Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of Life/Archive 53

Archive 50

Archive 51

Archive 52

Archive 53

Archive 54

Archive 55

→

Archive 60

Synonyms in taxoboxes

As explained on Synonym (taxonomy), synonymy in zoological nomenclature, strictly speaking, only refers to cases where two separately named entities are considered to be the same taxon, and does not include alternate forms of a single name such as a species in combination with distinct genera. For example, Brontosaurus amplus is a synonym of Apatosaurus excelsus, but Brontosaurus excelsus is not because it is the same name as Apatosaurus excelsus, only listed in combination with a different genus. Likewise, nomina nuda, incorrect spellings, and the like (which have no status as formal names) are not included in synonymy, so "Fenestrosaurus" is not a synonym of Oviraptor. Ceteosaurus humero-cristatus is not a synonym of Duriatitan humerocristatus. And so on. However, this is not how synonyms are usually listed in taxoboxes, which often include spelling variants, informal names, and alternate combinations as synonyms. I personally think that taxoboxes should only list formal synonyms in the "synonymy" section, as listing alternate combinations without distinguishing them from formal synonyms seems to me to be confusing. If nothing else, I think this is something that should be handled consistently from page to page. Is there a formal policy on how to list synonyms in taxoboxes, or can we reach some kind of consensus about how it should be done? Pinging LittleLazyLass and IJReid, with whom I briefly discussed this off-site before coming here. Ornithopsis (talk) 22:13, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Hmmm, alternative combinations are always listed as synonyms even in journal articles, what indicates otherwise? Recent examples:[1][2][3] I think the best we can do when in doubt is just to follow the literature. But yes, technically unpublished names don't count as anything. FunkMonk (talk) 23:33, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

I think including all alternative scientific names in the taxobox is important as they are a quick way to confirm if you are on the right page. And unlike vernacular names, they should only refer to a single taxon. Unwieldy lists can be collapsed or “see also”ed. --awkwafaba (📥) 00:01, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

I agree that such alternate names should be mentioned somewhere, but I think it's somewhat misleading to list things that are not synonyms as synonyms. Ornithopsis (talk) 00:06, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

I don't think those lists are meant to be a list of synonyms per se, but more of a list of previous ways the taxon has been mentioned. In the Rodriguez and Kellner paper, for instance, Ornithocheirus platyrhinus is explicitly stated to be a synonym of Ornithocheirus simus in Table 8, but Pterodactylus simus and Criorhynchus simus are not—they're only included in the list of names in the taxonomy section, which also includes every previous mention of the taxon, regardless of what name it was under. So I would argue that Rodriguez and Kellner indicates that Ornithocheirus platyrhinus is a synonym and Pterodactylus simus, Criorhynchus simus, and Criorhynchus platyrhinus are not, which accords with my view. Moreover, in many papers, those lists also include names which a taxon was incorrectly called—e.g. Foffa and Young list Metriorhynchus brachyrhynchus under Tyrannoneustes lythrodectikos, but that's obviously not synonymy because those are separate taxa. Ornithopsis (talk) 00:05, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

As we talked about elsewhere, chresonym seems to be the term we're looking for... So whether we should rename the field in the taxobox or not to accomodate that should maybe be up for discussion... That would reflect actual usage in the literature best, also better than just adding even more fields, since papers usually don't distinguish either. Problem is of course that most people haven't heard of the term chresonymy... FunkMonk (talk) 00:34, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Chresonym seems to be an esoteric term even by the standards of taxonomic minutiae, so I think we should avoid it. The more I think about it (see my comment below), the more I think that the best way would be to list synonyms as first-level entries on the list and alternate combinations as second-level entries below their corresponding name. For instance, Camarasaurus grandis could be listed:

• ?Amphicoelias latus Cope, 1877
• Apatosaurus grandis Marsh, 1877
  • Morosaurus grandis (Marsh, 1877) Marsh, 1878
  • Camarasaurus grandis (Marsh, 1877) Riggs, 1903
• Morosaurus impar Marsh, 1878
• Pleurocoelus montanus Marsh, 1896
• ?Cathetosaurus lewisi Jensen, 1988
  • Camarasaurus lewisi (Jensen, 1988) McIntosh, 1990

Or something like that. Ornithopsis (talk) 00:50, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

I have been bold and implemented my idea at Brontosaurus. How does it look? Ornithopsis (talk) 01:11, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

What I think would be ideal, personally, is to have separate sections within the taxobox for synonyms and alternate combinations, or, perhaps, to list alternate combinations as sub-entries of the respective names in the list of synonymy. Something to make it clearer whether a name is an actual separate synonym or just the same species placed in an alternate genus. Ornithopsis (talk) 00:41, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Problem at Brontosaurus, though, seems that you're still using the term "synonym" for alternative combinations, when the conclusion here seems to be that should be avoided? FunkMonk (talk) 01:34, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

I agree that it's not optimal, but I think this approach at least offers increased clarity. Ornithopsis (talk) 01:38, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Well yeah, but then the problem raised by this section remains unsolved? I don't have a problem leaving the field as "synonyms", but it seemed like this section was validly questioning that. FunkMonk (talk) 01:58, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

I think we can agree that chresonymy is too obscure a term (it only gets 108 results on Google Scholar). Moreover, a complete chresonym list seems to include every mention, not only the ones associated with distinct names, and that's obviously not practical. So I don't think we should replace "synonym" with "chresonym" in taxoboxes. You don't want to add a whole new section to the taxobox, and that's reasonable. I don't know what other terms are available. This leaves us with three options I can think of:

• Continue to treat alternate combinations and synonyms proper exactly the same (which I think is somewhat misleading and confusing)
• Remove everything except synonyms proper from the synonyms list (as I initially suggested, but seems to be an unpopular idea)
• Do it the way I did on Brontosaurus, which establishes some degree of distinction between synonyms proper and alternate combinations, even if it doesn't fully resolve the issue.

Is there a fourth option? Ornithopsis (talk) 03:07, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Any alternatives would be too wordy ("alternative combinations of x"), I think, but in any case, "synonym" conveys pretty well both the strictly taxonomic concept, as well as scientific names that are just synonyms in the broader sense of the word. So if we just informally agree that only scientifically published names should be included, we can continue to weed out supposed common and informal names. But perhaps the issue should be stated in documentation somewhere, to show we are aware of the issue, and to define exactly what should be included or not. FunkMonk (talk) 03:36, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Be aware that there are differences between the nomenclature codes. For plants, the glossary of the ICNafp simply says that a synonym is "one of two or more names that apply to the same taxon", the only qualification being the distinction between homotypic and heterotypic synonyms (objective and subjective in the ICZN). Alternative combinations are therefore properly called synonyms for ICNafp names. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:09, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

I think the emphasis on the word synonym versus other terms is probably overcomplicating the situation. Literature uses synonyms to describe objective synonyms, synonyms through alternative combinations, subjective synonyms, and sometimes even past referrals that are not synonyms. Its strict application of terminology isn't used in literature, which is what we are trying to reflect. We cannot cite Tschopp ea as considering Elosaurus parvus as a chresonym of Brontosaurus parvus, but we can cite they as considering the two to be synonyms. As far as the alternative combinations are displayed, I don't have any issue with indentations in the list, but additional bolds in the infobox is a bit of a visual distraction IMO. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 01:32, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

By "additional bolds in the infobox", do you mean the bolded headers for the collapsible lists? That just comes with the collapsible list template, I don't know if it can be turned off. Two things that are apparent here are that, A, people seem to want to keep alternate combinations in the infobox alongside synonyms sensu stricto, and B, grouping together both under the heading "synonym" is the only practical solution. Given that, my primary concerns are that informal names and incorrect spellings should not be included in the synonym list, and that there should be some way of distinguishing synonyms sensu stricto from alternate combinations. What I've done with Brontosaurus and Camarasaurus grandis is my best idea for how to do so. Ornithopsis (talk) 02:57, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Ornithopsis like this. Sorry for poor formatting.

