Wikispecies:Village Pump

(Redirected from Wikispecies:Village pump)

Welcome to the village pump of Wikispecies.

This page is a place to ask questions or discuss the project. If you need an admin, please see the Administrators' Noticeboard. If you need to solicit feedback, see Request for Comment. Please sign and date your post (by typing ~~~~ or clicking the signature icon in the edit toolbar). Use the Wikispecies IRC channel for real-time chat.

If you're going to critique the work of fellow editors (blatant vandals excepted) in your post on this page, you should notify them, either by mentioning them with a {{Reply to}} template, or with a post on their talk page.

If you insert links to Wikipedia pages in your comments, don't forget the leading colon (:) before the wiki language code (including when you reference a remote user page instead of using a local signature), otherwise it will generate spurious interwiki links collected in the sidebar instead of in the expected location within the discussion. Thanks.

Village pump in other languages:

1 (2004-09-21/2005-01-05) 2 (2005-01-05/2005-08-23)
3 (2005-08-24/2005-12-31) 4 (2006-01-01/2005-05-31)
5 (2006-06-01/2006-12-16) 6 (2006-12-17/2006-12-31)
7 (2007-01-01/2007-02-28) 8 (2007-03-01/2007-04-30)
9 (2007-05-01/2007-08-31) 10 (2007-09-01/2007-10-31)
11 (2007-11-01/2007-12-31) 12 (2008-01-01/2008-02-28)
13 (2008-03-01/2008-04-28) 14 (2008-04-29/2008-06-30)
15 (2008-07-01/2008-09-30) 16 (2008-10-01/2008-12-25)
17 (2008-12-26/2009-02-28) 18 (2009-03-01/2009-06-30)
19 (2009-07-01/2009-12-31) 20 (2010-01-01/2010-06-30)
21 (2010-07-01/2010-12-31) 22 (2011-01-01/2011-06-30)
23 (2011-07-01/2011-12-31) 24 (2012-01-01/2012-12-31)
25 (2013-01-01/2013-12-31) 26 (2014-01-01/2014-12-31)
27 (2015-01-01/2015-01-31) 28 (2015-02-01/2015-02-28)
29 (2015-02-28/2015-04-29) 30 (2015-04-29/2015-07-19)
31 (2015-07-19/2015-09-23) 32 (2015-09-23/2015-11-21)
33 (2015-11-21/2015-12-31) 34 (2016-01-01/2016-04-17)
35 (2016-03-22/2016-05-01) 36 (2016-05-01/2016-07-12)
37 (2016-07-13/2016-09-30) 38 (2016-10-01/2016-12-04)
39 (2016-12-04/2017-01-17) 40 (2017-01-18/2017-01-28)
41 (2017-01-29/2017-02-13) 42 (2017-02-14/2017-03-21)
43 (2017-03-20/2017-08-11) 44 (2017-08-10/2017-12-07)
45 (2017-12-08/2018-01-08) 46 (2018-01-19/2018-03-11)
47 (2018-03-11/2018-09-11) 48 (2018-09-01/2019-02-17)
49 (2019-02-22/2019-06-18) 50 (2019-06-19/2019-10-06)
51 (2019-10-07/2019-12-23) 52 (2019-12-24/2020-04-03)
53 (2020-04-03/2020-07-16) 54 (2020-07-17/2020-09-05)
55 (2020-09-08/2020-11-27) 56 (2020-11-27/2021-06-21)
57 (2021-06-05/2021-09-24) 58 (2021-09-25/2022-01-24)
59 (2022-01-26/2022-02-27) 60 (2022-02-27/2022-04-13)
61 (2022-04-14/2022-05-10) 62 (2022-07-01/2023-12-17)
63 (2022-12-24/2023-04-20) 64 (2023-04-20/2023-xx-xx)

Wikimania 2023 Edit

Wikimania, the annual conference of the Wikimedia movement, takes place in Singapore and online from 16-19 August.

