User talk:AbeCK/Archive 1

Welcome to Wikispecies!

Hello, and welcome to Wikispecies! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might like to see:

• Help:Contents provides a good introduction to editing Wikispecies.
• Templates are there to help you to follow our syntax and formatting standards.
• Have a look at Done and to do.

If you have named a taxon, then it is likely that there is (or will be) a Wikispecies page about you, and other pages about your published papers. Please see our advice and guidance for taxon authors.

If you have useful images to contribute to Wikispecies, please upload them at Wikimedia Commons. This is also true for video or audio files containing bird songs, whale vocalization, etc.

Please sign your comments on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username (if you're logged in) and the date. Please also read the Wikispecies policy What Wikispecies is not. If you need help, ask me on my talk page, or in the Village Pump. Again, welcome! Andyboorman (talk) 10:03, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Taxonomic problems.

The 2010 paper synonmising Pennisetum and Cenchrus has resulted in complete taxonomic nonsense, which unfortunately has been blindly accepted by online authorities, such as POWO, Hassler and World Flora. MBG/Tropicos is much more circumspect. WS can not make original research and at the moment does not allow taxon pages for comb. ined. I was hoping that by now that the 8/9 Cenchrus sp. ined. would have been corrected, no such luck. Therefore, I apologise for reverting your well meaning blanking and redirecting of Pennisetum. Given the problems we need to raise this at the pump and ask the community for their opinions regarding taxon pages for comb. ined.. It worth noting that IPNI will not accept comb. ined., as there is no formal treatment that follows ICN. Please I beg patience. Andyboorman (talk) 11:55, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Pump Discussion

Hello. I have started a discussion relevant to the above on the Pump. Please contribute if you wish. Andyboorman (talk) 17:01, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Blitum antarcticum

Hello AbeCK, I had to revert your edits on Blitum antarcticum. According to recent molecular phylogenetic data in Sukhorukov et al. 2018 and Sukhorukov & Zaika 2022, this species belongs to Blitum, not to Oxybasis. The databases are not yet up to date. Kind regards, Thiotrix (talk) 12:11, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Just heard back from POWO and they will be updating very soon and @Thiotrix: is correct. Andyboorman (talk) 14:05, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

New Taxon Bars

These seem to be identical to the links. Can you justify this please, as WS is not going to get rid of its Reference Section? Is it a WD driven initiative? Thanks Andyboorman (talk) 20:20, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

@Andyboorman, a few minutes ago, I've expanded verified links about this hybrid on Wikidata, they were outdated in various things (synonym and accepted name), greetings. AbeCK (talk) 20:56, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Salvia

By removing synonyms from the list of synonyms is somewhat confusing. It does not follow the references cited for example. It just seems to be based upon personal preferences. Can you justify these edits? Thanks. Andyboorman (talk) 07:58, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

I have briefly updated the list of synonyms for this genus. There are probably more out there but this is most current to date. References are provided, so it is not original research or personal preference. Andyboorman (talk) 07:13, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi, @Andyboorman, sometimes in my editions adding, deleting or modifying details, like in Salvia 's synonymy, I not only usually compare different taxonomic databases (especially those that are most updated such as POWO, GBIF, WFO, CoL, IPNI and W3BTROPICOS), also, if there is opportunity and availability, I usually consult the original sources of the scientific names that are mentioned, and I work on this, maintaining fidelity to the original sources. Another editing problem should be homogeneity in the information offered in Wikispecies with which I not only depend on one source but on several, I suggest you edit based on this.

For example, I leave you the sources where the synonym Aethiopis appears. I hope it's helpful and I hope you take it into account. Having justified this, I'll proceed to eliminate some names that are at the beginning of the synonymy since they are nothing more than unnecessary and confusing spelling mistakes, sometimes, taxonomic databases get these details wrong, so be careful, and don't put templates discussing correct name, isn't necessary, greetings.

• Salvia sect. Aethiopis Benth., Labiat. Gen. Spec. 195, 222 (1833) - https://bibdigital.rjb.csic.es/medias/3c/ed/0d/09/3ced0d09-a4df-4fdb-8747-ba1df76a7750/files/BEN_Lab_Gen.pdf
• Aethiopis (Benth.) Opiz, Seznam: 11 (1852) - https://books.google.com.au/books?id=F1M-AAAAcAAJ&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false
• Aethiopis (Benth.) Fourr., Ann. Soc. Linn. Lyon, n.s., 17: 134 (1869) https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/237522#page/172/mode/1up

AbeCK (talk) 06:51, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

@ABeCK:

1. Aethiopis (Benth.) Fourr., Ann. Soc. Linn. Lyon sér. 2, 17: 134 (1869) is an isonymm of Aethiopis (Benth.) Opiz, Seznam 11 (1852) according to IPNI, as it was published later using the same type. However, it is still a synonym. Some editors add an extra indent for isonymns.
2. How do you decide whether or not a spelling mistake is an orthographic variant? Unilaterally doing so is original research and is forbidden under wiki rules. If the "spelling mistake" is printed or published, for example in POWO or a printed source, you can not just delete it on your own initiative. At the least you should take your thoughts to the Pump.
3. You can not favour one source over another unilaterally. This is original research. If a source, such as POWO or IPNI, by consensus, is favoured then this gives it more weight. They are 99.99% correct and far better than local flora, books or papers. Of course they are not perfect, but I contact them directly, if I suspect an error. They reply and either explain or quickly correct their data.
4. Please do not be upset if your changes are reversed or improved by another editor, particularly if it appears that you are making changes based upon your own thinking (OR). You can use the Discussion Page to explain yourself, but I would expect to see citations backing up your changes.
5. As POWO (and Hassler) does not use subgenera and sections these, and similar synonyms, can appear on both the genus and infrageneric taxa pages on WS. Taxonomically they are synonyms of the genus and so really should appear on the its page. Therefor, should not be deleted off the genus taxon page, if another editor placed them there in good faith, as that editor is taxonomically correct and you could end up in an edit war. In addition, infrageneric classification can change, but taxonomic change is less likely. See my edits on Salvia, where I have updated infrageneric classifications.
6. Finally WS is primarily a taxonomic database with classification and should follow taxonomic rules and conventions. I have made this error myself! This is where you can find the the current rules. They will be updated in due course.

