This is an archive of past discussions. 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.

I'm thinking of starting a MILHIST style contest for TOL from next month. The rolling contest has worked really well for them in terms of producing a lot of high-quality content and increasing editor activity and retention, so I'd like to replicate some of that effect here. TOL is also one of the easiest areas of Wikipedia to get involved in (as there is almost no way to fall afoul of NPOV or get into flamewars), and I think a rolling contest would help attract newcomers who would benefit both themselves and the project. AryKun ( talk) 03:39, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

An article of interest to this project ( Orders of centipedes) has content that is proposed to be split into multiple other articles (Scutigeromorpha, Lithobiomorpha, Geophilomorpha, Scolopendromorpha and Craterostigmomorpha). If you are interested, please visit the discussion. (Proposed since March) Thank you. Edward-Woodrow :) _{[ talk} 14:38, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Help me out regarding a dilemma, please. If certain information is valid for all species in a genus, e.g. husbandry or reproduction, should it be repeated in each species' article or included only in the genus article? Surtsicna ( talk) 23:23, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

I would use WP:SUMMARY style: have a detailed section at the genus article, and a compact summary of the high points in the specific ones, or even just a {{ crossreference}} or {{ Main}} pointer to the detailed section in the genus article. But included any species-particular notes in the species article.  —  SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:49, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, SMcCandlish. I have considered doing just that. I gather that there is no project-wide standard then. The source I have refers to "all four species of the genus", so neither option would be WP:OR. Surtsicna ( talk) 05:53, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

@ Surtsicna: This sort of thing comes up a lot with domesticated species. E.g., 99% of cat breeding and health information is pan-breed, and is covered in detail at what has now been split out to Cat health, while articles on specific breeds only address that material in the briefest form if at all, and when relevant/available will provide any breed-specific health information, like proclivities toward certain disorders.  —  SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:24, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

What SmcCandlish said. Do you have any specific examples? Edward-Woodrow :) _{[ talk} 11:34, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Earlier this year, Zoologist Robert Asher (under the username Asherobert) made a move request to move Afrosoricida to Tenrecoidea. This was unopposed, and subsequently the article was moved (confusingly an IP user later changed the title of the article in the lead and the infobox back to Afrosoricida). However, looking at the article, Asher seems to be heavily involved in this taxonomic dispute, so I think it's probably worth giving the move some more scrutiny. Afrosoricida seems substantially more common than Tenrecoidea looking at the google scholar results (~1,500 results for Afrosoricida [1] vs approximately 500 for Tenrecoidea [2]). I am not sure what to make of Asher et al's. arguments that Tenrecoidea has taxonomic priority. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 20:32, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Where was the move request made?

Tenrecoidea may have precedent as a family group name, but my understanding is that doesn't apply if used as an order (where such rules don't apply). Afrosoricida has been widely used for the order (MSW to ASM-MDD) so renaming using a name with a superfamily ending seems strange (although there is Hydracoidea). —   Jts1882 |  talk  06:07, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

I see you've already commented there, but for posterity, Asher's request was made at Talk:Tenrecoidea#move to Tenrecoidea and changes to better reflect phylogeny. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 10:23, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

As of today, the article was moved back to Afrosoricida. As that is far and away the more common name (and since the rules of precedence don't really apply to order names), I prefer retaining that name. Happy editing, SilverTiger12 ( talk) 16:00, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

I have requested that the article title be moved to Perissodactyla, please see Talk:Odd-toed_ungulate#Requested_move_8_September_2023. This follows the recent successful move request at Artiodactyl. Please participate if interested thanks. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 17:36, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

I think it could be nice to arrange a list of open access scientific journals in the project page. Yesterday, through the new Elongatocystis page, I discovered the journal Fottea (link) of the Czech Phycological Society, and according to its information page:

A list of open access journals would be useful both for us editors and for readers who may want to freely consult scientific literature (and it might make them want to help edit too). I propose we start making this list, perhaps under the title of "Free resources"? —Snoteleks ( Talk) 11:56, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

What's the difference between, e.g., Category:Animal taxa and Category:Animal taxonomy? jlwoodwa ( talk) 20:55, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Not much, as far as I can tell. Category:Animal taxonomy feels like it was designed for pages about taxonomy (like, say, Systema Naturae), but has devolved in taxon articles. Edward-Woodrow :) _{[ talk} 20:59, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Another question I had is what we should do when a genus name has been superceded by another. For instance, it was recently discovered that Lopholithodes is a junior synonym of Echidnocerus, and now this template is orphaned. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 16:57, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

That depends. As a whole, TOL tends to be conservative about lumps & splits, preferring to wait and see if the proposed changes are accepted in the given field- though individual subprojects may have more specific criteria: Mammals waits until IUCN and MDD agree, for example.

Once a lumping is accepted, and the articles merged, I believe the taxobox template gets deleted. WP:Autotaxobox system probably has a better answer. SilverTiger12 ( talk) 17:11, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Unused templates can be tagged for deletion. Just replace the template code with Category:Unnecessary taxonomy templates (e.g. as in this edit)and these will get deleted later. Make sure they really are unused using what links here as sometimes obsolete taxa have articles which need the template. —   Jts1882 |  talk  14:45, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Very niche comment, but for a while I have noticed that a lot of major eukaryotic clades are showcased as "(unranked)" instead of "Clade":

• Archaeplastida
• Opisthokonta
• Holozoa
• Filozoa

Is there an actual reason for this, or can we just embrace them as clades already, just like the rest? I currently cannot change them because they are protected, and apparently ( see discussion) consensus is necessary for these changes. —Snoteleks ( Talk) 21:00, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

I suspect there is no strong reason and unranked is less dependent on definition. None of those templates have references. Are all definitely clades as currently defined? There was some debate for Archeplastida and whether Cryptista was embedded within, although recent studies like Strassert et al, 2021 recover it monophyletic as sister to Crytista and its hard to explain the plastid evolution with Cryptista within. I'd agree to changing to clade if there are references to support it. —   Jts1882 |  talk  06:43, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

All of these are defined as clades. ^{[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]} Regarding Archaeplastida, while it is true that a couple of papers basically say "Cryptista could belong to it and therefore its composition is uncertain", after so many revisions it is clear that Archaeplastida doesn't need to be defined on the bases of whether or not Cryptista belongs to it. It's the same as, for instance, the clade Diaphoretickes; just because Hemimastigophora might or might not belong to it, doesn't make it a solid clade. —Snoteleks ( Talk) 18:13, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Hello. I recently came across the page Wikipedia:WikiProject Tree of Life/Articles without images/Other Animals, and while I can do some work to clear it out, it seems like this page has been entirely untouched for over a decade. Most of these taxa already have images, and I was wondering if maybe there are tools to automate adding taxa to a list like that so it's not so out-of-date all the time. All the best, TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 15:10, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

@ Jts1882: Do the auto-style taxoboxes have a hidden cat for missing images? - UtherSRG (talk) 15:19, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