Registration is now open:


I am again convening a session on Wikispecies and Wikidata:

  wikimania:2023:Program/Submissions/Wikispecies and Wikidata: Where next - VK87CE

following on from that in 2017.

Although the session proposal has been accepted, it has not yet been given a timeslot. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:19, 14 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Session is today; in about 5 hours time, on the half-hour: Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 02:23, 18 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Session can be re-watched at https://youtu <dot> be/biCiyW-Z4zo?list=PLhV3K_DS5YfLj-q0KY_WL7BGkGd_UtwK0&t=9098 (link escaped due to spam filter). --Azertus (talk) 14:20, 21 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I watched the session, thank you; in terms of integration with wikidata, I think a taxon page like Galiniera saxifraga is some way off, but for a simpler page like Parailurus anglicus (the English red panda..), and its reference templates, I would be happy instead to enter the data in wikidata, have some tool such that you start creating the page here, by entering
, so that the wikidata data from the specified item is gathered and displayed in (as close as possible to) the standard wikispecies format when you click preview, then you copy this and paste it over this data-gathering TestTool template, then make the final formatting tweaks, before saving what looks like and now is a standard wikispecies page. In this instance, other than for changing type locality to '"Red Crag of Felixstowe"' from '"Red Crag", Felixstowe' (and, for the related reference pages, adding italics to the genus/species names in the scholarly paper titles, and tweaking the wording of n. sp. in the new names list), I don't see that many changes would be necessary. There's just the technical issue of creating this look-up tool in the first place. Anyone know how? Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 13:10, 24 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Christian Ferrer: Hello, I think before you have shown a wikispecies (talk?) page that pulls new names from a wikidata (publication) item, but I can't recall which page that was; were you to add a link, the related code may be a starting point, thank you, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 13:48, 24 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello, in fact if I add in Wikidata additional data that is not show in our tradition reference templates then I put in the corresponding template talk page a Wikidata based list showing that data e.g. in Mah (2020) or H.L. Clark (1938). The fields are arbitrary. And other querries can be used for different topics if necessary, e.g. for the author Christopher L. Mah we can show his articles in Wikidata: If relevant I also started to think at potential templates giging you the opportunity to go at some chosen querries see Wikidata:User:Christian Ferrer/sandbox3. Hope this help. Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:58, 24 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There's a preliminary first draft of a reference tool (for 1 to 3 authors) in {{Sandbox11}}, which pulls data from the wikidata item specified in Wikispecies:Sandbox2. The idea is, for those who so wish, to be able to generate a draft reference template from the data already in wikidata, and for it to be possible to enter new data for a reference template there instead of here (so that it can be accessed by other wikimedia projects and beyond). Obviously more testing and development required, but suggestions more than welcome at the outset; thanks Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 22:05, 26 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There's an updated 4-author version in {{Sandbox1}}; by entering the relevant wikidata item, eg, "{{Sandbox1|Q51500553}}" on your new template page then clicking preview, you may be able to generate much of the reference template, thanks, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 23:22, 28 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've tried out making a few new citation templates using {{Sandbox1}} and it's very helpful. It's a lot easier to focus on getting reference information into or from Wikidata first as the first step rather than having to manually create the template here locally and still also make a Wikidata item. Thank you @Maculosae tegmine lyncis! —chaetodipus (talk · contribs) 02:29, 29 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Cetacea & Brisson, 1762 Edit

