Wikispecies:Village Pump

WikiSpecies notext-invert.svg 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-xx-xx)

Special: related changesEdit

The maximum allowed to view is 100 changes in the last 30 days. One month is a surprisingly short time if one wants to keep an occasional eye on related changes connected to a page, it is very easy to forget to check that frequently. Could it be increased to 100 changes in the last 100 days, or even better, all related changes in the last year? That would make it a far more useful tool. - MPF (talk) 23:59, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Anyone? MPF (talk) 01:51, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
I suspect no-one here knows how to do this, nor even whether it is possible. You might ask on the Mediawiki support desk. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:31, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
Thanks! I'll give it a try - MPF (talk) 22:31, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
For several years now I've had my "Related changes" as well as "Recent changes" set to show 500 changes over the last 30 days. "Recent changes" can be set to show a maximum of 1,000 edits over the past 30 days in the Recent changes" section of the user preferences, however that doesn't seem to apply to "Related changes", and I don't know how to extend the time period to more than 30 days. Please consider sharing that information here if you strike luck at the MW support desk. Thanks beforehand! :-) Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 11:37, 30 December 2021 (UTC).
Still yet to get round to asking! - MPF (talk) 21:19, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

@Tommy Kronkvist: I put in a request at m:Community Wishlist Survey 2022/Miscellaneous/Give 'Related changes' a longer time span; the answers are not promising, unfortunately - MPF (talk) 22:01, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

@MPF: I see... Having read the thread and the information it links to it's easy to understand the downsides of an extended period from 30 to, say 100 days. Some of our bigger sister projects like Wikidata and enWP sometimes process several hundred edits per minute and handling huge edit-history database tables can of course cause all sorts of performance issues (and worse). An ideal solution would be to have two "Recent changes" pages. One "default" for most user just like the one we use now, and then an option to use a different, modified version for us battle-hardened old Wikimedia-wolfs... However, constructing that solution in such a way that it doesn't hog down the servers would be a mammoth task. It would most likely involve running two parallell but separate instances of the database, and I'm pretty sure the DBAs aren't too keen on allowing that... As MusikAnimal (WMF) mentions an external solution would be a lot easier to set up, but it's likely to be rather inconvenient from a practical point of view (remember this one?) Oh well... Thanks anyway for your efforts, MPF! –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 22:51, 11 January 2022 (UTC).

Unable to add Santali language Native namesEdit

Hi, I'm a Wikipedia editor, Recently I came to know about Wikispecies, which is fantastic. Tried to add a Santali Native name "ᱩᱞ" in Mangifera indica page. But Santali language is not displaying when it is added. Santali language has a valid iso code "sat", and has a dedicated Wikipedia Edition sat:ᱩᱞ. Is it because the language doesn't support in Wikispecies or something else??. To prevent any block or spam i have just seen the preview. May i know what may be the possible reason. Rocky 734 (talk) 13:03, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Santali hasn't been added to the languages supported here yet. To request the addition of a new language to the template, please leave a message at Template talk:VN; someone will then add it (I would try myself, but it's late evening here and I'm just shutting down for the night!). - MPF (talk) 00:50, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
Could someone do this, please? I can't work out how! @Pigsonthewing: you've done these before I think? - MPF (talk) 01:51, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
  Done and seems to be working Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:26, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
Excellent, thanks! - MPF (talk) 22:26, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
Thank you @MPF: and @Pigsonthewing: for requesting and adding Santali language. User:Rocky 734 15:50, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

“Wikispecies needs translators to make it more accessible”Edit

@Tommy Kronkvist, Accassidy, AlvaroMolina, Andyboorman, Burmeister, Circeus, Dan Koehl, EncycloPetey, Floscuculi, Keith Edkins, Koavf, Mariusm, MKOliver, MPF, PeterR, Pigsonthewing, RLJ, Thiotrix, Tommy Kronkvist

Hello everyone! I have marked here some administrators and the interface administrator because I have a suggestion/doubt.

