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	(2024-11-03/2025-02-03)	70	(2025-02-03/2025-04-11)
71	(2025-04-12/2025-06-16)	72	(2025-06-17/2025-xx-xx)

A Guidebook for Wikispecies: Standardizing Botany Content

Hello, I was an administrator on the other Turkish Wikipedia, but I have since left. There were guidelines and written rules on how to write pages. In Wikispecies, I haven't looked much into zoology (even though birds are my area of interest), but in botany, it seems everyone has created their own set of rules, which causes a lot of confusion. In my opinion, a manual needs to be created that explains all these things, such as the use of the Nadi template, the 'Name' section, the use of synonyms, sources, photos, entering type information, and the red list, along with many other things I can't think of right now. This would ensure everyone follows the same guidelines and avoid chaos. This is my humble opinion." Fagus (talk) 14:09, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

The help guide is fairly explicit, but you are correct editors do not always follow it both now and in the past. Much re-editing is bringing things up to scratch, excuse the vernacular! Andyboorman (talk) 14:34, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

Here from Zoology viewpoint, I've now been editing on wikispecies for a couple of years. I feel i've understood basics of who the major editors are. Frequently on entries, i can tell who the key editor is by their style. For an initiative aiming for universality, this allowance is inconsistent. And yes, much re-editing is stylistic, so the resolving variation adds burden, which in future could be reduced if the modern templates were revised and editors could more consistently stick to a defined outline.

Sjl197 (talk) 02:00, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Completely agree on the principle of the potential use of templates to standardize the appearance of the pages, particularly at the species and subspecies level. Christian Ferrer (talk) 11:44, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

AviList

At this time most of the editors focused on Aves should be aware of AviList: The Global Avian Checklist. It is the confluence of Clements/eBird, IOC and Birdlife/HBW and will be followed by Avibase. Clements/eBird claims to be 99,5% already aligned; IOC will issue the latest update 15.2 and stop issues. Birdlife will take ~2 years to be fully aligned mostly due to conservation issues (as you know IUCN is Birdlife/HBW list based). Details here: https://www.avilist.org/checklist/v2025/ This is a very welcome initiative because it ends with some conflicting taxonomic differences. As in WS we followed IOC, I suggest we immediately follow AviList. The list is downloadable at the site above. Cheers. Hector Bottai (talk) 14:18, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

Let's see what IOC 15.2 says; perhaps Avilist at the end of the year? I know IOC have concerns about a few of the changes in Avilist that IOC think should be retained as species (Thalasseus acuflavidus and Cyanocorax luxuosus are two I am aware of; there are others), but were lumped under pressure from the Clements/AOU people despite good genetic evidence. - MPF (talk) 11:11, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

Anton V. Volynkin

From their recent edits, it seems that User:AntonVolynkin objects to us using their middle (patronymic?) name in reference to them. I have reverted their edits for now, not least so that functionality to our pages is restored, but we do not appear to have a clearly defined policy for such cases.

What should be done? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:50, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

Personally, I don't have much of an issue if they want us to use "Anton V. Volynkin" for the page title and related pages (barring technical issues, but those can be sorted out). As far as I'm aware, there isn't much potential confusion with other similarly-named authors. I'm not sure what to think about removing the middle name entirely from the page content. However, if it is a privacy concern on the part of Volynkin, I'd be more inclined to honor their choice. From a brief search, this author publishes as "Anton V. Volynkin" and seems to not publish under their full unabbreviated name, though I found reference to their full name in a 2020 publication. --WrenFalcon (talk) 22:07, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

On a related note, I was just looking to find the discussion where we asa project decided to publish all authorities middle names by Default rather then using them sparingly in disambiguation situations only. What nomen an author chooses to write under is what we should be using. In every day conversations we do not use "Hey there John Frank Alistor Smith, how is Jane Amelia-May Devroux Smith doing?"--Kevmin (talk) 14:44, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

My view is that when an author lets us know their preference we should use it, if they have other combos of their name in lit we can use redirects if necessary. Morelikely to encourage them at the least helping maintain their own page by doing it the way they want within reason. Then in the absence of authors letting us know we default to our standard practices. Some sites do list a persons full name and publishing name where they differ we can look into that also if we wish. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 16:59, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

Category: Botanists removal: what to do with specialists for Vascular Plants?

