Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of Life

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Wikipedia talk:TOL)

WikiProject Tree of Life

Main pageTalkArticle templateTaxonomic resourcesTaxoboxesParticipantsArticle requests


Upcoming International Botanical Congress vote on "offensive" binomial names

[edit]

This has been rolling along for a while, but the vote happens this week (see the recent Nature story) there are two main proposals that are being voted on:

  • 1. Replacing "caffra"-related names (which are etymologically related to an ethnic slur) to derivatives of "afr" (affects around 218 species)
  • 2. A proposal to "create a committee to reconsider offensive and culturally inappropriate names."

I'm not a botanist or involved in the botanical taxonomy community, so I'm not sure what the broader mood within the community is about whether these proposals are likely to pass (they appear to require a 60% supermajority). Obviously there are a group of quite vocal botanists who have made their voice known repeatedly on this issue, the question is whether there voices represent that of the broader botanist community. There does seem to be substantial (around 50%) support for renaming "caffra" related taxa in preliminary polling according to the Nature article, so the issue is worth keeping an eye on. Hemiauchenia (talk) 06:13, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Botanists seem to be taking a different approach to the AOS where they are openly discussing it rather than imposing it without consulting members. They are proposing changes only to a few particularly egregious names, compared to removal of all bird eponyms from common names, although they are going further by looking at the scientific names, which the AOS is not addressing at this stage.  —  Jts1882 | talk  09:19, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As someone who has some foot on the botanical community, I guarantee the general mood is against. A compendium of over 1,000 international botanists came together and expressed their opinion on this Bioscience article, which is summarized in this Twitter thread. Basically, we want a universal stable taxonomy, which means we don't want to retroactively change the species names due to subjective socially guided perceptions as it is supposed to be completely separate from social perceptions, and changing it would be incredibly risky for every practical effort of conservation. However, the article also emphasizes that we as taxonomists have a responsibility to name new species in an appropriate manner, and even give representation to local ethnicities, cultures and languages. — Snoteleks (talk) 15:41, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See (126) Proposal to add a new Article 61.6 to permanently and retroactively eliminate epithets with the root caf(e)r‐ or caff(e)r‐ from the nomenclature of algae, fungi and plants (wiley.com) (square brackets in title replaced by parentheses to avoid breaking WikiPedia syntax).
This is a rules hack - treating "caffra" etc. as orthographical variants to be corrected. This is not etymologically the case, and even somewhat of a stretch semantically - Cis/Transkei is rather narrower than Africa, even if afric- names often referred to South Africa, or other parts of Africa, rather than to the whole continent, but it's not greatly disruptive. (The Nature article is slightly wrong - caffra -> afra (not affra).) I suspect that much opposition will be to the precedent rather than to the proposal.
But there's not really much to discuss here - either it passes and WikiPedia changes the titles of a score or so articles, and the spellings of a few synonyms, or it doesn't pass, and WikiPedia doesn't have to make any changes.
I note that there are 4 names referring to Kafiristan (rather than the more recent Nuristan), and these are all relatively recent (one from 2018), and aren't fixable by this rules hack. Lavateraguy (talk) 20:52, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I essentially agree with Lavateraguy. Nothing for Wikipedia to discuss as we don't get a vote on this. 🌿MtBotany (talk) 23:18, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The "afr" vote has passed [1], so we will need to get around to changing the affected articles. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:04, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The search may be helpful. And perhaps this search.
—Trappist the monk (talk) 19:29, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"caffra" is too narrow - it would miss "caffrum", "caffer" and "caffrorum" and some other variants. See IPNI for a list of relevant names (excluding fungal and algal names). (There are remarkably few false positives - on a cursory skim a few names honouring Caflisch and Cafes (sp?). Lavateraguy (talk) 22:34, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, try this one.
—Trappist the monk (talk) 22:49, 18 July 2024 (UTC) 23:01, 18 July 2024 (UTC) (revised for fewer false positives)[reply]
Shouldn't we wait for secondary sources to adopt the changes?  —  Jts1882 | talk  19:38, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My understanding of past discussions is that we have generally deferred to the opinions of the ICN and ICZN over those of secondary sources. The IBC vote has direct power over the ICN, so isn't it effectively equivalent to an ICZN ruling, or an I mistaken? Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:55, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The last day of the Shenzen IBC was July 29th, and per our article on the ICNafp, that is the day that the Shenzen edition of the code was ratified. The Madrid IBC hasn't even started yet (the nomenclature meetings occur prior to the opening of the main event, and still have a day to go). The Madrid IBC ends on the 27th. There is at least one name that will become a later homonym which will need to have a replacement name published.
