Wikispecies:Village Pump/Archive 65

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.

Using the A template to put pages in Taxa by author categories[edit]

How does everyone feel about edits such as this one? In it, I'm adding the cat parameter with a non-zero value to the A template. This marks the authority as the author of the taxon, by automatically placing it in the right category. This makes the data a little more structured and avoids manually adding a category to the page. I'm not saying manually adding Taxa by author categories should be forbidden. They have their use on redirect pages for example and editors should be free to choose whether to use the template or the category. But is it frowned upon to replace one method with the other? Thanks! --Azertus (talk) 15:11, 1 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Seems reasonable to me. I'm trying to think of any example of when we wouldn't want that and I can't think of one. —Justin (koavf)TCM 23:38, 1 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It sounds a great idea, except the HotCat gadget would no longer work on those pages, unfortunately. In the case where someone renames a taxon author page and its corresponding taxa by author category, HotCat is very handy for quickly transferring all the pages to the renamed category (especially if there are hundreds of taxon pages to update). But this gadget currently requires the category to be manually added to each page, rather than through a template. (On that note, {{Repository link}} has the same problem) Monster Iestyn (talk) 00:40, 2 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
True, but the alternative would be to use AWB to replace them in bot-like fashion, which is approximately as difficult and quick. —Justin (koavf)TCM 00:49, 2 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Incorrect eponyms[edit]

Please see Category talk:Eponyms of James Alexander Brewer for a discussion about (supposed?) incorrect eponyms of U.S. botanist James Alexander Brewer. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 17:42, 2 September 2023 (UTC).Reply[reply]

Until recently, clicking on an ISBN link took you to the Special:BookSources page with only 3 links to BWB (Better World Books), OpenLibrary and Worldcat. It turns out that more links to book sources can be added in Wikispecies:Book sources; see for example en:Wikipedia:Book sources or de:Wikipedia:ISBN-Suche. In the URL, use the variable MAGICNUMBER instead of the ISBN (see mw:Manual:ISBN for more info). Feel free to edit this new page. Korg (talk) 20:01, 2 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Should these journal pages be merged?[edit]

The two pages ISSN 0080-3189 (for Boletim do Museu Nacional de Rio de Janeiro) and Boletim do Museu Nacional de Rio de Janeiro should perhaps be merged, or are they two different journals? Only the latter have a Wikidata item, which can be found at Q17154975.
Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 10:21, 27 August 2023 (UTC).Reply[reply]

According to ACNP (Italian Periodicals Catalogue): Boletim do Museu Nacional de Rio de Janeiro was published in 1923-1942, has the ISSN 0100-1507, and was subsequently split up into four series by subject: Antropologia, Botânica, Geologia and Zoologia. ISSN 0080-3189 is actually for the "Antropologia" series starting 1942, which I suspect has no relevance to Wikispecies unlike the other three.
So, I suggest renaming Boletim do Museu Nacional de Rio de Janeiro to ISSN 0100-1507 and deleting ISSN 0080-3189? Monster Iestyn (talk) 10:43, 27 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Tommy Kronkvist Boletim do Museu Nacional de Rio de Janeiro now renamed to ISSN 0100-1507, the other ISSN title needs to be deleted as it is incorrect. Monster Iestyn (talk) 11:18, 3 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Monster Iestyn:  Done. Thank you for redirecting the "Boletim…" page to "ISSN 0100-1507". The "ISSN 0080-3189" page has already been deleted by admin RLJ.Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 12:07, 3 September 2023 (UTC).Reply[reply]

Category:Series identifiers[edit]

I've been meaning to ask for a while now, but shouldn't everything in Category:Series identifiers (except maybe Category:ISSN) be in Category:Sources instead? Diving into Stho002's contributions from the date he created the Series identifiers category (17 July 2011) suggests to me he intended it for the ISSN category specifically, since ISSN is a type of series identifier, but since then it has been used to categorize a number of publications without an ISSN, making it appear like a duplicate of Category:Sources. Monster Iestyn (talk) 13:18, 3 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think it may be useful for us to differentiate between works that are printed "in series" (for example journals and bulletins) as opposed to written works that are published as single items (eg. books and many other larger "non-serial" works). That said, yes I think that the whole Category:Publications category tree should be cleaned up, including its subcategories Category:ISSN, Category:Journals, Category:Series identifiers‎, and Category:Sources. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 14:06, 3 September 2023 (UTC).Reply[reply]
The Sources category also contains works printed in series, so it doesn't look like these categories are being used consistently. Monster Iestyn (talk) 14:31, 3 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree. That was partly my point – sorry for not being clear enough. Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 17:48, 3 September 2023 (UTC).Reply[reply]
@Tommy Kronkvist No worries, fair enough. Those categories definitely need cleaning up, there's no doubt about that at least. For instance, Category:Journals exists but is only populated by 27 pages as of writing, and it has a few subcategories by subject - Category:Acarology journals and Category:Parasitology journals - which have even fewer pages each. But no categories exist for other subjects like botany, mycology, entomology, etc., and I don't know if we should have these existing categories on Wikispecies or not in the first place. Monster Iestyn (talk) 18:51, 3 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

────────── In my opinion the ISSN category should be a subcategory of the Journals category, since more or less all of our ISSN pages refers to scientific journals. However the two categories shouldn't be merged: many scientific periodicals doesn't have ISSNs (notably the older ones), and having a category specifically listing the journals with ISSNs makes it easier to look them up in external databases.

