Shortcuts: WS:V, WS:VP

Wikispecies:Village Pump

From Wikispecies
(Redirected from Wikispecies:Village pump)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

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:

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-xx-xx)  

Is Steve Van Dyck and Stephen Maxwell Van Dyck the same author?[edit]

I copy and paste a question from an earlier thread, above, about duplicate and/or unnecessary author pages:

For instance, who on earth was Stephen Maxwell Van Dyck and why does Wikispecies have a page for him? No details are given at all so this appears to be an entirely useless page, unless it happens to be the full name of Steve Van Dyck? Monster Iestyn 15:07, 21 April 2023 (UTC).

I think that the two Van Dyck's are probably the same person. See for example Dasyurus spartacus ("Bronze quoll") where our WS page currently only lists "Van Dyck, 1987" for the authorship, without actually specifying any given name. The corresponding Wikidata item Bronze quoll (Q133184) claims Stephen Maxwell Van Dyck (Q21340096) to be the author. This is backed up by the protologue:

Stephen M. Van Dyck. 1988. The bronze quoll, Dasyurus spartacus (Marsupialia: Dasyuridae), a new species from the savannahs of Papua New Guinea. Australian Mammalogy 11(2): 145–156. (PDF.)

Other sources referring to the same publication instead names the author as "Van Dyck, S.M."[1] (in the IUCN Red List) or "Stephen Van Dyck"[2] (active at Queensland Museum, i.e. same workplace as "Steve Van Dyck").

There are other Stephen Maxwell Van Dyck taxa as well, for example Chestnut dunnart (Q134079), Cinnamon antechinus (Q135437), and Subtropical Antechinus (Q135439). A more thorough investingation of these often ends up in listing "Steve Van Dyck" instead of "Stephen Van Dyck". –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 10:00, 26 April 2023 (UTC).Reply[reply]

I'm not sure if Wikidata is reliable here or not, the Wikidata item for Stephen Maxwell Van Dyck was created in 2015 by a bot automatically from the Wikispecies page. Stephen Maxwell Van Dyck was then set as the taxon author on the Bronze quoll's wikidata item in 2016 by the same bot. (Rather awkwardly, the Wikidata item for Steve Van Dyck has been around since 2013, so why did the bot not choose that one instead?). Otherwise what you say makes sense to me, though the protologue's PDF doesn't actually give "Maxwell" or "M." so I don't know where IUCN got that initial from.
Wish we could ask Open2universe where he got the taxon author name (and other taxon author names if needed) from in the first place, but it appears he's not been active on any Wikimedia site since 2016. Monster Iestyn (talk) 15:43, 26 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Merged. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:41, 30 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What is the true scope of Wikispecies?[edit]

Wikispecies is supposed to have "all species of life", right? But what counts as life? While clearly all cellular life counts, we also include viruses. But do we include prions? Nanobes? Plasmid? 2007Gtbot (talk) 15:56, 27 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Do these entities have a formal taxonomy? Andyboorman (talk) 06:53, 30 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Hmm - not sure. In 2006 when I was creating IRMNG, I added a "phylum" subviral agents, with "classes" for Prions, Satellites, and Viroids, all from the 2006 ICTVdB (viruses) via the then latest Catalog of Life; see Prions, for example, then sort into "Fungal Prions" and "Mammalian Prions", which I support at "family" level (plus children), still there in IRMNG at this time. However such items no longer appear in the ICTV database, e.g. 2010 onwards, so I am not sure whether or not I should keep them... Tony 1212 (talk) 19:30, 30 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    No (at least not an easy to find one), but I don't think thats the correct question. If they are life, then they have species and thus the species need pages. But like are they life? 2007Gtbot (talk) 19:29, 4 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Correct scientific name for the (domesticated) horse[edit]

Just checking - currently in WS we have the domesticated horse as Equus ferus caballus, subspecies of Equus ferus, cited refs are Wilson & Reeder, 2005 (however the link actually goes to their entry entitled Equus caballus caballus) and ICZN Opinion 2027, 2003, which seems (to me) to rule that ferus has priority over caballus at species level, but by inference, only if the 2 are considered conspecific (my italics). Wilson & Reeder's use of caballus is according to this stated reasoning:

"Recent caballine horses have been assigned to two different species, E. caballus (or ferus) and E. przewalskii, but many authors now include przewalskii in caballus; see Corbet (1978c:194), Groves (1974a), Bennett (1980), and Bennett and Hoffman (1999). Gromov and Baranova (1981:333-334) continued to recognize two species, gmelini (= ferus) and przewalskii. Groves (1971b) and Corbet (1978c:194) proposed that ferus (the Tarpan) replace caballus, objecting to the use of specific names based on domestic animals. Gentry et al. (1996) proposed that majority usage be confirmed by adoption of the first available specific name based on a wild population for the wild taxon, in this case deemed to be E. ferus. It has not been demonstrated that most authors have termed wild horses E. ferus rather than E. caballus or E. c. ferus or other names. Azzaroli (1984), Bennett and Hoffman (1999), and Forsten (1988) are among those who have used the name caballus for the species. The case is complicated by the very much wider use of przewalskii as a name for wild horses, though przewalskii is commonly treated as a species separate from E. caballus. Gentry et al. (1996) asked the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature to use its plenary power to rule that the name for the wild species is not invalid by virtue of being antedated by the name based on the domestic form. The Commission has ruled in favor of the proposal (International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, 2003). It has stipulated that ferus is not invalid but has not specified explicitly what name is to be used for the species by those who consider E. caballus and E. ferus to be conspecific (see Bock, 1997). Material evidence that ferus is a distinct form of wild horse is limited to osteological material of two specimens and it has not been reliably identified with Pleistocene or Holocene local populations (Forsten, 1988). Its status as a wild rather than a feral form is disputed (e.g. Epstein, 1971) and it is not regarded as ancestral to domestic horses by Kuz'mina (1997). Accordingly ferus is here treated as a subspecies of E. caballus. The systematics of ferus needs to be more thoroughly reviewed."

So I am wondering if we are correct using ferus caballus where, Wilson & Reeder, taking account of the ICZN decision, use caballus caballus. Minds greater (or more up-to-date) than mine may be required here, perhaps. FWIW, Wikipedia is currently confused. At the lede states: "The horse (Equus ferus caballus)" but then the taxon navigation box says: "Species: E. caballus, Subspecies: E. c. caballus." Also they have a page which gives E. caballus as the type species, but when you click on it you get back to "The horse (Equus ferus caballus)" which is where we started... I can change the WP page(s) (I think) but only if I know what I should be changing it to... Tony 1212 (talk) 20:03, 30 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OK: Just checked ITIS and it says: "See Groves & Grubb (2011: 8 & 13). The diverse origins of domestic horses are discussed, the scientific name applicable to the domestic horses, as a species, is provided, and it is noted that it is believed to be derived from Equus ferus." (Ref. is Groves, Colin, and Peter Grubb, 2011, Ungulate Taxonomy Page(s): ix + 317 Publisher:Johns Hopkins University Press, ISBN: 1-4214-0093-6. So maybe this is the source for considering caballus a subspecies of ferus these days?? On the other hand, ITIS (current version) uses Equus caballus for this species, noting Equus ferus caballus as a synonym. Tony 1212 (talk) 20:40, 30 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I do not have access to the full text of Groves & Grubb as given above, however on their p.8 they give the scientific name for the domesticated horse as E. caballus and treat it as a separate species from E. ferus, therefore this cannot be the source of the current information in Wikispecies (or Wikipedia for that matter). Tony 1212 (talk) 01:12, 1 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I know it is just a blog, but the author of this article may have correctly set out the principles involved in this case. Now I am hoping that other Wikispecies experts may be able to offer an opinion here :) Tony 1212 (talk) 07:36, 1 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Doing my best not to labour the point here, BUT... if Wilson & Reeder use caballus, as do Groves & Grubb 2012, as does ITIS (present time), as does e.g. The Mammal Diversity Database of the American Society of Mammalogists (ASM) - see - and WS wishes to continue to use Equus ferus caballus, should there not at least be a reference to a recent source that supports and justifies this usage? Alternatively, we should maybe change to caballus as per the cited sources just listed. But it's not a decision I feel comfortable making unilaterally in case there are other reasons for maintaining the status quo name. Just putting it out there... Regards Tony Tony 1212 (talk) 04:47, 2 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note that the page was moved in 2015 (10:55, 8 June 2015 - Editor abcdef talk contribs block - m 2,648 bytes 0 - Editor abcdef moved page Equus caballus caballus to Equus ferus caballus over redirect: ICZN Opinion 2027), without discussion, by a unilateral decision, so you can move back, as the sources you brought corroborate the return of the initial name of the entry. Regards, Burmeister (talk) 11:13, 2 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK, I tried to move to Equus caballus, but made a mistake, I moved it to "Wikispecies:Equus caballus" in error... but the system will not me move "Wikispecies:Equus caballus" to "Equus caballus", saying that there is already a page there. Can someone assist? Basically I want the history from "Equus ferus caballus", now at "Wikispecies:Equus caballus" I believe (incorrect destination), to go to "Equus caballus", along with whatever content was there prior to my first move. Help needed... I decided (at this stage) on the desired destination being "Equus caballus" not "Equus caballus caballus", since the logic of the naming depends on caballus being recognised as a species in its own right, separate from ferus (and corresponds with the cited sources). Help needed, possibly from an admin - thanks in advance - Tony Tony 1212 (talk) 18:46, 2 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ok, I will merge the two pages. Burmeister (talk) 18:49, 2 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks, looks good so far as I can see. I have added additional references and links, and will annotate some of the issues in a to-be-added section "Alternative treatments" if that is considered to be the best place for them... Tony 1212 (talk) 19:17, 2 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Now done, see Equus_caballus#Alternative_treatments. The wording in this new section is somewhat convoluted but I have done the best I can to cover the various issues involved (others may improve if they see fit). See also the Equus caballus Talk page for selected relevant discussion. Tony 1212 (talk) 20:22, 2 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Too many orphans....[edit]

