Shortcuts: WS:V, WS:VP

Wikispecies:Village Pump

From Wikispecies
Jump to navigation Jump to search

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:


Archive
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 (2021-09-25/2022-01-24)
59 (2022-01-26/2022-02-27) 60 (2022-02-27/2022-04-13)
61 (2022-04-14/2022-05-10) 62 (2022-07-01/2023-12-17)
63 (2022-12-24/2023-04-20) 64 (2023-04-20/2023-08-29)
65 (2023-09-01/2023-12-27) 66 (2024-01-xx/2024-xx-xx)


FYI: What Is a Species, Anyway?[edit]

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/19/science/what-is-a-species.htmlJustin (koavf)TCM 01:43, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ahh Carl Zimmer he is a great writer, he interviewed me years ago when my redescription of Elseya lavarackorum declared it a living fossil. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 02:33, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That article was a good read! OhanaUnitedTalk page 15:50, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ints[edit]

Should we create a category for the "Int" templates? Like Template:Int Country, Template:Int Overview of, Template:Int Synonym etc. It's a bit annoying having to search which ones exist. Trooper57 (talk) 04:01, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a reason these exist at all instead of just being a part of Wikispecies:Localization? —Justin (koavf)TCM 04:05, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Koavf A number of those templates were created a few years ago by Caftaric, who is no longer active on Wikispecies. Monster Iestyn (talk) 18:22, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aspalatia, Deprecated[edit]

Please see Talk:Aspalatia#‎Deprecated regarding this marine plant genus. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:43, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tarchia gigantea & T. tumanovae[edit]

Please see Talk:Tarchia gigantea regarding these dinosaurs. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:48, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cumulopuntia berteroi valid?[edit]

Please see Talk:Cumulopuntia berteroi regarding this cactus. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:50, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Capitalisation of vernacular names[edit]

Are we now de-capitalising vernacular names, such as "Eurasian magpie" instead of "Eurasian Magpie" for Pica pica, as done in this recent edit? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:31, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not as far as I am concerned. I do capilise plants when I come across them. Andyboorman (talk) 08:54, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree not. Most of the changes were OK, as they were adding 'Eurasian' subsequent to the split of Pica pica s.l. into multiple species, but the decapitalisation of English 'Magpie' to 'magpie' is contrary to the IOC standard (and also IUCN, etc.) that we follow. I've reverted that bit. - MPF (talk) 20:38, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Pigsonthewing and Andyboorman: I've added a note on their talk page. Thanks for spotting this! - MPF (talk) 21:28, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Pigsonthewing, Andyboorman, and Burmeister: this editor is continuing despite the request on their talk page; additionally I see he/she is blocked on wikidata for similar activity there. Not sure if similar action may be needed here (and on Commons, too)? - MPF (talk) 01:05, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Pigsonthewing and MPF: Warning first then a week block appropriate after 24 hours, It is causing a lot of extra work, in spite of some good additions? Andyboorman (talk) 10:30, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Sounds sensible; I'd rather not do it myself as I'm closely involved, it might look too much like individual vindictiveness - MPF (talk) 20:20, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Pigsonthewing, Andyboorman, and Burmeister: their most recent edits have been OK, just adding legit VNs without altering capitalisation; think we can hold fire on any action for now, but I'll monitor discretely - MPF (talk) 00:18, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Pigsonthewing, Andyboorman, and Burmeister: still at it I fear, both here and on Commons. I've reverted these changes, but time for more drastic action? - MPF (talk) 20:45, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"contents" box[edit]

Really a simple question rather than a community concern. On a couple of taxa which i've recently edited, they've got a menu like box "contents" listing the headers. E.g. https://species.wikimedia.org/wiki/Cladonychiidae I'm not sure what's causing it to appear, i see nothing internally on the taxon page - is it that the taxon name is listed somewhere else? A similar box appears on author pages and help pages where it seems useful - but i think it's undesirable on taxon pages? I'd like to know what's generating it, or pointers to info on it's usage. — The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sjl197 (talkcontribs) 00:09, 3 March 2024‎.

