User talk:Andyboorman

These are the archives of my talk page:
To the end 2013		Jan 2014 to the end of 2014
Jan 2015 to the end of 2015		Dec 2015 to Dec 2017
Dec 2017 to Oct 2020		Oct. 2020 to Dec 2023
Oct. 2020 to Dec 2023		Dec 2023 to Nov 2024
The archives are searchable:

Your editions about redirects

Hi AndyBoorman, I'd like to raise a concern that has been causing me some concern regarding redirects and some recent edits you've made, but this last issue was just the thing.

When I request the redirect removals and deletions, my intention is to facilitate the correct moving and renaming of articles and the proper use of valid or updated names according to the most current taxonomic regulations. However, if there is one thing that I didn't think was right on your part, it was that, for example, in the article Nicoteba trinervia in this case the redirect was recycled instead of being completely removed to create a completely new article.

Recycling a redirect, as happened with Nicoteba trinervia, can open the door for other users to modify the page inappropriately, turning it back into a redirect without any justification, which can cause confusion in the community and will affect the consistency of related pages. I have not even been able to do it completely well thanks to this modus operandi.

• I prefer to keep the edit history intact wherever possible. My error with the redirects does not embarrass me. The taxon page is robust. Other editors are free to edit, as the project does not belong to any one individual. Andyboorman (talk) 20:58, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Considering that removing the redirection before making a move or name change is a more solid practice and aligned with the policies and objectives of the project, this way you avoid duplicating information unnecessarily to put it in the redirection as you do, and in fact that is my point. By removing the redirection of Weberocereus glaber, in order to move and change the name of the page Selenicereus glaber to Weberocereus glaber. Basically what you do by recycling redirects to create articles is to taint their history, I've proceeded to put the redirection removal template again.

I look forward to your comments and, as always, I appreciate your work and dedication to the project. AbeCK (talk) 20:23, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

My concern is that the taxa are disputed. At least one authoritative source accepts Weberocereus glaber and the other Selenicereus glaber. All the relevant sources are on the Reference Sections. It is totally unacceptable to edit out the Reference section to reflect only one taxonomic opinion.

WS can not take sides in a taxonomic dispute over names by unilaterally removing one over another. It amounts to original research, which is a big no no on all wikis. The correct procedure is to create two taxon pages for both names with comment explaining the dilemma. Likewise it would not be acceptable to unilaterally edit Weberocereus to leave only those species accepted by Korotkova et al. (2021).

In addition, I hardly ever delete out redirects, as I think it loses data.

I was leaving it up to you to complete the changes. Sorry if you misunderstood. BTW IMHO the circumscription of Cactaceae is still work in progress even given the outstanding work by Korotkova et al.

Hope this helps. Andyboorman (talk) 20:49, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Hi again, Andy, thanks you for your response. While I recognize the effort and sources you’ve cited regarding 'Weberocereus glaber, Weberocereus genus and related taxa, I must say I still hold some reservations about that taxonomic decision. The ambiguity surrounding these species and Weberocereus genus highlights the complexity and variability within the field. You did well to place the "disputed taxon" templates on those taxons; we should do that again if a situation like this happens again, which is appreciated, it was just going to attract attention for that very reason.

That being said, I would also like to kindly request that you avoid and stop overwriting edit histories by creating new articles out of redirects (or at least, in editions I make) cause I'm not agree with that modus operandi of yours. While I understand the intention, this practice risks fragmenting a historical context and might lead to unwarranted or superficial edits from other contributors, but personally, I often salvage meaningful content from edited histories, although admittedly, in the vast majority of cases, records in histories tend to have mere superficial, aesthetic and innocuous editions, without mentioning additions and expansions of these, not to mention that several of them, contains sources and info that are obsolete. Many times, histories changes are futile and insignificant (unless there is an edition war for example). Wikispecies should aim for neutrality, particularly in taxonomic disputes, by maintaining comprehensive reference lists and clear notes on differing opinions. This last request is aimed at ensuring that, among all the scientific names that a taxon may have, whatever it may be, only one scientific name of all can be the accepted one, and that should be clear from the start about that (unless the taxon is currently under discussion like this), anyway, greets. AbeCK (talk) 20:39, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

@AbeCK: I suggest not blanking and going for a delete request for controversial taxa. I added all of the basic information from Korotkova et al. as a project in 2021/22, so all the pages are on my Watchlist. If I delete an edit history it is in error and not a deliberate act for which I apologise.

