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:

• Chinese - 中文
• Czech - česky
• Finnish - Suomi
• French - Français
• Hungarian - Magyar
• Hindi - हिन्दी
• Italian - Italiano
• Korean - 한국어
• Nepali - नेपाली
• Russian - Русский
• Tamil - தமிழ்
• Ukrainian - Українська
• Vietnamese - Tiếng Việt

Archives
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	(2023-11-18/2024-02-14)
67	(2024-02-14/2024-06-21)	68	(2024-06-22/2024-11-02)
69	(2024-11-03/2025-xx-xx)	70	(???)

This Category has 61.461 entries. In a gross estimative, >25% are empty categories. I don't see any logical in opening a category for some taxon authority who is not an author (yet). It is a waste of effort and confusing. Should be all deleted? If agreed, could somebody set up a bot to perform? Thanks Hector Bottai (talk) 22:04, 2 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

This one cuts me to my soul. The problem is that we have redlinks to a bunch of these categories on taxa authority pages, so we have two bad options at the moment: either have a bunch of wanted categories or a bunch of empty categories. E.g. see Syed Qaiser Abbas, which presently includes the line "0 taxon names authored by Syed Qaiser Abbas" that links to Category:Syed Qaiser Abbas taxa. This is because the page has {{Taxa authored}}. The solution is to make an if/then statement so that the category is only linked if it exists and only make the category if it has at least one entry. I'm kind of okay at MediaWiki and marginally knowledgeable about Lua, so I could try to do this, but it would probably be better if someone more competent tried. The best person I know who edits here is @Pigsonthewing:. Andy, are you motivated to fix this template issue so that we can delete all these empty categories? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:55, 3 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

There is a third problem: persons who have authored many names in their category, but they are not displayed on the author's page (e.g. Willem F. Prud'homme van Reine). This occurs for names with an apostrophe. --Thiotrix (talk) 09:05, 3 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

Ah, thanks. These apostrophes cause problems, so there is a workaround to escape them. Thanks. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:04, 3 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Thiotrix: this edit fixed it. If you don't see it working immediately, you need to purge the page by going to https://species.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Willem_F._Prud%27homme_van_Reine&action=purge. Let me know if you see any other issues. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:09, 3 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

Great @Koavf:! I knew another way to fix it but much more complex and case to case. This seems to be a definitive solution. Thanks! And let's continue the discussion over the empty categories.--Hector Bottai (talk) 16:27, 3 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for this improvement, --Thiotrix (talk) 10:36, 4 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

Motivated, yes, but sadly not sufficiently skilled. If the template is so modified, rather than hiding it when the category does not exist (or is empty), we could make it say "we have no taxons listed yet" with a link to our guide to creating such pages. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:24, 4 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

Hm, I'm not sure how I feel about mass deleting all the empty taxon by author categories, since I probably made some myself for taxon authors, but I'm also aware that many of such categories have been made for people who have never authored a taxon and/or probably never will do so; for those I definitely feel that a taxa by author category is completely pointless, and on a number of occasions I've deleted them for those non-taxon author people I've come across. (I also remove Category:Taxon authorities on the person's page when doing that) Monster Iestyn (talk) 16:35, 3 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

For instance, the earlier linked example of Syed Qaiser Abbas has an empty category, but the sole publication linked as well as IPNI is indirect evidence that they have at least co-authored a genus of fungi Cytopleastrum Abbas, B. Sutton, Ghaffar & A. Abbas. Monster Iestyn (talk) 16:51, 3 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

The problem is that I don't want a bunch of redlinks to show up at Special:WantedPages, nor Special:UnusedCategories. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:15, 3 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

Personaly when I create an author page, and that I know the person is indeed a taxon author, I create automatically a category, e.g. today I created Pedro Bonfá-Neto with the corresponding category. But I do not plan to create the taxa pages myself. Let me know if to create automatically such categories are a no wanted pratcice. Christian Ferrer (talk) 23:11, 3 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

I prefer to keep the empty categories. As the Category:Taxa by author will grow very large, I propose to use a better style of Table of Content with a subheading: Aa Ab Ac Ad ..., like here [1]. --Thiotrix (talk) 10:36, 4 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

