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 - českyFinnish - SuomiFrench - FrançaisHungarian - MagyarHindi

- हिन्दीItalian - ItalianoKorean - 한국어 Nepali - नेपालीRussian - РусскийTamil -
தமிழ்Ukrainian - УкраїнськаVietnamese - Tiếng Việt

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

Contents
1 Unpatrolled edits
2 Preferred format for reference section
3 Taxonomic databases
3.1 Refs
4 Authorship of Botryocrinidae
5 Oxford Academic
6 Tropicos offline
7 Hybrid or not?
8 Addition to the {{Refer}} template
9 Updates on the Universal Code of Conduct Enforcement Guidelines Review
10 Requested articles
11 UserStatus template
12 Modify affiliation of taxa
13 Central Notice Request for Income tax fundarising for the Wikimedians of
Slovakia User Group
14 Leadership Development Task Force: Your feedback is appreciated!
15 Wikispecies Agathidinae: Many entries include long lists which are pure
black&white printouts, with no click-path to the entry location.
16 Template expansion depth: 40→100
17 Toki Pona language
18 Flora Uzbekistana
19 "Taxon range" property in Wikidata

Unpatrolled edits
We currently have approximately 320 unpatrolled pages, created and/or edited from
December 4 last year, up until today. Feel free to help patrol these so that we can
get up to speed with them. They span all types of subjects – plants, animals,
bacteria, authors, journals, templates, categories, translations etc. – so there
should be something to check for all of us. Thanks beforehand! Face-smile.svg Tommy
Kronkvist (talk), 15:03, 3 January 2022 (UTC).

User:Abhilash2001kar's edits adding Odia language vernacular names need sorting

into their correct alphabetic position; I'll do so tomorrow - MPF (talk) 00:09, 4
January 2022 (UTC)
But doing so much slower than I'd hoped, as most of the pages have multiple other
issues! - MPF (talk) 23:13, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
Let's help out! His ("Abhilash" is a male given name) edits can be found here:
Special:Contributions/Abhilash2001kar. Regards, Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 19:22, 5
January 2022 (UTC).
┌─────────────────────────┘
We currently have circa 25 unpatrolled translations created and/or edited by user
ChofisDan. Almost all of them are written in West Greenlandic (Kalaallisut), the
standard dialect of the Greenlandic language. That makes it hard for most users to
check and mark them as patrolled, but please help out if you're able to. Tommy
Kronkvist (talk), 07:27, 20 January 2022 (UTC).

Preferred format for reference section

Dear all, in thousands of my editions I have used this format:
{{Reference template}} {{BHLpage|xxxxxx Original description p. yy}} or {{BHLpage|
xxxxxx First availability p. yy}} that will result in Reference template Original
description p. yy BHL or First availability p. yy BHL.
A few of the pages have beed pos-edited to this format:
{{Reference template}} {{BHLpage|xxxxxx yy}} that will result in Reference template
yy BHL
Is there a preferred format? Or do we want to have one? Thanks --Hector Bottai
(talk) 17:08, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

As far as I know there is no preferred format in regards to the "Original

description & First availability" part. Good idea to discuss it here! As a starting
point, here's a link to information about the parts of citations for which we do
have a preferred format: Help:Reference section.
Best regards, Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 18:35, 3 January 2022 (UTC).
I'd say - strongly - that we should only use {{BHLpage|xxxxxx|yy}}, as phrases like
"Original description" and "First availability" (and even "p.") contravene our
language-neutrality policy. - MPF (talk) 23:59, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
Personally, My approach is that you're not supposed to "comment" on the reference
in the reference section of thet article. I think that was a practice of Stephen
that spread out to other users, but it's not what a reference section is for. Plus
when done with an updated reference template, such material will get plonked after
the "Reference template" link...
Back when I was editing, if I ever chose to put that sort of links, I would do it
in the reference call. See e.g. in Solanum africanum. Circeus (talk) 01:12, 4
January 2022 (UTC)
The page of description belong to name section not to the reference section in my
opinion, i do not use that kind of format, as a redundant if the page already cited
and linked in name section. Burmeister (talk) 02:47, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
┌─────────────────────────┘
Sorry for the somewhat petty remark, but the name of the "BHL page" template is
just that: i.e. {{BHL page}} with a blank space, and not {{BHLpage}} without one.
The latter redirects to the correct one though. It was moved by Andy Mabbett in
February last year, in order to increase readability. Just saying... :-) Tommy
Kronkvist (talk), 03:27, 4 January 2022 (UTC).

