# Talk:Mite

I don't believe this belongs in the category "pesticide" So I will remove the reference.

Is there a way to keep mites off of you? I stuck my hand in a Starling's nest, and I got a bunch of mites...
thanks,
--e. 01:31, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

5% permethrin cream by prescription only in USA or over the counter in Canada- anonymous

Don't put your hand in starling's nests. - anaon  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.189.13.166 (talk) 19:40, 28 June 2009 (UTC) 

Yes, benzyl benzoate can really help. Sulphur is also useful, eg: 10% sulphur soap. Food grade diatomaceous earth also helps. A good IGR and knockdown painted on your house walls every 2 weeks or so until they are gone. Mites that infest humans are very hard to get rid of.
1.41.43.196 (talk) 16:28, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
I have just added some information about sulphur - the ancient remedy for mites. 
It should probably be noted that tea tree oil, neem oil, orange oil, eucalyptus oil and lavender oil are also known agents of mite destruction and repelling. In addition, alcohol, including methylated spirits, also kills mites. Rinsing the microfibre clothes in ammonia (15% to 20% NH3 to total volume of water used) is one of the few ways to effectively kill mites on microfibre mop heads and microfibre cloths. 
It should also be noted that mites are extremely difficult to clean up. One of the few ways to clean a house is to use microfibre cloths to wipe walls, ceilings and any hard surfaces. Just about anything else won't actually pick the mites up.
It should also be stated somewhere here that standard pest control knockdowns such as Delta Force Plus is only 80% effective and mite populations can quickly adapt.
In addition, Insect growth regulators such as Starycide or Nylar are used to control a mite population.
You can kill two birds with one stone by mixing an IGR into your mop bucket and wiping your walls with a microfibre mop. The mop picks up mites from the wall, the IGR peter pan's them, and the water drowns them. 
Always have two microfibre mop heads - leave the second one in the bucket and swap them. That way the mites get more time to die in the mop bucket. 
If you buy a knockdown with deltamethrin then getting one with piperonyl butoxide helps for mite control. 
49.178.3.93 (talk) 12:58, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
The fastest ways to get mites off your skin are:

Hot shower - preferably with sulphur soap
Dip a baby wipe into eucalyptus oil, then wipe across your skin. The mites will be stunned and picked up. You may need to use more than one wipe to get them all. Tea tree oil also works
Cover your skin with benzyl benzoate. The mites will either leave or die. Some people apply this daily for months to get rid of bird mites.
Cover your skin with petroleum jelly. The mites will be smothered. Note that this won't kill them instantly. It can take 10 to 20 minutes for them to die die die.
Cover your skin in baby oil.
Hot bath - preferably with epsom salts, tar based bath oil, or similar. The hotter the better - no cold water.
Cover your skin in powdered sulphur. A very long time ago people used to smother their skin in sulphur, wrap rags around, then sleep. You can also walk around during the day with sulphur in your pockets and on your skin
Smother your skin in Deep Heat - Only if DESPERATE .. or if you have been bitten too much and can't sleep for the pain.
80% deet products
Nit products
Any of the above to be executed with due care for your health. Seek medical advice. This information is only given as a guide. Anything you put on your skin you are potentially absorbing into your body. Be careful with any type of poison and avoid long term use of chemicals if you can. 
Also note that Telfast and other similar drugs can be useful in controlling the reaction humans have to bird mite bites.. however it is not recommended. Use sparingly if at all. See a doctor. 
There are various healing and soothing creams and ointments markets for psoriasis, baby rash and skin rash which can really help deal with the damage caused by bird mite bites.

Does the number 45 000 refer to the number of identified species, or the total number of species anticipated to exist (out of which we seems to have found 5 %)? \Mike(z) 10:59, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, please, this needs clarification! --345Kai 23:25, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
Done; 45,000 refers to the number of named species, there are many many more undescribed. IronChris  |  (talk) 00:40, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi Everyone- I need to learn more about the Mite currency (an old form of currency from maybe 2000 years ago in the Middle East).  I am not sure how to do it, but there needs to be some reference to this old currency here so that Mite (the insect) is not the only option for the users.  Also, It doesn't appear that an article on Mites (currency) exists.  Thanks.
Edit: I just found a reference to the mite currency in the Greek lepton article.  Thanks.

