Wikispecies:Village Pump/Archive 58

From Wikispecies
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This is an archive of closed discussions. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this archive.


When will the get a new theme/look? — The preceding unsigned comment was added by June627 (talkcontribs) 10:50, 25 September 2021.

This is Wikispecies. Questions regarding Wikipedia should be asked at the Wikipedia Village pump. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 11:30, 25 September 2021 (UTC).Reply[reply]

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).Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
@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)Reply[reply]
@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)Reply[reply]
@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)Reply[reply]
@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)Reply[reply]
@Andyboorman: Ah, my mistake. In that case, I will remove Kluge's changes then. Monster Iestyn (talk) 16:28, 26 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Done Monster Iestyn (talk) 16:49, 26 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]


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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

Looks fine to me. Thanks Andyboorman (talk) 07:18, 4 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Okay then, thanks, I'll update the page with his full name and other details. Monster Iestyn (talk) 17:35, 4 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
 Done Just sent them an email. Monster Iestyn (talk) 17:07, 5 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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).Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
@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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
  • 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)Reply[reply]

Let's talk about the Desktop Improvements[edit]


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.


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


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

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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).Reply[reply]
The change has been applied now. Matma Rex (talk) 11:38, 12 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]


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)Reply[reply]

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).Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

@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).Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
@Circeus: Propose a solution and I'd be happy to see the discussion. —Justin (koavf)TCM 18:07, 15 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
Server changes pretty much have to be posted to phab: as I understand it. —Justin (koavf)TCM 02:57, 16 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you — I have logged this request, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 07:45, 16 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]


@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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
Thankyou. I will add some references to resolve Zabelia once this has been digested post publication. Andyboorman (talk) 14:06, 18 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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).Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]
"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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
QED! What a horrible picture :-( MPF (talk) 09:05, 18 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply] link[edit]

Has anybody got a link fix that goes straight to an article on 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)Reply[reply]

I tried one in Template:Sandbox3; for instance if you add [view in edit mode] 54069998 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)Reply[reply]
If I create the template {{}}, what should the shortcut be? {{AcaEdu}}? Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 15:59, 19 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We have ResGate and JSTOR so AcaEdu should be fine. Andyboorman (talk) 17:08, 19 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
On a related note, can anyone work out why {{ 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)Reply[reply]
@Maculosae tegmine lyncis: It's probably a cache thing, I just edited+saved {{ Publication}} and it appears in the category for me now. Monster Iestyn (talk) 18:07, 19 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

Talk to the Community Tech[edit]

Read this message in another language


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.


  • 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


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

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)Reply[reply]

Homo bodoensis[edit]

I just made Homo bodoensis. As some of you know, I'm not actually a taxonomic expert, so I wanted to provide some visibility. I also added it to Homo. —Justin (koavf)TCM 01:11, 29 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think it probably should go as a subspecies of H. sapiens. Its a difficult case and may not be available. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 01:57, 31 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Incertae Sedis[edit]

Hello. We debated the appropriateness of Taxon Pages for Incertae Sedis and the conclusions were that they were not to be used, as Incertae Sedis is not a taxon. However, reading the above it seems that editors are also creating numerous Cladus Taxon Pages, which are also not taxa. This seems to me to contradictory. I am happy with the creation and editing of both page types, so I propose that we revisit the discussion for Incertae Sedis pages. Andyboorman (talk) 08:14, 29 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As I see it, one reflects general usage — for instance, in dinosaur literature, one might encounter the clade Dinosauria, so it might be useful to find such a page here — while the other is a wikispecies-specific, do we wish to create extra pages, templates etc, ?ie? additional groupings of taxa not yet definitively assigned to a clade, or simply have (typically, one line for) a "genera incertae sedis"/"familiae incerti ordinis" (or similar) section on the lowest most agreed page, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 08:30, 29 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Incertae Sedis is not a WS specific category, but is very commonly used in classification of plants where affinities are uncertain. Andyboorman (talk) 11:10, 29 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Presumably these "incertae sedis" sections are nested/included/in a book may be found under the lowest generally agreed parent; if, in electronic presentation for botany, it is as standard to have a separate page for (one of) incertae sedis x / incertae sedis (x) / x incertae sedis / unassigned x / unspecified-division/-group/-subgroup x or any other of the plethora of forms that can be encountered here, as it is to encounter Dinosauria or equivalent, then I would have thought there would be an equally good case for both, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 11:30, 29 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have no issue with clade pages being created if they are regularly used clades. Many of the phylocode clades could be ignored as its really just a form of taxonomic inflation. So clade dinosauria makes sense. Others do not. Incetae cedis can be listed on their parent page. Probably should not have a page made. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 16:36, 29 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Faendalimas: you mean like this Rhizophoraceae for incertae sedis? As for clades, how do we define regularly used? Just asking. Incidentally, for Plantae classification higher than Orders shows a mixture of systems, for example Magnoliophyta sensu Cronquist, Takhtajan & Zimmermann, (1966) redirects to Magnoliopsida sensu Dahlgren et al. (1985) with its simple list of Ordines, which then drop down to a mixed taxa/clade classification, for example Ordo Rosales Bercht. & J.Presl Prir. Rostlin: 231 (1820). Just noting. Andyboorman (talk) 20:26, 29 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Andyboorman: pretty much though I am ok with it being either redlink or no page. In the case you show it seems it is incertae cedis because it was not assigned to a tribe. Well to me anything not assigned to a tribe is still in a family, and validly so. To me its not incertae cedis. But I am a zoologist. Its up to the taxonomists to fix meanwhile if they left it out its a mess of their creation. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 02
03, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
@Faendalimas:. I have been reflecting on incertae cedis and have come to the conclusion that it is too vague a term for our taxon pages. When I encounter it in a paper it has clear context, which is not always the case on our taxon pages. I have modified Rhizophoraceae as a test case. Thoughts fellow editors? Andyboorman (talk) 07:58, 31 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The one (semi-major) "improvement" I would suggest would be to switch the anglophone/-centric "Genera unassigned to tribes" to the universal(ly incomprehensible) Latin "Genera incertae tribus", in line with the Latin terms used in the rest of this section (tribe, in Latin, is a, feminine, "fourth declension" noun, with a (possessive) genitive tribus; google can find various related & validating comparanda if you search for "incertae tribus" within inverted commas); I try and add, as specifically as possible as you say, familiae incerti ordinis, genera incertae familiae, species incerti generis etc, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 08:28, 31 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Good idea! Thanks. Andyboorman (talk) 09:32, 31 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Lacépède: google books problem[edit]

