Wikispecies:Village Pump/Archive 60

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.

Hello, I experimented in two pages the use of {{Reflist}}, <ref name="refname1" /> and <ref name="refname1"></ref>: Pseudopolydora and Ophiuroglypha plana.

Good or bad idea? Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:58, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bad, in my opinion. It adds extra line breaks to the "References" section that doesn't look very good and makes the references harder to read. Also, a corresponding reference to for example "Czerniavsky, 1881" in the "Name" section will be very easy to find in the "References" section, even without the use of Wikipedia-style {{Reflist}} and <ref...> tags. I think that our current system for presenting references is already complicated enough – lets not make it even harder for our new users by adding yet more elements. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 02:43, 28 February 2022 (UTC).[reply]
(As a side note, neither the Ophiuroglypha plana nor the Pseudopolydora auha page use the format described in the Wikispecies Help:Name section guideline. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 02:52, 28 February 2022 (UTC).[reply]
What exactly should be amended for that they be in line? Christian Ferrer (talk) 06:00, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Christian Ferrer: Have a look at the Full example in the Help:Name section guideline and you'll see that there should be no indentations in it (and no bullet symbols except for lists of synonyms). Personally I think we may need to discuss and perhaps change all this, but right now that's the recommended format. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 09:59, 5 March 2022 (UTC).[reply]
@Christian Ferrer: WS does not really need in text citations as found in other Wikis or indeed academic papers. Generally the taxon page is a simple and concise statement of taxonomic facts with the reference section added to call the reader attention to from where the facts originated. Therefore Reflist is not really required and maybe we also wish to keep things basic for editors who wish to add taxonomy without having to becoming Wiki experts. Andyboorman (talk) 22:14, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Call for Feedback: Board of Trustees elections is now closed

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

The Call for Feedback: Board of Trustees elections is now closed. This Call ran from 10 January and closed on 16 February 2022. The Call focused on three key questions and received broad discussion on Meta-wiki, during meetings with affiliates, and in various community conversations. The community and affiliates provided many proposals and discussion points. The reports are on Meta-wiki.

This information will be shared with the Board of Trustees and Elections Committee so they can make informed decisions about the upcoming Board of Trustees election. The Board of Trustees will then follow with an announcement after they have discussed the information.

Thank you to everyone who participated in the Call for Feedback to help improve Board election processes.


Movement Strategy and Governance
--SOyeyele (WMF) (talk) 11:25, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Valid taxon?


Is Petalopterus a valid taxon? Seems hard to find in the literature. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 09:52, 5 March 2022 (UTC).[reply]

Drew a blank as well. Andyboorman (talk) 10:28, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Likewise (and it's not in BVF Online), Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 16:06, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Quickly checking on Google search gives me nothing for "Petalopterus" at all. Out of curiosity I also tried the higher-rank names linked, and none of them give any results on Google either. Not even "Spathophorata". Monster Iestyn (talk) 16:58, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I tried this too - should it not find the wikispecies page? Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 17:02, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe that was because it was an orphaned page until this discussion started? Another strange thing though is the English vernacular name given is just the taxon name, and the Greek one is a transliteration of the same name again. My best guess is someone's either using Wikispecies as a holding place for a set of unpublished names, or it's some kind of a hoax? The page was created by an IP editor in December last year and edited just earlier today by another IP. Monster Iestyn (talk) 17:12, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Andyboorman, Monster Iestyn, and Maculosae tegmine lyncis: - agree, likely a hoax; I'd be strongly inclined to delete. If it does get validly published in the future it can always be undeleted. The second edit is likely the same person as the first, using a roving IP; while not identical, they're very similar - and both with just the single edit. Note that there is a genus Petaloptera, no page for it here yet but listed in Phaneropterinae and a bit of info on EoL; its higher ranks of course do not match the ones given for "Petalopterus" - MPF (talk) 23:58, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

───────────────────────── Deleted, also semi-protected for six months. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 08:58, 7 March 2022 (UTC).[reply]

Universal Code of Conduct Enforcement guidelines ratification voting open from 7 to 21 March 2022

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

Hello everyone,

The ratification voting process for the revised enforcement guidelines of the Universal Code of Conduct (UCoC) is now open! Voting commenced on SecurePoll on 7 March 2022 and will conclude on 21 March 2022. Please read more on the voter information and eligibility details.

The Universal Code of Conduct (UCoC) provides a baseline of acceptable behavior for the entire movement. The revised enforcement guidelines were published 24 January 2022 as a proposed way to apply the policy across the movement. You can read more about the UCoC project.

You can also comment on Meta-wiki talk pages in any language. You may also contact the team by email: ucocproject(_AT_)


Movement Strategy and Governance

Wikimedia Foundation

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:22, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Increasing usability the TNU, taxonomic name usage.


I am keen to see Wikispecies continue to have relevance and not only be desirable but a useful option for many specialists. As such I think there are several things we need to change. Our primary users are not other wikimedia projects though we are linked to by Wikidata and also many Wikipedia pages. However we actually have within our grasp the potential for something so unique no other checklist does it on a global scale. The IUBS Global Species Working Group and ZooBank as well as many checklists from around the world are using Wikispecies and recognising our input. As I said though to continue this we must be unique. The IUBS is proposing that the Global List of Species that is currently being developed will be COL+ and all their work is going towards that. Hence we need to do things that COL+ does not do. The Catalogue of Life is a list of species with the name and synonyms and and original refs etc. That is all. What I think we need to do is clarify some of our datapoints. The first one I think we can do is start using TNUs instead of Name. A TNU is formatted slightly differently and I will lay out an example here of what I think we should do. First up please look at the paper Pyle et al. 2021 for more details I will acknowledge I am a coauthor of this, I am also the Secretary of the IUBS GSLWG. TNUs formatted correctly will be searchable and in one line explain the exact start and end point nomenclaturally of every taxon. We need to be relevant nomenclaturally. This means we need to list all names. This format was proposed as Scientific name NomenclaturalAuthor sec. TreatmentAuthor by Berendsohn (1995) and the are single words and used in many databases such as ZooBank, this means we can code these also. The format of a TNU is this:

Elseya (Pelocomastes) albagula Thomson et al. 2006 sec. Thomson et al. 2015.

I am using a species I named because its easier to demonstrate. Note the two papers are not the same, it is referring to the original description and the paper that last changed its nomenclature. That is I named the species Elseya albagula in 2006 but then in 2015 I resurrected Pelocomastes as a subgenus and assigned this species to it. My original paper is not in parentheses because its a subgenus, if it is deemed a genus eventually my original description will be. We also should be creating pages for Protnyms (Pyle, 2004)[1] or declaring them as such if they are one. To start with the important one is the TNU, Protonyms also helpful. The term sec. is short for the Latin secundum meaning following or according to. So is refering to the treatment. There would be some work in it, some of it could be automated. Basically within the taxon account we would see the following for the example I gave above:

{{int:TNU}}: Elseya (Pelocomastes) albagula Thomson et al. 2006 sec. Thomson et al. 2015.

