Wikispecies:Village Pump/Archive 61

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.

Movement Strategy and Governance News – Issue 6[edit]

Movement Strategy and Governance News
Issue 6, April 2022Read the full newsletter

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

This Newsletter will be distributed quarterly, while the more frequent Updates will also be delivered weekly. Please remember to subscribe here if you would like to receive future issues of this newsletter.

  • Leadership Development - A Working Group is Forming! - The application to join the Leadership Development Working Group closed on April 10th, 2022, and up to 12 community members will be selected to participate in the working group. (continue reading)
  • Universal Code of Conduct Ratification Results are out! - The global decision process on the enforcement of the UCoC via SecurePoll was held from 7 to 21 March. Over 2,300 eligible voters from at least 128 different home projects submitted their opinions and comments. (continue reading)
  • Movement Discussions on Hubs - The Global Conversation event on Regional and Thematic Hubs was held on Saturday, March 12, and was attended by 84 diverse Wikimedians from across the movement. (continue reading)
  • Movement Strategy Grants Remain Open! - Since the start of the year, six proposals with a total value of about $80,000 USD have been approved. Do you have a movement strategy project idea? Reach out to us! (continue reading)
  • The Movement Charter Drafting Committee is All Set! - The Committee of fifteen members which was elected in October 2021, has agreed on the essential values and methods for its work, and has started to create the outline of the Movement Charter draft. (continue reading)
  • Introducing Movement Strategy Weekly - Contribute and Subscribe! - The MSG team have just launched the updates portal, which is connected to the various Movement Strategy pages on Meta-wiki. Subscriber to get up-to-date news about the various ongoing projects. (continue reading)
  • Diff Blogs - Check out the most recent publications about Movement Strategy on Wikimedia Diff. (continue reading)
--SOyeyele (WMF) (talk) 23:13, 14 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Join the Wikimedia Foundation Annual Plan conversations with Maryana Iskander[edit]

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


The Movement Communications and Movement Strategy and Governance teams invite you to discuss the 2022-23 Wikimedia Foundation Annual Plan, a plan of record for the Wikimedia Foundation's work.

These conversations continue Maryana Iskander's Wikimedia Foundation Chief Executive Officer listening tour.

The conversations are about these questions:

  • The 2030 Wikimedia Movement Strategy sets a direction toward "knowledge as a service" and "knowledge equity". The Wikimedia Foundation wants to plan according to these two goals. How do you think the Wikimedia Foundation should apply them to our work?
  • The Wikimedia Foundation continues to explore better ways of working at a regional level. We have increased our regional focus in areas like grants, new features, and community conversations. What is working well? How can we improve?
  • Anyone can contribute to the Movement Strategy process. Let's collect your activities, ideas, requests, and lessons learned. How can the Wikimedia Foundation better support the volunteers and affiliates working in Movement Strategy activities?

You can find the schedule of calls on Meta-wiki.

The information will be available in multiple languages. Each call will be open to anyone to attend. Live interpretation will be available in some calls.

Best regards,
--SOyeyele (WMF) (talk) 23:13, 14 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

New species this year[edit]

Fun read: (koavf)TCM 14:43, 17 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Mystery mycoogists[edit]

British Mycological Society 1913

In the above group photograph of the British Mycological Society, at the Haslemere Fungus Foray 22-27 September 1913, the names in bold have been identified (beyond the stated names, obviously). The unbolded names have not.

Back row left to right: H.W. Jack, George T. Spinks, Ethel Margaret Grinling, Charles Herbert Grinling, John Ramsbottom, William Norwood Cheesman, E. Brooks, Frederick Tom Brooks, H.W. Harrison standing behind, John William Ellis, E. Harrison, Miss K.E. Smith, Alice Hibbert-Ware.

Middle row: Miss Beatrice Katherine Taylor, Miss Emily "Emilia" Frances Noel, Emma Amy Rea nee Rose, Jessie Sproat Bayliss Elliott, Arthur Henry Reginald Buller, Arthur Disbrowe Cotton (president), Annie Lorrain Smith, Carleton Rea (Hon. Sec.), Giulielma Lister, Charlotte Angela Cooper, A.E. Swanton.

Front row: Charles Otto Blagden, Raymond Finlayson, D. Mackenzie, Norman Gavin Hadden, Hugh Hamshaw Thomas, Arthur Anselm Pearson, Ernest William Swanton.

Are any of the unidentified taxonomists? Can anyone help with any of the other IDs? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:22, 18 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Re: G. T. Spinks, I found out he had just been elected to the society at the time of the Haslemere foray. He is listed as "Mr. George T. Spinks, B.A., Dip. Agri. Cantab, Trinity Hall, Cambridge". The Trinity Hall seems to be either a place of residence or employment, but I cannot tell which. He's not listed in the Alumni Cantabrigiensis, so he must have earned his degree after 1900. Circeus (talk) 13:13, 18 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Trinity Hall is a Cambridge College and it is likely he would be either employed or on a postgrad course and also in residence. Andyboorman (talk) 14:35, 18 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Picked up this on their website. Affiliation: Trinity Hall, Cambridge, Development Grant Research Scholar. [1] Andyboorman (talk) 14:41, 18 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hm, consulting the list of members in the society's "Transactions" journal (e.g. here in vol. 6) unfortunately doesn't give full names for those with just initials for first names (E. Brooks in particular doesn't even appear at all), but it at least provides some other details for them such as institutions and year of election, if that's of any help here. Monster Iestyn (talk) 15:09, 18 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Actually, I feel fairly safe in assuming E. Brooks is Emily Brooks, née Broderick, the wife of F.T. Brooks who she's sitting next to.Similarly, E. Harrison is explicitly noted as the wife of H.W. Harrison (of Torrington Road, Wallasey). The Harrisons were both members in their own right, and were mentioned in the same notice of new members as Spinks. Equally likely that A.E. Swanton is the wife of Ernest William Swanton. The fact he was married is noted in various places, but none mention her name (she died a year before he did so she's not really noted in his obituaries).
Finding info on Swanton is a challenge because internet searches are heavily overshadowed by a cricketer of the same name. Circeus (talk) 18:13, 18 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Global Species List Working Group[edit]

Hi everyone, as many of you know I am the secretary of the GSLWG of the IUBS. We have developed a survey to look at the directions people want us to take with regard to the international governance of species lists, checklists, of which Wikispecies, Wikidata and parts of Wikipedia would have an interest in. We would also be interested in having your opinions on this. So I will provide the link to the survey for anyone who would like to do it. It can be done in 6 different languages. Global Species List Working Group Survey. I am of course aware of WMF policies and getting the opinions of wikimedia editors is I believe very important to us, this is one of the largest checklists of species in the world which we acknowledged in Garnett et al. 2020. Policies also dictate this can be seen as promotion, which is unfortunate because I can think of no other way to randomly obtain the opinions of this important checklist. I am not sure how I can do this on Wikipedia, maybe I can give them a cross wiki link to this, wikidata should be a little easier. Unfortunately the future of checklists is under discussion and I believe WMF has a role to play in this. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 18:18, 20 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for this link. I would urge all contributors to complete the survey as it is suitable for all, from working taxonomists to citizen scientists. Andyboorman (talk) 20:14, 20 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Also, I hear your concern about research ethics. Short answer: no community-endorsed way to receive research approval in wiki. Best answer: register your research with a project page at meta:Research:Index. Although not community confirmed, registering there is the most accepted suggestion. If you want to maximize awesomeness, then make whatever promise you can to follow up on your research registration with reporting of results, then actually deliver when you have them. Typical researchers in this process spend an hour on registration and do not stress much over it. I took your survey, I see it as useful both for research and wiki, and I think these are thoughtful questions. It would be very interesting if you are able to tell a story about the outcome. Bluerasberry (talk) 21:43, 25 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Bluerasberry: I can report the results, they will be used in our policy development. We have published a series of papers on the issue, the GSLWG does have a page on Wikipedia: w:Global_Species_List_Working_Group where our previous publications are listed. I get this issue is not for all wikimedians, but it is very relevant to those interested in taxonomy, species, etc, I put a comment on this at the Tree of Life Project. I will definitely look at creating a project page as many parts of WMF will be impacted by this research. Thanks Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 01:48, 26 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ping me if you make a research page, I will comment there to support. Bluerasberry (talk) 01:58, 26 April 2022 (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 29 April 2022 at 13:00 UTC and 18:00 UTC on Zoom. Click here to join. Meeting ID: 88045453898. Dial by your location.


