Wikispecies:Village Pump/Archive 67

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.

Cycadales

Can anybody find any details of how to find the protologues and publication details for the subfamilies Diooideae, Zamioideae and other similar poorly detailed taxa in Cycadales? Andyboorman (talk) 10:37, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps try contacting the editors of the World Cycad List? They don't detail any suprageneric names at all on their website or latest printed list, but might still have the details available - MPF (talk) 17:35, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks I will try that. Andyboorman (talk) 19:21, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly of some relevance: from "General Traits of the Cycadales" L. A. S. JOHNSON and K. L. WILSON in Kramer, Karl Ulrich; Green, P. S. (1990). Pteridophytes and Gymnosperms (chapter doi: 10.1007/978-3-662-02604-5_63):

Stevenson (1985) has briefly outlined a proposed reclassification of the cycads, in which he recognizes two suborders, Stangeriineae (with two unigeneric families Stangeriaceae and Boweniaceae) and Cycadineae (Cycadaceae and Zamiaceae). In Zamiaceae, he recognizes two subfamilies. Diooideae (Dioon) and Zamioideae (the other genera, divided between two tribes, Zamieae and Encephalarteae). Evaluation of this proposal phylogenetically will await formal publication.

I cannot see the listing for the cited Stevenson (1985) ref in the copy I can access, it sounds a bit like it might be unpublished treatment as at 1990?? Tony 1212 (talk) 17:29, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I got this far, but unfortunately the best I can get from Johnson and Yang is Diooideae Pilg. (1926). So there is a protologue somewhere, but it is a bit of a challenge chasing it down. I have found the relevant treatments for the other subfamily and tribes and have entered them on their taxon pages; Zamioideae Dioeae, Bowenieae, Encephalarteae and Zamieae. I have also given the details to IPNI, "releases are requested" and are pending. Thanks Andyboorman (talk) 19:21, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I now have traced the publication for Diooideae and it is Pilger J. 1926. in H.G.A. Engler & K.A.E. Prantl Natürlichen Pflanzenfamilien..., ed. 2, 13: 73. and it was published as Dioonoideae. Apparently, Pilger wrote an update of Cycadales/Cycadaceae in this publication in which he described the subfamily and it also seems that he also described Zamioideae in this treatment. Can I find a copy? Of course not, if only life was that easy! It is not in BHL, Any help gratefully received? Andyboorman (talk) 14:50, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal for JSTOR Global Plants type specimen ID property on Wikidata

Wikispecies has over ten thousand links to JSTOR World Plants, each containing the ID of a type specimen. For example, from Isoetes alcalophila, we link to https://plants.jstor.org/stable/10.5555/al.ap.specimen.lil001950, containing the ID lil001950

I have just published a proposal for a Wikidata property, to allow the import over 1.3 million such IDs, and to create Wikidata items for the individual specimens - linked, of course, to the item about the relevant taxon.

This will allow us, should we choose to, to include a template on a taxon page here, to display data about the type specimen (the collector, the date and location of its collection, and its current whereabouts, and perhaps an image).

The proposal is at d:Wikidata:Property proposal/JSTOR Global Plants type specimen ID. Please use that page to express your support, or make any comments or suggestions for improvement. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:43, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(commenting here in my capacity as a Wikidata administrator, not as a Wikispecies administrators) To avoid the appearance of canvasing, it should also be noted that you can reply to the discussion in opposition to the property proposal, not just in support of it. Ideally, any position you take should have a reason provided with it. Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 19:03, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd oppose - it's paywalled data, not publicly accessible - MPF (talk) 12:04, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've asked you in that discussion whether you can point to a policy requiring Wikidata properties for identifiers to have open-access targets. It appears you cannot. I've also pointed out there that the data is not paywalled (the paywall is for high res images and the API). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:57, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We don't need to have the debate both here and on the property proposal --DannyS712 (talk) 00:12, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The property has been created, as P12464, "JSTOR Global Plants type specimen ID". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:54, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

comb. ined.

comb. ined. From our Glossary; (combinatio inedita). A combination that appears not to have been validly published or whose publication is uncertain under one or more articles under ICBN. See also nom. ined.

The question up for discussion is; Should comb. ined. taxon pages be permitted on WS? The possible rationale is that as synonymies change and are updated, occasionally replacement names appear in some of our sources as comb. ined. or ambiguous synonyms and often unplaced names in POWO. If a taxon page already exists for the newly created synonym, it may be left with taxonomic problems or these may appear on the expanded taxon, depending on editors' choices. Please see Cenchrus and Pennisetum, as an example. I will throw this open to the Community. Thanks and best regards. Andyboorman (talk) 16:58, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aspalatia, Deprecated

Please see Talk:Aspalatia#‎Deprecated regarding this marine plant genus. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:43, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tarchia gigantea & T. tumanovae

Please see Talk:Tarchia gigantea regarding these dinosaurs. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:48, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cumulopuntia berteroi valid?

Please see Talk:Cumulopuntia berteroi regarding this cactus. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:50, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Contents" box

Really a simple question rather than a community concern. On a couple of taxa which i've recently edited, they've got a menu like box "contents" listing the headers. E.g. https://species.wikimedia.org/wiki/Cladonychiidae I'm not sure what's causing it to appear, i see nothing internally on the taxon page - is it that the taxon name is listed somewhere else? A similar box appears on author pages and help pages where it seems useful - but i think it's undesirable on taxon pages? I'd like to know what's generating it, or pointers to info on it's usage. — The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sjl197 (talk • contribs) 00:09, 3 March 2024‎.

It usually appears where there is a taxonav loop somewhere on the Taxonavigation tree. Andyboorman (talk) 12:43, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have fixed it by removing taxonav from the Travuniidae and other templates. The taxonav appears on {{Taxonav|Insidiatores}} and was not needed elsewhere (edited) Andyboorman (talk) 12:46, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ints

Should we create a category for the "Int" templates? Like Template:Int Country, Template:Int Overview of, Template:Int Synonym etc. It's a bit annoying having to search which ones exist. Trooper57 (talk) 04:01, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a reason these exist at all instead of just being a part of Wikispecies:Localization? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:05, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Koavf A number of those templates were created a few years ago by Caftaric, who is no longer active on Wikispecies. Monster Iestyn (talk) 18:22, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Report of the U4C Charter ratification and U4C Call for Candidates now available

You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki. Please help translate to your language

Hello all,

I am writing to you today with two important pieces of information. First, the report of the comments from the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) Charter ratification is now available. Secondly, the call for candidates for the U4C is open now through April 1, 2024.

The Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is a global group dedicated to providing an equitable and consistent implementation of the UCoC. Community members are invited to submit their applications for the U4C. For more information and the responsibilities of the U4C, please review the U4C Charter.

Per the charter, there are 16 seats on the U4C: eight community-at-large seats and eight regional seats to ensure the U4C represents the diversity of the movement.

Read more and submit your application on Meta-wiki.

On behalf of the UCoC project team,

RamzyM (WMF) 16:24, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimedia Canada survey

Hi! Wikimedia Canada invites contributors living in Canada to take part in our 2024 Community Survey. The survey takes approximately five minutes to complete and closes on March 31, 2024. It is available in both French and English. To learn more, please visit the survey project page on Meta. --Chelsea Chiovelli (WMCA) (talk) 00:03, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FYI: What Is a Species, Anyway?

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/19/science/what-is-a-species.html —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:43, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ahh Carl Zimmer he is a great writer, he interviewed me years ago when my redescription of Elseya lavarackorum declared it a living fossil. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 02:33, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That article was a good read! OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 15:50, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New sources at the Wikipedia Library

Just want to draw your attention that Taylor & Francis and Routledge journals are now available for free through The Wikipedia Library. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 15:33, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Request advice on sharing variety information

I have a colleague who develops

https://wikipapa.org/inicio

which is a wiki organizing data about varieties of potato. We would like to share information where appropriate, and I want to ask if anyone has ideas on whether and how to post anything here in Wikispecies.

