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:


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-xx-xx)


Repositories with the same combination of letters[edit]

Hello, a quick question: is there a preferred way of disambiguating repository links? The holotype of Mesodermochelys undulatus is in the Hobetsu Museum ("Institutional Abbreviation: HMG"), but HMG is already occuped by the Hunterian Museum, Glasgow. Would HMG (Japan) or Hobetsu Museum or something else again be better? Thank you, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 13:08, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Hello Maculosae tegmine lyncis. No, unfortunately we don't have a set system for disambiguating repository links/pages. It's been discussed several times before, but the talks have sort of dried out without the community coming to any conclusion. I'll copy this discussion to the Village Pump, in order to again raise this question to the community as a whole. Please continue the discussion there. Regards, Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 20:51, 13 September 2021 (UTC).[]

───────────────────────── The above discussion was copied from User talk:Tommy Kronkvist#Repositories with the same combination of letters. Please continue the discussion below.

Though we tend to be a bit loath to them. This is one issue where either a category or a list may be helpful. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 01:42, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[]
…Or both, actually. A list of all repositories listing where they're situated etc. (like the author disambiguation pages) would be helpful when users need to do a quick search for a specific repository page, while the category is useful in a broader spectrum, for example when doing Wikidata-, tech- or bot related tasks. Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 08:08, 14 September 2021 (UTC).[]
This is surely a wider problem than just for wikispecies? I'd assume priority applies; whichever of the institutions was HMG first should keep it (Her Majesty's Government? ツ), and the other(s) should select, or be allocated, a different acronym? - MPF (talk) 10:34, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[]
I agree Tommy, at the least this could be initialised as a list of all repositories, a Cat can then be done that would be most beneficial to various tasks as you say. MPF, In regards to priority of acronyms, for major institutions I believe these are registered by the Institution and in general are their preferred acronym. I believe they are checked against an international database when created. I could be wrong on that just I do recall several museums being made to change their over the years, some were voluntary. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 10:48, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[]
FWIW, Evenhuis has HMUG for the Hunterian museum, but does not include Hobetsu. The official ASIH list uses HMG for Hobetsu and GLAHM for the Hunterian Museum. Circeus (talk) 11:45, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[]
In regards to priority of acronyms we should also remember that many repositories use several acronyms depending on faculty etc. For example the Swedish Museum of Natural History use NHRM, NHRS, NRM & SNHM; here at Wikispecies they're all redirected to the main one, SMNH. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 13:57, 14 September 2021 (UTC).[]
Yes. Acronyms have also varied over time for many institutions (Indeed, Hobetsu Museum's official name isn't even that anymore: it changed in 2006!), and the literature is full of adhoc usages because unless a journal editor mandates use of a standard, everyone remains free to abbreviate however they want. While Index Herbariorum, Evenhuis and the ASIH standards are convenient, they are only partial and ad hoc to their specialties. The early 2010s efforts at standardizing never really took off because very few projects actually need to handle collection acronyms across many specialties. Unfortunately, we're one of those! Circeus (talk) 14:27, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[]

───────────────────────── "This is one issue where either a category or a list may be helpful". Don't we have Repositories already? Though it doesn't look like either of the two subpages have been updated very often in the last two years. Monster Iestyn (talk) 20:10, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Yes, I had forgotten about the Repositories pages. However as you say they haven't been updated for a long time: you'll have to be familiar with Akkadian cuneiform to decipher some of it... Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 03:31, 15 September 2021 (UTC).[]
We basically stopped supporting that page when we stopped using it as the linking atrget for all repository acronyms. Circeus (talk) 02:11, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[]
You're right. It would be easier to update/support it (and of more value to the community) if there where categories to back it up. Right now it's only a somewhat misplaced page in main namespace that feels a bit too "autonomous" from a wiki structural point of view. Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 11:39, 16 September 2021 (UTC).[]

───────────────────────── @Monster Iestyn and Tommy Kronkvist: I can't believe I forgot that there IS in fact a page that (roughly) is appropriate for this: Wikispecies:Institution acronyms needing fixes. But then I was the only one actually bothered by issues like that at the time. Circeus (talk) 03:21, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Circeus, back in 2015 you were often the only one bothered by many of these technicalities... :-) Thanks for the link, I'll have a new look at all of this during the weekend. Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 10:16, 8 October 2021 (UTC).[]
At the time I was mostly bothered with issues of multiple acronyms for the same institution and acronyms with (IMO) entirely improper names (e.g. any starting with DB- for "Department of Biology"), so the structure of the page reflects that. We hadn't yet run into much homonymy issues with regard to these. Circeus (talk) 13:00, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[]
I did actually see that page some time back myself, but it too appeared abandoned and forgotten so I didn't want to touch it myself so I recall. I think a few on the todo list have since been dealt with, for instance RMCA/MRAC. Monster Iestyn (talk) 19:43, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Back to Hobetsu, Kamuysaurus japonicus is there too; I propose disambiguating HMG to HMG (Glasgow) and HMG (Hobetsu); does anyone disagree/object/have a better suggestion? Thank you, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 12:23, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Circumscriptional names[edit]