  • Update on the recent developments
  • Questions and answers, discussion


The meeting will not be recorded or streamed. Notes will be taken in a Google Docs file. Olga Vasileva (the Product Manager) will be hosting this meeting. The presentation part will be given in English.

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

At this meeting, both Friendly space policy and the Code of Conduct for Wikimedia technical spaces apply. Zoom is not subject to the WMF Privacy Policy.

We hope to see you! SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 00:35, 26 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template for a chapter[edit]

How should Template:Iwan, et al., 2020 (about a chapter) be modified, in respect of Template:Iwan & Löbl, 2020 (the book in which the chapter appears)? Feel free to point to an example by way of an answer. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:24, 26 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Next steps: Universal Code of Conduct (UCoC) and UCoC Enforcement Guidelines[edit]

The Community Affairs Committee of the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees would like to thank everyone who participated in the recently concluded community vote on the Enforcement Guidelines for the Universal Code of Conduct (UCoC).

The volunteer scrutinizing group has completed the review of the accuracy of the vote and has reported the total number of votes received as 2,283. Out of the 2,283 votes received, a total of 1,338 (58.6%) community members voted for the enforcement guidelines, and a total of 945 (41.4%) community members voted against it. In addition, 658 participants left comments with 77% of the comments written in English.

We recognize and appreciate the passion and commitment that community members have demonstrated in creating a safe and welcoming culture that stops hostile and toxic behavior, supports people targeted by such behavior, and encourages good faith people to be productive on the Wikimedia projects.

Even at this incomplete stage, this is evident in the comments received. While the Enforcement Guidelines did reach a threshold of support necessary for the Board to review, we encouraged voters, regardless of which way they were voting, to provide feedback on the elements of the enforcement guidelines that they felt needed to be changed or fixed, as well as why, in case it seemed advisable to launch a further round of edits that would address community concerns.

Foundation staff who have been reviewing comments have advised us of some of the emerging themes, and as a result we have decided as Community Affairs Committee to ask the Foundation to reconvene the drafting committee and to undertake another community engagement to refine the enforcement guidelines based on the community feedback received from the recently concluded vote.

For clarity, this feedback has been clustered into 4 sections as follows:

  1. To identify the type, purpose, and applicability of the training;
  2. To simplify the language for easier translation and comprehension by non-experts;
  3. To explore the concept of affirmation, including its pros and cons;
  4. To review the conflicting roles of privacy/victim protection and right to be heard.

Other issues may emerge during conversations, and particularly as the draft Enforcement Guidelines evolve, but we see these as the primary areas of concern for voters and are asking staff to facilitate review of these issues. After further engagement, the Foundation should re-run the community vote to evaluate the revamped Enforcement Outline to see if the new document is then ready for its official ratification.

Further, we are aware of the concerns with the note 3.1 in the Universal Code of Conduct Policy. We are directing the Foundation to facilitate a review of this language to ensure that the Policy meets its intended purposes of supporting a safe and inclusive community, without waiting for the planned review of the entire Policy at the end of year.

Again, we thank all who participated, thinking about these critical and difficult challenges and contributing to better approaches across the movement to working together well.



Rosie Stephenson-Goodknight (she/her)
Acting Chair, Community Affairs Committee
Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees
---SOyeyele (WMF) (talk) 15:50, 26 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

2022 Board of Trustees Call for Candidates[edit]

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

The Board of Trustees seeks candidates for the 2022 Board of Trustees election. Read more on Meta-wiki.

The 2022 Board of Trustees election is here! Please consider submitting your candidacy to serve on the Board of Trustees.

The Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees oversees the Wikimedia Foundation's operations. Community-and-affiliate selected trustees and Board-appointed trustees make up the Board of Trustees. Each trustee serves a three year term. The Wikimedia community has the opportunity to vote for community-and-affiliate selected trustees.

The Wikimedia community will vote to fill two seats on the Board in 2022. This is an opportunity to improve the representation, diversity, and expertise of the Board as a team.

Who are potential candidates? Are you a potential candidate? Find out more on the Apply to be a Candidate page.

Thank you for your support,

Movement Strategy and Governance on behalf of the Elections Committee and the Board of Trustees
--SOyeyele (WMF) (talk) 15:50, 26 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Charles Immanuel Forsyth Major[edit]

RE Charles Immanuel Forsyth Major... this author is cited in McKenna & Bell, 1997 (Classification of Mammals above the Species Level) as Forsyth Major, but in Mammal Species of the World (Wilson & Reeder) as Major, thus:

  • Major, C. I. F[orsyth]. 1896. Diagnoses of new mammals from Madagascar. Annals and Magazine of Natural History, ser. 6, 18:319-325. (+ 3 more similar).

