Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of Life/Archive 54

Archive 50

←

Archive 52

Archive 53

Archive 54

Archive 55

Archive 56

→

Archive 60

Species article merges

Be aware that a user called BilledMammal has, apparently, unilaterally decided that all species articles in the entirety of Wikipedia should be merged with, and thereby changed to redirects to, their respective genus pages, claiming that they "duplicate content". In the last 24 hours they have wiped out almost 1000 species-level articles, and deleted the links to those articles from their respective genus articles.

See [1]

I would suggest that all of this user's edits from October 27 onwards need to be reverted, and this user blocked, ASAP. I'm not sure what the usual procedure would be to make this happen. Dyanega (talk) 17:22, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Administrators' noticeboard? YorkshireExpat (talk) 17:26, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

I have just noticed that. Rolling back the lot. Then will leave a message. I kind of HOPE this goes to ANI, should be an eye opener. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 17:30, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! Dyanega (talk) 17:33, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

@BilledMammal: you really shouldn't have done this without discussing with other users beforehand. I disagree with the merger of genera up to tribal level, but we have way too fucking many insect species stubs with almost no content that essentially almost nobody reads. There are way too many insect species to cover them all individually, and ideally most insect species should be covered at the genus level, rather than having a massive number of almost entirely unread insect species stubs with no content. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:35, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

I could agree with part of what Hemiauchenia has to say, in that lots of stubs have been created that serve very little purpose; that aside, however, once an article exists, stub or not, it should not be arbitrarily deleted. Dyanega (talk) 17:42, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

I think this is a wise judgement from both of you, and hopefully if we do get an RfC going I would be happy to see such an agreement set in stone. :) NeverRainsButPours (talk) 10:09, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Now at ANI, see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Undiscussed_mass_article_merging_and_redirection_by_BilledMammal. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:53, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

For the record, while I can see the reasoning behind the restructuring of genus-level articles into tabular form showing the constituent species, there are several very important things that exist on species-rank articles that would be completely lost if this approach were adopted, and among these are the following: (1) not all species in a genus fall under the same categories - they can be from different countries, different continents, different geological periods, and have been published by different authors, and in different years. There are MANY common types of categories that would be almost completely depopulated if we banned species-level articles. (2) synonymies appear in the taxoboxes of species-level articles, and those lists of synonyms would also be lost entirely. Likewise, when synonyms exist as redirects, having a species-level synonym redirecting to a genus-level page will make it impossible to determine which species that name is a synonym OF. It might look good to have a table of species, but frankly it's a terrible idea. Dyanega (talk) 18:06, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Relevant to this issue, several WikiProject Paleontology editors hold the view that, at least for fossil taxa, species should never have separate articles unless the genus article would be unmanageably long. I recently brought up my concerns with this policy. The thing is, having a species stub does not interfere with the quality of the genus page, and the existence of the stub encourages people to expand it with additional information. By contrast, merging every species into the genus article discourages the addition of species-specific information, and inhibits it being presented in a clear format. For an example of the negative consequences that combining species articles into genus articles has, Triceratops, a featured article, contains almost no information whatsoever on how the two valid species differ from each other. From an eventualist perspective, species stubs are longer articles waiting to happen, and they should be allowed to exist so that they can be expanded at their own pace. From a practical standpoint, I find expanding a short article to be much easier than rewriting a sprawling one, and expanding articles on lower-level taxa can be a useful starting point for gathering the necessary information to improve the articles on their parent taxa. Ornithopsis (talk) 16:16, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

That is hardly relevant to this issue, but rather it is your personal pet peeve that none of the other paleo editors agree with. Please stay on topic, the topic being a problematic editor merging and now trying to delete extant-species stubs. SilverTiger12 (talk) 17:09, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Seeing as this issue had already prompted some discussion over whether the separate species articles were merited, I figured it was relevant to point out that a similar discussion had recently been had at a related WikiProject—although I admit that my feeling WP:PALEO's standards are problematic was a factor in my feeling the discussion was worth drawing attention to. Also, in the discussion at WP:PALEO, a range of opinions were expressed, of which three editors supported my proposal to various degrees, so I hardly feel it is fair to characterize my stance as something "none of the other paleo editors agree with". Ornithopsis (talk) 17:50, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

I think the paleao project is an entirely different case, and I support having neontology species articles separate from the genus articles per default. FunkMonk (talk) 23:29, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

I really do not understand why you think such a double standard is so obviously justified. Ornithopsis (talk) 01:12, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Isn't FunkMonk taking a similar position to yours, just from the opposite side of the fence? Supporting living species articles by default, but accepting there may be cases where a genus article might be more appropriate (e.g. large insect or plant genera with little known about the species, possibly also cases like anoas or even giraffes where most information pre-dates the the splits), is not so different from accepting genus articles by default to cover fossil species, while accepting there are special cases where species articles are justified (e.g. very well studied species). I think the different approaches taken for living and fossil species make sense, but in both cases there should be exceptions. This makes drawing up guidelines very difficult. —  Jts1882 | talk  11:01, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Nothing at all to do with double standards, it's comparing apples to oranges. It is clearly explained at the paleo project guidelines how and why paleo species differ from neontology species. There are so many inherent unknowns in paleo species that just makes the two incomparable. FunkMonk (talk) 14:23, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

But there are many fossil genera where there's plenty to say about individual species, many extant genera where there isn't much to say about individual species, and many extant genera with numerous fossil species. Rather than arbitrarily deciding a different set of rules applies to fossil and extinct genera, it makes more sense to apply a consistent standard across the board based on how much information is available. Perhaps fossil species would, on average, have a harder time meeting that standard, but that doesn't mean they should automatically be held to a higher standard. Ornithopsis (talk) 15:08, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

I view articles on individual species as usually having good encyclopedic value and, at worst, being unnecessary but more or less harmless. If it were up to me, articles on valid species would be presumed notable by default, and merging them into their parent genus would almost always be discouraged. The similarities between my suggestion and FunkMonk's position are because I am attempting to offer a compromise between his position and mine. Ornithopsis (talk) 16:33, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

This user is now bypassing TOL by calling for AfDs, without even attempting to address to TOL community. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bothriospila, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Adalbus. I'm going offline now, but expect there to be dozens more similar requests issued in the near future. Dyanega (talk) 23:59, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

I doubt it - that would be a little too obviously pointy, given the decidedly mixed feedback so far. But I think we really ought to turn our minds to converting WP:SPECIESOUTCOMES into a clear SNG, or this will just pop up again and again. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 09:32, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

I find it very difficult to envision simple criteria for notability (assuming not all species are going to be considered notable). It's easy to predict which species articles will attract few readers; articles on small, uncommon species that are difficult to identify and don't occur in any country where English is widely spoken don't get read much. But those are all relative; 5 cm is small for a plant, but big for an insect. What species articles are non-notable? Maybe a species known only from a single specimen? That doesn't apply to very many extant species, but applies to fossils. Carve out fossils (or just dinosaurs and hominids?) from a single specimen rule? It gets messy quick. I think we'd likely end up with something like "all birds are notable, insects must meet further criteria, tropical fish in the aquarium trade are notable (including undescribed species with L-numbers?)." Cebuano Wikipedia has articles for many more species than the English Wikipedia; it doesn't feel right to me have en.wiki commit to excluding a species that has a ceb.wiki article. Plantdrew (talk) 23:06, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

