Wikispecies:Village Pump/Archive 68

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.

New properties proposal in Wikidata

Hello, I remember @Faendalimas: comments there that makes me thinks that Wikispecies users may have interesting points of view, or ideas, regarding how is treated synonymy in Wikidata. There are a set of properties proposal that will allow to indicate if an item is "just" a synonym, or/and a protonym, ect.. See taxon synonym of, protonym of, basionym of and replaced synonym of. Christian Ferrer (talk) 04:54, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Charles A. Ely

Hello, we have a Charles Adelbert Ely an ornithologist said to be born in 1933, this is confirmed by this page [1], where it is also said that he is the author of "Shallow-water Asteroidea and Ophiuroidea of Hawaii". However this article is from 1942 [2] and he can't be the author as he was too young. Another article from 1944 authored by the echinodermologist is listed in Jstor [3], in the preview we can read "Charles A. Ely, University of Wisconsin". Every where in the web all is like if there was only one Charles A. Ely, so I can't find infos about the echinodermologist. I'm going to create a secong page here for the echinodermologist as to me it seems obvious that he is not the same author, excepted if the date of birth of the ornithologist is wrong. If anyone has comments or information on one of the two authors, they are most welcome. Thanks you, Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:16, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article is a thesis for a Master of Science [4] and the author seems to have been born in 1913 [5].I found a Charles Aubrey Ely born that year but didn't check further than that. Quasi-grip (talk) 19:59, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thanks you, when he published that thesis he was affiliated to the University of Hawaii, and I found a newspaper article [6], from 19 September 1938, saying that Charles A. Ely joined the staff of department of Zoology of the University of Hawaii in 1938, and that he was also graduate of the Washington and Jefferson University. Christian Ferrer (talk) 20:57, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Update: a contact in the Bernice P. Bishop museum have been able to kindly provides me infos: this is Charles Aubrey Ely born 11 Dec 1913 in Pennsylvania and dead the 11 Mar 2006, I even have a photo. I will create soon a page here and a Wikidata entry, thanks again. Christian Ferrer (talk) 06:22, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done See Charles Aubrey Ely and Q126163744, I added a template {{Distinguish}} as almost every where in the web they are wrongly confused. I was able too to find more infos in American men & women of science : physical and biological sciences [7]. Christian Ferrer (talk) 08:22, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's great. I changed to the correct taxon authority on Swedish Wikipedia for the new species mentioned in his thesis. Quasi-grip (talk) 09:05, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Non English book titles

There is an entomologist page Medvedev with a list of his works as an example. Some titles was transliterated from Russian. How should they be? In original (Russian) with translation to English? I saw the same situation with journal names and book series names, I think the same recommendation will be applied to them? Vmartyanov (talk) 21:25, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I usually create or edit reference templates with both original non-English titles (with their original non-Latin characters; e.g. {{Makino, 1940a}}, {{Pimenov, 2017}}) and its English translation so that more people could access them directly or retrieve their bibliographical information readily since OPACs of non-Latin countries such as Bulgaria, China, Japan, Russia, Thailand, etc. often contain only their native titles as far as I know. As for publication titles, however, their Latin-transcriptions (not translation) would be preferable since some publications are registered in such a way in external databases (e.g. Ботанический журнал as 'Botanicheskii Zhurnal' in IPNI). --Eryk Kij (talk) 06:10, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to follow IPNI. May be I am just being lazy. On a related, but different matter I find it very frustrating that I can not find full text or abstracts of non-English papers through Scholar or similar search Engines. Andyboorman (talk) 07:24, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On the latter point, search engines as a rule fail to recognise IPNI's standard journal abbreviations; finding the relevant full title can be surprisingly difficult, but once you get it, the search engines work well to locate the papers. I think we should stop using the abbreviations... - MPF (talk) 11:06, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Abbreviations are praxis for Names and not just on wikis. However, I agree are definitely not acceptable for references. Andyboorman (talk) 13:20, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Announcing the first Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee

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

Hello,

The scrutineers have finished reviewing the vote results. We are following up with the results of the first Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) election.

We are pleased to announce the following individuals as regional members of the U4C, who will fulfill a two-year term:

North America (USA and Canada)
- –
Northern and Western Europe
- Ghilt
Latin America and Caribbean
- –
Central and East Europe (CEE)
- —
Sub-Saharan Africa
- –
Middle East and North Africa
- Ibrahim.ID
East, South East Asia and Pacific (ESEAP)
- 0xDeadbeef
South Asia
- –

The following individuals are elected to be community-at-large members of the U4C, fulfilling a one-year term:

Barkeep49
Superpes15
Civvì
Luke081515
–
–
–
–

Thank you again to everyone who participated in this process and much appreciation to the candidates for your leadership and dedication to the Wikimedia movement and community.

Over the next few weeks, the U4C will begin meeting and planning the 2024-25 year in supporting the implementation and review of the UCoC and Enforcement Guidelines. Follow their work on Meta-wiki.

On behalf of the UCoC project team,

RamzyM (WMF) 08:14, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BHL issue

It seems to be difficult to reach certain parts of the BHL database at the moment, e.g. https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/page/28379510
–Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 12:27, 6 June 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Hm, seems to be fine for me at the moment? Though, Internet Archive experienced a DDoS attack a few weeks ago, which also caused problems for BHL at the time as a result, so I hope that isn't happening again right now. Monster Iestyn (talk) 19:09, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Philip Malory Jones

I have been unable to find any papers written, or taxa named, by Philip Malory Jones (1892-; mycologist; IPNI standard form: P.M.Jones). can anyone oblige, please? His death date is also needed. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:47, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I found Plasmodiophora tabaci via Index Fungorum and based on that two more at mycobank.org: Plasmodiophora lewisii and Scopulariopsis lunaspora. Quasi-grip (talk) 12:29, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing) and Quasi-grip: Thank you both.
I've created the two reference templates {{Jones, 1926}} (for Plasmodiophora tabaci) and {{Jones, 1936}} (for Scopulariopsis lunaspora) as well as the corresponding Category:Philip Malory Jones taxa category. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 13:47, 8 June 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Theobald Jones

I created an entry for Theobald Jones.

IPNI lists:

Lecidea crombiei T.Jones ex Nyl., Flora 51: 345 (1868)

which work can be found at [8]. Have I included it correctly the above page?? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:23, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The final text of the Wikimedia Movement Charter is now on Meta

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

Hi everyone,

The final text of the Wikimedia Movement Charter is now up on Meta in more than 20 languages for your reading.

What is the Wikimedia Movement Charter?

The Wikimedia Movement Charter is a proposed document to define roles and responsibilities for all the members and entities of the Wikimedia movement, including the creation of a new body – the Global Council – for movement governance.

Join the Wikimedia Movement Charter “Launch Party”

Join the “Launch Party” on June 20, 2024 at 14.00-15.00 UTC (your local time). During this call, we will celebrate the release of the final Charter and present the content of the Charter. Join and learn about the Charter before casting your vote.

Movement Charter ratification vote

Voting will commence on SecurePoll on June 25, 2024 at 00:01 UTC and will conclude on July 9, 2024 at 23:59 UTC. You can read more about the voting process, eligibility criteria, and other details on Meta.

If you have any questions, please leave a comment on the Meta talk page or email the MCDC at mcdc@wikimedia.org.

On behalf of the MCDC,

RamzyM (WMF) 08:44, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tropicos IDs

I have just added three types of Tropicos IDs to our {{Authority control}} template:

Please let me know if you spot any related errors. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:46, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! For reference, we also have Wikispecies templates that are somewhat related:

{{Tropicosp}} (for taxa)
{{TROPICOS publication}}

These will not (and should not) show up in the "Authority control" box though. Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 00:31, 15 June 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Eponyms of object?