I found the entry for potato - Solanum tuberosum. What more can be done? To what extent does Wikispecies take variety information? What sort of data or information is of interest? Bluerasberry (talk) 16:45, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In general, WS only deals with natural varieties or those that are found in the wild, but were possibly originally cultigens. However, Wikipedia could be a good place for an enhanced list of cultivars. Andyboorman (talk) 18:10, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, will check options at both Wikipedia and Wikidata. Bluerasberry (talk) 20:11, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

One thing that would be good, is if you can get some good photos of natural wild Solanum tuberosum and add them to Commons; good photos of the wild originators of crop species are in very short supply, and would definitely be preferred for illustrating the Solanum tuberosum page here - MPF (talk) 20:24, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bluerasberry: I would consider proposing a Wikidata property for "WikIPapa ID" on that project, then doing an import there, probably through Mix'n'Match. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:28, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I will consider that approach. Bluerasberry (talk) 21:08, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Scientists CT scanned thousands of natural history specimens, which you can access for free

https://www.floridamuseum.ufl.edu/science/scientists-ct-scanned-thousands-of-natural-history-specimens-which-you-can-access-for-free/ —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:23, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees 2024 Selection

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

More languages • Please help translate to your language

Dear all,

This year, the term of 4 (four) Community- and Affiliate-selected Trustees on the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees will come to an end [1]. The Board invites the whole movement to participate in this year’s selection process and vote to fill those seats.

The Elections Committee will oversee this process with support from Foundation staff [2]. The Board Governance Committee created a Board Selection Working Group from Trustees who cannot be candidates in the 2024 community- and affiliate-selected trustee selection process composed of Dariusz Jemielniak, Nataliia Tymkiv, Esra'a Al Shafei, Kathy Collins, and Shani Evenstein Sigalov [3]. The group is tasked with providing Board oversight for the 2024 trustee selection process, and for keeping the Board informed. More details on the roles of the Elections Committee, Board, and staff are here [4].

Here are the key planned dates:

May 2024: Call for candidates and call for questions
June 2024: Affiliates vote to shortlist 12 candidates (no shortlisting if 15 or less candidates apply) [5]
June-August 2024: Campaign period
End of August / beginning of September 2024: Two-week community voting period
October–November 2024: Background check of selected candidates
Board's Meeting in December 2024: New trustees seated

Learn more about the 2024 selection process - including the detailed timeline, the candidacy process, the campaign rules, and the voter eligibility criteria - on this Meta-wiki page, and make your plan.

Election Volunteers

Another way to be involved with the 2024 selection process is to be an Election Volunteer. Election Volunteers are a bridge between the Elections Committee and their respective community. They help ensure their community is represented and mobilize them to vote. Learn more about the program and how to join on this Meta-wiki page.

Best regards,

Dariusz Jemielniak (Governance Committee Chair, Board Selection Working Group)

[1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:MyLanguage/Wikimedia_Foundation_elections/2021/Results#Elected

[2] https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/Committee:Elections_Committee_Charter

[3] https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/Minutes:2023-08-15#Governance_Committee

[4] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_elections_committee/Roles

[5] Even though the ideal number is 12 candidates for 4 open seats, the shortlisting process will be triggered if there are more than 15 candidates because the 1-3 candidates that are removed might feel ostracized and it would be a lot of work for affiliates to carry out the shortlisting process to only eliminate 1-3 candidates from the candidate list.

MPossoupe_(WMF)19:56, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Move when page exists

Is there such a thing as "technical move requests" or the like here on Wikispecies? I'd like to move a currently active taxon page (with a certain spelling of a species) into another existing page (i.e. named with a variant spelling of the species), the latter being a simple redirect back towards that first "currently active taxon page". I disagree with the direction of the redirect, in other words i want to reverse the redirect. What's the best way? The currently active taxon page has a bulk of annotations history that would be lost if copy-page used to simply move the information directly. Perhaps e.g. first request a deletion of the redirect - then just move the currently active taxon page into a recreated version of that. Sjl197 (talk) 17:08, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Try to move to the exact redirect name. It will automatically work. It is possible that first make a question like "do you want to delete the redirect? Hector Bottai (talk) 17:20, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Doesn't that only work if you're an admin? Regular users can't overwrite redirects by page moves as far as I was aware.~~ Monster Iestyn (talk) 17:41, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake, you CAN move to an existing redirect's title if there is only one edit in the redirect's history. But if there is more than one edit there, then you cannot do this as a regular user. — The preceding unsigned comment was added by Monster Iestyn (talk • contribs) 8:00, 8 March 2024.

Thanks @Monster Iestyn: didn't know that. @Sjl197: let me know if you need help to move.--Hector Bottai (talk) 21:26, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sjl197: This doesn't happen often enough on this project to need a distinct process. just post your request here with the names involved. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:25, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear all, thanks for replies. @Monster Iestyn: @Hector Bottai: @Andy Mabbett:. Well, the redirect page had extra later edits in - caused only by me on the same day when trying to decide how this might be done! It sounds like that then stopped me swapping them myself.

The active page is Agonopterix alstromeriana

The redirect is Agonopterix alstroemeriana

The taxon page is too full of complexity under the synonym section, which was me getting confused over a chaotic history of respellings, before deciding prevailing usage looks like it would easily overrule anything else! Sjl197 (talk) 20:07, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Eponyms of Johannes Michael Friedrich Adams

Please see Category talk:Eponyms of Johannes Michael Friedrich Adams. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:26, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also Category talk:Eponyms of Elizabeth Acton and Category talk:Eponyms of Anthony Curtiss. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:51, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I've emptied Eponyms of Elizabeth Acton; the others will need a bit more work - MPF (talk) 22:54, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Eponyms of Anthony Curtiss emptied. - MPF (talk) 00:38, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Authority control

Should we use {{Authority control}} in Reference templates? They are all conected to Wikidata items after all. Trooper57 (talk) 18:08, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Personaly I would say yes, as I already use it also in that way, e.g. {{Fisher, 1913}}. For info if it is needed we can potentially add more identifiers displayed in that template. Christian Ferrer (talk) 19:13, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It seems quite reasonable, some reference templates are much complex and significant that some pages. Do we need more opinions, or just proceed?--Hector Bottai (talk) 10:24, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, please proceed. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 20:36, 19 March 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Amphibian Species of the World - Taxonbar

Hello, why do the taxonbar links to Amphibian Species of the World (ASW) not work here on Wikispecies while they do on, say, enwiki; eg, Bufo? Thank you, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 10:12, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved. It turns out that in the Internet addresses of some external IDs the "/" slashes are automatically encoded into "%%2F" (instead of the proper "%2F"). In those instances the initial "%" must be escaped, or the whole string otherwise reverted back to a "true" slash in order to work. I've made a change to Module:Taxonbar in order to reflect this, and now the Taxonbar ASW links are working. It was a fairly simple fix that can be easily reverted. Hence, please let me know if my edit has had any other, malign side effects, and I'll be happy to try and find an alternative method. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 13:48, 21 March 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Pages for people who have eponyms but are not taxon authors

Are pages such as Anatole von Hügel, Henri Philippe Marie d'Orléans, Félix Biet (and many more) in Wikispecies' scope? They are not taxon authors, nor have published any taxonomy-related publications to my knowledge, but they have taxa named after them. Monster Iestyn (talk) 12:02, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think authors who have not published any taxonomy-related publications are out of scope. Christian Ferrer (talk) 12:36, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize if I say very simple and obvious things, but it seems to me that it is necessary to start from the very beginning. The discovery of a new species consists of several stages: 1) Finding it in nature and collecting it. 2). Finding it in the collection and 3) Writing an article and publishing it. Thus, writing an article is only one of the stages. For example, I know an entomologist who has an amazing memory and knowledge of insects, but does not like to publish articles. He is a professional disassembler of other people's collections; he identifies new species and hands them over to specialists for description from hundreds of thousands of specimens. It is not surprising that about a dozen new species of insects have been described in his honor. This is how the taxon authors reflect his contribution to the discovery. Why it doesn't deserve an article on the species wikipedia project. if the authors of the taxa themselves believe that his contribution is significant? As a rule, new species are described in honor of collectors. And this is part of the history of our science. We indicate who collected the holotype of a particular species, and as a rule, links lead to a specific person if this person has published something describing the species in other groups. But why can’t there be an article about the collector if he didn’t publish, but only the species was named in his honor?