Personally I don't think we need subcategories for singular fields such as acarology, botany, parasitology etc., partly because there are a lot of journals not specifically aimed at one singular discipline. Hence if a journal prints articles about for example mycology as well as "main" taxonomical papers we would have to add it to both "Category:Journals" as well as the latter's subcategory "Category:Mycology journals", in which case we would end up bulding a messy category tree once again... In the same way we shouldn't have pages that are members of both "Category:Journals" and "Category:ISSN", but unfortunately that's the case even today. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 19:54, 3 September 2023 (UTC).Reply[reply]

I know there are book series and monograph series with ISSNs... should those be counted as journals? Monster Iestyn (talk) 22:10, 3 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, always. This is ISSN standard. Anna Pavlova IFPNI Staff (talk) 22:14, 3 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Resources in the IP user contribution pages[edit]

When visiting the contribution page of an unregistered user, e.g. Special:Contributions/, there is no link to external resources to see info about this IP, like their global contributions. Such resources could be useful, for example to see if the IP has been blocked on another wiki. On other wikis, they have been added, see for example m:Special:Contributions/ or d:Special:Contributions/ If we find them useful, the page MediaWiki:Sp-contributions-footer-anon can be created (corresponding page on Meta: m:MediaWiki:Sp-contributions-footer-anon, on Wikidata: d:MediaWiki:Sp-contributions-footer-anon). Korg (talk) 07:46, 4 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have imported that page from Meta, along with {{Anontools/ipv4}}, and it seems to be working now.
However, be aware that a pending change to MediaWiki will obfuscate IP addresses for most viewers. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:54, 4 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you, Andy. As a note, the message can be localised. It has been done so on MediaWiki, Meta, Commons, with MediaWiki having the most translations of that message. While I'm at it, the page for registered users, MediaWiki:Sp-contributions-footer, can also be localised; it has the most translations on Wikidata. Korg (talk) 18:47, 4 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Proposal to rename Category:Species named after celebrities[edit]

Please see Category talk:Species named after celebrities. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:46, 4 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Duke: Herbarium and Disambiguation page for Authors[edit]

Dear colleagues, who could resolve the creation of a new disambiguation page for authors Duke, since the WS has already homonymic DUKE for Herbarium acronym? Anna Pavlova IFPNI Staff (talk) 08:38, 7 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello Anna, the disambiguation page may be Duke (author), or - if you like to include a link to the herbarium - Duke (disambiguation) . Kind regards, --Thiotrix (talk) 09:52, 7 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello, or simply Duke, as the page does not exist? Korg (talk) 19:19, 7 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Simia monacha[edit]

Hello, Pithecia monachus has as its protonym gbif Simia monacha Geoffroy, 1812 (Simia monachus BnF Gallica seemingly an incorrect original spelling). Cercopithecus mona has as its protonym Simia mona Schreber, 1774, Simia monacha Schreber, 1804 BHL gbif a synonym BHL. Is there a homonym issue with Simia monacha Geoffroy, 1812 (separate from the date question, as coming from the same publication as Simia lugens, Humboldt, 1811)? Thank you, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 15:05, 7 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Same type repository?[edit]

I wonder whether MIZP (Museum and Institute of Zoology, Polish Academy of Sciences) and MILZ (Muzeum i Instytut Zoologii PAN, Warszawa, Poland) might actually be refering to the same museum, and perhaps should be merged? –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 15:42, 8 September 2023 (UTC).Reply[reply]

Yes they refer to the same place, "Muzeum i Instytut Zoologii PAN [=Polskiej Akademii Nauk]" is the Polish name for "Museum and Institute of Zoology, Polish Academy of Sciences". Monster Iestyn (talk) 19:32, 8 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
However, it turns out "MILZ" is actually a misreading of MIIZ (uppercase i rather than L), yet another instance of the same type repository. Monster Iestyn (talk) 19:35, 8 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So which one of the three should we use as the "main" repository page, into which we merge the other two? –Tommy Kronkvist (talk)‚ 13:06, 9 September 2023 (UTC).Reply[reply]
No idea, except that it should definitely not be "MILZ". Also, it turns out to be four: MZPW (for Museum Zoologicum Polonicum, Warszawa) is yet another acronym for the same place according to Insect and Spider Collections of the World website. The website of the museum+institute itself uses either of the acronyms MIZ PAS or MiIZ PAN depending on language, but these are not intended as repository acronyms obviously. Monster Iestyn (talk) 13:40, 9 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Elizabeth 'Lizzie' Hingley's gastropod[edit]

I have been adding data about Lizzie Hingley (Q122371999) (a modern-day fossil-hunter, after whom Turnersuchus hingleyae is named) to Wikidata; and found a source that says she also has a gastropod named after her. Can anyone suggest what taxon that might be, please? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:01, 9 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


This started as a general question of why isn't the standard page format a template for formatting's sake (and organization, and standardization, etc) and wandered into a more feasible idea of all the current templates used to list child-taxa (e.g. sp, splast, subfam, subfamlast) why can't a single trio of templates be made to handle it? Childtaxa, species, and subspecies.

