Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of Life/Archive 71

Does anyone know what the story is with the BHL? After about a year of mild panic over the Smithsonian thing, it hasn't been loading for me for the past week or so. biodiversitylibary.org used to give me "server not found" but now it's fielding a cloudfare error code 520. Have other people been able to access it? Cremastra (talk · contribs) 02:00, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

To editor Cremastra: try this link: https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org – I'm not sure why you are having a problem reaching their site, but if that link does work for you, then it might be because "library" was misspelled. When I click on that link, I go straight to the BHL website. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 02:33, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

Huh, my "libary" in the comment above was definitely a comment-only typo—I was trying to get to the URL you link to. But the cloudfare check worked this time. So I guess you fixed it! :) Cremastra (talk · contribs) 02:36, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

The only thing I did was correct the spelling. It's more likely that BHL corrected the connection problem. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 02:45, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

I know, I was joking. Hopefully they can keep the connection up, since, as I said, I've had troubles throughout February. Cremastra (talk · contribs) 02:47, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

This might be helpful: What is happening to BHL’s technical infrastructure?. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 17:24, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

I've been having issues with BHL loading slowly (or not at all) on and off for several months across various devices and internet connections, though today it seems to be working fine. Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 03:04, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

Me too. It seems intermittent recently. Sometimes it works fine, sometimes I get an error suggesting a problem with the server (cloudfare error 520 is a generic problem with server response error). I assume, or at least hope, this is associated with a move to new hosting.  —  Jts1882 | talk  09:47, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

Various taxonomy websites have been getting extreme traffic from bots for several months (presumably for AI related purposes). I know it's a problem for Tropicos, and I assume it's why COL and GBIF now have loading screens to confirm that a visitor is a human. Plantdrew (talk) 16:11, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

Looks like these problems have coincided with transition of the hosting infrastrucure from the Smithsonian to the Field Museum. This blog postyesterday announces the Field Museum as the new host. Earlier announcements seemed vague on where it was going.  —  Jts1882 | talk  17:51, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

I took the vagueness as a lack of actual plan, which did make we pretty worried about the library's future. Thank god they found someone. Cremastra (talk · contribs) 20:08, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

Could well be. There was also a reluctance to explain why the Smithsonian could not longer host, which seems a strange decision for one of the world's foremost museums.  —  Jts1882 | talk  15:17, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

It would be very helpful to have some concrete guidance on this matter since it comes up frequently.

I see that this topic has come up in multiple past discussions already (, , ), but—partially because there's a lot of non-linear discussion to read through—I wasn't able to determine if a clear consensus was reached or if any guidance had actually come about after those discussions.

Would anyone be able to point me in the right direction? Or, does this issue still need to be addressed? MossOnALog^Talk 01:03, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

@MossOnALog Earlier this year, a group of editors of this project (after the first discussion that you linked) got together to start drafting this essay. It's gone inactive, but it touches on several issues that we gathered consensus around, so it will probably be helpful to you. It might be a good idea to ask for feedback on the specific issues you have in mind, and also to get us active on the draft again. Speaking of, @Yummifruitbat @MtBotany @Plantdrew (non-exhaustive list of pings) are there plans to continue development of the essay/publish it? — Snoteleks (talk) 04:17, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

@Snoteleks thank you! And thanks to all the editors who've contributed to that essay. MossOnALog^Talk 05:00, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

Seems to me like Yummifruitbat's essay is ready to publish (i.e., remove Category:User essays in development, add a different category, and link to it from somewhere in Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Organisms (which also isn't "published", I guess)). Plantdrew (talk) 08:19, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

I've been away from Wikipedia for a bit due to IRL pressures so this is among the things I've neglected. I can't recall whether all the feedback from people had been folded in, so I'll take a look at that over the next week and aim to get it published shortly. Thanks for the ping. YFB ¿ 11:11, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

