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	(2025-02-03/2025-04-11)
71	(2025-04-12/2025-06-16)	72	(2025-06-17/2025-xx-xx)

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 [1]?
• $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

I put a fair amount of effort into tracking down J. Kudera and F. Reyes. I filled out as many authority control links on wikidata for the known editors of ReptileDB as I could, in the hopes that it would lead me to a co-authored paper, but no luck. I also note that one of the other editors, Jiří Hošek, appears to have no institutional affiliation - what looks like a personal address is given for him instead on Marshall et al., 2020. The website notes that he maintains the search engine, so it's possible that he's not a herpetologist per se.

It seems possible that Kudera and Reyes might be a similar situation, given the lack of any other publications or information that I can find. I think our options to find out more about them are a) email the ReptileDB people and ask directly or b) wait for another paper about the ReptileDB itself to come out, which will probably include them as co-authors. There was one in 2020 and another in 2021. I created a template for the 2021 paper and put it on the appropriate people's pages, since we didn't have it already. In the meantime, maybe the right thing to do is convert Kudera and Reyes to the non-linking aut template on Template:ReptileDB? Tungolen (talk) 05:14, 13 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Agree with de-linking; and done, thank you. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:56, 13 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

The links to $2, $3, and $common are artifacts of the translation extension for which nothing can be done, but it's worth noting that https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T308425 is the issue to get stuff like that out of WantedPages at a technical level. Tungolen (talk) 07:55, 13 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

The most-wanted pages (with 100 or more links) are now:

• Pseudofungi (308 links) [deleted in 2024]
• Julia Pawłowska (146 links)
• Árpád Soós (140 links)
• Frederick W. Spiegel (133 links)
• Fabien Burki (123 links)
• Enrique Lara (120 links)
• Edward A.D. Mitchell (116 links)
• Micah Dunthorn (116 links)
• Mona Hoppenrath (116 links)
• Sonja Rueckert (116 links)
• Samuel S. Bowser (115 links)
• Hilary McManus (100 links)
• Laura Shadwick (100 links)
• Laura W. Parfrey (100 links)
• Sharon E. Mozley-Stanridge (100 links)

Please help to create, or remove unwanted links to, them. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:32, 13 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

I'm trying to turn some red links blue by making taxon authority pages. Just a heads up to anyone else who is motivated to do this, please connect these pages with Wikidata items to keep from adding to that maintenance page as well. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:07, 13 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Please see Talk:Micromeria and Talk:Siluridae. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:13, 8 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

 Done, Micronema is now a genus disambiguation. --Thiotrix (talk) 09:32, 9 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Would it be possible to produce a searchable template for The online Flora of Mexico: eFloraMEX? A sample result is Turbinicarpus saueri subsp. ysabelae (Schlange) A. Lüthy. Any help appreciated, as it is an amazing database. Unfortunately I can not even find a "how to cite us" protocol. Best regards Andyboorman (talk) 17:03, 9 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

• If no one has helped you in a few days, I promise to take a look. Christian Ferrer (talk) 04:53, 10 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

  Thank you. Andyboorman (talk) 10:13, 10 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

•  Done @Andyboorman: the template is there: {{EFloraMEX}}. Christian Ferrer (talk) 07:21, 13 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

  Thanks that is brilliant Andyboorman (talk) 10:17, 13 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Category:Species named after celebrities includes other ranks; should it be renamed ("Taxa named after..."), or subdivided by rank? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:59, 10 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

We are a nomenclatural site?? We need this?? Merge it with Eponyms if you think its useful. From a nomenclatural point of view who something is named after is a passing commentary, useful to group them I can see that but celibs, politicians scientists everyone else why does it matter? This is for Wikipedia. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 21:56, 10 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Agreed that this is very deletable/merge-able. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:05, 10 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

If it was to be renamed, yes "Taxa named after" would be more suitable... but being a Stho002 creation from back in 2012, I suspect it didn't have consensus to exist in the first place. Noting here that Category:Taxa named after mythical and fictional subjects also exists, but that was created in 2020. Monster Iestyn (talk) 23:59, 10 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