• stuff
• things
• more things

YorkshireExpat (talk) 07:53, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

• I feel that we should keep the taxonbox as simple as possible. I would personally prefer a very simple, plain list of synonyms and alternative combinations (but not informal names and misspellings) in the taxonbox. I would not distinguish between synonyms and alternative combinations in the taxonbox, as such details are of secondary importance to the reader. Too much detail is simply confusing. Looking at Brontosaurus and Camarasaurus grandis taxonboxes, the meaning of first-level and second-level entries was not immediately clear to me. It still confuses me that there is both a line "Brontosaurus excelsus synonymy" and "Brontosaurus excelsus Marsh, 1879" (seems redundant at first sight, but I slowly understand the idea behind it). I'm not entirely sure why Camarasaurus grandis appears in the synonym list of Camarasaurus grandis. If I have difficulties with it, I fear that other readers might have difficulties too. And there is no documentation, no way a reader can easily learn how to read such a list. The Taxonbox does not allow to add much explanation, it is ill-suited for such complexity. I do think, however, that for both articles a detailed, well-explained synonym table within the "Systematics" or "Taxonomy" section would be helpful. The taxonbox could either keep a plain synonym list, or simply state "see text", maybe linking to that table. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 09:18, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Agreed, the taxobox should be a simple, a summary of important information. The list should be synonyms or alternative combinations that people are likely to encounter in the literature or names that have historical interest, rather than an exhaustive list of obscure ones. If there is a complicated taxonomic history this is best handled in the text. —  Jts1882 | talk  14:09, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

I would not distinguish between synonyms and alternative combinations in the taxonbox, as such details are of secondary importance to the reader.

I personally find the distinction between synonyms and alternate combinations to be important, and think it's confusing to treat them as the same thing because they have rather different implications for the taxonomic history of a taxon. Simplicity was one of the reasons why I wanted to restrict the synonymy list to synonymy sensu stricto rather than including alternate combinations. But it seemed that that idea was unpopular.

I'm not entirely sure why Camarasaurus grandis appears in the synonym list of Camarasaurus grandis.

I'm not entirely happy with that either, but I'm not sure how to better indicate that Camarasaurus grandis is a subsequent combination of the species originally named Apatosaurus grandis.

I do think, however, that for both articles a detailed, well-explained synonym table within the "Systematics" or "Taxonomy" section would be helpful. The taxonbox could either keep a plain synonym list, or simply state "see text", maybe linking to that table.

I agree that something like that would be a good idea.

The list should be synonyms or alternative combinations that people are likely to encounter in the literature or names that have historical interest, rather than an exhaustive list of obscure ones.

I think that it's potentially confusing or misleading if we pick and choose subjectively which synonyms or alternate combinations are "important enough" to put in the taxobox; it strikes me as an unnecessary bit of subjectivity.

To put it simply, I think that the synonymy section of the taxobox should be used for one thing, and it should be used for that thing consistently, so that readers know they're getting the same information every time. I don't like the idea of indiscriminately mixing alternate combinations with synonyms sensu stricto, and I don't think we should only include "important" synonyms sensu lato in the taxobox. As such, my first preference would be to include only synonyms sensu stricto in the taxobox, which is simple, clear, and consistent. Particularly important alternate combinations, such as Apatosaurus excelsus for Brontosaurus excelsus, could be mentioned in the lead section of the article rather than the taxobox. If others disagree with that, I would like for there to be some way that synonyms sensu stricto are differentiated from alternate combinations in the taxobox; what I've done at Brontosaurus and Camarasaurus grandis is the best idea I have. Ornithopsis (talk) 18:12, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

I see the problem: The taxonbox section is labelled "Synonyms" and links to the article, Synonym (taxonomy), which explicitly states that, in zoology, alternative combinations are not synonyms. Including such alternative combinations, therefore, might arguably be misleading. I do think, however, that your new approach (seen in Camarasaurus grandis and Brontosaurus) does not solve this issue, because it still implies that the listed alternative combinations are synonyms. I tend to be pragmatic here and handle it the same way as our sources do (i.e., list both together, per FunkMonk) even if this is technically incorrect according to the ICZN. On a similar issue, we also treat some taxa as valid even though they are invalid according to ICZN due to a missing ZooBank entry, just because these taxa are widely accepted in the literature. I think we can be a bit pragmatic here and do not need to be more correct than the technical literature we cite at all costs. Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:41, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

To repeat myself, all the discussion about distinguishing different kinds of synonym applies only to ICZN names – not to algae, fungi, plants, bacteria, viruses, etc. I don't see that it would help readers to treat the "synonyms box" differently for animals. (Note that we use the term binomial in species taxoboxes, although the correct ICZN term is binominal, for the sake of consistency.) Peter coxhead (talk) 21:26, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Alright, it appears I am in the minority opinion here, and I can see the logic of your viewpoints. So the takeaway here is that only validly published (available in the sense of the ICZN) names should be included in taxobox synonym lists, and that alternate combinations should be treated as synonyms, even though strictly speaking they are not considered such in zoological nomenclature. Ornithopsis (talk) 14:38, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

systematics question

talk:Halimium lasianthum#article name Arlo James Barnes 03:22, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Assistance requested

I am involved in a long-term project involving improving the coverage of lichen taxa and lichenology related articles on Wikipedia. Part of the work requires reporting progress at regular intervals, to monitor how many of these pages exist, and how much they have improved (measured by increases in article length, and changes in article rating). I would like assistance on figuring out the most appropriate method to tag lichen-related pages. I understand that WP:Task forces can be used to group related content work for sub-groups of an existing wikiProject (in this case WP:FUNGI), and it provides a mechanism by which lichen-related pages can be tagged by adding “lichen=yes” to the wiki project header on the talk page. I'm not sure, however, if this is the best way to do this; WP:Fungi already has fairly low activity, and this is a niche subgroup of an already niche area, so I doubt there would be many (if any) signups. So I’m wondering what’s the best way to get this information (and ensure it can be easily acquired in the future). Esculenta (talk) 19:13, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

A task force may be your best bet. I can think of only two ways on Wikipedia to tag an article as being about a lichen in a way that is readily machine readable: 1) tagging with WikiProject or Task Force banner 2) putting article in Category:Lichens (or subcategories). (Wikidata probably should have a property for lichen-forming fungi, but doesn't at present, and a Wikidata property wouldn't really make it any easier to track statistics on lichen articles for en.wiki).

