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 theAdministrators' Noticeboard. If you need to solicit feedback, seeRequest for Comment. Please sign and date your post (by typing ~~~~ or clicking the signature icon in the edit toolbar).Usethe 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}}
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:
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) |
|
Use of Template:Taxon italics
[edit]This template is particularly useful and convenient especially for ternary names. Currently I am in a permanent conflict with another user who is trying to enforce that this template must be used in taxonomic articles in the ‘Taxonavigation’ section, but may no longer be used elsewhere. I have always thought that the use of this template should be based more on opportunity and should not be regulated by rules and prohibitions. Opinions? --RLJ (talk)13:32, 11 January 2026 (UTC)Reply
- Could you please provide examples of the templates use in the Taxonavigation section and for ternary names? It would be most helpful, thanks.Andyboorman (talk)14:15, 11 January 2026 (UTC)Reply
- Example for a binary name: Urtica dioica -> {{Taxit|Urtica dioica}} ->Urtica dioica
- Example for a ternary name: Urtica dioica subsp. dioica -> {{Taxit|Urtica dioica subsp. dioica}} ->Urtica dioicasubsp. dioica
- Example for Taxonavigation section:
- =={{int:Taxonavigation}}==
- {{Gypsophila}}
- Species: {{Taxit|Gypsophila vaccaria|linked=yes}}
- obligate instead of
- Species: ''[[Gypsophila vaccaria]]''
--RLJ (talk)14:38, 11 January 2026 (UTC)Reply- Cheers. I still use the later, but am happy if it is edited out!Andyboorman (talk)15:32, 11 January 2026 (UTC)Reply
- I use the second option as it is the typical form found on other Wiki projects, and will noted that its the one that I think most editors will be familiar with, as its the one that the italics link in the tool box implements. Also, as a note,@RLJ: its considered by most to be rude not to give a courtesy ping to the other editor(s) you are in dispute with. Please notify them of this discussion so we can get their perspective as well.--Kevmin (talk)17:23, 11 January 2026 (UTC)Reply
- @AbeCK:
- Why should the use of this template be permitted in the Taxonavigation section only (and who decided that?)? --RLJ (talk)18:42, 11 January 2026 (UTC)Reply
- To clarify my position: I am not arguing that should be used, nor that the traditional italicized wiki link is incorrect. To avoid such misunderstandings, my position is that is more appropriate and useful in the Taxonavigation section, where older Wikispecies articles already follow this hierarchy and where a more formalized template makes sense, and disambiguation pages are purely navigational. Introducing specialized formatting templates such as there is inappropriate and unnecessary.
- Outside the Taxonavigation section, I have no objection to using the standard italicized wikilink ([[ ]]).
- If you consider your edits more important necessary for consistency, this should be applied consistently across all pages, not just those I edit.
- Also, there is no written rule requiring this hierarchy to be applied. Without a policy or guideline, it remains a matter of convention, not obligation.AbeCK (talk)22:38, 11 January 2026 (UTC)Reply
- Using
{{Taxit|Urtica dioica}} instead of''Urtica dioica'' (an additional six characters) or{{Taxit|Gypsophila vaccaria|linked=yes}} instead of''[[Gypsophila vaccaria]]'' (an additionalthirteen characters) seems particularly pointless, bordering on harmful. {{Taxit|Urtica dioica subsp. dioica}} instead of''Urtica dioica'' subsp. ''dioica'' (adding two characters) may be less so, but seems pointless, and certainly no-one should be converting the latter to the former.- Given that most editors are presumably not even aware of the template (until now, I was not and have never seen it used), I'm not seeing what advantages it offers us, and I would be in favour of replacing all instances, and deleting it.Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing);Talk to Andy;Andy's edits13:20, 12 January 2026 (UTC)Reply
- The Taxit (Taxon italics) template is used for trinomial nomenclature systems, such as subsp., var., and f. There is no logical reason to use it in binomial nomenclature, as it serves only to provide a visual distinction.Fagus (talk)14:27, 12 January 2026 (UTC)Reply
I now see that there is a separate dispute, involving the same two editors, atWikispecies:Administrators' Noticeboard#Report concerning RLJ.Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing);Talk to Andy;Andy's edits13:34, 12 January 2026 (UTC)Reply
I'll note that it's also used by the{{Image}} template, where it allows automatic handling of both binomial and trinomial names that might be passed in as a variable. In my opinion, this is even more useful than cases where the type of the name is known in advance, and by necessity outside of the Taxonavigation section.Tungolen (talk)03:44, 23 January 2026 (UTC)Reply
- A very good point. Does its job "under the hood" so to speak. Thanks.Andyboorman (talk)08:51, 23 January 2026 (UTC)Reply
Annual review of the Universal Code of Conduct and Enforcement Guidelines
[edit]I am writing to you to let you know the annual review period for the Universal Code of Conduct and Enforcement Guidelines is open now. You can make suggestions for changes through 9 February 2026. This is the first step of several to be taken for the annual review.Read more information and find a conversation to join on the UCoC page on Meta.