I agree that one taxon one name is an aim mandated by the acts, but in reality, fortunately very rarely, it is still an aim. Hence the disputed tag on WS, as we can not favour one taxonomic opinion over another. This most often requires the use of two taxon pages, not one with copious notes. To ignore this is to indulge in original research. As you can see I always add notes and comprehensive references to disputed taxa, although I may not do so instantly. It is up to the reader to decide and not WS to steer. If you had done this for Weberocereus/Selenicereus I would not have felt the need to get involved in re-editing those 2021 pages. It seemed to me that you were going to simply follow Korotkova ignoring the other references in the lists. Apologies for any offence.

I contacted Kew in 2021 about Hylocereeae and particularly the species we are discussing. Firstly They did not think that the team had fully dealt with the original 2017 taxonomic problems in their 2018 revision. Secondly They did not think their phylogenetic arguments were sufficient on their own given other phylogenies, morphology and so on. I reiterate, in spite of Korotkova et al., there is still ongoing unresolved taxonomic discussion in Cactaceae in that community of experts. I am definitely not an expert, but in my experience everyone who enthusiastically grows cacti and succulents is! All the best. Andyboorman (talk) 21:43, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback, I will try take it into greater consideration moving forward. However, I must admit that I do not always have the most up-to-date articles on plants readily available—not because they are incorrect, but because it can be challenging to establish the validity of a single accepted scientific name. In such cases, I believe the best approach is to opt for a prudent and neutral solution, such as applying a "disputed or unresolved taxon" template when discrepancies like this one arise, like on Ismaelia carinata or Ismelia. Besides, unfortunately, I am not yet familiar with how to apply this template effectively.

In general, I compare information from various updated taxonomic databases, such as GBIF, POWO, CoL, World Plants, WFO, and even NCBI or iNaturalist, to guide changes to scientific names. Nonetheless, I appreciate your perspective on this matter and your willingness to address it. I also extend my apologies for any inconvenience caused during this dispute and another ones in the past.

I am grateful to collaborate with an editor like you, and I am committed to starting 2025 on the right note. The world of the Cactaceae family, as you likely know, is one of the most complex to study, filled with nuances. For example, I have been seriously considering whether if I should edit and modify Corynopuntia here in WS or not. At this point, I am uncertain whether it is a synonym for another genus or an accepted one.

On the other hand, I insist that, at least in the edits I make, you desist and stop modifying the redirects as if they were new articles, this in order to change the names when necessary since it is more viable and feasible, due to the reasons stated previously.

I appreciate your honesty in admitting that you are not an expert, which applies to me as well. The important thing is that, as a community, we can contribute to knowledge in the best way possible, regards, @Andyboorman. AbeCK (talk) 20:43, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

@AbeCK: Corynopuntia can now be considered as part of the synonymy of Grusonia now that Corynopuntia nigrispina has been synonymised by the description of Grusonia nigrispina (D.Donati) M.H.J.van der Meer, Cact. Phantast. 2023(1)-1: 1 (2023). I had to leave the taxon page for Corynopuntia just for that one species, but the redirects and so on can now be made. Majure et al. had dealt with all species of Corynopuntia except for C. nigrispina in their 2018 paper. It has taken the beast part of 5 years to tidy up this taxonomic oversight.

This situation occurs occasionally and is worth looking out for, as it is not acceptable to delete or ignore the anomalous taxon. Some authorities have started to transfer the affect taxa using the ined. tag, whilst waiting for the tidying up to be dealt with. This is unfortunate as an ined. taxon is still illegal under the acts. Another messy but unavoidable taxonomic situation. I think we ought to bring this situation to the Pump for discussion. What do you think? Andyboorman (talk) 09:07, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Adeniɑ

I would appreciate it if you would update the template for the genus 'ʽAdeniaʼ' (Instead of {Passifloraceae, putː Tribus: Passifloreae), since I cannot do this function with my computer. Thanks in advance. Saludos--MILEPRI (talk) 12:11, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

 Done Best regards Andyboorman (talk) 15:00, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

Pilotrichaceae

I'm going to start editing Pilotrichaceae and it appears in Catalogue of Life as a synonym of Neckeraceae and in Tropicos as a synonym of Hookeriaceae or Daltoniaceae and in the English wiki as Callicostaceae. I would appreciate it if you could let me know if there is information on the definitive accepted name. Saludos.--MILEPRI (talk) 19:08, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

I will get back to you tomorrow, but this is not a simple fix! Andyboorman (talk) 20:14, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

@MILEPRI: I am not an expert on bryophytes, but I can see where the problem comes from. It arises due to the current use of multiple loci phylogenetics, which has shown that previous taxonomies based upon morphology were fundamentally flawed, as many physical details are driven by ecological and environmental features not genetics and lineage. Changes are being made rendering many older books out of date, for example; https://bryology.eeb.uconn.edu/classification/, which you use.