Diaries of collectors and descriptions of their travels are extremely important for clarifying type's localities. That is, not only the descriptions and publications of new species themselves are important for taxonomy. I can give an example of how a neotype was identified completely incorrectly, since the description of the collector's journey was ignored (As you know, the ICZN Code requires that the locality of the neotype be as close as possible to the locality of the lost holotype).

And finally, the fact that the project has a template for eponyms is a reflection of the importance of this aspect of the history of science. Allowing it to be filled out for some people and not for others will lead to enormous confusion. Fresh example Anatole von Hügel. He was a prominent anthropologist, but he brought large collections on fauna and flora. Today I discovered that a species of bird was described in his honor. Why is it important to indicate this? Because his father, Carl von Hügel was a famous botanist. There are currently 39 eponyms listed in his honor on his page. Most of the species names are exactly the same as those named after his son. If we give eponyms for one person, then we must also give them for others, otherwise errors and confusion are inevitable.

I could go on about contributions of Henri Philippe Marie d'Orléans to zoology, but I think that's enough for now. Hunu (talk) 13:21, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody denies the contributions of many people in taxonomy and nomenclature. However, Wikispecies is about nomenclature, the names who named them, who re-arranged them etc. It is not about who they were necessarily named after. Wikipedia is an appropriate place for these people, nothing stopping pages being created there to discuss their lives and contributions. Here if they have not named a taxon or at the least been involved in the nomenclatural or taxonomic reassessment of taxa then they are out of scope here. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 13:46, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Scott Thomson. Did I understand you correctly that you are against the eponym template? Do you propose to remove it from all articles? Hunu (talk) 14:22, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I never said that I said that people who have not named or been involved in the taxonomic rearrangement of taxa are out of scope. I never said to delete anything. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 09:42, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There could be a middle ground: we could have a category page, but not a mainspace page, the category should then be linked to the Wikidata item about the person, and could include {{Authority control}}. In any case, such data can and should be recorded directly in Wikidata. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:50, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To my mind non-taxonomist-eponyms don't deserve a page on WS. Mariusm (talk) 16:10, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Who is non-taxonomist? A collector is non-taxonomist. Or he is taxonomist because his work is a necessary part of any taxonomic discovery Hunu (talk) 22:12, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A non-taxonomist is a person who didn't publish at least one paper (or contributed to a paper) related to the taxonomy, distribution, morphology, synonymy or nomenclature of a taxon. A strict collector, however helpful he may be to science is a non-taxonomist (at least as WS is concerned). Mariusm (talk) 06:03, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am relatively reluctant to delete entries of some non-taxon-authorities since there are people whose names are tightly linked with distribution. Are entries of people such as C. Sugawa and L.J. Brass to be deleted? Although they published seemingly no taxonomic works, their names were dedicated to plants collected in Japan and New Guinea respectively, so such eponyms can be clues for readers to expect regions where types of such names were collected even when information on distribution is not indicated yet. Although I may be not so ardent as Hunu and I can even agree with Pigsonthewing's idea, I note this comment for sharing as I am always interested in type and distribution. --Eryk Kij (talk) 08:36, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mariusm: If so Mariusm, then I suggest it may be controversial to inform the horde of "parataxonomists" that their contributions are not worthy of inclusion as being 'taxonomy'. Personally, i'd contend that if a taxon author has deemed someone else worthy of an honorific, that's clearly part of the taxonomic history, therefore within the scope for some sort of inclusion on wikispecies. Indeed, I also see many patronyms as being for collectors, and agree that some link into who those are [as Eryk Kij has nicely said] can likely be valuable to some wikispecies users, including those we'd all likely agree as publishing "taxonomists". But indeed yes, perhaps better if done for those cases in a slightly different format.

I'd also highlight many patronyms have been for patrons. An example as the various creatures named rothschildi, i.e. LINK-rothschildarchive.org. What about such patrons that then published some book or series. Many such patrons also acted as editors of works containing the taxonomic acts (which would be "related to the taxonomy" as above wouldn't it?), but noticed the cases where the names get attributed to just the issue/section/chapter author. How about names that get slipped in as side-attribution to another prior author of an unpublished earlier listing, etc.

Anyway, beyond whether a patronym is named after a "taxonomist" collector, patron, or however we might deem their role, please also note the potential value to define (or rather split) patronyms by their origin whoever they may be (or rather whatever their role may be as patron, author etc, e.g. which of the many rothschildi were to honour Baron Walter Rothschild, rather than say for Miriam Rothschild, Maurice de Rothschild, etc?) Sjl197 (talk) 20:13, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Noting here that we also have Category:Species named after celebrities, though this generally excludes politicians and royalty (and early explorers I think?). Monster Iestyn (talk) 22:51, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Should we open a little door for non-taxonomists pages who have an eponym, we will have an avalanche of doubtful pages under discussion. I am totally against, not for WS.--Hector Bottai (talk) 22:03, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Such a rigorous approach requires us to clearly define who taxonomists are. I know one very significant American scientist who spent his entire life working on the taxonomy of mammals, but as far as I know he did not describe a single taxon. Simply because it wasn't necessary. Hunu (talk) 11:05, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are many who are authors or co-authors of taxa who are definitely not taxonomists, but by our definitions are taxon authorities by having named taxa. Some publish one and only one article in their lives. I have thought long and hard on a definition suitable for Wikispecies, and don't have much. Lot of fuzzy areas involved. Neferkheperre (talk) 13:51, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Our latest definition of taxon authority is not only who described a new taxon but also who contributed to a paper that affected the taxonomy of some taxa. Very recent discussion.--Hector Bottai (talk) 22:24, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Let me recapitulate this again: A taxon authority isn't just a person who described new taxa; this is a person who published at least one paper (singly or as a team member) related to one or more of the following: taxonomy, distribution, morphology, synonymy or nomenclature of a taxon. A person who doesn't partake in this definition should not have a WS page. Mariusm (talk) 06:23, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Mariusm, Thanks for the very important clarification. Does your list of article topics that may be considered taxonomy or taxonomy-related include ecology and behavior. Differences in the ecology and behavior of some vertebrates in sympatry zones are critical to understanding their taxonomic status. Hunu (talk) 19:54, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really contribute here, but I think it would be a nightmare for you to decide which biologists merit being called "taxon authorities" by this definition. On the other hand, I don't really understand why "taxon authorities" in the normal formal sense (those that have authored a taxon) deserve to have their own list of eponyms more than do other biologists, or indeed other figures. It is even interesting to see eponym lists of people such as Hitler. Then there are many species named after friends who are otherwise not remembered. It is a slippery slope and I think that there are better things to spend time on. Would a Wikidata connection between the taxon and the person it is named after enable (usually incomplete) eponym lists to be extracted on the fly when required? Jmchutchinson (talk) 21:22, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There has been an effort to populate Wikidata with botanical eponyms for women, see DOI: 10.3897/BDJ.11.e114408. Plantdrew (talk) 15:25, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Hunu: We have to put some reasonable limit to Who is a tahon authority and ecology & behavior if not accompanied with other taxonomic information feels like out of scope to me. Mariusm (talk) 16:37, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Some behaviours are studied taxonomically, particularly mating calls. These can differentiate between otherwise cryptic species. Also becoming important, which has not been mentioned above is DNA and other molecular data. Several taxonomic revisions have resulted, and cryptic species have been detected. Neferkheperre (talk) 14:04, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

