Wikispecies:Village Pump/Archive 63

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.

Duplicate authors

I've recently created the author disambiguation page Filho, listing no less that 40 pages with authors named "Filho" in one way or another. Some of them are most certainly duplicates, and you're most welcome to help sort them out. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 13:02, 23 November 2022 (UTC).[reply]

It might be worth pointing out in this case that Filho is a Portuguese generational suffix, meaning "Junior". Monster Iestyn (talk) 15:19, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I know, it's much like Latin filius meaning "son", ofter abbreviated "fil." or "f." as in for example Hook.f. (i.e. Joseph Dalton Hooker, son of Hook., William Jackson Hooker) and L.f. (i.e. Carolus Linnaeus the Younger).

I still think it's a relevant disambiguation page though, since "Filho" is used in more than one way and in somewhat different contexts. For example it's often used as a separate word, but sometimes with a hyphen (e.g. Paulo Augusto Lima-Filho) and in some cases it's also part of the official IPNI standard form (again either with or without hyphen, e.g. Oliveira-Filho, Silva Filho). –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 16:33, 23 November 2022 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks by the way for your remark. I've now added a note about the Portuguese generational suffix to the Filho disambiguation age. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 16:42, 23 November 2022 (UTC).[reply]

Ichnotaxa

Quick question: should Wikispecies have pages on ichnotaxa (i.e. ichnogenera, ichnospecies, etc.) at all? I ask because I discovered earlier that the ichnogenus Coprinisphaera for instance was mislabelled as a regular fossil taxon (until now), and after quickly searching the site for the usual terms involved I've found there appears to be only about a dozen other pages for or linking to ichnotaxa. I also know that Coprinisphaera has been placed in its own "ichnofamily" in recent publications (Coprinisphaeridae) along with some other ichnogenera, but I felt I should check first with others if this is in the wiki's scope in the first place. Monster Iestyn (talk) 00:58, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(For information about ichnotaxa including links to Wikipedia, see Q2568288. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 11:53, 16 November 2022 (UTC).[reply]

Bit disappointed there has been no reply to these questions so far to be honest, though I don't know if I'm just being impatient. For now, I'll just assume ichnotaxa are acceptable to have on Wikispecies, unless there is any objection to them later. Monster Iestyn (talk) 17:13, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Monster Iestyn: from a neutral point of view ichnotaxa are within the scope of the ICZN Article 1-2, so personaly I think that may fall within the scope of Wikispecies too. Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:54, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for responding, that makes sense at least. Monster Iestyn (talk) 17:58, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tropicos will go into site maintenance from 23:00, 2 December 2022 (UTC) for about 48 hours and the site may be hard to access during that time

See http://legacy.tropicos.org/specimen/537074; during this period, some verification research activities may be affected. --Eryk Kij (talk) 23:39, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Maria da Natividade Albuquerque

Hello, I'm going to create a page for this author (one of the authors of that article: https://sciencepress.mnhn.fr/fr/periodiques/zoosystema/23/3/deux-nouvelles-especes-d-amphiuridae-echinodermata-ophiuroidea-de-la-cote-sud-est-du-bresil), however there is no infos in the article about this author excepted she died in 1995, the item Q60411157 too don't have information. If someone has some additional infos about this author... Christian Ferrer (talk) 06:31, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Christian Ferrer: I have created Maria da Natividade Albuquerque and noted almost all pieces of information I managed to gather up. Please note that her lifetime institution seems identical with that of Lúcia de Siqueira Campos-Creasey, one of her co-authors. --Eryk Kij (talk) 10:12, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@エリック・キィ: Great, thanks! we have already Lúcia de Siqueira Campos for the second author. Christian Ferrer (talk) 12:32, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Christian Ferrer: Doing a quick Google search for her, I just found an obituary for her on page 93 of The Echidnoderm Newsletter No. 24 (1999). According to it, she was born in Teresina, Piauí (Brazil) on 8 September 1937, and she died of cancer on 9 September 1995. Monster Iestyn (talk) 16:38, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just updated both Wikidata and Wikispecies with the new information here. Monster Iestyn (talk) 16:48, 29 November 2022 (UTCi

Also of note is that the obituary was written by Cordélia de Oliveira Castro Gueron (spelled Guéron in other sources), Elaine Figueiredo de Albuquerque and Lucia S. Campos-Creasey. These are most likely her co-authors in her publications. I also think Elaine Albuquerque is likely the same person as the second of these three. Monster Iestyn (talk) 17:00, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Monster Iestyn: Excelent, thanks you. Yes you're right, Elaine Albuquerque seems to be Elaine Figueiredo de Albuquerque, checking the affilition in DOI: 10.1080/00222933.2013.877996 "Universidade Santa Ursula, Rio de Janeiro" is the same than the one provided in The Echidnoderm Newsletter. Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:09, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've added several authority control identifiers for Albuquerque. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:56, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Extension:GeoData

I propose to create a ticket requesting that mw:Extension:GeoData be added to this wiki. It is required for {{Coord}} to work, which we can use to make coordinates link to maps, emit machine-readable metadata, and have user configurable display.

Installing the extension will not, in itself, change the appearance of any content on Wikispecies. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:22, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No objections for me. Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:15, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Likewise, interested in seeing how this goes. Andyboorman (talk) 18:59, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ticket opened: https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T324348 Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:47, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed working. See, for example, Kryptonesticus georgescuae. Documentation is at Template:Coord. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:28, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Community Wishlist Survey 2023 opens in January

Please help translate to your language

(There is a translatable version of this message on MetaWiki)

Hello

The Community Wishlist Survey (CWS) 2023, which lets contributors propose and vote for tools and improvements, starts next month on Monday, 23 January 2023, at 18:00 UTC and will continue annually.

We are inviting you to share your ideas for technical improvements to our tools and platforms. Long experience in editing or technical skills is not required. If you have ever used our software and thought of an idea to improve it, this is the place to come share those ideas!

The dates for the phases of the Survey will be as follows:

Phase 1: Submit, discuss, and revise proposals – Monday, Jan 23, 2023 to Sunday, Feb 6, 2023
Phase 2: WMF/Community Tech reviews and organizes proposals – Monday, Jan 30, 2023 to Friday, Feb 10, 2023
Phase 3: Vote on proposals – Friday, Feb 10, 2023 to Friday, Feb 24, 2023
Phase 4: Results posted – Tuesday, Feb 28, 2023

If you want to start writing out your ideas ahead of the Survey, you can start thinking about your proposals and draft them in the CWS sandbox.

We are grateful to all who participated last year. See you in January 2023!

Thank you! Community Tech, STei (WMF) 16:44, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Synonyms section

For this section some use Synonyms, others Synonymy, others Combinations, others Combinations + Synonyms...and so on. Wikispecies tools offers only ==={{int:Synonyms}}===. Isn't time to standardize this section title, or it is not necessary? Cheers.--Hector Bottai (talk) 14:01, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is time! For an old discussion see. Burmeister (talk) 14:08, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer synonymy, as that is the correct name of what is produced if it's done right. Non valid (ICZN) names are synonyms but the act of placing them in a list ordered by priority with references is a synonymy. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 15:15, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I was using ==={{int:Synonyms}}=== until I find that some experienced users, e.g. as Scott above, prefer synonymy. So now I always use ==={{int:Synonymy}}===. But yes I agree we should standardize it, and should expand Help:Name_section#Synonyms_or_Synonymy with example(s) on how to deal with complicated synonymy. Personally I find it hard not to change every ten days the way I write this kind of information. I exasperate myself. Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:09, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I always use ==={{int:Synonyms}}===, because this is supported by the tool for automatic creation of redirects (User:Rillke/createRedirects.js), and by Wikispecies edit tools. --Thiotrix (talk) 20:24, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I usually use ==={{int:Synonymy}}=== myself, following the linked Help pages's guidance. Honestly though, the section title is not so much a problem for me as the actual list of synonyms and combinations themselves, because I've never really figured out the best way to write them up. So it would be nice if there was a set format for the section altogether, I would be happy to follow whatever everyone agrees on here as I have no preferences myself. Monster Iestyn (talk) 20:34, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

