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.
Okay, can someone clarify to me whether we're supposed to be using the {{Publications}} template or not in taxon author pages? The template's documentation explains (at least in English) that it "should not be used", but then I've noticed MILEPRI for instance adds the template to taxon author pages regardless of this notice. Monster Iestyn (talk) 17:43, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I use this template because it is in use and works correctly, I have been doing it for years, I did not know it was obsolete. If it should not be used, it should be removed and the community will indicate which one replaces it. Saludos.--MILEPRI (talk) 21:05, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The tempalte has a major issue in that it creates a section title that cannot be edited (that is, the [ edit ] link). We don,t care for that with tempaltes like {{Eponyms}} because those sections can handle having no content (the category substitutes for that, can we could even do some fancy coding to import category contents directly), but with a section that is supposed to be edited, this is frankly unacceptable. Circeus (talk) 22:04, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I took that to be the basic problem with the template... unfortunately there doesn't seem to be any workaround for that I can find, if any at all. Monster Iestyn (talk) 22:13, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note also that, though I'm not 100% sure of that, a substitution template may also be called from the MediaWiki:Edittools, e.g., by taking the exemple with my sandbox, something like <charinsert>{{subst:User:Christian Ferrer/sandbox3}}</charinsert> should add, when the page will be saved, the editable section =={{int:Publications}}== + {{Inc}}. Christian Ferrer (talk) 07:58, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Pairs of PDFs for references where only one is correct
I'm working on a tool to extract references from Wikispecies, and have come across a page where the references have more than one PDF each, but only one PDF is correct. The page is Attelabidae and what seems to have happened is that someone has mistakenly thought that files like http://www.zin.ru/Animalia/Coleoptera/pdf/legalov033.pdf and
http://attelabidae.narod.ru/legalov033.pdf are the same because they share the same filename "legalov033.pdf". They aren't, and this has created a bit of a mess. Just flagging this in case anyone is willing to fix this page. I don't know how widespread this problem is. --Rdmpage (talk) 01:25, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
An Election Compass is a tool to help voters select the candidates that best align with their beliefs and views. The community members will propose statements for the candidates to answer using a Lickert scale (agree/neutral/disagree). The candidates’ answers to the statements will be loaded into the Election Compass tool. Voters will use the tool by entering in their answer to the statements (agree/disagree/neutral). The results will show the candidates that best align with the voter’s beliefs and views.
Here is the timeline for the Election Compass:
July 8 - 20: Community members propose statements for the Election Compass
July 21 - 22: Elections Committee reviews statements for clarity and removes off-topic statements
July 23 - August 1: Volunteers vote on the statements
August 2 - 4: Elections Committee selects the top 15 statements
August 5 - 12: candidates align themselves with the statements
August 15: The Election Compass opens for voters to use to help guide their voting decision
The Elections Committee will select the top 15 statements at the beginning of August. The Elections Committee will oversee the process, supported by the Movement Strategy and Governance team. MSG will check that the questions are clear, there are no duplicates, no typos, and so on.
Best,
Movement Strategy and Governance
This message was sent on behalf of the Board Selection Task Force and the Elections Committee
Category:MZULP ("List of species group taxa whose type specimens are housed in Museu de Zoologia da Universidade de La Plata, Argentina.") was tagged for speedily deletion, by User:Lmalena, with "there is no museum in Argentina under this denomination" as a reason. On its talk page, User:Neferkheperre says "Further research is necessary. There is a museum with very similar name." I've declined to delete it for now, so that we can discuss and decide what should happen. Google finds a single reference to the institution, in what we call {{Carvalho, 1985g}}. Thoughts? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits15:12, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I wrote to the division of Entomology of Museo de La Plata, and they confirm they have the holotype of Minasmiris argentinus, under the numeration MLP 4031. Lmalena (talk) 12:02, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is just a problem of acronym normalization. This is not the first time we have this, but this is the first time that the acronym is not even used by the paper's author. I have gone ahead and moved the one page to MLP before deleting the MZULP pages.
For other amusing issues, consider collections transferred (e.g. CCB, transferred to an institution which does not even have a page on Wikispecies, apparently?) or that have changed names (e.g. MHNLF → MCL → CCEC) where legacy acronyms may still be found in modern literature. CirceusCirceus (talk) 13:22, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a policy for how to handle names which are invalid/unplaced, because they didn't meet the requirements of publication?
The specific example I have in mind is Tradescantia × andersoniana. This name is invalid under the ICN because the original publication did not contain a description, and did not refer to another published description. It's not a synonym, because no other valid name has been published for the hybrid it refers to. The hybrid was discovered in cultivation, and such plants are now treated horticulturally as a cultivar group under the ICNCP, so there has not been any botanical need for a valid ICN name.
Should this name have a standalone page? Should its invalid status be noted somehow on the page? I searched the guidelines to see if there was already a standard approach to this kind of situation and I couldn't find anything, apologies if I missed it. Averixus (talk) 16:29, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Averixus: In general WS does not deal with plants that have originated in horticulture, but concentrates only on "natural" taxa. That is not to say you may occasionally encounter cultivars and artificial hybrids, but they are deprecated and subject to deletion. Likewise unplaced names should not have their own taxon page until there is resolution in their status. Hope this helps. Andyboorman (talk) 17:18, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My understanding is that names in use should be documented. Occasionally that means documenting a name not validly published/unavailable or otherwise incorrect. Names that appear only in the horticultural trade probably are not appropriate for Wikispecies, but this has not been actually debated before as far as I'm aware because as a community, we suck as managing policy. Circeus (talk) 13:28, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Does anyone know the full name of entomologist V. Kalina, author of for example the following publications:
Kalina, V. 1981. The Palaearctic species of the genus MacroneuraWalker, 1837 (Hymenoptera, Chalcidoidea, Eupelmidae), with descriptions of new species. Sbornik Vedeckeho Lesnickeho Ustavu Vysoke Skoly Zemedelske v Praze 24: 83–111. Reference page.