Just discovered by chance that google books have changed the page numbering on their copy of Lacépède's Tableaux méthodiques des Mammiferes et des Oiseaux (numerous generic names first published in it), so links added in the past may no longer connect to the correct page. I've just corrected the links for Buteo, Circus, Milvus, Picoides, and Fregata, but there are many more (though far from every page in that category!), if anyone fancies sorting some out. - MPF (talk) 10:43, 1 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the notice, the Buteo fix wasn't working for me, but the googlebooks volume had a Bayerische Staatsbibliothek stamp in it, and that copy is also online via the Münchener DigitalisierungsZentrum (MDZ). With the template {​{ MDZ | bsb10231545 | 146 | 4 }​}, you can link to 4, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 13:58, 1 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks! Though I just tried the link at Buteo and it takes me to page 1, not page 4 - MPF (talk) 14:30, 1 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Maculosae tegmine lyncis: - I just tried adding it at Circus and it isn't working there at all? Can you check, please? - MPF (talk) 14:48, 1 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Maculosae tegmine lyncis: - I've seen what was wrong at Buteo, you'd added the page link in the wrong place (in the 'Name' section rather than the 'References' section), so I hadn't seen it. (also as a PS, please leave the VN with spaces, not carriage returns - I actually had a bad bit of repetitive strain injury earlier this year from having to scroll too much up & down with very long lists like that; both formats display the same, but spaces is far easier to work with in the edit box) - MPF (talk) 14:58, 1 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ok, great, yes, but surely a link in the right place, that is where most useful, so one can see at a glance & immediately go to the original source, rather than having to hunt around in the references section to see whether or not there is a usable link? VN with spaces is rather hard to read, so much so that in many instance users just add their new entries at the end, but if you so prefer. I think the issue with Circus was that one needs to use the machine-readable template rather than the human-readable version of the two I included above (have fixed), thanks, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 15:15, 1 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks! The Refs section is where the protologue link has always been, so that is where I look for it :-) - MPF (talk) 15:19, 1 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Out of interest, before looking at the first line of the name section, how do you know which of the references to look at for the link? Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 22:30, 1 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Maculosae tegmine lyncis: - not really sure I understand your query there! - MPF (talk) 00:28, 2 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Meet the new Movement Charter Drafting Committee members[edit]

The Movement Charter Drafting Committee election and selection processes are complete.

The committee will convene soon to start its work. The committee can appoint up to three more members to bridge diversity and expertise gaps.

If you are interested in engaging with Movement Charter drafting process, follow the updates on Meta and join the Telegram group.

With thanks from the Movement Strategy and Governance team.--SOyeyele (WMF) (talk) 19:35, 2 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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 canvass other opinions first.) Thanks, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 14:44, 26 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Maculosae tegmine lyncis: I'm not happy with the direction wikispecies has taken in this regard, but at the same time I'm the first to admit I'm not active enough around here to justify actively fighting off such initiatives if no one else opposes. I'm a grumpy stodgey, but I'm fine with having not much sway lol. Circeus (talk) 18:55, 29 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Abydosaurus is an example of the (current) issue: if you expand the taxonavigation box, functionality is affected, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 23:49, 28 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Personally I do not mind the idea of a hybrid and splitting this at Order seems reasonable. I think there are far fewer nomenclatural changes above the level of order and hence its almost set and forget. I need to ask though how this could impact translation of the wiki?
I do wish this wiki would continue with what its best future potential is and that is a repository of names rather than trying to do taxonomy. We are not functionally set up to do the taxonomy of life. Please if you think we are a repository of names I ask where are the pages for synonyms? They are redirects. Which means we have made a taxonomic decision that this redirect although available (zoology) or valid (botany) isa not the current name. We should have pages for all names and synonyms link to the correct name not redirect to it. The synonyms should have all their data. Doing this is the future for wikispecies. COL+ will be doing the taxonomy and we cannot compete. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 01:54, 31 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Pages for synonyms (which I would like to see too..), rather than redirects, would have the ancillary benefit of assisting wikidata/wikipedia linkage. Currently, if there is a name change, typically the various wiki projects amend or move the page but still link to the same wikidata item; so, if wikispecies links to the new wikidata item bearing the new name, that page is in effect isolated, unconnected to the related wikipedia pages, incentivizing linkage of a new wikispecies name to the old wikidata item/the "wrong" name; or if some wikipedia pages move to the new item, some don't, then wikispecies is only linked to some not all the related wikipedia pages.
Another area where wikispecies can "compete" is in having multiple ...secundum x authority... secundum y authority... subsections in the taxonavigation section, whereas databases set up to have only one parent might struggle; this alo has the advantage of showing the history and typically a wider range of (once related) taxon names, so you can see how the old name one searches for was once treated, and how it is now. For instance, were MSW4 (Mammal Species of the World 4) ever to see light of day, it would be a shame to see a flurry of pages moves to the new names, rather than a this is what MSW3 said, this is what MSW4 says, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 09:24, 3 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

New Thraupidae genus & species[edit]

In case anyone is interested (@Hector Bottai: in particular): abstract - MPF (talk) 20:33, 31 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wow @MPF: this is fresh! Will take a look. Thanks!--Hector Bottai (talk) 20:47, 31 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks to @MPF: for the advise and to @Maculosae tegmine lyncis: for creating the Template:Lane et al., 2021, new genus and sp pages created Heliothraupis and Heliothraupis oneilli. Is there anyone with access to the article in order to get additional information like type locality, holotype, and confirm it is an eponym of John Patton O'Neill? --Hector Bottai (talk) 00:41, 1 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks! I tried sci-hub but they don't have it yet; otherwise, try the #The Wikipedia Library above? I was wondering about the derivation, and was getting stuck with "one-illi", couldn't work it out at all :-) MPF (talk) 00:52, 1 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Hector Bottai: drop me an email if you'd like a copy of the pdf, I've got one from one of the authors. Yes, it is after John O'Neill. - MPF (talk) 21:36, 1 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks @MPF: pages completed and authorship corrected with the help of the full article you sent.--Hector Bottai (talk) 11:23, 3 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Excellent! - MPF (talk) 11:24, 3 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As an aside, there's lots of photos of it on Daniel Lane's Flickr account, but all sadly © All Rights Reserved. Is there anyone with a Flickr account who'd like to have a go at sweet talking him into releasing one or more under a creative commons license? - MPF (talk) 15:35, 3 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Cactaceae new resources[edit]

Hello fellow botanists and others with an interest in cacti. I draw your attention to Korotkova et al. (2021) on the Cactaceae taxon page. I am still digesting this paper and I am not an expert on cacti, but as it was produced by an impressive list of specialists it has authority in my opinion. In addition, you may wish to look through this online resources, at first view it looks very good and means that there may have to be edits on our cacti taxon pages, if this resource is accepted. Unusually for online taxonomy this site has a very good list of papers supporting their classifications. Hence my alert here. Andyboorman (talk) 07:28, 2 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Help please with a new template. I am trying to produce a functioning template in order to search Cactaceae at from a taxon page. I have hit a brick wall with this template {{CACO}} which is partially functioning on Airampoa. However, it does search correctly. Any ideas? Thanks Andyboorman (talk) 18:44, 2 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Andyboorman: Just tried adding &search%5BdoSynonyms&search%5BdoTaxa%5D=1 to the end of (that didn't work, tried the middle instead) the search URL in the template, after testing out what happens when I crop each search parameter from a working search URL. Hopefully that should fix it, I think that tells it to search for accepted taxa and/or synonyms. Monster Iestyn (talk) 20:06, 2 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ah, it's supposed to be &search[doSynonyms]=1&search[doTaxa]=1, my mistake. Seems to be working now at least. Monster Iestyn (talk) 20:18, 2 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi @Monster Iestyn: thanks works really well. Great work well above my pay grade and skills set! Many thanks. Andyboorman (talk) 20:30, 2 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Andyboorman: It's a paper (doi:10.3372/wi.51.51208) with a taxonomic supplement. --Succu (talk) 22:30, 2 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah cheers @Succu: masses of data to digest and all free access. is fairly easy to use and our new reference template {{CACO}} works well, thanks to Monster Iestyn Andyboorman (talk) 06:54, 3 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Succu: I have already created a reference template for the paper on the Cactaceae taxon page as
From today it appears (We are sorry, the Caryophyllales_spp portal is not yet released for public access. Please sign-in in order to get access to the content.), Preventing knowing the content of the information.--MILEPRI (talk) 10:49, 4 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Works OK for me see Disocactus just added a few minutes ago. Andyboorman (talk) 11:55, 4 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Horticulture and cacti[edit]