Thanks for your edits and hope this helps, sorry to be a pedant, but it comes with being a taxonomist. Andyboorman (talk) 08:08, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

1. There is no any problem using isonyms. I understand that while both names refer to the same type, No modifications there, maybe isonym word after scientific names.

2. In Orthographic Variants, I prefer to write scientific names using the original sources, they do not usually get the names wrong, the taxonomic databases, yes, at least I appreciate that you appreciate the fact that these editions that I make are not vandalism

I appreciate the guidance on handling spelling mistakes. I'll ensure to avoid unilateral decisions and consult relevant sources or the discussion page when unsure if a spelling variation should be considered an orthographic variant. Your advice on consulting POWO and other authoritative sources is valuable.

3. Thank you for explaining the importance of adhering to established sources like POWO and IPNI. I understand the need to avoid original research and will ensure to rely on these consensus sources, and contact them directly if I suspect any errors, but we should do a new consensus about it, besides idk ho to contact those taxonomic bases about errors.

4. About reversals and changes by other editors, I appreciate the reminder to use the Discussion Page for clarifications. I’ll make sure to support any changes with and be open to adjustments made by other editors but is necessary create a new consensus here.

5. About the placement of synonyms on WS, but sometimes I put the basonyms of the synonyms about a genus or a species, IPNI and POWO sin by omitting these details, especially the latter one, I'll use discussions to express this, just I hope, you o not reverse my efforts like you do, for example, any other edition, no problems.

6. I appreciate the reminder about WS being a taxonomic database and adhering to taxonomic conventions, I didn't know about it to this moment. I’ll review the current rules and aim to align with them in some of my edits, Thanks!

Thanks for your detailed feedback and for your understanding, I hope to be in a consensus if is necessary, I just hope that you not only let me know this feedback, but also other administrators, who I also rely on to make edits. Greetings. AbeCK (talk) 06:51, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Manuel Quirós Calvo

Hello AbeCK. In January this year you created the author page Manuel Quirós Calvo here at Wikispecies, stating that the IPNI standard form for his author name is Quirós . Earlier today you changed that to Quirós Calvo. The same is true for the equivalent Wikidata item Q124365641. You created that one in January too, and earlier today you changed the corresponding author abbreviation there as well. However, the "botanist author abbreviation" identifier you added to Wikidata is unreferenced, without any cited source. Also, it seems that this author isn't listed by IPNI at all, neither as Quirós^(verify) nor as Quirós Calvo.^(verify)

Hence, can you please add a verifiable reference in regards to Manuel Quirós Calvo's standard (IPNI) botanist author abbreviation? Thank you!
–Best regards, Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 22:02, 23 September 2024 (UTC).

Hi, @Tommy Kronkvist, yes, of course, let me explain how I started creating Manuel Quirós Calvo article here and in Wikidata and the modifications to it that came later and recently.

As you correctly point out, there are still non-formal records of this author (for example, in IPNI), and the few existing ones contain a spelling error in their name, which may cause confusion. However, I have corrected this mistake in the articles I wrote for both Wikispecies and Wikidata (more details below). I created these articles based on my own research, starting in January 2024, as you also noted. I began by editing the article on Casimiroa edulis in Wikispecies, focusing on its synonymy and its original sources and other little relevant details. Specifically, I created the articles while reviewing the scientific name Casimiroa sapota var. villosa, a synonym of Casimiroa edulis, linking the authors of each scientific name of this species.

This research led to the creation of these articles with the abbreviation I initially found: Quirós. I have only corrected this today with the confirmed abbreviation Quirós Calvo. It turns out that this author only has one accepted taxon and the one I mentioned before: Casimiroa sapota var. villosa, which he described with Maximino Martínez and the original source of this scientific name can be found here Anales del Instituto de Biología de la Universidad Nacional de México Vol. 22: 69, fig. 28 & 29 (1951). (Review the section called "LAS CASIMIROAS DE MEXICO Y CENTROAMERICA" from this link). The full name of the author is misspelled here as Manuel Quiroz Calvo, which is where my research began. After searching for more details and information starting from here on Google, I found the correct name; Manuel Quirós Calvo, who appears (only mentioned or as a direct author) in various publications from the university where he studied, some of which can be found on Google Books.

I expanded my research on this name, and W3TROPICOS confirmed the information, listing Manuel Quirós Calvo here. After comparing and combining all the data and the information I found, I concluded that the author is Manuel Quirós Calvo (1904–1953), a Costa Rican botanist educated at the University of Costa Rica, where he graduated in Biology. Initially, I thought my research would not yield results, and that my articles might be deleted, but to my surprise the Wikispecies article went unnoticed until now, and before that could happen, someone added the author to the Wikidata article using the Harvard Index of Botanists, which you can see here, though it includes the aforementioned spelling mistake.

Finally, a few days ago, I reported this situation to both IPNI and POWO (especially, IPNI due I got a more timely response than POWO), asking if they could add this author based on the detailed information I provided here. Not only did they confirm and expand on my findings, but they also informed me that the author would be added. Today, they even stated to me by e-mails: "Many thanks for pointing out the error. The records in IPNI have been amended and changes should be visible on the website within 24 hours."

I'm unsure how POWO and IPNI operate, as I previously submitted feedback and requested changes for other scientific names, which they also accepted, yet I haven't seen the updates reflected. I don't know if the changes take longer than 24 hours to appear or if there are other delays. To summarize everything, there is or will be a record of this author, and I invite you to ask IPNI and POWO about this situation and they will assure you and confirm (with evidence included) everything said above if you have doubts. I used the following e-mail adresses to contact them:

• ipnifeedback@kew.org (IPNI)
• bi@kew.org (POWO)

I realize I sometimes rush when editing Wikispecies, Wikidata or even Wikipedia, but I’ve noticed that many rely solely on IPNI and POWO for verification, when information should occasionally be compared and questioned more rigorously. I hope this situation helps make edits on Wikispecies more stringent, consistent, and reliable. I understand that my work has been questioned before, but I want to emphasize that I don't edit with the intent to disrupt or damage the work done on Wiki projects. I still have much to learn, but I believe the work I do can contribute to meaningful changes in future editions, creating more accurate, objective, and dynamic spaces.

