Talk:APG II system

The APG II system does not use italics for ranks above genus. Nor does the Wikipedia Manual of Style specify them. Therefore they should not be used on this page. - MPF 09:04, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

For the record

There are several styles in use for typesetting scientific names. Probably the most widely used style is where names at the rank of genus and below are italicized and the names at the ranks above that of genus are set in normal script.

The Nomenclature Codes do not prescribe any particular style but lead by example. The ICZN (governing names of animals) uses the style where names above the rank of genus are set in small capitals and names at the rank of genus and below are set in italics. The style promoted by the ICBN, ICNCP and ICNB (governing names of plants, fungi and bacteria) is to use italics for all scientific names (see e.g. Art 18.

In practice this style of italics for all scientific names is used by a number of publications ranging from some of the oldest botanical journals to some of the most popular. This style is also used by a number of websites, including those of the USDA (plants and GRIN), sites aimed at the general user rather than at taxonomists. Italics at all ranks is a well-accepted style, proportionally more common than many of the various styles of English that are mentioned in the Manual of Style .

The Manual of Style is quite unambiguous as to this matter (Quote from the opening paragraphs of the wikipedia:Manual of Style).

Disputes over style issues

In June 2005, the Arbitration Committee ruled that, when either of two styles is acceptable, it is inappropriate for a Wikipedia editor to change from one style to another unless there is some substantial reason for the change. For example, with respect to British spelling as opposed to American spelling, it would only be acceptable to change from American spelling to British spelling if the article concerned a British topic. Revert warring over optional styles is unacceptable; if the article uses colour rather than color, it would be wrong to switch simply to change styles, although editors should ensure that articles are internally consistent. If in doubt, defer to the style used by the first major contributor. See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jguk

I have all but given up on being a regular contributor to Wikipedia, largely because it has become evident I was fighting a losing battle against those who were not necessarily more knowledgeable, or better editors, but apparently have limitless time on their hands to edit thousands of articles. However, I have been following this "discussion" with some amusement and feel compelled to come out of retirement to comment.

Brya has (apparently unilaterally) decided to follow a typographical practice for botanical nomenclature used in printing the ICBN that does not even rise to the level of "example" (as defined within the Code): the italicization of all botanical names at all ranks. As others have discovered, this leads to stylistic inconsistency between botanical and zoological Wikipedia articles, and between those botanical articles which Brya has or has not edited. In the end this is about as inconsequential a disagreement as I have ever seen on Wikipedia, but as Brya clearly has no intention of accommodating, cooperating or compromising with, or conceding to, any other editor, and has displayed such breathtaking arrogance in all his (her?) past and present editing, I hereby award him (her?) my "Does Not Play Well With Others" award.

Now to the matter at hand: the ICBN (Saint Louis Code, published 2000), in its preface, states, "As in the previous edition, scientific names under the jurisdiction of the Code, irrespective of rank, are consistently printed in italic type. The Code sets no binding standard in this respect, as typography is a matter of editorial style and tradition not of nomenclature. Nevertheless, editors and authors, in the interest of international uniformity, may wish to consider adhering to the practice exemplified by the Code, which has been well received in general and is being followed in an increasing number of botanical and mycological journals."

I became curious as to how "well received" this practice has been and to what extent it has been followed, so I did a quick survey of the most prominent botanical, mycological, and phycological journals in my library. I was hard pressed to find any that italicize botanical names above genus. Of 30 journals I checked, only 3--exactly 10%--have followed the example set by the ICBN. (The actual percentage is probably lower, but I did not check every minor journal.) The journals I found using italicization are Edinburgh Journal of Botany, Mycotaxon, and Kew Bulletin. In my judgment, it would appear that the non-binding practice of the ICBN is little more than a quaint typographical convention that has not been widely adopted. MrDarwin 17:27, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

For the record (Addendum)

Let's spell it out in baby steps. Suppose someone writes a page in Australian English. The Manual of Style in one of its opening paragraphs says that it is "inappropriate" to convert this page into British English or American English, or whatever ("unless ..."). As is emphasized by its position in the opening paragraphs it is one of the most serious violations of the Manual of Style to do this. Of course if it can be clearly shown that it is inappropriate to the topic to use Australian English it is different, but an Australian topic can be written up in Australian English.

