Wikispecies:Village Pump/Archive 73

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.

Pogona succedaneum; Snezhana

The only Google hits for Pogona succedaneum are this site and en.Wikipedia; it was added to each by (different) IPs, with no sources.

We have it as Pogona succedaneum Schmidt, 1983, but the author page Johann Wolfgang Schmidt gives dates as "1840-1897".

We also have Snezhana Schmidt, 1983, which has no Google hits.

Is they genuine, and if so what are the correct details? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:07, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I now see User:Andyboorman deleted page Acopas meridionalis, created by the same IP, as bogus.

However, their Keirana longicollis Boucek, 1998 does seem to be genuine. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:11, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Violaceae

Following on from our work on Art. 61.6 of the ICNafp, it is still apparent that there is still poor consensus around the Afrohybanthus, Hybanthus and Pigea group of species in Violaceae. I will prepare a page for Afrohybanthus, complete with disputed tags etc. after contacting a few people. Comments, please Andyboorman (talk) 09:25, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Have your say: vote for the 2025 Board of Trustees

Hello all,

The voting period for the 2025 Board of Trustees election is now open. Candidates are running for two (2) seats on the Board.

To check your voter eligibility, please visit the voter eligibility page.

Learn more about them by reading their application statements and watch their candidacy videos.

When you are ready, go to the SecurePoll voting page to vote.

The vote is open from October 8 at 00:00 UTC to October 22 at 23:59 UTC.

Best regards,

Abhishek Suryawanshi
Chair, Elections Committee

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:47, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yu-Long Zhang

Hello, we have Yu-Long Zhang & Yu-Long Zhang (entomologist), we indeed need two pages because one is specialist of Orthoptera from College of Life Sciences, Hebei, and the other is specialist of Leptidoptera from South China Agricultural University. Both are entomologists so the current pages titles are not specific enough. If nobody disagree I'm going to make Yu-Long Zhang (orthopterist) & Yu-Long Zhang (lepidopterist) & "Yu-Long Zhang" as a disambigation page. Is it ok? Christian Ferrer (talk) 06:05, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

seems fine make sure their institutions are listed on each page so they can be attributed in future easier. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 09:05, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done will look later to the mess in ZooBank. Christian Ferrer (talk) 15:57, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Role-specific pages

I'm not clear why we need most of the role-specific pages in Category:Lists of people, such as Ichthyologists, when we have equivalent categories (e.g. Category:Ichthyologists).

I propose we delete them, after using Cat-a-lot to ensure that all of the listed people are categorised accordingly. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:21, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Pigsonthewing: Those occupation list pages were created by Justin last month to clear out Special:LonelyPages, see the discussion I had with him about those pages at User talk:Koavf#List of people pages. Monster Iestyn (talk) 18:44, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm open to another solution. I just don't want to have these huge reports that aren't actually useful for long-term maintenance of the project. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:46, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That seems utterly pointless, and defeats the usefulness of Special:LonelyPages.

The solution, if a page about a person is not linked from anywhere, is to find the taxa they authored or the papers they wrote, and to link them up. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:35, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think we should get rid of other lists like ISSN or repositories? And what about biographical entries here who aren't taxa authors? Not everyone here is one. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:13, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hence "the taxa they authored or the papers they wrote".

And while I have never really understood the point of ISSN & repository pages, and would be happy to see them go, they at least tell us something about the subjects (however, note that the repository pages include red links). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:12, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WMF board reform

Wikispecies editors may be interested in the m:2025 WMF Board reform petition. Clovermoss (talk) 04:07, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Art. 61.6 of the ICNafp

@Orchi:, @RLJ:, @MPF:, @MILEPRI: and other fellow botanical editors, I was alerted to edits required by the recently adopted Madrid Code (2024), particularly Art. 61.6 regarding correcting epithets to afrum. I have made two moves as examples, Rhipidoglossum afrum and Afrosciadium afrum. Please note that IPNI and other related sources have been fully updated. I would appreciate any help that you are able to provide. I am not sure if a bot can be written to automate the process, @Pigsonthewing:, what do you think? Best regards Andyboorman (talk) 14:29, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Do we have (or could someone compile) a list of pages that need moving? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:34, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's also going to need all the same changes at Commons . . . very tedious, unfortunately! - MPF (talk) 15:57, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is a useful list at the English Wikipedia User:Plantdrew/Article 61.6. --Thiotrix (talk) 16:09, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of species affected according to English Wikipedia of Art. 61.6 of the ICNafp - Wikispecies MILEPRI (talk) 16:49, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I produced that list from appendix S1 of DOI: 10.1002/tax.12622. It is sorted by family (although I omitted the families). If anybody is going to work on this, it would help if you have a way to distinguish links to redirects from direct links (I use a script to make redirect links green: User:Plantdrew/common.css).

I still need to do some work on English Wikipedia regarding these name changes (all the relevant articles have been moved, but I haven't checked all the red links (e.g. genus pages with lists of species on en.wiki may still have "caffer" names).

