Wikispecies:Village Pump/Archive 65

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.

---

Using the A template to put pages in Taxa by author categories

How does everyone feel about edits such as this one? In it, I'm adding the cat parameter with a non-zero value to the A template. This marks the authority as the author of the taxon, by automatically placing it in the right category. This makes the data a little more structured and avoids manually adding a category to the page. I'm not saying manually adding Taxa by author categories should be forbidden. They have their use on redirect pages for example and editors should be free to choose whether to use the template or the category. But is it frowned upon to replace one method with the other? Thanks! --Azertus (talk) 15:11, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Seems reasonable to me. I'm trying to think of any example of when we wouldn't want that and I can't think of one. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:38, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

It sounds a great idea, except the HotCat gadget would no longer work on those pages, unfortunately. In the case where someone renames a taxon author page and its corresponding taxa by author category, HotCat is very handy for quickly transferring all the pages to the renamed category (especially if there are hundreds of taxon pages to update). But this gadget currently requires the category to be manually added to each page, rather than through a template. (On that note, {{Repository link}} has the same problem) Monster Iestyn (talk) 00:40, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

True, but the alternative would be to use AWB to replace them in bot-like fashion, which is approximately as difficult and quick. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:49, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Incorrect eponyms

Please see Category talk:Eponyms of James Alexander Brewer for a discussion about (supposed?) incorrect eponyms of U.S. botanist James Alexander Brewer. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 17:42, 2 September 2023 (UTC).

Wikispecies:Book sources

Until recently, clicking on an ISBN link took you to the Special:BookSources page with only 3 links to BWB (Better World Books), OpenLibrary and Worldcat. It turns out that more links to book sources can be added in Wikispecies:Book sources; see for example en:Wikipedia:Book sources or de:Wikipedia:ISBN-Suche. In the URL, use the variable MAGICNUMBER instead of the ISBN (see mw:Manual:ISBN for more info). Feel free to edit this new page. Korg (talk) 20:01, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Should these journal pages be merged?

The two pages ISSN 0080-3189 (for Boletim do Museu Nacional de Rio de Janeiro) and Boletim do Museu Nacional de Rio de Janeiro should perhaps be merged, or are they two different journals? Only the latter have a Wikidata item, which can be found at Q17154975.
–Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 10:21, 27 August 2023 (UTC).

According to ACNP (Italian Periodicals Catalogue): Boletim do Museu Nacional de Rio de Janeiro was published in 1923-1942, has the ISSN 0100-1507, and was subsequently split up into four series by subject: Antropologia, Botânica, Geologia and Zoologia. ISSN 0080-3189 is actually for the "Antropologia" series starting 1942, which I suspect has no relevance to Wikispecies unlike the other three.

So, I suggest renaming Boletim do Museu Nacional de Rio de Janeiro to ISSN 0100-1507 and deleting ISSN 0080-3189? Monster Iestyn (talk) 10:43, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

@Tommy Kronkvist Boletim do Museu Nacional de Rio de Janeiro now renamed to ISSN 0100-1507, the other ISSN title needs to be deleted as it is incorrect. Monster Iestyn (talk) 11:18, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

@Monster Iestyn:  Done. Thank you for redirecting the "Boletim…" page to "ISSN 0100-1507". The "ISSN 0080-3189" page has already been deleted by admin RLJ. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 12:07, 3 September 2023 (UTC).

Category:Series identifiers

I've been meaning to ask for a while now, but shouldn't everything in Category:Series identifiers (except maybe Category:ISSN) be in Category:Sources instead? Diving into Stho002's contributions from the date he created the Series identifiers category (17 July 2011) suggests to me he intended it for the ISSN category specifically, since ISSN is a type of series identifier, but since then it has been used to categorize a number of publications without an ISSN, making it appear like a duplicate of Category:Sources. Monster Iestyn (talk) 13:18, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

I think it may be useful for us to differentiate between works that are printed "in series" (for example journals and bulletins) as opposed to written works that are published as single items (eg. books and many other larger "non-serial" works). That said, yes I think that the whole Category:Publications category tree should be cleaned up, including its subcategories Category:ISSN, Category:Journals, Category:Series identifiers‎, and Category:Sources. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 14:06, 3 September 2023 (UTC).

The Sources category also contains works printed in series, so it doesn't look like these categories are being used consistently. Monster Iestyn (talk) 14:31, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

I agree. That was partly my point – sorry for not being clear enough. Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 17:48, 3 September 2023 (UTC).

@Tommy Kronkvist No worries, fair enough. Those categories definitely need cleaning up, there's no doubt about that at least. For instance, Category:Journals exists but is only populated by 27 pages as of writing, and it has a few subcategories by subject - Category:Acarology journals and Category:Parasitology journals - which have even fewer pages each. But no categories exist for other subjects like botany, mycology, entomology, etc., and I don't know if we should have these existing categories on Wikispecies or not in the first place. Monster Iestyn (talk) 18:51, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

┌──────────┘ In my opinion the ISSN category should be a subcategory of the Journals category, since more or less all of our ISSN pages refers to scientific journals. However the two categories shouldn't be merged: many scientific periodicals doesn't have ISSNs (notably the older ones), and having a category specifically listing the journals with ISSNs makes it easier to look them up in external databases.

Personally I don't think we need subcategories for singular fields such as acarology, botany, parasitology etc., partly because there are a lot of journals not specifically aimed at one singular discipline. Hence if a journal prints articles about for example mycology as well as "main" taxonomical papers we would have to add it to both "Category:Journals" as well as the latter's subcategory "Category:Mycology journals", in which case we would end up bulding a messy category tree once again... In the same way we shouldn't have pages that are members of both "Category:Journals" and "Category:ISSN", but unfortunately that's the case even today. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 19:54, 3 September 2023 (UTC).

I know there are book series and monograph series with ISSNs... should those be counted as journals? Monster Iestyn (talk) 22:10, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Yes, always. This is ISSN standard. Anna Pavlova IFPNI Staff (talk) 22:14, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Resources in the IP user contribution pages

When visiting the contribution page of an unregistered user, e.g. Special:Contributions/12.34.56.78, there is no link to external resources to see info about this IP, like their global contributions. Such resources could be useful, for example to see if the IP has been blocked on another wiki. On other wikis, they have been added, see for example m:Special:Contributions/12.34.56.78 or d:Special:Contributions/12.34.56.78. If we find them useful, the page MediaWiki:Sp-contributions-footer-anon can be created (corresponding page on Meta: m:MediaWiki:Sp-contributions-footer-anon, on Wikidata: d:MediaWiki:Sp-contributions-footer-anon). Korg (talk) 07:46, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

I have imported that page from Meta, along with {{Anontools/ipv4}}, and it seems to be working now.

However, be aware that a pending change to MediaWiki will obfuscate IP addresses for most viewers. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:54, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, Andy. As a note, the message can be localised. It has been done so on MediaWiki, Meta, Commons, with MediaWiki having the most translations of that message. While I'm at it, the page for registered users, MediaWiki:Sp-contributions-footer, can also be localised; it has the most translations on Wikidata. Korg (talk) 18:47, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Proposal to rename Category:Species named after celebrities

Please see Category talk:Species named after celebrities. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:46, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Duke: Herbarium and Disambiguation page for Authors

Dear colleagues, who could resolve the creation of a new disambiguation page for authors Duke, since the WS has already homonymic DUKE for Herbarium acronym? Anna Pavlova IFPNI Staff (talk) 08:38, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Hello Anna, the disambiguation page may be Duke (author), or - if you like to include a link to the herbarium - Duke (disambiguation) . Kind regards, --Thiotrix (talk) 09:52, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Hello, or simply Duke, as the page does not exist? Korg (talk) 19:19, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Simia monacha

Hello, Pithecia monachus has as its protonym gbif Simia monacha Geoffroy, 1812 (Simia monachus BnF Gallica seemingly an incorrect original spelling). Cercopithecus mona has as its protonym Simia mona Schreber, 1774, Simia monacha Schreber, 1804 BHL gbif a synonym BHL. Is there a homonym issue with Simia monacha Geoffroy, 1812 (separate from the date question, as coming from the same publication as Simia lugens, Humboldt, 1811)? Thank you, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 15:05, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Same type repository?