While I have not thoroughly reviewed these two resources (i.e., User:Yummifruitbat/Biological etymology and Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Organisms), I think they are great resources that look ready to be published, or just about ready if not. Even if they still need polishing or if some things still need some discussion, at least discussions on these matters could be condensed into the talk pages of these pages rather than spread out across various articles where things are less visible. Having these to reference—and therefore keep edit summaries and other discussions concise—would be very helpful and make striving for consistency across articles much more efficient. If I can help contribute in a specific way, please let me know (though my time may be limited over the next couple weeks with holidays). Thank you again for everyone's efforts on this. MossOnALog^Talk 15:56, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

Late here, but I would support publishing this now or soon without much change. As an essay, it does not require consensus but it does summarize important issues very well and is a useful resource. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 19:55, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

Update klaxon: I have finally got round to finishing this off and have retagged it and moved it to project space. Now live at Wikipedia:Biological etymology or WP:ETYBIO. I've never published an essay before so I've doubtless messed something up. Feedback / corrections welcome. YFB ¿ 21:50, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

It has bugged me for some time that this obviously notable subject was relegated to an unsatisfactory redirect to type (biology), which perfunctorily summarizes the topic in a single sentence. Now rectified (but still lots of links need to get repointed). Esculenta (talk) 17:01, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

I'll see if I can fix a bunch of links with JWB, but if my quick search of some 2000 links needing to be corrected in some way is true, it may be easier to request a bot. Great article, by the way! Cremastra (talk · contribs) 17:32, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

It warrants a Did You Know nomination. Ideas for a hook? --Aranae (talk) 21:29, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the page! I have been updating wikilinks in pages I've made in the past — Snoteleks (talk) 21:48, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

A sub-stub article on has been created (again) and is now nominated for deletion, comments are looked for on the deletion- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Günter Bechly (3rd nomination)--Kevmin § 17:34, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

Does anyone know what the correct classification of Parakaryon is? I am skeptical of the describers claim that it represents a domain of life of its own distinct from both prokaryotes and eukaryotes, but I'm not finding much literature discussing it other than papers authored by the same people who described it initially. Hemiauchenia (talk) 12:19, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Incertae sedis on the top level, neither the domain is sure. Petr Karel (talk) 16:44, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

The authors found that similar specimens were actually dead bacteria with smaller bacteria that "associated with the cytoplasm" after the cell walls of the larger individuals were damaged - but they still claim Parakaryon is a new thing containing actual endosymbionts. Kiwi Rex (talk) 22:03, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

I saw that the {{Taxonomy/Incertae_sedis/Eukaryota}} template was, for some reason, written so that the text to be displayed was Animals?, with a link to the Animal article. As far as I know this is very wrong, since none of its children taxa (for example, chitinozoans, Kamera lens, Qingshania) are confirmed as animals, most of them are confirmed protists, and many predate even the proposed molecular origin of animals by several hundred million years.

I changed it to display the words Incertae sedis with a link to the Eukaryote article instead. I am not well versed with incertae sedis templates, so if this is also inadequate, I would appreciate help fixing it. — Snoteleks (talk) 16:15, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Somebody edited it two days ago to have animal. The link should be incertae sedis, I guess in order to have an explanation to readers of what that means (the code automatically supplies that as the link when creating a new incertae sedis taxonomy template). I'm not sure that there is anybody well versed with incertae sedis templates; I only got to the point of not having to look at an existing example before creating one about a week ago. Before that I couldn't remember whether they should be "Foo\Incertae sedis" or "Incertae sedis/Foo". Plantdrew (talk) 18:27, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for fixing it — Snoteleks (talk) 18:29, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

So, I just noticed (by virtue of some pages I monitor) that someone is adding these categories to higher (family-rank, from tribes to superfamilies) taxon names that are automatically attributed to a single work and authorship under the ICZN (under the Principle of Coordination). Perhaps I was wrong, but I thought these categories were not supposed to be used for family-rank taxon names for precisely this reason. That is, what benefit is there to having Papilionoidea, Papilionidae, Papilioninae, and Papilionini all listed together under "Category:Taxa described in 1802" and also "Category:Taxa_named_by_Pierre_André_Latreille"? Am I missing something? Dyanega (talk) 15:07, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