A task force would provide an article quality log report (e.g. Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Fungi articles by quality log). I don't think there is any particularly easy way to compile statistics on article length (and the quality log report isn't especially amenable to manipulating data). I think what you'll need to do is tag articles of interest (via task force, or placement in a category for lichens), and periodically search Petscan to get article lengths and membership in article rating categories. Copy data from Petscan to a spreadsheet or database with the Wikipedia Page ID as a unique ID, and you should be able to manipulate the data to track changes in article length/quality rating over time. Plantdrew (talk) 22:25, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

I had forgotten about the quality log report; that would go a long way in helping with keeping records. I'll try to figure this thing out and set up a subpage at WP:FUNGI to keep track of it. Thanks for the advice. Esculenta (talk) 00:15, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

New 2022 IUCN Red List out

For anyone interested, the new IUCN update is out.....Pvmoutside (talk) 18:52, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Linking "family"

I sometimes see sentences like X is a genus of plants in the family Ranunculaceae, where the linking goes like this: [[family (biology)|family]] [[Ranunculaceae]]. Surely, it should be obvious to everyone that this is a silly way to link? The first problem is that it's a run-on link (MOS:SEAOFBLUE): there's no way to see that "family" and "Ranunculaceae" are two separate links, and readers may assume the whole blue thing is a single link leading to the article about that family. The second issue is that the link to Family (biology) doesn't need to be there in the first place. It's of very low contextual relevance: the point that the sentence communicates is that the genus we're now talking about belongs to such-and-such family, not that the family that the genus belongs to is, in actual fact, a family. If any taxonomic rank is to be linked here at all, that would be the rank of the topic under discussion (in the above example: Genus, though for some inscrutable reason that's not done nearly as often).

In examples like the above, I unlink "family" as part of regular copyediting. However, I've just noticed that these are not isolated instances, but a widespread pattern: there are over 40,000 articles with such "family" links [4] (yes, that's not a typo: forty thousand of them!) That's very strange: either a hefty chunk of the editing on these topics has been done by people who made the effort to create links without giving any thought into the process, or there's something about those links that I'm not seeing. – Uanfala (talk) 20:07, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

I think there's something about letting the casual layperson reader know that family, in this context, is a technical term. Genus is more obviously a technical term as it isn't a common word. I feel similar thing happens with [[Monotypic taxon|monotypic]], but would need to do some digging to confirm. I always link that one myself. YorkshireExpat (talk) 20:58, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Well, it doesn't seem to be part of Polbot's style, which was my first thought (due to the number of taxon articles created by Polbot, human editors have often continued to imitate Polbot's style for lead sentences, even when other phrasings are better).

I think we should be aiming to link the rank of the taxon that is the subject of the article (i.e. genus for this example), not the rank of the higher taxon to which the article subject belongs. I haven't really made any effort to unlink "family" in genus articles, but neither have I made an effort to link it. I think unlinking "family" is appropriate provided a link to "genus" is made.

I've long been bothered by (biology) as a disambiguator for taxonomic ranks. It's very entrenched, but it would've been better if (taxonomy) had been used from the start as a disambiguator for articles about taxonomic ranks. It's particularly bad with "family (biology)", as family describes a group of people that are usually biologically related (and family (biology) has hatnotes for gene family and protein family). Plantdrew (talk) 21:23, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Eh, I'm on the same page as YorkshireExpat. I link family, monospecific, and other such terms. I don't know how much we can assume the average reader to know. Cougroyalty (talk) 21:40, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Of course, I'd expect "family" to be linked in contexts like previously ranked as a family, Y is now considered a tribe... But in the previous examples? Really? I'd really need someone to explain the reasoning to me, because I don't get it. Is there any chance that a reader who encounters the sentence Anemone is a genus of plants in the family Ranunculaceae may completely miss words like "plant" or "genus" and instead understand that, for example, Anemone is this girl and that her folks have this weird family name "Ranunculacae"? – Uanfala (talk) 22:28, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Not so much understand it as, say, "Anemone is a girl whose parents have a weird family name", no. That said, there does seem to be a fair amount of misunderstanding among your average not-taxonomically-inclined person what a family is in a taxonomic context. I've spent a fair bit of time in arthropod IDing corners of the web, and quite a number of times I've seen folks say things like "ticks are in the same family as spiders", "it's clearly something in the fly family", and so on; and on the other hand, I *also* see it used at times for things that are genera. ("It's part of the underwing family" and such)

Basically, the "related" is picked up on correctly just about always, the "it's a specific concept with a specific meaning, not a vague term used for all sorts and levels of groupings" not so much.

On the other hand, probably *because* genus has no common vernacular use, it does typically get picked up on as both "related" and "hey this is a specific thing with a specific meaning" (but not necessarily what that specific meaning *is*).

That said, I'm certainly not against linking genus on genus-level pages, or where contextually highly relevant. AddWittyNameHere 00:25, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Molluscs shown as insects

Hey ToL Team: five mollusc articles, Plebecula, Plebecula anaglyptica, Plebecula giramica, Domunculifex and Domunculifex littorinella, show as rolling up to insects in their infobox, because of confusion between closely spelled parent families. Can you educate me on how to fix? Do I need to fix over in wikidata? Happy to fix myself once I know how; thanks in advance. UnitedStatesian (talk) 19:49, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

@UnitedStatesian:, in either article, click on the red pencil icon in the taxobox (to the right of the words "Scientific classification"). That will take you to the taxonomy template, which you can edit to replace Geometrinae with Geomitrinae. Editing the taxonomy template will fix both articles, but you may need to make dummy edits to the articles to see the results immediately. Plantdrew (talk) 19:58, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Fixed. As noted by Plantdrew, correcting the linking in the genus taxonomy templates has corrected the issue.--Kevmin § 20:01, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

@Plantdrew, @Kevmin Thanks both! Best, UnitedStatesian (talk) 20:04, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

How worthwhile is adapting articles for the WikiJournal?

How worth the effort is adapting high-quality (especially FA) articles for publication in the WJS? Theoretically, it allows people who want to cite Wikipedia to have a peer-reviewed resource that would be acceptable for academic uses, but I don't think the WJ's outside of the WJM are cited all that much. AryKun (talk) 09:20, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Insects by year of formal description help

I have tried to make the insects by year of formal description more consistent by giving the other orders their own category. Every time I do so, for example, Bugs described in 1758, it not only adds this category to Insects described in 1758 but also to Animals described in 1758. This doesn't happen for beetles, butterflies or moths. How do I change this? Elspooky (talk) 04:53, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Courtesy links: Category:Ants described in 1758. Category:Moths described in 1758. Each page includes the template {{Category described in year}}, but the parent categories that the template places behave differently. This is likely due to the configuration file at Module:Category described in year/conf. One solution would be to figure out what code you would like changed in that file, then post a request at Template talk:Category described in year and use the template {{Edit template-protected}}. Hope that helps. –Novem Linguae (talk) 06:09, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Query about taxoboxes

Is there an easy way to find those articles (tagged to a particular project) which still have the old-fashioned manual taxoboxes rather than the new automatic ones? Other than having to slog through them all one by one to check, that is... ;) MeegsC (talk) 08:40, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

What would you like to search for? Maybe a petscan specifying the template Taxobox and a parent category can be constructed. –Novem Linguae (talk) 09:10, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Novem Linguae, it seems like that should work, but I can't make it do so! I'm trying to find all the lichen task force articles (category: lichen task force articles on the article's talk page) that contain the template "infobox". I can do each query separately and get appropriate results, but when I try to combine them, I get 0 results. Any hints? I've tried both union and intersection. MeegsC (talk) 09:35, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Try searching Category:Lichens and Template:Taxobox. Those are both on the article page, instead of one in article and one on talk page. Looks like there's around 300 that meet this criteria. [5]. If you plan to convert these to speciesbox, you may find my user script SpeciesHelper helpful. –Novem Linguae (talk) 09:42, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

You can get similar results using the search facility with hastemplate:Taxobox incategory:Lichens (267 results) —  Jts1882 | talk  15:22, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Novem Linguae and Jts1882. Both of those are perfect! MeegsC (talk) 05:34, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Help with correcting bad species lists on foreign-language Wikipedias

