Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Notability (species)/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

Prior discussion

Please add links to prior discussions and pages you've notified here. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:56, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

  • Notability guideline – original draft [1], advance notice [2], discussion leading to the draft [3]
  • WikiProject Tree of Life – advance notice [4]
  • WP:SPECIESOUTCOMES – advance notice [5]
  • WikiProject Palaeontology – advance notice [6]
  • Village pumps – June 2024 discussion
  • Wikiproject Paleontology - (fossil species guideline) [7]
    • Wikiproject Paleontology Discord server (offsite but public, join link can be found on the project page)
  • Wikiproject Dinosaurs - (fossil species guideline) [8]

FAQ

Isn't this just spelling out what WP:SPECIESOUTCOMES has said for years?
That's the goal.
Does this change the number of notable species, compared to the existing rules?
It's not intended to. It might make it easier for non-specialist editors to recognize which should be presumed notable and which are non-notable, though.
What if there are no sources or only sources I don't think are reliable?
It is literally impossible to have a species accepted by taxonomists unless there are academic publications about the species. In some cases there are additional documentation requirements beyond published reliable sources. Information about the relevant academic sources are included in each entry in all reputable species databases. If you need help finding the academic sources, ask for help at the relevant WikiProject.
How many species qualify under this?
Maybe around two million, half of which are insects. That's the same as the current system. We already have articles on about about one out of six of these species, including most of the accepted vertebrates (i.e., birds, fish, amphibians, reptiles, and mammals).
Aren't there nonillions of bacteria and viruses in the world?
That's individual organisms. Your body probably has more than 30 trillion microbes, but there are probably less than 1,000 different species in your body. At the moment, there are only about 15,000 recognized viruses and 25,000 recognized prokaryotes.[9][10] Estimates of how many non-recognized species there are in the world vary significantly, but non-recognized species are not presumed notable under either the current or the proposed system.
Could a non-recognized species be notable?
Yes, that happens rarely. For example, the virus that causes COVID-19 was temporarily notable according to the WP:GNG before it was officially recognized by taxonomists.
Does this apply to fossil species?
No. The discussion about fossil species concluded with a decision to address fossil species separately, at a later date. If you are interested in joining a future discussion about fossils, please put this page on your watchlist, or sign up for notifications at Wikipedia:Feedback request service#Wikipedia policies and guidelines.
Does this exempt species from the usual rules about mass creation or change the rules about mass creation?
No.
Won't people just spam in millions of WP:UGLY little articles?
They haven't during the last 20+ years, and this draft has the same rules that we've been using for the last 20+ years, so it seems unlikely to change the rate of article creation.
Does this prohibit merging articles?
No. Wikipedia:Notability#Whether to create standalone pages (aka NOPAGE and PAGEDECIDE) applies to all subjects, as does the Wikipedia:Consensus policy.

WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:27, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

This proposal does not read like SPECIESOUTCOMES. SPECIESOUTCOMES addresses plants and animals. This proposal lumps them into eukaryotes, including single celled species, which is a huge difference. It then gets into prokaryotes and viruses, which are very different. Prokaryote species have fuzzy boundaries, with cross-species genetic sharing in the ecosystem, and viruses aren’t even life. SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:16, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
SPECIESOUTCOMES doesn't directly mention plants and animals. It has links to correct name (botany) and valid name (zoology). Correct name (botany) redirects to correct name which has a section about use of the term in prokaryote taxonomy. All eukaryotes are governed by either the zoological code, or the botanical code (which was renamed from the International Code of Botanical Nomenclature to the International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants to clarify its scope). There are a few groups of eukaryotes with both plant-like and animal-like qualities that have had species named following both the zoological code and the botanical code; see ambiregnal protist. Plantdrew (talk) 16:58, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
I think that that FAQ was overly brief and thus imprecise. The goal is make the existing practice official. Species outcomes is only intended to observe and describe the results of existing practice; it's not wording for an SNG.North8000 (talk) 17:33, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
What if there are no sources or only sources I don't think are reliable?
It is literally impossible to have a species accepted by taxonomists unless there are academic publications about the species. In some cases there are additional documentation requirements beyond published reliable sources. Information about the relevant academic sources are included in each entry in all reputable species databases. If you need help finding the academic sources, ask for help at the relevant WikiProject.
This is not true and needs to be amended. ICZN (all animal species) accepts nomenclature from unreliable, unscientific sources and does not prescribe or mention "taxonomic acceptance", explicitly leaving it up to individual researchers whether they decide to honor priority for synonyms. It is not clear which taxon-specific databases do state that a species is "valid" or how such a consensus is achieved. This is a major issue that needs to be resolved, otherwise there is no guidance for animal species notability. JoelleJay (talk) 01:11, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Background and interpretation section

Any objection to removing the "Background and interpretation" section? I would be in favor of removing it because it doesn't really say much of substance. The guideline doesn't change whether it's included or not included, which suggests to me that the section is not needed. –Novem Linguae (talk) 17:38, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Yeah it seems out of place, like something that should be attached to an RfC rather than the guideline itself. – Joe (talk) 18:48, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
I put it in and think it's a good idea but it was a Bold edit and if someone objects please remove it per "R" in BRD. ; I have no objection and would not be even slightly miffed. North8000 (talk) 20:44, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

My rationale was/is:

  1. As Joe mentioned, another possibility is to include it in the RFC. There is debate above about whether or not this would make the RFC wording biased. This would resolve that.
  2. "Notability" decisions incorporate other factors than just notability guidline criteria. (Wikipedia:How Wikipedia notability works) Even though prima facie this is not a notability criteria, it does provide a relevant consideration in "notability" decisions when utilizing this SNG, and one which aligns with what I think is the intent of the majority of the folks working on this. We don't want this to trigger big changes, including new mass or "assembly line" creation.
  3. There IS a danger that this guideline could unintentionally change the status quo rather than codify it. The status quo is that most new species articles violate (or are edge cases) regarding the current wp:notability guidelines. So being in this "twilight zone" probably makes creators more cautious......maybe adding more sources and material to fall less-short of GNG. And avoiding mass or production line or completionist type creation. This provides a bit more safety on that. And maybe a bit of extra assurance for folks who might otherwise oppose this SNG due to the above concerns.

Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:02, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

@Kevmin reverted the revert, so some talk page discussion is needed I think. –Novem Linguae (talk) 23:54, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
I felt the addition appropriate, as the discussion has touched several times on the premise that any editor not directly involved in this part of the process may very well think this is fully novel and doesn't have the 2 decades(ish) of history and precedent behind it as a "cultural behavior of wikipedians".--Kevmin § 00:07, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
Maybe, but I don't think that belongs in the proposal itself. The best course of action, in my opinion, is to go into detail about the history of the proposal in the Support section. C F A 💬 00:11, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
I'm inclined to omit this. It is true, and it's what I expect to happen. (Actually, regardless of whether this proposal is adopted, rejected, adjusted, etc., I expect that the community will continue doing the same things as they have been – my goal here is to write down what the community is doing, for greater clarity and transparency, without trying to change what the community is doing.) However, it's not necessarily helpful in applying this proposed guideline, especially to someone unfamiliar with Wikipedia's history in this particular area. It's a bit like saying "Drive down the street until you get to where the yellow house used to be". If you don't know where the yellow house used to be, or if you have two editors with different beliefs about where the yellow house used to be, then those instructions aren't helpful. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:19, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

As described above, I think that it's a good idea but will not be unhappy or upset if it is removed. Let's just weigh in and decide one way or the other and then move on:North8000 (talk) 13:43, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

  • Suggest Keeping per above rationale North8000 (talk) 13:43, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
    No one seems to be interested in a straw poll, so here's what I'm going to do:
    • I'm going to move that section to the talk page.
    • I'm going to archive most of the talk page, keeping the list of prior discussions and notifications (please expand, and please notify pages that seem relevant to you), the FAQ I wrote, and the ==Background and interpretation== section.
    • I'm going to start the RFC with the simplest/shortest question above. I'm expecting a fairly large number of responses, so instead of the Most popular formatting option, I'll add ===Discussion=== and ===Survey=== subsections.
    WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:13, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
    @WhatamIdoing: Should this section be archived? voorts (talk/contributions) 00:44, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
    I think so, but I wanted to give the people in this discussion at least a chance to see it beforehand. Anyone who feels like it's been long enough should feel free to archive it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:59, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Background and interpretation

Moved from Wikipedia:Notability (species)

The intention during the inception of this guideline is to align with existing practice and not cause any major changes regarding creation or deletion of articles. It should be interpreted in that context.

—moved here by WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:14, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Minimum two sources

Sourcing

For species to be worthy of a standalone article, the usual requirement for multiple independent secondary sources is somewhat relaxed, in favour of two reliable sources, independent of each other, that verify the description of the species, and it’s naming.

My !vote for approval was “premature”. An example of why it is premature is the lack of objective substance. Sourcing is pretty obvious.

Talking to JoelleJay above, I read that a concern is accuracy, people claiming to have discovered and named a species may well do so inaccurately. They may be renaming a variant of another species.

WP:N calls for multiple (two) sources. WP:N calls for these sources to be independent and secondary. This subguideline is weakening the requiring for proper secondary sources. It should not not be weakening the requirement for two independent reliable sources (“2RS” as DGG used to say). 2RS (independent from each other) is a very low threshold that should be held.

- SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:12, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

