Wikispecies:Village Pump/Archive 56

This is an archive of closed discussions. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this archive.

A bit of a heads up for angiosperm pages on WS

Copied from my User Page

Main work to be completed for plant orders and genera.

  1. Santalales Taxonomy is still lagging behind phylogeny. Santalaceae still has a number of red link genera.
  2. Melastomataceae All subfamilies, tribes and most genera completed, but some Sonerileae, Melastomeae and also Tibouchina and its segregates are to be finalised, as the taxonomy emerges.
  3. Rhamnaceae needs a real work over.
  4. Malpighiales needs a proper update and work through with most genera red links. The important family Euphorbiaceae has much much more red than blue.
  5. Sapindaceae and Rutaceae are other outstanding important families with a few blue genera, also some other families of Sapindales needing attention.
  6. Malvales needs a thorough work over.
  7. Gentianales needs a little extra work but is getting there.
  8. Boraginales - no consensus with respect to s.s. or s.l., so I have avoided Boraginoideae/Boraginaceae s.s. for the moment.

In addition, all families and their lower taxa need a format and content update - thanks to our army of improvers.

Please add to the above if you come across any other omissions at the family level. Thanks Andyboorman (talk) 14:37, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GBIF does not work

Sorry folks this link is still going to 404. Can anybody help? Andyboorman (talk) 08:10, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Do hold captures of it? - MPF (talk) 10:22, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure, but it looks like the id codes are out of date. Have a look at the edit history on Encephalosphaera. Cam a bot help update? Andyboorman (talk) 12:12, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Andy do I understand right, that the id numbers in their DB has changed? In the case described above, from, to ? Dan Koehl (talk) 08:55, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Dan that seems to be the case. Andyboorman (talk) 09:10, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment note that GBIF don't work as Wikidata (one item + several identifiers) but has a record for each external ressource, and for each of those records there is a different GBIF "ID", e.g. 170444922, 103199522, ect... and all are about the same name. Some times the external ressources may delete a record in their own internal database for various reason (mispelling, name dubious, synonymy ect...) and when GBIF make a full update, then the corresponding record in GBIF disappears too. So if someone quoted here the IDs corresponding not to the "GBIF Backbone Taxonomy" (e.g. 7264187) but to the ID of one of external identifiers, that can be an explanation. This is just a comment and a guess, i am not claiming that is the cause. Christian Ferrer (talk) 09:14, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikidata descriptions changes to be included more often in Recent Changes and Watchlist

Type data

I need a bit of help understanding what exactly should be written for "Type locality" and "Holotype"/"Syntype"/etc., at least with animals. I've noticed that, for instance, some people write for "Holotype" not just the repository the holotype is kept, but other details like the date it was collected and who collected it ("leg." or "legit" I understand is the Latin term usually used?). However, Help:Name section does not mention such details at all as it is currently written (and it still recommends linking to the Holotype page even though it is now a redirect to the Glossary entry). I also have a vague memory of some of these details being added for "Type locality" instead somewhere, but I could be misremembering. I've been avoiding anything for "Holotype" except the repository and maybe the sex if known for a while now because of this. Monster Iestyn (talk) 17:49, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Legit" is the latin term for bequeathed. It's not the collector per se, but who owned the specimen at the time it was gifted to a museum or incorporated into a different person's collection. Many people own specimens they have not collected, and keeping track of specimen origins is traditionnal.
The rule of thumb for specimens (whether they are holotype, lectotype, syntypes etc. is basically "as much info as needed to identify the exact specimen involved". For plants and larger animals, a catalogue or barcode number of some sort is usually sufficient. For many, probably most invertebrates, a lot more material may be needed, hence the amount of text that is often involved in articles.
For collection data—not just the type location itself, but also the date of collection—, I like to reproduce statements as close to written in the protologue/on the specimen, anything else (translations from the latin or other language, fixes to outdated or incorrect transliterations, explanations of abbreviations, corrections to misleading or wrong dates/places) should be in square brackets, and clearly sourced if not self evident. Circeus (talk) 19:24, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, okay. This page on Wikipedia gives "he or she collected, often followed by the name of the collector", so it sounds like Wikipedia might be wrong then? Monster Iestyn (talk) 20:19, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OH. Guess I was wrong. I always assumed this was the same word as in French "legs" (the s not pronounced), which does mean "bequeath". Circeus (talk) 01:42, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hawksworth, "Terms used in bionomenclature", says: "leg. [legentum]: collected by; by courtesy of; frequently used in the past on specimen labels and in details of collections in publications; see "coll."
coll.: see collector
collector: (1) the person(s) or organization that obtained the material directly from nature... (2) a person who stores materials of any kind...
Cheers Tony Tony 1212 (talk) 19:28, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In my experience, "Coll. ##" is often used in taxonomic literature to mean "Collection of ##" (i.e. where the specimen currently resides) rather than "Collected by ##". That is a good reason to use "leg.", but nevertheless "Coll." should always be explicitly defined. Jmchutchinson (talk) 12:51, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

New (Nov 2020) taxonomic resource for vascular plants (the Leipzig catalogue of vascular plants, LCVP)

Just noting that the following crossed my "virtual desk" today: the Leipzig catalogue of vascular plants (LCVP):

Freiberg, M., Winter, M., Gentile, A. et al. LCVP, The Leipzig catalogue of vascular plants, a new taxonomic reference list for all known vascular plants. Sci Data 7, 416 (2020).

From the abstract: "The Leipzig Catalogue of Vascular Plants (LCVP; version 1.0.3) contains 351,180 accepted species names (plus 6,160 natural hybrids), within 13,460 genera, 564 families and 84 orders. The LCVP a) contains more information on the taxonomic status of global plant names than any other similar resource, and b) significantly improves the reliability of our knowledge by e.g. resolving the taxonomic status of ~181,000 names compared to The Plant List, the up to date most commonly used plant name resource."

Elsewhere in the text: "Kew Gardens´ research effort to standardize plant names recently focuses on their new flagship program, Plants of the World Online (POWO,, which includes a new taxonomic reference backbone (Alan Paton from Kew Gardens, pers. comm. July 2019). Given that this is becoming the successor of TPL (see we also compared the available POWO list with LCVP (POWO access date: November 2018; directly provided by Kew). With ~335,000 accepted species names and ~458,000 names of vascular plants marked as synonyms in this POWO version, LCVP contains also significantly more species name information than POWO (this comparison includes only vascular plants and excludes infraspecific taxa since LCVP covers only vascular plants and this POWO version does not include taxa below species level)."

In case this is of interest... Regards Tony Tony 1212 (talk) 03:00, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Looking into how a user can access the data ... I have not found a web interface (there is intended to be some way that you can write a program to interrogate it if you download the data first), but the main species list is available as a zipped text file ("", 1.3m rows) which can be downloaded from . I have downloaded it and the first few rows (for the genus Aa) look like this:

Input Taxon | Status | PL comparison | PL alternative | Output Taxon | Family | Order
Aa achalensis Schltr. | accepted | identical | | Aa achalensis Schltr. | Orchidaceae | Asparagales
Aa argyrolepis Rchb.f. | accepted | identical | | Aa argyrolepis Rchb.f. | Orchidaceae | Asparagales
Aa aurantiaca D.Trujillo | accepted | identical | | Aa aurantiaca D.Trujillo | Orchidaceae | Asparagales
Aa brevis Schltr. | synonym | identical | | Myrosmodes breve (Schltr.) Garay | Orchidaceae | Asparagales
Aa calceata (Rchb.f.) Schltr. | accepted | identical | | Aa calceata (Rchb.f.) Schltr. | Orchidaceae | Asparagales
Aa chiogena Schltr. | synonym | identical | | Myrosmodes chiogena (Schltr.) C.A.Vargas | Orchidaceae | Asparagales
Aa colombiana Schltr. | accepted | identical | | Aa colombiana Schltr. | Orchidaceae | Asparagales

So it seems straightforward enough to use as a local resource, providing that you have the disc space and a way to view large text files (I use textpad). Alternatively if anyone wants, I can maybe put it up on a page or pages here - if the list owners' permissions allow this (not yet checked copyright info etc.). Tony 1212 (talk) 03:21, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Just checked, according to the dataset details at, the data are openly reusable (CC BY 4.0) so should be OK to post here as a resource, with relevant attribution... depending of course on the feasibility of posting in excess of 1.3 million names somehow :) Tony 1212 (talk) 03:27, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OK, here is an experiment - the first 64k rows or so (genera Aa-Amorphocalyx) as a Google doc - anyone can view (hopefully), and copy content (with attribution as supplied) but not change (edit) the content. Let me know if this works as intended! LCVP_1.02-Aa-Amorphocalyx. Cheers - Tony Tony 1212 (talk) 05:53, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

update for Category:Articles without Wikidata item

The maintenance Category:Articles without Wikidata item contains 8.353 taxon names. But this category seems to be rather outdated, as many taxon pages are indeed linked to Wikidata. Who knows how the list can be updated? --Thiotrix (talk) 08:11, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Thiotrix: no good solution here. I have connected most of the WS articles with Wikidata using Petscan function "Only pages without item (enables Wikidata item creation mode)". Currently, correct number is about 1400, not 8000+. Up-to-date list can be seen with Petscan: If I am right, then only solution is to do thousands of null-edits, but even when this massive task is done, then one month later, we have same situation. --Estopedist1 (talk) 08:52, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If the "Category:Articles without Wikidata item" cannot be updated, it seems to be useless and, in my opinion, should be deleted. --Thiotrix (talk) 08:56, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like a caching problem to me. Monster Iestyn (talk) 10:43, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A lot of the entries are redirects, which would not necessarily be expected to have a Wikidata item (there is an ongoing debate on Wikidata about when and how to link to redirects). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:14, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The 1,874 entries in Category:Biography articles without Wikidata item are also troubling. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:17, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Checking the histories of random examples in the above linked category, a significant number of them were created this year it looks like. Monster Iestyn (talk) 21:40, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

brief explanation is added to Category:Articles without Wikidata item--Estopedist1 (talk) 07:59, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the recent ones are caused by updates to synonymy where the WD item was created using older or historic data that has been superseded by recent developments. WD needs to go through a similar update as has happened to WS. Andyboorman (talk) 12:18, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2020 Coolest Tool Award Ceremony on December 11th

Taxa by author

Hello, does this category must be placed on the original combination or in the (currently) accepted one, e.g. did I do well by putting the category on this page and not one the redirect page? Christian Ferrer (talk) 14:59, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It was agreed (I don't remember when) it have to be placed on the main page (currently accepted) and not in the redirection of the original combination. If there is a redirection of a synonym of different author, then, the taxa by author can be placed in the redirection. Cheers.--Hector Bottai (talk) 16:28, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is what I thought but I had a doubt when I saw an experimented colleague (@PeterR:) putting the category on the original combination whether it is a redirect or the main page. Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:28, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Link for the discussion. Burmeister (talk) 21:20, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Minks, covid and denmark


The w:Canadian Broadcasting Corporation has recently reported w:COVID-19 discovered in farmed minks in British Columbia. When I saw this article I vaguely remembered seeing another article linking covid with farmed minks somewhere else. I googled and found which says this association dates back to at least June 2020. I would like to add this information to the Mink article on wikispecies. Can anyone help? Thanks in advance, Ottawahitech (talk) 22:28, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Ottawahitech: - this is something for wikipedias, not for wikispecies! By all means add it to the American Mink page at English wikipedia. - MPF (talk) 22:52, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reference templates: internationalisation

Had it pointed out to me that the current Help:Reference section#Reference Templates specifies a particular format, which I consider is strongly contrary to our aims of international language-independence. Currently it gives:

* {{a|George Sprague Myers|Myers, G.S.}} 1942. A new frog of the genus ''Micrixalus'' from Travancore. ''[[ISSN 0006-324X|Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington]]'' 55: 71–74. [ BHL] {{subst:reftemp}}

Which will display as:

This includes the obscure and language-dependent term 'BHL' ('would this be 'LHB' in French? What is it in Cyrillic letters? What is it in Chinese or Japanese??), which need not be there, as it can easily be removed by changing the page citation part to:

Could this be changed, please? MPF (talk) 22:23, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose "BHL" or Biodiversity Heritage Library as well as "PDF" or the name of a library are brand names and self-explaining when you click on them. They don't need to be translated. Somebody with absolutely no knowledge of Latin script hardly will have any benefit from Wikispecies, if translated or not. Numerals can also be translated, eg. "LV: LXXI–LXXIV" in classical Latin or in the real Arabic numerals ٠١٢٣٤٥٦٧٨٩ . I think it is favourable to know to which website the link is leading when you click on it. The proposed change would involve a modification of a standard which exists since several years, and thousands of articles and templates. I think this is unnecessary and contraproductive. --RLJ (talk) 23:55, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose For all the reasons pointed out by RLJ, also the precise reason leaving external links firmly outside the base reference is preferred in the first place is that it allows to easily label as what they are: BHL link, Google books link, doi, abstract, full-text etc. Not to mention it keeps the base reference cleaner if one wish to copypaste it elsewhere. Plus we don't have to decide which part of the article to use for link or (worse yet) whether multiple different links to different parts (e.g. separate book and chapter links) should be used for distinct part of the ref. Ref = internal links only, post ref = External links only. Circeus (talk) 00:47, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose unnecessary and contraproductive. Burmeister (talk) 02:09, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Comment BHL is the acronym of an official name, and as it is given by the organisation itself, it is even a kind of version of this official name. Thus there is no specific reason to worry about a potential translation, at least no more than potential translation of an author name. And if it is really necessary, then maybe a translation of the rendering of {{BHLpage}} would be more adequate. Christian Ferrer (talk) 08:49, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose for nothing else that all the reasons clearly exposed above.--Hector Bottai (talk) 10:52, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose ditto as above. Ds2320 (talk) 19:32, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]


