Wikispecies:Village Pump

Welcome to the village pump of Wikispecies.

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

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

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

Village pump in other languages:

• Chinese - 中文
• Czech - česky
• Finnish - Suomi
• French - Français
• Hungarian - Magyar
• Hindi - हिन्दी
• Indonesian - Bahasa Indonesia
• Italian - Italiano
• Korean - 한국어
• Nepali - नेपाली
• Russian - Русский
• Tamil - தமிழ்
• Ukrainian - Українська
• Vietnamese - Tiếng Việt

Archives
1	(2004-09-21/2005-01-05)	2	(2005-01-05/2005-08-23)
3	(2005-08-24/2005-12-31)	4	(2006-01-01/2005-05-31)
5	(2006-06-01/2006-12-16)	6	(2006-12-17/2006-12-31)
7	(2007-01-01/2007-02-28)	8	(2007-03-01/2007-04-30)
9	(2007-05-01/2007-08-31)	10	(2007-09-01/2007-10-31)
11	(2007-11-01/2007-12-31)	12	(2008-01-01/2008-02-28)
13	(2008-03-01/2008-04-28)	14	(2008-04-29/2008-06-30)
15	(2008-07-01/2008-09-30)	16	(2008-10-01/2008-12-25)
17	(2008-12-26/2009-02-28)	18	(2009-03-01/2009-06-30)
19	(2009-07-01/2009-12-31)	20	(2010-01-01/2010-06-30)
21	(2010-07-01/2010-12-31)	22	(2011-01-01/2011-06-30)
23	(2011-07-01/2011-12-31)	24	(2012-01-01/2012-12-31)
25	(2013-01-01/2013-12-31)	26	(2014-01-01/2014-12-31)
27	(2015-01-01/2015-01-31)	28	(2015-02-01/2015-02-28)
29	(2015-02-28/2015-04-29)	30	(2015-04-29/2015-07-19)
31	(2015-07-19/2015-09-23)	32	(2015-09-23/2015-11-21)
33	(2015-11-21/2015-12-31)	34	(2016-01-01/2016-04-17)
35	(2016-03-22/2016-05-01)	36	(2016-05-01/2016-07-12)
37	(2016-07-13/2016-09-30)	38	(2016-10-01/2016-12-04)
39	(2016-12-04/2017-01-17)	40	(2017-01-18/2017-01-28)
41	(2017-01-29/2017-02-13)	42	(2017-02-14/2017-03-21)
43	(2017-03-20/2017-08-11)	44	(2017-08-10/2017-12-07)
45	(2017-12-08/2018-01-08)	46	(2018-01-19/2018-03-11)
47	(2018-03-11/2018-09-11)	48	(2018-09-01/2019-02-17)
49	(2019-02-22/2019-06-18)	50	(2019-06-19/2019-10-06)
51	(2019-10-07/2019-12-23)	52	(2019-12-24/2020-04-03)
53	(2020-04-03/2020-07-16)	54	(2020-07-17/2020-09-05)
55	(2020-09-08/2020-11-27)	56	(2020-11-27/2021-06-21)
57	(2021-06-05/2021-09-24)	58	(2021-09-25/2022-01-24)
59	(2022-01-26/2022-02-27)	60	(2022-02-27/2022-04-13)
61	(2022-04-14/2022-05-10)	62	(2022-07-01/2023-12-17)
63	(2022-12-24/2023-04-20)	64	(2023-04-20/2023-08-29)
65	(2023-09-01/2023-12-27)	66	(2023-11-18/2024-02-14)
67	(2024-02-14/2024-06-21)	68	(2024-06-22/2024-11-02)
69	(2024-11-03/2025-02-03)	70	(2025-02-03/2025-04-11)
71	(2025-04-12/2025-06-16)	72	(2025-06-17/2025-xx-xx)

Category:Non-standard taxon formatting

Hi, I was just going through the Category:Non-standard taxon formatting to add in the {{NSF}} template (which automatically adds the category, but also more usefully displays a notice that people can actually see), but I've been looking at many of these entries and ...I've got to ask, why are many of these pages in here in the first place? A lot of the ones I've seen here actually look like they follow Wikispecies' guidelines for taxon pages just fine really, Neomura for instance follows the basic format just fine (I removed it from this category), as does Cumacea even if it has an excessive number of references. What's wrong with them?

It seems to me as if editors are misusing this category for some purpose other than its original meaning, which I assumed referred more to pages like Skitophyllum (which was created today), Gryposuchus, Listronotus minimus. Monster Iestyn (talk) 16:48, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

It looks like both of your questioned examples were added by @Estopedist1: in 2020 with no discussion attached to the tagging. Unless they can provide a more detailed and legitimate rational, I would fully support a purge of the category.--Kevmin (talk) 19:27, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

Deprecating Archive.today links

See also w:Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Archive.is RFC 5 (archived) and w:Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Archive.is RFC 5

This website apparently poses security issues. It should be replaced as soon as possible, if possible, and otherwise the links should be disabled.