Where things are at right now is equivalent to a media organization calling an election for a political candidate, before the election results are certified, and before the candidate takes office. Plantdrew (talk) 01:06, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Before we jump into any conclusions: 1) the Congress hasn't even ended yet. 2) The change will be implemented from 2026 onward. 3) There was also a vote to allow the rejection of new species names (given after 2026) that are derogatory. Let's not make any changes before that date. — Snoteleks (talk) 13:22, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are there any potentiel conflicts with any of these name changes? It seems like such a broad stroke for there not to be any preexisting afr- names already in these clades. awkwafaba (📥) 03:21, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Of the subset of these names which are currently accepted there is one which clashes with another name. There is an available synonymous name available, with the result that Plantago cafra is changed to Plantago capillaris. Lavateraguy (talk) 09:17, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We are already getting IPs making changes, and I think that without a firm position on why they should be reverted they should be allowed. (I've made one move. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 22:28, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If they're not official yet as other commenters have suggested, then I moving the articles is jumping the gun. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:50, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, we shouldn't be making the changes now. We make the changes after the relevant sources make the changes (IPNI, POWO, etc.).  —  Jts1882 | talk  10:22, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As I read the proposal in Taxon, the change would be to Dovyalis afra, not Dovyalis affra. I believe the double-f spelling to be an error introduced in press reports.
"61.6. Epithets with the root caf[f][e]r-, such as cafra, caffra, cafrorum, and cafrum, are not permitted in the nomenclature of organisms covered by this Code. Where these epithets were used in validly pub-lished names, they are to be treated as orthographical variants that are tobe replaced by epithets with the root af[e]r-, such as afra, afrorum, and afrum, respectively"
Lavateraguy (talk) 11:10, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's a very good reason that these changes should not yet be allowed: we don't have a reliable source to confirm the new names. As Plantdrew stated above, the IBC hasn't even finished yet, and the exact name changes have not been published - we only have the general rule by which the new names will be decided. This is absolutely jumping the gun and antithetical to WP:V. We should be waiting until the new names are confirmed and published via IPNI/WFO etc. Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 11:13, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. The nomenclature session is all over bar the shouting (which is taking place here). The plenary session of the congress, invariably so far, simply ratifies what the nomenclature session has decided, and that will take place on the 27th July. These are not name changes but corrections "32.2. Only one variant of any one name is treated as validly published: the form that appears in the original publication, except as provided in Art. 60, 61, and F.9 (typographical or orthographical errors and standardizations), Art. 14.11 (conserved spellings), Art. F.3.2 (spelling of sanctioned names), and Art. 16–19, 21, 23, and 24 (rank-determining terminations)." and "61.1. For homotypic names, variations in spelling, as well as other cases of variations (compounding or inflectional forms) dealt with in detail in Art. 32, do not represent nomenclatural novelties." and "PRINCIPLE VI The rules of nomenclature are retroactive unless expressly limited." Thus, if wikipedia reverts the well-intentioned changes from people who want to correct its errors until such time in the possibly quite distant future when other databases have summoned the power to correct the very large backlog of their errors, wikipedia will get a poor reputation among knowledgeable people. However, I won't bother contributing further to this discussion or workload as it appears futile. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 04:39, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can we at least wait until the Congress is over, when the amendments apparently come into effect? Also the claim that Wikipedia will get a poor reputation among knowledgeable people is curious given that Wikipedia doesn't have much of a reputation for factual accuracy anyway. Hemiauchenia (talk) 04:44, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The code, as it exists today, does not yet have a provision for correcting the spelling of caffra epithets. I'm sure it will have that provision on the 28th. I don't expect it will be the "quite distant future" before ANY database reports the changes; I expect it to be a matter of weeks (I do expect it may take years for ALL databases to be updated). We've had discussions before about fixing spellings that the codes deem incorrect where there are no sources with the correct spelling. I remain deeply uncomfortable about correcting spellings on Wikipedia where the correct spelling doesn't (yet) appear anywhere in the literature or databases.
Wait at least until the Congress is over (at which point the spellings become officially correctable) if not until there are sources that use the corrected spellings. Plantdrew (talk) 16:38, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Erythrina afra and Dovyalis afra are now live at IPNI. POWO has yet to follow suit, but I doubt it will take long. Right now IPNI has just 14 records for this epithet that start with a "c". Plantdrew (talk) 00:09, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And now IPNI is down to 0 records with a "c". Plantdrew (talk) 16:05, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Affected articles