I wonder whether MIZP (Museum and Institute of Zoology, Polish Academy of Sciences) and MILZ (Muzeum i Instytut Zoologii PAN, Warszawa, Poland) might actually be refering to the same museum, and perhaps should be merged? –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 15:42, 8 September 2023 (UTC).

Yes they refer to the same place, "Muzeum i Instytut Zoologii PAN [=Polskiej Akademii Nauk]" is the Polish name for "Museum and Institute of Zoology, Polish Academy of Sciences". Monster Iestyn (talk) 19:32, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

However, it turns out "MILZ" is actually a misreading of MIIZ (uppercase i rather than L), yet another instance of the same type repository. Monster Iestyn (talk) 19:35, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

​ So which one of the three should we use as the "main" repository page, into which we merge the other two? –Tommy Kronkvist (talk)‚ 13:06, 9 September 2023 (UTC).

​ No idea, except that it should definitely not be "MILZ". Also, it turns out to be four: MZPW (for Museum Zoologicum Polonicum, Warszawa) is yet another acronym for the same place according to Insect and Spider Collections of the World website. The website of the museum+institute itself uses either of the acronyms MIZ PAS or MiIZ PAN depending on language, but these are not intended as repository acronyms obviously. Monster Iestyn (talk) 13:40, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Elizabeth 'Lizzie' Hingley's gastropod

I have been adding data about Lizzie Hingley (Q122371999) (a modern-day fossil-hunter, after whom Turnersuchus hingleyae is named) to Wikidata; and found a source that says she also has a gastropod named after her. Can anyone suggest what taxon that might be, please? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:01, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Templates

This started as a general question of why isn't the standard page format a template for formatting's sake (and organization, and standardization, etc) and wandered into a more feasible idea of all the current templates used to list child-taxa (e.g. sp, splast, subfam, subfamlast) why can't a single trio of templates be made to handle it? Childtaxa, species, and subspecies.

{{Childtaxa|rank=Subfamily|Fooinae|Wooinae|Booinae|extinct=Kooinae|extinct=Zooinae}} or {{Childtaxa|rank=Subfamily|Fooinae;Wooinae;Booinae|extinct=Kooinae;Zooinae}}

{{Species|genus=Woo|foo|boo|extinct=koo|extinct2=zoo}}

{{Subspecies|species=Woo foo|boo|koo|zoo}}

I know just enough about templating making- not on Wikispecies, though- to be dangerous, but that means I think that this is definitely feasible, but not enough to make it myself. But I think it would be much easier to use than the current variety of templates. Happy editing, SilverTiger12 (talk) 22:39, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Sounds an interesting idea, but are the current templates too deeply embedded in use, with perhaps hundreds of thousands of pages that would need changing? That would take a huge lot of volunteer-hours (even with robot assistance) to accomplish, for what benefit? - MPF (talk) 23:20, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

I was suggesting it as something that could be implemented over time, a gradual replacement of the current templates. The benefit is the simplicity, and that the proposed template is more intuitive than the current confusing set. SilverTiger12 (talk) 21:35, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Authority control on reference templates

Would there be an appetite for, and at least one user sufficiently technically-minded so as to be able readily to implement (by bot?), the addition (as, eg, on {{Linnaeus, 1771a}}), of {{Authority control}} as the penultimate line on all reference templates? Where there is (currently) no, eg, ZooBank or BHL entry on linked wikidata items/pages, there would be no visible change here (though the reference template would draw this information as and when added to wikidata). Where the same links are already on the wikispecies reference page, there would be less benefit, but >0 templates don't have these links. Thank you, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 06:14, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Pteropus - type species

Hello, how should one write the type species of Pteropus?

• Vespertilio niger, ZooBank, Opinion 1894 BHL
• Vespertilio vampirus niger, MSW3
• Vespertilio vampyrus niger, correction of incorrect original spelling
• (Vesptertilio vampirus niger, incorrect subsequent spelling, Opinion 1894 BHL)
• (Vesp. Vampirus niger, exact original inscription, BHL)
  

Thank you, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 17:55, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Most correct would be

Type Species: Pteropus niger (Vespertilio niger Kerr, 1792:xx) sec. ICZN 1998

Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 00:21, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

I guess the question relates to the filling of your sandwich. In Kerr, 1792 itself, as above, there is no Vespertilio niger only, as written, Vesp. Vampirus niger. Per ICZN 67.2.1, 'the "originally included nominal species" comprise only those included in the newly established [??] nominal genus or subgenus, having been cited in the original publication by an available name (including citation by an incorrect spelling [Art. 67.6]) of a species or subspecies'. So seemingly it's ok to state Vespertilio vampirus niger because that is understood to be Vespertilio vampyrus niger, but how about Vespertilio niger, which is not as such "cited in the original publication"? How about the filling of your sandwich? (This is, I think, the only reference to subspecies in the relevant Articles; I'm not quite sure about "newly established", Vespertilio was already around, but I guess it means the act of type fixation newly establishes the "nominal genus", per 42.3?) Thank you,Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 05:03, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

How about Pteropus niger (Vespertilio niger ["Vesp. Vampirus niger"=Vespertilio vampirus niger; recte, Vespertilio vampyrus niger] Kerr, 1792:xx) sec. ICZN 1998, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 05:26, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

The taxonomy is irrelevant. It is a species group name and a genus group name thats all thats important to nomenclature. Subspecies and species are the same thing, genus and subgenus are the same thing. So it does not make any difference in the end. By the way the xx is the page number I do not know what page it was first circumscribed on. Anyway all the extras your adding is just adding its taxonomic history, put that in a decent synonymy not the declaration of which taxon is the type species. You asked for the correct way of writing it under zoological nomenclature it should be simple and only says what it has to. Type species is Aus bus, (original combination + author) according to (secundum) reviewer. Thats it. Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 07:45, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Ok, ICZN 79.4 seems relevant, so I think the answer is Vespertilio vampirus niger BHL; I think the question may come down to what counts as an entry of the "List of Available Names in Zoology", the statement that the name is placed on the List (in the Opinion, same BHL link), or what ZooBank shows [1], in its capacity as "The Official Registry of Zoological Nomenclature". I guess it must be the former, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 12:22, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Upcoming server switch: All wikis will be read-only for a while

Hello friends!

I wish to inform you that the Wikimedia Foundation is about to switch the traffic between its data centers. The server switch will take place a week from now, on September 20 at 14:00 (UTC). A banner will be displayed here on Wikispecies 30 minutes before the operation starts.

Unfortunately, all editing must stop while the switch is made. You will only be able to read, but not edit, all wikis for a short period of time. This includes Wikispecies. Luckily the operation will most likely only take a couple of minutes, but please be aware that any edits you try to save during this time might be lost. More information can be found at Meta-Wiki: Tech/Server switch. As a side effect – although this will not affect most users – please note that GitLab will be unavailable for as much as 90 minutes.

—Best regards, Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 14:00, 13 September 2023 (UTC).

Helping

Is wikispecies trying to convert old pages to three domains or is it just doing both? I wanted to help with this project but my biology course in high school and the following were all in five kingdoms so I was wondering if I could make pages using five kingdoms( Monera, Protista, Animalia, Fungi, Plantae) Ducklan (talk) 16:43, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

@Ducklan: Please see the "Taxon Navigation" section in the top right corner of Wikispecies' Main Page for a hint. :-) Best regards, Tommy Kronkvist (talk)‚ 16:50, 13 September 2023 (UTC).

Herrania balaensis

In the preparation of the taxon Herrania balaensis a conflict of author appears, since Hassler assigns it to Carl Gottlieb Traugott Preuss, in Tropicos and IPNI it appears as Paul Rudolph Preuss and in POWO as Hans Preuss, I would appreciate references to clarify the enigma. Saludos.--MILEPRI (talk) 09:10, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

The taxon was published in Expedition nach Central- und Sudamerika and edited by Paul Rudolph Preuss, so I believe this is the real author.--MILEPRI (talk) 09:27, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

@MILEPRI: If it helps, Expedition nach Central- und Sudamerika is available online at the Internet Archive. Monster Iestyn (talk) 09:35, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

@MILEPRI: and thanks @Monster Iestyn:. Reading the title page and the protologue note on page 15 it is clear that IPNI appear to be correct, in my opinion. Hassler incorrectly assumes Preuss = Carl Gottlieb Traugott Preuss, but IPNI standard format was not used at that time. No idea where POWO got theirs from - I will check. Andyboorman (talk) 11:11, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

19 years ago

wmf:Meetings/September 5, 2004. See also Wikispecies:Charter. Korg (talk) 13:37, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

yes which is why its always important to follow this initial concept. Wikispecies is a bridge to academic biologists and not a wikipedia. It should maintain its difference to wikipedia and hence I tendto argue against the inclusion of information here that should be the domain and mandate of wikipedia, eg common names etc. We are gatherers of scientific data, we do not write pages for general usage. When among colleagues I promote wikispecies as an academic endaevor devoid of the issues that most academics in taxonomy see on the wikipedia pages. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 17:33, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────┘ This point is interesting: "...it should work to strongly support integration with Wikipedia, to help avoid duplication of effort..."