Well, it seems we haven't arrived to any conclusion. Agree mass deletion is out of question because would create a mass of red links and seems a bot is not possible to avoid. But I think we should recommend something from now on: a. not to create new empty categories, b. not to include the {{Taxa authored}} template in new authority pages who are not yet taxon authors. I personally will delete empty categories AND resulting red link every time I face one. By the way, I already applied to 100% of the authority pages I created--Hector Bottai (talk) 17:19, 8 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

There are several historic requests to add languages to {{VN}} on its talk page, including one to add eight languages and one to add 380 (yes, 380!). I'm minded to refuse the latter on the basis that there is no evidence of there being volunteers willing or wanting to use them; but that and others need more input. Please discuss there, not here. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:32, 9 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

The following open proposals for new Wikidata properties are relevant to the work of this project, and may be useful for citations or {{Authority control}}.

• d:Wikidata:Property proposal/species protection status
• d:Wikidata:Property proposal/IndExs Exsiccata ID
• d:Wikidata:Property proposal/BirdLife DataZone species ID
• d:Wikidata:Property proposal/BirdLife DataZone site ID

If you have any views, please express them on their respective Wikidata pages. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:59, 10 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

Could a mammal specialist please review this genus? This has come about as the request for speedy delete of Giraffa giraffa angolensis has highlighted inconsistencies and apparent errors in the genus circumscription. For example, Giraffa camelopardalis angolensis. Thanks. Andyboorman (talk) 08:59, 12 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

I commented on the talk page, reject the deletion. Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 16:54, 12 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

ughh I have looked through the Giraffe in more detail, theseare a mess. Based on most recent publications we need to do some work on this genus I am going to fix this and will take care of the speedy delete. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 20:47, 12 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

(I'm sending a ping to @Nerdnewt, who first added the speedy deletion request to the G. giraffa angolensis page. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 05:37, 14 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

Hmm ok I may have to rethink this. I have just been sent 2025 papers of relevance to this that seem to now be recognising 4 species not 3. I will examine them all and update accordingly. By the way the MDD and Mammal species of the world are not the best sources for this genus. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 12:30, 17 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

For those unsure. The problem is that conservation imperatives have been in the way of the taxonomy of Giraffe for decades. The phylogenetic studies presented have been both hampered by this and by the lack of explicit explanations of methodology and acceptance/ refutation of results (which are not proposed well) due to the influence of conservation imperatives. This is bad taxonomic practice. So I have had to go through each paper, question the authors and gain an full understanding of what they are trying to do and how they did it. So sorry if this takes a little time. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 13:06, 17 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

Hello, I think we should create a kind of template to put at the top of the categories contained within Category:Repositories, for two pruposes: 1/ to standardize the text used, 2/ in that way to make translations.

We currently have a lot of different headings (e.g. "List of type specimens reposed in..", "List of species group taxa whose type specimens are housed in ...", "List of species group taxa with type specimens housed at ...", "List of taxa whose type specimens are deposited in..", ect.... ), and none are translated. To begin we should chose one and only one sentence and make it tranlsated at Wikispecies:Localization. Once it is done either we chose to use it directy at the top of the categories with the help of {{int:}}, or we create a template using itself {{int:List of type.... in}} followed by a {{PAGENAME}} giving the right link to the repository page. The potential use of a template has the advantage that, once created, it's easier for future maintenance, e.g. change of text or formatting.

If necassary I think I'm able to work and potentially to make such template, but I'm not able to put it on all the 3000 categories contained within Category:Repositories.

