Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of Life/Archive 39

This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:WikiProject Tree of Life. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 35

←

Archive 37

→

Monotypic genera

I've been spending some time in rodents, and I noticed some of the extant monotypic genera there only list the genus for the title page, but not the species. I know fossil monotypic genera, plant monotyoic genera, and nonvertebrate monotypic genera usually list the genus only, but I thought higher class extant and "recently extinct" vertebrate monotyopic genera (mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, and fish) list both genus and species. I know all extant and "recently extinct" bird species in monotypic genera list genus and species. Before I change any more I thought I'd reach out for any history......Pvmoutside (talk) 18:38, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Any examples? FunkMonk (talk) 19:06, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

yup....Drymoreomys, Eremoryzomys, Lundomys, Mindomys, etc. in rodents; Anelytropsis in reptiles.....Pvmoutside (talk) 19:11, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand. Are you asking whether the article title should be the binomial rather than the genus name? As far as I'm aware, most monotypic genera use the genus for the title, per WP:MONOTYPICFAUNA and WP:MONOTYPICFLORA. The big exceptions are birds (where the title is the common name for the species) and fishes (local consensus by a couple of no-longer active(?) editors led to many articles on monotypic genera at the binomial title). Plantdrew (talk) 19:26, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

So I have a small problem with WP:MONOTYPICFAUNA. It only lists dinosaurs and invertebrates as examples. Numbat has an English name title. Both the binomial format and the genus format are found on existing pages. I'd suggest extant and recently extinct vertebrates use the binomial when English names aren't available. Most taxonomic authorities follow this format. I can move them to binomial whenever I find them if there is no objection........Pvmoutside (talk) 19:35, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

I object most strongly, and what's more, no decision can be made here. WP:MONOTYPICFAUNA (and WP:MONOTYPICFLORA) are long established and widely used conventions for use when articles on monospecific genera are at the scientific name. Yes, some Wikiprojects have wrongly followed a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS, but local consensus cannot over-ride a higher level consensus, and the correct procedure is to move those articles that are not in line with these two naming conventions.

If the species has an English name that truly meets all the criteria in WP:AT, then the article title should be the English name. Again it's clear that some Wikiprojects have been attempting to use a local consensus to over-ride WP:AT by insisting on the use of an English name when the scientific name is actually more commonly used – in WP:COMMONNAME, "common name" does not mean "vernacular name", it means the most commonly used and hence recognizable name. Peter coxhead (talk) 20:03, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Yep. And for a lot of obscure extant and recently extinct stuff that'll be the binomial. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ< 20:32, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

I don't think the current rule is the way it is because it's the best possible in every situation. A case could be made for other options, but I think the current rule is a good because it is pretty simple and straight forward. Changing it would open difficult-to-solve issues at each article. We've got better things to do. SchreiberBike | ⌨ 20:42, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Peter, I don't entirely disagree with your statement regarding WP:MONOTYPICFAUNA, but as I mention above, examples listed for the guideline only list dinosaurs and invertebrates. As a suggestion, perhaps some examples can be listed in the guideline for some vertebrate taxa? or a statement can be added to allow for a binomial page name for vertebrates? Just because its been that way for a while doesn't mean concensus can't change the format, particularly since both ways are used now. Again, most taxonomic authorties list the binomial as the species name for extant and recently extinct vertebrates...SMcCandlish thank you for your opinion, Schreiberbike as well. Wouldn't be that difficult to change all monotypic vertebrates to a binomial format on a gradual basis (or the other way for that matter) since there is no consistency now......anyone else out there care enough to comment?....Pvmoutside (talk) 20:49, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, another example is reasonable, as long as it doesn't mislead, by implying non-extinct taxa in general should be subject to that rule. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ< 22:15, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

To me, the rule as currently stated in WP:MONOTYPICFAUNA and WP:MONOTYPICFLORA seems logical, and I do not see what would be the benefit of moving to binomials. Micromesistius (talk) 22:21, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

The benefit for using binomials for extant and recently extinct vertebrates is to follow prevailing taxonomy from most other sources. I also had a page where the monotypic genus was the article name, but its species was a red link which I promptly fixed. Was only one page though.......(so far)...Pvmoutside (talk) 23:28, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

@Pvmoutside: I really don't see what you think is a problem. How are we not following prevailing taxonomy? The article title for monospecific genera doesn't much matter, provided that redirects exist (from the species name if the article is at the genus name and from both the genus and species name if the article is at the English name). The article should, of course, discuss both the genus and the only species. If you are saying that some articles on monospecific genera don't mention the sole species, then that's a problem with the article, not the title. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:36, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Peter, I agree the article title shouldn't be a big deal...I'll drop it. My only point is at most other tax websites they use binomial for species in monotypic genera for the higher class organisms (i.e. vertebrates) and was trying to get that consistency to Wikipedia titles. I linked the redlink species for the 1 article I found in a monotypic genus article title. I suppose the reverse can be true as well. FYI, my preference is still to use binomials for monotypic article titles, but I'll leave as is, given the input above.....Pvmoutside (talk) 12:24, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

I would add that "WP should do it this particular way because some other organization prefers it" (in biological article titling in particular) has led to massive shitstorms on WP before, including one that ran for about eight years. Having some kind of default here is probably reasonable, but there's no way to prevent the interplay of things like WP:UCR, when a most-common name exists and doesn't fit the default pattern. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ< 12:08, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

The convention at WP:MONOTYPICFAUNA is a strange one. The article title should be "under the scientific name of lowest rank" with one exception, the genus. And the exception is dropped when there is a common name for the species or when the genus name needs disambiguation (which the binomial shouldn't ever need). The specific animal is the subject of the article so would be the obvious article title under the binomial or common name. The species name gets bolded in the lede. No one would suggest using the monotypic family or order for the article title so why was the exception made for the genus when there isn't a common name? However, as it is a long-standing convention and followed on the majority of Wikipedia projects I see no reason to change it without a strong reason for doing so. The important thing is that the redirects are correct. Jts1882 | talk 10:07, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

though I recognise @Peter coxhead:'s point about this not being the pace. Please note I am not suggesting change of policy here either but want to make some observations with this issue. With monotype genera where there is only a scientific name (no vernacular name exists) it is often the case that I have seen that the page name is the genus name. Personally I think that is not the best method. Taxonomy can change and the thing that should be stable is the species name. We cannot use the species name alone, as homonyms are only an issue if two identically named species are in the same genus. I think you should use the binomen with authors as the title. Then even if the combination changes, requiring a page move, part of the original title will be maintained. I am no fan of vernacular names as titles at all, they are messy, unstable and honestly unprofessional. But that is another topic. I think this is a topic that could use a decent discussion with all viewpoints presented. However this is not the place to do it. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 06:36, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

I agree with User:Jts1882 and with User:Faendalimas. Although User:Peter coxhead thinks, "that WP:MONOTYPICFAUNA (and WP:MONOTYPICFLORA) are long established and widely used conventions". It is not truth. There has never been consensus on it, there has never been resonable discussion on it, that stupid rule was writen without discussion and without any reason. That guidleine has been written with an effort to standardize article names on Wikipedia, but the decision was seriously wrong. There are still about a half of monotypic genera named in this or that way on Wikipedia. There is need guideline, that fits Wikipedia and Wikipedia readers needs. This is something, that can never been done randomly. User:Micromesistius "seems logical" actual guidleine. So I will provide few reasons, why actual guidleine is irrational, overcomplicated and harming Wikipedia principles:

Species is the most specific major taxonomic rank. People are asking: "How many species is there?". Not genera. (Recognizability, Naturalness, Precision, Consistency)
When people are referreing (linking) to some species (without deep linnking to the article history), the resulted page should provide at least article about the same species forever. With everchanging taxonomy a reader can be linked (after some time) to even completely unrelated genus article. This can be fixed very easily: use binomial names for article names normally. Genus articles should be about genera; we never know if there will be one, two or 10 species in the genus. But the article about certain species should always be about the certain species (including its article history optimally). (Stability)
When there are three species in the genus, the genus article normally exist. When will the taxonomy change, the genus article can redirect to a single species article (which normally existed before). When the taxonomy will change again, we can add ten new species in the genus. When there will be change, we can make just redirect (not move). And so on. And so on. This will normally keep genus article history and it will keep article history in its place.
Articles about species are usually larger than articles about genera. Moving a species article from one binomial name to another binomial name is quite simple. But moving of such article, when there is also a genus, usually results to complete deletion of article history of the genus. This is serious issue. I am loosing my determination to edit monotypic articles, because I KNOW, that current actual guidleines are so bad, that could results in complete deletion of user's edits very easily. Not just moving texts somewhere else, but complete descruction of user's effort from the history. It is regularly happening there.
This is issue, that can hardly resolve somebody, who focus only for example on extant birds, on extant mammals, and so on. This is issue, that can be resolved in its whole complexity. Thanks for your attention.

--Snek01 (talk) 11:06, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Most of what you write doesn't apply to prehistoric genera, though. What layman knows (or cares about) the specific names of any prehistoric animals, except for T. rex? Likewise, most dinosaur genera are monotypic, and that's another reason why they are kept at the genus level. FunkMonk (talk) 12:01, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

I do not want to change the prehistoric genera articles. I respect the fact, that some prehistoric species are poorly described, for example a dinosaur can be described accoring one bone only. - Prehistoric articles usually interfere with extant articles on Wikipedia like this: An extant species is descibed on Wikipedia somehow. It is thought to be monotypic by wikipedias or it is really monotypic. Then somebody will recognize, that there already exist prehistoric species in the same genus or new prehistoric species in the same genus are newly described. Then it is needed to resolve it somehow. --Snek01 (talk) 13:20, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

It needs to be taken into account, though, as guidelines at TOL covers all lifeforms, extinct and extant. FunkMonk (talk) 23:06, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

@Snek01: you can certainly argue for a change in the guideline (and I might well agree with you). But this guideline has been there since this edit in January 2010, i.e. for eight years. A guideline that has existed for so long has consensus by definition.

You're also wrong to say that a user's edits would be deleted from the record. It makes absolutely no difference which title is used. No article will be deleted, so no history will be deleted. If the single article is at the genus, then the material relating to the species will be split off into a new article. If the single article were at the species, then the material relating to the genus would be split off into a new article. Either way, {{Split article}} on the talk page of both articles provides links to the history. Peter coxhead (talk) 12:19, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

When there is moved an article about a species over the redirect to the article name of the genus, then the page history of the genus is - lets say - destroyed. I do not wonder, that you did not know that, because this is not visible. - For example, I think, that there was article history about the genus Dicathais at the http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Dicathais webpage prior to 1 June 2012. Unfortunately such information is not visible and is not traceable on Wikipedia. Could any administrator let us to know what informations are stored inside the Wikipedia about the website http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Dicathais prior to 1 June 2012, please? --Snek01 (talk) 13:20, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

@Snek01: I don't understand. At [1], I can see the history of the page back to its creation in 2007. It was moved twice on 1 June 2012. Peter coxhead (talk) 14:32, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Here's another example. Look at the history of Mei long. It started at "Mei long"; was moved to "Mei (dinosaur)" [wrong because monotypic genera needing disambiguation should be at the species]; then moved back to "Mei long". All the history is preserved, from creation on 30 December 2004 to the present.

It's true that if you use the "Move" command under the "More" tab, any history of the target page will be lost – but that's why you can only use this command when the lost history is extremely trivial. As soon as there is a substantial history at the target page, the move has to be done in a way that preserves histories, e.g. by a "round robin" move. v|Peter coxhead]] (talk) 14:46, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

User:Peter coxhead, you may call lost article history "extemely trivial". But every genus article has the following minimum things: introductory sentence, complete taxonomic placement, authority, authority year, may have authority reference, links, categories, at least one reference. All of this things allow existence of the article in its own way and all of these informations are being lost forever. When there will increse number of species in the genus to two or more species, then there could be possible very simply create the article from its page history. --Snek01 (talk) 13:47, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

@Snek01: no, sorry, you continue to misunderstand. You cannot "move" an article over another in a way that deletes the history of the target article unless that article has a very trivial history, as explained at Wikipedia:Moving a page#How to move a page: "the move will fail if a page already exists at the target name, unless it is simply a redirect to the present name that has never been modified". Only admins can delete all or part of a page's history (e.g. because of plagiarism). None of the information you list above will be lost. Peter coxhead (talk) 13:58, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

@Peter coxhead:, it is lost how the website http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Dicathais about the genus looked like in 2007. It is only kept how the website http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Dicathais_orbita about the species looked like in 2007. It is not possible to renew from the history how the article about the genus looked like before. --Snek01 (talk) 15:15, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

@Snek01: why do you think there were two articles before 2007? I see no evidence that there ever were. Anyway, I don't intend to pursue this thread since you clearly don't believe what I say. Peter coxhead (talk) 17:38, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

I concur with Snek01. And there is another problem. When one uses the templates {{Automatic taxobox}} and {{Speciesbox}}, for the sake of continuity Speciesbox must be linked to Automatic taxobox of the genus. Furthermore, if one looks at the example raised by Snek01, one can see all the synonyms of the species Dicathais orbita. These synonyms do not belong to the genus Dicanthais. The same applies to the many references in the article, most of which are referring specificallly to the species. In my opinion, there should be a separate article for the genus and for the species, even if the genus is monotypic. In malacology, the reference database is WoRMS This database always gives a separate article for the species and the genus, even if the genus is monotypic, as one can see here. Dicathais and Dicathais orbita. The content of the articles is even different, as they should be. Ii may be that in other areas of zoology, this distinction is not so stringent and an article about a monotypic genus may be acceptable. Nevertheless, I would like to see the distinction be accepted as a general rule: as a practical rule and for the sake of continuity. JoJan (talk) 15:11, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

@JoJan: actually this is a different proposal to Snek01's, since you're arguing for two articles rather than one at the species name. Or, to be more accurate, for many articles, if the idea is applied consistently. For example, there would be four articles at Amborella trichopoda, Amborella, Amborellaceae and Amborellales.

@Peter coxhead: Indeed, I'm arguing for separate articles. This would be only logical, even if this needs four articles as in the case mentioned. Whenever I create an article about a monotypic genus (which doesn't happen all too often among the many articles I've already created), I also make an article about the species involved. In my opinion, a monotypic genus is not different from any other genus, and should be treated the same way. JoJan (talk) 16:29, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

@JoJan: you should not be creating multiple articles when it is clearly against the long established convention. By all means argue for changes to the way things are done, but don't act unilaterally. Peter coxhead (talk) 17:46, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Agree, making multiple pages that are both based on and will only effectively present the same information is redundant. In cases of monotypy one page grouping all the info of the various taxonomic levels effected is plenty. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 18:09, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't understand what you mean by for the sake of continuity Speciesbox must be linked to Automatic taxobox of the genus. Taxoboxes are never linked. If you use {{Speciesbox}} for a species and {{Automatic taxobox}} for the genus to which the species belongs, monotypic or not, both obtain their taxonomy from the taxonomy template for the genus (at "Template:Taxonomy/GENUS_NAME"). Why is that a problem?? The higher level taxa to which a species belongs are necessarily the same as those to which the genus belongs.