Hello, as far as I´m aware there are only categories like Eponyms of person e.g. Eponyms of Kareen E. Schnabel. But I also know that the japenese deep diving submersible Shinkai 2000 is eponymous for the genus Shinkai- polychaete worms of the family Chrysopetalidae. Another example is Ophiuroglypha fendouzhe where the chinese deep diving submersible Fendouzhe is eponymous for. The japanese submersible Shinkai 6500 might be eponymous for Vestimentiferan endosymbiont 'Shinkai? And the name of the familia Alvinellidae may be related to the deep diving submersible Alvin as the french title contains "polychètes inféodées aux sources hydrothermales sous-marines"? But I can not prove my theory because I do not have access to the mentioned paper. So, my question is whether there is an category like "Eponyms of object (e.g.submersible)".Yeti-Hunter (talk) 16:34, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, I don't think such eponym category would be useful. There are hundreds of Greek or Latin epithets containing words for objects like sword, helmet, shield and plenty of others. --Hector Bottai (talk) 19:52, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Such data can be added to the equivalent item in Wikidata. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:46, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Hector Bottai and Andy Mabbett. "Eponyms of person" categories may be useful since they often refer to individuals that are taxonomists themselves (hence are within the scope of Wikispecies, at least to some degree), whereas categories listing "eponyms of objects" would be of very little taxonomical value. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 00:43, 15 June 2024 (UTC).[reply]

I´d like to thank you all for your answers and suggestions. It was not my intention to start a discussion about a new category. It was only about whether such a category already exists. I have linked the species with the submersible in Wikidata. I agree that this is a sufficient solution to point out the connection. Best regards Yeti-Hunter (talk) 11:46, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nectriella moelleri vs. N. muelleri

Our page on Nectriella has red inks for both N. moelleri and N. muelleri. Are these not the same name? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:48, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

According to Index Fungorum, these are different species: Nectriella moelleri Henn. [as 'mölleri'], Hedwigia 36(4): 219 (1897) and Nectriella muelleri Samuels, Rogerson, Rossman & J.D. Sm., Can. J. Bot. 62(9): 1899 (1984). --Thiotrix (talk) 08:49, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gymnosperm Database Template

@RLJ: @MPF: Has anybody come across a template for this resource? The Gymnosperm Database. If not is it possible to create one? Andyboorman (talk) 08:14, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've never seen one and have never made one, but then, I find template creation tricky. One thing to watch for though, the urls of the pages do change from time to time, presumably changes in the server he uses. - MPF (talk) 08:58, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Andy, MPF, and RLJ: There's one available in English Wikipedia: w:Template:Gymnosperm Database. It utilizes a bunch of subpages in order to sort out prefixes and URLs plus distinguish between taxon ranks etc, so it may take some time to set it up correctly. Today is a busy day for me, but I'll create a local Wikispecies one early tomorrow morning (I'm in UTC+2, dst). I'll report back here when it's ready and after that it should be fairly straightforward for anyone to use. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk),13:16, 17 June 2024 (UTC).[reply]

@Tommy Kronkvist: Many thanks. Andyboorman (talk) 15:28, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It turns out we already have a template called {{Gymnosperm Database}}. It will need some work though. Stay tuned. :-) Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 08:52, 18 June 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Real life got a bit more busy here in Sweden, due to the oncoming midsummer. It's a Viking thing I guess... Please excuse the the delay. Regards, Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 10:51, 20 June 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks for your efforts and enjoy the solstice! Andyboorman (talk) 11:16, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

f.sp.

Index Fungorum lists ([9]; italicisation per original):

Colletotrichum gloeosporioides f.sp. aeschynomenes J.T. Daniel, G.E. Tempelton, R.J. Sm. & W.T. Fox [as 'aeschynomene'], Weed Science 21(4): 304 (1973)

The page at [10] suggests that this taxon has "Preferred name: Colletotrichum aeschynomenes B.S. Weir & P.R. Johnst. 2012".

I have created an entry for the former work, at {{Daniel, et al., 1973}}. We have Colletotrichum gloeosporioides and Colletotrichum aeschynomenes, neither of which mention the work or its authors. What else needs to be done? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:59, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Missing Smiths

Over the last couple of weeks or so, I have resolved all of the many red links on our Smith disambiguation page, except for these two:

Alex Smith, entomologist
Aston B. Smith, entomologist

about which I can find no dates, disambiguation information, nor related publications or taxon names. Can anyone assist, please? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:34, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Could possibly be a spelling mistake: Ashton B. Smith. Quasi-grip (talk) 11:56, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is also an M. Alex Smith. Both of these entries were added by User:Neferkheperre, who also created those two articles. Quasi-grip (talk) 12:15, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aston B. Smith is indeed a tyop. I corrected it. I could not find Alex Smith at all, it is probably an overlooked M. Alex Smith. I deleted it. Resolving all those red links was a formidable task. Some of the Chinese names look even more so. Neferkheperre (talk) 13:31, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Avibase IDs

I have just added two types of Avibase IDs to our {{Authority control}} template:

Please let me know if you spot any related errors.

{{AviBase}} is also available, for use as a reference. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:52, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The size of the task ahead

This Wikidata query shows people with an IPNI author ID (P586), but no Wikispecies entry.

So that's just ~~biologists~~ botanists; not zoologist. Not the taxa they described and not the papers they wrote.

There are 29,027 of them. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:12, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That would be botanists I presume, biologists is a lapsus. And BTW I am probably one of them (one species of microalga, joint authorship back in 1974). Not that it is particularly important to me, except for the sake of completeness maybe... Tony 1212 (talk) 18:29, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lapsus corrected; thank you. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:47, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

G.Walker

Our page at Walker lists:

George Walker (1734?–1807; G.Walker), British naturalist

as a red link.

Is this the same person as en:George Walker (mathematician), whose dates match? What is his taxonomic contribution? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:34, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@IFPNI Staff: do you know if they are the same person? Since you added this person to Walker, that is. Monster Iestyn (talk) 20:52, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We have the following in our archives:

Richard J. Goulden provides further information about George Walker in his The Faversham Book Trade, 1730-1900 (Faversham: The Faversham Society, 1996), p. 42:

Walker, George (1737?-1792) bookseller and stationer

Possibly the son of George and Lydia Walker of Faversham; married Mary Pratt, widow, at Faversham on 5 January 1768.

George Walker was admitted as a freeman of Faversham and as bookseller and stationer on 11 June 1767. He insured with the Sun in 1780 for £500 also as bookseller and stationer [Maxted, Index to Insurance Policies, Exeter 1992]. His moment of fame came when he published his own Testacea minuta rariora in 1784.

George Walter died aged 55 and was buried at Faversham on 17 April 1792. His will refers to him as a stationer, and also to his marriage bond of 31 December 1767.

IPNI was notified for the necessary updates. IFPNI Staff (talk) 09:55, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, thank you! @Pigsonthewing: See above information provided by IFPNI Staff. This George Walker is not the same person as the mathematician, he just has the same name. Monster Iestyn (talk) 20:45, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

...Checking for myself, I understand that this is meant to complete the minimal data at IPNI for "G. Walker (fl. 1798)". According to AlgaeBase and IPNI itself, "G. Walker" named the protist genus Lagena G.Walker & Jacob (or Walker & Boys, 1784?) and the species Lagena sulcata G.Walker & Jacob in Kanmacher's 1798 "Essays on the microscope", which is available here. However this work doesn't mention Walker's full name, only that "Mr. Walker of Faversham" published a work on shells in 1784, authored by himself and William Boys and assisted by a late Edward Jacob. (See [11]) Finding this 1784 work ([12]), reveals this Mr. Walker to be "Geo. Walker", a bookseller from Faversham. "Geo." is short for George, so his full name does seem to be "George Walker". But I don't know if there's any link to the mathematician otherwise: "George Walker" could easily have been the name of an unrelated person who was living at the same time as the mathematician. Monster Iestyn (talk) 21:17, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved.Thank you, all. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:15, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikispecies and some wider uses

Colleagues. I have just started to use Wikispecies as a first source for data entries required for adding missing accepted plant names to IPNI. To date I have concentrated largely on subgenus, sections, subsections and infraspecifics. Wikispecies has become so data rich for plants that it is now very useful starting point. Working with IPNI has also highlighted some missing WS data, such as protologues and type species giving this exercise a synergy. Thank you to our botanists and contributors! Registration on IPNI is open to all, although the data entry requirements for names are very specific and so a degree of taxonomic familiarity is required. If you have other wider uses outside of wikis, I would urge you to share. Thanks and best regards. Andyboorman (talk) 08:18, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thismiaceae - distinct family or not

Wikispecies currently has Thismiaceae as a distinct family, albeit with a disclaimer: "This is a taxonomic opinion of Thismiaceae segregated from Burmanniaceae s.l., only partially supported by phylogenetic evidence.". However according to Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thismiaceae, APG II, III and IV all merge Thismiaceae into Burmanniaceae, as does the POWO link given on the WS Thismiaceae page, which simply reads: "* Govaerts, R. et al. 2024. Thismiaceae in Kew Science Plants of the World Online. The Board of Trustees of the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew. Published online. Accessed: 2024 Mar. 1. Reference page" - and is thus somewhat misleading in my opinion...