┌────────────┘ I also always use ==={{int:Synonyms}}=== for the same reasons mentioned by Thiotrix, however as Monster Iestyn I don't really have a personal preference, as such. In any case it's certainly time to get this standardized. The above link provided by Burmeister is useful: I had forgotten about that discussion. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 20:39, 20 December 2022 (UTC).[reply]

I also always use ==={{int:Synonyms}}===. --RLJ (talk) 21:40, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
+1 because of Wikispecies tools Lupe (talk) 22:00, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I always use ==={{int:Synonyms}}=== for two reasons. Firstly the WS tools and secondly, for plants, it is very rarely a synonymy but a list of synonymous names. Therefore, I prefer we stick to Synonyms for the time being. Andyboorman (talk) 12:05, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All external search options are broken

If I try using the external search options on the wikispecies search page,

Google search points to the french google (google.fr) searching the spanish wikimedia ("Your search - site:es.wikimedia.org - did not match any documents.").
Yahoo results in DNS_PROBE_FINISHED_NXDOMAIN
Windows live redirects to the bing homepage without searching
Wikiwix seems to be a redirect loop
Exalead is HTTP 410 GONE

--174.16.61.86 19:41, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Request For Admin

we have a current RFA for those interested in commenting or voting on it here cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 00:23, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

and a second one here for people to look at. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 04:56, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder that the second RFA here is still running please attend to this. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 13:51, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can't create a personal copy of a WikiSpecies file

Hi. I recently suffered some minor brain damage, and when I returned to WikiSpecies, I could not use it to create a personal reference to WikiSpecies. Here is what I am talking about:

As I recall, I first find a WikiSpecies page I wish to copy to my saved collection of such pages. For example, I want a copy of https://species.wikimedia.org/wiki/Alucitidae

So, I select that page and use "Save Page As" to save it in my collection, which is at my /home/jwill/Documents/WikiSpecies/Animalia_Plantae_8/(collection) This seems to work properly -- but with some WikiSpecies identifying info missing because of my creation of a copy. This is normal behavior of WikiSpecies.

Then, here's my problem: I select Alucitidae and issue a command to save it to my collection:

I can't recall this command! This command, "X", using a incorrect https, is SOMETHING LIKE X https://Home/jwill/Documents/WikiSpecies/Animalia_Plantae_8

I should get a second copy of the saved command, but owned by me and with a blank rectangle instead of the saved Alucitidae image.

Later, I can use (I recall) code-browser and shutter to replace the blank rectangle with a good copied Alucitidae image: Thus, I end up with two pages with good copies of the Alucitidae image, the first one literally merely an online reference to the WikiSpecies image, and the second one a copy of my saved work as in "X" above.

Can you provide me with a working save command "X"? — The preceding unsigned comment was added by Zjwill (talk • contribs) 06:17, 18 December 2022‎.

This seems to be an issue related to your Microsoft Windows installation rather than Wikispecies (which should be spelled without camel case, by the way). Also, please note that none of the images viewed on Wikispecies are available from within Wikispecies itself: instead they're all reposited at Wikimedia Commons and then automatically linked from there to our pages. This is praxis for all Wikimedia wikis e.g. Wikipedia, Wikibooks, Wikinews, etc. All media, including pictures, video- and sound clips etc. are saved and handled by Wikimedia Commons and then served from there to the different wikis. This is very convenient since it makes it possible for all of the different wikis to share the same media files. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 07:28, 18 December 2022 (UTC).[reply]

Hi.

After a lot of false tries, I have solved the problem. This works:

file:///home/jwill/Documents/WikiSpecies/Animalia_Plantae_8/(name of item)

The word "file" was most of the problem.

For example, if the online ref is https://species.wikimedia.org/wiki/Anthocerotopsida,

then saving "file:///home/jwill/Documents/WikiSpecies/Animalia_Plantae_8/Anthocerotopsida"

in an adjacent directory displays the page with an empty figure and WikiSpecies refs omitted.

Then, a code-browser instantiation of "Anthocerotopsida", followed by a shutter save (here, as a .png file) of "/home/jwill/Documents/WikiSpecies/Animalia_Plantae_8/Anthocerotopsida" results in a pair of web pages, one with the original WikiSpecies page, and the other with a copy of that page in the user's working directory.

Note that the current version of shutter will not run in Windows; I used Firefox on Ubuntu for the above, instead. Zjwill (talk) 19:28, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Vote for your favourite Wikimedia sound logo

Please help translate to your language

Voting in the Wikimedia sound logo contest has started. From December 6 to 19, 2022, please play a part and help chose the sound that will identify Wikimedia content on audio devices. Learn more on Diff.

The sound logo team is grateful to everyone who participated in this global contest. We received 3,235 submissions from 2,094 participants in 135 countries. We are incredibly grateful to the team of volunteer screeners and the selection committee who, among others, helped bring us to where we are today. It is now up to Wikimedia to choose the Sound Of All Human Knowledge.

Best wishes,

Movement Charter: End of the community consultation round 1

More languages • Please help translate to your language

Hi everyone,

On behalf of the Movement Charter Drafting Committee (MCDC), we would like to thank everyone who has participated in our first community wide consultation period on the Movement Charter.

People from across the Movement shared their feedback and thoughts on the content of the Movement Charter. If you have not had the chance to share your opinion yet, you are welcome to do so still by giving the drafts a read and filling out the anonymous survey, which is accessible in 12+ languages. The survey will close on January 2, 2023. You are invited to continue to share your thoughts with the MCDC via email too: movementcharter@wikimedia.org.

What’s next?

The Movement Strategy and Governance team will publish the final report with the summary of the feedback received in January 2023. It will be shared with the MCDC and the communities via different distribution channels.

After receiving the final report, the MCDC will review the suggestions and communicate the changes by providing an explanation on how and why suggestions were or were not adopted in the next versions of the drafts. There will be additional ways to engage with the Movement Charter content in 2023, including early feedback on a proposed ratification process and new drafts of different chapters in the second quarter of 2023.

We invite you to sign-up to the MCDC monthly newsletter, it will be delivered to the Talk page of your choice. Monthly updates are available on Meta to remain updated on the progress of the MCDC.

Interested people can still sign-up to become a Movement Charter Ambassador (MC Ambassador) to support their community. The MC Ambassadors Program grant program will restart accepting applications from both individuals and groups ahead of the next round of consultations in the second quarter of 2023.

We thank you for your participation, time and effort in helping to build the Charter for our Movement!

On behalf of the Movement Charter Drafting Committee, MNadzikiewicz (WMF) (talk) 12:47, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Turkey=Türkiye

I live in Türkiye. This has now changed. The Turkish State does not use it. also It changed the name of the country, which is used as "Turkey" in foreign languages by the United Nations, to "Türkiye". --Fagus (talk) 08:09, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Fagus, I live in Deutschland, in English called Germany, in Turkish Almanya. In TDWG it is "Turkey", and the consensus here up to now is that the TDWG standard is followed strictly.

The names in TDWG should be regarded as phytogeographic units with political names; sometimes they are not identical with the political units (France, Ireland, Greece, etc.), and there are a lot of outdated or even deprecated names as Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia, Zaire.

It is the Asiatic part of your country that is called "Turkey" by TDWG ("Anatolia" would be more appropriate, as it is practised by Euro+Med Plantbase). If you want to change it, write to TDWG, or try to reach a consensus at the Village pump. -RLJ (talk) 11:53, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed the names of countries can be tricky, even when only considering one single language. For example the Netherlands are often called "Holland", even though strictly speaking Holland is only one of several geographical regions within the Netherlands. Same goes for Denmark. Yes, there is a country called Denmark, but that's only the name of a small part of the Danish realm and it's not a sovereign state. The actual state is called the "Kingdom of Denmark" which doesn't only include the Danish continental mainland, but also the Faroe Islands and Greenland (hence it's one of the largest countries on the planet...) This is actually noticeable in Wikidata as well, especially when adding taxonomists to the Wikidata database. Entering Denmark (Q35) as the country of citizenship for a taxonomist renders an error message, since a person can't be a citizen of a state that doesn't exist... Instead Wikidata requires us to use Kingdom of Denmark (Q756617) and then all is fine and dandy.

