Shortcuts: WS:V, WS:VP

Wikispecies:Village Pump

From Wikispecies
Jump to navigation Jump to search

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 (2023-04-20/2023-08-29)
65 (2023-09-01/2023-12-27) 66 (2024-01-xx/2024-xx-xx)

Capitalisation of vernacular names[edit]

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

Not as far as I am concerned. I do capilise plants when I come across them. Andyboorman (talk) 08:54, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree not. Most of the changes were OK, as they were adding 'Eurasian' subsequent to the split of Pica pica s.l. into multiple species, but the decapitalisation of English 'Magpie' to 'magpie' is contrary to the IOC standard (and also IUCN, etc.) that we follow. I've reverted that bit. - MPF (talk) 20:38, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Pigsonthewing and Andyboorman: I've added a note on their talk page. Thanks for spotting this! - MPF (talk) 21:28, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Pigsonthewing, Andyboorman, and Burmeister: this editor is continuing despite the request on their talk page; additionally I see he/she is blocked on wikidata for similar activity there. Not sure if similar action may be needed here (and on Commons, too)? - MPF (talk) 01:05, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Pigsonthewing and MPF: Warning first then a week block appropriate after 24 hours, It is causing a lot of extra work, in spite of some good additions? Andyboorman (talk) 10:30, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Sounds sensible; I'd rather not do it myself as I'm closely involved, it might look too much like individual vindictiveness - MPF (talk) 20:20, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Pigsonthewing, Andyboorman, and Burmeister: their most recent edits have been OK, just adding legit VNs without altering capitalisation; think we can hold fire on any action for now, but I'll monitor discretely - MPF (talk) 00:18, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Pigsonthewing, Andyboorman, and Burmeister: still at it I fear, both here and on Commons. I've reverted these changes, but time for more drastic action? - MPF (talk) 20:45, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@MPF:, It seems to me that he didn't read the warnings, as he continues with the same editing pattern. Time for a block! Burmeister (talk) 00:54, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Yes, I agree. As one of the chief complainants, I'd rather not implement this myself. Same problem activity on Commons, so it might need to be a global block. @Pigsonthewing, Andyboorman, and Burmeister: - MPF (talk) 01:03, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

@Andyboorman: thanks! - MPF (talk) 20:22, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Andyboorman, Pigsonthewing, and Burmeister: is back, and has not learnt: Ciconia ciconia - MPF (talk) 21:46, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Many thanks! - MPF (talk) 22:23, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Pigsonthewing: although gone from here for now at least, this IP is causing identical problems on both Commons and Wikidata - perhaps they could be blocked there too, please? - MPF (talk) 23:24, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not an admin on either project so that's not in my gift. Please raise a request on their respective admin noticeboards. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:49, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Must admit I thought you were, particularly on wikidata - MPF (talk) 15:06, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I need some help with uncategorized pages[edit]

Justin (koavf)TCM 01:17, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've fixed Polistes olivaceus and Clossiana. With the former, what happened was that Template:Gyrostoma was rather hastily blanked without any of the remaining pages linking to it being checked first (now done). The latter looks more like a more complex problem though, since it looks like PeterR tried to change it from a redirect of Boloria (Clossiana) to a full genus page, then didn't finish the job? Monster Iestyn (talk) 03:14, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@PeterR:Justin (koavf)TCM 04:14, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I expanded Omalotheca diminuta. I do not know why exactly, but I assume Gnaphalium hoppeanum subsp. magellense, one of the synonyms of O. diminuta, may have misled him/her to do so. --Eryk Kij (talk) 07:37, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have deleted Neottia latilabra (Evrard ex Gagnep.) ined., as a unplaced name and non-standard. Andyboorman (talk) 09:01, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Great work, folks. —Justin (koavf)TCM 07:42, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've deleted Homo sapiens denisovan. It's already the 5th reincarnation of this page. Until we actually see a paper published on this new subspecies, everything is just speculation. OhanaUnitedTalk page 03:30, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, the Denisovans might turn out to be Homo longi (speculation of the describers of that species), but at this point it is too early to tell (just for interest!). Cheers Tony Tony 1212 (talk) 19:40, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Authority control[edit]

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

It seems quite reasonable, some reference templates are much complex and significant that some pages. Do we need more opinions, or just proceed?--Hector Bottai (talk) 10:24, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion, please proceed. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 20:36, 19 March 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Renaming 2 pages[edit]