Hello, (and unrelated to the above item,) is there an issue in Brisson, 1762 (eg, MSW3, Fossilworks Hesperomys) being the authority and date for Cetacea [p. 3, 5] when, other than for 12 genus names, per Opinion 1894, it has been "placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Works in Zoological Nomenclature, as rejected for nomenclatural purposes" (5)? ICZN Article 1.2.2 (Scope, re names of taxa above the family group) & 11.1 ("The name or nomenclatural act..."). Seemingly not, but why not? Thanks, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 07:28, 22 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

the opinion only applies to generic names not ordinal, or what is nowadays an infraorder. As such not relevant the correct author is Brisson. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 10:08, 22 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't think it says that though..., the Opinion doesn't appear to say it is restricted to generic names (even if this may well have been the motivation behind it), Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 10:21, 22 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
ICZN by their mandate can only make nomenclatural decisions on Species Group, Genus Group and Family Group names, the latter only by inference. As such the name Cetacea is outside their mandate, else we would be using Chelonii instead of Testudines for example. As such it is not said because it can be assumed because its outside their mandate. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 21:42, 22 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sorry, I don't follow re Chelonii/Testudines - per p.24 of (the astonishingly named) "Turtles [sic!] of the World. Annotated Checklist and Atlas of Taxonomy, Synonymy, Distribution, and Conservation Status (8th Ed.)" ResearchGate, by the Turtle [sic] Taxonomy Working Group, Chelonii dates to 1800, Testudines to 1788. Is this not right? I suspect this is closer to the situation re the ICZN, but "1.2.2. The Code regulates the names of taxa in the family group, genus group, and species group. Articles 1-4, 7-10, 11.1-11.3, 14, 27, 28 and also regulate names of taxa at ranks above the family group." "Article 11. Requirements To be available, a name or, where relevant, a nomenclatural act must satisfy the following provisions: 11.1. Publication The name or nomenclatural act must have been published, in the meaning of Article 8, after 1757" "8.7. Status of suppressed works A work that has been suppressed for nomenclatural purposes by the Commission by use of the plenary power [Art. 81] and that satisfies the provisions of this Article remains published within the meaning of the Code, unless the Commission has ruled that it is to be treated as not having been published; 8.7.1. such a work remains available as a source of published descriptions and illustrations, but not as a work in which a name or nomenclatural act (such as the fixation of a name-bearing type, or the determination of precedence under Article 24.2) can be made available." By the use of these powers (BHL currently down..), Brisson, 1762 has been "placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Works in Zoological Nomenclature, as rejected for nomenclatural purposes". Does that not mean it is not "a work in which a name or nomenclatural act (such as ... the determination of precedence under Article 24.2) can be made available"? Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 10:49, 29 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Re Testudines, do you mean the note on p. 242 of ResearchGate, "However, the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature does not regulate use of names above the superfamily level"...Therefore, we do not make any changes at this time, but continue to refer to all turtles as the Order Testudines Batsch 1788, and expect to revisit this issue in more detail in a future checklist."? ICZN scope says: "Articles 1-4, 7-10, 11.1-11.3, 14, 27, 28 and also regulate names of taxa at ranks above the family group'"... Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 10:59, 29 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Should these journal pages be merged? Edit

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

According to ACNP (Italian Periodicals Catalogue): Boletim do Museu Nacional de Rio de Janeiro was published in 1923-1942, has the ISSN 0100-1507, and was subsequently split up into four series by subject: Antropologia, Botânica, Geologia and Zoologia. ISSN 0080-3189 is actually for the "Antropologia" series starting 1942, which I suspect has no relevance to Wikispecies unlike the other three.
So, I suggest renaming Boletim do Museu Nacional de Rio de Janeiro to ISSN 0100-1507 and deleting ISSN 0080-3189? Monster Iestyn (talk) 10:43, 27 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Tommy Kronkvist Boletim do Museu Nacional de Rio de Janeiro now renamed to ISSN 0100-1507, the other ISSN title needs to be deleted as it is incorrect. Monster Iestyn (talk) 11:18, 3 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Monster Iestyn:   Done. Thank you for redirecting the "Boletim…" page to "ISSN 0100-1507". The "ISSN 0080-3189" page has already been deleted by admin RLJ.Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 12:07, 3 September 2023 (UTC).Reply[reply]

Review the Charter for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee Edit

Hello all,

I am pleased to share the next step in the Universal Code of Conduct work. The Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) draft charter is now ready for your review.