Seems to me from information contained in the Wikispecies page that Wikispecies is correct in using the 2-name surname, and MSW is wrong (also e.g. the Wikipedia page - just checking that others agree... Cheers Tony Rees Tony 1212 (talk) 19:43, 27 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree with you, Tony 1212. Furthermore, so does for example:
The latter also lists "Major, Charles Forsyth", "Major, C. J. Forsyth" and "Forsyth Major, C. J." as rejected forms (although that's probably partly because of the "J." rather than the surname). Note however that some sources lists his surname as "Forsyth-Major", with a hyphen. Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 20:38, 27 April 2022 (UTC).Reply[reply]
Also "Forsyth Major" in Neave (genus names that he erected in zoology), consistently so far as I can see (although have not checked exhaustively). Tony 1212 (talk) 22:16, 27 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Whilst doing some routine checks I noticed that {{Taxonbar}} had appeared on a small number of taxon pages, in spite of it being banned after discussion [2]. The {{Taxonbar}} template has now been removed from 382 taxon pages by a fellow admin. The template's page is still referred to by the Village Pump archive, a few Modules and some user- and template talk pages, it's no longer actively used as a template on any taxa pages. However, it has been suggested that it may be time to revisit the discussion and if required hold another vote, hence this Pump post. Before discussing I would like to know why there are several language versions across the Wiki projects for the same page space, for example Stachys English cf. Stacyhs Spanish and who maintains/admins the template and its inclusions? I have my views on its utility on WS but will hold these close to my chest for now! Best regards Andyboorman (talk) 18:21, 14 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Has it been redeveloped as per the discussion previously? I came in late to it last time I voted against it but I did recognise that with redesign it could be useful, so I was more voting that if redesigned it should be reconsidered. At the time I felt that the neutral votes and arguments against were largely its current look not its potential utility. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 18:38, 14 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sorry should have added the template to a taxon page as an example, please see Centaurea. Andyboorman (talk) 18:51, 14 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Can the clunky header Centaurea - <Taxon identifiers on external data bases> be dumped? Andyboorman (talk) 19:29, 14 April 2022 (UTC). Yes! I have been contacted by somebody who knows the code and the WS appearance can be easily made more like WP. Andyboorman (talk) 20:04, 14 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It seems to me an excellent idea to be able to include the taxonbar in the editions. I have been able to see the proof in Centaurea and up to 28 references appear that define it, only missing (among the most used references) to Catalog of Life. Saludos.--MILEPRI (talk) 07:30, 16 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Agreed (CoL now added); it has been suggested (here) that we agree which databases to include, but if they're reliable sources listed and linked succinctly like this at the bottom of the page, I would be tempted to err on the side of inclusion (unless the page gets totally ridiculous with thousands of identifiers (itself unlikely as this is all sourced from wikidata and I believe there is an acceptance process for the inclusion of new/additional databases ("properties"))), thanks, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 08:19, 16 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I guess we could agree a prioritized sequence (e.g., IUCN first), I think currently it is alphabetical order, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 08:26, 16 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We need to remember that this facility is NOT part of the Reference Section, but a source of additional material. The RF is a simple list of sources that were used to compile or modify the taxonomy and classification. Andyboorman (talk) 18:14, 16 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Very much so. Is the proposal simply to reverse the ban, so individual editors who so wish are free to add the template to a taxon page/taxon pages one-by-one, or is the idea to have a bot add the template/functionality to all taxon pages, or at least all with at least one identifier/external database id in wikidata? Thanks, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 06:16, 17 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note that I don't knwo why we have not the title "Taxon identifiers" in the left side as in English Wikipedia... Christian Ferrer (talk) 05:57, 17 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think the idea, assuming this gets the go-ahead, is to replace the existing Module:Taxonbar and {{Taxonbar}} template with the latest enwiki versions.
Currently Module:Taxonbar/conf adds wikidata and attempts to add wp — do we want this list to be solely of non-Wikimedia links, or do we wish also to include wikidata, and/or the Commons category, and/or (fix the code so as to include also the (relevant, localized)) Wikipedia? Since I believe there have been >0 proposals effectively to shut down and archive this whole site, I don't think we want to be too sniffy about what is presumably the Wikimedia Foundation's flagship offering, however, since Wikidata, the different language wps, and indeed the Commons category, are linked in the sidebar in the left margin, I would not be opposed to these being omitted/removed/commented out, unless their inclusion makes it much easier for newcomers to spot/find, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 06:16, 17 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Or maybe we can also create a dedicated section named "Taxon identifiers" in Help:Contents and we give the link in the box to that section, that should work too. Christian Ferrer (talk) 06:28, 17 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Christian Ferrer: the taxon identifier label is a very good idea in my opinion. It looks cleaner and a lot more like the WP pages. Thanks Andyboorman (talk) 06:41, 17 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

───────────────────────── As this discussion has petered out, is it time to move to an RFC vote? Andyboorman (talk) 15:13, 27 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In my opinion, yes. Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 19:19, 27 April 2022 (UTC).Reply[reply]
In my opinion, yes.--MILEPRI (talk) 10:15, 28 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes please set up a good RFC with clear voting options so it can be dealt with. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 10:18, 28 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The tragedy of Wikispecies' spider taxonomy[edit]

After spending a few hours trying to figure out why Wikispecies' spider taxonomy is so bad (outdated by at least 50 years, and in some cases complete nonsense), I finally traced it back to its original source. It seems that in the early days of Wikispecies, before Sci-Hub existed and the World Spider Catalog was still a giant expensive book rather than an online database, a biology student and Wikispecies editor who we'll call Bruno (to avoid unnecessary embarrassment) decided to flesh out Wikispecies' spider taxonomy. There being approximately 50,000 spider species divided into over 100 families, this was no small task (in comparison, there are only 10,000 species of birds). Luckily for Bruno, but unluckily for us, he found a webpage created by Joel Hallan called "Synopsis of the Described Araneae of the World" published on the website of Texas A&M University's Entomology Department. This webpage offered a comprehensive taxonomy of the entire spider order. Bruno then set to work building out Wikispecies' spider taxonomy based on this source.

There was only one problem, Joel Hallan was a computer programmer, not an arachnologist, and his "Synopsis of the Described Araneae of the World" was self-published original research, not a reliable academic source. Although Joel Hallan is certainly a spider enthusiast, he has no academic credentials, has never published an academic paper, is not a trained biologist or taxonomist, and cobbled together his taxonomy from a random assortment of sources (many dating back a century), filling in the blanks with his own dubious research. Despite the fact that the webpage was published on the website of Texas A&M University's Entomology Department, Joel Hallan has never been listed under the faculty or staff of that department (per In a 2012 blog post, Hallan is described as a "computer programmer and spider enthusiast" and admits that he has "no title", only an association with the entomology department. My guess is that he was either a volunteer at the department or their webmaster (or both). I don't want to be overly disparaging of Hallan's work, which is admirable for self-published amateur research (much like Wikispecies itself). However, it is certainly not a reliable source (in the Wikipedia sense). Most problematic is that some of the taxons listed by Hallan and copied to Wikispecies seem to have been invented by Hallan. For example, the superfamily Mimetoidea does not exist in any scholarly sources. The only match on Google Scholar is from a 2016 Uruguayan thesis that includes it in a list of families and superfamilies (likely copied from Wikispecies). And from my own personal knowledge, it doesn't make sense as a taxon (Malkaridae and Mimetidae are definitely not sister clades). I would say that over half of the higher level taxons listed by Hallan (which have all been copied to Wikispecies) are either archaic or dubious. The really unfortunate thing is that all of these taxons have since been copied to Wikidata, various Wikipedias (although generally not English Wikipedia due to their citation standards), iNaturalist (which utilizes Wikidata), and the rest of the internet, sometimes creating circular references.

So my question to the Wikispecies community is: what can we do to clean this up? The problem affects thousands of pages here and would require a massive amount of deleting, merging, and editing to resolve. There also isn't 1 simple accessible source (like Joel Hallan's list) for an up-to-date taxonomy of all spiders. The closest thing that exists is the World Spider Catalog, but they only include families, genera, and species (which is also what English Wikipedia commonly does). Part of the problem is that modern spider taxonomists don't use strict Linnaean taxonomy any more. Because it's largely pointless to try to cram phylogenetic trees into Linnaean taxonomy, its becoming more and more common to use unranked clades with vernacular names like "spiny leg clade", "RTA clade", etc. And you'll notice that even though such clades are widely known and used by spider taxonomists, they are all redlinks on Wikispecies. Instead, we have hundreds of archaic or nonsense Linnaean taxons imported from Hallan's list. But even when those taxon names are still in use, they rarely correspond to Hallan's delineations.

My proposal, although drastic, would be the following:

  1. Delete or redirect all spider taxons between family and genus (subfamilies, tribes, subtribes, etc.).
  2. Make sure that all taxons between order and family match those on English Wikipedia (which is sadly the best single source I can find).
  3. Make sure the families and genera match those given in the World Spider Catalog.
  4. Gradually fill in the taxonomies between family and genus by using relevant published academic sources.

