Wikispecies:Village Pump/Archive 74

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.

---

Italic titles

Why doesn't Wikispecies italicize the title on species pages like on Wikipedia? (Yes, I realize this is a very minor cosmetic issue.) See Homo sapiens, which isn't italicized. Hell, I picked a random species name off Special:RecentChanges and they weren't getting italic titles.

Okay, while looking for an italictitle template, I found it; but since I don't want to be a Wikipedia:MEATBOT... I won't be going around making thousands of edits to add the italic title.

I guess then, I'd like to suggest that people should add {{Italictitle}} as they go..

A diehard editor (talk) 16:55, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

We should either use that for all relevant taxa, or none. A piecemeal approach helps no-one. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:15, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

Question from a new user about the scope of Wikispecies

Hello, I am a new user who came to Wikispecies and had specific expectation, and after exploring, I found myself confused about the project's scope. I would be grateful if experienced members of the community could help me understand. My initial expectation was that this would be a platform for detailed, science-focused articles about organisms, like a version of Wikipedia stripped of cultural and historical context, focusing solely on morphology, ecology, genetics, etc. What I found instead is not a specific platform but just seems to be barebones and a Wikidata but for species. That could be the answer, but how does the Wikispecies community define this projects scope? Luka Maglc (talk) 04:33, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

Wikispecies is a database of nomenclature of life. It existed before Wikidata who these days harvest a lot of their data from here. The biggest difference is the editors here are specialists in taxonomy some are practicing taxonomists, others have great interest and built up experience. We do not try to be Wikipedia, articals discussing all the ecology of a species and other info belong there. We are not presenting the case for a population to be a species or not. We are presenting the available names for each species with the current correct name bing the highlighted one. Wikidata use this, it is also used by Wikipedia for their taxoblocks. We can only report the current scientific consensus we do not draw our own conclusions on whether something is a species. Personally I try to make it a checklist of names all names whether used or not. But thats a big ask, so it often comes out to a checklist of current names. This includes all the metadata about the name, not the species. So authors, types, type locality etc. Metadata needed by taxonomists. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 05:39, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

"Wikidata who these days harvest a lot of their data from here"—Does it? Where? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:13, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

for example...

11:40, 6 June 2023 Reinheitsgebot talk contribs 3,753 bytes +3,753 ‎Created a new Item: #quickstatements; invoked by duplicity_process_specieswiki (restore)

Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 08:08, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

That's d:Q119138454, which is the bare minimum content for an item on a taxon. There is no mention of the work which described the taxon, nor its author or date. Nor any of its identifiers in external databases.

The item simply serves as a placeholder for the link to the Wikispecies page, Ranacephala.

It would be far more beneficial to the Wikimedia movement—and to society at large—to populate the Wikidata item first, with data that is structured and reusable, and then to transclude that data onto the Wikispecies page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:40, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

Ideally yes, the Wikidata items should be created independently from Wikispecies' data, but from what I've seen in practice many Wikidata items for taxa as well as taxon authors have been automatically created by bots based on their Wikispecies pages, if items for them didn't already exist. Honestly I'm not happy about this, as it's meant many errors have been copied from Wikispecies, for instance misspellings, wrong nationalities, wrong occupations (merely authoring a paper on an insect does NOT necessarily make you an entomologist). I've also come across a few cases of bots adding completely invented life years, apparently from misinterpreting text from an author's publications or other data on a Wikispecies taxon author page. (Wish I could give examples but I didn't think to keep track of these.) Monster Iestyn (talk) 13:56, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

I've left some introductory links on your talk page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:12, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

---

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.

Keith Spalding Brown (Jr.)

Just a heads up, but entomologists Keith Spalding Brown and Keith Spalding Brown Jr. are the same person. According to his profile on Lattes Platform, Jr. authored all the papers, he is American not Brazilian, and obviously he could not have died in 1991 because he was still writing papers into the 2000s. The years "1913–1991" (which I have removed now) actually seem to be the years of a poul vaulter of the same name.

I know there are a number of other pairs of taxon author pages to be merged among others (see Category:Pages to merge), but I felt particularly like I needed to explain my reasoning here for putting up merge notices here (I think the errors involved here just annoyed me for some reason). Monster Iestyn (talk) 18:41, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

New Checkuser?

Dear members of Wikispecies. With a reduced activity on WS during the last years, Im happy to continues Admin and Crat, but honestly think I should be replaced as checkuser, since this function and responsibility in my point of view should be performed by someone much more active than me. The election of a checkuser is somewhat special, it needs a lot of votes, why I prefer to announce this here on Village Pump, so as many as possible can engage in an election of future new checkuser. I welcome any comments on this, and hope you will find a suitable new CU within the community. Dan Koehl (talk) 09:52, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

From a technical point of view we do not need to replace you as we would still have two checkusers. However, it may be better to do so if we can. One reason for that is my inclusion as chair of the OC, as such I need to be cautious of COI with respect to that role. If you wish to resign we can make a request to the Stewards to remove these rights from you, I believe as its a self request they tend to ask for a 24 hour cooling period between the request and actioning it.

For electing a new checkuser and for anyone maybe interested please read through Wikispecies:Checkusers for information on this role. Pay particular attention to Wikispecies:Checkusers/Howto for information on the election requirements.