Any experts out there? This article is close to a stub.
Why do there have to be pictures? Ugh, I have those things in me right now, thank you very much!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.36.89.42 (talk) 04:36, 3 March 2008 (UTC) 

Haha, I know.  It's very easy to get skeeved out by these things. KenFehling (talk) 07:47, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Anyone care to add information on birdmites? There is some scary information on birdmites.org and not sure how much of it is true, as it is commercially backed.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.201.77.54 (talk) 05:18, 18 August 2009 (UTC) 
agreed  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.34.161.130 (talk) 02:44, 27 December 2010 (UTC) 
Quite a bit of it is true, unfortunately. Bird mites are hard to kill, hard to control, resistant to most pesticides and can ruin your life. 
Another problem is lack of recognition. Very few experts care to study the problem, and most will adamantly state that bird mites (and other mites) can not infest humans - usually quoting nonsense about mites not being able to bite through human skin and not liking human blood. Both of these assumptions are wrong. Fortunately this attitude is changing, slowly.
Ivermectin may help. See birdmites.org for a start on combating this problem. Shanspirations for a second. A cure was found a long time ago - benzyl benzoate. Acts as both an insecticide and as a repellent. Combined with diatomaceous earth and sulphur along with the same precautions and solution for treating scabies bird mites can be controlled and eliminated.
1.41.43.196 (talk) 16:36, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
Borax,  lye, sulphur, alcohol, ammonia and menthol have been used for centuries to deal with mite infestations. Lye and ammonia are used to clean the environment where mites live which walls, ceilings, floors; alcohol is used as a contact poison to kill mites; sulphur in powdered form is used as a repellent and contact killer, in the environment sulphur is dusted onto walls and into cracks, for humans sulphur is dusted onto the skin and covered with clothes to trap in the sulphur and force contacts with mites; borax is either spread around the environment as a powder or mixed with water sprayed onto the environment including walls, ceilings and floors to contact kill and build up layers of poison. Menthol crystals are evaporated to form a gas toxic to mites. 
The main issues with these chemicals are:

Sulphur has a recognisable irritating odour, may stain clothes and is slow to act; on the positive side sulphur can last a long time
Lye is an irritant which must be used with great care and can damage skin; on the positive side lye is cheap and easy to use
Ammonia can irritate air passages and damage human skin
Alcohol evaporates too quickly to be anything more than a temporary measure against an infestation; on the plus side kill rate is very high and at rates which do not damage human skin
Menthol crystals are expensive; on the positive side menthol crystals can be placed into a container to kills mites where mites are infesting human clothes, books or other objects
Borax dissolved in water must be continually applied in layers to ensure contact with mites; on the positive side borax is cheap, and when mixed with water can be sprayed in all areas of a house including carpets to kill mites and form a protective barrier against an infestation with little side effects on humans  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.108.147.30 (talk) 06:19, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
Had an infestation of bird mites in our house (originated from a bird dying in a dryer vent), and it lasted for months. Could feel them crawling on us immediately after a shower and had bites across my upper chest, shoulders, and back. Put diatomaceous earth on everything, wrapped upholstered furniture in plastic and washed all clothing and bedding daily. Used menthol, lavender,and more. What helped the most was using an enzyme cleaner (we used Kleen Green Naturally) to spray all walls, floors, furniture surfaces and our bodies after showers. Experts consulted at the time were of no help.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.115.221.79 (talk) 04:18, 24 July 2014 (UTC) 
There is a listing a treatments at: http://www.AfterMite.com
The problem with focusing on just a few treatments is that bird mites adapt and can double their population within a week.  If they have burrowed into your skin, you need to attack them Internally as well as Externally.  There is a great deal of info at AfterMite.