@SmokeyJoe, I don't think WP:N calls for multiple sources. The WP:GNG calls for multiple sources. Were you referring to the GNG above? WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:34, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
GNG is within N. SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:41, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
Yes, but WP:N also says that meeting the GNG's requirements is not the only way to qualify for an article. I don't mind if someone wants to say "I think we should change our approach and require species articles to comply with the GNG" (or with part of it, in this case), but I object to making it sound like the GNG's requirements apply universally, when WP:N says the opposite: It meets either the general notability guideline (GNG) below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific notability guideline (SNG) – not GNG and SNG. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:00, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
Also, the GNG says multiple sources are generally expected (emphasis mine), so requiring multiple sources in all cases is more than the GNG does. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:05, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
And not requiring any secondary sources is way less than what the GNG does. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:18, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
Editors opposed to the proposal on the basis that "people claiming to have discovered and named a species may well do so inaccurately. They may be renaming a variant of another species" are clearly not reading the actual proposal, which is on notability of species, not on notability of names of species. Even in cases where a species might have two correct names (synonyms), there would only be one species that these names refer to, and therefore only one potential Wikipedia article. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:34, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
What David said. If I publish a monograph describing 17 common weeds from my backyard as new species named after myself, the names will be "valid" in a nomenclatural sense, but the experts curating taxonomic databases such as Plants of the World Online or World Flora Online will consider my names synonyms of their existing names and redirect to those. They will not be "accepted by taxonomists" in the sense of this proposal. The curator of the database deciding "this name is attached to a group of organisms that are different enough to be a species" versus "this name is attached to a group of organisms that already have a name as a species" is what provides the independent check on the describing author. Choess (talk) 01:31, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
Hello Choess. Which "curated taxonomic databases" should be used as authorities for eukaryotic species? Do you think that it would be possible to include this information in the guideline, especially for editors who are unfamiliar with taxonomics? What should be done in the event that two preferred databases are in dispute? I'm asking because I've seen discussions of this kind in WikiProject Plants (examples from trawling the archives here and here), and I would appreciate some guidance in how to determine the existence of a correct name... or a valid name. Kind regards, Pagliaccious (talk) 02:11, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
I think two things are crossed here. "correct name" and "valid name" are nomenclatural terms. This means (eliding a lot of finicky details) that the name is associated with a specimen, the type, and that it has a description that helps distinguish it from other species, along with various other requirements. That provides no guarantee of taxonomic acceptance—taxonomists might feel that a pre-existing name can be applied to the specimen, and that the new name, though correct/valid, is not necessary. As far as the determining whether a name is taxonomically accepted, that could vary quite a bit depending on the group of organisms. The two databases I named are probably the best resources for vascular plants (although POWO is not good for ferns and lycophytes); I can't speak authoritatively for other groups. For areas where there isn't a clear central database, if someone was trying to demonstrate that a particular species was accepted, I would probably want to see the species treated as real in secondary source(s) (not just a name in a copied checklist), or perhaps a description in a high-quality peer-reviewed journal specializing in the field (where it's been scrutinized by reviewers with the skill to distinguish a new species from a trivial variation). Doug Yanega's comment makes me wary of monographs, even those published by experts in the field. It's really just a special case of the question "Do scientists generally agree that X is true?" and can be argued in the same way; in principle you could cite a bunch of references from the literature to say that the databases are wrong in one particular case, but in practice that seems unlikely.
When there's a disagreement between databases over whether a group of organisms should be treated as two (or more) species or as a single one ("splitting" and "lumping"), I think it's largely a matter of editorial taste. To pull from my own work, about halfway down Myriopteris rufa#Taxonomy is a paragraph discussing how certain populations have been treated as a separate species under a different name. On the other hand, if I was able to write at great length about both species that are sometimes lumped together, I might prefer to keep them separate. The really important thing in such a case is to be transparent to the reader and note which sources lump, which split, and, if possible, the distinction made between the two species by the sources that do split them. This allows us to maintain WP:NPOV when authorities disagree. Choess (talk) 03:00, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
Thank you Choess, I appreciate your detailed and thorough response. Pagliaccious (talk) 14:08, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
As Choess says, preferred databases vary depending on the group of organisms you're dealing with, and there are a lot of them. Off the top of my head, some taxa-specific resources that come to mind are World Spider Catalogue for spiders, Chilobase for centipedes, Systema Dipterorum for flies, FishBase for fishes... There are also some regional databases, which sometimes disagree with their international counterparts (see Glossodia major - here in Australia, authorities place it in the genus Glossodia, while World Flora Online considers it a species of Caladenia). Some WikiProjects have their own preferred taxonomic sources (for example, WP:BIRDS generally follows the taxonomy set out by the International Ornithological Congress) but most don't seem to provide specific guidance. Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 04:29, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
I think this is overkill. But I would support Choess' idea above of "being able to describe the species"/what differentiates it from other species (a diagnosis). The problem is how to fold that in to a notability guideline, but that's not that different from the guidance at WP:GEONATURAL. Cremastra (talk) 14:49, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
That's already the proposed rule. The second paragraph of the proposal says achieving a name accepted under the relevant nomenclature code requires, at minimum, a significant description to be published in a reputable academic publication. Therefore, if it qualifies for an article under this proposal, we will always be "able to describe the species". I thought the suggestion here was that an SNG should do more than care about "being able to describe the species" and instead do something closer to "require that notability depend upon whether the description has already been typed into Wikipedia". IMO that's not really the place of a notability guideline. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:50, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Whether it's a good idea or not, the RFC is weighing in of the guideline as of the date of the RFC. We can't scramble that now. North8000 (talk) 01:48, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

I think the RfC was launch prematurely. It has served to attract editors, so it wasn’t necessarily a bad thing. But it is a bad thing to limit development on the basis that an RfC is running. SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:31, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
Right. I strongly disagree with the proposed "Let's approve the guide and then fix it later" approach. From long experience, it is very, very difficult to fix a guide like this after it has gone in to operation. FOARP (talk) 11:13, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
Changing a WP:PROPOSAL in the middle of discussions about whether to adopt it is usually a bad idea. Imagine a world in which someone opposes a proposal and feels like he's losing. How can he force a win? One method that's been tried from time to time is to make a non-trivial change to it, and then try to call into have all prior support !votes invalidated, on the grounds that the proposal is now significantly different from what those editors supported.
There are already ideas for two future discussions (fossil species and whether to create a centralized list of where to find out whether a given species has been accepted), so I don't see why a third would be impossible. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:00, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

This might be a good idea, but has a severe structural problem unless it just a general discussion item for future possibilities. Otherwise, exactly what is it? A proposal to modify a currently non-existent SNG? A proposal to after-the-fact modify the proposal that many people have already weighed in on? Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 15:08, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't think I have enough information to know whether this is a good idea, but I suspect that it's not.
Taking the formulation of this idea from @SmokeyJoe above that we want "two independent sources attesting to the species recognised as a species in at least two different places", I think it's, um, probably not based on knowing anything about the subject matter. Here's an example that illustrates why:
So what would "two independent sources attesting to the species recognised as a species in at least two different places" looks like? I'm not sure. Maybe a paper that says "Look, the ICTV added that new virus to their official list"? And a social media post from an WP:SPS expert that says "I can't believe the ICTV added that new virus to their authoritative list so quickly"? Why would we want that, when we have free, up-to-date access to the official, authoritative list? WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:07, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
I know about species, and I know about Wikipedia. Is the mindset here that anyone either making or reviewing (AfC, NPR, AfD) new species articles must know these things, with your confidence?
Why are you asserting facts about viruses when this is really about eukaryotes?
Two independent reliable sources? If you don’t know what that looks like, then are you arguing both as a subject matter expert and casual visitor who doesn’t know about sourcing? I think editors who are subject matter experts should definitively not be assumed, but editors who understand reliable and independent sourcing should be assumed. Beyond understanding reliable and independent sourcing, the new article reviewers should not have to know anything beyond what this guideline tells them. At the moment, this guideline does not read as useful to anyone who would come to it looking for useful help. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:28, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
This is not the first guideline to use subject-specific terminology. See WP:NASTRO. And I still don't know how h-indexes work for WP:NACADEMIC. C F A 💬 23:03, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
H-index#Definition and purpose.
H-index has been consistently rejected for NACADEMIC. I proposed that H-index < 20 means fails NACADEMIC, and H-index > 40 means passes NACADEMIC. A very simple object metric that covers a lot of bottom end cases, even though it has a huge undetermined zone and at the top end is usually redundant to other criteria. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:46, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
One cannot apply a single threshold for bibliometrics such as h-index consistently across different disciplines with very different citation standards. Almost all high-energy physicists would become notable and almost all pure mathematicians would become non-notable under that standard, not the desired outcome. One cannot apply a standard like "two sources are enough" to GNG consistently across different subjects with very different sourcing standards. Subjects where one source is an in-depth entry in a dictionary of national biography are very different from subjects with multiple local-news puff pieces. It seems that the same desire for a procrustian one-size-fits-all numeric rule, regardless of differences among subjects, is infesting this discussion, despite clear evidence that this makes no sense for some types of organism presented above by WhatamIdoing. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:59, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
Yes. That’s your, and others’, reason for rejecting H-index from another SNG. My point is that it is a straightforward metric.
It’s not a desire for procrustian, but for objective, easily determined, criteria, which can be understood by nonexperts.
I think the current text is of no use to non experts.
2RS makes sense for species. SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:35, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
I think the current text is of no use to non experts. And yet, all the technical terms – and sometimes you need technical terms – are linked and glossed. As I showed below, the text can be easily understood by clicking on two links, which surely isn't too much work. Taxonomy can be complicated, but it can also be explained, and we have some good articles doing just that. Cremastra (talk) 14:10, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
The text requires clicking on links to be understood. The text should be expanded to be useful on a simple reading. More clarity, less brevity. SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:17, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
North8000, it is a proposal to insert a meaningful objective criterion into the SNG. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:30, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
That can't be done when editors have already voted in favour of the existing proposal? You'll have to wait for this RfC to end to propose major changes to it. C F A 💬 22:58, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
Ok. So, a RfC is pseudo protection.
The resistance to requiring two independent reliable sources is astounding. It amounts to editors supporting: Articles on species need only a single source. No requirement for secondary source material. No requirement of independence.
This proposed SNG is absurd, unsupportable. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:12, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
WP:NRV. The common theme in the notability guidelines is that there must be verifiable, objective evidence that the subject has received significant attention from independent sources to support a claim of notability.
This proposal, not requiring two independent sources, is incompatible with WP:NRV. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:18, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
So you would rather try to ram through a more stringent guideline which would probably fail, so that we'd end up with the current bizarre situation of a de facto SNG? Cremastra (talk) 23:35, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
Requires two independent reliable sources is too stringent? Absurd.
I would rather guidelines contain objective guidance for the non expert. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:40, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
I can imagine a requirement for two independent sources, but I'm struggling to imagine why we would want the specific part about attesting to the species recognised as a species in that requirement.
Imagine, e.g., that the community created a rule saying "Every US Census-designated place is presumed notable", and someone comes along and says "That's a good rule, but you need two independent sources that attest to the fact that the US Census actually designated this place. You can't be sure that the United States Census Bureau designated this place just on their own say-so. I mean, what if the government is wrong, or lying, or incompetent, or something, and they listed places on their own website as being recognized by their own agency, but they didn't actually recognize them? You really need to have independent sources to know whether that government agency actually designated that place as a census-designated place."
Or that the community created a rule that said "Every US National Historic Landmark is presumed notable", and an editor says "It's not good enough to look at the official list https://www.nps.gov/subjects/nationalhistoriclandmarks/list-of-nhls-by-state.htm If you really want to know whether the federal government designated a place as an official, federal-government-recognized National Historic Landmark, you're better off looking in local newspapers, because they're independent."
But that's basically what you wrote here: Viruses are recognized by the ICTV, and the ICTV provides a complete list of all recognized viruses, but you wrote that you'd like to have two independent sources attesting to the species [being] recognised as a species by the ICTV. If the goal is to "attest that the species has been recognized", then why not rely on the authoritative source?
I could imagine preferring a two-part system, e.g., "recognized by the appropriate taxonomic authority and for which editors could find at least two reliable sources about the species in general (i.e., not specifically attesting to whether the taxonomic authority recognizes the species)", but this thing about wanting independent sources "attesting to" the official action being taken, and not accepting the official action itself, is not a sensible idea. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:34, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
Drop the attesting part then. It was only meant to suggest some bare minimum of content. SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:37, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
In what way does the proposed guideline exclude non-experts? All technical terms are either linked (eukaryotes) or glossed.
I am not a subject matter expert, and reading the sentence Non-accepted species, including operational taxonomic units, prokaryotic species with a provisional or candidatus name, and newly described species, should be considered under other notability rules I find myself a little confused. But after just skimming the lead of operational taxonomic unit (something I hadn't previously heard of), and looking at Candidatus, I understand the sentence much better. Cremastra (talk) 00:43, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
Hello Cremastra. I am also not a subject matter expert, but I am still confused by the current guideline. The lead reads all extant species that are accepted by the relevant international body of taxonomists are presumed notable. How am I or other non-experts meant to determine what the relevant international body of taxonomists is, or how to determine that acceptance? Furthermore, the key publications relied upon for taxonomic acceptance, and often many other sources, can be found in many species databases. What are those key publications, and which species databases are preferred? I've brought this up in other parts of this RfC, and I have had some helpful answers to these questions, but my real point is that it's reasonable to expect other non-experts to be confused as well; I think that any other non-expert would appreciate this information within the actual guideline. Kind regards, Pagliaccious (talk) 19:31, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
@Pagliaccious, the existing guidance says:
"Species that have a correct name (botany) or valid name (zoology) are generally kept. Their names and at least a brief description must have been published in a reliable academic publication to be recognized as correct or valid. Because of this, they generally survive AfD. As of 2022, no officially named species listed in Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Organisms has been deleted since at least mid-2016."
Do you find the proposal more helpful or less helpful than the existing advice? WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:03, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
The existing guidance isn't a guideline. It doesn't matter whether it is more or less intelligible than the proposal. JoelleJay (talk) 22:03, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
The shortcuts to the existing advice have been clicked on about twice a day for the last couple of years, and there are 400 pages linking to them, which is kind of a lot for something that "doesn't matter". WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:09, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
As has been suggested elsewhere in this discussion, you can try asking at a WikiProject. I was working on some articles about snails last year, and found sources giving variant species names, so I asked here and received a useful answer. You may not get a useful answer every time, but it never hurts to ask at a WikiProject. Donald Albury 21:05, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
Hello Donald Albury. I appreciate your thoughtful response. However, I was asking mostly rhetorically. Most people in the different Biology WikiProjects are exceedingly helpful and kind, but I think that it would be unreasonable to expect the average non-expert editor to ask for this information whenever they refer to this proposed guideline. Instead, I think it would be very helpful to ask each WikiProject and consolidate this information for the purpose of this guideline, or at least have some kind of guidance for non-experts. Again, I appreciate your response, and I did not mean to mislead you by asking. Pagliaccious (talk) 21:55, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
Are you thinking of this proposal as being primarily aimed at editors who don't write articles on this subject? Are you thinking that the key point of an SNG is to tell someone with no knowledge or interest in the subject area how to quickly figure out whether to approve a page in the Draft: namespace or send an article off for deletion? WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:25, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
Hello WhatamIdoing. Certainly I am thinking of editors who write articles on this subject. I have both knowledge and interest in the subject area, I have created articles in the subject area, and I still think that the guideline needs improvement. However, should we expect that the condition of the notability of an article is only accessible to editors who are intimately familiar the the subject, or make it accessible to anyone? Suppose that you're a newbie who doesn't understand why their article has been deleted. I think that the reason should be clear rather than obscure. Kind regards, Pagliaccious (talk) 00:07, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
If you have created an article about a species (whether real, purported, or imaginary), I would hope your research into the subject informed you about whether the species is accepted as an actual species by the scientific community.
If it's deleted at AFD, I would expect the editors there to explain why it wasn't suitable. Editors have been doing that at AFD for years now, and I have no reason to believe that is likely to change. If it's not deleted at AFD, then it's probably not being deleted for any reason relevant to notability.
On the more general point, one editor has warned multiple times about redundancy. Another editor has said that the whole proposal should be reduced to a single sentence. The proposal is currently seven paragraphs, and it already has some redundant parts. It sounds like you would like it to be much longer and to provide a more cookbook-level of detail. I don't feel strongly about the ideal, but I do hope that everyone can see that it's 'physically' impossible to accommodate both the "too long" and "too short" viewpoints in the same page.
Because the community's tendency towards instruction creep, I expect the proposal (if adopted) to accumulate more detail over time. It might be someone assembling One List to Rule Them All, or it might be a dozen people adding "just this one little detail", but it's very rare for notability pages to get shorter. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:24, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
Requiring two, or three, or any number of "independent reliable sources" doesn't actually provide "objective guidance". First of all, even if the question of which sources qualify as "independent" and "reliable" were absolutely clear-cut, picking some number as a threshold is still a subjective preference. One doesn't sound like enough, three seems too demanding... One can measure volume with a scientific instrument, but Goldilocks' favorite size of porridge bowl is a matter of taste, not a law of nature. Second, we can and do argue over "independence" and "reliability", and the best we manage is a consensus of those who show up.
The same goes for trying to put numbers to academic notability. Even if there were no ambiguity in computing an h-index, for example, the question of where to draw the line is always going to be a judgment call. And digging a level deeper, it turns out that there is ambiguity in how to compute an h-index. Scopus will give a different number than Google Scholar because the corpus of the latter is less restrictive. There will always be fuzz in citation profiles, cases where reasonable people can differ about what should be counted and how. The answers may even vary from one field to another. Drawing a hard numerical line may provide a comforting illusion of objectivity, but it is not feasible. XOR'easter (talk) 01:29, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
Requiring two independent reliable sources is absolutely objective, at the SNG level. “Reliable” is rarely controversial for databases. “Independent” might get tricky. AfD can decide.
H-index is simple and straightforward. SCOPUS and google scholar give slightly lower and higher numbers, but they never flip from 20 to 40. Numerical lines make it easy to reject PhD graduates self promotion as meeting NPROF, no call for “hard” lines, except two sources is a big step beyond one source. SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:46, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
Requiring all articles to have titles that include the letters "s" and j" is absolutely objective, and absolutely meaningless for whether the result will be encyclopedic. Your numerology is of a similar type. The fact that you can quantify something does not make that quantification a useful thing to do. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:54, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
The difference between a single source and two sources is not numerology. SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:03, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
No, I wouldn't call it numerology, but it does suggest that two weak sources are better than one stellar one, which is IMO not a good tradeoff.
Also, you say above that you are looking for "some bare minimum of content". Does this mean that you want notability to be determined by what's already been typed into the article, rather than what sources are available in the real world?
If an example would help, look at User:WhatamIdoing/Database article. There's one inline citation and one ==Further reading== source. Is that enough for you? Would one of those be enough for you? If none were typed on the page, would that be enough for you, since they obviously exist in the real world? WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:44, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
The source must have some bare minimum of content.
Entomocorus benjamini. Multiple source exist, so it would be a “keep” from me at AfD. I would WP:SLAP the nominator because multiple sources are easily found by a google search.
Your database article, on its face, would fail. It needs improvement not deletion or redirection (upmerging). Luckily we have WP:BEFORE, and I wish that following was mandatory.
It fails because the further reading “source” doesn’t mention the fish by name. This further reading source, if it did mention the fish by name, is slightly complicated by it being a Wikipedia article, which for me means having to check that the mention is in one of that article’s references.
So, its two independent reliable sources must exist. And I am happy for NSPECIES to go soft, explicitly, on requiring secondary sources, and on the amount of content in the sources, especially the lesser source.
Also, I happen to be in the camp of “all extant animal and plant species are presumed notable”. Challenging examples will be single celled eukaryotes, such as a species of yeast or algae named in only a single scientific paper. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:41, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
I don't understand part of this comment.