Thanks for your questions and comments. I’ll be attentive to any further inquiries. AbeCK (talk) 00:20, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

@Tommy Kronkvist: Just to expand a little. The IPNI database may take 24 hours to update, but it can take a few more days for the changes to go public, as they only update the interface on a more or less weekly basis. I add pending to my WS entries where I know changes are about to happen. Andyboorman (talk) 07:53, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

@AbeCK: Thank you for your intellectually rigorous investigation and comprehensive explanation. Good work!

Note to @Andy Boorman: It's actually the same here at Wikispecies, in regards to the databases run by the MediaWiki software. The process is a lot faster than a few years ago, but occasionally there can still be several days until all newly added data has been ground through all of the "database mills" and entered into the logs, and is made public. As for Quirós Calvo, we'll just have to wait and see. Thank you both for your replies. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 08:33, 24 September 2024 (UTC).

Hi there, @Andyboorman and @Tommy Kronkvist, I hope you're okay, I bring you an update from IPNI; finally Manuel Quirós Calvo already has an official registration there, and you can check it, currently, reaffirming the most recent information in articles about this author in Wikispecies and Wikidata. It fills me with satisfaction and joy that my work in general has been very worthwhile in this case, I hope that significant editions like this continue, and that it can even be applied in Wikispecies without problems or obstacles in future. Anyway, thank you both very much for your comments and support. Greetings. AbeCK (talk) 17:37, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Glad to be of help. I too find IPNI good collaborators. Andyboorman (talk) 19:17, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Monizia edulis subsp. girana

Monizia edulis subsp. girana J.A.Carvalho & F.Fern., Webbia 69: 31 (2014) (epithet as giranus) is in IPNI and also in POWO as an unplaced name. It should not redirect to Daucus edulis in my opinion and also WS is not usually interested in unplaced names. Might be worth trying to read the protologue or look through a flora of Madeira. Andyboorman (talk) 10:40, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Subgenus

Do you have any information for the possible subgenus of Artemisia avarica? I am trying to allocate blue links. Thanks for any help. Andyboorman (talk) 20:29, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi, Andy, unfortunately, I haven't been able to find more information on which subgenus the Artemisia avarica species could belong to, even on some Wikipedia pages to which this species is linked, there is nothing relevant, perhaps checking the maps of distribution of this species something can be achieved, but as if that were not enough it seems that the original source from which this species comes is not available, I'm still looking for an available source, greetings. AbeCK (talk) 01:49, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for getting back. Andyboorman (talk) 14:55, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Siphonoglossa

Just to point out that Siphonoglossa was recently dismantled across a number of genera, including; Justicia, Dianthera and Thyrsacanthus. I left the species just in case a number of Siphonoglossa were left unallocated to other the other genera. Andyboorman (talk) 09:15, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Page Move

I have moved the page named Justicia angusta to the page named Dianthera angusta. The move option should be on your tools side bar. Cheers Andyboorman (talk) 10:41, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

However, something has gone wrong. My error I think and I will sort it. Andyboorman (talk) 10:44, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

I moved it 30 seconds before, and it looked good. But where is it now? --Thiotrix (talk) 10:50, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

I think we cross moved!! What a weird coincidence. I have made a page feel free to edit it. Chuckles galore. Andyboorman (talk) 11:00, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Citing of taxon names according to their Code

Hello, please cite taxon names in disambiguation pages (e.g. Faba) according to their zoological or botanical Code. A citation of a plant like a zoological name "Faba Mill., 1754" looks unprofessional. A botanical name (plants, fungi and algae) concists just of genus/species name + IPNI author abbreviation. Neither comma nor year are part of the name. You may add the year for additional information, but please avoid the comma and add it in brackets. Thanks, Thiotrix (talk) 11:55, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Artemisia

I have more or less finished my attempts on the above genus. The remaining red link species remain, because I can not find any information with respect to their allocation to subgenera. The protologues and other information are difficult to obtain or in Russian, Japanese, Chinese or Korean. In addition, they do not seem to have been subject to any meaningful phylogenetic or taxonomic analyses. I do not know whether or not you can help? Meanwhile season's greetings! Andyboorman (talk) 20:58, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Weberocereus glaber

This taxon is disputed and should not be deleted, as more than one taxon authority accepts the name.. See POWO. Andyboorman (talk) 19:23, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

I've brought up a new topic for you in your discussion about it. AbeCK (talk) 20:24, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

 Done See also the Discussion Page for comment. Andyboorman (talk) 11:10, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Please do not remove author information

Please do not remove full author names, as you did in your recent edit on Stutzia. According to our Help:Name section#Author templates, the first mention of an author name should link to the full name (not the IPNI abbreviation). Thanks, Thiotrix (talk) 10:07, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Hi, @Thiotrix, I must respectfully disagree with your recent edits on Stutzia, particularly regarding the removal of full author names. The principle of "economy of text" should be taken more seriously. In this case, I’m making use of redirects that are available on WS, which is a legitimate practice, otherwise, what use will author redirects be then?

The full name of the author should be used in cases where abbreviations might lead to confusion with other authors. For example, if a taxon was described by "Schmidt" and there are multiple authors with similar abbreviations, the full name should be presented. However, if I only intend to refer to Franz Schmidt, then your point is valid, and the abbreviation should apply. but if for example, some autor "M.Ocampo" and it only redirects to Melchor Ocampo, and there is no ambiguity in the authors, it is better to use the redirect than the full name.

Additionally, I must respectfully disagree with your removal of GBIF as a source. Following the same logic, other sources like POWO, IPNI, and W3TROPICOS should also be removed from the taxonbar too, which I believe is unnecessary.