Some of these are so small they would only be a few cells wide; so does anyone have any idea how many cells they've got and how big they are. Some live in/on insects as parasites. From the data given if a bee was a long as a human, some mites would be as long as a bee (ie about 100x shorter in length). 
So if typical animal cell is a about 0.01 mm across, how many cells can it fit in (or are they much tinier cells than average)?

I've just tried to add a link from this page to de:Milben. But I can't, because Milben is already linked from Acari. I don't have time to figure out the details of yet another wikisomething. Does somebody want to figure out how to make this work? GyroMagician (talk) 10:00, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Before starting to expand this article, I put it through the Earwig copyvio detector and got worrying results, so I sought advice from the Copyright problems noticeboard. I asked "How can I tell whether the article is copying the websites concerned or vice-versa?" Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:01, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
This is the response I received - 

Re: the Flickr match, our article text appears to predate the Flickr upload, so we're good there. Re: the .gr match, the site looks dodgy which immediately set off alarm bells for a likely backwards copy.  If you look in the history of the article, you can see that the en.wiki text evolved to the text of that website -- this diff and the subsequent diff (and possibly other diffs as well).  So we're good there. The PRweb match is just a spam link at the bottom of the article (which I just removed) so we're good there too. In short, you can go ahead and expand the article without worrying about the potential copyright violations identified by the Earwig copyvio detector. Calliopejen1 (talk) 23:07, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Mite/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: FunkMonk (talk · contribs) 12:42, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

I'll review this soon. FunkMonk (talk) 12:42, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
No pictures of eggs or larvae? Also some images showing behaviour could be nice.
Image added. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:41, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
The intro seems too short for an article of this length.
I have expanded it a little. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:49, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
Little on evolution here. When did they evolve? Anything on fossils?
Paragraph on fossils added. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:46, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
Since mites are not a natural group, how are they defined? That seems like a pretty important oversight. It seems to be size, though this isn't specifically stated, you simply say that mites are tiny, not that it defines them.
It seems to me that the mites are all the members of Acari with the exception of the ticks. But as can be seen from the Phylogeni/Taxonomy section, there is no agreement as to the exact relationships between the groups and whether Acari is polyphyletic or monophyletic. So this article is about Mites rather than a taxonomic entity. The defining characteristic is the body being divided into two tagmata, the gnathosoma and the opisthosoma. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:17, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
If that is their defining feature that sets the apart from non-"mite" acarians, this should be mentioned explicitly. But it seems ticks have the same feature, so it would be good to get this cleared up. Merriam-Wesbter simply defines them by their small size and the fact that they infest things.[1] So what sets them apart from for example ticks? FunkMonk (talk) 02:36, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for taking on this review. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:23, 21 November 2017 (UTC)


