Wikispecies:Village Pump

; Archives
	;

Welcome to the village pump of Wikispecies.

This page is a place to ask questions or discuss the project. If you need an admin, please see the Administrators' Noticeboard. If you need to solicit feedback, see Request for Comment. Please sign and date your post (by typing ~~~~ or clicking the signature icon in the edit toolbar). Use the Wikispecies IRC channel for real-time chat.

If you're going to critique the work of fellow editors (blatant vandals excepted) in your post on this page, you should notify them, either by mentioning them with a {{Reply to}} template, or with a post on their talk page.

If you insert links to Wikipedia pages in your comments, don't forget the leading colon (:) before the wiki language code (including when you reference a remote user page instead of using a local signature), otherwise it will generate spurious interwiki links collected in the sidebar instead of in the expected location within the discussion. Thanks.

Village pump in other languages:

Taxonomic databases[edit]

At present, the fact is obvious that the system of living organisms is extremely unstable and constantly undergoes changes. However, there is still no clear consensus on Wikispecies and related projects on when a new idea will become mainstream. Nowadays, taxonomic databases updated in real time are widely used. This raises the question of the following: Do we need leading sources on taxonomy?

Since compiling information from a large number of unrelated sources is original research, this is the argument for using databases. Nevertheless, the information in the databases can be partly related to the personal opinions of the authors, or, even worse, be just a dump of the latest scientific data (not always generally accepted). When different databases support the same point of view, this is a very convenient situation, but in fact, very often conflicting information is discarded in them. In such cases, it is not clear which point of view should be considered the main one. WS:PR provides some guidelines for using databases, but the lack of strong rules to refer to can be a source of many conflicts.

For example, WS:PR provides links to databases for individual taxonomic groups, but it is also recommended to use ITIS and BioLib, which have a wider coverage. How should conflicts between different databases be resolved? Another relevant example: the third and final edition of the Mammal Species of the World was published in 2005 and is still often used as a source for mammalian taxonomy. However, there have been many changes in taxonomy over the past 17 years, and both MSW3 editors (D. E. Wilson^[1] and D. M. Reeder^[2]) seem to acknowledge that their summary is out of date. At the same time, in recent years, the ASM Mammal Diversity Database, which is updated in real time, has proven itself, which, perhaps, should displace MSW3 in place of the main source for mammalian taxonomy. It is still unclear how to respond to the gradual obsolescence of MSW3.

Based on the above considerations, I believe that a consensus should be formed, which can also become a recommendation for editors of different language sections of Wikipedia. My opinion is that we really should choose the databases that can be the highest authorities on the classification of individual taxonomic groups. However, as with other sources, information from the databases must be critically reviewed. With the overwhelming prevalence of recent sources promoting the opposite view, the database may not be considered the primary source. HFoxii (talk) 12:43, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

heya yes this is part of what is behind the concept of Global Species Lists of which I acknowledge I am both an author of the many papers around that and a member of the IUBS Working Group on this. I don't think unstable is the right word here, they are changing a lot as the increased development of molecular techniques and their application has brought about many changes and also uncovered significant errors. On choosing a particular checklist/ database over another I would recommend people look at the principals we outlined in our papers starting with Garnett et al. 2020^[3] however there are a series of 6 other relevant publications. Important issues with databases and checklists is who is making them, are they peer reviewed and do they have wide taxon community support. For turtles for example I would suggest the TTWG 2021 checklist is the best, Reptile Database effectively copies it in any case. Birds are problematic though they are endeavoring to fix their problems of have multiple international databases right now. Whatever checklist is chosen must be authoritative, have currency and stability, and lastly have clear methods. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 15:41, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is a critical issue. On what concerns to Aves, IOC and Clements/eBird are, in my opinion, the most reliable and dynamic database sources. ITIS is faraway outdated and no longer should be followed. As our agreement is following IOC, I feel very comfortable about it and I try to be very disciplined when some taxonomic disagreement shows up.--Hector Bottai (talk) 16:58, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am a little hesitant to list all my papers on this important topic, as that is a bit self promotional, @Hector Bottai: I also have a recent paper relevant on the bird issue. Just among raptors there can be up to a 20% difference in the number of species groups recognised, also some taxa are in different genera among the bird lists. The problem in the birdlists stems from the emphasis and pressures upon each list. Birdlife for example is heavily influenced by conservation, hence it has fallen into the trap of recognising many more taxa than IOC with the hope of attracting conservation funding and legislation to populations by elevating them to species. I do think here at Wikispecies we should be using the principles proposed by the IUBS GSLWG perhaps we can have a discussion on the issue, Wikispecies is listed among the global databases recognised by the IUBS. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 17:19, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The w:Global Species List Working Group does have a wikipedia page for those wanting to see their work. Needs a minor update as all the papers are now published. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 20:20, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fully agree with @Faendalimas: on your observation about Birdlife/HBW, they went too far on poor based splits.--Hector Bottai (talk) 17:25, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all,

There is no simple answer to all this. My practice with IRMNG (an analogous project to Wikispecies) is to look for, and if possible designate, a preferred "trusted source" for each taxonomic group or sector and follow that, with the following caveats:

- the preferred "trusted source" may have some internal sectors that are more up-to-date than others (i.e., there may be more recent treatments in the published literature, which can potentially then be followed if not too "bleeding edge" and/or themselves controversial)

- the "trusted source" may have errors (hopefully few), detectable via comparison and critical appraisal as compared with content in other sources

- the "trusted source" may take an editorial stance (which of multiple available options it chooses to follow, for example in the areas of lumping/splitting, taxonomic placement, etc.) with which I as a user may disagree (for example recognising a phylum or class, or lump vs. split that I consider not preferable according to other information, etc.)

Errors and questionable content in any trusted source should preferably be communicated back to the compilers of that source for action as needed, as well (I do this on a semi-regular basis, with a number of such sources).

With some groups such as birds, I recognise that there are multiple competing "trusted sources" that can be followed. In cases such as this I tend to defer to what is currently preferred in the Catalogue of Life, where possible, for pragmatic reasons if nothing else (minimising discrepancies with that compendium in that case, but not necessarily all)...

Examples of "trusted sources" for use in Wikispecies could be added to a relevant lookup page (not sure that https://species.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikispecies:PR is the best place, others may already exist??) and be maintained through time by interested persons, maybe, and discussed on that article's talk page or elsewhere.

As a practical example, for higher taxonomy of extant taxa I take (took) Ruggiero et al's 2015 "higher classification of all living organisms" as my starting point in 2015, but did not implement everything in it (for example keeping Aves as a class, not a subclass of Reptilia) and have also come to implement some subsequent changes following other authors according to my reading of the literature, such as moving Rozellids out of Protozoa into Fungi and a few other cases - each arguable one way or the other, but adopted as my own "editorial view" for IRMNG which may occasionally contrast with the Ruggiero et al. treatment - itself overdue for review of course...

Just my 2 cents worth, hopefully constructive. In an ideal world, databases should follow the literature, not other secondary compilations, but in the real world life is often too short to permit all that taxon-by-taxon effort; however we should hope that most database statements include an "audit trail" so that one can see from where they obtained their information, and then be able to make an assessment as to whether or not it likely represents the current/preferred treatment. Regards - Tony Rees, IRMNG Tony 1212 (talk) 19:21, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe replace "trusted source" with "default treatment" in the paragraphs I wrote above ... in the early days of IRMNG there were definitely "more trusted" vs. "less trusted" sources, now it is not so much a question of trust as of practical preference. Also, "default treatment" adds the connotation that one may on occasion wish to depart from it, hopefully with the rationale explained and appropriate supporting references cited... Cheers Tony Tony 1212 (talk) 21:43, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have mocked up an example page at https://species.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Tony_1212/default_treatments_by_group which gives a suggestion as to how currently used treatments might be documented. If folk like this approach, I could port the content to a "proper" Wikispecies page for real world use... I do not plan to populate it, however in the long term it would be nice if it contained as a starting point, a "complete" list of all potential taxonomic groups that could be covered, according to some over-arching arrangement such as that at https://www.irmng.org/aphia.php?p=browser (my own arrangement - possibly with modifications to be agreed) or any other that editors may prefer... Regards Tony Tony 1212 (talk) 06:15, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

┌─────────────────────────┘ Thanks @Tony 1212: this initiative could help as developed. I will add my pennies worth as far as vascular plants are concerned. IPNI is the definitive database of published names making no judgements as to accepted names, it is not perfect, but if you spot errors or omissions they will rapidly correct - please include the protologue or source it makes updates quicker. World Checklist of Vascular Plants(WCVP) is an emerging peer reviewed database of accepted names and brings together the "RBG Kew" stable of World Checklist of Selected Plant Families(WCSP) and Plants of the World(POWO). Like IPNI the curators are contactable and will edit out mistakes quickly and will update as required, but please note they take a consensus view and will argue for one side of a taxonomic opinion over another. Catalogue of Life(COL) is comprehensive and partially curated, it uses WCSP and other trusted databases, but some of these are are getting dated. Tropicos with it links to database of local flora has merits, although dated in parts. The problem for WS is when, for example POWO shows a difference to COL when it comes to acceptance, but that is a discussion for another time! Regards Andyboorman (talk) 09:07, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I like this table existing, it will be helpful I believe and as developed should be migrated to exist among the help pages, which also need a complete rewrite. I added a comment on your talk page for the table @Tony 1212:. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 17:59, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I have fleshed out the demo table a bit more (animals and plants, more to do), not added any refs back as yet but will work on it further over the next day or so for your comments... Take a look again if interested. Cheers Tony Tony 1212 (talk) 19:41, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I did a bit more work on my "mockup" table, but hunting around I found the page https://species.wikimedia.org/wiki/Help:Project_sources which I think covers essentially the same territory, so making my effort redundant ... so would suggest interested persons simply add their comments and additional recommended sources there... Cheers Tony Tony 1212 (talk) 19:17, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Coming in late as usual :-) but as an aside, "Since compiling information from a large number of unrelated sources is original research" - it isn't, it is derived research. In the context of wikispecies, original research would be actions like publishing a new taxon here - MPF (talk) 10:59, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