Wikidata will also need updating. I think all of the Wikidata items that have an English Wikipedia article have been updated, but not the ones that lack an English article. Plantdrew (talk) 17:48, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to @Plantdrew: we have a list to work through and I see that @MILEPRI: is busy. However, looking at Violaceae I note a set of still disputed taxa. One door closes an another opens. Andyboorman (talk) 20:50, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Having now seen these lists, I think the task is too complex, with too few affected articles, for a bot. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:44, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

After making quite a few updates, I notice that there are many more species to edit, since it is a list of species edited on English Wikipedia. I suggest entering the words caffer, caffrum, etc. in the Wikispecies search box and making the changes to the pages that we have made on Wikispecies. Saludos. MILEPRI (talk) 09:10, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that ICNafp only applies to algae, fungi and plants, as zoology has its own acts. Please revert any edits made in error. Andyboorman (talk) 14:28, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Art. 61.6 of the ICNafp and Fungi/Lichens

Are there active editors willing to look through WS pages looking for mandated epithets, such as caffra to be updated in line with the Madrid code? @Brya: pointed out Xanthoparmelia cafferensis (Xanthoparmelia aferensis), as an example. Consulting IF will be essential. I had a brief search and found Bacidia afra A. Massal. [as 'cafra'], Atti Inst. Veneto Sci. lett., ed Arti, Sér. 3 5: 263 (1860) [1859-1860], but could not find this name or its basionym, as a taxon page or synonym! Clearly a level of expertise is required. Thanks, good luck and best regards. Andyboorman (talk) 10:56, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I prepared a list of possible names: Art. 61.6 of the ICNafp - Fungi. Names have to be individually checked at Index Fungorum, if they were renamed according to Art. 61.6. I will have a look at AlgaeBase, if there are also any algal species with these epithets. Thiotrix (talk) 09:14, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the (short) list of algal names: Art. 61.6 of the ICNafp - Algae. None of them has a page on Wikispecies yet. Thiotrix (talk) 09:40, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Help us decide the name of the new Abstract Wikipedia project

Hello. Please help pick a name for the new Abstract Wikipedia wiki project. This project will be a wiki that will enable users to combine functions from Wikifunctions and data from Wikidata in order to generate natural language sentences in any supported languages. These sentences can then be used by any Wikipedia (or elsewhere).

There will be two rounds of voting, each followed by legal review of candidates, with votes beginning on 20 October and 17 November 2025. Our goal is to have a final project name selected on mid-December 2025. If you would like to participate, then please learn more and vote now at meta-wiki. Thank you!

-- User:Sannita (WMF) (talk) 11:42, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

hemihomonym and disambiguation

Quick random question for opinions, there's a insect genus Hymenopus which is a hemihomonym of the plant genus Hymenopus (Chrysobalanaceae). The creator of the plant genus @Andyboorman: clearly recognised the clash, but didn't move the insect out to make a disambiguation page etc. Things seem fine as they are linked to wikidata etc, so is it just a case of nobody being overly worried about consistency and just letting sleeping dogs lie? — The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sjl197 (talk • contribs) 17:50, 6 November 2025.

Thanks for your notice. I will alter Hymenopus into a disambiguation page. --Thiotrix (talk) 18:45, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to both for correcting my over sight. Andyboorman (talk) 21:02, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bacteriologists vs. Microbiologists

Dear Editors,

Do you know the difference between Bacteriologists and Microbiologists in author's categories? I think no. If so, could anybody to synonymize and revise globally WS? Anna Pavlova IFPNI Staff (talk) 04:42, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you're asking if bacteriologists and microbiologists are the same and if we should merge the categories... no, they're not? Bacteriologists study bacteria, microbiologists study microscopic organisms (bacteria, viruses, protists, etc.). I see no reason to merge the categories. Monster Iestyn (talk) 15:48, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

MIchael Hassler's online databases.

This has been bought up before, but it is worth mentioning it again, as many plant editors well meaningly use the two templates {{Catol-Hassler}} and {{World Plants}}, as seemingly independent sources. I have added these to Plantago hispidula as an example. If you look through the first you should note that it acknowledges both WCVP (AKA POWO) as a source and also a "Link to original resource [1]", which is indeed {{World Plants}}. The only valued addition on World Plants compared to POWO or COL is the provision of a vernacular name, that is Llantén [Chile].

IMHO it is a format error to duplicate sources under different templates, which is why I have not used either of these templates on other Plantago templates I have been working on. However, please note that Hassler and POWO can differ in their synonymies and acceptance of disputed names, but that is for another discussion.

Please feel free to disagree and discuss. Best regards. Andyboorman (talk) 11:33, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

`{{Date}}` upgrade

Re: Koavf's and Tommy Kronkvist's comments here - I've changed {{Date}} so it can handle ISO dates. This should be useful for reference template pages (date of publication) and possibly for species pages - date of collection of type specimens, though I've seen the style 21.XII.2023 used for this purpose as well.

Should we start using this template with ISO 8601 dates rather than the 3-parameter usage? Additionally, what's best to use for collection dates for specimens - this template, or the Roman numeral style? --WrenFalcon (talk) 21:36, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We should just use ISO dates, except to the extent that a date is in a title of a work, so we should keep that as it is. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:24, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@WrenFalcon: I agree with @Justin (koavf). ISO 8601 is the current international standard, as well as the standard for dates here at Wikimedia. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 09:58, 26 October 2025 (UTC).[reply]

Could you clarify - are you saying that dates should be displayed to the user in ISO 8601 format, or just saying that the source wikitext should use the ISO 8601 format (which is then localized)? Thanks. --WrenFalcon (talk) 15:07, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think the output should render ISO dates, such as 2025-10-26. It's the best way to be language/culture-neutral. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:51, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Seeking volunteers to join several of the movement’s committees

Each year, typically from October through December, several of the movement’s committees seek new volunteers.