Wikispecies is a multilingual project, but I can't find any tool that allows users who are not logged in to view the translations.

Wikimedia Commons, for example, has a gadget called LanguageSelect. The gadget creates a menu, allowing you to select your native language. This same gadget could be included here. What do you think? Edu! (talk) 18:36, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

I do not understand the code! However, a gadget like this will be very useful. You have my support. Andyboorman (talk) 19:31, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
I am very hesitant to import but if there is consensus and no one else wants to do it, then I will. Looks handy. —Justin (koavf)TCM 19:44, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
I added the Gadget-LanguageSelect.js gadget skript to my Commons javascript file, but couldn't really notice any difference, even after purging my browser caches. However I think the functionality as such would be welcome for many users – though preferably it should be much better documented than it currently is in its Commons version. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 19:22, 29 December 2021 (UTC).

Upcoming Call for Feedback about the Board of Trustees electionsEdit

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

The Board of Trustees is preparing a call for feedback about the upcoming Board Elections, from January 7 - February 10, 2022.

While details will be finalized the week before the call, we have confirmed at least two questions that will be asked during this call for feedback:

  • What is the best way to ensure fair representation of emerging communities among the Board?
  • What involvement should candidates have during the election?

While additional questions may be added, the Movement Strategy and Governance team wants to provide time for community members and affiliates to consider and prepare ideas on the confirmed questions before the call opens. We apologize for not having a complete list of questions at this time. The list of questions should only grow by one or two questions. The intention is to not overwhelm the community with requests, but provide notice and welcome feedback on these important questions.

Do you want to help organize local conversation during this Call?

Contact the Movement Strategy and Governance team on Meta, on Telegram, or via email at msg

Reach out if you have any questions or concerns. The Movement Strategy and Governance team will be minimally staffed until January 3. Please excuse any delayed response during this time. We also recognize some community members and affiliates are offline during the December holidays. We apologize if our message has reached you while you are on holiday. Thank you!--SOyeyele (WMF) (talk) 14:42, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Unpatrolled editsEdit

We currently have approximately 320 unpatrolled pages, created and/or edited from December 4 last year, up until today. Feel free to help patrol these so that we can get up to speed with them. They span all types of subjects – plants, animals, bacteria, authors, journals, templates, categories, translations etc. – so there should be something to check for all of us. Thanks beforehand!   Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 15:03, 3 January 2022 (UTC).

User:Abhilash2001kar's edits adding Odia language vernacular names need sorting into their correct alphabetic position; I'll do so tomorrow - MPF (talk) 00:09, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
But doing so much slower than I'd hoped, as most of the pages have multiple other issues! - MPF (talk) 23:13, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
Let's help out! His ("Abhilash" is a male given name) edits can be found here: Special:Contributions/Abhilash2001kar. Regards, Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 19:22, 5 January 2022 (UTC).

───────────────────────── We currently have circa 25 unpatrolled translations created and/or edited by user ChofisDan. Almost all of them are written in West Greenlandic (Kalaallisut), the standard dialect of the Greenlandic language. That makes it hard for most users to check and mark them as patrolled, but please help out if you're able to. Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 07:27, 20 January 2022 (UTC).

Preferred format for reference sectionEdit

Dear all, in thousands of my editions I have used this format:
{{Reference template}} {{BHLpage|xxxxxx Original description p. yy}} or {{BHLpage|xxxxxx First availability p. yy}} that will result in Reference template Original description p. yy BHL or First availability p. yy BHL.
A few of the pages have beed pos-edited to this format:
{{Reference template}} {{BHLpage|xxxxxx yy}} that will result in Reference template yy BHL
Is there a preferred format? Or do we want to have one? Thanks --Hector Bottai (talk) 17:08, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