The template {{Catol-Hassler}} no longer searches correctly now that COL has updated with a new infrastructure. This template links to thousands of taxon pages and so this is highly inconvenient. Can anybody fix the template? Best regards Andyboorman (talk) 13:50, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to @Fagus: the search function now works smoothly. Panic over. Andyboorman (talk) 08:56, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Community Wishlist Survey 2021

SGrabarczuk (WMF)

15:03, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Nina I. Strelnikova

Is Nina I. Strelnikova (f. 1974) the same person as Nina Strelnikova, who published in the last two decades? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:35, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Here - is profile and photo of Nina Ivanovna Strelnikova (1933-2020). Maybe I'm wrong, but I'v thought that it's right page in Wikispecies. Here's an article in ru-wiki:Стрельникова,_Нина_Ивановна_(ботаник) MaryannaNesina (talk) 21:15, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As an author she had signed the published species as N.I.Strelnikova i.e.: So, in ruwiki I had pointed here as - but this entry isn't mached in the list. Can you, please, help to combine these pages into one profile in a proper way? Thanks in advance MaryannaNesina (talk) 21:30, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There is not really any "combination to be done, but I have linked the Wikispecies and ru:wiki pages to the wikidata item, and expanded the wikidata and wikispecies item somewhat. Circeus (talk) 23:14, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. And what about author' signature "N.I.Strelnikova" that is seen for more then 50 taxons at Is it possible to make redirect from N.I.Strelnikova to Nina Ivanovna Strelnikova? MaryannaNesina (talk) 09:14, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Algaebase (and IRMNG)'s naming scheme are idiosyncratic and nonstandard, so I'm not personally concerned about them in any way, as I certainly wouldn't expect a user to try and create pages using them on Wikispecies. 14:49, 15 December 2020 (UTC)


Should all the occurrences at Special:Search/"vernacular name" use =={{int:Vernacular names}}== instead of ==Vernacular name==? 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 20:37, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes.--Hector Bottai (talk) 00:23, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Hector Bottai: Hello, if the section is empty, I think it's better to remove it altogether. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 22:35, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Anyway, I replaced all occurrences of the English version by the international one. If anyone would like to remove all empty vernacular name sections, they can do so with the whole set of internationalised titles. ~°°°

Victor Ivanovitsch Motschulsky

Would the correct English transliteration for the Russian entomologist Victor Ivanovitsch Motschulsky actually be "Victor Ivanovich Motschulsky"? That transliteration seems to be used in a review of a book about his life at least, though other sources give others such as "Viktor Ivanovich Mochulskiy" and "Victor Ivanovich Motschoulsky" which doesn't really help. Monster Iestyn (talk) 17:04, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, at least it's (mostly) internally consistent and uses the same transliteration for /ʧ/ for both words. Circeus (talk) 18:29, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In the case of Motschulsky in particular, his last name is also commonly given as Motschoulsky, so there's no perfect option, really. Circeus (talk) 16:16, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Newly named plants 2020

For botanists it will be worth looking through these publications cited on the RBG Kew website today. Andyboorman (talk) 10:57, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, no pics in the public domain or am I reading this wrong? Andyboorman (talk) 16:05, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Some of the articles quoted in the page you give are with compatible free licenses, therefore some of the images can be uploaded into Wikimedia Commons if it is what you mean. Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:16, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That would be great, thanks. Andyboorman (talk) 18:38, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not proposing to do that myself, sorry. It was just a comment to say that it is possible to do it at least for some of the articles. I have a lot of things going on. Sorry again, Christian Ferrer (talk) 19:36, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
156 new plants vs. around 2800 new names registered by IPNI until now. What's your point, Andy? --Succu (talk) 20:49, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure there is a "point". Seasons Greetings all. Andyboorman (talk) 21:15, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dianthera L. vs. Justicia L.

Hi folks, in the past (e.g. the treatment I had from GRIN in 2011), Dianthera L. appears as a synonym of Justicia L. (same in Wikispecies at present time); Kiel et al., 2018 (reference below) treat it as a section of Justicia. However Plants of the World Online (POWO) presently has Dianthera as an accepted genus ( with 41 accepted species, including (for example) Dianthera americana L., otherwise widely known as Justicia americana (e.g. on Wikipedia and Wikispecies at this time). Kiel et al., 2017 float a number of ways of splitting up Justicia along phylogenetic lines, one of which includes restoring Dianthera as a genus, but take no explicit action. POWO merely cites "Accepted by Govaerts, R. (2000). World Checklist of Seed Plants Database in ACCESS D: 1-30141." as its justification for treating Dianthera as an accepted genus.

Any thoughts as to which treatment is better for Wikispecies/-pedia/etc. at this time? (Or more recent refs if I have missed them?)

Refs cited: Kiel, C. A.; Daniel, T. F.; Darbyshire, I.; McDade, L. A. (2017). Unraveling relationships in the morphologically diverse and taxonomically challenging "justicioid" lineage (Acanthaceae: Justicieae). Taxon. 66(3): 645-674., available online at

Kiel, C. A.; Daniel, T. F.; McDade, L. A. (2018). Phylogenetics of New World 'justicioids' (Justicieae: Acanthaceae): major lineages, morphological patterns, and widespread incongruence with classification. Systematic Botany. 43(2): 459-484., available online at

Regards - Tony Rees Tony 1212 (talk) 18:38, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Tony 1212:. Please do not take the WS article as definitive. It has not been reviewed by a taxonomist and the last major changes were made by a very well meaning editor who has simply followed one secondary source over others. In this case Hassler's World Plants and not PWO. The references you cite indicate that the genus Justicia is polyphyletic although there is monophyly in the justicioids as a group and this always indicates work in progress! My conclusion is that any circumscriptions within the justicioids are taxonomic opinions as we stand. I can not find any later papers that offer an updated classification of this group, although there is this Da Costa-Lima, J.L. & Chagas, E.C.D.O. 2019. A revision of Harpochilus sheds light on new combinations under Justicia (Acanthaceae). Phytotaxa 393(2): 119-130. DOI: 10.11646/phytotaxa.393.2.3, which transfers a couple of combinations into Justicia and there is a steady stream of papers making new combinations in this genus. Local floras in the Americas still seem to prefer subsuming Dianthera into Justicia, as seen on VPA. I would advise taking a conservative approach for now and leave the two genera in synonymy until more evidence is published. Best regards Andyboorman (talk) 19:50, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I just looked in CoL, they have Justicia americana as an accepted name, with Dianthera americana L. as synonym, with the record sourced from "World Plants: Synonymic Checklists of the Vascular Plants of the World", version Sep 2020, so obviously this conflicts with POWO at this time. Tony 1212 (talk) 05:20, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This situation is rare but not that unusual for example - is a Dryandra a Banksia? Is still debated in Australia, but gradually the two are being treated as congeneric in favour of Banksia. It took years, several acrimonious debates and a binding decision at the Melbourne International Botanical Congress in 2011 to resolve the controversy surrounding Acacia s.s. and related genera. The WP article is a good summary. WS cannot take a side favouring one taxonomic opinion over another, as that would be OR, but is able to highlight the problem through its disputed tag along with a brief explanation on the taxon page and more detail on the Discussion Page. In this case there should be a page for both Dianthera L. and Justicia L., in my opinion. Clearly there will be changes in this whole group, but who knows when, in what direction and of course it would be simpler if the secondary sources agreed. Yes, WS has some fuzzy solutions as well, for example Muscari and Cupressus s.l., where we are an online secondary source that is a bit on a limb. Hope this helps. Andyboorman (talk) 20:54, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Another more recent case is the synonymy of Lavatera under Malva with Malva having priority. PWO and Hassler both agree, so WS ought to follow? Not all people will be happy. I can provide some reference, but this has come about by treating the Malva alliance as now bigeneric - Malva and Malope. Thoughts? Andyboorman (talk) 16:00, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

New milestone: 750,000 articles

Today (with the beetle species Stathmodera lineata), Wikispecies reached 750,000 articles. Thank you to all editors of Wikispecies for their collaborative and constructive work! --Thiotrix (talk) 10:15, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats to all of us!--Hector Bottai (talk) 16:22, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

BHL on-line reference goes until 1922 year 70. Does somebody know where to find online open access after that year? I find all editions and articles at Springer, but they are closed access.--Hector Bottai (talk) 16:28, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, you're probably out of luck unless you want to try Sci-Hub (legal issues and controversy aside). Monster Iestyn (talk) 19:41, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If you put individual article titles, etc. into Google Scholar ( you can sometimes find links to individual articles online elsewhere than the publisher's site, for example if they have been deposited in an institutional repository or on Researchgate or similar by the authors (e.g. if they are more recent ones). Regards - Tony Rees Tony 1212 (talk) 21:16, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Gryllacridinae adds non-standard category

The Template:Gryllacridinae adds a Category:Gryllacridinae to all pages and many subpages. Categories for taxonavigation are not standard in Wikispecies. I propose to delete the category from the template. Other editors already begin follow this style adding unusual categories like Category:Ensifera genera. --Thiotrix (talk) 12:42, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

On the number of viruses

There may be trillions of species of virus in the world. Of them, a few hundred thousand kinds are known, and fewer than 7,000 have names.Justin (koavf)TCM 05:41, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How many plant species are here?

Is there a way how to get the number of plant species on this site (articles in this category)? — The preceding unsigned comment was added by 2a02:8308:a180:6400:e9d2:c3bb:c07:5a3 (talkcontribs).

{{Plantae}} has 162,646 transclusions. That includes genera and other higher taxa, not just species. The Plant List has 642 families and 17,020 genera. Wikispecies has articles on most higher taxa. I'd guess that the number of articles on higher taxa (including orders, subfamilies, tribes, etc.) is no more than 20k, so there are probably at least 140,000 articles on plant species. A Wikidata query could give a better estimate, but I'm not competent with Wikidata queries. Plantdrew (talk) 18:39, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Front page needs maintenance

We had a redlink for two weeks while Template:Species-2021-01 was blank. I've just copied over the content from Template:Species-2020-01 which is a stop gap. —Justin (koavf)TCM 05:41, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Koavf: I share your concern about the underlying issue, but it would surely be better to redirect the template than to fork the content? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:38, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Pigsonthewing: I'm fine with that if you want to make it a redirect. I just wanted to fix the redlink problem ASAP. —Justin (koavf)TCM 23:24, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

New longest scientific name?

Just found this on twitter! Myxococcus llanfairpwllgwyngyllgogerychwyrndrobwllllantysiliogogogochensis

Link to publication in the tweet. Anyone want to start a new page for it? :-) MPF (talk) 14:50, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know much about nomenclature for bacteria etc, but reading up I'm hearing this may not (yet) be a validly published name for a prokaryote, since it was not published in the International Journal of Systematic and Evolutionary Microbiology. Monster Iestyn (talk) 15:24, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Do they have a monopoly on legitimate publication? That's not good for science. - MPF (talk) 15:44, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Published in Genome Biology and Evolution link Andyboorman (talk) 16:05, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
IJSEM does have a monopoly on publication of bacteria names. I don't see how that's any worse for science than having one database/website with a monopoly on registering animal names. Plantdrew (talk) 18:49, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
different codes have different rules the Mycology Code has singular journal restriction. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 02:34, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Registration and publication are two different things in botany and ICN has strict rules to ensure a level playing field for publication. Andyboorman (talk) 08:36, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

─────────────────────────Basically, under the bacterial code, IJSEM acts as a registration database. Circeus (talk) 16:49, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Clade diagram from Wikispecies data

Hello! Did anyone propose to make something (like a template or other) to visualize a clade diagram from the Wikispecies data? I've found this indipendent project that uses Wikispecies data: LifeTree.