I think the compromise criteria I outlined in the discussion at WP:PALEO I linked above are reasonably appropriate, if we must regard some species as not meriting individual articles, as my proposed criteria are based on the practical benefits of creating a standalone article versus using only a genus-level article. If a species article consists only of information that could easily be listed in a table (e.g. size, authorship, geographic distribution, host species, amount of fossil material known) or that requires context from other members of the genus to be meaningful (e.g. "species X differs from species Y by having a longer thingamabob" "species Y differs from species X by having a shorter thingamabob"), there is no real need for a standalone article on the species. Ornithopsis (talk) 00:59, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I think it may not have to be much more complex than that. There's a good chance that the outcome might just be a solid "All species are notable and deserve an article" since many editors subscribe to that philosophy. That would just get rid of the "generally" rider. Otherwise, table/list treatment unless/until there is material that distinguishes the species article from the genus article might provide a simple rule to follow. I suspect the principal downside of that would be kicking this topic area into the realm of mass merges/splits of questionable quality and justification, which we have so far been blessedly free of. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 07:54, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

A problem with SPECIESOUTCOMES is that it mentions/links some jargony terms (correct name and valid name (zoology). I don't think very many people who read SPECIESOUTCOMES click through to read the definitions of the jargon. From some comments on the Village Pump discussion about creating stubs for fish species, and the RfC about article creation at scale, I get the sense that their are some editors with a negative view of species articles who don't know what a taxonomic synonym is and think that ToL editors have a goal of writing articles for every species ever described (rather than just the species accepted/correct/valid species). And aside from SPECIESOUTCOMES itself, another reason why species articles don't get deleted is that articles that turn out to be taxonomic synonyms get redirected to accepted names (which may entail writing an article for the accepted name). Plantdrew (talk) 18:48, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

I'm back and have a little time, so I have a number of things to point out. (1) BilledMammal accused me of canvassing. I originally posted to exactly one page - this one. Why? Because all of the merged/altered articles affected were WP:TOL pages, and because WP:TOL has, within it, space EXPRESSLY DEVOTED to such changes as proposed merges, and to which BilledMammal did not submit any such proposals. (2) Given that WP:TOL does, in fact, have space dedicated to approving/rejecting merge proposals, I think it is entirely understandable that I would be under the impression that the WikiProject does, in fact, have an established policy and legitimate claim to authority over such actions, and I acted accordingly, reacting to what I saw as a massive and unprecedented policy breach. Being accused by BilledMammal of acting in a non-neutral manner is predicated on his actions NOT being a breach of policy, and WP:TOL having no authority at all, and all the evidence I had in front of me is that it WAS a breach of policy. Others here and elsewhere have stated that WikiProject policies have no authority or enforceability at all, and I find this surprising, and apologize if I assumed too much. (3) Likewise, BilledMammal accused me of not assuming his actions were in good faith, but breaches of policy such as not getting approval for article merges, especially when they delete unique content do not appear to be good faith actions, unless an editor is acting in complete ignorance of policy. An editor acting in good faith who is bulk-deleting content, especially when all of that content is flagged as belonging to a specific WikiProject, should be consulting with that WikiProject in advance. Just because an edit is bold doesn't mean it isn't genuinely destructive, and I would argue that demonstrably destructive edits should be rolled back until they have been discussed and approved. (4) Policy and rules aside, BilledMammal admitted, directly, that they did not know what content in the articles being merged was or was not valuable, as well as admitting, directly, that they did not look at each such article to assess whether there WAS any unique content that would be lost. That sort of bulk editing, when you don't understand what you're causing to be lost, is not just bold, it's reckless. If there's a fire, you don't adopt a neutral stance and wait to see if it will go out on its own; you call the fire department. (5) When it was pointed out what deleted content was valuable, and what was unique, BilledMammal dismissed the point, saying that once he was made aware of the problem, some of it could be salvaged, and the rest, like taxonbars with Wikidata links, was not worth salvaging. Again, the time to learn what content needs to be maintained is BEFORE one removes that content, not after. Second, despite attempts to dismiss things like Wikidata links as not worth salvaging, I would argue that for many of these articles the Wikidata links are the single most important and unique source of information in the article, and - most importantly - ONLY Wikipedia species-level articles contain and make use of the full cross-referencing capacity of Wikidata. (6) Consider just one of the articles BilledMammal has proposed deleting; Knulliana, containing only a single species. The taxonbar was added by an editor after the article was created, and via Wikidata it links this record to Wikimedia Commons, Wikispecies, BioLib, BugGuide, CoL, EoL, EPPO, GBIF, iNaturalist, IRMNG, ITIS, and NCBI. Not a single one of those linked sources crossreferences to the others. For that matter, Wikidata records themselves do not cross-reference to other Wikidata records; you cannot look at a species entry in Wikidata and determine from that how many species are in the same genus, or what family it is in. ONLY Wikipedia species articles serve to provide a reader with all of the information available for a species, and the information available through the Wikidata crossreferences is VAST - it includes not just the taxonomic information, but the geographic distributions, phenologies, host associations, biological notes, photographs, and records of actual physical specimens and their data. Just go to that Knulliana article and click on those Wikidata links to see how much information is contained there - all of it lost if the article is deleted. It is precisely this information that BilledMammal has specifically stated is not worth including in Wikipedia, at the same time complaining about how these stubs contain nothing useful. Wikipedia species articles that contain a Wikidata linked taxonbar do NOT simply "duplicate the content" of a genus-level article (because the genus-level articles do not contain those Wikidata links), and they contain far more than just what is immediately visible in the text of the article. Despite comments I've seen some people post, species-level articles do NOT simply duplicate or mirror what is found in Wikispecies, they do MUCH more, because they contain a Wikidata link, while Wikispecies cross-references to almost nothing, not to Wikidata, and not even to Wikipedia. (7) As others have noted, deleting or merging articles not only does nothing to improve them, but it makes it harder for anyone else to improve them, just like deleting the brackets from a redlink makes it harder for anyone to know that an article needs to be created. All existing redirects pointing to species articles will no longer have a proper target, because you can't target individual entries in a table. (8) Designing a table format that can accommodate for all the possible permutations is not practical; BilledMammal's initial attempt had only three fields - species name, "first described", and range. If you wanted to have an actual table that could accommodate existing species article stub content, it would contain (a) present species name, (b) past names/spelling variants/synonyms (of which there can be be 50 or more), (c) authorships and years for all these names, (d) the geographic distributions, (e) host associations, (f) existence of subspecies, (g) images, (h) descriptive notes, and (i) references, at a bare minimum (i.e., without having to omit existing content of merged/deleted stubs). Even for a small genus, nine columns, and the possible amount of content in some of them (especially considering how many would have to be left blank) would be unwieldy enough, but for groups like beetles, there are some genera with over 3000 valid species! Those genus articles are bad enough as just lists, they will become impossible to use if they are converted into tables, and the unfortunate truth is that all but a literal handful of the species articles for those enormous genera are stubs. We are MUCH better off with 3000 individual articles than a gargantuan table. (9) Something else that is overlooked is HOW DO MOST USERS ARRIVE AT WIKIPEDIA? To continue the example above, if you google "Knulliana" the #1 Google hit is the Wikipedia article - the same article that BilledMammal has just proposed to delete. Call me crazy, but you shouldn't go around deleting the #1 source of information on an organism on the entire internet just because you assert that species stubs are wasteful and inefficient. (10) For me, the bottom line is this: once a species article referring to an actual valid taxonomic entity has been created and crossreferenced, it should not be subject to arbitrary decisions to merge or delete it. If the name is synonymized, then it should immediately be changed into a redirect to the valid taxon name, but that's about the only way a species article should ever be made to disappear. BilledMammal has not engaged with the relevant Wikiproject, and has dismissed the concerns about the effort of editors who have helped to improve a page, as being irrelevant to whether a page should be maintained. Well, Wikipedia is a community effort, for one thing, and the community should have a say in the matter. The other side of this is that an editor who does not understand what the content is that they're removing should not be making such a decision unilaterally, especially when there are editors who DO understand what the content is, and how valuable it is. (11) I will echo the calls by others to establish, once and for all, an explicit AND OBJECTIVE policy regarding species articles, however high up it needs to go in the WP administrative hierarchy to make it enforceable. It is hard enough to keep the existing articles organized and curated without some existential threat that if an article does not have some arbitrary amount of arbitrarily-defined improvement by some arbitrary deadline, it can be wiped away by anyone who feels so inclined, without discussing the matter in advance. That's a recipe for disaster, and I don't regret categorizing it as such. Dyanega (talk) 22:05, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