{{Childtaxa|rank=Subfamily|Fooinae|Wooinae|Booinae|extinct=Kooinae|extinct=Zooinae}} or {{Childtaxa|rank=Subfamily|Fooinae;Wooinae;Booinae|extinct=Kooinae;Zooinae}}


{{Subspecies|species=Woo foo|boo|koo|zoo}}

I know just enough about templating making- not on Wikispecies, though- to be dangerous, but that means I think that this is definitely feasible, but not enough to make it myself. But I think it would be much easier to use than the current variety of templates. Happy editing, SilverTiger12 (talk) 22:39, 6 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sounds an interesting idea, but are the current templates too deeply embedded in use, with perhaps hundreds of thousands of pages that would need changing? That would take a huge lot of volunteer-hours (even with robot assistance) to accomplish, for what benefit? - MPF (talk) 23:20, 8 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I was suggesting it as something that could be implemented over time, a gradual replacement of the current templates. The benefit is the simplicity, and that the proposed template is more intuitive than the current confusing set. SilverTiger12 (talk) 21:35, 11 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Authority control on reference templates[edit]

Would there be an appetite for, and at least one user sufficiently technically-minded so as to be able readily to implement (by bot?), the addition (as, eg, on {{Linnaeus, 1771a}}), of {{Authority control}} as the penultimate line on all reference templates? Where there is (currently) no, eg, ZooBank or BHL entry on linked wikidata items/pages, there would be no visible change here (though the reference template would draw this information as and when added to wikidata). Where the same links are already on the wikispecies reference page, there would be less benefit, but >0 templates don't have these links. Thank you, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 06:14, 11 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Pteropus - type species[edit]

Hello, how should one write the type species of Pteropus?

  • Vespertilio niger, ZooBank, Opinion 1894 BHL
  • Vespertilio vampirus niger, MSW3
  • Vespertilio vampyrus niger, correction of incorrect original spelling
  • (Vesptertilio vampirus niger, incorrect subsequent spelling, Opinion 1894 BHL)
  • (Vesp. Vampirus niger, exact original inscription, BHL)

Thank you, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 17:55, 12 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Most correct would be
Type Species: Pteropus niger (Vespertilio niger Kerr, 1792:xx) sec. ICZN 1998
Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 00:21, 13 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I guess the question relates to the filling of your sandwich. In Kerr, 1792 itself, as above, there is no Vespertilio niger only, as written, Vesp. Vampirus niger. Per ICZN 67.2.1, 'the "originally included nominal species" comprise only those included in the newly established [??] nominal genus or subgenus, having been cited in the original publication by an available name (including citation by an incorrect spelling [Art. 67.6]) of a species or subspecies'. So seemingly it's ok to state Vespertilio vampirus niger because that is understood to be Vespertilio vampyrus niger, but how about Vespertilio niger, which is not as such "cited in the original publication"? How about the filling of your sandwich? (This is, I think, the only reference to subspecies in the relevant Articles; I'm not quite sure about "newly established", Vespertilio was already around, but I guess it means the act of type fixation newly establishes the "nominal genus", per 42.3?) Thank you,Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 05:03, 13 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
How about Pteropus niger (Vespertilio niger ["Vesp. Vampirus niger"=Vespertilio vampirus niger; recte, Vespertilio vampyrus niger] Kerr, 1792:xx) sec. ICZN 1998, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 05:26, 13 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The taxonomy is irrelevant. It is a species group name and a genus group name thats all thats important to nomenclature. Subspecies and species are the same thing, genus and subgenus are the same thing. So it does not make any difference in the end. By the way the xx is the page number I do not know what page it was first circumscribed on. Anyway all the extras your adding is just adding its taxonomic history, put that in a decent synonymy not the declaration of which taxon is the type species. You asked for the correct way of writing it under zoological nomenclature it should be simple and only says what it has to. Type species is Aus bus, (original combination + author) according to (secundum) reviewer. Thats it. Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 07:45, 13 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ok, ICZN 79.4 seems relevant, so I think the answer is Vespertilio vampirus niger BHL; I think the question may come down to what counts as an entry of the "List of Available Names in Zoology", the statement that the name is placed on the List (in the Opinion, same BHL link), or what ZooBank shows [1], in its capacity as "The Official Registry of Zoological Nomenclature". I guess it must be the former, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 12:22, 13 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Upcoming server switch: All wikis will be read-only for a while[edit]

Hello friends!

I wish to inform you that the Wikimedia Foundation is about to switch the traffic between its data centers. The server switch will take place a week from now, on September 20 at 14:00 (UTC). A banner will be displayed here on Wikispecies 30 minutes before the operation starts.

Unfortunately, all editing must stop while the switch is made. You will only be able to read, but not edit, all wikis for a short period of time. This includes Wikispecies. Luckily the operation will most likely only take a couple of minutes, but please be aware that any edits you try to save during this time might be lost. More information can be found at Meta-Wiki: Tech/Server switch. As a side effect – although this will not affect most users – please note that GitLab will be unavailable for as much as 90 minutes.