I think that such a feature in Wikispecies could make people fascinate and more happy to contribute --Sinucep (talk) 14:17, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Some implementations:

New role for user:Faendalimas

If this was the EN:WP or similar I would not make this announcement here, but we here at Wikispecies are a small and dedicated group who for the most part all know each other. Something impossible on Wikipedia. So rather than just inform the admins etc I will let all of you know this. As of February I will begin a one year term on the Ombuds Commission, I do not appear on there yet as the current Ombuds serve till the end of January so it will be updated soon. However all Ombuds have now been informed and Meta has started the process of giving us all our new User Rights. This mostly only effects the other Check Users on this wiki and I have already emailed them privately to go over that. If your unclear what this commission does visit the Ombuds Commission page. I will still be available here on Wikispecies, my home wiki, to assist as needed in my roles as a Crat and CU. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 19:48, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nessiteras rhombopteryx Scott and Rines 1975

Curious what people would like to do with this one. Reference is here and yes this is the scientific name for the Loch Ness Monster. I do not think there is any evidence of it existing, but that is not the point. In a recent discussion the ICZN commissioners deemed the name both available and valid. To the point that IRMNG now lists it as a genus. This is not about whether the animal exists but the intent of the authors. It seems that by this the authors believed that it exists and had a phototype per se. As such the name is valid and hence probably should be here. It is Animalia incertae cedis. So linking it in is going to be fun. Whats everyones thoughts? Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 19:11, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

IRMNG follows Nomenclator Zoologicus (as well as the original paper in "Nature") in this respect, which also lists it as a published generic name: Tony 1212 (talk) 21:27, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @Tony 1212: because of our linking method here being hierarchical I am wondering how we would deal with it without creating an orphan is part of the issue, I agree with Rich, Thomas etc on ICZN list I can see the reasons we should put it here. Just a tough one. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 21:35, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I would say that since the name does not apply to any currently accepted taxon (by others than the proposers) it does not require an entry on Wikispecies at this time. To answer your related question (how to handle e.g. accepted taxa placed in "Animalia incertae sedis") I defer to others with more WS experience than myself... Cheers Tony Tony 1212 (talk) 22:04, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes not listing it an option, its certainly not a priority. But I wanted to bring it up let everyone have an opinion. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 22:45, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Have a temporary page for it, one day only, on 1 April? :-) MPF (talk) 16:38, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Though the data presented in most serious study of it I've seen (several years ago in New Scientist) suggests it should probably be treated as a synonym of Pinus sylvestris - MPF (talk) 16:48, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Faendalimas:Hi Scott, RE your original statement, "name is valid", I don't think the ICZN Commissioners said that - just that the name was available (published in accordance with relevant zoological Code criteria for availability; the contrary position was that the name was created for a hypothetical animal, or as a conditional name, in which case/s it would be unavailable, but these were considered not to apply). "Valid" (in zoology) is a taxonomic judgement as to whether the species (and genus in this instance) is an accepted taxon, as opposed to synonym, nomen dubium, etc. I think in this case, "valid" applied in the minds of the describers but the taxon is not accepted by any subsequent workers. As such (Wikispecies has pages for valid (=accepted) taxa only as far as I know), it would most likely not merit a WS entry, unless I am mistaken... Cheers Tony Tony 1212 (talk) 21:59, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WMF bylaws amendments and upcoming call for feedback

The Board has discussed and approved some governance improvements in two recent meetings, on December 9 and January 8. As the governing body for the Wikimedia Foundation, the board wants to improve its capacity, performance, and representation of the movement’s diversity. The board has amended the Bylaws in support of that goal.

Please check the details in the announcement published on Meta-Wiki. If you have any questions relating this, please feel free to ask, I'll be here to answer. Thank you very much and all the best, DBarthel (WMF) (talk) 15:05, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again!

As reported before, the WMF starts a Call for Feedback about community-and-affiliated seat selection processes, resulting from the recent approval of bylaws amendments. This call for feedback is going to start on Monday Feb 1 and will run until March 14.

Full information will be published on Monday at this page. You can already watch the page for changes (it's very basic currently) or wait for my extensive post on Monday. If you are a user of Telegram, you can receive updates in this Telegram group or join the discussion in this Telegram group. Furthermore we are organizing an office hour three times (for different time zones) on Tuesday, Feb 2 (see the basic page). There we will introduce the call for feedback and will be available for any questions and comments. We are welcoming the organization of conversations in any language and in any channel. If you want us to organize a conversation or a meeting for your wiki project or your affiliate, please contact us. Best regards, DBarthel (WMF) (talk) 17:51, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Moving Wikimania 2021 to a Virtual Event

Wikimania's logo.

Hello. Apologies if you are not reading this message in your native language. Please help translate to your language. Thank you!

Wikimania will be a virtual event this year, and hosted by a wide group of community members. Whenever the next in-person large gathering is possible again, the ESEAP Core Organizing Team will be in charge of it. Stay tuned for more information about how you can get involved in the planning process and other aspects of the event. Please read the longer version of this announcement on wikimedia-l.

ESEAP Core Organizing Team, Wikimania Steering Committee, Wikimedia Foundation Events Team, 15:15, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Project Grant Open Call

This is the announcement for the Project Grants program open call that started on January 11, with the submission deadline of February 10, 2021.
This first open call will be focussed on Community Organizing proposals. A second open call focused on research and software proposals is scheduled from February 15 with a submission deadline of March 16, 2021.

For the Round 1 open call, we invite you to propose grant applications that fall under community development and organizing (offline and online) categories. Project Grant funds are available to support individuals, groups, and organizations to implement new experiments and proven ideas, from organizing a better process on your wiki, coordinating a campaign or editathon series to providing other support for community building. We offer the following resources to help you plan your project and complete a grant proposal:

Program officers are also available to offer individualized proposal support upon request. Contact us if you would like feedback or more information.

We are excited to see your grant ideas that will support our community and make an impact on the future of Wikimedia projects. Put your idea into motion, and submit your proposal by February 10, 2021!

Please feel free to get in touch with questions about getting started with your grant application, or about serving on the Project Grants Committee. Contact us at Please help us translate this message to your local language. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:00, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Zoological homonym?

A question for our zoological editors about Antimerina: Is the subtribus a valid name? --Thiotrix (talk) 11:14, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My reading of this would be as follows (subject to correction by anyone better versed in the zoological Code than myself):
  • The genus name Antimerina Alluaud, 1898 (Carabidae, Coleoptera, Animalia), Ann. Soc. Ent. France, 66, 170 is available (and has been used as a valid taxon by recent authors, e.g. Rainio, 2013,, as well as being listed as accepted in J. Hallan's Biology Catalog, 2012 version (see
  • The rules of homonymy "appear to" apply to cross rank homonyms as well as to those of the same ranks, at least up to the level of family, where the Code applies: "Article 52. Principle of Homonymy: 52.1. Statement of the Principle of Homonymy: When two or more taxa are distinguished from each other they must not be denoted by the same name." (nothing about having to be the same rank, or species/genus/family-group, there)
  • subtribus Antimerina Brunke, Żyła & Solodovnikov, 2019 (Staphylinidae, Coleoptera, Animalia) is therefore invalid, being a junior homonym (I am unclear whether that also means it is unavailable - need an expert to comment here), and requires to be replaced. However *some* invalid names (homonyms etc.) remain in use pending replacement - in IRMNG I (generally) enter these as accepted (for now) but note that a replacement name is needed (for me, "accepted" = in current use, this is not a concept used in the Code), although an argument could also be made for labelling such names as "unaccepted", with no current "accepted" name.
In case this helps... Tony 1212 (talk) 18:10, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I just found an old Taxacom discussion from March 2002 discussing this kind of homonymy, it seems there that the few who took part actually came to the opposite conclusion (i.e. names belonging to different rank-groups don't fall into homonymy). Not sure if any discussion on the subject has happened since then though. Monster Iestyn (talk) 20:01, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, reading that 2002 Taxacom discussion, my conclusion would be that the participants were wrong, in comparison to the actual wording of the Code. Maybe asking the question today would produce a different result... I can do so and see what transpires :) Tony 1212 (talk) 20:31, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The Code does not explicitly state the principle of homonymy as applying across the different groups (nor, annoyingly, does it explicitly state that it does not. At least the botanical code is clear on this!). I believe this to be deliberate because it is awkward for a family-group name like "Antimerina" to be homonymous with a genus-group name when, strictly speaking, what can actually be homonymous is the root of a family-group name, not the name proper! This is why Antimerina (type genus Antimerus) is homonymous with an hypothetical "Antimeridae" (type genus hypothetical Antimeron) even if these names have never been treated at the actual same rank. This is antithetical to the botanical code (which I and Tony are more deeply familiar with) and, yes, causes no end of trouble in zoological nomenclature! Circeus (talk) 04:10, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Awkward as it is a family-group name cannot be a homonym of a genus group name, largely because of what has been explained. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 04:48, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have sent this question to Taxacom - I do not necessarily agree with User:Faendalimas here, so, let us see if anyone sees fit to give a 2021 opinion, one way or the other... Tony 1212 (talk) 08:43, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting, however WoRMS can contain errors, like any other compilation :) Although there may also be more discussion of the issue there, or in published sources used.Tony 1212 (talk) 10:36, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, names above family rank are not governed by the ICZN Code, so that homonymy is probably permissible... Tony 1212 (talk) 10:42, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
OK, Experts have weighed in - see - and have pointed out that in other sections of the Code than the one I cited, homonymy is defined and discussed only within particular -groups (family-group, genus-group, species-group, I am sure you know what these mean if you are familiar with the Code), therefore I was wrong above and Scott (plus some previous opinions expressed on Taxacom) was correct; thus as for the original question, the genus and subtribe can coexist without entering into homonymy. Whether both are considered taxonomically valid (=accepted) names (i.e. not synonyms) at any one time, is a question of taxonomy, not nomenclature, and is not governed by the ICZN. Cheers Tony Rees Tony 1212 (talk) 18:09, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I think this should be sorted, but its not. Thanks for checking though, its good to have another opinion. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 04:16, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Selected references

There are quite a few pages that use "selected references" as a section title. This is not internationalised. Should a new MediaWiki page be created or some other, already existing one, be used. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 20:12, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No it should not. At least not in my opinion. This header should so rarely be in use that it probably ought to be removed on sight. It is mostly yet another remnants of Stephen's reign. Circeus (talk) 04:15, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with @Circeus: here I also never use it and would prefer it was not. We should have References, from the name of the species and its authority it should be obvious which is the original nomenclatural ref for the name, the rest if any others, should be useful for understanding the usage over time. But they are all references. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 04:41, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, they should be replaced by the usual header ==References==. Some editors used the wording "Works include", this should also be replaced. --Thiotrix (talk) 10:48, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed remove not expand. Andyboorman (talk) 13:22, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You mean =={{int:References}}==. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 13:28, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes thats the only one we need. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 03:03, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've just created a script aimed to internationalise section headings in article space. Please try it out if you are interested and report any issues on my talk page. Thanks. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 12:53, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tech News: Minerva

The latest Tech News bulletin includes:

Minerva is the skin Wikimedia wikis use for mobile traffic. When a page is protected and you can't edit it you can normally read the source wikicode. This doesn't work on Minerva on mobile devices. This is being fixed. Some text might overlap. This is because your community needs to update MediaWiki:Protectedpagetext to work on mobile. You can read more. [1][2]

Do we need to do anything? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:03, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Loves Folklore 2021 is back!

Please help translate to your language

You are humbly invited to participate in the Wiki Loves Folklore 2021 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.

Please support us in translating the project page and a banner message to help us spread the word in your native language.

Kind regards,

Wiki loves Folklore International Team

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:25, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Personal thought about taxonomy in Wikidata