I think that using an official standard such as for example the one from Biodiversity Information Standards (TDWG) is a good way to remedy the problems with multiple names of countries (and how they are spelled), and helps to avoid misunderstandings. As for "Turkey" vs "Türkiye" I'm confident that the new official Turkish spelling will be adopted also globally, but people are generally quite conservative when it comes to these things, so it will take time. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 18:23, 8 January 2023 (UTC).[reply]

I Can not Published a content

I Can not published my content. The error message is This action has been automatically identified as harmful, and therefore disallowed. If you believe your action was constructive, please inform an administrator of what you were trying to do. A brief description of the abuse rule which your action matched is: online shopping spam I Just Write about a business locate in Bangladesh. Admin Please Help me to solved this issue — The preceding unsigned comment was added by Atiqurkoushik (talk • contribs) 12:31, 24 December 2022.

Business locates are a type of advertising and is not allowed in this wiki. Xeverything11 (talk) 12:34, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your Answer. If I remove the backlink then published it will be worked ? Atiqurkoushik (talk) 12:55, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Atiqurkoushik. Whether or not the material is linked is not important. Please note that any sort of advertising or spam is strictly forbidden on all Wikimedia sister projects, including here at Wikispecies. (That's also why your uploads to Wikimedia Commons were deleted, since Wikimedia Commons doesn't allow advertisements either.) It's also important to consider that Wikispecies is very far from a general encyclopedia (such as for example Wikipedia). Instead it's a very specific wiki exclusively aimed at matters regarding systematic biology, taxonomy, and biological nomenclature. Nothing else. Thus information about for example Bangladeshi beauty shops is very much out of scope, and would probably be deleted anyway. Please see "What Wikispecies is not" for more information about that. Best regards, Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 15:27, 24 December 2022 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks for your kind information @Tommy Kronkvist. 103.138.168.198 19:16, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Voting now open on the revised Enforcement Guidelines for the Universal Code of Conduct

Hello all,

The voting period for the revised Universal Code of Conduct Enforcement Guidelines is now open! Voting will be open for two weeks and will close at 23:59 UTC on January 31, 2023. Please visit the voter information page on Meta-wiki for voter eligibility information and details on how to vote.

For more details on the Enforcement Guidelines and the voting process, see our previous message.

On behalf of the UCoC Project Team,

JPBeland-WMF (talk) 00:26, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bionomia links

I've just added Bionomia to the services linked to, from our {{Authority control}} template. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:46, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Taxon italics for disambiguated taxa

How should Template:Taxon italics be used if the taxon is disambiguated? I just earlier had to rename the plant genus Olfersia to Olfersia (Dryopteridaceae), as there is a valid insect genus with the same name. Unfortunately this causes the Taxon italics template in Template:Olfersia (Dryopteridaceae) to incorrectly italicize "Dryopteridaceae" as "Dryopteridaceae" within the title of the genus page, as of writing. Monster Iestyn (talk) 20:37, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In special cases like this you can use the magic word {{DISPLAYTITLE}} as a so called behavior switch to override the {{Taxon italics}} template. As for the Olfersia (Dryopteridaceae) page the fix has already been made by my fellow administrator RLJ: see this diff for his edit. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 04:23, 23 January 2023 (UTC).[reply]

@Tommy Kronkvist: So I see, that makes sense. Thank you both. Monster Iestyn (talk) 12:13, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Last call to vote on revised UCoC enforcement guidelines!

Hi all,

A friendly and final reminder that the voting period for the revised Universal Code of Conduct Enforcement Guidelines closes tomorrow, Tuesday, 31 January at 23:59:59 UTC.

The UCoC supports Wikimedia’s equity objectives and commitment to ensuring a welcoming, diverse movement, and it applies to all members of our communities. Voting is an opportunity for you to be a part of deciding how we uphold this commitment to our community and each other!

To vote, visit the voter information page on Meta-wiki, which outlines how to participate using SecurePoll.

Many thanks for your interest and participation in the UCoC!

On behalf of the UCoC Project Team, JPBeland-WMF (talk) 21:32, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mess at Subordo: Haplotaxina

A couple of years ago, User:Caftaric added a lot of things to this page, many of which don't belong there, including "Subordo: Tubificina", and a number of Familiae that don't show this taxon as their parent. I spend pretty much all my time at my home wiki, English Wiktionary, and I don't know the standards and procedures for this one- so I can't sort it all out myself. Thanks in advance for your help! Chuck Entz (talk) 03:04, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Anisoscelini vs Anisoscelidini

It was recommended I post this here. In reference to the Coreidae tribe Anisoscelini

According to Packauskas, 1994. the root for this family, Anisoscelis, does not take a D in its combining roots. So the name of the tribe should be Anisocelini. This was confirmed later in Packauskas & Schaefer, 2001. and is followed by Coreoidea species file — The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ncb1221 (talk • contribs) 16:25, 15 January 2023‎.

Zimmer

Working on some taxa of ornithologist John Todd Zimmer found more than a hundred taxa linked to disambiguation page Zimmer. It was not difficult to find that belong to German carcinologist Carl Wilhelm Erich Zimmer which seems to me be very important at least for the order Cumacea. And surprise! didn't have even a page for the author. So, page, taxa category and eponym category are created. Also found an impressive list of publications at Cumacea page, but nothing linked or templated. Now I leave for those specialists or interested in carcinology to continue the work. A lot to be done. Cheers. Hector Bottai (talk) 20:09, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Modern treatments of Reptilia, Aves, etc. (plus reptile orders...)

Most people who follow these things will be aware that over the past 10-15 years, there has been increasing recognition that birds (Aves) evolved from reptiles and so the traditional Linnaean classes Aves and Reptilia do not fit well together in a cladistic sense. Ruggiero et al., 2015 addressed this by making Aves a subclass of class Reptilia, a solution that was not adopted by others e.g. Cat. of Life at that time (even though the Ruggiero et al. classification was intended to be a system for CoL to follow). Also I note traditional orders of Reptilia such as Squamata (still followed in Wikispecies, also the Paleobiology DB at this time) had been moved up to subclass in Ruggiero, with Serpentes, Scincoidea, etc., formerly suborders, re-ranked as orders.

Checking the current (2021) release of CoL I see that they have now (since when??) abandoned Reptilia altogether and replaced it with 4 extant classes i.e. Crocodylia, Sphenodontia, Squamata and Testudines, alongside separate classes Aves and Mammalia, in other words (e.g.) Squamata, at first an order, then a subclass (Ruggiero) is now ranked as a class; however in Wikispecies (also Wikipedia and PBDB) it is still an order; also we still have Reptilia as a class although CoL has abandoned it.

Not sure what is the best way to proceed here but I thought I would float it for others' thoughts at this time, who to follow, and what major recent published treatments might be out there to use as citable sources etc... also I am not sure if the current CoL treatment would be adequate to treat all of the fossil as well as the extant groups of reptiles (no expert here) although there could be plenty of these... e.g. check https://www.irmng.org/aphia.php?p=taxdetails&id=1448 for my present list of fossil as well as extant orders of reptiles - how many of these would become classes if the CoL concept were applied across the board...