If anyone is interested in becoming a CheckUser please contact me on my talk page. I can start an election if thats what everyone wants. Thanks Dan for all you past efforts with this. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 15:07, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

Thanks Scott. Since I started as CheckUser on 14th of february 2017, I gather this a suitable date for resigning as CU. ~~~~ Dan Koehl (talk) 10:05, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

Request made. Thanks again, Dan. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 12:58, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

I second the thanks, Dan. And I support any established user who is willing to step up as a CheckUser. Please see m:CheckUser as well as our local documentation. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:17, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

Wikispecies:Global rights usage

This project has Wikispecies:Global rights usage, which is apparently a failed policy about how users in specific global user groups should use their permissions as defined. However, should we repurpose this with new rules or similar? For example, given that we allow global sysops here, we can move from Wikispecies:Administrators to there. Codename Noreste (talk) 15:55, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

wow thats old.... my initial thoughts on this is that often as not I would consider say for example a Global Sysop to follow the same reasoning as our Local Admins in using their rights. I do not know if we so much need a page just for this given it failed to pass in 2008. But maybe we need to add some specific pointers to our Admin, Crat pages. In all honesty anyone with global rights who does anything here I trust them to use their rights with care as I doubt they would have such broad sweeping rights if they were not highly trusted users. Any thoughts everyone? Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 06:56, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

Template request: e-Flora of Thailand

Hello everyone,

I would like to request help in creating a new citation template for the e-Flora of Thailand (hosted by the Department of National Parks, Wildlife and Plant Conservation - botany.dnp.go.th).

The site uses a consistent numerical system that is perfect for a template. Each species page is identified by a five-digit tdcode.

Example:

Species: Peristylus prainii (Hook.f.) Kraenzl.

URL: https://botany.dnp.go.th/eflora/floraspecies.html?tdcode=05666

ID Code: 05666

Proposed Template Name: {{e-Flora Thailand}} or {{DNP Thailand}}

Proposed Parameters:

id: The 5-digit tdcode.

taxon: (Optional) The name of the species/taxon for the display text (defaults to page title if omitted).

Example Usage: {{e-Flora Thailand|id=05666|taxon=Peristylus prainii}}

Desired Output: Peristylus prainii in e-Flora of Thailand. Published on the Internet. Accessed on: [Date].

Could a template editor help set this up? It would greatly assist in standardizing botanical references for South East Asian flora on Wikispecies.

Thanks! Badlydrawnboy22 (talk) 14:27, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

Heya if I am understanding this correctly this may be something better handled by Wikidata as then it could be added into our TaxonBar template automatically. What are your thoughts @Pigsonthewing:. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 06:51, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

I agree. There are lots of other "Flora of..." IDs in Wikidata. Perhaps we should add them all to the template here?

I would be happy to draft a proposal for a Wikidata property for this one. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:10, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion, Scott. While I agree that adding the property to Wikidata is a great move for data synchronization, I still believe a dedicated citation template is necessary for a few reasons:

• Visibility: The Taxonbar is placed at the very bottom of the article and uses a much smaller font. For a major regional authority like the e-Flora of Thailand, it is better to have a full-sized citation in the Links section where it is more accessible to readers.
• Context: A standalone template allows us to include specific details like the "Accessed on" date, which is standard practice for botanical citations on Wikispecies.
• Editorial control: Many editors prefer to list primary regional floras explicitly in the text rather than having them "hidden" in a long list of database IDs in the footer.

Ideally, we could do both—add the property to Wikidata for the Taxonbar, but still have this template available for use in the main body of the page, similar to how we handle {{IPNI}} or {{POWO}}. Badlydrawnboy22 (talk) 12:14, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

Template documentation, categorization, needed

As I have been moving through the Western North American fossil Acer species, I've been encountering a number of situations where templates exist, but we have no documentation that they exist and what they should be used for. I've had to seek out via rough searching for homomym templates (jr/sr), replacement name templates (doesnt exist?), nomen dubium template (no functionality to put in the authority and date of decision, also not named as other nomen templates), synonym templates (the wording is very poor atm, with the "might be invalid" part), etc. We should have a page in the help guide to document the various templates that we have, what the full functionality of them is and when they should be employed. We also should have them grouped into the Category:Templates for nomenclatural statuses or Category:Name status templates (why are these not linked?) category trees for easy organization and management. Example templates showing the various formats they present, from full width banners, through bullet point, to base links to the gloassary:

• Status:   nomen dubium  

nom. illeg.

orth. var.

orth. err.