How is duplication of effort avoided? How is Wikispecies integrated with Wikipedia? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:14, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Personally I have always felt that the taxon boxes on Wikipedia in any language could serve well to be based on what we have here. This would keep consistency across languages in particular which is lacking at present. Also we present the scientific evidence of the classification, it would be good to see that used by and referred to by Wikipedia. Biggest issue with duplication is when the pages do not agree. Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 18:29, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

"could serve well" - but do not, with no roadmap available for how that might happen. Meanwhile, they are already pulling in data from Wikidata, with the desired consistency, and with a mechanism for citing scientific evidence. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:13, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing: "Meanwhile, they are already pulling in data from Wikidata..." Are you referring to the English Wikipedia and its taxobox system? If so, is the data really taken from Wikidata? There is an automated taxobox system, but data seems to be stored internally (see for example en:Vulpes; the edit link on the right end of the bar that says "Scientific classification", in the taxobox, points to en:Template:Taxonomy/Vulpes). Note that on Commons, there are two systems (see for example c:Category:Vulpes): the old one, c:Template:Taxonavigation, with data added manually, and c:Template:Wikidata Infobox, with data drawn from Wikidata. Korg (talk) 20:19, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

No, I'm referring to multiple other Wikipedias. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:47, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Korg (talk) 10:15, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

splast a plea.

If you come across a phrase such as; '''Typus:''' {{splast|D|urio|zibethinus}} L., vide J.A.Murray 1774.}} in the name or synonym section please could you edit out the {{splast|Taxon name}} leaving just Durio zibethinus, for example. The splast template adds an nunneccessary and annoying line break. Thanks Andyboorman (talk) 13:32, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Sounds like a job for a bot. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:32, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Yes please! Andyboorman (talk) 16:10, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Agreed, but make the name a link ''[[Durio zibethinus]]'' - MPF (talk) 20:11, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Eponyms of Fernando Höck

A new note on Category talk:Eponyms of Fernando Höck suggests we have these plants wrongly credited. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:52, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Genera Lists

Are various Genera Lists based on letter-number useful, or are they to be considered for expunction? These lists are automatically generated from data in Wikidata and are periodically updated. Mariusm (talk) 15:31, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

If no one objects, i'll delete them. Mariusm (talk) 15:29, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

For creation of those lists see: Wikispecies:Village_Pump/Archive_54#Category_for_discussion:_Category:2_letter_genera_and_other_two. Burmeister (talk) 15:35, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

I don't see any utility, al all!--Hector Bottai (talk) 15:59, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm deleting them... — The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mariusm (talk • contribs) 13:40, 5 October 2023‎.

Introducing Wikispecies at university

I'll be travelling to Bogota later this month and the organizers will give me a few mins to present a lightning talk about Wikispecies to university students. Please give me some high-level ideas on what to introduce and how to encourage new participation in Wikispecies in <5 mins. Thanks. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 19:32, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Recently, there was a talk about Wikispecies at a French-speaking convention. Perhaps Culex can give you some ideas. By the way, the text on your user page isn't very appealing from the outside :-) Korg (talk) 21:24, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Hello. 5 minutes is very short. But here is an idea : I have noticed that one point that raises interest about Wikispecies with researchers is the fact that you can create a page for them (on Wikispecies, and from there on Wikidata) as long as they named at least one species, which is a way to give them some visibility, when obviously they would not be famous enough to have an article on Wikipedia. And, by the way, I was also in Bogota last February, and a had a talk to explain Wikipedia to high school students, it was a great experience. Culex (talk) 09:11, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

things I have been told by my colleagues (ie other taxonomists and paleontologists) is that species is more scientific and evidence based going to the primary sources for each name. Whereas Wikipedia is more prose like (ie encyclopedic, and relies on secondary sources. Although we clearly do not have enough editors we are not reactionary in articlecreation, at least not deliberately. Whereas Wikidata is and Wikipedia the inclusion of articles on taxa requires some discussion and notability for the taxon, or as @Culex: pointed out for the authors. We will attemptto do author pages on all taxa. The more bare bones stuyle of presentation here is far more useful to academia than is wikipedia, which taxonomists are just not interested in all the discussion, they want the data. Just a few points here. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 11:20, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Hello. In august I was invited by Wikimedia Colombia to do a 2 hours on line workshop for a group of around 6~7 hired new editors about Wikispecies. First explained the objectives of WS, the strong points being the simplicity of a taxon page, papers templates (primary sources as said) and author pages and how they link each other. Then I incentived them to focus on a certain group of species, specially those resident in the country demonstrating the inmense potencial for editions by showing hundreds of red links in certain genera i.e insects. Finally spent the rest of the time creating on line a paper template, a taxon page related and an author page related. Hope it helps. Good luck.--Hector Bottai (talk) 11:52, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Readding Catalogue of Life to the Taxonbar?

The Catalogue of Life (CoL) entry was added then removed from the {{Taxonbar}} following these discussions:

• Wikispecies:Village Pump/Archive 61#{{Taxonbar}}
• Wikispecies:Requests for Comment/Archive 3#Taxonbar
• Wikispecies:Village Pump/Archive 61#Taxonbar

It was removed because it was "non-functional", but I'm not sure what that means. Did it have anything to do with data quality? Or was it a technical issue? What do you think about readding CoL to the Taxonbar?

Additionally, are there other databases that are useful and should be added? Korg (talk) 16:56, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

There are 100s of these databases some better than others. The purpose of the GSLWG is the governence and analysis of the checklists. Best to keep CoL in there as its using more checklists than anyone (about 180 at present) and has 2M species in there now. Is Reptile Database in there? Certainly should be as its the go to platform for Reptiles. There are many and its probably overdoing it to list them all. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 18:02, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes, the Reptile Database is in the Taxonbar (here in the configuration module), see for example in the taxon page for Chelodina canni. Thanks to your question a bug has been fixed! Korg (talk) 19:28, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

For a long time (up until December 2021) CoL didn't have stable identifiers. So there was a technical issue. There was also some angst from Wikidata editors about CoL's data quality (Wikidata editors had to deal with it because CoL was used to create hundreds of thousands of articles on taxa on the Swedish, Cebuano and Waray Wikipedias, which then had to have Wikidata items). I would guess that the "non-functional" argument was mostly about the technical issue (which had been recently resolved when that argument was made). See the property proposal d:Wikidata:Property_proposal/Catalogue_of_Life_ID_2 for some links to previous discussions on Wikidata. 192.104.39.2 15:50, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the link! Korg (talk) 19:28, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

One thing that needs to be realised is which databases actually rely on others. For example using turtles as I know them well. The best Checklist for Turtles is the IUCN TTWG Turtle Checklist which is freely available for download, here, I would recommend anyone interested in the group has it. But its not in a database form and is hence a little difficult to use in our environment. However, it is 100% utilised by the Reptile Database, whatever the RD has for turtles is straight out of the TTWG. Therefore RD covers the turtles. Only exceptions is the update schedule. RD is updated every 4 months, TTWG every two years. As such RD gets ahead a little between issues of the TTWG. Both RD and TTWG scored very highly in the GSLWG Metrics for Checklist Governance. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 22:56, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Useful tip: seeing if a link is a redirect or points to a disambiguation page

(I already shared this tip here some years ago, but since I find it useful, I'd like to share it again.)