The Enforcement Guidelines require a Building Committee form to draft a charter that outlines procedures and details for a global committee to be called the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C). Over the past few months, the U4C Building Committee worked together as a group to discuss and draft the U4C charter. The U4C Building Committee welcomes feedback about the draft charter now through 22 September 2023. After that date, the U4C Building Committee will revise the charter as needed and a community vote will open shortly afterward.

Join the conversation during the conversation hours or on Meta-wiki.


RamzyM (WMF), on behalf of the U4C Building Committee, 15:35, 28 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

Seems reasonable to me. I'm trying to think of any example of when we wouldn't want that and I can't think of one. —Justin (koavf)TCM 23:38, 1 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It sounds a great idea, except the HotCat gadget would no longer work on those pages, unfortunately. In the case where someone renames a taxon author page and its corresponding taxa by author category, HotCat is very handy for quickly transferring all the pages to the renamed category (especially if there are hundreds of taxon pages to update). But this gadget currently requires the category to be manually added to each page, rather than through a template. (On that note, {{Repository link}} has the same problem) Monster Iestyn (talk) 00:40, 2 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
True, but the alternative would be to use AWB to replace them in bot-like fashion, which is approximately as difficult and quick. —Justin (koavf)TCM 00:49, 2 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Incorrect eponyms Edit

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

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

Category:Series identifiers Edit

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

I think it may be useful for us to differentiate between works that are printed "in series" (for example journals and bulletins) as opposed to written works that are published as single items (eg. books and many other larger "non-serial" works). That said, yes I think that the whole Category:Publications category tree should be cleaned up, including its subcategories Category:ISSN, Category:Journals, Category:Series identifiers‎, and Category:Sources. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 14:06, 3 September 2023 (UTC).Reply[reply]
The Sources category also contains works printed in series, so it doesn't look like these categories are being used consistently. Monster Iestyn (talk) 14:31, 3 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree. That was partly my point – sorry for not being clear enough. Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 17:48, 3 September 2023 (UTC).Reply[reply]
@Tommy Kronkvist No worries, fair enough. Those categories definitely need cleaning up, there's no doubt about that at least. For instance, Category:Journals exists but is only populated by 27 pages as of writing, and it has a few subcategories by subject - Category:Acarology journals and Category:Parasitology journals - which have even fewer pages each. But no categories exist for other subjects like botany, mycology, entomology, etc., and I don't know if we should have these existing categories on Wikispecies or not in the first place. Monster Iestyn (talk) 18:51, 3 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

I know there are book series and monograph series with ISSNs... should those be counted as journals? Monster Iestyn (talk) 22:10, 3 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, always. This is ISSN standard. Anna Pavlova IFPNI Staff (talk) 22:14, 3 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Resources in the IP user contribution pages Edit

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

I have imported that page from Meta, along with {{Anontools/ipv4}}, and it seems to be working now.
However, be aware that a pending change to MediaWiki will obfuscate IP addresses for most viewers. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:54, 4 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you, Andy. As a note, the message can be localised. It has been done so on MediaWiki, Meta, Commons, with MediaWiki having the most translations of that message. While I'm at it, the page for registered users, MediaWiki:Sp-contributions-footer, can also be localised; it has the most translations on Wikidata. Korg (talk) 18:47, 4 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Proposal to rename Category:Species named after celebrities Edit