An Election Compass is a tool to help voters select the candidates that best align with their beliefs and views. The community members will propose statements for the candidates to answer using a Lickert scale (agree/neutral/disagree). The candidates’ answers to the statements will be loaded into the Election Compass tool. Voters will use the tool by entering in their answer to the statements (agree/disagree/neutral). The results will show the candidates that best align with the voter’s beliefs and views.
Here is the timeline for the Election Compass:
July 8 - 20: Volunteers propose statements for the Election Compass
July 21 - 22: Elections Committee reviews statements for clarity and removes off-topic statements
July 25 - August 3: Volunteers vote on the statements
August 4: Elections Committee selects the top 15 statements
August 5 - 12: candidates align themselves with the statements
August 16: The Election Compass opens for voters to use to help guide their voting decision
The Elections Committee will select the top 15 statements at the beginning of August
Best,
Movement Strategy and Governance
This message was sent on behalf of the Board Selection Task Force and the Elections Committee
Welcome to the 7th issue of Movement Strategy and Governance News! The newsletter distributes relevant news and events about the implementation of Wikimedia's Movement Strategy recommendations, other relevant topics regarding Movement governance, as well as different projects and activities supported by the Movement Strategy and Governance (MSG) team of the Wikimedia Foundation.
The MSG Newsletter is delivered quarterly, while the more frequent Movement Strategy Weekly will be delivered weekly. Please remember to subscribe here if you would like to receive future issues of this newsletter.
Movement sustainability: Wikimedia Foundation's annual sustainability report has been published. (continue reading)
Improving user experience: recent improvements on the desktop interface for Wikimedia projects. (continue reading)
Safety and inclusion: updates on the revision process of the Universal Code of Conduct Enforcement Guidelines. (continue reading)
Equity in decisionmaking: reports from Hubs pilots conversations, recent progress from the Movement Charter Drafting Committee, and a new white paper for futures of participation in the Wikimedia movement. (continue reading)
Stakeholders coordination: launch of a helpdesk for Affiliates and volunteer communities working on content partnership. (continue reading)
Leadership development: updates on leadership projects by Wikimedia movement organizers in Brazil and Cape Verde. (continue reading)
Internal knowledge management: launch of a new portal for technical documentation and community resources. (continue reading)
Innovate in free knowledge: high-quality audiovisual resources for scientific experiments and a new toolkit to record oral transcripts. (continue reading)
Evaluate, iterate, and adapt: results from the Equity Landscape project pilot (continue reading)
Other news and updates: a new forum to discuss Movement Strategy implementation, upcoming Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees election, a new podcast to discuss Movement Strategy, and change of personnel for the Foundation's Movement Strategy and Governance team. (continue reading)
I've just seen {{Taxon italics}} used, in an image caption. I'd not seen it previously, though it has over 5000 transclusions. It was created in February 2021 by User:白布飘扬, who has not been active since May this year. What is it for and - given that many pages do not use it - do we need it? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits12:03, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The main purpose of the template is to handle the italic-format of the scientific names which taxonomic ranks lower than genus, and also scientific names of viruses, for example, {{taxit|Salvia sect. Hymenosphace}} get result Salvia sect. Hymenosphace. It's mainly use at Taxonavigation templates, like {{Salvia}}, so all species and infraspecies pages under this genus will automatically show the italic title rather than adding the italic code one by one in those pages. --白布飘扬 (talk) 15:07, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
nutting 2 see heer 4 patrol kittehPigsonthewing, I was too busy to get into an argument over.. this. I'm not very experienced as a patroller, would it help if the page resided in userspace instead? If yes and if redirects from Project: to User: are allowed here, move it to User:GUS2Wiki/GUS2Wiki or User:Alexis Jazz/GUS2Wiki and leave a redirect for the script to follow. I think each project should have a copy of its own data. I'm not sure Commons is the best place for this. Even if it would be, unless/until my name gets cleared I have no plans to edit Commons in the immediate future. Other solutions for you to consider: make me autopatrolled. If I ever contribute to content I'll likely ask for help anyway. Or delete the page, I'm not going to fight you over it. The actual data could still be extracted from m:User:Alexis Jazz/GUS2Wiki.json. For its purpose, see phab:T121049. Note that Wikispecies:GUS2Wiki is only updated once a week. (I had changed this in response to Andy's concerns) That's what we're talking about, 1 edit a week. Alexis Jazz (talk) 12:46, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Depends on whether you consider Apionidae a separate family, or a subfamily Apioninae of Brentidae, from the looks of it. According to {{Bouchard et al., 2011}} Apionidae/nae is considered a subfamily, for instance. Looking through the edit history of both pages, it looks as if both pages originally placed the genus in Apionidae, but in 2008 Maruism revised the genus page to use Apioninae instead while the species page was never updated. Monster Iestyn (talk) 01:23, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In commented out text next to the disputed template is "sometimes considers as a family: Apionidae". It was added back in 2011 by Arachn0. In any case, I would go for Brentidae; as far as I can tell Apionidae is considered a subfamily of it by most recent articles on Curculionoidea. Monster Iestyn (talk) 18:26, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
CSIC was hit by a ransomware attack in mid-july and this is one of the subdomains that are still not restored.
