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	(???)

Use of Taxonbar and Reference Section

It could be argued that there is some duplication/overlap between the template Taxonbar and the Reference Section, if the former is added to the end of a taxon page. Traditionally, the Reference Section was used to cite the protologue, as the first reference or under the Primary Reference and then the other material sourced to cite the information presented on the taxon page. This material could be books, papers or links out to trusted secondary sources. It is presented in the same way as a reader could find in scientific paper. However, recently it has become common to use Taxonbar, as an additional section that contains WD and other links out. Recently, a fellow editor removed my links from the Reference Section noting they were also found in the Taxonbar box. We discussed this and decided to raise the issue on the Pump for discussion. I present these three recent edits, as examples (please excuse any imperfections);

• Scabiosa columbaria subsp. banatica
• Scabiosa columbaria subsp. pratensis
• Scabiosa columbaria subsp. saetabensis

They hopefully illustrate the points I an trying to make. I present this for open discussion. Best regards. Andyboorman (talk) 20:44, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for raising this issue. My personal opinion is that if the link is not providing any new information to what is already in the page, and it is included in WD, should be excluded from the Reference (Links) section. One exception is the IUCN status for which we have a template that adds the conservation status even as a category. This is a limited opinion for Aves; one example, some pages, in general outdated, are showing the ITIS link. ITIS is, for many cases years ago outdated, and is also contained in WD. In this case, I remove it. Hope I helped... Hector Bottai (talk) 14:28, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

We have templates for a number of the items in TaxonBar, such as the ICZN ZooBank id, Reptile DataBase id among others. However I agree we could keep the TaxonBar to reference occurances in Checklists and the References to do what they say they do and be a list of relevant citations. Of which Checklists are not primary sources of taxonomy or nomenclature. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 15:04, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

Taxonbars do not display in mobile view. That is due to some other underlying template/module (I don't recall exactly what it is) that is set not to display in mobile view (on English Wikipedia the underlying code is also used by navboxes, and I think it is reasonable to exclude navboxes from mobile view there). English Wikipedia has not worked out a solution to display taxonbars in mobile view.

I would expect that Wikispecies may have a lower proportion of mobile views to non-mobile views than English Wikipedia does, but I would expect there is still a significant proportion of mobile views here. Until the mobile view situation is corrected, I wouldn't support removing "redundant" links that are also held in the taxonbar.

Wikipedias don't have any link to Wikispecies or Commons in mobile view. In non-mobile view, there is a sidebar with links to Wikispecies, Commons and other language Wikipedias. In mobile view, the sidebar isn't displayed and it is only possible to view the links to other language Wikipedias, not Commons or Wikispecies (although you can find a link to Wikidata and then follow that to get to Wikispecies/Commons). Whatever code underlies this, it is not the same as the code that supresses taxonbars in mobile view. I've been opposed to removing templates that link "redundantly" link to Wikispecies on English Wikipedia, since they aren't redundant in mobile view. Plantdrew (talk) 16:27, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

┌───────┘ Thank you for bringing this up, Andy. For the sake of completeness, the initial talk can be found here: User talk:Tommy Kronkvist#Taxon Identifier Box.
To @Plantdrew: Thank you for the insightful information regarding mobile views. Somewhat surprisingly, there are actually quite a lot of edits being made from mobile devices, as you can see here. –Best regards, Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 18:30, 13 February 2025 (UTC).

Synonymous Page

I was making a wikipedia article on aquatica leii, and noticed that on wikispecies says the species is synonymous with aquatica hydrophila, but A. hydrophilas doesn't list it as one? Are these the same species or not? — The preceding unsigned comment was added by PineappleWizard123 (talk • contribs) 22:09, 11 February 2025.

@PineappleWizard123:: I think it's just a mistake, it looks to me like "Aquatica hydrophila" on Aquatica leii should actually be "Aquatica leii", to show that Fu, Ballantyne & Lambkin, 2010 transferred Luciola leii from Luciola to Aquatica (as seen in the abstract), making the new combination Aquatica leii. Monster Iestyn (talk) 04:19, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

There, just fixed the page accordingly. Monster Iestyn (talk) 04:20, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

