Wikispecies:Village Pump/Archive 71

This is an archive of closed discussions. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this archive.

Giraffa

Could a mammal specialist please review this genus? This has come about as the request for speedy delete of Giraffa giraffa angolensis has highlighted inconsistencies and apparent errors in the genus circumscription. For example, Giraffa camelopardalis angolensis. Thanks. Andyboorman (talk) 08:59, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I commented on the talk page, reject the deletion. Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 16:54, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ughh I have looked through the Giraffe in more detail, theseare a mess. Based on most recent publications we need to do some work on this genus I am going to fix this and will take care of the speedy delete. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 20:47, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(I'm sending a ping to @Nerdnewt, who first added the speedy deletion request to the G. giraffa angolensis page. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 05:37, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm ok I may have to rethink this. I have just been sent 2025 papers of relevance to this that seem to now be recognising 4 species not 3. I will examine them all and update accordingly. By the way the MDD and Mammal species of the world are not the best sources for this genus. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 12:30, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For those unsure. The problem is that conservation imperatives have been in the way of the taxonomy of Giraffe for decades. The phylogenetic studies presented have been both hampered by this and by the lack of explicit explanations of methodology and acceptance/ refutation of results (which are not proposed well) due to the influence of conservation imperatives. This is bad taxonomic practice. So I have had to go through each paper, question the authors and gain an full understanding of what they are trying to do and how they did it. So sorry if this takes a little time. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 13:06, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this archive.

`{{Image}}` with more Wikidata functionality

I went ahead and made a prototype for a version of {{Image}} with more Wikidata functionality - not only can it grab the image from Wikidata, but it generates a more appropriate caption based on the depicts (P180) and sex or gender (P21) qualifiers under the image (P18) property. You can check it out at User:WrenFalcon/Image. Feel free to play around with it (though, please don't use it in an actual article yet—stick to the preview or use a sandbox, please) or to suggest corrections or improvements. It's not perfect yet - I believe it wouldn't provide a caption at all on taxon authority pages, and I haven't tested it enough yet to be sure it will work everywhere else. However, I find it nice because an accurate caption can be generated without needing to provide any parameters in the Wikispecies article. Any feedback is greatly appreciated! --WrenFalcon (talk) 04:25, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

need to ensure it can be overridden by local edits though. Wikidata does not always have the correct information nor is it always the appropriate information for this wiki, as a taxonomic wiki we do need the correct name on taxa, the species epithet should be in the image title and the common name is not so relevant. There are on occasions additional information of use, for example if it's a picture of a type specimen. We also need to wary if its automatically grabbing any image of a taxon, since many of the ones on Commons are misidentified. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 09:05, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Everything should be able to be overwritten by local edits—see the newly-added examples (with some comments in the wikitext source) on the template page (User:WrenFalcon/Image).

It's not fetching any metadata (e.g. depicted taxon, sex) directly from Commons—data would have to be entered directly on the Wikidata taxon item. For example, see d:Q1048880#P18. The template is not directly affected by misidentifications in Commons; a misidentification would have to find its way into the Wikidata taxon item, which should help with data quality.

A custom caption or custom image can absolutely be provided, just like with the current {{Image}}. (However, if a custom caption is specified, I would recommend explicitly specifying the file name of the image to use; otherwise, the caption could become outdated by a change in Wikidata.)

The generated caption should always use the (scientific) taxon name, never the common name. See the last example on the template page (mallard, male, Anas platyrhinchos).

As for data accuracy, that's partly on Wikidata maintainers, partly on Wikispecies editors (and on Commons editors/reviewers for file name accuracy). However, the extended use of Wikidata by this template may also encourage more Wikispecies editors to contribute to Wikidata, especially to help fix incorrect or conflicting information. --WrenFalcon (talk) 16:23, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

unfortunately if they are misidentified on Commons they are invariably also misidentified on Wikidata. cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 18:43, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If that is the case, fix them! Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:59, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have fixed about 700 of them. But I cannot do all of them. Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 12:21, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Added documentation (which is also on the template page)! Hopefully that makes it a little more understandable what's going on. --WrenFalcon (talk) 03:16, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So, is this is change we would be interested in making to {{Image}}? And how should this change be handled - is consensus here enough to justify making the change, should it go through an RfC, or...?

I've updated it somewhat, and I've tested it a decent amount. I feel confident that it will work without issues on the vast majority of pages, and when there are issues, the captioning behavior can be easily overridden. It's also currently standard practice to use the image in Wikidata (though this does have its own issues with misidentification). Personally, I don't think this change would significantly exacerbate the misidentification issues as opposed to the situation currently. I don't know of any common usages/patterns on Wikidata that would break this template (though, then again, many of the taxa I've looked at don't have an image in Wikidata). I believe it should also be fully language-independent. --WrenFalcon (talk) 19:09, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lovely. Is it possible to draw out media captions with a LangSwitch thing? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:00, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you mean specifically, but there shouldn't be a need for that. For images of a taxon, it uses the taxon (scientific) name, and if it adds a sex annotation, it uses the male or female symbol. If the associated Wikidata item doesn't have the taxon name property, it captions the image with the item's label in the current language (i.e. the display language of the user/viewer on Wikispecies). If the associated Wikidata item doesn't have a label for the current language, it then defaults to the Wikispecies page name.

Images of taxa are captioned in a language-neutral manner (i.e. not using anything specific to any one language); images of taxon authorities and other miscellaneous items are captioned using the label in the appropriate local language OR using the page name.

If the automatic caption is overridden, it can be with whatever you want, including templates and parser functions such as {{int:}} and {{#switch:}}. --WrenFalcon (talk) 02:32, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Validity query

On commons, I'm regularly having to remove misfiled images related to microorganisms from the category for the plant genus Microbiota. This makes me wonder: is Microbiota a valid genus name, or does it potentially breach ICN Article 20.2 "The name of a genus may not coincide with a Latin technical term in use in morphology at the time of publication..."? Microbiota was only described in 1923, so is later than the 1912 cutoff given in Art. 20.2. Thoughts, please! - MPF (talk) 19:10, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Updated geographical terms in POWO

I have seen that the following terms have recently been changed in POWO:

Czechoslovakia --> Czechia-Slovakia
Sudan --> Sudan-South Sudan
Swaziland --> Eswatini
Turkey --> Türkiye ("Türkey" in the distribution data, "Türkiye" in the "Build a Checklist" tool)
Turkey-in-Europe --> Türkiye-in-Europe (dito)
Yakutskiya --> Yakutiya
Yugoslavia --> NW. Balkan Pen.
Zaïre --> DR Congo

--RLJ (talk) 09:39, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

World Wide Wattle

We have a template called {{WorldWideWattle}} that produces, for example, this result -

Maslin, B.R. & Wilson, A.J.G. (eds) 2025. WorldWideWattle Species Gallery, accessed on 20251209090245 Acacia pulchella – Taxon details on World Wide Wattle.

However, the site requests the following format - Maslin, B.R. & Wilson, A.J.G. (eds) 2025. WorldWideWattle Species Gallery, accessed on [insert date] (minor format changes to suit WS praxis). The taxon ID is used to call the specific entry for our purposes and as far as I am aware it is not possible to do a compete search.

Can anybody edit our template so that it follows the requested format? Thanks in anticipation. Andyboorman (talk) 20:01, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This should do it, with the caveat that strictly speaking, {{CURRENTDATE}} is not a magic word, so I used {{CURRENTTIMESTAMP}} which includes the time as well as the date. I checked it on a page and it displayed. Here is what it looks like now with the example you gave of {{WorldWideWattle|3502}} (live version, then subst:ed version):

Maslin, B.R. & Wilson, A.J.G. (eds) 2025. WorldWideWattle Species Gallery, accessed on 20251209090245 Village Pump/Archive 71 – Taxon details on World Wide Wattle.

Maslin, B. R. & Wilson, A. J. G. (eds) 2025. WorldWideWattle Species Gallery, accessed on 20251209090245 Village Pump/Archive 71 – Taxon details on World Wide Wattle.

Let me know if more is needed. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:21, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Koavf: Thanks seems to do the job nicely. Best regards. Andyboorman (talk) 08:05, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we should ignore our house style to suit theirs. We should use small caps for authors, for example. "20250501110138" is horrendous. — The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pigsonthewing (talk • contribs) 11:25, 1 May 2025 (UTC).[reply]

Duplicate journal entries

ISSN 0368-8151 and Lunds Universitets Årsskrift seem to refer to the same entity. However, it's possible there's intricacies I'm missing, such as if the Wikidata item or one or more of the Wikispecies pages are incorrect (and I don't deal with botany or IPNI, which the latter page refers to). Could someone look into this and merge these, if appropriate? Lunds Universitets Årsskrift is linked to Acta Universitatis Lundensis (Q5656893), which has ISSN 0368-8151, i.e. the ISSN referred to by the first page I mentioned. Thanks. --WrenFalcon (talk) 04:55, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Authorship: Heine Sr. or Heine Jr.?

