Jump to content

Wikispecies:Village Pump/Archive 72

From Wikispecies
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.

Daniel (J.?) Bennett

[edit]

Does anyone know whether the "Daniel J. Bennett" mentioned in the template Lohrmann, Falin, Bennett & Engel, 2014 is the same Bennett as the zoologist mentioned in our Daniel Bennett article? Thanks! –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 08:53, 17 June 2025 (UTC).[reply]


I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:38, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Listracanthus wardi (fossil shark)

[edit]

Several sources, including our own Acanthorhachis spinatus, give Listracanthus wardi Woodward, 1891.

But L. wardi was described in {{Woodward, 1903}}. Am I missing something, or are the aforesaid sources in error? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:00, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The 1903 reference certainly appears to be the original description of this species. The 1891 date appears to be in error. Not sure why, since it is not the date of the genus alone, which is 1870. Cheers Tony Tony 1212 (talk) 18:30, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]


I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:38, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cactaceae

[edit]

I have trying to update this family, since the last major changes in 2021/22. It is remarkable that for a notoriously difficult family there is now about 90% agreement across sources and authorities. However, this still leaves some real problems. As an example please look through my efforts for Cumulopuntia. However, please note that there still some edits to be completed, but the taxonomy is as good as a disputed taxa can be. I am discussing some of the taxa with Kew and others, however, as usual, I am happy to receive feedback and input from fellow editors here on WS. Best regards. Andyboorman (talk) 16:57, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Out of curiosity who are the major taxonomists currently revising this family? I may be able to put you in touch with them if it would help. I do not work on plants but in my recent revisions of international checklists a number of botanists were involved. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 19:27, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
At the moment I am communicating with Rafael Govaerts and others at RNG Kew. I propose contacting others, but ant help with contacts would be appreciated. Thanks Andyboorman (talk) 07:27, 30 June 2025 (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.

Eponyms of Etienne Ramm

[edit]

Please see issues raised at Category talk:Eponyms of Etienne Ramm. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:36, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And now also Category talk:Eponyms of Benjamin Carrington. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:34, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Requests for comment notification

[edit]

Please be notified that there is a request for comment on Meta that you may be involved with, at m:Requests for comment/Should paid editing as a CU be allowed. You can voice your concerns regarding the topic.

Please do not reply to this message. 〈興華街〉📅❓ 15:44, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ying Wang

[edit]

Following up the issue with authors named "Ying Wang" mentioned earlier this year at Wikispecies:Village Pump/Archive 69#Author confusion, I've just earlier split up the entomologist/arachnologist page into six, disambiguated by institute rather than occupation (except for Ying Wang (ichthyologist)), and turned Ying Wang into a disambiguation page for all of them.

The only trouble is that there are two articles co-authored by a "Ying Wang" I cannot access at all right now, {{Wang & Ren, 2006}} and {{Wang, Li & Yang, 2019}}. Because of this I can't tell which "Ying Wang" they are, mainly because I don't know which institute they work at...

Does anyone have access to these two articles by any chance? I don't actually need to read the full articles, I just want to know the work address for "Ying Wang" in the two articles. That way we can work out if they are the same as one of the Ying Wangs we already have taxon author pages for, or if they need their own pages. Monster Iestyn (talk) 23:26, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Japanese Journal Tokurana

[edit]

There's an arguably small Japanese journal where i found a list of articles that i'd like linked somehow via wikispecies, having a page for the journal is the obvious place but i'm not sure on setup. Can someone experienced at formatting journals please take a look. I cannot for instance find a ISSN for it. Here's what i started.

Tokurana

— The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sjl197 (talk • contribs) 18:40, 6 July 2025.

you are going to need some more info first before we can accept it is a validly published journal for the purposes of nomenclature. It is not registred with ZooBank and if it is as I suspect a fully online journal this makes it illigitimate for nomenclature. So We will need the ISSN and evidence the journal is published in print form. Then we can look at whether its valid or not.
Also please sign your edits. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 22:08, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
From the available information, it looks to me like a print-only journal that is probably no longer published (26 issues published 1981 to 2001); the "series website" linked actually just lists the contents of the published issues and provides an email to order them. I haven't found any ISSN for "Tokurana" on ISSN Portal, but maybe it goes by another name there? Monster Iestyn (talk) 22:35, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, it's also known as 蝶類雑誌 ( "Chōrui zasshi", literally 'butterfly magazine') or Acta Rhopalocera, but neither of those names have any ISSN on ISSN Portal either. Curious... Monster Iestyn (talk) 22:43, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Faendalimas: Thanks (Scott Thompson) for input. The message above was from me and i'll try signing this comment, sorry!. As i was writing this reply to say it's definitely printed and looks to be the same as "Acta Rhopalocera", another editor has begun linkage [LATER EDIT thanks @Monster Iestyn:]. Here's a link to the cover of a printed copy - link where the subtitle indeed says Acta Rhopalocera and contents indeed match contents listing for same volume of "Tokurana". It seems printed from 1981 onwards so shouldn't be of concern for nomenclature availability, beginning before the internet was invented, let alone before debate about "online only publications" and ZooBank registration. :)
Sjl197 (talk) 22:54, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

I saw this thread requesting a template linking to a certain online database. When I saw the initial post, I thought, "Hey, that's one of those rare things that I'm competent to do" and then I saw our colleague Pigsonthewing come along to request a property at Wikidata so that it can be integrated into our existing {{Authority control}}. Maybe I'm missing something here, but shouldn't all of our external link templates be folded into this? Or if not literally all, certainly most? @Pigsonthewing:, who inspired me. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 15:20, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I made the request. I use the reference section to show the reader the origins for information used to construct the taxon page. Therefor the external links I use are only those relevant to the page construction. The classic primary references, additional references and links format. This is very important for disputed or contentious taxa where often the problem occurs where authoritative external links differ in there circumscriptions. I have come to realise that rapidly updating external links to local flora have now become a valuable additional resource, for example eFloraMEX. My request came about whilst researching Turbinicarpus to try and help resolve the disputed species taxa.
I have nothing against Authority Control fleshing out the available sources users can access. Andyboorman (talk) 17:36, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Most wanted missing pages

[edit]

Listed on Special:WantedPages are:

Can anyone help to turn these red links blue? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:43, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like this [R. Aguilar] could be redirected to Reinaldo Alexis de Jesús Aguilar Fernández - MPF (talk) 01:11, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've already replaced that with a link to Rocío Aguilar, which is why I struck it. They don't seem to be the same person. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:00, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I put a fair amount of effort into tracking down J. Kudera and F. Reyes. I filled out as many authority control links on wikidata for the known editors of ReptileDB as I could, in the hopes that it would lead me to a co-authored paper, but no luck. I also note that one of the other editors, Jiří Hošek, appears to have no institutional affiliation - what looks like a personal address is given for him instead on Marshall et al., 2020. The website notes that he maintains the search engine, so it's possible that he's not a herpetologist per se.