Thoughts and advice welcome! Regards Tony Rees Tony 1212 (talk) 18:33, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Mycologists

Category:Mycologists, which has 2,797 members, has the header text:

Due to wrong data imports this category contains dozens of people, which never have worked in the field of mycology. Please don't use.

present since 2016. What should be done with it? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:54, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it's possible to run a check through Wikidata in some way, in order to see if any of the authors in our category is not listed as a mycologists in Wikidata? Not at all fool proof as Wikidata may be wrong as well, but always a start. Also User:Kopiersperre, who added the header text you refer to, already removed almost 40 names from the category. Unfortunately they haven't made any edits to Wikispecies since October 2016 (as far as I can see the last of their edit to any Wikimedia sister project was a contribution to Wikimedia Commons in July 2017). –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 21:56, 26 December 2022 (UTC).[reply]

By the way the Wikidata item mycologist (Q2487799) links to 3,202 Wikidata items, most of them about authors within the field of mycology. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 22:03, 26 December 2022 (UTC).[reply]

Don't bother with a check through Wikidata: I've found that many mycologists (and probably also lichenologists, phycologists, bryologists, etc?) are in turn mislabelled as botanists on Wikidata, I suspect somebody wrongly assumed all IPNI authorities were botanists and imported them to Wikidata with that assumption. Monster Iestyn (talk) 01:30, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In some cases such as Maria Muntañola Cvetković (Q21392085), it looks lke Kopiersperre even removed the mycologist occupation from them where they were imported from Wikispecies, even if they were still labelled a mycologist on Wikispecies. Monster Iestyn (talk) 02:05, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the text from the category; there seems to be no-one in support of keeping it, no contemporary discussion, and the reason for its addition is unclear. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:34, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My guess is that he might have been trying to deprecate the category, after deciding the whole lot was "bad"; he also originally removed the Biologists category (only for it to be added again a few months later). Couldn't blame him after fixing so many lichenologist/mycologist mixups on Wikispecies, but it's a pity he didn't communicate this change on Village Pump or anything at the time. Monster Iestyn (talk) 19:37, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Modifying Template:Citation

{{Cite Q|Q106883533}} (for example) currently renders as:

Arjun Prasad Tiwari; Shahid Nawaz Landge (23 April 2021), "Capillipedium mistryi (Andropogoneae, Poaceae): a new remarkable species from central India", ISSN 1179-3155, 498 (1): 51–57, doi:10.11646/PHYTOTAXA.498.1.6, ISSN 1179-3155, Wikidata Q106883533

We need to modify our {{Citation}} template, which {{Cite Q}} wraps, to make its output more like our intended standard. Can anyone competent in Lua assist in doing that, please? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:16, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Just

{{Just}} has no documentation. Would someone who uses it care to provide some, please?

I also note that the template displays English, Czech and Turkish text, but no other languages... Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:36, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wenzel

Wenzel redirects to Bernhard Wenczel (fl 2005; note spelling), but is linked to from, for example, Hippeutister amabilis (Wenzel, 1938) and Yarmister (Wenzel, 1939). To whom does the latter refer? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:29, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It refers to (presumed) American entomologist Rupert Leon Wenzel (1915–2006), expert on Histerid beetles (Histeridae, which both taxon pages you linked are members of) and bat flies (in particular Hippoboscidae apparently?). I'm piecing together a Wikidata item for him now. Monster Iestyn (talk) 23:57, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pesquisa sobre a experiência de mulheres editoras e aliados/es

200px|left|link=https://pt.wikiversity.org/wiki/A_experi%C3%AAncia_do_movimento_de_mulheres_lus%C3%B3fonas_na_wikimedia:_uma_estima-ativa
A pesquisa "A experiência do movimento de mulheres lusófonas na wikimedia" convida pessoas editoras a contribuir respondendo a um questionário.

Se você é mulher e...

> edita de forma independente, acesse ao Mini-questionário para mulheres editoras independentes
> organiza-se coletivamente, acesse ao Questionário para mulheres wikimedistas e aliadas

Se você é homem ou pessoa não-binária, confira o Chamado a pessoas aliadas.

Sua participação é importante para para entendermos melhor as dimensões da lacuna de gênero na wikimedia!

> Conheça mais sobre a pesquisa lendo a apresentação, as diretrizes ou o projeto completo.
> Se desejar, escreva-nos em nossa página de discussão na Wikiversidade.

Há-braços,
CalliandraDysantha (talk) 22:24, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

┌─────────────────────────┘ Google translates this as:

Research on the experience of women editors and allies
The survey "The experience of the Lusophone women's movement on wikimedia" invites editors to contribute by answering a questionnaire.
If you are a woman and...

edit independently, access the Mini-Questionnaire for independent women editors

organizes collectively, access the Questionnaire for women Wikimedians and allies

If you are a male or non-binary person, check out the Call to Allies.
Your participation is important for us to better understand the dimensions of the gender gap in wikimedia!

Learn more about the research by reading the presentation, guidelines or the full project.

If you wish, write to us on our Wikiversity talk page.

I've disabled display of an intrusive image. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:01, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Global ban for PlanespotterA320/RespectCE

Per the Global bans policy, I'm informing the project of this request for comment: m:Requests for comment/Global ban for PlanespotterA320 (2) about banning a member from your community. Thank you.--Lemonaka (talk) 21:40, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User has no contributions on this project. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:05, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

He's spamming probably all (900+) sites. I've rebuked him in meta. I've reverted like dozens of his spams. Bennylin (talk) 16:16, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

But not this one. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:43, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Bennylin: I agree with Andy here, yes I can see why there is an issue I read the RfC on the issue. But it is not appropriate for our wiki to comment when the user has not made any edits here. If that changes maybe we can look at it, however for the moment this local wiki project should not be not involved. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 03:39, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reference templates not yet linked to Wikidata

Here is a list of Reference templates not yet linked to Wikidata - with 89,358 entries. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:49, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just noting here, I am in the process of linking many of these templates with Wikidata items, so many of these templates already have connected items. Harej (talk) 17:26, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Universal Code of Conduct revised enforcement guidelines vote results

The recent community-wide vote on the Universal Code of Conduct revised Enforcement Guidelines has been tallied and scrutinized. Thank you to everyone who participated.

After 3097 voters from 146 Wikimedia communities voted, the results are 76% in support of the Enforcement Guidelines, and 24% in opposition. Statistics for the vote are available. A more detailed summary of comments submitted during the vote will be published soon.

From here, the results and comments collected during this vote will be submitted to the Board of Trustees for their review. The current expectation is that the Board of Trustees review process will complete in March 2023. We will update you when their review process is completed.

On behalf of the UCoC Project Team, JPBeland-WMF (talk) 19:31, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

New template: any feedback appreciated

Per an edit that User:Monster Iestyn made to ISSN 0236-6495, I made {{Akjournals}}. Does it seem useful? Any features it should have? I haven't made any documentation or applied it elsewhere in case others think it's not useful, but I think it's functionality is pretty obvious. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:26, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Koavf: Looks useful; please list and describe the parameters in the documentation. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:59, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Note that {{Doc}} has a broken module. :/ —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:24, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

'Maymyo Herb.'

As seen from this search result, Bremekamp (1937, 1938) described some Ixora species, specifying their type repository as 'Maymyo Herb.'. According to Empire Forestry Review 28(1): 12–13 (1949), the greater part of Maymyo Herbarium had been once taken away by Japanese museum agency and placed there during the Japanese occupation of Burma (1942–1945), until about 10,000 specimen sheets were recovered and returned to Burma, while the rest was burnt by Japanese vandals. The problem I would like to discuss here is that how we have to dispose of this herbarium. Index Herbariorum of NYBG Steere Herbarium lists 5 herbaria in Burma, but none of them is of Maymyo (Pyin Oo Lwin). The EFR article also states that the founder of the herbarium is attributed to Sir Alexander Rodger (1 August 1875 – 30 September 1950), O.B.E., who was appointed as Forest Research Officer for Burma just before WWI (1914–1918). I guess that the surviving collections are now deposited in RAF, since it is the only herbarium founded before WWII (1939–1945) and associated with Forest Department, Ministry of Forestry among the 5 institutions. However, we need more definite evidence to judge it. Then I propose that we create Maymyo Herbarium and add the information provided by the EFR article there until its identity becomes clear. --Eryk Kij (talk) 05:04, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I will carry out my plan unless no one opposes. --Eryk Kij (talk) 18:15, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done --Eryk Kij (talk) 10:04, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Georg G. Bosse and Georgiy Gustavovich Bosse

Is IPNI's Georg G. Bosse (1887–1972) (wikidata item) the same as Georgiy Gustavovich Bosse (1887–1964)? I would have thought so myself, except that the death year of IPNI's record and Russian+German Wikipedias don't agree. But if they are the same person, which is the correct death year: 1972 or 1964? (Where do these dates even come from in the first place?) This all concerns the taxon author page G.G.Bosse, what full name it should use, and whether the two Wikidata items I linked should also be merged. Monster Iestyn (talk) 20:31, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

