Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of Life

In Microcaldus and Fidelibacter pages, Microcaldota and Fidelibacterota's authorities can't be displayed because there is not enough parameters for speciesboxes. This needs to be fixed somehow. Jako96 (talk) 18:15, 31 May 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Wow, monotypic taxa so far up the hierarchy. So there would need to be provision for |greatgreatgreatgrandparent_authority=. Not a priority, but fixable if others think it worthwhile. Peter coxhead (talk) 21:01, 31 May 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

A little surprising, right? Let's wait for others. And it is worthwhile, there is no other way around. Jako96 (talk) 21:05, 31 May 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

I would say it is worthwhile. This is probably not the only time it will happen (Picozoa comes to mind). — Snoteleks (talk) 00:34, 1 June 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Wait, so there are monotypic class, order and family in Picozoa but they are not displayed because of this issue? Jako96 (talk) 07:45, 1 June 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

No, the taxon is set to Picozoa and templates don' exist for other taxa. This could be changed by setting taxon to Picomonas and creating necessary templates. — Jts1882 | talk 09:17, 1 June 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

I meant that, actually. Thanks. Jako96 (talk) 09:40, 1 June 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Jts, so do you think it's worthwhile? Jako96 (talk) 09:41, 1 June 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

@Peter coxhead do you support my proposal too? Jako96 (talk) 20:14, 6 July 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Omg it's so funny. Even for this, we can't reach a consensus. Still, I have more problems with the automated taxobox system that I will try to get consensus in the future. We can't even solve this lmao. Jako96 (talk) 06:54, 9 July 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

I changed automatic taxobox with a speciesbox in Picozoa page. Jako96 (talk) 10:10, 1 June 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

I think it is worthwhile to allow |greatgreatgreatgrandparent_authority=. greatgreatgreatgrandparent_authority is sufficient to cover parents from species up to phylum, and there are single species phyla. I don't think single species kingdoms are likely. Plantdrew (talk) 14:38, 9 July 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

@Peter coxhead You have the permission and I think you should make the change already. I support it, Snoteleks supports it, Plantdrew supports it, and CiaPan supports it too but he proposed to change the name (see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of Life#How about reducing greatgreat?). Jako96 (talk) 09:14, 11 July 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

The flow of control is Template:Automatic taxobox, Template:Speciesbox, etc. → Module:Automated taxobox.automaticTaxobox() → Template:Taxobox/core → Module:Autotaxobox.taxoboxList(). The last is where the taxon names and authorities are actually shown in the taxobox. All of these would need to be altered, which is a non-trivial task, fraught with risk because of the massive usage of these modules and templates. It needs an editor with significant uninterrupted time available (which I don't have at present).

There's also the issue of whether there's a more generic solution, albeit somewhat more complicated, using parameters of the form greatNgrandparent_authority or something similar as per the comment below. This should be settled first, with agreement on exactly what parameter names to use. Peter coxhead (talk) 06:42, 14 July 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

My vote is in favor of parentN_authority. It's intuitive and reminiscent of the original one, without the confusion of greats and grands. — Snoteleks (talk) 17:25, 14 July 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

@Snoteleks: So parent1_authority would be a synonym of parent_authority, parent2_authority of grandparent_authority, etc.? Peter coxhead (talk) 20:07, 14 July 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Yes! That's how I envisioned it — Snoteleks (talk) 20:20, 14 July 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

I also support that. This was the thing I was gonna propose. But I don't know if we should use parent1_authority or parent_authority. Jako96 (talk) 20:49, 14 July 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

@Peter coxhead Is it possible to make parent_authority synonymous with parent1_authority? Like how in {{Citation }} the parameters first and first1 do the same? — Snoteleks (talk) 02:05, 15 July 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Absolutely.

(Initially I wrote that some aliases are already supported, because either underscores or spaces are allowed in parameters, so that e.g. parent_authority and parent authority are aliases. However, when I checked, I found that underscores or spaces are still ok in {{Speciesbox }}, but the underscore versions were enforced in {{Automatic taxobox }} via this set of edits, which should be fixed unless there was a consensus for this change.)

Allowing aliases for the existing authority parameters in all taxobox templates that support them is straightforward if a bit tedious to implement, since e.g. parent3_authority would just be passed on as greatgrandparent_authority, which has support in Module:Automated taxobox, Template:Taxobox/core and Module:Autotaxobox, so they wouldn't need changing. It's adding new levels of authority that is more tricky. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:03, 16 July 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

I dislike aliased parameters. Spaced parameters aren't really being used in taxoboxes, although they do work. I'm not sure if spaced parameters are functional in any other infobox templates (I have tested {{Infobox settlement }} and {{Infobox person }}, and spaced parameters are not functional with those).

I don't know anything about the principles of good user interface design, so I'm not sure if it is a good thing to make some variations in syntax work (space vs. underscore in taxoboxes) or a bad thing to make variations in syntax work, but not universally (taxoboxes vs. other infoboxes).

Numbered parent authorities are less tied to English (rebisabuelo is Spanish for great-great-grandfather, not bisbisabuelo or rereabuelo), but I think most taxoboxes on other language Wikipedias have not translated the parameter names. Regardless of whether the parameters are translated or not, I wouldn't expect any other language Wikipedias to change their parameters to numbered parents if we do that here.

I do think numbered parent authorities would have been a better way to go if that had been done since the beginning, but I don't very much like the idea of having two systems (numbered/greatgreat) with aliases. I'd be on board with numbered parents if a bot could change everything over. Plantdrew (talk) 21:04, 16 July 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Like Plantdrew, in general I'm not keen on aliased parameters; for one thing they make maintenance more difficult. There is, I think, a possible case for space versus underscore aliases, because of their widespread equivalence in other contexts. However, for consistency we should either allow them in all taxobox templates or none, rather than in only some as at present.

I do agree that we should avoid aliased numbered and greatgreat.. parameters. Just because it's possible doesn't mean it's a good idea. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:33, 17 July 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

I am slowly working up the call chain adding support for greatgreatgreatgrandparent_authority. I've reached the sandbox version of Template:Taxobox/core. As I noted above, although each step is straightforward, the templates and modules involved are very widely used, so I'm going slowly, including adding and checking new test cases. Peter coxhead (talk) 13:58, 22 July 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

{{Speciesbox}} now supports |greatgreatgreatgrandparent_authority= as at Microcaldus .

Aside: It turns out that {{Speciesbox}} has accepted greatgreatgreatgrandparent_authority since 2011. Then it was used to deal with a subgenus being included in the taxobox, and was passed on as one level less, i.e. as greatgreatgrandparent_authority. In December 2018, I revised the way levels between species and genus were handled, and mistakenly passed on greatgreatgreatgrandparent_authority, which was then ignored by {{Taxobox/core}}.