- Or taking one side over another when it comes to taxonomic opinions. Andyboorman (talk) 11:37, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this is correct. However, I think everyone agrees that original interpretations of taxonomy based on synthesis from sources that promote opposing points of view are unacceptable. In addition, as mentioned earlier, it would be great if it were possible to form some kind of recommendation that would be applicable to related projects (including Wikipedia). HFoxii (talk) 17:01, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree with @HFoxii:. Making reasoned recommendations favouring one taxonomic opinions over another is not the place of WS, as the site is about reporting taxonomy not debate. Evidence based discussions about taxonomic opinions belong in material to be submitted for consideration by peer reviewed academic press. Fortunately, about 99% of our taxon pages are non-controversial, therefore highlighting those few exceptions in a balanced manner is not too problematical IMHO. Andyboorman (talk) 20:47, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The presence of different interpretations leads to taxonomic chaos. This is a common problem, and although it cannot be solved all at once, certain measures must be taken to solve it. In my opinion, setting a recommendation to use / not use certain databases is the easiest way to make the situation less confusing. Otherwise, we run a great risk of creating original taxonomic interpretations based on conflicting sources. HFoxii (talk) 02:53, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure picking and choosing sources to fit a particular editors view point is the way to go. What about a fellow editor who disagrees taking the opposite view and edits out, so probably leading to an edit war? Andyboorman (talk) 09:23, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with @Andyboorman: here I think it better to maintain lists of available checklists with links to accessing them, in some cases a group may have several good checklists that cover different parts of the group better, its also important to recognise the contributions of local, regional and global lists as well as global taxonomic lists. Determine the currency, stability and authority of the different lists and understand their methodologies. As I said earlier have a set of criteria for using them and perhaps discuss that as a help page. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 13:34, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am not saying that we should ignore opposing points of view. The problem is that when there are conflicting lists for the same taxonomic groups, it can easily lead to an edit war. An example has already been given above. There is currently a real-time updated ASM Mammal Diversity Database (MDD). However, the information on the MDD does not always match the Mammal Species of the World, which is traditionally used as the primary source for mammalian taxonomy. In addition, there is the respected taxonomic list of marine mammals by the Society for Marine Mammalogy. We also have a number of conflicting bird databases. What to do with such contradictions? What point of view should be considered the main one? HFoxii (talk) 02:43, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, all I now propose is to formulate a list of databases recommended for use for certain taxonomic groups. When there are conflicting databases, one should choose which one will have more authority in resolving conflicts. HFoxii (talk) 02:52, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@HFoxii: I can do this for vascular plants from my own experience. How much detail do you need and do you want it posted here on this already crowded thread or will you create a new one? Andyboorman (talk) 08:09, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Andyboorman: Any such contribution is appreciated. Tony 1212 has already started listing default databases for various taxa (although I disagree with him about the widespread use of IRMNG); maybe you should give your opinion on the list's talk page. HFoxii (talk) 07:31, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@HFoxii:@Andyboorman:I started such a table but then stopped it again, see comment above, reproduced here: "I did a bit more work on my "mockup" table, but hunting around I found the page https://species.wikimedia.org/wiki/Help:Project_sources which I think covers essentially the same territory, so making my effort redundant ... so would suggest interested persons simply add their comments and additional recommended sources there... Cheers Tony Tony 1212 (talk) 19:17, 12 January 2022 (UTC)" Tony 1212 (talk) 18:02, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@HFoxii: I will compile a prod and cons list for you soon, but IPNI, WCSP, POWO, COL and Tropicos will always figure in the majority of my reference lists, in addition I have been made aware of new developments at WCVP. Do not use The Plant List, as it has not been updated since 2013. Best regards Andyboorman (talk) 19:58, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For spiders, the World Spider Catalog is the most authoritative source and should always override other databases. Meta-databases such as COL, EOL, and ITIS are only as good as their input databases, which in some cases are low-quality self-published databases that should not be considered authoritative. Personally, I think we should avoid any endorsement of these meta-databases and focus on specialized primary databases. Nosferattus (talk) 18:52, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Refs[edit]

↑ Quote from Introduction to Illustrated Checklist of the Mammals of the World (Wilson is one of the editors of this book[1]): "Overall, reliance on formal taxonomic compendia in mammalian record keeping has often led to delays in the incorporation of systematic revisions. This is exemplified by the continual reference to Mammal Species of the World, Volume 3 (Wilson & Reeder 2005) as the starting point for all taxonomic arrangements in these volume, despite having been published 15 years ago. All vertebrate classes currently have online databases with updatable species lists (e.g., AmphibiaWeb, Reptile Database, AviBase, and FishBase), yet mammals were the exception until the creation of the MDD in 2018. The welcome fact that global Mammalia now has an updatable online database ensures that species-level mammalian taxonomy is more quickly adopted to inform diverse types of research from biodiversity conservation to zoonotic diseases".
↑ D. Reeder is a member of the ASM Biodiversity Committee, which oversees the ASM Mammal Diversity Database[2].
↑ Garnett ST, Christidis L, Conix S, Costello MJ, Zachos FE, Banki OS, et al. (2020) Principles for creating a single authoritative list of the world’s species.PLoS Biol 18(7):e3000736. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pbio.3000736 pdf

Help:Contents[edit]

I was thinking that adding a topic on how to move pages may be useful in the Help:Contents since this is a feature needed anytime taxa are moved to different parent taxa. Possibly expand and go into more detail on templates there also, thoughts? Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 21:20, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think we need to do much more/better than mw:Help:Moving_a_page? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:52, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The act of how to do it no, and that could be linked as additional info but e may need to explain when to move pages because of the specific issue here of nesting taxa under their parents. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 21:58, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think this might be helpful also in relation to wikidata: unless the wikidata link is removed prior to a taxon page move, and then readded against the item for the new combination or equivalent, one wikidata item is likely to end up linked to an assortment of different taxa, as is the case with eg "Baikal Teal", which has links both to Anas formosa and Sibirionetta formosa, whereas my understanding is that each taxon/taxon name should have its own item, with, ideally, only the "right" pages linked, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 22:25, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Maculosae tegmine lyncis: - I'm not sure that's right? The wikidata Baikal Teal page is set to Sibirionetta formosa, with only a link to its protonym Anas formosa, which has a separate wikidata page Anas formosa. It is true that some of the various language wikipedias still use the old name (e.g. Basque language), but that doesn't affect the wikidata page; the rule is that (generally) all the wikipedias about a taxon should all be linked from the same wikidata page, even when different languages use different taxonomies. Or am I misunderstanding and you are meaning something else? - MPF (talk) 01:29, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe that wasn't the best example, either that or as you say. I've just moved Bullockornis planei to Dromornis planei, without removing the wikidata link first; wikidata has two related items, wikidata:Q22111932 "Bullockornis planei" (the protonym) and wikidata:Q106704224 "Dromornis planei" (the new combination); wikispecies is the only other wikimedia site link; since I didn't remove the link before the page move, the wikidata item "Bullockornis planei" is, as a result of the "Automatic Update from Connected Wiki" (upon the wikispecies page move, per the history), now linked to the wikispecies page "Dromornis planei", while the wikidata item "Dromornis planei" has no link at all, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 20:21, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Maculosae tegmine lyncis: - Thanks! I see what you're referring to now. It needs all the links at wikidata to be moved to the new name; I'll do it later today and give you a ping here when I've done - MPF (talk) 10:26, 16 February 2022 (UTC) - and done! - MPF (talk) 11:18, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Maculosae tegmine lyncis: I guess really wikidata:Q136317 Bullockornis ought to be merged in too, but that's trickier, as it also has a page here - MPF (talk) 12:16, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@MPF: Yes, Bullockornis is likely now a synonym of Dromornis, though apparently there was also Bullockornis sp. and eg Mayr, 2017 "still" refers to Bullockornis, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 12:53, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you; what would be ideal is if the wikispecies (now a) redirect Bullockornis planei could also be linked to the wikidata item with this label (I just tried, and I couldn't link the wikispecies redirect); then, were there various language wikipedias linked to the original combination, they could still connect with wikispecies etc (and anyone viewing "Bullockornis planei" on wikidata could arrive at the Dromornis planei wikispecies page with just one click). When (8 Oct) I moved the wikispecies page Myotis muricola caliginosus to Submyotodon caliginosus, the wikidata items wikidata:Q20906887 "Myotis muricola caliginosus" and wikidata:Q19521374 "Submyotodon caliginosus" were seemingly automatically merged; after restoring the version of the "Myotis muricola caliginosus" wikidata item before this automated merger, ie, while it was still linked to the wikispecies page Myotis muricola caliginosus prior to the page move, we seem to be left with this more ideal situation, where one wikidata item is linked to the wikispecies taxon page and the other to the redirect page, but that doesn't really seem like a best practice/universally repeatable way of arriving at this end result, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 12:53, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Maculosae tegmine lyncis: Thanks! Redirects at least usually aren't connected to wikidata items; it does happen sometimes, but I'm pretty sure it's not standard. So I'd not worry about that too much! - MPF (talk) 14:49, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@MPF: Just one more point! (Leaving aside whether or not it was a good move in terms of the taxonomy), if you look at Hydrobates matsudairae (wikidata:Q28122588), moved from Oceanodroma matsudairae (wikidata:Q785281), where the wikispecies pages and the wikidata pages for each name are aligned, the updated wikispecies page is now isolated since it is the only link to the wikidata item "Hydrobates matsudairae", while the wikidata item for the old name "Oceanodroma matsudairae" has links to pages in 27 different language wikipedias; assuming we want wikispecies to be linked in to wikipedia, unless we can somehow link redirects, this effectively discourages page moves, or encourages linking wikispecies to the "wrong" wikidata item, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 15:19, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

i.e., perhaps we need some kind of mechanism whereby we can link wikispecies taxon redirect pages to wikidata items, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 15:22, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Maculosae tegmine lyncis: - yet another wikidata pair to work on! And presumably the commons category, too, and the same for all the other taxa previously in Oceanodroma - it really is getting a complex nuisance to update moves between genera! I did a genus of just 3 species a few months back, and it was a solid 3 hours work disentangling the old links and reconnecting to the new. That's why updates - particularly to widely-known species like birds - are falling so far behind, now (e.g. our treatment of Argya and other genera in Leiothrichidae and related families is woefully out of date, both here and at Commons). It was never this bad before wikidata got its claws into everything :-( MPF (talk) 15:58, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@MPF: Hours of link maintenance in such cases simply isn't a workable solution - less Herculean users simply won't do it, and as you say, there are many pages to be updated, not to mention those that don't yet exist. There has to be some kind of software-based solution, similar to the ability to add the Commons category property to a wikdata item (so that one more than one wikipedia page can see a link in the left-hand margin to one and the same Commons category), except we want also to look out from wikispecies to articles across various wikipedias, potentially linked to a number of different wikidata items. Perhaps some kind of system where in wikidata you link the items for the various items/combinations, then, to generate the links in the left-hand margin, there is a sweep of all links to related/connected items. That, something else, or, as can presumably be done with the current software, to have only one wikidata item for Baikal teal, and include on that one item the information that is currently spread across the Anas formosa and Sibirionetta formosa items (is there a benefit of having this split? as far as I can see, there is only the one wikidata:Q1405 item "Augustus" even though he is referred to as Octavian before 27 BC, and he changed families), Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 16:37, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Another option, with at least two benefits, would be, instead of moving pages when there is an update, to maintain the page with the old taxon name and create an additional page with the new taxon name, noting on the page for the old combination, perhaps with a redirect/synonym/pointer template at the top and a link in the taxonavigation section, that there is a new combination; this would mean both pages could be linked to wikidata, and via that to the various language wikipedias, and have the benefits of (1) being something that could be decided upon and (gradually) actioned entirely within wikispecies; and (2) allowing eg type information, where there are two descriptions using different material which are subsequently deemed to relate to the same species, to be maintained for each (in a few years there may be new analytical methods which would warrant a revisit of the old material etc). Are there any obvious drawbacks with this? Thanks, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 22:50, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am all for the creating of all synonyms so that we become fully a registry of names which should be our desired goal (which in itself would be an enormous task), but not all combinations our species pages are nested you want them sitting under incorrect genera? Artificially inflating the metrics on genera. The nomenclature here is used, not just by wikidata, but by international checklists, nomenclatural research works etc. This would be a direct negative on the currency and traceability of our data as has been recognized by external organizations such as the IUBS. It will be never ending, taxonomy is a fluid science, names are not stable from a nomenclatural perspective in combination and are not meant to be. If there are two descriptions at same level, eg species, then you are dealing with synonyms, currently synonyms are generally redirects, as are changed combinations. I could not support keeping combinations does more harm to wikispecies than any benefit for wikidata. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 03:14, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is that different from your point here that we should have pages for all names/synonyms, with the full data, rather than redirects? Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 03:31, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

no, your asking us to keep pages when we move them, ie create a dublicate page under the new combination, combinations are not synonyms. I said above I am all for creating synonyms that are in their original combination and linked to their senior synonym. That is very different to what your asking. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 13:43, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