TheUniversal 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) (talk)
21:01, 19 January 2026 (UTC)
Template documentation, categorization, needed
[edit]As I have been moving through the Western North American fossilAcer species, I've been encountering a number of situations where templates exist, but we have no documentation that they exist and what they should be used for. I've had to seek out via rough searching for homomym templates (jr/sr), replacement name templates (doesnt exist?), nomen dubium template (no functionality to put in the authority and date of decision, also not named as other nomen templates), synonym templates (the wording is very poor atm, with the "might be invalid" part), etc. We should have a page in the help guide to document the various templates that we have, what the full functionality of them is and when they should be employed. We also should have them grouped into theCategory:Templates for nomenclatural statuses orCategory:Name status templates (why are these not linked?) category trees for easy organization and management.Example templates showing the various formats they present, from full width banners, through bullet point, to base links to the gloassary:
 | The name of this taxon appears to beinvalid under the relevant nomenclatural code, as it may be a junior homonym of {{{1}}}. |
| The name of this taxon appears to beinvalid under the relevant nomenclatural code, as it is a redundant synonym of {{{1}}}. |
nom. illeg.
orth. var.
orth. err.
@Keith Edkins,ShakespeareFan00, andMariusm: (added ping@EncycloPetey:) could we get prose on the templates you have created so that users can better understand how and when to implements them.Also it looks likeTemplate:TaxonUnresolved andTemplate:Status unresolved are doing the same thing, with different visual output only, one should be depreciated and the other documented and fleshed out.--Kevmin (talk)18:51, 24 January 2026 (UTC)Reply
- {
{ping|Fagus}}, why have you categorizedLinaria bubanii,Onosma bubanii &Veronica ciliata subsp. ciliata inCategory:Templates for nomenclatural statuses?--Kevmin (talk)20:12, 24 January 2026 (UTC)Reply @ShakespeareFan00: same question regardingHypodematium &Lupinus luteus var. leucospermus--Kevmin (talk)20:21, 24 January 2026 (UTC)Reply- Kevmin, when you categorize a template, please use noinclude. Otherwise all pages using this template will be in this category.Thiotrix (talk)20:50, 24 January 2026 (UTC)Reply
- Oh, those make sense now, my mistake on that. However@Thiotrix:, input on the larger issues I bring up in the post would be appreciated.--Kevmin (talk)22:35, 24 January 2026 (UTC)Reply
- @Tommy Kronkvist: you createdCategory:Name status templates in 2017,@Circeus:, you createdCategory:Templates for nomenclatural statuses in 2019. They both cover the same concept, which title should be redirected and which should be conserved as the live category underCategory:Formatting templates--Kevmin (talk)20:21, 24 January 2026 (UTC)Reply
- As these questions were mainly directed to individual editors, I think that they should have been asked on their Discussion Pages first. I have no comments on the above in this public forum.Andyboorman (talk)22:33, 24 January 2026 (UTC)Reply
- @Andyboorman: This is a project wide issue/situation/discussion that you absolutely should be participating in. I pinged individual editors where they actively editing parts of the issue, as is correct courtesy and etiquette on large issues.--Kevmin (talk)22:54, 24 January 2026 (UTC)Reply
- Thanks for the heads up, but I am busy sorting throughCrataegus, to update its classification and taxonomy. Good luck.Andyboorman (talk)17:44, 25 January 2026 (UTC)Reply
- @Andyboorman: See my continued work on Cenozoic western North American taxa (it hasnt stopped, neither has my article writing on wikipedia) We are competent editors that should be able as a group to discuss large project issues while also continuing taxon work. Other-wise why bother with the pretending to be a project at all, it just alienates anyone coming in and trying to help or disenfranchises long term editors such as seems to have happened toCirceus.--Kevmin (talk)23:55, 10 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
I should really mark myself as inactive. I don't really do much of anything on here anymore. You can do whatever you want. Anything off mainspace on wikispecies has always been a hot mess at best when I was still editing and no conversation about any such project ever got anywhere even after Stephen was gone. It would probably have been more productive just doing whatever you want and leaving people before the fait accompli, because I can guarantee most editors wouldn't even have noticed you were doing anything at all.Circeus (talk)02:08, 25 January 2026 (UTC)Reply
Why doesn't Wikispecies italicize the title on species pages like on Wikipedia? (Yes, I realize this is a very minor cosmetic issue.) SeeHomo sapiens, which isn't italicized. Hell, I picked a random species name offSpecial:RecentChanges and they weren't getting italic titles.
