Wikispecies:Village Pump

Welcome to the village pump of Wikispecies.

This page is a place to ask questions or discuss the project. If you need an admin, please see the Administrators' Noticeboard. If you need to solicit feedback, see Request for Comment. Please sign and date your post (by typing ~~~~ or clicking the signature icon in the edit toolbar). Use the Wikispecies IRC channel for real-time chat.

If you're going to critique the work of fellow editors (blatant vandals excepted) in your post on this page, you should notify them, either by mentioning them with a {{Reply to}} template, or with a post on their talk page.

If you insert links to Wikipedia pages in your comments, don't forget the leading colon (:) before the wiki language code (including when you reference a remote user page instead of using a local signature), otherwise it will generate spurious interwiki links collected in the sidebar instead of in the expected location within the discussion. Thanks.

Village pump in other languages:

• Chinese - 中文
• Czech - česky
• Finnish - Suomi
• French - Français
• Hungarian - Magyar
• Hindi - हिन्दी
• Italian - Italiano
• Korean - 한국어
• Nepali - नेपाली
• Russian - Русский
• Tamil - தமிழ்
• Ukrainian - Українська
• Vietnamese - Tiếng Việt

Archives
1	(2004-09-21/2005-01-05)	2	(2005-01-05/2005-08-23)
3	(2005-08-24/2005-12-31)	4	(2006-01-01/2005-05-31)
5	(2006-06-01/2006-12-16)	6	(2006-12-17/2006-12-31)
7	(2007-01-01/2007-02-28)	8	(2007-03-01/2007-04-30)
9	(2007-05-01/2007-08-31)	10	(2007-09-01/2007-10-31)
11	(2007-11-01/2007-12-31)	12	(2008-01-01/2008-02-28)
13	(2008-03-01/2008-04-28)	14	(2008-04-29/2008-06-30)
15	(2008-07-01/2008-09-30)	16	(2008-10-01/2008-12-25)
17	(2008-12-26/2009-02-28)	18	(2009-03-01/2009-06-30)
19	(2009-07-01/2009-12-31)	20	(2010-01-01/2010-06-30)
21	(2010-07-01/2010-12-31)	22	(2011-01-01/2011-06-30)
23	(2011-07-01/2011-12-31)	24	(2012-01-01/2012-12-31)
25	(2013-01-01/2013-12-31)	26	(2014-01-01/2014-12-31)
27	(2015-01-01/2015-01-31)	28	(2015-02-01/2015-02-28)
29	(2015-02-28/2015-04-29)	30	(2015-04-29/2015-07-19)
31	(2015-07-19/2015-09-23)	32	(2015-09-23/2015-11-21)
33	(2015-11-21/2015-12-31)	34	(2016-01-01/2016-04-17)
35	(2016-03-22/2016-05-01)	36	(2016-05-01/2016-07-12)
37	(2016-07-13/2016-09-30)	38	(2016-10-01/2016-12-04)
39	(2016-12-04/2017-01-17)	40	(2017-01-18/2017-01-28)
41	(2017-01-29/2017-02-13)	42	(2017-02-14/2017-03-21)
43	(2017-03-20/2017-08-11)	44	(2017-08-10/2017-12-07)
45	(2017-12-08/2018-01-08)	46	(2018-01-19/2018-03-11)
47	(2018-03-11/2018-09-11)	48	(2018-09-01/2019-02-17)
49	(2019-02-22/2019-06-18)	50	(2019-06-19/2019-10-06)
51	(2019-10-07/2019-12-23)	52	(2019-12-24/2020-04-03)
53	(2020-04-03/2020-07-16)	54	(2020-07-17/2020-09-05)
55	(2020-09-08/2020-11-27)	56	(2020-11-27/2021-06-21)
57	(2021-06-05/2021-09-24)	58	(2021-09-25/2022-01-24)
59	(2022-01-26/2022-02-27)	60	(2022-02-27/2022-04-13)
61	(2022-04-14/2022-05-10)	62	(2022-07-01/2023-12-17)
63	(2022-12-24/2023-04-20)	64	(2023-04-20/2023-08-29)
65	(2023-09-01/2023-12-27)	66	(2023-11-18/2024-02-14)
67	(2024-02-14/2024-06-21)	68	(2024-06-22/2024-11-02)
69	(2024-11-03/2025-xx-xx)	70	(???)