We have accumulated here too many orphaned pages - more than 3000 - see [3]

An orphaned page is one which isn't referenced or mentioned by any other page, this probably means that is is in some kind of error.

I'm trying to reduce the orphans, but it involves some hard work...

So I'm asking the members to follow some basic rules to cut down on the number.

  1. when editing a genus species list or removing a synonym from a list please retain a mention either under a synonym title or on another species page, else redirect or delete that name altogether.
  2. when creating a new author page, please include at least one reference to one taxon the author contributed to, or at least to one taxonomic publication the author participated in. Pages such as Ana Sanz are truly unacceptable. Mariusm (talk) 05:33, 8 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Very sound rules. I fully agree. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 10:50, 8 May 2023 (UTC).Reply[reply]
As an inveterate creator of orphans when first editing here and now a curer, I also whole heartedly agree. Andyboorman (talk) 13:22, 8 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Fully agree.--Hector Bottai (talk) 19:51, 8 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Lyttle-Wight: Who created a number of the orphaned biographies - can you resolve any of these, please? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:06, 8 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Really hard work. In a brief overview of the list, identified and de-orphaned >40 Aves taxa. Many are "nomen nudum" related to Linnaeus, 1758, created by @Kheller: easily linked to the corresponding template Template:Linnaeus, 1758 new names list. I suspect there are many other classis taxa with these characteristics. --Hector Bottai (talk) 12:25, 10 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
FYI Kheller has not been active since 2014 according to the user page. Apologies for earlier typo. Andyboorman (talk) 12:40, 10 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Formae loc. f." ..?[edit]

The "infraspecific" part of the Taxonavigation sections for about half of the species listed on the Ornithoptera genus page looks very odd, for example (including big and bold type):

Subgenus: Straatmana
Species: Ornithoptera aesacus
male ♂ f
O.a.♂f. azurus - O.a.♂f. claudei   […]
female ♀ f
O.a.♀f. massaea - O.a.♀f. purpurea

The affected pages are: Ornithoptera aesacus, Ornithoptera alexandrae, Ornithoptera chimaera, Ornithoptera meridionalis, and Ornithoptera rothschildi.

The following taxon pages looks okay, though: Ornithoptera croesus, Ornithoptera goliath, Ornithoptera paradisea, Ornithoptera priamus, Ornithoptera tithonus, and Ornithoptera victoriae.

Does anyone know what to make of this? As far as I know the term forma has no standing under the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (in contrast to botanical nomenclature where forma is accepted for infraspecific taxa). Also, what's up with the "male ♂ formae" and "female ♀ formae" stuff? Surely the taxonomy of these butterflies doesn't differ depending on gender? –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 18:14, 8 May 2023 (UTC).Reply[reply]

These forms which are really local variations have no taxonomic significance and are not recognized by the ICZN. Therefore they don't belong to WS and should be deleted. Just a waste of time and energy... Mariusm (talk) 05:32, 9 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hence, when deleting the lists of formae from for example Ornithoptera aesacus I guess we should also delete the pages Ornithoptera aesacus ♂f. azurus and Ornithoptera aesacus ♀f. purpurea (etc…) instead of leaving them as orphans? –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 09:22, 10 May 2023 (UTC).Reply[reply]
Right. All formea must be deleted! Mariusm (talk) 08:23, 12 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Only for taxa subject to ICZN, therefore not using a blanket bot. Andyboorman (talk) 08:29, 12 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Would it be worth listing these names as synonyms of the species instead? Otherwise, I think it was PeterR who made all these pages for formae, I don't know if he was aware these are unavailable under ICZN. (I am a bit surprised that infrasubspecific names are being coined as recently as 2015 though, is this something lepidopterists still do in the present day?) Monster Iestyn (talk) 14:42, 12 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The main problem with that is they aren't synonyms. We can't go ahead and call an unrecognized "rank" for a synonym, just because it seems convenient. It is of course possible to list them in some other way, but we can't call them synonyms. Synonyms are taxon names (albeit outdated), while forms are not recognized as such (except in botany).
By the way, here's how Wikidata threats them, in this case Ornithoptera rothschildi ♂f. kenricki: Q25397049.
Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 19:39, 12 May 2023 (UTC).Reply[reply]