I hope this clarifies my position, Greets. AbeCK (talk) 21:00, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

I do not understand your edit-war about full author names! Please note that Help:Name section#Author templates cites a botanical example, and please follow this style. Hovering with the mouse on the name reveals the full author's name, which is not the case, if only the IPNI abbreviation is used. Furthermore, a direct link saves server capacities. So please would you stop removing the full names! About the link to GBIF that you added: It's me who wrote the Stutzia page, and I did not use GBIF as a source (I never do for botanical pages), but I used IPNI, POWO, Hassler and Tropicos. So GBIF is not a source, but only a link and it is sufficient to be in the taxonbar. --Thiotrix (talk) 21:42, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

More than an edit war, this is a discussion, I’d like to clarify my positions to ensure there is no any misunderstanding about my approach and try to determine what conclusions or actions could be taken regarding the matter:

1.- I continue to adhere to the principle of "economy of text," and I understand that the guidelines mentioned in the Help:Name section#Author templates section I'm not opposed to this principle. However, there should be stricter guidelines to ensure correct usage, as there are situations where the full names of authors should be used to avoid ambiguity. Again, for example:

- If multiple authors share the same abbreviation (e.g., "Schmidt"), it is crucial to specify the full name of the particular "Schmidt" being referenced to prevent confusion and don't link its disamibguation.

- Conversely, if an abbreviation such as "M.Ocampo" unambiguously redirects to "Melchor Ocampo" and there are no potential conflicts with other authors using similar abbreviations, it is preferable to use the abbreviation.

- Reviewing my edits, you will notice that I have not removed all full names. Instead, I applied the principle described above: using the abbreviated form when there is no ambiguity aligns better with the system's functionality, saving unnecessary text in articles. When ambiguity exists, I agree with using the full name. Otherwise, what is the purpose of having redirects for author abbreviations? If they are deemed unnecessary, should they not exist or be restricted from creation altogether? It is worth nothing that the vast majority of articles (whether edited by me, others, or those with minimal updates) find this approach more practical.

2.- Regarding GBIF: If GBIF is not considered a valid source, how can we explain that other sources like POWO and W3TROPICOS have citation templates? Moreover, GBIF is updated similarly to POWO, incorporating multiple scientific names. This inconsistency highlights the lack of consensus on which sources are acceptable and which are not.

3.- The fact that you created a page does not grant you absolute control or exclusive rights to edit it. WS operates on the principle that anyone can contribute. I have personally created multiple pages (articles, redirects, disambiguations, etc.), and others have edited them without issue. For example, you have modified some of the redirects and disambiguations I created or updated. I have no objections to many of those changes when they reflect consensus, follow specific formats or rules. However, there are edits I disagree with, and I raise them for discussion, as I am doing in this case.

In any case, this is not for this to be considered a war, and by the way, I omitted an edition that you made that I deleted by mistake and I have already taken care of restoring it, my apologies in this part, so I am attentive to what you argue. AbeCK (talk) 23:00, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

1. if you want to alter the wikispecies edit guidelines, which have been used and followed by our editors for many years, please take this discussion to the Village Pump, where all editors can contribute. 2. GBIF is not a botanical database, but a collector from several other databases. As a botanist, I prefer to use the original botanical databases. 3. Of course nobody "owns" their edited pages. I mentioned this only for demonstrating, which databases I used as sources. Thiotrix (talk) 12:04, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Betonica officinalis

Your recent edits on the above page seem to be moving into the realm of an edit war with RLJ. I suggest that you take the discussion to the Pump for a fuller discussion. I have placed a virtually an identical message on RLJ's page. I will not put a Protect on the page, as this may be seem as bias given your fellow editor's Administratorship. However, I do hope you can sort out your differences. Regards. Andyboorman (talk) 07:32, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

@AbeCK: For the related discussion at the Village Pump, please see Wikispecies:Village Pump#Catol-"Hassler".
–Best regards, Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 11:21, 1 May 2025 (UTC).

Given the heat in the UK I prefer Villa Pump LOL Andyboorman (talk) 13:10, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

Hi @AbeCK: Please contribute to the discussion and let us know why we ought to continue to use {{Catol-Hassler}}. Thanks and best regards Andyboorman (talk) 18:13, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

Avoid personal attacks

Hello, I want to point two of your comments: [1] & [2], being in contradiction with our policy ("Avoid personal attacks: (...) Comment on content, not on the contributor."). I know that disagreements in Wikis can be frustrating, however I strongly encourage you to pay attention to how you communicate with others. Regards, Christian Ferrer (talk) 14:20, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

@Christian Ferrer Could you specify which exactly parts of my comments violate that policy? The content you're quoting seems to refer only to my edits in general, greets. AbeCK (talk) 02:45, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

@AbeCK: I quote the two comments by you that are highlighted in the above links added by Christian Ferrer. Quote number one:

[3]​ To Faendalimas/Scott Thomson: Without meaning to be confrontational or anything like that, I'll be clear about this: your actions have demonstrated 0 neutrality. Not only have you not contributed to resolving the issue, but you've hindered both this discussion and the ongoing edits. You offer no alternatives, you're not to the point, and your contributions tend to stray into marginal issues. If you're not going to help, please stop posting here. You've already caused enough unnecessary impact on the history of the pages in question, and there simply isn't a consensus because of this. Greets. AbeCK 20:12, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

In that first quote it's fairly obvious that your comments does not only refer to, as you claim, "your edits in general". In fact, you don't even mention your edits at all. Quote number two:

[4]​ To Andy Boorman: […] Regarding your statement that "WS doesn't have to adhere to the one taxon name maxim mandated by the articles" I disagree. If WS wants to maintain its usefulness as a source of taxonomic reference, it should adhere to the principle of clarity and consistency. Maintaining duplicate or contradictory articles adds no value; it only creates confusion. […] AbeCK 07:31, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

As can be seen by the two ellipses (i.e. […] symbols) the above quote is only an extract of the comment you made at 07:31, 6 June 2025 (UTC), and I agree that there is no personal attack within that extract. However, and as Andy Boorman has pointed out to you several times before on other talk pages, this is a question of so called "original research" (or at least bordering to it) which is forbidden per policy not only here at Wikispecies, but on many of the hundreds of differents wiki projects run by the Wikimedia Foundation. We can't prefer one source over another just because we "want" to. This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach, imply or dispute a conclusion (not) stated by the sources. See for example Wikipedia:No original research at English Wikipedia or Wikipedia:Wikipedia no es una fuente primaria (="Wikipedia is not a primary source") on Spanish Wikipedia (your user account's home wiki) for details. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk) 03:54, 10 June 2025 (UTC).