I did some work towards getting {{Automatic taxobox}} to support this parameter, but on reflection I'm not sure that it's needed. {{Speciesbox}} now allows the authority to be given for the species, genus, and four levels above. When the target of {{Automatic taxobox}} is the genus, greatgreatgrandparent_authority reaches the same four levels above the genus.

Peter coxhead (talk) 08:50, 23 July 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Nice! I also updated Fidelibacter and Picozoa. Jako96 (talk) 10:20, 23 July 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

I find myself asking why it is necessary to specify the authorities for parent etc. taxa in the speciesbox (etc), rather than storing the authority in each node, and picking up from there when needed. It's not a trivial change anymore with tens (hundreds?) of thousands on taxobox templates, but would it be possible to make authority an optional parameter at each node, and use it when it is present?

One could in principle code and run a bot to insert authorities in nodes, but I guess one would worry about the risk of something going wrong. Perhaps a bot that just deals with the nodes above one terminal; if that goes wrong there's only a few nodes that need repair. And the bot could terminate when it hits a node with an authority present. (Usall could manually populate the top 1000 or so boxes by usage.) Lavateraguy (talk)

@Lavateraguy: this has been discussed before I'm pretty sure (though I can't find where offhand).

The major problem is that we only do this for monotypic taxa. Whether a taxon is monotypic can't be determined from taxonomy templates, since child templates may not have been created yet.

My recollection is that another issue was a degree of inconsistency between sources as to the authority, and editors' reluctance to pick one standard source for each taxonomic group. My experience is that for plants even PoWO and IPNI don't always agree, particularly for things like ex authors, even though they supposedly share databases. For animals, it's more difficult, since there are no standardized ways of representing authors' names.Peter coxhead (talk) 12:31, 23 July 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Can confirm that the infrastructure setup at Kew is a bit weird in ways that I don't understand: Rafaël definitely makes fixes to authorities etc. in POWO (typically addition of parenthetical authorities) that don't immediately get back-ported into IPNI. Choess (talk) 13:25, 23 July 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

@Peter coxhead: @Snoteleks: @Plantdrew: Guys, it looks like the problem is NOT solved for Candidatus taxa, after the changes I made. See Candidatus Hodarchaeum . Jako96 (talk) 15:20, 27 July 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

NOTHING has been solved for Candidatus taxa, including the question of whether to even have articles for most of them (they don't meet the requirements of WP:NSPECIES), and the question of how to title articles if we have them (include Candidatus in the title, or not? Most articles on Candidatus taxa don't include it in the title). Once those questions are solved we can address how taxoboxes should work for Candidatus taxa

Peter coxhead said he wasn't going to enable |greatgreatgreatgrandparent_authority= for {{Automatic taxobox }} (reasoning that it would need one less parent level than {{Speciesbox }}). Candidatus Hodarchaeum is using Automatic taxobox with |binomial_text= and |genus_text=. I'm surprised to see at Candidatus Hodarchaeum that |authority= is functioning to fill in the authority for the binomial. I would have expected |authority= to fill in the authority for the taxon called by |taxon=.

|binomial_text= is mostly used in articles for undescribed species with a provisional designation, to keep the provisional designation unitalicized. These don't have authorities, which I guess is why it wasn't aware of how the authority parameter behaved with binomial_text.

|genus_text= is used in only 17 articles. 10 of those are Candidatus taxa, and the others are mostly case of uncertain generic assignment. Uncertain generic placement has mostly been dealt with by using taxonomy templates with a query (e.g. Template:Taxonomy/Amia/?). Do we need |genus_text= for uncertain generic placement? Is |genus_text= a good way to handle Candidatus taxa? The "_text" parameters are intended to handle a small number of unusual cases. I don't think "_text" should be used for the large number of articles on Candidatus taxa, but a solution is needed for those. Plantdrew (talk) 19:08, 27 July 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

I agree with Plantdrew that the key issue is the status of Candidatus taxon names and corresponding articles. These names depart from the standard rules of biological nomenclature so don't fit into the automated taxobox system, which expects uninomials at genus level and above, binomials for species, etc. If Candidatus Hodarchaeum were a normal monospecific genus, then a Speciesbox would be used, but it can't be because the first word of the species name isn't the genus. A possible way forward would be to have new "Candidatus autotaxobox" and "Candidatus speciesbox" templates, but I don't think this is worthwhile, and I have no interest in working on it.

@Plantdrew: I think the principle is that when |binomial_text= is used in an Automatic taxobox, the target taxon is then the species, so this is what |authority= applies to. Otherwise there would need to be |child_authority= to go down from the genus to the species. Peter coxhead (talk) 22:20, 27 July 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

In case we need feedback for that issue, I disagree with putting Candidatus on titles. From an encyclopedic standpoint, it is as irrelevant in the title as the authority of an accepted taxon; that's my perspective. — Snoteleks (talk) 00:58, 28 July 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

In my opinion, I don't think articles should need to have "Candidatus" in the page name; can't we just use the {{DISPLAYTITLE:}} template to add "Candidatus" in the title (as well as the double quotes for uncertain designations or whatever that's called, plus italicization of scientific name)? @Snoteleks @Peter coxhead

@Snoteleks: {{DISPLAYTITLE:}} can only change the formatting of a page title; the text must match exactly. Peter coxhead (talk) 15:37, 8 August 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Or better yet, how about a new template that is more appropriate that could to do that? With parameters like:

Parameters	Purpose
|candidatus=	to set whether or not the subject is a candidate taxon
|valid=	to set whether or not its name is tentative (double quote marks)
|scientific=	to set whether or not the article's name/title is a genus/binomial name (italicization)

Can't tell if this table is even working. Seems like posting on mobile is always whack.

CheckNineEight (talk) 08:43, 8 August 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

@CheckNineEight: I'm not aware of any way of changing the characters in a page title. The formatting (e.g. italic) can be changed using {{DISPLAYTITLE:}}, but you can't add " or Candidatus with a template. Peter coxhead (talk) 15:41, 8 August 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

{{Italic verbatim title }} adds " and italicizes the entire title (except for a parenthetical disambiguation). There are some other templates that modify the title listed in the documentation for {{Italic verbatim title }}. Plantdrew (talk) 16:08, 8 August 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

I think we should either add these parameters to existing templates or create a new template for Candidatus taxa. Jako96 (talk) 08:49, 9 August 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Same. I just realized, though, that the parameter names I gave might cause confusion; let's think of better names for these. CheckNineEight (talk) 11:13, 9 August 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

I think we just need the "candidatus" parameter. Right? Jako96 (talk) 12:53, 15 August 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

I'm not sure what you mean. I'm only sharing ideas/suggestions. I guess "candidatus" is actually a good enough name for the parameter, but I don't know what template you guys have decided to add it to; though if you ask me, I think it's a good idea to have a new template with all three parameters/settings, and it'd be nice to have it automate-able for automatic updates, like what the IAbot and Citation Bot does to {{Citation }} templates. CheckNineEight (talk) 13:48, 15 August 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