Thoughts? Nosferattus (talk) 17:31, 12 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not sure that this is directly of assistance, but in creating IRMNG ( starting some 16 years ago now, I had similar issues, and this is how I approached them at the time:
(1) Look in the then-latest Catalog of Life (at that time, the 2006 edition) for accepted genera and species, and accepted families and higher taxa in which they were placed (not sure how complete the CoL was at that time, probably not very)
(2) Check for additional families and higher in Parker et al., "Synopsis and Classification of Living Organisms", 1982, then around 30+ years out-of-date but good for gap filling in some groups at least
(3) Look for additional regional species lists e.g. Australia, New Zealand, wherever, to fill more gaps
(4) Look in Nomenclator Zoologicus (to 2004 or so, later ION) for additional genus names not previously held, park them "somewhere" (e.g. "Aranae - awaiting allocation" pending further work
(5) Consult Hallan's list as above to upgrade "unallocated" genera to families etc., sort synonyms from valid names, add in any more names missed.
Obviously today the WSC would be a better resource all round, if that can be used.
The above sources would all have been "best effort" for their day. I also used an additional source early in the piece, Sheila Brands' "Systema Naturae 2000", which is still going and which she endeavours to keep up-to-date although like all these things, a very big task for one person... my end result being the present version of IRMNG, some portions of which have since been reviewed further but I am afriad I have not touched the spiders recently, except to check in some new names.
Today as far as I know, CoL taxonomy comes from the WSC but is only using their 2019 version (?) at this time. So data should preferably come from the WSC directly, ideally via some sort of data table comparison looking for differences (something I used to be in a position to do quite easily but these days not so easy for me with more restricted computing resources, so I will not be volunteering!), or if the WSC data is not readily available, the equivalent using CoL.... Regards - Tony Rees Tony 1212 (talk) 18:59, 12 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
yes an issue with COL is as you rightly point out the site is a little out of date with many groups, largely because they are moving to COL+ so rather than massive updates they are building their new platform. However I think its a good starting place for now and we can use lit to improve on it. Then see what CoL+ has when its released. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 19:33, 12 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Tony 1212: In reply to "So data should preferably come from the WSC directly, ideally via some sort of data table comparison looking for differences": The WSC has a CSV data export at I'm not sure how to construct a comparison table with Wikispecies, however. Nosferattus (talk) 04:23, 14 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
> I'm not sure how to construct a comparison table with Wikispecies...
@Nosferattus:Nor am I (these days)... in my former life (database programmer) I would put the WSC entries into one database table, the Wikispecies into another, and ask the database query software to tell me which records in table A were not present in table B, or vice versa; or more sophisticated queries as well, e.g. which had a different parent if present in both tables, or different cited authorities... these days I do not have such a facility to hand, but others may?? Cheers Tony Tony 1212 (talk) 23:02, 27 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
yes this would make sense in an ideal world. I could do it in theory also but also do not have the data in hand to do this. I maintain databases for turtle taxonomy so get what you are getting at there, such queries would give a useful insight but takes significant resources to set up. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 00:44, 28 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Faendalimas, Nosferattus, and Tony 1212: It's not that hard to convert the WSC lists of families and genera to a wikispecies format. Converting the WSC list of families to this only took me about 20 minutes with WikEd and TextPad, and only because I'm always messing up when doing those replacement expressions lol (I know WikEd as advanced search and replace functions built-in directly, but I'm not used to them compared to TextPad's). For valid species, though, it's tough out of luck. Circeus (talk) 13:30, 29 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I acknowledge the issue, part of it stems from the reality that although we have a significant number of actual taxonomists here none that I am aware of specialise in spiders. My personal view and I am happy to help you if you are willing to put the effort in to sorting the mess would be to avoid circularity. I personally try not to use Wikipedia to determine the taxonomy here, as you say it only ends up on wikidata and back to wikipedia, a circle. For simplicity I would start with Catalogue of Life for simplicity for two reasons, one they basically link to the Catalogue of Spiders and two they will help with sources. Further they indicate the current validity of each name. This is a large group of organisms as you rightly say will require a significant investment of time to deal with the issues. No doubt in the early days of wikispecies like a number of groups the spiders were auto filled out from whatever they could get, and with no specialists here since that time it has been left to rot. Another advantage of the CoL+ is it is being set up to become the global list of species, there is a meeting on this at Naturalis in June which I will be attending. I have a small advantage here in that I am on the Board of Directors of the IUBS Global Species Working Group, hence have been directly involved in much of this. I was also involved in the ICZN discussions on the recent paper describing 400 species of spiders from barcodes and whether or not these represented valid descriptions for the purpose of nomenclature. So I have been forced out of my usual territory in recent times to at least see whats happening in spiders. But to do this we need someone on this site editing hard who is wiling to focus on the spiders. It seems you have the skills, you could not have said what you said above if you did not know your spiders. I am happy to help you, but my focus is vertebrates, largely turtles aand other reptiles, which I still need to work on, plus I am a crat and a checkuser so have other functions on this wiki that take up my time. Let me know what you think you can do with this group. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 19:04, 12 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Faendalimas: Thanks for sharing your thoughts on this. I sincerely hope the global species list becomes a reality. It would solve a lot of problems. I also hope it can address the issue of taxonomic vandalism, which has become a significant problem for both spider and reptile taxonomy, as I'm sure you're familiar with. Nosferattus (talk) 04:32, 14 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Nosferattus: yes there are mechanisms within the principals of the Global Species List Working Group (open access) that can address the issue of taxonomic vandalism. In a recent paper DOI: 10.1007/s13127-021-00518-8 I discussed this using reptiles and Reptile Database as a case study. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 08:07, 14 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • The problem, which occurs with other groups as well, is that there are good, well maintained taxonomic databases that deal with families, genera and species; in the case of spiders this is, as noted above, the World Spider Catalog (which also contains some subspecies). Other ranks are problematic, for multiple reasons:
  • The World Spider Catalog does not deal with them.
  • Sources that do so in a comprehensive manner are usually well out of date.
  • Molecular phylogenetic studies are standard now. These may result in accepted phylogenies, but authors are often not interested in mapping these to Linnaean ranks. Much of the "spider tree of life" does seem to have reached consensus (with perhaps stress on "seem"), but with clades, not ranks.
So I do think that the first step should be to implement the World Spider Catalog's family/genus/species/subspecies classification, with intermediate ranks redirected to the one above. Higher ranks mostly remain problematic. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:48, 13 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't quite understand the technical details of circular referencing, but I want to jump in to say that taxonomy for the genus level for articles- at least the ones that have automatic taxoboxes- are all sourced from WSC, and most have been checked with the source directly (some sources aren't in English and I can't read them). It's not a lot, but it may be a place to start. Sesamehoneytart (talk) 09:00, 13 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Peter, you do realize, I hope, that Linnean names are, technically, irrelevant above the rank of superfamily, right? Because those names are not governed by the Zoological code so strictly speaking, there is no need whatsoever for such a mapping whose nonexistence you bemoan. Now, I'm not saying the overabundance and instability of clade names is not a problem, but it's one that does not involve respect or disrespect of any rules of nomenclature. If anything, it mostly reveals our own shortcomings in not being firmer as to what groupings belong in the taxonavigation. Circeus (talk) 12:50, 13 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template MBG[edit]

Hello. Can anybody fix {{MBG}} it not longer functions as designed, if you do not use the taxon ID. It seems to have started its problems after a recent Tropicos update. Thanks Andyboorman (talk) 17:31, 28 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Done. --Fagus (talk) 01:39, 30 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks great work! Andyboorman (talk) 07:02, 30 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I note on the talk page the comment "The template is superfluous to Template:TROPICOS". Do we need both?