Hi, I spent a few hours writing this: d:User:Christian Ferrer/sandbox, it's worth what it's worth, but well, if you find that the way Wikidata approaches taxonomy is not perfect, then maybe you will find some things interesting. Good reading! Christian Ferrer (talk) 20:40, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I think such an essay very much needs to discuss the fact that the data model does an absolute conflation of taxonomy and nomenclature to the point where, among others, you literally cannot enter the basionym/original combination of a name in current use without the data model pretty much spitting in your face with constraint violations. Same with things like replaced homonyms. Circeus (talk) 17:31, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Circeus: thanks you, forgive me I'm a little busy now, I will contact you so that we can discuss. Christian Ferrer (talk) 09:45, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Circeus: can you point me one or a few exemples available here in Wikispecies that would be potentially hard to modelize in Wikidata? Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:56, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikidatas model for presenting the data is honestly very problematic. For example the genus Elseya the image they have for the Genus is Elseya lavarackorum this is not appropriate they should use Elseya dentata as its the type species and a true representation of the genus. In the name they state it was described by John Edward Gray in 1863 but then cite a checklist from 2007 as the reference, nope they should have the paper by Gray 1863 here. By stating the nomenclatural act but then citing a recent checklist they are mixing the nomenclatural recognition of the name and later taxonomic usage. Also for parent taxon they should separate nomenclature and taxonomy, nomenclaturally the Chelodininae was named by Baur 1893, not even mentioned, and then cite who established the modern recognition the second reference but also list Fritz and Havas who never used the name. So as @Circeus: states it is a shamble of nomenclature mixed with taxonomy ignoring many relevant references in order to seem up to date by using recent treatments. Fritz and Havas are not the authority for Elseya, Gray is, along with Lindholm 1929 for setting the type species. In nomenclature the first paper to make an act must be cited, in taxonomy the last paper to make an arrangement is cited, and they cannot be mixed. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 20:33, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Faendalimas: - re "For example the genus Elseya the image they have for the Genus is Elseya lavarackorum this is not appropriate they should use Elseya dentata as its the type species and a true representation of the genus" - not any more, it doesn't ;-) I just replaced it with a pic of the type species, tho' regrettably a captive one as Commons doesn't have a natural specimen. But it is easy to replace images at wikidata, it is one of the most frequent edit types I do there - MPF (talk) 14:24, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Faendalimas: The first issue you point is less a model issue than a content issue as it is up to us to put the right reference instead of a checklist, as exemple see Q61631104. But it is not my point to defend the current model, quite the opposite. See d:User:Christian Ferrer/sandbox, to separate nomenclature and taxonomy is precisely what I am arguing for, although it is not perfect I have tried to model additional possibilities , see the "Coexisting models" at the bottom at the model you see statements where I try to add the infos coming from taxonomic sources that may be different informations, and also the last one that is the original description with the former taxon treatment attempted to be modelised. For your sentence "nomenclaturally the Chelodininae was named by Baur 1893" this information is intended to be stored in Q2962214. Christian Ferrer (talk) 21:21, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well I guess what I wrote above is more a policy issue as I was told not to put original refs in when a recent secondary ref would do. Never understood that argument. From a structural point of view. In any view of the data say at species level I should be able to determine the sister taxa, also from say genus I should be able to determine the child taxa, ie the species. Also the database should be consistent in recognition of all sub taxa that are in usage, eg again with Elseya it has 3 in use subgenera and the species are split between these. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 21:40, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The simplest example is that every nomenclatural property (including "synonym of") must be on an item with the "instance of taxon" property. Names are not taxon. And the system doesn't allow a taxon to have a synonym list associated, so you must create separate instances, leading to the absurd situation where the basionym of a combination (or replaced homonym/illegitimate name) must be listed as a different taxon to the correct name, even though homotypic names are by definition one and the same taxon! Circeus (talk) 23:00, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's the debate "instance of taxon" vs "instance of scientific name", the actual system is the first but on the facts tend to make us use the second. Christian Ferrer (talk) 07:27, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Faendalimas: I'm curious what if any justification was given to you to 'Well I guess what I wrote abold ld ve is more a policy issue as I was told not to put original refs in when a recent secondary ref would do'? Giveldn that by it's own description at that Wikidata is not a database of facts, but rather a database of references, surely one reference is as valid as any other (putting aside the argument that the original publication should take priority). The only thing I can think of is there may be a dedicated item where the original publication is to be entered, although I can't find it.CanadianCodhead (talk) 21:36, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@CanadianCodhead: at the time I was told not to use original refs for very old species, ie more than about 50 years, as recent refs would be more accurate. Also they pointed out to me that secondary refs were preferable over primary refs. This may not be the prevailing view of all editors there but it did make editing species accounts awkward. As a taxonomist I do not consider what I was told a valid argument, but several original refs I added were replaced with recent checklists. The only reference to a species name is the original reference, subsequent ones are references of usage of that name. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 04:07, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I never had this issue, I always put the original reference when I get the right item under the hand, and it have never been removed as far I know. Christian Ferrer (talk) 07:27, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
it seems curious to me that any editor at Wikidata would suggest that any reference is somehow more valuable than another. At Wikidata any entered reference to a statement is not 'the' reference, it is 'a' reference. There are no guidelines or rules against having multiple references to a statement, in fact there are solid reasons for having more than one. It is backup in the event a resource becomes unavalaible. It is helpful to prevent circular referencing when so much content is simply imported from Wikipedia.
Perhaps most importantly, given the guidelines at the site that references that are clearly incorrect should not be removed, as long as the reference continues to claim the inaccurate fact, it is still a valid reference, if there are multiple references under the 'correct' one, it adds weight to saying what is valid- As a hypothetical example, were someone to find and add a reference that says Egretta thula (a name which BTW currently has 19 references) were originally named by Linnaeus, it would be a violation of Wikidata rules to remove it as long as that reference retains that claim. However if that claim has 1 reference, and the claim the species was actually named by Molina has 19 references, it should be clear where the preponderance of evidence is.CanadianCodhead (talk) 17:26, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@CanadianCodhead: It was a while ago, and I only do as needed edits since then. Left me feeling like the process there was a bit flawed. Probably better now. Several of the editors there I know well and they do good work on taxonomic stuff. I may be being a little harsh its probably an aberration. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 18:20, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Faendalimas: I should be able to determine the sister taxa, also from say genus I should be able to determine the child taxa. The 2nd one you can quite easily do in Wikidata via a SPARQL query. SPARQL is not the most user friendly thing in the world, but it can be done. For example this query :

SELECT ?item ?taxonname ?inaturalistID ?IUCNStatusLabel WHERE {
        ?item wdt:P31 wd:Q16521 ;

        wdt:P171* wd:Q312272;  #select specific genus here
        wdt:P225 ?taxonname;
        OPTIONAL {?item wdt:P3151 ?inaturalistID .}
        OPTIONAL {?item wdt:P141 ?IUCNStatus .}
  SERVICE wikibase:label { bd:serviceParam wikibase:language "en". }
ORDER BY ?taxonname
Try it!

Hopefully the formatting does not go goofy here will list all children, with a couple of data points as examples down throught the taxonomic tree (ie species, subspecies etc) of the genus Egretta.

The first question about all the sister taxa, you can't answer that question specifically in Wikidata. To do so would imply and require Wikidata to accept one taxonomic treatment as the 'truth' versus a separate one that accepts a different structure. The question you can answer in Wikidata is 'what are the sister taxa of this taxon according to a specific source'. As a real world example, Herring Gulls, European ornithological bodies treat the birds on each side of the Atlantic as separate full species, North American authorities treat them as subspecies. Both are valid to be entered and stored in Wikidata as each is a valid concept (Stopping people from merging the items, setting one as a synonym of the other because they believe one of the approaches to be correct is an entirely separate issue that seems to have no answer). If you ask for all the sister taxa of Larus delawarensis, I don't think the ideal answer would be to get both names returned, so you have to ask 'what are the sister taxa of L. delawarensis according to the IOC Birds Checklist, or according to the Clements checklist etc' CanadianCodhead (talk) 16:57, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image issue

Hi everyone, I noticed recently someone added this image to the Elseya page here: c:File:Emydura_macquarii_Baltimore_Aquarium.jpg. Though it had a different name at the time. I just had it renamed as it was a misidentified Emydura macquarii. This image is used on at least 8 wikis as an Elseya dentata which it is not, including here, Wikipedia in at least 6 languages, and Wikidata. Sorry to say there are actually no images of Elseya dentata on Commons, but I am trying to get a colleague to upload some. I have reidentified some 60 images of turtles in recent days I am going to continue this as among their undidentified testudines category there are some great pictures and I can id them all. In meantime if you are working on any wiki using this image I suggest you remove it. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 04:17, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Faendalimas: I've removed it from its remaining usages now. A good example of why using pics from zoos is not a good idea, the frequency of misidentifications is alarmingly high! - MPF (talk) 09:34, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Very true @MPF:. I managed to get a friend of mine to upload some original pictures of an actual Elseya dentata they are in commons under Category:Elseya dentata. For anyone wishing to use them. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 12:14, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Taxa authored and Template:Taxa authored 2 must be merged

we must to merge {{Taxa authored}} {{Taxa authored 2}}. New users are confused. I know that after merging some articles have manually created duplicate row Taxon names authored. But the earlier we merge, the better for Wikispecies community and especially for new users--Estopedist1 (talk) 11:20, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Support Seems sensible to me. Andyboorman (talk) 13:01, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 Support Burmeister (talk) 13:14, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 Support yes do it. Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 13:28, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 Support ReneeWrites (talk) 13:53, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 Support Though mind that there are still pages that translude the former template or one of its redirects (Template:Taxa, Template:Authored taxa and Template:Taxa Authored). Monster Iestyn (talk) 15:43, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 Support I have been upgrading to {{Taxa authored 2}} whenever I encounter the situation during citation creation. Neferkheperre (talk) 13:38, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 Support {{Taxa authored 2}} is good. Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:35, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 Support {{Taxa authored 2}} fine.--Hector Bottai (talk) 23:42, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 Support: please always use {{Taxa authored 2}} and get rid of all other formats. --Thiotrix (talk) 07:42, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 Support {{Taxa authored 2}} I use this every time because you find it in Wikispecies tools and nothing else. PeterR (talk) 13:15, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Here is (some of the) prior discussion:

And, yes, they should be merged. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:16, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

the result is obvious here. Now, we have to copy syntax of {{Taxa authored 2}} and paste it to {{Taxa authored}}. After that, we accept only one format: {{Taxa authored}}--Estopedist1 (talk) 08:45, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Any update on this? Currently we have a mix of pages using {{Taxa authored}} using the old way, {{Taxa authored 2}} using the current Help page standards, and increasingly a number of pages using {{Taxa authored}} in the same way as 2 assuming this merge will happen, which is making everything rather messy. Monster Iestyn (talk) 16:49, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Monster Iestyn and Pigsonthewing: OK, {{Taxa authored}} is substituted by {{Taxa authored 2}}. Now, there are several tasks to do. Some of them are only for admins, like fixing MediaWiki:Edittools--Estopedist1 (talk) 17:21, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
MediaWiki:Edittools done. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:37, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
if new system (ie we only use {{Taxa authored}}) stays stable, then we have two problems: (1) double text in authority articles which have {{Taxa}} (about 10,000 articles); (2) documentation of tl:Taxa authored needs to be updated--Estopedist1 (talk) 20:13, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(restored) @Estopedist1 and Andy Mabbett: Just wanted to notify you I am fixing number (1), as most people appear to prefer keeping the section heading in the template. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 21:17, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've noticed you're keeping the old {{Taxa}} uses though, we use the {{Taxa authored}} name as standard. Monster Iestyn (talk) 22:05, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I will start standardising the title when I get back to this task. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 22:09, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The task is done. Still, there are about 1300 pages where the full section is entered manually and the template should be used instead. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 20:10, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I've replaced them by the {{Taxa authored}} template. The rest search results use non-standard formatting, I've kept them but internationalised the section title where needed. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 13:58, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There were some non-standard and misspelt variants of the section title; I fixed them as well now. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 18:19, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Pigsonthewing: oops, fix ping. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 14:02, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Studies in the Scarabaeidae - dates

I have just created {{Robinson, 1941}}:

but now I find sv:Onthophagus subopacus cites:

  • Robinson M. (1940) Studies in the Scarabaeidae II., Transactions of the American Entomological Society 66(2):141-160

Can anyone resolve this? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:41, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, "Studies in the Scarabaeidae" and "Studies in the Scarabaeidae of North America" appear to be separate series of articles by the same author, [already clarified] searching on JSTOR there are also Parts I, III and IV for "Studies in the Scarabaeidae" at least.. The actual publication dates might be a different story though, you'd probably need to check the "Front matter" of the volume issues for the mailing dates (if you can access them). Monster Iestyn (talk) 21:24, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
All now on Mark Packard Mills Robinson. However, I am unable to determine in which of his 1947 works he named Bolborhombus angulus. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:27, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I know someone who may know the answer to that I will ask him. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 00:40, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's easy, it was not Bolborhombus angulus when originally named by Robinson, it was in another genus (hence authority given in parentheses) i.e. Bolboceras, original description here: Trans. Amer. Ent. Soc, vol. 73, p. 170, 1947, available at . The transfer to Bolborhombus was by Cartwright, 1953, Proceedings of the United States national Museum. Washington 103(3318) :95-120, see . Cheers Tony Tony 1212 (talk) 18:20, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Paurodontidae: are you a Dryolestid, or a worm?

While applying a template at Wiktionary that automatically links here, I discovered that Wikispecies and English Wikipedia have an entirely different concept of what this family is. Here, it's Paurodontidae Thorne, 1941; nematodes in the order Tylenchida. There, it's Paurodontidae Marsh, 1887; Jurassic and early Cretaceous mammals in the order Dryolestida. On Google Scholar I see a mix of both, but apparently not in the same article. Since I'm not a nematologist, mammologist, nor any kind of paleontologist, I'm hoping someone can shed some light on the status of both names. Chuck Entz (talk) 01:19, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

They are family-group homonyms, Paurodontidae Thorne, 1941 in particular is the junior homonym and should be renamed. (According to IRMNG, Paurodontidae Thorne, 1941 is accepted as Neotylenchidae Thorne, 1941, which would seem to solve the problem already if that's considered up-to-date). Monster Iestyn (talk) 04:20, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
On a side note, hopefully the two "Paurodontidae"s haven't been as embarassingly mixed up on Wikipedia as I found with "Catiniidae" recently, which is used for both a family of molluscs and a family of extinct beetles. Though, I just checked the wikidata item for your case, and already so far I see the GBIF item is for the nemotode family. Monster Iestyn (talk) 04:26, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Family-level homonyms that have shown up during my IRMNG compilation activities are available at . The list is by no means complete, since I tend not to enter family names initially encountered as synonyms (also it includes a few "pseudohomonyms" e.g. misspellings or unavailable names) but it is a start... I have been through it on occasion to try to locate presently accepted names for junior homonyms, but maybe it is due for another pass; any additional info or comments are of course welcome (you can advise via my talk page). Cheers Tony Tony 1212 (talk) 21:25, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with family level homonyms in zoology is that the code explicitly says "You do NOT just use another name (unless that name makes the junior homonym a junior synonym), much less coin a new family-group name one, you must apply to the committee for an emendation of the name root". This is easily one of the strangest things about the zoological code: the ICZN bends over backward to refer as few things as possible to the committee, but simultaneously makes it literally impossible to resolve family-level homonymies without referring them to the committee, in a process that has been known to take years on average! Circeus (talk) 02:08, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, we have discussed some of this before, RE the Commission's decisions taking a long time in some cases, or just no action: Tony 1212 (talk) 06:41, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Just so your aware, in ref to something said in the other discussion, a number of cases disappeared from the ICZN wbsite during the move from England to Singapore, this was unintentional and does not mean they were resolved. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 15:58, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dryocopus (Aves) - latest situation?