@Keith Edkins, ShakespeareFan00, and Mariusm: (added ping @EncycloPetey:) could we get prose on the templates you have created so that users can better understand how and when to implements them. Also it looks like Template:TaxonUnresolved and Template:Status unresolved are doing the same thing, with different visual output only, one should be depreciated and the other documented and fleshed out.--Kevmin (talk) 18:51, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

• {{ping|Fagus}}, why have you categorized Linaria bubanii, Onosma bubanii & Veronica ciliata subsp. ciliata in Category:Templates for nomenclatural statuses?--Kevmin (talk) 20:12, 24 January 2026 (UTC)
• @ShakespeareFan00: same question regarding Hypodematium & Lupinus luteus var. leucospermus--Kevmin (talk) 20:21, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

  Kevmin, when you categorize a template, please use noinclude. Otherwise all pages using this template will be in this category. Thiotrix (talk) 20:50, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

  Oh, those make sense now, my mistake on that. However @Thiotrix:, input on the larger issues I bring up in the post would be appreciated.--Kevmin (talk) 22:35, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

• @Tommy Kronkvist: you created Category:Name status templates in 2017, @Circeus:, you created Category:Templates for nomenclatural statuses in 2019. They both cover the same concept, which title should be redirected and which should be conserved as the live category under Category:Formatting templates--Kevmin (talk) 20:21, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

  As these questions were mainly directed to individual editors, I think that they should have been asked on their Discussion Pages first. I have no comments on the above in this public forum. Andyboorman (talk) 22:33, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

• @Andyboorman: This is a project wide issue/situation/discussion that you absolutely should be participating in. I pinged individual editors where they actively editing parts of the issue, as is correct courtesy and etiquette on large issues.--Kevmin (talk) 22:54, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

  Thanks for the heads up, but I am busy sorting through Crataegus, to update its classification and taxonomy. Good luck. Andyboorman (talk) 17:44, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

  @Andyboorman: See my continued work on Cenozoic western North American taxa (it hasnt stopped, neither has my article writing on wikipedia) We are competent editors that should be able as a group to discuss large project issues while also continuing taxon work. Other-wise why bother with the pretending to be a project at all, it just alienates anyone coming in and trying to help or disenfranchises long term editors such as seems to have happened to Circeus.--Kevmin (talk) 23:55, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

I should really mark myself as inactive. I don't really do much of anything on here anymore. You can do whatever you want. Anything off mainspace on wikispecies has always been a hot mess at best when I was still editing and no conversation about any such project ever got anywhere even after Stephen was gone. It would probably have been more productive just doing whatever you want and leaving people before the fait accompli, because I can guarantee most editors wouldn't even have noticed you were doing anything at all. Circeus (talk) 02:08, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

Bacteria and Archaea kingdoms

I recently read that the IPCN now accepts taxons of rank kingdom, and eight new kingdoms have been validly published so far. Does Wikispecies allow Bacteria and Archaea kingdoms, or is there any reason why nobody has created them yet? I'm sorry if that question has already been asked before.

Anyway, here are the eight new kingdoms:

• Bacteria: Bacillati (ICPN), Fusobacteriati (ICPN), Pseudomonadati (ICPN), Thermotogati (ICPN)
• Archaea: Methanobacteriati (ICPN), Nanobdellati (ICPN), Promethearchaeati (ICPN), Thermoproteati (ICPN)

By the way, I'm a layman, so I'm probably not competent enough to create these pages myself (if they turn out to be allowed).

Tc14Hd (talk) 23:57, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

The basic answer is that there aren't any editors here that are working on that area of taxonomy so these updates have simply not been made yet.--Kevmin (talk) 00:09, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

@Kevmin: Oh, okay. That's a very simple answer... I already feared that I had uncovered some big ideological divide between Wikispecies and the ICPN. But yeah, I understand why nobody has added them so far. You not only have to create the pages for the eight kingdoms, you also have to add them to the taxonomy of their child phyla (or maybe even superphyla). That sounds like a lot of work. Maybe I will do it in the future, but I have to do some research first. Tc14Hd (talk) 00:35, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

Automatic extraction of structured taxonomic data from Wikispecies

Hello,

I am trying to programmatically extract structured information from Wikispecies (taxonavigation, names, identifiers such as GBIF/CoL/Wikidata, references, etc.) to automate part of a biologist’s workflow.

I have tested the MediaWiki API and HTML/wikitext parsing, but the data structure is often inconsistent because many elements are generated by templates.

Has this already been done in a reliable way?

Is there a recommended or “official” approach to retrieve as much structured data as possible from Wikispecies without relying on fragile HTML scraping?

Any advice or pointers to existing tools/projects would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks! — The preceding unsigned comment was added by Thibaud Gln (talk • contribs) 12:54, 10 February 2026.

@Thibaud Gln: You're better off using Wikidata primarily, especially for information such as identifiers (after all, that's where Wikispecies sources its identifier data from). However, there is some valuable information present on Wikispecies not currently on Wikidata. You'll probably have the most luck extracting taxonavigation (though this is usually well-represented on Wikidata), authority information, and references. You may have some luck extracting synonymy information. --WrenFalcon (talk) 04:24, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

Category:Non-standard taxon formatting

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

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

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

Deprecating Archive.today links

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

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

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

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

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

Zootaxa template error

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

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

move Aa figueroi to Aa figueroae

• d:Q21398927
• en:Aa figueroae

Hello,

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

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

status novus

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

create redirects

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

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

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

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

Rafetus leloii

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

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

[1]

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

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

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

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

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

Taxacom is back

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jan Ježek

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

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

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

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

I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. Thanks, all. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:49, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

As an example, Silene denizliensis Aytaç, Thaiszia 8: 8 (1998). "denizliense" orth. var. is formatted according to ICN 50 F1 with the addition of the orthographic variant tag. The epithet ending has been autocorrected and this may or may not need to be mentioned, but this could be discussed. Best regards Andyboorman (talk) 14:23, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

I don't see any major problem with that format itself, as I completely disagree with the misuse of simply "as" as you do, @Andyboorman. The use of the orth. var. tag seems acceptable in those terms.