Also, why is the year stated twice? For example, the markup {{MBG|2014|Jan.|29}} renders as:

  • 2014. Rosales. Missouri Botanical Garden. Published online. Accessed: 2014 Jan. 29.

What does the first "2014" tell us? That year is not mentioned on the target page, which might have been published in 2013 or earlier, or updated in 2015 or afterwards (I note that one of its references was published in 2018). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:08, 30 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Date of MBG when it was accessed, equivalent to date of publication for a paper or book. Could be superfluous or just how the source wishes to be cited. Andyboorman (talk) 15:21, 30 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
But "2014 Jan. 29." is also the date it was accessed. The two "2014" are derived from a single parameter value. The target page in the example says "Cite this page: Missouri Botanical Garden. 30 Apr 2022 <>", and the current template output does not match that. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:27, 30 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As to second question Template:TROPICOS is superfluous as it requires the ID, whereas MBG does not and so is easier to use. However, both are extensively used and editors have distinct preferences so getting a consensus may be almost impossible. Finally doing a blanket replace will be impossible for MBG and should be easier for Tropicos. Andyboorman (talk) 15:26, 30 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In the absence of a stronger reason than "editors have distinct preferences", the two templates should be merged. I have no preference to the final name, but note that {{TROPICOS}} was created on 4 January 2011 and {{MBG}} on 3 January 2012‎ - unfortunately with different, and unnamed, parameter ordering. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:30, 30 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Totally disagree about the merger unless the search facility without the ID can be preserved for the common template. Date of creation is irrelevant given MBG was created to accommodate a search without an ID. I do not use Tropicos at all, so have a degree of prejudice. How about doing a count and the most common name is put forward as the winner? Andyboorman (talk) 15:51, 30 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I have given {{MBG}} an optional {{para|id}] parameter. It is now possible to make conversions, thus:

  • {{TROPICOS|2701607|2017|Nov.|26}} -> {{MBG|2017|Nov.|26|id=2701607}}

or simply:

  • {{TROPICOS|2701607|2017|Nov.|26}} -> {{MBG|2017|Nov.|26}}

I will accordingly mark {{TROPICOS}} as deprecated and request a bot to do conversions. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:53, 30 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fine by me, obviously. Thanks Andyboorman (talk) 15:57, 30 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Pigsonthewing: Unfortunately the new MBG does not work for taxa that do not have a WD id. Andyboorman (talk) 16:22, 30 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes it does; use |id= to give the Tropicos ID. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:39, 30 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Pigsonthewing: Sorry I will rephrase. If you do not enter an ID or WD does not hold an ID then MBG does not do a search on the page name, as it used to and generates a blank - see Neja marginata. Andyboorman (talk) 17:29, 30 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And nor did it before the changes I made today. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:23, 30 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Here is another Magnolia betuliensis Andyboorman (talk) 19:07, 30 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Pigsonthewing: Sorry to be a pain, but your changes to MBG are not at all helpful see one other example Cynoglosseae, which definitely worked OK. Not at all the best of both worlds. In my opinion it is the WD dependency that is the problem, whereas the use of a direct search on Tropicos worked fine. Suggest a revert to the original MBG/Tropicos templates and a rethink. Andyboorman (talk) 20:46, 30 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Again: this is not a result of my changes. As you yourself said at the top of this thread, the original MBG template "not [sic] longer functions as designed". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:43, 1 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I should have been more explicit, as originally it searched Tropicos with a function that picked up the page name, which after a Tropicos update this do not happen. Oh well. Andyboorman (talk) 19:05, 1 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Theodor Holm[edit]

What should we do with the page Theodor Holm? IPNI makes clear there was no such person. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:41, 1 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Together with the information at IPNI linked by Andy above, please also see Herman Theodor Holm. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 18:10, 2 May 2022 (UTC).Reply[reply]


Is it just me, or did the top portion of the WS logo got cut off and the text underneath "Wikispecies" gets really squished and impossible to read? OhanaUnitedTalk page 19:58, 1 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Looks fine here. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:07, 2 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Looks fine here as well, both on a desktop computer and in "desktop mode" on a cellular phone. (The lefthand-side menu with the WS logo isn't shown at all on a cellular phone in standard mobile view mode. I haven't checked how it looks on a tablet computer.) Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 18:23, 2 May 2022 (UTC).Reply[reply]

Italicising work titles in Wikidata[edit]

I wish to draw colleagues' attention to Wikidata's property title in HTML (P6833); this allows HTML (note: not wiki-markup) to be included, not least to italicise taxon names in the titles of books, journal articles etc.

For example, for Chinese species of Pediobius Walker (Hymenoptera: Eulophidae) (Q28937634), the value of that property is:

Chinese species of <i>Pediobius</i> Walker (Hymenoptera: Eulophidae)

which, of course renders as:

Chinese species of Pediobius Walker (Hymenoptera: Eulophidae)

-- Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:37, 2 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Editing news 2022 #1[edit]

Read this in another languageSubscription list for this multilingual newsletter

New editors were more successful with this new tool.

The New topic tool helps editors create new ==Sections== on discussion pages. New editors are more successful with this new tool. You can read the report. Soon, the Editing team will offer this to all editors at the 20 Wikipedias that participated in the test. You will be able to turn it off at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-editing-discussion.

Whatamidoing (WMF) 18:55, 2 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

New competition on English Wikipedia and related SiteNotice request[edit]

A popular article writing competition CEE Spring (about Central and Eastern Europe; now with special subcategory about Esperanto) is happening on the English Wikipedia until the 31st May 2022. I warmly invite you to participate, write some article and win a valuable prize! If you have question, I will happily answer it on the competition page talk.

Also, for more wide outreach, I have just asked for a CentralNotice, which should appear also in this project. If you have a comment on the request, you are welcome to write it on the request page. --KuboF Hromoslav (talk) 18:31, 3 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Matthew J Yoder and Matthew Yoder[edit]

Hoi, Could someone merge these two, they are the same person. It prevents a merge in Wikidata. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 14:46, 5 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@GerardM:  Done. The main Wikispecies author page is now Matthew J. Yoder to which Matthew Yoder is redirected, and the two Wikidata items have been merged into Q21387534. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 15:12, 5 May 2022 (UTC).Reply[reply]

2022 Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees Election - Call for Election Volunteers[edit]

The Movement Strategy and Governance team is looking for community members to serve as election volunteers in the upcoming Board of Trustees election.

The idea of the Election Volunteer Program came up during the 2021 Wikimedia Board of Trustees Election. This program turned out to be successful. With the help of Election Volunteers we were able to increase outreach and participation in the election by 1,753 voters over 2017. Overall turnout was 10.13%, 1.1 percentage points more, and 214 wikis were represented in the election.

There were a total of 74 wikis that did not participate in 2017 that produced voters in the 2021 election. Can you help increase the participation even more?