I tried looking into that myself, and I did notice there are categories for missing images for e.g. Ulmus cultivars ([[Category:Ulmus articles missing images]]), but those use 'Infobox Cultivar'. I didn't see any automatic category in here, but if one could be added, I think it'd really help in getting images added. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 15:36, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Having an automatically-generated category from the taxobox sounds much more useful than the often-outdated or unused needs-image parameter in the wikiproject banners. SilverTiger12 ( talk) 17:04, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Yes please, that would be a blessing. The needs-image parameter is very tiresome as it is completely manual and nobody really checks it. —Snoteleks ( Talk) 17:07, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Yep, 90% of the time it is unused, and half the time it is used, it is outdated. SilverTiger12 ( talk) 17:15, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

The taxobox templates/modules could flag taxoboxes without an image easily enough. I'd guess most probably lack them, which would generate a large category. It is possible to check Wikidata for an image. While automatically using the image is a bad idea (for the much discussed Wikidate taxon versus taxon name issue), a Category:Taxoboxes without images with potential image on Wikpdata might work. —   Jts1882 |  talk  19:45, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

I think we can do that and Category:Taxoboxes without images without potential image on Wikidata (or something connected to Commons instead of Wikidata?). Could we also break those categories up automatically instead of two mega categories? Maybe check for the existence of a sub category and apply the appropriate category? I'm thinking the taxobox would initially populate those two mega cats, then as we create taxonomic subcategories of those cats, the taxobox would detect the existence of those new subcats and recategorize the articles as appropriate. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:53, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

In another thread on the WP:Plants talk page, a recurring discussion has arisen, about how to properly use the "Taxa named by" categories ( Category:Taxa by author).

Some previous discussions for background:

• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Animals/Archive_11#"Taxa named by" categories? (category first proposed)
• Talk:Sambucus_australasica#Category:Taxa_named_by_John_Lindley
• Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Plants/Archive73#Category:Taxa_by_author
• Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Tree_of_Life/Archive_47#Taxa_by_author_subcategories
• Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Tree_of_Life/Archive_53#Category:Taxa_by_author_subcategories
• Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Tree_of_Life/Archive_45#Category:Taxa_by...

User:Jts1882 suggested renaming the category to Category:Taxa described by xxx or Category:Taxa described and named by xxx as a possible solution. I can see some advantages to this:

• Accurate representation: Using "described by" accurately represents the work of early naturalists and botanists who not only named but also described and documented many species.
• Comprehensive: The term "described" encompasses the entire process of identifying, naming, and describing a species, making it more comprehensive than just "named."
• Clarity: "Described by" may be clearer to non-experts, as it directly signifies the person(s) responsible for documenting the species, avoiding confusion with the formal naming process.

To this end, here might be some explanatory text that could be on the category page.

"Category:Botanical Taxa by Author

This category is dedicated to organizing botanical taxa (species or other taxonomic ranks) based on the individuals who originally described them. In accordance with established botanical taxonomy practices, this category emphasizes the taxonomic authors who provided the initial descriptions and scientific names for various plant species and related taxa. The "described by" approach to categorization is used in this context. This means that taxa are categorized based on the botanists (including algologists, byrologists, lichenologists, mycologists, phycologists, and pteridologists) or researchers who authored the original taxonomic descriptions, including the publication of species names and associated descriptions. This approach aligns with the principles of the International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants (ICNafp), which governs botanical nomenclature.

Authors are included in this categorization, even if their original publications were later considered invalid according to taxonomic standards (often indicated by the use of the term ex. in the author citation). The focus remains on the individuals who initially delineated and named the taxa, as per the ICNafp guidelines. This category does not encompass subsequent taxonomic revisions, reclassifications, or other contributions linked to plant taxonomy, which may be addressed through alternative categorization methods. For higher taxa, like genera, families, or orders, subsequent taxonomic revisions may have significantly altered the circumscription of these groups. Nevertheless, this category primarily acknowledges the historical contributions of those who initially introduced the taxon name and described its content, even if the circumscription has evolved over time.

Replacement names are introduced when a previously published name is deemed invalid or unavailable according to the ICNafp. In such cases, categorize the taxon based on the validly published name recognized in contemporary taxonomy, following ICNafp principles. The emphasis should be on the valid name acknowledged for nomenclatural purposes, rather than on the original author of the replaced name. Please avoid including the original author of the replaced name in the category for the replacement name. Instead, prioritize categorizing the replacement name based on its validly published authorship to ensure alignment with current taxonomic conventions. For instance, consider Persicaria maculosa, which was introduced by Gray as a replacement name for Polygonum persicaria, originally described and named by Linnaeus. In this example, the category should be assigned under Gray, not Linnaeus."

For taxa described in accordance with other codes or nomenclatural systems, such as the ICZN for animals or specific codes for viruses, separate categorization practices may be needed, but I don't know much about these.

Comments? Esculenta ( talk) 22:09, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

• Seems reasonable to me; someone who came along 200 years later and based on some genetic cladistics ended up renaming something probably shouldn't get a lot of categorization credit versus the actual describer(s) of the species.  —  SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:57, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
• The suggested note on the Category page is a good idea. Changing the category to Category:Taxa described and named by xxx or Category:Taxa originally described and named by xxx might also clarify. Gderrin ( talk) 23:47, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
• I agree that the clarification is desirable. I'm not sure that the category page is the right place for it. Category:Botanical taxa by author is a container category, so is unlikely to be looked at by someone categorizing an article. It can only be used for authors who have exclusively named taxa under the 'botanical' code, but there are biologists who have named both plants and animals. If there's to be a category Category:Botanical taxa by author, then lowest level should be "Botanical taxa [named by/described by/whatever] AUTHOR". Achieving this would involve a lot of work. Category:Taxa named by Carl Linnaeus‎ is a subcategory of Category:Botanical taxa by author, but it includes many animals (and has weird subcategories).

The whole system is a mess at present for botanical taxon names with an original and a transferring author, with inconsistent use of one or both of them in categories.

Don't forget the issue of replacement names. In these cases the original describer/namer isn't cited. Persicaria maculosa Gray was originally described and named by Linnaeus (as Polygonum persicaria). How should the author category be used? Currently the article is categorized as Category:Taxa named by Samuel Frederick Gray, but if this were changed to "[originally] described and named by" it should be only be Category:Taxa named by Carl Linnaeus‎.

