Wikispecies:Village Pump
Shortcuts: WS:V, WS:VP
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}}
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:
 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 | (2023-11-18/2024-02-14) |
| 67 | (2024-02-14/2024-06-21) | 68 | (2024-06-22/2024-11-02) |
| 69 | (2024-11-03/2025-02-03) | 70 | (2025-02-03/2025-04-11) |
| 71 | (2025-04-12/2025-06-16) | 72 | (2025-06-17/2025-xx-xx) |
USERLANGUAGE
[edit]I notice in this week's Wikidata newsletter:
The
{{USERLANGUAGE}}magic word is now enabled on Wikidata and Test Wikidata. It can be used to display templates in the user interface language, replacing the previous{{int:lang}}hack. (phab:T405830)
and I wonder whether that would be of benefit here? The technical details are beyond my ken. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:24, 6 October 2025 (UTC)
- I think in principle, it could be useful here, at c:, d:, f:, incubator:, m:, mw:, and mul:s:. Good eye. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:33, 6 October 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you. Now task T406583. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:23, 7 October 2025 (UTC)
- Task is now "resolved". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:52, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you. Now task T406583. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:23, 7 October 2025 (UTC)
Bacteriologists vs. Microbiologists
[edit]Dear Editors,
Do you know the difference between Bacteriologists and Microbiologists in author's categories? I think no. If so, could anybody to synonymize and revise globally WS? Anna Pavlova IFPNI Staff (talk) 04:42, 18 October 2025 (UTC)
- If you're asking if bacteriologists and microbiologists are the same and if we should merge the categories... no, they're not? Bacteriologists study bacteria, microbiologists study microscopic organisms (bacteria, viruses, protists, etc.). I see no reason to merge the categories. Monster Iestyn (talk) 15:48, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
Help us decide the name of the new Abstract Wikipedia project
[edit]Hello. Please help pick a name for the new Abstract Wikipedia wiki project. This project will be a wiki that will enable users to combine functions from Wikifunctions and data from Wikidata in order to generate natural language sentences in any supported languages. These sentences can then be used by any Wikipedia (or elsewhere).
There will be two rounds of voting, each followed by legal review of candidates, with votes beginning on 20 October and 17 November 2025. Our goal is to have a final project name selected on mid-December 2025. If you would like to participate, then please learn more and vote now at meta-wiki. Thank you!
-- User:Sannita (WMF) (talk) 11:42, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
MIchael Hassler's online databases.
[edit]This has been bought up before, but it is worth mentioning it again, as many plant editors well meaningly use the two templates {{Catol-Hassler}} and {{World Plants}}, as seemingly independent sources. I have added these to Plantago hispidula as an example. If you look through the first you should note that it acknowledges both WCVP (AKA POWO) as a source and also a "Link to original resource [1]", which is indeed {{World Plants}}. The only valued addition on World Plants compared to POWO or COL is the provision of a vernacular name, that is Llantén [Chile].
IMHO it is a format error to duplicate sources under different templates, which is why I have not used either of these templates on other Plantago templates I have been working on. However, please note that Hassler and POWO can differ in their synonymies and acceptance of disputed names, but that is for another discussion.
Please feel free to disagree and discuss. Best regards. Andyboorman (talk) 11:33, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
Re: Koavf's and Tommy Kronkvist's comments here - I've changed {{Date}} so it can handle ISO dates. This should be useful for reference template pages (date of publication) and possibly for species pages - date of collection of type specimens, though I've seen the style 21.XII.2023 used for this purpose as well.
Should we start using this template with ISO 8601 dates rather than the 3-parameter usage? Additionally, what's best to use for collection dates for specimens - this template, or the Roman numeral style? --WrenFalcon (talk) 21:36, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
- We should just use ISO dates, except to the extent that a date is in a title of a work, so we should keep that as it is. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:24, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
- @WrenFalcon: I agree with @Justin (koavf). ISO 8601 is the current international standard, as well as the standard for dates here at Wikimedia. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 09:58, 26 October 2025 (UTC).
- Could you clarify - are you saying that dates should be displayed to the user in ISO 8601 format, or just saying that the source wikitext should use the ISO 8601 format (which is then localized)? Thanks. --WrenFalcon (talk) 15:07, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
- I think the output should render ISO dates, such as 2025-10-26. It's the best way to be language/culture-neutral. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:51, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
- Could you clarify - are you saying that dates should be displayed to the user in ISO 8601 format, or just saying that the source wikitext should use the ISO 8601 format (which is then localized)? Thanks. --WrenFalcon (talk) 15:07, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
- @WrenFalcon: I agree with @Justin (koavf). ISO 8601 is the current international standard, as well as the standard for dates here at Wikimedia. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 09:58, 26 October 2025 (UTC).