the further reading “source” doesn’t mention the fish by name. This further reading source, if it did mention the fish by name, is slightly complicated by it being a Wikipedia article, which for me means having to check that the mention is in one of that article’s references.

The further reading definitely mentions the fish by name, and isn't a Wikipedia article at all. Are we looking at the same thing? Cremastra (talk) 23:34, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
The ==Further reading== source is a paper published in a notable peer-reviewed academic journal article (volume 11, pages 398 through 404, just like it says). WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:56, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
Oh dear, my apologies. I took the wikipedia article Carl H. Eigenmann to be the further reading. SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:59, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
WAID’s example is enough for me. The further reading is a valid source. SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:01, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
Under this proposal, in order for a supposed species to be recognized as notable, someone has to describe it and differentiate it from other species, publish the description in proper form, and expert(s) have to agree that the first person did in fact find and describe a new species that is different from other species (which they might do by accepting that species in the database that they control). I feel that those conditions address both the verifiability and the independent confirmation of the species. It sounds like you're unhappy with the proposal in part because it doesn't give actionable guidance to new page patrollers, who won't necessarily understand the subtleties of "taxonomic acceptance"; is that something you'd like to see addressed? Choess (talk) 01:40, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
You are describing GNG-compliance.
The only occurrence of “describe” on the project page is non applicable to what you’re saying. I do not find “differentiate” anywhere on the project page. It sound like you’re reading way beyond what the proposal actual is. Do you read “significant description” as “describe it and differentiate …”, including the part about “expert(s)”??
Yes, I am not approving of an SNG that doesn’t give actionable guidance to non experts (AfC, NPP, AfD). SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:58, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
It sounds to me like your statement could be shortened: you would not approve any SNG. Because what you want is GNG and GNG only, and there is no point in having an SNG that merely repeats GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:37, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
I would approve of this SNG if it held to 2RS, and if it listed the relevant authoritative databases, and if it were rewritten in a style that reads as useful to the non expert to assess whether a new article complies. It is currently way too brief, bordering devoid of useful content.
The GNG does give the usual standard for inclusion. I approve of NPROF. All other SNGs I read as predictors of GNG compliance.
Approving this SNG would be a big thing, documenting that species do not require GNG compliance. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:50, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
Do you think that a database entry in a "relevant authoritative database" counts as one of the "2RS" that you would like? WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:58, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
Maybe, leaning “yes”. But not if the database automatically includes the entry on the basis of a single report, and that single report is the first RS. That would not be independent. SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:56, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
So given a situation in which:
  • A paper is published in a scientific journal that provides a description of a (purported) new species. The description in the paper is sufficient for an expert to differentiate the new species from other known species: "Wikipedia wikiensienne is a species in the Wikipedia genus that is exactly like all the other Wikipedia species except that it has a unique..."
  • A designated committee of experts meets periodically and votes on which of recent publications should be accepted as valid species.
  • The committee (for this species) votes in favor: "Resolved, to accept Wikipedia wikiensienne in Noble order as a valid species, with the paper by WhatamIdoing 2024 for authority".
  • Someone (e.g., a staff member working for the committee) records this fact in a publicly accessible database. The ones the committee rejected do not get recorded (or perhaps they get recorded as having been rejected).
then you'd consider that to meet your 2RS goal? WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:56, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
Yes
- SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:37, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
And if the Wikipedia editor only looks at the database – but the database cites the original paper – that's still 2RS, right? WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:02, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
Please don’t ever tell editors that it’s technically acceptable that to not include the references because they only need to exist. Tell them to include the database, as a reference or as an external link. Please don’t expect that AFC and NPP reviewer will do their own searches to discover the existence of the minimal sourcing.
NB This is very weak “independence”, not nearly good enough for WP:CORP. SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:44, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
Please don’t ever tell editors that it’s technically acceptable that not include the references because they only need to exist. I have to agree with this one. Let's not encourage "but the sources are out there!" editing. If there are references out there to support notability – great! Put them in! I've always found the fact that we need a {{sources exist}} tag somewhat depressing. But this is a tangent away from the central discussion. Cremastra (talk) 14:37, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
I would rather see {{sources exist}} instead {{notability}}. Triage is helpful, even if spamming in a source or two would be much, much, much more helpful. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:29, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
I'm not the one telling them that sources only need to exist; WP:NEXIST is telling would-be deleters that. Also, if this gets adopted, I don't think that AFC and NPP folks need to do any searches at all. All the reviewer needs to know is that the article was accepted by the group named in the guideline, so it's presumed notable. Also, from their POV, nothing's changing. The (few, and 100% unsuccessful) attempts to delete articles covered by this proposal were not coming from AFC and NPP folks. Several of them came from editors who saw whingeing about how it's totally unfair that two-sentence species articles are accepted because they're just not that important, but experienced AFC and NPP folks seem to know what the community's standards are.
What I described in those bullet points above is the process used by ICTV. It is literally impossible – and I mean literally quite literally, as in "according to the letter of the regulations" – for a virus to be accepted by the ICTV without at least two reliable sources having been published. If there is acceptance by ICTV, then there are always two reliable sources. The existence of the chronologically later/ICTV acceptance proves the existence of the earlier/scholarly source.
So when you say that this whole virus thing is terrible, because we need 2RS, I'm left wondering whether you understand the proposal, because the proposal actually guarantees a minimum of 2RS. Those 2RS might not be separately listed in the Wikipedia article (which is its own problem), but the proposal guarantees that 2RS has been met in the real world for all covered viruses. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:23, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
For the record, what I do is monitor WP:NPPEASY#Unreviewed species articles. I check if the species has been accepted and is not a synonym of an existing article, then stub sort (if applicable) and add WikiProject tags, before marking as reviewed. There are quite a few NPP reviewers that do this so I don't think we're worried about this proposal (as it doesn't change anything). Species articles are usually reviewed within a few hours of creation. C F A 💬 16:34, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
“Species are an unwritten SNG. They are always kept at AFD, so you can assume they are notable. Make sure it's not a hoax by checking the species name on a website such as CoL.”
Assuming that the Catalogue of Life is a reliable authoritative database, Wikipedia:NPPEASY#Unreviewed species articles reads to me as ensuring WP:2RS. Allow for “hoax” to be read as “mistake” to the same effect. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:02, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
If the virus part implies 2RS, then why resist inclusion of it as a requirement?
Who (where) says the whole virus thing is terrible? SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:56, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
Because it's already there? The second paragraph says that there's always an academic paper. The virus section says that an academic paper isn't enough for viruses, and you need to have ICTV approval as well. I count real well up to two, and one academic paper plus one ICTV approval = two sources. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:43, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
I thought you were a proponent of clear and simple writing. You’re defending the text on the basis that it’s authors are able to decipher implications of simple principle like 2RS.
While the RfC WP:Soft protection is at work, should I take up another Kim Bruning suggestion, let’s set up a wiki to do edit proposals? Should I fork the project page to a subpage, where we can freely edit it make it clearly read what you say it says? Some time in the future, it can be history merged.
Or can we have the RfC point to a particular version in the history?
I’ve now read this talk page and archive from the start. This is a case of groupthink by the few main authors of the page, supported by some others with a noncritical wish that the SNG would just exist already. SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:36, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
I think this is actually clear and simple. If you have 2RS, but one of the two is not the ICTV, then this guideline is not for you. If you have the ICTV approval, then you have 2RS.
What it doesn't do is swear fealty to the principle of 2RS. It merely enforces it without professing it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:07, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
It is not clear.
ICTV? I’m not much concerned about the viruses. I’m more concerned about the single-celled eukaryotes.
When a new SNG discards requirements of significant content and secondary source content (de facto already done), it really should be clear that it does still hold to multiple independent reliable sources. “Profess” is a tad grandiose. SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:44, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
This is a case of groupthink by the few main authors of the page, supported by some others with a noncritical wish that the SNG would just exist already. This is an uncharitable and frankly unnecessary comment. Those who've supported this proposal have largely done so on the basis that it reflects existing practice. I appreciate your concerns about the proposal and all the feedback you've given, as I believe you are participating in good faith, but diminishing the intelligence of all the other editors involved in this discussion is entirely uncalled for. Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 04:37, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