Hello, I think page Cirsium acaule should be renamed to Cirsium acaulon based on
I also think that Cirsium acaule subsp. acaule should be renamed to Cirsium acaulon subsp. acaulon based on
I am no expert so if you think it should not be done do not do it. --Bakjb (talk) 14:40, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bakjb: You are correct. Are you able to make the required changes? Andyboorman (talk) 19:48, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
POWO reflects that way - but is that reliable? Sorry - skepticism here as i see many issues raised each day about issues in POWO in multiple other databases. I'm from zoology background so much nuance from Plant nomenclature (and codes) escapes me, but at a glance i couldn't fathom why any shift to greek sounding "acaulos" or "aculon". Then i checked original in L. 1753, and it's the expected latin m/f "acaulis" (Carduus acaulis, p.1199 - now linked on the wikispecies taxon page) while the later Scopoli (1769) recombines and uses the neuter "acaule" (i.e. Cirsium acaule), as does the later Wigg (1780). Those seem contra to what POWO claims for those reference, or equally in its often preferred source IPNI. [i.e.], what gives? Sjl197 (talk) 02:09, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Bakjb, Andyboorman, and Sjl197: I can see where this is coming from: Linnaeus' description text says "Carduus acaulis", but the epithet in the page margin (which is what matters) appears to say acaulos (though in BHL's copy at least, it actually says acaul●s due to an ink blot!!). If this blot is repeated in every copy (very plausible, if the printer used a clogged-up type piece), then subsequent authors will have reasonably assumed it was an error for acaulis as in the description. But, if the basionym is Carduus acaulos, then the combination in Cirsium is acaulon. Whether this change should be made, or left ignored in the interests of stability, is another question. All the literature (until POWO changed) uses acaule. Personally, I'd have thought they ought to let sleeping Canes familiares lie . . . - MPF (talk) 14:00, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, if this is changed, the synonymy in Cirsium esculentum will also need changing as it used to be considered a subspecies of C. acaule/on; perhaps others too - MPF (talk) 14:09, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do not understand these things myself very much, so if I can ask you for help with these two articles on Slovak Wikipedia which use Cirsium acaulon (see Pichliač bezbyľový) and Cirsium acaulon subsp. acaulon (see Pichliač bezbyľový pravý) as the scientific name should they be changed or kept the same. I will try to ask the author of those articles if they have Slovak sources for said scientific names. Thank you in advance for your response. --Bakjb (talk) 15:16, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You can not blame POWO, as IPNI use the epithet acaulon. I suggest we go with IPNI and if you so wish, contact IPNI for clarification. Andyboorman (talk) 18:21, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dear all. Ok - I made links to those oldest papers i mentioned above on the taxon page. I leave it to others to edit anything further or alter the name. To @Bakjb, I think no need to ask the author of the Slovak articles, but feel free to involve them. In my comment above, my own questions were solved by MPF - with "acaulos/aculon" as the greek-based equivalent of "acaulis/acaule". (Then to clarify to Bakjb - the question is reduced to only the neuter variants "aculon" or "acule" for gender agreement for the genus Cirsium). See also this link it seems an old debate.
Well yes - in a moment of tiredness i overlooked that critical page margin formation of acaul●s - thankyou MPF. I also did not expect that Linnaeus would write the word in latin in the core text but then give it with that different (greek based) spelling, but seems like he did almost same thing elsewhere in same work for his Leucadendron acaulon L. = Protea acaulos (L.) Reichard. [Appended edit: that last point was just to echo it seems ok that acaul●s = "acaulos", then extra to say the formation as Cirsium acaule seems to have widespread modern usage - so seems madness for stability to go back on that, if was zoology then i'd look into prevailing usage - indeed "Quieta non movere"] Sjl197 (talk) 21:34, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Andyboorman: - IPNI still had acaule until a couple of days ago (it was so when I first saw this discussion), they must have just now taken the lead from POWO. The most recent (October 2023) listing of POWO's page also has acaule there too, and acaulis for the protonym. It is _very_ bad of them (both POWO and IPNI!) that they don't say what changes they make, when, or why, but leave it as a mystery for others to work out on their own. @Sjl197: - thanks! MPF (talk) 22:04, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