It seems possible that Kudera and Reyes might be a similar situation, given the lack of any other publications or information that I can find. I think our options to find out more about them are a) email the ReptileDB people and ask directly or b) wait for another paper about the ReptileDB itself to come out, which will probably include them as co-authors. There was one in 2020 and another in 2021. I created a template for the 2021 paper and put it on the appropriate people's pages, since we didn't have it already. In the meantime, maybe the right thing to do is convert Kudera and Reyes to the non-linking aut template on Template:ReptileDB? Tungolen (talk) 05:14, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with de-linking; and done, thank you. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:56, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The links to $2, $3, and $common are artifacts of the translation extension for which nothing can be done, but it's worth noting that https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T308425 is the issue to get stuff like that out of WantedPages at a technical level. Tungolen (talk) 07:55, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Update 2025-07-13

[edit]

The most-wanted pages (with 100 or more links) are now:

Please help to create, or remove unwanted links to, them. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:32, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to turn some red links blue by making taxon authority pages. Just a heads up to anyone else who is motivated to do this, please connect these pages with Wikidata items to keep from adding to that maintenance page as well. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:07, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

eFloraMEX

[edit]

Would it be possible to produce a searchable template for The online Flora of Mexico: eFloraMEX? A sample result is Turbinicarpus saueri subsp. ysabelae (Schlange) A. Lüthy. Any help appreciated, as it is an amazing database. Unfortunately I can not even find a "how to cite us" protocol. Best regards Andyboorman (talk) 17:03, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Named after celebrities

[edit]

Category:Species named after celebrities includes other ranks; should it be renamed ("Taxa named after..."), or subdivided by rank? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:59, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We are a nomenclatural site?? We need this?? Merge it with Eponyms if you think its useful. From a nomenclatural point of view who something is named after is a passing commentary, useful to group them I can see that but celibs, politicians scientists everyone else why does it matter? This is for Wikipedia. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 21:56, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed that this is very deletable/merge-able. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:05, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If it was to be renamed, yes "Taxa named after" would be more suitable... but being a Stho002 creation from back in 2012, I suspect it didn't have consensus to exist in the first place. Noting here that Category:Taxa named after mythical and fictional subjects also exists, but that was created in 2020. Monster Iestyn (talk) 23:59, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, merging it would not be useful. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:08, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]


I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. Renamed; all members recategorised. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:38, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Micromeria

[edit]

Please see Talk:Micromeria and Talk:Siluridae. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:13, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Done, Micronema is now a genus disambiguation. --Thiotrix (talk) 09:32, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]


I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:44, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

genus Anetia

[edit]

Can someone move Anetia Robineau-Desvoidy to a more correct name? I picked it up off the orphaned pages list to clean up, and I don't think the current page name is right. I think we also need a disambiguation page between it and the butterfly genus Anetia. Based on the example of Micromeria discussion above, it seems that they should go to something like Anetia (Tachinidae) and Anetia (Nymphalidae)? Tungolen (talk) 21:21, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If there were only 2 zoological names, the invalid homonym Anetia Robineau-Desvoidy [better Anetia (Robineau-Desvoidy) or Anetia (Tachinidae)] should have been mentioned on the page of the valid name Anetia. But there exists also a validly published plant name Anetia (a hemihomonym). Therefore Anetia needs to be a a genus disambiguation. Thiotrix (talk) 16:18, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]


I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:43, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We are coming up on the millionth page and closing in on describing all known species

[edit]

I appreciate that this is a little premature, but the former claim is definitely true: we are currently at 916,056 content pages, most of which are species entries. For comparison, we had 903,591 four months ago, so if we keep up this clip, we would hit one million in about two years, but this is a little slower than usual, so we should probably assume that we will reach one million content pages in about a year. Unfortunately, I have seen some of our projects get caught a little unawares when it comes to these milestone numbers (e.g. when we got to 20 years or when Commons passed 100 million files), so I think it would be nice if we could be more deliberate about celebrating this milestone. Some ways we could celebrate/broadcast:

  • Notice on the main page and the site banner.
  • Entries in the WMF blog Diff, including some editor profiles, a little history of how Wikispecies came to be, etc. We could easily have a half-dozen entries of some interest.
  • External communications with relevant outlets.
  • Graphics to celebrate, like a golden logo with "1M" or "1,000,000" on it, etc.

Do others agree that this is something to celebrate? Any other proposals on what we could do to recognize the hard work everyone has put in?

And re: my second claim, yes, of course, there is still work to do, but there are between 1.5 and 2 million species that have been identified among the 8 million or so that exist. Assuming that 90% of our content pages are species entries, that means that once we get to one million, we are at the upper end, most of the way there. That's a huge accomplishment in a volunteer-driven project that has been around for 20 years. Once we have actually identified one million species, I think we should do the same by promoting that work, which may be about two years out. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:00, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for spoiling the fun, but prior to highlighting the quantity, we must prioritize the quality. Pages such as Cerylon impressum or Momonipta are essentially worthless, and there exist thousands of comparable 'species pages'. Mariusm (talk) 08:34, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
One million pages is still a significant milestone, and worthy of celebrating, not least as a means of publicising the existence of Wikispecies and recruiting more volunteers. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:05, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Both quality and quantity are important, but it's a lot harder to gauge quality, particularly on the scale of one million pages. Yes, it would be ideal if all taxons had full descriptions, sources, images, links to appropriate databases, etc. and there's similar information that could go on pages for ISSNs, taxon authorities, repositories, etc. as well. This is just a good round number that lets us celebrate all the hard work that we've done. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:49, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We should involve—with as much notice as possible—the WMF comms team. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:06, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree it is a milestone that could be used to recruit. Andyboorman (talk) 14:12, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
On the other hand to live happily let's live hidden. Christian Ferrer (talk) 13:45, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Hassler and their templates

[edit]

This is for botanists and admins, so apologies to our zoology colleagues. Templates {{Catol-Hassler}} and {{World Plants}} have now become problematic. The former leads us to Catalogue of Life example, but this usually now cites World Plants as its source, for example Pachycereus-schottii, but the link gives a type error. Therefore, the World Plant template itself is causing major search errors, either cased by the site or the template, not sure which. However, if {{World Plants}} was working then {{Catol-Hassler}} would be redundant and using both on a single taxon page must be bad practice, surely? I have tried to resolve this issue through editing where the two templates co-exist, but have had these reversed. I am not pulling admin rank. In an ideal world I would propose that, using bots, {{Catol-Hassler}} be redirected/rreplaced by {{World Plants}}, duplicates deleted off of taxon pages then the template be nuked. In the interim it is possible to make the templates invisible via a reversal bot? They are used on multiple taxon pages, so it is unsustainable editing pages individually. However, given that {{World Plants}} is not working I seek advice. Andyboorman (talk) 18:47, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Taxon authors Manoel Martins Dias Filho and Manoel Martins Dias

[edit]

I'm currently working through an error report given to me by the Biodiversity Heritage Library after their latest ingestion of Wikidata identifiers into their catalogue. Their cataloguers believe these authors are one and the same person see the BHL author page. I believe that BHL is correct but I've been unable to merge the two Wikidata items as there are two Wikispecies related pages for this author - see Manoel Martins Dias Filho and Manoel Martins Dias. I would be very grateful if another editor could confirm whether this is actually the case. Thanks in advance for your assistance. Ambrosia10 (talk) 19:39, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The publications in both these pages can be found in this CV: http://lattes.cnpq.br/1346547036069954 Quasi-grip (talk) 21:48, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Ambrosia10: Merged. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:55, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @Pigsonthewing I appreciate the help. Ambrosia10 (talk) 21:45, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Stanley G. Jewett: father and son

[edit]

Please see Talk:Stanley G. Jewett regarding these entomologists. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:21, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ideas for presenting wildlife by country

[edit]

Hello, I am visiting Wikispecies from other Wikimedia projects and I am not familiar with how editing works here.