Renaming Template:Q

Template:Q has only 146 transclusions.

On this wiki, {{Q|1043}} renders as:

Q1043

on en.Wikipedia, Wikidata, Commons and elsewhere, it renders as:

Carl Linnaeus (Q1043)

On the other hand, this wiki's {{QID|1043}} renders as:

Carl Linnaeus (Q1043)

I propose to rename the current Template:Q to, say, Template:Wikidata short link, with Template:Q-short as a redirect, replace all instances of {{Q}}, and finally to move Template:QID to Template:Q, leaving a redirect, in order to standardise template behaviour on this wiki with others, and to facilitate the import of updates to them made on other wikis.

Any thoughts? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:30, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

As far as I'm seeing here, Template:Q on Wikispecies is just a redirect to Template:Wikidata entity link, which itself is an import of en:Wikidata entity link from en.wiki, while Template:QID is an import of c:Template:Q from Commons. Additionally, these templates seem to serve similar purposes to each other, except that one links to Special:EntityLink/<item>, while the other links to <item> directly. Do we really need both of these templates on Wikispecies? Monster Iestyn (talk) 13:59, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

That was my mistake, After posting here, I reimported {{Wikidata entity link}} to get a bug fix that had been applied on en.Wikipedia. That inadvertently overwrote {{Q}}, which I have now restored. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:24, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Last call, before I do this. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:26, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

@Andy Mabbett: Good and sound idea. Please, go ahead. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk)‚ 16:42, 4 November 2024 (UTC).

I have begun work on this. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:11, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

I still have this in hand; I'm waiting for a bugfix in AWB, so I can replace the existing instances. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:05, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Biodiversity Heritage Library user template

{{User BHL}} is now available; you can see an example on my user page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:44, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. I've added it to the corresponding Wikidata item, here: Q131341915. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 04:35, 4 January 2025 (UTC).

William Swainson

Please see Talk:William John Swainson. The great great grandson of Swainson claims, with good arguments, that the second name John never existed. Task for a bot, or, let's start a massive manual correction? Remember Louis "Jean" Pierre Vieillot, never Jean.... Hector Bottai (talk) 16:44, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

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 10:22, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

FYI: Over 200 new species identified in Southeast Asia

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-12-16/wwf-lists-234-new-species-discovered-in-south-east-asia/104731756 —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 12:37, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 14:28, 2 January 2025 (UTC).

Indian names

These two are the same:

• Thomas K. Sabu
• Sabu K. Thomas

The publications mentioned in these two articles are listed as numbers 8, 12 and 15 at:

• https://zoology.uoc.ac.in/index.php/dr-sabu-k-thomas

--Quasi-grip (talk) 14:29, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Thomas is the back name. Kerala is home base of the Malabar Church, a congregation of Thomas Christians with ancient origins. Back names are taken from the Bible. Neferkheperre (talk) 13:36, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Checking both his articles and his profiles (Google Scholar, ORCiD and ResearchGate), it doesn't seem consistent which of the two name orders he uses. The Zootaxa article listed at Thomas K. Sabu also calls him "K. Thomas Sabu". Monster Iestyn (talk) 16:22, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

In his "official capacity" as (former) Principal of St.Joseph’s College, Devagiri , from what I can tell, he is consistently using Sabu K. Thomas. Quasi-grip (talk) 19:04, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

In that case, Sabu K. Thomas sounds to me like the main name to use. Interestingly, the botanist M. Thomas Sibichen is also a former principal of the same college, but according to this website his name is Sibichen M. Thomas. I've just checked, and he has in fact published under both these names... Monster Iestyn (talk) 04:46, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Authors of Fly Names

This looks like a useful reference work; just published:

Neal Evenhuis (2025), "Authors of fly names" (PDF), Bishop Museum Technical Reports (4 ed.), BPBM, 74, ISSN 1085-455X, Wikidata Q131620851

It's free to read. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:10, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Homochelas/Homoshelas

I'd like some help with cleaning up these pages: Homochelas heppneri and Homoshelas. It appears that either is a misspelling of other, but I wasn't able to figure out which one. Additionally, Homochelas heppneri page has duplications but fixing those goes beyond my current editing skills.