—Best regards, Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 14:00, 13 September 2023 (UTC).Reply[reply]


Is wikispecies trying to convert old pages to three domains or is it just doing both? I wanted to help with this project but my biology course in high school and the following were all in five kingdoms so I was wondering if I could make pages using five kingdoms( Monera, Protista, Animalia, Fungi, Plantae) Ducklan (talk) 16:43, 13 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Ducklan: Please see the "Taxon Navigation" section in the top right corner of Wikispecies' Main Page for a hint. :-) Best regards, Tommy Kronkvist (talk)‚ 16:50, 13 September 2023 (UTC).Reply[reply]

Herrania balaensis[edit]

In the preparation of the taxon Herrania balaensis a conflict of author appears, since Hassler assigns it to Carl Gottlieb Traugott Preuss, in Tropicos and IPNI it appears as Paul Rudolph Preuss and in POWO as Hans Preuss, I would appreciate references to clarify the enigma. Saludos.--MILEPRI (talk) 09:10, 14 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The taxon was published in Expedition nach Central- und Sudamerika and edited by Paul Rudolph Preuss, so I believe this is the real author.--MILEPRI (talk) 09:27, 14 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@MILEPRI: If it helps, Expedition nach Central- und Sudamerika is available online at the Internet Archive. Monster Iestyn (talk) 09:35, 14 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@MILEPRI: and thanks @Monster Iestyn:. Reading the title page and the protologue note on page 15 it is clear that IPNI appear to be correct, in my opinion. Hassler incorrectly assumes Preuss = Carl Gottlieb Traugott Preuss, but IPNI standard format was not used at that time. No idea where POWO got theirs from - I will check. Andyboorman (talk) 11:11, 14 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

19 years ago[edit]

wmf:Meetings/September 5, 2004. See also Wikispecies:Charter. Korg (talk) 13:37, 5 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

yes which is why its always important to follow this initial concept. Wikispecies is a bridge to academic biologists and not a wikipedia. It should maintain its difference to wikipedia and hence I tendto argue against the inclusion of information here that should be the domain and mandate of wikipedia, eg common names etc. We are gatherers of scientific data, we do not write pages for general usage. When among colleagues I promote wikispecies as an academic endaevor devoid of the issues that most academics in taxonomy see on the wikipedia pages. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 17:33, 5 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

───────────────────────── This point is interesting: " should work to strongly support integration with Wikipedia, to help avoid duplication of effort..."

How is duplication of effort avoided? How is Wikispecies integrated with Wikipedia? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:14, 7 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Personally I have always felt that the taxon boxes on Wikipedia in any language could serve well to be based on what we have here. This would keep consistency across languages in particular which is lacking at present. Also we present the scientific evidence of the classification, it would be good to see that used by and referred to by Wikipedia. Biggest issue with duplication is when the pages do not agree. Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 18:29, 7 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"could serve well" - but do not, with no roadmap available for how that might happen. Meanwhile, they are already pulling in data from Wikidata, with the desired consistency, and with a mechanism for citing scientific evidence. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:13, 8 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Pigsonthewing: "Meanwhile, they are already pulling in data from Wikidata..." Are you referring to the English Wikipedia and its taxobox system? If so, is the data really taken from Wikidata? There is an automated taxobox system, but data seems to be stored internally (see for example en:Vulpes; the edit link on the right end of the bar that says "Scientific classification", in the taxobox, points to en:Template:Taxonomy/Vulpes). Note that on Commons, there are two systems (see for example c:Category:Vulpes): the old one, c:Template:Taxonavigation, with data added manually, and c:Template:Wikidata Infobox, with data drawn from Wikidata. Korg (talk) 20:19, 15 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, I'm referring to multiple other Wikipedias. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:47, 15 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK, thanks. Korg (talk) 10:15, 18 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

splast a plea.[edit]

If you come across a phrase such as; '''Typus:''' {{splast|D|urio|zibethinus}} L., vide J.A.Murray 1774.}} in the name or synonym section please could you edit out the {{splast|Taxon name}} leaving just Durio zibethinus, for example. The splast template adds an nunneccessary and annoying line break. Thanks Andyboorman (talk) 13:32, 26 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sounds like a job for a bot. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:32, 26 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes please! Andyboorman (talk) 16:10, 26 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Agreed, but make the name a link ''[[Durio zibethinus]]'' - MPF (talk) 20:11, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Eponyms of Fernando Höck[edit]

A new note on Category talk:Eponyms of Fernando Höck suggests we have these plants wrongly credited. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:52, 2 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Genera Lists[edit]

Are various Genera Lists based on letter-number useful, or are they to be considered for expunction? These lists are automatically generated from data in Wikidata and are periodically updated. Mariusm (talk) 15:31, 2 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If no one objects, i'll delete them. Mariusm (talk) 15:29, 3 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For creation of those lists see: Wikispecies:Village_Pump/Archive_54#Category_for_discussion:_Category:2_letter_genera_and_other_two. Burmeister (talk) 15:35, 3 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't see any utility, al all!--Hector Bottai (talk) 15:59, 3 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm deleting them... — The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mariusm (talkcontribs) 13:40, 5 October 2023‎.

