Wikispecies:Village Pump

Welcome to the village pump of Wikispecies.

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

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

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

Village pump in other languages:

• 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-xx-xx)

Rosa - is it just me.

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)

Sorry, no idea. Consult your rosary 🤪 . . . MPF (talk) 20:34, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

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)

@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)

Addenum: @Uleli: added the synonymy a year earlier, in 2013: https://species.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rosa_cinnamomea&action=history - MPF (talk) 22:46, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

I have no details about timing, but I assume it will be a straight swap. Andyboorman (talk) 19:01, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

---

@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)

I've added a bit, can you check I've got it right, please! - MPF (talk) 22:23, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Looks very good to me. Thanks Andyboorman (talk) 14:10, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

POWO has been offline all today so hopefully updating! Andyboorman (talk) 14:54, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

POWO is back now, but unfortunately not updated for this yet - MPF (talk) 01:19, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Gone back off line this morning GMT. Andyboorman (talk) 07:01, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

---

FYI POWO was updated for Rosa last night - https://powo.science.kew.org/taxon/urn:lsid:ipni.org:names:732074-1 Andyboorman (talk) 07:34, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

@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)

@MPF: Still waiting a reply for that request. Andyboorman (talk) 07:59, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

OK thanks! - MPF (talk) 08:45, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

---

@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)

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

---

@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)

@Andyboorman: - I fear I don't get that!! Can you re-clarify, please?! - MPF (talk) 21:06, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

@MPF: The herbarium specimen used to lectotype the plant in question is labelled R. pendulina dated 1753, so can not be used for R. cinnamomea (1753) nom. et typ. cons. However, the specimen previously representing R. majalis (1762) is available as the conserved type for R. cinnamomea (1753). This is consistent with other holotypes. The two have been synonymised, but under R. majalis, which is incorrect by priority unless the later is conserved. Therefor R. pendulina stands as an accepted species and R. majalis enters the synonymy for R. cinnamomea. This is unravelling the taxonomy, but I would assume that if the species complex was re-examined by botanists both in herbaria and the field, they may conclude that they all belong in R. cinnamomea agg. Does this help at all? Andyboorman (talk) 07:50, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Butler

I am (badly) surprised, we have 1146 entries "Butler" and 17 names in the Butler disambiguation page. I suspect this is coming from the past but, anyway, we should have more strict rules concerning authors. And probably there are many other cases like this. I don't even want to look at "Smith"....or "Jones"...Sorry. Hector Bottai (talk) 16:18, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

You are right, but wait to you get started on Chinese names. What sort of strict rukes should be applied? Andyboorman (talk) 17:40, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes, for sure I already face chinese names...Well, for experienced and self patrolled editors a strong recommendation not to link to simple surnames, and when patrolling never release without the correct link. Just a suggestion. Hector Bottai (talk) 18:19, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Curiously enough, "Smith" has only 365 links and "Jones" only 141 links, so they're not quite as bad as "Butler" at least. Monster Iestyn (talk) 19:03, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Wikispecies:Disambiguation pages with links. Burmeister (talk) 19:13, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Added Butler... Hector Bottai (talk) 20:58, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Checking random pages linking to "Butler", every single one I checked is a species of Lepidoptera (moth or butterfly)... Meanwhile, I've now reduced the number of links to "Jones" to just 46, or 38 if you count only normal pages. It turned out about a hundred of these were all species of Cumacea described by Norman Sumner Jones. The rest of the links seem to be variously Lepidoptera (again), plant, parasitic worm, even bacteria. Monster Iestyn (talk) 00:17, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

The list incudes "Edward Arthur Butler (1843–1916), British ornithologist" (also at d:Q961308 and en:Edward Arthur Butler), but there are no inbound links for that name. Does anyone have any sources? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:35, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Identify a botanist in an old painting?

Can anyone identify the botanist depicted in this twitter post, please? Sorry, you'll need to have a twitter account to see it. - MPF (talk) 23:08, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

I've reposted it @Wikispecies in order to reach a bigger group of helpers. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 06:39, 20 April 2024 (UTC).

​Some information can be found at Allen Memorial Art Museum, Oberlin College (Ohio, USA): Portrait of a Botanist. Not much, but something... –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 06:49, 20 April 2024 (UTC).