That shouldn't make any difference; the important one is to use a vertical line "|"
between the "xxxxxx" and the "yy", not a space - MPF (talk) 11:45, 8 January 2022
(UTC)
The only difference is that using the {{BHLpage}} template includes an automatic
redirect to the {{BHL page}} template, so from a server point of view it's a two-
step operation. Using {{BHL page}} directly is only a single one-step operation,
since it doesn't involve a redirect. You're of course correct in that there's no
visible difference from a user's point of view, but I still see no reason to use
{{Template:BHLpage}} so that the server in reality needs to call two pages instead
of one, in order to do a single task. However this is all a bit out of scope: let's
stick to Hector Bottai's original question instead, and discuss redirects another
time. :-)
–Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 17:34, 8 January 2022 (UTC).
@Tommy Kronkvist: - I'd not really thought of redirects like that! I suspect that
"BHLpage" is far more widely used that "BHL page" (I'd not even seen that format
before!). Is there any way of counting the number of links using each? If yes,
should the redirect and the template be swapped round? - MPF (talk) 00:18, 9
January 2022 (UTC)
A search for insource:/BHLpage/ gives 18.559 pages and templates, insource:/BHL
page/ gives 4.417 pages and templates. The original name is BHLpage, Three years
after its creation it was moved to BHL page, without trying to find a consensus. --
RLJ (talk) 01:26, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
I don't see any discussion about to change the name of the template, or consensus
for that. A space to increase readability!!! Redirects are not a wrong issue to be
wripped out like user @Tommy Kronkvist: is doing sistematically, please stop and
discuss first. --Burmeister (talk) 02:04, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
@Burmeister: I fully take your opinion onboard, and will stop until this matter has
been discussed and decided upon. Please note though, that as usual my edits have
all been made in good faith. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 02:36, 9 January 2022 (UTC).
┌─────────────────────────┘
@MPF: The {{BHLpage}} template is currently used on 27,770 pages while {{BHL page}}
is used on 33,403. Changing any of them into the other can be rather easily done by
bot; actually in this case it's easier than in most other bot-jobs, since there are
no parameters to consider, only the name of the template. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk),
02:36, 9 January 2022 (UTC).

The {{BHL page}} count includes the count of {{BHLpage}}. Compare the count for the
templates alone: of 5.385 links, only c. 1.700 go directly to {{BHL page}}, the
rest via {{BHLpage}}. -RLJ (talk) 03:02, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
Thanks @RLJ! What's the best way to find the precise numbers? When I do a search to
show only the templates without any redirects, I get 5,385 transclusions + 2 links
for {{BHL page}} and 4,127 transclusions + 0 links for {{BHLpage}}. (You need to
click the blue "Count" link next to the "Go" button in order to show the sums.) –
Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 03:51, 9 January 2022 (UTC).
@RLJ and Tommy Kronkvist: - thanks! In that case, I'd say definitely worth swapping
round to 'BHL page' redirects to 'BHLpage' - MPF (talk) 14:04, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
"BHL page" is more readable to humans than "BHLpage". Do you have any counter
argument why the latter template name should be preferred? Andy Mabbett
(Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:34, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
@Pigsonthewing: - (sorry for the late reply!) that there are 4 times as many pages
using 'BHLpage' than there are using 'BHL page'. And while 'BHL page' may be more
readable, 'BHLpage' is more spellable, particularly when converting from other less
good templates which use structures like 'BHL/page' - MPF (talk) 21:24, 30 January
2022 (UTC)
@MPF: There are probably more instances of "BHLpage" because it was the original
name for the template until two years ago, when Pigsonthewing changed it to have a
space in the name. Monster Iestyn (talk) 21:28, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
The number of uses is immaterial; if that were a criterion, we could never change
anything once it was established. I don't think that "BHLpage" is "more spellable",
however that might be measured. I doesn't matter whether people use "BHLpage" or
"BHL page"; what matters is how easy it is to find and understand the page at
Template:BHL page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:00,
30 January 2022 (UTC)
Absolutely doesn't matter to me. It is not readable to the common user, it's just a
template.--Hector Bottai (talk) 14:48, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
┌─────────────────────────┘
Please note that we have the same issue with {{BHL item}} which was moved from
{{BHLitem}} by RLJ only nine hours after the {{BHLpage}} was moved by Andy Mabbett
in February 3, 2020 (and approximately three weeks before the {{BHL}} template was
last edited, as of today).

Personally I much prefer {{BHL page}} and {{BHL item}} over the "non-spaced"
versions, since I find they make the code clearer and are easier to distinguish
from the {{BHL}} template. For example when comparing {{BHL page|726886}} and
{{BHLpage|726886}} I think the latter is a lot more likely to be confused with
{{BHL|page/726886}} than the former. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 02:44, 31 January
2022 (UTC).