Browsing through our cacti pages I keep coming across so called taxa that are generated through horticultural activities. Many are of uncertain origin and are not published in IPNI. From my own experience I can state that there could be thousands of specimens generated by enthusiasts and growers. Though possibly attractive and of interest to enthusiasts and the trade, I do not think these plants belong here, as WS is primarily concerned with natural species. I propose culling these pages and images, particularly starting with those not lodged with IPNI and traceable through scientific literature and secondary sources. Thoughts please. Andyboorman (talk) 21:35, 3 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Agree; they can be considered as cultivars - MPF (talk) 23:38, 3 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Cultivars are not the subject of IPNI... --Succu (talk) 21:44, 5 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Of course, but @Succu:artificial hybrid genera and species often do appear in IPNI. Andyboorman (talk) 15:23, 6 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Please ensure that the data in any such pages exists in Wikidata before it is deleted from here, so that it is not lost to the wider Wikimedia community Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:18, 6 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ok Andyboorman (talk) 15:22, 6 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

S. Abe and Tamura[edit]

Not a question this time, just more of a thing that happened today that acts as a reminder why it's important to find out full names of taxon authors if possible.

So, today I went to find out the full name of the supposed botanist and mycologist "S. Abe", who is the first of two authors of Lilium speciosum var. clivorum and both its synonyms. Eventually, I found the original publication for that name, and found out the first author's full name was Sadao Abe.

So far so good. Then, I double checked one of the pages linking to "S. Abe", Penicillium bilaiae, which cited "S.Abe" as the author of the synonym Penicillium lilacinoechinulatum. However, after I found the original publication for this name, it turned out the full name of this author was actually Shigeo Abe. This already raises some questions as to whether IPNI has also conflated Sadao Abe and Shigeo Abe as the same author under "S. Abe". Because of this, I have removed references to Sadao Abe being a mycologist on Wikispecies for now (unless someone later finds proof that he did author some fungi names).

On top of this though, on finding the original publication for Lilium speciosum var. clivorum for the first author's full name, I also discovered that the second author, "Tamura", was not Michio Tamura but in fact was Teruo Tamura.

In short, in trying to find out the full name of one author, I ended up essentially splitting two taxon authors into four today. One of these (Sadao Abe) needs the full name to be added to IPNI, and another (Teruo Tamura) is missing from it altogether. Shigeo Abe has only described fungi so far as I'm aware, so I don't know if he should be added to IPNI or not.

Monster Iestyn (talk) 20:51, 5 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Generally IPNI is not nearly as good with infraspecific rankings and their authors, so yeah I'm not altogether surprised. Circeus (talk) 21:31, 5 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
IPNI is always happy to be corrected though. Andyboorman (talk) 07:27, 7 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No complaints with IPNI, they responded to my email before to give full details for an author. I'll probably need to send another email to them sooner or later though, there's quite a few that I know need to be corrected. What I was just saying above though is more for us to watch out for botanists, mycologists etc. that apparently go about with similar abbreviations in the literature (or on IPNI and other websites).
As it happens, just a day after I said all that, I found some orchid species on Wikispecies were incorrectly credited to the mycologist George Smith instead of the botanist Gordon Smith, probably because the original publication only gave the latter as "G. Smith". This time at least IPNI actually helped me find the right author for the plants. I imagine there's cases like this all over Wikispecies still. Monster Iestyn (talk) 13:38, 7 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]
Agreed. Many thanks --Andyboorman (talk) 20:55, 10 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
@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)Reply[reply]
@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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
@MPF: You only need to click on The Wikipedia Library link to login. It only works if the publisher is collaborating with Wikipedia. The paper you linked to is published by Taylor & Francis. Unfortunately they haven't joined the program. You may have to ask around to see if others have access to it. OhanaUnitedTalk page 03:53, 9 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]
Revisiting this again, I just found out about an article that possibly was co-authored by Yan-Hong Lu the ostracodologist, a Chinese-language one that translates to "Late Cenozoic Ostracoda in East Yunnan" in the Chinese journal Acta Micropalaeontologica Sinica. There doesn't seem to be much on this journal online, let alone the article, so it's no wonder I found it difficult to find anything at all for this author. Monster Iestyn (talk) 18:41, 9 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have now renamed both "Yan-Hong Lu"s and added the mentioned article to Yan-Hong Lu (ostracodologist), so this issue can now be considered solved. Monster Iestyn (talk) 19:17, 9 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
I think you mean me. I do not use the "User:AndyMabbett" account. Anyone looking at the linked discussion can see that I did not say you had closed it. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:49, 9 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

Broadening the scope without going to the Pump is a no no, as well. Andyboorman (talk) 18:10, 21 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For information @RLJ: is experimenting with the format found here. Andyboorman (talk) 10:45, 22 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]

Coleoptera genus Sirdenus or Syrdenus?[edit]

During my work on the bulk of orphaned pages for species of Coleoptera, today I made a genus page for 5 species of Sirdenus Dejean, 1828. But Dejean mentions the name in synonymy. In case of a botanical name, this would not be valid. Some databases assign the genus to Chaudoir, 1871 instead, but unfortunately, Chaudoir spelled it Syrdenus. As I am not much experienced with all rules of the zoological code, I would like to ask our zoology editors for comments and help. --Thiotrix (talk) 12:40, 4 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

ICZN Article 11.6 might be relevant, if Sirdenus was first used as valid before 1961. Syrdenus Chaudoir, 1871 might be just an unjustified emendation. Beyond that, I'm not sure myself to be honest. Though, I've noticed Sirdenus Dejean, 1828 is used as valid in a few recent works such as {{Bousquet, 2012}} and the Catalogue of Palaearctic Coleoptera Volume 1 (Revised and Updated Edition). Monster Iestyn (talk) 15:04, 4 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Interesting case, IRMNG presently has Sirdenus Dejean, 1828 from Neave, as "unassessed", and Syrdenus Chaudoir, 1871 from Neave and Hallan, the latter source giving it as an accepted (current) name, up till now followed by IRMNG for that reason. A quick Google Scholar search for e.g. publications since 2000 gives 6 for "Sirdenus Dejean" vs. 2 for "Syrdenus Chaudoir", so maybe the Dejean name is preferred, which would make the Chaudoir version an unjustified emendation. Does not seem to be discussed elsewhere, although may be in a place I have not yet seen - other opinions welcome. Tony Rees Tony 1212 (talk) 18:09, 4 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm with Iestyn. Chaudoir is indubitably referring to the name first mentioned by Dejean: "This genus has been proposed by Ziegler and mentioned by Dejean, but nobody has exposed its characters." Under article 11.6, that makes name available with Dejean, 1828 as the author, and Chaudoir's name becomes an available, but invalid emendation. Circeus (talk) 23:03, 4 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK, I have updated IRMNG to set Sirdenus Dejean, 1828 as the accepted genus name with "Syrdenus Chaudoir" as an unjustified emendation (and therefore a synonym), reversing the previous situation which was per Hallan's Biology Catalog (2012 version) - the latter unfortunately no longer available in web land it seems. Regards - Tony Tony 1212 (talk) 04:56, 7 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Some/all of the Hallan Biology Catalog is available via the Internet Archive from when it was last on line, I can supply more information if anyone wants :) Tony 1212 (talk) 06:05, 7 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for these informations. I will follow IRMNG for the Sirdenus page at Wikispecies. --Thiotrix (talk) 08:41, 9 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Cactaceae updates[edit]