{od}

The new SNG does not discard requirements of significant coverage in the sources. The new SNG requires significant coverage in an academic source.

Getting a species accepted requires a significant description in an academic source. Depending on the sub-field, there may be additional requirements (such as physically delivering the organism to a designated storage facility), but there is always a significant description. Ergo: If the species is accepted, then SIGCOV is always met.

This proposal requires the species to be accepted; therefore, it requires the existence of a significant description in an academic source. We could, if it would reassure you, write something like "This guideline requires SIGCOV. For the purposes of this subject area, SIGCOV is defined as the description that was used by the taxonomic authority to determine whether to accept it as a species. Note to AFC and NPP folks: No legitimate taxonomic authority accepts a species as valid without such a description being published in an academic source, but a lot of these are paywalled or otherwise difficult to access quickly, so a 100% reliable shortcut to finding out whether a significant description has been published is to find out whether the taxonomic authority has accepted the species."

Instead, we've summarized this without the jargon: This guideline uses the taxonomic acceptance of the species' name as a simple and practical indicator of the existence of published sources, because achieving a name accepted under the relevant nomenclature code requires, at minimum, a significant description to be published in a reputable academic publication. Note the pair of words that I highlighted for you.

WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:55, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

I’m repeating myself, but that’s a 46-word disguised-passive-voice sentence. It may be pleasing to its subject expert authors and jargon-free, but it’s textbook bad instruction. I hope it will be allowed to be made more accessible after the passing of the RfC. The longer version is convoluted with implied oblique referencing. It is not better. Try to make each sentence short, direct and actionable.
What is a definition of “significant description”? How does that compare with WP:100W?
- SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:21, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
Question, SmokeyJoe, would something like this meet what you would be looking for with WP:100W? Because that is an example of one of the shorter and abbreviated forms of description of a species in the scientific literature. At around 150 words, depending on how you count them, it should qualify as significant coverage, correct? SilverserenC 04:38, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
Yes, that would satisfy me.
However, whatever the measure, I would prefer it to replace the nebulous “significant” SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:21, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
A significant description is defined by the reliable sources. If it's not enough to do the job (which is determined by depth of detail, not a simplistic word count), the taxonomic authorities won't accept it. If the taxonomic authorities don't accept it (whether for inadequate description or any other reason), then this proposed SNG also doesn't accept it. That said, as an example, the original adoption of Alphalipothrixvirus beppuense (which was recently renamed, and is now alphabetically the first in the ICTV spreadsheet) was accompanied by about 900 words and five figures. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:44, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
Would you run with 150 words of description? SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:29, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
The example taxonomic description contains enough information to distinguish the species from other known members of the genus, which should be enough to count as significant description. Some species need more details, others may need less. For additional highly significant information on the species, the next higher taxon description can be added. Rinse and repeat until you reach the top level. That would be a full description of any species of living organism, and it has all been published and is theoretically available. This is enough to satisfy taxonomists that the species is unique, and could be considered the definitively significant information on the species. What more could be necessary if taxonomists consider this sufficient? All the rest is just the interesting stuff. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 11:18, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
How do we know that taxonomists consider these descriptions sufficient? There is no requirement for peer review or even publication in an academic source for an animal species to become a valid name in the ICZN. There is no evaluation of the scientific merit of a species designation until someone else publishes on it, but that is not required by this proposal at all. JoelleJay (talk) 23:30, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
That is true enough. Most people accept a description on the assumption that the author was competent and lucky enough to spot enough distinguishing features to write a workable description good enough for practical purposes within the state of the art at the time. There is always more that can be said, and often it is necessary to revise a description that has worked well enough so far but under further examination is no longer sufficient. This may occur several times, and a description is always open to review and possible revision as long as a type specimen is available. Where do we draw the line? Currently accepted/recognised species imply that at least some experts consider the description notable enough by their standards to include in their lists for now. We can indeed choose to stipulate a more stringent requirement for notability of an organism, but do we need to? If so, why do we need to? I would vastly prefer small amounts of content on a species to be included in an article providing some context, but sometimes there isn't one yet. At the least there should be a redirect for every registered valid name and an entry somewhere for every valid taxon which would be a target for the relevant redirects. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 10:41, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
There is no evaluation of the scientific merit of a species designation until someone else publishes on it Putting it on an official listing or database is publishing an evaluation of the scientific merit of a species designation. The relevant question for us is whether it is sufficient, which is also a question of whether we consider the list or database reliable. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 11:02, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
Putting it on an official listing or database is publishing an evaluation of the scientific merit of a species designation. Is it? The ICZN is regularly criticized because it explicitly does not evaluate the scientific merit of a species discovery when making a name available. And while the ICZN requires that names be published, as defined by the commission’s official Code, “publishing” doesn’t actually require peer-review. That definition leaves room for what few would call science: self-publishing. “You can print something in your basement and publish it and everyone in the world that follows the Code is bound to accept whatever it is you published, regardless of how you did so,” Doug Yanega, a Commissioner at the ICZN, told me. “No other field of science, other than taxonomy, is subject to allowing people to self-publish.” ... Vandals have zeroed in on the self-publishing loophole with great success. Yanega pointed to Trevor Hawkeswood, an Australia-based entomologist accused by some taxonomists of churning out species names that lack scientific merit. Hawkeswood publishes work in his own journal, Calodema, which he started in 2006 as editor and main contributor. ... Publications like these let bad science through, taxonomists say. According to them, vandals churn out names of so-called “new species” in their journals, often when the scientific evidence to support a discovery is lacking. And if the names are properly constructed and accompanied by characteristics that are “purported” to distinguish the species, they become valid under the Code. JoelleJay (talk) 16:52, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
I maintain that it is publishing, that it is an official opinion on the validity by default. You say it is often unreliable. This may be so. The two points are not mutually exclusive. We have to draw a line somewhere, and verifiability not truth is currently one of the lines we have drawn. I don't necessarily think it is a good one, but it may be the best we can get. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 07:58, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
Taxonomists and the ICZN itself unequivocally consider such "journals" to be self-published.
Wikipedia considers self-published sources to be unreliable unless they are by very well-regarded experts, which is not going to be the case for anyone who had to set up their own personal blog just to get published and certainly does not apply to anyone considered a taxonomic vandal. Verifiability requires publication in reliable sources, which means any details sourced to the original publication (i.e. pretty much everything needed for an article to be a stub) are by definition unverifiable. We have an ICZN commissioner stating that these sources are un-peer-reviewed glorified blogs and that the ICZN does not perform any evaluation of scientific merit before making a name "valid". We have dozens of actual academic articles discussing how this is a major problem in animal taxonomy and how it has resulted in literally thousands of unscientific "new species" cluttering taxonomic databases that can only be fixed if/when actual scientists independently publish on those species and choose to ignore the principle of priority (or, more often, discover the self-published species are actually messy junior synonyms).
What more evidence do you need that merely "having a valid name" is not remotely in line with Wikipedia policy? JoelleJay (talk) 18:13, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Comment - procedurally, any proposal to add new language specifying a minimum number of sources for articles in the domain of NSPECIES needs to be made after the SNG proposal RfC has been closed, one way or another. The implications of adding any such language depend on the nature of the close (i.e., whether we have a new SNG or not). Newimpartial (talk) 02:34, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

