Wikispecies:Village Pump

Welcome to the village pump of Wikispecies.

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

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

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

Village pump in other languages:

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

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

USERLANGUAGE

I notice in this week's Wikidata newsletter:

The {{USERLANGUAGE}} magic word is now enabled on Wikidata and Test Wikidata. It can be used to display templates in the user interface language, replacing the previous {{int:lang}} hack. (phab:T405830)

and I wonder whether that would be of benefit here? The technical details are beyond my ken. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:24, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

I think in principle, it could be useful here, at c:, d:, f:, incubator:, m:, mw:, and mul:s:. Good eye. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:33, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. Now task T406583. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:23, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

Task is now "resolved". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:52, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

So how do we make use of this? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:29, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

"Paleospecies"

(Note:Moved from User talk:RLJ)

Good afternoon RLJ, I just saw your edits on Acer after I started the expansion into fossil taxa. My question is if "Paleospecies" as a separate section is still the editing convention or not? I have come across a number of pages where extinct taxa are simply listed at the end of the extant taxa list with daggers to denote the difference, while on pages where the extinctions are recent the extinct taxa and extant taxa are either all in one alphabetical list OR separated with recent and paleo at the end, but not segregated into a fully separate list. Are there any village pump discussions in the archives I should be aware of or should one be initiated?--Kevmin (talk) 00:23, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

Hello Kevmin, I am not aware of any discussion on the pump or any offical convention. The term "paleospecies" is not my invention (as the taxonomic categories in Taxonavigation should be given in Latin, "palaeospecies" is more correct), and I am not the only one putting the fossil species into an own paragraph. I think this is justified because the literature is different. In recent organisms you have biological material, in fossil organisms you only have its traces. Greetings from Germany and best wishes, RLJ (talk) 00:51, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

I am not the only one putting the fossil species On the other hand I am not the only on doing a single alphabetically divided structure, and thus the community is working against itself without a solid directive. You say the literature is different, but the taxonomic and phylogenetic frameworks both are placed into are the same, and literature often does not use the term paleospecies (and in the case of Acer no liturature uses the term "paleosectiones", a wholly Wikispecies made up term. Also as recent findings in fossils are showing we more and more have much MORE preserved in fossils then was thought would be possible 50 years ago. This really should be a community discussion to make a firm choice that is then reflected in the article construction guides.--Kevmin (talk) 18:10, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

I recommend to consult the pump. --RLJ (talk) 18:40, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

@RLJ: Done.

Following up on this conversation with RLJ on their talkpag, a discussion needs to take place with regards to the formatting of fossil taxa, recently extinct taxa, and extant taxa on article pages. Looking at Acer, Rhinoceros, and Arini for three differing approaches. As shown at Acer and Arini the segregation is resulting in novel terms not seen anywhere outside of wikispecies, something that ALL wikiprojects should be avoiding.--Kevmin (talk) 18:11, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

I prefer to list fossil or extinct and extant species in one alphabetical list (e.g. Cardiomya), like it is done by WoRMS. The advantage for the reader is to find a name quickly, without the need of searching in two different lists. Thiotrix (talk) 15:05, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

@Thiotrix and RLJ: that was my preference 13 years ago when I was very active here, but Steven Thorpe did not approve and when he was made admin, he instituted the separate paleo-taxon structure while pushing me and other dissenting voices from the project.--Kevmin (talk) 18:08, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

I too prefer the single list. The present is a continuation of the past, so there is no need of separation. Neferkheperre (talk) 14:58, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

I too prefer a single list for both extant and extinct/fossil taxa if possible, though I tend to put the extinct ones at the end of the lists (probably I have mentally copied what I've seen in other pages, I would not object to mixing them together if that becomes consensus).

Only point I should add though, I do know of instances where the taxonomic/phylogenetic framework of fossil species is NOT the same as that of extant species, but the only example that comes to mind offhand is Odonata in insects (Kevmin may remember what I'm talking about). Hopefully that is just an exception to the rule, as far as I know. Monster Iestyn (talk) 16:26, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

I must admit I prefer to have separate lists as found in Acer, for two reasons. Firstly, easy reading for the less taxonomically minded. Secondly, paleo plant taxa are very rarely found together with extant in the sources I use to help compile lists of accepted taxa, which is my main interest here on WS. However, as usual, I am happy to follow consensus. Andyboorman (talk) 08:57, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

My vote, for what it is worth, is for a single alphabetic listing, with extinct species (or genera, or whatever) indicated, WoRMS style, although clearly either is possible and both are found in the literature. I am just comparing IRMNG fungi (WoRMS style sorting) with Hyde et al., 2024 Outline of Fungi (Fossil taxa given separately), which is a bit disconcerting until you know what is happening (just a vote for standardization really).