I was under the impression that the templates (not the taxoboxes) are linked to each other. If there is no problem, as you say, then no problem for me. JoJan (talk) 16:29, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Comments moved to a new section at #Separating synonyms. Peter coxhead (talk) 22:40, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Just looking through some points raised since my last comment on this topic. First up almost universally prehistoric species have the scientific name as the vernacular name, but I agree that these are best kept under what is known. As for adding fossils to existing monotypic genera I would suggest Rheodytes as an example, this was a monotypic genus with Rheodytes leukops to which I later described the fossil species Rheodytes devisi hence it was no longer monotypic and the additional species are fossils. I do not agree that a custom being in place for 8 years makes it the best way, though I can see the point that this means consensus by default. However, this does not mean it should not be improved. My points on page titles were made with me fully aware that the history can be preserved I do not have that fear. I certainly do not think WP should be creating articles for every level of a, say, monotypic family (eg Carettochelyidae, Carettochelys, Carettochelys insculpta is over kill and ridiculous, all this can be merged at one level. However, my point is that the title Carettochelys insculpta Ramsay 1890 would be the most stable title. As far as taxoboxes etc go, template driven issues are easily dealt with by modification of templates to suit the needs in question, I do not see a problem here. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 17:17, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

I think I've read the relevant information here to understand what is going on with this discussion. I have to agree with those above that prehistoric fauna and extant fauna should have different requirements, with regards to the article titles. In paleontological papers, the binomial and genus name of a monotypic taxon are used almost interchangably, although most of the time the full binomial is only indicated at the beginning (unless shared species named are involved). Extinct taxa also do not have the potential depth to articles, all we can write about are a few rocks, what they are related to, what they look like, and potential implications. Based on the published literature, monotypic extinct taxa should be titled with the genus name (as is typical), or the binomial as a form of disambiguation (this is more controversial). For multi-species articles, there is more subjectivity, but generally unless there is the possibility of a splitting between the species, or the genus article is too long, those remain in a single article as well. None of this really applies to extant genera, which is why I think *if* we change the current guideline then we should *also* make a distinction between extinct and extant taxa, which means we have to draw a new line somewhere. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 18:40, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

I would like to also recommend to read this old discussion: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Gastropods/Archive_5#Monotypic_article_titles.
Wikipedia claims on its Main page "... that anyone can edit." There will not be administrators right needed for necessary changes, when number of species within a monotypic genus will increase. This is within the spirit of Wikipedia. There already exist Wikiprojects, that have no human administrators power to provide all necessay changes of article titles (because of changing taxonomy). There will still remain enourmous work for administrators to do other necessary moves, but at least every little simplification will help.
I propose this change not for my pleasure to change anything. But because of we have enough evidence, that this can be done easier, more simple, more standardized, more practically for everyones profit. Thank you. --Snek01 (talk) 13:47, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Guideline change proposal

I propose a change in the guideline WP:MONOTYPICFAUNA.

From this (deleted that will be deleted are stroked):

A monotypic taxon is a taxonomic group which only contains a single subgroup (e.g., a genus with only one known species, even a subphylum with one family with one genus). In such a case, the ranks with identical member organisms should not be separated into different articles, and the article (if there is no common name) should go under the scientific name of lowest rank, but no lower than the monotypic genus. Redirects should be created from the other ranks to the actual article.

 The species name Myrmecobius fasciatus and its monotypic genus Myrmecobius are both redirects to the article at the common name of the species, Numbat.

   The two-species genus Xenoturbella has redirects from the monotypic family Xenoturbellidae and subphylum Xenoturbellida.
   The genus Nodocephalosaurus has a redirect from its sole species, Nodocephalosaurus kirtlandensis.
   The family Amphionidacea, redirects to its single genus Amphionides, as does the sole species Amphionides reynaudii.

The exception is when a monotypic genus name needs to be disambiguated. The article should then be at the species, since this is a more natural form of disambiguation.

   Viator picis with a redirect at Viator (bird) rather than vice versa.

To this:

A monotypic taxon is a taxonomic group which only contains a single subgroup (e.g., a genus with only one known species, even a subphylum with one family with one genus). In such a case, the ranks with identical member organisms should not be separated into different articles, and the article (if there is no common name) should go under the scientific name of lowest rank. Redirects should be created from the other ranks to the actual article.

Could you do all formal things regarding the proposal for updating of guideline page, please? Thanks. --Snek01 (talk) 13:47, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Oppose It is clear from the discussion above that there is no consensus for making this change. Peter coxhead (talk) 14:02, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
Comment I think that a change that I would imagine is actually fairly broad sweeping requires more than a few votes here and a more rounded discussion above. I am not going to oppose it at this stage but rather recommend an RfC made known to as many relevant projects as possible. I think this needs better discussion and a better balance of opinions. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 14:19, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
Oppose As Peter coxhead mentioned, there is a distinct lack of consensus and it is to soon to propose a change like this. Additionally, I agree with IJReid above that if such a change goes through, a clause must be made exempting prehistoric genera from this guideline. I lack experience with extant genera articles in order to comment on whether this is a positive or negative change there, but for prehistoric articles, this makes little sense. We keep the articles at the genus level whether or not the genus is monotypic as a rule (exceptions exist; Edmontosaurus is the only dinosaurian exception to my knowledge and that has been questioned; Mammoth has species-level articles, but Smilodon does not), since there's generally not enough material for that article to get overly long or for species-level articles to progress beyond stubs. With this in mind, anytime a genus switched from monotypic to polytypic, we'd have to move the article and make some re-wordings. With genus-level titles this is not a problem and the new species needs merely be added. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 19:33, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

@Lusotitan: Thank you for your comment. Prehistoric taxa are not mentioned in the whole WP:MONOTYPICFAUNA guideleine at all. I thought, that prehistoric taxa guidleine were completely covered within the Wikiproject Paleontology guideline and I thought, that this note about monotypic taxa will not affect prehistoric taxa at all. But if you wish to implement recommendations about prehistoric taxa into the WP:MONOTYPICFAUNA, I do agree with that. Could you suggest how the proposal would sound like? --Snek01 (talk) 22:11, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

@Snek01: Prehistoric fauna are already included in WP:MONOTYPICFAUNA, Nodocephalosaurus is listed as an example, and is an extinct taxon. There is no specific mention of prehistoric fauna because the entire article covers *all* fauna, and so far prehistoric fauna are not an exception anywhere in the guideline. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 22:47, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Oh, I see. Thanks. This is not issue. My intention has never been to alter way for naming prehistoric taxa. There can be one subsection for extant and one section for prehistoric. Therefore there should be three new prehistoric examples instead of extant ones. --Snek01 (talk) 23:22, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

@Snek01: please clarify what you are proposing. Immediately above you say that you don't want to change the guidelines for prehistoric taxa, but this is not what your proposal says. Peter coxhead (talk) 19:12, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

I wrote there Wikipedia:Village_pump_(idea_lab)#MONOTYPICFAUNA_initial_guideline_change_proposal and probably RfC will be fine too. --Snek01 (talk) 15:54, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Comment - seems this needs more discussion before we can have a "vote". FunkMonk (talk) 23:04, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

IN SUPPORT - I have asked for Argyrocytisus to be moved to Argyrocytisus battandieri, as this is a monotypic genus and the entire article (including the speciesbox, image, etc.) is about the species not the genus. There may be information about the genus which is distinct from the species (though I doubt it, since this genus has been created for the purpose of housing the sole species). Until such time as we know something meaningful and distinct about the genus, there should not be a Wikipedia heading for the genus. Darorcilmir (talk) 22:37, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

The genus is effectively the same as the species when it comes to monotypic genera, so it doesn't really matter whether something meaningful can be said about the genus, the same information would be included in an article about the monotypic species. FunkMonk (talk) 22:54, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

@Darorcilmir: Please don't do that. There is a guideline now existing which says how we handle those. There is a discussion going on about changing that, and if we do change it, there will be many thousands of articles to move, but trying to make changes before that is disruptive. SchreiberBike | ⌨ 23:15, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Support (with examples expanded, not deleted; the examples should help get consensus). The current convention makes no sense when considered using logic or common sense.