Read more about the committees on their Meta-wiki pages:

Applications for the committees open on October 30, 2025. Applications for the Affiliations Committee, Ombuds commission and the Case Review Committee close on December 11, 2025. Learn how to apply by visiting the appointment page on Meta-wiki. Post to the talk page or email cstwikimedia.org with any questions you may have.

For the Committee Support team,

- MKaur (WMF) 14:12, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Chrysanthemum combinations

Reviewing this genus, I am coming across some problems depending on our sources.

Firstly, Chrysanthemum zawadskii (Hassler, MBG etc.) or Chrysanthemum zawadzkii (POWO, IPNI etc.)? I will contact IPNI for a definitive ruling. Please do not edit these names, and also this applies to infraspecifics.
Also note thar there will be disputed taxa as differing sources accept slightly different combination

Thanks Andyboorman (talk) 10:15, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have heard back from IPNI and the correct name is Chrysanthemum zawadzkii. The protologue is to be followed. I have also found a paper to back this up and will add to the taxon page in due course. Andyboorman (talk) 13:12, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

USERLANGUAGE

I notice in this week's Wikidata newsletter:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tropicos

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

'monotypic taxon'

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

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

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

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

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

The John Murray Expedition 1933-1934 Scientific Reports

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

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

See

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

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

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

Johann Wolfgang Schmidt

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

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

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

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

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

Unused "Opinion" templates

The templates:

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

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

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

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

Euonymus

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

A plea

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

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

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

ISSN in the Cite journal Template

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@Kevmin: Just a quick update, but just I've pulled off a replacement of WorldCat with ISSN page links in the citation template:

Now

* {{Cite journal|last=Smith|first=John|year=2000|title=Foobar|journal=Nature|issn=0028-0836}}

comes out as:

Smith, John 2000. Foobar. Nature. ISSN 0028-0836.

Monster Iestyn (talk) 02:14, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nice! That takes the slight "easter eggy" nature of the manual linking out of the equation.--Kevmin (talk) 02:21, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Vaccaria hispanica subsp. hispanica

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We will keep this open for a week for additional comments and unless there are major developments close it as resolved -see comments above by @Thiotrix:.Andyboorman (talk) 11:50, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I assume that the discussion regarding redirects above also applies to taxon templates, as well as taxon pages. Opinions?

Deleting an exiting page then creating a fresh page as a redirect is being strongly implemented by at least one editor wishing it to become praxis, as opposed to our current more tolerant practice. As this is a change in policy this will require additional discussion.

In addition the request for a speedy delete for Gypsophila ceballosi also raises the point about orthography. However, that in itself can be a tricky topic where the Code for botany may not be as helpful as it could be, but I am not sure about zoology. I suggest that is a topic for another discussion and I am preparing an introduction to this.

Any added opinions before closure? Please contribute. Best regards Andyboorman (talk) 11:39, 18 December 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. --Thiotrix (talk) 12:51, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Links to taxon pages in literature references?

Examples:

Ikonnikov, S.S. 1976. Заметки о Caryophyllaceae, 3. Notae de Caryophyllaceis, 3. Novosti Sistematiki Vysshchikh Rastenii 13: 113–120. Full issue DJVU Reference page.
López González, G. 1984. Gypsophila bermejoi G.López, sp. nov. y algunos comentarios sobre el género Gypsophila con relación a Flora Ibérica. Anales del Jardín Botánico de Madrid 41(1): 35–38. PDF Reference page.
Kuprianov, A.N. 1989. О новом виде рода Gypsophila (Caryophyllaceae) из Центрального Казахстана. On a new species of the genus Gypsophila (Caryophyllaceae) from Central Kazakhstan. Botanicheskii Zhurnal 74(12): 1785–1786. Full issue DJVU Reference page.

Is this common sense? --RLJ (talk) 20:57, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Id say if its relevant enough to the linked taxon, the ref should be in the taxons listed references already.--Kevmin (talk) 00:30, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No it is not common sense. A literature reference is for the specific paper, book etc not a taxon. These should be edited appropriately, but this probably will result in an edit/revert sequence. (added later). Andyboorman (talk) 10:04, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No definitely not commons sense. I remove such wikilinks in references whenever I find them. But it seems some editors act here in a somewhat trolling manner and try to start endless discussions, but will never accept the results. --Thiotrix (talk) 10:47, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed Andyboorman (talk) 11:00, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not common sense, not recommended! Burmeister (talk) 11:13, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think such taxon page links are common in references for Lepidoptera, perhaps Papilionoidea particularly. I always thought it was a bit strange, but I've never felt much energy to do much about it (as I tend not to edit pages for that group of insects, so it doesn't seem worth my time). I also see sometimes authors and other pages linked within such reference titles too, which is a bit weird to me too. (For instance the Flora Ibérica link in the second example reference, does that need to be there?) Monster Iestyn (talk) 12:56, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't use such links myself but I guess that it was done in good faith by those who use these links. Note that there is no mentions of neither to do or to avoid this practice in Help:Reference section, if this leads to reverts and/or editing conflicts maybe it should be clarified exactly toward one way or another (forbidden, allowed or tolerated...) within our help sections. Christian Ferrer (talk) 08:59, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think we need to consider the points made by @Christian Ferrer: as there are reverts and conflicts bubbling under the surface and given the preferences that are emerging during this discussion. Andyboorman (talk) 11:14, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed our Help pages need some update: we should add a note at Help:Reference_section, that in the title of a literature reference it is not recommended to set wikilinks to taxon pages. Thiotrix (talk) 13:04, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't link taxa mentioned in e.g. the title of a referenced work, though I format them appropriately (i.e., italics for appropriate names). Same for authorities mentioned in the title - just {{aut}}, not {{a}}. I do link taxa if they are referenced in the Nomenclatural acts section. See Template:Evenhuis, 2025d for an example. --WrenFalcon (talk) 17:58, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect management