Hi all, Just a note that molecular evidence seems to be suggesting that the woodpecker genus Dryocopus may need splitting, with New World species becoming Hylatomus (already used by some workers). See e.g. and . Since I am not up with the latest "community acceptance" of this and related splits I defer to others with more knowledge of currently used bird taxonomy/ies to investigate further and amend that genus page and associated species pages if necessary... Regards Tony Tony 1212 (talk) 21:31, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Nothing taken up by IOC yet, so not yet. Plenty of other avian work to be done here though, major sorting out in babblers (Leiothrichidae, Timaliidae, Alcippeidae, etc.), Anatidae, Phasianidae, etc. all still needed, if you're looking for something to do. Wish it wasn't so tedious rearranging split genera on wikispecies! - MPF (talk) 11:18, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well explained by @MPF:. Usually it would take a relatively long time for change to be accepted. As was said a lot of taxonomic updates to be done. Recently finished a huge update at Thraupidae with lot of new genera and splits. I usually take care of changes involving neotropical passeriformes and no time to care about other regions and families. This section of IOC gives you a very good direction for working on taxonomic changes: Taxonomic changes; Lumps and splits. Thanks for the advise.--Hector Bottai (talk) 12:00, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks all. I was wondering whether to treat Hylatomus as a current synonym or accepted name in my own system, it seems that synonym of Dryocopus is the best status for now. No mention of consideration of splitting Dryocopus in the IOC list links provided at this time, it seems. Cheers Tony Tony 1212 (talk) 21:15, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome! Always worth keeping an eye on IOC for future changes. As an aside, I don't rate very highly, I'd not use it as a source - MPF (talk) 23:55, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Point taken, but I thought it might be more of an alert or pointer to new/"interesting" straws in the wind (in this case)... Tony 1212 (talk) 18:04, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Hi, I updated this template for it allow to make queries here with Structured Data for Commons, allowing the kind of query as below. Note that now when you use that query you have to put an additional parametter project=sdc for Commons or project=wd for Wikidata, this is written in the documentation. No problem to revert if either there is an issue.

#Images in Wikimedia Commons depicting items of type specimens

SELECT ?file ?image ?stype ?stypeLabel ?collec ?collecLabel ?role ?roleLabel ?de ?deLabel
with {
  select ?stype ?stypeLabel ?collec ?collecLabel ?role ?de ?roleLabel ?deLabel {
   service <> {
     select ?stype ?stypeLabel ?collec ?collecLabel ?role ?de ?roleLabel ?deLabel { 
       ?stype wdt:P31/wdt:P279* wd:Q51255340 
       SERVICE wikibase:label { bd:serviceParam wikibase:language "[AUTO_LANGUAGE],en". }
       optional {
         ?stype wdt:P195 ?collec .
       optional {
         ?stype p:P2868 [ps:P2868 ?role ; pq:P642 ?de]
       #remove the # below to specify one or more collections 
       #values ?collec {
       # wd:Q122945 # example with the Yale Peabody Museum of Natural History 
} as %types
  ?file wdt:P180 ?stype ; schema:contentUrl ?url .
  bind(iri(concat("", replace(substr(str(?url),53),"_","%20"))) AS ?image) .
  #?file wdt:P180  wd:Q105607273  .
  include %types
Try it!

Christian Ferrer (talk) 19:02, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Finding the modern equivalent of an old species name

Hello, I'm new to Wikispecies and have a history of editing both English Wiktionary and English Wikipedia. While investigating the origin of the term echidna I came across the binomial name Echidna hystrix, but only found it in older publications, from as early as the 1850s up to the 1910s. It seems Wikispecies keeps track of synonymous and superseded names, I am I correct in this belief? If so, is someone able to help me find what the modern equivalent of Echidna hystrix or give advice on how to do so efficiently? Thanks and take care. The Editor's Apprentice (talk) 22:33, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I think I've found the origin and equivalence of a similar name in this article about Tachyglossus aculeatus in Mammalian Species: "Echidna hystrix multiaculea Rothschild, 1905 [= Tachyglossus aculeatus multiaculeata (Rothschild, 1905)]." I've also discovered how to add synonyms at Help:Name section#Full example. Can I some how use Rothschild's article to track down who authored Echidna hystrix? If so, I can't seem to find it at Lionel Walter Rothschild#1905. Thanks again. The Editor's Apprentice (talk) 23:23, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I found the article [3]. I'm going to stop posting so much until I hit a wall. I've basically started live-blogging at this point. The Editor's Apprentice (talk) 23:33, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Echidna hystrix was described by Georges F. Cuvier in Regne Anime 1817. The name Echidna is a junior homonym hence cannot be used which is why we use Tachyglossus. The synonymies in Tachyglossus are incomplete which is unfortunate. If you are interested in sorting that feel free and ask for help. For zoological names I suggest you check names against various taxonomic databases to understand their validity. Working out the history of names in taxonomy is more than the origin of the name but also its usage over time. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 23:58, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oh and yes it is a junior syn of Tachyglossus aculeatus aculeatus cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 00:01, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In zoology (but not botany) the situation is complicated, a bit, by the fact that the species epithet is tracked separately from the genus (original or subsequent) in which it is combined. Thus in this instance, the epithet hystrix dates from Home, 1802, where it was initially used within the genus Ornithorhynchus (the platypus genus, before the echidnas were separated off). Then when that species name was combined with the Echidna of Cuvier, 1797, the combination would be given (nowadays) as Echidna hystrix (Home, 1802), the authority given in parentheses to indicate that the generic placement had been changed from the original. As Scott says above, Cuvier's Echidna is a junior homonym of something else i.e. Echidna Forster, 1788, a fish, so the genus used is now Tachyglossus Illiger, 1811 (there is one older name, Acanthonotus Goldfuss, 1809, but it turns out that this is also a homonym).
Now there is a place where all these names are collated (for mammals), being Wilson & Reeder's "Mammal Species of the World version 3" (MSW3 to those who use it frequently), although it is getting a bit out of date (2005). Unfortunately, Wilson & Reeder gives synonyms for genera, and synonyms for epithets, but not for combinations of the same i.e. binomial names. Thus, they list Echidna Cuvier, 1797 as one of the synonyms of current Tachyglossus, and "hystrix (Home, 1802)" as one of the synonyms of "aculeatus (Shaw, 1792)" without specifying that hystrix was ever used in combination with Echidna. So, making a list of historic binomials ever used is next to impossible using this resource. Also since it is relied on by other compilers e.g. ITIS (in USA) who feed their mammal data to (e.g.) Catalogue of Life (global reference source), many/most binomial synonyms for mammals are missing from both ITIS and CoL. I heard a rumour that if there is ever a MSW4, it may include binomial synonyms as per this case, but who knows... All this is just a general indication that for many mammals, access to comprehensive lists of binomial synonyms is generally missing in the many data sources that rely on MSW3 as their basis. Cheers - Tony Tony 1212 (talk) 04:49, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikifunctions logo contest

01:45, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

George A. Smith

Hi, if someone can give me infos about George A. Smith, the author of DOI: 10.1080/00222932708655598, I'm a buyer. Christian Ferrer (talk) 20:07, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that he also wrote "Report on the Echinoderms collected daring the Voyaqe of the 'Quest' (1921-22)", Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist. 9(12), 367-376, 3 figs., published in 1923 ([4]), in which he described Amphiophiura rowetti (d:Q1930768), Ophiomastus rotundus (synonym of Ophiomastus meridionalis (Lyman, 1879), and Ophiolebes biscutifer (d:Q105403721; now Ophiolebella biscutifera (d:Q2465312)).
He is also acknowledged in "A Catalogue of the Recent Sea-Urchins (Echinoidea) In the Collection of the British Museum (Natural History)" (1925) by Hubert Lyman Clark: "I am particularly indebted ... to Mr. G. A. Smith, whose knowledge of the collection was invaluable." ([5]). He is also acknowledged in the preface of the same work for correcting the proofs in Clark's absence, and for compiling its index.
BHL have an entry for him, as the author of "Note on young specimens of Anthenea sp" (1920), in The Annals and magazine of natural history; zoology, botany, and geology vol. 6, series 9 pp. 295--298.
The natural History Museum have a record of him; he's listed as being in a staff photograph, but it doesn't seem to be online.
Now at d:Q105533228. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:13, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Microsoft Academic IDs

I have added PP6366 to {{Authority control}}; an example can be seen on George Alexander Smith. Please add applicable values to items in Wikidata, where you can. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:15, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, the both page are about the Lee Kong Chian Natural History Museum, should they be merged? Christian Ferrer (talk) 19:02, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Probably. Looks like LKCNHM is the more sensible place to redirect ZRC. Circeus (talk) 20:21, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ok thanks, it's done. Christian Ferrer (talk) 16:12, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Taxonomist categories

For our purposes, are Category:Taxonomists and Category:Taxon authorities not the same? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:31, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think so and the least used can be redirected to the most common? Andyboorman (talk) 08:06, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
agreed merge into Category:Taxon authorities cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 15:19, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OK; done.

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 20:51, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Adding species vernacular names for world languages

There is currently no species database that comprehensively compiles species vernacular names for little-known world languages.

  1. Does Wikispecies policy currently allow users to add thousands of vernacular names for little-known languages around the world (for example, minority languages spoken in Papua New Guinea)? Most of those languages do not have templates. Wiktionary is not practical for this, and many Wikipedias do not allow this. Wikidata might be possible but would be clunky and inefficient to use when adding vernacular names.
  2. Also, can users add reconstructed species names for w:proto-languages?

Say I have a list of about 100 reconstructed plant and animal names for w:Proto-Austronesian, and 500 plant and animal names for the w:Kwaza language. How would I go about adding these names to Wikispecies - that is, if this is allowed? Sagotreespirit (talk) 23:59, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If the addition is to be made by a bot, it has to be approved. Manual addition is fine. For languages not in {{VN}}, they must be requested manually first (potentially at mediawiki level)..
Basically, you can put in names even if the language is not supported, and make a request afterwards.
I don't think we want reconstructed languages. This is really more of a Wiktionary thing (e.g.).Circeus (talk) 17:08, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1/ Wikispecies is one of the multilingual sites of Wikimedia, the legitimacy of the vernacular names within Wikispecies can be itself a topic for discussion, and maybe even there would be some disagreemnt on the subject because it comes out of the taxonomy a bit, personaly I'm quite neutral, however if the most widely spoken languages are accepted there is not a single begining of reason to not to accept a vernacular name in a langage only spoken by a minority. 2/ I have no opinion about potential reconstructed species names. Christian Ferrer (talk) 19:50, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]


how do i put in a citation? <ref> doesn't work. — The preceding unsigned comment was added by The helpful 0ctopus (talkcontribs) 14:40, 13 March 2021‎.

@The helpful 0ctopus: You may be used to referencing on Wikipedia; we use a very different system here; see Help:Reference section, and take a look at Canis lupus, for example. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:11, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Basically, because author citation (accompanied or not by year) is already an integral part of discussing biological names under the various codes of nomenclature and on averages pages require much less pinpoint references than Wikipedia articles, Parenthetical referencing (specifically of the author-year-page form) is considered the most useful for Wikispecies. Circeus (talk) 18:36, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Karl J. Marschall

Is there any evidence that Karl J. Marschall is a taxon authority at all? Just today I have discovered that all instances of "Marschall" on Wikispecies actually refer to August Friedrich Marschall (who I have just created a page for), while all I can find online referring to Karl J. Marschall (full name probably "Karl Joseph Marschall"?) indicates he is a insect pathologist active in the 20th century at least. If nobody else can find anything on this Marschall that is relevant to Wikispecies, it seems clear we should delete the page. Monster Iestyn (talk) 13:52, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You're right this is Karl Joseph Marschall who is an entomologist from Western Samoa, e.g. DOI: 10.1016/0022-2011(82)90049-0, DOI: 10.1007/BF00406725, DOI: 10.1038/225288a0, he is part of the Rhinoceros Beetle Project [6]. But I don't know if he is taxon authority. See also [7] Christian Ferrer (talk) 16:34, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We are not even citing any of his actual publications anywhere that I can see (unlike Oana Paula Popa, and I don't think we should have a page for her anyway)... I feel about 98% confident we can excise him off. Circeus (talk) 18:31, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Since it sounds like nobody disagrees so far, I'll add a speedy delete notice to the page. It doesn't look like it ever had any meaningful content since it was created in 2010 anyway, it's just his name plus some categories. Monster Iestyn (talk) 14:45, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Call for review, comment and discuss my PhD thesis on Wikimedia movement


Just a short message to call people interested to review, comment and discuss my PhD thesis on Wikimedia movement. All the best, Lionel Scheepmans (talk) 19:44, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Do we want template:Journal?