I also added "I refer specifically to Cirsium acaulon (L.) Scop., Annus Hist.-Nat. 2: 62 (1769) not to any of the isonyms etc. IPNI states the basionym as Carduus acaulos L., Sp. Pl. [Linnaeus] 2: 1199 (1753). The BHL links are on your site, but their protologue epithet spellings do not correspond to the IPNI records." Sorry should have said. Andyboorman (talk) 09:14, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Andyboorman, Sjl197, and Bakjb: thanks! I checked in my copy of the Ray Society 1959 facsimile of Linnaeus, and the margin there is clearly acaulos, no ink blot; as far as I know, the facsimile is an exact photo reproduction, not cleaned up in any way. Of IPNI, it is interesting to compare the current with the most recent October 2023 archive; the changes are there, but left without explanation, or the date of the change. Same goes for POWO now and October 2023 archive. - MPF (talk) 15:29, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sjl197 and Bakjb: IPNI have just got back to me and they confirm the supposition by @MPF:. In other words the author correction on the right hand margin of the basionym is its correct epithet. Therefore, Cirsium acaulon is now the correct combination. IPNI do not have a mechanism for alerting users to corrections, many of which are prompted by readers querying entries. I have made such prompts myself. Hope this helps. Andyboorman (talk) 18:14, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much. (: --Bakjb (talk) 18:15, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I can see they can't have an alert system easily, but they could surely tag the date a change is made, and cite the reasons for it - MPF (talk) 20:28, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actually @MPF: that is a good idea. I will feed back via an email. Andyboorman (talk) 21:13, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And ditto for POWO, please! Just thought too, they could also have a 'Recent changes' index a bit like ours here, that could function nearly as well as an alert; if it's a large number, perhaps broken down into 'Recent changes in Poales', 'Recent changes in Pinophyta', or similar. - MPF (talk) 21:18, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Pages for people who have eponyms but are not taxon authors[edit]