The article is about the species, not some abstract category containing the species. We don’t use a monotypic phylum name for article titles because the article is about the known species. The current guideline reflects this when it says "should go under the scientific name of lowest rank". Then it introduces the exception "but no lower than the monotypic genus". Why? When there is a species name it makes no more sense to use a monotypic generic name than a monotypic family name or monotypic order name. This already happens when there is a common name because there is an exception to the exception for this case. Another exception is when there is a need for disambiguation, which would never be the the case with a species name. Use of the species name would avoid the need for the exception or the exceptions to the exception.

Common sense suggests the article should be under the most commonly used name. This happens in non-monotypic genera where the species articles are named after the common name (if widely used) or the binomial name if that is more commonly used. Common sense also suggests that for extinct species where the generic name is the commonly used name that the generic name should be the title. The only exception to the common sense approach is using a monotypic genus over the species name when that is widely used.

The point about extinct species using the generic name is worth a further note. As already mentioned, the generic name is generally the name in common usage and is most suitable for the article title under common sense considerations (although not for Tyrannosaurus rex). The examples in the guideline should be used to make clear that the generic name should be used for extinct species in monotypic genera. Similar reasoning would apply to organisms like Trichoplax adhaerens, the sole extant (known?) species of the phylum Placozoa. This organism is generally referred to as Trichoplax (who remembers the species name?); thus the generic name is the most suitable article name.

Overall I support the change because the current rule is unnecessarily complicated (why have an exception when it introduces the need for exceptions to the exception?). I have some sympathy for using the binomial name on scientific grounds and can see arguments why the authority name should also be included. But Wikipedia is an encylopaedia and the names in general use are more suitable. This applies equally when there is a common name, a widely used binomial name, or a generic name for extinct or unusual species. Keep it simple. Jts1882 | talk 09:51, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

@Jts1882: you say that you support the proposal, but your comments imply a different guideline, namely that the most commonly used name, genus or species, should be used. I strongly oppose introducing this degree of subjectivity in the guidelines. Please clarify what you are actually supporting. Peter coxhead (talk) 19:10, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

I agree, this adds in the work of the question "is the generic name or full binomial more commonly used?".

What is actually happening with many fossil species is that in the absence of any vernacular name the genus name is used as a vernacular name. So technically if you are using the common name to create the article this is the name you would use as per current policy. I think the defense of this of not changing it for fossils is pointless as its already covered in existing policy on naming pages. When you call it a Triceratops you are calling it by its common name it just happens to be the same as its scientific genus name. The comments I made above was in the absence of a common name to use the full name. Not replace a well known common name with the scientific name. Triceratops and Triceratops are not the same. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 22:03, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't know, where are we cutting off "many"? Triceratops and Brontosaurus, sure, the generic name has become the common name, but I'd say, for example, Sirindhorna doesn't have a common name, it's an obscure species. The just-named Caihong had its name italicized in the press report I saw, so it's clearly being used as a scientific name in absence of a common one. Anyway, currently we use the generic named italicized whether or not it's also the common name, unless a different and widely-used common name (ex. Woolly Mammoth) exists, and I don't see a reason to change that. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 22:18, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Note so far I have not voted I have only added points to consider. In any case I generally avoid discussions on common names as I feel they are somewhat useless. But I really do not think there needs to be a change to the policy (not a vote still commenting), however, if you did, my suggestion was to make it 1. more professional, and 2. less likely to loose all title information in the event of a taxonomic revision. What I mean by this is what if someone moves the species from your monotypic genus into another genus, species name stays the same, but the genus name is gone. My reason for adding authors was not to give them credit but to avoid disambiguation issues. As for the below mentioned WP:PRECISE and WP:RECOGNIZABLE points made below, well the only precise name of a species is the binomial, hence it fails recognisability. You can be precise and use redirects to deal with peoples knowledge of names. Those policies are not written to deal with scientific names in a way that is useful. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 00:06, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're on about with losing title information, in the case of reclassification we have to change the title either way (if not merge the articles, in the case of a consensus for the reclassification), it doesn't really matter whether we used the generic name or binomial. For the author issue, we have less clunky ways of dealing with disambig issues. On preciseness, I fail to see how the generic name of a monotypic taxon fails WP:RECOGNIZABLE, it is if anything more recognizable - you said yourself the generic name alone forms the de-facto common name. Leaellynasaura is just as if not more recognizable than Leaellynasaura amicagraphica. You even say "deal with people's knowledge of names", which would seem to imply you admit the generic name is more well known. Yes, the binomial is more precise... but WP:PRECISE doesn't say to use the most precise name, it says to use the least precise name that still passes WP:RECOGNIZABLE, which has nothing to do with being the most precise name, specifically to avoid long clunky titles like "Leaellynasaura amicagraphica, Rich & Rich 1989". Those policies are not written with scientific names in mind, true, but following them doesn't cause any issues when using scientific names and so therefore I see no reason to go against them just for the sake of it. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 00:32, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

You missed my point on the names, I mean it will still be recognisable if it changes because part of the old name is preserved in the new page name. I am thinking of the reader, I know we have to do a move anyway. The most accurate name is always the binomial, this is what I see as precise, I acknowledge the policy was not written with this in mind. I am not arguing as I said I do not think a policy change is needed as a really good one would also include changing the policy of using common names over scientific names. Not asking for this Just pointing out that a good change in the right direction would be to change both policies, not just this one. Hence I do not think this is really needed at all. It also will generate a lot of work if the change was made, which I acknowledged, and this is not worth it, plus I think most people have a reasonable idea what to do anyway. The biggest issue seems to come up when taxa have multiple common names, then it becomes really stupid. But thats not the issue here. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 00:54, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Oppose for reasons already covered in the prior discussion. I don't think it's improper to formally propose something based on that discussion, but I don't think this proposal encapsulates anything close to what emerged from that discussion, and the result would conflict directly with WP:CONCISE and WP:PRECISE policies, and possibly also WP:RECOGNIZABLE at least in some cases. That is, Argyrocytisus battandieri and Argyrocytisus are synonymous for our purposes, so the longer name is pointlessly long, is over-disambiguation, and may actually be recognizable to fewer people, since it requires familiarity with the specific not just genetic epithet. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ< 19:24, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

I agree with this sentiment, the two terms are functionally synonymous but one is clunkier. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 20:46, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Guideline change proposal covering prehistoric

As User:IJReid and User:Lusotitan commented in the discussion above, that the guideline WP:MONOTYPICFAUNA should cover prehistoric taxa. It can be done like this. For extant there was deleted "but no lower than the monotypic genus". For prehistoric there were just changed examples:

For extant taxa: A monotypic taxon is a taxonomic group which only contains a single subgroup (e.g., a genus with only one known species, even a subphylum with one family with one genus). In such a case, the ranks with identical member organisms should not be separated into different articles, and the article (if there is no common name) should go under the scientific name of lowest rank. Redirects should be created from the other ranks to the actual article.