We would add the "candidatus" parameter to Template:Automatic taxobox, Template:Paraphyletic group, Template:Speciesbox and Template:Subspeciesbox. Jako96 (talk) 14:50, 15 August 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Those templates can modify the display title, too? (Genuinely don't know about this) CheckNineEight (talk) 14:54, 15 August 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

These 4 templates can't change how the title appeares for now. But this can be changed, of course. Jako96 (talk) 15:04, 15 August 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Alrighty CheckNineEight (talk) 15:24, 15 August 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

So what do you think about the "candidatus" parameter, @Peter coxhead, @Snoteleks and @Plantdrew? Jako96 (talk) 16:40, 15 August 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Personally I am against having "candidatus" in the title, but perfectly fine with having it displayed in the taxobox, kind of like the exinct parameter. — Snoteleks (talk) 17:01, 15 August 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Interesting idea. I can see how a "candidatus" parameter could add something to the beginning of the name (as the extinct parameter does). However, we may have "candidatus" at a multiple ranks. The extinct parameter works at a single rank (typical use case is an extinct species in a extant genus), with extinction at other ranks specified in taxonomy templates. Would candidatus be a parameter in taxonomy templates to cover multiple ranks? Plantdrew (talk) 18:02, 16 August 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

I think this is a good idea Jako96 (talk) 18:20, 16 August 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

If this can be automated, that would be great; it'd be nice if the candidate status of a taxon and lower ranks can update as soon as a species in this lineage loses that status (and sister taxa within this lineage remains "Candidatus" while all species within them remains so). CheckNineEight (talk) 00:13, 17 August 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

By the way, I forgot about Template:Taxobox. Jako96 (talk) 17:14, 15 August 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

I forgot! Automatic taxobox (and maybe more taxobox templates) CAN change how the title looks. See Lomosovis for example. Jako96 (talk) 13:19, 6 September 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

@Jako96: so the page would be at the 'plain' name, and then |candidatus=yes would add "Candidatus" to the taxobox display – is that the idea? (Personally I think the candidatus nomenclature is an abomination, but we appear to be stuck with it.) Peter coxhead (talk) 16:54, 15 August 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Yes. But I think we should probably also have "Candidatus" in the title of the page. Jako96 (talk) 17:11, 15 August 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Again, personally I would never add that to the title. But I'm not enough into prokaryotes to be an authority here, so do not consider me for this. — Snoteleks (talk) 17:52, 15 August 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

We want to stop naming our articles Candidatus [taxon name], but we still need to show "Candidatus" on the display title to let the readers know that the taxon does not yet have any cultured strains. Kinda important, to hopefully give readers the idea that the species they're reading about (or that is/are within the higher taxonomic rank they're reading about) is barely known about beyond just metagenomic analyses (and, if they're lucky, proteomic and/or microscopy analyses also). CheckNineEight (talk) 23:47, 15 August 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

But why does that need to be in the title, just out of curiosity? There's plenty of eukaryotic species that are so poorly known there's only one 19th century drawing of them, or a fossil. But you never see nomen nudum or † in the title. Why can't that simply be in the taxobox alone? — Snoteleks (talk) 00:35, 16 August 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Actually, you're right. We don't need to display Candidatus in the title. Anyway, there is another problem. Will the quotes on the taxobox be in bold? Currently, we do use quotes in bold in text, and also in taxoboxes, but the quotes on Template:Life on Earth do not appear bold in pages. Jako96 (talk) 06:45, 16 August 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

See Candidatus Aenigmatarchaeum for example. Jako96 (talk) 06:49, 16 August 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

I changed my mind again. I think we should display Candidatus in the title. Because in text, we will be using the word Candidatus for such taxa anyway. For example, we will use "Candidatus Thorarchaeia" in text, not "Thorarchaeia". Jako96 (talk) 09:07, 16 August 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

If you want Candidatus in the title, move the page to that title (after getting consensus for the change). The taxoboxes can only add formatting to the title, not change the characters.

Adding candidatus to the taxoboxes in the taxon name is ugly, especially when bolded as in Candidatus Hodarchaeum . It might be better not bold the "Candidatus" or move it to the rank column. — Jts1882 | talk 11:43, 16 August 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

@Jts1882: I couldn't agree more strongly that the taxobox at Candidatus Hodarchaeum is ugly, but this is the fault of the nomenclature system, which the taxobox reflects; see the LPSN entry. Peter coxhead (talk) 17:10, 16 August 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

It is indeed, ugly. But we can just write "Ca." instead of "Candidatus", if you want. Jako96 (talk) 09:18, 17 August 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

I'm not an expert on this, but I think the term Candidatus was, if I recall correctly, made specifically for the fact that prokaryotes are, not only hard to be observed alive, but also hard to isolate and grow (culture)... unlike the term nomen nudum . "Candidatus" indicates that much of what is known about this cell is just its relationship with other taxa (phylogeny, and maybe even its environmental and pathogenic effects) and its' description/characterization is, overall, purely theoretical and subject to further characterization/identification and even changes; "nomina nudum" is a designation specifically for multicellular organisms, and it's equivalent to adding double quotes [" "] around the taxon name. CheckNineEight (talk) 07:38, 16 August 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

How about this as a solution? We treat the Candidatus taxa the same way we treat extinct taxa.

• We add a |candidatus= parameter to the taxonomy templates.
• We add Ca. before the taxon name in the taxobox, just as we add † for extinct taxa (incidentally should the † be linked?)
• While adding parameters to the taxonomy templates hasrin't been done almost since the inception, I think this would be easy to implememt in Module:autotaxonomy.

Thoughts? — Jts1882 | talk 10:36, 18 August 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

How about a legend at the top of the list? That way, you don't have to hyperlink every instance of Ca. or † beside the taxon names.

Ca. – Candidatus

† – extinct

CheckNineEight (talk) 23:42, 18 August 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

@Jts1882: it's a bit more tricky than †, at least if the result is to be like the taxobox here but with "Ca." rather than "Candidatus", because no name is italicized regardless of rank, and double quotes are added. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:20, 19 August 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Also, this parameter should be only for genera and species because sources use only quotes on higher Candidatus taxa and use the word Candidatus on only genera and species (we would obviously state in text that a higher taxon is Candidatus). See this article for example. Even before adding such a parameter, I think we should now change such taxa's names in the wiki (for example "Ca. Hodarchaeales" would be written as "Hodarchaeales"). Who agrees with me? Jako96 (talk) 22:33, 20 September 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Just so we're clear – and this was what I've been saying, by the way:

• Pagenames should not have "candidatus" in it (because that adds extra work of having to move the page once the species/genus loses its candidate status, among other reasons).
• "Candidatus"/"Ca." should still be seen somewhere in the article itself, like in the taxobox at the very least.
• Use "candidatus"/"Ca." sparingly in the main body text, if at all.

