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 theAdministrators' Noticeboard. If you need to solicit feedback, seeRequest for Comment. Please sign and date your post (by typing ~~~~ or clicking the signature icon in the edit toolbar).Usethe 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}}
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:
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 | (2024-11-03/2025-02-03) | 70 | (2025-02-03/2025-04-11) |
| 71 | (2025-04-12/2025-06-16) | 72 | (2025-06-17/2025-xx-xx) |
|
I notice in this week's Wikidata newsletter:
The{{USERLANGUAGE}}magic word is now enabled on Wikidata and Test Wikidata. It can be used to display templates in the user interface language, replacing the previous{{int:lang}} hack. (phab:T405830)
and I wonder whether that would be of benefit here? The technical details are beyond my ken.Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing);Talk to Andy;Andy's edits18:24, 6 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
- I think in principle, it could be useful here, atc:,d:,f:,incubator:,m:,mw:, andmul:s:. Good eye. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯18:33, 6 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
- Thank you. Nowtask T406583.Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing);Talk to Andy;Andy's edits13:23, 7 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
- Task is now "resolved".Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing);Talk to Andy;Andy's edits13:52, 28 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
So how do we make use of this?Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing);Talk to Andy;Andy's edits12:29, 21 November 2025 (UTC)Reply
Seeking volunteers to join several of the movement’s committees
[edit]Each year, typically from October through December, several of the movement’s committees seek new volunteers.
Read more about the committees on their Meta-wiki pages:
Applications for the committees open on October 30, 2025. Applications for the Affiliations Committee, Ombuds commission and the Case Review Committee close on December 11, 2025. Learn how to apply byvisiting the appointment page on Meta-wiki. Post to the talk page or email cst
wikimedia.org with any questions you may have.
For the Committee Support team,
- MKaur (WMF)14:12, 30 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
Chrysanthemum combinations
[edit]Reviewing this genus, I am coming across some problems depending on our sources.
- Firstly,Chrysanthemum zawadskii (Hassler, MBG etc.) orChrysanthemum zawadzkii (POWO, IPNI etc.)? I will contact IPNI for a definitive ruling. Please do not edit these names, and also this applies to infraspecifics.
- Also note thar there will be disputed taxa as differing sources accept slightly different combination
ThanksAndyboorman (talk)10:15, 7 November 2025 (UTC)Reply
- I have heard back from IPNI and the correct name isChrysanthemum zawadzkii. The protologue is to be followed. I have also found a paper to back this up and will add to the taxon page in due course.Andyboorman (talk)13:12, 7 November 2025 (UTC)Reply
(Note:Moved fromUser talk:RLJ)
Good afternoon RLJ, I just saw your edits onAcer after I started the expansion into fossil taxa. My question is if "Paleospecies" as a separate section is still the editing convention or not? I have come across a number of pages where extinct taxa are simply listed at the end of the extant taxa list with daggers to denote the difference, while on pages where the extinctions are recent the extinct taxa and extant taxa are either all in one alphabetical list OR separated with recent and paleo at the end, but not segregated into a fully separate list. Are there any village pump discussions in the archives I should be aware of or should one be initiated?--Kevmin (talk)00:23, 8 November 2025 (UTC)Reply
- Hello Kevmin, I am not aware of any discussion on the pump or any offical convention. The term "paleospecies" is not my invention (as the taxonomic categories in Taxonavigation should be given in Latin, "palaeospecies" is more correct), and I am not the only one putting the fossil species into an own paragraph. I think this is justified because the literature is different. In recent organisms you have biological material, in fossil organisms you only have its traces. Greetings from Germany and best wishes,RLJ (talk)00:51, 10 November 2025 (UTC)Reply
I am not the only one putting the fossil species
On the other hand I am not the only on doing a single alphabetically divided structure, and thus the community is working against itself without a solid directive. You say the literature is different, but the taxonomic and phylogenetic frameworks both are placed into are the same, and literature often does not use the term paleospecies (and in the case ofAcer no liturature uses the term "paleosectiones", a wholly Wikispecies made up term. Also as recent findings in fossils are showing we more and more have much MORE preserved in fossils then was thought would be possible 50 years ago. This really should be a community discussion to make a firm choice that is then reflected in the article construction guides.--Kevmin (talk)18:10, 10 November 2025 (UTC)Reply
- I recommend to consult the pump. --RLJ (talk)18:40, 10 November 2025 (UTC)Reply
- @RLJ: Done.