~~It looks like I explained badly what I was trying to mean - I think I'm trying to say what you are saying, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 13:58, 17 February 2022 (UTC)~~ Following w:Synonym (taxonomy) and Help:Name section#Synonyms or Synonymy , are you saying the Synonyms subheading on eg Macaca fuscata is wrong, because this list combines synonyms sensu stricto with combinations? We could get round the above issue of "inflating the metrics on genera" either by omitting the taxon pages for historic combinations from the genus page, or by listing them as species excludendae, which might serve users well by enabling them to find on the genus page the taxon they may be looking for, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 14:11, 17 February 2022 (UTC) Or a nova et vetera nomina section, as on Felis, Felis chaus, and Phorusrhacidae (in collapsed box), which also shows some of the history of the taxon (and is a great help, not least re completeness, when compiling the page), without inflating the number of currently recognized species, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 14:20, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No the synonymy on the page should be called the synonymy I am not referring to that, a synonymy is a list of synonyms ordered by priority and can only include available names listed by priority. You seem to be confusing mononomials and binomials. The species name only refers to the mononomial species epithet, what genus name it is in combination with is the binomial. Our pages are main-spaced under the binomial name, so if a species changes genus we move the page to reflect that, we generally leave a redirect but that's all. We need them to be redirects as that makes a search go to the current page. The species Emydura macquarii was originally described as Emys macquarii later being moved to Chelemys macquarii before finally to Emydura I think we should have a page for Emys macquarii as that is the original combination but we do not need a page for Chelemys macquarii, this would add extra work and confusion. The original combination would be linked to from the species page not the genus. You need to separate the Genus from the Species names for nomenclature. The species name stays the same for the most part (gender can effect spelling in some names) irrespective of the genus, the genus is for context. Genera should only be linked to valid (zoology) species names we cannot just create duplicate pages of species pages that are being moved named for their new genus. This was not about the metrics for Wikidata or even within Wikimedia its for the primary users of this database of names, which is checklists, taxonomists and many people who do not generally even use Wikipedia. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 15:31, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking the time and trouble to explain/elaborate; just two points (though I would have thought listing, under the Synonyms/Synonymy heading, names used and subsequently found to be unavailable might have some benefit in terms of completeness/comprehensibility), (1) "we cannot just create duplicate pages of species pages that are being moved named for their new genus" - if, before the Emydura move, we were to have had both Emys macquarii and Chelemys macquarii (of course they wouldn't be exact duplicates, as some of the information and links would likely be different), would it not be a little like that; and (2) "this would add extra work and confusion" - that's a starting point for this part of the discussion, in that a user above said they spent three hours fixing the links for three species, which means it might be significantly less work to have multiple pages; the alternative is to move pages, likely without removing the wikidata link first, which potentially adds confusion to that project, plus results, as in the Hydrobates/Oceanodroma example above, in an effectively orphaned page within the wiki world (so wikispecies users cannot easily click through to the related article in the language of their choice etc). I don't know whether it's much of a disservice for some users, while there may be a benefit for others. Over to others on this though. Thanks, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 16:15, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your using the generalized wiki concept of the terms synonyms and synonymy, these are actually two different things both defined by nomenclatural codes, which we follow here. Synonyms are all available (zoology) names of a currently valid (zoology) taxon. A synonymy is a list of synonyms ordered according to the relevant code in terms of priority. These are not the same thing. I have no issue with people listing unavailable names in there, as long as they are identified as such, particularly if they have been used.

The content of the page is not the point and is irrelevant. It is the name space that is a duplicate. Chelemys macquarii is identical to Emydura macquarii the names because only the macquarii part is important from a nomenclatural point of view. It will create search and data-mine issues. You can always link your wikidata items to the redirects if you wish, though I imagine that will be problematic. I sympathize with the issue but I don't agree with the solution, and I am not sure your really understanding what this project is doing. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 16:58, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In terms of the use, or otherwise, which is made of this place by the pros, it looks like the entire team, including any editorial assistants etc, on this one: DOI: 10.1111/zoj.12397 could have saved themselvs a lot of bother by spending five seconds typing Bellulia into the wikispecies search box, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 20:25, 17 February 2022 (UTC) [reply]

I have raised a query on wikidata to see if anyone there can think of a workable solution, thanks, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 18:26, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Since it doesn't look like it has been brought up already, Wikidata's WikiProject Taxonomy explains why there are items for each species name combination. It seems the goal here is to make Wikidata neutral wrt accepted names, but obviously this has made linking the items to Wikipedia (in all languages) and Wikispecies rather complicated. I understand their reasoning but nevertheless it has frustrated me too as well as many others of course. (I would have added more but then it risks looking like a rant, to be honest) Monster Iestyn (talk) 19:24, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not trying to make Wikidata do anything, though you have a typo above "wrt" so am not clear what you were saying there. I am familiar with the Taxonomy Project there I do edit on Wikidata a bit, I admit not a lot. In the IUBS working group papers we listed all the major list aggregators that could or are in the act of going global. We examined Wikipedia, Wikidata and Wikispecies among those. But we only listed Wikispecies. There were reasons for that. If you wish to know why message me. But I cannot discuss that on here. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 20:10, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I was using "wrt" to mean "with respect to", sorry about that. Monster Iestyn (talk) 20:12, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ahh that makes more sense sorry used to acronyms being caps. At present its hard enough to get all taxa covered, get all the names in, combinations apart from the original and the currently accepted have little relevance in nomenclature and should only be in the synonymy. So they tend to be made into redirects or often as not effectively deleted by being moved without a redirect. Though I would encourage people to leave the redirect for combination changes. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 20:19, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks; there may be a work-around, but it's probably not ideal - is it possible to transfer the history without moving the page? If one creates a page, links it to wikidata, then creates a new page, links that to wikidata, then redirects the old page to the new, wikidata already has a link to both pages, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 22:59, 18 February 2022 (UTC) cf. Category:Redirects connected to a Wikidata item[reply]

@Maculosae tegmine lyncis, Faendalimas: “You can always link your wikidata items to the redirects if you wish, though I imagine that will be problematic.” That approach is preferred by many w.r.t. the “Bonny and Clyde problem” for the Wikipedias. The technical fix of allowing links to redirects via the Wikidata UI has been discussed repeatedly, but meets heavy resistance from some quarters. It was a community wish that garnered a good number of votes this year, but didn't make the selection of top wishes. m:Community Wishlist Survey 2022/Wikidata#Allow adding sitelink to redirect in Wikipedia section. Is there some way a bot could be coded to add special Wikidata handling for Wikispecies page moves? (e.g. create item for new name/combination, link old name to redirect page) That would fix incoming sitelinks to Wikispecies, but for outgoing you would still need to move all the sitelinks from the old-name item to the new-name item (or add manual sitelinks to override Wikidata). Absent some special back-end magic, I think a dedicated Wikispecies instruction page for page-moves and redirects would be warranted, that covers cases such as genus splits (move page to new binomial combination and re-link Wikidata), name brought into synonymy (merge content and redirect synonym to accepted name), etc. ⁓ Pelagic (talk) 17:35, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A partial work-around is possible, as may be seen on Oceanodroma matsudairae, (the redirect page of this name, not the page to which it redirects; see the history); by replacing the redirect with holding text such as "a", the page becomes something that can be linked to wikidata, then once the link is made, the redirect can be (re-)instated. This means that the rest of the wiki world can potentially link via wikidata to the up-to-date page on wikispecies, but still from wikispecies there are no/limited links to the rest of the wiki world, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 17:13, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Increasing usability the TNU, taxonomic name usage.[edit]

I am keen to see Wikispecies continue to have relevance and not only be desirable but a useful option for many specialists. As such I think there are several things we need to change. Our primary users are not other wikimedia projects though we are linked to by Wikidata and also many Wikipedia pages. However we actually have within our grasp the potential for something so unique no other checklist does it on a global scale. The IUBS Global Species Working Group and ZooBank as well as many checklists from around the world are using Wikispecies and recognising our input. As I said though to continue this we must be unique. The IUBS is proposing that the Global List of Species that is currently being developed will be COL+ and all their work is going towards that. Hence we need to do things that COL+ does not do. The Catalogue of Life is a list of species with the name and synonyms and and original refs etc. That is all. What I think we need to do is clarify some of our datapoints. The first one I think we can do is start using TNUs instead of Name. A TNU is formatted slightly differently and I will lay out an example here of what I think we should do. First up please look at the paper Pyle et al. 2021 for more details I will acknowledge I am a coauthor of this, I am also the Secretary of the IUBS GSLWG. TNUs formatted correctly will be searchable and in one line explain the exact start and end point nomenclaturally of every taxon. We need to be relevant nomenclaturally. This means we need to list all names. This format was proposed as Scientific name NomenclaturalAuthor sec. TreatmentAuthor by Berendsohn (1995) and the are single words and used in many databases such as ZooBank, this means we can code these also. The format of a TNU is this:

Elseya (Pelocomastes) albagula Thomson et al. 2006 sec. Thomson et al. 2015.

I am using a species I named because its easier to demonstrate. Note the two papers are not the same, it is referring to the original description and the paper that last changed its nomenclature. That is I named the species Elseya albagula in 2006 but then in 2015 I resurrected Pelocomastes as a subgenus and assigned this species to it. My original paper is not in parentheses because its a subgenus, if it is deemed a genus eventually my original description will be. We also should be creating pages for Protnyms (Pyle, 2004)[3] or declaring them as such if they are one. To start with the important one is the TNU, Protonyms also helpful. The term sec. is short for the Latin secundum meaning following or according to. So is refering to the treatment. There would be some work in it, some of it could be automated. Basically within the taxon account we would see the following for the example I gave above:

{{int:TNU}}: Elseya (Pelocomastes) albagula Thomson et al. 2006 sec. Thomson et al. 2015.