Seeking volunteers to join several of the movement’s committees
[edit]Each year, typically from October through December, several of the movement’s committees seek new volunteers.
Read more about the committees on their Meta-wiki pages:
Applications for the committees open on October 30, 2025. Applications for the Affiliations Committee, Ombuds commission and the Case Review Committee close on December 11, 2025. Learn how to apply by visiting the appointment page on Meta-wiki. Post to the talk page or email cst
wikimedia.org with any questions you may have.
For the Committee Support team,
- MKaur (WMF) 14:12, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
hemihomonym and disambiguation
[edit]Quick random question for opinions, there's a insect genus Hymenopus which is a hemihomonym of the plant genus Hymenopus (Chrysobalanaceae). The creator of the plant genus @Andyboorman: clearly recognised the clash, but didn't move the insect out to make a disambiguation page etc. Things seem fine as they are linked to wikidata etc, so is it just a case of nobody being overly worried about consistency and just letting sleeping dogs lie? — The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sjl197 (talk • contribs) 17:50, 6 November 2025.
- Thanks for your notice. I will alter Hymenopus into a disambiguation page. --Thiotrix (talk) 18:45, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks to both for correcting my over sight. Andyboorman (talk) 21:02, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
Chrysanthemum combinations
[edit]Reviewing this genus, I am coming across some problems depending on our sources.
- Firstly, Chrysanthemum zawadskii (Hassler, MBG etc.) or Chrysanthemum zawadzkii (POWO, IPNI etc.)? I will contact IPNI for a definitive ruling. Please do not edit these names, and also this applies to infraspecifics.
- Also note thar there will be disputed taxa as differing sources accept slightly different combination
Thanks Andyboorman (talk) 10:15, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
- I have heard back from IPNI and the correct name is Chrysanthemum zawadzkii. The protologue is to be followed. I have also found a paper to back this up and will add to the taxon page in due course. Andyboorman (talk) 13:12, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
"Paleospecies"
[edit](Note:Moved from User talk:RLJ)
Good afternoon RLJ, I just saw your edits on Acer after I started the expansion into fossil taxa. My question is if "Paleospecies" as a separate section is still the editing convention or not? I have come across a number of pages where extinct taxa are simply listed at the end of the extant taxa list with daggers to denote the difference, while on pages where the extinctions are recent the extinct taxa and extant taxa are either all in one alphabetical list OR separated with recent and paleo at the end, but not segregated into a fully separate list. Are there any village pump discussions in the archives I should be aware of or should one be initiated?--Kevmin (talk) 00:23, 8 November 2025 (UTC)
- Hello Kevmin, I am not aware of any discussion on the pump or any offical convention. The term "paleospecies" is not my invention (as the taxonomic categories in Taxonavigation should be given in Latin, "palaeospecies" is more correct), and I am not the only one putting the fossil species into an own paragraph. I think this is justified because the literature is different. In recent organisms you have biological material, in fossil organisms you only have its traces. Greetings from Germany and best wishes, RLJ (talk) 00:51, 10 November 2025 (UTC)
I am not the only one putting the fossil species
On the other hand I am not the only on doing a single alphabetically divided structure, and thus the community is working against itself without a solid directive. You say the literature is different, but the taxonomic and phylogenetic frameworks both are placed into are the same, and literature often does not use the term paleospecies (and in the case of Acer no liturature uses the term "paleosectiones", a wholly Wikispecies made up term. Also as recent findings in fossils are showing we more and more have much MORE preserved in fossils then was thought would be possible 50 years ago. This really should be a community discussion to make a firm choice that is then reflected in the article construction guides.--Kevmin (talk) 18:10, 10 November 2025 (UTC)
- I recommend to consult the pump. --RLJ (talk) 18:40, 10 November 2025 (UTC)
- @RLJ: Done.
- Following up on this conversation with RLJ on their talkpag, a discussion needs to take place with regards to the formatting of fossil taxa, recently extinct taxa, and extant taxa on article pages. Looking at Acer, Rhinoceros, and Arini for three differing approaches. As shown at Acer and Arini the segregation is resulting in novel terms not seen anywhere outside of wikispecies, something that ALL wikiprojects should be avoiding.--Kevmin (talk) 18:11, 12 November 2025 (UTC)
- I prefer to list fossil or extinct and extant species in one alphabetical list (e.g. Cardiomya), like it is done by WoRMS. The advantage for the reader is to find a name quickly, without the need of searching in two different lists. Thiotrix (talk) 15:05, 13 November 2025 (UTC)