Category: Botanists, which has recently been removed from many articles, has been used in an ambiguous sense: a) for botanists in general, no matter on which subject they are specialized, b) (with a big majority, especially when given together with other catogories like mycologists, phycologist, pteridologists, bryologists ...) botanists specialized in Vascular Plants, for which no category exists until now and for which this action results in a loss of information. What can be done? --RLJ (talk) 09:36, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

Pseudofungi

This page has been created and deleted multiple times and has hundreds of incoming links. What should be done with this title? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:17, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

Weirdly, it is legit. Is group of heterokonts, with appearance of fungi. Neferkheperre (talk) 13:23, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

It seems to be interchangeable with Oomycota at phylum level, see that page. Oomycota is presently preferred in e.g. Hyde et al., The 2024 Outline of Fungi and fungus-like taxa, Doi 10.5943/mycosphere/15/1/25, however Ruggiero et al., 2025 used "Pseudofungi [= Oomycota]" at phylum level. Catalogue of Life (https://www.catalogueoflife.org/data/taxon/5K) uses Oomycota which it gets from "Species Fungorum Plus", but formerly used Pseudofungi I believe; ITIS has the relevant orders as or within Division (Phylum) Myxomycota, class Phycomycota, which is very outdated or simply wrong I would say. In IRMNG I presently follow Ruggiero et al. and use Pseudofungi, but could be persuaded to change that to Oomycota if that seems to be the later consensus (probably some additional digging needed here).Tony 1212 (talk) 18:26, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

Considering that there is at least some validity to using the name as an alternative for Oomycota and that it was a redirect for eight years before deletion was requested and the fact that there are hundreds of incoming links, I have undeleted for now. If someone feels strongly that it should be deleted again and can't even be a redirect, please let me know. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:37, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

Pseudofungi as a name is still alive, see Jirsová, D. and Wideman, J.G., 2024. Integrated overview of stramenopile ecology, taxonomy, and heterotrophic origin. The ISME Journal, 18(1), p.wrae150. https://academic.oup.com/ismej/article-pdf/18/1/wrae150/59189063/wrae150.pdf I did check Adl et al., 2019 just now, but they use neither Pseudofungi nor Oomycota, jumping straight from Gyrista (?superphylum - not sure) to "Peronosporomycetes Dick 2001 [Oomycetes Winter 1897, emend. Dick 1976]" - presumably a class. BTW, Wikispecies Oomycota has some repeated ranks in its taxobox, looks a bit odd; also there is no discussion/talk either at that page, or at [[1]] - perhaps there should be?? Tony 1212 (talk) 18:44, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

I do not think it should be deleted, under the circumstances. Redirect is fine for now and into the future. If it gets accepted as an accepted name again we can edit it accordingly. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 20:42, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia presently treats this group under the name Pseudofungi as well, in case that means something (possibly does, possibly doesn't!!)... of course anyone can change that if they feel sufficiently motivated, and have a rationale to do so that stands up to Wikipedia standards. Tony 1212 (talk) 18:43, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

OK, having verified that both MycoBank and Hyde et al. (2024) are using Oomycota not Pseudofungi, I have changed to using that name in IRMNG for this group, see Oomycota in IRMNG; I have allocated classes Oomycetes, Peronosporomycetes and Saprolegniomycetes to it as per the Hyde et al. treatment. CoL also has Oomycota but has some seriously weird stuff going on underneath it (Bigyromonadea, Hyphochytrea and Peronosporea) which do not belong there per the Hyde et al. treatment, but that is not my immediate problem! Tony 1212 (talk) 05:28, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