Election volunteers will help in the following areas:

  • Translate short messages and announce the ongoing election process in community channels
  • Optional: Monitor community channels for community comments and questions

Volunteers should:

  • Maintain the friendly space policy during conversations and events
  • Present the guidelines and voting information to the community in a neutral manner

Do you want to be an election volunteer and ensure your community is represented in the vote? Sign up here to receive updates. You can use the talk page for questions about translation.
--SOyeyele (WMF) (talk) 23:53, 5 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for the information. I've added a Wikispecies tweet about this in order to try and involve even more users:
@Wikispecies (May 6, 2022). "The Wikimedia Movement Strategy and Governance team is looking for community members to serve as election volunteers in the upcoming Board of Trustees election" (Tweet) – via Twitter.
Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 02:27, 6 May 2022 (UTC).Reply[reply]

Steven P(aul) Sylvester[edit]

Does anyone know whether the "Steven P. Sylvester" mentioned in Template:Li et al., 2022c is identical to the author Steven Paul Sylvester here at Wikispecies? The latter is listed as "Sylvester, Steven P." at IPNI. Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 12:10, 27 April 2022 (UTC).Reply[reply]

Seems to be the same person. IPNI states, he is working on Poaceae. and in Template:Peterson et al., 2020 his affiliation is Nanjing Forestry University, Nanjing, China. That is identical as in Template:Li et al., 2022c. --Thiotrix (talk) 16:45, 27 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Both Li et al., 2022c and Peterson et al., 2020 are listed in his Google Scholar and ResearchGate profiles. It is the same author, no question about it. Monster Iestyn (talk) 17:33, 27 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have now linked both profiles to the Wikidata item, as well as his ORCID profile (which was on a duplicate item that is now merged), so these can be checked for publications by the same author through the Authority control bar in future. Monster Iestyn (talk) 17:38, 27 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

─────── Thank you all. I thought so too, but figured I should ask since ORCID only mentions University of Zurich, University of Edinburgh and Bangor University, but not the Nanjing Forestry University. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 19:13, 27 April 2022 (UTC).Reply[reply]

I linked several pre-existing items about his papers to his own entry on Wikidata, using the "Resolve Authors" tool. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:45, 7 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, there is something wrong here. The author page Shaoji Hu gives a list of article where the author is "SHA HU" not Shaoji Hu (e.g. They seems to be two different persons, "Sha Hu" from the College of Life Sciences, Nankai University, and "Shaoji Hu" from the Yunnan University, Kunming. I think we should create "Sha Hu" and that one of Shaoji Hu or Shao-Ji Hu, should be a redirect to the other. Am I right? @Accassidy: and @PeterR: who created the pages. Christian Ferrer (talk) 06:10, 30 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Good find. Yes, they appear to be two different authors. I have moved Shaoji Hu to Sha Hu. OhanaUnitedTalk page 06:23, 8 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Very great, thanks you. Christian Ferrer (talk) 14:37, 8 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Trove in authority control template[edit]

I have just added Trove IDs for works and people to {{Authority control}}. Examples may be seen in Bulletin of the Kagoshima Imperial College of Agriculture and Forestry and Henry Burton Bradley respectively. Trove is the National Library of Australia's metadata aggregator for libraries. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:00, 10 May 2022 (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 17 May 2022 at 12:00 UTC and 19:00 UTC on Zoom. Click here to join. Meeting ID: 86217494304. Dial by your location.


  • Update on the recent developments
  • Questions and answers, discussion


The meeting will not be recorded or streamed. Notes will be taken in a Google Docs file. Olga Vasileva (the Product Manager) will be hosting this meeting. The presentation part will be given in English.

We can answer questions asked in English, Italian, Polish; also, only at the first meeting: Farsi, Vietnamese; only at the second meeting: Portuguese, Spanish, Russian. If you would like to ask questions in advance, add them on the talk page or send them to

At this meeting, both Friendly space policy and the Code of Conduct for Wikimedia technical spaces apply. Zoom is not subject to the WMF Privacy Policy.

We hope to see you! SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 05:02, 14 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Report on Voter Feedback from Universal Code of Conduct (UCoC) Enforcement Guidelines Ratification [edit]

Hello all,

The Universal Code of Conduct (UCoC) project team has completed the analysis of the feedback accompanying the ratification vote on the Universal Code of Conduct Enforcement Guidelines.

Following the completion of the UCoC Enforcement Guidelines Draft in 2022, the guidelines were voted on by the Wikimedian community. Voters cast votes from 137 communities, with the top 9 communities being: English, German, French, Russian, Polish, Spanish, Chinese, Japanese, Italian Wikipedias, and Meta-wiki.

Those voting had the opportunity to provide comments on the contents of the Draft document. 658 participants left comments. 77% of the comments are written in English. Voters wrote comments in 24 languages with the largest numbers in English (508), German (34), Japanese (28), French (25), and Russian (12).

A report will be sent to the Revision Drafting Committee who will refine the enforcement guidelines based on the community feedback received from the recently concluded vote. A public version of the report is published on Meta-wiki here. The report is available in translated versions on Meta-wiki. Please help translate to your language

Again, we thank all who participated in the vote and discussions. We invite everyone to contribute during the next community discussions. More information about the Universal Code of Conduct and Enforcement Guidelines can be found on Meta-wiki.

On behalf of the Universal Code of Conduct project team
--SOyeyele (WMF) (talk) 15:57, 23 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Competition on Esperanto Wikivoyage and related SiteNotice request[edit]

A new article writing competition is planned for June on the Esperanto Wikivoyage.

For more wide outreach, I have just asked for a CentralNotice, which should appear also in this project. If you have a comment on the request, you are welcome to write it on the request page. --KuboF Hromoslav (talk) 19:24, 29 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Please, help me. I don't l know, what category can be in this page: Dicrurus divaricatus. Thanks. Загребин Илья (talk) 08:56, 1 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The category we usually use for taxon is taxon by [author] or eponyms of [author]. In this case, it is Category:Martin Lichtenstein taxa. Circeus (talk) 20:15, 1 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks. Загребин Илья (talk) 03:57, 2 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

2022 Board of Trustees Call for Candidates closed[edit]

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

The 2022 Board of Trustees election Call for Candidates has now closed. This Call led 12 candidates from the community to submit their applications. Learn more about the 2022 Board of Trustees candidates.

The Analysis Committee will now consider the candidates’ applications with the skills and criteria provided by the Board. The trustees seek certain skills and competencies to improve the capacity of the Board. After the Analysis Committee completes their review, the ratings of each candidate will be published. These ratings are for informational purposes only.

For more information about the 2022 Board election, you may find the timeline, voting information and other ways to get involved on Meta-wiki.