### More
"Raubmilben" Why use a German term?
Gone. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:26, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
You could state how many million years ago all the various geological ages listed are.
Dated. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:49, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
You have both a section and a subsection called phylogeny. Why not call the parent section "classification" or such?
Evolution it is. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:59, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
"is polyphyletic" Term could be explained.
Glossed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:57, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
If mites as a group is itself unnatural, saying "it is not a precise taxon" may  be an understatement.
Fixed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:27, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
"although some species lack an anus." How does this work?
(cough) They don't live long, and the (ahem) waste just stays in the gut for the short period before they shuffle off this mortal coil. Said so, with ref. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:37, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
Am I wrong, or do they not have distinct heads? If so, could be stated explicitly.
Added to lead/head section. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:55, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
I'm not sure if unnatural groups should have taxoboxes. Not sure what the standards are, but maybe I'll ask at the tree of life project. See for example antelope or pachyderm.
Agree, there's one for Acari which is a separate article. Removed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:40, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
"become protonymphs" How does that differ from a nymph, and when does it become a nymph?
Nymph is sufficient. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:53, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
As noted in an earlier review, I don't see any good reason why "diversity" should be distinct section; it includes info about behaviour/ecology and habitat, as well as info that would belong under taxonomy. It would probably be best to move the info to more fitting sections.
Merged. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:19, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
Why is there an external link with photos of a specific kind of mite? Seems redundant and arbitrary.
Gone. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:34, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
"Insects are sometimes infested by parasitic mites. Examples are Varroa destructor, which attaches to the body of the honey bee, and Acarapis woodi" It doesn't seem logical that you mention insects first, and then give examples where you mention the mites first. You could instead start out with "Some parasitic mites infest insects" or similar.
Fixed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:31, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
"The phylogeny of the Acari is under dispute and several taxonomic schemes have been proposed for their classification." Needs source.
Rewritten and sourced. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:52, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
"Some are thought to be parasites, while others are beneficial symbionts. Mites also parasitize some ant species, such as Eciton burchellii." No source.
Added. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:18, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
The two paragraphs under Ecology lack sources.
Added. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:18, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
Many paragraphs under Medical significance lack sources. Medical sections especially need very careful sourcing.
Added. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:52, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
"Mites also hold the record speed; for its length" A mite, so not sure why it should be plural.
Fixed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:12, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
"living in the soil or aqueous environments and assisting in the decomposition of decaying organic material, or consuming fungi, plant or animal matter, as part of the carbon cycle." This looks like it belongs under ecology.
Having considered moving this, I left it in the "Relationship with humans" section because it explains in what way the majority of mite species are beneficial to humans. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:52, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
Unlike the rest of the article, Medical significance consists of many single sentences. Would look better if they were grouped in paragraphs.
Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:36, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
" by Robert Hooke" Present him.
Glossed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:32, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
"They are an enormously successful group" Only stated in intro.
Gone. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:35, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
"includes the commercially important" Only stated in intro, and you could also explain why it is important somewhere.
Beekeeping section added. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:49, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
I think it looks pretty good now, so passed. FunkMonk (talk) 06:08, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for the review. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:28, 24 November 2017 (UTC) Many thanks! Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:33, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

This is one of the most popular pages in Wikipedia:WikiProject Veterinary medicine's scope.  Very few editors watch WT:VET's pages, which means that questions may not be answered in a timely manner.  If you are an active editor and interested in animals or veterinary medicine, please put WT:VET on your watchlist.  Thank you,  WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:59, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

I noticed many language links are missing in the sidebar (e.g. French, Spanish, German). Seems to be because Wikidata has different entries for Mite and Acari. I don't know how to fix this. 82.5.226.54 (talk) 20:57, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