We really shouldn't change the RFC question at this point, but I don't think we have to stop talking about it. SmokeyJoe appears to have a genuine (if likely misplaced) concern that scientific descriptions of organisms might be too short to write an article about. Editors are also accustomed to seeing SNGs that use more Wikipedia jargon, so they might naturally be suspicious about whether an SNG written in ordinary English is trying to lower our inclusion standards. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:51, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
I’m more concerned that, despite your confidence that the convoluted high language text already implies it all, that someone will start creating species articles based on a single report that is scraped into a comprehensive database. While you seem very confident that this couldn’t happen for a virus, I am unconvinced that this generalises to all species of all kinds, and I want to lock in that the non existence of multiple independent sources is a good reason to delete a challenged species, whether a hoax, mistake, or fantasy. SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:27, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
So now you're saying that the original publication + an entry in the canonical database for its subject are not two sources? But above you said they were. Which is it? And for all your concern for objectivity, the meaning of the word "independent" is one of the least objective parts of GNG. Are the original publication + an entry in the canonical database independent of each other? Are a publication and another publication that confirms the species independent? Or can "independent" mean only its usual meaning for independent discovery in the academic literature, that two different groups of biologists working without knowledge of each other happened to find the same thing and that only after their two publications was it discovered that it really was the same thing? —David Eppstein (talk) 06:28, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
Which is it? One is a database curated by humans who decide to include a new species. The other is a database that scrapes data from the literature and includes everything. SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:52, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
Independence may be a challenge to agree on, but I think it’s important that any topic have two independent sources. SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:53, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
You’re asking good questions about independence. I think there are choices to make. For species, I support a generous interpretation, while for NCORP I support a harsh interpretation. But that’s a tuning question, when there isn’t agreement that one is not enough. SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:00, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
So now with this discussion of interpretations you agree that your earlier claim "Requiring two independent reliable sources is absolutely objective" is false? —David Eppstein (talk) 17:37, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
Yes. Requiring two independent reliable sources is absolutely objective, at the SNG level. “Reliable” is rarely controversial for databases. “Independent” might get tricky. AfD can decide was poorly written, especially if the first sentence is to be quoted in isolation.
Requiring two sources is objective. Two, not zero, not one. A new species should require a minimum of two sources.
These two sources should be independent and reliable. “Independent” and “reliable” may be debatable, not objective.
One source should be significant coverage, for which I would much prefer something objective. I would accept 100 or 150 words, and don’t want to argue with others who might want this to be tougher. I do not argue that the second source needs to have the same significant coverage. The second source only needs to verify the first, by which I mean, to be evidence that someone else has accepted the first source.
The big thing being dropped in this SNG is the usual requirement for sources to be secondary sources, the historiographical term. I support this dropping, unlike others on this talk page. SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:55, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
"Two sources" is objective, but "two independent sources" is not necessarily objective. But, as I feel like I have explained multiple times now, this proposal does require "two sources". The two required sources are:
  1. the original significant description of the species in the academic literature, and
  2. the published source proving that the species has been accepted by the relevant taxonomic authority (usually a database entry).
As I said above, I count real well up to two, and that's two sources. The existence of the second requires the publication of the first. Therefore, if the second exists, then at least two sources – (1) the original academic paper plus (2) the subsequent taxonomic acceptance – WP:NEXIST.
If you believe that you have found an instance of a species being accepted by a taxonomic authority without anyone first describing that species in a prior publication, please share that information with us.
If you believe that two sources isn't really two sources, then please explain how, e.g.
  1. An academic publication
  2. A database entry
    • Example: Froese, Rainer; Pauly, Daniel (eds.). "Entomocorus benjamini". FishBase. December 2011 version.
are just one source.
The points of subjective debate include:
  • whether those two are independent of each other;
  • whether the first is independent of the species (at least one editor has argued that the discovery of species is a self-promoting COI situation); and
  • whether the original field notebooks and the original academic publication are both primary sources ("MEDRS rules") or if the field notebooks are primary and the publication based on those original notes is secondary (original PSTS rules).
But none of those are about whether a century-old publication and a database entry are "one source". WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:59, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
If that’s what the SNG means, then why not have it state it plainly? Will you always be around to explain it? SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:19, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
Would you be happy if we added a sentence that said, "Just to reassure editors looking at this from a GNG mindset, if the taxonomic authority has accepted the species, then there are definitely at least two reliable sources"?
The rule as proposed requires not "any old two reliable sources", but a very specific "second" source. It is more restrictive than 2RS. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:27, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
Yes. NB I am already happy that on a thorough explanation, the SNG is not nearly as lax as I found it on my first few readings. And I would be very happy if it listed the authoritative or canonical databases, and helped me easily identify the opinions of taxonomists. SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:04, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
Can you please amend this blatantly false claim if the taxonomic authority has accepted the species, then there are definitely at least two reliable sources"? JoelleJay (talk) 23:34, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
To begin with, I think the taxonomic authority should be defined, on the SNG. SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:35, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
Could you please not describe another editor's arguments as blatantly false? Cremastra (talk) 22:36, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
Please show how the claim is false beyond reasonable doubt. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 10:01, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
I believe JoelleJay thinks she has already done that, repeatedly. If I were her, I think I'd be feeling extremely frustrated at this point – rather Cassandra-like, in fact. I doubt that there is any value in her repeating herself at this point. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:43, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
This may also be an instance where "reliable source" is used to mean "a source that is correct" or "a source that a particular editor accepts as reliable", rather than "a source the community regards as reliable for the claims that are sourced to it". Newimpartial (talk) 18:05, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
"Blatantly false" is a strong claim that should not go unchallenged. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 00:51, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
@Pbsouthwood, @Cremastra, see my comments today. The only criteria needed for the ICZN to deem a species name "valid" is for it to be "published" (and this explicitly includes un-peer-reviewed self-publication by amateurs who are widely considered vandals), follow standard binomial naming conventions, and merely purport to diagnose a new taxon. As I quote elsewhere: “As long as you create a name, state intention that the name is new, and provide just the vaguest description of a species, the name is valid”. There is no assessment by ICZN beyond that: “You can print something in your basement and publish it and everyone in the world that follows the Code is bound to accept whatever it is you published, regardless of how you did so. ... No other field of science, other than taxonomy, is subject to allowing people to self-publish.” That is a direct quote from an ICZN Commissioner.
A species sourced solely to someone's glorified blog and its listing on ZooBank would therefore meet NSPECIES, and since this proposal further encourages stub expansion through incorporating primary-sourced details on its characteristics, we could host substantial material written in wikivoice that is sourced solely to un-peer-reviewed, unscientific SPS. JoelleJay (talk) 18:01, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
A species sourced solely to someone's glorified blog and its listing on ZooBank would therefore meet NSPECIES No, it wouldn't. You're misrepresenting the proposal and you're misrepresenting the role of the ICZN. ZooBank is a database of published names, not a taxonomic authority, and is not sufficient taxonomic acceptance under this proposal. Interesting how you've decided to share a quote from this article[11] while ignoring the comments of another ICZN commissioner, @Dyanega, who has participated in this very discussion and says: For most taxonomic groups (but not all) there are online authority files, checklists, and catalogs. Some of these are effectively automated, and will include everything, regardless of its merit - e.g., GBIF. However, there are many such sources that are NOT automated, and are instead managed actively by taxonomic experts, and therefore ARE genuine authority files. None of Hoser's names is listed in any of the human-curated herpetological authority files or catalogs, because herpetologists universally boycott his names and do not recognize them as being validly published, despite their technically marginal compliance with the ICZN. [...] In a nutshell, and speaking as an ICZN Commissioner, I would endorse the rigorous enforcement of Wikipedia's "no self published sources" (with a potential cutoff around 1999) as a check against the thing you are worried about - that a bunch of species articles could be created referring to the effectively fictional names appearing in self-publishing authors' vanity publications. Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 02:53, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
Again, this proposal doesn't require anything beyond a name being valid according to the ICZN for a species to meet NSPECIES. The ICZN says The valid name of a taxon is the oldest available name applied to it, unless that name has been invalidated or another name is given precedence by any provision of the Code or by any ruling of the Commission. We have taxonomists explaining that that means an available name is valid until other taxonomists choose to boycott it in their own publications. I agree with Dr. Yanega that we should not accept self-published sources, but currently the proposal completely ignores the fact that a species can have a valid name without being reliably published. JoelleJay (talk) 18:27, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
SPS that the scientific community considers unreliable are obviously not reliable sources, but the ICZN still deems species published in them "valid" because the Code was created before self-publishing became easy and they haven't updated it.
“You can print something in your basement and publish it and everyone in the world that follows the Code is bound to accept whatever it is you published, regardless of how you did so,” Doug Yanega, a Commissioner at the ICZN, told me. “No other field of science, other than taxonomy, is subject to allowing people to self-publish.” ...
Vandals have zeroed in on the self-publishing loophole with great success. Yanega pointed to Trevor Hawkeswood, an Australia-based entomologist accused by some taxonomists of churning out species names that lack scientific merit. Hawkeswood publishes work in his own journal, Calodema, which he started in 2006 as editor and main contributor.
“He has his own journal with himself as the editor, publisher, and chief author,” Yanega says. “This is supposed to be science, but it’s a pile of publications that have no scientific merit.” (In response to questions about the legitimacy of his journal, Hawkeswood delivered a string of expletives directed towards his critics, and contended that Calodema has “heaps of merit.”) ...
Publications like these let bad science through, taxonomists say. According to them, vandals churn out names of so-called “new species” in their journals, often when the scientific evidence to support a discovery is lacking. And if the names are properly constructed and accompanied by characteristics that are “purported” to distinguish the species, they become valid under the Code. JoelleJay (talk) 17:02, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
Do you see anything in this proposal suggesting that a species is notable in the case where the publication proposing the species designation is regarded as unreliable or as vandalism? Because I don't.
Like all presumptions to notability, this one is rebuttable, and a demonstration that the species name has been proposed by and is solely used by a taxonomic vandal, would be an effective rebuttal of the presumption, IMO. Newimpartial (talk) 00:39, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
Well, Ray Hoser's taxonomic sins are legion, even if the names are deemed as accepted by the ICZN. By publishing in his own non-peer-reviewed journal, he has named over 2300 taxa in the last 25 years. The science behind these new species descriptions has been deemed insufficient at best and flat out incorrect in other cases. However, the scientific communities as reflected in their respective authoritative databases (yes, "databases" - but ones with editorial boards that review their entries) have decided not to accept such taxonomic vandalism.
His work also serves as a test case for the current concerns of our use of poorly supported (but technically "accepted") names as a basis for an article, or even a mention on (English) Wikipedia. Over the last week, I have reviewed over half all of Hoser's 1,339 published species names (A-J) and found only one name (Acanthophis wellsi) that has a corresponding Wikipedia article, or is even mentioned on the genus page. This is because Acanthophis wellsi is the only species (of the first 719 checked so far) that is also accepted by the Amphibian and Reptiles Project's preferred source, the Reptile Database. Most of Hoser's work is on reptiles, but there are also a fair number of frogs (checked against Amphibian Species of the World 6.2), and at least a few marsupials (checked against Mammal Species of the World - MSW3).
As I continue to go through the remaining published species names, I will find at least one other species (Pseudechis pailsei) that has a Wikipedia article and this species is also listed as accepted in the Reptile Database. Over the last week, I have reviewed all of Hoser's 1,337 published species names and found only three names (Acanthophis wellsi, Pailsus pailsei, and Pailsus rossignollii) that have a corresponding Wikipedia species article, or even mentioned in the Wikipedia genus article. This is because these three species are the only ones that are also accepted by the Amphibian and Reptiles Project's preferred taxonomic source, the Reptile Database. Most of Hoser's work is on reptiles, but there are also a fair number of frogs (checked against Amphibian Species of the World 6.2), a few marsupials and rodents (checked against Mammal Species of the World - MSW3), and even two species of fishes (checked against Fishbase ver. 06/2024).
The system as it currently stands works, and has worked well for us even in the face of perhaps the world's most prolific taxonomic vandal - Raymond Hoser. Loopy30 (talk) 01:41, 11 September 2024 (UTC) updated 22:52, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
@Loopy30, @Newimpartial, all this proposal says is All eukaryotic species that are accepted by taxonomists are presumed notable. Acceptance by taxonomists is proven by the existence of a correct name for plants, fungi, and algae, or a valid name (zoology) for animals and protozoa.
The ICZN allows self-published names to become "available", and these are considered "valid" unless and until the species is critically invalidated by other researchers publishing on it. The ICZN is not itself verifying that each available name actually corresponds to a novel species, or that its claimed characters or environmental/behavioral attributes are accurate (the costs would be insane if for every publication of a new species an ICZN rep traveled to wherever a type specimen had been deposited, or to wherever it was collected, to examine it themselves...).
I am concerned about what happens when a name from a self-pub is made available but no one else has commented on it yet, since such a name would be valid according to the ICZN. JoelleJay (talk) 18:49, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
If we don't put in an additional requirement of two independent sources, we don't need to explain to everyone what that requirement actually means. And if it's mostly redundant anyway, the net effect of not encumbering ourself with extra rules and extra explanations would be negligible. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:29, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
We can of course talk about anything we like on this Talk page, including things that we might want to do after the RfC closes. I just don't think this section can be in any way actionable until after a close. (I also, by the way, disagree that it’s important that any topic have two independent sources - a "principle" that already doesn't apply in such areas as NPROF and NGEO - but I don't think that disagreement is relevant until we either have, or don't have, an SNG.) Newimpartial (talk) 10:08, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
I’ll be amazed if someone can show me an NPROF-meeting page for which there is only one source.
For NSPECIES I think multiplicity (at least 2) in verification is particularly important because the report of a species (thinking a single-celled eukaryote) can easily be plain wrong. SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:45, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
Since many PROF articles are dependent on SELFPUB sources, and university websites (and other scholarly projects) are not independent of their employees (or participants), I think there are many policy-compliant NPROF articles that lack two independent sources. Some probably have none at all.
I don't actually disagree that a species article ought to have two sources and that one of these should be independent of the discoverer (which isn't at all what you're proposing, but it's the threshold I would propose). But I also think this whole discussion is premature. Newimpartial (talk) 11:04, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
I've been told repeatedly that zero independent sources is acceptable for most of NPROF, but usually they can come up with two non-independent sources, e.g., the prof's own webpage and an 'about the author' blurb in the back of their book. Also, see Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 194#c-WhatamIdoing-20240628182400-Horse Eye's Back-20240628172600 because someone asked that question just a few weeks ago.
@SmokeyJoe, you've repeatedly implied on this page that single-cell eukaryotes are more likely to be misidentified than single-cell prokaryotes. Can you explain why you think someone's more likely to misidentify a species of protozoa than a species of bacteria? I'm wondering if the "eukaryotes" is a red herring, and your real concern is about microbes vs species visible to the naked eye. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:30, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
“repeatedly implied on this page that single-cell eukaryotes are more likely to be misidentified than single-cell prokaryotes”? I thought I had steadfastly avoided making such comment. SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:25, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
That sounds like a pretty specific and significant concern with single-celled eukaryotes. Yeasts and algae are usually easy to handle in the lab than prokaryotes. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:36, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
Have you ever tried culturing protozoa? SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:40, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
Only under supervision. I've also been disinvited from a friend's lab because I like to bake bread. She did human cell cultures and had spent the previous six months decontaminating her incubators after a summer intern got some yeast into them. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:46, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
I have hesitantly implied that challenges lie with microbes not visible to the eye, especially when you reply with confidence about virus species. I have interest, not expertise, in microbes that live in symbiosis with other microbes, and involves DNA being shared across species within their ecosystem, which confounds reliability of sequence analyses as the method for defining species. In this field, single reports are not to be relied upon. SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:34, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
Then you should be worried about prokaryotes instead of eukaryotes, except that the taxonomic authority did all the worrying for you decades ago, and they solved the problem by not accepting prokaryotes that can't be grown in the lab well enough to provide two official depositories with a live, cultured type strain. They don't accept prokaryotes allegedly identified via DNA sequence. The net result is that most prokaryotes that exist in the world aren't accepted by the ICPN, and therefore also aren't accepted by this proposed SNG. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:41, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
In my limited circles, I feel I see more signs of overexcitement over supposedly new single-celled eukaryotes. It might be because they lend themselves to more dramatic images and cartoons. SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:08, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
On NPROF, digressing because I have been fascinated by it for 17 years, my conclusion is that it should be viewed at a predictor of whether the topic will meet the GNG and then that it will pass AfD if challenged. There is some limited circularity in that. For academics, articles are not really about the person, but about their research, and “independence” is complicated. SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:39, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
I've heard the story that it's "really" about their research, but the older discussions say that they created these rules because universities won't ever lie about their employees, and each (notable) person's research work is so important to the world, and yet so uncovered by the world, that eliminating the requirement for independent sources is the only "fair" way for important academics to get their fair share of Wikipedia articles. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:50, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