Peter coxhead ( talk) 06:43, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Why don't we just have the redirect page called '' Polygonum persicaria'' belong to the Linnaeus category? —Snoteleks ( Talk) 09:07, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

• I agree that replacement names is another issue to solve. I guess the category "Botanical Taxa by Author" can serve dual purposes: historical recognition of contributors and contemporary taxonomic reference. The inclusion or exclusion of authors depends on whether the focus is on historical contributions (wherein the original author is included) or on validly published names (wherein the replacement name takes precedence). If we can agree on what the purpose of the category is, we can provide appropriate explanatory text on the category page. Re: "Achieving this would involve a lot of work"; I agree, but completing Wikipedia is a lot of work, and we're still here :) I'm happy to go through each fungus article and correct it to whatever scheme we agree on here. I'm on board with the idea of renaming the categories to Category:Botanical taxa described by Whoever, if it gets us on the road to permanently fixing this perennial issue. Esculenta ( talk) 16:24, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

A possibility is to separate the "described by" and "named by" properties. So Persicaria maculosa would in Botanical taxa described by Carl Linnaeus and Botanical taxa named by Samuel Frederick Gray, while Malva sylvestris would be in both Botanical taxa described by Carl Linnaeus and Botanical taxa named by Carl Linnaeus. Would that be an excessive amount of work, or "just" (apart from the issue of replacement names) a matter of tweaking the automatic taxobox code? Lavateraguy ( talk) 11:46, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

One of the things I like about changing the category name to put emphasis on "describing" rather than "naming" is that in the vast majority of cases, the describing and naming is done by the same person/people, so it'll help reduce future categorization confusion. I've boldly added a paragraph in the proposed introductory text dealing with replacement names (using Peter's example to help explain); I think it aligns with current practice (reducing future recategorization load)) and has a logical taxonomic rationale. If people agree that this is acceptable, then we'd just have to get a bot run to change the Category:Botanical taxa by author daughter category names. Esculenta ( talk) 19:25, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

• I think the categories along the lines Category:Taxa described and named by xxx make things clearer for species, but what about higher taxa? Someone proposes a taxon name and describes its content, but later authors can change the circumscription, sometimes substantially. The description becomes quite different from that originally circumscribed. It might be better to keep Category:Taxa named by xxx categories and make the new ones for species, assuming it be acceptable for Category:Species described and named by xxx to be a subcategory of Category:Taxa named by xxx? —   Jts1882 |  talk  06:28, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

@ Jts1882: changed circumscriptions don't only apply to higher taxa. Many earlier described species have now been split up or combined, and the current circumscription is different to that of the original author(s). Speaking very strictly, the "description" of a species is really only always applicable to the type of the species. Peter coxhead ( talk) 13:57, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

• Splitting up the categories is one approach. Another approach (maybe less complicated?) to address this issue is to consider categorizing higher taxa based on the original author(s) who proposed the name and provided the initial description, even if subsequent taxonomic revisions have significantly altered the circumscription. This way, the focus remains on acknowledging the historical contributions of those who originally introduced the taxon name and described its content. This is consistent with our current method (again, meaning fewer recats down the road). I've added a bit more to the introductory text to explain this. Esculenta ( talk) 14:08, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

The advice being developed here conflicts with that at Wikipedia:WikiProject Plants/Description in year categories with regards to "ex" authorship and replacement names. I do appreciate the attempt to develop some guidelines on how to apply the categories, since that was dismissed as "nitty gritty" when these categories were first proposed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Animals/Archive_11#"Taxa named by" categories?.

I know editors have spent a lot of time creating and populating these categories, but I question whether they are really appropriate. Author (and year of description) are arguably WP:DEFINING characteristics of a name, but not of a taxon. Wikipedia articles are about taxa (if author/year categorization goes with replaced names (as current guidance for plant year categories advocates), rather than replacement names (as this proposal advocates, than I suppose we are trying to track a characteristic of a taxon rather than a name). What purpose do the categories serve? In application, they are too mixed up to be useful to taxonomists. Some of them may be moderately interesting to readers. But overall, it seems to me that author/year categories are mostly a waste of time with little benefit. Plantdrew ( talk) 16:40, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

When I read an article about a taxonomist, I like to see a list of what taxa they have published that have articles on Wikipedia. I think some other readers have a similar interest. I waste a lot of time on Wikipedia (with little benefit!), and am willing to waste more to standardize this categorization. Happy to change the proposed "ex." classification instructions to align with "Description in year categories" if that helps. Do you foresee any other problems with this proposal, Plantdrew? Esculenta ( talk) 17:00, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

I don't foresee any more problems than we already have. Editors don't read the guidance on year categories for plants and may use year categories for subsequent combinations. Plantdrew ( talk) 22:00, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Indeed, the actual use of the year categories quite often departs from that intended, but I think the categories we are discussing here are currently more confused.

Sadly, Wikidata adds massively to the confusion between taxa and taxon names. First describing a taxon scientifically involves giving it a taxon name, but as replacement names and changed combinations make clear, taxa and taxon names are not the same thing.

@ Esculenta: I like to see a list of what taxa they have published that have articles on Wikipedia – yes, but the issue is what you mean by published. The combination author(s) and the ex authors have all published taxon names in some sense of the word published. Peter coxhead ( talk) 13:52, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Semantically, I guess I should have written "described" instead of "published". Personally, I don't care much if a taxonomist described a species under a name that turned out to be nomenclaturally invalid and later had to be renamed; I think the original describer should get some credit for the work ("credit" in this case is being listed in a category on Wikipedia...). I do understand, however, the desire to align these categories with the "year described in" categories. Would the "Described by" categorization work if we essentially copied the instructions from the Wikipedia:WikiProject Plants/Description in year categories? Still an issue with replacement names though, as there's a conflict over "describer" and "publisher of valid name"; this categorization suggests that the "describer" should be credited rather than the "valid namer". Still, would this be a major problem if the "described by" and "Described in year" cats don't align in the <5% of cases to which these exceptions will apply? Esculenta ( talk) 16:22, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

FYI

 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Please see: Talk:Chrysanthus Janssen#Requested move 24 September 2023 – ToL regulars are apt to care about how names of early taxonomic authorities are handled.  —  SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:55, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

FYI

 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Please see: Talk:Amanita muscaria var. guessowii#Requested move 25 September 2023.  —  SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:40, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Can we revisit the higher classification currently used in the Onychophora taxobox and navbox? Currently, according to Wikipedia, the phylum supposedly has a single class Udeonychophora, with two orders Euonychophora and Ontonychophora. There are a number of problems with this system, however...

• This higher classification, as well as the names Udeonychophora and Ontonychophora, comes from a single source: Poinar (2000). This is actually the primary source for the classification, not a secondary one.
• Poinar's (2000) classification of Onychophora actually included two classes, Xenusia and Udeonychophora, with Onychophora itself treated as a subphylum of Lobopodia (along with Tardigrada). Xenusia is not included under Onychophora on Wikipedia as of writing, which makes me question if there is a point in using class Udeonychophora at all.
• According to Grimaldi et al. (2002), the original descriptions of Tertiapatus and Succinipatopsis are flawed, as their absence of claws could be an artifact of preservation. They therefore also synonymized Ontonychophora and Udeonychophora (?!?) with Euonychophora. (I think they were confused, Udeonychophora isn't an order for Palaeozoic forms???) The net result following their article is that the phylum now has only one order Euonychophora, with possibly no classes (?). (But they apparently consider Xenusia to be a stem group of Onychophora)
• After Poinar (2000) and Grimaldi et al. (2002), neither of "Udeonychophora" and "Ontonychophora" at least appear to be discussed much in scientific articles ever again, let alone be generally accepted as a class/order name in Onychophora. (Though Google Scholar gives 25 results for "Udeonychophora", none besides Poinar (2000) and Grimaldi et al. (2002) discuss Onychophora taxonomy in any depth. Even more strikingly, "Ontonychophora" has only 2 results in Google Scholar, which are those same two articles again.)
• More recently, the 2012 world checklist lists the fossil genera Cretoperipatus, Tertiapatus and Succinipatopsis as having uncertain relationships to extant taxa citing Grimaldi et al. (2002), suggesting no further research on them since then. No classes or orders are used here.
• The website version is little different, except Helenodora is also listed as a fossil. No classes or orders are used here either.
• The Onychophora classification from the "An Outline of Higher-level Classification and Survey of Taxonomic Richness (Addenda 2013)" Zootaxa volume gives just two extant families and three fossil families (Tertiapatidae, Succinipatopsidae and Helenodoridae) under Onychophora, again with no classes or orders.