I would like to open a discussion about the handling of categories and content in redirects on WS. Redirects must be completely empty. A redirect is neither an article nor a disambiguation, and it has a basic structure:

Only the redirected page; #REDIRECT Redirected Page and nothing else.

It should not contain any other type of content. Exceptions can only be made if the taxon is controversial. Pages like:

Currently contain extra content or inappropriate categories. This can disrupt the redirects' consistency and functionality. Some redirects that contain eponyms, such as:

Spennera
Mahernia linnaeoides

Currently include additional content or categories about those people to whom do these eponyms refer. Even I've fallen in this last issue but I have my doubts about it. And also other redirects such as:

Pellaeopsis burkeana

They have "Category:Redirects connected to a Wikidata item". That should be removed by going to Wikidata and removing the WS (Species) link from the page in question there to the bottom of the page in question. The goal is to clarify best practices for redirects in those terms, to maintain consistency and avoid confusion but I don't know what do you think, those practices with redirects are common sense? AbeCK (talk) 20:20, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects must be completely empty. PER what WS rule/guideline? You assert categories disrupt the This can disrupt the redirects' consistency and functionality. again, per what data is there disruption by having categories as seen on †Engelhardia tuckeri, a jr synonym of Acer medianum that has several earlier fossil species subsumed into its current circumscription.--Kevmin (talk) 20:48, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Kevmin:, in WS practice, there's no formal rule requiring redirects to be empty, but the common practice (followed by most WS editors) is for a redirect to contain only * Only the redirected page; #REDIRECT Redirected Page and nothing else.

I have a question to you: can you show me any redirects outside of these cases that don't follow this rule? Because reviewing the practices of most WS editors, almost all of them apply this standard. AbeCK (talk) 21:04, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't see this VP so I brought it up at WS:RFC wherein @Monster Iestyn: and @Sjl197: both agreed with redirects having categories. Lavalizard101 (talk) 21:11, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for bringing conversation together @Lavalizard101. My very indirect point of my comment over at WS:RFC was going to be linking such category (e.g. author) onto a combination in the redirect can be meaningful - e.g. adding the (now redirected outdated) combination onto the author's taxa (category) page. I also do not know yet how having that or other catagories would "disrupt the redirects' consistency and functionality" as claimed. If it does, i'd avoid doing it. Else it's said "reviewing the practices of most WS editors, almost all of them apply this standard" meaning to not add categories. I'm one who never adds categories to redirects, but not because of any standard, instead as i'm usually focused on the active entry. Finally on the "Category:Redirects connected to a Wikidata item". I've never seen that markup before. I find it superfluous but not as problematic. However, then it's said "That should be removed by going to Wikidata and removing the WS (Species) link from the page in question there to the bottom of the page in question." If you mean on the bottom of the wikidata page, for e.g. "Pellaeopsis burkeana" (which is a redirect at this end) its wikidata Q17263844 has a functional backlink as "sitelink to redirect". It's how i understood it should be implemented at that end, not deleted.

For old discussion about this subject see Wikispecies:Village_Pump/Archive_52#Scope_of_"Author_taxa"_categories_revisited. Burmeister (talk) 22:47, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. From this i can see how having "author category" on some redirects could lead to duplicates from e.g. being both on say a "protonym redirect" and the current combination, i.e. active taxon page. I'll simply keep only putting it on the latter only ;) I don't think having some mis-duplicated really harms anything though! Sjl197 (talk) 22:55, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was once critized for removing taxonavigation sections from redirects User talk:Lavalizard101#Neospiza, removing taxonavigation sections has been discussed here: Wikispecies:Village Pump/Archive 70#Recommended practice for synonym taxa page. Lavalizard101 (talk) 23:07, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1. Redirects should not be empty. They may include eponymy, and at least for botanical names, they should include the original author's category (as according to ICNafp, authorship for combinations is moved to the respective authors of the combination). 2. To preserve the edit history, redirects shall not be deleted and later be newly created. 3. Functionality of redirect pages is never affected by content, as long as the redirect is written in the first line. 4. Wikidata models taxon names, and each taxon name at Wikidata can be linked to the name here at Wikispecies. To support this, Wikidata meanwhile explicitely allows for linking redirects (often used by the English Wikipedia, for synonyms and also for monotypic taxa). 5. IMO, none of AbeCK's statements holds right. Never seen here such an effort to start multiple discussions to superimpose one's POV. Looks like trolling for me. Thiotrix (talk) 11:49, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for 1-4 as that is what I was told when I first starting using redirects. However, it is OK to delete genus templates when the genus goes into synonymy, for example Template:Kabulianthe has a delete request? BTW for those reading the justification for a speedy delete, the name is still valid under the code, it is just placed into the synonymy of another genus. Andyboorman (talk) 12:36, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kabulianthe issue and its template, which have already been removed, and the discussion about removing genre templates in synonyms, are unrelated to the point I'm addressing here, which is the use and management of redirects. So please, I would appreciate it if you would stay on topic to avoid confusion or unnecessary digressions. Thanks. AbeCK (talk) 14:15, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that redirects can include categories in eponyms. However, I have a questions for you: In cases like Acanthophyllum microcephalum, why should the redirect include when the destination page, Acanthophyllum mucronatum already explicitly documents not only the authorship of that name (under his abbreviatured), the abbreviated source and even the page where that name appears?