Hm, the situation seems to be a bit more murky than I stated above. I have raised it at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Pseudofungi and got some interesting feedback (ongoing), so maybe refer to that page for now (and contribute if you wish), then we can hopefully arrive at a standardised solution for both projects... Tony 1212 (talk) 18:47, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

We are 99.8% of the way to one million taxa

Just from Category:Pages with taxonavigation templates, which has 997,797, we are very close to one million entries. Including ISSNs, taxon authorities, etc., we of course have more than one million pages of content. As I've mentioned before here, I think it's worth commemorating this. If no one else responds or objects, at the very least, I'll change the site notice with a banner commemorating all the hard work. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:11, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

Sure! Let's commemorate!! Hector Bottai (talk) 00:02, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

Happy to celebrate!! Andyboorman (talk) 09:11, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

It is definitely worth marking such an event! Emilia Noah (talk) 12:28, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

Okay, so revising this. Category:Pages with taxonavigation templates has 998,819 pages in it but this also includes the 114,466 Templates in Category:Taxonavigation templates. So it's more like 884,353, which is a lot, but a real overestimate of when we'll hit a million (along with the caveat that there is no perfect measure of this, but this is a pretty good proxy). So we can safely rest knowing that any coordinated effort to celebrate one million entries is a bit off still. Sorry for being sloppy and making anyone think that it's imminent, but thanks again for everyone's free labor. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:56, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

By the way, there's at most 600-ish taxon pages not in Category:Pages with taxonavigation templates. A lot of these results are other things, though, like publications, or type repositories, which may be uncategorized. (Technical limitation: if a type repository page is not directly in Category:Repositories, but it is in a category that's a subcategory of Category:Repositories, I can't exclude all of them from the search - there's too many subcategories for -deepcat:Repositories to work.)

...It may also be a good idea to fix these items (i.e. put them in appropriate categories) before we get to 1 million taxon pages. Should help us determine the actual 1 millionth taxon page. --WrenFalcon (talk) 00:39, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

Brother/sister/sibling, you're preaching to the choir. I've been going thru the maintenance reports in Special:SpecialPages for the past couple of weeks. Feel free to look at my contribs and logs to see what I've been up to and join in if you're motivated. I love the energy. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:44, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

Laura Chornogubsky

I started Laura Chornogubsky, but this is my first article. If you can improve it, please do so. I added some information that I found on Wikidata and the English Wikipedia's list of species she described. LeapTorchGear (talk) 00:32, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikispecies! Please also review Help:Author Names and the rest of the help section; you'll find some information about how we typically format pages. --WrenFalcon (talk) 03:46, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

Opuntia series

I have been doing some work on the genus Opuntia updating, adding data and so on. However, it seems that our use of series is problematic given the emphasis of phylogeny as well as morphology in the classification and taxonomy of the whole of Cactaceae. There are many species unassigned to series and it has become almost impossible to rectify this. Normally I would recommend that we dispense with them in spite of their historic use on WS. The main reason that with a few exceptions their use in science has been reduced. One major problem is that the species lists are fully referenced only on one series - Opuntia ser. Chacopuntiae. Can anybody help by providing references for circumscriptions of the series? It appears that much of these species lists were provided by non-active editors at a time where there was less emphasis on citations. The protologues have some, but limited value, but most recent literature uses clades and informal groups not taxonomic entities. Thank you for any help and comments. Andyboorman (talk) 17:26, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

As a follow up I have just made Opuntia fortanelli, which Reyes-Agüero et al. (2024) ResearchGate place in Opuntia ser. Tunae on morphological grounds. However, they use Opuntia decumbens and Opuntia elizondoana to help circumscribe their describe their sp. nov. but WS places these in two other series. Indeed the taxonomy of Cactaceae is complex and unresolved. Andyboorman (talk) 08:03, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

Template:Languageicon

I propose that we delete {{Languageicon}}, after replacing all transclusions.