All this suggests to me so far is that currently the consensus is that there is not really an accepted higher classification for Onychophora, just two extant families and some fossil genera of uncertain placement (sometimes placed into their own families). Does this sound right to everyone else? Did I miss something? Monster Iestyn ( talk) 23:13, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

I've fixed the article taxobox so the parent is Onychophora, without reference to Udeonychophora. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 23:38, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

@ Hemiauchenia: Thanks, but that's just the tip of the iceberg: it's not just Udeonychophora that needed to go, but also Euonychophora and Ontonychophora if I'm right. Monster Iestyn ( talk) 00:06, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

The change to five families (2 extant) seems appropriate. CoL uses ITIS and both just have the two extant families (with no order). ITIS lists Udeonycophora, Euonycophora, Udeonychophora, and Euonychophora as synonyms of Onychophora. The ITIS record was updated in 2022 and cites Oliveira et al. (2012) and more recent secondary sources, e.g. Giribet and Edgecombe's (2020) Invertebrate Tree of Life, which says the two extant family division is supported by molecular data (citing Oliveira et al. 2013). The Ruggiero et al (2015) classification uses class Udeonycophora and order Euonycophora (although not adopted by CoL). —   Jts1882 |  talk  07:45, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Courtesy ping to @ Ypna:, as main editor on the Navbox. Is there a recent source for the higher taxa that we should consider in this discussion? —   Jts1882 |  talk  07:51, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

I created the navbox and contributed most of its content. Udeonychophora, Euonychophora, and Ontonychophora were all already mentioned when I first started editing Wikipedia's coverage of Onychophora, and I followed this system without critically evaluating whether any literature subsequent to Poinar (2000) and Grimaldi et al. (2002) supported it. I'm surprised to realise Oliveira et al.'s (2012) comprehensive checklist of the phylum actually doesn't mention these higher taxa, implying they did not consider them credible enough to mention. Therefore, I suggest reducing the emphasis given to the superfamilial taxonomy, leaving just a sentence or two on the history of taxonomic thought, on the main Onychophora article. Ypna ( talk) 20:52, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Okay then, since everyone here (so far) is agreeing that the orders/classes aren't generally used at all, I've now updated the taxonomy templates of all families to link directly to Onychophora, skipping class and order (or superfamily). Euonychophora, Ontonychophora and Tertiapatoidea are now the only articles left using any ranks higher than family in Onychophora, but all of them are stubs that cite only Poinar (2000). IMO, they should all be turned into redirects to Onychophora#Evolution. Monster Iestyn ( talk) 22:11, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

I've also updated the navbox as well now. Monster Iestyn ( talk) 23:37, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, Monster Iestyn. I appreciate you identifying and resolving this issue. I think Wikipedia should be internally consistent, so the three remaining articles should be turned into redirects as you say, and the content integrated into Onychophora#Evolution. I think you have the best understanding of the taxonomic situation (I've always been more interested in the extant members), so if you could fix this last bit, that would be great. Ypna ( talk) 06:37, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

@ Ypna: They have now been turned into redirects, though I'm not entirely sure how I should integrate their contents exactly (I just understood the classes/orders were already mentioned there). Also, I'm wondering what to do about the categories Category:Onychophoran orders and Category:Onychophoran superfamilies (both of which you created as it happens). There are currently no other ordinal/superfamilial names for Onychophora besides the ones already given in these categories, so they seem like possible instances of WP:OVERCAT. Unless I'm mistaken and it's still useful to have these? Monster Iestyn ( talk) 10:50, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Great. After checking, I realise there's only one bit of information to salvage from the redirects, and that's to mention the proposed superfamily Tertiapatoidea. I just did that. Oops, yes, I've over-categorised. What's the process for deleting a category? Just blank the page and delete the category links from the bottom of the articles? Ypna ( talk) 19:16, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

@ Ypna Thanks! I think you're supposed to go through Wikipedia:Categories for discussion for deleting categories. Monster Iestyn ( talk) 19:25, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

@ Ypna: If it's a category you just now created as a mistake and it's never been used by anyone else, then yes empty it and mark it for speedy deletion, e.g. with {{ db-g6}}, and a sensible admin will probably delete it without you having to go through the week-long "speedy" deletion process at WP:CSD.  —  SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:26, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

They've never been used by anyone else, but I didn't create them just now, I created them a few months ago. Also, I've already submitted a CfD proposal here. Ypna ( talk) 21:44, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

I am trying to update it to look like WP:VIRUS, but its difficult :)

Webclo^udd@ their-talk-page 04:01, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Using large tables doesn't use the space efficiently. There is a lot of blank space on the right and the content gets squeezed. The "left panel" subpage should be split and then more of the content could be displayed as full width. Have you considered the tabbed approach as used by Wikipedia:WikiProject Plants? —   Jts1882 |  talk  06:17, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

I know, I am trying to think of ways to move stuff to the right panel.

I have considered the tabbed approach as used by WP:Plants, but as WP:Viruses doesn't use it, and as i do not know how to use it, i am not doing

If you could add tabs at the start, we could have a hybrid system of the two [[WP:]]s, as this is the top page of those two as well :)

Webclo^udd@ their-talk-page 13:37, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

I've created a tabbed banner, modelled after the plant project: Wikipedia:WikiProject Tree of Life/Tab header

• I've removed the taxonomic resources from the left panel and created a subpage, which I use for one of the tabs. It's also included full width on the main page for now.
• I've added a Article Template tab, which needs a subpage. The article title,article taxon template and taxobox sections of the main page could be moved here
• The plant project has tabs for Botanist template, New articles, Requests and Index. We could add some of these or new ones. Perhaps, participants.#
• I left the image used by the plant project. We should select something more appropriate for the broader project.

—   Jts1882 |  talk  17:01, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

are there to do list and requests pages?

If so, which ones are they?