Introducing Wikispecies at university[edit]

I'll be travelling to Bogota later this month and the organizers will give me a few mins to present a lightning talk about Wikispecies to university students. Please give me some high-level ideas on what to introduce and how to encourage new participation in Wikispecies in <5 mins. Thanks. OhanaUnitedTalk page 19:32, 2 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Recently, there was a talk about Wikispecies at a French-speaking convention. Perhaps Culex can give you some ideas. By the way, the text on your user page isn't very appealing from the outside :-) Korg (talk) 21:24, 2 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello. 5 minutes is very short. But here is an idea : I have noticed that one point that raises interest about Wikispecies with researchers is the fact that you can create a page for them (on Wikispecies, and from there on Wikidata) as long as they named at least one species, which is a way to give them some visibility, when obviously they would not be famous enough to have an article on Wikipedia. And, by the way, I was also in Bogota last February, and a had a talk to explain Wikipedia to high school students, it was a great experience. Culex (talk) 09:11, 3 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
things I have been told by my colleagues (ie other taxonomists and paleontologists) is that species is more scientific and evidence based going to the primary sources for each name. Whereas Wikipedia is more prose like (ie encyclopedic, and relies on secondary sources. Although we clearly do not have enough editors we are not reactionary in articlecreation, at least not deliberately. Whereas Wikidata is and Wikipedia the inclusion of articles on taxa requires some discussion and notability for the taxon, or as @Culex: pointed out for the authors. We will attemptto do author pages on all taxa. The more bare bones stuyle of presentation here is far more useful to academia than is wikipedia, which taxonomists are just not interested in all the discussion, they want the data. Just a few points here. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 11:20, 3 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello. In august I was invited by Wikimedia Colombia to do a 2 hours on line workshop for a group of around 6~7 hired new editors about Wikispecies. First explained the objectives of WS, the strong points being the simplicity of a taxon page, papers templates (primary sources as said) and author pages and how they link each other. Then I incentived them to focus on a certain group of species, specially those resident in the country demonstrating the inmense potencial for editions by showing hundreds of red links in certain genera i.e insects. Finally spent the rest of the time creating on line a paper template, a taxon page related and an author page related. Hope it helps. Good luck.--Hector Bottai (talk) 11:52, 3 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Readding Catalogue of Life to the Taxonbar?[edit]

The Catalogue of Life (CoL) entry was added then removed from the {{Taxonbar}} following these discussions:

It was removed because it was "non-functional", but I'm not sure what that means. Did it have anything to do with data quality? Or was it a technical issue? What do you think about readding CoL to the Taxonbar?

Additionally, are there other databases that are useful and should be added? Korg (talk) 16:56, 3 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There are 100s of these databases some better than others. The purpose of the GSLWG is the governence and analysis of the checklists. Best to keep CoL in there as its using more checklists than anyone (about 180 at present) and has 2M species in there now. Is Reptile Database in there? Certainly should be as its the go to platform for Reptiles. There are many and its probably overdoing it to list them all. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 18:02, 3 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, the Reptile Database is in the Taxonbar (here in the configuration module), see for example in the taxon page for Chelodina canni. Thanks to your question a bug has been fixed! Korg (talk) 19:28, 4 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For a long time (up until December 2021) CoL didn't have stable identifiers. So there was a technical issue. There was also some angst from Wikidata editors about CoL's data quality (Wikidata editors had to deal with it because CoL was used to create hundreds of thousands of articles on taxa on the Swedish, Cebuano and Waray Wikipedias, which then had to have Wikidata items). I would guess that the "non-functional" argument was mostly about the technical issue (which had been recently resolved when that argument was made). See the property proposal d:Wikidata:Property_proposal/Catalogue_of_Life_ID_2 for some links to previous discussions on Wikidata. 15:50, 4 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for the link! Korg (talk) 19:28, 4 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
One thing that needs to be realised is which databases actually rely on others. For example using turtles as I know them well. The best Checklist for Turtles is the IUCN TTWG Turtle Checklist which is freely available for download, here, I would recommend anyone interested in the group has it. But its not in a database form and is hence a little difficult to use in our environment. However, it is 100% utilised by the Reptile Database, whatever the RD has for turtles is straight out of the TTWG. Therefore RD covers the turtles. Only exceptions is the update schedule. RD is updated every 4 months, TTWG every two years. As such RD gets ahead a little between issues of the TTWG. Both RD and TTWG scored very highly in the GSLWG Metrics for Checklist Governance. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 22:56, 4 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Useful tip: seeing if a link is a redirect or points to a disambiguation page[edit]

(I already shared this tip here some years ago, but since I find it useful, I'd like to share it again.)

It is possible to customize the appearance of links that are redirects, and links that point to disambiguation pages. Often it is useful to know the nature of an internal link, for example a redirect in a list of species names may indicate that the name is a synonym and further action might be needed. As another example, in a page for a family, there may be a link to a genus name that in fact points to a disambiguation page, so the link may be corrected to point directly to the intended genus.

