Shortcuts: WS:V, WS:VP

Wikispecies:Village Pump

From Wikispecies
Jump to navigation Jump to search

WikiSpecies notext-invert.svg 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:

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 (2022-07-01/2022-xx-xx)

Which Bischoff?[edit]

Does any one know which Bischoff is referred to in "Solidago eminens Bischoff ex A.Gray, Syn. Fl. N. Amer. 1(2): 157 (1884)", a synonym of Solidago canadensis L., Sp. Pl. 2: 878 (1753)? Tommy Kronkvist (talk) 20:15, 2 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The paper says "S. eminens, Bischoff, hort. Heidelb." so (s)he may have been affiliated to the Botanical Garden of the University of Heidelberg. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 20:19, 2 September 2022 (UTC).Reply[reply]
Gottlieb Wilhelm Bischoff worked at Heidelberg according to Wikipedia, and directed its botanical garden from 1839. Apart from anything else, none of the other listed Bischoffs were born yet by 1884, though G. W. Bischoff was himself long deceased by then. Monster Iestyn (talk) 21:53, 2 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This not a validly published name (it's published in synonymy, Art. 36.1(b)) so its so-called "authorship" is irrelevant. It's probably an in schedis name annotated on an herbarium sheet (this would easily accunt for the discrepancy noted by Iestyn). Not all names in IPNI are validly published. Circeus (talk) 22:55, 4 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It is not IPNI's remit to display only validly published names. Andyboorman (talk) 08:40, 8 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It is also not in our remit to document every single nomen nudum that was mentioned in synonymy only. Circeus (talk) 12:39, 8 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Surely that is up to individual editors? There is no overarching policy regarding what names are in or out of a synonymy. Andyboorman (talk) 13:03, 8 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Correct styling for author Tan Sin Hok?[edit]

Hi all, the Indonesian palaeontologist Tan Sin Hok (full name) authored a number of taxa, see e.g. "The life and scientific legacy of Indonesian paleontologist Dr. Tan Sin Hok (1902-1945)", which commences "Tan Sin Hok was probably Indonesia's most influential paleontologist...". Many (botanical) palaeontological sources e.g. use his full name as authority, as does Index Nominum Genericorum, however it seems from the first article cited that Tan was the family name, Sin Hok the personal names, per e.g. this sentence: "The relative affluence of the Tan family enabled their uncle Tan Kiat Hong to spend 18,000 Dutch Guilders from his own resources to fund the studies of Tan Sin Hok and his older brother Tan Sin Houw in The Netherlands", and a couple of botanical references cite his name as either "S.H. Tan" or simply "Tan", see e.g. Doweld, 2014, "(2265–2267) Proposals to conserve the name Discoaster against Eu-discoaster, Helio-discoaster and Hemi-discoaster, and the names Heliodiscoaster and Hemidiscoaster with those spellings (fossil Prymnesiophyta (Algae) vel Haptomonada (Protista))", (also viewable via sci-hub) which contains the following:

(2265) Discoaster S.H. Tan in Leidsche Geol. Meded. 5: 93. 24 Nov 1931, nom. cons. prop. Typus: D. brouweri S.H. Tan. (≡) Eu-discoaster S.H. Tan in Verslag Afd. Natuurk. Kon. Akad. Wetensch. Amsterdam 36: 202. 26 Feb 1927 & in Proc. Sect. Sci. Kon. Akad. Wetensch. Amsterdam 30: 415. 26 Feb 1927, nom. rej. prop. (=) Helio-discoaster S.H. Tan in Verslag Afd. Natuurk. Kon. Akad. Wetensch. Amsterdam 36: 201. 26 Feb 1927 & in Proc. Sect. Sci. Kon. Akad. Wetensch. Amsterdam 30: 414. 26 Feb 1927, nom. rej. prop. Typus: H. barbadiensis S.H. Tan. (=) Hemi-discoaster S.H. Tan in Verslag Afd. Natuurk. Kon. Akad. Wetensch. Amsterdam 36: 204. 26 Feb 1927 & in Proc. Sect. Sci. Kon. Akad. Wetensch. Amsterdam 30: 416. 26 Feb 1927, nom. rej. prop. Typus (vide Loeblich & Tappan in Phycologia 5: 144. 1966): H. molengraaffii S.H. Tan (‘molengraaffi’)