Yes I have replaced name with TNU for the page but that could be optional the format is more important. Anyway I would appreciate peoples thoughts on this, if this would be better served as a request for comment feel free to do this. The important thing here is Wikispecies needs to carve out a niche separate to COL+. Which I think we can do. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 12:12, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Two uniqueness points I can see would be (1) having a bank of related images and narrative articles in multiple languages but a click away - and, where eg there is a BHL link for the page number in the name section, an immediate link to the original description/literature supporting the claim (especially authorship dates in the literature are often wrong), similarly but a click away; and (2) in terms of how we're structured relative to eg fossilworks - it looks like that allows one parent for each taxon, which is fine where there is no dispute, but where there are competing views, we can cater for these via a secundum x, secundum y section. Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 18:53, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fossilworks is being migrated to PBDB to my knowledge its not being updated, PBDB still has some taxa missing and for those you need to go to fossilworks for now but eventually it ill all be ported. At least thats my understanding of hat they are doing. One of the purposes of the moves towards global lists is to get rid of competing views which cause confusion. There should only be one parent taxon and in the vast majority of cases that is true, there are some that are debated, but then its important to look at why there is a debate. People do generally add images when they are available (remembering these are subject to copywrite) on commons, either directly or via Wikidata which is good. Narrative articles are the domain of the Wikipedia Projects, we should link to them more. Dates are generally correct at least in Zoology as to be available in zoology all papers after 1930 must be dated under the ICZN Code. Some older papers can be problematic but its not common. In Botany however this is not a requirement so can be an issue there. The BHL link for papers when available is actually easy as if you put in the ZooBank LSID when available clicking on that will also bring up the BHL page, if its available. ZooBank is directly linked to BHL. But yes I think if we can find them a link to obtain any pages on protonyms in particular should be on the page, wherever it is, subject to copywrite. Good points though. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 19:53, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Additionnally, it is a merit of Wikispecies, that it links to the full author names with their own author pages. So it is a database for taxa, AND also for taxonomists and their work. --Thiotrix (talk) 11:12, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Forgive me, I'm not a Wikispecies regular, nor a professional taxonomist. Is the “sec.” notation for zoology equivalent to the “(author1) author2, year” notation for botany (e.g. “Angophora costata (Gaertn.) Britten, 1916”)? And is the plan to retain the detailed bullet list in section Elseya albagula#Synonyms? On distinguishing Wikispecies from the competition: WoRMS is doing a good job of adding references and links out to supporting literature. Where the original description has a scanned book on BHL, a direct link to the right page would be very convenient, in addition to linking the first page of the article within the volume. Tracking down sources is a huge job, but including them should be part of the gold standard. WoRMS also lists both “accepted” and “non-accepted” names. How should we handle things when “acceptance” is disputed? Leave that to a long-form explanation on Wikipedia? The other thing that few databases handle is taxonomic concepts, where different circumscriptions bear the same name. For example Crassostrea sensu Salvi & Mariottini 2016 (sensu stricto after removal of species to Magallana) is a different entity from, say, Crassostrea sensu Iredale 1913. The nomen “Crassostrea Sacco, 1897” is identical, having the same type taxon and original description, but the groups of organisms included is very different. Avibase has a rich set of entries: compare https://avibase.ca/B69BC028 Tyto [alba or javanica] s.l. versus https://avibase.ca/96B91A68 Tyto alba s.s. I'm not saying we should have a separate page for each circumscription, but how about a section that lists them? Pelagic (talk) 19:24, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, I'm noobsplaining or “teaching grandma to suck eggs”. I now see that Scott's article with Pyle et al. has a lengthy section about “A list of asserted circumscriptions?”! Pelagic (talk) 22:35, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Pelagic: apologies yes I am a professional taxonomist and directly involved in the global assessments of the quality of taxonomic lists, aka checklists, so the we can work towards a far more stable situation with species names. If your interested I can send you all the papers we have done for this goal. The sec. notation is used for the development of TNU's which are a relatively new concept and applicable to all codes. The sec. separates the original author from the treatment author, ie the person who put it in its current genus for species. In an original description the name is called a protonym as its in its original spelling and combination and hence the original author and treatment author are the same. I am trying to be careful with the jargon but some of it is unavoidable if anyone needs more explanation please ask. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 00:33, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Faendalimas. I understood better after reading the whole article that you linked. (I found myself a few times asking “but what about x?” partway through, then found that issue x was well addressed further on.) I guess the significant TNUs chosen to represent (taxonomic concepts / circumscriptions / congruent TNU sets) will arise through the normal academic process where some get cited more than others. Secundum seems less intuitive to me than sensu; I'm about to read Berendsohn 1997 [4] to learn why “sec.” is preferred. I'll post a separate dot-point below about stricto and lato. Best regards, Pelagic (talk) 18:51, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Faendalimas: just made a kind of experimentation with Ophiura plana (Lütken & Mortensen, 1899) Meissner, 1901. Christian Ferrer (talk) 10:37, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- @Christian Ferrer: yes I have started doing this in places too, eg Mesoclemmys dahli, however, part of my intent here is to rename the Name section to Taxon Named Unit (TNU) for those taxa its done for. But as this would go against current style and section name policies I have not done that, plus that title would have to be made available as an int. Hence I opened this discussion. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 06:15, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I propose an extension to the notation. Very often an author will use the taxon name with two different senses in the same place. This creates two separate TNUs that would have the same label. To distinguish the two, we could write “binomial orig-author s.s./s.l. sec. usage-author”. For example, does “Gehyra australis (Gray, 1845) sec. Oliver et al. 2020”[5] refer to pre-split “G. australis complex” sensu lato, or to the redefined G. australis sensu stricto? Allowing the extra qualifier gives us two distinct labels for the different circumscriptions:
— Gehyra australis (Gray, 1845) s.l. sec. Oliver et al. 2020
— Gehyra australis (Gray, 1845) s.s. sec. Oliver et al. 2020
Thoughts / comments? Pelagic (talk) 19:43, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Navigation templates - obr & cbr[edit]

Hello, {{obr}} & {{cbr}} now exist, and can be used similarly to {{fbr}} and {{gbr}}, but instead, respectively, in a template for an ordo and for a cladus/anything else; examples of these in use may be found at Template:Gaviiformes and Template:Tyrannoraptora, thanks, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 19:42, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Literature link templates - error[edit]

Hello, something has gone wrong with Category:Literature link templates - it has lots of extraneous entries which I'm pretty sure used not to be there; does anyone know what happened/how to fix it? Thank you, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 00:54, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

{{Ptax}} didn't have noinclude around the category. I just added noinclude to that, and I think that might have now fixed it. Monster Iestyn (talk) 02:27, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

...well, mostly fixed, some reference templates have had the category accidentally substituted into themselves. But they can be fixed manually, and there aren't many of those now at least. Monster Iestyn (talk) 02:30, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed [[Category:Literature link templates]] from eleven reference templates where it had been added by mistake. I think that's all of the "wrong" ref. templates listed in the category. The category still lists some of the authors linked to by those eleven templates, but I hope those authors are going to be automatically removed as soon as the server cache catches up. If not then I've missed something, in which case you're all welcome to help. :-) Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 05:40, 21 February 2022 (UTC).[reply]

Resolved. Everything seems okay now. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 05:59, 21 February 2022 (UTC).[reply]

Image dispute[edit]

Neonauclea reticulata images have wrong label? https://wikidata.org/wiki/Talk:Q11122547

Clarification required... Outermayo (talk) 10:53, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've renamed all the image files at Commons to Neonauclea truncata, as per their Taiwanese origin. They are of a cultivated plant, not natural, so there is a slight chance they could be N. reticulata introduced from the Philippines, but I'd suspect this is a fairly low risk - MPF (talk) 21:15, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Outermayo: Thank you for joining discussion. Sometimes, like this time, we will face cases where native range information found in databases (e.g. POWO, IUCN Red List) and region described in images do not agree. In such cases, we had better suspect that misapplication of scientific name occurs. As of this plant, such misapplication has been repeated so many times like I have listed in this entry, as if it were tradition. I know there still exists concern such as MPF expressed, but the first description of Nauclea truncata (Hayata 1911: 140) states that N. truncata is different from N. reticulata (whose holotype we can see at Kew Herbarium Catalogue and JSTOR) by obovate leaves with short acute apex and his description matches well the images of Taiwanese 欖仁舅 at Commons. --Eryk Kij (talk) 11:26, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Outermayo and エリック・キィ: What would also be useful here, is if someone could visit some wild origin specimens of the two taxa, and upload photos of them at Commons - using photos of cultivated plants of unknown source origin is not good practice! - MPF (talk) 11:36, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Remember to Participate in the UCoC Conversations and Ratification Vote![edit]

You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki.

More languages • Please help translate to your language

Hello everyone,

A vote in SecurePoll from 7 to 21 March 2022 is scheduled as part of the ratification process for the Universal Code of Conduct (UCoC) Enforcement guidelines. Eligible voters are invited to answer a poll question and share comments. Read voter information and eligibility details. During the poll, voters will be asked if they support the enforcement of the Universal Code of Conduct based on the proposed guidelines.

The Universal Code of Conduct (UCoC) provides a baseline of acceptable behavior for the entire movement. The revised enforcement guidelines were published 24 January 2022 as a proposed way to apply the policy across the movement. A Wikimedia Foundation Board statement calls for a ratification process where eligible voters will have an opportunity to support or oppose the adoption of the UCoC Enforcement guidelines in a vote. Wikimedians are invited to translate and share important information. For more information about the UCoC, please see the project page and frequently asked questions on Meta-wiki.

There are events scheduled to learn more and discuss:

A community panel on 18 February 2022 at 15:00 UTC shares perspectives from small- and medium-sized community participants.
The Movement Strategy and Governance (MSG) team is hosting Conversation Hours on 25 February 2022 at 12:00 UTC and 4 March 2022 at 15:00 UTC. Please sign-up for these conversation hours to interact with the project team and the drafting committee about the updated enforcement guidelines and the ratification process. See the Conversation Hour summaries for notes from 4 February 2022.

You can comment on Meta-wiki talk pages in any language. You may also contact either team by email: msgwikimedia.org or ucocprojectwikimedia.org

Sincerely, Movement Strategy and Governance
Wikimedia Foundation
--SOyeyele (WMF) (talk) 12:26, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Loves Folklore is extended till 15th March[edit]

Please help translate to your language

Greetings from Wiki Loves Folklore International Team,

We are pleased to inform you that Wiki Loves Folklore an international photographic contest on Wikimedia Commons has been extended till the 15th of March 2022. The scope of the contest is focused on folk culture of different regions on categories, such as, but not limited to, folk festivals, folk dances, folk music, folk activities, etc.

We would like to have your immense participation in the photographic contest to document your local Folk culture on Wikipedia. You can also help with the translation of project pages and share a word in your local language.

