Jump to content

Wikispecies:Village Pump

Add topic
Shortcuts: WS:V, WS:VP
From Wikispecies
Latest comment: 12 hours ago by Tommy Kronkvist in topic Global ban proposal for Shāntián Tàiláng

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 (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-xx-xx) 70 (???)


Homochelas/Homoshelas

[edit]

I'd like some help with cleaning up these pages: Homochelas heppneri and Homoshelas. It appears that either is a misspelling of other, but I wasn't able to figure out which one. Additionally, Homochelas heppneri page has duplications but fixing those goes beyond my current editing skills.

Soulful potato (talk) 23:39, 6 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

I'm sending a notification to @PeterR who created both pages back in 2016 (including the duplicate "Name" and "References" sections on the Homochelas heppneri page). Hopefully he can help. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 00:58, 7 January 2025 (UTC).Reply
From NHM Buttmoth Catalogue Homoshelas Meyrick, 1935 is the original/correct spelling (also in LepIndex, CoL), Homochelas Clarke, 1969 is an unjustified emendation spelling (not in LepIndex).
Homoshelas in NHM Buttmoth Catalogue: https://data.nhm.ac.uk/record/c1727662-2d1e-426f-818c-d144552a747c/13811/1677508006952
Homochelas in NHM Buttmoth Catalogue:
https://data.nhm.ac.uk/record/c1727662-2d1e-426f-818c-d144552a747c/13758/1677508006952
See also Park et al., 2021
Ref: Park, K.T., Heo, U.H. and Byun, B.K. 2021. Two new species of Gelechiidae (Lepidoptera) from Korea, with some biological data including larval host plants. Zootaxa 4996(2), pp.301–308. DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4996.2.4
This gives:
Genus Encolapta Meyrick, 1913 Type species: Encolapta metorcha Meyrick, 1913. = Homoshelas Meyrick, 1935 = Chelophoba Meyrick, 1935 = Homochelas Clarke, 1969 Tony 1212 (talk) 17:57, 7 January 2025 (UTC)Reply
CoL (https://www.catalogueoflife.org/data/taxon/927YT) presently has:
Encolapta Meyrick, 1913 [4]
= Homochelas Park, 1995 [5]
= Homochelas Clarke, 1969 [2]
= Chelophoba Meyrick, 1935 [3]
= Homoshelas Meyrick, 1935 [1]
[1] In Caradja & Meyrick, Mater. Microlepid. Fauna chin. Provinzen Kiangsu, Chekiang, Hunan: 70.
[2] Cat.
[3] In Caradja & Meyrick, Mater. Microlepid. Fauna chin. Provinzen Kiangsu, Chekiang, Hunan: 71.
[4] Journal of the Bombay Natural History Society, 22, 167.
[5] Tropical Lepidoptera Research, 6, 77.
Data from Catalogue of World Gelechiidae Tony 1212 (talk) 18:05, 7 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

New "Species status" template

[edit]

Recently a new taxon page template called Template:Species status was created. It's currently being used on the Chimaera monstrosa page but I'm guessing it's intended for all of our taxon pages. Is this something we want or need? It looks like the template mostly consists of IUCN data. Most of that has no taxonomical value (i.e. it's out of scope of Wikispecies). Also, each taxon page's link to their corresponding IUCN page is already fetched from Wikidata and automatically shown on our taxon pages via the {{Taxonbar}} template, which we've been using since March 2020.

I propose we delete the "Species status" template, but I ask for second opinions here first before actually deleting it (or not).
I'm also including a "ping" to the creator of the template in order to make them aware of this discussion: @Atlas Þə Biologist.

Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 04:56, 8 January 2025 (UTC).Reply

yeah delete it Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 08:23, 8 January 2025 (UTC)Reply
Yeah delete it, we don't need stuff that has no taxonomical value. Lavalizard101 (talk) 19:15, 9 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

incertae sedis usage in taxonavigation templates

[edit]

I feel like this is something to discuss (for background to this post see User talk:Lavalizard101#Incertae sedis 2)

There is a disagreement about the usage of incertae sedis in Taxonavigation templates such as {{Sigmatineurum}}, as this is something with a wider impact I feel a wider discussion is needed.