Okay, while looking for an italictitle template, I found it; but since I don't want to be aWikipedia:MEATBOT... I won't be going around making thousands of edits to add the italic title.
I guess then, I'd like to suggest that people should add{{Italictitle}} as they go..
A diehard editor (talk)16:55, 25 January 2026 (UTC)Reply
- We should either use that for all relevant taxa, or none. A piecemeal approach helps no-one.Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing);Talk to Andy;Andy's edits15:15, 28 January 2026 (UTC)Reply
Question from a new user about the scope of Wikispecies
[edit]Hello, I am a new user who came to Wikispecies and had specific expectation, and after exploring, I found myself confused about the project's scope. I would be grateful if experienced members of the community could help me understand. My initial expectation was that this would be a platform for detailed, science-focused articles about organisms, like a version of Wikipedia stripped of cultural and historical context, focusing solely on morphology, ecology, genetics, etc. What I found instead is not a specific platform but just seems to be barebones and a Wikidata but for species. That could be the answer, but how does the Wikispecies community define this projects scope?Luka Maglc (talk)04:33, 28 January 2026 (UTC)Reply
- Wikispecies is a database of nomenclature of life. It existed before Wikidata who these days harvest a lot of their data from here. The biggest difference is the editors here are specialists in taxonomy some are practicing taxonomists, others have great interest and built up experience. We do not try to be Wikipedia, articals discussing all the ecology of a species and other info belong there. We are not presenting the case for a population to be a species or not. We are presenting the available names for each species with the current correct name bing the highlighted one. Wikidata use this, it is also used by Wikipedia for their taxoblocks. We can only report the current scientific consensus we do not draw our own conclusions on whether something is a species. Personally I try to make it a checklist of names all names whether used or not. But thats a big ask, so it often comes out to a checklist of current names. This includes all the metadata about the name, not the species. So authors, types, type locality etc. Metadata needed by taxonomists. CheersScott Thomson (Faendalimas)talk05:39, 28 January 2026 (UTC)Reply
- "Wikidata who these days harvest a lot of their data from here"—Does it? Where?Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing);Talk to Andy;Andy's edits15:13, 28 January 2026 (UTC)Reply
- for example...
- 11:40, 6 June 2023 Reinheitsgebot talk contribs 3,753 bytes +3,753 Created a new Item: #quickstatements; invoked by duplicity_process_specieswiki (restore)
- Scott Thomson (Faendalimas)talk08:08, 29 January 2026 (UTC)Reply
- That'sd:Q119138454, which is the bare minimum content for an item on a taxon. There is no mention of the work which described the taxon, nor its author or date. Nor any of its identifiers in external databases.
- The item simply serves as a placeholder for the link to the Wikispecies page,Ranacephala.