And I felt like I was going overkill on bytes trying to deal with this. Just one thing I should point out, but part of WP:BEFORE for BM's nomination was that they are supposed to engage on relevant talk pages with Wikiprojects specifically mentioned. That obviously never happened, but there's a lot of bending over backwards with them to avoid engaging with editors here or on article talk pages.

There are some meta-issues with guidelines the community here could start to address to preempt editors like this, but setting that aside, there are behavior issues with this editor that I'm increasingly convinced a taxonomy topic ban of some sort is needed. I've basically used up extra time I have for awhile from trying to sort this out, but whenever their behavior comes up again, it might be time to actively pursue such sanctions as more editors are catching to what they've done like PlantDrew did over at Talk:Bothriospilini. KoA (talk) 01:09, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Wikispecies does have links to Wikipedia and Wikidata in the sidebar. Wikispecies makes use of taxonbar, but it's not present on very many pages. Wikispecies permits very little information; distribution has been allowed for a few years now, but extensive descriptions of a species are still out of the scope of Wikispecies (Wikispecies is intended to be language neutral). Some of sites linked in taxonbars cross-reference each other (some even link to Wikipedia). In my professional life, the primary reason I visit Wikipedia pages as a reader is that the taxonbar links to (almost) every other web-based resource I would want to consult. Plantdrew (talk) 18:48, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

I perhaps should have phrased it differently, then - I meant none of the linked resources referenced all of the others, so the Wikipedia functionality is unique. GBIF has perhaps the most complete crossreferencing of any of the Wikidata-linked sources, but it doesn't point to Wikipedia or Wikispecies, and GBIF is in and of itself one of the more unreliable sources. It contains a really significant number of spelling errors perpetuated as if they were valid names, taxa that are no longer in the genera GBIF says they are in (often with a single species appearing under 2 or 3 genus names), and sometimes massively incomplete species lists. It is, in fact, hard to find any single source that is universally authoritative; GBIF, iNat, ITIS, EoL, IRMNG, BioLib, Fauna Europaea - each and every one has significant errors and omissions that can be revealed from even casual searching - at least, for arthropod taxa. That's why Wikipedia and Wikispecies are so particularly important, and why having taxonbars visible for all taxa is so important: because, by virtue of allowing expert taxonomists to edit articles directly, WP and WS can be made up-to-date and accurate with a few minutes of effort, rather than the generally fruitless task of trying to send feedback to GBIF, iNat, ITIS, EoL, IRMNG, BioLib, Fauna Europaea, etc. and get them to fix their errors. Dyanega (talk) 15:38, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

While I do think the taxonbars are very useful, I think attempting to raise it in the context of whether individual species articles are notable will meet with an immediate rejoinder of WP:LINKFARM, so exercise due caution. One thing I haven't seen mentioned is that iNaturalist scrapes and caches en.wikipedia to fill an information tab on its own taxonomy pages; I haven't checked yet to see how it handles redirects. Choess (talk) 16:08, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

The primary purpose of the taxonbar - a template that has very explicit and predetermined links - is to AVOID link farming. If I manually inserted links to GBIF, iNat, ITIS, EoL, IRMNG, BioLib, Fauna Europaea, etc. to an article, then I might be accused of link farming, but the taxonbar is designed to bypass this. Remember, link farming is defined as an indiscriminate collection of links. The taxonbar is as far from indiscriminate as you can possibly get. It shows only directly relevant information. The issue of the inherent notability of species is separate, but bear in mind that an absolutely astonishing percentage of ALL species, from fungi to plants to animals, are known only from museum specimens, their original description, and subsequent catalogs and checklists. The data linked via the taxonbar puts most of that information at a reader's disposal, and sometimes ALL of it (the latter scenario being more likely when there is less actual information available). In other words, an article can, by virtue of having a taxonbar, give access to everything known about a species, especially for the most poorly-known taxa. How is that not EXACTLY what we want Wikipedia to do?? I think how you phrase the question makes a huge difference: if the question is "Is an article that contains or gives links to everything known about a species notable?" then I think the difference between a "stub" with a taxonbar and without a taxonbar becomes enormous. Judging a "stub" by its immediately visible content alone is, I think, a serious mistake. Dyanega (talk) 16:27, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

I just checked iNaturalist for a monotypic taxon. iNaturalist is inconsistent in how it manages redirects. The iNaturalist pages for Amborella trichopoda, Amborellaceae and Amoborellales show the Wikipedia article. When I first visited the page for Amborella it showed a template for creating a Wikipedia article. Upon revisiting it (I had traveled up the taxonomic hierarchy from the species, and was traveling back down with the back button in my browser), the about section took a long time to load and eventually displayed "Amborella is a genus of plants with 30 observations" (machine generated text by iNaturalist). Plantdrew (talk) 16:52, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

2022 in Biology, or, more specifically, its non-existence

Yesterday an user @Exoplanet9 created the article List of species described in 2022. Outside of any other considerations on this article, some of us at WP:PALEO were surprised to observe that we generally don't have the equivalent to our excellent Years in paleontology series of article considering extant organisms. We only have assumedly highly incomplete lists of new species for the years 1766, 1921, 2012, 2015, 2016 and 2022. Those articles, outside of more prosaic details such as general incompleteness, lack of unity in presentation, and sometimes lack of sources, are also entirely devoid of the numerous papers not describing new species, which are featured nowhere else. As this is an issue that should interest anyone editing in biology-related articles, I bring it here for debate. The work to do here is most probably absolutely enormous, and all opinions and propositions are welcomed.