It usually appears where there is a taxonav loop somewhere on the Taxonavigation tree. Andyboorman (talk) 12:43, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have fixed it by removing taxonav from the Travuniidae and other templates. The taxonav appears on {{Taxonav|Insidiatores}} and was not needed elsewhere (edited) Andyboorman (talk) 12:46, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I need some help with uncategorized pages[edit]

Justin (koavf)TCM 01:17, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've fixed Polistes olivaceus and Clossiana. With the former, what happened was that Template:Gyrostoma was rather hastily blanked without any of the remaining pages linking to it being checked first (now done). The latter looks more like a more complex problem though, since it looks like PeterR tried to change it from a redirect of Boloria (Clossiana) to a full genus page, then didn't finish the job? Monster Iestyn (talk) 03:14, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@PeterR:Justin (koavf)TCM 04:14, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I expanded Omalotheca diminuta. I do not know why exactly, but I assume Gnaphalium hoppeanum subsp. magellense, one of the synonyms of O. diminuta, may have misled him/her to do so. --Eryk Kij (talk) 07:37, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have deleted Neottia latilabra (Evrard ex Gagnep.) ined., as a unplaced name and non-standard. Andyboorman (talk) 09:01, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Great work, folks. —Justin (koavf)TCM 07:42, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've deleted Homo sapiens denisovan. It's already the 5th reincarnation of this page. Until we actually see a paper published on this new subspecies, everything is just speculation. OhanaUnitedTalk page 03:30, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Authority control[edit]

Should we use {{Authority control}} in Reference templates? They are all conected to Wikidata items after all. Trooper57 (talk) 18:08, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It seems quite reasonable, some reference templates are much complex and significant that some pages. Do we need more opinions, or just proceed?--Hector Bottai (talk) 10:24, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Report of the U4C Charter ratification and U4C Call for Candidates now available[edit]

You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki. Please help translate to your language

Hello all,

I am writing to you today with two important pieces of information. First, the report of the comments from the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) Charter ratification is now available. Secondly, the call for candidates for the U4C is open now through April 1, 2024.

The Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is a global group dedicated to providing an equitable and consistent implementation of the UCoC. Community members are invited to submit their applications for the U4C. For more information and the responsibilities of the U4C, please review the U4C Charter.

Per the charter, there are 16 seats on the U4C: eight community-at-large seats and eight regional seats to ensure the U4C represents the diversity of the movement.

Read more and submit your application on Meta-wiki.

On behalf of the UCoC project team,

RamzyM (WMF) 16:24, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimedia Canada survey[edit]

Hi! Wikimedia Canada invites contributors living in Canada to take part in our 2024 Community Survey. The survey takes approximately five minutes to complete and closes on March 31, 2024. It is available in both French and English. To learn more, please visit the survey project page on Meta. --Chelsea Chiovelli (WMCA) (talk) 00:03, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New sources at the Wikipedia Library[edit]

Just want to draw your attention that Taylor & Francis and Routledge journals are now available for free through The Wikipedia Library. OhanaUnitedTalk page 15:33, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Request advice on sharing variety information[edit]

I have a colleague who develops

which is a wiki organizing data about varieties of potato. We would like to share information where appropriate, and I want to ask if anyone has ideas on whether and how to post anything here in Wikispecies.