Doubt: We have the templates for the volumes of Museum Heineanum attributed to: Vol.I: Cabanis only which seems correct; Vol II: Cabanis and Heine Sr., this template was created by @Mariusm: and I followed adding dozens of taxa; Vol.III, Vol.IV-1 and Vol.IV-2 to Cabanis and Heine Jr., all created by myself. All the main page volumes, except I, says authors "Jean Cabanis" und "Ferdinand Heine" (Stud. philos.) which seems to me to be Heine (son). The german wikipedia, in Ferdinand Heine Jr. biography attributes the authorship of volumes 2 thru 4 to Cabanis and Heine Jr.. Most of the taxonomies are confuse just stating "Cabanis and Heine" without specifing. Additionally, they also attribute Trochilidica (template created by myself) to Heine Jr. not to Heine Sr. By reading the biography (translation) I am personally inclined to believe that the authorship is really Heine Jr. for all of these works. Any light would be highly appreciated. Hector Bottai (talk) 11:17, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bernd Nicolai seems to list Heine Jr. as the author (HALBERSTADT: Museum Heineanum. p. 412. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-44321-8_33

ResearchGate

). --WrenFalcon (talk) 18:06, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ridgway's "The humming birds", p. 261, would seem to state that Heine Jr. was the author of Trochilidica as well (also see on Google Books), given that Heine Jr. was the involved author of Museum Heineanum. --WrenFalcon (talk) 18:28, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Great help! Looks I have a lot of work to do now...Thanks. Hector Bottai (talk) 22:09, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Catol-"Hassler"

This post relates to my conflicts with User:ABeCK on Betonica officinalis, Scilla luciliae and Scilla sardensis, mainly about the citation of Catalogue of Life. As I understand Help:Reference section, primarily the sources used for writing the article should be listed in this section, further reading and useful links should generally not be listed, especially when they are already included in the Taxonbar.

The much-used "Catol-Hassler"-template is much-abused for Catalogue of Life contributions not authored by Michael Hassler, as in the above-mentioned articles and many more. The CoL entries in question here have identical content with POWO, this is also documented by citation. So citing POWO and CoL is citing the same thing twice.

I think the way of citing Catalogue of Life needs rework. The template is working with the search function of Catalogue of Life, not with the CoL-ID, giving results belonging to the relevant taxon or not. -RLJ (talk) 09:57, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As one of the original users of {{Catol-Hassler}} I can testify to the fact that the original citation request was for Michael Hassler only, but now, after years of development, there is a citation for every team involved in the current database. Therefor and unfortunately, this template has become very out of date/redundant and I do not use it, as my plant interests are cited by the version that uses WCVP as its main source and this is from the same stable as POWO. In addition, this version of COL cites Govaerts as its author, quite rightly. Andyboorman (talk) 13:29, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have been looking through our pages on Wattles (Acacia) and have realised that COL now uses World Wide Wattles as its source for these taxa. Please see Acacia alata as an example. Andyboorman (talk) 20:31, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Before proceeding with my arguments I must tell both @Andyboorman and @Tommy Kronkvist not to put pressure on this matter, intentionally wanting to speed up my response time, I am sure that both you and I have our lives outside WS editions, the fact that it takes time does not mean that I will not respond, it is simply a matter of time distribution.

Regarding the use of the Catalogue of Life (CoL) and the "Catol-Hassler" template, I still don't understand where is the precise line between valid and invalid templates lies in WS, and this conflict has only made things more ambiguous. Now, regarding the fonts that Catalogue of Life uses to display taxa, while it's true that it borrows heavily from POWO, there are some exceptions beyond the one Andy mentions. Other examples

While the genera Lophocereus, Lemaireocereus, or Marshallocereus, as well as their related species, are classified as independent in POWO, not only in CoL but also in GBIF, these genera are synonyms of Pachycereus, and the species are also included in this genus. And leaving aside cacti, many genera of Cactaceae family are still being discussed and moved, another case that occurs is in a species, known under the name Foeniculum vulgare, known by all under that scientific name, even by all taxonomic databases (those that are constantly updated and those that are not), except for CoL, which catalogues it under the name Anethum foeniculum. What I say can be corroborated in a reliable and truthful way, and this rules out RLJ's argument that CoL is based entirely on POWO.

In addition, if CoL tag and The Plant List tag aren't going to be allowed...why are they still valid in WS? Why aren't they removed or at least updated? Let me repeat, where do we see that limit? All taxonomic bases differ to some extent, in which case are all sources or valid ones allowed, or are no labels placed?

In which case I could make the citation template if it weren't for the fact that I don't know how to do those specific templates. That's another point a problem and a claim that I make that not @RLJ are aware of, and I am sure that they are not the only one involved in this discussion, is the economy of text, RLJ tags on the pages where this debate was generated, only make more text appear in the articles, which is unnecessary. I am still unhappy about the edits to my pages about some species of the Aloysia genus and I have not seen any response to my discussion or anything to clarify things, they have only increased the weight of bits in the articles that I have created or edited by myself. AbeCK (talk) 07:18, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@AbeCK: This particular message from me is a bit off topic, but to explain: please note that I've never had any intention to "put any pressure" on this matter. The only reason I contacted you on your user talk page at User talk:AbeCK#Betonica officinalis was to make make sure you had knowledge about this ongoing discussion here at the Village Pump. I felt it wouldn't have been fair if only one party was involved in the discussion, and you were left out simply because you didn't know about it. –Best regards, Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 13:05, 3 May 2025 (UTC).[reply]

@AbeCK: I like @Tommy Kronkvist: I did not want to pressure you. However, thanks for your well considered reply and I do also use {{Catol-Hassler}} where it highlights a differing taxonomic opinion, as the one name one taxon "rule" is not always possible.

AbeCK cites Foeniculum as worth mentioning, but reading Jimenez-Mejias & Vargas (2015) cited in Col, I am not sure the authors favoured merging all of the Anethum clade into Anethum s.l., in spite of the clade being monophyletic, pointing out morphological differences between the genera. Does Catol-Hassler's opinion merits a "disputed" tag, not sure, but I could be persuaded? Cacti are very much a project still in progress and a prickly area! Andyboorman (talk) 20:05, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you both for your comments, @Andyboorman and @Tommy Kronkvist. I just wanted to clarify that point, so you know it's a matter of time, but it's not intentional, not at all. Now, the main question is whether certain taxonomic databases are no longer going to be used, such as those that are no longer updated or that offer a lot of misinformation, that they should be eliminated or filed at the very least, and that those taxonomic databases that are updated and may have disparities should at least be updated more uniformly. I repeat, if CoL and The Plant List templates aren't going to be allowed...why are they still valid in WS? Why aren't they removed, filed, or at least updated? Where do we see that limit? All taxonomic bases differ to some extent, in which case are all sources or valid ones allowed, or are no labels placed? Likewise, text economy should already be applied; it's unnecessary to generate text with excessive and sometimes unnecesary edits. Let's strive for greater homogeneity and efficiency with our edits, please. AbeCK (talk) 03:39, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@AbeCK: @Tommy Kronkvist: At the moment. I will respond just to the template Plant List. In an ideal world it would be replaced by WFO Plant List [1], which is its direct replacement from the same stable. Unfortunately, its template {{WFO}} does not search in the same way as {{TPLF}} and requires the taxon id to access the required taxon. For example, Eriosyce, where WFO requires the addition of wfo-4000013892-2024-12 to the template;

WFO Plant List 2025. Eriosyce. Published online. Accessed: 9 May 2025.. This prevents us using a bot to undertake a mass replacement of TPLF. Hope this helps. Andyboorman (talk) 07:40, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Catalogue of Life often uses the data from POWO (currently the publicly available database from May 2024, without updates), World Ferns and some angiosperm families from World Plants by Hassler, rarely other sources. Citing the same thing twice has nothing to do with economy. I think citing Catalogue of Life should include the original source and should not be based on a search string, but lead to a precise page. -RLJ (talk) 00:49, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My suggestion is that COL should only be used where it differs from POWO and a note added. In addition, if there are significant differences across a range of secondary and primary sources then this requires a {{Disputed}} tag with a brief explanation. Andyboorman (talk) 07:35, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Translation admin queue needs action

Could some translation admin please clear the queue at Special:PageTranslation. It hasn't been attended to since mid-2024. Pppery (talk) 22:33, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, @Pppery. I've also added a note about it on the Translation Administrators' Noticeboard: Translation admin queue needs attention.
–Best regards, Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 13:03, 13 May 2025 (UTC).[reply]

Call for Candidates for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C)

The results of voting on the Universal Code of Conduct Enforcement Guidelines and Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) Charter is available on Meta-wiki.

You may now submit your candidacy to serve on the U4C through 29 May 2025 at 12:00 UTC. Information about eligibility, process, and the timeline are on Meta-wiki. Voting on candidates will open on 1 June 2025 and run for two weeks, closing on 15 June 2025 at 12:00 UTC.

If you have any questions, you can ask on the discussion page for the election. -- in cooperation with the U4C,

Keegan (WMF) (talk) 22:06, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Monkeypox virus

Hello,

On the Monkeypox virus page, it is said "Species: Monkeypox virus" and that it is based on "Classification System: ICTV (2023 Release, MSL#39, release v3)".

But according to the ICTV website, they say that the species was renamed to "Orthopoxvirus monkeypox" in MSL#39 v1, and is so named in MSL#40 v1 too. (btw : they also renamed a lot of others "${animal}pox virus" to "Orthopoxvirus ${animal}pox").

As a non-specialist and not very familiar with how Wikispecies works, I am not going to edit the article myself for fear of making it worse rather than better, but I wanted to report that contradiction. Kind regards --FoeNyx (talk) 23:30, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

New "sea moth" radiodont

Paleontologists discover a 500-million-year-old, 3-eyed predator from NPR.

Moysiuk, J. & Caron, J.-B. 2025. Early evolvability in arthropod tagmosis exemplified by a new radiodont from the Burgess Shale. Royal Society Open Science 12: 242122 [21 pp.]. DOI: 10.1098/rsos.242122

New genus and species: Mosura fentoni. The generic name comes from the Japanese name for "Mothra". --WrenFalcon (talk) 00:15, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of Tardigrada

Is List of Tardigrada worth keeping? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:36, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Karyoblastea

Our page on Karyoblastea shows no parent taxon.