Regarding this, I also note that redirects created by you or other editors don't typically include categories as you advocate. This is one of the reasons I raised the question of whether there is a consistent or preferred practice, rather than assuming that one approach should be universally applied.

The presence of additional content in redirects does affect the technical functionality of a redirect, provided it appears on the first line. In any case, why isn't a new article created based on this redirect? Therefore, my concern is not the functionality, but the consistency and maintenance of the redirects. AbeCK (talk) 14:48, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Acanthophyllum microcephalum was authored by Boissier. Andyboorman (talk) 15:13, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

But it's a synonym and it ceased to be an accepted taxon some time ago. AbeCK (talk) 15:21, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A synonym, but still published, and in this case valid name under the Codes. Anyway some editors wish to add authorship and eponyms etc. These then links to and enrich the category sides of our database and indeed WD, although that is not my thing. I have resurrected numerous synonyms, as taxonomy changes - see Micromeles. Andyboorman (talk) 15:36, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It might be worth restressing that a redirect is not a taxonomic entity, but a way for a reader to search for the currently accepted name. Hence an autonym is a reasonable name for a redirect, likewise orthographic variants. Andyboorman (talk) 16:39, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That does not matter in botany. A validly published name does not loose its validity by synonymy. Please see ICNafp, especially chapter VI, article 46. Compare the example of Aikinia brunonis (authorship Wallich, although now treated as synonym). Thiotrix (talk) 16:06, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure the discussion regarding redirects can go much further, but as we finish I would like to show you the result of 2025 recircumscription for Micromeles, Rosaceae. The green links are all redirects from previously accepted combinations that will need to be brought back into Micromeles. This can be easily done through the move function, if appropriate. Best regards Andyboorman (talk) 20:06, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We will close this discussion very shortly. I have created a few notes about redirects, which I will place on my Talk Page. Feel free to comment there. It is likely that we will emend the Help Pages based upon the discussion ,so thanks to all contributors. Andyboorman (talk) 13:49, 22 December 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. Thiotrix (talk) 11:43, 23 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

{{HOM}} or ==Homonyms==

Can anybody explain the difference between using {{HOM}} compared to {{Homonyms}}? They seem to have the same format and functionality. Am I missing something? Are there differences in internationalisation? Andyboorman (talk) 11:30, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See discussion at Wikispecies:Village Pump/Archive 65#Template HOM. The Template HOM and the level 2 header =={{int:Homonyms}}== are completely equivalent. Thiotrix (talk) 13:13, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

- There is a difference, not in edit mode but in reading mode, see here:

New species are now being discovered faster than ever before

I hope you are all having a merry Christmas; here's some entertaining reading:

"New species are now being discovered faster than ever before, study suggests". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:43, 29 December 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.

Subgenera for Gypsophila

Can anybody find a reason for keeping the two subgenera on the Gypsophila page? They are not used in recent studies nor flora, as far as I can find and are really nothing more than stubs. If there are no objections I suggest they are removed in due course. I will keep this open for a week or so. Best regards Andyboorman (talk) 14:59, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have dismantled the infragenerics as polyphyletic and they were stubs.

Resolved.

Andyboorman (talk) 15:40, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Infragenerics on Dianthus

Can anybody find a reason for keeping the infrageneric classification on the Dianthus page? They are not used in recent studies nor flora, as far as I can find and most are really nothing more than stubs. The genus is monophyletic, but infrageneric categories are mostly polyphyletic (Fassou et al. 2022). If there are no objections I suggest they can be removed in due course. I will keep this open for a week or so. Best regards Andyboorman (talk) 19:04, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I will now work on removing the infrageneric classification. Andyboorman (talk) 15:41, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Homonyms

Can this be fixed in the template?

And what about accepting {{TAXNAV}}, {{NAM}}, {{SYN}}, {{REF}}, {{PRIMREF}}, {{ADDREF}} and {{LINKS}} along with {{HOM}} in taxon articles? --RLJ (talk) 14:23, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what you mean by "in reading mode". I have not noticed any difference when reading one compared to the other. It is because I read in English GB? Andyboorman (talk) 15:12, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Edit mode" is when you have pressed "Edit" on top of the page and you have an edit window on the bottom of the page and the preview window above.