BTW does Wikispecies distinguish things like fossil, subfossil, recently extinct (or even possibly extinct) and extant, somehow? https://species.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikispecies:Glossary states:

"†: Indicates that a taxon is extinct, that a (type) specimen has been destroyed, or that a publication was published posthumously."

In IRMNG I (we) originally used "†" to indicate fossil, i.e. a taxon never seen alive by "modern" naturalists (e.g. extinct before AD 1500 as an arbitrary cutoff), only known from fossil or subfossil remains; by default (moving to the WoRMS data model) this is still labelled "fossil", I think, but "extinct" is used in other systems for the same or not quite the same concept. But there are shades of grey here, some well known things such as thylacines have become extinct over the intervening period. And as we know, some things might be possibly/probably extinct (not seen for X years), other things thought extinct might reappear... If not discussed already somewhere, probably needs its own topic header to continue this discussion... Tony 1212 (talk) 17:42, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

For clarification, the WoRMS and IRMNG concepts of "fossil" are not quite the same... in IRMNG I originally specified the cutoff as 1500 AD, including subfossils (Moas etc.) as fossil, dodos as extant (sort of). However WoRMS (https://www.marinespecies.org/aphia.php?p=manual#topic45) says: "Anything before 10,000 BC is considered fossil." Tony 1212 (talk) 17:48, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

Some preliminary discussion included here in passing a few years back, but did not get developed very far it seems: https://species.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikispecies:Village_Pump/Archive_47#Category:Extinct_or_fossil_species Tony 1212 (talk) 17:57, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────┘ @Tony 1212: Current WS practice does not have the nuances of either WoRMS and IRMNG as you have found. I would suggest that subfossil and fossil taxa be denoted with the † dagger and possibly we denote recent extinctions (eg Dodo) with the related ‡ double dagger. The linked discussion on the categories shows the need for a better developed system of category webbing.--Kevmin (talk) 18:54, 22 November 2025 (UTC)\ @RLJ: Do you have any input for the discussion? You seem to be in the minority as the discussion currently stands.-Kevmin (talk) 18:54, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

Where is the vote on your preference of the species structure? Until there is one I will keep following the Acer structure as I find it more readable. Could you ask an uninvolved admin to set up a vote, as the ad hoc opinions above are not valid and binding, according to WS praxis. However, we have also not dealt with nothospecies - will you advocate embedding them in a superlist? Andyboorman (talk) 18:14, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

@Andyboorman: as I noted on my talk page, YOU are more than capable of writing up and posting a poll for this discussion. "Involvement" only comes into play with closure of a poll and writing a neutral description of its outcome. Opening and creation of a site wide banner advertising the discussion for all users to participate is a task open to all admin regardless of where they may fall involvement wise. I will also note that looking though the village pump history it seems that various changes have been implemented based on basic discussions that did not have polls. The pump doesn't regularly get enough traffic for large community investment in at at this point. Regarding hybrids, again its a matter of community opinion, as different sources treat them differently. When I finish work today I may have time to set up a poll if no one else has. Currently though consensus in the discussion is not to have separate lists.--Kevmin (talk) 15:58, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

@Kevmin thanks for the ping about where the discussion was! I'm definitely with @Andyboorman in finding it better to have the extinct species listed separately, with their own header (be that ==Species extincta== or ==Palaeospecies==). It makes it much clearer which is which, and makes it easier to find either. Hybrids, the same applies. - MPF (talk) 16:04, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

Community polling on how to handle fossil and recently extinct

Currently there is no standardized practice for how fossil and recently extinct (post 1500ce) named species are handled within the Wp taxa lists. Three major methods occur at this point in time, with all methods uniformly using a † (dagger) to indiscriminately mark fossil, subfossil, and recently extinct taxa. Currently no system itemizes fossil, subfossil, and recently extinct taxa as separate units.