Mostly :

• Is this kind of articles really worth the hassle, considering the work needed to maintain it up to date ?
• If so, what should be its general accepted formatting and appearance ?
• What should be its scope ?
• At which arbitrary year should the serie of articles start ?
• How would the articles be divided ?
• Who could be interested in maintaining and updating it ?

Larrayal (talk) 23:30, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

According to this, there's about 18,000 new species described every year. I think that that number alone suggests that the suggested scope of these list articles is impossibly huge. It would make more sense to divide these into different kingdoms (or even smaller taxonomic units), but even then, still an huge undertaking. Is the result that much more useful than the equivalent "year described in category"? (perhaps, but is it worth the effort?) I predict these articles will remain hopelessly incomplete until the inevitable AI article-writing bot comes along to finish the job. Esculenta (talk) 12:03, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

I would echo this comment: one of the main reasons for having categories in Wikipedia is precisely to avoid having to manually compile lists. The trick, of course, is getting editors who create new articles to use the proper categories. As it stands, the "hierarchy" of "year described in" categories is difficult to navigate, and not all editors know (1) the difference between a newly-described species and one that was renamed (renaming should not reset the clock; a species described in 1872 and renamed in 2022 is not a species described in 2022), and (2) the more contentious point that a category should not mix taxa of different ranks - that is, the category "Beetles described in 1872" should reference species but not genera or families, etc. Dyanega (talk) 15:47, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Now at AfD, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of species described in 2022. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:52, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Articles with manual taxoboxes to be converted to automatic

I remember seeing a categorized list of these some time ago, but can't find it here or on the obvious suspects' user pages. Hint please? Elmidae (talk · contribs) 08:45, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

You can run a petscan report (http://petscan.wmflabs.org), entering the appropriate categories and templates in the appropriate spots. For instance, I've been updating lichen articles by sticking "lichen genera" in as the category and "taxobox" in as the template to get my list. MeegsC (talk) 11:49, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

@Elmidae:, every six months I make a post with stats on manual taxoboxes by WikiProject. The most recent version is at Wikipedia talk:Automated taxobox system (with older versions in the archives). I have notes on manual taxoboxes for animal phyla and fish and insect orders (based on a Petscan search in the appropriate category) at User:Plantdrew/Animal automatic taxobox progress, and plant families at User:Plantdrew/Plant automatic taxobox progress. There are some groups where a single editor is slowly working on updating the higher classification, and others that have never had an internally consistent higher classification. If you find a group you'd like to work on, I may be able to provide some advice about potential inconsistencies in the classification to watch for. Petscan searches for WikiProject banners haven't been working correctly for me for several weeks now; I've found a work-around, but I don't understand why it works. Plantdrew (talk) 19:03, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Ah yes, that's the bunny. Thank you! I shall have a look at these and let you know :) --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 19:50, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Oh goody! My next obsession. XD - UtherSRG (talk) 20:01, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

I've just run an update of the numbers in my notes for plants and animals. Plantdrew (talk) 21:31, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Am I the only one who gets a little bugged by the lack of consistency in species article formatting?

I've brought this up elsewhere, but this seemed like the most appropriate place to find someone who actually cared. Currently, even though nearly all TOL articles have vaguely similar sections, there's no real consensus as to how they should be named and organised. Compare the GA dromedary to the GA Heuglin's gazelle. The former is arranged Etymology -> Taxonomy and classification -> Genetics and hybrids -> Evolution -> Characteristics -> Ecology -> Biology -> Range -> Relationship with humans, while the second is Taxonomy -> Characteristics -> Ecology and behaviour -> Distribution and habitat -> Threats and conservation. I suppose what irks me the most is that there is no valid reason that this information in the two can't be presented with a more uniform layout. Of course, it could never be perfect, but at least it would make specific details easier to find. See, for instance, oriental fire-bellied toad and white-lipped peccary, both rewritten by me, inspired by the lion article, with slight adjustments depending on the amount of information available for any one component. I'm not sure exactly what I'm aiming for by bringing this up here, but if there are any fellow pendants out there who like the sound of more standardised articles, feel free to show support. And just so everything's clear, I'm not pushing for major changes if there's no support for them, and I'll also gladly accept a different layout proposal if anyone has one. An anonymous username, not my real name (talk) 02:29, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

A lack of uniformity is a feature of having articles written by many different people, and not a bug. As long as the information is presented in a logical way then that's fine. Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:08, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

A very reasonable take, but the MOS exists for a reason, and that reason is not to oppose individuals' personal preferences. It simply helps with organisation and assists readers in finding what they are looking for, which is my goal as well. I am only advocating a set of loose guidelines many articles already follow, not any kind of mandate. An anonymous username, not my real name (talk) 03:23, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Individual articles certainly vary in their paragraph headings and layout. Perhaps instead of comparing individual articles, have a look at the sub-projects for guidance. Some are detailed (Birds and Plants), and some are brief (Insects, and Amphibians and Reptiles). While different Wikiprojects may vary from each other in their standard formats, at least it's an agreed goal to work towards for standardization. The TOL archives will likely provide additional discussion threads on the topic. Loopy30 (talk) 03:19, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Yes, thank you for bringing these up. I mainly edit mammal and amphibian articles, which are highly variable. Something like the bird guidelines for either one would be nice. Perhaps I should see if there is any interest at the relevant Wikiprojects. An anonymous username, not my real name (talk) 03:31, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

I think what you are looking for can be found here: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Tree_of_Life#Taxon_article_template and here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Tree of Life/Taxon template. Basically, it is a well-established general guide on the sections and their organization. I will emphasize that this is a guide, though, and may not work or be applicable in all situations. I think it is also worth noting the downsides of over-standardization: it doesn't always fit well in all situations, it stifles creativity, and inhibits new contributions, such as from new editors. So it is worthwhile to be aware of both the pros AND the cons of standardization. Cougroyalty (talk) 16:52, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps I came on too strong. I am only looking for some kind of guide, such as the one you provided, that is relevant in most, if not all, cases. You are absolutely right that there would be issues with forcing all articles to be the same, which is not what I'm trying to do. If anything, this is mostly for myself, so that I can have an idea for how to write my articles most appropriately in the future, in a way that the community would most agree with. An anonymous username, not my real name (talk) 17:47, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

• While I prefer standardisation as much as possible, it's also nice to have a range of options. It really comes down to the subject. FunkMonk (talk) 17:04, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

  In that case, we are of the same opinion. Newer editors and editors working on topics that don't mix well with normal guidelines should not be confined by them. I only am speaking here for our many articles that are very similar in terms of coverage, but arranged differently, especially when the content could easily be moved around without harming readability (indeed, it would improve it in most cases). As I said before, I'm not trying to campaign for radical changes or for anything to be forced on anyone. An anonymous username, not my real name (talk) 17:41, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

I see no harm in a little rearranging. I do it myself sometimes. Cougroyalty (talk) 18:14, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

WPMED's experience with the list of suggested sections in Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles is that when you write a "suggestion" in the Manual of Style, there will be at least one editor who enthusiastically enforces that suggestion, often because they wanted intra-article uniformity anyway and finding a suggestion feels like they've been given permission to do what they want. It may be impossible to prevent this, although making multiple suggestions, explicitly labeled as being co-equal and stating that uniformity between articles is an anti-goal might prevent it.