When such cases arise, you can by all means add the author. Remember only that taxonomy takes precedence here over general behavioral or ecological papers. Mariusm (talk) 16:13, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Put simply has the person published a paper that makes taxonomic or nomenclatural acts, both of which are defined proposals in the scientific literature. Having a taxon named after them is a nomenclatural act by the person who names the taxon, not by the person it was named after. So a txon authority is referring to the person who makes these changes in the scientific literature. Listing every eponym is beyond the scope of this Wiki and is actually stepping on Wikipedia's scope which we try to avoid. Each authority page should have a list of the publications by the person which name taxa (nomenclatural acts) or re-arrange them (taxonomic acts) can you find a paper fulfilling this for each eponym? if youcan fine if not its out of scope. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 00:01, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think nomenclatural/taxonomic acts are the only criteria by which a taxon authority is legible for WS. Many important papers reassess the distribution or morphology (description) of taxa, and their authors merit to be included among the taxon authorities. Mariusm (talk) 13:23, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gorlenko and Wikidata

There is a newly created Wikispecies page for the Russian microbiologist Vladimir Mikhailovich Gorlenko, born 1941. Currently there's no Wikidata item associated to it, however there is a similar Wikidata item Q123057589 for a "Vladimir M. Gorlenko", said to be a "researcher". Does anyone here know whether our page and the WD item are referring to the same person? –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 15:40, 31 March 2024 (UTC).[reply]

@Tommy Kronkvist: If you use the "What links here" link on the Wikidata page, you will see a list of items for papers attributed to "Vladimir M. Gorlenko". Does that help? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:55, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Andy Mabbett: I tried three or four of them prior to asking here, but they (and links from those papers) all only said "Vladimir Gorlenko" or "Vladimir M. Gorlenko". There are also a few taxon names related to those publications, but I had no luck searching via them either. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 16:14, 31 March 2024 (UTC).[reply]

I found this ResearchGate ID Vladimir-Gorlenko related to the Wikidata item (and I also added the ID to the Wikidata item). It's probably the same person as "our" Gorlenko, but it's hard to be 100% sure. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 16:21, 31 March 2024 (UTC).[reply]

@Tommy Kronkvist @Pigsonthewing Vorontsov's Who's Who in Biodiversity Sciences has some data for Vladimir Mikhaylovich Gorlenko (Russian Владимир Михайлович Горленко): https://books.google.com/books?id=jdK_EAAAQBAJ&pg=PA174 Since it has the same birth year (1941) and mentions him working in microbiology, specifically on bacteria, it's plausible to me this is the same person as Vladimir Mikhailovich Gorlenko at least. He is also listed as working at the Institute of Microbiology, Russian Academy of Sciences, which also matches the ResearchGate profile. All of the papers linked to the Wikidata (which are also to do with bacteria) also gives the same institute as an affiliation for the author Vladimir M. Gorlenko. I'd say they're probably all the same person, honestly. Monster Iestyn (talk) 14:05, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Monster Iestyn. I've now associated the Vladimir Mikhailovich Gorlenko page with the Q123057589 Wikidata item. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 14:15, 1 April 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Template:Unsöld, 2014

[:Template:Unsöld, 2014] refers to an interesting enough paper, but it contains no taxonomic information relevant to WS; added to WS by a now permanently-blocked contributor. Delete? - MPF (talk) 00:23, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To me, looks more historical. Neferkheperre (talk) 12:32, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template is unused. We have no entry for the author. Delete. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:06, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It was listed in Pinguinus impennis's references section until earlier today. But yes, while it is interesting, it doesn't seem necessary to have for WS, so I'm in favour of delete. Monster Iestyn (talk) 20:38, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, I removed it as I couldn't see any strong reason for keeping it there; but I didn't want to delete it outright without consultation - MPF (talk) 20:46, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus looks to be for delete, so I've deleted it - MPF (talk) 23:04, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

┌──────────┘ MPF: Thank you. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 02:21, 3 April 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Rosa Nothosectiones

Does anybody mind or have a good reason why I should not delete a series of Nothosectiones pages from Rosa subgenera? They refer to the history of cultivar rose breeding and therefore are out of project scope. Andyboorman (talk) 11:36, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all, please go ahead. In my opinion they shouldn't have been created in the first place. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 02:25, 3 April 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks for the reply. Andyboorman (talk) 08:01, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Categories listing media by individual users

Are categories such as Category:Elena Regina photos (with the subcategories Category:Elena Regina photos 1–1000, Category:Elena Regina photos 1001–2000 and Category:First Local Verified Observation Record) something that we should encourage here at Wikispecies? I understand that they may have their place at Wikimedia Commons (see Commons:Category:Elena Regina photos etc.), but Wikispecies is not an image repository. Shouldn't all pictures, movies, sound files and other media be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, rather than to Wikispecies?

I include a ping to @Elena Regina so that she can have her say here as well. So far she has uploaded just over 50 very nice pictures to Commons.
–Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 00:34, 7 April 2024 (UTC).[reply]

I'd say not appropriate on Wikispecies. Fine to have a link to their Commons categories on their user page, though. - MPF (talk) 22:42, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FYI: The Contested World of Classifying Life on Earth

https://undark.org/2024/04/02/contested-world-taxonomy/ —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:25, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I need some help with uncategorized pages

~~Clossiana needs a taxonavigation template~~
~~Homo sapiens denisovan should probably be deleted?~~
~~Neottia latilabra is some non-standard note and I think should be deleted~~
~~Omalotheca diminuta was moved here from Gnaphalium hoppeanum by User:MILEPRI and then blanked. Why???~~
~~Phacodiniida needs a taxonavigation template~~
~~Polistes olivaceus needs a taxonavigation template~~
~~Prostanthera:Protologue in English seems very out of scope, but can any of it be salvaged?~~
~~Trogloiulus needs a taxonavigation template~~

—Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:17, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've fixed Polistes olivaceus and Clossiana. With the former, what happened was that Template:Gyrostoma was rather hastily blanked without any of the remaining pages linking to it being checked first (now done). The latter looks more like a more complex problem though, since it looks like PeterR tried to change it from a redirect of Boloria (Clossiana) to a full genus page, then didn't finish the job? Monster Iestyn (talk) 03:14, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@PeterR: —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:14, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I expanded Omalotheca diminuta. I do not know why exactly, but I assume Gnaphalium hoppeanum subsp. magellense, one of the synonyms of O. diminuta, may have misled him/her to do so. --Eryk Kij (talk) 07:37, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have deleted Neottia latilabra (Evrard ex Gagnep.) ined., as a unplaced name and non-standard. Andyboorman (talk) 09:01, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Great work, folks. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:42, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've deleted Homo sapiens denisovan. It's already the 5th reincarnation of this page. Until we actually see a paper published on this new subspecies, everything is just speculation. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 03:30, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, the Denisovans might turn out to be Homo longi (speculation of the describers of that species), but at this point it is too early to tell (just for interest!). Cheers Tony Tony 1212 (talk) 19:40, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oleaceae paper

2022 paper on Oleaceae, looks quite important; cc-by license. Could someone make a page for it, please? The coding is too complex for me 😨 - thanks! MPF (talk) 11:33, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done placed under additional references of the family Oleaceae. Andyboorman (talk) 12:34, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent, thanks! - MPF (talk) 12:52, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Classifying ichnotaxa

Since the last time I brought up ichnotaxa here a few years ago (see here), but particularly in the last few months, I've been correcting, updating and creating pages for ichnotaxa and ichnologists on Wikispecies. However, as far as I'm aware, ichnotaxa are not supposed to be placed in biological classifications (they are not Animalia, Plantae, etc., they are trace fossils), and they also don't tend to have classification higher than family rank (or "ichnofamily") at most. This seems to result in them being orphans or "islands" of pages, which doesn't sound very helpful for discovering them.