HUH Index of Botanists gives a 1972 death date and notes that he collected in Mexico. The Russian Wikipedia article says he went on a collecting expedition to Mexico. It seems very unlikely that there are two people with near identical names who both collected in Mexico, but that doesn't answer the question of death year. Plantdrew (talk) 15:53, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Contact IPNI directly. They are very accommodating and don't bite! Andyboorman (talk) 19:02, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Could do, though this author's name and years comes straight from Brummitt & Powell (1992)'s Authors of Plant Names as far as I can tell. Monster Iestyn (talk) 19:55, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dear colleague, the death year of Georgiy Gustavovich Bosse (correct spelling) is incorrect in both versions of Wiki and IPNI. Not 1972, not 1964! The correct date is 31 March 1965. This came from the obituary in Rastitel'nye Resursy 3: 144. 1967 [1]. We shall notify IPNI and HUH to correct their errors, Anna Pavlova IFPNI Staff (talk) 22:15, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to IFPNI Staff, IPNI and HUH have now been updated (though they now give surname "Bossé" with an é instead of e, I don't know if that's correct or not), I have merged the two Wikidata items and renamed the Wikispecies page. There's nothing more to be done here now I believe. Monster Iestyn (talk) 16:53, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cupreobole adrienneae

Is Cupreobole adrienneae named after Adrienne Garai? This seems likely (she was to marry Péter Gyulai, and collected other type specimens named by him and László Aladár Ronkay), ~~but Ronkay et al., 2010 is silent on the inspiration for the name.~~ A source would be useful, please. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:55, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oddly, the PDF of that template isn't even the right article, which would explain why I couldn't find Cupreobole or Cupreobole adriennae mentioned anywhere in it. Monster Iestyn (talk) 19:06, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Good point; I've fixed the link to the abstract. It appears that the full paper is not online. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:41, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Now confirmed, as is Isolasia adriennei; both in:

Ronkay, G., Ronkay, L.A., Gyulai, P. & Hacker, H.H. 2010. New Xylenini (Lepidoptera, Noctuidae, Xyleninae) species and genera from the wide sense Himalayan region. Esperiana Buchreihe zur Entomologie 15: 245-358. Abstract. Reference page.

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 16:16, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Google Books of limited view in reference templates

RLJ and I have different points of view on how to treat Google Books links of limited view, especially when only snippets are available. This discord came to light at Template talk:Flora Iranica 139a, where I regard such links as more or less useful and do not hesitate to place them in reference templates while RLJ appears to feel strong resistance in such a manner, finding it tolerable if such links are placed outside templates in every page (e.g. Special:Diff/9115522/next). As far as I know, no general consensus on this topic has been made so far (cf. [2], even some templates have such links with clear indication of limited availability) and I have not met anyone who has the same or similar view like his one. Please note that we (RLJ and I) previously had discussed at Template talk:Takhtajan, 2012, where he provided a DJVU source as an external link and we agreed that addition of Google Books of limited view was superfluous. Then I think that just noting of explicit indication of limitedness is sufficient when it is likely there is no freely available online resource other than Google Books of limited view. What does everyone think about it? --Eryk Kij (talk) 05:04, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Google Books is a store front. As a reference or citation, the importance is in the book itself no more no less. Therefore Google Books links are of limited value. Andyboorman (talk) 09:28, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Andyboorman: I have thought that external links in reference templates play a role of enabling us to access sources so that many users can take part in verification activities and that sometimes even source fragments can be crucial keys to improve entries. Do you think whether source links deserve inclusion in templates depends on their extents of accessibility (fully or only partially)? --Eryk Kij (talk) 10:00, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Eryk Kij: Not saying the book is of no value, but its link to Google could be superfluous. I am open to persuasion. Andyboorman (talk) 15:02, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In scientific papers particularly those which are original designations of taxa which is what we focus on here, access to the article is the prime importance. So any link that provides this is more helpful than any of a dozen references that point to its existence but do not help anyone acquire it. The existence of articles is without question as they have usually been cited numerous times in other works. As a taxonomist I need to get it, and with older ones in particular I would much prefer a link that leads me to a pdf, eg BHL. Scholar is also fine if it achieves this. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 10:20, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I see nothing wrong with linking limited view Google Books, if there is absolutely no other way to freely access the book/journal volume/etc online (or perhaps no other way to access it online at all, at least through legal means). Though maybe I'm speaking as someone who cannot access the print books themselves, at least as of writing. Monster Iestyn (talk) 15:24, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Google Books links of limited view are currently only rarely used here in Wikispecies and at least in the German and English Wikipedias. I think the link should only be given if no other digital or analog option is available. It should not be included in literature templates, but given in the article as proof how the information used in the article was retrieved. -RLJ (talk) 02:46, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I assume everyone cannot always access sources due to not only their absence in/near one's living place, but also lockdown or restriction of university libraries for pandemic or other kinds of disaster near one's living place. In addition to this, I usually judge whether there exists online source of a publication by existence of links included in every reference template such as BHL, DOI, JSTOR etc. via author entries or directly in template pages and it would be quite weird that users do not find any opportunity of online accessibility in a reference template in such pages and they come to know existence of (even fragments of) an online source only when they access a taxon entry with such a template. In these respects, inclusion of Google Books links in reference templates could be helpful for us to notify most people (and as a last resort) of existence of freely available online sources even if their extent of availability is limited. --Eryk Kij (talk) 06:44, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As said by @Monster Iestyn: "I see nothing wrong with linking limited view Google Books, if there is absolutely no other way to freely access the book/journal volume/etc online (or perhaps no other way to access it online at all, at least through legal means)". Nothing else to add.--Hector Bottai (talk) 12:39, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As per most others, nothing wrong with those Google Books links in the extend there is nothing better available. Christian Ferrer (talk) 15:42, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- @RLJ: Then, I would like to restore the version on 00:49, 9 February 2023 of Template:Flora Iranica 139a judging our conclusion is that we can add links of works only partially available at Google Books to reference templates with mentioning limited accessibility of linked contents unless their freely available online counterparts are found somewhere else. Please talk to me if you have further opinion. --Eryk Kij (talk) 06:58, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think it should be facultative but not obligatory to add Google Books links of limited view; therefore I have added the Google link as parameter to the template; syntax is as follows: {{Flora Iranica 139a|{{Rech.f.}}|Cousinia|108–153|Google=y}}; result:
Rechinger, K.H. 1979. Cousinia. Pp. 108–153 in Rechinger, K.H., Compositae III - Cynareae. Tribus Echinopeae, Carlineae and Cardueae - Carduinae. In: Rechinger, K.H. (ed.), Flora Iranica. Vol. 139a. pp. 1–286, tab. 1–230. Akademische Druck-und-Verlagsanstalt, Graz. Google Books. Google Books (another version)Reference page.

And if you don't want to have it, the syntax is: {{Flora Iranica 139a|{{Rech.f.}}|Cousinia|108–153}}

Rechinger, K.H. 1979. Cousinia. Pp. 108–153 in Rechinger, K.H., Compositae III - Cynareae. Tribus Echinopeae, Carlineae and Cardueae - Carduinae. In: Rechinger, K.H. (ed.), Flora Iranica. Vol. 139a. pp. 1–286, tab. 1–230. Akademische Druck-und-Verlagsanstalt, Graz. Reference page.
- - Is this ok for you? --RLJ (talk) 15:27, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    - @RLJ: I would like to compromise with you, but I have a question. Do you tolerate use of the Google parameter in author entries? My interest is focused on notification of online materials (even their fragments) for more readers. Author pages would be visited by more people and then would be more conspicuous than individual templates since author entries are sometimes connected to Wikipedia articles featuring people regardless of languages. --Eryk Kij (talk) 10:29, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      - I think this is ok for me. I have added the Google parameter in Karl Heinz Rechinger. --RLJ (talk) 23:44, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

- @Everyone: Please talk to me if I misunderstood something on the general agreement. --Eryk Kij (talk) 06:58, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Community feedback-cycle about updating the Wikimedia Terms of Use starts

Hi everyone,

From February, 21 to April 2023, the Wikimedia Foundation Legal Department is hosting a feedback cycle about updating the Wikimedia Terms of Use (ToU). Detailed information has been published on Meta here.

