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	(2024-11-03/2025-02-03)	70	(2025-02-03/2025-xx-xx)

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:

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).Reply

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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

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

We have no Taraxacum angustisectum article.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• To @Thiotrix:

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

• To Scott Thomson (Faendalimas):

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• To Scott Thomson (Faendalimas):

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

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

• To @Andyboorman:

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

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

1. That POWO is used in many information sources.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

There is no priority on updated information and editions:

The current Selenicereus trigonus page has potential problems:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

to:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[example superseded]

to:

[example superseded]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@Pigsonthewing @Tommy Kronkvist @Jonesey95 @Faendalimas

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

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

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

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

• Note that in Wikipedia too the Taxon Identifiers box is not visible in mobile view [1]. Christian Ferrer (talk) 10:17, 7 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

  @Tommy Kronkvist @Christian Ferrer - thanks! Must admit I never use mobiles for looking at wikispecies (or wikipedia) . . . MPF (talk) 10:54, 7 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

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

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

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

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

  @Dyanega: do you know anyone that can help with this? Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 13:24, 6 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

  This is a female Xylocopa. There are a number of Xylocopa with all-black females in south India (such as X. latipes and X. magnifica), not possible to ID from photos. The yellowish dust is pollen, not pigmented hairs. Dyanega (talk) 14:43, 6 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

  I've added Category:Unidentified Xylocopa to the file at Commons - MPF (talk) 20:48, 6 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I found Orphans here [2]. Not as easily accessible as the older version. Andyboorman (talk) 16:36, 11 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks. Andyboorman (talk) 13:58, 17 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

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

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

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

Does anyone know whether the "Daniel J. Bennett" mentioned in the template Lohrmann, Falin, Bennett & Engel, 2014 is the same Bennett as the zoologist mentioned in our Daniel Bennett article? Thanks! –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 08:53, 17 June 2025 (UTC).Reply

• No they are different. Daniel Bennett is herpetologist ResearchGate, he looks somewhat specialized in Monitor Lizards. Daniel J. Bennett is an U.S. entomologist: Curriculum Vitae. Christian Ferrer (talk) 13:46, 17 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

More languages • Please help translate to your language

Hello all,

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

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

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

Best regards,

Abhishek Suryawanshi
Chair of the Elections Committee

On behalf of the Elections Committee and Governance Committee

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

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

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

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:43, 17 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Listed on Special:WantedPages are:

• Tsar (13,823 links)
  • Clade, in e.g {{Dinoflagellata}}
• J. Kudera (8,922 links)
• R. Aguilar (8,922 links)
• F. Reyes (8,922 links)
  • All in {{ReptileDB}}
• Auct. non (354 links)
  • Same as [3]?
• $2 (249 links)
  • Found in Translations:Wikispecies:Oversighters/18/en (as is $3)
• $commons (83 links)
  • Found in Translations:Help:Translation/10/en

Can anyone help to turn these red links blue? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:43, 17 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Looks like this [R. Aguilar] could be redirected to Reinaldo Alexis de Jesús Aguilar Fernández - MPF (talk) 01:11, 19 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

I've already replaced that with a link to Rocío Aguilar, which is why I struck it. They don't seem to be the same person. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:00, 19 June 2025 (UTC)Reply