@Tommy Kronkvist: In first, I apologize for my previous message there. However, I completely disagree with the edits made by Faendalimas to this discussion, because my main issues with the two pages in question continue to be ignored. Also, could you suggest another way I could express this disagreement?

In second, that can still be addressed at the Village Pump, but I'll say in advance that this isn't a personal attack, so there's no point in bringing it up here. AbeCK (talk) 19:49, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

@AbeCK: When someone requests a speedy delete, move, merge etc it pings all the admins etc and one of us deal with the case at hand. It is better that it is handled by one of us who have not been involved in any discussion of the pages in question. As such I have not written or edited in any opinion on what you are actually after. I did that deliberately once I have taken on an administrative role on the page I must avoid any conflict of interests. As such whether I have an opinion on the taxonomy and nomenclature of the issue I keep it to myself. There are plenty of others here well versed in both nomenclatural good practice and our local policies and methods to come to a consensus on the issue. At which point if needed I can step in again and do what ever is needed to fulfil that consensus. Which can also still mean delete or not delete. That is not for me to decide.

I reiterate, under our local policies any page under a discussion cannot be speedy deleted, this is common to many wikis. All I did was deny the request for speedy deletion and removed the template so it stopped pinging us. You had every right to request a speedy delete, but in this case the decision on whether that was appropriate under the circumstances fell to me and the decision to follow through with such a request is an administrative decision. So that decision has been made. Move on and present the evidence that what you want is the right course of action. I will not partake in that because I cannot now do so. I will not close or decide on that discussion, I suggest the punp, another uninvolved admin will do that and then we shall see what the consensus says. One person stating what they want is not a consensus. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 03:56, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

@Tommy Kronkvist can you reply to this, please? AbeCK (talk) 23:52, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

​@AbeCK: Yes I can. It's quite simple, really. @Faendalimas is correct: pages under discussion shouldn't be deleted until the matter is settled. That is important. Otherwise there's no point in discussing any page at all: instead simply stick a "Speedy Delete" template on all pages, delete every page in Wikispecies, and declare that the site has reached its goal. But I believe most users wouldn't consider that to be the best solution.

Secondly, the discussion(s) involving the initial issues with your and @Andyboorman's edits of the Selenicereus trigonus taxon page (and it's talk page) is getting very fragmented. The matter is now in some way or another discussed here on your user talk page, at the Administrator's Noticeboard (in this thread), as well as at the Village Pump (here). I propose we continue at the Village Pump, since that's Wikispecies' main user forum and the original question (regarding the "Dispute" markings etc.) can be of value for all editors in the entire community. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 21:38, 14 June 2025 (UTC).

• As a matter of courtesy I will explain. Firstly, while Faendalimas was trying to explain calmly that he only said "no to the use of the speedy delete", you have been particularly offensive: "You offer no alternatives, you're not to the point, and your contributions tend to stray into marginal issues. If you're not going to help, please stop posting here", by targueting Faendalimas contributions, and explicitly detering him away from editing. Secondly, the answer made by Andyboorman "Your comment is personal, incorrect, insulting and unworthy of the environment we try to foster on WS" to your comment is quite a good summary for why it is somewhat propblematic. Thirdly it have been pointed that nobody made you aware of the following discussion: Wikispecies:Administrators'_Noticeboard#Taxonomical_data_on_redirect_pages, personaly I did not mention it because the subject was not you personally but a request to review the comment thread on a section of the Pump, if it was a mistake on my part I am sorry and it is now corrected. Regards, Christian Ferrer (talk) 14:02, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

  Regarding first point, I reiterate what I answered @Tommy Kronkvist above in his messagges, again my apologies and the same question I asked Tommy, I hope you can answer it please.

  In second, I also reiterate the same response to Tommy, what exactly is the personal attack or attacks in those editions you cite? And I also reiterate that if you want, we can discuss this at the Village Pump.

  I also reiterate, what exactly is the personal attack or attacks in those editions you cite?

  And I also reiterate that if you want, we can discuss this at the Village Pump.

  I understand. It would have been better if they had included me in the conversation before unnecessary warnings. Don't do that, unfortunately my demands are being ignored with what I propose, you could have included me from the first place. AbeCK (talk) 20:34, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

  @Christian Ferrer Can you reply to this, please? AbeCK (talk) 23:53, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

• My message was "you crossed a line by starting to be rude in your comments, make an effort to avoid this." Either you understand the message or you think I'm wrong, it doesn't matter, now that you've been warned if you're uncivil in your next comments/edits you take the risk that I will use my administrative tools. I have looked at the issue and I consider that I have been quite clear and explanatory, so at this stage I no longer have any reason to comment on this specific topic on your discussion page, so I probably won't respond to the next ping. Therefore I suggest you don't waste your time and energy trying to argue with me, you will achieve absolutely nothing. Regards, Christian Ferrer (talk) 06:41, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

Why?

I added {{Hunt, 2016}} to various cacti pages in good faith, why are you removing this reference, which is cited by many primary and secondary sources? It could be seen as vandalism or provoking an edit war. I intend to ask for these edits to be reversed unless you provide a reason for your actions. I will not do this myself, as it could be seen as indulging in a juvenile edit war. Andyboorman (talk) 07:26, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

Hi Andy, if you're referring to the deletion I made in Selenicereus, I didn't delete anything more than a simple empty space of text, I never deleted your reference, in fact if you look at the edit I made it only shows a (-1), if I had deleted your reference it would have shown a bigger deletion, but that's not the case, so please, don't accuse me of something I didn't do, regards. AbeCK (talk) 07:39, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

Apologies, something must have gone wrong with my edit. Strange. Andyboorman (talk) 08:25, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

Archiving

I have set up archiving for this page, as requested, using default settings, which you can adjust should you feel the need, as described at en:User:MiszaBot/config. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:57, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

Catol-WCVP

I would suggest not using this template for now, as it does not link to WCVP for all taxa. For example, on Deamia testudo it links to World Plants, a Michael Hassler database. I am not criticising, but just trying to be helpful. I have alerted the wider community on the Pump and also admins. Best regards Andyboorman (talk) 09:10, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Page Deleted

ok I have deleted the requested page. I said I would after the relevant discussions had run their course. However, there was no need to revert the administrative actions to achieve this. It was not deleted because of the speedy delete tag it was deleted by conclusion of the discussion on the pump regarding this and the consensus reached therein. Do not presume to revert admin actions consider this your only warning on this.