Global Compositae Checklist[edit]

Global Compositae Checklist is no longer available and should be deleted off Reference Lists. However, a partial replacement is found here - Regards Andyboorman (talk) 14:17, 12 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have replaced all GCC templates with GCD templates using the above mentioned webpage.--RLJ (talk) 19:08, 12 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For convenience, here's a link to the template RLJ created: Template:GCD. The GCC template has been deleted. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 02:30, 13 May 2023 (UTC).Reply[reply]

Styling for {{Noref}}[edit]

{{Noref}} is certainly very visible, but it is very different from our other templates and inconsistent with other templates. Do we want this template to look this way? —Justin (koavf)TCM 14:50, 12 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In my opinion no, we very much don't. The same goes for {{Stub}}. I think that for example {{Cleanup}} looks a lot better. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 15:14, 12 May 2023 (UTC).Reply[reply]
It needs to be translated, also. That said, it only has fourteen (14) transclusions; do we need it at all? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits
Last year, it was cited on about 2700 pages, but meanwhile I found references for most of them. The template should be kept for maintenance purpose, but should be adjusted to the style of {{Cleanup}}. .--Thiotrix (talk) 15:21, 16 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK. Done. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:56, 18 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Consider changing pages[edit]

I was going to wikispecies for a project I'm working on when I noticed that it didn't give me descriptions of what each phylum, kingdom, domain, was characterized by. I think we should consider adding that to every page. I believe this would greatly improve WikiSpecies and help a lot of people. I know that its a species directory but what good is it if you dont even put even the briefest description of them or we could even put links to their pages on Wikipedia — The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ducklan (talkcontribs).

@Ducklan: Can you give me an example? Maybe copy and paste something to User:Ducklan/sandbox and show us what you have in mind? —Justin (koavf)TCM 17:32, 12 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I did what you said but the main thing im trying to do is make wikispecies more accessible to those with less biological understanding. so like maybe when you hover over a link it tells you most common characteristic of that phyla or kingdom or whatever it is. or just link it to the wikipedia page although this is seperate, or you could just put it on that page
Ever Thankful Ducklan (talk) 17:43, 12 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Ducklan and Koavf: Please note that since yesterday the main thread for this discussion is here: Requests for Comment: Consider adding Descriptions, started by user Ducklan. Please keep the discussion in one place only, or it may become unnecessary confusing and lead to misunderstandings.
Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 18:40, 12 May 2023 (UTC).Reply[reply]
Agreed: let's move to that thread and discuss there. —Justin (koavf)TCM 18:59, 12 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I propose we empty and delete the {{Wikipedia}} template, which only purpose is to add a corresponding Wikipedia link to any page it's used on, like this:

Wikipedia For more information, look at Village Pump on Wikipedia.
(It uses the PAGENAME magic word, hence the Wikipedia link always correlates to the page it's added to; in the above case of course "Village Pump" since it's added here at the Village Pump.)

The template was created back in 2016 when Wikidata was still fairly undeveloped. Today Wikidata functionality is a whole other ball game and among other things it automatically adds Wikipedia links to the far left of all Wikispecies taxon and author pages. Hence the {{Wikipedia}} template is no longer needed. Furthermore it only generates text in English, and exclusively links to the English language version of Wikipedia. This doesn't sit well with Wikispecies ambition to be as accessible and language independent as possible. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 02:36, 16 May 2023 (UTC).Reply[reply]

N Deleted. Thank you for your opinions. The template has been deleted. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 07:10, 18 May 2023 (UTC).Reply[reply]

For similar reasons, should we remove the |Wikipedia= parameter from {{Repository}}? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:18, 20 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Theodore Sherman Palmer[edit]

Wikispecies currently has two pages for taxon authors named "Theodore Sherman Palmer": a zoologist Theodore Sherman Palmer (1868–1955) and a botanist Theodore Sherman Palmer (1860–1962) (based on data from IPNI). However, I suspect these might actually be the same person.