Best wishes,

International Team
Wiki Loves Folklore

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:50, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cristóbal [María or Mariá] Hicken[edit]

Cristóbal María Hicken has been marked for merger with Cristóbal Mariá Hicken, by new user Vanbasten 23. Which is the correct spelling? Is the other a typo, or a name that was published? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:55, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would say Cristóbal María Hicken is correct spelling, based on an Argentinian website independent of any of us here. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 21:12, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Pigsonthewing: I came because Wikidata. I found two elements and i need to merge them. Thanks. --Vanbasten 23 (talk) 21:14, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Scott, especially after considering their respective Wikidata items, which can be found here:

Q110858619 – our "Cristóbal María Hicken". No Wikidata links to other Wikimedia projects. Wikidata item was created by User:Neferkheperre in February 8, 2022‎.
Q5555788 – our "Cristóbal Mariá Hicken". Wikidata item include links to Spanish WP es:Cristóbal María Hicken and Portuguese WP pt:Cristóbal María Hicken (note orthography of "María"). Wikidata item was created by a deWP-based bot in February 28, 2013, already then spelling the name "Cristóbal María Hicken".

Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 21:18, 22 February 2022 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks all. Merge completed, here and on Wikidata. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:38, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Selbyana[edit]

The journal Selbyana now purports to be "open access" - with a default CC by-nc licence, including all back issues. Do we flag such licences on our pages about journals? If so, how? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:51, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No we don't, but I think we should. I propose we add a non-mandatory Open access: line to the lists on our journal pages (below the journal's title, years of activity, place of publication, etc.) followed by either "CC-by-etc.", "no", "unkown" and so forth as values. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 18:30, 23 February 2022 (UTC).[reply]

I also agree we should, could probably make it a simple to use template also if you wanted. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 18:34, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

and its family are available. Andyboorman (talk) 20:06, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I had forgotten about the Access templates but yes @Andy, you're of course right. The

,

and legacy

templates all have mouse-over functions with explanatory text. If preferred more details can be added e.g. *License: {{Access|open}} CC BY-NC. Many of our journal pages use bold text for the lists "header" which for the above example would be rendered as

License: CC BY-NC

The phrase "Open access" is shown if hovering the mouse cursor over the lock icon. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 23:33, 23 February 2022 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks, all. For convenience, those templates are written as: {{Access|open}}, {{Access|closed}}, {{Access|hybrid}} and {{Access|green}}. I would be wary of using the term "Open" alongside a licence with an NC restriction, the "access" qualifier notwithstanding. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:51, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

┌─────────────────────────┘ Agreed. An exclusively "non commercial" license most certainly doesn't mean that it's "open" for all purposes. Thank you for your edits an valuable input. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 13:11, 24 February 2022 (UTC).[reply]

Block me[edit]

I was an accidental disruptive editor. I admit. See my user page. --Fragguni9989 —The preceding undated comment was added 01:59, 25 February 2022 (UTC) by Fragguni9989 (talk • contribs)[reply]

Done —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:07, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Variants on Template:Image - † / no italics[edit]

Hello, Template:ImageR(egular), Template:ImageE(xtinct), and Template:ImageER(xtinct & regular) have been created with similar functionality to Template:Image but to display the text in the caption, respectively, (1) in regular/non-italics; (2) with †; and (3) with † and in regular/non-italics. This means that, as used in Suchia, an unspecified image can be pulled from wikidata via the template while formatting the caption correctly. Assuming no objections, I'll update the template documentation pages accordingly, thanks, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 16:31, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou for this initiative. A word of caution. Images pulled from WD will not have a species level caption and therefore, in my opinion, are of little or no use for taxa above species level. Andyboorman (talk) 16:40, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Maculosae tegmine lyncis: I agree with Andy Boorman. Also, generally we only use the dagger † symbol for extinct taxa in the "Taxonavigation" section. Not in the "Name" sections or in image captions, and of course not in the "Synonyms" sections either. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 16:49, 25 February 2022 (UTC).[reply]

Re that point, should the dagger † be used with the type species? Perhaps those two should be deleted then, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 17:04, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I also more or less agree... I guess, where an image exists, we should be linking to it and specifying the species or equivalent in the caption; presumably it would be possible to create a Template:Image2 (or equivalent), altering the order of the parameters, which would allow one to name the species/amend the caption while still pulling the image direct from wikidata - but I guess this could be an issue where the image in wikidata is then changed; what I largely had in mind was instances where there is as yet no image in Commons, and sometimes Template:Image is added so that, were an image later to be uploaded and added to the wikidata item, it would be available to see (eg Eomysticetidae) - but for taxa above genus, the caption would then be displayed incorrectly in italics, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 17:04, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I propose we delete them. Furthermore I've edited the image code on the Suchia page: it's still the same picture, but now the caption shows the name of the depicted species since I argue that a picture of two crocodiles doesn't really "depict" the whole cladus... That also points out the main problem: For taxa above species level the caption will always be wrong (in respect to what the picture shows), unless added manually. So for genus and higher taxa we should always add the picture + taxon name manually, at least until we find a better solution. Whether we show an incorrect caption in plain text or the same incorrect caption in italics is very much a secondary problem – it's more important to get the actual names right. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 17:31, 25 February 2022 (UTC).[reply]

I agree with @Tommy Kronkvist: here there are numerous issues with auto-adding of images, when it works fine, but you need to check and it many times does not. Additional issues are so many species are misidentified on Commons, I have moved 100s of images that were incorrect. I am not sure how WD handles that, I assume they update eventually. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 17:36, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree with @Tommy Kronkvist: I keep coming across {{image}} added to taxa above species and having to either delete the template or search for a better accurately named image. The template more often than not was added, in good faith, by a uncontrolled bot - ouch! Manual expert driven control of images on WS, Commons and WD should be the norm. Andyboorman (talk) 20:43, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

One more for agreeing we should show a named species, not an unspecified member of a clade. I'd additionally suggest that, wherever possible, the image should show a specimen of the type species - that way, the image doesn't need to change, if the circumscription of the clade changes. @Faendalimas: when you find a misidentified pic at Commons, it's always worth checking its page usage, and change it yourself (particularly so if it appears on WD!). True it can be tedious changing an image with hundreds of usages on 50 or more wikipedias, but you can't rely on the error being picked up, so it is worth doing (just as a random example, here's my list of contributions on Ukrainian wikipedia ... spot the 'replace misidentified image' summaries :-)) - MPF (talk) 21:20, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou @MPF: Andyboorman (talk) 21:56, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@MPF: I do and if you look at my contributions on several wikis, eg Japanese, these are all updates for images I have never edited those wikis for any other reason. I am not the only page mover. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 22:06, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent :-)) MPF (talk) 23:13, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

{{Reflist}}[edit]

Hello, I experimented in two pages the use of {{Reflist}}, <ref name="refname1" /> and <ref name="refname1"></ref>: Pseudopolydora and Ophiuroglypha plana.

Good or bad idea? Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:58, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bad, in my opinion. It adds extra line breaks to the "References" section that doesn't look very good and makes the references harder to read. Also, a corresponding reference to for example "Czerniavsky, 1881" in the "Name" section will be very easy to find in the "References" section, even without the use of Wikipedia-style {{Reflist}} and <ref...> tags. I think that our current system for presenting references is already complicated enough – lets not make it even harder for our new users by adding yet more elements. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 02:43, 28 February 2022 (UTC).[reply]

(As a side note, neither the Ophiuroglypha plana nor the Ophiuroglypha plana page use the format described in the Wikispecies Help:Name section guideline. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 02:52, 28 February 2022 (UTC).[reply]

What exactly should be amended for that they be in line? Christian Ferrer (talk) 06:00, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Ferrer: Have a look at the Full example in the Help:Name section guideline and you'll see that there should be no indentations in it (and no bullet symbols except for lists of synonyms). Personally I think we may need to discuss and perhaps change all this, but right now that's the recommended format. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 09:59, 5 March 2022 (UTC).[reply]

@Christian Ferrer: WS does not really need in text citations as found in other Wikis or indeed academic papers. Generally the taxon page is a simple and concise statement of taxonomic facts with the reference section added to call the reader attention to from where the facts originated. Therefore Reflist is not really required and maybe we also wish to keep things basic for editors who wish to add taxonomy without having to becoming Wiki experts. Andyboorman (talk) 22:14, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Valid taxon?[edit]

Is Petalopterus a valid taxon? Seems hard to find in the literature. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 09:52, 5 March 2022 (UTC).[reply]

Drew a blank as well. Andyboorman (talk) 10:28, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Likewise (and it's not in BVF Online), Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 16:06, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Quickly checking on Google search gives me nothing for "Petalopterus" at all. Out of curiosity I also tried the higher-rank names linked, and none of them give any results on Google either. Not even "Spathophorata". Monster Iestyn (talk) 16:58, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I tried this too - should it not find the wikispecies page? Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 17:02, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe that was because it was an orphaned page until this discussion started? Another strange thing though is the English vernacular name given is just the taxon name, and the Greek one is a transliteration of the same name again. My best guess is someone's either using Wikispecies as a holding place for a set of unpublished names, or it's some kind of a hoax? The page was created by an IP editor in December last year and edited just earlier today by another IP. Monster Iestyn (talk) 17:12, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Andyboorman, Monster Iestyn, and Maculosae tegmine lyncis: - agree, likely a hoax; I'd be strongly inclined to delete. If it does get validly published in the future it can always be undeleted. The second edit is likely the same person as the first, using a roving IP; while not identical, they're very similar - and both with just the single edit. Note that there is a genus Petaloptera, no page for it here yet but listed in Phaneropterinae and a bit of info on EoL; its higher ranks of course do not match the ones given for "Petalopterus" - MPF (talk) 23:58, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

┌─────────────────────────┘ Deleted, also semi-protected for six months. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 08:58, 7 March 2022 (UTC).[reply]

The Call for Feedback: Board of Trustees elections is now closed [edit]

You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki.

More languages • Please help translate to your language

The Call for Feedback: Board of Trustees elections is now closed. This Call ran from 10 January and closed on 16 February 2022. The Call focused on three key questions and received broad discussion on Meta-wiki, during meetings with affiliates, and in various community conversations. The community and affiliates provided many proposals and discussion points. The reports are on Meta-wiki.

This information will be shared with the Board of Trustees and Elections Committee so they can make informed decisions about the upcoming Board of Trustees election. The Board of Trustees will then follow with an announcement after they have discussed the information.

Thank you to everyone who participated in the Call for Feedback to help improve Board election processes.