However, I'm disagree with @RLJ and his version, at least using quotation marks in the original texts (""), Because it is more text or unnecessary characters to any WS pages. The text from the original source whether it refers to the genus or the species, will already is in italics , is better and more efficient.

For example:

• Silene denizliensis Aytaç, Thaiszia 8: 8 (1998), denizliense, orth. var. (something like this will be more than enough).

Note to Andy: I'm going to tell you not to make or advanced any of your own edits and self-imposed versions according to your own conditions and individual criteria, please. We haven't reached a consensus yet. AbeCK (talk) 00:45, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

I do not accept you imposing your editing conditions on me or any other editor, that is not how Wikis works. It does not matter whether or not consensus has been reached, but it is important to discuss, so I thank you for your contributions above. I think the format suggested by RLJ reflects those found in the taxonomic world outside of WS - see IPNI for the above taxon and therefor is up for debate here. However, I do think that IPNI should place their 'denizliense' in italics as this is what ICN mandates. Andyboorman (talk) 07:59, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

Then @Andyboorman, according to your reasoning, your edits also impose a preferred wording before reaching an agreement, and the discussion is still ongoing. So I do not accept you imposing your editing conditions on me or any other editor either and that's not how WS works either. Changing things as you've done on Silene niceensis and Silene denizliensis across multiple pages is not a neutral act; you're imposing a specific interpretation in the meantime; WS is not (or should not) a testing ground for unsettled and unfinished formats.

Once an agreement is reached, systematic changes are made based on it. During an open discussion, doing what you're doing affects and taints the history of the pages and generates additional confusion and problems, as we've already seen in our edit history between the two of us, without going too far afield. Therefore, it's best to avoid edits on the pages involved and points of discussion and controversy until things are resolved more effectively.

If we're going to discuss formats based on ICN and external standards, such as IPNI, there's no problem. AbeCK (talk) 05:55, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

---

I have found 10 distinct formats, but have added a link to the original page. These are all from botany. If editors have more then feel free to add them. I hope this helps discussion.

1. Melandrium noctiflorum (L.) Fr., Bot. Not. 1842(10): 170 (1842), misspelled as Melanthium.
2. Gypsophila dioica (Cham. & Schltdl.) Spreng., Syst. Veg., ed. 16. 4(2): 178 (1827), as dioeca.
3. Silene niceensis var. gracilis Maire, Bull. Soc. Hist. Nat. Afrique N. 26: 189 (1935), as nicaeensis orth. var..
4. Lychnis niceensis (All.) Paxton, Pocket Bot. Dict.: 192 (1840), as nicæensis orth. var..
5. Helichrysum zivojinii Černjavski & Soška, Repert. Spec. Nov. Regni Veg. 49: 282 (1940) ["zivojini"]
6. Silene denizliensis Aytaç, Thaiszia 8: 8 (1998). "denizliense" orth. var. autocorrected for the feminine gender of the genus.
7. Agrostemma chalcedonicum (L.) Döll, Rhein. Fl.: 643 (1843), as chalcedonica orth. emend.
8. Silene greenei (S.Watson ex B.L.Rob.) Howell, Fl. N.W. Amer. 1: 76 (1897) (as Greenii)
9. Gnetopsida Eichler ex Kirpotenko, Ocherk Estestv. Klassif. Rast.: vii, 31. 27 Oct 1884 ("Gnetaceae")
10. Ginkgoopsida Engl. in Engler & Prantl, Nat. Pflanzenfam. Nachtr. II-IV, 1: 5 («Ginkgoales») orth. err..

Best regards Andyboorman (talk) 20:47, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

The examples above are all species or lower rank. There is also orth. err. to consider for higher ranks, where the Code expects terminations to be added a certain way, but the Code is not followed. In clear cases the Code permits correction of the spelling to match grammatical norms. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:14, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

It would be good to add some examples to the list. I will have a look, but if you have some to hand, feel free. Andyboorman (talk) 16:19, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

The relevant section of the current Code is Article 60, which provides examples: [2] --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:29, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

---

I propose that we leave these options and any others added later open for discussion for a week or perhaps two. As a start, can fellow editors recommended any for a quick deprecation? The remainder could then be placed on a WRC page for a decision. If there is no meaningful discussion with a significant number of contributors then it would appear that the community is happy with the status quo of a free for all. Best regards. Andyboorman (talk) 08:18, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

This discussion is closed as

Unresolved.

The community is happy to see a diversity of terminologies and there is no consensus that requires changes to policy or the Help pages. However, it is best to follow the relevant acts and formats found in literature. Best regards Andyboorman (talk) 10:04, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

Global ban for Faster than Thunder

Hello, this message is to notify that Faster than Thunder has been nominated for a global ban at m:Requests for comment/Global ban for Faster than Thunder. You are receiving this notification as required per the global ban policy as they have made at least 1 edit on this wiki. Thanks, --SHB2000 (talk) 01:56, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

Placement of homonyms on taxon pages

This probably refers more to plant pages than other taxa. The question is where best to put homonyms? My example is Silene depressa, where when creating the page I placed the Homonyms in a new section after the native distribution areas. Some editors think that it should follow on from the Synonyms. However, to quote @RLJ: "...they should be treated in a separate chapter outside the Name section and not grouped together". Native distribution areas, if used, belong to the taxon page and not necessarily to any of its homonyms. I would like the community to have their say. Thanks and best regards Andyboorman (talk) 17:57, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