No action until after the RFC on the guideline is completed We certainly can't modify it now. This doesn't rely on it having some type of protection. This is because it IS the RFC, and you can't modify an RFC proposal in the middle of the RFC. It's fine to have any general discussion about possible future changes, but for me personally I'd rather wait until after the RFC to comment on any proposed changes and I'm guessing that many others are also holding back until then. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:13, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

  • I agree in principle with North8000, but since this discussion is happening (even though it should not impact the existing RfC) I'll give my 2 cents. Although I support the existing RfC, I could support this modification, as long as the 2nd source is to validate that the species is accepted by more than just the original describer, which would include reliable databases. Rlendog (talk) 14:08, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
    I pretty much agree with you, but I just want to point out that this second source requirement (at least, as you interpret it - others in this discussion do not consider reliable databases suitable for this purpose) already exists within this guideline: for a species to be given the presumption of notablity under this guideline it must be accepted by the relevant international body of taxonomists, which will almost always come in the form of being listed as accepted in a curated database like World Flora Online or World Register of Marine Species. So if you take the view that reliable databases are suitable to fulfil this second source requirement, a two source requirement is already part of the guideline. Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 02:33, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
    I have also tried to make this point, but am not sure that it was correctly understood. Cheers · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 10:46, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
    According to the proposal, the only criterion needed for an animal to meet NSPECIES is for its name to be "valid" according to the ICZN. But becoming a "valid name" does not reflect taxonomic acceptance by anyone other than the source authors. It does not require the species to have been published in a reliable source. It explicitly does not involve any evaluation of scientific merit whatsoever: if the names are properly constructed and accompanied by characteristics that are “purported” to distinguish the species, they become valid under the Code. “As long as you create a name, state intention that the name is new, and provide just the vaguest description of a species, the name is valid,” Scherz says. JoelleJay (talk) 17:16, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
    That's not what the proposal says. The proposal is about species, not names. I have explained this distinction to you already and yet you're continuing to push this completely falsified strawman narrative in which this proposal expect Wikipedia articles be created for every single name ever validly published. Either you still don't understand the role and function of the ICZN, or you are deliberately misrepresenting it and this proposal. Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 02:36, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
    I don't think that's fair. I think she has concerns and is trying to convince us that the proposal needs to be improved. Perhaps later we'll decide to add a footnote that says something like "BTW, just to be extremely clear, this doesn't include anything by anyone who's been called a taxonomic vandal unless it passes GNG". In the meantime, it's not actually necessary for everyone to agree. It's 100% okay if she has a different opinion. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:01, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
    I'm not concerned about differences in opinion on whether this proposal is good or bad, but I am concerned about the misrepresentations that risk misleading editors trying to read this discussion. [T]he only criterion needed for an animal to meet NSPECIES is for its name to be "valid" according to the ICZN is pretty obviously inaccurate. Taxonomic acceptance and nomenclatural validity are different things: names accepted by the ICZN/ICNafp are not the same as accepted species. Nomenclaturally valid synonyms aren't considered independently notable now, and the guideline doesn't change that. I and others have already clarified this distinction to JoelleJay: she has ignored these comments and continued to make the same claims.
    I don't think a footnote of that nature is really necessary - a name that is not accepted by the relevant taxonomic authority is already presumed non-notable under the guideline as written. I do think we should develop a small amendment to explain the difference between taxonomic acceptance and nomenclatural validity (the guideline already says Consider making appropriate redirects for synonyms, which gives us a starting point to expand upon). This isn't a problem now (see Loopy30's comment above re: Hoser's names), and I don't think it is going to be a problem under this guideline, but it won't hurt to make it crystal clear. I don't think it's realistic to expect the guideline to provide a comprehensive list of sources one can use to determine taxonomic acceptance for all groups, but I do think we can give examples of sources we consider insufficient for this purpose: GBIF, ZooBank, and IPNI are the ones that come to mind right now. Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 04:30, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
    This proposal literally says All eukaryotic species that are accepted by taxonomists are presumed notable. Acceptance by taxonomists is proven by the existence of ... a valid name for animals and protozoa. Valid name (zoology) states this is under the exclusive purview of the ICZN. Where are you getting that this proposal requires more than the valid name to establish "taxonomic acceptance"? JoelleJay (talk) 17:49, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
    I think I'm starting to see why your argument makes no sense to me - you've misunderstood the difference between available names/validly published names (names that are nomenclaturally valid under the corresponding code) and valid name (zoology)/correct name (names that are accepted as the "true" name for a given taxon), and you've misunderstood how we decide the "true" name of a taxon. The guideline uses the term "valid name" to refer to the "true" name of a species, not in the sense of nomenclatural validity, which is why it links to valid name (zoology)/correct name and not available name/validly published name. A single taxon can have many nomenclaturally valid synonyms (available/validly published names), but (excluding situations in which there are taxonomic disagreements) only one of those names is considered the valid/correct name for that taxon. The ICZN/ICNafp set out the rules for how we determine which name is the "true" name, but they don't decide which name is the right one for a particular taxon - there is no master list of valid/correct names published by the ICZN/ICNafp. The valid/correct name for a taxon changes as taxonomist propose new names and combinations, it is not solely decided by the commissioners of the ICZN/ICNafp. You say Valid name (zoology) states this is under the exclusive purview of the ICZN but this is not accurate: what the article says is that A name can only be valid (or invalid) when it is an available name under the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (ICZN), that is, that a name must at minimum meet the nomenclatural rules of the ICZN to be considered valid, not that the ICZN directly decides which name is the valid name for a taxon, or that all nomenclaturally valid names are the valid name for a taxon. Does this make more sense? Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 03:52, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
    I understand what a valid name is. How it is to be determined that an available name is not (yet?) valid is what I am trying to get people to explain -- that's why I asked Dyanega about situations where, per the standards set by the code, a species would achieve a "valid name" through its use in multiple self-published papers, or multiple papers by the same author. Even if the wider taxonomic community would boycott that name on principle, if they aren't publishing anything on that taxon at all then the only things we have to go on are those self-published/non-independent papers and the name's availability. Nothing in the Code suggests that such a name couldn't be valid. What this proposal is conflating is the ICZN definition of "valid name" and the unstated criterion of "being listed in certain curated databases" that some taxonomists/Wikipedians apparently use as proof of a valid name. Nowhere in the ICZN Code can I find anything saying that having a name accepted in a database is the only way to demonstrate that a valid name exists. The issue is compounded by misleading and inaccurate wording in this proposal like because achieving a name accepted under the relevant nomenclature code requires, at minimum, a significant description to be published in a reputable academic publication, which will absolutely be read as "the nomenclatural code is the direct arbiter of name acceptance" and "name availability + not invalid is equivalent to acceptance" rather than "for animal species, you have to figure out for yourself whether a name would be accepted given the rules in the Code" or "for animal species, you can assume that a listing in CERTAIN databases demonstrates that a name is accepted and taxonomically valid". JoelleJay (talk) 17:42, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
    These are good points, and we need to address them in any guidance. Do you have any reasonably practicable suggestions that are likely to work for the average editor without being excessively or unnecessarily restrictive most of the time, since as far as I can tell these problems are only relevant to a small minority of species. Do we try to keep these few problem cases out by making it more difficult for the simple cases, or do we get rid of them after they exist as and when we find them, which is already a standard procedure? Or something else? · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 06:58, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
    We can provide a list of databases whose designation of "valid species" we consider proof of taxonomic acceptance. This would need to be achieved by consensus in CENT-listed RfCs, ideally on RSN. A good criterion for database inclusion would be basically universal citation of 2+ peer-reviewed academic publications before listing a species as "valid".
    For taxa that are not covered by these databases, to demonstrate taxonomic acceptance we can require coverage by multiple independent academic reliable sources that do not include databases (unless curators also publish detailed secondary coverage of the species that do not just repeat claims of the primary sources). My impression is that this issue may apply to all animal species -- I only looked at the Mollusca database because it was brought up somewhere upthread, and almost immediately found the problems with Thach and Poppe. I suspect there may be similar problems in other databases.
    I appreciate your taking the time to consider my points. Lately it has felt like no one is even reading what I say. JoelleJay (talk) 20:03, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