More specifically anything at the digital.csic.es subdomain is unaccessible. It seems we don't link that much, but at least one significant journal is archived there, Eos. There may be more, but Special:LinkSearch can't even find the Eos page so I can't quite be sure what they may be... This would also affect anything with handles starting in 10261é
I report that the server of Biblioteca Digital was down also in the end of April to early May due to an unknown cause. It drove me to download volumes 37 and 47 of Repertorium Specierum Novarum Regni Vegetabilis wholly that seem free only there. I am ready to re-distribute them through Google Drive if such an emergency should occur again AND linger unusually long. --Eryk Kij (talk) 22:40, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A big confusion here on who is the author of the new taxa in this publication: Template:Cabanis & Heine, 1860. Zoonomen attributes all to Heine Jr. while Avibase to Heine Sr. or simply "Heine", some wikis to Sr. some other to Jr. Initially I followed Zoonomen, but then changed to Heine Sr. but still in doubt. My initial interpretation of the book title page, with my less than poor German, was that the edition was done by Cabanis and Ferdinand Heine, "stud philos" (philosophy student?) considering he was only 20 years old at this time. Any insight? This is quite important, involving a significative number of taxa. Thanks! Hector Bottai (talk) 19:55, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The Community Voting period for the 2022 Board of Trustees election is now open. Here are some helpful links to get you the information you need to vote:
Try the Election Compass, showing how candidates stand on 15 different topics.
If you are ready to vote, you may go to SecurePoll voting page to vote now. You may vote from August 23 at 00:00 UTC to September 6 at 23:59 UTC. To see about your voter eligibility, please visit the voter eligibility page.
Best,
Movement Strategy and Governance
This message was sent on behalf of the Board Selection Task Force and the Elections Committee
The Community Voting period of the 2022 Board of Trustees election started on August 23, 2022, and will close on September 6, 2022 23:59 UTC. There’s still a chance to participate in this election. If you did not vote, please visit the SecurePoll voting page to vote now. To see about your voter eligibility, please visit the voter eligibility page.
If you need help in making your decision, here are some helpful links:
Try the Election Compass, showing how candidates stand on 15 different topics.
The Committee collaborated to revise these draft guidelines based on input gathered from the community discussion period from May through July, as well as the community vote that concluded in March 2022. The revisions are focused on the following four areas:
To identify the type, purpose, and applicability of the UCoC training;
To simplify the language for more accessible translation and comprehension by non-experts;
To explore the concept of affirmation, including its pros and cons;
To review the balancing of the privacy of the accuser and the accused
The Committee requests comments and suggestions about these revisions by 8 October 2022. From there, the Revisions Committee anticipates further revising the guidelines based on community input.
Everyone may share comments in a number of places. Facilitators welcome comments in any language on the Revised Enforcement Guidelines talk page. Comments can also be shared on talk pages of translations, at local discussions, or during conversation hours. There are a series of conversation hours planned about the Revised Enforcement Guidelines; please see Meta for the times and details.
The facilitation team supporting this review period hopes to reach a large number of communities. If you do not see a conversation happening in your community, please organize a discussion. Facilitators can assist you in setting up the conversations. Discussions will be summarized and presented to the drafting committee every two weeks. The summaries will be published here.
I doubt it, the middle name appears identical but that's all that really "connects" them as far as I can see. Van Ngoc Thinh works in Germany and Vu Ngoc Thanh works in Vietnam; Van Ngoc Thinh specialises in primates, and Vu Ngoc Thanh appears to specialise in reptiles. They also have different emails. Monster Iestyn (talk) 12:47, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Gottlieb Wilhelm Bischoff worked at Heidelberg according to Wikipedia, and directed its botanical garden from 1839. Apart from anything else, none of the other listed Bischoffs were born yet by 1884, though G. W. Bischoff was himself long deceased by then. Monster Iestyn (talk) 21:53, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This not a validly published name (it's published in synonymy, Art. 36.1(b)) so its so-called "authorship" is irrelevant. It's probably an in schedis name annotated on an herbarium sheet (this would easily accunt for the discrepancy noted by Iestyn). Not all names in IPNI are validly published. Circeus (talk) 22:55, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Chelonus altitudinis virus renamed to Chelonus altitudinis bracovirus then renamed to Bracoviriform altitudinis
Are these previous names become synonyms? Or there are another term for this case? Rex Aurorum (talk) 11:41, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The only nomenclatural statuses I see defined in the current viral code are "accepted" and "valid" (valid appears to similar to the botany term "validly published"). Since there has been a big change in the code (species names are to be binomial with the genus as the first word) that brings it in more alignment with zoological and botanical standards, I would assume the term "synonym" could be used as it is in zoology and botany. But I feel like the code is a mess; it ought to mention a status for non-binomial names that don't yet have an accepted binomial ("valid" names conform to the code; non-binomial names no longer conform to the code) . Renaming all virus species will take some time; it's not clear how to handle non-binomial names in the interim. And there are recently updated pages on ICTV that don't use binomial names for species. Plantdrew (talk) 16:01, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi all, the Indonesian palaeontologist Tan Sin Hok (full name) authored a number of taxa, see e.g. "The life and scientific legacy of Indonesian paleontologist Dr. Tan Sin Hok (1902-1945)", https://www.brieven-tan-schepers.nl/images/pdf-s/life-and-legacy-tan-sin-hok.pdf. which commences "Tan Sin Hok was probably Indonesia's most influential paleontologist...". Many (botanical) palaeontological sources e.g. https://www.mikrotax.org/system/index.php?taxon=Discoaster&module=ntax_cenozoic use his full name as authority, as does Index Nominum Genericorum, however it seems from the first article cited that Tan was the family name, Sin Hok the personal names, per e.g. this sentence: "The relative affluence of the Tan family enabled
their uncle Tan Kiat Hong to spend 18,000 Dutch Guilders from his own resources to fund the studies of Tan Sin Hok and his older brother Tan Sin Houw in The Netherlands", and a couple of botanical references cite his name as either "S.H. Tan" or simply "Tan", see e.g. Doweld, 2014, "(2265–2267) Proposals to conserve the name Discoaster against Eu-discoaster, Helio-discoaster and Hemi-discoaster, and the names Heliodiscoaster and Hemidiscoaster with those spellings (fossil Prymnesiophyta (Algae) vel Haptomonada (Protista))", http://dx.doi.org/10.12705/631.26 (also viewable via sci-hub) which contains the following:
(2265) Discoaster S.H. Tan in Leidsche Geol. Meded. 5: 93. 24 Nov 1931, nom. cons. prop. Typus: D. brouweri S.H. Tan.