The "described in year" category tree has long had a "species described in year" layer with the "taxa described in year" layer added more recently (starting in 2018?). I suspect Category:Animals described in 1758 was the first of these (created 2008-12-31). Category:Plants described in 1753 was created 2009-03-17, with Category:Species described in 1753 being created 4 minutes afterwards. Nothing about the category name "Plants described in 1753" in itself suggests that only species go in the category; it's just implied by having "Species described in 1753" as a parent category.

The addition of the "taxa described in year" layer implies that other ranks can be categorized.

If anybody finds any "described in year" category created prior to 2008-12-31, or any "species described in year" prior to 2009-03-17, I'd like to know about it.

The "taxa named by XXXX" category tree has always (as far as I know) been titled that way, implying that ranks other than species can be categorized. I assume Category:Taxa named by Carl Linnaeus would have been the first of these, and it was created 2015-07-20. 16:23, 12 March 2026 (UTC) Plantdrew (talk) 16:23, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

The issue that Dyanega raises is what to do when names are automatically authored. I agree that then the categories should not be used. Nominal infraspecies are another example: Panthera pardus pardus (African leopard) was not separately named from Panthera pardus, nor Euphorbia tannensis subsp. tannensis from Euphorbia tannensis, so they should not appear in the categories. (The authorship of 'family-rank' taxon names works differently in the ICNafp. Xanthorrhoeoideae M.W.Chase, Reveal & M.F.Fay was named in 2009 with the explicit basionym Xanthorrhoeaceae Dumort. published in 1829, so both could be categorized if there were separate articles.) Peter coxhead (talk) 16:33, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

An issue that keeps coming up over and over, latest at dinosaur articles such as Tarbosaurus (discussion here:), is when the original binomial combination isn't the same as the current combination, yet we keep the former in the type species field, which seems to spread wide confusion and repeated attempts to "correct" to the current combination, as the original combination is perceived as an error. I think we need a way to clearly show what the intention is, such as an explanatory parenthesis, or as was suggested at the linked talk page, have the current combination in parenthesis. Either way, it can't stay like this, and it would also be more informative to "layreaders" if it was explained better. FunkMonk (talk) 23:30, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

I think mandating original combinations, while making sense for academic taxonomic discussions, adds little value for general readers and often is confusing. I honestly think it might be better to remove the "type species" parameter entirely, but otherwise amending it to clearly state "original combination" or something like that would be a significant improvment. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:42, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

I was confused by this a while back, but assumed the editors knew what they were doing, and took steps to address the shortcomings in my understanding this helped flag, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 17:30, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

Perhaps it could serve to change "type species" to "original combination" and then list the type species along with any others below? The Morrison Man (talk) 23:50, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Basionym would be a good field to add to taxoboxes, though i don't think we should replace the Type Species field with it. I've always felt that adding basionyms and then noting that it is one in the list of synonyms is a makeshift solution to the problem (i've done so a few times myself), so i'd support adding the field to taxobox templates. Anthropophoca (talk) 23:56, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

As I said at Tarbosaurus, I think it'd be a good compromise to list the original combination but put the modern combination in parentheses below it. This avoids cutting any information while clarifying things for lay readers and doesn't need to add another field as bloat. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 00:17, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

Note that practice for ICZN and ICNafp names is different, as is the generally used terminology. Wikidata now distinguishes between the properties "has basionym (P566)" for plants and "original combination (P1403)" for animals. Using the original combination for the type species is mandated for ICZN names. This makes it tricky to add new or extra fields to taxoboxes used across the tree of life. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:58, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