Yes I have replaced name with TNU for the page but that could be optional the format is more important. Anyway I would appreciate peoples thoughts on this, if this would be better served as a request for comment feel free to do this. The important thing here is Wikispecies needs to carve out a niche separate to COL+. Which I think we can do. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 12:12, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Two uniqueness points I can see would be (1) having a bank of related images and narrative articles in multiple languages but a click away - and, where eg there is a BHL link for the page number in the name section, an immediate link to the original description/literature supporting the claim (especially authorship dates in the literature are often wrong), similarly but a click away; and (2) in terms of how we're structured relative to eg fossilworks - it looks like that allows one parent for each taxon, which is fine where there is no dispute, but where there are competing views, we can cater for these via a secundum x, secundum y section. Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 18:53, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fossilworks is being migrated to PBDB to my knowledge its not being updated, PBDB still has some taxa missing and for those you need to go to fossilworks for now but eventually it ill all be ported. At least thats my understanding of hat they are doing. One of the purposes of the moves towards global lists is to get rid of competing views which cause confusion. There should only be one parent taxon and in the vast majority of cases that is true, there are some that are debated, but then its important to look at why there is a debate. People do generally add images when they are available (remembering these are subject to copywrite) on commons, either directly or via Wikidata which is good. Narrative articles are the domain of the Wikipedia Projects, we should link to them more. Dates are generally correct at least in Zoology as to be available in zoology all papers after 1930 must be dated under the ICZN Code. Some older papers can be problematic but its not common. In Botany however this is not a requirement so can be an issue there. The BHL link for papers when available is actually easy as if you put in the ZooBank LSID when available clicking on that will also bring up the BHL page, if its available. ZooBank is directly linked to BHL. But yes I think if we can find them a link to obtain any pages on protonyms in particular should be on the page, wherever it is, subject to copywrite. Good points though. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 19:53, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Additionnally, it is a merit of Wikispecies, that it links to the full author names with their own author pages. So it is a database for taxa, AND also for taxonomists and their work. --Thiotrix (talk) 11:12, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Forgive me, I'm not a Wikispecies regular, nor a professional taxonomist. Is the “sec.” notation for zoology equivalent to the “(author1) author2, year” notation for botany (e.g. “Angophora costata (Gaertn.) Britten, 1916”)? And is the plan to retain the detailed bullet list in section Elseya albagula#Synonyms? On distinguishing Wikispecies from the competition: WoRMS is doing a good job of adding references and links out to supporting literature. Where the original description has a scanned book on BHL, a direct link to the right page would be very convenient, in addition to linking the first page of the article within the volume. Tracking down sources is a huge job, but including them should be part of the gold standard. WoRMS also lists both “accepted” and “non-accepted” names. How should we handle things when “acceptance” is disputed? Leave that to a long-form explanation on Wikipedia? The other thing that few databases handle is taxonomic concepts, where different circumscriptions bear the same name. For example Crassostrea sensu Salvi & Mariottini 2016 (sensu stricto after removal of species to Magallana) is a different entity from, say, Crassostrea sensu Iredale 1913. The nomen “Crassostrea Sacco, 1897” is identical, having the same type taxon and original description, but the groups of organisms included is very different. Avibase has a rich set of entries: compare Tyto [alba or javanica] s.l. versus Tyto alba s.s. I'm not saying we should have a separate page for each circumscription, but how about a section that lists them? Pelagic (talk) 19:24, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, I'm noobsplaining or “teaching grandma to suck eggs”. I now see that Scott's article with Pyle et al. has a lengthy section about “A list of asserted circumscriptions?”! Pelagic (talk) 22:35, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Pelagic: apologies yes I am a professional taxonomist and directly involved in the global assessments of the quality of taxonomic lists, aka checklists, so the we can work towards a far more stable situation with species names. If your interested I can send you all the papers we have done for this goal. The sec. notation is used for the development of TNU's which are a relatively new concept and applicable to all codes. The sec. separates the original author from the treatment author, ie the person who put it in its current genus for species. In an original description the name is called a protonym as its in its original spelling and combination and hence the original author and treatment author are the same. I am trying to be careful with the jargon but some of it is unavoidable if anyone needs more explanation please ask. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 00:33, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @Faendalimas. I understood better after reading the whole article that you linked. (I found myself a few times asking “but what about x?” partway through, then found that issue x was well addressed further on.) I guess the significant TNUs chosen to represent (taxonomic concepts / circumscriptions / congruent TNU sets) will arise through the normal academic process where some get cited more than others. Secundum seems less intuitive to me than sensu; I'm about to read Berendsohn 1997 [2] to learn why “sec.” is preferred. I'll post a separate dot-point below about stricto and lato. Best regards, Pelagic (talk) 18:51, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Faendalimas: just made a kind of experimentation with Ophiura plana (Lütken & Mortensen, 1899) Meissner, 1901. Christian Ferrer (talk) 10:37, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Christian Ferrer: yes I have started doing this in places too, eg Mesoclemmys dahli, however, part of my intent here is to rename the Name section to Taxon Named Unit (TNU) for those taxa its done for. But as this would go against current style and section name policies I have not done that, plus that title would have to be made available as an int. Hence I opened this discussion. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 06:15, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I propose an extension to the notation. Very often an author will use the taxon name with two different senses in the same place. This creates two separate TNUs that would have the same label. To distinguish the two, we could write “binomial orig-author s.s./s.l. sec. usage-author”. For example, does “Gehyra australis (Gray, 1845) sec. Oliver et al. 2020”[3] refer to pre-split “G. australis complex” sensu lato, or to the redefined G. australis sensu stricto? Allowing the extra qualifier gives us two distinct labels for the different circumscriptions:
Gehyra australis (Gray, 1845) s.l. sec. Oliver et al. 2020
Gehyra australis (Gray, 1845) s.s. sec. Oliver et al. 2020
Thoughts / comments? Pelagic (talk) 19:43, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not Wikipedia template


I have added a second, optional parameter, to {{Not Wikipedia}}, so that the default example article, about a species, can be substituted with for example, a biography or genus article. Please see template documentation for examples. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:39, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, very handy indeed! –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 10:26, 10 March 2022 (UTC).[reply]

Sphingobacteria ≠ Sphingobacteriia


Please have a look at Talk:Sphingobacteria if you're dealing with taxonomy regarding bacteria. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 10:29, 10 March 2022 (UTC).[reply]

Invitation to Hubs event: Global Conversation on 2022-03-12 at 13:00 UTC

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


The Movement Strategy and Governance team of the Wikimedia Foundation would like to invite you to the next event about "Regional and Thematic Hubs". The Wikimedia Movement is in the process of understanding what Regional and Thematic Hubs should be. Our workshop in November was a good start (read the report), but we're not finished yet.

Over the last weeks we conducted about 16 interviews with groups working on establishing a Hub in their context (see Hubs Dialogue). These interviews informed a report that will serve as a foundation for discussion on March 12. The report is planned to be published on March 9.

The event will take place on March 12, 13:00 to 16:00 UTC on Zoom. Interpretation will be provided in French, Spanish, Arabic, Russian, and Portuguese. Registration is open, and will close on March 10. Anyone interested in the topic is invited to join us. More information on the event on Meta-wiki.

Best regards,

Kaarel Vaidla 13:43, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Movement Strategy

Strange display of Page & User


Hello, since last night, the Page tab (Read / Edit / View history / * / Page) is showing Page in large bold characters; also, if you view Contributions (by self or someone else), there is an outsized bold User to the left of the Search box. Does anyone else have the same and can it be undone? (This isn't happening on enwiki, so may be wikispecies-specific.) Thanks, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 14:52, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to be a bug with the MoreMenu gadget I think; those words don't appear if you turn the gadget off I've found. Monster Iestyn (talk) 15:47, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

DuckDuckGo search shortcut broken


For those of you who aren't familiar with DuckDuckGo, it is a search engine which is notable for (among other reasons) having an extensive collection of "bangs", shortcuts to search various websites. For example, if you search for "!wikt hello" on DuckDuckGo, it directs you to the Wiktionary page "hello".

However, searching for "!wikispecies Glaresis" on DuckDuckGo sends one to the Wikipedia article rather than to Wikispecies. This should be fixed. 22:36, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is an issue on DuckDuckGo's end. According to their website, you can use the alternatives !wks, !wspec, or !wksp, all of which work. Eviolite (talk) 22:38, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Taxonav2 – taxonav above the family level


Hello, Exhibit A: Passeriformes - i.e. a long list without taxonav. Exhibit B: Phoenicopteriformes - where taxonav is applied, to result in a more user-friendly display, but perforce to the parent template rather than the template for the page in question. There may be a solution (which could also provide the additional functionality of a v. summarized taxonomy):

(I was encountering some specifically sandbox-related issues, so have created some dummy pages). ZZZ draws on a proposed {{Taxonav2}} (tested at {{Taxonav3}}) and {{ZZZ}} (which also draws on {{ZZZ2}}); in terms of editing the taxon page, all that would be needed would be to apply {{Taxonav2}} and, when editing the taxon template eg/as at {{ZZZ}}, to copy the upper lines down to the "summary" section (assuming no change to {{ZZZ2}} or equivalent). ZZZZ (and {{ZZZZ}}) seem to show that there are no untoward consequences further down the chain, eg/ie when {{ZZZZ}} calls on {{ZZZ}}. We might in particular want to agree the content of/approach to {{ZZZ2}}, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 21:42, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See also: User talk:Maculosae tegmine lyncis#Taxonavigation templates in reference templates. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk) 15:03, 7 March 2022 (UTC), 15:03, 7 March 2022 (UTC).[reply]

{{Taxonav2}} is now applied to Artiodactyla (and Perissodactyla), Tyrannosauroidea, Neognathae, and Anseriformes; what you can't do is enable taxonav2 functionality (as on {{Artiodactyla}}, {{Perissodactyla}}, {{Tyrannosauroidea}}, {{Neognathae}}, and {{Anseriformes}}) and then not apply {{Taxonav2}}, since then the summary taxonomy will be added to the taxon page beneath the full taxonomy, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 12:42, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Further development and testing required, have reverted changes, please do not use {{Taxonav2}} yet, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 18:58, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
{{Taxonav2}} has been fixed and reapplied to the same templates and pages as above, thanks, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 21:28, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OCLC template