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

19 years ago Edit

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

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

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

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

Personally I have always felt that the taxon boxes on Wikipedia in any language could serve well to be based on what we have here. This would keep consistency across languages in particular which is lacking at present. Also we present the scientific evidence of the classification, it would be good to see that used by and referred to by Wikipedia. Biggest issue with duplication is when the pages do not agree. Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 18:29, 7 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"could serve well" - but do not, with no roadmap available for how that might happen. Meanwhile, they are already pulling in data from Wikidata, with the desired consistency, and with a mechanism for citing scientific evidence. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:13, 8 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Pigsonthewing: "Meanwhile, they are already pulling in data from Wikidata..." Are you referring to the English Wikipedia and its taxobox system? If so, is the data really taken from Wikidata? There is an automated taxobox system, but data seems to be stored internally (see for example en:Vulpes; the edit link on the right end of the bar that says "Scientific classification", in the taxobox, points to en:Template:Taxonomy/Vulpes). Note that on Commons, there are two systems (see for example c:Category:Vulpes): the old one, c:Template:Taxonavigation, with data added manually, and c:Template:Wikidata Infobox, with data drawn from Wikidata. Korg (talk) 20:19, 15 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, I'm referring to multiple other Wikipedias. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:47, 15 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK, thanks. Korg (talk) 10:15, 18 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Templates Edit

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

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


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

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

Sounds an interesting idea, but are the current templates too deeply embedded in use, with perhaps hundreds of thousands of pages that would need changing? That would take a huge lot of volunteer-hours (even with robot assistance) to accomplish, for what benefit? - MPF (talk) 23:20, 8 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I was suggesting it as something that could be implemented over time, a gradual replacement of the current templates. The benefit is the simplicity, and that the proposed template is more intuitive than the current confusing set. SilverTiger12 (talk) 21:35, 11 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Duke: Herbarium and Disambiguation page for Authors Edit

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

Hello Anna, the disambiguation page may be Duke (author), or - if you like to include a link to the herbarium - Duke (disambiguation) . Kind regards, --Thiotrix (talk) 09:52, 7 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello, or simply Duke, as the page does not exist? Korg (talk) 19:19, 7 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Simia monacha Edit

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

Same type repository? Edit

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

Yes they refer to the same place, "Muzeum i Instytut Zoologii PAN [=Polskiej Akademii Nauk]" is the Polish name for "Museum and Institute of Zoology, Polish Academy of Sciences". Monster Iestyn (talk) 19:32, 8 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
However, it turns out "MILZ" is actually a misreading of MIIZ (uppercase i rather than L), yet another instance of the same type repository. Monster Iestyn (talk) 19:35, 8 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So which one of the three should we use as the "main" repository page, into which we merge the other two? –Tommy Kronkvist (talk)‚ 13:06, 9 September 2023 (UTC).Reply[reply]
No idea, except that it should definitely not be "MILZ". Also, it turns out to be four: MZPW (for Museum Zoologicum Polonicum, Warszawa) is yet another acronym for the same place according to Insect and Spider Collections of the World website. The website of the museum+institute itself uses either of the acronyms MIZ PAS or MiIZ PAN depending on language, but these are not intended as repository acronyms obviously. Monster Iestyn (talk) 13:40, 9 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Elizabeth 'Lizzie' Hingley's gastropod Edit

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

Authority control on reference templates Edit

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

Pteropus - type species Edit

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

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

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

Most correct would be
Type Species: Pteropus niger (Vespertilio niger Kerr, 1792:xx) sec. ICZN 1998
Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 00:21, 13 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I guess the question relates to the filling of your sandwich. In Kerr, 1792 itself, as above, there is no Vespertilio niger only, as written, Vesp. Vampirus niger. Per ICZN 67.2.1, 'the "originally included nominal species" comprise only those included in the newly established [??] nominal genus or subgenus, having been cited in the original publication by an available name (including citation by an incorrect spelling [Art. 67.6]) of a species or subspecies'. So seemingly it's ok to state Vespertilio vampirus niger because that is understood to be Vespertilio vampyrus niger, but how about Vespertilio niger, which is not as such "cited in the original publication"? How about the filling of your sandwich? (This is, I think, the only reference to subspecies in the relevant Articles; I'm not quite sure about "newly established", Vespertilio was already around, but I guess it means the act of type fixation newly establishes the "nominal genus", per 42.3?) Thank you,Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 05:03, 13 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
How about Pteropus niger (Vespertilio niger ["Vesp. Vampirus niger"=Vespertilio vampirus niger; recte, Vespertilio vampyrus niger] Kerr, 1792:xx) sec. ICZN 1998, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 05:26, 13 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The taxonomy is irrelevant. It is a species group name and a genus group name thats all thats important to nomenclature. Subspecies and species are the same thing, genus and subgenus are the same thing. So it does not make any difference in the end. By the way the xx is the page number I do not know what page it was first circumscribed on. Anyway all the extras your adding is just adding its taxonomic history, put that in a decent synonymy not the declaration of which taxon is the type species. You asked for the correct way of writing it under zoological nomenclature it should be simple and only says what it has to. Type species is Aus bus, (original combination + author) according to (secundum) reviewer. Thats it. Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 07:45, 13 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ok, ICZN 79.4 seems relevant, so I think the answer is Vespertilio vampirus niger BHL; I think the question may come down to what counts as an entry of the "List of Available Names in Zoology", the statement that the name is placed on the List (in the Opinion, same BHL link), or what ZooBank shows [1], in its capacity as "The Official Registry of Zoological Nomenclature". I guess it must be the former, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 12:22, 13 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Hello friends!