I think writing the basionym in the type species parameter is ridiculous or, at the very least, unhelpful for Wikipedia. Name 1 or name 2, the species is the same. Basionyms have no inherent value over their currently accepted name, and only serves to confuse readers. The species article should already have its basionym clarified, no need to extend it to parent taxa articles — Snoteleks (talk) 12:42, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

I see that Panthera gives its type species as "Felis pardus (= Panthera pardus)" Lavateraguy (talk) 15:38, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

At the time a species is cited as the type species of a genus, it usually is but might not be cited using its original combination, and likewise it gets messy when the cited name is a junior synonym and not valid. It's important to NOT confuse the originally cited name with an original combination. Honestly, the only way around the confusion this creates without getting absurdly technical is to adopt the "originally cited name plus the present name in parentheses" as suggested above, and make that an explicit documented policy. If there are editors deleting the original cited names then there must be a way to point them to a policy that explains why what they are doing is not the way it should be done, and the correct protocol. Dyanega (talk) 16:46, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

Can you explain why deleting the original name over the currently accepted name is incorrect? — Snoteleks (talk) 20:41, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I can. The originally cited name is an immutable parameter, but the presently-recognized name is not immutable. It can even sometimes be incorrect, if based on subjective synonymies that are later disproven. In catalogues, one always cites the name exactly as given in the original designation, for this reason. Dyanega (talk) 22:12, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

To find an example, I picked up the nearest catalogue to hand just now, and looked for a name where the genus cited for a type species was not the same as the genus for which it is the type, and only had to turn one page to find one: "Thoraxocarphurus Wittmer, 1957a: 351. Type species: Carphurus rhytideres Lea, 1902" - note that the valid name of the type species is presently Brachyhedybius rhytideres (Lea, 1902). Not once in this entire catalogue is anything cited other than the name used in the original designation. And this reminds me of the second correlated reason to do this: if a type species is a junior synonym of another name, there may be OTHER synonyms of that same name, so knowing which one of those synonyms is the one that was chosen as the type is important, especially if the synonymies later turn out to be wrong. Dyanega (talk) 22:22, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

How should "plus the present name in parentheses" work with taxobox parameter |type_species_authority=? "Felis pardus (= Panthera pardus) Linnaeus, 1758" look kind of screwy, but maybe that's just me. To be honest, I'm not sure why we have |type_species_authority= at all; it does format the authority in smaller text, but takes more characters to type than <small></small> does. However, it is widely used; there were 33,826 automatic taxoboxes with |type_species= at the start of the month, and 29,814 with |type_species_authority= (presumably some of the ~4000 without the authority parameter have the authority included under |type_species=, but from what I've seen, most would just lack an authority altogether). Plantdrew (talk) 22:39, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

I might be weird here, but if I'm being honest I would prefer there was actually more parameters to deal with type species, not less? I am one of those editors who always puts in the original combination (= protonym = basionym etc.) for type species in taxoboxes, but if said type species is a synonym of another name, I try to include the original combination for the current valid species name too for completeness. But in order to do that, I've had to stuff the other name in the |type_species= field, while using HTML linebreaks and small tags to make the end result look nicer, which feels hacky and clunky. (For examples of what I mean here I give you Chrysochus, Diaphorus and Tenuopus, particular note to the last one as the original type species designated was apparently a misidentification, which I also noted there) What I mean by hacky and clunky is that I wish I didn't need so much HTML here for this extra nomenclatural information on the type species, and that the currently valid name for the type species had their own set of name and authority fields if possible. Monster Iestyn (talk) 23:48, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

Perhaps the solution here is two more parameters: a type_species_synonym and type_species_synonym_authority that can be placed in the order these ad hoc taxonboxes are ending up with. The name is just approximate but it could be a way to preserve the usefulness for laypeople, and the accurateness to sources. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 03:26, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

I support this. — Snoteleks (talk) 17:04, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