Also your inability to reach consensus through a collaborative approach is highly disrespectful of a number of very long term editors here. Three of those you questioned have around 20 years editing each on this wiki, all three of them were involved in the development of the policies on this wiki. It's not about whether you were right or wrong in the end, its the path you chose to get there. So learn to work with people and not be so combatitive about it. As another admin warned you it will not end well, this is not Wikipedia and many of us are professionals in the subject area of this wiki. Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 02:47, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

FYI Selenicereus

I have contacted Kew about the four disputed Selenicereus species. I will let you know the results of our discussions. Best regards Andyboorman (talk) 09:27, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

Hello I have heard back from Kew.

Firstly, Selenicereus wercklei (F.A.C.Weber) Britton & Rose, Cact. 2: 208. (1920) is validated by Hammel, B.E., Grayum, M.H., Herrera, C. & Zamora, N. (eds.) (2020). Manual de Plantas de Costa Rica 4(2): 1-524. Missouri Botanical Garden Press, St. Louis. I advise WS follows POWO and this flora.

Secondly, both Selenicereus alliodorus and Selenicereus glaber will now be recognised by POWO and the database will be altered after the next update.

Finally, Selenicereus brevispinus was placed in the synonymy of Selenicereus pteranthus by Korotkova, Borsch & Arias, (2017), but for some reason this was not followed by CACO. As Govaerts notes, a peer reviewed journal is more important than a secondary source. I recommend WS follows this advice.

I will edit WS in due course, unless you have another view, which we need to discuss.

Best regards Andyboorman (talk) 17:58, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

Duplicate citations

Thanks for your edits. However, why are you using Michael Hassler in two formats? for example Lemaireocereus lepidanthus. World Plants is currently showing an error. They both place this taxon in a synonymy with Pachycereus lepidanthus without offering a reason for the disagreement with POWO (2025) and CACO (2025). COL cites the Plant List as its source by the way and so are identical in their backbone. Regards Andyboorman (talk) 07:53, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

I and also other editors have the right to edit out redundant or incorrect information and formats from any page they are researching without fear or reverts. We would be grateful for a collegiate atmosphere on WS. Thanks. Andyboorman (talk) 08:19, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

The Village Pump

I have stated a conversation on the Village Pump on which you may wish to contribute. Regards. Andyboorman (talk) 19:03, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

Date abbreviations

These are commonly used in English and are used on WS thousands of times. I do not intend changing my practice. Sorry if this offends. Andyboorman (talk) 08:04, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

@AbeCK: I am sorry to disappoint, but I am not changing my style of editing to please one fellow, if valued editor, as it would require me to make thousands of re-edits. My focus is on robust and current taxonomy and classifications not adopting anybody's preferred style formats. There are numerous of very poor older style formats, much worse than my use of conventional abbreviations. Reviewing my edits you should note my updating of older taxon pages with newer scientific papers, consensual classifications, and updated taxonomies, mainly infrafamilial and generic admittedly, but not exclusively. Perhaps you can develop or persuade someone to produce a bot to get rid of month abbreviations, for example. That is way beyond my competence and knowledge. Regards Andyboorman (talk) 20:37, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

Dates

If you want to spend your time editing dates to your preferences, please free to do so and I will not revert, as I have plenty of taxonomy and classification to update and contribute. Best regards. Andyboorman (talk) 07:56, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

Oxystylis lutea

I have added this request for discussion on the Wikispecies:Administrators' Noticeboard. Please feel free to contribute. Andyboorman (talk) 08:44, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Vaccaria hispanica subsp. hispanica

Are you prepared to move the discussion from the Administrators' Noticeboard to the Pump for further debate? I do not think any of the participants will object. Andyboorman (talk) 15:43, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

No objections, go ahead AbeCK (talk) 19:32, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

Thanks done in five. Andyboorman (talk) 19:42, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

Hassler's databases

Unfortunately these two databases do not show what they consider as synonyms directly unlike POWO. So I deleted them off of a couple of your edits in good faith. Andyboorman (talk) 11:23, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

I restored World Plants source since it does register the name, but the template fails when redirecting to infraspecific taxa. Also, why are you removing the Catol-Hassler source from my edits if we agreed a while ago to keep it? AbeCK (talk) 14:56, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

I removed them off of infraspecific taxa for the reasons you stated. Just trying to be helpful. Andyboorman (talk) 15:01, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

You haven not only done this with infraspecific taxa, you have removed Catol-Hassler source template from species and genera that I have edited and created, why? AbeCK (talk) 15:09, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

When Catol-Hassler and World Plants are identical then one is redundant. Why do you wish to add duplicate sources? Andyboorman (talk) 15:21, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

Since this was discussed in Acanthoprasium, the permission to use that source has not been respected. AbeCK (talk) 15:24, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

Please answer my question about duplicates. However, a taxon is not the property of an editor. My removal of one of Hassler's databases leaving the other should be no problems. I have done this for others pointing the duplicate problem and they have not taken offence and in fact have thanked me. Andyboorman (talk) 15:56, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

If you scroll down on a Catol-Hassler name you will find a link to its source. This is often his World Plants, but can be the Kew WCVP (not publicly accessible) database and even others. Hope this helps. Andyboorman (talk) 16:43, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

1834

By whom? You should not leave the that note without a citation for the date, without it it is just an unsubstantiated assertion. Just trying to be helpful not trolling. Andyboorman (talk) 19:43, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

The date "1934" was already in the cited original, and you unnecessarily added the authors when they are already listed in that synonym. Again, this citation never directly cites Pax and Hoffmann as authors, so please do not manipulate citations, tt only mentions that Hagenia's move to a subgenre was carried out in that year. AbeCK (talk) 19:50, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

I am not sure what you mean by "the date "1934" was already in the cited original" Original of what? It is not important. Maybe it is just not the scientific English syntax I would have used. Andyboorman (talk) 20:53, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