and its official response, Herendeen, Patrick S. (2016) "Report of the Nomenclature Committee on Fossils: 10". Taxon, 65(2), 382–387,, which states (e.g.) "The generic name Discoaster was published by Tan in 1931", etc. The above names are all botanical (calcareous nannofossils, normally treated as Haptophyta) but he also named new taxa in both Radiolaria and Foraminifera, which would fall under the zoological Code.

From the above it seems to me that works by Tan Sin Hok should be cited correctly as by Tan, S. H., and taxa authored by him as either "Tan" (in zoology for his Radiolaria and Foraminifera) and (preferably) either "Tan" or "S.H. Tan" (in botany, for Discoaster etc.). "Tan Sin Hok" would also not be incorrect, but only if it is understood that the format here is surname||forenames, as also found e.g. in Chinese authors, however these would normally be styled [author inits.||surname]] for anglophone users I think...

At present in Wikispecies, regarding his botanical taxa we have "Familia: †Discoasteraceae S.H. Tan" (correct per the above suggestion) but "Discoaster Tan Sin Hok", possibly also elsewhere since he also authored the calcareous nannofossil genera Eu-discoaster, Helio-discoaster, Hemi-discoaster plus a number of contained species.

In zoology, he authored the genera Cenolarcopyle, Hemicryptocapsa, Holocryptocapsa and Stylocryptocapsa in Radiolaria, and Conomiogypsinoides, Eolepidina, Helicocyclina, Katacycloclypeus, Radiocycloclypeus and Vacuolispira in Foraminifera, as well as the family Miogypsinidae, plus a large number of species (I have not checked Wikispecies for these as yet), for which I suggest the authorship for all should be "Tan" as per standard zoological nomenclature.

Anyway, just soliciting thoughts/opinions on any of the above.... Regards - Tony Rees Tony 1212 (talk) 19:26, 13 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