I am here to ask if anyone has advice or recommendations on curating Wikidata data for wildlife by region.

English Wikipedia, for example, has articles like en:Wildlife of Brazil, with subarticles such as en:List of mammals of Brazil or en:List of plants of the Amazon rainforest of Brazil.

I recognize that there are many challenges in saying what wildlife lives where, and that being accurate and precise and complete may be impossible, but nevertheless somehow books report some kind of wildlife by place.

I asked at Wikidata d:Wikidata_talk:WikiProject_Taxonomy#Species_by_region and got the wise answer that all this would be difficult.

My question here is whether anyone knows of a pilot or attempt at doing this worth developing, and what recommendations anyone has for doing this.

The test case I want is the Bahamas, which maybe be easier in some ways for being smaller, and having specific wildlife well-known here which is not common broadly outside of its island region. Data which I have includes some population surveys for some species, and which attest to the wildlife actually being there and having cultural significance to be named as regional wildlife of note. Bluerasberry (talk) 17:42, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

John Cummings did something around this on en.Wikipedia. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:56, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed changes to Special:AbuseFilter, running by community before I do them

[edit]

Over at our sister project en.wq User:Codename Noreste was thoughtful enough to give a heads up of several changes that should be made to AbuseFilter to accommodate temporary accounts. I'm a sysop on several WMF wikis and for some that are smaller, I'm just making those changes unilaterally. On medium-sized ones like this, I'm giving notice and going for it (on bigger wikis, I'm soliciting feedback from more technically competent users). If anyone sees any issues with these edits, let me know. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:11, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any issue with your recent filter changes (I'll admit that I am not a regular here), but Special:AbuseFilter/6 is redundant given that we have global filter 328, in which both filters disallow unnecessary translations. Codename Noreste (talk) 07:53, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. While redundant filters don't seem like they can cause any issues with editing, they could slow down performance and cause inefficiency on the back end, so I may disable it. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:04, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good to me. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:15, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delphinidae

[edit]

A new paper about dolphins, with substantial rearrangement of Lagenorhynchus, here (free access) - MPF (talk) 14:43, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rearrangement already accepted by the Committee on Taxonomy of the Society for Marine Mammalogy, so i procede the update on wikispecies. Regards, Burmeister (talk) 15:46, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nolinoideae

[edit]

Nolinoideae is now Convallarioideae; it turns out that Burnett's "Nolinoideae" is actually based on Nolana (Solanaceae), not Nolina, so his 1835 name has to give way to Herbert's 1837 name based on Convallaria. See en:Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Plants#Nolinoideae or Convallarioideae?. We'll need to update it all here. - MPF (talk) 22:38, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's for the heads up. I have prepared Nolinoideae for a move and will go ahead shortly. Andyboorman (talk) 07:37, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 Done please check. Andyboorman (talk) 08:00, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Looks OK, except that the Nolinoideae citation & ref need redoing as 'misapplied' or 'auct. non Burnett' or similar, and its type genus changed to Nolana (it is obvious when you read Burnett's protologue! - how it got missed for 14 years is very strange!!) - MPF (talk) 08:35, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Andyboorman changed it, can you give my changes a quick check, please! - MPF (talk) 08:47, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the changes. All good. Andyboorman (talk) 09:30, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm working on improvements to the {{Image}} template

[edit]

Since it's a heavily used template I wanted to leave a note here that I'm working on improvements to the {{Image}} template. It can now pull in captions from wikidata using the "depicts" qualifier on taxon pages at ranks above species, but there's a few problems still. Primary discussion is at Template_talk:Image#Legends. Tungolen (talk) 23:35, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Italicizing page titles

[edit]

Is it common practice to add the {{Italictitle}} template to genus template pages? There doesn't appear to be much consistency on whether the titles of genus and species pages are italicized; e.g. Scolopendra is not italicized but Desmodium is, due to this edit. Is this discouraged, or can I go ahead and add italictitle to genus templates when I find them? Thanks, Cremastra (talk) 19:41, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Its not common practice at all. There is no need to use that template here. For starters you shouldnt as it actually goes against the reason scientific names are italicised in the first place which is for grammmar reasons. When a paragraph contains multiple languages they should be differentiated by format. Scientific names are latinized, but in the title there is only one language. The genus or species name, its latin, why differentiate it. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 20:44, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I see, thank you. I was asking in part beacause at English Wikipedia it is default practice to italicize scientific names in the title, as it is at Wikimedia Commons. Cheers, Cremastra (talk) 22:45, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Superregnum?

[edit]

On taxon pages, we seem to use Superregnum as the latin form of domain. In conflict with that, but following {{Woese, Kandler & Wheelis, 1990}}, we have the Latin form documented as Regio on Help:Taxonavigation_section. More recently, the ICNP officially adopted domains with the Latin form dominium, see {{Oren, 2023}} for the details. This seems to be the first code to officially adopt domains. Should we follow their example and update both regio and superregnum to dominium? It seems to me like that's probably the right thing to do. Tungolen (talk) 10:22, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

when it has been defined and adopted in a code yes, so for species covered by the ICNP it would seem prudent to change this. But for species under other codes we should stick with the current accepted hierarchies. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 12:16, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure how satisfying an answer that is for this situation. If Bacteria and Archaea are Dominium but Eukaryota is Superregnum, isn't that a bit confusing? And what goes in the documentation at Help:Taxonavigation_section? It's particularly unfortunate that the current documentation doesn't match existing practice on this wiki. In fact, in the most recent edits to Template:Bacteria, someone changed Superregnum to Regio but their change was reverted. @Tommy Kronkvist, do you have opinions about Superregnum versus Regio versus Dominium? I'm relatively new on wikispecies, so I don't want to step on anyone's toes if there's a strong consensus for Superregnum for some reason. (Edit: to be clear, I tagged you in particular because you reverted the edit to Template:Bacteria.)
But as it stands, there's a three-way split between wikispecies documentation, wikispecies practice, and the ICNP code. We should at least be able to harmonize the first two, if not all three. Both ICZN and ICBN are silent on the proper latin rank of Eucaryota, so the best solution in my opinion would be to use Dominium consistently. As an aside, I also just noticed that the page for Neomura uses the incorrect Domini which is an inflection of Dominus, "Lord". The correct plural should be Dominia. Tungolen (talk) 23:18, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed superregnum to dominium on Template:Bacteria and Template:Archaea, and regio to dominium on the documentation page. Template:Eukaryota is protected, so I left a protected edit request on it's talk page here. Tungolen (talk) 03:45, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

These were reverted - my apologies for acting without proper consensus. Tungolen (talk) 10:54, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Eponyms

[edit]

Please see Category talk:Eponyms of Alison W. Cusick; Category talk:Eponyms of Auguste Monnier and Category talk:Eponyms of John Dalton. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:18, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WikiCite 2025

[edit]

There's been some discussion here on moving our citations to a more standard template-based form (e.g. similar to Wikipedia's Cite template); I feel that the upcoming WikiCite conference (at the end of August) may be relevant to these discussions, as it discusses citations using Wikidata. Please see meta:WikiCite 2025 for more information. --WrenFalcon (talk) 19:21, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Translated template oddity

[edit]

Yesterday I made an update to {{Welcome-anon}}, to take account of the new temporary account feature ("If you edit without a username, a temporary account name is allocated to you, and your IP address may be seen by administrators.").