It is possible to customize the appearance of links that are redirects, and links that point to disambiguation pages. Often it is useful to know the nature of an internal link, for example a redirect in a list of species names may indicate that the name is a synonym and further action might be needed. As another example, in a page for a family, there may be a link to a genus name that in fact points to a disambiguation page, so the link may be corrected to point directly to the intended genus.

See for example the page Apocynaceae (accessed 4 October 2023).

To see the redirects and the links to disambiguation pages, put the following code in your personal stylesheet common.css:

/* Make links to redirects green */
a.mw-redirect { color: #398131; }
a.mw-redirect:visited { color: #71c567; }

/* Display links to disambiguation pages in orange [@author Kaldari] */
a.mw-disambig { color: #f17600; }

(Color #398131 for a link to a redirect page, color #71c567 for a link to a redirect page that you have visited, color #f17600 for a link to a disambiguation page.)

Alternatively, you can use a background color instead of coloring the link:

/* Background color for links to redirects
   Example found here: https://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Bybrunnen/Arkiv_2015-08#Omdirigeringar */
a.mw-redirect { background-color: #c1ffc1; }

/* Background color for links to disambiguation pages
   Example found here: https://hu.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki:Gadget-egyert-szinezo.css */
a.mw-disambig { background-color: #ffe8e8; }

(Color #c1ffc1 for a link to a redirect page, color #ffe8e8 for a link to a disambiguation page.)

For more information, please see en:Help:Link color.

You can change the colors if you want; see en:Web colors or online resources like https://www.w3schools.com/colors/colors_picker.asp. You can also see examples from others: [2], [3].

On an additional note, if you have cool tricks or tips, please feel free to share them! Korg (talk) 22:43, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

I had a similar one of these, but this one is a bit better than what I had. I have found this extraordinarily useful over the years. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 22:51, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Works a treat, very useful. Thanks!! Andyboorman (talk) 15:49, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Linaria rufescens

Linaria rufescens - 1700-1880 - Print - Iconographia Zoologica - Special Collections University of Amsterdam - UBA01 IZ16000221

I have found a reference to a species of bird, Linaria rufescens. Is that a synonym for Acanthis flammea?

The NHM ([4]) gives Carduelis rufescens (Vieillot) as a synonym for Carduelis flammea (Linnaeus).

To further confuse matters, Commons titles the above image as "Linaria rufescens", and categorises it as Acanthis cabaret.

I'm aware there has been some splitting (and lumping?) of species of Redpoll

Who is the author of Linaria rufescens, and in what source? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:50, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Linaria rufescens VIEILL. Mem. Acad. Torin. XXIII, (p. 202.) I833 sorry its what I have. Its Viellot I think as you have. Yes its in the British RedPolls small finches. So Acanthis most likely flammea. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 15:30, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Link to the page: BHL. The author is Vieillot; his name is most probably Louis Pierre Vieillot instead of Louis Jean Pierre Vieillot: [5], [6]. Korg (talk) 16:52, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Hmmm. Q358217 sugegsts one person used both names. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:33, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

I've made the name a redirect. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:33, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing, Faendalimas, and Korg: - it is Acanthis cabaret, not Acanthis flammea, from which (as Linaria borealis, the northern "large cabaret", 3 pages earlier BHL-BHL) Vieillot distinguishes it: "Les oiseleurs de Paris les appellent grand Cabaret pour les distinguer de l'espece suivante qu'ils nomment simplement Cabaret". In the area Vieillot is covering, A. cabaret is a resident breeding species; A. flammea a scarce winter visitor. The NHM synonymy is incorrect, likely a hangover from the time that A. cabaret was treated as a subspecies of A. flammea (which it isn't at the moment by IOC, but is by IUCN and may become again in the future by IOC). I've corrected the redirect - MPF (talk) 01:25, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

I've also made Louis Pierre Vieillot into a redirect to Louis Jean Pierre Vieillot, though I do wonder if the page shouldn't be at the former; no-one seems to know where the 'Jean' came from? Thoughts, please! - MPF (talk) 10:45, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

German Wikipedia moved the page to the former name, after discussion here. The article itself has a footnote commenting on the name. Both are understandable to non-speakers through online translation. I'm inclined to think we should follow suit. [updated] Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:39, 23 September 2023 (UTC).

There is also discussion (in English) on him at birdforum [7], which is related to the German Wikipedia discussion. Monster Iestyn (talk) 12:41, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────┘ Paul H. Oehser

"Louis Jean Pierre Vieillot (1748–1831)" (1948). Auk. 65 (4): 568–576. DOI: 10.2307/4080607

quotes

PREFACE FROM WILLUGHBY SOCIETY REPRINT OF VIEILLOT'S 'ANALYSE...', 1883

"Louis-Pierre (or Louis Jean Pierre) Vieillot, was born, say his biographers, at Yvetôt on the 10th May, 1748.

The 1883 reprint is on BHL. It would be good to track down the (French) sources quoted in that preface.

The mystery deepens. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:09, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

It turns out none of those sources use "Jean", nor even the initial "J", for Vieillot. I'll make the move. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:09, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Done, but there are a lot of publication templates and taxon pages that need updating. Does anyone have a bot that can address these, please? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:22, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

No more pages link to Louis "Jean" Pierre Vieillot. ~700 pages fixed and correctly template referenced. One week work.--Hector Bottai (talk) 12:52, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Pygmy Hippopotamus

Do Hexaprotodon liberiensis and Choeropsis liberiensis relate to the same animal? If so, should they be merged? MSGJ (talk) 21:41, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes, the same, following Boisserie's taxonomy (2005), corrected to Choeropsis liberiensis. Thanks, Burmeister (talk) 23:33, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

The name Hexaprotodon liberiensis should probably be mentioned in Choeropsis liberiensis, but with what qualifier? Something like "previously assigned genus"? Korg (talk) 07:56, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Or perhaps "superseded combination" (like in WoRMS)? Korg (talk) 10:53, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Odd one! It's always been Choeropsis from what I remember, where does Hexaprotodon come from? Would also be good if we could source a better pic of it in the wild, to replace that sordid zoo prisoner pic - MPF (talk) 14:02, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Answering myself; Hexaprotodon is an extinct genus, related to Choeropsis, but not the same as it. Think I've managed to disentangle them at Commons and Wikidata where they had got lumped together. - MPF (talk) 15:44, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

I spent a little bit of time on this, and it was originally described as Hippopotamus. The above two combinations are generic re-assignments, evidently with Choeropsis as presently accepted one. Hexaprotodon should be a redirect in that case, and a mention with citation made for the original description. Neferkheperre (talk) 13:05, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

@Neferkheperre: - not quite, no! Only "Hexaprotodon liberiensis" should be a redirect, to Choeropsis liberiensis (which it already is). The genus Hexaprotodon is a separate genus of several species of extinct hippos from Asia and northeastern Africa, only distantly related to Choeropsis. The only error is that someone at some stage thought, wrongly it turned out, that Choeropsis could be merged with Hexaprotodon. It is worth reading this paper which describes the history of all hippos very clearly. - MPF (talk) 00:47, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Opportunities open for the Affiliations Committee, Ombuds commission, and the Case Review Committee

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

More languages • Please help translate to your language

Hi everyone! The Affiliations Committee (AffCom), Ombuds commission (OC), and the Case Review Committee (CRC) are looking for new members. These volunteer groups provide important structural and oversight support for the community and movement. People are encouraged to nominate themselves or encourage others they feel would contribute to these groups to apply. There is more information about the roles of the groups, the skills needed, and the opportunity to apply on the Meta-wiki page.

On behalf of the Committee Support team,

~ Keegan (WMF) (talk) 16:41, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

External search options

On the search page, there are radio buttons on the right (or below the search box) so you can perform a search using an external search engine. But the search is no longer functional if you select one of them, please see Wikispecies:Village Pump/Archive_63#All external search options are broken.

Have you used these options before? Would they still be useful?