Please have a look at Rhabdura (06:22, 19 September 2021 version). Ideas and thought about how we should best handle and format these kind of issues/taxa are welcome. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 10:56, 19 September 2021 (UTC).[]

By definition, circumscriptional name are unregulated under either botanical or zoological codes (though they are under the bacteriological code). Aside from the their form (which must be in -ales for plants), it's 100% dependent on whatever source has been selected as a valid classification by Wikispecies. There's literally nothing more we can use to guide us that wouldn't be original research. Circeus (talk) 15:34, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[]
In addition, WS pages are for taxa not names. By regulation names for taxa must conform to botanical or zoological codes, therefore WS pages for circumscriptional plant or zoological names are not allowed. Am I right or wrong? Andyboorman (talk) 18:08, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[]
A similar note is on the page for Dicellurata, the only other suborder in Diplura listed on Wikispecies. These notes were added by Nikita J. Kluge, who edited both of the pages back in 2013. Not sure if this helps at all or not. Monster Iestyn (talk) 18:57, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[]
EDIT: Ah hang on, he also added similar notes to other pages such as Insecta in 2013 (see here), only to be reverted by Stho002 later on (see here). It looks like there are only 6 pages altogether that Kluge edited that Stho002 didn't later revert: Dicellurata, Entomobryomorpha, Holodonata, Metapterygota, Odonatoptera and Rhabdura. I'm not sure what to make of this. Monster Iestyn (talk) 19:40, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[]
@Andyboorman: ICZN doesn't regulate names higher than family-group (superfamily, family, subfamily, tribe, subtribe), so all names for higher ranks like order and suborder are therefore circumscriptional names, so far as I understand. Monster Iestyn (talk) 20:34, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[]
@Monster Iestyn: ICN Chapter 1 Art 1-5 deals with taxa and ranks, including higher than family, for algae, fungi, and plants so circumscriptional names do not apply for these organisms. I am not sure of the value of adding them or creating a taxon page for them. Andyboorman (talk) 07:38, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[]
@Andyboorman: Hm, I don't these names are invalid by being circumscriptional names, otherwise that would mean we couldn't use "Insecta" or "Animalia" surely? In any case it's obvious to me that the term "circumscriptional name" itself is misleading us to think they're invalid names. It confused me too initially until I looked further into what Kluge was doing across Wikispecies. I think this was just Kluge attempting to put his own extended nomenclatural system on the wiki, as well as adding links to his own "Nomina Cicrumscribentia Insectorum" website with his own interpretations of the taxa. (If you saw Kluge's notes for Insecta for instance, he claimed it's not valid and it should be called Amyocerata instead?!?) Therefore I think we should keep these pages, but we should remove Kluge's interpretations of the taxa, because only Kluge seems to use them so far as I know (unless I am mistaken). Stho002 already reverted most of Kluge's edits to these pages years ago, but not these last six for some reason. Maybe he missed them? Monster Iestyn (talk) 15:42, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[]
@Monster Iestyn: Agreed remove. WS is not a personal domain. I did not say invalid, perhaps just advising that we be more circumspect in their use. We do occasionally use clade names as well, after all. Andyboorman (talk) 15:57, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[]
@Andyboorman: Ah, my mistake. In that case, I will remove Kluge's changes then. Monster Iestyn (talk) 16:28, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[]
 Done Monster Iestyn (talk) 16:49, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Species group pages[edit]

I just came across the page Albomarginatus by chance. It seems to be meant for a species group containing the grasshopper species Chorthippus albomarginatus, but with an obviously poorly-chosen page name. It does make me wonder more generally though, should Wikispecies have pages for species groups at all? If so, what should the correct name for this page be? Monster Iestyn (talk) 02:10, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[]

In my opinion, absolutely not. There might be an argument for using them to organize the genus page, but they are not true taxonomic entities and are even less informally regulated than suprafamilial ranks. (Sadly, the cross-rank homonymy system used in the ICZN means infrasubgeneric ranks are unlikely to ever be introduced in zoological nomenclature, which is too bad because species groups and the overabundance of subgenera make it clear IMO that zoologists could use one or two extra ranks between species and subgenus!) Circeus (talk) 04:26, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[]
technically there is, as the rank Superspecies is a valid rank, however I do not recall really seeing it ever used, at least not as a rank more as a convenience, species complex is also used but not as a rank. One of the arguments for PhyloCode was the capacity to add many more ranks. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 06:45, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Template:Tropicos[edit]