As far as I know there is no preferred format in regards to the "Original description & First availability" part. Good idea to discuss it here! As a starting point, here's a link to information about the parts of citations for which we do have a preferred format: Help:Reference section.
Best regards, Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 18:35, 3 January 2022 (UTC).
I'd say - strongly - that we should only use {{BHLpage|xxxxxx|yy}}, as phrases like "Original description" and "First availability" (and even "p.") contravene our language-neutrality policy. - MPF (talk) 23:59, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
Personally, My approach is that you're not supposed to "comment" on the reference in the reference section of thet article. I think that was a practice of Stephen that spread out to other users, but it's not what a reference section is for. Plus when done with an updated reference template, such material will get plonked after the "Reference template" link...
Back when I was editing, if I ever chose to put that sort of links, I would do it in the reference call. See e.g. in Solanum africanum. Circeus (talk) 01:12, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
The page of description belong to name section not to the reference section in my opinion, i do not use that kind of format, as a redundant if the page already cited and linked in name section. Burmeister (talk) 02:47, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

───────────────────────── Sorry for the somewhat petty remark, but the name of the "BHL page" template is just that: i.e. {{BHL page}} with a blank space, and not {{BHLpage}} without one. The latter redirects to the correct one though. It was moved by Andy Mabbett in February last year, in order to increase readability. Just saying... :-) Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 03:27, 4 January 2022 (UTC).

That shouldn't make any difference; the important one is to use a vertical line "|" between the "xxxxxx" and the "yy", not a space - MPF (talk) 11:45, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
The only difference is that using the {{BHLpage}} template includes an automatic redirect to the {{BHL page}} template, so from a server point of view it's a two-step operation. Using {{BHL page}} directly is only a single one-step operation, since it doesn't involve a redirect. You're of course correct in that there's no visible difference from a user's point of view, but I still see no reason to use {{Template:BHLpage}} so that the server in reality needs to call two pages instead of one, in order to do a single task. However this is all a bit out of scope: let's stick to Hector Bottai's original question instead, and discuss redirects another time. :-)
Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 17:34, 8 January 2022 (UTC).
@Tommy Kronkvist: - I'd not really thought of redirects like that! I suspect that "BHLpage" is far more widely used that "BHL page" (I'd not even seen that format before!). Is there any way of counting the number of links using each? If yes, should the redirect and the template be swapped round? - MPF (talk) 00:18, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
A search for insource:/BHLpage/ gives 18.559 pages and templates, insource:/BHL page/ gives 4.417 pages and templates. The original name is BHLpage, Three years after its creation it was moved to BHL page, without trying to find a consensus. --RLJ (talk) 01:26, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
I don't see any discussion about to change the name of the template, or consensus for that. A space to increase readability!!! Redirects are not a wrong issue to be wripped out like user @Tommy Kronkvist: is doing sistematically, please stop and discuss first. --Burmeister (talk) 02:04, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
@Burmeister: I fully take your opinion onboard, and will stop until this matter has been discussed and decided upon. Please note though, that as usual my edits have all been made in good faith. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 02:36, 9 January 2022 (UTC).

───────────────────────── @MPF: The {{BHLpage}} template is currently used on 27,770 pages while {{BHL page}} is used on 33,403. Changing any of them into the other can be rather easily done by bot; actually in this case it's easier than in most other bot-jobs, since there are no parameters to consider, only the name of the template. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 02:36, 9 January 2022 (UTC).

The {{BHL page}} count includes the count of {{BHLpage}}. Compare the count for the templates alone: of 5.385 links, only c. 1.700 go directly to {{BHL page}}, the rest via {{BHLpage}}. -RLJ (talk) 03:02, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
Thanks @RLJ! What's the best way to find the precise numbers? When I do a search to show only the templates without any redirects, I get 5,385 transclusions + 2 links for {{BHL page}} and 4,127 transclusions + 0 links for {{BHLpage}}. (You need to click the blue "Count" link next to the "Go" button in order to show the sums.) –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 03:51, 9 January 2022 (UTC).
@RLJ and Tommy Kronkvist: - thanks! In that case, I'd say definitely worth swapping round to 'BHL page' redirects to 'BHLpage' - MPF (talk) 14:04, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Permissions Request for AWB..Edit

Hi. In order to quickly progress through the missing italics in some articles (identified using Special:LintErrors), I was planning on using a list in AWB.