They were added a long time ago in MediaWiki:Common.js (from line 266 down to line 415). On some other wikis, they have been turned into a gadget (enwiki: [8], en:MediaWiki:Gadget-externalsearch.js; frwiki: [9], fr:MediaWiki:Gadget-ExternalSearch.js). Korg (talk) 11:06, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I have never used this option on any WMF wiki in 20 years. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 12:49, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Me neither. Andyboorman (talk) 13:25, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Same. I would suggest removing the part of code "Change Special:Search to use a radio menu" in MediaWiki:Common.js, from line 266 to line 415, as it no longer works. Korg (talk) 11:26, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Orphaned pages update

Does enyone know why Orphaned Pages List does not update anymore? It used to be updated twice a week, but it remains unchanged since 25 September. Mariusm (talk) 13:54, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

I've reported the issue at phab:T348433. Korg (talk) 08:47, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks @Korg:, the page was updated yesteday, after 2 weeks! Mariusm (talk) 14:32, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

You're welcome! It was also updated automatically today. The next update will be in 3 days, according to the interval defined in this file and this comment. Korg (talk) 17:43, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Review and comment on the 2024 Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees selection rules package

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

More languages • Please help translate to your language

Dear all,

Please review and comment on the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees selection rules package from now until 29 October 2023. The selection rules package was based on older versions by the Elections Committee and will be used in the 2024 Board of Trustees selection. Providing your comments now will help them provide a smoother, better Board selection process. More on the Meta-wiki page.

Best,

Katie Chan
Chair of the Elections Committee

01:12, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Kostina, K.F.

We have Klaudia Fedorovna Kostina (to which Klavdia Fedorovna Kostina redirects) and Category:Klavdia Fedorovna Kostina taxa (but not Category:Klaudia Fedorovna Kostina taxa, which was deleted). Which spelling is correct?

Either way, redirects from alternative spellings should not be deleted. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:08, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Klavdia Fedorovna Kostina is a modern correct transliteration of Russian names. IPNI also recently adopted this spelling. Klaudia is not a direct transliteration; looks like Italian. IFPNI Staff (talk) 07:40, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Track renamed images on Commons

Sometimes, when an image is renamed on Commons and the filename is updated on Wikispecies, it may no longer belong in the taxon page or the caption may need to be updated if the specimen has been misidentified. See for example these contributions: [10], [11], and these edits: [12], [13], [14]. It would be interesting to monitor such changes. One possibility would be to use the abuse filter (also known as the edit filter [15]); see en:Wikipedia:Edit filter for more information. If you think it would be useful, we could create a new filter that would add a tag to these changes, so we could find them more easily.

On the Polish Wikipedia, there is filter 46 that adds a tag to edits whose edit summary contains the text ([[c:GR|GR]]): [16].

If you want, please check Special:Contributions/CommonsDelinker, some captions need to be updated. I've encountered another case here: the file has been renamed with the comment "Probably silly ID", but the description has not been changed. Should the second image in the page Brachydesmus superus be removed? Korg (talk) 22:17, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Good call! Quite a few of those CommonsDelinker contributions are mine ;-) Yes, editors re-identifying images absolutely need to remember to correct the pages those files are used in too, something I try to do, though it can be very tedious removing or changing a misidentified image used on 50 different language wikipedia pages! And yes, that second image on Brachydesmus superus should be removed, if its identification is uncertain. - MPF (talk) 01:40, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks! I've removed the second image with likely wrong identification.

I found several image replacements by CommonsDelinker from over 10 years ago that went unnoticed:

• Tockus flavirostris: [17]
• Pomacanthus asfur: [18]
• Panorpa cognata: [19]

There are probably more. Korg (talk) 10:18, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Taxa named after John Ward

I am interested in the English geologist, fossil collector and palaeontologist John Ward (Q123150152) (1837-1906). I have an obituary that says the following and others were named after him:

• Wardichthys (Traquair, 1875)
• Acanthodes wardi (Egerton, 1866)
• Listracanthus wardi (Woodward, 1891)
• Mesolepis wardi (Young, 1866)
• Rhadinichthys wardi

and another that says:

Palaeoniscus wardi was named by Ward (1875)... It was recombined as Rhadinichthys wardi by Woodward (1891)

Who was the latter Ward? And who was Young? What are other taxa named after John Ward? What are the relevant papers for all of the above? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:01, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Found J.A. Young, but no first names; paper is {{Young, 1866}}. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:26, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Hang on, what do you mean no first names? {{Young, 1866}} gives "John Young" as the name of the author, it's right there in the article's first page (and on the abstract online). Monster Iestyn (talk) 00:25, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

As a side note, "Mesolepis wardi" appears to have been first described in this article, so it is the original combination for that species and so it doesn't need parentheses around the authority. Monster Iestyn (talk) 00:31, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Also, where did you get "A." from? I've been trying to look up further information about the John Young of this article, but unfortunately it turns out multiple geologists named John Young existed at the time. Though, I have not seen yet an "A." given in either's names, and neither does it appear in {{Young, 1866}}. Monster Iestyn (talk) 00:38, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

The "A" comes from [20], which is where I found mention of the paper. When I wrote my comment, I had not seen the abstract (and do not have access to the full paper). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:23, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

I have now found the paper on Google Books ([21]), and see that it is credited: "John Young, F.G.S., of the Geological Survey of Great Britain. (Communicated by Professor Huxley.)", which should narrow down the field somewhat. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:50, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Seems to be the subject of this obituary in Br. Med. J. ([22]), who we have as John Young (Q15982602). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:29, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

In {{Young & Kirkby, 1865}}, Kirkby names Chitonellus youngianus after this John Young. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:15, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

As for Palaeoniscus wardi, it's a bit funny but it's actually possible it's an eponym of John Ward himself. See page 239 of:

• Ward, J. 1875. On the organic remains of the Coal Measures of North Staffordshire, their range and distribution, with a catalogue of the fossils and their mode of occurrence. North Staffordshire Naturalists' Field Club. Annual Addresses, Papers, etc.: 184–251. Internet Archive (Full book).

This appears to give credit to "J. Young, M.D." for the name (probably the same as the John Young of {{Young, 1866}} I suspect), but since it's within John Ward's article it's possible by a technicality of the ICZN that Ward himself is the taxon author of the name? Monster Iestyn (talk) 01:24, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Wardichthys paper is {{Traquair, 1875}}. It also described Wardichthys cyclosoma. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:43, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Acanthodes wardi paper is {{Egerton, 1866}}. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:00, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

I've sent a question to the Geological Society of London asking whether they have any data about the "A" in "John A. Young". He passed away quite some time ago, but nonetheless was a Fellow of the Geological Society (i.e. F.G.S.) It's worth a shot. Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 20:26, 24 October 2023 (UTC).

John Young complication

The paper at {{Young, 1874}} (see BHL) is credited as being "By Professor John Young, M.D., and Mr. John Young, Hunterian Museum, University of Glasgow." Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:27, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

This is what I was alluding to earlier: there is a second geologist John Young from the same time as the other one, except he lived from 1823–1900. Some information on the two can be found here, though it only covers their publications on bryozoans. Monster Iestyn (talk) 19:44, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

{{Young, 1866}} is authored by "John Young, M.D., F.G.S.", so I think we're good on that one. The paper to which you refer indicates that Mr John Young was the author of Rhizodopsis in 1866. Table 1 in that paper is a long list of "New bryozoan taxa described by Young and Young or by Mr John Young". Its Appendix 1 is "Publications on bryozoans by Professor John Young and Mr (later Dr) John Young". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:16, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

I think I have now identified the correct authors for each of the authors' papers in our existing templates. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:28, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

John Young disambiguation

How should these two authors be disambiguated? John Young (1823–1900) and John Young (1835–1902)?

There are several other authors named John Young:

• John M. Young (1942–2013) (d:Q79933721) - Pseudomonas agarici
• John W. Young - Francisella opportunistica
• John Zachary Young - Cirroctopoda

There is also John A. Young (d:Q46733032), a biologist at the United States Geological Survey, but it seems that he has not published any new taxon names. Korg (talk) 12:18, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Now at John Young. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:27, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Thank you! Korg (talk) 15:08, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Do we have Broadbill bird experts here?