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

I think authors who have not published any taxonomy-related publications are out of scope. Christian Ferrer (talk) 12:36, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize if I say very simple and obvious things, but it seems to me that it is necessary to start from the very beginning. The discovery of a new species consists of several stages: 1) Finding it in nature and collecting it. 2). Finding it in the collection and 3) Writing an article and publishing it. Thus, writing an article is only one of the stages. For example, I know an entomologist who has an amazing memory and knowledge of insects, but does not like to publish articles. He is a professional disassembler of other people's collections; he identifies new species and hands them over to specialists for description from hundreds of thousands of specimens. It is not surprising that about a dozen new species of insects have been described in his honor. This is how the taxon authors reflect his contribution to the discovery. Why it doesn't deserve an article on the species wikipedia project. if the authors of the taxa themselves believe that his contribution is significant? As a rule, new species are described in honor of collectors. And this is part of the history of our science. We indicate who collected the holotype of a particular species, and as a rule, links lead to a specific person if this person has published something describing the species in other groups. But why can’t there be an article about the collector if he didn’t publish, but only the species was named in his honor?
Diaries of collectors and descriptions of their travels are extremely important for clarifying type's localities. That is, not only the descriptions and publications of new species themselves are important for taxonomy. I can give an example of how a neotype was identified completely incorrectly, since the description of the collector's journey was ignored (As you know, the ICZN Code requires that the locality of the neotype be as close as possible to the locality of the lost holotype).
And finally, the fact that the project has a template for eponyms is a reflection of the importance of this aspect of the history of science. Allowing it to be filled out for some people and not for others will lead to enormous confusion. Fresh example Anatole von Hügel. He was a prominent anthropologist, but he brought large collections on fauna and flora. Today I discovered that a species of bird was described in his honor. Why is it important to indicate this? Because his father, Carl von Hügel was a famous botanist. There are currently 39 eponyms listed in his honor on his page. Most of the species names are exactly the same as those named after his son. If we give eponyms for one person, then we must also give them for others, otherwise errors and confusion are inevitable.
I could go on about contributions of Henri Philippe Marie d'Orléans to zoology, but I think that's enough for now. Hunu (talk) 13:21, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody denies the contributions of many people in taxonomy and nomenclature. However, Wikispecies is about nomenclature, the names who named them, who re-arranged them etc. It is not about who they were necessarily named after. Wikipedia is an appropriate place for these people, nothing stopping pages being created there to discuss their lives and contributions. Here if they have not named a taxon or at the least been involved in the nomenclatural or taxonomic reassessment of taxa then they are out of scope here. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 13:46, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Scott Thomson. Did I understand you correctly that you are against the eponym template? Do you propose to remove it from all articles? Hunu (talk) 14:22, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I never said that I said that people who have not named or been involved in the taxonomic rearrangement of taxa are out of scope. I never said to delete anything. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 09:42, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There could be a middle ground: we could have a category page, but not a mainspace page, the category should then be linked to the Wikidata item about the person, and could include {{Authority control}}. In any case, such data can and should be recorded directly in Wikidata. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:50, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To my mind non-taxonomist-eponyms don't deserve a page on WS. Mariusm (talk) 16:10, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Who is non-taxonomist? A collector is non-taxonomist. Or he is taxonomist because his work is a necessary part of any taxonomic discovery Hunu (talk) 22:12, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A non-taxonomist is a person who didn't publish at least one paper (or contributed to a paper) related to the taxonomy, distribution, morphology, synonymy or nomenclature of a taxon. A strict collector, however helpful he may be to science is a non-taxonomist (at least as WS is concerned). Mariusm (talk) 06:03, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am relatively reluctant to delete entries of some non-taxon-authorities since there are people whose names are tightly linked with distribution. Are entries of people such as C. Sugawa and L.J. Brass to be deleted? Although they published seemingly no taxonomic works, their names were dedicated to plants collected in Japan and New Guinea respectively, so such eponyms can be clues for readers to expect regions where types of such names were collected even when information on distribution is not indicated yet. Although I may be not so ardent as Hunu and I can even agree with Pigsonthewing's idea, I note this comment for sharing as I am always interested in type and distribution. --Eryk Kij (talk) 08:36, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mariusm: If so Mariusm, then I suggest it may be controversial to inform the horde of "parataxonomists" that their contributions are not worthy of inclusion as being 'taxonomy'. Personally, i'd contend that if a taxon author has deemed someone else worthy of an honorific, that's clearly part of the taxonomic history, therefore within the scope for some sort of inclusion on wikispecies. Indeed, I also see many patronyms as being for collectors, and agree that some link into who those are [as Eryk Kij has nicely said] can likely be valuable to some wikispecies users, including those we'd all likely agree as publishing "taxonomists". But indeed yes, perhaps better if done for those cases in a slightly different format.
I'd also highlight many patronyms have been for patrons. An example as the various creatures named rothschildi, i.e. What about such patrons that then published some book or series. Many such patrons also acted as editors of works containing the taxonomic acts (which would be "related to the taxonomy" as above wouldn't it?), but noticed the cases where the names get attributed to just the issue/section/chapter author. How about names that get slipped in as side-attribution to another prior author of an unpublished earlier listing, etc.
Anyway, beyond whether a patronym is named after a "taxonomist" collector, patron, or however we might deem their role, please also note the potential value to define (or rather split) patronyms by their origin whoever they may be (or rather whatever their role may be as patron, author etc, e.g. which of the many rothschildi were to honour Baron Walter Rothschild, rather than say for Miriam Rothschild, Maurice de Rothschild, etc?) Sjl197 (talk) 20:13, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Noting here that we also have Category:Species named after celebrities, though this generally excludes politicians and royalty (and early explorers I think?). Monster Iestyn (talk) 22:51, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Should we open a little door for non-taxonomists pages who have an eponym, we will have an avalanche of doubtful pages under discussion. I am totally against, not for WS.--Hector Bottai (talk) 22:03, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Such a rigorous approach requires us to clearly define who taxonomists are. I know one very significant American scientist who spent his entire life working on the taxonomy of mammals, but as far as I know he did not describe a single taxon. Simply because it wasn't necessary. Hunu (talk) 11:05, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are many who are authors or co-authors of taxa who are definitely not taxonomists, but by our definitions are taxon authorities by having named taxa. Some publish one and only one article in their lives. I have thought long and hard on a definition suitable for Wikispecies, and don't have much. Lot of fuzzy areas involved. Neferkheperre (talk) 13:51, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Our latest definition of taxon authority is not only who described a new taxon but also who contributed to a paper that affected the taxonomy of some taxa. Very recent discussion.--Hector Bottai (talk) 22:24, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Let me recapitulate this again: A taxon authority isn't just a person who described new taxa; this is a person who published at least one paper (singly or as a team member) related to one or more of the following: taxonomy, distribution, morphology, synonymy or nomenclature of a taxon. A person who doesn't partake in this definition should not have a WS page. Mariusm (talk) 06:23, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Mariusm, Thanks for the very important clarification. Does your list of article topics that may be considered taxonomy or taxonomy-related include ecology and behavior. Differences in the ecology and behavior of some vertebrates in sympatry zones are critical to understanding their taxonomic status. Hunu (talk) 19:54, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really contribute here, but I think it would be a nightmare for you to decide which biologists merit being called "taxon authorities" by this definition. On the other hand, I don't really understand why "taxon authorities" in the normal formal sense (those that have authored a taxon) deserve to have their own list of eponyms more than do other biologists, or indeed other figures. It is even interesting to see eponym lists of people such as Hitler. Then there are many species named after friends who are otherwise not remembered. It is a slippery slope and I think that there are better things to spend time on. Would a Wikidata connection between the taxon and the person it is named after enable (usually incomplete) eponym lists to be extracted on the fly when required? Jmchutchinson (talk) 21:22, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There has been an effort to populate Wikidata with botanical eponyms for women, see DOI: 10.3897/BDJ.11.e114408. Plantdrew (talk) 15:25, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Hunu: We have to put some reasonable limit to Who is a tahon authority and ecology & behavior if not accompanied with other taxonomic information feels like out of scope to me. Mariusm (talk) 16:37, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Some behaviours are studied taxonomically, particularly mating calls. These can differentiate between otherwise cryptic species. Also becoming important, which has not been mentioned above is DNA and other molecular data. Several taxonomic revisions have resulted, and cryptic species have been detected. Neferkheperre (talk) 14:04, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
When such cases arise, you can by all means add the author. Remember only that taxonomy takes precedence here over general behavioral or ecological papers. Mariusm (talk) 16:13, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Put simply has the person published a paper that makes taxonomic or nomenclatural acts, both of which are defined proposals in the scientific literature. Having a taxon named after them is a nomenclatural act by the person who names the taxon, not by the person it was named after. So a txon authority is referring to the person who makes these changes in the scientific literature. Listing every eponym is beyond the scope of this Wiki and is actually stepping on Wikipedia's scope which we try to avoid. Each authority page should have a list of the publications by the person which name taxa (nomenclatural acts) or re-arrange them (taxonomic acts) can you find a paper fulfilling this for each eponym? if youcan fine if not its out of scope. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 00:01, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think nomenclatural/taxonomic acts are the only criteria by which a taxon authority is legible for WS. Many important papers reassess the distribution or morphology (description) of taxa, and their authors merit to be included among the taxon authorities. Mariusm (talk) 13:23, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Amphibian Species of the World - Taxonbar[edit]