According to Wikidata, the parent is Rhizopoda, but our page on the latter says that it is an obsolete taxon.

What should be done? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:39, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If Pelobiontida is indeed a synonym (as stated somewhere I just saw elsewhere on Wikispecies) you could move it to Archamoeba which is that taxon's parent. Pelobiontida appears to be the preferred term in Ruggiero et al., 2015 but I have not tracked forward to see if that is still the case. Key info would be to assess whether Karyoblastea includes the same children (Familiae: Rhizomastigidae – Pelomyxidae – Entamoebidae) as Pelobiontida or not, and go from there... Tony 1212 (talk) 18:42, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Croatian and Serbian language versions

Earlier today the Croatian and Serbian language versions of the Wikispecies main page were (sort of…) merged into the Serbo-Croatian language version (also called the "Bosnian-Croatian-Montenegrin-Serbian" language). The changes were made without prior discussion. Please see this table for details:

Page that was changed	Actual difference	Explanation of what was changed
Template:Languages	Difference	Croatian (Hrvatski) and Serbian (Srpski) where merged into Serbo-Croatian (Srpskohrvatski).
Glavna strana	Difference	the Glavna strana main page (original here) was redirected to the Glavna stranica main page.
Glavna stranica	None	The Glavna stranica main page was left untouched.

Note:

Although to some extent mutually intelligible, the Croatian, Serbian and Serbo-Croatian languages are not considered to be the same.
Modern Croatian only use Latin script (more precisely "Gaj's Latin alphabet").
In the case of the Serbian language, the above changes only affects the Latin script version (Srpski), not the Cyrillic version (Српски).
As with Serbian, the Serbo-Croatian language (Srpskohrvatski & Српскохрватски) uses both Latin and a Cyrillic script.

The classification of these closely related languages can be hard to grasp (at least for me…), but I wonder if the community really is okay with this?
–Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 22:07, 22 May 2025 (UTC).[reply]

@Tommy Kronkvist: Hi, I accidentally came across this message, so I will provide my response here. According to modern linguistic science, Serbo-Croatian is considered a pluricentric language with four mutually intelligible standard varieties. Based on comments within the Language Committee, there is no reason to separate these standard varieties when it comes to content. As you wrote, Serbo-Croatian is written in both Latin and Cyrillic. I'm currently working on harmonizing the Cyrillic version as well. :) – Aca (talk) 10:13, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mackenzie disambiguation

Hello, I guess that we should have only one disambiguation page for MacKenzie & Mackenzie, if yes which one do we redirect towards the other? Christian Ferrer (talk) 11:22, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees 2025 Selection & Call for Questions

More languages • Please help translate to your language

Dear all,

This year, the term of 2 (two) Community- and Affiliate-selected Trustees on the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees will come to an end [1]. The Board invites the whole movement to participate in this year’s selection process and vote to fill those seats.

Details

The Elections Committee will oversee this process with support from Foundation staff [2]. The Governance Committee, composed of trustees who are not candidates in the 2025 community-and-affiliate-selected trustee selection process (Raju Narisetti, Shani Evenstein Sigalov, Lorenzo Losa, Kathy Collins, Victoria Doronina and Esra’a Al Shafei) [3], is tasked with providing Board oversight for the 2025 trustee selection process and for keeping the Board informed. More details on the roles of the Elections Committee, Board, and staff are here [4].

Here are the key planned dates:

May 22 – June 5: Announcement (this communication) and call for questions period [6]
June 17 – July 1, 2025: Call for candidates
July 2025: If needed, affiliates vote to shortlist candidates if more than 10 apply [5]
August 2025: Campaign period
August – September 2025: Two-week community voting period
October – November 2025: Background check of selected candidates
Board’s Meeting in December 2025: New trustees seated

Learn more about the 2025 selection process - including the detailed timeline, the candidacy process, the campaign rules, and the voter eligibility criteria - on this Meta-wiki page [link].

Call for Questions

In each selection process, the community has the opportunity to submit questions for the Board of Trustees candidates to answer. The Election Committee selects questions from the list developed by the community for the candidates to answer. Candidates must answer all the required questions in the application in order to be eligible; otherwise their application will be disqualified. This year, the Election Committee will select 5 questions for the candidates to answer. The selected questions may be a combination of what’s been submitted from the community, if they’re alike or related. [link]

Election Volunteers

Another way to be involved with the 2025 selection process is to be an Election Volunteer. Election Volunteers are a bridge between the Elections Committee and their respective community. They help ensure their community is represented and mobilize them to vote. Learn more about the program and how to join on this Meta-wiki page [link].

Thank you!

[1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_elections/2022/Results

[2] https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/Committee:Elections_Committee_Charter

[3] https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/Resolution:Committee_Membership,_December_2024

[4] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_elections_committee/Roles

[5] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_elections/2025/FAQ

[6] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_elections/2025/Questions_for_candidates

Best regards,

Victoria Doronina

Board Liaison to the Elections Committee

Governance Committee

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:07, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Taraxacum angustisectum

English Wikipedia topped seven million article a few hours ago. Editors there are trying to work out the page most likely to be the exact one to do so, and en:Taraxacum angustisectum is among the contenders.

We have no Taraxacum angustisectum article.

Wikidata has Taraxacum angustisectum (Q15576963). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:27, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I guess that most of the 2509 Taraxacum species are still missing at Wikispecies. It is a huge genus. Thiotrix (talk) 19:19, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My point being that this species may well get a lot of media and public attention in the coming days. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:31, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I will write the article. Thiotrix (talk) 19:45, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees 2025 - Call for Candidates

More languages • Please help translate to your language

Hello all,

The call for candidates for the 2025 Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees selection is now open from June 17, 2025 – July 2, 2025 at 11:59 UTC [1]. The Board of Trustees oversees the Wikimedia Foundation's work, and each Trustee serves a three-year term [2]. This is a volunteer position.

This year, the Wikimedia community will vote in late August through September 2025 to fill two (2) seats on the Foundation Board. Could you – or someone you know – be a good fit to join the Wikimedia Foundation's Board of Trustees? [3]

Learn more about what it takes to stand for these leadership positions and how to submit your candidacy on this Meta-wiki page or encourage someone else to run in this year's election.

Best regards,

Abhishek Suryawanshi
Chair of the Elections Committee

On behalf of the Elections Committee and Governance Committee

[1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:MyLanguage/Wikimedia_Foundation_elections/2025/Call_for_candidates

[2] https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/Legal:Bylaws#(B)_Term.

[3] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:MyLanguage/Wikimedia_Foundation_elections/2025/Resources_for_candidates

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:43, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please fix

The template Catol-WCVP does not always source WCVP, but also World Plants. For example, Deamia chontalensis. These two sources are completely different entities. The first is RBG Kew and the later is curated by Michael Hassler. If this can not be fixed then the template must be deleted, as it is a copyright infringement, as well as being scientifically misleading. I have posted this on the Admin site as well. Thanks. Andyboorman (talk) 08:56, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What makes you think this is a copyright infringement? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:21, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not correctly citing the source, am I wrong? Andyboorman (talk) 19:31, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That needs fixing, but it is not copyright infringement. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:02, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Andyboorman (talk) 13:58, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy link: Template:Catol-WCVP. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 14:10, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@RLJ: as the creator of the template. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 14:11, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The template Catol-WCVP should not generally used for citing Catalogue of Life, only for entries having WCVP as source (given in the Catalogue entry as "WCVP: The World Checklist of Vascular Plants (WCVP). Link to original resource ttps://powo.science.kew.org/..."). Similarly Catol-Hassler (which has been miscited very often and over a long period) should only be used for entries having World Plants by Michael Hassler as source ("World Plants: Synonymic Checklists of the Vascular Plants of the World. Link to original resource http://www.worldplants.de"). An automatic choice of sources is hardly feasible. Both templates are relevant for botanists only. I think it up to the author to check which source is used, and to apply the correct template. --RLJ (talk) 18:21, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

John Ward (1837-1906)

Some time ago we had an interesting discussion about a collector named John Ward.

I have finally got around to writing his biography on Wikipedia, and in doing so think I have resolved a query about the provenance of the name Palaeoniscus wardi, where he appeared to be the author of his own eponym. I think what I have found makes him eligible for an entry here, but I am not sure how we would populate it!

I am still trying to determine which type specimens he found, other than those named in his honour.

Please feel to review the taxonomic aspects of the articles and correct any errors I may have made. And to make pages here for the various taxa! Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:36, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW Listracanthus wardi mentioned in the discussion above is named after him. Christian Ferrer (talk) 19:50, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I mentioned that in the article. Hence my interest! Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:54, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have found a description of Diplodus equilateralis, Ward 1890 (p.139); later referred to as "Pleuracanthus (Diplodus) equilateralis Ward, 1890." ([2]). Pleuracanthus Agassiz, 1837, is a junior homonym of Xenacanthus.

Separately, I see Pleuracanthus (Diplodus) equilateralis listed as a synonym of Orthacanthus gibbosus (Binney, 1841) ([3]). Is the latter still valid? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:11, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sister Projects Task Force reviews Wikispore and Wikinews

Dear Wikimedia Community,

The Community Affairs Committee (CAC) of the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees assigned the Sister Projects Task Force (SPTF) to update and implement a procedure for assessing the lifecycle of Sister Projects – wiki projects supported by Wikimedia Foundation (WMF).