What are your comments? Christian Ferrer (talk) 13:59, 12 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

• There is also the possibility of something similar to {{Taxa by author}} that is translated, maybe it is more simple. Christian Ferrer (talk) 16:06, 12 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Christian Ferrer: Good idea! I've been thinking of this for many years, but never gotten around to invest any actual work into it. I'm not sure which of the methods you suggest that is best, but implementing the feature is a fairly straightforward endeavor regardless of which solution the community finally opts for. Adding the improvement to +3,000 pages isn't a very big task, if I use a bot. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 05:06, 14 April 2025 (UTC).Reply

@Tommy Kronkvist: Thanks for the comment. Well, after to have read Help:Extension:Translate in MediaWiki, I think the Local interface translation ({{int:}}) is the best choice. We firstly need to chose the right sentence before to create an entry at Wikispecies:Localization. Either Wikispecies users potentially say here their opinion about the sentence we will use, or maybe Wikispecies:Requests for Comment is a best place to get users' attention. Christian Ferrer (talk) 08:07, 14 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

See Template:Types by repository! Regards, Burmeister (talk) 11:08, 14 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

Thanks you! the question is therefore settled. We should have a page Help:Categories dealing with all that kind of stuff. Christian Ferrer (talk) 16:39, 14 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

• @Tommy Kronkvist: if either you, or someone else, want to put (or to replace current texts with) that template with a BOT in all categories that don't have it yet, you can use this wikitext: {{Types by repository|{{PAGENAME}}|{{PAGENAME}}}}, because the template have been made to work with parametters. The little issue here is that it will render only acronyms,

E.g. "{{Types by repository|{{PAGENAME}}|{{PAGENAME}}}}" placed in Category:FWRI will gives  :

List of type specimens reposed in FWRI.

Sadly I don't how you can get the full names of the repositories with a bot, even if it is possible, but personaly I think that by default the acronyms are ok in the extand that the link lead to the page containing the full name. Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:25, 14 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

It looks like the large Fabaceae subfamily Caesalpinioideae has been satisfactorily circumscribed to the tribal level by;

• Bruneau, A., de Queiroz, L.P., Ringelberg, J.J., Borges, L.M., da Costa Bortoluzzi, R.L., Brown, G.K., Cardoso, D.B., Clark, R.P., de Souza Conceição, A., Cota, M.M.T. & Demeulenaere, E. 2024.  Advances in Legume Systematics 14. Classification of Caesalpinioideae. Part 2: Higher-level classification. PhytoKeys 240: 1. DOI: 10.3897/phytokeys.240.101716 Reference page. 

I have added the required tribes, but not yet populated them with their data. For those interested I recommend reading the paper. Also have a look at;

• Stevens, P.F. 2001 onwards. Angiosperm Phylogeny Website. Version 14, July 2017 [and more or less continuously updated since]. Online. Reference page.  as Stevens is happy to accept Bruneau et al.

I will edit the subfamily in due course, but I am happy for feedback. Thanks for your time and happy reading. Andyboorman (talk) 19:25, 12 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

The IUCN template seems broken. See for example Bubo blakistoni where the link rendered by {{IUCN|EN|22689007|Bubo blakistoni}} ends up on a "404 page not found" page on the domain "apiv3.iucnredlist.org" instead of the proper Bubo blakistoni IUCN page on "www.iucnredlist.org".

The same is true for the three Canis lupus examples listed on the actual Template:IUCN page. Any ideas about what causes this? For comparison, the IUCN links created by the {{Taxonbar}} template works as expected. (Again, you can use the Bubo blakistoni page as an example. The Taxonbar template there includes an IUCN link with the same IUCN species ID as in the non-working template, i.e. 22689007, except here the link is working.)

–Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 11:44, 14 April 2025 (UTC).Reply

Same with other links, received message of "unsafe connection". Also tried from a different template at the Spanish wiki, same situation. Don't know the reason. I accesed their site and search straight with no problem. Hector Bottai (talk) 14:46, 14 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Hector Bottai: I've never received an "unsafe link" message by use of our IUCN template. That particular template always produces a link that includes the encrypted HTTPS protocol instead of the old, unencrypted HTTP ditto. Hence the links should never be "unsafe" (at least not as long as the IUCN renews their SSL or TLS certificates on a regular basis – which they most likely do every year, just like for example Wikimedia). Having said that, I occasionally do get the "unsafe link" message from a few of our other link templates: especially some of the smaller external sites sometimes fail to renew their security certificates in time (due to lack of funding?) –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 17:04, 14 April 2025 (UTC).Reply