Hi. I have been going through our seemingly excellent taxon pages for Cactaceae with currently required changes in mind. Unfortunately, there are many changes that need to be made across the whole family. I have made a start, but I would be very grateful if other editors are prepared to help out. Cactaceae at is a great help and increasingly other databases are staring to make changes. IPNI is more or less up to date and Google Scholar has relevant papers to be added. So it is mainly a question of using the move function and copy/paste. The large genus Mammillaria is a good example as it is now recognised as paraphyletic with three clades - Mammillaria s.s., Cochemiea s.l. and Coryphantha. The segregation of Cochemiea s.s and the dismantling of Mammillaria subg. Cochemiea has been recognised for years, by the way. All taxonomic changes are available and Breslin et al. (2021) as well as Cactaceae at are accessible. Much appreciated Andyboorman (talk) 18:25, 10 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not a group I know much about unfortunately. But in a quick look round, a depressingly high % of pages illustrated with cultivated plants, many of them likely to be of dubious identity :-( MPF (talk) 23:00, 11 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Did a quick start on Coryphantha, changed the pic to a wild example (from iNat) of the type species of the genus - MPF (talk) 23:55, 11 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nouveau livre sur le mouvement Wikimédia / New book on the Wikimedia movement[edit]

Bonjour, je reviens vers vous pour vous communiquer l'avancement de mes travaux et vous les soumettre à relecture, critique et commentaire. Il s'agit cette fois d'un livre intitulé Le mouvement Wikimédia dont je viens de terminer la mise en page sur Wikilivres dans le but d'en produire un éventuel ouvrage papier. Une belle fin de journée à tous et merci d'avance pour ceux qui cliquerons sur le lien.

Hello, I'm coming back to you to tell you the progress of my work and to submit it to you for review, criticism and comment. This time, it's about a book entitled Le mouvement Wikimédia which I just finished the layout on Wikilivres in order to produce an eventual paper book. A nice end of day to all and thanks in advance for those who will click on the link. Lionel Scheepmans (talk) 21:35, 14 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

2-part Spanish surnames[edit]

Hi all, not a Wikispecies-specific question but I thought I would put it up here in case this editing community has relevant wisdom... My question pertains to (normally Spanish language?) authors with 2-part surnames. I believe (from that in such cases, the first surname is the first surname of the father, and the second surname is the first surname of the mother. Such double surnames can then find their way into the authorship of taxonomic papers containing new taxa, among others.

In my experience when citing such persons as taxon authors, the second surname is conventionally dropped (but not always); I have also seen it abbreviated to a single capital letter - don't have a particular example to hand but think "Pedro Gonzalez B." or similar. An example of the unabbreviated, 2 part surname is a taxon such as "Abacum M. A. Fombella Blanco, Palinologia (1 Coloquio Internac. Palinol. León 1977) 249. Dec 1978. T.: A. normale M. A. Fombella Blanco" as listed in Index Nominum Genericorum (ING), but elsewhere found as "Abacum M.A. Fombella" or simply "Abacum Fombella". (this is a Cambrian acritarch genus). Currently there is no Wikispecies entry for Abacum, but it does appear in the list at Eukaryota incertae sedis.

Just wondering whether others have experience with citing such names, and/or words of wisdom to add here. In the Abacum case, I have currently decided to drop the second surname in my own database, as per most recent literature citations, but I am sure I may have a small number of "abbreviated second surnames" in my holdings somewhere, potentially to be addressed further as needed. (Of course, if this has come up before, a pointer to any previous discussion would be appreciated). Regards - Tony Rees Tony 1212 (talk) 19:14, 7 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Here's an example with abbreviated second surnames - for both authors - in Fungi (as presently in IRMNG at least): "Cacahualia A. Mercado S. & R.F. Castañeda R., 1984". Just checked Index Fungorum, and the citation there is "Cacahualia Mercado & R.F. Castañeda 1984". (My citation came from ING once again). The actual authorship of the publication reads "Ángel Mercado Sierra and Rafael F. Castañeda Ruiz", as per . In the text of the paper, the relevant citation is "Cacahualia Mercado & Castañeda gen. nov." Tony 1212 (talk) 19:35, 8 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For all intents and purposes this is an issue of normalization of author names, and each catalogue has to develop a policy of their own to deal with these (and various other issues0. I believe the Catalogue of Palearctic coleoptera has discussions on this topic, as does Kury et al., 2020, pp. 7-12 (pp. 12-18 are also interesting for a thorough discussion of issues related to attribution). As the latter notes: "There is no rule for standardization of author names in citations". Circeus (talk) 04:31, 9 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hmm... you are right of course. Probably the best thing in the case of the Hispanic names is to try to get a handle on "accepted usage" ... for Mr. Castañeda Ruiz the options would seem to be (1) "Castañeda Ruiz", (2) "Castañeda R." or (3) "Castañeda", whichever seems to be most prevalent as cited in other works. I have not checked, but have a suspicion that it might be (3)... so need to check the various name instances in my holdings over time. That is just me/IRMNG, Wikispecies can devise its own rules of course. 06:47, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
OK, the very next name in my list of "IRMNG names to check" is Lusitania, an algae genus ex ING, where it is cited as "Lusitania González Guerrero, Portugaliae Acta Biol., Sér. B vol. Júlio Henriques: 126. 1949. T.: L. henriquesii González Guerrero." In WoRMS and AlgaeBase, it appears as "Lusitania P.González, 1949". There is a paper dealing with this author's life work (at the Botanic Gardens in Madrid): "The algae names and collection of the Spanish Phycologist Pedro González Guerrero" by J.L. Izquierdo and F. Pando, 2017, copy available at, in which that author is consistently referred to as "González Guerrero" in the text, but all his taxa are attributed to "P. González" (note space before the surname, something I also prefer cf. the closed-up ("P.González") equivalent). So if this model is replicated more widely - and it most likely is - then dropping the second surname in these cases may well be the "standardisation" I am looking for, for my purposes at least. (Wikispecies does have an entry for this genus as of last year, copying the format from AlgaeBase it seems). Regards Tony Tony 1212 (talk) 18:21, 9 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm part way through my checking/cleaning of my own holdings such that e.g. "Castañeda Ruiz" / "Castañeda R." is being replaced by "Castañeda", as detailed above. Now a new wrinkle: some of the double surnames are hyphenated, example: Occidentarius "Betancur-R. & Acero P. in Betancur-R., Acero P., Bermingham & Cooke, 2007" ( paper authorship given as Ricardo Betancur-R., Arturo Acero P., Eldredge Bermingham and Richard Cooke). I can make "Acero P." into "Acero" following the above logic, but what about "Betancur-R." - maybe leave as is, I am not sure... a similar case in Plantae is "Petrocardium Herrera, Jaramillo, Dilcher, Wing et Gómez-N. gen. nov." ( - in this case the surname "Gomez-N." appears elsewhere as "Gómez-Navarro" so maybe that is a justifiable edit in this case... more comments still welcome! Tony 1212 (talk) 06:41, 20 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Tony 1212: Be careful not to over-compensate there... According to the Wikipedia page you linked, each of the two surnames can themselves be composite names, including those with hyphens. Monster Iestyn (talk) 07:20, 20 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks @Monster Iestyn: - so, what would you be inclined to do? Normalise ""Betancur-R." and "Gómez-N." to Betancur and Gómez, respectively, keep as is, or expand if the unabbreviated second surname is available elsewhere? at present I can see a case for any of these options, just would prefer to standardize in one direction or another... Cheers Tony Tony 1212 (talk) 08:29, 20 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In those cases the abbreviated name is probably the second surname from what I've seen from most authors with Spanish names, so Betancur and Gómez might be alright in those cases I think (?). The only weird case I can think of at all in Spanish surnames is Manuel Martínez de la Escalera in zoology, where "Martínez de la Escalera" turns out to be the entire first surname alone, but many people (even he himself) shorten it to "Escalera" for taxon authorities. Not sure what you want to do for that one. Monster Iestyn (talk) 13:59, 20 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I live in Brazil where this is also common, many scientists here publish under one of their surnames only but others use both. It is their choice in the end how the publish, they should be sorted by the first surname. I do not agree with dropping it however if they have chosen to use both their surnames. Its their name, their choice. We have to make it work. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 15:40, 20 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Worst than that @Faendalimas:, some authors appear with complete name in some papers and with abbreviated in others, vide Navarro-Sigüenza or Navarro-S. Anyway, definitely we do not have the right to simplify their surname option. I suggest to use their option in the corresponding papers. We also may consult their preference when contact email is available.--Hector Bottai (talk) 16:44, 20 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi all, there can also be a distinction between the form of the name that the author uses as the "publication author" in a particular work, and the form used for the "taxon name author" in the same work... for example here the first author uses the name "Jesus Valdés R." in the author string for the publication, but ascribes the new genus Gouldochloa (as Gouldochloa curvifolia) to "Valdés, Morden & Hatch" (also, the running header in the article is "Valdés et al."). Just to confuse, IPNI lists this person as "Valdés-Reyna, Jesús (1948-)" with the standard form "Valdés-Reyna", refer ... the latter would then appear to be a form of expansion rather than contraction. Again I am not particularly trying to steer this discussion in any one direction, just trying to see if there is a preferred method by which treatment of these names can be standardised for compendia such as ours (OK, in botany, IPNI standards already exist, although I personally prefer non-abbreviated surnames with forename initials in botany, as per the treatment in ING). Regards Tony Tony 1212 (talk) 19:09, 20 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As an aside, Crossref (from the DOI to that article) mangles the first author completely, giving "R., J. V." .... Tony 1212 (talk) 19:20, 20 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