(≡) Eu-discoaster S.H. Tan in Verslag Afd. Natuurk. Kon. Akad. Wetensch. Amsterdam 36: 202. 26 Feb 1927 & in Proc. Sect.
Sci. Kon. Akad. Wetensch. Amsterdam 30: 415. 26 Feb 1927, nom. rej. prop.
(=) Helio-discoaster S.H. Tan in Verslag Afd. Natuurk. Kon. Akad. Wetensch. Amsterdam 36: 201. 26 Feb 1927 & in Proc. Sect. Sci. Kon. Akad. Wetensch. Amsterdam 30: 414. 26 Feb 1927, nom. rej. prop. Typus: H. barbadiensis S.H. Tan.
(=) Hemi-discoaster S.H. Tan in Verslag Afd. Natuurk. Kon. Akad. Wetensch. Amsterdam 36: 204. 26 Feb 1927 & in Proc. Sect. Sci. Kon. Akad. Wetensch. Amsterdam 30: 416. 26 Feb 1927, nom. rej. prop. Typus (vide Loeblich & Tappan in Phycologia 5: 144. 1966): H. molengraaffii S.H. Tan (‘molengraaffi’)
and its official response, Herendeen, Patrick S. (2016) "Report of the Nomenclature Committee on Fossils: 10". Taxon, 65(2), 382–387, https://doi.org/10.12705/652.18, which states (e.g.) "The generic name Discoaster was published by Tan in 1931", etc. The above names are all botanical (calcareous nannofossils, normally treated as Haptophyta) but he also named new taxa in both Radiolaria and Foraminifera, which would fall under the zoological Code.
From the above it seems to me that works by Tan Sin Hok should be cited correctly as by Tan, S. H., and taxa authored by him as either "Tan" (in zoology for his Radiolaria and Foraminifera) and (preferably) either "Tan" or "S.H. Tan" (in botany, for Discoaster etc.). "Tan Sin Hok" would also not be incorrect, but only if it is understood that the format here is surname||forenames, as also found e.g. in Chinese authors, however these would normally be styled [author inits.||surname]] for anglophone users I think...
At present in Wikispecies, regarding his botanical taxa we have "Familia: †Discoasteraceae S.H. Tan" (correct per the above suggestion) but "Discoaster Tan Sin Hok", possibly also elsewhere since he also authored the calcareous nannofossil genera Eu-discoaster, Helio-discoaster, Hemi-discoaster plus a number of contained species.