┌────┘ Maybe it's time to change the template to use www.iucnredlist.org rather than apiv3.iucnredlist.org? Last time it was working I think apiv3.iucnredlist.org links just redirected to www.iucnredlist.org links anyway. Monster Iestyn (talk) 14:57, 14 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Tommy Kronkvist: I fixed it, the former url have been deprecated, I changed it in the template. Christian Ferrer (talk) 16:34, 14 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Christian Ferrer: Thank you, it seems to work very well! Thanks also for removing the <small> tag that had slipped in during the recent edits. Well spotted, since it's not part of our standard format. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 17:04, 14 April 2025 (UTC).Reply

Bad link. Happening again today, at leat to me. Both WS and ES Anybody else?--Hector Bottai (talk) 12:08, 15 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Hector Bottai: I haven't checked from Spanish Wikipedia (esWP), but here from Wikispecies they all looks good to me.

For example (per your own recent edits of Otus insularis and Riccordia bicolor):

• {{IUCN|CR|22688667|Otus insularis}} which renders as IUCN: Otus insularis  (Critically Endangered)

and

• {{IUCN|NT|22687380|Riccordia bicolor}} which renders as IUCN: Riccordia bicolor  (Near Threatened)

Those two IUCN species links points to

• https://www.iucnredlist.org/species/22688667/177971497 (for Otus insularis) and
• https://www.iucnredlist.org/species/22687380/219240628 (for Riccordia bicolor) which both are correct.

By the way, please note that some templates doesn't work very well if one adds blank spaces between the parameters and the surrounding pipe symbols. I don't know whether our IUCN template is affected, but for the sake of example a code syntax such as

• {{IUCN|EN|15933|Pan troglodytes}} will work, while
• {{IUCN |EN |15933 |Pan troglodytes}} or {{IUCN | EN |15933 | Pan troglodytes}} sometimes doesn't.

This particular shortcoming isn't specific to Wikispecies, but a technical issue for all of Wikimedia (although the problem is rapidly decreasing, as our global tech staff is constantly refining the software). –Tommy Kronkvist (talk),v13:11, 15 April 2025 (UTC).Reply

Many thanks Tommy, working fine now at WS...and not at ES. Some temporary bug. Hector Bottai (talk) 13:18, 15 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

I went ahead and made a prototype for a version of {{Image}} with more Wikidata functionality - not only can it grab the image from Wikidata, but it generates a more appropriate caption based on the depicts (P180) and sex or gender (P21) qualifiers under the image (P18) property. You can check it out at User:WrenFalcon/Image. Feel free to play around with it (though, please don't use it in an actual article yet—stick to the preview or use a sandbox, please) or to suggest corrections or improvements. It's not perfect yet - I believe it wouldn't provide a caption at all on taxon authority pages, and I haven't tested it enough yet to be sure it will work everywhere else. However, I find it nice because an accurate caption can be generated without needing to provide any parameters in the Wikispecies article. Any feedback is greatly appreciated! --WrenFalcon (talk) 04:25, 16 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

need to ensure it can be overridden by local edits though. Wikidata does not always have the correct information nor is it always the appropriate information for this wiki, as a taxonomic wiki we do need the correct name on taxa, the species epithet should be in the image title and the common name is not so relevant. There are on occasions additional information of use, for example if it's a picture of a type specimen. We also need to wary if its automatically grabbing any image of a taxon, since many of the ones on Commons are misidentified. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 09:05, 16 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

Everything should be able to be overwritten by local edits—see the newly-added examples (with some comments in the wikitext source) on the template page (User:WrenFalcon/Image).

It's not fetching any metadata (e.g. depicted taxon, sex) directly from Commons—data would have to be entered directly on the Wikidata taxon item. For example, see d:Q1048880#P18. The template is not directly affected by misidentifications in Commons; a misidentification would have to find its way into the Wikidata taxon item, which should help with data quality.

A custom caption or custom image can absolutely be provided, just like with the current {{Image}}. (However, if a custom caption is specified, I would recommend explicitly specifying the file name of the image to use; otherwise, the caption could become outdated by a change in Wikidata.)

