon is unlikely to ever support an article. Specifically, fossil species which are poorly known scientifically should be made to be redirects to the genus. My personal view is that every species, even fossil species, can support an article (in fact, I have written two articles on species which were known from a single specimen: Anelosimus terraincognita and Pita skate. But I would not stand in the way of consensus. If people feel like we should make a change to the MOS, perhaps we should propose some wording. -- TeaDrinker ( talk) 18:30, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
When I come across species to genus redirects (aside from those for monotypic and paleontological genera) I tag them with (as appropriate) {{ R animal with possibilities}}, {{ R plant with possibilities}} or {{ R taxon with possibilities}}. I also add {{ R from species to genus}} (which is itself a redirect to {{ R from subtopic}}; I use R from subtopic in cases of other ranks redirecting, e.g. tribe to family). Occasionally I come across synonyms or common names that redirect to a higher taxon where no article on the appropriate target species exists yet; I use the same redirect category tags for these, but add a hidden text note identifying the desired target. Add the redirect category tags allows us to keep track of these redirects for eventual conversion to articles (or deletion to encourage article creation via red-links).
I highly recommend that anybody working extensively on Tree of Life articles add a script that colors redirect links distinctly from direct links. It makes it far easier to identify potential genus to species redirects. One option is at User:Anomie/linkclassifier, which uses a variety of colors for various classes of links. Or I have simpler version at User:Plantdrew/common.css which just turns redirect links green. Plantdrew ( talk) 21:16, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
Spotted turtle is monotypic in the genus Clemmys. I was thinking of merging Clemmys into spotted turtle. Thoughts?.... Pvmoutside ( talk) 20:28, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
Given recent events, I plan on expanding
WP:BRFA#Tom.Bot 2's functionality (or creating a separate task (
Tom.Bot 3) to avoid confusion) to include placement of {{
Taxonbar}} on pages on which it's desired, which is what I'd like to determine here. My first guess would be any page which transcludes either {{
Taxobox}}, {{
Speciesbox}}, {{
Automatic taxobox}}, or {{
Oobox}}. If desired, I can also restrict addition of {{
Taxonbar}} to pages which have at least 1 taxon ID on Wikidata (listed
here and
here). ~
Tom.Reding (
talk ⋅
dgaf)
18:58, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
It's worth noting that the proposed tracking Category:Taxonbar template pages without Wikidata taxon IDs ( plug), once enacted, would be useful here, though the prevalence of TPL, EOL, & GBIF makes it slightly less so. So, to try to determine how useful, I've gathered some preliminary stats. Of the bottom 8000 sub-stubs Plantdrew prioritized, and the 3 not-to-be-counted taxon IDs they and Peter coxhead mentioned, this is the distribution of "1+ good IDs", to "only bad IDs", to "no IDs at all": 4624 / 998 / 2378, or 58% / 12% / 30%. Given this info, once the tracking cat is enacted, or possibly before, would putting {{ Taxonbar}} on pages without any taxon IDs be useful, possibly as a queue of pages to find IDs for? ~ Tom.Reding ( talk ⋅ dgaf) 15:15, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
Using only the 51 'good' numbered PIDs which currently exist on Module:Taxonbar/conf, the next 8000 pages gave this distribution of "1+ good IDs", to "only bad IDs", to "no IDs at all": 2133 / 5596 / 271, or 27% / 70% / 3%. Some of this change from the first 8000 may be due to the species/taxon type, but the queue is arranged by page size, so it should be mostly independent of taxon (unless a bot made many similarly-sized articles of a particular genus/family/etc.). Regardless, this will be the configuration going forward, to ensure that {{ Taxonbar}} only gets placed on pages which it will be useful on. I'll keep an eye on Module:Taxonbar/conf for updates. ~ Tom.Reding ( talk ⋅ dgaf) 17:41, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
Bot run complete:
109,403 {{
Taxonbar}}s added. Notable exceptions include these 3 17 redirects with article content:
and 24+ pages with a taxonomic infoboxes but no appropriate Wikidata item that I could find:
and 3 malformed/oddly-worded articles:
Please help resolve these if you can. ~ Tom.Reding ( talk ⋅ dgaf) 16:34, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
FYI I've started a discussion about storing multiple taxons/synonyms on WD at d:Wikidata talk:WikiProject Taxonomy#WD property (or something) for multiple taxons?. ~ Tom.Reding ( talk ⋅ dgaf) 15:14, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
Is there any interest in having a
Category:Articles created by Polbot
Category:Taxonomy articles created by Polbot, to compliment
Category:Articles created by Qbugbot? ~
Tom.Reding (
talk ⋅
dgaf)
18:24, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
18 total Polbot dabs found + 1 set index article (all created with the intent of being an article, not a dab). These are in the vast minority, and they probably shouldn't be lumped together with proper articles anyway, due to different maintenance procedures, expectations, assumptions, etc. (i.e. none of the dabs should have infoboxes, taxonbars, etc.). So I think it's best to exclude them, so as not to confuse/complicate usage of the cat, and prevent drive-by errors.
~ Tom.Reding ( talk ⋅ dgaf) 03:09, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
<!-- This article was auto-generated by [[User:Polbot]]. -->
too. ~
Tom.Reding (
talk ⋅
dgaf)
17:00, 20 March 2018 (UTC)This is largely done, but the database query used to find all these pages is limited to those that have been edited in the last ~3 months, due to how the revision table is produced. I've asked at mw:Talk:Quarry#How to find old pages created beyond the time horizon of the revision table? how to get around this. FYI in case anyone here knows another way. ~ Tom.Reding ( talk ⋅ dgaf) 13:18, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
fjc.gov|list of judges
text, which was after several other steps, so that # could be higher. I'm running a
dedicated query now to look for congress|fjc.gov|list of judges
, from which I'll remove non-mainspace pages & #Rs. It looks like, at most, only ~4,472 pages are missing from the cat, but the problem still is finding them. ~
Tom.Reding (
talk ⋅
dgaf)
14:55, 5 April 2018 (UTC)