This template is within the scope of WikiProject Tree of Life, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of taxonomy and the phylogenetictree of life 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.Tree of LifeWikipedia:WikiProject Tree of LifeTemplate:WikiProject Tree of Lifetaxonomic articles
This page is within the scope of WikiProject Redirect, a collaborative effort to improve the standard of redirects and their categorization 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. Note: This banner should be placed on the talk pages of project, template and category pages that exist and operate to maintain redirects. This banner is not designed to be placed on the talk pages of most redirects and almost never on the talk pages of mainspace redirects. For more information see the template documentation.RedirectWikipedia:WikiProject RedirectTemplate:WikiProject Redirectredirect pages
So not actually a broad community based consensus, following a targeted discussion, with a firmly grounded analysis of what should happen, but rather a description of what generally happens at Redirects for discussion based on what the group who spend the most time there think the encyclopedia should contain? Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood(talk): 04:52, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is circular reasoning. The undecided point is what is "best". In this case it seems to have been decided in an echo chamber. I recommend a broad consensus based on a RfC to determine whether this is a plausible "best". Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood(talk): 05:52, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think that should be a separate issue, contingent on whether new redirects should be deleted, as there is a history of retaining even not very useful redirects if they may be in use as incoming links. In the meanwhile, the statement (note added to the template) should be reverted. · · · Peter Southwood(talk): 06:13, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The note added to the template probably should go on {{R taxon with possibilities}} (as well as {{R animal with possibilities}} and {{R plant with possibilities}}); but that assumes that people creating redirects from accepted non-fossil species in non-monotypic genera to genus articles are applying any of the taxon with possibilities templates in the first place, and people creating redirects are NOT applying any taxon with possibilities template.
I created {{R plant with possibilities}} in 2014 because I kept stumbling across plant species (or major cultivars, or vernacular names for species) that were redirecting to genera and I wanted to have some way to track them. I created the animal with possibilities template in 2017, and another editor created the general taxon with possibilities template the day after I made the animal one.
{{R from species to genus}} was created as redirect in 2013, but was turned into a stand-alone template in 2022. Since it was converted from a redirect, it has had instructions to apply it along with either a "to monotypic taxon" template or a "taxon with possibilities" template.
It's pretty uncontroversial that redirects from species to monotypic genera should be created. Species in fossil genera are usually covered in genus articles, and may have redirects created. These are two types of redirects from species to genera that are not "generally discouraged". "Taxon with possibilities" covers the redirects that are "generally discouraged". Plantdrew (talk) 22:07, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Should Template:R from species to genus include a warning Note that the practice of creating redirects from species names that could be articles is strongly discouraged?
If question 1 passes, should the practice of redirecting from species to genus be forbidden entirely?
If question 2 passes, should existing redirects from valid species to non-monotypic genera also be deleted?
If question 3 fails to pass, should users be allowed to request deletion of such redirects individually by simply asking an admin, if they say that they will create an article in its place?
This should not be necessary, as any editor can already convert a redirect to an article without need for permission or assistance, and can also retarget a redirect without assistance. If the redirect is protected then it would depend on the reasons for protection. I doubt if this would be much of an issue with redirects from binomials, but if you can think of a potential problem please let me know.· · · Peter Southwood(talk): 07:22, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How would asking an admin to delete the redirect help in this case? I for one would do it without hesitation as long as there is enough verifiable content, but why would anyone bother to ask if they would not just do it anyway? · · · Peter Southwood(talk): 09:15, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just relaying the facts on the ground. There are quite a few redirects of plant species that really need an article, but because they are a redirect, nobody creates the article. In the Category:Plant redirects with possibilities (602 members), a massviews run shows that (for instance) Camptotheca acuminata has redirected readers to the paltry genus article over 2000 times this year. This is way more views than the typical existing plant species article. Abductive (reasoning)15:33, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How would you know that a redirect was not created because it is a redirect, as opposed to for instance, a plant a lot of people were interested in, and might not have found at all without the redirect? This seems to be a situation where the needs of the editors and the needs of the readers are opposed. · · · Peter Southwood(talk): 17:12, 11 September 2024 (UTC)fix indent level[reply]
Sorry, I expressed myself unclearly. I was trying to ask how one would know whether a redirect was being followed because it was a redirect link, i.e. from the link on the target page (not useful), and not because people were interested in the plant and searched for it using the correct name from the search box (useful). It seems that it would still break the loop if the link on the target page were removed, though that would also be suboptimal.· · · Peter Southwood(talk): 08:31, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I know a way to track that (it would require support from the devs), but I don't know if anyone actually has.