The Terms of Use are the legal terms that govern the use of websites hosted by the Wikimedia Foundation. Feedback on the draft proposal will be gathered from February through April.

This update comes in response to several things:

Implementing the Universal Code of Conduct
Updating project text to the Creative Commons BY-SA 4.0 license (CC 4.0)
A proposal for better addressing undisclosed paid editing
Bringing the ToU in line with current and recently passed laws affecting the Wikimedia Foundation including the European Digital Services Act

Regarding the Universal Code of Conduct and its enforcement guidelines, we are instructed to ensure that the ToU include it in some form.

Regarding CC 4.0, the communities had determined as the result of a 2016 consultation that the projects should upgrade the main license for hosted text from the current CC BY-SA 3.0 to CC BY-SA 4.0. We’re excited to be able to put that into effect, which will open up the projects to receiving a great deal of already existing CC BY-SA 4.0 text and improve reuse and remixing of project content going forward.

Regarding the proposal for better addressing undisclosed paid editing, the Wikimedia Foundation intends to strengthen its tools to support existing community policies against marketing companies engaged in systematic, undisclosed paid editing campaigns.

Finally, regarding new laws, the last ToU update was in 2015, and that update was a single item regarding paid editing. The last thorough revision was in 2012. While the law affecting hosting providers has held steady for some time, with the recent passage of the EU’s Digital Services Act, we are seeing more significant changes in the legal obligations for companies like the Wikimedia Foundation that host large websites. So with a decade behind us and the laws affecting website hosts soon changing, we think it’s a good time to revisit the ToU and update them to bring them up to current legal precedents and standards.

As part of the feedback cycle two office hours will be held, the first on March 2, the second on April 4.

See the page on Meta to get all the information.

For further information, please consult:

The proposed update of the ToU by comparison
The page for your feedback
Information about the office hours

On behalf of the Wikimedia Foundation Legal Team,

JPBeland-WMF (talk) 15:40, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Editing news 2023 #1

Read this in another language • Subscription list for this multilingual newsletter

This newsletter includes two key updates about the Editing team's work:

The Editing team will finish adding new features to the Talk pages project and deploy it.
They are beginning a new project, Edit check.

Talk pages project

The Editing team is nearly finished with this first phase of the Talk pages project. Nearly all new features are available now in the Beta Feature for Discussion tools.

It will show information about how active a discussion is, such as the date of the most recent comment. There will soon be a new "Add topic" button. You will be able to turn them off at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-editing-discussion. Please tell them what you think.

An A/B test for Discussion tools on the mobile site has finished. Editors were more successful with Discussion tools. The Editing team is enabling these features for all editors on the mobile site.

New Project: Edit Check

The Editing team is beginning a project to help new editors of Wikipedia. It will help people identify some problems before they click "Publish changes". The first tool will encourage people to add references when they add new content. Please watch that page for more information. You can join a conference call on 3 March 2023 to learn more.

–Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 23:25, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your wiki will be in read only soon

Read this message in another language • Please help translate to your language

The Wikimedia Foundation tests the switch between its first and secondary data centers. This will make sure that Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia wikis can stay online even after a disaster. To make sure everything is working, the Wikimedia Technology department needs to do a planned test. This test will show if they can reliably switch from one data centre to the other. It requires many teams to prepare for the test and to be available to fix any unexpected problems.

All traffic will switch on 1 March. The test will start at 14:00 UTC.

Unfortunately, because of some limitations in MediaWiki, all editing must stop while the switch is made. We apologize for this disruption, and we are working to minimize it in the future.

You will be able to read, but not edit, all wikis for a short period of time.

You will not be able to edit for up to an hour on Wednesday 1 March 2023.
If you try to edit or save during these times, you will see an error message. We hope that no edits will be lost during these minutes, but we can't guarantee it. If you see the error message, then please wait until everything is back to normal. Then you should be able to save your edit. But, we recommend that you make a copy of your changes first, just in case.

Other effects:

Background jobs will be slower and some may be dropped. Red links might not be updated as quickly as normal. If you create an article that is already linked somewhere else, the link will stay red longer than usual. Some long-running scripts will have to be stopped.
We expect the code deployments to happen as any other week. However, some case-by-case code freezes could punctually happen if the operation require them afterwards.
GitLab will be unavailable for about 90 minutes.

This project may be postponed if necessary. You can read the schedule at wikitech.wikimedia.org. Any changes will be announced in the schedule. There will be more notifications about this. A banner will be displayed on all wikis 30 minutes before this operation happens. Please share this information with your community.

Trizek (WMF) (Discussion) 21:20, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Panthera leo maculatus

Please can someone check the newly-added, and recently-taken, images on Panthera leo maculatus, against the fact that we have this subspecies marked as extinct? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:25, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I can't speak for the images, but on looking up the history of this page, the "†" was present from this page's creation all the way back in 2006. Unfortunately it's a bit more complicated as it turns out: many online sources (including Wikipedia) suggest the subspecies' existence is dubious, possibly not even taxonomically valid, or even call it a cryptid. I'm not even sure if the authority is correct, as some sources state it to have been described by the cryptozoologist Bernard Heuvelmans in 1955 rather than Pocock, 1937 as Wikispecies is currently claiming. Monster Iestyn (talk) 00:31, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am guessing but the images could be colorised black and white photos from 1930, there are certainly other similar photos of this lion which show both the original and colorised versions, though not these ones. As to its status it is varibly considered a local mutation, a leapard x lion hybrid or a possibly extinct subspecies. I note one of these images has been flagged for deletion on commons. I am doubtful that they are of any service to the name, the name itself does not have nomenclatural validity. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 00:57, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder: Office hours about updating the Wikimedia Terms of Use

Hello everyone,

This a reminder that the Wikimedia Foundation Legal Department is hosting office hours with community members about updating the Wikimedia Terms of Use.

The office hours will be held on March 2, at 17:00 UTC to 18:30 UTC. See for more details here on Meta.

Another office hours will be held on April 4.

We hereby kindly invite you to participate in the discussion. Please note that this meeting will be held in English language and led by the members of the Wikimedia Foundation Legal Team, who will take and answer your questions. Facilitators from the Movement Strategy and Governance Team will provide the necessary assistance and other meeting-related services.

On behalf of the Wikimedia Foundation Legal Team,

JPBeland-WMF (talk) 16:10, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pilobolidæ

I have an old (1870s) paper which mentions "the Pilobolidæ". How does that term relate to Pilobolaceae? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:16, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Andy, the term seems potentially ambiguous, but could be equivalent to family - so may depend on context; see e.g. https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/334526?journalCode=botanicalgazette . Regards - Tony Tony 1212 (talk) 17:57, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Different or changing spelling of authors in works and life for reference templates

Recently I resolved the single authorship of E. Lermantoff (signed article in 1913)

Lermontova, E. (Lermantoff). 1913. Über Myriospora trophoniae n. gen., n. sp., ein neues, in Trophonia plumosa parasitierendes Coccidium. Archiv für Protistenkunde 32: 205–220.Reference page.

with a famous Russian (Soviet) palaeontologist Lermontova, the works of whose on fossil Trilobita have nothing in common to do with early post-student works on parasitic Coccidia (Apicomplexa). As you see, without historical-bibliographical additional research it is nearly impossible to suggest that Lermantoff, French-styled transliteration of Russian surname, and Lermontova, English-styled, modern transliteration, belong to a single person. The cases are not rare, but common: Ssokoloff B. became Boris Fedorovich Sokoloff, Nobel Prize Winner Ilya Ilyich Mechnikov had several common spellings widespread in the literature: Metschnikoff, Metchnikoff or Mecznikow. Such cases are common in Slavonic and Chinese literature: Sze Hsu Cheng is the same as S.H.Cheng.