Genera once under Pilotrichaceae are now spread across a number of other families and indeed orders. The once large genus Pilotrichum, type of Pilotrichaceae is now synonymised with Leptodon D. Mohr- by Tropicos see [1] here for a brief explanation.

My advice, for now, is to use WFOPlantList 2025 version. I would start at the highest level of classification and work downwards. For example, Hypnanae W.R.Buck, C.J.Cox, A.J.Shaw & Goffinet (2005) WFO, then work through the orders to families, then genera etc.

Cross check with other sources and do a Googke Scholar search on a regular basis

Good luck! Andyboorman (talk) 08:02, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

Agradecido. MILEPRI (talk) 08:09, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

Selenicereus triangularis and Selenicereus trigonus

Hi, Andyboorman, I wanted to raise a question, considering that you specialize in plants from Cactaceae family, I was thinking possibly merging two entries: Selenicereus triangularis and Selenicereus trigonus. After reviewing both pages and comparing different taxonomic databases (at least the most frequently updated ones; CoL, GBIF, POWO, WFO and World Plants), there seems to be enough overlap between the two articles to merge them into the article Selenicereus triangularis. That said, I prefer to ask questions before suggesting and doing changes.

Without further ado, I await your opinions and suggestions to see what is going to be done, thanks for reading and greetings. AbeCK (talk) 06:35, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

@AbeCK: Thanks, but I am not a true cactologist, but will do my best to advise. CACO still segregates as two species, but the sources they use do not definitively favour segregation. I have come across a paper that does segregate them on niche ground. That is; S. trigonus is found only on the Lesser Antilles and S. triangularis on both with overlapping niches, but it is more common on the Greater Antilles. The paper cited is Gutiérrez-Rodríguez, B.E., Guevara, R., Angulo, D.F., Ruiz-Domínguez, C. & Sosa, V., 2022. Ecological niches, endemism and conservation of the species in Selenicereus (Hylocereeae, Cactaceae). Brazilian Journal of Botany, 45(3): 1149-1160. ResearchGate please note that this is not a taxonomic paper and I have just scan read. Given that the pages in CACO have not been updated for nearly 5 years, I would not object to a merge, as you propose, but with a note explaining that CACO still differs and possibly a rider noting their overlapping distributions. I look forward to viewing your work. Best regards. Andyboorman (talk) 13:33, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

@Andyboorman: the content of both articles have been merged (redirect modification, synonyn combination and updates, new sources, new links, some info sources...), so that everything is now concretized in Selenicereus triangularis. I don't know how the note you were talking about could be written. I still don't know where to put it and what it should say, but I would appreciate it if you could help me with that detail. Thanks for your help. AbeCK (talk) 05:48, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

@AbeCK:  Done Andyboorman (talk) 10:42, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

Please see Pump for further discussions. Andyboorman (talk) 07:46, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

┌──────────┘ I will give the community a day or two to discuss further at the Village Pump (mainly because I'm too busy IRL at the moment…) after which I will open up a VP vote for whether we shall keep the Selenicereus trigonus taxon page as a separate page or not. The voting will of course be open to all community members, and furthermore I will personally notify everyone that has contributed to the discussions so far. However, I will not participate in the voting myself.
–Best regards, Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 09:02, 17 June 2025 (UTC).