But just, when I "Subst" the template on User talk:~2025-50842-6, the old text ("If you edit without a username, your IP address is used to identify you instead.") was used.

Can anyone explain what I'm missing? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:29, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I purged the page a couple of times, in case this is a caching issue, which I suspect it is and I also suspect that it will be resolved in X hours by the MediaWiki software with no further action. But that's speculation, so someone smarter than me may know the true answer. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 11:38, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. That did not fix it: [3]; and it has already been over 24 hours, now. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:53, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Silly me. It needed to be marked for translation. Now it works as expected. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:40, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Can confirm. Thank you. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:06, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]


I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:06, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Question to Category:Disputed taxa

[edit]

Hello everyone! For example, how does WS deal with the following: Calathiscus tantillus. According to the talk page, the correct name should be Machadoporites tantillus. Would a redirect be sufficient, or is there something else to consider? Thanks! --Hedwig in Washington (talk) 11:39, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Hedwig in Washington: fine, I added a link to that page in the page of the genus, and formated the page a bit more in line with our guideline. Christian Ferrer (talk) 05:35, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for your help! I'm still learning the ins and outs here. -- Hedwig in Washington (talk) 05:41, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:06, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The most dedicated editors of Wikispecies

[edit]

It's about time we thank the most dedicated WS editors. These editors have been consistent for many months and deserve our hearty gratitude.

Over 3,000 edits in the last 30 days:

Over 2,000 edits in the last 30 days:

Over 1,000 edits in the last 30 days:

We all appreciate your dedication and involvement with WS. Keep up the good work! Mariusm (talk) 08:15, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! The editor 2345 (talk) 13:51, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Neferkheperre (talk) 14:04, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Their contributions are indeed praiseworthy and welcome; but others make equally important—and voluminous—contributions in patrolling, ant-vandalism, or administrative actions, that do not show up in edit counts. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:16, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree 100% The editor 2345 (talk) 14:01, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mediophyceae

[edit]

I am starting to upload the diatom species of Proboscia. However, the TaxoNavigation says the genus belongs in the Rhizosoleniales. Genetics shows that Proboscia and Rhizosolenia are not closely related. So, some Rhizosolenia species were transferred to Proboscia in 1986, 1991 and later on.

AlgaeBase has the correct affiliation. Class: Mediophyceae Order: Probosciales Family: Probosciaceae

It seems that all three taxa are not in the system. Can this be changed?

Microplankton25 (talk) 11:21, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I will create the needed pages Mediophyceae etc. It seems that our diatom pagees need some update. Kind regards, Thiotrix (talk) 18:45, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I transferred Rhizosolenia alata (type species of Proboscia) and Rhizosolenia barboi to Proboscia, but noticed that Proboscia barboi gets redirected to Rhizosolenia. How can I change this? I tried to delete the redirect page but a warning sign appeared.
Microplankton25 (talk) 05:19, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I moved the page to Proboscia barboi (accepted by AlgaeBase), and created an author page for Julian Priddle and a template for the primary reference. --Thiotrix (talk) 13:02, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for your continued support.
Microplankton25 (talk) 01:53, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
When creating a page for Anaulus arcticus, I mistakenly made a page labelled †Anaulus arcticus (which appears on Richard W. Jordan taxa under † not A).
I managed to create another page for Anaulus arcticus which appears under A.
However, I do not know how to delete the unwanted †Anaulus arcticus page.
Sorry for all these mistakes.
Microplankton25 (talk) 03:53, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry about mistakes, editing Wikispecies seems to be complicated for new editors. If you want to propose a page for speedy deletion, insert {{Delete|Reason}} at the very top of that page, interchanging the word "Reason" with your actual reason for the specific deletion request. Then an admin will delete the page. Thiotrix (talk) 10:44, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Katsumi Abe

[edit]

Katsumi Abe has no content and on links from taxon or publication pages. Should we delete it or can it be populated?

Are they the "Abe, K." mentioned on Richard W. Jordan? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:09, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

the Abe, K. mentioned there is Kenta Abe I do not think they are the same person. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 12:19, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Doing a quick google search for "Katsumi Abe ostracod" does confirm that someone by that name studied ostracods in at least the 80s and 90s (sadly he died in a road accident in 1998: [5]), but I don't think he ever named any ostracod taxa as far as I can tell: searching World Ostracoda Database for authorities with "Abe" gives only one new combination for a species, Oertliella cretaria (Bold, 1964) Abe, Reyment, Bookstein, Honigstein, Almogi-Labin, Rosenfeld & Hermelin, 1988. Monster Iestyn (talk) 13:57, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That would be from {{Abe et al., 1988}}. Oertliella cretaria is a red link. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:10, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Kenta Abe was my student.
All his papers to date were co-authored with me, Richard W. Jordan (Microplankton25).
Microplankton25 (talk) 08:37, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
...also, this doesn't seem to be an unusual case, I've noticed over my time on Wikispecies that a number of ostracodologist/micropalaeontologist taxon author pages created by the late Kempf EK (including this one) have essentially no content. I just quickly made a search link that probably catches all of these here, which suggests there's over 200 of them with no {{Taxa authored}} template or listed publications (or at least those using the {{A}} template). It's not quite as easy to tell which of these aren't linked from any taxon pages though. Monster Iestyn (talk) 16:24, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Do we need to delete some, then?
We should proceed with care, as there are some false positives. Oive Tinn is in the list, for example, and is the joint author of Kalanaspis delectabilis. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:04, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Is this question meant for me? Because if I'm being honest I don't know. If it were totally up to me, I would want to delete most pages for people who aren't actually taxon authors; I feel too many Wikispecies pages have been created for non-taxon authors, many of whom seem outside of Wikispecies' scope (e.g. authors or co-authors of publications on the ecology or distribution of a species, or those announcing that the complete mitochondrial genome of a species has been sequenced; I've seen that many of these were mis-identified as taxon authorities when they are often just ecologists, geneticists, etc.). In this case, I suspect a number of those ostracodologist/micropalaeontologist pages are likewise not taxon authors or even taxonomists at all, just anyone who has researched ostracods at all; for instance Katsumi Abe's main research focus seems to have been the morphology of ostracods, not their taxonomy. But because more regular or active members of Wikispecies than me don't seem to mind there being pages for people who aren't taxon authors based on previous discussions (I think?), the question of whether to delete some of these seems better for them to answer, not me. Monster Iestyn (talk) 12:29, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty new here, so weight my opinion appropriately, but based on observation I had assumed that if someone was a co-author on a relevant paper that was sufficient to justify a page for them - similar to how I understand notability standards for wikidata. Even if they're not properly a taxon author (and it'd be nice is more papers were clear about which paper co-authors should be considered the taxon author and which should not), it seems useful to be able to link them on publications and allow the user to find other co-authors the same person has worked with that way. Their pages supplement the web of authorship, as it were. Tungolen (talk) 21:54, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Double Papps