The generated caption should always use the (scientific) taxon name, never the common name. See the last example on the template page (mallard, male, Anas platyrhinchos).

As for data accuracy, that's partly on Wikidata maintainers, partly on Wikispecies editors (and on Commons editors/reviewers for file name accuracy). However, the extended use of Wikidata by this template may also encourage more Wikispecies editors to contribute to Wikidata, especially to help fix incorrect or conflicting information. --WrenFalcon (talk) 16:23, 16 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

unfortunately if they are misidentified on Commons they are invariably also misidentified on Wikidata. cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 18:43, 16 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

If that is the case, fix them! Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:59, 17 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

I have fixed about 700 of them. But I cannot do all of them. Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 12:21, 17 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

Added documentation (which is also on the template page)! Hopefully that makes it a little more understandable what's going on. --WrenFalcon (talk) 03:16, 17 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

So, is this is change we would be interested in making to {{Image}}? And how should this change be handled - is consensus here enough to justify making the change, should it go through an RfC, or...?

I've updated it somewhat, and I've tested it a decent amount. I feel confident that it will work without issues on the vast majority of pages, and when there are issues, the captioning behavior can be easily overridden. It's also currently standard practice to use the image in Wikidata (though this does have its own issues with misidentification). Personally, I don't think this change would significantly exacerbate the misidentification issues as opposed to the situation currently. I don't know of any common usages/patterns on Wikidata that would break this template (though, then again, many of the taxa I've looked at don't have an image in Wikidata). I believe it should also be fully language-independent. --WrenFalcon (talk) 19:09, 21 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

Lovely. Is it possible to draw out media captions with a LangSwitch thing? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:00, 22 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

I'm not sure what you mean specifically, but there shouldn't be a need for that. For images of a taxon, it uses the taxon (scientific) name, and if it adds a sex annotation, it uses the male or female symbol. If the associated Wikidata item doesn't have the taxon name property, it captions the image with the item's label in the current language (i.e. the display language of the user/viewer on Wikispecies). If the associated Wikidata item doesn't have a label for the current language, it then defaults to the Wikispecies page name.

Images of taxa are captioned in a language-neutral manner (i.e. not using anything specific to any one language); images of taxon authorities and other miscellaneous items are captioned using the label in the appropriate local language OR using the page name.

If the automatic caption is overridden, it can be with whatever you want, including templates and parser functions such as {{int:}} and {{#switch:}}. --WrenFalcon (talk) 02:32, 22 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

On commons, I'm regularly having to remove misfiled images related to microorganisms from the category for the plant genus Microbiota. This makes me wonder: is Microbiota a valid genus name, or does it potentially breach ICN Article 20.2 "The name of a genus may not coincide with a Latin technical term in use in morphology at the time of publication..."? Microbiota was only described in 1923, so is later than the 1912 cutoff given in Art. 20.2. Thoughts, please! - MPF (talk) 19:10, 22 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

https://www.ucdavis.edu/news/can-citizen-science-be-trusted-new-study-birds-shows-it-can —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:08, 23 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

The voting period for the revisions to the Universal Code of Conduct Enforcement Guidelines and U4C Charter closes on 1 May 2025 at 23:59 UTC (find in your time zone). Read the information on how to participate and read over the proposal before voting on the UCoC page on Meta-wiki.

The Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is a global group dedicated to providing an equitable and consistent implementation of the UCoC. This annual review was planned and implemented by the U4C. For more information and the responsibilities of the U4C, you may review the U4C Charter.

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

In cooperation with the U4C --

We have a template called {{WorldWideWattle}} that produces, for example, this result -

• Maslin, B.R. & Wilson, A.J.G. (eds) 2025. WorldWideWattle Species Gallery, accessed on 20250503212841 Acacia pulchella – Taxon details on World Wide Wattle.

However, the site requests the following format - Maslin, B.R. & Wilson, A.J.G. (eds) 2025. WorldWideWattle Species Gallery, accessed on [insert date] (minor format changes to suit WS praxis). The taxon ID is used to call the specific entry for our purposes and as far as I am aware it is not possible to do a compete search.