Thank you Tommy. Andyboorman (talk) 10:28, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Barclaya

Hi Andy - happened to take a look at Barclaya and saw your note about disputed species: I checked POWO, and they now accept all 8 species, so the 'disputed' note can probably come off now - MPF (talk) 23:43, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I have emended the pages. Andyboorman (talk) 07:45, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Template:Dascălu & Fusu, 2012

Hi Andy, you just deleted the Template:Dascălu & Fusu, 2012, is it a mistake or am I missing something? Thanks for your help. Hiouf (talk) 17:30, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

Apologies it was a mistake whilst deleting Template:Zt3322.35. Best regards Andyboorman (talk) 18:25, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

No worries, can you help me to put it back up? I don't know how to do it (if I can even do it). Thanks in advance. Hiouf (talk) 19:21, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

I thought I did it eelier, but this seems to have worked. Is it OK? Andyboorman (talk) 20:49, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

It's all good now, thanks! Hiouf (talk) 07:09, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

Great, sorry for my original error. Andyboorman (talk) 07:33, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

Valeriana

Hi Andy - your prophecy seems to have come true, at least in respect of Centranthus. Should we follow suit? Given Christenhusz et al.'s crazy circumscription of Pyrus in the same article, I'm far from convinced this is a good idea. Are there any other evidence-based papers supporting the merger? Thoughts? Thanks! - MPF (talk) 10:31, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

Hello @MPF:. I think we can ignore Christenhusz et al. (2018) for now until botanists digest De Castro, O., Menale, B., Piazza, C., Bacchetta, G. & Del Guacchio, E., 2025. Can we rescue Centranthus (Caprifoliaceae: Valerianoideae) from the Valeriana sea?. Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society, p.boaf019. DOI: 10.1093/botlinnean/boaf019 . To quote; "the separation of Centranthus from Valeriana appears at least to be not well justified". I will template this paper and put it on Valerianoideae and will contact Kew for comment. Best regards Andyboorman (talk) 12:57, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll take a read of that 👍 - MPF (talk) 20:13, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

Had a look through; Centranthus is monophyletic, but embedded within the current Valeriana. Obvious suggestion for me, rather than have a massive 440-species Valeriana, split it up into 3 or 4 smaller monophyletic genera as needed, and keep Centranthus - MPF (talk) 22:09, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

That is my opinion as well. We should leave Valerianoideae, as it is for now with its disputed tag and note. However, Fedia and Pseudobetckea may still end up in Valeriana. Best regards Andyboorman (talk) 07:42, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

afra

Hi Andyboorman,

As far as I can see the new Art. 61.6 of the ICNafp has not yet been implemented on Wikispecies. Perhaps something you would care to handle? - Brya (talk) 10:47, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

I will have a look for occurrences of the epithet cafra and its variants. Do you have any to hand? IPNI has been bought into line with Art. 61.6 and I will check through POWO etc. Tanks Andyboorman (talk) 13:21, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

@Brya: I have had a quick look and there are many taxon pages that will need an update. A number of which have been created/edited by specialist botanists. I will put a topic on the pump with a couple of added pings. Unfortunately, I am not sure whether a bot can help, but will ask. Andyboorman (talk) 14:13, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

Yes, IPNI changed over within a few months of the IBC. As to numbers, I did a sweep of Wikidata some months ago, and IIRC it concerns a few dozen taxa. It is doable, although it is not fun after a while. A bot seems inadvisable, the more so because there may be exceptions. For example, Pisonia cafferiana (now sunk in synonymy) is based on a personal name. - Brya (talk) 16:10, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

Rec. 50F

Hi Andyboorman,

I see you have taken the afra matter to hand, and are making progress! In this case following Rec. 50F of the ICNafp (for example, in the citation under "Name") should help the reader who may expect a "caffra" form and may well be confused not to see it mentioned. - Brya (talk) 13:02, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

• @Brya: Point taken I will follow as recommended when required. Andyboorman (talk) 13:19, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

Recent behavior and report to the Noticeboard

Hi Andyboorman, your recent contributions have been frustrating. I've already been reported you and your behavior on the Wikispecies:Administrators' Noticeboard here. It would be helpful if you take this into consideration and avoid repeating this type of behavior and harassment of yours, Regards. AbeCK (talk) 20:35, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

@AbeCK: Your Admin report has been noted, but no action was taken, so no change in my edit styles. My recent post was a private reply to a public comment on your edit. Sorry if this offends. Please note my focus is in improving the science on WS and my time is limited. Best Regards Andyboorman (talk) 20:59, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

Fungi

Hi Andyboorman,

As far as I can tell you have finished your sweep for caffra epithets, at least for plants. The ICNafp also governs names of fungi. Up till now I noticed only one fungus affected: Xanthoparmelia cafferensis (Xanthoparmelia aferensis). It would be possible to use IF to search for other cases by searching for epithet and a caffra form: this produces a list. - Brya (talk) 01:44, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

I am not an expert on fungi, but will have another look using IF. I will also put a note on the Pump later today. - Andyboorman (talk) 08:29, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

prokaryotes

Hi Andyboorman,

The ICNafp is not the only Code of nomenclature to make a substantial change. An even bigger one was made in the ICNP, for prokaryotes. I assume you have as little affinity for prokaryotes as I do (that is, precious little), but I get the impression that everybody who did work on prokaryotes has left?