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

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

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

Helping Edit

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

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

Herrania balaensis Edit

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

The taxon was published in Expedition nach Central- und Sudamerika and edited by Paul Rudolph Preuss, so I believe this is the real author.--MILEPRI (talk) 09:27, 14 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@MILEPRI: If it helps, Expedition nach Central- und Sudamerika is available online at the Internet Archive. Monster Iestyn (talk) 09:35, 14 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@MILEPRI: and thanks @Monster Iestyn:. Reading the title page and the protologue note on page 15 it is clear that IPNI appear to be correct, in my opinion. Hassler incorrectly assumes Preuss = Carl Gottlieb Traugott Preuss, but IPNI standard format was not used at that time. No idea where POWO got theirs from - I will check. Andyboorman (talk) 11:11, 14 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

External search options Edit

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

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

They were added a long time ago in MediaWiki:Common.js (from line 266 down to line 415). On some other wikis, they have been turned into a gadget (enwiki: [2], en:MediaWiki:Gadget-externalsearch.js; frwiki: [3], fr:MediaWiki:Gadget-ExternalSearch.js). Korg (talk) 11:06, 18 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

For what it's worth, I have never used this option on any WMF wiki in 20 years. —Justin (koavf)TCM 12:49, 18 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Me neither. Andyboorman (talk) 13:25, 18 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Linaria rufescens Edit

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

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

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

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

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

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

Linaria rufescens VIEILL. Mem. Acad. Torin. XXIII, (p. 202.) I833 sorry its what I have. Its Viellot I think as you have. Yes its in the British RedPolls small finches. So Acanthis most likely flammea. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 15:30, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Link to the page: BHL. The author is Vieillot; his name is most probably Louis Pierre Vieillot instead of Louis Jean Pierre Vieillot: [5], [6]. Korg (talk) 16:52, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hmmm. Q358217 sugegsts one person used both names. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:33, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

I've also made Louis Pierre Vieillot into a redirect to Louis Jean Pierre Vieillot, though I do wonder if the page shouldn't be at the former; no-one seems to know where the 'Jean' came from? Thoughts, please! - MPF (talk) 10:45, 23 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
German Wikipedia moved the page to the former name, after discussion here. The article itself has a footnote commenting on the name. Both are understandable to non-speakers through online translation. I'm inclined to think we should follow suit. [updated] Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:39, 23 September 2023 (UTC).Reply[reply]
There is also discussion (in English) on him at birdforum [7], which is related to the German Wikipedia discussion. Monster Iestyn (talk) 12:41, 23 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

───────────────────────── Paul H. Oehser

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



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

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

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

It turns out none of those sources use "Jean", nor even the initial "J", for Vieillot. I'll make the move. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:09, 24 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Done, but there are a lot of publication templates and taxon pages that need updating. Does anyone have a bot that can address these, please? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:22, 24 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]