On the other hand, Tropicos does currently list Thismiaceae as accepted ("legitimate"), see https://www.tropicos.org/name/50304863, thus departing from APG treatment. IPNI appears confused: the new (2024) genus Relictithismia is placed in their Thismiaceae, but other genera including Thismia are placed in Burmanniaceae, see https://www.ipni.org/n/30015452-2 . I have not checked other major online sources at this time, just wondering what is best for WS to do in this case, i.e., follow APG or not?? Tony 1212 (talk) 20:01, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IPNI list the family for Relictithismia as Thismiaceae, because that is what Suetsugu et al. (2024) entered on the database. This is clear on reading the paper. The other genera were changed through edits and updates post APGIV. Ideally a Japanese speaker needs to contact the author on kenji.suetsugu@gmail.com and point out the problems caused by their taxonomy. IPNI, like WS does not take sides in taxonomic disputes or anomalies and sticks to the author's data entry. The problem is that if WS unilaterally changes the family for Relictithismia then this will be original research, which is banned here and the edits will be reverted. This is my rationale for keeping a page for Thismiaceae at least until this problem is resolved. Hope this helps. Andyboorman (talk) 20:36, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, when Relictithismia is added to POWO (which should not be too far off) I am guessing it will be placed in Burmanniaceae, so that would create a precedent for WS to follow if it desires ... no need to contact the authors of the paper I would say, that is published and done. Cheers Tony Tony 1212 (talk) 22:38, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For Relictithismia in IRMNG (added just now as part of a new batch of names via IPNI) I took an executive decision to place it in Burmanniaceae, since (as a rule) I do not place genus names in currently unaccepted families (at least in the IRMNG universe), hence https://www.irmng.org/aphia.php?p=taxdetails&id=11938605 ... but WS is welcome to follow its own guidelines of course! Cheers Tony Tony 1212 (talk) 23:30, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As a curator of IRMNG it is your right to use whichever taxonomy fits your preferences. Like you I also await POWO, but note that IPNI and POWO inhabit the same RBG Kew universe. I will contact IPNI after they return from congress. WS is more collaborative and circumspect and has to follow wiki rules and conventions. I will add disputed to Thismiaceae. Regards Andyboorman (talk) 07:24, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Tony 1212: I notice that IRMNG do not accept the recently segregated Afrothismiaceae, a recently described monotypic family. A few months ago I contacted Kew about this and they were very reluctant to accept a monotypic family even with the evidence that Cheek et al. provided, hence it has not appeared in POWO. It is in IPNI, because they do not make judgements about acceptance or synonymy and it was legitimately published. However, the other members of the old Thismiaceae have been formally transferred to Burmanniaceae and therefore that option is available to them, if they wish to follow APG et al.. It seems that there is no consensus and there are are two distinct taxonomic camps - those following Burmanniaceae s.l. and another preferring its dismantling. There appears to be no definitive evidence favouring one over the other, but on balance s.l. could be favoured on both the weight of evidence and nomenclatural stability. A individual botanist is free to take whatever side suits them, unlike WS/Wiki. Andyboorman (talk) 13:41, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Andy... RE

> "I notice that IRMNG do not accept the recently segregated Afrothismiaceae, a recently described monotypic family"

- that is more likely to be an oversight/latency issue, since I/we monitor the new literature only at irregular intervals and may miss some newly proposed names at ranks higher than genus... we try to keep the genera updated as the higher priority, but as we encounter new families they would certainly be candidate names for addition as well. For most groups we would take the publishing authors as the "trusted source" to follow for accepted/unaccepted status of proposed new names/taxonomic arrangements in the absence of anything else (unless in a known controversial area, or there is some other reason not to accept a particular author's treatment) but for higher plant families we generally wait to see what POWO does, that being our current preferred "trusted source" to follow in that area. So in the case of Afrothismiaceae, there are 2 issues at play for IRMNG: the first is that we have to notice it (thanks for the alert; since it was not published alongside any new genus names we may not have found it, or only belatedly as cited elsewhere), and the second is that until and only if it is "accepted" in POWO, it would not be "accepted" in IRMNG. It could be entered into IRMNG as "unaccepted", however IRMNG makes no attempt to list all unaccepted family names, just (in the main) those that have some other reason to be there such as having come in as "accepted" with data previously ingested (I may have made an exception for plants if I had a good source of unaccepted families to use such as the work of Reveal - would have to look further there).

Nevertheless I can and will add the reference to the IRMNG "literature" module, plus a note on the relevant genus page that a new monotypic family has been proposed for that genus, however is awaiting more general acceptance... I just checked Tropicos (https://tropicos.org/name/50329549) and they do not currently seem to accept Afrothismiaceae either (or again it may just be latency). Of course they place Afrothismia in Thismiaceae, which as noted above, is a discrepancy cf. POWO already :) Cheers Tony Tony 1212 (talk) 19:02, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Tony 1212: POWO have now moved Afrothismia to Burmanniaceae See here. Best regards. Andyboorman (talk) 19:29, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK, now done (comment and new citation added to the IRMNG Afrothismia page https://www.irmng.org/aphia.php?p=taxdetails&id=1069935, but no taxon page (at this time) for the proposed new family) - still in 2 minds whether or not to do the latter until/unless it becomes "accepted" in either Tropicos or POWO, in other words is more than just a proposal in the Cheek et al. paper).

Just noting as an aside that I/we am very happy to receive alerts of any other novelties or likely-to-be-accepted changes at rank above genus that IRMNG may have missed (we have other routes for getting the genera, but of course might miss some of these as well :) - you can use my WS talk page for this, or email info@irmng.org (which is monitored by more persons than just myself) if you so desire. For most extant groups (plants, animals, protists, fungi, more...) we are using Ruggiero et al's 2015 treatment as a default position but will modify this if it appears that consensus has moved on since then - according to some "trusted source" in the main, for internal consistency, where such source/s exist of course! Tony 1212 (talk) 19:31, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Andyboorman:RE POWO have now moved Afrothismia to Burmanniaceae ... would it not have been there all along, since they do not accept Thismiaceae?? (I had it there anyway, from GRIN in 2011). Cheers Tony Tony 1212 (talk) 19:39, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Will do re alerts. Sorry must have misread your POWO discrepancy note above. Andyboorman (talk) 19:59, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chromista

Chromista is polyphyletic according to Adl et al. 2019, I recommend placing the "chromists" into monophyletic groups (such as Diaphoretickes→Tsar→Sar (in case of members of Sar), Diaphoretickes→Haptista (in case of Haptista, like haptophytes) etc.), and using "Chromista" as a group formerly used as a taxon, just like Protozoa was formerly believed to be and used as a taxon, but is not. Alfa-ketosav (talk) 11:17, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Hacrobia was formerly believed to be a taxon, but according to Adl et al. 2019, the two groups Haptista and Cryptista are not sisters, and Sar is not included in Hacrobia, so it is also polyphyletic. Alfa-ketosav (talk) 11:19, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimedia Movement Charter ratification voting results

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

Hello everyone,

After carefully tallying both individual and affiliate votes, the Charter Electoral Commission is pleased to announce the final results of the Wikimedia Movement Charter voting.

As communicated by the Charter Electoral Commission, we reached the quorum for both Affiliate and individual votes by the time the vote closed on July 9, 23:59 UTC. We thank all 2,451 individuals and 129 Affiliate representatives who voted in the ratification process. Your votes and comments are invaluable for the future steps in Movement Strategy.

The final results of the Wikimedia Movement Charter ratification voting held between 25 June and 9 July 2024 are as follows:

Individual vote:

Out of 2,451 individuals who voted as of July 9 23:59 (UTC), 2,446 have been accepted as valid votes. Among these, 1,710 voted “yes”; 623 voted “no”; and 113 selected “–” (neutral). Because the neutral votes don’t count towards the total number of votes cast, 73.30% voted to approve the Charter (1710/2333), while 26.70% voted to reject the Charter (623/2333).

Affiliates vote:

Out of 129 Affiliates designated voters who voted as of July 9 23:59 (UTC), 129 votes are confirmed as valid votes. Among these, 93 voted “yes”; 18 voted “no”; and 18 selected “–” (neutral). Because the neutral votes don’t count towards the total number of votes cast, 83.78% voted to approve the Charter (93/111), while 16.22% voted to reject the Charter (18/111).

Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation:

The Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees voted not to ratify the proposed Charter during their special Board meeting on July 8, 2024. The Chair of the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees, Nataliia Tymkiv, shared the result of the vote, the resolution, meeting minutes and proposed next steps.

With this, the Wikimedia Movement Charter in its current revision is not ratified.

We thank you for your participation in this important moment in our movement’s governance.

The Charter Electoral Commission,

Abhinav619, Borschts, Iwuala Lucy, Tochiprecious, Der-Wir-Ing

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:51, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

XX International Botanical Congress 2024

There will be few if any updates to IPNI for a couple of weeks, as the staff are in attendance at Nomenclature Section of the congress. There will be changes to the Code and see this PDF for a summary of proposals. One of significance to plants' entries in WS will be the terms type/type species or genus. PDF of changes to e International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants

Happy reading and we await developments. Andyboorman (talk) 18:22, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just seen this in The Guardian, reporting that the epithet caffra (an ethnic slur) is to be changed to affra. I'm presuming this is being treated as an orthographic correction to be made, without affecting authorship, date of publication, priority, etc., but the Guardian article isn't clear on that. - MPF (talk) 13:05, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate/Name change

Susanne Hunger got married and is Susanne King-Jones. d:Q33679227 has been merged into d:Q21516658. Frlgin (talk) 13:57, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved, thank you. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:32, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't Susanne King-Jones be the page name rather than a redirect? At present she seems to prefer to use "King-Jones" rather than "Hunger" as her surname in her publications. Monster Iestyn (talk) 15:50, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We currently list two papers; one with each name. IPNI standard form is "Hunger".Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:47, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

More papers are listed on her ResearchGate profile linked in the Authority control [13] (though most are not related to botany), and there are IPNI records for both names: [14] (standard form King-Jones) and [15] (standard form Hunger). Though, IPNI should be contacted about these being for the same person. Monster Iestyn (talk) 21:18, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Two names in reference?

Hello.

While creating the page for Aulastraeopora, I noticed that while it was described by Pietro Lodovico Prever in 1909, there was this bit "In Parona, C.F. (ed.), and I wondered what it meant. The full reference is:

Prever, P.L. 1909. Anthozoa, 51-147. In Parona, C.F. (ed). La fauna coralligena del Cretaceo dei Monti d'Ocre nell' Abruzzo Aquilano. Memorie descrittive della carta geologica d'Italia 5.

Just to be safe, I categorized it both as Prever's and Parona's taxa, but I'm unsure if it should have been just Prever. I just wonder what's the protocol for this sort of reference.

Sorry if I worded it weirdly.

--DeanDingus23 (talk) 10:56, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello DeanDingus23, Prever wrote the chapter upon Anthozoa. The citation "in Parona" means that it is part of a book edited by Parona. But Parona is not the author of the Anthozoa chapter, its author is Prever alone. Kind regards, --Thiotrix (talk) 14:35, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed just what I was going to post. Andyboorman (talk) 14:55, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The script common.js

This script has recently become non-functional. Fixing it requires a far greater expertise that I have. You can have a look through here. Fingers crossed. Andyboorman (talk) 15:00, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have contacted the script originator as well. Andyboorman (talk) 15:08, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Andy Boorman: The only difference I can see between your most recent version (October 2019) and the most recent version of Rillke's original script (September 2018) is that at the end of line 56 in your file the text says csrfToken whereas in the original it says editToken. I've added a screenshot were you can see the diffs marked with purple text (Rillke's version to the left, yours to the right).

Change that single word in your script and see what happens. An easier way may be to import Rilke's entire script, instead of copying the code. In order to do that simply replace all code in your commons.js file with the following code string:

importScript('User:Rillke/createRedirects.js')

You may need to refresh your browser and/or clear the browser cashe and cookies in order to see the changes. Good luck!
–Tommy Kronkvist (talk) 15:59, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Andy Boorman: I see that you've now updated your common.js file. Did it help? Tommy Kronkvist (talk) 15:02, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

┌───────┘ For reference, the discussion with the JavaScript author can be found in Wikimedia Commons: User talk:Rillke.
–Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 17:24, 12 June 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Nothing seems to have happened or changed. Such a shame. Andyboorman (talk) 07:51, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Tommy Kronkvist: The script has not been edited so I can only assume it is something to do with a recent wiki update. Andyboorman (talk) 10:36, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Andy: I've made a small change to your common.js file, reflecting the fact that we've added tags for automatic localization (i.e. {{int:Synonyms}} and {{int:Synonymy}}) to some of our Synonymy sections. Any improvement?
–Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 16:58, 25 June 2024 (UTC).[reply]

@Tommy Kronkvist: No seems to make things worse. Do I need to remove it and reload? If I could remember how to do that! Andyboorman (talk) 17:59, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Andy Boorman: I've reverted my edit of the file. I forgot that my additions were partly made up of wiki code. Your commons.js file is 100% JavaScript code which most likely isn't at all compatible with wiki code syntax. I've got a workaround coming up, but that will have to wait a while. It's +30 °C here and that makes me somewhat incompatible with most programming languages...
–Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 18:17, 25 June 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Voting to ratify the Wikimedia Movement Charter is now open – cast your vote

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

Hello everyone,

The voting to ratify the Wikimedia Movement Charter is now open. The Wikimedia Movement Charter is a document to define roles and responsibilities for all the members and entities of the Wikimedia movement, including the creation of a new body – the Global Council – for movement governance.

The final version of the Wikimedia Movement Charter is available on Meta in different languages and attached here in PDF format for your reading.

Voting commenced on SecurePoll on June 25, 2024 at 00:01 UTC and will conclude on July 9, 2024 at 23:59 UTC. Please read more on the voter information and eligibility details.

After reading the Charter, please vote here and share this note further.

If you have any questions about the ratification vote, please contact the Charter Electoral Commission at cec@wikimedia.org.

On behalf of the CEC,

RamzyM (WMF) 10:51, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ISSN Question

Hi all, I'm currently working on cleaning up Ralph Vary Chamberlin. The publication Pamona College Journal of Entomology (see 1910) was changed to Journal of Entomology and Zoology. The previous title of the publication has a different ISSN (2831-9435 [16]). In these instances, is it best to create a new page, redirect links referencing the old ISSN to the more recent page (i.e. ISSN 2831-9435 -> 0095-8530), or just reference the more recent ISSN? Parasiticfrisk (talk) 21:19, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Create a ISSN page for 2831-9435. Burmeister (talk) 10:15, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I have created the new page and linked the corresponding Wikidata entry (Q51520043). Parasiticfrisk (talk) 19:08, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Voting to ratify the Wikimedia Movement Charter is ending soon

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

Hello everyone,

This is a kind reminder that the voting period to ratify the Wikimedia Movement Charter will be closed on July 9, 2024, at 23:59 UTC.

If you have not voted yet, please vote on SecurePoll.

On behalf of the Charter Electoral Commission,

RamzyM (WMF) 03:45, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

U4C Special Election - Call for Candidates

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

Hello all,

A special election has been called to fill additional vacancies on the U4C. The call for candidates phase is open from now through July 19, 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 in the special election for the U4C. For more information and the responsibilities of the U4C, please review the U4C Charter.

In this special election, according to chapter 2 of the U4C charter, there are 9 seats available on the U4C: four community-at-large seats and five regional seats to ensure the U4C represents the diversity of the movement. No more than two members of the U4C can be elected from the same home wiki. Therefore, candidates must not have English Wikipedia, German Wikipedia, or Italian Wikipedia as their home wiki.

Read more and submit your application on Meta-wiki.

In cooperation with the U4C,

-- Keegan (WMF) (talk) 00:02, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ophrys holoserica vs. Ophrys holosericea

Please see discussion at Talk:Ophrys holoserica#Ophrys holoserica must be corrected into Ophrys holosericea. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:35, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IPNI maintains the correct name as Ophrys holosericea [17]. WS should follow this unless there are compelling reason not to do so. They also provide a 2008 reference to support their opinion. Andyboorman (talk) 15:47, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Copied over from Talk:Ophrys holoserica

See this paper; Greuter, W., 2008. On the correct name of the late spider orchid, and its appropriate spelling: Ophrys holosericea. J. Eur. Orch, 40(4): 657-662. ResearchGate. This is followed by IPNI, EMD and POWO. In addition, the basionym for Ophrys fuciflora (F.W.Schmidt) Moench, Suppl. Meth. (Moench) 311. (1802) was published after that for Ophrys holosericea (Burm.f.) Greuter, Boissiera 13: 185 (1967). Therefore, the later has priority under ICBN, unless there is problems with publication. Until Kreutz publishes and convinces us otherwise, then this orthography and synonymy should be used. The taxon page needs to be moved in my opinion, as this is a very important orchid in the European Flora. Andyboorman (talk) 19:25, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Request robot work: Add Chinese name for Chinese plant authors

A paper published on Biodiversity Science provides Chinese names for all botanical authors from China.^[1] I would suggest adding the Chinese names on their Wikispecies pages. Interaccoonale (talk) 02:36, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

↑ 杜诚; 刘军; 刘夙; 马金双 (2022), "中国植物分类学者的历史与现状", 生物多样性, 30: 22355, doi:10.17520/biods.2022355{{citation}}: CS1 maint: date and year (link).