[edit]

Given that the vote will apparently be in effect by the end of the month [2], I thought I would collate an (probably incomplete) list of effected species articles:

There will obviously be genus articles that will also need to have species names changed. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:14, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

should we make a category to better keep track of these? We could make it hidden if need be. Category:Taxa affected by Article 61.6 at the International Botanical Congress? -- awkwafaba (📥) 16:40, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Umm, all of the articles in your list are found in the search results that I linked above. The search results also show most (all?) articles that link to the articles in your list. Is the any real need for a separate, hand curated list?
—Trappist the monk (talk) 17:07, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The search results include animals that aren't affected by this decision.
The list above is, in fact, a complete list of affected plant species articles (and monotypic genera). I've taken the list from the appendix to the proposal and made it into wiki links at User:Plantdrew/Article 61.6. This doesn't include algae or fungi. It does include red-links, and all the red-links I've checked so far are linked from genus articles (or lists of species in the genus).
Citron melon is accepted as Citrullus amarus by POWO, so that could be changed right now. 17:54, 22 July 2024 (UTC) Plantdrew (talk) 17:54, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers for assembling this list. I'm sure lots of text within genera articles will require updating when the new names are published, but it's good to know that the number of actual articles needing to be moved is relatively small. Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 04:23, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Given that we are well into August now and that the major databases seem to have been updated, what's the sentiment on updating at least the effected species articles? Hemiauchenia (talk) 06:16, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
IPNI, POWO and GRIN have been updated. Since we usually follow POWO, I think it is time to update the articles. IPNI and POWO maintained their record IDs, but changed the spelling. GRIN has created new records for the new spellings. Plantdrew (talk) 15:39, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see that some of these taxa have already been dealt with - many thanks for moving those pages @Hemiauchenia :) It seems that Protea caffra, Ximenia caffra, Mimusops caffra, Erica caffra, Combretum caffrum, and Encephalartos caffer are the only ones left. Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 05:25, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think they're all done now. I was going through User:Plantdrew/Article 61.6 and the above lists. There seem to be a number of non-plant taxa with these names as well, so I expect we'll have to do this again sometime. awkwafaba (📥) 21:43, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK, after gnoming a bit more, seems like a lot of links out there to the more pejorative names that should be updated, if anyone wants to help. awkwafaba (📥) 22:39, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are also potentially redlinks involved. (I dealt with Grewia afra a few days back.) Lavateraguy (talk) 08:06, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And it seems that not all article name changes were accompanied by a check of "what links here"; I've just found a remnant Senegallia caffra.
The epithet also occurs in image file names. Lavateraguy (talk) 08:23, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are several remaining tasks:
  1. Update incoming links to species articles
  2. Update incoming links to red-linked species
  3. Create new redirects for existing synonym redirects
Red-links can be found on my Article 61.6 page, and most of them are also linked from lists of species in genus articles. If the sourcing for a list of species in a genus article is more than a couple years old, it would probably be good to just update the list of species as a whole ({{Format species list}} make it easy to produce an updated formatted species list).
Afrosciadium afrum has several synonym redirects for the "c" names. Redirects for the "c-less" version of those names should be created. I think the "c" synonyms should be tagged with both {{R from alternative scientific name}} and {{R from misspelling}}.
I do have intentions of working on this, but it may be awhile before I get around to it. Plantdrew (talk) 16:02, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Another hijacked site

[edit]

