Talk:Neomys

Revert per WP:MAMMALS

Jts1882 - Consensus is to follow MSW3 unless both IUCN and ASM agree on something different. While ASM supports the changes you made here and to the species's articles, IUCN does not. These changes should be reverted. (Or we need to change consensus...) - UtherSRG (talk) 12:44, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I realise I have argued for that in the past as a solid reason for making changes from MSW3, but I don't think the consensus was ever that that was the only criteria. While I can't think of an example offhand, there are many species articles that have moved on from MSW3 without waiting for the IUCN. It is now about 20 years since the literature cut-off for MSW3 and the IUCN assessments for Neomys species were published in 2016. The proposal to split the species was published in 2015 (presumably after the IUCN cut-off) and the species split has been followed since then (e.g. Nováková & Vohralík, 2019. Moreover, Neomys milleri is also recognised in the Illustrated Checklist of the Mammals of the World (2020), which I suggest should be considered as an alternative to MSW3, as it seems increasingly clear that MSW4 isn't happening.

P.S. WP:MAMMALS says the MSW3 classification may be overridden by the conclusions of more recent studies which are widely accepted in secondary sources. and that it is accepted practice to override the MSW3 taxonomy if both the Mammal Diversity Database and IUCN agree on the change. — Jts1882 | talk 13:26, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. I like it... it's got a good beat and you can dance to it. XD Ok. I think we should work on the WP:MAMMALS wording to help everyone be on the same page. Is ICMW online? Would be so helpful if it is. - UtherSRG (talk) 16:02, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, there is very little online. The authors have made the introduction available at researchgate, but there isn't a checklist of species covered available. That's the biggest problem with ICMW as the guiding taxonomy for Wikipedia. While it's a very good secondary source, it is not not as readily accessible to Wikipedia editors. It's published by Lynx Editions, which means its a high quality book and well protected (i.e. no dodgy internet pdfs). There is a bit of continuity from MSW3 to ICMW and MDD. MSW3 was edited by Don Wilson, who is an an author on ICMW, and DeeAnne Reeder, who is on the ASM Biodiversity Committee that oversees the MDD (and used to oversee MSW). Connor Burgin is first author on ICMW and part of the MDD taxonomy curation team.

I think I read somewhere that the MDD incorporated all species from ICMW in one version, but it now also includes additional new species. The downloadable spreadsheet for MDD has a flag for differences since ICMW and an entry for the ICMW scientific name. This information isn't currently shown on the species pages of the website, but is one way to check whether a species listed in MDD is in ICMW (although not to see if it's in ICMW and no longer in MDD; presumably few cases if any at present).

As for WP:Mammal guidelines, the guidelines for when to override MSW3 can be extended. Recognition by both ASM-MDD and the IUCN (in the red List or a Specialist group taxonomy (e.g.CatSg) can be treated as a good solid case for having a Wikipedia article. When there is no recent IUCN assessment or Specialist group taxonomy, the inclusion in ICMW and MDD and seems the next best criteria, especially if supported by other published literature. Then for new species not in ICMW or the IUCN and included in MDD, which can recognise them quite quickly, there would need to be additional evidence that the change has been accepted, i.e. other published work acting as secondary sources. — Jts1882 | talk 18:29, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]