So, how should ichnotaxa on Wikispecies be linked together? Should they all be placed under a special taxon page named something like "Trace fossils" or "Ichnofossils", with its own taxonomy template? (Compare IRMNG's Trace fossils, which is set up as an animal "phylum") Or should they instead be placed in a Category:Ichnotaxa category? Or maybe both? Monster Iestyn (talk) 22:31, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A category "Ichnotaxa" as a subcategory of Category:Fossil taxa would be helpful. Btw, Algaebase classifies algal ichnotaxa just as fossil genera within their algal families and taxonomic trees, without a notice that it is an ichnotaxon. Kind regards, --Thiotrix (talk) 07:15, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Thiotrix: So I've noticed, dealing with Irhopalia and a few others recently. That and many other bioerosion ichnotaxa are placed in ichnofamilies in {{Wisshak, Knaust & Bertling, 2019}}, which I want to set up on Wikispecies at some point. Monster Iestyn (talk) 12:37, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The ICZN [animal] Code covers ichnotaxa, in article 1.2.1 (scope): "names based on the fossilized work of organisms (ichnotaxa)" ... see also the following in the definitions section: "ichnotaxon, n. A taxon based on the fossilized work of an organism, including fossilized trails, tracks or burrows (trace fossils) made by an animal. See also work of an animal." So in IRMNG, my "Trace fossils" section (considered a quasi phylum for convenience) lives under the kingdom Animalia, and the names therein are governed by the principles of zoological nomenclature. Since from a general overview such as that at https://ichnology.ku.edu/poi/poi.html, trace fossils "preserve organism behavior and are categorized generally as resting, locomotion, dwelling, feeding, escaping, grazing, agriculture, or multipurpose (Bromley, 1996; Hasiotis, 2003)" they normally would not be attributable to plants; I found no reference to either "trace" or "ichno*" via a search of the ICNafp online, but presumably they could be produced by Bacteria/Archaea, or (for example) by Fungal attack... There could also be a case made that stromatolites are trace rather than body fossils; at present in IRMNG I treat their "genera" as Cyanobacteria under the botanical Code/ICNafp but note that when they are placed into families, at least one recent source (which I follow for convenience) places these under the zoological Code, which is a mis-match not currently addressed. Tony 1212 (talk) 19:53, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Tony 1212 As it happens, {{Wisshak, Knaust & Bertling, 2019}} gives a list of bioerosion ichnotaxa in a table with known/inferred tracemakers. According to it, most of them were made by invertebrates, but some were made by plant, fungus or even bacterium. Monster Iestyn (talk) 20:08, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

┌──────────┘ Category:Ichnotaxa is now created. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 01:28, 12 April 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Side note: I've added the two phrases "Type ichnospecies" and "Ichnotaxon" to Wikispecies' Localization database so that they can now be automatically translated into the users' preferred language using the int: magic word i.e. {{int:Type ichnospecies}} and {{int:Ichnotaxon}}. Unfortunately I only know the English phrases, so I haven't yet added any actual translations to the database. Please make suggestions for the equivalent translations in Spanish, German, Chinese etc. to Wikispecies talk:Localization and I or any other Translation administrator will be happy to include them. You can use the red links at Wikispecies:Localization to see which translations are missing. (Please note that the last mentioned page can sometimes take up to a minute to load.)

Huge thanks beforehand! –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 02:25, 12 April 2024 (UTC).[reply]

@Tommy Kronkvist: Thanks! I'm not sure where {{int:Ichnotaxon}} would be useful, but I can definitely make use of {{int:Type ichnospecies}}. Could {{int:Type ichnogenus}} and {{int:Ichnologist}} be added too? (Unfortunately I don't really know anything other than the English phrases for any of them either) Monster Iestyn (talk) 02:31, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Monster Iestyn: I've now added "Type ichnogenus" and "Ichnologist" as well. I understand that "Ichnotaxon" and "Ichnotaxa"may seem out of place, but thought that it may perhaps be used in templates for publications, sort of in the same way we sometimes add lists of new species and genera to the "Nomenclatural acts" sections of our reference templates. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 03:26, 12 April 2024 (UTC).[reply]

FYI: Young researcher leads identification of new sauropod dinosaurs in outback Queensland

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-04-12/new-dinosaurs-identified-winton-researcher-scans-hundreds-bones/103695864 —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:35, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Waouh, thanks for the sharing. --Benoît Prieur (talk) 12:20, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Capitalisation of vernacular names

Are we now de-capitalising vernacular names, such as "Eurasian magpie" instead of "Eurasian Magpie" for Pica pica, as done in this recent edit? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:31, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not as far as I am concerned. I do capilise plants when I come across them. Andyboorman (talk) 08:54, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agree not. Most of the changes were OK, as they were adding 'Eurasian' subsequent to the split of Pica pica s.l. into multiple species, but the decapitalisation of English 'Magpie' to 'magpie' is contrary to the IOC standard (and also IUCN, etc.) that we follow. I've reverted that bit. - MPF (talk) 20:38, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Pigsonthewing and Andyboorman: I've added a note on their talk page. Thanks for spotting this! - MPF (talk) 21:28, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Pigsonthewing, Andyboorman, and Burmeister: this editor is continuing despite the request on their talk page; additionally I see he/she is blocked on wikidata for similar activity there. Not sure if similar action may be needed here (and on Commons, too)? - MPF (talk) 01:05, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Pigsonthewing and MPF: Warning first then a week block appropriate after 24 hours, It is causing a lot of extra work, in spite of some good additions? Andyboorman (talk) 10:30, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Sounds sensible; I'd rather not do it myself as I'm closely involved, it might look too much like individual vindictiveness - MPF (talk) 20:20, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Pigsonthewing, Andyboorman, and Burmeister: their most recent edits have been OK, just adding legit VNs without altering capitalisation; think we can hold fire on any action for now, but I'll monitor discretely - MPF (talk) 00:18, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Pigsonthewing, Andyboorman, and Burmeister: still at it I fear, both here and on Commons. I've reverted these changes, but time for more drastic action? - MPF (talk) 20:45, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@MPF:, It seems to me that he didn't read the warnings, as he continues with the same editing pattern. Time for a block! Burmeister (talk) 00:54, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Yes, I agree. As one of the chief complainants, I'd rather not implement this myself. Same problem activity on Commons, so it might need to be a global block. @Pigsonthewing, Andyboorman, and Burmeister: - MPF (talk) 01:03, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done One week block applied, as per warning, on the talk page. Andyboorman (talk) 10:02, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Andyboorman: thanks! - MPF (talk) 20:22, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Andyboorman, Pigsonthewing, and Burmeister: 173.177.13.6 is back, and has not learnt: Ciconia ciconia - MPF (talk) 21:46, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for six months, for "Persistent miscapitalisation of vernacular names; failure to engage in dialogue". Any admin can unlock them, once they give an undertaking to cease such behaviour. If they resume once the six months is over, they should be blocked again. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:33, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks! - MPF (talk) 22:23, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Pigsonthewing: although gone from here for now at least, this IP is causing identical problems on both Commons and Wikidata - perhaps they could be blocked there too, please? - MPF (talk) 23:24, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not an admin on either project so that's not in my gift. Please raise a request on their respective admin noticeboards. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:49, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Must admit I thought you were, particularly on wikidata - MPF (talk) 15:06, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Priapulida vs. Priapula (same phylum, 2 names)

I just added a note concerning the alternative name "Priapula" for the phylum Priapulida to that article's talk page, if anyone would like to comment further and/or take relevant action - additional discussion can take place there. Thanks - Tony Tony 1212 (talk) 03:18, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Series and Subsections for the genus Rosa

I have been trying to update our taxon pages for Rosa, including adding more up to date references. I am finding very little support for traditional Series and Subsections and in at least one case - Rosa sect. Pimpinellifoliae, evidence unearthed to date directly contradicts their traditional circumscription and hence relevance. I am enquiring whether or not any editor has any relevant literature which may help my endeavours? It looks like that it may be better to dispense with this infrageneric in most cases, in these cases, I intend to use the Section Discussion for any information that will be lost if a Series or Subsection is redirected. Andyboorman (talk) 19:03, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I remember doing away with the infrageneric classification in Acer because it didn't match genetic results. I've no objection to their being removed here too - MPF (talk) 20:38, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I will not rush, but it is not looking good for these infragenerics. Andyboorman (talk) 07:31, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Renaming 2 pages