Peter Schmidt: Possible Duplicate

Are Peter Schmidt (arachnologist) and Peter Yulievich Schmidt the same person?

Please see discussion at Talk:Peter Schmidt (arachnologist). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:29, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this is the same person. Anna Pavlova IFPNI Staff (talk) 20:12, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Merged. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:50, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Measles morbillivirus → Morbillivirus hominis

Please see discussion at Talk:Measles morbillivirus#Morbillivirus hominis. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:41, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Every single virus species has been renamed in the last 4 years. The ICTV has adopted the system of binomial nomenclature (see the proposal and Article 3.21 of the nomenclatural code) long used for other organisms. Previously virus species names could be any number of words (not exactly two), and didn't necessarily contain the name of the genus (and when the genus name was included it was usually the last word in the species name, not the first).

The 2023 ICTV taxonomy release (published in June 2024) is the first release to have completed (?) the changeover to binomial species names. (I'm not certain it is complete, but I haven't come across any non-binomial species in it, and the previous ICTV taxonomy release had many non-binomials). Plantdrew (talk) 17:39, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved Measles morbillivirus to Morbillivirus hominis, per the references. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 07:53, 31 July 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Citrus limonia VS. Citrus limon

Please see discussion at Talk:Citrus × limon#Redirect is not appropriate. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:34, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge two pages, advice

What's a good way to merge the content of these two pages? I want the content of what should become the defunct tribe Triaenonychini to become integrated into the subfamily Triaenonychinae. It's little content, so i'm considering just to paste over then build on that, i'm just a little wary as over on wikipedia i frequently hit against issues of edit attribution and history merges. Sjl197 (talk) 02:00, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Next time, move the page to the new rank to preserve the history of the page. Burmeister (talk) 18:16, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sjl197 I don't think copy+paste can be avoided for Triaenonychini/Triaenonychinae, since both pages already existed as far back as 2008. That is, not unless it's acceptable to delete Triaenonychinae so that Triaenonychini could be renamed to the subfamily title, but as far as I know it isn't? Monster Iestyn (talk) 18:50, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You may just have to provide attribution in the edit summary, say that (while editing Triaenonychinae) you copied content from Triaenonychini. Monster Iestyn (talk) 18:57, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Botanists vote to remove racist reference from plants’ scientific names

Story in The Guardian:

https://www.theguardian.com/science/article/2024/jul/20/botanists-remove-racist-references-plants-scientific-names

Original proposal:

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/tax.12622

Discussion on Wikipedia:

en:Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Plants#Upcoming International Botanical Congress vote on "offensive" binomial names

-- Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:16, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Meanwhile all plant species with the original (insulting) epithets "caffra", "caffrum", "caffer" have been renamed by IPNI and POWO to "afra", "afrum" or "afer". The c-words are treated as correctable orthographical variants. Wikispecies and Wikidata need to be updated. --Thiotrix (talk) 08:30, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder! Vote closing soon to fill vacancies of the first U4C

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

Dear all,

The voting period for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is closing soon. It is open through 10 August 2024. Read the information on the voting page on Meta-wiki to learn more about voting and voter eligibility. If you are eligible to vote and have not voted in this special election, it is important that you vote now.

Why should you vote? The U4C is a global group dedicated to providing an equitable and consistent implementation of the UCoC. Community input into the committee membership is critical to the success of the UCoC.

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

In cooperation with the U4C,

-- Keegan (WMF) (talk) 15:29, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Series identifiers revisited

As a followup to Wikispecies:Village Pump/Archive 65#Category:Series identifiers, I have moved everything in Category:Series identifiers (except Category:ISSN) to Category:Sources. If nobody objects for whatever reason, I would suggest deleting Category:Series identifiers and moving Category:ISSN to either Category:Sources or Category:Journals, depending on what Wikispecies users prefer. Monster Iestyn (talk) 14:50, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you are moving ISSN then they are journals I guess. Andyboorman (talk) 19:24, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Farzana Perveen

We have no publications, associated taxa, nor authority control identifiers, for Farzana Perveen - and neither does Wikidata.

What should we do in such cases? If kept, should such pages be added to a tracking category? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:35, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I added two identifiers in Wikidata, she is indeed an entomologist, but not only. In ORCID she says she published 113 papers + severals books but I am not able to say if she is a taxon author. Christian Ferrer (talk) 16:02, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

she seems to have published several checklists and examinations of the genetic relationships of a number of taxa. Though I can find no evidence of any new taxa or re-arrangements of existing taxa to date. Possibly only vaguely a taxon author as we define it at this point. Though she seems to be maybe working towards this in the future. So to me borderline on keep. My guess is she is establishing baselines across existing species at present and may produce new descriptions later. Not sure. Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 17:58, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the page to Unresolved or Unmentioned Authorities, since it has currently no links from any taxon page or reference template. Honestly, I would also be inclined to remove the page from Category:Taxon authorities at the least, since I cannot find any evidence that she authored any taxa. Given that PeterR created the page in 2017, I think this page was most likely created for one of her Lepidoptera-related articles? Monster Iestyn (talk) 19:34, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. That looks like what I was thinking of; though I believe it should be a category. Shall we convert it? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:00, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I sometimes make links to authors and their works even if they've published no "nomenclatural acts" themselves, sometimes the later combination in use has value for nomenclature to show active - even prevailing usage. Point being, i see any authors discussing species (and ergo their nomenclatural combinations) as potentially valuable for the literature, which in my mind can extend to ecology focused papers, behavioural ones etc. I'm not sure what you all feel qualifies as a "taxon authority" or not, but perhaps can be defined as having published an available taxon name (inline with ICZN etc), however, if so then i'm generally unclear from what ICZN in particular say about whether a novel later recombination is deemed a nomenclatural act or a 'taxonomic opinion', so good good luck with that. Sjl197 (talk) 01:39, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cactus expert needed

This discussion on Commons: Commons:Village pump#Cactus_expert_needed has implications for Wikispecies. Please comment there. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:44, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sign up for the language community meeting on August 30th, 15:00 UTC

Hi all,

The next language community meeting is scheduled in a few weeks—on August 30th at 15:00 UTC. If you're interested in joining, you can sign up on this wiki page.

This participant-driven meeting will focus on sharing language-specific updates related to various projects, discussing technical issues related to language wikis, and working together to find possible solutions. For example, in the last meeting, topics included the Language Converter, the state of language research, updates on the Incubator conversations, and technical challenges around external links not working with special characters on Bengali sites.

Do you have any ideas for topics to share technical updates or discuss challenges? Please add agenda items to the document here and reach out to ssethi(__AT__)wikimedia.org. We look forward to your participation!

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:18, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vote now to fill vacancies 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 August 10, 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.

In cooperation with the U4C,

RamzyM (WMF) 02:46, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Collapse Taxonavigation

Help me out please, on this family level taxon Hybophthiridae it presents with the hierarchy as full, i.e. all higher taxa listed - but in families of various taxa I think this is better presented as collapsed. I would like this "Taxonavigation" also to be shown as collapsed, but no matter what I try - it won't collapse, what am I failing to do? — The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sjl197 (talk • contribs) 01:26, 18 August 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Use the taxotemplate {{Hybophthiridae}}. The magic word "taxonav" (only for templates of families) results in the collapsed taxobox. --Thiotrix (talk) 07:49, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the fixes - it was one of those where just got blind to what/where the error was. Cheers! Sjl197 (talk) 19:50, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maxim Ed. Smirnov

Does anyone happen to know whether the Russian entomologist Maxim Ed. Smirnov (Wikidata: Q31202216) is the same person as "Maksim Eduardovich Smirnov" (Russian: Максим Эдуардович Смирнов) described here on the Beetles (Coleoptera) and coleopterists webpage? It seems most likely, but I'm not 100% sure.