I've never seen a problem with this or found it confusing, but it seems like that might just be me. I'm of the opinion that the type species should be listed in the taxobox as it was in the description of the genus, regardless of if that name is the valid/accepted name for the taxon or if the species is still placed within the genus This is how type species are presented in most academic works (the ICZN explicitly instructs this, and while the ICN does not instruct this outright as the ICZN does, it is common practice in botany) and I believe we are best off following suit. I think it is better to explain this nuance in the body, along the lines of "[genus] was described in [year] by [author] with ["original" binomial as named in description] as the type species, combining as [combined binomial]". For an example of how I've chosen to handle this in the past, see Sphyrion. I think the fact that some readers are confused by the type species parameter isn't a good reason to break from established convention here, but rather, it is a sign that we need to better explain the evolving nature of nomenclature in our articles. Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 07:07, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Ugh. I didn't realize those were separate taxobox fields. That's very bad indeed if the present species name is by a different author. Seems like the entire taxobox template would need a redesign. Dyanega (talk) 22:45, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

I agree that we are likely to need parameter adjustments to accommodate this. As a bit of a most extreme case, what would be the proper "type species" for Pachycephalosaurus? The genus was named with P. grangeri Brown & Schlaikjer 1943 as it's type, but that is now an accepted junior synonym of Troodon wyomingensis Gilmore 1913(?). Would we list P. grangeri as the type of the genus, or T. wyomingensis as the original designation of the accepted senior synonym? IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 23:49, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

I think the only way to make everyone happy would be to give P. grangeri as the type, and have P. wyomingensis in parentheses. If someone needs to know what the original combination of wyomingensis was, they can look that up, but the Troodon combination isn't the name cited when Pachycephalosaurus had its type designated. Dyanega (talk) 00:03, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

If the approach of "original_combination/basionym (=accepted_combination)" is to be recommended, then |type_species_authority= should not be used, in my view, because it places the authority in the wrong place or puts the accepted synonym in small font. At Panthera, for example, it should read:

Felis pardus Linnaeus, 1758 (=Panthera pardus)

which can at present only be achieved by wikitext in |type_species=. We could have another field, as suggested above, say |type_species_synonym=, so that the Panthera case could be set up as:

       |type_species = Felis pardus
       |type_species_authority = Linnaeus, 1758
       |type_species_synonym = Panthera pardus

but this doesn't seem to me to offer any real benefit over setting it all up in wikitext (although it would be easier then to use ≡ in place of =, which is arguably more correct.) Peter coxhead (talk) 10:50, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

I was going to suggest giving the current combination first, e.g.

Panthera pardus (Linnaeus, 1758) (as Felis pardus)

While this is less pure for taxonomists, having the current name first might be less surprising to a lay-reader. I have no strong preference though. —  Jts1882 | talk  12:56, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

I can think of another reason to have the current name first, a purely practical one: the current name will vastly more often be an active wikilink to an article. The originally cited name would often need to be a redirect. As a taxonomist, it's important to me that the original cited name be visible, but I'm not going to get picky about the format. That said, the one thing not addressed in either of these template suggestions is what to do when the originally cited name and the presently valid name have different authors. In those cases, we have four fields to contend with, including "type_species_synonym_authority". What's daunting about this is the statistic mentioned before of >33K existing taxoboxes that would suddenly need to be reworked. Dyanega (talk) 14:48, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Just as it wasn't worth over-complicating automated taxoboxes to allow for every odd case, where a manual taxobox would work, I think the same applies here: four parameters is over-kill. There's nothing wrong with setting up some type species using wikitext.