- It would be far more beneficial to the Wikimedia movement—and to society at large—to populate the Wikidata item first, with data that is structured and reusable, and then to transclude that data onto the Wikispecies page.Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing);Talk to Andy;Andy's edits10:40, 29 January 2026 (UTC)Reply
- Ideally yes, the Wikidata items should be created independently from Wikispecies' data, but from what I've seen in practice many Wikidata items for taxa as well as taxon authors have been automatically created by bots based on their Wikispecies pages, if items for them didn't already exist. Honestly I'm not happy about this, as it's meant many errors have been copied from Wikispecies, for instance misspellings, wrong nationalities, wrong occupations (merely authoring a paper on an insect does NOT necessarily make you an entomologist). I've also come across a few cases of bots adding completely invented life years, apparently from misinterpreting text from an author's publications or other data on a Wikispecies taxon author page. (Wish I could give examples but I didn't think to keep track of these.)Monster Iestyn (talk)13:56, 29 January 2026 (UTC)Reply
- I've left some introductory links onyour talk page.Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing);Talk to Andy;Andy's edits15:12, 28 January 2026 (UTC)Reply
Keith Spalding Brown (Jr.)
[edit]Just a heads up, but entomologistsKeith Spalding Brown andKeith Spalding Brown Jr. are the same person. According tohis profile on Lattes Platform, Jr. authored all the papers, he is American not Brazilian, and obviously he could not have died in 1991 because he was still writing papers into the 2000s. The years "1913–1991" (which I have removed now) actually seem to be the years ofa poul vaulter of the same name.
I know there are a number of other pairs of taxon author pages to be merged among others (seeCategory:Pages to merge), but I felt particularly like I needed to explain my reasoning here for putting up merge notices here (I think the errors involved here just annoyed me for some reason).Monster Iestyn (talk)18:41, 1 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
Dear members of Wikispecies. With a reduced activity on WS during the last years, Im happy to continues Admin and Crat, but honestly think I should be replaced as checkuser, since this function and responsibility in my point of view should be performed by someone much more active than me. The election of a checkuser is somewhat special, it needs a lot of votes, why I prefer to announce this here on Village Pump, so as many as possible can engage in an election of future new checkuser. I welcome any comments on this, and hope you will find a suitable new CU within the community.Dan Koehl (talk)09:52, 3 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
- From a technical point of view we do not need to replace you as we would still have two checkusers. However, it may be better to do so if we can. One reason for that is my inclusion as chair of the OC, as such I need to be cautious of COI with respect to that role. If you wish to resign we can make a request to the Stewards to remove these rights from you, I believe as its a self request they tend to ask for a 24 hour cooling period between the request and actioning it.
- For electing a new checkuser and for anyone maybe interested please read throughWikispecies:Checkusers for information on this role. Pay particular attention toWikispecies:Checkusers/Howto for information on the election requirements.
- If anyone is interested in becoming a CheckUser please contact me on my talk page. I can start an election if thats what everyone wants. Thanks Dan for all you past efforts with this. CheersScott Thomson (Faendalimas)talk15:07, 3 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
- Thanks Scott. Since I started as CheckUser on 14th of february 2017, I gather this a suitable date for resigning as CU. ~~~~Dan Koehl (talk)10:05, 5 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
- Request made. Thanks again, Dan. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯12:58, 5 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
- I second the thanks, Dan. And I support any established user who is willing to step up as a CheckUser. Please seem:CheckUser as well as our local documentation. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯01:17, 5 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
This project hasWikispecies:Global rights usage, which is apparently a failed policy about how users in specific global user groups should use their permissions as defined. However, should we repurpose this with new rules or similar? For example, given that we allow global sysops here, we can move fromWikispecies:Administrators to there.Codename Noreste (talk)15:55, 6 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
- wow thats old.... my initial thoughts on this is that often as not I would consider say for example a Global Sysop to follow the same reasoning as our Local Admins in using their rights. I do not know if we so much need a page just for this given it failed to pass in 2008. But maybe we need to add some specific pointers to our Admin, Crat pages. In all honesty anyone with global rights who does anything here I trust them to use their rights with care as I doubt they would have such broad sweeping rights if they were not highly trusted users. Any thoughts everyone? CheersScott Thomson (Faendalimas)talk06:56, 8 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
Template request: e-Flora of Thailand
[edit]Hello everyone,
I would like to request help in creating a new citation template for the e-Flora of Thailand (hosted by the Department of National Parks, Wildlife and Plant Conservation -botany.dnp.go.th).
The site uses a consistent numerical system that is perfect for a template. Each species page is identified by a five-digittdcode.
Example:
Species:Peristylus prainii (Hook.f.)Kraenzl.