That said, I think there is some value in providing advice on how to write articles. I was particularly happy with this description of why species shouldn't be blindly up-merged, and I think it could be developed into a a solid explanation of what belongs in which article type. Most editors really don't know how this works and are genuinely surprised to discover that there is at least one scientific paper behind every officially named species, or that merging things away results in the previously populated categories getting speedy-deleted as {{db-catempty}}. The old draft at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Organisms might be an okay place to develop some of this, or you might think it easier to start fresh. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:11, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Likewise, I don't see a problem with this if it's done cautiously and takes on board feedback, which the OP clearly understands. I would suggest starting in one clade of animals, rearranging some articles to a "standard" format, and then moving outwards to a sister clade, or something like that. If the "standard" format creates difficulties for a class of articles, it will probably be discovered earlier and with less friction that way. Choess (talk) 14:50, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

External links to sister projects

Is there any value to adding links to sister projects (specifically, Commons and Wikispecies) at the bottom of a taxon page in an external links section, when these links are already present in the left-hand sidebar? If yes (perhaps because of differences in desktop vs. mobile view?), how about when the taxon article in question already has all the information that's on the Wikispecies page, or, when the Commons page does not contain any more images than already shown in the article? I'm working on an "ideal stub" template for lichens, loosely based on Plantdrew's plant stub model, and following up on a thread at the lichen task force talk; I also make lots of lichen stubs myself, so would like to know your opinions. Esculenta (talk) 21:58, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Hi Esculenta, here is a link to a previous discussion on the topic. Some editors see them as redundant clutter, while others find them useful. As there does appear to be a benefit for mobile users to view the link (unless the issue is fixed by now?), most editors will tolerate them as a harmless addition to an article. Loopy30 (talk) 01:04, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

I don't make a practice of adding them (which is why I didn't mention them in my stub model), but I don't remove them unless I find (usually by comparing the links in the sidebar) that there isn't a corresponding page in the sister project. It's not unusual for the templates to be present when the sister project doesn't have a page; I'd a hope a bot could be employed to remove links to nonexistent pages. Another issue is that the standard version of the templates can create a bunch of white-space; I regularly replace the standard versions with the inline versions. Aside from being visible in mobile view, another advantage of the templates is that the page to link can be specified, which makes it possible to link the sister project when their page is an homotypic/objective synonym of the page here. Plantdrew (talk) 01:34, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Yes, absolutely there is value. As a software professional I can tell you that readers are generally speaking blind to things outside the main article space or basic navigation like the search field. The key is that we should be conservative in how many sister projects we link to. The more external links there are the less visible each additional one becomes. For this reason I generally only link to Commons categories and of course taxonbars. Other projects like Wikispecies or Wikibooks I would link to almost never because the content is usually not useful or reliable. Steven Walling • talk 02:43, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Agreed, although I would add Wikispecies as well as Commons as that is the most relevant project for the TOL project.

There is nothing wrong with some redundancy. Different people prefer different means of navigation. I rarely use navigation boxes, because I tend to use the taxobox to navigate to parent and child taxa, but that doesn't mean I favour removing navigation boxes. I also use the taxonbar for resources, including wikispecies, but can see why other would use the dedicated links. As long as there is not distracting clutter, some redundancy is useful. —  Jts1882 | talk  09:07, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

For articles on bird species there are links to Commons and Wikispecies on the left-hand sidebar and there is a second link to Wikispecies in the Taxon Identifiers (Taxonbar) at the bottom of the article. This is surely adequate. Adding additional links means that there is more to maintain when species are moved around (splits, lumps and changes of genus). - Aa77zz (talk) 10:53, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

I agree with Aa77zz that the Wikispecies link in the taxonbar is sufficient, because in practice it seems like 99.9% of the time the information that Wikispecies offers is already contained in species infoboxes / the article overall. It's just not that useful of a project and it's less reliable than other taxonomic resources we already link to. Steven Walling • talk 17:29, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

But, is the Wikispecies link in the taxonbar sufficient if readers on mobile devices (who now make up half of all readers) can't see the taxonbar on their phones? Or do we still need the further redundancy to the "In other projects" column on the left-hand side of the page, by including a special Wkispecies box in the article to notify the reader of related info on the other project? Loopy30 (talk) Loopy30 (talk) 01:44, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

@Steven Walling: you can have your views on Wikispecies but I think you not showing much understanding of how it works. I am a member of the Global Species List Working Group of the IUBS. Wikispecies is one of the major contributors of Data to COL and EOL. It is also datamined every day for Wikidata of course which is where significant base line data comes from for your Taxon Boxes. The GSLWG recognised COL and Wikispecies as the major aggregators of taxonomic and nomenclatural data. I will concede that we have an issue with Protists, everyone does, but beyond that all our data is consistent with the most up to date publications as best as possible. We are also the only nomenclatural/ taxonomic database that successfully reconciles ICZN and Phylocode so that the nomenclature is consistent. I edit both wikipedia and wikispecies within my field of expertise, turtles, when they disagree its almost always wikipedia that has the wrong nomenclature. ˜˜˜˜ Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 16:20, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

The age of "Testudines"

Members of this Wikiproject may be interested in this discussion Talk:Turtle#age_of_turtles disputimg the age of turtles in the taxobox. Essentially turtle paleontologists consider "Testudines" to refer to the crown group i.e. the last common ancestor of Cryptodira and Pleurodira, whose first undoubted representatives are from the Late Jurassic, while Scott Thomson asserts that modern turtle workers considered "Testudines" to be synonymous with the clade covered by our article Testudinata, which are first known from the Late Triassic. Outside input would be appreciated. Kind regards. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:41, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

A note here not all paleontologists agree with this I am one also. There are plenty who do not follow this. But we agree to disagree we do not fight over this issue. You can keep Testudinata but I would suggest you call it what it is which is an alternative classification using phylocode used by some paleontologists. My point has been the Turtle article was written for living turtles using the ICZN nomenclature used by all workers of living taxa. The fossils are only being referred to. The nomenclature your insisting on and the taxonomy underpinning it are foreign to all workers of modern species and out of step with every checklist, even the TEWG checklist of fossil turtles 2015. I do not think the two pages have to be in sink with each other since their baseframe of reference is different. However, the turtle page should be in step with current practices in the taxonomy of living turtles.