I came across a source in a moth article (Aithorape roseicornis) just now, and it also looks like it's been hijacked - "www.learnaboutbutterflies.com". I've deleted it, but I suspect that this source may have been linked on more than just this one article, and now this URL appears to direct people to soft porn or gambling or some such. If someone knows how to scan for links to this site and remove them, that would be great. If there's a better place to report this sort of thing, I have no objections to being educated about the procedure for future reference. Dyanega (talk) 15:57, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting references when the url is dead or unfit is discouraged. When url rot occurs, step one is to seek out an archive snapshot. Archive.org has two snapshots of the unfit page; here is one of them. Because there is an archived snapshot, the citation should be modified to use the snapshot. In cs1|2 templates that reference should be rewritten:
{{cite web |title=Dognin's Satin |website=Moths of the Amazon and Andes |url=http://www.learnaboutbutterflies.com/Andes%20-%20Aithorape%20roseicornis.htm |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180516175309/http://www.learnaboutbutterflies.com/Andes%20-%20Aithorape%20roseicornis.htm |archive-date=2018-05-16}}
"Dognin's Satin". Moths of the Amazon and Andes. Archived from the original on 2018-05-16.
This search suggests that there are about 180 articles that include http://www.learnaboutbutterflies.com.
—Trappist the monk (talk) 16:52, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Trappist the monk: this is a slight tangent, but for the url-status parameter, is there a practical difference between "unfit", "usurped" and "deviated"? Thanks, Cremastra (talk) 14:28, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. See |url-status= documentation. These examples show the difference in rendering (unfit and usurped render the same way; unfit shown):
{{cite book |title=Title |url=https://example.com |archive-url=https://archive.org |archive-date=2024-08-14 |url-status=unfit}}
Title. Archived from the original on 2024-08-14. Retrieved 2024-08-14.
deviated:
{{cite book |title=Title |url=https://example.com |archive-url=https://archive.org |archive-date=2024-08-14 |url-status=deviated}}
Title. Archived from the original on 2024-08-14.
—Trappist the monk (talk) 14:59, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, thanks. Cremastra (talk) 16:50, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dyanega: These should be reported to WP:URLREQ, which is a bot that follows the usurpation process outlined at WP:USURPURL (manually demonstrated by TTM above). Yesterday I completed a batch of 29 usurped domains. I can add this one to the queue, for the next batch once there are enough domains (it's easier to do them in batches). BTW this site is part of the WP:JUDI gambling empire, they have usurped 100s if not 1000s of domains across all Wikipedia sites. -- GreenC 18:48, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much. Dyanega (talk) 21:56, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Notability (species)

[edit]

An RfC to adopt a guideline regarding the notability of species has been opened at Wikipedia talk:Notability (species)#Proposal to adopt this guideline. C F A 💬 00:03, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Taxonomy used in WikiProject Fishes

[edit]

I have put forward a proposal to change the taxonomic authorities used by WikiProject Fishes the proposal is at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Fishes. Quetzal1964 (talk) 07:33, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Request Northern Green Anaconda into Anaconda

[edit]

I have tagged the Northern green anaconda for merge into the Green Anaconda page due to the developments in its taxonomy. See the Talk:Northern_green_anaconda#Latest_paper_just_out,_synonymizing_akayima_with_murinus_-_next_steps? for details. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 02:58, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bacterium redirect categories

[edit]

Module talk:Science redirect § Edit request 2 April 2023 didn't get enough discussion to come to a consensus, so I thought I'd restart the discussion here.

For context, taxonomic redirect categories like Category:Redirects from alternative scientific names of insects use Module:Science redirect, which has a fairly limited set of taxonomic categories. Right now, they are:

  • Animals
    • Amphibians
    • Arthropods
      • Crustaceans
      • Insects
      • Spiders
    • Birds
    • Fish
    • Mammals
    • Molluscs
    • Reptiles
  • Microorganisms
    • Algae
    • Fungi
    • Viruses
  • Plants