Sandboxes and such

What's a good way to share formatted content (i.e. how content would display if 'published') for a non-wiki user, but not have it yet on the main system. Hard to explain what i want without the right terms! Basically, i think what i mean is 'a sandbox' where i see there's already this Wikispecies talk:Sandbox. My only concerns with that are two issues, firstly how short of a time will something placed onto that persist for, and secondly it looks like entirely public, can view-ability be limited? Is there any related feature such as a user only (personal) sandbox? I know such a thing exists on main wikis, but i never used them - i'm guessing over on that need to log into account to view the content? What i'm ideally after is to have somewhere that i can input some novel content (with markup for wikispecies - if that's the right terms for coding) but then have that displaying as being 'formatted/published'. Rather than a public transient sandbox above, to have it persisting until a time of my choosing, and only accessible/visible to someone i designate [ideally them not being logged into wikispecies] for private discussion (admins etc seeing content and having access is understandable as failsafe). This kind of thing might not exist due to potential problems with users who create junk, spam, etc., but i just want a way to privately share a preview of some potential wikispecies content with someone before 'going live'. Suggestions welcome!
— The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sjl197 (talk • contribs) 08:28, 16 February 2025 (UTC).

@Sjl197: Feel free to create your own sandbox connected to your user account, i.e. User:Sjl197/sandbox, just like in any other Wikimedia project.

Also, please remember to always sign your comments on talk pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~. This will automatically produce your username (if you're logged in) and the date, making it easier for other users to follow the discussion.
–Best regards, Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 10:46, 16 February 2025 (UTC).

Thanks good to know there's at least a user specific sandbox. Forgive the lack of tilda thing, they hide them from me on my mac keyboard. Even without them i still see it as reading "The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sjl197 (talk • contribs)" and with that (provided that's what you also see), then you seemed to be able to fathom who for a direct reply. However, yes i see in guidance as you say that i should specify it explicitly, cheers.

Sjl197 (talk) 07:42, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

A pass through Category:Sources and a proposed rename of Category:Journals

I assume more than a few people noticed me rampaging through category:Sources and aggressively moving everything that could be into either Category:Journals or (after a renaming) Category:ISSN (Monster Iestyn also did a lot of moving into Category:Journals, although my focus was more on the ISSN issues, with the Journals a side effect). I will shourtly begin a similar crawl through Category:Journals, but I think we should really consider renaming it to "Category:Periodicals" because "periodical that published a work of taxonomical reference once" does not necessarily mean "a scientific or scholarly journal". A fair number of gardening/trade publications and even newspapers or general interest magazines have published such content over the years... Circeus (talk) 01:08, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

Support It's not necessarily the highest priority as it's mostly a technicality, but it's best to be accurate. Thanks for this work. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:27, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

 Support Makes sense to me. Not all periodicals that have an ISSN are journals, and yet currently Category:ISSN is a subcategory of Category:Journals which doesn't quite add up. (I'm aware I put it there myself, but that was recommended to me at the time I was working towards having Stho002's "Series identifiers" category deleted: see here and here) Monster Iestyn (talk) 03:25, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

Upcoming Language Community Meeting (Feb 28th, 14:00 UTC) and Newsletter

Hello everyone!

We’re excited to announce that the next Language Community Meeting is happening soon, February 28th at 14:00 UTC! If you’d like to join, simply sign up on the wiki page.

This is a participant-driven meeting where we share updates on language-related projects, discuss technical challenges in language wikis, and collaborate on solutions. In our last meeting, we covered topics like developing language keyboards, creating the Moore Wikipedia, and updates from the language support track at Wiki Indaba.

Got a topic to share? Whether it’s a technical update from your project, a challenge you need help with, or a request for interpretation support, we’d love to hear from you! Feel free to reply to this message or add agenda items to the document here.

Also, we wanted to highlight that the sixth edition of the Language & Internationalization newsletter (January 2025) is available here: Wikimedia Language and Product Localization/Newsletter/2025/January. This newsletter provides updates from the October–December 2024 quarter on new feature development, improvements in various language-related technical projects and support efforts, details about community meetings, and ideas for contributing to projects. To stay updated, you can subscribe to the newsletter on its wiki page: Wikimedia Language and Product Localization/Newsletter.

We look forward to your ideas and participation at the language community meeting, see you there!

MediaWiki message delivery 08:28, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

Why (only) Twitter/X account?