I found the entry for potato - Solanum tuberosum. What more can be done? To what extent does Wikispecies take variety information? What sort of data or information is of interest? Bluerasberry (talk) 16:45, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In general, WS only deals with natural varieties or those that are found in the wild, but were possibly originally cultigens. However, Wikipedia could be a good place for an enhanced list of cultivars. Andyboorman (talk) 18:10, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, will check options at both Wikipedia and Wikidata. Bluerasberry (talk) 20:11, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
One thing that would be good, is if you can get some good photos of natural wild Solanum tuberosum and add them to Commons; good photos of the wild originators of crop species are in very short supply, and would definitely be preferred for illustrating the Solanum tuberosum page here - MPF (talk) 20:24, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Bluerasberry: I would consider proposing a Wikidata property for "WikIPapa ID" on that project, then doing an import there, probably through Mix'n'Match. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:28, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I will consider that approach. Bluerasberry (talk) 21:08, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Move when page exists[edit]

Is there such a thing as "technical move requests" or the like here on Wikispecies? I'd like to move a currently active taxon page (with a certain spelling of a species) into another existing page (i.e. named with a variant spelling of the species), the latter being a simple redirect back towards that first "currently active taxon page". I disagree with the direction of the redirect, in other words i want to reverse the redirect. What's the best way? The currently active taxon page has a bulk of annotations history that would be lost if copy-page used to simply move the information directly. Perhaps e.g. first request a deletion of the redirect - then just move the currently active taxon page into a recreated version of that. Sjl197 (talk) 17:08, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Try to move to the exact redirect name. It will automatically work. It is possible that first make a question like "do you want to delete the redirect? Hector Bottai (talk) 17:20, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't that only work if you're an admin? Regular users can't overwrite redirects by page moves as far as I was aware. Monster Iestyn (talk) 17:41, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My mistake, you CAN move to an existing redirect's title if there is only one edit in the redirect's history. But if there is more than one edit there, then you cannot do this as a regular user. — The preceding unsigned comment was added by Monster Iestyn (talkcontribs) 8:00, 8 March 2024.
Thanks @Monster Iestyn: didn't know that. @Sjl197: let me know if you need help to move.--Hector Bottai (talk) 21:26, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sjl197: This doesn't happen often enough on this project to need a distinct process. just post your request here with the names involved. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:25, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dear all, thanks for replies. @Monster Iestyn: @Hector Bottai: @Andy Mabbett:. Well, the redirect page had extra later edits in - caused only by me on the same day when trying to decide how this might be done! It sounds like that then stopped me swapping them myself.
The active page is Agonopterix alstromeriana
The redirect is Agonopterix alstroemeriana
The taxon page is too full of complexity under the synonym section, which was me getting confused over a chaotic history of respellings, before deciding prevailing usage looks like it would easily overrule anything else! Sjl197 (talk) 20:07, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Scientists CT scanned thousands of natural history specimens, which you can access for free[edit]

https://www.floridamuseum.ufl.edu/science/scientists-ct-scanned-thousands-of-natural-history-specimens-which-you-can-access-for-free/Justin (koavf)TCM 08:23, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees 2024 Selection[edit]

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

Dear all,

This year, the term of 4 (four) Community- and Affiliate-selected Trustees on the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees will come to an end [1]. The Board invites the whole movement to participate in this year’s selection process and vote to fill those seats.

The Elections Committee will oversee this process with support from Foundation staff [2]. The Board Governance Committee created a Board Selection Working Group from Trustees who cannot be candidates in the 2024 community- and affiliate-selected trustee selection process composed of Dariusz Jemielniak, Nataliia Tymkiv, Esra'a Al Shafei, Kathy Collins, and Shani Evenstein Sigalov [3]. The group is tasked with providing Board oversight for the 2024 trustee selection process, and for keeping the Board informed. More details on the roles of the Elections Committee, Board, and staff are here [4].

Here are the key planned dates:

  • May 2024: Call for candidates and call for questions
  • June 2024: Affiliates vote to shortlist 12 candidates (no shortlisting if 15 or less candidates apply) [5]
  • June-August 2024: Campaign period
  • End of August / beginning of September 2024: Two-week community voting period
  • October–November 2024: Background check of selected candidates
  • Board's Meeting in December 2024: New trustees seated

Learn more about the 2024 selection process - including the detailed timeline, the candidacy process, the campaign rules, and the voter eligibility criteria - on this Meta-wiki page, and make your plan.