Best,

Movement Strategy and Governance
--SOyeyele (WMF) (talk) 11:25, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Page name – alternative display on right-hand side of page[edit]

Copying here (from enwiki) for reference:[6]
Hello, this relates more to wikispecies than here, but from a technical standpoint (and in terms of internationalization/accessibility), if you look at for instance Miracinonyx there is a vernacular name (entered in the form |en=). At the top of the page is the language selector. How could one go about having this Miracinonyx page displaying, on the right hand side, on the same line as the page heading Miracinonyx to the left, "(?xxx?)", where xxx is tentatively flagged as the vernacular name, populated from this |en=. Presumably, the same method could then be used to display the corresponding vernacular name (assuming it has been input) in the language to which your language selector is set. Thank you, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 15:49, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Maculosae tegmine lyncis: If you want to be able to display another page heading than the page name then mw:Manual:$wgRestrictDisplayTitle must be set to false in https://noc.wikimedia.org/conf/highlight.php?file=InitialiseSettings.php. It's already false for several wikis. It can be requested at phabricator: if you can link to a consensus at Wikispecies. The T numbers in InitialiseSettings.php show some successful requests, e.g. phab:T122433. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:18, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if there are objections to requesting this change, so that the functionality can be looked into/developed/tested; it may be that there could be a user preference, were in time this to be adopted, to allow an opt-out, thanks, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 21:01, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Change requested at Phabricator:T303665, thanks, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 08:53, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is already a patch that has passed initial testing and is out for review. If/when the time comes, for testing, it is likely we will intially want something like Template:DISPLAYTITLE (which might also be useful for Thyreophora Nopcsa) and:

Village Pump

[ Domestic Cat ]

Were this in time to be rolled out on taxon pages site-wide, we might want to find another way of delivering the same result (i.e., rather than adding such a line to lots and lots and lots of taxon pages), thanks, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 18:14, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikispecies & Wikidata links[edit]

Hello, as discussed above and seemingly as is well-known, there is an issue with there being, for different combinations/synonyms, likely multiple wikidata items, each potentially having an assortment of links to different language wikipedias etc. This means many wikidata items are likely not linked to wikispecies, even where a wikispecies redirect page exists, due to the issue with linking redirect pages.

There is a work-around to this, in that wikidata pages can mainting existing links to redirects, even if you cannot add such a link. If, as can be seen from the history of Barbourofelidae, one creates the redirect page (or so edits it) initially with holding text eg "a", and saves it, there is then a (sufficiently) valid page that can be linked to wikidata. With the link in place, the wikispecies page is then turned (back) into a redirect. This means any language wikipedias linked to the wikidata item in question will see in the left margin a link to wikispecies, which will redirect to the right page were they to click on it; however, wikispecies users, unless they view the redirect page itself, will not see such links, since the (final) destination wikispecies page is linked to a different item. Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 21:31, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In this scenario, to enable wikispecies users to link to the different language wikipedias, regardless of the combination/wikidata item to which the language wikipedias are linked, my understanding is that, if there is an old-style (and deprecated) interlanguage/wiki link such as [[en]] on a page, then this is typically ignored when the software builds the list of links in the wikispecies left margin, but made use of if there is no link to enwiki on the wikidata item to which the wikispecies page is linked. What might be good would be instead to be able to add an equivalent to [[en]], but specifying a wikidata item, or multiple items, instead (eg for each combination); then, the software could look at the links on that/those item(s) and add them to the list in the left margin. (?Potentially this could also be used for eg a monotypic genus with one species, where some wikipedias create pages for the genus, others for the species; this is typically where the old-style [[en]] links can still be found on wikispecies pages, but of course that just provides a link to enwiki, not the range of language wikipedias were we instead to have the equivalent function where you specify the wikidata item(s) instead of en/de etc.) Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 21:31, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone have any thoughts? (I was thinking of raising a related software change request.) Thanks, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 21:31, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

since its about the only way I can do it I have to answer from the perspective of a taxonomist. Irrespective of language having multiple names being used is in no ones interest. On this wiki to the best of our ability we are following the most up to date nomenclature and taxonomy. In other words the one people should be using. Now although there are generic and species synonyms there really should not be at higher levels. In zoology if a family ending in -idae is reduced to a subfamily and becomes -inae (in another family) the family name no longer exists and its preservation on Wikidata actually goes against the rules of name formation. It should not exist. I am a part of the Global Species Lists working group and we develop the principles that are applied to names on a global scale. The basic rule of thumb here is if you are not publishing taxonomy or nomenclature don't pretend to. Follow the global lists, that is what we are presenting here, the global list of life and all the applicable names to it. So any wikipedias using a different nomenclature should in all honesty be getting updated as they are clearly behind. Nomenclature is the way we communicate about taxa, and it is supposed to be uniform and stable, with currency. So if different language wikipedias are presenting different nomenclature for the same species then Wikimedia is failing all three of these pillars of nomenclature. What wikidata should be doing is ensuring the stability and currency of nomenclature between wikis. I do not think that maintenance of outdated nomenclature for the benefit of those wikis that are not up to date so that Wikidata can link to all of them is in the interest of global species names stability. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 22:18, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, yes—and one good way that editors across projects can find out/stumble upon the fact that the names have changed, and so need updating, would be to follow a link to eg a wikispecies page with different/the most up-to-date nomenclature. (To say wikispecies editors should also update any related project pages may be utopian, but in no way reflects current or likely praxis; and if, for instance, the change involves a new genus, is the wikispecies editor expected to amend the old genus page to reflect the fact this species is no longer a member and create a new genus page in the different language/script wikipedias etc, so that the page is not an orphan; (in Japanese, which seems to have the worst of all worlds, the common name is typically itself based on the genus and its type species or the representative of the genus found in Japan, so that for instance with Picus, where the type species is Picus viridis, the Japanese green woodpecker (Picus awokera) is known (and has the page) アオゲラ "aogera", while other species in the genus have names/pages such as ヒマラヤアオゲラ "himalaya aogera", モロッコアオゲラ "morocco aogera", etc, and the genus itself is アオゲラ属 or "aogera genus". When there is a new combination, editors may remove the Japanese name, because this also could well change; the need/desire to wait for a sufficiently authoritative "common" name to be used in the page title seemingly means that even the big cats still don't have a page each on jawiki...). Cross-project wikidata link maintenance might be as good as can be hoped for in such cases), Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 23:46, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Another consideration from a ja perspective is that the ja Ministry of the Environment maintains a domestic red list, as does each of the 47 prefectural governments; Apodemus agrarius may be LC (Least Concern) on a global basis per the IUCN Red List [7], but from a Japanese domestic perspective is, as of the 2020 red list, CR (Critically Endangered) [8]; while the ja red list is for information purposes, on the back of it the Cabinet Office may designate Endangered Species, which are then afforded protection under the 1992 Act on Conservation of Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora. In terms of entries on this red list, and for such designations and legislative protection, scientific names are used; but, even where there may be a change in taxonomic nomenclature, the scientific names used are those of the taxon when it was initially entered on the list/register. So, for instance with Tamias sibiricus lineatus, though it has been suggested (by a Russian-lead team) that the (Japanese) Ezo Chipmunk is only a population of Eutamias sibiricus sibiricus, Tamias sibiricus lineatus is still going to be used in potentially significant and reasonably authoritative contexts; and, in terms of all the literature relating to the エゾシマリス (or 蝦夷縞栗鼠), even if only a local population of the wider Asian subspecies, since much has been and likely will continue to be written from domestic studies for a domestic audience, it would be misleading to use Eutamias sibiricus sibiricus, since that might make a claim for the subspecies as a whole on the basis of population-level studies, while use of Tamias sibiricus lineatus alongside the/a common name is useful if nothing else to help relate the subject to the entry on the red list, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 08:09, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Taxonomy by necessity cannot and must not be subservient to conservation needs. As discussed in Thomson et al 2021 DOI: 10.1007/s13127-021-00518-8 using the Tapanuli Orangutan as an example when conservation places onus on taxonomy you end up with a conflict of interests, a serious one with legal ramifications. Every country has its own endangered species lists, they need to stay up to date with the accepted taxonomy. Yes this can take time, because these are legislated lists hence there is often a two year turnaround to legislate changes to these lists. But the taxonomy cannot be adjusted for the convenience of these lists as they are used to generate money. Local endangered species lists should always be linked to the correct name in the global lists. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 18:06, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Raised at Phabricator:T303667, thanks, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 14:00, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Taxonav2 – taxonav above the family level[edit]

Hello, Exhibit A: Passeriformes - i.e. a long list without taxonav. Exhibit B: Phoenicopteriformes - where taxonav is applied, to result in a more user-friendly display, but perforce to the parent template rather than the template for the page in question. There may be a solution (which could also provide the additional functionality of a v. summarized taxonomy):

(I was encountering some specifically sandbox-related issues, so have created some dummy pages). ZZZ draws on a proposed {{Taxonav2}} (tested at {{Taxonav3}}) and {{ZZZ}} (which also draws on {{ZZZ2}}); in terms of editing the taxon page, all that would be needed would be to apply {{Taxonav2}} and, when editing the taxon template eg/as at {{ZZZ}}, to copy the upper lines down to the "summary" section (assuming no change to {{ZZZ2}} or equivalent). ZZZZ (and {{ZZZZ}}) seem to show that there are no untoward consequences further down the chain, eg/ie when {{ZZZZ}} calls on {{ZZZ}}. We might in particular want to agree the content of/approach to {{ZZZ2}}, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 21:42, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See also: User talk:Maculosae tegmine lyncis#Taxonavigation templates in reference templates. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk) 15:03, 7 March 2022 (UTC), 15:03, 7 March 2022 (UTC).[reply]

{{Taxonav2}} is now applied to Artiodactyla (and Perissodactyla), Tyrannosauroidea, Neognathae, and Anseriformes; ~~what you can't do is enable taxonav2 functionality~~ (~~as on~~ {{Artiodactyla}}, {{Perissodactyla}}, {{Tyrannosauroidea}}, {{Neognathae}}, and {{Anseriformes}}) ~~and then not apply {{Taxonav2}}, since then the summary taxonomy will be added to the taxon page beneath the full taxonomy,~~ Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 12:42, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

~~Further development and testing required, have reverted changes, please do not use {{Taxonav2}} yet, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 18:58, 8 March 2022 (UTC)~~[reply]

{{Taxonav2}} has been fixed and reapplied to the same templates and pages as above, thanks, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 21:28, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Universal Code of Conduct Enforcement guidelines ratification voting open from 7 to 21 March 2022[edit]

You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki.

More languages • Please help translate to your language

Hello everyone,

The ratification voting process for the revised enforcement guidelines of the Universal Code of Conduct (UCoC) is now open! Voting commenced on SecurePoll on 7 March 2022 and will conclude on 21 March 2022. Please read more on the voter information and eligibility details.

The Universal Code of Conduct (UCoC) provides a baseline of acceptable behavior for the entire movement. The revised enforcement guidelines were published 24 January 2022 as a proposed way to apply the policy across the movement. You can read more about the UCoC project.

You can also comment on Meta-wiki talk pages in any language. You may also contact the team by email: ucocprojectwikimedia.org

Sincerely,

Movement Strategy and Governance

Wikimedia Foundation

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:22, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not Wikipedia template[edit]

I have added a second, optional parameter, to {{Not Wikipedia}}, so that the default example article, about a species, can be substituted with for example, a biography or genus article. Please see template documentation for examples. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:39, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, very handy indeed! –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 10:26, 10 March 2022 (UTC).[reply]

Sphingobacteria ≠ Sphingobacteriia[edit]

Please have a look at Talk:Sphingobacteria if you're dealing with taxonomy regarding bacteria. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 10:29, 10 March 2022 (UTC).[reply]

Invitation to Hubs event: Global Conversation on 2022-03-12 at 13:00 UTC[edit]

You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki.

More languages • Please help translate to your language

Hello!