I could live with three parameters, which to get "Panthera pardus (Linnaeus, 1758) (as Felis pardus)" might be:

        |type_species = Panthera pardus
        |type_species_authority = (Linnaeus, 1758)
        |original_combination = Felis pardus

Then if the original combination needed a separate authority, this could be handled using wikitext in |original_combination=. Peter coxhead (talk) 15:55, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

I will add that at least from my recollection not every taxobox will need to be adjusted to accommodate this adjustment, and as long as it is documented somewhere as a guideline/policy it will slowly perturbate its way across all the articles where needed. Just as there are alternative ways to have multiple images displayed (through both a template parameter or another template) there can be multiple ways to include original combinations and their authority, so I don't see a negative in additional parameters, and in fact they would lead to greater consistency in things like small text, wording, and arrangement. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 17:13, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

I prefer this solution; I tend to use the current combination of the type species as the more useful and easier to understand for lay readers. Happy editing, SilverTiger12 (talk) 17:44, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Like SilverTiger said, I also prefer this solution since I also use the current combinations — Snoteleks (talk) 17:56, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

I'd still prefer if "current combination" was the alternate parameter, not the original combination. Saying that Pachycephalosaurus wyomingensis is the type species of Pachycephalosaurus is only arguably true at best, but saying Pachycephalosaurus grangeri is the type species and its current combination is P. wyomengesis is objective in nature. Listing things that are not, nomenclaturally, the actual type species as the type species risks original research. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 20:41, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Yes. If we're dealing with subjective synonyms, the original combination should definitely come first, especially if it's a situation where the current combination actually circumscribed a broader (or narrower) range of variation than the original name did. Cremastra (talk · contribs) 21:27, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

I'm with LLL and Cremastra. We shouldn't be saying things that aren't correct; the type species is what it is. If that species has been renamed since being used as the type, then |current_combination= should be used. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:52, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

I think we should keep in mind that type species are a formality of taxonomic nomenclature in the first place, so if we are to discuss type species at all, we should do so in a nomenclaturally correct way, because type species are a meaningless concept outside of the formalities of taxonomic nomenclature. The type species of Pachycephalosaurus Brown & Schlaikjer, 1943 is the nominal species Pachycephalosaurus grangeri Brown & Schlaikjer, 1943, full stop. The type species of Tarbosaurus Maleev, 1955 is the nominal species Tarbosaurus efremovi Maleev, 1955, full stop. The type species of Panthera Oken, 1816 is the nominal species Felis pardus Linnaeus, 1758, full stop. Presenting Panthera pardus as the type species of Panthera, Pachycephalosaurus wyomingensis as the type species of Pachycephalosaurus, or Tarbosaurus bataar as the type species of Tarbosaurus is simply incorrect. I agree that parenthetically noting the senior synonym or accepted combination of the type species (e.g. "Felis pardus Linnaeus, 1758 (=Panthera pardus)) might be beneficial for clarity of communication, though. Ornithopsis (talk) 15:25, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

I prefer this formatting, and it was how I'd originally done many mammal taxoboxes, when creating them from MSW3. (Oy, how the years have gone by...) That said, I think having the "=" be a link to a note about "original vs current combination" or some such would help. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:33, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

I've nominated Michael S. Engel for deletion based on significant COI editing and a lack of notability establishing coverage inn Secondary sources. Please comment here - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael S. Engel.--Kevmin § 01:36, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

Please comment at Template talk:Wikispecies redirect#Link to related category. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:07, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Kathablepharis § Requested move 20 March 2026. Jako96 (talk) 18:42, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

So, it just came to my attention that there is an editor who has unilaterally decided to start creating common names for various plants and animals that do not have them - and to indicate in various articles that species occur on continents where they do not actually occur. They have their own website where they proudly announce their intention - (Redacted), and an example edit is this one, and others like this and this. They've somehow slipped under the radar for a while now, it would be nice if someone has a way to auto-revert these edits and institute a block or ban. Their website makes it sound like this person is not going to give up. Dyanega (talk) 15:23, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

It apparently goes even deeper than Wikipedia; this same editor is evidently providing new "common names" for iNaturalist, as well. Does anyone have any contacts in the iNat administration that can put a stop to it? See this article and the iNat link there. Another is this genus in iNat, where he has managed to insert 5 nonsense names (like "Monday's Twiler") without anyone in iNat realizing that he's putting them on as a joke. It looks like what he's doing is adding names to iNat so he can cite the iNat pages in Wikipedia. This needs to be stopped. Dyanega (talk) 15:30, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