These examples illustrate the necessity to update the standard of citation of the author in the references Templates by using two spellings, accepted spelling (in WikiSpecies) and original spelling (used in the very publication) to avoid any doubts whether this work was correctly attributed or described.

I suggest to do in such a proposed manner:

Lermontova, E. (Lermantoff). 1913. Über Myriospora trophoniae n. gen., n. sp., ein neues, in Trophonia plumosa parasitierendes Coccidium. Archiv für Protistenkunde 32: 205–220.Reference page.

my references template has two spellings, Wiki accepted Lermontova and the original, used by author in the publication (in brackets) Lermantoff. The citation of two different spellings in the templates would be comfortable for users not familiar with historical biographic studies. Recently my template

Sokoloff, B.F. 1913. Cystobia intestinalis nov. sp. Archiv für Protistenkunde 32(2): 219–228, pl. 9. Reference page.

was edited by editors by deleting the original spelling of author (Ssokoloff), used in print. Any objections? Anna Pavlova IFPNI Staff (talk) 22:32, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Distinguishing clades

The following was left on the talk page of an IP user, by User:Bfrancois1. I've moved it here:

A Neophyte's Comment
It would be helpful if each clade entry had at least one sentence describing the feature that sets a clade apart from its ancestor and "siblings". There must be distinguishing characteristics, or the clade would not exist. If different systems have different characteristics for the clade, maybe a summary of them is possible? I am really surprised this does not exist. Or, if a reason exists for the summary to be missing, put a comment indicating to readers where they may find a singular summary or at least why none is exists. Ultimately, the community should strive for this. The whole purpose of the classification is to establish meaningful relationships, right? If instead of a meaningful summary, readers find *only* nomenclature, the clades seem like nothing but fodder for arguments about how many pixies can dance on a the tip of a unicorn's horn. Thank you. Bfrancois1 (talk) 15:41, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

-- Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:26, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for managing this. BTW, I am just a curious person. I was only looking to find out how bird clades exist. Rank amateurs learn in high school about mammals having a placenta and dinosaurs being split by hip type, but then not much else. Oh, and eurkaryotes have a distinct nucleus. But what about all the other attributes leading to clades? If this site goes beyond heavy duty expert stuff to a reference for curious laypeople, then maybe consider my request. I suppose if this site can not even effectively support the heavy users and specialists, perhaps fulfilling my request would be a major distraction and attract more people like me. It could then lead to more distracting comments. I would hate to be the vector bringing a problem into your midst. On the other hand, maybe some curious kid will come to this site looking for answers to questions about how organisms are categorized. You can decide how the support gets divided. My interest is negligible beyond a pathological need to be heard, masked in the faux humility of self-aware confessions. =;-b Good luck with this project! 74.105.197.216 19:10, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Project sources

There are several unanswered questions & suggestions, on Help talk:Project sources. Please take a look; and maybe add it to your watchlist. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:13, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Documentation is broken

{{Documentation}} is giving Lua error in Module:Documentation at line 140: message: type error in message cfg.container (string expected, got nil). on pages that transclude it. The last edit appears to be mine of 1 December, but MediaWiki is telling me that that has already ben reverted. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:48, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Per Module talk:Documentation, the problem is that Module:Documentation is imported from en.wiki and Module:Documentation/config was imported from Meta-Wiki. It turns out that en.wiki and Meta-Wiki's implementations of the Documentation Lua modules aren't the same, so the two module pages need to be imported from the same wiki to work properly. Monster Iestyn (talk) 19:36, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Andy Mabbett and Monster Iestyn: So its should be fairly easy to fix then. The question is whether we prefer the enWP or Meta versions of the Documentation Module and its config file? –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 03:41, 1 January 2023 (UTC).[reply]

Presumably, the Meta: versions have better multi-lingual support? The sooner we have Global templates and modules, usable across wikis, the better. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:12, 1 January 2023 (UTC)a[reply]

I agree. The most straightforward procedure would be to delete Module:Documentation and Module:Documentation/config and then reimport them from meta:Module:Documentation and meta:Module:Documentation/config. Both imports should be done more or less simultaneously, so that the two imported versions are in synch. Note: at the moment the two files are each linked to by 1,903 different Wikispecies templates, so all in all the reimport may make an impact on several tens of thousands of pages. Any thoughts or objections? –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 02:41, 2 January 2023 (UTC).[reply]

┌──────────┘ I extend a heads-up to all administrators so that they can contribute with thoughts and ideas: 1234qwer1234qwer4—Accassidy—AlvaroMolina—Andyboorman—Burmeister—Circeus—Dan Koehl—DannyS712—EncycloPetey—Faendalimas– Floscuculi—Geni—Hector Bottai—Kaganer—Keith Edkins—Koavf—MKOliver—MPF—Mariusm—Neferkheperre– OhanaUnited—PeterR—Pigsonthewing—RLJ—Thiotrix.
Regards, Tommy Kronkvist (talk) 02:51, 2 January 2023 (UTC).[reply]

Keeping sync with Meta makes sense to me until/unless we have global templates. :/ —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:12, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There's only one way to find out if this is the right thing to do...

As I've cautioned elsewhere, we need to watch for the template being overwritten, if it's a child of something else that is imported from en.Wikipedia Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:59, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

EN is likely to be more actively maintained but that means more changes so meta may be easier.Geni (talk) 18:00, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't had time to check the actual code yet, but there are also what looks to be well maintained versions at MediaWiki: mw:Module:Documentation and mw:Module:Documentation/config. If the MediaWiki versions and their links are good, then maybe this is the way to go? My reason for this is that MediaWiki is (or at least should be) the main "repository" for much of our wiki source code, much in the same way Commons is our library for pictures and other media. This is also reflected by the fact that the MediaWiki page on Global templates and modules is the main hub for proposals to make templates shared across all wikis: for example, Meta's page on the same issue is only a soft redirect to the MediaWiki page. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 19:38, 4 January 2023 (UTC).[reply]
@Tommy Kronkvist Any update on this? It has been nearly a month now, and nothing has changed as far as I can tell. (If you don't have time still, then that's understandable) Monster Iestyn (talk) 19:13, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Pigsonthewing Ditto, except almost another month has passed. Are you or another admin going to fix the Documentation template? Monster Iestyn (talk) 21:24, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not a Lua coder; it's beyond my skills to do so. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:47, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
...I thought all you had to do was import the corresponding Module pages from one of the other wikis, e.g. MediaWiki as Tommy Kronkvist suggested? That surely doesn't require Lua skills as far as I know. Monster Iestyn (talk) 22:11, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Species by IUCN Red List category

Maintaining the use of subcategories of Category:Species by IUCN Red List category on pages about individual species is a Sisyphean task; and one that we are certain to fail to undertake in a timely manner.

It would be better to replace the individual category code to such pages, where they exist, with {{IUCN}}, and make that pull in the relevant category from Wikidata, on-the-fly, so that when the relevant Wikidata is updated, a happens relatively promptly, the page is automatically recategorised. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:34, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimania 2023 Welcoming Program Submissions

Do you want to host an in-person or virtual session at Wikimania 2023? Maybe a hands-on workshop, a lively discussion, a fun performance, a catchy poster, or a memorable lightning talk? Submissions are open until March 28. The event will have dedicated hybrid blocks, so virtual submissions and pre-recorded content are also welcome. If you have any questions, please join us at an upcoming conversation on March 12 or 19, or reach out by email at wikimania@wikimedia.org or on Telegram. More information on-wiki.

Koehler (1912)

Hello, in early 1912 Koehler wrote preliminary notes for the Echinodermata collected during the Charcot Expedition, this is {{Koehler, 1912a}} including brief descriptions of new taxa. Later the same year a full and big report was published {{Koehler, 1912}} including much more elaborate descriptions.

My problem is that external sources such as WoRMS sometimes takes as reference for the original descriptions the preliminary notes, and sometimes the full report. I am uncomfortable sometimes choosing one and sometimes the other. Exemples:

Amphipneustes mortenseni Koehler, 1912 [3] is stated in WoRMS as to be from the preliminary notes {{Koehler, 1912a}} BHL while the complete description is available in the full report [4]

at the opposite

Parapneustes reductus Koehler, 1912 [5] is stated in WoRMS as to be from the full report {{Koehler, 1912}} [6] while it have been firstly, though briefly, described in the preliminary notes [7].