This template has been modified and now there are seven Template:Tropicos, however now, with the same Tropicos template that has been used so far, an error of ((3)) appears, I would like someone to know Inform me of the matter which of the seven I should use so that the reference appears with the correct data. Gracias.--MILEPRI (talk) 10:09, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[]

I do not use {{Tropicos}} in any of its forms preferring {{MBG}} and its family. However, there are some dedicted variants that link to local flora, for example {{MBG-VPA}} that can be useful, but they do require the Tropicos taxon ID. Andyboorman (talk) 11:55, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[]

G. Abbey[edit]

Anyone want to give a second opinion on my notes at Talk:G. Abbey? Basically I think this botanist's full name is George Abbey, who lived from 1835 to 1917, according to some references I've given there. Monster Iestyn (talk) 00:22, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Looks fine to me. Thanks Andyboorman (talk) 07:18, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Okay then, thanks, I'll update the page with his full name and other details. Monster Iestyn (talk) 17:35, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[]
You should consider forwarding this information to IPNI. They are usually quite happy to get this sort of information of obscure abbreviated authors. Circeus (talk) 19:20, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[]
I had wondered about that actually, if someone else doesn't do it first I'll send an email to them at some point when I have the chance. Monster Iestyn (talk) 19:37, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[]
 Done Just sent them an email. Monster Iestyn (talk) 17:07, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Just got a reply stating they've updated the author record, so the changes should be visible tonight or tomorrow (depending on your timezone). Monster Iestyn (talk) 21:36, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Let's talk about the Desktop Improvements[edit]

Annotated Wikipedia Vector interface (logged-out).png

Hello!

Have you noticed that some wikis have a different desktop interface? Are you curious about the next steps? Maybe you have questions or ideas regarding the design or technical matters?

Join an online meeting with the team working on the Desktop Improvements! It will take place on October 12th, 16:00 UTC on Zoom. It will last an hour. Click here to join.

Agenda

  • Update on the recent developments
  • Sticky header - presentation of the demo version
  • Questions and answers, discussion

Format

The meeting will not be recorded or streamed. Notes will be taken in a Google Docs file. The presentation part (first two points in the agenda) will be given in English.

We can answer questions asked in English, French, Polish, and Spanish. If you would like to ask questions in advance, add them on the talk page or send them to sgrabarczuk@wikimedia.org.

Olga Vasileva (the team manager) will be hosting this meeting.

Invitation link

We hope to see you! SGrabarczuk (WMF) 15:09, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Hello! I'd like to remind that the meeting will happen today. You are welcome to join! SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 15:13, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Remove main namespace from wgExtraSignatureNamespaces[edit]

I am planning to remove the main namespace from the wgExtraSignatureNamespaces configuration setting on this wiki. I think this will have very little impact, but letting you know just in case. For more context, see task T291630 (although I'm happy to reply here if you have any questions).

Currently, that configuration setting affects:

It was configured that way in 2014 for all "special" wikis (basically, anything other than the Wikimedia projects with multiple language versions), on the assumption that they often have discussions, including their "village pump" equivalent, in [main namespace]. This doesn't seem correct for this wiki. We're planning to use that config setting for future discussion-related features, and it would probably be unexpected if they showed up in the main namespace here.

Please let me know if there's any problem with this. Thanks. Matma Rex (talk) 18:36, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Thank you for the information, Matma Rex. I think you're right in that Wikispecies is even more special than most other "special" wikis: due to the very specialized scope of the project we sometimes need to do things a bit differently than most of the more broader scoped sister projects. Nonetheless we always adapt very well to changes, and that's true both for our individual contributors as well as the Wikispecies community as a whole. We rely rather heavily on co-operation and integration with Wikidata, but the changes you refer to will most likely have no impact on that collaboration. Best regards, Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 00:23, 5 October 2021 (UTC).[]
The change has been applied now. Matma Rex (talk) 11:38, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[]

The Ngātiwai tribe as an author[edit]