I say we should move the pages now to their straightforward name counterparts (ones that don't begin with "Candidatus"). Also, the |candidatus= parameter should definitely be implemented as a {{Taxonomy }} template feature, similar to |extinct=; make it so that the taxobox system adds "Ca." for genus and species taxa with |candidatus=yes, and quotation marks for taxa in higher ranks. CheckNineEight (talk) 01:06, 21 September 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

No, the parameter shouldn't add quotes for higher ranks, we could just add quotes using taxonomy templates for now. Because, taxa such as the proposed superclass "Methanomada" are not Candidatus but just invalid and should be in quotes. Also, do you agree with me changing names like "Ca. Hodarchaeales" to "Hodarchaeales" in the wiki and move pages like Candidatus Wenzhongarchaeales to Wenzhongarchaeales now? By the way, we should probably keep Candidatus in the title for genera and species because some genera and species are commonly only mentioned as "Candidatus ..." or "Ca. ...", but I'm not sure. Jako96 (talk) 09:00, 21 September 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

We should move all pages, including genus and species; that's why I proposed for some way to somehow add "Candidatus" to the display title: for articles that don't have it in their page name, but should definitely have it on their title otherwise.I get that there's the alternative solution of just {{DEFAULTSORT}}ing these pages so that they don't overpopulate sectionC of alphabetical lists, but I'm personally not a fan of that. CheckNineEight (talk) 23:13, 21 September 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

I meant we should also not use the word Candidatus in text for higher taxa (ofc we should state in text that they are Candidatus but for example we would normally say "Hodarchaeales" instead of "Candidatus Hodarchaeales" for higher taxa). Do you support this now? I'll change them all, if you do. Jako96 (talk) 15:03, 22 September 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Yeah, I guess. I personally wouldn't repeat writing it after having already done it once in the lead section, at least; as long as it shows up where it makes sense and when it matters – and it seems like it only matters for genus and species. CheckNineEight (talk) 16:04, 22 September 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Thanks for agreeing! Higher taxa will not have the word Candidatus anywhere in the wiki but in text, it will be mentioned because this is what most quotes-using sources do. Anyway, I'll start with this sometime. Jako96 (talk) 16:11, 22 September 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

I moved every page with the word Candidatus in title that I can move and used Template:Db-move on a lot of redirects to get others also moved. I'll also edit articles soon. Jako96 (talk) 16:25, 23 September 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

I edited some articles and moved all the pages, I'll continue on editing. Jako96 (talk) 13:33, 24 September 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

I've added some rules to WikiProject Microbiology, see. Jako96 (talk) 18:08, 24 September 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

By the way, @CheckNineEight, earlier you said that a taxon loses the Candidatus status as soon as one of it's members gets cultured, right? Well, this is not the case. Names such as "Asgardarchaeota" are still technically Candidatus, even though Promethearchaeum is a cultured archaeon. A name can't lose it's Candidatus status, a different name has to be published. Jako96 (talk) 18:20, 24 September 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Thanks for letting me know. CheckNineEight (talk) 00:20, 25 September 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

You're welcome! One last thing: If someone proposes the name "Asgardarchaeota" in a different rank, for example, class, the name would be valid under the ICNP. Jako96 (talk) 13:37, 25 September 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Now, do you think we should wikilink like this; "Ca. Lokiarchaeum", like this; "Ca. Lokiarchaeum" or like this; "Ca. Lokiarchaeum"? Jako96 (talk) 15:23, 26 September 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

The second one. For the sake of saving bytes, it's better to do it like "''Ca.'' [[Lokiarchaeum]]" instead of [[Lokiarchaeum|"''Ca.'' Lokiarchaeum"]] or "[[Lokiarchaeum|''Ca.'' Lokiarchaeum]]"; only hyperlink the words that are all parts of the page name. I suppose redirects were made, for when [[eukaryote]]s (hyperlink spells "eukaryotes" while still pointing to eukaryote) becomes [[eukaryotic]] (redirects to eukaryote). CheckNineEight (talk) 20:47, 26 September 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Forgot to reply you here, yes, we should not link Candidatus, I agree. Jako96 (talk) 21:59, 26 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

I am in favor of what you've been saying @CheckNineEight, we should move pages to non-Candidatus page names and just find alternative ways to display Candidatus in the title, if at all. — Snoteleks (talk) 14:54, 22 September 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

... me starting a category:Fungal taxa named by Carl Linnaeus? It would be a subcat of category:Botanical taxa named by Carl Linnaeus. It's of personal interest to me, because I'd like a listing of the Wikipedia articles about fungi described by Linnaeus, and I can't think of any other way of obtaining this than going through the above cat and finding them myself; and if I'm going to do this anyways, I might as well make these search results available for all. No, I don't plan to do this for any other authorities, but obviously Linnaeus is a special case. For background, I'm working on an article List of lichen taxa named by Carl Linnaeus (recommendations for a less bulky title gratefully accepted), which will have about 80 species; I'd like to know what the numbers are for a similar potential list for fungi. Esculenta (talk) 16:07, 30 September 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

You could use PetScan to produce the intersection as here. William Avery (talk) 16:13, 30 September 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Thanks! I will use that. Esculenta (talk) 16:21, 30 September 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

May I suggest List of lichens named by Linnaeus? Or is that overly simplified? — Snoteleks (talk) 16:15, 30 September 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Well, there's Carl Linnaeus the Younger, but I like the "lichen taxa"->"lichens" shortening. Esculenta (talk) 16:21, 30 September 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Done I found out from another source that Linnaeus only described about 150 fungi in total (back in the day, fungi were relegated to the "Cryptogamia" along with ferns, mosses, and algae, since they lacked visible flowers), so we're not terribly far off from a "complete" representation of his fungal work. Esculenta (talk) 17:20, 30 September 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Microbiology § Should this article be moved (or renamed) for consistency. CheckNineEight (talk) 02:03, 1 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

An editor has requested that Template:Taxonomy/Methylomirabilacaea be moved to Template:Taxonomy/Methylomirabilia, which may be of interest to this WikiProject. You are invited to participate in the move discussion. CheckNineEight (talk) 04:56, 10 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

If some people would like to stick their heads into the above deletion discussion, that might be productive. I frankly don't know enough about the intersection of "quality of publication venue" with "valid taxon status" to come to a definite assessment here. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 11:24, 15 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Another editor said that monotypic fossil species should be moved to the genus. If this is correct, could someone move Tasmaniolimulus patersoni to Tasmaniolimulus ? Лисан аль-Гаиб (talk) 09:22, 16 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Phaeothamniophycidae § Requested move 18 October 2025. Jako96 (talk) 10:05, 18 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Protista § Raphidomonads. Jako96 (talk) 12:36, 18 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Bigyromonada § Requested move 20 October 2025. Jako96 (talk) 19:28, 20 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Should "et al." be italicized in taxon authorities? I haven't seen any policy on this topic and I have come across both editors that enforce italics and editors that enforce not using italics. — Snoteleks (talk) 10:39, 25 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