SyntaxTerror (talk) 12:11, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up, I've just removed one of these links from my userspace, though I don't know how many more there are on this wiki. Monster Iestyn (talk) 13:46, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

We have 19K pages using archive.is alone. This will need bot assistance. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:58, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

Zootaxa template error

{{Zootaxa}} is showing an error at Template:Wang & Lang, 2024 and I can't figure out why. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:11, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

Fixed! You missed the "7". Burmeister (talk) 15:15, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

move Aa figueroi to Aa figueroae

• d:Q21398927
• en:Aa figueroae

Hello,

On the English Wikipedia, another editor moved the orchid species Aa figueroi to Aa figueroae following the spelling used in POWO at https://powo.science.kew.org/taxon/urn:lsid:ipni.org:names:77142651-1

I think the name change was made to reflect correct word gender in Latin, but I didn't want to move the Wikispecies page for Aa figueroi or the Wikidata page without asking here first. Could someone with a better understanding of Latin grammar and botany than mine please move the pages if it seems appropriate? TrainRouennais (talk) 01:39, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

status novus

Please add (a) definition(s) for stat. nov. (status novus) to the placeholder entry in Wikispecies:Glossary. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:57, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Taxacom is back

For those who were members of the old Taxacom mailing list (or would like to have been); the new version is now available:

https://groups.google.com/g/taxacom

-- Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:10, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

I have joined it and it seems to be working fine... one bonus being that you can also embed images in posts, something that was not possible with the old listserver. Don't know yet about how to search/display threads in the new archive, presumably that is possible though. Tony 1212 (talk) 17:41, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

Glad to hear it's back myself, if only because I appreciated being able to see interesting taxonomy/nomenclature discussions taking place there via the archive! I set up a Wikidata item for Taxacom before the listserv shut down in December last year (TAXACOM (Q137294485)), though I'm unsure what details should be updated if this counts as a continuation of the original mailing list. Monster Iestyn (talk) 21:18, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

main thing of note is I think its now run through google groups rather than a dedicated list-server. I point that out for any linkages in the old wikidata item. Some things may need updating for it. Technically though it is a continuation in spirit but run independently from the old one. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 12:46, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing @Tony 1212 @Monster Iestyn @Faendalimas google groups? 🤮🤮🤮 In other words, surrender ALL of the contents and private personal information on your computer hard drive to Google Inc., just to join a discussion group? No, thanks. 🤬 MPF (talk) 11:38, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

Use of Taxacom is not compulsory. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:17, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing I'm not saying it is! Just that it is something potentially useful, made unsafe/unwise to use due to the total data surrender that is required by its current operator - MPF (talk) 12:52, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

Do you have a source that confirms that subscribing gives access to "ALL of the contents and private personal information on your computer hard drive"? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:38, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

It's what google do. Typical example: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c3dr91z0g4zo - MPF (talk) 18:16, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

create redirects

Has anybody else lost the tool for creating redirects from a list of synonyms, or is it just me? — The preceding unsigned comment was added by Andyboorman (talk • contribs) 20:49, 5 March 2026.

@User:Andyboorman: Userscripts have been temporarily disabled, see en:Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Meta-Wiki compromised (see relayed message by a WMF staff member near the bottom). This was also why the wiki was in read-only mode earlier. Monster Iestyn (talk) 21:19, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Thanks that explains it and why the community was not informed. Will they come back on their own or is a re-install needed? Andyboorman (talk) 08:20, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

All working OK now. Andyboorman (talk) 12:21, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

Jan Ježek

Is Jan Ježek, author of Results of the Czechoslovak-Iranian entomological expeditions to Iran 1973. Iranotelmatoscopus hajiabadi gen. n., sp. n. (Diptera, Psychodidae) from the Palaearctic region the same person as Jan Ježek, with papers published between 2011 and 2024? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:37, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

I would assume yes, he is. I just added a PDF link to the reference template, where you can see the author has the given affiliation "Department of Entomology of the National Museum (Nat. Hist.), Praha" which is the same as the affiliation already given in the Wikispecies taxon author page. That, and the fact that all papers listed on the page are also on the subject of the Diptera family Psychodidae, just as this paper does. Monster Iestyn (talk) 20:16, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Also on that note, doing a quick search there are a number of other reference template papers by the same author similiarly missing an author wikilink. (All of these seem to have the common factor that Thorpe created them in 2012/2013...) I'll go ahead and fix these and add them to the taxon author page. Monster Iestyn (talk) 20:19, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing If extra confirmation was needed for whatever reason, luckily there is a paper on him from 2015 that includes a complete bibliography for Jan Ježek from 1969 to 2015. Monster Iestyn (talk) 20:34, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Rafetus leloii

I note that the newly-created, and unreferenced, Rafetus leloii is described on Wikidata as a "controversial species of turtle from Southeast Asia". I assume that relates to its taxonomy, not its politics. Is the name valid? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:59, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

what thats been invalid for 2 decades.......