For prehistoric taxa: A monotypic taxon is a taxonomic group which only contains a single subgroup (e.g., a genus with only one known species, even a subphylum with one family with one genus). In such a case, the ranks with identical member organisms should not be separated into different articles, and the article (if there is no common name) should go under the scientific name of lowest rank, but no lower than the monotypic genus. Redirects should be created from the other ranks to the actual article.
The species name Myrmecobius fasciatus and its monotypic genus Myrmecobius are both redirects to the article at the common name of the species, Numbat. Add prehistoric example
   The two-species genus Xenoturbella has redirects from the monotypic family Xenoturbellidae and subphylum Xenoturbellida. Add example for a monotypic prehistoric family.
   The genus Nodocephalosaurus has a redirect from its sole species, Nodocephalosaurus kirtlandensis.
   The family Amphionidacea, redirects to its single genus Amphionides, as does the sole species Amphionides reynaudii. Add an similar prehistoric example.

The exception is when a monotypic genus name needs to be disambiguated. The article should then be at the species, since this is a more natural form of disambiguation.

   Viator picis with a redirect at Viator (bird) rather than vice versa.

Feel free to modify examples. --Snek01 (talk) 21:54, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

COMMENT: I really dislike the exception for "when a monotypic genus name needs to be disambiguated". All monotypic genera should be treated the same: their infoboxes and categories should reflect the genus, and the articles should all be structured in terms of discussing the genus (and then as a consequence the sole species). Why should the presence of some other article with a similar name change the focus/infobox/categories/title of an article to its type species instead of the genus? Umimmak (talk) 06:08, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

@Umimmak: I agree, but this is a consequence of WP:ATDIS, which is policy rather than a guideline, and which has as the first criterion a preference for natural rather than parenthetical disambiguation. It's not something we can choose here. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:48, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Comment I assume that by "prehistoric" in the new proposal what is meant is "extinct in prehistoric times", so more recently extinct taxa would be subject to the changed guideline. I also note that the proposal only concerns fauna, so plants would continue to follow the existing guideline. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:51, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Prehistoric animals = taxa which went extinct before 1500 CE. (Extinct animals = that are extinct according to the IUCN Red List / that became extinct after the year 1500.) This clearly defined terminology is used also in corresponding categories on Wikipedia. --Snek01 (talk) 15:40, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Sure, I understand the categorization; I just wanted to be absolutely sure that's what you were proposing; any change to guidelines has to be precise. Peter coxhead (talk) 17:32, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Comment From a user standpoint, I much prefer separate articles for the major ranks, even if they are monotypic. It really bothers me when I click on a species page and end up on a genus page. Redirects are for synonyms, in my opinion. Looking for the genus and ending up on a species is also very undesirable for me. I would like to be able to start at a species, then click on genus, and from there on up the chain as far as I want to go without getting bounced back down, such as to species when I click on the genus. Overall, it would save me clicks by having the different ranks on different pages. I waste more time getting tricked into unintended pages than I would ever use by clicking on the species link in a monotypic genus page or vice versa.

But, to be frank, what's the point of that? If you create an article for every single rank, you'll just get a lot of articles about basically the same thing, just with slightly different membership. It is redundant and a waste of time to maintain. FunkMonk (talk) 05:32, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Taxonbar desirability brought up at ANI

See here. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 15:42, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Please mention in every taxobox, which classification system it used.

(Initially asked here.)

I have a request on improving taxobox. On a taxobox for a taxa; it should be explicitely mentioned; which system of classification has been used. If a mixture of system has been done (although that is highly unrecommended). It is important because classification systems change; where not only the taxa fusion and splits; but ranks of the taxa sometimes changes; and although quite rarely; rank names too changed. So whenever publish a taxobox; please mention which system of classification is followed. Best if a taxobox contain 2 or 3 columns for the hierarchies according to separate classification systems. This not only improve correctness of the articles; but also will work as better reference and would help literature search. Thanks in advance, RIT RAJARSHI (talk) 19:37, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

@RIT RAJARSHI:, this is not a bad idea, but it is not going to happen with {{Taxobox}}. The Wikipedia:Automated taxobox system supports references for each rank in the classification. While the references don't currently display in articles they can be seen in the underlying templates, such as Template:Taxonomy/Loranthaceae, and it would much easier to get the references used in the automated templates to display in articles than it would be to add this support to the manual taxobox. Wikipedia is increasingly using automated taxoboxs rather than manual taxoboxes; at this point ~30% of taxon articles are using automated taxoboxs. When automated taxoboxes are used, there will be a red pencil icon to the right of the words "Scientific classification". You can click on the pencil to view/modify the taxonomic hierarchy and the references. Plantdrew (talk) 20:35, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

I've thought several times about how we could flag up the existence of these references in article taxoboxes. We can't just include them, because (1) they will often simply duplicate an existing reference in the article (2) all references in an article have to use the same style so when re-used in a different article often need significant editing. But perhaps we could think about adding some kind of small icon to relevant rows in an automated taxobox to show that a reference exists in the taxonomy template. It would be useful to know what others think about this. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:07, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

I like this idea. Taxonomy templates are very under-referenced. Making the absence of a reference visible in taxon articles would probably aid in get references added to the templates. Plantdrew (talk) 16:35, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

This is already being done in the WikiProject template on the talk page of each article, such as in Talk:Buchema hadromeres. In my opinion, there is no need to burden taxobox templates with this new feature. JoJan (talk) 15:20, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Facto Post – Issue 10 – 12 March 2018

Facto Post – Issue 10 – 12 March 2018

Milestone for mix'n'match

Around the time in February when Wikidata clicked past item Q50000000, another milestone was reached: the mix'n'match tool uploaded its 1000th dataset. Concisely defined by its author, Magnus Manske, it works "to match entries in external catalogs to Wikidata". The total number of entries is now well into eight figures, and more are constantly being added: a couple of new catalogs each day is normal.

Since the end of 2013, mix'n'match has gradually come to play a significant part in adding statements to Wikidata. Particularly in areas with the flavour of digital humanities, but datasets can of course be about practically anything. There is a catalog on skyscrapers, and two on spiders.

These days mix'n'match can be used in numerous modes, from the relaxed gamified click through a catalog looking for matches, with prompts, to the fantastically useful and often demanding search across all catalogs. I'll type that again: you can search 1000+ datasets from the simple box at the top right. The drop-down menu top left offers "creation candidates", Magnus's personal favourite. m:Mix'n'match/Manual for more.

For the Wikidatan, a key point is that these matches, however carried out, add statements to Wikidata if, and naturally only if, there is a Wikidata property associated with the catalog. For everyone, however, the hands-on experience of deciding of what is a good match is an education, in a scholarly area, biographical catalogs being particularly fraught. Underpinning recent rapid progress is an open infrastructure for scraping and uploading.

Congratulations to Magnus, our data Stakhanovite!