Taxonomic databases
At present, the fact is obvious that the system of living organisms is extremely
unstable and constantly undergoes changes. However, there is still no clear
consensus on Wikispecies and related projects on when a new idea will become
mainstream. Nowadays, taxonomic databases updated in real time are widely used.
This raises the question of the following: Do we need leading sources on taxonomy?

Since compiling information from a large number of unrelated sources is original

research, this is the argument for using databases. Nevertheless, the information
in the databases can be partly related to the personal opinions of the authors, or,
even worse, be just a dump of the latest scientific data (not always generally
accepted). When different databases support the same point of view, this is a very
convenient situation, but in fact, very often conflicting information is discarded
in them. In such cases, it is not clear which point of view should be considered
the main one. WS:PR provides some guidelines for using databases, but the lack of
strong rules to refer to can be a source of many conflicts.

For example, WS:PR provides links to databases for individual taxonomic groups, but
it is also recommended to use ITIS and BioLib, which have a wider coverage. How
should conflicts between different databases be resolved? Another relevant example:
the third and final edition of the Mammal Species of the World was published in
2005 and is still often used as a source for mammalian taxonomy. However, there
have been many changes in taxonomy over the past 17 years, and both MSW3 editors
(D. E. Wilson[1] and D. M. Reeder[2]) seem to acknowledge that their summary is out
of date. At the same time, in recent years, the ASM Mammal Diversity Database,
which is updated in real time, has proven itself, which, perhaps, should displace
MSW3 in place of the main source for mammalian taxonomy. It is still unclear how to
respond to the gradual obsolescence of MSW3.

Based on the above considerations, I believe that a consensus should be formed,

which can also become a recommendation for editors of different language sections
of Wikipedia. My opinion is that we really should choose the databases that can be
the highest authorities on the classification of individual taxonomic groups.
However, as with other sources, information from the databases must be critically
reviewed. With the overwhelming prevalence of recent sources promoting the opposite
view, the database may not be considered the primary source. HFoxii (talk) 12:43,
10 January 2022 (UTC)