Can anybody edit our template so that it follows the requested format? Thanks in anticipation. Andyboorman (talk) 20:01, 29 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

This should do it, with the caveat that strictly speaking, {{CURRENTDATE}} is not a magic word, so I used {{CURRENTTIMESTAMP}} which includes the time as well as the date. I checked it on a page and it displayed. Here is what it looks like now with the example you gave of {{WorldWideWattle|3502}} (live version, then subst:ed version):

• Maslin, B.R. & Wilson, A.J.G. (eds) 2025. WorldWideWattle Species Gallery, accessed on 20250503212841 Village Pump – Taxon details on World Wide Wattle.

• Maslin, B. R. & Wilson, A. J. G. (eds) 2025. WorldWideWattle Species Gallery, accessed on 20250503212841 Village Pump – Taxon details on World Wide Wattle.

Let me know if more is needed. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:21, 29 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Koavf: Thanks seems to do the job nicely. Best regards. Andyboorman (talk) 08:05, 30 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

I don't think we should ignore our house style to suit theirs. We should use small caps for authors, for example. "20250501110138" is horrendous. — The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pigsonthewing (talk • contribs) 11:25, 1 May 2025 (UTC).Reply

I have seen that the following terms have recently been changed in POWO:

• Czechoslovakia --> Czechia-Slovakia
• Sudan --> Sudan-South Sudan
• Swaziland --> Eswatini
• Turkey --> Türkiye ("Türkey" in the distribution data, "Türkiye" in the "Build a Checklist" tool)
• Turkey-in-Europe --> Türkiye-in-Europe (dito)
• Yakutskiya --> Yakutiya
• Yugoslavia --> NW. Balkan Pen.
• Zaïre --> DR Congo

--RLJ (talk) 09:39, 30 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

This post relates to my conflicts with User:ABeCK on Betonica officinalis, Scilla luciliae and Scilla sardensis, mainly about the citation of Catalogue of Life. As I understand Help:Reference section, primarily the sources used for writing the article should be listed in this section, further reading and useful links should generally not be listed, especially when they are already included in the Taxonbar.

The much-used "Catol-Hassler"-template is much-abused for Catalogue of Life contributions not authored by Michael Hassler, as in the above-mentioned articles and many more. The CoL entries in question here have identical content with POWO, this is also documented by citation. So citing POWO and CoL is citing the same thing twice.

I think the way of citing Catalogue of Life needs rework. The template is working with the search function of Catalogue of Life, not with the CoL-ID, giving results belonging to the relevant taxon or not. -RLJ (talk) 09:57, 1 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

As one of the original users of {{Catol-Hassler}} I can testify to the fact that the original citation request was for Michael Hassler only, but now, after years of development, there is a citation for every team involved in the current database. Therefor and unfortunately, this template has become very out of date/redundant and I do not use it, as my plant interests are cited by the version that uses WCVP as its main source and this is from the same stable as POWO. In addition, this version of COL cites Govaerts as its author, quite rightly. Andyboorman (talk) 13:29, 1 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

I have been looking through our pages on Wattles (Acacia) and have realised that COL now uses World Wide Wattles as its source for these taxa. Please see Acacia alata as an example. Andyboorman (talk) 20:31, 2 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Before proceeding with my arguments I must tell both @Andyboorman and @Tommy Kronkvist not to put pressure on this matter, intentionally wanting to speed up my response time, I am sure that both you and I have our lives outside WS editions, the fact that it takes time does not mean that I will not respond, it is simply a matter of time distribution.

Regarding the use of the Catalogue of Life (CoL) and the "Catol-Hassler" template, I still don't understand where is the precise line between valid and invalid templates lies in WS, and this conflict has only made things more ambiguous. Now, regarding the fonts that Catalogue of Life uses to display taxa, while it's true that it borrows heavily from POWO, there are some exceptions beyond the one Andy mentions. Other examples

While the genera Lophocereus, Lemaireocereus, or Marshallocereus, as well as their related species, are classified as independent in POWO, not only in CoL but also in GBIF, these genera are synonyms of Pachycereus, and the species are also included in this genus. And leaving aside cacti, many genera of Cactaceae family are still being discussed and moved, another case that occurs is in a species, known under the name Foeniculum vulgare, known by all under that scientific name, even by all taxonomic databases (those that are constantly updated and those that are not), except for CoL, which catalogues it under the name Anethum foeniculum. What I say can be corroborated in a reliable and truthful way, and this rules out RLJ's argument that CoL is based entirely on POWO.