• Method 1: all taxa in one list alphabetically.

Species: F. hueyi – †F. deweyi – F. lewyi – †F. maggae

• Method 2: Extinct taxa grouped at the end of the alphabetized extant species list with no

Species: F. hueyi – F. lewyi – †F. deweyi – †F. maggae

• Method 3: All taxa with † segregated under a separate heading labeled Palaeospecies regardless of extinction date or recent extinctions in Extant section with no demarcation.

Species: F. hueyi – F. lewyi
Palaeospecies: †(fossil)F. deweyi – †(extinct 1829)F. maggae

Which option does the WS community feel best meets the needs of all readers/users of the wikispecies project as a whole? Please list a Method number and single sentence reason below, and use the discussion section for commentary and questions.

Voting

• Method 1 with expansion to † for fossil and ‡ for recent extinctions to distingush the two.--Kevmin (talk) 05:07, 26 November 2025 (UTC)
• Method 1; I like the ‡ for extinctions after end of the last glaciation (definition of subfossil and beginning of human influence). This reinforces the concept of continuity through time. Neferkheperre (talk) 16:04, 26 November 2025 (UTC)
• Method 3: Recent taxa incl. recent extinctions, fossil taxa and nothotaxa in separate paragraphs.--RLJ (talk) 23:05, 26 November 2025 (UTC)
• Method 3: Recent taxa incl. recent extinctions, fossil taxa and nothotaxa in separate paragraphs with the addition of distinguishing recent from fossil, but in this case a better title than Paleospecies will be needed if all extinct taxa are lumped. A categorised list of taxa is a much better and accessible read for long lists compared lumping all taxa in a single list. I already more or less use this one. Andyboorman (talk) 16:28, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
• Method 3 for me; I too like the idea of distinguishing recent extinction from fossil, and keeping them separated from each other for easy distinction - MPF (talk) 17:18, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
• Method 1 I already use this one, but in all cases please everything else than method 2. Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:35, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
• Method 1 for consistency with CoL (e.g. see https://www.catalogueoflife.org/data/browse?taxonKey=636X2), WoRMS/IRMNG (e.g. see https://www.irmng.org/aphia.php?p=taxdetails&id=1035772) and possibly GBIF?? (see https://www.gbif.org/species/2436435 then click "classification", although I do not see any extinct flags here, plus there are some oddities...)... I agree with @Kevmin regarding "expansion to † for fossil and ‡ for recent extinctions to distinguish the two" although specifying a cutoff date would be good - as mentioned above, I use † = extinct before AD 1500 in IRMNG for fossils including subfossils (=never seen alive by "modern" observers), thus ‡ (not currently an IRMNG category but could be) would be dodos etc. = extinct since AD 1500, however also note that WoRMS "fossil" is pre-10,000 BC: a big difference; maybe a separate poll needed here. Regards Tony Rees Tony 1212 (talk) 05:05, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

  Also note this is not (or should not be) confined to a discussion regarding species, but also would apply to (for example) genera listed for a family, families listed for an order, orders listed for a class, classes listed for phylum, phyla listed for a kingdom (or whatever...) - so the solution needs to be applied consistently across all ranks, I would say. As an example in practice, should fossil-only genera in a family be interspersed (i.e., displayed alphabetically), or segregated to the end... for 2 "major player" print/database compendia for animal and plant genera (Nomenclator Zoologicus and Index Nominum Genericorum, respectively), the extant/fossil flag is an attribute only, and sorting is alphabetic... see e.g. https://web.archive.org/web/20050114193935/http://www.ubio.org/NZ/PDF/Vol6/pg0001.png for a sample Nomen. Zool. page, https://naturalhistory2.si.edu/botany/ing/INGsearch.cfm?searchword=Acer for a sample result from ING. Regards Tony Tony 1212 (talk) 06:08, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

• Method 1 As stated above, I prefer one alphabetical list (consistent with other databases, easier for the reader, and homonyms can better be detected). --Thiotrix (talk) 13:05, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

  I can see the point about consistency with other databases, but it is absolutely not easier for the reader; with the near-invisibility of the † sign, it makes extinct taxa very hard to pick out separately from extant taxa - or is that the whole idea of this, to have them not visibly different? - MPF (talk) 22:42, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