Personally I feel including incertae sedis on taxonavigation templates for genera stating subfamilia: incertae sedis or similar is unneeded. Further there is no consistency with how incertae sedis has been included on said generas templates with {{Gonoconophora}} and {{Ankwlanno}} using {{parent taxon}} Genus ''Incertae sedis'': ''[insert genus name]'' and {{Sigmatineurum}} and {{Ophiodelos}} and using the above system of {{parent}} subfamilia/tribus: ''incertae sedis'' <br /> Genus with type 2 being used previously before removal on {{Tsintaosaurus}} [1] and {{Aragosaurus}} [2].

So should we include incertae sedis on these templates and if so which layout is better:

  • Option 1: no incertae sedis on these templates
  • Option 2: subfamilia/tribus: incertae sedis
  • Option 3: {{parent taxon}} Genus ''Incertae sedis'': ''[insert genus name]''

Lavalizard101 (talk) 20:09, 9 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

  • For me it's Option 2 as in {{Ophiodelos}}, 1/ it is taxonomically an important information, 2/ it is in that way fully integrated into the Wikispecies style, 3/ nor no additional pages/templates have to be created neither pages names are affected. I see absolutely no reason (technical, taxonomic or as regard to visual style) not to tolerate option 2. Christian Ferrer (talk) 20:46, 9 January 2025 (UTC)Reply
    • Realised I didn't technically specify which option but Option 1 as incertae sedis has at times been over-used for genera simply because they don't belong to a daughter taxon within a clade (e.g. not belonging to a subfamily within a family) rather than being simply of uncertain placement as incertae sedis should be used for. Excluding incertae sedis doesn't require additional pages or templates nor are page names affected. Lavalizard101 (talk) 00:23, 11 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

Can I just check, is this about - as in {{Ophiodelos}} above, including "...incertae sedis" within the template body, not actually naming the templates (and taxon pages) "...incertae sedis" as in {{Incertae sedis (Apameini)}} (and Incertae sedis (Apameini)); thanks, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 13:25, 11 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

Responding here to the OP, in general incertae cedis is used in taxonomy to denote a taxon that can be placed with certainty into a lower order than the one discussed but it cannot be ascertained if it is in itself a taxon that is new. For example a Genus incertae cedis is actually saying the specimen clearly belongs to the genus named but whether it is a new species cannot be determined. Likewise Family incertae cedis is saying the speciimen belongs to the Family named but cannot be determined as to which genus it belongs. Some people like use species incertae cedis to make this clearler for example but its not essential. In the end whatever is named is certain, the incertae cedis refers to the level that cannot be determined. Which way we do this is not matter to me as this is a terminology that is well defined in the literature. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 13:36, 11 January 2025 (UTC)Reply
I know what incertae sedis should be used for my point about overuse is for example {{Aragosaurus}} when they included incertae sedis before I removed it, they didn't need incertae sedis because Aragosaurus was never considered incertae sedis it was considered a basal member of Eusauropoda, also of note is the overuse of incertae sedis to mean genera not assigned to a lower order at all (despite it meaning uncertain placement) when the genera are basal and just simply don't need to be placed in lower orders, E.g. Hadrosauroidea has a bunch of genera not assigned to the family Hadrosauridae that are basal and simply don't need placement in a monotypic family which prior to my edit on Hadrosauroidea they were listed as incertae sedis within Hadrosauroidea rather than just simply being unassigned. Lavalizard101 (talk) 14:03, 11 January 2025 (UTC)Reply
So if they are not in Hadrosauridae where do they belong? Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 16:25, 11 January 2025 (UTC)Reply
They are hadrosauroidea but not assigned further to a family rank (as unassigned rather than uncertain assignment), not everything is or needs placing in a family now, I know some authors who have stopped using Linnean classification altogether preferring cladistic classification except when necessary and not assigning every genus to a family or lower rank taxa especially when dealing with basal taxa. Lavalizard101 (talk) 16:55, 11 January 2025 (UTC)Reply
figured, its just that Phylocode is not a valid classification system. But such is life. If it becomes one we can use it. Remember we are a global checklist not just a some paleo groups one. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 19:51, 11 January 2025 (UTC)Reply
Yep, this is about including within the template body not naming. Lavalizard101 (talk) 13:42, 11 January 2025 (UTC)Reply
[edit]