If not, please let me, i will create them Webclo^udd@ their-talk-page 17:15, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

The Article Alerts section is now really far down, is should be closer to the top please. SilverTiger12 ( talk) 13:46, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

now there is a Content: Sections §, where #9 is the article alerts, is this good?

todo is also moving Taxonomic articles by quality log and Article alerts together while making separate page for To-do

_>>> Webclo^udd@ their-talk-page 03:15, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

On this note, I've created a draft logo for the project, something I've long wanted to do. You can see it to the right. @ Jts1882 and Webclouddat:, what do you think? Cheers, Edward-Woodrow • talk 22:25, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

BEAUTIFUL TREE! Webclo^udd@ their-talk-page 03:49, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't draw it myself. But yes. Edward-Woodrow • talk 12:12, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Agreed, it's a nice tree, which reminds me of one in the new recently (a famous tree near Hadrians wall that someone cut down). I've added it to the project status at the main page. —   Jts1882 |  talk  12:28, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Something extra:

could the Taxon article templates and Taxoboxes Guide sections be merged

or be merged with the other articles in the main pages or see also templates

and could those also be merged into one or two pages (excluding separate large pages like Cultivar info)

Could Wikipedia:WikiProject Tree of Life/Taxon template also be merged into Wikipedia:Automated taxobox system

Webclo^udd@ their-talk-page 02:37, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

When I created the banner, I just added some tabs for subpages that were available. It was never meant to be the final arrangement, so feel free to make changes. The taxobox tab is unnecessary as the automated taxobox system pages are linked from both the main page and the taxon template subpage. It could be replaced with something else. There are several parts of the main page that could be moved to a subpage (e.g. Article alerts). Also Taxonomy Resources and Participants sections on the main page are redundant now they have tabs; they should be removed or replaced with a minimal section providing the link. —   Jts1882 |  talk  15:20, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion ongoing at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Lepidoptera that feed on Aster that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. AryKun ( talk) 09:53, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

The clade Perissodactylamorpha was published in a 2019 dated volume of the Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology, but the paper itself was actually published in 2020 [3]. Is the authority of the publication Rose et al. 2019 or Rose et al. 2020? Hemiauchenia ( talk) 19:51, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

So odd, that's the first time I see the publication date being a year later than the volume date instead of a year earlier. I guess Rose et al. 2020 would be more accurate in reality. Maybe we should showcase it as an exception, since the rule is usually the volume date instead of the publication date? —Snoteleks ( Talk) 20:13, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

The botanical and zoological codes want the date a publication was printed and made available for taxonomists to read, but start with the assumption that a date given in the publication itself is correct. If there is evidence that the date given in the publication is incorrect, the codes want the date shown by the evidence.

I was looking into a situation recently with some homonyms in a self-published journal. Printed dates on the cover were 2002, and 1999. Some sleuthing determined that the earliest date any library had the 2002 dated one was in 2008, and the 1999 dated one showed up in libraries in 2012. 2008/2012 are taken to be the actual publication dates. The sleuths were kind in introducing their sleuthery with the assumption that the journal issues had actually been printed in 1999/2002 and had just sat in a box in the publishers house for years (however, printed date still wouldn't matter if the issues had never been distributed and made available to read). Further evidence discussed by the sleuths suggests that the 1999/2002 dates were completely fraudulent (being kind again, the sleuths didn't use the word fraud). Names published by others after 1999/2002 but before 2012/2008 were judged by the sleuths to have priority.

However, the botanical and zoological codes don't care about priority for ranks above family, nor for taxa published as unranked clades. The PhyloCode is intended to govern clades and has similar provisions to the botanical and zoological codes in assuming a volume date is correct but accepting evidence to the contrary. I don't think Perissodactylamorpha has any standing under the PhyloCode (it's not in their registry). So for Perissodactylamorpha I suppose it comes down to a reasonable year to cite for bibliographic purposes (2019 I guess?) rather than a precise year of actual publication with implications for priority under any of the codes. Plantdrew ( talk)

The date of publication under the ICZN code which is used to establish date of publication in animals is "Received 12 Nov 2018, Accepted 03 Jan 2020, Published online: 05 Nov 2020" as per the paper. This is the date when the stable unchanging online version becomes available. Prior to that it was likely a pre-print which has no nomenclatural standing as its not stable. Plantdrew is correct the codes do not manage names above Family for the purposes of Priority, but they do manage all publications for the purpose of nomenclature so the date is still handled by the copde. So correct date is November 2020. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 02:30, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

The full article gives a ZooBank ID for the publication here, which could help with the publication date under ICZN code (?). Unfortunately, the corresponding record hasn't been published, so there's nothing we can read from it... Monster Iestyn ( talk) 14:50, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

well I logged in and looked, not sure why this is the case. If it matters I can ask the manager of Zoobank we work together. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 04:39, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

That might be helpful. For the record, I believe I've seen a lot of other articles link to unpublished ZooBank records too, but I'd have to dig around for specific examples since I don't have any offhand. Monster Iestyn ( talk) 16:06, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Ok I asked and he told me this is a common problem, unfortunately people register their pre-pubs but then never go back to update them. Anyway he has updated this one and ZooBank now shows it as a 2020 publication. If anyone ever notices this in a record thats more than about 12 months old let me know I can check in on it and get it manually updated if necessary. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 02:36, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Which of these trumps the other? I see an editor removing redlinks from mostly redlinked-species lists on genus articles (see Stenopogoninae and Argyroderma‎), quoting the former policy, saying "In lists, overlinking red links can occur when every item on a list is a red link. If the list is uniform, where each item is obviously qualified for an article, a single red link (or blue link) could indicate that." This seems to contradict the latter policy, which encourages leaving redlinks on a page to promote future article creation (and other reasons). This of course has a major effect of thousands of genus (and higher-level taxa) and list articles across the ToL. What's correct? Esculenta ( talk) 01:06, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, hope to hear others' input. FYI, it was MOS:REDLINKS I was quoting, not WP:REDLINKS. Pyrrho the Skipper ( talk) 03:19, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

I would say that in WP:TOL the correct policy as per consensus is WP:REDYES, since I believe nearly all of us value more the incentive of creating new articles (especially considering that all taxa are notable) over the ugliness(?) of red link lists, which seems like a nonexistent nuisance to our WP. Let's see what others say, though. —Snoteleks ( Talk) 06:14, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

MOS:REDLINKS says too many redlinks is distracting when reading text. This doesn't really apply to a list. The ToL consensus has been that it is desirable to have articles on species, so WP:REDYES applies. —   Jts1882 |  talk  12:45, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

The quote shared is talking specifically about lists, though: "In lists, overlinking red links can occur when every item on a list is a red link. If the list is uniform, where each item is obviously qualified for an article, a single red link (or blue link) could indicate that." Pyrrho the Skipper ( talk) 14:33, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

I just don't think that is the case in ToL. We usually want those links to be present for every taxon even if they're red. —Snoteleks ( Talk) 15:09, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

If the redlinks are already there, then they should not be removed. It's never a good policy to undo the time and effort of previous good faith editors, especially in cases where eventually that work will need to be restored. If there's a "conflict" between policies here, then REDYES takes precedence. Dyanega ( talk) 16:46, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Clearly this project prefers them. But as someone outside this field, it seems unwieldy to have a redlink for hundreds of items on a list, when they don't serve the reader. Pyrrho the Skipper ( talk) 17:28, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Does the absence of redlinks serve the reader more than their presence? —Snoteleks ( Talk) 20:32, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

where each item is obviously qualified for an article, a single red link (or blue link) could indicate that. How can a single link indicate that the whole list qualifies for potential articles. It doesn't seem to make sense. —   Jts1882 |  talk  17:14, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm guessing the logic is that because in these cases they're likely all so strikingly similar (such as slight variations in Latin words in this case), that a "one size fits all" is more efficient that doing the same thing to each. Pyrrho the Skipper ( talk) 17:22, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