Please note that I've imported the Catalog lookup link module and a few other files into Wikispecies, so we now have access to an {{OCLC}} template. It works pretty much like the {{Doi}} template, except you will of course have to use an OCLC number as parameter rather than a doi. I would still very much recommend we primarily use the doi- and {{BHL}} plus {{ISBN}} templates (in that order), but the OCLC equivalent can be handy in the rare cases none of the others are available. Here's an example:

{{OCLC|5844710}} which will be rendered as: OCLC: 5844710

Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 17:21, 11 March 2022 (UTC).[reply]

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature is now completely open-access on Biotaxa


All issues of BZN to date since 2008 are now open-access via Biotaxa (here). This seems to have taken effect since the beginning of this year, judging by the News & Updates of ICZN's website. Monster Iestyn (talk) 02:31, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Hello, as discussed above and seemingly as is well-known, there is an issue with there being, for different combinations/synonyms, likely multiple wikidata items, each potentially having an assortment of links to different language wikipedias etc. This means many wikidata items are likely not linked to wikispecies, even where a wikispecies redirect page exists, due to the issue with linking redirect pages.

There is a work-around to this, in that wikidata pages can mainting existing links to redirects, even if you cannot add such a link. If, as can be seen from the history of Barbourofelidae, one creates the redirect page (or so edits it) initially with holding text eg "a", and saves it, there is then a (sufficiently) valid page that can be linked to wikidata. With the link in place, the wikispecies page is then turned (back) into a redirect. This means any language wikipedias linked to the wikidata item in question will see in the left margin a link to wikispecies, which will redirect to the right page were they to click on it; however, wikispecies users, unless they view the redirect page itself, will not see such links, since the (final) destination wikispecies page is linked to a different item. Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 21:31, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In this scenario, to enable wikispecies users to link to the different language wikipedias, regardless of the combination/wikidata item to which the language wikipedias are linked, my understanding is that, if there is an old-style (and deprecated) interlanguage/wiki link such as [​[en]​] on a page, then this is typically ignored when the software builds the list of links in the wikispecies left margin, but made use of if there is no link to enwiki on the wikidata item to which the wikispecies page is linked. What might be good would be instead to be able to add an equivalent to [​[en]​], but specifying a wikidata item, or multiple items, instead (eg for each combination); then, the software could look at the links on that/those item(s) and add them to the list in the left margin. (?Potentially this could also be used for eg a monotypic genus with one species, where some wikipedias create pages for the genus, others for the species; this is typically where the old-style [​[en]​] links can still be found on wikispecies pages, but of course that just provides a link to enwiki, not the range of language wikipedias were we instead to have the equivalent function where you specify the wikidata item(s) instead of en/de etc.) Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 21:31, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone have any thoughts? (I was thinking of raising a related software change request.) Thanks, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 21:31, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

since its about the only way I can do it I have to answer from the perspective of a taxonomist. Irrespective of language having multiple names being used is in no ones interest. On this wiki to the best of our ability we are following the most up to date nomenclature and taxonomy. In other words the one people should be using. Now although there are generic and species synonyms there really should not be at higher levels. In zoology if a family ending in -idae is reduced to a subfamily and becomes -inae (in another family) the family name no longer exists and its preservation on Wikidata actually goes against the rules of name formation. It should not exist. I am a part of the Global Species Lists working group and we develop the principles that are applied to names on a global scale. The basic rule of thumb here is if you are not publishing taxonomy or nomenclature don't pretend to. Follow the global lists, that is what we are presenting here, the global list of life and all the applicable names to it. So any wikipedias using a different nomenclature should in all honesty be getting updated as they are clearly behind. Nomenclature is the way we communicate about taxa, and it is supposed to be uniform and stable, with currency. So if different language wikipedias are presenting different nomenclature for the same species then Wikimedia is failing all three of these pillars of nomenclature. What wikidata should be doing is ensuring the stability and currency of nomenclature between wikis. I do not think that maintenance of outdated nomenclature for the benefit of those wikis that are not up to date so that Wikidata can link to all of them is in the interest of global species names stability. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 22:18, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, yes—and one good way that editors across projects can find out/stumble upon the fact that the names have changed, and so need updating, would be to follow a link to eg a wikispecies page with different/the most up-to-date nomenclature. (To say wikispecies editors should also update any related project pages may be utopian, but in no way reflects current or likely praxis; and if, for instance, the change involves a new genus, is the wikispecies editor expected to amend the old genus page to reflect the fact this species is no longer a member and create a new genus page in the different language/script wikipedias etc, so that the page is not an orphan; (in Japanese, which seems to have the worst of all worlds, the common name is typically itself based on the genus and its type species or the representative of the genus found in Japan, so that for instance with Picus, where the type species is Picus viridis, the Japanese green woodpecker (Picus awokera) is known (and has the page) アオゲラ "aogera", while other species in the genus have names/pages such as ヒマラヤアオゲラ "himalaya aogera", モロッコアオゲラ "morocco aogera", etc, and the genus itself is アオゲラ属 or "aogera genus". When there is a new combination, editors may remove the Japanese name, because this also could well change; the need/desire to wait for a sufficiently authoritative "common" name to be used in the page title seemingly means that even the big cats still don't have a page each on jawiki...). Cross-project wikidata link maintenance might be as good as can be hoped for in such cases), Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 23:46, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Another consideration from a ja perspective is that the ja Ministry of the Environment maintains a domestic red list, as does each of the 47 prefectural governments; Apodemus agrarius may be LC (Least Concern) on a global basis per the IUCN Red List [4], but from a Japanese domestic perspective is, as of the 2020 red list, CR (Critically Endangered) [5]; while the ja red list is for information purposes, on the back of it the Cabinet Office may designate Endangered Species, which are then afforded protection under the 1992 Act on Conservation of Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora. In terms of entries on this red list, and for such designations and legislative protection, scientific names are used; but, even where there may be a change in taxonomic nomenclature, the scientific names used are those of the taxon when it was initially entered on the list/register. So, for instance with Tamias sibiricus lineatus, though it has been suggested (by a Russian-lead team) that the (Japanese) Ezo Chipmunk is only a population of Eutamias sibiricus sibiricus, Tamias sibiricus lineatus is still going to be used in potentially significant and reasonably authoritative contexts; and, in terms of all the literature relating to the エゾシマリス (or 蝦夷縞栗鼠), even if only a local population of the wider Asian subspecies, since much has been and likely will continue to be written from domestic studies for a domestic audience, it would be misleading to use Eutamias sibiricus sibiricus, since that might make a claim for the subspecies as a whole on the basis of population-level studies, while use of Tamias sibiricus lineatus alongside the/a common name is useful if nothing else to help relate the subject to the entry on the red list, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 08:09, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Taxonomy by necessity cannot and must not be subservient to conservation needs. As discussed in Thomson et al 2021 DOI: 10.1007/s13127-021-00518-8 using the Tapanuli Orangutan as an example when conservation places onus on taxonomy you end up with a conflict of interests, a serious one with legal ramifications. Every country has its own endangered species lists, they need to stay up to date with the accepted taxonomy. Yes this can take time, because these are legislated lists hence there is often a two year turnaround to legislate changes to these lists. But the taxonomy cannot be adjusted for the convenience of these lists as they are used to generate money. Local endangered species lists should always be linked to the correct name in the global lists. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 18:06, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Raised at Phabricator:T303667, thanks, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 14:00, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Page name – alternative display on right-hand side of page


Copying here (from enwiki) for reference:[6]
Hello, this relates more to wikispecies than here, but from a technical standpoint (and in terms of internationalization/accessibility), if you look at for instance Miracinonyx there is a vernacular name (entered in the form |en=). At the top of the page is the language selector. How could one go about having this Miracinonyx page displaying, on the right hand side, on the same line as the page heading Miracinonyx to the left, "(?xxx?)", where xxx is tentatively flagged as the vernacular name, populated from this |en=. Presumably, the same method could then be used to display the corresponding vernacular name (assuming it has been input) in the language to which your language selector is set. Thank you, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 15:49, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Maculosae tegmine lyncis: If you want to be able to display another page heading than the page name then mw:Manual:$wgRestrictDisplayTitle must be set to false in It's already false for several wikis. It can be requested at phabricator: if you can link to a consensus at Wikispecies. The T numbers in InitialiseSettings.php show some successful requests, e.g. phab:T122433. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:18, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if there are objections to requesting this change, so that the functionality can be looked into/developed/tested; it may be that there could be a user preference, were in time this to be adopted, to allow an opt-out, thanks, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 21:01, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Change requested at Phabricator:T303665, thanks, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 08:53, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There is already a patch that has passed initial testing and is out for review. If/when the time comes, for testing, it is likely we will intially want something like Template:DISPLAYTITLE (which might also be useful for Thyreophora Nopcsa) and:
Village Pump/Archive 60
Domestic Cat ]