As a note, many folks are waiting on this until after the main RFC is decided. For me step one will be tryng to learn more because I'm not one of the small fraction of editors who is knowlegable on the scientific details being discussed. May I suggest that you folks who are knowlegable to discuss to figure out what exactly a proposal would be? North8000 (talk) 18:39, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Putting aside the fact that I don't really think an amendment to add more stringent sourcing requirements is particularly necessary, there are a few issues we need to tease out here:
  1. Would this requirement retroactively apply to existing articles, or just to new articles going forward?
  2. What two sources are sufficient? Do they both have to be secondary sources? Is the original description (reliably published, presumably) and an entry in a reputable database like FishBase or Plants of the World Online sufficient, or do we want two sources in addition to the initial description? Are entries in reputable databases acceptable for this purpose at all?
  3. How is such a requirement to be enforced? Would new page patrollers be expected to reject/draftify new species articles with less than two(/three, depending on how we answer point #2) sources? Would existing articles that do not meet this requirement be taken to AfD?
There's a fair bit to consider before even beginning to draft up an additional proposal, but I'm interested to hear everyone's thoughts. Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 05:15, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
Perhaps a place to start is what we hope to achieve here.
  • Are we trying to allow an article on any species that is recognised as currently valid by some form of recognised "authority"? If so, how do we identify such authorities for recognition? If not, what reasonably practicable method do we propose to sort the articles we want from the ones we don't want?
  • Assuming that we can come to some working agreement on what counts as a secondary source in this context, how many do we actually need?
  • Are we trying to make it easier, or more difficult to create large numbers of minimally useful articles as stand-alone articles? It is the elephant in the room for some, or do we not consider that within the scope of these discussions. Do we prefer to have the information within a higher taxon article, with or without a redirect, and is it more important or useful to encourage creation of stand-alone article or have some context provided
· · · Peter Southwood (talk): 15:44, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
Despite the lack of objectivity, I do think we are hoping to discourage the creation (bulk or otherwise) of articles that refer to entities not accepted by the taxonomic community as valid. That means that Wikipedia would not accept species described from self-published sources (as noted, of Hoser's >2300 boycotted names, only 2 appear in Wikipedia; other self-publishers are not generally being rejected, however), and should not consider evidence of validity based on untrustworthy aggregators like GBIF, ITIS, IPNI, EoL, ZooBank, or BioLib. That's very subjective, but it's fair; anyone who, like myself, literally works every day with taxonomic authority files, can provide hundreds to thousands of data points of names in these sources that are not valid despite claiming to be. There are very few very large and comprehensive sources that are actively and carefully human-curated to keep the cruft out, with IRMNG being the best one I am aware of. WoRMS and the PBDB are also generally very good, but have a higher proportion of errors and many, many more omissions. Then come various taxon-specific resources, intensively curated by authorities in their disciplines, like the Reptile Database, numerous SpeciesFile pages, and more. All of these are, without question, vastly superior as secondary sources to aggregators like GBIF, ITIS, IPNI, EoL, ZooBank, or BioLib. Can I reduce the criteria for a notable article to a simple set of purely objective parameters? Not really, though the best proverbial stab at it I can offer is (1) a primary reference that is not self-published, and (2) one secondary source that is NOT an aggregator. Dyanega (talk) 21:33, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
@Dyanega, what are the ICZN requirements to be a "valid name"? The proposed guideline states that taxonomic acceptance is proven by the existence of a valid name--that's it. If a name is available and there is no obvious, prima facie evidence that it is a junior synonym, then by my reading of the Code and the statement by Scherz As long as you create a name, state intention that the name is new, and provide just the vaguest description of a species, the name is valid, it is considered valid by the ICZN until determined otherwise, even if self-published; in fact, even if the article is retracted. So if no one has published anything boycotting that name or describing species that could be synonymous, then it cannot be objectively or subjectively invalid/rejected; and if there is no comprehensive database distinguishing potentially valid from valid-through-independent-use names, how can anyone discern that something available is not a "valid name"? Especially if the same author (or even a different author) uses that name in different self-published papers/books, in which case surely it would be considered "valid" as the correct name of a taxon in an author's taxonomic judgment despite no reliable sources existing on it.
Earlier I provided some examples of species whose names were listed as "accepted" in the mollusk database despite being sourceable strictly to "journals" that by Wiki standards would absolutely be considered self-published (in-house publications with no info on editorial policy or even existence of editors, let alone peer review). The COI editor in that case has created hundreds of taxonomy articles on species he discovered... JoelleJay (talk) 00:56, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
We shouldn't change the wording right now, because I'd be open to changing the word "proven" to something else. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:46, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
What's the problem with species whose names were listed as "accepted" in the mollusk database despite being sourceable strictly to "journals" that by Wiki standards would absolutely be considered self-published? For starters, high quality species descriptions are frequently published in what are considered "bad sources" by Wikipedia standards, but even so, MolluscaBase is a reputable database run by the Flanders Marine Institute and staffed by mollusc experts. Purported new species don't just get added to MolluscaBase automatically with 0 human oversight - in the example you gave, we can see that the entry[12] was reviewed by two experts, Philippe Bouchet and Bastien Tran from the Muséum national d'histoire naturelle. Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 05:03, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
The ICZN has no requirements at all for validity (ignoring homonyms for the moment), only availability. Validity is a taxonomic decision, and entirely subjective, while availability is nomenclatural, and objective. That's what makes it possible to "adjudicate" ICZN-related issues using a fixed and accepted set of rules. There are no rules for what is or isn't a species, or what is or isn't a synonym, or what is or isn't fraudulent taxonomy. The taxonomic community makes those decisions. This is why I and others repeatedly point out that Wikipedia has higher standards than the ICZN (and others Codes, to be accurate): because the ICZN treats even Ray Hoser's publications as available works, when the entire herpetological community, and Wikipedia, rejects all of his publications. Self-publishing botanists, self-publishing ornithologists, self-publishing lepidopterists, are not treated differently by the nomenclatural Codes (lepidopterists in fact reject many rules in the ICZN), but Wikipedia has a policy which can be used to justifiably reject these names, just as the taxonomic community has the option to reject these names. As Ethmostigmus points out, a self-publishing malacologist does not get a "free pass" into MolluscaBase; even if their names are available, the experts at MolluscaBase are the ones who decide whether or not to treat them as valid. That's why MolluscaBase is a reliable source, while GBIF is not, and why the mere act of publishing does not make a name valid. There are also Wikipedia policies like WP:UNDUE which mirror how the taxonomic community makes decisions; Wikipedia keeps crackpots from overwhelming the site by making it clear that minority viewpoints can be mentioned, but if the consensus opinion is that a minority viewpoint is not accepted, then that viewpoint is not given equal weight in Wikipedia. So, to return to that example, the consensus opinion is that a name published by Ray Hoser is not to be taken seriously, and not given equal weight compared to names published by other herpetologists. It's admittedly difficult to tell what sources the taxonomic community considers reliable versus not, but it isn't impossible. Dyanega (talk) 14:42, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
@Dyanega, firstly, the proposed guideline already directly flouts our policy on primary sources (which explicitly includes the findings in scientific research articles) and BALASP/UNDUE, and our guidelines on notability (which require independence and secondary coverage), so why should editors assume it doesn't flout our policies on reliable sources? Especially when the ICZN and these "reliable" databases accept obviously self-published papers?
Secondly, statements in the proposal like because achieving a name accepted under the relevant nomenclature code requires, at minimum, a significant description to be published in a reputable academic publication are completely at odds with the published guidance (and apparently the reality) of taxonomic acceptance: we are specifically asked to assess species validity using the rules in the nomenclatural code, with zero indication that anything beyond that will be necessary, but nowhere in the ICZN Code is there instruction on the vague and inconsistent practice of taxonomists generally ignoring self-published reports, nor is there anything about name validity being tied to listing on other taxonomic databases. Per the proposal, it would be acceptable to consider something as having a "valid name" based strictly on its use in one or two unreliable self-published reports, as that would satisfy the ICZN definition of validity (and would satisfy some databases!). We would then be encouraged to expand our article on this species using information only available in those self-published sources. Even if an editor did intend to apply RS policy, they would have no reason to believe that those sources weren't RS because this proposal asserts as absolute fact that it would be impossible for those sources to not be reputable academic publications.
It also does not matter what the general practice of the "taxonomic community" is if that practice neither exists as published guidance nor is formally or consistently enforced. We can't enshrine the unstated attitudes of some members of a niche group into our PAGs, especially when the guidance itself would be wholly implicit. JoelleJay (talk) 18:40, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
So it would be ok under this proposal to have an article exclusively based on and sourceable to the minimal information in the database, because two curators considered the taxonomic claims in a self-published journal by a pharmacist and the owner of a shell-selling company (and the journal) and a followup personal communication from the pharmacist to constitute "taxonomic acceptance"? Noting that the database says We aim to provide comprehensive information strictly based on the most recent literature. Hence, MolluscaBase does not represent the individual editor’s personal opinion. We have zero indication that the scientific merit of a species description is assessed when deeming something a valid name; rather, the extent of editorial discretion is evaluating whether documentation of the name meets the very low standard of acceptable under the provisions of the Code and ... which is the correct name of a taxon in an author's taxonomic judgment. We do know that the content in the database is wholly primary, as we are assured none of it reflects the opinions of curators and certainly there is no secondary analysis to summarize. So at the very best, designation of a valid name by this database is still less stringent than a research paper not getting desk-rejected by a journal editor.
This is the standard for a purportedly scientific topic to achieve automatic, inherent notability (because let's be real, meeting NSPECIES is treated as irrebuttable by species project members), with merge and redirect being a remote best possible outcome? JoelleJay (talk) 19:34, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
JoelleJay, who are you trying to convince here? Positions are entrenched, and at this point neither of you are going to convince the other of anything. Everyone needs to leave the poor horse alone. Cremastra (talk) 19:40, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
I agree with Cremastra. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:41, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
I want the implications of this proposal to be made crystal-clear. If others disagree with my characterization then I want to know where my interpretation went wrong. And if supporters see no problem with this characterization then that needs to be recorded too. Certainly if people are going to berate me and demand evidence for my stating that assertions in the proposal like achieving a name accepted under the relevant nomenclature code requires, at minimum, a significant description to be published in a reputable academic publication are "blatantly incorrect", they should actually respond with why they reject my multiple examples of species with "valid names" sourced entirely to unreliable self-publications (here's another one, published in 2021 through 48HRBooks, by someone who was the subject of a 2020 peer-reviewed article that calls his work taxonomic vandalism in its title). JoelleJay (talk) 20:11, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
I would point out here that the WP:SATISFY principle suggests that other editors aren't under any obligation to explain to anyone what implications of this proposal they interpret differently. In fact, offering such "explanations" is seldom seen as a best practice onwiki, at least in my experience. Newimpartial (talk) 20:27, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
And for more evidence that for Mollusca a single publication that merely meets name availability standards is automatically sufficient for a species to have a valid name, and this lasts until specifically proven otherwise:
12345 and definitely many many more listed as valid among the 211 other taxa in the database citing that 2021 48HRBooks book and the 227 taxa citing a 2020 48HRBooks book;
109 and 147 taxa respectively citing the "June 2017" (date is apparently uncertain) and "December 2018" (date is according to a personal communication) 48HRBooks books that a) were the sources of many of the 235 taxa shredded by Pall-Gergely et al in 2020, including many 12 currently listed as accepted (valid) (they were only mentioned as "no comment" in the 2020 paper) and added to the database in August 2017 alongside many 1 of the taxa that were explicitly called out as vandalism in 2020 and subsequently had their "accepted" status changed to "uncertain", and b) species whose statuses are uncertain only because different 48HRBooks by Thach are dueling over their possible synonymy 1;
this species that was added by curator Pall-Gergely in February 2022 sourced to a February 2022 article by Pall-Gergely.
That is a tiny selection of examples related to just one malacologist whose work was eventually noticed by other researchers; how many other single-document (let alone self-published) taxa are uncritically added to and listed as having valid names on this database alone? How many other databases employ similar standards for name validation? JoelleJay (talk) 21:36, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Redirects from species to genus "Strongly discouraged" according to Rcat.