[edit]

There is Papp and Papp ~2025-54720-6 (talk) 08:58, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well spotted! The first uses Latin letters, and the second uses Cyrillic letters. I've added a deletion proposal to the second one. Monster Iestyn (talk) 12:15, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Interestingly, Papp in Cyrillic is pronounced Rarr. I wonder what was up with that. Neferkheperre (talk) 15:46, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 15:22, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

SOSA et al.??

[edit]

Hello how should we cite this article: https://doi.org/10.3897/BDJ.12.e128431, the first stated author is not a physical person, do we say "SOSA et al., 2024" or "Brandt et al., 2024"? Brandt being the first author cited after the organisation. Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:42, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

they have their prefered citation formats on the doi page I would just follow that and hence yes SOSA et al..... not a fan of that but its their paper. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 23:05, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
ok thanks, that's what I'll do. Christian Ferrer (talk) 05:45, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pages written in a Southeast Asian language

[edit]

I believe that these are all legit, but I don't know and it would be nice if anyone competent for these species could convert them to our standard formatting. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:44, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Utricularia prehensilis is an existing species, and I converted the page to Wikispecies format. But the other two names are not listed, neither by IPNI nor by POWO. Thiotrix (talk) 10:15, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. The other two have no hits on a search engine as well, so I've deleted. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 15:21, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 15:22, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Name confusion

[edit]

Euglyphis rundala and Euglyphis rundula exist. As I'm trying to clear out Special:LonelyPages, I have added links to both at Euglyphis. Can someone knowledgeable resolve the name issue here and at Wikidata and remove the one that shouldn't exist? Thanks. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:26, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like it was described as Claphe rundala - BHL. Not sure what's with "rundula". --WrenFalcon (talk) 14:50, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I got rid of "rundula" here and at d:. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 15:20, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 15:22, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Taxa without WoRMS or Wikidata

[edit]

What should we do about those taxa without WoRMS and/or Wikidata? Do we create by ourselves (if so, how?) or do we request someone to do this? Can taxa be left without WoRMS and/or Wikidata? - I noticed that a red notice appears reminding me that the TaxoIdentifier has no Q number. Microplankton25 (talk) 08:08, 11 August 2025 (UTC) Microplankton25[reply]

Several things:

  1. either you use {{Taxonbar}} or {{Taxonbar|from=Q135222595}} but {{Taxonbar|from=Q}} will not work. "Q135222595" is the item number for that taxon item in Wikidata
  2. for {{Taxonbar}} can work you need to connect the page here with the correct Wikidata item, because the identifiers are stored in Wikidata
  3. for {{Taxonbar}} can show identifier(s), the Wikidata item must have them, for this case I added the WoRMS ID
  4. for {{WoRMS|id=}} can work, you must add the correct ID, here this is {{WoRMS|id=1715514}}

Christian Ferrer (talk) 10:19, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.
Hyalolithus tumescens has a Taxon Identifier: (Q56521884), but no WoRMS.
How do I find the correct ID?
Microplankton25 (talk) 11:08, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Q56521884 is not a Taxon Identifier, this is a Wikidata item, and furthermore this is an item for the article [6] where Hyalolithus tumescens have been described, not for the taxon itself, as far I see there is not yet an item for this taxon in Wikidata. If you want you can create it, you are free to do it, for help you may read Wikidata:Tours and also Wikidata:Wikidata:WikiProject Taxonomy. Otherwise after some time (I don't know exactly how many), if nobody do it, a BOT will anyway create an item corresponding to the page Hyalolithus tumescens. To find this identifier in WoRMS, you go to WoRMS and you use the search bar there, for an extinct taxon it will give you no results at first (this is their seetings by default) but they will indicate you the presence of a fossil taxon of that name, you click on the linlk, and the ID is the number just below the taxon name, in a field called "AphiaID". Christian Ferrer (talk) 12:47, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You can also cite the original description DOI: 10.1144/jmpaleo2015-015. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 10:07, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Genus Cleta

[edit]

Why I can not get the page of the genus Cleta that is in the tribe Sterrhini? Eitan f (talk) 14:30, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to be a redirect error in WS. Cleta redirects to Chazeauiana based upon its synonym Epilachna (Cleta) Mulsant, 1850. I am no expert in these taxa, but Cleta should have its own taxon page, as it appears to be a genus of moths. Can you correct this error by going to Sterrhini and editing out the redirect and replacing it with the requires taxonomic details? Andyboorman (talk) 14:51, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I made a page for the butterfly Cleta, which has 3 junior homonyms. Feel free to add current references. --Thiotrix (talk) 11:48, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Taxon author Yong Zhang

[edit]

I've been working on getting wikispecies pages linked to wikidata items. I recently worked on the page for the herpetologist Yong Zhang, and came to the conclusion that at least two, maybe three people were being conflated on our side. You can read my detailed notes on the talk page. I split Yong Zhang into three pages, but I think it's an open question still whether Yong Zhang (herpetologist) and Yong Zhang (Qinling National Botanical Garden) might be the same person. Tungolen (talk) 00:49, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation needed for Repository Acronyms "DMNH" and "RM"

[edit]

The repository acronym "DMNH" needs to be disambiguated between the Delaware Museum of Natural History and the Denver Museum of Natural History. The what links here lists for DMNH shows a mix of both institutions being linked to the page. On the same note, RM should be disambiguated for Rocky Mountain Herbarium and Redpath Museum. Thanks--Kevmin (talk) 15:54, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Are you able to make pages for those currently red-linked? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:12, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Pigsonthewing: the problem is that with the current page naming structure putting the pages at the Repository abbreviation, I don't know how to handle the above situations. If the naming scheme was to put page under the full repository name, with redirects abbreviations it would be simple to place disambiguation's on DMNH that has linkage to both Delaware Museum of Natural History and Denver Museum of Natural History with note that the latter is an older abbr for Denver Museum of Nature and Science. It would also make grouping of subcollection abbreviations much easier as you would just redirect the subcollection abbreviations to the main Repository (Such as the abbreviations
UAFIC (University of Alberta Freshwater Invertebrate Collection), UALVP (University of Alberta Laboratory for Vertebrate Paleontology) UAPC-alta (University of Alberta Paleobotanical Collections) under University of Alberta instead of at the main collection abbr UA which other repositories may use (very ambiguous at 1 or 2 letters)--Kevmin (talk) 03:45, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you write the pages at the above red links, we can always move them later, if that's what consensus decides. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:08, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Eponyms of Zack Ernest Murrell

[edit]

Please see Category talk:Eponyms of Zack Ernest Murrell. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:22, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary accounts will be rolled out soon

[edit]

Hello, we are the Wikimedia Foundation Product Safety and Integrity team. We would like to announce that we plan to enable temporary accounts for this wiki in the week of September 1.