• Method 1 Mariusm (talk) 08:48, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
• Method 1, for consistency with others databases, agree with "expansion to † for fossil and ‡ for recent extinctions to distinguish the two", and apply the result for all taxa not only species (genera, familiae....). Burmeister (talk) 11:36, 9 December 2025 (UTC)
• Method 1 sorry was unaware of this vote, been in hospital, cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 11:51, 9 December 2025 (UTC)
• Method 1 also sorry for delay, am busy with both moving and the on WS editing "project" (also apologies to Recent changes patrollers). Also this is the method used on a lot of WP articles as well. Lavalizard101 (talk) 22:56, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

Courtesy ping for members of discussion: @MPF, Andyboorman, Tony 1212, Monster Iestyn, Neferkheperre, Thiotrix, RLJ, and Pigsonthewing: Ping other active users:@Koavf, Christian Ferrer, Sjl197, Lhikan634, Lichenes, and Microplankton25: @Burmeister, MathXplore, The editor 2345, ShakespeareFan00, Tanbiruzzaman, NDG, Lavalizard101, Faendalimas, OhanaUnited, WrenFalcon, and TenWhile6:

Discussion

Such a poll should be in Wikispecies:Requests for Comment, and be announced in MediaWiki:Recentchangestext, not just in the (english version) of the Village Pump discussion. Thiotrix (talk) 08:46, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

I was unaware that Wikispecies:Requests for Comment even existed, EN:wiki hosts RFC's on the relevant page the poll applies to. Banner request has been made (Again)--Kevmin (talk) 16:33, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

@Thiotrix: if this placement is problematic, can you move it and the associated background content to the correct location and PLEASE SOMEONE post a header notification of the poll.--Kevmin (talk) 18:43, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

I added a note at Wikispecies:Requests for Comment, and marked the header of MediaWiki:Recentchangestext. Thiotrix (talk) 11:43, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

@Andyboorman: in your vote edit summary you explicitly state this can not be an official vote BTW. Why? Seems rather like poisoning the well, especially given that this is exactly what you persistantly stated I MUST do before changing the list structures of pages. Why are the goal posts again being moved?--Kevmin (talk) 17:57, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

You need an RTC and a closure date etc. Hope this helps ask somebody like @Pigsonthewing: for help. Andyboorman (talk) 18:07, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Then ADD them, you have purposely avoided participation in the process even though you are and ADMIN and thus should have taken point on the process.--Kevmin (talk) 18:14, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

I have no idea what is being asked of me here. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:10, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing: Summing it up, Andyboorman demanded a poll happen to determine community consensus on the topic above, but refused to help in the generation of said poll. Now they are poisoning the well by claiming its invalided due to missing criterions that were never elucidated as being required.--Kevmin (talk) 18:17, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Can you ping all contributors not just those involved on this thread? I seem to remember this was done in the past. The above vote needs to have an opening and closing date. I seem to remember that in the past we had a binding vote after discussion with a {{Support}} {{Reject}} and {{Neutral}} procedure. The reasons I want to get this right are mostly; the discussion to date involves too few active editors, it involves reediting many already created pages, it is importance to consider the needs of readers not just editors and it will require a change to our Help Documents in relation to taxon page formats. All of these require time, formality and transparency. Andyboorman (talk) 18:34, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Who are you addressing here? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:37, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Your good self. I am not sure that all editors, particularly those who have been involved in contributing to pages that contain paleo and nothospecies, have received a message about this discussion and vote. As a crat do you have an over view? Andyboorman (talk) 09:47, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

I have no knowledge of which editors have been involved in contributing to pages that contain paleo and nothospecies.

You could ping editors as easily as I can.

I am not a crat.

I do not believe that we have "binding votes"; I would expect us to follow the Wikipedia principle of working by consensus (see en:WP:Polling is not a substitute for discussion)

I have no expertise in this topic, and no view on it. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:06, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

That doesn't address my point.

If you have an issue with another editor's behaviour, please raise that, with diffs, on the admin noticeboard. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:37, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

I have no issues of that nature just trying to do the right thing. Andyboorman (talk) 19:58, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

I wasn't addressing you with that comment; but my first point is still not addressed. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:22, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Reminder: Help us decide the name of the new Abstract Wikipedia project

Hello. Reminder: Please help to choose name for the new Abstract Wikipedia wiki project. The finalist vote starts today. The finalists for the name are: Abstract Wikipedia, Multilingual Wikipedia, Wikiabstracts, Wikigenerator, Proto-Wiki. If you would like to participate, then please learn more and vote now at meta-wiki. Thank you!