I don't think this is fixable. Wikidata only allows one-to-to correspondence between an article and wikidata items, which determines the interlanguage links. This page would have to be linked to Acari (Q19137) to pick up a more comprehensive collection of interlanguage links. You can see the interlanguage links at the Acari redirect. I don't think this can be solved without a change in Wikidata structure or coordination of article names between different language Wikipedias. @Peter coxhead: any thoughts? —  Jts1882 | talk  10:15, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
@Jts1882: unfortunately, the same thoughts as always, since this is the same old problem. Because Wikidata only allows 1:1 correspondence between articles and its items, when Wikidata has more than one item to which an article could be linked, all that can be done is to make a choice: we can either link this article from Acari (Q19137) or from mite (Q2441993) but not both. Personally, I would change to Acari (Q19137), since this is what the taxonbar uses.
Now that Wikidata allows links to redirects, I assume it would be possible for the Wikimedia software to pick up other language links by finding what redirects to this article and finding what Wikidata item they are linked from. However, this depends on the redirects being genuine synonyms (either taxonomic or general), and wouldn't be right for cases like species redirects to genus. Peter coxhead (talk) 06:20, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
@Peter coxhead: I agree that Acari (Q19137) would be better for interlanguage links. I did think of that change, but didn't want to upset the logic of the mite article linking to mite (Q2441993) and the Acari redirect linking to Acari (Q19137), especially after the fight to get Wikidata to allow linking of redirects.
When I was writing the code for test interlanguage link taxonbar, I did wonder if there was potential for a gadget for "extended interlanguage links". But how to get the appropriate wikidata items? One can look for redirects but, as you indicate, how to pick the right ones? Check for synonym properties? I suppose it would be possible to get the wikidata items from the taxonbar. —  Jts1882 | talk  07:43, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
@Jts1882: yes, it's tricky, because it depends on editors, either at Wikidata or here, correctly setting up the taxonomic synonyms. Here you'd need to see {{R from alternative scientific name}}, I think. In theory you could use the properties of the Wikidata item, but these are not often set up correctly or helpfully in my experience. For example, wikidata:Property:P694 would have to be taken into account, but this rarely present when it should be, and the reverse seems to be indicated by "subject has role" replaced synonym (Q15709329) "of". I doubt that the results would be reliable in many cases. Peter coxhead (talk) 06:19, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
One approach would be to check redirects with badge "sitelink to redirect" or "intentional sitelink to redirect. So Acari redirects to mite and the sitelink for  Acari (Q19137) has the badge "intentional sitelink to redirect". This is something Wikimedia could use.
For a potential gadget the easiest might be to get the |from= parameters from the taxonbar using the API (e.g. search hastemplate:taxonbar insource:/axonbar *\| *from *=/ the current page).
Anyway, I don't think this too useful. It wouldn't help a reader searching for interlanguage links and we already know how to get the information. —  Jts1882 | talk  09:21, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Greetings, today I asked for Arthropods expert help at Apalotacarus article - Check taxon, de-orphan article. Posted here hoping to find someone with knowledge about this subject. Regards, JoeNMLC (talk) 20:53, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

I see that interlang linking is broken for years (@Jts1882:, @Peter coxhead:), and I'd like to ask for a little help, or insights.
There seem to be some entities related to this article:

Acari (most international articles about "mite" links there: 84), d:Q19137, it seems that this entity (taxon) has no common name in most of the languages and actually is a superclass of what most of articles talk about;
Mite (sometimes linked to: 24) d:Q2441993, this is what everyone calls them, and describe them;
Acariformes d:Q1341457 and Parasitiformes d:Q132756 (and a lot of others), also having no common name.
The relations seems to be

Acari[taxon] --child taxon--> Acariformes[taxon]; Parasitiformes[taxon] (and other 24 taxons)
Acari[taxon] --subclass--> Mite[common name/paraphylecic group] (no other direct subclasses)
If I see history correctly there has been a Mite article (common name), and links were happy. Then Mite has been renamed/merged into Acari (to follow the taxon titles instead of common names, though I'm not positive this have added real value), but people complained that that's not correct since other language mites link to its superclass Acari, so they have created a redirect from Acari to Mite, linking to a new wikidata entry ("mite"), and keeping the old ("acari") behind the redirect. The result is that Mite articles (which usually cover subclasses of Acari [namely "mites"] but not Acari itself) link to Acari (probably incorrectly?), which is a redirect to it's internalguage links are hidden from the readers.
I am not entirely sure how many languages have articles on Acari (instead if its subclass, Mite)? Is there any of their Mite articles actually describe the superclass? I guess not a lot, but I am really not qualified.
If I understand correctly the solution would be to relink all the Mite articles from wd:Acari to wd:Mite, and manually move any which covers Acari instead of Mite, if there is such at all (but it'd be pointless since the interlanguage links would be hidden anyway, as well as any wikidata links, for all common uses and purposes). Probably a job for a bot, but I am not familiar enough with the topic to initiate this. 
Help appreciated! grin ✎ 10:25, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