I'm curious why this wouldn't be treated in the Name section. I've seen an assertion that it's wrong, but without reasoned support for that assertion. Someone coming to a page looking for a particular name (even a synonym, at any rank) would expect to find it in the Name section. Homonyms are homonyms of the Name, not of some undefinable abstract quality apart from the name. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:57, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

That is a good point, but homonyms do not belong to the taxon treated in the article. In my example Silene depressa Baumg., Enum. Stirp. Transsilv. 1: 404 (1816) nom. illeg. homonym. post. is a synonym of Silene dinarica Spreng., Syst. Veg., ed. 16. 2: 405 (1825), whereas Silene depressa M.Bieb., Fl. Taur.-Caucas. 1: 336 (1808) is the accepted name for the taxon dealt with by the article. Andyboorman (talk) 19:29, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

What do you mean by "homonyms do not belong to the taxon treated in the article"? How does their "belonging" differ from synonyms that are based on different type specimens and created for different taxon circumscriptions? Such heterotypic synonyms only "belong" to the taxon in the article provided the two taxa are deemed to be the same by some authority, and not inherently so. Homonyms are likewise in relation to some other taxon name that is given priority or is deemed to sound the same, by the codes and by authorities. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:55, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

Heterotypic synonyms do not use the same type as homotypic synonyms, but they refer to the same plant. Whereas homonyms are names that are used for a different plant altogether. I suppose we are splitting hairs, for example, if there is no section for native distribution then the homonym section would follow any synonyms or the name if there were none. Andyboorman (talk) 07:48, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

No, heterotypic synonyms do not refer to the same plant. Alismatales and Najadales and Potamogetonales and Zosterales are all synonyms, but each name is based on a distinct genus, and none of those genera are synonyms of each other. The reason the orders are synonyms is that someone decided they all should be treated as such, and there are classifications where they are not synonymous. And if Alismatales did not have priority, it would not be the name that the others are a synonym of. That's exactly the same situation we have for homonyms: If the accepted name did not meet the requirements of publication and priority (or were not conserved) then at least one of the homonyms would not be a homonym, but would be a valid name. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:49, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

I was discussing species. Andyboorman (talk) 19:54, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

There are generic homonyms too, which is why I point out that other ranks need to be considered. A discussion at the species rank alone is too narrowly focused, and will not consider the broader issues. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:57, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

Indeed, but I am questioning a unilateral deprecation without being given a reason of a homonym placement after the native distribution section in the absence of policy or guidance. However, if I have digressed or am not clear on my language and reasoning then I apologise. Andyboorman (talk) 20:27, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

The other possible option is to always use a separate (homonyms) page, with a hatnote on the page for the taxon name pointing out that homonyms exist, with a link. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:01, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

My natural choice of action would be to change Silene depressa to a disambiguation page and farm the incoming links out to Silene depressa (M.Bieb.) and Silene depressa (Baumg.) so that anyone typing in the search bar will be presented with both names, and incoming searches from outside for the base Silene depressa will land at the disambiguation. Additionally when anyone types a link for Silene depressa the system should automatically notify that the link is landing on the disambiguation and ask if the editor wants to modify to link to the specific page, or keep the current disambiguation. I've already done this at a number of fossil homonyms and had to intoriduce RLJ to the concept at Acer trilobum.--Kevmin § 17:37, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

A disambig' is definitely not required where one of the taxa is accepted. Indeed, it will also add an unnecessary complication to the lists of accepted taxa on the next levels, in this case the genus Silene, as well as its subgenera and sections. The Acer trilobium example is a different concept, as we have just have two synonyms that need disambiguating. Andyboorman (talk) 18:45, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

I absolutely disagree that there is any WIKI technical difference in the two situations. A disambiguation is the standard operating procedure for any instance where to wikipedia name space titles would be the same. Saying that a disambiguation is not needed due to code validity is not an acceptable rational for deviation from s.o.p. What exactly "unnecessary complication" is added by having the disambiguation page, which is easily categorized as such and the to taxon pages are in the correct categories of theirs parent taxa.--Kevmin § 21:25, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

I was not posting about wiki tech, but about complications for both users and inexperienced editors. A simple search using Silene depressa gets a user to the required information using a single click without having to go through the added layer of a disambig page. However, the disambig page is definitely needed for Acer trilobium. Sorry if my language was not clear! I think the current consensus is that the Homonym section is valuable data to be included on a taxon page, if required. My query was is it better to place it before or after native distribution, if this section exists? Please see the edit history. Andyboorman (talk) 14:22, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

I am going to answer my query. I will place the homonyms in their own section after the synonyms, if these are present. My reasoning is that this appears to be the most common practice in botany pages on WS.

Resolved.

Andyboorman (talk) 15:28, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

Upcoming Wikimedia Café meetup regarding the the 2026-2027 Wikimedia Foundation Annual Plan

↠Pine (✉) 05:21, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

New word for translation: Spouse

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

Also "Sibling", "Child" and "Parent". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:28, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

New Wikidata property proposal, for malacologists

Proposal here. The intention would be to add the values to our {{Authority control}} template.