"Reading mode" is when you have pressed "Read" on top of the page. --RLJ (talk) 15:36, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have a split edit/read page when editing and HOM looks OK. Putting both on the same page at the same time shows no differences on my read side. When I save the changes both appear the same to a reader. I do not use Publications so can not comment. Andyboorman (talk) 15:59, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's the same as with {{Publications}} on author pages. The use of this template is not recommended. --RLJ (talk) 15:46, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Got it now no discrete edit tag for {{HOM}}! Thanks. If it is to go can somebody do a bot to a mass replace of HOM? Andyboorman (talk) 16:11, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to @Kevmin: {{HOM}} now has the required edit tag so can be used in place of the level 2 header. Many thanks, Andyboorman (talk) 18:26, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Andyboorman: Unfortunately I had to revert my attempted edit. While an edit tag did appear, it linked to editing the template page itself, not where the template was used. I suspect {{HOM}} (and others) should be written as Substitution templates, similar to the function of {{Subst:Reftemp}}, which would dump in the correct heading structure at the time of save, giving a section header of the right depth and associated anchored edit tag.--Kevmin (talk) 18:35, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That whoosh is the sound of it going over my head!! Thanks for your attempts. Happy New Year to all!!! Andyboorman (talk) 18:56, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Temple skills required!!

Is anybody skilled enough to make a template based upon this example; Sutton, J. & Dunn, N. 2021. Malus × robusta from the website Trees and Shrubs Online [3]. Accessed 2025-12-31. This is their suggested citation. They have a search function on the top right. It is a very impressive site! Thanks Andyboorman (talk) 16:53, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, I'll take a look I'll add the italics and make the URL into a link like so: Sutton, J. & Dunn, N. (2021), 'Malus × robusta from the website Trees and Shrubs Online (treesandshrubsonline.org/articles/malus/malus-x-robusta/). Accessed 2026-01-01.

Rich Farmbrough (talk) 16:55, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

{{TSO}} is the shortcut to {{Trees and Shrubs Online}}, there's an example usage. If this needs changing to follow Wikispecies conventions, or any other reason, please feel free, as always. Note that the support for the special character '×' is specific, and the layout of the helper template {{TSO slug}} is appropriate for the current level of complexity but if there were many other special characters a piece of custom lua might be advisable. HTH. Rich Farmbrough (talk) 16:56, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

"Paleospecies"

(Note:Moved from User talk:RLJ)

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

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

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

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

@RLJ: Done.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Community polling on how to handle fossil and recently extinct

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.

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

Method 1: all taxa in one list alphabetically.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Poll will close by the end of 30. December 2025 (This is one month after publishing it at the Requests for Comments). --Thiotrix (talk) 12:37, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Poll closed on January 3, 2026. The community consensus is method 1. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 00:11, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Voting

Method 1 with expansion to † for fossil and ‡ for recent extinctions to distingush the two.--Kevmin (talk) 05:07, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Method 1; I like the ‡ for extinctions after end of the last glaciation (definition of subfossil and beginning of human influence). This reinforces the concept of continuity through time. Neferkheperre (talk) 16:04, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Method 3: Recent taxa incl. recent extinctions, fossil taxa and nothotaxa in separate paragraphs.--RLJ (talk) 23:05, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Method 3: Recent taxa incl. recent extinctions, fossil taxa and nothotaxa in separate paragraphs with the addition of distinguishing recent from fossil, but in this case a better title than Paleospecies will be needed if all extinct taxa are lumped. A categorised list of taxa is a much better and accessible read for long lists compared lumping all taxa in a single list. I already more or less use this one. Andyboorman (talk) 16:28, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Method 3 for me; I too like the idea of distinguishing recent extinction from fossil, and keeping them separated from each other for easy distinction - MPF (talk) 17:18, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Method 1 I already use this one, but in all cases please everything else than method 2. Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:35, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Method 1 for consistency with CoL (e.g. see https://www.catalogueoflife.org/data/browse?taxonKey=636X2), WoRMS/IRMNG (e.g. see https://www.irmng.org/aphia.php?p=taxdetails&id=1035772) and possibly GBIF?? (see https://www.gbif.org/species/2436435 then click "classification", although I do not see any extinct flags here, plus there are some oddities...)... I agree with @Kevmin regarding "expansion to † for fossil and ‡ for recent extinctions to distinguish the two" although specifying a cutoff date would be good - as mentioned above, I use † = extinct before AD 1500 in IRMNG for fossils including subfossils (=never seen alive by "modern" observers), thus ‡ (not currently an IRMNG category but could be) would be dodos etc. = extinct since AD 1500, however also note that WoRMS "fossil" is pre-10,000 BC: a big difference; maybe a separate poll needed here. Regards Tony Rees Tony 1212 (talk) 05:05, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also note this is not (or should not be) confined to a discussion regarding species, but also would apply to (for example) genera listed for a family, families listed for an order, orders listed for a class, classes listed for phylum, phyla listed for a kingdom (or whatever...) - so the solution needs to be applied consistently across all ranks, I would say. As an example in practice, should fossil-only genera in a family be interspersed (i.e., displayed alphabetically), or segregated to the end... for 2 "major player" print/database compendia for animal and plant genera (Nomenclator Zoologicus and Index Nominum Genericorum, respectively), the extant/fossil flag is an attribute only, and sorting is alphabetic... see e.g. https://web.archive.org/web/20050114193935/http://www.ubio.org/NZ/PDF/Vol6/pg0001.png for a sample Nomen. Zool. page, https://naturalhistory2.si.edu/botany/ing/INGsearch.cfm?searchword=Acer for a sample result from ING. Regards Tony Tony 1212 (talk) 06:08, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Method 1 As stated above, I prefer one alphabetical list (consistent with other databases, easier for the reader, and homonyms can better be detected). --Thiotrix (talk) 13:05, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I can see the point about consistency with other databases, but it is absolutely not easier for the reader; with the near-invisibility of the † sign, it makes extinct taxa very hard to pick out separately from extant taxa - or is that the whole idea of this, to have them not visibly different? - MPF (talk) 22:42, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Method 1 Mariusm (talk) 08:48, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Method 1, for consistency with others databases, agree with "expansion to † for fossil and ‡ for recent extinctions to distinguish the two", and apply the result for all taxa not only species (genera, familiae....). Burmeister (talk) 11:36, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Method 1 sorry was unaware of this vote, been in hospital, cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 11:51, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Method 1 also sorry for delay, am busy with both moving and the on WS editing "project" (also apologies to Recent changes patrollers). Also this is the method used on a lot of WP articles as well. Lavalizard101 (talk) 22:56, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Method 2 (apologies for the delay too, I just haven't been sure how best to answer this for so long) This is the method I've been using lately, as it makes it easy for me and perhaps the reader to distinguish fossil species from extant species (and I see no need to split extant and fossil into separate lists as in Method 3), but I will concede that making them purely alphabetical as in Method 1 makes them consistent with other databases and therefore probably makes it easier to import from or export to those other databases. Monster Iestyn (talk) 13:07, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Method 3; but separating recent extinction from fossil.--Hector Bottai (talk) 00:56, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Method 1; (if still going here) but with "expansion to † for fossil and ‡ for recent. I prefer Method 3 visually, but i just prefer some consistency across databases far more! Sjl197 (talk) 21:36, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You could ping editors as easily as I can.