The ICNP, 2022 Revision newly includes the rank of phylum, and requires that the name of a phylum is formed from a generic name and ends on -ota. If it does not meet those two requirements, a name of a phylum is not validly published, meaning that it never existed (retroactively). The same happens in some cases for classes and subclasses. The reason for this very likely was that leaving it unregulated resulted in the same names / names with the same spelling being used in the ranks of class and phylum (at the same time), which was very confusing.

Apparently this was such a success that later on they repeated this for ranks of kingdom and domain.

The result is that Wikispecies has quite a few entries for prokaryotes that use names in these five ranks that do not exist (and nomenclaturally never existed). The efficient solution would be to just delete all entries on prokaryotes (apparently nobody cares about them anyway), but I assume that will not happen.

Repairing these entries is doable (at a minimum, dozens of edits, probably more), because, fortunately, there is a very good resource for this at List of Prokaryotic Names with Standing in Nomenclature. - Brya (talk) 02:04, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

Upon a closer look, it is not as bad as I thought. Somebody new, User:Lmrodriguezr, has already done quite a bit in this respect. - Brya (talk) 02:37, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the information. User:Lmrodriguezr seems to be moving ahead with the required revisions. I will alert the crats and fellow admins by copying your post to me onto the Administrators' Noticeboard. I will also ask if anybody has the required affinity who is current on WS and can help. Andyboorman (talk) 08:04, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. Lmrodriguezr is (mostly) contributing new material, which looks ICNP-compliant, but not so much revising pages, except the two top pages Archaea and Bacteria, which look good. But the next level down, say Terrabacteria group, is untouched.

        It is not just that there are pages with errors, but a duplicate system is coming into being. Firmicutes and Bacillota refer to the same taxon. At some point somebody will need to do actual revisions. - Brya (talk) 02:14, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

Date abbreviations

Andy, the date format you are using is outdated. The use of abbreviated date formats is a technical issue, and practices that are common in English do not necessarily apply across other languages. For that reason, I am considering developing a bot to standardize dates consistently across WS, which is an appropriate way to address this.

I am considering that I will apply the same technical criteria when reviewing and correcting outdated dates wherever they appear, including in your edits. This is a matter of consistency and maintenance, not a personal issue. I am referring exclusively to date formatting, not to the rest of your editorial work.

You state that you will not change your editing style to suit one editor; likewise, I am not required to adapt my editing to yours. We are both working under the same WS rules, and neither personal preference nor seniority overrides that.

For the time being, I will not be accepting further apologies. Similar situations between us have occurred on more than one occasion, and I believe it is more constructive to focus on consistent actions rather than on repeated apologies. In addition, content quality includes not only taxonomy, but also presentation standards, consistency, and technical accuracy. These are not competing priorities—they are complementary. Regards. AbeCK (talk) 22:26, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the bot development. Let me know how it gets on. There are others on here who are skilled in the programming needs so it should be easy. Andyboorman (talk) 08:12, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

Vaccaria hispanica subsp. hispanica

I have added this issue and your reverts for discussion on the Wikispecies:Administrators' Noticeboard. Greets AbeCK (talk) 05:00, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

OK Andyboorman (talk) 08:10, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

My redirections management

Hi Andy, I'm writing to clarify my position regarding our handling of redirects and related Speedy Deletion requests.

As I already noted on your talk page and as was discussed previously in Your editions about redirects and in the Taxonomical data on redirect pages (Selenicereus triangularis and Selenicereus trigonus case) issues, I did not, I do not and I will not agree with recycling redirects and/or retaining content within them like you do, especially if it contains obsolete info. A redirect is not an article. When a page is converted into a redirect, it should follow the basic redirect structure only (#REDIRECT Redirected Page) and should not preserve former article content. Not to mention the dual purpose created by treating redirects in this way. Not counting how you stain the history of the pages when you reverse my Speedy Delete requests, except when the taxa involved are controversial and nothing has been reached (in these cases I will respect that without any problem, as I will detail below). If you want to continue making those kinds of edits, that's your right; however, I will continue to oppose them whenever they affect pages I am working on.