For what it's worth, Neave/Nomenclator Zoologicus attributes Holocryptocapsa, Hemicryptocapsa, Stylocryptocapsa and Cenolarcopyle to "Tan", Helicolepidinoides, Helicocyclina, Radiocycloclypeus and Katacycloclypeus to "Hok", and Eolepidina to "Tan Sin Hok"... go figure! Tony 1212 (talk) 22:20, 13 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks, Christian. The single work of his recorded in ZooBank is credited to his full name i.e. "Tan Sin Hok" (which is how it appears on the title page, as per the example reproduced in the "life and scientific legacy" account), similarly my own work/s may appear as "Anthony John Joseph Rees", however neither addresses quite how we should handle this name; ZooBank has an alternative rendering as well under the form "Tan, Sin Hok". The entry in Indonesian Wikipedia is interesting, although it mentions only a few of his taxon names. His 33 or so published works are also listed under "Tan Sin Hok" (sic) in the "life and scientific legacy" account, therefore would sort alphabetically under "T" which is good (Tan being the surname, certainly not Hok as per a subset of the Neave entries) but does not clarify whether we (Wikipedia and similar compendia) should use the full name or some other form such as "Tan, S. H.", or attribute his botanical taxa to "S.H." Tan", "Tan", or "Tan Sin Hok" (plus a reduced set of options with his zoological taxa, i.e. "Tan" vs. "Tan Sin Hok"). ... Tony 1212 (talk) 18:54, 17 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Tony 1212: At least for botany there is IPNI, which gives "S.H.Tan" as the attribution to use for Tan Sin Hok. Though this is assuming this is the same taxon author (there is also a corresponding Wikidata item Q47127166 for the IPNI entry). Monster Iestyn (talk) 19:18, 17 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As the article in ID wikipedia says this is a macropaleontologist working on Radiolaria, it seems logic that he is also listed in the International Plant Name Index as an Algae author, so it is reasonable to think that both items should be merged. Christian Ferrer (talk) 21:36, 17 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm not sure but I think in some Asiatic countries sometimes they are used to change the first name/last name order. Here something interesting [1] they says he is the son of "Tan Kiat Tjay", the father of " Elsa Aleida Tan", and the brother of several persons all with a name begining by "Tan". Seeing that I would say "Tan" is the last name. Christian Ferrer (talk) 21:48, 17 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Here is an open article about him: [2], note that page 90 in that article they give "Tan" as authorship for several taxa. They give also lists of taxa and publications. Christian Ferrer (talk) 21:51, 17 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Monster IestynThanks for checking IPNI, I should have thought of that earlier :) OK, it seems that it makes sense to have one "author" entry for him in both Wikidata and Wikispecies, noting that his name may be cited in different ways in zoology ("Tan") and botany "S.H.Tan"/"S.H. Tan" - I prefer the space before the surname, although IPNI does not - and I will make corresponding changes to authorship of his taxa in the system under my own control (IRMNG) directly; I noted in passing that most of the botanical names there are presently credited to "Tan Sin Hok" following input data sources used - 7 genera and 3 species in botany and so will require to be changed (I may also add a note about the alternative use of his full name in some other sources). Not sure yet about whether zoological ones are "correct" in IRMNG as yet but will need to check those as well... Cheers Tony Tony 1212 (talk) 22:31, 17 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Zoological entries in IRMNG appear to be all OK - I did have one doubled up (Radiocycloclypeus Hok, 1932 vs. Radiocycloclypeus Tan, 1932) but deprecated the first one of these a few days back (which was when I decided to ask this question, for clarification), the cited authority for others was corrected (where needed) a few days ago as well.
Searching thanks to the list of articles available here [3], I found the De Ingenieur in Nederlandsch-Indie journal archives [4] where several article from him are available (included some with new taxa). In one article when he give the authorship to himself he use "Tan", e.g. I quote from [5] p. 110: "(...) Groszforaminiferen konnten Orthogenesen auszer bei den Miogypsiniden bisher schon bei Lepidccyclinen (Tan 1935b, 1936) und Cycloclypeen (Tan 1932) nachgewiesen werden..." Christian Ferrer (talk) 06:09, 18 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Christian FerrerThanks Christian, confirms that use of "Tan" as the surname is sound.
By the way WoRMS (using data from AlgaeBase) has "Discoaster Tan Sin Hok, 1931" as a nomen dubium, which it clearly is not (over 100 species currently accepted in micropalaeontology, see ...). On further checking - the current (Sep 2022) actual AlgaeBase entry no longer says "nomen dubium", so maybe WoRMS still needs to catch up with a refresh here :)
Not quite sure when a topic is considered "agreed" here, also I am not an experienced WS editor, but I am happy to change the cited author for Discoaster, if someone else will make and link the required author and reference pages?? Or, maybe, someone else could do all three and I will check them?? Also (somewhere) there should probably be a note regarding the variant cited name forms out in the literature, as well as the differing requirements for zoology and botany, both of which are involved... Cheers Tony Rees Tony 1212 (talk) 19:04, 18 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK, I have corrected the authorship for Discoaster, author and reference pages still lacking at this time. Tony 1212 (talk) 19:20, 20 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Chelonus altitudinis virus renamed to Chelonus altitudinis bracovirus then renamed to Bracoviriform altitudinis Are these previous names become synonyms? Or there are another term for this case? Rex Aurorum (talk) 11:41, 19 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The only nomenclatural statuses I see defined in the current viral code are "accepted" and "valid" (valid appears to similar to the botany term "validly published"). Since there has been a big change in the code (species names are to be binomial with the genus as the first word) that brings it in more alignment with zoological and botanical standards, I would assume the term "synonym" could be used as it is in zoology and botany. But I feel like the code is a mess; it ought to mention a status for non-binomial names that don't yet have an accepted binomial ("valid" names conform to the code; non-binomial names no longer conform to the code) . Renaming all virus species will take some time; it's not clear how to handle non-binomial names in the interim. And there are recently updated pages on ICTV that don't use binomial names for species. Plantdrew (talk) 16:01, 19 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Important Information for Botanists and Botany Editors[edit]