@Pigsonthewing: So, Andy's {{Journal}} has lain unused for a long time, as have its multiple tracking categories, Do we actually want this? Circeus (talk) 16:48, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Never used it so as far I am concerned it can go. Andyboorman (talk) 21:37, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Should I know its existence, would help the creation of a few publication pages I did.--Hector Bottai (talk) 00:26, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've never been entirely sure how to format ISSN pages, thanks to the varying formats for them used around Wikispecies. A template like this would be great if it was finished, though I never knew this one existed until now. Monster Iestyn (talk) 05:28, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We should template anything that we can (and, pragmatically, that is non-contentious), and pull as much data as possible into such templates, from Wikidata. We cannot yet do so for taxons because there are various disputes over modelling, and the taxonomy itself. I know of no such disputes over data about mainstream journals. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:48, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The amount of Stephen's templates we have deleted would argue significantly against the "non-contentious" part. Circeus (talk) 23:22, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm unclear how they - or anything that is contentious - negates what I said about templating what is not contentious. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:55, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe your particular wording made it look like you were saying the action of templating anything itself was not contentious, rather than saying we should template anything that is non-contentious? Monster Iestyn (talk) 16:09, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]


I have reason to believe Category:Carcinologists may have been misapplied to a number of pages for taxon authors who don't or didn't actually work on Crustacea at all. For instance, I just fixed this with Douglas C. Currie, who has only published articles on Diptera to my knowledge. On looking into the category, the first entry currently listed is Wataru Abe who has ...only a single Tardigrada publication listed on Wikispecies currently. Not to do with Crustacea at all. Monster Iestyn (talk) 02:26, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also worth noting, these same mistakes have been copied to their Wikidata items as well, those will need fixing too. Monster Iestyn (talk) 02:27, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Since nobody else seems to have taken interest in fixing this misinformation in the week following the above messages, I may as well start correcting the categories myself. If anyone wants to help me, please do so. Monster Iestyn (talk) 19:37, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nevermind, ...there were suprisingly only a few taxon authors in the wrong category in this case, despite my earlier impressions. So this can be considered done now. Monster Iestyn (talk) 20:00, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template tab

Hi, since a long time I use the useful gadget "Template tab" available in Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets, however, it don't work currently for me. Someone has some ideas? Christian Ferrer (talk) 15:36, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hasn't worked for me for 4 days. I use it regularly.Neferkheperre (talk) 13:43, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I asked help in Phabricator. Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:55, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Neferkheperre: the Gadget have been fixed, now it works again (though a few users may temporarily have some cache issues and may feel that it does still not work). Christian Ferrer (talk) 07:33, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Working for me again, thanks. Neferkheperre (talk) 14:06, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bulk conversion of Rotifera names from ICZN LAN to wikispecies

The taxonomic community working with the phylum Rotifera produced a list of all available names at species and genus level, described until year 2000. The final documents are in the ICZN webpage: Do you think it will be possible to automatically transfer the information on wikispecies to complete the genus and species lists for the phylum? We may be able to provide the database in different formats to facilitate the bulk conversion into wikispecies. Thanks

DiegoRoti (talk) 19:23, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It might be more useful to look into importing to Wikidata, because wikispecies would only want actual pages for name considered valid. Circeus (talk) 13:14, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks: which information would you need to import the dataset into wikidata? DiegoRoti (talk) 15:50, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lists of genera names by number of letters

Just learned today that the Wikidata list pages under Category:Lists of genera names by number of letters may be excluding items for genera that have a P32 (instance of) that isn't taxon (Q16521) but something else (most likely either monotypic taxon (Q310890), fossil taxon (Q23038290) or monotypic fossil taxon (Q47487597)). Would it be worth updating these pages to use an updated SPARQL query that takes these alternative values into account? I've been looking up how SPARQL works to do this and I've already got an edited query that would work.

For instance, this one would be for four-letter genera:

SELECT ?item ?taxon_name ?wikispecies
  VALUES ?taxon {wd:Q16521 wd:Q310890 wd:Q23038290 wd:Q47487597} # taxon, monotypic taxon, fossil taxon or monotypic fossil taxon
  ?item wdt:P31 ?taxon; # ?item is taxon
        wdt:P105 wd:Q34740; # taxon rank is genus
        wdt:P225 ?taxon_name .
  FILTER (STRLEN(?taxon_name) = 4)
  ?wikispecies schema:about ?item .
  ?wikispecies schema:isPartOf <> .
Try it!

As of writing, running this query gives 593 results, while the current query would give you 546 instead. Monster Iestyn (talk) 04:07, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but is this for Wikidata or Wikispecies? Not sure of the utility for WS, as we have deprecated the use of Categories based on genera names by number of letters as being outside of project scope. Andyboorman (talk) 10:49, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure myself really. I know that they are outside of Wikispecies' project scope, but we have pages for them nevertheless, so I thought they may as well serve their purposes properly. Monster Iestyn (talk) 14:51, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We are not discussing "Categories based on genera names by number of letters", but lists. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:29, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

─────────────────────────Rather than: VALUES ?taxon {wd:Q16521 wd:Q310890 wd:Q23038290 wd:Q47487597}, we can programmatically specify subclasses, which will also catch any new ones used in future. I have now implemented that, on the two-latter list, and made some efficiency improvements Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:29, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh good, thanks. I wasn't sure if any other subclasses were used at all to be honest, that's why I checked for just those four values for P31. Monster Iestyn (talk) 23:34, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Argentinian journals

Does anyone know whether the titles Revista Argentina de Entomologia and Revista de la Sociedad Entomológica Argentina both refer to the same journal? See for example the publications of Alberto F. Prosen. Kind regards, Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 10:42, 14 April 2021 (UTC).[reply]

The two titles belong to different journals. Revista de la Sociedad Entomológica Argentina (see also started in 1926, Revista Argentina de Entomologia (see had only two volumes in 1935/38 and 1944. -RLJ (talk) 11:47, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That second link seems to be also about RSEA. This paper has some info (p. 39). Circeus (talk) 13:31, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, corrected above. --RLJ (talk) 14:37, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Revista Argentina de Entomologia does not have an ISSN that I can find (probably because of its short lifespan as already stated), while Revista de la Sociedad Entomológica Argentina is ISSN 0373-5680. The Italian Periodicals Catalogue website even seems to claim the former was written in Portuguese and the latter was (at least originally) in Spanish. Revista de la SEA was also at volume 12 by 1944 rather than volume 2, certainly no chance they could even be separate runs of the same journal. Monster Iestyn (talk) 15:43, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

───────────────────────── Thanks to all above! Tommy Kronkvist (talk) 08:26, 15 April 2021 (UTC), 08:26, 15 April 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Bullet Points

Could whoever is responsible for the unwanted extra bullet points found when using lists of reference links such as IPNI, please tidy up their mess. Thanks Andyboorman (talk) 20:15, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There's definitely a problem that some {{}} templates include an automated bullet point, and others don't - and there's no easy way of telling the difference. Please, go easy on anyone who doesn't get it right! - MPF (talk) 20:23, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
May be it is to do with the =={{int:References}}== code and not the templates themselves? It has only just appeared and templates like PWO were last modified at the end of March, if not much earlier. Changes like this should be speedily evaluated by the author and quickly reverted if there are unintended consequences. There is always the sandbox for experiments. Andyboorman (talk) 20:35, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Any example page where this is happening? Monster Iestyn (talk) 00:24, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In all taxon editions made before yesterday, they appear with an extra asterisk as the (example: Gymnocalycium mostii--MILEPRI (talk) 07:42, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Adding an asterix to the list used to make no difference, even if the template also contains one, but now there are problems for thousands of pages. There must be a reversion somewhere I am sure. Andyboorman (talk) 08:53, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

───────────────────────── I haven't yet been able to find the underlaying reason why this error occurs, but I don't think it's due to any changes in the {{Reftemp}} template or the MediaWiki Edittools footer (that lists the =={{int:References}}== shortcuts etc). They were last edited in October and August last year, respectively. The same goes for the {{Ino}} (i.e. "includeonly") and {{Noi}} (i.e. "noinclude") templates used by the {{Reftemp}} template: they were both last edited in July 2020. Perhaps @Andy Mabbett knows of any changes to underlaying modules that may generate this error? –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 12:00, 15 April 2021 (UTC).[reply]

I can only assume it could be within the code for ** [[Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:{{BASEPAGENAME}}|{{int:Find all Wikispecies pages which cite this reference}}]]. This has been mass modified by Rosibot three times very recently. Could it be an interaction between the int:Find process and something outside of the actual reference templates themselves? Andyboorman (talk) 13:13, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The problem seems to have arisen in the last few days, exactly when a column on the left (in edit mode) appeared in the template domain. Does anyone know the reason for inserting this column on the left? Burmeister (talk) 13:22, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
See particularly Brassicaceae where neither Koch et al. and Kiefer et al. have the Reference page process attached to them. Big clue I am sure, if you you know what to look for. Andyboorman (talk) 13:25, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Andyboorman: Koch et al. and Kiefer et al. are not templated. Burmeister (talk) 13:37, 15 April 2021 (UTC) Addend: i remove extra bullets from the page, bullets already in templates (it looks like a duplication problem). At least this problem seems to have been solved. Regards. Burmeister (talk) 13:42, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Burmeister:. You are right and now I think we can discount the ** [[Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:{{BASEPAGENAME}}|{{int:Find all Wikispecies pages which cite this reference}}]]. procedure as well. On Brassicales I have created a template without this process and it still generates the superfluous asterix. Best regards Andyboorman (talk) 13:50, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The whatlinkshere link isn't usually transcluded onto the taxon pages anyway (because of the noinclude HTML tags), so it wouldn't have done anything to the bullet points anyway. Monster Iestyn (talk) 15:05, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe it's some kind of MediaWiki software update that's caused this change? I don't know what else could possibly explain the bullets now visually being duplicated if they didn't used to before. They happen even if you replaced all the contents of a page with, say, * {{LSN10}} with nothing else and previewed the result. Monster Iestyn (talk) 15:18, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Or create a new page. Andyboorman (talk) 15:41, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

───────────────────────── It magically appeared for me yesterday. See Minyaspis aurivillii, in the ==={{int:Links}}=== part. When I edited the page, extra bullets appeared when I saved it. They do not appear in edit mode. When I looked into it, I found that each entry was preceded by an asterisk, line break, then entry line. I had added two new references at that time, but extra bullets did not appear there. Only in Links section. Neferkheperre (talk) 16:51, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Have a look at Welwitschia temporarily edited with a template {{Bump}} that contains only an asterix. Andyboorman (talk) 18:02, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Final detective work for me. It looks that a well meaning editor has added a mandatory bullet point to {{Irrespective of its content and name}}. Anybody have a better idea? Best regards Andyboorman (talk) 19:11, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This now appears to be sorted out successfully. I for one would have liked to know what the problem and solution were, but thanks and best regards. Andyboorman (talk) 07:40, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image is incorrect.

The image posted for this palm, Roystonea borinquena, is actually Wodyetia bifurcata. — The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 12:12, 15 April 2021

Thanks. Now corrected. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 13:37, 15 April 2021 (UTC).[reply]
I've also removed the image from the relevant Commons category and use on other wikipedias. Problem is, I'd not be sure the replacement is correct either! Might be best not to have any image until we can source a photo of a wild specimen from its native range (I'll check iNat later) - MPF (talk) 22:08, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Found a couple of cc-by licence pics on iNat, and have added one of them. Well done @ for spotting the error! - MPF (talk) 23:59, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am interested in hearing the input of Wikispecies users about the application of the Universal Code of Conduct, especially from the perspective of interactions on Wikispecies. Xeno (WMF) (talk) 00:53, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize as it appears this page was missed in the scheduled delivery of the below Mass Massage on 5 April 2021. There is a time-sensitive notice with a call for applications due 19 April 2021. Xeno (WMF) (talk) 00:53, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Universal Code of Conduct Phase 2

The Universal Code of Conduct (UCoC) provides a universal baseline of acceptable behavior for the entire Wikimedia movement and all its projects. The project is currently in Phase 2, outlining clear enforcement pathways. You can read more about the whole project on its project page.

Drafting Committee: Call for applications

The Wikimedia Foundation is recruiting volunteers to join a committee to draft how to make the code enforceable. Volunteers on the committee will commit between 2 and 6 hours per week from late April through July and again in October and November. It is important that the committee be diverse and inclusive, and have a range of experiences, including both experienced users and newcomers, and those who have received or responded to, as well as those who have been falsely accused of harassment.

To apply and learn more about the process, see Universal Code of Conduct/Drafting committee.

2021 community consultations: Notice and call for volunteers / translators

From 5 April – 5 May 2021 there will be conversations on many Wikimedia projects about how to enforce the UCoC. We are looking for volunteers to translate key material, as well as to help host consultations on their own languages or projects using suggested key questions. If you are interested in volunteering for either of these roles, please contact us in whatever language you are most comfortable.

To learn more about this work and other conversations taking place, see Universal Code of Conduct/2021 consultations.