In addition, if CoL tag and The Plant List tag aren't going to be allowed...why are they still valid in WS? Why aren't they removed or at least updated? Let me repeat, where do we see that limit? All taxonomic bases differ to some extent, in which case are all sources or valid ones allowed, or are no labels placed?

In which case I could make the citation template if it weren't for the fact that I don't know how to do those specific templates. That's another point a problem and a claim that I make that not @RLJ are aware of, and I am sure that they are not the only one involved in this discussion, is the economy of text, RLJ tags on the pages where this debate was generated, only make more text appear in the articles, which is unnecessary. I am still unhappy about the edits to my pages about some species of the Aloysia genus and I have not seen any response to my discussion or anything to clarify things, they have only increased the weight of bits in the articles that I have created or edited by myself. AbeCK (talk) 07:18, 3 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

@AbeCK: This particular message from me is a bit off topic, but to explain: please note that I've never had any intention to "put any pressure" on this matter. The only reason I contacted you on your user talk page at User talk:AbeCK#Betonica officinalis was to make make sure you had knowledge about this ongoing discussion here at the Village Pump. I felt it wouldn't have been fair if only one party was involved in the discussion, and you were left out simply because you didn't know about it. –Best regards, Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 13:05, 3 May 2025 (UTC).Reply

@AbeCK: I like @Tommy Kronkvist: I did not want to pressure you. However, thanks for your well considered reply and I do also use {{Catol-Hassler}} where it highlights a differing taxonomic opinion, as the one name one taxon "rule" is not always possible.

AbeCK cites Foeniculum as worth mentioning, but reading Jimenez-Mejias & Vargas (2015) cited in Col, I am not sure the authors favoured merging all of the Anethum clade into Anethum s.l., in spite of the clade being monophyletic, pointing out morphological differences between the genera. Does Catol-Hassler's opinion merits a "disputed" tag, not sure, but I could be persuaded? Cacti are very much a project still in progress and a prickly area! Andyboorman (talk) 20:05, 3 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Moved from Talk:Anthias anthias. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:17, 2 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Anthias anthias = a Fish Why does the Taxonavigation describe an Adephaga (beatle)? W0rldW1nt3r (talk) 19:34, 2 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

The nomenclatural note at Anthiadinae explains what's going on: the fish subfamily used to be spelled "Anthiinae", but this is a homonym of the beetle subfamily Anthiinae so it was emended to Anthiadinae. The Wikispecies page for the fish subfamily used to be also named Anthiinae until 2019, when it was moved to its current name and "Anthiinae" reused for the beetle subfamily. Unfortunately nobody updated the taxonavigation templates for the genera as well, so they all look like they're beetle genera. Monster Iestyn (talk) 20:40, 2 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

(Okay sorry, that's not quite true, Odontanthias and Pseudanthias were corrected in 2021, but none of the others were.) Monster Iestyn (talk) 20:46, 2 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

There, all fixed  Done All genera under Anthiadinae now have their taxonavigation templates corrected, so Anthias anthias and relatives should no longer show Adephaga. Monster Iestyn (talk) 21:40, 2 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

ISSN 0368-8151 and Lunds Universitets Årsskrift seem to refer to the same entity. However, it's possible there's intricacies I'm missing, such as if the Wikidata item or one or more of the Wikispecies pages are incorrect (and I don't deal with botany or IPNI, which the latter page refers to). Could someone look into this and merge these, if appropriate? Lunds Universitets Årsskrift is linked to Acta Universitatis Lundensis (Q5656893), which has ISSN 0368-8151, i.e. the ISSN referred to by the first page I mentioned. Thanks. --WrenFalcon (talk) 04:55, 3 May 2025 (UTC)Reply