Hello, I think page Cirsium acaule should be renamed to Cirsium acaulon based on https://powo.science.kew.org/taxon/urn:lsid:ipni.org:names:30076919-2.
I also think that Cirsium acaule subsp. acaule should be renamed to Cirsium acaulon subsp. acaulon based on https://powo.science.kew.org/taxon/urn:lsid:ipni.org:names:51015421-1.
I am no expert so if you think it should not be done do not do it. --Bakjb (talk) 14:40, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bakjb: You are correct. Are you able to make the required changes? Andyboorman (talk) 19:48, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

POWO reflects that way - but is that reliable? Sorry - skepticism here as i see many issues raised each day about issues in POWO in multiple other databases. I'm from zoology background so much nuance from Plant nomenclature (and codes) escapes me, but at a glance i couldn't fathom why any shift to greek sounding "acaulos" or "aculon". Then i checked original in L. 1753, and it's the expected latin m/f "acaulis" (Carduus acaulis, p.1199 - now linked on the wikispecies taxon page) while the later Scopoli (1769) recombines and uses the neuter "acaule" (i.e. Cirsium acaule), as does the later Wigg (1780). Those seem contra to what POWO claims for those reference, or equally in its often preferred source IPNI. [i.e. https://www.ipni.org/n/188369-1], what gives? Sjl197 (talk) 02:09, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bakjb, Andyboorman, and Sjl197: I can see where this is coming from: Linnaeus' description text says "Carduus acaulis", but the epithet in the page margin (which is what matters) appears to say acaulos (though in BHL's copy at least, it actually says acaul●s due to an ink blot!!). If this blot is repeated in every copy (very plausible, if the printer used a clogged-up type piece), then subsequent authors will have reasonably assumed it was an error for acaulis as in the description. But, if the basionym is Carduus acaulos, then the combination in Cirsium is acaulon. Whether this change should be made, or left ignored in the interests of stability, is another question. All the literature (until POWO changed) uses acaule. Personally, I'd have thought they ought to let sleeping Canes familiares lie . . . - MPF (talk) 14:00, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, if this is changed, the synonymy in Cirsium esculentum will also need changing as it used to be considered a subspecies of C. acaule/on; perhaps others too - MPF (talk) 14:09, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I do not understand these things myself very much, so if I can ask you for help with these two articles on Slovak Wikipedia which use Cirsium acaulon (see Pichliač bezbyľový) and Cirsium acaulon subsp. acaulon (see Pichliač bezbyľový pravý) as the scientific name should they be changed or kept the same. I will try to ask the author of those articles if they have Slovak sources for said scientific names. Thank you in advance for your response. --Bakjb (talk) 15:16, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You can not blame POWO, as IPNI use the epithet acaulon. I suggest we go with IPNI and if you so wish, contact IPNI for clarification. Andyboorman (talk) 18:21, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@MPF:@Andyboorman:

Dear all. Ok - I made links to those oldest papers i mentioned above on the taxon page. I leave it to others to edit anything further or alter the name. To @Bakjb, I think no need to ask the author of the Slovak articles, but feel free to involve them. In my comment above, my own questions were solved by MPF - with "acaulos/aculon" as the greek-based equivalent of "acaulis/acaule". (Then to clarify to Bakjb - the question is reduced to only the neuter variants "aculon" or "acule" for gender agreement for the genus Cirsium). See also this link it seems an old debate. https://www.worldplants.de/world-plants-complete-list/complete-plant-list#plantUid-362403

Well yes - in a moment of tiredness i overlooked that critical page margin formation of acaul●s - thankyou MPF. I also did not expect that Linnaeus would write the word in latin in the core text but then give it with that different (greek based) spelling, but seems like he did almost same thing elsewhere in same work for his Leucadendron acaulon L. = Protea acaulos (L.) Reichard. [Appended edit: that last point was just to echo it seems ok that acaul●s = "acaulos", then extra to say the formation as Cirsium acaule seems to have widespread modern usage - so seems madness for stability to go back on that, if was zoology then i'd look into prevailing usage - indeed "Quieta non movere"] Sjl197 (talk) 21:34, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Andyboorman: - IPNI still had acaule until a couple of days ago (it was so when I first saw this discussion), they must have just now taken the lead from POWO. The most recent (October 2023) archive.org listing of POWO's page also has acaule there too, and acaulis for the protonym. It is _very_ bad of them (both POWO and IPNI!) that they don't say what changes they make, when, or why, but leave it as a mystery for others to work out on their own. @Sjl197: - thanks! MPF (talk) 22:04, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

┌─────────────────┘ I have just emailed IPNI and will let you know once they reply. I have just simply asked them. "I notice that you have changed Cirsium acaule to Cirsium acaulon, could you please explain the reasoning behind the recent change?" BTW past uasge is not as important with plants as it seems to be with zoology. That is why we have significant numbers of nom. cons. and also nom. cons. prop. rej. Andyboorman (talk) 09:02, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I also added "I refer specifically to Cirsium acaulon (L.) Scop., Annus Hist.-Nat. 2: 62 (1769) not to any of the isonyms etc. IPNI states the basionym as Carduus acaulos L., Sp. Pl. [Linnaeus] 2: 1199 (1753). The BHL links are on your site, but their protologue epithet spellings do not correspond to the IPNI records." Sorry should have said. Andyboorman (talk) 09:14, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Andyboorman, Sjl197, and Bakjb: thanks! I checked in my copy of the Ray Society 1959 facsimile of Linnaeus, and the margin there is clearly acaulos, no ink blot; as far as I know, the facsimile is an exact photo reproduction, not cleaned up in any way. Of IPNI, it is interesting to compare the current with the most recent October 2023 archive; the changes are there, but left without explanation, or the date of the change. Same goes for POWO now and October 2023 archive. - MPF (talk) 15:29, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sjl197 and Bakjb: IPNI have just got back to me and they confirm the supposition by @MPF:. In other words the author correction on the right hand margin of the basionym is its correct epithet. Therefore, Cirsium acaulon is now the correct combination. IPNI do not have a mechanism for alerting users to corrections, many of which are prompted by readers querying entries. I have made such prompts myself. Hope this helps. Andyboorman (talk) 18:14, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. (: --Bakjb (talk) 18:15, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I can see they can't have an alert system easily, but they could surely tag the date a change is made, and cite the reasons for it - MPF (talk) 20:28, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Actually @MPF: that is a good idea. I will feed back via an email. Andyboorman (talk) 21:13, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And ditto for POWO, please! Just thought too, they could also have a 'Recent changes' index a bit like ours here, that could function nearly as well as an alert; if it's a large number, perhaps broken down into 'Recent changes in Poales', 'Recent changes in Pinophyta', or similar. - MPF (talk) 21:18, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

┌───────────────┘ A thistle with a short glabrous stemmed calyx (edit).... Andyboorman (talk) 08:09, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Andyboorman, Bakjb, MPF, and Sjl197: Great cooperation! I take my hat off to you all. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 11:45, 21 March 2024 (UTC).[reply]

@Tommy Kronkvist, Andyboorman, Bakjb, and Sjl197: - thanks! Now we know why, this one looks like a sure case; should we go ahead and move the page here (and at Commons, Wikidata, etc.)? I'd be happy now to go with this change - MPF (talk) 22:38, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just tagging this still to do, so it doesn't get archived yet! - MPF (talk) 23:15, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rosa - is it just me.