Links

Wikipedia goes 3D allowing users to upload .STLs for digital reference, Beau Jackson for 3dprintingindustry.com, February 22 2018
WikiCite report (video)
Formal publication and announcement of ISBN citation dataset, see Twitter post, February 23 2018
Plotting the Course Through Charted Waters, workshop on data visualization literacy from Mikhail Popov, Wikimedia Foundation
Using Wikidata to build an authority list of Holocaust-era ghettos, Nancy Cooey, United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, February 12 2018
Why Should You Learn SPARQL? Wikidata! Mark Longair, blogpost November 29 2017
Back to the future: Does graph database success hang on query language?, George Anadiotis for Big on Data, March 5 2018

To subscribe to Facto Post go to Wikipedia:Facto Post mailing list. For the ways to unsubscribe, see below.
Editor Charles Matthews, for ContentMine. Please leave feedback for him. Back numbers are here.
Reminder: WikiFactMine pages on Wikidata are at WD:WFM.

If you wish to receive no further issues of Facto Post, please remove your name from our mailing list. Alternatively, to opt out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Wikipedians who opt out of message delivery to your user talk page.
Newsletter delivered by MediaWiki message delivery

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:26, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Compilation of museums whose specimens are photographed and have right licenses for wikipedia?

Hi, I'm sure I'm not the first to think of this, so I was wondering if there was a list of natural history museums whose specimen photographs are licensed appropriately for wikipedia? It seems that the Natural History Museum, London and the Museums Victoria are good about having their specimen photographs be CC BY 4.0. The Muséum national d'Histoire naturelle, Paris is inconsistent: some images are CC BY 4.0 and some are CC BY-NC-ND 4.0, but at least the images are clear about which license they have.

Anyone else know other museums whose specimen collections are (a) (to some extent) photographed, digitized, and searchable online and (b) use licences for their images which mean they can be added to Wikimedia Commons? Thanks :) Umimmak (talk) 03:33, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

FISHBASE subspecies

As for the Carassius auratus grandoculis article I wrote up and which Pvmoutside blanked and replaced with a redirect to goldfish, could you be more careful and not perform this task mechanically? This was effectively deleting an article, and I dont think I was even notified.

I gather the "subspecies" is not recognized anymore (I think the version of FISHBASE formerly mentioned it, but I cant find it archived). I have accordingly removed the {{taxobox}} on it, but the main thrust of the article wasn't taxonomy and differentiation (perhaps I should have tagged it as WP:FOOD earlier).--Kiyoweap (talk) 04:08, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Merging blue bottle and Portuguese man o' war

Following on from a note by AshLin (Talk:Physalia_utriculus#Correct taxonomic status?), I'm finding that for quite some time we have been at odds with generally accepted taxonomy regarding Physalia physalis, the Portuguese man-o'-war, and Physalia utriculus, the blue bottle. A 2007 paper synonymized the latter with the former.^[1] Personally I find that paper quite unhelpful - apart from being badly written, all conclusions are so artfully hedged that it is really difficult to figure out what they are concluding. Nevertheless, based on that source all the major databases seem to have switched to treating P. utriculus as a junior synonym of P. physalis: WoRMS [2], World Hydrozoa Database [3], Catalogue of Life [4]. Neither can I find any specific rebuttal/criticism of this paper.

How to handle this? Options appear to be a) keep current structure (separate species) and add discussion of reclassification as alternative interpretation, or b) merge the species articles, and also update Physalia. I think the latter is indicated. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 08:54, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

The statement in the abstract of Bardi & Marques (2007) seems anomalous with the rest of the article, especially as they didn't study Pacific populations. Reading the discussion it doesn't appear that they were intending to make a statement on the taxonomy, beyond the brief discussion that their studies are consistent with Totton (1960), who suggested it was monotypic, and Tokioko (1973), who made the "biologically meaningless" suggestion that it should be considered a variety, whereas the description of the cnidome by Yanagihara et al. (2002) supported two species. The division into two species seems to have persisted long after Totton (1960), but mainly in medical and toxicological studies where the taxonomy is not an important issue. WoRMS doesn't seem to provide a reference for their decision and ITIS doesn't include an entry for P. utriculus. For such a well-known animal there must surely be a genetic studies of regional populations.

There is not much specific information in the blue bottle article so a merger seems appropriate unless there is still some scientific divergence of opinion. Jts1882 | talk 10:12, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

References

^ Bardi, J.; Marques, A. C. (2007). "Taxonomic redescription of the Portuguese man-of-war, Physalia physalis (Cnidaria, Hydrozoa, Siphonophorae, Cystonectae) from Brazil". Iheringia. Série Zoologia. 97 (4): 425–433.

Support merge of both species articles into the (now monotypic) genus article. Loopy30 (talk) 16:12, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Looks like a merge is in order.......Pvmoutside (talk) 20:06, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

MOS or guidelines on non-monotypic species redirecting to genus

I have noticed that some species articles have been created with a redirect to the genus. I will admit it raises my hackles, since it seems pointless (except to make the project seem to have more articles than it does) but is it against a guideline or MOS, such that I would be justified in deleting the redirects? My thinking is that redlinks encourage editing, redirects discourage it. But I hesitate to delete based on my own preferences rather than an established rule. --TeaDrinker (talk) 16:39, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

I agree, redlinks in species lists on genus articles are better than redirects, which mislead readers into thinking the species articles exist. The same goes for higher taxons too. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 16:49, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

I agree too. What's particularly stupid is when you look at a list of species in a genus article, click on what look like real links, and end up back at the same article. If possible, create an article to replace the redirect – even a stub is better (I've just now done this at Eragrostis spectabilis which was a redirect to Eragrostis). Failing that, it's better to delete the redirect (but you need to be an admin to do that). Peter coxhead (talk) 17:36, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

I will add the note that for articles on prehistoric taxa where species-levels articles are generally discouraged, such redirects should be left as is. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 17:49, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Is that because most prehistoric genera are monotypic, or because there is little agreement on the species classification? Perhaps we should propose a guideline to make these recommendations (unless one already exists). --TeaDrinker (talk) 18:09, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

The monotypic part is part of it, I think, but it's mostly because there's simply not that much to say about the species most of the time; you can fit the information about both into a single article most of the time, at least in theory. In many cases it's fine anatomical details separating two species in a genus and many aspects of an article may apply to both. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 18:52, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

It's fine to have such links when (a) there's no prospect of there being an article (b) the redirects at the species name are not used on the genus page. Peter coxhead (talk) 19:03, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

I agree that redlinks are better, but I don't see that we have this in writing anywhere. I would support adding it someplace. SchreiberBike | ⌨ 18:27, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Actually, WP:Naming conventions (fauna)#Redirects says in the first sentence that these redirects should be created for animals (no such advice is given for plants). Peter coxhead (talk) 19:17, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Wow. All the rules I've read and I don't remember that one. It was added in 2014 by SMcCandlish. Do people agree with that or should we change it? SchreiberBike | ⌨ 23:03, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Well, I assume the logic is that if I type in, say, Hypacrosaurus stebingeri, I get redirected to the article on the genus Hypacrosaurus, which will have some information on the species, despite not article about the species specifically existing. As opposed to the article not existing and not leading to anything. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 00:02, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Re: "delete the redirect (but you need to be an admin to do that)" – WP:RFD will generally delete them, as long as it's something likely to become an article eventually (e.g., not a junior synonym, or some speculative taxon used only in a primary research paper). — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 04:17, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

It sounds like there's a shared opinion here that redirects to higher taxonomic levels should be used when the lower taxon is unlikely to ever support an article. Specifically, fossil species which are poorly known scientifically should be made to be redirects to the genus. My personal view is that every species, even fossil species, can support an article (in fact, I have written two articles on species which were known from a single specimen: Anelosimus terraincognita and Pita skate. But I would not stand in the way of consensus. If people feel like we should make a change to the MOS, perhaps we should propose some wording. --TeaDrinker (talk) 18:30, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