This concerns the Lucilia (fly) article and its equivalents in Wikipedias of other languages. Earlier today I learned that, almost since the article's creation in 2008, several species of plants had been erroneously listed as species of flies (link to diff). I know this to be true because a search for "Lucilia" on IPNI comes up with all the species I have removed in my diff. Unfortunately it appears this bad list of species has been copied in about 10 of the other language Wikipedias without question, e.g. Belarusian, Portuguese. Being unhappy that this error has been copied to them, I attempted to fix this on these other Wikipedias, but unfortunately I have no knowledge of any of these languages so have had to mostly go with blank summaries, and on Belarusian Wikipedia at least my edit has already been reverted because of my lack of explanation (can't blame them, it is literally unexplained content removal). I would rather not use Google Translate if I can help it, since I am well aware how inaccurate its translations can be (though for Polish Wikipedia in particular I could not avoid this). Is there a better way to do this? Or is it not worth trying to fix this kind of problem in the other languages in the first place? Monster Iestyn (talk) 17:21, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Try an English edit summary? English is widely spoken. I've removed misidentified images of organisms from foreign-language Wikipedias (including ones where I can't even read the writing system), and have rarely been reverted. I just go with English language edit summaries. You could really get bogged down in trying to correct foreign-language Wikipedias, but if you want to put the effort in, I think cleaning up species lists where plant/animal genera have been conflated is worthwhile. Plantdrew (talk) 21:01, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

I explained in the Belarusian Wikipedia why your edit isn't vandal. As mentioned above, it is enough for you to explain your edit in English if you don't know a foreign language. This is in any case better than deleting content without any comments. HFoxii (talk) 05:19, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

@Plantdrew @HFoxii Thank you both. Honestly didn't think using English summaries would be appropriate in those Wikipedias, but if this is acceptable practice then fair enough. Monster Iestyn (talk) 12:58, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Common name same as generic name for monotypic genera

See Myaka. I went ahead and moved it from Myaka (fish) without thinking too much (in my defense Myaka was already italicised as the Speciesbox was set up correctly), but made me wonder if there are any rules in such circumstances. Myaka was previously the redirect with the generic categories attached to it. I've changed it around.

Any thoughts? YorkshireExpat (talk) 17:03, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

If there is no reason to disambiguate, then there is no problem. A look at the history shows the move was to distinguish between a common name and genus. If this ever became a problem I'd expect the articles to be Myaka and Myaka (genus) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jts1882 (talk • contribs) 19:26, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Category:Taxa by author subcategories

Category:Taxa by author currently has two diffusing subcategories: Category:Animal taxa by author and Category:Botanical taxa by author, but the great majority of taxa-by-author categories linger within the main category. Both of these subcategories were created by long-blocked users notorious for their, ahem, individualistic approach to categorization structures (respectively User:Caftaric and User:Look2See1) with a tendency towards partially-implementing entire branches of categorization without, or at times outright against, consensus. (As evident from the sheer number of CFD/CSD notices on their talk pages still coming in even years after they were blocked)

Before I start going through the effort of sorting the 4000+ by-author categories into their relevant subcategory, I've got a few questions:

• is there any actual support for the existence of these two subcategories? (If not, I'll be equally happy to throw them towards CfD, but may as well ask here first because if there *is* support, it saves all of us some time.)

if so,

• should the names of these categories be brought in line with one another? Animal/Botanical aren't exactly the same naming convention. Either Zoological/Botanical or Animal/Plant would make much more sense in my opinion. (If so, may as well get that done first, saves a whole bunch of renaming-by-bot edits)
• should categories be created for taxa-by-authors where the taxa are neither zoological nor botanical (Fungi, Bacteria, etc)?
• how to tackle taxa-by-author categories for authors with contents spread over more than one such category? (e.g. Category:Taxa named by Carl Linnaeus)

AddWittyNameHere 05:27, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Don't fungi (and algae) come under ICBN anyway? No idea for bacteria. YorkshireExpat (talk) 17:07, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Bacteria/Archaea have their own code, ICNP. Monster Iestyn (talk) 14:02, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Mass_creation_of_pages_on_fish_species

You may be interested in this discussion: Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Mass_creation_of_pages_on_fish_species. BeanieFan11 (talk) 23:58, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

unranked clades and lack of basic ranks like Division and Class

The taxonomic classification of Basil is a good example of what I am confused about:

Kingdom:	Plantae
Clade:	Tracheophytes
Clade:	Angiosperms
Clade:	Eudicots
Clade:	Asterids
Order:	Lamiales
Family:	Lamiaceae
Genus:	Ocimum
Species:	O. basilicum

Why does it list 4 unranked clades in a row but it doesn't list the Division or the Class? This is extremely common for Wikipedia articles about plants. I'm not criticizing, I'm just legitimately confused. 68.49.173.138 (talk) 11:26, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

The flowering plant articles follow the APG IV classification which doesn't use traditional ranks for the higher order taxa. Traditionally Angiosperms would be a division but the new taxonomies based on the phylogeny have angiosperms as a class or even subclass when traditional ranks are used. As the overall relationships are not controversial, apart from the debate over the rank to use, the APG working group opted against using ranks.

Technically, the taxonomy displayed is set using an {{automatic taxobox}} template. These provide a means to show a consistent taxonomy across many Wikipedia articles. The taxonomy shown is determined by a series of the taxonomy templates (for more information see Wikipedia:Automated_taxobox_system/intro. Major ranks (family, order etc) are always shown if they are in the hierarchy. In addition some higher taxa can be marked to always display in the taxonomy template, which is the case for asterids, eudicots, angiosperms and tracheophytes. All the articles using automated taxoboxes will be this way.

I'm not sure if this answers your question. If not clear let me know what is still confusing and I will try and explain or other editors might chip with better explanations. Questions asked here are seen by a number of people who have a good record of providing helpful answers. —  Jts1882 | talk  11:51, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Just to add a little, the full taxonomy for Ocimum, as dictated by the taxonomy template system, can be seen here. There are various tricks to get different ranks to display or not on pages where it is used. for a given taxon, the template page can be accessed by clicking the little red pen that appears on the various kinds of {{Automatic taxobox}}. YorkshireExpat (talk) 12:48, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Virus binomials

Virus species are now supposed to be named with binomials. This is a big change. I started a thread about at it at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Viruses#Big change to nomenclatural code. Plantdrew (talk) 16:29, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Template:Taxonomy/Chordata

There is an [edit request] that may interest editors. Feel free to issue an opinion. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^put'r there 05:19, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Subgenus disambiguation

How do you disambiguate a subgenus article name for animals? Case in point: Aedes (Kompia) a mosquito subgenus. Kompia was preoccupied by a redirect to Kompyang (which seems correct). The author therefore created it under "Kompias" (gah) which I moved to Kompia (mosquito), with a disambiguation for this and Kompyang at Kompia. Now the author has moved the subgenus page to Aedes (Kompia).

I can't tell whether that is better or worse, since I can't figure out a) what is the usual form for non-plant subgenus pages (with or without a qualifier?) and how that interacts with in-title disambiguation requirements... --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 08:28, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this is typical but for Mus there is Mus (subgenus) and Nannomys, with Mus (Nannomys) as redirect. So Kompia (subgenus) might be clearest. It seems strange for the bolded name in the lede to be only part of the title. There is also the issue of the italics. —  Jts1882 | talk  12:08, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

I concur. "Name (subgenus)" as the primary placement was what I was going to suggest, with appropriate redirects as needed. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:18, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

How to handle ICZN subgenus names that need disambiguation should follow on from how to handle ICZN subgenus names generally. But this latter seems to be an issue on which there isn't agreement. There are several areas in which it arises:

1. The title of the article (where there is no need for disambiguation): should it be "Subgenus" or "Genus (Subgenus)"? If you look at Category:Animal subgenera and its subcategory Category:Insect subgenera, there are examples of both styles.
2. The opening of the article: articles whose title is just "Subgenus" often open with "Genus (Subgenus) is ..." as Canalilyria does.
3. What is shown against "Subgenus:" in the taxobox – examples of all three possible styles can be found: the full "Genus (Subgenus)", the abbreviated "G. (Subgenus)" and just "Subgenus".