Hello, I hope I can ask a question here on the village pump. It seems to me like some web links here on Wikispecies to Mycobank points to the wrong page on Mycobank. At least this was the case in Anema and some related articles I just read. I don´t know how to check how many pages this may concern, but maybe someone with more experience of Wikispecies knows how to check it and fix it? Höstblomma (talk) 11:27, 11 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Höstblomma: Thank you for spotting this. Ideally, all of the manually added MycoBank (and Index Fungorum) links should be deleted, since they are all already automatically added by the {{Taxonbar}} template with information from Wikidata. This template produces the "Taxon identifiers" infobox that can be seen at the bottom of each taxon page (including Anema). Perhaps the MycoBank and Index Fungorum links could be removed using a bot? I'll look in to that in a day or two. –Best regards, Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 15:43, 11 January 2025 (UTC).Reply

Hawaii Hymenoptera categories

[edit]

I just learned of the existence of Category:Hawaii Hymenoptera and Category:Hawaii Colletidae. These apparently are categories Stephen Thorpe made way back in 2011, which have not been expanded or made use of further since. The former is also the only category in the nonexistent "Hawaii Hexapoda" category which I found listed in Special:WantedCategories. I know that in the past Thorpe's New Zealand categories were deleted, but just to make sure, do we want these at all? Monster Iestyn (talk) 23:27, 11 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

  • I don't know, it seems that the concept "taxa by location" is currently not used in our category tree Category:Taxa. I don't know if this fits our projects scope, though why not after all. However if it is just to have those both categories, IMO they can be deleted for now, at least until we decide to develop on a large scale and in a coherent manner such categories. Christian Ferrer (talk) 12:35, 13 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

Can I add myself?

[edit]

I have published a paper in Zootaxa creating a replacement name for a homonym in Coleoptera. Is it acceptable practice to add myself and my paper on this site (and myself on Wikidata)? Keith Edkins (Talk) 10:57, 13 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

Yes, you can, and as a taxon name author you should. Both here and in Wikidata. You have to create Keith Edkins, look e.g. at Scott ThomsonUser:Faendalimas, or Ray T. PerreaultUser:Neferkheperre. Christian Ferrer (talk) 12:24, 13 January 2025 (UTC)Reply
I'll throw my hat into the ring with Jean-Sébastien Girard. Circeus (talk) 17:30, 26 January 2025 (UTC)Reply
@Keith Edkins: We also have this guideline, with some more information and useful links: Wikispecies:Autobiography.
–Best regards, Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 12:23, 27 January 2025 (UTC).Reply

New paper on Magnoliids

[edit]

Newly out Toward a phylogenomic classification of magnoliids (open access) might be of interest to some here - MPF (talk) 23:52, 15 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the heads up. Andyboorman (talk) 08:34, 16 January 2025 (UTC)Reply
I have been through the paper. It has a few implications for WS, but mainly it re-enforces the consensus. However, there are two points of contention, so far discovered. Firstly, Helmstetter et al. wish to break with APGIV and promote subfamily Hydnoroideae to Hydnoraceae, this is also found on APW. However, their analysis is not definitive (see fig, 6A). Advice from Kew it that we stick with APG unless more definitive evidence comes to light. Secondly Helmstetter et al. supports; Ezedin, Z. & Sauquet, H. 2024. (3021–3022) Proposals to conserve the names Brochoneura, with a conserved type, and Cephalosphaera (Myristicaceae). Taxon 73(2): 648-649. DOI: 10.1002/tax.13155. However, Kew is unlikely to support this proposal at the moment, as they think it is unnecessary given the current use of Neobrochoneura Figueiredo & Gideon F.Sm., Phytotaxa 456(3): 299. (2020) for the Madagascan species of Myristicaceae. Andyboorman (talk) 15:05, 18 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

Universal Code of Conduct annual review: provide your comments on the UCoC and Enforcement Guidelines

[edit]

Please help translate to your language.

I am writing to you to let you know the annual review period for the Universal Code of Conduct and Enforcement Guidelines is open now. You can make suggestions for changes through 3 February 2025. This is the first step of several to be taken for the annual review. Read more information and find a conversation to join on the UCoC page on Meta.

The Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is a global group dedicated to providing an equitable and consistent implementation of the UCoC. This annual review was planned and implemented by the U4C. For more information and the responsibilities of the U4C, you may review the U4C Charter.

Please share this information with other members in your community wherever else might be appropriate.