Were this in time to be rolled out on taxon pages site-wide, we might want to find another way of delivering the same result (i.e., rather than adding such a line to lots and lots and lots of taxon pages), thanks, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 18:14, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Taxonavigation "collapse" tab on mobile view option


I never had tried before the mobile wiew and was surprised with the lack of the collapse tab on this mode of view. This long list of higher taxa turns the wiew of the page ugly. Some comment? Note, my mobile is Android.--Hector Bottai (talk) 02:12, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Hector Bottai: if you look at Phoenicopteriformes, do you see, in the taxonavigation section, first a drop-down box with a list of c.65 taxa, from Eukaryota to Phoenicopteriformes; then, outside this drop-down box, 5 taxa, from Aves to Phoenicopteriformes? Does this look ok to you? Thank you, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 15:10, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @Maculosae tegmine lyncis: What I am trying to say is that in the mobile view option there is no way to hidden that boring long list. Yes the five taxa list is fine, but the long list is still there!--Hector Bottai (talk) 15:35, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm seeing the same, a box outline round the c.65, then the summary 5; it's the same thing with family/genus/species pages, no "collapse"; according to the top section of the Media-wiki manual here, mw-collapsible (as used in {{Taxonav}} and {{Taxonav2}}) "does not work on mobile" (and there's a 2018 still active discussion here: Phabricator:T111565). I must admit I don't use mobile view either, just something you have to keep switching out of as far as I can make out, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 17:14, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
oh I see is not a new issue. The experts on this issue shoud have some sense of urgency. It's bad.--Hector Bottai (talk) 17:21, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Loves Folklore 2022 ends tomorrow


International photographic contest Wiki Loves Folklore 2022 ends on 15th March 2022 23:59:59 UTC. This is the last chance of the year to upload images about local folk culture, festival, cuisine, costume, folklore etc on Wikimedia Commons. Watch out our social media handles for regular updates and declaration of Winners.

(Facebook , Twitter , Instagram)

The writing competition Feminism and Folklore will run till 31st of March 2022 23:59:59 UTC. Write about your local folk tradition, women, folk festivals, folk dances, folk music, folk activities, folk games, folk cuisine, folk wear, folklore, and tradition, including ballads, folktales, fairy tales, legends, traditional song and dance, folk plays, games, seasonal events, calendar customs, folk arts, folk religion, mythology etc. on your local Wikipedia. Check if your local Wikipedia is participating

A special competition called Wiki Loves Falles is organised in Spain and the world during 15th March 2022 till 15th April 2022 to document local folk culture and Falles in Valencia, Spain. Learn more about it on Catalan Wikipedia project page.

We look forward for your immense co-operation.

Thanks Wiki Loves Folklore international Team MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:40, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Phabricator displaytitle request – other purposes? Homonyms?


Hello, as per the item immediately above, we have an alternative method of testing/delivering the functionality for the purposes of which Phabricator:T303665 was originally requested. A patch has already been tested and is out for review. Rather than withdrawing the request, shall we keep it open, so that we have the ability to apply (a less limited) en:Template:DISPLAYTITLE to eg Thyreophora Nopcsa and/or pages in eg Category:Homonyms? Thank you, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 09:45, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Felis catus — +vernacular name to right of page name/title (test)


Hello, please see Felis catus (which uses [7] per the comment on Phabricator:T303665), changing the language via the language selector (German, Spanish, Japanese etc). There is an issue with French, fr returning also frr ({{Template:Sandbox2}}) (this version), possibly also where no vernacular name has been entered, eg Welsh). (I assume there will be no other parameter |en= other than that within {{VN}}, or at least none lower on the page than that in {{VN}}.) If, after modification for the above, and other observations, we like the result, I believe from {{Sandbox3}} (this version), {{Sandbox4}} (this version), and here (this version; see "Test" section), that all that is required to roll this out on all taxon pages would be to add {{Sandbox4}} (or equivalent, perhaps with administrator-level protection) to {{VN}}. Thank you, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 21:08, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have raised this at Wikispecies:Requests for Comment, many thanks, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 00:52, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
<indicator name="vernacular pagename">{{{style|<span style="border-bottom:1px dotted">}}}
{{#if: {{#invoke:Transcluder|main|{{BASEPAGENAME}}|only=parameters|parameters={{Uselang}}}}
   | {{#switch: {{int:lang}}
|en={{{en}}}<!--the (else) transclusion of parameters={{Uselang}} below does not perform an exact match, fr returning also frr, ar also bar; the following itemized codes are embedded in other codes-->|es={{{es}}}|fr={{{fr}}}|zh={{{zh}}}<!--"upper branches of #switch execute branch should be most-used case"-->|aa={{{aa}}}|ab={{{ab}}}|an={{{an}}}|ar={{{ar}}}|as={{{as}}}|ba={{{ba}}}|be={{{be}}}|bm={{{bm}}}|bo={{{bo}}}|br={{{br}}}|ca={{{ca}}}|ce={{{ce}}}|ch={{{ch}}}|co={{{co}}}|cr={{{cr}}}|cs={{{cs}}}|cu={{{cu}}}|et={{{et}}}|fi={{{fi}}}|ga={{{ga}}}|gl={{{gl}}}|ha={{{ha}}}|hi={{{hi}}}|ho={{{ho}}}|hr={{{hr}}}|ht={{{ht}}}|hy={{{hy}}}|ia={{{ia}}}|iu={{{iu}}}|ka={{{ka}}}|ko={{{ko}}}|ks={{{ks}}}|la={{{la}}}|lb={{{lb}}}|li={{{li}}}|lo={{{lo}}}|mg={{{mg}}}|mi={{{mi}}}|ml={{{ml}}}|mn={{{mn}}}|mo={{{mo}}}|mr={{{mr}}}|ms={{{ms}}}|my={{{my}}}|na={{{na}}}|nb={{{nb}}}|nd={{{nd}}}|nds={{{nds}}}|ne={{{ne}}}|ng={{{ng}}}|nl={{{nl}}}|no={{{no}}}|nr={{{nr}}}|ny={{{ny}}}|os={{{os}}}|pa={{{pa}}}|pi={{{pi}}}|pl={{{pl}}}|pt={{{pt}}}|rm={{{rm}}}|rn={{{rn}}}|ro={{{ro}}}|ru={{{ru}}}|sa={{{sa}}}|sc={{{sc}}}|sh={{{sh}}}|si={{{si}}}|sm={{{sm}}}|so={{{so}}}|sr={{{sr}}}|ss={{{ss}}}|st={{{st}}}|su={{{su}}}|ta={{{ta}}}|te={{{te}}}|th={{{th}}}|tl={{{tl}}}|tp={{{tp}}}|ts={{{ts}}}|tw={{{tw}}}|ug={{{ug}}}|ur={{{ur}}}|ve={{{ve}}}|wa={{{wa}}}|za={{{za}}}

Striking and adding the code for potential later reference, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 12:35, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Leadership Development Working Group: Apply to join! (14 March to 10 April 2022)

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

Hello everyone,

Thank you to everyone who participated in the feedback period for the Leadership Development Working Group initiative. A summary of the feedback can be found on Meta-wiki. This feedback will be shared with the working group to inform their work. The application period to join the Working Group is now open and will close on April 10, 2022. Please review the information about the working group, share with community members who might be interested, and apply if you are interested.

Thank you,

From the Community Development team
--SOyeyele (WMF) (talk) 12:27, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Full name of the entomologist Marion E. Smith


Hi, I may need a second opinion to make sure I'm not getting anything wrong here. Bear with me as I explain first what my problem is first.

I have for some time been referring to the Deceased dipterists page on the International Congresses of Dipterology website (hosted on the North American Dipterists Society website), as well as Evenhuis' Authors of fly names, Third edition (2020), to add, complete or update Wikispecies pages for taxon authors of names within Diptera at least. So, working my way from the bottom of the first link (which starts at the year 1999), I got to "Smith, Marion Edmonds (1926) Culicidae". This name is also listed on the Authors of fly names publication, suggesting that it is indeed the name of a taxon author.