-- Xeno (WMF) (talk) 00:53, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for the delayed delivery of the above. There is a time-sensitive notice with a call for applications due 19 April 2021. Xeno (WMF) (talk) 00:53, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Higher level classification on the Plantae pages

Hello fellow botany editors. I think we must discuss the categories and system used on taxa pages above the level of Order. It seems to me that at present use a big of a mixture of systems and names but use the Classification System: APG IV as the main reference. If we are going to use this cladistic/phylogenetic approach instead of a Linnaean system, then the categories should be emended to reflect APGIV as found here on WP. However, before doing this revision then we should endorse this mixture of phylogenetic and Linnaean classifications. As a possible alternative see Aubrieta in Tropicos. I look forward to reading your contributions. Andyboorman (talk) 18:20, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Andy, all, I looked into this a couple of years ago for IRMNG, which aspires to an integrated, Linnean-based taxonomy for all life, not just Plantae. I ended up using the system of Ruggiero et al., 2015 for extant plants and merging this with a system for fossil plants based on a modified version of that in Novikoff & Barabaz-Krasny, 2015. From my published summary (Rees et al., 2020): "For land plants, a treatment has been developed for IRMNG which merges the system of Novikoff & Barabasz-Krasny (2015) for fossils with that for extant plants given by Ruggiero et al. (2015). To achieve this, several of Novikoff & Barabasz-Krasny’s phyla (“divisions”) have been reduced in rank, for example their divisions Rhyniophyta, Zosterophyllophyta, Progymnospermophyta and Pteridospermophyta are treated as classes (Rhyniopsida, etc.) within phylum Tracheophyta in IRMNG, while their division Langiophytophyta is treated as the earlier phylum name Horneophyta. Their divisions Cycadophyta, Ginkgophyta and Gnetophyta are also treated as classes (not phyla) within Tracheophyta, within superclass Gymnospermae."
To see the result for your example as cited (Aubrieta) see
I would consider this a published classification since the data as described are published along with the paper. I had a copy of the Novikoff & Barabasz-Krasny chapter somewhere, downloaded from the web (from where it appears to have since disappeared), but just looked and could not find it at the moment, however the portions I used are as listed in IRMNG:
(Update: as at 08 April 2021, Google still has a cached version at , however it may soon disappear once it is refreshed - grab it while you can!!)
  • Ruggiero, M.A., Gordon, D.P., Orrell, T.M., Bailly, N., Bourgoin, T., Brusca, R.C., Cavalier-Smith, T., Guiry, M.D. & Kirk, P.M. (2015) A higher level classification of all living organisms. PLoS One, 10(4), e0119248. (also correction at
  • Novikoff, A. & Barabasz-Krasny, B. (2015) System of Embryophytes. In: Novikoff, A. & Barabasz-Krasny, B. Modern Plant Systematics. Liga-Pres, Lviv, Ukraine, pp. 23–63.
  • Rees, Tony; Vandepitte, Leen; Vanhoorne, Bart; Decock, Wim (2020). All genera of the world: an overview and estimates based on the March 2020 release of the Interim Register of Marine and Nonmarine Genera (IRMNG). Megataxa. 1: 123–140.
Regards - Tony Tony 1212 (talk) 19:39, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thnaks Tony very useful. Andyboorman (talk) 19:57, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, Ruggiero et. use a set of intermediate ranks above and below Tracheophyta that I did not/do not implement in IRMNG at this time, namely: Plantae (kingdom) > Viridiplantae (subkingdom) > Streptophyta (infrakingdom) > Embryophyta (superphylum) > Tracheophyta (phylum) > Spermatophytina (subphylum) > “Angiospermae” (superclass) > Magnoliopsida (class). Then they have subclass (none in Magnoliopsida), infraclass (same) and superorder (the latter is populated e.g. Ranunculanae, Rosanae). Again I kept things as simple as possible for my use, omitting subclass, infraclass and superorder, though of course Wikispecies may choose to implement these. Cheers Tony Tony 1212 (talk) 23:51, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I thought I would check a gymnosperm, example: Cupressus; higher taxonomy follows Ruggiero et al in part (Divisio: Tracheophyta) but then departs from it in a weird way (Divisio: Pinophyta) i.e. the same rank repeated. - not sure why... Tony 1212 (talk) 09:02, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It partially follows Wikipedia. However, it also differs significantly from Christenhusz et al. (2011) A new classification and linear sequence of extant gymnosperms DOI: /10.11646/phytotaxa.19.1.3, which I believe is now very widely used up to Subclass Pinidae Cronquist, Takht. & W. Zimm. (1966). Tropicos then goes to Equisetopsida C. Agardh. See what I mean by "several flavours are available". Andyboorman (talk) 09:39, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Still logically inconsistent, though, with two different names at the same rank?? Tony 1212 (talk) 10:24, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be quite happy to change over to following Christenhusz et al. in treating Pinophyta as having several orders - long overdue, as the division between e.g. Cupressaceae and Pinaceae is ancient, but it's a big job in editing all the relevant pages . . . - MPF (talk) 10:30, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think that Catalogue of Life follows Ruggiero et al. for extant taxa (as a matter of principle - with some exceptions e.g. Aves is still a class, not a subclass of Reptilia), see here for Cupressus:, and here for Aubrieta: ... so Wikispecies may, or may not, like to be consistent with CoL... Tony 1212 (talk) 10:47, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Do I sense both of you wish to move away from the APGIV approach to a more Linnaean system? In due course, do you think a more focused discussion may bring in a few more editors? Andyboorman (talk) 14:48, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Personally - I know the Linnaean system has its drawbacks, but for IRMNG, I kinda like the degree of standardization/interoperability it brings with other systems with which I exchange data (CoL being an obvious example); clades are extremely mutable and can make life messy, for example I find the system/s as set out by e.g. Adl et al unworkable for "data management/interchange" purposes as they mix and match ranks more or less at random and leave out many taxonomic units that others use. However my biggest issue is where folk build a standalone classification of ferns or protists or whatever and their higher taxonomic units, while fine for standalone purposes, do not mesh with others developed for different groups. This is where the Ruggiero et al 2015 treatment tries to harmonise things across groups, having got (a subset of) the various "experts" in the room and bashed their heads together until something common and workable emerges, and why I believe it is a good idea to use whatever they produce (note I am a follower here, not a leader, just trying to pick who to follow...) But of course that is not prescriptive for wikispecies, which can do whatever it likes. If you think that there is a better way to progress this discussion for wikispecies, by all means go for it. Cheers Tony Tony 1212 (talk) 18:57, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just noticed that WikiCommons uses a different system - see their treatment of Aubrieta here. It is Linnaean in approach very similar to NCBI, but differing from Tropicos and GBIF. Ouch! Can anybody trace from where these approaches originate? Andyboorman (talk) 08:05, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The taxonavigation sections in Wikicommons were not meant as a taxonomical treatment but rather as a help for quick navigation. In the 2000s, all categories were lacking info, and it was very uncomfortable to reach from a species category over steps and steps of several parents (tribus, subfamily, family, order...) to a higher category. So the taxonavigation headings were created, mainly by User Liné1, assisted by several coworkers (e.g. MILEPRI and me), based on AGP and databases. They were copied from higher to lower categories, the last step from genus to species categories often by a bot. Today it proves as a huge disadvantage, that these taxonavigations cannot be updated easily (unlike Wikispecies with its template system). --Thiotrix (talk) 11:26, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @Thiotrix: we can probably discount Commons then. Andyboorman (talk) 12:37, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think we can close this discussion as unresolved. I may update the pages in line with APG IV as cited on our page and then we can possibly reconvene. All the best Andyboorman (talk) 17:47, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Please refrain from using {{COL}}, as it goes straight to a 404 broken link. It is much better to use {{Catol-Hassler}}, which does the same citation, but works and uses the correct citation format and so on. There are thousands of pages that use COL, which gives WS a very bad reputation. Could somebody use a Bot to automatically and painlessly change COL to Catol-Hassler? Much appreciated. Andyboorman (talk) 10:28, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Andyboorman: I'll look into it during the next couple of days. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 11:48, 17 April 2021 (UTC).[reply]
@Tommy Kronkvist: Thanks much appreciated. Andyboorman (talk) 15:08, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Catol-Hassler only cites the parts of the Catalogue of Life authored by Michael Hassler, the template is therefore not suitable to cite the whole catalogue. COL should be repaired instead. I think it is more correct to cite the different projects in Catalogue of Life separately. ---RLJ (talk) 12:27, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There is a {{Catol-WorldFerns}} but that does not search or link to World Ferns, so will need a fix to be useful. In my opinion COL is also too generic and falls between several stools, if you forgive the English idiom, and it does not even cite appropriately. Andyboorman (talk) 12:53, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Andyboorman: My WiFi router suddenly went kaput and running a bot using my cellphone is less than ideal, if at all possible. I'll receive a new router in the mail within a day or two, and will commence the work then. Regards, Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 06:40, 22 April 2021 (UTC)~.[reply]
@Tommy Kronkvist: Much obliged. I think for now, particularly given the information below, that Catol-Hassler is the best way of accessing these resources for now, as it uses a simple name search. It will tidy up the link pages in a much better way. Regards. Andyboorman (talk) 07:28, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So-called stable COL identifiers

I believe @Rdmpage: has commented on this before on his blog (there it is), but... From a recent COL blog post:

"With the migration to the new infrastructure in December 2020, Catalogue of Life has also switched to a new algorithm to generate stable identifiers for name usages. Up until the 2019 annual edition a simple hashing of names has been applied to make sure the IDs between editions do not change. This resulted in name based identifiers that did change whenever a single character of the name or its authorship was altered. The new implementation is mostly also a name based system, but tries to keep the identifiers stable if the authorship of a name has only been slightly modified. It also forces a change in identifiers when

  • an authorship was added
  • a major status change occurs from accepted <-> synonym
  • if the accepted name of a synonym changes"

Which means they are still completely and utterly useless as, y'know, stable identifiers. *facepalm* Circeus (talk) 03:57, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OK thanks, does that mean that Catol-Hassler is really the only link to be used for this resource? Andyboorman (talk) 10:21, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nah, it's fine, what the template actually does is perform a search on the scientific name. It does not use the CoL "identifier". This also goes to explain why there is not CoL identifier property on Wikidata. Circeus (talk) 17:31, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone convince species Identification apps iNaturalist and Pl@ntnet to not compress the crowdsourced images?

There are several species identification apps available now and some let share images under CC-BY-SA license. But they are compressing the images too much. iNaturalist compresses to ~3MP size and plantnet way too much. Is it possible to collaborate with them to add high resolution images to Commons?- Vis M (talk) 23:43, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking as a site curator, but not employee of iNaturalist, this is unlikely to be done there. The compression is done for 2 reasons, one simply being to reduce bandwidth and storage demand. The second is to deter people using the site as a free photo backup service. The quality of the images saved on the site meets the needs of that site. CanadianCodhead (talk) 15:26, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thank you! I wish they kept at least for some though. So many valuable images are sadly being compressed.- Vis M (talk) 09:00, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jiamjit Boonsom

Is there any evidence that Jiamjit Boonsom made a contribution to taxonomy? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:49, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Is very involved with zooplankton, I did not explore very thoroughly. Neferkheperre (talk) 14:38, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
At first glance, no. Not in Algaebase, not in IPNI, not in Zoobank, not in his ResearchGate profile (including in the three papers uploaded to said profile). if it happened, though, it was sometime in the 70s to 90s, possibly in hard-to-find material. Since there is no wikilink or even mentions of him on Wikispecies under either names, I believe that alone to be justification for deleting the page. We can recreate them if evidence turns up later. Circeus (talk) 14:51, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The page appears to have been created with an anonymous IP who just gave a brief Wikipedia-style description of her with no sources and nothing else. Doesn't seem like it was made as a taxon author page for Wikispecies at all. Monster Iestyn (talk) 17:30, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What I did find earlier was a book on freshwater zooplankton of Thailand. As it cost 30.00 USD, I left it alone. There are other pubs on similar topics. His wife was involved in describing at least 2 species of fish. He may have done some taxonomic work in this regard. The couple seem to make their living developing edible algae, thus associate fauna would be of interest. Neferkheperre (talk) 20:07, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can tell, Jiamjit Boonsom is the wife. Their "Boonsom Spirulina Farm" web page speaks of "Ms. Jiamjit Boonsom" (1966) and "Mrs. Jiemjit [sic] Boonsom’s Biography" (born in Lampang in May 15, 1941). Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 13:09, 2 May 2021 (UTC).[reply]
Also, neither Eschmeyer's Catalog of Fishes (CoF) nor FishBase seems to have any record of an author named "Boonsom", but their databases are sometime tricky and/or slow to search. Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 13:15, 2 May 2021 (UTC).[reply]
@Monster Iestyn: ResearchGate is known to auto-populate author pages based on author names. We may be looking at one of those pages. But does anyone here know Thai? This individual may have published materials in Thai and a search of this author's name in Thai may turn something up. OhanaUnitedTalk page 18:36, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
From what I can see they have 3 pubs at google scholar Search Here one of which is a list of species from Thailand. However they do not seem to have named any taxa just produced a checklist. Searching in Thai sites did not yield anything new to the discussion either. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 22:17, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@OhanaUnited: I've seen bot-created pages on ReasearchGate before. This doies not appear to be one of them. Circeus (talk) 13:19, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Some data in the primary database will soon be in read-only mode for a short time

Hello fellow Wikispecians!

Some services will be in read-only for a short time on 2021-05-05 at 06:00 AM UTC.

During the restart time (expected to be around 60 seconds or so) all the components and extensions that use the x1 database will be read-only.