According to this article, the authors of Cylix tupareomanaia are "Short, Trnski and Ngātiwai", the latter being "the Ngātiwai tribe". How will we model this? Both are already on Wikidata. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:05, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Generally speaking, Eschmeyer's Catalog of Fishes (CoF) is the best and most up-to-date source of information when it comes to ichthyology-related taxonomy. They're hosted by the California Academy of Sciences and generally better updated than for example FishBase (despite the fact that FishBase use CoF as a baseline reference for their own databases and therefore should be on a par). I'm soon to be temporarily kidnapped by my friends since it's my birthday and we're heading out, but here's what my short examination came up with, for now: This is what CoF currently has to say about this taxon:
tupareomanaia, Cylix Short [G. A.], Trnski [T.] & Ngātiwai [K. of] in Short & Trnski 2021:808, Figs. 1–6 [Ichthyology & Herpetology v. 109 (no. 3); ref. 38639] Waiatapaua Bay, Whangaruru, New Zealand, 35°19'18.7"S, 174°22'08.1"E, depth 14 meters, Holotype: AIM MA122274. Paratypes: NMNZ P.046322 (1), P.056154 (1). Valid as Cylix tupareomanaia Short, Trnski & Ngātiwai 2021.
Current status: Valid as Cylix tupareomanaia Short, Trnski & Ngātiwai 2021. Syngnathidae: Syngnathinae. Distribution: New Zealand: Taitokerau Northland. Habitat: marine.
From the above "ref. 38639" reference i.e. Ichthyology & Herpetology 109(3): 806–835 I gather that the letter "K." in the above "Ngātiwai [K. of]" authorship refers to Kaumātua which means "elders of" in the native language of the Ngātiwai tribe. Hence, according to the Catalog of Fishes the authors are Graham A. Short, Thomas Trnski and "the Elders of the Ngātiwai". This seems very, very odd from an ICZN point of view, but perhaps the elder's as a group are seen as some form of authority like for example the IUCN or a board of trustees at an institution or university. Also, the Ichthyology & Herpetology article was published in September 20, so perhaps it's still a bit too early to say for sure how this will end. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 19:09, 6 October 2021 (UTC).[]
Its actually likely an effort to recognise indigenous knowledge which is an important issue in the region. How we accomodate that in our format though I am not sure. Would you like me to ask Richard Pyle for a comment? Apart from running ZooBank he is also an icthyologist. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 03:59, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[]
The paper itself is DOI: 10.1643/I2020136 and is free to read (possibly open source - I can't find the licence). It attributes the name as "Cylix tupareomanaia Short, Trnski, and Ngātiwai, new species"; the "Etymology" section says "The species epithet tupareomanaia is a neologism gifted by kaumātua (tribal elders) of Ngātiwai...", while the paper's "Acknowledgments" say: "We give sincere thanks to Hori Parata and kaumātua of Ngātiwai for the partnership with the Auckland Museum and in collaborating with the naming of Cylix tupareomanaia..." Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:23, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[]
@Pigsonthewing: - "(possibly open source - I can't find the licence)" - it's CC-BY, given in the 'Data Accessibility' section just above the Acknowledgments - MPF (talk) 19:37, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Thank you, but that licences the "the published images and illustrations", not the text. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:16, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Zoobank includes the tribe for the authorship of the species, but have no [visible] author page for that tribe, likely because the tribe is not the author of the publication. You can do the same here, you gives the correct attribution, as given in the original description, and maybe with a little explicative sentence in the species page, but without create the page Ngātiwai here. Christian Ferrer (talk) 21:09, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[]

splast[edit]

Please do not use the template splast in anything other than lists of species. It is causing unwanted line breaks, for example Arctium where it has been used in the typus. I appreciate that this has occurred since splast was modified to produce a line break, so also please do not go around adding unwanted <br> after this template, as we are now producing several different page formats. Or at least run your preferred format across the Pump for discussion. Andyboorman (talk) 13:23, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[]

I fully agree with Andyboorman in this matter. The {{splast}} template has now been removed from the Arctium page mentioned above, however the code for the old incorrect version (with "splast" intentionally left un-edited by Andy, to leave as an example) can be seen on the left-hand side on this page. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 16:12, 14 October 2021 (UTC).[]

The Wikipedia Library[edit]

Just want to draw your attention (in case you're not aware) that you can apply for access to The Wikipedia Library. This grants you free access to a number of journals and major resources like JSTOR, Taylor & Francis and Springer-Nature (the only noticeable missing major publisher is Wiley). This should help you access some journals that your university or institution might not have subscription to. OhanaUnitedTalk page 07:25, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[]