I need an appropriate permission or authorisation from the admins here set up to do this.


ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 09:35, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

No problems as far as I am concerned. Andyboorman (talk) 11:33, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
I agree with Andyboorman, however please set AWB to mark the changes as "Minor edits" in order to help not flooding the "Recent changes" list. (Each user can chose to hide minor edits in the "Recent changes" preferences, on a per-user basis.) Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 13:30, 9 January 2022 (UTC).
Thanks. And marking linter repairs as minor was standard practice anyway. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 20:51, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Loves Folklore is back!Edit

Please help translate to your language

You are humbly invited to participate in the Wiki Loves Folklore 2022 an international photography contest organized on Wikimedia Commons to document folklore and intangible cultural heritage from different regions, including, folk creative activities and many more. It is held every year from the 1st till the 28th of February.

You can help in enriching the folklore documentation on Commons from your region by taking photos, audios, videos, and submitting them in this commons contest.

You can also organize a local contest in your country and support us in translating the project pages to help us spread the word in your native language.

Feel free to contact us on our project Talk page if you need any assistance.

Kind regards,

Wiki loves Folklore International Team

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:15, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Missing italics in 2 entries...Edit

The entries being  :

I was unsure what local conventions applied, and hence the referral here. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:22, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Done - MPF (talk) 21:49, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Taxonomic databasesEdit

At present, the fact is obvious that the system of living organisms is extremely unstable and constantly undergoes changes. However, there is still no clear consensus on Wikispecies and related projects on when a new idea will become mainstream. Nowadays, taxonomic databases updated in real time are widely used. This raises the question of the following: Do we need leading sources on taxonomy?

Since compiling information from a large number of unrelated sources is original research, this is the argument for using databases. Nevertheless, the information in the databases can be partly related to the personal opinions of the authors, or, even worse, be just a dump of the latest scientific data (not always generally accepted). When different databases support the same point of view, this is a very convenient situation, but in fact, very often conflicting information is discarded in them. In such cases, it is not clear which point of view should be considered the main one. WS:PR provides some guidelines for using databases, but the lack of strong rules to refer to can be a source of many conflicts.

For example, WS:PR provides links to databases for individual taxonomic groups, but it is also recommended to use ITIS and BioLib, which have a wider coverage. How should conflicts between different databases be resolved? Another relevant example: the third and final edition of the Mammal Species of the World was published in 2005 and is still often used as a source for mammalian taxonomy. However, there have been many changes in taxonomy over the past 17 years, and both MSW3 editors (D. E. Wilson[1] and D. M. Reeder[2]) seem to acknowledge that their summary is out of date. At the same time, in recent years, the ASM Mammal Diversity Database, which is updated in real time, has proven itself, which, perhaps, should displace MSW3 in place of the main source for mammalian taxonomy. It is still unclear how to respond to the gradual obsolescence of MSW3.

Based on the above considerations, I believe that a consensus should be formed, which can also become a recommendation for editors of different language sections of Wikipedia. My opinion is that we really should choose the databases that can be the highest authorities on the classification of individual taxonomic groups. However, as with other sources, information from the databases must be critically reviewed. With the overwhelming prevalence of recent sources promoting the opposite view, the database may not be considered the primary source. HFoxii (talk) 12:43, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