Subgenera

Following the non-discussions on the VP I will removed the subgenera on Gypsophila (Caryophyllaceae) and work through the infragenerics for Dianthus. Regards Andyboorman (talk) 10:18, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

VP discussion

As you and @RLJ: seem to be having a edit/revert problem with {{HOM}} compared to {{Homonyms}}, I have posed the question on the Pump. Andyboorman (talk) 11:34, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

Misspelled genus

Hi @AbeCK, via Wikidata I came across Silene jeniseensis which you have added. There seems to be an older page Silene jenisseensis (double s, make in 2013). Could you specify which of the two is the correct spelling so we can merge these pages? Thanks! WouterKo (talk) 14:38, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

Silene jenisseensis

Please do not ignore my note. I have reverted your edit in good faith. Nobody can ignore a source like

• USDA, ARS, Germplasm Resources Information Network. Silene jenisseensis in the Germplasm Resources Information Network (GRIN), U.S. Department of Agriculture Agricultural Research Service. Accessed: 08-Apr-12. Reference page. 

as it is still current. Thanks Andyboorman (talk) 22:47, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

I'm not willing to accept your edit done in bad faith, based solely on your own perception, Andy. Thanks. AbeCK (talk) 22:57, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

Silene sect. Cucubalus

This section is now monotypic according to the latest information presented on its Reference Section. In addition, Silene multinervia is now in the Unasssigned Silene subg. Behenantha category. I suggest you address your edit errors in due course.

There is a major problem with Silene sect. Fimbriatae, as the type proposed by Jafari et al., Silene simsii F.Jafari, Rabeler & Oxelman, Phytotaxa 425: 41 (2019) is now generally recognised as a heterotypic synonym of Silene macrophylla Lag., Gen. Sp. Pl.: 15 (1816). A WS editor must be very careful in unilaterally changing such a taxonomically important concept as type, as this will be considered OR. Unfortunately, this problem has gone unrecognised for a few years by workers on Silene. I had not forgotten the section, but I am seeking outside advice before completing its page.

It is painstaking work updating the previous dubious infrageneric classifications, particularly as these are still emerging concepts, but with still with unresolved questions. It is also frustrating that Oxelman et al. (2013) is now rather dated and Jarafi et al. (2020) lacking in publicly available detail. Regards. Andyboorman (talk) 08:51, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

Edit warring again?

See [5]. Thiotrix (talk) 17:56, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

I'll stand my speedy deletion request in Agrostemma chalcedonica and will not accept this redirection in WS. My decision is firm I'll give you my reasons about it:

• Art. 60.1 of the ICN is explicit:

The original spelling of a name or epithet is to be retained, except for the correction of typographical or orthographical errors...

• In other specific records of the genus Agrostemma in various taxonomic databases, a consistent pattern is observed: epithets ending in "a" are adjusted to "um" when appropriate by grammatical gender, for example: Agrostemma grandiflorum (Jacq.) Döll, Rhein. Fl.: 643 (1843), which appears in its original source with the epithet grandiflora; Agrostemma apetalum G.Don, Gen. Hist. 1: 416 (1831), which appears in its original source with the epithet apetala, and another ones.
• The note you submitted regarding the redirect (defacing the history page) is not acceptable as justification for maintaining it. Redirects only display the destination, not the content or internal explanations; therefore, that explanation serves no practical or informative purpose in WS.

For these reasons, the redirect will not be maintained, and the speedy deletion remains in effect, I have also removed your discussion in that redirect since it is not valid either. AbeCK (talk) 18:44, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

I suggest you desist from taking unilateral actions that put you into edit wars with fellow contributors. I have asked on the Admin Portal for an active Admin to decline the Speedy Direct whilst an active discussion is underway and an edit war is possibly brewing. I will not discuss this matter further due to our past history. Andyboorman (talk) 19:58, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

Block

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks for unconstructive and repeated actions despite numerous explanations from other editors. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below, but replace "your reason here" with a reason as to why you believe you should be unblocked.

Christian Ferrer (talk) 21:36, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

Hello, Christian Ferrer (talk)

I would like to ask for a review of my recent block. I know there was a conflict over some edits, but I want to clarify that my changes were technical and neutral: links, vernacular names, and formatting. There was no vandalism or intention to cause problems.

The disagreement came from procedural issues and how the names were displayed, not from errors in the content. My editing history shows that I try to follow the rules and keep information correct.

For this reason, I ask that this block be reconsidered or its duration reviewed, since my actions were not done with bad intentions.

I want to emphasize that it is not valid that any editor, including Andy Boorman, should be unfairly sanctioned for alleged threats or coercion. My intention has always been to act in good faith and contribute constructively. For this reason, while remaining civil and respectful, I am not willing to accept this block without review.

Thank you for taking the time to review this. I am not willing to accept this block and this damage to my reputation. AbeCK (talk) 22:14, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

• Hello, I stand by my decision, but other administrators may have a different opinion. Note that, as explained above, you can use the following wikitext: {{unblock|your reason here}} for a formal unblock request or/and block review. Christian Ferrer (talk) 22:23, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

AbeCK (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log) • SI)

---

Request reason:

I would like to ask for a review of my recent block. I know there was a conflict over some edits, but I want to clarify that my changes were technical and neutral: links, vernacular names, and formatting. There was no vandalism or intention to cause problems.

• The disagreement came from procedural issues and how the names were displayed, not from errors in the content. My editing history shows that I try to follow the rules and keep information correct.

  For this reason, I ask that this block be reconsidered or its duration reviewed, since my actions were not done with bad intentions.

  I want to emphasize that it is not valid that any editor, including Andy Boorman, should be unfairly sanctioned for alleged threats or coercion. My intention has always been to act in good faith and contribute constructively. For this reason, while remaining civil and respectful, I am not willing to accept this block without review.

  Thank you for taking the time to review this. I am not willing to accept this block and this damage to my reputation. AbeCK (talk) 22:29, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

Christian Ferrer, I am not willing to accept this block and this damage to my reputation, can you retire my block, please?, btw, why you retired my Speedy Deletion, is not fair. AbeCK (talk) 22:31, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

Accept reason:

Block expired.