I was not aware of this initiative, this is absolutely fantastic. A huge thank you to all the people who made this possible!--Hiouf (talk) 19:56, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Agreed. Many thanks --Andyboorman (talk) 20:55, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Does it include Brill and/or Magnolia Press? I'd consider it if it had the Catalogue of Palaearctic Coleoptera or Zoo/Phytotaxa (since scihub is not updated since late 2019), but the site makes it very hard to check up on what is or not included. Circeus (talk) 19:48, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[]
I actually signed up to this a while back. I tried it out with JSTOR for instance. It didn't give me access to any journals I particularly wanted though (last I checked), but the idea of the Wikipedia Library itself is a good one nevertheless. Monster Iestyn (talk) 21:47, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[]
@Circeus: Brill and Magnolia Press are currently not included. However, both are on the suggestion list and you can upvote the ones that you want to see. Of course it depends on the publisher's willingness (see Wiley). @Monster Iestyn: JSTOR's access description says "The content set currently available to the Wikipedia editors includes all of JSTOR's archival journal collections and the 19th Century British Pamphlets collection." It's possible that they have expanded the collection since you last tried. But if you can't access some journals within JSTOR, you can raise it at this Meta page. OhanaUnitedTalk page 06:06, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[]
@Monster Iestyn: I managed to get a 2021 paper from JSTOR. And indeed, it would be fantastic to have Zootaxa. But I'm already very grateful for what's provided. It's a small but important step toward open-source science. --Hiouf (talk) 07:03, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[]
How does this work, please? I'd be interested in getting hold of this one, please: 10.2989/00306525.2020.1837979 Thanks! MPF (talk) 19:20, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Movement Charter Drafting Committee (MCDC) Election Starts[edit]

Voting for the election for the members for the Movement Charter drafting committee is now open. In total, 70 Wikimedians from around the world are running for 7 seats in these elections.

Voting is open from October 12 to October 24, 2021.

The committee will consist of 15 members in total: The online communities vote for 7 members, 6 members will be selected by the Wikimedia affiliates through a parallel process, and 2 members will be appointed by the Wikimedia Foundation. The plan is to assemble the committee by November 1, 2021.

  • We are piloting a voting advice application for this election. Click yourself through the tool and you will see which candidate is closest to you!

--SOyeyele (WMF) (talk) 16:30, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Expansion depth[edit]

Hello, is expansion depth still an issue? For instance, Anas formosa is in the category Category:Pages where expansion depth is exceeded, but this does not obviously affect functionality. I wish to create Neoaves, which may tip other birds over this limit. Were this a problem, I guess it would be possible to hard code eg Aves (say from Animalia or Amniota down to Aves), as presumably most of the changes occur lower down; thank you, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 19:38, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[]

@Maculosae tegmine lyncis: I'm not 100% sure, but my best guess is yes, it's still a problem. I base that upon that for example MediaWiki:Expansion-depth-exceeded-category (and a MediaWiki module?) are involved and those same pages are also still in use on for example Meta-Wiki and Wikipedia. However I do have a vague memory of a discussion (then) saying this problem would go away together with a future MediaWiki software update, and maybe that update has gone live by now..? Perhaps someone of the other administrators have more updated information? I'll send them a ping: (AccassidyAlvaroMolinaAndyboormanBurmeisterCirceusDan KoehlDannyS712EncycloPeteyFaendalimasFloscuculi) (Franz XaverGeniHector BottaiKeith EdkinsKoavfMariusmMKOliverMPFNeferkheperreOhanaUnited) (PigsonthewingRLJThiotrix)
Regards, Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 04:32, 15 October 2021 (UTC).[]
It still exists but I don't think there is any workaround at this juncture. I recommend making the page exactly as you would have otherwise. —Justin (koavf)TCM 05:32, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[]
I'm going to sound like a broken record, but here's my take: this technical issue wouldn't have arisen if we'd ever had a proper policy in place as to which kind of and how many ranks/clades belongs in the taxonavigation to begin with.
I've always been dubious of the will coming from some corners to make these templates reflect cladistics exactly (and not just because of this technical limitation, I should add). For starters having 11 groups between infraclass Aves and the order alone seems excessive to say the least. Circeus (talk) 13:25, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[]
@Circeus: Propose a solution and I'd be happy to see the discussion. —Justin (koavf)TCM 18:07, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Look, I'm not going to pretend this has an easy sol—...
Well, no, there are plenty of easy solutions (for example "Only Linnean and linnean-adjacent ranks belong in the TaxoNav template because it's a taxonomic, not phylogenetic navigation"). But no easy solution is going to be easily accepted by both sides of the issue.
The real point is, making a decision on this issue requires a thorough debate/discussion, and historically the Wikispecies userbase has just not been very good at landing on an agreed decision. Or indeed, even admitting that a decision ought to be made at all! Which is why we still have dubious categories such as Category:Publications by topic or category:epibionts: I never felt I had community support to deal with them. Circeus (talk) 19:41, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[]
If it were up to me I would scrap the entirety of Help:Contents in its current form and start over from scratch, documenting actual practice in all areas of the site (note how clades are not even mentioned in Help:Taxonavigation section) and resolving divergences and omissions as they come to the fore. As is, we do not even have a written policy that says what papers are appropriate to use in reference sections or as a template! Circeus (talk) 19:53, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Pretty sure it is and I wouldn't expect it to change. As I understand it expansion depth limits are a problem on most wikis only due to old style hacky templates that have in a large part been replaced with lua based designs. So not much drive to change the 40 limit now. While it would be technically possible to reduce the problem by dumping multiple layers into a single template that would be at the cost of losing a single set of universal templates. So not optomistic on this one.Geni (talk) 20:20, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Does anyone have access to the server? The default settings are controlled by $wgMaxTemplateDepth = 40 (on line 4873 here); apparently each wiki has a file LocalSettings.php on the server and you can "tweak the parameters" [1]. The guidance for line 4873 reads "Maximum recursion depth for templates within templates. The current parser adds two levels to the PHP call stack for each template, and xdebug limits the call stack to 100 by default. So this should hopefully stop the parser before it hits the xdebug limit." This suggest the limit could safely be increased to say 48 - which would be enough for Anas formosa, which I think involves 43 templates. Thank you, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 22:03, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Server changes pretty much have to be posted to phab: as I understand it. —Justin (koavf)TCM 02:57, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Thank you — I have logged this request, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 07:45, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Yan-Hong Lu 2[edit]