  • heya yes this is part of what is behind the concept of Global Species Lists of which I acknowledge I am both an author of the many papers around that and a member of the IUBS Working Group on this. I don't think unstable is the right word here, they are changing a lot as the increased development of molecular techniques and their application has brought about many changes and also uncovered significant errors. On choosing a particular checklist/ database over another I would recommend people look at the principals we outlined in our papers starting with Garnett et al. 2020[3] however there are a series of 6 other relevant publications. Important issues with databases and checklists is who is making them, are they peer reviewed and do they have wide taxon community support. For turtles for example I would suggest the TTWG 2021 checklist is the best, Reptile Database effectively copies it in any case. Birds are problematic though they are endeavoring to fix their problems of have multiple international databases right now. Whatever checklist is chosen must be authoritative, have currency and stability, and lastly have clear methods. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 15:41, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
This is a critical issue. On what concerns to Aves, IOC and Clements/eBird are, in my opinion, the most reliable and dynamic database sources. ITIS is faraway outdated and no longer should be followed. As our agreement is following IOC, I feel very comfortable about it and I try to be very disciplined when some taxonomic disagreement shows up.--Hector Bottai (talk) 16:58, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
  • I am a little hesitant to list all my papers on this important topic, as that is a bit self promotional, @Hector Bottai: I also have a recent paper relevant on the bird issue. Just among raptors there can be up to a 20% difference in the number of species groups recognised, also some taxa are in different genera among the bird lists. The problem in the birdlists stems from the emphasis and pressures upon each list. Birdlife for example is heavily influenced by conservation, hence it has fallen into the trap of recognising many more taxa than IOC with the hope of attracting conservation funding and legislation to populations by elevating them to species. I do think here at Wikispecies we should be using the principles proposed by the IUBS GSLWG perhaps we can have a discussion on the issue, Wikispecies is listed among the global databases recognised by the IUBS. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 17:19, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
The w:Global Species List Working Group does have a wikipedia page for those wanting to see their work. Needs a minor update as all the papers are now published. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 20:20, 10 January 2022 (UTC)