I think the problem they're optimizing for is:
If you create the redirect, an editor (unaware that it is a redirect and points back to this page) will add the link to the genus page, and then the reader will have a bad experience.
The solution is: Don't create redirects.
An alternative solution would be to prevent people from adding the links (e.g., if Special:AbuseFilter could detect unwanted self links), or sending a bot around to remove them.
Your comments and suggestions are invited. We should make the expected consequences as clear as possible. There might be an alternative suggestion to question 1. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood(talk): 06:33, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In terms of a potential RFC question, I think it might be best to just ask the first question. There is no value in asking the contingent questions (#2 and #3) if it doesn't pass.
Question #4, on the other hand, is a waste of time no matter what. WP:G8 prohibits admins from deleting "Plausible redirects that can be changed to valid targets". This has come up repeatedly over the years wrt the Wikipedia:Four Award (which requires that you be the editor who created the page), and the community has never accepted the idea that a plausible redirect needs to be deleted before you can create the article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:37, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly object. Read what the existing consensus says; editors prefer redlinks over redirects. This potential RFC needs to clear an issue that has been festering for years. Abductive (reasoning)03:22, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you provide clear evidence that readers prefer redlinks over redirects? (not just the opinions of a few editors) That would be a stronger argument, as we are writing for the readers, and I am not aware of any objective study on the question. WhatamIdoing, you may have contacts who might know, could you ask around? Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood(talk): 06:10, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not aware of any research done on this. I imagine that some people would prefer unlinked names over red-linked names. I can't imagine anyone preferring blue-linked names that take you right back to the page you're already reading. Therefore, when a separate page doesn't exist, I would expect the first choice to be no link/black text, the second choice to be a red link, and the third choice to be a blue link/redirect back to the same page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:50, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Research? You can go through the Google Scholar results here. Suffice it to say, editors who have been asked to comment, as I gave examples of above, have formed a solid consensus that redlinks are better than redirects. No further justification is necessary. Why not set the bar higher and ask if the Pope in Rome has an opinion in order to train wreck this debate? Abductive (reasoning)09:44, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Google Scholar list does not seem particularly helpful. Ignoring the straw man in Rome, if you can show that the consensus is actually solid, and based on logic and policy, it might save a lot of pointless opinion swapping at a later stage. · · · Peter Southwood(talk): 07:52, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would expect some arguing, but possibly also enough agreement that subsequent questions wouldn't need to be asked. In particular, Wikipedia talk:Notability (species)/Archive 1#Fossil taxa indicates that the community has been making a distinction between extant species (redirects=bad) and fossil species (redirects=preferred).
We're going to formally revisit that question later, so the past practice might not become the future practice, but if I were trying to ask your #2 question today (which I don't recommend), I'd start with clarifying whether fossil species are meant to be covered by that question. Of course, if you just wait until the promised fossil species discussion happens (I figure it will start a bit after the Wikipedia:Notability (species) discussion gets closed), then you're likely to get at least half the answer to question #2 without needing to do anything. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:14, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, fossil species are not covered. There are excellent reasons for redirecting to genera for species that are uncertain. This potential RFC covers only species that are valid, and not to monotypic genera. Abductive (reasoning)03:22, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe the warning should mention this limitation? I take it that invalid species are OK to redirect? Should there be conditions, like some mention in the article? like R to anchor or similar? · · · Peter Southwood(talk): 06:23, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Could that not lead to a situation where we are free to provide redirects for any incorrect name, invalid name, synonym, common name, or misspelling, but not for a valid/correct name, unless for some reason the organism is not notable, or possibly, is extinct? · · · Peter Southwood(talk): 08:50, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The difference is that such redirects can be easily redirected to a better target (one may need to be created). An invalid species name really shouldn't be targeted at a genus, but little harm is done. The issue is the lack of a redlink leading people to think that a species article exists. Also, all valid species are automatically notable, unless you're User:BilledMammal. Abductive (reasoning)13:28, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