At WikiJournal of Science, we have two submissions on Broadbill birds: Black-and-red broadbill (Cymbirhynchus macrorhynchos) and Banded broadbill (Eurylaimus javanicus) that have been awaiting second peer review for content and accuracy since last year's summer. Do we have any subject matter experts here who can volunteer to perform peer review on either (or both) submissions? OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 03:38, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Are these intended for wikipedia, or as stand-alone publications? Took a quick look, and would make a couple of general points: (1) names should follow IOC format & orthography (i.e., Black-and-red Broadbill, not black-and-red broadbill) unless this conflicts with en:wp's anti-capitalisation agenda, and (2) spellings should reflect the region's English usage (colour, not color, etc.) - MPF (talk) 09:47, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Both. It's first published as stand-alone, peer-reviewed publication followed by importing the changes from the publication back into the Wikipedia page. We're still at the first stage so we don't check for "colour" vs "color", but IOC format is a valid point. Thanks. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 13:13, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Francisco Manuel Blanco

This is an incorrect page name Francisco Manuel Blanco. This botanist was not named Francisco! Fr. on the title page of his work it means Father, not Francis. It's easy to check on various Wikipedias... Someone messed it up. Abraham (talk) 16:56, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

IPNI, HavardBotanist and 1992 Authors of Plant Names book also have the same error, Wikispecies' page might have been created based on one of those sources I imagine? I would suggest contacting IPNI to correct their record, but for whatever reason they haven't responded to my last two emails correcting names of two other authors (e.g. Heinz von Butin should be just Heinz Butin), I don't know why. Monster Iestyn (talk) 20:21, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

@Abraham: I've now renamed this person's page on Wikispecies to Manuel María Blanco Ramos, and I'm working on correcting all the links now. Unfortunately multiple Wikipedias still use the wrong name for the botanist it appears... Monster Iestyn (talk) 20:42, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

I am not sure this is the totally correct interpretation as the name is also prefixed by P., which will be the abbreviation for Padre the Spanish for Father. It is highly unlikely that his name will be prefixed by both Padre(Spanish) and Father(English). I think it most plausible that we are looking at the author of the flora being Padre Francisco AKA Manuel Blanco in modern parlance. This will need checking. I have emailed IPNI. Andyboorman (talk) 21:13, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

There are a handful of P. Fr. on the cover of Flora de Filipinas.[23] I think it stands for "Padre Fray".[24] Quasi-grip (talk) 21:57, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

@Quasi-grip: I think that Fray means Friar in English. So your idea would mean Father Friar. Not sure, but good spot. Thanks. Andyboorman (talk) 22:16, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

You'll get quite many hits searching the phrase "el muy reverendo padre fray". Quasi-grip (talk) 22:36, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Repeating here my second reply to Andyboorman from my user talk page, for posterity:

Googling for answers on "P. Fr.", a blog post online [25] gives another example of it in use, saying P." means "Padre" (=Father) and "Fr." for "Fray", indicating that he is both priest and friar respectively.

Monster Iestyn (talk) 22:47, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Also I'm just noticing now that the title pages of some volumes of Flora de Filipinas give also "P. Fr. Ignacio Mercado", "P. Fr. Antonio Llanos" and "P. Fr. Andrés Náves" on the same page as "P. Fr. Manuel Blanco": https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/page/59536024 . Therefore, I highly doubt then that "Fr." is "Francisco". (Already noted earlier, whoops) Monster Iestyn (talk) 23:01, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────┘ IPNI is now corrected, see [26], though HavardBotanist is still wrong as of writing. Monster Iestyn (talk) 22:11, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Italics for scientific species names

When a species name is used, it should be in italics, e.g., Homo sapiens. I saw this correctly used in most places. However, in the title of the pages, some names were in italics & some were not. Would it be ok for me to edit the pages I'm interested in so the title that contains the species name is in italics? Sunandshade (talk) 01:18, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Hello Sunandshade: welcome to Wikispecies, and thanks for posing the question. Yes, I think the community would be okay with this. We have discussed it occasionally but I don't recall us reaching any clear consensus, and as you point out it's already used on some pages. Please note that other members in the community may have a different opinion, so please give our fellow wikispecians a chance to have their say here before you take action.

In any case, please remember that italics is only used for taxon ranks at genus level or lower, but not for higher taxa. Hence italics should be used for e.g. the genus Homo, the species Homo erectus and the subspecies Homo erectus pekinensis – but not for any taxa above Homo, such as subtribe Hominina, tribe Hominini, subfamily Homininae or the Hominidae family in the Primates order.

–Best regards, Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 07:48, 13 November 2023 (UTC).

Thanks for your input. I agree, italics only for genus & lower. And I know that if "subsp." is in the name, that is NOT in italics. I know everyone wants to be professional on this website so it's great you support using italics as specified by the naming standards. When some are standard & some are italics, it detracts from the professionalism. I'll wait a bit before making any changes. Sunandshade (talk) 23:03, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Hello @Tommy Kronkvist, For the italics it depends of the domain. For bacteria, italics are mandatory also for ranks higher than genus according to the rules of the Nomenclatural code of Prokaryotes. Regards. GF38storic (talk) 20:28, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the info about bacteria, although I'll just be working with mammals. Sunandshade (talk) 20:53, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

No one said this was a bad idea so I decided to go for it. Turns out it's harder than I thought. I can't find where to change the title of the page to italics. I tried "Prolagus" in the source editor. It wasn't clear where the title was specified so I changed the 1st place where I saw the name. That did not work & seemed to mess up the template so I did an undo. I looked at Homo sapiens & saw the title was in italics so looked at the source code but could not figure out what made it italics. Using source editor, how do I change the name of the page to italics? Thanks. Sunandshade (talk) 01:06, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

@Sunandshade: See the taxonavigation template Template:Homo, which uses the code {{DISPLAYTITLE:{{Taxit|{{BASEPAGENAME}}}}|noreplace}} to apply italics to the genus page and all species pages transcluding it. Monster Iestyn (talk) 01:20, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

To answer your question properly though, you probably want to find the taxonavigation template that goes with each genus page, which should have the same name as it (e.g. Template:Homo for Homo as already stated, or Template:Felis for Felis), and add that code to the template. The only problem may be pages with disambiguation (which I ran into myself earlier this year), but that can be worked around, for instance see Olfersia (Dryopteridaceae). Monster Iestyn (talk) 01:35, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the info, but this is getting too complicated for me. I'm new here & have a lot to learn so I'll stick with easier edits for now. Maybe I'll figure out templates later. I appreciate the help. Sunandshade (talk) 01:44, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Ah, apologies for making it sound complicated then! Monster Iestyn (talk) 02:08, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

┌──────────┘ Hello GF38storic: You're of course right – I always forget that about the bacteria. Thank you for the reminder! Best regards, Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 21:44, 14 November 2023 (UTC).

Ah ah ah, we always want to do differently from the others. Best regards. GF38storic (talk) 21:55, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Oskar T. Sandahl

Please see Talk:Oskar T. Sandahl, where a question of veracity has been raised. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:09, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:48, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Template COL

Please note the template

• Catalogue of Life: 2023 Annual Checklist

for example, only goes to 404. Andyboorman (talk) 15:52, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Your wiki text is {{COL|2020|Sep|28}} which gives a link pointing to http://www.catalogueoflife.org/annual-checklist/2022/search/all/key/Village+Pump - what was intended? ({{COL}} for convenience) Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:29, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

┌────────────────────┘

On further checking, none of :

• http://www.catalogueoflife.org/annual-checklist/2022/search/all/key/Acacia+multispicata
• http://www.catalogueoflife.org/annual-checklist/2021/search/all/key/Acacia+multispicata
• http://www.catalogueoflife.org/annual-checklist/2020/search/all/key/Acacia+multispicata

(note changing year parameter) work, but:

• http://www.catalogueoflife.org/annual-checklist/2019/search/all/key/Acacia+multispicata

does. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:43, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. The template was intended to search for occurrence of the taxon page name in the catalogue of life. Does this help? Andyboorman (talk) 18:28, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Just spotted that it was intended to point to the same information as {{Catol-Hassler}}, which actually works off a taxon name page, for example here on Bartsia. It seems that we could just do a bot replacement of COL with Catol-Hassler. Thoughts? Andyboorman (talk) 18:37, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Or we could just change {{COL}} to point to, for example, https://www.catalogueoflife.org/data/search?q=Acacia+multispicata? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:07, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

As COL was created by Thorpe and Catol-Hassler by myself, I am happy either way. Does anybody else have an opinion? Andyboorman (talk) 19:46, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Catol-Hassler is botany exclusive, COL can be used in zoology too, so i do not agree with replacement of COL with Catol-Hassler. The use of COL in zoology pages is small but have some pages with. Burmeister (talk) 19:58, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

┌────────────┘ As suggested by Andy here, I've changed the URL in Template:CoL/sandbox. You can test the change in taxon pages by replacing {{COL}} with {{COL/sandbox}}. As a side note, Template:CoL is fully protected: [27]. I would suggest reducing the protection level (most other external link templates are not protected). Korg (talk) 12:54, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

{{CoL}} is used on over two thousand pages. On this project, that counts as high use. I'd say any template used that much, here, should be fully protected. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:26, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Does fully protecting something that has been non-functional for months make sense? It seems that it has been recently added robotically without a manual check. Andyboorman (talk) 20:55, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia Library and Google Scholar

Please note by using the procedures below editors can add a Wikipedia Library link via Google Scholar to their reference templates, as well as for their research. Wikipedia Library.