  1. Quote from Introduction to Illustrated Checklist of the Mammals of the World (Wilson is one of the editors of this book[1]): "Overall, reliance on formal taxonomic compendia in mammalian record keeping has often led to delays in the incorporation of systematic revisions. This is exemplified by the continual reference to Mammal Species of the World, Volume 3 (Wilson & Reeder 2005) as the starting point for all taxonomic arrangements in these volume, despite having been published 15 years ago. All vertebrate classes currently have online databases with updatable species lists (e.g., AmphibiaWeb, Reptile Database, AviBase, and FishBase), yet mammals were the exception until the creation of the MDD in 2018. The welcome fact that global Mammalia now has an updatable online database ensures that species-level mammalian taxonomy is more quickly adopted to inform diverse types of research from biodiversity conservation to zoonotic diseases".
  2. D. Reeder is a member of the ASM Biodiversity Committee, which oversees the ASM Mammal Diversity Database[2].
  3. Garnett ST, Christidis L, Conix S, Costello MJ, Zachos FE, Banki OS, et al. (2020) Principles for creating a single authoritative list of the world’s species.PLoS Biol 18(7):e3000736. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pbio.3000736 pdf
Fully agree with @Faendalimas: on your observation about Birdlife/HBW, they went too far on poor based splits.--Hector Bottai (talk) 17:25, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
Hi all,
There is no simple answer to all this. My practice with IRMNG (an analogous project to Wikispecies) is to look for, and if possible designate, a preferred "trusted source" for each taxonomic group or sector and follow that, with the following caveats:
- the preferred "trusted source" may have some internal sectors that are more up-to-date than others (i.e., there may be more recent treatments in the published literature, which can potentially then be followed if not too "bleeding edge" and/or themselves controversial)
- the "trusted source" may have errors (hopefully few), detectable via comparison and critical appraisal as compared with content in other sources
- the "trusted source" may take an editorial stance (which of multiple available options it chooses to follow, for example in the areas of lumping/splitting, taxonomic placement, etc.) with which I as a user may disagree (for example recognising a phylum or class, or lump vs. split that I consider not preferable according to other information, etc.)
Errors and questionable content in any trusted source should preferably be communicated back to the compilers of that source for action as needed, as well (I do this on a semi-regular basis, with a number of such sources).
With some groups such as birds, I recognise that there are multiple competing "trusted sources" that can be followed. In cases such as this I tend to defer to what is currently preferred in the Catalogue of Life, where possible, for pragmatic reasons if nothing else (minimising discrepancies with that compendium in that case, but not necessarily all)...
Examples of "trusted sources" for use in Wikispecies could be added to a relevant lookup page (not sure that is the best place, others may already exist??) and be maintained through time by interested persons, maybe, and discussed on that article's talk page or elsewhere.
As a practical example, for higher taxonomy of extant taxa I take (took) Ruggiero et al's 2015 "higher classification of all living organisms" as my starting point in 2015, but did not implement everything in it (for example keeping Aves as a class, not a subclass of Reptilia) and have also come to implement some subsequent changes following other authors according to my reading of the literature, such as moving Rozellids out of Protozoa into Fungi and a few other cases - each arguable one way or the other, but adopted as my own "editorial view" for IRMNG which may occasionally contrast with the Ruggiero et al. treatment - itself overdue for review of course...
Just my 2 cents worth, hopefully constructive. In an ideal world, databases should follow the literature, not other secondary compilations, but in the real world life is often too short to permit all that taxon-by-taxon effort; however we should hope that most database statements include an "audit trail" so that one can see from where they obtained their information, and then be able to make an assessment as to whether or not it likely represents the current/preferred treatment. Regards - Tony Rees, IRMNG Tony 1212 (talk) 19:21, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
Maybe replace "trusted source" with "default treatment" in the paragraphs I wrote above ... in the early days of IRMNG there were definitely "more trusted" vs. "less trusted" sources, now it is not so much a question of trust as of practical preference. Also, "default treatment" adds the connotation that one may on occasion wish to depart from it, hopefully with the rationale explained and appropriate supporting references cited... Cheers Tony Tony 1212 (talk) 21:43, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
I have mocked up an example page at which gives a suggestion as to how currently used treatments might be documented. If folk like this approach, I could port the content to a "proper" Wikispecies page for real world use... I do not plan to populate it, however in the long term it would be nice if it contained as a starting point, a "complete" list of all potential taxonomic groups that could be covered, according to some over-arching arrangement such as that at (my own arrangement - possibly with modifications to be agreed) or any other that editors may prefer... Regards Tony Tony 1212 (talk) 06:15, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks @Tony 1212: this initiative could help as developed. I will add my pennies worth as far as vascular plants are concerned. IPNI is the definitive database of published names making no judgements as to accepted names, it is not perfect, but if you spot errors or omissions they will rapidly correct - please include the protologue or source it makes updates quicker. World Checklist of Vascular Plants(WCVP) is an emerging peer reviewed database of accepted names and brings together the "RBG Kew" stable of World Checklist of Selected Plant Families(WCSP) and Plants of the World(POWO). Like IPNI the curators are contactable and will edit out mistakes quickly and will update as required, but please note they take a consensus view and will argue for one side of a taxonomic opinion over another. Catalogue of Life(COL) is comprehensive and partially curated, it uses WCSP and other trusted databases, but some of these are are getting dated. Tropicos with it links to database of local flora has merits, although dated in parts. The problem for WS is when, for example POWO shows a difference to COL when it comes to acceptance, but that is a discussion for another time! Regards Andyboorman (talk) 09:07, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

I like this table existing, it will be helpful I believe and as developed should be migrated to exist among the help pages, which also need a complete rewrite. I added a comment on your talk page for the table @Tony 1212:. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 17:59, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
OK, I have fleshed out the demo table a bit more (animals and plants, more to do), not added any refs back as yet but will work on it further over the next day or so for your comments... Take a look again if interested. Cheers Tony Tony 1212 (talk) 19:41, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
I did a bit more work on my "mockup" table, but hunting around I found the page which I think covers essentially the same territory, so making my effort redundant ... so would suggest interested persons simply add their comments and additional recommended sources there... Cheers Tony Tony 1212 (talk) 19:17, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Coming in late as usual :-) but as an aside, "Since compiling information from a large number of unrelated sources is original research" - it isn't, it is derived research. In the context of wikispecies, original research would be actions like publishing a new taxon here - MPF (talk) 10:59, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

  • - Or taking one side over another when it comes to taxonomic opinions. Andyboorman (talk) 11:37, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Community Wishlist Survey 2022Edit

The Community Wishlist Survey 2022 is now open!