Back in 2016, Kempf EK created the page Yan-Hong Lu 2 for a Chinese ostracodologist. I trust this author probably does or has existed, but Kempf didn't put any further information on the page. So far I've been unable to find any publications by this author, nor whether they might actually be the same as Yan-Hong Lu 1. Unfortunately of course I can't ask Kempf himself for information now, since he has since passed away. So, can anyone else dig up anything maybe? Monster Iestyn (talk) 18:28, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[]

If we can't find names or articles that are relevant to the name, we shouldn't have a page for it. We can always recreate it later if we can figure out who this person actually is. Circeus (talk) 13:47, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Scabiosoideae[edit]

@Floscuculi:, @RLJ:, @MILEPRI: & @Uleli:, as editors on the taxon page for Scabiosoideae, I need to seek your opinion and others interested, before subsuming this page in synonymy under Dipsacoideae. This is more current as can be seen on AWP and the synonymy is also found in Hofmann, U. & Bittrich, V. 2016. Caprifoliaceae (with Zabelia incert. sed.). Pp. 117-129, 275-280, in Kadereit, J.W., & Bittrich, V. (eds), The Families and Genera of Vascular Plants, Volume 14: Flowering Plants: Eudicots - Aquifoliales, Boraginales, Bruniales, Dipsacales, Escalloniales, Garryales, Paracryphiales, Solanales (except Convolvulaceae), Icacinaceae, Metteniusaceae, Vahliaceae. Springer. I have not got access to a copy of the later at the moment. Mayer & Ehrendorfer, (2013) reference link found on the taxon pages, are adamant in their circumscription, but more recent work has questioned their approach. I have read a 2021 publication that also proposes the subfamily Zabelioideae (not yet in IPNI) to tidy up Zabelia incert. sed. and this does not even mention Scabiosoideae, the relevant genera analysed being in Dipsacoideae. Thoughts please. Andyboorman (talk) 19:30, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Jacobs et al. 2011 do not treat Caprifolicaceae s.l. as a whole. Dipsacaceae (authored by Veronika Mayer) are maintained including its subdivision in The Families and Genera of Vascular Plants 14. In the paper which is that which I assume to be the 2021 publication: Reconstructing Lee et al.: Dipsacales phylogeny using Angiosperms353: issues and insights. DOI: 10.1002/ajb2.1695, the subdivision of the former Dipsacaceae is not discussed, and Mayer's works are not cited. So I don't see any authority to remove the subdivision of former Dipsacaceae. For reducing Dipsacoideae and Scabiosoideae to Tribes and their tribes to subtribes, a majority of the subtribal names do not exist. -RLJ (talk) 23:32, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[]
There appears to be no need to transfer the tribes under Scabiosoideae to the tribal arrangement in Dipsacoideae. Sabiosa and its relatives are usually found in Dipsaceae. I offer these papers to the discussion Barone et al. (2020) Erratum, Guacchio & Caputo, 2018, Wang et al., 2020 and Wang et al., 2021. Scabiosoideae just seems redundant and serving no useful purpose except to set WS apart from the current approaches. Andyboorman (talk) 07:49, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[]
BTW Wang et al. (2020) used Scabiosa tschiliensis Grüning/Scabiosa comosa Fisch. ex Roem. & Schult./Lomelosia comosa (Fisch. ex Roem. & Schult.) comb. ined. (depending on secondary source) as part of their Dipsacoideae ingroup. Andyboorman (talk) 10:39, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[]
I have now moved the content of Scabiosoideae (as relict of Dipsacaceae) to Dipsacoideae, dissolving the fork between Lomelosieae/Scabioseae and Bassecoieae/Dipsaceae/Knautieae/Pseudoscabioseae/Pterocephalidieae/Succiseae. -RLJ (talk) 13:38, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Thankyou. I will add some references to resolve Zabelia once this has been digested post publication. Andyboorman (talk) 14:06, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Species of the month, once more[edit]