-- In cooperation with the U4C, Keegan (WMF) (talk) 01:10, 24 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

Lupinus - infrageneric circumscriptions

[edit]

Revisiting Lupinus, a very large genus with a number of infrageneric names, I found very little literature support and no meaningful pages here on WS. Indeed WP and almost nothing on Scholar. I think we ought to consider deleting them pending future developments. Thoughts please. Andyboorman (talk) 08:52, 24 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Andyboorman worth checking this by C E Hughes out; undated (c.2012) summary paper, and includes several references to other phylogenetic papers - MPF (talk) 14:53, 24 January 2025 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for the link, his full paper is on the taxon page Reference Section. I have done a brief lit. search and find very unsatisfactory treatments of the taxonomies. Old world/new world, smooth/rough seeds, Andean/west coast USA etc. A lot of interesting work on; crop origins, the invasiveness of Lupinus polyphyllus, nitrogen fixing and so on. Have a read of Wolko et al., 2010. Lupinus. In Wild crop relatives: Genomic and breeding resources: Legume crops and forages (pp. 153-206). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg, is available on ResearchGate. However, There seems more circumspection than actual solid taxonomy. - Andyboorman (talk) 16:10, 24 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

Author confusion

[edit]

Is there a process for flagging author pages which appear to conflate works by more than one author? I have been looking at Ying Wang and I think there may be as many as 6 indiviuals here! They work in different fields (Plecoptera, Araeae, Diptera, Hemiptera, Fish and Fossil homoptera) and chasing up the articles shows they work at different institutions. Keith Edkins (Talk) 15:27, 26 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

There is not, but there should be. Maybe en:Template:Split and dab from enwiki could be imported and a maintenance category created? Circeus (talk) 17:27, 26 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

Duplicate?

[edit]

George J. Balogh and George Balogh? --Magnus Manske (talk) 10:31, 30 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

More than likely, as butterflies a theme. Andyboorman (talk) 11:04, 30 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

Hominina: synonym Australopithecinae

[edit]

For subtribus Hominina, the synonyms Australopithecinae and Preanthropinae (with -ae) are quoted. This might be wrong. The synonyms on -ae stand for the subfamilia, whereas the subtribes are Australopithecina and Preanthropina on -a. Check e.g. Klenerman and Wood, Recent Evolution of the Human Foot, https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/1-84628-032-X_2, page 29: "Family Hominidae (hominids), Subfamily Australopithecinae (australopithecines)" and "Tribe Hominini (hominins), Subtribe Australopithecina (australopiths)". Would you agree to change the two -ae to -a in Hominina and to add the terms on -ae in Homininae? However, I do not know when the two terms on -a were mentioned the first time. --BlackEyedLion (talk) 17:30, 30 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

900,000 articles reached

[edit]

Judging from Special:NewPages and counting backwards, the 900,000th Wikispecies article is Zien Cheng, a Chinese arachnologist. The page is created by User:PeterR on January 17, 2025. OhanaUnitedTalk page 17:35, 30 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

Congrats fellows!! Hector Bottai (talk) 19:32, 30 January 2025 (UTC)Reply
Thank you for the information, @OhanaUnited. As a result, I also tweeted about it: Wikispecies reached a total of 900,000 articles.
–Regards, Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 04:38, 31 January 2025 (UTC).Reply

Spider "Subfamily Prodidominae" again a family Prodidomidae

[edit]

This is a rather general issue, but what's the preferred process to move content back to where it seems to have been previously (but since modified)? Some recent traumatic experiences trying to get such things done over on enwiki leave me wary. Here, it's currently as subfamily Prodidominae, but i'd favour it should be [again] as the family Prodidomidae (which here is a redirect to Prodidominae).

Simply, i suspect an option may be to simply copy-paste the since modified content from Prodidominae back to Prodidomidae; then reverse the redirect (or some might favor making the now defunct subfamily entry into an invalid version). / Or, presumably, i'd need to request delete the existing "Prodidomidae" (which is a redirect) then could move the content of Prodidominae to replace it - essentially how it was, but with later modifications. I suspect loosing all the old edit history of course if the older version of Prodidomidae is deleted. / Or, another way better?

Whichever way, i suspect would take multiple steps on enwiki so i'm glad it's done there since 2022!

Essence is this: [1] Prodidominae subfamily of the badly defined family Gnaphosidae. / [2] Prodidomidae family revalidated by Platnick, 1990a: 36. / [3] Prodidominae subfamily (i.e. Prodidomidae synonymized with Gnaphosidae) by Azevedo, Griswold & Santos, 2018b: 613, modified in Rodrigues & Rheims, 2020b: 694. / [4] Prodidomidae family revalidated again by Azevedo et al., 2022: 12; supported in Kulkarni, Wood & Hormiga, 2023: 519, etc. Adapted from WSC Prodidomidae

@PeterR @Neferkheperre

Subfamilia: Prodidominae https://species.wikimedia.org/wiki/Prodidominae

Redirect on the family Prodidomidae https://species.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Prodidomidae

— The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sjl197 (talkcontribs) 20:36, 30 January 2025.