It looks like the bogus names are gone from iNat now. As I understand it, any iNat user can flag a taxon and suggest a common name be added, but only curators can add common names (or make any other taxonomic changes). Plantdrew (talk) 19:25, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

As far as I know this is not the case: any registered user can add a common name to a taxon, I currently have the interface open logged into my (non-curator) account. The instructions that come up explicitly state "Try to add names that have been used elsewhere. Please don't invent new names", however, users ignoring these instructions is a longstanding issue on iNaturalist. Users adding names they made up themselves or names that are purely inflammatory/total nonsense has come up several times in my ~7 years on the site. I can't see which curator removed the common names, but hopefully they have cautioned the user - we should do the same on our end, if they haven't been warned already. This individual seems to be on the younger side, but hopefully they can understand why these edits are problematic for Wikipedia. Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 03:51, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

iNat shouldn't be cited as a source for wiki anyways, outside of maybe articles posted on the site. Anthropophoca (talk) 11:23, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

I've removed a couple of older additions, unless there are further accounts the fake names are cleaned up for now. These are often mixed with other good faith improvements. CMD (talk) 03:21, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi! Anybody willing to join? We need at least 10 people https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Council#Proposing_a_new_WikiProject_Astrobiology Astropedian

Good luck, but you may encounter difficulties setting up a WikiProject for an area of study that is purely hypothetical. Cremastra (talk · contribs) 16:10, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

@Astropedian Just so others are aware, I have some questions. Do you think the coverage of astrobiology on Wikipedia insufficient? As I understand it, Astronomy and Biology projects already take good care of this subject — Snoteleks (talk) 19:09, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

You could try seting up a taskforce first, and if activity is sustained that might build more confidence in a WikiProject. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 19:48, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

I proposed merging Afroinsectivora with Afroinsectiphilia; this would require a prior discussion. Kiwi Rex (talk) 14:41, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

They are not synonyms. Afroinsectiphilia includes aardvarks. Don't we normally include pages for widely accepted named clades, especially for a group as prominent and well-studied as mammals? --Aranae (talk) 21:56, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

This isn't about synonyms but rather the lack of content. There's just not much to say about afroinsectivorans as a group of living beings (other than "it's a clade"). Afroinsectivora is just a minor name describing one node in a phylogenetic tree. See how e.g. Pennaraptora was redirected to Maniraptora for a similar reason. Kiwi Rex (talk) 23:43, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

Pennaraptora and Maniraptora can afford to be placed under the same article because they only differ in a set of fossil taxa. The living composition of Afroinsectivora and Afroinsectiphilia are very different. Until you show evidence of either of them being, for example, mentioned by only one paper, in a way that proves the lack of content, I will oppose — Snoteleks (talk) 00:52, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

Their compositions are not "very different" because one is a subgroup of the other (and the excluded sister group has only one living species). The burden of "evidence" should be on the claim that there is anything meaningful about Afroinsectivora's morphology, ecology or physiology that would be out of place in the Afroinsectiphilia page. There is no extensive taxonomic history to discuss either. Pennaraptora is a far more well discussed clade in terms of unique morphological and ecological (including behavioural) apomorphies. Kiwi Rex (talk) 01:42, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

The articles already exist, I have no reason to believe that there is nothing meaningful about each clade just because you claim so — Snoteleks (talk) 12:57, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

Erm, have you seen the two pages? Kiwi Rex (talk) 13:32, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

I have... they are pretty empty. But is that truly because there is nothing to say, or is it because the editors that made them did not put enough effort? — Snoteleks (talk) 13:49, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

The literature mostly treats this name merely as replacement for "the Macroscelidea + Afrosoricida clade." One paper discusses afroinsectivoran brain and concludes the similarities between different subgroups are convergences, and some of them have an aardvark-like brain morphology, which means this topic would fit the Afroinsectiphilia page better. Another paper found signatures of positive selection in the afroinsectivore UCP1 but doesn't discuss the group itself in much detail. The rest is just tree topology descriptions ("Afroinsectivora is monophyletic" or "Afroinsectivora is not monophyletic"). Kiwi Rex (talk) 20:18, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