For what it's worth, Neave/Nomenclator Zoologicus attributes Holocryptocapsa, Hemicryptocapsa, Stylocryptocapsa and Cenolarcopyle to "Tan", Helicolepidinoides, Helicocyclina, Radiocycloclypeus and Katacycloclypeus to "Hok", and Eolepidina to "Tan Sin Hok"... go figure! Tony 1212 (talk) 22:20, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Christian. The single work of his recorded in ZooBank is credited to his full name i.e. "Tan Sin Hok" (which is how it appears on the title page, as per the example reproduced in the "life and scientific legacy" account), similarly my own work/s may appear as "Anthony John Joseph Rees", however neither addresses quite how we should handle this name; ZooBank has an alternative rendering as well under the form "Tan, Sin Hok". The entry in Indonesian Wikipedia is interesting, although it mentions only a few of his taxon names. His 33 or so published works are also listed under "Tan Sin Hok" (sic) in the "life and scientific legacy" account, therefore would sort alphabetically under "T" which is good (Tan being the surname, certainly not Hok as per a subset of the Neave entries) but does not clarify whether we (Wikipedia and similar compendia) should use the full name or some other form such as "Tan, S. H.", or attribute his botanical taxa to "S.H." Tan", "Tan", or "Tan Sin Hok" (plus a reduced set of options with his zoological taxa, i.e. "Tan" vs. "Tan Sin Hok"). ... Tony 1212 (talk) 18:54, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Tony 1212: At least for botany there is IPNI, which gives "S.H.Tan" as the attribution to use for Tan Sin Hok. Though this is assuming this is the same taxon author (there is also a corresponding Wikidata item Q47127166 for the IPNI entry). Monster Iestyn (talk) 19:18, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As the article in ID wikipedia says this is a macropaleontologist working on Radiolaria, it seems logic that he is also listed in the International Plant Name Index as an Algae author, so it is reasonable to think that both items should be merged. Christian Ferrer (talk) 21:36, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure but I think in some Asiatic countries sometimes they are used to change the first name/last name order. Here something interesting [1] they says he is the son of "Tan Kiat Tjay", the father of " Elsa Aleida Tan", and the brother of several persons all with a name begining by "Tan". Seeing that I would say "Tan" is the last name. Christian Ferrer (talk) 21:48, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Monster IestynThanks for checking IPNI, I should have thought of that earlier :) OK, it seems that it makes sense to have one "author" entry for him in both Wikidata and Wikispecies, noting that his name may be cited in different ways in zoology ("Tan") and botany "S.H.Tan"/"S.H. Tan" - I prefer the space before the surname, although IPNI does not - and I will make corresponding changes to authorship of his taxa in the system under my own control (IRMNG) directly; I noted in passing that most of the botanical names there are presently credited to "Tan Sin Hok" following input data sources used - 7 genera and 3 species in botany and so will require to be changed (I may also add a note about the alternative use of his full name in some other sources). Not sure yet about whether zoological ones are "correct" in IRMNG as yet but will need to check those as well... Cheers Tony Tony 1212 (talk) 22:31, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Zoological entries in IRMNG appear to be all OK - I did have one doubled up (Radiocycloclypeus Hok, 1932 vs. Radiocycloclypeus Tan, 1932) but deprecated the first one of these a few days back (which was when I decided to ask this question, for clarification), the cited authority for others was corrected (where needed) a few days ago as well.
Searching thanks to the list of articles available here [3], I found the De Ingenieur in Nederlandsch-Indie journal archives [4] where several article from him are available (included some with new taxa). In one article when he give the authorship to himself he use "Tan", e.g. I quote from [5] p. 110: "(...) Groszforaminiferen konnten Orthogenesen auszer bei den Miogypsiniden bisher schon bei Lepidccyclinen (Tan 1935b, 1936) und Cycloclypeen (Tan 1932) nachgewiesen werden..." Christian Ferrer (talk) 06:09, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Christian FerrerThanks Christian, confirms that use of "Tan" as the surname is sound.
By the way WoRMS (using data from AlgaeBase) has "Discoaster Tan Sin Hok, 1931" as a nomen dubium, which it clearly is not (over 100 species currently accepted in micropalaeontology, see https://www.irmng.org/aphia.php?p=taxdetails&id=1072805 ...). On further checking - the current (Sep 2022) actual AlgaeBase entry no longer says "nomen dubium", so maybe WoRMS still needs to catch up with a refresh here :)
Not quite sure when a topic is considered "agreed" here, also I am not an experienced WS editor, but I am happy to change the cited author for Discoaster, if someone else will make and link the required author and reference pages?? Or, maybe, someone else could do all three and I will check them?? Also (somewhere) there should probably be a note regarding the variant cited name forms out in the literature, as well as the differing requirements for zoology and botany, both of which are involved... Cheers Tony Rees Tony 1212 (talk) 19:04, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that at the end of October RBG Kew and partners will be closing down World Checklist of Vascular Plants (WCVP) and World Checklist of Selected Plant Families (WCSP}, however the data will continue to be available in Plants of the World Online (POWO). If possible we will need a bot to alter all the many templates. In the mean time I suggest that editors refrain from using WCSP and WCVP in favour of POWO. Thanks. Andyboorman (talk) 09:26, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Announcing the preliminary results of the 2022 Board of Trustees election Community Voting period
Thank you to everyone who participated in the 2022 Board of Trustees election process. Your participation helps seat the trustees the community seeks on the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees.
These are the preliminary results of the 2022 Board of Trustees election:
You may see more information about the Results and Statistics of this Board election.
The Board will complete their review of the most voted candidates, including conducting background checks. The Board plans to appoint new trustees at their meeting in December.
Best,
Movement Strategy and Governance
This message was sent on behalf of the Board Selection Task Force and the Elections Committee
Hello. I'm writing on behalf of the Wikimedia Foundation Web team. In two weeks, we would like to make the Vector 2022 skin the default on this wiki.
We have been working on it for the past three years. So far, it has been the default on more than 30 wikis, including sister projects, all accounting for more than 1 billion pageviews per month. On average 87% of active logged-in users of those wikis use Vector 2022.
It would become the default for all logged-out users, and also all logged-in users who currently use Vector legacy. Logged-in users can at any time switch to any other skins. No changes are expected for users of these skins.
[Why is a change necessary] The current default skin meets the needs of the readers and editors as these were 13 years ago. Since then, new users have begun using Wikimedia projects. The old Vector doesn't meet their needs.
[Objective] The objective for the new skin is to make the interface more welcoming and comfortable for readers and useful for advanced users. It draws inspiration from previous requests, the Community Wishlist Surveys, and gadgets and scripts. The work helped our code follow the standards and improve all other skins. We reduced PHP code in Wikimedia deployed skins by 75%. The project has also focused on making it easier to support gadgets and use APIs.
[Changes and test results] The skin introduces a series of changes that improve readability and usability. The new skin does not remove any functionality currently available on the Vector skin.
The sticky header makes it easier to find tools that editors use often. It decreases scrolling to the top of the page by 16%.