Article 6.1 of the ICZN is clear that when a species or subspecies name (binomen or trinomen) includes a subgenus it must be interpolated in parentheses. However, there seems to be no provision for how a subgenus name by itself should be presented. So we do, I think, need to come up with more consensus guidance. Peter coxhead (talk) 13:07, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Cool We have some fun discussions ahead of us then. Consensus to be reached on article placement, article opening line, and taxobox display. I think we can work all three in parallel. I don't think we have any problems with regards to bi- and trinomen usage, at least not that I've seen. I don't think the opening line is as important to have a consistent style, but should allow the editors to have flexibility as long as the distinction between Genus and Subgenus is clear in the text. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:34, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

A fourth consideration is the names of taxonomy templates. It looks like there are 691 taxonomy templates for subgenera. Taxonomy templates for animal subgenera are overwhelming named "Genus (Subgenus)"; there are a few "Subgenus", and just 12 with "Subgenus (subgenus)". Taxonomy templates also relate to Peter's 3rd point, as taxonomy templates increasingly produce what is display in the Subgenus line of a taxobox.Plantdrew (talk) 18:57, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Those templates need to match the article placement, right? So whatever decision is made on article placement will affect the taxotemplates. So that should be something we take into account, but I don't think we have to make a separate consideration for. - UtherSRG (talk) 19:09, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

There is no technical requirement that the templates match article titles. The templates could use completely arbitrary names (e.g. numbers). As a matter of usability it is highly advantageous to have the template match the article title. But there are exceptions; in cases where the article title is disambiguated against a non-taxonomic meaning, and there is only one taxonomic meaning, the template is not disambiguated. Plantdrew (talk) 20:15, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

I've attempted to fill out Category:Animal subgenera and its subcategories with relevant pages (articles and redirects). I looked at all of the subgenus taxonomy templates uncovered in my search above (excluding plants), and categorized every existing page for a subgenus found in the process (using the format for the name given in the taxonomy template); I also checked for subgenus redirects when the taxonomy template linked to a species (i.e., because the subgenus is monotypic). I searched articles with manual taxoboxes for |subgenus_authority= and bold markup in |subgenus=. I'm sure I missed some subgenera with manual taxoboxes that didn't have the expected authority or bolding, and there are surely some subgenus redirects (and red-links) that are only linked from manual taxoboxes. When the forms "Subgenus" and "Genus (Subgenus)" both existed as redirects, I didn't attempt to categorize both, differing to whichever was (more) linked (disclaimer; a substantial number of "Genus (Subgenus)" redirects are my creations which I had linked and categorized prior to this discussion). Plantdrew (talk) 02:39, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

That's fantastic! Good work. Looks like a good mix of "Y", "X (Y)", and "Y (subgenus)". I eyeball-estimate about an even split between "Y" and "X (Y)", and a handful of "Y (subgenus)". Certrainly no preponderance of one vice the other. - UtherSRG (talk) 19:31, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Proposal: Subgenus MOS

1. For subgenus names covered by the ICZN, preferred article title is the subgenus name on its own, with a redirect from the "expanded" form. When the preferred title is already occupied, the subgenus name should be disambiguated with "(subgenus)", with a redirect from the "expanded" form.
   1. "Aedes (Kompia)" redirects to "Kompia"
   2. "Aedes (Kompia)" redirects to "Kompia (subgenus)"
2. Article lead can follow any format so long as the usage of the subgenus term is distinct from the genus term. If the genus and subgenus names are spelled out separately, only the subgenus gets bolded. If using the "expanded" form, the whole name gets bolded.
   1. Kompia is a subgenus of the mosquito genus Aedes.
   2. Within the genus Aedes, the subgenus Kompia are the mosquitoes that ...
   3. Aedes (Kompia) is the subgenus of mosquitoes that ...
3. Taxobox listing on the Subgenus line should be the bare subgenus name. This will help to maintain a slim look to the taxobox. The species line should abbreviate the Genus and leave out the Subgenus.

Discussion

I like it, 'cos I proposed it. *grins* I think this provides enough freedom for the editors to do their good work, while maintaining clarity and consistency. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:34, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

• Comment Genus names must be unique within each code; subgenus names don't have to be. They are often formed from a previous genus sunk to a subgenus, which means that they are often unique, but not always. Also, the nominate subgenus will always need disambiguating against the genus if the bare subgenus name is used. Sharply reducing the need for disambiguation is an argument in favour of using "Genus (Subgenus)" as the standard form of the article title and the taxonomy template title. Also, ICNafp infrageneric names always require the genus and a connecting term (i.e. "Genus subg. Subgenus"), so using "Genus (Subgenus)" for ICZN names makes for greater visual consistency. However, it's not something I have a strong opinion about. The main need is for consistency. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:43, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

  @Peter coxhead "subgenus names don't have to be [unique within each code]": wait, hold on, is this actually true? As far as I understood it was not true at least under ICZN, where genera and subgenera are referred together as "genus group" taxa (see Article 42). According to Article 56, the Principle of Homonymy applies to all genus group names. (If I was misreading you on this point, apologies) Monster Iestyn (talk) 21:57, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

  @Monster Iestyn: you're quite right; carelessness on my part. The issue within the ICZN is only the need to handle the nominotypical subgenus. Peter coxhead (talk) 06:36, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

• I agree with the formatting advice in point #2. Also agree with #3, although species lines in automatic taxoboxes already leave out the subgenus, and most taxonomy templates are set up to only show the bare subgenus name. I'm not sold on the titling advice in point #1. I'll note that most subgenera mentioned on Wikipedia don't have articles, and a substantial number of subgenera that do have articles were originally created as articles for genera, and then changed to be about subgenera as the taxonomy changed.

• Advantages to Genus (Subgenus) format for titles:

1. It is clear from the title what the rank is the (rank is usually apparent from standardized endings for families and higher taxa and multiple words for species/subspecies)
2. Avoids the need for (subgenus) as a disambiguator for nominate subgenera
3. Better meets the WP:AT criterion of PRECISION

• Advantages to Subgenus format for titles:

1. It isn't necessary to move the page if taxonomic changes sink a genus to a subgenus or elevate a subgenus to genus
2. Genus (Subgenus) is rather odd; usually a parenthetical term is a less important component of a name, not the more important component
3. Better meets the WP:AT criterion of CONCISENESS Plantdrew (talk) 16:39, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Article creation at scale discussion

There is a discussion at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Requests for comment/Article creation at scale; the primary issue of concern is editors creating large numbers of stubs. Articles on species are repeatedly brought up as examples. "Large numbers" is not defined, but from the positions taken by some commenters an editor who regularly creates one article a day might be considered to be engaged in article creation at scale. Plantdrew (talk) 17:09, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Redirected taxa