The proposal is to add Bacteria as a fourth subcategory of Microorganisms. I think it's a good idea, since looking at Category:Redirects from alternative scientific names of microorganisms, most (but not all!) are bacteria. Does anyone else have an opinion on this? jlwoodwa (talk) 20:23, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Harrz, Frostly, and Izno: pinging everyone from the previous discussion. jlwoodwa (talk) 20:24, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Forgot to mention: I think it's good that Module:Science redirect has this limited set, since they're maintenance rather than content categories. I wouldn't support tripling the number of categories here, or adding something like "Squids" or "Cats". I think Bacteria is a good high-level category, on the same level as the existing ones. jlwoodwa (talk) 20:29, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I've been using |bacterium anyway (it's supported by Module:Science redirect/conf, but just puts pages in the microorganism category). However, if this is changed I'm not sure microorganisms should be even a category. Some fungi and algae are microscopic but not all of them, so the algae and fungi categories ought to be moved up a level. But there might be some protists in the microorganism category that wouldn't have any other relevant category. Plantdrew (talk) 20:55, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - bacteria & microorganisms both supported by WP:WikiProject Microbiology. Slightly off topic, but WP:WikiProject Microbiology#Scope makes me think "Microorganisms" should be changed to "Microbiology".   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  22:05, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I was the editor who made the original request, which - if I'm honest - I had since forgotten about, and I think this is definitely something that should have been done with the creation of the module. Why include viruses but not bacteria? Also, it will help with maintenance as all bacteria redirects are currently in the larger microorganisms category, which really should be a diffusion category. harrz talk 01:56, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Frankly I'm shocked that there wasn't already a redirect category for bacteria - it is too large a group to not have its own category. At risk of getting off topic, I agree with the points brought up by Plantdrew and Tom.Reding regarding the microorganism category. A broader rework of these categories may be in order, but putting bacteria in their own category is a good start. Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 04:54, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Obviously bacteria should be a category. A question is whether it should include Archaea (although the name becomes an issue) or if they should have their own category (are there enough authors?). It might be better to reorganise the categories, but the Microbiology project may prefer to keep that category for practical reasons.  —  Jts1882 | talk  07:50, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Taxa by author diffusion

[edit]

Are Category:Animal taxa by author (2,016) & Category:Botanical taxa by author (1,049) intended to be mutually exclusive from Category:Taxa by American author (531), etc.?

If so, it's unclear which is the preferred destination. Should an American animal taxa author go into Animal taxa by author or Taxa by American author?

If not, Animal & Botanical will need further diffusion into their own nationality layers, which seems overly redundant, complicated, and bloaty.

Both Category:Animal taxa by author (2,016) & Category:Botanical taxa by author (1,049) were created by now-blocked, problem-producing editors in taxonomy-space, so my guess is that they should be deleted in favor of the national categories. Also, I think that having nationality above group makes more sense than having multiple national layers below Animal/Botanical/etc., since nationality-above-group will naturally result in fewer overall categories. There's only 1 nationality category that might need diffusion in the foreseeable future, Category:Taxa by American author (531), which can be done by simply diffusing into whatever the most popular taxa group is for American authors (Animal, Botanical, etc.).