Please note that at the end of October RBG Kew and partners will be closing down World Checklist of Vascular Plants (WCVP) and World Checklist of Selected Plant Families (WCSP}, however the data will continue to be available in Plants of the World Online (POWO). If possible we will need a bot to alter all the many templates. In the mean time I suggest that editors refrain from using WCSP and WCVP in favour of POWO. Thanks. Andyboorman (talk) 09:26, 20 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Vector 2022 skin as the default in two weeks?[edit]

The slides for our presentation at Wikimania 2022

Hello. I'm writing on behalf of the Wikimedia Foundation Web team. In two weeks, we would like to make the Vector 2022 skin the default on this wiki.

We have been working on it for the past three years. So far, it has been the default on more than 30 wikis, including sister projects, all accounting for more than 1 billion pageviews per month. On average 87% of active logged-in users of those wikis use Vector 2022.

It would become the default for all logged-out users, and also all logged-in users who currently use Vector legacy. Logged-in users can at any time switch to any other skins. No changes are expected for users of these skins.

About the skin[edit]

[Why is a change necessary] The current default skin meets the needs of the readers and editors as these were 13 years ago. Since then, new users have begun using Wikimedia projects. The old Vector doesn't meet their needs.

[Objective] The objective for the new skin is to make the interface more welcoming and comfortable for readers and useful for advanced users. It draws inspiration from previous requests, the Community Wishlist Surveys, and gadgets and scripts. The work helped our code follow the standards and improve all other skins. We reduced PHP code in Wikimedia deployed skins by 75%. The project has also focused on making it easier to support gadgets and use APIs.

[Changes and test results] The skin introduces a series of changes that improve readability and usability. The new skin does not remove any functionality currently available on the Vector skin.

  • The sticky header makes it easier to find tools that editors use often. It decreases scrolling to the top of the page by 16%.
  • The new table of contents makes it easier to navigate to different sections. Readers and editors jumped to different sections of the page 50% more than with the old table of contents. It also looks a bit different on talk pages.
  • The new search bar is easier to find and makes it easier to find the correct search result from the list. This increased the amount of searches started by 30% on the wikis we tested on.
  • The skin does not negatively affect pageviews, edit rates, or account creation. There is evidence of increases in pageviews and account creation across partner communities.

[Try it out] Try out the new skin by going to the appearance tab in your preferences and selecting Vector 2022 from the list of skins.

How can editors change and customize this skin?[edit]

It's possible to configure and personalize our changes. We support volunteers who create new gadgets and user scripts. Check out our repository for a list of currently available customizations, or add your own.

Our plan[edit]

If no large concerns are raised, we plan on deploying in the week of October 3, 2022. If your community would like to request more time to discuss the changes, hit the button and write to us. We can adjust the calendar.

Request for more time to discuss the change

Also, if you'd like ask our team anything, if you have questions, concerns, or additional thoughts, please ping me here or write on the talk page of the project. We will also gladly answer! See our FAQ. Thank you! SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 03:23, 22 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Vector 2010 skin
Vector 2022 skin

I have "large concerns" about this proposal. Above are two screenshots of Antônio Freire de Carvalho Filho. Apart from changing the skin, no other settings were changed. Note how the 2022 version displays less of the page content - the categories, and part of the Authority control template, are missing. Note also the excessive white space above and below the article title with the 2022 skin. (I have a user script running, that injects Wikidata metadata below the title, but that's the same in both images).