In that event, Pyrrho the Skipper, the info you've provided suggests you should not be removing redlinks from "mostly" red-linked species lists, because the quote you show above says "if every item on a list..." (emphasis mine). And I'm guessing that in few of those articles was every species red-linked. MeegsC ( talk) 18:10, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

@ MeegsC It says where each item is obviously qualified for an article, a single red link (or blue link) could indicate that. (emphasis mine). Thus, in a list, where each item qualifies for an article, a SINGLE red/blue link will indicate it. Single entry linked, not every entry linked. What am I missing? Pyrrho the Skipper ( talk) 18:59, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Pyrrho the Skipper, you quoted "In lists, overlinking red links can occur when every item on a list is a red link. If the list is uniform, where each item is obviously qualified for an article, a single red link (or blue link) could indicate that." Again, emphasis mine. If every item on the list is NOT a red link, then a "single link" is not appropriate! Not sure where the confusion lies. ;) MeegsC ( talk) 19:12, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

@ MeegsC

1. Here's how it was.

2. Here's what I changed it to.

In example 1, all are linked, but only one is bluelinked.

In example 2, None are linked except for one, which is bluelinked.

The statement is, "a single red link (or blue link) could indicate that."

Thus, a single blue link, in example 2, is indicating that, "that" being that each item in the list qualifies for an article.

Pyrrho the Skipper ( talk) 19:22, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

How does a single blue link for Argyroderma testiculare indicate that the other species are potntial articles. Surely it implying the opposite, that it is the only one deserving an article. —   Jts1882 |  talk 

I didn't write the styleguide, but I'm assuming the logic is similar to if there were 100 small 10 sq. ft consecutive divisions of land for sale, it would be an eyesore to put a big red "for sale" sign on each one, and better to put a sign on one, and common sense will lead one to assume they're all for sale (if the options were only one or the other). Pyrrho the Skipper ( talk) 19:46, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Pyrrho the Skipper, so basically, you're saying that if there were a second blue link, you wouldn't remove all redlinks? Great. The project can make that a priority in the coming weeks. And, by the way, no; in your example "common sense" might not "lead one to assume they're all for sale". Because, unlike your example, Wikipedia is not an either/or setup! (Or if, according to MOS, it is, a heck of a lot of editors don't know that.) MeegsC ( talk) 20:46, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Not a great analogy, I know! If I had my way, additional blue links would be added to the plain text, nonlinked list. But I see what you're implying since the MOS doesn't really go into more than one link as an indicator, vs. just one. It just looks really bad to me as an casual reader to have a list be completely red. That's all. It's unusual and doesn't fit the look of the encyclopedia outside taxonomy. Clearly no one in this group agrees though so I won't keep harping on it here. Pyrrho the Skipper ( talk) 20:57, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

The red-linking usually makes sense to me, because there's a presumption that a species or more major taxon is inherently notable. It gets dubious with infraspecific taxa, which are often going to be covered as entries in lists and such in the main species article. PS: "when every item on a list is a red link", that's seems to be a good reason to collapse it into a blue hopefully, but red if necessary, link to the higher taxon. Edit: Or at an extant list of species at a genus page, have unlinked entries and use the list as the target for species redirects, until more content is developed.  —  SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:00, 9 October 2023 (UTC); clarified: 23:20, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Just to be clear, what would be your recommendation for this list? Pyrrho the Skipper ( talk) 21:48, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

( talk page stalker) Sorry to butt in, but I think it's best to keep the redlinks. Edward-Woodrow • talk 21:54, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Umm the edits (before and after) linked above I do not see how the second one is an improvement. It makes the assumption that all the species are equal and that by indicating one you indicate all. Decisions on notability etc can be made as more edits are done and maybe some redlinks can either be referred elsewhere or removed as more info comes to hand. But initially you need the redlinks. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 22:22, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Well the assumption is that they are all equal in terms of being notable, as the editors have said that "all taxa are notable". Pyrrho the Skipper ( talk) 22:42, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Correct. They are in fact all presumed to be notable per WP:SPECIESOUTCOMES Steven Walling •  talk 03:34, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Well, technically, WP:SPECIESOUTCOMES represents a tacit agreement that species articles aren't deleted at AfD, which is different than them being recognized as notable. I tried to set up an actual notability guideline, but that got bogged down and we couldn't come to any consensus. Edward-Woodrow • talk 12:03, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

In answer to Pyrrho, I think the case at Argyroderma doesn't need all those red links, because there's nothing but red links, and it seems sensible to me that the stub Argyroderma would be the place to begin fleshing out the content on those species as material becomes available. It seems unlikely to me that if the genus itself has such paltry material written about it, than any separate by-species articles will be more than unhelpful micro-stubs. It would be better to develop the species material in situ at the genus article and redirect species names to sections or a list, until such time as a split was warranted for length reasons. Just because a rule (or interpretation of one) permits the creation of a stand-alone article doesn't always mean it's a great idea. Again, I'm not coming at this from a taxonomist angle, but from an information-architect one. What is most likely to be helpful to readers and secondarily most practical for editors? But when there's already a lot of species-level article development, redlinking a newly described/forked species seems perfectly reasonable, since it's likely to result in a new properly developed article to go along with the rest of them.  —  SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:15, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

The following text was added to MOS:REDLINKS in June 2013 with this diff

In lists, overlinking red links can occur when every item on a list is a red link. If the list is uniform, where each item is obviously qualified for an article, a single red link (or blue link) could indicate that. If the list is not uniform, the research effort to mark all possible red links is a risky investment: while red means "approved" status, "black" remains ambiguous, even though it meant "disapproved" after research. Valid requests for the future creation of each title in a list, or in prose, may also be a risky investment when the number of red links could be perceived by other editors as overlinking, and then removed before the investment was fruitful. The removal of massive numbers of red links from an overlinked list is best handled by an editor skilled in the automation of text processing.

I'm not seeing any discussion that led to the addition of that section in Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Linking/Archive 15 (the relevant archive for that period), and the editor that added the section hadn't participated in any discussions that I can see as relevant in their contributions leading up to the addition except perhaps for this one (which changed some wording in Wikipedia:Red link about red links in "mainspace solely for use as an article creation guide").

The guideline being quoted apparently has a section that was added 10 years ago with no consensus for the addition. The addition is poorly worded, and it's not clear to me what exact problem the editor adding the section wanted to solve (aside from a general concern about too many red links). I can't imagine any situation with any type of list in any subject area where it would be helpful to have only one red-link out of many. Nor can I imagine a situation where it is helpful to determine the presence of red links in a list in a subject area by whether there are 0, 1 or 2 blue links.