"Unlikely to" doesn't mean "never"; the redirect to a genus can always be replaced by an article if it turns out that the species has enough known about it. However, consistency is important. It's confusing, and irritating, if some species names link to an article and others to the genus. Peter coxhead (talk) 19:05, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

I think the key is the comprehensiveness. If a species article "discusses no material that cannot be discussed just as easily in the higher-level genus article, the article should be at the genus level." If there is "sufficient material from a polytypic genus so make summarizing properly at the genus level unfeasible, articles at the species level are acceptable." This is just random wording I thought of on the spot but it does convey the meaning clearly. "Monotypic genera should always be at the genus level unless natural disambiguation is required." IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 20:39, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

In my opinion, consistency isn't as important as prevailing use. For example, all extant and recently extinct vertebrate species in monotypic genera are usually referenced in taxonomic sources in the bionomial, whereas I've mostly seen invertebrates both ways, and dinosaurs mostly referenced by the genus at the monotypic genus level. My preference is prevailing use, but I could live with consensus.......For example, the bird project has compromised with grey or colour for Palarctic bird titles, and gray or color for Nearctic bird titles......things seem to work OK without a consistent spelling throughout.....Pvmoutside (talk) 00:25, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

@Pvmoutside: I think that perhaps you're misunderstanding what I meant by consistency. I mean that if a genus article has a list of species, it should not be the case that some entries in the list are blue or red links to species articles and others are links to redirects back to the genus. Either the genus article deals with all the species and there are no species articles, or there are species articles and/or red links. Peter coxhead (talk) 11:17, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

ah.....I agree then.....I've found a few that way in my travels, but since I'm not an admin, I usually just move along, and leave them as is.....Pvmoutside (talk) 13:10, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

When I come across species to genus redirects (aside from those for monotypic and paleontological genera) I tag them with (as appropriate) {{R animal with possibilities}}, {{R plant with possibilities}} or {{R taxon with possibilities}}. I also add {{R from species to genus}} (which is itself a redirect to {{R from subtopic}}; I use R from subtopic in cases of other ranks redirecting, e.g. tribe to family). Occasionally I come across synonyms or common names that redirect to a higher taxon where no article on the appropriate target species exists yet; I use the same redirect category tags for these, but add a hidden text note identifying the desired target. Add the redirect category tags allows us to keep track of these redirects for eventual conversion to articles (or deletion to encourage article creation via red-links).

I highly recommend that anybody working extensively on Tree of Life articles add a script that colors redirect links distinctly from direct links. It makes it far easier to identify potential genus to species redirects. One option is at User:Anomie/linkclassifier, which uses a variety of colors for various classes of links. Or I have simpler version at User:Plantdrew/common.css which just turns redirect links green.Plantdrew (talk) 21:16, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

I found a couple that an editor has reverted from tagging them as animals with possibilities.....see Alope spinifrons and Nabis inscriptus......Pvmoutside (talk) 16:57, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Clemmys and spotted turtle

Spotted turtle is monotypic in the genus Clemmys. I was thinking of merging Clemmys into spotted turtle. Thoughts?....Pvmoutside (talk) 20:28, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Taxonbar addition requirements

Given recent events, I plan on ~~expanding WP:BRFA#Tom.Bot 2's functionality (or~~ creating a separate task (Tom.Bot 3) to avoid confusion) to include placement of {{Taxonbar}} on pages on which it's desired, which is what I'd like to determine here. My first guess would be any page which transcludes either {{Taxobox}}, {{Speciesbox}}, {{Automatic taxobox}}, or {{Oobox}}. If desired, I can also restrict addition of {{Taxonbar}} to pages which have at least 1 taxon ID on Wikidata (listed here and here). ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 18:58, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

I'd especially like to see taxonbars on short stubs with a single (or zero) references. That may not be easy to filter, and I suspect between Tom's adding taxonbars to PolBot articles and Ser Amantio di Nicolao's adding taxonbars to Lepidoptera articles, that taxonbars are now present on most under referenced substubs (although I am finding a lot of single reference green algae stubs).

Filtering for at least 1 taxon ID is good. If feasible, don't count EOL or GBIF IDs towards this; both sites scrape Wikipedia, so having an EOL or GBIF ID isn't necessarily proof that a taxon exists (from what I've seen typically taxa with only EOL/GBIF IDs do exist, but are treated as synonyms in other databases).

I wouldn't make {{Oobox}} a priority for taxonbars; I think there's unlikely to be any IDs other than maybe Fossilworks (or EOL/GBIF via Wikipedia). {{Subspeciesbox}} and {{Infraspeciesbox}} would be more worth looking into. Plantdrew (talk) 19:27, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

I think there are a fair number of beetles and plants that will require it as well, based on an extremely cursory skim of things. The immediate question: shall I continue with AWB tonight? I'm happy to do so, or no, whichever y'all prefer. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 19:32, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

If you can follow the above constraints, and whatever other suggestions may come up here (and w/e the arbitrary rate limit is), I don't have a problem with that. I can't speak for the other involved editors at ANI though. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 23:41, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Given the issue was largely to do with the rate at which I was working, and given that I don't have a whole lot more to do, I'll re-test the waters this evening, then. See what happens. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 01:40, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Good to know that about EOL & GBIF. I can definitely exclude those from counting as 'valid' taxon IDs. Short stubs with 0-1 refs and no taxobox are a different animal.^pun! I can probably find them via a deep category search, but the presence of a relevant infobox gives ~100% certainty that the page could use a {{Taxonbar}} (as long as an ID exists), so some human confirmation would be needed for pages without an appropriate infobox, therefore they're less appropriate for a formal bot. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 23:41, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

I didn't say anything about lack of taxoboxes; I was suggesting that short 0-1 ref stubs WITH taxoboxes be a priority for adding taxonbars. Plantdrew (talk) 01:49, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Ohh, all the easier! That's quite doable. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 03:19, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes, definitely with taxoboxes; the taxonbar links are useful as sources of information to expand such articles.

However, a point to be noted about Wikidata items for organisms is that if you look at their history the great majority of them seem to have been created by bots. Maybe I've been unlucky, but I'm surprised at how many of the items I've looked at have problems. Quite often the sequence seems to have been: (1) a bot, like our Polbot, created an article in some language Wikipedia (2) a Wikidata bot scraped the Wikipedia and created a Wikidata item (3) other Wikidata bots then scanned taxonomic databases and added identifiers. Similarly to Plantdrew's point above about EOL/GBIF, synonyms haven't been distinguished from one another or from accepted names, and authorities haven't been taken into account (e.g. there are at least three Sonchus laevis names with different authors, but two had been conflated in the Wikidata item). I guess we have to use automated methods to add taxonbars and from parameters, but ideally we wouldn't, and a short stub with 0/1 refs is already more likely to have taxonomic issues. Peter coxhead (talk) 02:18, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Would you suggest a threshold of 2 IDs then, or possibly higher, for pages less than a certain size? ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 03:19, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

I think, again picking up a point started by Plantdrew, it depends on the quality of the ID. IPNI, WCSP, GRIN, Tropicos – these are well curated; TPL, EOL, GBIF – these are not, and so not good sources of taxonomy. Peter coxhead (talk) 03:34, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

That's fine. As long as I have a 'good/neutral' list and/or a 'bad' list (whichever's easier to produce) I'll work off that. Will start coding the framework tomorrow. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 03:58, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Preliminary stats