-- User:Sannita (WMF) (talk) 14:21, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

'monotypic taxon'

Happened to notice that Puyoideae is tagged with {{moty}}, which makes "monotypic taxon ". Is this correct use for this tag? Puyoideae is monogeneric (only containing Puya), but it is not monotypic, as the genus contains over 230 species (per POWO). Shouldn't {{moty}} be reserved for taxa which have no further subdivisions at any rank, like e.g. Ginkgoaceae? And create tags like {{moge}} for monogeneric taxa like Puyoideae? - MPF (talk) 22:20, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

@MPF: Even Ginkgoaceae fails though, as there are a number of extinct genera (eg Baiera & Cheirophyllum) and species (Ginkgo cranei, Ginkgo dissecta) described from the fossil record.--Kevmin (talk) 15:30, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

Yes, agree if one includes fossil taxa, no taxon can ever really be considered monotypic. But the term is (I think!) valid for extant organisms - MPF (talk) 16:54, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

Except its only concidered valid in that sense when the authors using the term Purposely ignore definition of monotypic/monogeneric entirely, as the definition does not give any allowance for "as read for only living organisms". if you want an acceptable example of monotypic, go with Wollemia, no known fossil record in the genus.--Kevmin (talk) 18:41, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

I like the idea of moge, but perhaps I am in error in using the concept? Andyboorman (talk) 15:37, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

The John Murray Expedition 1933-1934 Scientific Reports

Hello, I'm going to create a page for this journal, it has 11 volumes: https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/bibliography/112110, but I wonder how exactly to name it. In internet, we can see a lot of titles such as: "Scientific reports / John Murray Expedition 1933-34", "The John Murray Expedition 1933-1934 Scientific Reports", "The John Murray Expedition 1933-34, scientific reports", "The John Murray Expedition 1933-34: scientific reports", ect... Me I would tend to choose the title I used for this topic, some suggestions? thanks you. Christian Ferrer (talk) 08:42, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

I would also advise using the title as found on the reports BHL. Andyboorman (talk) 09:41, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

See

• Stubbings, H.G. 1936. Cirripedia. The John Murray Expedition 1933–34. Scientific Reports 4(1): 1–70. BHL Reference page. 

That is how the journal was presented in the citation, and is the title for the volume relating to Cirripedia. I did not make a page for the Journal, as there was no ISSN for it. Also see Challenger voyage (1873–1876), for how I set up these expedition journals. However, in the case of the Challenger, many taxonomic articles were published ahead of the main volumes, which are also part of results. The John Murray Expedition appears to be much simpler and straightforward. Neferkheperre (talk) 16:42, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

• In 2 minutes I just found there are at least 3 entries for it in ZooBank, I sent a mail to an administrator to merge them. With the lack of an ISSN or of an official name I think "The John Murray Expedition 1933–1934. Scientific Reports" is the name that best fits what we can see in https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/page/49524147, as well as in the begining of each volumes. Christian Ferrer (talk) 21:48, 21 November 2025 (UTC)
•  Done the 3 items in ZooBank have been merged and I created The John Murray Expedition 1933–34. Scientific Reports, as regard to the title I followed the choice of Richard Pyle who answerd me that a "." between a title and a subtitle is a common practice for old works. Christian Ferrer (talk) 10:59, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

Tropicos

Please note that due to innumerable bots skimming data off of the site you now have to register for an account. For those serious about plant data this is highly recommended. On another point, we are well advised to add the number to {{IPNI}} in order to get an immediate response. This is due to an internal protocol with the template, not the site. Andyboorman (talk) 17:21, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

Johann Wolfgang Schmidt

As far as I can tell neither the paleontologist Johann Wolfgang Schmidt nor any of his taxa on Wikispecies are real (there are real people with his name though). All of the pages were created by a temporary account who was later blocked for vandalism, yet these pages still remain. (I marked Snezhana for deletion but realised later there was a problem with the author too) Anyone disagree with all of them being deleted along with any created Wikidata items? Monster Iestyn (talk) 15:53, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Actually while we're here, I cannot find any evidence such a genus as Holea exists or has ever existed within the leafhopper tribe Empoascini, let alone any of the supposed subgenera or species listed in it by the same temporary account (and before that, an IP editor). That there are are no sources for these is very telling IMO. Can anyone confirm this? Monster Iestyn (talk) 18:30, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