@Smasongarrison, Rlendog, Beland, Phil Fish, Micromesistius, Jengod, Shellwood, Liz, Prosperosity, Surtsicna, NotAGenious, Ethmostigmus, Esculenta, and Quetzal1964: pinging all recent category editors for input.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  20:37, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am very not equipped to comment on taxonomy generally BUT I think it's weird to have plants vs animals bc we also need to then consider fungi and kelp and slime molds (whatever they even are) and the whole catalogue of cooties (viruses, bacteria, and all their little friends). So. My thought is just...taxa. Full stop. Don't subdivide by types of taxa. If you want to subdivide the NAMERs of the taxa by century or nationality or what have you, sure, whatever. Good luck and bye! :D jengod (talk) 20:49, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that Animal vs Botanical should be deleted. Some of these namers addressed both plants and animals (and I am sure fungi too) so that split doesn't make sense. I am not convinced we need a nationality split either but that one is at least sensible. Rlendog (talk)
Absolutely - what happens if someone dares to identify both flora and fauna? --Prosperosity (talk) 21:01, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A possible interpretation here is that the animal/botanical split refers not to the Kingdoms, but to the nomenclatural codes (in which case "fungi and kelp and slime molds" come under botanical). But there are also the bacterial and virological codes, and PhyloCode. (One might argue that PhyloCode isn't used widely enough for Category:PhyloCode taxa by author to be useful.) Lavateraguy (talk) 11:20, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not fully sold on the need for someone to look up taxa based on the citizenship of the author, but that's pretty standard for Wiki categories so it makes sense. --Prosperosity (talk) 21:01, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't aware of the nationality categories before, and I don't think they've been previously discussed anywhere. Category:Taxa named by Carl Linnaeus is in both the the animal category and the botanical category, and I'm sure there are other taxonomists in both categories. The botanical category does specify that it covers "plant and cryptogam taxa (lower plants, fungi, lichens, algae)". I think the animal and botanical categories aren't particularly useful and could be eliminated. I don't think we really need to diffuse Category:Taxa by author at all, and the nationality categories could be eliminated as well. Plantdrew (talk) 21:19, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Someone being in both Animal & Botanical is ok. I just don't see the point of having (Animal|Botanical) and (nationality) at the same level...unless...(Animal|Botanical) is declared non-diffusing. I'd be ok with that.
There are ~5600 unique "Taxa named by <author>" categories, and always growing, which I think is worthy of diffusion.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  22:15, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My intent of beefing up the taxa by nationality was to get those categories out of the FOOian people by nationality categories that they were showing up in. I personally don't find the animal vs botantical distinction to be very helpful, but I assumed that other people who know more about tax do. Mason (talk) 23:16, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting discussion, thanks for the ping! Not very experienced with categories so hopefully I'm understanding everything correctly. I think the animal/botanical(/additional categories for other eukaryotes, prokaryotes, and virus taxa?) distinction can be valuable, but agree that it definitely should not be mutually exclusive with nationality categories. Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 06:58, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Get rid of the nationality part. it's irrelevant. Two prolific authors I can think of, George Albert Boulenger and Albert Günther, were dual nationals, and there will be many more. I also don't think we need anything more than "Taxa named by", so agree with removing the references to animals and plants. Quetzal1964 (talk) 07:19, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Someone being in 2+ nationality cats is ok. Someone being in both Animal & Botanical is ok. Someone being in any of (American|Australian|...) AND any of (Animal|Botanical|...) is the main question here, and which of these 2 sets, if any, should exist.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  09:33, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • When I first proposed these taxa by author categories back in the day, there were no suggestions to specify further than just author. So I wonder if nationality and field are even needed. FunkMonk (talk) 07:31, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do not see Animal & Botanical as being mutually exclusive with each other or with the nationality cats. Only having nationality category makes categories difficult to find, especially when one does not know the full name and identity of an author, or when there are spelling variations. Therefore I object to only having nationality-based categories, but I am OK with these otherwise. I see a need for diffusion but the Animal/Botanical split is quite sufficient. To me a bigger problem is propagation of categories with one or few articles, without much prospect of them becoming more populated. When does an author deserve a category? There is no good answer, and this was the reason I was initially quite sceptic to the "Taxa by author" system. Now I kind of like it because it highlights the people behind taxonomy, but the notability issue remains unresolved. Cheers, Micromesistius (talk) 11:55, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I personally vote to get rid of the field categories. The animal/botanical split is archaic, unrealistic, and completely subjective, so it should not be considered. I have no issue with the nationality categories as it could be an interesting source of demographical data, but I also have no issue with removing them if that is the consensus (also, people can have more than one nationality, and some believe to be better represented by their ethnicity than by their national status). — Snoteleks (talk) 15:28, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
When you say get rid of the field categories, do you mean to do away with taxonomic categorisation for authors entirely, or replacing the animal/botanical author categories with something more comprehensive? I wouldn't consider the animal ("zoological" would be a better term IMO)/botanical split subjective - I interpreted it as referring to to taxa covered by the ICZN vs the ICNafp, and I think distinguishing between authors publishing on animals and authors publishing on plants/fungi/algae can be useful. These two categories obviously fail to address all the organisms outside of those groups, but I would prefer to see more comprehensive categorisation than do away with taxonomic distinctions entirely. Interested to get your thoughts on this given that I know your interests lie with organisms that fall outside of the existing categories. Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 04:45, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The ICZN and ICNafp overlap in many protozoan groups, that's my primary concern. Authors that study protists such as Labyrinthulomycetes, Bicosoecida, Euglenida, Katablepharida and Myzozoa could belong to either of those categories, as there is no consensus (and no desire for consensus) on which nomenclatural code has domain over them. In all of those, both zoological and botanical suffixes of taxon ranks have to be used because the codes refuse to collaborate with each other. Ideally we would be able to firmly separate one from the other, but the reality is that it's subjective in the sense that it depends entirely on the author's preference for these ambiregnal groups.
However, even assuming that we collectively decide to maintain these categories, we could not even firmly separate them ourselves in Wikipedia to avoid any overlap. There are groups which, by consensus, have botanical suffixes in some taxon ranks, but zoological suffixes in others. Perhaps it would be better to have "animal", "plant", "fungal", "protist" and "prokaryotic" categories instead. — Snoteleks (talk) 12:19, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My two cents, as an ICZN Commissioner, is that the plant/animal categorization is definitely artificial, and definitely has a fair-sized "fuzzy area", which argue against the maintenance of those sub-categorizations. I have an even stronger objection to categorization according to nationality of authors, because "nationality" is even MORE artificial, and can also be pretty darn fuzzy; not just authors with multiple citizenships, but authors whose countries have changed (e.g., how does one categorize an author from the former Soviet Union, or pre-Soviet Russia?), or authors born in one country, but who lived and worked elsewhere without citizenship there? If I want to know where an author was born, or their citizenships, I can look up their linked biography. If they are not notable enough to have a linked biography, then I wouldn't care where they were from. Categorizing taxa by their author's name, by their year of description, and by their biogeographic region or continent are all fine, but I have trouble with sub-categories within these (including subdividing biogeographic regions or continents into countries, which are, as noted, artificial boundaries and subject to change). Dyanega (talk) 15:49, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My thoughts exactly. — Snoteleks (talk) 12:46, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Help the Wikimedia Foundation better understand how on-wiki collaborations work