Hello fellow Wikispecians. I know that we've talked about the Main Page's Species of the month ("SotM") section many times before (for example here: Wikispecies:Administrators' Noticeboard/Archive 2021#Species of the month), but despite the good intentions and efforts by for example Scott Thomson (a.k.a. Faendalimas) we've never really got it right. This should change. I'll be fairly busy up until October 23 preparing and attending a Wikimedia Sweden (i.e. WMSE) meeting, but after that – and well before the turn of the month – there's time to create quite a few Species of the month-templates. Quite frankly creating all the templates needed for the remainder of this and next year wouldn't take too long. However, in order to do so I would appreciate if you guys can come up with some suitable species! Preferably from a whole range of different Regna/Phyla, and please only taxa that are represented by a picture at Wikimedia Commons. Some years ago the section was called Endangered species of the month and only contained species listed as endangered or critically endangered by the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. This is no longer mandatory but would be a nice touch.

You can check Category:Species of the month in order to avoid proposing "old" species that has already had their time in the SotM limelight. Thanks beforehand! –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 23:43, 17 October 2021 (UTC).[]

If we're happy, license-wise, that images of fossil replicas and reconstructions aren't for instance statues — after all, it would be odd to argue one's replica is highly creative, since then presumably it would be a poor replica — I would suggest a couple of species beyond the help even of the Red List, Sauroctonus parringtoni and Toyotamaphimeia machikanensis (which has some extant cousins); otherwise perhaps Nahmavis grandei and/or Hucho perryi (CR), thank you, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 07:14, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[]
"and please only taxa that are represented by a picture at Wikimedia Commons" - I'd go one step further, and say 'represented by a picture of the taxon in the wild' (i.e., not cultivated or captive) - MPF (talk) 08:35, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[]
While I agree with the sentiment, I think eg the image on Felis bieti makes at least part of the same point, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 08:41, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[]
QED! What a horrible picture :-( MPF (talk) 09:05, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Agreed caged animals are a fact of life, but not to be celebrated by pictures on Commons or WS!!
Yeah sorry I got too busy to keep this up. I agree no caged animals please its not a look we should promote. If the picture is on commons then we can assume its licencing is fine as they tend to jump on that there, so long as the image has been there at least a month. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 14:00, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[]

academia.edu link[edit]

Has anybody got a link fix that goes straight to an article on academia.edu in a similar way to {{ResGate}}, in order to give a functioning direct call to be used within reference templates? Thanks Andyboorman (talk) 15:00, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[]

I tried one in Template:Sandbox3; for instance if you add [view in edit mode] Academia.edu then it will take you to this article; if this is the functionality wanted, the template could be given a proper name; unlike ResGate though, I don't have (?immediate?) access to the pdf/article in question, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 15:47, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[]
If I create the template {{Academia.edu}}, what should the shortcut be? {{AcaEdu}}? Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 15:59, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[]
We have ResGate and JSTOR so AcaEdu should be fine. Andyboorman (talk) 17:08, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Ok, should be good to go (although there may be some related mopping-up to do too in the pages for deletion folder); thanks, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 17:26, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[]
On a related note, can anyone work out why {{Academia.edu Publication}} and {{NDL}} don't show up in Category:Literature link templates, when their Category suggests they should? Thanks, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 17:41, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[]
@Maculosae tegmine lyncis: It's probably a cache thing, I just edited+saved {{Academia.edu Publication}} and it appears in the category for me now. Monster Iestyn (talk) 18:07, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[]

AcaEdu works you have got to make sure that you are a member of the site so that you can easily pick up the identifier for the paper to be added to the reference template. See {{Christenhusz, 2012a}}. Many thanks Andyboorman (talk) 20:00, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Native distribution areas:[edit]

