![]() | 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. |
Archive 55 | Archive 56 | Archive 57 | Archive 58 | Archive 59 | Archive 60 | → | Archive 62 |
I noticed that in our header template there is a hidden code showing pages such as "Wikipedia:WikiProject Tree of Life/New article listing" and "Wikipedia:WikiProject Tree of Life/Index". Is there any plan to make the index a reality? As in, an index of all WP:TOL pages? How would it be made? —Snoteleks ( Talk) 08:04, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
incategory:
and deepcat:
Alternatively,
Petscan might be the best way.
Plantdrew is our resident expert there. —
Jts1882 |
talk
14:54, 20 October 2023 (UTC)There is a comment on Template talk:Taxonomy/Grimpoteuthidae asking this question. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 16:09, 20 October 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 [1]. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 04:54, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
References
moved from Bison to Bos to retain monophyly within Bos since both species of Bison are phylogenetically embedded within Bos
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)
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)
I noticed that in our header template there is a hidden code showing pages such as "Wikipedia:WikiProject Tree of Life/New article listing" and "Wikipedia:WikiProject Tree of Life/Index". Is there any plan to make the index a reality? As in, an index of all WP:TOL pages? How would it be made? —Snoteleks ( Talk) 08:04, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
incategory:
and deepcat:
Alternatively,
Petscan might be the best way.
Plantdrew is our resident expert there. —
Jts1882 |
talk
14:54, 20 October 2023 (UTC)There is a comment on Template talk:Taxonomy/Grimpoteuthidae asking this question. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 16:09, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
Many of the more recent sources I use for writing articles on obscure lichen species give the geographic coordinates of the type locality. Is there some template to use (or something) where I can input the coordinates to get a quick and easy range map for the taxobox? Do any other ToLfers do this? Esculenta ( talk) 19:53, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
At WikiJournal of Science, we have two submissions on Broadbill birds: Black-and-red broadbill (Cymbirhynchus macrorhynchos) and Banded broadbill (Eurylaimus javanicus) that have been awaiting second peer review for content and accuracy since last year's summer. Do we have any subject matter experts here who can volunteer to perform peer review on either (or both) submissions? (Note that this will be published in Scopus-indexed journal, which means that the "peer review" is conducted in the sense of academic publishing and not Wikipedia's version of "peer review") OhanaUnited Talk page 03:43, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (fauna)#New example required for WP:MONOTYPICFAUNA. I could just pick a random one, but maybe someone has an ideal example. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 19:38, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
Based on this PetScan query, there are approximately 9400 species articles without short descriptions. I've started a bit, but if a few others are interested, we could reduce the backlog pretty quickly (especially using ShortDesc helper). Cheers, Edward-Woodrow • talk 22:20, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
So many non-monophyletic groups have been erroneously referred to as the wrong kind of non-monophyletic group. I found slugs, traditional Pelecaniformes and ratites wrongfully called paraphyletic, and birds of prey and antelopes wrongfully called polyphyletic. What can we do about this? These are just the ones I found, there are probably many other groups being wrongfully labeled in this way. -- Grey Clownfish ( talk) 05:05, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
![]() | 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. |
Archive 55 | Archive 56 | Archive 57 | Archive 58 | Archive 59 | Archive 60 | → | Archive 62 |
I noticed that in our header template there is a hidden code showing pages such as "Wikipedia:WikiProject Tree of Life/New article listing" and "Wikipedia:WikiProject Tree of Life/Index". Is there any plan to make the index a reality? As in, an index of all WP:TOL pages? How would it be made? —Snoteleks ( Talk) 08:04, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
incategory:
and deepcat:
Alternatively,
Petscan might be the best way.
Plantdrew is our resident expert there. —
Jts1882 |
talk
14:54, 20 October 2023 (UTC)There is a comment on Template talk:Taxonomy/Grimpoteuthidae asking this question. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 16:09, 20 October 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 [1]. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 04:54, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
References
moved from Bison to Bos to retain monophyly within Bos since both species of Bison are phylogenetically embedded within Bos
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)
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)
I noticed that in our header template there is a hidden code showing pages such as "Wikipedia:WikiProject Tree of Life/New article listing" and "Wikipedia:WikiProject Tree of Life/Index". Is there any plan to make the index a reality? As in, an index of all WP:TOL pages? How would it be made? —Snoteleks ( Talk) 08:04, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
incategory:
and deepcat:
Alternatively,
Petscan might be the best way.
Plantdrew is our resident expert there. —
Jts1882 |
talk
14:54, 20 October 2023 (UTC)There is a comment on Template talk:Taxonomy/Grimpoteuthidae asking this question. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 16:09, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
Many of the more recent sources I use for writing articles on obscure lichen species give the geographic coordinates of the type locality. Is there some template to use (or something) where I can input the coordinates to get a quick and easy range map for the taxobox? Do any other ToLfers do this? Esculenta ( talk) 19:53, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
At WikiJournal of Science, we have two submissions on Broadbill birds: Black-and-red broadbill (Cymbirhynchus macrorhynchos) and Banded broadbill (Eurylaimus javanicus) that have been awaiting second peer review for content and accuracy since last year's summer. Do we have any subject matter experts here who can volunteer to perform peer review on either (or both) submissions? (Note that this will be published in Scopus-indexed journal, which means that the "peer review" is conducted in the sense of academic publishing and not Wikipedia's version of "peer review") OhanaUnited Talk page 03:43, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (fauna)#New example required for WP:MONOTYPICFAUNA. I could just pick a random one, but maybe someone has an ideal example. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 19:38, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
Based on this PetScan query, there are approximately 9400 species articles without short descriptions. I've started a bit, but if a few others are interested, we could reduce the backlog pretty quickly (especially using ShortDesc helper). Cheers, Edward-Woodrow • talk 22:20, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
So many non-monophyletic groups have been erroneously referred to as the wrong kind of non-monophyletic group. I found slugs, traditional Pelecaniformes and ratites wrongfully called paraphyletic, and birds of prey and antelopes wrongfully called polyphyletic. What can we do about this? These are just the ones I found, there are probably many other groups being wrongfully labeled in this way. -- Grey Clownfish ( talk) 05:05, 6 November 2023 (UTC)