No, merging it would not be useful. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:08, 11 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Can someone move Anetia Robineau-Desvoidy to a more correct name? I picked it up off the orphaned pages list to clean up, and I don't think the current page name is right. I think we also need a disambiguation page between it and the butterfly genus Anetia. Based on the example of Micromeria discussion above, it seems that they should go to something like Anetia (Tachinidae) and Anetia (Nymphalidae)? Tungolen (talk) 21:21, 12 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

If there were only 2 zoological names, the invalid homonym Anetia Robineau-Desvoidy [better Anetia (Robineau-Desvoidy) or Anetia (Tachinidae)] should have been mentioned on the page of the valid name Anetia. But there exists also a validly published plant name Anetia (a hemihomonym). Therefore Anetia needs to be a a genus disambiguation. Thiotrix (talk) 16:18, 13 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

I appreciate that this is a little premature, but the former claim is definitely true: we are currently at 916,056 content pages, most of which are species entries. For comparison, we had 903,591 four months ago, so if we keep up this clip, we would hit one million in about two years, but this is a little slower than usual, so we should probably assume that we will reach one million content pages in about a year. Unfortunately, I have seen some of our projects get caught a little unawares when it comes to these milestone numbers (e.g. when we got to 20 years or when Commons passed 100 million files), so I think it would be nice if we could be more deliberate about celebrating this milestone. Some ways we could celebrate/broadcast:

• Notice on the main page and the site banner.
• Entries in the WMF blog Diff, including some editor profiles, a little history of how Wikispecies came to be, etc. We could easily have a half-dozen entries of some interest.
• External communications with relevant outlets.
• Graphics to celebrate, like a golden logo with "1M" or "1,000,000" on it, etc.

Do others agree that this is something to celebrate? Any other proposals on what we could do to recognize the hard work everyone has put in?

And re: my second claim, yes, of course, there is still work to do, but there are between 1.5 and 2 million species that have been identified among the 8 million or so that exist. Assuming that 90% of our content pages are species entries, that means that once we get to one million, we are at the upper end, most of the way there. That's a huge accomplishment in a volunteer-driven project that has been around for 20 years. Once we have actually identified one million species, I think we should do the same by promoting that work, which may be about two years out. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:00, 14 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

I apologize for spoiling the fun, but prior to highlighting the quantity, we must prioritize the quality. Pages such as Cerylon impressum or Momonipta are essentially worthless, and there exist thousands of comparable 'species pages'. Mariusm (talk) 08:34, 15 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

One million pages is still a significant milestone, and worthy of celebrating, not least as a means of publicising the existence of Wikispecies and recruiting more volunteers. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:05, 15 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Both quality and quantity are important, but it's a lot harder to gauge quality, particularly on the scale of one million pages. Yes, it would be ideal if all taxons had full descriptions, sources, images, links to appropriate databases, etc. and there's similar information that could go on pages for ISSNs, taxon authorities, repositories, etc. as well. This is just a good round number that lets us celebrate all the hard work that we've done. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:49, 15 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

We should involve—with as much notice as possible—the WMF comms team. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:06, 15 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

I agree it is a milestone that could be used to recruit. Andyboorman (talk) 14:12, 15 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

On the other hand to live happily let's live hidden. Christian Ferrer (talk) 13:45, 17 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

On taxon pages, we seem to use Superregnum as the latin form of domain. In conflict with that, but following {{Woese, Kandler & Wheelis, 1990}}, we have the Latin form documented as Regio on Help:Taxonavigation_section. More recently, the ICNP officially adopted domains with the Latin form dominium, see {{Oren, 2023}} for the details. This seems to be the first code to officially adopt domains. Should we follow their example and update both regio and superregnum to dominium? It seems to me like that's probably the right thing to do. Tungolen (talk) 10:22, 21 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

when it has been defined and adopted in a code yes, so for species covered by the ICNP it would seem prudent to change this. But for species under other codes we should stick with the current accepted hierarchies. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 12:16, 24 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