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

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

Rosa - is it just me.[edit]

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

Sorry, no idea. Consult your rosary 🤪 . . . MPF (talk) 20:34, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Funny 😊 seems like a mystic task indeed. I was hoping for a rosarian though. When teaching, Rosa cinnamomea L. (1753) was the type I used, so no idea where R. pendulina came from as a type and relegating it into synonymy. Andyboorman (talk) 21:04, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Andyboorman, RLJ, Fagus, Thiotrix, and MILEPRI: Looking at the Rosa history, it seems it was me added it, ten years ago! Needless to say, I couldn't remember where I got it from, but from my following edit immediately after, turns out the synonymy is from Euro+Med Plantbase: Rosa pendulina (highlight R. cinnamomea). Obviously, if E+MP are wrong on this, please correct the page. Hope this helps! - MPF (talk) 22:32, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Addenum: @Uleli: added the synonymy a year earlier, in 2013: - MPF (talk) 22:46, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Addenum 2: POWO agrees with the synonymy. Rosa majalis at en wiki looks like it might hold some clues, suggesting that Linnaeus got confused with his name between 1753 and 1759. - MPF (talk) 22:58, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just heard from POWO that they have changed their database and changes will appear on the next update. The 1759 entry does need checking, but I do not think it was entered by Linnaeus, but the description is on BHL. Thanks Andyboorman (talk) 08:21, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Do you know when that next update will be, is it days, weeks, months? Will this just be a straight swap, with pendulina becoming a synonym of cinnamomea? Let's hope they include a statement on why they make the change 👍 - MPF (talk) 14:38, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have no details about timing, but I assume it will be a straight swap. Andyboorman (talk) 19:01, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