See for example the page Apocynaceae (accessed 4 October 2023).

To see the redirects and the links to disambiguation pages, put the following code in your personal stylesheet common.css:

/* Make links to redirects green */ { color: #398131; } { color: #71c567; }

/* Display links to disambiguation pages in orange [@author Kaldari] */ { color: #f17600; }

(Color #398131 for a link to a redirect page, color #71c567 for a link to a redirect page that you have visited, color #f17600 for a link to a disambiguation page.)

Alternatively, you can use a background color instead of coloring the link:

/* Background color for links to redirects
   Example found here: */ { background-color: #c1ffc1; }

/* Background color for links to disambiguation pages
   Example found here: */ { background-color: #ffe8e8; }

(Color #c1ffc1 for a link to a redirect page, color #ffe8e8 for a link to a disambiguation page.)

For more information, please see en:Help:Link color.

You can change the colors if you want; see en:Web colors or online resources like You can also see examples from others: [2], [3].

On an additional note, if you have cool tricks or tips, please feel free to share them! Korg (talk) 22:43, 4 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I had a similar one of these, but this one is a bit better than what I had. I have found this extraordinarily useful over the years. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 22:51, 4 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Works a treat, very useful. Thanks!! Andyboorman (talk) 15:49, 5 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Linaria rufescens[edit]

Linaria rufescens - 1700-1880 - Print - Iconographia Zoologica - Special Collections University of Amsterdam - UBA01 IZ16000221

I have found a reference to a species of bird, Linaria rufescens. Is that a synonym for Acanthis flammea?

The NHM ([4]) gives Carduelis rufescens (Vieillot) as a synonym for Carduelis flammea (Linnaeus).

To further confuse matters, Commons titles the above image as "Linaria rufescens", and categorises it as Acanthis cabaret.

I'm aware there has been some splitting (and lumping?) of species of Redpoll

Who is the author of Linaria rufescens, and in what source? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:50, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Linaria rufescens VIEILL. Mem. Acad. Torin. XXIII, (p. 202.) I833 sorry its what I have. Its Viellot I think as you have. Yes its in the British RedPolls small finches. So Acanthis most likely flammea. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 15:30, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Link to the page: BHL. The author is Vieillot; his name is most probably Louis Pierre Vieillot instead of Louis Jean Pierre Vieillot: [5], [6]. Korg (talk) 16:52, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hmmm. Q358217 sugegsts one person used both names. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:33, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've made the name a redirect. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:33, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Pigsonthewing, Faendalimas, and Korg: - it is Acanthis cabaret, not Acanthis flammea, from which (as Linaria borealis, the northern "large cabaret", 3 pages earlier BHL-BHL) Vieillot distinguishes it: "Les oiseleurs de Paris les appellent grand Cabaret pour les distinguer de l'espece suivante qu'ils nomment simplement Cabaret". In the area Vieillot is covering, A. cabaret is a resident breeding species; A. flammea a scarce winter visitor. The NHM synonymy is incorrect, likely a hangover from the time that A. cabaret was treated as a subspecies of A. flammea (which it isn't at the moment by IOC, but is by IUCN and may become again in the future by IOC). I've corrected the redirect - MPF (talk) 01:25, 23 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've also made Louis Pierre Vieillot into a redirect to Louis Jean Pierre Vieillot, though I do wonder if the page shouldn't be at the former; no-one seems to know where the 'Jean' came from? Thoughts, please! - MPF (talk) 10:45, 23 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
German Wikipedia moved the page to the former name, after discussion here. The article itself has a footnote commenting on the name. Both are understandable to non-speakers through online translation. I'm inclined to think we should follow suit. [updated] Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:39, 23 September 2023 (UTC).Reply[reply]
There is also discussion (in English) on him at birdforum [7], which is related to the German Wikipedia discussion. Monster Iestyn (talk) 12:41, 23 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

───────────────────────── Paul H. Oehser

"Louis Jean Pierre Vieillot (1748–1831)" (1948). Auk. 65 (4): 568–576. DOI: 10.2307/4080607



"Louis-Pierre (or Louis Jean Pierre) Vieillot, was born, say his biographers, at Yvetôt on the 10th May, 1748.

The 1883 reprint is on BHL. It would be good to track down the (French) sources quoted in that preface.

The mystery deepens. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:09, 23 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It turns out none of those sources use "Jean", nor even the initial "J", for Vieillot. I'll make the move. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:09, 24 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Done, but there are a lot of publication templates and taxon pages that need updating. Does anyone have a bot that can address these, please? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:22, 24 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No more pages link to Louis "Jean" Pierre Vieillot. ~700 pages fixed and correctly template referenced. One week work.--Hector Bottai (talk) 12:52, 7 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Pygmy Hippopotamus[edit]