Election Volunteers

Another way to be involved with the 2024 selection process is to be an Election Volunteer. Election Volunteers are a bridge between the Elections Committee and their respective community. They help ensure their community is represented and mobilize them to vote. Learn more about the program and how to join on this Meta-wiki page.

Best regards,

Dariusz Jemielniak (Governance Committee Chair, Board Selection Working Group)

[1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:MyLanguage/Wikimedia_Foundation_elections/2021/Results#Elected

[2] https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/Committee:Elections_Committee_Charter

[3] https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/Minutes:2023-08-15#Governance_Committee

[4] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_elections_committee/Roles

[5] Even though the ideal number is 12 candidates for 4 open seats, the shortlisting process will be triggered if there are more than 15 candidates because the 1-3 candidates that are removed might feel ostracized and it would be a lot of work for affiliates to carry out the shortlisting process to only eliminate 1-3 candidates from the candidate list.

MPossoupe_(WMF)19:56, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Renaming 2 pages[edit]

Hello, I think page Cirsium acaule should be renamed to Cirsium acaulon based on https://powo.science.kew.org/taxon/urn:lsid:ipni.org:names:30076919-2.
I also think that Cirsium acaule subsp. acaule should be renamed to Cirsium acaulon subsp. acaulon based on https://powo.science.kew.org/taxon/urn:lsid:ipni.org:names:51015421-1.
I am no expert so if you think it should not be done do not do it. --Bakjb (talk) 14:40, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bakjb: You are correct. Are you able to make the required changes? Andyboorman (talk) 19:48, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
POWO reflects that way - but is that reliable? Sorry - skepticism here as i see many issues raised each day about issues in POWO in multiple other databases. I'm from zoology background so much nuance from Plant nomenclature (and codes) escapes me, but at a glance i couldn't fathom why any shift to greek sounding "acaulos" or "aculon". Then i checked original in L. 1753, and it's the expected latin m/f "acaulis" (Carduus acaulis, p.1199 - now linked on the wikispecies taxon page) while the later Scopoli (1769) recombines and uses the neuter "acaule" (i.e. Cirsium acaule), as does the later Wigg (1780). Those seem contra to what POWO claims for those reference, or equally in its often preferred source IPNI. [i.e. https://www.ipni.org/n/188369-1], what gives? Sjl197 (talk) 02:09, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Bakjb, Andyboorman, and Sjl197: I can see where this is coming from: Linnaeus' description text says "Carduus acaulis", but the epithet in the page margin (which is what matters) appears to say acaulos (though in BHL's copy at least, it actually says acaul●s due to an ink blot!!). If this blot is repeated in every copy (very plausible, if the printer used a clogged-up type piece), then subsequent authors will have reasonably assumed it was an error for acaulis as in the description. But, if the basionym is Carduus acaulos, then the combination in Cirsium is acaulon. Whether this change should be made, or left ignored in the interests of stability, is another question. All the literature (until POWO changed) uses acaule. Personally, I'd have thought they ought to let sleeping Canes familiares lie . . . - MPF (talk) 14:00, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, if this is changed, the synonymy in Cirsium esculentum will also need changing as it used to be considered a subspecies of C. acaule/on; perhaps others too - MPF (talk) 14:09, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do not understand these things myself very much, so if I can ask you for help with these two articles on Slovak Wikipedia which use Cirsium acaulon (see Pichliač bezbyľový) and Cirsium acaulon subsp. acaulon (see Pichliač bezbyľový pravý) as the scientific name should they be changed or kept the same. I will try to ask the author of those articles if they have Slovak sources for said scientific names. Thank you in advance for your response. --Bakjb (talk) 15:16, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You can not blame POWO, as IPNI use the epithet acaulon. I suggest we go with IPNI and if you so wish, contact IPNI for clarification. Andyboorman (talk) 18:21, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@MPF:@Andyboorman:
Dear all. Ok - I made links to those oldest papers i mentioned above on the taxon page. I leave it to others to edit anything further or alter the name. To @Bakjb, I think no need to ask the author of the Slovak articles, but feel free to involve them. In my comment above, my own questions were solved by MPF - with "acaulos/aculon" as the greek-based equivalent of "acaulis/acaule". (Then to clarify to Bakjb - the question is reduced to only the neuter variants "aculon" or "acule" for gender agreement for the genus Cirsium). See also this link it seems an old debate. https://www.worldplants.de/world-plants-complete-list/complete-plant-list#plantUid-362403
Well yes - in a moment of tiredness i overlooked that critical page margin formation of acaul●s - thankyou MPF. I also did not expect that Linnaeus would write the word in latin in the core text but then give it with that different (greek based) spelling, but seems like he did almost same thing elsewhere in same work for his Leucadendron acaulon L. = Protea acaulos (L.) Reichard. [Appended edit: that last point was just to echo it seems ok that acaul●s = "acaulos", then extra to say the formation as Cirsium acaule seems to have widespread modern usage - so seems madness for stability to go back on that, if was zoology then i'd look into prevailing usage - indeed "Quieta non movere"] Sjl197 (talk) 21:34, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Andyboorman: - IPNI still had acaule until a couple of days ago (it was so when I first saw this discussion), they must have just now taken the lead from POWO. The most recent (October 2023) archive.org listing of POWO's page also has acaule there too, and acaulis for the protonym. It is _very_ bad of them (both POWO and IPNI!) that they don't say what changes they make, when, or why, but leave it as a mystery for others to work out on their own. @Sjl197: - thanks! MPF (talk) 22:04, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have just emailed IPNI and will let you know once they reply. I have just simply asked them. "I notice that you have changed Cirsium acaule to Cirsium acaulon, could you please explain the reasoning behind the recent change?" BTW past uasge is not as important with plants as it seems to be with zoology. That is why we have significant numbers of nom. cons. and also nom. cons. prop. rej. Andyboorman (talk) 09:02, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I also added "I refer specifically to Cirsium acaulon (L.) Scop., Annus Hist.-Nat. 2: 62 (1769) not to any of the isonyms etc. IPNI states the basionym as Carduus acaulos L., Sp. Pl. [Linnaeus] 2: 1199 (1753). The BHL links are on your site, but their protologue epithet spellings do not correspond to the IPNI records." Sorry should have said. Andyboorman (talk) 09:14, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Andyboorman, Sjl197, and Bakjb: thanks! I checked in my copy of the Ray Society 1959 facsimile of Linnaeus, and the margin there is clearly acaulos, no ink blot; as far as I know, the facsimile is an exact photo reproduction, not cleaned up in any way. Of IPNI, it is interesting to compare the current with the most recent October 2023 archive; the changes are there, but left without explanation, or the date of the change. Same goes for POWO now and October 2023 archive. - MPF (talk) 15:29, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sjl197 and Bakjb: IPNI have just got back to me and they confirm the supposition by @MPF:. In other words the author correction on the right hand margin of the basionym is its correct epithet. Therefore, Cirsium acaulon is now the correct combination. IPNI do not have a mechanism for alerting users to corrections, many of which are prompted by readers querying entries. I have made such prompts myself. Hope this helps. Andyboorman (talk) 18:14, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much. (: --Bakjb (talk) 18:15, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I can see they can't have an alert system easily, but they could surely tag the date a change is made, and cite the reasons for it - MPF (talk) 20:28, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actually @MPF: that is a good idea. I will feed back via an email. Andyboorman (talk) 21:13, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And ditto for POWO, please! Just thought too, they could also have a 'Recent changes' index a bit like ours here, that could function nearly as well as an alert; if it's a large number, perhaps broken down into 'Recent changes in Poales', 'Recent changes in Pinophyta', or similar. - MPF (talk) 21:18, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A thistle with a short glabrous stemmed calyx (edit).... Andyboorman (talk) 08:09, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Eponyms of Johannes Michael Friedrich Adams[edit]