A vision of relevant, accessible, and impactful free knowledge has always guided the Wikimedia Movement. As the ecosystem of Wikimedia projects continues to evolve, it is crucial that we periodically review existing projects to ensure they still align with our goals and community capacity.

Despite their noble intent, some projects may no longer effectively serve their original purpose. Reviewing such projects is not about giving up – it's about responsible stewardship of shared resources. Volunteer time, staff support, infrastructure, and community attention are finite, and the non-technical costs tend to grow significantly as our ecosystem has entered a different age of the internet than the one we were founded in. Supporting inactive projects or projects that didn't meet our ambitions can unintentionally divert these resources from areas with more potential impact.

Moreover, maintaining projects that no longer reflect the quality and reliability of the Wikimedia name stands for, involves a reputational risk. An abandoned or less reliable project affects trust in the Wikimedia movement.

Lastly, failing to sunset or reimagine projects that are no longer working can make it much harder to start new ones. When the community feels bound to every past decision – no matter how outdated – we risk stagnation. A healthy ecosystem must allow for evolution, adaptation, and, when necessary, letting go. If we create the expectation that every project must exist indefinitely, we limit our ability to experiment and innovate.

Because of this, SPTF reviewed two requests concerning the lifecycle of the Sister Projects to work through and demonstrate the review process. We chose Wikispore as a case study for a possible new Sister Project opening and Wikinews as a case study for a review of an existing project. Preliminary findings were discussed with the CAC, and a community consultation on both proposals was recommended.

Wikispore

The application to consider Wikispore was submitted in 2019. SPTF decided to review this request in more depth because rather than being concentrated on a specific topic, as most of the proposals for the new Sister Projects are, Wikispore has the potential to nurture multiple start-up Sister Projects.

After careful consideration, the SPTF has decided not to recommend Wikispore as a Wikimedia Sister Project. Considering the current activity level, the current arrangement allows better flexibility and experimentation while WMF provides core infrastructural support.

We acknowledge the initiative's potential and seek community input on what would constitute a sufficient level of activity and engagement to reconsider its status in the future.

As part of the process, we shared the decision with the Wikispore community and invited one of its leaders, Pharos, to an SPTF meeting.

Currently, we especially invite feedback on measurable criteria indicating the project's readiness, such as contributor numbers, content volume, and sustained community support. This would clarify the criteria sufficient for opening a new Sister Project, including possible future Wikispore re-application. However, the numbers will always be a guide because any number can be gamed.

Wikinews

We chose to review Wikinews among existing Sister Projects because it is the one for which we have observed the highest level of concern in multiple ways.

Since the SPTF was convened in 2023, its members have asked for the community's opinions during conferences and community calls about Sister Projects that did not fulfil their promise in the Wikimedia movement.[1][2][3] Wikinews was the leading candidate for an evaluation because people from multiple language communities proposed it. Additionally, by most measures, it is the least active Sister Project, with the greatest drop in activity over the years.

While the Language Committee routinely opens and closes language versions of the Sister Projects in small languages, there has never been a valid proposal to close Wikipedia in major languages or any project in English. This is not true for Wikinews, where there was a proposal to close English Wikinews, which gained some traction but did not result in any action[4][5], see section 5 as well as a draft proposal to close all languages of Wikinews[6].

Initial metrics compiled by WMF staff also support the community's concerns about Wikinews.

Based on this report, SPTF recommends a community reevaluation of Wikinews. We conclude that its current structure and activity levels are the lowest among the existing sister projects. SPTF also recommends pausing the opening of new language editions while the consultation runs.

SPTF brings this analysis to a discussion and welcomes discussions of alternative outcomes, including potential restructuring efforts or integration with other Wikimedia initiatives.

Options mentioned so far (which might be applied to just low-activity languages or all languages) include but are not limited to:

Restructure how Wikinews works and is linked to other current events efforts on the projects,
Merge the content of Wikinews into the relevant language Wikipedias, possibly in a new namespace,
Merge content into compatibly licensed external projects,
Archive Wikinews projects.

Your insights and perspectives are invaluable in shaping the future of these projects. We encourage all interested community members to share their thoughts on the relevant discussion pages or through other designated feedback channels.

Feedback and next steps

We'd be grateful if you want to take part in a conversation on the future of these projects and the review process. We are setting up two different project pages: Public consultation about Wikispore and Public consultation about Wikinews. Please participate between 27 June 2025 and 27 July 2025, after which we will summarize the discussion to move forward. You can write in your own language.

I will also host a community conversation 16th July Wednesday 11.00 UTC and 17th July Thursday 17.00 UTC (call links to follow shortly) and will be around at Wikimania for more discussions.

-- Victoria on behalf of the Sister Project Task Force, 20:56, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mixed up journal pages?

We currently have (at least) four similarly named journals and/or ISSNs that are to some extent mixed up with each other, and/or mixed up with their BHL equivalents First these two, which may perhaps be easily sorted out:

ISSN 1120-1525 – Mémoires de l'Académie Royale des Sciences (BHL) – No ISSN listed at BHL
ISSN 1120-155X – Mémoires de l'Academie des Sciences, Litterature et Beaux-Arts de Turin. Sciences Physiques et Mathematiques – No BHL link: this journal doesn't seem to be acknowledged by the BHL.

And finally these two, which on top of any other problems also links to the same external BHL page:

ISSN 1120-1533 – Mémoires de l'Academie des Sciences de Turin (BHL)

— BHL lists this one as "ISSN 0373-3033 [print]" and "1120-1630 [print, corrected]". Note that neither one of these two ISSNn are the same as the ones used for our Wikispecies pages, however Wikidata automatically adds ISSN 0373-3033 to our ISSN Wikispecies page, from where it is linked to:

ISSN 1120-1592 – Memorie della Reale Accademia delle scienze di Torino

— which lists the same BHL link as on ISSN 1120-1533 above.

All of the journal titles and BHL links above are the ones currently used on each journal's respective Wikispecies page, hence may differ from (or be listed as alternatives to) the titles used on BHL. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 15:34, 27 May 2025 (UTC).[reply]

@Tommy Kronkvist If it helps, here are the titles ISSN Portal gives for each of the mentioned ISSNs

https://portal.issn.org/resource/ISSN/1120-1525 – Mémoires de l'Académie royale des sciences
https://portal.issn.org/resource/ISSN/1120-155X – Mémoires de l'Académie des sciences littérature et beaux-arts de Turin. Sciences physiques et mathématiques
https://portal.issn.org/resource/ISSN/1120-1533 – Mémoires de l'Académie des sciences de Turin
https://portal.issn.org/resource/ISSN/1120-1630 – Memorie della Accademia delle scienze di Torino. Classe di scienze fisiche matematiche e naturali
https://portal.issn.org/resource/ISSN/1120-1592 – Memorie della Reale Accademia delle scienze di Torino

Monster Iestyn (talk) 14:08, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Monster Iestyn!

Thank you. I'm pretty busy IRL the next couple of days, but will try to sort it out as soon as possible. — The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tommy Kronkvist (talk • contribs) 18:37, 31 May 2025.

@Tommy Kronkvist: Is this resolved? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:15, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Andy Mabbett: No: thank you for reminding me! It takes some tinkering with the involved journal pages (plus perhaps some of the ≈130 linked pages) to get it right, but I don't think it's actually difficult – it only takes a bit of time. I'll be happy to sort it all out tomorrow. Today I've run out of fuel, so to speak. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 16:25, 28 June 2025 (UTC).[reply]

Taxonomical data on redirect pages

This has been discussed before, but I know there are still the occasional arguments about it. What do the community think: should we keep taxonomical data on redirect pages, or not? Here's an example of a taxon page which retains the taxonomical data, while still working as a "regular" redirect page: Corynopuntia. (Note: here on the Village Pump I've added a "no redirect" template in order to omit the automatic redirect, so that you're able to see the page content. Normally the redirect works just as any other redirect page, i.e. automatically.)

As mentioned, this issue has been discusssed before. Here are a couple of examples of such discussions: Talk:Selenicereus trigonus and User talk:Andyboorman#Your editions about redirects. I've included a hidden ping to the participants of those talks, making them aware of this Village Pump discussion. –Best regards, Tommy Kronkvist (talk) 14:52, 1 June 2025 (UTC).[reply]

I do not have a problem with a data delete and redirect when the synonymy is fully accepted, all relevant data has been transferred and particularly if their is minimal data on the redirect page. Andyboorman (talk) 07:54, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I will take this opportunity to discuss some pending matters to besides this (are related).

I've seen some recent edits about redirects that are cuestionable. In particular, some by Andy seem to Selenicereus trigonus, and with Thiotrix, the same thing remains to be discussed in a previous edit in Pterocereus gaumeri subsp. foetidus, and the even more questionable position of Faen. I'll give you a preview: with this discussion, the only thing they 3 (and probably other administrators) are doing is tarnishing the editing of the pages (discussions and histories), and this cannot continue like this, my proposals for doing these things is more homogeneous and clean.

To @Andyboorman (and my arguments to @Neferkheperre):

I'm going to repeat what I said in your discussion a while ago, and I'm also going to argue about what you wrongly put in the Selenicereus trigonus discussion, and not here.

Redirects should not be recycled; they should be completely removed before creating an article, as you did on Nicoteba trinervia for example. This practice can lead other users to inappropriately edit the page, returning it to an unjustified redirect, which creates confusion and affects the consistency of the articles.