I've added a fair number of et al. taxon authorities lately without italics. But only because it is slightly easier; I don't have any strong opinion about whether et al. should be italicized. Existing relevant guidance is at Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Text_formatting#Non–English_language_terms, but et al. isn't explicitly mentioned. There is an extensive analysis at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Abbreviations/Archive_5#Revisiting_et_al., but there are no comments aside from the original poster. Plantdrew (talk) 16:59, 25 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Without reading that extensive discussion, my impression from past discussions was that Wikipedia favours no italics. I remember this because I think there should be italics. The CS1/CS2 citation templates don't italicise, so for consistency no italics does make some sense. — Jts1882 | talk 17:06, 25 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

I think the argument is that "et al." is like examples at MOS:NONENGITALIC such as "e.g.", "i.e." and "etc." In particular, if "etc." is not italicized, then why should "et al." be? Peter coxhead (talk) 17:00, 26 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

I also now recall US editors appealing to whether a term is italicized in example sentences in Merriam-Webster. If you look at the example sentences in the entry for "et al.", then "et al." is not italicized. Compare this with, say, the example sentences in the entry for "ipso facto" where this term is italicized. Peter coxhead (talk) 17:14, 26 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Official nomenclature:

• International Code of Zoological Nomenclature: italicized (Article 51.2.)
• International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants (Shenzen Code) (I do not expect a change in the latest Madrid Code): not italicized (Recommendation 46C.2.)
• International Code of Nomenclature of Prokaryotes. Prokaryotic Code (2022 Revision): italicized (Rule 33b)
• The International Code of Virus Classification and Nomenclature: not applied as a rule. --Petr Karel (talk) 10:28, 27 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Right now, the order Ancyromonadida is assigned to the monotypic class Planomonadea in the automated taxobox system. I recently made some changes to assign Ancyromonadida directly to the domain Eukaryota, which @Snoteleks reverted. He's saying that in the Cavalier-Smith, 2022 paper, Cavalier-Smith assigned the order Planomonadida, which is a synonym of Ancyromonadida; to the monotypic class Planomonadea, so, we should do this for Ancyromonadida because this is the name that we use. I said that this was WP:OR, since no source assigned Ancyromonadida to Planomonadea, but he didn't agree with me (see these: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ancyromonadida&action=history, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Taxonomy/Ancyromonadida&action=history, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Taxonomy/Planomonadea&action=history and User talk:Snoteleks#About Ancyromonadida situation).

So, thoughts? Who thinks this is WP:OR and who does not? Should the Ancyromonadida still be assigned to Planomonadea in the wiki? Jako96 (talk) 20:48, 27 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Context: the clade Pseudofungi is usually considered to contain three clades, oomycetes, bigyromonads and hyphochytrids.^{[1] [2] [3]} Main issue: the taxonomic ranks of these four taxa are inconsistent across papers, and there is no strict ranked classification with all of them^[a] (see more detailed context in this previous discussion). I propose two completely different solutions to bring harmony to our taxobox system while keeping the content accurate and not following an obsolete system:

1. Pseudofungi as a clade above phylum-level. This would mean it contains three phyla: Oomycota, Hyphochytriomycota, and Bigyromonadea.
   • Advantages: mycologists and oomycete specialists alike prefer Oomycota as a phylum/division over a class, and there is now majority support for its division into two classes, Saprolegniomycetes and Peronosporomycetes (plus several basal class-less orders).^{[6] [7] [8]}
   • Disadvantages: the Bigyromonadea are not cited as a phylum-level taxon in almost any paper. The author that described it, T. Cavalier-Smith, only ever considered it a class of Pseudofungi (or more frequently a subphylum of Gyrista, with the alternate spelling Bigyromonada).^[5] Just one paper cites it as a phylum.^[9]
2. Pseudofungi as a phylum-level clade. This would mean it contains three classes: Oomycetes, Hyphochytriomycetes, and Bigyromonadea.
   • Advantages: both subgroups of bigyromonads are two monotypic classes (i.e., each with their own order), making this an easy change: instead of Developea and Pirsonea, we can just use Developayellida and Pirsoniales directly. This is consistent with the Cavalier-Smith paper from 2006, in which bigyromonads were treated as a class of Pseudofungi instead of a subphylum of Gyrista.^{[10] [1]}
   • Disadvantages: it goes against the mycological consensus stated above.

Pinging @Tony 1212 and @Jako96 since they contributed to the previous conversation about this topic, but of course I would like to know which choice is preferable among other editors. — Snoteleks (talk) 21:22, 27 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

I agree with the second one, but is there a source that places the class Hyphochytriomycetes inside the phylum Pseudofungi? If not, then we should use the name Hyphochytrea. Jako96 (talk) 17:09, 28 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

I prefer proposal 1: the advantages are strong (as stated) and go with consensus in the botanical field (the main group interested in these organisms it seems) and to my mind outweigh the stated disadvantage.

Bigyromonadea, being a zoological name, does not need to be formally established at any particular rank to be employed "somewhere/wherever" above family by whomever chooses to do so. Of course on Wikipedia we need published sources (1 is cutting it a bit fine) and not "original research" but we also need internal consistency across domains/kingdoms/whatever, something the published sources have failed to address in this case. My preference would be to use Bigyromonadea as a phylum in Wikipedia, noting perhaps that this is a "placeholder" solution pending a more permanent resolution (e.g. if there is ever a Ruggiero et al. v. 2.0 it could/should be addressed there). If it helps, "we" (IRMNG editors, now including 2 persons in this discussion) can make that change in IRMNG as well (not a peer reviewed source but citable in my view) and reference it in Wikipedia as needed.

That way, logic is maintained (Pseudofungi, as a superphylum perhaps) includes both Oomycota and Bigyromonadea (as well as Hyphochytriomycota (?)) as phyla), and Oomycota as a phylum can include its currently "accepted" classes Saprolegniomycetes and Peronosporomycetes (as per the current leading authorities in that area). Tony 1212 (talk) 18:47, 28 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Now I did some research, and I understood that the two classes Saprolegniomycetes and Peronosporomycetes are pretty much consensus. Also, since most sources don't care about ranks and just phylogenetics, Bigyromonadea, Developea and Pirsoniales are most mentioned in scientific articles (even though Bigyromonadea, normally a class-level name, can't include another class Developea). Ranking the Bigyromonadea as a phylum is a new thing though, but, since Wikipedia uses a Linnean classification, I do think we should use it. I agree with the first proposal. Jako96 (talk) 20:05, 28 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Wait, Snoteleks, you said that the source that uses the phylum Bigyromonadea uses the Oomycota phylum for both oomycetes and hyphochytrids, right? Then, I think we should use an unranked clade Bigyromonadea, because otherwise it would be WP:SYNTH. As I said, Bigyromonadea, Developea and Pirsoniales are most mentioned in articles because of phylogenetics, so, we should use the classes Developea and Pirsonea under the clade (not phylum) Bigyromonadea. Jako96 (talk) 20:26, 28 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

@Jako96 We shall use whichever name is most common. — Snoteleks (talk) 19:54, 28 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

For what it is worth... Hyphochytriomycota is treated as a phylum in Hyde et al., 2024, alongside Oomycota; same in MycoBank, https://www.mycobank.org/page/Name%20details%20page/field/Mycobank%20%23/90205 .