As its documentation tells us:

for example {{Languageicon|Spanish}} renders as: (Spanish)

and it applies style="font-size: 0.95em; color:#555; position: relative;"

It seems that typing (Spanish) would be far easier; the reduced font size is unnecessary as is the colour, which likely also renders the comment unreadable in dark mode. The position value seems superfluous.

The template is apparently intended "to indicate to readers that an external link is in a language other than English". In my experience, most of our links to such sites are not marked up in this way.

Where it has been used, the application has been inconsistent, with some instances using (Spanish) and some (In Spanish). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:49, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

Ig Nobel Bacteria

Kytococcus sedentarius is in the news [2]. Would anyone care to review/ expand the page I just created? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:47, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

Cactaceae updated classification

Please note the recently published paper; de Vos et al., 2025. Phylogenomics and classification of Cactaceae based on hundreds of nuclear genes: JM de Vos et al. Plant Systematics and Evolution 311(5): 28. DOI: 10.1007/s00606-025-01948-z. It will significantly affect our classification and taxonomy on WS, if we accept the proposals, which I can not see any reason for not doing so. Please comment. Thanks. Andyboorman (talk) 08:14, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

Unfortunately . . . "DOI Resolution Error

0.1007/s00606-025-01948-z

This DOI cannot be found in the DOI System. Possible reasons are: . . . can you check the link, please! - MPF (talk) 14:30, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

•  Done apologies.Andyboorman (talk) 14:45, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

Upcoming Dark Mode user interface rollout for anonymous Wikimedia sites users

Hello Wikimedians,

Apologies if this message is not in your language. Please help translate to your language.

The Reader Experience team will launch the Dark mode feature for anonymous users on all Wikimedia sites, including yours, on October 29, 2025.

Dark mode is an option that allows users to view pages in light-coloured text, and icons on a dark background. Once it is available for anonymous users, they can enable it when using various devices. More information on ways to enable it can be found on this page. Given many pages are still not compatible with dark mode this will be an opt-in feature and not automatically apply to pages.

Dark mode requires modifications to content pages and templates, and since our initial launch in July 2024, we have been working with communities and helping them prepare for dark mode. Before the rollout, it is essential that template authors and technical contributors test dark mode and read this page to learn how to make pages Dark mode-ready and address any compatibility issues found in templates.

We will fix most color compatibility issues only on the most-viewed pages on projects with over 5 million monthly page views. Technical contributors with an account should opt into dark mode currently using preferences or settings and test pages and seek help before the release to ensure everything complies before the enablement.

If you have any questions or need help, please contact the Reader Experience team for support.

Thank you!

UOzurumba (WMF) 02:08, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

Art. 61.6 of the ICNafp

@Orchi:, @RLJ:, @MPF:, @MILEPRI: and other fellow botanical editors, I was alerted to edits required by the recently adopted Madrid Code (2024), particularly Art. 61.6 regarding correcting epithets to afrum. I have made two moves as examples, Rhipidoglossum afrum and Afrosciadium afrum. Please note that IPNI and other related sources have been fully updated. I would appreciate any help that you are able to provide. I am not sure if a bot can be written to automate the process, @Pigsonthewing:, what do you think? Best regards Andyboorman (talk) 14:29, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

Do we have (or could someone compile) a list of pages that need moving? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:34, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

It's also going to need all the same changes at Commons . . . very tedious, unfortunately! - MPF (talk) 15:57, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

There is a useful list at the English Wikipedia User:Plantdrew/Article 61.6. --Thiotrix (talk) 16:09, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

List of species affected according to English Wikipedia of Art. 61.6 of the ICNafp - Wikispecies MILEPRI (talk) 16:49, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

I produced that list from appendix S1 of DOI: 10.1002/tax.12622. It is sorted by family (although I omitted the families). If anybody is going to work on this, it would help if you have a way to distinguish links to redirects from direct links (I use a script to make redirect links green: User:Plantdrew/common.css).