What should be done with the taxonomy templates for taxa that are now redirected? Arctomiales is an example; it is now redirected to Baeomycetales. Should we keep the no-longer-used taxonomy template? Or should it be deleted? MeegsC (talk) 13:46, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Delete is my view. Peter coxhead (talk) 14:54, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Delete. At one point I was inclined to keep them, on the grounds that synonym status isn't necessarily permanent. Then I learned about Wikipedia:WikiProject Templates/Unused Templates Task Force; since there's a team of Wikipedians devoted to clearing out unused templates, I don't think taxonomy templates for synonyms need to stick around indefinitely; it's easy to recreate them if they become needed again (unused taxonomy templates account for more than half the entries in this list). MeegsC, if you're not already aware, the process to delete taxonomy templates is to blank the existing code and add Category:Unnecessary taxonomy templates. Plantdrew (talk) 16:11, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Plantdrew and Peter coxhead, do you have any idea how long cached transclusions remain? It's still showing 9 transcluded links to the now-defunct order, even though I've changed the affected taxonomy templates. MeegsC (talk) 10:28, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

It varies a lot. Usually its hours or a few days, but occasionally it can last weeks or even months. If you want to clear them make a null edit on the relevant pages. —  Jts1882 | talk  10:41, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, Jts1882. MeegsC (talk) 13:01, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

@MeegsC: the length of time seems to have increased recently in my experience; also you sometimes need to purge as well as make a null edit. Peter coxhead (talk) 16:38, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Looking for template that makes a fancy font for taxon authors

Hello, I originally come from the Spanish wikipedia in which the taxoboxes display the taxon authorities in this fancy font that I can't seem to find how to create myself. In English wikipedia I have come across the Template:Btname which uses the same font, but it only works when you want the taxon to be in italics (aka species or genera). Does anyone here know how this could be applied to higher taxa? Thanks in advance. Snoteleks (talk) 15:43, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Given how infrequently Btname is used on English Wikipedia [6] I don't see why its use needs to be further propagated. The current De Facto standard is fine imo. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:10, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

@Hemiauchenia that's also a question I've had for a while. What exactly is the de facto standard? Colon between name and date, or no colon? Date between parentheses, or without them? Snoteleks (talk) 16:20, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

@Snoteleks:, the standard differs between the botanical and zoological codes (protists have traditionally been covered by one of the codes depending on whether they are more plant-like or animal-like, but there are a few protists that have been variously treated under either code). Parentheses have meaning (they indicate that a species is now placed in a different genus than the one in which it was originally described); follow sources in including parentheses. The botanical code includes the name of the author of the current combination following a parenthetical author; the zoological code does not. The zoological includes the year, the botanical code does not. The zoological code doesn't explicitly address commas between name and date, but the examples within the code itself have commas, as do most sources. Wikipedia should standardize on having commas between authority and year in my view. Except for the commas, you won't be going wrong if you just format the authority exactly as it appears in your source(s).

@Snoteleks: Template:Smallcaps has more or less the same effect btw —Trilletrollet [ Talk | Contribs ] 18:02, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Why not just use the standard {{au}}? It has the advantage that it annotates the meaning of the text (i.e. that it's a taxon author) and the specifics of how it formats that can be controlled in one place at the level of the template. – Uanfala (talk) 18:14, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Small caps are the fancy font used for authorities on en.wiki. There are several ways to display them. {{Au}} is one. HTML tags <small> </small> are another. There are templates that automatically format a list of taxa with italics and small caps for authorities, such as {{Species list}}. {{Format species list}} makes it very easy to copy-paste a list of taxa from a source and have the formatting automatically applied ({{Species list}} requires entering a bunch of pipe characters). Snoteleks, do you have some specific examples of articles where you want to put authorities in small caps? The best way to do that varies somewhat from case to case. Plantdrew (talk) 19:36, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

@Plantdrew Thank you for the info! As for your question, I don't really have specific examples, but I was thinking of putting authorities in small caps in Taxonomy of Protista which is the article I'm currently working on the most. Other than that, articles familiar to me that already feature small taxonomies such as Eurotiomycetes or Cryptodifflugia is probably where I would start putting it, as well as all taxoboxes I come across (but I noticed that the Spanish taxobox template automatically places small caps in authority, unlike the English taxobox template, which would make the change here very tiresome and time-consuming; I don't know how they've made it possible in the Spanish template but it would be great to be able to do it automatically in the English one as well). Snoteleks (talk) 20:05, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

I don't follow what you mean when saying the English taxobox template does not put the authority in small caps. I see small caps authorities in the taxoboxes of the two examples you gave: Eurotiomycetes or Cryptodifflugia. Have you an example? —  Jts1882 | talk  09:28, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Jts1882 those aren't small caps. They're small letters, but most of those letters are lower case – i.e not small capitals. See https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Struthio this for an example of true "small caps". MeegsC (talk) 11:35, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Ah, I now I see the difference. The English Wikipedia uses the <small> tag, which applies CSS style font-size:85%. The Spanish one uses CSS style font-variant:small-caps. In the taxoboxes it's set by a template so could be changed if there was consensus. However, at some point this project decided to use the small tag and this convention is usually also used in taxon/species lists and other places where the authority is used. I think we should try and use a common style across the project rather than choose our personal preferences. —  Jts1882 | talk  11:53, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Agreed, we should reach a consensus before making this big of a change; even personal preferences can vary along time. But also, how could we reach that? Is there some kind of voting system that can be applied here? Also I think it's very worth mentioning that Wikispecies uses Smallcaps for all authorities already by default. Snoteleks (talk) 13:11, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

A new consensus can be reached following discussion on an appropriate talk page. In this case, which is quite far reaching in the changes that will need to be made, it might be appropriate to use a formal process known as a RfC (request for comment, see WP:RfC). Someone starts a discussion on an appropriate talk page with a proposal and requests comments. Notification should be given to relevant projects. People make comments for and against the proposal and after a suitable time a neutral editor closes the discussion with a decision. The decision is made on Wikipedia policies rather than a vote count.

Given the effort involved in an RfC, it might be best to start a discussion on this talk page to get an idea of whether the proposal has support. Just start a section, something like "Formatting of taxon authorities: proposal to use smallcaps instead of small font", and give your reasons for the change. —  Jts1882 | talk  14:28, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

@Snoteleks: in general, small caps are quite strongly deprecated in the English Wikipedia (see MOS:SMALLCAPS). I would expect there to have to be a very strong consensus to change from our existing use of a smaller font. Personally, I would be very opposed to any such change. One point of using a smaller font is to diminish the importance of the authority for the ordinary reader; small caps, like any use of all caps, has the reverse effect. Authorities are for taxonomists. Peter coxhead (talk) 15:29, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Honestly, after knowing the situation I see no reason to even propose such a change. It's already tiresome enough to do smallcaps outside of taxoboxes, and even though I'm a taxonomy enthusiast I struggle to see a reason why smallcaps could be significantly preferable over just small letters. Smallcaps does look a bit less cluttery to my eyes, but that's all there is to it. It's too subjective. Even though I wouldn't oppose it, I will not go as far as to propose this change. Snoteleks (talk) 15:52, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Many works use small caps for this, others use small letter, but even more just use a standard font, on Wikispecies we have templates for it which automatically uses small caps which makes capitol letters bigger than the as entered lowercase lettering. However, my own view is this is not important enough to worry about. Wikispecies was using small caps via templates 16 years ago when I started editing, so I followed with it, personally I am not a fan but its also a whatever thing, more important to have the references than worry about fonts. To me its more important to follow the relevant codes for the entering of authorities and to actually have them there, so when to use parentheses etc for a name, than anything about what font to use. Just do not use italics. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 17:27, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Trigonalidae or Trigonalyidae?