Bigyromonadea, established as a class, could remain so within a superphylum Pseudofungi (i.e. not be raised to a phylum, and unplaced within the superphylum) at least in IRMNG, probably also in Wikipedia if desired. From Cho et al., 2022: "Maximum likelihood analyses show Bigyromonadea related to oomycetes, whereas Bayesian analyses and topology testing were inconclusive. We observed similarities between the novel bigyromonad species and motile zoospores of oomycetes in morphology and the ability to self aggregate. Rare formation of pseudopods and fused cells were also observed, traits that are also found in members of labyrinthulomycetes, another osmotrophic stramenopiles. Furthermore, we report the first case of eukaryovory in the flagellated stages of Pirsoniales. These analyses reveal new diversity of Bigyromonadea, and altogether suggest their monophyly with oomycetes, collectively known as Pseudofungi, is the most likely topology of the stramenopile tree." Tony 1212 (talk) 05:51, 29 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

We can't use a superphylum Pseudofungi, that would be WP:OR, as there is no such usage. And it's not "unplaced" in the Pseudofungi, there is just not a traditional phylum placement, and that's it. Jako96 (talk) 13:01, 29 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

No, Snoteleks, that would be WP:OR. We can't use the name Hyphochytriomycetes if we are using the three-class system of Pseudofungi, there is no such usage. Jako96 (talk) 13:04, 29 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

If fixing the Pseudofungi inner clades with the standard taxonomic ranks, I would prefer the lowest possible rank (this approach is often applied in classification by protistologists, see e.g. Adl et al. 2005,2012,2019), in this case orders or classes (and redirects from the higher levels). We should take into consideration, that there are several MAST clades (in Pseudofungi at least MAST-1, MAST-2, MAST-23, MAST-26^[11] ), which, after discovery and cultivation of a representative, may destroy the "fixed" higher level hierarchy. --Petr Karel (talk) 09:34, 29 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

I'm a bit confused with this discussion. Looking at other articles, are bigyromonads pseudofungi? The Stramenopile and Gyrista articles suggest not and in the taxonomy template system, Bigyromonada is a subphylum within clade Gyrista and Pseudofungi is ranked as a clade.

Could anyone provide a primary reference with the taxonomic diagnosis or cladistic definition of the Bigyromonada/Bigyromonadea? This must be the first step, later we could search for modified amendments in other studies. The reference in the article Bigyromonada (Cavalier-Smith, 2017) provides only diagnosis for the new inner classes Developea and Pirsonea, subphylum Bigyromonada is considered "probably paraphyletic", and Psudofungi is a different subphylum! Petr Karel (talk) 18:41, 29 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

From T. Cavalier-Smith. (1997). Sagenista and Bigyra, two phyla of heterotrophic heterokont chromists. , 148(3), 253–267. doi:10.1016/s0003-9365(97)80006-1 :

"Subphylum 1. Bigyromonada CAVALIER-SMITH 1997 Class Bigyromonadea cl. nov. Diagnosis as for subphylum Bigyromonada CAVALIER-SMITH 1997b

..Order Developayellales ord. nov. Diagnosis as for subphylum Bigyromonada CAVALIER-SMITH 1997b

....Family Developayellaceae fam. nov. Diagnosis as for subphylum Bigyromonada CAVALIER-SMITH 1997b. Type genus Devefopayella TONG 1995"

> note the reference to subphylum Bigyromonada CAVALIER-SMITH 1997b here is incorrect; correct is:

Cavalier-Smith, T., 1998. A revised six-kingdom system of life. Biological Reviews, 73(3), pp.203-266.

"Phylum 2. Bigyra phyl. nov. (diagnosis: ciliary transition region with double helices or concertina-like rings; without plastids: regio transitoria ciliorum annuli in forma concertinae praebens; sine plastidis).

.. Subphylum 1. Bigyromonada subphyl. nov. (diagnosis: biciliate free-living bacterivorous phagotrophs without cell walls; retronemes on anterior cilium; double ciliary transition helix: cilia dua; murus absens; mastigonemae tubulatae in cilium anterius; pabulum cellulae prokaryotae est; regio transitoria ciliorum annuli in forma concertinae praebens) (Developayella Tong 1995)." Tony 1212 (talk) 19:01, 29 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

One could split a hair and point out that the diagnosis of "Class Bigyromonadea cl. nov." was invalid (illegitimate? unavailable? scarcely matters since names above family are not governed by any Code) on account of the basionym for the description being incorrectly cited, and/or that name post-dating the one in question, but I guess the intent is clear: they have the same definition, at least as proposed. Tony 1212 (talk) 04:26, 30 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Let me make a summary of my recent search:

1. Developea Karpov et Aleoshin, 2016
   • order Developayellales Cavalier-Smith, 1998 (https://doi.org/10.1017/s0006323198005167)
   • + new genera -> class Developea Aleoshin et al., 2016 (https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2016.01194)
   • Confirmed and completed in 2022 (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ympev.2022.107468)
   • May be affected by MAST-23 (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.protis.201505001)
   • summary: quite consensual
2. Pirsoniales Cavalier-Smith 1998, emend. Prokina, Yubuki, Tikhonenkov, Ciobanu, López-García & Moreira, 2024
   • order Pirsoniales Cavalier-Smith, 1998 (https://doi.org/10.1017/s0006323198005167)
   • confirmed and completed (+ new Pirsonia-related branches) in 2016 (https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2016.01194)
   • confirmed and completed (+ new genera) in 2022 (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ympev.2022.107468)
   • refurbished and completed (+ new genera) in 2024 (https://doi.org/10.1111/jeu.13061)
   • summary: consensual
3. Bigyromonadea
   • class Bigyromonadea Cavalier-Smith, 1997 (https://doi.org/10.1016/s0003-9365(97)80006-1)
   1. recovered as clade (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ympev.2023.107964), (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ympev.2024.108120), (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ympev.2022.107468 in multi-gene phylogenomic analysis)
   2. not recovered as clade in (https://doi.org/10.1093/femsec/fiae130: paraphyl.), (https://doi.org/10.1111/jeu.13061: polyphyl.), (https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2016.01194: paraphyl.), (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.protis.201505001: polyphyl.) (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ympev.2022.107468: polyphyletic in SSU rRNA phylogenetic tree) (https://doi.org/10.1111/jeu.13003: polyphyletic in SSU rRNA phylogenetic tree)
   • may be affected by MAST-1, MAST-23 (https://doi.org/10.1111/jeu.13003)
   • summary: more studies needed to reach consensus with sufficient stability
4. Pseudofungi
   1. subphylum different from Bigyromonada (with uncertain monophyly) (https://doi.org/10.1007%2Fs00709-017-1147-3) and many earlier Cavalier-Smiths studies
   2. grouping including Bigyromonada, recovered as a clade but avoided as taxon name (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ympev.2023.107964), (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ympev.2024.108120, but not in all stramenopile topologies recovered from phylogenomic analyses),(https://doi.org/10.1016/j.protis.2019.125682)
   3. grouping including Bigyromonada, but not recovered as a clade (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.protis.201505001: paraphyl. in SSU rRNA phylogenetic tree), (https://doi.org/10.1111/jeu.13061: paraphyl.), (https://doi.org/10.1111/jeu.13003: paraphyletic in SSU rRNA phylogenetic tree), (https://doi.org/10.1111/jeu.12207: paraphyletic in SSU rRNA phylogenetic tree)
   • may be affected by MAST (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ympev.2023.107964 MAST-1, MAST-2, MAST-23), (https://doi.org/10.1093/femsec/fiae130 MAST-1, MAST-2, MAST-23, MAST-26), (https://doi.org/10.1111/jeu.13003 MAST-1, MAST-23)
   • summary: more studies needed to reach consensus with sufficient stability