A version in Russian can be found here. It contains a little more information than the English version, but unfortunately I don't speak Russian.
–Tommy Kronkvist (talk) 14:18, 18 August 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Me neither, I don't speak Russian, but within the webpage you give, the place of birth is "Ivanovo, Russia", that matches with the affiliation given in DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4276.3.9. And it sound very unlikely that there are two different "Maksim E. Smirnov" both specialist of Coleoptera, both from the same time, and both from the same Russian town. Christian Ferrer (talk) 04:30, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Tommy, this is the same person. Anna Pavlova IFPNI Staff (talk) 19:46, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've now renamed the page to Maksim Eduardovich Smirnov. While we're here though, I don't think he is a taxon author at the moment (the only listed article is about phylogeny using DNA barcoding, no changes to nomenclature) so I have requested his "taxa by author" category to be deleted and removed the page from Category:Taxon authorities. Monster Iestyn (talk) 14:48, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

┌───────┘ To Christian Ferrer, Anna Pavlova, and Monster Iestyn: Thank you all for your help! I've now added the alternative author name spellings to the Maksim Eduardovich Smirnov page, and deleted Category:Maxim Ed. Smirnov taxa. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk),15:23, 24 August 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Dear Tommy, thank you for your clarifications! Anna IFPNI Staff (talk) 20:30, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A Useful Template, Author Pages and Protologes.

Due to a recent and unfortunate incident that nearly lead to some unpleasantness, I would like to advocate the use of {{Workpage}} whilst editing a taxon page and if you are leaving the page to return soon. This will indicate to fellow editors that you intend to return and continue your work and they need to edit with care. Please remember to remove the template when finished!

I also have become a fan of the Author pages, particularly when looking for protologues. I commend those responsible for curating these pages and strongly advise others to use these pages and contribute to them. A good example is found by following this link Benth..

Taxonomically the Protologue (Primary Reference) is a very important piece of information and I would urge fellow editors to please provide this to our readers. Many plant PRs can be found on IPNI or BHL. I also would suggest that we create a reference template wherever possible.

Thanks and best regards Andyboorman (talk) 07:35, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

{{In use}} also exists. perhaps that and {{Workpage}} should be merged? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:21, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Announcing the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee

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

Hello all,

The scrutineers have finished reviewing the vote and the Elections Committee have certified the results for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) special election.

I am pleased to announce the following individual as regional members of the U4C, who will fulfill a term until 15 June 2026:

North America (USA and Canada)
- Ajraddatz

The following seats were not filled during this special election:

Latin America and Caribbean
Central and East Europe (CEE)
Sub-Saharan Africa
South Asia
The four remaining Community-At-Large seats

Thank you again to everyone who participated in this process and much appreciation to the candidates for your leadership and dedication to the Wikimedia movement and community.

Over the next few weeks, the U4C will begin meeting and planning the 2024-25 year in supporting the implementation and review of the UCoC and Enforcement Guidelines. You can follow their work on Meta-Wiki.

On behalf of the U4C and the Elections Committee,

RamzyM (WMF) 14:05, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Have your say: Vote for the 2024 Board of Trustees!

Hello all,

The voting period for the 2024 Board of Trustees election is now open. There are twelve (12) candidates running for four (4) seats on the Board.

Learn more about the candidates by reading their statements and their answers to community questions.

When you are ready, go to the SecurePoll voting page to vote. The vote is open from September 3rd at 00:00 UTC to September 17th at 23:59 UTC.

To check your voter eligibility, please visit the voter eligibility page.

Best regards,

The Elections Committee and Board Selection Working Group

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:13, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Accessing paywalled articles via wikispecies

I know it can be done, it's detailed in the archives . . . somewhere! But where?? Can we have a 'pinned' link somewhere easily findable, please! Thanks! - MPF (talk) 23:05, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikispecies:Wikipedia Library. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:13, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Andy Mabbett. Maybe we should add this info to the top of Category:Sources? --Thiotrix (talk) 07:20, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea. Done. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:08, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent, thanks! - MPF (talk) 00:00, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

┌──────────┘ Good initiative. Thank you both. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 08:42, 4 September 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks! I also put it on my user page - MPF (talk) 23:53, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Death of Stephen Thorpe, New Zealand

Since it has not yet been mentioned here, I thought I would copy to Wikispecies this post of yesterday by Geoff Read on the Taxacom list server. We may have found Stephen somewhat fractious in his actions concerning Wikispecies, leading to his eventual departure from the project, but his dedication to the cause of documenting biodiversity was never in doubt. My interactions with Stephen were mainly via Taxacom - I never met him in person but I have no reason to believe that his beliefs (and sometimes slightly abrasive communication style) were anything but genuine according to his own view of things. RIP Stephen. Regards - Tony Rees. Tony 1212 (talk) 19:14, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

From: Geoff Read via Taxacom
26 Aug 2024, 09:45
to Taxacom
Dear all,
It is with great sadness that today I inform you that Stephen Thorpe has died (a homicide) in Auckland, New Zealand.Stephen was a unique person who greatly enriched Taxacom with his lively contributions, depth of knowledge, and tenacious advance of strong opinions.He was also incredibly dedicated to entomology and to working on online platforms like Wikipedia and iNaturalist. We know because he told us so that he was bordering on autistic, and we have seen over the years how this affected his success in his professional working life.He kept doing the work he loved nevertheless. The news story paints a picture of his daily life in recent times. We will much miss Stephen's contributions to our list. Goodbye Stephen. You were always good value to argue with.
https://www.inaturalist.org/people/stephen_thorpe
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/blockhouse-bay-homicide-police-reveal-victim-stephen-thorpes-last-movements-before-violent-struggle/2TYZKGASUNCBPPGZLWMP3UF33Q/
Geoff Read

Anyone interested in following the tributes to Stephen via the Taxacom List can find these via https://lists.ku.edu/pipermail/taxacom/2024-August/thread.html (and possibly continuing next month, who knows...) - Regards Tony Tony 1212 (talk) 06:01, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

He was already inactive when I started here, but it's impossible to miss the traces of his passage here, so it's impossible not to be sad, sadness accentuated by the shocking circumstances of his death. R.I.P. Christian Ferrer (talk) 12:07, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Such terrible news. There is now also a Wikipedia article about Stephen: en:Stephen E. Thorpe, and people are starting to write articles there about the species named after him. There are also over 460 of his images, on Commons. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:17, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Update: Stephen Thorpe's funeral funeral

Person of interest detained: [18] Neferkheperre (talk) 13:09, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tribe Rhaphidosomatini

Hello everyone! I have a question regarding the correct paternity for the tribe Rhaphidosomatini, which was recently synonymized with Harpactorini by Masonick et al., 2024. My understanding of ICZN rules is somewhat limited, so I’m hoping for some expert guidance.

The paper by Masonick et al. mentions that Rhaphidosomatini was first described by Jeannel, 1919, and indeed Jeannel describes the tribe (Rhaphidosomatini nov.) on page 263. However, according to BioLib, the paternity is given to Distant, 1904, and there is a reference to "Division Raphidosomaria" on page 329.

Therefore, should Distant, 1904 be credited with priority for Rhaphidosomatini, or should Jeannel, 1919 hold paternity because 'Division' does not qualify as a valid taxonomic rank under ICZN rules?