What is the correct spelling of this taxon? Wikipedia currently uses Trigonalidae, and states that "Trigonalyidae" is incorrect. According to Order Hymenoptera. In: Zhang, Z.-Q. (Ed.) Animal Biodiversity: An Outline of Higher-level Classification and Survey of Taxonomic Richness (Addenda 2013) This name has been spelled in two ways: Trigonalidae and Trigonalyidae. The family was proposed as Trigonalidae by Cresson (1887) and is based on the genus Trigonalys Westwood (1835). Westwood did not provide the derivation of his genus-group name, but it must be assumed that Trigonalys is to be treated as a noun in the nominative singular. It is presumably a compound word. If Latin, the first part of the name “trigonium” is a noun meaning triangle but the second part is ambiguous; it might come from the Greek “alys” or it might be an arbitrary combination of letters. Only in the latter case does ICZN Article 29.3.3 apply and the stem adopted by Cresson, who establishes the new family-group taxon, must be accepted as the correct spelling, namely Trigonalidae, however, a later 2020 paper, which includes some of the same authors, [7] favours Trigonalyidae as the correct spelling. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:25, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Since we are descriptive and not prescriptive, "correct" doesn't matter as much as as what is used in the literature. From what you posted, it seems like the literature is starting to come around to using the "yi" spelling, but it's probably not swung far enough for us to consider changing the name of the article. Probably safe enough to include some of the discussion of the spelling discrepancy in the article though. Those crazy ICZN cats... ;) - UtherSRG (talk) 00:03, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

I can't access the 2020 paper, but Lelej (2003; researchgate) says The stem of Trigonalys for the family-group name is trigonaly-os, which would make Trigonalyidae, Trigonalyinae or Trigonalyini the correct spelling (I.M. Kerzhner, personal communication). For last fifty years Trigonalidae and Trigonalyidae have been used approximately equal even former more often. According to the article 35.4.1 of International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (1999) Trigonalyidae Cresson, 1887, Trigonalyinae Cresson, 1887 and Trigonalyini Cresson, 1887 must be used.. So it seems the correct Greek (?) would be Trigonalyidae and that the code allows/requires the correction. However, as we need to follow sources we probably should leave the name as is and add "alternatively Trigonalyidae" and remove the "unjustified emendation" from the taxobox. —  Jts1882 | talk  08:23, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

I can't access the 2020 paper either. I'm not sure if Lelej has been consistent. Here is a claim that Lelej favored Trigonalidae in a 2013 paper. But there were a bunch of a coauthors, and maybe Lelej just didn't want to raise a stink about the spelling.

@Dyanega: created the Trigonalidae article in 2006 (with a mention of the spelling issue), has edited it extensively since, and fairly recently created the Trigonalyidae redirect. I'm inclined to defer to his judgement; there aren't any other Wikipedia editors who surpass Dyanega in knowledge of the zoological code. Plantdrew (talk) 15:18, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

This argument keeps resurfacing, and it needs to be killed, permanently. ICZN Article 29.5 is what puts the nail in its coffin, and these people talking about Article 35.4 are ignoring the rest of the Code. To wit: "29.5. Maintenance of current spellings. If a spelling of a family-group name was not formed in accordance with Article 29.3 but is in prevailing usage, that spelling is to be maintained, whether or not it is the original spelling and whether or not its derivation from the name of the type genus is in accordance with the grammatical procedures in Articles 29.3.1 and 29.3.2. (emphasis mine) The point is that the 1999 Code was written specifically to prevent pedantic scholars from changing accepted names after January 1, 2000, because they thought they were better grammatical scholars than the original authors, and/or felt a need to show just how scholarly they were by changing names all over the place. Article 29.5 was intended to put a stop to that sort of revisionary and very destabilizing nonsense once and for all, but evidently there are still people who don't know how to read the rules. As of January 1, 2000, there is ONE spelling for this family, and it is Trigonalidae. "Trigonalyidae" is incorrect, and its usage is in direct violation of the Code. Usages of "Trigonalyidae" after 1999 DO NOT COUNT when assessing prevailing usage. That would constitute "gaming the system" if all you needed to do to establish a different spelling for a name was to out-publish the correct name. Dyanega (talk) 15:40, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Indeed. However, that is about what is correct or not correct. Our job isn't to judge what is correct or not, but to report what is published. If there is a significant amount of literature using the "yi" spelling instead of the "i" spelling, it is not our job to say they are wrong, but to say that there is some controversy. Saying "alternatively Trigonalyidae" instead of "sometimes incorrectly spelled Trigonalyidae" is more of a WP:NPOV on the matter. And like I said above Probably safe enough to include some of the discussion of the spelling discrepancy in the article though. UtherSRG (talk) 12:47, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

I agree that baldly saying correct or not correct is problematic; however, we can (and should) say what is correct or not correct according to the ICZN with a reference to support this. Peter coxhead (talk) 16:43, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

I concur. @Dyanega: Since you are our code expert, can you get this done? - UtherSRG (talk) 17:58, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

The problem that arises is that now we have articles such as Coleopsidae where wiki-voice is being used to make fact assertions that are not actually present in any citable literature. We have to stay within the bounds of what published information provides, and not start actively making spelling/validity assertions that are definable as OR Synth. EG what primary or database source are we citing that actively makes the statement that Coleopsidae is correct and Coleopseidae is invalid? We CANT just state "29.4. wording is such, so we at wiki are making the defacto decision ahead of any citable reference".--Kevmin § 16:42, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

That might be partly my fault, this discussion made me think of Coleopsidae vs Coleopseidae and I brought it up to Dyanega to confirm what the correct spelling should be under the ICZN. I agree too that this unfortunately veers towards OR at least on Wikipedia ...unfortunately by just the actual sources the spelling usage seems to be split about half-half right now as far as I can tell: the original article establishing the name as well as the supplemental material of the recent Cai et al. (2022) use "Coleopsidae", while Kirejtshuk (2020) and Schädel et al. (2022) use "Coleopseidae"; Fossilworks currently uses "Coleopseidae" after Kirejtshuk (2020), while Paleobiology Database currently uses "Coleopsidae" after Cai et al. (2022). Monster Iestyn (talk) 17:36, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

I agree with Kevmin here. We need to cite sources demonstrating the controversy, not just baldly staying that a position is "wrong", without citing any sources to that effect. Why was the Coleopsidae article made at family level anyway, given that the family is monotypic? Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:04, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

I get the point being made by Kevmin, but 29.3 is what it is and whether you use incorrect or wrong, whatever, the code can be cited as a reference to the correct formation of names. You may have to explain it a little. I do not think it represents a WP:NPOV issue as the writer is citing the codes point of view not theirs. As Dyanega said those that stick to these grammar hound issues in nomenclature are really just trying to get an extra pub out. Their works are not code compliant and should be treated as such. Last paper out is not necessarily the correct one. If your writing about life you need to be making some decisions on these things. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 17:49, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

As for why I created it at family rank, the reasoning is simple: if we suppose someone adds a new genus, then they would need to create a new article for the family (since it can no longer be a redirect). That is a bit more tedious than editing an existing article. I prefer to avoid making articles for the lowest-ranking members of monotypic groups, for exactly this reason; they may not remain monotypic indefinitely. Dyanega (talk) 17:53, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

As for why I think this skirts but does not cross the "original research" boundary, I've said it before but I will reiterate it here: The ICZN Code has certain provisions which are both automatic and mandatory, and literally do not have to be published or cited in order to take effect. The most common such thing is gender agreement, and I often get comments from people who don't understand that you don't need someone to publish a statement that gives a new spelling to establish that a genus is one gender or another, or a species name is spelled one way or another if it has to do with gender agreement - you simply use the correct spelling on your own initiative, because that's what the rules tell you to do. Remember, the Code was written long before e-mail or the web, and was designed to give free agency to taxonomists, so they could act independently as much as possible. The easiest and most obvious way to distinguish between those parts of the Code that are automatic and mandatory and those that are not is to look for the word "must"; if says that, then this means that no one is required to publish it or provide a source. It's assumed that all taxonomists will independently take the same course of action. For matters of opinion, that are subject to debate or dispute, the Code spells out the steps to take, and usually says "should" (rather than "must"), and/or refers to the need for a Commission ruling. The Commission does not need to rule on gender agreement, nor does it need to rule on prevailing usage, nor does it need to rule on other mandatory provisions like Article 29.4. Those of us on the Commission would go nuts if we had to rule on every minor point of law, and authors would go nuts if they had to publish on every minor point of law. I do honestly think that all that should be necessary is to cite the rule in question, and state it as fact. Dyanega (talk) 18:11, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