- Following up on this conversation with RLJ on their talkpag, a discussion needs to take place with regards to the formatting of fossil taxa, recently extinct taxa, and extant taxa on article pages. Looking atAcer,Rhinoceros, andArini for three differing approaches. As shown atAcer and Arini the segregation is resulting in novel terms not seen anywhere outside of wikispecies, something that ALL wikiprojects should be avoiding.--Kevmin (talk)18:11, 12 November 2025 (UTC)Reply
- I prefer to list fossil or extinct and extant species in one alphabetical list (e.g.Cardiomya), like it is done byWoRMS. The advantage for the reader is to find a name quickly, without the need of searching in two different lists.Thiotrix (talk)15:05, 13 November 2025 (UTC)Reply
- @Thiotrix andRLJ: that was my preference 13 years ago when I was very active here, but Steven Thorpe did not approve and when he was made admin, he instituted the separate paleo-taxon structure while pushing me and other dissenting voices from the project.--Kevmin (talk)18:08, 15 November 2025 (UTC)Reply
- I too prefer the single list. The present is a continuation of the past, so there is no need of separation.Neferkheperre (talk)14:58, 16 November 2025 (UTC)Reply
- I too prefer a single list for both extant and extinct/fossil taxa if possible, though I tend to put the extinct ones at the end of the lists (probably I have mentally copied what I've seen in other pages, I would not object to mixing them together if that becomes consensus).
- Only point I should add though, I do know of instances where the taxonomic/phylogenetic framework of fossil species is NOT the same as that of extant species, but the only example that comes to mind offhand isOdonata in insects (Kevmin may remember what I'm talking about). Hopefully that is just an exception to the rule, as far as I know.Monster Iestyn (talk)16:26, 16 November 2025 (UTC)Reply
- I must admit I prefer to have separate lists as found inAcer, for two reasons. Firstly, easy reading for the less taxonomically minded. Secondly, paleo plant taxa are very rarely found together with extant in the sources I use to help compile lists of accepted taxa, which is my main interest here on WS. However, as usual, I am happy to follow consensus.Andyboorman (talk)08:57, 17 November 2025 (UTC)Reply
- My vote, for what it is worth, is for a single alphabetic listing, with extinct species (or genera, or whatever) indicated, WoRMS style, although clearly either is possible and both are found in the literature. I am just comparing IRMNG fungi (WoRMS style sorting) with Hyde et al., 2024 Outline of Fungi (Fossil taxa given separately), which is a bit disconcerting until you know what is happening (just a vote for standardization really).
- BTW does Wikispecies distinguish things like fossil, subfossil, recently extinct (or even possibly extinct) and extant, somehow?https://species.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikispecies:Glossary states:
- "†: Indicates that a taxon is extinct, that a (type) specimen has been destroyed, or that a publication was published posthumously."
