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

Clematis

Following on from the discussion above on Ranunculaceae I had a dive into Clematis. I have come across this paper {{Xiao et al., 2025a}}, which completely calls into question our pages based mostly on {{Wang,WT & Li,LQ, 2005}}. In addition, there is Unassigned Clematis, which is not a taxonomic group/subgenus but a collection of some artificial hybrids, many of which are synonyms. I have begun to tidy up some species that needed urgent attention, however, the wider issue of whether or not we adopt Xiao et al. needs a discussion. It is worth pointing out that not all names published after 2005 have been allocated an infrageneric taxon. Contributions please. Andyboorman (talk) 14:51, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

@Andyboorman I've no useful experience of Clematis, but I'd go with the new paper, it looks much better researched - MPF (talk) 00:52, 9 September 2026 (UTC)

I have some experience of Clematis, not enough to claim world expert! However, I do agrre with an approach that is based both upon both morphology and phylogenomics. Andyboorman (talk) 14:00, 9 September 2026 (UTC)

If there are no objections I will go ahead in a day or so. Andyboorman (talk) 07:34, 9 September 2026 (UTC)

I have finished the sectional re-alignment of Clematis, but there are bound to be a few species not allocated. I am more that happy for any reviews and edits. Andyboorman (talk) 13:51, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

I have now added all species, except one (Clematis turyusanensis), to appropriate sections. There are a few oddballs, for example Clematis insidiosa, but that one appears to be an historic error on World Plants and GBIF that has become a contradiction with Xiao et al (2025) and POWO. I have gone with the later also using Wang (2004) to support the case.

A lot of the older taxon pages need edits to bring them up the currently accepted WS basics. Any help appreciated. Andyboorman (talk) 09:42, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

IPNI will supress the name Clematis elata after I contacted them during my work on the genus. The page cited actually refers to Corydalis elata. Andyboorman (talk) 18:06, 8 October 2026 (UTC)

Pongamia

Currently the Pongamia page treats it as a monotypic genus comprising only Pongamia pinnata, based on POWO's previous treatment. However, POWO now accepts 54 species in this genus . . . - MPF (talk) 00:34, 9 September 2026 (UTC)

It is rationale to follow POWO and update/revise WikiSpecies by adding new extant species. IFPNI Staff (talk) 22:55, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

I have made a start including the basic {{Song et al., 2025d}}. I will add the species using POWO as the source. Thanks. Andyboorman (talk) 18:09, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

Sitzungsberichte und abhandlungen der Naturforschenden Gesellschaft zu Rostock

Some help welcome on what to do with jounral "Sitzungsberichte und abhandlungen der Naturforschenden Gesellschaft zu Rostock"

I wonder, should it link to this ISSN [i edited some basics into that but maybe wrong?]. In terms of German places, Rostock is in Mecklenburg. See https://species.wikimedia.org/wiki/ISSN_3057-2320

BHL page says LINK "Notes - The first series was not published separately: proceedings from the foundation of the society in 1882 to 1886 were published in the "Rostocker zeitung"; 1886-1908 were published as appendixes to "Archiv des Vereins der freunde der naturgeschichte in Mecklenburg. 40.-62. jahr. 1886-1908".

Issue so far relates to two papers in 1930s by Paul Schulze

It is rationale to make a separate entry for this serial as do BPH (Botanico-Periodico-Huntianum):

• Sitzungsberichte und Abhandlungen der Naturforschenden Gesellschaft zu Rostock. Rostock. N.s., vols. 1-7, (1909-17?), 1909-18; ser. 3, vols. 1-8, (1925/26-4?), 1927-44. Sitzungsber. Abh. Naturf. Ges. Rostock. Preceded by: Sitzungsberichte der Naturforschenden Gesellschaft zu Rostock. Rostock. ULS 4-2932-3. HI 59410

IFPNI Staff (talk) 22:55, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

The editor 2345

I am concerned about this block of User:The editor 2345 by User:Burmeister over an issue where the two editors are apparently in dispute, and because, it seems, The editor 2345 edited a page which Burmeister was working on.

There was a prior, expired, block three days ago, notified without a clear explanation at User talk:The editor 2345#Block

I can see prior "warnings" and accustaions of "stalking" from Burmeister at:

• User talk:The editor 2345#Please !—"Please do not edit on pages that I am editing..." (2 April 2025)
• User talk:The editor 2345#Pristimantis—"Conflict of edition, please stop to stalk me!" (17 April 2025)
• User talk:The editor 2345#Pipistrellus—"Again you are stalking my edits!, stop or you will be blocked ... You have been repeatedly warned about this type of behavior, there will be no further warning." (2/4 May 2025)
• User talk:The editor 2345#Litoria and others—"please don't stalk me, otherwise you will be blocked! ... Your behavior is going beyond acceptable limits, I will no longer tolerate this type of behavior." (2x, 22 June 2025)
• User talk:The editor 2345#Warming—"Last warming, stop to stalk me!!!" ((31 October 2025)
• User talk:The editor 2345#Conflict of edition—"Please do not edit on pages that I am editing... [and more]" (24 July 2026)

but no evidence of any stalking behaviour.