I am not a crat.

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

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

That doesn't address my point.

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

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

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

Crataegus

I have been going through this genus trying to undertake some updates.

Please note that, circumscriptions in Crataegus are still often disputed, holds true 2026 as it did 200 years ago! Flora of North America, Flora of China, POWO and other secondary sources frequently disagree. Even scientific papers do not always use the same name for the same taxon. I am adding papers and sources to highlight this, where required, as I edit. It will also require the creation of two taxon pages for a disputed species/synonymy, where needed, as WS can not take sides during taxonomic debates.

It is worth noting that Kew (POWO/WCVP) used Richard Pankhurst's Checklist for Rosaceae as their starting point and modify it as fresh data requires. Best regards. Andyboorman (talk) 14:55, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Categories (countries or places)

Hi there, i'm quite a new user on Wikispecies. I have looked for information about my question, but I haven't been able to find an answer (sorry if this topic has already been specified, and I didn't see it). Is it possible (I mean if it is correct) to create a category for a specific country or zone (example, Chile, Altiplano, or even smaller places like a University campus, in the case of a local proyect involving Wikispecies.)

Thanks in advance Promeroy (talk) 15:50, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

New proposal to allow global sysops here initiated

I have started a proposal to allow global sysops here, please see Wikispecies:Requests for Comment#Proposal to allow global sysops on this project. Thanks. Codename Noreste (talk) 22:23, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Author templates

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

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

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

There are even a lot that are not used at all: [4]. I do not need these templates and would prefer to delete (at least) the unused. But I guess, that other botany editors may find them useful. --Thiotrix (talk) 12:04, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

I didn't know their existence. Totally useless.--Hector Bottai (talk) 01:39, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Orchi: and I have used them in the reference section and I have used them in templates for references. They correspond, as far as I know, to the IPNI standard form of the author and some might see them as useful for quickly copy-pasting them from the species name. Cheers Badlydrawnboy22 (talk) 15:05, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Categories at speedy

I noticed 28 categories are listed for speedy deletion Category:Candidates for speedy deletion - three are new-species by year and the rest are new-fossil-species by year categories. It's not clear to me what a "new species" is, but if it means "new to science" then there were certainly species being discovered in these years, and indeed earlier.

(There was some discussion of the fossils categories in 2015.)

Rich Farmbrough (talk) 21:13, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That was me listing empty categories for speedy deletion as part of my "consistency in categorization" "project" wherein I made all the New "taxa group [species/genus-group etc.]" year cats consistent in wording+creating a bunch of missing cats for years I could identify species/genera from myself which I finished back in November. And yes the new species year are for species named that year and so will probably get recreated as and when species articles get added to them. Lavalizard101 (talk) 00:06, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'm surprised it took over a month for them to be sorted/deleted. Lavalizard101 (talk) 00:08, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I was hoping we could populate them before they were deleted. But I guess it's not important. Rich Farmbrough (talk) 14:55, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Annual review of the Universal Code of Conduct and Enforcement Guidelines

I am writing to you to let you know the annual review period for the Universal Code of Conduct and Enforcement Guidelines is open now. You can make suggestions for changes through 9 February 2026. This is the first step of several to be taken for the annual review. Read more information and find a conversation to join on the UCoC page on Meta.

The Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is a global group dedicated to providing an equitable and consistent implementation of the UCoC. This annual review was planned and implemented by the U4C. For more information and the responsibilities of the U4C, you may review the U4C Charter.

Please share this information with other members in your community wherever else might be appropriate.