Temporary accounts are successfully live on 30 wikis, including many large ones like German, Japanese, and French. The change they bring is especially relevant to logged-out editors, who this feature is designed to protect. But it is also relevant to community members like mentors, patrollers, and admins – anyone who reverts edits, blocks users, or otherwise interacts with logged-out editors as part of keeping the wikis safe and accurate.

Why we are building temporary accounts

Our wikis should be safer to edit by default for logged-out editors. Temporary accounts allow people to continue editing the wikis without creating an account, while avoiding publicly tying their edits to their IP address. We believe this is in the best interest of our logged-out editors, who make valuable contributions to the wikis and who may later create accounts and grow our community of editors, admins, and other roles. Even though the wikis do warn logged-out editors that their IP address will be associated with their edit, many people may not understand what an IP address is, or that it could be used to connect them to other information about them in ways they might not expect.

Additionally, our moderation software and tools rely too heavily on network origin (IP addresses) to identify users and patterns of activity, especially as IP addresses themselves are becoming less stable as identifiers. Temporary accounts allow for more precise interactions with logged-out editors, including more precise blocks, and can help limit how often we unintentionally end up blocking good-faith users who use the same IP addresses as bad-faith users.

How temporary accounts work

Any time a logged-out user publishes an edit on this wiki, a cookie will be set in this user's browser, and a temporary account tied with this cookie will be automatically created. This account's name will follow the pattern: ~2025-12345-67 (a tilde, current year, a number). On pages like Recent Changes or page history, this name will be displayed. The cookie will expire 90 days after its creation. As long as it exists, all edits made from this device will be attributed to this temporary account. It will be the same account even if the IP address changes, unless the user clears their cookies or uses a different device or web browser. A record of the IP address used at the time of each edit will be stored for 90 days after the edit. However, only some logged-in users will be able to see it.

What does this mean for different groups of users?

For logged-out editors

  • This increases privacy: currently, if you do not use a registered account to edit, then everybody can see the IP address for the edits you made, even after 90 days. That will no longer be possible on this wiki.
  • If you use a temporary account to edit from different locations in the last 90 days (for example at home and at a coffee shop), the edit history and the IP addresses for all those locations will now be recorded together, for the same temporary account. Users who meet the relevant requirements will be able to view this data. If this creates any personal security concerns for you, please contact talktohumanrights at wikimedia.org for advice.

For community members interacting with logged-out editors

  • A temporary account is uniquely linked to a device. In comparison, an IP address can be shared with different devices and people (for example, different people at school or at work might have the same IP address).
  • Compared to the current situation, it will be safer to assume that a temporary user's talk page belongs to only one person, and messages left there will be read by them. As you can see in the screenshot, temporary account users will receive notifications. It will also be possible to thank them for their edits, ping them in discussions, and invite them to get more involved in the community.

For users who use IP address data to moderate and maintain the wiki

  • For patrollers who track persistent abusers, investigate violations of policies, etc.: Users who meet the requirements will be able to reveal temporary users' IP addresses and all contributions made by temporary accounts from a specific IP address or range (Special:IPContributions). They will also have access to useful information about the IP addresses thanks to the IP Info feature. Many other pieces of software have been built or adjusted to work with temporary accounts, including AbuseFilter, global blocks, Global User Contributions, and more. (For information for volunteer developers on how to update the code of your tools – see the last part of the message.)
  • For admins blocking logged-out editors:
    • It will be possible to block many abusers by just blocking their temporary accounts. A blocked person won't be able to create new temporary accounts quickly if the admin selects the autoblock option.
    • It will still be possible to block an IP address or IP range.
  • Temporary accounts will not be retroactively applied to contributions made before the deployment. On Special:Contributions, you will be able to see existing IP user contributions, but not new contributions made by temporary accounts on that IP address. Instead, you should use Special:IPContributions for this.

Our requests for you, and next steps

  • If you know of any tools, bots, gadgets etc. using data about IP addresses or being available for logged-out users, you may want to test if they work on testwiki or test2wiki. If you are a volunteer developer, read our documentation for developers, and in particular, the section on how your code might need to be updated.
  • If you want to test the temporary account experience, for example just to check what it feels like, go to testwiki or test2wiki and edit without logging in.
  • Tell us if you know of any difficulties that need to be addressed. We will try to help, and if we are not able, we will consider the available options.
  • Look at our previous message about requirements for users without extended rights who may need access to IP addresses.

To learn more about the project, check out our FAQ – you will find many useful answers there. You may also look at the updates (we have just posted one) and subscribe to our new newsletter. If you'd like to talk to me (Szymon) off-wiki, you will find me on Discord and Telegram. Thank you!

NKohli (WMF), SGrabarczuk (WMF) 21:35, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Extinct - translations needed

[edit]

I have modified {{Extinct}} (which renders as † ) to use {{Int:Extinct}}; but we lack translations of that word; please provide them at Wikispecies:Localization.

I have also made a redirect from {{†}}. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:10, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You are aware that word has gender variation for a number of languages? How is that handled by localization? for example in portuguese it is extinta / extinto (feminine/masculine). Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 02:57, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
One would presume it follows the gender for the word for taxon, since the implicit sentence is "this taxon is in extinct". So in French, where taxon (which unsurprisingly means "taxon") is masculine, it would be éteint (m) not éteinte (f). Cremastra (talk) 03:36, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Showe-Mei Lin

[edit]

A lot of the works recently added to Showe-Mei Lin seem to be of general biological relevance, without any taxonomic content. Would someone more qualified than I care to sift them?

I have asked the IP editor concerned to restrict their additions to taxonomic works. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:34, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

{{IntArch}}

[edit]

I've updated {{IntArch}} so that links may be made inline to pages of documents on archive.org, much like with {{BHL}}. For a typical example of how this would be used, see this example from Stomorhina neali (parameter 3, "63", indicates the actual page to link to; "62" is the displayed text):

''Stomorhina neali'' {{aut|Kurahashi}} & {{aut|Magpayo}}, 2000: {{IntArch|raffles-bulletin-zoology-supplement-9-001-078|62|63}}
Stomorhina neali Kurahashi & Magpayo, 2000: 62

The view mode can also be specified (one page at a time, two side by side, or thumbnail view); see the template page and its documentation for more information. (At time of writing, Stomorhina neali is the only page that uses this new functionality).

My opinion is that this should generally not be used in place of {{BHL}} when the source is present in BHL, but there are a number of documents not currently in BHL that are in the Internet Archive. I think this should be used for those cases.