I've added a bit, can you check I've got it right, please! - MPF (talk) 22:23, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looks very good to me. Thanks Andyboorman (talk) 14:10, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
POWO has been offline all today so hopefully updating! Andyboorman (talk) 14:54, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
POWO is back now, but unfortunately not updated for this yet - MPF (talk) 01:19, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Gone back off line this morning GMT. Andyboorman (talk) 07:01, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously the tens of millions of people reading this thread and looking to see if they've updated it, and overloading their system 😂🤪 MPF (talk) 15:43, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nice one. It is back up OK, but I need to contact Kew after the weekend and check out where updates have gone. 😂 Andyboorman (talk) 18:27, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Andy – POWO is updated now, and the big surprise to me is that – contrary to their previous position – they're treating R. cinnamomea and R. pendulina as two different species both accepted (and R. cinnamomea with a vastly larger range extending a long way east). Can you check with them that this is their intention, and if it is, how does one distinguish them? It creates problems for images, as the long history of treatment as a synonym makes finding, and distinguishing, R. cinnamomea images effectively impossible, and also the identity of those currently given as R. pendulina uncertain. Sadly, once again, there is no statement regarding the change they have made nor any reasons given for their decision.
On the Rosa cinnamomea page here, the synonyms should not include R. × centifolia; this never was a synonym, just a former type species of the genus, now rejected. - MPF (talk) 23:30, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FYI POWO was updated for Rosa last night - Andyboorman (talk) 07:34, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Andyboorman: thanks; yes, I saw that last night, see my comments immediately above this! Can you query them, please? Thanks! - MPF (talk) 09:54, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@MPF: Still waiting a reply for that request. Andyboorman (talk) 07:59, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK thanks! - MPF (talk) 08:45, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Rosa Nothosectiones[edit]

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

Not at all, please go ahead. In my opinion they shouldn't have been created in the first place. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 02:25, 3 April 2024 (UTC).[reply]
Thanks for the reply. Andyboorman (talk) 08:01, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Unsöld, 2014[edit]

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

To me, looks more historical. Neferkheperre (talk) 12:32, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Template is unused. We have no entry for the author. Delete. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:06, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It was listed in Pinguinus impennis's references section until earlier today. But yes, while it is interesting, it doesn't seem necessary to have for WS, so I'm in favour of delete. Monster Iestyn (talk) 20:38, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, I removed it as I couldn't see any strong reason for keeping it there; but I didn't want to delete it outright without consultation - MPF (talk) 20:46, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus looks to be for delete, so I've deleted it - MPF (talk) 23:04, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Gorlenko and Wikidata[edit]

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

@Tommy Kronkvist: If you use the "What links here" link on the Wikidata page, you will see a list of items for papers attributed to "Vladimir M. Gorlenko". Does that help? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:55, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Andy Mabbett: I tried three or four of them prior to asking here, but they (and links from those papers) all only said "Vladimir Gorlenko" or "Vladimir M. Gorlenko". There are also a few taxon names related to those publications, but I had no luck searching via them either. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 16:14, 31 March 2024 (UTC).[reply]
I found this ResearchGate ID Vladimir-Gorlenko related to the Wikidata item (and I also added the ID to the Wikidata item). It's probably the same person as "our" Gorlenko, but it's hard to be 100% sure. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 16:21, 31 March 2024 (UTC).[reply]
@Tommy Kronkvist @Pigsonthewing Vorontsov's Who's Who in Biodiversity Sciences has some data for Vladimir Mikhaylovich Gorlenko (Russian Владимир Михайлович Горленко): Since it has the same birth year (1941) and mentions him working in microbiology, specifically on bacteria, it's plausible to me this is the same person as Vladimir Mikhailovich Gorlenko at least. He is also listed as working at the Institute of Microbiology, Russian Academy of Sciences, which also matches the ResearchGate profile. All of the papers linked to the Wikidata (which are also to do with bacteria) also gives the same institute as an affiliation for the author Vladimir M. Gorlenko. I'd say they're probably all the same person, honestly. Monster Iestyn (talk) 14:05, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Monster Iestyn. I've now associated the Vladimir Mikhailovich Gorlenko page with the Q123057589 Wikidata item. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 14:15, 1 April 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Categories listing media by individual users[edit]

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

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

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

FYI: The Contested World of Classifying Life on Earth[edit] (koavf)TCM 17:25, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oleaceae paper[edit]