I had a look at our page for Rosa and there appears to me a major error in the Name Section, that is under the articles Rosa cinnamomea L., Sp. Pl. 1: 491. (1753) nom. cons. (typ. cons.) can not be a synonym of Rosa pendulina L., Sp. Pl. 1: 492. (1753) as entered in our database. There is no proposal to conserve R. pendulina, as far as I can ascertain. I am not a rosarian so can not comment on the generic circumscription in relation to subgenera, sections and series, but without reference it does appear to be a bit of a hodge-podge of systems. English Wikipedia is not much help. However, I can find other uncertainties in species delimitation and synonymy but I must admit to just a casual look through. I offer this discussion to fellow botanists, but particularly to @RLJ, Fagus, Thiotrix, MPF, and MILEPRI: Thanks. Andyboorman (talk) 16:33, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, no idea. Consult your rosary 🤪 . . . MPF (talk) 20:34, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Funny 😊 seems like a mystic task indeed. I was hoping for a rosarian though. When teaching, Rosa cinnamomea L. (1753) was the type I used, so no idea where R. pendulina came from as a type and relegating it into synonymy. Andyboorman (talk) 21:04, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Andyboorman, RLJ, Fagus, Thiotrix, and MILEPRI: Looking at the Rosa history, it seems it was me added it, ten years ago! Needless to say, I couldn't remember where I got it from, but from my following edit immediately after, turns out the synonymy is from Euro+Med Plantbase: Rosa pendulina (highlight R. cinnamomea). Obviously, if E+MP are wrong on this, please correct the page. Hope this helps! - MPF (talk) 22:32, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Addenum: @Uleli: added the synonymy a year earlier, in 2013: https://species.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rosa_cinnamomea&action=history - MPF (talk) 22:46, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Addenum 2: POWO agrees with the synonymy. Rosa majalis at en wiki looks like it might hold some clues, suggesting that Linnaeus got confused with his name between 1753 and 1759. - MPF (talk) 22:58, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just heard from POWO that they have changed their database and changes will appear on the next update. The 1759 entry does need checking, but I do not think it was entered by Linnaeus, but the description is on BHL. Thanks Andyboorman (talk) 08:21, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Do you know when that next update will be, is it days, weeks, months? Will this just be a straight swap, with pendulina becoming a synonym of cinnamomea? Let's hope they include a statement on why they make the change 👍 - MPF (talk) 14:38, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have no details about timing, but I assume it will be a straight swap. Andyboorman (talk) 19:01, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@RLJ, Fagus, Thiotrix, MPF, and MILEPRI: I have constructed a workpage for Rosa cinnamomea with details to date. Please feel free to edit and add material. Andyboorman (talk) 19:01, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a bit, can you check I've got it right, please! - MPF (talk) 22:23, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looks very good to me. Thanks Andyboorman (talk) 14:10, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

POWO has been offline all today so hopefully updating! Andyboorman (talk) 14:54, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

POWO is back now, but unfortunately not updated for this yet - MPF (talk) 01:19, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gone back off line this morning GMT. Andyboorman (talk) 07:01, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously the tens of millions of people reading this thread and looking to see if they've updated it, and overloading their system 😂🤪 MPF (talk) 15:43, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nice one. It is back up OK, but I need to contact Kew after the weekend and check out where updates have gone. 😂 Andyboorman (talk) 18:27, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Andy – POWO is updated now, and the big surprise to me is that – contrary to their previous position – they're treating R. cinnamomea and R. pendulina as two different species both accepted (and R. cinnamomea with a vastly larger range extending a long way east). Can you check with them that this is their intention, and if it is, how does one distinguish them? It creates problems for images, as the long history of treatment as a synonym makes finding, and distinguishing, R. cinnamomea images effectively impossible, and also the identity of those currently given as R. pendulina uncertain. Sadly, once again, there is no statement regarding the change they have made nor any reasons given for their decision.

On the Rosa cinnamomea page here, the synonyms should not include R. × centifolia; this never was a synonym, just a former type species of the genus, now rejected. - MPF (talk) 23:30, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FYI POWO was updated for Rosa last night - https://powo.science.kew.org/taxon/urn:lsid:ipni.org:names:732074-1 Andyboorman (talk) 07:34, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Andyboorman: thanks; yes, I saw that last night, see my comments immediately above this! Can you query them, please? Thanks! - MPF (talk) 09:54, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@MPF: Still waiting a reply for that request. Andyboorman (talk) 07:59, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK thanks! - MPF (talk) 08:45, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@MPF: Kew have got back and access to past changes is on the to do list, but requires new servers etc. So not likely to happen any time soon. You can look through and compare versions of WCVP, which is the base of POWO. This link can help. Sorry I forgot to ask why R. pendulina has not been included in the synonymy of R. cinnamomea. I will do that now. Andyboorman (talk) 09:36, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks! - MPF (talk) 13:13, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@MPF: Apologies must have missed this email. The lectotype of R. cinnamomea nom. et typ. cons. was R. pendulina. However, now that the name was conserved and has the conserved type, which is represented by R. majalis. Therefor, the later is now part of the synonymy of R. cinnamomea, whereas Rosa pendulina is accepted. Such is taxonomy. Andyboorman (talk) 20:18, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Andyboorman: - I fear I don't get that!! Can you re-clarify, please?! - MPF (talk) 21:06, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@MPF: The herbarium specimen used to lectotype the plant in question is labelled R. pendulina dated 1753, so can not be used for R. cinnamomea (1753) nom. et typ. cons. However, the specimen previously representing R. majalis (1762) is available as the conserved type for R. cinnamomea (1753). This is consistent with other holotypes. The two have been synonymised, but under R. majalis, which is incorrect by priority unless the later is conserved. Therefor R. pendulina stands as an accepted species and R. majalis enters the synonymy for R. cinnamomea. This is unravelling the taxonomy, but I would assume that if the species complex was re-examined by botanists both in herbaria and the field, they may conclude that they all belong in R. cinnamomea agg. Does this help at all? Andyboorman (talk) 07:50, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Identify a botanist in an old painting?

Can anyone identify the botanist depicted in this twitter post, please? Sorry, you'll need to have a twitter account to see it. - MPF (talk) 23:08, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've reposted it @Wikispecies in order to reach a bigger group of helpers. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 06:39, 20 April 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Some information can be found at Allen Memorial Art Museum, Oberlin College (Ohio, USA): Portrait of a Botanist. Not much, but something... –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 06:49, 20 April 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks! Let's hope someone comes up with something! - MPF (talk) 08:07, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Butler

I am (badly) surprised, we have 1146 entries "Butler" and 17 names in the Butler disambiguation page. I suspect this is coming from the past but, anyway, we should have more strict rules concerning authors. And probably there are many other cases like this. I don't even want to look at "Smith"....or "Jones"...Sorry. Hector Bottai (talk) 16:18, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are right, but wait to you get started on Chinese names. What sort of strict rukes should be applied? Andyboorman (talk) 17:40, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, for sure I already face chinese names...Well, for experienced and self patrolled editors a strong recommendation not to link to simple surnames, and when patrolling never release without the correct link. Just a suggestion. Hector Bottai (talk) 18:19, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Curiously enough, "Smith" has only 365 links and "Jones" only 141 links, so they're not quite as bad as "Butler" at least. Monster Iestyn (talk) 19:03, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikispecies:Disambiguation pages with links. Burmeister (talk) 19:13, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Added Butler... Hector Bottai (talk) 20:58, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Checking random pages linking to "Butler", every single one I checked is a species of Lepidoptera (moth or butterfly)... Meanwhile, I've now reduced the number of links to "Jones" to just 46, or 38 if you count only normal pages. It turned out about a hundred of these were all species of Cumacea described by Norman Sumner Jones. The rest of the links seem to be variously Lepidoptera (again), plant, parasitic worm, even bacteria. Monster Iestyn (talk) 00:17, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The list incudes "Edward Arthur Butler (1843–1916), British ornithologist" (also at d:Q961308 and en:Edward Arthur Butler), but there are no inbound links for that name. Does anyone have any sources? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:35, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rosa and Sections

I have been trying to allocate Rosa species to Sections and have now hit a brick wall. The red links are those for which it is difficult to find any details about their sectional allocation. Most are native to the former USSR, now Russia and the post breakup Republics. Information seems to be published in Russian language books, flora and papers or behind Russian paywalls and is largely inaccessible online. Can any body help with signposting? Thanks. Andyboorman (talk) 09:14, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vote now to select members of the first U4C

You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki. Please help translate to your language

Dear all,

I am writing to you to let you know the voting period for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is open now through May 9, 2024. Read the information on the voting page on Meta-wiki to learn more about voting and voter eligibility.

The Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is a global group dedicated to providing an equitable and consistent implementation of the UCoC. Community members were invited to submit their applications for the U4C. For more information and the responsibilities of the U4C, please review the U4C Charter.

Please share this message with members of your community so they can participate as well.

On behalf of the UCoC project team,

RamzyM (WMF) 20:19, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Plant genera with hyphens

Just saw (via twitter!) that from ICN Art. 60.11 Ex. 44, that Pseudofumaria is correctly Pseudo-fumaria with a hyphen. I've moved that page and its two species, but don't know if this affects any other genera - MPF (talk) 11:45, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is correct only if this genus is long accepted as Corydalis sect. Pseudofumaria and see Chen, J.T., Lidén, M., Huang, X.H., Zhang, L., Zhang, X.J., Kuang, T.H., Landis, J.B., Wang, D., Deng, T. & Sun, H., 2023. An updated classification for the hyper‐diverse genus Corydalis (Papaveraceae: Fumarioideae) based on phylogenomic and morphological evidence. Journal of Integrative Plant Biology 65(9): 2138-2156 (behind a paywall). Andyboorman (talk) 12:17, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! POWO accept it hyphenated as well, though - MPF (talk) 13:01, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the relevant sections are here:

20.3. The name of a genus may not consist of two words, unless these words are joined by a hyphen (but see Art. 60.12 for names of fossil-genera).

Ex. 7. “Uva ursi”, as originally published by Miller (Gard. Dict. Abr., ed. 4: Uva ursi. 1754), consisted of two separate words unconnected by a hyphen, and is not therefore validly published (Art. 32.1(c)); the name is correctly attributed to Duhamel (Traité Arbr. Arbust. 2: 371. 1755) as Uva-ursi (hyphenated when published).

Ex. 8. Names such as Quisqualis L. (formed by combining two words into one when originally published), Neves-armondia K. Schum., Sebastiano-schaueria Nees, and Solms-laubachia Muschl. ex Diels (all hyphenated when originally published) are validly published.

Note 1. The names of intergeneric hybrids are formed according to the provisions of Art. H.6.

60.12. The use of a hyphen in the name of a fossil-genus is in all cases treated as an error to be corrected by deletion of the hyphen.

Ex. 45. ‘Cicatricosi-sporites’ R. Potonié & Gelletich (in Sitzungsber. Ges. Naturf. Freunde Berlin 1932: 522. 1932) and ‘Pseudo-Araucaria’ Fliche (in Bull. Soc. Sci. Nancy 14: 181. 1896) are names of fossil-genera. They are treated as errors to be corrected by deletion of the hyphen to Cicatricosisporites and Pseudoaraucaria, respectively.

H.6.2. The nothogeneric name of a bigeneric hybrid is a condensed formula in which the names adopted for the parental genera are combined into a single word, using the first part or the whole of one, the last part or the whole of the other (but not the whole of both) and, optionally, a connecting vowel. The use of a hyphen instead of or in addition to a connecting vowel is treated as an error to be corrected by deletion of the hyphen.

...I can check IRMNG for plant genus names that include hyphens, either accepted or unaccepted names/orthographies, if anyone wants - the majority of these would have been originally sourced from Index Nominum Genericorum... Tony 1212 (talk) 18:27, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of hyphenated botanical names as held in last (May 2023) "snapshot" of IRMNG holdings is here (n=176): https://species.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Tony_1212/botanical_genus_names_hyphenated

Some will be "accepted", some "unaccepted" (includes both rejected orthographies and taxonomic synonyms, unfortunately) and some "uncertain" (=not yet assessed). For what it's worth ... Also some are hybrids, unfortunately the hybrid symbol does not come through to the IRMNG data dumps at this time although it is held in the database in a presently invisible fashion... Tony 1212 (talk) 06:26, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Tony 1212:, but please note that, for plants, the epithet after the hyphen will conventionally be uncapitalised, for example Drake-brockmania or White-sloanea. Andyboorman (talk) 13:25, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Andyboorman Yes I guess so; these are (generally) verbatim names as listed in ING. without further adjustment by myself at the time of upload to IRMNG (most done in 2007 or thereabouts). I was wondering if in some cases the second name might be a special case for some reason where the capitalization might be OK, but have not researched this any further. Perhaps they are just the original orthography per the first publication, I don't know. I do know that capitalizing a species epithet (as sometimes found in older works) is an automatically correctable situation, generally without comment, and that you should never see this these days... Cheers Tony Tony 1212 (talk) 18:14, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FYI: Two lifeforms merge into one organism for first time in a billion years

Charles G. Danforth

Charles G. Danforth has very little content, no publications and no inbound links, except for one from Danforth. Charles G. Danforth (Q98146472) is similarly bare.

Is the page needed? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:18, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it is, he is a taxon author, e.g. [1], the description of this species is available at [2]. Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:13, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you. Now at Charles Garrison Danforth with additional content. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:11, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Eponyms again

Please see Category talk:Eponyms of Balthazar Preiss. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:23, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And Category talk:Eponyms of Keith Edgard Roe. Why do these issues keep arsing? (@MILEPRI: re this edit.) Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:21, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have indeed made a mistake. I have confused the author. Thanks for the warning.. MILEPRI (talk) 21:44, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Astrolepis/Asterolepis Eichwald, 1840

There is a discussion on Taxacom over which of these names (for which we apparently have as yet no entry under either spelling; though we have the parent taxon Asterolepidae with a red link for Asterolepis) for fossil fishes is correct.

It will be interesting to see the outcome, and to consider how we reflect the matter on Wikispecies.

Note that we have Astrolepis Benham & Windham, (1992; Plantae) and Asterolepis Meyrick, 1910 (Lepidoptera), but neither relate to Eichwald, 1840. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:44, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As per the cited Taxacom discussion, R. Van der Laan, "Family-group names of fossil fishes", 2018 https://doi.org/10.5852/ejt.2018.466 uses Order Asterolepidiformes, Family Asterolepididae Traquair 1888, "name and spelling in prevailing recent practice", and genus Asterolepis Eichwald 1840, which makes Asterolepis Eichwald 1840 a corrected original spelling cf. the original publication in Bulletin Scientifique publié par l'Académie Impériale des Sciences de Saint-Petersbourg in which it is spelled Astrolepis (there is a separate, slightly later work published in as Neues Jahrbuch für Mineralogie, Geognosie, Geologie und Petrefakten-Kund. 1840: 421-430 in which the "Asterolepis" spelling is used, but this is irrelevant for nomenclatural purposes). My just updated record for this name, which follows Van der Laan in this respect, in IRMNG is at https://www.irmng.org/aphia.php?p=taxdetails&id=11936170 if you wish to take a look. This would make Asterolepis Meyrick, 1910 (Lepidoptera) a junior homonym, something that is apparently unaddressed in the Lepidoptera world at this time. Tony 1212 (talk) 18:40, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback invited on Procedure for Sibling Project Lifecycle

You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki. Please help translate to your language

Dear community members,

The Community Affairs Committee (CAC) of the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees invites you to give feedback on a draft Procedure for Sibling Project Lifecycle. This draft Procedure outlines proposed steps and requirements for opening and closing Wikimedia Sibling Projects, and aims to ensure any newly approved projects are set up for success. This is separate from the procedures for opening or closing language versions of projects, which is handled by the Language Committee or closing projects policy.

You can find the details on this page, as well as the ways to give your feedback from today until the end of the day on June 23, 2024, anywhere on Earth.

You can also share information about this with the interested project communities you work with or support, and you can also help us translate the procedure into more languages, so people can join the discussions in their own language.

On behalf of the CAC,

RamzyM (WMF) 02:24, 22 May 2024 (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.