─────────────────────────Yes unfortunately some are not consistent. The ones I get at the beginning of their careers I say to them that I dont care how they write their name but pick something and stick to it. They will benefit in long term. Unfortunately some a a real mess of multiple versions. Tying some of them together is an issue. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 22:13, 20 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Circumscription of Cactoideae[edit]

Hello. I am seeking opinions about the tribal/subtribal circumscription of Cactoideae, particularly around the group of these tribes and any contained subtribes - Echinocereeae, Hylocereeae, Pachycereeae and Phyllocacteae note there are at the moment some redirects that may need editing out. I will not prejudice the discussion except to say there appears not to be a consensus. Therefor, it would be good to get opinions and hopefully all the needed references are on the relevant pages. Many thanks. Andyboorman (talk) 19:31, 14 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I will make changes in the very near future and they will differ from WP, BTW differing language versions have differing circumscriptions of this subfamily. Andyboorman (talk) 21:20, 23 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Where are the WikiSpecies Accessed Records Stored?[edit]

I access wikispecies using a Firefox browser on an online Ubuntu computer. Whenever I access a file, for example, one at Agaricales, its color (which is programmable) changes from a light bluish green to a deeper violet.

Where is this color-difference stored? I have thousands of wikispecies files I have accessed, and they all show the violet "accessed" color if I ever have opened the file to read its contents.

I have copied and saved my own wikispecies files, so I can reinstall them if my Ubuntu crashes and has to be reinstalled. However, the "accessed" colors on the newly reinstalled (Firefox) wikispecies seem to be lost.

Is there any way to collect and reinstall the "accessed" colors for an online set of wikispecies file?

I will hope to see any answers logged here. — The preceding unsigned comment was added by Zjwill (talkcontribs) 04:31, 23 November 2021‎.

This is dealt with locally, in your browser. Not on Wikispecies. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:19, 23 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have your system, Firefox browser and Ubuntu OS, and also have a Windows 10 with Firefox. Mine peforms same way, it seems to be the Firefox. Neferkheperre (talk) 17:06, 23 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OK. Thanks, but WHERE in Firefox? There is a huge collection of stuff in my copies of the following directories ("/" replaced with "_"):


There are a few other locations (e. g., in /etc), but I think a record of files accessed would be somewhere in the above. — The preceding unsigned comment was added by Zjwill (talkcontribs) 20:42, 23 November 2021‎.

You can get support for Firefox, here. This page is for Wikispecies issues. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:27, 23 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

1885 snakes[edit]

Elapochrus aequalis & Homalocranium michoacanense - R. Mintern & J. Green - Biologia Centrali-Americana (1885)

The above plate is labelled Elapochrus aequalis & Homalocranium michoacanense; I think E. aequalisis now Pliocercus euryzonus - is that right? And H. michoacanense is now Sonora michoacanensis?

I have gathered what little we know about J. (James) Green as d:Q109692200 - can anyone add to that? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:27, 24 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Talk to the Community Tech: The future of the Community Wishlist Survey[edit]


We, the team working on the Community Wishlist Survey, would like to invite you to an online meeting with us. It will take place on 30 November (Tuesday), 17:00 UTC on Zoom, and will last an hour. Click here to join.


  • Changes to the Community Wishlist Survey 2022. Help us decide.
  • Become a Community Wishlist Survey Ambassador. Help us spread the word about the CWS in your community.
  • Questions and answers


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

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

Invitation link

We hope to see you! SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 20:03, 26 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Global ban for 1Goldberg2[edit]

Per the Global bans policy, I’m informing the project of this request for comment: RfC/Global ban for 1Goldberg2. Feel free to leave a comment there. – Mrakia (talk) 15:33, 3 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Natural History Museum (London) person ID[edit]

New on Wikidata is P10114, for people in the database of the Natural History Museum, London. I've added it to our {{Authority control}} template, labelled "NHM (Lond.)"; see, for example, Helen M. Muir-Wood. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:45, 6 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Special: related changes[edit]

The maximum allowed to view is 100 changes in the last 30 days. One month is a surprisingly short time if one wants to keep an occasional eye on related changes connected to a page, it is very easy to forget to check that frequently. Could it be increased to 100 changes in the last 100 days, or even better, all related changes in the last year? That would make it a far more useful tool. - MPF (talk) 23:59, 7 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Anyone? MPF (talk) 01:51, 28 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I suspect no-one here knows how to do this, nor even whether it is possible. You might ask on the Mediawiki support desk. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:31, 28 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks! I'll give it a try - MPF (talk) 22:31, 29 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For several years now I've had my "Related changes" as well as "Recent changes" set to show 500 changes over the last 30 days. "Recent changes" can be set to show a maximum of 1,000 edits over the past 30 days in the Recent changes" section of the user preferences, however that doesn't seem to apply to "Related changes", and I don't know how to extend the time period to more than 30 days. Please consider sharing that information here if you strike luck at the MW support desk. Thanks beforehand! :-) Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 11:37, 30 December 2021 (UTC).Reply[reply]
Still yet to get round to asking! - MPF (talk) 21:19, 9 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Tommy Kronkvist: I put in a request at m:Community Wishlist Survey 2022/Miscellaneous/Give 'Related changes' a longer time span; the answers are not promising, unfortunately - MPF (talk) 22:01, 11 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@MPF: I see... Having read the thread and the information it links to it's easy to understand the downsides of an extended period from 30 to, say 100 days. Some of our bigger sister projects like Wikidata and enWP sometimes process several hundred edits per minute and handling huge edit-history database tables can of course cause all sorts of performance issues (and worse). An ideal solution would be to have two "Recent changes" pages. One "default" for most user just like the one we use now, and then an option to use a different, modified version for us battle-hardened old Wikimedia-wolfs... However, constructing that solution in such a way that it doesn't hog down the servers would be a mammoth task. It would most likely involve running two parallell but separate instances of the database, and I'm pretty sure the DBAs aren't too keen on allowing that... As MusikAnimal (WMF) mentions an external solution would be a lot easier to set up, but it's likely to be rather inconvenient from a practical point of view (remember this one?) Oh well... Thanks anyway for your efforts, MPF! –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 22:51, 11 January 2022 (UTC).Reply[reply]