It's not the only highly questionable edit you make with redirects:

Another potential problem is that redirects should not be completely empty, a redirect is not an article, and when you make a redirect you prefer to keep the content of the article instead of respecting the basic composition of every redirect; just the page to which it redirects and that's it; (#REDIRECT Page to which it redirects), it should not have any other type of content, and even less if it is obsolete. What happens if some smart guy enters the obsolete page for example, and decides to edit that page? that is, more problems for WS edits, in themselves many WS pages are incomplete and obsolete and we do not need that type of edits in the redirects, it is the least needed, recently I have emptied unnecessary content in several redirects that you have created, because it is not valid, and I'm continuing with this task, right now.

Before all the editions, all information in Selenicereus trigonus was obsolete, there was a bad linking of authors, corresponding templates were not used, some sources were already obsolete, except German Wikipedia had the page Selenicereus trigonus (but it also has the article Selenicereus triangularis), no other Wikipedia has the article Selenicereus trigonus anymore, even after my edits I only rescued information that could be useful for the merger between Selenicereus triangularis and Selenicereus trigonus. So... what kind of things can be salvaged from an old page that is in many ways obsolete? It doesn't make sense.

Now, the merger of both articles is more than justified, not only by sources both mine and yours, which support this merger of taxa, but now it only seems that you want to stick to what CACO says and not the rest of the sources as if the others did not matter too much in these editions. Besides, the etymologies and even geographical ocurrences of both scientific names are the same, practically, Selenicereus triangularis and Selenicereus trigonus Their etymological meaning is not at all distant, and both species have equal records of geographical occurrences. if not, I dare say, the same.

Editing a page shouldn't be the sole responsibility of a single administrator, Andy.

To @Thiotrix:

My criticism is based on something similar to Andy Boorman's: for reusing a redirect (Pterocereus gaumeri subsp. foetidus) instead of completely deleting it to create a new article from scratch. This should be considered bad practice from the outset; it can induce other users to revert the page without justification, and it complicates the consistency of related articles. The approach I propose, the proposed approach is cleaner and more in line with Wikispecies, and he is also criticized for repeating author links; it only takes one time, at the moment the authors are mentioned for the first time, repeating the links several times, and then continuing with these edits, for more details, see No reusing redirects on Thiotrix discussion.

To Scott Thomson (Faendalimas):

Selenicereus trigonus can't keep existing as an article page when it clearly should be a clean redirect. Before my edits, it had outdated, incorrect, and incomplete links. There was no valuable content to preserve.

Also, your stance is questionable—especially being an admin on WS—given that you didn’t review the edits on Selenicereus trigonus or Selenicereus triangularis, and simply removed my tags without giving a proper valid reason. That only delays things unnecessarily and even more so when Tommy Kronkvist, said that, we shouldn't edit anything until the discussion is over.

I just hope for a satisfactory solution to all these problems, ASAP...I just ask that you stop tarnishing the history of articles and redicts with questionable editions like I explained above as you have been doing, and do things properly, and Selenicereus trigonus can be redirected correctly. AbeCK (talk) 21:36, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For the sake of clarity: I did not say that "we shouldn't edit anything until the discussion is over", instead I wrote "Please don't delete the Selenicereus trigonus page until those discussions are finalized". Perhaps not a huge difference, but it's good to be precise when quoting other editors. Please see this diff for my entire entry at that particular instance. –Regards, Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 22:12, 2 June 2025 (UTC).[reply]

@AbeCK: that is not the decision I made. The decision I made is that it was not appropriate for this to be a Speedy Delete. If at the end of discussions it is deemed it should be deleted so be it but at this stage that should be through consensus not a unilateral request with little examination when others were clearly not ready to delete the page (as pointed out by @Tommy Kronkvist:. I made no decision on the future of the page.

For @Tommy Kronkvist:'s question yes I do believe the data should be kept as I have pointed out in past discussions we should be aiming to be a list of names not just a list of species. In a number of taxa now I have kept the junior synonym as an articale as it has all the type data and other metadata that relates to that name. In this way we can provide a unique service and in the face of other Global Lists (all aimed at species rather than names) this metadata can become useful when people do revisions. On several occasions as a practicing taxonomist I have had to resurrect names from synonymy in light of new data and having all the necessary meta data for this available in one place would have been quite useful at times. So I prefer not to do redirects but actually point junior synonyms at their respective senior synonym and clearly flag them as unavailabel (per Zoology definition), then if they areused again we already have the page. If they are to become a redirect the data the page contains can still be retained even if its wrapped in comments to stop it appearing. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 02:50, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@AbeCK: and others. I am not prepared to justify my edits or personal approach to my work here. I am not perfect and to err is human! However. I do use the move function more than delete and redirect, as it allows me to reuse and edit the existing taxon data, where appropriate. This approach is not applicable for the taxa we are discussing, as both taxon pages are well developed with complex synonymies. However, my original points regarding Selenicereus trigonus and Selenicereus triangularis on the talk page are still relevant.

Firstly, the synonymy used on POWO is accepted by many other secondary databases, but they all cite WCVP as their source. CACO (2021) still prefers segregation and I can find non taxonomic or phylogenetic post 2021 papers that use both names. It is worth mentioning that CACO cites Korotkova, N., Borsch, T. & Arias, S. 2017. A phylogenetic framework for the Hylocereeae (Cactaceae) and implications for the circumscription of the genera. Phytotaxa 327(1): 1-46, but these are a taxonomic statements not analyses. However, to get a more thorough treatment it would be best to consult the protologue of Selenicereus triangularis (L.) D.R.Hunt, Cactaceae Syst. Init. 36: 35 (2017). I have yet to do so. But there is uncertainty not overall consensus.

Secondly, WS is not allowed to take sides when there are differing taxonomic opinions based upon evidence or precedent. Unfortunately. something that is still common in Cactaceae. Hence my proliferation of {{Disputed}} during recent edits.

Therefor, I have now come to the conclusion that a simple delete of data and then redirect for Selenicereus trigonus may be premature or inappropriate and is certainly worthy of discussion. Andyboorman (talk) 10:54, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To Scott Thomson (Faendalimas):

At this point I don't know what to think about your position, which is very ambiguous, and I feel like you're going off on a tangent without answering anything specific about Selenicereus trigonus and Selenicereus triangularis. In any case, for the list of names you are talking about, in theory that is what the synonymy of a species is for, but if you mean that WS should be partly a directory of many taxons, I agree. Likewise, if the problem is including data or metadata from other taxa related to a taxon, why not create a section in articles with accepted and well-edited names containing "Notes and Annotations" about that species? Andy Boorman and other administrators like RLJ often include these types of edits in various taxa where they edit, and, not too far back, Andy added a note to Selenicereus triangularis, which seems more practical to me.

Now, when someone changes the name of a taxon to its most up-to-date, valid, and accepted scientific name, the most viable and feasible option is to change the page name directly; the history of a renamed page is not affected. Reusing redirects to create new articles shouldn't be allowed; I dare say that constitutes editing vandalism, even I have had to make edits like this because I have no other choice, and if I do something like in Selenicereus trigonus, there will be a long discussion in which nothing satisfactory will be reached, I just hope this is resolved because it cannot continue like this. I still largely disagree with keeping Selenicereus trigonus page and its edition before mines. I repeat, I've been trying to rescue it in this merge of articles I've been meaning to do, which has been delayed by this discussion. The only thing you're proposing with this alternative, that it no longer appears, is to further tarnish the edit history of the page you're trying to properly redirect to, and even its discussion section. Not only that, you'd rather continue to have outdated information and edits available that have no reason to exist. WS has several outdated pages, and that's the kind of thing WS needs the least. That's what redirects are for: redirecting to a correct and properly edited page. If someone wants to search for the scientific name, even under a synonym, they can find better things on a correct and properly edited page, rather than confusing the user with more than one page with incomplete and random edits. Without taking into account that I don't know what exactly the zoological definition has to do with this, we are dealing with a plant, not with some animal taxonomically speaking, the way of citing and classifying both is a bit different (see basonyms and protonyms, for example).

To @Andyboorman:

No one is saying you're imperfect, or anything like that, it's clear that we all make mistakes when editing. For my part, much of my editing is trial and error on many occasions, and I try to review all possible sources at my disposal to edit appropriately, as well as take into account the criticisms I get. But I'll be honest, Andy, this isn't the first time I've called your attention to this issue. You continue to leave outdated and poorly edited content in redirects, even before you put certain pages as redirects, as I have edited recently in Selenicereus redirects, and you continue reusing redirects to create new articles and those editions can't continue like this, I insist, you are only continuing to taint the histories (in both articles and redirects), creating confusion in WS pages and not making editing more efficient. I also insist, we can create section of notes and annotations on a species should be created if it has disparities or anomalies with scientific consensus or info, would not be bad to include it, but with a homogeneous format so that it can be applied correctly and appropriately on the pages that are required.

Regarding the info sources, that is what references section in each taxon page is for, in part, where the notes and annotations could be complemented with this last section.I'll emphasize the CACO issue in another way: the fact that the information comes only from there doesn't guarantee that it's correct. With the rest of the sources you provide, I'm glad that what I raised in a previous discussion was helpful. Review the original sources (at least if they are available), and I agree with you on two things:

1. That POWO is used in many information sources.

2. The two taxa in question here have complex synonyms.

But here are some nuances that aren't taken into account:

Neither POWO, nor IPNI, nor CACO (and even less so when stating that this source hasn't been updated in 5 years) guarantee complete and homogeneous information in every sense (especially in the synonymy of some taxa). On more than one occasion I have requested synonym changes from the first two organizations, and in almost all of them, they have agreed to make these changes. This is where I usually compare more than one taxonomic database (at least those that are updated and occasionally, others where the data is not updated frequently or not at all), to analyse, add or discard correct synonyms in a taxon. So relying on only one source of information of that style is not reliable, and is best to compare as far as possible, or are you implying that everything CACO or POWO say or edits should be respected and edited according to their regiments at 100%, when even those organizations get wrong sometimes?