Firstly, while we have no policy like en.Wikipedia's en:WP:INVOLVED, the latter's principle—that an admin should not use their tools to "win" a dispute with another editor—should apply here:

In general, editors should not act as administrators in disputes in which they have been involved. This is because involved administrators may be, or appear to be, incapable of making objective decisions in disputes to which they have been a party or about which they have strong feelings. Involvement is construed broadly by the community to include current or past conflicts with an editor (or editors), and disputes on topics, regardless of the nature or age of the dispute.

Secondly, I can find no record of a community-sanctioned interaction ban between the two editors; in other words, The editor 2345 does not appear to have done anything sanctionable. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:27, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

Unblock him, then. Burmeister (talk) 12:20, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

Deleting Orthokaryota, etc.

Following from Wikispecies:Administrators' Noticeboard#Review, reversion, and purge needed for User:The Citer/User:The Other Citer, does anyone by any chance have any objections to all of Orthokaryota, Neokaryota and Scotokaryota and their templates being deleted? All of these were actually "Orthokaryotes", "Neokaryotes" and "Scotokaryotes" in Cavalier-Smith's papers, i.e. -otes not -ota endings, so in a sense none of these names actually appear in the scientific literature as far as I can tell. I think they were all informal names too anyway.

(I was going to wait for Wikispecies's cache to update to clear all linked pages from "What links here" for each of these after I removed these names from taxonavigation templates... but it is taking its sweet time to do so for some reason, so I'm making this discussion now instead.) Monster Iestyn (talk) 15:14, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

Okay, it has been over two weeks now and no response, so I assume there will be no objection to me flagging these pages for deletion. Monster Iestyn (talk) 19:27, 8 October 2026 (UTC)

Odonata classification

I have been updating some outdated Odonata taxonomy on Wikispecies and would appreciate some guidance before making broader changes.

For extant Odonata, I have been using the current World Odonata List, together with recent literature including Carter et al. (2026), as the basis for the taxonavigation. My understanding is that Wikispecies should normally present one current classification in Taxonavigation, while alternative or earlier treatments can be documented in the references and synonymy.

Is this an appropriate approach to follow for Odonata?

@Monster Iestyn and Tommy Kronkvist: — you may be interested in this discussion. John Tann (talk) 12:06, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

I think this is acceptable; as far as I remember, I already somewhat updated extant Odonata taxonomy on Wikispecies using World Odonata List a while back, but I don't think I finished the update? I had also noted on my userpage to further update the taxonomy using {{Carter et al., 2026}} myself, but since you're doing that now I can remove this reminder.

Fossil Odonata taxonomy no doubt will pose problems, because they use a different taxonomy after Bechly, 1996 that is not compatible with Carter et al., 2026, particularly because even the extant families have different senses: e.g., Aeshnidae sensu Carter is broken up by Bechly into five families Aeshnidae sensu Bechly, Telephlebiidae, Brachytronidae, Allopetaliidae, Gomphaeschnidae, with Aeshnidae sensu Bechly, Telephlebiidae and Gomphaeschnidae each broken up into subfamilies. I already attempted to account for this alternative taxonomy a bit last year but I wasn't all that happy with the results (see for example Gomphaeschnini...) But until fossil and extant Odonata can be united in one classification properly, I don't know how else to solve this issue than what I did. Monster Iestyn (talk) 13:56, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, that is very helpful. I think the practical way forward is for the main taxonavigation template hierarchy for extant Odonata to follow WOL/Carter et al. (2026).

I would like to do this in a way that leaves room for fossil taxa and alternative classifications, without attempting to revise or reconcile the fossil taxonomy. Where these are already relevant to a page I am updating, I would retain and accommodate that information as far as practicable.

This would give us a consistent framework for the extant taxa, while leaving the wider problems of fossil classification open.

Does that seem a reasonable way to proceed? John Tann (talk) 19:30, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

I18n templates

{{I18n}} does not exist, but we have four sub-templates:

• {{I18n/not done}}
• {{I18n/delist}}
• {{I18n/bryologist}}
• {{I18n/phycologist}}

The latter pair were created by User:OmegaFallon today; the others are much older, and are unused except in documentation.

They seem to duplicate markup like {{int:phycologist}}; but they work by calling labels from Wikidata, for example: {{label|Q16334507|link=-}}

Do we need them? Or should we abandon the latter model and move to the {{I18n}} model?

It seems likely that Wikidata has labels in far more languages than we do, but may not have items for every form (plurals, genders, etc). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:30, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

Trollbot06

This is evident vandal who magically appeared today. So far it has created Template:Pp, which invokes a template loop and prints out "Erik cassel has protected". Then placed this template on one author page. I have reverted all of its activity, but we need to be on the lookout for any further spasms. Neferkheperre (talk) 14:37, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

Request for comment opened on {{Taxonav}} and {{Taxonav2}}

A request for comment has been opened at Wikispecies:Requests for Comment#Taxonav and Taxonav2 use and redundancy on the usage of templates {{Taxonav}} and {{Taxonav2}}.--Kevmin § 21:33, 7 October 2026 (UTC)