[edit]

The Campaigns team at the Wikimedia Foundation is interested in learning from diverse editors that have experience joining and working on WikiProjects, Campaigns, and other kinds of on-wiki collaboration. We need your help:

Whatever input you bring to the two spaces will help us make better decisions about next steps beyond the current tools we support. Astinson (WMF) (talk) 18:17, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to modify the fossil range template

[edit]

The fossil range template, which we use in many taxoboxes, is intended to indicate the age of the earliest fossils of the organism. Moreover, it has an "earliest" parameter which is intended to be used for when the earliest fossil is very separated chronologically from the traditional fossil range. However, for organisms that don't have lasting structures preserved as fossils (such as most protists, which are my main line of interest), this poses a pretty big problem, as the template cannot be applied with its intended use.

However, there is a use that's emerged for protists. For example, the article Obazoa uses this template not to reflect its fossil range, but to reflect the molecular clock estimate of its age. Another, even more interesting example is the article Chlorophyta, where the fossil range template includes both the real fossil range and, through the "earliest" parameter, the molecular clock estimate.

I believe that this should be implemented formally into the template, perhaps by substituting the "earliest" parameter or by creating an entirely new parameter named "molecular" or another similar term. I believe this change would benefit everyone: not only does this benefit taxonomic groups without fossils, but even groups that have a fossil record, such as most animals, have a molecular age that is distinctly older than their earliest fossils.

I don't have any knowledge on how to modify such a template, so I ask other more experienced editors to implement this change if we reach consensus. — Snoteleks (talk) 10:43, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are you proposing any change to the output? The output says temporal range, which is agnostic on the dating method. The template {{fossil range}} is a redirect to {{geological range}}. The template {{temporal range}} is another redirect, so you could use that if you don't want the confusing name in the taxobox. Given the output, it might be better if {{temporal range}} was the primary template. The parameter |earliest= could equally refer to the earliest molecular estimate.  —  Jts1882 | talk  14:57, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would like for the output to explicitly say the molecular age separate from the fossil age. Currently the "earliest" parameter does not even get displayed as an age number, only the fossil range date is displayed. — Snoteleks (talk) 09:47, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Tree_of_Life&oldid=1247037799"