Could someone do the same for oomycetes and hyphochytriomycetes (to find taxa of the lowest possible rank, support for their monophyly and possible affects of their stability from uncultivated MAST)? --Petr Karel (talk) 14:53, 30 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

One non-trivial detail to know is that bigyromonads specifically never branch together in SSU-only analyses; only multigene or phylogenomic analyses recover them as a clade. This has already been discussed in papers. — Snoteleks (talk) 00:30, 31 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

It looks like Pseudofungi and Bigyromonadea/Bigyromonada (I realized about bigyromonads early already) are uncertain of monophyly, so I think we should just use the phyla Oomycota (classes Peronosporomycetes and Saprolegniomycetes) and Hyphochytriomycota (class Hyphochytriomycetes), and the classes Developea (order Developayellales) and Pirsonea (order Pirsoniales) directly under the unranked clade Gyrista (also contains the phylum Ochrophyta and order Actinophryida as cultivated taxa). Who supports me? Because of this, Adl et al., 2019 does not use these names. Jako96 (talk) 11:23, 12 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

I support the idea. As I already mentioned, we should use the taxa of the lowest possible rank and wait for a stabile stramenopile phylogram. Petr Karel (talk) 08:56, 13 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

I do not support getting rid of Bigyromonada/ea. It's a well-recognized clade with more than enough references in the literature. Just because it does not appear in simpler single-gene phylogenies (of ribosomal DNA in particular) does not mean it is "uncertain of monophyly". The exact same could be said of many other clades that are only recovered in multigene or phylogenomic/transcriptomic analyses, such as Rhizaria. Adl et al. 2019 is a good guide to follow, but there are plenty of taxa that have been updated since then (6 years ago btw), or even earlier. I don't have such a strong opinion towards Pseudofungi, but I haven't had any reason to think it's uncertain in monophyly either. — Snoteleks (talk) 14:01, 13 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

See Talk:Dingo#RfC:_Taxobox. This has been subject to sporadic edit warring for a long time, so I thought it was worth having a RfC to properly settle the issue. Please participate if interested, thanks. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:40, 29 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Project members are invited to the Hoya Garden Party! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:34, 31 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

See Talk:Crab#Crabs_are_not_just_Brachyura Please participate if interested. Thanks. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:59, 31 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Hi! I've just created an article for Chondrocladia robertballardi sp. nov. reported as being discovered in 2025. However, having dug into the sources some more, I'm now more confused than when I started. This is presented as a new discovery, but at the same time other sources suggest that there is a preexisting Chondrocladia robertballardi, discovered in 2015. Is this the same species in a new location, or a new species? Are they similar, or are they exactly the same?

Can anyone knowledgeable help clear this up, both here and at Wikidata? — The Anome (talk) 14:44, 1 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Those news reports are a bit unclear. My quick interpretation is that the Cristoba at al (2015) article described a new species, Chondrocladia robertballardi sp. nov. The sp. nov. suffix is a convention to indicate a newly described species and means the authors of that paper are authors of that species, which subsequently is referred to as Chondrocladia robertballardi Cristobo, Rios, Pomponi and Xavier, 2015 (link to entry at WoRMS). The new survey has found a new species in genus Chondrocladia, which is dubbed Chondrocladia sp. nov. because it hasn't been formally described and named. We shouldn't have articles until the species is described formally. I think your article should be moved to Chondrocladia robertballardi based on the species described in 2015. The new undescribed species could be mentioned at the genus article, Chondrocladia . — Jts1882 | talk 15:27, 1 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

I've done some re-writing here, moving the new species to a section of the main article. I've also done some refactoring of entries in Wikidata, see https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q63718802 and https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q136684895 . There's a bit of confusion in Wikidata about parent taxa in the merge of the older discovery - can someone please check my work, both here and on Wikidata? — The Anome (talk) 16:12, 1 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Taxonomy (biology) has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 00:35, 3 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

While adding IUCN and CITES statuses to the speciesboxes of various Aloe species articles, I noticed the various Category:Species by IUCN Red List category categories (the ones that are automatically applied when an IUCN status is listed in the speciesbox) and wondered if it would be worthwhile to have a similar set of categories for taxa listed in the CITES appendices. Per the CITES website, the three appendices currently cover Over 40,900 species – including roughly 6,610 species of animals and 34,310 species of plants, so diffusion would be necessary... diffusion by appendix number seems intuitive, but perhaps further diffusion by kingdom (or even order) would also be useful. My personal experience with creating categories has been relatively small-scale so I want to gauge community opinion on this idea - please share your thoughts! Cheers, Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 08:47, 5 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

These categories are set by {{taxobox/species }}. It seems a bit random whether categories are set (see the documentation). They are set for the IUCN, NatureServe, ESA, EPBC and QLDNCA. We could add Category:CITES Appendix I, Category:CITES Appendix II and Category:CITES Appendix III, if there is support. — Jts1882 | talk 14:38, 5 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

I don't see any reason not to add support. It would probably be practical to do some diffusion by taxon rank, probably to class level (I think class is the perfect amount of information and the perfect size for a category, as for most organisms it is specific enough to be identifiable but vague enough to be useful. Insecta are both classes Mammalia.) Cremastra (talk · contribs) 16:20, 5 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

I'm not sure that diffusion by taxa, on the basis of taxobox parameters, is possible. Maybe kingdom; taxoboxes "know" the kingdom to set the taxobox color. Otherwise, categories such as Category:Critically endangered insects are manually populated by including each article in the category.