If WS doesn't take sides, then it's best to point this out under notes and annotations in a properly and appropriately edited article, not in a hodgepodge of reuse and misplacement of redirects with random, outdated, and incorrect edits, and generally outdated content. Isn't it assumed that, in addition to WS marking the difference between edits and other sources, it should also be updated, organized, and somewhat homogenized at some point?

I still maintain that Selenicereus trigonus should be a clean and correct redirection of Selenicereus triangularis, by Occam's razor, both species do not differ in etymology, they do not differ in geographical location according to their editions (before mine ones) in WS, they do not differ too much in description checking the original sources of the basonyms for example, without further ado, I await your responses, greets. AbeCK (talk) 22:59, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@AbeCK: ussion at this point. What I have done should be quite clear. I have no opinion on whether or not the page should be deleted, nor any opinion on the validity of the taxonomy of the taxa involved. I have made an administrative decision only over the use of the speedy delete in this circumstance. I determined it was not appropriate in this case to use it because there was ongoing discussion and disagreement over whether to preserve information or not. This is just Wikimedia policy on the use of speedy delete. I have deliberately stayed out of the debate over the page to ensure neutrality. My comment in answer to Tommy Kronkvist's question was a side issue and a general point about keeping or not keeping information for synonymised taxa. Not specifically aimed at the page in question here. I used the nomenclatural term validity in my comment, in doing so I had to define that I meant the zoological meaning of the word which is equivalent of accepted name in plants. In my work I have to deal with 3 different nomenclatural codes so am very used to having to clarify specific nomenclatural terms where they differ between codes. Just remember I did not say no to deleting the page, I said no to the use of the speedy delete. That is all. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 02:46, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

@AbeCK: I am not prepared to trade public comments on the quality of any editors articles. WS allows us to be free to make changes as long as we operate within the rules of best practice and respect to others. I am also in regular contact with Kew and have suggested changes and I also make regular entries in IPNI.

Regarding CACO, I applaud their huge monophyly based undertaking in rationalising the taxonomically difficult Cactaceae, but as you point out it has had minimal updates since 2021. Clearly we have both been working on my 2021 efforts where I tried to incorporate CACO into WS. There has been significant changes, including the description of new taxa and updates are timely. I have tried to base my updates on firstly, peer reviewed journals where available and also updated local flora, as well as POWO. Unfortunately, POWO is often the only source that can be used for changes. Therefor, to justify changes, I often feel I have to go back and review citations in CACO. Please see Aylostera as an example of the latest minefield.

I will finish by saying that I do not recommend deleting until I have had access to the protologues of both Selenicereus triangularis Hunt, D.R. 2017. Cactaceae Systematics Initiatives 36: 35. and Selenicereus trigonus (Haw.) S.Arias & N.Korotkova, Phytotaxa 327(1): 29. (2017). The later is available on ResGate, but the former is behind a paywall, as are many of the cacti papers cited. I have not read it, so can not comment, if you have a copy I am happy to review it with you and others who may be interested. Meanwhile Selenicereus trigonus is an orphan page as you have deleted it off of the genus page. In addition POWO only cites a 2021 personal communication by D.R. Hunt with respect to many of their differences with CACO.

Best regards. Andyboorman (talk) 08:18, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Andyboorman "WS allows us to be free to make changes as long as we operate within the rules of best practice and respect to others." Since the beginning of this discussion, progress toward a viable solution has not been facilitated; instead, the focus has been diverted. Clear and concrete action is needed as soon as possible, that obsolete, old and incorrect information cannot continue in WS. Just you have done, @Faendalimas and @Tommy Kronkvist (Tommy, I have reverted the edits you made to Selenicereus trigonus, it is not valid that in a discussion where we are trying to get somewhere, you take sides in the same way as Faendalimas) is taint the edit histories on Selenicereus trigonus (discussion part and that article) and have hindered more viable, workable and correct edits.

I repeat, we should not continue to rely 100% on POWO, IPNI, and even less on CACO, or are you suggesting combining all those pages like this, and the other sources don't matter?

Selenicereus trigonus should remain solely as a clean redirect to Selenicereus triangularis, without confusing and obsolete info and content. Any notes, observations, or additional information should be integrated exclusively into Selenicereus triangularis page, in order to preserve the clarity, consistency, and accuracy of the content. It is important to avoid mixing data between redirects and main articles, thus respecting the editorial structure of the project. This cannot wait, especially considering that you have to pay to obtain content, even chekcking that content we don't need to pay for it we could do something. Likewise, Selenicereus trigonus must remain an orphan page, except German Wikipedia still has Selenicereus trigonus, but the rest of Wikipedias no longer have it.

At least in Aylostera, Weberocereus or Deamia chontalensis exactly the same thing not happens as with these 2 taxa we are talking about.

I insist Selenicereus trigonus (before my edits) should no longer remain in WS, it no longer has a reason to exist, let's stop beating around the bush, something must be done ASAP, also, stop vandalizing and editing poorly, and defacing the history of pages related to Selenicereus trigonus. AbeCK (talk) 20:55, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@AbeCK: I will only comment on the last sentence, as all the other points have been covered in previous discussions on this thread or elsewhere on the Pump.

Have you read the protologues of the two species? If not then you should not presume that Selenicereus trigonus ceases to exist as a discrete taxon based upon secondary sources. If there seems to be problems with synonymy then I endeavour to read the protologues. Of course in non-contentious situations it is not essential. In this case there is only two differing opinions about the acceptance of the name for the taxon. On its taxon page POWO uses sources predating those in CACO. I am not saying one is right and the other wrong BTW.

However, triangulation by definition, involves three independent sources of information. IPNI is only the base source of names for all plants and therefor POWO, CACO, Hassler etc can not be independent of IPNI. Where one of the later acknowledges the other as the source, then clearly they can not be independent. This is one reason you find my edits increasingly populated with peer reviewed articles.

In addition, WS does not have to hold to the one taxon one name maxim mandated by the articles. Therefore, I can propose a solution based upon {{Disputed}} and leaving data on both pages, but I am sure you will not like this. Hopefully, like all disputed taxa, this situation is short term. Andyboorman (talk) 08:11, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Andyboorman I've read the protologs of both species, and after comparing them, the conclusion is simple: Selenicereus trigonus and Selenicereus triangularis don't present many relevant differences, not even when comparing them with some synonyms and basonyms that apply to them, neither in their description nor in their diagnoses. I'm not going to keep repeating this, while you insist on giving disproportionate weight to sources like CACO, IPNI, or POWO, as if they were superior to the rest or more valid in themselves. This position omits the comparative and critical analysis of all the sources, which is what is truly important in cases like this. And on top of that, he said that some sources like CACO are outdated, said by yours.

Regarding your statement that "WS doesn't have to adhere to the one taxon name maxim mandated by the articles" I disagree. If WS wants to maintain its usefulness as a source of taxonomic reference, it should adhere to the principle of clarity and consistency. Maintaining duplicate or contradictory articles adds no value; it only creates confusion.

Any edit that isn't a clean redirect from Selenicereus trigonus, without remnants of older versions, contradictory texts, or old info, will sand should not be accepted. We can no longer leave histories with fragmented versions, repeated disputes, or personal approaches. This form of editing doesn't improve the platform; it harms it.

And I add: I hope no other administrator takes sides by replicating this type of behavior (you as administrators have taken advantage of my position as editor just because I am not one, to be able to hinder my edits instead of contributing something more viable.), as has already happened with yours, which support this approach. Despite the fact that your handling of re-editing has been called out, you insist on justifying it, repeating that it's the worst possible outcome, and that no useful agreement will be reached this way. If this continues along this path, it will be a deadlocked discussion with no way out. AbeCK (talk) 07:31, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you can supply me a copy of the protologue of Selenicereus triangularis I would be most grateful.

I am not disputing that they are more and likely synonyms, but am seeking proof that is neither the contradictory secondary sources CACO or POWO nor a fellow editor's personal opinion It would be simpler to contact the editor team at Cactaceae@Caryophyllales.org for their opinion. I might do myself.

"I'm not going to keep repeating this, while you insist on giving disproportionate weight to sources like CACO, IPNI, or POWO, as if they were superior to the rest or more valid in themselves". An even casual perusal of my edits will find them populated by peer reviewed journal articles and other sources that I have located and placed on here for all to use and review. Your comment is personal, incorrect, insulting and unworthy of the environment we try to foster on WS.

In my opinion, an edit history, is meant to reflect developments and we should not rewrite history by starting with a blank sheet every time a taxon page changes. However, saying that I am probably over casual with edit histories as well.

Editors on WS can not, by its virtue of being part of the wiki family, take sides in a taxonomic dispute. That is why the {{Disputed}} is provided and the allowance of two name pages for one taxon. Unfortunately, we have to reflect reality, not the ideal of the nomenclature acts. If a wiki editor tries to impose their own opinion on a page without clear, independent and unequivocal evidence for its veracity, it is called original research and is expressly forbidden. Edits will be reverted or altered to remove OR. Submission of research has to be through journals not wikis. Persistent breaking of this rule is grounds for being banned from WS. There are other taxonomic databases that will allow your approach.