heya yes this is part of what is behind the concept of Global Species Lists of
which I acknowledge I am both an author of the many papers around that and a member
of the IUBS Working Group on this. I don't think unstable is the right word here,
they are changing a lot as the increased development of molecular techniques and
their application has brought about many changes and also uncovered significant
errors. On choosing a particular checklist/ database over another I would recommend
people look at the principals we outlined in our papers starting with Garnett et
al. 2020[3] however there are a series of 6 other relevant publications. Important
issues with databases and checklists is who is making them, are they peer reviewed
and do they have wide taxon community support. For turtles for example I would
suggest the TTWG 2021 checklist is the best, Reptile Database effectively copies it
in any case. Birds are problematic though they are endeavoring to fix their
problems of have multiple international databases right now. Whatever checklist is
chosen must be authoritative, have currency and stability, and lastly have clear
methods. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 15:41, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
This is a critical issue. On what concerns to Aves, IOC and Clements/eBird are, in
my opinion, the most reliable and dynamic database sources. ITIS is faraway
outdated and no longer should be followed. As our agreement is following IOC, I
feel very comfortable about it and I try to be very disciplined when some taxonomic
disagreement shows up.--Hector Bottai (talk) 16:58, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
I am a little hesitant to list all my papers on this important topic, as that is a
bit self promotional, @Hector Bottai: I also have a recent paper relevant on the
bird issue. Just among raptors there can be up to a 20% difference in the number of
species groups recognised, also some taxa are in different genera among the bird
lists. The problem in the birdlists stems from the emphasis and pressures upon each
list. Birdlife for example is heavily influenced by conservation, hence it has
fallen into the trap of recognising many more taxa than IOC with the hope of
attracting conservation funding and legislation to populations by elevating them to
species. I do think here at Wikispecies we should be using the principles proposed
by the IUBS GSLWG perhaps we can have a discussion on the issue, Wikispecies is
listed among the global databases recognised by the IUBS. Cheers Scott Thomson
(Faendalimas) talk 17:19, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
The w:Global Species List Working Group does have a wikipedia page for those
wanting to see their work. Needs a minor update as all the papers are now
published. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 20:20, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
Fully agree with @Faendalimas: on your observation about Birdlife/HBW, they went
too far on poor based splits.--Hector Bottai (talk) 17:25, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
Hi all,
There is no simple answer to all this. My practice with IRMNG (an analogous project
to Wikispecies) is to look for, and if possible designate, a preferred "trusted
source" for each taxonomic group or sector and follow that, with the following
caveats:
- the preferred "trusted source" may have some internal sectors that are more up-
to-date than others (i.e., there may be more recent treatments in the published
literature, which can potentially then be followed if not too "bleeding edge"
and/or themselves controversial)
- the "trusted source" may have errors (hopefully few), detectable via comparison
and critical appraisal as compared with content in other sources
- the "trusted source" may take an editorial stance (which of multiple available
options it chooses to follow, for example in the areas of lumping/splitting,
taxonomic placement, etc.) with which I as a user may disagree (for example
recognising a phylum or class, or lump vs. split that I consider not preferable
according to other information, etc.)
Errors and questionable content in any trusted source should preferably be
communicated back to the compilers of that source for action as needed, as well (I
do this on a semi-regular basis, with a number of such sources).
With some groups such as birds, I recognise that there are multiple competing
"trusted sources" that can be followed. In cases such as this I tend to defer to
what is currently preferred in the Catalogue of Life, where possible, for pragmatic
reasons if nothing else (minimising discrepancies with that compendium in that
case, but not necessarily all)...
Examples of "trusted sources" for use in Wikispecies could be added to a relevant
lookup page (not sure that https://species.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikispecies:PR is the
best place, others may already exist??) and be maintained through time by
interested persons, maybe, and discussed on that article's talk page or elsewhere.
As a practical example, for higher taxonomy of extant taxa I take (took) Ruggiero
et al's 2015 "higher classification of all living organisms" as my starting point
in 2015, but did not implement everything in it (for example keeping Aves as a
class, not a subclass of Reptilia) and have also come to implement some subsequent
changes following other authors according to my reading of the literature, such as
moving Rozellids out of Protozoa into Fungi and a few other cases - each arguable
one way or the other, but adopted as my own "editorial view" for IRMNG which may
occasionally contrast with the Ruggiero et al. treatment - itself overdue for
review of course...
Just my 2 cents worth, hopefully constructive. In an ideal world, databases should
follow the literature, not other secondary compilations, but in the real world life
is often too short to permit all that taxon-by-taxon effort; however we should hope
that most database statements include an "audit trail" so that one can see from
where they obtained their information, and then be able to make an assessment as to
whether or not it likely represents the current/preferred treatment. Regards - Tony
Rees, IRMNG Tony 1212 (talk) 19:21, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
Maybe replace "trusted source" with "default treatment" in the paragraphs I wrote
above ... in the early days of IRMNG there were definitely "more trusted" vs. "less
trusted" sources, now it is not so much a question of trust as of practical
preference. Also, "default treatment" adds the connotation that one may on occasion
wish to depart from it, hopefully with the rationale explained and appropriate
supporting references cited... Cheers Tony Tony 1212 (talk) 21:43, 10 January 2022
(UTC)
I have mocked up an example page at
https://species.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Tony_1212/default_treatments_by_group which
gives a suggestion as to how currently used treatments might be documented. If folk
like this approach, I could port the content to a "proper" Wikispecies page for
real world use... I do not plan to populate it, however in the long term it would
be nice if it contained as a starting point, a "complete" list of all potential
taxonomic groups that could be covered, according to some over-arching arrangement
such as that at https://www.irmng.org/aphia.php?p=browser (my own arrangement -
possibly with modifications to be agreed) or any other that editors may prefer...
Regards Tony Tony 1212 (talk) 06:15, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
┌─────────────────────────┘
Thanks @Tony 1212: this initiative could help as developed. I will add my pennies
worth as far as vascular plants are concerned. IPNI is the definitive database of
published names making no judgements as to accepted names, it is not perfect, but
if you spot errors or omissions they will rapidly correct - please include the
protologue or source it makes updates quicker. World Checklist of Vascular
Plants(WCVP) is an emerging peer reviewed database of accepted names and brings
together the "RBG Kew" stable of World Checklist of Selected Plant Families(WCSP)
and Plants of the World(POWO). Like IPNI the curators are contactable and will edit
out mistakes quickly and will update as required, but please note they take a
consensus view and will argue for one side of a taxonomic opinion over another.
Catalogue of Life(COL) is comprehensive and partially curated, it uses WCSP and
other trusted databases, but some of these are are getting dated. Tropicos with it
links to database of local flora has merits, although dated in parts. The problem
for WS is when, for example POWO shows a difference to COL when it comes to
acceptance, but that is a discussion for another time! Regards Andyboorman (talk)
09:07, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

I like this table existing, it will be helpful I believe and as developed should be
migrated to exist among the help pages, which also need a complete rewrite. I added
a comment on your talk page for the table @Tony 1212:. Cheers Scott Thomson
(Faendalimas) talk 17:59, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
OK, I have fleshed out the demo table a bit more (animals and plants, more to do),
not added any refs back