Thanks! Let's hope someone comes up with something! - MPF (talk) 08:07, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Rosa and Sections

I have been trying to allocate Rosa species to Sections and have now hit a brick wall. The red links are those for which it is difficult to find any details about their sectional allocation. Most are native to the former USSR, now Russia and the post breakup Republics. Information seems to be published in Russian language books, flora and papers or behind Russian paywalls and is largely inaccessible online. Can any body help with signposting? Thanks. Andyboorman (talk) 09:14, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Plant genera with hyphens

Just saw (via twitter!) that from ICN Art. 60.11 Ex. 44, that Pseudofumaria is correctly Pseudo-fumaria with a hyphen. I've moved that page and its two species, but don't know if this affects any other genera - MPF (talk) 11:45, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

This is correct only if this genus is long accepted as Corydalis sect. Pseudofumaria and see Chen, J.T., Lidén, M., Huang, X.H., Zhang, L., Zhang, X.J., Kuang, T.H., Landis, J.B., Wang, D., Deng, T. & Sun, H., 2023. An updated classification for the hyper‐diverse genus Corydalis (Papaveraceae: Fumarioideae) based on phylogenomic and morphological evidence. Journal of Integrative Plant Biology 65(9): 2138-2156 (behind a paywall). Andyboorman (talk) 12:17, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! POWO accept it hyphenated as well, though - MPF (talk) 13:01, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Actually the relevant sections are here:

20.3. The name of a genus may not consist of two words, unless these words are joined by a hyphen (but see Art. 60.12 for names of fossil-genera).

Ex. 7. “Uva ursi”, as originally published by Miller (Gard. Dict. Abr., ed. 4: Uva ursi. 1754), consisted of two separate words unconnected by a hyphen, and is not therefore validly published (Art. 32.1(c)); the name is correctly attributed to Duhamel (Traité Arbr. Arbust. 2: 371. 1755) as Uva-ursi (hyphenated when published).

Ex. 8. Names such as Quisqualis L. (formed by combining two words into one when originally published), Neves-armondia K. Schum., Sebastiano-schaueria Nees, and Solms-laubachia Muschl. ex Diels (all hyphenated when originally published) are validly published.

Note 1. The names of intergeneric hybrids are formed according to the provisions of Art. H.6.

60.12. The use of a hyphen in the name of a fossil-genus is in all cases treated as an error to be corrected by deletion of the hyphen.

Ex. 45. ‘Cicatricosi-sporites’ R. Potonié & Gelletich (in Sitzungsber. Ges. Naturf. Freunde Berlin 1932: 522. 1932) and ‘Pseudo-Araucaria’ Fliche (in Bull. Soc. Sci. Nancy 14: 181. 1896) are names of fossil-genera. They are treated as errors to be corrected by deletion of the hyphen to Cicatricosisporites and Pseudoaraucaria, respectively.

H.6.2. The nothogeneric name of a bigeneric hybrid is a condensed formula in which the names adopted for the parental genera are combined into a single word, using the first part or the whole of one, the last part or the whole of the other (but not the whole of both) and, optionally, a connecting vowel. The use of a hyphen instead of or in addition to a connecting vowel is treated as an error to be corrected by deletion of the hyphen.

...I can check IRMNG for plant genus names that include hyphens, either accepted or unaccepted names/orthographies, if anyone wants - the majority of these would have been originally sourced from Index Nominum Genericorum... Tony 1212 (talk) 18:27, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

List of hyphenated botanical names as held in last (May 2023) "snapshot" of IRMNG holdings is here (n=176): https://species.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Tony_1212/botanical_genus_names_hyphenated

Some will be "accepted", some "unaccepted" (includes both rejected orthographies and taxonomic synonyms, unfortunately) and some "uncertain" (=not yet assessed). For what it's worth ... Also some are hybrids, unfortunately the hybrid symbol does not come through to the IRMNG data dumps at this time although it is held in the database in a presently invisible fashion... Tony 1212 (talk) 06:26, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks @Tony 1212:, but please note that, for plants, the epithet after the hyphen will conventionally be uncapitalised, for example Drake-brockmania or White-sloanea. Andyboorman (talk) 13:25, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

@Andyboorman Yes I guess so; these are (generally) verbatim names as listed in ING. without further adjustment by myself at the time of upload to IRMNG (most done in 2007 or thereabouts). I was wondering if in some cases the second name might be a special case for some reason where the capitalization might be OK, but have not researched this any further. Perhaps they are just the original orthography per the first publication, I don't know. I do know that capitalizing a species epithet (as sometimes found in older works) is an automatically correctable situation, generally without comment, and that you should never see this these days... Cheers Tony Tony 1212 (talk) 18:14, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Vote now to select members of the first U4C

You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki. Please help translate to your language

Dear all,

I am writing to you to let you know the voting period for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is open now through May 9, 2024. Read the information on the voting page on Meta-wiki to learn more about voting and voter eligibility.

The Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is a global group dedicated to providing an equitable and consistent implementation of the UCoC. Community members were invited to submit their applications for the U4C. For more information and the responsibilities of the U4C, please review the U4C Charter.

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

On behalf of the UCoC project team,

RamzyM (WMF) 20:19, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

FYI: Two lifeforms merge into one organism for first time in a billion years

Popular: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/algae-evolution-agriculture-plant-history-b2535143.html Academic: https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.adk1075 and https://www.cell.com/cell/pdf/S0092-8674(24)00182-X.pdf —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:27, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Eponyms again

Please see Category talk:Eponyms of Balthazar Preiss. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:23, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

And Category talk:Eponyms of Keith Edgard Roe. Why do these issues keep arsing? (@MILEPRI: re this edit.) Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:21, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

I have indeed made a mistake. I have confused the author. Thanks for the warning.. MILEPRI (talk) 21:44, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Charles G. Danforth

Charles G. Danforth has very little content, no publications and no inbound links, except for one from Danforth. Charles G. Danforth (Q98146472) is similarly bare.