Misspelled

Hello again. I do hope that you carry on with your valuable contributions, but in a more collegiate manner. In this vein, I and others, are uncomfortable about your unique use of the term "misspelled", such as on nicæensis. Firstly, it is not used in botanical literature and indeed botanists are unhappy about its use. The reason being is that it implies a level of ignorance on the behalf of the expert scientists who first used the name and this is unjustified without evidence. Secondly, the choice between the epithets may come down to an independent ruling rather than interpretation of the acts. Such was the case between nicæensis/nicaeensis and niceensis. The later spelling was ruled as a legitimate Latinisation of the French city Nice, as found in the protologue and not a typographic error for example. The choice between nicæensis and nicaeensis in is that between orthographic/typographic variants. The later is preferred for its contemporary simplicity and ease of editing. My conclusion is, I would advise the use of the simple non judgemental "as nicaeensis" omitting the misspelled, this is most commonly found in scientific literature. Finally please do not indulge in an edit war if any fellow editor removes the term "misspelled". I hope you find this helpful. Andyboorman (talk) 08:58, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

Silene gallinyi

WS seems to be incorrect. See IPNI here

• International Plant Names Index. 2026. Silene gallinyi. Published online. Accessed: March 13 2026. Reference page.

I suggest you revert your recent edit here Silene gallinyi. I have corrected the WS page. Andyboorman (talk) 14:29, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

Orthographic variants

With respect to the Pump Discussion I have added suggestions on Silene niceensis for your comments. See Art 61.1. Thanks Andyboorman (talk) 19:13, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

Do not remove legitimate data

See Silene saxatilis. I have had to add the homonym back onto this page. Do not remove it without discussion or giving a valid reason for doing so. Look at MBG for my reason for placing the homonym in the first place. I would be grateful if you did not just simply revert. Andyboorman (talk) 08:10, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

No, that citation is illegitimate. That MGB reference does not support the inclusion of a homonym for Silene saxatilis. In the original source (Lychnis saxatilis Turcz. ex Fisch. & C.A.Mey., Index Seminum (LE, Petropolitanus) 1: 32 (1835).), there is no record of Silene saxatilis; only Lychnis saxatilis is mentioned, so the basis for adding this homonym is unfounded, being the same citation in both cases.

In resume, you considered a single reference authoritative without verifying its content in detail. I remind you that you did the same with Silene jenisseensis and GRIN, so I suggest you do not do that again, please.

I apologize for not clarifying this issue earlier, but now my position is clear. Now, could you please remove that homonymous section, in that page, please? AbeCK (talk) 09:26, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

I did not use GRIN for Silene jenisseensis. I never use GRIN BTW, but do not remove it as it is part of the edit history, these are citations used by previous editors. However, unlike you I rarely delete old pages whose name is shown to be incorrect, for reasons we have already pointed out, preferring a redirect through a move, if possible

I will keep the homonym for now, whilst I investigate the problem highlighted. but thanks for your opinion. It seems that Tzvelev cited Silene saxatilis Turcz. ex Fisch. & C.A. Mey. (1835) as a replaced synonym when publishing his replacement name Peschkovia saxatilis not Lychnis saxatilis, but without access to its protologue we have to take MBG at face value and we can not just assume an error. However, we have no reason to question the synonymy of Silene tolmatchevii Bocquet, Candollea 22: 10 (1967). I am sure Rafael Govaerts who has access to the protologues will be willing to help you. Andyboorman (talk) 14:12, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

Changing names

If you think that a name has been registered incorrectly on IPNI or POWO then I suggest that you contact them directly before making changes. Not doing so means that another editor can change your edit to correspond with the IPNI/POWO entries, as these are the ones that are used to help construct the taxon page. Changes without evidence counts as OR and is against Wiki policy. See Wahlbergella saxatilis Tolm., Fl. URSS 6: 723, in syn. (1936) as an example [6]. Hope this helps and Best regards Andyboorman (talk) 08:31, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

Placement of homonyms

Their placement is NOT a must it is a preference. There is no policy, help section or vote held on their placement except advice not to include them as part of the synonymy. If you want to add to policy, help or praxis, please open this up for discussion. The Pump Archives have some discussion, but no vote and WRC have neither. As you know homonyms, have the same name as the taxon page, but refer to different taxa and as such are separate from the name space. Please do not force your edit preferences onto others, as it not collegiate. I would be grateful if you either take this to the Pump or revert your edit. Andyboorman (talk) 10:00, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

Removed homonym

I have taken down the homonym from Silene saxatilis after feedback from MBG. They will edit their entry in due course. Apologies for any bad feeling on this point, but it is worth checking rather than taking unilateral action. Andyboorman (talk) 15:19, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

A polite request

You made recent re-edits to several pages, for example {{Frankis, 1989}}, that are adding no additional data, but are just about imposing your personal edit preferences. I appreciate that you feel that you are acting in good faith, but you have been warned about such behaviour. I suggest the you use the Pump to inform fellow editors about your intention to replaced PDF links with the {{PDF}} template and both inform them of its existence and advantages over the conventional square bracket praxis. In the meantime please be careful and be more collegiate, because your current work on improvements to existing pages is mostly beneficial to the look and feel of WS, for example Silene samia. Best regards Andyboorman (talk) 15:34, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

Follow references

I refer to Silene gallica and its infraspecifics. Please follow the references we provide on the taxon pages. If you do not agree with them them contact the curators of the site(s) for their opinion. If references disagree then make a note on the taxon page. Making unreferenced changes based upon personal opinion is OR and is expressly forbidden on Wikis. BTW autonyms can only have heterotypic synonyms. Please do not indulge in an edit war over these synonymies, in other words do not revert my edits, as I may be forced to use my admin rights and protect the pages. However, feel free to seek other opinions or take this to a wider audience. Andyboorman (talk) 07:39, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

It seems that World Plants are in error in not having a page for Silene gallica var. gallica, as they normally have pages for autonyms. Therefore, they can not be used to create the page, but just as reference. I have removed a comment about Admin rights from above, as I do not want to "poke the bear". Best regards. Andyboorman (talk) 10:47, 30 March 2026 (UTC)