Unable to add Santali language Native names[edit]

Hi, I'm a Wikipedia editor, Recently I came to know about Wikispecies, which is fantastic. Tried to add a Santali Native name "ᱩᱞ" in Mangifera indica page. But Santali language is not displaying when it is added. Santali language has a valid iso code "sat", and has a dedicated Wikipedia Edition sat:ᱩᱞ. Is it because the language doesn't support in Wikispecies or something else??. To prevent any block or spam i have just seen the preview. May i know what may be the possible reason. Rocky 734 (talk) 13:03, 9 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Santali hasn't been added to the languages supported here yet. To request the addition of a new language to the template, please leave a message at Template talk:VN; someone will then add it (I would try myself, but it's late evening here and I'm just shutting down for the night!). - MPF (talk) 00:50, 10 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Could someone do this, please? I can't work out how! @Pigsonthewing: you've done these before I think? - MPF (talk) 01:51, 28 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Done and seems to be working Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:26, 28 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Excellent, thanks! - MPF (talk) 22:26, 29 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you @MPF: and @Pigsonthewing: for requesting and adding Santali language. User:Rocky 734 15:50, 30 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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).Reply[reply]

───────────────────────── 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)Reply[reply]
…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).Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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).Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]

───────────────────────── "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)Reply[reply]

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).Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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).Reply[reply]

───────────────────────── @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)Reply[reply]

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).Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]

I have similar troubles as follows:

  • FU
    1. Department of Biology, Fudan University, Shanghai, Guangdong, China
    2. Herbarium, Department of Forest and Forest Products Sciences, Laboratory of Wood Science, Faculty of Agriculture, Kyushu University, Fukuoka, Fukuoka 812-8581, JapanIndex Herbariorum
  • RM
    1. Raffles Museum, Singapore [now ZRC and redirected to LKCNHM]
    2. Rocky Mountain Herbarium, Department of Botany, 3165, University of Wyoming, 1000 East University Avenue, Laramie, Wyoming 82071-3165, U.S.A.Index Herbariorum

As for the latter, its category page is currently redirected to Category:ZRC, but all of its members (except for Acontia (Acontia) tinctilis, whose 'RM' seems to be one of the variants of SNHM, however) are plant species related to U.S.A. and I would like to remove the redirection and place disambiguation in each page if no one opposes within two weeks. --Eryk Kij (talk) 06:44, 30 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As in the disambiguation page HMG, it is possible to use the template {​{refer|repository}​} [a zero-width space between the brackets prevents this from functioning as a template] to disambiguate between eg FU (Shanghai) and FU (Fukuoka); I then put in a deletion request for the original (emptied) category Category:HMG so that use of an undisambiguated {​{Repository link|HMG}​} would result in a red-linked category, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 07:59, 30 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Maculosae tegmine lyncis: Thank you very much for your advice. I will try it later. --Eryk Kij (talk) 16:15, 31 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Fuddan is also known as FDU, for what it's worth. Circeus (talk) 19:49, 3 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have applied the change to Category:RM since no one opposed.
@Circeus: Your idea seems attractive, but I think it is also important what are the sources of the current zoological repository abbreviations, not limited to this case. Is there any zoological counterpart of Index Harbariorum? --Eryk Kij (talk) 10:44, 17 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As I pointed out earlier, the issue is there is no cross-specialty source of acronyms because we might well be one of relatively few users that actually needs acronyms across all of biology. Botany has a well curated list, as does ichthyology/herpetology. Entomology to a lesser degree with evenhuis's compilation. But otherwise, it's the wild west, and even in these specialties, you occasionally run into all sorets of irregularities because authors may still use whatever acronym they fancy, and old article may be poorly standardized... All of which ends up seeping back into Wikispecies.
There were a few past attempts at cross-specialty compilation (which eventually merged into grscicoll, IIRC), but maintenance was poor because very people are actually invested in such efforts, and we're left with a mostly uncurated, and entirely unmaintained dataset that was not even available at all for a while before GBIF put it back online! 18:28, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
@Maculosae tegmine lyncis and Circeus: After consideration of your proposals, I have moved Fudan University to FDU and assigned Kyushu University to FU, likewise their categories. I feel smothered by lack of comprehensive omni-biological database for repositories and current situation that is compelling us to assign somehow unregistered ones, but I dared to do it. Thank you very much. --Eryk Kij (talk) 09:52, 7 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I commend you for this display of WP:BOLDness. Circeus (talk) 17:38, 7 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Format glitch[edit]

Hello fellow editors. Please avoid the well meaning quirk of using {{Glast}} and {{Splast}} outside a genus or species list. You are creating a format glitch which needs editing out. Please correct, if you have used these templates for Typus and so on. This is a repeat request as it is getting a bit annoying to always be edit out the problem when other work is more pressing. Thanks in advance. Andyboorman (talk) 20:36, 6 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the heads-up! I don't recollect using that style (at least not recently) but will definitely remember not to in the future - MPF (talk) 23:59, 7 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Reply tool available[edit]

Hello, all. The Editing team is wrapping up their initial work on the Reply tool. You can see it (and a few newer things) on this page by clicking Click that link and then look for the little [reply] button after each signed comment.

If you like it, then you can enable "Discussion tools" now at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-betafeatures (that will give you reply plus the newer stuff). After you enable it, you'll get a few new prefs at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-editing-discussion.

I think the Reply tool (but not the newer stuff) will be deployed, default-on, for all users here in a few weeks. I don't think the date has been set, but it'll probably either be soon or in the first half of January. If you have any concerns, or if you just want to try it out, please feel free to click the [reply] button after my signature and tell me what you think. Thanks, Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 02:44, 8 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hidden reply template[edit]

Please note that aside from the {{Reply to}} template (often used as {{Ping}}, which is a redirect) we now also have the {{Hidden ping}} template. It works in the same way as {{Reply to}} in that it sends a notification to the recipient, except the note doesn't render any text on the page (i.e. @Example: is not shown). –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 21:10, 14 December 2021 (UTC).Reply[reply]

France de Lapparent de Broin[edit]

Hi everyone, with a highly variable usage of her name I decided to actually ask France what she would prefer. She has used her name in a variety of ways in her publications. She would prefer de Lapparent de Broin, France as the sort and we have France de Lapparent de Broin. The name has appeared in her publications as de Broin, F., de Lapparent de Broin, F and Lapparent de Broin, F. de. Where possible I think its important to recognise an author they way they wish. So I think we should. She had her reasons for all the changes which I can understand and she explained it all to me. So we have her Authority Page right lets make sure the default sort is correct and any papers that may have slipped through under alternative versions are linked back to the correct formation of the name. This irrespective of how the name appears on her papers. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 21:30, 12 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 21:02, 14 December 2021 (UTC).Reply[reply]
Our page already has {{DEFAULTSORT:de Lapparent de Broin, France}}. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:50, 15 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It appears this fairly important template was broken by some change to a lua module (see e.g. {{access}} or {{Taxonav}}). This is well above my paygrade or capacity to fix (God I miss the simpler time before lua templates...) Circeus (talk) 05:26, 20 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

