Talk:Orthilia

Requested move 9 March 2017

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: No consensus. Looking just at the !votes from the reopened 2019 conversation (but noting that a large number of opposes were registered in 2017, and unfortunately very few of those pinged returned to re-look at this). The point is made that Orthilia kareliniana is a different species and a contender for the name, but this was refuted by Peter coxhead and overall there was no huge consensus or strong body of evidence from the recent conversation that would reverse the large number of previous opposes. Feel free to come back and make a strongly evidenced case in future, but for now the status quo remains. — Amakuru (talk) 19:00, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Orthilia → Orthilia secunda – This article is about species Orthilia secunda, not genus Orthilia. Wikidata should be adjusted too. Darekk2 (talk) 15:29, 9 March 2017 (UTC) --Relisted. Paine Ellsworth, ed. ^put'r there 01:00, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relist note: While at a glance this appears as consensus not to rename, I relisted it because of the support !vote and rationale that shows there are two species, O. secunda and O. kareliniana. Since all opposers base their rationales on WP:MONOTYPICFLORA, it is hoped that they are monitoring this RM and will return to rethink their rationales. Paine Ellsworth, ed. ^put'r there 01:06, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging Darekk2, Jenks24, EncycloPetey, Nyttend, Plantdrew, Choess and Peter coxhead. Paine Ellsworth, ed. ^put'r there 01:22, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Members of WikiProject Plants have been notified of this re-opened discussion. Paine Ellsworth, ed. ^put'r there 01:28, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Darekk2: See WP:MONOTYPICFLORA. "A genus with a single species is treated at the article for the genus." Jenks24 (talk) 15:45, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that just a while later, but it has completely incorrect Wikidata:
http://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q1552593
instead of:
http://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q162501
and consequently incorrect links to articles in other languages in the left panel. Readers of this article in other languages are also not able to find its English version, because it is not listed in their left panel. Darekk2 (talk) 16:02, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is a contested technical request (permalink). EdJohnston (talk) 16:59, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging the creator, User:Geschichte, and the following editors who have moved the page in the past: User:Plantdrew, User:Nyttend and User:EncycloPetey. It should not be hard to fix Wikidata once a decision has been made on what title should be used here on the English Wikipedia. EdJohnston (talk) 17:21, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article should not be moved per the cited WP policy, and should remain at Orthilia . Wikidata has its own agenda, and this discussion (and many similar ones) have been held repeatedly. Wikidata collects data by taxon name, not according to any article, and there are many hundreds of pages across all language Wikipedias with this same issue. Some WP projects choose to place the article for a monotypic taxon at the genus, and some place it at the species, while a few repeat the information for both. Because of the differences at various WP projects, Wikidata will necessarily not have interwikis connecting all the articles. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:26, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Don't move per Plantdrew's reasoning in reverting my move. I indeed misread WP:MONOTYPICFLORA, which outright says "A genus with a single species is treated at the article for the genus." Per WP:CONLIMITED, a discussion here may not override the naming convention. Nyttend (talk) 17:31, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose At en.wiki, the only species in a monotypic genus is discussed in an article with the genus title, per WP:MONOTYPICFLORA and WP:MONOTYPICFAUNA. Other language Wikipedias have chosen different solutions. This is known issue for Wikidata (see d:WD:Bonnie and Clyde) but that's something for Wikidata folks to figure out how to handle. Practice at en.wiki clearly favors the current title. Plantdrew (talk) 17:58, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here is an example article about Orthilia secunda:
Gruszynka_jednostronna
It contains links to about 20 other articles about Orthilia secunda in the left panel, no one is English. Because English description is hidden in the areticle about genus Orthilia. Species is species, genus is genus, hiding species in an article about genus is not only nonsense, but sort of vandalism. Darekk2 (talk) 19:43, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I tried to add Orthilia secunda article (redirect) here:
  http://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q162501#sitelinks-wikipedia
  but it is impossible: "Could not save due to an error. The link enwiki:Orthilia is already used by item Q1552593." etc. Darekk2 (talk) 20:15, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as per my comment above. As has been noted by others, this is a problem for Wikidata to fix. To call it "vandalism" is bizarre. Jenks24 (talk) 03:19, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- This is a bug in Wikipedia and you can't close your eyes putting this on Wikidata. Darekk2 (talk) 11:04, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Our guidelines on monotypic taxon naming exist for a reason: if we insisted on having separate articles for both genus and species, either one article would have to be a permanent one-line stub, or their content would be largely duplicated and require constant synchronization. Neither of these is desirable. Darekk2, please read the "Bonnie and Clyde" problem help page on Wikidata that Plantdrew linked to, because it shows that the accusations you have made are not true. Choess (talk) 14:23, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Our policy is quite clear, as has been noted above. The underlying problem is a well understood design fault in Wikidata, namely that it can only handle 1:1 relationships between Wikipedia articles. This is not in the slightest specific to taxa, it happens whenever one Wikipedia splits material between separate articles that is kept in one article in another. It's absolutely a problem for Wikidata to solve; to suppose that articles in different Wikipedias would always be in a 1:1 relationship was an elementary error that I wouldn't expect anyone with any experience of database design to make. Peter coxhead (talk) 17:13, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

above: 2017, below: 2019

Support: this source mentions species Orthilia kareliniana (A.K.Skvortsov) Holub and Orthilia secunda (L.) House. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:42, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- The Kew listing is based on a 1975 publication. The Flora of North America treatment [1], which is more current, recognizes a single species in the genus. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:47, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Because it's in a reliable secondary source, we have to mention Orthilia kareliniana on the genus page, but the evidence that it's genuinely a separate species is very weak. Plants of the World Online is reliable where the families have been actively reviewed (basically those that are in the World Checklist of Selected Plant Families); elsewhere it can have the same problem as the now obsolete The Plant List, namely it just lists species names mentioned in the literature. Peter coxhead (talk) 05:20, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Has it's own articles on four other pedias, and here's another listing. Maybe its synonym, Ramischia kareliniana, is rising in the taxonomy level? Paine Ellsworth, ed. ^put'r there 01:16, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - Unfortunately, many other wikipedias have very poorly referenced articles, and tend to create automated or semi-automated articles for every name in biological databases. Peter coxhead (talk) 07:37, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. If there was an article for Orthilia kareliniana that was reliably sourced the case for the move would make itself. Unfortunately there doesn't seem to be much on this putative species at all. A source bringing it into synonymy with Orthilia secunda and confirming the monotypic genus would make the case against the move. Jts1882 | talk 07:52, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.