Frankly, I think the proliferation of clade-level articles is a major issue with the WikiProject. Species are considered notable, but on what grounds is every named node given the same assumption? If so, why? Many bird clades are only used by one or two papers, but have pages. Having all these pages impedes navigation rather than making taxonomy clearer, and given how little there is to say about many of these "inbetween" nodes compared to the more major divisions, it results in blatant content forking. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 02:17, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

I'm happy to report that a new, fully monophyletic classification of diatoms is in press (Kociolek et al., 2025). This classification is generally based on the published Alverson et al., 2025 phylogeny. The three authors of this article are some of the authors from the Alverson et al., 2025 article. The problem about this article is that it wasn't published in any journal, it's just in press, so not sure if we would use it now. I always thought a classification based on the published Alverson et al., 2025 phylogeny would make sense, and I also thought a classification would get published sometime. Pinging @Snoteleks and @Plantdrew per our past discussions. Jako96 (talk) 10:45, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

YES!!! This is amazing news, I hope it gets peer-reviewed soon so we can use it. But how did you even find this? — Snoteleks (talk) 13:34, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

Thanks! I was busy, so I couldn't reply you here. I found it when I searched "Biddulphiophyceae" in Google Scholar. Jako96 (talk) 18:58, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

AlgaeBase also started to partially follow that paper, see Corethrophyceae for example. Jako96 (talk) 19:11, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

The article is published online, see PubMed or Wiley. The full text and pdf are available via the Wikipedia Library.  —  Jts1882 | talk  10:40, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out Jako96 (talk) 19:55, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

Finally!!! — Snoteleks (talk) 20:25, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

Yes, how nice. So, uh, Snoteleks, do you think we should treat the Bacillariophyta as a phylum, or we should've kept the Ochrophyta as a phylum (Bacillariophyta would be an unranked clade)? Jako96 (talk) 20:47, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

Definitely an unranked clade, Ochrophyta should be the phylum — Snoteleks (talk) 21:06, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

Why not Gyrista as a phylum (C.-S., 2017) :-)? The ranking of clades is not an objective attribute, it is based on the POV of the individual study and their authors. It is important to have the correct hierarchy of clades in the taxobox, to find a consensus is sometimes very difficult; my "favorite" example are nucleariids with ranking from a regnum to an order. Well, sometimes the suffix gives some suggestion; in case Bacillariophyta vs. Ochrophyta not applicable. Petr Karel (talk) 08:48, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

@Petr Karel Several of us have already discussed this at length throughout 2025, but to give you a summary: Cavalier-Smith's system was unique and largely unsupported by the larger scientific consensus when it comes to higher names and ranks, and even contradicted itself across time. Since nobody else supports it, nobody is updating it to match current knowledge post-mortem. The scientific consensus is that both Ochrophyta (or Heterokontophyta) and Oomycota are regarded as independent phyla/divisions, and therefore a phylum containing both contradicts this. — Snoteleks (talk) 12:38, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

The C.-S. phylum Gyrista was only an illustration (ment as a joke) of the relativity of higher taxon ranking. Petr Karel (talk) 17:27, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

Oh I totally agree with you, it's incredibly subjective and sometimes gets ridiculous :) — Snoteleks (talk) 01:57, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

I really like it when a phylogenetic study is followed up with a taxonomic one. Too often those doing the phylogenetic work are not so interested in solid taxonomic conclusions.  —  Jts1882 | talk  20:31, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

This RfC discussion may be of interest to members of this Wikiproject. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:52, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Level 4 § Striking underrepresentation of protist articles at ◎ 4 Organisms. — Snoteleks (talk) 19:51, 13 April 2026 (UTC)