Things that might experience some issues when creating new writes:

  • New short urls cannot be created
  • Email bounces from lists might not get recorded
  • There might be issues with new translations
  • New items on the notification list might fail, some notifications may not be delivered
  • Reading lists might not record new items added to "bookmark" or "read it later" feature

A banner will be displayed on all wikis 30 minutes before this read-only time.

Please see Phabricator maniphests T281212 and T281375 for details.

Best regards, Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 13:16, 4 May 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Wait a minute. There's a read-it-later feature?? Circeus (talk) 13:18, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Quite frankly I'm not sure, but I think that part is specific to email lists. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 13:42, 4 May 2021 (UTC).[reply]

'Wikidata and the Bibliography of Life'

This paper may be of interest:

Roderic D. M. Page (4 May 2021), Wikidata and the Bibliography of Life, doi:10.1101/2021.05.04.442638, Wikidata Q106727511

-- Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:57, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Candidates for speedy deletion

Hello. @Estopedist1: seems to wish to have deleted all pages for authorities who have not authored a taxon - see Candidates for speedy deletion. I would like to canvass fellow editors on this approach, as it seems somewhat excessive and could involve the deletion of a very large numbers of authority pages. In the meantime I suggest the requested deletions are left alone pending discussion. Over to the community. Andyboorman (talk) 13:22, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Andy. In my opinion we need to first study each page one by one rather than start an uninhibited mass-deletion of author pages. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 13:40, 4 May 2021 (UTC).[reply]
Estonia-related scientists are marked as "to be deleted" who are not eligible for WS. I did quite thorough searching but definitely not exhaustive. Let me know if some of them are actually taxon authorities, so I can add them to enwiki--Estopedist1 (talk) 15:51, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Why are they not eligible for WS, if they have authored a paper or book that is used to construct an taxon page? Are you maintaining that only authors that name a taxon belong on WS? Not sure that is what I understand when we use {{A}} in a list of references or the name section, neither is that apparent when examining the list of botanists, for example. Andyboorman (talk) 17:11, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If they are not authors that have named a taxon, then at the very least they don't belong in Category:Taxon authorities surely? Otherwise, there seems to be precedent in Village Pump for deleting pages for people who are not taxon authors. In fact there's another discussion going on right now whether to delete another page for the same reason. Monster Iestyn (talk) 21:14, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I also do not agree that actually naming a taxon is a requirement here, some people have done significant research to rearrange currently named taxa, produced major checklists, keys, authoritative books etc. They are also needed here. I wish to see viewpoints and consideration before I will delete any of these. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 01:33, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A Taxon authority is not the same as a Taxon author, at least for the reason that Scott mentions. Perhaps this discussion has highlighted that we need a separate category for Taxon author. I am not a fan of ever increasing categories on WS, but this is perhaps the exception that proves a rule. Andyboorman (talk) 06:55, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am currently editing eponyms of botanists, some of them do not have edited taxa but in their time, before 1753, they published botanical books that are the basis for current knowledge. I think the taxa of these scientific eminences should be respected.--MILEPRI (talk) 08:15, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've said before that I think we should not have separate pages for authors whose work is not clearly taxonomic in nature. So my general sentiment is approval of Estopedist1's work. It's usually fairly self-evident whether an author (as noted by Scott and MILEPRI) with no formal taxa authored belongs in that category nonetheless. A quick review of four names in the category in question find that Kessy Abarenkov (nontaxonomic molecular work) and Imre Taal (fish ecology) clearly do not belong—in fact Template:Verliin et al., 2016 doesn't belong here in the first place as far as I'm concerned. on the upside, Siiri Jürgenstein clearly does (Kurina & Jürgenstein, 2013). Mari Ivask is less clear. She seems to be primarily involved in soil ecology/pedobiology (having also published on earthworms), but she also published myriapod checklists for Estonia on the side. No new taxonomical acts as far as I can tell, tho. Circeus (talk) 11:41, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I draw this discussion to this paragraph Global Taxonomy Initiative, CBD. This indicates how difficult it could be to delineate we should not have separate pages for authors whose work is not clearly taxonomic in nature. Without binding agreement on what actually is ...taxonomic in nature, it will then be down to the judgement of individual editors. However, I agree that Template:Verliin et al., 2016 has little or no relevance to taxonomy, but then deleting all of the authors without wider analysis must be beyond the scope of speedy deletion. In addition, I think we can not make a blanket statement that a taxonomical act is the only reason for becoming categorised as a WS Taxonomic authority. Andyboorman (talk) 12:30, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The taxon authority area can be very fuzzy and complex. Mostly, taxa are authored by people well studied in their area. However, we have instances such as Anna V. Buising. She is a structural geologist who found a strange barnacle while researching her thesis. This was described as Balanus canabus Zullo & Buising, 1989. She has since remained in structural geology and has never again done any paleontology. By criteria here, she is taxon author. She actually is, this one time.
In reality, naming new taxa is example of nomenclatural act, subset of taxonomic act. Generic re-assignments, revisions, synonymizing, etc. are all taxonomic acts. Neotype and lectotype selection can be regarded as nomenclatural acts, as Codes in recent years require selection of name-bearing types as mandatory for properly naming a new species. In recent years, DNA analysis is becoming more and more important in taxonomy, and many discussions are ongoing on what degree of importance should be placed. DNA's exact place in taxonomy is quite unsettled. Thus, what we need to do is not limit inclusion into taxon authority, or create any additional categories at this time. Neferkheperre (talk) 20:04, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And yet I insist on a base fact, if an author is not linked from within wikispecies, the author has no business existing. if I delete Template:Verliin et al., 2016, then none of these authors (none of which are taxonomically relevant whatsoever as far as I've verified, in case you wondered) have a link, and I intend to get rid of the whole batch. Circeus (talk) 02:04, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Given this discussion can we now agree that taxon author is not the same as taxon authority and as the Category and Pages are for Taxon Authorities not "Taxon Authors" then the criteria for inclusion in this Category are relatively wide. In addition, sources for References can use material which does not include taxa authorship, as long as the editor finds relevance to taxonomy. Best regards Andyboorman (talk) 07:51, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've said for a long time that properly documented inclusion policies and a style guide overhaul are long overdue. For example I'm pretty sure the Help pages do not specify that we generally do not want full pages for synonyms, and that there is no documentation anywhere about disambiguation pages. While the existence of journal ISSN pages is briefly mentioned, nothing is said about their formatting, while nonserial publications pages are not mentioned at all. The often noted lack of agreement about said formatting is an obvious and direct consequence of that. Circeus (talk) 13:53, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Odonata taxonomy

The taxonavigation section of our Odonata page (i.e. dragonflies and damselflies) is probably incorrect, messy or at least out of date. Please help out fixing it if you can! Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 21:57, 12 May 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Help Pages Reptile Names

I have added this Help:Name section#Special: Reptile and Amphibian Nomenclature with respect to the nomenclature of Hoser. Reptile Database, TTWG, ITIS, COL etc will not be using his nomenclature in the future and neither should we. Any names post 2000 need to be deleted. When adding new names we should no longer add any names from this author. Wuster et al with support of 464 individual herpetologists, Kaiser et al with support of over 600 herpetologists and all major Herp Societies have in essence followed the recommendations of Krell, 2021, who says that its up to community consensus on how to deal with Taxonomic Vandalism. Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 05:58, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Scott, might it be good to include the link to Krell, 2021 reference cited somewhere in that Help page, also maybe hyperlink other key ones? Cheers Tony Tony 1212 (talk) 18:40, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I can add links to all the papers cited in that statement, I will put a references list at the bottom of it later today, cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 18:55, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Scott, great initiative! Regards, Tommy Kronkvist (talk),19:32, 13 May 2021 (UTC).[reply]


Last September, I deleted {{Author2}}, which was created in March 2020.

It was speedily deleted at the request of User:Estopedist1 who noted when tagging it that "The template was used years ago, when we haven't HotCat script"; I concurred it was unused, and further noted that it was non-standard.

In talk:Pigsonthewing&oldid=8322793 this comment on my talk page, its creator User:Pitke disputes this, and accuses me of deleting the template improperly.

I have therefore restored the template in order that a community discussion as to its merits can take place.

It should not be used in main space, until consensus to adopt it is shown.

Pitke also comments that the template "saved a lot of work for me"; I would respectfully suggest that any editor wishing to use a template for such purposes should either bring it to the community to seek widespread adoption; or apply their template through substitution, such that it leaves behind templates and other markup that their fellow editors expect to find.

I also note {{Repo inline}}, another non-standard template by the same editor, with fewer than 200 transclusions. Is there consensus to use this? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:40, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think that having two templates to format and link author names may invite errors to the many "Taxa by author" categories we use. The only practical difference between the two templates is that the more commonly used {{a}} template does not automatically add the page to a "Taxa by author" category, whereas the {{Author2}} does. We should bear in mind that the vast majority of authors listed on taxon pages aren't the ones who actually described that particular taxon. Quite the contrary: most of them are only referred to as writers of additional publications, or the authors of synonyms. Such writers/authors should of course not have those particular taxon names atomatically listed in their "Taxa by author" categories. Hence I argue that we should delete the {{Author2}} template, since it may be unnecessarily confusing for new and inexperienced users to know which of the {{a}} and {{Author2}} templates to use. In my opinion the current praxis to use the {{a}} template and then manually add specific "Taxa by author" categories works well.
The non-standard {{Repo inline}} template is easy to use, but has its shortcomings. First of all it was created five and a half years after the standard {{Repository link}} one (or {{rl}} for short). Furthermore, as of this writing it's only used on 128 pages, compared to 31,868 for the standard one. But above all it lacks some of the functionality found in the standard template, most notably how to render text. For example the Swedish Museum of Natural History (SMNH) is often referred to as "NRM" in older literature. "NRM" is short for Naturhistoriska Riksmuseet, i.e. a Swedish short form meaning "Natural history (state) museum". The trouble is that the actual Wikispecies page is called SMNH rather than "NRM", and using the template as {{Repository link|NRM}} leads to a redirect page, and then to the proper SMNH page. However the standard tempate can deal with this: the code string {{Repository link|SMNH|NRM}} will render the text "NRM" but link directly to SMNH, without a redirect. The non-standard {{Repo inline}} lacks this feature.
I propose we replace all current instances of the non-standard template with the standard {{Repository link}} one, and then delete it. I can set up a semi-automatic bot to do the necessary replacements before deletion: replacing 128 occurrences will only take 30–40 minutes or so. Kind regards, Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 05:03, 27 May 2021 (UTC).[reply]
I think that I have said this before, but here goes again. WS is a taxonomy database and really should not be used by editors for private experiments. Of course developments should be encouraged, but before use it is reasonable that editors bring them to the pump for comment. If the community reject these developments then they become deprecated, if not we all can use them. As to the above, I would advise that {{Repo inline}} be rejected and instances replaced with {{Repository link}}. As to {{Author2}}, I do not see any obvious benefits that could not be obtained by modifying {{A}} indeed if this is required. Andyboorman (talk) 08:54, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. The {{a}} template could rather easily be modified, adding for example a |cat=yes and/or |cat=y parameter to automatically add a "Taxa by author" category, if desired. The template can be set to ignore the new parameter if given any other value than "yes" or "y", or if the parameter is left out altogether. This would ensure that the updated {{a}} template is backwards compatible with the old one on all the +30,000 pages where it is already used. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 09:56, 27 May 2021 (UTC).[reply]
Comment: HotCat was definitely around when I created Author2, and I am very familiar with using it on Commons where I do most of my work. The nature of my editing at the time relied on using page shortcuts and HotCat would necessitated the locating and clicking of a button. But that hardly matters now. My experience in other wikis has been that suggesting changes to current, widely used templates is usually fruitless, and that providing an example of the proposed functionality with a sample template will speed things along because users will be able to see the difference instead of trying to parse it from possibly very technical language. I'm also still just beginning to understand and remain somewhat intimidated by the local wiki culture, so singularly focused on recording taxonomic info that, say, etymology may only be recorded as a category, and if related to a taxonomist, an unreferenced line. Support: Having said that, since Repository link exists, has better functionality, and doesn't seem to have the inline issue I think I created Repolink for, I have zero issues with deprecating the few repo link templates I've created and moving on to using RL in my editing. As for Author2, I'm completely fine with using A instead and adding an option for |cat=1. --Pitke (talk) 16:36, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the replacement of {{Repo inline}} then depreciate it,as for {{a}} yes modifying this should always be the fist option if possible rather than creating new templates. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 17:59, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Someone with admin ops please update Template:A with this:

<span style="font-variant: small-caps;" class="vcard"><span class="fn n nickname">{{#if: {{{nolink|}}} | {{{2|{{{1}}}}}} | [[{{{1}}}|{{{2|{{{1}}}}}}]] }}{{#if: {{{cat|}}} | [[Category:{{{1}}} taxa]] | }}</span></span><noinclude>{{documentation}}
<!-- Add categories to the /doc subpage and interwikis in Wikidata, not here! -->

-- Pitke (talk) 11:05, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pitke:  Done. Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 15:09, 1 June 2021 (UTC).[reply]
Thanks a bunch! --Pitke (talk) 15:20, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Server switch

SGrabarczuk (WMF) 01:19, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]