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

 Done placed under additional references of the family Oleaceae. Andyboorman (talk) 12:34, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent, thanks! - MPF (talk) 12:52, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Classifying ichnotaxa[edit]

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

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

A category "Ichnotaxa" as a subcategory of Category:Fossil taxa would be helpful. Btw, Algaebase classifies algal ichnotaxa just as fossil genera within their algal families and taxonomic trees, without a notice that it is an ichnotaxon. Kind regards, --Thiotrix (talk) 07:15, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Thiotrix: So I've noticed, dealing with Irhopalia and a few others recently. That and many other bioerosion ichnotaxa are placed in ichnofamilies in {{Wisshak, Knaust & Bertling, 2019}}, which I want to set up on Wikispecies at some point. Monster Iestyn (talk) 12:37, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The ICZN [animal] Code covers ichnotaxa, in article 1.2.1 (scope): "names based on the fossilized work of organisms (ichnotaxa)" ... see also the following in the definitions section: "ichnotaxon, n. A taxon based on the fossilized work of an organism, including fossilized trails, tracks or burrows (trace fossils) made by an animal. See also work of an animal." So in IRMNG, my "Trace fossils" section (considered a quasi phylum for convenience) lives under the kingdom Animalia, and the names therein are governed by the principles of zoological nomenclature. Since from a general overview such as that at, trace fossils "preserve organism behavior and are categorized generally as resting, locomotion, dwelling, feeding, escaping, grazing, agriculture, or multipurpose (Bromley, 1996; Hasiotis, 2003)" they normally would not be attributable to plants; I found no reference to either "trace" or "ichno*" via a search of the ICNafp online, but presumably they could be produced by Bacteria/Archaea, or (for example) by Fungal attack... There could also be a case made that stromatolites are trace rather than body fossils; at present in IRMNG I treat their "genera" as Cyanobacteria under the botanical Code/ICNafp but note that when they are placed into families, at least one recent source (which I follow for convenience) places these under the zoological Code, which is a mis-match not currently addressed. Tony 1212 (talk) 19:53, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Tony 1212 As it happens, {{Wisshak, Knaust & Bertling, 2019}} gives a list of bioerosion ichnotaxa in a table with known/inferred tracemakers. According to it, most of them were made by invertebrates, but some were made by plant, fungus or even bacterium. Monster Iestyn (talk) 20:08, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Side note: I've added the two phrases "Type ichnospecies" and "Ichnotaxon" to Wikispecies' Localization database so that they can now be automatically translated into the users' preferred language using the int: magic word i.e. {{int:Type ichnospecies}} and {{int:Ichnotaxon}}. Unfortunately I only know the English phrases, so I haven't yet added any actual translations to the database. Please make suggestions for the equivalent translations in Spanish, German, Chinese etc. to Wikispecies talk:Localization and I or any other Translation administrator will be happy to include them. You can use the red links at Wikispecies:Localization to see which translations are missing. (Please note that the last mentioned page can sometimes take up to a minute to load.)
Huge thanks beforehand! –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 02:25, 12 April 2024 (UTC).[reply]
@Tommy Kronkvist: Thanks! I'm not sure where {{int:Ichnotaxon}} would be useful, but I can definitely make use of {{int:Type ichnospecies}}. Could {{int:Type ichnogenus}} and {{int:Ichnologist}} be added too? (Unfortunately I don't really know anything other than the English phrases for any of them either) Monster Iestyn (talk) 02:31, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Monster Iestyn: I've now added "Type ichnogenus" and "Ichnologist" as well. I understand that "Ichnotaxon" and "Ichnotaxa"may seem out of place, but thought that it may perhaps be used in templates for publications, sort of in the same way we sometimes add lists of new species and genera to the "Nomenclatural acts" sections of our reference templates. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 03:26, 12 April 2024 (UTC).[reply]

FYI: Young researcher leads identification of new sauropod dinosaurs in outback Queensland[edit] (koavf)TCM 03:35, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Priapulida vs. Priapula (same phylum, 2 names)[edit]

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

Series and Subsections for the genus Rosa[edit]

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

I remember doing away with the infrageneric classification in Acer because it didn't match genetic results. I've no objection to their being removed here too - MPF (talk) 20:38, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I will not rush, but it is not looking good for these infragenerics. Andyboorman (talk) 07:31, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]