So from this information, I created a wikidata item and a Wikispecies page for Marion Edmonds Smith (Q111280768) last night (though I had listed the author at Smith previously to deal with at a later point). But, searching google for anything regarding a "Marion Edmonds Smith" who was born in 1926 and died in 2000 gave me nothing. But, on the other hand, searching for publications by any "M. E. Smith" on Culicidae did eventually lead me to a set of publications on Aedes mosquitoes authored by a "Marion E. Smith" who worked at the Department of Entomology, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, one of which does in fact establish a new species (in particular this one establishes Aedes (Ochlerotatus) pseudodiantaeus Smith, 1952).

But, I wasn't exactly happy just relying on the two sources I listed at the start directly for the years and full name of this author, so I continued to search Google for more information. Eventually, I found results from University of Massachusetts Amherst's own website, e.g. [8], about a Marion Estelle Smith who died in November 1988 and "was well known for her studies on mosquitoes and butterflies". She did her M.S. thesis in 1936 and possibly her Ph.D. thesis in 1938 (I think?), so her birth year could not possibly be 1926 (unless she really went to University at 10 years old?). In fact, according to [9] there is no other historical staff member of the university who could have been known as "Marion E. Smith" apart from Marion Estelle Smith.

Given no information to say otherwise, I believe Marion Estelle Smith to be the full name of the taxon author of Aedes (Ochlerotatus) pseudodiantaeus Smith, 1952 and the author of the publications I found, and Marion Edmonds Smith is ...somebody else I can't track down. Maybe not even a taxon author or a zoologist at all, for all I know. It wouldn't be the first time that the Deceased dipterists page and Evenhuis's Authors of fly names has been wrong, I think I found another author where online information contradicted these sources before.

Does this sound correct to everyone else? Did I miss something important that could be helpful maybe?

Monster Iestyn (talk) 17:53, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Have you considered asking Evenhuis himself? I have been in touch with him a few times regarding corrections to Systema Dipterorum and he seems eminently approachable and receptive to this sort of enquiries. Circeus (talk) 16:06, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If I wasn't so sheepish I probably would have contacted him already tbh, which is unfortunate because there are other problems unrelated to this altogether I feel ought to contact him about. But thanks for letting me know anyway. Monster Iestyn (talk) 16:28, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Both of these people existed, but there is some confusion. Marion Edmonds Smith was born 1926, died 2017, and was medical biochemist. See memorial. Marion Estelle Smith, 1913-1988 was dipterist in question, and made MS thesis in 1936. thesis. This is best I could do for biography in shot time; bio. This will take some unraveling. Neferkheperre (talk) 13:41, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oh wow, surprised I missed that Findagrave page, thanks for that. And yes, she might have been mixed up with the biochemist I figured, but that wouldn't explain the supposed death date of 2000. Monster Iestyn (talk) 14:54, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Plant List


Hello botanists. I thought you might like to know that the old Plant List has now been fully superseded by WFO Plant List. I assume that this means we need to update our links as and when we encounter them. The old Plant List had not been updated since 2013, so was getting very long in the tooth and the site is off-line. I do not know how easy it will be to link out to a named taxon via a search template. Changes will be needed on WD and Commons as well. Andyboorman (talk) 15:36, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Andyboorman: Does {{WFO}} provide what you need? Thanks, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 20:10, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Maculosae tegmine lyncis: Nice work. See Baynesia can it be dated just like the others? Thanks Andyboorman (talk) 20:41, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Can I just check you would like the link to point to [10], not [11] or [12], thanks, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 20:56, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The last might have been the better option, but it dragged in a species from another genus! But no major preference if we have to add an ID rather than picking up the search result from the page name. Thanks Andyboorman (talk) 21:21, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
{{WFO}} updated — let me know if that's not right, thanks, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 22:47, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's great thanks. Andyboorman (talk) 20:52, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Glossary — nom. praeocc.


Hello, the Glossary includes the line "preocc. (praeoccupatis). Preoccupied, i.e. name already published for another taxon." This seems a little strange (?an elliptical (plural) ablative absolute? — "with [names] having been previously occupied, ..."). What is the source for this and are there lots of good precedents/examples in taxonomic literature (google is giving me the wikispecies glossary page and uses of this perfect passive participle in classical literature)? Much simpler would be: "nom. praeocc. (nomen praeoccupatum)" — and google returns lots and lots of good examples of both the abbreviated and the full form in the context of taxonomy. If there are no objections/nothing comes to light, might someone please add this new line to the glossary (and perhaps provide a pointer to it on the existing line). Thank you, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 08:30, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Taxonomic Latin is not purist! However, nomen praeoccupatum is commonly found on a google search, example. Here is a grammatical dictionary of botanic Latin but probably not much use. Andyboorman (talk) 09:13, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you; I think the most parsimonious/transparent/natural supplement would be something like eliminatis, giving the sense "with the name(s) that, although earlier, were actually already in use elsewhere, having been ruled out, this now becomes the earliest valid name", i.e., a tag that is used not on the line(s) of the preoccupied name(s) but of the name that is brought into use due to the elimination of these from consideration... Though perhaps there is some other explanation. (I don't think it can be praeoccupātis instead of praeoccupātīs, that is, an apostrophe to the preoccupied name(s), in the sense "(O names, )you are preoccupied", because then surely it would be passive, i.e., praeoccupamini; I don't get it!) Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 17:47, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
On a raw online translation praeoccupatum translates to unbiased, whereas praeoccupatis is preoccupied. Botany does not use the term so try a zoologist! Andyboorman (talk) 18:41, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Google Translate is notoriously bad at translating Latin, so probably isn't a good idea to use in this case. Wiktionary at least seems more reliable: wikt:praeoccupatus and wikt:praeoccupo. (I can offer nothing else to this discussion as I have little knowledge of Latin beyond a few basics) Monster Iestyn (talk) 22:41, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Several redirects to Panthera tigris tigris


I found user BhagyaMani redirected several pages listed below to Panthera tigris tigris.

These pages are all subspecies of Panthera tigris, and all of them have articles on several Wikipedia projects. Personally, I think these subspecies should be juxtaposed with each other, rather than redirecting them all to another subspecies. As user is inactive for a long time, I choose to start a discussion in VP. Stang 15:43, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am not an expert in this area, but the references contradict both the redirects and the synonymy on the taxon page. A revised taxonomy of the Felidae seems to be the source to follow. In my opinion the redirects need to go and separate taxon pages have to be created unless there are sources of information to hand. Andyboorman (talk) 15:56, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"A revised taxonomy of the Felidae" = {{Kitchener et al., 2017}} (pp. 65–68 for Panthera tigris), Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 17:21, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Page 67 of Kitchener et al., 2017 recommends recognising just two subspecies of Panthera tigris, P. t. tigris and P. t. sondaica, with nearly all of the mentioned subspecies at the start of this discussion being included under P. t. tigris. The only one of those not mentioned in the publication is P. t. malayensis, but I noticed that redirect was previously a redirect to the jacksoni subspecies. That's probably why BhagyaMani turned them all into redirects I imagine. Monster Iestyn (talk) 18:01, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also worth noting that, while some of the Wikipedia projects may recognise the subspecies (except malayensis which is not connected to a Wikidata item), English Wikipedia treats them instead as just "populations" of P. t. tigris, e.g. en:Siberian tiger for Panthera tigris altaica. English Wikipedia is probably following the recommendations of the IUCN Cat Specialist Group (i.e. Kitchener et al., 2017). Monster Iestyn (talk) 18:07, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There is a paper in google scholar [13] that sumarises it well. There are two valid subspecies only if there are extra pages on other Wikimedia projects they should be merged. The redirects here are correct. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 18:43, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
...that's just pages 66 to 68 directly from Kitchener et al., 2017, but at least it makes the text easier to find. Monster Iestyn (talk) 18:57, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Stang: Just saw you undid all the edits to the subspecies with exception to malayensis (which was edited by Burmeister to fix a double redirect resulting from BhagyaMani's edits) and altaica (which was already reverted by Andyboorman)... did you see the replies to this discussion from 2 weeks ago at least? There is at least some information supporting that there are only two valid subspecies and the rest being synonyms of them, as mentioned above. Monster Iestyn (talk) 23:00, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Stang and Monster Iestyn: These are not subspecies, that wikipedia has pages on them does not make this accurate information. We have references above that demonstrate they are not taxa, these edits should be reverted. In all honesty the Wikipedia pages should be merged, or at least remove any indication these populations are valid taxa. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 23:45, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for this reply, my action is indeed driven by articles on Wikipedia (they do have individual articles among different language projects). If my edits are really wrong from Wikispecies perspective, it is fine for me to undo them. Stang 17:08, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes @Stang: please do so. I get why you did this, but inaccurate information on wikipedia cannot direct the taxa we recognize here, this wiki is dedicated to nomenclature and the taxonomic usage f that nomenclature as seen in the scientific literature. My recommendation to those wikipedia pages is to merge or not use incorrect scientific names in them, they are populations of no taxonomic standing. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 22:39, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Universal Code of Conduct Enforcement guidelines ratification voting is now closed

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


The ratification voting process for the revised enforcement guidelines of the Universal Code of Conduct (UCoC) came to a close on 21 March 2022. Over 2300 Wikimedians voted across different regions of our movement. Thank you to everyone who participated in this process! The scrutinizing group is now reviewing the vote for accuracy, so please allow up to two weeks for them to finish their work.

