Talk:Species naming
 | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
Proposed merge with Species description
[edit]The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The concepts are nearly identical. A species is named during its formal description. I don't think it's worth having one article about the inspiration for a name (this one) and another for the actual publication of a name. See also Alpha taxonomy. (--Animalparty-- (talk) 22:47, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
- The concepts aren't necessarily the same: a species can be described before it is given a formal name, and a species can be named with only a minimal description – for example, the Latin diagnosis required for plants prior to the current botanical code hardly amounted to a description. On the other hand, I think there are too many overlapping articles covering the naming and description of organisms; see e.g. Binomial nomenclature. Peter coxhead (talk) 21:16, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
- I agree there is a plethora of overlapping articles in taxonomy and nomenclature. So do you oppose or support a merge? I think we should deal primarily with articles on hand, rather than concepts. Not all definable concepts merit a distinct article, and merging thematically similar concepts, with clear distinctions in text and/or subsections where necessary, would help help reduce overlapping articles. --Animalparty-- (talk) 22:58, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
- I guess I support a merge, since this would be a small step towards sorting out the greater mess. Also I think the Species description article is poor, e.g. the first paragraph of the lead describes an ideal as if it were always the case; the statement that "[f]ormal species descriptions today follow strict guidelines set forth by the Codes of nomenclature" is quite wrong – the codes are concerned only with nomenclature and don't specify how species should be described beyond the need to differentiate one taxon from another. My real preference is to make both articles re-directs to fuller and better discussions. Peter coxhead (talk) 23:49, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
- Support merger. Seems like a step in the right direction. Having a page that can't be listed as entirely concerned with nomenclature shouldn't be a problem, I think. I don't think they should redirect to Alpha taxonomy, which I'd hope would be a larger article that discusses methods of analysis and lines of evidence in too much detail to be a suitable target for these redirects. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 14:00, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
- I guess I support a merge, since this would be a small step towards sorting out the greater mess. Also I think the Species description article is poor, e.g. the first paragraph of the lead describes an ideal as if it were always the case; the statement that "[f]ormal species descriptions today follow strict guidelines set forth by the Codes of nomenclature" is quite wrong – the codes are concerned only with nomenclature and don't specify how species should be described beyond the need to differentiate one taxon from another. My real preference is to make both articles re-directs to fuller and better discussions. Peter coxhead (talk) 23:49, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
- I agree there is a plethora of overlapping articles in taxonomy and nomenclature. So do you oppose or support a merge? I think we should deal primarily with articles on hand, rather than concepts. Not all definable concepts merit a distinct article, and merging thematically similar concepts, with clear distinctions in text and/or subsections where necessary, would help help reduce overlapping articles. --Animalparty-- (talk) 22:58, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
- Support merger, and keep under Species description, due to large overlap in content. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:30, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
- Comment I would instead support Peter's "real preference" of making both articles redirects. Agree Species description is a poor article. Species naming, this article, should redirect to Binomial nomenclature (and there is probably not much, if anything, that needs to be merged there), not be subsumed into Species description, which it is a separate concept from. We already have this article. --Tom Hulse (talk) 16:27, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
- Comment: Alpha taxonomy is now a redirect, which simplifies matters somewhat. If one searches for "naming species", then Species naming appears in the list of options. I'm inclined to suspect that most readers making such a search don't want to know the intricacies of nomenclature, but rather whether new species are being discovered or renamed in large numbers (and could one be named after themselves). I think I'd prefer to see this page (Species naming) redirected to Taxonomy (biology) rather than to Binomial nomenclature. Perhaps Species description could have a hatnote similar to "For the process of finding and describing new species see Taxonomy (biology). The section called Rates of species description doesn't fit well there; perhaps it should have its own page? Sminthopsis84 (talk) 17:05, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
- That's a good point, but I think if they've limited their search with the "species" parameter then we ought to give them what they asked for. "Taxonomy" is a different level than than "Species naming". Conversely, the Binomial nomenclature article could easily be simply renamed "Species naming". If you look at the content, it is directly answering "how are species named?". --Tom Hulse (talk) 14:47, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
- Moving Binomial nomenclature to Species naming sounds good in principle, but I think that a lot of traffic would be coming from students who've been pointed to "binomial nomenclature", as Linnaeus's biggest or only contribution (or something). Thus, I think there'd be a backlash, even if it would be good to straighten out them and their curriculum-setters on what Linnaeus' contributions actually were. On the matter of "species", I suspect that most readers aren't aware that families, orders, subspecies, etc. exist. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 15:28, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
- Oh, sorry, I said that wrong. Didn't mean we should rename Binomial nomenclature, I only meant that it could be renamed since the content is so identical to the concept of species naming. Hence a justification for making the Species naming article a redirect to Binomial nomenclature. --Tom Hulse (talk) 16:34, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
- Moving Binomial nomenclature to Species naming sounds good in principle, but I think that a lot of traffic would be coming from students who've been pointed to "binomial nomenclature", as Linnaeus's biggest or only contribution (or something). Thus, I think there'd be a backlash, even if it would be good to straighten out them and their curriculum-setters on what Linnaeus' contributions actually were. On the matter of "species", I suspect that most readers aren't aware that families, orders, subspecies, etc. exist. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 15:28, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
- That's a good point, but I think if they've limited their search with the "species" parameter then we ought to give them what they asked for. "Taxonomy" is a different level than than "Species naming". Conversely, the Binomial nomenclature article could easily be simply renamed "Species naming". If you look at the content, it is directly answering "how are species named?". --Tom Hulse (talk) 14:47, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
Support This is part of species description. FunkMonk (talk) 00:21, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.