The new table of contents makes it easier to navigate to different sections. Readers and editors jumped to different sections of the page 50% more than with the old table of contents. It also looks a bit different on talk pages.
The new search bar is easier to find and makes it easier to find the correct search result from the list. This increased the amount of searches started by 30% on the wikis we tested on.
The skin does not negatively affect pageviews, edit rates, or account creation. There is evidence of increases in pageviews and account creation across partner communities.
[Try it out] Try out the new skin by going to the appearance tab in your preferences and selecting Vector 2022 from the list of skins.
It's possible to configure and personalize our changes. We support volunteers who create new gadgets and user scripts. Check out our repository for a list of currently available customizations, or add your own.
If no large concerns are raised, we plan on deploying in the week of October 3, 2022. If your community would like to request more time to discuss the changes, hit the button and write to us. We can adjust the calendar.
I have "large concerns" about this proposal. Above are two screenshots of Antônio Freire de Carvalho Filho. Apart from changing the skin, no other settings were changed. Note how the 2022 version displays less of the page content - the categories, and part of the Authority control template, are missing. Note also the excessive white space above and below the article title with the 2022 skin. (I have a user script running, that injects Wikidata metadata below the title, but that's the same in both images).
Hello @Pigsonthewing. Thank you for your comment. Have you had a chance to learn more on why we've limited the content width? What disadvantages of this change do you see? (Regarding the styling of the template, I'm sure it'll be easy to fix.) SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 21:34, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Pigsonthewing, thanks. Regarding the template, I meant the authority control. There's an odd lack of the border - I don't know why, but we'll investigate. About the disadvantages - I understand that you notice a lot of white space and less content being above the fold. That's correct, but these are only facts. What do you think about these? Why do you think these are disadvantages? SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 10:15, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WS is incorrect according to IPNI and as Mortonia utahensis is a USA Celastraceae it is highly unlikely that John Nelson would have authored it, as he was a gymnosperm specialist. I have corrected the WS page. Andyboorman (talk) 11:29, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Any botanists have any idea why Robert Brown of New Zealand (c.1820–1906) is also known as Robert Brown tertius? I noticed the Dictionary of New Zealand Biography also mentions this name, but this doesn't seem to be enough of an explanation to me alone. Looking to IPNI, this Robert Brown's abbreviation is actually "R.Br.bis", while the abbreviation "R.Br.ter" (ter being the adverbial for the ordinal "tertius") goes instead to Robert Brown of Campster? It seems almost as if somewhere there's been a mixup, or somehow these Robert Browns "2" and "3" swapped places at some point.
I'm mostly asking because I have a mind to re-title Robert Brown tertius to either "Robert Brown of NZ" (matching IPNI) or "Robert Brown of New Zealand" (giving the country name in full), or some other page name if there is a better one to use. Monster Iestyn (talk) 15:54, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hm, looking up Brummit & Powell's 1992 Authors of Plant Names first, it looks like it also used "R.Br.bis" for Brown, Robert, of NZ and "R.Br.ter" for Brown, Robert, of Campster: [7]. So if IPNI did make an error, they copied it from B&P (1992) directly? I'm more inclined to think the New Zealand dictionary is wrong somehow, but I'll check with IPNI anyway. Monster Iestyn (talk) 16:31, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've found just one publication [8] referring to a "John A. Shotwell" as director of the Museum of Natural History, University of Oregon, which J. Arnold Shotwell is often noted as being. So J. may well be "John", but since I have not found any other sources to back this up yet I can't really tell if that's true. I don't even know yet if Dr. Shotwell is still alive or not. Monster Iestyn (talk) 11:58, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed here: "Jesse Arnold Shotwell... died Feb. 10, 2012... a Ph.D. in Paleontology from the University of California, Berkley... full professor of Biology at the University of Oregon where he taught Paleontology and served as curator of the Museum of Natural History." Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits20:41, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wow the Russian military strike a high value military target. Seriously and hopefully specimens can be moved to a secure and secret location. Andyboorman (talk) 12:17, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wikimedia Commons is in crisis. There are numerous concerns and complaints about our central media platform, for many years.
Therefore, this open letter asks the Wikimedia Foundation to Think big! about the future of Wikimedia Commons.
In late August 2022, we at the Commons Photographers User Group talked about Wikimedia Commons. The result of these and other talks is this open letter.
We invite everyone to sign this open letter to show how important Wikimedia Commons is to you. You may be a regular Commons contributor, a Wikipedian, an editor of Wiktionary or Wikivoyage, or maybe you represent an affiliation. We also strongly invite other people who are involved with Commons directly or indirectly, maybe in the context of a GLAM.
I have created a new template {{SOL}} to link to the specialist, impressive and comprehensive Solanaceae Source database. The template attempts to search and link to an individual taxon, such as Solanum × edinense. It is not perfect, but works reasonably well and hopefully the citations are OK. If anyone wants to "improve" it feel free to go ahead. Thanks and best regards. Andyboorman (talk) 07:58, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello botanists . Please read {{Yang et al., 2022a}} there are a number of significant changes proposed to the higher level taxonomy of this major group of plants. Is the community happy with following the proposed classification, or are there major criticisms? There will be changes mainly from class to tribe. Best regards. Andyboorman (talk) 18:51, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Andyboorman: - thanks for the heads-up on this; I've downloaded a copy and started reading it. First thoughts: most of the higher level changes I'd be happy with, though they'll be a nightmare to edit into Commons and Wikidata on top of here (Wikidata has made changes like this horribly cumbersome!). One I do have reservations though, is their treatment of Gnetidae as sister to Pinidae and that pair as sister to Cupressidae ["gnepine hypothesis"]; recently, Majeed et al. 2021 (here) strongly supported Gnetophytes as sister to all conifers ["gnetifer hypothesis"].