Duplicate person?

[edit]

Luan Gabriel Lima-Silva and Luan Gabriel de Lima Silva --Magnus Manske (talk) 11:51, 31 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Magnus Manske Definitely yes, see CV at Lattes Platform. Both forms of the name are given, and it lists both the publications listed on the two Wikispecies pages. Monster Iestyn (talk) 12:17, 31 January 2025 (UTC)Reply
Merged, Burmeister (talk) 12:35, 2 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

Global ban proposal for Shāntián Tàiláng

[edit]

Hello. This is to notify the community that there is an ongoing global ban proposal for User:Shāntián Tàiláng who has been active on this wiki. You are invited to participate at m:Requests for comment/Global ban for Shāntián Tàiláng. Wüstenspringmaus (talk) 12:36, 2 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for the information. However, it's worth nothing that they haven't made any edits to Wikispecies since April 2023.
–Best regards, Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 15:24, 3 February 2025 (UTC).Reply

A new type of ISSN, history ISSNs, coming soon

[edit]

While perusing ISSN documents (yes, this is the kind of things I casually do), I saw something very interesting mentioned:

ISSN-H, the history ISSN, an identifier that will group the successive titles of a publication over time

I could not find details about this from the ISSN International Centre, but the accepted MARC proposal mentioned in the document is available online:

One vendor, in particular, expressed considerable interest in the linked data capabilities of ISSN-H. ISSN-H as an identifier can help alleviate searching problems caused by new ISSNs assigned as a result of major title changes. A specific use case for the History ISSN is of interest to societies that wish to identify their conference publications with ISSN. Conference publications are notorious for changes in both the conference title and the proceedings title. As a result, a publication that its originator and users conceptualize as one publication might be represented by four or five different ISSNs and bibliographic records over its lifetime. The ISSN-H is designed to identify, retrieve, and potentially display a graphic of the entire cluster of preceding and succeeding conference publications.

ISSN-Ls and ISSN-Hs are a subcategory of ISSNs known as "cluster ISSNs" (hence the name of the MARC proposal), but there are yet no assigned ISSN-Hs. There is a graphic in the MARC document that makes it clear that ISSN-Hs also cover instances of publication splits, including the electronic editions of all publications in the cluster. How exactly complex webs of splits and mergers will be handled remains unclear.

These are obviously of great interest to us! How could these be handled in Wikispecies? My thought immediately went to what I did to disambiguate IPNI's Adansonia, although "regular" ISSN-Hs will probably not require quite as much details as I chose to include there. Circeus (talk) 15:06, 2 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for this. It has implications for Wikidata as well, so I've cross-posted there. —Justin (koavf)TCM 20:12, 2 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
While moving pages to ISSN names, I found an example of what is almost certain an ISSN-H, though it's displayed as ISSN-L on account of the ISSN Portal's infrastructure currently not handling it: https://portal.issn.org/resource/ISSN-L/0014-0031 for Erdészeti Lapok and its various forms. Circeus (talk) 01:56, 3 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

Reminder: first part of the annual UCoC review closes soon

[edit]

Please help translate to your language.

This is a reminder that the first phase of the annual review period for the Universal Code of Conduct and Enforcement Guidelines will be closing soon. You can make suggestions for changes through the end of day, 3 February 2025. This is the first step of several to be taken for the annual review. Read more information and find a conversation to join on the UCoC page on Meta. After review of the feedback, proposals for updated text will be published on Meta in March for another round of community review.

Please share this information with other members in your community wherever else might be appropriate.

-- In cooperation with the U4C, Keegan (WMF) (talk) 00:48, 3 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

Alchemilla

[edit]

I have removed the section, subsection and series names from the Alchemilla species taxon pages where they existed. The existing section, subsection and series pages have been redirected to Alchemilla, itself, preventing them becoming orphans. The only section page was Alchemilla sect. Alchemilla there were no others. There were no references on any of the infrageneric name pages.

provides a synopsis of available circumscriptions, as well as recommending a wider view of the genus. This has not been fully accepted. I think it is best to keep things simple, hence my edits to date. I throw this open for discussion. Andyboorman (talk) 09:39, 3 February 2025 (UTC)Reply