This looks like vandalism - motive unknown. Andyboorman (talk) 22:09, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

I Googled all these names. Of 3-4 Johann Wolfgang Schmidts, none were biologists. Snezhana is a Russian name based on snow, and Holea has no existence at all. On the same line, check out [category:Amira Aqilah Muhammad taxa]. The author exists, but someone has been adding taxa manually since September. None of these taxa have any authorship or other supporting data. All were done this morning. The IP account is similar to the blocked IP with Holea, and no overlap. Neferkheperre (talk) 16:54, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

Goodness, why do they persist in adding hoaxes to Wikispecies, what is the benefit to anyone to do so...? But anyway, thanks to both you and Burmeister for deleting the pages I put delete notices on relating to these hoaxes! Monster Iestyn (talk) 23:21, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

Author templates

I have recently discovered that we have (according to the category count) 6,355 Author templates (of which {{A.N.Henry}} is a random example from the first page). Some are used only on taxon pages (A.N.Henry is on three), others in templates for papers.

Are these a legacy thing? Deprecated, discouraged or encouraged?

Should we still be making new ones? Or replacing and deleting them? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:27, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

There are even a lot that are not used at all: [1]. I do not need these templates and would prefer to delete (at least) the unused. But I guess, that other botany editors may find them useful. --Thiotrix (talk) 12:04, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

I do not use them either. None appear to be in our agreed upon format of full names, and are essentially useless. Neferkheperre (talk) 16:48, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Unused "Opinion" templates

The templates:

• {{Opinion 760}}
• {{Opinion 2005}}
• {{Opinion 2321}}
• {{Opinion 2322}}
• {{Opinion 2337}}

each of which has multiple editors, are each not transcluded anywhere. Should they be used, or deleted? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:32, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

I don't understand why most of these were created without being used anywhere, but {{Opinion 2005}} is at the least being linked by a reference template as a source for a publication date. Otherwise, I say keep and use where applicable: {{Opinion 760}} for instance seems super important to cite at Macropus and Macropus giganteus because it adds both names to ICZN official lists and suppresses a lot of other related species names presumably to make sure Macropus giganteus Shaw, 1790 is available and valid (or something along those lines, I'd need to check the context). Monster Iestyn (talk) 22:28, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Yeah I am not sure why they were created and not used. Technically they are a publication by the ICZN of their opinions when required. They are generally THE citation for the validity of the usage of some name as they are the response by the ICZN to any Cases they decide upon. Unfortunately they may need to be updated as if they were created prior to the ICZN moving from England to Singapore the links may not be working. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 13:11, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

ISSN in the Cite journal Template

An edit I made to template:Wolfe & Tanai, 1987 was just reverted with the statement "Literature format according to Help:Reference section". The only thing I found that was contrary to the current reference guide was how I placed the ISSN. The Reference guide currently statesLink the journal name to its ISSN page. Example: ''[[ISSN 1175-5326|Zootaxa]]'' which renders as Zootaxa but links to the journal's ISSN 1175-5326 page. I opted to use the built in parameters of the citation template for |issn= which generates a separate link to the ISSN that is shown as an eternal link, which I feel is a better practice than hiding the external site behind what looks to be an internal link.

Additionally reverted was the use of the |URL= option for a link to the PDF with the |format=PDF option filled. This links the title to the PDF on the journals website, and is shown as an external link, (contrary to the hidden ISSN). I see no documentation supporting the reversion of this change, though a note in the template talk page asserts a discussion was had somewhere in August 2025 (no link to said discussion was provided).