The final results from the voting process will be announced here, along with the relevant statistics and a summary of comments as soon as they are available. Please check out the voter information page to learn about the next steps. You can comment on the project talk page on Meta-wiki in any language. You may also contact the UCoC project team by email: ucocproject(_AT_)

Best regards,

Movement Strategy and Governance
--SOyeyele (WMF) (talk) 17:22, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]



wiki seems cool, but I'm not making a page correctly? Help thanks. Mungof44 (talk) 05:33, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Mungof44: This is Wikispecies. Your only edit to this project, before posting on this page, was to set up your user page. Are you perhaps having trouble on Wikipedia? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:13, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Given its high profile I draw your attention to my having just moved the Wikispecies link for Felis catus from house cat (Q146) to Felis catus (Q20980826). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:30, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why do we have a page for "Felis catus" at all, when the domesticated cat is derived from (nested within) Felis silvestris lybica? - MPF (talk) 23:45, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
{{Gentry et al., 2004}} and related ICZN rulings are relevant, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 00:15, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also, page 21 of {{Kitchener et al., 2017}}, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 00:32, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That must surely be a misreading of the ICZN rulings? Other domesticated animals are not treated as separate species from the species they derived from; domesticated chickens are included within Gallus gallus, domesticated turkeys within Meleagris gallopavo, domesticated pigeons within Columba livia, etc., etc. Isn't the whole point of the ICZN rulings that names based on domesticated animals are (even if older names) to be treated as synonyms of names based on the wild animals that they are derived from? - MPF (talk) 10:08, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's accepted by {{Kitchener et al., 2017}} that Felis catus is a separate species from Felis silvestris: see pages 5 and 21 (though that seems to have been based on Gentry et al., 2004, then again). This is repeating MTL's point, whoops. Monster Iestyn (talk) 11:18, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Have to admit this is a strange one, I have no idea why the domestic cat is given species status, it does go against the ICZN ruling and most other domesticated forms have followed suit. But the literature does seem to imply it is a genuine species at the moment. I do not believe it should and maybe this is to be changed or has been recently, though a search online does bring up Felis cattus frequently. As a reptile specialist I just look and think it's a mammal thing as in they do some weird stuff in places and I do not get why. But we have to follow the literature. I will ask some mammal taxonomists I know if there is anything new on this issue. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 12:23, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ok without going through all the literature a colleague sent me this paper It is the IUCN Feline Specialist Groups 2017 summary of the cat species. It acknowledges that Felis catus is derived from Felis lybica lybica (note they have lybica as a species not a subspecies) but recognises the species status of Felis catus anyway. It will take an in depth look at all the literature to figure this out or we can follow the IUCN Feline Specialist Group. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 13:00, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This document seems looks similar to {{Kitchener et al., 2017}}, as the excerpted paper in google scholar linked above during the Panthera tigris discussion, i.e., the IUCN Cat Specialist Group (let's overlook for the moment the fact that they're using the word "cat") "A revised taxonomy of the Felidae". I think they're one and the same. Re the literature, and as a start, {{Gentry et al., 2004}} is quite helpful for some of the background. I guess the type species-related links on Felis are part of the mix, thanks, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 16:07, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
They are probably nearly identical, one is Kitchener's peer reviewed publication, the other is his report and recommendations to the Cat Specialist Group of the IUCN, of which he is a member and author of the report. So no doubt he probably wrote one off the back of the other. Difference is the IUCN report gives us directly what that organisation is doing. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 16:43, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have also written to Andrew Kitchener for his current take on this issue. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 13:39, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Great, thank you, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 16:07, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Re wikidata, I have linked the redirect Felis domesticus to the old wikidata item, as it seems a reasonable enough match to your common or garden "house cat"; inbound traffic should continue largely uninterrupted, though outbound is a bit scuppered (roll on the Phabricator ticket above), thanks, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 16:07, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why not using Wikidata?


Hi, I’m not a big contributor. I only add vernacular names from time to time. So, I’m clearly a newbie. And I was wondering why some of the information presented on the pages are not fetched from Wikidata? Is there some community decision to not use Wikidata? Or is it this way because of some lack of Lua developers? Cheers, Lepticed7 (talk) 19:17, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WD is not sufficiently robust to offer mass imports. Just my opinion. Andyboorman (talk) 19:25, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Andyboorman: Hi, I’m not sure to understand what you meant by "mass imports". Is it from Wikispecies to Wikidata, or the other way around? Lepticed7 (talk) 19:40, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Lepticed7:. Sorry I meant mass imports from WD to WS. Andyboorman (talk) 19:51, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Andyboorman: Ok :) I think there is no need for mass imports. Using Lua modules is enough. I’ll try something and I show it here. Cheers, Lepticed7 (talk) 19:53, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If you try Category:MPCN, and switch to Russian or Japanese via the universal language selector at the top of the screen, this is drawing on wikidata to localize the name of the country (and of the repository/museum), but there is a significant distinction between drawing on wikidata for non-/beyond-en localization and actually importing and saving into a taxon page a significant amount of information from wikidata, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 19:55, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I, for one, source my information from known scientific sources to create a taxon page. Maybe I am a dinosaur! Andyboorman (talk) 20:03, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
this is part of the issue there, we need to be obtaining our data from the source material. I mean what data are you suggesting we just obtain as secondary resource? Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 20:08, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking about vernacular names. But I just discover the module Module:VN. But it looks like some pages don’t use it. Lepticed7 (talk) 21:17, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Lepticed7: There was a community decision some time ago not to use VN derived from wikidata, as it tended to pull in so much junk data, much of it badly formatted - so really no pages should be using that Module:VN - MPF (talk) 19:36, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@MPF: Ok. Thanks for the answer :) Lepticed7 (talk) 19:38, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if you look at Felis catus (or, more subtle, but in the same place, at Panthera tigris, and change the language settings), Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 21:26, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Vernacular names are of no use and dubious accuracy in nomenclature. I have no issue with them being added at the bottom, most scientists ignore them for important reasons. If they use them they use them for communication purposes for some audiences, but never with any implied accuracy. However if you want to draw those from Wikidata I have no issue with that so long as they receive no page prominence. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 22:42, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If scientists ignore them, are they also able to do so if one is displayed in a clearly subordinate position at the top of the page here, permitting communication to some audiences, such as the 1.5 million billion Chinese people who may not initially know that what they have known for millenia as 虎 is referred to around here as Panthera tigris, of the two in near juxtaposition, though with the vernacular rightly and clearly subordinate, so that they might happily benefit and learn from the same? Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 23:36, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The target audience is not 1.5 million billion Chinese people, but hopefully the thousands of taxonomists and citizen scientists. We have a well established, searchable and prominent VN section - what's to fix? Andyboorman (talk) 19:47, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing to fix, our aim is not to create content for Wikipedia's that do not create their own content. There is a Request for Comment on this issue already, spamming it around is not helping. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 19:58, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There is no "spamming". Please assume good faith. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:13, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have a source for the claim "The target audience is not 1.5 billion Chinese people, but [...] thousands of taxonomists and citizen scientists"? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:13, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, Problem? Andyboorman (talk) 15:02, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes; it doesn't seem to be true. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:17, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Source? Andyboorman (talk) 15:57, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You made the claim. I was anticipating that you would attempt to substantiate it. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:31, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