[Moved from Talk:Main Page ]

Have you considered setting up something like @Wikispecies for alternatives to Twitter/X like the free open source Mastodon and Bluesky? It varies a lot by community, but my sense is a significant fraction of activity, especially for many academic sub-communities, has moved off Twitter/X. Crust10 (talk) 17:27, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Crust10, and welcome to Wikispecies. Good question! I'm the custodian of the @Wikispecies X account, and brought this same question to light on some of our Wikimedia sister projects already in 2022 and early 2023. I wanted to ask for their opinions since I felt it would be a bit odd if only Wikispecies opted for the Twitter alternatives, while our sister projects such as Wikidata, Commons and Wikipedia stayed behind. Back then our discussions mostly revolved around Mastodon and Discord as alternatives, since Bluesky was only about one year old and still fairly unknown. (And yes, I know there's been some criticism and controversy surrounding select Discord servers and their subgroups, but I feel we (i.e. the Wikimedia Community) should alway have an open mind and try to stay objective when discussing things like this.)

So, what was the outcome of these discussions? No dice, I'm afraid. The interest from more or less all of the other Wikimedia projects was luke warm, at best. My guess is that it's still a bit early, and that the current system with a multitude of Mastodon and Discord servers scattered more or less all over the globe might be confusing for some of the users. Sure, the different servers/communities all talk to each other seamlessly and without problems, but it's easier to "understand" Twitter's system which only use one single hub as a central for the whole service. Hopefully the situation will clear up fairly soon, because I recognise the same problem as you: many X users are jumping ship, becoming ex users instead... Kind regards, Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 21:49, 6 January 2024 (UTC).

Tommy, thank you for the fulsome, prompt, generous and humorous (X to ex, lol) reply.

Discord is also a natural venue in my opinion.

That's disappointing that other Wikimedia projects were lukewarm on the last go round a year ago. I can see the value of coordinating on this. But I wonder if there might also be value in one of the custodians boldly giving it a go. I suspect a lot of the hesitation comes from being unsure of best/efficient practices, so questions like: "What is the easiest way to post to multiple platforms?"; "How do I / do I need to monitor comments on multiple platforms?"; "How much do I need to worry about idiosyncrasies of different platforms (formatting, treatment of links, norms about appropriate posts)?"; etc. So if you personally have the enthusiasm and others (still) don't but also don't have objections to you trying (e.g. on reputational grounds or whatever), you might try forging the way and working out best practices. One hopes others would follow! Of course this is all easy for me to say. Just a possible suggestion. Crust10 (talk) 22:43, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Sorry I know this is old but it does actually raise a good point. The idea of a Discord Channel is very appealing actually, allows for significant modernization and customisation along with options for Discovery. Leading to possible new editors. Lets face it X is probably bnot a science friendly option these days.

I am happy to set up a discord for us if people are interested?? Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 07:57, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

Only Wikispecies presents the link to twitter/X on its main page, not our sister projects. I support the proposal to move off from this platform, e.g. to Mastodon and/or Bluesky, like most universities have done recently. Discord once started as an U.S. gamer platform, so I do not know, if it is suited for our editors and users worldwide. Thiotrix (talk) 11:19, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

It would likely be more hassle, but something to consider is being on multiple platforms. The audience formerly on Twitter has now splintered to many platforms, but you might for instance add Bluesky, Mastodon and Discord while retaining X. While Discord started as a gaming platform, it is now used for many purposes. Crust10 (talk) 17:33, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

I agree with this, and yes although Discord started for gaming there are thousands of non gaming servers on it now including many Buiological Sciences ones. Its also used for Wikimedia, we also use it for the Ombuds Commission though that one is private of course. I am fine with Bluesky also I use that, I do not use Mastodon but it seems fine to me. I do still technically have my X account but do not use it at all. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 19:14, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

Wiki Loves Bangla 2025 has begun—Join us!

Hello,

Greetings from the Wiki Loves Bangla Team!

We are excited to announce that Wiki Loves Bangla 2025 is coming soon! This year, the contest theme will focus on Birds of Bengal, inviting participants to capture and share stunning images of Bengal's diverse birdlife.

Contest Details

📅 Dates: 1 – 31 March 2025

📍 Theme: Birds of Bengal

🎯 Organized by: Bangla WikiMoitree

Wiki Loves Bangla is an international photography contest hosted on Wikimedia Commons to document Bengali culture and heritage worldwide. As part of the Bangla Culture and Heritage Collation Program, it is held annually with a specific theme, inviting participants to contribute their photographs to Wikimedia Commons to expand free knowledge. Through this campaign, you can become part of a community dedicated to preserving and showcasing the beauty, behavior, and biodiversity of Bangla’s birds. This initiative aims to highlight the richness of Bangla’s natural heritage to the world.