Hope this helps. Andyboorman (talk) 13:12, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Move page on es.WP

Does anyone here have the ability to move pages on Spanish Wikipedia? The page w:es:Preissia quadrata needs to be moved to Marchantia quadrata. I have already edited the text of the page, but do not have permissions to rename/move pages there. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:50, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

@EncycloPetey:  Done. I also edited the corresponding Wikidata items Q2108505 (Preissia quadrata) and Q38318377 (Marchantia quadrata) to reflect the page move. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 05:52, 23 November 2023 (UTC).

Template HOM

I believe some editors have been warned off using {{HOM}}. I use it extensively in preference to === Homonyms === or its variants and replace this with the template. Can we please discuss this before we have any edit problems. Thanks Andyboorman (talk) 07:57, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

I think the homonyms are not part of the name section; they are synonyms of other taxa. So == Homonyms == is a chapter of its own, and {{HOM}} is a shortcut of it which should normally be substed; it is not equivalent to {{BA}}, {{REP}}, {{HOT}} and {{HET}}. --RLJ (talk) 10:07, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Agree –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 11:05, 29 October 2023 (UTC).

Agree –Mariusm (talk) 11:45, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Agree That is the way I use the template, as a section on its own at just before the references or nadi if that has been added. I prefer not to use == Homonyms ==. Andyboorman (talk) 13:12, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

I agree as well. ==={{int:Synonyms}}=== is a subsection (a "level three" heading) of the =={{int:Name}}== section (a "level two" heading). Template:HOM contains the code =={{int:Homonyms}}== (see [28]): it is a section at the same level as the Name section. I also think it should be substed. Perhaps the code =={{int:Homonyms}}== could be added in MediaWiki:Edittools.

I notice that its order varies: in Genista, it is after the Name section, and before the Distribution section; in Sida ulmifolia, it is after the Distribution section. Korg (talk) 13:22, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes we need advice and/or consensus as to where to place homonyms for consistency, please. Andyboorman (talk) 14:18, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Agree for the HOM template. Homonyms should be a chapter if its own, I prefer it after the name section. I support also its addition to the MediaWiki:Edittools. --Thiotrix (talk) 16:23, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Agree I put any homonyms into ==={{int:Synonymy}}=== section, labeled as such. Neferkheperre (talk) 15:06, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Agree If needed, I usually put ==={{int:Homonyms}}=== just before References sections; I also use quite frequently Distribution section which plays the role of closing "main" contents, i.e. as the above-mentioned example of Sida ulmifolia. --Eryk Kij (talk) 17:55, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Agree --MILEPRI (talk) 16:20, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Only used it once myself (on Heyderia, if anyone wants to change it there!). I found it a bit 'heavy', thinking it would be better as a level 3 header, like Synonyms, rather than level 2? - MPF (talk) 01:09, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

​I agree that the homonym section looks a bit too prominent when presented as a level 2 header. However, the homonyms really shouldn't be a subsection (i.e. level 3) of the "Name" section, since (contrary to synonyms) they're not actually taxonomically related to the taxon name on that taxon page. As RLJ points out, they are synonyms of other taxa. I think that's more important than how the page looks; even if I agree with you that the current layout is... less than beautiful. Luckily the homonyms aren't that plentiful: the {{HOM}} template is currently transcluded to 535 different taxon pages.
–Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 05:24, 23 November 2023 (UTC).

• See also #{{Sp}} below - MPF (talk) 12:09, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

An opinion for a species epithet - please

Whilst going through a recent re-circumscription of Calothecinae (Poaceae) I have come across a possible problem with a species of the recently resurrected Microbriza, namely Microbriza poimorpha or is it Microbriza poomorpha? The epithet is based upon the basionym Panicum poaemorphum J.Presl in C.Presl, Reliq. Haenk. 1(4–5): 310. (1830)[29] to use the original spelling. IPNI uses poomorpha, but POWO uses poimorpha]. Hassler follows POWO, but Tropicos IPNI. The original poaemorphum epithet is a correctable error under ICN Art 60, as it is a compounded term - Art 60.10 and 60G, I assume the compound being po(ae)morphum. Before I contact Govaerts, IPNI and so on, has anybody here got any thoughts? Thanks Andyboorman (talk) 14:10, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes, you are quite correct that the original spelling is a correctable error in accord with Art. 60 of ICN. poimorpha is a correct spelling by removing -ae-; poomorpha is a mistake. Anna Pavlova IFPNI Staff (talk) 08:09, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

@IFPNI Staff: Thanks. I thought that would be the case. Do you think IPNI will update during their next round? Andyboorman (talk) 09:15, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes, of course, but we need to notify them because of numerous similar cases - they did not normally update/correct previously incorporated old retro data. IFPNI Staff (talk) 21:36, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

@IFPNI Staff: I have sent IPNI an email and await progress. Thanks Andyboorman (talk) 08:06, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

@IFPNI Staff: I have heard back from both Kew and IPNI. Apparently this was a bit tricky with Art 60/60.1 and examples not being as helpful as it should could been.

I quote from IPNI: "The IPNI team has met to discuss, including Rafael (Govaerts), and communicated with Werner Greuter. The connecting vowel ‘o’ appears to be correct with the Latin ‘Po(ae)’ and Greek ‘morphus’, though the Code is hardly clear with respect to joining Latin and Greek words. A note has been added to the basionym, and various issues with related names cleaned up. The changes should appear online in a day or so."

The correct name is Microbriza poomorpha and POWO will correct in due course. In addition, this case will be bought forward to congress with a view to it being added to the clarifying examples. Hope this helps Andyboorman (talk) 14:14, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Dear colleague, thank you for this information. Frankly speaking, I did not hear arguments in favour of poomorpha construction. In contrast, in botany we have the established custom to use poiformis (Poa poiformis, Agrostis poiformis, etc. The modern edition of the ICN does not resolve explicitly the preference of the connecting vowels 'o' or 'i', especially in the case when the two stems of 'po- i -morphus' are Latin and Greek. In such a situation, I would prefer to follow the once established custom of spelling in botany, i.e. poiformis (poimorphus). IFPNI Staff (talk) 19:15, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

@IFPNI Staff: Hello. You need to have this discussion with ICN, IPNI and others involved in botanical conventions. It is interesting but beyond the scope of this project to make your suggested changes. In addition, the mixing or Greek and Latin is annoying but too well established to blanket change, in my opinion. Thank you Andyboorman (talk) 19:29, 11 December 2023 (UTC) Andyboorman (talk) 19:29, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

New images of Protists

Please see and make use of images in c:Category:Openly available illustrations as tools to describe eukaryotic microbial diversity. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:54, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Good work – thanks! Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 09:26, 29 November 2023 (UTC).

Phonognathinae = Zygiellinae?

Please have a look at Talk:Phonognathinae where there is a discussion regarding the differences between the arachnidial subfamilies Phonognathinae and Zygiellinae (if any). Note that there are five genera listed on each of the subfamilies' taxon pages: four of them are identical. My guess is that one of the subfamily taxon names is a synonym (probably Zygiellinae), but I'm not specialized in Arachnida. Regards, Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 07:31, 28 November 2023 (UTC).

Zygiellinae Wunderlich 2004 is a junior synonym of Phonognathinae Simon, 1894 (sensu Kallal et al. 2020) [or of Phonognathidae Simon, 1894 (sensu Kuntner et al. 2023)]. Mariusm (talk) 12:33, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

New template

I've recently created the {{Workpage}} template which some of you may find useful for user sandboxes and such. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 08:53, 30 November 2023 (UTC).