{{Documentation}} seems to works well in other places such as {{Neutral}}. I found a similar issue there however we have well {{Pp-template}}, I think the issue may be solved by creating {{PP-template}} as a redirect #REDIRECT [[Template:Pp-template]] such as in English Wikipedia [2], but I don't have the permission to do it. Note that this is a possibility, and though I'm not sure at 100% that it will work it may be worth to try. Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:49, 20 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That seems to have done it! Circeus (talk) 20:58, 20 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

“Wikispecies needs translators to make it more accessible”[edit]

@Tommy Kronkvist, Accassidy, AlvaroMolina, Andyboorman, Burmeister, Circeus, Dan Koehl, EncycloPetey, Floscuculi, Keith Edkins, Koavf, Mariusm, MKOliver, MPF, PeterR, Pigsonthewing, RLJ, Thiotrix, Tommy Kronkvist

Hello everyone! I have marked here some administrators and the interface administrator because I have a suggestion/doubt.

Wikispecies is a multilingual project, but I can't find any tool that allows users who are not logged in to view the translations.

Wikimedia Commons, for example, has a gadget called LanguageSelect. The gadget creates a menu, allowing you to select your native language. This same gadget could be included here. What do you think? Edu! (talk) 18:36, 27 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I do not understand the code! However, a gadget like this will be very useful. You have my support. Andyboorman (talk) 19:31, 27 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am very hesitant to import but if there is consensus and no one else wants to do it, then I will. Looks handy. —Justin (koavf)TCM 19:44, 27 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I added the Gadget-LanguageSelect.js gadget skript to my Commons javascript file, but couldn't really notice any difference, even after purging my browser caches. However I think the functionality as such would be welcome for many users – though preferably it should be much better documented than it currently is in its Commons version. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 19:22, 29 December 2021 (UTC).Reply[reply]

Upcoming Call for Feedback about the Board of Trustees elections[edit]

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

The Board of Trustees is preparing a call for feedback about the upcoming Board Elections, from January 7 - February 10, 2022.

While details will be finalized the week before the call, we have confirmed at least two questions that will be asked during this call for feedback:

  • What is the best way to ensure fair representation of emerging communities among the Board?
  • What involvement should candidates have during the election?

While additional questions may be added, the Movement Strategy and Governance team wants to provide time for community members and affiliates to consider and prepare ideas on the confirmed questions before the call opens. We apologize for not having a complete list of questions at this time. The list of questions should only grow by one or two questions. The intention is to not overwhelm the community with requests, but provide notice and welcome feedback on these important questions.

Do you want to help organize local conversation during this Call?

Contact the Movement Strategy and Governance team on Meta, on Telegram, or via email at msg(_AT_)

Reach out if you have any questions or concerns. The Movement Strategy and Governance team will be minimally staffed until January 3. Please excuse any delayed response during this time. We also recognize some community members and affiliates are offline during the December holidays. We apologize if our message has reached you while you are on holiday. Thank you!--SOyeyele (WMF) (talk) 14:42, 29 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Permissions Request for AWB..[edit]

Hi. In order to quickly progress through the missing italics in some articles (identified using Special:LintErrors), I was planning on using a list in AWB.

I need an appropriate permission or authorisation from the admins here set up to do this.


ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 09:35, 9 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No problems as far as I am concerned. Andyboorman (talk) 11:33, 9 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree with Andyboorman, however please set AWB to mark the changes as "Minor edits" in order to help not flooding the "Recent changes" list. (Each user can chose to hide minor edits in the "Recent changes" preferences, on a per-user basis.) Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 13:30, 9 January 2022 (UTC).Reply[reply]
Thanks. And marking linter repairs as minor was standard practice anyway. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 20:51, 9 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wiki Loves Folklore is back![edit]

Please help translate to your language

You are humbly invited to participate in the Wiki Loves Folklore 2022 an international photography contest organized on Wikimedia Commons to document folklore and intangible cultural heritage from different regions, including, folk creative activities and many more. It is held every year from the 1st till the 28th of February.

You can help in enriching the folklore documentation on Commons from your region by taking photos, audios, videos, and submitting them in this commons contest.

You can also organize a local contest in your country and support us in translating the project pages to help us spread the word in your native language.

Feel free to contact us on our project Talk page if you need any assistance.

Kind regards,

Wiki loves Folklore International Team

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:15, 9 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Missing italics in 2 entries...[edit]

The entries being  :

I was unsure what local conventions applied, and hence the referral here. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:22, 10 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Done - MPF (talk) 21:49, 11 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Community Wishlist Survey 2022[edit]

The Community Wishlist Survey 2022 is now open!

This survey is the process where communities decide what the Community Tech team should work on over the next year. We encourage everyone to submit proposals until the deadline on 23 January, or comment on other proposals to help make them better. The communities will vote on the proposals between 28 January and 11 February.

The Community Tech team is focused on tools for experienced Wikimedia editors. You can write proposals in any language, and we will translate them for you. Thank you, and we look forward to seeing your proposals! SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 18:10, 10 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Blackwell's Herbal..[edit]

Is this usable as a source? s:Index:A curious herbal volume 1 blackwell.djvu, It sometimes has earlier dates for some names. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 22:10, 10 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Very much not. It's prelinnaean. Circeus (talk) 01:01, 11 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Call for Feedback about the Board of Trustees elections is now open[edit]

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

The Call for Feedback: Board of Trustees elections is now open and will close on 7 February 2022.

With this Call for Feedback, the Movement Strategy and Governance team is taking a different approach. This approach incorporates community feedback from 2021. Instead of leading with proposals, the Call is framed around key questions from the Board of Trustees. The key questions came from the feedback about the 2021 Board of Trustees election. The intention is to inspire collective conversation and collaborative proposal development about these key questions.

Join the conversation.


Movement Strategy and Governance--SOyeyele (WMF) (talk) 23:48, 12 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Merging Darwiniana (n.s.) with Darwiniana (n.s.)[edit]

We currently have two articles regarding Darwiniana (n.s.), namely ISSN 0011-6793 (printed edition) and ISSN 1850-1699 (online edition). According to our praxis these two should be merged into a single page using the printed edition's ISSN as page name, however the sources are a bit contradictory and I have a hard time figuring out the different dates/years of publication etc. for the respective editions (at least to a verifiable and acceptable degree of certainty). Their respective Wikidata items (Q5799467 and Q110419093) aren't very helpful, neither is the series website. Please have a look and help out, if you're equiped with better sources (or have a better knowledge of Spanish...) than I have! Thanks, Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 23:06, 15 January 2022 (UTC).Reply[reply]