It's worth noting that the proposed tracking Category:Taxonbar template pages without Wikidata taxon IDs (plug), once enacted, would be useful here, though the prevalence of TPL, EOL, & GBIF makes it slightly less so. So, to try to determine how useful, I've gathered some preliminary stats. Of the bottom 8000 sub-stubs Plantdrew prioritized, and the 3 not-to-be-counted taxon IDs they and Peter coxhead mentioned, this is the distribution of "1+ good IDs", to "only bad IDs", to "no IDs at all": 4624 / 998 / 2378, or 58% / 12% / 30%. Given this info, once the tracking cat is enacted, or possibly before, would putting {{Taxonbar}} on pages without any taxon IDs be useful, possibly as a queue of pages to find IDs for? ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 15:15, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

If I'm understanding right, the Taxonbar would be hidden (due to no IDs), but would put the article in a tracking category? I suppose it wouldn't hurt, but it'd really be flagging up somewhere where Wikidata needs work, not Wikipedia. And I don't think we want to encourage people to add just one ID to Wikidata to get the article out of the tracking category when there might be a dozen or more relevant IDs (that presumably will eventually get added by people/bots focused on working on Wikidata). Plantdrew (talk) 23:02, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Correct, {{Taxonbar}} would be hidden but the tracking cat would still be added. Yes, all valid points; I just wanted to raise the question. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 02:05, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Using only the 51 'good' numbered PIDs which currently exist on Module:Taxonbar/conf, the next 8000 pages gave this distribution of "1+ good IDs", to "only bad IDs", to "no IDs at all": 2133 / 5596 / 271, or 27% / 70% / 3%. Some of this change from the first 8000 may be due to the species/taxon type, but the queue is arranged by page size, so it should be mostly independent of taxon (unless a bot made many similarly-sized articles of a particular genus/family/etc.). Regardless, this will be the configuration going forward, to ensure that {{Taxonbar}} only gets placed on pages which it will be useful on. I'll keep an eye on Module:Taxonbar/conf for updates. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 17:41, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Notable exceptions

Bot run complete: 109,403 {{Taxonbar}}s added. Notable exceptions include these 3 17 redirects with article content:

and 24+ pages with a taxonomic infoboxes but no appropriate Wikidata item that I could find:

and 3 malformed/oddly-worded articles:

Please help resolve these if you can. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 16:34, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

WD property (or something) for multiple taxons?

FYI I've started a discussion about storing multiple taxons/synonyms on WD at d:Wikidata talk:WikiProject Taxonomy#WD property (or something) for multiple taxons?. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 15:14, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Category for Polbot pages, similar to Qbugbot?

Is there any interest in having a ~~Category:Articles created by Polbot~~ Category:Taxonomy articles created by Polbot, to compliment Category:Articles created by Qbugbot? ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 18:24, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Sure...how do you plan to discover them? I don't think the Polbot hidden comment at the top of the article has been retained often enough to provide good coverage of relevant articles. Dig through Polbot's edit history? If that is the case, please restrict only to Polbot created articles, not Polbot created redirects. Plantdrew (talk) 03:42, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

I would filter through Polbot's mainspace page creation history, excluding all current redirects, and make a note to that effect in the cat description. It looks like Polbot made a lot of biographies on US judges, though, and probably other non-WP:TREE pages, so the list will have to be narrowed down further to be useful. Qbugbot is self-limiting to arthropods, at least, but I'm not sure yet what Polbot was limit to within WP:TREE, if anything. Guess I'll go find out... ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 04:40, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Welp, Polbot made both vertebrate & invertebrate stubs, so that alone makes me think Category:Taxonomy articles created by Polbot would be an appropriate name/broadness (open to suggestion). Any further refinement can be done via cat-arithmetic at cat/petscan (that way there's no need to re-categorize based on rank). ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 14:47, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Plantdrew (and others), would it be useful to include now-DAB pages like Stephensoniella (created as a stub) in this category, or restrict the cat to current-articles only? ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 22:53, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

I think not, mainly because I can't imagine there being many other cases like Stephensoniella. Generally, if Polbot made an article at an ambiguous title, it should've been moved to a disambiguated title, preserving Polbot as the creator of the article. That move didn't happen with Stephensoniella since the liverwort genus is monotypic, so there was no reason to preserve the genus title (personally I would've done the move anyway, and it might be worth doing a history merge now to get Polbot's original stub tied to Stephensoniella (plant)). Umm, so maybe that is an argument for categorizing Polbot dab pages after all??? I'd be interested to know if you turn up a bunch more like this. Plantdrew (talk) 23:42, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

18 total Polbot dabs found + 1 set index article (all created with the intent of being an article, not a dab). These are in the vast minority, and they probably shouldn't be lumped together with proper articles anyway, due to different maintenance procedures, expectations, assumptions, etc. (i.e. none of the dabs should have infoboxes, taxonbars, etc.). So I think it's best to exclude them, so as not to confuse/complicate usage of the cat, and prevent drive-by errors.

~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 03:09, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Figure I'll remove the now-redundant comment  too. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 17:00, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Interestingly, I'm finding ~0.5% of pages with this comment were not actually created by Polbot... ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 18:41, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

The creators of those pages probably took an existing page as a template. I have found a few cases in Category:Taxonbar templates desynced from Wikidata where that was the underlying cause, because the 'from' parameter in the taxobar wasn't changed. William Avery (talk) 19:03, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Excellent! I've updated the tracking cat. If you see any common errors/fixes not described there please feel free to add/update. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 19:33, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

I've certainly come across some articles where the Polbot comment was copy-pasted. But some of the ones you've highlighted did start out with Polbot (with the original title now a redirect): Harmles Serotine, Molossus aztecus, Molossus coibensis, Hemignathus lucidus, Eleutherodactylus sandersoni. Plantdrew (talk) 20:25, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes, Polbot did create a substantial # of #Rs, some of which got turned into articles, and some of its articles got turned into #Rs too. So it's taking a fair bit of SQL'ing & filtering to extract only the current articles, unless there's a desire to include the #Rs as well? (if so, I recommend a separate category for them, but am not opposed to using the same cat) ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 20:59, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

This is largely done, but the database query used to find all these pages is limited to those that have been edited in the last ~3 months, due to how the revision table is produced. I've asked at mw:Talk:Quarry#How to find old pages created beyond the time horizon of the revision table? how to get around this. FYI in case anyone here knows another way. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 13:18, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Polbot created 40,051 articles. So the category is around 7,000 short. Is the number of Polbot articles on US judges (or any other non-TREE topic) enough to account for most of that 7,000? The three month window doesn't seem like it should matter too much given that you or Ser Amantio de Nicolao have edited to add taxonbars or from parameters to pretty much every taxon within that timeframe.Plantdrew (talk) 15:30, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Interesting find! One of my elimination steps was removing 2669 summaries with fjc.gov|list of judges text, which was after several other steps, so that # could be higher. I'm running a dedicated query now to look for congress|fjc.gov|list of judges, from which I'll remove non-mainspace pages & #Rs. It looks like, at most, only ~4,472 pages are missing from the cat, but the problem still is finding them. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 14:55, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

That query produced 5740 unique mainspace pages, of which 135 AWB determined to be #Rs, leaving 5605. 7141-5605 leaves 1536 pages still unaccounted for, which means the cat is at least 95.5% complete. Not bad! ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 16:21, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

[1] Bardi, J.; Marques, A. C. (2007). "Taxonomic redescription of the Portuguese man-of-war, Physalia physalis (Cnidaria, Hydrozoa, Siphonophorae, Cystonectae) from Brazil". Iheringia. Série Zoologia. 97 (4): 425–433.

[1]