Soulful potato (talk) 23:39, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

​I'm sending a notification to @PeterR who created both pages back in 2016 (including the duplicate "Name" and "References" sections on the Homochelas heppneri page). Hopefully he can help. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 00:58, 7 January 2025 (UTC).

From NHM Buttmoth Catalogue Homoshelas Meyrick, 1935 is the original/correct spelling (also in LepIndex, CoL), Homochelas Clarke, 1969 is an unjustified emendation spelling (not in LepIndex).

Homoshelas in NHM Buttmoth Catalogue: https://data.nhm.ac.uk/record/c1727662-2d1e-426f-818c-d144552a747c/13811/1677508006952

Homochelas in NHM Buttmoth Catalogue:

https://data.nhm.ac.uk/record/c1727662-2d1e-426f-818c-d144552a747c/13758/1677508006952

See also Park et al., 2021

Ref: Park, K.T., Heo, U.H. and Byun, B.K. 2021. Two new species of Gelechiidae (Lepidoptera) from Korea, with some biological data including larval host plants. Zootaxa 4996(2), pp.301–308. DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4996.2.4

This gives:

Genus Encolapta Meyrick, 1913 Type species: Encolapta metorcha Meyrick, 1913. = Homoshelas Meyrick, 1935 = Chelophoba Meyrick, 1935 = Homochelas Clarke, 1969 Tony 1212 (talk) 17:57, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

CoL (https://www.catalogueoflife.org/data/taxon/927YT) presently has:

Encolapta Meyrick, 1913 [4]

= Homochelas Park, 1995 [5]

= Homochelas Clarke, 1969 [2]

= Chelophoba Meyrick, 1935 [3]

= Homoshelas Meyrick, 1935 [1]

[1] In Caradja & Meyrick, Mater. Microlepid. Fauna chin. Provinzen Kiangsu, Chekiang, Hunan: 70.

[2] Cat.

[3] In Caradja & Meyrick, Mater. Microlepid. Fauna chin. Provinzen Kiangsu, Chekiang, Hunan: 71.

[4] Journal of the Bombay Natural History Society, 22, 167.

[5] Tropical Lepidoptera Research, 6, 77.

Data from Catalogue of World Gelechiidae Tony 1212 (talk) 18:05, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

New "Species status" template

Recently a new taxon page template called Template:Species status was created. It's currently being used on the Chimaera monstrosa page but I'm guessing it's intended for all of our taxon pages. Is this something we want or need? It looks like the template mostly consists of IUCN data. Most of that has no taxonomical value (i.e. it's out of scope of Wikispecies). Also, each taxon page's link to their corresponding IUCN page is already fetched from Wikidata and automatically shown on our taxon pages via the {{Taxonbar}} template, which we've been using since March 2020.

I propose we delete the "Species status" template, but I ask for second opinions here first before actually deleting it (or not).
I'm also including a "ping" to the creator of the template in order to make them aware of this discussion: @Atlas Þə Biologist.

–Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 04:56, 8 January 2025 (UTC).

yeah delete it Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 08:23, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Yeah delete it, we don't need stuff that has no taxonomical value. Lavalizard101 (talk) 19:15, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

incertae sedis usage in taxonavigation templates

I feel like this is something to discuss (for background to this post see User talk:Lavalizard101#Incertae sedis 2)

There is a disagreement about the usage of incertae sedis in Taxonavigation templates such as {{Sigmatineurum}}, as this is something with a wider impact I feel a wider discussion is needed.