A further point that is probably worth making: in cases where a certain action is mandated by the Code, but the "reigning authority" either is unaware of the rule or personally rejects the rule, then it can be years or even decades before someone else publishes anything that contradicts that authority, and even then it will typically not involve any formal statement, but simply using the Code-mandated spelling. This is the same basic argument I've had to raise with cataloguers and checklist maintainers who wanted to see a gender variant in print, or a gender published for a genus name, before they would change the names in their catalog or checklist. All that delaying does is give incorrect spellings more time to persist and propagate, which is exactly what the Code tries to prevent. Dyanega (talk) 18:39, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

I dig it. It's got a good rhythm and I can dance to it. However, it would be good if the code mentioned non-scientific writings (cataloges, checklists, encyclopedias) so that those catalogers and checklist editors and wikipedians would have an easier time saying "Oh, I can do this myself? Neat!" (Or if it does have some such mention, where is it?) - UtherSRG (talk) 18:56, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

(Not to say that what we are doing isn't scientific... but we're reporting on science, not creating science...) - UtherSRG (talk) 18:57, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Except wikipedia...doesnt...GET...to.."do it ourselves".

I feel it is rather important at this juncture to remind everyone that Wikipedia is at no point ever beholden to follow any ICZN or ICBN or other scientific bodies rules. Wikipedia only ever reports what has been stated somewhere else. Thus we will use ICZN rules "as used in the sources" we are never allowed to make any proactive action on a subject "Because the ICZN". Im going to be honest and state that Dyanegas rational above is pretty close to a taxtbook example of a wp:OR/synth violation. The timeframe it could take for a correction to happen is irrelevant to this situation, as are the actual ICZN rules. Wiki is not a primary source outlet for ICZN corrections or opinions. Unless a primary/secondary/teriary source actually says "name A is invalid per the ICZN", wikipedia can not make the definitive proactive statement.--Kevmin § 19:33, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

synth is taking A from one article and B from another and concluding C. Not really what I am saying. This is having A and B and choosing one based on the ICZN code. I can see your point that this is borderline wp:OR, but if you want to include articles about living species your going to have to be willing to push this. However, in saying that I would recommend these changes to articles are done through consensus, you may want to in difficult cases refer to what we have for the taxon on Wikispecies, where we do not have these policies as its not what we are trying to do there. All Encyclopedias have had to do this and those policies are written for human constructs, they do not translate well to describing the living world as it just does not obey any human made rules. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 20:03, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

In a very real way, rejecting a standing authoritative source is akin to giving undue weight to minority opinions, which is also something we have policies against in Wikipedia. A single taxonomist's opinion does not establish the spelling of a name: theirs is a minority opinion, and the Code establishes - by explicit consensus of the entire taxonomic community - what that majority opinion is. In principle, the only significant difference is that the majority opinion, as embodied by the Code, rarely cites individual examples but instead gives general cases. For example, I can't see why, if a mollusc taxonomist published a paper today using the name "Haliotididae", one could justify rejecting this in an edit in Wikipedia by citing the specific example in the Code (under Art. 29.3.1.1. where it says "The family-group names HALIOTIDAE and HALIOTOIDEA are not changed to HALIOTIDIDAE and HALIOTIDOIDEA, even though the stem of Haliotis is Haliotid-, as the latter spellings are not in prevailing usage."), but would not be allowed to edit any other case that falls under this exact same Code Article. All such names should be treated the same, even if the individual name in question is not cited in the Code. You appear to be saying that if the name Trigonalidae had appeared as an example in the Code under Article 29.5, we would not be having this discussion at all, and there would be no controversy. To me, there is no controversy at all in the first place, and such a narrowly-defined policy comes across as a double standard that - again - gives undue weight to the opinions of taxonomists who violate the Code. By analogy, if someone proposes an alternative definition for a word that is completely at odds with what it says in the dictionary, I don't think we are compelled to lend that alternative definition credence in Wikipedia - it does not make sense to force editors to wait until a secondary source comes out and says "This person's definition does not correspond to what is in the dictionary". Dyanega (talk) 20:39, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

I think it's important to distinguish, as we do in other cases, between (1) article titles and taxoboxes, and (2) the text of articles. We have to make a single choice for the article title and the taxobox. This choice has to be consistent, to make articles and taxoboxes fit together, so cannot always be the majority usage in current sources for a given taxon. The text of articles, on the other hand, must reflect all reliable sources. I'm more familiar with debates over the ICNafp, where have been (and still are) many cases where sources disagree (e.g. our article is currently at Opuntia triacantha, while IPNI says it should be Opuntia triacanthos). My view is that we should follow the Codes as closely as possible for article titles and taxoboxes, while fully respecting alternative sources in the text. I don't accept that this is WP:SYNTH. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:13, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Multiple common names for a species

What exactly are the requirements for a species to have more than one common name (i.e. european marten, iranian leopard)? Does it require sources and scientific articles using such names, or does it not require any sources? Firekong1 (talk) 19:25, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Many species have multiple common names and this is particularly the case when you take multiple languages and wide ranging species into account. With the exception for birds, mammals and some plant groups scientific articles are more likely to use the scientific name rather than any vernacular one. They are local names formed by habit and of little value to the species. If you find one I am sure other will find more. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 20:05, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Common names should be sourced (often sources aren't provided, but they should be). The source doesn't need to be a scientific article; a dictionary should generally be fine. Wikipedia doesn't need to exhaustively document every obscure common name, or minor variants of a common name. In the case of European pine marten, I'm skeptical that "baum marten" needs to be mentioned; it is sourced to a dictionary, which claims it is a name in American English for a European animal. "Baum marten" does get more reported Google hits than "European marten", but "baum marten" appears to be a name that is mostly used in the fur industry. Plantdrew (talk) 20:07, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

I see. From my understanding, I assumed that as long as some common names aren't too different from their most used common name. But since science is a subject that is always changing, there will be those who might use the common names in such articles. Personally, I don't think sourcing alternate common names matter as long as the common name does not diverge much in any way, but I understand the requirements. I just do not see it as a significant issue to add such names. And of course wikipedia does not need to document every name, but some common names would make more sense than others, especially over time.

Firekong1 (talk) 20:16, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Recluting support for new WikiProject Protista

Hello everyone!

There's a recent proposal for a new project and I am trying to get more people on board. This new project's scope would be focused exclusively on high eukaryote evolution and on protists, which are basically orphaned by the existing WikiProjects for organisms (fungi, animals, viruses, animals...).

As most of you may know, protists account for a huge slice of Earth's biodiversity, and their study is growing rapidly these past decades in many areas of biology, yet they are severely underrepresented in Wikipedia. They're an enormous untouched source of information just waiting to be passed onto wiki articles. This Project would take care of organizing such an effort.

If you're interested in supporting it or participating in it, please add your username in the Support section of this page: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Proposals/Protista.

Thank you!

Snoteleks (talk) 19:13, 20 October 2022 (UTC)