Please comment on the proposal, as you see fit. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:36, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

Jan de Vries

I cannot find a listing for this Dutch phycologist in the Harvard index, and there seems to be some conflation with Johan de Vries (specialist in succulents) where the wrons author abbreviation was misapplied. Any help disentangling these two botanists, both here and on Wikidata is appreciated. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:45, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

@EncycloPetey: Possibly Prof. Dr Jan de Vries (Algae & Plant Evolution) of University of Göttingen - their research site [3]. Any use? Andyboorman (talk) 20:52, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

Well, it does confirm that (as I suspected) these are two different people, since the man in the photo does not appear to be in his seventies. I'll reach out and see whether there is a standard botanical author abbreviation for him. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:08, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

Jan de Vries is not listed in IPNI, but they only hold a registration for authors of plant names. Andyboorman (talk) 21:44, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

Indeed the standard form J.de Vries is taken by Johan de Vries. However, I notice that the phycologist you are interested in uses the same abbreviation for example. Good luck! Andyboorman (talk) 21:55, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

Indeed. I've looked in AlgaeBase and the relevant publication, and both use J.de Vries. I noted the discrepancy because there are at least two newly authored orders and one family attributed to him. I've sent queries to AlgaeBase and to the man himself. It may be that IPNI simply doesn't have him yet, or the two authors may have been conflated in their registry. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:09, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

IPNI are happy to answer queries as well. Andyboorman (talk) 10:06, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

Eponyms of Rawson William Rawson

Category talk:Eponyms of Rawson William Rawson is in need of attention. Rawson was a botanist. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:09, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

New species published in a hidden appendix

Phylloscopus tokaraensis is not published in the main article about it, but instead hidden away very obscurely in an appendix (on page 13) which isn't at all easy to find; there's nothing in the main article to say where it is published, or even what its scientific name is. Is this legitimate under ICZN rules? And if it is, what is the citation? - MPF (talk) 16:13, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

• I think it's ok, the citation being the one of the main article. Christian Ferrer (talk) 07:37, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

  I am getting an opinion on this. I am not sure this is valid under the ICZN. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 09:05, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

  ok basic thoughts seem to be that this name is published but it is published in the supplementary material as a standalone paper, so the citation is the supp material. Figuring out the date of publication is going to take a bit though. The supp material is formatted as a standalone paper, not sure why the authors chose to do this its a bit strange. I will let you know if anything changes. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 02:16, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

  the following is an email from a former commissioner and ZooBank editor this should help.

  "According to all Commissioners I’ve explained this situation to, all are in agreement that the work is published, and the name should therefore be considered available under the ICZN rules. Although unconventional from the traditional publication perspective, from the perspective of the Code the Appendix stands alone as a Code-compliant electronic publication, separate from the main article, and all requirements of publication have been fulfilled in accordance with the Code. To help avoid confusion, we have modified the ZooBank record for the publication (https://www.zoobank.org/506f06c5-9a19-4147-9f25-c90625b29cdf) to include “SI Appendix: ” at the start of the article title, and set the pagination to reflect the appendix document. We also set the date of publication as 17 March 2026, based on the apparent publication date of the main article (assuming that the supplement was made obtainable as the same time as the main article). The metadata of the PDF shows the creation date of the article as “2/14/2026”, but we are assuming the document was not obtainable for free or by purchase until 17 March. If evidence is available to suggest a different date of publication, there are, of course, provisions of the Code for addressing that."

  I suggest we follow this.

  Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 03:29, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

  Thanks! About as complicated as I feared, though at least, valid. Yes, agreed with taking 17 March 2026, as the 2nd day of the 14th month of 2026 is a nonsense date (2 February 2027?) - MPF (talk) 16:05, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

Josef Moser and Julius Moser

Opinions welcome on possible mix up of linked to Josef Moser and Julius Moser, i'm convinced they're two different people, one of them arguably with many publications, the other possibly none?

I was creating two new publications ("Moser, 1904", "Moser, 1904a") which give author as "J. Moser, Hauptmann a.D." or similar. I initially (mis)created them on page for Josef Moser before it dawned on me about possible ongoing confusion with Julius Moser. I've since moved those (2x 1904 publications), plus two previously created others (a 1908 and 1915 publications) onto page of Julius Moser instead (e.g. See edit history on Josef Moser's page)

For Josef Moser the wikispecies header seemed to reflect what's maybe best said on the German dewiki, with an associated linked pdf (from Zobodat)
For Julius Moser the German dewiki doesn't have a page for the entomologist - only a disambiguation page for name, but the nlwiki/enwiki did have info with citation to an obituary - where i now linked the pdf (from Zobodat) in various places.

At this wikispecies end, there's still four taxon pages that present as "4 taxon names authored by Josef Moser" i.e. "Category:Josef Moser taxa", but i think all should be Julius Moser instead - what do others think? Sjl197 (talk) 18:52, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

@Sjl197: Josef and Julius have separate entries on Zobodat too: Josef and Julius, with separate biographies as listed. It lists exactly one publication for Josef (here), but it does not appear to have any taxonomic acts at all at a glance.