CITES species are overwhelmingly orchids. CITES has several families and orders where all species are included (sometimes with a handful of explicitly named species excluded from the CITES appendix). I'm sure the figure of 34,310 species of plants includes ~28,000 orchid species. Artificially propagated Vanilla (genus) is the only excluded orchid taxon, although there various invasive orchid species that would still be covered by CITES in their invasive range. Plantdrew (talk) 16:48, 5 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Diffusion by higher taxa would be difficult using the automatic taxoboxes and would add significant overhead. If that was wanted I think categories should be added manually, not through the taxoboxes, where the system and status parameters determine the category. — Jts1882 | talk 17:16, 5 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

If automatic diffusion by appendix and kingdom as Plantdrew mentions (eg. Category:Animals listed on CITES Appendix I, Category:Plants listed on CITES Appendix II) is possible that would be ideal, but if not, I would also be happy with either automatic diffusion by appendix only or with further manual categorisation by taxon - not sure which of those options is most practical.

I notice that the taxa by conservation status categories like Category:Critically endangered insects are not actually subcategories of the automatically assigned conservation status categories like Category:IUCN Red List vulnerable species or Category:NatureServe secure species but rather both the automatic and manual categories are nested within the category for the relevant conservation status itself (eg. Category:Least concern species). I have to imagine these CITES categories would function differently, and if manual diffusion by taxa is desired, would it be preferable to replace the automatic appendix category when a more specific appendix+taxon category exists? Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 05:31, 6 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

It is possible to diffuse by kingdom or higher taxa using the taxobox colour. This is set by {{taxobox colour }}, with different colours for animals, plants (sensu Archaeplastida), fungi, other eukaryotes, bacteria, archaea, viruses, ootaxa and ichnotaxa. Does CITES list any fungi or other eukaryotes or do we only need caregories for animals and plants? — Jts1882 | talk 14:14, 7 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

CITES lists only animals and plants (see here). Vertebrates represent roughly 3/4 of the listed taxa (taxa, not species; the inclusion of all species in various higher taxa shifts the majority of species to plants/orchids). Plantdrew (talk) 17:24, 7 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

OK, that simplifies it. Perhaps we should follow CITES and use Fauna and Flora for the categories (eg. Category:Fauna listed on CITES Appendix I, Category:Flora listed on CITES Appendix II). — Jts1882 | talk 17:39, 7 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

That works for me! There's a possibility that CITES will include fungi in the future (this report regarding the trade of fungi was submitted to the committee just earlier this year), but that's a bridge we can cross when we get to it. Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 01:56, 9 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Done For the record, I moved CITES status handling in {{taxobox/species }} to Module:Conservation status, modified {{taxobox/core }} to pass the taxobox colour to {{taxobox/species }}, and used the colour to set the category in the module. I created the six categories (numbers at 11:45 11 Nov 2025):

• Category:Fauna listed on CITES Appendix I (698)
• Category:Fauna listed on CITES Appendix II (1,481)
• Category:Fauna listed on CITES Appendix III (23)
• Category:Flora listed on CITES Appendix I (190)
• Category:Flora listed on CITES Appendix II (277)
• Category:Flora listed on CITES Appendix III (6)

Mention any problems or issues here. — Jts1882 | talk 14:14, 9 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Amazing, thank you! Category:Flora listed on CITES Appendix III was flagged for speedy deletion but I've gone ahead and populated it with a few articles. Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 01:51, 10 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

The tagging was rather quick for a new category, although it wouldn't have been deleted for seven days.

I've updated the numbers above. I'm surprised by how few plant articles are tagged. I suppose it is the placing of whole higher taxa in the Appendices, rather than individual listings. For orchids, it seems that only species listed in Appendix I that have a conservation status. The species in genera placed in Appendix I don't seem to be given a status either (e.g. Paphiopedilum acmodontum). 11:07, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

Searches for {{speciesbox }}es with the different CITES statuses gets:

• Articles with CITES_A1: 900 results (25 more with automatic taxobox)
• Articles with CITES_A2: 1,887 results (20 more with automatic taxobox)
• Articles with CITES_A3: 28 results (2 more with automatic taxobox)

— Jts1882 | talk 11:25, 10 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Yes, CITES is very underutilised in Wikipedia articles, especially for plants. It is rarely mentioned in the body or in infoboxes. I've been working on adding CITES statuses to articles whenever I notice they're missing - Species+ is helpful for this, since it lists all of the species an Appendix applies to, not just the higher taxon they belong to (ie. all stony corals are listed on Appendix II, but Species+ lists each species independently instead of just saying Scleractinia spp). I've just finished with all the Aloe species and plan to start on all the orchids soon, though that will be a very big project... Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 12:28, 10 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

I asked about this topic on the talk page for Caprinae and it was suggested I post about it here, so I will paste the original post I made there and hopefully someone here can help me understand:

The first sentence of this article conflates the subfamily Caprinae and the tribe Caprini as being interchangeable. This is not exactly the case. Further down in this very article under the Species section it divides Caprinae into its constituent tribes: Caprini, Ovibovini, and Pantholopini. Currently, Pantholopini redirects to the only species it contains, while Caprini and Ovibovini both redirect to the Caprinae article. I think both tribes should be considered for articles of their own, and I would be willing to contribute towards that, but I think it is important to clear up the conflation at the start of the article first and foremost. I will wait to make the edit myself in case anyone disagrees, are there any sources outright declaring Caprinae and Caprini to be synonymous? I checked the Mammal Diversity Database source provided, but I don't find it there. In the mammal spreadsheet it seems to assign the tribe Caprini as being part of the subfamily Antilopinae which, at least to my knowledge, is not correct. Subfamily Caprinae isn't found in the spreadsheet at all. I have found sources that do in fact draw a distinction between Caprinae and Caprini, with Caprini being listed as just one subgroup within Caprinae.^{[1] [2]} Phylogeny is confusing though so someone more knowledgeable please let me know if there is a good reason to keep the it as is.

For additional context, the Mammal Diversity Database source I originally mentioned can be found here.^[3] Thanks to anyone who can help me understand the ways the terms Caprinae and Caprini are used in scientific literature. Caprinae.Caprini.Capra.hircus (talk) 23:16, 8 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

I think the confusion arises due to a change in the classification. MSW3 (2005) assigns Capra to subfamily Caprinae (see here), which is one of eight subfamilies in Bovidae. The MMD, which is based on newer evidence, assigns Capra to tribe Caprini in subfamily Antilopinae (which has 9 tribes), with Bovidae split into two subfamilies. In terms of contents the subfamily Caprinae of MSW3 is similar to that in tribe Caprini of MDD, which I assume is what the article is trying to say. It's not clear to me what taxonomy the articles in Bovidae are using (maybe MSW3 with some updates). — Jts1882 | talk 14:39, 9 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Collodictyonidae § Requested move 11 November 2025. Jako96 (talk) 13:41, 11 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]