The use of distribution data containing areas in which a species has been "introduced into" means that the title - Native distribution areas is incorrect. Therefore, something has to change surely? My strong preference would be to keep the title, as this has some, all be it minor, relevance to taxonomy, whereas "introduced into" is irrelevant and probably out of project scope. The implication is then to delete the "introduced into" data on edit and not add it in the future. Please can we discuss? Andyboorman (talk) 20:30, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[]

I think invasive species are taxonomically relevant, by hybridization and by outcompeting native flora. Species can have their type outside their native area. -RLJ (talk) 21:33, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Agreed but a blanket "introduced into" does not cover your valid first point, as it is too vague and all encompassing. We would need "invasive and of concern" for example. Andyboorman (talk) 06:43, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[]
The topic has been discussed before, for example Archive 48 PS @AndyMabbett: I did not close the discussion only posted the penultimate contribution! Regards Andyboorman (talk) 10:34, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[]

This sort of slippery slope broadening of the material to be included is exactly why I've always objected to having distributions to begin with. Leave it to Wikipedia, that's their job. Circeus (talk) 17:28, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Broadening the scope without going to the Pump is a no no, as well. Andyboorman (talk) 18:10, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[]
For information @RLJ: is experimenting with the format found here. Andyboorman (talk) 10:45, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[]
I am "experimenting" with this format along with other users since a couple of years, without significant changes. The grey script for introduced occurrences is authored by User:MPF. --RLJ (talk) 12:52, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[]
No accusation of improper conduct just bringing it to the attention of other users who wish to use this function. Its use will at least allow a more consensual format to emerge. Andyboorman (talk) 20:45, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Personally, I still think by far the best, is to use maps where we have them (see e.g. Acer platanoides); visualisation is much easier, and it is far easier to depict distributions that do not match political / national boundaries. Maps if available can replace 'nadi' lists, rather than have both. Where no map is available, then the nadi lists are useful. While I'd prefer them to show just native locations, I can live with invasive locations when shown distinctly (like pale grey text), but we really shouldn't list anywhere that species are cultivated / kept in captivity but not being invasive. - MPF (talk) 21:16, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Talk to the Community Tech[edit]

Magic Wand Icon 229981 Color Flipped.svg

Read this message in another language

Hello!

We, the team working on the Community Wishlist Survey, would like to invite you to an online meeting with us. It will begin on 27 October (Wednesday) at 14:30 UTC on Zoom, and will last an hour. Click here to join.

Agenda

  • Become a Community Wishlist Survey Ambassador. Help us spread the word about the CWS in your community.
  • Update on the disambiguation and the real-time preview wishes
  • Questions and answers

Format

The meeting will not be recorded or streamed. Notes without attribution will be taken and published on Meta-Wiki. The presentation (all points in the agenda except for the questions and answers) will be given in English.

We can answer questions asked in English, French, Polish, Spanish, German, and Italian. If you would like to ask questions in advance, add them on the Community Wishlist Survey talk page or send to sgrabarczuk@wikimedia.org.

Natalia Rodriguez (the Community Tech manager) will be hosting this meeting.

Invitation link

We hope to see you! SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 23:00, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Expansion depth - Lua as solution? Demo[edit]

The expansion depth-related request above to the technical team appears to have stalled - and eg Avialae and the templates it links to are missing from eg Anas templates, but if you add it/them in, then there is indeed a functionality issue – so, on a test basis, I have copied across the bare minimum for basic functionality of Module:Autotaxobox. If you look at Wikispecies:Sandbox, taxonavigation is being served in two ways - the standard template method up to Ordo level (this method is capped at c.40 levels); and, in the dropdown, a few (at the moment, duplicated) ranks using the "Lua module" method. This requires completion of eg {{Taxonomy/Feliformia}}, and its parents, to work, and is currently capped at (if used in conjunction, an additional) 100 levels - a cap which, were the need to arise, appears to be amendable this end.

@Circeus: seemed opposed, but it's not clear which ranks should otherwise be used in the taxonavigation templates, and which not; clearly we currently have a software-imposed constraint, which this solution might sidestep; by running both systems alongside each other, there is no labour requirement to convert one set of templates into another format, simply an option for those who would like to add back in those ranks omitted due to this constraint. Were say ranks above Order to be converted to Lua and the species etc pages served in this hybrid manner, the {{taxonav}} tool would not result in two taxonavigation boxes, which might otherwise result were for instance the template method to be used up to Avialae, with taxonav applied in the Order-level template, then the Lua method for higher ranks. (The current test code has vast amounts of bloat, and the final output may want minor tweaking format-wise, but it might be best to canvas other opinions first.) Thanks, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 14:44, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[]