Is the page needed? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:18, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

• Yes it is, he is a taxon author, e.g. [1], the description of this species is available at [2]. Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:13, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Thank you. Now at Charles Garrison Danforth with additional content. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:11, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Astrolepis/Asterolepis Eichwald, 1840

There is a discussion on Taxacom over which of these names (for which we apparently have as yet no entry under either spelling; though we have the parent taxon Asterolepidae with a red link for Asterolepis) for fossil fishes is correct.

It will be interesting to see the outcome, and to consider how we reflect the matter on Wikispecies.

Note that we have Astrolepis Benham & Windham, (1992; Plantae) and Asterolepis Meyrick, 1910 (Lepidoptera), but neither relate to Eichwald, 1840. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:44, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

As per the cited Taxacom discussion, R. Van der Laan, "Family-group names of fossil fishes", 2018 https://doi.org/10.5852/ejt.2018.466 uses Order Asterolepidiformes, Family Asterolepididae Traquair 1888, "name and spelling in prevailing recent practice", and genus Asterolepis Eichwald 1840, which makes Asterolepis Eichwald 1840 a corrected original spelling cf. the original publication in Bulletin Scientifique publié par l'Académie Impériale des Sciences de Saint-Petersbourg in which it is spelled Astrolepis (there is a separate, slightly later work published in as Neues Jahrbuch für Mineralogie, Geognosie, Geologie und Petrefakten-Kund. 1840: 421-430 in which the "Asterolepis" spelling is used, but this is irrelevant for nomenclatural purposes). My just updated record for this name, which follows Van der Laan in this respect, in IRMNG is at https://www.irmng.org/aphia.php?p=taxdetails&id=11936170 if you wish to take a look. This would make Asterolepis Meyrick, 1910 (Lepidoptera) a junior homonym, something that is apparently unaddressed in the Lepidoptera world at this time. Tony 1212 (talk) 18:40, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Monkey business...

We currently have two similarly named pages Chiropotes utahicki and Chiropotes utahickae. Any mammalogist here who knows which one should have precedence? –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 21:45, 7 May 2024 (UTC).

The original description is of Chiropotes satanas utahicki BHL, in honour of "Fräulein Uta Hick" BHL; -i is typically a Latin masculine (2nd declension) genitive, while -ae is a feminine (1st declension) genitive; however, while her Christian name is a female name, there is nothing intrinsically female about Hick (unlike, say an -ova surname), so I wouldn't have thought a correction would be necessary; that said, there is Pristimantis gretathunbergae, Nannaria swiftae, and Gibberula goodallae. For what it's worth, utahickae is an "unjustified emendation" here, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 22:30, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Per p. 554 of [3], "Names of women, whether surnames or given names, are handled in First Declension" (i.e. -ae), but is this canonical? Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 22:45, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Article 31.1 of the code, on personal names (i.e. of persons, not first names), says -ae, unless the name has been Latinized, so I guess you could argue Hick has been Latinized to Hickus→i..., Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 23:03, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

See Terra Garbino & Costa, 2015. Some nomenclatural notes regarding authorship and dates of New World monkeys (Primates: Platyrrhini). Sherbornia 2(3) 21–27. Chiropotes utahickae is considered the emended name. It is the correct one according to the Code. It is also argued in this paper that it is better to retain and use the original name: Chiropotes utahicki. Mariusm (talk) 08:20, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

David T. Jones

We have two people by this name:

• David T. Jones (1900-), botanist
• Author of {{Jones, 2013a}}; of the Soil Biodiversity Group (and, in 2001, the Termite Research Group), The Natural History Museum, London - no article yet.

How should they be disambiguated? Can anyone supply the "T." names, or other details? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:48, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Sign up for the language community meeting on May 31st, 16:00 UTC

Hello all,

The next language community meeting is scheduled in a few weeks - May 31st at 16:00 UTC. If you're interested, you can sign up on this wiki page.

This is a participant-driven meeting, where we share language-specific updates related to various projects, collectively discuss technical issues related to language wikis, and work together to find possible solutions. For example, in the last meeting, the topics included the machine translation service (MinT) and the languages and models it currently supports, localization efforts from the Kiwix team, and technical challenges with numerical sorting in files used on Bengali Wikisource.

Do you have any ideas for topics to share technical updates related to your project? Any problems that you would like to bring for discussion during the meeting? Do you need interpretation support from English to another language? Please reach out to me at ssethi(__AT__)wikimedia.org and add agenda items to the document here.

We look forward to your participation!

MediaWiki message delivery 21:21, 14 May 2024 (UTC)