My username is Faendalimas by the way which is preferable on WMF projects. Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 23:58, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Links for Subfamily

A very short article exists at Subfamily. The problem is, there are a lot of instances in articles where "subfamily" is a piped link to some other article, for example like this: [[Family (biology)|subfamily]] (example search), or this: [[Taxonomic rank|subfamily]]. I'm thinking these links could get more or less automatically fixed to point to the dedicated article. Should we do that? The assumptions would be: one, that Subfamily will continue to exist as a separate article (otherwise, many of the links wouldn't need fixing), and two, that its title will remain stable (otherwise, we may want to avoid potential ambiguity by piping the links via a more specific redirect, like Subfamily (taxonomy)). – Uanfala (talk) 19:14, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

• Questioning assumption 1: does this article need to exist as a concept separate from its parent article? And continuing this thought, should the same consideration be extended to similar subtaxon articles – subgenus, suborder, subclass (taxonomy), subkingdom, subphylum. Currently, the first and last are standalone articles; the middle three are redirects to the parent taxon article. Does this make sense? Esculenta (talk) 20:14, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

  I don't think there should be piped links (and there shouldn't be links to unnecessary disambiguation such as species (biology), which is something I've slowly been working on). I don't think stand-alone stubs for minor ranks with prefixes (sub-, super-, infra-) are necessary. I'm not sure if protein subfamily is of enough importance to make subfamily a disambiguation page. If disambiguation is necessary (which it certainly is for kingdom, division, class, order, family, tribe and section), I really wish we'd gone with (taxonomy) as the disambiguator instead of (biology). It would be a massive amount of work to change it now, but I'm increasingly displeased with family (biology); it's ambiguous with protein family and gene family, not to mention the concept of family as a group of biologically related people (and biological family redirects to the taxonomic concept, which is unlikely to be what people using that as a search term are looking for). Plantdrew (talk) 22:30, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

  Yeah, the title of family (biology) is a bit unsatisfactory. But won't family (taxonomy) present problems of its own: Taxonomy after all is a very broad concept that's relevant in many fields beyond the classification of organisms, and it's likely that the use of the term "family" may not be constrained to biological taxonomies. – Uanfala (talk) 23:34, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

  If we don't have a separate article about the subfamily rank, then there would at least be a redirect to some other article with relevant content (Family (biology) or Taxonomic rank), right? But either way, there's another basic assumption that I'm now beginning to wonder about: in article text, do we need to link that term at all? – Uanfala (talk) 23:29, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

  If there's no article for a prefixed minor rank, there should still be a redirect to the rank without the prefix. I think we should link the term when article is about a taxon at that rank (e.g. "Fooinae is a subfamily....") I don't think the a rank term should be linked when an article is about a taxon at a different rank (e.g. "Fooia baria is a species in the family Fooidae"; link species in this case, but not family (although Wikipedia frequently has family linked in this situation). Plantdrew (talk) 01:40, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

@Plantdrew: I think family (nomenclature) would have been better since that is what you actually talking about. You can do taxonomy without names, label the clades a, b, ... For all it matters. The labels only come to importance when you apply standard nomenclature over it. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 00:42, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Sarcopterygii

There is an edit request at Template talk:Taxonomy/Sarcopterygii to change the taxonomy rank of Sarcopterygii from cladus to superclassis per the source at NCBI. Also found the same rank at ITIS, so I went ahead with the edit for editor The All Knowing Frog. Another editor, YorkshireExpat, has raised an issue, so I reverted to bring it here to the people who know much more than I do about taxonomy. Please help. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^put'r there 03:06, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Fishes of the World (5th edition) is the "preferred" source for the higher level taxonomy (see WP:FISH#Taxonomy) and that uses subclass Sarcopterygii. We may need to be flexible and use clade or unranked to accommodate some other heirarchies, but we shouldn't used superclass based on what I would consider less authoritative sources (NCBI, ITIS). : However, Deepfin also uses superclass, but if we use that we should discuss making Deepfin the preferred source for higher level taxonomy instead of FotW5. This change has been suggested before but I don't think the discussion was had. If the change is made, we would need to consider variant taxonomy templates for different cases (e.g. when using superclass Tetrapoda) —  Jts1882 | talk  10:58, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

References

Undiscussed changes to gymnosperm taxonomy

See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Plants#Mass_undiscussed_changes_to_gymnosperm_taxonomy_by_Elmutanto. Thanks. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:29, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

An update from the new lichen task force

Next issue ---> | Tip Line SYMBIOSIS: The lichen task force newsletter — September 2022 A look at what we've accomplished, working together
Welcome to the first-ever issue of SYMBIOSIS, the newsletter of the new lichen task force. As a subset of WP:FUNGI, the task force is working to improve coverage of the world's lichens – unique organisms composed of one or more fungal partners with one or more photosynthetic partners. They're found around the world, from frigid polar areas to the steamy equator, from the edges of lapping seas to the highest mountains, and from city walls to the most remote wilderness areas. They may be major players in the creation of soil from rock, and they produce substances which may prove beneficial in our fight against pathogenic organisms. Want to learn more? Join us!	Phacopsis vulpina Articles of note New GA article: Phacopsis – a genus of lichenicolous fungi New project members Esculenta MeegsC Kazamzam J Milburn Dr vulpes MerielGJones
Project news It's been a busy first month for the task force. Among the accomplishments thus far: Project pages were created, and various reports and alerts signed up for. More than 3,100 articles, templates and categories were tagged as being under the purview of the task force. Group members selected the ten articles thought to be of top importance to the project. (Two don't yet exist except as drafts or redirects.) The project's cleanup listing backlog was whittled from 220 issues on 194 articles when the project was first established to 145 issues on 124 articles by the end of August. Given that the oldest issues on articles still to fix date back to 2009, there is still much work to do here! An outline of lichens was created to provide a one-stop index to existing and needed lichen articles. Work was begun on a glossary of lichen terminology. Work was begun on converting all articles still using old "taxobox" templates to the newer automatic taxobox and speciesbox templates. More than 100 taxonomy templates have been created so far. Dozens of new genus and species articles were created.
Lichen news A new study shows that the secondary metabolites produced by a lichen are dependent upon the substrate on which it grows. If necessary, lichens can produce metabolites which, for example, give them a higher resistance to acidity, protect against high concentrations of heavy metals, or allow them to survive drought. Atranorin, which lichens use to filter out excess solar radiation, was the most common secondary metabolite found in the studied species.
Got a suggestion? A correction? Something you'd like to see included in a future issue? Drop a note at the Tip Line with your ideas!

MeegsC (talk) 09:39, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Genus Ophiodon or Ophidion?

Help is needed with a page move request at Talk:Ophiodon ozymandias. Trying to determine if the subject described is in genus Ophiodon (a lingcod) or Ophidion (a cusk eel). Thank you in advance for any help you can provide! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^put'r there 16:30, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

It's a fossil lingcod. It should not be moved to Ophidion. Dyanega (talk) 21:20, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

New Reptile Database update

An FYI, a new update has just been published by the Reptile Database, and i'm updating as I have time....Pvmoutside (talk) 18:32, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

GAR of Fish

Fish has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Artem.G (talk) 16:46, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

New IUCN Update

An FYI, a new update has just been published by the IUCN, and i'm updating as I have time. Mammals are finished, am abou to start birds... Pvmoutside (talk) 20:53, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

@Pvmoutside: I know that IUCN publishes pdf files listing the latest changes, but I don't know where exactly the recently published files can be found. Could you provide a link? I want to bring the Russian Wikipedia articles in line with the latest IUCN version. HFoxii (talk) 06:36, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

I went to find it for you and https://www.iucnredlist.org/ is giving a 502 Bad Gateway error. Presumably just a temporary glitch. —  Jts1882 | talk  09:36, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