[1]

Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 07:23, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

So what should be done, both here and at Wikidata? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:29, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

delete them.... I wonder at the sense in allowing TA's to create species pages here. As for Wikidata, shrugs..... Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 09:59, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Rather than delete, presumably redirect to Rafetus swinhoei (if I'm reading that paper right)? And move the pic across to that page too, as it is a free-living wild specimen, rather than the captive specimen currently shown - MPF (talk) 11:46, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

And done - MPF (talk) 12:08, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

Terminology for orthographic variants in botanical names "misspelled as" vs "as"

Hello to whomever it may concern, I would like to ask for broader input regarding the wording used to indicate orthographic variants in botanical names.

In first, please check this topic in my discussion page.

In several articles, I have used the phrase "misspelled as" to note spellings that differ from the currently accepted spelling under modern Latin and correct grammar or editorial rules. The purpose is to make it clear that a specific form is a spelling mistake or an orthographic deviation from the standard spelling according to their original writing in their original sources.

The fact that errors or variations in spelling have occurred does not mean that Wikispecies has to bear the burden of that, especially when various updated taxonomical databases do not allow them and point out the errors as such.

@Andyboorman has been replacing this phrase with just "as", saying in their words, that the term “misspelled” is not common in botanical literature and seen as unnecessary or unhelpful. This concern seems to come solely from Andy. I've used this phrase in articles without complaints from other contributors, and so far no major issues have arisen. Therefore, it would be helpful to gather input from more people in the community before considering it a problem or systematically replacing it, as has been done in articles such as Silene andryalifolia, Silene antirrhina, Silene ramosissima or Silene sedoides subsp. sedoides.

Changing "misspelled as" to "as" takes away useful information about the nature of the variant. It no longer shows whether the form is seen as a spelling error or just another way to write it.

It would be helpful to get input from here address this matter ASAP and reach a clear consensus.

Greets. AbeCK (talk) 11:55, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

The wording "as '[original name]'" is very common in botanical literature. It is also used in IPNI, and therefore widespread in Wikispecies. Some examples from various editors are Lycopodiophyta for ferns, Teloschistaceae for lichens, and Sargassaceae for algae. I have found the wording "misspelling" on WoRMS, but usually for zoologial names. Botanists seem to prefer "original spelling" or "orthographic variant". Thiotrix (talk) 16:15, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

ICN simply handles original spellings with quotation marks: Andropogon distachyos L. (Sp. Pl.: 1046. 1753, ‘distachyon’). I would prefer an open wording. I do not have the intention to use "misspelled". --RLJ (talk) 18:08, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

WoRMS - options put together/workshopped by a succession of committees, but mainly in zoology - adds an optional tag to a name not considered the present accepted spelling drawn from one of these categories at the present time:

• misspelling - incorrect original spelling
• misspelling - incorrect subsequent spelling
• unjustified emendation
• incorrect grammatical agreement of specific epithet

...just in case this is of any value to the present discussion. However there are probably also some nuances that this set of options does not capture exactly (permitted alternate orthography; rejected vs. conserved spellings, perhaps). Tony 1212 (talk) 18:26, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

I do not like the term misspelling in botany, as it implies a mistake, whether typographical or by authors, that has somehow become common usage, In my experience this is vanishingly rare, particularly as ICN has become more proscriptive over the years. The examples cited by AbeCK have a more rational and/or historical explanation and were not misspellings at the time of their creation. Just one example, Silene niceensis was only resolved by IPNI rejecting nicaeensis a few weeks ago. Both epithets are commonly used, rational and within the Acts, but the protologue used niceensis as a Latinisation of the current Nice not its Greco-Roman name Nicaea. IPNI agreed the the former usage is legitimate, but the later perhaps a well meaning intentional correction. Incidentally, nicæensis is a typographical variant common at the time of the publication, not a misspelling. My advice, for botany, is to use "as" , or follow ICN and use single quotes, but only rarely "misspelling". Andyboorman (talk) 20:18, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

I am a zoologist so am more familiar with the ICZN than the ICN. However I note the ICN like the ICZN has a glossary of terms. Wouldn't it be best for us to use the appropriate terminology from the glossary of the ICN? Its what I try to do in the zoological names I edit. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 11:45, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

I could not agree more, as well as coupled with scientific conventions. Thanks Andyboorman (talk) 16:57, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

New word for translation: Spouse

Please translate "Spouse" into your language(s), at Wikispecies:Localization. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:04, 16 March 2026 (UTC)