I'm not sure how satisfying an answer that is for this situation. If Bacteria and Archaea are Dominium but Eukaryota is Superregnum, isn't that a bit confusing? And what goes in the documentation at Help:Taxonavigation_section? It's particularly unfortunate that the current documentation doesn't match existing practice on this wiki. In fact, in the most recent edits to Template:Bacteria, someone changed Superregnum to Regio but their change was reverted. @Tommy Kronkvist, do you have opinions about Superregnum versus Regio versus Dominium? I'm relatively new on wikispecies, so I don't want to step on anyone's toes if there's a strong consensus for Superregnum for some reason. (Edit: to be clear, I tagged you in particular because you reverted the edit to Template:Bacteria.)

But as it stands, there's a three-way split between wikispecies documentation, wikispecies practice, and the ICNP code. We should at least be able to harmonize the first two, if not all three. Both ICZN and ICBN are silent on the proper latin rank of Eucaryota, so the best solution in my opinion would be to use Dominium consistently. As an aside, I also just noticed that the page for Neomura uses the incorrect Domini which is an inflection of Dominus, "Lord". The correct plural should be Dominia. Tungolen (talk) 23:18, 25 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

I've changed superregnum to dominium on Template:Bacteria and Template:Archaea, and regio to dominium on the documentation page. Template:Eukaryota is protected, so I left a protected edit request on it's talk page here. Tungolen (talk) 03:45, 4 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

These were reverted - my apologies for acting without proper consensus. Tungolen (talk) 10:54, 4 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Katsumi Abe has no content and on links from taxon or publication pages. Should we delete it or can it be populated?

Are they the "Abe, K." mentioned on Richard W. Jordan? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:09, 24 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

the Abe, K. mentioned there is Kenta Abe I do not think they are the same person. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 12:19, 24 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Doing a quick google search for "Katsumi Abe ostracod" does confirm that someone by that name studied ostracods in at least the 80s and 90s (sadly he died in a road accident in 1998: [2]), but I don't think he ever named any ostracod taxa as far as I can tell: searching World Ostracoda Database for authorities with "Abe" gives only one new combination for a species, Oertliella cretaria (Bold, 1964) Abe, Reyment, Bookstein, Honigstein, Almogi-Labin, Rosenfeld & Hermelin, 1988. Monster Iestyn (talk) 13:57, 24 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

That would be from {{Abe et al., 1988}}. Oertliella cretaria is a red link. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:10, 25 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

...also, this doesn't seem to be an unusual case, I've noticed over my time on Wikispecies that a number of ostracodologist/micropalaeontologist taxon author pages created by the late Kempf EK (including this one) have essentially no content. I just quickly made a search link that probably catches all of these here, which suggests there's over 200 of them with no {{Taxa authored}} template or listed publications (or at least those using the {{A}} template). It's not quite as easy to tell which of these aren't linked from any taxon pages though. Monster Iestyn (talk) 16:24, 24 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Do we need to delete some, then?

We should proceed with care, as there are some false positives. Oive Tinn is in the list, for example, and is the joint author of Kalanaspis delectabilis. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:04, 25 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Is this question meant for me? Because if I'm being honest I don't know. If it were totally up to me, I would want to delete most pages for people who aren't actually taxon authors; I feel too many Wikispecies pages have been created for non-taxon authors, many of whom seem outside of Wikispecies' scope (e.g. authors or co-authors of publications on the ecology or distribution of a species, or those announcing that the complete mitochondrial genome of a species has been sequenced; I've seen that many of these were mis-identified as taxon authorities when they are often just ecologists, geneticists, etc.). In this case, I suspect a number of those ostracodologist/micropalaeontologist pages are likewise not taxon authors or even taxonomists at all, just anyone who has researched ostracods at all; for instance Katsumi Abe's main research focus seems to have been the morphology of ostracods, not their taxonomy. But because more regular or active members of Wikispecies than me don't seem to mind there being pages for people who aren't taxon authors based on previous discussions (I think?), the question of whether to delete some of these seems better for them to answer, not me. Monster Iestyn (talk) 12:29, 29 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