I suspect you're right and all of four of those taxon names actually were by Julius. At the very least Euryvalgus and Euryvalgus borneensis are by Julius, because both were published in one of the "Beitrag zur kenntnis der Cetoniden" series of papers, which I believe were all by Julius (at least one of the later entries gives the author's location of "Berlin", so has to be by Julius from Germany and not Josef from Austria), but I have no idea about Miridiba formosana and Lepidiota corpulenta yet. Monster Iestyn (talk) 19:40, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

@Monster Iestyn: Thanks for review, plus interesting to find that Zobodat also has author pages, that's useful. For Miridiba formosana, i now linked that taxon page to the publication Moser, 1909: 470 in Ann. Soc. ent. Belg. That initially only gives the author as p.468 "von J. Moser", but later in same Vol.53, it has under "Membres effectifs" it has "Moser (J.), Hauptmann, Bülowstrasse, 59, à Berlin W., — Cétonides. " p.454, i.e. linking a member to "Hauptmann" and "Berlin". I think there can be no doubt. Well anyway, "formosana" is a junior synonym by a 2021 revision anyway ;). A greater concern is the BHL is (mis)linking many publications to Josef (from Austria), i.e. Moser, Josef, 1864-1936 — The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sjl197 (talk • contribs) 20:41, 26 March 2026.

Obstructive and non-standard formatting in Silene gallica and Silene gallica var. gallica

I would like to express an editorial dispute regarding the recent edits made by @Andyboorman, imposing his edits over those of other editors who are not Admins (threatening and coercing) on Silene gallica and Silene gallica var. gallica pages and I want to know the opinion of other users to reach some consensus.

The issue involves the addition of the following text in the main name section:

"over Silene anglica L., Sp. Pl. 1: 416 (1753), nom. rej., Silene lusitanica L., Sp. Pl. 1: 416 (1753), nom. rej. and Silene quinquevulnera L., Sp. Pl. 1: 416 (1753), nom. rej." ()

This addition introduces unnecessary and confusing text into the primary name line, where we expect clarity and conciseness, imposing texts that do not follow a homogeneous line in the notices and notes that he puts and putting varying and heterogeneous texts without putting a fixed format.

Here are my main concerns: The "over...and..." phrase does not fit with the standard formatting practices on WS. Typically, these nomenclatural relationships should be included in the synonymy or notes sections, not in the main name field. This change creates cluttered and inconsistent entries, making the pages tougher to read and maintain. Andy is known for rely heavily on Plants of the World Online (POWO) and the International Plant Names Index (IPNI) only, without adapting the information to fit WS formatting or comparing other sources. While these sources are trustworthy, directly copying their content without adjustment leads to inconsistent formatting.

I tried to fix this problem by moving these nom. rej. (and their synonymies) from Silene gallica var. gallica to Silene gallica, instead of keeping those controversial lines in Andy's edits, but my changes were reverted by him for no reason, restoring the same confusing and heterogeneous formatting.

This raises a broader issue: There’s a repeated pattern of adding formatting that strays from project standards, causing inconsistency across species pages.

I would like to hear from other contributors about: Whether the “over … and …” constructions should be included in the main name line and the inclusion of cumbersome text like Andy's or adding another note that doesn't even include all the relevant nom. rej. or try put another quote or not include anything. How to accurately represent nomenclatural precedence while keeping readability intact. Whether we should encourage stricter adherence to formatting consistency.

So that's it, let's resolve this please, Greets. AbeCK (talk) 06:09, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

I fully agree with Andy's treatment listing these heterotypic synonyms (what the rejected names are) with the autonym, as it is general praxis here, and mentioning the issue in text form in the species article. A change would concern many articles. -RLJ (talk) 10:02, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

The formatting of conserved and rejected names (or types) is not mentioned in our help pages, so nothing in Andy's edits is against our "standard formatting practices on WS". We usually follow the literature, where those names are cited directly after the conserved name. At WS, I find citations like in Silene gallica (all in one line), like Salsola (line break after nom. cons. for better readability), or like Noaea rosacea (all text after line break). All styles to do this are "allowed" WS practice. We can either leave it to the personal style of the editor, or discuss and find a consensus for one preferred style (and add it to our help pages). Thiotrix (talk) 10:48, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

Images, maps and an apology

In an attempt to fix something else, I broke a Wikidata module which feeds {{Image}} and {{Map}}. I have requested technical help from the en.Wikipedia community to fix the issue.

Please do not remove or manually replace the affected templates in the meantime; they should start working again soon.

My apologies for the inconvenience. Lesson learned! Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:56, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

Any update on this? I'm still seeing broken instances of {{Image}}. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:30, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

Unfortunately, we are still waiting for assistance from someone with the necessary technical skills (I have asked on Meta and on en.Wikipedia). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:59, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

Any updates on this? Lavalizard101 (talk) 17:17, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

Seems to be fixed now. Please report any lingering issues (after purging the affected page). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:48, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia library query

Trying to get a paper from Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society; this should be available on wikipedia library, but doesn't seem to be any more? Anyone know what the problem might be? - MPF (talk) 01:00, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

I tried to get onto the Library, and failed. It would not accept my password, and when I entered my e-mail, it claimed my address was not valid. Something seems to have gone wrong. Neferkheperre (talk) 14:01, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

I can access papers from that journal via the Wikipedia Library without issue. Perhaps the issue was transitory?