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Linking is probably the place for further discussion. I'll try to bring it up soon, but welcome anybody else to do so ASAP. Plantdrew ( talk) 03:20, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Yeah that quoted text is nonsense. Red links exist to encourage creation of articles. Having a distinct red link for each species, as in Homalomena, is the correct thing to do. Steven Walling •  talk 03:36, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

I guess I agree. I basically loathe redlinks in main article text, feeling that it's just laziness not even creating a stub if you think someone's relative is notable but it's for other editors to do the work; but in a list like Homalomena, the wall of redlinks is entirely logical, useful to other ToL editors, and much the simplest thing to create using a script or equivalent approach. We should tweak the quoted statement. Chiswick Chap ( talk) 08:06, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm honestly baffled by the idea that you wouldn't link taxa in a list of subtaxa, excepting lists of prehistoric genera/species where the species would just all be redirects to the genus. Happy editing, SilverTiger12 ( talk) 13:52, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Moved to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Marine life

I'm looking for any help finishing out this draft article on Herschel the sea lion. Herschel and a rotating group of male sealions who wintered at the Ballard locks in Seattle were a National news from 1985 to about 1988ish due to the purported impact on salmon runs though the locks. I've got basic outline bits but I've bogged finding more specifics and rounding out the article.-- Kev min § 16:48, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Earlier in September, an IP user made the decision to unilaterally change the infobox of several bison articles to Bos. Chumzwumz68 (who I'm pretty sure is a sock of Ddum5347, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ddum5347) has recently gone on a spree of mass changing all Bison article to Bos, including titles. I've just reverted most of this (except two titles which I am currently pending a technical request to change back). This issue has caused problems before. In my opinion, while all authors agree that the exclusion of Bison makes Bos paraphyletic, the usage of the genus Bison should be retained for nomenclatural stability, because the vast majority of the scientific literature discussing bison continues to use it. The changing of the titles is especially problematic, because in some cases it is essentially WP:OR, like the recent change to Bos occidentalis, which as far as I can tell has never been used in the scientific literature at all [4]. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 04:54, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

I will check a few things on this one, need to consult some colleagues who a mammologists, I am a herpetologist this is out of my area of expertise but I know people who work with this. Give me a couple of days. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 11:29, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Before Scott reports back, I think it's very clear that any changes unsupported by bibliographic references are completely unfounded and would be considered original research (like you said). I suppose it's an attempt to get ahead of the curve but it's irresponsible, since those are changes not yet made to the systematics. Also, what if they end up dividing it into several new genera? In summary, those changes should be reverted I think. —Snoteleks ( Talk) 12:34, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

agreed, basically I am going to see if there are any very recent refs supporting any changes, and get them for you all. If not absolutely, revert this is my view. I just like to give benefit of doubt and check things first. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 13:16, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for doing it, Scott. It's a good strategy. —Snoteleks ( Talk) 13:44, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

When removing sourced statements you don't agree with ( B. bison, B. bison bison, B. bonasus, B. bonasus hungarorum), please also remove the references rather than appropriating them for claims they in fact contradict.

The ASM-MDD have adopted an expanded Bos to include Bison (see here). This is potentially problematic. They don't treat many extinct species so cannot be used as a source for Bos occidentalis if we decided to follow them for the extant species. However, the general practice of the mammal project is to make the changes when both the IUCN and MDD have moved on from MSW3. The IUCN still recognise genus Bison so the problem is for the future. Addition: Groves and Grubb (2011) also recognise an expanded Bos in their Ungulate Taxonomy. —   Jts1882 |  talk  12:42, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Several molecular phylogenetic studies of the extant Bovini have been published. Although the exact phylogeny obtained using mtDNA differs from that from autosomal DNA, the studies agree that Bison is embedded within Bos. For example see Wu et al 2018, and Supplementary Fig 12, Zhang et al 2020. - Aa77zz ( talk) 13:25, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

MT DNA represents only a single locus, and therefore can be entrained by incomplete lineage sorting or minor introgression. The position of bison as the sister group to yaks based on nuclear DNA is undoubtedly the correct one. It gets even more confusing when one considers fossils, as it is suggested that bison evolved from the extinct genus Leptobos. Does that mean that Leptobos is nested with Bos too? Hemiauchenia ( talk) 13:41, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

There are numerous reliable sources from recent publications that found bison to be nested within Bos, namely:

• Verkaar et al, 2004 ^[1]
• Groves & Grubb, 2011 ^[2]
• Wu et al., 2018 ^[3]
• Grange et al, 2018 ^[4]
• Wang et al., 2018 ^[5]
• Zhang et al., 2020 ^[6]
• Zver et al, 2021 ^[7]
• ASM, 2021 ^[8]

"Retainig nomenclatural stability" in the face of new scientific evidence is no value in of itself. Until Reeder et al. get their act together, an encyclopedia should adapt to newly established knowledge. Science has progressed since 2005 and there is no reason for WP not to. 89.206.112.12 ( talk) 10:01, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Hi, all. I started a thread earlier over here, and the feeling was that the thread should be posted here instead to get broader feedback. In a nutshell: there does not appear to be an "official" policy regarding whether to display lists of synonyms in taxoboxes in alphabetical order versus chronological order. The example given in the guidelines for taxoboxes is neither. It's been pointed out that since most botanical taxoboxes don't give years of publication for synonyms, that formalizing alphabetical as the policy there makes sense. However, as I noted, pretty invariably in print catalogues of zoological names, synonyms are given chronologically. One reason this is helpful is to highlight cases where one or more of the synonyms is older than the valid name (e.g., homonyms or nomina nuda), which would otherwise be pretty much invisible in an alpha-list. I am suggesting that the existing example in the "automated taxobox" guidelines be changed, and that instead it should say the following: Where the years of publication are given in the list of synonyms, the list should be organized chronologically, but if years are not given, then (and only then) the list should be alphabetical. This would allow existing botanical taxoboxes without years to remain as they are, but more importantly (1) give guidelines for editors who are creating new articles (especially if in bulk), to provide for consistency (2) give a policy that allows for dispute resolution where multiple editors are in disagreement. Given that there is no present policy, I would hope that this proposal would not face much resistance, but I'm opening the discussion to see how people feel. I'm frankly surprised if this really hasn't come up before. Dyanega ( talk) 23:47, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable to me! MeegsC ( talk) 09:02, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

I agree that, when a taxon's year is given, the list should be in ascending chronological order. Also, such a policy could explicitliy encourage editors to provide year and authority when creating or expanding a synonyms list. In lists containing both dated and undated synonyms, the dated ones in ascending chronolgical order should precede the undated synonyms that may be sorted alphabetically at the bottom if not removed. 89.206.112.12 ( talk) 10:27, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Policy is that dates are not (normally) used with names under the ICNafp. Peter coxhead ( talk) 11:06, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, I had zoological names in mind. Maybe the policy should distinguish. 89.206.112.12 ( talk) 12:04, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

• It would be useful for plants to clarify that where sources, such as Plants of the World Online, list homotypic and heterotypic synonyms separately (and alphabetically), we will use a single alphabetical list.