Thank you for your support,

Movement Strategy and Governance on behalf of the Elections Committee and the Board of Trustees
--SOyeyele (WMF) (talk) 13:58, 3 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Archives missing, presumed lost?[edit]

The latest archive (#58) ends on 20 January; discussions from then until 10 May (the oldest currently on this page as I type) are lost? - MPF (talk) 11:31, 9 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@MPF See Archive 59. Monster Iestyn (talk) 12:58, 9 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hidden? The official list at the top of the page ends at #58 - MPF (talk) 12:59, 9 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@MPF No, it's just that Template:Village Pump header needs to be updated to list the missing page. It would be great if this could be done automatically by a bot though. Monster Iestyn (talk) 13:01, 9 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@MPF and Monster Iestyn: I've added Archive #59 to the list: 6061 will be added later tonight. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 14:26, 9 June 2022 (UTC).Reply[reply]
Thanks! No wonder I couldn't find out anything about the Wikispecies:Village Pump#Taxonbar discussion above (@Andyboorman:). We really need a better system for notifying people of important proposals and changes here - pop out for a few days, and any discussion has vanished into unlinked hidden archives before you can see it. Perhaps not archive things until a month rather than a week after posting? - MPF (talk) 16:18, 9 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@MPF: sorry you missed the RFC, but what more can we do to advertise an RFC? Andyboorman (talk) 17:15, 9 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Andyboorman: pings to contributors with known interests? Some sort of notification, rather than something one has to come across by chance - MPF (talk) 17:48, 9 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@MPF: Maybe it would be far better if an RFC alerted all editors automatically. I guess I was not that interested in the taxonbar, but set up the RFC on request. Sorry. Andyboorman (talk) 17:55, 9 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

──────────────────── As I mentioned above in the Taxonbar thread (linked above by MPF) all RFCs are always linked with yellow text on the MediaWiki:Recentchangestext page in the same way as for example requests for adminship or bot approvals. (Example.) As a result they are also always visible in the "Other review tools" header on the Recent changes page which I think is fairly frequently monitored by MPF, Andyboorman and other admins and active users. While this certainly isn't a bullet proof way of notifying people about RFCs, at least it's something… Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 19:13, 9 June 2022 (UTC).Reply[reply]

Yep, an alert would be good, please! What with one thing and another, I've not been too active here recently, so it's very easy to miss something that's just been posted without notifications. - MPF (talk) 21:29, 9 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@MPF: Adding a ping to all admins when starting a new RFC is easy – and I will do so henceforth! – however I think sending an alert to all users would be overkill and also rather impractical from a technical point of view. – Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 15:58, 10 June 2022 (UTC).Reply[reply]
@Tommy Kronkvist: - thanks! Yes, that's sensible. - MPF (talk) 16:22, 10 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've updated the "Ping group" template to accommodate for future admin group messages. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 16:55, 10 June 2022 (UTC).Reply[reply]
Could send a message to our list mail all admins can receive that. The whole list is problematic as you balance between need and spam. Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 16:57, 10 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Also, we currently have 2,880,245 registered users. That's a lot of emails… An on-wiki group ping to a total of some 30 admins and translation administrators isn't such a big deal though. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 17:08, 10 June 2022 (UTC).Reply[reply]
Thanks for this initiative. For some reason I thought an RFC did ping admins and crats. Andyboorman (talk) 18:38, 10 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Mario Urbina & Mario Urbina-Schmitt[edit]

Moved from Wikispecies:Le bistro#Mario Urbina & Mario Urbina-Schmitt; re Mario Urbina & Mario Urbina-Schmitt

Dear all, this two guys are the same person. It will be great to merge these articles, and I will do also on wikidata when OK (at this time, of course, I receive an error message doing that). Thanks a lot in advance. Givet (talk) 06:18, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Which name should be preferred? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:27, 10 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Pigsonthewing:, Mario Urbina-Schmitt is more complete... and, if possible, we can add a comment. Thanks a lot. Givet (talk) 14:52, 10 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK, merge complete. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:25, 10 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


The RFC on the above template has now closed with an unanimous vote for its use. Therefore editors can now use the template, but please see these comments;

  • Database links used as references should not be deleted if taxonbar is added.
  • The resulting look can be customized with comments.
  • Do not use use the outdated The Plant List or the non-functional COL.
  • Use with care when there is a taxonomic opinion that may result in two legitimate taxon pages for the same organism.

See here for the vote and discussions. Hope this helps and thanks Andyboorman (talk) 17:19, 29 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Andyboorman: Somehow managed to miss all this - it wasn't very well advertised! Obviously I can't change the result, but would like to suggest that ITIS, which like The Plant List or the non-functional COL is outdated, be excluded as well - MPF (talk) 23:44, 4 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Andyboorman: also IOC (birds) and BSBI (plants) need to be added - MPF (talk) 23:59, 4 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@MPF: Sorry you missed the RFC, it was advertised on the Pump. I am not an immediate user, but I gather that it can be customised easily. Andyboorman (talk) 08:08, 5 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@MPF: It was also highlighted in MediaWiki:Recentchangestext(Reversed diff) (thus also visible on the Recent changes page) from May 13 up until today. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 09:24, 5 June 2022 (UTC).Reply[reply]
 Comment The "IBC" (International Bird Collection, was sold to eBird) site no longer exists, it now redirects to a section of "eBird" "only for suscribers", so, as "eBird" is already there, I propose to eliminate IBC from the taxonbar.--Hector Bottai (talk) 15:30, 6 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

ITIS is regularly updated, but it is true that for many groups, it hasn't been updated recently. ITIS was a good resource in the early days of Wikipedia/Wikispecies, and The Plant List was also a good resource at the time it was released. It may be worth retaining taxonbar links to these databases for historical reasons (i.e., Wikispecies pages that haven't been updated in very long time may in fact be following ITIS or The Plant List). The taxonbar on excludes government run databases from non-English speaking countries. As Wikispecies is multilingual, it might be appropriate to exclude government run databases from English speaking countries (such as ITIS); or should non-English databases be included? It's certainly worth reviewing the databases supported by the Wikispecies version of the taxonbar. MoBotPF and PfaF aren't really taxonomic databases; they focus on uses of plants (as ornamentals in the case of MoBotPF). Steere isn't a taxonomic database; it's NYBG's specimen database. I'm not aware of any Wikidata properties for other specimen databases, but either Wikidata properties should be added for other major specimen repositories, or Steere should be excluded from the Wikispecies taxonbar (also, Steere links are currently broken, but that might be fixable). There are several databases for US states (not necessarily government run) which aren't very useful for Wikispecies: Calflora, Cal-IPC, CNPS, MichiganFlora, ODNR, WisFlora. Plantdrew (talk) 16:10, 8 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'd certainly agree that government-run databases should be excluded, as they are not independent authorities, but may have government-sponsored national agendas inappropriate to an international site like Wikispecies - MPF (talk) 11:23, 9 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Distinguished author[edit]

Hello friends! I'm planning to write a new version of the Distinguished author section we show next to the "Species of the month" section on the Main Page. The present one about Mary Agnes Chase was created way back in August 2019 and is based on an even older one created in 2016, so an update is long overdue. However there are more than 60,000 authors to chose from and I can't decide which one would be best. Any suggestions? –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 18:33, 6 June 2022 (UTC).Reply[reply]

Maria Koepcke
Maria Emilie Snethlage
Pioneer women in Ornithology. Hector Bottai (talk) 20:54, 6 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
George Washington Carver, The Peanut Wizard - just a thought. Andyboorman (talk) 21:00, 6 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Adding Wikispecies links to the above authors, for the sake of consistency: Maria Koepcke, Maria Emilie Snethlage, George Washington Carver.
Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 00:58, 7 June 2022 (UTC).Reply[reply]
Phycologist Kathleen Mary Drew-Baker (wikispecies: Kathleen Mary Drew), her research led to commercial cultivation of Nori. --Thiotrix (talk) 08:54, 8 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Richard Pyle (Wikispecies: Richard L. Pyle), not only the author of a lot of taxa and articles, he have also other competences such as the developpement of the Pyle stop, he has competences in computer database systems for biodiversity information, he won the second place of 2015 en:Ebbe Nielsen Challenge, and he is involved in Zoobank. Christian Ferrer (talk) 10:46, 8 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

──────────── Thank you for all of your suggestions. I think I'll write a "Distinguished author" template for all of the above author's, and then present each of them on the Main Page – one after another – for about a month or so. The templates will all be listed on the Wikispecies:Distinguished author page within the next couple of days so that you guys can check them out and make improvements before they are "published" on the Main Page. Again, thanks! –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 00:05, 15 June 2022 (UTC).Reply[reply]

Vernacular names of languages without ISO code[edit]

For languages without ISO code (mainly indigenous langages of people with lesser internet presence) is not possible to add their vernacular name of a species to {{VN}} template, and the procedure mentioned in the template documentation and help page only tells how to add the language for a language already added to MediaWiki core (and thus already with ISO code), but not for more excluded languages without such ISO codes. This technicality worsen (in Wikimedia in general, not just in Wikispecies) the situation of exclusion of "non mainstream" languages in the internet and common knowledge.