How can I participate?

The contest runs from 1 - 31 March 2025 on Wikimedia Commons. To take part, simply:

📷 Capture photographs of Birds of Bengal.

📤 Upload your images to Wikimedia Commons under the Wiki Loves Bangla 2025 category.

📖 Learn more about contest rules and guidelines on the contest page.

Why participate?

By contributing, you help in documenting the rich birdlife of Bengal, making knowledge accessible to all. Plus, there are exciting prizes to be won!

Prizes

1st prize: BDT 50,000, crest, and certificate.

2nd prize: BDT 25,000, crest, and certificate.

3rd Prize: BDT 15,000, crest, and certificate.

If you are interested in participating in the photography campaign, start photographing and get ready for the photo campaign happening on Wikimedia Commons. For more information about the rules and prizes of the contest, refer here. For any questions, email us or join our telegram group here.

Warm regards,
Wiki Loves Bangla Team.

#WikiLovesBangla
Moheen (talk) 12:59, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

Universal Code of Conduct annual review: proposed changes are available for comment

Please help translate to your language.

I am writing to you to let you know that proposed changes to the Universal Code of Conduct (UCoC) Enforcement Guidelines and Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) Charter are open for review. You can provide feedback on suggested changes through the end of day on Tuesday, 18 March 2025. This is the second step in the annual review process, the final step will be community voting on the proposed changes. Read more information and find relevant links about the process on the UCoC annual review page on Meta.

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

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

-- In cooperation with the U4C, Keegan (WMF) 18:50, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

mihi

Hudson, 1885 has several species described as "n.sp. mihi." (e.g. "Stephanops armatus n. sp. mihi.")

What is "mihi" in this context? Our glossary does not mention it. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:42, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

Hi Andy, I believe it just means "my name" - have not researched the derivation... see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mihi_itch . Regards - Tony Tony 1212 (talk) 17:57, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. That makes sense, and further searching confirms. I've added it to Wikispecies:Glossary#M and requested an addition at Wiktionary. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:38, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

Hi Andy, I just checked my hard copy of Hawksworth, "Terms Used in Bionomenclature", and it is there, under "M". If you are not familiar with this work, it can be downloaded from https://www.gbif.org/document/80577/terms-used-in-bionomenclature-the-naming-of-organisms-and-plant-communities . There may (or may not!) be other terms there worth adding to the Wikispecies Glossary, but it would take some effort to go through and decide on potential useful additions, if indeed there are some :) Regards - Tony Tony 1212 (talk) 04:59, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

┌───────┘ Thank you @Tony! I've added a link to Hawksworth's glossary to our Help:Project sources: Bibliographical resources and digitized literature page.

@Andy Mabbett: Thanks for adding the "mihi" glossary item to Wikispecies:Glossary#M. I've created redirects pointing there from mihi and m. in the same way we already have links from for example fl. and floruit. –Best regards, Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 05:35, 11 March 2025 (UTC).

In case anyone is interested, I think this is an example of an elliptical dative of the agent, along the lines of "[as coined] by me", although I guess it could also be parsed as a dative of advantage, along the lines of wiktionary:mihi nomen est, "to me [the name is...]"; Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 11:04, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

Good, I was not aware of that page and its content at Help:Project sources: Lists of species/genera. I have taken the liberty of adding in IRMNG ("my" database, plus input by others of course) as a resource for "all groups"... Tony 1212 (talk) 22:12, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:38, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

Thomas Bolton

I have written a Wikipedia article about Thomas Bolton, who had a thriving Victorian-era business supplying specimens of pond life, by post from Birmingham, England, to customers with microscopes. His contributions to science have more recently been largely overlooked.

Wikispecies colleagues may be interested in the parts about species he discovered and named, but which were subsequently not formally attributed to him; and those named after him. Any additional info would be welcome.

I'm also keen to know whether any of his specimens are extant in collections (other than the few I already tagged in Bionomia).