Another issue is what synonyms should be included. This is a general encyclopedia, not a specialist taxonomic work, so I do not think we should attempt to include all synonyms. For example, I personally don't include infraspecific plant synonyms where the species is a synonym unless the infraspecific name is well known. Peter coxhead ( talk) 11:06, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

And skip any nomen dubium. At Cat (meaning the domestic kind) we have listed a handful of legitimate synonyms, but there was a late-19th-to-mid-20th-century "taxonomic fad" of defining various cat breeds as subspecies, which was later completely abandoned, and at one point that article actually listed a whole bunch of them (Felis catus siamensis, etc.), which was an unencyclopedic mess of nomina dubia.  —  SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  11:18, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. Peter coxhead ( talk) 11:24, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

At Potato there is a section that lists hundreds and hundreds of apparent synonyms, seemingly cultivars (without a source). Sub31k ( talk) 06:19, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

I don't agree as far as zoological names are concerned. WoRMS uses an alphabetical list of synonyms and so should we. This comes very handy when comparing an article in wikipedia with the data of a database. There should be consistency in this matter. I have been using an alphabetical list of synonyms for the past 19 years. In the WikiProject Gastropods this means close to 43,000 articles. I have no idea how many articles in other wikiProjects are concerned. But the number must be huge. Changing our policy (and practice) would be catastrophical. JoJan ( talk) 14:02, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Rules creep. I use chronological when I know the dates, but that isn't always. While I'm sympathetic to the desire to standardize a detail, there's also no practical way to enforce or implement this one. Happy editing, SilverTiger12 ( talk) 15:05, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

I'd be OK with indicating a preference for a chronological sorting, but not having it as a requirement. Most of the synonym lists on Wikipedia are copy-pasted from taxonomic databases which vary in the way they present synonyms. I wouldn't want to discourage anybody from adding synonyms from a database with an alphabetically sourced list by requiring them to re-sort the list before adding it (and, there shouldn't be any perceived preference for alphabetical sorting that leads editors to re-sort chronologically sorted lists to alphabetical; this apparently happened at Hemibagrus menoda, where FishBase has synonyms sorted chronologically)

Some of the database Wikipedia follows present lists of "synonyms" that should not be used on Wikipedia without further research. The Reptile Database lists chresonyms under the heading "Synonym". Amphibian Species of the World also list chresonyms in a section with no explicit heading. Mammal Species of the World lists bare species epithets with no indication of whether they have ever been treated as subspecies, full species or both (there were a whole bunch of binomial redirects created for horse subspecies that had never been treated as full species). The IOC checklists for birds don't list synonyms at all, and there's typically a mess with subspecies redirects left pointing to the wrong target whenever the IOC checklist is updated and elevates some subspecies to full species.

Species Fungorum has synonym lists sorted both alphabetically and chronologically, although the link to the synonyms from a given species page only goes to one of the sortings. FishBase lists synonyms chronologically. The chronological sorting in Species Fungorum and FishBase groups homotypic synonyms together; this is much easier to do under the zoological code where homotypic synonyms (mostly) have the same date. Under the botanical code, dates vary for each combination; an epithet that has been treated as a subspecies, variety or full species will have different dates for each rank (and more dates for every genus in which it has been placed).

Plants of the World Online groups homotypic synonyms of an accepted taxon in a separate alphabetical section before the alphabetical section of heterotypic synonyms. However, any homotypic synonyms of a heterotypic synonym aren't grouped. I don't really understand why the present synonyms that way. It does make a basionym more prominent than it would be in a single alphabetical list, but if they have the capability to group homotypic synonyms for an accepted name, I'd assume they have the capability to group all homotypic synonyms together. Plantdrew ( talk) 16:01, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Maybe each project should decide a preference, which would largely be determined by the preferred sources. The ToL guidance could state a general preference for chronological (if that is the preference) and have list of projects which prefer alphabetical (e.g. Gastropods and others using WoRMS), plants using POWO (although their synonym list have dates). I also agree that the synonym lists should be practical and shouldn't be long lists of obscure names. —   Jts1882 |  talk  17:17, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

In principle, having each project set a policy seems fine, but looking at the "hierarchy" of Wikiprojects, there really are a lot of them, and I'm not clear on how exactly we could methodically canvass opinions and feedback from each and every one, to see about building a consensus. I hadn't expected to find that there were groups within zoology that had established their own policy (as Gastropods seems to have done), and that certainly complicates things. But I'll be clear: if I knew that a given Wikiproject did in fact HAVE a posted policy, then I would personally abide by whatever policy is in place for a given taxon, while also expecting other editors to respect policies the same way; my feeling is that it is better to have something posted and agreed upon, because it's otherwise too easy to have disputes and edit wars. I did in fact recently have reason to edit the synonym list for the Oxymeris article, and I put the revised list in chrono-order when it had been alphabetical before. Now that I know that gastropods follow a different policy, I'll go back and fix that. Dyanega ( talk) 20:32, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Maybe I should have presented my comment the other way around. I'm in favour of setting guidelines and think chronological order is better (I like how it presents the history). So set a general policy, but have provision for certain projects to use a different guideline where they have an established way of doing things. I suspect most projects have no policy and the general ToL guideline would by default apply to them. —   Jts1882 |  talk  09:43, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Again, I would be willing to comply under those circumstances, but I don't see how an editor working across "taxonomic boundaries" would know when they're running afoul of a policy, as I did accidentally when I edited a gastropod article. I don't see any easy way for an editor to know what the rules are for one Wikiproject versus another, other than a prohibitively time-consuming "deep dive" into the project pages. Yes, most articles do have a talk page template that shows which Wikiproject is relevant, but that template doesn't give such minute details. How can this be made practical and painless? Or can it not? Dyanega ( talk) 00:17, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

• How about a special template, designed to list taxonomic synonyms, that allows the reader to view the list in either chronological or alphabetical order, with the click of a button? Esculenta ( talk) 20:37, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

This would be difficult. As far as I'm aware, Wikimedia software currently only allows sorting in tables. For it to work the synonym list would need a separate date column or to use sort keys. A custom solution parsing the authority would have to use javascript and wouldn't be available to everyone; it would need a user script or gadget. A module could present a sorted list from an unsorted one, but the sort style would be set in code rather than an interactive option for readers. —   Jts1882 |  talk  09:53, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

I think I would rather have all the information inside the taxobox. —Snoteleks ( Talk) 07:53, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

I guess as a zoologist I have a preference for chronological order as it follows what a synonymy is meant to be (a way to assess nomenclatural priority), at least from a zoological perspective. The Global Species List whose parameters are still being tested will have this in chronological order when its available. But I guess what Dyanega is getting at is a way to make it clear on each project page what method is the prefered method for their subset of pages. I would hazard we could probably get it to a given way for most groups which would likely be chronological requiring only changes to be defined on those pages where this is relevant. So unless otherwise stated it should be chronological. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 10:39, 20 October 2023 (UTC)