Do Hexaprotodon liberiensis and Choeropsis liberiensis relate to the same animal? If so, should they be merged? MSGJ (talk) 21:41, 5 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, the same, following Boisserie's taxonomy (2005), corrected to Choeropsis liberiensis. Thanks, Burmeister (talk) 23:33, 5 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The name Hexaprotodon liberiensis should probably be mentioned in Choeropsis liberiensis, but with what qualifier? Something like "previously assigned genus"? Korg (talk) 07:56, 6 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Or perhaps "superseded combination" (like in WoRMS)? Korg (talk) 10:53, 6 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Odd one! It's always been Choeropsis from what I remember, where does Hexaprotodon come from? Would also be good if we could source a better pic of it in the wild, to replace that sordid zoo prisoner pic - MPF (talk) 14:02, 6 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Answering myself; Hexaprotodon is an extinct genus, related to Choeropsis, but not the same as it. Think I've managed to disentangle them at Commons and Wikidata where they had got lumped together. - MPF (talk) 15:44, 6 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I spent a little bit of time on this, and it was originally described as Hippopotamus. The above two combinations are generic re-assignments, evidently with Choeropsis as presently accepted one. Hexaprotodon should be a redirect in that case, and a mention with citation made for the original description. Neferkheperre (talk) 13:05, 7 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Neferkheperre: - not quite, no! Only "Hexaprotodon liberiensis" should be a redirect, to Choeropsis liberiensis (which it already is). The genus Hexaprotodon is a separate genus of several species of extinct hippos from Asia and northeastern Africa, only distantly related to Choeropsis. The only error is that someone at some stage thought, wrongly it turned out, that Choeropsis could be merged with Hexaprotodon. It is worth reading this paper which describes the history of all hippos very clearly. - MPF (talk) 00:47, 8 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Opportunities open for the Affiliations Committee, Ombuds commission, and the Case Review Committee[edit]

Hi everyone! The Affiliations Committee (AffCom), Ombuds commission (OC), and the Case Review Committee (CRC) are looking for new members. These volunteer groups provide important structural and oversight support for the community and movement. People are encouraged to nominate themselves or encourage others they feel would contribute to these groups to apply. There is more information about the roles of the groups, the skills needed, and the opportunity to apply on the Meta-wiki page.

On behalf of the Committee Support team,

~ Keegan (WMF) (talk) 16:41, 9 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

External search options[edit]

On the search page, there are radio buttons on the right (or below the search box) so you can perform a search using an external search engine. But the search is no longer functional if you select one of them, please see Wikispecies:Village Pump/Archive_63#All external search options are broken.

Have you used these options before? Would they still be useful?

They were added a long time ago in MediaWiki:Common.js (from line 266 down to line 415). On some other wikis, they have been turned into a gadget (enwiki: [8], en:MediaWiki:Gadget-externalsearch.js; frwiki: [9], fr:MediaWiki:Gadget-ExternalSearch.js). Korg (talk) 11:06, 18 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

For what it's worth, I have never used this option on any WMF wiki in 20 years. —Justin (koavf)TCM 12:49, 18 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Me neither. Andyboorman (talk) 13:25, 18 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Same. I would suggest removing the part of code "Change Special:Search to use a radio menu" in MediaWiki:Common.js, from line 266 to line 415, as it no longer works. Korg (talk) 11:26, 10 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Orphaned pages update[edit]

Does enyone know why Orphaned Pages List does not update anymore? It used to be updated twice a week, but it remains unchanged since 25 September. Mariusm (talk) 13:54, 6 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've reported the issue at phab:T348433. Korg (talk) 08:47, 9 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks @Korg:, the page was updated yesteday, after 2 weeks! Mariusm (talk) 14:32, 10 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You're welcome! It was also updated automatically today. The next update will be in 3 days, according to the interval defined in this file and this comment. Korg (talk) 17:43, 10 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Review and comment on the 2024 Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees selection rules package[edit]

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

Dear all,

Please review and comment on the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees selection rules package from now until 29 October 2023. The selection rules package was based on older versions by the Elections Committee and will be used in the 2024 Board of Trustees selection. Providing your comments now will help them provide a smoother, better Board selection process. More on the Meta-wiki page.


Katie Chan
Chair of the Elections Committee

01:12, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Kostina, K.F.[edit]

We have Klaudia Fedorovna Kostina (to which Klavdia Fedorovna Kostina redirects) and Category:Klavdia Fedorovna Kostina taxa (but not Category:Klaudia Fedorovna Kostina taxa, which was deleted). Which spelling is correct?

Either way, redirects from alternative spellings should not be deleted. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:08, 30 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Klavdia Fedorovna Kostina is a modern correct transliteration of Russian names. IPNI also recently adopted this spelling. Klaudia is not a direct transliteration; looks like Italian. IFPNI Staff (talk) 07:40, 24 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Track renamed images on Commons[edit]

Sometimes, when an image is renamed on Commons and the filename is updated on Wikispecies, it may no longer belong in the taxon page or the caption may need to be updated if the specimen has been misidentified. See for example these contributions: [10], [11], and these edits: [12], [13], [14]. It would be interesting to monitor such changes. One possibility would be to use the abuse filter (also known as the edit filter [15]); see en:Wikipedia:Edit filter for more information. If you think it would be useful, we could create a new filter that would add a tag to these changes, so we could find them more easily.

On the Polish Wikipedia, there is filter 46 that adds a tag to edits whose edit summary contains the text ([[c:GR|GR]]): [16].