Is there justification for page about him here, and if so how should we indicate his role in relation to the species mentioned above (other than the eponymous aspect which I understand already)? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:48, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

Recommended practice for synonym taxa page

Dear All, what is the recommended practice when two taxa are synonyms, but each already has its own Wikispecies page? Besides updating the data on the senior taxon's page, should we keep both pages? Redirect the junior synonym’s page to the senior synonym’s page? Or delete the junior synonym’s page altogether? I have found this 2016 discussion that seems to support deletion. Thanks in advance for your suggestions. --Hiouf (talk) 07:54, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

For plants, two names are occasionally accepted for the same taxon according to differing authorities. These names are not truly synonymous until consensus has been agreed and when this happens ICBN is clear about which is a synonym, unless conservation is applied. However. until consensus, we are left with two {{Disputed}} taxa, as WS can not take sides favouring one taxonomic opinion over another. As an editor I do not create pages for synonyms and if I find them I use a redirect sometimes temporarily leaving data . Hope this helps. Andyboorman (talk) 08:26, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

Which taxon are you referring to? My preference is to turn the junior synonym into a redirect if it was formally used for a period of time, so that if people search for it they will still find the page. You should provide the citations for the synonymy that declared the two taxa as synonymous on the senior synonyms page. Note that wikispecies is as much about names as species. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 08:33, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

Thank you both for your replies. As an example, Indrapura is now considered a junior synonym of Axiagastus according to Salini et al., 2025. I already updated the Axiagastus page but left the Indrapura page as it is waiting for your advices. So I'll now modify the junior synonym into a redirect page. Thank you very much! Hiouf (talk) 10:50, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

Please remember to keep categories such as "John Doe taxa" or "Eponyms of Jane Doe", when making such redirects. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:21, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

You mean the junior synonym page that I changed into a redirect page should keep its categories? I haven't thought of that when making redirects. Ok will correct this. Thanks Hiouf (talk) 15:59, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this important issue up, I have faced dozens of situations when due to taxonomix changes, an existing genus page, with a lot of info included, like authors, references, etc., turns into a junior synonym of other one. First, we should never delete the content and just turn into a redirection losing all the content, even because other wikis linked sometimes will take years to be updated. So, if we agree with the preservation, there are two options:

• No redirection: See Atthis as an example. Atthis is listed as a synonym on Selasphorus page, as an internal link. This my presonal preference.
• With a redirection: See Neospiza as an example; every search of Neospiza here or a link to WS in other wiki will take to Crithagra making the search for Neospiza more difficult.

Thanks to @Tommy Kronkvist: for the inputs in a previous discussion on this matter.--Hector Bottai (talk) 16:29, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

I favour the later, as I have already posted. Searching for the synonym finds the accepted name, but there is a link at the top which may be useful if the data has been retained. Much of the data from the original, once accepted name, is relevant for the now correct name page. For example, distribution, vernacular names, images, many references, additional synonyms and so on. A link to protologue of the original taxon can even be used either as an additional reference or as a link on the list of synonyms. I strongly advise not automatically deleting data on redirect and it is retained until editors are satisfied that the data has been transferred where appropriate. Andyboorman (talk) 20:58, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

Following on from @Hector Bottai: I have to agree that although its extra work, my actual preference is to retain the junior synonym and have it link to the senior one. If you look on Chelodina_longicollis you can see that every junior synonym is also a page, this preserves the unique nomenclatural data for each name. Under status on the junior synonym pages I used the templates {{Junior subjective synonym}} to make this clear and it then links to the senior synonym. This was started after a discussion about keeping Wikispecies relevant in the face of many other checklists, we are the only one that also includes all the data on synonyms, which is the preference. Although no where near complete. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 21:41, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

Of course, it is worth bearing in mind that names/taxa "sunk" as synonyms can also be revived at a later date, with new knowledge, so maintaining the original information as compiled with some effort is clearly worthwhile... Tony 1212 (talk) 04:28, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

[for zoology]: I think the more synonym pages we have, the better. Currently there are hundreds of synonym pages. The example of Creophilus villipennis is perfectly adequate. The templates {{Synonym}}, {{Invalid}} (for species synonym), {{Invalid genus}} and {{Invalid taxon}} were made to be used in synonym pages. Mariusm (talk) 06:15, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

Hesperis

The sections for this taxon are mostly paraphyletic and will be removed unless there is strong and reasoned objections. Andyboorman (talk) 08:35, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

@Andy Boorman: I agree, they should be removed. To our other editors: for the origin of this discussion, including references, please see the thread "Infrageneric Classification of Hesperis" on user @Fagus' talk page.

–Best regards, Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 22:19, 12 March 2025 (UTC).