@SGrabarczuk (WMF):, FYI. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:58, 23 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello @Pigsonthewing. Thank you for your comment. Have you had a chance to learn more on why we've limited the content width? What disadvantages of this change do you see? (Regarding the styling of the template, I'm sure it'll be easy to fix.) SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 21:34, 23 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think I made clear the disadvantages in my original comment, above. I'm not clear to which template you refer. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:59, 24 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Pigsonthewing, thanks. Regarding the template, I meant the authority control. There's an odd lack of the border - I don't know why, but we'll investigate. About the disadvantages - I understand that you notice a lot of white space and less content being above the fold. That's correct, but these are only facts. What do you think about these? Why do you think these are disadvantages? SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 10:15, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"the 2022 version displays less of the page content" [on a single screen, as depcited] is not merely a fact, it is a disadvantage. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:53, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Announcing the preliminary results of the 2022 Board of Trustees election Community Voting period[edit]

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

Hi everyone,

Thank you to everyone who participated in the 2022 Board of Trustees election process. Your participation helps seat the trustees the community seeks on the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees.

These are the preliminary results of the 2022 Board of Trustees election:

You may see more information about the Results and Statistics of this Board election.

The Board will complete their review of the most voted candidates, including conducting background checks. The Board plans to appoint new trustees at their meeting in December.


Movement Strategy and Governance

This message was sent on behalf of the Board Selection Task Force and the Elections Committee

MNadzikiewicz (WMF) (talk) 06:17, 23 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

John Nelson: dates[edit]

An IP has suggested on Talk:John Nelson that the dates given for John Nelson are incorrect; they are at least unsourced in any Wikimedia project. Thoughts? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:04, 24 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have replaced the unsourced dates by the "floruit" date given in IPNI, until someone gives sources for the correct dates. --Thiotrix (talk) 08:58, 25 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Robert Brown tertius[edit]

Any botanists have any idea why Robert Brown of New Zealand (c.1820–1906) is also known as Robert Brown tertius? I noticed the Dictionary of New Zealand Biography also mentions this name, but this doesn't seem to be enough of an explanation to me alone. Looking to IPNI, this Robert Brown's abbreviation is actually "R.Br.bis", while the abbreviation "R.Br.ter" (ter being the adverbial for the ordinal "tertius") goes instead to Robert Brown of Campster? It seems almost as if somewhere there's been a mixup, or somehow these Robert Browns "2" and "3" swapped places at some point.

I'm mostly asking because I have a mind to re-title Robert Brown tertius to either "Robert Brown of NZ" (matching IPNI) or "Robert Brown of New Zealand" (giving the country name in full), or some other page name if there is a better one to use. Monster Iestyn (talk) 15:54, 30 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Check with IPNI, as it may be their error. Andyboorman (talk) 16:04, 30 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hm, looking up Brummit & Powell's 1992 Authors of Plant Names first, it looks like it also used "R.Br.bis" for Brown, Robert, of NZ and "R.Br.ter" for Brown, Robert, of Campster: [7]. So if IPNI did make an error, they copied it from B&P (1992) directly? I'm more inclined to think the New Zealand dictionary is wrong somehow, but I'll check with IPNI anyway. Monster Iestyn (talk) 16:31, 30 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
...But on the other hand, a 1985 article also refers to the New Zealand botanist as "Robert Brown tertius". I'm not sure now if IPNI can actually answer this question or not. Monster Iestyn (talk) 17:21, 30 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Which Shotwell?[edit]

Does anyone perhaps know the full name of J. Arnold Shotwell, author of for example Ochotona spanglei Shotwell, 1956? Tommy Kronkvist (talk) 03:22, 5 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(By the way, the taxon is listed with the taxon name "Ochotona spangelei" in the primary reference (DOI: 10.1130/0016-7606(1956)67[717:HMAFNO]2.0.CO;2), but mentioned as Ochotona spanglei at GBIF, Fossilworks, Encyclopedia of Life, here and at Wikidata, etc.) Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 09:59, 5 October 2022 (UTC).Reply[reply]