- In IRMNG I (we) originally used "†" to indicate fossil, i.e. a taxon never seen alive by "modern" naturalists (e.g. extinct before AD 1500 as an arbitrary cutoff), only known from fossil or subfossil remains; by default (moving to the WoRMS data model) this is still labelled "fossil", I think, but "extinct" is used in other systems for the same or not quite the same concept. But there are shades of grey here, some well known things such as thylacines have become extinct over the intervening period. And as we know, some things might be possibly/probably extinct (not seen for X years), other things thought extinct might reappear... If not discussed already somewhere, probably needs its own topic header to continue this discussion...Tony 1212 (talk)17:42, 18 November 2025 (UTC)Reply
- For clarification, the WoRMS and IRMNG concepts of "fossil" are not quite the same... in IRMNG I originally specified the cutoff as 1500 AD, including subfossils (Moas etc.) as fossil, dodos as extant (sort of). However WoRMS (https://www.marinespecies.org/aphia.php?p=manual#topic45) says: "Anything before 10,000 BC is considered fossil."Tony 1212 (talk)17:48, 18 November 2025 (UTC)Reply
- Some preliminary discussion included here in passing a few years back, but did not get developed very far it seems:https://species.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikispecies:Village_Pump/Archive_47#Category:Extinct_or_fossil_speciesTony 1212 (talk)17:57, 18 November 2025 (UTC)Reply
┌─────────────────────────┘@Tony 1212: Current WS practice does not have the nuances of either WoRMS and IRMNG as you have found. I would suggest that subfossil and fossil taxa be denoted with the † dagger and possibly we denote recent extinctions (eg Dodo) with the related ‡ double dagger. The linked discussion on the categories shows the need for a better developed system of category webbing.--Kevmin (talk) 18:54, 22 November 2025 (UTC)\@RLJ: Do you have any input for the discussion? You seem to be in the minority as the discussion currently stands.-Kevmin (talk)18:54, 22 November 2025 (UTC)Reply
- Where is the vote on your preference of the species structure? Until there is one I will keep following theAcer structure as I find it more readable. Could you ask an uninvolved admin to set up a vote, as the ad hoc opinions above are not valid and binding, according to WS praxis. However, we have also not dealt with nothospecies - will you advocate embedding them in a superlist?Andyboorman (talk)18:14, 23 November 2025 (UTC)Reply
- @Andyboorman: as I noted on my talk page, YOU are more than capable of writing up and posting a poll for this discussion. "Involvement" only comes into play with closure of a poll and writing a neutral description of its outcome. Opening and creation of a site wide banner advertising the discussion for all users to participate is a task open to all admin regardless of where they may fall involvement wise. I will also note that looking though the village pump history it seems that various changes have been implemented based on basic discussions that did not have polls. The pump doesn't regularly get enough traffic for large community investment in at at this point. Regarding hybrids, again its a matter of community opinion, as different sources treat them differently. When I finish work today I may have time to set up a poll if no one else has. Currently though consensus in the discussion is not to have separate lists.--Kevmin (talk)15:58, 25 November 2025 (UTC)Reply
- @Kevmin thanks for the ping about where the discussion was! I'm definitely with @Andyboorman in finding it better to have the extinct species listed separately, with their own header (be that ==Species extincta== or ==Palaeospecies==). It makes it much clearer which is which, and makes it easier to find either. Hybrids, the same applies. -MPF (talk)16:04, 25 November 2025 (UTC)Reply
Community polling on how to handle fossil and recently extinct
[edit]Currently there is no standardized practice for how fossil and recently extinct (post 1500ce) named species are handled within the Wp taxa lists. Three major methods occur at this point in time, with all methods uniformly using a † (dagger) to indiscriminately mark fossil, subfossil, and recently extinct taxa. Currently no system itemizes fossil, subfossil, and recently extinct taxa as separate units.
- Method 1: all taxa in one list alphabetically.
Species:F. hueyi – †F. deweyi –F. lewyi – †F. maggae
- Method 2: Extinct taxa grouped at the end of the alphabetized extant species list with no
Species:F. hueyi –F. lewyi – †F. deweyi – †F. maggae
- Method 3: All taxa with † segregated under a separate heading labeledPalaeospecies regardless of extinction date or recent extinctions in Extant section with no demarcation.
Species:F. hueyi –F. lewyi
Palaeospecies: †(fossil)F. deweyi – †(extinct 1829)F. maggae
Which option does the WS community feel best meets the needs of all readers/users of the wikispecies project as a whole? Please list a Method number and single sentence reason below, and use the discussion section for commentary and questions.