────────────────────────────── Copied over from Request for Comment. I offer Galiniera saxifraga as, in my opinion, an exemplar botany page with respect to the current mission for WS. There are many many pages that need editing/starting to match this one. Andyboorman (talk) 15:11, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(nice page, and with some more recruits we might in time get there, but for now and) Back to the use of wikidata.., the localized-via-wikidata prototype {{I}}, e.g., {{I|Argentina}}returns: Argentina {{I|Argentina|l}}returns: Argentina {{I|Argentina|x}}returns: Argentina[→wp] etc, might allow us, were we to create a lexicon here along the lines of {{WDI/Argentina}} (4 bytes), to translate/localize/wikilink pretty much everything, via wikidata for non-en localization, but using the hard-coded seemingly-prevalent-here en for the en/default view, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 16:14, 30 March 2022 (UTC) example updated, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 00:29, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think most editors are taxonomists or enthusiasts not coders - speaking as a coding idiot! Andyboorman (talk) 20:02, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
When I said hard-coded, I meant "what we have just typed"! Zaglossus attenboroughi is using {{I}} and {{WDI/David Attenborough}} (7 bytes) for the David Attenborough-related eponymy: from the category he's apparently a celebrity, and he doesn't have a page here, but it seems more helpful to have a (localized) link, thanks, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 00:29, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Out of curiosity why would David Attenborough have a page here? I know him I can tell you he has not named any species. Our author pages are for authors of taxonomic works, mostly that produce names or major rearrangements. Wikipedia has articles on David. We do not create pages for eponyms or celebrities. So was wondering why we should as implied by you above. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 22:36, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
He in fact does not. The template Maculosae linked to is used (on that page anyway) to degenerate a Wikidata link. Circeus (talk) 12:16, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, yes, without wishing to Pediculus humanuspick re wikt:inference and (at least, intended) wikt:implication (sensu stricto), I have not created and am not about to create an authority page for him, but (via {{I}} and the localized labels and links in Wikidata) we can (parallel) transliterate and link him (in localized fashion) to wp (with fallback links to enwiki and finally Wikidata) regardless; as with Bythaelurus bachi and Bythaelurus vivaldii (before the 1758 starting point), Toyotamaphimeia and Holepyris susanowo (crocodile- and piebald horse-connections notwithstanding), Hyloscirtus princecharlesi, Stenus agamemnon, Stenus alexander and Stenus paris (both using {{WDI/Alexander of Troy}} as they're the same person), and also Holepyris yambaru (named after an area), etc, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 14:03, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Which "Schenck"?


Does anyone know the identity of the myrmecologist/entomologist "Schenck, C.F." mentioned as author of for example Strongylognathus testaceus and a whole bunch of Temnothorax species? There is a PDF (in German blackletter…) attached to the primary reference of Strongylognathus testaceus, but as far as I can see it only mentions the author as "Professor Schenck of Weilburg". (Presumably at the Gelehrten-Gymnasium, now called Gymnasium Philippinum. Weilburg (enWP) is a city in Hesse, Germany.) He isn't mentioned on the Schenck or Schenk author disambiguation pages, however I know that he did some work together with Austrian entomologist Gustav Leopold Mayr. Regarding the "C.F." initials I know there is a German biologist named Christof Schenck but he was born in 1962, i.e. about a century too late. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 23:13, 1 April 2022 (UTC).[reply]

It might actually be Adolph Schenck, since he lived at the right time and was actually at Weilburg according to (en:Adolph Schenck), which also lists the "Beschreibung nassauischer Ameisenarten" as one of his publications. Only thing is that doesn't explain the "C.F." initials, not that they're even in the publication itself in the first place so far as I can see. Monster Iestyn (talk) 00:03, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, he is also known as "Carl Friedrich Schenck" apparently, according to Russian Wikipedia. That would explain "C.F." then, maybe. Monster Iestyn (talk) 00:13, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! So Adolf Schenck, Philipp Adolph Schenck, and Carl Friedrich Schenck are all the same person? Interesting fellow. Perhaps we should create an "ambiguation page" for him. Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 00:57, 2 April 2022 (UTC).[reply]
Three papers attributed to C.F. Schenck are listed at [14]. However, the linked PDFs credit "Professor Schenck of Weilburg" (twice) and "A Schenck" (also at Weilburg), respectively. Compare the image there with the one on ru.Wikipedia. The latter image came from this biography. C.F. Schenck is also listed at [15]. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:37, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Despite what I said earlier, I have wondered whether Adolph/Adolf Schenck and Carl Friedrich Schenck are in fact two different people (maybe even relatives) that have been confused with each other. Case in point, I found an obituary for Adolf Schenck in Deutsche Entomologische Zeitschrift vol. 22 (see here), in which it states that he has a son K. Schenck who also worked in Weilburg. "K." can be short for Karl, another spelling for Carl. Make of that what you like, though maybe there's better evidence of a mixup elsewhere. Monster Iestyn (talk) 14:04, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nomenclator Zoologicus


Hello. Perhaps I missed the information, but does anyone know what's happening with Nomenclator Zoologicus? The website is no longer working... Cheers --Hiouf (talk) 16:29, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It has disappeared from time to time in the past but usually come back again. It is hosted on servers at MBA in Woods Hole but the original project staff no longer work on it, or have left... there are a few copies of the 2006-era data file floating around (Rod Page has one, I have another) if that helps. Most/all of my copy has ended up in IRMNG (, with or without further adjustment :) Regards Tony Rees Tony 1212 (talk) 18:40, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks Tony, in that case, I'll rather use IRMNG in the future. Cheers --Hiouf (talk) 07:52, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
PDFs can be downloaded here. Circeus (talk) 01:36, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Tony, is the same team responsible for the Universal Biological Indexer and Organizer? Because it's the entire domain that seems to be down. Circeus (talk) 01:37, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it would be that team/server. I do not have any direct line to them as my contacts have all moved away and/or retired, but somebody could try an email to MBA Woods Hole with a hope that it might find its way to someone who knows what is going on... Tony 1212 (talk) 20:21, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Results from the Universal Code of Conduct Enforcement guidelines ratification vote

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

Hello all,

We would like to thank the over 2,300 Wikimedians who participated in the recently concluded community vote on the Enforcement Guidelines for the Universal Code of Conduct (UCoC). At this time, the volunteer scrutinizing group has completed the review of the accuracy of the vote and the final results are available on Meta-wiki. A quick summary can be found below:

  • 58.6% Yes, 41.4% No
  • Contributors from 128 home wikis participated in the vote
  • Over thirty languages were supported in the ballot

What this outcome means is that there is enough support for the Board to review the document. It does not mean that the Enforcement Guidelines are automatically complete.

From here, the project team will collate and summarize the comments provided in the voting process, and publish them on Meta-wiki. The Enforcement Guidelines will be submitted to the Board of Trustees for their consideration. The Board will review input given during the vote, and examine whether there are aspects of the Guidelines that need further refinement. If so, these comments, and the input provided through Meta-wiki and other community conversations, will provide a good starting point for revising the Guidelines to meet the needs expressed by communities in the voter's responses.

In the event the Board moves forward with ratification, the UCoC project team will begin supporting specific proposals in the Guidelines. Some of these proposals include working with community members to form the U4C Building Committee, starting consultations on training, and supporting conversations on improving our reporting systems. There is still a lot to be done, but we will be able to move into the next phase of this work.

Many people took part in making sure the policy and the enforcement guidelines work for our communities. We will continue to collaboratively work on the details of the strong proposals outlined in the Guidelines as presented by the Wikimedians who engaged with the project in different ways over the last year.

Once again, we thank everyone who participated in the ratification of the Enforcement Guidelines.

For more information regarding the results, please refer to the Results page.