@HFoxii: It was temporary. The page with pdf files is https://www.iucnredlist.org/resources/summary-statistics. The pdf with the species that changed assessment over 2022 is Table 7 (2021-2022) - Species changing IUCN Red List Category between 2021 and 2022. —  Jts1882 | talk  16:54, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Teleostomi

There is an edit request to remove Teleostomi as an obsolete clade at Template talk:Taxonomy/Osteichthyes. This is in question because there is a {{Whom}} template noted in the lede of the Teleostomi article that has gone unanswered since Oct 2022. Can anyone shed more light on this? P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^put'r there 04:29, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Invalid taxa and taxoboxes

So a while ago discussions was stirred at the dino[2] and paleo[3] projects about how to treat various types of invalid names (nomina nuda, unnatural groups, populations no longer considered taxa, etc.) in taxoboxes. Instead of discussing it at sub-projects, I think it would be better to have a centralised discussion here, as it would affect all groups. My understanding is that only validly published names should be listed as proper junior synonyms, and only valid taxa should have taxoboxes. I'm not sure if there are actual guidelines for this, perhaps I'm overlooking them, but we probably should have some if we don't. We have various odd situations now, like Barbary lion (now regarded as just a subpopulation, not a subspecies of lion), river dolphin (an unnatural group based on ecology), pheasant (unnatural group), tahr (unnatural group), and probably others. FunkMonk (talk) 22:02, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

My understanding is that all alternative scientific names, not just junior synonyms proper, go in the synonym section of the taxobox as a quick reference of what else it has been called. If I go hunting to find out what became of, say, Panthera pardus tautavelensis, then it's nice to be informed that that name now refers to Panthera uncia pyrenaica.

As far as distinct populations - we have the {{population taxobox}} for that. SilverTiger12 (talk) 22:13, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Repeating (with a correction) what I said in the paleo discussion. "Validly published" is a term of art in the botanical and bacterial code; "available" is the equivalent concept in the zoological code. Taxonomic databases regularly list invalidly published names as synonyms when the synonymy can be determined (e.g., Larix larix is considered invalid under the botanical code because tautonyms aren't allowed, but that is a retroactive rule, and at the time Larix larix was published there was nothing wrong with it, and it is quite clear that it can be considered a synonym of Larix decidua). Under the bacterial code, there is only one journal (IJSEM) in which names can be validly published; names first published in other journals are regularly validated by (another) publication in IJSEM. Wikipedia has articles on bacteria with no validly published name (e.g. Streptomyces polaris and Streptomyces abyssomicinicus), but which are listed in the LPSN database. Perhaps we shouldn't have articles on invalid bacteria, but I don't think excluding invalidly published names from the synonyms in a taxobox is necessary.

If the intention to exclude names from manuscripts, "(not) effectively published" is the term to use. Really though, lists of synonyms in taxoboxes should be sourced, and I think we should list all the "synonyms" given in the source without being concerned about the technical nomenclatural status of the names.

We also have articles such as Eremophila glabra subsp. South Coast. It's listed in APNI with the full designation "Eremophila glabra subsp. South coast (A.Chapman AC 15)" (i.e., there is a putative "type specimen", AC 15). If that ever gets formally published as a species, is it really helpful to exclude the provisional designation from the synonyms in the taxobox? I'll leave that up to APNI and the other Australian taxonomic databases. Plantdrew (talk) 20:33, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Norfolk Island rail and Providence blue pigeon are a couple of fairly recently created articles about extinct island endemics that have not received formal descriptions, but they have taxoboxes.

There is also Category:Candidatus taxa, which contains articles that perhaps deserve taxoboxes; but should "candidatus" be entered in the binomial parameter? William Avery (talk) 22:20, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Not sure about the Botanical Code, but as an ICZN Commissioner, I can speak to the Zoological Code. Synonymy is a taxonomic decision, not nomenclatural. You can therefore list anything you want as a synonym as long as the thing you are listing it under is an available name (and as long as other taxonomists don't dispute it, I suppose). Availability is an objective nomenclatural property of a name, regulated by the Code; synonymy is a subjective decision, and not regulated except in deciding which name out of a set of synonyms is the valid name. So: in zoology, the name recognized as correct for a species is the valid name, and all valid names must be nomenclaturally available. Wikipedia does contain a few articles using nomenclaturally unavailable zoological "names" in a binomial form, such as Bombus incognitus and Dermophis donaldtrumpi, but in theory these are just "placeholders" until someone actually formally publishes a name. These pages do NOT have taxoboxes, and I would strongly urge editors NOT to add taxoboxes to them, and maybe even to remove any existing taxoboxes from other articles about unnamed taxa. A link in the article text should be sufficient to point readers to related taxa. It is extremely misleading having a taxobox, as it implies that the name is real. At the very least, the names in such articles need to not be italicized; under the rules of the ICZN, only actual scientific names should be in italics, and any other name, or any rank below subspecies (such as a variety or morph), or interpolated or placeholder characters (e.g., "Bombus sp.") must not be italicized. There are a few taxoboxes that refer to artificial vernacular conglomerates of two or more genera, such as Tarantula hawk and Yellowjacket, but the constituent taxa do have their own articles and their scientific names appear in the taxoboxes. Dyanega (talk) 23:46, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

• Nice points, I just wonder if some of these things should be documented somewhere. It seems there is consensus for unnatural groups and unpublished taxa not having taxoboxes, but for nomina nuda being listed as synonyms. I wasn't aware there was a specific population taxobox, so I wonder if this could be documented more clearly, and if there are other variations, in the TOL taxobox guideline section. FunkMonk (talk) 22:36, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Tetrapulmonata

Please help with an edit request at Template talk:Taxonomy/Araneae to change the parent from Arachnida to Tetrapulmonata. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^put'r there 03:46, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

I've changed the parent of the taxonomy template for four extant orders (Araneae, Amblypygi, Thelyphonida, Schizomida) to Tetrapulmonata citing Gardland & Russell (2014). I'd prefer a taxonomy source, but Tetrapulmonata seems the only arachnic supraordinal taxon that has strong support. I haven't seen a formal taxonomic update (since 213/2014) for Arachnida. What taxonomy source should we be using for arachnids (apart from WSC for spiders)?