I'm also not happy about the generic treatments within Cupressaceae; the multiple splits in Cupressus and Juniperus – far from easy to define, particularly in Cupressus s.l. – do not sit well with the lumpings in the Callitris group (it would make more sense to split Octoclinis [Callitris macleayana] and the two New Caledonian Callitris to resolve monophyly there). Acceptance of the splits in Cupressus s.l. demands the acceptance of multiple intergeneric hybrids (otherwise unknown in conifers, so very relevant in showing close relationships), yet there has never been the slightest hint of any hybrids between Cupressus s.l. and Juniperus s.l. Worth adding too that the breakups in Cupressus and Juniperus, if one were to use a common level of genetic or temporal differentiation, would also necessitate a split of Pinus into two or more genera; the split of [subgenus] Strobus from [subgenus] Pinus (at least mid Cretaceous [Ran et al. 2018], possibly earlier on fossil evidence) long predates the splits in the entire Cupressus – Juniperus clade (mid to late Eocene [Zhu et al. 2018]). They do accept the merger of Fokienia into Chamaecyparis (which I support), but oddly don't mention the suggestion that Microbiota may be better lumped with Platycladus, which also looks to have a lot of merit.
Finally, I don't see that splitting Cephalotaxaceae from Taxaceae has any merit. It is not required to maintain monophyly in Taxaceae, but may do the reverse; multiple morphological features suggest that Torreya and Amentotaxus may be closer to Cephalotaxus than they are to Taxus. - MPF (talk) 10:43, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Andyboorman: - thanks! I'd already found that; it's on google books here. But the Die Natürlichen Pflanzenfamilien citation is 4 years earlier, and looks valid to me (unless it needs explicit statement of 'subfamily'?). The Deutsche Dendrologie listing is odd though as it only includes one genus there (the only one hardy in German cultivation!) but not the type genus, so clearly Koehne was thinking of the name as an established name, not a new one - MPF (talk) 17:58, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
More thoughts #2 - Not sure their tribal classification is worth including here; too many monogeneric tribes make it rather pointless (and they also don't use tribes at all in Araucariaceae, despite the ancience of the generic divisions in that family). - MPF (talk) 14:29, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Andyboorman: More thoughts #3 - also worth looking at Wang et al 2022 (here) cited in the above, with strong support for including Fokienia in Chamaecyparis; unfortunately, they didn't include the Chamaecyparis taiwanensis / C. obtusa var. formosana question in their study - MPF (talk) 17:20, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A case of too much order bringing chaos 😂 At one point in prehistory, Saurischia will have been an order, but as time passed, it diversified, and aged to become a higher rank. We need some way of indicating this, but it won't be easy. When Tyrannosaurus was still alive, order would have been the right rank for Saurischia; now, 70 million years on with Corvus corax alive, that is no longer true. - MPF (talk) 18:41, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Invitation to attend “Ask Me Anything about Movement Charter” Sessions
During the 2022 Wikimedia Summit, the Movement Charter Drafting Committee (MCDC) presented the first outline of the Movement Charter, giving a glimpse on the direction of its future work, and the Charter itself. The MCDC then integrated the initial feedback collected during the Summit. Before proceeding with writing the Charter for the whole Movement, the MCDC wants to interact with community members and gather feedback on the drafts of the three sections: Preamble, Values & Principles, and Roles & Responsibilities (intentions statement). The Movement Charter drafts will be available on the Meta page here on November 14, 2022. Community wide consultation period on MC will take place from November 20 to December 18, 2022. Learn more about it here.
With the goal of ensuring that people are well informed to fully participate in the conversations and are empowered to contribute their perspective on the Movement Charter, three “Ask Me Anything about Movement Charter" sessions have been scheduled in different time zones. Everyone in the Wikimedia Movement is invited to attend these conversations. The aim is to learn about Movement Charter - its goal, purpose, why it matters, and how it impacts your community. MCDC members will attend these sessions to answer your questions and hear community feedback.
The “Ask Me Anything” sessions accommodate communities from different time zones. Only the presentation of the session is recorded and shared afterwards, no recording of conversations. Below is the list of planned events:
Asia/Pacific: November 4, 2022 at 09:00 UTC (your local time). Interpretation is available in Chinese and Japanese.
Europe/MENA/Sub Saharan Africa: November 12, 2022 at 15:00 UTC (your local time). Interpretation is available in Arabic, French and Russian.
North and South America/ Western Europe: November 12, 2022 at 15:00 UTC (your local time). Interpretation is available in Spanish and Portuguese.
On the Meta page you will find more details; Zoom links will be shared 48 hours ahead of the call.
Call for Movement Charter Ambassadors
Individuals or groups from all communities who wish to help include and start conversations in their communities on the Movement Charter are encouraged to become Movement Charter Ambassadors (MC Ambassadors). MC Ambassadors will carry out their own activities and get financial support for enabling conversations in their own languages. Regional facilitators from the Movement Strategy and Governance team are available to support applicants with MC Ambassadors grantmaking. If you are interested please sign up here. Should you have specific questions, please reach out to the MSG team via email: strategy2030@wikimedia.org or on the MS forum.