Somewhat tangential, but related. See discussion at Template talk:R from species to genus#What consensus?, which has been edited recently (Revision as of 23:39, 29 July 2024 ) to categorically state Note that the practice of creating redirects from species names that could be an article is strongly discouraged based on outcomes at RfD, which they have deemed to be consensus. This seems a bit of a self-fulfilling prophecy, and it is not made clear how broad this consensus actually is. If anything, this is likely to encourage creation of species sub-stubs as redirects are now more likely to be deleted. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 05:31, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

I believe that avoiding such redirects is a widespread practice for extant species, and that the main practical reason for it is to avoid accidental WP:SELFLINKing. A typical genus article says "Genus is a family with 10 species" and then has a bullet list of the named species – all of which are linked. If you create the redirects, then it looks like those species each have articles, but when the reader clicks on them, they'll get redirected back to the same page, which is confusing and frustrating. So if we don't create those redirects, then nobody will accidentally self-link to them. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:30, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
That is a fair point · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 17:25, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
Maybe we need a way to highlight self links. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 17:38, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
Unless they link to a specific section, self-links don't appear as links on the target article. They become bold. Redirects to section-specific self-links are widespread in every topic, it's kind of annoying but really not a big deal and certainly not unique to species. JoelleJay (talk) 19:35, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
That's not quite right. See this test edit as an example. WT:MED is a redirect to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine. If you link to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine on that page, it'll turn up in bold. If you link to WT:MED (=the redirect), it looks like a normal link. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:22, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
Or maybe they should work like soft redirects. Anyway its getting a bit late for clear thinking. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 17:44, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
That's just a problem with section-specific linking in general. Every other redirected topic has to deal with this, why is it such a big deal for species? Just make the guidance on genus pages clearer that links should only be added if they go to separate pages. JoelleJay (talk) 19:28, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
It is a big deal for species articles as there are huge number of existing genus articles which are just a list of linked species names. If the only content on the article is a circular blue link, that's just creating disappointment for readers. The redirect not being an issue for fossil-genera is likely because the default base developed page in those cases is the genus articles, and thus encountering a list of links is less likely. If the genus articles were not a list of links (and to clarify not all are, it's just a wide pattern), the species redirects would not cause such an issue. CMD (talk) 08:05, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
These redirects are circular links are generally unhelpful. RfD discussions have found consensus to delete them. Cremastra (talk) 21:09, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
I'm a little confused: how often does this happen outside of genera that contain only a single species? For monotypic genera, redirecting from the species to the genus seems perfectly reasonable, and not something to be "strongly discouraged". Surely that distinction can be drawn with this policy? Dyanega (talk) 21:39, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
Merging species to genera is recommended by Wikipedia:WikiProject Dinosaurs#Which articles should be created for fossil-only genera and by approximately everyone for monotypic genera (though I'm not sure that it's consistently species being redirected to the genus; it might be the other way around). WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:59, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
For monotypic genera, it makes total sense. But for others, it doesn't. See this RfD discussion which snowed. Cremastra (talk) 22:48, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
Is the basic problem with circular links? There are two places the circle can be broke, by removing the redirect, and by removing the target link. Which serves the reader best? Some will probably claim that the red link in the list encourages people to create an article. Does it really? I have never seen statistically plausible evidence supporting the claim, but this may exist, · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 07:44, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
This does seem a rather odd convention. Everywhere else on the project we avoid circular links by... not making circular links. Isn't it more important that readers clicking on Genus noarticlii hit a relevant page instead of a red link? – Joe (talk) 08:12, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
One effect of creating the redirect is that it strongly discourages the creation of a proper article on the subject, because people don't notice that there is no article on the subject. Is that discouragement intended? —David Eppstein (talk) 11:41, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
A good point, but I think it applies to any {{R with possibilities}}, not just species? – Joe (talk) 13:05, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
There are many subtopics that could potentially be be expanded to stand-alone articles, but would first have to be proved notable, which can be a lot of work when the sources that would show notability are inaccessible or not known to the editor, yet are still encyclopedic subjects and are described in a section of an established article which both provides information useful to the reader and context for the subtopic, and in some cases the subtopic may be fairly well covered already, where a redirect to a section or anchor is plausibly adequate for the non-specialist. Some such sections may be several hundred words long, with subsections which could also plausibly become stand-alone articles some day. Redirects for these topics are very useful to the reader. This path of development is more likely in technology and engineering, and probably in biology, physiology and medicine too. Does this method of growing subsections and splitting them out when useful discourage or prevent articles being created as is claimed for species? I have not noticed this to be a problem. Taxonomy seems to be a special case because of its tree structure which encourages being represented by smaller more specific articles, which often start as stubs and linger there. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 05:33, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
I agree that species articles, on average, are shorter than the typical non-species article. In fact, a lot of them have only one or two sentences. One the other hand, more than 10% of Wikipedia's articles have only one or two sentences. But: Is it actually a problem if an article has two sentences of prose (plus whatever other elements aren't prose: image, infobox, refs, external links, lists, etc.), forever? WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:00, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
Yes. Due to Wikipedia's dominance of search engine results, such articles waste the time of readers looking for information on the topic. CMD (talk) 06:05, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
That is an important question, for which we need an objective answer. Currently we seem to have a range of opinions, but no good data. One would think someone at WMF would look at the problem and try to come up with some unbiased advice, or an independent researcher could try to work out an answer. Chipmunkdavis, do you have any research or data to support your claim? I suspect there is truth in it, but have no idea how important it is. Do the search engines take redirects into account? Cheers · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 06:18, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
I haven't thought about finding data on the matter, I wonder how it could be quantified. It has always seemed quite obvious to me as a reader, due to many instances over the years of searching for information for a species and going to Wikipedia to find "X is a fish" or similar. For example, I was recently looking up a few squid fished in Southeast Asia, and hit articles such as Uroteuthis singhalensis, which told me the squid in question is a squid of the genus in its scientific name, and that it has males and females. (It also told me the species is found in the Pacific Ocean, which is sort of true but sort of misleading; the species is also found in the Indian Ocean and covers very little of the Pacific. A better description might be in waters near Southeast Asia.) This isn't a unique issue for species of course, it could happen for any topic, however it has been a noticeably frequent occurrence for species articles in particular when I've had to look up species for quick factchecks. CMD (talk) 06:41, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
It's not a data question. It's more of a values question. Do you value giving readers something, even if it's not much, or do you prefer giving them nothing? WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:49, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
That framing completely misses the issue at hand, which is that there are other places that give information, but anything on Wikipedia will dominate the search results. Due to the dominance of Wikipedia, the article is taking reader time. When googling "Uroteuthis singhalensis", it brings up not only the partially correct species article as the top hit, but the genus article Uroteuthis as the fourth hit. To be fair, that's a more developed article, with some useful descriptive information and a mention of fisheries value. CMD (talk) 06:59, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
A 500-word article (with an infobox, photo, and six refs) is longer than the median Wikipedia article, with more refs than the median article. That means it is probably not a good example of species articles that "start as stubs and linger there".
But let's imagine a two-sentence stub. If the reader is specifically looking for the information that's in the article, do you still think that should be described as "taking" from the reader? Given what we know about average dwell time and scrolling, a very large portion of readers are looking for something that appears in the first paragraph. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:31, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
Yes, it should be described as taking from the reader, per what I stated above. It is a real-life actual example of my time being taken. CMD (talk) 15:28, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
You have also missed the actual article I pointed to, which as this. Happily it is now longer. CMD (talk) 15:30, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
Okay, if the reader is specifically looking for the information that's in the article, and that reader clicks on an article that contains the information that they're specifically looking for, with little or no additional information, then I think I would call that a pretty perfect match. You seem to be convinced that getting exactly the information you want is harming you. I don't think we are very likely to agree on this point. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:08, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
Getting the information I want is harming me? What are you talking about? CMD (talk) 06:01, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
That's what you said.
I asked: "If the reader is specifically looking for the information that's in the article, do you still think that should be described as "taking" from the reader?"
You said: "Yes, it should be described as taking from the reader".
A plain reading of this exchange indicates that you believe that when the reader gets exactly the information the reader wants, that is harming the reader. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:14, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
WAID, in response to your general query I gave a very specific and tangible example. If you want to discuss that example I would appreciate that, but retreating to other vague generalities and then claiming agreement with yourself is not helpful. CMD (talk) 02:47, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
Sure, I can work with that example.
  • Given: The reader has seen Uroteuthis singhalensis mentioned somewhere and wants to know what it is (i.e., is it, or is it not, a squid?)
  • Given: The reader searches for the term and clicks on the article, which completely answers the reader's question (namely, it is a squid).
  • Question for you to answer: "Given that the reader is specifically looking for the information that's in that two-sentence stub, do you still think that letting the reader read that article, and thus answer 100% of their actual question, should be described as "taking" from the reader?"
Your options, as far as I can see them, are:
  • "Yes, that harms the reader in ways which I will now enumerate:",
  • "No, I guess that sometimes it's not actually harmful, though I'm personally disappointed whenever I find an article that only offers me two sentences, a photo, a taxobox, and 16 external links", and
  • "Irrelevant, because I completely dispute the premise that any reader would ask such a minor and unimportant question, no matter how many times you tell me that the average Dwell time for most Wikipedia pages is only long enough to read a sentence or two at the most, and regardless of the fact that you've done this yourself multiple times, because you are obviously incapable of knowing your own mind when you look up an unfamiliar subject".
Feel free to pick one. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:43, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
There is no need to make up a made-up reader. There was an actual reader in that example, which you have for some reason forgotten. CMD (talk) 06:29, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
Sure: you didn't find the information you wanted. But can you imagine the existence of a reader who did find the information they wanted? WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:41, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
Yes, they would have found the same information on the other more useful google results, including our genus article, being equally or better served. CMD (talk) 07:21, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
This seems like a poor example to use as rationale for mass-scale redirection, given that the Uroteuthis singhalensis article was clearly a good candidate for expansion (many thanks @Esculenta, nice work!). This may not be the case for all species articles, but in my experience working on species stubs, it is a very good rule of thumb to assume that most are expandable - it's just a matter of locating sources and putting in the hard work. Redirecting articles that could easily be expanded with existing sources seems pretty counterproductive to building the encyclopedia. Yes, a stub provides relatively little, but to redirect it without adding further information to the genus article gives readers even less, particularly with the loss of taxonbar identifiers. Redirecting instead of making improvements is putting the cart before the horse. Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 08:33, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
This is not a call for mass-scale redirection, it is an example of the issues poor stubs cause. Others have suggested redirects also may impact google searches, although google changes its algorithm so that's hard to predict. We do not know whether WP:REDYES is better that redirecting. At any rate, in this particular case, the genus article did provide even more information, although that is uncommon. CMD (talk) 09:14, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
I believe the recent estimate was that about half of species articles contain 3 or fewer sentences, so this could easily be taken as the basis for mass redirection.
Your complaint above is about a hypothetical user who begins at Google. What about those of us who begin our searches at Wikipedia? WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:19, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
For another time, my "complaint" was not about a hypothetical user. A Wikipedia sear would presumably have found the genus article. CMD (talk) 01:43, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
You're right. Your complaint is that you started at Google and didn't find the information you wanted.
I don't start at Google for information like that. I start by directly searching Wikipedia. I would have ended up at the target of a redirect (if an exact match existed) or at Special:Search.
I suppose the question comes down to: Why should we optimize everything for your preferred search style and not for mine? WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:39, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
Actually I did eventually find the information I wanted, eventually. The odd question is a non sequitur, if you had ended up at the genus article, that would have been more optimal for you. As for, in general, the broader question of how to handle searches, there have been a number of discussions on the matter, especially as generative AI has come more into use, but that gets quite off topic here. CMD (talk) 04:14, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
I am familiar with the experience. It also takes editor time as sometimes it is difficult to find Off-Wikipedia sites. On the up side, it is nice to know people are probably reading your work. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 09:19, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
My opinion is that it is generally preferable to avoid redirects to genus unless the species is dubious, or the genus article actually contains information about the redirected species. I think taking a species stub and redirecting it to a genus article that's little more than a species list is much, much worse than letting the species article languish in its stubbiness, and I think most readers seeking information about a specific species would prefer to find a stub than to be sent to a genus article that provides just as as little (or even less) information. In previous discussions I believe it was Plantdrew who raised the point that we risk losing the valuable identifiers in the taxonbar by redirecting species articles to genus - we can, of course, link the various species in a genus to the taxonbar of the genus article, and I'm of the opinion that this should be a requirement for these sorts of redirects. Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 09:45, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(species)/Archive_3&oldid=1261188270"