Talk:Changes in the taxonomy of gastropods since 2005

Gastropods Top‑importance

	Gastropods portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Gastropods, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of gastropods on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GastropodsWikipedia:WikiProject GastropodsTemplate:WikiProject GastropodsGastropods articles
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taxonomy: For all marine species, Project Gastropods uses the taxonomy in the online database WoRMS. When starting a new article, do not use sources of taxonomic information that predate the 2017 revision for all gastropod groups ("Revised Classification, Nomenclator and Typification of Gastropod and Monoplacophoran Families" by Philippe Bouchet & Jean-Pierre Rocroi, Bernhard Hausdorf, Andrzej Kaim, Yasunori Kano, Alexander Nützel, Pavel Parkhaev, Michael Schrödl and Ellen E. Strong in Malacologia, 2017, 61(1–2): 1–526.) (can be dowloaded at Researchgate.net), substituting the previous classification of 2005 Taxonomy of the Gastropoda (Bouchet & Rocroi, 2005). If you need help with any aspect of an article, please leave a note at the Project talk page.

Work in Progress

Goes to show, as always, that a taxonomy is a work in progress, each successive one hopefully getting closer to the natural order of things.

I agree that, if for no other reason than consistency, the most recent published taxonomy should be given preference. However stipulating a specific taxonomy seems to be promoting a specific perspective, almost an infatuation that violates to intended neutral position.

Bouchet and Rocroi certainly added to the taxonomy of gastropods in their 2005 paper, but I doubt they would say that's the final answer.

So to conclude, I suggest the stipulation regarding taxonomy be dropped and in its place a suggestion that the most recent available be used for new postings, with Bouchet & Rocroi 2005 and "changes since" 2005 left as suggestions J.H.McDonnell (talk) 23:07, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you are right that most recent sources are better than old ones. But per Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources: "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources".

Author citation (zoology) per International Code of Zoological Nomenclature: "the person who first publishes a scientific name in a way that satisfies the criteria of availability", an interpretation following which this should be seen as largely being restricted to providing a description or diagnosis.

Examples of sources, that can be considered as reliable per its verifiability, but that are not published sources per International Code of Zoological Nomenclature:

World Register of Marine Species (WoRMS)
[1] [2] unpublished opinions by Wagner at the Paleobiology Database.

Both of these sources are databases and does not mention the reason, why the taxon is classifying that certain way. Usually both of these sources are correct and up to date. But those two sources can not be used as the main or only source. Consider, that even those two mentioned sources are very often contradicting each other in their classification and in rankings of taxons. Both of them are new or very new, but to being new is not the main criterion.

For taxonomic purposes (in taxobox) use original research articles, that are usually published in peer reviewed journals or monographs. --Snek01 (talk) 03:13, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]