Meanwhile these langauges do not get their own ISO code and added to MediaWiki translations, is possible to add their VN word below the VN template (in the VN section) to preserve and spread their own vernacular name of a species? Onwa (talk) 16:47, 8 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Onwa: ISO 639-3 codes are quite comprehensive for "non mainstream" languages. There's even one for the en:Sentinelese language, of which almost nothing is known by any non-Sentinelese. What language are you wanting to include? It may be listed under a different name in the ISO (we don't know what the Sentinelese call their but language, but if we did, the ISO listed name and code would likely be changed to reflect that). Plantdrew (talk) 01:13, 11 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's chaná language. There isn't any ISO language code assigned to it yet. The last native speaker created with the help of a linguist some years ago a dictionary which contains some entries about the native names of some local species. There is a work made by some individuals based on that dictionary called "Plantas medicinales del pueblo chaná" on the internet. Onwa (talk) 22:56, 11 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

New Species wiki user question- large species list[edit]

For genus Crepidotus, I noticed there were only 3 species listed. There are hundreds according to Species Fungorum] (search crepidotus). Would it be proper to include the entire list (minus varieties) in the Species field? Mariasmesserly (talk) 20:21, 17 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not all the list, as many are shown as synonyms, for example Crepidotus alpiniae. Andyboorman (talk) 21:37, 17 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Desktop Improvements update[edit]

Making this the new default

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. Our work is almost finished! 🎉

We would love to see these improvements become the default for readers and editors across all wikis. In the coming weeks, we will begin conversations on more wikis, including yours. 🗓️ We will gladly read your suggestions!

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 more than 30 wikis, including Wikipedias in French, Portuguese, and Persian.

The changes apply to the Vector skin only, although it will always be possible to revert to the previous version on an individual basis. Monobook or Timeless users will not notice any changes.

The newest features
  • Table of contents - our version is easier to reach, gain context of the page, and navigate throughout the page without needing to scroll. It is currently tested across our pilot wikis. It is also available for editors who have opted into the Vector 2022 skin.
  • Page tools - now, there are two types of links in the sidebar. There are actions and tools for individual pages (like Related changes) and links of the wiki-wide nature (like Recent changes). We are going to separate these into two intuitive menus.
How to enable/disable the improvements
Global preferences
  • It is possible to opt-in individually in the appearance tab within the preferences by selecting "Vector (2022)". Also, it is possible to opt-in on all wikis using the global preferences.
  • 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

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.

Thank you! SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 16:59, 21 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Join us on Tuesday

Join an online meeting with the team working on the Desktop Improvements! It will take place on 28 June 2022 at 12:00 UTC and 19:00 UTC on Zoom. Click here to join. Meeting ID: 5304280674. Dial by your location. The following events will take place on 12 July and 26 July.

The meeting will not be recorded or streamed. Notes will be taken in a Google Docs file and copied to Etherpad. Olga Vasileva (the Product Manager) will be hosting this meeting. The presentation part will be given in English. At this meeting, both Friendly space policy and the Code of Conduct for Wikimedia technical spaces apply. Zoom is not subject to the WMF Privacy Policy.

We can answer questions asked in English and a number of other languages. If you would like to ask questions in advance, add them on the talk page or send them to We hope to see you! SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 21:47, 23 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Jing Wang author[edit]

The Jing Wang author here Template:Wang et al., 2016 (ichthyologist, Yunnan University), doesn't seem to be the same as here Template:Li et al., 2019f; Template:Li et al., 2020f (mammalogist, Shandong University), neither the same as here Template:Alström et al., 2018 (ornithologist, Beijing University). Author page and first template created by @Haps:, seconds by @Neferkheperre: and third by myself. Different subjects, affiliations and co-authors. Any clue? I tend to create a Jing Wang (ornithologist) for my editions. Thanks. Hector Bottai (talk) 11:15, 25 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


My question: When adding a name to the VN Template, should I add the refs for the names, and if yes, should that apply retroactively (For example, Instead of adding אִי, should I add אִי[1])? פרצטמול (talk) 16:49, 27 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No need refs in VN. For more Help:Vernacular names section. Regards, Burmeister (talk) 17:45, 27 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


  1. אִי" in מילון בעלי־חיים - נכר (Animal Dictionary- Abroad), Terms of the Academy of the Hebrew Language,, 1972.

Fish fossil illustrations[edit]

Hello, In 2019, a Natural history museum uploaded half their collection of fish fossils. I am unaware how much of the species described are already present on Wikispecies (or how much Wikispecies delves in paleontology), but I thought it might be interesting for some contributors here. Here is the category on Commons where you can find the images. Unfortunately we titled the files according to catalog number (as fossils undergo frequent name changes), but we are on our way to changing that. Flor WMCH (talk) 16:29, 28 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Forgot the mention : we added bibliographical details and as much metadata as we could (stratigraphy, type status, ...) as we could to make it useful.--Flor WMCH (talk) 16:31, 28 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sofia Pereyaslawzewa[edit]

Sofia Pereyaslawzewa and Sofia Perejaslavtzeva are definitely the same person. Also may be spelled Pereyaslavskaya, and first name can also be Sophia or Sophie. She was quite prominent in 1890s and early 20th century. Merging needs to be done, but her official name and spelling need to be determined. Does anyone have any suggestions. Neferkheperre (talk) 18:07, 16 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The usual accepted transliteration is Sofia (or Sofiya) Mikhajlovna Pereyaslavtseva (coincides with the modern ISO 9 standard System B); Pereyaslawzewa is a transliteration from Russian for the German-speaking texts, Perejaslavtzeva is another possible alternative variant, but not modern one (not ISO). Sofya is not absolutely correct; Mikhaylovna also permissible. Anna Pavlova IFPNI Staff (talk) 22:20, 23 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If (when) we have consensus on the preferred spelling, I'm happy to do the redirects, here and on Wikidata. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:25, 24 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Since we haven't gotten any consensus yet... I'm leaning towards "Sofia Mikhailovna Pereyaslavtseva" personally, but I'm honestly not satisified myself this is necessarily the best transliteration at all. (especially since IFPNI Staff already gave what the ISO 9 spelling would be) Some English-language books. journals and websites seem to prefer "Sofia [Sof'ia] Mikhailovna Pereiaslavtseva" (e.g. The Biographical Dictionary of Women in Science), while this website on Turbellaria for instance prefers instead "Sophia Mikhailovna Pereyaslawzewa" (noting she used "Sophie Pereyaslawzewa" in French articles). Monster Iestyn (talk) 21:54, 1 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]