According to an obituary for the zoologist from 1956 ([4]), he was President of the Biological Society of Washington from 1909 to 1910. As it happens, one of the two names IPNI gives for the botanist, Carex varians, comes from volume 14 of the same society's "Proceedings" journal. The other one, Dryopteris celsa, IPNI cites from a different source, Ferns of the Southeastern States. However, on looking this source up on Google Books ([5], page 477 if you can see it in Snippet view), it in turn cites volume 13 of the same Proceedings. In both cases the names come from the indicies of their respective volumes ([6] and [7] respectively), and the authorship of these names I presume come from the "Committee on Publications" pages of these volumes ([8] and [9], respectively).

What this tells me is that Theodore Sherman Palmer of IPNI is not necessarily a botanist at all, and he could well be the same person as the zoologist (unless by some chance two people named "T. S. Palmer" were linked to the Biological Society of Washington at roughly the same time, which I doubt). I also suspect that IPNI's years for the author are wrong, because it's not clear where they come from at all.

Does this seem right to everyone else? Have I missed something? Monster Iestyn (talk) 23:51, 17 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

He appears to only have contributed to the descriptions of two plants. I would advise that you contact IPNI and ask for clarification and then allow them to correct their entry. Clearly his work on game, field and habitat biology was far more important. Andyboorman (talk) 08:42, 18 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Theodore Sherman Palmer (1868–1955) is very clearly the same T.S. Palmer who is given, with William Perry Hay & Charles David White, as one of the authors of the improperly published Carex varians in [10], as members of the Committee on Publications of the Biological Society of Washington, per The Auk's July 1956 obituary at [11]. IPNI has that person as also co-authoring Dryopteris celsa. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:39, 22 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Merge now complete; someone still needs to inform IPNI. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:10, 22 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks, and apologies for not contacting IPNI yet about this issue. I'll send them an email later today. Monster Iestyn (talk) 14:51, 22 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Done, I've asked them where their years come from, and provided some of the evidence I gave earlier to link IPNI's record with the zoologist who lived 1868–1955. Monster Iestyn (talk) 19:47, 22 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I got a reply from an IPNI editor saying the dates come from Brummitt and Powell's book (Authors of Plant Names from 1992), but they've no idea where it sourced them from. It looks like they'll be correcting the IPNI record to use the dates I gave them (they've already updated HavardBotanist too), which should mean this is resolved now. Monster Iestyn (talk) 22:47, 23 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Simple English vernacular names[edit]

I think we should remove "Simple" as a language from {{VN}}. I can't think if any case where it would have a different value from the value for "en". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:45, 22 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Agreed seems redundant. Also I think we ought not to add the taxon page name into VN unless absolutely essential. Andyboorman (talk) 13:29, 22 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
no Agree per both Mabbett and Boorman. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 21:15, 22 May 2023 (UTC).Reply[reply]
no Agree both--Hector Bottai (talk) 22:02, 22 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
no Agree both. Neferkheperre (talk) 11:58, 23 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[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. Done. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:27, 23 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Missed this discussion, but just to add that omitting it is already mentioned in the VN Guidelines - MPF (talk) 12:41, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Template:Taxonbar and Template:Authority control are very convenient in effortlessly adding links. Can we consider launching a bot to attach them to every taxon or author page? Mariusm (talk) 05:20, 24 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

no Agree I would support this initiative if there is consensus. Andyboorman (talk) 06:29, 24 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
no Agree --RLJ (talk) 07:54, 24 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
no Agree I have been manually adding these to my cirripede pages and author pages wherever applicable. Neferkheperre (talk) 12:41, 24 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
no Agree Burmeister (talk) 12:43, 24 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
no Agree Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:07, 24 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
no Agree Please! Manual adding to every Aves page edited.--Hector Bottai (talk) 01:49, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
no Agree --MILEPRI (talk) 09:50, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Global ban proposal for Leonardo José Raimundo[edit]

There is an on-going discussion about a proposal that Leonardo José Raimundo be globally banned from editing all Wikimedia projects. You are invited to participate at Requests for comment/Global ban for Leonardo José Raimundo on Meta-Wiki. Thank you! Elton (talk) 00:59, 26 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Selection of the U4C Building Committee[edit]

The next stage in the Universal Code of Conduct process is establishing a Building Committee to create the charter for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C). The Building Committee has been selected. Read about the members and the work ahead on Meta-wiki.

-- UCoC Project Team, 04:20, 27 May 2023 (UTC)