Personally I feel including incertae sedis on taxonavigation templates for genera stating subfamilia: incertae sedis or similar is unneeded. Further there is no consistency with how incertae sedis has been included on said generas templates with {{Gonoconophora}} and {{Ankwlanno}} using {{parent taxon}} Genus ''Incertae sedis'': ''[insert genus name]'' and {{Sigmatineurum}} and {{Ophiodelos}} and using the above system of {{parent}} subfamilia/tribus: ''incertae sedis'' <br /> Genus with type 2 being used previously before removal on {{Tsintaosaurus}} [1] and {{Aragosaurus}} [2].

So should we include incertae sedis on these templates and if so which layout is better:

• Option 1: no incertae sedis on these templates
• Option 2: subfamilia/tribus: incertae sedis
• Option 3: {{parent taxon}} Genus ''Incertae sedis'': ''[insert genus name]''

Lavalizard101 (talk) 20:09, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

• For me it's Option 2 as in {{Ophiodelos}}, 1/ it is taxonomically an important information, 2/ it is in that way fully integrated into the Wikispecies style, 3/ nor no additional pages/templates have to be created neither pages names are affected. I see absolutely no reason (technical, taxonomic or as regard to visual style) not to tolerate option 2. Christian Ferrer (talk) 20:46, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Realised I didn't technically specify which option but Option 1 as incertae sedis has at times been over-used for genera simply because they don't belong to a daughter taxon within a clade (e.g. not belonging to a subfamily within a family) rather than being simply of uncertain placement as incertae sedis should be used for. Excluding incertae sedis doesn't require additional pages or templates nor are page names affected. Lavalizard101 (talk) 00:23, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Option 3 is bad, because it looks like the genus is uncertain, but it is its parent taxon (subfamily or tribus) where it should be included. Options 1 or 2 are both ok. --Thiotrix (talk) 12:34, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Can I just check, is this about - as in {{Ophiodelos}} above, including "...incertae sedis" within the template body, not actually naming the templates (and taxon pages) "...incertae sedis" as in {{Incertae sedis (Apameini)}} (and Incertae sedis (Apameini)); thanks, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 13:25, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Responding here to the OP, in general incertae cedis is used in taxonomy to denote a taxon that can be placed with certainty into a lower order than the one discussed but it cannot be ascertained if it is in itself a taxon that is new. For example a Genus incertae cedis is actually saying the specimen clearly belongs to the genus named but whether it is a new species cannot be determined. Likewise Family incertae cedis is saying the speciimen belongs to the Family named but cannot be determined as to which genus it belongs. Some people like use species incertae cedis to make this clearler for example but its not essential. In the end whatever is named is certain, the incertae cedis refers to the level that cannot be determined. Which way we do this is not matter to me as this is a terminology that is well defined in the literature. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 13:36, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

I know what incertae sedis should be used for my point about overuse is for example {{Aragosaurus}} when they included incertae sedis before I removed it, they didn't need incertae sedis because Aragosaurus was never considered incertae sedis it was considered a basal member of Eusauropoda, also of note is the overuse of incertae sedis to mean genera not assigned to a lower order at all (despite it meaning uncertain placement) when the genera are basal and just simply don't need to be placed in lower orders, E.g. Hadrosauroidea has a bunch of genera not assigned to the family Hadrosauridae that are basal and simply don't need placement in a monotypic family which prior to my edit on Hadrosauroidea they were listed as incertae sedis within Hadrosauroidea rather than just simply being unassigned. Lavalizard101 (talk) 14:03, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

So if they are not in Hadrosauridae where do they belong? Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 16:25, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

They are hadrosauroidea but not assigned further to a family rank (as unassigned rather than uncertain assignment), not everything is or needs placing in a family now, I know some authors who have stopped using Linnean classification altogether preferring cladistic classification except when necessary and not assigning every genus to a family or lower rank taxa especially when dealing with basal taxa. Lavalizard101 (talk) 16:55, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

figured, its just that Phylocode is not a valid classification system. But such is life. If it becomes one we can use it. Remember we are a global checklist not just a some paleo groups one. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 19:51, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Yep, this is about including within the template body not naming. Lavalizard101 (talk) 13:42, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Some strange web links to Mycobank?