If you want, please check Special:Contributions/CommonsDelinker, some captions need to be updated. I've encountered another case here: the file has been renamed with the comment "Probably silly ID", but the description has not been changed. Should the second image in the page Brachydesmus superus be removed? Korg (talk) 22:17, 18 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Good call! Quite a few of those CommonsDelinker contributions are mine ;-) Yes, editors re-identifying images absolutely need to remember to correct the pages those files are used in too, something I try to do, though it can be very tedious removing or changing a misidentified image used on 50 different language wikipedia pages! And yes, that second image on Brachydesmus superus should be removed, if its identification is uncertain. - MPF (talk) 01:40, 22 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks! I've removed the second image with likely wrong identification.
I found several image replacements by CommonsDelinker from over 10 years ago that went unnoticed:
There are probably more. Korg (talk) 10:18, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Taxa named after John Ward[edit]

I am interested in the English geologist, fossil collector and palaeontologist John Ward (Q123150152) (1837-1906). I have an obituary that says the following and others were named after him:

and another that says:

Palaeoniscus wardi was named by Ward (1875)... It was recombined as Rhadinichthys wardi by Woodward (1891)

Who was the latter Ward? And who was Young? What are other taxa named after John Ward? What are the relevant papers for all of the above? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:01, 22 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Found J.A. Young, but no first names; paper is {{Young, 1866}}. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:26, 22 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hang on, what do you mean no first names? {{Young, 1866}} gives "John Young" as the name of the author, it's right there in the article's first page (and on the abstract online). Monster Iestyn (talk) 00:25, 23 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As a side note, "Mesolepis wardi" appears to have been first described in this article, so it is the original combination for that species and so it doesn't need parentheses around the authority. Monster Iestyn (talk) 00:31, 23 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Also, where did you get "A." from? I've been trying to look up further information about the John Young of this article, but unfortunately it turns out multiple geologists named John Young existed at the time. Though, I have not seen yet an "A." given in either's names, and neither does it appear in {{Young, 1866}}. Monster Iestyn (talk) 00:38, 23 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The "A" comes from [20], which is where I found mention of the paper. When I wrote my comment, I had not seen the abstract (and do not have access to the full paper). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:23, 23 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have now found the paper on Google Books ([21]), and see that it is credited: "John Young, F.G.S., of the Geological Survey of Great Britain. (Communicated by Professor Huxley.)", which should narrow down the field somewhat. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:50, 23 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Seems to be the subject of this obituary in Br. Med. J. ([22]), who we have as John Young (Q15982602). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:29, 23 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In {{Young & Kirkby, 1865}}, Kirkby names Chitonellus youngianus after this John Young. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:15, 23 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As for Palaeoniscus wardi, it's a bit funny but it's actually possible it's an eponym of John Ward himself. See page 239 of:
  • Ward, J. 1875. On the organic remains of the Coal Measures of North Staffordshire, their range and distribution, with a catalogue of the fossils and their mode of occurrence. North Staffordshire Naturalists' Field Club. Annual Addresses, Papers, etc.: 184–251. Internet Archive (Full book).
This appears to give credit to "J. Young, M.D." for the name (probably the same as the John Young of {{Young, 1866}} I suspect), but since it's within John Ward's article it's possible by a technicality of the ICZN that Ward himself is the taxon author of the name? Monster Iestyn (talk) 01:24, 23 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Wardichthys paper is {{Traquair, 1875}}. It also described Wardichthys cyclosoma. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:43, 23 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Acanthodes wardi paper is {{Egerton, 1866}}. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:00, 23 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've sent a question to the Geological Society of London asking whether they have any data about the "A" in "John A. Young". He passed away quite some time ago, but nonetheless was a Fellow of the Geological Society (i.e. F.G.S.) It's worth a shot. Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 20:26, 24 October 2023 (UTC).Reply[reply]

John Young complication[edit]

The paper at {{Young, 1874}} (see BHL) is credited as being "By Professor John Young, M.D., and Mr. John Young, Hunterian Museum, University of Glasgow." Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:27, 25 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is what I was alluding to earlier: there is a second geologist John Young from the same time as the other one, except he lived from 1823–1900. Some information on the two can be found here, though it only covers their publications on bryozoans. Monster Iestyn (talk) 19:44, 25 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
{{Young, 1866}} is authored by "John Young, M.D., F.G.S.", so I think we're good on that one. The paper to which you refer indicates that Mr John Young was the author of Rhizodopsis in 1866. Table 1 in that paper is a long list of "New bryozoan taxa described by Young and Young or by Mr John Young". Its Appendix 1 is "Publications on bryozoans by Professor John Young and Mr (later Dr) John Young". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:16, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think I have now identified the correct authors for each of the authors' papers in our existing templates. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:28, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

John Young disambiguation[edit]

How should these two authors be disambiguated? John Young (1823–1900) and John Young (1835–1902)?

There are several other authors named John Young:

There is also John A. Young (d:Q46733032), a biologist at the United States Geological Survey, but it seems that he has not published any new taxon names. Korg (talk) 12:18, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Now at John Young. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:27, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you! Korg (talk) 15:08, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]