If you feel that I am being unreasonable or incorrect in my advice please consult a Bureaucrat. Andyboorman (talk) 08:24, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Andyboorman, Sadly I don't have D.R.Hunt's original article on Selenicereus triangularis, as it requires a subscription to read it. However, homotypic synonyms for Selenicereus triangularis are included to support the claim that this is the species, while Selenicereus trigonus and its respective synonyms correspond to this same species, and that the diagnoses of these species don't differ too much in morphological and geographical characteristics, in descriptions, neither.

Cactus triangularis L., Sp. Pl. 468 (1753).
Cactus triangularis Vell., Fl. Flumin.: 206 (1829).
Cactus triqueter Haw., Misc. Nat.: 189 (1803).
Cereaster triangularis (L.) F.Berge, Buch Welt: 90 (1842).
Cereus triangularis (L.) Mill., Gard. Dict., ed. 8. Cereus n. 9 [308] (1768).
Cereus trigonus Haw., Syn. Pl. Succ.: 181 (1812).
Cereus triqueter (Haw.) Haw., Syn. Pl. Succ.: 181 (1812).
Hylocereus triangularis (L.) Britton & Rose, Contr. U.S. Natl. Herb. 12: 429 (1909).
Hylocereus trigonus (Haw.) Saff., Annual Rep. U.S. Natl. Mus. 1908: 553, 556 (1909).
Selenicereus trigonus (Haw.) S.Arias & N.Korotkova, Phytotaxa 327(1): 29 (2017).

I don't rule out the possibility of contacting people or organizations that are possible, but in the meantime, this discussion can no longer be extended indefinitely and something has to be agreed upon ASAP, please.

With this ongoing discussion, on contrary, you are questioning whether Selenicereus trigonus is a synonym of Selenicereus triangularis.

Regarding your opinion, I completely disagree, especially considering the edits before mine and those after mine (both in the main article and in the discussion), it just left the structure quite confusing. In this case, leaving the history as it is didn't help, doesn't help, and won't help improve anything; on the contrary, it could lead to the same problems we've already seen returning and other users committing other editing violations. I'll clarify what I'm trying to achieve, and I just hope that it's only talked about on that.

Selenicereus trigonus must be a clean redirect page for Selenicereus triangularis.

Any comment, annotation, or clarification on a disputed taxon should be in a specific section and on a specific page, complementing the references, not in a hodgepodge of information in which we force the user to decide which one to choose.

There is no priority on updated information and editions:

The current Selenicereus trigonus page has potential problems:

1.- Outdated and old information that is no longer useful at this point (If WS wants to update its info), this should not be allowed.

2.- When Andy make redirects like the one you made about Selenicereus trigonus, he is not fulfilling the basic requirement of any redirection, just the page to which it redirects and that's it; (#REDIRECT Page to which it redirects), it should not have any other type of content.

3.- The page deletion template was removed and reverted, something that shouldn't have happened.

Now, I understand a little better the Wikispecies policy of not taking sides in taxonomic disputes or conducting original research (for starters, be aware that I am not the author of either of the scientific names for either taxa), and I don't intend to violate that rule. However, my proposal is based solely on recognized and published external sources, comparing as many sources as possible. The goal is to reflect the current consensus to avoid confusion and duplication with the information offered to users. Likewise, if the information on Selenicereus trigonus is so concerning, why not create a copy of it for the Wayback Machine and refer to it if is required?

Out of respect for the stability of the project, any further edits to the Selenicereus trigonus page, including the addition of tags or unnecessary changes, cannot be tolerated. The history has already been unnecessarily tainted to allow it to continue; what I propose is more viable and feasible.

I just hope I don't have to deal with too long answers. I want this to be resolved in the best possible way and where all parties are satisfied. Greets. AbeCK (talk) 23:04, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@AbeCK: As I have said previously I am happy to accept that POWO is correct in accepting the synonymy. However, there is no definitive evidence that I can find favouring POWO over CACO and my opinion counts for nothing. The majority of online databases follow WCVP and so can not be independent of POWO. CACO uses the protologue and synonymy in Korotkova et al. (2017) as their source for the segregation, but Korotkova is one of the originators of CACO. Govaerts cites a series of pre-2017 flora and Verloove, F. & al. (2017) to support their synonymy. Unfortunately, the later uses the name Hylocereus triangularis (L.) Britton & Rose, Contr. U.S. Natl. Herb. 12: 429. (1909) for the taxon. This, as you know, is a homotypic synonym for both other names, and therefore is not much help in deciding the outcome of a taxonomic dispute. Searches using Google scholar or similar are not much help either. My conclusion, is that, unfortunately, this is a classic disputed taxon, as to favour WCVP over Korotkova et al. (2017) is OR.

Please can we can put my edit styles and idiosyncrasies to one side for now. Best regards. Andyboorman (talk) 07:49, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is time to draw a line under this particular discussion. It has now come down to a binary decision, which is, do we keep Selenicereus trigonus as a separate page or not? The result of that decision will require further actions which we can discuss in due course. Unless there are objections I propose that a vote is opened as soon as possible. It would be best if another admin opened the vote. Thank you.Andyboorman (talk) 07:36, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Tommy Kronkvist: @AbeCK: @Thiotrix: @Faendalimas: I propose this discussion is now terminated and ironically not for the reasons above.

Having consulted Rafael Govaerts at Kew it was pointed out that Selenicereus trigonus and Selenicereus triangularis are two names for the one taxon. The reason being the name Cereus plumieri Rol.-Goss., Bull. Soc. Bot. France 54: 668. (1908) and it synonyms can no longer be part of the synonymy of Selenicereus trigonus, as it is the basionym of the recently accepted Selenicereus plumieri (Rol.-Goss.) Hoxey & Gdaniec, Phytotaxa 483: 58. (2021). Please see the protologue link on its taxon page. This means that the taxonomies are now almost identical. There are some difference in published distributions across the Antilles.

The basionym for S. triangularis was published before S. trigonus, therefor having priority it must be the accepted name. I will edit the note on its page to reflect this. However, it is worth noting that the later is used by local botanists and flora just to complicate things. However, POWO has updated but CACO has not, as yet. If @AbeCK: wants to delete the orphan S. trigonus feel free.

Please note that this does not automatically mean that circumscriptions on POWO/WCVP are more accurate compared to CACO/World Flora. For example, Selenicereus brevispinus (Salm-Dyck) Britton & Rose, Cactaceae 2: 201, 278. (1920) is not in the species list. After discussion POWO have agreed to edit their databases. I think it is unreasonable for any editor, me included, to selectively compile a species list whilst there are others currently used and published. Unless there is justification that is not based upon a single secondary source.

There is about 90% agreement across secondary sources for Cactaceae, but 10% represents a significant number of disputed/unresolved taxa. The family can be difficult, subject to ongoing discussions, research and taxonomical change. I am currently reviewing Cactaceae after the 2021/2022 initial major edits; comparing POWO with CACO and others, updating as needed and adding more current papers. Apologies if the pages are still sometimes works in progress.

Editors on WS can not make unilateral decisions and WS can accommodate disputed taxa, as long as the reasons are noted on the taxon or discussion page. Please no OR.

Apologies for any bad feeling. Best regards Andyboorman (talk) 15:24, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Andyboorman: Thank you.

@To other editors, for clarity: Please note that Andy Boorman's note saying "Please no OR" is short for "Please no original research". See for example Wikipedia:No original research for details about this Wikimedia policy. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 06:42, 28 June 2025 (UTC).[reply]

Ok page has been deleted I think this seems to now be the consensus. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 02:57, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:VN - technical change needed

I would like to add language markup to {{VN}}, which will involve changing each line, for example:

-->{{#if:{{{aa|}}}|'''{{#language:aa|aa }}:'''&nbsp;{{{aa}}}<br/>}}<!--

to:

-->{{#if:{{{aa|}}}|'''<span lang="aa">{{#language:aa|aa }}:'''&nbsp;{{{aa}}}</span><br/>}}<!--

by applying <span lang="aa"> (or equivalent) and </span> for each language (in this example, "aa" is the language).

Can someone who is good with REGEX do that, please? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:28, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that apart from the above line, the present version of the template also includes four very similar but not identical lines saying

-->{{#if:{{{aa|}}}|'''{{language2|aa|aa}}:'''&nbsp;{{{dtd}}}<br/>}}<!--

i.e. {{language2|aa|aa}} instead of {{#language:aa|aa}} –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 22:11, 1 June 2025 (UTC).[reply]

Please see the sandbox. Is that what you want? Inspect carefully, as I made have made one or more errors. Andy did not specify what was wanted for the language2 lines, so I left them alone. Jonesey95 (talk) 18:04, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Looks, great, thank you. I have done the 4x "language2" lines. I have also now merged this into the change discussed below. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:38, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:VN - list markup

Separate to the above, I propose to remake {{VN}} to use semantically-better list markup, and reducing the space it takes up; changing (for example):

[example superseded]

to:

[example superseded]

Does anyone see any issues with this? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:32, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have no issue with it, it certainly would be better if it took up less space. Have you looked if making it 3 or 4 colums rather than 2 would help, also how does it come out on a mobile device? Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 17:48, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

New version works fine on mobile. The point was to avoid a table or table-like layout. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:49, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why avoid a table or table-like layout ? A technical problem? Burmeister (talk) 18:37, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Accessibility and semantics; the table in the current version is used only for layout; it is not marked up as tabular data. Also space. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:41, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have now merged in the sandbox this change and the language changes discussed above. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:41, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good work – thank you both, @Andy Mabbett and @Jonesey95. To @Burmeister: As @Scott Thomson points out, the vernacular names "table" can sometimes take up a lot of space, and making it smaller would both fit better on smaller screens, and look better overall. See for example the taxon page Pica pica where on my 27 inch (2560 × 1440 pixels) screen the vernacular names section takes up half of the article's "height". That's almost ridiculous, and one might argue that the huge vernacular names section takes away focus from the taxonomy, to less important information.
–Best regards, Tommy Kronkvist (talk) 21:26, 2 June 2025 (UTC).[reply]