This survey is the process where communities decide what the Community Tech team should work on over the next year. We encourage everyone to submit proposals until the deadline on 23 January, or comment on other proposals to help make them better. The communities will vote on the proposals between 28 January and 11 February.

The Community Tech team is focused on tools for experienced Wikimedia editors. You can write proposals in any language, and we will translate them for you. Thank you, and we look forward to seeing your proposals! SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 18:10, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Blackwell's Herbal..Edit

Is this usable as a source? s:Index:A curious herbal volume 1 blackwell.djvu, It sometimes has earlier dates for some names. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 22:10, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Very much not. It's prelinnaean. Circeus (talk) 01:01, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Call for Feedback about the Board of Trustees elections is now openEdit

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

The Call for Feedback: Board of Trustees elections is now open and will close on 7 February 2022.

With this Call for Feedback, the Movement Strategy and Governance team is taking a different approach. This approach incorporates community feedback from 2021. Instead of leading with proposals, the Call is framed around key questions from the Board of Trustees. The key questions came from the feedback about the 2021 Board of Trustees election. The intention is to inspire collective conversation and collaborative proposal development about these key questions.

Join the conversation.


Movement Strategy and Governance--SOyeyele (WMF) (talk) 23:48, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Merging Darwiniana (n.s.) with Darwiniana (n.s.)Edit

We currently have two articles regarding Darwiniana (n.s.), namely ISSN 0011-6793 (printed edition) and ISSN 1850-1699 (online edition). According to our praxis these two should be merged into a single page using the printed edition's ISSN as page name, however the sources are a bit contradictory and I have a hard time figuring out the different dates/years of publication etc. for the respective editions (at least to a verifiable and acceptable degree of certainty). Their respective Wikidata items (Q5799467 and Q110419093) aren't very helpful, neither is the series website. Please have a look and help out, if you're equiped with better sources (or have a better knowledge of Spanish...) than I have! Thanks, Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 23:06, 15 January 2022 (UTC).

It is as you write, the old series ends with 50 (2012), the new one starts with 1 (2013). The ISSN and online ISSN do not change. --RLJ (talk) 01:19, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
While RLJ has already merged the pages on Wikispecies, I have just merged the wikidata items together, since it is clearly intended they refer to the same series from the ISSN Portal website at least. However, for some reason, a few other external websites linked by Wikidata (e.g. ANCP, Directory of Open Access Journals) have mixed up the online ISSN of Darwiniana with that of Hickenia, another journal published by the same publisher. That is strange... Otherwise, both ISSNs do appear on the cover of the latest issue, as well as on the first page of each article's PDF. Monster Iestyn (talk) 01:58, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Thank you both! As for Hickenia yes I saw that and removed one Wikidata reference to the Hickenia ISSN before posting here yesterday, but I'm afraid I wasn't more thorough than that. Wikidata is great most of the time, but it can quickly become a bit messy when an incorrect piece of information in a Wikidata item starts "spilling over" to several other WD items. Cleaning it up can take time, but I guess that's the Wikidata administrators' headache rather than ours. :-) Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 11:11, 16 January 2022 (UTC).
Also, it looks like Tropicos ID isn't added to the Authority control module. Not that it really matters much, but it means that it isn't shown by the {{Authority control}} template, even though a Tropicos ID is added to the Wikidata Darwiniana item. Then again Tropicos isn't always correct, so maybe it's for the best... Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 11:30, 16 January 2022 (UTC).