I intended this change mainly for taxon pages, but I can see cases where it could be useful on reference templates as well (e.g. linking to the start of a paper in a scan of a journal volume/issue). --WrenFalcon (talk) 02:54, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Seeming hoax

[edit]

Hevea poweri was created by an IP and had no sources and this term is also not found by any search results, so I deleted it. If anyone can confirm that this is a thing under Hevea, please let me know and I'll undelete. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:55, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A Guidebook for Wikispecies: Standardizing Botany Content

[edit]

Hello, I was an administrator on the other Turkish Wikipedia, but I have since left. There were guidelines and written rules on how to write pages. In Wikispecies, I haven't looked much into zoology (even though birds are my area of interest), but in botany, it seems everyone has created their own set of rules, which causes a lot of confusion. In my opinion, a manual needs to be created that explains all these things, such as the use of the Nadi template, the 'Name' section, the use of synonyms, sources, photos, entering type information, and the red list, along with many other things I can't think of right now. This would ensure everyone follows the same guidelines and avoid chaos. This is my humble opinion." Fagus (talk) 14:09, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The help guide is fairly explicit, but you are correct editors do not always follow it both now and in the past. Much re-editing is bringing things up to scratch, excuse the vernacular! Andyboorman (talk) 14:34, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Here from Zoology viewpoint, I've now been editing on wikispecies for a couple of years. I feel i've understood basics of who the major editors are. Frequently on entries, i can tell who the key editor is by their style. For an initiative aiming for universality, this allowance is inconsistent. And yes, much re-editing is stylistic, so the resolving variation adds burden, which in future could be reduced if the modern templates were revised and editors could more consistently stick to a defined outline.
Sjl197 (talk) 02:00, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Completely agree on the principle of the potential use of templates to standardize the appearance of the pages, particularly at the species and subspecies level. Christian Ferrer (talk) 11:44, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Anton V. Volynkin

[edit]

From their recent edits, it seems that User:AntonVolynkin objects to us using their middle (patronymic?) name in reference to them. I have reverted their edits for now, not least so that functionality to our pages is restored, but we do not appear to have a clearly defined policy for such cases.

What should be done? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:50, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I don't have much of an issue if they want us to use "Anton V. Volynkin" for the page title and related pages (barring technical issues, but those can be sorted out). As far as I'm aware, there isn't much potential confusion with other similarly-named authors. I'm not sure what to think about removing the middle name entirely from the page content. However, if it is a privacy concern on the part of Volynkin, I'd be more inclined to honor their choice. From a brief search, this author publishes as "Anton V. Volynkin" and seems to not publish under their full unabbreviated name, though I found reference to their full name in a 2020 publication. --WrenFalcon (talk) 22:07, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
On a related note, I was just looking to find the discussion where we asa project decided to publish all authorities middle names by Default rather then using them sparingly in disambiguation situations only. What nomen an author chooses to write under is what we should be using. In every day conversations we do not use "Hey there John Frank Alistor Smith, how is Jane Amelia-May Devroux Smith doing?"--Kevmin (talk) 14:44, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My view is that when an author lets us know their preference we should use it, if they have other combos of their name in lit we can use redirects if necessary. Morelikely to encourage them at the least helping maintain their own page by doing it the way they want within reason. Then in the absence of authors letting us know we default to our standard practices. Some sites do list a persons full name and publishing name where they differ we can look into that also if we wish. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 16:59, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category: Botanists removal: what to do with specialists for Vascular Plants?

[edit]

Category: Botanists, which has recently been removed from many articles, has been used in an ambiguous sense: a) for botanists in general, no matter on which subject they are specialized, b) (with a big majority, especially when given together with other catogories like mycologists, phycologist, pteridologists, bryologists ...) botanists specialized in Vascular Plants, for which no category exists until now and for which this action results in a loss of information. What can be done? --RLJ (talk) 09:36, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

AviList

[edit]

At this time most of the editors focused on Aves should be aware of AviList: The Global Avian Checklist. It is the confluence of Clements/eBird, IOC and Birdlife/HBW and will be followed by Avibase. Clements/eBird claims to be 99,5% already aligned; IOC will issue the latest update 15.2 and stop issues. Birdlife will take ~2 years to be fully aligned mostly due to conservation issues (as you know IUCN is Birdlife/HBW list based). Details here: https://www.avilist.org/checklist/v2025/ This is a very welcome initiative because it ends with some conflicting taxonomic differences. As in WS we followed IOC, I suggest we immediately follow AviList. The list is downloadable at the site above. Cheers. Hector Bottai (talk) 14:18, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Let's see what IOC 15.2 says; perhaps Avilist at the end of the year? I know IOC have concerns about a few of the changes in Avilist that IOC think should be retained as species (Thalasseus acuflavidus and Cyanocorax luxuosus are two I am aware of; there are others), but were lumped under pressure from the Clements/AOU people despite good genetic evidence. - MPF (talk) 11:11, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Laura Chornogubsky

[edit]

I started Laura Chornogubsky, but this is my first article. If you can improve it, please do so. I added some information that I found on Wikidata and the English Wikipedia's list of species she described. LeapTorchGear (talk) 00:32, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikispecies! Please also review Help:Author Names and the rest of the help section; you'll find some information about how we typically format pages. --WrenFalcon (talk) 03:46, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Opuntia series

[edit]

I have been doing some work on the genus Opuntia updating, adding data and so on. However, it seems that our use of series is problematic given the emphasis of phylogeny as well as morphology in the classification and taxonomy of the whole of Cactaceae. There are many species unassigned to series and it has become almost impossible to rectify this. Normally I would recommend that we dispense with them in spite of their historic use on WS. The main reason that with a few exceptions their use in science has been reduced. One major problem is that the species lists are fully referenced only on one series - Opuntia ser. Chacopuntiae. Can anybody help by providing references for circumscriptions of the series? It appears that much of these species lists were provided by non-active editors at a time where there was less emphasis on citations. The protologues have some, but limited value, but most recent literature uses clades and informal groups not taxonomic entities. Thank you for any help and comments. Andyboorman (talk) 17:26, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As a follow up I have just made Opuntia fortanelli, which Reyes-Agüero et al. (2024) ResearchGate place in Opuntia ser. Tunae on morphological grounds. However, they use Opuntia decumbens and Opuntia elizondoana to help circumscribe their describe their sp. nov. but WS places these in two other series. Indeed the taxonomy of Cactaceae is complex and unresolved. Andyboorman (talk) 08:03, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Languageicon

[edit]

I propose that we delete {{Languageicon}}, after replacing all transclusions.

As its documentation tells us:

for example {{Languageicon|Spanish}} renders as: (Spanish)

and it applies style="font-size: 0.95em; color:#555; position: relative;"

It seems that typing (Spanish) would be far easier; the reduced font size is unnecessary as is the colour, which likely also renders the comment unreadable in dark mode. The position value seems superfluous.

The template is apparently intended "to indicate to readers that an external link is in a language other than English". In my experience, most of our links to such sites are not marked up in this way.