Any help would be greatly appreciated! --Hiouf (talk) 20:27, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The name as spelled for the level of tribe is attributed to the first person who used it as a tribe with this spelling. Hence it is Jeannel 1919 from my reasing of it. With higher rders they are only respellings of lower orders in this case the Genus Rhaphidosoma Amyot and Serville, 1843 so we attribute the first use of the appropriate ordinal level. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 03:56, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much, it clarifies the situation! Cheers. Hiouf (talk) 07:13, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Scott is not quite correct (with due deference): because tribe is only one rank within the "family group" (ICZN Code art. 35: "The family group encompasses all nominal taxa at the ranks of superfamily, family, subfamily, tribe, subtribe, and any other rank below superfamily and above genus that may be desired ([but] see also Article 10.3 for collective groups and ichnotaxa)."), its authorship is that of any person who first used a version of the same name at any of those ranks, not specifically as a tribe, with the termination modified as necessary to suit the particular rank at which the name is applied. However in this case the ranks are the same, I believe. Above superfamily (infraorders, suborders, orders and above) the ICZN Code makes no statement since it does not govern these, however particular authors/taxonomic communities generally have their own ways of doing things at higher taxonomic ranks in practice (in case this helps). Tony 1212 (talk) 18:29, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Tony 1212: Thanks, this makes sense since nominal tribes often (always?) have the same author than the family/superfamily. In the case of Rhaphidosomatini though, I guess Jeannel, 1919 remains the correct author because the "division Raphidosomaria" described by Distant, 1904 does not belong to the family group as described by ICZN Code art. 35. Am I correct? Hiouf (talk) 12:08, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You write: ""division Raphidosomaria" described by Distant, 1904 does not belong to the family group as described by ICZN Code art. 35". However Distant's "Division Rhaphidosomaria", per the BHL copy of the original as cited, lies beneath subfamily (Harpactorinae) but above genus (includes Rhaphidosoma + 2 more), so (to me at least) is within the "family group", falling into "any other rank below superfamily and above genus that may be desired", thus my reading would be that the attribution should indeed be to Distant (in other words, the BioLib page is correct) - although others better versed in zoological taxonomy may disagree... Regards Tony Tony 1212 (talk) 19:25, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, I completely overlooked the Harpactorinae subfamily in Distant, 1904. That makes the attribution to Distant more logical. Thanks for your help. Best. Hiouf (talk) 19:55, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FYI: 750 species added to Australia's official list

https://www.npr.org/2024/09/13/nx-s1-5106069/australia-750-new-species-conservation —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:04, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Zoology nomenclatural query

The name Alca islandica Brehm, 1831 (now subspecies Alca torda islandica) includes in its cited synonymy Alca torda Linnaeus, 1758. I'm not too familiar with the ICZN - but if this were in botany, it would mean that Alca islandica was a nomenclatural synonym of Alca torda with the same type, which could not be considered a different taxon, not even at subspecific rank. Does this apply in zoology too? Thanks! - MPF (talk) 16:46, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The answer is seems yes, with the same type Alca islandica would be a junior synonym of Alca torda. However 1/To read the article where Alca torda islandica was lowered at subspecific rank would help. 2/Maybe the type is not the same, and maybe that even Brehm did not see Linnaeus type at all (where is the type? lost? already lost at that time?), and has considered Alca torda as a kind of Nomen nudum because he based his assumption on just Linnaeus description. Furthermore I'm not able to understand the langage used in Brehm (1831) so I can't tell more. Christian Ferrer (talk) 21:19, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can't read German either, but I have noticed that Brehm (1831) lists four species of auk, all of which give Alca torda and/or Alca pica in their synonymies. So I suspect it might be that Alca islandica would be called Alca torda in older works, i.e. it is Alca torda in part? Monster Iestyn (talk) 21:49, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It sometimes happens in old publications that the senor synonyms (included per-Linnean names) are put in the synonymy of new taxa. I.e. that is because the older descriptions are sometimes too broad (e.g. only a few words as descriptions). And hundred years later those descriptions may encompass several differents species. Schematically Linnaeus description = A+B, and later someone like Brehm comes and make "Species 1 = A+B+C", Species 2 = A+B+D+E", ect.. C, D and E being sufficient characteristics for new taxa while A+B still make them fits the older Linnaeus description. Christian Ferrer (talk) 13:37, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @Christian Ferrer and Monster Iestyn: thanks! I think I'll let sleeping Canes familiares lie on this, and let the folk at IOC sort it out (but will send them the same query) - MPF (talk) 09:23, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hypselodoris bullockii

Would be possible to get a page for Hypselodoris bullockii? 2600:4040:40A0:1D00:117B:62AF:1CA9:1780 07:34, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you may create one as soon as you have a suitable source to cite. Please follow the guidance notes on your talk page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:07, 15 September 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.

Adamowicz

Can anyone find out anything about Adamowicz, the author of the bird genus Clanga, please? Variously given as M. A. F. Adamowicz, M. A.-F. Adamowicz, or just A. F. Adamowicz. I've not been able to trace what the M., or A., or F. stand for. Thanks! - MPF (talk) 23:21, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"M." likely is short for "Monsieur" in those first two, so it is probably not part of his name. Monster Iestyn (talk) 01:09, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The most likely identity is Adam Ferdynand Adamowicz (1802–1881), Polish veterinarian who graduated Vilnius University (of Poland at that time), cf. S.M.S. Gregory & E.C. Dickinson, Bulletin of the British Ornithologists Club 132(2): 135. --Eryk Kij (talk) 02:56, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed with my both colleagues, 1/ "M." is for "Monsieur" [mister], and 2/ this is Adam Ferdynand Adamowicz, Notice sur le Comte Constantin Tyzenhaus is listed within his publication list of the German and French Wikipedias. Christian Ferrer (talk) 06:05, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent, thanks all! - MPF (talk) 11:30, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge proposal of Simone P. Rosa with Simone Policena Rosa

We currently have entries Simone P. Rosa and Simone Policena Rosa for the same Brazilian entomologist. The former entry is older and with more templates while the latter one is with her full name. I would like to know which one should be kept as main entry. --Eryk Kij (talk) 08:14, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the one with the full name but leave a redirect from the shorter form of the name if it has been used in publications. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 11:26, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I merged the former page to the latter one per consensus. --Eryk Kij (talk) 17:13, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Two pages for one French paleontologist and entomologist named "Gervais"?

Are François Louis Paul Gervais and Paul M. Gervais the same person? Please see Talk:Brachistosternus ehrenbergii#Gervais for more information! Best regards, Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 09:36, 23 September 2024 (UTC).[reply]

They are clearly the same person. Thanks. Hector Bottai (talk) 21:17, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your input, @Hector Bottai, and yes, further investigations proves you right. For example (according to BHL) "Gervais, M P" and "Gervais, M Paul" as well as "Gervais, François Paul" and "Gervais, F L P" are all alternative name forms of "Paul Gervais" (1816–1879).
I will merge the two author pages tomorrow. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 22:47, 23 September 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Well done! Hector Bottai (talk) 23:32, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Tommy Kronkvist: Did you forget? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:16, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Andy Mabbett: Indeed I did – thank you for the reminder. I've know merged the two author pages into François Louis Paul Gervais. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 10:21, 30 September 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks Tommy. Hector Bottai (talk) 11:07, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikispecies' 20th anniversary

20 years ago, on 5 September, there was a meeting of the Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation (comprising five members at the time), with Angela Beesley, Florence Devouard, Tim Shell and Jimbo Wales, that took place on IRC: foundation:Minutes:2004-09-05.

It discussed the launch of Wikispecies as a Wikimedia project, within the Wikimedia movement. The project was proposed to the community by Benedikt Mandl (User:Benedikt, wikidata:Q15154734), an Austrian PhD student at the Department of Zoology of the University of Cambridge, UK at the time, in early August 2004 in the Wikipedia-l mailing list: https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/2004-August/016403.html

10 years ago, Wikispecies celebrated its 10th anniversary on 14 September.

Here are the topics at the Village Pump about it, initiated by Dan Koehl and OhanaUnited:

Conflicting information about the project's launch date can be found on various projects, as a development stage was initiated and discussed before Wikispecies became a Wikimedia project. The words used ("launched", "inception") and the lack of clarity about the predevelopment phase and the relationship with Wikimedia can also add to the confusion:

wikipedia:en:Wikispecies: "launched in August 2004" [19]
meta:Wikispecies: "launched on September 5, 2004" [20]
wikidata:Q13679 (Wikispecies): "inception: 14 September 2004" [21]

On meta:List of Wikimedia birthdays, the birthday is marked as "13 September 2004", with the verification status "Verification needed" [22]. This twentieth anniversary can be the occasion to determine it!

I propose to take a tour through the archives by sharing a few links:

Messages from Benedikt at the Village Pump about the history of Wikispecies and a suggestion about the birthday

First page archived by the Wayback Machine on 10 August 2004

https://web.archive.org/web/20040810215730/http://wikispecies.org/

The Main Page, the recent changes page and the first discussions here at the Village Pump back in the day, under the wikipedia.org domain

The first edits on this wiki

https://species.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Main_Page&action=history&dir=prev

For information, some Wikimedia projects have created a special page to celebrate their anniversary, or have published a press release. Here are a few examples:

In less than two days, on 7 September, Wikimedia Commons will celebrate its 20th birthday too!

Wikispecies' anniversary could come a week later, if we agree on the date. Or perhaps we should consider a period rather than a specific date...