Opened request for CentralNotice for Slovakia fundraiserEdit

In the Wikimedia User Group Esperanto and Free Knowledge we are again participating in Slovakian fundraising campaign. I have requested CentralNotice (1, 2), which (if approved) will be showing also in Wikispecies in Slovak. --KuboF Hromoslav (talk) 18:19, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Talk to the Community TechEdit


We, the team working on the Community Wishlist Survey, would like to invite you to an online meeting with us. It will take place on 19 January (Wednesday), 18:00 UTC on Zoom, and will last an hour. This external system is not subject to the WMF Privacy Policy. Click here to join.


  • Bring drafts of your proposals and talk to to a member of the Community Tech Team about your questions on how to improve the proposal


The meeting will not be recorded or streamed. Notes without attribution will be taken and published on Meta-Wiki. The presentation (all points in the agenda except for the questions and answers) will be given in English.

We can answer questions asked in English, French, Polish, Spanish, and German. If you would like to ask questions in advance, add them on the Community Wishlist Survey talk page or send to

Natalia Rodriguez (the Community Tech manager) will be hosting this meeting.

Invitation link

We hope to see you! SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 00:21, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Subscribe to the This Month in Education newsletter - learn from others and share your storiesEdit

Dear community members,

Greetings from the EWOC Newsletter team and the education team at Wikimedia Foundation. We are very excited to share that we on tenth years of Education Newsletter (This Month in Education) invite you to join us by subscribing to the newsletter on your talk page or by sharing your activities in the upcoming newsletters. The Wikimedia Education newsletter is a monthly newsletter that collects articles written by community members using Wikimedia projects in education around the world, and it is published by the EWOC Newsletter team in collaboration with the Education team. These stories can bring you new ideas to try, valuable insights about the success and challenges of our community members in running education programs in their context.

If your affiliate/language project is developing its own education initiatives, please remember to take advantage of this newsletter to publish your stories with the wider movement that shares your passion for education. You can submit newsletter articles in your own language or submit bilingual articles for the education newsletter. For the month of January the deadline to submit articles is on the 20th January. We look forward to reading your stories.

Older versions of this newsletter can be found in the complete archive.

More information about the newsletter can be found at Education/Newsletter/About.

For more information, please contact spatnaik

About This Month in Education · Subscribe/Unsubscribe · Global message delivery · For the team: ZI Jony (Talk), Friday 13:36, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Movement Strategy and Governance News – Issue 5Edit

Movement Strategy and Governance News
Issue 5, January 2022Read the full newsletter

Welcome to the fifth issue of Movement Strategy and Governance News (formerly known as Universal Code of Conduct News)! This revamped newsletter distributes relevant news and events about the Movement Charter, Universal Code of Conduct, Movement Strategy Implementation grants, Board elections and other relevant MSG topics.

This Newsletter will be distributed quarterly, while more frequent Updates will also be delivered weekly or bi-weekly to subscribers. Please remember to subscribe here if you would like to receive these updates.

  • Call for Feedback about the Board elections - We invite you to give your feedback on the upcoming WMF Board of Trustees election. This call for feedback went live on 10th January 2022 and will be concluded on 7th February 2022. (continue reading)
  • Universal Code of Conduct Ratification - In 2021, the WMF asked communities about how to enforce the Universal Code of Conduct policy text. The revised draft of the enforcement guidelines should be ready for community vote in March. (continue reading)
  • Movement Strategy Implementation Grants - As we continue to review several interesting proposals, we encourage and welcome more proposals and ideas that target a specific initiative from the Movement Strategy recommendations. (continue reading)
  • The New Direction for the Newsletter - As the UCoC Newsletter transitions into MSG Newsletter, join the facilitation team in envisioning and deciding on the new directions for this newsletter. (continue reading)
  • Diff Blogs - Check out the most recent publications about MSG on Wikimedia Diff. (continue reading)

--SOyeyele (WMF) (talk) 16:40, 18 January 2022 (UTC)