User:SNg (WMF)

Stella Ng on behalf of the UCoC Project Team

Senior Manager, Trust and Safety Policy
--13:17, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Vernacular name display—a vote


The recent RfC stalled without achieving the consensus necessary to modify {{VN}} and so change the display on all taxon pages with {{VN}}, as eg with Felis catus and Dromiciops gliroides (or Panthera tigris (same place, more subtle)), the vernacular name in the user's language at the top of the page though subordinate to the Latin/scientific name; apparently there is also a voting mechanism — please can the community at large (also, inevitably, as proxy for our audience(s)), opine as to whether for now they are for or against "Felis catus VN functionality"; thank you, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 09:42, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]





no Closed : Please do not forum-shop a conversation that did not "stall". The consensus was overwhelmingly against you or at best indifferent to the issue altogether. A vote is both unneeded and inappropriate. Circeus (talk) 20:52, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well that's palpably false. A majority of two individuals, who as you say were at best indifferent or at least sufficiently indifferent as to present no real argument against or clear rebuttal, reducing accessibility for the entire oikoumene, would suggest a vote is both needed and appropriate. Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 23:39, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just as a quick note, the Wikispecies Help:Vernacular names section page clearly states that vernacular names are not an important part of Wikispecies. This subject has been discussed several times over the years, in various forms and fashions. The result has always been the same: vernacular names are not part of the taxonomy nor systematics regarding taxa, hence of little or no importance to the biological nomenclature. In other words: vernacular names are out of scope of the Wikispecies project, and should therefore be deleted. In earlier polls and talks it's been a close call whether to keep the vernacular names or delete them altogether. Personally I haven't taken much part in those discussions – a direct consequence of the fact that I find the vernacular names to be irrelevant to the main purpose and goal of this Wikimedia project. However I feel that these constantly reoccurring discussions about VN's are starting to take up too much time, energy and focus from the communities' efforts regarding what the project is actually about. For that reason I will henceforth not at all discuss how and where we should present the vernacular names. Instead my standpoint is that they should be deleted altogether, just as we delete any other material that is out of scope and/or better suited for Wikipedia. I mean come on... from October 2018 to October 2019 we spent about a year arguing whether the vernacular names should be listed with leading caps or in small-case only. Is that taxonomy?
Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 02:41, 11 April 2022 (UTC).[reply]
I too have nothing more to say on this proposal, a Tommy said just one in a long line of attempts. Tommy and I have both been editing here for 16 years, as have several others here. We have seen every argument for this. It has always turned out the same, vernacular names are not within our scope. I too prefer to just delete them. But I will not. The edition of vernacular names make up the bulk of our unpatrolled edits, they mean work for us, work that is irrelvant to the scope of the project. In past discussions we have had complaints from Wikipedia users for thinking about common names, ie just disussing it. Why, because it is within their scope. You need to take this proposal up with them.
I will comment on one statement, it was said that despite being against them I have used vernacular names in papers, specifically in one, of ten taxa described. When I named Chelodina burrungandjii I used the local aboriginal peoples name for the turtle, with their permission. The species had picked up a couple of common names prior to its description, one of them being the Arhnem Land Snakeneck. The elders informed me they did not appreciate their tribal lands name being used without their permission, so out of respect for the people whose name I used I promoted another name to attempt to quash useage of the one not wanted, The Sandsone Snake Neck.
I to have noting further to add.
Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 03:35, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

─────── [so in that taxon paper, {{Thomson-et-al-2000}} you also talk of "long-necked turtle", "Mary River turtle", "white-eyed river diver", "Bellingen River turtle", "northern yellow-faced turtle", "yellow-headed snapping turtle" ...; but I don't understand, in your taxon paper {{Thomson-et-al-2006}}, in the systematics / taxonomy section, what do I see, the very first line after the Latin name, "Southern Snapping Turtle", what is this? Is this two out of ten papers? Do I need to look at another? How about I try another, oh, the third taxon paper to which by chance I turn, {{Thomson & Georges, 2016}}, what is this I find in the systematics / taxonomy section, the very first thing after the Latin name, "Yellow-bellied Snapping Turtle". Do I need to go on? Is this particular point sufficiently made? Other than, perhaps you would care to explain and reconcile this discrepancy? Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 06:29, 13 April 2022 (UTC)][reply]

The IOU's "Working Group on Avian Nomenclature": [16]: "For academic communication, for example as part of the global taxonomic list of birds currently in preparation, it is important that there is listed at least one unique common English name for each bird species. Technological advances allow such unique names to be cross-listed with all other English or non-English vernacular names. In many databases, users can specify their preferred local variety of English, allowing the respective regional or national names to be displayed in lieu of the unique common English name ... At the same time, regional and local bird names in a variety of languages are to be encouraged to support local citizen science and culture."

So yes, taxonomers and taxonomic checklists use them, they encourage local citizen science and culture, and the Wikimedia mission is about education and access thereto, not about erecting barriers, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 07:18, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Which is why VN is really a Wikipedia issue. Our taxonomy appears there, but is not the full focus, which it is here. Andyboorman (talk) 08:40, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And where Wikipedia as yet does not provide the/any info, as with many of the smaller language wps? Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 13:16, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I think on numbers I can see where this is heading, but just in case:
  • "16 years"—cf., sunk cost fallacy, i.e., emotional attachment due to prior investment has no place in rational decision-making in the now;
  • too much time taken up—roll-out is near instant, were there no inveterate opposition to an apparent no-brainer;
  • vernacular/local/traditional names of no relevance to the decision to name—Felis catus may have been inspired by cat/katt or some such, I don't know (cf., Martes ten, from テン); also, how about folk taxonomy / parataxonomy / local taxonomy / ethnobotany / ethnotaxonomy, etc, and its contribution to "total" taxonomy, eg DOI: 10.3389/fpls.2020.00965 ("From Folk Taxonomy to Species Confirmation...") (some background refs in ResearchGate, DOI: 10.2993/0278-0771(2007)27[233:TMTOTI]2.0.CO;2 etc (more on application)), and that's stopping short of DOI: 10.1038/s42003-020-01344-y "Restoring indigenous names in taxonomy"; for instance, apparently Conklin, 1954 "reported that the Hanunoo of the Mindoro Island of the Philippines could identify approximately 1,600 different varieties of plants, whereas a contemporary botanical survey had recorded only 1,200 species", triggering calls for more studies to investigate and/or close the gap, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 10:16, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

─────── I had a quick look for ways by which the Gordian knot might be cut, other than a consumer survey/banner (the alternative questions sound too ridiculous to ask), apparently there is something called a cost–benefit analysis — I wonder if that could be of help here, eg:


  • nil?


  • greater accessibility for a wider audience [with potential knock-on benefits of...]
  • [editor retention?]
  • "for Indigenous Peoples, the name in its vernacular form may also embody history, a sense of place and a right to belong" (Gillman & Wright, 2020)
  • [more welcoming for non-English/Latin speakers, giving them a "sense of place"?]
  • "indigenous names for plants and animals can also be knowledge conduits" (Gillman & Wright, 2020)
  • "to support local citizen science and culture" [IOU ut supra]
  • "reducing confusion ... flux in [scientific] nomenclature has often prevailed in the face of constancy in an indigenous vernacular name" (Gillman & Wright, 2020)

Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 13:16, 11 April 2022 (UTC) [cost-benefit analysis added to, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 06:29, 13 April 2022 (UTC)][reply]

Maculosae, you don't seem to understand how consensus processes work. You need to show that consensus goes against the current practice. In this you (and your predecessors) have failed at every single turn. Let it rest. The debate is closed and at this point any further raising of it would be actively counterproductive. Circeus (talk) 13:23, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if this is consensus processes firing on all cylinders, then you don't seem to be able to see with your own eyes that here they are not working. I wonder if the issue here relates to prioritization/trumping of (admittedly con)sensus, i.e., (seemingly here inexplicable, to the three voices against as well as to me) personal feeling, over ratio, reason, (which I imagine as scientists all here might regard as at best unfortunate and to be avoided wherever possible). If these are the rules, does IAR provide a way-out? [I had a friend who is a wall-painting conservator, like her parents before her; she could not conceive of a person who could not tell the difference between lime- and gypsum-based plaster; are we butting up against similar tunnel vision/inability to relate-issues here? do we wish to make life unnecessarily difficult for / keep away those who don't immediately know their Acinonyx jubatus from their Miracinonyx inexpectatus?]
I see three of you, when a cost-benefit analysis was suggested, preferred instead to talk of punitive measures against the individual with the affrontery so to suggest. Nevertheless, since this relates to global accessibility and species-related education at a time of the sixth mass extinction, fuelled not least by mutually reinforcing ignorance and apathy, I have fleshed out the table a little more, craving your further indulgence.
I had a quick look, but couldn't immediately find the previous solution which would give eg ja-/zh-speakers who had selected ja/zh this "Felis catus VN functionality", please could you point me in its direction? Do the previous voices for enhanced VN functionality time out (in which case, if this still fails, when can I try again?) or do they still count for, if this still boils down to a brute numbers game? Thanks, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 06:29, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Maculosae tegmine lyncis: The community clearly sees no taxonomical relevance to common names justifying your proposal (I'd venture to say at this point some even regret the very existence of {{VN}}). I have told you twice to drop it. From this point on, any further attempt at raising this nonexistent debate will be answered with a revert. Circeus (talk) 12:42, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[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.