I don't understand why the list is limited to two columns. That makes it unnecessarily long on wider screens. I recommend using a flexible number of columns with a reasonable em value. Jonesey95 (talk) 22:58, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have now implemented the changes, and updated the documentation. Please report any issues. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:48, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good to me, and without any apparent negative issues. Personally I would also like the whole Vernacular names section to be foldable/collapsible in the same way as the {{Taxonav}} template works in all of the Taxonavigation sections. This can be done by a combination of the {{Collapse top}} and {{Collapse bottom}} templates, or maybe by adding class="wikitable mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" to the VN template itself (as in the Taxonav template). –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 12:19, 3 June 2025 (UTC).[reply]

@Pigsonthewing @Tommy Kronkvist @Jonesey95 @Faendalimas

Looks (a lot) worse to me; columns rather than paragraph-style text is definitely better, makes it much easier to find a particular language. Also having a long VN is often helpful, as it means the Commons link and Taxon Identifiers aren't 'lost' below a lot of whitespace to clear below 2 or 3 pics (e.g. male & female, and a map) - see e.g. Cacicus chrysonotus: even just two portrait-shape pics, and the Commonscat link and Taxon Identifiers box have disappeared, unless you realise to scroll to find them below acres of empty whitespace (this has always been a problem, but the new format makes it worse). Whether two, or three, or more columns is trickier - with more than two columns, long names were sometimes broken. Could it be automated, so the number of columns is set by the length of the longest name? - MPF (talk) 20:46, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:08, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Pigsonthewing Thanks! Shame that can't be done. Alternatively, can the Commonscat link and Taxon Identifiers box be made to align left so they are not pushed below the last pic? - MPF (talk) 22:25, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

┌──────────┘ @MPF: Yes I think so, but it will probably require some extra CSS code or the Commonscat links section may sometimes become very narrow on for example mobile phones. Interestingly enough, the Taxon Identifiers box doesn't seem to be visible at all in mobile view: see for example the Larix taxon page in desktop view versus in mobile view. The same is true for the Authority control box. This of course needs to be fixed, regardless whether the boxes are left-aligned or not. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 09:41, 7 June 2025 (UTC).[reply]

Note that in Wikipedia too the Taxon Identifiers box is not visible in mobile view [4]. Christian Ferrer (talk) 10:17, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Tommy Kronkvist @Christian Ferrer - thanks! Must admit I never use mobiles for looking at wikispecies (or wikipedia) . . . MPF (talk) 10:54, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:28, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Eponyms of Élie Magloire Durand

Please see Category talk:Eponyms of Élie Magloire Durand. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:57, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Help me identify this insect

Could somebody help me identify this insect and add the information to the the description and also sort it into the proper Commons category, before I upload more versions of this. --Wuselig (talk) 09:15, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cropped. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:30, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not at all a specialist, but it looks very much to a member of the genus Allorhynchium. Christian Ferrer (talk) 20:50, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Dyanega: do you know anyone that can help with this? Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 13:24, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is a female Xylocopa. There are a number of Xylocopa with all-black females in south India (such as X. latipes and X. magnifica), not possible to ID from photos. The yellowish dust is pollen, not pigmented hairs. Dyanega (talk) 14:43, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've added Category:Unidentified Xylocopa to the file at Commons - MPF (talk) 20:48, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:40, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Missing main page template

Hi. I'm not sure if this is the right place to ask, but Template:Species-2025-06, which is transcluded on the main page, is currently nonexistent. CanonNi (talk) 08:45, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Redirected to Template:Species-2025-05, for now.

This is a perennial problem... Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:48, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've now done the same for Template:Species-2025-07. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:20, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Attention translators!

The set of pages at Wikispecies:Localization holds translations of words and short phrases that are widely used in Wikispecies, in all of the languages used here. It has lots of gaps (red links), so if you know the Arabic for "Monotypic", the Indonesian for "Conservation status", or the Welsh for "Junior homonym", or the many similar terms in those and other languages, please add them.

And please spread this message to notice boards and mailing lists for your local language community. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:11, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with @Andy Mabbett: adding the missing translations would be most welcome! However, please note that the page is write protected, hence not every user can edit it or add to its content. If that's the case for you, please instead post any translations on it's talk page or on the Translation Administrators' Noticeboard, and a translation administrator will swiftly add your suggestions! –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 10:49, 9 June 2025 (UTC).[reply]

The page is write-protected, but AIUI the needed red links are not. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:58, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think they are. The protection status box for "cascading protection" is greyed out and can't be changed, and my guess is it's on by default. This would of course include its red links – at least for IP users. I've tried creating the red-linked pages without being logged in, and I can't. The error message for red links says "There is currently no text in this page. You can search for this page title in other pages, or search the related logs, but you do not have permission to create this page." I haven't got a "non-admin" account so I can't easily check whether logged in "regular" users have the ability to edit the material, but probably not. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 11:27, 9 June 2025 (UTC).[reply]

Etymology

Should etymology of Latin names be included when it's available? I've several times come across sources which give it, and it feels like it should be useful, but it doesn't seem to be part of the standard package of information that's included in pages. Thanks, Cremastra (talk) 23:40, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If an etymology is given in the original description or it has subsequently been published in a peer reviewed publication it can be included under the metadata for the taxon. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 00:13, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please can you give an example of such an inclusion? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:59, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not aware of any but the etymology is part of the metadata of the nomenclatural taxon block of a species description, so it can be included, so long as it is part of the original description or has been subsequently determined. Note I said can as in I can see no argument against it as it is part of the metadata. However, we have tended not to do it here. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 15:06, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate

Nicole Weyeneth and Nicole Friedli-Weyeneth. --Magnus Manske (talk) 07:26, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Cesar E. Tamaris-Turizo and César Tamaris-Turizo. --Magnus Manske (talk) 10:07, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Mitzi Brandão Ferreira and Mitzi Brandão. --Magnus Manske (talk) 12:49, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You can mark them for {{Merge}}. Regards, Burmeister (talk) 12:58, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

All three pairs merged. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:54, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Another duplicate: Marie-Françoise Robert became Marie-Françoise Passini when she married Mr Passini. I presume these should also be merged, but under which name? - MPF (talk) 01:18, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merged. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:49, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:39, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Morabia smithi

Can someone with access to Zootaxa (specifically DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5134.2.3) please tell me whether Morabia smithi honours Lydia Rosie Jyoti Mulvaney, aka Lydia Smith, and if so provide an exact quotation? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:47, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No. “The new species is dedicated to Mr Richard Smith, Chairman of the Board of Trustees of the African Natural History Research Trust”. Regards, Burmeister (talk) 12:07, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:39, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Special pages link missing?

Where has the link to "Special pages" gone? I used the lists for maintenance purposes (e.g. list of wanted categories or templates). In the new appearance of Wikispecies sidebars, I cannot find it anymore. Thiotrix (talk) 15:21, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I noticed this too from an administrative point of view I find it a pain. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 15:22, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I found Orphans here [5]. Not as easily accessible as the older version. Andyboorman (talk) 16:36, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If it helps, it looks like Special:SpecialPages still exists. We could manually add it to the sidebar with MediaWiki:Sidebar; it looks like that's actually what en.wiki is doing as well at en:MediaWiki:Sidebar. Monster Iestyn (talk) 19:43, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Thiotrix @Faendalimas @Andyboorman: Check the sidebar now, Special pages is now linked under "Donate" on my end. Monster Iestyn (talk) 13:39, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I must be missing something, as can not see this link. Andyboorman (talk) 14:13, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Between Donate [Special pages] and Switch to old look. Burmeister (talk) 14:17, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Got it thanks. Its on my User Page! Andyboorman (talk) 14:40, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Vote now in the 2025 U4C Election

Please help translate to your language

Eligible voters are asked to participate in the 2025 Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee election. More information–including an eligibility check, voting process information, candidate information, and a link to the vote–are available on Meta at the 2025 Election information page. The vote closes on 17 June 2025 at 12:00 UTC.

Please vote if your account is eligible. Results will be available by 1 July 2025. -- In cooperation with the U4C, Keegan (WMF) (talk) 23:00, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Giraffa

{{Image}} with more Wikidata functionality

Validity query

Updated geographical terms in POWO

World Wide Wattle

Duplicate journal entries

Authorship: Heine Sr. or Heine Jr.?

Catol-"Hassler"

Translation admin queue needs action

Call for Candidates for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C)

Monkeypox virus

New "sea moth" radiodont

List of Tardigrada

Karyoblastea

Croatian and Serbian language versions

Note:

Mackenzie disambiguation

Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees 2025 Selection & Call for Questions

Taraxacum angustisectum

Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees 2025 - Call for Candidates

Please fix

John Ward (1837-1906)

Sister Projects Task Force reviews Wikispore and Wikinews

Wikispore

Wikinews

Feedback and next steps

Mixed up journal pages?

Taxonomical data on redirect pages

Template:VN - technical change needed

Template:VN - list markup

Eponyms of Élie Magloire Durand

Help me identify this insect

Missing main page template

Attention translators!

Etymology

Duplicate

Morabia smithi

Special pages link missing?

Vote now in the 2025 U4C Election

`{{Image}}` with more Wikidata functionality