The Movement Strategy and Governance team of the Wikimedia Foundation would like to invite you to the next event about "Regional and Thematic Hubs". The Wikimedia Movement is in the process of understanding what Regional and Thematic Hubs should be. Our workshop in November was a good start (read the report), but we're not finished yet.

Over the last weeks we conducted about 16 interviews with groups working on establishing a Hub in their context (see Hubs Dialogue). These interviews informed a report that will serve as a foundation for discussion on March 12. The report is planned to be published on March 9.

The event will take place on March 12, 13:00 to 16:00 UTC on Zoom. Interpretation will be provided in French, Spanish, Arabic, Russian, and Portuguese. Registration is open, and will close on March 10. Anyone interested in the topic is invited to join us. More information on the event on Meta-wiki.

Best regards,

Kaarel Vaidla 13:43, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
Movement Strategy[reply]

Strange display of Page & User[edit]

Hello, since last night, the Page tab (Read / Edit / View history / * / Page) is showing Page in large bold characters; also, if you view Contributions (by self or someone else), there is an outsized bold User to the left of the Search box. Does anyone else have the same and can it be undone? (This isn't happening on enwiki, so may be wikispecies-specific.) Thanks, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 14:52, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to be a bug with the MoreMenu gadget I think; those words don't appear if you turn the gadget off I've found. Monster Iestyn (talk) 15:47, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

DuckDuckGo search shortcut broken[edit]

For those of you who aren't familiar with DuckDuckGo, it is a search engine which is notable for (among other reasons) having an extensive collection of "bangs", shortcuts to search various websites. For example, if you search for "!wikt hello" on DuckDuckGo, it directs you to the Wiktionary page "hello".

However, searching for "!wikispecies Glaresis" on DuckDuckGo sends one to the Wikipedia article rather than to Wikispecies. This should be fixed. 70.172.194.25 22:36, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is an issue on DuckDuckGo's end. According to their website, you can use the alternatives !wks, !wspec, or !wksp, all of which work. Eviolite (talk) 22:38, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OCLC template[edit]

Please note that I've imported the Catalog lookup link module and a few other files into Wikispecies, so we now have access to an {{OCLC}} template. It works pretty much like the {{Doi}} template, except you will of course have to use an OCLC number as parameter rather than a doi. I would still very much recommend we primarily use the doi- and {{BHL}} plus {{ISBN}} templates (in that order), but the OCLC equivalent can be handy in the rare cases none of the others are available. Here's an example:

{{OCLC|5844710}} which will be rendered as: OCLC: 5844710

–Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 17:21, 11 March 2022 (UTC).[reply]

Taxonavigation "collapse" tab on mobile view option[edit]

I never had tried before the mobile wiew and was surprised with the lack of the collapse tab on this mode of view. This long list of higher taxa turns the wiew of the page ugly. Some comment? Note, my mobile is Android.--Hector Bottai (talk) 02:12, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Hector Bottai: if you look at Phoenicopteriformes, do you see, in the taxonavigation section, first a drop-down box with a list of c.65 taxa, from Eukaryota to Phoenicopteriformes; then, outside this drop-down box, 5 taxa, from Aves to Phoenicopteriformes? Does this look ok to you? Thank you, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 15:10, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Maculosae tegmine lyncis: What I am trying to say is that in the mobile view option there is no way to hidden that boring long list. Yes the five taxa list is fine, but the long list is still there!--Hector Bottai (talk) 15:35, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm seeing the same, a box outline round the c.65, then the summary 5; it's the same thing with family/genus/species pages, no "collapse"; according to the top section of the Media-wiki manual here, mw-collapsible (as used in {{Taxonav}} and {{Taxonav2}}) "does not work on mobile" (and there's a 2018 still active discussion here: Phabricator:T111565). I must admit I don't use mobile view either, just something you have to keep switching out of as far as I can make out, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 17:14, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

oh I see is not a new issue. The experts on this issue shoud have some sense of urgency. It's bad.--Hector Bottai (talk) 17:21, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature is now completely open-access on Biotaxa[edit]

All issues of BZN to date since 2008 are now open-access via Biotaxa (here). This seems to have taken effect since the beginning of this year, judging by the News & Updates of ICZN's website. Monster Iestyn (talk) 02:31, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Several redirects to Panthera tigris tigris[edit]

I found user BhagyaMani redirected several pages listed below to Panthera tigris tigris.

These pages are all subspecies of Panthera tigris, and all of them have articles on several Wikipedia projects. Personally, I think these subspecies should be juxtaposed with each other, rather than redirecting them all to another subspecies. As user is inactive for a long time, I choose to start a discussion in VP. Stang 15:43, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am not an expert in this area, but the references contradict both the redirects and the synonymy on the taxon page. A revised taxonomy of the Felidae seems to be the source to follow. In my opinion the redirects need to go and separate taxon pages have to be created unless there are sources of information to hand. Andyboorman (talk) 15:56, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"A revised taxonomy of the Felidae" = {{Kitchener et al., 2017}} (pp. 65–68 for Panthera tigris), Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 17:21, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Page 67 of Kitchener et al., 2017 recommends recognising just two subspecies of Panthera tigris, P. t. tigris and P. t. sondaica, with nearly all of the mentioned subspecies at the start of this discussion being included under P. t. tigris. The only one of those not mentioned in the publication is P. t. malayensis, but I noticed that redirect was previously a redirect to the jacksoni subspecies. That's probably why BhagyaMani turned them all into redirects I imagine. Monster Iestyn (talk) 18:01, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also worth noting that, while some of the Wikipedia projects may recognise the subspecies (except malayensis which is not connected to a Wikidata item), English Wikipedia treats them instead as just "populations" of P. t. tigris, e.g. en:Siberian tiger for Panthera tigris altaica. English Wikipedia is probably following the recommendations of the IUCN Cat Specialist Group (i.e. Kitchener et al., 2017). Monster Iestyn (talk) 18:07, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is a paper in google scholar [9] that sumarises it well. There are two valid subspecies only if there are extra pages on other Wikimedia projects they should be merged. The redirects here are correct. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 18:43, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

...that's just pages 66 to 68 directly from Kitchener et al., 2017, but at least it makes the text easier to find. Monster Iestyn (talk) 18:57, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Loves Folklore 2022 ends tomorrow[edit]

International photographic contest Wiki Loves Folklore 2022 ends on 15th March 2022 23:59:59 UTC. This is the last chance of the year to upload images about local folk culture, festival, cuisine, costume, folklore etc on Wikimedia Commons. Watch out our social media handles for regular updates and declaration of Winners.

(Facebook , Twitter , Instagram)

The writing competition Feminism and Folklore will run till 31st of March 2022 23:59:59 UTC. Write about your local folk tradition, women, folk festivals, folk dances, folk music, folk activities, folk games, folk cuisine, folk wear, folklore, and tradition, including ballads, folktales, fairy tales, legends, traditional song and dance, folk plays, games, seasonal events, calendar customs, folk arts, folk religion, mythology etc. on your local Wikipedia. Check if your local Wikipedia is participating

A special competition called Wiki Loves Falles is organised in Spain and the world during 15th March 2022 till 15th April 2022 to document local folk culture and Falles in Valencia, Spain. Learn more about it on Catalan Wikipedia project page.

We look forward for your immense co-operation.

Thanks Wiki Loves Folklore international Team MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:40, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Felis catus — +vernacular name to right of page name/title (test)[edit]

Hello, please see Felis catus (which uses [10] per the comment on Phabricator:T303665), changing the language via the language selector (German, Spanish, Japanese etc). There is an issue with French, fr returning also frr ({{Template:Sandbox2}}) (this version), possibly also where no vernacular name has been entered, eg Welsh). (I assume there will be no other parameter |en= other than that within {{VN}}, or at least none lower on the page than that in {{VN}}.) If, after modification for the above, and other observations, we like the result, I believe from {{Sandbox3}} (this version), {{Sandbox4}} (this version), and here (this version; see "Test" section), that all that is required to roll this out on all taxon pages would be to add {{Sandbox4}} (or equivalent, perhaps with administrator-level protection) to {{VN}}. Thank you, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 21:08, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have raised this at Wikispecies:Requests for Comment, many thanks, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 00:52, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

<indicator name="vernacular pagename">{{{style|<span style="border-bottom:1px dotted">}}}
{{#if: {{#invoke:Transcluder|main|{{BASEPAGENAME}}|only=parameters|parameters={{Uselang}}}}
   | {{#switch: {{int:lang}}
|en={{{en}}}<!--the (else) transclusion of parameters={{Uselang}} below does not perform an exact match, fr returning also frr, ar also bar; the following itemized codes are embedded in other codes-->|es={{{es}}}|fr={{{fr}}}|zh={{{zh}}}<!--"upper branches of #switch execute faster...top branch should be most-used case"-->|aa={{{aa}}}|ab={{{ab}}}|an={{{an}}}|ar={{{ar}}}|as={{{as}}}|ba={{{ba}}}|be={{{be}}}|bm={{{bm}}}|bo={{{bo}}}|br={{{br}}}|ca={{{ca}}}|ce={{{ce}}}|ch={{{ch}}}|co={{{co}}}|cr={{{cr}}}|cs={{{cs}}}|cu={{{cu}}}|et={{{et}}}|fi={{{fi}}}|ga={{{ga}}}|gl={{{gl}}}|ha={{{ha}}}|hi={{{hi}}}|ho={{{ho}}}|hr={{{hr}}}|ht={{{ht}}}|hy={{{hy}}}|ia={{{ia}}}|iu={{{iu}}}|ka={{{ka}}}|ko={{{ko}}}|ks={{{ks}}}|la={{{la}}}|lb={{{lb}}}|li={{{li}}}|lo={{{lo}}}|mg={{{mg}}}|mi={{{mi}}}|ml={{{ml}}}|mn={{{mn}}}|mo={{{mo}}}|mr={{{mr}}}|ms={{{ms}}}|my={{{my}}}|na={{{na}}}|nb={{{nb}}}|nd={{{nd}}}|nds={{{nds}}}|ne={{{ne}}}|ng={{{ng}}}|nl={{{nl}}}|no={{{no}}}|nr={{{nr}}}|ny={{{ny}}}|os={{{os}}}|pa={{{pa}}}|pi={{{pi}}}|pl={{{pl}}}|pt={{{pt}}}|rm={{{rm}}}|rn={{{rn}}}|ro={{{ro}}}|ru={{{ru}}}|sa={{{sa}}}|sc={{{sc}}}|sh={{{sh}}}|si={{{si}}}|sm={{{sm}}}|so={{{so}}}|sr={{{sr}}}|ss={{{ss}}}|st={{{st}}}|su={{{su}}}|ta={{{ta}}}|te={{{te}}}|th={{{th}}}|tl={{{tl}}}|tp={{{tp}}}|ts={{{ts}}}|tw={{{tw}}}|ug={{{ug}}}|ur={{{ur}}}|ve={{{ve}}}|wa={{{wa}}}|za={{{za}}}
   |{{#invoke:Transcluder|main|{{BASEPAGENAME}}|only=parameters|parameters={{Uselang}}}}
}}}}</indicator>

Striking and adding the code for potential later reference, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 12:35, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Phabricator displaytitle request – other purposes? Homonyms?[edit]

Hello, as per the item immediately above, we have an alternative method of testing/delivering the functionality for the purposes of which Phabricator:T303665 was originally requested. A patch has already been tested and is out for review. Rather than withdrawing the request, shall we keep it open, so that we have the ability to apply (a less limited) en:Template:DISPLAYTITLE to eg Thyreophora Nopcsa and/or pages in eg Category:Homonyms? Thank you, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 09:45, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Plant List[edit]

Hello botanists. I thought you might like to know that the old Plant List has now been fully superseded by WFO Plant List. I assume that this means we need to update our links as and when we encounter them. The old Plant List had not been updated since 2013, so was getting very long in the tooth and the site is off-line. I do not know how easy it will be to link out to a named taxon via a search template. Changes will be needed on WD and Commons as well. Andyboorman (talk) 15:36, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Andyboorman: Does {{WFO}} provide what you need? Thanks, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 20:10, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Maculosae tegmine lyncis: Nice work. See Baynesia can it be dated just like the others? Thanks Andyboorman (talk) 20:41, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can I just check you would like the link to point to [11], not [12] or [13], thanks, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 20:56, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The last might have been the better option, but it dragged in a species from another genus! But no major preference if we have to add an ID rather than picking up the search result from the page name. Thanks Andyboorman (talk) 21:21, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

{{WFO}} updated — let me know if that's not right, thanks, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 22:47, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Leadership Development Working Group: Apply to join! (14 March to 10 April 2022)[edit]

You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki.