In reviewing the taxonomy templates I notice we have Acariformes, Parasitiformes (the new superorders) as well as Acari (old paraphyletic subclass). I'd like to empty Acari, but again a new reliable arachnid taxonomy source would be useful. —  Jts1882 | talk  08:35, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you very much for you help with this, editor  Jts1882 ! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^put'r there 10:51, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

References

Imperial conversion for μm

Today I removed a convert template to convert micrometers to inches in the article Paleoserenomyces. The text reads "with the 240–480 μm (0.0094–0.0189 in) around by 180–240 μm (0.0071–0.0094 in)-thick locules". My removal of the template was reverted by @Kevmin:, with the justification "its not our fault imperial doesnt have smaller units". Can anyone explain to me how the presence of the imperial measurement here could be useful to anyone? I've performed similar edits to other ToL-related articles in the past, but this is the first time I've been reverted, so perhaps my understanding needs to be recalibrated. MOS:CONVERSIONS isn't especially helpful for this particular instance, but says "Generally, conversions to and from metric units and US or imperial units should be provided, except: In some topic areas ... it can be excessive to provide a conversion for every quantity." At what point does providing these values become ridiculous? As someone who spends quite a bit of time staring down a microscope, I can't see any use for this conversion ... are there contrary opinions? Esculenta (talk) 16:32, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Yes, this is pointless. Unit conversions between metric and imperial are intended to provide readers who are more familiar with the one or the other with a relatable value. No one can relate to 1/100 or 1/1000 inch measurements because they are simply not used - all measurements at this scale are reported in metric units, always (unless you are a retired American clockmaker, I suppose...). --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 17:10, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

It's OK to give an article's only substantial contributor some leeway over minor style questions. It's not exactly that anyone's understanding of the article would be hindered by the presences of inches in brackets. Still, it does look bizarre. Do American books ever express dimensions at the micro scale in inches? – Uanfala (talk) 17:17, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

PCBs are often still specified in mil in the UK, and I would wager also in the US. Different field though. Most serious scientific measurements should be in SI units. YorkshireExpat (talk) 17:34, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) There are non-metric units of length smaller than inches that are in use in specialized fields, but I don't think enough people are familiar with them to really be relatable. I have some sense of how big a 12-point font is, but I don't have a sense of how big a single point is. The article on line (unit) says it was used by biologists, but I've never encountered it (and I do use floras published in the 1950s). Plantdrew (talk) 17:39, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Mil is the US unit, while thou is the more tradition UK unit (see Thousandth of an inch). But these are (or were) used in specialist fields and won't help people get a sense of size with a more familiar unit. There is no point in a conversion that won't help a significant number of readers. —  Jts1882 | talk  21:25, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, electronics is a strange one. A lot of the older standards, like DIL still widely proliferate and are based on imperial, being developed, as they were, in the US. We, in the UK, probably didn't mind that too much and went with it. Not a good argument for lichen though. I'm all for ditching the conversion on this one. YorkshireExpat (talk) 22:02, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Just to muddy the waters a bit, I am currently reading a popular science-level paleontology book (Fires of Life, by BG Lovegrove) where the author gives all μm measures as "x μm (y μin)". Never seen that before, but clearly there's more variety in usage than I thought. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:37, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Correcting spelling of a genus name

I would like to correct the spelling of Palaeobalanus, a marine barnacle species (fossil). It is listed as Paleobalanus which is incorrect. Is this easy to do? Palaeobalanus (talk) 00:32, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

According to WoRMS, Paleobalanus is correct. Any change of name would need sources favouring that spelling.

Zoological names with Paleo- or Palaeo- prefixes are set at the spelling of the original description. They don't change when used in British or American English. This leads to apparent inconsistencies where genus Paleobalanus belongs to subfamily Archaeobalaninae. —  Jts1882 | talk  07:05, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

I am the author of the genus, and it was spelled Palaeobalanus in 1983 when I first published the genus. WoRMS is not always correct... Nonetheless, I will write to WoRMS and ask for the correct spelling to be used. Palaeobalanus (talk) 01:01, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

I note that the reference WORMS uses actually correctly spells the genus. [4]. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:09, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

@Palaeobalanus: I've gone and fixed both instances where the erroneus spelling was used. Hope that sorts the issue. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:11, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Many thanks... Palaeobalanus (talk) 01:30, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

The Asoriculus/Nesiotites conundrum

This has been bothering me for approximately a year at this point, so I feel the need to lay out the confusing taxonomic history of these two extinct shrew genera and their conjoined Wikipedia article, Asoriculus:

• In 1855, the species "Sorex" similis was described by Hensel from remains found on Sardinia
• In 1864, the species "Crocidura" gibberodon was described by Petényi from remains found on mainland Europe
• In 1945 Bate erects the genus Nesiotites, with the type being the newly described Nesiotites hildalgo from remains found on the Balearic islands, and also including a newly described Corsico-Sardinian species, Nesiotites corsicanus, as well as "Sorex" similis within the genus as Nesiotites similis
• In 1959, Kretzoi erects the genus Asoriculus with the type species being A. gibberodon
• Later authors suggest that either Nesiotites should be subsumed into Asoriculus, or that Nesiotites should be restricted to species found on the Balearic Islands, and that the Corisco-Sardinan species should be re-assigned to Asoriculus (See introductory section of Rofes et al. 2012) As Rolfes et al. 2012 notes the autapomorphies of Asoriculus and Nesiotites with respect to their most recent common relative were minimal And most authors accept that the Nesiotites species originated from Asoriculus

Confusingly, the Asoriculus Wikipedia article was originally titled Nesiotites, but was moved in 2014 with the cited reasoning being Currently accepted name for genus; more commonly used [5], which I don't think is true, as Nesiotites is definitely the prevailing name used for the Balearic species. Many recent papers say that the taxonomy of the Sardinian-Corsican species are unresolved, and often refer to them as "Asoriculus" (eg [6])

I see two options here:

• Keep the article as is, as discussing both genera, which makes sense given their intertwined taxonomic histories and ancestor-descent relationship
• Split out Nesiotites into a separate article.

We currently have an article for N. hildalgo the most recent Nesiotites species, at Balearic shrew. I have honestly tried and I really cannot find significant material that would make the article anything more than a stub discussing it alone, so I think that if Nesiotites was to be split out that article should definitely be merged into it, as was done with the species of Hypnomys. I'd argue that it would be worth merging anyway into Asoriculus even if there was no split, but that's a separate issue.

I made a split request a year ago, but the talk page request never got any response. So I thought I'd try here. Many thanks. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:09, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Updated cyanobacterial classification

An updated classification of cyanobacterial orders and families has been published, based on robust phylogenomic tree.

"Using 16S sequences, coupled with genomic data, Strunecký et al. (2023) were able to lay the groundwork for a more modern understating of the relationships between the cyanobacteria. Strunecký et al. (2023) reconstructed well-supported phylogenetic inference, which served as a firm ground for their following taxonomic reasoning. In this paper, they erected 10 new orders and 15 families while revising many of the traditional ones. The excellent thing about the paper is that we now have some clear demarcations between families. Moreover, the most up-to-date list of the genera within the families and orders is included."

Petr Karel (talk) 10:29, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

AlgaeBase seems to have adopted Strunecký's classification, but WoRMS has not (WoRMS is supposed to be in sync with AlgaeBase). As the paper was very recently published, I'd give it a few weeks to see if WoRMS catches up. (Michael Guiry created a record for Anthocerotibacter on WoRMS on February 15th, 2 days after Strunecký was published, but the family/ordinal placement of Anthocerotibacter doesn't follow Strunecký). Plantdrew (talk) 16:58, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Template:Taxonomy/Stegocephalia

Please, need help with a taxonomy template at Template talk:Taxonomy/Stegocephalia. Please help decide the best pathway. Thank you in advance! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 22:58, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Think this should be renamed to {{Taxonomy/Stegocephali}} soon. Would like to hear your opinion on the subject first. Thank you for your time! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 07:54, 5 March 2023 (UTC)