We thank you for your time and participation.
On behalf of the Movement Charter Drafting Committee,
I don't think that Lobivia arachnacantha subsp. densiseta has actually been published. Apparently Echinopsis arachnacantha subsp. densiseta is what M.Lowry published in 2002. Plantdrew (talk) 16:16, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is a very common cactus in cultivation where it is most commonly found as Echinopsis ancistrophora Speg. The nomenclature is uncertain/disputed in my opinion and depends on the source you choose to follow. Andyboorman (talk) 07:39, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I thnk MILEPRI meant the problem is on Wikimedia Commons, not Wikispecies: Category:Justicia (text) [for the Spanish word "justicia"] is appearing in Category:Justicia [for the plant genus] when clearly it shouldn't be. It either means not using Commons' "text cat" template in the text category (which is the cause of this), or the plant genus category will have to be renamed. Monster Iestyn (talk) 02:15, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I search infos about an author "Brian J. Smith", see the article there: https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/page/34950744. For Wikidata Q106911658 an author item was created Q106912296 where it is said that he is a ?paleontologist (born in 1939)? but no sources are provided. I found here Brian J. Smith, an entomologist. Note that an entomologist can very well be one of the authors for a replacement name of e.g. an echinoderm when one of the homonyms is an insect. I also found some publications there
I just found this BHL creator page: [9] , it seems that there is an Australian malacologist called Brian J. Smith, this is more likely this one, but wrongly tagged as paleontologist in Wikidata (or at least not only a paleontologist). See also:
It certainly seems possible to me there are multiple Brian J. Smiths involved, from what I can tell. The affilation of the Brian J. Smith in {{Smith, 2008a}} is "National Institute of Water and Atmosphere , Hamilton, New Zealand", while the affilation of the Brian J. Smith in {{Smith & Kershaw, 1990}} is "5 Talinga Crescent, Shepparton, Victoria 3630, Australia" instead. Looking at the page's history, PeterR created the page Brian J. Smith for the New Zealand entomologist (with the text "Entomologist, New Zealand") but for whatever reason Stho002 removed this information later, and even now the page is rather barebones in its usefulness as a result. Monster Iestyn (talk) 21:20, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Plus the oldest publication listed in his ResearchGate profile is 1995; all the publications listed also appear to be related to Trichoptera, Plecoptera, or freshwater ecology, many if not all related to New Zealand. What I'm not sure of right now though is whether the Brian J. Smith of Smith & Kershaw, 1990 is the same as the malacologist or maybe even a separate Australian zoologist of some sort. Monster Iestyn (talk) 22:43, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It is the malacologist (see obituaries listed below:)
Obituaries for the malacologist (listed in Coan & Kabat) are:
L. Turner, 2006. Memories of a ‘snailer’.Brian J. Smith (1939-2006). Australian Shell News 130: 4 [portrait].
S. Boyd & A. Monger, 2006. Obituary: Brian John Smith 24.6.1939–19.7.2006. Molluscan Research 26(3): 118-123 [portrait, bibliography].
R. Burn, 2006. Brian John Smith 24.6.1939–19.7.2006: a malacological assessment. Molluscan Research 26(3): 122.
A. Monger, 2006. Tribute: Brian John Smith, 24 June 1939 – 19 July 2006.Victorian Naturalist (Blackburn) 123(6): 403-404 [portrait].
┌──────────┘ Great thanks you. We obviously need two different author pages and two items. We know the malacologist full name is "Brian John Smith", however I would have liked to know what is the "J." for the entomologist, but after to have open more than 10 article by him I still don't know, it's always "Brian J. Smith". So do wee keep Brian J. Smith for the entomologist and we create Brian John Smith for the malacologist? and with a little note at top as in Alexander V. Martynov? Christian Ferrer (talk) 08:05, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just want to let you know that there is a possibility to use {{Authority control}} on our reference templates. Exemples in {{Ekimova et al., 2022}} and {{O’Loughlin & O’Hara, 1990}}. Of course there are some conditions 1/ the reference template need to be added in the Wikidata item for the article (e.g. [10]. 2/ the Wikidata must contains the relevant infos, but of course you can add them yourself if needed (insofar as there is a property in Wikidata dedicated to it). 3/ if not already in Module:Authority control the functions corresponding to the properties used in Wikidata to store the data must be added. To do that you can look in the history of that page to see some exemples on how to do that, or you can ask for help. I will add a few functions such as BHL (page, part, bibliography), Biostor, Zenodo, ect... Christian Ferrer (talk) 08:57, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Tommy Kronkvist: As for the former one, the original authors refer to it as "MCP 41348" (see Google Books). I am, however, not sure whether the latter one is identical with this repository since the current type citation says "no longer extant in 1989" while MCP repository was founded only in 1998. --Eryk Kij (talk) 01:30, 16 November 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.
Vector legacy (current default)
Vector 2022
Vector legacy (current default)
Vector 2022
Comment note that the only taxon (Mortonia utahensis) on Wikispecies authored by John Nelson has its firt description available in BHL (BHL), however the author of the article is stated to be Aven Nelson see p. 425 at the begining of the article. Christian Ferrer (talk) 09:48, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
Resolved. Thanks to a joint effort by several contributors this issue has now been resolved. The main author page can be found at Peter Carl Friedrich Geyer. The Carl Geyer page was changed to a redirect and the Carl M. Geyer page plus old "Taxa by author" categories have been deleted. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 00:30, 2 November 2022 (UTC).