I'm pretty new here, so weight my opinion appropriately, but based on observation I had assumed that if someone was a co-author on a relevant paper that was sufficient to justify a page for them - similar to how I understand notability standards for wikidata. Even if they're not properly a taxon author (and it'd be nice is more papers were clear about which paper co-authors should be considered the taxon author and which should not), it seems useful to be able to link them on publications and allow the user to find other co-authors the same person has worked with that way. Their pages supplement the web of authorship, as it were. Tungolen (talk) 21:54, 30 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

This is for botanists and admins, so apologies to our zoology colleagues. Templates {{Catol-Hassler}} and {{World Plants}} have now become problematic. The former leads us to Catalogue of Life example, but this usually now cites World Plants as its source, for example Pachycereus-schottii, but the link gives a type error. Therefore, the World Plant template itself is causing major search errors, either cased by the site or the template, not sure which. However, if {{World Plants}} was working then {{Catol-Hassler}} would be redundant and using both on a single taxon page must be bad practice, surely? I have tried to resolve this issue through editing where the two templates co-exist, but have had these reversed. I am not pulling admin rank. In an ideal world I would propose that, using bots, {{Catol-Hassler}} be redirected/rreplaced by {{World Plants}}, duplicates deleted off of taxon pages then the template be nuked. In the interim it is possible to make the templates invisible via a reversal bot? They are used on multiple taxon pages, so it is unsustainable editing pages individually. However, given that {{World Plants}} is not working I seek advice. Andyboorman (talk) 18:47, 26 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

It's about time we thank the most dedicated WS editors. These editors have been consistent for many months and deserve our hearty gratitude.

Over 3,000 edits in the last 30 days:

• MILEPRI
• PeterR

Over 2,000 edits in the last 30 days:

• Burmeister
• Fagus
• The editor 2345
• Thiotrix

Over 1,000 edits in the last 30 days:

• Christian Ferrer
• Neferkheperre

We all appreciate your dedication and involvement with WS. Keep up the good work! Mariusm (talk) 08:15, 27 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Thank you! The editor 2345 (talk) 13:51, 27 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. Neferkheperre (talk) 14:04, 27 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Since it's a heavily used template I wanted to leave a note here that I'm working on improvements to the {{Image}} template. It can now pull in captions from wikidata using the "depicts" qualifier on taxon pages at ranks above species, but there's a few problems still. Primary discussion is at Template_talk:Image#Legends. Tungolen (talk) 23:35, 30 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Is it common practice to add the {{Italictitle}} template to genus template pages? There doesn't appear to be much consistency on whether the titles of genus and species pages are italicized; e.g. Scolopendra is not italicized but Desmodium is, due to this edit. Is this discouraged, or can I go ahead and add italictitle to genus templates when I find them? Thanks, Cremastra (talk) 19:41, 1 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Its not common practice at all. There is no need to use that template here. For starters you shouldnt as it actually goes against the reason scientific names are italicised in the first place which is for grammmar reasons. When a paragraph contains multiple languages they should be differentiated by format. Scientific names are latinized, but in the title there is only one language. The genus or species name, its latin, why differentiate it. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 20:44, 1 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

I see, thank you. I was asking in part beacause at English Wikipedia it is default practice to italicize scientific names in the title, as it is at Wikimedia Commons. Cheers, Cremastra (talk) 22:45, 1 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Please see Category talk:Eponyms of Alison W. Cusick; Category talk:Eponyms of Auguste Monnier and Category talk:Eponyms of John Dalton. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:18, 4 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

There's been some discussion here on moving our citations to a more standard template-based form (e.g. similar to Wikipedia's Cite template); I feel that the upcoming WikiCite conference (at the end of August) may be relevant to these discussions, as it discusses citations using Wikidata. Please see meta:WikiCite 2025 for more information. --WrenFalcon (talk) 19:21, 5 August 2025 (UTC)Reply