The citation template encompasses these options in a better way then the current Ref section guidance is advocating, I feel a discussion should be had.--Kevmin (talk) 20:03, 3 December 2025 (UTC) --

If I can add any thoughts here, I notice that when you supply an issn= as a parameter it links to a WorldCat search page for the ISSN as on English Wikipedia etc. To be honest I don't find these WorldCat links particularly useful as an editor, as the main information provided is which libraries you can find copies of the journals in. (I guess it might be useful if you can borrow physical copies from those libraries? But in my case I can't, I have to work with what I can access online.) The ISSN pages that Wikispecies has been using for years at least can provide links to the websites, links you can find other volumes, issues, papers, etc of the series. But if the issue you're having is simply the piped link, the issn= parameter's function could be changed to have the reference link to the Wikispecies ISSN page instead of WorldCat.

...Unless maybe you confused the ''[[ISSN 1175-5326|Zootaxa]]'' as hiding an external link when it actually IS an internal link? (It's to Wikispecies's page for the ISSN, not to WorldCat!) Monster Iestyn (talk) 22:53, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Does the citation template allow for PDF files that are obtained from sources outside of the journal itself? Does it also allow for the {{Subst:Reftemp}} that allows a reader to check the Find all Wikispecies pages which cite this reference? Thanks Andyboorman (talk) 08:53, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

@Monster Iestyn and Andyboorman: I realized my mistake after I posted and was heading to work. MI is correct and its an internal page not an eternal link. If someone is able to adjust the citation code as MI suggests that would be a good option for sure. The citation template, via the |url= parameter will link to any webpage that has the PDFS, yes. The internal search function is implemented by the code you link, regardless of a citation template being used or not, and I have Reference pages with and ones without in equal measure. The citation template is a tool that provides uniform reference display output, while hand formatted citations result an a full gambit of markup and placement for reference elements.--Kevmin (talk) 18:32, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. And the {{Subst:Reftemp}}? We discussed our preferred citation format and came up with the modified Harvard that is most often used. OK WS is an outlier, but it suits those of us most used to constructing lists of references for academic purposes and it more or less uniform in format. Hope this is OK. Andyboorman (talk) 18:48, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Ill be blunt, I didn't even know that template existed, Its mention and the how to construct a stand alone reference template are lost a bit in the larger how to construct an overall page. We should consider splitting it into its own help section topic so its quicker and easier to utilize.--Kevmin (talk) 18:29, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

We discussed our preferred citation format may I ask when? As is very often repeated on both EN.W and Commons, consensus often changes, I would be interested in reading the discussion.--Kevmin (talk) 18:31, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

Please look here [2]. The poll was the result of many pages of discussions on and off through the years. Andyboorman (talk) 19:38, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────┘I see, the poll is now a decade old, and I participated then with objections.--Kevmin (talk) 20:56, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

Your objections were mostly about our refusal to blanket adopt the WP citation template, but to allow it as long, as it is modified to conform to the agreed format, were they not? As there have been thousands of citations created and edited using our standard format without objections, I am not sure a fresh discussion will lead to major changes. However, feel free to open one, probably it would be better on a fresh thread. Andyboorman (talk) 09:02, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Euonymus

The current infrageneric classification of Euonymus is not monophyletic nor supported by molecular and morphological data. In my opinion it should be disbanded pending a major revision. Li et al., 2014. Phylogeny of Euonymus inferred from molecular and morphological data. Journal of Systematics and Evolution, 52 (2): 149-160. DOI: 10.1111/jse.12068 is just one paper pointing this out and there have been none published since that dispute my assertion. I would be grateful for discussion and comment. Thanks Andyboorman (talk) 20:55, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

A plea

Whilst going through some of my older edits I came across a number of common problems that are not unique to me. Therefor, I have come back here to ask editors to keep an eye out for these and correct in order to improve the experience for our readers.

• Please give multiple references as a bulleted list, by authors in alphabetical order. It is good practice to separate References as Primary References, Additional References and Links (See Help Section) treating each a discrete entity.
• For Botanists. Due to changes in the template and also on IPNI it is imperative that the taxon identifier is now added to the template. Without this IPNI can no longer find the taxon. Example, {{IPNI|6285-1|2020|08 May|Gypsophila}}. For most of my older pages I did not need to use the taxon identifier, so many edits to go! The taxon name only needs to added at the end, if the taxon page name has more that one word, in this case Gypsophila (Caryophyllaceae). This also needs to be done for POWO, MBG and so on.
• Recently our Author Pages have become a much improved. If you use the {{A}} template then the link to the author page may help you pick up a citation template of use for the protologue or occasionally additional references.
• Finally, if you use {{Nadi}} to show distribution then please follow Brummitt, R.K. 2001. TDWG – World Geographical Scheme for Recording Plant Distributions, 2^nd Edition as far as possible.