-- In cooperation with the U4C, Keegan (WMF) (talk)

21:01, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

Use of Template:Taxon italics

This template is particularly useful and convenient especially for ternary names. Currently I am in a permanent conflict with another user who is trying to enforce that this template must be used in taxonomic articles in the ‘Taxonavigation’ section, but may no longer be used elsewhere. I have always thought that the use of this template should be based more on opportunity and should not be regulated by rules and prohibitions. Opinions? --RLJ (talk) 13:32, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please provide examples of the templates use in the Taxonavigation section and for ternary names? It would be most helpful, thanks. Andyboorman (talk) 14:15, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Example for a binary name: Urtica dioica -> {{Taxit|Urtica dioica}} -> Urtica dioica

Example for a ternary name: Urtica dioica subsp. dioica -> {{Taxit|Urtica dioica subsp. dioica}} -> Urtica dioica subsp. dioica

Example for Taxonavigation section:

=={{int:Taxonavigation}}==

Species: {{Taxit|Gypsophila vaccaria|linked=yes}}

obligate instead of

Species: ''[[Gypsophila vaccaria]]''
--RLJ (talk) 14:38, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers. I still use the later, but am happy if it is edited out! Andyboorman (talk) 15:32, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I use the second option as it is the typical form found on other Wiki projects, and will noted that its the one that I think most editors will be familiar with, as its the one that the italics link in the tool box implements. Also, as a note, @RLJ: its considered by most to be rude not to give a courtesy ping to the other editor(s) you are in dispute with. Please notify them of this discussion so we can get their perspective as well.--Kevmin (talk) 17:23, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@AbeCK:

Why should the use of this template be permitted in the Taxonavigation section only (and who decided that?)? --RLJ (talk) 18:42, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify my position: I am not arguing that should be used, nor that the traditional italicized wiki link is incorrect. To avoid such misunderstandings, my position is that is more appropriate and useful in the Taxonavigation section, where older Wikispecies articles already follow this hierarchy and where a more formalized template makes sense, and disambiguation pages are purely navigational. Introducing specialized formatting templates such as there is inappropriate and unnecessary.

Outside the Taxonavigation section, I have no objection to using the standard italicized wikilink ([[ ]]).

If you consider your edits more important necessary for consistency, this should be applied consistently across all pages, not just those I edit.

Also, there is no written rule requiring this hierarchy to be applied. Without a policy or guideline, it remains a matter of convention, not obligation. AbeCK (talk) 22:38, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Using {{Taxit|Urtica dioica}} instead of ''Urtica dioica'' (an additional six characters) or {{Taxit|Gypsophila vaccaria|linked=yes}} instead of ''[[Gypsophila vaccaria]]'' (an additional thirteen characters) seems particularly pointless, bordering on harmful.

{{Taxit|Urtica dioica subsp. dioica}} instead of ''Urtica dioica'' subsp. ''dioica'' (adding two characters) may be less so, but seems pointless, and certainly no-one should be converting the latter to the former.

Given that most editors are presumably not even aware of the template (until now, I was not and have never seen it used), I'm not seeing what advantages it offers us, and I would be in favour of replacing all instances, and deleting it. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:20, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The Taxit (Taxon italics) template is used for trinomial nomenclature systems, such as subsp., var., and f. There is no logical reason to use it in binomial nomenclature, as it serves only to provide a visual distinction. Fagus (talk) 14:27, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I now see that there is a separate dispute, involving the same two editors, at Wikispecies:Administrators' Noticeboard#Report concerning RLJ. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:34, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'll note that it's also used by the {{Image}} template, where it allows automatic handling of both binomial and trinomial names that might be passed in as a variable. In my opinion, this is even more useful than cases where the type of the name is known in advance, and by necessity outside of the Taxonavigation section. Tungolen (talk) 03:44, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

A very good point. Does its job "under the hood" so to speak. Thanks. Andyboorman (talk) 08:51, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Pogona succedaneum; Snezhana

Violaceae

Have your say: vote for the 2025 Board of Trustees

Yu-Long Zhang

Role-specific pages

WMF board reform

Art. 61.6 of the ICNafp

Art. 61.6 of the ICNafp and Fungi/Lichens

Help us decide the name of the new Abstract Wikipedia project

hemihomonym and disambiguation

Bacteriologists vs. Microbiologists

MIchael Hassler's online databases.

{{Date}} upgrade

Seeking volunteers to join several of the movement’s committees

Chrysanthemum combinations

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

USERLANGUAGE

Tropicos

'monotypic taxon'

The John Murray Expedition 1933-1934 Scientific Reports

Johann Wolfgang Schmidt

Unused "Opinion" templates

Euonymus

A plea

ISSN in the Cite journal Template

Vaccaria hispanica subsp. hispanica

Links to taxon pages in literature references?

Redirect management

{{HOM}} or ==Homonyms==

New species are now being discovered faster than ever before

Subgenera for Gypsophila

Infragenerics on Dianthus

Homonyms

Homonyms

Temple skills required!!

"Paleospecies"

Community polling on how to handle fossil and recently extinct

Voting

Discussion

Crataegus

Categories (countries or places)

New proposal to allow global sysops here initiated

Author templates

Categories at speedy

Annual review of the Universal Code of Conduct and Enforcement Guidelines

Use of Template:Taxon italics

`{{Date}}` upgrade