Please see Category talk:Eponyms of Johannes Michael Friedrich Adams. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:26, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also Category talk:Eponyms of Elizabeth Acton and Category talk:Eponyms of Anthony Curtiss. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:51, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I've emptied Eponyms of Elizabeth Acton; the others will need a bit more work - MPF (talk) 22:54, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Eponyms of Anthony Curtiss emptied. - MPF (talk) 00:38, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pages for people who have eponyms but are not taxon authors[edit]

Are pages such as Anatole von Hügel, Henri Philippe Marie d'Orléans, Félix Biet (and many more) in Wikispecies' scope? They are not taxon authors, nor have published any taxonomy-related publications to my knowledge, but they have taxa named after them. Monster Iestyn (talk) 12:02, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think authors who have not published any taxonomy-related publications are out of scope. Christian Ferrer (talk) 12:36, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize if I say very simple and obvious things, but it seems to me that it is necessary to start from the very beginning. The discovery of a new species consists of several stages: 1) Finding it in nature and collecting it. 2). Finding it in the collection and 3) Writing an article and publishing it. Thus, writing an article is only one of the stages. For example, I know an entomologist who has an amazing memory and knowledge of insects, but does not like to publish articles. He is a professional disassembler of other people's collections; he identifies new species and hands them over to specialists for description from hundreds of thousands of specimens. It is not surprising that about a dozen new species of insects have been described in his honor. This is how the taxon authors reflect his contribution to the discovery. Why it doesn't deserve an article on the species wikipedia project. if the authors of the taxa themselves believe that his contribution is significant? As a rule, new species are described in honor of collectors. And this is part of the history of our science. We indicate who collected the holotype of a particular species, and as a rule, links lead to a specific person if this person has published something describing the species in other groups. But why can’t there be an article about the collector if he didn’t publish, but only the species was named in his honor?
Diaries of collectors and descriptions of their travels are extremely important for clarifying type's localities. That is, not only the descriptions and publications of new species themselves are important for taxonomy. I can give an example of how a neotype was identified completely incorrectly, since the description of the collector's journey was ignored (As you know, the ICZN Code requires that the locality of the neotype be as close as possible to the locality of the lost holotype).
And finally, the fact that the project has a template for eponyms is a reflection of the importance of this aspect of the history of science. Allowing it to be filled out for some people and not for others will lead to enormous confusion. Fresh example Anatole von Hügel. He was a prominent anthropologist, but he brought large collections on fauna and flora. Today I discovered that a species of bird was described in his honor. Why is it important to indicate this? Because his father, Carl von Hügel was a famous botanist. There are currently 39 eponyms listed in his honor on his page. Most of the species names are exactly the same as those named after his son. If we give eponyms for one person, then we must also give them for others, otherwise errors and confusion are inevitable.
I could go on about contributions of Henri Philippe Marie d'Orléans to zoology, but I think that's enough for now. Hunu (talk) 13:21, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody denies the contributions of many people in taxonomy and nomenclature. However, Wikispecies is about nomenclature, the names who named them, who re-arranged them etc. It is not about who they were necessarily named after. Wikipedia is an appropriate place for these people, nothing stopping pages being created there to discuss their lives and contributions. Here if they have not named a taxon or at the least been involved in the nomenclatural or taxonomic reassessment of taxa then they are out of scope here. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 13:46, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Scott Thomson. Did I understand you correctly that you are against the eponym template? Do you propose to remove it from all articles? Hunu (talk) 14:22, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I never said that I said that people who have not named or been involved in the taxonomic rearrangement of taxa are out of scope. I never said to delete anything. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 09:42, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There could be a middle ground: we could have a category page, but not a mainspace page, the category should then be linked to the Wikidata item about the person, and could include {{Authority control}}. In any case, such data can and should be recorded directly in Wikidata. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:50, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To my mind non-taxonomist-eponyms don't deserve a page on WS. Mariusm (talk) 16:10, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Who is non-taxonomist? A collector is non-taxonomist. Or he is taxonomist because his work is a necessary part of any taxonomic discovery Hunu (talk) 22:12, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A non-taxonomist is a person who didn't publish at least one paper (or contributed to a paper) related to the taxonomy, distribution, morphology, synonymy or nomenclature of a taxon. A strict collector, however helpful he may be to science is a non-taxonomist (at least as WS is concerned). Mariusm (talk) 06:03, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am relatively reluctant to delete entries of some non-taxon-authorities since there are people whose names are tightly linked with distribution. Are entries of people such as C. Sugawa and L.J. Brass to be deleted? Although they published seemingly no taxonomic works, their names were dedicated to plants collected in Japan and New Guinea respectively, so such eponyms can be clues for readers to expect regions where types of such names were collected even when information on distribution is not indicated yet. Although I may be not so ardent as Hunu and I can even agree with Pigsonthewing's idea, I note this comment for sharing as I am always interested in type and distribution. --Eryk Kij (talk) 08:36, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mariusm: If so Mariusm, then I suggest it may be controversial to inform the horde of "parataxonomists" that their contributions are not worthy of inclusion as being 'taxonomy'. Personally, i'd contend that if a taxon author has deemed someone else worthy of an honorific, that's clearly part of the taxonomic history, therefore within the scope for some sort of inclusion on wikispecies. Indeed, I also see many patronyms as being for collectors, and agree that some link into who those are [as Eryk Kij has nicely said] can likely be valuable to some wikispecies users, including those we'd all likely agree as publishing "taxonomists". But indeed yes, perhaps better if done for those cases in a slightly different format.
I'd also highlight many patronyms have been for patrons. An example as the various creatures named rothschildi, i.e. LINK-rothschildarchive.org. What about such patrons that then published some book or series. Many such patrons also acted as editors of works containing the taxonomic acts (which would be "related to the taxonomy" as above wouldn't it?), but noticed the cases where the names get attributed to just the issue/section/chapter author. How about names that get slipped in as side-attribution to another prior author of an unpublished earlier listing, etc.
Anyway, beyond whether a patronym is named after a "taxonomist" collector, patron, or however we might deem their role, please also note the potential value to define (or rather split) patronyms by their origin whoever they may be (or rather whatever their role may be as patron, author etc, e.g. which of the many rothschildi were to honour Baron Walter Rothschild, rather than say for Miriam Rothschild, Maurice de Rothschild, etc?) Sjl197 (talk) 20:13, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Noting here that we also have Category:Species named after celebrities, though this generally excludes politicians and royalty (and early explorers I think?). Monster Iestyn (talk) 22:51, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Should we open a little door for non-taxonomists pages who have an eponym, we will have an avalanche of doubtful pages under discussion. I am totally against, not for WS.--Hector Bottai (talk) 22:03, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Such a rigorous approach requires us to clearly define who taxonomists are. I know one very significant American scientist who spent his entire life working on the taxonomy of mammals, but as far as I know he did not describe a single taxon. Simply because it wasn't necessary. Hunu (talk) 11:05, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are many who are authors or co-authors of taxa who are definitely not taxonomists, but by our definitions are taxon authorities by having named taxa. Some publish one and only one article in their lives. I have thought long and hard on a definition suitable for Wikispecies, and don't have much. Lot of fuzzy areas involved. Neferkheperre (talk) 13:51, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Our latest definition of taxon authority is not only who described a new taxon but also who contributed to a paper that affected the taxonomy of some taxa. Very recent discussion.--Hector Bottai (talk) 22:24, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]