The first two are the most important in my opinion. Best regards. Andyboorman (talk) 19:04, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

Vaccaria hispanica subsp. hispanica

The following has been taken from the Wikispecies:Administrators' Noticeboard. Please feel free to comment and discuss Andyboorman (talk) 19:47, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

Some admin please have a look at the Speedy Delete request for this combination, this redirect points to an infraspecific autonym that is no longer accepted. The taxon formerly treated as Vaccaria hispanica is now placed under Gypsophila vaccaria, and there is no valid or recognized subspecies corresponding to the autonym Vaccaria hispanica subsp. hispanica.

Since the name has no current standing in taxonomy and does not represent any valid taxon, the redirect is misleading and unnecessary, and therefore meets the criteria for speedy deletion. My previous request was reverted by an administrator without giving a valid reason for this redirection. However, the underlying taxonomic issue remains, so I would appreciate a second review of this redirect. Thanks (talk) 21:23, 5 November 2025 (UTC) AbeCK (talk) 04:59, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

Well just a question then has the name Vaccaria hispanica subsp. hispanica ever been used in literature, with some concistency. The point is whether or not the name is at least somewhat likely to be used as a search term and as such what the taxon should be called should be linked to what is searched for. That is one of the primary purposes of redirects. The taxonomy of it is not so relevant. It would also seem a reason for reversing your previous delete request was given, that is it is not broken. So please explain what is wrong with it in terms of the purpose of redirects.

Also admnins please note through automated processes someone has added some 200+ speedy deletes in last couple of days this needs to be dealt with. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 08:38, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

The answer to your first question is yes and a search with the autonym using scholar, Bing or AI will show this. I assume the reason is the synonymy of Vaccaria under Gypsophila is comparatively recent and it does not help that EMD still accepts Vaccaria.

• I am aware of the rash of broken redirects and speedy deletes and have culled the plants to date. However, as I have found some examples that need more than a delete, I have had to edit/create taxon pages. Therefor I have left the others for those with more expertise.

Andyboorman (talk) 10:19, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

In this case of Gypsophila vaccaria at least several taxonomic databases, the ones that are updated most frequently POWO, WFO, Catalogue of Life, GBIF, World Plants, iNaturalist, NCBI and other underrated ones like Observation.org agree they do not recognize this subspecies anymore, and the current species has no infraspecific taxon.

Under these conditions, an autonym has no reason to exist, because autonyms are only created and only have a function when other valid subspecies coexist with them. If there is currently no accepted infraspecific subdivision, the autonym loses all practical validity. In any case, there should be a Gypsophila vaccaria subsp. vaccaria to be able to link this redirect to it, but that is not the case; WS is supposed to work with existing and valid taxa, synonyms and basionyms, not those that don't even have a record or that were obsolete.

The only database that still retains it is Euro+Med, but this reflects an outdated classification, not current usage. Maintaining an autonym on WS without support in current taxonomy only introduces confusion and gives the impression that it is an accepted or actually used name, when it is not.

For these reasons, the autonym associated with Gypsophila vaccaria should be removed and not maintained as a redirect anymore, at most we could add in the synonyms or in a separate section that it was something that was used but is no longer, but according to the above arguments, I completely disagree with Andyboorman and his decision. AbeCK (talk) 02:16, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

•  Comment If a name, even an autonym not used anymore, have been used at some time in the scientific litterature then it is logical and useful that it becomes a redirect to the taxonomic concept used currently. Christian Ferrer (talk) 08:59, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

I completely agree with Andyboorman, Faendalimas and Christian Ferrer: If a name has ever been used (even misspellings), then we make it a redirect, because it is useful for those who will search for this name, and unvisible for all others (therefore not worth a long discussion). In addition, I think there is no need to discuss this here at the Administrator's Notice Board, we have the Village Pump for such discussions. Thiotrix (talk) 09:13, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

It is now a good idea to migrate this to the Pump for discussion and closure, as suggested by @Thiotrix: and also partly due to this request for Gypsophila ceballosii, which I have suggested is temporarily declined on the Discussion Page. Andyboorman (talk) 10:42, 12 December 2025 (UTC)