Thanks I have already started to use it, for example - Sinapis arvensis. A taxon from the mustard group, which are under review by Brassicaceae specialists . Andyboorman (talk) 16:14, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

{{Sp}}

Hello, I have always thought that {{sp|O|phiura|verrucosa Studer|verrucosa}} would have produce → O. verrucosa however it gives → O. verrucosa Studer (verrucosa) –. Am I wrong or has it changed? Christian Ferrer (talk) 05:44, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm afraid you're wrong: the {{Sp}} template hasn't changed since March 2020, and as you say {{sp|O|phiura|verrucosa Studer|verrucosa}} will be rendered as "O. verrucosa Studer (verrucosa) –".

Currently I don't think there is a way to use the {{Sp}} template to render the Ophiura verrucosa Studer link as "O. verrucosa". Instead you will simply have to use plain wiki code: ''[[Ophiura verrucosa Studer|O. verrucosa]]''

Kind regards, Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 10:37, 4 December 2023 (UTC).

I thought we used only binomials for species names? What code allows/accepts trinomials? Andyboorman (talk) 11:32, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Ok fine, thanks you. Christian Ferrer (talk) 11:35, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

@Andyboorman: You're right, however here "Studer" is an author name so it's not a trinomial, as such. In either case the page names should be sorted out: please see the Ophiura verrucosa disambiguation page for details. In this particular case there's some sort of synonymy at play: both species are echinoderms within the same order, but in different families. Unfortunately I haven't got access to the proper literature. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 14:44, 4 December 2023 (UTC).

In a case like this, the headline name should be at the valid species page, with the invalid homonyms moved to a disambiguation page. So, I'd say:

• Move the current Ophiura verrucosa list of homonyms page to Ophiura verrucosa (disambiguation).
• Then delete the redirect, and move Ophiura verrucosa Studer (the valid name) to Ophiura verrucosa.

With that, the problem should be resolved. The only cases where problems can still occur is where there are two valid homonyms, such as Agathis montana (one a plant, the other an animal). - MPF (talk) 17:52, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Agathis montana was the one I was working on. Solution is not perfect but OK Andyboorman (talk) 09:16, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Interesting solution, thanks you. Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:56, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks! Just remembered, the Ophiura verrucosa page also needs a link to the homonyms page, something like "For homonyms, see Ophiura verrucosa (disambiguation)" - MPF (talk) 21:02, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Ok, but in a worry of internationalization I used {{See also}}, but there is potentially also {{Distinguish}}. Christian Ferrer (talk) 06:24, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

That looks fine to me, and yes, the internationalisation is good (that's why I said 'something like', not expecting an exact same wording :-)

For another option, see the ==Template HOM== section currently at the top of this page (I just added a note to it so it wouldn't disappear into the archives); that might perhaps be better. - MPF (talk) 12:14, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Which repository is "LTB"?

Does anyone know which type repository the abbreviation "LTB" stands for? Surely it's not the London Tourist Board... My guess is that it is (or has been) somehow related to the National Herbarium of Victoria (MEL) but I can't seem to find any valid sources. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 06:58, 8 December 2023 (UTC). MEL

According to en:List of herbaria in Oceania and Index Herbariorum: La Trobe University [30]. Korg (talk) 08:18, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

​Thank you! I've now created the LTB page, as well as the accompanying Category:LTB. I've also updated the Alison Kellow author page, mentioning her as the curator of the herbarium. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 15:21, 9 December 2023 (UTC).

Picumnus dorbygnianus should be dorbignyanus

It seems to me the entry for the bird

• Picumnus dorbygnianus

should be

• Picumnus dorbignyanus

As in the four world bird lists IOC 13.2, Clements v2023, H&M 4.1, HBW 7, and SACC version 20231129

Peters' Checklist has it

• Picumnus cirratus d’orbygnianus Lafresnaye
• Picumnus d’Orbygnianus Lafresnaye, Rev. Zool., 1845, p. 7.

The original Lafresnaye:

• P. d'Orbignyanus Nob. ...

Kweetal nl (talk) 12:18, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes this is correct page needs to be moved. Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 14:08, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Done - MPF (talk) 17:40, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

References

On the future of structured discussions

Hello everyone,

As you may already know, the Wikimedia Foundation is working to change the way IP editing is handled: IP Editing: Enhancing Privacy and Mitigating Abuse . An unregistered temporary editor account will be a new type of user account. This requires changing the way we contribute to the functionality of the wiki.

This work spans all functions and presents some challenges. The case of Structured Discussion (referred to as SD or Flow in English) is one of them. This extension is used in some wiki projects, including yours. Flow was a complex and never fully completed piece of software that did not fit well into the MediaWiki architecture and was prone to numerous technical errors.

We considered several options for appropriate SD: a full application; or a partial adjustment where temporary accounts could respond but not create new conversations. All of these options require a lot of time and effort for short-term benefits. Additionally, the Wikimedia Foundation's long-term plan is to remove SD from the wiki project - primarily due to maintenance costs. Therefore, we tend to avoid applying SD to temporary accounts.

We're taking the opportunity to work on temporary accounts to ask your community about the future of SD.

Discussion Tool is a replacement for SD. This is the default discussion system for all wiki projects. This allows anyone to start, reply to, or subscribe to a conversation. This provides a visual experience for conversations based on the wiki project text and covers most of the functionality provided by structured discussions .

The purpose of this conversation is to answer your questions about the structured discussion archive.

The idea is to proceed in two stages:

1. Discussion pages using SD are archived as subpages. This will be replaced by the classic discussion page. This way, when we proceed to step 2, the most active page is ready.
2. SD will be removed from the wiki project. Existing pages (including archive pages) will be converted to a format that is not yet defined.

In your wiki project, any user can turn on structured discussions as a beta feature. This option will be removed soon .

We hope to reach an agreement that covers your questions and comments, and that removing structured discussions will apply to all users. The goal is to archive structured discussion-based pages before they are removed from the wiki project.

If you use structured discussions on your discussion page, we encourage you to consider switching to the discussion page's default format. You can do this by deselecting the option in the Beta feature.

For users who have structured discussions turned on but are no longer editing, the conversion will be completed (along with all remaining pages) at a later date, but a date has not yet been determined.

What we expect from you

Schedule to share your answers at the end of the discussion on December 20:

1. Are the reasons for archiving structured discussions clear?
2. Are the two steps for archiving and offloading structured discussions outlined above clear?
3. If so, what is a reasonable time frame for archiving pages for uninstallation? Currently, there are no plans to uninstall from our end (even though Season 2 is mentioned in 2024), as we are waiting for these conversations on multiple wiki projects to conclude.
4. In your opinion, as we continue to offload structured discussions, what format should the pages currently using SD be converted to?

If you need clarification, you are welcome to ask me any questions! I've subscribed to this section and I'll try to answer as soon as possible.

Trizek (WMF) (talk) 18:34, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

MilliBase taxon ID: Wikidata property proposal

I have just proposed a Wikidata property for IDs in the MilliBase database, with a view to including the IDs in {{Taxonbar}}; please make your views known on the linked page.

If there are similar databases for other classes (or other ranks), for which we don't yet have a Wikidata property, let me know and I'll be happy to draft proposals for them, too. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:49, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

IJSEM

I'm curious how the collaboration established. Prokaryotes are undergoing a major basal revision and IJSEM appears to be the key player. e.g. [31]. Any thoughts, @OhanaUnited: or others — The preceding unsigned comment was added by Adickey7 (talk • contribs) 12:44, 20 December 2023‎.

IJSEM isn't just a key player. It is the only player. The International Code of Nomenclature of Prokaryotes specifies that names can only be validly published in IJSEM. The code does state that another journal could be designated as an additional venue for valid publication, but no other journal has been designated. IJSEM regularly publishes lists validating names that have been published elsewhere. Plantdrew (talk) 16:56, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Duplicate

These two seem to be the same person:

• Philip Arthur Silverstone
• Philip Arthur Silverstone-Sopkin

A herpetologist turned botanist who at some point added his mothers maiden name to his surname:

• https://plants.jstor.org/stable/10.5555/al.ap.person.bm000011753
• https://www.ipni.org/a/39816-1

--Quasi-grip (talk) 08:52, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. Merged. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:46, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

---

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.