I don't think there is a solution. It's often difficult to match site links with articles on different language wikipedias because they follow different taxonomies (e.g. some more inclusive than others). In this case we have the added complications that Acari is probably not monophyletic and is not used in current taxonomies and that mites, the English language word, is exclusive of ticks, which are embedded in the parasitic mite taxon. Each wikipedia will decide how it wants to treat the subject and that will determine the appropriate site links. Getting the sitelinks matching would require all wikipedias to treat the subject the same way.  —  Jts1882  | talk  14:05, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
However, I do think the Wikidata sitelinks are correct for the English Wikipedia: mite (Q2441993) to mite, Acari (Q19137) to Acari (a redirect to mite), Acariformes (Q1341457) to Acariformes, and Parasitiformes (Q132756)  to Parasitiformes.  —  Jts1882  | talk  14:22, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
As Jts1882 says, there isn't a solution given the way that Wikidata works (see my essay User:Peter coxhead/Wikidata issues). It's only possible to get sitelinks to match completely if all language wikis treat the topics in the same way, which they don't – and indeed shouldn't in cases where concepts differ among languages. It's probably least bad as it is, since, as Jts1882 noted, it's correct for our articles. Peter coxhead (talk) 07:57, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

I Tried to change the language to (for example) swedish but it does not exist and I thought it was weird. I searched on swedish for "kvalster" which is the equivilent for "Mites" and then went to the english version. I got sent to "Acari" and then immediately redirected to "Mites" however if you look at the page "Acari" there are SEVERAL different language options but on this page (Mites) there are just a few. This is very problematic if you are not a native english speaker and want to know what mite is in your language. Mite and Acari should be merged if possible or the english link should be changed to "the Mite page" In EVERY language connected to "Acari". You only solved the problem in one direction. The languages need to be connected both ways. Baxstab (talk) 23:53, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

This is a problem to fix on Wikidata, not here. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:06, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
The Mite and Acari articles are merged at Mite, with Acari as a redirect. The site links at Wikidata for English wikipedia correctly reflect this. The site links for other Wikipedias need to be set at Wikidata. Unfortunately, due the nature of the subject matter, not all wikipedias treat the subject the same way (see previous section) and the one-to-one sitelinks used by Wikimedia are inadequate.  —  Jts1882  | talk  08:14, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
It seems there is a way of adding the extra language site link using {{Interwiki extra}}, which adds interlanguage links for Acari as well as mite. This was the method for adding sitelinks before they were centralised on Wikidata. I've added it to the mite article and now the sitelinks section lists 96 language wikipedias, including Swedish. However, the method is deprecated, so it's quite possible a bot will revert my edit.  —  Jts1882  | talk  09:45, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
@Peter coxhead: Do you know if this is allowed? It seems a solution for such articles and the problem keeps getting raised on talk pages. When we add a sitelink for a redirect on wikidata, we should add the {{Interwiki extra}} template to the target article.  —  Jts1882  | talk  09:51, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
@Jts1882: I had no idea of the existence of this template. I see that it adds the extra language wiki only if it would not already be there, so doesn't deal with the case of two articles on one wiki (e.g. monotypic genus and only species) corresponding to one on another wiki, but it does seem useful to me. Where is it deprecated? Peter coxhead (talk) 10:26, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
@Peter coxhead: I should have said that adding the sitelinks manually has been superseded, with setting them at Wikidata being the preferred method. I didn't see something specifically referring to the template being deprecated.
In your example, the monotypic genus could use the template to sitelink to the species item and the only species article link it to the genus item (although a merge would be appropriate), whereas on the other wikipedia the combined article would link to the other item (i.e. to the species item if at the genus or vice versa). It's messy and only works when someone sets it up. A better way around cases where there isn't a one-to-one correspondences would be much better.  —  Jts1882  | talk  11:34, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
although a merge would be appropriate – it seems to be the policy of some other language wikipedias (e.g. the French wikipedia) to have articles at each rank for monotypic taxa, so we're stuck with their multiple articles.
I couldn't agree more that it's messy, but the editors at Wikidata have always been adamant about maintaining strict 1:1 links, so we seem to be stuck with various ad hoc solutions. Peter coxhead (talk) 11:38, 24 January 2025 (UTC)