URL:https://botany.dnp.go.th/eflora/floraspecies.html?tdcode=05666
ID Code: 05666
Proposed Template Name: {{e-Flora Thailand}} or {{DNP Thailand}}
Proposed Parameters:
id: The 5-digit tdcode.
taxon: (Optional) The name of the species/taxon for the display text (defaults to page title if omitted).
Example Usage: {{e-Flora Thailand|id=05666|taxon=Peristylus prainii}}
Desired Output:Peristylus prainii in e-Flora of Thailand. Published on the Internet. Accessed on: [Date].
Could a template editor help set this up? It would greatly assist in standardizing botanical references for South East Asian flora on Wikispecies.
Thanks!Badlydrawnboy22 (talk)14:27, 7 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
- Heya if I am understanding this correctly this may be something better handled by Wikidata as then it could be added into ourTaxonBar template automatically. What are your thoughts@Pigsonthewing:. CheersScott Thomson (Faendalimas)talk06:51, 8 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
- I agree. There are lots of other"Flora of..." IDs in Wikidata. Perhaps we should add them all to the template here?
- I would be happy to draft a proposal for a Wikidata property for this one.Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing);Talk to Andy;Andy's edits12:10, 8 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
- Thanks for the suggestion, Scott. While I agree that adding the property to Wikidata is a great move for data synchronization, I still believe a dedicated citation template is necessary for a few reasons:
- Visibility: The Taxonbar is placed at the very bottom of the article and uses a much smaller font. For a major regional authority like the e-Flora of Thailand, it is better to have a full-sized citation in theLinks section where it is more accessible to readers.
- Context: A standalone template allows us to include specific details like the "Accessed on" date, which is standard practice for botanical citations on Wikispecies.
- Editorial control: Many editors prefer to list primary regional floras explicitly in the text rather than having them "hidden" in a long list of database IDs in the footer.
- Ideally, we could do both—add the property to Wikidata for the Taxonbar, but still have this template available for use in the main body of the page, similar to how we handle {{IPNI}} or {{POWO}}.Badlydrawnboy22 (talk)12:14, 8 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
Automatic extraction of structured taxonomic data from Wikispecies
[edit]Hello,
I am trying to programmatically extract structured information from Wikispecies (taxonavigation, names, identifiers such as GBIF/CoL/Wikidata, references, etc.) to automate part of a biologist’s workflow.
I have tested the MediaWiki API and HTML/wikitext parsing, but the data structure is often inconsistent because many elements are generated by templates.
Has this already been done in a reliable way?
Is there a recommended or “official” approach to retrieve as much structured data as possible from Wikispecies without relying on fragile HTML scraping?
Any advice or pointers to existing tools/projects would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks!— The precedingunsigned comment was added byThibaud Gln (talk •contribs) 12:54, 10 February 2026.
- @Thibaud Gln: You're better off usingWikidata primarily, especially for information such as identifiers (after all, that's where Wikispecies sources its identifier data from). However, there is some valuable information present on Wikispecies not currently on Wikidata. You'll probably have the most luck extracting taxonavigation (though this is usually well-represented on Wikidata), authority information, and references. You may have some luck extracting synonymy information. --WrenFalcon (talk)04:24, 13 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
Bacteria and Archaea kingdoms
[edit]I recently read that the IPCN now accepts taxons of rank kingdom, and eight new kingdoms have been validly published so far. Does Wikispecies allow Bacteria and Archaea kingdoms, or is there any reason why nobody has created them yet? I'm sorry if that question has already been asked before.
Anyway, here are the eight new kingdoms:
By the way, I'm a layman, so I'm probably not competent enough to create these pages myself (if they turn out to be allowed).
Tc14Hd (talk)23:57, 10 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
- The basic answer is that there aren't any editors here that are working on that area of taxonomy so these updates have simply not been made yet.--Kevmin (talk)00:09, 11 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
- @Kevmin: Oh, okay. That's a very simple answer... I already feared that I had uncovered some big ideological divide between Wikispecies and the ICPN. But yeah, I understand why nobody has added them so far. You not only have to create the pages for the eight kingdoms, you also have to add them to the taxonomy of their child phyla (or maybe even superphyla). That sounds like a lot of work. Maybe I will do it in the future, but I have to do some research first.Tc14Hd (talk)00:35, 11 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
