Wikispecies:Village Pump

Welcome to the village pump of Wikispecies.

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

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

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

Village pump in other languages:

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

Archives
1	(2004-09-21/2005-01-05)	2	(2005-01-05/2005-08-23)
3	(2005-08-24/2005-12-31)	4	(2006-01-01/2005-05-31)
5	(2006-06-01/2006-12-16)	6	(2006-12-17/2006-12-31)
7	(2007-01-01/2007-02-28)	8	(2007-03-01/2007-04-30)
9	(2007-05-01/2007-08-31)	10	(2007-09-01/2007-10-31)
11	(2007-11-01/2007-12-31)	12	(2008-01-01/2008-02-28)
13	(2008-03-01/2008-04-28)	14	(2008-04-29/2008-06-30)
15	(2008-07-01/2008-09-30)	16	(2008-10-01/2008-12-25)
17	(2008-12-26/2009-02-28)	18	(2009-03-01/2009-06-30)
19	(2009-07-01/2009-12-31)	20	(2010-01-01/2010-06-30)
21	(2010-07-01/2010-12-31)	22	(2011-01-01/2011-06-30)
23	(2011-07-01/2011-12-31)	24	(2012-01-01/2012-12-31)
25	(2013-01-01/2013-12-31)	26	(2014-01-01/2014-12-31)
27	(2015-01-01/2015-01-31)	28	(2015-02-01/2015-02-28)
29	(2015-02-28/2015-04-29)	30	(2015-04-29/2015-07-19)
31	(2015-07-19/2015-09-23)	32	(2015-09-23/2015-11-21)
33	(2015-11-21/2015-12-31)	34	(2016-01-01/2016-04-17)
35	(2016-03-22/2016-05-01)	36	(2016-05-01/2016-07-12)
37	(2016-07-13/2016-09-30)	38	(2016-10-01/2016-12-04)
39	(2016-12-04/2017-01-17)	40	(2017-01-18/2017-01-28)
41	(2017-01-29/2017-02-13)	42	(2017-02-14/2017-03-21)
43	(2017-03-20/2017-08-11)	44	(2017-08-10/2017-12-07)
45	(2017-12-08/2018-01-08)	46	(2018-01-19/2018-03-11)
47	(2018-03-11/2018-09-11)	48	(2018-09-01/2019-02-17)
49	(2019-02-22/2019-06-18)	50	(2019-06-19/2019-10-06)
51	(2019-10-07/2019-12-23)	52	(2019-12-24/2020-04-03)
53	(2020-04-03/2020-07-16)	54	(2020-07-17/2020-09-05)
55	(2020-09-08/2020-11-27)	56	(2020-11-27/2021-06-21)
57	(2021-06-05/2021-09-24)	58	(2021-09-25/2022-01-24)
59	(2022-01-26/2022-02-27)	60	(2022-02-27/2022-04-13)
61	(2022-04-14/2022-05-10)	62	(2022-07-01/2023-12-17)
63	(2022-12-24/2023-04-20)	64	(2023-04-20/2023-08-29)
65	(2023-09-01/2023-12-27)	66	(2023-11-18/2024-02-14)
67	(2024-02-14/2024-06-21)	68	(2024-06-22/2024-11-02)
69	(2024-11-03/2025-xx-xx)	70	(???)

Catol-"Hassler"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Translation admin queue needs action

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Monkeypox virus

Hello,

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

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

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

New "sea moth" radiodont

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

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

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

List of Tardigrada

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

Karyoblastea

Our page on Karyoblastea shows no parent taxon.

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

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

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

Croatian and Serbian language versions

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

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

Note:

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

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

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

Mackenzie disambiguation

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

Mixed up journal pages?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@Monster Iestyn! Thank you. I'm pretty busy IRL the next couple of days, but will try to sort it out as soon as possible. –~~, 18:36, 31 May 2025 (UTC).

Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees 2025 Selection & Call for Questions

More languages • Please help translate to your language

Dear all,

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

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

Here are the key planned dates:

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

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

Call for Questions

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

Election Volunteers

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

Thank you!

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

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

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

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

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

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

Best regards,

Victoria Doronina

Board Liaison to the Elections Committee

Governance Committee

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

Taraxacum angustisectum

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

We have no Taraxacum angustisectum article.

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

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

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

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

Taxonomical data on redirect pages

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• To @Thiotrix:

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

• To Scott Thomson (Faendalimas):

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• To Scott Thomson (Faendalimas):

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

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

• To @Andyboorman:

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

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

1. That POWO is used in many information sources.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Template:VN - technical change needed

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

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

to:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Template:VN - list markup

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

[example superseded]

to:

• English: House Sparrow

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Eponyms of Élie Magloire Durand

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

Help me identify this insect

unidentified insect photographed in Wayanad, Kerala, South India

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

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

• I'm not at all a specialist, but it looks very much to a member of the genus Allorhynchium. Christian Ferrer (talk) 20:50, 4 June 2025 (UTC)