If a page on plant taxonomy uses one particular style of italics, which is clearly favored by the first major contributor, then it is "inappropriate" (= a major violation of the Manual of Style) to change it to a different style of italics. Unless of course it can be shown that this style of italics is inappropriate to plant taxonomy. As MrDarwin, who has stated he is not in favor of the style that I favor, has pointed out above the figure of 10% is not unrealistic (as a working number). This particular style is significantly in use (proportionally more than Australian English is among English speaking people): many of the best people in this particular field find it an acceptable style. On a page like this it is highly functional, greatly aiding readability which is very important as this is a topic that is quite alien to most readers. They need all the help they can get. Brya 04:58, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

What you utterly fail to realize, Brya, is that this judgement involved a style definition(whether to use BCE/CE or AD/BC) that has left wikipedians clearly divided both as a style and as a NPOV question. In the present case, you are clearly going against the consensus of numerous wikipedians and the styles established by 2 long-standing wikiprojects. That is the reason I have reverted you yet again.Circeus 15:53, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Italics for this page is pretty freaky. Brya's rationalizations are really stretching it. English dialects are treated specially in the style guidelines because they've been the subject of heated intractable dispute since the beginning of WP; one shouldn't take it to mean that we have to retain every idiosyncrasy of every contributor. Good thing too, given the number of articles whose initial draft is only loitering in the general vicinity of the English language. :-) It would be better to persuade both present (and future) editors of why a particular style choice is good, rather than trying to force it. Stan 22:49, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

As more people edit Wikipedia, each with his or her own personal writing style, ideas about what is right and proper, and editorial biases and idiosyncracies, this kind of thing is only going to happen more and more. Wikipedia guidelines and policies are confusing and often contradictory. On the one hand, Wikipedia says to give deference to the originator/major contributor of an article with regard to style, if that style is one of two or more acceptable alternatives. On the other hand, Wikipedia tells editors to expect their articles to be edited mercilessly by other editors. On yet another hand, Wikipedians are expected to reach consensus, while on a fourth hand entirely Wikipedia sets out policies and guidelines and then actively encourages editors to disregard them.

I think Brya has a valid point: as the originator and major contributor of an article, under Wikipedia guidelines Brya's choice of style--one that originates with the ICBN and not with Brya, I might add--should be followed. But I do find it exceedingly unfortunate that this is where Brya is choosing to dig in his/her heels, as italicization for names above the rank of genus is considered entirely optional by the Code, has been accepted by a very small minority of botanical publications (and as MPF points out was not used by the APG II authors), is contrary to a style that has had near-unanimous consensus among other editors, and quite unnecessarily introduces both inconsistency in an otherwise settled style and bad blood between editors. This is simply one of many examples of Brya refusing to concede or compromise but in a broader sense is illustrative of a tendency I have observed in numerous Wikipedia editors to regard particular articles as their own personal property to be jealously guarded. (For another example, check out the Malvaceae article, its editing history and its discussion page.) MrDarwin 00:52, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh dear, after following the discussion a bit more I see that Brya has been trying to impose this italicization rule on numerous articles, not just this one and not just ones that originated with Brya. So I regret having conceded that Brya has any point at all when it seems to be just one more symptom of Brya's inflexibility and refusal to consider anybody else's point of view. (I would still be curious to know Brya's reasoning as to why this italicization--a convention that has not been widely adopted even by systematic botanists, and that has been nearly unanimously rejected by other Wikipedia editors--is a better policy for Wikipedia articles but I have always found Brya loathe to explain him/herself. Brya says it is so, and that is supposed to suffice.) MrDarwin 02:13, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Reversion

I've reverted the latest version by KP Botany to correct errors that were introduced in part due to the erroneous reference to the Missouri Botanical Garden's Angiosperm Phylogeny Website (P.F. Stevens, 2001 onward) as being the "APG companion site" that was included in an earlier version of this article; I have also removed this reference. As far as I can tell, although it is more up-to-date the Angiosperm Phylogeny Website and largely following APG II, this website does not represent the APG, and its classification certainly differs from APG II in several respects. MrDarwin 02:28, 12 October 2006 (UTC) --Ricardo Carneiro Pires 13:20, 22 March 2007 (UTC)