As the preliminary notes were published a bit earlier than the full report I'm inclined to consider them as the "original description" for all the new treated taxa inside those preliminary notes (with why not an explanatory note in {{Koehler, 1912a}} and in the taxa pages). Anyway in my opinion it must be either one or the other, but not a mixture of both as it is currentluy in WoRMS. Your views? if you have some. Christian Ferrer (talk) 13:23, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Authority for order amphibian Anura (frogs etc.)

There appears to be some dispute regarding the authorship for the ampibian order Anura, currently given on Wikispecies as Fischer von Waldheim, 1813, but on Wikipedia as "Duméril, 1806 (as Anoures)". I looked into this further, and it seems that the Duméril attribution (now re-dated to 1805 based on the publication history of the work in question) is championed by Alain Dubois of the Paris Natural History Museum, while the Fischer von Waldheim attribution is championed by the American Museum of Natural History, as expressed in their "Amphibians of the World" Database, and the 2 parties cannot agree...

Basically the Dubois view (reiterated in several publications and in a Taxacom post at http://taxacom.markmail.org/thread/fgep2py66qrafntb) is that, although Duméril, 1805, introduced the name in French ("Anoures") and described it as a "famille", neither of these disqualify it from being used (in latinised form) as the earliest acceptable attribution for this taxon; he apparently considers that Duméril's "famille" designation not exactly equivalent to present day concept of family per ICZN terminology, arguing that our modern concept of family did not exist at that time. On the other hand, the AMNH view is that Duméril's name was introduced as a family (and thus cannot be re-used as an order), and further that its French form renders it unavailable at family rank anyway; in their words:

Anoures Duméril, 1805, Zool. Analyt. Meth. Nat. Class. Anim.: 91, 93. Unavailable family-group name for frogs within Duméril's order Batracii. Dubois, 2004, Alytes, 22: 1–14, regarded this as the original use of Anura, but Frost, Grant, Faivovich, Bain, Haas, Haddad, de Sá, Channing, Wilkinson, Donnellan, Raxworthy, Campbell, Blotto, Moler, Drewes, Nussbaum, Lynch, Green, and Wheeler, 2006, Bull. Am. Mus. Nat. Hist., 297: 357, who beyond the fact that this is an explicit family-group name, saw no justification in recognizing non-Latin names in ranks not regulated by the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature. Dubois and Raffaëlli, 2012, Alytes, 28: 86, and Fouquette and Dubois, 2014, Checklist N.A. Amph. Rept.: 253, continued to argue for this being the oldest available name for the taxon composed of all frogs, avoiding Dumeril's own words that this is the "Famille. Anoures". (from https://amphibiansoftheworld.amnh.org/Amphibia/Anura)

I did raise this discrepancy on Taxacom last month, but was unable to draw much comment on who is currently best to follow. Thoughts, advice anyone? Tony 1212 (talk) 18:39, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I note that Dubois et al. have clearly put a huge amount of work into "their" most recent classification of Amphibia ("New concepts and methods for phylogenetic taxonomy and nomenclature in zoology, exemplified by a new ranked cladonomy of recent amphibians (Lissamphibia)", 2021, accessible at https://www.biotaxa.org/megataxa/article/view/megataxa.5.1.1/65518), but that does not negate the fact that the Americans (it seems) continue to hold a different view... Tony 1212 (talk) 18:46, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately there has always been a lot of argument between European and North American Herpetologists on frog issues. Personally I would not be shocked if they are both wrong. I do not know that there is an answer without just picking a side on this. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 18:58, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Categories for taxon pages

Hi, should we be using categories such as Category:Taxa described in 1758, Category:Genera, Category:Accepted species name, etc? I ask because I've noticed User:Philippe rogez in particular has been adding a lot of these kinds of categories to taxon pages recently, and Wikispecies's Help pages currently don't mention categories for taxon pages (except for the "Author taxa" ones). I also don't know if there's any old Village Pump discussions to refer to either. Monster Iestyn (talk) 19:04, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikispecies:Village_Pump/Archive_47#Category:Accepted_species_name (consensus for not use); Wikispecies:Village_Pump/Archive_41#Year-of-description_Categories_—_do_we_need_them?//Wikispecies:Village_Pump/Archive_49#Category:New_genus-group_name_2014 (not reached to a consensus ??!); Wikispecies's Help pages are outdated, several discussion/consensus in VillaPump not added on it!! Regards Burmeister (talk) 19:13, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sapindales

Heads-up: new paper (open access) on Sapindales - MPF (talk) 11:55, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Template added to taxon page. Andyboorman (talk) 15:29, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ipomoea

Hello. If you happen to be around the Ipomoea pages, according to Wood et al. (2020), infrageneric circumscriptions are no longer supported without considerable further research. Therefore please feel free to edit out species links to subgenera, series and so on. Much obliged - Andyboorman (talk) 15:16, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Board of Trustees have ratified the UCoC Enforcement Guidelines

Hello all, an important update on the Universal Code of Conduct (UCoC) Enforcement Guidelines:

The vote on the Enforcement Guidelines in January 2023 showed a majority approval of the Enforcement Guidelines. There were 369 comments received and a detailed summary of the comments will be published shortly. Just over three-thousand (3097) voters voted and 76% approved of the Enforcement Guidelines. You can view the vote statistics on Meta-wiki.

As the support increased, this signifies to the Board that the current version has addressed some of the issues indicated during the last review in 2022. The Board of Trustees voted to ratify the Enforcement Guidelines. The resolution can be found on Foundation wiki and you can read more about the process behind the 2023 Enforcement Guidelines review on Diff.

There are some next steps to take with the important recommendations provided by the Enforcement Guidelines. More details will come soon about timelines. Thank you for your interest and participation.

On behalf of the UCoC Project Team, JPBeland-WMF (talk) 21:12, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Requested articles

Does Wikispecies:Requested articles serve any purpose? Does anyone monitor it and work on the requests? I see regular additions to it, but nothing seems to be removed, and the links remain resolutely red. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:30, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly not so much on this wiki it's a bit not needed really because of our scope. I will say I never use it. Does not mean I am against it being there though some may find it useful. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 04:18, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There were a few that turned blue in this section of the page. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 03:43, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Template:COLID

Hello. It looks like the template:COLID is no longer working. I'm pretty sure it was fine a few days ago. The template page says: "Lua error in Module:Documentation at line 140: message: type error in message cfg.container (string expected, got nil)". Can anyone have a look at it? This is way beyond my skills. Many thanks in advance. --Hiouf (talk) 15:59, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's a known bug in {{Documentation}}, not a problem with {{COLID}}. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:59, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Therefore what shall we do with the templates having this bug? Can it be fixed or shall we stop using those templates? Hiouf (talk) 09:17, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Plantae orphaned pages

We have 3900 orphaned pages, of which more than half belong to the Plantae. It is advisable not to remove invalid names from genus pages without addressing the question of where do they belong. These names must be mentioned somewhere, redirected or else deleted altogether.

I'm trying to sort out the orphaned pages, and I would like to know under which section to place them in the genera pages. Perhaps under Unresolved Names or Invalid Names. This is for the Botanists here to decide. Mariusm (talk) 13:08, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lazy updating! I was guilty a few years ago, but did correct my mess leaving non plantae. I could name names but may drop a gentle hint or two! Andyboorman (talk) 15:22, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Andy, I guess this a refined way to say "keep trap shut"? Anyway is the way I handled Abarema satisfactory? Mariusm (talk) 05:08, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Mariusm: all the unresolved Abarema species are now synonyms of Jupunba and do not really belong on its taxon page, but I can take it from here. Thanks. No do not keep trap shut!! Best regards Andyboorman (talk) 06:51, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Andy ;). Mariusm (talk) 07:20, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Mariusm: Keep going with this initiative! Andyboorman (talk) 19:19, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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