Where it has been used, the application has been inconsistent, with some instances using (Spanish) and some (In Spanish). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:49, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We are 99.8% of the way to one million taxa

[edit]

Just from Category:Pages with taxonavigation templates, which has 997,797, we are very close to one million entries. Including ISSNs, taxon authorities, etc., we of course have more than one million pages of content. As I've mentioned before here, I think it's worth commemorating this. If no one else responds or objects, at the very least, I'll change the site notice with a banner commemorating all the hard work. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:11, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sure! Let's commemorate!! Hector Bottai (talk) 00:02, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to celebrate!! Andyboorman (talk) 09:11, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is definitely worth marking such an event! Emilia Noah (talk) 12:28, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, so revising this. Category:Pages with taxonavigation templates has 998,819 pages in it but this also includes the 114,466 Templates in Category:Taxonavigation templates. So it's more like 884,353, which is a lot, but a real overestimate of when we'll hit a million (along with the caveat that there is no perfect measure of this, but this is a pretty good proxy). So we can safely rest knowing that any coordinated effort to celebrate one million entries is a bit off still. Sorry for being sloppy and making anyone think that it's imminent, but thanks again for everyone's free labor. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:56, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, there's at most 600-ish taxon pages not in Category:Pages with taxonavigation templates. A lot of these results are other things, though, like publications, or type repositories, which may be uncategorized. (Technical limitation: if a type repository page is not directly in Category:Repositories, but it is in a category that's a subcategory of Category:Repositories, I can't exclude all of them from the search - there's too many subcategories for -deepcat:Repositories to work.)
...It may also be a good idea to fix these items (i.e. put them in appropriate categories) before we get to 1 million taxon pages. Should help us determine the actual 1 millionth taxon page. --WrenFalcon (talk) 00:39, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Brother/sister/sibling, you're preaching to the choir. I've been going thru the maintenance reports in Special:SpecialPages for the past couple of weeks. Feel free to look at my contribs and logs to see what I've been up to and join in if you're motivated. I love the energy. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:44, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ig Nobel Bacteria

[edit]

Kytococcus sedentarius is in the news [7]. Would anyone care to review/ expand the page I just created? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:47, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pseudofungi

[edit]

This page has been created and deleted multiple times and has hundreds of incoming links. What should be done with this title? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:17, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weirdly, it is legit. Is group of heterokonts, with appearance of fungi. Neferkheperre (talk) 13:23, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to be interchangeable with Oomycota at phylum level, see that page. Oomycota is presently preferred in e.g. Hyde et al., The 2024 Outline of Fungi and fungus-like taxa, Doi 10.5943/mycosphere/15/1/25, however Ruggiero et al., 2025 used "Pseudofungi [= Oomycota]" at phylum level. Catalogue of Life (https://www.catalogueoflife.org/data/taxon/5K) uses Oomycota which it gets from "Species Fungorum Plus", but formerly used Pseudofungi I believe; ITIS has the relevant orders as or within Division (Phylum) Myxomycota, class Phycomycota, which is very outdated or simply wrong I would say. In IRMNG I presently follow Ruggiero et al. and use Pseudofungi, but could be persuaded to change that to Oomycota if that seems to be the later consensus (probably some additional digging needed here).Tony 1212 (talk) 18:26, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Considering that there is at least some validity to using the name as an alternative for Oomycota and that it was a redirect for eight years before deletion was requested and the fact that there are hundreds of incoming links, I have undeleted for now. If someone feels strongly that it should be deleted again and can't even be a redirect, please let me know. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:37, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Pseudofungi as a name is still alive, see Jirsová, D. and Wideman, J.G., 2024. Integrated overview of stramenopile ecology, taxonomy, and heterotrophic origin. The ISME Journal, 18(1), p.wrae150. https://academic.oup.com/ismej/article-pdf/18/1/wrae150/59189063/wrae150.pdf I did check Adl et al., 2019 just now, but they use neither Pseudofungi nor Oomycota, jumping straight from Gyrista (?superphylum - not sure) to "Peronosporomycetes Dick 2001 [Oomycetes Winter 1897, emend. Dick 1976]" - presumably a class. BTW, Wikispecies Oomycota has some repeated ranks in its taxobox, looks a bit odd; also there is no discussion/talk either at that page, or at [[8]] - perhaps there should be?? Tony 1212 (talk) 18:44, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I do not think it should be deleted, under the circumstances. Redirect is fine for now and into the future. If it gets accepted as an accepted name again we can edit it accordingly. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 20:42, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia presently treats this group under the name Pseudofungi as well, in case that means something (possibly does, possibly doesn't!!)... of course anyone can change that if they feel sufficiently motivated, and have a rationale to do so that stands up to Wikipedia standards. Tony 1212 (talk) 18:43, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
OK, having verified that both MycoBank and Hyde et al. (2024) are using Oomycota not Pseudofungi, I have changed to using that name in IRMNG for this group, see Oomycota in IRMNG; I have allocated classes Oomycetes, Peronosporomycetes and Saprolegniomycetes to it as per the Hyde et al. treatment. CoL also has Oomycota but has some seriously weird stuff going on underneath it (Bigyromonadea, Hyphochytrea and Peronosporea) which do not belong there per the Hyde et al. treatment, but that is not my immediate problem! Tony 1212 (talk) 05:28, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hm, the situation seems to be a bit more murky than I stated above. I have raised it at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Pseudofungi and got some interesting feedback (ongoing), so maybe refer to that page for now (and contribute if you wish), then we can hopefully arrive at a standardised solution for both projects... Tony 1212 (talk) 18:47, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cactaceae updated classification

[edit]

Please note the recently published paper; de Vos et al., 2025. Phylogenomics and classification of Cactaceae based on hundreds of nuclear genes: JM de Vos et al. Plant Systematics and Evolution 311(5): 28. DOI: 10.1007/s00606-025-01948-z. It will significantly affect our classification and taxonomy on WS, if we accept the proposals, which I can not see any reason for not doing so. Please comment. Thanks. Andyboorman (talk) 08:14, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately . . . "DOI Resolution Error
0.1007/s00606-025-01948-z
This DOI cannot be found in the DOI System. Possible reasons are: . . . can you check the link, please! - MPF (talk) 14:30, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Upcoming Dark Mode user interface rollout for anonymous Wikimedia sites users

[edit]

Hello Wikimedians,

Apologies if this message is not in your language. Please help translate to your language.

The Reader Experience team will launch the Dark mode feature for anonymous users on all Wikimedia sites, including yours, on October 29, 2025.

Dark mode is an option that allows users to view pages in light-coloured text, and icons on a dark background. Once it is available for anonymous users, they can enable it when using various devices. More information on ways to enable it can be found on this page. Given many pages are still not compatible with dark mode this will be an opt-in feature and not automatically apply to pages.

Dark mode requires modifications to content pages and templates, and since our initial launch in July 2024, we have been working with communities and helping them prepare for dark mode. Before the rollout, it is essential that template authors and technical contributors test dark mode and read this page to learn how to make pages Dark mode-ready and address any compatibility issues found in templates.

We will fix most color compatibility issues only on the most-viewed pages on projects with over 5 million monthly page views. Technical contributors with an account should opt into dark mode currently using preferences or settings and test pages and seek help before the release to ensure everything complies before the enablement.

If you have any questions or need help, please contact the Reader Experience team for support.

Thank you!

UOzurumba (WMF) 02:08, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://species.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikispecies:Village_Pump/Archive_72&oldid=10858690"