More languages • Please help translate to your language

Hello everyone,

Thank you to everyone who participated in the feedback period for the Leadership Development Working Group initiative. A summary of the feedback can be found on Meta-wiki. This feedback will be shared with the working group to inform their work. The application period to join the Working Group is now open and will close on April 10, 2022. Please review the information about the working group, share with community members who might be interested, and apply if you are interested.

Thank you,

From the Community Development team
--SOyeyele (WMF) (talk) 12:27, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Full name of the entomologist Marion E. Smith[edit]

Hi, I may need a second opinion to make sure I'm not getting anything wrong here. Bear with me as I explain first what my problem is first.

I have for some time been referring to the Deceased dipterists page on the International Congresses of Dipterology website (hosted on the North American Dipterists Society website), as well as Evenhuis' Authors of fly names, Third edition (2020), to add, complete or update Wikispecies pages for taxon authors of names within Diptera at least. So, working my way from the bottom of the first link (which starts at the year 1999), I got to "Smith, Marion Edmonds (1926) Culicidae". This name is also listed on the Authors of fly names publication, suggesting that it is indeed the name of a taxon author.

So from this information, I created a wikidata item and a Wikispecies page for Marion Edmonds Smith (Q111280768) last night (though I had listed the author at Smith previously to deal with at a later point). But, searching google for anything regarding a "Marion Edmonds Smith" who was born in 1926 and died in 2000 gave me nothing. But, on the other hand, searching for publications by any "M. E. Smith" on Culicidae did eventually lead me to a set of publications on Aedes mosquitoes authored by a "Marion E. Smith" who worked at the Department of Entomology, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, one of which does in fact establish a new species (in particular this one establishes Aedes (Ochlerotatus) pseudodiantaeus Smith, 1952).

But, I wasn't exactly happy just relying on the two sources I listed at the start directly for the years and full name of this author, so I continued to search Google for more information. Eventually, I found results from University of Massachusetts Amherst's own website, e.g. [14], about a Marion Estelle Smith who died in November 1988 and "was well known for her studies on mosquitoes and butterflies". She did her M.S. thesis in 1936 and possibly her Ph.D. thesis in 1938 (I think?), so her birth year could not possibly be 1926 (unless she really went to University at 10 years old?). In fact, according to [15] there is no other historical staff member of the university who could have been known as "Marion E. Smith" apart from Marion Estelle Smith.

Given no information to say otherwise, I believe Marion Estelle Smith to be the full name of the taxon author of Aedes (Ochlerotatus) pseudodiantaeus Smith, 1952 and the author of the publications I found, and Marion Edmonds Smith is ...somebody else I can't track down. Maybe not even a taxon author or a zoologist at all, for all I know. It wouldn't be the first time that the Deceased dipterists page and Evenhuis's Authors of fly names has been wrong, I think I found another author where online information contradicted these sources before.

Does this sound correct to everyone else? Did I miss something important that could be helpful maybe?

Monster Iestyn (talk) 17:53, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Have you considered asking Evenhuis himself? I have been in touch with him a few times regarding corrections to Systema Dipterorum and he seems eminently approachable and receptive to this sort of enquiries. Circeus (talk) 16:06, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If I wasn't so sheepish I probably would have contacted him already tbh, which is unfortunate because there are other problems unrelated to this altogether I feel ought to contact him about. But thanks for letting me know anyway. Monster Iestyn (talk) 16:28, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Both of these people existed, but there is some confusion. Marion Edmonds Smith was born 1926, died 2017, and was medical biochemist. See memorial. Marion Estelle Smith, 1913-1988 was dipterist in question, and made MS thesis in 1936. thesis. This is best I could do for biography in shot time; bio. This will take some unraveling. Neferkheperre (talk) 13:41, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh wow, surprised I missed that Findagrave page, thanks for that. And yes, she might have been mixed up with the biochemist I figured, but that wouldn't explain the supposed death date of 2000. Monster Iestyn (talk) 14:54, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Quote from Introduction to Illustrated Checklist of the Mammals of the World (Wilson is one of the editors of this book[1]): "Overall, reliance on formal taxonomic compendia in mammalian record keeping has often led to delays in the incorporation of systematic revisions. This is exemplified by the continual reference to Mammal Species of the World, Volume 3 (Wilson & Reeder 2005) as the starting point for all taxonomic arrangements in these volume, despite having been published 15 years ago. All vertebrate classes currently have online databases with updatable species lists (e.g., AmphibiaWeb, Reptile Database, AviBase, and FishBase), yet mammals were the exception until the creation of the MDD in 2018. The welcome fact that global Mammalia now has an updatable online database ensures that species-level mammalian taxonomy is more quickly adopted to inform diverse types of research from biodiversity conservation to zoonotic diseases".

[2] D. Reeder is a member of the ASM Biodiversity Committee, which oversees the ASM Mammal Diversity Database[2].

[Garnett-3] Garnett ST, Christidis L, Conix S, Costello MJ, Zachos FE, Banki OS, et al. (2020) Principles for creating a single authoritative list of the world’s species.PLoS Biol 18(7):e3000736. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pbio.3000736 pdf

[1]

[2]

[3]

Archives
1	(2004-09-21/2005-01-05)	2	(2005-01-05/2005-08-23)
3	(2005-08-24/2005-12-31)	4	(2006-01-01/2005-05-31)
5	(2006-06-01/2006-12-16)	6	(2006-12-17/2006-12-31)
7	(2007-01-01/2007-02-28)	8	(2007-03-01/2007-04-30)
9	(2007-05-01/2007-08-31)	10	(2007-09-01/2007-10-31)
11	(2007-11-01/2007-12-31)	12	(2008-01-01/2008-02-28)
13	(2008-03-01/2008-04-28)	14	(2008-04-29/2008-06-30)
15	(2008-07-01/2008-09-30)	16	(2008-10-01/2008-12-25)
17	(2008-12-26/2009-02-28)	18	(2009-03-01/2009-06-30)
19	(2009-07-01/2009-12-31)	20	(2010-01-01/2010-06-30)
21	(2010-07-01/2010-12-31)	22	(2011-01-01/2011-06-30)
23	(2011-07-01/2011-12-31)	24	(2012-01-01/2012-12-31)
25	(2013-01-01/2013-12-31)	26	(2014-01-01/2014-12-31)
27	(2015-01-01/2015-01-31)	28	(2015-02-01/2015-02-28)
29	(2015-02-28/2015-04-29)	30	(2015-04-29/2015-07-19)
31	(2015-07-19/2015-09-23)	32	(2015-09-23/2015-11-21)
33	(2015-11-21/2015-12-31)	34	(2016-01-01/2016-04-17)
35	(2016-03-22/2016-05-01)	36	(2016-05-01/2016-07-12)
37	(2016-07-13/2016-09-30)	38	(2016-10-01/2016-12-04)
39	(2016-12-04/2017-01-17)	40	(2017-01-18/2017-01-28)
41	(2017-01-29/2017-02-13)	42	(2017-02-14/2017-03-21)
43	(2017-03-20/2017-08-11)	44	(2017-08-10/2017-12-07)
45	(2017-12-08/2018-01-08)	46	(2018-01-19/2018-03-11)
47	(2018-03-11/2018-09-11)	48	(2018-09-01/2019-02-17)
49	(2019-02-22/2019-06-18)	50	(2019-06-19/2019-10-06)
51	(2019-10-07/2019-12-23)	52	(2019-12-24/2020-04-03)
53	(2020-04-03/2020-07-16)	54	(2020-07-17/2020-09-05)
55	(2020-09-08/2020-11-27)	56	(2020-11-27/2021-06-21)
57	(2021-06-05/2021-09-24)	58	(2021-09-25/2022-xx-xx)

Wikispecies:Village Pump

Taxonomic databases[edit]

Refs[edit]

Help:Contents[edit]

Increasing usability the TNU, taxonomic name usage.[edit]

Navigation templates - obr & cbr[edit]

Category:Literature link templates - error[edit]

Image dispute[edit]

Remember to Participate in the UCoC Conversations and Ratification Vote![edit]

Wiki Loves Folklore is extended till 15th March[edit]

Cristóbal [María or Mariá] Hicken[edit]

Selbyana[edit]

Block me[edit]

Variants on Template:Image - † / no italics[edit]

{{Reflist}}[edit]

Valid taxon?[edit]

The Call for Feedback: Board of Trustees elections is now closed [edit]

Page name – alternative display on right-hand side of page[edit]

Wikispecies & Wikidata links[edit]

Taxonav2 – taxonav above the family level[edit]

Universal Code of Conduct Enforcement guidelines ratification voting open from 7 to 21 March 2022[edit]

Not Wikipedia template[edit]

Sphingobacteria ≠ Sphingobacteriia[edit]

Invitation to Hubs event: Global Conversation on 2022-03-12 at 13:00 UTC[edit]

Strange display of Page & User[edit]

DuckDuckGo search shortcut broken[edit]

OCLC template[edit]

Taxonavigation "collapse" tab on mobile view option[edit]

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature is now completely open-access on Biotaxa[edit]

Several redirects to Panthera tigris tigris[edit]

Wiki Loves Folklore 2022 ends tomorrow[edit]

Felis catus — +vernacular name to right of page name/title (test)[edit]

Phabricator displaytitle request – other purposes? Homonyms?[edit]

The Plant List[edit]

Leadership Development Working Group: Apply to join! (14 March to 10 April 2022)[edit]

Full name of the entomologist Marion E. Smith[edit]

Navigation menu

Search