I still need to do some work on English Wikipedia regarding these name changes (all the relevant articles have been moved, but I haven't checked all the red links (e.g. genus pages with lists of species on en.wiki may still have "caffer" names).

Wikidata will also need updating. I think all of the Wikidata items that have an English Wikipedia article have been updated, but not the ones that lack an English article. Plantdrew (talk) 17:48, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

Thanks to @Plantdrew: we have a list to work through and I see that @MILEPRI: is busy. However, looking at Violaceae I note a set of still disputed taxa. One door closes an another opens. Andyboorman (talk) 20:50, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

Having now seen these lists, I think the task is too complex, with too few affected articles, for a bot. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:44, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

After making quite a few updates, I notice that there are many more species to edit, since it is a list of species edited on English Wikipedia. I suggest entering the words caffer, caffrum, etc. in the Wikispecies search box and making the changes to the pages that we have made on Wikispecies. Saludos. MILEPRI (talk) 09:10, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

Please note that ICNafp only applies to algae, fungi and plants, as zoology has its own acts. Please revert any edits made in error. Andyboorman (talk) 14:28, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

Pogona succedaneum; Snezhana

The only Google hits for Pogona succedaneum are this site and en.Wikipedia; it was added to each by (different) IPs, with no sources.

We have it as Pogona succedaneum Schmidt, 1983, but the author page Johann Wolfgang Schmidt gives dates as "1840-1897".

We also have Snezhana Schmidt, 1983, which has no Google hits.

Is they genuine, and if so what are the correct details? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:07, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

I now see User:Andyboorman deleted page Acopas meridionalis, created by the same IP, as bogus.

However, their Keirana longicollis Boucek, 1998 does seem to be genuine. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:11, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

USERLANGUAGE

I notice in this week's Wikidata newsletter:

The {{USERLANGUAGE}} magic word is now enabled on Wikidata and Test Wikidata. It can be used to display templates in the user interface language, replacing the previous {{int:lang}} hack. (phab:T405830)

and I wonder whether that would be of benefit here? The technical details are beyond my ken. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:24, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

I think in principle, it could be useful here, at c:, d:, f:, incubator:, m:, mw:, and mul:s:. Good eye. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:33, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. Now task T406583. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:23, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

Violaceae

Following on from our work on Art. 61.6 of the ICNafp, it is still apparent that there is still poor consensus around the Afrohybanthus, Hybanthus and Pigea group of species in Violaceae. I will prepare a page for Afrohybanthus, complete with disputed tags etc. after contacting a few people. Comments, please Andyboorman (talk) 09:25, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

Role-specific pages

I'm not clear why we need most of the role-specific pages in Category:Lists of people, such as Ichthyologists, when we have equivalent categories (e.g. Category:Ichthyologists).

I propose we delete them, after using Cat-a-lot to ensure that all of the listed people are categorised accordingly. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:21, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

Have your say: vote for the 2025 Board of Trustees

Hello all,

The voting period for the 2025 Board of Trustees election is now open. Candidates are running for two (2) seats on the Board.

To check your voter eligibility, please visit the voter eligibility page.

Learn more about them by reading their application statements and watch their candidacy videos.

When you are ready, go to the SecurePoll voting page to vote.

The vote is open from October 8 at 00:00 UTC to October 22 at 23:59 UTC.

Best regards,

Abhishek Suryawanshi
Chair, Elections Committee

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:47, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

Yu-Long Zhang

Hello, we have Yu-Long Zhang & Yu-Long Zhang (entomologist), we indeed need two pages because one is specialist of Orthoptera from College of Life Sciences, Hebei, and the other is specialist of Leptidoptera from South China Agricultural University. Both are entomologists so the current pages titles are not specific enough. If nobody disagree I'm going to make Yu-Long Zhang (orthopterist) & Yu-Long Zhang (lepidopterist) & "Yu-Long Zhang" as a disambigation page. Is it ok? Christian Ferrer (talk) 06:05, 10 October 2025 (UTC)