Do you have any ideas of what we could do to celebrate this event?

We have an X (Twitter) account, @Wikispecies, that can be used to promote the event and the project to a wider audience.

I've seen that Benedikt is also on X, so the event could be an opportunity to get in touch with him. Korg (talk) 22:51, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But (given the problems associated with the current ownership of twitter), is it time to move to bluesky (which, like wikis, is open source, and thus free from individual hegemony)? - MPF (talk) 00:00, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I support the idea of a birthday page, for PR and history of the project. It should include or link to the Wikispecies milestones, too. --Thiotrix (talk) 07:19, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Dan Koehl, Korg, MPF, OhanaUnited, and Thiotrix:
I'm the current custodian of our @Wikispecies Twitter account and would be happy to add a tweet regarding our anniversary, but we need of course agree on a specific date first. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 07:50, 6 September 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Would seem to me that 14 September is a reasonable date and consistent with the 10th anniversary. Keeps it a little out of the Commons one also. Wikispecies also has a Facebook account by the way. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 10:17, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. We shouldn't change the date between different anniversaries, haphazardly. – Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 10:36, 6 September 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Perhaps we should consider writing a Diff about Wikispecies for the aniversary. Giving some info about what the wiki has accomplished over the 20 years. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 17:22, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good initiative! Dan Koehl (talk) 15:33, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly, my stepfather passed away very recently, hence unfortunately I didn't have the opportunity to tweet about the anniversary in time for September 14th. I made a note about it yesterday though. Better than nothing, I guess: @Wikispecies.
–Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 08:57, 17 September 2024 (UTC).[reply]

For the record, Benedikt retweeted the post and also made a note: [23]. There was also a tweet from the Wikimedia Foundation: [24]. Korg (talk) 18:15, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Social platforms

@MPF: I didn't know about Bluesky, thanks for the info. Do you use it? See also Talk:Main Page#Why (only) Twitter/X account?. Korg (talk) 16:30, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Only just joined, so I don't know much about it yet, but it is very similar to twitter as of ten years ago. It is open-source software so ± immune to political corruption as there is no owner. But more and more science-related people are moving to Bluesky since the decline of twitter into a far-right neonazi promotion site under Elon Musk's ownership - MPF (talk) 18:08, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Faendalimas: Regarding the Facebook account, do you refer to the page https://www.facebook.com/Wikispecies? Do you know who is behind it? Korg (talk) 16:30, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Korg: I believe @Dan Koehl: has the account for that page. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 23:33, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at it it definitely needs an update though.... Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 00:01, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can see the Facebook group has got seven administrators, including @Dan Koehl, Michael K. Oliver, Scott Thomson, and RLJ, as well as Nicolas Thiercelin and myself. As Scott points out the FB page is in a dire need of an update, regardless... Unfortunately I'm a very infrequent Facebook user these days. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk)‚ 18:07, 16 September 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Birthday page, Diff post

@Thiotrix: For the birthday page, how do you see it? What could be its title? Wikispecies:20th birthday, Wikispecies:20th Birthday, Wikispecies:Twentieth birthday, Wikispecies:Twentieth Birthday, Wikispecies:20th anniversary, Wikispecies:20th Anniversary, Wikispecies:Twentieth anniversary, Wikispecies:Twentieth Anniversary, or something else? Korg (talk) 16:30, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The best name for me is Wikispecies:20th anniversary, a) in analogy to Wikipedia: 20th anniversary, and b) the year number easier for non-english readers. --Thiotrix (talk) 17:14, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I've created the page. Please feel free to modify it or add more information. Korg (talk) 14:35, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Faendalimas: Good idea, a Diff post!

Here are a few Diff posts about Wikimedia project anniversaries:

Korg (talk) 16:30, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Korg: for the list of other Diff Posts. I am happy to help coordinate that but would prefer to see it come across as a combined authorship of some of our volunteers. I have written for Diff before and I spoke briefly with one reviewer for them about this and they thought it would be cool. Keeping it simple as "Celevrating Wikispecies: 20 years cataloging life" or something along those lines, I am referring to the Diff here I agree with others above regarding an anniversary page. We would need a couple of representative images to use also. My thought is to use it as an opportunity to shocase what we do and have accomplished, our successes in have interactions with scientists to correct errors in nomenclature we have noticed over the years. We are approaching 1 million taxa and as such are the 2nd largest catalogue of living species second only to CoL however our goals are slightly different to them. Any thoughts or volunteers? I can create a google doc to start wrting it, thats how they preferred it when I wrote the Diff on the Ombuds Commission. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 23:30, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is the birthday announcement ready to launch? OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 02:53, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Faendalimas: Thanks! If you have a Google doc, please share it. A link to Wikispecies:Wikispecies in the literature could be added. Korg (talk) 12:44, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion about the date

@Faendalimas and Tommy Kronkvist: I agree with you about the 14 September date.

In the page m:List of Wikimedia birthdays, the anniversary date of 13 September 2004 for Wikispecies was added by Gregory Varnum in this edit. It is based on the date of the first edit on this wiki, 13 September 2004 at 22:06 (UTC) by JeLuF: see Main Page history.

See the discussion at en:Talk:Wikispecies#Launch date and Plantdrew's comment about the date. Korg (talk) 16:30, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Other ideas

Just a thought, some sections of the Main Page could possibly be updated: Template:MP pictures (history), Template:Distinguished author 2019-08 or Template:Species of the month (currently using Template:Species-2022-09).

Here are some previous discussions about them at the Village Pump:

Korg (talk) 16:30, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion the images are ok, but although I find detailed articles about authors and taxa very very intersting, sorry but there is a very strong inadequacy between Wikispecies:What Wikispecies is not: "Wikispecies is not paragraphs of information about species or taxonomists." and the fact to highlight in the first page exactly "what Wikispecies is not", this sounds a bit wrong. Even if it means putting in the spotlight content, it should be more true Wikispecies based content. Christian Ferrer (talk) 04:19, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Largely in agreement here I think the Author part can be deleted. I would also like to focus the species on what we do though, "Endangered Sécies" is Conservation Biology, I think I would prefer to highlight newsworthy new species each month and have one plant and one animal (if we get enough mycologists and virologists helping we can do those two but not for now). Although the images are not problematic we should update them from time to time. We could also when it occurs add another section showcasing a notable re-arrangement, ie not necessarily mew species but major works that redistribute the species among families. Sometimes these occur and cause a lot of upheaval, for example when the US Wood Turtle was shown to be related to European Turtles and not to other US Emydine turtles requiring new genera and new subfamilies. Just some thoughts. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 06:53, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore Wikispecies based content will be more easily updatable, and therefore could looks more alive. Christian Ferrer (talk) 12:00, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would also love us to spotlight endangered species again. :/ —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:55, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki:Sitenotice

I took the liberty of mentioning this on the sitenotice. If others feel like it's a bad idea or poorly-worded, let me know. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 15:32, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I subsequently went completely overboard and added 20 birthday cake icons, with the first one using WMF colors (originally made for Wikidata) and the last one having "W", "2", and "0" at the top (originally for Wikipedia). One also has a fish on it, so kinda related. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 15:41, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was trying to make an announcement in one of the Wikipedia-related group in Facebook, only to get a notification instantly that my post wasn't approved because the species.wikimedia.org domain is against community standards (???) Does others have similar experience? OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 22:51, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimedia links seem to be getting caught by Meta's ie Facebooks, algorythms for content addition. I have tried making a querie about it but it failed to go through. I have put some effort into growing the Facebook group here a bit and managed to get 18 new members so far today. We should grow and use the Facebook platform to bring us more readers and editors. If anyone frequents Facebook and feels they could be an admin there please let me know. Also I would ask people try to somewhat regularly contribute posts to it based on interesting info on here. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 14:36, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, if we enter the URL https://species.wikimedia.org into the Facebook Sharing Debugger tool, we'll get the following message:

"We can't review this website because the content doesn't meet our Community Standards. If you think this is a mistake, please let us know."

Maybe if enough people tell Facebook about this error, the block will be lifted? I'll try to get in touch with someone who has contacts with the Meta Platforms team to resolve this issue. Korg (talk) 13:36, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[ChineseAuthors-1] 杜诚; 刘军; 刘夙; 马金双 (2022), "中国植物分类学者的历史与现状", 生物多样性, 30: 22355, doi:10.17520/biods.2022355{{citation}}: CS1 maint: date and year (link).

[1]