When I request {{Delete}}, it is because, unlike you, I do not have the ability to change page names when existing redirects make the move difficult. My available tools are more limited, and Speedy Deletion is often the only practical way for me to proceed. If there are alternatives, they should be proposed clearly, rather than limiting the response to negative criticism of my edits. The situation with Oxystylis lutea is another example where this difference in approach has led to unnecessary friction between us. If I ask that Oxystylis lutea be removed, it's to get rid of the old history of outdated information, and the history blobs that you and Lavalizard101 made on that page, and recreate it as a clean redirect, and with this taxon, this will be the last instance in which I accept this type of interference. To avoid further conflict, I am setting a clear boundary regarding our editing interactions at least in this kind of edits.

If I request Speedy Deletion for a redirect, I expect that request not to be reverted by reintroducing content, otherwise, I will maintain and defend my position about this within the WS rules to the extent possible. If this matter continues to be raised on my discussion page, the Village Pump, or the Administrators' Noticeboard, I will not engage further in discussions related to this issue. This notice is intended to avoid unnecessary tagging, further messages or topics directed to me by you, whether regarding Oxystylis lutea, any other taxon now and in future where I edit and eventually I ask for a Speedy Delete, where I intend to recreate a redirection, create a new article or a new disambiguation, except if the taxon is controversial and in dispute, as I said before. If such behaviour continues despite this clarification, I will consider it disruptive and will address it through the appropriate project processes.

The fact that you are an Administrator does not give you the right to disrupt or hinder the editing of other users with the same status as me or even other administrators.

This is simply to keep our respective editing work separate and avoid recurring disagreements. In some homogeneous editions for many taxa, I agree with you, but in this case absolutely not. I reiterate what I said in the previous discussion: I am not required to adapt my editing to yours. We are both working under the same WS rules, and neither personal preference nor seniority overrides that. Greets. AbeCK (talk) 02:52, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

I have asked a Bureaucrat to review the problem you have with fellow editors. I am not prepared to segregate my edits from any other editor, nor do I expect them to avoid editing my contributions. WS does not work that way. See my message on the Admin Board. Andyboorman (talk) 08:46, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

Redirects

Subsequent to a discussion on the VP the following points are a summary of advise, recommendations and good practice.

• They are not taxon pages but a help for readers find the currently accepted name from the WS search box.
• They can be named after a synonym, including an autonym, homonym, orthographical variant or common spelling error. The name, unlike the target taxon, does not need to conform to the appropriate acts.
• They are created as blank pages from the move and create redirects from synonym functions, but not if a redirect is manually added.
• Always ensure the redirect function is on the first line. Authorship, eponyms and the like can be added after.
• When creating a manual redirect do not do anything to interfere with the edit history. Particularly do not delete the existing page then create a fresh redirect page, as this will effectively destroy the edit history data.
• If you want to remove contents do it manually leaving categories, such a eponyms and author. The edit history data is still available if required. Taxonomy changes!
• It seems that redundant templates can be safely deleted. Whether taxon or reference templates.

Andyboorman (talk) 13:54, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

Resolved.

Andyboorman (talk) 10:21, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

Silene jenisseensis report

I've reported your editorial behaviour and treatment of Silene jenisseensis for discussion at the Wikispecies:Administrators' Noticeboard, Regards. AbeCK (talk) 00:35, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

@AbeCK: Have you noticed that the infrageneric circumscriptions are a total mish-mash and not the best advert for WS, in fact they are a taxonomic farce? I think I could sort it out in due course, but I will leave it to you for now. Andyboorman (talk) 20:17, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

Template request

Hi Andy - I've just added another Swinhoe publication at Robert Swinhoe. I've never worked out how to make those godawful template things, can you make one for it, please? Also in use at Cisticola juncidis tinnabulans. Thanks! - MPF (talk) 13:16, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

First attempt created see Cisticola juncidis tinnabulans Best regards. Andyboorman (talk) 15:39, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

Super, thanks! - MPF (talk) 18:51, 9 February 2026 (UTC)