Hello, I hope I can ask a question here on the village pump. It seems to me like some web links here on Wikispecies to Mycobank points to the wrong page on Mycobank. At least this was the case in Anema and some related articles I just read. I don´t know how to check how many pages this may concern, but maybe someone with more experience of Wikispecies knows how to check it and fix it? Höstblomma (talk) 11:27, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

@Höstblomma: Thank you for spotting this. Ideally, all of the manually added MycoBank (and Index Fungorum) links should be deleted, since they are all already automatically added by the {{Taxonbar}} template with information from Wikidata. This template produces the "Taxon identifiers" infobox that can be seen at the bottom of each taxon page (including Anema). Perhaps the MycoBank and Index Fungorum links could be removed using a bot? I'll look in to that in a day or two. –Best regards, Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 15:43, 11 January 2025 (UTC).

Hawaii Hymenoptera categories

I just learned of the existence of Category:Hawaii Hymenoptera and Category:Hawaii Colletidae. These apparently are categories Stephen Thorpe made way back in 2011, which have not been expanded or made use of further since. The former is also the only category in the nonexistent "Hawaii Hexapoda" category which I found listed in Special:WantedCategories. I know that in the past Thorpe's New Zealand categories were deleted, but just to make sure, do we want these at all? Monster Iestyn (talk) 23:27, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

• I don't know, it seems that the concept "taxa by location" is currently not used in our category tree Category:Taxa. I don't know if this fits our projects scope, though why not after all. However if it is just to have those both categories, IMO they can be deleted for now, at least until we decide to develop on a large scale and in a coherent manner such categories. Christian Ferrer (talk) 12:35, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Can I add myself?

I have published a paper in Zootaxa creating a replacement name for a homonym in Coleoptera. Is it acceptable practice to add myself and my paper on this site (and myself on Wikidata)? Keith Edkins (Talk) 10:57, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

• Yes, you can, and as a taxon name author you should. Both here and in Wikidata. You have to create Keith Edkins, look e.g. at Scott Thomson → User:Faendalimas, or Ray T. Perreault → User:Neferkheperre. Christian Ferrer (talk) 12:24, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

New paper on Magnoliids

Newly out Toward a phylogenomic classification of magnoliids (open access) might be of interest to some here - MPF (talk) 23:52, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. Andyboorman (talk) 08:34, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

I have been through the paper. It has a few implications for WS, but mainly it re-enforces the consensus. However, there are two points of contention, so far discovered. Firstly, Helmstetter et al. wish to break with APGIV and promote subfamily Hydnoroideae to Hydnoraceae, this is also found on APW. However, their analysis is not definitive (see fig, 6A). Advice from Kew it that we stick with APG unless more definitive evidence comes to light. Secondly Helmstetter et al. supports; Ezedin, Z. & Sauquet, H. 2024. (3021–3022) Proposals to conserve the names Brochoneura, with a conserved type, and Cephalosphaera (Myristicaceae). Taxon 73(2): 648-649. DOI: 10.1002/tax.13155. However, Kew is unlikely to support this proposal at the moment, as they think it is unnecessary given the current use of Neobrochoneura Figueiredo & Gideon F.Sm., Phytotaxa 456(3): 299. (2020) for the Madagascan species of Myristicaceae. Andyboorman (talk) 15:05, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Universal Code of Conduct annual review: provide your comments on the UCoC and Enforcement Guidelines

Please help translate to your language.

I am writing to you to let you know the annual review period for the Universal Code of Conduct and Enforcement Guidelines is open now. You can make suggestions for changes through 3 February 2025. This is the first step of several to be taken for the annual review. Read more information and find a conversation to join on the UCoC page on Meta.

The Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is a global group dedicated to providing an equitable and consistent implementation of the UCoC. This annual review was planned and implemented by the U4C. For more information and the responsibilities of the U4C, you may review the U4C Charter.

Please share this information with other members in your community wherever else might be appropriate.

-- In cooperation with the U4C, Keegan (WMF) (talk) 01:10, 24 January 2025 (UTC)