It is as you write, the old series ends with 50 (2012), the new one starts with 1 (2013). The ISSN and online ISSN do not change. --RLJ (talk) 01:19, 16 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
While RLJ has already merged the pages on Wikispecies, I have just merged the wikidata items together, since it is clearly intended they refer to the same series from the ISSN Portal website at least. However, for some reason, a few other external websites linked by Wikidata (e.g. ANCP, Directory of Open Access Journals) have mixed up the online ISSN of Darwiniana with that of Hickenia, another journal published by the same publisher. That is strange... Otherwise, both ISSNs do appear on the cover of the latest issue, as well as on the first page of each article's PDF. Monster Iestyn (talk) 01:58, 16 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you both! As for Hickenia yes I saw that and removed one Wikidata reference to the Hickenia ISSN before posting here yesterday, but I'm afraid I wasn't more thorough than that. Wikidata is great most of the time, but it can quickly become a bit messy when an incorrect piece of information in a Wikidata item starts "spilling over" to several other WD items. Cleaning it up can take time, but I guess that's the Wikidata administrators' headache rather than ours. :-) Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 11:11, 16 January 2022 (UTC).Reply[reply]
Also, it looks like Tropicos ID isn't added to the Authority control module. Not that it really matters much, but it means that it isn't shown by the {{Authority control}} template, even though a Tropicos ID is added to the Wikidata Darwiniana item. Then again Tropicos isn't always correct, so maybe it's for the best... Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 11:30, 16 January 2022 (UTC).Reply[reply]

Opened request for CentralNotice for Slovakia fundraiser[edit]

In the Wikimedia User Group Esperanto and Free Knowledge we are again participating in Slovakian fundraising campaign. I have requested CentralNotice (1, 2), which (if approved) will be showing also in Wikispecies in Slovak. --KuboF Hromoslav (talk) 18:19, 16 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Talk to the Community Tech[edit]


We, the team working on the Community Wishlist Survey, would like to invite you to an online meeting with us. It will take place on 19 January (Wednesday), 18:00 UTC on Zoom, and will last an hour. This external system is not subject to the WMF Privacy Policy. Click here to join.


  • Bring drafts of your proposals and talk to to a member of the Community Tech Team about your questions on how to improve the proposal


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, and German. If you would like to ask questions in advance, add them on the Community Wishlist Survey talk page or send to

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

Invitation link

We hope to see you! SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 00:21, 18 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Subscribe to the This Month in Education newsletter - learn from others and share your stories[edit]

Dear community members,

Greetings from the EWOC Newsletter team and the education team at Wikimedia Foundation. We are very excited to share that we on tenth years of Education Newsletter (This Month in Education) invite you to join us by subscribing to the newsletter on your talk page or by sharing your activities in the upcoming newsletters. The Wikimedia Education newsletter is a monthly newsletter that collects articles written by community members using Wikimedia projects in education around the world, and it is published by the EWOC Newsletter team in collaboration with the Education team. These stories can bring you new ideas to try, valuable insights about the success and challenges of our community members in running education programs in their context.

If your affiliate/language project is developing its own education initiatives, please remember to take advantage of this newsletter to publish your stories with the wider movement that shares your passion for education. You can submit newsletter articles in your own language or submit bilingual articles for the education newsletter. For the month of January the deadline to submit articles is on the 20th January. We look forward to reading your stories.

Older versions of this newsletter can be found in the complete archive.

More information about the newsletter can be found at Education/Newsletter/About.

For more information, please contact

About This Month in Education · Subscribe/Unsubscribe · Global message delivery · For the team: ZI Jony (Talk), Monday 22:49, 18 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Movement Strategy and Governance News – Issue 5[edit]

Movement Strategy and Governance News
Issue 5, January 2022Read the full newsletter

Welcome to the fifth issue of Movement Strategy and Governance News (formerly known as Universal Code of Conduct News)! This revamped newsletter distributes relevant news and events about the Movement Charter, Universal Code of Conduct, Movement Strategy Implementation grants, Board elections and other relevant MSG topics.

This Newsletter will be distributed quarterly, while more frequent Updates will also be delivered weekly or bi-weekly to subscribers. Please remember to subscribe here if you would like to receive these updates.

  • Call for Feedback about the Board elections - We invite you to give your feedback on the upcoming WMF Board of Trustees election. This call for feedback went live on 10th January 2022 and will be concluded on 7th February 2022. (continue reading)
  • Universal Code of Conduct Ratification - In 2021, the WMF asked communities about how to enforce the Universal Code of Conduct policy text. The revised draft of the enforcement guidelines should be ready for community vote in March. (continue reading)
  • Movement Strategy Implementation Grants - As we continue to review several interesting proposals, we encourage and welcome more proposals and ideas that target a specific initiative from the Movement Strategy recommendations. (continue reading)
  • The New Direction for the Newsletter - As the UCoC Newsletter transitions into MSG Newsletter, join the facilitation team in envisioning and deciding on the new directions for this newsletter. (continue reading)
  • Diff Blogs - Check out the most recent publications about MSG on Wikimedia Diff. (continue reading)
--SOyeyele (WMF) (talk) 16:40, 18 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Desktop Improvements update and Office Hours invitation[edit]

Hello. I wanted to give you an update about the Desktop Improvements project, which the Wikimedia Foundation Web team has been working on for the past few years.

The goals of the project are to make the interface more welcoming and comfortable for readers and useful for advanced users. The project consists of a series of feature improvements which make it easier to read and learn, navigate within the page, search, switch between languages, use article tabs and the user menu, and more.

The improvements are already visible by default for readers and editors on 24 wikis, including Wikipedias in French, Portuguese, and Persian.

The changes apply to the Vector skin only. Monobook or Timeless users are not affected.

Features deployed since our last update[edit]

  • User menu - focused on making the navigation more intuitive by visually highlighting the structure of user links and their purpose.
  • Sticky header - focused on allowing access to important functionality (logging in/out, history, talk pages, etc.) without requiring people to scroll to the top of the page.

For a full list of the features the project includes, please visit our project page. We also invite you to our Updates page.

The features deployed already and the table of contents that's currently under development

How to enable the improvements[edit]

Global preferences
  • It is possible to opt-in individually in the appearance tab within the preferences by unchecking the "Use Legacy Vector" box. (It has to be empty.) Also, it is possible to opt-in on all wikis using the global preferences.
  • If you think this would be good as a default for all readers and editors of this wiki, feel free to start a conversation with the community and contact me.
  • On wikis where the changes are visible by default for all, logged-in users can always opt-out to the Legacy Vector. There is an easily accessible link in the sidebar of the new Vector.

Learn more and join our events[edit]

If you would like to follow the progress of our project, you can subscribe to our newsletter.

You can read the pages of the project, check our FAQ, write on the project talk page, and join an online meeting with us (27 January (Thursday), 15:00 UTC).

How to join our online meeting

Thank you!!

On behalf of the Wikimedia Foundation Web team, SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 22:11, 24 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Unpatrolled edits[edit]

We currently have approximately 320 unpatrolled pages, created and/or edited from December 4 last year, up until today. Feel free to help patrol these so that we can get up to speed with them. They span all types of subjects – plants, animals, bacteria, authors, journals, templates, categories, translations etc. – so there should be something to check for all of us. Thanks beforehand! Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 15:03, 3 January 2022 (UTC).Reply[reply]

User:Abhilash2001kar's edits adding Odia language vernacular names need sorting into their correct alphabetic position; I'll do so tomorrow - MPF (talk) 00:09, 4 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
But doing so much slower than I'd hoped, as most of the pages have multiple other issues! - MPF (talk) 23:13, 4 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Let's help out! His ("Abhilash" is a male given name) edits can be found here: Special:Contributions/Abhilash2001kar. Regards, Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 19:22, 5 January 2022 (UTC).Reply[reply]

───────────────────────── We currently have circa 25 unpatrolled translations created and/or edited by user ChofisDan. Almost all of them are written in West Greenlandic (Kalaallisut), the standard dialect of the Greenlandic language. That makes it hard for most users to check and mark them as patrolled, but please help out if you're able to. Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 07:27, 20 January 2022 (UTC).Reply[reply]

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this archive.