Which paper were you looking for? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:26, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing this one: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1095-8339.2012.01302.x - MPF (talk) 15:05, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

I go that with no problem. If you would like me to send you a copy, please email me. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:24, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing got it, many thanks! - MPF (talk) 21:28, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

Issues on Oxford Academic contents have been reported on Phabricator. As for me, it is still unavailable; I have failed to access Harley (1988). --Eryk Kij (talk) 12:32, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

Botany Help and Advice Needed.

I am trying to update Heliosperma pusillum, including its accepted Infraspecifics. As part of a search for data I have come across the disambig page Silene rupestris, where the last homonym Silene rupestris Sm., Fl. Graec. Prodr. 1(2): 295 (1809) is stated as a synonym of Heliosperma pusillum subsp. chromodontum (Boiss. & Reut.) Niketić & Stevan., Arh. Biol. Nauka 59(4): 393 (2007). The problem I have is that the only citation for this synonymy I can find is GBIF, where it is accepted as a heterotypic synonym. [4]. The protologue for the subspecies does not mention Silene rupestris. In addition, the native distribution for S. rupestris Sm. seems to be southern Spain, according to GBIF. Can anybody help with teasing out this conundrum? Otherwise we must conclude GBIF is in error.

In addition, the secondary sources have major disagreements for the classification of this whole complex of Greek and Balkan taxa. For example, compare the approaches in POWO and World Plants. No doubt the disputed tag may figure highly. Andyboorman (talk) 19:05, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

I dont usually comment on plants but in this particular case maybe I can help. Reason being is that my specialty is checklists. I am on the global team of Cat of Life for example and wrote many papers on metrics of checklists. So what I think has happened here is that several checklists have made assumptions that are unverified. It is unclear where this started and it does seem that a number of Checklists are following this, who actually first determined it is unclear. It appears also in CoL and likely is sitting deep in a number of backbone databases. I would suggest using the disputed tag on this but list it as a synonym for now. I will see if I can figure out who did this. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 17:26, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

Thanks Scott. I had a suspicion something had gone wrong. This also highlights a weakness in GBIF, a dedicated contact for queries of this nature. POWO and IPNI are easier contact in order to give feedback or offer suggestions. Andyboorman (talk) 17:44, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

As for the treatment of Silene rupestris sensu Sm., Fl. Graec. Prodr. 1(2): 295 (1809), I have found probable evidence. It is Rohrbach, Linnaea 36(3): 192 (1870), who cited S. rupestris sensu Sm. under Heliosperma chromodontum (Boiss. & Reut.) Rohrb., currently one of the homotypic synonyms of H. pusillum (Waldst. & Kit.) Rchb. subsp. chromodontum (Boiss. & Reut.) Niketić & Stevan.. Please note that Smith meant just application of S. rupestris L. to Greek plant, not to publish any new name. --Eryk Kij (talk) 19:17, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

That is looking a bit more promising, as the habitat stated by Rohrbach is to be expected. In your opinion is the synonymy of Silene rupestris sensu Sm. under Heliosperma chromodontum to be accepted in spite of the disjunct distribution shown in GBIF? Do you know where GBIF derive their distribution? Andyboorman (talk) 20:53, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

Yes, all Spanish occurrences of "Silene rupestris Sm." seem to rely on a single dataset, Phenology of flora of mediterranean high-mountains meadows (Sierra Nevada) (compiled by R.J. Zamora Rodríguez & A.J. Pérez-Luque, biologists of the University of Granada, in 2020), which includes human observations of that plant from 29 June 2009 to 16 July 2013. I suspect, however, they mean to refer to S. rupestris L. [≡ Atocion rupestre (L.) Oxelman]. Here is a checklist of vascular flora of Sierra Nevada [Lorite, Phytotaxa 26(1): 50 (2016)], which includes S. rupestris L. instead of S. rupestris sensu Sm. while Zamora R. & Pérez-L. (2020) lack any data on S. rupestris L. (vide GBIF). Please note that Lorite is also affiliated with UGR and once teamed up with the above-mentioned biologists to publish Pérez-Luque et al. (2014). Then I conclude that so far there exists no convincing evidence that verifies occurrence of Heliosperma pusillum subsp. chromodontum in Spain. --Eryk Kij (talk) 02:52, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

Thanks Eryk. I agree that the GBIF entry is an error based upon a misunderstanding or an unfortunate data entry. The Spanish botanists do not refer to Silene rupestris Sm. in their floras. Smith notes that his S. rupestris was found in the mountains of Greece only [5]. I note he also has an obscure reference to Sp. Pl. 602, do you know what that means? -- Andyboorman (talk) 08:41, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

@Andyboorman: It is probably collation of Sp. Pl., ed. 2 (1762), whose p. 602 contains Silene rupestris L., Sp. Pl. 1: 421 (1753). I think that it means citation by Smith is inadvertently indirect one. --Eryk Kij (talk) 10:26, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

....and thus S. rupestris Sm. would appear to be an isonymn. I think it now safe to remove Silene rupestris Sm. from the disambig and the Heliosperma pusillum subsp. chromodontum taxon page. I will contact IPNI ask ask for an opinion regarding the status of S. rupestris Sm. with a possible autocorrect on their registration. Andyboorman (talk) 11:22, 4 April 2026 (UTC)