Courtesy ping for members of discussion:@MPF,Andyboorman,Tony 1212,Monster Iestyn,Neferkheperre,Thiotrix,RLJ, andPigsonthewing:Ping other active users:@Koavf,Christian Ferrer,Sjl197,Lhikan634,Lichenes, andMicroplankton25:@Burmeister,MathXplore,The editor 2345,ShakespeareFan00,Tanbiruzzaman,NDG,Lavalizard101,Faendalimas,OhanaUnited,WrenFalcon, andTenWhile6:
Such a poll should be inWikispecies:Requests for Comment, and be announced inMediaWiki:Recentchangestext, not just in the (english version) of the Village Pump discussion.Thiotrix (talk)08:46, 26 November 2025 (UTC)Reply
Reminder: Help us decide the name of the new Abstract Wikipedia project
[edit]Hello. Reminder: Please help to choose name for the new Abstract Wikipedia wiki project. The finalist vote starts today. The finalists for the name are:Abstract Wikipedia, Multilingual Wikipedia, Wikiabstracts, Wikigenerator, Proto-Wiki. If you would like to participate, thenplease learn more and vote now at meta-wiki.Thank you!
--User:Sannita (WMF) (talk)14:21, 20 November 2025 (UTC)Reply
Happened to notice thatPuyoideae is tagged with {{moty}}, which makes "monotypic taxon ". Is this correct use for this tag? Puyoideae is monogeneric (only containingPuya), but it isnot monotypic, as the genus contains over 230 species (per POWO). Shouldn't {{moty}} be reserved for taxa which have no further subdivisions at any rank, like e.g.Ginkgoaceae? And create tags like {{moge}} for monogeneric taxa like Puyoideae? -MPF (talk)22:20, 20 November 2025 (UTC)Reply
- @MPF: Even Ginkgoaceae fails though, as there are a number of extinct genera (egBaiera &Cheirophyllum) and species (Ginkgo cranei,Ginkgo dissecta) described from the fossil record.--Kevmin (talk)15:30, 21 November 2025 (UTC)Reply
- Yes, agree if one includes fossil taxa, no taxon can ever really be considered monotypic. But the term is (I think!) valid for extant organisms -MPF (talk)16:54, 21 November 2025 (UTC)Reply
- Except its only concidered valid in that sense when the authors using the term Purposely ignore definition of monotypic/monogeneric entirely, as the definition does not give any allowance for "as read for only living organisms". if you want an acceptable example of monotypic, go withWollemia, no known fossil record in the genus.--Kevmin (talk)18:41, 22 November 2025 (UTC)Reply
- I like the idea of moge, but perhaps I am in error in using the concept?Andyboorman (talk)15:37, 21 November 2025 (UTC)Reply
The John Murray Expedition 1933-1934 Scientific Reports
[edit]Hello, I'm going to create a page for this journal, it has 11 volumes:https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/bibliography/112110, but I wonder how exactly to name it. In internet, we can see a lot of titles such as: "Scientific reports / John Murray Expedition 1933-34", "The John Murray Expedition 1933-1934 Scientific Reports", "The John Murray Expedition 1933-34, scientific reports", "The John Murray Expedition 1933-34: scientific reports", ect... Me I would tend to choose the title I used for this topic, some suggestions? thanks you.Christian Ferrer (talk)08:42, 21 November 2025 (UTC)Reply
- I would also advise using the title as found on the reportsBHL.Andyboorman (talk)09:41, 21 November 2025 (UTC)Reply
- See
- That is how the journal was presented in the citation, and is the title for the volume relating to Cirripedia. I did not make a page for the Journal, as there was no ISSN for it. Also seeChallenger voyage (1873–1876), for how I set up these expedition journals. However, in the case of the Challenger, many taxonomic articles were published ahead of the main volumes, which are also part of results. The John Murray Expedition appears to be much simpler and straightforward.Neferkheperre (talk)16:42, 21 November 2025 (UTC)Reply
Please note that due to innumerable bots skimming data off of the site you now have to register for an account. For those serious about plant data this is highly recommended. On another point, we are well advised to add the number to{{IPNI}} in order to get an immediate response. This is due to an internal protocol with the template, not the site.Andyboorman (talk)17:21, 21 November 2025 (UTC)Reply
